So because we haven’t got universal level boarding we can’t have LGBTQ+ diversity. Right. Got it.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read. https://twitter.com/robtoro2/status/1298217633066737670

So, here goes, unpopular opinion of the week.

Should we have level boarding universally across 100% of the railway network? Unequivocally yes. That goes without saying.

And it is true that we are very far behind where we should be - depressingly so.

But that doesn’t mean that it is practical or easy to make 100% of the network accessible tomorrow. The (sad) reality is that even in my lifetime we won’t see the majority of the network being accessible. Some stations will *never* be accessible.

Of course it sucks - and accessibility isn’t just about level boarding either. There’s plenty of other things that need to be looked at to ensure that everyone can use the network without barrier - in some cases step free access schemes make things *worse* for those with mobility

impairments that don’t require the use of a wheelchair, for example (looking at you, King’s Cross St. Pancras). Accessibility needs to be seen and treated as a whole. It needs to be integrate between different modes and we need a larger, industry wide vision.

But we also need to be realistic. Some step free access projects will cost *millions* - can they be justified *right now*? Is it better to do one big project or lots of small ones? These are all pertinent questions, and I certainly don’t know the answers.

Where we can rightly criticise the industry is level boarding - or the lack thereof. Anglia have gotten this spot on - brand new trains with level boarding to the existing infrastructure. Merseyside is getting similar. These trains (which I rave about regularly) are revolutionary

What is not revolutionary is the glut of new trains elsewhere that are more of the same. Crossrail. Overground. Northern. West Anglia. Great Western. LNER. The list goes on and on and on... high floor trains with, in some cases, bigger steps up than on the trains they replaced.

But - level boarding != accessible! There are stations within Anglia (and believe Merseyside) that will still have steps to leave the station - rendering the level boarding less useful (not useless! For some it will still be a huge help BECAUSE accessibility is broad!).

So then we come to stations. Those new lift schemes - fantastic! Brilliant! But, hang on, why does it take me 20 minutes to interchange using lifts and ramps? Why am I detouring around the entire station? Because our network is OLD and, in many cases, there simply isn’t space.

We loop back round to accessibility versus practicality. Is it better to have a 100% level boarding station, from street to train, that takes 30 extra minutes to navigate, OR is it better to focus on the “easy” additions where the only extra time is waiting for a lift?

In these cases, is it better to provide prompt, alternative transport from start to *finish* (NOT to interchange) on a case by case basis, or to make the network arguably less user friendly? Again, I don’t know the answer, but the former is what a number of operators already do.

I’m not an accessibility expert. I’m incredibly privileged to be able bodied and I’ll never truly understand the struggles. But I have friends who do, and this is something I talk to them about quite a lot. I’ve also got front line experience talking to passengers and seeing how

the network treats them. And, again: unequivocally we MUST do better.

But we are working with infrastructure that is coming up for 200 years old in places. Accessibility has never been a concern until relatively recently. Retrofitting it in is *hard*. In some places it is…

…*impossible*. Short of closing down entire lines (and, let me be clear, I’ve spent the last 18 months ADVOCATING this for routes that have been running non-PRM compliant stock since the start of the year) there isn’t going to be 100% accessibility. To expect it is unreasonable.

Many of these discussions forget about the successes, too. I don’t have stats for the national rail network, but EVERY Tube station built since 1977 has been fully accessible (10, with two more on the way). Almost third of the network is now fully “accessible”. More are following

We’ve seen the installation of countless ‘Harrington Humps’ across the country to provide limited level access where there was none. Much, much more is being made of the passenger experience from start to finish.

But let’s come back to the notion of “accessibility”. Really, we should be using the word “usability”. If transport cannot be used *by everyone* then it is failing - we’re seeing this a lot at the moment with the Covid restrictions, by the way.

Accessibility and usability go hand in hand. There are countless different functions and needs that have to jostle for priority - and that’s wrong. We need a much more joined up approach. Someone who cannot use stairs may be fine with escalators, for instance. So why do we send…

…they off on a long detour to the “accessible” lifts? Or the person with sensory or mental health impairments - they can’t stand in the crowded ticket hall during disruption. They’re just as disadvantaged with the way we see & operate transport networks as anyone else.

And then there’s the quiet teenage trans man who’s just been verbally abused on a train. They can’t find staff to talk to and they’ve never seen anything that shows they’re being supported. They’re now put off using train travel for life, because they don’t feel safe.

Having a rainbow Pride train, or roundels, or lanyards, or badges, or posters, or portraits... these are JUST as important as “physical” usability projects. Because they say: “Hey, you! Use our trains! You’ll be safe and welcome!”. This is Good.

I’m not naive enough to say it’s perfect (I mean I spend most of my time saying that it isn’t), and equally the ‘struggles’, if you will, are not the same. But they are CONNECTED. They all move an industry with a huge lack of self awareness forwards. It all helps.

This thread is a mess and very jumbly, but hopefully it makes sense. I’m still learning about these issues and I’m not saying that this is 100% accurate. Please call me out on anything I’ve said that is problematic - it’s not intentional.

Tl;dr: the industry needs to do better in pretty much every category. If you want to make that change happen, you need to listen, learn and amplify. Having inane conversations about seats, or liveries, or names doesn’t help anyone. Actual, meaningful change does.