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

[Bikeman78]

Obviously you do not understand!

No I don't. Please explain which units you think could replace the existing fleet of TFW 150s by 2020.

 

[Bertie the bus]

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.

Pacer withdrawal has nothing to do with disabilities. Their replacements also do not have step free access. To suggest withdrawal of Pacers is overdue solely because of any issues wheelchair users have is really an insult to the 99.whatever% of passengers who are not disabled.

 

[RailWonderer]

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.

+1. It's so easy for everyone to shift blame but the crux of the problem is this:
The DfT make dreamy promises to electrify a distance from here to Timbuktu then backtrack on cost. Operators don't want to buy more DMUs the rails desperately need because of these promises, plus the fact they will probably be banned the way environmental policy is going (like with diesel cars). Then not enough track is electrified and there are no diesel stock orders to plug gaps. Vacillating bureaucrats. ToCs can't punish already crowded passengers because of a govt deadline based on false pretense @Wivenswold its immature to want chaos since it will only politicise this crap even more.

 

[KingJ]

It wouldn't be so bad if the accessibility features actually met a need.

Here in Canary Wharf the whole area and transport (DLR, Underground, bus, London taxis, and all the buildings) are new and thus fully accessible. I reckon I maybe see one passenger a year on the DLR in a wheelchair.

Although i'm replying to something from a few pages back, I think it's worth highlighting this.

Disability regulations assist more than those in just wheelchairs, and even significant numbers of able-bodied people. To give a few examples;

• Parent with child - easier to get the pushchair on/off, and if the child is walking, far easier for them to walk on/off than it is for them to 'jump' down from quite a height.
• Blind/deaf - Easier to know where you are and where the train is going to. There is someone at my workplace who commutes daily on the DLR with their Guide Dog. Beyond the audible announcements being crucial for them, having it step free makes also things much easier when you have a vision impairment.
• Elderly/infirm - how many times have we seen older people struggle to get down or up in to a train? Level access makes it simple.
• Carers - Disabled toilets are large enough to also accommodate a carer if someone needs assistance. Scotrail's new Class 385s even have an extra button to let the helper in/out, giving the other person more independence.
• Carrying items - the power-assisted doors in Canary Wharf are great if your hands are full, but you can still elbow a button.
• Transporting luggage - Carrying heavy luggage up and down stairs can really be quite dangerous. However, the same lifts and level access that benefit someone in a wheelchair also benefit someone who is completely able bodied with luggage.

Even in terms of just disabilities consider this - someone may be permanently disabled (e.g. a wheelchair user), temporarily disabled (e.g. injured their leg) or situationally disabled (e.g. carrying a child). All of these groups suffer an impairment and yet typically when we think about 'disability adaptations' it's only the first group that people typically think the adaptations benefit - whereas in reality is benefits all of them.

 

[Chester1]

Pacer withdrawal has nothing to do with disabilities. Their replacements also do not have step free access. To suggest withdrawal of Pacers is overdue solely because of any issues wheelchair users have is really an insult to the 99.whatever% of passengers who are not disabled.

As many people repeatedly explain on this forum: disability does not equal wheelchair. The PRM-TSI regulations cover a wide range of disabilities and do not require level boarding (which is only practical for straight platforms). Pacer withdrawal is linked to disabilities because it is not worth the cost of upgrading them. Work on sprinters is cheaper, they are in a better condition and they are expected to last longer. Removing Pacers from Northern was partly political and partly financial. Removing them from Wales is financial due to cost of PRM-TSI compliance work. If the deadline was later they would most likely stay until Tram Trains enter service.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Pacer withdrawal is linked to disabilities because it is not worth the cost of upgrading them.

Completely wrong. They are being replaced because they are life expired and the ORR stated years ago they would not authorise life extension work. Nothing at all to do with any disability of any kind.

 

[Chester1]

Completely wrong. They are being replaced because they are life expired and the ORR stated years ago they would not authorise life extension work. Nothing at all to do with any disability of any kind.

