How much rolling stock wouldn't meet this criteria

pemma · 17 Apr 2014

From the Scotrail ITT the next franchise holder needs to provide:

* High quality and safe passenger environment consistent with modern passenger rolling stock in the UK and Europe.
* Appropriate heating and ventilation, including during station stops.
* Bogied vehicles.
* Toilet provision on board which is no less than currently provided on each route and that avoids smell being noticeable in seated areas (except Glasgow South Electrics.)
* Facilities for storing large items of luggage within sight/proximity of passengers when seated; overhead racks for smaller luggage, flexible space for pushchairs/prams and cycle storage facilities (minimum 2 cycles per unit).
* No more than 50% of the seats to be airline style layout
* Real-time visual and audible passenger information system. PRM TSI compliance represents the minimum standard and proposals are invited for provision of additional information, e.g. train service information and infotainment.
* Ability to work safely and reliably in the ambient winter / summer weather conditions.
* CCTV coverage and on-board recording at a minimum of 2 fps normal and 25 fps for 2 mins before and 5 mins after a trigger event of all passenger areas (except toilets). System to include forward facing camera mounted in each driving cab.

There's also requirements for longer distance services to not have 3+2 seating and to have tables at all seats, capability for Wi-Fi be have a clear differentiation between the quality of First/Business and Standard Class accommodation. Also a requirement on all routes for leg room or shoulder space to not be reduced if new or refurbished rolling stock is introduced.

How many trains in operation today (anywhere in Britain) would fail to meet this?

I think all Pacers, most Sprinters and Voyagers would fail for a start. Some of the South East EMUs which provide FC seats which are the same as standard class seats.

RailUK Forums

61653 HTAFC · 17 Apr 2014

jcollins said:
From the Scotrail ITT the next franchise holder needs to provide:

(snip)
* Toilet provision on board which is no less than currently provided on each route and that avoids smell being noticeable in seated areas (except Glasgow South Electrics.)
(snip)

As Sterling Archer would say, "Phrasing!"

Joking aside, a fair few "3rd Generation" units would fail to meet this criteria (LM's 350s and most of Southern's 377s for example). It seems that the ROSCOs have only started paying much attention to the PRM/TSI deadline in the last 18-24 months even though the regulations have been known to be on their way for a fair while longer. It's like the replacement of slam-door EMUs all over again! :roll:

The Ham · 17 Apr 2014

Given that most of the requirements are "internal" (i.e. seating layout, toilets, etc.) then most rolling stock could be made to meet the requirements, the obvious exception would be pacers. As with enough work (and possibly a lower amount of usage so the toilets could be emptied more frequently) Voyagers could be made to work, much as many would like to argue otherwise (not that they would be as the cost of the works could make it too expensive, this is likely to be the case for many of the older classes of stock).

junglejames · 17 Apr 2014

It is entirely subjective. What one person says would fit, another will say doesnt.

High Quality- What does this mean? Plenty of people will claim nothing post privatisation fits this requirement. However, unfortunately, everything is described as high quality nowadays, so you cant really read too much into it.

Me myself. Id perhaps say i can think of 2 types of rolling stock that would comply. 4 at a push.
A Chiltern Mk3.
A Mk4 (with a suitable refurb)
Plus at a push- A 158 with suitable refurb, and a 175. The 180s may fall foul because of unreliability.
For electric routes, barring a loco on the front of coaching stock, then probably a 444, albeit with better seats. I cant think of anything else that would comply. But thats using my definition of 'High Quality'.

pemma · 17 Apr 2014

junglejames said:
For electric routes, barring a loco on the front of coaching stock, then probably a 444, albeit with better seats. I cant think of anything else that would comply. But thats using my definition of 'High Quality'.

The bit saying "consistent with modern passenger rolling stock in the UK and Europe" is probably relevant. The Alstom stock used on the Munich S-Bahn has firmer seating than any UK train I've been on but you wouldn't need much persuading to accept the interior is high quality and safe compared to a Northern 142 as the seats on the Munich S-Bahn stock look and feel solid and it's also much safer for standing passengers.

junglejames · 17 Apr 2014

jcollins said:
The bit saying "consistent with modern passenger rolling stock in the UK and Europe" is probably relevant. The Alstom stock used on the Munich S-Bahn has firmer seating than any UK train I've been on but you wouldn't need much persuading to accept the interior is high quality and safe compared to a Northern 142 as the seats on the Munich S-Bahn stock look and feel solid and it's also much safer for standing passengers.

