Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It is ironic that the main toilets are on 3/4 when most waiting passengers will be on 5/6 (Avanti northbound) and 1/2 (LNR southbound).
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Article: Wheelchair User Difficulty at Milton Keynes
- Thread starter BJames
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Surely, even if assistance hadn't been booked, the on-train staff for the first part of the journey, towards Milton Keynes, should have contacted ahead as soon as they were aware of him being on the train, in order to give a reasonable chance of a solution being found.
philthetube
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 3,762
would on train staff be aware of which platform the train was headed for, and, as previously mentioned, that the lift was not working
Newly developed and bigger stations (such as Reading) don’t even have that so that’s highly unlikely.
The issue is that the lifts are out for a long period of time.
DailyCommuter
Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2019
- Messages
- 29
Doesn't Reading have toilets on every island, as they on the London end of 8/9 and 10/11 and the country end of 1/2/3/7, 12/13 and 14/15. Plus there are two lifts to each platform for redundancy.
They would know which platform they are due to use, but that can always change whilst en route
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It'd still have been an issue if they were out for one day, which is a realistic scenario.
But regarding toilets, the two useful locations are "on the concourse"* or "on all platforms". Having them on only one platform is a faff and an accessibility issue.
* Not useful in this case of course.
Geezertronic
Established Member
Was this service even supposed to stop at MKC? The passengers ultimate destination was Euston and my understanding is that the only reason for the de-train at MKC was because of the full line block south of MKC
I haven't had a chance to watch yet but it came up on Twitter that this was on GMB this morning with the person involved doing an interview. I'll watch as soon as I can but just in case anyone else has a chance but may fill in some of the gaps in the story.
Not 100% sure if it was, Avanti we're unloading all trains there at the time so it's not really relevant. As soon as the TM knew it was terminating there they should have thought about it, and the platform staff would 100% have know about the lift situation
It's entirely possible the TM did not know they would be terminating until some time after arriving into MKC. If they did not know the root issue causing them to be held, they would not immediately start making arrangements for wheelchair users to exit the platform.
Again, it is a bit of the 'open windows' or 'swiss cheese' theory here, but it is a failure of the station planning, not the onboard train crew, to have no plan for wheelchair users.
I wonder what the plan is when wheelchair assistance is pre-booked from MKC when services are running normally for trains booked to use this platform.
I find some of this discussion a bit surreal, debating what the train manager should have done on an unanticipated stop or sending the passenger on a round trip of 70 to 100 miles, north or south to get them off the platform.
An other approach is to say that at a major station like Milton Keynes it is both foreseeable and over a long time period highly likely that passengers with mobility issues will, sooner or later, for any number of different causes, end up on the platform and need to exit in a reasonable time. It could be a wheelchair user, it could be parent with with a large or heavy pushchair, it could be an elderly person with a heavy case or trunk and unable to get it up the stairs. A lift will be fine for most of the time, but inevitably it will break-down or simply be out-of-service for periods for maintenance, so there needs to be another exit route from the platform other than the stairs which can be used within a reasonable, say 30 minutes, time period to allow the passenger to exit.
I am surprised it isn't an existing requirement for managing emergency situations because there will be situations where the use of the lift is not permitted or advisable and another route must be used.
An other approach is to say that at a major station like Milton Keynes it is both foreseeable and over a long time period highly likely that passengers with mobility issues will, sooner or later, for any number of different causes, end up on the platform and need to exit in a reasonable time. It could be a wheelchair user, it could be parent with with a large or heavy pushchair, it could be an elderly person with a heavy case or trunk and unable to get it up the stairs. A lift will be fine for most of the time, but inevitably it will break-down or simply be out-of-service for periods for maintenance, so there needs to be another exit route from the platform other than the stairs which can be used within a reasonable, say 30 minutes, time period to allow the passenger to exit.
I am surprised it isn't an existing requirement for managing emergency situations because there will be situations where the use of the lift is not permitted or advisable and another route must be used.
Such as?
If you can come up with a workable, practical solution to what you’re asking for, I’m sure Network Rail will be all ears.
Keeping in mind that (AIUI) the majority of U.K. stations aren’t wheelchair accessible at all, let alone having lifts. So, to prevent the (very rare) scenario in this thread, you’ll need to apply your solution to every single one of them.
There is (AFAIK) no solution to detraining wheelchair passengers during an emergency evacuation either.
Last edited:
Another poster made a good suggestion, they referred to a barrow crossing along the ends of the platforms, something I have seen at other stations. I would have assumed something like this would be necessary for maintenance purposes as well, when moving over-sized items like glazing, panelling, vending machines or other large items which won't fit in the lift, or safely down the stairs, to get them to/from the platform.
Barrow crossings are being phased out. Oversized items such as glazing don't need replacing very often, and can either be craned in, carried.across the tracks in a regular possession or handled up and down the footbridge steps.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Generally it is a taxi to/from the nearest suitable accessible station, or all the way if necessary.
In the absence of another way to get passengers with limited mobility safely off the platform when the lift breaks down, it sounds like barrow crossings are still very much required.
I'd also expect getting a crane in to lower something which could be brought across a simple crossing would make the maintenance activity substantially more expensive and difficult to organise, doing anything with cranes around over-head lines is normally a challenge. Manual handling things up and down stairs isn't generally recommended, which is of course why we're having this discussion in the first place!
Many stations don’t even have level access between platform and street level, let alone lifts to all platforms. What good is a barrow crossing between platforms if you can’t even get in or out of the station if you’re in a wheelchair?
