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

[NorthernSpirit]

Given that it took 18 months for the first PRM XC HST rake to be released, derrogations are highly likely. Some reshuffling could aid the toilet issues in 153s; removing the toilets and using them on shorter journeys i.e. Leeds to Knottingley and using displaced accessible stock for the longer routes.

Better still the DfT could, on a temporary basis, hire in some portable disabled bogs which could be placed at Castleford, Pontefract and other stratigic locations which could be useful for those who are disabled and require the toilet. Its not ideal but its a way of getting round the problem of having to scrap a number of services because of the type of rolling stock breaching the incoming PSVAR regulations.

 

[yorksrob]

The 153 issue is quite easy. Just permanently reform them into 3 carriage units with a compliant 150. If anything, Northern has too many 2 carriage and not enough 3 carriage units, particularly as the 3 carriage 144's will be heading off.

 

[urpert]

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:

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?

Given this would be entirely due to the government’s own incompetence you can imagine the disability lobby groups would be applying for judicial review quicker than you can say ‘Chris Grayling’.

 

[rebmcr]

The 153 issue is quite easy. Just permanently reform them into 3 carriage units with a compliant 150. If anything, Northern has too many 2 carriage and not enough 3 carriage units, particularly as the 3 carriage 144's will be heading off.

Be wary of using carriage count alone as a metric. 3 carriages of Pacer stock is close to the same length as 2 carriages of Sprinter stock!

 

[yorksrob]

Be wary of using carriage count alone as a metric. 3 carriages of Pacer stock is close to the same length as 2 carriages of Sprinter stock!

True, but given we are supposed to be providing for growth in passenger numbers, we should expect more capacity than the 2 carriage sprinters that have been around for the past 20 years.

The S&C for example could do with a lot more of its 2 carriage 158 services being strengthened.

 

[Bikeman78]

We can get away from this legal situation - my understanding is that these disability regs come from EU legislation, which we won't have to follow come brexit - we could simply change the law to a less prescriptive one (eg youre allowed to use a noncompliant unit in multi with a compliant one, etc). If we leave with a deal, then we just derogate until such time we leave fully and then change the law. Disabled folk have been quite successfully using the trains thus far - what suddenly happens on 1st January 2020 that stops them?

Have you ever travelled by train in Belgium? Many of the platforms at minor stations are barely above rail height. I can't think of any trains that have any of the PRM mods that UK trains have. The new Desiros have basic announcements and info screens but that's it. Also EU rules state that new trains have to be compliant. There is no end date for older trains. As always, the UK has painted itself into a corner.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.
The HST conversions seem to me to be an industry choice, between the franchisees, ROSCOs and Wabtec (the cascades/conversions were not imposed by DfT/SG).
In contrast, the XC conversions were authorised by DfT directly, and (eg) Transport for Wales (WG) was very late in approving PRM work on the fleet inherited from ATW.
I suspect the industry will be made to suffer for its own poor decisions and project management.
Delays in getting PRM trains into service probably also means continuing trouble with other planned cascades.
The issues surrounding 769s are linked to DfT decisions following the cutback of electrification projects, so derogations here may be more likely.

Regarding the Welsh franchise, why would ATW have been remotely interested in a deadline 15 months after the franchise ended? Unless it was written into the franchise spec which it obviously wasn't. The ROSCOs should have taken the lead. They're the ones that potentially will have lots of unusable trains sitting in sidings.

 

[Bikeman78]

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

The 1970/80s sliding door trains all had the open button above the close button. Now some trains have them the other way round. Surely it would be easier for blind or partially sighted people if the buttons were consistant?

 

[F Great Eastern]

Regarding the Welsh franchise, why would ATW have been remotely interested in a deadline 15 months after the franchise ended? Unless it was written into the franchise spec which it obviously wasn't. The ROSCOs should have taken the lead. They're the ones that potentially will have lots of unusable trains sitting in sidings.

The ROSCOS don't want to spend large amounts of money on stock that is going to be redundant about 12 months later because of the various new orders that are coming on-stream via newer ROSCOS that have bypassed them, because the DFT, according to some, wants to give the likes of Angel Trains, Porterbrook and Eversholt a kicking.

