Hitachi trains grounded

[TomScrut]

Just now, jamie92208 said:

As far as I onow the various disabilty groups have been asking for a simpke mevganical lock on accessible loos for years.

 

Jamie

 

That's interesting as I thought it would be more difficult to reach a lock that is in a position due to its purpose. A button can be anywhere. I aren't disabled though so I am only assuming the difference in accessibility.

 

1 minute ago, TomScrut said:

Saying that there is a practical advantage on a disabled loo in my opinion as the buttons can be more accessible.

 

Hence why I said that!

[Hobby]

I'd agree, Tom, which is why most new disabled toilets tend to have buttons rather than manual locks. I don't know which disabled groups have been campaigning for manual locks, though, none that I know of? Often the buttons for operating the doors can be found near to the toilet itself rather than by the door, it all depends on the design of the toilet space itself. The biggest issue we find with disabled loos is there "secondary use" as storage places, especially in pubs and hotels, and them not being locked allowing non disabled people to use them which invariably results in them being misused, again pubs and hotels being the worst culprits.

[boxbrownie]

8 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

In fairness that has been a thing way before IETs came on the scene. I believe it was the case on the refurbished mk4s on the disabled loos for example. Saying that there is a practical advantage on a disabled loo in my opinion as the buttons can be more accessible.

 

The other aspect of this is what the legals are on it. I don't design trains so I don't know the rules but heights and positions of stuff like door handles/locks/buttons will be set by the regs.

But why is it then that every disabled toilet I ever use has easily accessible mechanical locks/bolts........except on trains?

[Mike_Walker]

I have a "thing" about IET loo doors!  On my first trip on one, only a week after their introduction, the TM told me how she was involved in an embarrassing incident on Day 1.  She went to press the main door opening button (this is in the Driving First) which is to the left of the door but being right handed she instinctively pressed the button on the right hand side of the door.  This, you've guessed it, is for the loo and sadly it opened to reveal an occupant on the throne.  They'd gone in, pressed close but not lock!

 

A few days later a friend, a GWR retiree, got locked inside an IET loo and it required the attention of a sHitachi fitter to free him!

 

I'm an unashamed fan of the KISS doctrine.

[boxbrownie]

2 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I'd agree, Tom, which is why most new disabled toilets tend to have buttons rather than manual locks. I don't know which disabled groups have been campaigning for manual locks, though, none that I know of? Often the buttons for operating the doors can be found near to the toilet itself rather than by the door, it all depends on the design of the toilet space itself. The biggest issue we find with disabled loos is there "secondary use" as storage places, especially in pubs and hotels, and them not being locked allowing non disabled people to use them which invariably results in them being misused, again pubs and hotels being the worst culprits.

I have never seen a button locking disabled toilet in anything other than trains, I must be using some very old tech toilets. 😁

[The Stationmaster]

24 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think there is an assumption these days that if something can be done using "new tech", then it should, rather than critically examining what (if any) real advantage it offers over established methods.

 

A truism often ignored is that a high proportion of innovative methodology proves to be transitory, either because it fails to pass muster over the longer term or because something better comes along that displaces it.  

 

John

John - I didn't realise that you'd worked for SNCF😄  They used to be past masters at that sort of thing loudly proclaiming wonderful new developments which were very quietly put to one side once they got into everyday use or when they needed major maintenance attention.

 

23 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

I agree.  Is it really necessary to have all that complicated electronics working the loo door on an IET for example, which regularly seems to fail stopping the whole train, rather than a good old fashioned bolt?  The latter is simple, reliable and costs peanuts.

Or fails preventing you shutting/locking the door because the cant of the track is pushing the door the wrong way. (I thought that one had been solved until I came across it in Cornwall in September).

[woodenhead]

38 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think there is an assumption these days that if something can be done using "new tech", then it should, rather than critically examining what (if any) real advantage it offers over established methods.

 

A bit like part of the American military that has been actively looking at using SpaceX rockets for getting to international incidents quickly.

 

And this is despite the difficulty of having a rocket on permanent standby, having to fuel it very quickly, having to load it whilst in situ on the launch pad with crates of specific dimensions using crane hoists and the little matter of gaining a rocket flightpath to anywhere in the world at short notice, finding a suitable landing spot, being able to unload the rocket, having vehicles to move the contents and then recovering the expensive rocket.

