Disability Discrimination Act and stations

[Harlesden]

Been reading posts about the mandatory requirement to withdraw Pacers by 2019 due to the DDA which seems to be aimed at making rail travel accessible for all.
How does this work with stations?
At Harlesden Station, as an example, entry to the station is basically at first floor level with stairs down to each of the two platforms with the footbridge being the only access to one of those two platforms. Short of installing two lifts, there seems no way to make such a station fully accesible. Therefore the station cannot comply with the requirements of the DDA.
Stations cannot be exempt as that would make rather a mockery of the intentions behind the Act

 

[anthony263]

Although I have Pyle station pretty much on my doorstep I tend to use Bridgend if I am traveling long distance.

Bridgend was recently fitted with a new footbridge complete with lifts at a cost of £3million as they could not modify the existing footbridge which is listed.

I think even after 2020 we will still see a lot of stations not really complying with the DDA regulations, some stations you will litraly have to spend millions on just to get them up to stratch and where is that money going to come from?

 

[pemma]

I think the idea for the 31st December 2019 deadline is any wheelchair passenger will be able to access the platform their train will depart from and be able to get on to said train. Requiring a ramp to be put down or staff assistance would be permitted on an existing line.

Requiring disabled passengers to double back or get a taxi from another nearby station because a platform isn't accessible or because the ramp and the platform can't work together (which happens mainly with Pacers due to the longer ramp needed to overcome the double step) won't be acceptable.

 

[DazDude]

Funnily enough I was thinking the same thing about Sandbach station. iirc they had a new footbridge installed last year, but it didn't include disability access for going North towards Manchester yet when they added a footbridge at Cheadle Hulme they included lift access. Seems to be hit and miss..

 

[jon0844]

Requiring disabled passengers to double back or get a taxi from another nearby station because a platform isn't accessible or because the ramp and the platform can't work together (which happens mainly with Pacers due to the longer ramp needed to overcome the double step) won't be acceptable.

Reminds me of a certain wheelchair user going to Guide Bridge...

 

[455driver]

Reminds me of a certain wheelchair user going to Guide Bridge...

Dont get me started on that piece of <woops>!

Maybe they should close any station/scrap any train that cannot be made accessible.

Rip the toilets out of ant train that cannot have a full DDA one fitted, if the train has no toilets then there is obviously no requirement to comply, the fact it will make the situation worse for everyone else is irrelevant as everyone has to be treated equally.

Oh and put fares up 25% to reduce passengers because you will have less trains, oh the Government are already doing that!

 

[Whistler40145]

Another situation is that stations such as Poulton-le-Fylde have a lift, but only operational during Ticket Office opening hours, therefore outside these hours, disabled passengers must travel via Blackpool North for onward travel by Taxi.

I am unsure what happens in the event of a staff shortage.

I presume there are many stations where this situation occurs.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk 2

 

[pemma]

Maybe they should close any station/scrap any train that cannot be made accessible.

Rip the toilets out of ant train that cannot have a full DDA one fitted, if the train has no toilets then there is obviously no requirement to comply, the fact it will make the situation worse for everyone else is irrelevant as everyone has to be treated equally.

Remember the life expectancy of a DMU without life extension program is 30 years. So any class 14x or class 15x should either be scrapped by 2019 or have a life extension program implemented. The end of 2019 date was decided on for precisely that reason - because the class 158/9s would be at the end of their lives without a life extension program and any life extension program would include fully disability compliance.

Another situation is that stations such as Poulton-le-Fylde have a lift, but only operational during Ticket Office opening hours, therefore outside these hours, disabled passengers must travel via Blackpool North for onward travel by Taxi.

I am unsure what happens in the event of a staff shortage.

I presume there are many stations where this situation occurs.

There's also stations where a platform is only accessible via a barrow crossing which passengers may only use when accompanied by a member of staff. Northwich is one such station.

 

[Bushy]

Under DDA it is the duty of the provider of a service provider "to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take". Cost and such matters as heritage can be taken into consideration when assessing what is reasonable.
Additional legislation (the PRM TSI or RVAR 1998) applies to rail vehicles which should remove most non-accessible vehicles from service by 2020.

