Modern double deck trams
 

I can't find a tram related newsgroup.

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also take up a
lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both levels) could
take the same number of people, maybe more, than a single decker in less
length.

I'm guessing there are 2 reasons the main one being that double deckers have
always been a bit of a British oddity. Yes, there have been other places
in the world that used them but these days in particular the market is in
countries where single deck trams are the norm so we get single deckers.
The other reason seems to be loading times.

And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.

Modern double deck trams
 

On Dec 20, 9:57*am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also take up a
lot of space. * A double deck artic (with connections at both levels) could
take the same number of people, maybe more, than a single decker in less
length.

I'm guessing there are 2 reasons the main one being that double deckers have
always been a bit of a British oddity.

Partly because normal height clearances on roads (where trams run)
tend to be higher in the UK than other European countries, and most
trams are off-the-shelf European designs.

Berlin does double-decker buses (albeit lower ones than usual for the
UK, if I recall), but they are not common elsewhere in Europe for the
same reason.

OTOH, because the height clearance issue is the opposite way around
for rail, the UK doesn't do double-deckers on rail (the 4-DD excepted)
but they are very common in mainland Europe. Were the UK the main
supplier of trains to Europe, I expect the situation would be similar
to trams.

Neil

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20/12/2011 09:02, Neil Williams wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:57 am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also take up a
lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both levels) could
take the same number of people, maybe more, than a single decker in less
length.

I'm guessing there are 2 reasons the main one being that double deckers have
always been a bit of a British oddity.

Partly because normal height clearances on roads (where trams run)
tend to be higher in the UK than other European countries, and most
trams are off-the-shelf European designs.

Berlin does double-decker buses (albeit lower ones than usual for the
UK, if I recall), but they are not common elsewhere in Europe for the
same reason.

Rome has, or at least had last time I was there, double decker buses.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Modern double deck trams
 

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 01:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Neil Williams wrote:
OTOH, because the height clearance issue is the opposite way around
for rail, the UK doesn't do double-deckers on rail (the 4-DD excepted)
but they are very common in mainland Europe. Were the UK the main

Though even the euro double deckers (or at least the ones I've been on in
france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really in
the USA that you get proper double deckers.

B2003

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20 Dez., 09:57, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.

Alexandria also has some double-deck trams. I beleive they are of
Chinese make.


In the past, double deck trams were more common. Paris and Berlin both
had them and no doubt several other cities besides.

I am not sure about the details, but I believe that one factor that
was different in the UK was legislation concerning trailers. I am not
sure whether they were banend outright, or it was something else.
Anyway, although some British trams did have trailers, they were
extremely rare. Where the Germans for example used trailers to grow
capacity, British operators built upwards.

Of course one disadvantage of trailers was that they needed to be
shunted at the at end of trip, and so loop tracks had to be provided.
Many operators worked around this by building turning loops in which
no shunting was required but the entire tram went around on a cicle of
track to face the other direction. The provison of these prepared the
way for the next development which was that of the uni-directional
tram, having a cab at only one end and doors on only one side. They
were less flexible in service as they needed loops but from the
maintenance perspective there was less hardware to be maintained. The
absence of doors on the off side also meant that more seats could be
provided. From there they went to articulated trams which again was a
step backwards in terms of flexibility (compared to trailers) but had
advanatges in terms of passenger flow and better utilisation of space
etc. Also the concept was scalable so longer and longer trams could be
made just by adding intermediate segments.

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20 Dez., 10:46, amogles wrote:
On 20 Dez., 09:57, "Graham Harrison"

wrote:

And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.

Alexandria also has some double-deck trams. I beleive they are of
Chinese make.

In the past, double deck trams were more common. Paris and Berlin both
had them and no doubt several other cities besides.

I am not sure about the details, but I believe that one factor that
was different in the UK was legislation concerning trailers. I am not
sure whether they were banend outright, or it was something else.
Anyway, although some British trams did have trailers, they were
extremely rare. Where the Germans for example used trailers to grow
capacity, British operators built upwards.

