Disabled Passenger Over-Carried

[Bletchleyite]

Let's get rid of timetables then.

Hardly. Most trains don't have people requiring assistance on them, and provision of assistance is recognised as a valid reason to delay a train if this is necessary.

 

[island]

This lack of flexibility is ingrained in the railway, and as someone who has only ever worked in the private sector I really find it very difficult to understand how it can be justified to segment roles in this manner.

You say lack of flexibility, unions say demarcation and preserving jobs.

 

[AlterEgo]

No but what you can do is phone ahead and check. Or you check with the relevant guard beforehand.

It is not hard to avoid errors like this - relevant route knowledge and / or good communication with on-train staff or someone at Control to clarify if you are unsure. At least it was missed assistance which in my eyes is worse (although probably is of zero comfort to the unfortunate overcarried passenger).

Some places obviously have NR mobility staff who are not as clued up as the relevant TOC on their trains, however again simple communication prevents errors.

An easier way to avoid assistance passengers not being stranded in an overhanging carriage is not to put them in the end coach of a formation, if it can be avoided.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You say lack of flexibility, unions say demarcation and preserving jobs.

My point stands, I'm afraid. And it seems it can happen - they have even managed, as noted above, to get Merseyrail ticket office staff to clean bogs - I was astonished to read that, given that Merseyside is basically the home of Trade Unionism and a strict approach to such things from members.

 

[Horizon22]

An easier way to avoid assistance passengers not being stranded in an overhanging carriage is not to put them in the end coach of a formation, if it can be avoided.

Well of course, which is where "relevant route knowledge and/or good communication" which I mentioned. That includes that common sense means that the middle will normally be fine!

 

[LowLevel]

My point stands, I'm afraid. And it seems it can happen - they have even managed, as noted above, to get Merseyrail ticket office staff to clean bogs - I was astonished to read that, given that Merseyside is basically the home of Trade Unionism and a strict approach to such things from members.

Small/medium sized station staff have been cleaning bogs forever, particularly where the station is single manned with a ticket office. Who else is going to do it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Small/medium sized station staff have been cleaning bogs forever, particularly where the station is single manned with a ticket office. Who else is going to do it?

I'd sort of assumed there would be cleaning contractors spending the day going round doing them.

 

[al78]

Is 'many more success stories than mistakes' really thought good enough by anyone?

It wouldn't be the first time I've heard it used as an attempt to trivialise cock-ups.

 

[Horizon22]

I'd sort of assumed there would be cleaning contractors spending the day going round doing them.

For years its been station staff, certainly on my patch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For years its been station staff, certainly on my patch.

Thanks. Must admit I'd rather drive a buggy than do that!

 

[43066]

Thanks. Must admit I'd rather drive a buggy than do that!

I actually wouldn’t mind being trained up to drive a buggy for a change. I doubt I’d be trusted to drive a vehicle you actually have to steer .

 

[221129]

Most trains don't have people requiring assistance on them

Well thats categorically not true.

 

[LowLevel]

I'd sort of assumed there would be cleaning contractors spending the day going round doing them.

Nah. They might call in periodically to do a heavier clean but at smaller stations it's generally the job of the station staff.

It is what it is. Back in the days before vacuum toilets on my trains I often used to try and unblock them when they got bunged up with a stick and the maintenance controller's blessing on long distance services to avoid delay or having to swap the unit out.

It's just one of those things that has to be done and goes back to the old railway where station staff had to do everything and anything anyway.

 

[philthetube]

Level boarding is indeed the game-changer. It's such a shame that so many trains were ordered without it that we're now stuck with for the next 30-50 years.

If level boarding was as simple as changing the trains it would have been done, if you don't deal with the gaps you will end up with far more passengers in wheelchairs as they will fall through them, and level boarding is wsorse than stepped boarding for wheelchair users if there is a gap.

Most stations would need rebuilding, (all those with curved platforms) and platform heights would have to be standardised throughout before it could happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If level boarding was as simple as changing the trains it would have been done, if you don't deal with the gaps you will end up with far more passengers in wheelchairs as they will fall through them, and level boarding is wsorse than stepped boarding for wheelchair users if there is a gap.

