Why We Should Move Away from Double Deckers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- Double Deckers may seem like an obvious solution to bring our ridership numbers up, but is it really the best choice we have?
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=TIMESTAMPS=
00:00 Introduction
01:36 Why am I talking about this?
02:10 When to use single vs double decker
06:32 The Single-Deck Opportunity
09:18 How to apply these ideas to New Jersey & Toronto
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
=PATREON & UA-cam MEMBERSHIPS=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon or right here on UA-cam! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
UA-cam Memberships: / @rmtransit
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: reecemartin.ca
Substack: reecemartin.substack.com
=ABOUT ME=
Hi, my name's Reece. I'm a passionate Creator, Transportation Planner, and Software Developer, interested in rapid transportation all around my home base of Toronto, Canada, as well as the whole world!
Solution to make double decker trains more viable: double decker stations.
The doors are all on the lower level though.
@@tylerhergott3893 I was joking, but, if you’re going to try double decker stations you could order custom trains with doors on the upper level.
LOL
This is what will happen:
You buy a ticket
you get the allocated platform
you get on!
you ride
you get off
and do ur blah blah blah
@@chrispontani6059 Like I said to another commentor: I’m kidding. I know it’s a terrible idea.
@@fernbedek6302 You could try platforms on both sides of the train. One for exiting passengers and one for entering passengers. No crossing passengers at the entrance/exit and on the platform means faster loading/reloading passengers. It is done in The Netherlands at a terminus station in Zandvoort at the beach, where at busy times more trains can be scheduled between Amsterdam and the beach town. Normally they could schedule four trains an hour at busy times, with these extra platforms they can schedule trains every 5minutes.
Heresy!
EDIT: I feel like this is more of a North American issue, as in: investment was made into double deckers first, which cut down of frequency, worsening the service. Double deckers make sense however if you have a suburban network of single level MUs, and you need to dump additional capacity on the lines. They might also be a better solution for lower-GDP countries if the maintenance costs are comparable; if they need to maintain, say, 50 single levels and 20 double deckers instead of 100 single levels.
The Swiss will disagree...
Switzerland has one of the greatest train systems in the world, with a LOT of double decker trains, all fully accessible.
Also Paris RER A has 2 minute headways and only uses double decker trains
The Swiss system is certainly excellent but I'm not sure it's really transferrable
I would imagine the Paris RER would struggle to run anything better than 2 min headway’s
Switzerland only uses double Deckers for long distance trains with few stops.
Local trains in Switzerland are single level, as it should always be
@@AlohaBiatch That‘s not true at all. The S-Bahn Zürich runs basically exclusively double-deck, as do some S-Bahn Bern lines, and that without any issues.
@@bahnspotterEU ah, interesting, I didn't know about Zurich. I was thinking about Geneva and Lausanne, never been to the German speaking part.
I like how the Netherlands embodies your vision: all the local "Sprinter" trains are single-level with lots of doors and standing room, while most of the express "Intercity" trains are bilevel with lots of seats.
fun fact: the Netherlands actually once had double decker regional trains, but they've since either been taken out of service or modernized for intercity service (plus, new double decker trains were ordered since, also for intercity service). maybe GO should buy single-level trains and VIA should buy bilevels.
@@billythorne I do miss the regional double deckers tbh. Prefer them over the sprinters
@@Quentin-vi4zi While I miss them, we demanded less delays.
The Netherlands has a big problem with platform heights and accessibility though, the mid (760mm) height platforms means it's basically impossible to make a double decker train with level boarding. For this reason NS is trying to move away from bilevels where possible.
@@wewillrockyou1986 760mm is indeed an extremely awkward height for bilevels, but it is not impossible. There are a couple different options to provide level boarding:
There can be a ramp within the coach upwards from the lower level to the door, as with the Siemens Desiro HC used by RRX in Germany.
Or the doors can be in small single-deck coaches between each double deck coach, as in the Bombardier Regio 2N
Double decker trains are a novelty to us Brits - blame our old low-ceiling tunnels - but we do double decker busses really well in London
Double decker busses are everywhere in the UK, and Hong Kong. They're practically non-existent anywhere else though oddly which kind of baffles me given how simple they are to the obvious issue of wanting to get more people on a bus route without more traffic on the roads.
@@RoamingAdhocrat That's also how most are in the UK? Also isn't Germany still super cash centric for practiucally everything?
Up until Sydney finally built its new Metro line, its entire suburban rail network fleet was, for a long time, double deck. Silly. I've always thought it's more ego driven than anything practical. Melbourne is only a tiny bit smaller in population and while it's a considerable stretch to say that the network manages peak hour just fine, it still doesn't really need any double deckers that badly.
Singapore is probably unique in the world in having almost the same number of single & double-decker buses, with many services running a mix of both
@@RoamingAdhocrat You cannot buy tickets with cash on London double decker busses. I know that because I tried it and the bus driver just looked at me confused. Fortunately he waved me through.
Lesson learned: Get an Oyster Card.
In Berlin on the other hand you have to buy tickets with cash (or you had to before the drivers were walled off with plastic foil because of covid).
Reese bringing out the controversy lol.
If Railfans dictated rolling stock they would have Frankenstein GG1 on the NEC ALCO's Chugging in the Hudson Tunnels and Bigboys operating On Long Distance(Thats A Stretch tho).
Wouldn't a refurbished GG1 look great on a regional!
and for the coaches if railfans dictate rolling stock: budd streamline and pullman harriman coaches on commuter rails, and hi levels built by budd used on the long distances
DL&W MU cars and MP54s on electric commuter service.
According to recent Trains Magazine "Ask Trains" it would be virtually impossible to restore and operate a GG1 due to outmoded transformer and asbestos. One supposes a GG1 style shell could be mounted on a modern electric locomotive platform.
When the UP Big Boy went on tour a couple of years ago I missed seeing it as they pushed up the schedule to get into Chicago earlier. Did see the Challenger when it was on it's way though.
Double-deckers on the lines with large passenger exchange on multiple stations - yeah, that might be a good idea. But on the other hand, double deckers are crucial on many European regional routes (there are almost emblematic for German RegioExpress lines for example) and some intercity routes as well (e.g. in the Netherlands and Belgium - but there these are more of a nicer RegioExpresses, due to the size of the countries, but there are being now implemented as intercity routes in Germany and of course we have to remember about double decker TGVs). Quite often however the entrances are getting very, very busy, so that's why these are not used on regular shorter city routes.
What strikes me with North American commuter double deckers is that they seem to be quite badly designed in terms of maximizing the number of seats, although they look cool. I agree that their usage on the city lines is rather not optimal, but with some longer commuter connections, with shorter platforms etc, I kinda understand their existence.
I just wonder how well double-decker RERs work, as these are on the central part more similar to Crossrail than to RegioExpress. It could be the case most similar to North American or Australian ones.
those are some pretty great points
Yeah but that's why I made explicit mention of them not being suited to local lines. Of course they are good for longer distance services.
I absolutely hate the new bi-level IC-2 Train sets in Germany.
The IC-2 train sets are basically glorified Regional-Rail bi-level cars. I feel like the only difference between comment bi-level cars is that the IC-2 are painted white with a red stripe and Regional Rail is painted Red with a white stripe.
@@IamTheHolypumpkin That‘s because that‘s what they are, but not the fault of them being double-deckers. Ride the SBB IC2000 and you‘ll see how nice a double-deck InterCity can be. DB was just lazy and didn’t put any effort into the design. They didn‘t care about getting a good product.
