Should class 180s be banned from the ECML?

[yorksrob]

But what you seem to want to do is artificially inflate capacity and thus, you apparently believe, reduce prices by retaining obscolescent at best rolling stock in service when it is no longer required. Strangely enough HMT would never favour that.

If peopler want to use the capacity then it is clearly required.

 

[Wolfie]

If peopler want to use the capacity then it is clearly required.

People want to use it at dirt cheap prices. Economic illiteracy

 

[yorksrob]

People want to use it at dirt cheap prices. Economic illiteracy

As I've said previously, the railway is a mass transit system, It is there to transport large numbers of passengers. Why do you think HS2 is being built with lots of capacity ?

Also it is claptrap to say that someone is "artificially inflating capacity" when they are merely maintaining the capacity that was already there. As usual, you are arguing that black is white for the sake of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2022 ==

I think you mean "Whoever makes these decisions is not working in the interest of enthusiasts like myself," as the HSTs did not have accessible toilets in first class, and had slam doors which are dangerous for a number of reasons and cause accessibility issues.

If the Government believed that those issues were insurmountable on the HST fleet, it should have made sure that the capacity was there to replace them. It didn't do so.

 

[A0]

If peopler want to use the capacity then it is clearly required.

People want to use it at dirt cheap prices. Economic illiteracy

People like cheapies / freebies shocker.

More important is whether such activities are profitable or not. Funnily enough RyanAir or Easyjet don't sell all their tickets at £1.50 each because if they did, they would be bust by about Tuesday.

 

[TPO]

*Sigh* not for the first time DDA is not all or solely about wheelchair users.

Indeed.

The lack of a properly enforced quiet space makes a long trip basically inaccessible to me as a noise-sensitive autistic person unless I can find a quiet train or afford 1st (I mostly can't).

Some new "accessible" trains also lack toilets, totally missing the fact that presence of a toilet is effectively an accessibility issue for some conditions, lack of toilets in the public space can render some folks basically housebound, and it's a problem which is getting worse not better eg the new Valleys trains in S Wales.

The focus on level boarding is important but let's not pretend that the railway really is accessible for everyone once level boarding is in place.

And of course level boarding also increases the number of pushchairs, so you still don't have "unassisted " travel if you need to get the guard to clear the wheelchair space of pushchairs, bikes, luggage etc so you can board a rammed train.....

TPO

 

[A0]

Indeed.

The lack of a properly enforced quiet space makes a long trip basically inaccessible to me as a noise-sensitive autistic person unless I can find a quiet train or afford 1st (I mostly can't).

Some new "accessible" trains also lack toilets, totally missing the fact that presence of a toilet is effectively an accessibility issue for some conditions, lack of toilets in the public space can render some folks basically housebound, and it's a problem which is getting worse not better eg the new Valleys trains in S Wales.

The focus on level boarding is important but let's not pretend that the railway really is accessible for everyone once level boarding is in place.

And of course level boarding also increases the number of pushchairs, so you still don't have "unassisted " travel if you need to get the guard to clear the wheelchair space of pushchairs, bikes, luggage etc so you can board a rammed train.....

GC

I think you miss some of the point though - a "quiet space" on public transport is impractical. Whilst it may make travelling difficult for you, I think you'd struggle to make a case that a lack of such a space is discriminatory.

As for trains which don't have toilets, these tend to be on trains where people make short journeys - so a lack of provision cannot be considered discriminatory.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think you mean "Whoever makes these decisions is not working in the interest of enthusiasts like myself," as the HSTs did not have accessible toilets in first class, and had slam doors which are dangerous for a number of reasons and cause accessibility issues.

He has a point. Obviously keeping the HSTs for a few more years wouldn't have been ideal.
But it's a hell of a lot better than the current situation of inadequate capacity, the trains are so full that they are regularly full and standing.

The trains aren't dangerous, they had been working the same routes for decades without incident. They are obviously less safe than the 222s which have SDO and power doors.

