New Generation Rollingstock

[Stillwater]

  Good letter.  Wonder what QR-TMR have said.   

[ozbob]

Good letter.  Wonder what QR-TMR have said.   

Thank you.  Hopefully they are still working on a proper rectification plan ...  too little too late though?

Somehow I think this ditty sums it up ...

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> This woman could force major changes to Queensland's controversial NGR trains

A Brisbane architect who uses a wheelchair will on Monday receive legal advice on a Federal Court injunction that could halt Queensland's new $4.4 billion fleet of trains because they still do not meet international disabled access standards.

If the Federal Court grants the injunction, the Queensland government would be forced to remove the New Generation Rollingstock trains from service because they do not meet those standards.

Only a fortnight ago the Australian Human Rights Commission refused an application from the Queensland government to receive an exemption so it could run the trains.

There are now nine NGR trains in Queensland of the 75 ordered five years ago and eight of them are to be used in next month's Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast.

Sinnamon Park's Wendy Lovelace, an architect who advises on improving access for people living with disabilities, meets with her legal advisor on Monday and says she is "resolutely moving towards" a Federal Court injunction.

Ms Lovelace has already lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission alleging Queensland Rail is discriminating against her – and others living with disabilities – by running the trains that do not meet those disability-access standards.
Architect Wendy Lovelace is investigating a Federal Court injunction preventing Queensland Rail running their non-compliant NGR trains.

Ms Lovelace's biggest concern is having the train officer responsible for helping people living with a disability at the rear of the train, not the centre of the train.

"That is a great concern for those of us with disabilities because it means they are 70 metres away," Ms Lovelace said.

In two incidents people living with disabilities had problems opening train doors and could not leave trains, she said.

"In one situation there were staff trying to kick the doors open on an NGR train at a particular station," she said.

People with disabilities have also repeatedly questioned the space inside their toilets.

Queensland Rail has now replied in writing to Ms Lovelace's complaint and she meets with her legal team on Monday to decide whether to proceed with a Federal Court injunction.

"Queensland Rail has put non-compliant trains on the track in flagrant disregard for the process," she said.

Ms Lovelace said she was "in the process of responding to their response."

She described Queensland Rail's response as "condescending."

"As well as that I am making legal inquiries to put an injunction in place to stop the trains altogether," she said.

"I will be having a further conversation on Monday with my legal advisors."

Ms Lovelace said she was bitterly disappointed that despite several years of advice – since 2013 – no progress had been made to rectify the concerns of people living with disabilities.

"That's why I'm getting the legal advice. It's a big step. It puts me in great deal of vulnerability should I lose and they award costs against me. Paying for everybody's court costs could be a large amount of money."

However, Ms Lovelace said she felt bolstered by the Australian Human Rights Commission's decision to reject the Queensland government's request for an exemption.

"The one thing that has given me courage is the fact that the Human Rights Commission did not grant the exemption that the Queensland government had applied for," she said.

"That has really bolstered the feeling that those of us within the sector who have been following this closely have been saying all along.

"And that is, this contract should have been much better considered in the very first place."

Disability advocate Geoff Trappett, from the group Inclusion Moves, said disability groups were well aware of Ms Lovelace's actions and the Human Rights Commission's preliminary report.

"The Queensland government now has a two-week period to lodge a submission commenting on the reasons of the preliminary decision," he said.

He said the reasons why the Australian Human Rights Commission said "no" to the exemption included the length of time successive governments had known of the problem.

"So it is not the case where if they find a way of lodging a rectification plan, the decision will all of a sudden change," Mr Trappett said.

"The fact that there isn't a clear rectification plan was one reason, one reason only while they were not of a mind to grant an exemption."

Transport Minister Mark Bailey's office has been contacted for comment.

Previously Mr Bailey told reporters the complex issue of resolving the disability access and the Human Rights Commission's preliminary finding would be studied in detail.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/972863858824986624

^

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/972863126298243072

[ozbob]

Response to AHRC re Preliminary view decision:

11th March 2018

The Commissioners Australian Human Rights Commission
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001 Email: legal@humanrights.gov.au

Dear Commissioners,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the recent
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY VIEW ON JOINT APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS: STATE OF QUEENSLAND (ACTING
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS)
AND QUEENSLAND RAIL

We supported the granting of an exemption till the conclusion of the Commonwealth Games, with any
further extension of the exemption being subject to a proper, detailed, fully costed and contractually
secure rectification plan being brought forward. In view of the strong veracity of the public
submissions and the Commissions preliminary findings we accept the Commissions preliminary
findings. The lack of a detailed rectification process has been highlighted by the Commission
(paragraph 9.26) and is of great concern to us.