You think it's a complete coincidence that they are all being withdrawn just before the PRM-TSI deadline? Do you think none of the 140 units could run for a bit longer without life extension work? The regulations have created an artificial deadline that has brought forward their scrap date. There is simply no chance that they would be sent off lease by TfW until the tram trains made them redundant, without the huge cost of compliance work. The 2020 deadline was convienent for the government because it was shortly before a scheduled general election and something similar would have been chosen for Northern. TfW might have swapped units with ones in better condition but plenty would have remained in service.

 

[43096]

No I don't. Please explain which units you think could replace the existing fleet of TFW 150s by 2020.

Obviously you still do not understand what I wrote. Given that this has been posted on here numerous times, with the same responses that the ROSCOs should pay out for no return, I can only assume that there are many people who are completely commercially naïve.

 

[cactustwirly]

The main problem is the EMT HSTs, if they were removed from service, then the resulting drop in capacity would be political suicide!

 

[infobleep]

Complaints by disability groups may well lead to equality - there will be no trains for anyone!

With the best will in the world that isnt going to acceptable therefore a pragmatic compromise needs to be reached for the short to medium term.

The question is, can they do that prior to 31/12/19 or will lessons have to be learnt after the event?

 

[Wivenswold]

I am a passenger that's covered by the Disabilities Act. I do not need a wheelchair, just as blind people don't need a wheelchair.

This keeps coming up, there's clearly a lot of misinformed people out there. Don't be one of them.

 

[hooverboy]

The main problem is the EMT HSTs, if they were removed from service, then the resulting drop in capacity would be political suicide!

nothing happening there as the franchise is up for renewal next year.

until the details/new franchisee is announced don't expect any plans for investment,and even then it'll take 2 or 3 years from order to use in service.

 

[Cardiff123]

As many people repeatedly explain on this forum: disability does not equal wheelchair. The PRM-TSI regulations cover a wide range of disabilities and do not require level boarding (which is only practical for straight platforms). Pacer withdrawal is linked to disabilities because it is not worth the cost of upgrading them. Work on sprinters is cheaper, they are in a better condition and they are expected to last longer. Removing Pacers from Northern was partly political and partly financial. Removing them from Wales is financial due to cost of PRM-TSI compliance work. If the deadline was later they would most likely stay until Tram Trains enter service.

You've also got the situation in Wales where the 150/2 fleet will be going through the PRM-TSI refurbishment (still not yet started on all bar 1 unit), but the 150s will be gone from Wales by the end of 2023, with no guarantee of them getting new homes once they leave Wales.
TfW's 158s will be gone by 2021/22, no guaranteed homes for those either.
There's no way that TfW would be spending £10 million refurbishing the 158s and 150/2s to PRM-TSI standard just for 2-3 years service, and at huge cost in terms of the disruption having so many trains from the fleet out of service at the same time over the next 12 months, if it wasn't for the 1/1/2020 deadline.

 

[td97]

Article published yesterday stating that Pacers will be withdrawn within 15 months. That must mean that an exemption of some description is expected.

Angel Trains, which owns 79 of the Northern Pacers and a further 15 in Wales, said it expected them all to disappear within the next 15 months.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...ill-not-begin-retiring-pacer-trains-this-year
(Usual disclaimer about the Guardian not being my favourite news source entails. Enjoy the AMP link without ads!)

 

[F Great Eastern]

It also has a line saying they'll be gone by the end of 2019.

I must admit I've never been on a pacer, despite getting very close a few times, and doubt I will either since the only day I'm in Northern land tends to be a Saturday and they're always on strike!

 

[hooverboy]

You've also got the situation in Wales where the 150/2 fleet will be going through the PRM-TSI refurbishment (still not yet started on all bar 1 unit), but the 150s will be gone from Wales by the end of 2023, with no guarantee of them getting new homes once they leave Wales.
TfW's 158s will be gone by 2021/22, no guaranteed homes for those either.
There's no way that TfW would be spending £10 million refurbishing the 158s and 150/2s to PRM-TSI standard just for 2-3 years service, and at huge cost in terms of the disruption having so many trains from the fleet out of service at the same time over the next 12 months, if it wasn't for the 1/1/2020 deadline.

