Death knell for high floor UK trains - All new trains to be low floor level access roll-on-roll-off for wheelchairs, buggies, prams, pushchair and mor

[chiltern trev]

So, is it the end of more brand new high floor trains (/units) in the UK?

Why 1 - because it has now been proven that low floor level access roll-on-roll-off trains for wheelchairs, buggies, prams, pushchairs, bicycles, people with suitcases, elderly with 3 or 4 wheel strollers, etc., do work.

Why 2 - because wheelchair users no longer need to book in advance on Greater Anglia and can now turn up and go just like non-wheelchairs users (i.e. the vast majority of train passengers) so wheelchair users are no longer discriminated against by having to book in advance for a ramp or a rail person to assist etc.

And low floor level access roll-on-roll-off capability will encourage many others (COVID currently except) to travel by train by making the train experience so much easier.

There also seems to a shift on emphasis with comments/speculation/whatever from the Williams report and the Government (Grant Shapps) that there should be more emphasis on running the railways more for the benefit of the passengers.

On a legal point of view, would tendering and purchasing a new high floor train (/unit) now be a fail as the high floor discriminates against several types or passengers - a reasonableness test would show (and prove) that low floor level access roll-on-roll-off trains (/units) can be tendered for and procured and do/will work - classes 745, 755 and 777.

And there have been bus test cases where the passenger has won. There has been a rail replacement bus case where the passenger has won.

So I assert that a Train Operating Company, or Government, or Council (or similar) if attempting to tender, procure, buy or lease a new high floor train (/unit) would lose in court.

For the avoidance of doubt the Scotrail Hitachi class 385, Northern CAF units (and same family units for TfW and West Midlands), all the TPE Nova types, IMP/Azuma/derivatives - they would all be a fail and not be permitted. [Thought - is there a grandfather exemption for exercising outstanding options for existing classes? maybe yes but that would defeat moving to low floor level access roll-on-roll-off.]

Some additional info below that has given rise to this consideration.

Last year we had a holiday in Denmark and used the Oresundstags and Lokaltog and it made a huge difference lugging suitcases to and from Copenhagen Airport - so much easier to get around with or without suitcases. The Oresundstags and Lokaltog (north Zealand) are low floor level access roll-on-roll-off for wheelchairs, buggies, prams, bicycles, etc and turn up and go for wheelchairs and with refurbished platforms (new edging and surfaces relaid) and have been so for the last 14-20 years so the UK is years behind Denmark.

UK buses are now low floor level access roll-on-roll-off for wheelchairs, buggies, prams, bicycles, etc and turn up and go for wheelchairs.

Merseyrail class 777s are now being delivered. All the platforms on the Merseyrail Northern and Wirral lines have had the platform edges 'harmonised' (i.e. new edging) and surfaces relaid as appropriate to give low floor level access roll-on-roll-off for wheelchairs, buggies, prams, bicycles, etc and turn up and go for wheelchairs

Great Anglia classes 745 and 755 have largely been delivered and are in service and provide low floor level access/near level access (depends upon the platform) roll-on-roll-off for wheelchairs, buggies, prams, bicycles, etc and turn up and go for wheelchairs

Tyne and Wear Metro has ordered new Stadler units which will be low floor level access roll-on-roll-off for wheelchairs, buggies, prams, bicycles, etc and turn up and go for wheelchairs.

A photo of an Oresundstag and a Lokaltog follow.

Oresundstag low floor level access roll-on-roll-off.

Lokaltog (Hornbaekbanen) low floor level access roll-on-roll-off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As this is in Speculative Ideas I assume it's a proposal?

I fully agree with it and feel that a huge trick was missed in the recent large rolling stock orders, all of which should have had at least one low-floor vehicle, ideally all of it. I've got no great issue with 80x as a whole (other than the seats) but I think this was a missed trick. Perhaps a low-floor vehicle could be ordered to add into each set? But even so, low-floor benefits everyone (same with buses) so all the new kit looking more FLIRT like would have been better. (All vendors offer low floor vehicles, TOCs have just chosen not to specify them).

 

[Bayum]

I think it says something of us as a country when we have so much stock that some passengers are unable to access independently.

Are we really a forward-moving country as far as access for all goes? I’d argue not.

