We have mastered the double decker bus why not conquer the train? I appreciate bridges need adjusting but, with the sums of money discussed with trains, surely it’s cheaper just to lower the track in places compared to building brand new track?
by Liam50lb
48 comments
It’s because we already have Double Deckers in chocolate bar form as well, and it would be confusing to the masses.
If you lower track, then you put the train line out of commission for years. That’s not possible as it would cause too much disruption.
[removed]
A lot of low Victorian bridges, I suspect.
Tunnels and bridges
I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that it was our Victorian railways having low bridges, and so having to replace every road bridge that crosses a railway line with a taller one would be way too much fuss to accommodate.
I could be wrong, but that was my understanding.
Surely if capacity was the issue then the answer would be increasing the number of carriages.
A far easier solution than double decker trains given our infrastructure.
European trains use European loading gauge, both taller and wider than UK. The huge amount of modifications to infrastructure make it completely infeasible. You can’t just lower track under bridges because there might be bridge foundations in the way, drainage issues and would require a huge amount of modifications to the track to create a smooth approach to the lower section of track. Some new lines like HS1 and HS2 are built to the larger European gauge and in general it nearly always cheaper to build a new line to higher speeds and wider loading gauges than it is to modify the existing line. That’s one of the reasons HS2 actually makes sense; trying to get more capacity and speed out of the existing West Coast Mainline would cost vastly more than just building a new line from scratch.
Just on my line there are about 15-20 Victorian bridges that wouldn’t be able to take these trains
Dangerous for the birds
In addition to “bridges need adjusting”, the irony is that in many cases the electrification work is relatively new so the bridges have recently been adjusted. Months of rolling closures is one thing, a second set of months of rolling closures to demolish and rebuild the thing you only built five years ago would go down even less well.
Tunnels. Too narrow gauge.
We had one – it couldn’t run on more than one or two lines because of gauging issues and also it was hugely unpopular and not any quicker unloading(possibly worse from stories I’ve read) than just having longer trains. Granted tech has moved on but most of our lines are still the same. Spec for HS2 trains originally muted double decker but seems to have fallen away.
As someone who’s spent half of their life in the UK and the rest in NL, it’s always tickled me that you get double decker buses in one and double decker trains in the other.
This country was probably the first to introduce them.
[removed]
Because we’re running a 2024 rail network on a 1824 rail network.
We don’t want to run the risk of attracting Steven Segal should it happen to be taken over by terrorists.
All the bridges, tunnels and railway stations will need to be redesigned
How much taller are these trains? I was one one in France last week and when you get on them, on the lower floor, you’re stepping down so that you’re sat well below the platform level, with the upper floor above you. I’ll bet they’re not massively bigger. However, I’ll conceded that they’ll not fit through our tunnels as they are a snug fit.
Decades of under investment in the railway infrastructure. This is the answer to any question which begins “why do British railways…”
Apart from the infrastructure issues others have mentioned, they’re not very good for accessibility and the dwell time is longer as there are fewer doors. Also they don’t increase capacity by as much as you might think. They are cool though.
Sorry, mini rant here
Honestly it’s easier to raise the bridges than lower the track. If you lower the track you undermine the foundations of the bridges and cause a low point that needs to be drained which can mean pumps. That then needs people to maintain them and either a generator installed nearby or a mains feed brought in.
Track also needs to be lowered gradually, so if we drop the track a meter we may need to even that out over a couple of hundred meters either side. So thats wortks to all the track, earthworks, signals infrastructure, access and utilities.
Raising a bridge could be 1 to 2 million, the above is more like 3 to 5 million (roughly)
Why stop at double? If the current infrastructure can’t handle a triple decker then I don’t want to know.
We can’t even deal with single layer trains being on time and without delays. That would be a new fresh hell if we had double haha!