Of course one disadvantage of trailers was that they needed to be
shunted at the at end of trip, and so loop tracks had to be provided.
Many operators worked around this by building turning loops in which
no shunting was required but the entire tram went around on a cicle of
track to face the other direction. The provison of these prepared the
way for the next development which was that of the uni-directional
tram, having a cab at only one end and doors on only one side. They
were less flexible in service as they needed loops but from the
maintenance perspective there was less hardware to be maintained. The
absence of doors on the off side also meant that more seats could be
provided. From there they went to articulated trams which again was a
step backwards in terms of flexibility (compared to trailers) but had
advanatges in terms of passenger flow and better utilisation of space
etc. Also the concept was scalable so longer and longer trams could be
made just by adding intermediate segments.

Anf here lies the advantage of modern trams. They have more capacity
than buses and so if the traffic is there to justify it, they are
moder efficient operationally. A double deck tram has by nature about
the capacity of a double deck bus, so given the choice the operator
opts for the bus which is more flexible and cheaper. But high-capacity
trams which could take double the number of passengers as buses if not
more meant that the closure of many German systems was simply not a
feasible option. Of course many of the lesser and lighter lines did
close, and the tram system we see in Germany today are in many cases
just the skeletons of what once was.

Modern double deck trams
 

On Dec 20, 10:54*am, amogles wrote:

and the tram system we see in Germany today are in many cases
just the skeletons of what once was.

And some cities closed them entirely, and operated the same routes and
infrastructure with buses. That lead to idiocy like these on the
Hamburg equivalent of Oxford Road (city - uni - where a lot of
students live), which should, as with Manchester, be a tram route.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XXL-Bus.JPG

Neil

Modern double deck trams
 

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
Suggestions:
(1) Do you need two bods to 'police' both decks when one will do for an artic.

(2) With tightly knotted streets and high peak demand such as you would get in
say for example Dundee when the mill shifts ended, the smaller footprint would
be desirable. These conditions have largely gone.

(3) If you want a tunnel for your trams to burrow through the city centre or
just do dive-unders you're adding to the civil engineering costs.

--
Peter 'Prof' Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling and curiosities at www.vulpeculox.net
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex, England +44 (01376) 517206

Modern double deck trams
 

On 2011\12\20 08:57, Graham Harrison wrote:
I can't find a tram related newsgroup.

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
deckers. Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also
take up a lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both
levels)

How would the upper floor connection cope with vertical curves?

Modern double deck trams
 

On Dec 20, 11:27*am, PeterFox wrote:

(1) *Do you need two bods to 'police' both decks when one will do for an artic.

What bods would those be? Metrolink is DOO. If you mean conductors,
possibly or possibly not. Routemasters only ever had one, while I
think Blackpool tended to use two.

Neil

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20/12/2011 10:27, PeterFox wrote:
I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
deckers.
Suggestions:
(1) Do you need two bods to 'police' both decks when one will do for an
artic.

One always did in the past, now we have none anyway.


(2) With tightly knotted streets and high peak demand such as you would
get in say for example Dundee when the mill shifts ended, the smaller
footprint would be desirable. These conditions have largely gone.

Most UK cities still use double decker buses to get morer capacity in a
given footprint, same would apply to trams.


(3) If you want a tunnel for your trams to burrow through the city
centre or just do dive-unders you're adding to the civil engineering costs.

I've never been convinced that premetro style tram tunnels are that good
an idea. Surely you want your high quality urban transport to be
prominently visible and easily accesible.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20 Dez., 11:27, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\12\20 08:57, Graham Harrison wrote:

I can't find a tram related newsgroup.

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
deckers. Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also
take up a lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both
levels)

How would the upper floor connection cope with vertical curves?

Do the same as on double-deck trains and provide a gangway connection
on one level only?

