Article: Wheelchair User Difficulty at Milton Keynes

[Bletchleyite]

In terms of contingency there already exist evacuation chairs intended to be used going upstairs. It should be mandatory for there to be one at any platform which can only be left by way of stairs if the lift is broken, and all station staff and traincrew should be trained in their use.

Obviously planning should avoid this actually happening (i.e. taxi to/from an accessible station) but this is an inexpensive (compared with the lift itself) solution to a situation like this.

 

[AngusH]

A quick search from Bletchleyite's comment and I find this:

Globex Stair Climber | Globex Evacuation Chairs | United Kingdom

The Globex Stairclimber is our battery powered chair that enables one person to provide access and egress for a physically impaired person safely and easily up and down stairs in the event of an emergency or when lifts can not be used

www.globex-evacuation.com

As a note, it seems like it needs a training course for the operator. But that's not impossible.

 

[AndrewP]

If only lift maintenance was as easy as some seem to think - certainly outside the rail sector.

The problem is that they often wear out in a way that a simple fix is not possible and spares are either unobtainable due to the age of the lift, the manufacturer not being in existence any more or the nature of the failure being that replacement is the only viable option (and then you get into capital spend which is always a joy!)

As for bringing it in house, even where facilities management is in house this tends to be outsource as it is so specialist and is just too much hassle to manage.

In summary, lifts are expensive and break a lot so you need a contingency in place for when they fail as they will at some stage!

 

[43066]

Metal drawbridges maybe?

Metal drawbridges over 125mph railway lines with 25kV OHLE a few feet above it?

Seriously?

 

[ABB125]

If only lift maintenance was as easy as some seem to think - certainly outside the rail sector.

The problem is that they often wear out in a way that a simple fix is not possible and spares are either unobtainable due to the age of the lift, the manufacturer not being in existence any more or the nature of the failure being that replacement is the only viable option (and then you get into capital spend which is always a joy!)

As for bringing it in house, even where facilities management is in house this tends to be outsource as it is so specialist and is just too much hassle to manage.

In summary, lifts are expensive and break a lot so you need a contingency in place for when they fail as they will at some stage!

So perhaps it would be sensible to start encouraging the use of ramps instead of lifts (especially where the station geography is ideal, eg: in a cutting (footbridge at "ground level" over the railway, ramps down the cutting sides) or on an embankment (tunnel through the embankment, ramps up the sides), though admittedly the former is more ideal than the latter)? Much lower maintenance requirements (the only thing I can think of is gritting in the winter months, plus some sort of periodic (annual?) inspection), and a ramp can't "break down" (unless is falls down, of course! ).

If only lift maintenance was as easy as some seem to think - certainly outside the rail sector.

The problem is that they often wear out in a way that a simple fix is not possible and spares are either unobtainable due to the age of the lift, the manufacturer not being in existence any more or the nature of the failure being that replacement is the only viable option (and then you get into capital spend which is always a joy!)

As for bringing it in house, even where facilities management is in house this tends to be outsource as it is so specialist and is just too much hassle to manage.

In summary, lifts are expensive and break a lot so you need a contingency in place for when they fail as they will at some stage!

So perhaps it would be sensible to start encouraging the use of ramps instead of lifts (especially where the station geography is ideal, eg: in a cutting (footbridge at "ground level" over the railway, ramps down the cutting sides) or on an embankment (tunnel through the embankment, ramps up the sides), though admittedly the former is more ideal than the latter)? Much lower maintenance requirements (the only thing I can think of is gritting in the winter months, plus some sort of periodic (annual?) inspection), and a ramp can't "break down" (unless is falls down, of course! ).

 

[43066]

So perhaps it would be sensible to start encouraging the use of ramps instead of lifts (especially where the station geography is ideal, eg: in a cutting (footbridge at "ground level" over the railway, ramps down the cutting sides) or on an embankment (tunnel through the embankment, ramps up the sides), though admittedly the former is more ideal than the latter)? Much lower maintenance requirements (the only thing I can think of is gritting in the winter months, plus some sort of periodic (annual?) inspection), and a ramp can't "break down" (unless is falls down, of course! ).

The issue with ramps is that their viability is determined by local topography. My local station* has theoretical ramp access to all platforms, but they’re disallowed for use due to them being far too steep for safe wheelchair use.

*Hither Green. For anyone interested, there are current plans to improve access. Then again there have been current plans to improve access for at least the last couple of decades or so AFAIK.

 

[tomuk]

The issue with ramps is that their viability is determined by local topography. My local station* has theoretical ramp access to all platforms, but they’re disallowed for use due to them being far too steep for safe wheelchair use.

