issue regarding disabled passengers

[tamperman36]

I have a friend who uses an electric wheelchair and was wondering just what is going to happen if rail companys change to DOO operation, just how are wheelchair users going to be able to use the trains. They rely on the guard placing a metal ramp over the gap from platform to train so that the wheelchair does not fall into the gap. How are they supposed to use the trains if there is no guard to assist with the ramp as passengers will not be insured to do it themselves.

[stewartingram]

Contact the TOC before travel. We've had DOO on the Great Northern (KGX to Kings Lynn and KGX to Peterborough) for around 30 years. If made aware beforehand staff are made available to assist.

 

Stewart

[tamperman36]

if the only way to use rail is by pre organising to have staff available then this means that the rail companys are discriminating against any wheelchair user who wishes to just turn up and travel. My friend is a enthusiast and often just goes of if its a nice day. He couldn't do this if he has to pre organise.

[chris p bacon]

The TOC's don't discriminate but it is not unreasonable to ask in advance about travel.  For instance where I am,  Sandy is a step free station whereas the next one (Biggleswade) isn't and can't accomodate wheelchairs. The TOC direct passengers to Sandy and arrange for helpers/station staff to be there at the arranged time to place a ramp. 

 

You can't honestly expect there to be staff available on the off chance he might want to travel. It has never been like that, as for example, the early and late turns at Sandy were 06.00-14.00 and 14.00 - 22.00 but trains still stopped and picked up/set down outside of those times.

[LBRJ]

Yet one more reason why all trains should have Guards.

But, just turning up on the fly is never much of a good idea, particularly for a long or important journey - The spaces may have been pre-booked.

[tamperman36]

living West Yorkshire we have been spoilt with the likes of our "wonderful 142s" as they carry the metal ramps onboard and have quite a large area for wheelchairs, but I still feel that the disabled are not getting a fair deal. One other thing is the fact that the disabled have got to rely on public transport as not very many of them can drive themselves.

[Guest]

This very issue came up in the Southern DOO thread, which became rather hateful and got locked. I suggested that in the absence of any staff to assist, it would be highly likely that fellow passengers would rally to help and lift a wheelchair user onto the train. That's what folk used to do in days gone by... they used to help each other.

Amazingly, replies to that varied from suggesting it would verge on assault to manhandle a disabled passenger, it would be humiliating for the passenger, and if anything should go wrong, legal action would be justified.

Well, I like to think that if I could help, I would, but the general view seems to be that I should just sit there and mind my own business and not get involved. Welcome to the 21st century. What the Hell went wrong?

[great central]

This is something that some MPs and others are latching onto. The RMT are also I believe beginning to see it as another part of the argument against DOO. There has been a long running discussion about it on WNXX and I'm sure other forums. We have many unstaffed but accessible stations, where people expect to turn up and go, quite rightly in my opinion, the other option is the driver doing the ramp with a conseqent delay to the service

[Dunsignalling]

I am amazed that there hasn't been an almighty fuss made already about wheelchair users having to make prior arrangements to travel by train.

 

They are likely to need/want, on occasion, to get somewhere with little or no notice, just like the rest of us and the system should allow for it. That's equality.

 

Most stations outside major towns/city centres are nowadays unmanned, either completely or outside peak hours, so staff assistance on trains seems the sensible answer.

 

Hoping that some kind passenger(s) might be able and willing to assist is no solution - there will not always be anyone available. Even if there were, the question of capability needs to be addressed. Either party could be injured if the person(s) assisting lack the strength or correct technique required and getting a person off a train, presumably separately from his/her wheelchair, without a ramp or in the chair via one being used by an untrained "helper" would be asking for trouble.   

 

Expecting drivers to act in this capacity would play merry hell with schedules so the Guard (or whatever new title the DfT dream up to save face) is the person for the job.

 

Who has responsibility for opening and/or closing the doors would then become a side-issue. However, if on-board staff are provided  (as I consider they should be) for disabled assistance and other tasks, I see little point in adding many thousands of pounds of cost to every unit just to save a few red faces in certain TOCs and the Civil Service department pushing DOO.  

 

John    

[kevinlms]

The issue ought not be impossible.

 

http://www.metrotrains.com.au/accessibility/

[Guest]

The issue ought not be impossible.

