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

[Wivenswold]

The scale of the potential issue on GA is alarming.
Currently there are 127 units that will be withdrawn from service on 31/12/19, that's 508 cars.
Assuming the 10 Stadler Airports are all in service by the end of the year (optimistic) thus releasing 30 x 4 car 379s for general WA traffic. And that 10 x 317s have had PRM mods (the first unit has been away for 5 months so this too is optimistic), then 58 x Class 720/5 will need to be in service by year end to replace all non-PRM stock. Currently none have left the factory.

Given that 321s were all supposed to be off-lease by 31/10/19 then clearly not only derogations need to be applied for (and there's never a guarantee that they'll be accepted) but GA will be forking out additional leasing costs. I suspect that there are the beginnings of a huge legal battle between GA and Bombardier hence the apparent silence on the lack of progress of the fleet. One would hope that Grayling is aware and doing all he can.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

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.

Quite so. I have no issue with the principle of derogations being granted to avoid mass cancellations. But given the timescale involved here (since the Act was passed into law) someone somewhere really should be held accountable. And for once I suspect that Grayling is not especially culpable! Perhaps a stick with which to beat the beloved Mr Wilkinson?!

 

[hwl]

The scale of the potential issue on GA is alarming.
Currently there are 127 units that will be withdrawn from service on 31/12/19, that's 508 cars.
One would hope that Grayling is aware and doing all he can.

Grayling just needs to get signing.

Anglia still have to worry about all the DMUs and the Mk3 and Stadler aren't running on time either.

 

[hwl]

Quite so. I have no issue with the principle of derogations being granted to avoid mass cancellations. But given the timescale involved here (since the Act was passed into law) someone somewhere really should be held accountable. And for once I suspect that Grayling is not especially culpable! Perhaps a stick with which to beat the beloved Mr Wilkinson?!

Realistically that would have required franchise by 2015 to order new stock and to bind (with DfT approval) their successors with section 54 Agreement whcih DfT were trying to avoid as they give ROSCOs tooo much power.

 

[Meerkat]

Grayling won’t be in a hurry to sign derogations will he?
Leave it a bit, get shuffled onward, and not have to be the man who didn’t help the disabled.

 

[bramling]

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

Well said. Any thoughts about locking toilets out of use or cancelling trains is just stupid.

It's a mess for sure, but the passenger shouldn't suffer as a result.

 

[hwl]

Grayling won’t be in a hurry to sign derogations will he?
Leave it a bit, get shuffled onward, and not have to be the man who didn’t help the disabled.

Or early recognition of the problem and a short delay (unlike Sadiq Khan and Crossrail which adds to the appeal)

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Realistically that would have required franchise by 2015 to order new stock and to bind (with DfT approval) their successors with section 54 Agreement whcih DfT were trying to avoid as they give ROSCOs tooo much power.

Not necessarily. What's been lacking is a properly co-ordinated programme of modifications to existing stock with decisions to go ahead being taken far too late. DfT has to accept that such things need long timescales and should not have been held up by the general delays in re-franchising following the West Coast debacle back in 2012. Given that expedience has seen franchises (temporarily) in the public sector it would surely have been sensible for the DfT to order a suitable batch of go anywhere DMUs (172s?) and retain public ownership of said fleet until such time as the national fleet had stabilised. If the DfT can't take responsibility for such things then we clearly need a franchising equivalent of the BRB! Did someone mention RDG? [/shakes head, muttering]

 

[yorksrob]

Quite so. I have no issue with the principle of derogations being granted to avoid mass cancellations. But given the timescale involved here (since the Act was passed into law) someone somewhere really should be held accountable. And for once I suspect that Grayling is not especially culpable! Perhaps a stick with which to beat the beloved Mr Wilkinson?!

I think perhaps we need to think more practically about how to address the situation. Rather than signing derogations in a hurry to scrap, why not enable one carriage to be made fully compliant per set.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I think perhaps we need to think more practically about how to address the situation. Rather than signing derogations in a hurry to scrap, why not enable one carriage to be made fully compliant per set.

Not sure how you expect that to work. The Pacer fleet is to all intents and purposes irredeemable and derogations allowing their continued operation should only allow for their replacement by delayed delivery of compliant stock. Once that happens the Pacers have to go.

 

[yorksrob]

Not sure how you expect that to work. The Pacer fleet is to all intents and purposes irredeemable and derogations allowing their continued operation should only allow for their replacement by delayed delivery of compliant stock. Once that happens the Pacers have to go.

I was thinking more of HST's with 8-9 carriages of InterCity standard stock potentially going for scrap. It could solve the Midland Mainline issue for a while and provide a solution for XC overcrowding.

 

[43096]

Given that 321s were all supposed to be off-lease by 31/10/19 then clearly not only derogations need to be applied for (and there's never a guarantee that they'll be accepted) but GA will be forking out additional leasing costs. I suspect that there are the beginnings of a huge legal battle between GA and Bombardier hence the apparent silence on the lack of progress of the fleet. One would hope that Grayling is aware and doing all he can.

Not sure where you're getting the additional leasing cost from? If the Aventras aren't ready in time then GA won't be paying for them - if anything they will be paying less for the old 317/321 fleet.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I was thinking more of HST's with 8-9 carriages of InterCity standard stock potentially going for scrap. It could solve the Midland Mainline issue for a while and provide a solution for XC overcrowding.

That is an instance where someone really should receive some kind of penalty. The design work had already been done and the modifications should have been easy enough to organise into a rolling programme starting at the appropriate time.

 

[yorksrob]

That is an instance where someone really should receive some kind of penalty. The design work had already been done and the modifications should have been easy enough to organise into a rolling programme starting at the appropriate time.

Haven't those modifications turned out to take somewhat longer than expected ?

To be fair to the TOC's, I think it may require a change in regulations for my solution.

 

[Cardiff123]

I doubt very much that Grayling will be Transport Sec by the end of this year. So it won't be his problem.

 

[Chester1]

Grayling just needs to get signing.

Anglia still have to worry about all the DMUs and the Mk3 and Stadler aren't running on time either.

Grayling won’t be in a hurry to sign derogations will he?
Leave it a bit, get shuffled onward, and not have to be the man who didn’t help the disabled.

I doubt very much that Grayling will be Transport Sec by the end of this year. So it won't be his problem.

I agree Grayling knows he is not likely to be Transport Secretary at the end of the year but it is irrelevant. As soon as derogations started to be granted all pressure to get things done for the end of the year will be lifted. He or his successor will leave it late, grant as few derogations as possible, for a short time and grant most only for use with a compliant unit.

 

[Jozhua]

To add to the removing/locking of toilets situation, not all disabilities are visible. There are many people with issues where they can require access to a nearby toilet at short notice (me being one of those). Removing toilets not only disadvantages these people, but could also make life harder for non-wheelchair based passengers who may have limited mobility.

I'm also sure most people have been in a situation where they've been desperate and needed to use the on train toilets!

Removing the toilets isn't a solution to not having wheelchair accessible toilets. I'd say it's the government's fault for signing it into law and then not ensuring that each franchise got new trains or refurbishments to meet the requirements. It's pure idiocy! Pretty much like telling a load of 60's era schools to get rid of their asbestos and not giving them the funding/permission to get contractors in and do the work...

Also my experience of TPE is that the disabled accessible toilets are frequently broken anyway. For a network which can be difficult for able bodied travellers, I feel very sorry for those less able to move about!