*Hither Green. For anyone interested, there are current plans to improve access. Then again there have been current plans to improve access for at least the last couple of decades or so AFAIK.

Even ramps build to the approved standard can be a struggle for non motorised wheelchair users.

Bicester Tubbs Lane footbridge 'towers' over nursery

Staff at an Oxfordshire nursery say children can no longer use the school garden after a large railway footbridge was built overlooking it.

www.bbc.co.uk

A place of safety where an evacuation can be done under controlled conditions is perfectly adequate. In the Milton Keynes case the person should have been spotted sooner and a proper plan been in place to detrain him at Rugby or elsewhere.


In terms of the toilets the minimum prevision should be an accessible toilet on each island, the able bodied can cross to the other platforms.

 

[bramling]

To be fair perhaps the fire brigade solution starts to make a lot more sense if someone is genuinely going to be trapped on a station for hours and there’s nothing moving. It’s very unfortunate this situation occurred in the first place but once discovered it’s too late for that of course.

It’s happened on LU when, as happens from time to time, a motorised wheelchair ends up on a train and can’t get off for whatever reason. The fire brigade will turn up, just one one of those things really, not ideal of course.

How one addresses all this is not straightforward. I completely agree with the sentiments that this is all completely unsatisfactory, but what do you realistically do when the key component of step-free access is unavailable, which in the case of lifts is going to happen from time to time? I don’t think any of us would be too keen on the idea of going for a mystery tour to somewhere else. So realistically there’s either got to be a way of moving people, or everywhere that relies on lifts needs a fall-back option, which in practice is going to be a barrow crossing with suitable protection arrangements.

 

[Eyersey468]

Do we know for sure he was not offered any alternative whatsoever, such as an alternative train from that island platform which would have enabled onward travel towards Euston?

The article implies this but I'm not convinced; if I was writing an article of this nature (and I accept I am not a journalist) I would be making it a priority to establish exactly what was offered and making it clear in the article. The fact they omit the information makes me suspicious that it doesn't suit their narrative.

However, unless anyone has some inside information on this, we don't know sufficient level of detail to judge if the actions of the staff were unreasonable or not.

I agree, I know from personal experience what the press are like in exaggerating stuff and making things up to suit their narrative, I am certain we are not being told the full story here.

 

[yorkie]

In terms of the toilets the minimum prevision should be an accessible toilet on each island, the able bodied can cross to the other platforms.

Feel free to create a thread in the speculative area with your proposals; that's pretty drastic and would cost a lot of money but it's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[tomuk]

Feel free to create a thread in the speculative area with your proposals; that's pretty drastic and would cost a lot of money but it's beyond the scope of this thread.

What do you mean drastic? I'm talking specifically about Milton Keynes. It has M, F and accessible toilets on Platforms 1&2 and 3&4 but none on Platform 5&6 there is however a small coffee shop and waiting room. Providing an accessible toilet wouldn't be excessive.

 

[Eyersey468]

What do you mean drastic? I'm talking specifically about Milton Keynes. It has M, F and accessible toilets on Platforms 1&2 and 3&4 but none on Platform 5&6 there is however a small coffee shop and waiting room. Providing an accessible toilet wouldn't be excessive.

I think yorkie thought you meant at every station on the network, to be honest that is how I interpreted your comment too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do you mean drastic? I'm talking specifically about Milton Keynes. It has M, F and accessible toilets on Platforms 1&2 and 3&4 but none on Platform 5&6 there is however a small coffee shop and waiting room. Providing an accessible toilet wouldn't be excessive.

A full set of toilets should be provided on 5/6. They are the main platform on which people wait the longest time - most London-bound passengers will use 1/2 and just board the next train, whereas most travel on 5/6 is on Advances and so people will be waiting around longer, and it's a long walk to 3/4 to use those ones.

3/4 are the least used departing platforms yet they have the main toilets!

It would not be particularly difficult nor expensive to do this. Or as an alternative to provide some at concourse level (no good for this guy but useful for most people).

 

[43066]

So realistically there’s either got to be a way of moving people, or everywhere that relies on lifts needs a fall-back option, which in practice is going to be a barrow crossing with suitable protection arrangements.

It really is a difficult one. Unfortunately barrow crossing really are a non starter - even their physical presence would encourage misuse - and arrangements such as the wheelchair stair mover shown upthread are likely to be regarded as too costly (in terms of both purchase/maintenance costs and then ongoing training requirements). Plus, frankly, it looks pretty precarious. In today’s world, would something like that be regarded as safe for use in anything other than a dire life threatening emergency? In most circumstances a train elsewhere and a taxi would likely be preferable to attempting to use that from a H&S perspective.

