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

[Chester1]

The article was probably written 3 months ago and the editor decided to leave publishing it until fare rise time. It's a bog standard news article to tell people stuff that fits a simple + negative narrative. The bit about 195 is just to feed pessimists more.

 

[Surreyman]

I would like to try and 'Nail' one issue once and for all, with the help of other Posters.
Class 153.
1. No plans to upgrade any units (Scotrail are planning on using some as trailers? - Wales drafting in some short term?)
2. Ongoing discussion/speculation on whether 153s can continue to be used post 2019 if Semi-Permanently coupled to compliant stock i.e 150s/156s etc, with toilets removed/locked out of use.
3. Some posters reminding us that PRM is more than just wheelchair access etc, rails, signage PIS etc etc.
So what is the actual position?
(Possible derogation aside) can 153s be used post 2019 if coupled to other stock?

 

[Chester1]

I would like to try and 'Nail' one issue once and for all, with the help of other Posters.
Class 153.
1. No plans to upgrade any units (Scotrail are planning on using some as trailers? - Wales drafting in some short term?)
2. Ongoing discussion/speculation on whether 153s can continue to be used post 2019 if Semi-Permanently coupled to compliant stock i.e 150s/156s etc, with toilets removed/locked out of use.
3. Some posters reminding us that PRM is more than just wheelchair access etc, rails, signage PIS etc etc.
So what is the actual position?
(Possible derogation aside) can 153s be used post 2019 if coupled to other stock?

They cannot be used past 2019 full stop unless they are granted a full or limited derogation. It is too late to get them fully compliant, with or without toilets. The talk of using them coupled with other units is because that would be a much easier political sell because every service would have at least two compliant coaches. The legislation allows the secretary of state to make terms for derogations for each unit. Other examples would be a time limited derogations or derogations that force ROSCOs to get cheaper work such as PIS done.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

If I'm ever disabled so that I can't cycle or drive then I'd have to get a bus to Cardiff Central. That's a 30-50 minute journey. Then I'd have to get from bus to railway station since they helpfully closed down the bus station next to Cardiff Central. A taxi from my house to my destination sounds a lot more appealing.

 

[VT 390]

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.

Would it not make sense for all the 144's to be turned in to 144e's which could then be used on shorter distance/branch line/low usage routes, this could free up some additional rolling stock?

 

[VT 390]

Surly it would be far better to have some trains inaccessible for a time after 2020 than reducing/cancelling/short forming services!

 

[Andrew Nelson]

What counts as accessible?

Say you run a 4 car 142 and 150 combo with the 150 having a wheelchair accessible bog. Even though you can’t physically access the 150s bog from the 142 without getting off and back on again is the 1 set of facilities on the service enough?

1) Why would you have got on the 142 knowing that in the first place.
2) 142's won't be in service when these regulations come in to force.

 

[Chester1]

Would it not make sense for all the 144's to be turned in to 144e's which could then be used on shorter distance/branch line/low usage routes, this could free up some additional rolling stock?

144e upgrades are hugely expensive and would require several years use to justify. The Northern franchise agreement bans all pacers from the end of this year. TfW would only have work for them for a couple of years so it would not be worth it.

Surly it would be far better to have some trains inaccessible for a time after 2020 than reducing/cancelling/short forming services!

Yes but pacers need to go. In the north its a matter of public trust in the rail network. There are huge numbers of units comming to Northern this year that provide much more capacity than 102 pacers.

1) Why would you have got on the 142 knowing that in the first place.
2) 142's won't be in service when these regulations come in to force.

Non compliant and compliant sprinter combimations would be a good short term solution and would be a politically viable derogation to grant. Station annoucements should state which coaches are compliant.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

1) Why would you have got on the 142 knowing that in the first place.

At the moment no announcements are made to tell disabled passengers that certain parts of the train don't have an accessible toilet. That will need to change, or the inaccessible units phased out, before that is a legitimate claim to make.

 

[yorksrob]

We have plenty of announcements saying "first class to the rear etc" so having them for accessible loos should be doable.

 

[VT 390]

We have plenty of announcements saying "first class to the rear etc" so having them for accessible loos should be doable.

Though often they seam to say first class is at one end and it is actually at the other.

 

[yorksrob]

Though often they seam to say first class is at one end and it is actually at the other.

Yes, that's a fair point. I don't know how you overcome such system errors !

 

[rebmcr]

Surly it would be far better to have some trains inaccessible for a time after 2020 than reducing/cancelling/short forming services!

"Surely it would be far better to have some trains inaccessible for a time after the Equality Act 2010 comes into force, rather than reducing/cancelling/short forming services — lets's say 2020 as a generous deadline."

 

[VT 390]

"Surely it would be far better to have some trains inaccessible for a time after the Equality Act 2010 comes into force, rather than reducing/cancelling/short forming services — lets's say 2020 as a generous deadline."

But a reducing/short forming services would be unfair on every one else, the railways should be accessible for everyone but it would not be right to stop services running just because a few people won't be able to use them.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

But a reducing/short forming services would be unfair on every one else, the railways should be accessible for everyone but it would not be right to stop services running just because a few people won't be able to use them.

I agree heartily here. Sure, if those who need access can’t board a train after the deadline, the company should just get them a taxi to make up for it, not cancel the trains for the probably at least 90% of the rest of Britain.

 

[rebmcr]

But a reducing/short forming services would be unfair on every one else, the railways should be accessible for everyone but it would not be right to stop services running just because a few people won't be able to use them.