You can also look at the 185 centre cars farce, the 150 car DMU order which was cancelled because of electrification, which was then itself cut back that has created pretty much the market for the quick fixes that are the Class 230 and Class 769.

 

[Bikeman78]

Are you suggesting that Guards are going to carry wheelchair users up onto (unrefurbished) HSTs?

And assist them at the toilets?

I don't know about the EMT HSTs but the GWR ones have had universal access toilets for at least 10 years. Even with PRM mods there won't be level access from the platform so a ramp will still be required. So whoever deploys the ramp can open the door too.

 

[Bikeman78]

The ROSCOS don't want to spend large amounts of money on stock that is going to be redundant about 12 months later because of the various new orders that are coming on-stream via newer ROSCOS that have bypassed them, because the DFT, according to some, wants to give the likes of Angel Trains, Porterbrook and Eversholt a kicking.

I still don't get it. The franchise ended in October 2018. Nothing new was likely to be ordered before then by which time it would be too late to modify the existing fleet. They should have started the mods the day the valleys electrification was scrapped.

 

[rebmcr]

I don't know about the EMT HSTs but the GWR ones have had universal access toilets for at least 10 years. Even with PRM mods there won't be level access from the platform so a ramp will still be required. So whoever deploys the ramp can open the door too.

You've fallen into the trap of thinking PRM is only about wheelchair users. The regulations are standardised as they are in order to cater for a range of impairments, and any bodge/workaround/half-measure is likely to impact on someone.

 

[XCTurbostar]

It honestly depends how serious the non-conformance is.. the driving ends on 170/1s are non-compliant to RVAR due to: Short Handrail in doorway, Non-compliant support in one wheelchair space. The DfT has let this one slide because its so close. I think if you dig deep enough youll find something wrong with just about every vehicle, even the modified ones! https://assets.publishing.service.g...1/class-170-1-end-cars-pb-covering-letter.pdf

 

[Wivenswold]

There are no excuses for missing this deadline. I think trains should be cancelled so that the truth can come out about how ineffectively the Government has managed this. It'll be fascinating to see what happens when people can no longer blame the EU for the serial failings of this hopeless joke of a country.

 

[Bertie the bus]

You've fallen into the trap of thinking PRM is only about wheelchair users. The regulations are standardised as they are in order to cater for a range of impairments, and any bodge/workaround/half-measure is likely to impact on someone.

They do include a range of things but the doors and toilets are the two big ones. Didn't Ian Walmsley claim on train PIS only costs around £2K per carriage? When you think about it, if it does cost so little and can benefit people it is pretty disgraceful that it wasn't fitted to all carriages many years before the deadline.

 

[F Great Eastern]

There are no excuses for missing this deadline. I think trains should be cancelled so that the truth can come out about how ineffectively the Government has managed this. It'll be fascinating to see what happens when people can no longer blame the EU for the serial failings of this hopeless joke of a country.

You are naive if you think the truth will come out and the DFT will get the blame, the DFT will deflect all blame to the operators as they have done for the best part of the last decade, preying on the naviety of the public who believe that everything is under the TOCs control rather than the truth that they are heavily dictated to by a DFT who makes all the decision yet has to face no scrutiny at all.

The thing you will find with the Tory government is that there is always someone else to shift the blame on and if it's not the EU it will be the train operators. Hell, even the education system is being set up this way now with academies and free schools, so we can now blame trusts and poor leadership instead of huge funding cuts.

With a proper functioning opposition, you'd expect them to then point the finger to the government policy as the problem with the lack of PRM related stocks, but Labour will be too busy using this to their own agenda to further their cause for nationalisation so you can expect that they too will be happy to blame the operators primarily rather than giving the DFT the majority of the blame.

The DFT is an ideal department to work in for incompetent civil servants, since you have the benefit of making all of the decisions, getting all the praise and turn up for various photo ops, whilst taking none of the blame for the cock-ups you make as the TOC will get blamed by the public and the media.

 

[yorksrob]

There are no excuses for missing this deadline. I think trains should be cancelled so that the truth can come out about how ineffectively the Government has managed this. It'll be fascinating to see what happens when people can no longer blame the EU for the serial failings of this hopeless joke of a country.

