A more inclusive railway?

[Class800]

A few speculative thoughts as to how the railway could be made more inclusive. Probably all long shots in terms of ever happening, but this is what the speculative ideas section is for! Quite a lot has been done for physical disability, such as removal of Pacers etc - but not much to create a non-threatening environment for those with additional needs, such as autism, and generally a positive environment.

My ideas are as follows:

1. Ban all punishments for under 18s by the railway - e.g. Penalty Fares etc
2. Require the railway to prove intent in order to punish anyone - as someone with Asperger's, my memory is 'unusual' and I keep over-checking everything to ensure I have the right date on tickets, the right destination (as 3 letter codes can be devilishly similar), have got my railcard with me etc. Changing the rules on intent would have a great benefit I think, so that genuine accidental mistakes and/or those resulting from disabilities don't get punished. The only fair alternative would be some sort of declaration scheme under Equality Act for people with additional needs - but could be too complex
3. A quiet coach on all trains with 4 or more coaches - with actual guidelines - not rules per se - but not ignored like too often are

 

[mcmad]

I think that removing punishments for under 18s would make the railway a more threatening environment that it is now. The railways are already considered a plaything by many under 18's with anti social behaviour and ticketless travel. Remove the punishments and it becomes a total free for all.

 

[Ianno87]

3. A quiet coach on all trains with 4 or more coaches - with actual guidelines - not rules per se - but not ignored like too often are

Quiet Coaches are very much not inclusive. Essentially a part of the train me and my son-who-sometimes-makes-a-little-bit-of-noise are not welcome in. Usually "policed" by men travelling on their own who think it is their own personal carriage.

 

[zwk500]

1. Ban all punishments for under 18s by the railway - e.g. Penalty Fares etc

I agree with post #2, this would just make part of the problem worse.

2. Require the railway to prove intent in order to punish anyone - as someone with Asperger's, my memory is 'unusual' and I keep over-checking everything to ensure I have the right date on tickets, the right destination (as 3 letter codes can be devilishly similar), have got my railcard with me etc. Changing the rules on intent would have a great benefit I think, so that genuine accidental mistakes and/or those resulting from disabilities don't get punished. The only fair alternative would be some sort of declaration scheme under Equality Act for people with additional needs - but could be too complex

The issue with this is that those of a less scrupulous mindset would work out what the threshold of intent was and thoroughly abuse it. However I do think the railway needs to update it's policy on under 16s and those with additional needs where education would be far more productive than punishment. Setting it out in law would be very difficult as the law tends to work in absolutes, which tend to be rather arbitrary with things that are more vague, like the autism spectrum. GBR may help this by having a single national policy, if that does end up being the initial output

3. A quiet coach on all trains with 4 or more coaches - with actual guidelines - not rules per se - but not ignored like too often are

Even if you can make this work operationally (if you have 2 3-car units that detach en-route, do they declassify the quiet coach, does the quiet coach need different interior etc), I can think of quite a few routes where the loss of 1 coach in 4 or 5 would be very keenly felt.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Quiet Coaches are very much not inclusive. Essentially a part of the train me and my son-who-sometimes-makes-a-little-bit-of-noise are not welcome in. Usually "policed" by men travelling on their own who think it is their own personal carriage.

If being inclusive means that "Quiet Coach" means "Quiet, but not really" (which to be fair is what we do have in practice), it defeats the object to an extent. Babies in particular are a tricky factor to handle- because if they're asleep they need the quiet but the moment they wake up they'll probably be making noise. This obviously isn't the fault of the parent/guardian or the baby, it's just a fact of life.
On longer trains, a carriage or part of a carriage specifically for people with young children could be a solution- plenty of overseas operators have something along those lines. Deutsche Bahn even manage it on some 2-car DMUs. Perhaps something like that could be tried with HS2 with 400m of train to play with?

 

[bramling]

Quiet Coaches are very much not inclusive. Essentially a part of the train me and my son-who-sometimes-makes-a-little-bit-of-noise are not welcome in. Usually "policed" by men travelling on their own who think it is their own personal carriage.

But there’s still other carriages on the train, yes?

 

[43096]

If being inclusive means that "Quiet Coach" means "Quiet, but not really" (which to be fair is what we do have in practice), it defeats the object to an extent. Babies in particular are a tricky factor to handle- because if they're asleep they need the quiet but the moment they wake up they'll probably making noise. This obviously isn't the fault of the parent/guardian or the baby, it's just a fact of life.
On longer trains, a carriage or part of a carriage specifically for people with young children could be a solution- plenty of overseas operators have something along those lines. Deutsche Bahn even manage it on some 2-car DMUs. Perhaps something like that could be tried with HS2 with 400m of train to play with?

A starting point would be blocking "child" tickets being reserved in the quiet coach. It cannot be that hard to do.

 

[SynthD]

All three are cases of a spectrum where one answer doesn’t suit everyone. You/I/we want leniency but don’t want it given to others. It’s not the railways problem to solve.
2. What don’t you want covered by this? 3. I carry earplugs, though rarely need them.

 

[ScotTrains]

I'd like to see a ban on those awful, bright, flickering dot matrix PIS systems as now fitted to various trains including the Scotrail 156's. Anyone who suffers from migraines, epilepsy etc cannot comfortably travel on these trains.
The LCD PIS displays are far better and softer on the eyes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd like to see a ban on those awful, bright, flickering dot matrix PIS systems as now fitted to various trains including the Scotrail 156's. Anyone who suffers from migraines, epilepsy etc cannot comfortably travel on these trains.
The LCD PIS displays are far better and softer on the eyes.

TrainFX? Yes, it's junk.

 

[30907]

My ideas are as follows:

1. Ban all punishments for under 18s by the railway - e.g. Penalty Fares etc

What protected characteristic (is that the term?) do these people have? IIRC the age for criminal responsibility is 10...

2. Require the railway to prove intent in order to punish anyone - as someone with Asperger's, my memory is 'unusual' and I keep over-checking everything to ensure I have the right date on tickets, the right destination (as 3 letter codes can be devilishly similar), have got my railcard with me etc. Changing the rules on intent would have a great benefit I think, so that genuine accidental mistakes and/or those resulting from disabilities don't get punished.

Are there specific disability-related issues over ticketing etc you know of/have experienced that cause you - and others - to make accidental mistakes? (Genuine question, I hope!)

 

[stevetay3]

I don’t think punishment should be dished out by people unqualified to do this . Details should be taken then passed on to the railways legal dept to decide on appropriate further action.

 

[Wolfie]

I don’t think punishment should be dished out by people unqualified to do this . Details should be taken then passed on to the railways legal dept to decide on appropriate further action.

Effectively you are therefore removing penalty fares and making prosecution much more likely.