Guidance

DPTAC response to ORR PR23 draft determination consultation

Published 5 September 2023

General comments on ORR’s draft determination for Network Rail in CP7

Disability affects over 14 million people in the UK. It includes physical or sensory impairments as well as ‘non-visible’ disabilities such as autism, dementia, learning disabilities or anxiety. For many disabled people a lack of confidence in using the transport system is a barrier to being able to access employment, education, health care and broader commercial opportunities, as well as enjoying a social life.

The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) was established by the Transport Act 1985 and is the government’s statutory advisor on issues relating to transport provision for disabled people. DPTAC’s vision is that disabled people should have the same access to transport as everybody else, to be able to go where everyone else goes, and to do so easily, confidently and without extra cost.

DPTAC welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation. Although many of the issues dealt with through the Periodic Review process – the Schedule 4 and 8 arrangements for intra-industry compensation for instance – are outside the scope of DPTAC’s work, there are other elements, which remain fundamental to the accessibility of the railway. The maintenance and improvements to stations is particularly important in this respect, as the Victorian-era legacy of much of the railway’s built-environment remains a physical barrier to accessibility for many disabled people. In this context, we have focused our response to this consultation on our assessment of accessibility in the context of section 12 of the ‘Outcomes’ document.

However, it is also worth making a wider point at this stage in the consultation around the importance of performance, in terms of train punctuality and reliability, to disabled people. Research has consistently found punctuality and reliability to be crucially important for all rail passengers, but we should emphasise the particular importance of performance to disabled travellers, who often face additional challenges and barriers when services are disrupted or cancelled.

In this context, we welcome the improvements to performance set out in the Draft Determination, but question whether they are sufficiently ambitious. For instance, the targeted improvement for on-time performance in England and Wales from the current 66.9% to 67.9% over a five-year period seems marginal at best (and compares very poorly with 92.5% target set for Scotland). We would encourage a further review of these targets, to determine whether a more ambitious and stretching set of targets might not be possible.

Our assessment of accessibility

Firstly, we welcome the explicit consideration of disability as part of the Draft Determination process. We are not aware that this has been the case previously and welcome the recognition that accessibility is central to many of Network Rail’s activities.

Our response to this question has focussed on section 12 of the ‘Outcomes’ document, which deals with accessibility. We have a number of specific comments on section 12, set out below.

It is of very considerable concern that Network Rail Scotland has not included accessibility in its Strategic Business Plan. We welcome the ORR’s intention to address this omission and do not believe that the Final Determination process for Scotland can be concluded until the omission has been remedied.

We welcome the commitment set out in 12.9 for Network Rail to design all schemes in accordance with the Station Code. However, we believe that greater clarity is needed in this area. Our understanding of how accessibility improvements to the station estate are currently achieved is as follows:

• routine maintenance and minor improvement work at stations must comply with the Code, which means that accessibility features must be included even if they do not currently exist (this work is encompassed within the Periodic Review process)
• more significant improvement work must also comply with Code, although it is unclear whether or not such schemes are included within the Periodic Review process
• all new build schemes (new stations or major extensions) must comply with the Code, although it is again unclear whether such schemes are included within the Periodic Review process or whether they are covered by separate funding arrangements (we have assumed the latter)
• ‘Access for All’ schemes must also comply with the Code but are funded and managed outside the Periodic Review process

If our understanding is correct, it would be helpful to contextualise section 12 by including some new text to this effect. For each of the four categories highlighted above, there ought to be complete clarity on how the required accessibility elements of station work and schemes will be funded (either within the CP7 funding envelope itself or through separate funding arrangements).

We have a strong linked concern with application of the Code, which is the lack of clarity around the body responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the Code. Our understanding is that this is an ORR responsibility but, in practice, this activity seems to be undertaken largely by the DfT.

Compliance with the Code has, in our perception, lacked clarity and been an area of relative weakness in recent years (although we have noted some more recent improvements), and we believe that a more transparent approach is needed. The ORR’s Final Determination should make clear which body has responsibility for monitoring and compliance and how the results of this activity will be made available in the public domain, so that the relevant organisations can be held to account.

In addition, over the course of CP7 we would like to see a proper certification process for the Code introduced so that works are not deemed complete until certified as such by the monitoring and enforcement authority, with any dispensations subject to a formal approval process (as is the case now). This would, in effect, mirror the existing (and largely effective) approach for rolling stock.

