Double Decker in South Africa
Nick Leverton
Railway is often discussed in uk.railway. Similar schemes have recently
been proposed as part of the South Western franchise renewal process.
However I've never seen any mention anywhere of the Hulse double decked
passenger carriage of 1927 on South African Railways - I hope you might
find it as interesting as I did :)
http://www.capesteam.za.net/article1.htm
Nick
Terry Harper
news:ac0ag0$kh4$2...@warren.leverton.org...
There is an interesting comparison between this vehicle and the "lowbridge"
type of double decker, some of which I think had gangways on both sides
upstairs. I wonder why SAR did not have cross-seating, rather than
back-to-back? Maybe standing capacity in the gangways was more use than
seating capacity on the upper deck.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org
E-mail: terry....@btinternet.com
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/
David Winter
Using more modern materials and pushing the loading gauge could have led to
some improvements on the design. It is one of several ways to fit well-type
double-deck into the more limited loading gauges of the UK, Australia's
urban narrow-gauge (ie 3'6" 1067mm) lines and likewise NZ, Japan and
elsewhere.
1) Has anyone seen details of any novel Japanese deckers? Looking through a
Jane's in the 80's I noticed quite a few on tourist, interurban and suburban
tasks.
2) I see your comparison with a low-bridge bus. Using crossbench on the
upper would have possibly restricted headroom in the lower. I notice that
the car ran with 6" (152mm) clearance underneath. This seems extraordinarily
tight to me. I wonder if folks with knowledge of the Sydney, Japanese, GO
Transit and related, LIRR and related, and European well-type decker
(bi-level) cars can tell us what the static clearance underneath and lower
deck floor height wrt rail is for their respective systems.
The doors could be a lot wider for reduced loading times. Sydney uses around
1800mm these days.
3) In 1978, while working on my MSc these, I did some numbers which showed
that DD would be marginally feasible on similar principles for the Tube
lines (the 3560mm internal diameter ones) in London. The issue would be, for
them, loading times. At least with the dual aisle upper deck, you get three
stream of traffic into your vestibules, which offers scope for higher
passenger flows than with single aisle designs. With tube or full-gauge
designs, I'd incline towards a centre aisle for the upper deck, noting roof
profiles, and have the dual aisles in the lower - the catch is that often,
the loading gauge does not permit the maximum width to be extended down to
the base of the well. The sides need to be inclined or cut in. While that
sits well with inwards facing seats, what do you do with the space below the
upper deck aisle? Well, if the car is around 2900mm or wider, a single-width
line of seats; and if about 3030mm or wider, even a sideways facing
"knife-board" - though the aisles may be unacceptably cramped and congested.
To go anywhere, it needs modelling and static loadable mock-ups.
Best regards
David Winter
"Terry Harper" <Terry....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ac2lio$aij$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
: "Nick Leverton" <ni...@leverton.org> wrote in message
:
:
:
David Winter
OCR'ing - and jpg'ing of diagrams and tables - and then re-binding. The
focus was bus design from a user perspective - and looked at the adequacy or
otherwise of late-1970's designs (VoV, Leyland National, etc, 2.5m width and
2+2 layout, suspension and vibration issues, noise, step heights, etc).
Regards
David Winter
"Roderick Smith" <rods...@werple.net.au> wrote in message
news:01c206e4$5c755a20$8a8d17d2@rodsmith...
: Somewhere I have the Netherlands research. It proved that the main
problem
: was narrow stairways, not doorway width. Most dds anywhere since than
have
: had wider stairways.
: Netherlands also found that ceiling heights in French dd carriages were
too
: low for typical Netherlanders, and exploited its larger loading gauge to
: offer increased ceiling heights.
: Can your thesis be made available electronically somehow?
:
: --
: Regards
: Roderick Smith
: Rail News Victoria Editor
:
: David Winter <davew...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
: > The doors could be a lot wider for reduced loading times. Sydney uses
:
Dik T. Winter
> I see your comparison with a low-bridge bus. Using crossbench on the
> upper would have possibly restricted headroom in the lower.
I must have somewhere a description of a London low-bridge bus. It had
on the upper deck a gangway on one side (with lower headroom on the
seating places on the lower deck). It had cross seating, 4 abreast.
> I notice that
> the car ran with 6" (152mm) clearance underneath. This seems extraordinarily
> tight to me. I wonder if folks with knowledge of the Sydney, Japanese, GO
> Transit and related, LIRR and related, and European well-type decker
> (bi-level) cars can tell us what the static clearance underneath and lower
> deck floor height wrt rail is for their respective systems.
As far as I can find the underneath clearance of the Dutch double deckers
trains is 225 mm. Lower deck floor height is 352 mm. Mind, this is the
first generation. Internal standing space is 2008 and 2010 mm, this is
too low by current standards for buildings. (They were just increased,
room height from 240 cm to 260 cm and door height from 210 cm to 230 cm. *)
--
* The reason for the increase is the increasing length of the Dutch
population. While the mean length of the males of 20 years and more
is 180 cm, the mean length for those from 20 to 39 is already 183.5 cm.
