Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson - yet another assistance failure

[Deepgreen]

One of the sad things here is that 'cleaners aren't insured to help' means that basic human nature didn't step in to help. If it was me and I saw this situation I wouldn't care if I was insured or not, I would take the tiny risk to myself to help - after all, surely it just comes down to moving the portable platform ramp to the right door - hardly dangerous work! It's pathetic that this US-style indemnity attitude is now prevailing.

 

[800001]

I expect her taking the later train is what has caused this - but that's frankly no excuse to leaving someone in this position.

She's been seen to on the train so between the on board team they know a person in a wheelchair is aboard. Surely it behoves one or more of them to check these people are safely detrained before disappearing? Surely even verifying whether or not they're expecting assistance at the station they're leaving the train at would be part of their role in greeting her?

Feels like a bit of a breakdown in operating procedure here rather than specific neglect of a person in a wheelchair - but as I said, that's not really an excuse.

She was assisted onto the 1945 service at Leeds, at Leeds I believe it is NWR or Northern staff who do the assists.

They **should** of created a new assistance journey via the passenger assistance app, this would then notify LNER at Kings Cross of an arrival requiring assistance.

Something there has not happened.

However, the guard on the train was aware of her being on train, as they took food to her (at seat ordering app not working), and as the guard uses rear cab in coach A on a Azuma, should of observed no one was there to meet her, that is unless guard had already walked through train to alight from front of train!

Either way, yet another failure to assist a customer who requires it.

One of the sad things here is that 'cleaners aren't insured to help' means that basic human nature didn't step in the help. If it was me and I saw this situation I wouldn't care if I was insured or not, I would take the tiny risk to myself to help - after all, surely it just comes down to moving the portable platform ramp to the right door - hardly dangerous work! It's pathetic that this US-style indemnity attitude is now prevailing.

The cleaners all have radios, linked in to the station control room, a simple call to say there is a lady requiring assistance is all it would have taken.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I get the issues with DOO, but I'm not quite sure why on a guarded train the responsibility isn't always with the guard, with them not to leave the train until any handover person has arrived and met them in person.

Staff also need to take it properly seriously. I got a gobful of abuse from a LNR guard when I pointed out someone in a wheelchair needing the ramp to him when he preferred having a chat with the driver than dealing with it. This attitude problem needs to be considered a serious disciplinary offence - once all safety-critical matters have been attended to, the assistance provision should be first priority over a frivolous "see you at the social club later mate" chat. TBH I'd have reported that (as his attitude was utterly unacceptable) if I thought WMT had any capability to manage their guards' conduct - the long-running lack of ticket checks south of Bletchley proves to me that they don't and thus it would be a waste of my time.

I've also seen a stand up argument between a Thameslink DOO driver and a member of platform staff about assistance, and more recently another one at Preston - this shows that there is a serious attitude problem on this matter among a few staff which really needs dealing with. The one at Preston was particularly bad - a driver sticking his head out of the window and shouting something like "hurry up, I'm f******* late now" along the platform - if that was my company that would have been a sacking offence, that conduct can never be acceptable in any customer-facing context, least of all when dealing with the loading of a wheelchair user.

 

[John R]

One of the sad things here is that 'cleaners aren't insured to help' means that basic human nature didn't step in the help. If it was me and I saw this situation I wouldn't care if I was insured or not, I would take the tiny risk to myself to help - after all, surely it just comes down to moving the portable platform ramp to the right door - hardly dangerous work! It's pathetic that this US-style indemnity attitude is now prevailing.

Maybe they couldn’t access the ramp? In most places it’s locked I believe. They had actually gone through the carriage quite quickly, so would be justified in assuming that help was on its way. Besides, I suspect they have clear instructions on what they can and cannot do, for very obvious reasons in terms of overall railway safety.

