Five Class 319/769s for the Welsh Network

[MML]

That's why I think a 3-car (c156,c150,c158 or c155 with mods + c153 without mods) would satisfy the regulations. So long as one part of the train is accessible then the c153 need not be modified.

Besides, chances are the wheelchair occupant won't even be able to make it onto the platform at most stations, most high-streets having curb stones preventing any reliable access, let alone the only access being a footbridge to cross to the adjacent platform entrance.

This option would also allow the use of 2-car units in off-peak, with c153 connected for peak traffic flows requiring 3-car unit. The only restriction to this flexibility would be the inability to use the c153 in isolation.

 

[gareth950]

Quick glance through that shows even ignoring the toilet there's a lot of work to do like changing door controls, replacing handrails (ones fitted are too slippery), fitting PIS, fitting a call to aid, allowing a larger wheelchair to board than the 670mm maximum the 153 allows for, providing space for a second wheelchair, internal repaint etc. are all changes which would need to be done, ignoring those where a partial non-compliance will be seen as acceptable. One such one relates to the width of the priority seat - 440mm is seen as slightly non-compliant!

In other words, PRM modifying single 153s is not worth it. I doubt it's financially viable either, probably no more than modifying Pacers.

 

[pemma]

That's why I think a 3-car (c156,c150,c158 or c155 with mods + c153 without mods) would satisfy the regulations. So long as one part of the train is accessible then the c153 need not be modified.

Besides, chances are the wheelchair occupant won't even be able to make it onto the platform at most stations, most high-streets having curb stones preventing any reliable access, let alone the only access being a footbridge to cross to the adjacent platform entrance.

This option would also allow the use of 2-car units in off-peak, with c153 connected for peak traffic flows requiring 3-car unit. The only restriction to this flexibility would be the inability to use the c153 in isolation.

How would you ensure a deaf passenger or a passenger with only partial vision doesn't board the 153?

 

[D2007wsm]

That's why I think a 3-car (c156,c150,c158 or c155 with mods + c153 without mods) would satisfy the regulations. So long as one part of the train is accessible then the c153 need not be modified.

Besides, chances are the wheelchair occupant won't even be able to make it onto the platform at most stations, most high-streets having curb stones preventing any reliable access, let alone the only access being a footbridge to cross to the adjacent platform entrance.

This option would also allow the use of 2-car units in off-peak, with c153 connected for peak traffic flows requiring 3-car unit. The only restriction to this flexibility would be the inability to use the c153 in isolation.

Permanently coupling a 153 to a 158 would also not be seen as a viable option to speed. The 153 max too speed is 75 mph, whereas a 158 is 90 mph. A 153 permanently being carted round by 158 would slow down the 158 all the time when operating a fast service over a main line.

 

[pemma]

Permanently coupling a 153 to a 158 would also not be seen as a viable option to speed. The 153 max too speed is 75 mph, whereas a 158 is 90 mph. A 153 permanently being carted round by 158 would slow down the 158 all the time when operating a fast service over a main line.

Which is possibly a reason why a small order of 170s for ATW (mentioned earlier) may not have gone ahead.

150/153+170 = Limited to 75mph
158+170 = Limited to 90mph and slower acceleration than a pair of 158s
170+175 = Not possible to work together.

Even when a service is timed for 75mph, if a 158 is used and can run at over 75mph on sections then it may be possible to make up late running.

 

[Roast Veg]

So long as one part of the train is accessible then the c153 need not be modified.

The train as a whole must be accessible - permanently coupling a 153 to a 150 or 156 removes the accessible toilet requirement, but not the PIS/handrail/door requirements posted by jcollins above.

 

[superalbs]

The train as a whole must be accessible - permanently coupling a 153 to a 150 or 156 removes the accessible toilet requirement, but not the PIS/handrail/door requirements posted by jcollins above.

Maybe lock out the doors then?

 

[pemma]

Maybe lock out the doors then?

