"Robin May" wrote in message
...

I was just joining in with the "name a country with double decker
trains" game!

UK

Eurotunnel car shuttles.

Peter

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
17:55:37 on Wed, 25 Aug 2004, David Hansen
remarked:
They manage. However, loading and unloading large numbers of people
at central stations is slow.

I've seen the Dutch managing, and very well. Everyone who is going
to get off at a station congregates towards the vestibules, so they
can get off as soon as the doors open.

How fortunate that their trains are sufficiently lightly loaded that
there is space in the vestibules to allow this.

None of this UK nonsense where people look up from their paper/phone
when the train has stopped and ask "is this X", and then rush to the
doors obstructing the people who are now getting on. The Japanese
also have very good discipline getting on and off trains.

So good that they need staff to push people on to the trains.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message , at 20:27:39
on Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Richard J. remarked:
Everyone who is going
to get off at a station congregates towards the vestibules, so they
can get off as soon as the doors open.

How fortunate that their trains are sufficiently lightly loaded that
there is space in the vestibules to allow this.

The vestibules are quite large! Partly because of the need to
accommodate the stairs, but they are impressively big.

I've also seen some commuter trains in Copenhagen that had no seats at
all in some of the carriages; for storing bikes, rather than getting
more people in, though.

None of this UK nonsense where people look up from their paper/phone
when the train has stopped and ask "is this X", and then rush to the
doors obstructing the people who are now getting on. The Japanese
also have very good discipline getting on and off trains.

So good that they need staff to push people on to the trains.

You are probably thinking of the Tokyo underground in rush hour, where
the pushing is to get more people in, rather than get people in faster.
Not every train gets that crowded!
--
Roland Perry

On 25 Aug 2004 17:59:46 GMT, Robin May
wrote:

"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote the following
in:

Robin May wrote:
Iain Bowen wrote the following in:


In article ,
says...
The French seem to manage!

So do the Dutch.

So do the Americans.

All of whose infrastructure allows much larger vehicles than does
the UK's network.

I was just joining in with the "name a country with double decker
trains" game!

Ooh, ooh, Germany!

Charlie

--
Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply
Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:40:02 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

The vestibules are quite large! Partly because of the need to
accommodate the stairs, but they are impressively big.

And what that means is that, together with the fact that you can't
have double-decker accommodation over the bogies and at the vehicle
ends, the capacity of a double-decker set of a given length tends to
be about 1.5 times that of a similarly-appointed single-decker set of
the same length, not double as some seem to think.

Given that the UK tends to use 2+3 seating, which the Netherlands and
Germany tend not to, that means that (because of the limited width on
the top deck meaning 2+3 would be impractical) it's nearer about 1.2
of the seated capacity of a typical British commuter train - and
probably about the same crush-loaded, as the low ceiling tends to mean
standing on the top deck isn't practical unless you're a midget.

That's not exactly efficient use of money, given what would need to be
spent to introduce proper DDs.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:13:30 +0100, Charlie Pearce
wrote:

Ooh, ooh, Germany!

And, in my experience, the loading gauge is too small for them, making
them cramped and uncomfortable. The seat pitch is also too tight,
mainly due to the fact that builders seem to think that 2x the
capacity of a single-decker coach is something to aim at.

In a country where the generally low platforms mean that extending
platforms is pretty cheap and easy, and there is an abundance of
serviceable older hauled stock, they seem a nonsense.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Tony Day wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:10:13 +0100 someone who may be "David
Wilcox" wrote this:-

It might be more convenient for passengers if Crossrail were to be
constructed for shorter, double deck, trains. They do seem to be
popular with operators in other countries for commuter services,
e.g. Germany, USA, Australia.

Shorter trains would mean shorter walks for passengers at
stations.

Unless one has double-deck platforms, loading and unloading such
trains will always be a slow operation given the way such trains
have to be laid out.

The French seem to manage!

But on the RER lines with double-deck trains, they are quite slow
through central Paris, with long station dwell times, for precisely the
reason that David stated.

But it is still, by a very long way, the fastest way of getting across
Paris.

Tony

In message , at 22:32:00 on Wed, 25
Aug 2004, Neil Williams remarked:
And what that means is that, together with the fact that you can't
have double-decker accommodation over the bogies and at the vehicle
ends, the capacity of a double-decker set of a given length tends to
be about 1.5 times that of a similarly-appointed single-decker set of
the same length, not double as some seem to think.

Yes I agree with that, the Dutch upper decks are much smaller than the
lower ones.

Given that the UK tends to use 2+3 seating,

But on the lines I've used, the 3+2 seating is a disaster, as people
really *hate* sitting three abreast, particularly when they are used to
2+2. Asking to sit in the middle seat, which usually has about six
inches of width showing, is taken as a personal insult.
--
Roland Perry

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:43:40 +0100, "Tony Day"
wrote:




The French seem to manage!


As do the Dutch. Double deck trains would reduce the necessity for
extending platforms at 600 quid per sq metre.

Are these for metro style trains though?

My understanding of crossrail is that it's sort a hybrid of something like
Silverlank overland services and the TUbe - ie bigger trains, but with quick
stop and pick up times.

In message , at 12:52:05 on Thu, 26 Aug
2004, dwb remarked:
As do the Dutch. Double deck trains would reduce the necessity for
extending platforms at 600 quid per sq metre.

Are these for metro style trains though?

The Dutch double-deck trains run very much on suburban commuter lines
like the Paris RER or Crosslink.
--
Roland Perry