DDA 2005 Rights and obligations

DDA 2005Rights and obligations Roger Ford CMILT Industry & Technology Editor Modern Railways www.alycidon.com

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ________________________________________________ 1998 No. 2456 DISABLED PERSONS TRANSPORT The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 Made 5th October 1998 Laid 9th October 1998 Coming into force 1st November 1998 Explication du texte

Explication du texte 13 (7) The first letter of, and numbers used in, announcements on visual systems shall be not less than 70 millimetres high on systems on the front of the vehicle and not less than 35 millimetres high on other systems, and all letters and numbers shall contrast with their background. (8) A word on a visual system shall not be written in capital letters only. (9) Visual announcements inside the passenger saloon shall be visible from the majority of passenger seats (including priority seats) in that saloon

Class 458 Juniper EMU • Ordered May 13 1997 • First train delivered October 31 1998 • Accepted February 23 2000 • Into service February 25 2000 • RVAR exemption 2001 • Renewed September 30 2004 • Expires July 31 2006 • Extension requested to February 4 2007 (End of current franchise)

Why a further extension? Class 458 unreliability resulted in SWT adopting the Siemens Desiro for its Mk 1 stock replacement fleet. Class 458 to be returned to leasing company but retained short-term to cover for Desiro shortfall. Up to eight Class 458 used in peak hours on Winsor lines to avoid running short formations and exacerbating overcrowding

SWT submission “The alternative to not having the Class 458s as a contingency for unit problems would be that SWT might, on occasions, have to run Desiros in shorter formations. This could lead to further over-crowding on some peak-services”.

3mm difference RVAR 13(7) and not less than 35 millimetres high on other systems Class 458 Pre RVAR lettering on Passenger Information Displays 32mm high

Real life “Justifying the withdrawal of these trains on the basis of 3mm shortfall in the letter height on the internal information systems might be difficult, especially as this shortfall would have no discernible impact on journey quality for the majority of passengers”. SWT submission

Acommonsensedecision In the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying Exemption SI 2004 no.2149, (the first extension) the Department stated that the Secretary of State decided to grant the application, “because evidence from the use of vehicles shows the potential impact on disabled users of vehicles is negligible””.

DPTAC’s issues “In making our recommendations, DPTAC has considered the application in terms of its implications and effect on disabled passengers. In this context the passenger information system display is unsatisfactory in three respects. Firstly the height of the lettering on the visual announcement is non-compliant. Secondly, the colour contrast is poorer than that which is recommended. Thirdly, there is a lack of descending and ascending letters on the display. Taken together, these factors could make it difficult for rail users with sight impairments or learning difficulties to distinguish the words”.

DPTAC’s conclusion • “DPTAC therefore recommends that the exemption extension request be declined, as not being in the interests of disabled rail users. DPTAC recommends that the Department for Transport asks that South West Trains Ltd and Porterbrook Leasing, the owners of the vehicles, consider whether they can come to an arrangement to make the vehicles compliant for the remainder of their operating life”.

The Minister decides “The purpose of the exemption regime generally is to allow time for non-compliant units to run in service while work to rectify non-compliances can take place rather than to allow them to operate in perpetuity. The exemption for the Class 458's has already been extended once before and having considered carefully your application and consulted with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), the Minister has decided not to grant a further extension” Letter to SWT

Outcomes • All passengers on Windsor Lines at risk of greater overcrowding because lettering is 3mm too small (thickness of two 5p pieces). • Disabled passengers suffer most from overcrowding. • DPTAC have got it ‘precisely wrong’ when the Transport Secretary got it ‘approximately right’ the first time. • The trains will go into store pending a new long term user BUT

Does it matter? The shadow of 2020 Long life pre RVAR trains to be RVAR compliant About 1000 vehicles affected Cost of compliance for 5-10 years’ life high Average of £50,000 per vehicle Door buttons £30,000 per mm for a fleet Class 458 a warning

Tolerance needed While it is easy to design fully compliant new trains, bringing existing trains up to exact compliance is expensive. Money needs to be focused on what matters A tolerance of +/- 5% of minor details such as handle location would avoid uneconomic work. Precisely wrong versus Approximately right

DDA 2005 Rights and obligations