On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:42:52 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <tg43kq$mh6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:22:34 on Sat, 17 Sep
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 07:55:04 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>0535.htm
>>>>>l
>>>>>
>>>>>Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>
>>>>ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a wheelchair needs
>>>>assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to put them on
>>>>and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>
>>>Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>
>>If access was REALLY important this country would ditch its obsession with
>>bloody double decker buses and use bendy buses or long single deckers as in
>>europe instead which provide far more space for not only wheelchairs but also
>>buggies.
>
>I wonder how often a double-decker bus has so many wheelchairs and
>buggies on board that every able-bodied passenger is forced to go
>upstairs? Even assuming that's impossibly inconvenient for them.

Its more a case of theirs sod all space for wheelchairs and buggies in most
double deckers. Usually enough to get 2 buggies side by side but good luck
getting 2 wheelchairs side by side. And if its a single door only DD then ,
well , I imagine the fun really starts for the disabled.

>>But road space is clearly more important.
>
>Cyclists (an important pressure group) would say it is.

The same cyclists who don't use the cycle lanes built for them no doubt.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:40:12 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tg42qu$4mg6$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:46 on Sat, 17 Sep
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tg3sp1$477b$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:25:21 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>>wheelchair needs
>>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to
>>>>>>put them on
>>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived need for
>>>>> retention toilets.
>>>>
>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>
>>> Whether or not they are so desperately needed you have to ban trains
>>> without them.
>>
>>That's happening anyway. It's already happened with normal service
>>passenger stock, and will soon apply to charter stock, much of which has
>>already been done. Getting rid of drop lights and having mandatory central
>>locking is probably a bigger issue.
>
>Getting back to the immediate issue, do these "Government chartered"
>extra trains have retention toilets?

Why are you so bothered? Perhaps you should travel on them to find out?

Both companies have at least some carriages with chemical toilets, but how could anyone here possibly know if every
carriages in these trains has them, without going on the trains? They won't be breaking any laws if they don't.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a wheelchair needs
>>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to put them on
>>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived need for
>>>>> retention toilets.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite a few WCR Mk 1 carriages now have chemical toilets with an electric
>>> flush button. I'd imagine those would be the ones they'd use on these
>>> trains (I think two rakes are in use today). In any case, WCR trains
>>> frequently run along that route. As far as they're concerned it's just
>>> another charter, organised by a new customer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Just on the subject of the disabled, and also toilets, I note that aircraft
>> are not required to have accessible toilets. In fact many of the ones they
>> do have are barely useable by the able bodied.
>>
>
> Some do have accessible toilets, though. The partition between two cubicles
> in the centre of the plane (ie full height not curved wall) folds away to
> make a bigger space.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>

I never knew that, probably because my flying is largely short haul.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:17:22 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:42:16 +0100
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 17/09/2022 10:22, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 07:55:04 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>> l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>
>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a wheelchair needs
>>
>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to put them on
>>
>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>
>>> If access was REALLY important this country would ditch its obsession with
>>> bloody double decker buses and use bendy buses or long single deckers as in
>>> europe instead which provide far more space for not only wheelchairs but also
>>
>>> buggies. But road space is clearly more important.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Several operators have tied introducing bendy-buses to screams of
>>outrage from the potato-heads who moaned about how un-British they were
>>and not suitable for our towns and cities.
>
>Yes , I know, the chief one being a certain Mr B Johnson. Whatever happened to
>that idiot....

He got on his bike...

On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:42:52 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tg43kq$mh6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:22:34 on Sat, 17 Sep
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 07:55:04 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>0535.htm
>>>>>l
>>>>>
>>>>>Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>
>>>>ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a wheelchair needs
>>>>assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to put them on
>>>>and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>
>>>Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>
>>If access was REALLY important this country would ditch its obsession with
>>bloody double decker buses and use bendy buses or long single deckers as in
>>europe instead which provide far more space for not only wheelchairs but also
>>buggies.
>
>I wonder how often a double-decker bus has so many wheelchairs and
>buggies on board that every able-bodied passenger is forced to go
>upstairs? Even assuming that's impossibly inconvenient for them.