Making transport more accessible to all

Regards

Bushy

 

[Crossover]

Another situation is that stations such as Poulton-le-Fylde have a lift, but only operational during Ticket Office opening hours, therefore outside these hours, disabled passengers must travel via Blackpool North for onward travel by Taxi.

I am unsure what happens in the event of a staff shortage.

I presume there are many stations where this situation occurs.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk 2

Dewsbury, a relatively major station on the Huddersfield Line is like this, and only manned until 1930. I'm not sure there is any allowance for a double back via Leeds (the Leeds bound platform is steps only after hours so doubling back via Hudd wouldn't achieve anything)

 

[Smudger105e]

The DDA has been superceded by the Equality Act I understand.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk 2

 

[Darren R]

Rip the toilets out of ant train that cannot have a full DDA one fitted, if the train has no toilets then there is obviously no requirement to comply, the fact it will make the situation worse for everyone else is irrelevant as everyone has to be treated equally.

I know you weren't being (totally) serious - but it has suddenly raised a question in my mind I'd never considered before. Are there any legal requirements about toilets being provided on trains? Is there anything to prevent a ROSCO or TOC from simply removing the toilets on trains? Let's face it, when it comes to the railways coming up with underhand ways of circumventing Parliament's will, history shows they are more than capable.

 

[ryan125hst]

I know you weren't being (totally) serious - but it has suddenly raised a question in my mind I'd never considered before. Are there any legal requirements about toilets being provided on trains? Is there anything to prevent a ROSCO or TOC from simply removing the toilets on trains? Let's face it, when it comes to the railways coming up with underhand ways of circumventing Parliament's will, history shows they are more than capable.

I don't believe there are, but I'd like to think that TOC's use their common sense and choose rolling stock accordingly!

There are trains operating commuter routes around London (First Capital Connect, Southern, South West Trains ect) plus Merseyrail and a few services in around Glasgow that use trains without toilets. However, the journeys are normally an hour, and rarely more than an hour and a half, and the trains stop every few minutes, so it isn't a problem (unless the train breaks down in the snow and people have to urinate out of the back cab! ).

The trains on those routes are acceptable because of the short journey times and the fact that the trains are very busy as they are commuter routes. If you were to remove all the toilets on a HST that was operating the Highland Chieftain, there might be a few complaints to say the least! I doubt many people could go over eight hours without going to the toilet!

 

[WatcherZero]

It is a bit of an elephant in the room problem, theres small pots of cash for making stations accessible for example in Greater Manchester they made a prioritised list of the non compliant ones and theres a small annual fund that Northern has to providefor security and accessibility improvements as part of its franchise obligations and they are slowly ticking them off mainly by tackling the quick wins like the angle of the existing ramp is too steep.

But there isnt a co-ordinated effort or enough cash being thrown at the stations to make them all compliant by the date.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The DDA has been superceded by the Equality Act I understand.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk 2

I was under the impression that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 had been incorporated into the Equality Act 2010 together with other items of previous legislation such as The Equal Pay Act 1970, The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, The Race Relations Act 1976 and other such legislations, that it was decided to be kept under the terms and conditions of one major Act that is now The Equality Act 2010.

 

[jopsuk]

I was somewhat surprised when the new Platform 7/8 at Cambridge opened that there was a step up to trains, including the then-brand-new 379s. I'd have thought building a brand new, level, straight platform with a low line-speed would have been an opportunity to make it so that there was almost gap-less access to 2.8m wide stock and only a small gap (easily rolled over) to 2.7m stock.

 

[AndrewP]

The DDA has been superceded by the Equality Act I understand.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk 2

That is correct, however from a practical access perspective, there is little difference.

 

[edwin_m]

I was somewhat surprised when the new Platform 7/8 at Cambridge opened that there was a step up to trains, including the then-brand-new 379s. I'd have thought building a brand new, level, straight platform with a low line-speed would have been an opportunity to make it so that there was almost gap-less access to 2.8m wide stock and only a small gap (easily rolled over) to 2.7m stock.