Hard seats arent necessary to comply with modern standards. The hard seats are because they are cheaper than softer seats.
Hence why i said that from my point of view, the 444s would benefit from nicer seats. They would still comply with modern standards.

pemma · 18 Apr 2014

junglejames said:
Hard seats arent necessary to comply with modern standards. The hard seats are because they are cheaper than softer seats.

In the specification for the Scotrail interiors it doesn't mention soft comfortable seats though.

al.currie93 · 18 Apr 2014

jcollins said:
Toilet provision on board which is no less than currently provided on each route and that avoids smell being noticeable in seated areas (except Glasgow South Electrics.)

Does this mean that Glasgow South Electrics are exempt from having toilets, or that they don't care if these trains smell of ****

Sorry, had to be said :P

junglejames · 18 Apr 2014

jcollins said:
In the specification for the Scotrail interiors it doesn't mention soft comfortable seats though.

Well partly a preference of mine, and partly my interpretation of high quality. My interpretation extends to comfort, which of course is subjective, but as I said, so is the term 'high quality' hence why it means nothing.

David · 18 Apr 2014

Having read the specs of the desired stock, are Transport Scotland trying to get the 185s for whoever runs the next Scotrail franchise?

Starmill · 18 Apr 2014

It certainly seemed like a specification that would be difficult to meet when I first read it. Certainly means plenty of refurbishment is going to be going on...

NotATrainspott · 19 Apr 2014

It's rather sad to see that such high expectations are abnormal for the privatised railway. Forcing the bidders to do this kind of long-term improvement in the network benefits all as the services will become even more attractive and the number of passengers willing to pay the fares will increase, thus reducing the need for subsidy. The franchises will always try to do the absolute minimum required to meet the needs of their contract and look only at the very short term within the length of their contract rather than for the public good as a whole. It's the biggest problem of privatisation in the form it is today but it is still solvable through the concession/London Overground model, which is how I would be delighted to see ScotRail managed by as another Devo Max addition.

As I have said before, ScotRail is the biggest single contract controlled by the Holyrood administration and making it succeed is a vital step in the public trusting the SNP and the country to run its own affairs better than Westminster can. When Westminster is seen as being perfectly happy with substandard services - due through intention, indifference or incompetence as is the reason the 319s cannot be refurbished before entering service with Northern - it is another stick the SNP can use to beat the idea of the Union. Fundamentally there is no reason why Wales, the South West and the North could not have the same quality of services as ScotRail if it weren't for inadequate local control as the DfT will never, ever be able to manage such inherently local services as these as well as it could those which serve London.

jopsuk · 19 Apr 2014

Blimey people. I'd lay heavy money that as far as TS are concerned the 170s probably already more or less meet this spec...

bronzeonion · 19 Apr 2014

jcollins said:
From the Scotrail ITT the next franchise holder needs to provide:

* High quality and safe passenger environment consistent with modern passenger rolling stock in the UK and Europe.
* Appropriate heating and ventilation, including during station stops.
* Bogied vehicles.
* Toilet provision on board which is no less than currently provided on each route and that avoids smell being noticeable in seated areas (except Glasgow South Electrics.)
* Facilities for storing large items of luggage within sight/proximity of passengers when seated; overhead racks for smaller luggage, flexible space for pushchairs/prams and cycle storage facilities (minimum 2 cycles per unit).
* No more than 50% of the seats to be airline style layout
* Real-time visual and audible passenger information system. PRM TSI compliance represents the minimum standard and proposals are invited for provision of additional information, e.g. train service information and infotainment.
* Ability to work safely and reliably in the ambient winter / summer weather conditions.
* CCTV coverage and on-board recording at a minimum of 2 fps normal and 25 fps for 2 mins before and 5 mins after a trigger event of all passenger areas (except toilets). System to include forward facing camera mounted in each driving cab.

There's also requirements for longer distance services to not have 3+2 seating and to have tables at all seats, capability for Wi-Fi be have a clear differentiation between the quality of First/Business and Standard Class accommodation. Also a requirement on all routes for leg room or shoulder space to not be reduced if new or refurbished rolling stock is introduced.

How many trains in operation today (anywhere in Britain) would fail to meet this?

I think all Pacers, most Sprinters and Voyagers would fail for a start. Some of the South East EMUs which provide FC seats which are the same as standard class seats.

I think the Class 375/3 /6 /7 would fit the spec

How much rolling stock wouldn't meet this criteria

pemma

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member

The Ham

Established Member

junglejames

Established Member

pemma

Veteran Member

junglejames

Established Member

pemma

Veteran Member

al.currie93

Member

junglejames

Established Member

David

Established Member

Starmill

Veteran Member

NotATrainspott

Established Member

jopsuk

Veteran Member

bronzeonion

Member