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

[The_Engineer]

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)?

Point of order - Northern have no connection at all with the partial service being operated by WCRC. It's being funded by other parties. Northern Rail are still providing the bus alternative.

 

[OneOffDave]

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.

The mob! Get a grip! I'm not aware of massive crowds turning up and demanding change by violence. Do you have evidence of this mob? Or is it just your perjorative term for people who disagree with your viewpoint? What it is, is a decision to deliberately introduce a service that provides a lesser standard of service to disabled people. SO it's ok in your opinion for the extra risk to be borne by disabled people but not the wider population.

 

[bnm]

It has nothing to do with any 'mob'. Disabled or otherwise. Introducing these trains, and the 'solution' for intending disabled users (delaying them), would have been clear breaches of the Equality Act. TPE and DfT realised this at the eleventh hour and decided not to introduce them. Yes, there was some media publicity, but had TPE and the DfT been of the opinion that what was proposed was okay then they'd have gone ahead.

Unfortunately, overcrowding on existing services isn't, of itself, a legal issue.

 

[Darandio]

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?

Is it humane that people might not be able to board a train because it's overcrowded, something this whole situation was designed to alleviate?

 

[bnm]

Is it humane that people might not be able to board a train because it's overcrowded, something this whole situation was designed to alleviate?

Inconvenient? Yes. Inhumane or illegal (Delay Repay and Consumer Rights Act excepted)? No.

 

[ash39]

Still chuckling at the idea of TPE having a standby loco hauled set stabled at York.

You'd need to roster a standby driver and crew, and make sure they are trained on the stock.

Then you're talking about hiring in a standby bus at each end waiting to take perhaps one or two solo disabled passengers in the event of a late running 185.

Probably be cheaper to send people by helicopter by the time you're finished with all that!

 

[Ih8earlies]

Any chance we can close this thread up?

The Mark 3's are no longer going to be used, and the thread is now redundant and rapidly becoming a place WAY off topic at best - at worst a place that persons of reduced mobility are becoming the target of disparaging comments/politicking over their rights.

Quite frankly I now detest this thread. I cannot imagine how someone who requires a wheelchair for their everyday mobility needs must feel after reading some of the posts here.

 

[rick_suffolk]

Can’t someone approve their move back to Anglia? Most our trains have been short formed for months now

 

[CosherB]

The bottom line is that PRM is still six months away before it comes into force. The Mk3s should have been pressed into service as-is.

 

[bnm]

The bottom line is TPE would have been breaching the Equality Act if they'd gone ahead with their plan.

 

[Bantamzen]

Still chuckling at the idea of TPE having a standby loco hauled set stabled at York.

You'd need to roster a standby driver and crew, and make sure they are trained on the stock.

Then you're talking about hiring in a standby bus at each end waiting to take perhaps one or two solo disabled passengers in the event of a late running 185.

Probably be cheaper to send people by helicopter by the time you're finished with all that!

I can assure you that many TPE punters are not chuckling thanks to continuing overcrowding, and if they knew about this would be even less likely to chuckle.

It may well have been a long shot idea, and would have required some working around with rosters, training etc, but having vehicles waiting "just in case" is not without precedent. Northern did it recently when the Guiseley-Leeds line was blocked, having coaches on stand-by at Shipley & Guiseley in case any of the limited workings via Shipley got too loaded. And given that both York & Scarborough would be places where it should not be too difficult to source an accessible mini-bus or two, along with drivers, it could have worked. And it would still have been cheaper than your helicopter tours.

The bottom line is TPE would have been breaching the Equality Act if they'd gone ahead with their plan.

Which part are they breaching exactly, especially if they offered passengers alternatives? if they make "reasonable adjustments", then they are not as far as I understand it breaching anything? This is why these exceptions are allowed, as it is understood by most that there will be occasions where it is simply not possible to provide exactly the same provision for those with disabilities.

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

Any chance we can close this thread up?

The Mark 3's are no longer going to be used, and the thread is now redundant and rapidly becoming a place WAY off topic at best - at worst a place that persons of reduced mobility are becoming the target of disparaging comments/politicking over their rights.

Quite frankly I now detest this thread. I cannot imagine how someone who requires a wheelchair for their everyday mobility needs must feel after reading some of the posts here.

Agree entirely. This and many threads have degenerated into arguments, and the manners displayed in many discussions are bordering on classroom bickering among children. I am sure if we were all sat around a table in a pub having these discussions, such insulting statements would be less common.

 

[CosherB]

The bottom line is TPE would have been breaching the Equality Act if they'd gone ahead with their plan.