 

[TPO]

I think you miss some of the point though - a "quiet space" on public transport is impractical. Whilst it may make travelling difficult for you, I think you'd struggle to make a case that a lack of such a space is discriminatory.

As for trains which don't have toilets, these tend to be on trains where people make short journeys - so a lack of provision cannot be considered discriminatory.

I have not missed the point at all.

Point is, not that many years ago the idea of unassisted access and accessible toilets for wheelchair users was deemed utterly impractical due to all the modifications of trains and stations required.... altered platforms, lifts etc., new rolling stock. By contrast, proper definition and enforcement of quiet zones esp on longer distance trains merely requires less tolerance of ASB. MUCH cheaper and easier to achieve- IF there was the will to, IF the "invisible" disabilities were accorded the same "status" as visible disabilities.

Toilets and long distance: how do you define long dist? An hour on a train from the top of the valley to Cardiff is a fair stretch especially if first travelling to a toiletless station (as most Valleys stations are). That's also assuming the train is not held up. But the new trains on this route are I understand to be without toilets, on a line which has for a long time now had toilets on trains. Removal of provision.....

No, the real issue is that invisible disabilities don't allow the same level of virtue signalling so get forgotten. Only visible disabilities matter in real life, indeed there's an attitude in some parts of society that a disability doesn't exist unless visible.

Hence I repeat, accessibility is about MUCH more than provision for wheelchair users and some tactile paving. Whilst having those things is good and necessary, it is NOT of itself enough to make a service fully accessible.

Accepting lack of provision for invisible disabilities is no better than expecting a wheelchair user to be consigned to the Guards van. We've (thankfully) moved on from thinking it OK to expect a wheelchair user to be in a Guards van, but the same has not happened for invisible disabilities, nor will it if achieving provision for wheelchair users is conflated with "accessibility. "

Using your argument, we didn't need all the accessibility mods as travelling for wheelchair users was generally possible although difficult (book ahead for assistance etc). All I ask is that invisible disabilities get equitable provision vs visible disabilities.

TPO

 

[Wolfie]

As I've said previously, the railway is a mass transit system, It is there to transport large numbers of passengers. Why do you think HS2 is being built with lots of capacity ?

Also it is claptrap to say that someone is "artificially inflating capacity" when they are merely maintaining the capacity that was already there. As usual, you are arguing that black is white for the sake of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2022 ==



If the Government believed that those issues were insurmountable on the HST fleet, it should have made sure that the capacity was there to replace them. It didn't do so.

Retaining excessive capacity when demand has declined is artificially boosting capacity.

 

[yorksrob]

Retaining excessive capacity when demand has declined is artificially boosting capacity.

The mental contortions required by some to justify this policy are astounding.

The Midland mainline flows are largely Inter-City flows which have recovered most strongly from the pandemic. This hogwash about "declining demand" is merely the treasury using the pandemic as cover to make cuts.

If the government really was interested in matching provision to post covid demand, the reduction in carriages would be peak time commuter routes, not Inter-City journeys to the Midlands.

 

[JonathanH]

The Midland mainline flows are largely Inter-City flows which have recovered most strongly from the pandemic. This hogwash about "declining demand" is merely the treasury using the pandemic as cover to make cuts.

If the government really was interested in matching provision to post covid demand, the reduction in carriages would be peak time commuter routes, not Inter-City journeys to the Midlands.

Yes, but peak time business travellers and commuters are, no doubt, no longer providing the base funding which allows the railway to provide capacity on Saturday mornings.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but peak time business travellers and commuters are, no doubt, no longer providing the base funding which allows the railway to provide capacity on Saturday mornings.

The railway needs to cater for the passengers it has instead of harking back to the ones or wishes it has. The treasury needs to be realistic about a subsidy levels as well

 

[AM9]

Yes, but peak time business travellers and commuters are, no doubt, no longer providing the base funding which allows the railway to provide capacity on Saturday mornings.