Very well thought out video: having been a regular rider of Swiss RE bi-levels, i note the Canadian rolling stock has very narrow doors, and no level boarding; level boarding rapidly reduces dwell as there is less challenge and wider doors allow more people-per-second or even people do board and disembark simultaneously.
Another point, the mezzanines are not for doors, but for bogies; doors can go on any of the three levels depending on your platform height (potential solution, multi-level boarding?!), where as the bogies always have to be accommodated. Swiss RE all have bottom floor loading, especially useful for the bike wagons as no steps!
Yeah I addressed the bogies in this video: ua-cam.com/video/HGzD7S2Xrjs/v-deo.html
@@RMTransit Lol Imagine quoting your own video back at you! That'd be a stupid thing to do!
What're your thoughts on door width, or is it only quantity that matters?
Of course door width is really important as well, but doors can only be so wide! And you can widen doors on single level trains too
@@Hevlikn One has to realize that we're in Canada. Which mean WINTER. Unless you want to ride in a frigg you don't want the doors to be too wide or too numerous!
@ Another reason to have covered stations with a full roof?
I think a 4 minutes headway with 120 second dwell time for double deck trains is too lenient. Sydney runs double deck trains in the city operate every 3 minutes
It's a hypothetical example where it's packed to the rafters as he mentions.
Lol Sydney's trains at 3 minute headways are packed to the rafters.
The lines they run on around the city circle were originally designed for 42 trains an hour (~82 second headways) but don't do it anymore for whatever reason. Also the longest dwell times Sydney trains normally get up to is about 80 seconds, and this mainly happens because Sydney has so few city stations, so rather than everyone being spread out between a bunch of stations they all get off at the same place. If this happens with single deck trains it can take about 60 seconds.
@@pwhnckexstflajizdryvombqug9042
Not packed to absolute crush capacity. Crowded, but not the crush rating.
If it went single decker, the dwell time will come down to 30-40 seconds. Busy Melbourne underground stations like Melbourne Central and Parliament is down there.
@@fireraintalk2967 That's true but once I was in Melbourne and it took about 100 seconds to load a train up because it was quite busy. You really have to design systems for the worst case dwell time otherwise all you'll get is reliability problems.
@@pwhnckexstflajizdryvombqug9042 Except during AFL matches or drive change at Flinders St, it's almost never over 40 seconds. Sydney Trains goes over 40 seconds at CBD stations during regular peak service.
I thought for a hot second that you were talking about double decker buses and as a Londoner I was visibly enraged.
same ngl, though I'd never sit on the top level.
@@xander1052 Why, does it stink too much of weed or something for you
@@JacobOhlssonBudinger I just don't like walking up and down the stairs to get on and off the bus, rather the quicker time on and off as I just want to get to my location.
@@xander1052 Fair enough I guess. Tbh I kinda enjoy running down the stairs before the bus has stopped so I normally end up too deck
That runs into a similar issue, though.
Even though I love the double deckers in Sydney there are other problems they have. The doors are at the ends of the carriages on the intermediate level, which we call the vestibule area. When the carriages start to fill up people don‘t want to move further into the train. The area near the doors can get very crowded, making it harder to get on an off if you are on the upper or lower deck, thus making dwell times longer.
These areas are also the only place you can be if you have luggage, a pram or a bicycle, making it harder for others to move through if it starts to get crowded. The first time I rode the Sydney Metro line, where the seats are longitudinal and there is a lot of standing space, I thought they would be great to have on the airport line. You can be anywhere on the train with luggage.
I get where you're coming from but I don't think it quite applies to NJT. _Especially_ on the services to Penn Station. Until there's a new set of tunnels under the Hudson, one of the last things NJT should be focusing on is shortening headway. The station already has a crowding problem. And...yeah, NJT doesn't have high-level platforms system-wide
Upgrading to high level platforms broadly should be a priority
“You need to buy the trains!”
*The Arrow III would like a word.*
*modern*
@@RMTransit Is it bad that I consider the Arrow III to still be better than the Bombardier MultiLevel, despite the former being all raggedy from age and high use?
@@RMTransit An EMU, single level, chock full of doors. It's old, but otherwise perfect!
@@chrispontani6059 Speaking of SEPTA, that Silverliner V is just insulting. At best, it's only slightly better than older Silverliners because at least some of the doors are closer to the middle of the car instead of the end, but the doorways are simply not designed for any significant capacity. Denver has better-designed ones, though this also has to do with the system they're used for being pretty recent.
Montréal's MR-90's electric multiple units are now for sale. There were some doubts as to whether they can keep up with the NJT 1125 hp Arrow III married pair (2 mph/s initial acceleration up to 15 mph), but the MR-90's are rated at 1520 hp per married pair and could easily keep up even with only half their axles motorized (1.5 mph/s nominal, 1.75 mph/s actual acceleration up to 30 mph). Re-gearing of the MR-90's would be needed to bring them from 75 mph original design speed (limited to 68 mph) to 100 mph.
I think it's not a very sound argument to dismiss double-deckers because they can't uphold 2-minute headways. In my opinion no conventional rail system should be expected to run at those frequencies, that's why metros exist. Conventional commuter/regional rail lines should primarily serve as longer distance services allowing people who really don't live in the city to travel into downtown. Alternatively they should allow those who live near the comparatively few regional rail stations within the city to travel into downtown faster, albeit less frequently.
For frequent travel within the city, a metro should be used primarily. Metro lines should intersect with regional trains at regional rail stations within the city to allow for maximum interchange options.
I also don't see a need for services like NJ Transit to run at such extreme frequencies that would abolutely require single-deck rolling stock, a stopping train along the NEC every 15 minutes in the peak is probably the most that could be needed, with half-hourly service off-peak. Those frequencies can easily be maintained with double deckers, without sacrificing potential capacity due to dwell times.
I don't think it's so much that each individual line/service needs high frequency in similar way as a metro line, but more that it's common for several suburban lines or branches to combine into a single city-centre corridor, and it's in the central corridor where the dwell time issue arises.
@@Nouvellecosse exactly! There are many systems worldwide where different lines combine into one trunk line in the city, which results in a very high frequency there
@@nicolasblume1046 Yeah, but how many of those run double-deckers? Two that I know of. And sacrificing seats further down the line so that trains can run at ridiculous frequencies through a few shared stations isn’t a good compromise in my opinion.
@@bahnspotterEU I can't least give the example of the RER A in Paris operates double decker Trains. There are several branches (3 on the western side and 2 on the eastern side) that converge in the center. Between Vincennes and La Défense where all the branches share the tracks, there are 7 stops (including the first one so 6 "spaces between stops"). At peak hours the frequency is 1 train/3 minutes and the 6 stops are done in 19 minutes by a train so 3 minutes between each stop and 54kph (33mph) average (for 17km). So it is possible to have good performances with bilevel trains on a packed line (1.4 million travellers per working day). But I have to admit that the trains have A LOT of doors (30 each side I think).
The double deckers have led to less frequency even with the crazy 3 doors per car iirx
I think metro networks should stick with single-deck sets with many doors while regional trains, which can afford longer dwell times, can use double-decker sets for those that need to carry many passengers.
