|
|
Post by q8 on Dec 11, 2005 17:52:16 GMT
If mainline railways can get five abreast seating inside the standard body width why can't LUL do the same? [ I'm not talking tube stock but SSL] A layout like that with a third set of doors per car and walk through would be ideal for the new 'S' stock.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Dec 11, 2005 18:11:26 GMT
If mainline railways can get five abreast seating inside the standard body width why can't LUL do the same? [ I'm not talking tube stock but SSL] A layout like that with a third set of doors per car and walk through would be ideal for the new 'S' stock. Like the A stock? (5 abreast) |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Dec 11, 2005 18:15:24 GMT
Like the A stock? (5 abreast)[/quote]
yes I know 'A' have 5 abreast but not with the 'clear floor' layout seen in the picture. Those seats are more comfy that modern LUL stock too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2005 19:13:57 GMT
A 2+3 seating arrangement will have less standing space, and thus less overall train capacity compared to a 2+2, 2+1, or longitudinal seating arrangement. A 2+3 seating arrangement will also result in more in-train congestion, potentially increasing station dwell times. Thus a 2+3 seating arrangement is rarely ideal for metro services.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Dec 11, 2005 19:46:40 GMT
Like the A stock? (5 abreast) 5? Seems like someone still needs to get the hang of this. More like 7, or maybe 9 if these commuters would only try ;D |
|
|
|
Post by dunois on Dec 12, 2005 22:07:14 GMT
The 2+3 seat configuration was used before in Paris RER network but it's not used anymore now as just 2 seat of the 3 seat pair were occupied. It is also less confortable and use more space compared to 2+2 seating which is in my opinion the best seat configuration for commuter trains and SS Trains in London and everywhere else.
If LU wants more seating place, they should study the feasability of using double deck stock in their lines but i am not sure if they would be compatible with tunnel height.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2005 22:19:58 GMT
If LU wants more seating place, they should study the feasability of using double deck stock in their lines but i am not sure if they would be compatible with tunnel height. Even just thinking of the the feasibility of double deck trains on LUL would probably be a complete waste of time! |
|
|
|
Post by ttran on Dec 12, 2005 23:19:20 GMT
May as well be looking at buying trains that cook your breakfast and do your washing if you think that you could fit a DD on the SSLs! Let's not even bother talking about sticking a DD down the tubes,no chance!
|
|
|
|
Post by dunois on Dec 12, 2005 23:40:13 GMT
May as well be looking at buying trains that cook your breakfast and do your washing if you think that you could fit a DD on the SSLs! Let's not even bother talking about sticking a DD down the tubes,no chance! I am not crazy I was just proposing to put DD trains on SS lines and not on tubes Lines where it would be completely impossible. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,441
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 13, 2005 0:42:28 GMT
I suppose that if you built a ssl gauge car but with a tube-guage chassis then it ''might'' be possible but ''very'' cramped - even more so than my rough not to scale initial ideas.  The black rounded rectangles are where there are double decker bus style stairs. They would be in pairs diagonally oposite the doors (i.e. one on each side, one on left, one on right). |
|
|
|
Post by edb on Dec 13, 2005 7:36:51 GMT
I think the trail was blazed by a Mr O.V.S Bullied of the Southern Railway who after the war designed some double deck stock that stayed pretty much within the standard loading gauge they were called the 4DD's (like it, nice and original) www.semg.org.uk/gallery/4dd.htmlI believe the downfall of these trains were the excessive dwell times. That would be a big issue on LU |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2005 7:52:41 GMT
When double deck trains were introduced in Sydney, the passenger carrying capacity of the lines did not increase. This is because the dwell times were so long that the frequency of trains had to be cut from 30 to 20tph!
Double deck trains would not fit in the SSL loading gauge anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2005 9:04:29 GMT
There is not the slightest prospect that a proper double-deck train could be built within the British loading gauge: there just isn't the height between the rail and the underside of bridges and tunnels. (The Bulleid stock was not really double-deck: the compartments were interlaced.)
And, as noted above, double-deck trains would not be a good idea on the Underground because of the extra delay at stations.
Double-deck trains work fine in Sydney and on the Paris RER because these services are not metros: they are suburban services extending some distance from the city centre. With journeys often lasting for 30 to 45 minutes, it is more important to provide seats than to have an intensive service.
