Solutions for wheelchair access to trains

[MotCO]

Moderator note - spilt from:

Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson - yet another assistance failure

On BBC Breakfast now (will try to post an iPlayer link later). To summarise, systems are unfit for purpose, upgrades are running years late, once again the useless rail industry failed to provide assistance and she had to drag herself off a train. Hopefully TOC managers hang their heads in...

www.railforums.co.uk

London's buses all have automatic ramps. How difficult is it to fix them in the doors in the wheelchair areas?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

London's buses all have automatic ramps. How difficult is it to fix them in the doors in the wheelchair areas?

I don't think it's just London buses. If you watch closely you see that on most buses the suspension lowers the nearside front to bring the floor of the bus closer to the pavement. It's unlikely that the suspension system on a train could do likewise.

 

[800001]

London's buses all have automatic ramps. How difficult is it to fix them in the doors in the wheelchair areas?

The wheelchair accessible doors are normally over bogies, certainly on LNER, so I can imagine very expensive and very awkward

 

[typefish]

I don't think it's just London buses. If you watch closely you see that on most buses the suspension lowers the nearside front to bring the floor of the bus closer to the pavement. It's unlikely that the suspension system on a train could do likewise.

What would be more appropriate would be a coach style cassette lift.

Or level boarding.

 

[BrianW]

Would it not be possible to Commit (including funding!) to at least one Harrington Hump on every platform? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_Hump

 

[jfowkes]

Would it not be possible to Commit (including funding!) to at least one Harrington Hump on every platform? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_Hump

For all wheelchair spaces on all possible types, lengths and orientations of stock? That's a lotta humps.

 

[Towers]

Would it not be possible to Commit (including funding!) to at least one Harrington Hump on every platform? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_Hump

Infortunately, “at least one” hump isn’t much good if you have a dozen different potential stock formations!

 

[BrianW]

For all wheelchair spaces on all possible types, lengths and orientations of stock? That's a lotta humps.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2024 ==

Infortunately, “at least one” hump isn’t much good if you have a dozen different potential stock formations!

So?

 

[RJ]

London's buses all have automatic ramps. How difficult is it to fix them in the doors in the wheelchair areas?

Those ramps are a headache to deal with operationally and I don’t think train operators would want to be afflicted with them. Portable ramps and platform ramps are a better solution.

 

[jfowkes]

So?

So it's unworkable to just have loads of fixed ramps, isn't it? Where do you put them to account for everything? You might as well just ramp the whole platform, and even that doesn't deal with the issues of horizontal gaps and varying stock heights.

 

[BrianW]

So it's unworkable to just have loads of fixed ramps, isn't it? Where do you put them to account for everything? You might as well just ramp the whole platform, and even that doesn't deal with the issues of horizontal gaps and varying stock heights.

Difficult- yes; a nuisance- maybe.
What I am suggesting is a start, and a way ahead for the rail 'industry' to show some will and make progress to get out of the situation it has known about for a long time, and about which it has not done enough
IIUC, trains have fixed stopping points (2car stop etc) which could be reviewed.
There is a limited range of train designs- Class this or that.
Clearly if there are regularly more than one person or group that cannot be 'concentrated' into one accessible part of a train then more than one hump may be needed- eg two 5-car trains coupled together- a design 'consideration' that should have been made, as with this whole issue.
The failure of others before now should not give licence to ignore or marginaliise 'categories' of customer. Yes, cost and complication are considerations but not insurmountable, given the will, which is missing.

 

[TUC]

In rightly discussing practical options for making trains more accessible for wheelchair users, it is important to remember that this was a failure of assistance provision, and there are many other types of disability which will still need reliable assistance to be provided.

