Southern's Timetable Reduction

[royaloak]

Also you still haven't answered my question. As mentioned above its quite clear that the DfT is determined Guards will not be retained so I ask again which do you prefer - The situation where Southern have an OBS on 99% of trains or a Thameslink style setup (which is what the DfT want) where 99% of trains lack a second person.

I did answer it, I said 99% of trains wont have an OBS on board will they!

[wombatofludham]

What if the passengers on the platform dont move when the alarm sounds, what happens then?

So you are saying the train driver is responsible for some idiot who just stands there and gets their feet crushed, you have a much higher opinion of the great British travelling public than I do, and I work with them every (working) day!

 

They get their shins broken.  But, if the idiot (and trust me I have no illusions about the stupidity and denseness of the average oxygen stealing member of the public from personal experience too) who get is the way of a ramp deploying tries going for the ambulance chaser in search of compensation, the fact there was a warning, and if the device is clearly marked, publicity and warning notices shown and a proper management system in place and approved by the authorities, then if it went to court the court would identify the idiot was in the wrong.  Unlike the Daily Mail, my experience of the Courts is that they frown on vexatious claims for compensation where the idiot concerned should have taken more care and attention.

 

However, as I pointed out, the technicalities of having some sort of access device that doesn't require staff operation, or capable of remote operation by the driver, which would include factoring in how they might be capable of use on busy stations (with difficulty), how they might be a source of train failure, and the risks of not having a staff presence for supervising the process, might make the theoretical implementation of such a device impractical and the DfT might find they are stuck with having to provide staff to comply with the need to cater for turn up and go access by people with disabilities.  Hopefully the Parliamentary comments will get the DfT to get their act together on this.

[wombatofludham]

The issue of access to rail services for the disabled and persons of reduced mobility is certainly a major one, and many valid points have been made above. I would certainly agree that in a perfect world everybody should have equal access, however the problems in actually providing this are huge. Stationmaster referred to stations which are not accessible - There's no point have fully accessible trains if people cannot get on or off the station they want to use !

 

On my local line, Glasgow Central/Neilston, the following stations simply cannot be used by people in wheelchairs as they have stair access only: Pollokshields East, Queens Park, Crosshill, Cathcart and Williamwood. This is 5 stations, just on one route, where huge amounts of money would have to be spent to make them fully accessible. Then, as all trains on the route are DOO, there would also be the cost of either proving a Guard on every train, or staffing every station for the full period of the train service (around 18 hours per day). The question of whether this level of expenditure can be justified, and if so where the money would come from, goes way beyond the railway industry's responsibility and duty.

 

That's why the DfT via Network Rail have set up the Access for All fund to improve access to stations without step free access.  The Railways for All Strategy from 2006 committed £370 million between 2006 and 2015 and a further £100 million until 2019. 

 

The strategy can be read at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120409061727/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/railways-for-all-strategy/railways-for-all-strategy.pdf .  Interestingly it raises the issue of improving staff availability at partially unstaffed stations precisely to improve access arrangements.  Clearly there's not a lot of internal discussion at the DfT with one branch talking about improving access, spending millions on access improvements at stations and the need for improved staff presence and another trying to reduce staffing levels through franchising and management contracts.

[The Stationmaster]

The issue of access to rail services for the disabled and persons of reduced mobility is certainly a major one, and many valid points have been made above. I would certainly agree that in a perfect world everybody should have equal access, however the problems in actually providing this are huge. Stationmaster referred to stations which are not accessible - There's no point have fully accessible trains if people cannot get on or off the station they want to use !

 

On my local line, Glasgow Central/Neilston, the following stations simply cannot be used by people in wheelchairs as they have stair access only: Pollokshields East, Queens Park, Crosshill, Cathcart and Williamwood. This is 5 stations, just on one route, where huge amounts of money would have to be spent to make them fully accessible. Then, as all trains on the route are DOO, there would also be the cost of either proving a Guard on every train, or staffing every station for the full period of the train service (around 18 hours per day). The question of whether this level of expenditure can be justified, and if so where the money would come from, goes way beyond the railway industry's responsibility and duty.

 

Reading some of the stuff linked by 'wombatofludham' it is clear that those dealing with the issue and producing various ideas of how to implement it are living in a tiny little bubble of their own which is so remote from practicality that they might as well be on Mars.  apart from many older platforms the railway has gradually been brought into line with the standards laid down in various successive issues of 'the Requirements' so you can do little but actually start from there and the platform heights it specifies because if you don't do that you can immediately rule most vehicles on the railway out-of-gauge.

 

Maximum width was limited to 9ft up to a height of 3ft 4" above rail level with platform height set at 3 ft above rail level and a requirement for 3" of clearance between the platform edge (of the top 3 inches) and that 9ft overall width allowance.  Vehicle width could then be increased - subject overall loading gauge and dynamic envelope requirements above the 3ft 4"level - in other words also 4" above platform level.  All of that can't be uninvented except at a massive cost; to suggest reducing line speeds through platforms situated on curvature is the talk of the loony bin and is utterly impractical without major demolition of timetables on lines where there is curvature through platforms.  I don't know how many thousand railway vehicles in Britain are built to those dimensions let alone those of more recent decades built to carry the higher ISO containers but we are talking not of spending millions but probably billions and it won't be possible to get it all done buy 2020 - in fact if vehices are to be given their economic life it might not even be possible within 20 years except at the expense of early scrapping.