The rail fleet here is exclusively double decker, and it works well. Most people can get a seat in peak hour and all in off-peak. At my station, trains are 15 minute intervals throughout the day, but other on the line have closer intervals in peak hours. You do refer to trains in Sydney, but you do not seem to have had any experience of them.
Exactly, people who have not generally experienced an extensive bilevel network dont know just how effective it can be and tend to over exaggerate the headways. my transfer onto T4 at wolli creek during peak hour sees a train each way roughly every 2-3 minutes with a 30s dwell at most despite being full to the rafters. It also allows more people to sit which for a suburban service is more important than standing capacity.
Double deck carriages started in Sydney nearly 60 years ago in suburban multiple unit trains. Sydney provides 8 carriage trains in almost all services, comprised of electric multiple units, and has done so for many more than the 60 year's I've been travelling to/from uni and then work. At first, the carriages were all single-deck, but then double-deck trailer carriages were introduced. The multiple units originally consisted of 4 carriages, normally couple together to provide 8 carriage trains. In the mid-1960's double deck trailer carriages were introduced and comprised carriages 2,3, 6 and 7 of these units. After a comparatively short period, the technology allowed the provision of double deck power cars as well, so that the entire train became double-deck. Over time, air-conditioning was introduced, and train sets for outer suburban use were provided. Nowadays, almost all the Sydney and outer-suburban fleet comprised these double deck, air-conditioned units.
With odd exceptions, none of the problems you envisage has been experienced. Entry/exit is via wide-opening sliding doors, people know when their train is nearing the destination and ready themselves to alight. It works. What you say may sound right in theory, but it's not how it works in practice.
😊
So I believe NJT is planning to buy new bilevel emu’s soon to replace the old arrow emu’s as well as some of their other engine lead trains. They’re halfway there but the thing is that the entire system isn’t electrified (the Bergen and Main Lines are the only major lines still waiting to be electrified) and not every station has long, high level platforms. This is especially the case on the Morris and Essex line where there’s a ton of low level stations where only a few cars can fit. Along with this, more frequent trains into Penn isn’t possible and won’t be for years since the Hudson tunnels are at capacity and need to be replaced, so an alternative could be running more trains out of Newark Penn instead or Hoboken. I like this video, but it was kind of a reach for certain parts
The Raritan Valley Line and the North Jersey Coast Line south of Long Branch aren't electrified either.
Add on to the fact that Multilevel 3s have been pushed back about a year because Bombardier supposedly screwed the load calc and now they need a new truck design.
Yeah….about NJ Transit having high platforms. I wish it was system wide.
I was going to comment on this too. NJ doesn't have high platforms everywhere. On the M&E line they have a mix, for example.
@@jpg3702 yeah I went to college on the M&E boy was that a culture shock
You're comment on urban sprawl was spot on. I've become acutely aware of how much of my life is wasted traveling between places that have vast expanses of basically nothing between them when you could just place things closer together and leave some nice sleepy rural space intact as well without the need to constantly expand into it.
New Jersey Transit is currently awaiting the delivery of a new order of multilevel cars. Included in this will be an MU version which can be put either in a set of other MUs or within a set of coaches with a locomotive to supplement power. Should be interesting to see this when it happens in a few years.
Well realistically you will rarely need 2 minute headway’s and the station time is often times more than the time it takes to embark and disembark. And also one of the steepest going trains is the duplex tgv in France wich is a double decker. Double deckers are not ideal for the most local trains but perfect for medium distance rides
Tokyo's _Yamanote_ line reaches 2 min headway IIRC
Don't forget that the timetable is set up to give the train the time it needs in a station.
So, if all the rolling stock takes 5 minutes per station, and the schedulers gave it 2 minutes, the schedule would constantly be screwed up. So the shedulers would give the rolling stock the 5 minutes, and that would make the time in the station feel normal.
We have had rolling stock replacements on railway lines in the UK, followed up by the timetable being changed. The new rolling stock sits around for longer, while the fleet still contains some old rolling stock, but once the transition is complete, they can redesign the rolling stock.
For an extreme example, take a look at the S-Stock trains that got swapped out for older stock on the District Line, Circle Line, Hammersmith and City Line and Metropolitan Line on London Underground. That was bought in order to allow the 4 Lines Modernisation plan, where signalling would be replaced and then new equipment would be installed into the S-Stock trains, in order to free up small amounts of journey time between each station.
if you can induce demand onto a train line, you end up needing to do stuff like the 4 Lines Modernisation, to squeeze minutes out of your rolling stock journey.
Double decker trains grandfather in extra time in the stations. But they also increase the number of accidents, where people stumble down staircases and decrease the ability of wheelchair-bound passengers to use trains.
I feel like this video always presumes that rail lines have no other trains running on them than the local commuter trains you are assessing double decker trains on. In Germany‘s train network (and many other European ones as well), regional trains only have very limited time slots they can fit in so they usually can only run so often (once or twice an hour), as they share their tracks with long distance, Freight and sometimes even S-Bahn trains which all run on different speeds. Regional Express trains in particular would not work without Bi-level coaches here, as increasing the frequency is rarely possible and platform length is limited (usually to ~150m).
Great point. Those same problems very much exist in New Jersey with NJT trains as well. Most of NJTs routs are meant to get commuters into New York which is severely limited due to only a pair of tunnels connecting New York to these lines. Plus, with so many trains already running on NJT lines, Amtrak also has heavy needs for the tunnels as well. Until new tunnels are built, New Jersey Transit won’t be able to increase frequency and will only be able to cope with riders by using larger double decker trains
Sydney was way ahead of its time. Double decker trains were introduced in the mid-60's which means the tunnels were built to their heights back then which could be a challenge to other cities with existing single-deck train tunnel system.
Reece, this is another excellent video with great insight. When Melbourne was constructing the City Loop in 1971 it was designed to accommodation the double decker trains that Sydney was using. However, the government never went down that path for all the reasons you annunciated; long dwell times, slower acceleration etc. Furthermore, I know from Sydney Trains staff that double decker trains never run at full capacity, for once all the seats are taken people congregate at the door entrances. This means that it is a slow uncomfortable hassle for those who are seated to squeeze past the crowd who are standing in the doorway and alight the train. When the NSW government made the "courageous" decision - a quote from Yes Prime Minister - to go with single deck automated metro trains the outcry was huge - you would have thought that it was the end of civilization as we know it, but that is human nature; we hate change.
BTW Sydney Trains are moving to GoA2 automation with ETCS level 2 and ATO which should improve capacity. Siemens have been awarded the contract to convert the T4 line at the Bondi Junction and Cronulla ends.
As a daily traveller on double decker trains (in the Netherlands and Germany) may I offer a few observations? Dutch double deckers have a small mezzanine, which enables quick alighting as people will be waiting on the stairs to get out. German DDs on the other hand, have a quite labyrinthine system where entering you first step down inside a train and then take two flights of stairs up. This seems to slow things considerably.
In the NL, many single-deckers have two exits per side per car, just like double deckers, so there is not really a great difference in alighting and entering speeds. And double deckers are often a necessity because of passenger volumes combined with the limited length of platforms. On high-interval sections (much of the Dutch railways are a de facto S-Bahn system) we use single-deckers though.
At New Jersey Transit what they actually have to do is reduce the train length during off peak hours. On my line which is the Northeast Corridor NJT operates one train an hour each direction off peak and they do this with 10 car multi level trains. Soon they are getting multi level EMU trains and they should definitely order more cab cars so off peak they can cut a 12 car train to a 3 or 6 car train off peak and operate trains every 20-30 minutes to farther destinations such as Princeton Junction and Trenton and every 10-15 minutes to destinations closer to New York such as Newark, Newark Airport, Elizabeth and Edison.
