Another paralympian delayed disembarking

AM9 · 25 Aug 2019

greaterwest said:
Then you should probably not assert that the person manning the Twitter desk had "lied" (implying they deliberately failed to attempt to inform the guard) nor "incompetent" as it was almost certainly not their fault. They would have passed on the message as best as they could.

Actually I said: "they confirmed that they had taken appropriate action so either they lied or they were incompetent". If they (the twitter operator) confirmed that they had taken appropriate action, i.e.informed the guard and they hadn't or even couldn't be sure if they had then that was deception at best or a blatant lie at worst. If they actually believed that they had done it but had forgotten or had not followed it up, I would put that as a failure through incompetance. Ultimately it is up to the TOC to employ sufficient staf of adequate competance, (which include honesty) to deliver the service, so the buck stops there. If there are systematic flaws in the way that issues like this are dealt with, in the first instance in it incumbent on the relevant staff at the various frontlines to alert their management of them. The TOCs can then ignore them at their peril.
I agree with a poster here (I think it was OneOffDave but I can't find the post) that there needs to ba a high-profile campaign to take companies who repeatedly refuse to get their house in order to comply with legislation that has been in place since 1995 to court. Just putting good words on their website abouit how they meet all the legal requirements are an insult if they can't actually do it in such a long time. If the penalties and the PR damage is enough to hurt then maybe they will get up off their backs, - and remove staff who don't sign up to the obligation from their roles because they will become liabilities.

RailUK Forums

tony_mac · 25 Aug 2019

AM9 said:
Actually I said: "they confirmed that they had taken appropriate action so either they lied or they were incompetent". If they (the twitter operator) confirmed that they had taken appropriate action, i.e.informed the guard and they hadn't or even couldn't be sure if they had then that was deception at best or a blatant lie at worst.

they actually confirmed that they had 'sent a message'.
While I don't think that is a good enough system, that seems to be what we have, and I don't see any dishonesty there.

Tio Terry · 25 Aug 2019

Perhaps it’s about time the TOCs started to look at equipping their fleets with lifts for wheelchairs. Pretty common in EU where the platform is around rail height. Gets over Gap problem as well. Wouldn’t need to be every door of course but there could be designated PRM access doors along the train. PALFINGER are one manufacturer of such equipment.

Llanigraham · 25 Aug 2019

Tio Terry said:
Perhaps it’s about time the TOCs started to look at equipping their fleets with lifts for wheelchairs. Pretty common in EU where the platform is around rail height. Gets over Gap problem as well. Wouldn’t need to be every door of course but there could be designated PRM access doors along the train. PALFINGER are one manufacturer of such equipment.

And who operates these lifts?

Ethano92 · 25 Aug 2019

AM9 said:
I considered that 'the railway had failed'. Whatever excuse posters here dream up, ultimately it is SWRs (and every other TOC's) responsibility to provide resources to meet their accessibility obligations. Any other argumnet is just trying to avoid the issue. If they really can't service the process that is advertised (and by can't, I don't mean that it might dent their profits), then admit it and remove the mechanisms that they can't be bothered to ensure are available.
I've generally declined to comment on these forums when some posters close in on criticism and defend poor performance of the railway, but this is slightly different in that such comments as:
"I dont understand, she got off the train at her stop according to the news report, even though she had to wait?"
and
"Not all SWR guards are commercial guards and it's my understanding that non-commercial guards remain in the back cab while commercial guards are meant to walk through doing tickets."
indicate to me an attitude that can only perpetuate the problems that those who need assistance face. The first comment looks like sheer disinterest and even contempt, the second is dancing on the head of a pin as to why a particular grade of guard is an unavoidable fact of life.

Very happy to see this comment. I am going to the extent I found it rude to just say 'whats the big deal' I'm glad that comment was mentioned.

There is a real issue with this and my biggest issue is that I personally feel that if this was a DOO train everyone especially certain unions would be absolutely up in arms and ironically quick to call it out and use somebody's self-said distressing situation to better their campaign yet since there was a guard on board it becomes 'oh well, just an unfortunate turn of events'. We can't carry on the system is clearly flawed. Those with mobility issues are part of our society and need to be treated as such. There are already other methods again and with a bit of thinking even better methods could be adopted.

