CrossCountry (XC) HST modifications including power doors

[SC43090]

Will a 7th coach follow on later for this set?

There is already a 7th coach done at Laira which is 42377........

SC 43090

 

[nat67]

There is already a 7th coach done at Laira which is 42377........

SC 43090

Yes I think there is. I saw one on its on own with sliding doors they other week.

 

[43055]

Yes I think there is. I saw one on its on own with sliding doors they other week.

It came down last year with a slam door equivalent and two power cars. So there is a spare of each.

If there is no TSD on XC01 could the set go into traffic or does it have to wait for the seventh vehicle as 4 HST's are required on Sundays normally.

 

[nat67]

It came down last year with a slam door equivalent and two power cars. So there is a spare of each.

If there is no TSD on XC01 could the set go into traffic or does it have to wait for the seventh vehicle as 4 HST's are required on Sundays normally.

Well if you remember that XC03 has run with only 6 coaches recently but not sure which coach was missing. After 31/12/19 yes it would have to have the TSD.

 

[221129]

It came down last year with a slam door equivalent and two power cars. So there is a spare of each.

If there is no TSD on XC01 could the set go into traffic or does it have to wait for the seventh vehicle as 4 HST's are required on Sundays normally.

Yes it can.

 

[221129]

Well if you remember that XC03 has run with only 6 coaches recently but not sure which coach was missing. After 31/12/19 yes it would have to have the TSD.

No it wouldn't... as long as the First class disabled toilet was there then it would be fine.

 

[nat67]

No it wouldn't... as long as the First class disabled toilet was there then it would be fine.

Yes. Sorry forgot about TF's having the Disabled bog.

 

[duffield]

Sorry to quote a post from almost a year ago. There is not point to it, slam doors are perfectly fine. Just put a handle on the inside so you don't have to reach out the windows. Power doors on mk3's are the biggest waste of money, biggest pain in the backside and most inconvenient project there is.

There have also been claims that the door mods may not be necessary at all for PRM if you have sufficent platform/on train staff to assist when required.

However, putting the inside handles back is probably not desirable despite the secondary locking since the doors could still be partly opened (e.g.) by someone's backside on a crowded train in motion, which would quite likely happen frequently on XC, and might well cause emergency handle use by worried passengers.

 

[43055]

Well if you remember that XC03 has run with only 6 coaches recently but not sure which coach was missing. After 31/12/19 yes it would have to have the TSD.

Yes it can.

Yes I can remember that at one point XC03 was a 6 car at one point but I could not remember if this was the TSD or not. Anyway thank you both for your replies. Hopefully I will be able to catch a refurbished set soon with two completed now.

 

[laseandre]

Sorry to quote a post from almost a year ago. There is not point to it, slam doors are perfectly fine. Just put a handle on the inside so you don't have to reach out the windows. Power doors on mk3's are the biggest waste of money, biggest pain in the backside and most inconvenient project there is.

It's flat out illegal after 31/12/19! Here's the exact quote from the PRM-TSI EU regulation. I don't think it's reasonable for disabled people to continue to rely on there being a staff member available to let them on the train.

 

[43096]

It's flat out illegal after 31/12/19! Here's the exact quote from the PRM-TSI EU regulation. I don't think it's reasonable for disabled people to continue to rely on there being a staff member available to let them on the train.

You are contradicting what the regs say. It is not "flat out illegal" for slam doors to be retained beyond 31/12/19 - the first part of the reg you quote makes that clear. It might be inconvenient and costly in terms of staff, but it is not illegal.

 

[JonathanH]

You are contradicting what the regs say. It is not "flat out illegal" for slam doors to be retained beyond 31/12/19 - the first part of the reg you quote makes that clear. It might be inconvenient and costly in terms of staff, but it is not illegal.

Does that mean you have to have 13 members of paid staff aboard a 7-car HST (no passenger access at the guard's end of the TGS) to open the doors plus the driver?