The point is you will never be able to eliminate the possibility of this kind of thing occurring somewhere on the network. It gets to the point where it would easier and cheaper to simply give every wheelchair passenger a free taxi rather than carrying them on the railway at all. That isn’t particularly inclusive or practical for many journeys people do by train.
Surely it’s better to spend money making sure the current assistance arrangements are more robust (they go wrong *far* more than this kind of scenario ever occurs) and gradually improving access on a piecemeal basis as stations are rebuilt?
Indeed.
We are discussing a station which has lifts and wheelchair access, so in this situation a set of barrow crossings would have allowed a member of railway staff to simply arrange to push passenger across to the next platform, either to board a train or to use the working lift. It solves the problem.
It solves this very particular problem, IF staff can arrange to take a line block safely, which is not as easy as it sounds when the signaller is busy dealing with an incident involving stranded trains further up the line. It also increases the risk of trespass, by providing a very obvious route onto the tracks.
Barrow crossings should be considered a potential solution at low-to medium traffic stations with only 2 platforms, where an accessible footbridge would be a disproportionate cost or present considerable maintenance problems. But it's the wrong solution for regular working at MKC.
Long established Barrow crossings are being actively closed so they're certainly not going to be newly installed. They're well and truly out of favour. I've been a trained user of one and it could be a very long wait for permission to cross at times, and it relied on perfect communication and control between the station staff and signaller as I don't believe there was interlocking with the signalling.
I don't agree with their removal that said but there you are.
They do survive elsewhere of course but usually only where lifts are unfeasible and often with extra controls like maglock gates released by the signaller. They're usually but not always at simple, low linespeed locations.
Two separate lifts with different manufacturers?
Metal drawbridges maybe? (Which has been done in the past at Brockenhurst IIRC)
Still needs a link to the signals, but maybe could be interlocked properly.
I'd be tempted to bring maintenance of the lifts in house and keep both trained persons and a large stockpile of parts available.
One procedure I suppose would be not allow terminating or taking a train out of service if the lifts are broken.
Evacuations excepted obviously.
This would be a tough restriction I suspect though.
There is also the stanna stairlift type install, which could be provided as a backup when the lifts are not in use. I think this might be ok, with the wheelchair carried up empty?
Metal drawbridges maybe? (Which has been done in the past at Brockenhurst IIRC)
Still needs a link to the signals, but maybe could be interlocked properly.
I'd be tempted to bring maintenance of the lifts in house and keep both trained persons and a large stockpile of parts available.
One procedure I suppose would be not allow terminating or taking a train out of service if the lifts are broken.
Evacuations excepted obviously.
This would be a tough restriction I suspect though.
There is also the stanna stairlift type install, which could be provided as a backup when the lifts are not in use. I think this might be ok, with the wheelchair carried up empty?
Last edited:
You'd never get approval to install a permanent drawbridge over the fast lines at MKC.
This would be much more expensive in both staff and parts costs/storage than contracting it out. The appropriate response here is to insert a penalty clause in the contract for any repairs that take longer than x days to fix, which is almost certainly already how it is being done.
There was nowhere for the train to go forward from Milton Keynes, and no certainty when it would be allowed to move in either direction given the scale of the disruption. Terminating the train was pretty much the only option.
theageofthetra
On Moderation
- Joined
- 27 May 2012
- Messages
- 3,504
Plenty of other locations where lifts have been out of service for months.
Is this because it's impossible to work on them whilst trains are running?
Unfortunately financial penalties only work if the contract can be fulfilled and is actually possible.
Force Majeure tends to get called when it cannot.
If the task is impossible (because there are no parts available) the size of the penalty is immaterial, the job won't get done.
Edit: removed a line
If the parts aren't available to a dedicated lift maintenance contractor then why would NR or LNR have any better luck?
To refer to my previous message:
"bring maintenance of the lifts in house and keep both trained persons and a large stockpile of parts available."
Keeping the spare parts ahead of time is an essential part of the idea.
I suppose NR could pay the contractor to keep a dedicated pool of parts instead if they prefer?
Edit: Parts issue is also a supposition from up-thread, it might be structural to building or something else.
However I genuinely think in house maintenance is preferable in most cases.
Last edited:
The current practice is an area of safety at the end of the platform away from the station building. A recent example is at Bow Street. It has markings at the far end of the platform and an extra help point.
As I previously mentioned, the TM 100% knew they were terminating there as my train was the last to be given permission to move south from Rugby at the time.
The 1st of the 2 Avanti trains that then arrived in at MKC we're between 30-45 minutes after I for there, so the line block had been in place for nearly at hour.
I'm not absolving anyone of responsibility, clearly more than 1 member of staff has not considered the best scenario. De-train at Rugby for onward road transport would have been the obvious and quickest option. Something that happens pretty regularly for issues such as lift availability, I've known it at multiple stations across LNWR/WMR so I'm sure Avanti at Rugby would've had no issue sorting it out.
It's not the station's fault they de-trained him there with no notice, I'd say from him statement that the Avanti staff went to find LNWR staff to assist, who found him halfway up the stairs. If they had known in advance, they could have had a plan in place be that using an alternative platform or manual movement but clearly they didn't
theageofthetra
On Moderation
- Joined
- 27 May 2012
- Messages
- 3,504
The only person whose fault it is is whoever procured the contract for the lift supply and maintenance and failed to do due diligence on the onwards maintenance contract.
- Status