Modern double deck trams
 

Though even the euro double deckers (or at least the ones I've been on in
france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really
in
the USA that you get proper double deckers.

And Canada.

There are other countries on this side of the pond with Canada being the
largest.


--
Merry Christmas
Roger Traviss


Photos of the late HO scale GER: -

http://www.greateasternrailway.com

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...Great_Eastern/

Modern double deck trams
 

On Dec 20, 11:43*am, "Roger Traviss"
wrote:
Though even the euro double deckers (or at least the ones I've been on in
france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really
in
the USA that you get proper double deckers.

And Canada.

There are other countries on this side of the pond with Canada being the
largest.

And of course the largest DD rolling stock of the lot are the formerly
Hawker Siddeley now Bombardier cars developed for GO. I've only
ridden on them in Vancouver, but they were very generously sized. I
hear some are used south of 49 too.

Robin

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20 Dez., 11:46, bob wrote:

And of course the largest DD rolling stock of the lot are the formerly
Hawker Siddeley now Bombardier cars developed for GO. *I've only
ridden on them in Vancouver, but they were very generously sized. *I
hear some are used south of 49 too.


I've never ridden on those, but find Amtrak's Superliners to be
extremely comfortable and spacious.

Modern double deck trams
 

On Dec 20, 10:36*am, Graeme Wall wrote:

I've never been convinced that premetro style tram tunnels are that good
an idea. *Surely you want your high quality urban transport to be
prominently visible and easily accesible.

Ever used one.?

--
Nick

Modern double deck trams
 

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:43:49 -0800
"Roger Traviss" wrote:
Though even the euro double deckers (or at least the ones I've been on in
france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really
in
the USA that you get proper double deckers.

And Canada.

There are other countries on this side of the pond with Canada being the
largest.

Fair point!

B2003

Modern double deck trams
 

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:48:56 -0800 (PST)
amogles wrote:
On 20 Dez., 11:46, bob wrote:

And of course the largest DD rolling stock of the lot are the formerly
Hawker Siddeley now Bombardier cars developed for GO. =A0I've only
ridden on them in Vancouver, but they were very generously sized. =A0I
hear some are used south of 49 too.


I've never ridden on those, but find Amtrak's Superliners to be
extremely comfortable and spacious.

I'm surprised the Russians don't have then considering their loading gauge
would easily support it.

I've just checked and it seems australia also has them.

B2003

Modern double deck trams
 

On 2011\12\20 10:50, D7666 wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:36 am, Graeme wrote:

I've never been convinced that premetro style tram tunnels are that good
an idea. Surely you want your high quality urban transport to be
prominently visible and easily accesible.

Ever used one.?

Since trams tend to have priority at traffic lights on surface routes
anyway, the tunnels exist for the benefit of road traffic rather than
for the benefit of trams, so the car passengers on the tunnel roof are
its real users.

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20 Dez., 12:10, Basil Jet wrote:

Since trams tend to have priority at traffic lights on surface routes
anyway, the tunnels exist for the benefit of road traffic rather than
for the benefit of trams, so the car passengers on the tunnel roof are
its real users.

True. I have heard stories from Bochum (I think?) in Germany where one
of the earlier tram subways is now in dire need of a major renoavtion,
but the city doesn't have the money so they are even considering
closing the line as an option. If they would have left it on the
surface back then it wouldn't now be at risk.

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20/12/2011 10:50, D7666 wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:36 am, Graeme wrote:

I've never been convinced that premetro style tram tunnels are that good
an idea. Surely you want your high quality urban transport to be
prominently visible and easily accesible.

Ever used one.?


Pre-metro in tunnel? Yes in Brussels.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Modern double deck trams
 

A double deck tram has by nature about
the capacity of a double deck bus, so given the choice the operator
opts for the bus which is more flexible and cheaper.

You're limiting your thinking. In effect I'm asking why you can't take a
modern multi section single deck tram and build a double deck version.

