Key Train Requirements

[whole diary]

[stuving]

I was going to post about the latest version (v6) of RDG^‡(resolve)'s Key Train Requirements 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:

3.3.1 Introduction
3.3.1.1 Passenger comfort is an important issue for rolling stock, but is also very complex to address, especially when producing procurement specifications. Recent work by RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) on ‘T1140 Defining requirements for seat comfort’ has added some scientific evaluation to seat comfort and has requested that these be incorporated into the KTR (I).
3.3.1.2 The content of T1140 is a step forward, but follow-on work is required as railway seats are used in a dynamic environment and therefore static assessment can only ever be part of seat evaluation. Ideally the follow-on work should develop an assessment method based on seats tested in a dynamic situation (e.g. dynamic rig) to a defined route profile (I).

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) seating comfort, this was not specified by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about); 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^▸ (Master Availability and Reliability Agreement) included provision for each TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^▸ (Great Western Railway) would then only have been able to alter this at substantial cost, and DfT were not going to pay for that.

3.3.2.6 The arrangement of 3+2 seating shall be avoided (B).
Due to gauging limitations, 3+2 seating arrangements only permit narrow seats and restricted aisle widths, reducing comfort and standing space, as well as leading to extended dwell times. Having 3+2 seats means that many of the accessories within 3.3.2.5 cannot be provided and the requirements in this section on seat comfort may not be achieved.

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

3.6 Bodyshell Design and Windows
3.6.1 The vehicle bodyshell structure should use a common arrangement of window apertures (D).
This allows future flexibility for interior layouts, with window apertures not required, being blanked and a fixed size of bodyside light.
3.6.2 The number of variant sizes of bodyside windows should be kept to a minimum (D).
Standardisation of bodyside windows will enable the stock holding of spare windows to be minimised.
3.6.3 Deadlights (the vehicle structure between window apertures) shall be as narrow as practicable(E).
Minimising the size of deadlights increases flexibility with seating position and improves comfort.
3.6.4 The rolling stock design should endeavour to align passenger seats with bodyside windows (D).
There is much comment about seats not aligning well or at all with windows. Many passengers do like to look out of the window.
Where there are no windows as a result of the vehicle structure, other passenger amenities such as luggage stacks and toilet modules should make use of this space.

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

[broadgage]

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^▸ (Intercity Express Train), 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.

[Surrey 455]

I was going to post about the latest version (v6) of RDG^‡(resolve)'s Key Train Requirements on the thread for previous versions, but I can't find one (despite my clear recollection of it).

Is this is what you remember seeing?

Re: Derogations - allowing uncompliant stock still to be used in 2020


Unfortunately the linked PDF is no longer there. 

[stuving]

I was going to post about the latest version (v6) of RDG^‡(resolve)'s Key Train Requirements on the thread for previous versions, but I can't find one (despite my clear recollection of it).

Is this is what you remember seeing?

Re: Derogations - allowing uncompliant stock still to be used in 2020

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^▸ (Train Operating Company), 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.

[Rhydgaled]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company), 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^‡(resolve) members could not see ant 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^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) 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.