Disabled? You can earn money for testing the railway.

[Peter Sarf]

Presumably because the trains they replaced had toilets?

The 456s ae a bit of a distraction in this thread. The 456s were oriiginally destined for South West division of the Southern region (i.e. Waterloo) but probably only to work with 455s which have no loos and themselves replaced 4-SUBs that had no loo. The 456s were delivered circe 1992 instead to the South Central division of the Southern region and worked with 455s there as well as on thier own in groups of 1, 2, 3 or 4 units !. This was to finish off the last of the 4-EPBs (that also never had loos). The 455s are similar units to 456s but 4 coaches long NO loo but have/had inter-unit gangway connections. The 456s are 2 coaches long but had NO inter-unit connections but had a loo instead at the start. I can only imagine the operators view was that 455s should get loos eventually. Nowadays the 456s have the loo locked out/removed AND the 455s have had their inter unit gangway connections removed on Southern TOC (fomerly South Central division of Southern region) not sure if the inter-unit gangways work on SW out of Waterloo. My view is that the loos on 456s ended up as a mistake - thats even if I would prefer a loo.

Why could the loos not be replaced someone asked ?. My guesses are the units were only two coaches long so an accessible loo would have taken up too many seats. Its worse on a single car class 153 btw so I reckon they will lose their loos even if they get formed back into 2 car units. Historically the routes the 456s have worked and will work never had loos anyway so its lack of progress really rather than a backward step.

A point I made earlier is what is best ?. Wheelchair accessible loos on trains OR subsidised taxis for wheelchair users. It depends on how many wheelchair users would potentially use either solution. I know I would prefer a taxi to a train. So what is the answer.

I would like to see things made as easy as possible for everybody. BUT I accept that transport has to maintain the mobility of the majority of the wealth creators for the country. I have more than once missed a train as it was so overcrowded I could not get on. Therefore I fear schemes that reduce the capacity of the service even further are never going to show disabled people in a good light. If we don't keep the majority of people moving then we will lose tax revenue to pay for the support for the less fortunate. Don't forget nothing is free in life (but I try my best).

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'm fairly confident that disabled people don't view these things as "unnecessary".

Do you think it is necessary that every station is upgraded right away?

 

[w0033944]

It seems I've missed quite a few interesting contributions since I posted!

455driver: I haven't got figures for you, I'm afraid, as I'm not in the rail industry and don't know the current budget for modifications to improve access. I'm not necessarily saying I think that budget should be increased, though I'd like it to be - what I am saying is that you seem to begrudge any spending to improve accessibility on the basis that you don't have many disabled people on your trains.

You, as a driver, have to know a great deal about the units you operate, but consider this; a disabled member of the public may not have the level of unit knowledge to realise that particular services are accessible, have suitable toilets etc., so they end-up avoiding trains completely. I did try, along with another member, to explain this to you, but you seem to have either failed to understand it or, more likely, ignored it. If the disabled public knew that they could buy a return ticket from point a to point b confident that both stations were accessible, that they could get on board without too much of a struggle, find somewhere to sit/park a wheelchair, and that they could access the toilets, I'm pretty confident that you'd see many more disabled people using the railways.

I'm slightly troubled by your obsession with not lifting a finger until someone can prove to you that the railways will profit from it. Of course, it would be unfair to suggest that NR, and by extension, the taxpayer, should cough-up on a mere whim, but I'm sure that there are studies somewhere in academic literature on disabled take-up rates once a line is made accessible, even if not from the UK. That said, I agree with orpine - your argument would suggest that, as lowered kerbs haven't made councils money, they should be scrapped. Extending this, none of the disability legislation since the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 has made the Government (or taxpayer) any money at all (quite the opposite, in fact), so why not scrap the whole thing? While we're at it, I, along with all other disabled people, receive Disability Living Allowance a (shock, horror) non-means-tested benefit! That costs the taxpayer, so scrap that as well.:roll:

In the end, the idea that no progress ought to be made on improving the lot of the approximately 11 million people with a disability in the UK (source: http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disability-statistics-and-research/disability-facts-and-figures.php) unless it repays every taxpayer penny leads, by means of reductio ad absurdum (which, before you say anything is a legitimate philosophical tool as described by Dan Dennett in New Scientist recently) to the conclusion that the workhouse was he best way of dealing with the disabled - feed them the cheapest food available, make them do whatever work they are capable of for no money, just board and lodgings, and bung them in a mass grave when they snuff it. It's an assertion which only the most rabid right-winger would make. In a civilised society, affordable measures to improve the lot of all citizens should be taken, if only because a decent percentage of disabled people are perfectly capable of contributing financially as taxpayers.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Not all disabilities are the same. Not all disabled people are confined to a wheel chair. So it is not an absolute that wheelchair accessibility is the only thing that helps disabled people. The main thing I would strive for is that everybody should feel they have a place in the world and be as useful as possible. Its just some people need more help than others but anyone who could be useful should not just be confined to the scrap heap. But I would go beyond any types of disability. Because of my age I can no longer get work so easily and because of the recession I have a yawning gap on my CV. That is age discrimination but of course there is race discrimination, sex discrimination etc. The important thing in my view is to be open minded about what people can do. But a balance has to be found as the tools required cannot be funded from a bottomless pit.

Life will never be fair but at least try to be less unfair.

This thread started as a request for paid volunteers to try things out btw.

 

[Flamingo]

I'm just thinking, in nearly ten years on the train I can only remember once seeing somebody in a wheelchair using the disabled access toilet. And they weren't genuine (but that's another story).