|
|
|
|
Post by dunois on Dec 13, 2005 11:29:35 GMT
There is not the slightest prospect that a proper double-deck train could be built within the British loading gauge: there just isn't the height between the rail and the underside of bridges and tunnels. (The Bulleid stock was not really double-deck: the compartments were interlaced.) And, as noted above, double-deck trains would not be a good idea on the Underground because of the extra delay at stations. Double-deck trains work fine in Sydney and on the Paris RER because these services are not metros: they are suburban services extending some distance from the city centre. With journeys often lasting for 30 to 45 minutes, it is more important to provide seats than to have an intensive service. In Paris central area the RER is like the Victoria line aka an express metro line, distances between stations are 2km on average and with the change of the line which is 60 000 passengers per hour at the peak time (line A only) we can consider this as a metro system. Double deck trains were used initially on all the SNCF suburban lines with the first models put in service as far as 1938, but they are not good at all for dwelling time because there are only two doors per face. The new DD trains models have solved the problem by use 3 large doors per face instead of 2 and now there are no problems with dwell times. But in my opinion adopt a LU style seat map in the RER trains (not a 2x2 but rather seats in the lenght of the carriage) would have solved the problem without the purchase of DD trains. |
|
|
|
Post by ttran on Dec 13, 2005 11:34:40 GMT
I suppose that if you built a ssl gauge car but with a tube-guage chassis then it ''might'' be possible but ''very'' cramped - even more so than my rough not to scale initial ideas. You'd find that a DD train with tube underframe specs would probably be too top heavy... |
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Dec 13, 2005 11:44:46 GMT
I must admit that I haven't heard of the term 'loading gauge' before until I came here...structure gauge yes, kinematic envelope yes, loading gauge no.  Looking at its apparent lack of seating I can't see the Moor Park mob being too happy. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,441
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 13, 2005 12:27:46 GMT
Loading Gauge is a standard term (see Wikipedia). Structure gauge is not a term I've heard but it could be referring to the same thing from the opposite angle - i.e. referring to the minimum/maximum size that allow trains to pass rather than the maximum size of trains to get past/through the structures? Chris |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Dec 13, 2005 15:30:37 GMT
I must admit that I haven't heard of the term 'loading gauge' before until I came here...structure gauge yes, kinematic envelope yes, loading gauge no. Looking at its apparent lack of seating I can't see the Moor Park mob being too happy. Good lord you astonish me SK!  The term 'loading guage has been used for well over 100 years now and there used to metal 'gauge bars' over the tracks at various places to see it was not exceeded. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2005 18:04:04 GMT
The new DD trains models have solved the problem by use 3 large doors per face instead of 2 and now there are no problems with dwell times. There are still problems with dwell times on the RER despite extra doors! The dwells often exceed 50secs at the busiest stations, and careful management of the dwell times is needed (e.g audible warnings if dwell time exceeds 50secs). |
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Dec 14, 2005 8:13:44 GMT
Good lord you astonish me SK! The term 'loading guage has been used for well over 100 years now and there used to metal 'gauge bars' over the tracks at various places to see it was not exceeded. Q8/Chris, interogated a couple of my colleagues on the subject of loading gauge during last night's shift and the best I could get was "yeah the Victorians used this term a lot". Good for nothing bridges & structures engineers... Have a pic lu-engineering.fpic.co.uk/p22820335.htmlNow questions q8. Please tell me more about these metal gauge bars, i.e How did they work, size, supported off the ground or on structures, what happened to them, etc? Anyting like the crash protection beams fitted to some of our bridges over roads? |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Dec 14, 2005 10:23:46 GMT
SK I will try to find a picture of a loading gauge. They were not generally on running lines but in sidings and bays and were sometimes associated with weighbridges for freight wagons.They were suspended over the track and were of the profile of an arch. BTW I did not say that bridges and structure enginerers were good-for-nothing! I feel quite the opposite in fact for without them how does a railway get built? EDIT: The nearest I can get to a picture is this one from a modelling site. [The white bar over the wagon]  |
|
|
|
Post by dunois on Dec 14, 2005 23:15:29 GMT
The new DD trains models have solved the problem by use 3 large doors per face instead of 2 and now there are no problems with dwell times. There are still problems with dwell times on the RER despite extra doors! The dwells often exceed 50secs at the busiest stations, and careful management of the dwell times is needed (e.g audible warnings if dwell time exceeds 50secs). The problems still exists in the Line A but is far more important on the others lines where trains still have 2 doors per face. The line 14 as you maybe know was built in order to relieve thoses capacity problems, but there are still problems in the central area of the line A and at two stations you even have one station assistant per door in order to facilitate the dwelling. But the problem could be partially solved if passengers where more disciplined and where not rushing to the train where it come in the station. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2005 23:38:59 GMT
The line 14 as you maybe know was built in order to relieve thoses capacity problems, And how is Line 14 (my favourite metro line) doing these days? Is it still coping with 6car trains and average peak frequencies of 1min55secs, or do you think it will need a capacity boost soon? |
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Dec 15, 2005 9:43:07 GMT
BTW I did not say that bridges and structure enginerers were good-for-nothing! I feel quite the opposite in fact for without them how does a railway get built? Only jesting... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by dunois on Dec 15, 2005 19:39:23 GMT
The line 14 as you maybe know was built in order to relieve thoses capacity problems, And how is Line 14 (my favourite metro line) doing these days? Is it still coping with 6car trains and average peak frequencies of 1min55secs, or do you think it will need a capacity boost soon? Even with the extension of the line to Saint Lazare there is no need of extra capacity for the line yet. A capacity boost will be only be needed when the line will be extended north to Genevilliers and south to Villejuif. |
|
The term 'loading guage has been used for well over 100 years now and there used to metal 'gauge bars' over the tracks at various places to see it was not exceeded.
