DDA and networkers

[jnjkerbin]

In recent years there has been lots of talk about scrapping pacers or scrapping/reforming the 153s because of the Disability Discrimination legislation coming in to play in 2019.

In the South East, the 395s, 375s, 377s, 376s and 465/9s all have wheelchair areas/toilets but one of the few classes that doesn't have such facilities is the Class 465/0, /1 and /2s.

What are the plans for these trains?
Are they going to be refreshed similarly to the 465/2s which became /9s or what?

Just curious
Joe

 

[bronzeonion]

No 165/166's have disabled loo's either

 

[millemille]

DDA requirements extend to more than just disabled toilets.

Class 375's are non-compliant in several areas.

For the class 465/466 fleet the specific areas of non-compliance vary between the builds but amount of areas requiring attention is significant.

Class 365's are also non-compliant and I've been through the details of the exact non-compliances, all 64 of them, in the past and they are not going to be easy, or cheap, to remedy.

 

[jnjkerbin]

Thanks, I wasn't aware that 375s weren't compliant. What particular aspect are they lacking?

Of course, we mustn't forget the 466s as well which being only 2 coach presents even more of a problem.

Does anyone have any ideas of the plans for these trains or when work is likely to start?

 

[fusionblue]

Just to note the 376s have no toilets at all, but are limited to running for short distances only (with on-station toilets provided) to compensate for that.

Does rules like that allow the 376 to comply with regulations?

 

[jopsuk]

Yes- otherwise you'd potentially have the ridiculous situation of having to fit loos to Underground trains.

 

[jon0844]

Class 365's are also non-compliant and I've been through the details of the exact non-compliances, all 64 of them, in the past and they are not going to be easy, or cheap, to remedy.

Where is that list? I can certainly think of a few issues, with no idea on how expensive it would be to remedy, but would love to know the rest.

 

[bronzeonion]

What isn't DDA friendly on a 375? Surely this would apply to 377's too?

 

[northwichcat]

Class 365's are also non-compliant and I've been through the details of the exact non-compliances, all 64 of them, in the past and they are not going to be easy, or cheap, to remedy.

People have been saying things like the doors must be strong enough to allow an electric wheelchair being rammed in to it full force. I doubt we'll see trains being withdrawn or having new doors fitted just because of that. It would be cheaper to replace any damaged doors than to refit them all on the off-chance of a wheelchair ramming a door.

When Philip Hammond was Transport Secretary he mentioned about exemption orders being possible for minor infringements, especially on stock that's due to be replaced in the early 2020s. He didn't define 'minor' in more detail though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just to note the 376s have no toilets at all, but are limited to running for short distances only (with on-station toilets provided) to compensate for that.

Does rules like that allow the 376 to comply with regulations?

If toilets are provided then an accessible toilet has to be available. As long as the stations have accessible toilets then it's not a problem if the toiletless trains are used on short distance frequent services.

 

[Goatboy]

Yes- otherwise you'd potentially have the ridiculous situation of having to fit loos to Underground trains.

I await the first occurence of simply removing toilets from trains to make them DDA compliant...

 

[tbtc]

I await the first occurence of simply removing toilets from trains to make them DDA compliant...

It will happen - I'll put money on it.

DDA requirements extend to more than just disabled toilets.

Class 375's are non-compliant in several areas

That's surprising considering how new they are

 

[jopsuk]

I await the first occurence of simply removing toilets from trains to make them DDA compliant...

It'll only happen on suitable routes. The rather older 1972 "PEP" units (313-315, 507-508) similarly have no loos, the same goes for the 455s. And the evolution of the 376, the 378, has no toilets.

Further: trams don't have them, T&W Metro, DLR, class 139.

 

[jon0844]

Don't rules change quite frequently? I moved into a new build home that had a lot of new regulations for accessibility, but that was in 2003. I believe there have been further changes since then that probably makes the home non-compliant based on the new ones.

That doesn't mean we have to change anything. Even in 2003, there were exemptions for things like access ramps. They were recommended, but steps - of a certain size - were allowed if a ramp wasn't possible. You could argue that for a new-build development, ramps could have been designed in everywhere but that wasn't the case.

 

[Surreyman]

It'll only happen on suitable routes. The rather older 1972 "PEP" units (313-315, 507-508) similarly have no loos, the same goes for the 455s. And the evolution of the 376, the 378, has no toilets.

Further: trams don't have them, T&W Metro, DLR, class 139.

My money is on class 150s being 'life-extended' made DDA compliant and having the toilets removed as a money saving measure.
(Before anyone mentions it, I am well aware that that some NORTHERN/ATW 150 diagrams cover fairly long distances and many stations don't have toilet facilities).

 

[northwichcat]

My money is on class 150s being 'life-extended' made DDA compliant and having the toilets removed as a money saving measure.
(Before anyone mentions it, I am well aware that that some NORTHERN/ATW 150 diagrams cover fairly long distances and many stations don't have toilet facilities).

Are you also aware that there are 27 class 150s that have an accessible toilet which are the former First North Western units which Northern have?

