Disabled Tanyalee Davis - more rail travel woes.

[Bantamzen]

I had a bet with another forum user how long it would be before someone said, "but, cost". I won with before midday Sunday.

The same argument was trotted out when buses had to become step free. The same argument has been made against adapting public buildings. The same argument has been made against RVAR. The same arguments have been made down the years whenever improving the lot of those less fortunate in society has been suggested.

It doesn't wash. There are training and implementation issues with the interaction between disabled travellers and the railways. If it takes money to fix, then so be it. The legislation has to be complied with. None of us, whether individual or body corporate, can pick and chose which laws we will or won't comply with. No ifs, no buts, no "but fares will rise". If nothing is done to improve the situation then there will be more train delays. More necessity to compensate passengers. More necessity to book taxis. More court cases. More bad publicity. More reputational damage. Who ultimately pays for those I wonder? Doing the right thing and complying with legislation and DPPPs is a zero-sum game.

As others have said, cost is at the heart of the issue. TOCs simply won't employ the additional people required to give anything close to a 100%, 24/7 service as is possible at all required stations, no matter what the regulations and laws say. And they are not required to, they are only required to have staff there when needed. And this is where the problem lies. Push the legislation too hard, and one by companies will just stop bidding for future franchises as costs spiral until few, if any are left. Either that or they will cut back services to the bare minimum for said franchise. Either way it leads to an escalation of unintended consequences. I'm afraid that is the nature of a privatised system.

However, trying to be constructive from what I can gleam from this thread the problem is really in communications because it seems often the issue is simply that the important information on booked assistance doesn't always reach the staff it should. Quite honestly, and I speak as a developer here, the solution is pretty straightforward. Instead of having an email to spreadsheet to rotas system, when a booking is made it could easily be shared with an online calendar to which all the required staff have access via mobile devices. The calendar would be set to give alerts at set intervals when the person(s) requiring assistance are due, and even before as a heads up in case staff have been distracted by something else. And a bit more work linking the data to the live running data could give staff real time heads up in the case of delays, and the events could be updated in real time by staff if passengers have to be put on another train or diversionary route. Technically its really quite easy, I do similar things in my employment all the time.

Where the problem lies is having so many different TOCs, NR and even possibly agencies having to agree to a single system from the original booking engine. But it is doable and would go some way in improving the passenger experience for disabled people without having to add hundreds of staff that the TOCs don't intend to pay for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True. But if theres a ramp to go down on one end of the train, and a visually impaired passenger at the other end, and both passengers are alighting, then what's to stop the wheelchair user and companion from assuming their assistance hasn't showed up because the staff member is at the other coach helping the visually impaired passenger off first?

It's been known to happen. And the wheelchair user and companion assumes the assistance isn't there and then lift the wheelchair off themselves in a panic, only to find the assistance staff are walking towards them a minute later. If there's three assists it's even more complicated.

Communicate?

If it's all properly planned and on the paperwork, the guard has already been to each of them and told them what the procedure will be, and any platform staff also already know it. And just before arrival, an announcement made; "Passengers who have booked assistance to leave the train at this station, please be aware that there are several people who have assistance booked at this station; I am aware of request numbers 12345, 54321 and 67890. The train will wait here for a short while while this is completed, please do not feel you have been forgotten."

It's not perfect, but if LU think it's important for drivers to announce that they basically know nothing about the reason they are stopped but do so for reassurance, this kind of thing would be fully justified.

Of course, the best thing would be to move away from non-level boarding. The ordering of a load of high-floor stock in the 2010s like Class 800s, Mk5s, Class 700s, Aventras etc is arguably criminal when Stadler have a product that would remove the need for any assistance at all for the vast majority of cases (as the Swiss have already achieved) - if we'd stated that was all that would be ordered, I'm sure all the main manufacturers would have come up with it, as they have throughout Europe.

The bus industry is *way* ahead here; the railway and stock suppliers (other than Stadler) should be ashamed.

 

[AlterEgo]

Nice in theory but not always practical.

In the situation my parents found themselves in all the issues could have been avoided if the rail staff had just taken a moment to consider the impact of their actions on ALL their customers.

I agree - and was not trying to deflect blame from the incompetence or unavailability of the staff who should reasonably be expected the service.

I was just saying I wouldn't trust the system, precisely because of experiences like yours!

