• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
Will TPE take back the 2 remaining 185s on day lease to Northern at the end of July? That would mostly solve the loss of capacity and pass the problem onto Northern.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

37201xoIM

Member
Joined
29 Apr 2016
Messages
334
I've just realised the significance of the date in the Franchise Agreement by when TPE would introduce 2x5-car sets of Mark 3s into passenger service: 1 April 2017 was clearly intended as an April Fool.

Oh how we all laughed!
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,223
Will TPE take back the 2 remaining 185s on day lease to Northern at the end of July? That would mostly solve the loss of capacity and pass the problem onto Northern.
As I understand it, 100 mph stock is required on the Barrow service, which uses a 27-mile stretch of the WCML, so a 158 cannot be substituted. This seems to mean Northern will hang on to the 185s until the 195s arrive.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
As I understand it, 100 mph stock is required on the Barrow service, which uses a 27-mile stretch of the WCML, so a 158 cannot be substituted. This seems to mean Northern will hang on to the 185s until the 195s arrive.

Does that mean TPE are actually obliged to continue the day leasing though or could they just take back the units and say its not their problem to sort out?
 

mde

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2016
Messages
513
Does that mean TPE are actually obliged to continue the day leasing though or could they just take back the units and say its not their problem to sort out?
It's probably more financially advantageous for them to continue any leasing arrangement than it is to deal with the few customers who actually make a complaint to be honest - but - who knows?
 

DunfordBridge

Member
Joined
13 Apr 2013
Messages
600
Location
Scarborough
They've reinstated their media statement - but removed the word "disability".
https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/media-centre/mark-3-statement

As the service to Scarborough is regularly being terminated and turned round at Malton in the event of severe late-running, and the service often does not make it onwards to Seamer and Scarborough stations, I am surprised that no-one has thought about have a rake of Mark 3 coaches with a class 68 parked up in a bay platform (platform 2, say) at York station ready to act as a York - Scarborough shuttle so no-one is inconvenienced. Maybe someone has already thought of my idea and I have just not read about it.

When and where are the train crews doing their training on the class 68 and mark 3 consists anyway? It is not as if train slots are plentiful over Standedge during the day, so they could easily hang around in York waiting for the 18:45 Scarborough to run late. If anyone from Transpennine wants to offer me a job in planning, send me a private message.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
As the service to Scarborough is regularly being terminated and turned round at Malton in the event of severe late-running, and the service often does not make it onwards to Seamer and Scarborough stations, I am surprised that no-one has thought about have a rake of Mark 3 coaches with a class 68 parked up in a bay platform (platform 2, say) at York station ready to act as a York - Scarborough shuttle so no-one is inconvenienced. Maybe someone has already thought of my idea and I have just not read about it.

The Mark 3s are not to be used in revenue service thanks to the stink kicked up by the disability access lobby I'm afraid.
 

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
426
The Mark 3s are not to be used in revenue service thanks to the stink kicked up by the disability access lobby I'm afraid.
What HSTEd is trying to say, in a somewhat direspectful way, was that TPE hadn't made proper accessibility arrangements despite the MK3 being completely inaccessible - hence they decided not to use them.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
What HSTEd is trying to say, in a somewhat direspectful way, was that TPE hadn't made proper accessibility arrangements despite the MK3 being completely inaccessible - hence they decided not to use them.

What I am trying to say, is that TPE made arrangements for accessibility that complied with the law in all respects but were merely insufficient to placate the mob.
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
What I am trying to say, is that TPE made arrangements for accessibility that complied with the law in all respects but were merely insufficient to placate the mob.
Because TransPennine were introducing inaccessible trains on their route for the first time in 20 years.

It's also legal to be an insensitive discriminatory pratt, but that doesn't make it ethical.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Because TransPennine were introducing inaccessible trains on their route for the first time in 20 years.

but where does the right of a minority group exceed the needs of a majority group? Access issues are being used to prevent services being improved for the majority of us. Is that right?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Because TransPennine were introducing inaccessible trains on their route for the first time in 20 years.

