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.


Dave Wilcox.


"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, gwr4090 wrote:

All stations legthened for 10 car trains formed from 5 car units.

*10* car units? What happened to 12?

Crossrail is designed for 10-car trains initially, except that the
platform tunnels in underground stations will be 245m long to allow for
future lengthening to 12-car trains.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

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.

Don't know where you get your info, but the only city in Australia operating
double deck trains is Sydney.

Melbourne had one as a trial but it never took off and it now sits in the
railway workshops waiting for spare parts worth nearly the cost of a new
(single deck) train - so local word on the rail is that it will never work
in service again, indeed a group has already been set up for it's
preservation and everyone else has forgotten it existed (judging by the
comments on the new trains being introduced by Connex referring to them as
the first new trains since the 1980s built single deck Comengs).

Brisbane runs single deck trains in 3 and 6 car formation using 25kV AC
Perth runs 2 car trains (with some new 3 car trains being built) using 25kV
AC
Adelaide runs 1 and 2 car diesel railcars
Canberra, Darwin and Hobart don't have urban rail services.

Double deck trams and buses are another story...

No chance of that happening; the tunnelling costs are astronomical enough
without a double deck swept envelope.

"David Wilcox" wrote in message
...
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.


Dave Wilcox.


"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, gwr4090 wrote:

All stations legthened for 10 car trains formed from 5 car units.

*10* car units? What happened to 12?

Crossrail is designed for 10-car trains initially, except that the
platform tunnels in underground stations will be 245m long to allow for
future lengthening to 12-car trains.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

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.

"David Wilcox" wrote in message
...
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.

For Crossrail, shorter trains would actually mean *longer* walks for
passengers at (some) stations. The Central area stations are most, if not
all, designed with two exits. For example, Liverpool Street will have one
end, as you'd expect, at Liverpool Street, but the other exit will give
interchange with Moorgate. Regular passengers will soon get used to which
end of the train is best for them.
Peter

"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.

The 4-DD experiment can't be said to be a total failure, mind, as the
units were kept in service until 1971. But as you say, station stops
were longer than BR would have liked, hence the decision to run more
ordinary EMUs in tandem and embark on an extensive programme of
platform extensions to accommodate the extra coaches.

David E. belcher

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.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"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!

Tony

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.

Iain

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.




greg


--
Felicitations, malefactors! I am endeavoring to misappropriate
the formulary for the preparation of affordable comestibles.
Who will join me?!