Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

[northwichcat]

I wonder how many TOCs do so, and how much effort they put in when attempting!Perhaps it is regional; here in North Yorkshire I've not seen any ex-London buses in use up here. Most school buses I see are not accessible, and most rail replacement vehicles I see are inaccessible coaches...

The deckers Arriva used on the X93 Scarborough-Whitby-Middlesbrough a few years back were ex-London, I've no idea where they finished up when the route got new high-spec buses.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

ok I give up. I have tried and tried to explain why Rail Replacement Services are not covered by PSVAR, even going as far as using the OP's own evidence to show why they are not. It is obvious that the OP is hell bent on showing that all bus companies/ TOC's are blatently breaking the law, which they are not. I cannot see how I can explain anything any better.

Rail Replacement services are, at law, treated as PH/ Contract services and are therefore exempt from current PSVAR rules. To suggest anything else is to say that all TOC's and bus operators are breaking the law... and that all regulatory bodies are turning a blind eye to the fact by failing to prosecute.... which to me suggests the OP is trying to start a conspiracy theory.

I really have nothing else to add to the debate, so unless someone comes up with a new/ valid point I am bowing out of this futile debate.

 

[kingqueen]

It was a contract/ ph not a registered local service as it was closed to the general public... much as Rail Replacement is. Only people who have entered into a contract with the TOC by purchase of a rail ticket are allowed to travel, therefore at law it is a closed service and not a public service.

Whether a service is open to the general public, and with whom the contract is, is not relevant for determination of whether the service is subject to PSVAR. For example, school buses are contracted by the local authority and are not open to the public but are still subject to the PSVAR if any one child has had money paid by them for their right to travel on that bus, even though payment is made to the local authority not the bus company. Similarly, private schools' school transport is subject to PSVAR, even though the contract is between the school and the bus company and even though the cost of such is paid out of school fees rather than charged separately. As Hansard tells us.

 

[kingqueen]

ok I give up. I have tried and tried to explain why Rail Replacement Services are not covered by PSVAR, even going as far as using the OP's own evidence to show why they are not.

Yes, you have tried, but you haven't convinced me or (apparently) some others. Not through my own pig-headedness, inability to take things in, unwillingness to see the other side, just because what you are saying does not accord with what I've read in the law.

It is obvious that the OP is hell bent on showing that all bus companies/ TOC's are blatently breaking the law, which they are not.

I am not hell-bent on anything. I was conducting a dispassionate debate about the regulations around accessibility regulations and their applicability to rail replacement vbuses and coaches.

I cannot see how I can explain anything any better.

You have expressed yourself quite clearly; the fact that you haven't convinced others e.g. me does not mean that I have failed to understand what you have said and what you believe is the case. It's just that I disagree with you and your interpretation.

Rail Replacement services are, at law, treated as PH/ Contract services and are therefore exempt from current PSVAR rules.

I have seen nothing in the legislation that gives such an exemption.

To suggest anything else is to say that all TOC's and bus operators are breaking the law

I'm glad you didn't say "intentionally" there, because I don't believe it is so. Similarly I don't believe that National Express, Megabus and Scottish City link were intentionally breaking the law by refusing wheelchair users spontaneous travel / insisting that wheelchair users must give notice. They didn't realise that the law obliges them to give wheelchair users access to unoccupied wheelchair spaces, even if not pre-booked.

and that all regulatory bodies are turning a blind eye to the fact by failing to prosecute

"Turning a blind eye" gives the impression of intention. I'm not accusing any regulator of a Machiavellian plot to deprive wheelchair users of access to rail replacement buses! I've given examples of other regulations which have never been enforced.

which to me suggests the OP is trying to start a conspiracy theory.

That is not true, and descending to the level of personal invective is not conducive to rational debate, so it is probably as well you're bowing out.

 

[kingqueen]

If you turn up at a large event and the ticket price includes parking at the event. However, you have to use overflow parking 1 mile away from the event and a shuttle bus, does that mean you've paid for the shuttle bus because you hold a ticket for the event.

There's a bit in the legislation that says if payment has been made that includes a right for an individual to travel on a bus, then the right doesn't have to have been exercised by everybody in order for the bus to be subject to the accessibility regulations.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Two points relating to train tickets being used on buses.

Firstly, in some cases you might buy a train ticket knowing you'll have to travel on a bus, in others you might buy a train ticket only to find out after purchasing you'll have to travel on a bus, in others you'll have an option of avoiding the replacement bus by taking an alternative train route.

