Overcrowding - are redundant LHCS and HST sets the answer?

[Philip]

As the title says; should operators like Northern, Cross Country, TPE, WMT and any others suffering from severe overcrowding take a leaf out of the ATW/TFW book and bring back redundant mk2/mk3 coaching stock and old locos if need be, or soon-to-be-redundant HST sets as a short-medium fix to help ease the overcrowding?

Just looking at all the old coaching stock sat outside Crewe, it does make me wonder if this could be put to some use whilst we're waiting for new stock orders or cascaded stock to arrive.

Why haven't Northern, Cross Country and TPE gone down this route already? By this I mean putting the stock in regular service Mon-Sat on various busy routes, rather than the odd period of Saturdays 'extras' as Northern have done in the past.

 

[HSTEd]

Judging by the problems the HST refit groups for Scotrail have been having, I think those sets should just be considered dead.

In all honesty it wouldn't take much to solve overcrowding essentially everywhere..... about a billion pounds or so on a few hundred Class 196 vehicles would put a huge dent in it.

 

[swt_passenger]

As the title says; should operators like Northern, Cross Country, TPE, WMT and any others suffering from severe overcrowding take a leaf out of the ATW/TFW book and bring back redundant mk2/mk3 coaching stock and old locos if need be, or soon-to-be-redundant HST sets as a short-medium fix to help ease the overcrowding?

Just looking at all the old coaching stock sat outside Crewe, it does make me wonder if this could be put to some use whilst we're waiting for new stock orders or cascaded stock to arrive.

Why haven't Northern, Cross Country and TPE gone down this route already? By this I mean putting the stock in regular service Mon-Sat on various busy routes, rather than the odd period of Saturdays 'extras' as Northern have done in the past.

It can’t be introduced now on new routes without full accessibility mods.

 

[Terry Tait]

It can’t be introduced now on new routes without full accessibility mods.

It seems that these days there are a lot of very small tails wagging very large dogs.

 

[HSTEd]

It can’t be introduced now on new routes without full accessibility mods.

Well unless a politician signs a piece of paper to make all those overcrowding headlines go away.....

 

[swt_passenger]

It seems that these days there are a lot of very small tails wagging very large dogs.

I agree. But we are where we are...

 

[randyrippley]

You really have a short term memory. It was tried on the Cumbrian coast and was a reliability fiasco.
Do it again and you'll have the same result

 

[Journeyman]

Yet another attempt to find a use for knackered and unsuitable rolling stock.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Well, yes, but is it better
a) to have cancellations, delays, and overcrowding or
b) to have a train that runs. Even if it is old etc.
As to the Disability/Accessibility matter then, whilst I do not in any way want to contest the need for such provisions, the way I see it is this:
- scenario 1: A shortage of resources means that (in whatever precise circumstance) there is no provision. A train is cancelled; or is never timetabled. etc. In this case the person requiring accessibility gets nothing. As does everyone else.
- scenario 2: A shortgae of resources means that (in whatever precise circumstance) there is a non-compliant provision. A train runs, but isn't accessible. In this case the person requiring accessibility gets nothing, so is no worse off. Whereas, everyone else gets a service. Which, in turn, alleviates pressure on the next or previous service; which, in turn, makes the next or previous service more accessible (more space).

 

[The Planner]

- scenario 2: A shortgae of resources means that (in whatever precise circumstance) there is a non-compliant provision. A train runs, but isn't accessible. In this case the person requiring accessibility gets nothing, so is no worse off.

Maybe I am missing something here, how are they no worse off than if a train didn't run at all?

 

[PeterC]

Maybe I am missing something here, how are they no worse off than if a train didn't run at all?

Case A - can't travel. Case B - can't travel. Status unchanged so neither better nor worse off.
Not justifying, just explaining.

 

[The Planner]

Case A - can't travel. Case B - can't travel. Status unchanged so neither better nor worse off.
Not justifying, just explaining.

Fair enough, but if its in the timetable then someone with a disability would rightfully expect to travel on it. Not sure how "not available to disabled people" would go down if it was on a journey planner!

 

[Harpers Tate]

I didn't say it was politically correct. I'm just stating (the obvious) that a disabled user isn't advantaged by a train not running (because there isn't any accessible stock) vs. a train running with non-accessible stock. But everyone else gets an extra or bigger train.
Such policies are only of any benefit to the disabled IF they force compliance without affecting general provision. But they DO affect general provision.

Same situation with (for example) a footbridge at a small station.
Suppose there is no room or no money (or both) for an accessible bridge. Suppose there is money and room for a non-accessible bridge.
No bridge is built because it can't be made compliant.
Result: no gain for the disabled person. Loss for everyone else.