Modern double deck trams
 

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 2011\12\20 08:57, Graham Harrison wrote:
I can't find a tram related newsgroup.

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
deckers. Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also
take up a lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both
levels)

How would the upper floor connection cope with vertical curves?

That's an engineering detail (he said having no idea what the answer is!).

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20/12/2011 13:02, Graham Harrison wrote:

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 2011\12\20 08:57, Graham Harrison wrote:
I can't find a tram related newsgroup.

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
deckers. Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also
take up a lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both
levels)

How would the upper floor connection cope with vertical curves?

That's an engineering detail (he said having no idea what the answer is!).

Not insoluble but possibly expensive.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Modern double deck trams
 

On Dec 20, 2:04*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:

Not insoluble but possibly expensive.

It presumably depends on the size of the curves. SBB IC2000 stock has
upper level gangways only.

Neil

Modern double deck trams
 

Graham Harrison schrieb:


I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.

The dwell time is too high for competitive timing. In those days, when
people couldn't afford automobiles, this was less of a concern, and it
still might not be in the 3rd or developing world, but for success of a
tram system in the modern world, every second (per stop) counts.


Hans-Joachim



--

Frieda Uffelmann * 15. August 1915 â€* 9. Dezember 2011

http://zierke.com/private/tante_frie...abgestellt.jpg

Modern double deck trams
 

d schrieb:


Though even the euro double deckers (or at least the ones I've been on in
france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really in
the USA that you get proper double deckers.


Try Finland.


Hans-Joachim




--

Frieda Uffelmann * 15. August 1915 â€* 9. Dezember 2011

http://zierke.com/private/tante_frie...abgestellt.jpg

Modern double deck trams
 

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:04:23 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/12/2011 13:02, Graham Harrison wrote:

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 2011\12\20 08:57, Graham Harrison wrote:
I can't find a tram related newsgroup.

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
deckers. Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also
take up a lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both
levels)

How would the upper floor connection cope with vertical curves?

That's an engineering detail (he said having no idea what the answer is!).

Not insoluble but possibly expensive.

Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.

B2003

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20/12/2011 09:46, amogles wrote:
On 20 Dez., 09:57, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.

Alexandria also has some double-deck trams. I beleive they are of
Chinese make.


In the past, double deck trams were more common. Paris and Berlin both
had them and no doubt several other cities besides.

I am not sure about the details, but I believe that one factor that
was different in the UK was legislation concerning trailers. I am not
sure whether they were banend outright, or it was something else.
Anyway, although some British trams did have trailers, they were
extremely rare. Where the Germans for example used trailers to grow
capacity, British operators built upwards.

Of course one disadvantage of trailers was that they needed to be
shunted at the at end of trip, and so loop tracks had to be provided.

They use gravity shunting at Ramsey (Rhumsaa) on the Manx Electric
Railway, incidentally, when they run a trailer.

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20/12/2011 11:46, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/12/2011 10:50, D7666 wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:36 am, Graeme wrote:

I've never been convinced that premetro style tram tunnels are that good
an idea. Surely you want your high quality urban transport to be
prominently visible and easily accesible.

Ever used one.?


Pre-metro in tunnel? Yes in Brussels.


They have one in Newark, New Jersey, as well. It's called the Newark
City Subway.

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20/12/2011 13:22, Neil Williams wrote:
On Dec 20, 2:04 pm, Graeme wrote:

Not insoluble but possibly expensive.

It presumably depends on the size of the curves. SBB IC2000 stock has
upper level gangways only.


I doubt whether SBB IC2000 stock has to cope with curves, both
horizontally and vertically that, say, Sheffield trams have to negotiate.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20/12/2011 13:49, d wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:04:23 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 20/12/2011 13:02, Graham Harrison wrote:

"Basil wrote in message
...
On 2011\12\20 08:57, Graham Harrison wrote:
I can't find a tram related newsgroup.

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
deckers. Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also
take up a lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both
levels)

How would the upper floor connection cope with vertical curves?

