Stadler Flirt best modern train?

[Dr Hoo]

Only if you don't count the original deployment of 170s

But they were on IC services from St Pancras. (Long before the Corby electrics.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

But they were on IC services from St Pancras. (Long before the Corby electrics.)

The very original deployment was (as was usual for anything new and diesel out of Derby) the Matlock branch. I forget how long for, but I made a special trip to ride one!

 

[Zomboid]

There are worse things to be cascaded then 755s, though to be honest it's hard to see why they would be. They seem to be doing a good job in East Anglia and Clown Point seem to be good at looking after them (following an interesting introduction...). You'd need a very good reason to upset that particular apple cart.

 

[bspahh]

Was step-free accessible public transport ever a legal expectation? I understand the cost and difficulties involved, but then I don't have a stick or wheelchair or pram ....

I don't know. However, the step-free access was transformative for my in laws.

It was stressful for them when they had to have assistance from the guard to use a ramp. Would they be in the right place? Would the guard remember that they needed help? With the 755s they could use any door, on their own. It gave them several years more independence.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The very original deployment was (as was usual for anything new and diesel out of Derby) the Matlock branch. I forget how long for, but I made a special trip to ride one!

Matlock may have been used for test or training runs but at the risk of stating the obvious, Midlands Mainline was an InterCity-only franchise. I was on what was claimed to be the ‘first public Turbostar run’ from a Northamptonshire station to St Pancras on 15 March 1999.

 

[Technologist]

For level boarding trains, it’s not possible to 100% drop the floors as the running equipment needs to go somewhere. Expect more of the same from other manufacturers when further new train fleets are introduced towards the end of this decade.

I do wonder what's wrong with Thameslink solution of just having a raised section of platform around certain doors?

 

[tfw756rider]

the East of England and the Welsh valleys are hardly picturesque viewing

As someone who has travelled on 231s and 756s in the Welsh valleys and a couple of 755s between Peterborough and Ely, I would argue that I have actually had some nice views, even out of those windows (which suggests that there isn't actually anything wrong with them!)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jun 2025 ==

The Welsh Valleys are stunning

Exactly! Especially if you look up at the actual... valleys

 

[Zomboid]

I do wonder what's wrong with Thameslink solution of just having a raised section of platform around certain doors?

Do they have that at every station, or is it just in the core? I haven't noticed it anywhere other than Blackfriars & Farringdon. Could be something that's only compatible with 700s - at the very least it requires 700 door spacing and accurate stopping points, so wouldn't be appropriate at London Bridge or East Croydon, for example.

But if that is acceptable for TL, then it suggests that having some doors level boarding but not all is acceptable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Matlock may have been used for test or training runs but at the risk of stating the obvious, Midlands Mainline was an InterCity-only franchise.

It was in public service. Presumably it was as a Central Trains service nominally but it was absolutely a brand new MML unit!

I was on what was claimed to be the ‘first public Turbostar run’ from a Northamptonshire station to St Pancras on 15 March 1999.

Falsely claimed, it seems.

 

[dosxuk]

But they were on IC services from St Pancras. (Long before the Corby electrics.)

Central Trains had it's own batch of brand new 170s they used for non IC services in the East Midlands.

The claim was

East Mids non-IC operations have never had new stock

not that the MML franchise has never had new non-IC stock, as that would make little sense with it previously being IC only.

 

[cambsy]

I can remember doing 170’s on MML, when they for short time did Sheffield-St Pancras, at time they seemed quite quick compared to other trains, but pale iin comparison to modern units, in terms of performance etc.

 

[QSK19]

Central Trains had it's own batch of brand new 170s they used for non IC services in the East Midlands.

The claim was

not that the MML franchise has never had new non-IC stock, as that would make little sense with it previously being IC only.

The pedantic tone of your reply makes no sense. EMT and EMR - both MML TOCs - have both operated non-IC services and have never had new stock procured for said services. That’s a fact.

CT is no comparator given that its operations stretched across the West Midlands as well as the East - we are talking specifically about the East Midlands here. In fact, the 170s were based more in the West Mids, as demonstrated by the fact that when CT was split off, the West Mids got the 170s and the East got the 15x stock in abysmal condition.

