When rail travel for disabled people goes wrong

[aleph_0]

Now if you want to believe that systems that rely on technology are better than using than the old 'dog and bone', respectfully, I disagree.

It sounds like the dog and bone beats the current computer system because the current computer system isn't very good (my understanding is that an operator, who might not understand or be able to find out the constraints of a station can log a request which might, or might not be possible to satisfy, possibly using ambiguous language, which then gets faxed(!)/e-mailed to the station, which is then used to organise assitance requests).

Theoretically, a more joined up system could be much better. It could help optimise the route choices (don't change at X, change cross-platform at Y), and do useful things like validation to make sure requests are readable and possible (and give meaningful reasons if they aren't), help with the allocation of assistance jobs at large stations, new requests could be added and quickly allocated, no-shows or extra information could be reported by staff at initial station/guards to help those further down the line. There could be a decent feedback system so any impossible requests are reviewed and the validation system changed.

But I do agree, the strength of people with local knowledge and being able to just directly contact the person at the other end, shouldn't be underestimated. A computer system needs to be designed to complement and make use of this knowledge.

 

[Urban Gateline]

TUC - as far as I know, stations can access the database. Or at least my station can, so I can see no reason why others can't.
We extract all the relevant information, transfer it onto a spreadsheet and print that for the staff that are doing assistance.

At LM, ours comes at 02:00 as an e-mail with all that days' booked assistances on it with all the details and in order of train time. We just print that off and have a copy for each platform and normally mark the train headcode and platform number next to each assist and highlight train time and the type of assistance.

 

[TUC]

TUC - as far as I know, stations can access the database. Or at least my station can, so I can see no reason why others can't.
We extract all the relevant information, transfer it onto a spreadsheet and print that for the staff that are doing assistance.

Can a station manipulate their information i.e. sort it into the sorts of lists I mentioned above of wheelchair users etc. (or whatever would be most useful for a station on a given day) or can it only be printed out 'as is'?

 

[EM2]

Urban Gateline - We used to do that, but as we can get up to twenty pages on the email (more at Christmas), we found the spreadsheet much easier.

 

[TUC]

From the responses at http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1686168#post1686168 it seems to vary whether the list is faxed or emailed.

 

[EM2]

Can a station manipulate their information i.e. sort it into the sorts of lists I mentioned above of wheelchair users etc. (or whatever would be most useful for a station on a given day) or can it only be printed out 'as is'?

I've never tried, but it's exportable as an Excel file, so I'm sure it could be done.

 

[LowLevel]

It sounds like the dog and bone beats the current computer system because the current computer system isn't very good (my understanding is that an operator, who might not understand or be able to find out the constraints of a station can log a request which might, or might not be possible to satisfy, possibly using ambiguous language, which then gets faxed(!)/e-mailed to the station, which is then used to organise assitance requests).

Theoretically, a more joined up system could be much better. It could help optimise the route choices (don't change at X, change cross-platform at Y), and do useful things like validation to make sure requests are readable and possible (and give meaningful reasons if they aren't), help with the allocation of assistance jobs at large stations, new requests could be added and quickly allocated, no-shows or extra information could be reported by staff at initial station/guards to help those further down the line. There could be a decent feedback system so any impossible requests are reviewed and the validation system changed.

But I do agree, the strength of people with local knowledge and being able to just directly contact the person at the other end, shouldn't be underestimated. A computer system needs to be designed to complement and make use of this knowledge.

Any half decent member of staff will phone the destination or interchange after boarding to confirm travel, the specific help needed and any variations on the booking ie different seating anyway.

And to the person who reckoned the assistance system being required was a failing in itself I totally disagree - wheelchair accessibility is one thing but you'll never design a station that will remove for example passengers with physiological conditions that means they can't carry their bags any distance at all, or lift them into a luggage rack etc, or that will be satisfactory for a totally blind person who is not familiar with it. No matter what there will always be the need for passenger assistance at Intercity style stations at the very least.

 

[infobleep]

I don't think it's appropriate for the system to fail 21% of the time, keeping in mind that people requiring assistance in the first place is already a failure.

Imagine if the majority of people who don't rely on assistance were given equivalent treatment, with 21% of trains arbitrarily running past stations or doors not opening. The mob would be at the gates in no time.

