Hs2

daveyjp

If double deck trains were feasible it would have been done. Most of our infrastructure is based on what was usual in the Victorian period and reverse engineering this would cost billions.

As for reducing speeds to increase number of paths, crazy idea. People use trains for their speed, not the capacity. Make them slow and people won't use them.

dggar

Froggitt wrote: »

HS1 and HS2 need to link up, ideally at St Pancras. Monorail I would have thought is also quieter, solving noise issues.


Double decker platforms.....great idea!!!


And halving the speed to double the number of trains.......you still have the same throughput of passengers.....I think!!!

So ...if the trains don't move at all does that mean you can carry an infinite number of passengers?

Froggitt

Sure. Say the trains are doing 10 miles an hour instead of 100 miles an hour. You could have one train per mile of track at those speeds, rather than one train per ten miles of track. So you would have 10 times the capacity but they would take 10 times as long to get there. But the same number of passengers would travel in the same 10 hours.

Laz123

martindow wrote: »

Yes, we have the same gauge as most countries. The problem as others have said is the size of bridges and tunnels which are not high enough. I would have thought that a new line could be built large enough for double deck trains without much extra expense. The problem being that double deck trains would not be able to continue beyond the new line.

Monorails have always appealed to politicians as space age vanity projects. They may be OK for a self contained line to and from an airport maybe, but conventional track enables much more flexible through running.

What is space age? Aren't we in it already?
How do you mean by 'much more flexible through running'?

Voyager2002

daveyjp wrote: »

If double deck trains were feasible it would have been done. Most of our infrastructure is based on what was usual in the Victorian period and reverse engineering this would cost billions.

As for reducing speeds to increase number of paths, crazy idea. People use trains for their speed, not the capacity. Make them slow and people won't use them.

Just think of all the jobs that would be created by retro-fitting the entire network for double-decker trains... Saying that the country cannot afford this (or any) major infrastructure project is a sign of economic illiteracy.

It really doesn't matter how slow the trains are, so long as they provide a pleasant interior for working or relaxing. People use trains for the overall experience, particularly the quality of the catering... and slower trains would bring in far greater catering revenues.

cookie365

Wouldn't it be easier to build extra long trains?

You'd want the platforms at the start and end stations to be full length. Every station in between would only open the doors that match the platform length.

Then all you need is a beefy engine, and smart ticketing software that allocates seats in the right part of the train for the specific journey.

yangptangkipperbang

cookie365 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be easier to build extra long trains?

You'd want the platforms at the start and end stations to be full length. Every station in between would only open the doors that match the platform length.

Then all you need is a beefy engine, and smart ticketing software that allocates seats in the right part of the train for the specific journey.

If only it were that easy !
Suggest you take a look at an aerial view of a main line terminus station. Streetmap and look at Waterloo or Euston or any station in London. The station width where the platforms are is about five times wider than that just beyond the platforms where the tracks converge - in most cases it is totally impossible to lengthen the platforms. Unless, of course, you drastically reduce the number of platforms

Froggitt

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

Unless, of course, you drastically reduce the number of platforms

Double the length double-decker trains running twice as fast, you can afford to lose half the platforms

yangptangkipperbang

Froggitt wrote: »

Double the length double-decker trains running twice as fast, you can afford to lose half the platforms

Of course - silly me

dggar

Froggitt wrote: »

And halving the speed to double the number of trains.......you still have the same throughput of passengers.....I think!!!

Froggitt wrote: »

Double the length double-decker trains running twice as fast, you can afford to lose half the platforms

Froggit, you're a genius ,I can't understand why you aren't running the country.