In article , Richard J.
writes
David Jackman wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in
:

They do indeed plan to extend existing platforms where necessary to
accomodate 10-car Crossrail trains, according to
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/consultation.

Er, Why 10-cars? Designing the in-tunnel stations for anything less
than 12 cars would be madness.

Who said anything about in-tunnel stations? We were discussing whether the
trains would fit into the existing above-ground platforms on, for example,
the Shenfield branch. The standard length of the in-tunnel platforms is
245 metres, compared to (I think) 210 metres above ground, so it looks like
they *are* designing for 12 cars in tunnel.
Are you sure they are not working on 10 23m long cars instead of the
current 20m long cars?
--
John Alexander,

Chetoph wrote:

As Crossrail is in all likelihood going to be a regional link, as
opposed to an intercity one, are there any reasons why it could not
run double deck trains similar to those is Paris?

London Regional Metro (the private sector consortium with plans to build
a more commercially viable version of Crossrail) includes the provision
for double decker trains in its plans.

Your question implies that double deck trains are better for regional
services than intercity ones, but the reverse is the case because of the
extra time the trains would take to load and unload.

I met with some people from LRM and asked why they thought it was worth
the extra expense of bigger tunnels when double deck trains would
require longer station dwell times. I was told that the tunnels required
for double deck trains aren't much bigger than for normal trains, and
aren't much costlier (the running tunnels are a relatively small
component of the cost anyway). Furthermore CTRL completion would make
some large TBMs available. There were no plans for double decker trains
initially, but they thought it made sense to keep the option open to
introduce them if Crossrail gets too crowded after several decades.
Meanwhile, the bigger tunnels would at least provide an aerodynamic
advantage.

--
Aidan Stanger

"Aidan Stanger" schreef in bericht
...
Chetoph wrote:

As Crossrail is in all likelihood going to be a regional link, as
opposed to an intercity one, are there any reasons why it could not
run double deck trains similar to those is Paris?

London Regional Metro (the private sector consortium with plans to build
a more commercially viable version of Crossrail) includes the provision
for double decker trains in its plans.

Your question implies that double deck trains are better for regional
services than intercity ones, but the reverse is the case because of the
extra time the trains would take to load and unload.

I met with some people from LRM and asked why they thought it was worth
the extra expense of bigger tunnels when double deck trains would
require longer station dwell times. I was told that the tunnels required
for double deck trains aren't much bigger than for normal trains, and
aren't much costlier (the running tunnels are a relatively small
component of the cost anyway). Furthermore CTRL completion would make
some large TBMs available. There were no plans for double decker trains
initially, but they thought it made sense to keep the option open to
introduce them if Crossrail gets too crowded after several decades.
Meanwhile, the bigger tunnels would at least provide an aerodynamic
advantage.

Here in the Netherlands, we have doubledecker trains for almost 20 years
now. I guess that the train services in the higly urbanised and densily
populated western part of the country ("Randstad Holland") is somewhat
comparable with Greater London.
Increased loading/unloading times are not considered to be a problem here.
Most doubledeckers have wide doors that allow three people to pass through
them at the same time. However, those carriages have been tested on the
München S-Bahn and the Germans considered the flow of people to slow. Maybe
because Bavarians are much wider than Dutchman...
The trains have been build to fit in the usual Continental profile. The
comfort doesn't suffer too much, especially in the newest trains that are
used in Intercity services.
I guess using doubledecker trains is way cheaper than making trains (and
platforms) longer of running more trains.

greetings,
hgrm

--
Aidan Stanger

"Han Monsees" wrote in message
news
The trains have been build to fit in the usual Continental profile. The
comfort doesn't suffer too much, especially in the newest trains that are
used in Intercity services.
I guess using doubledecker trains is way cheaper than making trains (and
platforms) longer of running more trains.

