Doug Paulley's blog

	This is a TriRide, a popular motorised electronic addition to a manual wheelchair. It is good for off-roading and long distances. (I want one!)
	This is Dominic Lund-Conlon, Accessibility and Inclusion Manager at Rail Delivery Group (RDG). Has a history of unsupportable pronouncements on rail accessibility, and a reputation for undermining disability rights and campaigners (particularly younger / female campaigners.)

On a TriRide Facebook group, a TriRide rider recently recounted station staff challenging her for using her TriRide on a train. Staff told her she “needs to book a bike space for it.”

This sounds very similar to this situation, for which ScotRail apologised.

Our Dom gave our Facebook group a “helpful”, authoritative answer.

I challenged:

Dominic Lund-Conlon it doesn’t. There’s no legal definition of an e-bike, just as there’s no legal differentiation between a mobility scooter and an electric wheelchair. As usual the rail industry, especially Rail Delivery Group, are behind the times on such. Incorrectly giving unsubstantiated supposed “definitions” of Tri-Ride as being an “e-bike” is unhelpful. I do hope that you are not giving such incorrect advice / get-outs to train operating companies, in your role of accessibility manager at RDG.

To which he replied:

He never did get back to us though, so I thought I would seek the requisite “further clarity” by means of my own Freedom of Information request to the Department for Transport (DfT).

Their response reveals:

1. The DfT has no record of communication with Our Dom or RDG on the issue.

‘Copies of communications to/from DLC and/or RDG on classification of such items, including the explanation that such were to be treated as e-bikes.’
I can confirm that the Department does not hold the information that you have requested.

2. E-bikes must have pedals.

The Department’s definition of an e-bike is as set out in the Electronically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 (as amended in 2015). In summary, an e-bike must comply with the following requirements:

• cycle must be fitted with pedals that are capable of propelling it;
• maximum continuous rated power of the electric motor must not exceed 250 watts;
  and
• electrical assistance must cut-off when the vehicle reaches 15.5 mph.

If an e-bike complies with these Regulations in full it can legally be used on the road. Further information on the legal definition of an e-cycle is available on the Government website.

3. In UK rail, there’s no definition of a wheelchair or mobility device.

The Department, with regard to rolling stock, the PRM-National Technical Specification Notices, does not provide ‘a formal definition of a wheelchair / electric wheelchair and  mobility device’ but deals with the size of the wheelchair space, the maximum engineering limits for a wheelchair transportable by train and also the environment around the space to comply with the regulations.

4. There’s no DfT guidance on TriRides on trains.

‘Any statement and guidance on the use of triride and other manual wheelchair electrical mobility assistance add-ons on train services….’
The Department does not hold this information.

A tricky subject

The question of whether a TriRide forms part of a wheelchair, whether it is a bike, a mobility scooter, or something else, is tickly and important to disabled people – as demonstrated by the TriRide users being challenged when attempting to travel on trains.

I have my own opinions (that they are part of a wheelchair and should be allowed on with the same rights as any other wheelchair user) but that’s all they are: opinions, and nothing “official”.

Dominic Lund-Conlon’s irresponsible and inaccurate public pronouncements

Our Dom, however, is once again giving out insupportable and demonstrably inaccurate pronouncements on such, with the backing of his position at Rail Delivery Group and supposedly based on what he has been told by the Department for Transport.

Our Dom’s action is like a bull in a china shop. It is irresponsible, unprofessional and counter to disabled people’s rights. It is the last thing disabled people need.

He has a history of such behaviour. Presumably this is why he stopped tweeting and deleted a load of his tweets. (Scuttlebutt is that his employer instructed him to do so.)

What is Dominic saying behind the scenes?

I would say that Our Dom should stop making public pronouncements on such matters, a sentiment with which his employer doubtlessly agrees. But if he does stop, that creates a problem. We will have even less idea of what he’s saying behind the scenes. Sadly, despite his unsupported and unelected position, what he says likely has some weight (at least with people who haven’t seen through him) as a result of him being RDG’s Accessibility and Inclusion Manager.

Is he telling Train Operating Companies that wheelchairs with TriRides attached are “e-bikes” and can thus be refused on trains?

I have no reason to assume that his private pronouncements are any more accurate, substantiable, and rights-upholding than his public ones. Evidence would suggest otherwise—e.g., in his particularly cripple-kicking emails to train operating companies (in which he instructed companies to cancel every disabled person’s assistance bookings across the country for a 24-hour period during which trains continued to run.)

We also know that despite RDG’s claimed commitment to transparency, RDG actively resist attempts to reveal what they and Dominic are saying and doing in the name of accessibility.

This secrecy is problematic – especially given that what he does occasionally reveal is both so inaccurate and counter to disabled people’s interests.

A dangerous snake-in-the-grass.