 

[popeter45]

do low floor trains need smaller wheels? (so bodies can lay lower)
also as shown with 73 stock at hammer smith if a platform was made for higher floors could need a step up just as much as current trains need a step down

 

[Bletchleyite]

do low floor trains need smaller wheels? (so bodies can lay lower)

For low-floor throughout, yes. But what you can do is have a high floor above the bogies (ideally Jacobs bogies so you gain a metre or so on each coach) and a low floor section between them. This is how it's done on the mainland where low floor really means low floor.

Low-floor high-speed trains (maybe not HS2 high speed, but certainly 225km/h) are possible - Stadler are building them for SBB as a FLIRT variant.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The alternative is gap fillers like the ones that will be fitted to the HS2 classic-compatible stock. These can oversail the platform and provide a solid step up to floor level before leaving the platform. I presume the design could be modified further to provide a ramp.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The alternative is gap fillers like the ones that will be fitted to the HS2 classic-compatible stock. These can oversail the platform and provide a solid step up to floor level before leaving the platform. I presume the design could be modified further to provide a ramp.

Gap fillers are good, and we've had high floor trains with moving steps for a while (Pendolinos). But what they don't do is considerably reduce the need for the assistance service, and that's a really good thing if we could achieve that - wheelchair users can access the train just like everyone else, and it's easier for luggage, prams etc too.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Gap fillers are good, and we've had high floor trains with moving steps for a while (Pendolinos). But what they don't do is considerably reduce the need for the assistance service, and that's a really good thing if we could achieve that - wheelchair users can access the train just like everyone else, and it's easier for luggage, prams etc too.

The gap fillers planned for HS2 are somewhat more advanced than the ones used on the Pendolinos. It's not about just providing a normal step on the side of the train. Rather, the gap filler will come out and provide a step large enough for an entire foot. While it won't remove the need for a ramp, it will mean that people who are less sure on their feet will not have to contend with a simultaneous horizontal and vertical gaps. That combination is much worse than the two gap components individually.

I imagine that the same basic design could be modified further to actually provide a complete step-free ramp. The hard part is deploying the gap fillers reliably and safely across the different stations on the classic-compatible network. We already have automated ramps on buses. I could imagine a type of gap filler where the surface can taper down, possibly with an extra extending piece to bring the surface to a point.

 

[edwin_m]

A problem with this is that certain platforms not used by passing freight trains have been raised to 1.1m above rail, to be level with the floors of typical EMUs. This was first done at the Paddington and Heathrow platforms for Heathrow Express but has now spread elsewhere including East London Line. HS2 also wants a platform height of about 1.2m. Clearly a train design can only be compatible with one of these options, unless it has some sort of internal lift.

 

[37424]

While I appreciate they are easier for wheelchair users I'm not a fan because it usually means non flat floors internally. I can see it going that way for metro services like Merseyrail but not universally mandated on longer routes, it would also make designs with underfloor mounted engines obsolete overnight, and even EMU's from such as Bombardier, Hitachi, CAF etc would need to be significantly redesigned with Stadler being at a significant advantage.

 

[py_megapixel]

Gap fillers are good, and we've had high floor trains with moving steps for a while (Pendolinos). But what they don't do is considerably reduce the need for the assistance service, and that's a really good thing if we could achieve that - wheelchair users can access the train just like everyone else, and it's easier for luggage, prams etc too.

That is a genuine advantage, however I can imagine TOCs switching to policies of "if you can't board unaided you can't travel" or starting to charge extra for assistance services, both of which would not be acceptable in my opinion. But that's not a reason to reject the technology and anything we can do to make rail travel more inclusive has to be a good thing.

 

[py_megapixel]

While I appreciate they are easier for wheelchair users I'm not a fan because it usually means non flat floors internally. I can see it going that way for metro services like Merseyrail but not universally mandated on longer routes, it would also make designs with underfloor mounted engines obsolete overnight, and even EMU's from such as Bombardier, Hitachi, CAF etc would need to be significantly redesigned with Stadler being at a significant advantage.

I don't think any of these are really problems.

Non flat floors - not really an issue unless you want to carry luggage or aren't so surefooted but in that case it's tricky to use the articulated gangways anyway.

Obsolescence of underfloor engines - makes the train quieter, plus I can't see why a train couldn't be developed with a mixture of high and low floor carriages so that trailer cars can be low floor with motor cars still able to accommodate underfloor equipment

Stadler being at an advantage - not really, the other manufacturers have low floor platforms, they've just never been ordered for the UK

 

[chiltern trev]

As this is in Speculative Ideas I assume it's a proposal?