 

[Towers]

Difficult- yes; a nuisance- maybe.
What I am suggesting is a start, and a way ahead for the rail 'industry' to show some will and make progress to get out of the situation it has known about for a long time, and about which it has not done enough
IIUC, trains have fixed stopping points (2car stop etc) which could be reviewed.
There is a limited range of train designs- Class this or that.
Clearly if there are regularly more than one person or group that cannot be 'concentrated' into one accessible part of a train then more than one hump may be needed- eg two 5-car trains coupled together- a design 'consideration' that should have been made, as with this whole issue.
The failure of others before now should not give licence to ignore or marginaliise 'categories' of customer. Yes, cost and complication are considerations but not insurmountable, given the will, which is missing.

“Class this or that”, you say? Try a station served by, say, Northern. Any one of numerous classes of DMU might turn up in some places, each with one wheelchair space in one coach - which way round will the unit be, is it in the front coach or the rear? Or perhaps it’s a pair of Class 150/1s - or indeed one of them coupled something different! - with no gangway. Which end does the guard need the wheelchair user to be in?!

Intercity a bit easier, maybe? Nope, try GWR; is it 5, 9 or 10 coaches? If it’s one of the latter two then, again, which end is the accessible bay?

It isn’t simple I’m afraid!

 

[norbitonflyer]

London's buses all have automatic ramps. How difficult is it to fix them in the doors in the wheelchair areas?

If an automatic ramp fails in the open position on a bus, the bus is unable to move until someone comes to fix it, and all the other traffic has to go round it.
If it were to happen on a train, it woulkd be out of gauge and the train cannot move, blocking the entire line until someone can come and fix it.

 

[DJ_K666]

She, as a member of the House of Lords, is campaigning for change - it being normal is unacceptable.... and openly encouraging legal action against TOCs.

She should get together with Doug Paulley (perhaps she already has) who records videos of various TOCs' failings with regard to disabled access.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2024 ==

If an automatic ramp fails in the open position on a bus, the bus is unable to move until someone comes to fix it, and all the other traffic has to go round it.
If it were to happen on a train, it woulkd be out of gauge and the train cannot move, blocking the entire line until someone can come and fix it.

Many (non-London) buses have hand operated ramps these days due to failures. Most buses have a manual crank handle to wind a failed ramp back in so that thd bus can return to garage for repair. Certainly they were on the buses in Brighton when I worked for Brighton and Hove. They replaced all their powered ramps with manual ones after drivers kept breaking them by running the buses into kerbs which distorts the front of the bus after a while. Even a manual one costs £600 btw.

 

[Falcon1200]

If an automatic ramp fails in the open position on a bus, the bus is unable to move until someone comes to fix it

Many (non-London) buses have hand operated ramps these days due to failures.

A few weeks ago one of of Oxford Bus Co's brand new all-electric buses failed at the Churchill Hospital for exactly that reason, ie the wheelchair ramp was defective, and the bus could not move. Other buses could indeed get around it, but this was on the 15 service which was already seriously disrupted.

Humps to provide level boarding are of course a Good Thing, but as mentioned above not always simple to install, and of course do not help wheelchair users at the many stations without step-free access; As I mentioned in the thread from which has been split, just on the Glasgow/Neilston route there are 5 such stations. Resolving that problem is going to take a long time and a huge amount of money. Although, strangely it seems to me, money was found to build a new footbridge, with lifts, at Uddingston; A station which already had step-free access to both platforms, just not directly between them.

 

[The exile]

Modern stock has a retracting “step” at each door. Presumably the failure of any one of those in the “open” position would have the same disruptive effect - and anyway, it shouldn’t be too difficult to build in an emergency manual retract mode. A variation of one of those at the “accessible door” that is designed as a ramp to cope with small variations in platform height, coupled with an immediate and intensive programme of platform height standardisation to as near level boarding as operationally possible. Will still take time until we achieve platform/ train compatibility but we’d be going in the right direction.

 

[DJ_K666]

A few weeks ago one of of Oxford Bus Co's brand new all-electric buses failed at the Churchill Hospital for exactly that reason, ie the wheelchair ramp was defective, and the bus could not move. Other buses could indeed get around it, but this was on the 15 service which was already seriously disrupted.

