Irish rail fleet and infrastructure plans

devnull

Realistically having traveled throughout Europe a fair bit over the past few years I'd rank OBB Railjet and Italo as some great examples of how Intercity travel should be done. I'd also put DB ICE up there as well. Of course the demand levels for here are not going to be like they are for those operators, but the rolling standard stock is excellent.

There are a few things that set Italo and Trenitalia apart, but generally I've found the service is better on the former and more personable. Especially as someone on Business or as a tourist in Italy who doesn't speak much Italian, Italo seemed much the friendlier brand in terms of staff and at stations.

GT89

devnull wrote: »

Realistically having traveled throughout Europe a fair bit over the past few years I'd rank OBB Railjet and Italo as some great examples of how Intercity travel should be done. I'd also put DB ICE up there as well. Of course the demand levels for here are not going to be like they are for those operators, but the rolling standard stock is excellent.

There are a few things that set Italo and Trenitalia apart, but generally I've found the service is better on the former and more personable. Especially as someone on Business or as a tourist in Italy who doesn't speak much Italian, Italo seemed much the friendlier brand in terms of staff and at stations.

Comparing Italo with Trenitalia is sort of like comparing Aircoach or Citylink with Bus Eireann or
Dublin Bus. Trenitalia operates across the whole of Italy and operates all the PSO routes essentially. Italo is an open access operator there's been a few in various countries around like Flixtrain in Germany or Grand Central in the UK.

Italo pay a fee to the state to operate on it's track a mutually beneficial deal in order to help the government recoup the cost of building the high speed infrastructure. Italo make money as a commercial operator and don't receive subsidy although Trenitalia and Italo do compete on high speed routes.

The majority of my bad experiences on trains have been in the UK and Ireland. I can put up with some element of shoddyness on commuter trains but I expect a high quality service on long intercity journeys. My worst rail experience has to be the Gatwick Express which is a tourist con plain and simple when the Southern service is a fraction of the price and takes the same time.

Markcheese

Del.Monte wrote: »

The Translink/NIR/IE Enterprise De Deitrich stock http://briansolomon.com/trackingthelight/2017/08/16/enterprise-on-the-move/



If rail travel becomes slower, more expensive and less comfortable than coach travel there's no future for it save for in urban situations.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there ..from an Irish point of view ,
It's years since I've bothered taking an intercity train , it's cheaper and quicker to get the coach ,
It's not quite as comfortable but there's not much in it ,

BonnieSituation

Markcheese wrote: »

I think you've hit the nail on the head there ..from an Irish point of view ,
It's years since I've bothered taking an intercity train , it's cheaper and quicker to get the coach ,
It's not quite as comfortable but there's not much in it ,

Last time I got an intercity train was last August and it was to Sligo.

There wasn't a hope of me getting a coach.

bk

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Last time I got an intercity train was last August and it was to Sligo.

There wasn't a hope of me getting a coach.

Dublin to Cork/Galway/Limerick/Belfast I take the coach, but yes, Sligo or Killarney I'd take the train.

Train is significantly faster then coach to Sligo/Killarney, plus Sligo just has BE, it doesn't have the nicer intercity coach services like the other cities. Rational decisions all round.

GT89 wrote: »

Comparing Italo with Trenitalia is sort of like comparing Aircoach or Citylink with Bus Eireann or
Dublin Bus. Trenitalia operates across the whole of Italy and operates all the PSO routes essentially. Italo is an open access operator there's been a few in various countries around like Flixtrain in Germany or Grand Central in the UK.

While Trenitalia obviously has a much wider remit, you can absolutely compare Italo to Trenitalia's high speed service on the same route, as they are directly competing with one another on those routes. It would be more like comparing Aircoach to GoBus on the Cork route.

Trenitalia has definitely improved it's service since the market was opened up and they faced competition. They were improving the quality of their services and restructuring for years before the market was opened up as they knew they would face this competition.

Metrics like speed, frequency, on time percentage, reliability were all greatly improved in preparation for the market opening up plus new trains.

Trains in Italy use to be relatively poor, the much improved service you experience today is due to these market changes.

GT89 wrote: »

I agree about regional trains there all though they have improved since the first time i visited there. I've been on the Italo and it was impressive but I was more talking about the bog standard non high speed intercity trains that run in Italy.

