New Generation Rollingstock

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

21st May 2017

New Generation Rollingstock - it gets worse sadly ...

Good Morning,

Yesterday it was apparently confirmed that the New Generation Rollingstock trains because of the design and disability issues will require two customer service officers to manage safety and impaired mobility access issues.

[ https://twitter.com/InclusionMoves/status/865749168446251008 ]

In the light of this we put forward these questions.

A series of questions for the Deputy Premier and her staff:

Recently the LNP accused you of having to resort to 'secret taxes' to fund the Cross River Rail project.  Can your office please calculate the 'hidden tax' the LNP imposed on the people of Queensland when it, and the then Transport Minister, Mr Scott Emerson, signed off on the design specifications for NGR trains without adequate provision for a guard's cab or for people with a disability to gain easy access to the trains and to manoeuvre on board in access corridors, vestibules and toilet spaces according to the provisions of the DDA?

The 'hidden tax' for the next 35 years should include the cost of any modifications to reinstate a central-position guards compartment and the wages of an additional two staff required to act as 'customer liaison officers' to assist people with a disability while the trains are in operational service and over the life of the NGR train sets.

What is the total number of crew required to operate each NGR train as delivered? Is it three or four as was suggested above? It does seem that besides the train driver and guard there will two additional train crew - customer service officers.

How long will it take to hire these extra crew members and will they be trained and in place by the start of the Commonwealth Games?

Will the four-person crew arrangement apply only to the 15 trains currently in Queensland or to the entire 75-train NGR fleet?  Or will there be modifications to the remaining 60 train sets yet to be delivered in order to correct this situation?  What is the estimated extra cost of those modifications for Bombardier, the Queensland Government - the taxpayers of this state?

Compared with the operational and running costs of an average suburban train on the QR passenger network, can you express as a percentage the additional operating costs of NGR trains with four crew, instead of the normal two.  For example, is this additional cost an extra 40 per cent, or some other figure?  What is that figure, expressed as a percentage?

What is the figure when the operating costs of these trains are compared with the benchmark figure for the average train operating costs across other Australian jurisdictions that provide PT train services?

Will the extra two staff have additional duties to perform apart from assisting people with a disability, such as checking tickets/go-cards or cleaning the trains.  Where will they be employed within the QR/TransLink structure?

Will there be a reduction in the number of roving security personnel or Senior Network Officers, to accommodate four-person crews on NGR trains?  What powers will the NGR customer support officers have?

What liaison has gone on with the unions regarding this move and do the unions approve of this solution?

Will the employment of an additional two staff on NGR trains mean that there will be staff cutbacks in other areas, such as reduction of station staff on the network, or curtailment of work hours for existing employees?

Can you also give a guarantee that the additional cost of operating four-person crews on NGR trains won't result in a scaling back of the roll out of new infrastructure and line expansion, such as extension of the Springfield Line to Redbank Plans, or the duplication of the Sunshine Coast Line?

What happens if one person within a four-person NGR crew cannot turn up for work due to sickness or some other legitimate reason?  Will the train be delayed/cancelled for 'operational reasons'?  Or will there be sufficient relief crew to plug the staffing gaps?

With the government now apparently deciding that there will be four-person crews for NGR trains, will Bombardier be paid for the 15 trains delivered so far and will the delivery of the rest of the NGR trains resume?

Has this sad episode caused your government to reconsider the manufacture of future new trains overseas and can we see a resumption of local manufacture of future train sets?

What administrative procedures do you have in place to retrospectively identify chain of command and other oversight issues, and by whom, to uncover any incompetence or political interference in the NGR design and ordering process?

Will you now change the situation where TMR staff are involved in these matters, with QR kept at arm's length?  Does this sorry situation require that there be a restructure of TMR/TransLink and the formation of a Queensland Public Transport Commission or Authority, similar to the body that administers Western Australia's PT - the WA Public Transport Authority?

Will you refer the NGR design, order and administration arrangements to the Queensland Auditor-General for full scrutiny?

When seeking federal funding for Queensland for PT infrastructure, will you now argue a 'special case' for this state, requiring greater levels of funding, to cover the additional costs that now will be incurred?

What is the effect of the additional crewing costs for NGR trains operating through the CRR tunnel and the likely modifications to the NGR trains on the  Business Case for the $5.4b CRR project and how will the BCR be impacted?  Will the BCR drop below 1:1?

Thank you.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Media: New Generation Rollingstock - it gets worse sadly ...
Questions for @jackietrad & staff
> https://t.co/B6S8EeeM02#qldpol #NGRfail pic.twitter.com/FWYq9dodSc

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 20, 2017

^

@jackietrad @TMRQld @N_Scales_TMR @AnnastaciaMP @Curtis_Pitt_MP @QLDLabor @LNPQLD @AndrewPowellMP @brisbanetimes @JoAnnMillerMP We have a major crisis now within PT in QLD#railfail #NGRfail #RPLfail #CRRfail
Confident @SmartState1 & @katejonesqld ?
Me neither#qldpol pic.twitter.com/DgZXCcEGxu

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 20, 2017

^

@jackietrad @TMRQld @N_Scales_TMR @AnnastaciaMP @Curtis_Pitt_MP @QLDLabor @LNPQLD @AndrewPowellMP @brisbanetimes @JoAnnMillerMP Time the bumblers and fumblers were given the shunt.
Get some staff that have their collective acts together.
Enough of mediocrity!#qldpol

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 20, 2017

[Arnz]

Speaking of two CSO's per train. Perhaps QR could give that job to their Authorised Officers unit.  Give them a job to do rather than have them hang around at Roma Street twiddling their thumbs when they're not accompanying QPS rail squad on revenue protection.

