PRM-TSI derogations: DfT publish letters with the details

[The Joker]

I thought I saw a post saying that XC HST set 05 had also been given a derogation but having clicked on the link I cannot find any confirmation of this in any of the letters. Does it have a derogation?

 

[ainsworth74]

I thought I saw a post saying that XC HST set 05 had also been given a derogation but having clicked on the link I cannot find any confirmation of this in any of the letters. Does it have a derogation?

Does it need one? It's gone off for PRM modification hasn't it?

 

[The Joker]

Does it need one? It's gone off for PRM modification hasn't it?

It was reply #77 on the Non PRM thread. I was wondering whether they may hold it back for a few weeks in case of problems with any of the other sets given that XC have no extra capacity, and/or Wabtec are not able to start work on it straight away.

 

[43096]

Does it need one? It's gone off for PRM modification hasn't it?

It’s at Laira not allocated today. The letter was written in November, before XC02 had come back from Wabtec, so was probably XC covering themselves if XC02 was not released in time.

 

[LAX54]

So for the GA EMU fleet the expectation is;
20 x 317 to retire October 2020.
18 x 317 to be made PRM-Compliant by April 2020.
27 x 317s available for service beyond October 2020.
Entire 321 fleet available until 1 December 2020. Renatus only beyond that.

So long as the 745/1 are mostly available by May, that all seems achievable.

Apart from training, I cannot forsee any issues with the 745's, they are pure OHL, when the 755s run under OHL they are fine, (except when the pam fails to lower !) it is / was only under diesel they seemed to have TC 'issues'

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I note that one of Northern's "exempted routes" is Huddersfield to Leeds: which hasn't been operated by Northern for two and a half years. I'd assume they meant via Bradford, but that is addressed separately as Huddersfield to Bradford via Halifax.

 

[James321]

Are the Greater Anglia's 30 x 321 Renatus extended until end of 2020?

 

[The Joker]

It’s at Laira not allocated today. The letter was written in November, before XC02 had come back from Wabtec, so was probably XC covering themselves if XC02 was not released in time.

Let’s hope they don’t find they have problems with opening and closing the doors on XC02 then like they did with the first two sets to be released (although to be fair the last two seem to have been ok)

 

[43096]

Let’s hope they don’t find they have problems with opening and closing the doors on XC02 then like they did with the first two sets to be released (although to be fair the last two seem to have been ok)

XC02 is in service and there is a path in for a Laira-Doncaster move tomorrow, presumably for XC05 to go.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Are the Greater Anglia's 30 x 321 Renatus extended until end of 2020?

They comply with PRM so they don't need dispensation.

 

[James321]

If class 360s Desiro units are off lease in August 2020 means class 321 renatus took the 360's duties until new bombardier class 720 delivered to GA?

 

[F Great Eastern]

If class 360s Desiro units are off lease in August 2020 means class 321 renatus took the 360's duties until new bombardier class 720 delivered to GA?

There's a lot of unknowns with Greater ANglia.

A lot depends on the speed of introduction of the 720s. If that rollout continues to slip there could be a major shortage of rolling stock for services run by EMUs if there are far more 360s/379s leaving than 720s entering service.

That's before we consider the cliff edge of when the unmodified 317s/321s cannot be used and any possible problems with the 745s which will require substitution by other stock.

 

[brad465]

It looks like for SouthEastern their 466s have a permanent exemption when they run with 465s (and only with 465s) as well as being given a limited exemption through to 31 December 2020 for solo operation on the Grove Park to Bromley North line. I think the future of Bromley North was something which was vexing a few people so they can rest easy that services will still exist tomorrow!

The first derogation letter has been public since October 2018, although the Bromley North branch update to it is very recent of course. While it was a well known issue of discussion on here was it common knowledge among ordinary passengers of the line?
This article about the Sheerness branch "new stock" might on Kent Online promote the benefit of the branch, but, as one person in the comments pointed out, we know the truth is SE were forced into it due to both the PRM law and power supply issues on the branch.

 

[High Dyke]

If it’s specified route only is it right to interpret it as excluding the Nottingham services on the Peterborough Doncaster route.

if so surely all the later services to Spalding can’t be 153 as it’s effectively a shuttle to/from Peterborough till the last one which extends to Nottingham.