 

[sprinterguy]

Why haven't Northern, Cross Country and TPE gone down this route already? By this I mean putting the stock in regular service Mon-Sat on various busy routes, rather than the odd period of Saturdays 'extras' as Northern have done in the past.

Transpennine Express proposed operating a pair of slam-door mark 3 sets to boost capacity on the North Transpennine route: There was uproar as a small number of services would be non-accessible and it never went ahead. Result - the same levels of overcrowding continued for everyone.

 

[Terry Tait]

Political Correctness
The politics of idiots

 

[AM9]

I didn't say it was politically correct. I'm just stating (the obvious) that a disabled user isn't advantaged by a train not running (because there isn't any accessible stock) vs. a train running with non-accessible stock. But everyone else gets an extra or bigger train.
Such policies are only of any benefit to the disabled IF they force compliance without affecting general provision. But they DO affect general provision.

Same situation with (for example) a footbridge at a small station.
Suppose there is no room or no money (or both) for an accessible bridge. Suppose there is money and room for a non-accessible bridge.
No bridge is built because it can't be made compliant.
Result: no gain for the disabled person. Loss for everyone else.

Not quite. It is a loss for the disabled person because they are further disadvantaged in the travel options. The equality act requires provisions to (as far as possible) equalise the situations i.e. mitigate the disabled person's opportunities. If the excuse of "it's too difficult" or "too expensive" is overused, then the path to equality will become infinitely long. If it is made clear that the reason normally able people can't do something is because it is unfair, then the greater weight of their numbers will help focus the minds of the 'can't be done' types who are responsible for doing something.

 

[Harpers Tate]

It is a loss for the disabled person because they are further disadvantaged in the travel options....

I don't understand how, to use two examples here, a disabled person is disadvantaged when:
- a train runs but is not accessible vs. it doesn't run at all
- a footbridge is unusable because it's not accessible vs. there is no footbridge.
which are both situations that do arise.

 

[Esker-pades]

I don't understand how, to use two examples here, a disabled person is disadvantaged when:
- a train runs but is not accessible vs. it doesn't run at all
- a footbridge is unusable because it's not accessible vs. there is no footbridge.
which are both situations that do arise.

Because they cannot use the services that other people can use. Thus, they are at a disadvantage compared to the others in access to said services.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Yes, but they are not in fact affected at all, when the choice is between no service and no accessible service. Either way, they cannot travel (at the time or to the place, etc). Indeed they may be advantaged to the extent that the next (accessible) service is possibly less crowded (and hence more "accessible").

 

[Tio Terry]

The TOC’s and Network Rail have known the requirements of the Equalities Act have been coming for a number of years, there’s no real excuse for them not complying. If implementation is allowed to drag on and on there is no incentive to get changes implemented, there has to be a cut off date.

The principle of the Equalities Act is, of course, equality. By proposing a service for the able bodied but excluding PRM you would be going totally in the other direction! If you have a turn-up-and-go service for the able bodied then you have to provide an equal service for PRM, that’s equality.

There is also the question of toilet waste and the need to modify old stock to provide toilet waste retention tanks. Whilst there is a temporary extension of this outdated system there is, and will be, continuous pressure on train operators to cease this practice.

 

[option]

Surely there's two ways of dealing with overcrowding;
run a more frequent service
use more carriages on existing services

So lets look at the answers for different operators;
WMT are getting new trains, which are of course delayed. (what should have happened on the CrossCity/class 323 was from mid 2000s extra carriages were made so that the 3car sets became 4car)
XC, they should get the Voyagers from West Coast, & the Meridians/222s. That would allow them to increase carriage numbers & possibly frequencies.


Answers that should be put in place;
More operators/trains on certain routes, eg. Birmingham-Derby/Nottingham & Leicester only has XC, they are ideal extra routes for WMT/EMR.

MU designs that allow an extra carriage to be made later & slotted in, so that you can turn a 3car into a 4car.

 

[AM9]

Yes, but they are not in fact affected at all, when the choice is between no service and no accessible service. Either way, they cannot travel (at the time or to the place, etc). Indeed they may be advantaged to the extent that the next (accessible) service is possibly less crowded (and hence more "accessible").

If one group of passengers can travel at will using all available trains and another group is prevented from doing so because reasonable provision for them has not even been attempted, then the end result is decidedly unequal treatment. Maybe you could explain how it isn't unequal treatment.

 

[Bezza49]

Love this debate. Politically correctness kills a lot of common sense.

I believe all disabled users should be able to access train travel safely and effectively, but to block a sensible stop-gap for 99.9% of travellers because of 0.01% is silly.

As was mentioned earlier, a non-compliant train would ease congestion for a later compliant train.

This is all a bit socialist. Nobody wins. Everybody suffers.