However one looks at it, I think we arrive back at a straight choice between continuing the current arrangements, where wheelchair passengers can only use certain locations, accepting the risk that situations such as described in this thread will occasionally arise, or simply not carrying them at all and some other means being provided such as taxis.

 

[AngusH]

... simply not carrying them at all and some other means being provided such as taxis.

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.

In particular I think the ORR might object for once.

On the other side trying to provide service in a limited subset of locations requires good quality information, which seems to be lacking in some cases:

Campaigner’s research shows rail access information is often ‘wildly inaccurate’

Information used by disabled passengers to check if a rail station is accessible is frequently “wildly inaccurate”, and often leads them to book travel to and from stations they cannot access, acco…

www.disabilitynewsservice.com

Is it good enough most of the time? Possibly?
Is it meeting the required standard, I'm not convinced it is.



On a piece of good news, if the website is to believed the lift has now been repaired and step free access is available to all platforms. (I assume)


edit:

I feel some of my comments may have been critical without accounting for some of the underlying causes.

I offer this quote from a recent report, pointing out lack of funding:

Inclusive Transport Strategy: evaluation baseline and technical reports

Research report exploring disabled people’s experiences using the transport network.

www.gov.uk

“We [train operators] try and deliver what we're supposed to, from legislation obligations, but it can almost feel like putting a sticking plaster over something without actually resolving the ultimate issue, which is ‘I [disabled passenger] can't physically get on to my station, or it's not got those things [accessible infrastructure]’. Ultimately, that is major funding but that has to come from a department basis” [Train operator].

 

[Mawkie]

As a note, it seems like it needs a training course for the operator. But that's not impossible.

In terms of contingency there already exist evacuation chairs intended to be used going upstairs. It should be mandatory for there to be one at any platform which can only be left by way of stairs if the lift is broken, and all station staff and traincrew should be trained in their use.

I remember getting trained on these contraptions (including being dragged up and down stairs in the thing!) They are tracked - and geared to prevent a 'runaway' situation. It was a little disconcerting, but it was a fairly dignified way of ascending and descending, and infinitely better than the alternative in an emergency situation!

If I recall correctly, there is one at the top of the stairs from the District Line at Earl's Court?

EVAC+CHAIR 300H MK5 Emergency Evacuation Chair - From £787.19 inc VAT

Buy the Evac+Chair 300H MK5 emergency evacuation chair (successor to the 300H MK4) for safe fire evacuation of people with mobility impairments. FREE delivery.

www.safelincs.co.uk

 

[pne]

I remember getting trained on these contraptions (including being dragged up and down stairs in the thing!) They are tracked - and geared to prevent a 'runaway' situation. It was a little disconcerting, but it was a fairly dignified way of ascending and descending, and infinitely better than the alternative in an emergency situation!

If I recall correctly, there is one at the top of the stairs from the District Line at Earl's Court?

EVAC+CHAIR 300H MK5 Emergency Evacuation Chair - From £787.19 inc VAT

Buy the Evac+Chair 300H MK5 emergency evacuation chair (successor to the 300H MK4) for safe fire evacuation of people with mobility impairments. FREE delivery.

www.safelincs.co.uk

That one seems to be only for going down stairs – not up.

 

[etr221]

That one seems to be only for going down stairs – not up.

While that does seem to be the case for that particular model, the company has a whole range of such chairs for different scenarios.

Given the reliance of the railway on lifts - which do fail periodically - for getting disabled people to and from platforms (hence trains) I would expect 'what happens when a lift is out of order' to be a standard risk assessment question - and for any station with lift to know what the answer is, and be able to perform it (whatever 'it' might be). Something which they failed miserably at in this case.

 

[bramling]

It really is a difficult one. Unfortunately barrow crossing really are a non starter - even their physical presence would encourage misuse - and arrangements such as the wheelchair stair mover shown upthread are likely to be regarded as too costly (in terms of both purchase/maintenance costs and then ongoing training requirements). Plus, frankly, it looks pretty precarious. In today’s world, would something like that be regarded as safe for use in anything other than a dire life threatening emergency? In most circumstances a train elsewhere and a taxi would likely be preferable to attempting to use that from a H&S perspective.

However one looks at it, I think we arrive back at a straight choice between continuing the current arrangements, where wheelchair passengers can only use certain locations, accepting the risk that situations such as described in this thread will occasionally arise, or simply not carrying them at all and some other means being provided such as taxis.