I travelled on a few of them in Italy because they were cheaper than the high speed trains and some of the places I wanted to go weren't served by high speed lines. Even though they weren't high speed they were still better than anything IE have on Intercity routes to offer in terms of comfort and speed.

Many countries with high speed rail still offer standard non high speed intercity trains which are still quite good. This because the high speed networks don't go everywhere and because the fares are generally more expensive on high speed services. This is the standard IE should be going for.

Sure, I've been on those trains too. They are fine, but most of the difference is down to them being mostly electric trains and the resulting benefit in quieter and smoother ride. Also the double deckers are very interesting.

But the thing to keep in mind, you are talking about Italy here, a country of 60 million people with lots of large metro areas. Even outside of the high speed rail, the standard intercity rail is still operating between much bigger cities then here.

Truth of the matter, we really don't have many big cities. We basically just have Dublin. Cork And Belfast would barely register as a city in most European countries and no offence to anyone from them, but Limerick/Galway/Waterford would be simply called big towns in most of Europe.

As a result, we barely have a low level intercity service between Cork - Dublin - Belfast and the rest of the network is basically a regional train service rather then real intercity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it can't be improved, but you do have to be some what realistic about our demographics and thus demand when comparing to the likes of a relatively big country like Italy.

BonnieSituation

bk wrote: »

Dublin to Cork/Galway/Limerick/Belfast I take the coach, but yes, Sligo or Killarney I'd take the train.

Train is significantly faster then coach to Sligo/Killarney, plus Sligo just has BE, it doesn't have the nicer intercity coach services like the other cities. Rational decisions all round.



While Trenitalia obviously has a much wider remit, you can absolutely compare Italo to Trenitalia's high speed service on the same route, as they are directly competing with one another on those routes. It would be more like comparing Aircoach to GoBus on the Cork route.

Trenitalia has definitely improved it's service since the market was opened up and they faced competition. They were improving the quality of their services and restructuring for years before the market was opened up as they knew they would face this competition.

Metrics like speed, frequency, on time percentage, reliability were all greatly improved in preparation for the market opening up plus new trains.

Trains in Italy use to be relatively poor, the much improved service you experience today is due to these market changes.



Sure, I've been on those trains too. They are fine, but most of the difference is down to them being mostly electric trains and the resulting benefit in quieter and smoother ride. Also the double deckers are very interesting.

But the thing to keep in mind, you are talking about Italy here, a country of 60 million people with lots of large metro areas. Even outside of the high speed rail, the standard intercity rail is still operating between much bigger cities then here.

Truth of the matter, we really don't have many big cities. We basically just have Dublin. Cork And Belfast would barely register as a city in most European countries and no offence to anyone from them, but Limerick/Galway/Waterford would be simply called big towns in most of Europe.

As a result, we barely have a low level intercity service between Cork - Dublin - Belfast and the rest of the network is basically a regional train service rather then real intercity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it can't be improved, but you do have to be some what realistic about our demographics and thus demand when comparing to the likes of a relatively big country like Italy.

The Intercity train I took before the Sligo trip was to Galway. I'd ALWAYS choose train over coaches/road travel where possible.

bk

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The Intercity train I took before the Sligo trip was to Galway. I'd ALWAYS choose train over coaches/road travel where possible.

I'm a Corkonian living in Dublin. For 10 years I took the train twice a month to Cork, until Aircoach launched their direct service to Cork which I then switched over too that (and later GoBus) ever since.

Haven't been on the train to Cork since, just a couple of times to Killarney.

The coach is great, much better then the train IMO:

- A lot cheaper
- Much more frequent and almost 24/7
- Much smoother ride
- Much quieter, both in terms of ride and no constant annoying long announcements in Irish and English. Also I find people tend to chill out more on the coach.
- They lower the lights on the coach once they leave, unlike the far too bright lights on the train.
- Nice reclining seats.

Of course the train has advantages, more room to get up and walk around, four person tables, food and drink.

But I also think these pros also add to the trains feeling of being much noisier and busier. Part of the reason I prefer the coach, I could never sleep on the train, but the coaches are much quieter in every aspect and that means I could actually relax and even sleep on them on the way, which is a major plus.

Head down Friday evening after a busy week in work, sleep on the coach that helps pass the time much quicker and arrive refreshed to head out with Friends on Friday night

Personally I'd always take the coach to Galway too. The Citylink Vanhool overdeckers are one of the nicest coaches in Ireland.