It probably depends on how literal you consider the letter. If you apply the logic of no single 153 to operate then either a two car unit will be plodding round, on the Spalding shuttles, with low patronage or the service may have to suffer a replacement bus service. Sadly, people can't have it all their way. Yes there are deficiencies and yes all passengers should be treated the same; however you can't expect changes to happen in such a short space of time. Perhaps the DfT bears some responsibility in all this by setting an unachievable target.

 

[Bikeman78]

I wouldn't rule out the 90s getting extended either if at all possible, since if the roll-out of the 745s is even half like as slow and hit by problems as the 755s is, they're going to struggle.

In the second half of the year all 379s and 360s are leaving Greater Anglia so if the 720 situation is still bad then, they're going to have problems even if they get exemptions for the 317s and 321s.

Do the 379s have anywhere to go? Even so, it does all sound rather optimistic. Even if the new trains turn up and work well from the start, a lot of drivers will need to be trained, many of them on both 720 and 745s. Have any of the drivers that work Stansted Express started training on the 745s?

Currently there are 46 class 317 diagrams for a fleet of 55 units. That consists of 24 PRM diagrams, one pair which does the 1713 Liv St to Cambridge and another pair does the peak Witham and Colchester runs. The remaining 18 are covering for 379s that should have been cascaded off Stansted Express by now. It seems reasonable to assume that all the 745s will be running by October and that there will be enough 720s to cover the two remaining non PRM pairs.

Incidentally the list of units has thrown up a surprise. I expected that 317501-15 and 317337-348 would have the PRM mods, as that neatly added up to 27 units, but in fact 881-886 are being kept and six others are being binned.

Regarding the 360s, I expect there is some flexibility with the off lease date. East Mids won't need all of them for driver training so some should be able to stay with AGA until December.

 

[Goldfish62]

The list for the Eurostar Class 373s is interesting. It seems that even in heavily refurbished form they're still non-compliant in many areas, eg lack of door open tones and illuminated door buttons. Derogation is only for a year.

 

[RichSwitch]

The class 442 pre-date the regulations, but the regulations make clear what must happen by 1 Jan 2020.

I’d say it’s pretty likely that the 442 won’t meet the legal requirements and thus require derogations.

Any derogations have to be notified to the EU and must fulfill certain criteria in order to be made. I wonder if - on an administrative technicality - some of the derogations are in fact not strictly legal. Given that we haven’t left the EU. And whether that includes for the class 442.

It will be interesting to see whether these derogations get challenged in Court given that there has been more than adequate notice to the rail industry of these regulations. And that regardless of the status quo, the regulations trump derogations making them null and void. Therefore the trains can’t be used, derogation or no derogation.

 

[Bikeman78]

The class 442 pre-date the regulations, but the regulations make clear what must happen by 1 Jan 2020.

I’d say it’s pretty likely that the 442 won’t meet the legal requirements and thus require derogations.

Any derogations have to be notified to the EU and must fulfill certain criteria in order to be made. I wonder if - on an administrative technicality - some of the derogations are in fact not strictly legal. Given that we haven’t left the EU. And whether that includes for the class 442.

It will be interesting to see whether these derogations get challenged in Court given that there has been more than adequate notice to the rail industry of these regulations. And that regardless of the status quo, the regulations trump derogations making them null and void. Therefore the trains can’t be used, derogation or no derogation.

I doubt the EU will care. Have a trip to Belgium and see what their trains are like. Still low platforms and two steps to climb in on some routes.

 

[43096]

I doubt the EU will care. Have a trip to Belgium and see what their trains are like. Still low platforms and two steps to climb in on some routes.

And the arbitrary 31/12/19 was a U.K. Government decision, not the EU. Given that the requirement for dispensations is to a very large degree down to DfT’s own mismanagement, you might say “hoist by their own petard”.

 

[Whattraintoday]

I note that one of Northern's "exempted routes" is Huddersfield to Leeds: which hasn't been operated by Northern for two and a half years. I'd assume they meant via Bradford, but that is addressed separately as Huddersfield to Bradford via Halifax.

Yeah, struck me as odd.
They did operate Leeds-Hudds via Bradford Int until the Dec 2019 timetable (used to be my regular service) but that's now been truncated to the BDI-HUD "Dogbox Express" shuttle which, as you say, is covered in the list of 153 exemptions.

 

[anthony263]

Interesting that there's no letter for TfW 150/2s on that webpage, but TfW have admitted that so far only around 20 out of their 36 x 150s are fully PRM modified.
Also, none of the TfW dispensation letters specify specific routes to confine non-PRM compliant trains to, or specify that non-compliant trains must be coupled to compliant ones.

There was a letter posted on Facebook for the tfw 150s dft didn't publish it with the rest of TFWs fleet.

 

[Failed Unit]

Things in Lincolnshire are better then expected from observation today. Will update later but from what I have seen so far.

1014 Lincoln - Peterborough 156411
1016. Lincoln - Newark 156410
1025 Lincoln - Grimsby 153385 & 374
1646 Lincoln - Newark 156470
1730 Lincoln - Leicester. A 158

So nothing solo which is a big step forward.

On interesting observation is that the sleaford - Lincoln school train was just 2 coaches. The portion that forms the 1730 ran ECS back to Lincoln. Sensible considering that methringham and ruskington only have 2 coaches.

 

[221129]

I thought I saw a post saying that XC HST set 05 had also been given a derogation but having clicked on the link I cannot find any confirmation of this in any of the letters. Does it have a derogation?

It had one to allow it to work until the end of this week if needed. However it wasnt needed as it is wy to Doncaster today.

 

[The Joker]

It had one to allow it to work until the end of this week if needed. However it wasnt needed as it is wy to Doncaster today.

Thanks - I have just seen the post on the XC HST thread. Let’s hope that door problems don’t make 1V44 continually late.

 

[hobbm013]

There was a letter posted on Facebook for the tfw 150s dft didn't publish it with the rest of TFWs fleet.

It was published under the Porterbrook folder rather than the TfW one. It can be found here:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...pb-class-150-PRM-2020-dispensation-letter.pdf

 

[PG]

The class 442 pre-date the regulations, but the regulations make clear what must happen by 1 Jan 2020.

I’d say it’s pretty likely that the 442 won’t meet the legal requirements and thus require derogations.

Any derogations have to be notified to the EU and must fulfill certain criteria in order to be made. I wonder if - on an administrative technicality - some of the derogations are in fact not strictly legal. Given that we haven’t left the EU. And whether that includes for the class 442.

It will be interesting to see whether these derogations get challenged in Court given that there has been more than adequate notice to the rail industry of these regulations. And that regardless of the status quo, the regulations trump derogations making them null and void. Therefore the trains can’t be used, derogation or no derogation.

I think the statements/questions in your last paragraph are matters that require a legal judgement or opinion.

I'm not legally qualified but maybe someone who is can comment on this?

 

[Greybeard33]

Any derogations have to be notified to the EU and must fulfill certain criteria in order to be made. I wonder if - on an administrative technicality - some of the derogations are in fact not strictly legal. Given that we haven’t left the EU. And whether that includes for the class 442.

Legally there are no "derogations". A derogation would permit a new design of train not to comply with some part of the EU Directive. The documents the DfT has issued are "dispensations" against the UK retrofit legislation and do not have to be notified to the EU.

 

[Goldfish62]

Legally there are no "derogations". A derogation would permit a new design of train not to comply with some part of the EU Directive. The documents the DfT has issued are "dispensations" against the UK retrofit legislation and do not have to be notified to the EU.

Agreed. As I understand it it was an EU Directive rather than a Regulation underpinning this, meaning that it was up to individual member states how and when they achieve the prescribed level of accessibility through domestic legislation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt the EU will care. Have a trip to Belgium and see what their trains are like. Still low platforms and two steps to climb in on some routes.

The EU didn't require PRM TSI to apply to existing stock. The UK chose to do so.

 

[Speed43125]

And the arbitrary 31/12/19 was a U.K. Government decision, not the EU. Given that the requirement for dispensations is to a very large degree down to DfT’s own mismanagement, you might say “hoist by their own petard”.

THANK YOU! I've had enough on blaming rules and regulations on the EU gov. Having lived abroad, I'd say the Uk gov along is pretty awful for pointless bureaucracy, even if our culture at large is very much make fun of the rules and regs.
EU simply wants all new rolling stock to be PRM compliant, you can blame westminster for shooting it's own foot with this pointlessly achievable regulation that will merely cause more anger towards TOCs that are already trying their hardest.

EDIT: sorry, it seems others have already clarified the issue...