Return to Archive -by date - by topic.
A court judgement displays common sense on disabled access – but naturally the HSE prevents the common sense solution to the problem
While the issue of an end date by which all passenger rail vehicles should meet the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR) is going through consultation (Informed Sources Date), railway managers and the SRA should be more concerned about what will happens in October.
From 1 October, Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) requires that those who provide a service to the public will have to consider removing or adapting any physical barriers that make it difficult for disabled people to receive a service, or else decide to provide the service in a different way.
This is a massive challenge for railways. Many stations were built in Victorian times, when mobility was not an issue, and are often listed buildings. A case in point is Thetford station in Norfolk , a Grade 2 listed building with two platforms connected by a listed footbridge.
At Thetford, both platforms have level access, bot unly the platformt served by trains from Norwich can be approached from the town centre. To get to the Norwich bound platform without using the footbridge, involves a half mile schlep over some wheelchair unfriendly roads.
So the Disability Rights Commission, the government funded militant wing of the mobility movement, backed a test case brought against train operator Central Trains at Thetford. Before we go on, please note that what follows is not a criticism of the DRC.
It has a job to do and, just as this column's tutelary hero Jackie Fisher remarked that ‘moderation in war is imbecility', so the DRC must push its case to the max. Until Stephen Hawking can travel from by rail Cambridge to anywhere in Britain , la lutte continua.
But, equally this means that the railway should not be embarrassed to challenge demands which it sees as unreasonable or extreme or uneconomic, especially when, compared to other modes, railways are seen as a soft touch. So any criticism is aimed at the railway organisations who have been, and remain, afraid to appear politically incorrect and all too often pay the Danegeld. And the Dane always comes back for more.
So back to Thetford where Mr Keith Roads arrived at the town side platform in a wheel chair and demanded a taxi for transfer to the other platform so that he could travel to Norwich. Unfortunately, there were no taxi-vehicle regulation compliant taxis in Thetford able to take a wheelchair.
To provide a suitable cab, one would have had to be called from Norwich at a cost of £45. This Central trains declined to do. Instead, the TOC offered the alternative of travelling by train to Ely, where there is level transfer between platforms, and returning to Norwich . This would add just over an hour to the journey time.
From the DRC point of view this was a perfect test case, and they supported Mr Roads. But in his judgement, delivered at Norwich County Court on 6 May, His Honour Judge O'Brien agreed with Central Trains that it was unreasonable to expect them to pay the cost of an accessible taxi from Norwich and that the option of travelling via Ely was reasonable in the circumstances.
Now we get to the interesting bit. The DRC's counsel asked for leave to appeal on the grounds that the judge may not have taken into account the ‘societal nature' of the DDA sufficiently in reaching his judgement. This was refused and the DRC had 14 days to make an application to the appeal court to have an appeal granted.
Note that ‘societal', also beloved of the Health and Safety Executive. ‘Societal' is the weaseller's weasel word, rolled out to justify expenditure which is not supported by cost benefit analysis. Thus ‘Societal concern' over multi fatality accidents was supposed to justify the now discredited 2.8 times multiplier of the railways Value per Prevented Fatality.
Agnes Fletcher, Communications Director at the DRC played the ‘societal' card when she commented after the case ‘The court today has said that it is unreasonable for Central Trains to pay the cost of Keith's cab fare because there isn't an accessible cab company in Thetford. Yet it's reasonable for Keith to travel to Norwich via Ely – a round trip of 55 miles taking one hour and 45 minutes, where for others it's a 30 mile round trip taking 30 minutes. I leave it to the public to decide what's reasonable'.
But forget the rhetoric, what the Thetford case highlights is the disproportionate expectations of the railway. While I imagine that many more people use taxis than trains at Thetford, there was no wheelchair accessible taxi available.
It gets worse. Section 36 of the DDA (dealing with the Taxi Vehicle Accessibility Regulations) has not yet come into force, unlike the RVAR. Even when it is enacted, it will not cover taxis outside major metropolitan areas or tourist attractions. So beating up the railways is clearly a displacement activity.
Also worrying is the fact that at the hearing, neither Central Trains Disabled Persons Protection Policy (DPPP), nor the SRA's Code of Practice for Train and station services for disabled passengers were considered of any value to the case. And, according to those involved, the Strategic Rail Authority was noticeable by its absence.
Remember that when the SRA launched the Code of Practice in February 2002, said that it would be reviewing all train operators' DPPPs. Following the case one informed sources described the DPPP as ‘a complete waste of time'.
Despite the decision, the case could yet have significant implications for franchising policy and costs. The judge considered that the train operator had a responsibility for access to the station even in areas of public highway outside leased station area.
And did the DRC in its eagerness go off at half cock? Had they waited until October they would surely have had a stronger case. According to Ms Fletcher, Part 3 of the DDA will mean that Central Trains will have to consider whether they are taking sufficient steps to ensure that disabled commuters are able to travel to Norwich .
She added, ‘I would expect Central Trains to have carried out a full access audit to determine what improvements they plan to make at Thetford Station. The DRC will certainly be making a return trip to Thetford to see whether this has been done'.
Clearly the reported ineffectiveness of the operator's DPPP and the SRA Code of Practice means that train operators and Network Rail must now concentrate on the DDA itself plus the Code of Practice produced by the DRC. And unless handled robustly, the cost could be considerable.
Keith's experiences typify the appalling level of service that disabled people endure every day when trying to use transport. Agnes Fletcher, Communications Director, DRC May 6 2004 |
Now I bet readers have been bouncing up and down during this saga shouting ‘what about a barrow crossing'? Well, the bad news is that the barrow crossing between the platform ends was removed in 1994. The good news is that Railway Group Standards include provision for a new type of ‘station foot crossing' which requires less protection than a barrow crossing.
Such a crossing would, of course, benefit a large number of travellers, from mums with buggies to the elderly who find the stairs a struggle. So Central Trains carried out a safety assessment.
This showed that since the station is on a curve the necessary 20 seconds sighting time for a new crossing could not be met. No problem! All you need is a pair of wicket gates controlled from the permanently manned signalbox. A button on each gate would sound a buzzer in the box which would alert the signalman who would release the gates when it was safe to cross.
This proposal was submitted to HMRI and Network Rail who rejected it out of hand.