There's usually only space for one or two, regardless of how many able-bodied passengers are travelling on the lower
deck.

On 17/09/2022 11:17, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:42:16 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 17/09/2022 10:22, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 07:55:04 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>> l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>
>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a wheelchair needs
>>
>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to put them on
>>
>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>
>>> If access was REALLY important this country would ditch its obsession with
>>> bloody double decker buses and use bendy buses or long single deckers as in
>>> europe instead which provide far more space for not only wheelchairs but also
>>
>>> buggies. But road space is clearly more important.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Several operators have tied introducing bendy-buses to screams of
>> outrage from the potato-heads who moaned about how un-British they were
>> and not suitable for our towns and cities.
>
> Yes , I know, the chief one being a certain Mr B Johnson. Whatever happened to
> that idiot....
>

you should know, you voted for him.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:14:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tg456r$4smf$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:49:16 on Sat, 17 Sep
>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tg3sp1$477b$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:25:21 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>>wheelchair needs
>>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to
>>>>>>put them on
>>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived need for
>>>>> retention toilets.
>>>>
>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>
>>> Whether or not they are so desperately needed you have to ban trains
>>> without them.
>>
>>Retention toilets are for trackside staff not for passenger accessibility.
>
>Yes, I though everyone (well, you know what I mean) here knew that.

So why are you banging on about it? Whichever type of toilets these old trains have won't affect the passengers, and
both types remain legal in charter trains.

On 17/09/2022 10:49, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 21:39:25 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-194520535.htm
>>>>> l
>>>>>
>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>
>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a wheelchair needs
>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT
>>>
>>> Not necessarily true, particularly in places with level boarding eg trams,
>>> Elizabeth Line core stations, GA services operated by Stadler Flirts.
>>
>> I don't know about GA, but most new tramlines and their trams were built at
>> the same time and there would be no reason not to make them accessible. Ditto
>> the liz line (in the core). That doesn't apply to the mainline railway where
>> lots of still servicable mk3s were pushed aside.
>>
>>
>
> GA Stadler floor height matches the standard UK platform height of 915mm.
> No other new stock matches the platform height, indeed the EL, by having
> non-standard platform height in the core to match the trains, means that it
> will presumably never now be achieved for the whole line.
It's going to be interesting as this commits TfL to manning all their
main line stopping stations to provide ramps when needed.

I travelled on the GA Stadler's quite extensively last week and it is
easy to get used to the level access. Level access noticeably speeds up
boarding and de-boarding.

I was quite a shock when I had to climb onto a train at Colchester
railway station after five days of level access.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:32:15 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 17/09/2022 11:17, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Several operators have tied introducing bendy-buses to screams of
>>> outrage from the potato-heads who moaned about how un-British they were
>>> and not suitable for our towns and cities.
>>
>> Yes , I know, the chief one being a certain Mr B Johnson. Whatever happened
>to
>> that idiot....
>>
>
>you should know, you voted for him.

Hobsons choice given who was in charge of Labour at the time. I'd have voted
for a donkey in a blue rosette while Corbyn was leader.

In message <gr7bih1bomkv2n4so03tr4t3j6iec34rt9@4ax.com>, at 11:22:47 on
Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:40:12 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <tg42qu$4mg6$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:46 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tg3sp1$477b$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:25:21 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>>>wheelchair needs
>>>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to
>>>>>>>put them on
>>>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived need for
>>>>>> retention toilets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not they are so desperately needed you have to ban trains
>>>> without them.
>>>
>>>That's happening anyway. It's already happened with normal service
>>>passenger stock, and will soon apply to charter stock, much of which has
>>>already been done. Getting rid of drop lights and having mandatory central
>>>locking is probably a bigger issue.
>>
>>Getting back to the immediate issue, do these "Government chartered"
>>extra trains have retention toilets?
>
>Why are you so bothered?

Because the circumstances where regulations are waived is a special
interest of mine. Not just to do with trains.

>Perhaps you should travel on them to find out?

Perhaps it's acceptable to ask people who claim to be train geeks and
should know?

