1. They'd be non standard with the new fleet.
Because the Anglia FLIRTs are the best regional unit we’ve ever had. You may not like the unlevel floor, but that is a massive benefit for accessibility. It’s how it should be done.
Anything we buy apart from more diesel mechanical units will be non standard with the new fleet?
I think there are better options that don't involve buying a tram.
They're compliant with all the relevant heavy rail standards, to no less extent than anything from Siemens, Alstom, or CAF, and the low floor is unquestionably a benefit for passengers in allowing greater access to level boarding.
It is where platform length is an issue.
No different to what you proposed about ordering 115 - 120m stock though.
Surely you want to minimise the dead space for passengers
6.69m is a fairly small amount of lost space.
You mentioned platform length, not dead space.
An electric ramp ala buses
Indeed, M5000s can at least couple up to each other.
No and doing so may wind up converting me. I'm still presently against the concept.
I'm talking about a level floor, not the fact they're low floor.
You're opposed to the varying floor heights in the train because it reminds you of an LRV, but we're telling you that this is what makes level boarding possible in a lot of places where it previously wasn't.
6.69m is neither here nor there. You’re probably not far off that with coupled units with the dead cab space. Flirt vehicles are also considerably shorter and the end doors are a long way in from the cab. You don’t need the cab or the section of saloon beyond the end door on the platform at the station.
They actually remind me of the "bogie" humps on low floor trams, but that's neither here nor there. That also isn't the only thing that strikes me as tram/LRV like, but again, neither here nor there.
Well the 777s are also built by Stadler, also have level boarding, built to the same safety standards as the FLIRTs, yet have level floors. So how come they could get level floors to work on 1 family of train but not the other?
What does his have to do with anything? Most dislikes of things are based on feeling anyways, so what even is this argument?
They don't have a level floor as well though the hump is less noticeable.
I think you answered your own question before asking it.
Correct. It’s a totally different product from the Flirts. The T&W metro is also a Stadler Metro product.
Which is derived from the units Stadler are building for the Berlin U-Bahn, and is the basis of the new stock for the Tyne and Wear Metro and also the Glasgow Subway - ironically making them closer to being light-rail vehicles than the FLIRTs are.
I'm trying to establish the reasons for you being "against the concept". It's fine to have subjective preferences, but they should be clearly distinct from objective reasoning.
If that's what makes them look like an LRV, then yes, that is the reason. However, I don't think that's the case with me, case in point CORAIL coaches and the Railjet.
Because it's my opinion, therefore can't be objective, so I don't see why you want me to drag an objective reason out of an opinion. Objectively, they allow for level boarding and are therefore great for wheelchair users. But this is a fact that we all know. Subjectively, they look like a tram/LRV. If you want more context/reasoning behind my opinion, I suggest watching the Equinox episode Running to Time (I think it's still available on youtube), specifically the part where they talk about the design of the Class 91 (it's fairly early on in the documentary).
I thought calling them trams was grossly unfair?*
Please point out where I said I hate them? I have expressed my reservations about them and explained said reservations but I've never said I hate them during the process. I've said I dislike the concept they've used to get a low floor however, but hate was not a word I used.
