Is modern train design already out of date?

So it’s the number of passengers that’s the problem really, Andrew, rather than the lack of doors or the number of carriages [are all the platforms long enough for longer trains?].

I think the timetabled bunching of trains on a dense network like south-east London is due to the stopping patterns, the capacity of the junctions, and the number of different termini served. I suspect the network is now at full capacity and will not be able to carry additional commuters so incoming residents of the new housing developments are in for a shock. Those who rely on a train on the inner London stretch of track will come of worse and will never get a seat and will often be prevented form boarding. Crossrail from Abbey Wood to Paddington in December 2018 will probably provide considerable relief initially but will obviously attract more commuters overall.

Well, a cheeky answer is that there are no bridges and tunnels in the skies to limit the width of aeroplanes.

Trains are both wider and higher on the continent because – largely for military purposes – the railways were built to larger dimensions than the British lines which pre-dated them.

That great Victorian engineer I K Brunel built the Great Western Railway to the Broad Gauge dimensions which was 50% [approx] wider than the Standard Gauge. The GWR was superior in many respects because the wider tracks made for a smoother ride, higher speeds, and greater comfort. Unfortunately, most British railways were built to the Standard Gauge which eventually prevailed and the GWR had to convert to that size. Brunel’s legacy is still visible in the wider bridges and tunnels on the original GWR lines from London Paddington to the West of England and Wales. Some of the trains on the present Great Western are slightly wider than those on other lines and cannot run on or be transferred to other routes.

The idea of no terminals is actually rather nice. There’s too much rail infrastructure for that to happen with trains, but monorails could work rather nicely in that respect. Monorails are also elevated, so could run with a comparatively small footprint in cities requiring only 4′ x 4′ patch of ground every 50 yards for the concrete track supports. Monorails are ideal for cities, too, because large buildings could be subverted to stations, so travellers could embark and disembark without ever going outside.

Gerald, that’s a nice “thinking outside the box” (or outside the loading gauge) idea.

For these wider trains, we’ll need to acquire a national network of lightly graded routes with nice gentle curves that connects most of our major conurbations. Perhaps, the compulsory purchase of the existing motorway network would provide a nice starting point for this 😉