Bikeman78 · 25 Aug 2019

jon0844 said:
The new trains have call for aid points in the accessible coaches, and backup ramps are stored on the train. I don't know if a driver would do it, but I assume a driver could deploy the ramp from the train if someone isn't at the station to meet it.

Of course, the person needing assistance off the train needs to have been told to use the call for aid 'alarm' and do it before the train has departed* (there may be a short dwell time at a small unstaffed station). If a person is over carried, the same call for aid point could be used to ensure alternative travel arrangements are made ASAP to minimise further delays. At this stage, you can't turn back the clock but you can do everything possible to prevent further problems.

* Another problem is that people may be too scared to use the call for aid, thinking it is only for an emergency. When being boarded, perhaps staff should remind people - or it is stated when booking assistance.

I've never seen a driver get out of the cab to deploy a ramp but that's not to say it has never happened. The train in my Huntingdon example was a 317. I held the door open and the driver kept trying to close it. At no point did he leave the cab to see what the problem was. As it happened, an off duty driver had got off at the front and when he walked past he pointed out that the station was unstaffed and the only option was to go to St Neots.

Bikeman78 · 25 Aug 2019

AM9 said:
I considered that 'the railway had failed'. Whatever excuse posters here dream up, ultimately it is SWRs (and every other TOC's) responsibility to provide resources to meet their accessibility obligations. Any other argumnet is just trying to avoid the issue. If they really can't service the process that is advertised (and by can't, I don't mean that it might dent their profits), then admit it and remove the mechanisms that they can't be bothered to ensure are available.

In order to provide turn up and go access all accessible stations would need level access from platform to train or we need to go back to having staff at every station.

Sweetjesus · 25 Aug 2019

Ethano92 said:
Very happy to see this comment. I am going to the extent I found it rude to just say 'whats the big deal' I'm glad that comment was mentioned.

There is a real issue with this and my biggest issue is that I personally feel that if this was a DOO train everyone especially certain unions would be absolutely up in arms and ironically quick to call it out and use somebody's self-said distressing situation to better their campaign yet since there was a guard on board it becomes 'oh well, just an unfortunate turn of events'. We can't carry on the system is clearly flawed. Those with mobility issues are part of our society and need to be treated as such. There are already other methods again and with a bit of thinking even better methods could be adopted.

Personally I also find it slightly rude & distasteful to discuss why & how this situation has happened as an attempt to assign a blame to an individual member of a TOC especially when one knows that this situation is an recurring one and will not be solved unless TOC wills it.

It should be clearly said that any failures by a staff member of a TOC, is a failure by that TOC.

Bikeman78 said:
In order to provide turn up and go access all accessible stations would need level access from platform to train or we need to go back to having staff at every station.

Not necessarily, there are solutions.

The point was that the current solution for accessibility provided by TOCs is woefully inadequate. The point was not every station should be made accessible.

It is clear that TOCs are not meeting their obligation to provide an accessible service (read: it does not mean all stations must be accessible) and is not doing anything to improve this.

That is why this thread exists. The Paralympian is not demanding that an inaccessible station is made accessible. She is demanding that accessible station is made accessible.

Ethano92 said:
Very happy to see this comment. I am going to the extent I found it rude to just say 'whats the big deal' I'm glad that comment was mentioned.

There is a real issue with this and my biggest issue is that I personally feel that if this was a DOO train everyone especially certain unions would be absolutely up in arms and ironically quick to call it out and use somebody's self-said distressing situation to better their campaign yet since there was a guard on board it becomes 'oh well, just an unfortunate turn of events'. We can't carry on the system is clearly flawed. Those with mobility issues are part of our society and need to be treated as such. There are already other methods again and with a bit of thinking even better methods could be adopted.

This has been happened already.