I live in Southern Germany, near Stuttgart, and my Bundesland introduced a new brand for its entire public transportation with a uniform design, new EMUs commissioned for each partial network and some sort of fare and timetable integration. Now most of it is quite hilly, there's the black forest... and people were actually complaining that they introduced EMUs on those lines with their tight curves and steep grades. The old bilevels in DB livery were just so much prettier and they were locomotive-hauled so they must be inherently better, right? More capacity, sure, and station distance is rather high by German standards, but if they actually cared enough about their train access for their opinions to matter they'd understand why a single block of power pulling a long chain of heavy dumb cars behind it will always deliver inferior performance to that chain of cars with distributed power and traction instead.
As of former resident of New Jersey who used NJ Transit daily when I lived there and uses it now when I visit, I do not see any difference between dwell times at stations between the double deckers in current use vs. the old single level cars NJ Transit used when I lived there. I also feel the locomotive hauled double deckers leave the station just as quickly (if not faster) than the old single level cars. God forbid NJ Transit would ever order new equipment for use on commuter lines whose interiors look like subway cars. Interiors on commuter line trains need to have lots of seating with power outlets, especially with many riders using phones and laptops to work while commuting. Subway style interiors just won't cut it on commuter lines.
Not New York subway no, but plenty of subways have better layouts for longer distances!
I think a perfect example of a regional rail line that could benefit from Bilevel cars would be CTrail from Old Saybrook/New London and Hartford/Springfield to Penn/Grand Central which would also be combined with platform extensions and a complete unification of CTrail and Metro-North New Haven Line services essentially letting Shoreline East and The Hartford Line act as both one seat rides between Eastern & Central CT and New York, as well as acting as additional New Haven Line trains thus helping to justify the increased capacity.
Actually, the high capacity NJ transit routes don't always operate Bilevel trains. On the NEC and NJ coast line, for example, the express trains are bilevel, but local services use single level Arrow EMU's, which are soon getting replaced.
Me: *reads the title, pulls out pitchfork*
Reece: "Double-decker *trains* "
Me: *puts pitchfork away*
Double Deckers are great for regional rail here in Germany. These types of rail usually collect lots of people from smaller towns and drive the to the big cities and vice versa. With only a couple Dozen people getting on/off at every stations the diminished boarding speed doesn't really matter, but you get a lot of capacity. In the bigger cities the train stays for about 10-20 mins and the drives the same route the other way around.
Double decker trains are also great on services that operate as a hybrid of metro and regional rail like RER (or a theoretical double decker BART that doesn't exist). The upper seats serve as a comfortable place for people traveling on through service, freeing up the lower deck for people who are using the vehicle in the denser city center stops. In fact, a good design could be to have very few seats on the bottom level -- maybe bench seating -- while traditional seats are reserved for the upper level, increasing the capacity for short/dense distance standing passengers on the lower deck.
This is actually why I like the gallery cars on Caltrain. If I'm only going a couple of stops I can stay on the lower level, while the upper seats are a bit inconvenient to get to but a great place to be if I'm going to be there a long time, with the added bonus of no through foot traffic in the aisle. This design could also gave you lots of doors on the lower levelas the top level is accessed via a single set of stairs instead of the mezzanine layout on cars like the Bombardier Bi-level.
This is similar to the reason double decker trains did not catch on in Japan. The double decker E4 series shinkansen will be retiring in October and replaced with the single decker E7 series.
I think the thing you miss about NJ transit is that they can’t increase frequency into Penn Station because of the constraints of the North River Tunnels. They run double deckers to get the most out of their allotted runs in Penn. But I do agree with this video’s sentiment overall and when the gateway tunnel opens, NJ transit should definitely move away from double deckers.
I was thinking that, at most stations, there isn't that much onboarding/offboarding, so they could have shorter dwell times. But, at the big central city stations, i.e. Union, is going to need a longer dwell time. Does the longest dwell time in the system have a knock-on effect limiting the maximum frequency?
I don't know about Canada but in New Jersey they can't really get rid of double deckers. It is a regional system not a local/city system with long headways that are baked in, and also they have severe capacity constraints with the number of trains they can run into New York Penn Station. They simply don't have the option to cut their headways on Penn-bound services, double the number of trains, so they have to maximize the capacity of each train. And I don't think any sane person would be like "let's just have more people standing on single-deckers because ... reasons"
I live in San Diego, California, where double-decker coaches are in use on both Amtrak's inter-city _Pacific_ _Surfliner_ to Los Angeles and the _Coaster_ commuter trains. In fact, apart from the San Diego Trolley, I think the only single-level coaches I have ridden in are museum trains! Good points and interesting ideas, RMTransit! I think I will do some studying on North American single-level coaches, as well as multiple units!
Hello again! I grew up in Asbury Park NJ as a Kid... You are talking more about the Trenton-Northeast Corridor line more than the second line, North Jersey Coast line to "shore points". Yes, I agree with having newer EMUs, but the stations at many spots were built to Steam standards with on ground platforms. Going with the newer stock, some stations had to close off streets to lengthen the platforms, Red Bank is 1 example. A huge glitch in the North Jersey Coast line, the Swing Bridge between Avon-by-the-Sea and Belmar, there's no good way to rebuild the bridge for electrification, due to the fishing marina in Belmar. So, NJ Transit created a terminus at Long Branch NJ, where older EMUs and newer Double Decker electric loco hauled trains start the morning rush from and a few stable overnight. And another problem came to light, where this station is located, the stabling yard is short for the length of the newer double decker trains used. Since Long Branch is a terminus, only two cars are boarded, then passengers can fill in the remaining cars after departure. I have tons of info and history! Thanks to my Dad, who worked for United Airlines since '65, for getting into modeling any form of Transit, then I served in the US Navy... I rode the Hong Kong subway and Trains in S. Korea and Southern tip of Japan in the late 80s...
NJ Transit's biggest constraint is the Hudson Tubes (& Portal bridge). Once these are expanded / replaced (10+ years at least), thought can be given to increasing frequency into NYC. Otherwise, double deckers with less frequency are going to have to make do.
When I am on double decker trains, I only use the upper floor, if I am going longer distances. People who have to get off the train get up a little earlier. Very busy stations have two island platforms, so boarding times with trains going the same directions can overlap, or at least can be timed more aggressively. Also, the upper floor is usually relatively nice and quiet.
Trinity Railway Express in Dallas is considering a long-term plan to either rehab their existing double-decker fleet or go with DMUs similar to Fort Worth's TEXRail service. The TRE double-decker cars are cumbersome to board, especially for a wheelchair passenger, while the TEXRail DMUs are low floor and single-deck trainsets.
Completely agree. But in Sydney, it is clear that outer suburban commuters are prepared to trade off speed and frequency for a seat. The solution would be to but single deck S-bahn style trains on the inner services and keep the DDs for the longer routes. This is fine for most of the system because the inner lines are just about all quadruple and the two types can be separated. But what about the city centre bits (city circle, airport line, bondi junction) would it be possible to mix the two operational models?