I take it you don't believe in being green, given your suggesting permanently attaching 153s to other Sprinters but also permanently locking them out-of-service. :roll: In case you're struggling to understand no it can't be used even if passengers board a 150 and walk through to the 153.

 

[xotGD]

Much better to have to stand in a wedged accessible 150 than get a seat in a non-compliant 153 coupled on the back.

 

[MML]

Precisely. If the train is so crowded with numerous standing passengers, how exactly is the wheelchair user supposed to get on anyway ?
Are the standing passengers who have already boarded at a previous stop, expected to get off and wait for the next train ?

I don't mean to be rude, but equality is about treating everybody equal. Not giving preference to one over another. I'm sure a wheelchair user would rather be able to access one carriage in comfort and safety rather than unable to access any due to overcrowding.

 

[Roast Veg]

As has been said many times, the accessibility requirements are not just for wheelchair users, they are for persons of reduced mobility across the board, including those with hearing problems, sight problems, other physical disabilities, and mental disabilities. Every attempt is being made to allow for equal opportunities for passengers to board the train, where without these modifications they would be unable to do so at all.

Rolling stock that doesn't adhere to the forthcoming regulations can prevent a whole subset of passengers from reaching their destination even if the trains were totally empty, which I would posit is a worse case than losing a little capacity.

 

[pemma]

For the millionth time wheelchair passengers are one of many groups which the PRM requirements cater for.

The fact that in 2017 people are complaining about single carriage life expired trains being withdrawn in 2 years time shows that we need more new diesel powered trains.

 

[Dai Corner]

As has been said many times, the accessibility requirements are not just for wheelchair users, they are for persons of reduced mobility across the board, including those with hearing problems, sight problems, other physical disabilities, and mental disabilities. Every attempt is being made to allow for equal opportunities for passengers to board the train, where without these modifications they would be unable to do so at all.

Rolling stock that doesn't adhere to the forthcoming regulations can prevent a whole subset of passengers from reaching their destination even if the trains were totally empty, which I would posit is a worse case than losing a little capacity.

I have to disagree I'm afraid. Adding a non-compliant coach to a crowded compliant train makes things no worse for any disabled passengers and may even make their journey easier as there will be more room and more possibility of getting a seat even if they can't access the non-compliant coach.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The fact that in 2017 people are complaining about single carriage life expired trains being withdrawn in 2 years time shows that we need more new diesel powered trains.

We do and we don't. We need new regional and regional express diesel trains, but the need for more suburban diesel trains is quite short-term. By March 2020, 47 modern suburban diesel units (22x 185, 8x 172 and 17x 170) will have been released. Unfortunately, the PRM regulations come into force in January 2020, but the full 22 class 185s won't be available to other operators until March 2020. There are also 14x class 156 (Regional units) due off lease by the end of 2019, which I hope will come to Wales & Borders to replace the 8x ATW class 153s and boost frequencies on the Pembrokeshire lines and either the Heart Of Wales or Conwy Valley.

However, 14 regional units (the 156s) isn't enough to get rid of the EMT class 153s as well; a suburban unit might be appropriate for some of their routes, but I'm not sure if there are enough of those routes to allow EMT's current 156s to cover all their regional work. Regional express is the real tight spot, with absolutely zero 158s/159s/175s due off lease to increase services/capacity and replace ATW's loco-hauled sets. And any new diesel units need to have unit-end gangways; diesel routes generally use short trains with multiple working on busy sections, installing call-for-aid buttons then trapping the guard in one unit so he/she cannot urgently come to the aid of passengers in the other unit is silly.

And buying anymore Intercity diesels is just stupid; the aim should be to get all 125mph routes electrified; there will be odd places like Newquay and Lincoln without wires but I reckon there are already enough class 80x bi-mode units to handle all such requirements.

 

[1179_Clee2]

I have to disagree I'm afraid. Adding a non-compliant coach to a crowded compliant train makes things no worse for any disabled passengers and may even make their journey easier as there will be more room and more possibility of getting a seat even if they can't access the non-compliant coach.