TFW is "state" owned is it not?, rather than franchise?
for a franchise(of 7-10 years) are you expecting them to be forking out £400m+ on 150 new trains?

lets face it, ROSCO's basically recoup the money they invest on new units in 5 years of leasing revenue, it's not a very good deal for the passenger, or the TOC. for an asset with a 30 year lifespan.
if you were talking home improvements/solar panels etc a 10 year ROI is a typical expectation, but ROSCO's beat this comfortably!

makes auction value+ 10m re-fit costs for 3 years use look like a bargain!.
truth be told, 15x are probably good for 10 years more .

I think TfW would prefer to buy direct rather than wet/dry lease the sprinters.

 

[Cardiff123]

TFW is "state" owned is it not?, rather than franchise?
for a franchise(of 7-10 years) are you expecting them to be forking out £400m+ on 150 new trains?

lets face it, ROSCO's basically recoup the money they invest on new units in 5 years of leasing revenue, it's not a very good deal for the passenger, or the TOC. for an asset with a 30 year lifespan.
if you were talking home improvements/solar panels etc a 10 year ROI is a typical expectation, but ROSCO's beat this comfortably!

makes auction value+ 10m re-fit costs for 3 years use look like a bargain!.
truth be told, 15x are probably good for 10 years more .

I think TfW would prefer to buy direct rather than wet/dry lease the sprinters.

'Transport for Wales' is an arms length Welsh government owned body, the same as TfL, that is overseeing the Wales and Borders franchise on behalf of Welsh Government.
Keolis Amey is operating the franchise, but TfW have insisted that Keolis Amey operate as "Transport for Wales Rail Services". All of the current TfW fleet, that was inherited from ATW, will be replaced with new build CAF and Stadler units between 2021-2024, with 175s going first, followed by 158s and then the 150/2s.

 

[tomos dafis]

Actually the devolution settlement for Wales as updated by the Wales Act 2018 specifically prohibits Welsh Government from setting up a 'state owned' company to bid for and run a rail service. TFW does not run the franchise but is Welsh Government' s arm's length body overseeing the operation of the service by private companies Keolis Amey.

 

[43096]

lets face it, ROSCO's basically recoup the money they invest on new units in 5 years of leasing revenue, it's not a very good deal for the passenger, or the TOC. for an asset with a 30 year lifespan.
if you were talking home improvements/solar panels etc a 10 year ROI is a typical expectation, but ROSCO's beat this comfortably!

Can you provide some evidence on this? Don't forget to factor in the cost of finance for it.

 

[hwl]

Can you provide some evidence on this? Don't forget to factor in the cost of finance for it.

12-17 years depending on the cost of finance at the time and the initial lease period. E.g. TfL sign up for long leases on LO in return for lower (annual) leasing costs which then leads to a longer breakeven point for the ROSCO. The ROSCO will also typically be covering at least the heavy overall work on the units in the interim which extends the breakeven period and also potentially a complete respray when the paint warranty expires between 15-20 years hence plenty of accrual towards mid life costs in the initial lease period(s).

 

[hwl]

Article published yesterday stating that Pacers will be withdrawn within 15 months. That must mean that an exemption of some description is expected.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...ill-not-begin-retiring-pacer-trains-this-year
(Usual disclaimer about the Guardian not being my favourite news source entails. Enjoy the AMP link without ads!)

I took disappear to means Booths having deal with them after engines and gear boxes are salvaged...

 

[hwl]

Pacer withdrawal has nothing to do with disabilities. Their replacements also do not have step free access. To suggest withdrawal of Pacers is overdue solely because of any issues wheelchair users have is really an insult to the 99.whatever% of passengers who are not disabled.

Pacers also have the "extra" internal step that is incredibly difficult to sort without replacing the doors and other large expenditure, hence they are far more costly to modify than other stock (e.g. 150s).

 

[43096]

12-17 years depending on the cost of finance at the time and the initial lease period. E.g. TfL sign up for long leases on LO in return for lower (annual) leasing costs which then leads to a longer breakeven point for the ROSCO. The ROSCO will also typically be covering at least the heavy overall work on the units in the interim which extends the breakeven period and also potentially a complete respray when the paint warranty expires between 15-20 years hence plenty of accrual towards mid life costs in the initial lease period(s).