 

[ExRes]

Perhaps rather than 'modernising' and 'updating' systems, which we are always told is so wonderful, we ought to go backwards and look at whether older systems worked better than what exists now, in 10 years of working for MML/EMT I only ever came across one disabled person who had been overlooked and who I noticed when changing ends at Nottingham, with my complete lack of training on how to deal with disabled passengers I somehow managed to tell the Train Manager and platform staff that she'd been missed and inform her, yes driver/passenger communication did/does exist, that someone would help her off as soon as possible, and I didn't even miss my PNB

 

[800001]

Maybe they couldn’t access the ramp? In most places it’s locked I believe. They had actually gone through the carriage quite quickly, so would be justified in assuming that help was on its way. Besides, I suspect they have clear instructions on what they can and cannot do, for very obvious reasons in terms of overall railway safety.

The ramp is in coach A, needs a t-key, they have a t-key.

But only people trained to use the ramps are allowed to use them, and the cleaners are not. The cleaners are not employed by LNER.

The focus shouldn’t be on the cleaners, the focus needs to be on lners consistent failure at multiple stations of passenger assistance.

 

[Towers]

The ramp is in coach A, needs a t-key, they have a t-key.

But only people trained to use the ramps are allowed to use them, and the cleaners are not. The cleaners are not employed by LNER.

The focus shouldn’t be on the cleaners, the focus needs to be on lners consistent failure at multiple stations of passenger assistance.

I think probably the suggestion was that the train presentation staff might at least have made appropriate contact with someone to summon assistance, rather disembark the customer themselves. Of course, it is entirely possible that they did exactly that, but the TM got there first.

 

[12LDA28C]

On Cross Country the Driver checks the train, this is before it goes to the depot.

Is that only if the train is to depart ECS though? What about at a terminus where the train will restart in passenger service?

 

[LowLevel]

Is this actually part of a Train Manager's responsibilities at any TOC? Seems unlikely to me. I'd imagine either the TM was due to either book off, or have their break before working their next train. Not that I'm defending or excusing what happened.

In some locations for some TOCs the guard will check/dispose the train but I'd be surprised if that was the case at King's Cross.

Where I am the guard does it at certain locations but in most it's the platform staff's job.

On the other hand though, checking that passenger assistance has arrived for a passenger, particularly one that effectively can't leave the train without it, certainly will be the guard's job even if it ends up accruing overtime to sort out an oversight.

I always train new guards to on top of anything else write passenger assistance on their diagrams and tick off when they're sorted, and if no station staff are obvious to check themselves - the nature of the job means you have to be the last line of defence against assistance failures whether it's your job at the location or not.

 

[Deepgreen]

Maybe they couldn’t access the ramp? In most places it’s locked I believe. They had actually gone through the carriage quite quickly, so would be justified in assuming that help was on its way. Besides, I suspect they have clear instructions on what they can and cannot do, for very obvious reasons in terms of overall railway safety.

Not having a key is not the same as not being insured to do it. If a TOC can't absolutely guarantee to provide assistance from a designated type of staff, perhaps others should be able to do so? I imagine it would be financially beneficial to get a disabled person off a train if it would avoid delaying its servicing or departure. Again, this comes down to being human - if a person is able-bodied enough to be able to clean a train then they can place a ramp at a doorway in an emergency. That probably contravenes all sorts of enshrined agreements, but common sense can so easily get buried.

 

[azOOOOOma]

Just playing devil’s advocate here. The situation the customer faced was awful and undeniably so. But is this a systemic failure requiring a major rethink? How many thousands of successful assistance requests were fulfilled yesterday throughout the network? Is one terrible example on a bank holiday during a mass disruption event really a sign of a systemic issue? Do we hundreds of extra staff to cover the occasional mass disruption event or do we right size the headcount so that it works 99% of the time?

Was it a case of her assistance was booked but she didn’t want to wait as there was a queue and assisted travel team were dealing with other off schedule arrivals and departures?

I had a wheelchair passenger yesterday remove themselves from the train despite me checking their booking and reassuring them that it is booked and I’d make sure that their assistance turned up as I left the train.