This is my honest opinion, the coaches we have today are pretty nice and our trains are fine, but nothing special.

Isambard

I've a FTS card and would still drive for as long as I'm able.

monument

For clarity: Tweets deleted rather than getting distracted by them.

I’m sorry to say I’ve become the joke and no messing around police. The strangest thing is some of you are reporting tweets making wisecracks and then going onto make your own wisecracks. What do you think is going to happen? I’ll be left actioning any wisecrack tweets for an easy life because otherwise the first guy who got a warning will be asking why the rules aren’t being applied fairly etc etc.

Could you please lay off each other — stop getting so personal and over the top.

— moderator

NeuralNetwork

I'd agree, the level of comfort on the trains leaves a lot to be desired. If they weren't going to go for high speed, they needed to go for high comfort and they haven't done that.

I find the Cork-Dublin 'pointier' trains have weird intense blue shade to the windows that makes them seem a bit 'space age' but it's not conducive to relaxing and the seats on all of them are quite hard and I find them uncomfortable for my back.

The fact that you can spread yourself out a bit more and guarantee at seat power is useful, but that's about it.

Also things like the inability to make a cappuccino in what is a fully fitted out kitchen on the main Cork trains is a bit inexcusable at this stage. Just put in a bean-to-cup coffee machine.

I'd agree on the verbose announcements. They could be done so much more concisely and while I've nothing against the guy's voice, it's a bad choice. They could pick someone with softer speech. It reminds me of one of those announcements you'd expect on the Revenue helpdesk or something.

"Next station : Thurles ... Is é Durlas an chéad stáisiún eile"

There's no need for all this waffle about thank you for travelling with Iarnrod Eireann and bear sneachana and so on.

theguzman

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

I'd agree, the level of comfort on the trains leaves a lot to be desired. If they weren't going to go for high speed, they needed to go for high comfort and they haven't done that.

I find the Cork-Dublin 'pointier' trains have weird intense blue shade to the windows that makes them seem a bit 'space age' but it's not conducive to relaxing and the seats on all of them are quite hard and I find them uncomfortable for my back.

The fact that you can spread yourself out a bit more and guarantee at seat power is useful, but that's about it.

Also things like the inability to make a cappuccino in what is a fully fitted out kitchen on the main Cork trains is a bit inexcusable at this stage. Just put in a bean-to-cup coffee machine.

I'd agree on the verbose announcements. They could be done so much more concisely and while I've nothing against the guy's voice, it's a bad choice. They could pick someone with softer speech. It reminds me of one of those announcements you'd expect on the Revenue helpdesk or something.

"Next station : Thurles ... Is é Durlas an chéad stáisiún eile"

There's no need for all this waffle about thank you for travelling with Iarnrod Eireann and bear sneachana and so on.

I was a very frequent Iarnrod Eireann customer between Killarney and Heuston pe-Covid usually around once per week, sometimes 3 times per week, other times twice a month, usually 50-70 trips per year.

I always found the MK4 more comfortable and would always board the 17:00 Heuston - Cork and change back to the ICR IE22000 at Mallow after that would leave Heuston as a direct 17:05 to Tralee just to avoid those rock hard seats and generally more crowding, especially on a Friday evening in summer. The Mk4 itself is far from perfect but I prefer it to the 22000 anyday which are not suited for the lenght to routes they serve

L1011

The Mk4's ride is the biggest problem really - not engineered for the type of track we have; whereas the 22ks are.

TheBoyConor

isn't it mad how 40 odd year old MkIIIs designed with pencil, paper and sliderule have a better ride quality and all round better comfort than the more modern MkIV and 22k designed with the benefit of sophisticated CAD and modelling.

The overall quality of coaching stock has declined sharply since the demise of the MkIIIs. The MkIvs will probably never be right and will be withdrawn before 2030.
The 22ks have already had to have the transmissions replaced and they are hardly a decade in service.