Obviously the bus had no manual crank to wind the ramp back in. Even if it did maybe Orford Buses have a policy of engineers use only. I know at Brighton we had to radio control (or X-ray, as we called it) for authority to wind it in.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Being a bit more pragmatic and looking for a more affordable option: How about simply fitting the following on trains by the wheelchair-accessible door:

1. An intercom so people can press a button to talk to the guard.
2. A camera so either the guard or the driver can see if there is a wheelchair user in the area.
3. Store a (manual, foldable) ramp in the area that a trained person can use to let the wheelchair user off the train (may be difficult to do for existing stock, but new stock should include a requirement for a space where it can be stored)..

Depending on the configuration of the train, set up the intercom so that if a person presses the intercom button and the guard doesn't answer within a reasonable time, the driver is automatically alerted (and can use the camera to see what the situation is). If a wheelchair user is waiting to get off and there is no guard and no station staff available to assist the person off, then make it the driver's responsibility to deal with, even if it means delaying the train. If a train is about to go out of service or has reached its final destination, then it is the responsibility of train staff to use the camera to check there is no wheelchair user still waiting to get off.

Yes, I know it's not a perfect solution and I'm sure people will raise all sorts of objections about giving staff additional responsibilities and losing a bit of space on the train to store the ramp, but it should give wheelchair users more peace of mind, makes it much less likely that wheelchair users will be left stranded, and is more likely to be affordable/practical than any solution that involves modifying platforms at stations that have all sorts of mixes of different stock calling.

 

[Nottingham59]

Palfinger do wheelchair lifts designed to be built into the train.
See the images here:

PALFINGER

PALFINGER manufactures access systems for public transport, helping wheelchair users to board trains, buses and trams. PALFINGER is based in…

www.railway-technology.com

 

[Lemmy99uk]

Would it not be possible to Commit (including funding!) to at least one Harrington Hump on every platform? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_Hump

It was never the intention to use Harrington jumps for wheelchair access and they were not designed for that purpose.
The width and gradient of many of them would not allow them to be used as such.

 

[BrianW]

It was never the intention to use Harrington jumps for wheelchair access and they were not designed for that purpose.
The width and gradient of many of them would not allow them to be used as such.

So what was the intention? Are they no good, even dangerous to wheelchair users, let alone others with mobility issues or otherwise appreciative of level-ish boarding, like buggies etc?

I'm pleased to see a number of positive ideas on this thread, not all it'll cost an arm and a leg. Where here's a will ...

BTW- money is found, as it should be, for the Paralympics; how much on facilitaing everyday travel for people with access difficulties on our railways

“Class this or that”, you say? Try a station served by, say, Northern. Any one of numerous classes of DMU might turn up in some places, each with one wheelchair space in one coach - which way round will the unit be, is it in the front coach or the rear? Or perhaps it’s a pair of Class 150/1s - or indeed one of them coupled something different! - with no gangway. Which end does the guard need the wheelchair user to be in?!

Intercity a bit easier, maybe? Nope, try GWR; is it 5, 9 or 10 coaches? If it’s one of the latter two then, again, which end is the accessible bay?

It isn’t simple I’m afraid!

Ok, so how many 'positions'; required at say Kings Cross; how much cost compared with how many staff?

Surely some rationalistion of stock (which should have been foreseen in procurement, deployment and allocation per service) could be achieved over time- again given the will, which it appears is not there.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

So what was the intention? Are they no good, even dangerous to wheelchair users, let alone others with mobility issues or otherwise appreciative of level-ish boarding, like buggies etc?

To find a cheap, quick solution to the large step up on many rural platforms.

 

[BrianW]

To find a cheap, quick solution to the large step up on many rural platforms.

