Railfan.net Home Railfan Photos ABPR Archives Staff Safari Photos Railfan Links

Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please Sign In or Register. Dec 15th, 2017, 3:11pm
Categories •  FastIndex •  LongIndex •  Help •  Search •  Members  •  Sign In •  Register


Double-deckers/bilevels
   Railfan.net Web Forums
   Locomotives and Rolling Stock
   Rolling Stock
(Moderator: CHESSIEMIKE)
   Double-deckers/bilevels
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint
   Author  Topic: Double-deckers/bilevels  (Read 852 times)
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #20 on: Oct 25th, 2015, 10:04am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Perhaps the strangest cars ever to operate on British Railways were the "CLASS 4DD" MU's; "cousins", if you will, of the LIRR's bilevel/double-deckers of the late 1940's.
 
These "slam door" units entered service in 1949, and were retired in the early 1970's......
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD


« Last Edit: Oct 25th, 2015, 2:37pm by CLASSB » Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #21 on: Oct 25th, 2015, 10:17am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Here's an detailed page on the BR's "CLASS DD" MU's; an interesting cutaway view is also included.
 
Though these unique cars operated for many years, they were not all that popular with commuters, especially those sitting in upper level seats at rush-hours.......
 
http://www.bulleidlocos.org.uk/_oth/4_dd.aspx


« Last Edit: Oct 25th, 2015, 11:01am by CLASSB » Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #22 on: Oct 25th, 2015, 10:48am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Easily one of the ugliest and most bizarre passenger trains ever to ride the rails in any country, I present here JNR's "E4" series".
 
A mutated, prehistoric platypus, perhaps, was the inspiration for this equipment.....(!!)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E4_Series_Shinkansen


Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #23 on: Oct 25th, 2015, 10:58am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Also of interest:
 
http://www.railway-technical.com/eole.shtml
 
(courtesy: Railway Technical Pages)


Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #24 on: Oct 25th, 2015, 12:36pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

IC's double-decker MU's of the 1970's.
 
I can recall a serious accident in the 70's (sadly, involving fatalities) when a collision occurred between one of the IC's elderly heavyweight MU's and one of the new trains........
 
 
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/ic/ic141.jpg
 
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/ic/ic246.jpg
 
(courtesy: fallenflags.org)
 


Logged
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3829
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #25 on: Oct 25th, 2015, 9:50pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Oct 25th, 2015, 10:48am, L. F. LOREE 1403 wrote:       (Click here for original message)
Easily one of the ugliest and most bizarre passenger trains ever to ride the rails in any country, I present here JNR's "E4" series".
 
A mutated, prehistoric platypus, perhaps, was the inspiration for this equipment.....(!!)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E4_Series_Shinkansen

Love that description.  I had thought of it as an extremely fat face.
 
The problem the Japanese have, and for that mater most places outside the western US in the past, is overhead clearances.  Generally if you have full bi-levels they only work for midgits.  Otherwise you end up having to stoop to walk through them.  
 
Looking at the Shinkansen bi-level, I don't know the exact height, but the Shinkansen clearance diagram height is 4500 mm = 14'-9".  The top of the "ears" around the single level vehicle pantographs is 4475 mm = 14'-8", well nearer 8 1/8 inch.  By the time you subtract rail to bottom floor, intermediate floor thickness, and ceiling thickness you would have barely 6 feet per floor.  Worked fine for the height of the average Japanese in the past, but the average height of most Asian people has increased significantly over the last couple generations with changes in diet and health care.  (By the way, the height above rail of the top of the single level Shinkansen vehicle body is 3650 mm = a hair under 12 feet)
 
What is interesting is that there are Japanese commuter service bi-levels that run on the 3'-6" gauge tracks.  Now that seems  a little high for the width between rails.


Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #26 on: Oct 25th, 2015, 10:23pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

George:
 
Glad you found my comment on the E4's amusing.......to me, that's EXACTLY what they looks like!(unlike the original Series 01 Shinkansens, in all their sleek and stylish glory over 50 years ago, the more recent trainsets more resemble either giant hypodermic needles or a certain hot-tempered Disney duck suffering from a fat lip!)  
 
Found your post most interesting; none of this was familiar to me, and I've learned quite a bit that I had not known previously.
 
As I had stated earlier in this discussion, Chicago seemed to be the one major commuter district in the country where the then revolutionary double-decker/bilevel/gallery cars gained a firm stronghold; again, things were much different in the greater NY/NJ commuter areas, with much catenary to contend with, as well as numerous tunnels/tubes, and underpasses.
 
It would have been interesting indeed had either the NYC or the NH (or both) had opted for LIRR-style double-deck MU's.
 
Also, the PRR (recall, when the LIRR's double-deckers were new, the railroad was still under the PRR umbrella)
 
Then again, the PRR cars operated via catenary, unlike the LIRR's third rail cars.......
 
"L.F.L."


« Last Edit: Oct 25th, 2015, 10:53pm by CLASSB » Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #27 on: Oct 25th, 2015, 10:50pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Starting in the 1960's, the ESPEE also operated "gallery cars" as part of their commuter fleet, serving Bay Area commuters to and from San Francisco (the last of these cars were delivered in early 1969.
 
Each of these cars had a seating capacity of 160 passengers, and looked especially impressive when being hauled by a powerful FM Trainmaster.
 
During off-hours, all trains were made up of these cars; during rush hours, a number of arch-roof heavyweights (atkin to those of the CNJ and the RDG) were also used........
 
http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1917455
 
(courtesy: Passenger Car Photo Index)


« Last Edit: Oct 25th, 2015, 10:51pm by CLASSB » Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #28 on: Oct 25th, 2015, 11:28pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

In June of 1969, CANADIAN PACIFIC placed an order for nine "gallery cars" with CANDIAN VICKERS, LTD., for commuter service out of Montreal.
 
Car #920 was snapped at Montreal in 1970.......
 
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/cp/cp-bco0920jpa.jpg
 
(courtesy: fallenflags.org)


« Last Edit: Oct 25th, 2015, 11:29pm by CLASSB » Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #29 on: Oct 26th, 2015, 12:34am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Here's a page on a group of ex-SP double-deckers in Alaska (also, links at bottom of page)
 
When still in ESPEE commute service, they were often run in "mixed" trains with the old heavyweight arch roof cars, making for very interesting consists.....
 
http://www.alaskarails.org/fp/passenger/pass-retired/bilevel/index.html
 
(article by Pat Durand)


« Last Edit: Oct 26th, 2015, 12:35am by CLASSB » Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #30 on: Oct 26th, 2015, 12:40am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

San Francisco, 1979......
 
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/sp/sp-c8727wba.jpg
 
(courtesy: fallenflags.org)


Logged
ClydeDET
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4794
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #31 on: Oct 26th, 2015, 2:45pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Oct 25th, 2015, 2:24am, Les_Shepherd wrote:       (Click here for original message)
This is a very interesting topic indeed. The Wikipedia article gives a good brief summary of development and application around the world.  US operators would do well to study what has been done around the world in this area. Certainly NJT have made some earnest attempts; one does conclude that they have been less than enthusiastic.
 
The article correctly records that the first all DD emu's were operated in Sydney in 1968. Almost all pre 1980 stock has been withdrawn and scrapped with new build, updated designs introduced. The network is all 8 car DD emu equipment. I will not bore you with photos unless you are interested.
 
I have always been dismayed at the very uneconomic designs and operation on US commuter railroads. For the most part the cars are very heavy requiring high powered de locomotives for push/pull operation. A lot could be learned from Europe for a start. I am unimpressed with the equipment in Paris. It is plain and basic with little to commend it. The multi-level cars used in TGV/Thalys services is more impressive. German medium distance trains are a mixture of emu and loco push/pull. My impression is that that could never decide on what seating configuration to use. They are at least comfortable.