Sydney did operate single, double and mixed suburban trains. Putting single deck cars on the inner suburban areas probably wouldn't improve things too much though. Unless they terminate at Central, they still have to travel on at least part of the City Circle. They have spent some money separating the different lines though, which has helped. You could run single deckers on a loop City Circle/Lidcombe/Regents Park/Bankstown/City Circle. Oh, wait, the line to Bankstown is being converted to metro. That seems to be the way that Sydney's train system will grow - via metro. When it gets expanded out to Bankstown andParramatta, that should remove some of the demand off the City Circle, for a while anyway.
Single decker trains on T4 wouldn't work in my eyes, I commute on T4 and T8 daily and whenever I change onto T4, there is barely enough room to step onto the train with people behind me still getting on with trains that have 5 minute or less headways, now imagine the same with single decker trains where all that will change is that more people will be forced to stand squished among the crowd
I’m from Chicago. Our commuter rail service Metra is barely double decker. We have these weird things called gallery cars and they only have one door on each side. They have full sized seats on the bottom floor but on the top floor it’s all single seating because of this weird drop through in the middle of the car. The reason for that is so the conductor doesn’t have to go upstairs to collect tickets. Also most of our trains aren’t just older, they are oooollllldddd! How old? Well many of our gallery cars were built as early as 1951. Yeah we’re still operating 70 year old trains. Luckily Metra plans on phasing out the gallery cars completely but not for another like 30 years. The first new cars won’t be delivered until like 2040
You are correct but I don't think that double decker trains reduce the headway of the line by as much as you suggest. Also, yes they are heavier and have worse power to weight ratios, but these are probably not as important factors considering the power to weight ratio is decided by how much is required (when the train is being designed) and can be increased on both types of trains. Given enough motors and driving wheels double deck trains can accelerate just as fast as single deck trains (at least at the "limit of comfort" suggested to be about 1.3m/s/s) It may cost more to do so, but it is possible. Also, the loading and unloading times are really only a significant factor when loading is very high, most of the time both types are able to keep loading under 30 seconds. What this means is only very busy station have trouble, which can theoretically be given multiple platforms to split the services between, a small additional cost for the same overall line headways.
What also needs to be considered is that the railway capacity of a line is only important when it is being reached, and in an ideal world you don't want to operate train services at such high capacities, people would much rather sit down and spread out. If a line is approaching capacity it should be substituted by new railway lines. Obviously this rarely happens but railway lines aren't particularly sustainable when they operate at such high capacities and there are many lines around the world that's goal is not to be the world's busiest train system but instead something more comfortable.
Passengers do also appreciate being able to sit down, so they will prefer a quad track line running 15 bi-level trains an hour on each set, to a cattle class metro. Really cities could just be running single deck trains in peak and double deck during off peak.
tbh the double decker train could be the Standler KISS like what Caltrain want's
Ideally for fast growing cities, we want heavy loading on trains, that means we're running the right services!
Plenty of cities around the world don't have the passenger demand to run single decker trains every 5 minutes or less. Double decker trains require significantly more energy than single decker trains to accelerate and decelerate their heavier mass between stations. In the urban rail context where stations are placed 0.8 km - 6 km apart, the maintenance and energy expenditure of lighter single decker trains can become significant over their heavier double decker counterparts. It's much easier to fill up a single decker train in order to achieve higher average occupancy throughout the day.
Sydney Trains and Paris RER use 8 and 10 carriage double decker trains respectively which tend to run full during the peak hours, and nearly empty during the off peak hours. Public transport agencies should try to focus on high levels of service, the appropiate vehicle size and an average occupancy of 40% or more for a multi modal system. In some cases where the public transport agency doesn't have enough trains for the peak hours, people should be encouraged to commute in earlier hours or later hours for the morning and afternoons respectively. New trains are extremely expensive to purchase due to their tailor made designs often leading to no-bid contracts.
@@michaeleverett1479: Sydney trains do run at fair capacities during off peak hours, having travelled on many of these routes they are pretty much 60% (seats) filled all through the day.
In 1964 when Sydney introduced double deck trains there were actually lighter than the existing single deck cars of the same length, this is because the new designs introduced lighter materials than before. Since then trains have gotten heavier but only due to the addition of equipment (such as air conditioning) but otherwise the weight difference between a double and single is actually almost insignificant, Waratah train cars are 48 or so tonnes, which easily fits within the range of standard carriage weights, with many passenger cars around the world weighing up to 68 tonnes. Obviously they can carry more people so more weight when loaded but that is justified by the fact that they have more people. Diesel powered rail for example weigh quite a bit more.
So you say run a metro around the City Circle?
The Dutch system which is very dense uses double decker trains for the Randstad (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Den Haag, Haarlem, Leiden, Delft, Dordrecht, Zaandam, etc.)
The Randstad is more or less half the size of Chicago metro area in land size.
And single decker trains for outside the Randstad (less dense areas). Some cities outside the Randstad like Eindhoven, Breda, Maastricht and Deventer can also feature double deckers.
The line that runs between Amsterdam-The Hague-Rotterdam runs with very high frequency (I believe it's down to 10 minutes in Rush hour). About every 30 minutes in regular frequency. And low frequency past midnight (every hour or so).
Also the double decker trains have 2 entrances on each side. The entrances have two doors and you can even bring your bike for an extra cost.
Lastly, during rush hour trains fill up. It's common to stand for at least one or two stops if you're going from Rotterdam to Amsterdam (and viceversa). The trajectory lasts around 1hr.
It's a shame you didn't talk about mixed height trains.
I might do an entirely separate video on them, I mentioned them here: ua-cam.com/video/HGzD7S2Xrjs/v-deo.html
Common on some MBTA Commuter lines. I think the single level cars work better for ADA accessibility at stations with mostly low level platforms and just one section of high level.
Or it could be that it took longer to get bi-level cab cars. 🤷♂️
I love your QOTSA shirts. Don't let people discourage you.
Until the new rail tunnels under the Hudson River are built and the existing ones rehabilitated, you *can’t* “simply” add more frequent lower passenger capacity NJ Transit trains headed to NY Pen Station.
We have double deck trains here in Austria ....seem to work fine , no complaints ..... also most double deck trains in Europe seem to cope well .... most of the rail companies actually made more use from the ground formally taken away by long platforms for longer trains , therefore freeing up space for park and ride getting less people to use their cars to go into cities.....as for boarding times I am not sure you got that one correct , average wait at a station for both double decker's and single deck carriages is around a minute if that .... most trains here get away on time with the odd delay due to other circumstances like mechanical failures , all trains here have 2 entrance / exit doors on each end of the carriage with wide gangways to allow ease of boarding and exiting , also enough space at each end for wheelchairs and prams ... it depends on how the operator performs with the rolling stock they choose to operate with or if they are dictated to what stock they use like the DfT do in the UK ....
I took a double decker train from Minneapolis to Chicago and it was pretty nice on the upper deck. Although it seems it would be more difficult for disabled or elderly passengers. The trips are pretty long and stops not all that frequent, so makes sense.
The train was very spacious and comfortable compared to an airplane, but the trip duration is also about seven times a flight's (ignoring traveling to airport, security line, waiting to board and so on).
The only TFL (London overall not just overground) services that have blended seating styles are the metropolitan line, Bakerloo line (which is likely to go once the new stock comes in as the current one is from the 1970's), the DLR and Crossrail
Can single-level trains also take curves at higher speeds safely due to lower COG? Might be a minuscule improvement to average speed, depending on corridor geometry, but every little bit helps!