Secondly, the ticket proves you're a customer of the railways and as a customer of the railways you're allowed to travel on the bus because they are unable to provide their normal service. If you turn up at a large event and the ticket price includes parking at the event. However, you have to use overflow parking 1 mile away from the event and a shuttle bus, does that mean you've paid for the shuttle bus because you hold a ticket for the event.

So a similar scenario - any ticket to a Brighton and Hove Albion FC game also gives you free rail and bus travel to the stadium in the local area around Brighton and Hove (as the stadium is actually in Falmer). The ticket prices are slightly higher because of this (and I believe they specify a "travel surcharge" as part of the ticket price that shows this), so would you have paid for the travel by buying a ticket? I'd say you have.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

So a similar scenario - any ticket to a Brighton and Hove Albion FC game also gives you free rail and bus travel to the stadium in the local area around Brighton and Hove (as the stadium is actually in Falmer). The ticket prices are slightly higher because of this (indeed they specify a "travel surcharge" as part of the ticket price), so would you have paid for the travel by buying a ticket? I'd say you have.

sorry but a completely different scenario.... in the case you mention the surcharge is allowing you to travel on the local bus network as already supplied by the local operator... therefore the vehicles used have to be accessible. However, if B&HA or the local company decided to pull out of the arrangement, and B&HA instead restricted availability to a closed service paid for by themselves whereby you could only travel on production of a ticket to the game, then that service would no longer be considered a local service... it would be a contract and would not be covered by PSVAR.

It seems to me that the confusion is in what constitutes a private, closed service.. and a public service... much in the same way that people assume that a bus station is a public place because the public are allowed access, when in fact bus stations are actually {usually} private places that the public has access to.

At the end of the day, if a service is not open to any member of the public through any form of condition or exclusion then that service is deemed, at law, as a contract/ PH.

As a Rail Replacement service is only open to people who have entered into a contract with the TOC by purchasing a ticket it is deemed a contract/ PH as the general public do not have a right of access onto the bus provided.

 

[kingqueen]

However, if B&HA or the local company decided to pull out of the arrangement, and B&HA instead restricted availability to a closed service paid for by themselves whereby you could only travel on production of a ticket to the game, then that service would no longer be considered a local service... it would be a contract and would not be covered by PSVAR.

That is not the case according to my reading of the legislation. There is no requirement that a bus or coach service be fully open to the public before it is subject to PSVAR. For example, as stated above, private school buses which only accept schoolkids enrolled at that private school, are subject to the PSVAR. The test for applicability does not include whether the bus service in question is open to the general public.

As a Rail Replacement service is only open to people who have entered into a contract with the TOC by purchasing a ticket it is deemed a contract/ PH as the general public do not have a right of access onto the bus provided.

Public school buses are only open to people who have entered into a contract with the local authority (through free school transport or through paying the authority to occupy a spare seat) but are still subject to the PSVAR even though the general public do not have a right out of access onto the bus provided.

(With the proviso PSVAR applies only if at least one child on the bus has had somebody pay for their individual place on the bus, even if it the payment is not made by the child, not made to the bus company, or if the payment made includes things other than just the bus travel.)

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

That is not the case according to my reading of the legislation. There is no requirement that a bus or coach service be fully open to the public before it is subject to PSVAR. For example, as stated above, private school buses which only accept schoolkids enrolled at that private school, are subject to the PSVAR. The test for applicability does not include whether the bus service in question is open to the general public. Public school buses are only open to people who have entered into a contract with the local authority (through free school transport or through paying the authority to occupy a spare seat) but are still subject to the PSVAR even though the general public do not have a right out of access onto the bus provided.

(With the proviso PSVAR applies only if at least one child on the bus has had somebody pay for their individual place on the bus, even if it the payment is not made by the child, not made to the bus company, or if the payment made includes things other than just the bus travel.)

That being the case, then every bus/ coach movement with passengers on board is subject to PSVAR due to the fact that EVERY movement with passengers on board in that every such movement has someone on board who has paid at some point down the line.... that means that coach holidays and ALL private hires/ contracts would be subject to PSVAR... which they are not.

Whether you like it or not, Rail Replacement services at law are considered to be contract/ PH and are not covered by PSVAR... if you can provide evidence that the law specifically refutes the industry/ regulatory body's interpretation of the law, then please share... and then take a test case to court.

This really is my last word on the subject. I really don't see that the likes of First/ Stagecoach et al would deliberately set out to flout the law in such a brazen way by providing vehicles that aren't legal!