 
Les, you are certainly correct about the weight of US commuter (and long-distance0 cars, single or DD level. It is mainly a product of various government regulations involving crash-worthiness. Very little of the standard equipment from Europe would clear those. I will note that it is my view that MANY of the American requirements are in fact not needed (for example the gravel truck-AMTRAK crash of a few years ago seems to be likely to - if it hasn't already - result in side-impact standards to prevent a heavy truck from penetrating the side of a car, despite the fact that this is the only  incident of that I know of), but needed or not, there they are and have to be met or the equipment can't legally be operated in service in the USA.


Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #32 on: Oct 26th, 2015, 3:13pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Clyde:
 
To get a bit off-topic for a moment here, it does seem as though the more recent "lightweight" rolling stock seems to be far less crashworthy than the heavyweights of old.
 
Of course, if an accident was particularly serious, even heavyweight equipment could (and would) get pretty badly mangled; still in all, the older heavyweights seemed to have had more of a built-in resilience than the equipment that replaced them in later years (recall the aformentioned fatal IC collision back in 1972, involving one of the new double-decker MU's and a train of the old 1920's heavyweight MU's; sadly, 45 persons lost their lives in that accident)
 
Over the years, I have seen accidents involving sideswipes where damage to the "new" equipment was pretty severe.
 
Realistically, of course, NO piece of rolling stock (then or now) was 100% crashworthy, but, IMHO, I believe much of the structural stability associated with older stock has disappeared, especially as the use of lower-cost, lighter weight materials came more and more into vogue.....
 
"L.F.L."


« Last Edit: Oct 26th, 2015, 8:36pm by CLASSB » Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #33 on: Oct 26th, 2015, 5:14pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Details (and photo) of the 1972 IC heavyweight/double-decker collision*.....
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Chicago_commuter_rail_crash
 
*Also, see where article makes note of the older single-deck (heavyweight) MU cars being "more heavily constructed"........


« Last Edit: Oct 26th, 2015, 8:36pm by CLASSB » Logged
ClydeDET
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 4794
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #34 on: Oct 26th, 2015, 11:06pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Oct 26th, 2015, 3:13pm, L. F. LOREE 1403 wrote:       (Click here for original message)
Clyde:
 
To get a bit off-topic for a moment here, it does seem as though the more recent "lightweight" rolling stock seems to be far less crashworthy than the heavyweights of old.
 
Of course, if an accident was particularly serious, even heavyweight equipment could (and would) get pretty badly mangled; still in all, the older heavyweights seemed to have had more of a built-in resilience than the equipment that replaced them in later years (recall the aformentioned fatal IC collision back in 1972, involving one of the new double-decker MU's and a train of the old 1920's heavyweight MU's; sadly, 45 persons lost their lives in that accident)
 
Over the years, I have seen accidents involving sideswipes where damage to the "new" equipment was pretty severe.
 
Realistically, of course, NO piece of rolling stock (then or now) was 100% crashworthy, but, IMHO, I believe much of the structural stability associated with older stock has disappeared, especially as the use of lower-cost, lighter weight materials came more and more into vogue.....
 
"L.F.L."

 
Probably the most crash resistant structurally were the all-steel heavyweights Pullman and its competitors (ACF, I guess, mainly and, some of the railroad shops), but the stainless steel lightweights (especially the Budd ShotWeld cars) and the Pullman cars that were mostly Cor-Ten weren't far behind. Double decked cars almost of necessity will be a bit less resistant to getting hit on the end, especially by single-level stuff. Though a Santa Fe Budd Hi Level would be a different story there because of its design. NOTHING made with a lot of aluminum will be as strong and resistant to damage in a collision as a steel or stainless steel car.
 
Just my observation and thoughts. I'm not an engineer, but I've had conversations with several different sorts during my professional years in the practice of law (no more of that, praise God!), and learned a bit.