Additionally we recognise the fact that should an exemption be granted this may close the door to
complaints under the DDA (paragraph 8.9).

It is clear to us that the State of Queensland will continue to operate the non-compliant NGR trains with
or without an exemption.

We have been calling for a formal Commission of Inquiry into all aspects of this NGR project. It is
difficult to comprehend how the State of Queensland has procured non-compliant new trains, and has
not yet rectified the non-compliance. The entire project needs an open public forensic examination, so
that the mistakes are never repeated.

We also note and support the Commission's warning that rolling DDA exemptions cannot continue for
ever and steps must be made now by transport authorities to reach overall network compliance by
2022.

Yours faithfully

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

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

12th March 2018

Time to get serious ' State of Queensland ' re NGR fail

Good Morning,

Nothing could be clearer.  As we have warned the State of Queensland is now facing possible legal injunctive action which would if successful force the operation of the NGR trains to stop until properly rectified.

We again call for a Commission of Inquiry into this massive botch.  Time the State took these matters are little bit more seriously than their past track record suggests.

Article below.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

Brisbanetimes --> This woman could force major changes to Queensland's controversial NGR trains

[ Attached:  https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3706.msg205672#msg205672

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3706.msg205540#msg205540 ]

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/972868046313332736

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/972872959667748864

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

6th March 2018

Risk of injunctions as a result of NGR botch

Good Morning,

The ' State of Queensland ' is at a grave legal risk over the NGR botch.  It is essential that the all effort is made to obtain a temporary exemption for the NGRs.  We believe that will be largely dependent on coming up with a detailed, costed rectification plan for compliance that includes time lines and contractual details.  A failure to achieve an exemption will result in injunction actions, and expose the citizens of Queensland to even more wasted expenditure of our money.

There is no doubt about that.

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.msg205453#msg205453 ]

[HappyTrainGuy]

Oh FFS. Stop using the kicking the door excuse as a disability issue. That can happen on any bloody train.

[#Metro]

A Brisbane architect who uses a wheelchair will on Monday receive legal advice on a Federal Court injunction that could halt Queensland's new $4.4 billion fleet of trains because they still do not meet international disabled access standards.

Ah, so it has come to this? How sad.

Queensland Rail is a failing public operator. Failing not necessarily because of the management, but because it is in government hands and those hands (minsters and MPs) are making QR do things that it would likely otherwise not be doing if it were an independent contractor that could decide what to do with its own operations.

If it requires a major legal case to get the message across, so be it.

I doubt very strongly that a contractor would have let non-compliant trains on to the network due to the legal risk, fines, penalties and costs involved and the lack of protection that comes with state operation - such as the implied financial guarantee from Treasury to pay whatever fines or costs that may ultimately result.

Making QR an arms-length organisation from the Queensland Government definitely a step in the right direction.

"Queensland Rail has put non-compliant trains on the track in flagrant disregard for the process," she said.

Of course QR did. Because they were instructed by democratically elected politicians to do that, and so it will be done. Why be surprised?

[ozbob]

The present NGR project management personnel within DTMR have failed.  They need to go.

Procrastination, obfuscation, compounded by political incompetence and tardiness are hallmarks of this botch. 

It is difficult to see how the State of Queensland can recover without some decisive major reconstructive surgery.

The rail network is shambolic - reduced service & constant disruptions due to mechanical failures.  This morning more .. ( >> https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=1862.msg205681#msg205681 ) it just gets worse sadly ...

[BrizCommuter]

Given the risk to the Comm Games, I'm surprised the UK press has not picked up on this story.

[ozbob]

Given the risk to the Comm Games, I'm surprised the UK press has not picked up on this story.

Yo.  The real risk is further service reductions on lines other than the Goldy  and perhaps even line closures if the NGRs are removed.   
Queensland is a fuking basket case sadly ...

Rapidly losing what little confidence I had left in the State Government.  Mob of bumblers!

[Stillwater]

From Brisbane Times article:

She (Ms Lovelace) described Queensland Rail's response as "condescending."   