 

[DarloRich]

Seems more cock up than conspiracy. Both need to be addressed. The first is easier to fix!

 

[bnm]

As others have said, cost is at the heart of the issue. TOCs simply won't employ the additional people required to give anything close to a 100%, 24/7 service as is possible at all required stations, no matter what the regulations and laws say. And they are not required to, they are only required to have staff there when needed. And this is where the problem lies. Push the legislation too hard, and one by companies will just stop bidding for future franchises as costs spiral until few, if any are left. Either that or they will cut back services to the bare minimum for said franchise. Either way it leads to an escalation of unintended consequences. I'm afraid that is the nature of a privatised system.

However, trying to be constructive from what I can gleam from this thread the problem is really in communications because it seems often the issue is simply that the important information on booked assistance doesn't always reach the staff it should. Quite honestly, and I speak as a developer here, the solution is pretty straightforward. Instead of having an email to spreadsheet to rotas system, when a booking is made it could easily be shared with an online calendar to which all the required staff have access via mobile devices. The calendar would be set to give alerts at set intervals when the person(s) requiring assistance are due, and even before as a heads up in case staff have been distracted by something else. And a bit more work linking the data to the live running data could give staff real time heads up in the case of delays, and the events could be updated in real time by staff if passengers have to be put on another train or diversionary route. Technically its really quite easy, I do similar things in my employment all the time.

Where the problem lies is having so many different TOCs, NR and even possibly agencies having to agree to a single system from the original booking engine. But it is doable and would go some way in improving the passenger experience for disabled people without having to add hundreds of staff that the TOCs don't intend to pay for.

One in five booked assistance journeys has some problem. One in eight has no assistance show at all. That has to be fixed. Either by introducing a new robust system (cost), or improving the current one (cost). Status quo isn't acceptable.

Owing groups not bidding because that cost is built into the franchise? Unlikely. But let's entertain that thought. You say later that one of the problems is too many TOCs, along with Network Rail and other agencies. If it takes money to fix the problem as it currently stands, then a reduction in TOCs and third parties would surely help. Economies of scale. The ultimate reduction in TOCs, to one, would surely help a lot. And not just for getting Passenger Assist to work as it should.

 

[Bantamzen]

One in five booked assistance journeys has some problem. One in eight has no assistance show at all. That has to be fixed. Either by introducing a new robust system (cost), or improving the current one (cost). Status quo isn't acceptable.

Owing groups not bidding because that cost is built into the franchise? Unlikely. But let's entertain that thought. You say later that one of the problems is too many TOCs, along with Network Rail and other agencies. If it takes money to fix the problem as it currently stands, then a reduction in TOCs and third parties would surely help. Economies of scale. The ultimate reduction in TOCs, to one, would surely help a lot. And not just for getting Passenger Assist to work as it should.

Its a nice theory, but isn't necessarily going to help. Indeed a private monopoly would be more inclined, and by proxy more able to cost-cut at will with no obvious competition. Another case of unintended consequence!

I think my solution would be somewhat less problematic, a single booking system linked to a single comms system that could alert staff across multiple operations would at least ensure that the message reached those that needed it (whether they act upon in is another thing, but an audit trail would exist so there would be little scope for excuse save exception circumstance). The big problem would be getting all concerned to ensure staff had mobile devices with capability to receive data from the system, and the relevant cost & training for such (notwithstanding the relevant training for the assistance of course). In theory its nothing too difficult, many companies share networks & data, its more a matter of will or the possible lack of it. That would be something for DfT to sort out.

 

[AlterEgo]

What do other European countries do when it comes to disabled assistance? Are there any lessons our TOCs could learn from them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do other European countries do when it comes to disabled assistance? Are there any lessons our TOCs could learn from them?

These days for regional trains there is much less need as low-floor has proliferated so much that it isn't needed anywhere near as often. We are way behind on this despite it being a much easier thing to deliver in a high platform country. The joke at St Pancras Thameslink (a bodge-job Harrington hump that still requires a small ramp!) shows just how seriously we *don't* take it.

For IC I'm not quite sure. It takes a lot more logistics as you need a lift rather than a ramp! However platforms tend to be more accessible because they tend to use ramped underpasses rather than footbridges, something we really should look at copying.

 

[DarloRich]

What do other European countries do when it comes to disabled assistance? Are there any lessons our TOCs could learn from them?

that is a very good point. Is there best practice we can share?

