What are the plans for trains that do not comform with accessibility regulations from 2020?

[duffield]

I expect Chris Grayling and the DfT will be right on it, some time in January 2020...

(You might detect a note of cynicism here, due to there currently not even being any sign of a - even massively delayed - plan for the EMT HSTs beyond 31/12/2019 - I don't count the plan to eventually order some bi-modes for the MML as being a plan for the immediate PRM mods issue).

 

[Pete_uk]

Anything ordered now would stand a snowball's in hells chance of being in service before 2020

 

[Bertie the bus]

The "industry" has had more than 10 years to make stock PRM compliant, so the government (ie DfT, ORR, and the disability agencies) is unlikely to be lenient with shortfalls of compliance.
I can see the DfT supporting derogations where its own decisions have led to delay, but not for the industry's own decisions and project management.
...
I suspect the industry will be made to suffer for its own poor decisions and project management.

That is unlikely to happen in the real world. The industry wouldn’t suffer – passengers would. I can see problems occuring on Northern again in May, as I mention on the 2018 - worst year ever thread, and considering Northern could well be the TOC with the most serious problem - will all Pacers be withdrawn by the end of the year if the CAF Civity trains are only starting to be introduced in the summer? - then I can't see the government compounding those problems when it doesn't need to.

Can anybody seriously envisage the government/rail industry saying ‘Happy New Year, your fares have gone up 3% and we’ve withdrawn 10% of all trains because the toilet is too small and they don’t have an internal destination display’.

 

[Cardiff123]

That is unlikely to happen in the real world. The industry wouldn’t suffer – passengers would. I can see problems occuring on Northern again in May, as I mention on the 2018 - worst year ever thread, and considering Northern could well be the TOC with the most serious problem - will all Pacers be withdrawn by the end of the year if the CAF Civity trains are only starting to be introduced in the summer? - then I can't see the government compounding those problems when it doesn't need to.

Can anybody seriously envisage the government/rail industry saying ‘Happy New Year, your fares have gone up 3% and we’ve withdrawn 10% of all trains because the toilet is too small and they don’t have an internal destination display’.

What about the situation in south Wales, where only 1 train of the entire Valley lines fleet so far is PRM compatible. TfW have made a very public commitment to withdraw all of Wales' 30 Pacers in 12 months, with 35 x 150s left to modify and the only relief in sight are 5 x 769s to be in service by May (with an extra 4 due at some unspecified date in future), if the production line and testing of 769s faces no more problems.
The south Wales valleys and the Vale of Glamorgan face the very real possibility of no train service at all in 12 months time unless something gives.

 

[Jonny]

I think people would rather have a train with a few minor accessibility issues rather than no train at all. The media would have a field day.

 

[jon0844]

I expect Chris Grayling and the DfT will be right on it, some time in January 2020...

(You might detect a note of cynicism here, due to there currently not even being any sign of a - even massively delayed - plan for the EMT HSTs beyond 31/12/2019 - I don't count the plan to eventually order some bi-modes for the MML as being a plan for the immediate PRM mods issue).

Chris Grayling will say that when he asked, everyone said it would be fine and he had to take that as fact. He'll pretend he didn't have any responsibility to check beyond that.

 

[Deepgreen]

The lack of consistency regarding the provision of features to comply with accessibility requirements has long been a source of mystery - the 458s' refurbishments specifically had to include the addition of destination indicators before they could re-enter service (however small they turned out to be be), but the (later) 456 units' refurbishment saw them in service for years without any working destination indicators.

 

[jon0844]

The logic was that once you upgraded anything, it had to comply. And for those that didn't upgrade, simply wait until the last possible minute.

As so many companies appear to have done that we're going to be in the mess that many predicted ten years ago.

Frankly, while exceptions are going to have to be made now I think those who didn't make the deadline should be heavily fined. On a daily basis if necessary. If the penalty gets passed on to the DfT, a train builder or something then so be it.

The only exception could possibly be if a train was delayed for an unforeseen reason. Not delayed due to software problems or late ordering etc.

 

[physics34]

Loads of mods needed, even height of door buttons is needed to be a specific measurement.

