London Midland - Cycle Logos (an update)

[domd1979]

Thanks.

Do they still do the Parry People Mover?

PPM is due to enter service on Stourbridge Town branch, though there's been a slight delay with delivery so a bus replacement will operate from the start of the new timetable - but hopefully not for long!

 

[FBOAB]

Yes, two new ones to be exact. They are to be one bay longer than the one used in the trial but still with only one wheelchair pace at one end (with tip up seats in the wheelchair space). The first was on trial running at the Chasewater Railway a few weks ago.

 

[FBOAB]

Did some work on build of the new ones last year (got peed off with being paid £6 an hour for what ended up as a project managers job and left in the end - bad move). Right idea using hybrid technology but just a bit too rustic and 'home spun' for the western market in my opinion.

 

[domd1979]

Have had clarification on the logo business - quite a detailed one - I'll elaborate later when I've properly waded through it all so I can summarise it...

 

[domd1979]

No probs. Here's how I understand the situation...

The advice stems from the interpretation of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR) 1998 which goes into a lot of detail on the standards new trains must meet. RVAR is viewable at http://www.dft.gov.uk/transportfory...ccessibilityregulations19986140?page=19#a1176

RVAR is also discussed in the cycle policy document published by the SRA (when it existed): http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/dftbikeandrailpolicydocument

RVAR in effect creates a watershed at 1998. Different rules can in effect be applied to non-RVAR compliant stock (this includes London Midland's 323s used mainly on Cross City Line). Anything after 1998 (e.g. London Midland's new 350s) absolutely have to be fully RVAR compliant. The interpretation of RVAR suggests that wheelchair space is for wheelchairs only and should not be signed for anything else. On pre-RVAR trains the wheelchair accommodation that is used for bicycles is termed "flexible use" space.

Stemming from RVAR, therefore, is the advice that:
- Cycle logos can only be used on RVAR stock, or stock refurbished to RVAR standards, where there is separate wheelchair and bicycle accommodation provided.
- Cycle logos can be used on non-RVAR vehicles in relation to the "flexible use space" - but from an accessibility view point the preferred approach would be to not use logos.
- Cycle logos should not be used on the exterior of RVAR compliant vehicles where only a wheelchair space is provided - nor should interior signage imply the space is for the use of anyone else.

It appears to have been noted that not all TOCs are following advice.

Hope that explains a bit more. I'd prefer not to be quoted on the subject, though I understand it has been explained to the CTC and other user groups who have enquired.

Thanks for taking the time with this dom.

 

[domd1979]

There's a statement that both external and internal signage should not create the impression that designated wheelchair areas are for the use of other groups of customers. I guess that if you have the cycle and wheelchair bit opposite each other the advice gets a bit ambiguous since it could perhaps be argued the external signage could create that impression.

Thanks for that. The bit in bold is the interesting part for me. The 323s have 6, flip-up seats in the carriage in question. That's room for probably 4 bikes (5 at a push, or a similar number of wheelchairs.

Is this suggesting then that if these spaces on each side of the carriage had different sole designation, then we'd be ok and could stick a bike sign on the door with the wheelchair? If so, that seems daft.

BTW I'm not out to shoot the messanger.