Superseagull
Well-known member
- Jul 8, 2003
- 2,123
There's two sides to the story. Classic example of the press turning a story on its head.
Yes the trains don't comply with the disability laws, but the trains are leased from a finace company and not owned by SWT so SWT are not going to pay for them to be bought up to standard.
SWT were not responsible for the design of the trains, and don't want to lease the trains anymore as they are too expensive and basically crap and riddled with faults, so need a way out of the leasing contract.
This disability issue gives them the excuse they have wanted and have now gone and ordered loads of brand new rolling stock to replace the junk they have been stuck with for the past seven years.
Yet another example of the cock up that was rail privatisation.
Yes the trains don't comply with the disability laws, but the trains are leased from a finace company and not owned by SWT so SWT are not going to pay for them to be bought up to standard.
SWT were not responsible for the design of the trains, and don't want to lease the trains anymore as they are too expensive and basically crap and riddled with faults, so need a way out of the leasing contract.
This disability issue gives them the excuse they have wanted and have now gone and ordered loads of brand new rolling stock to replace the junk they have been stuck with for the past seven years.
Yet another example of the cock up that was rail privatisation.