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

[a_c_skinner]

Apologies if I've overlooked this higher up, but what are the arrangements for wheelchair users on, say 125s or Anglias Mk3 sets? I don't recall seeing anyone boarding/leaving or en route ever.

 

[DanNCL]

Apologies if I've overlooked this higher up, but what are the arrangements for wheelchair users on, say 125s or Anglias Mk3 sets? I don't recall seeing anyone boarding/leaving or en route ever.

The problem with the TPE Mark 3 sets was that one of them (possibly both?) wasn't going to have any wheelchair space at all. The HSTs and the Anglia Mark 3s have wheelchair spaces iirc so don't have the same issues.

 

[pemma]

Apologies if I've overlooked this higher up, but what are the arrangements for wheelchair users on, say 125s or Anglias Mk3 sets? I don't recall seeing anyone boarding/leaving or en route ever.

The problem with the TPE Mark 3 sets was that one of them (possibly both?) wasn't going to have any wheelchair space at all. The HSTs and the Anglia Mark 3s have wheelchair spaces iirc so don't have the same issues.

Yes. The TPE loco-hauled sets each contain half of the Pretendolino, when Virgin refurbished it they didn't exactly intend it to be split in to two at a later date. TPE were supposed to do some internal work to them before introducing them in service but that was based on them transferring almost immediately after the TPE franchise started and then they would have been available for special events e.g. York Races as well as driver training ahead of the first round of enhancements.

 

[geoffk]

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.

Unless you want to go from Bolton to Scotland (or to Carlisle). So if you board one of these at Manchester Airport, will your first setting down point be Preston? How are they going to enforce that?

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

Not only that, what about the people without disabilities? Are they to continue to have to put up with at times packed solid trains because a temporary solution has been rejected because a few disadvantaged people don't want to use alternatives offered? If so I seriously hope that all the new stock & planned cascades are available on 01/01/20. Because if not there will be serious problems.

 

[bnm]

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.

I take it you've read the Supreme Court's ruling in the Doug Paulley case. It's no longer okay for bus drivers to just ask non wheelchairs users vacate a wheelchair space on a bus. It is now request and require, not request and retreat. Doug Paulley was vindicated by the legal system.

That said, bringing up said case is just "whataboutism". Not really relevant to what TPE were planning to do.

 

[bnm]

Not only that, what about the people without disabilities? Are they to continue to have to put up with at times packed solid trains because a temporary solution has been rejected because a few disadvantaged people don't want to use alternatives offered?

The alternative offered was a delay to the disabled persons journey. That was unreasonable.

As for the able bodied being subjected to crowded trains then that's not the fault of the disabled. And said able bodied have legislation they can call on if the service provider has failed to provide a service with reasonable care and skill.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The problem with the TPE Mark 3 sets was that one of them (possibly both?) wasn't going to have any wheelchair space at all

I gathered that; was boarding with a ramp through the ordinary slam doors? I just don't recall seeing it done. What about motorised wheelchairs, or those bigger scooters which one sees on MU stock from time to time.

 

[Bantamzen]

The alternative offered was a delay to the disabled persons journey. That was unreasonable.

As for the able bodied being subjected to crowded trains then that's not the fault of the disabled. And said able bodied have legislation they can call on if the service provider has failed to provide a service with reasonable care and skill.

And as a result of this decision many people's journeys will be delayed and / or uncomfortable. Is that acceptable??

 

[Ih8earlies]

I gathered that; was boarding with a ramp through the ordinary slam doors? I just don't recall seeing it done. What about motorised wheelchairs, or those bigger scooters which one sees on MU stock from time to time.

Transpennine requires anyone wishing to use a Mobility Scooter onboard to have a "Scooter Pass" to bring one onboard.

In the years that the policy has been in place, I have yet to see an actual Scooter Pass in the wild though.

 

[DanNCL]

I gathered that; was boarding with a ramp through the ordinary slam doors? I just don't recall seeing it done. What about motorised wheelchairs, or those bigger scooters which one sees on MU stock from time to time.

I have seen a wheelchair board a HST through the ordinary slam doors using a ramp so it can be done with some wheelchairs. The internal layout surrounding the door will have a big part in it though, as there needs to be space for the wheelchair to maneuver once onboard, and that might be part of the reason TPE weren't going to be able to accommodate wheelchairs if they'd have used the Mark 3s.