As background to this point, we should also note that we believe there is a very strong case for reform of the current regulatory framework for accessibility on the railway to combine its various, currently disparate, elements into a single, coherent regulatory code with clear responsibilities for monitoring and enforcement.

For instance, it makes little sense for the new PRM NTSN to remain part of the Railways (interoperability) Regulations (RIR) when its purpose is quite different to other elements of the RIR framework. The Station Code itself is the subject of some ambiguity in terms of its enforceability (being an amalgam of requirements from various sources including the NTSN) and compliance with the post-Review revised Station Code would benefit from being an explicit requirement in the planned new National Accessible Travel Policy.

Again, in the context of the Station Code, section 12 makes no mention of three important developments that Network Rail needs to make explicit provision for. Firstly, the Station Code itself, is the subject of a current DfT-led Review, for which an industry and public consultation is about to begin. It is clearly impossible to pre-judge the outcome of the Review but its potential impact on the funding envelope needs to be acknowledged if, for instance, new accessibility requirements emerge. A linked issue is the RSSB-led review of the PRM NTSN, which is close to conclusion, and which may also drive new accessibility requirements.

Secondly, the results of the DfT-led Accessibility Audit of stations will be available to Network Rail during the course of CP7. This will provide a wealth of detail on current station accessibility, which can be used by Network Rail when designing future station schemes. This ought to be explicitly stated in the ORR’s Final Determination and there should be monitoring on Network Rail’s use of the Audit data during the course of CP7.

Finally, the planned National Rail Accessibility Strategy (NRAS) seems likely to be finalised and published during the early stages of CP7 and may have some impact on accessibility requirements at stations. Again, it is impossible to pre-judge the content of the NRAS, but the likely publication of the strategy and its possible impact ought to be referred to in the ORR’s Final Determination.

In overall terms, the points highlighted above add a degree of uncertainty and risk into the Determination process, and which may require some flexibility during the course of CP7. It would seem sensible for the ORR to make explicit reference to these risk factors in its Final Determination.

We welcome the various improvements set out in sections 12.10, 12.11, 12.15, 12.16 and 12.17. The explicit commitment of Network Rail to provide ‘turn-up-and-go’ assistance at its stations is particularly welcome, particularly given that its stations are the largest and best staffed on the rail network.

In terms of tactile paving, we note the commitment to complete the current programme of platform edge tactile edge fitment by April 2025. However, our understanding is that at the end of this programme, there will still be a number of stations where platform edge tactile paving has not been fitted. If our understanding is correct, there should be specific reference to this in section 12.14 with an estimate of the number of stations affected and a plan to address the issue. The data needed to complete this evaluation should be readily available from the station Accessibility Audit data previously referred to.

In terms of CP7 reporting, as discussed in 12.19-12.21, we believe that there is a strong case for the ORR to publish data on station schemes and their compliance with the Station Code, noting where improvements have been made or dispensations granted.

We also note the planned introduction of a national customer satisfaction survey for the rail sector to replace the current National Rail Passenger Survey and Wavelength Survey. This new survey, which should be available from the start of CP7, ought to provide the basis for much better monitoring of disabled traveller’s satisfaction with journeys on the rail network, including their use of stations. The envisaged sample size also ought to make some specific evaluation of the impact of larger station improvement schemes possible as well. Reference to the possible exploitation of this new evidence source ought to be included with the ORR’s Final Determination.

Finally, we should highlight the important link between accessibility and safety. Tactile platform edges, for instance, make the railway both safer and more accessible for blind and sight-impaired passengers. We would strongly advocate that the specific needs of disabled travellers are explicitly considered when safety is being assessed (if this is not already the case), noting that this principle applies not just to stations but many aspects of railway operations, as well as level crossings and footbridges.

Our assessment of health and safety

As already noted in our assessment of accessibility, there is a strong link between accessibility and safety. Tactile platform edges, for instance, make the railway safer and more accessible for blind and sight impaired passengers. In this context, it is important that safety risk assessments and the approach to safety more generally explicitly take into account the specific risks faced by disabled travellers.

Answers to other questions

We referred to our assessment of accessibility in response to these questions:

• comments on our supporting draft settlements for the System Operator (SO), Scotland and England and Wales regional documents
• our review of Network Rail’s stakeholder engagement
• our review of Network Rail’s proposed outcomes

We did not address these questions as they are outside the scope of DPTAC’s work:

• our review of Network Rail’s National Functions and proposed costs and incomes
• access charges in CP7
• schedules 4 and 8 incentives in CP7 
• managing change in CP7

DPTAC, August 2023.