East Midlands franchise won by Abellio

[bunnahabhain]

Nothing is confirmed with regards to anything whatsoever until the ink is dry on the paperwork after the standstill period ends. Until that point everything is "wibble".

Or indeed, until the first train runs, look at the Angel Sets to Skegness for something that almost did but fell at the last hurdle.

 

[153375]

Or indeed, until the first train runs, look at the Angel Sets to Skegness for something that almost did but fell at the last hurdle.

Is this not happening now then ? If not do you know why plans changed ?

 

[Kettledrum]

Well, actually, it is about people like you. You, me, everyone.

I find this idea that persons of restricted mobility are so different from everyone else, that they would far rather be crammed on a shorter, overcrowded train which is likely to break down, than have someone else open a door for them, highly improbable. Disabled people want a comfortable journey from A to B like the rest of us.

Let's be correct about things. This isn't about people not being able to get on/off trains. People of limited mobility use HST's everyday. It just means that the TOC has to provide some assistance to make sure that they can get on and off - which it looks as though Abellio were planning, before this half baked pig's ear of a "plan" (it doesn't really deserve the name) was concocted by someone.

Excellent post. You only have to look to XC trains to witness the distress elderly and infirm people can suffer when crammed on a voyager-like unit that is too short. I've seen some very distressed elderly passengers with no chance of moving in any direction either towards their reserved seats or towards the toilet. They would have been much better off in a proper seat on an HST, not struggling to stand in an overcrowding vestibule.

There will be some passengers in a wheelchair or mobility scooter who will need one adapted coach that they can access, but you don't do this by removing so much capacity and "non compliant" coaches, that everybody is squeezed onto an inadequate number of coaches.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Is this not happening now then ? If not do you know why plans changed ?

Dwell times would need increasing, turnaround times increasing to account for the driver having to use more shoe leather, and I believe a slightly longer immobilisation and mobilisation time, PNBs would have been difficult to fit unless it was split over two turns, and if it were split over two turns additional drivers and guards would need training up. Potentially also a maintenance issue, which could potentially jeopardise the sets intended purpose on the London route. Its still possible as a contingency, the background work has been done, but I'd put it in the unlikely category at the moment. Fingers crossed though!

 

[yorksrob]

Excellent post. You only have to look to XC trains to witness the distress elderly and infirm people can suffer when crammed on a voyager-like unit that is too short. I've seen some very distressed elderly passengers with no chance of moving in any direction either towards their reserved seats or towards the toilet. They would have been much better off in a proper seat on an HST, not struggling to stand in an overcrowding vestibule.

There will be some passengers in a wheelchair or mobility scooter who will need one adapted coach that they can access, but you don't do this by removing so much capacity and "non compliant" coaches, that everybody is squeezed onto an inadequate number of coaches.

Thank you.

I can well sympathise with anyone crammed in so much that it's impossible to move either way. It's happenned to me on a few occasions and I find it quite alarming, even though I'm not elderly or infirm.

 

[tbtc]

I disagree. Someone climbs on through open door and doesn’t realise they need assistance until they can’t open their nearest door.
It’s a crazy system in a modern world. These days if we see a door with no handle then we expect it to open automatically, we don’t start reading signs until it doesn’t (and there are so many signs crying wolf these days......), and even then opening the window isn’t as obvious or easy as you could rightfully expect.

True.

And if someone is on board and unable to operate the door to get off then they may panic, pull the emergency cord, whatnot - it's going to be a lot more emotional/distressing than being unable to board a train.

I suspect the franchise award will go ahead regardless of Stagecoach challenges but that there may be ramifications in the future - I suspect they're far more bothered by the being disallowed outright than losing this particular competition. I may be wrong and the whole thing may come to a halt but EMT have written to their staff explaining the handover and mobilisation process to Abellio regardless.

Good point.

As well as being a way to keep in the game for future awards, maybe Stagecoach's behaviour is also a way of keeping the DfT honest, i.e. if they move the goalposts and allow Abellio to get away with some pension liabilities then Stagecoach may be able to squeeze some money out of the Government (i.e. "our bid was only non-complaint because we wouldn't honour all historic pension costs and now you are letting the only compliant bidder to get away without meeting those costs").

Well, actually, it is about people like you. You, me, everyone.

I find this idea that persons of restricted mobility are so different from everyone else, that they would far rather be crammed on a shorter, overcrowded train which is likely to break down, than have someone else open a door for them, highly improbable. Disabled people want a comfortable journey from A to B like the rest of us.