Typically safety margins are high enough, the limiting factor is passenger comfort.
Japan has virtually done away with double decker trains (Tokaido Sen and Yokosuka Line use them for their Green Car business class sevices) for the reasons Reese has outline here. That being said, if you want faster loading and unloading at GO Stations, you will have to allow for level boarding and I assume Union Station would have to be redeveloped to handle to higher frequencies.
In the UK we have similar problems with trains that have 2+3 seating. Due to the terrible way our rail system was setup with franchises bidding for contracts often companies would include 2+3 seating in their bids to claim they can move more passengers. The problem with that was on UK loading gauge there just isn't the space so you end with very narrow seats and aisles. People would avoid using the middle seat of the 3 because it's uncomfortably close to strangers, removing most of the benefits and the narrow aisles and having to potentially squeeze past 2 strangers makes dwell times much worse.
One advantage I would see in bi-level is you can have shorter platforms. If you have "messy infrastructure", i.e serve a variety of stations build within the last 100 years, this is especially common in Europe.
As a long term rider on DC's MARC (Maryland) system we had both bi level and single level cars, The bi level cars seated more passengers but some Marc lines are also freight service and don't have high level platforms, all cars had vestibule end boarding that really slowed up loading and unloading due to the necessary climb up to the intermediate level. VRE (Virginia) double deck cars had both end loading and lower level doors that allowed faster loading at low level stations. Commuter lines using locomotive pulled trains and having acceleration problems should look at head end horsepower. I don't ride in cab cars since these lines had grade crossing and someday the cab car is going to hit a loaded dumptruck. put a locomotive at each end. Most lines cannot support the train frequencies you talk about, NYC transit does it on the timetables but you simply cannot deboard and board even quad door train cars in the time allowed and NYers have had years of practice trying to do this, the result is the schedule is a farce as delays pile up and the following train can't get into the station and the passengers get antsy. Another issue on commuter trains is 3/2 seating, nobody wants to be the sandwich meat in the middle and all the seats are too close for strangers, furthermore these cars have narrow isles that slows up the boarding process even more, sometimes a lot more. Another issue for high train frequency is that the need for this only applies for a few hours in either direction, what do you do with these crews and trainsets on the lower demand times? train crews are skilled operators and generally unionized, hence they are well paid with benefits. Our enginemen and conductors on MARC made salaries that would make airline pilots envious (most pilots don't make all that much until they're very senior). Mike Quill saw to it that NY transit workers are well paid and retire young. NY transit is one of only a few systems that operate on a 24 hour 7 day schedule although when I lived there late nite trains were very scarce. Converting commuter transit systems to electric power is very expensive in first cost and does not reduce fuel costs to the system (I've done research on this). You have to add in the cost of the overhead as it is amortized, the cost of maintenance, the higher cost of electric locomotives (not mass produced in America). While they may appeal for environment reasons, you must consider the source of electricity, most comes from burning fuel.
The thing with GO though is that with our existing BiLevels, the most optimal setup would be to have low floor platforms that are compatible with the existing locomotives, meaning that if we get EMUs, all of the trains will have the doors on the bottom floor of the train, and with such a setup, you don't really have a limit for where doors can be placed. While its not the same passenger throughput as a single level high floor train, its far better than the mid level doors on double decker trains, and you can have a system where the upper floor is for people travelling the longer distance (like to Kitchener to Barrie), and then the bottom floor is for the local more metro like services.
I think we should dump the bilevels honestly
Definitely a thing. However on long distance double decker trains also have their limits. Less space for luggage for example. And where I live, in The Netherlands, there is a 300km/h high speed line. However because the bottom is mainly sand, it can't handle heavy trains with these speeds. Longer is better.
I also heard something about more heavy maintenance when you're using double deck trains.
If you look at best practice you see that you have to upgrade the signalling system to allow "moving block" systems that allow more trains per hour operating at a shorter distance to each other.
Now for the number of doors per car, of course that depends on how frequent the stops are and how many people get in and out at each stop. Most metro systems have plenty of doors because they lose most of the time during their frequent stops when people board and alight. More doors means you can't place as many seats on a given space because the doorways/vestibules will take up half of the train. Which is acceptable in a metro where people will stand during rush hour.
Double deck trains on the other hand maximize seating capacity and are best for longer regional routes without as many stops. People have a longer way to the door and those trains have longer dwell times at stations.
S-Bahn Zürich is going exactly this way: They started with double deck cars but are now planning to add single deck units with more doors for the shorter lines in the most populated part of the system.
It's incredible how you always get the point. And, if I'm allowed to start a discussion, I find incredibly strange that the S-Bahn Zürich is operated by double decker trains. It's clearly a operational decision, in order to have the most standardized fleet possible (in fact, the service also features a first class). What clearly happens, is that due to the use the people does of the service, something like a metro, the first floor is full of standing passengers, while the second floor is quite empty, and the first class ist totally empty. I find that's kinda strange for the great competence that Switzerland has in fact of public transport, but it's the best example of what is discussed in the video. Even the passengers of the most railway friendly country in the world, can't/won't properly use a double decker train for a urban service
In Switzerland the network is incredibly crowded.
Where I live two tracks serve a local SBahn, a fast SBahn, RE, IC,EC , ICE, EN and even freight services. All those services have different requirements and do not mix easily. So we cannot run an single level train every other minute.
And some lesser used lines still use single decker trains in Zurich.
Another thing are single track segments on the lines which basically forces the use of double decker like the heavy used Zurich - Zug -Lucerne Line which would definitely profit from a higher frequency.
One thing to add as well is that some stations have a station length limit imposed by governments which is why long single decker trains whether frequent or not can still be crowded.
Another thing you should consider when you're running smaller trains at a higher frequency, is that you're increasing the number of train drivers needed per passenger-mile. Labor costs are not an insignificant factor for rail companies.
It doesn't make that big of a difference
hey, in the netherlands, with shorter platforms with intercity AND stop services sometimes we can load 3000 - 4000 people on a 12 wagons doubledecker intercity, like the VIRM - 5 double deckers are important in the benelux france and germany.
If the Commuter rail has one station that is exceedingly busy (i.e. Union Station in Toronto), the solution would be to have 2 train berths for each line and for each direction.
All other station can be boarded in 30 seconds - and 2 minute headway still kept at main (not Main) station.
Its telling Japan has the most diverse train ecosystem and bi-levels are almost nil, JR East is ditching its bi-level shinkansen. Only a few JR night trains, tourist trains and a few first class green cars in Tokyo. If a train tech is not working here its probably worth thinking why.
I don't understand the logic saying number of doors are halved on double decker cars. It doesn't seem to be the case for high-level stations on New Jersey Transit. It's true that the number of doors per person are reduced, but by a factor of two rather than four.
In New Jersey (and in Chicago as well) dwell time doesn't appear to be a significant component of trip times.
I forgot to add: In both Penn Station NJ and in Chicago, double level cars are used in part because of limited platform length. Higher-capacity trains are accommodated on shorter platforms with two-level cars.
NJ transit can't operate EMU ever because they don't have electrified track which limits them to diesel and diesel electric hybrids. Increased operation to Penn station is also impossible because of capacity constraints. Between NJ transit, Amtrak, and LIRR Penn Station operates at capacity.
NJ transit already operates some EMUs . . .
