Paralympian forced to wet herself on train without accessible toilet

[221129]

The train had a guard. What was he doing?

Or have we reached the point where guards aren't allowed to use platform ramps? In which case the railway needs its collective heads banging together (or an on board ramp on every single train).

If he phoned up Leicester and they agreed to meet the train and didn't he would probably be getting on with other duties.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And what has that got to do with XC? You'd be stuck with them regardless of who had the franchise...

Depends what they bid and on what basis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If he phoned up Leicester and they agreed to meet the train and didn't he would probably be getting on with other duties.

Is it not the case that a delay due to disabled access required is acceptable in every case?

Therefore, the train should have been delayed so he could perform the additional duty of fitting the ramp and disembarking the passenger once he had performed the other station duties associated with opening the doors etc.

Basically, that this happened is not acceptable regardless of why it did - procedure changes are required so it cannot happen again.

 

[221129]

Is it not the case that a delay due to disabled access required is acceptable in every case?

Therefore, the train should have been delayed so he could perform the additional duty of fitting the ramp and disembarking the passenger once he had performed the other station duties associated with opening the doors etc.

Basically, that this happened is not acceptable regardless of why it did - procedure changes are required so it cannot happen again.

Did anyone alert the conductor that she hadn't been seen?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Did anyone alert the conductor that she hadn't been seen?

Did the conductor assume she had been seen without doing a proper hand-off in person to the person who was going to see her?

Far too many customer service issues occur, not only on the railway, because people (management too) think it is adequate simply to log a request in a system somewhere and assume something has been dealt with. "Not my job any more mate" is poor service however you look at it.

I see this all the time on the railway - wheelchair users and Pendolino cyclists abandoned because of an assumption that "everybody said somebody would do it so nobody did it". It really is not good enough. If it's not part of the guard's duty to walk to a person with an accessibility booking and introduce the person who will be taking that service over from him once he's done the immediately required safety duties, it's not good enough and procedure needs changing.

And if the railway won't do it on their own, I hope they are hit with as many son-of-DDA Court cases as possible (and lose them all) until they do.

 

[WelshBluebird]

By quickly reading posts earlier in the thread that implied an all-or-nothing approach

If there is a facility provided there should also be one provided that is accessible, true.
However it in no way at all suggests that if there is a fault in one then the other has to be taken out of use for no reason at all.

Because for some people, it’s apparently an exceptional effort to (a) arrange toilet stops at stations when the universal loo is broken, (b) tank the toilets adequately in the first place.

Whenever a person or organisation says this, they’re effectively saying “OK, we’ll treat everyone like we treat disabled people, and see how they like it.” The fact this is a bad thing arguably shows more about their attitude to disabled people than they intended.

Have you ever seen a company lock out a non accessible toilet because the accessible one has broken? Thought not.

 

[Via Bank]

Have you ever seen a company lock out a non accessible toilet because the accessible one has broken? Thought not.

Of course not.

But whenever this kind of thing happens, an awful lot of people on this forum say “well maybe we should lock out all the loos, that way we’d have ‘equality.’” Or demanding to know if the regulations would require the loos to be locked out, or require the train to be cancelled. (Of course they don’t.)

What I’m saying is that this is a telling response when disabled people are simply asking for somewhere to pee in peace on an intercity train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or failing that for proper alternatives to be provided, and for it to be ensured they are provided, and as a matter of course, without anyone having to go "Guard, Guard I need a wee" like some kind of schoolchild. That is, to plan in a toilet stop at reasonable frequency and announce it in advance and how long it will be and where the toilets are to be found.

It should also in my view be the case that if an Advance ticket holder is booked on a train which was planned to have a toilet that does not, they should have the right to use the following train if they need to use the facilities without having to ask (the staff should check the toilet was indeed locked out if in doubt). Similarly if an off-peak is held and the next train is peak, or is another TOC.

It is simply not OK under any cirumstances to have people wetting themselves (or even suffering substantial discomfort) for what are essentially administrative reasons.