Rubbish.

 

[DarloRich]

The bottom line is TPE would have been breaching the Equality Act if they'd gone ahead with their plan.

I am not sure that is correct.

Agree entirely. This and many threads have degenerated into arguments, and the manners displayed in many discussions are bordering on classroom bickering among children. I am sure if we were all sat around a table in a pub having these discussions, such insulting statements would be less common.

I am not been rude to anyone ( I would speak much more plainly in your pub discussions!) rather asking a very simple question: When do the needs of the few override the needs of the many?

 

[OneOffDave]

Which part are they breaching exactly, especially if they offered passengers alternatives? if they make "reasonable adjustments", then they are not as far as I understand it breaching anything? This is why these exceptions are allowed, as it is understood by most that there will be occasions where it is simply not possible to provide exactly the same provision for those with disabilities.

By effectively enforcing a delay on disabled passengers and only then deciding if they will provide alternative transport by road, then that's providing a lesser service to disabled people. Given the resources of the TOC, the threshold for what is reasonable is quite high vs a lot of organisations. If they stuck the wheelchair user in a cab the instant they couldn't access a train that'd be acceptable but the policy of waiting and seeing if the next train has the 'right' rolling stock before helping them continue the journey probably breaches the act.

 

[Bantamzen]

By effectively enforcing a delay on disabled passengers and only then deciding if they will provide alternative transport by road, then that's providing a lesser service to disabled people. Given the resources of the TOC, the threshold for what is reasonable is quite high vs a lot of organisations. If they stuck the wheelchair user in a cab the instant they couldn't access a train that'd be acceptable but the policy of waiting and seeing if the next train has the 'right' rolling stock before helping them continue the journey probably breaches the act.

This is no different to how other passengers are sometimes treated. For example, if someone cannot physically board a train because its rammed to the rafters then they will be advised, wherever possible, to wait for the next train. And where none might exist, then they would have to be offered an alternative. In reality for disabled passengers, I'm pretty certain that if in this context they were to ask if alternative transport be arranged instead of the potential hour wait, the TOC would have little issue in doing so. The same could bot be said for a couple of hundred people left kicking their heels up in somewhere like Malton.

As has been said on a number of occasions across a number of threads, the TOCs will do their best to offer an equal service wherever possible but there will still be occasions where this isn't and so reasonable adjustments should be considered.

 

[DarloRich]

By effectively enforcing a delay on disabled passengers and only then deciding if they will provide alternative transport by road, then that's providing a lesser service to disabled people. Given the resources of the TOC, the threshold for what is reasonable is quite high vs a lot of organisations. If they stuck the wheelchair user in a cab the instant they couldn't access a train that'd be acceptable but the policy of waiting and seeing if the next train has the 'right' rolling stock before helping them continue the journey probably breaches the act.

If i am honest this is the part I don't get in all this. I assumed the carriages would run on known services so it must be relatively easy to arrange an (almost immediate) alternative for anyone unable to board the train. I assumed ( wrongly) that this would be the mitigating action. The costs would be quite small in the grand scheme of things.

 

[OneOffDave]

This is no different to how other passengers are sometimes treated. For example, if someone cannot physically board a train because its rammed to the rafters then they will be advised, wherever possible, to wait for the next train. And where none might exist, then they would have to be offered an alternative. In reality for disabled passengers, I'm pretty certain that if in this context they were to ask if alternative transport be arranged instead of the potential hour wait, the TOC would have little issue in doing so. The same could bot be said for a couple of hundred people left kicking their heels up in somewhere like Malton.

As has been said on a number of occasions across a number of threads, the TOCs will do their best to offer an equal service wherever possible but there will still be occasions where this isn't and so reasonable adjustments should be considered.

The overcrowding issue is a red herring. If, as a wheelchair user, I can't get on the train as all the wheelchair spaces are occupied then like any other passenger, I'd have to wait for available space on a following train. If, however I can't get on the train because the TOC has deliberately chosen to get in extra rolling stock which is not accessible then that is the discriminatory act. Stop talking to me like I'm five and I've never traveled on a train before. There's a massive gap between what's the reasonable adjustments are on paper and what is actually delivered for disabled people in the real world. If the policy states that people wait for the next train before a taxi is offered then it takes a lot of confidence and persistence to argue for one now. Something a lot of disabled people don't have for all kinds of reasons. In the past I've had to spend 30 odd minutes arguing for a taxi because the lift wasn't working to get me on the platform in the direction I wanted to go. Unless you've properly experienced it, you've got no idea what it's like travelling as a wheelchair user. The gap between policy and actuality is massive. At least in the days of inaccessible trains they'd always shove us in the guard's van so we'd get there

 

[OneOffDave]

If i am honest this is the part I don't get in all this. I assumed the carriages would run on known services so it must be relatively easy to arrange an (almost immediate) alternative for anyone unable to board the train. I assumed ( wrongly) that this would be the mitigating action. The costs would be quite small in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, something like that would be a perfectly sensible reasonable adjustment. That's what amazes me about this whole thing, the policy seems to be designed to be actively discriminatory rather than taking a common sense approach. Most station staff I've encountered would go for that but they do have to seek approval in a lot of cases and that's where it falls over.