 

The number of stations which will require new footbridges and lifts in order to just get people to the platforms, let alone onto the trains, will cost tens of millions or either derogations are sought and granted or stations are closed - hundreds of them.  As usual I'm afraid we are facing yet another word class example of the law of unintended consequences - legislation made without giving any thought to either its practicality or the cost of implementing it.

[The Stationmaster]

That's why the DfT via Network Rail have set up the Access for All fund to improve access to stations without step free access.  The Railways for All Strategy from 2006 committed £370 million between 2006 and 2015 and a further £100 million until 2019. 

 

The strategy can be read at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120409061727/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/railways-for-all-strategy/railways-for-all-strategy.pdf .  Interestingly it raises the issue of improving staff availability at partially unstaffed stations precisely to improve access arrangements.  Clearly there's not a lot of internal discussion at the DfT with one branch talking about improving access, spending millions on access improvements at stations and the need for improved staff presence and another trying to reduce staffing levels through franchising and management contracts.

 

£370 million plus £100 million - it's joke.  An ordinary footbridge with ramps probably costs around £2 million nowadays (they were over £1 million 20 years ago).  Installing lifts - which involves larger structures to hold them plus footbridge renewal isn't cheap and if access is by subway then there will be a need for tunnelling - and that costs even more (before you add in teh train delay costs arising from having to impose speed restrictions when tunnelling is taking place. 

 

So let's look at some examples in the real world and not the kiddywinks' playground in Marsham St. -

 

Tilehurst - foorbridge just renewed, no lifts provided although disabled access has been provided (and is barriered off) to the Up Relief waiting room - probably closed because you can't there with a wheelchair. Relief Lines platforms are on a curve with running lines super elevated, linespeed 100mph.

 

Pangbourne - subway access to Down Relief platform and only steps to platform level, also some curvature but not as severe as Tilehurst.  No room on Down Relief platform to install a lift although a ramped footbridge might be feasible.

 

Goring new footbridge with lifts - opened approximately 15 months late so not necessarily an easy job to get one built quickly. some curvature through platforms.

 

Cholsey - as Pangbourne - subway access to Down Relief platform

 

Didcot - has lifts using the old parcels lifts.

 

Appleford Hallt - access from road is down steps - no room for ramps within existing railway owned land

 

Culham has, I think, road access or potential road access to both platforms

 

Radley - open footbridge, only power supply is that for lighting and only small waiting shelters, probably room to build a ramped footbridge but might require land purchase on the Up side. 

[cromptonnut]

jjb1970, on 15 Oct 2016 - 20:19, said:

Accountants get a bad deal, its easy to criticise them but unless a company understands its financial position and their cost, outgoings and revenues etc then they're unlikely to thrive

 

I can agree with that - but it's when the accountants look at financial aspects only and where cost savings can be made, and disregard the impact of those cost savings, that's where the problems begin and I think that's a lot of what we're seeing at the moment.

 

Changing a photocopier paper supplier to save £10,000 a year doesn't really impact anyone except the supplier you're dropping - but in many of these post-privatisation cost cutting exercises the impact has been overlooked.  A prime example being where it's cheaper to cancel a lightly-used train that is running late and put on half a dozen taxis instead.

[phil-b259]

I did answer it, I said 99% of trains wont have an OBS on board will they!

 

No you didn't' - and you are still not doing so

 

Why can you not understand that until 2020 99% of Southern services (that used to have a Guard) will retain a OBS up until the end of the current franchise. Every single bit of evidence in the public domain backs this up so unless you have evidance to the contrary, stop pretending otherwise.

 

So I repeat, the current situation is:-

 

99% of Southern services that currently have guards will continue to have an OBS untill the end of the franchise

99% of Thameslink services will not have have a second person till the end of the franchise.

 

Which if the two options above do you prefer?

 

What happens after 2020 is entirely in the hands of the DfT and as such they may well chose to remove / slim down the OBS role.If you disagree with this then the onus is on you (and others) to make your views known in the tendering process. While I agree that removing the need for a Guard makes it easier for a future operator to introduce true DOO (as found in Thameslink) its crystal clear that the DfT are going to press ahead regardless. As such the guarantees the RMT and yourself want are simply not going to happen - get over it.

[Rivercider]

I wonder what is in Southern's proposed list of exceptional circumstances whereby a train can continue in service without a second member of onboard staff?

"It means that in times of service disruption a train can without a conductor in circumstances it would otherwise be cancelled. "

Are we not currently suffering a spell of many months of service disruption (for varying reasons)?

 

(The last ten years of my railway career were spent in traincrew rostering, and there were very very many occasions when we went home having published a roster with vacancies left on it for the traincrew supervisor/control to sort out - albeit this was a freight company)

 

cheers