 

[Harpers Tate]

If one group of passengers can travel at will using all available trains and another group is prevented from doing so because reasonable provision for them has not even been attempted, then the end result is decidedly unequal treatment. Maybe you could explain how it isn't unequal treatment.

Didn't ever suggest it wasn't unequal. Didn't suggest that non-compliance is politically correct. Didn't ever compare the disabled person to an able bodied person. I make this point to look at it solely as about one person travelling (or not) at any given time and comparing two potential scenarios. The presence or otherwise of able bodied people in itself makes no difference to the one person's attempt to travel.
Only when non-compliance is allowed to become (or remain) practice when it doesn't need to be does the effect become direct on the disabled person. As long as the choice is between nothing at all or something that is temporarily not "right" then there is no actual direct loss the the person who cannot travel. Because they cannot travel, either way.

At this moment, the railway has a shortfall the could be met more or less immediately, but is non-compliant. My point remains that
a) those who could use such trains would immediately benefit (vs. waiting until the delayed new stock actually materialises)
b) those who cannot will experience no difference (vs. no train at all)

 

[AM9]

Didn't ever suggest it wasn't unequal. Didn't suggest that non-compliance is politically correct. Didn't ever compare the disabled person to an able bodied person. I make this point to look at it solely as about one person travelling (or not) at any given time and comparing two potential scenarios. The presence or otherwise of able bodied people in itself makes no difference to the one person's attempt to travel.
Only when non-compliance is allowed to become (or remain) practice when it doesn't need to be does the effect become direct on the disabled person. As long as the choice is between nothing at all or something that is temporarily not "right" then there is no actual direct loss the the person who cannot travel. Because they cannot travel, either way.

At this moment, the railway has a shortfall the could be met more or less immediately, but is non-compliant. My point remains that
a) those who could use such trains would immediately benefit (vs. waiting until the delayed new stock actually materialises)
b) those who cannot will experience no difference (vs. no train at all)

You've not addressed the fact that the law requires all reasonable steps be taken to ensure that PRM are not diadvantaged. If any services are delivered, they must be suitable for PRM. Non-compliant rolling stock is no longer permitted to run (after the cut-off) so in effect those who could use non-compliant trains will have to wait just like PRMs. However daft it might seem to you, the fact is if such compliance is not enforced, there would be widespread opportunism to effectivel nullify the benefits of the legislation. This enforcement will focus the minds of those that don't take the law seriously.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Exactly. And that is where political correctness fails, because there are
- non compliant steps we could take now, temporarily, which, if taken would have no direct impact on those who need special facilities (only a relative impact) OR
- compliant steps we have to wait for.

 

[Tio Terry]

Exactly. And that is where political correctness fails, because there are
- non compliant steps we could take now, temporarily, which, if taken would have no direct impact on those who need special facilities (only a relative impact) OR
- compliant steps we have to wait for.

I think you are missing the point.

The Equalities Act is designed to ensure that there are no people “who need special facilities” because the facilities are equally usable by all.

The implementation date has been known for a very long time, there is no excuse for not complying with the requirements. AM9 is right when he says enforcement will focus minds.

 

[cactustwirly]

Political Correctness
The politics of idiots

It's called following a law that has been known about for over 10 years now

 

[The_Train]

I think you are missing the point.

The Equalities Act is designed to ensure that there are no people “who need special facilities” because the facilities are equally usable by all.

The implementation date has been known for a very long time, there is no excuse for not complying with the requirements. AM9 is right when he says enforcement will focus minds.

But to prove the point of others I'm currently making my way to Cardiff via Bristol and I decided to go via Tamworth as the 0750 off there is supposed to be a HST. However, a 4 car Voyager turned up that was full and standing throughout and there is absolutely no way people with certain needs would have been able to get on, whereas people who don't have the same issues were able to cram onto the service. I imagine this is the same throughout rush hour (and possibly off peak as well) as I've had to change at Birmingham onto another Voyager which arrived full and standing throughout. Not sure that makes these trains 'equally usable by all'!

The equalities act is very important - believe me, I know labelling and discrimination - but how does it work when the supposedly complaint trains are not fit for purpose in the first place?

 

[Harpers Tate]

I think you are missing the point......enforcement will focus minds.

No, I understand the point completely. But in fact enforcement has not (judging the present situation) enforced minds sufficiently and we have late delivery of schemes and/or new trains and consequent cancellations, short forming and so on. Yes - minds should have been focussed and stock and schemes planned with enough contingency (so, early enough) to ensure compliance.

But they apparently were not and no rules nor regulations nor idealism can change that. One thing nobody can do is alter history. This have happened as they have and we are now in a situation that cannot be re-written; a situation where shortage of compliant stock (not stock per se) has an effect.

The only question is not what should have happened; it is what (if anything) can be done now to mitigate the fact that it did not. And that's where dogged adherence to rules has absolutely no positive effect.