krokodil wrote:I never saw any single frame double deckers in CSD nor in PKP livery.
ČSD received only 50 articulated double-decker trains and 50 single double-decker coaches. Considering the size of the Czechoslovakian railroad network, they've been a true rarity. I also have seen only few photos of them.
But PKP got lots of them. They got 483 articulated trains (plus 57 additional end segments for replacement) and 160 single double-decker coaches. Double-deck vehicles are omnipresent on most Polish mainlines and even on some branch lines.
When I was in Frankfurt upon Oder for the last time, the regional trains between Frankfurt and Poznań consisted of those single double-decker coaches.
krokodil wrote:Do you have some photis from those coaches?
I think, this is the wrong place for non-Romanian prototypes. But I'm searching for pictures and will post them in their respective threads.
Christtking wrote:If may I add. I think the Roumanian built compositions (under licence) the 4 rack always coupled together double deckers were a little different than the East German ones. In Roumania the practice of push trains was not allowed, only when the train was pushed from the depot to the main station (for example in Bucharest Nord=main terminal:kind of like Franfurt auf Main), so when the train (any type of train) was ready to leave for its destination the loco was always ready in the front. When the trains would arrive at their final destination the loco would pull all the way close to the buffers. We got the idea. Some of the European guys know what I am talking about. If the train had to continue its route to another destination, the loco that pulled the train will have to be uncoupled and would remain in that position until another loco will be coupled at the other end of the train (in the front again) for pull service (always). After the train will pull out to its next destination, then the original loco will pull out to go to the shop for maintenance or for its next duty in order to clear the track for another train to come in. So in reality the double decker (type TE) trains were never required to have control cabs, no use for them.
Why do you think, this was a difference?
Also in GDR push-pull trains were relatively rare. They were almost only used as suburban trains and on few regional connections from and to agglomerations. But on the major part of GDR's railroad network, you never saw any cab cars.
So, also Deutsche Reichsbahn mainly got cars and trains without cabs. And they were identical to those delivered to Romania.
By the way:
Deutsche Reichsbahn was the only
customer ordering cab cars from GDR's industry. There was not even a single cab car exported.
Christtking wrote:Another thing about those 4 unit double decker coaches if I remember correctly both end walls were extended straight even with the roof (no slope/ special design), same as the design of GLIEDERZUG. The gangways (accordion style made of rigid rubber) were not all the way up extended to the roof like the East German ones. Where the coach's straight walls would end that's where the "burduf" (accordion gangway) will end also, straight (flat) shape on the roof. There were end walls of each single coach on top sections were the rubber gangway was not present (extended) like found in the East German version (s).
Who says that cars have to be unchanged for their entire lives? Poland also got all their articulated trains with sloped roof ends. But now most of these trains have vertical roof ends. They have simply been altered.
I've heard that very few of GDR's articulated trains also got those vertical ends, eventually. But I don't know if it's true.
CFRiad wrote:@LVG1. As you know, UIC prescribes uniform ways for all railways to designate vehicle types using letters and vehicle serials using numbers. E.g. a first and second class sleeper car would be designated as WLABmee ("WL" for sleeper, "AB" for 1/2 class, "m" for I-can't-remember, "ee" for multi voltage electric heating. Same car would get the 71-31 series as the 5th to 8th digit of their vehicle registration number ("7" for 1/2 class sleeper, "1" for 11 compartments, "31" for 140 km/h max speed and electric-only heating.
Yes, I know of these UIC standards. But the way you describe it could be misleading.
These standards shall improve the international traffic. So, narrow-gauge vehicles are excluded from these standards. The letter code does not even incorporate cabeese and MOW vehicles because they usually don't leave their home rails.
The number scheme is relatively explicit—though partially differently interpreted—, while the letter code is open to extensions.
The letter code for freight cars is relatively comprehensive. So only few nations make use of these extensions. Germany, for instance, uses both additional small letters behind a dash and superscript three-digit numbers.
But the UIC standard for passenger cars only includes the main classification—the capital letters and the small "c" for couchette coaches. All other small letters are individually defined by the respective nations. Several nations have even defined additional letters for the main classification. So, for example, Germany adds an additional "D" in front of the UIC-standardized main classification to mark double-deck vehicles.
Regarding your images, only "WLAB" is UIC-standardized. "mee" and "TE25a" are individually defined by CFR.
CFRiad wrote:That being said, the 16-17/26-17 cars were not UIC compliant and were meant for domestic service only. I don't think UIC had a letter designation for double-decker cars back in the 70's.
These trains were UIC-compliant. And they were included by UIC's standards.
But as far as I know, CFR generally omited the letter codes on their passenger cars in the 1970's and 1980's, didn't they?