Promises, Consultations and Roadmaps
Where’s the Accessible Railway?
You can listen to the newsletter here:
Well, well, well. The Government has finally responded to its railway consultation, and buried within 102 pages of bureaucratic prose lies the future of accessibility on Britain’s railways. I spent considerable time reading this document and watching the Transport Select Committee session with the Transport Secretary; I can report that it’s a mixed bag of genuine progress, political window dressing, and the occasional “we’ll figure that out later.”
A little bit of good news
Let’s start with the positive points:
Board-Level Representation That Matters: Great British Railways (GBR) will have a dedicated board member responsible for accessibility. Not tucked away in a sub-committee or mentioned in passing during quarterly reviews, but sitting at the top table where the big decisions get made. From my experience working with large organisations and government bodies, this move is key if this person takes their role seriously. They won’t have an easy job at the board, and it needs someone with a spine, not a talent for beating around the bush.
Legal Teeth with Bite: The passenger and accessibility duty isn’t just being slapped onto GBR like a diversity sticker in an email signature. It’s going into primary legislation, applying to everyone from the Transport Secretary down to the regulator ORR. When everyone has the same legal obligation, it’s harder for anyone to play the “not my issue” game.
A Watchdog with Actual Powers: The new Passenger Watchdog isn’t just getting a shiny new name. It’s getting powers. I hope it will use them wisely. They can demand data, expose patterns of failure, and drag operators kicking and screaming toward better standards. Again, it will depend heavily on how this new role is filled. With spine and ambition would be a good start.
The “Hmm, we’ll see” category
Now for the bits that sound promising but come with more caveats:
Rolling Stock Consistency: GBR promises more consistent accessibility specifications for new trains. This sounds wonderful until you remember that “new trains” in Britain operate on looooong timescales. And Level Boarding is still not mandatory. The Government has the power to require only standard-height trains for future procurement to enable level boarding. So far, they haven’t, but there is hope.
Integrated Digital Experience: A single, accessible website and app sounds brilliant - until you’ve seen how spectacularly some organisations can mess this up, and the railway industry has a big history book of delayed and botched IT projects around accessibility. I’m actually quite happy with LNER’s app and booking system, and that I can arrange assistance via WhatsApp with Southeastern. I want to book a ticket and get assistance in one go, and I want to be able to talk to the operator on the go because problems never occur when I’m at home using a website. I don’t want to be forced to download a special app. I want train operators to integrate everything into their app, no special passenger assist app. If we get there, it would be a win.
Better Journey Coordination: The promise of seamless end-to-end assistance coordination is music to the ears of disabled passengers. But coordination requires competent people, proper training, and systems that actually talk to each other. The legislation can mandate it, but implementation is key. And no app will fix failed assists. Enough staff and good leadership will.
The political spin
And then we have the sections that read like a political PR agency wrote them:
“Relentless Focus on Passenger Experience”: This phrase appears so often that it must be filled with meaning now. It sounds impressive in press releases, but tells us absolutely nothing about what will actually change.
“More Joined-Up Approach”: Another favourite. It means “we’ll try harder” without specifying what “harder” actually means or how success will be measured.
Consultation, Consultation: I’m getting bored with consultations and questionnaires. Nothing is clearer than what disabled passengers want: Travelling as conveniently (or inconveniently) as everyone else. There were so many studies about accessible travel, barriers to public transport and exclusion in the past; the problem is clear. Now fix it!
Not every paper is a roadmap
Here’s what’s notably absent from all these legislative activities: specific targets, mid- to long-term timelines, and ring-fenced, increased funding to drive meaningful improvements in accessibility.
Rail freight gets growth targets. The environment gets net-zero commitments. Accessibility gets... warm words and a promise that it’ll be considered alongside everything else. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander wasn’t very ambitious either when talking at the Transport Select Committee about accessibility two weeks ago.
The Access for All programme is mentioned, but there’s no commitment to accelerate it or expand its scope. In fact, the Transport Secretary spoke about value for money, inexpensive projects, and not making all platforms accessible. That smells too much of a 90s accessibility approach - before the DDA and that’s not good enough for 2025.