 

http://www.metrotrains.com.au/accessibility/

 

Problem solved. The disabled passenger waits at a dedicated boarding point at the front of the train and is assisted by the driver, who asks where the passenger is travelling to, so the driver knows when his/her assistance will be required again. Securing the train, popping out of the cab and deploying/stowing the ramp shouldn't take too long and time for this could be built into the schedule. Disabled passengers can travel at will without having to pre-book assistance.

 

<Irony mode on>

Now cue all those who say that a second person on board is being denied a job and that schedules and pathways are so tight that adiing a couple of minutes is impossible...

<Irony mode off>

 

Thanks for the link Kevin. It does show that a solution is possible, I just don't get why we have such a problem with things like this in the UK.

[jjb1970]

I think it is sadly typical of the RMT that they have completely failed to capitalise on the one genuinely strong argument they have against DOO. That they are taking an interest now sort of indicates that their interest is less about helping mobility impaired persons than about belatedly seeing them as a useful pawn to use in their labour dispute (as with safety).

 

I would hope that everybody supports accessibility for disabled persons and other mobility impaired passengers (people always forget the fact that accessibility is not just about disabled persons, it includes people with babies and other forms of mobility impairment). Train design has been transformed over the last few years to improve accessibility and despite complaints about the cost I think that this was entirely right. Whether there is a second person on-board, a member of staff at stations or the train incorporates a self retracting ramp arrangement is for the TOCs to decide. They have to comply with legislation, but how they decide to comply with legislation is down for them to figure out. The DOO angle on Southern is I think a red herring as Southern have committed to retaining a second person on-board. Where some get upset is that if the second person is not available then the train may operate without them as a pure DOO service in which case mobility impaired passengers may have to wait for the next service (depending on how impaired they are, again it is worth pointing out that mobility impaired is not a synonym for wheelchair user). Some see that as discrimination but the reality is that the only difference between cancelling a train and running it as DOO is that rather than 100's of passengers missing a train only those who need the assistance of the second person can't travel. Now maybe equality demands that all passengers are equally inconvenienced but I think that an absurd idea and the mobility impaired are likely to have a far better experience on the following train if it isn't crush loaded with hundreds of other passengers from the cancelled train.

 

On the pre-book argument, I can see why some don't like this, but I also think that if I was mobility impaired I'd probably notify in advance for comfort of mind. That is not about equality, it is just an example of planning, both of my parents ended up seriously disabled (one with a brain tumour and one after a series of strokes) and when I took them places I always booked ahead as I considered it sensible to make sure things went well.

[Dunsignalling]

Problem solved. The disabled passenger waits at a dedicated boarding point at the front of the train and is assisted by the driver, who asks where the passenger is travelling to, so the driver knows when his/her assistance will be required again. Securing the train, popping out of the cab and deploying/stowing the ramp shouldn't take too long and time for this could be built into the schedule. Disabled passengers can travel at will without having to pre-book assistance.

 

<Irony mode on>

Now cue all those who say that a second person on board is being denied a job and that schedules and pathways are so tight that adiing a couple of minutes is impossible...

<Irony mode off>

 

Thanks for the link Kevin. It does show that a solution is possible, I just don't get why we have such a problem with things like this in the UK.

With the equipment currently in use in the UK, the ramp needs to be removed from its stowage, fitted in place, passenger on/off train and ramp stowed. With platform staff or an on-board assistant (whether or not you call him/her a guard) unstowing and stowing the ramp don't incur platform time. Otherwise, (without irony) a good five minute job, at every station it's required.

 

Murphy's law states that anything that can go wrong will and you will inevitably sometimes get a concentration of wheelchair users on certain trains which will end up 15 or 20 minutes late as a result. On lines such as ours, that means a lost path onto a single line section, increasing the total delay to around 40 minutes.

 

What's needed, if the powers-that-be insist on destaffing trains, are built-in retractable ramps on the train that operate in synch with the doors allowing wheelchair users, mums with prams etc. to board/alight as easily as anyone else, without assistance.

 

In the intervening 10/20/30 years until all trains are so equipped, a human helper is still going to be needed. What Southern and others are doing with guards is the thin end of the wedge and running the odd train without an on-board assistant in extremis to avoid a cancellation will rapidly become the norm. If they can do it, they will and vacancies will remain unfilled and sickness/leave uncovered.