Ethano92 · 25 Aug 2019

Sweetjesus said:
Personally I also find it slightly rude & distasteful to discuss why & how this situation has happened as an attempt to assign a blame to an individual member of a TOC especially when one knows that this situation is an recurring one and will not be solved unless TOC wills it.

It should be clearly said that any failures by a staff member of a TOC, is a failure by that TOC.

.We can't carry on the system is clearly flawed. Those with mobility issues are part of our society and need to be treated as such. There are already other methods again and with a bit of thinking even better methods could be adopted.

I don't know how you misread 'system', an abstract noun so can't be a single person, as 'i blame this singular person' but ok

Sweetjesus · 25 Aug 2019

Ethano92 said:
I don't know how you misread 'system', an abstract noun so can't be a single person, as 'i blame this singular person' but ok

That comment refers to other posters in this thread.

I was agreeing with your post.

Ethano92 · 25 Aug 2019

Sweetjesus said:
That comment refers to other posters in this thread.

I was agreeing with your post.

Oh ok that explains it, I was confused as to where exactly you were disagreeing from but couldn't tell if it was an agreement. Apologies.

Edit I now saw the 'also' which I misread the first time. Apologies again.

AM9 · 25 Aug 2019

Ethano92 said:
I don't know how you misread 'system', an abstract noun so can't be a single person, as 'i blame this singular person' but ok

Inevitably, specific instances can often be narrowed down to one or more individual's inaction once the circles of finger pointing are broken. There is no point in trying to define who that person was or persons were here as this is really a discussion about the impact on the unfortunate passenger who was relying on the TOC delivering the service as advertised. It's up the the TOC to investigate that and change whatever is required, be it equipment, rules, staffing levels, staff training and in extreme circumstances remove those who do not acknowledge the responsibilities of working in 21st century public transport.

theironroad · 25 Aug 2019

There seems to be a lot of accusations being thrown around here and tbh a lot of of commentary from people just speculating. Not pretty.

AM9 · 26 Aug 2019

theironroad said:
There seems to be a lot of accusations being thrown around here and tbh a lot of of commentary from people just speculating. Not pretty.

So all discussion should be banned until every fact has been fully validated by the relevant authority? Say goodbye to about three quarters of UKRail forums posts then.
Nobody here has to post, or even read posts, if they don't want to.

Tio Terry · 26 Aug 2019

Llanigraham said:
And who operates these lifts?

Can be either train or station staff. Yes, I know some trains and stations are DOO but it’s up to the TOC to decide how they are going to meet the requirements of the Equalities Act. LU raised the height of parts of their platforms to make them step free, is that a possibility to overcome at least the height issue if not the gap? That way wheelchair users can deal with access and egress themselves.

ashkeba · 26 Aug 2019

AM9 said:
I agree with a poster here (I think it was OneOffDave but I can't find the post) that there needs to ba a high-profile campaign to take companies who repeatedly refuse to get their house in order to comply with legislation that has been in place since 1995 to court. Just putting good words on their website abouit how they meet all the legal requirements are an insult if they can't actually do it in such a long time. If the penalties and the PR damage is enough to hurt then maybe they will get up off their backs, - and remove staff who don't sign up to the obligation from their roles because they will become liabilities.

How do you get a high profile campaign? Mainstream media does not care about most of us and when it is someone they care about like a celebrity (paralympian in this case) then some people start flinging poo about how they have abused their status to get publicity.

Also SWR owner First Group react to PR damage by ignoring it for as long as possible and then rebranding so Worst Late Western becomes GWR. I thikn the only thing they will understand is penalties. How about being made to give a free carnet to any PRM denied dis/embarkaction by operator failure and the total number of incidents giving an extra discount for all disabled railcard holders, as well as them having to publish a response to the rail regulator setting out how they will repair their assistance system?

ashkeba · 26 Aug 2019

Ethano92 said:
We've also got high floor trains rolling around for the next 40 years when Stadler have proved that level boarding without a gap is already available on straight platforms of I'm guessing, a standard height, which I know wasn't the platform in this video. Saying that with the width of the gap at the likes of Vauxhall and Clapham I'm not sure if a lower floor would help.