So, no, the East Mids has never had new non-IC service stock.

Anyway, this is way, way off topic. Bringing this back somewhat on topic in terms of discussing the trains referred to in the thread subject, I would love to see some FLIRTS grace our region in the future.

 

[Trainbike46]

I do wonder what's wrong with Thameslink solution of just having a raised section of platform around certain doors?

A few issues:
- Firstly, a higher platform at the same distance fouls to loading gauge, so you either need to put the platform further away (causing a larger horizontal gap), or accept fouling the loading gauge (especially an issue for freight). The second can be acceptable in the thameslink or elizabeth line core, but not further out (which is why all both lines don't have this beyond their core section)

- Having different platform heights ensures any train can only offer level boarding at some but not all stations

- Rebuilding all platforms would be way more expensive than replacing trains that reach their end of life with level-boarding trains

 

[Harpo]

I do wonder what's wrong with Thameslink solution of just having a raised section of platform around certain doors?

Er, setting things in stone concrete? Fine if there’s only one type of train at that station in perpetuity.

 

[dosxuk]

The pedantic tone of your reply makes no sense. EMT and EMR - both MML TOCs - have both operated non-IC services and have never had new stock procured for said services. That’s a fact.

Midland Mainline - the TOC, not the route - didn't operate non-IC services, so naturally it's 170's weren't used on non-IC services - which is what @Dr Hoo was saying.

CT is no comparator given that its operations stretched across the West Midlands as well as the East - we are talking specifically about the East Midlands here. In fact, the 170s were based more in the West Mids, as demonstrated by the fact that when CT was split off, the West Mids got the 170s and the East got the 15x stock in abysmal condition.

The 170's were widely used on the Liverpool-Norwich route, and made regular appearances on many other East Midlands routes. To deny that they were widely used in the region is just revisionism.

So, no, the East Mids has never had new non-IC service stock.

I you want to ignore the new non-IC service stock they did have, then sure, they've never had any ‍♀️

Sure it's 25 years ago now, but back then brand new factory fresh trains were running round the East Midlands on non-IC services for the local franchise operator. That they were then transferred away is a different matter entirely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Midland Mainline - the TOC, not the route - didn't operate non-IC services, so naturally it's 170's weren't used on non-IC services - which is what @Dr Hoo was saying.

Replied here as I think the debate on the Matlock branch is going off somewhat: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/midland-mainline-and-central-trains-170-introduction.288081/

 

[stevieinselby]

Most people can walk up steps as long as they're not massive (yes, you, CAF) and we aren't adopting a policy of removing staircases and escalators from stations as they move people much more efficiently than lifts.

We are, quite rightly, moving towards having step-free access to the platform at every station, albeit slowly. That doesn't mean removing staircases and escalators, it doesn't even mean building new stations without them, but it does mean providing step-free alternatives. "Most people can manage" isn't good enough if you're one of the people who can't. And yes, I understand that with legacy infrastructure we can't fix everything overnight, but the least we can do is to ensure that all new builds – whether that's stations or trains – are compatible with step-free access through the current standards.

I do wonder what's wrong with Thameslink solution of just having a raised section of platform around certain doors?

Stopping points, train formations and gauge clearance.

Thameslink trains are controlled by computer through the core section, which means they will always stop in exactly the same place. That's essential if you want to have humps on the platform lining up with the doors. Outside the core section, where trains are controlled by drivers, they can't guarantee the stopping point and so those humps aren't used.

Humps only work when every train has the same formation, so that the designated accessible area(s) will always align with the hump(s) on the platform. If a station will be served by different train formations and configurations (whether that's a different number of carriages, end doors vs 1/3-2/3, 20m carriages and 23m carriages) then humps that line up for one train won't line up for the next.