Again, evidence of QR's public engagement policy as being tokenism and designed to contain, manage and steer opinion to a pre-determined outcome.  It is not genuine.

[ozbob]

711 & 712 commenced revenue service today.

716 testing..

[ozbob]

I am informed that most of the Varsity Lakes <> Brisbane Airport services are now NGRs.  A couple of IMUs filling in the gaps.

As we have discussed in the thread before, the latest rumour is that the State of Queensland has a grand plan to lock the toilets of the NGRs.  Thereby hoping the discrimination issues relating to the toilets will disappear.  This might be confirmed one way or the other later today. I don't think there is a precedent for such actions.  The basic fact remains though, the trains are not compliant.

[ozbob]

News.com.au --> Queensland Rail facing legal action because its new $4.4bn trains are basically illegal

DAYS after it was discovered NSW's new trains were too big for the tunnels, a very big problem has been discovered with Queensland's new trains — they're kind of illegal.

JUST a week after it was discovered that NSW's $2 billion new train fleet will be too wide for the tunnels, the Queensland Government is facing the possibility of having to pull $4bn worth of new trains off the tracks because they are so badly designed, they're basically illegal.

When they were ordered, the then Government crowed about the "New Generation Rollingstock" (NGR) trains being half the price of similar designs.

But the cheap price has brought with it multiple problems including failing air conditioning, issues with the braking and, most damningly, a botched procurement process that saw the Government settle on a design that doesn't meet minimum legal standards.

The bodge job is so dodge, the trains sport disabled accessible toilets that wheelchairs can't properly fit into.

The Indian-built fleet of 75 trains from Canadian manufacturing giant Bombardier, of which nine have been delivered, could be banned from working on the network.

Queensland Rail (QR) is desperate to avoid that outcome because the trains are due to ferry hundreds of thousands of people to next month's Commonwealth Games.

"It really is a crisis. A massive bungle due to procrastination, obfuscation and gross incompetence," a public transport advocate has told news.com.au. "All hell could break loose."

On Monday, a Brisbane commuter who uses a wheelchair confirmed she was seeking legal advice that could halt the new $4.4bn trains in their tracks.

'A LOT HAS GONE WRONG'

Architect Wendy Lovelace told Fairfax Media she was looking for the Federal Court to slap an injunction on QR to prevent them from operating the train because they failed to meet legal regulations for disabled access.

Incredibly, these standards have been in place since 2002, more than a decade before the trains were even ordered.

Her case has been bolstered by a decision by the Australian Human Rights Commission last week which denied the fleet a temporary exemption from disability discrimination laws.

"The NGR rolling stock has a long and sad history", Robert Dow of public transport users group Rail Back on Track told news.com.au.

"There's a lot going wrong with this project and it's incredible to think the state could order a train that's not compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) when trains have had to be compliant since 2002."

The Government says they have a plan to fix the trains, but disability advocates say that plan can't be trusted.

DISABLED LOO NOT DISABLED ACCESSIBLE

While the trains have been ostensibly built to be disabled accessible, in practice, in key areas they're just not.

The gangways between the fully-accessible seating area and the supposedly disability compliant toilets are too narrow.

Geoff Trappett, a Director at disability policy organisation Inclusion Moves, told news.com.au that even if a passenger with a mobility impairment managed to battle their way to the loo, it's also too small to meet legal requirements.

"The bathroom fails to meet the legislated width from the toilet to the side wall meaning a person with a disability might be unable to transfer from a wheelchair on to the seat.

"They were a discriminatory train when they were built and they still are now."

Mr Trappett said the essence of anti-discrimination law was that someone with a disability should have to go to no more effort than someone able bodied to access a service, a yardstick Queensland's new trains clearly failed.

PARTIES PASS THE BUCK
The opposition LNP are on the State Government's back to fix the problem. But the Palaszczuk Government has pointed out the fleet was ordered under the Newman LNP Government and they have merely inherited the botched trains.

Mr Trappett said both parties were at fault and while the LNP signed the contract for the trains the current Labor administration has had plenty of time to deal with it — and had failed to do so.

News.com.au has contacted QR and the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) for comment.

On the DTMR's website, it states that "some compliance issues have been identified" with the trains. The Department said it will take 18 to 24 months to fix the trains which will involve removing toilets from some trains, adding extra loos to others, and rearranging the seats.