[ozbob]

The sad fact is that the NGR trains even with additional staff for Disability access are non compliant.
It is physically impossible in their present configuration to enable disability access as required under the act.
The first deficiency is that it is not possible with a standard size wheelchair to access the toilet module and turn around to be able to exit the module
The second problem is that there is insufficient room inside the module to transfer from a wheelchair on to or off the toilet.
The third problem is that there is insufficient space between the outer wall of the toilet and the gangway between the carriage to enable a standard wheelchair to move between carriage 3 and carriage 4, this is a potential safety risk.
These failures are another of the growing list of rail rfails largely due to the TMR having control of project lacking expertise in rail.
The problems with the NGR trains can be readily rectified by moving the toilet module away from the end wall of the carriage which would clear the gangway between carriages.
Rebuilding the toilet module making it both deeper and wider which would provide more internal room to manoeuvre a wheelchair inside the module.
These are not major changes and can be readily made during the construction of the remaining trains prior to their shipping to this country, the 15 trains that are already here could no doubt be modified here if not at the Bombardier facility at Wulkuraka  then at the Downer plant at Maryborough.
It would be political suicide if the Minister and her spin merchants do nothing to make these trains compliant and on placing them into service find that they have to withdraw them from service because of legal action brought about by one of the disability groups due to their noncompliance.

Thanks for these comments mufreight ...

[tazzer9]

Could someone please explain why we need an extra 2 crew but sydney does not.  Despite them have bigger DDA problems?
Why are we making issues about the guard being at the back when its at best a minor inconvenience?

[ozbob]

Could someone please explain why we need an extra 2 crew but sydney does not.  Despite them have bigger DDA problems?
Why are we making issues about the guard being at the back when its at best a minor inconvenience?

Not really sure, that is why we are asking.

Guards being at the rear would not be problem accept for the fact all assisted boarding is at the centre of the platforms and many of our platforms are not full height - assistance is needed in form of ramps etc.  There are also line of sight issues etc. which is one of the reasons why cabs have had to be modified for guards.

I think the really critical issue is that the toilet and access does not meet DDA legislative requirements according to disability groups.

NGR trains were ordered in a DOO configuration, when Queensland Rail uses a guard and driver.  Something fundamentally amiss with all of this.

[petey3801]

Disability access is in the 5th car in Sydney, so a very similar situation as here. In fact, in Sydney, the wheelchair pax can ask to board in any location. Difference is, they generally have station staff put the wheelchair pax on the train in Sydney. Something that can easily be done here, by making all disability accessable stations staffed from first train to, say, 8pm 7 days a week (it is very rare, outside something like a major event, to have wheelchair pax on the trains at night). Guard could still easily get the wheelchair pax off the train quickly, by being ready at that door with the ramp when the train stops.

[Stillwater]

As Mufreight said, issue remains that the toilet cubicle size is not suitable for someone in a wheelchair to get in, manoeuvre, shuffle to the toilet seat and back to their chair.  What's more, the DDA and the specifications that has the enforcement of legislation are pretty specific about the height of the pan, the distance from the front of the pan to the back wall, width of the doorway etc.  The Act and the specs pretty much write the design specifications that Bombardier should have followed.  The question is did the NGR train design contract specifications:

- cut and pasted the DDA specifications
- specified specifically that the DDA legislation and specs needed to be followed
- or contained some words along the lines of 'train shall conform with all relevant Australian Design Rules specifications', leaving the requirements a bit vague.

No doubt there will be a court case involving Qld Govt and Bombardier over this .... or extensive and expensive remodelling of the trains, including the ones already built.  Hope Curtis Pitt has a big QR contingency fund in his state Budget.

TMR/TransLink/QR likely to have a funding boost to pay for the mess, but do these organisations have the personnel to use the money wisely?

[#Metro]

Someone must have the original design file and govt brief. Public release of these documents will answer those questions immediately.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

22nd May 2017

New Generation Rollingstock - are they DDA compliant?

Greetings,

Apart from the fact placing additional staff on the trains to assist mobility impaired passengers on and off the New Generation Rollingstock trains and the subsequent costs and issues this raises, there are other very serious issues.

Do the NGR trains meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act?

There have been concerns expressed by Disability Advocates that they do not.