Ok so that maybe was the original intention- now what about its potential? I recognise that Wikipedia is not 'the Bible' but this item does suggest the Harrington Hump may be useful beyond that originally envisaged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_Hump
And it is quick and relatively cheap to install. I have no hesitation in recognising its limitations. Is it more dangerous than having nothing?

 

[Haywain]

So what was the intention? Are they no good, even dangerous to wheelchair users,

They don't allow level boarding, they were a means of bringing low platforms up to normal height at low cost. Were they high enough to allow level boarding they would either have to leave an excessive gap between platform and train, defeating the object, or they would foul the loading guage for certain types of train (freight, for example). The only stations that have a hump for level boarding on the national network are on the Thameslink core where only one class of rolling stock is in use.

 

[takno]

There are 2000 stations and many more units, there isn't a good one-size-fits-all solution, and there isn't an infinite pot of money.

I couldn't even get my dad onto a wheelchair-equipped bus last week because every one of them which went past already had a wheelchair in it. Perhaps we shouldn't waste the money we have for disabled accessibility on the railway, which is only too happy to burn through billions to achieve pathetically small step-changes in accessibility. Why would we not instead spend the money on doubling the number of wheelchair spaces on buses, a network which actually seems focused on working around problems and delivering a service?

 

[OneOfThe48]

Ultimately you have two main options to ensure that disabled people have the same degree of access as non-disabled people, which is really the ultimate point of this.

You either have a second member of staff on board every train, whether that is a guard, conductor or some other similar role, who has assisting disabled customers as one of their responsibilities, or you have multiple staff at every station to cover it from the first train until the last (multiple staff will ensure that someone is still available when one is having a break).

I feel everything else is just dancing around half solutions.

Staffing every train or every station won't be cheap, but that isn't the question we're answering. You might choose to prioritise costs and money, but that would likely be at the expense of disabled people having equitable access.

That's just providing access between the platform and the train itself. Ensuring step free access to the platform is a different challenge entirely, and will come with a lot more cost too.

 

[takno]

Ultimately you have two main options to ensure that disabled people have the same degree of access as non-disabled people, which is really the ultimate point of this

Could we be a bit more honest that we are talking about people who require wheelchairs, which is a relatively small proportion of disabled people, and bear in mind that lots of the solutions don't even support heavier or larger wheelchairs. Furthermore it's important to remember that quite a lot of people who walk but aren't stable on their feet struggle with ramps and wide open spaces like disabled toilets.

 

[Haywain]

Ultimately you have two main options to ensure that disabled people have the same degree of access as non-disabled people, which is really the ultimate point of this.

You either have a second member of staff on board every train, whether that is a guard, conductor or some other similar role, who has assisting disabled customers as one of their responsibilities, or you have multiple staff at every station to cover it from the first train until the last (multiple staff will ensure that someone is still available when one is having a break).

Both of which are the case in the TGT incident.

Could we be a bit more honest that we are talking about people who require wheelchairs, which is a relatively small proportion of disabled people,

No, because that isn’t the case in terms of assistance, or even for level boarding. Elsewhere on the forum we have a poster who is visually impaired who needs assistance, and there are many people who struggle to make the step up to board a train.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

We also have to be careful of the danger of the perfect becoming the enemy of the 'good enough'. Realistically you are never going to have completely equal access for every single person, regardless of the nature of their disability: The cost and technical difficulties of providing that would drive the entire railway out of business! As an example, we're already in a situation where requirements for accessibility and things like lifts and level access to all platforms on new-builds means that some new stations that would have been intensely useful to the majority of potential passengers living locally simply become unaffordable. So we need to figure out the balance of what is good enough. Clearly you absolutely don't want the situation we saw recently at Kings Cross of people being left unable to leave the train, and you also don't want train travel to be inaccessible to a significant minority of the population, but equally clearly we can't wave a magic wand and make the entire railway, and every station instantly accessible to all. So where does the balance lie?