Notes on life, art, photography and technology, by a Danish dropout bohemian.
"It stays crunchy in milk and can be used as a suppository." - dadaist spam
There would indeed be two tracks. If there are the same number of trains in each direction the top cabins would just spend their time going one stop up the line and back again, if the trains up and down the line arrived alternately at each station. This is unlikely, so there would be spare top cabins and some way of getting the right number of top cabins to the right start points. The top cabins would be reversible; double ended.The infrastructure would be very expensive. As well as the works at the station, every bridge and signal gantry over the railway has to be higher. Every tunnel would need far more earth and rock to be removed.It might be better just to have double decker trains. The Australian ones have a bottom deck slung low between the bogies and the top deck above, so they are only a little taller than a single deck train. You get on at each end of the carriage at normal platform height.At busy times this means that there are less trains so that perhaps (I'm starting to guess now) there is more chance of running more fast trains which don't stop everywhere. Over a long distance, one train could stop at say every fifth station. From there you just catch the slow train to your stop, which would never be more than three stops away. this is no more hassle than getting on a top cabin at the station, moving in to the main part of the train, getting back in a top cabin and getting out at your stop.I don't believe that the UK rail network has quite enough height clearance for double decker trains, at least not everywhere.
Yes, expensive indeed, that also struck me. Many things about it.
Post a Comment