It would not help everyone everywhere but it will help a lot of people in the East of England a lot of the time. Yet this does not seem a geenral commitment because Greater Anglia have also ordered a load of high-floor Aventras for their near-London lines.

There are loads of ways this could be solved - low-floor trains, raised platform bumps, RADAR-key-operated bus-style ramps or lifts to name but four - and it would take a long time to cover over the whole country but there is still not any widespread start yet which means it will take even longer. Does the railway industry care or do they see PRMs as a captive market who are less likely to drive so more likely to tolerate some abuse?

My genuine question is if all the other doors auto closed or closed when the guard pressed the button, is there a reason they wouldnt have been able to walk and locate the likely only door still open on that train? Or look at the lights on the side to locate it? Do they have to stay in the same place for dispatch?

I don't know but repeatedly attempting to close the doors on a wheelchair user without thinking they should go check would I think be a metaphor. Slamming the door on them.

hwl · 26 Aug 2019

ashkeba said:
I don't know but repeatedly attempting to close the doors on a wheelchair user without thinking they should go check would I think be a metaphor. Slamming the door on them.

As already mentioned the 450s doors have a lot of auto close functionality so most will have been the train attempting to keep the cool air inside rather than the guard closing the doors.

greaterwest · 26 Aug 2019

450s also have a door sensor to prevent the door from automatically closing if it is being obstructed, although this is ignored if the guard has triggered the door close procedure.

hwl · 26 Aug 2019

Ethano92 said:
We've also got high floor trains rolling around for the next 40 years when Stadler have proved that level boarding without a gap is already available on straight platforms of I'm guessing, a standard height, which I know wasn't the platform in this video. Saying that with the width of the gap at the likes of Vauxhall and Clapham I'm not sure if a lower floor would help.

The Stadlers have low floors in places with raised floors under the seating above the bogies (similar to the rear areas of many buses) hence they rely on using Jacobs bogies at at least half the car ends to increase the size of the low floor areas. The mixed floor heights create a number of issues and are unlikely to work with more taxing rolling stock specifications e.g. where you have narrow 2+2 seating and wide walk through aisles or longitudinal seating, 1/4 - 3/4 placed doors with large vestibules for standing, no wide walk through gangways.
The cost of platform modifications for the Merseyrail has already increased by over £10m as the ramp tolerance is quite low so far more work is required. Part of Merseytravel's justification for Stadler was a lot of potential infrastructure cost savings vs Aventra. It turns out there isn't enough space for a traction battery (for short extensions without 3rd rail) that Stadler promised either.
Due to battery weight and the desire to use weight saving inside frame bogies by most manufacturers, the batteries (in large quantities) need to go underneath for stability reasons.

hwl · 26 Aug 2019

greaterwest said:
450s also have a door sensor to prevent the door from automatically closing if it is being obstructed, although this is ignored if the guard has triggered the door close procedure.

...which most users have learnt tocircumvent by holding the doors open
(ditto Electrostars and most other modern stock)

tom73 · 26 Aug 2019

Why does the Standard apparently believe that a story about a distressed disabled person facing serious problems on the rail network is only newsworthy if a celebrity, sporting or otherwise, is involved. The affected person is still just an ordinary human being like the rest of us. I don't agree with "celebrity" being used by the press to either push an otherwise "ordinary" story, or to take a pop at the organisation responsible. If the government are genuinely serious about equality for the disabled on the rail network, then they should require the appropriate responsible authority to employ a person to be on the platform to meet each incoming train at "their" station and walk along the train checking for people needing assistance. If you accept that this equality for the disabled is an "enhanced" facility not previously available then such a facility will inevitably cost money. If promising assistance to the disabled passenger, it is not something that can be done on the cheap.