 

John

[jjb1970]

running the odd train without an on-board assistant in extremis to avoid a cancellation will rapidly become the norm. If they can do it, they will.

 

 

 

I really don't think they will unless they have an alternative arrangement for the mobility impaired. The law is the law and the law doesn't demand a second person on-board to help the mobility impaired. That is one option and if Southern decide to do it another way they can but their legal obligation to the mobility impaired remains. Their argument for running DOO when no person is available is legitimate I think, if it became a creeping standard practice then I suspect it'd be resolved in the courts.

[njee20]

The disabled passenger waits at a dedicated boarding point at the front of the train and is assisted by the driver, who asks where the passenger is travelling to, so the driver knows when his/her assistance will be required again. Securing the train, popping out of the cab and deploying/stowing the ramp shouldn't take too long and time for this could be built into the schedule. Disabled passengers can travel at will without having to pre-book assistance.

 

 

I don't wish to be callous, but what proportion of people travelling are wheelchair users requiring assistance? 0.1%? Should we add 5 minutes to every stop of every single train to enable the driver to potentially walk down the platform alongside a 12 coach train to help a wheelchair user? Should we also include slack in the system for foreign passengers, who may be unsure which train they need to catch? What about people who may have large or cumbersome luggage?

Yes it is inequality, but it's very difficult to offer true equality in some circumstances.

[tamperman36]

this issue is likely to rumble on, however if the drivers are going to be required to take on this duty just watch the union turn around and say that they should get a pay rise for the increased responsibility. It may be that in the future new trains will be built with automatic ramps, the technology already exsists it just hasn't been put into the specification for any new rolling stock as yet. Maybe it is time it was.

[petethemole]

There are still many stations with inadequate access for wheelchairs, buggies and people who have difficulty with stairs. I appreciate that the expense of ramping a footbridge may be prohibitive at little-used stations but busy stations should have better provision. My local station, Swaythling, has level access to the Down platform and steep steps up to the Up platform. There is a footbridge, which carries a pre-railway footpath right of way and functions as the station footbridge. The council improved this by replacing the Down side steps with a ramp and building a new ramp to the street level on the Up side. The access from the bridge to the Up platform is still by stairs, as it was not the council's concern. A liaison with whoever was responsible for the station infrastructure at the time (possibly NSE) and a bit of finance from the railway side could have added a ramp to the platform as part of the project. It does however keep chav bikes off one platform! 

[Guest]

...however if the drivers are going to be required to take on this duty just watch the union turn around and say that they should get a pay rise for the increased responsibility.

 

I'm sure they will and I wouldn't have a problem with that. When we lost the EPB slam-door stock and went over to 455s on the South London Metro lines, from memory, I think we got an extra £6/day for DOO. That was eventually rolled into a new salary when BR ceased to exist and privatisation became the way forward (irony). That was 30-odd years ago, so the payment will obviously be a lot more than that, but still significantly cheaper than funding a second person on board, who would only be needed in times of emergency or when passenger assistance is required. As has been pointed out, wheelchair assistance is not likely to be needed on every train at every station and emergencies are, thankfully, few and far between. In the age of austerity and cost-cutting and especially now that everything has to make a profit, it's not hard to understand how and why the TOC will go for the cheapest option. Folk may not like it but...

[phil-b259]

People can debate this issue all they like - the simple fact is that TOCs and the DfT who are pushing for DOO to become the norm believe that the 'book ahead' method meets the requirements under UK law for transport operators take reasonable efforts to convey less able passengers (Please note disability rights legislation don't specifically say that everyone has to be equally in all respects - discrimination can under certain circumstances be acceptable depending on the context, e.g. people being bared from certain jobs because of say colour blindness)

 

What is actually needed to settle the issue is for someone to take TOCs and the DfT to court - then the legal system would clarify exactly what is, or in not acceptable with regards to disabled train travel.