Thanks - that is more what I have been lead to believe by people who know. I was just challenging “hooverboy” to use facts rather than the uninformed nonsense that too often crops up when leasing is discussed.

 

[hwl]

Thanks - that is more what I have been lead to believe by people who know. I was just challenging “hooverboy” to use facts rather than the uninformed nonsense that too often crops up when leasing is discussed.

Agreed always plenty of non sense when leasing is discussed.
I've had to relatively recently review ROSCO finances (I can't say for what reason, I'm an engineer with financial modelling expertise) so I'd say I know

 

[DanDaDriver]

There comes a point when it’s probably cheaper (as a whole) to give every disabled person a card that’s valid for taxi journeys from station to station at the same cost as rail fare.

However, disabled people rightly have exactly the same right to travel on a train as anyone else.

 

[trebor79]

There comes a point when it’s probably cheaper (as a whole) to give every disabled person a card that’s valid for taxi journeys from station to station at the same cost as rail fare.

However, disabled people rightly have exactly the same right to travel on a train as anyone else.

A friend worked in the DfT and it would indeed be cheaper to pay for taxis for those that needed them. But cheapest isn't always best.

 

[anamyd]

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.

What will actually happen with the Transport for Wales Rail Services fleet at the start of 2020...?

During 2019, 26 PRM compliant/accepted units are due to join the TfW Rail fleet (comprising the 9 769s - the extra 4 have been ordered, the 5 230s and the 12 170s), as well as the 5 153s you mentioned (which I'm assuming aren't PRM compliant and are the FGW blue ones), which all going well with those will increase the fleet size by 31 from 126 to 157 for a brief amount of time.

By my estimations based on the rate of progress in 2018, the remaining unmodified 17 158s of the 24 will all be PRM modified by the end of 2019, as well as 8 more 150s (150-285 is already done), which will take the "150s done" figure to 9 out of 36. Of course, the 27 175s will also be serviceable as they were built to PRM compliance/acceptance from new.

This means that theoretically at the beginning of 2020 the 769s/230s/170s totalling 26, all of the 158s and 175s totalling 51 and the 9 150s that will be PRM modified by then will be all that will be serviceable, seeing as the 29 Pacers will supposedly leave the fleet by then as they won't be intended to remain in service and therefore won't be PRM modified, and the remaining unmodified 27 150s of the 36 along with I'm assuming all then-13 153s won't be serviceable until they are modified. This would see the fleet reduce in size from 157 to 88, which would just not be enough.

...and that's not even taking the LHCS into account. Towards the end of 2019, Mk4s will replace the Mk3s; they will come from LNER - are those PRM compliant...? If not, the fleet size at the start of 2020 will be even lower than 88 units/sets at just 85 units (!)...

Surely there must be a payable fine / some kind of exemption to continue the unmodified 150s and the 153s in service during 2020 alongside the 769s, 230s, 170s, 158s, 175s and the modified 150s, to at least have the normal ~125 fleet size...?

Supposedly, by the end of 2019:

769-002/3/6/7/8/x/x/x/x will have joined the fleet, all PRM modified at conversion
230-006 to 230-010 will have joined the fleet, all PRM modified at conversion
170-270 to 170-273 and 170-201 to 170-208 will have joined, all "PRM accepted"

175-001 to 175-011 and 175-101 to 175-116 will all be "PRM accepted"
158-818 to 158-841 will have all been PRM modified
9 150s will have all been PRM modified


The remaining 27 150s will not be PRM compliant
All 13 153s (previously 8, but 5 more will have joined) will not be PRM compliant

The Mark 4 LHCS which will have replaced the Mark 3 LHCS - PRM compliant or no...?


142-073 was withdrawn in July 2018
142-002/06/10/69/72/74/75/76/77/80/81/82/83/85 will have all left the fleet
143-601/02/04/05/06/07/08/09/10/14/16/22/23/24/25 will have all left the fleet

 

[Chester1]

What will actually happen with the Transport for Wales Rail Services fleet at the start of 2020...?

