Articulation

[j0hn0]

Why doesn't the UK use more articulated trainsets to decrease wear on the already worn out track?

Over here in Germany, i see many of the s-bahn trains and other regional service using articulated trainsets. Also the trams here in Düsseldorf are mainly articulated.

So does anyone else have any opinions on articulation?

If almost all the UK trainsets run as multiple units, why do they have so many heavy bogies? Also if there isnt a gangway to link 2 sets together, why are the faces of these units so butt ugly?

Seen the new xtrapolis concept?

[Deathbyteacup]

I dunno, I think multiple units only look ugly when they have gangway links.

[Anon Mouse]

Originally Posted by Deathbyteacup

I dunno, I think multiple units only look ugly when they have gangway links.

Always ugly with Gangway connections? you think 309's were ugly? I think they were a beautiful design, and they had gangway connections......what about Slam Door Southern region units? I also thought they looked wonderful.

But I see where u coming from if you were regarding the 380's or those Juniper 'things' on the Reading - Waterloo's

[Anon Mouse]

Did the LMS not try articulation in the 1930's? and could you consider the GNR's Quad-arts true articulation?..........oh and the Eurostars are semi-articulated IIRC

I am also surprised that articulation is not used so much here, just think of the wear and tear that 185's caused on the Hull route, an articulated unit would be lighter and have less bogies, and maybe the corridor connections could be made wider to allow more standing room.......?

[swisstrains]

Surely if you reduce the number of bogies the axle-loading on the remaining bogies will increase. This will lead to increased wear on the track. To get an acceptable axle-loading with less bogies would probably mean building shorter/lighter carriages.

[StoneRoad]

The Tyne and Wear Metro units were designed as an articulated pair of carriages on three bogies, greater capacity was to be gained by linking the unit pairs into double and triple sets.
The Metro sytem was designed for far more units than the 78 plus two (the pair that were rebuilt after runing on the test track), that the Metro was actually allowed to order. ie the below surface station platform lengths were set up for regular use of triple units. (I hope that makes sense!)
It has been rare indeed to see more than the double units working service trains.

[Deathbyteacup]

Originally Posted by Anon Mouse

Always ugly with Gangway connections? you think 309's were ugly? I think they were a beautiful design, and they had gangway connections......what about Slam Door Southern region units? I also thought they looked wonderful.

But I see where u coming from if you were regarding the 380's or those Juniper 'things' on the Reading - Waterloo's

Depends what you mean. I don't mind gangway connections really, all the classes you mention I like, I even like sprinters and the such, but in reality they're not asthetically pleasing to average Joe or Jane.

The comment just confused me because really, our units WITHOUT them look quite acceptable by most standards.

[steam for ever]

The thing is when it comes to wear the way railways have been built in this country has mainly been on the cheap. except for the biggest lines. In Europe and the US governments have ordered railways and so given funding.
Here little groups of quite rich people went mad and tried to build as fast as possible for the least money.
Where the quad-art sets come into play- they were used widely in East Anglia because it is flat with few earth works and structures.
On the other hand pacers don't do much to help so on smaller vehicles it could be useful.