 

[Bletchleyite]

that is a very good point. Is there best practice we can share?

Yes. Low floor and level access.

We missed a massive trick on this with the current massive stock orders. Only Greater Anglia and Merseyrail have done the right thing, and the former only with part of their fleet. And now we are stuck with inadequate accessibility arrangements for 30-50 years.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes. Low floor and level access.

We missed a massive trick on this with the current massive stock orders. Only Greater Anglia and Merseyrail have done the right thing, and the former only with part of their fleet. And now we are stuck with inadequate accessibility arrangements for 30-50 years.

but having just come back from Belgium and Holland there were many places with a large gap between train and platform and a considerable step down from the train to platform in others.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes. Low floor and level access.

We missed a massive trick on this with the current massive stock orders. Only Greater Anglia and Merseyrail have done the right thing, and the former only with part of their fleet. And now we are stuck with inadequate accessibility arrangements for 30-50 years.

Level access is certainly something approaching, if not quite, a panacea for mobility issues. I used to spend a lot of time booking in passenger assistance and the vast majority required assistance negotiating surfaces which were not level, be they station stairs or the gap between platform and train.

Once you negate that issue, and enable those people to board themselves on the same basis as anyone else, you only have to give manned assistance to people with certain hidden disabilities - which in my experience was a much rarer beast. I'd say only a few percent of the assists I booked were for someone whose disability was not mobility-related.

 

[LAX54]

Communicate?

If it's all properly planned and on the paperwork, the guard has already been to each of them and told them what the procedure will be, and any platform staff also already know it. And just before arrival, an announcement made; "Passengers who have booked assistance to leave the train at this station, please be aware that there are several people who have assistance booked at this station; I am aware of request numbers 12345, 54321 and 67890. The train will wait here for a short while while this is completed, please do not feel you have been forgotten."

It's not perfect, but if LU think it's important for drivers to announce that they basically know nothing about the reason they are stopped but do so for reassurance, this kind of thing would be fully justified.

Of course, the best thing would be to move away from non-level boarding. The ordering of a load of high-floor stock in the 2010s like Class 800s, Mk5s, Class 700s, Aventras etc is arguably criminal when Stadler have a product that would remove the need for any assistance at all for the vast majority of cases (as the Swiss have already achieved) - if we'd stated that was all that would be ordered, I'm sure all the main manufacturers would have come up with it, as they have throughout Europe.

The bus industry is *way* ahead here; the railway and stock suppliers (other than Stadler) should be ashamed.

Its not just the trains, but the stations as well, if you have 3 or 4 wishing to alight, do you get them off and leave them on the platform whilst you get the rest ? It's all down to staffing levels at the end of the day, its not just Rail, but shops too, many are not disabled friendly, many workplaces are not disabled accessible, we cant just pick on the Rail Sector, it is the UK as a whole.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

To be honest, rail travel is a bit of a lottery with any disability..... and not all disabilities are obvious.

What comes over in both these incidents Tanyalee highlights is how dependant on front-line staff members doing the "right thing" one can be- she gives a balanced picture in the BBC article, noting the staff who had done their best even where other aspects (the assistance not getting her off) failed.

Problem with this is, reading the previous posts about her situations, I was a bit disturbed about comments like "passing the attitude test"- does one have to be meek and submissive and grateful to the normals to be get any support? That's not equality! But I have noticed that when any "different" people (whether disabled, LGBT etc) are "out and proud" they generate a bunch of reaction in some places that suggests that being "different" is only acceptable if the "different" person remains meek and submissive. It's a funny thing, but while normals can feel superior by helping a "poor disabled person" they often react quite negatively when they realise the disabled person is in full possession of their faculties and is just as much an individual with a personality and aspirations as anyone else- and expects quite rightly to engage in how any necessary assistance and support (to be able to live equally in a society set up for the "normal" population) is provided. I'm afraid experience has given me rather an aversion to people who would do stuff to me rather than helping me do stuff- the number of people who think they know what I need but who are so very wrong has been surprisingly high over the past 40 years.

Also the "attitude test" does not take account of the challenges of living with disabilities that cause a different cognitive profile. As an autistic person, I find that my inability to read the body-language of neurotypicals is matched only by their inability to misread mine, even when they think they are doing just great at reading people chances are they are wrong with a neurodiverse person (no, I'm not feeling in the slightest bit aggressive nor am I drunk- just totally overwhelmed and bamboozled, due to input overload my brain has almost stopped processing incoming verbal language and my cognitive functioning is about to fail and just right now I'd really perfer to be hiding in a quiet dark corner.....). The "body language" signs can mean very different things when presented by a neurodiverse person as compared to a neurotypical.