Logged
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3829
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #35 on: Oct 26th, 2015, 11:12pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Oct 25th, 2015, 10:23pm, L. F. LOREE 1403 wrote:       (Click here for original message)
George:
 
Glad you found my comment on the E4's amusing.......to me, that's EXACTLY what they looks like!(unlike the original Series 01 Shinkansens, in all their sleek and stylish glory over 50 years ago, the more recent trainsets more resemble either giant hypodermic needles or a certain hot-tempered Disney duck suffering from a fat lip!)  

I know this is getting a little off the subject of bi-levels, however:
 
You are far closer to the reality than you could possible realize with your duck head comment.  As speeds have increased on the Shinkansen lines serious aerodynamic pressure pulse issues have developed at the tunnel entry/exits  There are conditions of speed with train cross section and tunnel length and cross section that you get a true sonic boom ahead of the exit of the train from the tunnel.  
 
Somewhere someone along the way realized that this is similar to the problem that ducks and more particularly cranes and the diving birds have solved in that there are absolutely minimal splashes when they plunge their heads into the water to catch a fish or other swimming critter.  (Hey, maybe God does know what He is doing in design work.)  Therefore with more than a little experimentation the general duck bill shape was scaled up to form the front of a train.  Doing this reduced the aerodynamic resistance of the train moving through the tunnel and more so the aerodynamic pulse on exit.
 
Another factor helping in dealing with this issue is to have some length of tunnel at the end at a larger cross section with lateral openings.  The optimum of this sort of addition does not lend itself to scale experimentation, so some of the recent Shinkansen tunnels have been built with shutters for the openings to get some idea of the best characteristics for them.  Don't know if anybody has thought of it,but think of this enlarged lengths with side vents as an oversize gun silencer.  After all, an important feature of a gun silencer is to decrease the sonic boom from the surge of air in front of the bullet.


Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #36 on: Oct 26th, 2015, 11:24pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

on Oct 26th, 2015, 11:06pm, ClydeDET wrote:       (Click here for original message)

 
Probably the most crash resistant structurally were the all-steel heavyweights Pullman and its competitors (ACF, I guess, mainly and, some of the railroad shops), but the stainless steel lightweights (especially the Budd ShotWeld cars) and the Pullman cars that were mostly Cor-Ten weren't far behind. Double decked cars almost of necessity will be a bit less resistant to getting hit on the end, especially by single-level stuff. Though a Santa Fe Budd Hi Level would be a different story there because of its design. NOTHING made with a lot of aluminum will be as strong and resistant to damage in a collision as a steel or stainless steel car.
 
Just my observation and thoughts. I'm not an engineer, but I've had conversations with several different sorts during my professional years in the practice of law (no more of that, praise God!), and learned a bit.

 
 
Clyde:
 
I see you are thinking on the same lines as I have been.
 
I grew up with heavyweight commuter cars on the E-L and the CNJ, and, with their heavy bodies studded with all those rivets, it was as though you were looking at rail cars that, somehow, were built in a shipyard, from scraps left over from the last battleships built there!
 
Though, of course, these solid, stolid cars were rugged and took much punishment over their long decades of service, a truly severe accident could crumble these rail-bound mastadons like tin foil.
 
Photos I have seen of the tragic LIRR wrecks around 1950, and that of the PRR's FEDERAL during WW2 truly emphasize the fact that, even the most solidly built and heaviest of rail cars are not immune to serious, even catastrophic damage, if they are involved in an altercation serious enough.
 
By and large, though, for many, many years, such low-tech, no-nonsense, old-fashioned cars served millions of passengers over the years, and did so, for the most part, safely.......
 
"L.F.L."


« Last Edit: Oct 26th, 2015, 11:45pm by CLASSB » Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #37 on: Oct 26th, 2015, 11:40pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

on Oct 26th, 2015, 11:12pm, George_Harris wrote:       (Click here for original message)

I know this is getting a little off the subject of bi-levels, however:
 
You are far closer to the reality than you could possible realize with your duck head comment.  As speeds have increased on the Shinkansen lines serious aerodynamic pressure pulse issues have developed at the tunnel entry/exits  There are conditions of speed with train cross section and tunnel length and cross section that you get a true sonic boom ahead of the exit of the train from the tunnel.  
 
