Would there be potential for a legal challenge on accessibility in DOO areas?

[Bletchleyite]

Very sensible proposal however I wouldn't have a second person on board but instead demand extra station staff who are based along the route to help in an emergency as needed, plus provide visible customer support.

I think realistically there is potential for a legal challenge on the grounds of "turn up and go" accessibility unless you have at least one of:

1. Level boarding with gap bridges
2. An on board member of staff, who must be present, tasked with providing the ramp and assistance
3. A member of platform staff at every station where there is wheelchair access to the platforms, who must be present at a station for a train to call there, with the same role as (2)

However, other roles for those staff (e.g. whether they sell tickets, open/close doors, dispatch trains etc) aren't really relevant to this.

What do others think?

 

[Tester]

I think realistically there is potential for a legal challenge on the grounds of "turn up and go" accessibility unless you have at least one of:

1. Level boarding with gap bridges
2. An on board member of staff, who must be present, tasked with providing the ramp and assistance
3. A member of platform staff at every station where there is wheelchair access to the platforms, who must be present at a station for a train to call there, with the same role as (2)

However, other roles for those staff (e.g. whether they sell tickets, open/close doors, dispatch trains etc) aren't really relevant to this.

What do others think?

To ensure completeness, 2. should include the possibility that the on board member of staff is in fact the driver. Of course highly controversial, but utterly valid - carried out consistently (and cheerfully) in Melbourne, Australia.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To ensure completeness, 2. should include the possibility that the on board member of staff is in fact the driver. Of course highly controversial, but utterly valid - carried out consistently (and cheerfully) in Melbourne, Australia.

I think this would be viable on a rural 2-car DMU (or, say, the Stourbridge Shuttle, though that currently offers (1) i.e. level boarding with the gap bridged, plus a wasteful second member of staff who does very little) but not really an urban 12-car as delay would be too great.

 

[Tester]

I think this would be viable on a rural 2-car DMU (or, say, the Stourbridge Shuttle, though that currently offers (1) i.e. level boarding with the gap bridged, plus a wasteful second member of staff who does very little) but not really an urban 12-car as delay would be too great.

The train length is not in itself the decider, although there are plenty of other considerations. Melbourne works really well because the disabled boarding point is always adjacent to the driver.

 

[DanNCL]

There's definitely a legal question about accessibility in DOO areas, specifically around whether unstaffed stations being served by DOO trains without level boarding is compliant with the Equalities Act.

Only way to comply is to have a guard/OBS on every train, every station staffed, or level boarding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's definitely a legal question about accessibility in DOO areas, specifically around whether unstaffed stations being served by DOO trains without level boarding is compliant with the Equalities Act.

Only way to comply is to have a guard/OBS on every train, every station staffed, or level boarding.

It's of note that in pure numbers terms except for very frequent services the cheaper option is on-board staff. Using the Merseyrail Ormskirk Line as an example (I know that's going to be level boarding) you're on 13 staffed stations vs. 5 unit diagrams.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

There's definitely a legal question about accessibility in DOO areas, specifically around whether unstaffed stations being served by DOO trains without level boarding is compliant with the Equalities Act.

Only way to comply is to have a guard/OBS on every train, every station staffed, or level boarding.

Or as outlined in the posts above have the wheelchair boarding area immediately behind the driver with the driver assisting.

 

[HSTEd]

It's of note that in pure numbers terms except for very frequent services the cheaper option is on-board staff. Using the Merseyrail Ormskirk Line as an example (I know that's going to be level boarding) you're on 13 staffed stations vs. 5 unit diagrams.

On the Ormskirk line the cheap option will be Harrington Hump style conversion to level boarding given the lack of any other rolling stock passing

Also the Equalities Act requires reasonable adjustment, not an absolute requirement. Paying thousands of staff to stand around for a tiny number of passengers is unlikely to be a reasonable adjustment

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the Ormskirk line the cheap option will be Harrington Hump style conversion to level boarding given the lack of any other rolling stock passing

It was an illustrative example of how staff on board are way cheaper than station staff except for very frequent services. It's actually being achieved with Stadlers.