Part of me says...why affect millions, just to please a minority....
my other part says..FFS its the 21st century why can't we get things dont and why cant these mods be done quicker... Surely there are ways of maybe bringing contractors from abroad to do the work if they cant find the company's/expertise here (which to me sounds bizarre)

 

[Cardiff123]

It's the nature of franchising that the industry is in the mess it's in now. Unless instructed to do so by the DfT as part of their franchise agreement, private TOCs weren't going to do anything if their franchise didn't run past 2020. The parcel was just passed from one TOC to the next until the music stopped. Now the music has stopped, we're in a crisis.
Take Arriva Trains Wales for example. Let on a 15 year franchise in 2003 that ran until October 2018. ATW were not required to undertake any PRM mods, so didn't. Now Wales faces a rolling stock crisis.
Same for EMT. Same for Northern, although they've had an extra 2 years to prepare for 2020 on Wales.
Lack of leadership and foresight from the DfT and the nature of the franchising system has directly led to the crisis we're in now.

 

[PHILIPE]

It's the nature of franchising that the industry is in the mess it's in now. Unless instructed to do so by the DfT as part of their franchise agreement, TOCs weren't going to do anything if their franchise didn't run past 2020. The parcel was just passed from one TOC to the next until the music stopped. Now the music has stopped, we're in a crisis.
Take Arriva Trains Wales for example. Let on a 15 year franchise in 2003 that ran until October 2018. ATW were not required to undertake any PRM mods, so didn't. Now Wales faces a rolling stock crisis.
Same for EMT. Same for Northern, although they've had an extra 2 years to prepare for 2020 on Wales.
Lack of leadership and foresight from the DfT and the nature of the franchising system has directly led to the crisis we're in now.

Ciivil servants trying to run the Railway

 

[jon0844]

It's the nature of franchising that the industry is in the mess it's in now. Unless instructed to do so by the DfT as part of their franchise agreement, private TOCs weren't going to do anything if their franchise didn't run past 2020. The parcel was just passed from one TOC to the next until the music stopped. Now the music has stopped, we're in a crisis.
Take Arriva Trains Wales for example. Let on a 15 year franchise in 2003 that ran until October 2018. ATW were not required to undertake any PRM mods, so didn't. Now Wales faces a rolling stock crisis.
Same for EMT. Same for Northern, although they've had an extra 2 years to prepare for 2020 on Wales.
Lack of leadership and foresight from the DfT and the nature of the franchising system has directly led to the crisis we're in now.

For any leased trains, the ROSCOs should have been making the arrangements? They've had ten years or more to prepare. I agree that the TOCs have little incentive to care, but the DfT could have stepped in if necessary and said that it had to be done - and negotiated as necessary even within the franchise. If the TOC got some more money/subsidy or help to source other stock, so be it.

If the Government caves in and allows non-conforming stock to stay in service for months, it will never be able to set a deadline for any other legislation either. At least not one it expects anyone to comply with.

 

[Stow]

There is a lot of talk of derogations on this forum, however as PRM is law, my understand is that DfT/ministers don’t have any power to ‘derogate’ from a legal requirement.

Best TOC’s could do is run services and hope they don’t get sued, for breaching PRM.

There are work arounds with modified/unmodified units, but gets very messy!

As far as I can see this issue is fairly confined to EA/EM/Wales, although lots of others flying close to the wind, such as Northern and WM - I have little sympathy and I hear DfT has none....

 

[Stow]

For any leased trains, the ROSCOs should have been making the arrangements? They've had ten years or more to prepare. I agree that the TOCs have little incentive to care, but the DfT could have stepped in if necessary and said that it had to be done - and negotiated as necessary even within the franchise. If the TOC got some more money/subsidy or help to source other stock, so be it..

The only oppprtunity to do this is at a franchise change, and many ROSCO’s did take this approach, e.g. on Northern, but due to the franchising process was too little too late

 

[43096]

For any leased trains, the ROSCOs should have been making the arrangements? They've had ten years or more to prepare. I agree that the TOCs have little incentive to care, but the DfT could have stepped in if necessary and said that it had to be done - and negotiated as necessary even within the franchise. If the TOC got some more money/subsidy or help to source other stock, so be it.

That’s the point, though. The work has to be paid for and the ROSCOs are not going to do something for free when it is mandated by their ultimate customer. The ROSCOs have also been done over by DfT many times recently (think 455 re-tractioning, 458/5 project, 707s for a start) so are not going to do things at their own risk.

