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.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.
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?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?
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.
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.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.
Because TransPennine were introducing inaccessible trains on their route for the first time in 20 years.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.
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.
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.
Of course.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.
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 overcrowding is due to a failure of the rail industry and it's not caused by disabled people.
It is legal to demand that vast numbers of people suffer because you would be mildly inconvenienced, but that doesn't make it ethical.
"A couple of people"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.
Of course not. They are existing access impediments. Introducing newly inaccessible services on an existing inaccessible one is differentThe use of all extant non-accessible buildings must ofcourse be halted at once until such works have been carried out, ofcourse?
"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
2381 is a drop in the ocean compared to the numbers carried on a daily basis by TPE.
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?
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?
But this is not new rolling stock, the national rolling stock pool has not become less accessible.Of course not. They are existing access impediments. Introducing newly inaccessible services on an existing inaccessible one is different
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 rolling stock is perfectly compliant with legislation. This is about the mob moving the goal posts because it suits them.The rail industry has known about access requirements for 23 years now or is that too difficult for 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?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.