As I wrote previously,

It is widely thought that RDG, and particularly Dominic Lund-Conlon, are active impediments to access for disabled people to rail transport. Neither represent disabled passengers, or even their operating company members; and it is time that both went.

and

Some disabled people think Dom is a misogynist and a bully. I think he is a two-faced yes-man, touting his ableist industry and employer’s self-congratulatory back-slapping whilst failing to deliver disabled passenger’s rights (e.g. the supposedly-all-singing-all-dancing Passenger Assist app). In my opinion, he also engages in gaslighting and undermining other disabled passengers’ voices. I think that far from my blog post “striking at the heart of our client’s professional reputation”, it actually endorses much of the disabled community’s view of him, more like.

This

has affirmed my opinion (shared by many) that both he and RDG should JUST GO, as the self-important, bullying, non-delivering, ableist apologists and liabilities to disabled people they are.

He doesn’t represent either disabled people or the train operating companies RDG claims to represent (whose accessibility initiatives and concerns about RDG’s accessibility end up sabotaged and bullied out of existence).

He should JUST GO.

Content Warning: deaths on the railway / at level crossings, suicide

At the Copmanthorpe Crossing public inquiry today, I commented that two people have died at the crossing since 2015 and that if Network Rail had agreed to pay for an accessible footbridge, they may still be alive.

Network Rail objected to my comment. In their closing submission, they said my comment was unfair because Network Rail cares very much about people’s safety. But my comment is valid.

2015 attempted closure

In 2015, as part of a level crossing risk reduction strategy,  Network Rail planned to shut the crossing and install this inaccessible footbridge.

It has the same footbridge design as they are trying to install now.

But they didn’t shut the crossing in 2015. The reason was revealed in Network Rail’s Freedom of Information Response:

The crossing was being considered for closure as part of our national level crossing risk reduction closure programme. This programme aimed at finding safer alternatives to our level crossing so we could close them and reduce the risk of accidents.

The risk of the crossing was measured by the Fatality Weighted Index (FWI), and each FWI had a cost associated with it. At the time of this scheme, the crossing risk value equated £630,000 which was the budget allocated to closing this level crossing and providing an alternative crossing option. This figure was sufficient to build a stepped footbridge but on consultation with the local community, and despite our experts advising that a stepped footbridge was the only feasible solution within the limited budget available, this proposal met with significant local opposition, and the parish council and others putting forward counterproposals. These alternative suggestions included a ramped bridge or an underpass at a nearby recreation ground – these options were estimated to cost around £1.65m and £3m respectively.

In consequence, we decided not to progress the closure of the crossing at this time.

In other words: after the local community objected to replacing the level crossing with an inaccessible footbridge, Network Rail had the option of installing an accessible one and preventing the risk – but refused to do so because of the extra cost.

Level crossing incidents since 2015

Tragically, two people have died on the line at Copmanthorpe since 2015—this death in 2016 and this death in 2022.

These deaths are reflected in Network Rail’s Statement of Case for their current attempt to install the stepped footbridge. (Appendix 2 on page 79).

Fatalities in the last 10 years at Copmanthorpe No.2 Level Crossing

• 01/05/2016 – the driver of 2T08 Leeds to York reported that they had observed a body in the vicinity of Y779 signal in the vicinity of Copmanthorpe crossing.

• 02/11/2022 – the driver of 2T16 York to Leeds reported that they had struck a person on the Up Leeds line at Copmanthorpe No 2 level crossing.

At the Public Inquiry Site Visit yesterday, I met Network Rail trespass management staff who had been called out to the aftermath of these incidents. My heart goes out to them.

These tragedies don’t just affect the person who died and their families and friends. There’s also the poor train driver, Network Rail staff who must clean up the site, and others. So many people are profoundly affected.

Known Risks

Network Rail knew that these deaths were a possibility. They had previous incidents, e.g.,

• 16/01/2013 – British Transport Police reported a suicidal male on the line near Copmanthorpe No 2 FPWM crossing.

Network Rail rated Copmanthorpe as one of the higher-risk crossings for fatalities.

Using their “All Level Crossing Risk Model“, Network Rail rated it Level 2 Risk (out of 1-13, 1 being the greatest risk) for the collective risk of the crossing, and the risk to each person as Category B (out of A-M, A being the greatest risk.)

Yet despite this, in 2015, Network Rail chose not to replace the crossing because they wouldn’t commit the extra funding to put in an accessible footbridge after the community (rightly) objected to Network Rail’s planned 96-step inaccessible one.

Conclusion

Many factors contribute towards deaths on the railway. It would be simplistic and wrong to say that Network Rail has been responsible for the deaths since 2015. I would not, and could not, say that.

What I did say – and stand by – is that these deaths may not have occurred had Network Rail put in an accessible footbridge in 2015 because installing the footbridge would have enabled them to close the crossing as they intended.

It is also transparently the case that Network Rail chose to continue the risk of fatalities these last eight years rather than spend the extra money to install an accessible footbridge. A risk that was realised; two people tragically lost their lives.

Now, in 2023, they are attempting once again to install the same inaccessible footbridge that they failed to install in 2015.