All roads lead back to the DfT.

 

[ComUtoR]

There is a lot of talk of derogations on this forum, however as PRM is law, my understand is that DfT/ministers don’t have any power to ‘derogate’ from a legal requirement.

Best TOC’s could do is run services and hope they don’t get sued, for breaching PRM.

You man like this derogation ?

466s will have modifications to Door Sounders, Grab handles etc, but no new toilet / additional disabled spaces. From 31 December 2019 they will no longer be permitted to run without a PRM 465 attached to them. https://assets.publishing.service.g...le/756924/angel-class-466-31-october-2018.pdf

Derogation's are rife on the railway.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Greater Anglia are pretty much at the top of the list of TOCs who could have serious problems, since with the current farce with the 710s almost certainly likely to have a big impact on the 720s entry into service, they could end up on 1st January 2020 with a large batch of 317s and 321s that they can no longer operate and barely any 720s to replace them with.

There's been talk of them keeping the 170s (subject to TFW getting other stock from elsewhere so they no longer need the GA stock) and the 156s on for a transitional period so they can run bi-mode FLIRTS on the commuter services to back-fill for the PRM barred EMUs, but even if they do this, which is a long-shot, they're still going to be a large amount of vehicles short that will cause misery on West Anglia routes and the EMU services to Essex with 12 cars certainly going down to 8 cars and probably most 8 cars going to 4 cars.

The DFT will have to put the deadline back, although a Labour Government might allow chaos to happen overnight in order to further their agenda for renationalisation.

 

[yorksrob]

The sensible solution to all this - do one carriage per set. Not much of an advantage for 153's, but a big leap forward for HST's.

Seeing all of this, it's a pity someone didn't enshrine in law that TOC's have to run the train services they're contracted to.

 

[Stow]

You man like this derogation ?



Derogation's are rife on the railway.

That’s not a derogation, it is an imposition of a restriction!

Read another way, it will be illegal to operate a single 466 after 31 Dec 2019

(The law applies to train services not individual units, which is why this is permitted)

 

[tbtc]

I think people would rather have a train with a few minor accessibility issues rather than no train at all. The media would have a field day.

Most people would prefer that (though it has echoes of Theresa May - "A Bad Train Is Better Than No Train").

But look at the TPE/ Pretendolino story - the TOC decided not to introduce trains that complied with the legislation applicable at the time (given the backlash from disability rights lobby).

Do people expect that well organised lobby to sharing their shoulders and just be happy that there are train services running (only) for able bodied people without any fuss?

People were handcuffing themselves to London buses in the 1990s, back before Social Media made it significantly easier to find people with similar conditions/situations to yours. Much as I'd like to believe that train services won't be affected, I can't see the accepting inaccessible train services post 31/12/19.

My guess is some frequency reductions so that we can run longer trains to ensure at least part of each service is run by an accessible unit. We're not going to get away with running inaccessible trains (and the railway shouldn't get away with it, really).

The sensible solution to all this - do one carriage per set. Not much of an advantage for 153's, but a big leap forward for HST's

I'm not even sure we'd have time to do that, looking at how long each HST rake is taking to do for XC/ ScotRail (given the number of Sprinters etc that need upgrading) - will there be long enough left to do it in a year?

(especially as we are pretty stretched already with DMU fleets, so taking each Sprinter out of service for a period will cause even more rolling stock problems)

 

[Bletchleyite]

My guess is some frequency reductions so that we can run longer trains to ensure at least part of each service is run by an accessible unit. We're not going to get away with running inaccessible trains (and the railway shouldn't get away with it, really).

Silver linings and all that. Anything that stops capacity being wasted on short DMUs has to be a good thing.

 

[Jonny]

People were handcuffing themselves to London buses in the 1990s, back before Social Media made it significantly easier to find people with similar conditions/situations to yours. Much as I'd like to believe that train services won't be affected, I can't see the accepting inaccessible train services post 31/12/19.

The disability lobby can rant and rave all they like; however pretty much all of the non-PRM trains will still have at least one wheelchair space so they will just make themselves look unreasonable and vindictive.

 

[yorksrob]

Most people would prefer that (though it has echoes of Theresa May - "A Bad Train Is Better Than No Train").