Mr Trappett, himself a former a Paralympian, said that plan was too vague and it gave him no satisfaction that the trains might be sidelined for the Commonwealth Games.

"There's no clear rectification plan for how these trains will be fixed. If there was to be a plan set in stone then the disability sector may have gone, sure, the Commonwealth Games is big international event, we're happy to come to the party," he said.

"But at the moment, it's a case of the Government saying the disability sector needs to trust us."

COMM GAMES THREAT

He said he was worried giving trains that failed to meet regulations an open ended get out-of-station free card might encourage others to sidestep their legal requirements and beg forgiveness later.

"The issue of these trains being non compliant is a human right issue and that takes precedence over sport in my books," Mr Trappett said.

Mr Dow said if the Government didn't find a solution it could strand passengers heading to the games.

heading to the games.

"We're very concerned all hell is going to break loose. It's really a crisis and extremely serious situation badly mismanaged by a number of governments and associated bureaucracies," he said.

"It's a massive bungle and there's been a lot of procrastination, obfuscation and gross incompetence. It's just terrible for us."

Last week, the NSW Government revealed its $2bn new regional train fleet, being built in South Korea, was 20cm wider than the current carriages.

That small difference could have a big impact. It means the new trains could collide with the tunnel walls on their way up to the world famous Blue Mountains.

The Government has proposed simply relaxing current safety standards to allow the trains to run. In addition, 10 tunnels built in the 1900s will be partially modified to allow the new trains to run through unimpeded, a process that could take two years to complete.

Last week, NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley said: "It takes a special type of incompetence to buy trains that don't fit through the tunnels."

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/973082693574459392

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/973083288276316160

[SurfRail]

The article is a bit of a hatchet job - roll in all the operational faults found during testing as if every train to ever enter service before these was perfect.  The reference to the NIF, likewise (they have known about the kinematic envelope and clearance issues for ages and always intended to fix the BMT lineside issues). 

The compliance question for the NGR of course is absolutely bang on.

[Fares_Fair]

Be watching Ch 9 at 6:00pm..

[ozbob]

I am informed that most of the Varsity Lakes <> Brisbane Airport services are now NGRs.  A couple of IMUs filling in the gaps.

As we have discussed in the thread before, the latest rumour is that the State of Queensland has a grand plan to lock the toilets of the NGRs.  Thereby hoping the discrimination issues relating to the toilets will disappear.  This might be confirmed one way or the other later today. I don't think there is a precedent for such actions.  The basic fact remains though, the trains are not compliant.

Nine News report this evening quotes Transport Minister saying toilets will remain open.

https://twitter.com/9NewsQueensland/status/973110026377162752

[hU0N]

I caught an NGR train today for the first time. I couldn't help but notice that the aisle down the centre of every car seems awfully narrow.

If my understanding of section 2.6 of DDA transport standard is correct, all new trains are required to have an 850mm aisle from the first door to the last door (ie basically the full length of the train).

(1)   An access path that allows continuous and unhindered passage must be provided with a minimum width of at least 850 mm.

(2)   Subsection (1) applies to doorways and stairs, and between entrances, exits, allocated spaces, and other essential facilities for passengers using wheelchairs and other mobility aids.

I had a look at the current ARA exemption, and the wording for section 2.6 is

For a period of three years, an access path is only required at a single door rather than all doors of existing rail conveyances.

It seems to me that it is clearly discriminatory to require persons using wheelchairs to wheel half the length of a platform just to use a special boarding door when able bodied people can use any old door they like. Especially at stations like South Brisbane or Bowen Hills where the lifts are at the far end of the platforms. Even QR seems to recognise this as they are (ever so occasionally) raising platforms to provide better access to the entire length of the train.

All that being said, I can't see any way in hell that the clear space between the forward facing seats is 850mm as required by the standard. And in the AHRC preliminary decision, it specifically says that NGR won't be exempted from section 2.6.

So does this mean that far from the problems being just in the middle two cars, in fact every car on the train is non -compliant with the current seating layout? And what would be the cost of fixing this issue?

[SurfRail]

The standard doesn't require the entire train to be accessible, just access between the doors, the designated seating and the toilet.  As long as you have seating accessible to each door, and both middle cars are built to the same standard as the existing MB (toilet car) but with a toilet module that complies with the standards, I see no issue.