Training and recognition of the importance of equalities and of stuff like this is really important. I remember a difficult trip on a GWR train a couple of years ago, where for various reasons I was seriously cognitively overloaded and flapping/panicking rather. A switched-on GWR train manager spotted this, and she approached me- and was brilliant. Whether through training by GWR or otherwise, she obviously read the situation correctly, and the support she gave me was massively helpful. Given my state at the time, I didn't get her name- which I regret as it would have been great to be able to tell her employer how brilliant she had been and how much it helped. But in different circumstances, a less informed train manager could well have read the situation differently and I might have got into bother without realising- certainly it's far from unknown for that to happen to autistic people, particularly young chaps.

It would be great if the TOCs could be more proactive with this; albeit in a society where hostility to disabled people has been fostered by the government for some years now, I'm not holding my breath. That said, the TUs do some great work on disability and equalities awareness, and in fairness, my experience of front-line train crew and directly employed station staff is generally positive in that regard- I wonder if that's sometimes a reflection of good work by RMT/TSSA rather than the employer though?

TPO

Late to this thread, but this is a brilliant post. Thanks, TPO.

 

[OneOffDave]

I travel using my wheelchair 5 days a week and this sort of 'forgetfulness' happens regularly. My solution is to prevent the door from closing until I'm off the train. If that delays the train then that's no skin off my nose. Why should my ability to get to and from work be dependent on the goodwill of the TOC? Trying to book several journeys at once is much harder than it needs to be and isn't flexible enough to cope if I've got to stay 15-20 minutes later at work. The system is designed for disabled people only really travelling for leisure purposes, not for work with all the issues regarding timing that that involves. I get repeatedly told by the TOC that my local station isn't busy enough to guarantee staffing despite having over 3 million passengers a year. I've lost count of how often I've had to take the risk and get myself off the train at Waterloo to avoid being sent back down the line to Portsmouth. Then staff have the audacity to shout at me for taking what they perceive to be dangerous action without having any understanding or experience of using a wheelchair. Why, as we come to the end of the second decade of the 21st century is this still some kind of lottery that disabled people are meant to be grateful for, touch their forelock and be glad they are being allowed out with all the normal people

 

[Bletchleyite]

Level access is certainly something approaching, if not quite, a panacea for mobility issues. I used to spend a lot of time booking in passenger assistance and the vast majority required assistance negotiating surfaces which were not level, be they station stairs or the gap between platform and train.

It's also good for everyone else, too - such as those with heavy luggage. It does require some thought in rolling stock design, but the problem is not hard to solve for an EMU at least - low floor EMUs are the norm all over the place in mainland Europe these days. Harder for a DMU, but there are options like the "pseudo LHCS" FLIRT, above floor engines in more conventional stock etc.

 

[farleigh]

I travel using my wheelchair 5 days a week and this sort of 'forgetfulness' happens regularly. My solution is to prevent the door from closing until I'm off the train. If that delays the train then that's no skin off my nose. Why should my ability to get to and from work be dependent on the goodwill of the TOC? Trying to book several journeys at once is much harder than it needs to be and isn't flexible enough to cope if I've got to stay 15-20 minutes later at work. The system is designed for disabled people only really travelling for leisure purposes, not for work with all the issues regarding timing that that involves. I get repeatedly told by the TOC that my local station isn't busy enough to guarantee staffing despite having over 3 million passengers a year. I've lost count of how often I've had to take the risk and get myself off the train at Waterloo to avoid being sent back down the line to Portsmouth. Then staff have the audacity to shout at me for taking what they perceive to be dangerous action without having any understanding or experience of using a wheelchair. Why, as we come to the end of the second decade of the 21st century is this still some kind of lottery that disabled people are meant to be grateful for, touch their forelock and be glad they are being allowed out with all the normal people

Good post.

 

[WelshBluebird]

And then we arrive at our destination only to find the lift had been turned off - according to the staff they were not expecting any more assistance passengers to arrive this evening so who would need it. Really? It was two days before Christmas and it was 6.30 in the evening; not even people with luggage.