But to be fair to rail companies, the system is better than it has ever been and they are always looking to improve it, as the Rail Delivery Group said. I think things can only get better. It will take time though. Hopefully not years and years though.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[hounddog]

There is also one LM route where Platform staff are sent onboard the train with a ramp to help with any booked wheelchair assistances as the conductors refuse to do it and stations on that line are unstaffed...

That, if true, is quite simply unacceptable. Would the same conductors refuse to help a disabled passenger in an emergency

 

[Blindtraveler]

I woant name the route in question but I have used it if it is the 1 im thinking of and there is clearly a bit of a devide between train and station staff and yes as you said stations not staffed. It is certainly a bit last century.

As a user of the system, I get the idea that, rather than the designers of Passenger Assist put it together by people who think they know what staff and customers need, rather than asking them first!↲

 

[Muzer]

This is a massive problem, and rather unsurprising given what I've heard about how it tends to work (I've heard of it being written down on post-it notes...)

What is needed is a good system that (as others have said) knows the disabled access for each platform and which platforms the trains can use in normal situations, and refuses to book (eg) a wheelchair user on a platform only accessible by stairs. It would also know the hours the station is staffed (this is surely easy data for the industry to get hold of, since it's on NRE) and refuse to book assistance out of hours. The crucial thing is it then needs to be available in a manner fit for this century in each station - a well-written piece of software with a good user interface that you can use to print out a nicely-formatted list of trains for which assistance has been booked, or be viewed on the computer system by all station staff, or set alarms of some sort shortly before the trains are due to arrive (if the staff in question would normally be working near the computer, though I'm not sure how useful this could be). You could even have a mobile app, if station staff are likely to have smartphones, so they wouldn't need to have to be near a computer to hear the alerts.

Another question is, with stations that have multiple platforms, some of which are accessible and some aren't, can it be guaranteed that a train will arrive on an accessible one? Presumably we currently don't have any framework to notify the signaller that the train must stop at an accessible platform. Is this worth having or would it be too much effort for not many stations/cause too much disruption?

 

[IanD]

As a user of the system, I get the idea that, rather than the designers of Passenger Assist put it together by people who think they know what staff and customers need, rather than asking them first!↲

It's more likely that the system was designed to a specification gained from long, drawn-out consultation with the managers and a 'representative focus group' of passengers. No system is ever going to provide 100% of what every single user needs (or rather desires) - there always has to be some compromises so that it meets the genuine needs of the majority of end users.

I wonder how may times Ms Thompson tweets when the system doesn't fail her. Most so-called public failures are judged by the vociferous minority rather than the silent majority.

 

[Muzer]

It's more likely that the system was designed to a specification gained from long, drawn-out consultation with the managers and a 'representative focus group' of passengers. No system is ever going to provide 100% of what every single user needs (or rather desires) - there always has to be some compromises so that it meets the genuine needs of the majority of end users.

I wonder how may times Ms Thompson tweets when the system doesn't fail her. Most so-called public failures are judged by the vociferous minority rather than the silent majority.

...a 20% failure rate demonstrates that the system *doesn't work*. I can't believe you're defending a system with a 20% failure rate.

(Assuming the methodology of the research was good, of course).

 

[Moonshot]

At last ...... a thread on a subject which is a genuine issue in the industry as opposed to the usual waffle on this forum.

The whole topic of wheelchair access to the rail network is littered with genuine physical barriers which are not easily solved in some cases. Some members on this thread have highlighted a number of issues which the likes of myself as a conductor actually face on a regular basis......indeed I had to use some common sense only yesterday when running a very full train into Manchester with wheelchair passengers onboard.

 

[Wyvern]

Just a couple of words on the periphery of the topic - It is possible for anyone including the public to discover the accessibility of any national station using the "Stations Made Easy" facility on the National Rail Enquiries website.

Similarly LUL has information on stations with stepless access.

However - Is there any way one can tell on the day which way round a train will arrive? I can wait near where the country end is likely to stop. However if this turns out be First Class, given that EMT insists on me folding my scooter, to go right to the other end of a Class 222 would be almost impossible, especially as the train would have to wait for me.

The other question I am having to hope for the best on is, given the lift is out of action at Waterloo, whether I can exit the Underground on my national rail ticket, at Westminster or Southwark.

 

[transmanche]

The other question I am having to hope for the best on is, given the lift is out of action at Waterloo, whether I can exit the Underground on my national rail ticket, at Westminster or Southwark.

