East Midlands franchise won by Abellio

[cactustwirly]

And that's why the country's gone looney tunes.

Why do you have an issue? It's what the law says, that all vehicles operating must comlco with PRM-TSI to operate after December 2019...
It's also right that blind, partially sighted and deaf people, and people with other disabilities can use our railways!

 

[bunnahabhain]

You may find that honour goes to the route/from Peterborough via Stamford. It only sees 3 EMT services a day between Stamford and Peterborough (not Saturdays or Sundays).

1L01 and 1L02 are SuX, they're rather busy trains at the Peterborough end, 1L02 usually loads quite well throughout. Personally I'd quite like to see a balancing later service, maybe one of the missing services back from Norwich (1957/2057) ought to return via Loughborough.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Nope, 153s will need to be PRM compliant or have a derogation

Why is that, if they are never going to form trains on their own?

 

[Domh245]

Why is that, if they are never going to form trains on their own?

There is more to PRM than wheelchair accessible toilets. All vehicles should be accessible in the sense of AudioVisual announcements, door sounders, grab rails, etc - these modifications would have to be done to any & all vehicles in use. You can't really get away with saying "anyone with accessibility issues must go in this part of the train" especially when so many issues are hidden

 

[yorksrob]

Why do you have an issue? It's what the law says, that all vehicles operating must comlco with PRM-TSI to operate after December 2019...
It's also right that blind, partially sighted and deaf people, and people with other disabilities can use our railways!

I have an issue with replacing serviceable rolling stock with trains with poor reliability - particularly when those who are supposed to benefit from these regulations will no doubt have been successfully using HST's for donkeys years anyway. Will they feel advantaged, I wonder, when their train is cancelled at short notice every week, as is the case with Hull trains, or when one turns up where previously an 8 carriage HST was the norm ?

The Midland Mainline is due to get a fleet of brand new trains in 2022. That is the time to build these innovations in. Scrabbling around to find broken down trains before then, is a pointless box ticking exercise which does nothing, other than make a gesture towards an arbitrary deadline.

With regard to 153's, there is absolutely no good reason why they can't be permanently coupled with compliant units or coupled together and made compliant. We need more 3 carriage units anyway to cope with demand.

 

[Wolfie]

I have an issue with replacing serviceable rolling stock with trains with poor reliability - particularly when those who are supposed to benefit from these regulations will no doubt have been successfully using HST's for donkeys years anyway. Will they feel advantaged, I wonder, when their train is cancelled at short notice every week, as is the case with Hull trains, or when one turns up where previously an 8 carriage HST was the norm ?

The Midland Mainline is due to get a fleet of brand new trains in 2022. That is the time to build these innovations in. Scrabbling around to find broken down trains before then, is a pointless box ticking exercise which does nothing, other than make a gesture towards an arbitrary deadline.

With regard to 153's, there is absolutely no good reason why they can't be permanently coupled with compliant units or coupled together and made compliant. We need more 3 carriage units anyway to cope with demand.

Firstly, the railway industry had a decade or more to achieve legal compliance. I have zero sympathy for those areas which have failed.
Secondly, any company which has achieved compliance, likely at serious cost, could and should be unhappy about any such derogation. They might even contemplate litigation against DfT in such circumstances as they will have been financially and commercially disadvantaged.

 

[yorksrob]

Firstly, the railway industry had a decade or more to achieve legal compliance. I have zero sympathy for those areas which have failed.
Secondly, any company which has achieved compliance, likely at serious cost, could and should be unhappy about any such derogation. They might even contemplate litigation against DfT in such circumstances as they will have been financially and commercially disadvantaged.

Without getting into whether one believes in the commercial merry-go-round of the privatised railway in the first place, there are good reasons why EMT is stuck with non-compliant HST's and 153's. Namely:

1) The DfT changing its mind on electrification half way through, meaning a lackof certainty on getting new rolling stock until late in the day.

2) 153's being impractical to make fully compliant and the overall lack of DMU's compared to demand because in the past, Governments bizzarrely thought we wouldn't need any more.

 

[cactustwirly]

I have an issue with replacing serviceable rolling stock with trains with poor reliability - particularly when those who are supposed to benefit from these regulations will no doubt have been successfully using HST's for donkeys years anyway. Will they feel advantaged, I wonder, when their train is cancelled at short notice every week, as is the case with Hull trains, or when one turns up where previously an 8 carriage HST was the norm ?