What bugs me about MkIV and 22k
1. the seats are hard, narrow and uncomfortable. They feel cheap with hardly any padding. The MkIII had lovely deep padded seats. The fillet of comfort.
2. Tables are too small. Some of them are odd shaped things rammed into corners and are hardly worth talking about. Decently sized tables.
3. The blue tinge lighting is too harsh, gives you a headache and is not conducive to relaxing. MkIIIs had softer tones and warmer lighting.
4. The windows on the MkIV have a vent (that is always manky with dirt) that blows dry air straight into your face. Very annoying. MkIIIs didn't have this problem.
5. The window ledges are sloped and are no use to rest your elbow into like on the MkIII.
6. The 22ks are DMUs. Nuff said. The noise and vibration really spoils a journey. DMU is grand for short commutes, but for intercity you'd like a bit of comfort and quiet.
7. Poor quality interiors of cheap plastic that rattles and creaks, and the standard of fit is poor. Trim panels don't line up properly on many coaches.
8. The excessive amount of superfluous waffle spouted over the PA systems in that awful dreary monotonous voice.
9. The liveries are a boring and inconsistent mishmash and bear no connection or continuity with the liveries of the past, in which one livery was an evolution on previous.


As for the ride quality problem in the MkIVs, I imagine it is down to the bogies. Why did CAF choose and CIE accept those bogies if they knew that they were designed for high quality rail? Could they now be retrofitted with the BT10 bogies from the MkIIIs to improve the ride?

NeuralNetwork

They were built for bumpy 1970s railways in the U.K.
The MK4 is designed for smooth lines. The Hyundai ones don’t seem to have any ride quality issues.
The transmission swap out seems to be about fuel efficiency, noise and CO2 reduction rather than failure. They’re 19% more efficient. They are a modular pack.

L1011

The transmission is replaced in one set as a trial for fuel efficiency as stated above, not for failure reasons.

If the Mk3s had been retained they would have had a significant refurb which would have removed the fat cushioned seating and big tables and you'd likely get a very 22000 style interior

Loco haulage is on the way out - if you want to move from DMU it'll be to EMU with electrification, not back to loco.

Passengers don't care about liveries.

NeuralNetwork

L1011 wrote: »

The transmission is replaced in one set as a trial for fuel efficiency as stated above, not for failure reasons.

If the Mk3s had been retained they would have had a significant refurb which would have removed the fat cushioned seating and big tables and you'd likely get a very 22000 style interior

Loco haulage is on the way out - if you want to move from DMU it'll be to EMU with electrification, not back to loco.

Passengers don't care about liveries.

As a passenger I mostly care about quality of service. If it’s comfortable, clean and reliable that’s the bare minimum and often not achieved.

I’d expect service innovation - decent services on board, a bit of luxury eg decent cafe style food so on ..

Even things like the forcing people queue up along the barrier and all the officious ticket checks, lack of enforcement of seat reservations and all of that stuff, which is way out of line with European equivalents just puts me off.

As it stands it’s just not a very attractive option and it’s not super fast so that’s not much of a differentiator.

TheBoyConor

L1011 wrote: »

If the Mk3s had been retained they would have had a significant refurb which would have removed the fat cushioned seating and big tables and you'd likely get a very 22000 style interior

Why would they do that? Renew and refresh them fine, but like what would be the rationale behind making a concious decision to disimprove the standard of comfort. Why replace nice deep padded seats with rock hard ones like in the MkIvs with skinny tables. Makes no sense.
They're trying to force people off of the trains to give them a reason to close lines.

Qrt

GT89 wrote: »

Comparing Italo with Trenitalia is sort of like comparing Aircoach or Citylink with Bus Eireann or
Dublin Bus. Trenitalia operates across the whole of Italy and operates all the PSO routes essentially. Italo is an open access operator there's been a few in various countries around like Flixtrain in Germany or Grand Central in the UK.

Italo pay a fee to the state to operate on it's track a mutually beneficial deal in order to help the government recoup the cost of building the high speed infrastructure. Italo make money as a commercial operator and don't receive subsidy although Trenitalia and Italo do compete on high speed routes.

The majority of my bad experiences on trains have been in the UK and Ireland. I can put up with some element of shoddyness on commuter trains but I expect a high quality service on long intercity journeys. My worst rail experience has to be the Gatwick Express which is a tourist con plain and simple when the Southern service is a fraction of the price and takes the same time.

The Gatwick Express is hilarious. Southern is meh but ever since the new Thameslink trains came on stream and drop you at the very swish Blackfriars or Futuristic King’s Cross, I always pity those who fell for the trap.

L1011

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Why would they do that? Renew and refresh them fine, but like what would be the rationale behind making a concious decision to disimprove the standard of comfort. Why replace nice deep padded seats with rock hard ones like in the MkIvs with skinny tables. Makes no sense.
They're trying to force people off of the trains to give them a reason to close lines.