Yet that happened on the Windermere branch. No I don't mean in the last few weeks, I mean when 156s without PRM modifications replaced 185s a few years back. As Windermere had 175s before 185s, it was the first time since around the year 2000 that trains which didn't meet the PRM spec had been used. As North TPE was still operated by 158s and even had some 156s booked to work some services, while Windermere was enjoying 175s I fail to see the difference.

TPE were reluctant to put the mk3s in to passenger service - it should have been done over a year ago. The disability groups who complained just gave them an excuse to not bother at all, which means more money for First Group and more passengers squashed on to trains like sardines. I just hope no-one who complained about TPE proposing to use mk3s dares to complain if they get left on the platform for an hour because a 3 car 185 is too full for them to get on board.
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
Yet that happened on the Windermere branch. No I don't mean in the last few weeks, I mean when 156s without PRM modifications replaced 185s a few years back.

The difference is that whilst not PRM-TSI compliant, the 156s have some level of accessibility such that many disabled people who would be unable to travel on Mark 3s would be unable to travel on 156s. E.g. anybody traveling in a wheelchair.

My Complaining Cripple Bingo card definitely has a dab on it on this thread:

*remove access for everyone*

"Look! You've ruined it for everyone now"

The overcrowding is due to a failure of the rail industry and it's not caused by disabled people.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Because TransPennine were introducing inaccessible trains on their route for the first time in 20 years.

It's also legal to be an insensitive discriminatory pratt, but that doesn't make it ethical.

It is legal to demand that vast numbers of people suffer because you would be mildly inconvenienced, but that doesn't make it ethical.
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
Access issues are being used to prevent services being improved for the majority of us. Is that right?
Of course.
Access issues can always be framed as such: organisations have to pay for access features to be put in buildings for example, and pass that cost onto other people through prices or through taxes. It's the mark of a civilised society.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Of course.
Access issues can always be framed as such: organisations have to pay for access features to be put in buildings for example, and pass that cost onto other people through prices or through taxes. It's the mark of a civilised society.

The use of all extant non-accessible buildings must ofcourse be halted at once until such works have been carried out, ofcourse?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Of course.
Access issues can always be framed as such: organisations have to pay for access features to be put in buildings for example, and pass that cost onto other people through prices or through taxes. It's the mark of a civilised society.

I am simply asking a question. When do the needs of the few out-way the needs of the many? Here a couple of people have stopped the benefit to 1000's. is that right? I am not sure it is. Reasonable adjustments were offered but were deemed unacceptable therefore the whole service has been withdrawn. That doesn't seem fair to everyone.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
The overcrowding is due to a failure of the rail industry and it's not caused by disabled people.

Yes but as we know brand new trains, which are fully accessible, are on order. This was simply an interim solution for extra capacity as new trains can't be built overnight.
 

OneOffDave

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2015
Messages
453
It is legal to demand that vast numbers of people suffer because you would be mildly inconvenienced, but that doesn't make it ethical.

So how many times would a disabled person have to suffer for it to be equivalent? Being delayed for possibly an hour and then having to use slower and less safe road transport isn't just being mildly inconvenienced. I know if that happened on a regular basis to most people on here there'd be threads full of complaining. The rail industry has known about access requirements for 23 years now or is that too difficult for them?
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
I am simply asking a question. When do the needs of the few out-way the needs of the many? Here a couple of people have stopped the benefit to 1000's. is that right? I am not sure it is. Reasonable adjustments were offered but were deemed unacceptable therefore the whole service has been withdrawn. That doesn't seem fair to everyone.
"A couple of people"
2,381 people signed the petition for such.
The reality is that the majority of people aren't as mean-minded, blaming and unpleasant as that expressed on this thread, thank goodness
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
"A couple of people"
2,381 people signed the petition for such.
The reality is that the majority of people aren't as mean-minded, blaming and unpleasant as that expressed on this thread, thank goodness

they might be when they cant get on a train at Leeds or Manchester at rush hour..............

BTW - since when does asking a question about a pet subject become "mean-minded, blaming and unpleasant". Also 2381 is a drop in the ocean compared to the numbers carried on a daily basis by TPE.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Jus playing the Devil's advocate here, if TPE had decided to press the MKIIIs into service as an emergency shuttle between York-Scarborough, would it been an acceptable reasonable adjustment to have a couple accessible minibuses on lease at either end should any disabled passengers be unable to board the LHCS? I know its all a moot point now, but it could certainly be something that wouldn't be massively costly and fairly easy to source at either end of that particular route.