>Both companies have at least some carriages with chemical toilets, but
>how could anyone here possibly know if every carriages in these trains
>has them, without going on the trains?

By reading the specialist publications you expensively pay for, perhaps?

>They won't be breaking any laws if they don't.

That's actually what I'm asking about. Maybe they would be (if not
granted a special exemption).
--
Roland Perry

In message <tg472p$1d2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:21:14 on Sat, 17 Sep
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:42:52 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <tg43kq$mh6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:22:34 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 07:55:04 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>0535.htm
>>>>>>l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>>for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>
>>>>>ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a wheelchair needs
>>>>>assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to put them on
>>>>>and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>
>>>>Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>
>>>If access was REALLY important this country would ditch its obsession with
>>>bloody double decker buses and use bendy buses or long single deckers as in
>>>europe instead which provide far more space for not only wheelchairs but also
>>>buggies.
>>
>>I wonder how often a double-decker bus has so many wheelchairs and
>>buggies on board that every able-bodied passenger is forced to go
>>upstairs? Even assuming that's impossibly inconvenient for them.
>
>Its more a case of theirs sod all space for wheelchairs and buggies in most
>double deckers. Usually enough to get 2 buggies side by side but good luck
>getting 2 wheelchairs side by side. And if its a single door only DD then ,
>well , I imagine the fun really starts for the disabled.

I don't claim to have done a comprehensive survey, but the no-seats area
in the front half of the lower floor of many I have seen, has expanded a
lot the last decade or so.

>>>But road space is clearly more important.
>>
>>Cyclists (an important pressure group) would say it is.
>
>The same cyclists who don't use the cycle lanes built for them no doubt.

They claim the bendy-buses block the lanes, especially at junctions.
--
Roland Perry

In message <i39bihhdb408ib8fk0ktbagfjba4l7ce19@4ax.com>, at 11:42:58 on
Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:14:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <tg456r$4smf$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:49:16 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tg3sp1$477b$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:25:21 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>>>wheelchair needs assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more
>>>>>>>person required to put them on and get them off a train is
>>>>>>>hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived need for
>>>>>> retention toilets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not they are so desperately needed you have to ban trains
>>>> without them.
>>>
>>>Retention toilets are for trackside staff not for passenger accessibility.
>>
>>Yes, I though everyone (well, you know what I mean) here knew that.
>
>So why are you banging on about it? Whichever type of toilets these
>old trains have won't affect the passengers, and both types remain
>legal in charter trains.

Do try too keep up! The trains here are regular service ones (but with
legacy rolling stock).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tg456r$4smf$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:49:16 on Sat, 17 Sep
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tg3sp1$477b$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:25:21 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>> wheelchair needs
>>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to
>>>>>> put them on
>>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived need for
>>>>> retention toilets.
>>>>
>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>
>>> Whether or not they are so desperately needed you have to ban trains
>>> without them.
>>
>> Retention toilets are for trackside staff not for passenger accessibility.
>
> Yes, I though everyone (well, you know what I mean) here knew that.
>

So why are you conflating it with accessibility on board trains?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 09:49:16 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 21:39:25 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-194520535.htm
>>>>>> l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>
>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a wheelchair needs
>>
>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily true, particularly in places with level boarding eg trams,
>>>> Elizabeth Line core stations, GA services operated by Stadler Flirts.
>>>
>>> I don't know about GA, but most new tramlines and their trams were built at
>>> the same time and there would be no reason not to make them accessible. Ditto
>>
>>> the liz line (in the core). That doesn't apply to the mainline railway where
>>> lots of still servicable mk3s were pushed aside.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> GA Stadler floor height matches the standard UK platform height of 915mm.
>
> Of course the problem with doing that as LU know with the S stock is that
> on curved platforms the train will foul them unless you make the floor
> narrower and hence with an awkward gap on straight platforms.
>

