Disabled Passenger Over-Carried

[ComUtoR]

To me, having the disabled space in the middle of the train is Train Design 101, especially as there are many many stations that cannot accommodate a full-length Cl720 formation. There are going to be locations where the disabled space is not platformed.

Singular accessible spaces are poor train design. It doesn't matter if there is one at the front, middle, or the rear. The same issues will occur due to other circumstances. We need to move away from having single designated spaces and ensure the train is accessible at all available doors.

 

[Clip]

Did anyone consider before the pages of back and forth that it may not have been a member of staff who put the person on the train? And then got one of the overground staff to call it through whilst they were doing so?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Singular accessible spaces are poor train design. It doesn't matter if there is one at the front, middle, or the rear. The same issues will occur due to other circumstances. We need to move away from having single designated spaces and ensure the train is accessible at all available doors.

That isn't feasible because you can't have a wheelchair space at every set of doors unless you want to design a train that has very, very few seats.

 

[221129]

I would argue that it is. Are you saying most trains every day do carry someone requiring assistance?

Yes. I am arguing that. When talking about passenger assistance we aren't just talking wheelchairs remember.

 

[Domh245]

By my mind, we missed the boat already. This should have been addressed before the IET and Thameslink rolling stock procurement programmes were even begun and then established as a standard.

The best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago. The second best time is now

I agree that we really should have had a plan and a standard in place years ago, but we shouldn't let that stop us from coming up with one now. (Level boarding on the IET may have been problematic, given how high floored they are for the sake of the bi-modification)

Singular accessible spaces are poor train design. It doesn't matter if there is one at the front, middle, or the rear. The same issues will occur due to other circumstances. We need to move away from having single designated spaces and ensure the train is accessible at all available doors.

All doors themselves are accessible (unless I'm mistaken) - but it's usually the need for accessible seating/wheelchair areas/UATs that forces the one-position issue. And as we've seen with the voyagers, there is such a thing as too much accessibility.

Did anyone consider before the pages of back and forth that it may not have been a member of staff who put the person on the train? And then got one of the overground staff to call it through whilst they were doing so?

The fragmentation won't have helped, I'm sure. If it were all GA it may have been handled a bit better in terms of ensuring the receiving station were aware, though once they'd been put on coach 10 it was effectively too late, bar moving them to the front unit at a later stop

 

[Dr Hoo]

Oh my!! That's incredible if true. Units end up turned all the time. In fact, I'd bet that a former colleague of mine would give you an unpostable reply to this, as he spent an entire night shift turning Cl379s around the High Meads Loop to satisfy the pedantry of a certain manager because a number of them had somehow ended up facing the wrong way, and ended up having a Safety of Line incident as a consequence.

Can you clarify, please? This passage is capable of two entirely different interpretations.

The way that I first understood it was that the 'wrong' orientation of some units had contributed to a Safety of Line issue (e.g., in my imagination, staff tried to 'help' repositioning a train at a station that then contributed to a signal reversion or SPAR). In which case 'management' was quite right to try and get the units turned the right way (albeit one would hope that front line staff would be dealing with that sort of thing routinely without management needing to intervene).

The second interpretation was that unit orientation was entirely random and un-controllable but the 'pedantic' instruction of a manager led to a situation where a colleague was so fatigued (perhaps shift extended on overtime to encompass the un-diagrammed work?) that (s)he ended up doing one of the turning runs with the wrong lights displayed or something.

Singular accessible spaces are poor train design. It doesn't matter if there is one at the front, middle, or the rear. The same issues will occur due to other circumstances. We need to move away from having single designated spaces and ensure the train is accessible at all available doors.

So presumably a maximum of 2+1 seating or two 'large' toilets plus associated wheelchair spaces in every vehicle?

 

[ComUtoR]

That isn't feasible because you can't have a wheelchair space at every set of doors unless you want to design a train that has very, very few seats.

Saying something isn't "feasible" is just as bad as saying its "impossible"

All doors themselves are accessible (unless I'm mistaken) - but it's usually the need for accessible seating/wheelchair areas/UATs that forces the one-position issue. And as we've seen with the voyagers, there is such a thing as too much accessibility.

So presumably a maximum of 2+1 seating or two 'large' toilets plus associated wheelchair spaces in every vehicle?

I have recently been involved with passenger accessibility and sat through our TOCs awareness training. The railway isn't evolving and I still do not believe that there is a desire to change/fix any of the issues highlighted in this thread.

Train design is interesting and I have driven some ricketty old junk and modern speed demons. Accessibility issues still haven't changed much. An example of why single spaces are bad, no matter where you put them is at my TOC. We have a few stations where the PRM space is specifically not used because of the location they alight from. Even when the designated space is in the middle of the unit it, it can still present boarding and alighting issues due to where a unit is required to stop and/or where infrastructure is located on station platforms.