On doing so, the rest of the passengers were still disembarking and the person’s partner simply pulled their wheelchair bound partner off the train, which absolutely terrified me. I encouraged them not to do that again and a safety report was made. Their assistance was literally walking toward them… This was two minutes after arrival and general disembarkation was still in progress.

Laura X

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

One of the sad things here is that 'cleaners aren't insured to help' means that basic human nature didn't step in the help. If it was me and I saw this situation I wouldn't care if I was insured or not, I would take the tiny risk to myself to help - after all, surely it just comes down to moving the portable platform ramp to the right door - hardly dangerous work! It's pathetic that this US-style indemnity attitude is now prevailing.

This is also nonsense, business insurance doesn't work like that, especially in this case.

The contractor will be fully insured for such an event. Staff do things they aren't supposed to all of the time, and this is why you need insurance. Even if they weren't insured, it just shifts the liability from the insurance company to the business.

However, more likely is that the member of staff cleaning has not received the appropriate training in manual handling in respect of wheelchairs/assisted travel. The member of staff is entitled to refuse to perform any task they feel is unsafe or ill equipped to handle, so long as the belief is reasonably held.

Companies don't like using the "health and safety" arguement these days as it causes headlines like "health and safety gone mad" etc - so it is often incorrectly over simplified to "not insured to do it...".

In any event, part of the LNER procurement process requires their contractors to have liability and other insurance in place to a value of multiple £millions, before they can even be shortlisted as a bidder.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just playing devil’s advocate here. The situation the customer faced was awful and undeniably so. But is this a systemic failure requiring a major rethink?

Yes.

How many thousands of successful assistance requests were fulfilled yesterday throughout the network? Is one terrible example on a bank holiday during a mass disruption event really a sign of a systemic issue?

Yes, it is. I've witnessed it countless times, and the attitude I've received from staff on reporting it has not generally been good.

Do we hundreds of extra staff to cover the occasional mass disruption event or do we right size the headcount so that it works 99% of the time?

We don't need any extra staff. What we need is a system that actually works, which in my view means a single named individual who has introduced themselves for an in-person handover to the assisted person and the person who was previously responsible. The system as it stands contains too much assumption that someone else will show up to do it.

Was it a case of her assistance was booked but she didn’t want to wait as there was a queue and assisted travel team were dealing with other off schedule arrivals and departures?

It isn't Reasonable (in the sense of a reasonable adjustment) for a disabled person to have to wait. They should be prioritised. Every LNER train has a guard, so there are enough staff to do it - if the complex arrangement of platform staff etc doesn't work, then just have the guard do it every time with the ramp kept on board. Indeed I don't understand why that's not how it's done - it's simple, it's one named person responsible and it works.

I had a wheelchair passenger yesterday remove themselves from the train despite me checking their booking and reassuring them that it is booked and I’d make sure that their assistance turned up as I left the train.

On doing so, the rest of the passengers were still disembarking and the person’s partner simply pulled their wheelchair bound partner off the train, which absolutely terrified me. I encouraged them not to do that again and a safety report was made. Their assistance was literally walking toward them… This was two minutes after arrival and general disembarkation was still in progress.

Two minutes is too slow. The ramp person should be there as the wheels stop turning, even if they only wave through the window and can't physically put the ramp down until the crowds have dispersed. If they can't be, the system is faulty.

 

[185143]

One of the sad things here is that 'cleaners aren't insured to help' means that basic human nature didn't step in the help. If it was me and I saw this situation I wouldn't care if I was insured or not, I would take the tiny risk to myself to help - after all, surely it just comes down to moving the portable platform ramp to the right door - hardly dangerous work! It's pathetic that this US-style indemnity attitude is now prevailing.

In all fairness, I read it as Baroness Grey-Thompson implying that the cleaner was happy to help, but she was saying they couldn't as they weren't insured-as opposed to the cleaner (correctly, it's not their fault) refusing to on such grounds.

 

[azOOOOOma]

What if there are four wheelchair users, two in standard and two 1/4 of a kilometer away in first class and there’s a queue of 5 similarly loaded trains (all full and standing) arriving literally one behind the other, which is what happened last night?