 

[kingqueen]

I gathered that; was boarding with a ramp through the ordinary slam doors? I just don't recall seeing it done. What about motorised wheelchairs, or those bigger scooters which one sees on MU stock from time to time.

I've caught Mark 3s in my manual and electric wheelchairs a lot. They vary in accessibility depending on what work TOCs / ROSCOs have done. For example, Cross Country's are excellent. Whilst they are never going to be as accessible as stock that has been built with PRM-TSI from the start, they are still acceptable on the whole, in my opinion.

The FTPE Mark 3 stock had internal doorway restrictions to their wheelchair spaces such that no standard wheelchair would fit through. Maybe that's why FTPE decided not to use the coaches with "wheelchair spaces" at all.

 

[pemma]

I take it you've read the Supreme Court's ruling in the Doug Paulley case. It's no longer okay for bus drivers to just ask non wheelchairs users vacate a wheelchair space on a bus. It is now request and require, not request and retreat. Doug Paulley was vindicated by the legal system.

That said, bringing up said case is just "whataboutism". Not really relevant to what TPE were planning to do.

The PRM deadline for buses has now passed, when the original case was made it hadn't. That made a huge difference in how the appeal was treated compared to the original case.

 

[pemma]

Transpennine requires anyone wishing to use a Mobility Scooter onboard to have a "Scooter Pass" to bring one onboard.

In the years that the policy has been in place, I have yet to see an actual Scooter Pass in the wild though.

A mobility scooter can be purchased by anyone for a couple hundred pounds. Being in possession of one is certainly not an entitlement to be allowed to take it on to public transport, especially considering the turning circle required makes it unsafe on many types of rolling stock.

 

[kingqueen]

The PRM deadline for buses has now passed, when the original case was made it hadn't. That made a huge difference in how the appeal was treated compared to the original case.

...No it didn't. Not in the slightest.
And I should know...

 

[DanNCL]

Transpennine requires anyone wishing to use a Mobility Scooter onboard to have a "Scooter Pass" to bring one onboard.

In the years that the policy has been in place, I have yet to see an actual Scooter Pass in the wild though.

A mobility scooter can be purchased by anyone for a couple hundred pounds. Being in possession of one is certainly not an entitlement to be allowed to take it on to public transport, especially considering the turning circle required makes it unsafe on many types of rolling stock.

I believe the mobility scooter ban on most trains came partially as a result of an incident on the Durham Coast line; someone was boarding a Metro train, but instead of turning into the wheelchair space burst straight through the doors on the other side of the train and fell onto the opposite track, into the path of an oncoming train. There's more to the common mobility scooter ban on trains than just lack of space inside the trains. It surprises me that any TOC allows any mobility scooters at all!

 

[geoffk]

I take it you've read the Supreme Court's ruling in the Doug Paulley case. It's no longer okay for bus drivers to just ask non wheelchairs users vacate a wheelchair space on a bus. It is now request and require, not request and retreat. Doug Paulley was vindicated by the legal system.

That said, bringing up said case is just "whataboutism". Not really relevant to what TPE were planning to do.

Of course the court interpreted the law correctly but in the real world the onus is on the bus driver, who will be in a "no win" situation. He cannot physically move someone occupying the wheelchair space if they refuse to move and if he refuses to move the bus he gets flak from all the other passengers. Meanwhile, the management are miles away at their desks.

 

[bnm]

The PRM deadline for buses has now passed, when the original case was made it hadn't. That made a huge difference in how the appeal was treated compared to the original case.

Doug Paulley's case had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the vehicle he wished to use was PRM compliant.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion here. I'm at a loss as to what inference you are drawing by bringing up said case.

 

[pemma]

Doug Paulley's case had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the vehicle he wished to use was PRM compliant.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion here. I'm at a loss as to what inference you are drawing by bringing up said case.

The vehicle he tried to board was PRM compliant but it was before the PRM deadline for buses when he was refused access. You're questioning why I'm bringing it up when you've brought up a court case which has very few similarities with TPE mk3s. If the law was as transferrable as you seem to imply it is there would be no need for solicitors because 30 minutes reading of a case with one similarity would be all you need to represent yourself in court.

 

[bnm]

The vehicle he tried to board was PRM compliant but it was before the PRM deadline for buses when he was refused access. You're questioning why I'm bringing it up when you've brought up a court case which has very few similarities with TPE mk3s. If the law was as transferrable as you seem to imply it is there would be no need for solicitors because 30 minutes reading of a case with one similarity would be all you need to represent yourself in court.