I don't have answers or any magical solutions and I certainly don't live in a utopia but I can say that we need to move away from the current way of thinking and move toward better, long term solutions and yes, some sacrifices such as seating need to be made.

 

[O L Leigh]

The best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago. The second best time is now

I agree that we really should have had a plan and a standard in place years ago, but we shouldn't let that stop us from coming up with one now. (Level boarding on the IET may have been problematic, given how high floored they are for the sake of the bi-modification)

Well yes of course, but I think that trying to change things now is actually too late. We now have existing designs from three or four manufacturers that cover pretty much all our foreseeable rolling stock needs, from Intercity to commuter to local. None of these folk are going to want to have to throw away perfectly good designs and come up with something from scratch to meet a new standard, and no-one is going to want to fork out for the cost of it.

The second interpretation was that unit orientation was entirely random and un-controllable but the 'pedantic' instruction of a manager led to a situation where a colleague was so fatigued (perhaps shift extended on overtime to encompass the un-diagrammed work?) that (s)he ended up doing one of the turning runs with the wrong lights displayed or something.

This. Although I believe the driver was offered (and took) a wrong route.

Train design is interesting and I have driven some ricketty old junk and modern speed demons. Accessibility issues still haven't changed much. An example of why single spaces are bad, no matter where you put them is at my TOC. We have a few stations where the PRM space is specifically not used because of the location they alight from. Even when the designated space is in the middle of the unit it, it can still present boarding and alighting issues due to where a unit is required to stop and/or where infrastructure is located on station platforms.

Hence my highlighting that the solution is neither rolling stock nor infrastructure but both together.

 

[Essexman]

Did anyone consider before the pages of back and forth that it may not have been a member of staff who put the person on the train? And then got one of the overground staff to call it through whilst they were doing so?

The train passenger must have joined somewhere between Southend Victoria and Billericay, as they didn't get on where I boarded at Shenfield and it didn't stop again until Romford. I did wonder if they could have boarded without assistance but assumed they boarded with knowledge of railway staff as platform staff at Romford were waiting for them with the ramp.

 

[LIMA66]

10 car 720 and I presume the passenger was in the DTLW coach which would have been off the platform, we’ve only just started using the full length of Platform 2 at Romford that opens the first 17 doors so 8 coaches plus 1 in coach 9.

Not knowing the details and this is the first I’ve heard of it it’s not good this has happened.

As others have commented and I’ve had it myself already with a passenger who had her child in a pram, if someone is on the train that needs to move forward at a station where you’ve got to pass through the coach to alight from the train then you’ve got no chance as the coaches are so narrow.

 

[ComUtoR]

Hence my highlighting that the solution is neither rolling stock nor infrastructure but both together.

I agree and apologies as I missed that part of your post.

 

[Falcon1200]

Designing a five-car unit with the only disabled space being in one end car sounds daft; Is there any practical reason why it could not have been in the centre coach, so that (obviously) it would always be in the same place no matter how the set was turned ? Plus short platforms would not be an issue either. And the same should apply to all specialised space, for example the otherwise excellent Class 380 sets I use regularly have the cycle space in an end coach too, with no way of knowing which end until the train arrives. This should become a standard for all new train designs.

 

[O L Leigh]

I agree and apologies as I missed that part of your post.

That’s OK buddy. Apologies not necessary.

 

[Qwerty133]

I don't have answers or any magical solutions and I certainly don't live in a utopia but I can say that we need to move away from the current way of thinking and move toward better, long term solutions and yes, some sacrifices such as seating need to be made.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it equates disabled with wheelchair user when in actual fact the majority of disabled people do not require a wheelchair and will not have one with them when travelling. Removing seating near to doors and accesible toilets makes travelling by train difficult for groups such as those with difficulties walking but who do not use a wheelchair as well as those with balance issues, people who are blind or partially sighted, and those who need to be able to access the toilet at the drop of a hat.

 

[Llanigraham]

Well thats categorically not true.

Isn't it?
In all the years I have been using my local line I cannot remember anyone needing assistance at my local station, (which has full level access and a "hump") and rarely at any of the immediate stations to it. Even on my numerous trips up to London, using various lines, it has been extremely rare to see assistance given.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes. I am arguing that. When talking about passenger assistance we aren't just talking wheelchairs remember.

In no way is this true nationwide. In 2019 there were about 1.2 million passenger assists, booked and unbooked, and 8.5 million passenger train movements. Even accounting for the fact a few hundred thousand of those passenger assists will have made connections, the vast majority of trains in Great Britain have no passengers who require "passenger assistance" at all.