Somewhere someone along the way realized that this is similar to the problem that ducks and more particularly cranes and the diving birds have solved in that there are absolutely minimal splashes when they plunge their heads into the water to catch a fish or other swimming critter.  (Hey, maybe God does know what He is doing in design work.)  Therefore with more than a little experimentation the general duck bill shape was scaled up to form the front of a train.  Doing this reduced the aerodynamic resistance of the train moving through the tunnel and more so the aerodynamic pulse on exit.
 
Another factor helping in dealing with this issue is to have some length of tunnel at the end at a larger cross section with lateral openings.  The optimum of this sort of addition does not lend itself to scale experimentation, so some of the recent Shinkansen tunnels have been built with shutters for the openings to get some idea of the best characteristics for them.  Don't know if anybody has thought of it,but think of this enlarged lengths with side vents as an oversize gun silencer.  After all, an important feature of a gun silencer is to decrease the sonic boom from the surge of air in front of the bullet.

 
George:
 
Do these trains also migrate south for the winter?  
 
I thank you for both a VERY insightful response, as well as a most interesting one.
 
It is strange indeed how fast technology truly changes, even though it HAS been over 50 years when the SERIES 01 "Bullets" made their first runs, in all their stunning, modern glory.
 
Once upon a fondly-remembered yesterday, rail equipment, aircraft, and buses could be both modern AND attractive to the eye (recall the GG-1's, the famed GREYHOUND "Scenicruisers" and TRAILWAYS "Eagles", the sleek FLXIBLE "Clippers", as well as such classic aircraft as the LOCKHEED "Constellation", the DC-6 and 7, the DC-8, and the legendary 707's)
 
State of the art in their day, surely, BUT they were ATTRACTIVE and did not have the look of some bizarre creature which sprang forth from a long-forgotten sci-fi flick of the 50's or early 60's!
 
The same with cruise ships; the transatlantic liners of old (which I remember well as a youngster growing up back in the 60's) were sleek, stately, elegant and stylish and had the distinct aura of dignity and grace about them, even when seen docked at the old Manhattan West Side piers.
 
Today's cruise ships seem to be little more than a conglomeration of metal, more resembling floating office blocks than a ship, totally devoid of any semblence of grace or style.
 
Like the rail equipment, buses, and aircraft of 60 plus-years ago, today, it seems, the more bizarre a vehicle appears, the more up to date it is.
 
I well recall those long-ago days when we once thought that the now-classic GMC "Fishbowl" New Look bus was truly THE ultimate in futuristic bus design!
 
And PLEASE don't get me started on the modern LRV's, especially those in Europe; many of these units appear to be giant, mutated insect larvae, forever on the prowl for more unsuspecting humans to consume!
 
I have spoken to several of my fellow traction buffs (NONE of which are easily spooked, mind you!) who said they'd be scared out of their wits if they saw one of these oversized, devious-looking electric eels suddenly emerge from the mist on a foggy evening.....
 
"QUICK, HENRY! THE FLIT!"
 
"L.F.L."


« Last Edit: Oct 27th, 2015, 10:33am by CLASSB » Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #38 on: Oct 27th, 2015, 1:07am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Discussion on the 1972 IC wreck......
 
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=57344
 
(courtesy: Railroad.net)


Logged
L. F. LOREE 1403
Former Member
Re: Double-deckers/bilevels
 
« Reply #39 on: Oct 27th, 2015, 1:12am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

See also:
 
http://www3.gendisasters.com/illinois/5957/chicago-il-train-collision-oct-1972
 
(courtesy: GenDisasters.com)


« Last Edit: Oct 27th, 2015, 1:14am by CLASSB » Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint

« Previous topic | Next topic »