It’s still totally unclear by when all stations in the country will be accessible. When I spoke at the Transport Select Committee in 2023, I said that we need a roadmap to make the railway accessible. We need a timeline for every station by when it will be accessible, even if it takes 50 years. Without a plan, it will never happen. And while you’re on it, refurbish the platforms too to prepare them for level boarding.
Now the Government has presented an “accessibility roadmap” alongside its consultation response. But not every paper is a roadmap, especially not one with such weak delivery points. A so-called “Welcome Point” (a glorified intercom connected to a call centre) won’t get me on a train. Staff does.
To ask the RDG and Network Rail to deliver training standards on customer experience for disabled customers, let me gasp. Network Rail has by far the “most challenged” staff when it comes to assistance at stations, to say it mildly. I don’t tell any secrets here. Euston? St Pancras? Liverpool Street? Not exactly the Singapore Airlines of customer experience for passengers who need assistance. Meanwhile, Manchester Piccadilly prepares for the next beach holidays while customers have failed assists. They would benefit greatly from better standards themselves; I would not ask them to develop them.
The rest of the “roadmap” is not exciting either. Read it; it’s not long. I don’t see much difference from the previous Government. What’s missing is passion. Politicians and governments can deliver on topics they are passionate about - timely and with funding. And accessibility is a topic that needs passion. It’s a matter of political priorities.
Once-in-a-lifetime chance
GBR is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to reform the railway industry. But it needs forward-looking people in charge, not the same old, same old approach, but call it “roadmap”
So far, this isn’t the revolutionary transformation some hoped for in accessibility. The organisational changes make sense, and there’s real potential for improvement. However, success will depend on 1. implementation details that haven’t been finalised yet, 2. funding decisions that haven’t been made, and 3. cultural changes that can’t be legislated and last but not least, timelines for delivery. Every passenger should at least know by when their local station will be accessible.
In other words, it’s a start. But as anyone who’s ever used assistance in the railway system knows, starting well and arriving are two very different things.
Some interesting links
The UK Government has introduced an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, giving it the power to mandate key accessibility measures at public electric vehicle charging points to ensure accessibility for disabled drivers.
Here are the next 17 London tube stations set to get step-free access.
It’s so important that organisations first meet expectations, then embed these expectations in their brand initiatives. Not the other way around. Yes, representation is important, but it must match the reality - Avanti accused of ‘virtue signalling without virtue’
Something to read
The disability community is mourning Alice Wong, who died at the age of 51. Alice was a disabled Asian American activist who shaped the contemporary disability culture. I recommend not only reading Peter Torres Fremlin's obituary. I also recommend reading Alice Wong’s books.
Some final words
In her farewell message that she left, Alice said:
“It was thanks to friendships and some great teachers who believed in me that I was able to fight my way out of miserable situations into a place where I finally felt comfortable in my skin. We need more stories about us and our culture. You all, we all, deserve the everything and more in such a hostile, ableist environment. Our wisdom is incisive and unflinching. I’m honored to be your ancestor and believe disabled oracles like us will light the way to the future. Don’t let the bastards grind you down. I love you all.”
The Accessible Link is a reader-supported publication.
Who is writing this newsletter?
I’m Christiane Link, and I improve the customer experience in aviation, transport, and travel. I worked as a journalist for over two decades and travelled extensively for business and leisure. I’m a wheelchair user.
Work with me
Whether you're a Customer Service Director, a Head of Customer Experience, a corporate Accessibility Manager, a DEI leader, a transport planner, or a member of a disabled employee resource group, I can help you make your organisation more inclusive. You can book me for speaking engagements or hire me as a consultant for your accessibility or DEI strategy, communications advice and other related matters. I have worked for airlines, airports, train operators, public transport providers, and companies in other sectors.
If you want to read more from me, follow me on LinkedIn, Twitter, Bluesky or Mastodon. You can also reply to this email if you want to contact me.
.