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.

--
message by the incredible Robin May.
"The British don't like successful people" - said by British failures

Who is Abi Titmuss? What is she? Why is she famous?
http://robinmay.fotopic.net

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.


--
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.

Robin May wrote:
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.

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

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 ...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:55:53 +0100, Iain Bowen
wrote:

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.

As do the Swiis. Double-deck Inter City trains, no less.


--
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

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!


Their infrastructre allows it, ours doesn't.

In message , at 16:36:29 on Wed, 25
Aug 2004, Piccadilly Pilot remarked:
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!

Their infrastructre allows it, ours doesn't.

So the French have stations with double-deck platforms? Interesting.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:36:29 on Wed,
25 Aug 2004, Piccadilly Pilot remarked:
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!

Their infrastructre allows it, ours doesn't.

So the French have stations with double-deck platforms? Interesting.

If that's the spin you wish to put on my comment that's your prerogative.

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

"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