Ultimately a decision would need to be taken on barrow crossings - do the safety issues associated with them outweigh the need to provide unfettered access to mobility-impaired people? If we genuinely wish disabled people not to have to endure experiences like being stuck on a platform or having to travel somewhere else, then such risks would simply have to be accepted.

 

[zwk500]

Ultimately a decision would need to be taken on barrow crossings - do the safety issues associated with them outweigh the need to provide unfettered access to mobility-impaired people? If we genuinely wish disabled people not to have to endure experiences like being stuck on a platform or having to travel somewhere else, then such risks would simply have to be accepted.

That decision has been made: as a rule, the risk is not worth it. There are a few locations where the crossings are being kept (I think one of the recently refurbed stations on the Isle of Wight has kept it's one) but generally they're frowned upon.

 

[tomuk]

provide unfettered access to mobility-impaired people

How does a barrow crossing which would be accessed down a platform ramp which is probably too steep for a wheelchair and that would need a line block give unfettered access?

 

[branchline]

A full set of toilets should be provided on 5/6. They are the main platform on which people wait the longest time - most London-bound passengers will use 1/2 and just board the next train, whereas most travel on 5/6 is on Advances and so people will be waiting around longer, and it's a long walk to 3/4 to use those ones.

3/4 are the least used departing platforms yet they have the main toilets!

It would not be particularly difficult nor expensive to do this. Or as an alternative to provide some at concourse level (no good for this guy but useful for most people).

Should of been put in when platform 6 was built. The toilets worked in the original platform configuration but not now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Should of been put in when platform 6 was built. The toilets worked in the original platform configuration but not now.

Agreed, though when 6 was built basically nothing was done to the buildings, they had already been built with passive provision for 6. All they did was the platform and track itself and to extend the canopy a bit, initially with an ugly wooden bodge-on but later in the same style as the original so difficult to distinguish.

 

[Mawkie]

That one seems to be only for going down stairs – not up.

As mentioned previously, you need the snazzily named "EVAC+CHAIR IBEX TranSeat 700H Evacuation Chair" to be able to ascend and descend; it's nearly 3x the cost of the 'cheap' one.

 

[bramling]

How does a barrow crossing which would be accessed down a platform ramp which is probably too steep for a wheelchair and that would need a line block give unfettered access?

It gives the ability to have a mobility-impaired person moved in the absence of working lifts, subject to staff availability of course. The line block, and consequential delay, would simply have to be accepted.

At the end of the day we either have to accept or not accept disabled access. I don’t find a halfway house particularly fair. Ditto the solution to providing accessible spaces on many trains has been to take out seats.

That decision has been made: as a rule, the risk is not worth it. There are a few locations where the crossings are being kept (I think one of the recently refurbed stations on the Isle of Wight has kept it's one) but generally they're frowned upon.

In which case, fine, but the industry (from DFT downwards) shouldn’t then be pretending to be fully accessible. It should be honest and say that mobility-impaired people can’t be carried by train without the possibility of a debacle happening.

It’s happened at my place where, in good faith, an arrangement was made for a train to be routed into a particular platform for accessibility reasons, then the job went up the wall or whatever and it didn’t happen, and the person ended up back at their origin.

 

[rob.rjt]

In which case, fine, but the industry (from DFT downwards) shouldn’t then be pretending to be fully accessible. It should be honest and say that mobility-impaired people can’t be carried by train without the possibility of a debacle happening.

It’s happened at my place where, in good faith, an arrangement was made for a train to be routed into a particular platform for accessibility reasons, then the job went up the wall or whatever and it didn’t happen, and the person ended up back at their origin.

This is very true. Unless and until mobility-impaired people can get to a train without having to rely on railway-provided mechanical aids, people will still run the risk of getting stuck somewhere inaccessible. Whilst in a non-railway context, this happened at my other half's work yesterday - 2 lifts to access part of the building, one failed a safety inspection recently so was out of service, the other had a mechanical failure in service - result, no lift access.

The same can be said for what happened to bramling - in their example, it was disruption that meant the required platform couldn't be used, but it could just as easily be a points failure that happened since the passenger started their journey.

The chances of the money being spent to resolve the issues are slim to none - to take one example, the station nearest to my parent's house is an island platform on an embankment accessible via steps or a lift. To make this accessible without having to use the lift would require major structural changes and probably the entrance would need to be moved to one end or other of the platform to give a shallow enough ramp. An EvacChair fallback solution wouldn't be great as the station is unstaffed for a significant portion of the day, and this will not solve all mobility issues anyway (people with luggage, parents with children etc).