DennisM · 26 Aug 2019

Having seen the video of the Stadler being shared on twitter, and hailed as the solution, there seems to be a large amount of space taken up by various equipment between coaches. Are these low floors achieved by simply moving everything usually below the floor up at the expense of space for passengers? If so it’s certainly no answer to the issue for the many TOCs, especially in the south east, already running maximum length trains at capacity.

hwl · 26 Aug 2019

DennisM said:
Having seen the video of the Stadler being shared on twitter, and hailed as the solution, there seems to be a large amount of space taken up by various equipment between coaches. Are these low floors achieved by simply moving everything usually below the floor up at the expense of space for passengers? If so it’s certainly no answer to the issue for the many TOCs, especially in the south east, already running maximum length trains at capacity.

Yep - not a good solution for space constrained routes where they would reduce capacity.
With LST - Norwich it was easy to make them look better for capacity than Mk3s/90 as they don't have 40m (~15%) loco / DVT space wasted. But in the future single height floor would offer even greater improved capacity.

hwl · 26 Aug 2019

tom73 said:
Why does the Standard apparently believe that a story about a distressed disabled person facing serious problems on the rail network is only newsworthy if a celebrity, sporting or otherwise, is involved. The affected person is still just an ordinary human being like the rest of us. I don't agree with "celebrity" being used by the press to either push an otherwise "ordinary" story, or to take a pop at the organisation responsible. If the government are genuinely serious about equality for the disabled on the rail network, then they should require the appropriate responsible authority to employ a person to be on the platform to meet each incoming train at "their" station and walk along the train checking for people needing assistance. If you accept that this equality for the disabled is an "enhanced" facility not previously available then such a facility will inevitably cost money. If promising assistance to the disabled passenger, it is not something that can be done on the cheap.

The Standard have an editoral article choosing strategy based on what they know will get read.
Rail Problems + Celebrity are both point scoring, so you then write the story (even better if it can all be sourced from Twitter with no real journalism skillz).

theironroad · 26 Aug 2019

AM9 said:
So all discussion should be banned until every fact has been fully validated by the relevant authority? Say goodbye to about three quarters of UKRail forums posts then.
Nobody here has to post, or even read posts, if they don't want to.

Problem is that so much of the stuff posted on here is not factual. It's often people just writing what they think is a fact. Often people writing stuff with no experience of reality and trying to pass it off as fact.

But hey, if that's what people want and enjoy, then let's not let facts get in the way.

Wombat · 26 Aug 2019

tom73 said:
Why does the Standard apparently believe that a story about a distressed disabled person facing serious problems on the rail network is only newsworthy if a celebrity, sporting or otherwise, is involved. The affected person is still just an ordinary human being like the rest of us. I don't agree with "celebrity" being used by the press to either push an otherwise "ordinary" story, or to take a pop at the organisation responsible.

Judging from OneOffDave's comments, I suspect that if the press covered all instances of assistance failure there wouldn't be much room left for anything else. In any case, "Bad thing happens to celeb" is always more newsworthy than "Bad thing happens to random punter", it's not just the railway.

Anyway, I actively welcome anyone who suffers such problems "running to Twitter" (as some have branded it), and doubly so when it's a celeb who might actually attract some interest to the issue. In the absence of a DfT with teeth and an eagerness to sort things out, public shaming is the next-best remedy. I realise that the people running these organisations don't like it, to which I say: good, let's put them in as dark a place as possible. There's a slim chance that it might motivate them into sorting themselves out.

ashkeba · 26 Aug 2019

hwl said:
As already mentioned the 450s doors have a lot of auto close functionality so most will have been the train attempting to keep the cool air inside rather than the guard closing the doors.

I do not really understand why anyone would think it matters whether it is railway staff or railway computers which are repeatedly attempting to close doors on PRMs.

hwl · 27 Aug 2019

ashkeba said:
I do not really understand why anyone would think it matters whether it is railway staff or railway computers which are repeatedly attempting to close doors on PRMs.

Several people asking why the guard kept closing the door on the wheelchair, hence explaining that is is realistically a mix of guard and mostly automatic.

Pete_uk · 27 Aug 2019

I know I'm jumping in a bit late, but I find it surprising the guard or whatever it's called didn't see the passenger get on.

Another paralympian delayed disembarking

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member