The NGR doors are already DDA compliant, it is the platform interface which isn't and that requires more than just fixing the rollingstock.

Guards at the rear is not a DDA or DSAPT issue, there is no requirement for there to be guards full stop.

[hU0N]

If it requires a major legal case to get the message across, so be it.

This is actually a substantial point. If I can quote from the AHRC ARA exemption (2015):

The  Commission  considers that  a  five  year exemption  period  should  provide  the  ARA  and its members with  sufficient  time  to:
- comply with  the  provisions of  the  Transport  and  Premises  Standards;  or
- explore,  identify,  document,  and  implement  methods  of  providing  equivalent  access or alternative  solutions;  and/or
- identify  and  document  situations where compliance  with  the  standards would impose  unjustifiable  hardship  on  particular members  of  the  ARA,  and  comply  with the  Standards  to  the  maximum  extent  not  involving  unjustifiable  hardship.

The  Commission  considers that  in  the  long  term,  it is  appropriate  that  members of  the  ARA comply  with  the  Standards,  or rely,  where appropriate,  on  the  defences [the DDA]  provides. At the  expiry  of  the  exemptions  now  granted,  the  Transport Standards  will  have  been  in  effect for 18  years...There can  be  no  assumption  that  further exemptions will be  granted  to  members of  the ARA.  Persuasive  reasons would  be  required  to  justify  the  grant  of  any  further exemptions.

Without putting too fine a point on it, everyone (including QR) is supposed to comply with the DDA in one of three ways.

1. Comply with the standards OR

2. Design and implement an alternative solution that is different to the standards but that provides access that is equivalent to full compliance with the standards OR

3. If there is no reasonable way to provide access that is equivalent to full compliance with the standard, compile evidence that full compliance is an unjustifiable hardship.

Importantly, options 2 and 3 are only sketchily defined in the act and it is left to the Federal Court to assess compliance under options 2 or 3 and develop a jurisprudence around them which can guide operators into the future. Currently, very few people have gone down the option 2 or 3 road, so nobody knows what a compliant alternative solution should look like or what an unjustifiable hardship actually is.

Note also that "getting an exemption from the AHRC" is not a way to comply with DDA. Exemptions don't make you compliant, they just temporarily shield you from legal action - ostensibly to give you a chance to work on compliance in one of the three options above.

The real problem is that the ARA, QR, DTMR etc etc have been inappropriately relying on exemptions rather than developing compliance solutions. They're not supposed to be doing that. They are supposed to be either developing alternative ways of complying that are outside the standard, or else documenting is an unjustifiable hardship. And they should be testing these in front of the court.

If the court gives the alternative designs the tick, then they are compliant, standard be damned.

If this fiasco is what it takes to get QR et al to stop relying on inappropriate exemptions and start actually moving toward compliance (by whichever of the three options is most appropriate), then so be it.

[ozbob]

If it requires a major legal case to get the message across, so be it.

This is actually a substantial point. If I can quote from the AHRC ARA exemption (2015):

The  Commission  considers that  a  five  year exemption  period  should  provide  the  ARA  and its members with  sufficient  time  to:
- comply with  the  provisions of  the  Transport  and  Premises  Standards;  or
- explore,  identify,  document,  and  implement  methods  of  providing  equivalent  access or alternative  solutions;  and/or
- identify  and  document  situations where compliance  with  the  standards would impose  unjustifiable  hardship  on  particular members  of  the  ARA,  and  comply  with the  Standards  to  the  maximum  extent  not  involving  unjustifiable  hardship.

The  Commission  considers that  in  the  long  term,  it is  appropriate  that  members of  the  ARA comply  with  the  Standards,  or rely,  where appropriate,  on  the  defences [the DDA]  provides. At the  expiry  of  the  exemptions  now  granted,  the  Transport Standards  will  have  been  in  effect for 18  years...There can  be  no  assumption  that  further exemptions will be  granted  to  members of  the ARA.  Persuasive  reasons would  be  required  to  justify  the  grant  of  any  further exemptions.

Without putting too fine a point on it, everyone (including QR) is supposed to comply with the DDA in one of three ways.

1. Comply with the standards OR

2. Design and implement an alternative solution that is different to the standards but that provides access that is equivalent to full compliance with the standards OR

3. If there is no reasonable way to provide access that is equivalent to full compliance with the standard, compile evidence that full compliance is an unjustifiable hardship.