Regardless of anything else, that is unbelievable and should be a totally separate complaint to whoever manages the station IMO. I wonder what the response to anyone who turned up with luggage was!

I’m not saying this to judge anyone in the thread who has used the service, but there is no way in hell I would send elderly or infirm parents on a train on their own if they couldn’t manage. I’d drive them or travel with them. Just my 2p.

Great if you are available to do so, or have a car, or even can drive.

Get off your pedestal!
The railway treats everyone the same. It might not be that great but I don't think I can honestly say any business I have encountered in life has treated me well... or rather, as I want.

You say it like "the railway" has a particular grudge against people with disabilities. Individuals might; the industry doesn't.

The fact the industry regularly "forgets" to carry out booked assistance and turns off lifts because they are lazy and can't be bothered to deal with them says everything.

BNM suggests this is another shameful indictment as to the way railways treat disabled customers. I'd suggest this incident, unlike the previous one, is simply a cock up, where one or more employees trying to do their job properly made a mistake. These things happen, and unfortunately disabled passengers, who by their nature will need more personal handling, will always be more prone to this sort of situation.

I've made lots of mistakes in my career, and I'm sure most people have too. Let's try and keep this incident in proportion, although clearly happening to the same person and so soon after the previous incident demonstrates that the industry does need to try harder.

How many cocks up need to happen before it isn't just a cock up and is actually a real indication of the actual service provided?

But do people realise that the booked assistance system doesn't differentiate between a passenger in a wheelchair who requires ramps, from an elderly person with their friend who's relative has booked them assistance to carry their case and navigate the station?

But booked assist does allow this and no priority is given to disabled bookings over elderly luggage bookings. And staff only have two hands each.

I wasn't aware of that at all if I am honest. And just screams to me that the system is not fit for purpose and needs to be replaced.

 

[Gareth Marston]

For all the people with blinkered eyes who think its the rail industry being lazy or some such nonsense just bear in mind that the determining factor is the capacity of the number of staff available to deal with things and this is in turn driven by the financial targets of the TOC which are set by Government in franchise agreements by the same Government that passes Disability legislation....

And what happens when the small number of staff are then asked questions by able bodied customers about connections during disruption and the like? Do they ignore them as they have more important assistance work to do? If they come across a young mother struggling with her children and a pushchair plus luggage do they just ignore her?

If bnm can explain how limited numbers of staff can be in several places simultaneously performing customer service and assistance then we would all like to hear otherwise he has to face the real world where staff can be "distracted" by other things going on - which are absolutely nothing to do with any intentional discrimination. Or perhaps he can explain how we pay for greater numbers of staff?

 

[Esker-pades]

For all the people with blinkered eyes who think its the rail industry being lazy or some such nonsense just bear in mind that the determining factor is the capacity of the number of staff available to deal with things and this is in turn driven by the financial targets of the TOC which are set by Government in franchise agreements by the same Government that passes Disability legislation....

And what happens when the small number of staff are then asked questions by able bodied customers about connections during disruption and the like? Do they ignore them as they have more important assistance work to do? If they come across a young mother struggling with her children and a pushchair plus luggage do they just ignore her?

If bnm can explain how limited numbers of staff can be in several places simultaneously performing customer service and assistance then we would all like to hear otherwise he has to face the real world where staff can be "distracted" by other things going on - which are absolutely nothing to do with any intentional discrimination. Or perhaps he can explain how we pay for greater numbers of staff?

This is why quite a few comments are blaming the system and not invididual members of staff. If a system is set up where "I forgot" means that a service doesn't happen, that is the fault of the system. There has to be a better way than relying on the memory capacity of people who are over-worked and short-staffed.

 

[DarloRich]

This is why quite a few comments are blaming the system and not invididual members of staff. If a system is set up where "I forgot" means that a service doesn't happen, that is the fault of the system. There has to be a better way than relying on the memory capacity of people who are over-worked and short-staffed.

agreed - but if that system only provides 1 or 2 persons to do all the off loads at a large station like York something is wring

 

[OneOffDave]

This is why quite a few comments are blaming the system and not invididual members of staff. If a system is set up where "I forgot" means that a service doesn't happen, that is the fault of the system. There has to be a better way than relying on the memory capacity of people who are over-worked and short-staffed.

This is exactly my experience. Apart from one rare exception, the staff have all been great, it's the systems either in terms of communications or appropriate resourcing that have caused problems.

