Is this a theoretical like-for-like comparison, or are you simply comparing between two observed layouts?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Stadler Flirt best modern train?
- Thread starter cambsy
- Start date
- Status
Is this a theoretical like-for-like comparison, or are you simply comparing between two observed layouts?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
taking into account number of tables, luggage and bike facilities, cafe facilities etc, the 745 is able to provide more tables than an 801, with equivalent cafe facilities (though no kitchen) and better bike and luggage storage, and around 15% more capacity. I do accept it's 10 metres longer, but overall it's around 8% more space efficient in my opinion.
This is likely due to the lack of end doors.
That's comparing two observed layouts specified for two different operational environments. It's apples and oranges.
You are going to have to show your workings metre by metre. Take off all the unusable train lengths - e.g. end of the nose to first metre of useful passenger compartment (in the IET's case it's the cab, in the 745 it's cab plus traction equipment behind), then additional traction equipment space (745 has traction equipment in the 6th and 7th coaches, the 801 may have equipment cabins in the vestibule ends). Then assume same number of toilets and same aggregate door width. This can all be worked out exactly - no 'opinion' required.
Otherwise all you are saying is they didn't specify a kitchen in the 745 that buys you more seats. It's a completely meaningless statement.
Trainbike46
Established Member
The 745 has a benefit, in that there are no tapered carriage ends, while the 80x does. Some of the tapered carriage ends are used usefully (e.g., toilets), but quite a bit of it isn't (I'm including the bike racks in this because they're difficult to use even for reasonably fit 20-somethings with a standard bike, and utterly useless for anyone outside that category).
The doors are one of the causes of different capacity though, the 745 has one door (+vestibule) per ~20m carriage, that gets people coming from both sides, whereas the 80x has 2 doors per 26m carriage, but people only come from one side. Therefore, assuming the same aggregate doorwidth ISN'T an objective or fair comparison, you'd have to assume the same aggregate door functionality (which takes less width on the FLIRT design compared to the 80x design).
Trainbike46
Established Member
I think that's a fair statement - the driving factor for the largest difference is the interior choices, such as number of toilets, buffet or no buffet, kitchen or no kitchen, etc.
RacsoMoquette
Member
Are Turbostars underpowered? At Cambridge the XC Class 170s seem to labor out of the station, they also make a terrible racket. Plus the amount of fumes are annoying. As you said, they are extreamly sluggish compared to their contemporary akin to FLIRTS and Civities. I agree the GA FLIRTS are a premium product and far more pleasant to ride than the less refined Civity trains.
To be honest, in my view, the best regional train design in this country has to be the Alstom Class 175. Forgetting all the problems relating to their reliability and build quality; their interior is second to none. The more intercity style of doors at the Coach ends makes for a far quieter and less draughty journey. Unlike their Turbostar competitor. Plus the Class 175s had their exhaust pipes concealed, which made the carriage gangways far less hot. Plus in my experience on a long Class 170 journey from Cambridge to Birmingham, the units become very hot and unpleasant diesel fumes kick in due to the stop/start nature of said line. The Coradia 100 is what I think is probably on par with newer Stadler FLIRT models. Not owing to reliability or build quality, but interior ambiance. Plus they both seem very continental, more so than Turbostars or Civities. If the Coradia 1000s had been built at a different plant with more quality control, the units would have certainly been more widespread throughout the British Rail network. Maybe they could have even took over the Turbostars in terms of numbers. But alas that wasn’t the case, and a very sad ruining of what could have been an excellent train.
Trainbike46
Established Member
Those are pretty fundamental issues though. I'd pick an uncomfortable train that gets me where I'm going on time over a comfortable one that doesn't every single time!
Halifaxlad
Established Member
I do have to say I first went in one at Derby during the Great Gathering and I was impressed with the low floors throughout only raising under the seats above the bogies.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The seats are comfortable and the aircon works. However it ends there. Luggage space is very poor (you can barely get a coat on the rack), they are unreliable and end doors really don't work well for busy regional services.
A version of them would be good for the "Gerald" instead of ageing Mk4s, but they aren't good on the North Wales Coast in summer at all. Slow to board, slow to alight, bags everywhere, poor for standees etc.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
I went on one of the ones that run from Liverpool Street to Norwich the other day. Didn’t care for it. No end doors, raised flooring here and there - a bit of a topsy-turvey environment
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I do find them a bit like that, yes. I can't help but think that a better way of doing low floor would be a drop between the bogies in one coach with steps up and down, particularly given that it's not a very big drop, only about 10" or so.
Interestingly the FLIRTs I like the most are the PKP IC ones which are high floor throughout. Like with buses low floor does make for clumsy layouts at times if a lot of thought doesn't go in.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
Why do we need low floor trains anyway?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
So wheelchair users can board unaided. Same as buses.
Trainbike46
Established Member
Level-boarding brings many advantages:
- Independently accessible for people in wheelchairs
- Easier access for people with buggies or luggage
- faster boarding for everyone (people board faster if level than if going up a step)
It really is a plus for everyone, with the biggest benefits for people who use wheelchairs.
At least one car of level boarding should be an absolute requirement in all new trains. Designs that do not include that should not be ordered again.
The line ups of class-specific boarding ramps at stations are a sad demonstration of the rail industry’s inability to operate as a unified sustem.
At a recent forum meal, there was a forum member who has the job of working out how to handle level boarding at Old Oak Common, for 30+ different types of rolling stock. The plan is to have a rubber strip at the platform edge to fill in the gap. Then it is a case of working out which rolling stock will be allowed to pass through the platforms, and at what speed.