But look at the TPE/ Pretendolino story - the TOC decided not to introduce trains that complied with the legislation applicable at the time (given the backlash from disability rights lobby).

Do people expect that well organised lobby to sharing their shoulders and just be happy that there are train services running (only) for able bodied people without any fuss?

People were handcuffing themselves to London buses in the 1990s, back before Social Media made it significantly easier to find people with similar conditions/situations to yours. Much as I'd like to believe that train services won't be affected, I can't see the accepting inaccessible train services post 31/12/19.

My guess is some frequency reductions so that we can run longer trains to ensure at least part of each service is run by an accessible unit. We're not going to get away with running inaccessible trains (and the railway shouldn't get away with it, really).



I'm not even sure we'd have time to do that, looking at how long each HST rake is taking to do for XC/ ScotRail (given the number of Sprinters etc that need upgrading) - will there be long enough left to do it in a year?

(especially as we are pretty stretched already with DMU fleets, so taking each Sprinter out of service for a period will cause even more rolling stock problems)

But the key point is TPE were expecting passengers with wheelchairs to wait for the next train, or maybe the one after that if they weren't prepared to get a taxi. That is simply not the case for the majority of trains in use.

Fundamentally disabled people want to get on the train like everyone else. It's not in their interests to have a third of the fleet dissappear any more than anyone else. So long as steps are taken to ensure that they are assisted onto the train where necessary, I believe common sense will prevail.

In terms of updating a single carriage, I don't know if it could be done on time, but it would be eight times quicker than doing the whole train. Shorter derogations, less political risk.

In terms of Mrs May, I'm not convinced that that many people believe that a "bad" deal is better than no deal, but it seems irrelevant to me, given that the IC125 is in no way, shape or form a "bad" train.

 

[Bertie the bus]

There is a lot of talk of derogations on this forum, however as PRM is law, my understand is that DfT/ministers don’t have any power to ‘derogate’ from a legal requirement.

Best TOC’s could do is run services and hope they don’t get sued, for breaching PRM.

There can be and will be derogations.
This is a quote from the DfT website:

While accessible rail fleet will be achieved by 1 January 2020, it is likely that a small number of trains will not fully comply with the PRM-TSI or RVAR by then. Inevitably,some dispensations and exemptions will remain necessary. DfT is working with the rail industry and DPTAC to keep these to a minimum.

https://www.gov.uk/government/colle...cessibility-regulations-rvar-exemption-orders
Whether these are for trains that should have been withdrawn but are still in service due to their replacements being introduced late or wider exemptions remains to be seen, but there will be some because there will have to be some.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Most people would prefer that (though it has echoes of Theresa May - "A Bad Train Is Better Than No Train").

But look at the TPE/ Pretendolino story - the TOC decided not to introduce trains that complied with the legislation applicable at the time (given the backlash from disability rights lobby).

There is no credible evidence to suggest that is true. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it isn't the reason why TPE didn't introduce the Mk 3s.

It's of no relevance anyway as that was introducing stock which was not fully compliant, not stock already operating in passenger service continuing to do so on the the same services.

 

[tbtc]

Silver linings and all that. Anything that stops capacity being wasted on short DMUs has to be a good thing.

True - we'd have a much more reliable network if we thinned out some routes and settled on fewer/longer trains.

The disability lobby can rant and rave all they like; however pretty much all of the non-PRM trains will still have at least one wheelchair space so they will just make themselves look unreasonable and vindictive.

Would you describe this (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-34732084) as "unreasonable and vindictive"?

But the key point is TPE were expecting passengers with wheelchairs to wait for the next train, or maybe the one after that if they weren't prepared to get a taxi. That is simply not the case for the majority of trains in use.

Fundamentally disabled people want to get on the train like everyone else. It's not in their interests to have a third of the fleet dissappear any more than anyone else. So long as steps are taken to ensure that they are assisted onto the train where necessary, I believe common sense will prevail.

In terms of updating a single carriage, I don't know if it could be done on time, but it would be eight times quicker than doing the whole train. Shorter derogations, less political risk.

In terms of Mrs May, I'm not convinced that that many people believe that a "bad" deal is better than no deal, but it seems irrelevant to me, given that the IC125 is in no way, shape or form a "bad" train.