Where have I brought up a court case?

And once again, what relevance is the PRM deadline or compliance to Doug Paulley's case? You seem to think it had relevance, so can you point me to the PRM factors that were part of the case and evidence, first in Doug's favour at the County Court, then in FirstGroup's favour at the Appeal Court, then finally back in Doug's favour at the Supreme Court?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

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).

They ran a single public return service with them back in December I think it was, so that probably satisfied the clause enough to avoid any penalty now?

 

[kingqueen]

The vehicle he tried to board was PRM compliant but it was before the PRM deadline for buses when he was refused access.

The bus I caught was PSVAR compliant (PRM doesn't mean the same thing in bus provision as it does in rail). PSVAR mandated it to be compliant, as it was a double decker bus first used on or after 31st December 2000.

The fact that at that point bus operators could still use inaccessible double decker buses whose first use was before 31st December 2000, had no relevance whatsoever in my case.

I say "my" case because I was the claimant. I lived and breathed that case through its 5.5 years in court, did a lot of research for it, shouldered the financial risk, made the decisions, liaised with all parties, contributed to all the papers, was present at all the hearings and have intimate knowledge of every detail.

Your claim that the 1st January 2017 deadline had any form of importance or relevance in my case is entirely incorrect.

It's also irrelevant to the discussion about FTPE's Mark 3 coaches, so I suggest we get back on topic.

 

[pemma]

The bus I caught was PSVAR compliant (PRM doesn't mean the same thing in bus provision as it does in rail). PSVAR mandated it to be compliant, as it was a double decker bus first used on or after 31st December 2000.

The fact that at that point bus operators could still use inaccessible double decker buses whose first use was before 31st December 2000, had no relevance whatsoever in my case.

I say "my" case because I was the claimant. I lived and breathed that case through its 5.5 years in court, did a lot of research for it, shouldered the financial risk, made the decisions, liaised with all parties, contributed to all the papers, was present at all the hearings and have intimate knowledge of every detail.

Your claim that the 1st January 2017 deadline had any form of importance or relevance in my case is entirely incorrect.

It's also irrelevant to the discussion about FTPE's Mark 3 coaches, so I suggest we get back on topic.

I wasn't aware the official DfT guidance actually stated in the case of buggies occupying the wheelchair bay that the driver could decide it's impractical to let a wheelchair user on board or that it was you who was the affected passenger. However, I still think the case was made stronger after the deadline passed as by then wheelchair users should have been able to travel on any bus service they wanted, subject to the bus not being full.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

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.

One of the contributors to this post works in Dishwater House (not me, XD) and has contacts with the press and PR people. They have probably been advised courtesy of this discussion of their error and that it would be a good idea to remove the pahe before someone official spots it.

 

[Mojo]

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.

The real/meaningful difference in my opinion is that whilst these fleets do not meet total compliance with the technical specs, they still allow wheelchair users to board the train and travel, whereas TPx’s proposals were to prohibit travel.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The rule about waiting for the next train before a taxi is provided was a bit of an own-goal. If they'd said "Wheelchair users will be provided with a taxi immediately/ASAP if unable to board these services" it wouldn't have cost them much more but would have avoided some of the negative publicity.

 

[mde]

The real/meaningful difference in my opinion is that whilst these fleets do not meet total compliance with the technical specs, they still allow wheelchair users to board the train and travel, whereas TPx’s proposals were to prohibit travel.

Absolutely.

 

[AndrewE]

They ran a single public return service with them back in December I think it was, so that probably satisfied the clause enough to avoid any penalty now?

That was my suggestion, but it was slapped down in post #757.

 

[Starmill]

The real/meaningful difference in my opinion is that whilst these fleets do not meet total compliance with the technical specs, they still allow wheelchair users to board the train and travel, whereas TPx’s proposals were to prohibit travel.

Exactly. Even when 442s were in service, which had terrible access arrangements for customers in wheelchairs, policy was not to turn people away, although it was marked in the timetable and customers were given options.

I've said this from the start - the problem has little to do with the trains themselves and a lot to do with attitudes at TransPennine Express.

 

[scarby]

And as a result of this decision many people's journeys will be delayed and / or uncomfortable. Is that acceptable??

That sums up TPE's service for everyone at the moment, so no change there!