The Midland Mainline is due to get a fleet of brand new trains in 2022. That is the time to build these innovations in. Scrabbling around to find broken down trains before then, is a pointless box ticking exercise which does nothing, other than make a gesture towards an arbitrary deadline.

With regard to 153's, there is absolutely no good reason why they can't be permanently coupled with compliant units or coupled together and made compliant. We need more 3 carriage units anyway to cope with demand.

You're making mountains out of molehills! The only HSTs that are being replaced by 180s are the exGC mini sets, which are in a poor condition, and aren't exactly that reliable themselves.
The 180s have a very similar seating capacity to these!

The 153s are only fit for the scrapheap! They have no place on a 21st century railway!
The carriages themselves will need modifications such as new door sounders, wheelchair spaces, grab rails and an internal and external PIS, if they are to continue past 2019, which a RoSCo is very unlikely to fund

 

[geoffk]

I have an issue with replacing serviceable rolling stock with trains with poor reliability - particularly when those who are supposed to benefit from these regulations will no doubt have been successfully using HST's for donkeys years anyway. Will they feel advantaged, I wonder, when their train is cancelled at short notice every week, as is the case with Hull trains, or when one turns up where previously an 8 carriage HST was the norm ?

The Midland Mainline is due to get a fleet of brand new trains in 2022. That is the time to build these innovations in. Scrabbling around to find broken down trains before then, is a pointless box ticking exercise which does nothing, other than make a gesture towards an arbitrary deadline.

With regard to 153's, there is absolutely no good reason why they can't be permanently coupled with compliant units or coupled together and made compliant. We need more 3 carriage units anyway to cope with demand.

No reason why Northern cannot insert a 153 into a 155 to make a three-car unit. An article in "Today's Railways UK" issue 207 on the PRM deadline refers to South Eastern's class 465 and 466 Networkers. The four-car 465s are to be made fully compliant but the similar two-car 466s will only be partially compliant and will not have a PRM toilet, so from 2020 cannot run independently as they do now on the Sheerness branch. "They must run with at least one 465 attached", the article says. These units do not have gangwayed ends so how is that permissible? If that's allowed, then surely Pacers could continue if coupled to a 150 or whatever.

It seems a bit of a nonsense though if a wheelchair user who is not also a gricer is expected to identify the compliant unit as the train approaches.

 

[bramling]

Firstly, the railway industry had a decade or more to achieve legal compliance. I have zero sympathy for those areas which have failed.
Secondly, any company which has achieved compliance, likely at serious cost, could and should be unhappy about any such derogation. They might even contemplate litigation against DfT in such circumstances as they will have been financially and commercially disadvantaged.

It’s all very well saying that compliance should have happened, yes absolutely it should have done by now. However that doesn’t help the passenger who finds a train too full to board - it’s not their fault that the industry has failed to get its act together.

Any train is better than no train, likewise any extra carriage on a train is better than not having it at all. The accessibility enhancements are already a fudge in that in many cases they have simply been achieved with seats being removed. That’s fine, however the seating capacity should have been made up with extra length, and in many or most cases we’re not seeing that. There’s many examples where a 2-car 150 or 156 will turn up now, just like it always did, but now with a large area of the train given over to accessible space. This stretches the bounds of credibility if stock is then seen to be being scrapped.

 

[NoMorePacers]

You're making mountains out of molehills! The only HSTs that are being replaced by 180s are the exGC mini sets, which are in a poor condition, and aren't exactly that reliable themselves.
The 180s have a very similar seating capacity to these!

The 153s are only fit for the scrapheap! They have no place on a 21st century railway!

If you're referring to the Hull Trains 180s, then I fail to see how they will be any more reliable than the ex-GC HST sets.

 

[DanTrain]

You're making mountains out of molehills! The only HSTs that are being replaced by 180s are the exGC mini sets, which are in a poor condition, and aren't exactly that reliable themselves.
The 180s have a very similar seating capacity to these!