You need to have some gap between the platform edge and the train body. Where all trains are passenger trains stopping at the station – as is the case on the Thameslink and Elizabeth Line cores and on the Underground – you can get away with a small gap, because trains will only be moving slowly and so they will have a tight kinematic envelope. As soon as you have freight or fast trains coming past the platform, you need a bigger gap, because at speed the train will wobble and bounce more and there would be a high risk of it clipping the platform if it was set up to be level with and adjacent to the train doorway. While that risk is less with a hump than a full length platform, it would still be a problem. And the gap you need to leave at 1100mm (typical train door height) is wider than the gap you need to leave at 915mm (standard platform height) because of the shape of the train profile, creating bigger problems any time you are using a train without a gap-filler.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We are, quite rightly, moving towards having step-free access to the platform at every station, albeit slowly. That doesn't mean removing staircases and escalators, it doesn't even mean building new stations without them, but it does mean providing step-free alternatives.

An example of a step-free alternative is having one vehicle with level boarding (and having all the accessibility related stuff in that vehicle) rather than the whole train if that leads to an overall more practical train design. Or maybe two on long trains like Thameslink.

Requiring every door to be step free is equivalent to banning stairs at stations. There are advantages of stairs - they move able bodied people more quickly than lifts. So you have both stairs and lifts.

There are advantages of high floor trains/trams - ease of putting stuff underneath and a flat floor throughout. So you can have both low floor and high floor coaches. I still think the original Sheffield design is the best accessible tram design overall that there has ever been.

Nobody is seeking to ban double decker buses. You just put the accommodation for those who can't climb stairs downstairs.

 

[stevieinselby]

An example of a step-free alternative is having one vehicle with level boarding rather than the whole train if that leads to an overall more practical train design.

It's certainly a possibility, but see my other points above relating to train formations.
If you're in a wheelchair, or otherwise with limited mobility, in order to travel without assistance you need to know either (a) exactly where on the platform to wait for the accessible boarding point, or (2) that any door will be accessible. And that first one is very hard to guarantee unless you have specific fleet formations. If a 6-car set pulls in instead of the usual 4-car set and the accessible door is in a different place, you might not be able to get along the platform in time, especially if it's crowded – if you can even tell where on the platform you need to be.

 

[Trainbike46]

An example of a step-free alternative is having one vehicle with level boarding (and having all the accessibility related stuff in that vehicle) rather than the whole train if that leads to an overall more practical train design. Or maybe two on long trains like Thameslink.

This is being done in various countries, through things like trains with both double-deck and single deck coaches*, where the single deck coaches provide the accessible locations.

However, if the full train is single deck, I don't see a reason not to provide level boarding at all doors, as everyone benefits from it. If a flat floor is required/desirable, this is definitely achievable especially at our (relatively high) platforms. The stadler SMILE is a high-speed (250 km/h) design that offers this at lower platforms than ours, for example.

*designs like this are available from Alstom, CAF, and Siemens, and probably others too.

Requiring every door to be step free is equivalent to banning stairs at stations. There are advantages of stairs - they move able bodied people more quickly than lifts. So you have both stairs and lifts.

But there are no rules requiring every coach to have level boarding - and noone, as far as I'm aware, is proposing such a rule. What should be a rule is that every new train should have at least one level-boarding coach, in practice though I would suspect this will likely mean all coaches will be level-boarding, and there are benefits for everyone (faster boarding, easier with luggage, etc.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, if the full train is single deck, I don't see a reason not to provide level boarding at all doors, as everyone benefits from it.

In UK loading gauge there are still disadvantages, e.g. narrowness at foot level. This is minor in a 2+2 coach and indeed most trains seem to still put a heater conduit there which gets in the way anyway. However it does basically preclude a 3+2 layout, or 2+2 with narrow seats.

The SMILE does not have a flat floor throughout. You can see the changing floor level by looking at the window sizes. The only low floor trains I know of that have a fully flat floor downstairs and don't only have a downstairs middle section* are Talgo units.

* All of the downstairs floor in SBB IC2000 coaches is flat, but that's achieved by not having a downstairs section over the bogies at all - only upstairs runs the full length of the coach.