What's the journey you're making?

 

[Wyvern]

On the LUL? Kings Cross STP to Waterloo via Green Park. There is usually a lift from the Jubillee Line at Waterloo, but is out of use for a couple of months. LUL suggest getting out at Southwark and trundling back by pavement. I've emailed them to ask if the normal national rail ticket transit arrangement will be acceptable but not had a reply.

 

[infobleep]

On the LUL? Kings Cross STP to Waterloo via Green Park. There is usually a lift from the Jubillee Line at Waterloo, but is out of use for a couple of months. LUL suggest getting out at Southwark and trundling back by pavement. I've emailed them to ask if the normal national rail ticket transit arrangement will be acceptable but not had a reply.

You probably won't get a reply or if you do, it will be shortly after it can no longer be a problem because the lift has reopened. I'm being cynical here so perhaps I'm wrong.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[transmanche]

On the LUL? Kings Cross STP to Waterloo via Green Park. There is usually a lift from the Jubillee Line at Waterloo, but is out of use for a couple of months. LUL suggest getting out at Southwark and trundling back by pavement. I've emailed them to ask if the normal national rail ticket transit arrangement will be acceptable but not had a reply.

Yes, Southwark is a valid interchange station for NR tickets marked with a Maltese Cross - it's linked directly into Waterloo East.

NB if you're not aware, the interchange between Piccadilly and Jubilee at Green Park is shorter than between Victoria and Jubilee (220m v 380m). Although of course the Piccadilly line is slower.

 

[Wyvern]

Many thanks.

 

[IanD]

...a 20% failure rate demonstrates that the system *doesn't work*. I can't believe you're defending a system with a 20% failure rate.

(Assuming the methodology of the research was good, of course).

I'm saying if the system doesn't work it is the fault of the people who specify the system not of the people who build it to that specification. Those who build it don't just think (as Blindtraveler suspects) - "Hey, we'll just do this and hope it's what people want." I'm also saying that often the problem is that the people specifying a system aren't necessarily those on the ground who actually have to work with it.

And in the case where Tanni Grey-Thomson was left on the train at King's Cross it was reported that the problem was that the train was severely delayed and the staff who knew she required assistance had simply gone home at the end of their shift and forgotten to pass the information on. Those who took over hadn't checked the system to see if anyone on the delayed service required assistance. That's more a staff training issue rather than the system not working.

 

[Muzer]

Ah, sorry. I was under the impression that you were saying that it was specified well but with necessary compromises - after rereading your post, I can see what you actually meant.

A good system would also include staff training to ensure they actually use it

 

[DownSouth]

I'm saying if the system doesn't work it is the fault of the people who specify the system not of the people who build it to that specification. Those who build it don't just think (as Blindtraveler suspects) - "Hey, we'll just do this and hope it's what people want." I'm also saying that often the problem is that the people specifying a system aren't necessarily those on the ground who actually have to work with it.

And in the case where Tanni Grey-Thomson was left on the train at King's Cross it was reported that the problem was that the train was severely delayed and the staff who knew she required assistance had simply gone home at the end of their shift and forgotten to pass the information on. Those who took over hadn't checked the system to see if anyone on the delayed service required assistance. That's more a staff training issue rather than the system not working.

That's a poor excuse - in any service industry (which a railway is, even if they refuse to believe it) the staff are just as much an integral part of the system as anything else. It sounds like the system allowed the outgoing shift to go home without all their tasks being marked off as either fully resolved or properly handed on (that's a single point of failure) and also the incoming shift was allowed to start without any mechanisms to make sure they had checked for outstanding tasks which should have been either resolved or handed on but were not (another single point of failure). A system with two single points of failure instead of redundancy is as broken a system as you could possibly get.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I should maybe appologise to any in this thread ( I suspect
IanD)
who I
may
have offended. Not intended. I was really rather happy when Passenger Assist was born, meaning all TOCs used the same thing for everyone, making it a lot easier. Now we've had it for a bit and the problems, be they old or new are clear to everyone, lets get the foalk who work with it - Station Assistants, Traincrew, Ticket Office and Callcentre staff and most important, passengers round a table to iron a few basics out? There aint no place for suits here!↲

 

[transmanche]

That's a poor excuse - in any service industry (which a railway is, even if they refuse to believe it) the staff are just as much an integral part of the system as anything else. It sounds like the system allowed the outgoing shift to go home without all their tasks being marked off as either fully resolved or properly handed on (that's a single point of failure) and also the incoming shift was allowed to start without any mechanisms to make sure they had checked for outstanding tasks which should have been either resolved or handed on but were not (another single point of failure). A system with two single points of failure instead of redundancy is as broken a system as you could possibly get.