Now a RAIL Back On Track Member - ' mufreight ' has recently posted these concerns on our forum [ https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3706.msg192731#msg192731 ]

The sad fact is that the NGR trains even with additional staff for Disability access are non compliant.
It is physically impossible in their present configuration to enable disability access as required under the act.
The first deficiency is that it is not possible with a standard size wheelchair to access the toilet module and turn around to be able to exit the module.
The second problem is that there is insufficient room inside the module to transfer from a wheelchair on to or off the toilet.
The third problem is that there is insufficient space between the outer wall of the toilet and the gangway between the carriage to enable a standard wheelchair to move between carriage 3 and carriage 4, this is a potential safety risk.
These failures are another of the growing list of rail fails largely due to the TMR having control of project lacking expertise in rail.
The problems with the NGR trains can be readily rectified by moving the toilet module away from the end wall of the carriage which would clear the gangway between carriages.
Rebuilding the toilet module making it both deeper and wider which would provide more internal room to manoeuvre a wheelchair inside the module.
These are not major changes and can be readily made during the construction of the remaining trains prior to their shipping to this country, the 15 trains that are already here could no doubt be modified here if not at the Bombardier facility at Wulkuraka  then at the Downer plant at Maryborough.
It would be political suicide if the Minister and her spin merchants do nothing to make these trains compliant and on placing them into service find that they have to withdraw them from service because of legal action brought about by one of the disability groups due to their noncompliance.

If this is true then the NGR trains are non deliverable for revenue service in their present design/configuration.

Will the Deputy Premier please confirm that NGR trains do meet the requirements of the DDA act?  If not, what is going to be done in terms of modifications to NGR trains to make them compliant?

Thank you.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

Sent to all outlets:

21st May 2017

New Generation Rollingstock - it gets worse sadly ...

Good Morning,

Yesterday it was apparently confirmed that the New Generation Rollingstock trains because of the design and disability issues will require two customer service officers to manage safety and impaired mobility access issues.

[ https://twitter.com/InclusionMoves/status/865749168446251008 ]

In the light of this we put forward these questions.

A series of questions for the Deputy Premier and her staff:

Recently the LNP accused you of having to resort to 'secret taxes' to fund the Cross River Rail project.  Can your office please calculate the 'hidden tax' the LNP imposed on the people of Queensland when it, and the then Transport Minister, Mr Scott Emerson, signed off on the design specifications for NGR trains without adequate provision for a guard's cab or for people with a disability to gain easy access to the trains and to manoeuvre on board in access corridors, vestibules and toilet spaces according to the provisions of the DDA?

The 'hidden tax' for the next 35 years should include the cost of any modifications to reinstate a central-position guards compartment and the wages of an additional two staff required to act as 'customer liaison officers' to assist people with a disability while the trains are in operational service and over the life of the NGR train sets.

What is the total number of crew required to operate each NGR train as delivered? Is it three or four as was suggested above? It does seem that besides the train driver and guard there will two additional train crew - customer service officers.

How long will it take to hire these extra crew members and will they be trained and in place by the start of the Commonwealth Games?

Will the four-person crew arrangement apply only to the 15 trains currently in Queensland or to the entire 75-train NGR fleet?  Or will there be modifications to the remaining 60 train sets yet to be delivered in order to correct this situation?  What is the estimated extra cost of those modifications for Bombardier, the Queensland Government - the taxpayers of this state?

Compared with the operational and running costs of an average suburban train on the QR passenger network, can you express as a percentage the additional operating costs of NGR trains with four crew, instead of the normal two.  For example, is this additional cost an extra 40 per cent, or some other figure?  What is that figure, expressed as a percentage?

What is the figure when the operating costs of these trains are compared with the benchmark figure for the average train operating costs across other Australian jurisdictions that provide PT train services?

Will the extra two staff have additional duties to perform apart from assisting people with a disability, such as checking tickets/go-cards or cleaning the trains.  Where will they be employed within the QR/TransLink structure?

Will there be a reduction in the number of roving security personnel or Senior Network Officers, to accommodate four-person crews on NGR trains?  What powers will the NGR customer support officers have?

What liaison has gone on with the unions regarding this move and do the unions approve of this solution?

Will the employment of an additional two staff on NGR trains mean that there will be staff cutbacks in other areas, such as reduction of station staff on the network, or curtailment of work hours for existing employees?

Can you also give a guarantee that the additional cost of operating four-person crews on NGR trains won't result in a scaling back of the roll out of new infrastructure and line expansion, such as extension of the Springfield Line to Redbank Plans, or the duplication of the Sunshine Coast Line?

What happens if one person within a four-person NGR crew cannot turn up for work due to sickness or some other legitimate reason?  Will the train be delayed/cancelled for 'operational reasons'?  Or will there be sufficient relief crew to plug the staffing gaps?

With the government now apparently deciding that there will be four-person crews for NGR trains, will Bombardier be paid for the 15 trains delivered so far and will the delivery of the rest of the NGR trains resume?

Has this sad episode caused your government to reconsider the manufacture of future new trains overseas and can we see a resumption of local manufacture of future train sets?

What administrative procedures do you have in place to retrospectively identify chain of command and other oversight issues, and by whom, to uncover any incompetence or political interference in the NGR design and ordering process?