 

[Esker-pades]

agreed - but if that system only provides 1 or 2 persons to do all the off loads at a large station like York something is wring

Exactly. That is another reason why it is the system's fault.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is why quite a few comments are blaming the system and not invididual members of staff. If a system is set up where "I forgot" means that a service doesn't happen, that is the fault of the system. There has to be a better way than relying on the memory capacity of people who are over-worked and short-staffed.

Yes, this is my view. We have systems that require security guards to patrol by for example having to scan things in specific locations. It doesn't seem beyond the wit of man to design a system of handoffs for the assistance system that require each person handing someone off to someone else to have to have physical contact rather than the temptation to shortcut it when a bit busy or when things are running late. I proposed paperwork, but an electronic system would also work provided it had the right "touch points".

In some locations it also requires more staff so the service is more prompt, but that doesn't solve it being forgotten. There are plenty of technical solutions for that.

 

[Gareth Marston]

This is why quite a few comments are blaming the system and not invididual members of staff. If a system is set up where "I forgot" means that a service doesn't happen, that is the fault of the system. There has to be a better way than relying on the memory capacity of people who are over-worked and short-staffed.

and the most straight forward way of doing that is increasing staff numbers which has a cost implication......

 

[Bletchleyite]

and the most straight forward way of doing that is increasing staff numbers which has a cost implication......

Even if you have 100 staff at one station that's not going to solve the "I forgot" problem. Indeed, it makes it more likely that we will get a "everybody thought somebody would do it so nobody did it" problem.

It needs increased formalisation so as to make a physical in-person handoff mandatory in every case and to be able to enforce that in 100% of cases (and know if there has been a failure immediately), be that with traditional paperwork with signatures on it or be that with a handheld device-based IT system or indeed something as a halfway house between the two.

 

[Llanigraham]

That’s an interesting question.

I’ve been in a few situations where I’ve been kept “on hold” while the signaller confirms things with the TOC - I’m not exactly how this is done and I imagine varies by signalling centre. Do ROCs have TOC representatives working in them or “hotlines” to control?

In the example I gave above the signaller agreed to do it when I asked - possibly to get me back on the move quicker than if I’d had to ring off, ring the TOC myself, then call him back when ready to proceed?

I suspect it varies with each Signalling Control Centre. I understand that in Cardiff ATW are in very close contact so talking to a panel there should be quick, but in my Box we would have to ring our Control in Cardiff and then wait for them to get back to me. Certainly didn't have a "hot line" to anyone.

 

[sefton]

Regardless of anything else, that is unbelievable and should be a totally separate complaint to whoever manages the station IMO. I wonder what the response to anyone who turned up with luggage was!

Apparently the lifts were turned off because the person who watched the CCTV for them hadn't turned up for work.

According to the station staff, CCTV was needed in case anyone tried to vandalise the lifts, and there was a speaker so the remote operator could tell the vandals off.

I did suggest to Mr Horton when I wrote to him about the whole sorry saga, that it didn't take a lot of training to watch a screen and if he had nobody else free then he could have stepped in and done it himself.

 

[davart]

There are a lot of different views on here, and I'm sure that everyone is correct based on their own experience.

As mentioned earlier, although it's harsh, it's not a perfect world.

Everyone has problems, whether obvious or not.

Things break and go wrong. People forget things. It shouldn't happen but it does.

Many solutions have been suggested but frankly it quickly becomes unworkable - either due to cost or the sheer work involved.

The booking system for assistance sounds like it is easily overwhelmed.

The real solution is as many have suggested - level access, enabling many to be independent.

The reality is that this country was built over centuries. Stations are not always designed that well. Platforms aren't consistent. Trains are of different height and width.

The short answer is that there will never be a fix in the foreseeable future.

Perhaps not helpful, but it is what it is.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The real solution is as many have suggested - level access, enabling many to be independent.

The reality is that this country was built over centuries. Stations are not always designed that well. Platforms aren't consistent. Trains are of different height and width.

The short answer is that there will never be a fix in the foreseeable future.

Why can't we make it better though?
Why can't the system actually differentiate between those who just want help with luggage and those who need assistance with ramps to get them and their mobility aid on and off the train?
Why can't lifts actually be in operation for the times they are supposed to be?
Those things can be fixed fairly easily without a huge amount of money or time spent!