The 153s are only fit for the scrapheap! They have no place on a 21st century railway!
The carriages themselves will need modifications such as new door sounders, wheelchair spaces, grab rails and an internal and external PIS, if they are to continue past 2019, which a RoSCo is very unlikely to fund

Why couldn't the 153s get a derogation to run in multiple with complaint trains? Maybe they do have no place on a 21st century railway, but nor do HSTs or Class 37s, both of which are still running... Surely it's better to have a 3 car train with a 153 than a 2 car train? And I don't see how disability rights campaigners can complain since this would actually give more space for wheelchairs etc. Perhaps some PPM-complaint labelling on the 153 might be required but that's surely better than scrapping them.

 

[yorksrob]

You're making mountains out of molehills! The only HSTs that are being replaced by 180s are the exGC mini sets, which are in a poor condition, and aren't exactly that reliable themselves.
The 180s have a very similar seating capacity to these!

The 153s are only fit for the scrapheap! They have no place on a 21st century railway!
The carriages themselves will need modifications such as new door sounders, wheelchair spaces, grab rails and an internal and external PIS, if they are to continue past 2019, which a RoSCo is very unlikely to fund

With regard to the HST's, do you know that for a fact ? EMT are due to have three additional 222's to play with when Corby get's wired, so why do they need the 180's ?

The 153's are useful additional capacity - something sorely needed on diesel routes in this country. If the rest of a three carriage train has PIS and grab rails etc, why not let the rest of us use the 153 so that there's more room in the rest of the train for those who need PIS/grab rails etc. There can be few things worse for someone suffering from poor eyesight or mobility than overcrowded travelling conditions.

No reason why Northern cannot insert a 153 into a 155 to make a three-car unit. An article in "Today's Railways UK" issue 207 on the PRM deadline refers to South Eastern's class 465 and 466 Networkers. The four-car 465s are to be made fully compliant but the similar two-car 466s will only be partially compliant and will not have a PRM toilet, so from 2020 cannot run independently as they do now on the Sheerness branch. "They must run with at least one 465 attached", the article says. These units do not have gangwayed ends so how is that permissible? If that's allowed, then surely Pacers could continue if coupled to a 150 or whatever.

It seems a bit of a nonsense though if a wheelchair user who is not also a gricer is expected to identify the compliant unit as the train approaches.

That would indeed be a sensible compromise. I'm sure compliant carriages could carry suitable signage.

 

[cactustwirly]

Why couldn't the 153s get a derogation to run in multiple with complaint trains? Maybe they do have no place on a 21st century railway, but nor do HSTs or Class 37s, both of which are still running... Surely it's better to have a 3 car train with a 153 than a 2 car train? And I don't see how disability rights campaigners can complain since this would actually give more space for wheelchairs etc. Perhaps some PPM-complaint labelling on the 153 might be required but that's surely better than scrapping them.

The 466s have a derogation, but still need the mods!

 

[cactustwirly]

With regard to the HST's, do you know that for a fact ? EMT are due to have three additional 222's to play with when Corby get's wired, so why do they need the 180's ?

The 153's are useful additional capacity - something sorely needed on diesel routes in this country. If the rest of a three carriage train has PIS and grab rails etc, why not let the rest of us use the 153 so that there's more room in the rest of the train for those who need PIS/grab rails etc. There can be few things worse for someone suffering from poor eyesight or mobility than overcrowded travelling conditions.



That would indeed be a sensible compromise. I'm sure compliant carriages could carry suitable signage.

Because the Corby electrification won't be ready in time for the May 2020 timetable change!

 

[yorksrob]

Because the Corby electrification won't be ready in time for the May 2020 timetable change!

I don't see how that's got anything to do with it, given the three units are replacing the existing GC HST's, rather than being additional stock.

 

[cactustwirly]

I don't see how that's got anything to do with it, given the three units are replacing the existing GC HST's, rather than being additional stock.

I was explaining why the 180s are required.
There are only 4 units anyway, so they won't go very far replacing the other HSTs!

 

[Robertj21a]

I have an issue with replacing serviceable rolling stock with trains with poor reliability - particularly when those who are supposed to benefit from these regulations will no doubt have been successfully using HST's for donkeys years anyway. Will they feel advantaged, I wonder, when their train is cancelled at short notice every week, as is the case with Hull trains, or when one turns up where previously an 8 carriage HST was the norm ?

The Midland Mainline is due to get a fleet of brand new trains in 2022. That is the time to build these innovations in. Scrabbling around to find broken down trains before then, is a pointless box ticking exercise which does nothing, other than make a gesture towards an arbitrary deadline.