Will you now change the situation where TMR staff are involved in these matters, with QR kept at arm's length?  Does this sorry situation require that there be a restructure of TMR/TransLink and the formation of a Queensland Public Transport Commission or Authority, similar to the body that administers Western Australia's PT - the WA Public Transport Authority?

Will you refer the NGR design, order and administration arrangements to the Queensland Auditor-General for full scrutiny?

When seeking federal funding for Queensland for PT infrastructure, will you now argue a 'special case' for this state, requiring greater levels of funding, to cover the additional costs that now will be incurred?

What is the effect of the additional crewing costs for NGR trains operating through the CRR tunnel and the likely modifications to the NGR trains on the  Business Case for the $5.4b CRR project and how will the BCR be impacted?  Will the BCR drop below 1:1?

Thank you.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Latest: New Generation Rollingstock - are they DDA compliant?
> https://t.co/Vbm1yZ97Dr#qldpol #NGRfail
Answers needed today ..@jackietrad pic.twitter.com/mf2NblO65k

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 21, 2017

@jackietrad @InclusionMoves @AnnastaciaMP @QLDLabor @AndrewPowellMP @LNPQLD @Curtis_Pitt_MP @JoAnnMillerMP @brisbanetimes @QldGreens This NGR project is now in the realm of high farce. More spin and bluster is not fixing it hey?
> https://t.co/vMf6roaCdp#qldpol pic.twitter.com/mJ1Ejs3EOu

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 21, 2017

[ozbob]

Yes or no DP @jackietrad ?
New Generation Rollingstock - are they DDA compliant?
> https://t.co/Vbm1yZ97Dr#qldpol@TMRQld @N_Scales_TMR pic.twitter.com/yGBfknmGmT

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 22, 2017

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

23rd May 2017

Re: New Generation Rollingstock - are they DDA compliant?

Good Morning,

No response so far to our simple question:

Do the NGR trains meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act?

Why the secrecy?  What is there to hide?

For interest, I have set up a counter of the number days since NGR 701 was towed to Wulkuraka

>  https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3706.msg192829#msg192829

It is now 458 days!!   This is an unprecedented botch by DTMR/TransLink.

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ Attached: https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3706.msg192788#msg192788 ]

[tazzer9]

Last week I took a trip out to rosewood by rail.   On top of the massive speed restriction that delayed the service by 5 minutes, there seemed to be alot of internal work going on in a few of the NGR's.  Looked like loose electrical cabling, removed AC parts.

[Stillwater]

Let's not pussyfoot around here.  Affirmative answers to a series of questions will ensure whether the standards are being met, or whether there is a 'fudge' going on, as is the norm with transport infrastructure in Queensland, especially under this Minister.

For the delivered and soon-to-be-delivered NGR trains will the following mandated requirements be met:

15.4  Requirements for accessible toilets — ferries and accessible rail cars
       
1. An accessible toilet must:
(a)    comply with the requirements set out in this section; and
(b)    allow passengers in wheelchairs or mobility aids to enter, position their aids and exit.

2. The minimum dimension from the centre line of the pan to the near side wall must be 450 mm (AS1428.1 (2001) Figure 22).

3. The minimum dimension from the centre line of the pan to the far side wall must be 1150 mm (AS1428.1 (2001) Figure 22).

4. The minimum dimension from the back wall to the front edge of the pan must be 800 mm (AS1428.1 (2001) Figure 22).

5. The toilet seat must be between 460 mm and 480 mm above the floor (AS1428.1 (2001) Figure 18).

6. Hand washing facilities must be provided either inside or outside the toilet (AS1428.1 (2001) Clause 10.2.1 (b), Water closets).

Will the grab rails provided for use by people with a disability:

..  comply with AS1428.2 (1992) Clause 10.2, Grabrails. (It must comply)

There are other requirements for width of access doors, their height and the minimum area for toilet spaces.  All must be met, but will they?

Can the Minister confirm or deny that she is contemplating introducing special 'Queensland Disability Regs' that conveniently circumvent the specifications having the force of law under the DDA?  In other words, legislating the government's way out of the problem.

[ozbob]

We might know some more about the DDA compliance issues later this week.

Those measurement requirements posted by Mr Stillwater above are correct.

[#Metro]

Is there an image of the NGR train floorplan?

[ozbob]

Is there an image of the NGR train floorplan?

No doubt they exist but I have not been able to find one.

[#Metro]

State secret?

[Stillwater]

We need to continue to highlight this abject failure, and the betrayal by a state government more interested in its interests and re-election prospects than in getting on with the job of improving the lot of Queenslanders.

Wouldn't you know it!  Queensland has a glossy brochure that covers this!

https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/Customers/Documents/QueenslandRail_AccessibilityActionPlan2014_FINAL.pdf

It contains motherhood statements like: "Our program of work continues to be shaped by the voice of our customers. We are committed to capturing their feedback about accessibility issues and considering different perspectives."