That's an engineering detail (he said having no idea what the answer is!).

Not insoluble but possibly expensive.

Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.


For a given value of simple. Means the buffing loads will be rather
higher than is usual for rail vehicles which will have major
implications for the design of the trams.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Modern double deck trams
 

On Dec 20, 2:00*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
A double deck tram has by nature about

the capacity of a double deck bus, so given the choice the operator
opts for the bus which is more flexible and cheaper.

You're limiting your thinking. * In effect I'm asking why you can't take a
modern multi section single deck tram and build a double deck version.

Articulations and double deck vehicles are generally not compatible.
In all of the variations of double deck railway carriages I have
encountered, none has gangway connections on both levels. The tight
corners and ability to climb hills in an urban setting would make this
problem worse for trams than "big" trains. The other issue is that
modern low floor trams use the roof to mount all kinds of equipment
like power electronics and air conditioners. With a double deck
arrangement, this would have to be accommodated somewhere else
(where?).

Robin

Modern double deck trams
 

On Dec 20, 8:57*am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Yes, modern artics swallow

Laden or unladen?

Modern double deck trams
 

On Dec 20, 2:49*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:04:23 +0000





Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/12/2011 13:02, Graham Harrison wrote:

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
.. .
On 2011\12\20 08:57, Graham Harrison wrote:
I can't find a tram related newsgroup.

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
deckers. Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also
take up a lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both
levels)

How would the upper floor connection cope with vertical curves?

That's an engineering detail (he said having no idea what the answer is!).

Not insoluble but possibly expensive.

Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.

But that would just shift the problem from the upper deck floor
aticulation to the lower deck floor articulation. The problem is
accommodating vertical curves on both floor levels simultaneously.
Without having a telescoping floor section vertical curves can not be
handled, and I would have worries about the safety implications for
passengers crossing the join as it stretches and contracts.

There's also the issue of where to put all the kit that sits on the
roof of a modern low floor tram (that in the days of high floor trams
might have been under the floor).

Robin

Modern double deck trams
 

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:38:07 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.


For a given value of simple. Means the buffing loads will be rather
higher than is usual for rail vehicles which will have major
implications for the design of the trams.

Whats a "buffing load"?

B2003

Modern double deck trams
 

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:56:00 -0800 (PST)
bob wrote:
Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.

But that would just shift the problem from the upper deck floor
aticulation to the lower deck floor articulation. The problem is

Not really , both floors would articulate the same amount but it would
be less that the upper floor would do it if the joint was in the usual place.

accommodating vertical curves on both floor levels simultaneously.
Without having a telescoping floor section vertical curves can not be
handled, and I would have worries about the safety implications for
passengers crossing the join as it stretches and contracts.

I've never heard of anyone being squashed inside a bendy bus because of it.

B2003

Modern double deck trams
 

On Dec 20, 4:06*pm, wrote:

accommodating vertical curves on both floor levels simultaneously.
Without having a telescoping floor section vertical curves can not be
handled, and I would have worries about the safety implications for
passengers crossing the join as it stretches and contracts.

I've never heard of anyone being squashed inside a bendy bus because of it.

Modern double deck trams
 

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:23:40 -0800 (PST)
bob wrote:
extend or contract in length. On a double decker, the floor that does
not contain the axis of rotation will experience an extension or
contraction of the floor as well as rotation. One of the floors will
therefore experience extension and contraction as well as rotation,
which is a whole lot less safe.

I'm sure people would get used to it just like they've got used to the ends of
escalator. But if its really an issue you could simply wall off the seperate
compartments of the tram.

B2003

Modern double deck trams
 

On 20/12/2011 14:59, d wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:38:07 +0000
Graeme wrote:
Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.


For a given value of simple. Means the buffing loads will be rather
higher than is usual for rail vehicles which will have major
implications for the design of the trams.

Whats a "buffing load"?


What the buffers/couplings have to cope with.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail