Disabled Tanyalee Davis - more rail travel woes.

Bromley boy · 22 Jul 2018

Indigo2 said:
I'm curious: was the driver's employing TOC the same as the TOC operating the station? I ask because LowLevel has referred earlier in the thread to contacting staff at stations directly to arrange assistance. It seems to me more likely that the train crew would have the relevant contact details if it was the same TOC. But what I'm really wondering is whether the need to relay a message via the signaller is because the TOC has no (more efficient) defined procedure for this scenario?

This station is operated by the same TOC as the train. The driver would have had no contact details other than what is in the GSMR (ie TOC control, maintenance, and signaller).

Just as easy to go through the signaller since they will have to be spoken to in any case to explain the delay and provide updates.

Guards have more information as @LowLevel has alluded to.

RailUK Forums

James James · 22 Jul 2018

Gareth Marston said:
Lets be brutally honest here the degree to which disabled passengers can receive timely assistance is limited by the quantity of on board and platform staff available. If you want the perfect system that posters have outlined above then you need more staff and who pays? Shall we put up fares to cover the cost of disabled assistance? Get more subsidy from Government? Cancel an enhancement project? One thing is for certain running about shouting "disabled rights" and quoting this and that legislation is clearly not working and never will.

If you fine the TOC's enough for breaking the law, then eventually it becomes cheaper to provide the assistance that's required.

Bantamzen · 22 Jul 2018

James James said:
If you fine the TOC's enough for breaking the law, then eventually it becomes cheaper to provide the assistance that's required.

It would have to be a hell of a lot of fines to convince TOCs to employ potentially dozens, maybe even hundreds of staff for such a purpose. Employers in general don't like having staff stood around on the off chance some work comes along.

Paul Kelly · 22 Jul 2018

bnm said:
If you want an idea of how the booking system is meant to work then the following link shows that in detail. The booking system itself generally works fine and the research I mentioned earlier shows that users are generally very satisfied with it. The problems start when the bookings are handed over to the ground troops.

Thanks; that's really interesting. Looks like a lot of thought has been put into how the assistance requests are booked then, and that there is some sort of proper database from which suitable hand-off paperwork (as suggested by Bletchleyite) could be extracted/generated, if there was a will to standardise the process by which hand-off of the passenger between the different assisting staff is done.

Gareth Marston said:
Lets be brutally honest here the degree to which disabled passengers can receive timely assistance is limited by the quantity of on board and platform staff available. If you want the perfect system that posters have outlined above then you need more staff and who pays?

Yes, this is a very obvious and pertinent question. Am I right that under the current system, the cost is simply born by the TOC (or Network Rail) which manages the station(s) at which assistance is provided? If so, I wouldn't be surprised if TOC management see the assistance service simply as a cost that must be borne, rather than as the fantastic value-added service which it really is (if it works properly). I'm sure there must be plenty of passengers who would be willing to pay for the assistance service if they were given the option and it were advertised properly.

What I'm wondering now is if anybody actually knows how much it costs to provide the service? Perhaps it is all just absorbed into the general costs of operating stations and not accounted for separately? If it was accounted for properly, perhaps TOCs could be paid for instances of providing assistance out of some sort of central fund. Then the argument about who pays for it could be more readily politicised and made a question of who pays the costs of this central fund. This would make your questions:

Gareth Marston said:
Shall we put up fares to cover the cost of disabled assistance? Get more subsidy from Government? Cancel an enhancement project?

then more easily answerable at a higher, more political level, while individual TOCs wouldn't need to worry about them as they'd all be being paid out of this fund for the assistance they were providing.

To the questions above, I would throw another option out for consideration: that passengers who require assistance because of the legal requirement not to discriminate against them could have their assistance costs covered by a combination of the above (e.g. partly from fare revenue, partly subsidised by government) and other passengers (e.g. slightly frail people who would be OK normally but need some extra help when traveling with heavy luggage) pay a fee. This wouldn't necessarily cover the whole cost of the fee paid to the TOC from the central fund, but could be subsidised. I think having to pay a fee, no matter how small, should help to keep any frivolous usage of the system under control.

Bromley boy said:
This station is operated by the same TOC as the train. The driver would have had no contact details other than what is in the GSMR (ie TOC control, maintenance, and signaller).

Just as easy to go through the signaller since they will have to be spoken to in any case to explain the delay and provide updates.

Guards have more information as @LowLevel has alluded to.

Interesting thanks; seems like another good argument against DOO that should be being made in the appropriate places if it's not already.

Wombat · 22 Jul 2018

LowLevel said:
My standard method of work for passenger assistance is as follows, whether it's me helping them on board or a colleague.

Greet them

Ask them where they're going to, if they have any connections and what help they need.
Help them board the train and settle them into their seat or space. If they're confined to their chair explain where the call for aid is and how it operates (that'll it make an announcement throughout the train for me to attend and that I can talk to them remotely from a cab if required) if relevant.

Phone their destination if manned whether booked or not and whether the origin say they will or not.

Write their location on the train and alighting station on my job card.

On arrival head to a position where I can see that assistance has been provided and if it doesn't look like it has intervene myself, help the person to a safe place to wait and contact the station staff to ensure they're en route before leaving.

That sounds very sensible. It's a bit surprising though that, if I'm reading your comments correctly, this method of working is something that you've had to devise yourself rather than being the TOC's standard process.

Mojo · 22 Jul 2018

daikilo said:
There is a PDF on the LNER website which states that if there are problems then, upon being made aware of it, an investigation will be made and appropriate compensation paid. I don't see any specific reference to a full reimbursement being on offer.

We recently had cause to complain to LNER as, despite having assistance booked, and one of the wheelchair spaces reserved, when the train arrived all spaces on the train were full (not with wheelchairs and their users I might add!) and she had to catch the following train. The email stated:
"If you have booked assistance at one of our stations but it isn't provided, we will give you compensation on the following basis:

Single ticket - 100% of the value
Return ticket - 50% of the value"

It does however imply that this only happens if you have booked in advance and have a reference number; rather than turn up at the station and nobody is there at your destination, which is an unsatisfactory state of affairs in my opinion.

Brissle Girl said:
BNM suggests this is another shameful indictment as to the way railways treat disabled customers. I'd suggest this incident, unlike the previous one, is simply a cock up, where one or more employees trying to do their job properly made a mistake. These things happen, and unfortunately disabled passengers, who by their nature will need more personal handling, will always be more prone to this sort of situation.

However, this happens on a fairly frequent basis. My boyfriend's mother is a wheelchair user and only does a handful of rail journeys a year and a not insignificant number of them encounter problems at the destination station. If the problem is that staff are simply forgetting what the instructions are when the destination station phones ahead, then there is clearly something wrong with the process.

Mag_seven said:
I doubt it - my understanding is the passcom should only be activated in an "emergency" which of course is a subjective term. Is there any guidance re acceptable passcom use out there?

I have utilised the alarm and/or emergency door release on trains where the requested assistance has not been provided.

Gareth Marston said:
Lets be brutally honest here the degree to which disabled passengers can receive timely assistance is limited by the quantity of on board and platform staff available. If you want the perfect system that posters have outlined above then you need more staff and who pays?

At the majority of stations, assistance for disabled customers can already be assisted by staff that are already there; be it ticket office, gateline, general customer service, or dispatch staff.

matt_world2004 · 22 Jul 2018

I was at hayes & Harlington once when booked assistance failed to show up for a blind passenger. (And the train unexpectedly served platform 1) this caused the blind passenger to fall when walking up the stairs. Lack of expected booked assistance in some cases is dangerous)

LowLevel · 22 Jul 2018

WombatDeath said:
That sounds very sensible. It's a bit surprising though that, if I'm reading your comments correctly, this method of working is something that you've had to devise yourself rather than being the TOC's standard process.

The process is that whoever boards the passenger makes the appropriate communication to the other end and/or the guard as appropriate. I always double up on this bit.

It's grown from the fact I have experience both of being on the station staff and being the guard so I've got a decent handle on where the weak links are. I tend to leave my phonecall till a bit later so it's fresher in the mind of who I am speaking to.

davart · 22 Jul 2018

The bottom line that it's an imperfect world.

Of course people who aren't able bodied or simply need assistance in some way should be provided with that.

However, it isn't possible to prevent mistakes. They happen.

You can mitigate this - for example a designated waiting area on a platform for those requiring assistance. The guard or driver could eyeball that area prior to departure. It does require people to remain there however.

Arguments as to fault, compensation and quoting the law and 'rights' achieve nothing.

Although this is harsh, legislation needs to be simplified. I'd love to see compensation be outlawed. If you trip over something, perhaps you weren't looking. Of course, there are those with poor vision and that might sound unfair. The reality is that there are hazards and obstacles for all of us.

Take responsibility for yourselves and stop expecting someone to 'wipe your arse' for you.

Bletchleyite · 22 Jul 2018

matt_world2004 said:
Would pulling the passcom be acceptable if a passenger cant get off due to booked assistance failing to materialise.

I’d say yes. I’ve used it for a failure of staff to attend to disembark a cycle (not mine) from a Pendolino.

davart · 22 Jul 2018

Brissle Girl said:
BNM suggests this is another shameful indictment as to the way railways treat disabled customers. I'd suggest this incident, unlike the previous one, is simply a cock up, where one or more employees trying to do their job properly made a mistake. These things happen, and unfortunately disabled passengers, who by their nature will need more personal handling, will always be more prone to this sort of situation.

I've made lots of mistakes in my career, and I'm sure most people have too. Let's try and keep this incident in proportion, although clearly happening to the same person and so soon after the previous incident demonstrates that the industry does need to try harder.

Well said. The voice of reason.

Llanigraham · 22 Jul 2018

Bromley boy said:
- contacted the signaller to arrange for assistance for a visually impaired passenger who had boarded at his usual station at a weekend when the ticket office was closed and there were no staff to speak to (no idea if he should have booked in advance but seemed the best idea at the time);

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In fact a typical situation arose earlier tonight: I pulled into a station and noticed the previous “down” service (15 mins ahead of mine) standing at an adjacent platform;

It turned out the driver had noticed a disabled wheelchair passenger with no-one to board them and had had to contact the signaller to ask him to arrange for platform staff to come up to the platform (a driver cannot leave a train unattended on running lines at that location so he could not go and find them himself, neither could he board her himself).

I'm intrigued as to why you would contact the signaller in these situations, when it isn't in our remit to sort out problems like this. Surley you should be ringing your Control to rectify the problem? All the signaller can do is report it to his Control who "should" then contact the TOC.

pt_mad · 22 Jul 2018

Gareth Marston said:
Lets be brutally honest here the degree to which disabled passengers can receive timely assistance is limited by the quantity of on board and platform staff available. If you want the perfect system that posters have outlined above then you need more staff and who pays? Shall we put up fares to cover the cost of disabled assistance? Get more subsidy from Government? Cancel an enhancement project? One thing is for certain running about shouting "disabled rights" and quoting this and that legislation is clearly not working and never will.

I think this gets to the heart of it.

The cost of meeting a system which is as precise as the poster further up proposed would require shed loads more staff.

Generally at small to small medium size stations, the booking office staff will provide the assistance, closing the booking office if nobody else is there. There aren't usually extra staff there to do assistance at stations which have two platforms typically.

At medium stations, perhaphs where some trains are dispatched, dispatch staff will usually be responsible for providing the assistance, as well as dispatching the train, or other trains at times very close to each other.

At large stations such as Network Rail run stations, there are staff based there solely to provide assistance. Bit even there, the demand and number of bookings can sometimes be so high that it's impossible to satisfy all the demand. The day before Christmas Eve for example it's usually said there's hundreds and hundreds of assists for that day at some stations for a small team of staff.

Ideally you'd need separate staff at all locations who can dedicate themselves to this task. But like nearly all industries, things are calculated on averages. If 26 days of the month there are only an average of 4 assists across an 18 hour day at a particular station, they won't employ an extra member of staff for the two days of the month where there is a long list of assists and the system fails and someone might miss an assist due to trains clashing or some problem comes up and they don't get over to the train.

If limited supply of staff is the biggest hurdle, and if costs are fixed as limited and there's no scope for more staff, then imo the only logical way of getting around it is finding out who genuinely has a disability during the booking process, and who doesn't and simply wants luggage help. Resource can then be pointed towards genuinely disabled passengers rather than non disabled bookings of which stations like Kings Cross literally have hundreds and hundreds a week I kid you not. There really are that many elderly luggage assists who book it under the elderly heading and do not classify themselves as disabled but the system must cater to that huge demand as things are currently set up. And it's the same team of staff who have to meet the elderly luggage bookings as well as passengers with disabilities bookings.

bnm · 22 Jul 2018

Gareth Marston said:
Lets be brutally honest here the degree to which disabled passengers can receive timely assistance is limited by the quantity of on board and platform staff available. If you want the perfect system that posters have outlined above then you need more staff and who pays? Shall we put up fares to cover the cost of disabled assistance? Get more subsidy from Government? Cancel an enhancement project? One thing is for certain running about shouting "disabled rights" and quoting this and that legislation is clearly not working and never will.

I had a bet with another forum user how long it would be before someone said, "but, cost". I won with before midday Sunday.

The same argument was trotted out when buses had to become step free. The same argument has been made against adapting public buildings. The same argument has been made against RVAR. The same arguments have been made down the years whenever improving the lot of those less fortunate in society has been suggested.

It doesn't wash. There are training and implementation issues with the interaction between disabled travellers and the railways. If it takes money to fix, then so be it. The legislation has to be complied with. None of us, whether individual or body corporate, can pick and chose which laws we will or won't comply with. No ifs, no buts, no "but fares will rise". If nothing is done to improve the situation then there will be more train delays. More necessity to compensate passengers. More necessity to book taxis. More court cases. More bad publicity. More reputational damage. Who ultimately pays for those I wonder? Doing the right thing and complying with legislation and DPPPs is a zero-sum game.

bnm · 22 Jul 2018

davart said:
Take responsibility for yourselves and stop expecting someone to 'wipe your arse' for you.

That really is a crass and totally unacceptable thing to say on a thread largely concerned with disabilities.

I cared for my stepfather toward the end of his life. No amount of taking responsibility for himself in the last 6 months would have enabled him to wipe his own arse.

I've read many things on this thread and the previous one concerning Tanyalee Davis' experiences that I disagree with. I respect the alternative points of view, despite not agreeing. Not yours though. Yours is just offensive.

EM2 · 22 Jul 2018

pt_mad said:
At large stations such as Network Rail run stations, there are staff based there solely to provide assistance. Bit even there, the demand and number of bookings can sometimes be so high that it's impossible to satisfy all the demand. The day before Christmas Eve for example it's usually said there's hundreds and hundreds of assists for that day at some stations for a small team of staff.

Here's how it works at one such station where I worked, with three separate TOCs. I have done both the controller and CSA roles that I am about to describe.

At 01:00, the station control receive (used to be by fax, now by email) the assistance list for that day. 20-25 A4 pages is about average, I have seen as many as 70 pages.
The controller takes that information and types it into a spreadsheet, showing:

Time of assistance
TOC
Headcode
Planned platform
Customer's name
Assistance required
Booked location on the train
Originating station
Destination station

This is then distributed to the assistance staff (two for each TOC) at the start of shift, along with any relevant information (e.g. no working lifts at a station).

When a job is confirmed by a station (let's say Manchester Piccadilly), the controller logs who they spoke to at what time, the controller will (hopefully) get the above information from the departure station, and then which CSA they passed the job to at which time:
e.g. John 08:28 Nick 08:30.
When that CSA has met the customer, it is up to them to finish the assistance. That might mean escorting them to other transport (taxi, bus etc.) or to another CSA that is doing assistance for another TOC. In this case, the assistance may be logged as two separate jobs, e.g.:
Mrs Jones needs a wheelchair, arriving from A to B at 09:15, then departing B to C at 10:00.
The CSA calls the control room and they log when the job is completed, e.g. Nick 11:48
All this information is recorded on the spreadsheet.
Once a CSA is confirmed as accepting that job, it is up to them to do it. If they get called away for some reason, they MUST arrange someone else to cover that assistance.

When a customer travels from the station, the CSA meets them, carries out the assistance and then confirms all the information above to the controller. If ther is a train manager, they should inform them, or the driver (if possible) if it's DOO.
The controller confirms all this information to the destination station, again recording who they spoke to and the time.
e.g Nick 08:29 John 08:48.
The CSA is logged as the time they confirmed the assistance, not the train that the customer travels on.

If an assistance is unbooked (an 'additional'), then the procedure is carried out as above. it is certainly not unusual for 'additionals' to outnumber booked assists.

The difficulties arise when:
- a booked job is not confirmed (either as having travelled or as a 'no show'). If the controller has time, they will call the boarding station and try and find the information but this isn't always a) possible or b) successful.
The mantra is 'you must meet a booked job', i.e. be on the platform ready. Now, if the incoming train is any more than four coaches, then it can be difficult to find the customer, because the CSA has no idea where they are on the train. They know where they *should* be, but these are not always the same thing! This is the first stage where assistance can fall down.
And with station dwell times being so short, this is where there is the biggest opportunity for assistance to fail.

- information passed is not correct. If the boarding station say '4th coach from London end', and it's actually 4th from the country end, then there's another issue. If the information was 'station wheelchair required' but it's actually a customer needing a ramp, then there is yet another issue.

- when a customer is departing the station, they may not make themselves known to staff. Even though there is a Meeting Point, not everyone makes their way there. In a big, busy station, it is not impossible for customers to get missed.
- sometimes destination stations don't (or can't) answer the phone. In that case, the controller will try and contact the TOC control to pass the information on.

In cases like Christmas and Easter, often managers come out of the offices and assist with assistance (if you see what I mean!)

I don't know what their current stats are, but when I left that station, 'assistances missed' were recorded as 0.2% of all assistances.

DackandBlecker · 22 Jul 2018

bnm said:
It doesn't wash. There are training and implementation issues with the interaction between disabled travellers and the railways. If it takes money to fix, then so be it. The legislation has to be complied with. None of us, whether individual or body corporate, can pick and chose which laws we will or won't comply with. No ifs, no buts, no "but fares will rise". If nothing is done to improve the situation then there will be more train delays. More necessity to compensate passengers. More necessity to book taxis. More court cases. More bad publicity. More reputational damage. Who ultimately pays for those I wonder? Doing the right thing and complying with legislation and DPPPs is a zero-sum game.

Sorry, but the cost has to be reasonable. If it costs a Billion to implement it, it’s not going to happen.

pt_mad · 22 Jul 2018

EM2 said:
Here's how it works at one such station where I worked, with three separate TOCs. I have done both the controller and CSA roles that I am about to describe.

At 01:00, the station control receive (used to be by fax, now by email) the assistance list for that day. 20-25 A4 pages is about average, I have seen as many as 70 pages.
The controller takes that information and types it into a spreadsheet, showing:

Time of assistance

TOC

Headcode

Planned platform

Customer's name

Assistance required

Booked location on the train

Originating station

Destination station

This is then distributed to the assistance staff (two for each TOC) at the start of shift, along with any relevant information (e.g. no working lifts at a station).

When a job is confirmed by a station (let's say Manchester Piccadilly), the controller logs who they spoke to at what time, the controller will (hopefully) get the above information from the departure station, and then which CSA they passed the job to at which time:
e.g. John 08:28 Nick 08:30.
When that CSA has met the customer, it is up to them to finish the assistance. That might mean escorting them to other transport (taxi, bus etc.) or to another CSA that is doing assistance for another TOC. In this case, the assistance may be logged as two separate jobs, e.g.:
Mrs Jones needs a wheelchair, arriving from A to B at 09:15, then departing B to C at 10:00.
The CSA calls the control room and they log when the job is completed, e.g. Nick 11:48
All this information is recorded on the spreadsheet.
Once a CSA is confirmed as accepting that job, it is up to them to do it. If they get called away for some reason, they MUST arrange someone else to cover that assistance.

When a customer travels from the station, the CSA meets them, carries out the assistance and then confirms all the information above to the controller. If ther is a train manager, they should inform them, or the driver (if possible) if it's DOO.
The controller confirms all this information to the destination station, again recording who they spoke to and the time.
e.g Nick 08:29 John 08:48.
The CSA is logged as the time they confirmed the assistance, not the train that the customer travels on.

If an assistance is unbooked (an 'additional'), then the procedure is carried out as above. it is certainly not unusual for 'additionals' to outnumber booked assists.

The difficulties arise when:
- a booked job is not confirmed (either as having travelled or as a 'no show'). If the controller has time, they will call the boarding station and try and find the information but this isn't always a) possible or b) successful.
The mantra is 'you must meet a booked job', i.e. be on the platform ready. Now, if the incoming train is any more than four coaches, then it can be difficult to find the customer, because the CSA has no idea where they are on the train. They know where they *should* be, but these are not always the same thing! This is the first stage where assistance can fall down.
And with station dwell times being so short, this is where there is the biggest opportunity for assistance to fail.

- information passed is not correct. If the boarding station say '4th coach from London end', and it's actually 4th from the country end, then there's another issue. If the information was 'station wheelchair required' but it's actually a customer needing a ramp, then there is yet another issue.

- when a customer is departing the station, they may not make themselves known to staff. Even though there is a Meeting Point, not everyone makes their way there. In a big, busy station, it is not impossible for customers to get missed.
- sometimes destination stations don't (or can't) answer the phone. In that case, the controller will try and contact the TOC control to pass the information on.

In cases like Christmas and Easter, often managers come out of the offices and assist with assistance (if you see what I mean!)

I don't know what their current stats are, but when I left that station, 'assistances missed' were recorded as 0.2% of all assistances.

But is the system that only one assist is allocated to any one CSA at a given time (i.e. only one assist to look after for that 15 minute window and then onto another for the next fifteen minutes, like that?

Or does a CSA have to put 2 assists onto the same train? Certainly TOC staff might have two assists for the same train for one member of staff to do. And the train's dwell time could well be 2 mins.

Also, can I ask you, if a wheelchair user in a manual push type wheelchair has some luggage with them, does one CSA push the person's wheelchair and one pulls the cases. Or does one person have to struggle to do both at the same time due to staff limitations? Certainly I have seen this many times to be the case even though many Tocs brief staff they should never push a wheelchair and handle a case at the same time. Yet an assist may come in which needs two people but only one member of staff is either available or only one works at the station.

Michael.Y · 22 Jul 2018

DackandBlecker said:
Sorry, but the cost has to be reasonable. If it costs a Billion to implement it, it’s not going to happen.

What price would you put on a person's freedom to travel without being hindered by something beyond their control?

I think a billion is a good starting point, given that £4.5 billion is being spent on replacing the inaccessible HSTs with fully compliant IEPs.

PS to give you an idea of how rail staff are viewing this story, the other day I was called "disgraceful" for daring not to call Tanyalee a publicity seeking liar.

Right Away · 22 Jul 2018

Gareth Marston said:
Lets be brutally honest here the degree to which disabled passengers can receive timely assistance is limited by the quantity of on board and platform staff available. If you want the perfect system that posters have outlined above then you need more staff and who pays? Shall we put up fares to cover the cost of disabled assistance? Get more subsidy from Government? Cancel an enhancement project? One thing is for certain running about shouting "disabled rights" and quoting this and that legislation is clearly not working and never will.

Without wanting to get into the cost argument, the point regarding the availability of staff is a valid one. I have watched a member of despatch staff at a single staffed station trying to deal with simultaneous slam door stock trains and deal with 8 booked assists at the same time, only a couple were booked in the same carriage and some with 5 minute connections on to other services. The poor member of staff prioritised those needing the ramp. Each of those people who had booked assistance were (rightly) expecting there to be someone available to help. Unfortunately, without causing significant delay to the trains and jeopardising connections along the line, some of those people had to look after themselves. You now have multiple failed assists and often a complaint against the station staff saying that they didn't assist.

bnm · 22 Jul 2018

DackandBlecker said:
Sorry, but the cost has to be reasonable. If it costs a Billion to implement it, it’s not going to happen.

There's nothing new and extraordinarily expensive to implement. The system is in place. The booking system works well. Users are satisfied with that. It's only when the system gets to the frontline do problems arise. More training. A few more staff who's role is assistance first, other duties after.

AlterEgo · 22 Jul 2018

Michael.Y said:
What price would you put on a person's freedom to travel without being hindered by something beyond their control?

I think a billion is a good starting point, given that £4.5 billion is being spent on replacing the inaccessible HSTs with fully compliant IEPs.

The other side of the coin is that any future work or new opening must be fully complaint. As an example, footbridge which has two working lifts can cost £600,000 to install, whereas a utilitarian footbridge with only steps costs around £25,000. Making a new station fully accessible comes with extraordinary expense, and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some station business cases have failed precisely because of the costs of installing and maintaining heavily engineered fixtures.

EM2 · 22 Jul 2018

pt_mad said:
But is the system that only one assist is allocated to any one CSA at a given time (i.e. only one assist to look after for that 15 minute window and then onto another for the next fifteen minutes, like that?

Or does a CSA have to put 2 assists onto the same train? Certainly TOC staff might have two assists for the same train for one member of staff to do. And the train's dwell time could well be 2 mins.