"We will upgrade all networks - Infrastructure upgrades to stations and train overhauls remain the major focus for improving existing service accessibility.  We will engage with people with disabilities - Queensland Rail will continue to foster positive and constructive dialogue with our customers with disabilities so that they have a genuine opportunity to influence outcomes that best suit them.

"We will work to enhance accessibility - whether its customer service, network extensions or improvements to existing services, providing an accessible network for a wide range of customers will be central to our decision making process."

The document shows that QR knows precisely what its obligations are.  Pity it ignores them.

"As a public transport operator, Queensland Rail's obligations under the DDA are specified in the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Transport Standards) and the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (Premises Standards). Both the Transport and Premises Standards (collectively referred to as the Disability Standards) stipulate minimum requirements for the provision of accessible transport premises, services and facilities. Many of the standards rely on Australian Standards in setting out the requirements.

And, this is the important bit ... according t QR's own commitment:

"All new services coming into operation after October 2002 must be fully compliant. Existing services must be retrofitted or replaced. The Disability Standards enable compliance to be achieved in a number of ways, including by providing direct assistance."

(This last point probably is the out that QR will use for NGR trains.)

QR says this, but clearly doesn't mean it:

"Where practicable, Queensland Rail has adopted the most up-to-date Australian Standards to provide a higher level of access than the minimum requirements. The up-to-date Australian Standards reflect improved application and understanding of the needs of customers with disabilities and this approach assists Queensland Rail in creating a more sustainable rail environment capable of responding to changing circumstances and local community needs."

QR has been reluctant to do this, even though it states these words as a badge of honour:

"Public transport operators must consult with customers with disabilities who use the service or with organisations representing those people about any proposal for equivalent access. Additionally, Operators must be able to demonstrate that equivalent access provides public transport without discrimination 'as far as possible'."

Again, going through the QR's own documentation, it has factored in another out:

"An operator can seek an exemption of up to five years from compliance with all or some of the Transport Standards from Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) through a public consultative process. The AHRC decision to grant an exemption and the conditions imposed have assisted in defining rights and responsibilities during the transition towards greater accessibility and promoted increased compliance. Queensland Rail has been granted a number of exemptions to the Transport Standards, as an individual operator and via the Australasian Rail Association industry exemption application."

So, will QR seek a five-year exemption, via the Australian Human Rights Commission, to put into service NGR trains that do not comply with the DDA standards and specifications?  Is the game plan to get the trains running for the Commonwealth Games while doing retrofitting over the coming 5 years, as trains come in for service maintenance and overhauls?  It would be nice for the Minister to let people in on the plan.

QR is aware of the problems.  I say "QR' but do TMR know the problems?  Did they liaise with QR on the NGR train specifications:

"Narrow gauge track imposes limitations to train carriage width and presents design and engineering constraints limiting the ability to design a carriage that meets the needs of all users, including customers with disabilities. For example, if a toilet facility and an access aisle are required to be adjacent to each other, construction to the dimensions specified in the Transport Standards is physically impossible."

QR gives this commitment.  We have the brochure, but not the action that supports the commitment.

"Through a scheduled renewal program and the introduction of new fleet, it is proposed that City network trains will achieve accessibility sooner than the required timeframe."

Oh yeah?

Specifically, in respect of the NGR trains, QR says:

"Queensland Rail is working with stakeholders to ensure innovative design concepts that include improved accessibility, safety, technology, efficiency, functionality, sustainability and whole-of-life reliability. Access provisions on board NGR trains will include:

• Wheelchair allocated spaces
• Priority seating
• Braille and tactile signage
• Colour contrasting grabrails and handrails
• Unisex accessible toilets
• Visual information screens, and
• Automated audible information.

"As per the existing fleet, access provisions for the NGR are underpinned by the requirements specified in the Disability Standards. However, as many requirements are not prescriptive, Queensland Rail has established and will continue to develop access provisions which take into account customer feedback, stakeholder consultation, functional requirements and local community requirements. As part of the NGR project, Queensland Rail has already consulted with its disability sector contacts on a range of access provisions."

Consultation to date has covered a number of topics including:

• Optimal location for allocated spaces
• Locating a number of allocated spaces together
• Social inclusion (ensuring friends and carers etc. can sit close to an allocated space)
• Use of optional tie down straps
• Optimal colour contrasts, and
• Clarity of audible information.

(But not consultation on toilet specifications.)

"These consultations assist Queensland Rail in translating legislative requirements into accessible fixtures and fittings that provide functionality based on community input."

Got all of that.  Now, why didn't you do what you said you would do?

[#Metro]

My understanding, which may be wrong, is that NGR had very little to do with QR.

TMR was managing it. So the question is, what happened at TMR??

TMR is also very aware of disability standards and the like. The engineers there live and breathe engineering standards. They have to because they are building tunnels, bridges, etc and there is very little room for error.

So what is the explanation for this unusual abberation and departure from normal practices?

I suspect that there was a political overrule somewhere in the upper levels of TMR. As the saying goes, the fish rots from the head down.

We have to test the idea that an MP or person of similar standing made a instruction or directive to purchase non compliant rollingstock. I just don't buy the idea that "they forgot" about the disability standards.