I understand that transit times would be longer as a result, but then able-bodied people have to deal with similar situations (the Blackpool line for example) so its not really discriminating so much as contingency planning?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Given that the old Pretendolino must have had some form of accessible toilet, and given the problems TPE is having running the service currently, couldn't at least one set be made up with accessible accommodation, albeit to the older standard ?
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
2381 is a drop in the ocean compared to the numbers carried on a daily basis by TPE.

My social media is full of people begging for petitions to be signed - I'm never convinced that they add up to much - but generally you seem to be able to get thousands of people to sign up to them (even if not directly affected). 2,381 doesn't seem a big number, I agree.

Jus playing the Devil's advocate here, if TPE had decided to press the MKIIIs into service as an emergency shuttle between York-Scarborough, would it been an acceptable reasonable adjustment to have a couple accessible minibuses on lease at either end should any disabled passengers be unable to board the LHCS? I know its all a moot point now, but it could certainly be something that wouldn't be massively costly and fairly easy to source at either end of that particular route.

I understand that transit times would be longer as a result, but then able-bodied people have to deal with similar situations (the Blackpool line for example) so its not really discriminating so much as contingency planning?

Interesting question - presumably that'd be okay, since it's fine for Northern to run inaccessible loco-hauled services on the Windermere branch (as they are running buses/ coaches on a parallel service)?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Jus playing the Devil's advocate here, if TPE had decided to press the MKIIIs into service as an emergency shuttle between York-Scarborough, would it been an acceptable reasonable adjustment to have a couple accessible minibuses on lease at either end should any disabled passengers be unable to board the LHCS? I know its all a moot point now, but it could certainly be something that wouldn't be massively costly and fairly easy to source at either end of that particular route.

I understand that transit times would be longer as a result, but then able-bodied people have to deal with similar situations (the Blackpool line for example) so its not really discriminating so much as contingency planning?

In my mind - yes it would. We are talking about a contingency arrangement for a short term replacement using exciting rolling stock that is in use on the network at this moment. Long term certainly not.

BTW I am far from against accessibility. Having had to use many of the accessibility features on the railway and society in general in the past I think it is very important, however in this case I think it has gone to far. A useful service enhancement for the majority has been scuppered because the vocal demands of a small and militant group gave the TOC an opportunity to pull a service they weren't really interested in.

In the end that helps no one.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Of course not. They are existing access impediments. Introducing newly inaccessible services on an existing inaccessible one is different
But this is not new rolling stock, the national rolling stock pool has not become less accessible.

The stock already exists and the alternatives are this or nothing, and the disabled lobby insists that it be nothing
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
So how many times would a disabled person have to suffer for it to be equivalent? Being delayed for possibly an hour and then having to use slower and less safe road transport isn't just being mildly inconvenienced. I know if that happened on a regular basis to most people on here there'd be threads full of complaining.

When disabled people who need these mods represent more than a rounding error on the flow.
Overcrowding is dangerous and leads to reduced market share for the railway. This leads to more people using the roads and dying or causing pollution that kills people.

That outweighs the minor risk and inconvenience to disabled people who cannot board trains that make up a tiny fraction of the TPE fleet

The rail industry has known about access requirements for 23 years now or is that too difficult for them?
The rolling stock is perfectly compliant with legislation. This is about the mob moving the goal posts because it suits them.
 

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
426
When disabled people who need these mods represent more than a rounding error on the flow.
Overcrowding is dangerous and leads to reduced market share for the railway. This leads to more people using the roads and dying or causing pollution that kills people.

That outweighs the minor risk and inconvenience to disabled people who cannot board trains that make up a tiny fraction of the TPE fleet


The rolling stock is perfectly compliant with legislation. This is about the mob moving the goal posts because it suits them.
You are still ignoring the part where random services were going to be downgraded - and people with disabilities were told that they'd just have to suck up and wait a long time for the next train. No planning possible, no alternative - no choice but to turn up and hope that you would be allowed to board a specific service. Is that humane?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top