Season ticket travel is discounted by about 30% despite the capacity being more expensive to provide per passenger, so leisure/off-peak travel effectively subsidises much of the reduced season ticket prices.

 

[JonathanH]

Season ticket travel is discounted by about 30% despite the capacity being more expensive to provide per passenger, so leisure/off-peak travel effectively subsidises much of the reduced season ticket prices.

I'm not sure it works that way. Much of the leisure / off peak travel is provided at a discount as well relative to an Anytime Return (and for most of the week at a discount to the off-peak return).

The railway needs to cater for the passengers it has instead of harking back to the ones or wishes it has. The treasury needs to be realistic about a subsidy levels as well

A railway where people travel once a week all at the same time isn't sustainable on the approach you suggest.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not sure it works that way. Much of the leisure / off peak travel is provided at a discount as well relative to an Anytime Return (and for most of the week at a discount to the off-peak return).


A railway where people travel once a week all at the same time isn't sustainable on the approach you suggest.

In this case there was no need to have a drop in capacity - the existing stock was already there and working and the new trains are ordered. They just needed to either build the replacements sooner or make the existing ones last longer, so I don't think the longer term funding position is really relevant in this case.

That said, the railway has not completely switched to once a week commuter passengers. The fact that we are back to 80% of pre-covid passenger numbers illustrates that they can't all be one-off leisure travelers. It was all well and good when the railway was switched to 1 3rd subsidy, 2 3rds fare box revenue, but this was a comparatively modern arrangement, and the government shouldn't wreck the railway to try and maintain that arrangement when the passenger mix no longer supports it.

 

[ainsworth74]

Old Oak Common had the measure of their reliability. It’s a shame none of their inheritors have managed to master the 180s to the same extent.

I don't know whether the stats backed it up but it always felt like HTs fleet achieved their best reliability during their period of being maintained by Old Oak.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you miss some of the point though - a "quiet space" on public transport is impractical. Whilst it may make travelling difficult for you, I think you'd struggle to make a case that a lack of such a space is discriminatory.

As for trains which don't have toilets, these tend to be on trains where people make short journeys - so a lack of provision cannot be considered discriminatory.

A quiet space is perfectly practical on a long intercity train and many have one. I'd love to see someone pursue a discrimination case that required the TOC to enforce the provision.

 

[A0]

I have not missed the point at all.

Point is, not that many years ago the idea of unassisted access and accessible toilets for wheelchair users was deemed utterly impractical due to all the modifications of trains and stations required.... altered platforms, lifts etc., new rolling stock. By contrast, proper definition and enforcement of quiet zones esp on longer distance trains merely requires less tolerance of ASB. MUCH cheaper and easier to achieve- IF there was the will to, IF the "invisible" disabilities were accorded the same "status" as visible disabilities.

Toilets and long distance: how do you define long dist? An hour on a train from the top of the valley to Cardiff is a fair stretch especially if first travelling to a toiletless station (as most Valleys stations are). That's also assuming the train is not held up. But the new trains on this route are I understand to be without toilets, on a line which has for a long time now had toilets on trains. Removal of provision.....

No, the real issue is that invisible disabilities don't allow the same level of virtue signalling so get forgotten. Only visible disabilities matter in real life, indeed there's an attitude in some parts of society that a disability doesn't exist unless visible.

Hence I repeat, accessibility is about MUCH more than provision for wheelchair users and some tactile paving. Whilst having those things is good and necessary, it is NOT of itself enough to make a service fully accessible.

Accepting lack of provision for invisible disabilities is no better than expecting a wheelchair user to be consigned to the Guards van. We've (thankfully) moved on from thinking it OK to expect a wheelchair user to be in a Guards van, but the same has not happened for invisible disabilities, nor will it if achieving provision for wheelchair users is conflated with "accessibility. "

Using your argument, we didn't need all the accessibility mods as travelling for wheelchair users was generally possible although difficult (book ahead for assistance etc). All I ask is that invisible disabilities get equitable provision vs visible disabilities.