On XC it's probably a different story but then XC isn't the whole network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Saying something isn't "feasible" is just as bad as saying its "impossible"

I have recently been involved with passenger accessibility and sat through our TOCs awareness training. The railway isn't evolving and I still do not believe that there is a desire to change/fix any of the issues highlighted in this thread.

Train design is interesting and I have driven some ricketty old junk and modern speed demons. Accessibility issues still haven't changed much. An example of why single spaces are bad, no matter where you put them is at my TOC. We have a few stations where the PRM space is specifically not used because of the location they alight from. Even when the designated space is in the middle of the unit it, it can still present boarding and alighting issues due to where a unit is required to stop and/or where infrastructure is located on station platforms.

I don't have answers or any magical solutions and I certainly don't live in a utopia but I can say that we need to move away from the current way of thinking and move toward better, long term solutions and yes, some sacrifices such as seating need to be made.

Is there a long distance railway anywhere in the world which has a wheelchair space and accessible toilet at every door?

If that isn't what you meant, what sort of layout do you propose?

 

[Nova1]

Probably worth noting that something to always consider with disabled accessibility is making *reasonable* adjustments.

Providing a accessible area on a train, or maybe two = definitely reasonable.

Providing an accessible area at every door on every unit... not really reasonable.

 

[SouthStand]

Which is totally irrelevant.

A bit like disabled passengers it would seem.

 

[Dr Hoo]

To look at this a bit more constructively; is there a plan/budget to lengthen the platform(s) at Romford? I am a bit vague about whether this would be by GA, TfL or Network Rail.

I note that significant expenditure went into lengthening the bay at Wickford for Class 720s recently, presumably for similar reasons.

 

[185143]

I don't think that provides adequate reassurance.



I agree.



"Goodbye, Mr Smith, this is your guard, he will take over your assistance from here".
"Hello, Mr Smith, I'm your guard and I'm responsible for your assistance until I pass you over to the platform staff at X. If you need me in emergency you can use the button here. I'll come back a couple of minutes before we arrive at X to let you know what is happening, and I won't leave the train until I've introduced you to the platform staff who will assist you on the station".

What problem do you see in this? It sounds like excellent customer service to me.

I was pretty much greeted in that way in the Caledonian Sleeper seated coach on the Fort William portion. One of the catering staff took me through to my seat while the TM was doing station duties. I didn't need any assistance of any kind, it was just good customer service and a welcome onboard. Then once we set off the TM came to me and introduced himself, made sure I knew where the bog was and what would happen when we reached Edinburgh, told me how to get food and where he would be located for the journey and also how the call button worked.

Admittedly that's not even remotely feasible on most of the NR Network for every passenger and in most cases totally unnecessary, but it shows that kind of welcome isn't a totally alien concept even for the railway. Even if that particular bit of the railway can't decide wether it's a train, restaurant, hotel on wheels or a replacement bus.

 

[GALLANTON]

That isn't feasible because you can't have a wheelchair space at every set of doors unless you want to design a train that has very, very few seats.

Perhaps not at every single set of doors but you could have a space in each carriage. Wheelchairs don't take that much space.

 

[Nova1]

Perhaps not at every single set of doors but you could have a space in each carriage. Wheelchairs don't take that much space.

Actually, motorized wheelchairs can take a large amount of space. Plus don't forget they need room to maneuver.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I thought that the issue was that every designated wheelchair space had to be adjacent to an accessible toilet (if the train has any toilets). It's the toilets that take up loads of space.

I also thought that wheelchair spaces had to 'face both ways' now. The ones on the new Northern Class 195s seem to follow that general pattern, with duplicated Call For Aid plungers as well.

 

[Bikeman78]

It's quite rightly no longer acceptable to treat disabled people as dirt on your shoe, so it's down to the railway to find a solution for that, not to complain about what it might cost.

In practice it means that:
1. At stations where you have a lot of need for assistance, yes, you'll need to pad things out.
2. At stations where you rarely do, a bit of late running is accepted for this sort of reason.

I've read this thread throughout and it's been quite an eye opener. The focus recently has been on modifying the trains. Anyone that cannot climb in or out of trains is hardly any better off with a PRM compliant train than a non compliant train. You can forget it at any unstaffed station on a DOO railway. Likewise not all the modifications will help everyone. Plenty of disabled people were able to use the non compliant trains, plenty of others still cannot use those which are PRM compliant. For example, the nature of my mum's disability means that sudden loud noises scare the crap out of her. The loud door release sound on some trains, e.g. Renatus class 321, would drive her loopy. Those with more quiet sounds like 377s would probably be fine. In reality she hasn't been on a train for 10 years.

