Rolling Stock

Andreas Vogler: The competition was actually pretty free-form – we were invited to invent anything, as long as it didn’t touch the existing rail infrastructure. So we did some research to look at what were the main problems on the British railways.

We detected a capacity crisis, which, ironically, shows how successful the UK industry has been in developing over the last 20 years or so, continuously growing. And from our continental perspective, we started wondering why they don’t have double-deckers. We realised it was all about the gauge and tunnels, and the problem of extending them. It’s not just down to rebuilding logistics; there’s also national heritage at stake. The likes of Brunel obviously had a massive influence on the UK’s rail infrastructure that’s still evident today.

Then we looked back at our own background at the studio. We have previously designed aircraft, working in small spaces, so we began wondering what we could do with a double-decker that fits a similar profile – with a top deck, similar to a Learjet, in which you can’t stand fully upright but can sit in a comfortable space. So that was the starting point for us, before we began looking at it on a deeper level. 

The first phase of the competition was taken up by a feasibility study. That took about nine months, in which we also did concept design and some preliminary mock-ups for testing. And then the second phase was the demonstrator, which took around 18 months, where we intensively worked on the engineering side of things. Then we built a full-scale mock-up of half a coach. A lot of study went into it.

It does surprise people, I think, yes. But when you delve deeper into the problems with the gauge, you start to understand why. I mean, Britain invented the train and after that there were private companies coming in with different gauges.

I know it might sound strange, but I think the two world wars almost worked in our favour. Those events produced the need to transport the likes of military tanks by rail in Europe; that’s probably why most gauges of the main lines are big enough to carry double-deckers.

Well, it all kind of overlaps each other. If you can fit more people on a train, then you use less energy per person to transport. The other thing is to do with creating coaches that are as long as possible, with a very lightweight construction of the body. In saving weight we can put more people on the train – roughly 30% more passengers – but with fewer trains on the line.

We have also been looking with our engineers into incorporating a single-wheel drive, which allows the AeroLiner3000 to have much less abrasion on the tracks, while lowering maintenance costs. All these things play together. Initially, the costs for trains like this will be higher, but over the lifetime, maintenance costs – and that goes for infrastructure, too – should be considerably less.

It was a big consideration. One of the lead objectives of the competition was the ‘4Cs’ – carbon, cost, capacity and customer comfort. We approached carbon reductions by lowering the weight of the train, meaning you have less acceleration weight and weight per passenger. Basically, the lower the weight, the less the energy used.

Again, massively important – it’s a factor we’ve looked at from the beginning. Sometimes trains just aren’t very nice for passengers because they feel so cramped, or are designed in a way to be low-maintenance. We believe we can design trains to look better with the same maintenance costs.

Actually, the thinking behind it has always been: can we design a train that feels like a business jet? Like I mentioned earlier, we’ve had the Learjet in mind – spaces in which you can’t stand up but have a nice interior. We’ve attempted to do that using standard train materials. How the passenger actually feels is really important to us. You can’t make a smaller train without making it nicer than a normal space – otherwise people will feel like they are cramped.

Definitely. The operators might save some money with their current trains, but on a national level, as you say, we are seeing people getting upset and wasting time, which can lead to a loss in productivity.

It’s quite hard to put into numbers, but it’s true. I think train operators that make their trains more comfortable should get tax incentives.

The DfT have shown some interest, as you allude to. We’ve provided them with some quite detailed information, but they haven’t made any decisions yet. They’ve made no official statement. Network Rail has also been in touch, but I can’t say anymore at this present time.

It’s dependent on many things. If we received more funding and support that’d certainly move things along. But, in answer to your question, I think this train could realistically be on the tracks within the next six to seven years.

Share this article