Stadler have a step which slides out to bridge the gap.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:42:52 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tg43kq$mh6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:22:34 on Sat, 17 Sep
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 07:55:04 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>> l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>
>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a wheelchair needs
>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to put them on
>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>
>>> If access was REALLY important this country would ditch its obsession with
>>> bloody double decker buses and use bendy buses or long single deckers as in
>>> europe instead which provide far more space for not only wheelchairs but also
>>> buggies.
>>
>> I wonder how often a double-decker bus has so many wheelchairs and
>> buggies on board that every able-bodied passenger is forced to go
>> upstairs? Even assuming that's impossibly inconvenient for them.
>
> Its more a case of theirs sod all space for wheelchairs and buggies in most
> double deckers. Usually enough to get 2 buggies side by side but good luck
> getting 2 wheelchairs side by side. And if its a single door only DD then ,
> well , I imagine the fun really starts for the disabled.
>
>>> But road space is clearly more important.
>>
>> Cyclists (an important pressure group) would say it is.
>
> The same cyclists who don't use the cycle lanes built for them no doubt.
>
>

Make the cycle lanes quicker, safer and more convenient than the road and
I'll use them (and I do). Make the cycle lanes ridiculous, inconvenient and
unsafe and don't be surprised when we stay in the road.

This particularly applies to 'shared surface'/'shared pavement' and those
of us who like to cycle at 20-25mph where we can, rather than 12mph.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 17/09/2022 12:05, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tg472p$1d2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:21:14 on Sat, 17 Sep
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:42:52 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tg43kq$mh6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:22:34 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 07:55:04 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16
>>>>>>> Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility
>>>>>>> regulations
>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>> wheelchair needs
>>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to
>>>>>> put them on
>>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>
>>>> If access was REALLY important this country would ditch its
>>>> obsession with
>>>> bloody double decker buses and use bendy buses or long single
>>>> deckers as in
>>>> europe instead which provide far more space for not only wheelchairs
>>>> but also
>>>> buggies.
>>>
>>> I wonder how often a double-decker bus has so many wheelchairs and
>>> buggies on board that every able-bodied passenger is forced to go
>>> upstairs? Even assuming that's impossibly inconvenient for them.
>>
>> Its more a case of theirs sod all space for wheelchairs and buggies in
>> most
>> double deckers. Usually enough to get 2 buggies side by side but good
>> luck
>> getting 2 wheelchairs side by side. And if its a single door only DD
>> then ,
>> well , I imagine the fun really starts for the disabled.
>
> I don't claim to have done a comprehensive survey, but the no-seats area
> in the front half of the lower floor of many I have seen, has expanded a
> lot the last decade or so.
>
>>>> But road space is clearly more important.
>>>
>>> Cyclists (an important pressure group) would say it is.
>>
>> The same cyclists who don't use the cycle lanes built for them no doubt.
>
> They claim the bendy-buses block the lanes, especially at junctions.

You only hear about cyclists becasue they are exceptionally vocal.
Bendy buses are a big problem on the UK's congested roads and cause
massive inconvenience and danger to other road users, particularly
pedestrians.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:54:22 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:

>On 17/09/2022 10:49, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 21:39:25 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-194520535.htm
>>>>>> l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>
>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a wheelchair needs
>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily true, particularly in places with level boarding eg trams,
>>>> Elizabeth Line core stations, GA services operated by Stadler Flirts.
>>>
>>> I don't know about GA, but most new tramlines and their trams were built at
>>> the same time and there would be no reason not to make them accessible. Ditto
>>> the liz line (in the core). That doesn't apply to the mainline railway where
>>> lots of still servicable mk3s were pushed aside.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> GA Stadler floor height matches the standard UK platform height of 915mm.
>> No other new stock matches the platform height, indeed the EL, by having
>> non-standard platform height in the core to match the trains, means that it
>> will presumably never now be achieved for the whole line.
>It's going to be interesting as this commits TfL to manning all their
>main line stopping stations to provide ramps when needed.