[phil-b259]

I'm sure they will and I wouldn't have a problem with that. When we lost the EPB slam-door stock and went over to 455s on the South London Metro lines, from memory, I think we got an extra £6/day for DOO. That was eventually rolled into a new salary when BR ceased to exist and privatisation became the way forward (irony). That was 30-odd years ago, so the payment will obviously be a lot more than that, but still significantly cheaper than funding a second person on board, who would only be needed in times of emergency or when passenger assistance is required. As has been pointed out, wheelchair assistance is not likely to be needed on every train at every station and emergencies are, thankfully, few and far between. In the age of austerity and cost-cutting and especially now that everything has to make a profit, it's not hard to understand how and why the TOC will go for the cheapest option. Folk may not like it but...

 

Particularly when stations are staffed - as is the case in London or at major interchanges.

 

One of the big problems with the Guards debate is peoples pig headedness to insist on a all or nothing approch. A DOO train, calling at stations where platform staff are available is a perfectly acceptable mitigation for no guard as regards disabled assistance. On the other hand a DOO train calling at stations with no platform staff is clearly a very different matter.

[Fenman]

There are still many stations with inadequate access for wheelchairs, buggies and people who have difficulty with stairs. ...

 

And, realistically, there always will be: can you imagine how much it would cost to convert every single Underground station in central London to offer equal access to all? With some, it may actually be completely impossible due to the proximity of building foundations, sewers, ducts, other railway tunnels, you name it. Taking the line that some posters have been arguing for, the only economic solution here would be to close all those wayside halts, so no-one gets to use them, and also to shut down all those Underground stations which are unconvertible. How could that make any sense?

 

That is why the law says that operators are obliged to make "reasonable" adjustments. Not to make everything accessible to everyone, and the cost or practicality be damned. Reasonable.

 

Which is why Great Northern and its predecessors, for example, have been operating DOO trains on the Fen Line for decades, calling at unstaffed stations, without attracting lawsuits from disgruntled passengers who have mobility issues. The law so far seems to think that asking people who require special assistance to phone ahead is not unreasonable (and we are talking about stations that are basic wayside halts here, not stations with hundreds of thousands of passengers a year).

 

Paul

[bike2steam]

We look after a young (severely) disabled lad with a motorised wheelchair, and have been on a train from Poole, or Wareham, to Waterloo, quite a few times over the last few years. As far as help is concerned, we have no problems, we always give notice of travel in advance.

[The Stationmaster]

I really don't think they will unless they have an alternative arrangement for the mobility impaired. The law is the law and the law doesn't demand a second person on-board to help the mobility impaired. That is one option and if Southern decide to do it another way they can but their legal obligation to the mobility impaired remains. Their argument for running DOO when no person is available is legitimate I think, if it became a creeping standard practice then I suspect it'd be resolved in the courts.

 

You simply carry on the existing practice by limiting the number of stations at which wheelchair access/assisted boarding and detraining is made available.  

 

The wording of the legislation does I believe include something about 'practicality'  and definitely mentions 'reasonableness' and I can't honestly see dozens of unstaffed stations on DOO routes suddenly being given back the staff removed decades ago or the trains getting Guards when their particular type has never had them.   Like many other bright ideas messed around in Westminster from original EU legislation the UK version of 'Disabled Access' comes with a pile of unintended, and totally unconsidered, consequences - hence I foresee little change unless or until someone tries to test the law in court.

[jim.snowdon]

The original EU directive related not to "the disabled" but to Persons with Reduced Mobility, which covers a far wider range of people, including mothers with buggies and small children, not to metion those encumbered with shopping. Compared to the wider scale of PRM, the wheelchair-bound are but a minority and one that is, in many countries in Europe, dealt with by more effective specialised transport than simply trying to get the railways and tramways to cope with them. Level boarding and minimal platform gaps, as are required by the UK RVAR do not figure in European thinking.

 

Where things went wrong with the UK's interpretation of the PRM directive is that the activists in the disabled lobby were allowed to run riot, resulting in excessive requirements, rather than taking a balanced approach.

 

Jim

[darrel]

On a DOO train at an unmanned station, if there is not a ticket examiner on board (happens often) and you turn up in a wheelchair, then you will not be able to get on.

If you get put on by station staff at a manned station, you are wanting to get off at an unmanned station, and there is no ticket examiner on the train, then you won't be able to get off.

That's how it works I'm afraid. Drivers are not trained to use the wheelchair ramps and therefore are not insured to use them.

I'm not saying it's right but it is how it is.