With regard to 153's, there is absolutely no good reason why they can't be permanently coupled with compliant units or coupled together and made compliant. We need more 3 carriage units anyway to cope with demand.

How do you actually go about this in practical terms ? - are disabled to be told [how?] that they can only travel in certain parts of the train after the deadline ?. Don't you think there's been enough years go by for modifications to have been made by now ?

 

[yorksrob]

How do you actually go about this in practical terms ? - are disabled to be told [how?] that they can only travel in certain parts of the train after the deadline ?. Don't you think there's been enough years go by for modifications to have been made by now ?

Take the HST's which are at the end of their front line careers. They are expensive kit, so you wouldn't want to withdraw them early, but it's probably not practical to modify most of them at this late stage. There are hundreds of them, most of which will become non-compliant at the same time. Do you think that it is practical for them all to be replaced at the same time - given that you will have to have a lot of factory capacity, involving capital investment and training, which will probably become redundant once the new fleet is built. Of course not. What is being done now - building the new fleets in sequence is the only sensible way to do this. Someone has to get their trains a bit later - it just happens to be EMT. Of course, that doesn't suit an arbitrary deadline, but then replacing trains doesn't suit arbitrary deadlines anyway.

With regard to the first part of your question, we don't tell disabled people they're not allowed to travel in a particular part of the train now, so why would we start doing this at the end of the year ?

We could paint a large red stripe along the top of carriages which aren't fully compliant. A disabled person could sit in any part of the train they choose, as now. It's just that they will have the information that a particular carriage isn't 100% compliant, and they can make their choice accordingly.

 

[AndyW33]

How do you actually go about this in practical terms ? - are disabled to be told [how?] that they can only travel in certain parts of the train after the deadline ?. Don't you think there's been enough years go by for modifications to have been made by now ?

Yes, there's been ample time, but the incompetent DfT has failed to make the necessary arrangements. Where you have a franchise that ends close before the deadline and has elderly rolling stock, it isn't the responsibility of the current franchise holder to make the modifications, and the incoming franchisee literally can't arrange anything until the franchise award is signed off, by which time it is too late to meet the deadline. Eventually DfT realised this and instructed EMT to start the work on behalf of the new franchisee, but far too late.

As regards the "what part of the train" question, first of all there are lots of different kinds of disability, even if people think first of all of the wheelchair-bound. Brand new rolling stock that is definitely compliant doesn't have wheelchair spaces in every single coach, nor disabled-friendly loos in every coach, but they do exist on the train. , What might be more difficult is electronic PIS - which ought to be in every coach and isn't, but ought to be possible to fit relatively quickly. All EMT stock has PA (whether it is working is another matter). There are no internal steps in any of the units used. Marking of grab handles etc is pretty much OK now.

 

[edwin_m]

There is more to PRM than wheelchair accessible toilets. All vehicles should be accessible in the sense of AudioVisual announcements, door sounders, grab rails, etc - these modifications would have to be done to any & all vehicles in use. You can't really get away with saying "anyone with accessibility issues must go in this part of the train" especially when so many issues are hidden

Compared to fitting accessible toilets these modifications are also relatively cheap and simple, with little or no effect on capacity. PIS has to have something fitted in all parts of the train so the crew can operate it from every cab, and if you fit the controls and the cabling then it's not much extra work to fit the displays in every coach as well.

How do you actually go about this in practical terms ? - are disabled to be told [how?] that they can only travel in certain parts of the train after the deadline ?. Don't you think there's been enough years go by for modifications to have been made by now ?

We already have a situation where certain entrances are designated for wheelchairs, and wheelchair users normally need assistance to board so the person providing the assistance should take them to the correct door. But I agree it's neither practicable nor morally right to say, for example, that only part of the train is adapated for people with visual disabilities - especially as those people might not be able to read the signs indicating the part of the train they should use.

So it should be possible to keep 153s in service with minor modifications, provided they are always coupled to a 156 or other accessible unit. To me the question is more about whether they are in a good enough condition for this to be worth doing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is more to PRM than wheelchair accessible toilets. All vehicles should be accessible in the sense of AudioVisual announcements, door sounders, grab rails, etc - these modifications would have to be done to any & all vehicles in use. You can't really get away with saying "anyone with accessibility issues must go in this part of the train" especially when so many issues are hidden

True. Toilets are the expensive bit, though, so for any 153s modified there is no sense in bothering with it. For a cheap option lock it out, for a more expensive one convert it to a luggage/cycle area.

