Units that are not compliant with accessibility laws should be retained for use coupled with compliant units

[yorksrob]

Not if they are not prm compliant. Or you need new stock to expand like in this case.

Shove em onto a compliant unit.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think that is a very good idea. I understand they dft won't accept that. So in the case of the 153 the fact the don't have PIS they can't be used, even if passengers that need it most could sit in a coach with it. I asked the question once before saying why if they are coupled to a 156 can't the toilet on the 153 stay in use. But apparently the 153s can't be used even if coupled with a 156 anymore. Covid will have help as passenger numbers are low. Not sure how easy it is to get an exception, but I understand Nottingham - Skegness is one such exception this year.

But the 153s in my opinion could make a good tool for peak demand. Lincoln Christmas Market - no problem add on the 153s. But I am told 2 issues - 1 crew competencies - 2 Although coupled to a PRM VEH - it doesn't comply itself so can't be used.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that given the current financial state of the railway system, the DfT needs to find a healthy injection of pragmatism from somewhere.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The problem with the small toilet on the 153s is not just accessibility (if it were, making them otherwise compliant would be relatively simple) but the lack of waste tanks. There isn't room to fit waste tanks near to where the original toilets are, which is why the Welsh PRM'ed units have the toilet moved to the large cab end (along with needing to be at the end that wheelchair users would be using).

 

[Failed Unit]

I forgot about the track flushing. But then I guess if coupled to a prm unit it isn’t needed. What did they do to the old toilet end on the Welsh units? Baggage space? I guess someone did the business case for the rest of the fleet and computer says no as even coupling 2 together and only having a toilet in one (like they are doing in wales now) isn’t viable.

 

[yorksrob]

Realistically they could lock out/remove the old toilet if used with compliant ones.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

For us able people this is often something difficult to get our heads round but PRM is about far more than just wheelchair accessibility etc it covers all sorts of things to aid those with less obvious inabilities and make train travel an inclusive. Often those inabilities are not obvious for staff to identify and help, also for many such people such as those with Autism actually having to be helped is an issue in itself and makes the person feel very un at ease.

By having mixed complaint/non-compliant vehicles long term you would need to have vast numbers of additional staff to try and identify people who might need a more compliant vehicle to travel in - not really pragmatic long term.

It’s easy as an able bodied person to come up with all sorts of ideas as we are fortunate not to suffer with one of the many inabilities.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Realistically they could lock out/remove the old toilet if used with compliant ones.

Which is what all operators of 153s (except the handful of Welsh modified ones) are doing, isn't it?

The reasons for this are two-fold: in part it's the accessibility regs (even discounting the universal access angle, the toilets on 153s would not be permitted even as a second toilet in a consist, as there are other compliance issues involved: eg Help/alarm points, handrails etc). Then there's the "dropping on the tracks" issue which is unrelated to accessibility but the new rules happened to come in at the same time.

Seeing a toilet locked out when you need to go is obviously annoying, so if these vehicles were going to be in use for another decade it might be worth removing them and using the space for luggage or bicycles. If they're only in use as a short-term stopgap it probably isn't worth the trouble.

 

[yorksrob]

Which is what all operators of 153s (except the handful of Welsh modified ones) are doing, isn't it?

The reasons for this are two-fold: in part it's the accessibility regs (even discounting the universal access angle, the toilets on 153s would not be permitted even as a second toilet in a consist, as there are other compliance issues involved: eg Help/alarm points, handrails etc). Then there's the "dropping on the tracks" issue which is unrelated to accessibility but the new rules happened to come in at the same time.

Seeing a toilet locked out when you need to go is obviously annoying, so if these vehicles were going to be in use for another decade it might be worth removing them and using the space for luggage or bicycles. If they're only in use as a short-term stopgap it probably isn't worth the trouble.

Yes, Northern seem to be doing that. I agree, if for ten years it would be worth converting to luggage space.

However even if they weren't sure of keeping them that long and didn't want to invest, they could just lock out of use, give the moquette a clean to make them look presentable and use them as crowd busters.

Better than a crowded train !

