For years, the RER A’s pride was that it was running 30 trains per hour through its central segment in the peak direction (and 24 in the reverse-peak direction). With two branches to the east and three to the west, it would run westbound trains every 2 minutes between 8 and 9 in the morning on the seven-station shared trunk line. Moreover, those trains are massive, unlike the trains that run on the Metro: 224 meters long, and bilevel. To allow fast boarding and alighting at the central stations, those trains were uniquely made with three very wide doors per side, and two bilevel segments per car; usually there are two doors near the ends of the car and a long bilevel segment in between. But now the RER A can no longer run this schedule, and recently announced a cut to 24 peak trains per hour. The failure of the RER A’s bilevel rolling stock, called the MI 2N or MI 09, should make it clear to every transit agency mulling high-throughput urban rail, including RER A-style regional rail, that all trains should be single-level.
On most of the high-traffic regional rail lines of the world, the trains are single-level and not bilevel. The reasoning is that the most important thing is fast egress in the CBD at rush hour. For the same reason, the highest-traffic regional rail lines tend to have multiple CBD stops, to spread the load among several stations. The Chuo Rapid Line squeezes 14 trains in the peak half-hour into Tokyo Station, its only proper CBD station, discharging single-deck trains with four pairs of doors per 20-meter-long car onto a wide island platform with excellent vertical circulation. Bilevels are almost unheard of in Japan, except on Green Cars, first-class cars that are designed to give everyone a seat at a higher price point; on these cars, there aren’t so many passengers, so they can disembark onto the platform with just two doors, one per end of the car.
What a bizarre article. The whole issue in Paris is one of huge demand which has overwhelmed the available capacity on RER “A”. Clearly dwell time is a crucial factor on any high use, high frequency railway. I can easily imagine that peak time conditions in the double deck trains are not exactly pleasant but then off peak conditions in the standard single deck EMUs that operate on the RER can be pretty horrible. I wonder how many people are being left behind on platforms with the lower 24 tph service on line A?
The comments below the article on Crossrail are also somewhat off beat. Clearly the person commenting is not up to speed with the design parameters or the phased service build up. The assertion that Crossrail will be full to overflowing in a week is rather melodramatic. I am sure the early days will be busy simply because people will be trying out the new service and looking at the station. That doesn’t equate to permanently changed travel patterns. We have discussed many times before that it will take time for travel patterns to change as a range of services change from 2018 through to 2020/21. We also do not know what will happen in and around any number of stations that may increase or change demand patterns.
I don’t think double deck trains are in any way discredited but perhaps operators need to better understand the constraints of different rolling stock designs and need to stress test any potential investment decisions against a range of growth scenarios including some extreme examples. It’s easy to wise after the event but I wonder whether RATP ever envisaged a situation where demand would overwhelm rolling stock and station design.
Has anyone ever tried bi-level stations?
If the trains had pairs of doors on both levels (with stairways for emergency de-training only) with platforms on both levels then the stairway and vestibule congestion issue goes away.
If platform structure strength is an issue then putting the different height platforms on opposite sides of the train could be a solution. Alternatively, the Structure for PEDs could be used to help support the platform.
Obviously this requires dedicated infrastructure, and rules out using a mix of stock types. But it could be workable for a new-build line?