I think some (not sure how many) of the mainline station platforms have Harrington humps alongside carriage 5, which is
the designated disabled carriage. The stations all have lifts.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:02:15 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <gr7bih1bomkv2n4so03tr4t3j6iec34rt9@4ax.com>, at 11:22:47 on
>Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:40:12 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <tg42qu$4mg6$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:46 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tg3sp1$477b$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:25:21 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>>>>wheelchair needs
>>>>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to
>>>>>>>>put them on
>>>>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived need for
>>>>>>> retention toilets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not they are so desperately needed you have to ban trains
>>>>> without them.
>>>>
>>>>That's happening anyway. It's already happened with normal service
>>>>passenger stock, and will soon apply to charter stock, much of which has
>>>>already been done. Getting rid of drop lights and having mandatory central
>>>>locking is probably a bigger issue.
>>>
>>>Getting back to the immediate issue, do these "Government chartered"
>>>extra trains have retention toilets?
>>
>>Why are you so bothered?
>
>Because the circumstances where regulations are waived is a special
>interest of mine. Not just to do with trains.
>

What regulations have been waived?

>>Perhaps you should travel on them to find out?
>
>Perhaps it's acceptable to ask people who claim to be train geeks and
>should know?

Should know what? The status of every single carriage used by all charter operators? Get real, Roland.

>
>>Both companies have at least some carriages with chemical toilets, but
>>how could anyone here possibly know if every carriages in these trains
>>has them, without going on the trains?
>
>By reading the specialist publications you expensively pay for, perhaps?

You seem to have no idea what they are like.

>
>>They won't be breaking any laws if they don't.
>
>That's actually what I'm asking about. Maybe they would be (if not
>granted a special exemption).

As I've already told you, charter trains still have a dispensation, but not for much longer. The carriages with a longer
mainline life than a couple of years are being, or have been, upgraded. But, as I've also already told you, the central
locking and drop lights are a bigger problem.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:07:10 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <i39bihhdb408ib8fk0ktbagfjba4l7ce19@4ax.com>, at 11:42:58 on
>Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:14:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <tg456r$4smf$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:49:16 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tg3sp1$477b$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:25:21 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>>>>wheelchair needs assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more
>>>>>>>>person required to put them on and get them off a train is
>>>>>>>>hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived need for
>>>>>>> retention toilets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not they are so desperately needed you have to ban trains
>>>>> without them.
>>>>
>>>>Retention toilets are for trackside staff not for passenger accessibility.
>>>
>>>Yes, I though everyone (well, you know what I mean) here knew that.
>>
>>So why are you banging on about it? Whichever type of toilets these
>>old trains have won't affect the passengers, and both types remain
>>legal in charter trains.
>
>Do try too keep up! The trains here are regular service ones (but with
>legacy rolling stock).

No, they are not. They are charters. They wouldn't be able to maintain the scheduled service pattern.

In message <tg4aeg$5aof$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:18:40 on Sat, 17 Sep
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tg456r$4smf$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:49:16 on Sat, 17 Sep
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tg3sp1$477b$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:25:21 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility regulations
>>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>>> wheelchair needs
>>>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to
>>>>>>> put them on
>>>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived need for
>>>>>> retention toilets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not they are so desperately needed you have to ban trains
>>>> without them.
>>>
>>> Retention toilets are for trackside staff not for passenger accessibility.
>>
>> Yes, I though everyone (well, you know what I mean) here knew that.
>
>So why are you conflating it with accessibility on board trains?

It's one of the package of measures which has obsoleted legacy stock.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tg4ai9$5ajk$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:20:41 on Sat, 17 Sep
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 17/09/2022 12:05, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tg472p$1d2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:21:14 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:42:52 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tg43kq$mh6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:22:34 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 07:55:04 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility
>>>>>>>>regulations
>>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>>>wheelchair needs
>>>>>>> assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more person required to
>>>>>>>put them on
>>>>>>> and get them off a train is hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> If access was REALLY important this country would ditch its
>>>>>obsession with
>>>>> bloody double decker buses and use bendy buses or long single
>>>>>deckers as in
>>>>> europe instead which provide far more space for not only
>>>>>wheelchairs but also
>>>>> buggies.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how often a double-decker bus has so many wheelchairs and
>>>> buggies on board that every able-bodied passenger is forced to go
>>>> upstairs? Even assuming that's impossibly inconvenient for them.
>>>
>>> Its more a case of theirs sod all space for wheelchairs and buggies
>>>in most
>>> double deckers. Usually enough to get 2 buggies side by side but
>>>good luck
>>> getting 2 wheelchairs side by side. And if its a single door only DD
>>>then ,
>>> well , I imagine the fun really starts for the disabled.
>> I don't claim to have done a comprehensive survey, but the no-seats
>>area in the front half of the lower floor of many I have seen, has
>>expanded a lot the last decade or so.
>>
>>>>> But road space is clearly more important.
>>>>
>>>> Cyclists (an important pressure group) would say it is.
>>>
>>> The same cyclists who don't use the cycle lanes built for them no doubt.