Let's be correct about things. This isn't about people not being able to get on/off trains. People of limited mobility use HST's everyday. It just means that the TOC has to provide some assistance to make sure that they can get on and off - which it looks as though Abellio were planning, before this half baked pig's ear of a "plan" (it doesn't really deserve the name) was concocted by someone.

It's a matter of priorities.

On the one hand, someone might have to seek assistance with a door.

On the other hand they might be put off from travelling altogether due to lack of capacity and overcrowding, lack of affordable fares due to reduced capacity or lack of reliability.

I know which one I would prioritise.

You like travelling in old-style HSTs. I get it.

But you are confusing things that are nice to have (plenty of seats, affordable fares) with things that people have a right to (e.g. accessibility).

Whilst I (as a relatively able bodied passenger) might want plenty of seats and plenty of cheap seats, TOCs can't ignore their legal responsibilities forever, and after 31 December 2019, expecting disabled people to rely on strangers to open doors for them isn't going to cut much mustard.

Look at the TPE attempt to introduce the "Pretendolino" carriages - you might feel that "an inaccessible train is better than no train" (to use current Brexit terminology!) but that's not going to get past the disability rights people.

It's not a case of what we'd prefer, it's a case of what is legally required - and discouraging people with high fares/ insufficient seats/ unreliable stock isn't illegal (whilst discouraging people with droplight windows and wheelchair-unfriendly toilets will be).

 

[yorksrob]

True.

And if someone is on board and unable to operate the door to get off then they may panic, pull the emergency cord, whatnot - it's going to be a lot more emotional/distressing than being unable to board a train.



Good point.

As well as being a way to keep in the game for future awards, maybe Stagecoach's behaviour is also a way of keeping the DfT honest, i.e. if they move the goalposts and allow Abellio to get away with some pension liabilities then Stagecoach may be able to squeeze some money out of the Government (i.e. "our bid was only non-complaint because we wouldn't honour all historic pension costs and now you are letting the only compliant bidder to get away without meeting those costs").





You like travelling in old-style HSTs. I get it.

But you are confusing things that are nice to have (plenty of seats, affordable fares) with things that people have a right to (e.g. accessibility).

Whilst I (as a relatively able bodied passenger) might want plenty of seats and plenty of cheap seats, TOCs can't ignore their legal responsibilities forever, and after 31 December 2019, expecting disabled people to rely on strangers to open doors for them isn't going to cut much mustard.

Look at the TPE attempt to introduce the "Pretendolino" carriages - you might feel that "an inaccessible train is better than no train" (to use current Brexit terminology!) but that's not going to get past the disability rights people.

It's not a case of what we'd prefer, it's a case of what is legally required - and discouraging people with high fares/ insufficient seats/ unreliable stock isn't illegal (whilst discouraging people with droplight windows and wheelchair-unfriendly toilets will be).

You state correctly that accessibility is a right, in which case, how is withdrawing a vast amount of capacity and therefore denying those self same people the opportunity to catch the train through overcrowding or fares hikes, acting within the spirit of that law ?

The Pretendolino problem happenned because people requiring a wheelchair were told that they would not be accommodated on that train and would have to wait for the next one. There is no suggestion of anyone being denied access to the EMT HST's. There is no comparison.

 

[cactustwirly]

You state correctly that accessibility is a right, in which case, how is withdrawing a vast amount of capacity and therefore denying those self same people the opportunity to catch the train through overcrowding or fares hikes, acting within the spirit of that law ?

The Pretendolino problem happenned because people requiring a wheelchair were told that they would not be accommodated on that train and would have to wait for the next one. There is no suggestion of anyone being denied access to the EMT HST's. There is no comparison.

Because it's about equality, currently people with mobility issues/blind people are being discriminated against by using the HSTs

 

[yorksrob]

Because it's about equality, currently people with mobility issues/blind people are being discriminated against by using the HSTs

I'm afraid people need to take a long hard look at what is actually in disabled people's interests. A precipitous reduction in capacity on the Midland Mainline isn't, and anyone purporting to support disabled people who supports such a reduction, is failing in their job. I find it frankly shocking that people on here are so blase about disadvantaging passengers, disabled and non-disabled, in this way.

Whilst the HST's aren't ideal in this respect, TOC's are in a position to mitigate this problem by providing assistance. There is no need for any person with mobility/vision problems to be denied travel on the EMT HST's.