Importantly, options 2 and 3 are only sketchily defined in the act and it is left to the Federal Court to assess compliance under options 2 or 3 and develop a jurisprudence around them which can guide operators into the future. Currently, very few people have gone down the option 2 or 3 road, so nobody knows what a compliant alternative solution should look like or what an unjustifiable hardship actually is.

Note also that "getting an exemption from the AHRC" is not a way to comply with DDA. Exemptions don't make you compliant, they just temporarily shield you from legal action - ostensibly to give you a chance to work on compliance in one of the three options above.

The real problem is that the ARA, QR, DTMR etc etc have been inappropriately relying on exemptions rather than developing compliance solutions. They're not supposed to be doing that. They are supposed to be either developing alternative ways of complying that are outside the standard, or else documenting is an unjustifiable hardship. And they should be testing these in front of the court.

If the court gives the alternative designs the tick, then they are compliant, standard be damned.

If this fiasco is what it takes to get QR et al to stop relying on inappropriate exemptions and start actually moving toward compliance (by whichever of the three options is most appropriate), then so be it.

Well said hU0N,  Clarifying ...  thank you.

[ozbob]

Letter to the Editor Queensland Times 13th March 2018 page 15

Call for rail project to have open public examination

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/973243155670745088

[hU0N]

The standard doesn't require the entire train to be accessible, just access between the doors, the designated seating and the toilet.  As long as you have seating accessible to each door, and both middle cars are built to the same standard as the existing MB (toilet car) but with a toilet module that complies with the standards, I see no issue.

But NGR don't even comply with the standard as you have stated it. There's 12 doors down each side of an NGR set, but there isn't seating accessible to each of these doors.

The trick is that having an accessible path of travel between entrances, exits and allocated spaces (as required by the standard) is not quite the same thing as having a path from each allocated space to an entrance/exit.

I took quite a deep dive into this in order to try figure it out.

The exact wording of the standard is:

(1)   An access path that allows continuous and unhindered passage must be provided with a minimum width of at least 850 mm.

(2)   Subsection (1) applies to doorways and stairs, and between entrances, exits, allocated spaces, and other essential facilities for passengers using wheelchairs and other mobility aids.

This wording in no way implies that the access path should only extend to some entrances.

Then I looked at the applications made for the exemptions covering the current fleet. The applications reads

Some ARA members are unable to comply due to narrow gauge railway tracks and narrow carriage width.  This means that the carriages are necessarily very narrow in width in order to fit on the infrastructure and also travel through some tunnels.  This limitation remains regardless of whether the rollingstock is new or existing...While the dimensional restrictions of fleet mean that an 850mm aisle width may not be achieved, practical, functional outcomes may be realised.  Determining what constitutes a functional outcome will necessarily involve consultation with people with disabilities through the operator's Accessibility Reference Group...

[Here the application analyzes at length what types of services do/do not offer all door boarding, and why].

Alternative solution:
Primary path of travel – The construction and design of existing carriages limits the ability to reconfigure internal fixtures and fittings, doors, intercar gangways and amenities.  Narrow gauge (1067mm) track imposes limitations to train carriage width.  Given these limitations consultation and design modifications concentrate on the functional outcomes sought by our customers and focus on a primary path of travel through our trains.

...On existing trains the primary path of travel is focused on the accessible carriages and extends from the external doorway to the allocated space, priority seats and other essential facilities required by customers with disabilities, in particular customers using mobility devices.

Here again, the underlying assumption seems to be that 850mm wide internal aisles throughout are required by the standard.  It goes so far as to identify the approach of having accessible paths only within certain accessible carriages as being an alternate solution, and alternate solutions are by definition non-compliant with the standard (otherwise they wouldn't be alternate).

I won't get bogged down, but it's not up to the AHRC or the ARA to validate this alternate solution, only tbd Federal Court can do that, so the presentation of this middle-car-only approach as an alternate solution definitely implies this approach is at odds with the standard, but doesn't automatically mean that it's ok.

Finally, the AHRC responded to the above application with the following exemption.

For a period of five years, an access path is only required at a single door rather than all doors of existing rail conveyances.

The long story short is that while the entire train is not required to be accessible, the portion between the first door all the way to the twelfth door is required to be accessible. The wording of the standard itself, the AHRC, and the ARA all seem to agree that this is the case, and that the aisles in all QR city trains are non - compliant and require some sort of coverage.