 

[johnw]

Wellingborough station is the biggest loser. I often travel from Wellingborough to Leicester, a journey time of 30 minutes. I have to drive to the station but in the future may as well drive all the way to Leicester as I don’t want to change at Kettering, wait x amount of minutes, change platforms, plus spend an hour there if one of the trains has been cancelled or delayed. So just to allow Corby to get two trains an hour Wellingborough and Bedford gets no North bound services.

I presume Wellingborough will get a fare reduction when it’s down graded from Intercity to hand me down ‘express’ EMUs

 

[Bletchleyite]

I presume Wellingborough will get a fare reduction when it’s down graded from Intercity to hand me down ‘express’ EMUs

If the IC was HSTs I'd agree, but why are people bothered about swapping a rattly, run-down glorified DMU for a quiet, modern EMU with decent seats (assuming it is the ex-StanEx units and not 350/2s) and probably more capacity due to being 8 or 12-car sets? I know Meridians are nicer than Voyagers but they still aren't anything more than glorified faster Class 158s.

Connectivity is a concern, though. There would be a very good case for extending the wires to Leicester and making it 8 cars from St Pancras to Kettering then 4 to each of Leicester and Corby. At peak times run it as 12 and do a 4-8 split to the busier one of the two.

 

[Wolfie]

Take the HST's which are at the end of their front line careers. They are expensive kit, so you wouldn't want to withdraw them early, but it's probably not practical to modify most of them at this late stage. There are hundreds of them, most of which will become non-compliant at the same time. Do you think that it is practical for them all to be replaced at the same time - given that you will have to have a lot of factory capacity, involving capital investment and training, which will probably become redundant once the new fleet is built. Of course not. What is being done now - building the new fleets in sequence is the only sensible way to do this. Someone has to get their trains a bit later - it just happens to be EMT. Of course, that doesn't suit an arbitrary deadline, but then replacing trains doesn't suit arbitrary deadlines anyway.

With regard to the first part of your question, we don't tell disabled people they're not allowed to travel in a particular part of the train now, so why would we start doing this at the end of the year ?

We could paint a large red stripe along the top of carriages which aren't fully compliant. A disabled person could sit in any part of the train they choose, as now. It's just that they will have the information that a particular carriage isn't 100% compliant, and they can make their choice accordingly.

Your broad red line is really helpful to a blind person...

 

[yorksrob]

Your broad red line is really helpful to a blind person...

We expect the visually impaired to see different coloured doors. How is this any different exactly ?

 

[Agent_Squash]

Stagecoach are taking legal action against the DfT over the pension issue - the franchise may no longer be a done deal, especially considering the extremely vague answers Andrew Jones was giving following the urgent question.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Your broad red line is really helpful to a blind person...

It's been tried before. BR had sections within special carriages for the blind/partially sighted, sometimes entire carriages, usually between 1st and 2nd class - meaning that they were in the centre of the train, and therefore easier to find.
They even went so far as to specify smaller windows, because obviously if you're blind, a window to see out of is utterly pointless.
Yet another way in which BR was decades ahead of its time.

 

[43074]

Connectivity is a concern, though. There would be a very good case for extending the wires to Leicester and making it 8 cars from St Pancras to Kettering then 4 to each of Leicester and Corby. At peak times run it as 12 and do a 4-8 split to the busier one of the two.

The various press releases seem to suggest they've found a way of stopping both Nottingham to London services at Kettering, so this would suggest half hourly connections will be available from Wellingborough and stations South of there to Leicester/Nottingham, which is in some ways better than the service we have now (obviously how good the connections are will depend on the timings which are not publicly known at the moment).

 

[Jozhua]

Your broad red line is really helpful to a blind person...

A member of staff can always assist a blind person to the right carriage for the time being and station announcements can help.

Realistically, the deadline isn't going to be hit and there are people who are in need right now, so TOC's making sure that they are helping people with disabilities as much as possible can't be a bad thing!

Other than for blind people (where announcements and extra assistance can help) , a big red stripe could be a good solution for the time being. People are in need today, not just in 2020!