| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Crossrail.
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) |
Crossrail.
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... |
Crossrail.
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) |
Crossrail.
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. |
Crossrail.
"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 |
Crossrail.
"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 |
Crossrail.
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. |
Crossrail.
"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 |
Crossrail.
|
Crossrail.
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?! |
Crossrail.
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 |
Crossrail.
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. |
Crossrail.
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 |
Crossrail.
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. |
Crossrail.
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) |
Crossrail.
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. |
Crossrail.
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. |
Crossrail.
"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! -- 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 |
Crossrail.
"Robin May" wrote in message ... "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! Quite, I simply making the point for those who may not realise it, that the underside of a continental or American bridge is further away from the rail than are ours. |
Crossrail.
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. 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. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail.
"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 |
Crossrail.
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) |
Crossrail.
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 |
Crossrail.
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 |
Crossrail.
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 |
Crossrail.
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 |
Crossrail.
"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 |
Crossrail.
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 |
Crossrail.
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. |
Crossrail.
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 |
Crossrail.
|
Crossrail.
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/ |
Crossrail.
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. |
Crossrail.
"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/ |
Crossrail.
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 |
Crossrail.
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/ |
Crossrail.
"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 |
Crossrail.
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 ... |
Crossrail.
|
Crossrail.
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:42 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk