Transpennine Express decide not to use MK3's on limited services

[mde]

I'm sure the thousands of people who are shoehorned onto overcrowded trains will fully understand that because of a lack of PRM compliant facilities, and the unwillingness of some persons with accessibility problems to accept being offered taxi alternatives, they will have to continue being stuffed into the overcrowded trains for many months more.

Perhaps someone should let them all know so that they can all agree its for the best?

So, you don't accept that TPE could have remedied the situation by actually doing some work on the Pretendolino coaches that they've had on lease for quite some time? No one was asking them to do full PRM-TSI or RVAR compliance.

It's the fault of the TOC and the DfT that this so-called short term solution is no longer being implemented for passenger use.

Also - you do make the "taxi alternatives" sound like a sort of gift. Have you actually ever used a rail replacement taxi? It's not a pleasurable experience - they are unreliable, inconsistent and, tend to actually be more trouble than they are worth. While it may sound like a credible solution, in reality, it's far from it.

 

[Bantamzen]

So, you don't accept that TPE could have remedied the situation by actually doing some work on the Pretendolino coaches that they've had on lease for quite some time? No one was asking them to do full PRM-TSI or RVAR compliance.

It's the fault of the TOC and the DfT that this so-called short term solution is no longer being implemented for passenger use.

Also - you do make the "taxi alternatives" sound like a sort of gift. Have you actually ever used a rail replacement taxi? It's not a pleasurable experience - they are unreliable, inconsistent and, tend to actually be more trouble than they are worth. While it may sound like a credible solution, in reality, it's far from it.

Why would a TOC spend a considerable amount of money on PRM works for coaches that would see only a few months service then handed back to probably be scrapped?

As for taxis, are rail replacement different from regular taxis? If not then yes I have used taxis, in fact I used one yesterday, I've used them to come home from Manchester Airport and so on. But if taxis are not a credible solution, then what happens if there are busitutions in future? Do TOCs cancel these because they may not be PRM compliant and some people don't like taxis.

But don't just discuss this here, please feel free to find one of the many services rammed full and explain to people stuffed into a corner of a vestibule that this is a much more preferable solution than a few passengers being forced into cars. Like I said, I'm sure they will fully understand.

 

[mde]

Why would a TOC spend a considerable amount of money on PRM works for coaches that would see only a few months service then handed back to probably be scrapped?

They've had them for quite some time - the works required are minimal given the spare coaches were readily available. In any case, it would not have cost a 'considerable amount of money' to do the bare minimum.

Look at the Mk2 and DBSOs being used on the Cumbrian Coast, the adaptations there are minor. Sure, it's hardly a brilliantly accessible service, but, it's better than nothing. Again, no one was ever going to expect PRM-TSI compliance (or even RVAR), whether this service had rolled out a year ago or today it was never going to be compliant, nor did it need to be.

As for taxis, are rail replacement different from regular taxis? If not then yes I have used taxis, in fact I used one yesterday, I've used them to come home from Manchester Airport and so on. But if taxis are not a credible solution, then what happens if there are busitutions in future? Do TOCs cancel these because they may not be PRM compliant and some people don't like taxis.

Buses can be accessible, if the TOC books the right vehicles (they often don't). Taxis are fine for most, but, the availability is a problem - the TOC contracts through Cabfind (Cabsi) and others often do not use local firms meaning a taxi is coming a considerable distance and is often late, or, the driver has absolutely no knowledge of the area they are taking the job for.

In my own experience, on a recent Glasgow > Carlisle taxi the driver couldn't find the station because he had no knowledge of the area - similar on the return, except for the fact that the taxi was extremely late owing to an argument between TPE & VTWC over who was to pay for it - I kid you not. Or, to look at another forum member's experience - over 40 minutes at Windemere yesterday, despite having pre-booked assistance with the TOC because the taxi simply didn't turn up (and, the TOC's buses were inaccessible).

But don't just discuss this here, please feel free to find one of the many services rammed full and explain to people stuffed into a corner of a vestibule that this is a much more preferable solution than a few passengers being forced into cars. Like I said, I'm sure they will fully understand.

Again, I sympathise - but, this isn't the fault of the disabled people, it's the fault of an incompetent operator agreeing to do something that was never going to be wise. Had it already been in service and running for some time then the scenario would be "when is this going to improve?" (look at ScotRail's Fife Circle LHCS services for example - inaccessible, have been in operation for donkeys, will be going circa next year). but, to willingly roll out a service which is actively blocking certain groups from using it is unacceptable, and, could have been so easily done differently.

If frustrated folks want someone to complain at, the MD of TPE would no doubt be delighted to hear from them. Or, equally, Messrs Grayling and Johnson at the DfT, whose inept department are the source of many of the (historic) issues with TPE.

As an addendum, it might be helpful to consider that PRM doesn't just mean a person in a wheelchair. The definition is a bit more complex - '‘Person with disabilities and person with reduced mobility’ means any person who has a permanent or temporary physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective use of transport on an equal basis with other passengers or whose mobility when using transport is reduced due to age.'. From a technical standpoint you could also consider folks travelling with buggies in a similar respect - it may not be easy or practical for them to store the buggy as luggage - they currently have a space on the 185, but, wouldn't on a Mk3 without occupying a vestibule and causing inconvenience.

 

[Bantamzen]

They've had them for quite some time - the works required are minimal given the spare coaches were readily available. In any case, it would not have cost a 'considerable amount of money' to do the bare minimum.

Look at the Mk2 and DBSOs being used on the Cumbrian Coast, the adaptations there are minor. Sure, it's hardly a brilliantly accessible service, but, it's better than nothing. Again, no one was ever going to expect PRM-TSI compliance (or even RVAR), whether this service had rolled out a year ago or today it was never going to be compliant, nor did it need to be.

The MKIIIs were only meant to be a temporary measure until the MKV stock landed. As they were not required under the franchise agreement TPE obviously chose to keep the short term costs to a minimum. I'm afraid this is what happens in business, with respect the cost of offering taxis for a small number of passengers is going to be far less than undertaking works on stock they have no intention of keeping.

Buses can be accessible, if the TOC books the right vehicles (they often don't). Taxis are fine for most, but, the availability is a problem - the TOC contracts through Cabfind (Cabsi) and others often do not use local firms meaning a taxi is coming a considerable distance and is often late, or, the driver has absolutely no knowledge of the area they are taking the job for.

In my own experience, on a recent Glasgow > Carlisle taxi the driver couldn't find the station because he had no knowledge of the area - similar on the return, except for the fact that the taxi was extremely late owing to an argument between TPE & VTWC over who was to pay for it - I kid you not. Or, to look at another forum member's experience - over 40 minutes at Windemere yesterday, despite having pre-booked assistance with the TOC because the taxi simply didn't turn up (and, the TOC's buses were inaccessible).

With respect again, are some problems with some drivers firms really a reason to make them overall unviable as a temporary solution? Most people would say not. These days most taxis have GPS as standard, indeed for many private hire companies its used to calculate fares. Some even have their own mobile tracking apps so you can see where exactly the car is. So finding routes to stations ought not to be a problem for most.

We've all had problems with taxis I'm sure, but this doesn't mean that they can not be part of the solution. Ask someone clinging onto a grab handle and trying to avoid slamming into the dozens of other standees as a 185 winds its way down from Marsden, if they would prefer a taxi and they would snatch your hand off.

Again, I sympathise - but, this isn't the fault of the disabled people, it's the fault of an incompetent operator agreeing to do something that was never going to be wise. Had it already been in service and running for some time then the scenario would be "when is this going to improve?" (look at ScotRail's Fife Circle LHCS services for example - inaccessible, have been in operation for donkeys, will be going circa next year). but, to willingly roll out a service which is actively blocking certain groups from using it is unacceptable, and, could have been so easily done differently.

If frustrated folks want someone to complain at, the MD of TPE would no doubt be delighted to hear from them. Or, equally, Messrs Grayling and Johnson at the DfT, whose inept department are the source of many of the (historic) issues with TPE.

As an addendum, it might be helpful to consider that PRM doesn't just mean a person in a wheelchair. The definition is a bit more complex - '‘Person with disabilities and person with reduced mobility’ means any person who has a permanent or temporary physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective use of transport on an equal basis with other passengers or whose mobility when using transport is reduced due to age.'. From a technical standpoint you could also consider folks travelling with buggies in a similar respect - it may not be easy or practical for them to store the buggy as luggage - they currently have a space on the 185, but, wouldn't on a Mk3 without occupying a vestibule and causing inconvenience.

This hasn't been caused by disabled people, most would accept the situation and use the alternatives offered. But instead a few have chosen to cause issue and as a result thousands of people will be further inconvenienced. I am all for the kind of reasonable adjustments that allow those with disabilities to function more normally in society. But there will always be situations where it is either impracticable or unreasonable to do so. In this case the cost of adapting the coaches seems to have been the major factor, why would an operator undertake the work for limited use stock when a) They are not legally required to do so yet & b) They are able to offer a reasonable adjustment for those who need it.

Sadly now thousands of people face at best more months of uncomfortable, at worst near to dangerous commutes on overcrowded trains that with no small amount of irony the people who have complained about the MKIIIs will also continue to face. Call me heartless but for those people this is not a reasonable adjustment in my opinion.

 

[Iskra]

I'm sure the thousands of people who are shoehorned onto overcrowded trains will fully understand that because of a lack of PRM compliant facilities, and the unwillingness of some persons with accessibility problems to accept being offered taxi alternatives, they will have to continue being stuffed into the overcrowded trains for many months more.

Perhaps someone should let them all know so that they can all agree its for the best?

Perhaps TPE are planning to provide Taxi’s?

 

[Bantamzen]

Perhaps TPE are planning to provide Taxi’s?

If so I'm getting a taxi licence

 

[tbtc]

Why would a TOC spend a considerable amount of money on PRM works for coaches that would see only a few months service then handed back to probably be scrapped?

Can someone confirm the timescales to me here?

The "new" TPE franchise has been around for over two years (April 2016).

The "Pretendolino" left Virgin in 2014, but was with Greater Anglia for a while? It's certainly been with TPE since 2016 though?

So they've had ten (?) carriages for around two years (during which time passengers have been crammed onto 185s) but were only planning to actually put them in service for a few months?

And First, WHO RUN A BUS COMPANY IN YORK, can't find a way of taking people in wheelchairs from York to Scarborough? The same First who have been regularly cancelling through services to Scarborough due to recent disruption (so must have been hiring accessible buses to transport passengers from Malton to the coast)?

They just hired these trains for two years before they intended to actually put them into service (bar a New Year jaunt to Manchester Airport), without considering accessibility requirements? This is how the modern railway works?

This isn't a story about Militant Disabled People (or however people try to spin this), this is a story about the inflexible, tone-deaf and sluggish railway industry, where its acceptable to keep coaches idle in sidings for a couple of years and then expect to be able to put them back into service with shrug of the shoulder.

 

[Alan2603]

Regarding the afore mentioned press release:

https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/media-centre/mark-3-disability-statement

It is noticeable that whoever drafted the main body of the press release statement has rather gone out of their way not to state the reason for the withdrawal of the Mk3 carriages from the proposed services. Other than perhaps to suggest that they are now needed to support the driver training programme.

However, the Media Centre release information marker (above the large block capitalised words ‘Mark 3 Statement’) does state:

• Home / Media Centre / Mark 3 Disability Statement

with the webpage link: https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/media-centre/mark-3-disability-statement

These do tend to indicate the true rationale as to why the Mk3’s are not going to be used, namely disability access/issues/problems/compliance (call it what you like).

One sincerely hopes this is an oversight by the TPE media centre in potentially castigating disabled people/activists as the responsible ‘cohort’ for the non-introduction of the Mk3’s into passenger service (bearing in mind the previous press releases regarding their introduction).

Indeed, one would certainly hope that those people now ‘packed like sardines’ into a three car Class 185, do not take issue with any disabled people on board their train as to the reason for them being packed like such ‘sardines’.

I fear that TPE in trying to avoid stating that disability issues are the cause of the Mk3 withdrawal, have scored an own goal by carelessness in the composition of their press release web page.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Pretendolino sets were always intended to be part of the crew training plan for LHCS and class 68s.
Passenger services with them was an extra, but was indeed contracted by the DfT in the franchise agreement (2 sets, "unrestricted use").
Failing to get them into passenger service seems to me to be a breach of the franchise agreement (ie there will be a penalty).
But the training requirement still stands.
Meanwhile we already have 3, is it, Mk5 sets at Longsight.
We should probably turn our attention to when these new sets will start passenger service.
What we don't want is delays to Mk5 introduction because of "driver training issues".

 

[driver9000]

Meanwhile we already have 3, is it, Mk5 sets at Longsight.

Just 1 mk5A rake at Longsight and it's currently the only one in the UK.

 

[BMIFlyer]

The Pretendolino sets were always intended to be part of the crew training plan for LHCS and class 68s.
Passenger services with them was an extra, but was indeed contracted by the DfT in the franchise agreement (2 sets, "unrestricted use").
Failing to get them into passenger service seems to me to be a breach of the franchise agreement (ie there will be a penalty).
But the training requirement still stands.
Meanwhile we already have 3, is it, Mk5 sets at Longsight.
We should probably turn our attention to when these new sets will start passenger service.
What we don't want is delays to Mk5 introduction because of "driver training issues".

1 set only at Longsight. Trains likely won't enter service until October at the very earliest however I'm in the understanding that CAF will not release the stock for passenger use (I.E. can be used for crew training only) until the December timetable change - although I'm unsure yet as it hasn't been confirmed.

 

[pemma]

However i believe every platform on the scarborough line is accessible? Therefore it would be a reduction and that presents more problems. Of course if they used them on liverpool to newcastle the problem would be somewhat less!

I think the Manchester Airport to Newcastle service might have been the least toxic to put the mk3s on, given hourly direct services have only recently recommenced and there's plenty of alternative services e.g. for someone going from Newcastle to York there's a VTEC service 5 minutes after the TPE one, while in the northbound direction there's a XC service 7 minutes after the TPE one. Although, First might not have liked the idea of telling passengers their services aren't fully accessible but other operators provide a fully accessible service.

 

[pemma]

Perhaps the next step should be for TPE to reclaim the two 185s being used by Northern, as soon as the next pair of 158s arrives from Scotrail.

It's been reported some days 2 car Sprinters have been used on the Northern working which is supposed to be a 6 car 185, is that down to TPE only loaning units if they have spare ones or does it relate to issues with drivers?

It should also be remembered currently TPE are neither serving Wigan or Bolton, which means Northern are carrying passengers who really should be on TPE services.

 

[47802]

I think the Manchester Airport to Newcastle service might have been the least toxic to put the mk3s on, given hourly direct services have only recently recommenced and there's plenty of alternative services e.g. for someone going from Newcastle to York there's a VTEC service 5 minutes after the TPE one, while in the northbound direction there's a XC service 7 minutes after the TPE one. Although, First might not have liked the idea of telling passengers their services aren't fully accessible but other operators provide a fully accessible service.

But then as they are not planning to use the 68's on Newcastle services that might have caused additional Crew Training Issues. Lets also remember the North route TPE enhanced Timetable was delayed had it being implemented earlier TPE may have had no option but to use the MK3 sets.

 

[BMIFlyer]

It's been reported some days 2 car Sprinters have been used on the Northern working which is supposed to be a 6 car 185, is that down to TPE only loaning units if they have spare ones or does it relate to issues with drivers?

It should also be remembered currently TPE are neither serving Wigan or Bolton, which means Northern are carrying passengers who really should be on TPE services.

Sorry but the passengers at the aforementioned stations shouldn't be on TPE services. In fact I for one was glad when TPE stopped serving Wigan as it meant I could finally get a seat on my commute.

As for Bolton, the plan is currently only 3 trains per day will call, each way, but that could very well end up being zero depending on certain factors. Going non stop from Manchester to Preston is a lot better.

 

[bnm]

Whilst it's academic now, a 'reasonable adjustment' for disabled passengers under the Equality Act 2010 is to provide alternative transport (i.e a taxi) in lieu of an inaccessible train. Not tell said passenger to wait for the next train or provide a taxi after the next train. That's regardless of how long the wait for the next train is. Denying travel (or providing an alternative) on the train the disabled passenger has chosen is a clear breach of the Equality Act. The legislation is all about providing equal access for those with protected characteristics.

Some argue (wrongly) that asking the disabled traveller to wait 15mins... 30mins... for the next train is a 'reasonable adjustment'. It's not. For several reasons. Amongst those reasons; the next train might be inaccessible, or waiting for the next train could mean a connection can't be made.

I believe TPE were erring in law by saying disabled passengers should wait for the next train, or only be provided with a taxi after the next train.

Whilst capacity improvements have been delayed by a few months, and enthusiasts won't get some Mk3 bashing, the decision not to introduce these trains is probably for the best. Continued negative publicity and potential legal challenges would have just been more bad news for the franchise.

 

[pemma]

Sorry but the passengers at the aforementioned stations shouldn't be on TPE services. In fact I for one was glad when TPE stopped serving Wigan as it meant I could finally get a seat on my commute.

As for Bolton, the plan is currently only 3 trains per day will call, each way, but that could very well end up being zero depending on certain factors. Going non stop from Manchester to Preston is a lot better.

If what you say is true then the plan has changed significantly in the past few weeks. When TPE and Northern based their planning on the presumption Bolton would be wired by May 2018 TPE applied for paths based on Scottish services calling at Bolton most hours with a set down only restriction on southbound services and a pick up only restriction on northbound services, with the Northern Connect Cumbria service serving Bolton instead of Wigan the hours that happened (morning and evening peak only.) Currently Bolton passengers have to take a Northern service to Preston and then change for Cumbria or Scotland, something they wouldn't need to do if the May 2018 timetable had been fully implemented.

 

[pemma]

Whilst it's academic now, a 'reasonable adjustment' for disabled passengers under the Equality Act 2015 is to provide alternative transport (i.e a taxi) in lieu of an inaccessible train. Not tell said passenger to wait for the next train or provide a taxi after the next train. That's regardless of how long the wait for the next train is. Denying travel (or providing an alternative) on the train the disabled passenger has chosen is a clear breach of the Equality Act. The legislation is all about providing equal access for those with protected characteristics.

Some argue (wrongly) that asking the disabled traveller to wait 15mins... 30mins... for the next train is a 'reasonable adjustment'. It's not. For several reasons. Amongst those reasons; the next train might be inaccessible, or waiting for the next train could mean a connection can't be made.

I believe TPE were erring in law by saying disabled passengers should wait for the next train, or only be provided with a taxi after the next train.

Whilst capacity improvements have been delayed by a few months, and enthusiasts won't get some Mk3 bashing, the decision not to introduce these trains is probably for the best. Continued negative publicity and potential legal challenges would have just been more bad news for the franchise.

The grey areas are:
1. The PRM deadline has not been reached yet. Prior to the PRM deadline for buses no operator was prevented using step entry vehicles on a bus route even if the route was operated by a single bus and there weren't any alternatives. They didn't even have to offer an alternative taxi, they could just mark which services would usually be operated by accessible vehicles and which would be operated by inaccessible vehicles.
2. All new trains have to meet PRM requirements from introduction, so replacing modern accessible trains with older inaccessible rolling stock is really a loophole but a legal one. I somehow doubt if Northern had to make do without some PRM compliant 319s long term and used Pacers in lieu on the same routes anyone would make a fuss about PRM, they'd be more bothered about the trains being too small.

If you've been on a North TPE service in the summer months you'll realise TPE will get negative publicity by not introducing extra rolling stock, especially now they serve the local stations between Stalybridge and Leeds - many of which only get 1tph*. Leaving passengers on the platform for an hour because a train is too full week after week will create more negative PR than a wheelchair user occasionally having a grumble about being delayed due to inaccessible trains.

* For clarity the services which serve these stations would not have been the ones which got mk3s.

 

[blackfive460]

And First, WHO RUN A BUS COMPANY IN YORK, can't find a way of taking people in wheelchairs from York to Scarborough? The same First who have been regularly cancelling through services to Scarborough due to recent disruption (so must have been hiring accessible buses to transport passengers from Malton to the coast)?

No, no hired buses.
They just leave people at York or Malton to wait for the next one an hour later (which will probably also be late).
Likewise at Scarborough.

 

[bnm]

Leaving passengers on the platform for an hour because a train is too full week after week will create more negative PR than a wheelchair user occasionally having a grumble about being delayed due to inaccessible trains.

False equivalence. If a service is full its full. If no one can get on then there's no discrimination toward disabled. All are being treated equally.

 

[notlob.divad]

This could have been handled so much better. The problem I see is that they have tried to put these sets on an existing service with very few alternative options for passengers. The logic of why is clear when you consider this is the route the new loco hauled sets will run on. However it is not good PR.
Simply introducing these on the new, Airport to Newcastle service, when they started running that would have solved a huge PR problem. They would be providing new connections over routes that they would continue to serve with existing accessible stock.
I am also not convinced this is just about accessibility, but it may be being used as a convenient excuse. These carriages have been available since the start of the franchise. Yet no effort has been made toto press them into regular passenger service. If TPE had been serious about doing it, it would have been done by now.

 

[pemma]

False equivalence. If a service is full its full. If no one can get on then there's no discrimination toward disabled. All are being treated equally.

The basis of the Equalities Act isn't for everyone to be treated equally, it's for special provision to be provided so those with disabilities aren't disadvantaged. Plus the thing you keep ignoring is we're 18 months away from the PRM deadline, it's bad PR to make a disabled passenger wait for the next service or get a taxi instead, it's not illegal.

 

[Bikeman78]

Public opinion, and soon the law, is clear, discrimination is not OK. Using trains from the 70s was never going to play well, but that they've made no effort to refurbish them despite having them leased, sitting in sidings, for so long was just asking for trouble.

Maybe (unlikely, but one can dream) in the long term we'll all be better off if operators and the DfT realise they can't cut corners to provide an unacceptable standard of service.

Northern has numerous non compliant 153s and 155s running in the same area. What's the difference?

John

 

[kingqueen]

Northern has numerous non compliant 153s and 155s running in the same area. What's the difference?

John

1) Wheelchair users can still travel on them, they wouldn't have been able to at all on the Mark 3s
2) The non-compliant pacers and sprinters have always been in use. The Mark 3s would be replacing an accessible train with an inaccessible one.

 

[kingqueen]

https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/media-centre/mark-3-disability-statement

It is noticeable that whoever drafted the main body of the press release statement has rather gone out of their way not to state the reason for the withdrawal of the Mk3 carriages from the proposed services. Other than perhaps to suggest that they are now needed to support the driver training programme.

However, the Media Centre release information marker (above the large block capitalised words ‘Mark 3 Statement’) does state:

• Home / Media Centre / Mark 3 Disability Statement

with the webpage link: https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/media-centre/mark-3-disability-statement

These do tend to indicate the true rationale as to why the Mk3’s are not going to be used, namely disability access/issues/problems/compliance (call it what you like).

One sincerely hopes this is an oversight by the TPE media centre in potentially castigating disabled people/activists as the responsible ‘cohort’ for the non-introduction of the Mk3’s into passenger service (bearing in mind the previous press releases regarding their introduction).

It is notable that this link now returns a 404 error.

I wonder why they've taken it down - or if they've just changed the URL to remove reference to disability. I can't find a replacement link for it.

 

[mde]

The basis of the Equalities Act isn't for everyone to be treated equally, it's for special provision to be provided so those with disabilities aren't disadvantaged. Plus the thing you keep ignoring is we're 18 months away from the PRM deadline, it's bad PR to make a disabled passenger wait for the next service or get a taxi instead, it's not illegal.

Actually no, the point is bang on right - introducing a new service that has no provision would be intentionally making an inequality and just begging for a court case. It’d be sod all to do with PRM-TSI or otherwise, it’d just be denial of service (the difference between this and the likes of a bustitution for engineering works being that it’s a planned introduction of service rather than short term maintenance), since the alternative offered isn’t a reasonable option in practice - in theory it is, in practice no.

The difference of course with fleets like the Pacers and Sprinters is they are already in service - the TPE Mk3 has never done a public run under that operator. A derogation wouldn’t prevent legal action, which, in all honesty would probably be more embarrassing for the company than anything else since based on the existing headlines you can assume more of the same.

Given it could be argued TPE had ample time to make some modifications at low cost they would have a hard time defending their inaction, other than blaming DfT, who would simply return the favour.

It’s all semantics now really. End of the day, if people have complaints that’s probably reasonable. Send them to Leo Goodwin at TPE and perhaps you’ll get some vouchers.

 

[pemma]

Actually no, the point is bang on right - introducing a new service that has no provision would be intentionally making an inequality and just begging for a court case. It’d be sod all to do with PRM-TSI or otherwise, it’d just be denial of service (the difference between this and the likes of a bustitution for engineering works being that it’s a planned introduction of service rather than short term maintenance), since the alternative offered isn’t a reasonable option in practice - in theory it is, in practice no.

So by that logic it sounds like you'd have no objection to the mk3s being used in passenger service for special events or if engineering works meant the number of services provided by other operators on the same lines are reduced.

The difference of course with fleets like the Pacers and Sprinters is they are already in service - the TPE Mk3 has never done a public run under that operator.

Surely on that basis the 156s that were loaned to the last TPE franchise shouldn't have happened (TPE had a fleet of fully compliant trains before they lost the 170s and started loaning 156s) and the loco-hauled sets Northern loan shouldn't be happening either.

A derogation wouldn’t prevent legal action, which, in all honesty would probably be more embarrassing for the company than anything else since based on the existing headlines you can assume more of the same.

You can try to take a legal case against an operator but if it's against something that has yet to become law it won't get far - as the wheelchair bus user from Leeds found out.

 

[pemma]

1) Wheelchair users can still travel on them, they wouldn't have been able to at all on the Mark 3s

Subject to the train stopping at a platform which the wheelchair user can reach and where the extended ramp can be used safely and subject to the 3 seater bench seat folding up (on units where its' not been removed altogether.) Remember the incident where a guard wouldn't load a wheelchair user on to the Pacer and told him to get the following service (operated by a 323)?

 

[bnm]

The basis of the Equalities Act isn't for everyone to be treated equally, it's for special provision to be provided so those with disabilities aren't disadvantaged. Plus the thing you keep ignoring is we're 18 months away from the PRM deadline, it's bad PR to make a disabled passenger wait for the next service or get a taxi instead, it's not illegal.

The PRM deadline is not some magic get out clause for any public transport provider. They still have to comply with current legislation. If discrimination (by providing a worse service to a disabled person than an able bodied one) is made then that is an offence under the Equality Act. The simple way to prevent that discrimination is to provide an alternative that achieves the same aim. A taxi getting the disabled person to their destination or interchange no later than the train would have is a reasonable adjustment. Unreasonable is to delay the disabled passenger when the able bodied haven't been delayed.

In cases where a TPE station is inaccessible, alternative transport is provided at the time the disabled person wishes to travel.

At times of short notice disruption TPE will provide alternative transport to disabled passengers.

When an unsuitable Rail Replacement Bus is used TPE will provide alternative transport to disabled passengers without delaying their journey.

All of those are reasonable adjustments codified in TPEs Disabled Persons Protection Policy.

As I said earlier the accessibility to the TPE Mark 3s is moot now. However I maintain that the policy TPE had drawn up of delaying disabled passengers when there chosen train would have been Mark 3s was illegal under current legislation. And that appears to have been the conclusion of the DfT and TPE themselves. Hence the services now not going ahead.

 

[pemma]

If discrimination (by providing a worse service to a disabled person than an able bodied one) is made then that is an offence under the Equality Act.

Remember that includes all disabilities - which includes medical conditions which significantly affect someone's day to day activities. Someone who suffers from agoraphobia or has a medical condition which means they frequently need to use a toilet needs to be accommodated as well. How are they properly accommodated if the train is packed to the rafters when there's unused carriages sat in sidings? Those with less obvious disabilities are the often the ones no-one helps - every one can see the person in a wheelchair or the person with dark glasses and a white stick, most disabled people can't easily be spotted.