Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by brad465, 3 Oct 2018.
The Crossrail delay will add to the pressure on Southeastern...
It certainly will, all the more why 466s must be able to carry on, with or without refurbishment. While the Crossrail delay won't be Southeastern's/The next franchise holder's fault, not being able to use all the resources available won't look good on them
Today I spotted 465195 with no refurbishment, so they've not finished with all of them yet (although I'm confident it must be one of a few at the very most not yet done).
But can anyone clarify if the refurbishment is still ongoing? If it is then the incomplete status of the whole 465 fleet could explain why none of the 466s are done from what I've seen; if it has been at least paused then the whole franchise situation (which is another thread/story) maybe an explanation into such a pause.
466s will have modifications to Door Sounders, Grab handles etc, but no new toilet / additional disabled spaces. From 31 December 2019 they will no longer be permitted to run without a PRM 465 attached to them. https://assets.publishing.service.g...le/756924/angel-class-466-31-october-2018.pdf
The work is ongoing with all 465/2/9s completed and work progressing on the 465/0/1s following on from a toilet redesign on them.
A wheelchair passenger is unwittingly loaded into to non-modified 466 by platform staff at one of the few staffed stations and then needs the toilet, how are they meant to do this? Get out of the DOO 466 without a ramp and (considering the vast bulk of the stations they serve are unstaffed for most of the day), then get back into the attached modified 465 without a ramp?
Seems a daft rule saying they can run attached to a 465 unit that can't be accessed by a disabled person from the 466. Surely they need to just do them up. Its not like they haven't had enough notice!
They'll be loaded onto the 465 part!
Surely this is no different to if the staff accidentally loaded the wheelchair user into one of the 465 carriages without the toilet?
Not in my experience they won't! Some station staff are fantastic but others just load them on anywhere and stroll of without telling you they've put them on, let alone where they are going to. You can leave a London terminal with a train full of wheelchairs and you'd have no way of knowing because at least half the platform staff never tell the driver!
Which makes a mockery of the whole thing! No point making it wheelchair friendly if the staff don't bother putting them in the right place or telling the driver (the only member of staff on the train)... And, trust me, many
of them in the 465/466 area don't.
That’s helpful information as I’d noticed they seemed to have stopped fitting new toilets to the BREL units that have otherwise been ‘done’.
Or a 376 turns up
Yes I did discover this document a while ago and added it earlier in the thread when I did. It's all well and good allowing them to be run in such a way from 2020, but, as I said earlier in the thread, there will be some rolling stock capacity lost from where 466s still lone work (because longer units will be replacing them, shortening other metro services) and all stations/announcements might have to make users aware of parts of the train without PRM compliance.
In short, the exemption significantly mitigates the problem of no refurbishment, but doesn't eliminate it I feel
I don't know if the new franchise holder would go about fixing them up, but all these delays and contract extensions won't help.
466022 will be the first unit to be refurbished at Ilford (Not Doncaster). Followed by 466026 a week later. Eventually they’ll head to Ilford in Pairs.
Guessing these are taking the place of the 378's whose refresh is temporarily halted?
Will need to be a 465 on the Grove Park Bromley North shuttle presumably after Dec 2019 as that is just a sole 466
^I misread this as ‘heading to Paris’!
Nope, Ilford has room for both!
They'll also need something for the Medway Valley (1 unit - the other two are 375/3s) and Sheerness Branch (2 units)
Already asked that in post #42 and earlier last year.
Is this a full compliance refurbishment then, or will it be what you said earlier (#34)? If full compliance then the lone workers' problem is solved, otherwise it will be 465s or 375s taking them on.
Still what I said earlier, the restrictions are in place as part of an agreement between SE & DFT not to run them alone in order to comply.