 

[Deafdoggie]

Without a doubt there are many non-accessible coaches operating Rail Replacement. But even accessible ones have a step entrance.
It can be very difficult to tell an accessible coach from a non-accessible one. For many, there is simply an emergency door which has a wheel-chair lift stored underneath, and two seats are removed in the saloon to provide a wheelchair space. There is a space in the boot to store the chairs removed.
But at first glance, you’d struggle to know any of this. Indeed, even if you know this it’s often hard to tell.

 

[Robertj21a]

of course they are scheduled... in that the vehicles and drivers operate to a diagram. I think the problem is that there is more than one meaning to the word scheduled.

The crucial point when deciding whether something is a scheduled service or a contract/ PH service at law is whether or not the pax directly pays the bus operator to travel. As you do not pay directly to get on a Rail Replacement bus then said bus is a contract and not a scheduled service.

Sorry to say it but you're digging a very big hole. Planned rail replacement services generally operate to a schedule (not a diagram), serve a specified route, and a fare has been paid (to the TOC). As such it requires a PSVAR compliant vehicle. Any payment for travel on a rail replacement bus/coach does NOT have to be paid 'directly' to the operator.

 

[Robertj21a]

Without a doubt there are many non-accessible coaches operating Rail Replacement. But even accessible ones have a step entrance.
It can be very difficult to tell an accessible coach from a non-accessible one. For many, there is simply an emergency door which has a wheel-chair lift stored underneath, and two seats are removed in the saloon to provide a wheelchair space. There is a space in the boot to store the chairs removed.
But at first glance, you’d struggle to know any of this. Indeed, even if you know this it’s often hard to tell.

Most of the truly accessible coaches that are likely to be used will be ex-National Express/Megabus, where the lift is in the front door.

 

[kingqueen]

That being the case, then every bus/ coach movement with passengers on board is subject to PSVAR due to the fact that EVERY movement with passengers on board in that every such movement has someone on board who has paid at some point down the line....

Actually I'll amend my response slightly. The hypothetical buses put on by the football club would be considered not to be subject to PSVAR if it complies with the following.

The journey must be made without previous advertisement to the public of the arrangements therefor.

All passengers must, in the case of a journey to a particular destination, be carried to, or to the vicinity of, that destination, or, in the case of a tour, be carried for the greater part of the journey.
No differentiation of fares for the journey on the basis of distance or of time must be made.

But then the original poster was talking about the match ticket premium providing access on a variety of local bus/train routes. If this provision was recreated privately by the football club, I doubt it could meet the above criteria.

Whether you like it or not, Rail Replacement services at law are considered to be contract/ PH and are not covered by PSVAR

I disagree.

if you can provide evidence that the law specifically refutes the industry/ regulatory body's interpretation of the law, then please share... and then take a test case to court.

Similarly it's you can provide evidence that specifically supports your interpretation of the law, please share. It's dangerous to tempt me to take test cases!!!

I really don't see that the likes of First/ Stagecoach et al would deliberately set out to flout the law in such a brazen way by providing vehicles that aren't legal!

I can't imagine them KNOWINGLY doing it either. But Stagecoach (who operate Citylink and Megabus) were unwittingly making their drivers commit criminal offences through refusing travel to non-prebooked wheelchair users, for years until I pointed out the law earlier this year and forced them to change. The companies involved were apparently oblivious to this legal obligation until I forced the issue. Sometimes service providers are genuinely unaware of some sole aspects of legislation and act in contravention of it for years before they are forcibly brought up short.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Most of the truly accessible coaches that are likely to be used will be ex-National Express/Megabus, where the lift is in the front door.

As far as I’m aware it is only these ex NatExpress coaches that have the lift at the front. All the others are rear or part way back, so there’s a greater chance of non-front.
Although, arguably, RRB work is more likely to be operated by a company that buys second hand coaches rather than new. Thus increasing the chances of a front lift.
Either way though, many people see steps and think “not-accessible” whereas that’s not always true.

 

[Robertj21a]

Can I just add to the debate by simply highlighting that we seem to be fairly carried away with the legislation changes in 2020 that will affect *coaches*. If there are insufficient PSVAR compliant *coaches* from 2020 then there is no reason at all why PSVAR complaint *buses* can't be used to fill in as necessary, after all there are many thousands of those all over the UK already.

 

[kingqueen]

Can I just add to the debate by simply highlighting that we seem to be fairly carried away with the legislation changes in 2020 that will affect *coaches*. If there are insufficient PSVAR compliant *coaches* from 2020 then there is no reason at all why PSVAR complaint *buses* can't be used to fill in as necessary, after all there are many thousands of those all over the UK already.

