Double decker trains

Stephen15

Could these ever be used in Dublin. What's the story with our loading gauge. The double deckers trains I've seen on the continent don't seem to take up much more than conventional trains. One of the main handicaps I see with is our ridiculously high platforms as dds end to be much lower to ground than other trains. Some areas of the dart couldn't take them such the bray-greystones stretch but I'd say the Maynooth could take them without much bother. Would these a solution to overcrowding. Thoughts?

The Sidewards Man

Do these buses have traction control and a two way diff?

Victor

The Sidewards Man wrote: »

Do these buses have traction control and a two way diff?

This discussion is about trains

Markcheese

Sydney urban rail uses them , really effective , but I assume as they're electric the entire system would have to be redesigned. Overhead lines , bridges and any tunnels... ..

beauf

I've seen and been on them in a few places. Would make some sense. More capacity on fewer carriages. Perhaps the infrastructure would require a lot of changes?

See theres some recent talk about it in the UK. I assume our issues would be similar.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11997972/Double-decker-trains-are-designed-to-help-ease-overcrowding.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873797/Double-decker-trains-hit-Britain-s-railways-ease-overcrowding-busiest-routes-Smaller-seats-passengers-new-London-terminus-plans.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilevel_rail_car

kc56

Stephen15 wrote: »

Could these ever be used in Dublin. What's the story with our loading gauge. The double deckers trains I've seen on the continent don't seem to take up much more than conventional trains. One of the main handicaps I see with is our ridiculously high platforms as dds end to be much lower to ground than other trains. Some areas of the dart couldn't take them such the bray-greystones stretch but I'd say the Maynooth could take them without much bother. Would these a solution to overcrowding. Thoughts?

Platforms aren't an issue as the doors could be over the bogies and stairs down to the lower level; I've seen somewhere on the continent. The low European platforms are generally disabled unfriendly, with several steps up to floor level, except for some double-deck trains.

Our loading gauge is simply too low to accommodate these trains. Every bridge, gantry, overhead DART cables etc would have to be modified.

Markcheese

kc56 wrote:

Our loading gauge is simply too low to accommodate these trains. Every bridge, gantry, overhead DART cables etc would have to be modified.

A bit like the last m50 upgrade... way too expensive until it needs to be done ...
If it ends up being the only way left to up capacity..but theres probably a lot of level crossings that could be eliminated , signaling works , dart underground (ahem) ...

MrMorooka

Probably my favourite train is the Japanese E231 series, it's a commuter train that has two double decker first class carriages in the middle Pic.

I don't think double decker trains would work here on all lines due to clearance etc. There was a double decker in Britain in the past, but it wasn't popular because it had to very cramped to fit on existing lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

L1011

Our loading gauge is good compared to much of the UK but its not good enough for this.

They also require much more disabled accessible portions these days than when, say, the Dutch VIRM units were being commissioned. This requires lifts or a large single level section at the doors.

They're also brutal for dwell times. We don't have the traffic on medium and long distance routes to need them and they're utterly inappropriate for where we do have traffic - Dublin and Cork Commuter services.

beauf

I was on them in the Paris underground, a very long time ago. Never occurred to me to ask could they be used here. How do they deal with the dwell times?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdbUCtjA9gU

tabbey

Loading gauge in Ireland and UK is far too restrictive to allow for double deck trains. The whole network would have to be blasted and rebuilt.
In the UK Southern Region had a few experimental double deckers after the war, they were totally impractical, having a sort of high level compartment between each entry level bay of seats.
If new lines were to be built, yes, build big enough for double decker, but otherwise, forget it.

Stephen15

Yes I do agree that they impractical on the dart but I could see them being used on the Maynooth when future electricfication comes in and perhaps on the northern commuter lines. Are the overhead wires on the continent much higher on the continent then the ones in Ireland they don't seem to be not that I was particularly looking.

kc56

Stephen15 wrote: »

Yes I do agree that they impractical on the dart but I could see them being used on the Maynooth when future electricfication comes in and perhaps on the northern commuter lines. Are the overhead wires on the continent much higher on the continent then the ones in Ireland they don't seem to be not that I was particularly looking.

Overhead wire are the least of the problems after bridges and some station structures. As it was, the DART line bridges had to be raised or the track lowered to accommodate the wires; in these cases there is often minimum clearance.