 

[superalbs]

(13) The method of door activation shall be by train crew, semi-automatic (i.e. passenger pushbutton operation) or automatic.

 

[JonathanH]

(13) The method of door activation shall be by train crew, semi-automatic (i.e. passenger pushbutton operation) or automatic.

Yes, so one member of train crew at each door?

Presumably the GWR sleeper will be local door only at intermediate stations and all doors open / shut by train crew at Penzance and Paddington?

 

[superalbs]

Yes, so one member of train crew at each door?

Presumably the GWR sleeper will be local door only at intermediate stations and all doors open / shut by train crew at Penzance and Paddington?

I know, I was just transcribing it, as per rules.

 

[JonathanH]

I know, I was just transcribing it, as per rules.

Ah.

If a passenger rather than a member of train crew opens a slam door after 31 December 2019 - we know there will still be some on the GWR sleeper - who will be breaking the law?

 

[Jonny]

Ah.

If a passenger rather than a member of train crew opens a slam door after 31 December 2019 - we know there will still be some on the GWR sleeper - who will be breaking the law?

Assuming that the passenger is using a door as intended and in the proper manner as far as it depended on them, then it will be the train company breaking the law. A derogation, if granted, would see that no-one was breaking the law.

 

[jagardner1984]

I must say, whilst I fully support the rights of all to access the railway equally, it does seem quite an arbitrary rule when there are active plans in place to replace much of the slam door stock.

In other words, the “refurbishment” at wabtec is so fundamental, and would imagine costly, you would have thought XC and other operators could indeed pay someone to open and close doors for all passengers for quite some time before the refurbishments became economically cheaper, were it not for the arbritrary date required by the regulation.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The cut-off date may be arbitrary (any date would be, technically) but it has been known about for a long time. The failure of the industry to get things moving towards compliance sooner is a sad indictment of how the industry is managed. We now have 7 months to rush things through and we'll be getting to the point where workshop capacity for doing the mods will be at its limit.

 

[nat67]

Does that mean you have to have 13 members of paid staff aboard a 7-car HST (no passenger access at the guard's end of the TGS) to open the doors plus the driver?

Like charter trains. Where by at every vestibule has a steward stopping you from window hanging.

 

[duffield]

Does that mean you have to have 13 members of paid staff aboard a 7-car HST (no passenger access at the guard's end of the TGS) to open the doors plus the driver?

I'm sure (say) about three staff could cope, remembering that the doors don't all have to be opened at exactly the same time, and there's no reason to open doors where no-one is waiting to get on/off, and the staff already often have to walk down the train checking/closing doors.

It might hit dwell times a bit, but in some cases (e.g. Notttingham to St. Pancras HST services) the limited stops would minimize that and extra staff would be available at Notttingham and St. Pancras. It *might* be feasable as a temporary measure. Probably less practical on XC than EMT.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm sure (say) about three staff could cope, remembering that the doors don't all have to be opened at exactly the same time, and there's no reason to open doors where no-one is waiting to get on/off, and the staff already often have to walk down the train checking/closing doors.

It might hit dwell times a bit, but in some cases (e.g. Notttingham to St. Pancras HST services) the limited stops would minimize that and extra staff would be available at Notttingham and St. Pancras. It *might* be feasable as a temporary measure. Probably less practical on XC than EMT.

Presumably in this scenario, you lock the droplights closed as they would no longer be needed by passengers and then doors cannot be opened from the inside. Platform staff would need to tell passengers to stand away from the train until the doors were opened for them. I am guessing that it would also be illegal for a passenger to close the door.

 

[Jonfun]

The cut-off date may be arbitrary (any date would be, technically) but it has been known about for a long time. The failure of the industry to get things moving towards compliance sooner is a sad indictment of how the industry is managed. We now have 7 months to rush things through and we'll be getting to the point where workshop capacity for doing the mods will be at its limit.