If they wanted to they could take 27 class 150s that don't have an accessible toilet and make almost half the class 150 fleet in to permanent 4 carriage formations containing one accessible toilet and one non-accessible toilet.

Obviously, there are other things that will need to be done to make the 150s complaint but if they are permanently in 4 car formation the cost of such work would be reduced e.g. a new destination display on every other carriage instead of one on every carriage.

 

[Goatboy]

My money is on class 150s being 'life-extended' made DDA compliant and having the toilets removed as a money saving measure.

Me too.

'Some people can't use it, so as a result, nobody can'

 

[millemille]

Where is that list? I can certainly think of a few issues, with no idea on how expensive it would be to remedy, but would love to know the rest.

The list was produced for the vehicle leasing agents by Atkins back around 2008. It is their IPR and I doubt they'd want the whole list in the public domain as it would impact upon the commercial attractiveness of the units.

Some of the most difficult/expensive non-compliances to remedy were the height difference between bodyside passenger door tread plates and step boards, disabled toilet size & gangway/vestibule dimensions

 

[Surreyman]

Are you also aware that there are 27 class 150s that have an accessible toilet which are the former First North Western units which Northern have?

If they wanted to they could take 27 class 150s that don't have an accessible toilet and make almost half the class 150 fleet in to permanent 4 carriage formations containing one accessible toilet and one non-accessible toilet.

Obviously, there are other things that will need to be done to make the 150s complaint but if they are permanently in 4 car formation the cost of such work would be reduced e.g. a new destination display on every other carriage instead of one on every carriage.

Can't see permanent 4 car units being a realistic option but as you say there are 27 units which could keep their toilets (assuming they meet the latest spec).
Depending on what happens to 153s, I am assuming that most 150s will end up with Northern by 2020 (exceptions might be some remaining with ATW) and possibly FGW if 165/166s can't be modified to fit some lines.

 

[jon0844]

The list was produced for the vehicle leasing agents by Atkins back around 2008. It is their IPR and I doubt they'd want the whole list in the public domain as it would impact upon the commercial attractiveness of the units.

Ah yes, that's fair enough.

 

[northwichcat]

Can't see permanent 4 car units being a realistic option but as you say there are 27 units which could keep their toilets (assuming they meet the latest spec).

Why not? Passenger numbers are rising and services which won't get EMUs by 2019 like Southport-Manchester Airport now see 4 car formations in the off-peak.

There would also be the option of 4 car 150 formations running the current FGW 16x services which aren't set to be replaced by EMUs.

 

[SGS]

Further: trams don't have them, T&W Metro, DLR, class 139.

If the 139 had to be fitted with an accessible toilet, it would effectively become a mobile superloo, wouldn't it? It could tour the country, visiting stations which have no toilet facilities. I can imagine the announcements: "The toilet now standing on platform 2 is for...."

 

[Surreyman]

Why not? Passenger numbers are rising and services which won't get EMUs by 2019 like Southport-Manchester Airport now see 4 car formations in the off-peak.

Agreed but we don't live in a perfect world and someone (directly/indirectly) i.e The Government would have to cough up the money.

There would also be the option of 4 car 150 formations running the current FGW 16x services which aren't set to be replaced by EMUs.

Well by my reckoning, after current electrification plans are completed there would be a requirement for @ 10 diagrames (7 Gatwicks, 1 Greenford, 2 Bedwyn, ok allow for a few extra + spares, say 15 units total.
Why would you want older non standard trains running on the GW?
Also why 4 cars? Gatwick route can only take/need 3 car, Greenford is a self contained shuttle and I am guessing that Bedwyn - Newbury/Reading might justify a single 6 car diagram in the peaks.
Surely logic dictates that the bulk of the Refurbished 150s (Toilets or no toilets) should end up based at Newton Heath?

 

[northwichcat]

Why would you want older non standard trains running on the GW?

FGW took on the 3 car 150s to replace 2 car 165s did they not?

Also why 4 cars? Gatwick route can only take/need 3 car, Greenford is a self contained shuttle and I am guessing that Bedwyn - Newbury/Reading might justify a single 6 car diagram in the peaks.

You could reform them to 3 car as has been done before. I suggested 4 car because that would mean 108 carriages could be kept in service with toilets opposed to 54 if they aren't reformed or 81 maximum if you use 3 car formations.

Surely logic dictates that the bulk of the Refurbished 150s (Toilets or no toilets) should end up based at Newton Heath?

Not really. The FGW and ATW 150s have a lower seating capacity than some of Northern's overcrowded Pacers.

If you're against turning them in to longer formations or stripping them out and refitting them then sending the FGW and ATW 150s to Northern doesn't seem to have much logic at all. The FGW and ATW 150s would be better off staying put as class 153 replacements with their existing operators or going to EMT for a similar role.

Come 2019 it might be logical/viable to start canbalising some of the 150s.

Also let's propose Northern are set to get up to around 200 new carriages of a new type of train to replace the Pacers. Wouldn't it then become logical to add to that order to replace the Northern 150s and cascade the Northern 150s, then to order say 140 new carriages for Northern and 60 for other operators with Northern getting an additional 30 x class 150s?