Because deep padded seats and big tables reduce capacity.

end of the road

true but not by a huge amount though i would expect, and then it's a case of whether that increase in seating capacity will attract enough extra patronage v driving away people to alternatives.the real problem we have is our wish to follow a hybrid of the uk 1980s regional railways model and early to mid privatization years model but only taking the bad bits.

NeuralNetwork

L1011 wrote: »

Because deep padded seats and big tables reduce capacity.

They’re not airliners and aren’t in need of that level of squishing people in. If you reduce comfort, following Ryanair models or something, people will just use something else.

The whole concept of a train has to be about having more space and comfort in than a road vehicle, like bus that has to operate with much less physical space due to the scale of the vehicle.

I never found the MK3 trains very comfortable either though. They had weird seats.

I think people perhaps see them with a certain degree of rose tinted nostalgia. My memory of them was they were rattly, sometimes swayed side to side, the air conditioning was poor, the internal doors never worked, there was nowhere to plug laptops in and often smelled like an old pub with stale carpets. I really don't remember them being particularly comfortable. The older trains had big soft seats, as do many continental trains, but the MK3 was pretty basic and 'modern'.

The MK4 seems to have essentially tried to recreate the MK3, just with a few more modernities and meeting modern accessibility standards. I don't really see what it's added in terms of speed or efficiency. Although, I guess you could upgrade it with the addition of electric locomotives and get another few decades out of it. From what I gather, they are, with a few minor modifications, quite capable of 200km/h. The tracks and signalling however, probably aren't.

TheBoyConor

Sure space can be easily expanded to compensate for having big comfy seats.
Just add an extra carriage.

Back when we had mk2 and Mk3s , there would often be 8 or 9 coaches plus a genny van. But nowadays the mk4s are only 7coaches I think. And they have a 201 which is much stronger than the 071.

They should order another few coaches to add into the sets and fit them with the better bt10 bogies salvaged or remarried from the mk3.

They could be branded as an executive coach in each set sure to the better ride quality and comfort.

Do we remember when there were trials of a hybrid Mk3 and Mk4 set a few years back to compare the ride quality in each.

I'd love to know why they selected the bogies they did for the mk4 knowing that they were suited for high quality track rather than the bumpy twist track we have where the bt10 bogies give a much another ride without all the rocking and surging at high speeds.

end of the road

to be fair the mk4s aren't going to be fitted with salvaged bt10 bogies, any salvaged ones will be to keep the remaining mk3s in the uk going until retirement or be salvaged for spairs for preserved mk3s.
the irish bogies were cut up as well in all likely hood, and even then we would have to assume that the construction of the mk4 would even allow the bt10 bogies to be used if some could be got, which i can't imagine it would.

NeuralNetwork

Getting bogged down in discussions about 1970s & 80s seats isn’t really all that helpful. The MK4 seats aren’t really the issue that most passengers complain about.

It’s things like inconsistencies in customer experience: the never ending issue with seat bookings not displaying or not being enforced. Trains turning up without being cleaned. Many a time I’ve had a MK4 seat with a flip down table and it’s been absolutely filthy, covered in tea or coffee stains and the toilets often stink.

WiFi that doesn’t work or is a mess to log in to. Bad quality food / catering. Lack of decent coffees.

The slow speed, lack of pre-9am arrival in Cork, weird timetables on other lines and so on is an probably the biggest reason for avoiding them in my case.

Also the tickets are just bad value for money, especially if you decide to go at short notice.

If I had to go Cork - Dublin at short notice, I’d drive.
If I had no access to a car, I’d get the bus. There’s no way I’d pay the full price fare to go on a slow train with inconsistent service.

I’d also add that having to arrive early for a departure and queue up along some railings in Heuston or Cork, despite having a prebooked seat, is absolute nonsense.

ohographite

I am not sure if this question is relevant to this thread or not, but does anyone here know if the Irish Rail fleet has any diesel-powered trains which can be retrofitted to use hydrogen as fuel instead of diesel?

I have read in an article about hydrogen-powered trains that diesel-powered ones can be turned into hydrogen-powered ones, but the article doesn't explain how this can be done.
This article only briefly mentions it(at the end):
http://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200227-how-hydrogen-powered-trains-can-tackle-climate-change

bk

L1011 wrote: »

Because deep padded seats and big tables reduce capacity.

Between the Mark 3 and 4, I think Irish Rail got caught out by a changing market.

Prior to the Mark 4 trains were often jam packed, with people sitting on the floor, etc. Any seat is better then sitting on the floor, so they seem to have opted to squeeze in more seats at the cost of per seat comfort.

However they seemed to miss the challenge to rail that the new motorways would be. Offering greater speed and the comfort of your own car.

And worse, not so long after the Mark 4's arrive, along came the private direct non-stop coach services. The coaches were in many ways more comfortable, just as fast and much cheaper and all those sitting on the floors ended up in the coaches.

In other words they opted for a more spartan approach at a time that they perhaps should have been focusing on making them more comfortable, so that they could compete on comfort at least versus the motorway and coaches.

I wonder if they might change direction for future fleet choices.

BTW IR weren't the only ones who made this mistake, BE Expressway did too ordering new coaches that crammed far more seats in with little leg space, just as the privates coach companies arrived with their coaches with more legroom and comfort.

BBTW also very much agree with what NeuralNetwork says about the craziness of having to arrive at the station significantly early and queue up to board the train even with a pre-booked ticket.

This really kills the argument that trains are faster then coaches, as you lose the time having to be so early, plus the extra journey time too and from Heuston.

ohographite wrote: »

I am not sure if this question is relevant to this thread or not, but does anyone here know if the Irish Rail fleet has any diesel-powered trains which can be retrofitted to use hydrogen as fuel instead of diesel?

Well with the Loco hauled trains like the Mark 4, you can just replace the loco with a new one that is overhead electric or hydrogen powered and continue to use the Mark 4 carriages.

The 22000 DMU's would be much harder, they aren't designed for it and would likely require a major overhaul to do what the article you linked to is doing. So it might be possible, but probably silly expensive.

This is one of the reasons why the FLIRT approach makes so much sense during this transition period. Relatively so easy to switch between DMU/EMU/hydrogen.

ohographite

bk wrote: »

Between the Mark 3 and 4, I think Irish Rail got caught out by a changing market.

Prior to the Mark 4 trains were often jam packed, with people sitting on the floor, etc. Any seat is better then sitting on the floor, so they seem to have opted to squeeze in more seats at the cost of per seat comfort.

However they seemed to miss the challenge to rail that the new motorways would be. Offering greater speed and the comfort of your own car.

And worse, not so long after the Mark 4's arrive, along came the private direct non-stop coach services. The coaches were in many ways more comfortable, just as fast and much cheaper and all those sitting on the floors ended up in the coaches.

In other words they opted for a more spartan approach at a time that they perhaps should have been focusing on making them more comfortable, so that they could compete on comfort at least versus the motorway and coaches.

I wonder if they might change direction for future fleet choices.

BTW IR weren't the only ones who made this mistake, BE Expressway did too ordering new coaches that crammed far more seats in with little leg space, just as the privates coach companies arrived with their coaches with more legroom and comfort.

BBTW also very much agree with what NeuralNetwork says about the craziness of having to arrive at the station significantly early and queue up to board the train even with a pre-booked ticket.

This really kills the argument that trains are faster then coaches, as you lose the time having to be so early, plus the extra journey time too and from Heuston.



Well with the Loco hauled trains like the Mark 4, you can just replace the loco with a new one that is overhead electric or hydrogen powered and continue to use the Mark 4 carriages.

The 22000 DMU's would be much harder, they aren't designed for it and would likely require a major overhaul to do what the article you linked to is doing. So it might be possible, but probably silly expensive.

This is one of the reasons why the FLIRT approach makes so much sense during this transition period. Relatively so easy to switch between DMU/EMU/hydrogen.

What does FLIRT stand for?

end of the road

ohographite wrote: »

What does FLIRT stand for?

as i understand it, it has a powered module or powered modules, rather then under floor engines.
the powered module sits in the middle of the train set rather then at the end all though there must be varients with end modules depending on the requirements.
the powered module can simply be removed once electrification takes place.

devnull

ohographite wrote: »

What does FLIRT stand for?

Stadler FLIRT, it's a type of train:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_FLIRT

It can be specified as a hybrid / bi-mode.

goingnowhere

devnull wrote: »

Stadler FLIRT, it's a type of train:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_FLIRT

It can be specified as a hybrid / bi-mode.

Could be a KISS as well...