During 2019, 26 PRM compliant/accepted units are due to join the TfW Rail fleet (comprising the 9 769s - the extra 4 have been ordered, the 5 230s and the 12 170s), as well as the 5 153s you mentioned (which I'm assuming aren't PRM compliant and are the FGW blue ones), which all going well with those will increase the fleet size by 31 from 126 to 157 for a brief amount of time.

By my estimations based on the rate of progress in 2018, the remaining unmodified 17 158s of the 24 will all be PRM modified by the end of 2019, as well as 8 more 150s (150-285 is already done), which will take the "150s done" figure to 9 out of 36. Of course, the 27 175s will also be serviceable as they were built to PRM compliance/acceptance from new.

This means that theoretically at the beginning of 2020 the 769s/230s/170s totalling 26, all of the 158s and 175s totalling 51 and the 9 150s that will be PRM modified by then will be all that will be serviceable, seeing as the 29 Pacers will supposedly leave the fleet by then as they won't be intended to remain in service and therefore won't be PRM modified, and the remaining unmodified 27 150s of the 36 along with I'm assuming all then-13 153s won't be serviceable until they are modified. This would see the fleet reduce in size from 157 to 88, which would just not be enough.

...and that's not even taking the LHCS into account. Towards the end of 2019, Mk4s will replace the Mk3s; they will come from LNER - are those PRM compliant...? If not, the fleet size at the start of 2020 will be even lower than 88 units/sets at just 85 units (!)...

Surely there must be a payable fine / some kind of exemption to continue the unmodified 150s and the 153s in service during 2020 alongside the 769s, 230s, 170s, 158s, 175s and the modified 150s, to at least have the normal ~125 fleet size...?

Supposedly, by the end of 2019:

769-002/3/6/7/8/x/x/x/x will have joined the fleet, all PRM modified at conversion
230-006 to 230-010 will have joined the fleet, all PRM modified at conversion
170-270 to 170-273 and 170-201 to 170-208 will have joined, all "PRM accepted"

175-001 to 175-011 and 175-101 to 175-116 will all be "PRM accepted"
158-818 to 158-841 will have all been PRM modified
9 150s will have all been PRM modified


The remaining 27 150s will not be PRM compliant
All 13 153s (previously 8, but 5 more will have joined) will not be PRM compliant

The Mark 4 LHCS which will have replaced the Mark 3 LHCS - PRM compliant or no...?


142-073 was withdrawn in July 2018
142-002/06/10/69/72/74/75/76/77/80/81/82/83/85 will have all left the fleet
143-601/02/04/05/06/07/08/09/10/14/16/22/23/24/25 will have all left the fleet

Who would be fined? The ToC has a nearly impossible job. I am guessing that short term derogations will be granted for sprinters to be used when attached to compliant units. While that will cause localised problems it will allow the Pacers to go while still having a fleet larger than today.

 

[Cardiff123]

Article published yesterday stating that Pacers will be withdrawn within 15 months. That must mean that an exemption of some description is expected.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...ill-not-begin-retiring-pacer-trains-this-year
(Usual disclaimer about the Guardian not being my favourite news source entails. Enjoy the AMP link without ads!)

What exactly is this paragraph saying? She's implying that the Northern 195s could be sent to Scotland, Wales or Cornwall if needed? It's obviously wrong but seems like a strange paragraph to include in the article:

Kate Anstee, who founded the Northern Resist passenger group, travels on a Pacer every day.

“There is no sign of these Pacers being faded out as promised by Northern, and indeed we have been told by Northern staff that in fact when the new modern units are provided they will have the capacity to run anywhere in the country, which could result in them being moved to meet demand in other parts of the country,” Anstee said.

 

[Gareth Marston]

What exactly is this paragraph saying? She's implying that the Northern 195s could be sent to Scotland, Wales or Cornwall if needed? It's obviously wrong but seems like a strange paragraph to include in the article:

If it's quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck as the saying goes. As we know in the plans for the new Wales and Border franchise the CAF civity is pretty much a go most places route availability piece of kit.however as we know with franching everything is pretty much locked in stone by the franchise agreement for the duration. It's a 2 plus 2 equals 5 quack from a poorly informed duck. Just because they physically can go anywhere doesn't mean the financial and legal constraints of franchising will allow it.