Also the Equalities Act requires reasonable adjustment, not an absolute requirement. Paying thousands of staff to stand around for a tiny number of passengers is unlikely to be a reasonable adjustment

No, but 5 OBSs is probably more reasonable on a 4tph metro service, particularly if they can do other things that pay for their cost e.g. revenue.

 

[Simon11]

Thinking logically, it would be far cheaper if the railways just paid and provided a taxi for anyone who requires extra assistance door to door. The passengers have a quicker journey and the railways can save a considerable sum in the process.

 

[Dai Corner]

Thinking logically, it would be far cheaper if the railways just paid and provided a taxi for anyone who requires extra assistance door to door. The passengers have a quicker journey and the railways can save a considerable sum in the process.

Yes, but the campaigners want anyone requiring assistance to be able to turn up at any station at any time trains are running and make any journey.

 

[crablab]

...it would be far cheaper if the railways just paid and provided a taxi for anyone who requires extra assistance door to door. The passengers have a quicker journey and the railways can save a considerable sum in the process.

Leaving aside the societal impact of effectively making an entire section of the population* unwelcome on the railways, do you have any costed evidence for your assertion about savings?

Yes, but the campaigners want anyone requiring assistance to be able to turn up at any station at any time trains are running and make any journey.

That is what the Equality Act requires, yes, for the railway company to make reasonable adjustments to make this possible.

Why shouldn't a disabled person expect this? They have protection in law from discrimination based on their disability which is designed to ensure they have the same access as any other passengers; to level the playing field caused by their disability.

I imagine a claim for discrimination would follow if the railway company refused to offer a reasonable adjustment (for example) past 10pm on the network, because it was "operationally inconvenient".

---

* That is 1 in 5 people: https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...rvey-financial-year-2020-to-2021#disability-1

 

[Dai Corner]

Leaving aside the societal impact of effectively making an entire section of the population unwelcome on the railways, do you have any costed evidence for your assertion about savings?


That is what the Equality Act requires, yes, for the railway company to make reasonable adjustments to make this possible.

Why shouldn't a disabled person expect this? They have protection in law from discrimination based on their disability which is designed to ensure they have the same access as any other passengers; to level the playing field caused by their disability.

I imagine a claim for discrimination would follow if the railway company refused to offer a reasonable adjustment (for example) past 10pm on the network, because it was "operationally inconvenient".

The requirement is for the passenger to be conveyed from one station to another. Does it have to be by train?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but the campaigners want anyone requiring assistance to be able to turn up at any station at any time trains are running and make any journey.

Which a civilised society should surely aim for, shouldn't it?

 

[HSTEd]

Why shouldn't a disabled person expect this? They have protection in law from discrimination based on their disability which is designed to ensure they have the same access as any other passengers; to level the playing field caused by their disability.

I imagine a claim for discrimination would follow if the railway company refused to offer a reasonable adjustment (for example) past 10pm on the network, because it was "operationally inconvenient".

Because it would cost astronomical quantities of money.

Providing staff on every train would end up costing insane sums of money.
There are already 7000+ guards, with a substantial fraction of the entire rail system already operating without them, paying for ten thousand or more staff indefinitely could easily cost half a billion pounds or more, fully burdened, each and every year.

And 1 in 5 might be nominally disabled, but are they disabled to the point of needing assistance to board a train?

If this policy was actually implemented, in reality it would mean hundreds of station closures.

 

[crablab]

And 1 in 5 might be nominally disabled, but are they disabled to the point of needing assistance to board a train?

If you look at the data I have linked to, you will note a breakdown of disabilities by category which should enable you to calculate that.