TPO

Sorry, but you have.

By its very nature, public transport cannot offer a 'cocooned' silent travel environment - that's the nature of public transport. That it can't offer that service though does not mean it is discriminating against certain people. It is about what can be practically offered - ensuring doors are of a kind which can be opened by both able bodied and disabled is a good example of that. But expecting swathes of seating to be kept free for "quiet travel" or spaced so as to prevent the need to sit next to somebody etc simply isn't practical. And that goes for buses, trains and aircraft.

On the toilet question - well many "local" bus routes are up to an hour with no toilet provision on board - a similar expectation should be had with a train journey of up to an hour - I'd point out that the longest journeys on London Underground, Manchester Metrolink or Tyne & Wear Metro all exceed this and there are no onboard toilets on those services either.

BIB - I think your logic is wrong - I never said those accessibility mods weren't needed - I would argue in many respects they benefitted all travellers, making it easier to board as passengers weren't having to deal with heavy slam doors and invariably saw the benefits of larger door openings making boarding easier all round.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure it works that way. Much of the leisure / off peak travel is provided at a discount as well relative to an Anytime Return (and for most of the week at a discount to the off-peak return).

On a good many routes a day on a monthly or longer season (assuming 5 days a week travel) is roughly the same price as an Off Peak Day Return. This is certainly true on the south WCML. Thus, leisure and business passengers pay roughly the same. There is a cheaper Super Off Peak but it is very heavily restricted so isn't applicable to most passengers.

Anytime Day Returns are mostly only purchased by business travellers on expenses - these are relatively few in number on commuter type routes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2022 ==

By its very nature, public transport cannot offer a 'cocooned' silent travel environment - that's the nature of public transport. That it can't offer that service though does not mean it is discriminating against certain people. It is about what can be practically offered - ensuring doors are of a kind which can be opened by both able bodied and disabled is a good example of that. But expecting swathes of seating to be kept free for "quiet travel" or spaced so as to prevent the need to sit next to somebody etc simply isn't practical. And that goes for buses, trains and aircraft.

Erm, most trains with "proper" 2+1 First Class have exactly this provision - it's the 1 side, and it's 99% of the reason I ever travel First Class! I suppose this could be made more available to those with autism if diagnosed autism became a valid qualification for a Disabled Railcard which discounts it (and it arguably should, because an autistic person* certainly has more need of First Class than many other disabilities).

* I understand most (but not all) autistic people prefer "condition first".

 

[A0]

A quiet space is perfectly practical on a long intercity train and many have one. I'd love to see someone pursue a discrimination case that required the TOC to enforce the provision.

No it isn't - especially on a busy, full or near to full capacity train. And I think a case pursuing this would be a monumental waste of money - and would be a complete PITA for TOCs to even try to enforce.

I'm not sure why anyone would think forcing such unnecessary cost and impact on the TOCs is a good idea.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2022 ==

Erm, most trains with "proper" 2+1 First Class have exactly this provision - it's the 1 side, and it's 99% of the reason I ever travel First Class! I suppose this could be made more available to those with autism if diagnosed autism became a valid qualification for a Disabled Railcard which discounts it (and it arguably should, because an autistic person* certainly has more need of First Class than many other disabilities).

* I understand most (but not all) autistic people prefer "condition first".

Erm - most trains with 1st class *don't* - it's only the longer distance stock.

And since when did 1st class dictate 2+1 seating as a requirement - except in your fevered imagination ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some new "accessible" trains also lack toilets, totally missing the fact that presence of a toilet is effectively an accessibility issue for some conditions, lack of toilets in the public space can render some folks basically housebound, and it's a problem which is getting worse not better eg the new Valleys trains in S Wales.

The railway isn't by a long stretch the worst offender here. Removing the legal responsibility for local Councils to provide public toilet facilities should in my view have been legally challenged as discrimination - and discrimination that gets more protected characteristics in one go than any other one I can think of - age (older people tend to have more need for toilets), gender (a man can urinate in the bushes easily, a woman much less so) and other disabilities (e.g. Crohn's). I hope this challenge is made and is successful at some point.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2022 ==

Erm - most trains with 1st class *don't* - it's only the longer distance stock.