I don't mind (well any more than anyone else does) being delayed by overcrowding or service failures. It's just when the only reason I'm delayed is because I'm a wheelchair user. I'm also 'happy' where the only option isn't optimal like the time the only way to get off platforms 5&6 at MKC was to wait for the next train to Northampton, cross over there and come back (taking an hour in total). That sort of thing goes with the territory. It's when decisions are made where it's obvious that no thought has been given at all that really frustrates

 

[DarloRich]

Yes, something like that would be a perfectly sensible reasonable adjustment. That's what amazes me about this whole thing, the policy seems to be designed to be actively discriminatory rather than taking a common sense approach. Most station staff I've encountered would go for that but they do have to seek approval in a lot of cases and that's where it falls over.

I think the issues with accessibility have been a convenient excuse for a TOC to row back from their commitments and save some cash. We all suffer because of that.

 

[BeHereNow]

I think the issues with accessibility have been a convenient excuse for a TOC to row back from their commitments and save some cash. We all suffer because of that.

Agreed - and they should have made the stock wheelchair accessible. Refurbishment is part of the same committed obligation (not just an overhaul).

 

[Bantamzen]

The overcrowding issue is a red herring. If, as a wheelchair user, I can't get on the train as all the wheelchair spaces are occupied then like any other passenger, I'd have to wait for available space on a following train. If, however I can't get on the train because the TOC has deliberately chosen to get in extra rolling stock which is not accessible then that is the discriminatory act. Stop talking to me like I'm five and I've never traveled on a train before. There's a massive gap between what's the reasonable adjustments are on paper and what is actually delivered for disabled people in the real world. If the policy states that people wait for the next train before a taxi is offered then it takes a lot of confidence and persistence to argue for one now. Something a lot of disabled people don't have for all kinds of reasons. In the past I've had to spend 30 odd minutes arguing for a taxi because the lift wasn't working to get me on the platform in the direction I wanted to go. Unless you've properly experienced it, you've got no idea what it's like travelling as a wheelchair user. The gap between policy and actuality is massive. At least in the days of inaccessible trains they'd always shove us in the guard's van so we'd get there

Hold on a moment, I am not talking to you like a five year old even though that last response could easily have come from one. All I am saying is that there are, as I am sure you are aware, situations were reasonable adjustments have to be made. TPE were not being asked to use the un-modified MKIIIs to spite people with disabilities. They were planned to be used to both ease the chronic congestion until the MKVs started to roll out, and to help drivers familiarise with the 68s on the North TP route. Now whilst the draft guidance (which was never officially in the public domain as far as I can see, so can only really be considered a draft not a final version) did suggest that disabled passengers *might* have to wait for the next available service where a MKIII was the planned one, in reality a conversation with TOC staff would doubtless have been met with an offer of an alternative. And where this was a regular event, as it would have been, I'm sure better arrangements to ensure suitable vehicles were quickly sourced to minimise disruption could have been made. The truth we won't know now, and can only speculate as to what the experience might have been.

I'm sorry you've had problems with replacement transport in the past, but this is not exclusive to disabled people I'm afraid. I don't have experience being a wheelchair user, this is true and I wouldn't want to face the myriad of problems everyday life might pose. But this stock would have gone some way to alleviating the miserable commutes thousands of folk have everyday. I'm all for equality wherever possible, but I'm also against the idea that a possible relief for a lot of people may have been side-lined because of the poor experience of some rail users with alternative accessible solutions. What needed to improve was the reliability of the alternatives, not just say because of this the MKIIIs cannot be used.

But its all moot anyway, disabled passengers will face the same uncertainties about getting on many services as everyone else will for many months to come.

Agreed - and they should have made the stock wheelchair accessible. Refurbishment is part of the same committed obligation (not just an overhaul).