Most stations would need rebuilding, (all those with curved platforms) and platform heights would have to be standardised throughout before it could happen.

Go ask Greater Anglia about that.

You buy the trains then you bring the stations up to scratch over a period of time. In the meantime, the sliding gap bridges remove the actual gap so you're less, not more, likely to fall down it.

Yes, Merseyrail are doing it in one go, but that's because they have quite a small network and most platforms only required small or no adjustment.

(I love the way people on here often like to come up with reasons why something is impossible despite that something already having actually been done recently somewhere on the network)

 

[AlterEgo]

Well thats categorically not true.

I would be very surprised if it was untrue network-wide, as someone who used to book Passenger Assistance.

 

[ashkeba]

Most stations would need rebuilding, (all those with curved platforms) and platform heights would have to be standardised throughout before it could happen.

I do not remember any of that happening at stations served by Greater Angles before introduction of the 755 and 745.

 

[py_megapixel]

stations served by Greater Angles

Surely the point is that you want the carriage to be at less of an angle to the platform, not a greater one, to minimise the gap

 

[option]

You say lack of flexibility, unions say demarcation and preserving jobs.

Maybe the unions would like to make themselves aware that disabled people, & their families & friends, are customers paying fares, & taxpayers funding the subsidy.

What happens to the jobs if the subsidy/funding is cut by 22%?
Because that's the prevalence of disability in the UK https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...rvey-financial-year-2019-to-2020#disability-1

 

[43066]

Maybe the unions would like to make themselves aware that disabled people, & their families & friends, are customers paying fares, & taxpayers funding the subsidy.

What happens to the jobs if the subsidy/funding is cut by 22%?
Because that's the prevalence of disability in the UK https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...rvey-financial-year-2019-to-2020#disability-1

To be fair it is not the rail unions who are in favour of destaffing, DOO etc. which have certainly caused issues for disabled travellers, as we have seen described above.

 

[306024]

The ‘accessible’ space on a class 720 is in one of the end driving vehicles. When the trains were being designed it was suggested that this would be better placed in the centre car of the five as on cl700. The response was that the London end of a unit was preferable and that units wouldn’t get turned!

If that’s the official reply it’s clearly nonsense, unless there are plans to close Colchester Town we don’t know about Even if you can diagram the trains to go in and out if Colchester Town an even number of times on each diagram, one points failure and you’ve soon got a few units turned.

Having seen GA staff out measuring all the clearances necessary for wheelchair access on the new trains it isn’t a lack of effort by any means. But it only takes one member of staff to not know the restrictions for incidents like this to occur.

 

[Amy Worrall]

IMO the system will not be fit for purpose until disabled passengers have the same flexibility as anyone else to turn up and go -- they shouldn't be forced to book assistance.

There are two ways to implement that: One is to ensure that there is level boarding and step-free access to every platform and train everywhere, so that disabled passengers can board the train by themselves and know that they can also alight by themselves at their destination. The other is to ensure there are always staff on hand who can provide the assistance without the need to book in advance. For the latter option, yes that would mean that if there's DOO at an unstaffed station, the driver would have to get out and give the assistance.

Anything less than that, and disabled passengers are not on equal footing with non-disabled passengers. If we have a turn up and go railway, it should be turn up and go for _everyone_.

 

[cjmillsnun]

This lack of flexibility is ingrained in the railway, and as someone who has only ever worked in the private sector I really find it very difficult to understand how it can be justified to segment roles in this manner.

It's not totally unknown, though. At small single-manned stations like most of Merseyrail, the ticket office staff go out and grit the platforms if it's icey. It's just comparable to that. Normally the person whose job it is to drive the buggy does that, but if they're off sick it's just cover for an essential service.

To be fair you need specialist training to drive those buggies. Without that health and safety would have a field day. But Network Rail should arrange that training for sufficient people to provide cover if required (I’ve only seen them at Network Rail managed stations).

Well thats categorically not true.

I would argue that it is. Are you saying most trains every day do carry someone requiring assistance?