Pete_Cavan

I have seen double decker trains in Switzerland. A quick google gives me this with a height of 4.6m. You enter at a half level and go up or down to the seating. Wheelchairs can stay at the half level.

On Dart overhead wire heights, I found this (page 15/177);

3.3.2.6 Power Supply
The Dublin suburban rail system in the area bounded by Malahide, Howth and Greystones is electrified at 1,500V DC. Current is supplied to trains by an overhead contact line, with one or both of the running rails forming the return part of the circuit.
Contact wire height can range from 4,200 mm to 5,600 mm. Maximum contact wire stagger is 400 mm.

So I assume a good chunk of the Dart network can already accommodate double decker trains with relatively small adjustments required to the rest of it. I am assuming that where the wire height is lower is due to structures requiring it to drop, so demolition/alterations are likely. Obviously the next question is can our network take the weight of these trains.

From my experience, our platform levels are all over the place, with some big gaps between platform and train so adjustments to platform levels are needed anyway?

n97 mini

I've been on them many times in Belgium. They're wheelchair unfriendly (as mentioned above) but otherwise they're quite good, quite roomy.

fullstop

n97 mini wrote: »

I've been on them many times in Belgium. They're wheelchair unfriendly (as mentioned above) but otherwise they're quite good, quite roomy.

The ones used in the modern fleet in Sydney aren't. The level you enter the carriage has 2 wheelchair spots with fold up seats and then you either go upstairs or downstairs to the regular seats.

Jem72

We're a long way from needing double-decker trains in Ireland. Most overcrowding in Ireland is caused by trains being too short and there are very few cases where a crowded train is at the maximum length platforms would allow. There are far higher priorities for investment in the rail network that provide much more capacity at a fraction of the cost.

I've been on them in Germany and Finland and thought they were nice and comfortable. The main drawback was that the overhead storage is very limited. In Finland, they were very well organised with luggage lockers and bicycle storage available in the entrance areas and even a children's' play area installed in the return area above the stairs in some cars.

Captain Chaos

Jem72 wrote: »

. Most overcrowding in Ireland is caused by trains being too short and there are very few cases where a crowded train is at the maximum length platforms would allow. There are far higher priorities for investment in the rail network that provide much more capacity at a fraction of the cost.
.

Happens every morning and evenings with 8 car DARTs because they don't run frequently enough at peak times. There are a good few platforms that are exactly the length of an 8 car DART.

beauf

I think some attention to the other lines frequency, is long over due, before upgrading the Dart for the nth time.

Victor

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Obviously the next question is can our network take the weight of these trains.

I'm not sure if mass is an issue - the 201-class locos are likely to be a lot heavier and on a shorter vehicle (load less spread out). Using heavier trains may result in greater wear and tear.

From my experience, our platform levels are all over the place, with some big gaps between platform and train so adjustments to platform levels are needed anyway?

Nominal platform height it 915mm (3 feet) over rail. I suspect they achieve that reasonably well. The problem from Irish Rail's point of view is the carriage's suspension system - a loaded train will sit low and a lightly loaded train will sit high. Yes, Luas does it perfectly, but with all-new track and lower-speed, lower-floor vehicles.

I'm sure someone could come up with an auto-leveller. If they can do it with buses, surely they can do it with trains?

Pete_Cavan

Obviously an existing network is going to have difficulties accommodating new rolling stock which it was never designed to carry but should new infrastructure be designed to accommodate double decker vehicles, i.e. futureproofing? This is only really relevant to mass transport systems in Dublin as no other rail services are likely to need the capacity of double deckers (and is there a specific name when it comes to trains or does double decker still apply, it brings connotations of of buses?).

The Dart Underground tunnel is going back to the drawing board, should it be designed with sufficient clearance for taller trains? The existing infrastructure above ground can be adapted for higher trains relatively easily, an underground tunnel will have a fixed clearance which could not be increased. It would certainly be worth considering for the Malahide – Hazelhatch Dart line via the DU tunnel, it should be easy enough to increase the overhead wire height on the northern line, sufficient clearance can be provided as part of electrifying the line to Hazelhatch and the tunnel could obviously be design with sufficient clearance. The existing platforms on the northern line could be adjusted to suit these as other services wont be stopping at these stations and I presume the new Dart line will have dedicated platforms from Docklands to Hazelhatch which can be at the required level?