The problem is that Crossrail is *not* planned to operate on entirely
purpose-built infrastructure. The only new construction will be the tunnels
across Central London. Therefore any stock built for the system must be
built to the existing British loading gauge (in exactly the same way that
the Eurostar stock has been). Conversion of, for example, the section of the
Great Eastern main line between Stratford and Shenfield (one of the eastern
limbs of Crossrail) to Continental loading gauge would be astronomical in
cost.

Running double-deck trains within the existing British loading gauge has
already been proven to be a failure. Two four-car double-deck trains were
built by the Southern Railway and used on the Dartford suburban lines until
the early 1970s. They were *extremely* cramped and unpleasant to travel in,
even for passengers in the 1940s. Bear in mind that the average Briton has
increased in height and girth significantly in the last sixty years and the
idea is a non-starter.

In article , (Jack Taylor) wrote:

They were *extremely* cramped and unpleasant to travel in,
even for passengers in the 1940s.

They didn't have *too* many passengers in the 1940s, having been
built in 1949. But having used them on several occasions, I agree with
your comment.

In a sense they were more one-and-a-half-deck than double-deck,
with the upper deck compartments fitting in between the lower ones
rather like pieces of a jigsaw. And loading was slow, each compartment
with a door, and then stairs up to what you might call the mezzanine
floor compartment.

--
Peter Beale

"Peter Beale" wrote in message
o.uk...

They didn't have *too* many passengers in the 1940s, having been
built in 1949. But having used them on several occasions, I agree with
your comment.

Thanks, Peter. I knew they were 1940s vintage but couldn't remember exactly
what year they dated from!


In a sense they were more one-and-a-half-deck than double-deck,
with the upper deck compartments fitting in between the lower ones
rather like pieces of a jigsaw. And loading was slow, each compartment
with a door, and then stairs up to what you might call the mezzanine
floor compartment.

I suspect that Health and Safety, Disability Discrimination Act and Rail
Vehicle Accessibility Regulations would all prevent such stock being
constructed nowadays.

(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message ...

Your question implies that double deck trains are better for regional
services than intercity ones, but the reverse is the case because of the
extra time the trains would take to load and unload.

TWhat is needed is not heigher cars that may be double decked with the problems
you mention, but WIDER cars which take little if any greater time to load but
carry much more people. Anyone who's been on the NYC subway knows how many
people those 10 foot wide BMT/IND cars can swallow up. Of course the british
loading guage becomes a problem then but perhaps theres some way of getting
the bodywork to overhang the platforms?

B2003

Boltar wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message
...

Your question implies that double deck trains are better for regional
services than intercity ones, but the reverse is the case because of
the
extra time the trains would take to load and unload.

TWhat is needed is not heigher cars that may be double decked with
the problems you mention, but WIDER cars which take little if any
greater time to load but carry much more people. Anyone who's been
on the NYC subway knows how many people those 10 foot wide BMT/IND
cars can swallow up. Of course the british loading guage becomes a
problem then but perhaps theres some way of getting the bodywork
to overhang the platforms?


How would that help? If the body overhangs the platform, it will also
strike bridges, signal gantries, other trains, ...

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...

TWhat is needed is not heigher cars that may be double decked with the
problems
you mention, but WIDER cars which take little if any greater time to load
but
carry much more people. Anyone who's been on the NYC subway knows how many
people those 10 foot wide BMT/IND cars can swallow up. Of course the
british
loading guage becomes a problem then but perhaps theres some way of
getting
the bodywork to overhang the platforms?

So that the trains then clout each other as they pass elsewhere - or clout
adjacent lineside structures? That's what the loading gauge is there for!

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...

TWhat is needed is not heigher cars that may be double
decked with the problems you mention, but WIDER cars
which take little if any greater time to load but carry much
more people. Anyone who's been on the NYC subway
knows how many people those 10 foot wide BMT/IND
cars can swallow up. Of course the british loading guage
becomes a problem then but perhaps theres some way
of getting the bodywork to overhang the platforms?

That will slow down boarding and reduce capacity, because of the subsequent
huge increase in the number of wheelchair users.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes