My question is do we need new trams to be 100% low floor, not why trams and buses are low floor. Even partial low floor is enough simply to allow people with limited mobility, especially the wheelchair-bound, yet many new trams are 100% low floor or nearly so.
I suspect this is actually just whatabouttery, but I'll indulge the question.
Different approaches are taken on trams (total length 20-40 metres) and trains (total length can be 200+ metres) because the different situation demands a different method of balancing priorities.
Nuance is a bit of a blind spot for you. I hope that as you mature (perhaps when you approach the second half of your teen years?) you will begin to appreciate this and develop effective strategies for investigating the reasons behind different approaches being taken in different situations.
This can't all right because there are double decker trains elsewhere in the world which do have in-vehicle wheelchair lifts.
Really? The only examples I can find are machine-operated hoists for entry/exit where there is a large difference in height between the platform and the train.
Even the new Russian intercity sleeper cars you mentioned don't have them, a quick bit of research revealed that the lift in the dining car is only for a catering trolley, and that their approach to accomodating passengers with disabilities is to have one car set up to provide appropriate accomodation.
Far better to design new trains and stations for level entry additional aids such as wheelchair lifts are unnecessary - not least because access is impaired if the lift is out of service. Where level entry is not possible, the next-best option is a small enough difference in height that a manually deployed ramp can be used rather than a machine-operated hoist which will need regular maintenance.
Notice how wide the aisle is. Do you guys really not think a compact and narrow wheelchair could move through there?
Yes, but actual people who use wheelchairs don't actually use them. They prefer to enter at the door closest to the accomodation which has been specified to suit their needs (so as to minimise the need to fight through a crowd to get to their accomodation) and which will usually have external markings to indicate the best point to board.
I note that the photo you supplied does not have any grab bars or railings at the appropriate height for a person in a wheelchair to use, so they couldn't move along the aisle while the train is in motion.
A wide aisle is specified on certain rolling stock to facilitate extra standing space, not to facilitate wheelchair movement.
By wheelchair bound [sic], I really mean unable to walk at all, and that really is the term. Things might be different for those who use a wheelchair be can still walk to a limited extent.
It is not the term. You have been corrected on this multiple times and still refuse to accept the correction, which is not an endearing reflection on you as a person.
If you actually did some research before making a reply (a quite consistent theme), you would have found that actual people who use wheelchairs
prefer that this outdated term not be used.
From the fact sheet on language produced by the Australian Network on Disability:
People are not ‘bound’ by their wheelchairs
The term wheelchair-bound is one that is commonly used in mainstream media, and it is one that really irritates (and often offends) many people with disability, and anyone with any knowledge of the Social Model of disability. A person who uses a wheelchair is not bound by the chair; they are enabled and liberated by it, it can become an extension of their body. “Confined to a wheelchair” is equally as negative. AND uses “wheelchair user” or “person who uses a wheelchair”, instead.
Deliberately using offensive language despite being firmly corrected multiple times is called “being a jerk.”
As you grow up you will discover that being a jerk online can have real world consequences, for example being fired if you make offensive posts using a computer/device provided by your workplace.