In article ,
says...
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.

And some major services like Amsterdam CS-Vlissengen.

Iain

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:17:52 +0100, Iain Bowen wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.

And some major services like Amsterdam CS-Vlissengen.

There are in fact 2 types of NS double deck stock:
1. Type DD-AR. This is used on suburban commuter lines.
2. Type DD-IRM. This is used on longer distance services and is also
more comfortable (better seats, air conditioning, etc.)

Regards,

Rian

--
Rian van der Borgt, Leuven, Belgium.
e-mail: www: http://www.xs4all.be/~rvdborgt/
Fix Outlook Express: http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
Fix Outlook: http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:55:37 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

On 25 Aug 2004 16:10:30 GMT someone who may be Robin May
wrote this:-

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!

So do the Dutch.

So do the Americans.

They manage. However, loading and unloading large numbers of people
at central stations is slow. No great problem with small numbers of
passengers.

Or high loadings many stops, only a few getting on and off at intermediate
stops.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
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.

You should see the double-deck trains used by the Chinese on the Shanghai to
Nanjing runs. 3+3 seating in moulded seats with a little bit of padding.
Plenty of room to stand up on the upper deck, although they are seat
reservation compulsory, from what I remember. They have a soft class, I
believe, but have never had the pleasure.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:21:50 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

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.

This is true, though it partly depends on the body width of the train
concerned - and on Merseyside my experience was that people *do* sit
on the third seat in the height of the peak, albeit reluctantly. Of
course, Merseysiders won't have the option any more because the
refurbished 50x units are fitted with 2+2 facing seating with almost
InterCity-level spacing and comfort...

Mind you, the upper deck 2+2 of the German DD sets, especially the
slightly smaller Eastern-style ones, is as bad. The space up there is
only really suited to 2+1. Shoulder room is especially cramped (you
thought UK tilt-profile units were bad...)

Neil

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

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:13:07 GMT, Neil Williams wrote:
Mind you, the upper deck 2+2 of the German DD sets, especially the
slightly smaller Eastern-style ones, is as bad. The space up there is
only really suited to 2+1.

You mean 1.5 + 1.5 :-)

But the newer DD coaches are much better.

Regards,

Rian

--
Rian van der Borgt, Leuven, Belgium.
e-mail: www: http://www.xs4all.be/~rvdborgt/
Fix Outlook Express: http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
Fix Outlook: http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/

"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message
...
David Wilcox wrote:
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.

The rest of the system can't cope with the extra height that would be
necessary. There were tries on the Southern in the 50s (IIRC) but they
spent
so long at stations while people got on and off that they delayed the rest
of the service and were considered to be not worth the effort.

Which is exactly why Munich decided (when they tried) that they weren't
the solution to their capacity problems. twice as many pax on half the
number of trains is no solution.

tim

Robin May wrote in message ...
Iain Bowen wrote the following in:


In article ,
says...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
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!

So do the Dutch.

So do the Americans.

Isn't it a question of loading gauge restrictions?

Plenty of room for DD in Sydney and elsewhere, but SFA in the UK?

IIRR the Southern Region's DDs were slam-door stock with one upper
compartment ingeniously dovetailed in with two lower ones. There were
no vestibules, so getting in and out of the upper compartments was
tricky, and it was all this clambering about that made station stops
longer I think.

andrew clarke
canberra
eating chips after t'Messiah -- just like huddersfield ...

(Neil Williams) wrote in message ...
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.

Are you thinking of the ones around Freiburg? I think they're the same
as in Switzerland, and are OK for medium distance routes, where they
don't get over crowded. I would guess the capacity to be 1.5*. They're
certainly not suitable for dense urban networks - like CrossRail.

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.

Which is why you don't see too many of them. I think on the Freiburg -
Titisee route long trains are difficult because of the curves and
gradient.

Neil

Neil Williams schrieb:

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.

Why do you think that platform height ist decisive for the cost of
platform extensions?
Well, it's not.
And why do you think that serviceable (but uncomfortable) old stock ist
acceptable for German commuters?
New DD-Stock in Germany is rather comfortable, I'd say.

Regards,
Patrick