Quoting directly:

Among disabled working-age adults, the impairments reported most frequently were mental health and mobility (in both cases, by 42% of this group).

For those disabled and over State Pension age, 63% reported mobility as one of their impairments. Stamina (or breathing or fatigue) were reported by 38% and only nine per cent of this group reported a mental health impairment.

Because it would cost astronomical quantities of money.

Providing staff on every train would end up costing insane sums of money.

This is referring to one solution when you're asserting this, rather than any of the others proposed by @Bletchleyite or indeed alternatives that weren't considered in his post.

This also fails to take into account costs that would fall on other services as a result of failing to provide reasonable adjustments across the network - for example, a person losing their independence and requiring increased levels of care and support.

And most importantly, I feel you fail to acknowledge the deep impact on an individuals' dignity, livelihood and ability to live a full and independent life. These all come with monetary as well as societal costs, and a good analogy is the significant reduction in preventive public services that then increase pressure on other organisations, for example the NHS. David Haslam's book explores this in more detail:https://www.waterstones.com/book/side-effects/david-haslam/9781786495365

In any case, there is a legal duty for the railway to provide reasonable adjustments and that, I hope, is not in dispute. The question should be what is the most efficient and appropriate way of providing that reasonable adjustment for the passenger, in a way that is not demeaning or removes their ability to access services as anyone else would.

---

As an aside, you also might want to reflect on your use of "insane" as a pejorative in a discussion about disabilities.

 

[HSTEd]

If you look at the data I have linked to, you will note a breakdown of disabilities by category which should enable you to calculate that.

Having a mobility disability does not necessarily mean they are incapable of boarding a train without assistance.

In either case, there is a legal duty for the railway to provide reasonable adjustments and that, I hope, is not in dispute. The question should be what is the most efficient and appropriate way of providing that reasonable adjustment for the passenger, in a way that is not demeaning or removes their ability to access services as anyone else would.

You must also consider whether a reasonable adjustment is actually possible.
I do not believe it is at this time.

"Reasonable adjustment" means just that, it is not a blank cheque to demand unlimited expenditure.

Trying to force universal disability assistance is likely to simply lead to the closure of hundreds of stations

 

[Dai Corner]

In either case, there is a legal duty for the railway to provide reasonable adjustments and that, I hope, is not in dispute. The question should be what is the most efficient and appropriate way of providing that reasonable adjustment for the passenger, in a way that is not demeaning or removes their ability to access services as anyone else would.

For the avoidance of doubt, is the service being provided conveyance from Station A to Station B (almost certainly as part of a longer journey from actual origin to actual destination) or a ride on a train?

 

[py_megapixel]

It misses the point a bit to say that just calling a taxi for disabled people is a simpler/cheaper solution (which may or may not be true on paper), because that is not really in the spirit of equality. If you wanted to be sure you could travel at a particular time, you would have to book the taxi in advance for that time, which removes the flexibility that most of us take for granted. (You only have to look through the threads from Covid times about compulsory reservation policies to see how hated that sort of thing is by many people).

The main problem, though, is simply that it is really quite unpleasant and disheartening to feel that you constantly need assistance or special arrangements to do what others can do independently.

Even if we ignore all of that, there are practical concerns too. A lot of people use trains for journeys which are several hours long, but how many taxis have a toilet? What if someone wants to travel as part of a large group - are you going to book them a minibus? Are there actually enough taxis in the right places, or would TOCs have to run fleets of them?

You must also consider whether a reasonable adjustment is actually possible.
I do not believe it is at this time.

I think if a shiny new fleet of regional or metro trains is being specified, then in 2022, it is reasonable to expect that they be equipped to offer level boarding (i.e. by means of low floors and sliding steps). This isn't some kind of new experimental technology - it's been common for continental operators' new train orders for years now.

 

[HSTEd]

I think if a shiny new fleet of regional or metro trains is being specified, then in 2022, it is reasonable to expect that they be equipped to offer level boarding (i.e. by means of low floors and sliding steps). This isn't some kind of new experimental technology - it's been common for continental operators' new train orders for years now.

