Great Western Coffee Shop

I was going to post about the latest version (v6) of RDG's Key Train Requirements (https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/about-us/publications/12715-ktr-v6/file.html) on the thread for previous versions, but I can't find one (despite my clear recollection of it). Anyway, it's a set of recommendations as to what should go into train specifications, both things to consider and preferred choices. This was PDFed showing tracked changes from v5.1, so it's possible to find the new bits. Here are a couple of those.

There is a whole new section about seat comfort. Previously only the ergonomics (size, spacing etc) was included. The new part starts off:


What follows leans heavily on that RSSB work, for the obvious reason that there isn't anything else much. And, to restate the history of IEP seating comfort, this was not specified by DfT; it just wasn't specified. That was almost inevitable, since (as RSSB has noted) there was no seat comfort standard to specify it against. The MARA included provision for each TOC to be involved in a process of assessment and approval of the seating, but I don't think this happened (for a number of reasons). GWR would then only have been able to alter this at substantial cost, and DfT were not going to pay for that.


Here's a bit that has changed only a little:

---

Legend: E-essential,  I-information , B-depends on business case, D-desirable

I noted that resistance to adverse environmental conditions is required, with particular reference to sea water. That was meant to be an "essential requirement" for the IETs, but seems to have become either a future aspiration, or no longer a requirement.

Also noted that limited battery power on electric trains is mentioned, I have long suggested that either battery power or a small diesel engine should  be a requirement for hotel power, or running at much reduced speed,  to the next major station, when the wires come down. Or when ice forms on the conductor rail, remember the Lewisham debacle ?

And as for putting toilets or luggage racks rather than seats in areas without windows, that should be common sense, and the fact that it needs to be made a requirement shows just how low standards have fallen.

Is this is what you remember seeing?

Re: Derogations - allowing uncompliant stock still to be used in 2020
 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=22373.msg276163#msg276163)

Unfortunately the linked PDF is no longer there.  :(

Yes and no. It isn't what I now remember having seen, but probably was what I saw that created a memory. And the KTR itself (v5, I think) was linked to further down the thread but that link too is now dead - it's been moved but is still found by Google.

The work "requirements" in the title is misleading. The KTR document itself does not require anyone to do anything. It suggests what train buyers (specifiers in TOCs, mainly) should put in their requirements. True, they do label some items as "(E) = Essential. ‘Shall’ is used for any design of train and that there is NO valid business justification for non-inclusion." But that just means that the assembled working group of people from RDG members could not see any reason for ever leaving them out; they still can't make anyone comply with that.

Sadly true, the document seems to be completely ignored. It grates to have Transport for Wales and the Welsh Government tell me, Railfuture and the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth Rail Passengers' Association "that in order get the right balance between capacity and toilet provision, the 2-carriage version of the new trains will have one PRM compliant toilet and the 3-carriage version will have two PRM compliant toilets" when the KTR document clearly specifies what "the right balance between capacity and toilet provision" is - and it isn't what TfW have decided it is.