 

[Qwerty133]

If he phoned up Leicester and they agreed to meet the train and didn't he would probably be getting on with other duties.

Which would be unacceptable considering the regular issues with communication between staff of at Leicester...
Messages rarely seem to pass between XC and EMT at Leicester so why would the guard believe that in this one case it had without checking (and certain staff at Leicester have an attitude towards XC that means they try and avoid doing anything remotely helpful for them or their customers).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which would be unacceptable considering the regular issues with communication between staff of at Leicester...

Issue or no issue, any assistance related case requires personal hand-off in EVERY case, certainly on a guarded train. (If the train is DOO the passenger should be instructed to use the passcom if the assistance is not immediately forthcoming and clearly reassured they will not be fined for doing so as this is appropriate use).

 

[WelshBluebird]

It should also in my view be the case that if an Advance ticket holder is booked on a train which was planned to have a toilet that does not, they should have the right to use the following train if they need to use the facilities without having to ask (the staff should check the toilet was indeed locked out if in doubt).

I would love for a ToC to try to enforce the booked train only thing in that circumstance. There is literally no way they would surely?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would love for a ToC to try to enforce the booked train only thing in that circumstance. There is literally no way they would surely?

I would put money on TPE and VT not respecting each others' tickets if this happened on the north WCML. They act like petulant bickering children a lot of the time and need their heads banging together.

 

[Qwerty133]

I would put money on TPE and VT not respecting each others' tickets if this happened on the north WCML. They act like petulant bickering children a lot of the time and need their heads banging together.

Bit like XC guards and EMT staff at Leicester really. EMT staff seemed to be visibly and irrationally annoyed by the failure of XC guards to sell every passenger boarding at unstaffed stations tickets (as there physically wasn't time) and this seems to have annoyed XC staff who have now moved to (normally) not leaving the cab at all and therefore selling none of the passengers tickets but instead making announcements to the effect of 'you must buy your tickets at Leicester, which has led to the barrier staff no longer carrying ticket machines even if continuing your journey with a short connection time. EMT dispatch staff also hide from any platforms that the next service is run by XC until the last possible second before departure (which will be why no-one was 'available' to help the woman this thread is about').
To be fair the ticket office staff seem to be above these games and are actually helpful (and on the whole knowledgeable).

 

[Qwerty133]

Considering the service in question is (one of?) the only xx:52s out of New Street to continue east of Leicester it wouldn't surprise me if the guard changed at Leicester, and even if not with a 9 minute wait probably made himself a cup of tea meaning there probably wasn't a guard actually on the train for most of the time while it was at Leicester.

 

[A0wen]

You're joking right?

I'm lucky enough not to regularly need to travel on Cross Country services, but whilst waiting at Leicester for my usual EMT service to Nottingham I see just how rammed the Birmingham/Cambridge services are.

It's pretty disgusting that an inter-regional service that serves so many popular destinations gets such short shrift with the choice of stock, but it seems minimal effort is the policy of Cross Country.

No - not joking at all.

There are many parts of the network where 2 car DMUs are in use on such services - look at the use of the class 155,156,158 units - all with similar levels of seating to the 2 car 170s. As it happens 2 car 170s are in the minority.

I'm not sure what you think XC should be using ? Birmingham - Cambridge services are about 100 miles and in many respects are a secondary route. There will be traffic flows between Birmingham and Leicester, Leicester and Peterboro and Peterboro - Cambridge. But those services are also acting as the local stopper to places like Hinckley, Oakham and Stamford.

Full 'Intercity' stock isn't appropriate, so the 170s are probably about right. Some services will be busier than others.

What is slightly disturbing about this particular case is why XC paid compensation. Would they have done so if the only toilet on a train had been locked out of use and an able bodied person had soiled themselves? If the answer is no - then it's sending out the wrong message paying compensation on this occasion.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Bit like XC guards and EMT staff at Leicester really. EMT staff seemed to be visibly and irrationally annoyed by the failure of XC guards to sell every passenger boarding at unstaffed stations tickets (as there physically wasn't time) and this seems to have annoyed XC staff who have now moved to (normally) not leaving the cab at all and therefore selling none of the passengers tickets but instead making announcements to the effect of 'you must buy your tickets at Leicester, which has led to the barrier staff no longer carrying ticket machines even if continuing your journey with a short connection time. EMT dispatch staff also hide from any platforms that the next service is run by XC until the last possible second before departure (which will be why no-one was 'available' to help the woman this thread is about').
To be fair the ticket office staff seem to be above these games and are actually helpful (and on the whole knowledgeable).

At all stations above a certain size, should all the station staff be independent of any TOC that call there?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Considering the service in question is (one of?) the only xx:52s out of New Street to continue east of Leicester it wouldn't surprise me if the guard changed at Leicester, and even if not with a 9 minute wait probably made himself a cup of tea meaning there probably wasn't a guard actually on the train for most of the time while it was at Leicester.

In which case there should have been an in-person hand-off between the two and the second guard have ensured the issue was dealt with before dispatching the train.

I know that doesn't always happen, but for an assistance matter it really needs to. There cannot possibly be any excuse for this issue, and that XC have settled demonstrates that amply.

TBH I think it's a real shame they seem to have settled out of Court. I would have liked to see them prosecuted and if possible in that Court precedent set that there is no possible circumstance under which what happened could be considered to be OK.

 

[otomous]

"While we have apologised for the events that day, a lot of good has also resulted from this, with the whole rail industry looking at ways to make Britain's railways a more accessible environment, alongside the Department for Transport's ongoing consultation on an Accessibility Action Plan."

Presumably this includes Northern Rail ripping out all of its robust flush lavatories with vacuum ones which lock themselves out of use at the drop of a hat.

Yeah right, ways of making the railways more accessible. Like taking a guaranteed trained person off the train to assist ie a guard AND destaffing platforms, then replacing them with no one or a non guaranteed scantily trained person that trains will regularly run without if not available.

 

[mallard]

EMT staff seemed to be visibly and irrationally annoyed by the failure of XC guards to sell every passenger boarding at unstaffed stations tickets (as there physically wasn't time) and this seems to have annoyed XC staff who have now moved to (normally) not leaving the cab at all and therefore selling none of the passengers tickets but instead making announcements to the effect of 'you must buy your tickets at Leicester, which has led to the barrier staff no longer carrying ticket machines even if continuing your journey with a short connection time.

As I mentioned earlier, my daily commute involves the XC service around Leicester and I've never heard any announcement telling passengers to buy tickets at Leicester. Even when the train has been full-and-standing, as it often is on my evening service, the guard usually makes it round and sells tickets as necessary. It's far more likely that I'll have my ticket checked on the XC part of my journey than the EMT (although I am on XC for roughly twice as long and the train is shorter). Maybe the situation is different on services east of Leicester where it seems to be busier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah right, ways of making the railways more accessible. Like taking a guaranteed trained person off the train to assist ie a guard AND destaffing platforms, then replacing them with no one or a non guaranteed scantily trained person that trains will regularly run without if not available.

It's certainly an issue with DOO if drivers will not and/or cannot deal with it. Special assistance requires personal hand-off[1] at every changeover point, otherwise you will inevitably get too many failures.

It's one reason why I support DOO on Merseyrail and not on other franchises - level boarding with the gap fully bridged changes the game completely and basically removes the need for assistance in almost every case. (For the remaining much more exceptional cases it'd be cheaper to provide a personal chaperone member of staff than a guard on every train).

[1] By that I mean that at any given time one known and named person is responsible for the assistance provided to the person who booked it. If that person cannot find the person to whom that responsibility is to be transferred and conduct the handover in person, they remain responsible, and for example if that is the guard of a train they need to delay the train until the handover can be conducted or an alternative arranged and communicated to the individual, again in person.

 

[BestWestern]

Or failing that for proper alternatives to be provided, and for it to be ensured they are provided, and as a matter of course, without anyone having to go "Guard, Guard I need a wee" like some kind of schoolchild. That is, to plan in a toilet stop at reasonable frequency and announce it in advance and how long it will be and where the toilets are to be found.

In that instance, the wheelchair user would still require the assistance of the Guard to leave the train. Simply ensuring that on board facilities are provided and working is the sensible approach.

With regard to the 'equality' issue of a failed accessible toilet but a working 'non-accessible' facility, how long would that scenario be acceptable for, in the eyes of the law? Just until the end of that journey; all day; all week? I'm curious as to how much detail the rules contain.

 

[maire23]

How so? ATW and Chiltern have the same ownership and are far better in just about every way (ATW's "no growth" specification from the DfT notwithstanding). Seems to me that the quality of Arriva's franchises isn't at all consistent. I suspect that they're given quite a bit of autonomy and it's really just up to the specific franchise's management.

As something that's more relevant to this thread, I was actually on board the train in question (it's part of my daily commute) and was seated near Mrs Wafula-Strike as I was travelling with a bike, so I remember the journey quite clearly. I find it very surprising that this thread lambasts XC for their part in the problem, but EMT gets a pass.

The train in question has a 9-minute timetabled stopover at Leicester and was running more-or-less on time as I recall. That should be plenty of time to allow a disabled passenger to use the station toilets. Additionally, the train was a service to Cambridge, not direct to the stated final destination of Stansted (presumably Airport), a quick check confirms that changing trains at Leicester would have been no slower than changing later in the journey, meaning that even if the 9 minutes wasn't long enough, the 32 minutes between trains would certainly have been. The BBC article mentions that (and it correlates with my memory of the incident) "there was nobody to help her at that station" (and the previous article says "The next possible platform was Peterborough", leaving little doubt that it's referring to Leicester).

The fact that EMT (as managers of Leicester station) did not have staff available to assist with de-training a disabled passenger makes them just as culpable as XC in my opinion. The XC on-train staff definitely reported the problem to their control, so there's little doubt that EMT were informed (presumably the industry has mechanisms for alerting upcoming station staff to the presence of passengers needing assistance, even if the train and station are operated by different TOCs).

Once again I am utterly unsurprised that there were no staff at Leicester. Leicester is my ‘home’ station and I travel to and from on a very regular basis. I always book assistance and I can honestly say 9 times out of 10 on arrival into Leicester by train and about 6 times out of 10 on departure from Leicester by train that assistance does not materialise. I now expect there to be no assistance and so have to seek help from fellow passengers (who thankfully always seem willing to help) but I always complain to EMT! I arrived at Leicester on Tuesday early evening and was shocked when a staff member arrived with a ramp for me as that is a very rare occurrence!!
Just as an edit- having seen the remarks about the XC/EMT staff disputes that would make sense as it’s generally the XC service to or from PBO/BHM I’m getting on/off but this also happens when I’m getting off/on the EMT service to NOT/SHF/STP!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once again I am utterly unsurprised that there were no staff at Leicester. Leicester is my ‘home’ station and I travel to and from on a very regular basis. I always book assistance and I can honestly say 9 times out of 10 on arrival into Leicester by train and about 6 times out of 10 on departure from Leicester by train that assistance does not materialise. I now expect there to be no assistance and so have to seek help from fellow passengers (who thankfully always seem willing to help) but I always complain to EMT! I arrived at Leicester on Tuesday early evening and was shocked when a staff member arrived with a ramp for me as that is a very rare occurrence!!

If that's true someone needs to take legal action under son-of-DDA; they would certainly lose.

 

[maire23]

If that's true someone needs to take legal action under son-of-DDA; they would certainly lose.

EMT are always eager to make a payment to me, presumably to keep me quiet! Being the skint student I am, I generally let it go but maybe I should kick up more of a fuss!

 

[Qwerty133]

As I mentioned earlier, my daily commute involves the XC service around Leicester and I've never heard any announcement telling passengers to buy tickets at Leicester. Even when the train has been full-and-standing, as it often is on my evening service, the guard usually makes it round and sells tickets as necessary. It's far more likely that I'll have my ticket checked on the XC part of my journey than the EMT (although I am on XC for roughly twice as long and the train is shorter). Maybe the situation is different on services east of Leicester where it seems to be busier.

They will normally check tickets when the ticket offices at Narborough and Hinckley are open but when they are closed they rarely do so (presumably as they want their 25 minute break to be uninterrupted and because it is often impossible to sell tickets to all passengers requiring them. Honestly the solution lies in installing ticket machines at these stations (but while the TOC operating the stations sees very little revenue gain from passengers from these stations actually having to buy a ticket it will never happen) and I blame the EMT barrier staff more than the XC staff for the situation.

 

[Qwerty133]

EMT are always eager to make a payment to me, presumably to keep me quiet! Being the skint student I am, I generally let it go but maybe I should kick up more of a fuss!

There seems to be some kind of cultural issues with many of the staff at Leicester where they expect to and do get away with doing very little actual work. Whether this is the barrier staff who are normally standing around talking to each other with the barriers left open, or the platform staff who are rarely actually on the platform preferring to hide in the supervisors office and other private areas (one member of dispatch staff had actually crossed the bridge from platform 2 to platform 3 before the train he dispatched had even left the platform when I was there the other week). Only the ticket office staff actually seem to want to have anything to do with helping passengers. Sadly some individuals have been acting in such a manner for a number of years but the effects are probably more noticeable in the last few years when the most of the few decent staff who were in those roles have retired or moved to other jobs.

 

[tspaul26]

TBH I think it's a real shame they seem to have settled out of Court. I would have liked to see them prosecuted and if possible in that Court precedent set that there is no possible circumstance under which what happened could be considered to be OK.

What offence would CrossCountry be prosecuted for? I ask out of genuine interest as it seems like a nice little problem question to work through.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What offence would CrossCountry be prosecuted for? I ask out of genuine interest as it seems like a nice little problem question to work through.

Is there an offence of not making reasonable adjustments under son-of-DDA? Or is it a basis for civil cases for compensation only?

Either way they need a heavy clout.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The train had a guard. What was he doing?

Or have we reached the point where guards aren't allowed to use platform ramps? In which case the railway needs its collective heads banging together (or an on board ramp on every single train).

Yes, in many cases.

Lots of ramps have labels 'only for use by x TOC'. What the penalty would be for a XC guard using an EMT ramp I don't know. Plus some ramps only fit some trains, or not all ramps fit all trains (safely).

 

[BestWestern]

Is there an offence of not making reasonable adjustments under son-of-DDA? Or is it a basis for civil cases for compensation only?

Either way they need a heavy clout.

I'm not sure that this is illustrative of massive failings at XC (or EMT), as some posters seem to imply. Yes it was certainly a rather shameful performance on this occasion, but it was one occasion. It was outrageous that the passenger was treated in the manner that she was, but it seems apparent that this was a deeply regretful chain of circumstances, not the result of a singular poor policy. There are plenty of trains routinely running around with broken or missing accessible toilets. The disabled toilet door on a Class 158 is a notriously weak design, and they fail often. The accessible facility on HSTs suffers from the same problem, that's assuming the appropriate carriage is present within the train at all - they quite often aren't. What seems to have made this situation sigificantly worse was a failure on the human side. The lady should have been appropriately assisted, and she wasn't. I'm pretty confident that isn't XC policy, it was down to a person or persons overlooking the situation.

So yes, it was shockingly poor this time, and indeed yes, XC aren't anybody's favourite TOC, but equally human failures happen every day, and no doubt they'll happen again. Thankfully, it's rare that the outcome is quite so awful.