News Desk

A Lot of Noise

15th August 2009

Modern technology makes it as easy to annoy people as it does to make their world better. A mobile phone is a blessing for some but a serious annoyance to others who have to share the same space. Now train operators are being accused of annoying passengers with incessant announcements that make it hard to relax, even in the so-called quiet coach. South West trains has generated such a furore on the Portsmouth line that MP David Willets has taken up their cause and complained to rail watchdog Passenger Focus, citing 31 announcements given in a 32 minute journey. Naturally this has attracted the attention of the newspapers (for this is the silly season); they have jumped on the opportunity to print a ‘bad news’ rail story and failed to pick up on other train operators who are at least as bad.

To be fair train operators have to wrestle with impossible demands to reconcile the conflicting requirements placed upon them. One might think that common sense might apply to the making of audible announcements, but unfortunately the government has decided it can do a better job and has promulgated the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations which are often quoted as the reason for certain kinds of apparent madness. South West trains went one better and blamed the European Union. Their spokesperson in nearby Perth said “South West Trains admitted other customers have complained that there are too many announcements”. The company says “they are in accordance with EU regulations, which state all trains have to display and announce information regarding the destination and upcoming stops”. So that’s alright then. It doesn’t explain the lengthy tracts read out on East Coast main line services leaving Kings Cross that sometimes go on for so long trains are north of Finsbury Park before the conductor runs out of breath. This is clearly nothing for which even the EU can be blamed. What other industry would greet passengers with such negative and lengthy greetings when enjoying their service?

So what do the regulations actually say? We are talking about the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 2456) made in order to apply certain aspects of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to railway vehicles, and made under Section 46 of that Act. The regulations apply to all new vehicles introduced on or after 1st January 1999, and to other vehicles which have been ‘substantially rebuilt’ after that date (though this does appear to be DfT interpretation).

Regulation 13 covers passenger information. Subparagraph 1 requires vehicles to be fitted with visual and audible public address systems. Subparagraph 4 requires both systems to be used to announce the destination of the vehicle when the vehicle is stopped. Subparagraph 5 requires both systems to be used to announce the next stop not more than 5 minutes before the train is expected to stop (unless stops are less than two minutes apart). It also requires PA to be used to announce delays, diversions and emergencies.

On the face of it this implies two announcements are necessary between each stop, one at each station announcing destination and another just prior to arrival announcing next stop. Regulation 4 doesn’t seem to be satisfactorily worded in that it doesn’t indicate whether an announcement has to be made once or continuously – a train can dwell at a station for a long time on occasions.

Our government likes to have more than one bite of the cherry though. Not satisfied with producing regulations it then issues guidance which is different from the regulations. We therefore find the ‘guidance’ suggests that when a train is stationary an announcement is made announcing the stop and the next stop as well as the final destination. So far as announcing next station before arrival is concerned, the suggestion is made that making it more than once is helpful when stations are a long distance apart. However even the guidance acknowledges that only ‘essential’ information is given and that too much ‘might irritate other passengers’. Fascinatingly, we learn that ‘too much’ information includes describing catering facilities.

Having said all that, the RVAR is nothing to do with European legislation and was an entirely home-spun production, the detail having been produced by the Department for Transport in conjunction with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, set up in 1985 to advise the DfT. Nor was the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 the consequence of any European legislative activity. If the way RAVR interpretation is beginning to jar with the population at large, it isn’t (for a change) the result of Brussel’s dictate.

But this is changing. Brussels wants Europe to be a seamless travel zone by train and has introduced the concept of the Trans European Network (or TEN, for short). TEN includes a large number of lines within the UK, basically all the inter-City routes and some others for good measure. To ensure that interoperability is possible, various Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) are being issued that apply to the whole of the TEN network and vehicles providing train services along it.

A TSI concerning ‘Persons with Reduced Mobility’ was issued on 21st December 2007 (regulation 2008/164/EC). This came into force on 1st July 2008 and makes the following requirements in relation to passenger information made audibly.

4.2.2.8.3. Information (route description and seat reservation)

The train shall be fitted with a public address system which shall be used either for routine or emergency announcements by the driver or by another crewmember who has specific responsibility for passengers.

The system may operate on a manual, an automated or pre-programmed basis. If the system is automated, it shall be possible to suppress, or correct, incorrect or misleading information.
The system shall be used to announce the destination and next stop of the train, or on departure from, each stop.

The system shall be used to announce the next stop of the train at least two minutes before the arrival of the train at that stop. If the next station is less than two minutes planned journey time away, the next station shall be announced immediately following departure from the previous station.

The spoken information shall have a minimum RASTI level of 0,5, in accordance with IEC 60268-16 part 16, in all areas. The system shall meet the requirement at each seat location and wheelchair space.

The system shall be capable of giving announcements in more than one language. (The choice and number of languages shall be the responsibility of the Railway Undertaking having regard to the clientele of an individual train service).

If the system is automated, it shall be possible to suppress, or correct, incorrect or misleading information.

4.1.2.12. Spoken information

The spoken information shall have a minimum RASTI level of 0,5, in accordance with IEC 60268-16 part 16, in all areas.

Where provided, spoken information shall be consistent with essential visual information that is being displayed.

Where spoken information is not provided automatically, an audible communication system shall be provided to allow users to get information upon request.

It will be noticed that this information is crafted more thoughtfully than RAVR, but nevertheless conflicts with it. In consequence we now have “The Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2008” to contend with (these came into force on 7th July. This document denotes that vehicles that operate in the UK on the TEN (Conventional) network (about 70 per cent of UK track mileage) will be deemed to comply with the new regulations if they had previously complied with RVAR. New vehicles, though, must comply with the new interoperability regulations. That should be fun for staff and vehicle designers who operate both types of vehicle, and potentially confusing for passengers. However, existing vehicles must continue to comply with the regulations in force when first brought into service (ie RVAR) so the old wording will continue to apply to most vehicles for some time to come.

Readers will all be anxious to know what a RASTI level is, as this applies to the new regulations but not the old ones. It actually stands for Rapid Speech Transmission Index, and is a standard method of determining the intelligibility of transmitted speech. It is graduated between the values of 0 and 1, and a value of 0.75 is regarded as excellent and 0.3 or below as unsatisfactory. The EU, in plumping for a suspiciously round 0.5, is asking for a quality described only as ‘fair’, though for amplified systems it may not be practicable to ask for better. A high RASTI at the lowest practical volume would be a good result.