Unfortunately currently only one manufacturer currently provides such capability in the UK market, although they do appear to have got a large share of the Regional market at this time. (Stadler)

But there are sixteen thousand passenger rail vehicles in service, replacing them all with level boarding vehicles would cost £20bn or more. And in the case of HS2 will be impossible because they've decided to abandon the UK standard platform height.

 

[lachlan]

The requirement is for the passenger to be conveyed from one station to another. Does it have to be by train?

That should be the aim, so disabled people can have a turn up and go service like everyone else. Taxis need pre-booking, or there may be none available, and in some areas may be slower than the train.

 

[etr221]

Unfortunately currently only one manufacturer currently provides such capability in the UK market, although they do appear to have got a large share of the Regional market at this time. (Stadler)

But there are sixteen thousand passenger rail vehicles in service, replacing them all with level boarding vehicles would cost £20bn or more. And in the case of HS2 will be impossible because they've decided to abandon the UK standard platform height.

If it was specified, I'm sure manufacturers would change their offerings to to provide. And AIUI the current LU S-stock fleet - which does have UK standard platform height floors - is part of Alsthom's Electrostar offering, so surely other Electrostar customers could have specified the same for their fleets?

And it is not just HS2 which has caused abandoned the UK standard platform height: the Elizabeth Line has done the same - so on it, no trouble on the new core from Abbey Wood to Paddington, fully level boarding, but beyond, what is to be done? (in the long as well as the short term)

One cannot help feeling that Merseyrail had the right idea: there is a standard platform height laid down, change stations to have it where needed, and our new trains have to match it... and job done.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The HS2 decision utterly beggars belief, as it is impossible to have level boarding at both classic and HS platforms, you have to pick one.

 

[HSTEd]

The HS2 decision utterly beggars belief, as it is impossible to have level boarding at both classic and HS platforms, you have to pick one.

Especially considering they got into a legal fight with the EU over it, trying to obtain a derogation from the TSIs.

Which they had no chance of getting and had to be rescued by Brexit.

 

[Chester1]

OBS rostered onto every DOO service is the obvious solution. If they miss their connection or are off ill and the train runs without them then the disabled person can be transported by taxis or wait for next service. I am a fan of the OBS role because I think customer service aspect and revenue collection are important. It would also make it easier to make all rail services DOO over the long term. Considering the huge size of Cross Rail and Thameslink having an OBS rostered onto each service would not be a huge cost relative to each passenger.

 

[alf]

As stated earlier the simplest & most economic solution is the Melbourne & Adelaide one.
Wheelchairs users wait in line with the first coach.

I watched an Adelaide driver efficintly help a person on & at another station help another off.

At the country terminus I asked him if he minded doing it. He said his sister’s daughter(his niece) was disabled & he enjoyed helping. He added it was a pleasant & welcome break from staring ahead most of the time.
That would be the attitude of most decent DOO train drivers.

The best solution though is as per the Liz line in central London & the new driverless staffless trains in Sydney... platforms & trains at the same height, no help needed.

 

[30907]

Has there been such a legal challenge in existing "pure DOO" areas, or is every accessible station also fully staffed as per option 3?

 

[PTR 444]

The requirement is for the passenger to be conveyed from one station to another. Does it have to be by train?

A possible requirement might be that the disabled passenger would like to travel with a large group of friends. This wouldn’t be possible with a taxi.

 

[Dai Corner]

A possible requirement might be that the disabled passenger would like to travel with a large group of friends. This wouldn’t be possible with a taxi.

Wouldn't the friends be able to assist him/her?

 

[RT4038]

A possible requirement might be that the disabled passenger would like to travel with a large group of friends. This wouldn’t be possible with a taxi.

The words 'reasonable adjustment' spring to mind.