How does the system cope? Who gets priority if nobody can wait two minutes and seemingly needs to be off before anyone else?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What if there are four wheelchair users, two in standard and two 1/4 of a kilometer away in first class and there’s a queue of 5 similarly loaded trains (all full and standing) arriving literally one behind the other, which is what happened last night?

You plan two sets of assistance staff for that train. And you have enough staff that you can handle multiple trains containing wheelchair users.

How does the system cope?

You ensure the system is adequately specified to cope with the requirements. Of course, you could also design the trains sensibly, which could have put the wheelchair spaces in both classes in adjacent coaches, but that would have been far too sensible.

Who gets priority if nobody can wait two minutes and seemingly needs to be off before anyone else?

Nobody needs to get priority, you need sufficient staff to deliver the service you are offering properly.

This is the attitude problem I'm talking about. The system needs to be specified such that wheelchair users have the same access ability as able bodied users. This is easily achievable so is Reasonable. There are too many people, sadly including your posts, who think disabled people should be an afterthought or aren't important enough to be given what they deserve. They've drawn a bad card in life already, it's not hard to make sure that the services offered to them are impeccable every single time to compensate for that.

Until that happens, I wish the likes of Doug Paulley every bit of luck. The only way to correct this attitude problem is to drag companies through the Courts every single time it happens.

And no, I'm not disabled.

 

[Towers]

Two minutes is too slow. The ramp person should be there as the wheels stop turning, even if they only wave through the window and can't physically put the ramp down until the crowds have dispersed. If they can't be, the system is faulty.

The reality is that a major terminus like KGX on a busy day will see the assistance staff on the go constantly, there will be some level of delay if they have multiple bookings to attend to within a short timeframe. Keep in mind that there will often be more than one booking on the same train, both being accommodated on one buggy - the driver can only be in one place at a time.

We all know what the financial & staffing outlook is on today’s railway, so suggestions of having squadrons of assistance staff at every busy station to deal with the peaks of demand simply aren’t feasible. Ideally, where a customer has a booked connection to make that would be prioritised, but of course things aren’t always smooth.

 

[azOOOOOma]

You plan two sets of assistance staff for that train. And you have enough staff that you can handle multiple trains containing wheelchair users.



You ensure the system is adequately specified to cope with the requirements. Of course, you could also design the trains sensibly, which could have put the wheelchair spaces in both classes in adjacent coaches, but that would have been far too sensible.



Nobody needs to get priority, you need sufficient staff to deliver the service you are offering properly.

So how do you do that without needing extra staff?

 

[John R]

Just playing devil’s advocate here. The situation the customer faced was awful and undeniably so. But is this a systemic failure requiring a major rethink? How many thousands of successful assistance requests were fulfilled yesterday throughout the network? Is one terrible example on a bank holiday during a mass disruption event really a sign of a systemic issue? Do we hundreds of extra staff to cover the occasional mass disruption event or do we right size the headcount so that it works 99% of the time?

Was it a case of her assistance was booked but she didn’t want to wait as there was a queue and assisted travel team were dealing with other off schedule arrivals and departures?

The train arrived at 2202 and, despite having contacted LNER 5 mins later, nobody had appeared by the time she decided to disembark at 2217. How long should she have waited?

 

[thejuggler]

The inability or unwillingness for individuals working in all "public" services to 'own' a problem, even if briefly, even if its not theirs to sort out is becoming an issue in all walks of life.

Any one of the staff working on the train or on the station should be in a position to own this issue and know who to contact to get it sorted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The reality is that a major terminus like KGX on a busy day will see the assistance staff on the go constantly, there will be some level of delay if they have multiple bookings to attend to within a short timeframe. Keep in mind that there will often be more than one booking on the same train, both being accommodated on one buggy - the driver can only be in one place at a time.

There aren't enough staff then.

So how do you do that without needing extra staff?

It sounds like Kings Cross assistance team is indeed too small and does need more staff. Most issues I see are incompetence, bad attitude, laziness or forgetfulness (or a combination), but if there aren't enough staff to get them to potentially every train then there aren't enough staff.