BerkshireRails
On Moderation
I was on a tram in France which has similar raised seating areas as Stadler FLIRTs and someone fell off them and hurt there ankle. It might be worth replacing the raised seats on the FLIRTs with luggage racks to remove the risk of someone falling from the raised seated area.
I would imagine as the 345s, 387s and IETs Driving Trailers all have similar floor heights it should be easier than trying to get both a 710 and 499/2 to level board at the same platform.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Then you're well down on capacity, the area above the bogies is about a quarter of the vehicle.
People do trip on the ramps on Merseyrail; I've generally heard that people would have preferred them to be more pronounced steps like on a low floor bus.
The issue is with the units which are at the extremes. With some there will be a step up from the platform into the train and others which will have a step down. If there are units which will only be seen on rare occaisions, then it might be OK to have a low speed limit, and a tight fit with the rubber strips that will cause them to wear quickly. Ultimately, there will be a report which lands on someone's desk, who can decide what is acceptable.
I’ve tripped going up them and I have zero mobility issues.
BerkshireRails
On Moderation
IETs, 387s and 345s regularly work on the relief lines, after 22:00 or 23:00 everything has to be pathed as if on the Reliefs between London and Reading because of two track railway. GWR 387s work the night time (23:00-06:00) stoppers between Reading and London Paddington between Monday and Friday in place of an Elizabeth Line 345 service. The 345s are basically just an upgraded version of the 387s. The 387s and 345s are about 10-12cm wider than a IET.
Halifaxlad
Established Member
A few recent comments have got me thinking: should the flirts have lowered the floor throughout or should they have just stuck to doing it in one carriage ?
tfw756rider
On Moderation
The slow acceleration of the hydraulic transmission Turbostars (168s/170s/171s) is due to the way they're geared I believe. They still use the same Voith 2-stage hydraulic transmissions as 75mph and 90mph Sprinters/Turbos, but with different (again) ratio final drive gearboxes to get the 100mph.
The engine power isn't the problem - 422hp isn't that much less than the 480hp of the 172 engines. The big difference is that the 172s (and CAF NI C4Ks and Civity 195s/196s/197s) use ZF 6-speed "bus-style" mechanical gearboxes, which are much more fuel-efficient and give much better acceleration than the 168/170/171 hydraulic transmissions. Chiltern 168329 actually had them for a trial in 2022, but unfortunately they were also part of a failed hybrid system.
Stadler FLIRTs with diesel engines of course use electric transmission when running on diesel (which is all the time for 231s, sometimes for 755s and rarely ever for 756s) - that is, the diesel engines are engine-generators that provide power for the electric traction motors. This is the same way that 220s/221s/222s work (and 769s/800s/802s/805s/810s when in diesel mode, and 801s when in their emergency diesel mode).
==========
On the terrible racket (or the thrashy growl/bark that Turbostar enthusiasts like), the 168/170/171 exhaust silencers, for whatever reason, just aren't very effective compared to those on Sprinters/Turbos or 172s.
==========
On the annoying fumes (Turbostar enthusiasts love the claggiest of 168s/170s/171s), they come from that late 90s / early 2000s time when rail emissions regulations weren't much of a thing but the engines themselves were also quite dirty-running.
I believe East Midlands Railway actually trialled an exhaust cleaning system on vehicle 79631 of 170531 in 2021, which used Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR; AdBlue) and Diesel Particulate Filtration (DPF), but I'm not sure what came of it? The DPF would've also quietened the exhaust sound as it would've had silencing properties as a side effect, but I've not heard it.
Trainbike46
Established Member
Why would you do all that rather than do level-boarding at the standard platform height that almost all stations in the country already comply with?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Because the Lizzie is a high platform system and so, per the current plan, is HS2. It's not good that it is, but because Heathrow and the core are high platform rather than 915mm that can't be fixed easily.
BerkshireRails
On Moderation
Because Elizabeth Line is Britain's busiest railway and Old Oak Common is a major interchange and all services through old oak common share the similar floor height of 1,115mm.
Trainbike46
Established Member
This is true, however HS2 has dedicated platforms, so based on the 30+ train types comments I assumed we were talking about the conventional platforms, and discounted HS2.
The Elizabeth line is a problem. The only real fix would be to have all its platforms be dedicated to Elizabeth Line services, but as you say that isn't easily done.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Or, if you can provide a bypass for freight (does it?), you can go high for all services (needing to have freight on the reliefs is the reason you can't just raise all the Lizzie platforms). There is no low floor stock operating on the GWML at all nor is any planned, so you might be able to get close to level boarding on 80x and 165/166/Electrostar as well. 387s are pretty close at Heathrow and at the high HEx platforms at Paddington, though it'd be a bit of a bump in a wheelchair so I suspect some sort of short ramp might be used?
Trainbike46
Established Member
And you have a design that offers level boarding, no large horizontal gap, AND allows every single type of freight locomotive and freight trailer to fit (which in practice means you can't foul the loading gauge at all), without introducing ridiculous speed restrictions?
My understanding is that is impossible.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Going high for all services is a problem, because then you'd have to standardise at 1100mm for all the places served from there, which involves rebuilding every platform on the entire GWR network, which in practice then means you'd have to go and standardise the entire network on that. It's a terrible idea. The smallest number of platforms alterations would be to rebuild the elizabeth line to standard 915mm when the next generation of Lizzie Line trains comes in.
As you say, this conflict should have been avoided from the start by sticking to the 915mm standard everywhere, including HS2 and Lizzie line.
- Status