Some 30 % of the male population exceeds 190 cm and some 10 % even
2 meter.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Access Systems
> Using more modern materials and pushing the loading gauge could have led to
> some improvements on the design. It is one of several ways to fit well-type
> double-deck into the more limited loading gauges of the UK, Australia's
> urban narrow-gauge (ie 3'6" 1067mm) lines and likewise NZ, Japan and
> 1) Has anyone seen details of any novel Japanese deckers? Looking through a
the Japanese are big fans of double deckers, many different designs, but
probably nothing more impressive than a 10-12 car set of "MAX" double
deck Shinkansen (bullet trains)
Bob
--
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail acce...@smartnospam.net
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems. Thanks
Clive D. W. Feather
>I must have somewhere a description of a London low-bridge bus.
We had these in Southend - they fitted under the pier, unlike standard
buses.
>It had
>on the upper deck a gangway on one side (with lower headroom on the
>seating places on the lower deck). It had cross seating, 4 abreast.
Upstairs, yes. The gangway was sunken relative to the floor of the
seats.
Downstairs was the usual 2+2 arrangement with, as you say, lower
headroom for the rightmost seat.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 (NOTE CHANGE) | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
David Winter
you got a URL t its source?
Regards
David Winter
"Dik T. Winter" <Dik.W...@cwi.nl> wrote in message
news:GwwDK...@cwi.nl...
: In article <3cf48192$0$21005$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au> "David Winter"
David Winter
commuter/urban lines, I understand they've got lots now, too. Anyone with
data?
Regards
David Winter
"Access Systems" <acce...@smarty.smart.net> wrote in message
news:ufb0g2p...@corp.supernews.com...
: In misc.transport.rail.misc David Winter <davew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > Using more modern materials and pushing the loading gauge could have led
to
: > some improvements on the design. It is one of several ways to fit
well-type
: > double-deck into the more limited loading gauges of the UK, Australia's
: > urban narrow-gauge (ie 3'6" 1067mm) lines and likewise NZ, Japan and
:
: > 1) Has anyone seen details of any novel Japanese deckers? Looking
through a
:
: the Japanese are big fans of double deckers, many different designs, but
: probably nothing more impressive than a 10-12 car set of "MAX" double
: deck Shinkansen (bullet trains)
:
: Bob
:
:
: --
: ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
: NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail acce...@smartnospam.net
: NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
: NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
:
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
*#
: THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
:
William Pearce
Modern Chinese long-distance double deck stock, 26575mm over couplers,
4750mm max. ht. above rail, 3105mm max width, 250mm from lowest point to
rail, SRZ 25b class, (soft class sitting car), 2x2 seating, ht. floor to
ceiling upper deck 2020mm, lower deck 2050mm, light fittings arranged
longitudinally protrude below ceilings. Passenger capacity, 110 persons
seated, wt. (not sure whether MT or loaded) 52.6t. Into service, 1986.
Regards,
Bill.
"David Winter" <davew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cf5e1a8$0$28005$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Dik T. Winter
> That's excellent anthropometric data, Dik (no relative AFAIK, folks). Have
> you got a URL t its source?
No. It was in the paper last Saturday, but is not available online.
I just checked.
Terry Harper
news:3cf5e8bd$0$31828$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Fellas,
> Modern Chinese long-distance double deck stock, 26575mm over couplers,
> 4750mm max. ht. above rail, 3105mm max width, 250mm from lowest point to
> rail, SRZ 25b class, (soft class sitting car), 2x2 seating, ht. floor to
> ceiling upper deck 2020mm, lower deck 2050mm, light fittings arranged
> longitudinally protrude below ceilings. Passenger capacity, 110 persons
> seated, wt. (not sure whether MT or loaded) 52.6t. Into service, 1986.
The standard class cars have 3+3 seating, IIRC, with GRP moulded seats and
minimal padding. Not a lot of luggage space for the large number of
passengers carried. I've ridden them several times on the Shanghai-Nanjing
run.
Ulf Kutzner
> "William Pearce" <ben_i...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3cf5e8bd$0$31828$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > Fellas,
> > Modern Chinese long-distance double deck stock, 26575mm over couplers,
> > 4750mm max. ht. above rail, 3105mm max width, 250mm from lowest point to
> > rail, SRZ 25b class, (soft class sitting car), 2x2 seating, ht. floor to
> > ceiling upper deck 2020mm, lower deck 2050mm, light fittings arranged
> > longitudinally protrude below ceilings. Passenger capacity, 110 persons
> > seated, wt. (not sure whether MT or loaded) 52.6t. Into service, 1986.
> The standard class cars have 3+3 seating, IIRC, with GRP moulded seats and
> minimal padding. Not a lot of luggage space for the large number of
> passengers carried. I've ridden them several times on the Shanghai-Nanjing
> run.
Regards, ULF
Ulf Kutzner
> The UK's brief experiment with double-decked trains on the Southern
> Railway is often discussed in uk.railway. Similar schemes have recently
> been proposed as part of the South Western franchise renewal process.
> However I've never seen any mention anywhere of the Hulse double decked
> passenger carriage of 1927 on South African Railways - I hope you might
> find it as interesting as I did
before getting shipped to *East* Africa, Tanzania more exactly, for use
on standard gauge lines. Not sure about top speed being raised from
140to 160kph.
Regards, ULF