 

[Towers]

There aren't enough staff then.



It sounds like Kings Cross assistance team is indeed too small.

But who’s paying?!

 

[azOOOOOma]

The reality is that a major terminus like KGX on a busy day will see the assistance staff on the go constantly, there will be some level of delay if they have multiple bookings to attend to within a short timeframe. Keep in mind that there will often be more than one booking on the same train, both being accommodated on one buggy - the driver can only be in one place at a time.

Not acceptable apparently. Each person requesting assistance needs their own staff member according to some. When you can have up to ten assisted travel requests on arrival in KGX, ten members of staff need to be waiting at train doors immediately on arrival and this can all be done without employing extra staff.

Personally I don’t see it

 

[Towers]

Any one of the staff working on the train or on the station should be in a position to own this issue and know who to contact to get it sorted.

Indeed, perhaps an internal campaign addressing this might be worthwhile.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The inability or unwillingness for individuals working in all "public" services to 'own' a problem, even if briefly, even if its not theirs to sort out is becoming an issue in all walks of life.

It's not new.

"More than me job's worth, mate".

That's why companies need to be taken to Court for every single failure. Only then will there be any chance of solving it. As I said, I wish Doug Paulley and the likes every bit of luck they can get.

 

[azOOOOOma]

There aren't enough staff then.



It sounds like Kings Cross assistance team is indeed too small and does need more staff. Most issues I see are incompetence, bad attitude, laziness or forgetfulness (or a combination), but if there aren't enough staff to get them to potentially every train then there aren't enough staff.

There’s also passengers who decide (as is

Indeed, perhaps an internal campaign addressing this might be worthwhile.

What about those staff who do own it yet people self-remove themselves before you have a chance to complete all safety related duties?

 

[lachlan]

Not acceptable apparently. Each person requesting assistance needs their own staff member according to some. When you can have up to ten assisted travel requests on arrival in KGX, ten members of staff need to be waiting at train doors immediately on arrival and this can all be done without employing extra staff.

Personally I don’t see it

Sounds like they need to employ extra staff in that case

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not acceptable apparently. Each person requesting assistance needs their own staff member according to some.

Well, yes, they do, isn't that obvious? Guards can obviously play a role too, but if there's two sets of spaces per train and they're at opposite ends (bad design there) then you need to be able to get two members of assistance staff to each timetabled arrival, yes. And you need enough staff to do that.

If you don't, the company is simply not taking the situation seriously enough and deserve to be sued and prosecuted repeatedly until they do.

When you can have up to ten assisted travel requests on arrival in KGX, ten members of staff need to be waiting at train doors immediately on arrival and this can all be done without employing extra staff.

Personally I don’t see it

It does sound to me like KGX is understaffed in the assistance team.

 

[Towers]

Not acceptable apparently. Each person requesting assistance needs their own staff member according to some. When you can have up to ten assisted travel requests on arrival in KGX, ten members of staff need to be waiting at train doors immediately on arrival and this can all be done without employing extra staff.

Personally I don’t see it

Indeed; idealism crashes quite hard into reality sometimes. It would certainly be useful however if it were clearly communicated to assistance users that there is a target timeframe for being met, or that there may be a delay during busier times etc. It isn’t ideal of course, but it is usually better to be honest and set realistic expectations.

 

[185]

'cleaners aren't insured to help'

Sadly this is true. A recent & pointless "Ops Standards" bulletin at one company claimed that:-

"The Station Assistance staff at (Network Rail Major Station X) are not trained on the use of ramps for our company's trains. Therefore, traincrew must prepare the ramp as required and if you witness any Network Rail staff attempting this, they must be reported..."

The stock is around 20 years old and has been on that service from the start. NR had been doing assists since the start.

Fed up of making paperclip chains, in 2024 Ops Standards managers did a risk assessment... they represent all that is wrong with our railway. If an insurer is not willing to cover all staff & contractors putting down a wheelchair ramp, sack the insurer and find someone else.