Not good enough I'm afraid. Fundamentally every passenger, whether disabled or not, requires a functioning train service. Destroying a train service to prove a political point will benefit no one.

 

[VT 390]

I saw that Wales rail was keeping 153s after 2020. I guess the toilets will be locked out of use?

What's the plans for EMT to comply with accessibility regulations as HSTs and 153s don't comply.

Will all other company meet the deadlines?

They cant lock the toilets out of use on the 153s as they operate some quite long journeys on both Transport for Wales and East Midlands Trains, they can't expect that passengers going from say Swansea to Shrewsbury via the Heart of Wales Line not to need a toilet.

 

[trebor79]

Locking the toilets wouldn't solve the problem anyway, as there are lots of other ways in which they don't comply.

 

[XCTurbostar]

Locking the toilets would be a great way of creating lots of media attention for something that should never have been an issue..

 

[Greybeard33]

Given this would be entirely due to the government’s own incompetence you can imagine the disability lobby groups would be applying for judicial review quicker than you can say ‘Chris Grayling’.

Hmm. Delving further, the UK Regulation 45 is supplemental to the regulations that implement the EU PRM-TSI Directives. The relevant primary legislation for this regulation is Chapter 3, "Rail Vehicles" of the UK Equality Act 2010. Section 182 (6) of the Act states:

The Secretary of State must exercise the power to make rail vehicle accessibility regulations so as to secure that on and after 1 January 2020 every rail vehicle is a regulated rail vehicle.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/182

So the date could only be changed by amendment of this Act.

However, Section 183 seems to give the Transport Secretary wide-ranging powers to grant exemptions:

(1)The Secretary of State may by order (an “exemption order”)—

(a)authorise the use for carriage of a regulated rail vehicle even though the vehicle does not conform with the provisions of rail vehicle accessibility regulations with which it is required to conform;

(b)authorise a regulated rail vehicle to be used for carriage otherwise than in conformity with the provisions of rail vehicle accessibility regulations with which use of the vehicle is required to conform.

(2)Authority under subsection (1)(a) or (b) may be for—

(a)a regulated rail vehicle that is specified or of a specified description,

(b)use in specified circumstances of a regulated rail vehicle, or

(c)use in specified circumstances of a regulated rail vehicle that is specified or of a specified description.

(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(4)After consulting the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, the Secretary of State may—

(a)make an exemption order in the terms of the application for the order;

(b)make an exemption order in such other terms as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate;

(c)refuse to make an exemption order.

(5)The Secretary of State may make an exemption order subject to such conditions and restrictions as are specified.

(6)“Specified” means specified in an exemption order.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/183

If the DfT were to use these powers to grant temporary exemptions, in order to avoid drastic cuts in rail services, would that really be grounds for a successful judicial review? Even if there were a clear programme in place to modify or replace the non-compliant vehicles as soon as reasonably practical, and the required consultations with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee had been completed?

 

[Charlie Smythe]

There are no excuses for missing this deadline. I think trains should be cancelled so that the truth can come out about how ineffectively the Government has managed this. It'll be fascinating to see what happens when people can no longer blame the EU for the serial failings of this hopeless joke of a country.

I hate to say it but i believe that if the truth does come out, the DfT will very quickly sponge the blame off to the TOC's or the leasing company's. The DfT will most likely get away with it which is the worst part.

 

[Chester1]

Hmm. Delving further, the UK Regulation 45 is supplemental to the regulations that implement the EU PRM-TSI Directives. The relevant primary legislation for this regulation is Chapter 3, "Rail Vehicles" of the UK Equality Act 2010. Section 182 (6) of the Act states:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/182

So the date could only be changed by amendment of this Act.

However, Section 183 seems to give the Transport Secretary wide-ranging powers to grant exemptions:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/183

If the DfT were to use these powers to grant temporary exemptions, in order to avoid drastic cuts in rail services, would that really be grounds for a successful judicial review? Even if there were a clear programme in place to modify or replace the non-compliant vehicles as soon as reasonably practical, and the required consultations with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee had been completed?