This is not possible if freight also passes by the platform, because raising the platform to 1.1m to line up with typical EMU floor heights brings it into conflict with wagon clearances. Some platforms that freight does not pass, such as Heathrow Express, some London Overground, and the future Crossrail central section, are or will be set at this height. However this makes much less likely that anyone will develop a train with a floor at 914mm which would be level with the standard platform, as it would then be lower than the raised ones!

 

[pemma]

That is correct, however from a practical access perspective, there is little difference.

Also if you say Equalities Act you start bringing in loads of policies not related to disability unless you refer to the specific section of the Equalities Act.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Also if you say Equalities Act you start bringing in loads of policies not related to disability unless you refer to the specific section of the Equalities Act.

Which neatly brings us all back full-circle to what I said in posting # 15.

 

[TheEdge]

I have wondered about this one for a few stations. Wymondham is one, passengers from up trains need to cross over an old footbridge with no lift and there is no flat crossing, policy at the moment is wheelchairs need to go Attleborough and then change to the next down train.

Same goes for Brampton, one platform but very low so while a ramp could go down it would be lethal.

 

[455driver]

I know you weren't being (totally) serious -

Many a true word spoken in jest!
The 456s were delivered with a small toilet but they were ripped out a few years after delivery.

but it has suddenly raised a question in my mind I'd never considered before. Are there any legal requirements about toilets being provided on trains? Is there anything to prevent a ROSCO or TOC from simply removing the toilets on trains? Let's face it, when it comes to the railways coming up with underhand ways of circumventing Parliament's will, history shows they are more than capable.

I am sure there are some rules about the maximum distance a toiletless train is allowed to run hence the "toilet" stops allowed at intermediate stations when the train has no working toilets, the TOCs wont allow the staff to delay the train unless the rules say they have to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Same goes for Brampton, one platform but very low so while a ramp could go down it would be lethal.

Just line the ramp up with the station exit, they will be fine!

 

[TheEdge]

Just line the ramp up with the station exit, they will be fine!

It would be great if the platform wasn't a 90 degrees to the exit!

 

[pemma]

This seems relevant to this thread:

The Transport Committee, chaired by Louise Ellman MP, is conducting an inquiry into access to transport for people with disabilities. It will be producing a report with recommendations during summer 2013.

In advance of the appearance of the Transport Minister before the Committee on 3 June, the Committee would like to hear about your experiences as a user or carer accessing any type of transport, or your experiences as an operator of a service used by people with disabilities.

The Committee’s inquiry covers a number of areas relating to access to transport, but the Committee would particularly like to hear your views on three key areas.
* Physical accessibility
* Travel information
* Staff assistance

http://www.parliament.uk/access-to-transport-forum

 

[Bushy]

It is a bit of an elephant in the room problem, theres small pots of cash for making stations accessible for example in Greater Manchester they made a prioritised list of the non compliant ones and theres a small annual fund that Northern has to providefor security and accessibility improvements as part of its franchise obligations and they are slowly ticking them off mainly by tackling the quick wins like the angle of the existing ramp is too steep.

But there isnt a co-ordinated effort or enough cash being thrown at the stations to make them all compliant by the date.

As pointed out it is only required to do what is reasonable. If more stations can be made accessible by quick wins, that is the sensible way to go; target the quick wins and the major stations and interchanges. The Access for All scheme is being used to fund some improvements, often hand in hand with NSIP. There are probably some LU stations that will never be fully accessible but LU are spending a lot of money on those that can be, again often hand in hand with other works, such as congestion relief schemes.

Regards

Bushy

 

[theageofthetra]

I can fully accept that there are smaller lesser used stations that will never be fully accessible but it is still amazing how many in central London have such bad access. Brixton and some of the other viaduct stations have no disabled access at all. It now looks like they will not be falling under LO contol any time soon so fould be a long wait.