I also don't buy the idea that Bombardier "forgot" about the disability standards too. That makes no sense. Bombardier sell so many trains, almost all their clients would have some form of DDA standards.

It makes sense and is consistent with the pattern of behavior, for example the overrule for the choice of QR executive, and another overrule for the MBRL rail signalling system.

[ozbob]

What is the Government afraid of?

They need to come out with clear detailed explanations as to why the introduction of NGR trains have been delayed (day 458 since NGR701 arrived at Wulkuraka  ) and importantly what is being done specifically and in detail, to sort the issues. There are clearly issues.

Don't forget the importing of trains was ceased.  This was very significant indeed.  Desperation rampant.

[HappyTrainGuy]

My understanding, which may be wrong, is that NGR had very little to do with QR.

TMR was managing it. So the question is, what happened at TMR??

TMR is also very aware of disability standards and the like. The engineers there live and breathe engineering standards. They have to because they are building tunnels, bridges, etc and there is very little room for error.

So what is the explanation for this unusual abberation and departure from normal practices?

I suspect that there was a political overrule somewhere in the upper levels of TMR. As the saying goes, the fish rots from the head down.

We have to test the idea that an MP or person of similar standing made a instruction or directive to purchase non compliant rollingstock. I just don't buy the idea that "they forgot" about the disability standards.

I also don't buy the idea that Bombardier "forgot" about the disability standards too. That makes no sense. Bombardier sell so many trains, almost all their clients would have some form of DDA standards.

It makes sense and is consistent with the pattern of behavior, for example the overrule for the choice of QR executive, and another overrule for the MBRL rail signalling system.

As far as I know QR had very little to no involvement. Even less than the MBRL project as many of the project details didn't need input from QR due to the standards in the railway industry such as train widths and heights in the suburban area, new national crash standards for passenger trains (came out of the tilttrain and vline crashes in victoria), the mtce facility was being built around the NGR stock so there was no problems with existing facilities and procedures currently in place, ATP was always to be part of it along with a few other standards  that are required. The fact that TMR ordered DOO only trains shows how much communication they had with QR about the project about the trains and the networks future.

Remember just because TMR has planners doesn't mean that they are experienced in railway planning. Yes, they have been involved in railway projects but you have to remember QR used to have their own railway planning and infrastructure design and consulting team. Prior to the split you have to remember QR was actually winning design contracts for other states and operators. TMR was only involved because the state treasury issued the funding via TMR under its transport infrastructure division. Also because usually a few roads and bridges need to be built which TMR handled.

[Stillwater]

TMR has mugged QR, let's face it.  Nonetheless, it will be QR who will be 'the operator' of the NGR trains.  QR can be sued, not TMR.

The way forward is simple - someone from the CRU takes $10 from petty cash and buys a tape measure from a hardware store en route to Wulkuraka in a departmental car, climbs on board one of the trains on site, enters the toilet cubicle, takes a series of measurements, enters them into a spreadsheet with the DDA compliant measurements in the next column.

The document then becomes a report to be issued by the CRU, which continues to remain strangely silent.  Why is that difficult?  We would then have the evidence for a mature debate.

[HappyTrainGuy]

TMR has mugged QR, let's face it.  Nonetheless, it will be QR who will be 'the operator' of the NGR trains.  QR can be sued, not TMR.

My understanding and from what I've heard of how the contract was made is that its totally out of QRs hands. Very large payments would only be allowed as each set passed its acceptance testing by QR. Of which none currently have passed. Bombaider would have spent a lot of the initial outlay on its part of the project which is very risky if something especially on their end delayed the project but if it was running on time and on schedule/even ahead of schedule they would be making a bucket load in very rapid succession as each train was accepted. Another part of the project was once the first order was done the third order would be placed within a set time frame. So once phase 1 of the EMU phase out was done there was already another order to be completed. They would have been rapidly coming off a constant production line rather than a stop/start production line which would cost more and take longer.

From memory it was proposed:
Order 1. Fleet expansion order 1
Order 2. EMU Phase out order 1
Stabling expansions
Order 3. Fleet expansion order 2 or EMU phase out order 2
Order 4.  Fleet expansion order 2 or EMU phase out order 2
Order 5. Fleet expansion order 3 or rollingstock phase out 3

The real question is to find out who and what actually went wrong because someone potentially could be on the end of a hefty bill.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

24th May 2017

More - New Generation Rollingstock - are they DDA compliant?

Good Morning,

Surely the Deputy Premier and her ' switched off ' staff can grab a tape measure and journey out to Wulkuraka
and take some measurements of the New Generation Rollingstock trains.  Then they could answer the fundamental question:

Do the NGR trains meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act?

To assist the ' measurement team ' here are the critical figures they will need to decide compliance or not:

=========================

15.4  Requirements for accessible toilets — ferries and accessible rail cars
       
1. An accessible toilet must:
(a)    comply with the requirements set out in this section; and
(b)    allow passengers in wheelchairs or mobility aids to enter, position their aids and exit.

2. The minimum dimension from the centre line of the pan to the near side wall must be 450 mm (AS1428.1 (2001) Figure 22).