The legislation seems clear than the SoS has huge legal leeway to grant exemptions. Most political difficulties can be avoided through section 183 part 5, by granting an exemption on the condition that they can only be used legally if they are attached to a fully compliant unit. A few die yards will protest and probably make a legal challenge but the government will be able to defend itself by stating every service will have compliant carriages. Allowing 153s or pacers to stay and run on their own would be politically toxic. Even TfW should be able to run all current 153 services with 2 coach units and run 153s in the Valleys etc as third (and fourth) coaches.

 

[headshot119]

The legislation seems clear than the SoS has huge legal leeway to grant exemptions. Most political difficulties can be avoided through section 183 part 5, by granting an exemption on the condition that they can only be used legally if they are attached to a fully compliant unit. A few die yards will protest and probably make a legal challenge but the government will be able to defend itself by stating every service will have compliant carriages. Allowing 153s or pacers to stay and run on their own would be politically toxic. Even TfW should be able to run all current 153 services with 2 coach units and run 153s in the Valleys etc as third (and fourth) coaches.

Except you can't run 153s north of Radyr

 

[43096]

I still don't get it. The franchise ended in October 2018. Nothing new was likely to be ordered before then by which time it would be too late to modify the existing fleet. They should have started the mods the day the valleys electrification was scrapped.

Why? The ROSCOs don’t have contracts in place for the stock beyond the end of the franchise, either.

For the umpteenth time: this is a legislative change from the ultimate customer (DfT). The same DfT that has to sign off any changes to a franchise. The same DfT that has screwed over the ROSCOs several times in recent years. Would you take the cost hit if you were the ROSCO? If you say “yes” to that then you clearly don’t get the real commercial world. It all leads back to the DfT as the root cause.

 

[Bikeman78]

You've fallen into the trap of thinking PRM is only about wheelchair users. The regulations are standardised as they are in order to cater for a range of impairments, and any bodge/workaround/half-measure is likely to impact on someone.

I was responding to the specific point raised by tbtc.

 

[Bikeman78]

Why? The ROSCOs don’t have contracts in place for the stock beyond the end of the franchise, either.

For the umpteenth time: this is a legislative change from the ultimate customer (DfT). The same DfT that has to sign off any changes to a franchise. The same DfT that has screwed over the ROSCOs several times in recent years. Would you take the cost hit if you were the ROSCO? If you say “yes” to that then you clearly don’t get the real commercial world. It all leads back to the DfT as the root cause.

Realistically there was nothing available for TFW other than the existing ATW fleet. So it's been obvious for years that the Welsh 150s would need to run in 2020 and beyond. The alternative is that they send them for scrap.

 

[js1000]

We can get away from this legal situation - my understanding is that these disability regs come from EU legislation, which we won't have to follow come brexit - we could simply change the law to a less prescriptive one (eg youre allowed to use a noncompliant unit in multi with a compliant one, etc). If we leave with a deal, then we just derogate until such time we leave fully and then change the law. Disabled folk have been quite successfully using the trains thus far - what suddenly happens on 1st January 2020 that stops them?

It's the other way round, the UK is leading on accessibility regulations. It is completely correct that vehicles such as Pacers are being replaced by those with step free access/door ledges. In fact, it should have happened 20 years ago but it's only recently people are more aware of the challenges disabled or less mobile people face on an everyday basis. The new regulations in 2020 are a step in the right direction.

 

[Chester1]

Except you can't run 153s north of Radyr

What about Ebbw Vale and services into Cardiff?

The current 8 x 153s will be supplemented by an extra 5 during 2019, if derogations are granted for use with compliant units then that is an extra 13 coaches on top of the incoming 12 x 170s, 5 x 230s (to free up 5 x 150s) and 5 x 769s (have the rumoured extra 4 units been confirmed?).

For any franchise it will be far less politically damaging to allow derogations for 153s and any units not refurbished on time to be used only with compliant stock than to allow pacers to stay.

 

[43096]

Realistically there was nothing available for TFW other than the existing ATW fleet. So it's been obvious for years that the Welsh 150s would need to run in 2020 and beyond. The alternative is that they send them for scrap.

Obviously you do not understand!