Return to Archive -by date - by topic.

INFORMED SOURCES March 2006

Fun and games with accessibility legislation

A new abbreviation enters the disability legislation industry

When (see above) I challenged the 2015 date for HST2 to replace IC125, I offered the alternative of 2020 on the grounds that this was the end date for all rail vehicles to comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR). Whereupon, ATOC Engineering Director Rebeka Sellick, sitting in the row ahead, turned round and gave me a severe look and a shake of the head.

Suitably contrite, I asked later where I had erred. Rebeka explained that while last years revisions to Disability Discrimination Act (DDA 2005) did indeed include a 2020 end date for RVAR compliance by all rail vehicles, European legislation would take precedence.

Yes, yet again, one of the boring subjects you read about only in this column has gone topical. In this case the European Interoperability Directives.

Act

First though, the DDA 2005, which received Royal Assent on April 7 2005 . During the revision process there was extensive consultation with the railway industry and the disability lobby over the RVAR end date issue.

A 2035 end date was favoured by the Rolling Stock Companies since by then pretty well all existing vehicles which are not RVAR compliant would have become life expired and been scrapped. At the other extreme, the Disability Rights Commission grudgingly agreed that 2017 might be acceptable.

For a time, it seemed that DfT favoured the ROSCOs' damage limitation counter offer of 2025. But when the Bill was published it turned out that Ministers had had second thoughts, inasmuch as ministers actually think about these things, and the end date was 2020.

That was not the end of the matter. A Parliamentary Order is needed to bring the rail provision in DDA 2005 into effect.

DfT Rail's Mobility & Inclusion Unit tells me that it will be consulting on the detailed implementation of the rail provisions of the DDA 2005 probably in April. It is expected to propose that the part of the Act dealing with the end date will be commenced by Order on 1 January 2007 .

Directive

But, the European Interoperability Directive, which will take precedence over national legislation, includes the Persons of Reduced Mobility Technical Specification for Interoperability (PRM TSI). This is the European equivalent of the rail section of the DDA and the RVAR

I say ‘takes precedence' but researching this item I found that this was not universally acknowledged. So look for a massive punch-up later in the year when the PRM TSI is translated and comes into effect.

Meanwhile, there are two vital aspects of the PRM TSI in the UK traction and rolling stock context. It does not include an end date for full compliance, but the Interoperability Regulations apply only to new projects and major renewals and upgrades.

Here the key words are ‘major' and ‘upgrades'. If you upgrade an existing traction and rolling stock fleet it must comply with the PRM TSI, but then it can run foreever, even though it may not comply with the RVAR. Or, at least, that is the ATOC interpretation and, through ATOC, Britain has been heavility involved with the PRM TSI, drawing on experience with the RVAR.

One result is that the PRM TSI is objective, where RVAR is subjectiove. For example, where the RVAR talks of ‘colour contrast' and ‘rounded surfaces', the TSI has definitions, resulting in simple pass/fail tests of compliancxe.

In general the PRM TSI is not so prescriptive as the British Regulations. It should come into effect in the Autumn.

Table 1

Long life electric multiple unit fleets

Table 2

Long life DMU fleets

When the PRM TSI is in force, owners of the long-life fleets (Tables 1 & 2) could have an alternative to the expected choice of either funding full RVAR compliance or scrapping. A major upgrade would require compliance with the PRM TSI but could be less expensive than the RVAR option with no loss of payback period.

Note that many of these trains are accessible. The Class 363s, for example have disabled access toilets.

These are wheelchair accessible, but do not comply with the minutiae of the RVAR. In a sane world that would be good enough, but not for the zealots.

For example, one estimate puts the cost of ripping out the Class 365 toilets and replacing them with a RVAR compliant design at around £2million. For that money you could make the up platform at Hitchin, for example, accessible.

Which would benefitr the most people? Sorry, I'm being rational – it will pass.

Life extension

While I have listed only the Networker era fleets, when the ROSCOs were sold, the financial models were based on rental income from the Class 32X York built EMUs continuing to 2023-2024. This represents a nominal 35 year service life.

Under RVAR premature scrapping would probably be the financially prudent approach. But with PRM TSI upgrade and life extension could be viable – depending on the railway's financial situation in 15-20 years time.

Of course, the devil is in the detail. And while the differences between the RVAR and the PRM TSI are minor, in the case of dimensions involving the vehicle structure, the difference could be crucial. It would take only a few millimetres difference in door width between the RVAR and the TSI to avoid uneconomic structural changes and thus make a train worth life extending.

Major

How you define a ‘major upgrade' will be crucial to the use of the PRM TSI for life extension. For example ‘major' could be based on the number of vehicles involved rather than the cost.

And we can be sure that DfT Rail's Mobility & Exclusion Unit and its specialist arm the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, not to mention the Disability Rights Commission, will fight any attempt to exploit the PRM TSI. And on past form we can expect the ROSCOs and the Train Operators to huff and puff, prasie this column for making the issue public – then turn out to be a bunch of politically compliant surrender monkeys.

Spot the difference

Consider, for example, the hard line being taken over SWT's application for an extension of the exemption from RVAR Section 13(7) of the internal passenger information displays in the Class 458 fleet. This exemption expires on 31 July and SWT would like to extend it to the end of 2006 as insurance.

But it looks as though DfT Rail is going to dig its heels in and refuse the application. It is this sort of state-sponsored, mean-spirited petty-minded vindictive approach that gets disability provision a bad name.

What is the casus bellum? Because the Class 458s were specified and designed before the bumbling bureaucrats could produce the final version of the RVAR, the internal display lettering is 32mm high. The RVAR calls for 35mm high lettering.

Yep, DfT Rail is prepared to go to war over 3mm. And if they really say ‘no', the only people who will suffer will be the passengers who will be short of cover if Class 450 availability dips.

Continues.........