 

Or they could just use a Hercules, a C17 or a C5.

 

Obviously came from the same mind who is also touting rocket trips from one side of the world to the other in 30 minutes.....

[TomScrut]

14 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

But why is it then that every disabled toilet I ever use has easily accessible mechanical locks/bolts........except on trains?

 

That doesn't necessarily make them better than the train ones in terms of accessibility, but as I said before I cannot speak from a disabled persons point of view.

 

28 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

The other aspect of this is what the legals are on it. I don't design trains so I don't know the rules but heights and positions of stuff like door handles/locks/buttons will be set by the regs.

 

But the bottom part of the bit you quoted could well be the reason. I expect the accessibility rules on trains only apply to trains. They may stipulate requirements that are impractical/impossible to apply to the vehicle with a ordinary mechanical lock.

[jamie92208]

IIRCRoger Ford quoted the bit about disability  campaigners  wanting simple mevhanical locks.  Certainly mife wife, who sometimes needs a wheelchair prefers the simple slidi g 9nes. Anything that needs rotating can be difficult if the user has wrist problems.

 

Jamie

[Hobby]

1 minute ago, jamie92208 said:

IIRCRoger Ford quoted the bit about disability  campaigners  wanting simple mevhanical locks.  Certainly mife wife, who sometimes needs a wheelchair prefers the simple slidi g 9nes. Anything that needs rotating can be difficult if the user has wrist problems.

 

Hence the use of buttons which can be used by everyone. These seem to be the current regulations, note both manual and power doors/locks, they have to cater for blind/partially sighted people as well:

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/432/pdfs/uksi_20100432_en.pdf

[boxbrownie]

42 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

That doesn't necessarily make them better than the train ones in terms of accessibility, but as I said before I cannot speak from a disabled persons point of view.

 

 

No but it makes them infinitely more reliable.

[Gwiwer]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

2 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Is it really necessary to have all that complicated electronics working the loo door on an IET for example, which regularly seems to fail stopping the whole train, rather than a good old fashioned bolt?  The latter is simple, reliable and costs peanuts.

Or fails preventing you shutting/locking the door because the cant of the track is pushing the door the wrong way. (I thought that one had been solved until I came across it in Cornwall in September).

I doubt there is one ideal solution which meets the reasonable requirements of everyone able to travel so we are in the position of needing something which is a best-fit for the most-number-of-people.  

 

I accept the need for much larger loo compartments than were once the norm because we now welcome wheelchair users aboard our trains.  But where do things stop?  There is a defined maximum size (700mm wide by 1200mm long) and all-up (user-plus-chair) weight, the latter being 300kgs, for acceptance aboard trains.  The same standards apply to buses and to the increasing number of coaches which are wheelchair accessible.  Yet an increasing number of would-be passengers present themselves in powered mobility scooters which are well outside the maximum dimensions and which might be above the all-up weight limit with the latter being set as the safe-working limit for ramps and allowing for the greatest number of people though not quite all to make use of them.  

 

Complaints have been made by some of these people that the toilet compartments are not big enough.  They are big enough for the 700x1200 size to fully rotate in, to effect transfer between seats and to allow good hygiene accepting that there might be water spillage to the floor - there usually is no matter who is using the hand-basin especially in IETs thanks to the ludicrous shape of the things.  

 

Even I find it frustrating and confusing to have to wait for a curved door to roll right back, enter, locate and operate the "close" button and then to remember there is a separate "Lock" button which must also be operated to avoid embarrassment.  But there is no "Unlock" button so one only has to press "Open" to escape.  It all takes more time than is needed by an average able-bodied person but many trains no longer have any other facility in the name of cramming as many seats in as possible.  More seats means more demand for the (often, other than on IETs, one-and-only) toilet.  There is no contravention of the legislation if a conventional toilet cubicle is also provided elsewhere within the train; there would be a contravention if no fully-accessible facility were provided.  

 

So please may we have a pragmatic approach and consider whether a simple sliding door bolt lock is adequate - or can be made adequate - for the fully-accessible cubicle, can we please have faster door motors on them, and for units with three or more carriages can we please also have a standard cubicle which around 99% of passengers can readily use?

 

And can we, somehow, address the issue of oversize and possibly over-weight mobility scooters aboard public transport?  I am disability-aware and have some professional training in relevant areas and am of the opinion that many (though perhaps not all) of those who now use the larger scooters could use a smaller chair when using public transport.  