 

[Anonymous10]

i have a rather Moderate view on this imo non compliant units such as the 153 should be retained to work with 15x or prm 153 in tfw case so long as they have the prm lite mods which tfw are doing as well as it being clearly shown on the train and ticketing apps

 

[PeterC]

I have never been on a train where every carriage has identical PRM compliant facilities. What is so special about sticking on an extra coach that happens to have its own driving cab?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I have never been on a train where every carriage has identical PRM compliant facilities. What is so special about sticking on an extra coach that happens to have its own driving cab?

In theory, nothing... with the caveat that that there is more to accessibility compliance than having a large toilet. As the legislation covers things besides accessibility for wheelchair users, there are a few other factors to consider: the audio announcements for the visually impaired being an obvious one- if a non-fitted unit is part of the consist it might stop the rest from working properly, thus rendering the whole train functionally non-compliant.

 

[yorksrob]

In theory, nothing... with the caveat that that there is more to accessibility compliance than having a large toilet. As the legislation covers things besides accessibility for wheelchair users, there are a few other factors to consider: the audio announcements for the visually impaired being an obvious one- if a non-fitted unit is part of the consist it might stop the rest from working properly, thus rendering the whole train functionally non-compliant.

Thankfully not a problem with 153's.

 

[alistairlees]

I don’t understand this. 12-car class 700s don’t have a toilet in every coach, yet they are able to run. Obviously they are more accessible because of wider doors and aisles generally. But there does seem to be an approach of making things worse for the majority of people here, because they can’t be made perfect for all people.

 

[yorksrob]

Perfection definitely shouldn't be allowed to become the enemy of good (although legislation does tend to have this effect sometimes).

 

[Starmill]

If this is principally a question of 153s there are actually quite a few units that have been modified now either for Scotrail or Transport for Wales. It would have made rather more sense to form them into two and three car sets to me personally, but there you go.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If this is principally a question of 153s there are actually quite a few units that have been modified now either for Scotrail or Transport for Wales. It would have made rather more sense to form them into two and three car sets to me personally, but there you go.

When Arriva Northern's fleet strategy was announced, many of us suggested that turning a number of 153s back into 155s (with one universal loo per unit) would be a reasonable way to boost capacity. We were told that this was not as simple as it might seem for numerous reasons.

 

[skyhigh]

Thankfully not a problem with 153's.

Actually, it is a problem. When a 153 is coupled to a TrainFX fitted unit, TrainFX should be disabled on the fitted unit. This is because of an incompatibility between the units - if TrainFX decides it wants to make an announcement, you can't shut it up. So if you're doing an announcement from the 153, it'll shout over you. If you're doing a cab to cab call, it'll broadcast it to the whole train. You also can't respond to call for aid alarms from the 153 cabs. If TrainFX is disabled, you don't have visual displays on the whole formation so it's a compliance issue.

 

[Anonymous10]

When Arriva Northern's fleet strategy was announced, many of us suggested that turning a number of 153s back into 155s (with one universal loo per unit) would be a reasonable way to boost capacity. We were told that this was not as simple as it might seem for numerous reasons.

If this is principally a question of 153s there are actually quite a few units that have been modified now either for Scotrail or Transport for Wales. It would have made rather more sense to form them into two and three car sets to me personally, but there you go.

it comes down to how badly it's needed tbf and tfw needed them badly and the advantage to all the original tfw 153s plus a few of the ones transferred in being prm compliant is up until now they could work with the 143s as a 3 car if needed plus with the large amount of non compliant class 153 they have

Actually, it is a problem. When a 153 is coupled to a TrainFX fitted unit, TrainFX should be disabled on the fitted unit. This is because of an incompatibility between the units - if TrainFX decides it wants to make an announcement, you can't shut it up. So if you're doing an announcement from the 153, it'll shout over you. If you're doing a cab to cab call, it'll broadcast it to the whole train. You also can't respond to call for aid alarms from the 153 cabs. If TrainFX is disabled, you don't have visual displays on the whole formation so it's a compliance issue.

id guess the tfw 153s with prm dont suffer this

 

[skyhigh]

id guess the tfw 153s with prm dont suffer this

I imagine they're fitted with TrainFX so fully compatible.

