Return to Archive -by date - by topic - 2001 Archive.

INFORMED SOURCES July 2001

Disability provision – back to the barricades

Improving disabled accessibility when refurbishing trains is a GOOD THING - but like safety, disability provision should be subject to a test of reasonable practicality

Single interest pressure groups, by their very nature, are binary. You are either for their aims, or against them. A revolutionary can't favour the partial overthrow of the Government. While the meek shall inherit the earth, a chant of ‘What do we want? Something a bit better. When do we want it? When you can get round to it', won't get people marching for long.

As a result, reasoned argument about the practical details of a pressure group's aims is seen as an attack on the very principles at stake. And the usual response is emotional blackmail – safety being a good example.

Which brings us to disability provision. Two years ago this column criticised the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR) on four grounds. But before doing so, I made a point of outlining in the opening paragraphs why disability provision is of general benefit – taking as my example the humble glass milk bottle.

Anyway, I then addressed four specific topics: the fact that the draft RVAR had been changed after Adtranz and Alstom had designed their new multiple units, plus some flaws in the wording which disadvantaged abled and disabled alike.

Two pages of letters on the subject in the next issue included missives from a Transport Minister and the Chair of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee – or rather their civil servants - using phrases like ‘highly offensive' ‘not helpful' and ‘frankly ridiculous'.

Oddly, the bulk of the official letters was given over to defending disability provision, which I had not questioned, while the detailed issues were either ignored or referred to in ‘footnotes'. A year or so later, the Regulations were changed to cover the very objections I had raised.

Here we go again

Meanwhile, the revolution continues. The Government set up the militantly named Disability Rights Task Force DRTF) to investigate the state of disability provision in Britain . The Task Force's report From Exclusion to Inclusion was published in December 1999.

As far as railways were concerned the Report had two specific requirements:

*a statutory "end date" by when all passenger rail vehicles should comply with the RVAR

*the introduction of accessibility regulations for refurbished rolling stock;

DPTAC welcomed these recommendations and is now pressing for their implementation. End date should be easy. BR bought trains on the basis of a 35 year life and that's their end date. With Mk 1 stock, which is the big accessibility problem withdrawn from 1 January 2005 , even the Strategic Rail Authority should be able to hold that pass.

Refurb' battle

But on refurbishment, there could be a real battle ahead. The SRA has taken over the Rail Regulator's responsibility for consumer protection, which includes the railway industry's Code of Practice on train and station services for disabled passengers.

And in its revision of the inherited ORR CoP, the SRA proposes making compliance with the current RVAR mandatory during refurbishment of existing passenger rolling stock. The box shows what the SRA proposes in the draft Code, currently out for consultation.

These proposals will also apply to C6 and C6X heavy maintenance programmes, where operators, when discussing the scope of work with the owning Rolling Stock Company, ‘must ensure that proper provision is made for disabled access'. That sounds eminently reasonable, then comes the madness.

The madness

DPTAC and SRA will have to be notified of the disability provision being made, or dispensation being sought, a minimum of 18 months before the programme is due to take effect The provision of facilities for disabled passengers must be discussed with DPTAC before being forwarded to the Authority for its consideration.

Does any one engage brain before writing this worthy tosh? I have just taken over a franchise. I want to bring in the new livery, specially designed to comply with the RVAR. Sorry, we need 18months notice. Want to install colour contrast floors in the vestibules to go with the new paint scheme and comply with Section 7 of the RVAR? Sorry, 18 months notice for that too.

What makes me really angry about this zealotry is that the people it disbenefits the most are the very people it is intended to help.

But back to the bureaucracy. After the initial discussion with DPTAC, DPTAC will say why not total compliance? That's their job.

Following this likely non-meeting of minds, details of proposed disability provisions (or requests for dispensation) will have to be notified formally to both the SRA and DPTAC and, following consultation, the SRA will advise the operator whether or not the proposed changes are acceptable.

According to the SRA its decision will be influenced by a number of factors including ‘likely cost, Passengers in Excess of Capacity requirements, and physical constraints'. Naïve or what? Can you imagine the SRA defending itself against claims that the industry is putting profits before disabled access?

Simple changes, such as colour contrasts on doors, seat covers and handrails, will always be required to meet RVAR standards during C6/C6X programmes. However for minor maintenance schemes such changes would be subject to ‘reasonable practicality'.

Well, we've all been there before. Reasonable practicality requires a measure of what's reasonable and the usual measure is cost benefit analysis. That's money again.