It’s like we never do anything sensible
Tunnels and bridges would smash the roof off
As you said,bridges. An absolute fortune to rebuild. Look at HS2 cost. Population density in England is 434 people per sq km. We ARE crowded and over built. France nearly three times as big. Lovely double decker trains in Finland- only one main station in capital city- overground ; 5.4m people in country 140% of UK; no Victorian/ Edwardian infrastructure or building; mostly built/planned from scratch in the 1960s on. That’s why.
Infrastructure. The whole network is built to accommodate single deck trains.
I love travelling on the Dutch double deck trains, and I wish they were practical here, but everything that passes over the top of a railway would have to be lifted by a good few metres.
tunnels.. bridges…
We use the smallest trains in Europe due to infrastructure ie tunnels platforms
Why stop at double-deck? Everyone has those now, and we’re the United-fucking-kingdom – we should be having triple deck, if not quad deck trains! To hell with the cost, we need to show johnny foreigner that Brittania still rules the ~~waves~~ rails!
We can’t even run single-decked trains properly. Double is just asking for trouble 🙂
Alongside all the arguments for how many resources it would need to change our existing infrastructure, we could always just add more carriages to existing trains, or add more trains to the service.
Although I admit double decker trains are very cool
But they basically found that, asides the obvious issues with low Victorian bridges etc, it took longer for people to get on and off the trains, so meant trains had to stop longer at stations. It is better to have longer trains that can seat the same amount of people as a shorter double decker train as stopping time at stations is more efficient.
Also those Dutch double decker ones have naff accessibility for disabled people.
[removed]
Good thinking, then they could disappoint twice as many people.
None or not enough of the UK infrastructure could support it same answer why they can not use bullet trains everywhere. In France they have build the network around the requirements for High Speed train usage.
They did, the Southern Railway Class 4DD was an experimental double-decker electric multiple unit built in 1949 and operated by the Southern Railway until 1971. Conceived by Oliver Bulleid for the Southern Railway’s commuter line from London Charing Cross to Dartford, the two trains were the only double-decker trains to be used on the mainline railway network in Britain.
Whilst commonly used in continental Europe and North America, the restrictive railway loading gauge in the United Kingdom prohibits normal double-decker trains with two fully separated decks.
Victorian tunnels and bridges were not designed for double decker trains.
Holy shit
We built smart motorways because adding another lane and having to demolish and widen so many bridges would cost a fortune. Same reason it won’t happen for the UK.
There will be a hundred excuses in the comments. Truthfully, we just can’t be arsed doing proper upgrades to our nationwide train system and have accepted things being shit. We won’t inconvenience ourselves even slightly to do the upgrades, and if they were done it would take 50 years and be 10x over budget.
We developed a hundred years too early and mostly are not willing to put effort into re-developing. The attitude is that is is now unfeasible because it is how it is and cannot be fixed. So we will fall behind whilst every new developing nation builds a better system. Same as what you see with the London Underground which is shambolic in terms of quality despite being a very extensive network.
Bridges tunnels ,make um longer
This is the thing about the metro mayors new Northern Powerhouse rail lines. They might well use much of the planned HS2 routes, but they aren’t built to the same standard as HS2. It isn’t just about the tunnels, but also the track bed.
My dad used to work for British Rail (in a senior position) and this was proposed in the early eighties.
My dad got to travel to varying countries to look at carriages and systems (much to my mum’s annoyance)
And he prepared a report….it basically comes down to gauge. It would have meant an entire track overhaul and no one wanted to do that or has wanted to since.
Just as an aside, the lamps in old first class (slam door) carriages were designed by my dad.
It doesn’t get what you think. It’s easier to run longer trains.
The amount of space taken up inside by the stairs, and the requirement for more/bigger doors to ensure egress is timely reduces the space available for more seats.
Making the trains longer; and platforms is easier.
In 2007 Cambridge commuter trains were 4 carriages. Upgrades to platforms and the electrical supply means they’re now, usually, 12 carriages.
48 comments
It’s because we already have Double Deckers in chocolate bar form as well, and it would be confusing to the masses.