^ This.

Imagine the same scenario in a maintenance depot undertaking a safety-critical repair task on a unit. If the system of work allowed one shift to leave that task incomplete without ensuring the next shift completed it before the train went into service, it would be obvious that the system is broken and not fit for purpose. The same principle holds true for passenger assistance.

 

[IanD]

^ This.

Imagine the same scenario in a maintenance depot undertaking a safety-critical repair task on a unit. If the system of work allowed one shift to leave that task incomplete without ensuring the next shift completed it before the train went into service, it would be obvious that the system is broken and not fit for purpose. The same principle holds true for passenger assistance.

Those systems have been developed over years and I'm sure passenger assist will develop into a much more robust system if (as Blindtraveler suggests) everyone gets around the table rather than just writing it off.

 

[transmanche]

Those systems have been developed over years and I'm sure passenger assist will develop into a much more robust system if (as Blindtraveler suggests) everyone gets around the table rather than just writing it off.

Exactly.

What is probably needs is to have a person accountable for it; who can learn best practice from the systems discussed above - and from best practice from similar industries (e.g. airports, etc.)

 

[jon0844]

^ This.

Imagine the same scenario in a maintenance depot undertaking a safety-critical repair task on a unit. If the system of work allowed one shift to leave that task incomplete without ensuring the next shift completed it before the train went into service, it would be obvious that the system is broken and not fit for purpose. The same principle holds true for passenger assistance.

I suspect too many people don't see it as that important. It's not 'mission critical' like maintenance, and we've seen people on this forum mentioning things like 2020 shouldn't see trains taken out of service for not complying with new regulations (saying the time limit should be extended), train announcements are annoying and why can't we have silence, and many more things that may not be said because that person doesn't care, but rather hasn't thought about the impact on people who need information and assistance.

There's a mindset that needs to be changed, so that it does become as important as other things.

I always say that I might not need assistance today, and have good eyesight and hearing, but that's today. It might all change tomorrow, and all of us are likely to need some form of assistance at some point in our lives - whether temporarily due to illness or an accident, or something more permanent as we get older.

I haven't been to every country in Europe, but I have been to a significant amount of western Europe and I would say that I can see why we're at the top because, by and large, we are doing what we can to make things better for those who need assistance. Making stations more accessible, given the age of the tube network and our railway, isn't ever going to be easy or quick - but we're slowly doing it and that's to be commended.

I also think that at any staffed station, you'll find staff are keen to help people in need of some assistance.

You only need to go to some other countries to see how bad it is just getting into some buildings, to see that we've been ahead on that too for some time. Indeed, our house (built in 2003) has level access at the front door, a larger door for the downstairs WC and the light switches and sockets have been moved too.

Some people might think it's all OTT but it's vital. And it should also be the case that people can get the assistance they need at both ends of their journey, with a view to one day making it easier for people to get on and off trains, as well as in and out of stations, without needing assistance at all.

Yes it will cost a fortune, but we'll ALL benefit one day.

 

[w0033944]

I always say that I might not need assistance today, and have good eyesight and hearing, but that's today. It might all change tomorrow, and all of us are likely to need some form of assistance at some point in our lives - whether temporarily due to illness or an accident, or something more permanent as we get older.

Absolutely - from my position (disabled since birth), I often find myself shaking my head when able-bodied people seek to deny sensible requests for adaptation, changes etc. or who complain about disabled parking spaces and the like. If, heaven forbid, something were to happen to them or their loved ones, they'd realise that the things they used to moan about or resent suddenly become very important to them. None of us is immune from events which may cause some form of reduced ability, even if it is mild.

 

[Wyvern]

Having been making enquiries in preparation for my trip next weekend, there is one basic principle that stands out, particularly in regard to booking assistance and asking for bus travel "mentors" and so on.

Disabled people dont want folk doing things for them, if possible. They want the facilities to be able to do things for themselves.