There are still hundreds of platforms that are inaccessible that will cost billions to solve. Either the government needs to come up with those billions to address that or else it and the TOCs need to manage expectations.

 

[ComUtoR]

Is there a long distance railway anywhere in the world which has a wheelchair space and accessible toilet at every door?

I'm not saying every door. Just change our thinking and try a more inclusive approach. I'd also like to point out that train travel isn't just long distance journeys and that some units don't have toilets.

If that isn't what you meant, what sort of layout do you propose?

A modern example is a 700. An 8-Car unit has 3 toilets. One is 'accessible' and the other two are small cubicle types so this...

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it equates disabled with wheelchair user when in actual fact the majority of disabled people do not require a wheelchair and will not have one with them when travelling. Removing seating near to doors and accesible toilets makes travelling by train difficult for groups such as those with difficulties walking but who do not use a wheelchair as well as those with balance issues, people who are blind or partially sighted, and those who need to be able to access the toilet at the drop of a hat.

...is a good example of where there is an understanding that not every toilet needs to be of the accessible type and also understands that not everyone needs an accessible toilet.

Actually, motorized wheelchairs can take a large amount of space. Plus don't forget they need room to maneuver.

As @Bletchleyite wondered earlier upthread. You can take a 'standard' mobility scooter the length of a 707 as I know someone who tested it. Christ, I've seen kids ride a mountain bike up the aisle of a 700 !

All doors themselves are accessible (unless I'm mistaken) -

On some of the stock I drive there is a specific door that allows for the use of the ramp as it won't close automatically.

Designing a five-car unit with the only disabled space being in one end car sounds daft; Is there any practical reason why it could not have been in the centre coach, so that (obviously) it would always be in the same place no matter how the set was turned ?

5-Car with 2 doors per coach = 10 sets of doors. The problem here is that although the centre coach may always be in the same position when turned it still requires both sets of doors on that coach to always be accessible from the platform.

Plus short platforms would not be an issue either.

Following on from above. The short platform is a bit of a red herring. If a unit pulls up at a station there may not be space on the platform to allow access. If a platform isn't wide enough or there is some kind of infrastructure in the way then it doesn't matter if its door 1 or door 10. It really is much more complicated than lets just use the one in the middle.

Perhaps not at every single set of doors but you could have a space in each carriage. Wheelchairs don't take that much space.

This kind of thinking is where we need to be moving towards. How can we provide accessibility and inclusivitiy for all ? Is there a way to provide space along the length of a unit without compromising too much on overall capacity.

 

[Falcon1200]

5-Car with 2 doors per coach = 10 sets of doors. The problem here is that although the centre coach may always be in the same position when turned it still requires both sets of doors on that coach to always be accessible from the platform.

Following on from above. The short platform is a bit of a red herring. If a unit pulls up at a station there may not be space on the platform to allow access. If a platform isn't wide enough or there is some kind of infrastructure in the way then it doesn't matter if its door 1 or door 10. It really is much more complicated than lets just use the one in the middle.

I'm not sure that would really be an issue on most, if any, UK platforms; Are there really locations where building/platform width/structures prevents wheelchair access, and if so might that not apply to doors at positions 1, 5, 6 and 10 just as much as 3 and 8 ? At least accessible spaces in the centre coach would remove any doubt over their location !

 

[Horizon22]

I'm not sure that would really be an issue on most, if any, UK platforms; Are there really locations where building/platform width/structures prevents wheelchair access, and if so might that not apply to doors at positions 1, 5, 6 and 10 just as much as 3 and 8 ? At least accessible spaces in the centre coach would remove any doubt over their location !

Definitely - places where a road bridge goes over a platform and the pillar restricts access somewhat or various infrastructure that has been in places for decades and causes narrow gaps.

 

[skyhigh]

I'm not sure that would really be an issue on most, if any, UK platforms; Are there really locations where building/platform width/structures prevents wheelchair access, and if so might that not apply to doors at positions 1, 5, 6 and 10 just as much as 3 and 8 ? At least accessible spaces in the centre coach would remove any doubt over their location !

It absolutely can be an issue. I can think of several platforms on routes I sign where there are inconveniently placed waiting shelters/benches/TVMs/walls that block putting the ramp down. The nature of our stock means that the accessible space can be pretty much anywhere on the platform, although guard operation means it's relatively easy to arrange drawing forward just enough that the ramp can be put down without obstacle.

 

[Starmill]

To provide inadequate passenger assistance to a disabled person isn't simply a matter of customer service (although of course it is that too), it is a matter of law.

Assisting a disabled person into the wrong coach where they cannot then be assisted off at their destination station is clearly unjustly discriminating against them because of their disability. This is unlawful.