 

[NCT]

It's certainly a possibility, but see my other points above relating to train formations.
If you're in a wheelchair, or otherwise with limited mobility, in order to travel without assistance you need to know either (a) exactly where on the platform to wait for the accessible boarding point, or (2) that any door will be accessible. And that first one is very hard to guarantee unless you have specific fleet formations. If a 6-car set pulls in instead of the usual 4-car set and the accessible door is in a different place, you might not be able to get along the platform in time, especially if it's crowded – if you can even tell where on the platform you need to be.

On an SBB Giruno each 200m unit only has one accessible car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're in a wheelchair, or otherwise with limited mobility, in order to travel without assistance you need to know either (a) exactly where on the platform to wait for the accessible boarding point, or (2) that any door will be accessible. And that first one is very hard to guarantee unless you have specific fleet formations. If a 6-car set pulls in instead of the usual 4-car set and the accessible door is in a different place, you might not be able to get along the platform in time, especially if it's crowded – if you can even tell where on the platform you need to be.

While I accept that low floor helps some others, wheelchair users need to be in the wheelchair space, which is typically only in one or two places in the train, not sat in the vestibule. Unless the train is designed with very narrow seating so you could wheel through it (a few are e.g. 730/0, 700 and 777, but in UK loading gauge it wouldn't be practical for all trains to be like this because you can't really use 43.5mm seats with no armrests on intercity trains) you do need to board at the correct door.

Therefore the important thing here is accurate displays and announcements so they can be in the correct place.

 

[Zomboid]

I suspect that accessibility enhancements that might be considered aimed at wheelchair users help far, far more people who don't use a wheelchair then those who do. Everyone from people who just find steps and stairs challenging, to those with bulky or heavy luggage and people with pushchairs.

Accessible seats are found throughout a train, not just surrounding wheelchair spaces.

With improved accessibility, everyone wins.

I can accept that it might not be possible to do every carriage of every train with level boarding and a flat floor, but that really should be the aim. Certainly with non-high speed electric traction that doesn't need engines, fuel tanks cooling and so on underneath. And looking at the wheels and bogies on a voyager I don't see why it should be impossible on a 125mph electric train.

 

[NCT]

Entirely my own preference - I find the British flat floor with a slightly more complicated platform/train interface on the whole far easier to negotiate than the rollercoaster floors of continental trains.

 

[Brubulus]

I suspect that accessibility enhancements that might be considered aimed at wheelchair users help far, far more people who don't use a wheelchair then those who do. Everyone from people who just find steps and stairs challenging, to those with bulky or heavy luggage and people with pushchairs.

Accessible seats are found throughout a train, not just surrounding wheelchair spaces.

With improved accessibility, everyone wins.

I can accept that it might not be possible to do every carriage of every train with level boarding and a flat floor, but that really should be the aim. Certainly with non-high speed electric traction that doesn't need engines, fuel tanks cooling and so on underneath. And looking at the wheels and bogies on a voyager I don't see why it should be impossible on a 125mph electric train.

Agree that level boarding is very helpful for many people, and if anything there is too much of a focus on wheelchair users over other people who benefit massively from level boarding. All trains should have at least one level door in my opinion, and internal ramps and steps don't really matter to me, since they can be avoided by those with limited mobility while a step to board the train cannot.

I know they aren't particularly aesthetically pleasing, but it's not like modern flat floor trains are either.

 

[Zomboid]

As I said earlier

Class 220s have smaller wheels (716-780mm) than 345s (750-825mm).

LU S stock wheels are 710-770mm diameter, which is close enough to the 220 that is only a differential wear situation.

I just don't believe that it's not possible to have level boarding at a 915mm platform and a flat floor inside. At least for electric traction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stupid question... S stock has longitudinal seats in the end sections where the bogies are. Do the wheels actually protrude into the cabin, but this isn't visible because the boxed-in seats cover it? Or are the wheels fully below the floor? It's hard to see by looking at one from the outside because LU use traditional underframe construction even on their most modern units, these included, and the underframe obscures the view of the top of the wheels.

 

[Zomboid]

Hard to quickly find a conclusive photo, but it's a good question.
From what I can see the wheels probably don't, but I'm not so confident saying that about the suspension.

 

[NCT]

On the S stock the bogies are under doors, so there's definitely no protrusion.