All InterCity* trains have 2+1 layout First Class.

* Those which latter day BR had in the IC sector other than Gatwick Express which was an outlier, plus TPE and ScotRail.

And since when did 1st class dictate 2+1 seating as a requirement - except in your fevered imagination ?

It isn't a requirement but it is the norm except on South East commuter services (and related) where First Class is basically an expensive seat reservation.

 

[A0]

All InterCity* trains have 2+1 layout First Class.

* Those which latter day BR had in the IC sector other than Gatwick Express which was an outlier, plus TPE and ScotRail.

Right - so that isn't *most*, it's some.

It isn't a requirement

Thank you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2022 ==

The railway isn't by a long stretch the worst offender here. Removing the legal responsibility for local Councils to provide public toilet facilities should in my view have been legally challenged as discrimination - and discrimination that gets more protected characteristics in one go than any other one I can think of - age (older people tend to have more need for toilets), gender (a man can urinate in the bushes easily, a woman much less so) and other disabilities (e.g. Crohn's). I hope this challenge is made and is successful at some point.

Except it *isn't* discrimination because the provision has been removed from everybody regardless - your "view" therefore is wrong.

Try checking the definition of discrimination - you can't argue that removal of a provision from everyone is discrimination. You can only prove discrimination where the decision was taken knowing it would adversely affect some and not others. Had it just been disabled toilets which had been closed, then you could argue discrimination.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Right - so that isn't *most*, it's some.

I'm not sure adding up the number of each type of seat is worthwhile, but as commuter trains tend to have very small provision of First Class and IC trains far more, I suspect the majority of First Class seats on UK trains would be in 2+1 formation even if the majority of units didn't have it.

Either way, 2+1 First Class is extremely common, and if you exclude the South East commuter area it is the norm - the only 2+2 First Class I can think of that isn't in the traditional "Network SouthEast" area is the LNR units on Liverpool to Birmingham.

Except it *isn't* discrimination because the provision has been removed from everybody regardless - your "view" therefore is wrong.

I think you need to understand the "equality vs equity" issue. Removing something available to all that by doing so will affect a protected characteristic more than those not* of that characteristic would fall foul of the law, and this certainly would in many ways. It was only "got away with" because it happened before the DDA then subsequent Acts became law.

* For instance, a ramped access to a station used by everyone being changed to a stepped access.

 

[ashkeba]

Try checking the definition of discrimination - you can't argue that removal of a provision from everyone is discrimination. You can only prove discrimination where the decision was taken knowing it would adversely affect some and not others.

If you check the definition, you do not need to show that they knew it would discriminate, only that they can reasonably have been expected to know it would.

Edited sorry mod we crossed in the post.

 

[Bluejays]

People like cheapies / freebies shocker.

More important is whether such activities are profitable or not. Funnily enough RyanAir or Easyjet don't sell all their tickets at £1.50 each because if they did, they would be bust by about Tuesday.

And advances were £1.50 were they?

 

[A0]

And advances were £1.50 were they?

No - the point is a *limited* number of tickets are sold at reduced prices. Usually on the basis of the demand on each flight in EasyJet / RyanAir's case. The railways are no different, so oddly enough don't tend to offer advances where there is sufficient demand to fill the trains without.

 

[Wolfie]

The railway needs to cater for the passengers it has instead of harking back to the ones or wishes it has. The treasury needs to be realistic about a subsidy levels as well

We are about to go into a recession. Tens of billions were spent on CV. There will be NO additional subsidies for the railways. In fact, based on what is happening elsewhere in Government, expect subsidy cuts. Welcome to the real world.

 

[Mag_seven]

Class 180s are not going to be banned from the ECML, so I think its safe to suggest that this thread has run its course.

thanks all