 

[sevenhills]

Dewsbury, a relatively major station on the Huddersfield Line is like this, and only manned until 1930. I'm not sure there is any allowance for a double back via Leeds (the Leeds bound platform is steps only after hours so doubling back via Hudd wouldn't achieve anything)

Morley has a bridge with steps to climb at one side, quiet a lot less passenger numbers. But when does it become reasonable to adapt a station for 300,000 users per year?

 

[Alfie1014]

There's some confusion here, the 31/12/2019 date applies only to rolling stock this is legislated through the RVAR and/or the PRM TSI (for TENS routes).

Station accessibility is captured by the DDA now superceeded by the Equalities Act as access to goods and services. However both these have a test of reasonability, i.e. it clearly wouldn't be sensible to spend millions of pounds making a very lightly used station accessible that would likely to be used by few if any disabled passengers. Therefore what funding is available is likely to be targeted (at least initially) at the busier stations where the improvements would benefit the greatest number of passengers able-bodied or otherwise.

What both Network Rail (as the owner) and the Train Operator have had to do is assess what improvements can be made at all stations, not least because some inexpensive improvements can be made (such as improved signage, lighting, tactile pavours), could benefit some if not all passengers. It's easy to forget that improving access is not just about those with impaired mobility.

Where expensive alterations can not be justified operators might have to make alternate arrangements where appropriate, such as providing alterate transport to the nearest accessible station or allowing circulation via another station where the original station has only one accessible platform for example.

 

[swt_passenger]

I am sure there are some rules about the maximum distance a toiletless train is allowed to run..

If there are any rules about length or time, no-one has ever found them.

The subject was discussed to death in a number of rail forums when the 313s were announced as suitable for the coastway services, (and on a few other occasions since) but a publicly available rule was never found.

 

[infobleep]

I don't believe there are, but I'd like to think that TOC's use their common sense and choose rolling stock accordingly!

There are trains operating commuter routes around London (First Capital Connect, Southern, South West Trains ect) plus Merseyrail and a few services in around Glasgow that use trains without toilets. However, the journeys are normally an hour, and rarely more than an hour and a half, and the trains stop every few minutes, so it isn't a problem (unless the train breaks down in the snow and people have to urinate out of the back cab! ).

The trains on those routes are acceptable because of the short journey times and the fact that the trains are very busy as they are commuter routes. If you were to remove all the toilets on a HST that was operating the Highland Chieftain, there might be a few complaints to say the least! I doubt many people could go over eight hours without going to the toilet!

Personally I don't consider traveling for 60 minutes without access to a toilet a short journey time but then I have health issues so I probably see things differently to others.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's some confusion here, the 31/12/2019 date applies only to rolling stock this is legislated through the RVAR and/or the PRM TSI (for TENS routes).

Station accessibility is captured by the DDA now superceeded by the Equalities Act as access to goods and services. However both these have a test of reasonability, i.e. it clearly wouldn't be sensible to spend millions of pounds making a very lightly used station accessible that would likely to be used by few if any disabled passengers. Therefore what funding is available is likely to be targeted (at least initially) at the busier stations where the improvements would benefit the greatest number of passengers able-bodied or otherwise.

What both Network Rail (as the owner) and the Train Operator have had to do is assess what improvements can be made at all stations, not least because some inexpensive improvements can be made (such as improved signage, lighting, tactile pavours), could benefit some if not all passengers. It's easy to forget that improving access is not just about those with impaired mobility.

Where expensive alterations can not be justified operators might have to make alternate arrangements where appropriate, such as providing alterate transport to the nearest accessible station or allowing circulation via another station where the original station has only one accessible platform for example.

What about service patterns? Would that be considered inexpensive to change?

For example outside Dorking Deepdene there is a sign which states that Dorking West has step free access to the trains. What it doesn't tell you is that quite a few trains don't stop at Dorking West and on Sundays it's only once every two hours.

Dorking Deepdene is closer to Dorking on the Horsham to London line but that's the only advantage I see can see for passengers. If all trains stopped at both Dorking West and Dorking Deepdene then I guess the train would miss it's handy path at Redhill and end up having to travel behind a stopping service to Gatwick. There are times in the day when it has to do that anyway.