The stock in question was only to be used for a very short period of time, to be fully replaced once enough of the MKV stock were available, and have an uncertain future after that. Quite honestly even though only a couple of coaches would have needed modifications, it was probably down to part economics, and part lack of legal obligation given the timescales. That is the nature of a privatised system I'm afraid, TOCs / DfT will only provide just enough, look at the capacity on the TPEs over the last decade for a perfect example.

 

[tbtc]

Point of order - Northern have no connection at all with the partial service being operated by WCRC. It's being funded by other parties. Northern Rail are still providing the bus alternative.

Fair points.

I'm just thinking that, if its okay for the Windermere branch to have inaccessible trains on it all day long (with no services run by accessible trains) then why was it unacceptable for a handful of Scarborough services to be run by inaccessible trains?

I don't know the answer - I'm not saying that one situation is acceptable - I'm just wondering whether the provision of parallel buses was sufficient for Windermere?

In which case, why did a company who operate dozens of buses in York (i.e. FirstGroup) not provide that as an option? Unless the reality is that First were looking for excuses to abandon the whole project, that they seem to have been lukewarm at best about - in line with @DarloRich 's suspicions. So the truth may be nothing to do with whether trains are accessible, just about whether they stump up for a parallel bus service.

There must be some rules somewhere, to explain why one situation was permitted and the other not?

 

[bnm]

Rubbish.

No, not rubbish.

A reasonable adjustment, in the event a disabled person's chosen service was to be operated by the Mk3s, would have been to provide alternative transport.

TPE were only planning to offer alternative transport after the next train. Anything up to an hour later. That is not reasonable. Its discriminatory. Delaying disabled passengers but not able bodied.

Talk of overcrowding is a red herring. If a train is so overcrowded that no one can board, and they must wait for the next service, then that applies equally to all, able bodied or not.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well the "good news" for disabled people is that this isn't going to be an issue for them. Instead they can enjoy trying to continue to shoehorn onto crowded platforms and trains. Yay! A win all round eh...?

 

[James James]

Fair points.

I'm just thinking that, if its okay for the Windermere branch to have inaccessible trains on it all day long (with no services run by accessible trains) then why was it unacceptable for a handful of Scarborough services to be run by inaccessible trains?

I don't know the answer - I'm not saying that one situation is acceptable - I'm just wondering whether the provision of parallel buses was sufficient for Windermere?

In which case, why did a company who operate dozens of buses in York (i.e. FirstGroup) not provide that as an option? Unless the reality is that First were looking for excuses to abandon the whole project, that they seem to have been lukewarm at best about - in line with @DarloRich 's suspicions. So the truth may be nothing to do with whether trains are accessible, just about whether they stump up for a parallel bus service.

There must be some rules somewhere, to explain why one situation was permitted and the other not?

TPE were going to make existing services worse, but only for wheelchair users.

Northern aren't running a train service, they are being replaced by buses. Any additional trains run privately can do whatever they want.

 

[43096]

I'm just thinking that, if its okay for the Windermere branch to have inaccessible trains on it all day long (with no services run by accessible trains) then why was it unacceptable for a handful of Scarborough services to be run by inaccessible trains?

Funny you should mention Windermere....

It has been reported elsewhere that yesterday's 1240 Oxenholme-Windermere was held 10 minutes because a TPE service was running late and there was a wheelchair passenger on board for Windermere. Apparently the Northern bus service (which replaces an accessible 156 AIUI) couldn't take a wheelchair, so the non-accessible train was held - presumably the wheelchair went in the brake van?

Anyone want to kick off about the reduction in service as Northern have reduced disabled provision?

 

[kingqueen]

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

The choice was inaccessible stock or the existing services using the existing stock (pre-Liverpool blockade) with the existing overcrowding levels. That's not nothing. It's unacceptable overcrowding, but it's not "No service".
I think we'll have to agree to disagree over what's acceptable.

 

[kingqueen]

Is it humane that people might not be able to board a train because it's overcrowded, something this whole situation was designed to alleviate?

Perhaps we could ban all black people from boarding certain trains, and tell them to wait for other services or to travel by taxi. This would alleviate overcrowding on some services.
(I wish to immediately make it abundantly clear that I abhor racism in all its forms and would never advocate anything like this - I'm posting it as a thought experiment, replacing one minority with another.)

 

[kingqueen]

Any chance we can close this thread up?

I agree. Sorry, I replied to other posts before reading this!

Quite frankly I now detest this thread. I cannot imagine how someone who requires a wheelchair for their everyday mobility needs must feel after reading some of the posts here.

Yes, as a wheelchair user must say it has been distasteful, as another thread also. Happily I meet people with other approaches and opinions, like yourself and others not on here.