 

[philthetube]

Go ask Greater Anglia about that.

You buy the trains then you bring the stations up to scratch over a period of time. In the meantime, the sliding gap bridges remove the actual gap so you're less, not more, likely to fall down it.

Yes, Merseyrail are doing it in one go, but that's because they have quite a small network and most platforms only required small or no adjustment.

(I love the way people on here often like to come up with reasons why something is impossible despite that something already having actually been done recently somewhere on the network)

you can't do that, level boarding trains would foul platforms unless the profile was considerably reduced, and on uk gauge that is not practical.

One sliding gap bridge failing would close a line, be it attached to a train or platform and the line closes, and bear in mind there would have to be hundreds of thousands of them throughout the network, most dealing with snow frost, heat etc.

The only way that I could see this being done would be to close the network a line at a time and doing it that way, services like those operated by Cross Country would have to be abandoned for a period. The alternative would be to close the network for 10 years or so.

London underground went for level boarding when the S Stock was introduced and stations such as Baker St. and Farringdon with curved platforms saw large increases in numbers of passengers falling through gaps. Just not having a step to negotiate seems to increase incidents, possibly because there is less to draw your eyes to the ground.

 

[Bletchleyite]

you can't do that, level boarding trains would foul platforms unless the profile was considerably reduced, and on uk gauge that is not practical.

One sliding gap bridge failing would close a line, be it attached to a train or platform and the line closes, and bear in mind there would have to be hundreds of thousands of them throughout the network, most dealing with snow frost, heat etc.

The only way that I could see this being done would be to close the network a line at a time and doing it that way, services like those operated by Cross Country would have to be abandoned for a period. The alternative would be to close the network for 10 years or so.

London underground went for level boarding when the S Stock was introduced and stations such as Baker St. and Farringdon with curved platforms saw large increases in numbers of passengers falling through gaps. Just not having a step to negotiate seems to increase incidents, possibly because there is less to draw your eyes to the ground.

Once again:

(I love the way people on here often like to come up with reasons why something is impossible despite that something already having actually been done recently somewhere on the network)

If you don't believe me go travel on Greater Anglia.

 

[O L Leigh]

The ‘accessible’ space on a class 720 is in one of the end driving vehicles. When the trains were being designed it was suggested that this would be better placed in the centre car of the five as on cl700. The response was that the London end of a unit was preferable and that units wouldn’t get turned!

Oh my!! That's incredible if true. Units end up turned all the time. In fact, I'd bet that a former colleague of mine would give you an unpostable reply to this, as he spent an entire night shift turning Cl379s around the High Meads Loop to satisfy the pedantry of a certain manager because a number of them had somehow ended up facing the wrong way, and ended up having a Safety of Line incident as a consequence.

To me, having the disabled space in the middle of the train is Train Design 101, especially as there are many many stations that cannot accommodate a full-length Cl720 formation. There are going to be locations where the disabled space is not platformed.

Go ask Greater Anglia about that.

You buy the trains then you bring the stations up to scratch over a period of time. In the meantime, the sliding gap bridges remove the actual gap so you're less, not more, likely to fall down it.

I presume you're referring to the Stadler FLIRTs, given the hash GA have made of the Cl720 situation.

I haven't yet seen enough of these units in enough locations to be confident that they provide anything like level boarding, and I believe that what they were aiming for is low floor which isn't quite the same thing. Yes it eliminates the step up/down between the train and the platform, but I don't know how much easier it actually makes boarding for someone confined to a wheelchair.

If GA are going to modify their platforms, then great. They have a slightly enviable position of being the sole operator of many of these stations and, given a uniform fleet, have the opportunity to make these sorts of alterations, as is the case on the Tube. The problem is that this does not easily translate to the rest of the network where there are a multitude of operators running a hugely varied fleet of trains, all of which have slightly different door positions and floor heights. Level boarding is an admirable goal, but it's going to take 40+ years to achieve, given the expected life of fleets entering service now.

For the record, I would like to see the days of the portable ramp consigned to history and replaced instead with a train-mounted ramp that can be operated by the user. I appreciate that this may present an additional maintenance load, but the mechanism should be no less robust or reliable than a train door, together with the same safeguards (on the interlock circuit) and overrides (manual retraction and locking-off in the event of failure). However, even that will require a lot of infrastructure work as it will be necessary to ensure that, no matter where the train stops, there is adequate space on the platform for the ramp to be deployed and safely used.

 

[Trackman]

I've seen enough assistance fails and screw-ups that I would completely believe it. It is simply not taken anywhere near seriously enough; a good many staff seem to treat it as a nuisance.

I've seen staff ignore the issue too.
Had to help people too- even lifting wheelchairs with pals on a train with dispatchers looking on.
I helped a blind person who didn't know where to go and the guide dog didn't know either, the dispatcher made a quick exit to his hidey hole and ignored him. He did look 'lost', that's why I asked if he needed any help. I was late for work but well worth it.
Also stopped a train from departing as someone disabled in a wheelchair who couldn't speak wanted to get off. I wouldn't have minded, but the dispatcher was about 2 yards from me and could see this person in the wheelchair. I could sense something was wrong so I used hand gestures and speech to engage then told the dispatcher as the doors were closing.

 

[Bikeman78]

I'm afraid I will have to disagree. The system is poor and not fit for purpose. So much so that were I in need of assistance I would not use rail at all, other than those TOCs providing level boarding.

It will never work adequately until:-
1. A specific, named individual takes personal responsibility for the assisted person at every step of the journey.
2. Hand-off must be in person, with the previous named individual and new named individual both present in sight and earshot of the assistance user to "sign out" and introduce themselves respectively.
3. The current named individual must not "abandon" the assisted person, e.g. leave the train to go and drive the next one, until such time as a handover as per (2) has been conducted. Nor may a driver depart from the station where the assisted passenger is to disembark until (2) has been conducted.
4. No situation must be allowed to arise where the assisted person is not in the care of a specific, named individual, between the point of presenting themselves for assistance and the point of leaving the train at the destination and the named individual having confirmed that all lifts etc to exit the station are in working order.

(3) must apply in all circumstances, even (arguably especially) an emergency evacuation.

Yes, it's onerous, but otherwise we fail vulnerable people.

Best get the level boarding sorted, hadn't they?

I'm inclined to agree, having seen a lady in a wheelchair unable to get off at Huntingdon because it was unstaffed. The PRM mods on the trains barely scratch the surface. Without level boarding people will still need assistance on and off the train. People going from Roydon or Whittlesford to Cambridge, for example, are no better off today than 20 years ago. I have never seen a wheelchair on a 317 on that line, or on a 379 for that matter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I presume you're referring to the Stadler FLIRTs, given the hash GA have made of the Cl720 situation.

Yep.

I haven't yet seen enough of these units in enough locations to be confident that they provide anything like level boarding, and I believe that what they were aiming for is low floor which isn't quite the same thing. Yes it eliminates the step up/down between the train and the platform, but I don't know how much easier it actually makes boarding for someone confined to a wheelchair.

They provide gap bridges and level boarding at standard UK platform height. Not all platforms will be at that height, but the natural progression is to modify them over time until all of them are. That is how SBB have done it with their (properly low floor) FLIRTs.

Merseyrail have by contrast done it in one go, but their network is smaller and simpler.

 

[O L Leigh]

They provide gap bridges and level boarding at standard UK platform height. Not all platforms will be at that height, but the natural progression is to modify them over time until all of them are. That is how SBB have done it with their (properly low floor) FLIRTs.

Merseyrail have by contrast done it in one go, but their network is smaller and simpler.

And that's great but, as I mentioned, that doesn't help the rest of the network. In fact, it doesn't even help parts of GA's own network where the FLIRTs interwork with Cl720s, never mind XC, EMR or GTR/Thameslink services. It's not a simple matter to achieve, and just because GA are doing it (with part of their network at least) it doesn't make it easy to replicate.

By my mind, we missed the boat already. This should have been addressed before the IET and Thameslink rolling stock procurement programmes were even begun and then established as a standard.