The TSI PRM regulations apply to ALL carriages DMU EMU Bi Mode and Loco hauled.
A non compliant coach cannot be added to a compliant coach to make up a longer train, doing so breaks the regulations.

 

[Dai Corner]

The TSI PRM regulations apply to ALL carriages DMU EMU Bi Mode and Loco hauled.
A non compliant coach cannot be added to a compliant coach to make up a longer train, doing so breaks the regulations.

I know. I'm arguing that preventing the addition of the non-compliant coach has the unintended consequence of making the disabled passenger's journey more difficult or even impossible.

 

[pemma]

We do and we don't. We need new regional and regional express diesel trains, but the need for more suburban diesel trains is quite short-term. By March 2020, 47 modern suburban diesel units (22x 185, 8x 172 and 17x 170) will have been released. Unfortunately, the PRM regulations come into force in January 2020, but the full 22 class 185s won't be available to other operators until March 2020. There are also 14x class 156 (Regional units) due off lease by the end of 2019, which I hope will come to Wales & Borders to replace the 8x ATW class 153s and boost frequencies on the Pembrokeshire lines and either the Heart Of Wales or Conwy Valley.

The number of DMUs being released is minimal compared to the number of DMUs from the mid 1980s or earlier still in service. In addition to the 153s and ATW Pacers they'll be almost 140 x class 150s which will need replacing at some point in the not to distance future. Even if TPE electrification allowed all 51 x 185s to be released that'll be no where near enough DMUs to replace all the class 150s, even if you presume no passenger growth on non-electrified routes.

 

[pemma]

I have to disagree I'm afraid. Adding a non-compliant coach to a crowded compliant train makes things no worse for any disabled passengers and may even make their journey easier as there will be more room and more possibility of getting a seat even if they can't access the non-compliant coach.

The problem is many disabled passengers CAN get on the non-compliant coach but once they are on it they might encounter problems e.g. no visual CIS for a deaf passenger, grab handles too slippery to use for a passenger with arthritis, a passenger with dwarfism unable to reach the door controls when they wish to get off at a quiet station, someone unable to read a passenger safety notice because they didn't bring their reading glasses with them, priority seats difficult to get of because they are too low down etc.

No-one has explained how you can ensure all passengers with every type of disability do not get on the 153, until someone comes up with a viable solution to that problem the idea of sticking non-compliant 153s on the rear is a non-starter.

The rail industry has had 25 years to prepare for the disability deadline, there should be no excuses for using any non-compliant carriages post-2019.

Yes longer trains with more seats are better than shorter trains with fewer seats but that shouldn't mean every train remains in service until it no longer works. If there's sufficient demand on a regular basis then more replacement trains are needed. It's also worth remembering if the 153s are permanently attached to other Sprinters it might prevent formations longer than 3 carriages on routes which can take up to 4 carriages, which might be a problem when special events are on.

 

[coppercapped]

The problem is many disabled passengers CAN get on the non-compliant coach but once they are on it they might encounter problems e.g. no visual CIS for a deaf passenger, grab handles too slippery to use for a passenger with arthritis, a passenger with dwarfism unable to reach the door controls when they wish to get off at a quiet station, someone unable to read a passenger safety notice because they didn't bring their reading glasses with them, priority seats difficult to get of because they are too low down etc.

No-one has explained how you can ensure all passengers with every type of disability do not get on the 153, until someone comes up with a viable solution to that problem the idea of sticking non-compliant 153s on the rear is a non-starter.

The rail industry has had 25 years to prepare for the disability deadline, there should be no excuses for using any non-compliant carriages post-2019.

Yes longer trains with more seats are better than shorter trains with fewer seats but that shouldn't mean every train remains in service until it no longer works. If there's sufficient demand on a regular basis then more replacement trains are needed. It's also worth remembering if the 153s are permanently attached to other Sprinters it might prevent formations longer than 3 carriages on routes which can take up to 4 carriages, which might be a problem when special events are on.

The difficulty with the disability deadline is that it is self-imposed. The TSI PRM as adopted on the continent of Europe refers only to new vehicles built after its date of adoption. Only the UK has the 2020 deadline.

So, yes, it would be nice if every coach was compliant - but to make travel by public transport more difficult than it need be for everyone because one cannot have some non-compliant coaches in an otherwise compliant train is Upney.

 

[pemma]

The difficulty with the disability deadline is that it is self-imposed. The TSI PRM as adopted on the continent of Europe refers only to new vehicles built after its date of adoption. Only the UK has the 2020 deadline.

Don't forget why we have a December 2019 deadline - that was seen as the date by which the Sprinters would have been withdrawn or had an extensive refurbishment, given even the youngest Sprinters will be 30 years old by then.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The number of DMUs being released is minimal compared to the number of DMUs from the mid 1980s or earlier still in service. In addition to the 153s and ATW Pacers they'll be almost 140 x class 150s which will need replacing at some point in the not to distance future. Even if TPE electrification allowed all 51 x 185s to be released that'll be no where near enough DMUs to replace all the class 150s, even if you presume no passenger growth on non-electrified routes.

I agree that the 150s are rather old and at one point it my have been my hope that they would all be withdrawn by 2020. However, now that the ROSCOs have spent millions making them compliant (and doing some fairly heafty corrosion repairs on the GWR sets at least) they are going to want them in service for a fair while. Northern I think have the largest number of 150s and their franchise lasts until 2025. I would therefore guess that they would be replaced somewhere in the 2026-2030 range, so there is no urgent need for new units to replace them yet. If we are very luckly the majority of the Welsh fleet might go between 2023 and 2026 as the ValleyLines are electrified allowing EMUs to replace them. That only leaves GWR, which as it is up for renewal in 2020 could be a candidate for the 185s but there is the issue of the money the ROSCOs have spent on the 150s.

The rail industry has had 25 years to prepare for the disability deadline, there should be no excuses for using any non-compliant carriages post-2019.

There WILL be non-compliant carriages in use post-2020 or East Midlands Trains will have to run an awful lot of replacement buses. Award of the next franchise is not due until April 2019; I very much doubt a solution to the IC125s can be implemented in that time unless all the bidders agree on the solution before the award so that contracts to implement the solution can be signed in advance. The industry has had years to prepare, but the franchising system has frustrated that.

 

[gareth950]

The rail industry has had 25 years to prepare for the disability deadline, there should be no excuses for using any non-compliant carriages post-2019.

Yes the industry has had 25 years to prepare, but since 1995 privatisation and a flawed franchising system has intervened.
The 2020 deadline might as well been anounced in 2015, as it's only really since then that action has begun to be taken to get ready for 2020.

Due to franchising, dealing with the 2020 deadline has been passed from franchise to franchise like a game of pass the parcel. Only now the music has stopped. There is no clearer example of this than the current ATW franchise. The SRA new of the 2020 deadline when then current W&B franchise was awarded in 2003, but just told ATW to get on with running their tired 1980s Sprinters and Pacers into the ground for 15 years. The SRA would have known that it would be impossible for the next franchisee to meet the 2020 deadline in Wales in under 15 months. But it dealt Wales a dead hand from the start anyway.

There must be a better way to run the UK's railways than the crazy system we have now. But that's for a totally separate thread.

 

[pemma]

There WILL be non-compliant carriages in use post-2020 or East Midlands Trains will have to run an awful lot of replacement buses. Award of the next franchise is not due until April 2019; I very much doubt a solution to the IC125s can be implemented in that time unless all the bidders agree on the solution before the award so that contracts to implement the solution can be signed in advance. The industry has had years to prepare, but the franchising system has frustrated that.

The ITT for the next EMT franchise has not been released yet so it is possible the current franchise will be made to obtain suitable stock with a requirement for the next franchise to continue using it.