 

[DanNCL]

Because it's about equality, currently people with mobility issues/blind people are being discriminated against by using the HSTs

Nobody is being "discriminated against" by using HSTs, yes it's an inconvenience (partially to the passenger but mainly to the train operating company (TOC) that has to provide the assistance to those passengers) and there are some accessibility issues with them (which don't prevent people from traveling on HSTs - they simply mean some people need assistance to do so) but they're not being discriminated against unless they're not able to access the train at all - there's no suggestion that such a thing will be the case. Unless you're seriously suggesting that come 1st January those with disabilities should be prevented from travelling on HSTs just because they aren't fully compliant with the latest accessibility legislation?

 

[cactustwirly]

Nobody is being "discriminated against" by using HSTs, yes it's an inconvenience (partially to the passenger but mainly to the train operating company (TOC) that has to provide the assistance to those passengers) but they're not being discriminated against unless they're not able to access the train at all - there's no suggestion that such a thing will be the case. Unless you're seriously suggesting that come 1st January those with disabilities should be prevented from travelling on HSTs just because they aren't fully compliant with the latest accessibility legislation?

They need to book assistance 24hrs before they travel, which is plainly discrimination.
Then disabled people will be unable to use the toilets because EMT HSTs do not have a compliant toilet

 

[DanNCL]

They need to book assistance 24hrs before they travel, which is plainly discrimination.
Then disabled people will be unable to use the toilets because EMT HSTs do not have a compliant toilet

No they don't - the train operators like to make people think that but in reality if someone with a disability showed up at the station and requested assistance the train operator would not be able to refuse to provide it without exceptionally good reason - simply not booking in advance doesn't qualify as a good reason to refuse assistance.
A toilet not being compliant with the latest regulations doesn't automatically make it inaccessible to disabled people... Yes some people will struggle to use the existing accessible toilets on the EMT HSTs (at least some of them have an accessible, though not compliant, toilet) but simply not meeting the regulations doesn't automatically make it fully inaccessible to anyone with a disability.

 

[Kneedown]

That sounds quite fitting, placed next to an avatar of a Minion.

Minions don't so much wibble as "baddababba?"

 

[yorksrob]

They need to book assistance 24hrs before they travel, which is plainly discrimination.
Then disabled people will be unable to use the toilets because EMT HSTs do not have a compliant toilet

From posts on here, it sounds as though Abellio had proposed a solution which would have avoided the need for this.

 

[cactustwirly]

No they don't - the train operators like to make people think that but in reality if someone with a disability showed up at the station and requested assistance the train operator would not be able to refuse to provide it without exceptionally good
reason - simply not booking in advance doesn't qualify as a good reason to refuse assistance.
A toilet not being compliant with the latest regulations doesn't automatically make it inaccessible to disabled people... Yes some people will struggle to use the existing accessible toilets on the EMT HSTs (at least some of them have an accessible, though not compliant, toilet) but simply not meeting the regulations doesn't automatically make it fully inaccessible to anyone with a disability.

But what if the operator is unable to provide assistance?
Then the customer cannot travel, when they could travel on a compliant train such as a 180, without assistance.

 

[yorksrob]

But what if the operator is unable to provide assistance?
Then the customer cannot travel, when they could travel on a compliant train such as a 180, without assistance.

Hence why you have someone on hand all the time (which is what was being proposed, as I understand it).

 

[DanNCL]

But what if the operator is unable to provide assistance?
Then the customer cannot travel, when they could travel on a compliant train such as a 180, without assistance.

Then the operator is obliged to get the customer to their destination by other means of transport if they aren't able to make their own service accessible and the customer has already purchased a ticket. Not ideal but the alternative is to provide no service at all to anyone (which is what would happen if the HSTs had to go on the 31st December as there's no immediate replacement for them) and that'd be a much worse outcome.
So you're saying that because the toilets aren't compliant with the new regulations disabled passengers shouldn't be allowed to travel on EMT HSTs?

 

[tbtc]

You state correctly that accessibility is a right, in which case, how is withdrawing a vast amount of capacity and therefore denying those self same people the opportunity to catch the train through overcrowding or fares hikes, acting within the spirit of that law ?

The Pretendolino problem happenned because people requiring a wheelchair were told that they would not be accommodated on that train and would have to wait for the next one. There is no suggestion of anyone being denied access to the EMT HST's. There is no comparison.

Because it's about equality, currently people with mobility issues/blind people are being discriminated against by using the HSTs

@cactustwirly is correct here.

We are dealing with the realities of where the law is and where responsibilities lie.