 

Otherwise where do we re-draw the lines?  Because doorways will need to be larger, ramps stronger and heavier, waiting areas enlarged, on-board dedicated / shared-use spaces enlarged etc etc.  I would never wish to deny travel to anyone based upon their circumstances.  We are only talking about a small number here.  But they are a very vocal and well-connected number who can sometimes very quickly attract media attention the transport operators do not want.  

[jjb1970]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

I think it's possible to both raise an eyebrow at the electronics etc. whilst also understanding the reasons they're there. I get this quite often whenever I express a rather negative opinion on the way something is now (I'm talking very generally here, not trying to pin this on the particular issue under discussion - it's never an all or nothing). Someone inevitably tries to explain the reasons for it, apparently assuming that I don't know and would have a less negative opinion if I did.

 

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position. Especially if it is speaking as an enthusiast. There's often a tendency to confuse'better' and 'nicer', but the two words are not synonyms. However in a professional context especially people should recognise that what they like may not be what is best. I used to get all sorts of complaining about electronic controlled engines with common rail fuel systems (these were big engines, much bigger than automotive or railway locomotive engines), that was fine as a preference but then people would start demanding electro-mechanically controlled engines with camshafts and denied the reality that it was not possible to build the engines they really wanted (efficient so lower fuel use) which met emissions regulations and operational flexibility (multi-mapping) without the technology they didn't like.

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think there is an assumption these days that if something can be done using "new tech", then it should, rather than critically examining what (if any) real advantage it offers over established methods.

 

I'm pretty much 100% the opposite of that! To me that feels like  change for the sake of change. I always get a fairly large sense of the ridiculous when I see something more high tech than necessary (not to mention that I often find the end result plain unpleasant).

 

I'm not fundamentally anti-technology, it can do some great things, but I much prefer a world where it's only used when there's a good case for it; personally I always prefer to go the lowest tech way that isn't a PITA, and genuinely find it depressing that the rest of the world is going in the opposite direction (quite literally, I do suffer from depression, largely driven by finding the world very jarring and out of place). Other than for entertainment anyway.

 

edit to add: Not that I'm saying you're wrong (see my next post!), I don't think there's anything wrong with your opinion, it's just a different one to mine.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Reorte

[Gwiwer]

3 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I'm pretty much 100% the opposite of that! To me that feels like  change for the sake of change. I always get a fairly large sense of the ridiculous when I see something more high tech than necessary (not to mention that I often find the end result plain unpleasant).

 

I'm not fundamentally anti-technology

Seconded.  

 

I am of the school which states "Just because we can doesn't always make it right".  You may also transpose "best" for "right" as appropriate. 

[Reorte]

8 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position. Especially if it is speaking as an enthusiast. There's often a tendency to confuse'better' and 'nicer', but the two words are not synonyms. However in a professional context especially people should recognise that what they like may not be what is best. I used to get all sorts of complaining about electronic controlled engines with common rail fuel systems (these were big engines, much bigger than automotive or railway locomotive engines), that was fine as a preference but then people would start demanding electro-mechanically controlled engines with camshafts and denied the reality that it was not possible to build the engines they really wanted (efficient so lower fuel use) which met emissions regulations and operational flexibility (multi-mapping) without the technology they didn't like.

 

Ultimately I take the view of "what we find nice" or "what we like" is the ultimate reason for doing anything, and this includes the regulations we have too. If the end result of a bunch of changes is a world people simply prefer to live in then it's worth doing, if it's not then it isn't, although the long and short terms both need to be considered (e.g. when better tomorrow results in worse in twenty years). Logic, rationale etc. are absolutely needed, because they provide the means of working out how to get there, including recognising when two desires are fundamentally in conflict and how to resolve that best, but they're not guides to what should be a desired end in their own right.

 

Of course different people can have extremely different, incompatible ideas of what is more desirable, but that's the whole point of having a democracy (at the risk of going political). Just as long as people don't start insisting others are somehow objectively wrong for wanting different things.

 

Anyway this is all going off on a very off-topic ramble, sorry about that.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Reorte

[Gwiwer]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

Hence the use of buttons which can be used by everyone. These seem to be the current regulations, note both manual and power doors/locks, they have to cater for blind/partially sighted people as well:

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/432/pdfs/uksi_20100432_en.pdf

There is nothing to prevent a simple slide-bolt having braille added to identify its function.  It should not be beyond the bounds of technology to have a simple system which can identify whether the door is securely locked to a vision-impaired customer.  For example the bolt having been slid across then revealing another piece of braille confirming it is in the locked position.  