That's true. But there don't appear to be sufficient spare buses such that school buses round the country are accessible. The ones round here largely aren't. Or perhaps there's some other factor to play that causes that

 

[Robertj21a]

That's true. But there don't appear to be sufficient spare buses such that school buses round the country are accessible. The ones round here largely aren't. Or perhaps there's some other factor to play that causes that

Buses that are not PSVAR compliant will, inevitably, be generally older - and cheaper !. Hard-up councils who are tendering for school contracts where a PSVAR complaint bus is *not* requested will invariably go for the cheapest option......

 

[Caleb2010]

Planned engineering works require many replacement buses in many instances, for example Three Bridges to Brighton/Lewes can require 90+ vehicles each day over a weekend!

Operators need to find suitable vehicles and still operate their own scheduled services, so lots of school transport is used.

There's a knock on effect!

School transport is generally provided by councils under contract, at the cheapest rate possible, vehicles used on schools journeys are not subject to dda compliance, and therefore are older step entrance vehicles bought cheaper than new vehicles for this work.

Now the Rail Replacement work. Once the dda compliant vehicles have been allocated to the 90+ workings, that may leave say 40 uncovered workings! Vehicles are then sourced to cover this work, again as cheaply as possible and in comes the school operator with the older step entrance buses and coaches. Which, like the bigger groups use vehicles used during the week on services that run Mon-Fri only.

Therefore the only time a rail replacement bus (service) could be guaranteed to be accessible is when all vehicles carrying pcv licences have to be accessible no matter what the use!

Saying that, if a journey required more than one vehicle, most sensible planners and supervisors would run one accessible and one non.

All this is for planned engineering work though, emergency response or E - rail is classed as the emergency evacuation of persons and anything with a wheel in each corner and a windscreen could (and often does) turn up. All quite legally!

As for the "Is it a service or not? "

Well, technically - it's a private hire, hired by the rail operator, otherwise there would have to be a service registration with the traffic commissioner for every rail replacement, detailing stops, likelihood of relief journey being required, listings in N&P, showing every operator.

 

[kingqueen]

Thank you, interesting.
Is there some form of set of rules or guidelines as to what should happen when TOCs provide rail replacement transport, both planned / medium term and "emergency" / short term? I wouldn't imagine it would be in the Rule Book or whatever.

 

[clagmonster]

The other 4 or 5 being accessible buses?

I don't think the PSVAR differentiates between situations where one bus, or several buses, run to the same schedule - my understanding is that PSVAR would apply to all the vehicles covering the one journey (provided it's got a published schedule etc.)

In the case of several buses covering one journey, one is the advertised bus and the others are reliefs that aren't publicly advertised. Thus presumably as the reliefs aren't necessarily scheduled, they can operate with non accessible buses, even if (and I am not entirely convinced either way) the bus advertised in the timetable is legally required to be accessible.

 

[Robertj21a]

Thank you, interesting.
Is there some form of set of rules or guidelines as to what should happen when TOCs provide rail replacement transport, both planned / medium term and "emergency" / short term? I wouldn't imagine it would be in the Rule Book or whatever.

I don't think you'll find any such thing. There's too many permutations of circumstances and TOCs. Suffice to say that not all TOCs are as good as others.......

 

[Jonfun]

I think we need to be careful what we wish for.
If a train company has to provide a toilet, it has to provide a disabled toilet. Result on some TOCs - no toilet for anybody.
Train company tries to bring in extra seats om an overstretched part of the network which can't convey wheelchair passengers. Result - no extra seats for anybody.
Can't accommodate wheelchair passengers on a rail replacement bus...

As admirable as the intentions are, the railway is not going to be fully accessible to those with every disability, certainly not in my lifetime, probably ever.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I think we need to be careful what we wish for.
If a train company has to provide a toilet, it has to provide a disabled toilet. Result on some TOCs - no toilet for anybody.
Train company tries to bring in extra seats om an overstretched part of the network which can't convey wheelchair passengers. Result - no extra seats for anybody.
Can't accommodate wheelchair passengers on a rail replacement bus...

As admirable as the intentions are, the railway is not going to be fully accessible to those with every disability, certainly not in my lifetime, probably ever.

Very wise words. I’m deaf, so I’d love a display saying where we are and where we’re going. But I’d rather transport with no display than no transport because they only had ones with no display!

 

[Robertj21a]

I think we need to be careful what we wish for.
If a train company has to provide a toilet, it has to provide a disabled toilet. Result on some TOCs - no toilet for anybody.
Train company tries to bring in extra seats om an overstretched part of the network which can't convey wheelchair passengers. Result - no extra seats for anybody.
Can't accommodate wheelchair passengers on a rail replacement bus...