The bigger capacity only works, if the line between the stations has the capacity too. In Germany, we have many lines on the limit of trains/hour (express, transit, cargo). The stations have extra platforms, so at the station there is never a capacity problem. With a double decker, you can actually nearly double the people moved per hour when you only have limited time spots for commuter trains on your main line.
How do the TGV Duplex trains work, then? How about mix level trains (that usually have 2-4 bi-level carriages in-between single level ones)?
Long distance
sydney trains dont really dwell so long. they dwell for mostly under 30 seconds with a maximum dwell time of about 60 secs at stations like central, town hall and circular quay in my personal experience. i think this is because everyone understands how to disembark efficiently and stands in the areas near the door as the automated train announcer states that it is pulling into the station. we do also use single deck trains in nsw but these are mostly small 4 car configurations for very unused routes. idk from what ive seen the sydney trains operate at a reasonable speed even compared to systems elsewhere in the world with single deck trains.
Mumbai’s Suburban Railway somehow manages without double decker trains, although they probably really should have double deck trains designed with a maximum number of wide doors in spite of two deck trains.
I had never been on a double decker train before until I went to Amsterdam, I thought it was really cool.
You are confusing Metro style service with commuter service. If you put 2000 people on a single level train with more doors and, assuming most people want seats for long distant service, you would need about trains of about 30 cars each. This is not going to happen. GO transit is NOT a Metro Style service and was never meant to be one.
Running more trains increases the number of crews and hence labour expenses. GO will not get to unmanned trains because of the problems with trespassers and level crossings. Also, power does not determine the acceleration rate, force does. Force is weight on drivers times the coefficient of friction. AC motors give an improved coefficient of friction vs DC motors.
Sydney does have an advantage as their bilevels have the doors on the sections above the trucks which means an improvement in loading and unloading. GO bilevels have 1/3 of the passengers at the door level and 2/3 above, and since the steps from above are single passenger width this does cause a delay in stations.
Since we are stuck with the need to operate on tracks that have freight trains as well, we are not going to get high level platforms unless you can convince CN and CP to run their freights at 15 mph though the high platform stations. There are very few freights that use the Weston sub by the UP Express platforms, so it does not count as a precedent.
Electric locomotives will not have an initial acceleration rate higher than diesel locomotives, but their higher power rating means they can sustain the acceleration rate longer. To get good acceleration you need multiple unit trains, not locomotive hauled ones.
Double deck coaches are necessary for many regional trains because of out
Talked to GO/Metrolinx about moving away from DD buses, too?
Regarding single deck bilevel cars seems good given the infrastructure and platforms wouldn't be having to be overhauled.
The problem is that those single deck buses have little to no room and is less instantly accessible compared to the bottom floor of the DD buses. To me i definitely prefer the larger space and not having to worry to squish my bag(s) through the lanes and accidentally hit someone both in and out of the bus. Also u get to see more of the outside world from more than one view.
@@Amir-qz4bn I think the original poster was thinking of replacing Go double deckers with a TTC style city bus, rather then an existing Go coach. Those have a wider space you are talking about
Here in Brussels we need double deckers as they important North-South connection reached peak capacity. The only thing we can do now is increase the capacity of the trains
In Israel we have double deckers. The stop is not longer because the doors, the train can say board for two minutes and just sit there for 10, just because.
I mean... these calculations really are inaccurate. HOW do you come up with boarding times being FOUR times longer on double decker trains?? Europe builds on them in a big way, see France, Germany, Netherlands, etc. France even does double decker high speed rail.
Double Deck trains are really only needed when more capacity is needed and additional trains or longer trains are very difficult to run due to track capacity and limited room to expand the number tracks. But the double deck trains do increase station dwell times over single deck trains.
Must agree on this, and about using EMUs on commuter trains rather than the mainline locomotives which commuter lines are likely to get sold to them by way of Amtrak's inexplicable early retirements. NJ Transit has a lot of un-powered double deckers replacing retired Arrow EMUs on various lines in the past 5 years or so. They are quite posh, and quiet up there, and were apparently a hit with the riding public. And instead of ordering modern replacements for the old Arrows, now they've got orders for an EMU version of the Bombardier Multilevels, which are rather expensive and were delayed, because it's difficult to cram all the equipment needed for voltage versatility into the same car design. They are also extremely heavy. (Of course we don't know about reliability yet.) They are rather odd looking because of the high number of doors on each side, some with additional separate doors for low platforms, which look even odder. But the posh-seeking passengers don't notice that seen at close range when they're boarding them. Transit boards are the fiduciaries but I donno.
We should have more intercity sleeper trains
Agreed.
Is there any international data on actual line capacities or throughput (PPDPH)? It would be interesting to compare and see which lines are actually moving the most people and what rolling stock they use.
The highest throughputs tend to be in HK
@@RMTransit I guessed as much. Or perhaps Tokyo.
Doesn't one double decker take less space and weight than two single-deckers (decreasing acceleration time, boarding time in shorter stations, and amount of train taking up track space)? Also isn't it easier (especially in cities) to make a second level to the station than it is to make the station longer? Plus if you really can't make doors on the second level you can close the upper levels unless there's a high amount of passengers. Not effecting boarding time vs. single-level cars until there's a reason to get more people on.
what do think about having Double Decker Trains in Mumbai and New Delhi. as they are usually very heavy passenger demand
As mentioned in the video, high demand doesn't necessarily suggest you should use double deckers
more transit routes would help there better ie having 2 separate parallel lines a few km apart will better spread such high demand. Than trying to squeeze more into a single route.
Double deck trains are using a dated platform system where passengers board and exit one side of a platform at a time.
Double platforms serve both high peak hour and off peak services.
~ On peak service using double platform, where trains use both sides of the train to allow for board left and exit right or vice versa method. Highly efficient passenger movement.
~ Off peak service trains on a double platform can use the same method as above or platform sharing routes where passengers can board or exit from either side of the train still being efficient.
Double platforms work for both single and double deck trains, even though double deckers will carry more passengers per train.
From my knowledge double platform do exist and the Olympic Park station near Homebush NSW is an example of a double platform in use, also the Skitube railway (Australia) with its single deck rack railway train having the option on some of it stations using a double platform method to board as many passengers on in a short time.
My experience of trains is the South African and UK systems where double deckers are unknown so they look very odd to me. What did shock me when watching videos of US stations is how often they have such low platforms. Even the oldest platforms in South Africa are much higher. Even some newly built stations in the US have platforms that look more like light-rail/tram platforms than what I'm used to for long-distance/heavy rail service.
Our loading gauge is also much taller since most freight trains are 20 feet tall and our passenger equipment is about 15 feet however the Northeast corridor is older and mostly has lower Trains with high platforms
GO Transit went the bi-level route because of being a victim of its own success. Originally GO had single level coaches but platform lengths are limited. I remember seeing GO Trains out of Oakville that had single level trains that were longer than the platform. That's including the locomotive and ACPU. The bi-levels were developed by GO Transit and have been strategically designed to be the success that they've been for the past forty years. GO has the largest fleet of bi-levels and they don't have any plans on replacing them. The current locomotive power can accommodate twelve car trains including the cab car where previously the maximum was ten cars, except when equipped with dual F59PHs. I don't believe that they'll be running trains longer than twelve cars. Current shorter trains are due to lesser ridership due to COVID. As for speed, the fastest that express GO Trains can travel is 130km/h. It's quite a relaxing ride going express from Clarkson to Union. Even more relaxing after a heavy snowfall. Electrification or going with hydrogen fuel cells are options that are being studied. At one time there was something in the works called GO ALRT. It would utilize similar trains that are in use for the Scarborough RT, but these trains would utilize the pantograph. Sadly that project was scrapped.