For example, we are entering a world where you could make a current train "compliant" by removing the existing small toilet - this may inconvenience 99% of passengers but (more importantly) it doesn't discriminate against the 1% of passengers who wouldn't be able to use it. Similarly, to use a Jacob Rees Mogg style quote, no train is better than an inaccessible train (as far as the law sees it). If that means closing some lines or cancelling services because insufficient modern DMUs mean either running a Pacer or running no train then we'll end up running no train.

That's just how things are. Maybe, in an ideal world, we'd do things differently, maybe, in an ideal world, we'd have planned for the 1 January 2020 properly rather than desperately trying to upgrade everything at the last minute, but we are where we are.

A reliable eight coach train may be better for most people than an unreliable five coach train, but if the eight coach train discriminates against certain passengers whilst the five coach one is fully accessible then TOCs have to deal with that reality.

It's not just rail, it's the same in a lot of industries - it's better to provide something that doesn't discriminate than something that 99% of people may prefer (that discriminates against 1%). Our right to ride around on 1970s HSTs that have barely been refurbished in forty years and still retain period features like droplight windows doesn't come into it.

It's not about my opinion on what should happen, it's about the law.

 

[yorksrob]

@cactustwirly is correct here.

We are dealing with the realities of where the law is and where responsibilities lie.

For example, we are entering a world where you could make a current train "compliant" by removing the existing small toilet - this may inconvenience 99% of passengers but (more importantly) it doesn't discriminate against the 1% of passengers who wouldn't be able to use it. Similarly, to use a Jacob Rees Mogg style quote, no train is better than an inaccessible train (as far as the law sees it). If that means closing some lines or cancelling services because insufficient modern DMUs mean either running a Pacer or running no train then we'll end up running no train.

That's just how things are. Maybe, in an ideal world, we'd do things differently, maybe, in an ideal world, we'd have planned for the 1 January 2020 properly rather than desperately trying to upgrade everything at the last minute, but we are where we are.

A reliable eight coach train may be better for most people than an unreliable five coach train, but if the eight coach train discriminates against certain passengers whilst the five coach one is fully accessible then TOCs have to deal with that reality.

It's not just rail, it's the same in a lot of industries - it's better to provide something that doesn't discriminate than something that 99% of people may prefer (that discriminates against 1%). Our right to ride around on 1970s HSTs that have barely been refurbished in forty years and still retain period features like droplight windows doesn't come into it.

It's not about my opinion on what should happen, it's about the law.

But if you're not denying people access to the train, you're not discriminating against them.

 

[cactustwirly]

Hence why you have someone on hand all the time (which is what was being proposed, as I understand it).

Yeah only the 43/0s that are getting modded.

The 43/4s are getting replaced by 180s, which tbh is only 1 1/2 diagrams, and the exGC HSTs are quite unreliable anyway (Arriva left them in a very poor state) so it isn't a huge problem.

 

[yorksrob]

Yeah only the 43/0s that are getting modded.

The 43/4s are getting replaced by 180s, which tbh is only 1 1/2 diagrams, and the exGC HSTs are quite unreliable anyway (Arriva left them in a very poor state) so it isn't a huge problem.

Yes, this is where we started off, and this seems fairly sensible. However, this is not what has been alleged over the past couple of days.

 

[cactustwirly]

Then the operator is obliged to get the customer to their destination by other means of transport if they aren't able to make their own service accessible and the customer has already purchased a ticket. Not ideal but the alternative is to provide no service at all to anyone (which is what would happen if the HSTs had to go on the 31st December as there's no immediate replacement for them) and that'd be a much worse outcome.
So you're saying that because the toilets aren't compliant with the new regulations disabled passengers shouldn't be allowed to travel on EMT HSTs?

That's what the law says...
There are many ways that the EMT HSTs fall foul of PRM, apart from doors and toilets, even the MK4s fall foul of this and would have to be withdrawn next December, without further modifications.
The core HSTs are getting the full PRM mods, bar the doors from what I've heard.
It's the GC HSTs that are being replaced by 180s, and these aren't getting any mods

 

[DanNCL]

That's what the law says...
There are many ways that the EMT HSTs fall foul of PRM, apart from doors and toilets.
The core HSTs are getting the full PRM mods, bar the doors from what I've heard.
It's the GC HSTs that are being replaced by 180s, and these aren't getting any mods

Exactly, so I'm really not sure why you were talking as if that wasn't the case a few posts back.
You don't seem to be realising that trains don't suddenly become inaccessible just because the year changes from 2019 to 2020...
Where has that been confirmed? I'm not disputing it but I've not seen any source (other than your own posts) suggesting that East Midlands Railway will be taking on 180s, though I haven't read through all 21 pages of the thread so apologies if I've missed the source.