As admirable as the intentions are, the railway is not going to be fully accessible to those with every disability, certainly not in my lifetime, probably ever.

Understood. However the key point being made relates to a person who has been able to travel on a train already but now needs a bus/coach as a part of the journey. From 2020 that should be achievable on a PSVAR compliant bus or coach (if it's not an 'emergency' situation).

 

[Bantamzen]

I think we need to be careful what we wish for.
If a train company has to provide a toilet, it has to provide a disabled toilet. Result on some TOCs - no toilet for anybody.
Train company tries to bring in extra seats om an overstretched part of the network which can't convey wheelchair passengers. Result - no extra seats for anybody.
Can't accommodate wheelchair passengers on a rail replacement bus...

As admirable as the intentions are, the railway is not going to be fully accessible to those with every disability, certainly not in my lifetime, probably ever.

This is indeed the risk. Certainly where RRBs are planned well in advance, TOCs should seek to source vehicles that are accessible wherever possible. But it should always be remembered that RRBs are short term contracted vehicles, and the availability of accessible ones will be subject to other contractual arrangements the coach operators already have. So even in situations where a booking is made in advance, they may be occasions where it simply isn't provide them & therefore TOCs would have to arrange alternatives for people with accessibility problems. And obviously where emergency RRBs are booked, it really will be a case that what turns up turns up. Like TOCs, most bus & coach operators don't have fleets and drivers sitting around just in case a RRB contract comes up.

However if any future legal action against TOCs over RRBs results in it being mandatory to provide accessible vehicles at all times, then quite honestly there are going to be an awful lot of disabled & abled-bodied people finding themselves all be totally stranded and unable to travel.

 

[richw]

Planned rail replacement seem to run more to schedule than an emergency rail replacement. The latter are called out at short notice to pick up at an origin and then run in no set timetable to the required stations.
95% of the time for planned engineering replacement there is an advertised schedule on the booking engines.

However reading through the detailed legislation, it makes regular mention that drivers of regulated services must comply. Rail replacement is NOT a regulated service.
One example:

The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations (Amendment) 2002 place an obligation on drivers of regulated buses (those which must comply with PSVAR). Further details are at Annex A.

The part in brackets being key here, regulated buses are those that must comply with PSVAR. Rail replacement is unregulated so on that line it is key they don’t need to comply.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If a train company has to provide a toilet, it has to provide a disabled toilet. Result on some TOCs - no toilet for anybody.

And I'd strongly suspect that the number of people for whom "no toilet" is an issue is greater than the number of people who would use the train in a wheelchair but can't because there is no *accessible* toilet.

I think the law doesn't take toilet provision seriously enough, as a result of which it is inadequate throughout the entire country - we are near enough back to Victorian days where older women (and it's mostly women, blokes can normally find *somewhere* to hide out of view of the ubiquitous CCTV) fear leaving the house for long enough that they can't get back to use the facilities.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think we need to be careful what we wish for.
If a train company has to provide a toilet, it has to provide a disabled toilet. Result on some TOCs - no toilet for anybody.
Train company tries to bring in extra seats om an overstretched part of the network which can't convey wheelchair passengers. Result - no extra seats for anybody.
Can't accommodate wheelchair passengers on a rail replacement bus...

As admirable as the intentions are, the railway is not going to be fully accessible to those with every disability, certainly not in my lifetime, probably ever.

Of course, you could easily legislate for that by saying that removing facilities that already exist instead of making them accessible is not compliant with the regulations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course, you could easily legislate for that by saying that removing facilities that already exist instead of making them accessible is not compliant with the regulations.

I do think there is a need for legislation on provision - something like a maximum journey time without provision, and in all cases if not provided there must be provision at a certain number of stations open for the full period of service, and any passenger requiring use must not be disadvantaged via the ticketing system (e.g. if you're on an Advance or the last off peak train).

More widely I think the statutory requirement for local authority provision needs to return.

With an ageing population, non-provision is causing people to be near housebound.

 

[Dai Corner]

I do think there is a need for legislation on provision - something like a maximum journey time without provision, and in all cases if not provided there must be provision at a certain number of stations open for the full period of service, and any passenger requiring use must not be disadvantaged via the ticketing system (e.g. if you're on an Advance or the last off peak train).

I think that's what's going to happen in the Cardiff Valleys, together with extended toilet stops on the last services of the day.

More widely I think the statutory requirement for local authority provision needs to return.

With an ageing population, non-provision is causing people to be near housebound.

That's something I'd pay more Council tax for.