 

[yorksrob]

Actually, it is a problem. When a 153 is coupled to a TrainFX fitted unit, TrainFX should be disabled on the fitted unit. This is because of an incompatibility between the units - if TrainFX decides it wants to make an announcement, you can't shut it up. So if you're doing an announcement from the 153, it'll shout over you. If you're doing a cab to cab call, it'll broadcast it to the whole train. You also can't respond to call for aid alarms from the 153 cabs. If TrainFX is disabled, you don't have visual displays on the whole formation so it's a compliance issue.

The 153 I was on yesterday did fine with the audio announcements, although admittedly it lacked visuals.

Nevertheless, better for all than a crowded train.

If this is principally a question of 153s there are actually quite a few units that have been modified now either for Scotrail or Transport for Wales. It would have made rather more sense to form them into two and three car sets to me personally, but there you go.

Yes, that would undoubtedly make any mods more cost effective.

 

[Anonymous10]

The 153 I was on yesterday did fine with the audio announcements, although admittedly it lacked visuals.

Nevertheless, better for all than a crowded train.



Yes, that would undoubtedly make any mods more cost effective.

as ive said for tfw they have a few non compliant units as well which can be coupled to them and have 8 units becoming prm lite so only leaving 1 as a 1 car from all that to my knowledge anyway also having all 9 prm alone for tfw meant they could use more 153s with pacers and retain 9 150s for other diagrams

 

[skyhigh]

The 153 I was on yesterday did fine with the audio announcements, although admittedly it lacked visuals.

It works, but as I said you can't properly make a cab-cab call or override incorrect announcements, so train crew are instructed not to enable it.

 

[Anonymous10]

It works, but as I said you can't properly make a cab-cab call or override incorrect announcements, so train crew are instructed not to enable it.

this can be seen when on a tfw 153 working with a non prm unit personally i rather the ones with Human voice announcements but preference that is

 

[Paul Jones 88]

As far as I am concerned, all non compliant stock is being replaced or refurbished for compliance, that should be good enough, taking usable trains out of service is no good for all of us who need to take the train to work, we'll end up with short formations, more standing/crowded carriages, what about people like my mum who is mildly disabled who needs a seat as opposed to a fully PRM train?

 

[Tio Terry]

How many years have TOC's had to become compliant with Equal Opportunities Requirements?

How many more years should they be allowed to flaunt the law and avoid doing what is required, and which has been allowed to go on and on and on?

How do the ORR enforce compliance without putting an end date on the use of non-compliant rolling stock?

Maybe now it's all going to be the responsibility of GBR things will change?

 

[yorksrob]

How many years have TOC's had to become compliant with Equal Opportunities Requirements?

How many more years should they be allowed to flaunt the law and avoid doing what is required, and which has been allowed to go on and on and on?

How do the ORR enforce compliance without putting an end date on the use of non-compliant rolling stock?

Maybe now it's all going to be the responsibility of GBR things will change?

The reality is that the railway just doesn't work that way. Things that were built as a stop-gap end up lasting several times longer than they were intended.

Unfortunately, without a fairly liquid supply of either new diesel rolling stock or rolling electrification, you have to make what you've got last. The alternative is overcrowded trains which is a poor experience for everyone, not least those whom the legislation was intended to assist.

 

[MattRat]

The 153 I was on yesterday did fine with the audio announcements, although admittedly it lacked visuals.

Nevertheless, better for all than a crowed train.

As far as I am concerned, all non compliant stock is being replaced or refurbished for compliance, that should be good enough, taking usable trains out of service is no good for all of us who need to take the train to work, we'll end up with short formations, more standing/crowded carriages, what about people like my mum who is mildly disabled who needs a seat as opposed to a fully PRM train?

And we can't just couple up a two car Sprinter in it's place because?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And we can't just couple up a two car Sprinter in it's place because?

There are not enough of them.

The answer of course is to PRM fit more 153s etc, sealing up the bog or removing it. The bog is the big cost. TrainFX is cheap (and rubbish) and other stuff is minor, mostly involving the colour of stuff like handrails.

 

[MattRat]

There are not enough of them.

The answer of course is to PRM fit more 153s etc, sealing up the bog or removing it. The bog is the big cost. TrainFX is cheap (and rubbish) and other stuff is minor, mostly involving the colour of stuff like handrails.

Well, that would change with the cascading that is currently on going. So, they just need to do what they did with Pacers until enough units are available on the routes that use them.