There have been campaigns going back at least 30 years for\nprovision of disabled access at Marsden station. Others will be better\nqualified than us to comment on earlier campaigning, so we will restrict\nourselves to commenting on 2011 onwards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s worth pointing out that the standards that have to be\nmet have increased over the years. If you are familiar with Brighouse station,\nthe arrangement of ramps giving access to the Halifax-bound platform would\nprobably not conform to the standard required today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Provision of step-free access at stations is not cheap. Whatever you think it might reasonably cost, it will be a lot more than that. It\u2019s not the time and place to go into the range of reasons why construction projects on the railway are so expensive. That’s just how it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are basically two ways of funding provision of disabled\naccess at stations. Either they can be funded through the Department for Transport\u2019s\nAccess For All programme, or done as part of a route modernisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Access For All<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Access For All is a bidding process. Local authorities submit bids. We are not sure whether train operating companies can also submit bids. The Department for Transport makes the decisions. Stations with higher passenger numbers will score more highly in the bidding process, which will tend to give a South-Eastern bias. Likewise the easier, and therefore cheaper, locations to fix will score more highly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Access For All is split into bidding rounds, with some\nrounds being for large scale projects (e.g. provision of step-free access) and\nsome for \u201cMid-Tier\u201d funding which is for small scale improvements such as\ntactile strips and handrails.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even the handful of projects under Access For All each year take a long time to be implemented. Compared to the scale of the challenge to make all stations accessible, Access For All is just tinkering at the edges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Transpennine Route Upgrade<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The other funding method is to include station accessibility\nwithin major projects, and it just so happens that we have one of those taking\nplace around here. Or rather we thought we did. Electrification of the main\nNorth Transpennine route between Manchester, Leeds and York was announced in\nthe 2011 Autumn Statement. It wasn\u2019t called the Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU)\nat the time, but that is what it has since been named.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was no ambiguity in the announcement. The route would\nbe electrified in full. In the context of disabled access, bridges at Marsden,\nGreenfield and elsewhere would need to be raised or replaced and that would involve\ndisabled access being provided at those stations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We have not had sight of plans for how this would be done at\nMarsden, but we were given to understand that such plans had been prepared. Our\nunderstanding was that it involved creating a new station access from the old\ngoods yard, with accessibility issues being resolved from that end of the\nstation rather than from the road bridge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This was all looking promising. The route would be\nelectrified by 2016, with all stations along the route being made fully\naccessible. Unfortunately what was promised in 2011 didn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the engineering solutions are different for each station,\nthe funding and decision-making process is the same for Mossley, Greenfield and\nMarsden (and also for Slaithwaite, which is fully accessible only for\npassengers who are being dropped off and collected by car). So decisions made\nabout station accessibility apply to all four stations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At some point the Department for Transport informed the\nlocal transport authorities along the route (Transport for Greater Manchester \u2013\nTfGM \u2013 and West Yorkshire Combined Authority \u2013 WYCA) that as the stations along\nthe route would be made fully accessible as part of TRU, they would not be eligible\nfor Access For All bids. This is referenced in TfGM committee minutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Years passed. Access For All bidding rounds came and went.\nThe Transpennine Route Upgrade which had been announced in 2011 and\nre-announced several times since turned out not to have been approved, let alone\nfunded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Partial Electrification<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Discussions must have taken place behind closed doors, and\nsome of these led to the idea that only certain parts of the route would be\nelectrified, with the trains being bi-modes operating partly on diesel power. Chris\nGrayling was particularly associated with this enthusiasm for bi-modes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The idea of partial electrification, and in particular\nleaving the Stalybridge to Huddersfield section unelectrified, is and always\nwas daft. Electric trains are lighter and more fuel efficient, and better at\nclimbing hills than diesels. So it never made any sense to leave the hilly part\nof the route unwired, nor to plan for heavier trains carting diesel fuel back\nand forth across the Pennines. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These discussions must have been taking place prior to December 2018 when we met with Chris Grayling, and we asked him the direct question of whether TRU would deliver full disabled access at Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden and Slaithwaite stations. He said he did not know the answer but would find out. We never got an answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, because this daft idea was being taken\nseriously by Chris Grayling and the Department for Transport, the local\ntransport authorities were told in August 2019 that they could now apply for\nAccess For All funding for Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden and Slaithwaite stations\nbecause TRU would not deliver station accessibility at those stations. No\nelectrification = bridges not being\nraised = no works to provide station accessibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At short notice, WYCA were allowed to make a bid for station accessibility at Marsden. The round of Access For All funding at that time was for \u201cmid-tier\u201d funding, which as we have observed is meant for small scale improvements. At very short notice, WYCA submitted a bid with support from Kirklees Council. It was unsuccessful, possibly because mid-tier funding was never appropriate for the scale of the works required at Marsden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2018 Timetable Changes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time as investment decisions were being made (or rather avoided) behind closed doors, there was the long running saga of the timetable changes. One of the impacts of the timetable changes which were implemented in May 2018 was that westbound trains at Marsden called at the non-accessible platform 2 rather than the accessible platform 3. It saves 1\u00bd minutes by not going into the platform 3 loop, which is critical in making the timetable work operationally on such a heavily used route. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Whilst the height of platform 2 was eventually raised, this\nmerely mitigated a problem which should never have been created in the first\nplace. It did not improve station accessibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It has been argued that 50% disabled access at places like\nMossley, Greenfield (currently) and Marsden (until May 2018), where disabled accessibility\nis available in one direction only, is no better than 0% access. Nevertheless,\nSMART is firmly of the opinion that any change in disabled access from 50% should be\nto increase it to 100%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We believe that the situation at Marsden, with 50% disabled\naccess having been reduced to 0%, is unique across the entire network. It is\nlegal because it is as a result of a timetable change. Had it been done as a\nresult of an infrastructure change it would have been unlawful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Support for Station Accessibility to be provided as part of TRU<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A wide range of people and organisations are supportive of all\nstations along the route (and specifically including Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden\nand Slaithwaite) being made fully accessible as part of TRU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That list includes Kirklees Council, Oldham Council, Transport for Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire Combined Authority, Transpennine Express, Northern Railways, councillors and MPs representing Mossley, Saddleworth and the Colne Valley, Transport for the North, senior councillors on West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham. At least some of that might be as a result of speaking with people like us. It\u2019s noticeable how, in discussions about TRU, our elected representatives often bring up the subject of station accessibility unprompted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n None of them, unfortunately, have a role in making, funding\nand implementing the decisions that need to be made. <\/p>\n\n\n\n That leaves Network Rail and the Department for Transport.\nCertainly there are people within Network Rail who are supportive, but we do\nnot know whether it is the collective view within Network Rail that station\naccessibility should be a core element of TRU rather than an optional extra.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whatever thinking there is within the Department for\nTransport remains a closely-guarded secret. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In July 2019 Grant Shapps was appointed as Secretary of State for Transport. He is certainly more energetic about investing in the North than his predecessor, and has been saying all the right things. Nine years after TRU was first announced, and three years after it was supposed to be completed, there has been funding approval for parts of TRU (although what the funding approval covers is still very vague). We were encouraged that his department is now looking at a much more ambitious scheme than the scaled back Grayling version. It was also encouraging that the minister responsible, Andrew Stephenson, was prepared to meet us at Marsden station to see for himself why disabled access is necessary and how it could be achieved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As at today\u2019s date (21st June 2021) the government is supposed to be publishing its much-delayed Integrated Rail Plan \u201csoon\u201d. This should indicate (amongst other things) whether TRU is to be implemented in full, including station accessibility.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There have been campaigns going back at least 30 years for provision of disabled access at Marsden station. Others will be better qualified than us to comment on earlier campaigning, so we will restrict ourselves to commenting on 2011 onwards. … Continue reading