 

[cactustwirly]

Exactly, so I'm really not sure why you were talking as if that wasn't the case a few posts back.
You don't seem to be realising that trains don't suddenly become inaccessible just because the year changes from 2019 to 2020...
Where has that been confirmed? I'm not disputing it but I've not seen any source (other than your own posts) suggesting that East Midlands Railway will be taking on 180s, though I haven't read through all 21 pages of the thread so apologies if I've missed the source.

I don't think you understand the significance of the PRM 2020, the law requires ALL trains to comply with the PRM spec by the 1st January 2020.
Therefore it would be illegal for EMR to operate unmodified HSTs past this date

 

[DanNCL]

I don't think you understand the significance of the PRM 2020, the law requires ALL trains to comply with the PRM spec by the 1st January 2020.
Therefore it would be illegal for EMR to operate unmodified HSTs past this date

You seem to have totally ignored what many people have tried telling you, which is that it's only illegal if no exemption is granted and it's almost certain that an exemption will be granted for these...

 

[cactustwirly]

You seem to have totally ignored what many people have tried telling you, which is that it's only illegal if no exemption is granted and it's almost certain that an exemption will be granted for these...

No it's not certain at all! SE needed all sorts of mods to their 466s to get an exemption.
It would be politically unacceptable for the DfT to grant an exemption, without doing something about it, like partially replacing the HSTs with compliant stock, such as off lease 180s, and cascaded 222s

 

[DanNCL]

No it's not certain at all! SE needed all sorts of mods to their 466s to get an exemption.
It would be politically unacceptable for the DfT to grant an exemption, without doing something about it, like partially replacing the HSTs with compliant stock, such as off lease 180s, and cascaded 222s

So it's politically unacceptable for the DfT to allow non modified HSTs to continue in service beyond the deadline, but it is acceptable to just withdraw them and provide no replacements?
There's only 4 off lease 180s and they'd be needed to replace the ex Grand Central HSTs. There are no 222s free for cascade until after the deadline so they couldn't be used as alternatives from the deadline either. The alternative compliant stock to replace the HSTs from January that you seem to think is a available simply does not exist.

 

[43096]

Yes, this is where we started off, and this seems fairly sensible. However, this is not what has been alleged over the past couple of days.

Alleged by two people who have never posted before and therefore have no track record. Given that the contract award is still in the standstill period it is unlikely anyone will be in a position to post anything about the franchise’s future plans beyond the original DfT press release.

 

[cactustwirly]

So it's politically unacceptable for the DfT to allow non modified HSTs to continue in service beyond the deadline, but it is acceptable to just withdraw them and provide no replacements?
There's only 4 off lease 180s and they'd be needed to replace the ex Grand Central HSTs. There are no 222s free for cascade until after the deadline so they couldn't be used as alternatives from the deadline either. The alternative compliant stock to replace the HSTs from January that you seem to think is a available simply does not exist.

The other HSTs are being made compliant, I was replying to @yorksrob who was complaining about the use of the 180s, but they are needed to replace the non compliant ex GC HSTs.

Thinking about it, there's basically only one 43/4 diagram (DY022) as the other set doesn't actually come out until 1945.
The May timetable could release a 222, to work DY022. Plus diverting another 222 to work the 1945 NOT - STP instead of running ECS to Etches Park after the evening peak.
Then 3 out of the 4 180s could be used on the 43/0s that stable at Cricklewood during the day, leaving 5 core HST diagrams.

 

[Jonny]

That's what the law says...
There are many ways that the EMT HSTs fall foul of PRM, apart from doors and toilets, even the MK4s fall foul of this and would have to be withdrawn next December, without further modifications.
The core HSTs are getting the full PRM mods, bar the doors from what I've heard.
It's the GC HSTs that are being replaced by 180s, and these aren't getting any mods

Certain newspapers would have a field day, simply by pointing out that they do have wheelchair spaces on board. OK so it's an over-simplification of PRM, but that is how certain sections of the press would report it. Unless, of course, a derogation was granted - which is barely a paperwork exercise (being somewhat easier given that the HSTs will be retired relatively soon anyway). Then everyone else can (proverbially) hide behind the DfT.