Mind you, I am surprised at the number of large stations served by intercity trains that have only recently acquired or still don't have lifts in place to allow easier transfer between platforms. Gloucester and Bridgend have both only recently got lifts, Chippenham, Port Talbot, Neath still don't and barrow crossings (when staff are on duty) are the means of access, which if a passenger is not in a wheelchair but has limited range are not very good.

 

[w0033944]

Not all disabilities are the same. Not all disabled people are confined to a wheel chair. So it is not an absolute that wheelchair accessibility is the only thing that helps disabled people.

Very good point.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Very good point.

Thanks.

I thought of another disability. It is a growing problem - senility. We are all living longer and our brains are not lasting. This leads me to broaden that to joints wearing out. My mum is 80 and her driving is easier than negotiating public transport. It has occurred to me that few of us die before we get disabled (means die prematurely).

Bit of a digression but talking of retirement age led me ages ago to realise we are heading for retirement being replaced by no "longer capable of working". Because the retirement age is being pushed later and later more and more people will reach incapacity before retirement age. As an office worker (otherwise active though) I can work longer so retire older than 65 BUT a builder does not really work at the age of 60 - too worn out. After all the retirement age was set at 65 for men when most men did not live that long !. So really pension schemes are under pressure ! thats what prompted my train of thought ages ago. My point for this thread is that most of us live long enough that we will confront some disability in ourselves. That should be a sobering thought.

We do need to cater for people who cannot cope with complexity. Actually it occurs to me that a number of passengers in their prime already find the railways too complex. You do have to be a bit of an expert to interpret or guess things. And as for the door handles on the outside only of Mark3 coache - too difficult for many inexperienced passengers. I can do it in my sleep BUT when my back hurts I am unable to reach the handle. Oh and try it with a rucksac on your back.

 

[orpine]

Do you think it is necessary that every station is upgraded right away?

No. But all new stations/refurbs/trains etc should.

I thought of another disability. It is a growing problem - senility.

I made the point of becoming old in my post, but yes, senility is one symptom. The complexity of the railway is self evident from the length of many threads on this very forum discussing valid/legel/allowed routes/options etc for a journey.

 

[thenorthern]

Is it only people with physical disabilities who can take part in this test or can people with conditions such as Aspbergers Syndrome take part in it as well?

 

[richw]

I travel regularly between two stations that both have fully accessible stations that are approx 7 miles apart and are both large main towns. Both are accessible on all platforms due to its location, both are ramped access to each platform having a car park on one side and the road on the other side of the track, the car park and up platforms being accesinle by level crossing at one station and the other a road bridge to access the down platform and car park . Travelling several times a week at varying times of the day, I have only seen pushchairs and people taking a shortcut using the ramps and accessible facilities at either station. Whilst I agree stations should be accessible, I don't feel it is economically sensible or logistical in current times to spend milions to make a platform accessible for so few people who require it.both stations have had accessable platforms for as long as I remember so its not like the disabled travellers are unaware of the facilities being new.

 

[Cheds]

Is it only people with physical disabilities who can take part in this test or can people with conditions such as Aspbergers Syndrome take part in it as well?

Hooray! We finally get a post or two (this and a post or two just above) which acknowledges that disability is not always physical. Accessible environments are not just about having lifts, but also small things like printing the text on tickets a bit bigger if a asked or bigger things like holding a train for a minute extra for an outing from a special school or similar to get on without being hassled (and yes, I have seen it). Getting rid of glass screens in front of staff so that they and the passenger can be heard without the microphones, departure boards with non fluorescent lighting which in a few cases can trigger fits and giving a bit of extra time for a late platform change etc are also worthwhile.
Often staff are good but the system in which they operate is not so good also.

But back to wheelchairs. I was on a train to Newcastle last week which had a wheelchair refuge at one end of the carriage and a guy was helped on by staff. So far, all good. The toilet is at he opposite end of the same carriage and the wheelchair can't get down the train. Anyone spot the lack of joined up thinking there?....

 

[CC 72100]

Is it only people with physical disabilities who can take part in this test or can people with conditions such as Aspbergers Syndrome take part in it as well?

I'd like to think so, otherwise we are in danger of labeling 'disability' as something which is solely physical, which it is not in a fair proportion of cases.

(Although it is often represented as a physical thing, with mental disabilities coming very second)

 

[thenorthern]

I'd like to think so, otherwise we are in danger of labeling 'disability' as something which is solely physical, which it is not in a fair proportion of cases.

(Although it is often represented as a physical thing, with mental disabilities coming very second)

Its so true, I know someone who had one leg who got less disability living allowance than someone with Aspbergers Syndrome, the person with one leg thought it was completely unfair but the bottom line was he could work and the person with Aspbergers couldn't.

 

[Flamingo]

Is it only people with physical disabilities who can take part in this test or can people with conditions such as Aspbergers Syndrome take part in it as well?

Once your initials are not P.Y.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its so true, I know someone who had one leg who got less disability living allowance than someone with Aspbergers Syndrome, the person with one leg thought it was completely unfair but the bottom line was he could work and the person with Aspbergers couldn't.

"I've got nothing against your right leg, the trouble is neither have you!"

(The late lamented Peter Cook)
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...rlTF5ek9u24isQnfQOAil9Q&bvm=bv.56146854,d.ZG4

 

[orpine]

Travelling several times a week at varying times of the day, I have only seen pushchairs and people taking a shortcut using the ramps and accessible facilities at either station. Whilst I agree stations should be accessible, I don't feel it is economically sensible or logistical in current times to spend milions to make a platform accessible for so few people who require it.

Two thoughts:
a) That may be because disabled people don't feel able to travel due. Society is quite exclusive of them.
b) If not economically/logistically feasible now, then when? There's always something else that the money could be put into.