I fully agree with it and feel that a huge trick was missed in the recent large rolling stock orders, all of which should have had at least one low-floor vehicle, ideally all of it. I've got no great issue with 80x as a whole (other than the seats) but I think this was a missed trick. Perhaps a low-floor vehicle could be ordered to add into each set? But even so, low-floor benefits everyone (same with buses) so all the new kit looking more FLIRT like would have been better. (All vendors offer low floor vehicles, TOCs have just chosen not to specify them).

I put this topic in speculative as it seems a better fit than "traction and rolling stock" which seemed to be more class specific.

Is a proposal? Good question! Having spent some time thinking about our experience in Denmark, and now we have various Stadler classes, then yes - this is a serious suggestion.


Re TOCs not specifying them - I am now asserting it would be illegal on discrimination grounds as GA have demonstrated it can be done.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is a genuine advantage, however I can imagine TOCs switching to policies of "if you can't board unaided you can't travel" or starting to charge extra for assistance services, both of which would not be acceptable in my opinion. But that's not a reason to reject the technology and anything we can do to make rail travel more inclusive has to be a good thing.

I wouldn't expect that, as that would, most likely, be an offence.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

That is a genuine advantage, however I can imagine TOCs switching to policies of "if you can't board unaided you can't travel" or starting to charge extra for assistance services, both of which would not be acceptable in my opinion.

Illegal in law and not going to happen.

 

[43096]

Low-floor high-speed trains (maybe not HS2 high speed, but certainly 225km/h) are possible - Stadler are building them for SBB as a FLIRT variant.

They aren't a FLIRT variant, but a different design: originally known as EC250 (250 being 250 km/h) but now also as "Smile" (Speedy, Multi-System, Innovative, Lightweight, Express train in English), to go with "FLIRT" and "KISS" products. 29 sets are currently being delivered to SBB.

 

[37424]

I don't think any of these are really problems.

Non flat floors - not really an issue unless you want to carry luggage or aren't so surefooted but in that case it's tricky to use the articulated gangways anyway.

Obsolescence of underfloor engines - makes the train quieter, plus I can't see why a train couldn't be developed with a mixture of high and low floor carriages so that trailer cars can be low floor with motor cars still able to accommodate underfloor equipment

Stadler being at an advantage - not really, the other manufacturers have low floor platforms, they've just never been ordered for the UK

Not convinced that its not really a problem.

TFL have built short lengths of higher platforms on the tube could that be feasible for some surface stock where only one type of train operates.

 

[py_megapixel]

Not convinced that its not really a problem.

Which of the 3 things I mentioned are you referring to?

 

[Energy]

They aren't a FLIRT variant, but a different design: originally known as EC250 (250 being 250 km/h) but now also as "Smile" (Speedy, Multi-System, Innovative, Lightweight, Express train in English), to go with "FLIRT" and "KISS" products. 29 sets are currently being delivered to SBB.

They are based of the FLIRT but are a different family in Stadler's product range. They offered a bimode version to EMR but didn't get the order.

 

[dm1]

They aren't a FLIRT variant, but a different design: originally known as EC250 (250 being 250 km/h) but now also as "Smile" (Speedy, Multi-System, Innovative, Lightweight, Express train in English), to go with "FLIRT" and "KISS" products. 29 sets are currently being delivered to SBB.

In many ways the SMILE trains (in Switzerland known as Giruno) are a compromise. It is designed to travel between Germany, Austria, Italy and Switzerland, that have different standard platform heights (mostly 760mm in Germany and 550mm in the others). Most of the doors are at the right height for 760mm, meaning within Switzerland there is still a step up into them (there are retractable steps for this). There are also two doors on each side at 550mm, enabling level wheelchair access at both heights (obviously there are ramps within the trains, meaning the floor height varies quite substantially within the train, going even higher over the bogies)

The trains are mostly planned for use between Switzerland and Italy, so aside from those two doors on each side, there is still a step for most passengers. The cost of having those two low-level doors is the absence of tilt, which until now was important on the lines to Italy. The opening of the Ceneri base tunnel is intended to mitigate this. The existing high-floor tilting trains (ETR610 Astoro) on this route will then be used on routes to Germany - in particular on the newly electrified line from Zürich to Münich.