Which brings me back to my question? Is there some other document I've missed? Or is it the case that, given the AHRC have withheld a section 2.6 exemption from NGR, the seating layout is based not on the standard, but on an ARA alternate solution that has never been put to the federal court for validation (and could conceivably be rejected by the federal court if/ when it is)?

[SurfRail]

We have narrow gauge trains.  There is no way the courts would mandate 850mm wide aisles if it can't be physically accommodated.

[InclusionMoves]

Yes there is a current narrow gauge exemption. However NGR didn't apply for this prior to being built (the current exemption in no way references new rolling stock only existing). The AHRC was very nice in giving them one exemption in respect to this but they also made it clear that they have not been happy with the incremental improvement in this area which is expected when temp exemptions are given. That is the key here. Incremental improvement should come from temp exemptions through innovation. It is expected that these incremental improvements are put into new rolling stock. It was not therein lies their dramas.

Geoff     

We have narrow gauge trains.  There is no way the courts would mandate 850mm wide aisles if it can't be physically accommodated.

[SurfRail]

Yes, but the only aisle width issue to emerge here was the inter-carriage doors.  I can't see that anybody is pointing to the navigability of the aisle on every car as actually being an issue.  How can you actually solve that unless you have 100% longtitudinal seating, which is utterly inappropriate for intercity rollingstock?

[InclusionMoves]

My point is that there are plenty of mechanisms for operators to use to claim unjustifiable hardship, claim exemptions etc. The scales are skewed massively in their favor. If they are smart and don't take advantage of the regulations and try to circumvent them in other areas causing mistrust then chances are the real problems areas would be seen as exactly that and would be looked at favourably. 

They got comfortable getting a cruisy ride through compliance and that has come back to bite them. The ball is therefore firmly in their court to come to the party. If they come in a respectful proactive fashion we can work together on the real issues the real trouble points. But not seen that yet. Neither has the AHRC,

Geoff   

Yes, but the only aisle width issue to emerge here was the inter-carriage doors.  I can't see that anybody is pointing to the navigability of the aisle on every car as actually being an issue.  How can you actually solve that unless you have 100% longtitudinal seating, which is utterly inappropriate for intercity rollingstock?

[BrizCommuter]

Another story in the CM  (erm, it's NGR not NQR)
http://www.couriermail.com.au/technology/public-servants-involved-with-procurement-of-queenslands-bungled-4bn-new-trains-still-hold-senior-positions-in-the-state-government/news-story/4c9e90977fd70a5440cba081e48a25bd

[City Designer]

I was on NGR703 tonight and the toilet module was locked.

[ozbob]

News.com.au --> Public servants involved with procurement of Queensland's bungled $4bn new trains still hold senior positions in the State Government

TWO bureaucrats who were singled out as key players in procuring $4.4bn worth of botched trains in Queensland were given promotions and now hold senior, and very well paid, positions in the State Government.

The New Generation Rollingstock (NGR) train project is more of an ongoing laughing stock after it was discovered the new trains failed to meet legal requirements that had been on the statute books for more than a decade.

Airconditioning on the nine delivered trains, out of a total of 75 due in service, has been faulty, there are issues with the brakes and the supposedly disabled accessible toilets don't have adequate room for a wheelchair.

The Government is facing the possibility the new trains could be pulled from the tracks during next month's Commonwealth Games after the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) refused a temporary exemption for the fleet from the Disability Discrimination Act that came into effect in 2002.

Dave Stewart and Neil Scales, two public servants who headed departments involved with the procurement of the NQR fleet in the run up to the contract being signed, now hold some of the most senior civil positions in the state.

Mr Stewart is the Director General of Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk's Department of Premier and Cabinet while Mr Scales is the Director General of the Department of Transport and Main Roads which has been charged with sorting out the train mess.

Transport and Roads Minister Mark Bailey told news.com.au Mr Scales had his "full confidence" and laid the blame for the trains squarely with the Liberal National Party (LNP) who signed off on them when they were in power. On the contrary, the LNP said the train debacle was "100 per cent Labor's mess".

News.com.au has contacted the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

While Labor and the LNP have traded blows over who is responsible for the multi-billion dollar bungle, Robert Dow of public transport advocacy group Rail Back on Track, also pointed out the role of staff.