What about MN, one of the cost saving proposals is to shorten platforms from 90m to 60m, should double decker rolling stock be used to maintain passenger loadings and offset the reduction in train length? It would be interesting to see a cost analysis of shorter stations v larger bore tunnels and 90m single level trains v 60m double deckers.

munchkin_utd

Victor wrote: »

<snip>

I'm sure someone could come up with an auto-leveller. If they can do it with buses, surely they can do it with trains?

if you had air suspension then this should be fairly straight forward to achieve

the problem would be that the existing network would need to be modified.
The minimum wire height currently on the Dart network is 4.2m which suggests that this is the hight under lower old bridges and structures whereas your standard double decker train is 4.6m high

Victor

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Obviously an existing network is going to have difficulties accommodating new rolling stock which it was never designed to carry but should new infrastructure be designed to accommodate double decker vehicles, i.e. futureproofing? This is only really relevant to mass transport systems in Dublin as no other rail services are likely to need the capacity of double deckers (and is there a specific name when it comes to trains or does double decker still apply, it brings connotations of of buses?).

The Dart Underground tunnel is going back to the drawing board, should it be designed with sufficient clearance for taller trains?

I actually asked the question at the oral hearing about tunnel height. The tunnel would have only needed to have been increased by 50mm to accommodate double-decker trains, which seems like a gimme.

The cost of having an underground station is more about there being a hole than how big the hole is. A 50% longer station doesn't necessarily mean a 50% increase in cost, it might only be 30%. The limiting criteria would be what features a short station could avoid or that a longer station would require, e.g. if the long station would mean a less favourable location or archaeological work. In contrast, having a bigger tunnel means having a bigger tunnel for the entire length. Conclusion: longer trains are likely to be cheaper than single-deck short trains.

The Northern Line and Heuston-Hazelhatch would seem to be eminently suitable for higher trains, given the deep cuttings and relative absence of over-bridges. getting to Bray would be another matter and Greystones painful.

Captain Chaos

Victor wrote: »

The Northern Line would seem to be eminently suitable for higher trains, given the deep cuttings and relative absence of over-bridges.

There is a load of bridges on the Northern line that are at the minimum height already for the DART OHLE never mind taller trains.

You have 3 at Killester, 2 at Harmonstown, 1 at Raheny, Clongriffin main station building is a problem in itself. They are just the ones off hand that would need changes and or lowering of the track bed and the existing platform levels.

Compare the DART pantograph extansion lengths on the north side compared to the south side of the line. On the north side the pantograph is compressed almost all the way at parts of the line while on the south side near Bray is almost at maximum extension length.

loyatemu

Captain Chaos wrote: »

There is a load of bridges on the Northern line that are at the minimum height already for the DART OHLE never mind taller trains.

You have 3 at Killester, 2 at Harmonstown, 1 at Raheny, Clongriffin main station building is a problem in itself. They are just the ones off hand that would need changes and or lowering of the track bed and the existing platform levels.

Compare the DART pantograph extansion lengths on the north side compared to the south side of the line. On the north side the pantograph is compressed almost all the way at parts of the line while on the south side near Bray is almost at maximum extension length.

those bridges will have to rebuilt anyway for 4-tracking the northern line.

GM228

loyatemu wrote: »

those bridges will have to rebuilt anyway for 4-tracking the northern line.

4-tracking isn't going to happen!

loyatemu

GM228 wrote: »

4-tracking isn't going to happen!

someday.

Seanmk1

With some careful design, you might be be able to squeeze a double deck coach into the same height as a 201 loco. Whether that is preferable to lengthening trains and platforms is questionable.


Here are some comparisons:
Stadler KISS BiLevel (Switzerland) 4.595m
Sydney double deck commuter trains 4.382m
Bern Railway Gauge 4.280m
Bullied SR Class 4DD 3.886m (note: not a low floor vehicle)

071 Class Loco 4.04m
201 Class Loco 4.02m
29000 DMU 3.985m


Alexander Dennis Enviro 400 Double Decker City Bus 4.3m
Neoplan Double-Decker Coach 4.0m
VDL Berkhof Axial 100 Double-Decker Coach (used by Bus Éireann) 4.0m

tabbey

You would need clearance between the roof and the lowest level of the overhead wire, say 600mm.
The Stadler KISS would then need a minimum wire height of 5.2m, even the Sydney unit would need 5m above the rail.