You're talking about "the majority of trains" and then talk of it being "eight times quicker" (i.e. one coach out of eight) - most trains (needing upgrades) aren't eight coaches long though - I admire your optimism that people won't kick up a fuss and will meekly accept inaccessible trains for the greater good though.

And obviously not just a case of being assisted onto trains (even if staff are able to aide at each station) - basic things like accessing toilets, being able to use all buttons, compliant PIS...

There is no credible evidence to suggest that is true. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it isn't the reason why TPE didn't introduce the Mk 3s.

It's of no relevance anyway as that was introducing stock which was not fully compliant, not stock already operating in passenger service continuing to do so on the the same services.

The Pretendolino coaches complied with regulations currently in force for existing stock - given that Pacers etc are still in operation - a better comparison would be to inaccessible trains being brought out of storage (like the Pacers stored when the Oldham Loop closed, later brought back into service) but TPE's plan wasn't good enough for the disability campaigners - which is why I don't buy the idea that they'll roll over and accept that protesting will make them look "unreasonable".

Time will tell, I guess...

 

[yorksrob]

True - we'd have a much more reliable network if we thinned out some routes and settled on fewer/longer trains.



Would you describe this (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-34732084) as "unreasonable and vindictive"?



You're talking about "the majority of trains" and then talk of it being "eight times quicker" (i.e. one coach out of eight) - most trains (needing upgrades) aren't eight coaches long though - I admire your optimism that people won't kick up a fuss and will meekly accept inaccessible trains for the greater good though.

And obviously not just a case of being assisted onto trains (even if staff are able to aide at each station) - basic things like accessing toilets, being able to use all buttons, compliant PIS...



The Pretendolino coaches complied with regulations currently in force for existing stock - given that Pacers etc are still in operation - a better comparison would be to inaccessible trains being brought out of storage (like the Pacers stored when the Oldham Loop closed, later brought back into service) but TPE's plan wasn't good enough for the disability campaigners - which is why I don't buy the idea that they'll roll over and accept that protesting will make them look "unreasonable".

Time will tell, I guess...

This is true, people will rightly kick up a fuss if they're denied access to a train they're entitled to take.

This will be mitigated for by the fact that as now, disabled people will be assisted onto trains, rather than denied access.

 

[kieron]

The only oppprtunity to do this is at a franchise change, and many ROSCO’s did take this approach, e.g. on Northern, but due to the franchising process was too little too late

The authority can request a change whenever they like. The only slight problem with this, as the WG found, is that the franchisee can ask for a lot of money before they agree to anything.

Would you describe this (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-34732084) as "unreasonable and vindictive"?

Complaining when someone is barred from a restaurant because she relies on an assistance dog?

The UK has certainly moved on a lot since then.

On an earlier point, there are plenty of people who have suffered, and are suffering, a lot because of this government's choices. As people are suffering, people are angry and protest in the hope of bringing about change.

By contrast, if you can't use a train because the layout is unsuitable for you, you may simply decide not to travel by train. If you don't travel by train, you may not think that much about how suitable trains would be for the journeys you make. There could be other reasons to protest, but if it doesn't affect your day-to-day life too much then that's one reason less.

It's a little different if the problem is with the behaviour of staff rather than the facilities, as that could change from one day (or even train) to the next.

 

[Greybeard33]

EU law only requires new vehicles to comply with the PRM-TSI. The UK legislation that imposes the 2020 deadline is Section 45 of The Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011. This states:

No person is to use a vehicle in the provision of a service for the carriage of passengers on the trans-European rail system located in the United Kingdom on or after 1st January 2020 unless it has been constructed, renewed, upgraded or modified to comply with the technical standards, and is operated to comply with the operational standards, required by—
(a) 2008/164/EC of the European Commission of 21st December 2007(1), or any amended version of it, or any TSI which replaces it;
....

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/3066/regulation/45

Would it not be possible for the Government to revise this Statutory Instrument (which is secondary legislation) in order to amend the date, without any need for Parliamentary time?

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I can only imagine that a lot of the really old and worn out trains such as the Pacer will be scrapped after 2020, although Porterbrook did come up with a Class 144e which i believe is compliant with the new rules however i am unsure if any TOC's have singed any lease on them.