If you lower track, then you put the train line out of commission for years. That’s not possible as it would cause too much disruption.
[removed]
A lot of low Victorian bridges, I suspect.
Tunnels and bridges
I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that it was our Victorian railways having low bridges, and so having to replace every road bridge that crosses a railway line with a taller one would be way too much fuss to accommodate.
I could be wrong, but that was my understanding.
Surely if capacity was the issue then the answer would be increasing the number of carriages.
A far easier solution than double decker trains given our infrastructure.
European trains use European loading gauge, both taller and wider than UK. The huge amount of modifications to infrastructure make it completely infeasible. You can’t just lower track under bridges because there might be bridge foundations in the way, drainage issues and would require a huge amount of modifications to the track to create a smooth approach to the lower section of track.
Some new lines like HS1 and HS2 are built to the larger European gauge and in general it nearly always cheaper to build a new line to higher speeds and wider loading gauges than it is to modify the existing line. That’s one of the reasons HS2 actually makes sense; trying to get more capacity and speed out of the existing West Coast Mainline would cost vastly more than just building a new line from scratch.
Just on my line there are about 15-20 Victorian bridges that wouldn’t be able to take these trains
Dangerous for the birds
In addition to “bridges need adjusting”, the irony is that in many cases the electrification work is relatively new so the bridges have recently been adjusted. Months of rolling closures is one thing, a second set of months of rolling closures to demolish and rebuild the thing you only built five years ago would go down even less well.
Tunnels. Too narrow gauge.
We had one – it couldn’t run on more than one or two lines because of gauging issues and also it was hugely unpopular and not any quicker unloading(possibly worse from stories I’ve read) than just having longer trains. Granted tech has moved on but most of our lines are still the same. Spec for HS2 trains originally muted double decker but seems to have fallen away.
[SR Class 4DD](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD)
As someone who’s spent half of their life in the UK and the rest in NL, it’s always tickled me that you get double decker buses in one and double decker trains in the other.
This may be of interest.
bulleidlocos.org.uk
https://www.bulleidlocos.org.uk ›
Bulleid’s 4-DD ‘Double Deck’ Electric Multiple Units.
This country was probably the first to introduce them.
[removed]
Because we’re running a 2024 rail network on a 1824 rail network.
We don’t want to run the risk of attracting Steven Segal should it happen to be taken over by terrorists.
All the bridges, tunnels and railway stations will need to be redesigned
How much taller are these trains? I was one one in France last week and when you get on them, on the lower floor, you’re stepping down so that you’re sat well below the platform level, with the upper floor above you. I’ll bet they’re not massively bigger. However, I’ll conceded that they’ll not fit through our tunnels as they are a snug fit.
Decades of under investment in the railway infrastructure. This is the answer to any question which begins “why do British railways…”
Apart from the infrastructure issues others have mentioned, they’re not very good for accessibility and the dwell time is longer as there are fewer doors. Also they don’t increase capacity by as much as you might think. They are cool though.
Sorry, mini rant here
Honestly it’s easier to raise the bridges than lower the track. If you lower the track you undermine the foundations of the bridges and cause a low point that needs to be drained which can mean pumps. That then needs people to maintain them and either a generator installed nearby or a mains feed brought in.
Track also needs to be lowered gradually, so if we drop the track a meter we may need to even that out over a couple of hundred meters either side. So thats wortks to all the track, earthworks, signals infrastructure, access and utilities.
Raising a bridge could be 1 to 2 million, the above is more like 3 to 5 million (roughly)
Why stop at double? If the current infrastructure can’t handle a triple decker then I don’t want to know.
We can’t even deal with single layer trains being on time and without delays. That would be a new fresh hell if we had double haha!
It’s like we never do anything sensible
Tunnels and bridges would smash the roof off
As you said,bridges. An absolute fortune to rebuild. Look at HS2 cost. Population density in England is 434 people per sq km. We ARE crowded and over built. France nearly three times as big. Lovely double decker trains in Finland- only one main station in capital city- overground ; 5.4m people in country 140% of UK; no Victorian/ Edwardian infrastructure or building; mostly built/planned from scratch in the 1960s on. That’s why.