3. The minimum dimension from the centre line of the pan to the far side wall must be 1150 mm (AS1428.1 (2001) Figure 22).

4. The minimum dimension from the back wall to the front edge of the pan must be 800 mm (AS1428.1 (2001) Figure 22).

5. The toilet seat must be between 460 mm and 480 mm above the floor (AS1428.1 (2001) Figure 18).

6. Hand washing facilities must be provided either inside or outside the toilet (AS1428.1 (2001) Clause 10.2.1 (b), Water closets).

Will the grab rails provided for use by people with a disability:

..  comply with AS1428.2 (1992) Clause 10.2, Grab rails. (It must comply)

=========================

Surely the bumblers and fumblers can manage to do this?

We are concerned, very concerned that these trains will not be in service any time soon.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

Sent to all outlets:

23rd May 2017

Re: New Generation Rollingstock - are they DDA compliant?

Good Morning,

No response so far to our simple question:

Do the NGR trains meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act?

Why the secrecy?  What is there to hide?

For interest, I have set up a counter of the number days since NGR 701 was towed to Wulkuraka

>  https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3706.msg192829#msg192829

It is now 458 days!!   This is an unprecedented botch by DTMR/TransLink.

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ Attached: https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3706.msg192788#msg192788 ]

[ozbob]

Media: New Generation Rollingstock - are they DDA compliant?
> https://t.co/zVF3MvnydT#qldpol@jackietrad @TMRQld @N_Scales_TMR pic.twitter.com/9SPWVIeUW8

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 23, 2017

@jackietrad @TMRQld @N_Scales_TMR @QLDLabor @LNPQLD @QldGreens @brisbanetimes @7NewsQueensland @9NewsQueensland @JoAnnMillerMP @Curtis_Pitt_MP @AnnastaciaMP What is there to hide? Failure itself ? ? #qldpol#whoispayingforthisbotch pic.twitter.com/IM5oT2apGv

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 23, 2017

Hey @SmartState1 @katejonesqld
Not looking to good Peter. Can you help us in our quest to sort this $4.4 BILLION project please?#qldpol https://t.co/YAHLKO8eCk

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 23, 2017

[ozbob]

The secrecy around #NGR trains is an absolute disgrace @jackietrad @AnnastaciaMP @TimNichollsMP
> https://t.co/zVF3MvnydT#qldpol pic.twitter.com/UWyHJlXjys

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 24, 2017

^

@jackietrad @AnnastaciaMP @TimNichollsMP @TMRQld @N_Scales_TMR @QueenslandRail @brisbanetimes @Curtis_Pitt_MP @JoAnnMillerMP @JimMaddenMP @QLDLabor @LNPQLD What are you hiding? Come clean - full detailed explanations of issues & the proposed fixes & time lines please. Can Do ?#qldpol #NGRfail pic.twitter.com/lLJOlHdM6U

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 24, 2017

[Stillwater]

^To which can be added the Deputy Premier's refusal to reveal details of the QR timetable stress testing.  Silence from the CRU.  Meanwhile plenty of pictures of Ms Trad meeting members of the public and QR staff on station platforms.  Smiles, handshakes .... not much more.

[ozbob]

I was invited last November by the General Manager New Generation Rollingstock to go out to Wulkuraka to have a look around at a NGR set. 

Still waiting. 

I can only presume that there is much to hide and/or I am now considered ' persona non grata ' because I routinely ask awkward questions, and call out this botched project for what it is hey?

[#Metro]

Maybe the train is "commercial in confidence" now hey?

[ozbob]

I was and still am sufficiently concerned to have requested an audit into the performance of DTMR and others concerning the New Generation Rollingstock.  I sent on behalf of RBoT to the Queensland Auditor General a request on the 9th March 2017.  One week after that I received a telephone call from staff at the QAG acknowledging receipt, and the advice that I would be contacted in a reasonable time for an interview or otherwise.

Relevant part of the request to QAG:

New Generation Rolling stock

NGR trains represent the largest single investment in Queensland in trains and is worth $4.4 billion over 32 years. These trains are particularly important for the realisation of the Cross River Rail project.

Unfortunately, after 12 months of testing these trains are riddled with design issues and flaws requiring expensive modification. Such flaws include the lack of a space for a guard, modification required at 143 QR train stations to permit driver line-of-sight, problems with air conditioning and concerns about train braking rates, among others. Significantly, the trains appear to be disability non-compliant and are thus the subject of a petition by Australian Paralympic athlete Geoff Trappett OAM. 

RAIL Back on Track wants to know who is responsible for this expensive fiasco and delay that is impacting the people of Queensland. We are aware that despite the trains being manufactured in India, the train design work was performed in Milton, Brisbane. A key part of any investigation will thus be securing a copy of the train design files. This will reveal whether the Queensland Government approved design was disability non-compliant to begin with, or whether the design requested was compliant but not adhered to at the factory end.

Still waiting.

Has the ' head in the sand ' approach spread to the QAG too?

Clearly there are major issues within Government circles. 