>> They claim the bendy-buses block the lanes, especially at junctions.
>
>You only hear about cyclists becasue they are exceptionally vocal.
>Bendy buses are a big problem on the UK's congested roads and cause
>massive inconvenience and danger to other road users, particularly
>pedestrians.

That sounds like the same claim as cyclists have about them blocking
junctions. Which only happens if the roads are *so* congested they have
to stop like that.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tg4aeh$5aof$7@dont-email.me>, at 11:18:41 on Sat, 17 Sep
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>Make the cycle lanes quicker, safer and more convenient than the road and
>I'll use them (and I do). Make the cycle lanes ridiculous, inconvenient and
>unsafe and don't be surprised when we stay in the road.
>
>This particularly applies to 'shared surface'/'shared pavement' and those
>of us who like to cycle at 20-25mph where we can, rather than 12mph.

The biggest problem I see is on shared-path rat-runs where cyclists are
permitted to go off-road (and for example across the middle of public
parks), and yet still expect to weave between pedestrians at unsafe
speeds.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tqbbih9vhfr36bctjq6cb9unpbtrtub3ph@4ax.com>, at 12:29:04 on
Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:07:10 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <i39bihhdb408ib8fk0ktbagfjba4l7ce19@4ax.com>, at 11:42:58 on
>>Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:14:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <tg456r$4smf$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:49:16 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg3sp1$477b$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:25:21 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-
>>>>>>>>>>>fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility
>>>>>>>>>>regulations
>>>>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>>>>>wheelchair needs assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more
>>>>>>>>>person required to put them on and get them off a train is
>>>>>>>>>hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived
>>>>>>>>need for
>>>>>>>> retention toilets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether or not they are so desperately needed you have to ban trains
>>>>>> without them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Retention toilets are for trackside staff not for passenger accessibility.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I though everyone (well, you know what I mean) here knew that.
>>>
>>>So why are you banging on about it? Whichever type of toilets these
>>>old trains have won't affect the passengers, and both types remain
>>>legal in charter trains.
>>
>>Do try too keep up! The trains here are regular service ones (but with
>>legacy rolling stock).
>
>No, they are not. They are charters.

Do the public have to buy the tickets off the charter-operator (Network
Rail) direct?

>They wouldn't be able to maintain the scheduled service pattern.

I expect we'll find they do the best they can to keep up with a
scheduled service pattern, perhaps temporarily modified for the
occasion.

A bit like the Kings Lynn-London services which are currently operating
systemically behind schedule because of the drought-induced track
defects in Norfolk.

Incidentally, I gave up monitoring that "because of events", but it was
originally forecast to go back to the normal service on Monday.

But just to show I was right when invoking "Roland's Law" a fortnight
ago, it's been postponed by a full week at least:

NRES: "Great Northern are currently having to run an amended timetable
between London Kings Cross and Ely / Kings Lynn. This will be
ongoing until at least 25 September."