I disagree. I think its a sad indictment on how the industry is regulated. PRM-TSI is completely unnecessary - yes, there need to be safeguards to ensure that less able folk aren't disadvantaged, but if you take the time to read the regs, they prescribe far too much on train operators. Accessibility should be mandatory - but how you make things accessible should be a commercial decision for the private operator. If I run a business (train, pub, garden centre...) and it's cheaper to pay staff to stand there and open and close doors rather than make them automatic that retains accessibility and my profit margin. If, as a result, disabled folk prefer to travel with a company who have automatic doors, then that's my *private* company's turnover which will suffer. Equally, PRM-TSI is biased in favour of folk who have accessibility needs who are in wheelchairs. There's more to having a legally recognised disability than a set of wheels and I can't be the only one who the equality act says has a disability but finds "accessible" facilities difficult to use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's more to having a legally recognised disability than a set of wheels and I can't be the only one who the equality act says has a disability but finds "accessible" facilities difficult to use.

There are certainly people who can walk or who are unsteady on their feet who find a tighter seat pitch better (so they can hold onto the seat in front to sit down) and who prefer a small bog (so they can lean on the wall while using it).

I usually choose a priority window seat (for the legroom) and I can't recall any case so far where it would have been right for me to leave it for someone else.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There are certainly people who can walk or who are unsteady on their feet who find a tighter seat pitch better (so they can hold onto the seat in front to sit down) and who prefer a small bog (so they can lean on the wall while using it).

I usually choose a priority window seat (for the legroom) and I can't recall any case so far where it would have been right for me to leave it for someone else.

Surely the answer to that is for every train to have both a small and large WC then, rather than an either/or? I do take your point about not all disabilities being the same, but whilst the act may well be flawed it was made with the best of intentions. The act itself doesn't limit itself to wheelchair users anyway though (as another poster implied): door alarms, contrasting grab poles, information screens are all things mandated to assist walking disabled people.

The deadline may be arbitrary but we know what happens when things like this don't have a deadline: the square-root of diddly-squat!

@Jonfun :
The argument that people can simply take their business elsewhere doesn't really wash with the railway under the current structure, because for the vast majority of journeys there is only one option operator-wise. If the current operator of your local line has chosen to deal with the accessibility issue in a way that is legal (as per your suggestion), but you consider that method to be undignifying, your options are limited: take a bus or taxi; or wait 8 years for an operator with a different policy to take over.

I do agree that I should have referred to regulation rather than management.

 

[jayah]

You are contradicting what the regs say. It is not "flat out illegal" for slam doors to be retained beyond 31/12/19 - the first part of the reg you quote makes that clear. It might be inconvenient and costly in terms of staff, but it is not illegal.

Aside from the fact we won't be in the EU on 31st December, how does this play out in France with hundreds of Corail vehicles still used on TER services with inward opening folding doors and a great flight of stairs to climb to get on?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aside from the fact we won't be in the EU on 31st December, how does this play out in France with hundreds of Corail vehicles still used on TER services with inward opening folding doors and a great flight of stairs to climb to get on?

The EU regulation only applies to new stock. The UK unilaterally chose to apply it across the board.

 

[jayah]

The EU regulation only applies to new stock. The UK unilaterally chose to apply it across the board.

Probably not a bad thing accessibility. Those Corail coaches do not work well for anyone elderly or with luggage.

But arbitrary dates and compliance at all costs are a stock in trade for politicians who aren't spending their own money and have not had a real job or grappled with concepts like opportunity cost.

When are we banning petrol and diesel cars again?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably not a bad thing accessibility. Those Corail coaches do not work well for anyone elderly or with luggage.

Oh, I agree (and in fact there are ways I'd have gone further, e.g. mandating level boarding at a UK standard platform for all new stock). My point was more that the Government can hand out derogations as it sees fit because the application of it to existing stock is entirely the UK Government's doing and not the EU's. Realistically, provided replacement/modification is in progress, derogations covering delays are a sensible plan.

 

[The Ham]

When are we banning petrol and diesel cars again?

There's no date for that, there a no new (solely) petrol/diesel powered cars date.