Time the truth was told Deputy Premier.

[ozbob]

An impaired mobility passenger was forgotten about on a train recently.  This has raised more concerns re NGR for the community.

@InclusionMoves @QueenslandRail I've just become aware & am deeply sorry for this incident, it is unacceptable (1/2)

— Jackie Trad (@jackietrad) May 25, 2017

^

@jackietrad @InclusionMoves @QueenslandRail So what is going to happen on NGR?

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 25, 2017

[ozbob]

Further details on the incident re @karin_swift disability advocate left stranded on @QueenslandRail train Unacceptable is right @jackietrad pic.twitter.com/vA5oqQ8y1t

— Inclusion Moves (@InclusionMoves) May 25, 2017

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

26th May 2017

New Generation Rollingstock - DDA compliant or not?

Good Morning,

A recent sad incident when a disabled Queensland Rail passenger was overlooked and was taken to a holding ( ? stabling ) yard before she was discovered, has only reinforced concerns of disability groups and ourselves with how the New Generation Rollingstock trains will meet disability requirements.



I was contacted last September (2016) and told there would be a public announcement of the disability action plan for NGR trains shortly (within hours).  The call was a courtesy call as I had previously expressed concerns. A couple of hours after the first call, I received a second call informing me that the ' announcement ' had been put off.

We are still waiting (May 2017) for an outline of the disability access plan for NGR trains.

This comes down to a fundamental question - Are the NGR trains as designed DDA compliant?

I was and still am sufficiently concerned to have requested an audit into the performance of DTMR and others concerning the New Generation Rollingstock.  I sent on behalf of RAIL Back On Track to the Queensland Auditor General a request on the 9th March 2017.  One week after that I received a telephone call from staff at the QAG acknowledging receipt, and the advice that I would be contacted in a reasonable time for an interview or otherwise.

Relevant part of the request to QAG:

New Generation Rolling stock

    NGR trains represent the largest single investment in Queensland in trains and is worth $4.4 billion over 32 years. These trains are particularly important for the realisation of the Cross River Rail project.

    Unfortunately, after 12 months of testing these trains are riddled with design issues and flaws requiring expensive modification. Such flaws include the lack of a space for a guard, modification required at 143 QR train stations to permit driver line-of-sight, problems with air conditioning and concerns about train braking rates, among others. Significantly, the trains appear to be disability non-compliant and are thus the subject of a petition by Australian Paralympic athlete Geoff Trappett OAM.

    RAIL Back on Track wants to know who is responsible for this expensive fiasco and delay that is impacting the people of Queensland. We are aware that despite the trains being manufactured in India, the train design work was performed in Milton, Brisbane. A key part of any investigation will thus be securing a copy of the train design files. This will reveal whether the Queensland Government approved design was disability non-compliant to begin with, or whether the design requested was compliant but not adhered to at the factory end.

Still waiting.

Has the ' head in the sand ' approach spread to the QAG too?

Clearly there are major issues within Government circles.

Time the truth was told Deputy Premier.

Can the authorities get off their high horses of failure and inform the community one way or the other as to what is going on with this botched NGR project please?

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ Attached: https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3706.msg192878#msg192878 ]

[ozbob]

Latest media: New Generation Rollingstock - DDA compliant or not?
> https://t.co/7c3a7Plehx#qldpol #NGRfail@jackietrad @InclusionMoves pic.twitter.com/jCA6g9Hczn

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 25, 2017

^

@jackietrad @InclusionMoves @TMRQld @N_Scales_TMR @AndrewPowellMP @QLDLabor @LNPQLD @JoAnnMillerMP @JimMaddenMP @JenMP4Ipswich @AnnastaciaMP @TimNichollsMP Time for detailed explanations & very clear outline of fixes for NGR trains.
Appalling a disabled passenger was taken to stabling ..#qldpol pic.twitter.com/Ge5MqvhtHD

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 25, 2017

[ozbob]

Days since NGR 701 towed to Wulkuraka

[#Metro]

A recent sad incident when a disabled Queensland Rail passenger was overlooked and was taken to a holding ( ? stabling ) yard before she was discovered, has only reinforced concerns of disability groups and ourselves with how the New Generation Rollingstock trains will meet disability requirements.

An isolated incident. But again highlights the wisdom of permanently and indefinitely extending Queensland Rail's service contract, no matter what.

Has the ' head in the sand ' approach spread to the QAG too?

In theory, the QAG is supposed to be independent. It is an offence to obstruct an auditor in the exercise of their duty.

The Auditor-General is an independent officer of the Queensland Parliament, appointed to provide assurance to the Queensland Parliament and the community on the presentation of financial and performance audit of public sector entities.

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2017/3/23/new-queensland-auditorgeneral-appointed

A new Auditor was recently appointed. Perhaps he may not be across this issue as he is just settling into the new role.

[ozbob]

Two months ago appointed ... 

It would have been appropriate to have contacted me by now to explain the delay or outcome in the assessment of our request for audits.

This NGR botch now smells, big time ... as do the LNP & ALP ...

[Cazza]

*Five Eternities Later...*