And just to press the point home, they have never been achieving the
amended timetable. Which they have declined to re-amend to the reality
of the situation.

eg This morning is typical (12 mins late):

<https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-
nr:78982/2022-09-17/detailed>

But not so late as to miss the connection to the Thameslink Brighton
service which replaces the continued-to-be-cancelled Cruiser to Kings
Cross at about that time on the clockface.
--
Roland Perry

In message <qhbbihd3ifsnnn63f4nddgv2kpse3u1cqm@4ax.com>, at 12:28:07 on
Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:02:15 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <gr7bih1bomkv2n4so03tr4t3j6iec34rt9@4ax.com>, at 11:22:47 on
>>Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:40:12 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <tg42qu$4mg6$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:46 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg3sp1$477b$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:25:21 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility
>>>>>>>>>>regulations for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>>>>>wheelchair needs assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more
>>>>>>>>>person required to put them on and get them off a train is
>>>>>>>>>hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived
>>>>>>>>need for retention toilets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether or not they are so desperately needed you have to ban trains
>>>>>> without them.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's happening anyway. It's already happened with normal service
>>>>>passenger stock, and will soon apply to charter stock, much of which has
>>>>>already been done. Getting rid of drop lights and having mandatory central
>>>>>locking is probably a bigger issue.
>>>>
>>>>Getting back to the immediate issue, do these "Government chartered"
>>>>extra trains have retention toilets?
>>>
>>>Why are you so bothered?
>>
>>Because the circumstances where regulations are waived is a special
>>interest of mine. Not just to do with trains.
>
>What regulations have been waived?

The ones to do with accessibility and other requirements on service
trains.

>>>Perhaps you should travel on them to find out?
>>
>>Perhaps it's acceptable to ask people who claim to be train geeks and
>>should know?
>
>Should know what? The status of every single carriage used by all
>charter operators? Get real, Roland.

It's about rakes, not carriages. Perhaps you missed the thing where lots
of HST rakes were taken out of service (but only after the regs were
waived to extend their service life) on account of no longer being
compliant.

--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:52:02 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tqbbih9vhfr36bctjq6cb9unpbtrtub3ph@4ax.com>, at 12:29:04 on
>Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:07:10 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <i39bihhdb408ib8fk0ktbagfjba4l7ce19@4ax.com>, at 11:42:58 on
>>>Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:14:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <tg456r$4smf$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:49:16 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tg3sp1$477b$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:25:21 on Sat, 17 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <tg1v9i$ucd$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:56:02 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:38:03 +0100
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tg1som$1lis$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:12:54 on Fri, 16 Sep
>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-steps-charter-old-
>>>>>>>>>>>>fashioned-19452
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0535.htm
>>>>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just shows that one can disregard decades of accessibility
>>>>>>>>>>>regulations
>>>>>>>>>>> for public service trains at the stroke of a pen.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ITYM it disregards decades of nonsense wokery. Anyone in a
>>>>>>>>>>wheelchair needs assistance anyway to navigate PT so one more
>>>>>>>>>>person required to put them on and get them off a train is
>>>>>>>>>>hardly going to make much difference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apart from the fact that wheelchair users are not the main target for
>>>>>>>>> most of the features (they just get most of the publicity) they are
>>>>>>>>> pretty much self-sufficient on buses these days, and can be on trains
>>>>>>>>> designed to be level alongside platforms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They while not a disability issue itself, there's the perceived
>>>>>>>>>need for
>>>>>>>>> retention toilets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perceived? What point are you making here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether or not they are so desperately needed you have to ban trains
>>>>>>> without them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Retention toilets are for trackside staff not for passenger accessibility.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, I though everyone (well, you know what I mean) here knew that.
>>>>
>>>>So why are you banging on about it? Whichever type of toilets these
>>>>old trains have won't affect the passengers, and both types remain
>>>>legal in charter trains.
>>>
>>>Do try too keep up! The trains here are regular service ones (but with
>>>legacy rolling stock).
>>
>>No, they are not. They are charters.
>
>Do the public have to buy the tickets off the charter-operator (Network
>Rail) direct?

It's irrelevant. The trains are operated by LSL and WCR. It doesn't matter who acts as the agent selling the tickets.

>
>>They wouldn't be able to maintain the scheduled service pattern.
>
>I expect we'll find they do the best they can to keep up with a
>scheduled service pattern, perhaps temporarily modified for the
>occasion.

It won't be anything like the normal Pendo schedules. WCR is apparently now using Les Ross, rather than a class 47, but
it'll struggle to reach 100mph, and won't exceed it. LSL is using an ex-GA 90, so might perform a little better