[Mike_Walker]

I recently spent the best part of a day "playing" with the GWR IET simulator at Reading.  As part of this, we worked through the whole sequence starting with a "dead and cold" cab to getting the unit ready to go and I was amazed how long it took and how complicated the procedure is unlike the old days of, say, an HST - almost jump in and go by comparison.  My hosts were the first to admit much of the equipment on the IET is overkill and not really necessary in their view.  They just create potential problems.

 

I think part of the problem is that today's designers are too remote and have no experience of actually operating and living with what they create.  There also seems to be a marked lack of consultation during the design phase with the end user who basically has to make the best of what he's given.

 

Remember, the IET was, in effect designed and specified by civil servants, the operators were largely excluded from the procedure.

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

And lest we forget, they didn't always get the "old technology" right. There were a spate of failures of Britannia driving axles during the 1950's, which was tied up I think with the axle centres being hollow.

I think my Tr-ang Brit has solid axles.  So for greater accuracy, perhaps I should replace them which lengths of tubing?

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

IIRCRoger Ford quoted the bit about disability  campaigners  wanting simple mevhanical locks.  Certainly mife wife, who sometimes needs a wheelchair prefers the simple slidi g 9nes. Anything that needs rotating can be difficult if the user has wrist problems.

 

Jamie

Yes, we've noticed that our dog can open doors if the knob is lever shaped, but can't manage to turn round ones. 

I had to change the knob on the door to the railway room to keep her out!

[boxbrownie]

4 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

Hence the use of buttons which can be used by everyone. 

Well both my late Mother and my wife would argue about that, both had/have chronic arthritis/rheumatoid arthritis  and pushing any button is excruciating painful, if it is a “mushroom type” it is often fine as you can use the palm of the hand but using the buttons in the electronic doors in the modern trains is extremely difficult and painful, I have often stood guard outside 😄

 

The old type mechanical locks with the long levers is much easier and without effort usually.

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

I'm pretty much 100% the opposite of that! To me that feels like  change for the sake of change. I always get a fairly large sense of the ridiculous when I see something more high tech than necessary (not to mention that I often find the end result plain unpleasant).

 

I'm not fundamentally anti-technology, it can do some great things, but I much prefer a world where it's only used when there's a good case for it; personally I always prefer to go the lowest tech way that isn't a PITA, and genuinely find it depressing that the rest of the world is going in the opposite direction (quite literally, I do suffer from depression, largely driven by finding the world very jarring and out of place). Other than for entertainment anyway.

 

edit to add: Not that I'm saying you're wrong (see my next post!), I don't think there's anything wrong with your opinion, it's just a different one to mine.

 

I didn't say I liked it! 🙃

[rab]

6 hours ago, rodent279 said:

And lest we forget, they didn't always get the "old technology" right. There were a spate of failures of Britannia driving axles during the 1950's, which was tied up I think with the axle centres being hollow.

Or the idea of doing away with locomotives altogether, and using a vacuum to pull trains over steep inclines, incorporating a material for the vacuum seals which certain rodents found attractive as a dietary supplement

Edited November 16, 2022 by rab

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

Well both my late Mother and my wife would argue about that, both had/have chronic arthritis/rheumatoid arthritis  and pushing any button is excruciating painful, if it is a “mushroom type” it is often fine as you can use the palm of the hand but using the buttons in the electronic doors in the modern trains is extremely difficult and painful, I have often stood guard outside 😄

 

The old type mechanical locks with the long levers is much easier and without effort usually.

 

The buttons on all our doors are the mushroom type and are more suitable for disabled people than old style door handles seen on outer doors on old BR stock or the swivel handles on the toilets in those trains.

 

Just out of interest can someone enlighten me which disabled groups are campaigning for a return to the old style stuff as someone has claimed?

[rodent279]

47 minutes ago, rab said:

Or the idea of doing away with locomotives altogether, and using a vacuum to pull trains over steep inclines, incorporating a material for the vacuum seals which certain rodents found attractive as a dietary supplement

And I guess we ought to remember that once upon a time, the "old technology" was new, and experienced old hands shook their heads and said it'll never work....