Infrastructure. The whole network is built to accommodate single deck trains.
I love travelling on the Dutch double deck trains, and I wish they were practical here, but everything that passes over the top of a railway would have to be lifted by a good few metres.
tunnels.. bridges…
We use the smallest trains in Europe due to infrastructure ie tunnels platforms
Why stop at double-deck? Everyone has those now, and we’re the United-fucking-kingdom – we should be having triple deck, if not quad deck trains! To hell with the cost, we need to show johnny foreigner that Brittania still rules the ~~waves~~ rails!
We can’t even run single-decked trains properly. Double is just asking for trouble 🙂
Alongside all the arguments for how many resources it would need to change our existing infrastructure, we could always just add more carriages to existing trains, or add more trains to the service.
Although I admit double decker trains are very cool
We actually experimented using them in the [1950s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a2K0TP1lxM)
But they basically found that, asides the obvious issues with low Victorian bridges etc, it took longer for people to get on and off the trains, so meant trains had to stop longer at stations. It is better to have longer trains that can seat the same amount of people as a shorter double decker train as stopping time at stations is more efficient.
Also those Dutch double decker ones have naff accessibility for disabled people.
[removed]
Good thinking, then they could disappoint twice as many people.
None or not enough of the UK infrastructure could support it same answer why they can not use bullet trains everywhere. In France they have build the network around the requirements for High Speed train usage.
They did, the Southern Railway Class 4DD was an experimental double-decker electric multiple unit built in 1949 and operated by the Southern Railway until 1971. Conceived by Oliver Bulleid for the Southern Railway’s commuter line from London Charing Cross to Dartford, the two trains were the only double-decker trains to be used on the mainline railway network in Britain.
Whilst commonly used in continental Europe and North America, the restrictive railway loading gauge in the United Kingdom prohibits normal double-decker trains with two fully separated decks.
There is a website on the subject, [https://dart75.tripod.com/bdds.htm](https://dart75.tripod.com/bdds.htm)
Overrated imho
Victorian tunnels and bridges were not designed for double decker trains.
Holy shit
We built smart motorways because adding another lane and having to demolish and widen so many bridges would cost a fortune. Same reason it won’t happen for the UK.
There will be a hundred excuses in the comments. Truthfully, we just can’t be arsed doing proper upgrades to our nationwide train system and have accepted things being shit. We won’t inconvenience ourselves even slightly to do the upgrades, and if they were done it would take 50 years and be 10x over budget.
We developed a hundred years too early and mostly are not willing to put effort into re-developing. The attitude is that is is now unfeasible because it is how it is and cannot be fixed. So we will fall behind whilst every new developing nation builds a better system. Same as what you see with the London Underground which is shambolic in terms of quality despite being a very extensive network.
Bridges tunnels ,make um longer
This is the thing about the metro mayors new Northern Powerhouse rail lines. They might well use much of the planned HS2 routes, but they aren’t built to the same standard as HS2. It isn’t just about the tunnels, but also the track bed.
My dad used to work for British Rail (in a senior position) and this was proposed in the early eighties.
My dad got to travel to varying countries to look at carriages and systems (much to my mum’s annoyance)
And he prepared a report….it basically comes down to gauge. It would have meant an entire track overhaul and no one wanted to do that or has wanted to since.
Just as an aside, the lamps in old first class (slam door) carriages were designed by my dad.
It doesn’t get what you think. It’s easier to run longer trains.
The amount of space taken up inside by the stairs, and the requirement for more/bigger doors to ensure egress is timely reduces the space available for more seats.
Making the trains longer; and platforms is easier.
In 2007 Cambridge commuter trains were 4 carriages. Upgrades to platforms and the electrical supply means they’re now, usually, 12 carriages.