made some calls and got this heading down to fill in. Don’t thank me
They can apply... In my view it is unlikely that they will get it. Frankly if derogations are allowed (and in my view, given how long the railway industry has had to sort things out and failed abysmally, they should not be) there are more deserving causes eg TfWIt was a bit of a joke.
They'll just apply for a derogation to run the slam door HSTs for a while.
DfT will be very hesitant not least because they know very well that litigation would follow (not only from disability groups but also potentially those who have incurred significant expense to achieve the deadline). Let's be brutally honest, the rail industry has had over 10 years to address this but frankly just haven't bothered, presumably just expecting derrogations as of right. If there are no derrogations the TOCs will quite deservedly suffer financial penalties for breaking their franchise obligations..So perhaps TfW and others will also get a derogation.
If the choice is grant a derogation or force mass service curtailments whilst perfectly usable trains sit in sidings, I know which way the political pressure will be applied.
It's not as if there aren't solutions like ramps which mitigate the accessibility issues of older stock. Those don't suddenly cease to exist on some arbitrary date.
You keep banging on about those of reduced mobility - what about those with other disabilities who would be sold down the river?But ultimately it's the passengers who would suffer if there was no train at all - including those who are of reduced mobility.
Not suggesting derogations should be granted on an open-ended basis. But granting a derogation until such time as new of refurbished stock is available would be pragmatic.
That wouldn't prevent financial or other consequences for those who have failed to fulfill their obligations from being applied.
They can apply... In my view it is unlikely that they will get it. Frankly if derogations are allowed (and in my view, given how long the railway industry has had to sort things out and failed abysmally, they should not be) there are more deserving causes eg TfW
And the reason why it hasn’t been done? That’s because DfT haven’t authorised the work - it was told years ago what needed to be done and by when and has buried its head in the sand.DfT will be very hesitant not least because they know very well that litigation would follow (not only from disability groups but also potentially those who have incurred significant expense to achieve the deadline). Let's be brutally honest, the rail industry has had over 10 years to address this but frankly just haven't bothered, presumably just expecting derrogations as of right. If there are no derrogations the TOCs will quite deservedly suffer financial penalties for breaking their franchise obligations..
It turns out they were the wrong decision.
The correct decision would have been to order a batch of 20 seven-coach Hybrid 22x series in 2013 when project Thor was being mooted.
I disagree - there were plenty in the industry who thought it was crazy, and figured something like this would happen.
Nope. The last set was meant to be completed by next month, so we should have 26 sets - so far we have one. That's a pretty major failure.
But it's too late for that to happen now, unless they miraculously deliver 25 sets in a month.
They were a bad choice.
Going back to when Abellio was awarded the Scotrail franchise, how many of those options were actually available at the time? 800/801 had already been proposed, but the 802 hadn't - and I'd imagine that Scotrail services would need the extra oomph from the uprated engines. The Mk5, FLIRT and CAF DMUs are a much more recent developments.There are a number of options which it turned out may have been better, e.g. lok+Mk5, Class 800, Stadler FLIRT, CAF DMU or whatever.
Going back to when Abellio was awarded the Scotrail franchise, how many of those options were actually available at the time? 800/801 had already been proposed, but the 802 hadn't - and I'd imagine that Scotrail services would need the extra oomph from the uprated engines. The Mk5, FLIRT and CAF DMUs are a much more recent developments.
Going back to when Abellio was awarded the Scotrail franchise, how many of those options were actually available at the time? 800/801 had already been proposed, but the 802 hadn't - and I'd imagine that Scotrail services would need the extra oomph from the uprated engines. The Mk5, FLIRT and CAF DMUs are a much more recent developments.
Are they really suitable for the HML though? Mk5 maybe fine but the others look like modern 170’s to me.
Given that ScotRail are losing only 20 Class 170 sets (4 to Southern, 16 to Northern), and that the design is out of production, maybe you can explain your plan to cover the shortfall between 121 HST trailers and 60 170 cars.There's nothing wrong with 170s that a decent refurb, and reforming into longer sets, couldn't fix. All the other options available are prefectly decent trains too.
May as well just not bother with the deadline if everyone who it affects will get some sort of derogation...So perhaps TfW and others will also get a derogation.
Given that ScotRail are losing only 20 Class 170 sets (4 to Southern, 16 to Northern), and that the design is out of production, maybe you can explain your plan to cover the shortfall between 121 HST trailers and 60 170 cars.
Guess using the 442s and locos was also out of the question :P
Congratulations on not answering the question.Transport Scotland stated in the franchise specs that refurbed 170s were acceptable, so it may well have been possible to bid on the basis of keeping them.