It is inevitable that new trains designed for level boarding will still need ramps as although there are now platform height standards, the majority of platforms are not of standard height (even varying along their own length). It’s not just “the disabled” who will benefit. I’m mid 50s and probably still more active than most but Stapleton Road down platform on a bad day is still an ordeal. As for small children, luggage etc….
Thank you @The exile, that was pretty much my point. I am just a couple of years or so behind you and yes some stations on a bad day are an ordeal even for the able bodied.
I agree the Aventra, a comparatively modern train, is a step backward compared to Stadler's current UK offerings. I think this was a big mistake by Bombardier who might have taken the opportunity in evolving from the Electro/turbostar range to engineer new UK vehicles for ~915mm platforms. That Anglia were early adopters of level boarding for their Stadler intercity and rural rolling stock makes the contrast with their Aventras very striking. If Bombardier had made the Aventras 'natively' 915mm, then raising the floor for niche applications such as Crossrail would still have been possible, although the alternative of making the central section platforms 915mm would have been possible as well (and much preferable in my opinion).
In the case of substandard platforms, the variance from standard in height terms at least is ALWAYS that the platform is lower than 915mm, in which case a lower train floor height is ALWAYS going to offer some improvement in vertical stepping distance, even if assistance at such platforms for some passengers will still be required. There is no downside to a lower train floor which is why I think it should be adopted throughout the whole train on all new fleets where possible. At particularly busy stations, the platforms are already more likely to be at or very near standard height, or the business case to modify them is likely to be better, due to the associated reduction in risk and potential dwell time minimisation. Even at the quietest rural halts the cost of raising a substandard platform to ~915mm is likely to be cheaper than to ~1200mm.
Absolutely! There is surely an argument that most fleets really ought to be gangwayed as standard, except in those specific situations where there can very definitely be any use for it (e.g. fixed formation 10/12 car sets, etc). Either way, there is a clear case for this on the GWR network. Newbuild non-gangwayed stock regularly running around in multiple is just pure bad design.
Surely the point is that Churchward was a pioneer of standardisation 8n the loco fleet, and this looks to be a similar project.
To be fair, that was the whole premise of the naff GWR re-branding. They wanted to get away from the WorstGroup brand that had become toxic so went for washing the whole in sentimentality and nostalgia.
I'm no great fan of 3+2 but I'd like to see some dimensioned drawings showing interior width at floor level of the classes to determine how much of a fundamental problem this is. My impression is that overall floor width at doors doesn't change but traditional british floor height trains can balloon out sharply to max body width as that's already well above platform level. 915mm stock also has to pass some sites with higher platforms and Harrington humps so probably must stay narrower to a higher point. So it could be that the presence of some higher platforms in previous attempts to get limited provision is what prevents universal level boarding at UK standard platforms. This will thus remain a constraint forever at all future stock renewals. How flippin depressing.
You surely mean below solebar. Electric only FLIRTs don't need a length consuming power pack. German accu (BEMU) versions don't have them either so they must have found sufficient space for batteries on/in/under the passenger cars. Electrical kit in particular is getting smaller and lighter so the 200mm to 300mm loss underfloor in UK variants may not be such a big deal.
You can probably put some of the kit on the roof within UK LG and there is some room under the floor with 915mm height as compared to some Euro examples with rather lower platforms. You've also got to factor in maintenance access. I'm not rooting particularly for Stadler except insofar as they are probably the state of the art at the moment and other makers may be able to further improve on the same basic idea.
Dont forget Acton Wells junction to the west London line needs to be wired for freights ideally ypu wire down to olympia as dual voltage electric locomotives could switch on level rather than on a incline
We don't have any other low floor units to compare but I think this might be a particular feature of the 777. In general dual voltage equipment is pretty much the same weight and volume as AC, and I don't see that low floor would change this fundamentally. The only significant extra equipment is the pickup shoes and their cabling.
With regard to para 3 - see:
With regard to para 3 - see:
Civia - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The platforms on the Málaga/Fuengirola Cercanias are capable of level boarding from the A3 vehicle, which also has the 'disabled' WC. There are 17 stations on this line. If my memory serves me well (sounds like a phrase from a song....) all of these stations are straight, which helps more than a little! It uses the 464 units. Looking at my local area and taking the Bournemouth to Southampton section, it is the case that only four (Pokesdown, New Milton, Sway and Beaulieu Road) of the thirteen could be considered as straight - the other nine are certainly on a curve. The latter will always be an issue with level boarding.
www.euronews.com
Coming rather late to this particular game, but even before having through gangways, hopefully someone will push for everything to be capable of being coupled to everything else. And all controlled from the front cab.