There is much evidence to demonstrate that, unless their hand is forced, the rail industry will permanently delay the necessary improvements.

While it might not be justifiable on balance for each service which is threatened in this way, the wider context of likely outcomes to each course of action makes the 'no more tolerance' approach carry a lot more weight.

 

[Bikeman78]

At the moment no announcements are made to tell disabled passengers that certain parts of the train don't have an accessible toilet. That will need to change, or the inaccessible units phased out, before that is a legitimate claim to make.

How would the person in a wheelchair get on the train? There's no level access so the guard would need to get a ramp. In which case the guard would no doubt point them to the door next to the acessible toilet. Even on the modified 150s, you cannot get a wheelchair along the aisle so you would need to board at the correct door in the first place.

Also the automatic announcements will transmit throughout the train so long as one unit in the formation has them and the system is set up by the guard at the start of the journey.

 

[XC victim]

Does anyone know what the plans for the chiltern slam door set are post 2020?

 

[Far north 37]

I agree heartily here. Sure, if those who need access can’t board a train after the deadline, the company should just get them a taxi to make up for it, not cancel the trains for the probably at least 90% of the rest of Britain.

No doubt it would cause a lot of problems but at least 90% of services being cancelled is wildly of the mark.

 

[VT 390]

No doubt it would cause a lot of problems but at least 90% of services being cancelled is wildly of the mark.

I think they meant the number of people is 90% not the number of trains.

 

[Darandio]

I think they meant the number of people is 90% not the number of trains.

Indeed, that was my understanding of the post too.

 

[Far north 37]

I think they meant the number of people is 90% not the number of trains.

Ah ok sorry misunderstood the post.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I think they meant the number of people is 90% not the number of trains.

That is indeed what I meant yes

 

[ChrisC]

But a reducing/short forming services would be unfair on every one else, the railways should be accessible for everyone but it would not be right to stop services running just because a few people won't be able to use them.

I completely agree that the railways should be accessible to everyone but insisting that all trains are accessible to the disabled is of little use when a very large number of stations are not.
Again it is not just those in wheelchairs who are not able to access stations without step free access. My elderly mother is not able use to one of her local stations at Alfreton in Derbyshire. Now in her 80’s, although still fairly mobile and able to negociate a few steps, walking with a stick, she finds the steps at Alfreton too much of a challenge. It would be quite ironic if EMT cancel any southbound trains calling at Alfreton because they don’t have enough compliant stock when disabled passengers are not even able to access the platforms.

 

[mde]

I completely agree that the railways should be accessible to everyone but insisting that all trains are accessible to the disabled is of little use when a very large number of stations are not.

Are we at risk of assuming that these works only relate to improving access for passengers with a physical mobility problem?

The DfT will likely have to agree on some short term derogations; however, it really should be nothing more than a short term, with, perhaps, a focus on the fleets with the most issues first (e.g. slam door stock).

 

[yorksrob]

There is much evidence to demonstrate that, unless their hand is forced, the rail industry will permanently delay the necessary improvements.

While it might not be justifiable on balance for each service which is threatened in this way, the wider context of likely outcomes to each course of action makes the 'no more tolerance' approach carry a lot more weight.

Not at all.

There's absolutely no justification for subjecting passengers to unnecessary short forms and cancellations on the basis of an arbitrary deadline.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Not at all.

There's absolutely no justification for subjecting passengers to unnecessary short forms and cancellations on the basis of an arbitrary deadline.

But without deadlines changes are resisted. The railway industry has had plenty of time to deal with this; at some point a line has to be drawn and, if necessary, people held to account. Once again the problem is that our current industry structure makes it far too easy for politicians to escape any blame for their poor decision making.

 

[43096]

But without deadlines changes are resisted. The railway industry has had plenty of time to deal with this; at some point a line has to be drawn and, if necessary, people held to account. Once again the problem is that our current industry structure makes it far too easy for politicians to escape any blame for their poor decision making.

But the way the deadline has been set is cack-handed. Had the legislation made making PRM modifications mandatory at the next major bodywork repair (C6 overhaul or whatever), then a) DfT would have had to fund it and b) the work would have been planned in to coincide with maintenance attention, starting earlier and probably finishing around 2020. As it is, we have the daft situation where major work is given to vehicles - e.g. the TfW Class 150s - but PRM work not being included as DfT/TfW didn't fund it, and now that funding is available vehicles have to be stopped specially for the work to be done. All down to the dysfunctional DfT.

 

[yorksrob]

But without deadlines changes are resisted. The railway industry has had plenty of time to deal with this; at some point a line has to be drawn and, if necessary, people held to account. Once again the problem is that our current industry structure makes it far too easy for politicians to escape any blame for their poor decision making.

And whilst we're playing factional politics within the industry, down on the front line passengers of reduced mobility who would otherwise have been able to continue using the unmodified train with some assistance, are put to the same unnecessary inconvenience of cancellations and shortforms as everyone else.

 

[yorksrob]

But without deadlines changes are resisted. The railway industry has had plenty of time to deal with this; at some point a line has to be drawn and, if necessary, people held to account. Once again the problem is that our current industry structure makes it far too easy for politicians to escape any blame for their poor decision making.

And whilst we're playing factional politics within the industry, down on the front line passengers of reduced mobility who would otherwise have been able to continue using the unmodified train with some assistance, are put to the same unnecessary inconvenience of cancellations and shortforms as everyone else.

People need to remember that the railway is primarily there to move people about, not send political messages.