Having ridden on the Giruno a handful of times, that variable floor height is very noticable and slightly disconcerting at first. Although that isn't unique to the Giruno in Switzerland - the Twindexx have a similar problem - especially at the entrances which have quite steep ramps - one disabled advocacy organisation even started legal action against Bombardier/SBB claiming they were too steep, but they lost their case.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The primary barrier to lower internal floor heights on the GB rail network is the narrowed loading gauge below traditional platform level. All of the continental loading gauges are flat at the sides, meaning the full width is available regardless of floor height. Stadler's articulated design means they have a bit more leeway, as shorter carriages can be wider to overcome that effect. On Merseyrail they also have the advantage that the network is largely fixed and a slightly custom loading gauge could be achieved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In terms of passenger space that could be gained back by removing the traditional heating conduit, though.

 

[Wolfie]

That is a genuine advantage, however I can imagine TOCs switching to policies of "if you can't board unaided you can't travel" or starting to charge extra for assistance services, both of which would not be acceptable in my opinion. But that's not a reason to reject the technology and anything we can do to make rail travel more inclusive has to be a good thing.

Your initial suggestions would be unlikely to be legal let alone acceptable. Even more so in the case of a taxpayer contracted and subsidised service. Suggest that you need to read the Equality Act.

 

[Tio Terry]

It would pay you to read the Equalities Act 2010 and the Governments Guidance that goes with it.

There is also the Technical Specification for Interoperability for Persons of Reduced Mobility (PRM). Whilst you might think this no longer applies as the UK has/is leaving the EU, it is also enshrined within the UK's legislation so still applies.

What Anglia have done is to meet the Equalities Act in respect of access for PRM's. I'm pretty sure that the DfT will require all TOC's to do so with any future rolling stock so suppliers will need to consider how they are going to meet the requirements if they want to stay in business.

 

[PeterC]

Not being a railway engineer some definitions of "high" and "low" would be nice. To me "low" means climbing up from track level American style, clearly not what the OP means.

 

[Tio Terry]

Not being a railway engineer some definitions of "high" and "low" would be nice. To me "low" means climbing up from track level American style, clearly not what the OP means.

The Standard height for a UK rail platform from rail head is 915mm.

Having said that, there are many, many, variations for all sorts of reasons, but the standard says 915mm is the standard. So anything above that is "high" and anything below is "low".

 

[MarkyT]

No experience of them yet, but from videos it seems the Anglia FLIRTs have mostly consistent aisle floor height, although there are some seats at the car ends raised up a little to either side on wheelboxes over the articulated bogies, which in this design at least are all unpowered so have space to drop a gangway between the wheels. However, the aisle floor height is raised above the non articulated power bogies, at the driving ends on the shorter units and at intermediate locations through the longer ones, to clear traction equipment below I assume.

 

[AM9]

... What Anglia have done is to meet the Equalities Act in respect of access for PRM's. I'm pretty sure that the DfT will require all TOC's to do so with any future rolling stock so suppliers will need to consider how they are going to meet the requirements if they want to stay in business.

Much of the limitations of PRM compliant rolling stock is dependent on the infrastructure (and sometimes other rolling stock that runs past platform edges), so even with complex and failure prone gap fillers, it will take a lot more than changing the specs on all trains procured from now. If certain routes aren't cleared for them*, they won't be viable in service.
* In metropolitan areas with multiple routes and diversions, it could be an enormous task of the magnitude and cost that puts a government into enforcement paralysis.

 

[Tio Terry]

Much of the limitations of PRM compliant rolling stock is dependent on the infrastructure (and sometimes other rolling stock that runs past platform edges), so even with complex and failure prone gap fillers, it will take a lot more than changing the specs on all trains procured from now. If certain routes aren't cleared for them*, they won't be viable in service.
* In metropolitan areas with multiple routes and diversions, it could be an enormous task of the magnitude and cost that puts a government into enforcement paralysis.

Yes, quite clearly a challenge that the industry must face head-on. It's not going to go away. Both Rolling Stock and Infrastructure designers and maintainers will need to put their thinking caps on and come up with the answers!

 

[37424]

Which of the 3 things I mentioned are you referring to?

All 3 I went flying falling off a step on a European train a few years ago not helped by a sudden jolt from the track, Flat Floor/Non flat floor train I not sure how that would work in reality with different profiles, you would also need unpowered carriages that might work for an 800 maybe less so for other trains.

All the trains designed for the UK market are not designed to be level boarding except the Stadler which was already a low floor train adapted for the UK.

Lets also remember there are still vast numbers of Trains on order including many for Anglia which wont be level boarding.