Okay however being in the country which has no double decker trains due to the loading gauge (you already know where it is), most Suburban/"Metro" rail services would be amazing with double decker trains, I am thinking London Northwestern's "Northampton Line" services, much of the Southern network and maybe even Thameslink. Due to line complexity and route congestion these services run infrequently anyway. For that matter the South London and West London lines of the Overground going in and out of Clapham also only run four times an hour and are always busy, why not there too?
1. Most of NJT lines still aren’t electrified (as those of us who live on the Main, Bergen, Pascack Valley, and Raritan Valley lines, or outer portions of the NJ Coast or M&E lines, can attest)
2. BiLevels are not the limiting factor when it comes to service frequency on NJT. Limited tunnel capacity to and track capacity within NY Penn Station is. The new Gateway tunnels and Penn South project will not solve this because much of the new capacity will be used to bring the lines that currently terminate west of the Hudson (Main/Bergen, Pascack Valley, Port Jervis, and Raritan Valley) into Penn Station.
3. If, when Gateway is built, NJT implements the same service plan it had for the cancelled ARC tunnel, NJT (along with Amtrak) will be running 24 trains per hour in each of the 2 NY-bound tunnels during the morning rush. You’re not going to be squeezing in more frequencies than that. So getting rid of double deckers will only REDUCE capacity.
They could absolutely get more than 24 tph through those tunnels, but not with the current trains.
More tph is possible in theory. But NJT’s horrible reliability is currently a bigger impediment to that than its use of double deckers. You’d need Japanese or Swiss levels of reliability to pull it off. Trying to squeeze in more tph will only exacerbate the current reliability issues. We’re talking about a system that falls apart whenever there’s a short thunderstorm (like a few times just last week) or a little snowfall. The new EMUs from Bombardier (double-decker I might add) due in two years should help a bit (since unlike loco-hauled trains they don’t have a single point of failure) but that still doesn’t help if the catenary goes bust (which it routinely does).
Money’s better spent now on bringing the system up to a state of good repair than chasing the pipe dream of RER-type service. Don’t get me wrong - more frequent service would be nice, but I prefer more realistic proposals.
Why not just reserve double decker train cars for stuff like restaurant cars and view cars? Would that work?
Perhaps part of the reason for double decker trains is that trains that run more frequently could impede level road crossings.
Another thing is that I understand that much of the motivation behind Stuttgart 21 was to speed rail service by routing rail lines through (underneath) the city, rather than the previous dead end stops.. and it has proven a controversial and very expensive project. I don't know if substantial infrastructure changes would be required to speed up GO train service, much of which seems to terminate at Union Station.
Also, perhaps the demand in say, Barrie is not enough to justify say, service every 15 minutes, but further down the line, say in Markham, demand is much greater. In that case, maybe it would make sense to have the train from Barrie have excess capacity to take on passengers in Markham rather than just passing through.
Our GO transit lines have the potential to serve both " surface subway" with single level trains and as RER with double decker go trains. All our go transit lines have excellent infrastructure, but unfortunately they are currently under utilised.
In France we have double deck train in TGV and autorail for great line outside Paris and it's a big problem because I can't put a luggage in the luggage rack above the seat because it is too small for most of the luggage during holydays it's a nightmare
other problem: accessibility you have stairs everywhere
In Sydney, for many routes apply double deckers because they make sense. Many commuters in Sydney travel from the outer suburbs into the CBD, in which many passengers ride on long distance routes. If Sydney were to dismantle all of it's suburban double decker trains, it would accumulate in, yes, moving more people per hour, but it means passengers will have to likely stand for 90 minutes, which is quite uncomfortable. Keeping double deckers means there is more room for comfort, in a commuter rail style service, and there is ample space for passengers to stand a low distance trips on the mezzanine levels. While Sydney has the issue of having double decker trains with slower acceleration speeds, and longer dwell times, Sydney it isn't like systems in Europe and Asia with constant loads of demand at various parts of the day, which in Sydney, most times when trains are at capacity are during peak times exclusively. These effects can be shown on Sydney Metro at peak hours, with barely any standing room at these times, while at the same distance spacing as on a Sydney Train. It is entirely reasonable to build new Sydney Metro lines because Sydney Metro is focused around short distance trips. However, it is incorrect to berid of Sydney's double decker trains, because it's main usage is 2 hours per day. The solution to Sydney Trains isn't getting rid of it's double decker trains, but creating hybrid trains - trains with single and double decker seating (which is seen in Tokyo), single for standing and short ride times, and double for comfort.
Think you also need to look at the history of the Sydney system..
It was all single decks until the 1960s, and still a mixed system until the 1980s when the last Red Rattler got retired.
Journey distances on average are longer than many systems - so there is a passenger preference for more seats which drove the original decision. This is gradually changing with more satellite CBDs like Chatswood, St.Leonards, North Sydney, Parramatta etc.
On most lines it's not really feasible to intermix all-stops and express (Eg. say North shore line, where an 'express' is not that much quicker.
And depending on who is in government in a few years we may well see a decision for single decks, or possibly even fully automated conversion on the T4 line, which is where the oldest fleet (T sets) will be mostly based in a few years .
Was about to mention this, so thank you! Honestly the points as to the removal of 'double deckers', were so vague and lacked any relevance to the reason as to why they were actually implemented in Sydney. While other Australian cities have opted for the single decker fleet, their networks and way they operate are completely different.
I never suggested a complete removal, but for all stop local trains higher frequencies should trump single train capacity
Sydney’s double deckers were a specific response to local conditions. The original subway system was built to standard North American loading and standard gauges - as per the rest of theNSW state rail system. If you were mad enough to do so, you could probably run a double stacked container train through the original tunnels. Introducing double deck carriages then became a relatively straightforward matter. The original fleet was unpowered and were interwoven into existing 8 car consists - 2 to 4 double deckers the per consist. They were a quick and cheap way of providing more seated capacity without increasing frequency. They rapidly caught on because the government owner/ operator gave seated capacity priority over unit interval spacing and dwell time. design refinements reduce the inevitable loading delays caused by two internal staircases feeding each door and the concept caught on internationally.The RER interval though is probably max for the design. So, double deckers have their place which is not in extremely high frequency metro services with consistently high usage levels.
I don't understand the obsesstion with double decker cars in the first place. The sealings are too low (2m is not enough!) and it's impssible to make the exits level to the platfrom so people can roll on and off.
Probably the main reason Sydney Metro exists is that tunnelling under the harbour for the 2nd rail crossing at the standard for Heavy Rail was going to be stupidly expensive.
The North West Metro was going to be Heavy Rail that's why the Chatwood to Epping tunnel was built to that standard.
It would not surprise me if the overall plan is to join the City to Parramatta Metro to the Airport Link changing It, the East Hill line & Southwest Rail Link to metro stardard. Join that to the Western Sydney Airport Link join St Marys to Tallawong and build a loop from Bankstown to Parramatta. Using Metro as circle lines and the Trains as the radial lines
For those of us who value the train experience, I always prefer the view from the upper level. Speed and efficiency aren't my only requirements. Toronto to Niagara is a fine experience from a higher perspective and the dome car is my go-to perch on The Canadian.