Also, can I ask you, if a wheelchair user in a manual push type wheelchair has some luggage with them, does one CSA push the person's wheelchair and one pulls the cases. Or does one person have to struggle to do both at the same time due to staff limitations? Certainly I have seen this many times to be the case even though many Tocs brief staff they should never push a wheelchair and handle a case at the same time. Yet an assist may come in which needs two people but only one member of staff is either available or only one works at the station.

The short answer to all of that is...it depends!
A CSA will use their knowledge to evaluate each job. So (for example) if Mrs Jones arrives at 09:30, and is going to the bus stop, the CSA and controller know that they are likely to be tied up for twenty minutes. But any controller worth their salt wouldn't give a CSA two jobs so close together.
CSAs often will put two assists on one train, but it depends on what assists they are. If Mrs Jones needs a ramp, and Mr Smith is visually impaired, it's not too difficult, especially if they happen to be booked into the same carriage. If Mrs Jones needs a ramp, and so does Mr Smith, and so does Ms Brown, then obviously things are more difficult.
As for the last point, it's not too difficult with one case, but with more than one you'll need another pair of hands.

Michael.Y · 22 Jul 2018

AlterEgo said:
The other side of the coin is that any future work or new opening must be fully complaint. As an example, footbridge which has two working lifts can cost £600,000 to install, whereas a utilitarian footbridge with only steps costs around £25,000. Making a new station fully accessible comes with extraordinary expense, and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some station business cases have failed precisely because of the costs of installing and maintaining heavily engineered fixtures.

I would argue a footbridge isn't very utilitarian if it's not usable by a sizeable percentage of the population. The ableism on this thread astonishes me. Hopefully all you bright spritely young things will be lucky to grow old and decrepit one day and you'll be glad of a lift or an inclinator or similar.

Right Away · 22 Jul 2018

Is there any correlation between the current trend for reducing staffing levels to a bare minimum and booked assistance not being provided? Perhaps instead of enacting the McNulty report to save money, TOCs should be doing the exact opposite and increasing front line staffing to comply with the relevant legislation? This would require a complete culture change from the Department for Transport downwards.

pt_mad · 22 Jul 2018

Right Away said:
Without wanting to get into the cost argument, the point regarding the availability of staff is a valid one. I have watched a member of despatch staff at a single staffed station trying to deal with simultaneous slam door stock trains and deal with 8 booked assists at the same time, only a couple were booked in the same carriage and some with 5 minute connections on to other services. The poor member of staff prioritised those needing the ramp. Each of those people who had booked assistance were (rightly) expecting there to be someone available to help. Unfortunately, without causing significant delay to the trains and jeopardising connections along the line, some of those people had to look after themselves. You now have multiple failed assists and often a complaint against the station staff saying that they didn't assist.

I believe this can be the case at some of the Cornwall stations. One member of staff who is responsible for dispatch of a slam door train and any or multiple assists and or ramps.

PaxVobiscum · 22 Jul 2018

Michael.Y said:
I would argue a footbridge isn't very utilitarian if it's not usable by a sizeable percentage of the population. The ableism on this thread astonishes me. Hopefully all you bright spritely young things will be lucky to grow old and decrepit one day and you'll be glad of a lift or an inclinator or similar.

That’s two new words I have learned today.

Michael.Y · 22 Jul 2018

pt_mad said:
I believe this can be the case at some of the Cornwall stations. One member of staff who is responsible for dispatch of a slam door train and any or multiple assists and or ramps.

In which case, assisting disabled passengers is a perfectly valid mitigation for delaying a train by a minute or so and no fines or other sanctions would be incurred by the TOC.

AlterEgo · 22 Jul 2018

Michael.Y said:
I would argue a footbridge isn't very utilitarian if it's not usable by a sizeable percentage of the population. The ableism on this thread astonishes me. Hopefully all you bright spritely young things will be lucky to grow old and decrepit one day and you'll be glad of a lift or an inclinator or similar.

I was merely pointing it out. No need to be defensive. PS: I am disabled and hold a DSB Railcard.

Right Away · 22 Jul 2018

Michael.Y said:
In which case, assisting disabled passengers is a perfectly valid mitigation for delaying a train by a minute or so and no fines or other sanctions would be incurred by the TOC.

It works ok with only one train at the station. Two at the same time (both with passengers requiring assistance) and the system doesn't work.

Disabled Tanyalee Davis - more rail travel woes.

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Verified Rep - BR Fares

Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member