"It's really a crisis and extremely serious situation badly mismanaged by a number of governments and the associated bureaucracy.

"You can't expect novice politicians to be across all the details but you expect the bureaucracy to say you can't order trains that aren't compliant."

The NQR trains were ordered under the Campbell Newman led LNP Government which said they were cheaper than similar designs.

The LNP has said Labor modified the design after they took the keys to parliament. But the party has also pointed the finger at bureaucrats.

"The trains that were being delivered were trains that were actually ordered under the supervision and guidance of the Premier's hand-picked Director General Dave Stewart — he ran the procurement process," then Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls said last year, reported the ABC.

"We took advice from people like Dave Stewart and Neil Scales, Queensland Rail, the Department of Transport, and made sure we were delivering value for money for Queenslanders," he said.

The new trains were signed off in January 2014.

Mr Stewart was the head of Projects Queensland, which was involved with the train procurement, in the run up to the contract being awarded.

He had a difficult relationship with the LNP Government. Following the 2012 LNP election victory, he was axed from his role as head of the transport department and replaced by an ally of Premier Newman before being reinstated to the public service just months later.

In late 2013, Mr Stewart took up a senior role at Transport for NSW before being lured back north of the border when Ms Palaszczuk took the reins of Government in 2015. In 2016, Fairfax reported he earned $678,000 a year.

According to Mr Scales' biography on the Queensland Government website, he became Chief Executive of TransLink, the state's transport co-ordination agency, in 2012.

In March 2013, he became Director General of the transport department and in 2016 was appointed Acting Chief Executive of rail provider Queensland Rail before returning to his Director General role. He has a similarly attractive pay package.

Minister Mark Bailey told news.com.au: "Mr Scales has my full confidence. The $4.4 billion decision made to order half price trains from overseas that were not disability compliant was made by the Newman LNP government.

"The Director General and I are in complete agreement that these trains need to be rectified as quickly as possible by Queensland workers to ensure they are accessible for all Queenslanders. The necessary work to fix them is underway."

Shadow Transport Minister Steve Minnikin told news.com.au the trains problems were "100 per cent Labor's mess".

Mr Minnikin claimed an Australian manufacturer pulled out under the watch of Anna Bligh's Labor administration and so the LNP were forced to send the contract overseas.

"Labor has now been in charge of this contract for three years. They have been warned and warned about the design issues and have done nothing until the eleventh hour."

On Monday, the State Government faced the prospect of a legal injunction meaning its new trains could be laid up during the Commonwealth Games. That could prove disastrous as organisers are relying on the fleet to provide a round the clock rail service between Brisbane and the Gold Coast.

The AHRC has said it will review its decision to not exempt the train from the requirements of disability laws on 16 March.

"The Government will review the details of the preliminary decision and make a submission accordingly," Mr Bailey said. "We are getting on with the job of rectifying the NGR, and working with the disability sector."

Mr Dow said the whole NQR saga was embarrassing for Queensland. "It's a massive bungle and there's been a lot of procrastination, obfuscation and gross incompetence. It's just terrible for us."

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/973582179497263112

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/973582904050688000

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

14th March 2018

NGR Commission of Inquiry NOW !

Good Morning,

The Minister for Transport has every confidence in Mr Scales DG TMR. " Mr Scales has my full confidence. The $4.4 billion decision made to order half price trains from overseas that were not disability compliant was made by the Newman LNP government. "
News.com.au --> Public servants involved with procurement of Queensland's bungled $4bn new trains still hold senior positions in the State Government

Well Minister it is time you formed a Commission of Inquiry into this disaster of a project.  What is there to hide?

We don't have any confidence left in Mr Scales sadly.  There has been a long history of failure under Mr Scales' watch.  That is a fact.  Heavy rail must be moved from DTMR into a proper Public Transport Authority.

Everyone is tired of the dumb political blame games concerning the NGR failure.  We, and Queensland Citizens want the truth thank you.

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.msg205673#msg205673 ]

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/973586498283950083

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/973587665814667264

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/973594487652990976

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/973600293836406785

[ozbob]

I was on NGR703 tonight and the toilet module was locked.

Thanks for this.  Some of the toilet doors have been faulty I understand.  Also it is possible the toilet itself could be blocked etc.

[ozbob]

Days since NGR 701 towed to Wulkuraka