Paperwork

Which brings us to another practical aspect I don't suppose anyone has thought through.

With various fleets coming up for mid life refurbishment, the SRA would be flooded by boxes of documents supporting each application under the code. One informed source estimates that a typical refurbishment project will generate over 30,000 pages of specifications.

And it will be impossible to cost refurbishment schemes accurately because the degree of RVAR compliance expected will not be known until the SRA consultation is concluded.

Take the case of a grab rail which misses some RVAR parameter by a few millimetres. Full compliance will be very expensive because of the likely need for new structural mounting points and trim panels, unless the SRA issues some form of global compliance tolerance, for example, if it's within 20mm it's acceptable.

Then again, what to do about pre-RVAR disabled access toilets. Do these have to be ripped out and replaced? Once again, common sense says that it's accessibility not compliance-by-numbers that counts.

At the heart of the issue is the fact that common sense goes out of the window when regulation comes in. And informed sources warn that the SRA code simply reflects a new set of RVAR which the DETR intends to introduce for refurbished vehicles. Which means that the industry has to stand up and be counted if is does not want to be stultified by paperwork and watch money being wasted.

All together now

What's the sensible alternative to mindless regulation? Well, Systems Authorities are very flavour of the month, so why not an ‘RVAR Class Authority' for each design which would be responsible for agreeing the optimum refurbishment solutions?

Each Authority would have as members the Train owner, Train Operator, the SRA, DPTAC and the DETR's Joint Mobility Unit. I say owner and operator singular but where, say, two ROSCOs own the same design both could be represented or one could be nominated as the lead owner.

Similarly, a group like National Express with several train operating companies running Class 158 diesel multiple units might nominate one manager to the Authority. DPTAC, too, might have Class specialists too. A class 317 user might also be on the Class 321 Authority

Another advantage of the Authority is that its first task would be to determine the existing degree of RVAR compliance and list ‘non-compliances' in descending order of importance in terms of accessibility based on feedback would be sought from existing disabled users.

I guess that installing compliant toilets would be the top priority. Here the Authority would be able to encourage economy of scale by agreeing a standard module. There might have to be some give and take and I would hope that involvement in the real world might result in less binary behaviour.

Then, the cost of meeting RVAR standards as closely as practicable could be discussed by the Class Authority in the light of the owners and operators' plans for overhaul and refurbishment. Additional costs could be built into franchise business plan.

A plan for enhancing disability provision within each fleet could then be prepared. This plan would include what was affordable, when the work could be scheduled, the likely cost, any effects on other fleets and so on.

While the RVAR would be the guiding light, the Authority would have the right to implement non-compliant solutions to prevent the best being the enemy of the good. Where the way forward was disputed, the Authority could commission research or obtain costings of alternative solutions.

These cross-industry Authorities would also make a considerable contribution to the on-going work on future disability provision, would spread best practice and could act as a focus for customer feedback.

Compare this inclusive approach with the SRA having to decide on what is reasonably practicable. For a start, the SRA would have to develop some form of weighting to determine which RVAR retrofits have the biggest passenger benefit. And then hold the ring between train operators and the disability groups.

Hypocrisy

So there were are, a choice between confrontation or co-operation with Ford on the side of the angels.

Meanwhile, according to the RVAR, doors ‘should be rendered to contrast with the exterior of the vehicle'. That means painted, not pebble dashed.

Virgin wanted their new trains to be all-over silver, including the doors. Working with some extremely helpful, disability experts and Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate, the solution was the silver on silver stripes on the Voyager and Pendolino doors which satisfy the aesthetes and RVAR.

Now at a Disability conference in December 1999 I pointed out to Ann Frye, Head of the DETR's Mobility Unit that GNER's all over blue ‘stealth bombers' didn't have contrasting doors.

‘How nice to see Modern Railways more draconian than us', she replied. But when GNER introduced the Eurostars they were all over blue too. And my local operator WAGN has been running Class 313s in all over light battleship grey for months, if not years.

Now wouldn't you think that if the DETR was serious about disability issues, my tip-off would have been followed by a friendly word with Chris Garnett and the Prince of Customer Service would have undoubtedly obliged.

And wouldn't you think that someone at the DETR would be responsible for keeping an eye on liveries and might have asked WAGN when those Class 313s might get a top coat?

No? you wouldn't? You mean you think that doing something that would really help the disabled today is less important than harrying manufacturers over passenger information displays that are 3mm too small because they were specified before the RVAR was finalised? Such cynicism.