Sad to see some disabled bus users still being treated like rubbish.

[VItraveller]

Coach firm to pay thousands to accessible transport activist after driver lied that he threatened violence

A coach operator that passed on defamatory lies about a well-known disabled activist who exposed the inaccessibility of one of its coaches will have to pay him substantial damages, and make a humil…

www.disabilitynewsservice.com

U can understand that some drivers may feel that they don’t get enough support from management but to blatantly lie is really bad form and makes me wonder whether there isn’t something toxic in the culture of these firms.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Coach firm to pay thousands to accessible transport activist after driver lied that he threatened violence

A coach operator that passed on defamatory lies about a well-known disabled activist who exposed the inaccessibility of one of its coaches will have to pay him substantial damages, and make a humil…

www.disabilitynewsservice.com

U can understand that some drivers may feel that they don’t get enough support from management but to blatantly lie is really bad form and makes me wonder whether there isn’t something toxic in the culture of these firms.

Hard to say. Some firms have good management and some bad. Drivers are also not a homogenous group either, and that a driver may not always be an accurate reflection on a firm.

More pertinently, there was clearly multiple failures in the provision of trained staff/serviceable vehicles.

 

[Jim James]

Rail replacement services are not required to be accessible although they will try to provide some accessible vehicles

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rail replacement services are not required to be accessible although they will try to provide some accessible vehicles

This is no longer the case. Accessible vehicles are required by law - RRBs are considered to come under the PSVAR regulations. It's a pain, because if you're replacing say a 2-car DMU which has one wheelchair space with three coaches all three need to be accessible when really it would be equivalent to the train if only one of them was. It's part of the reason why TOCs often won't provide anything any more - getting enough accessible vehicles is difficult because most coach hire companies don't have them or only have a few.

 

[TUC]

This is no longer the case. Accessible vehicles are required by law - RRBs are considered to come under the PSVAR regulations. It's a pain, because if you're replacing say a 2-car DMU which has one wheelchair space with three coaches all three need to be accessible when really it would be equivalent to the train if only one of them was. It's part of the reason why TOCs often won't provide anything any more - getting enough accessible vehicles is difficult because most coach hire companies don't have them or only have a few.

I wouldn't have thought there is any issue with all three coaches needing to be accessible if all three are operating simultaneously from point A to point B. That is surely no different to only one train coach being accessible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't have thought there is any issue with all three coaches needing to be accessible if all three are operating simultaneously from point A to point B. That is surely no different to only one train coach being accessible.

You'd think this would make sense, just as it would make sense for the service car on NatEx to be accessible but a duplicate might not need to be as the wheelchair user can be accommodated on the service car, but my understanding is that this isn't the case and all have to be accessible.

 

[markymark2000]

Rail replacement services are not required to be accessible although they will try to provide some accessible vehicles

That is incorrect. Rail Replacement services come into scope of PSVAR and as such all Rail Replacement should be accessible. The only exceptions to this is where an operator has been given an exemption certificate (which must be on the bus and shown on request) or emergency rail replacement.

It's part of the reason why TOCs often won't provide anything any more - getting enough accessible vehicles is difficult because most coach hire companies don't have them or only have a few.

That approach is limited to only certain TOCs. Some TOCs still go well above and beyond and request shed loads more buses. See Avanti who keep running Crewe to Stoke buses during the Stockport blockades, despite the fact Avanti don't run any Crewe to Stoke services and there are/were still EMR/WMR trains running. TFW similarly enjoy running buses to duplicate over trains or other operators buses rather than working with other operators to provide a better combined service.

Getting accessible vehicles isn't as bad as it once was, operators are starting to buy more accessible vehicles because they started to lose the Rail Rep work, and some need them anyway for certain school routes. In most areas, there are coach operators that operate almost entirely on the premise of Rail Replacement (or at least 70% of their work is Rail Replacement). The issue now is not finding accessible vehicles, it's finding drivers who know how to work the lifts and straps etc. Training from operators is absolutely shocking on this, and many drivers still do not check lifts work and availability of straps on walkaround check (as they should) because many industry defect cards don't properly say to check lifts/straps.

Speaking to staff on the ground last year on a rail replacement block, it took 7 consecutive coaches to find one which could convey a wheelchair. Every bus had missing straps or drivers who didn't know how to operate the equipment.

 

[VItraveller]

Hard to say. Some firms have good management and some bad. Drivers are also not a homogenous group either, and that a driver may not always be an accurate reflection on a firm.

More pertinently, there was clearly multiple failures in the provision of trained staff/serviceable vehicles.

my comments about a toxic culture arent just based on this incident alone, but on a number of instances that I’ve heard of when drivers drive past people in wheelchairs or refuse to board them.
The most extreme example of this being here:

Bus company’s urgent probe after driver called for wheelchair-user who reported discrimination to be shot

A disabled bus passenger and campaigner has been left in a “state of constant fear” after he was shown “dehumanising” and “violent” messages exchanged between drivers that made fun of his weight an…

www.disabilitynewsservice.com

as I say that one is extreme though interestingly it’s the same company discriminating against the wheelchair user on multiple occasions, but I think the reason that drivers do this is because they really don’t feel that operating the ramp is an essential core part of their role in the same way that driving the bus is so many of them just choose to ignore it.
I also wonder how the retraining is being framed, if it’s a case of the company saying something like come on lads you need to be on your best behaviour because we’re being audited by Disabled rail activists and it’s costing us a lot of money wink wink nudge nudge, I feel that automatically creates an adversarial relationship between the drivers and wheelchair users whereas if the training is framed more like this is an integral core part of your role and if you’re not doing it then you can be penalised, that would go a long way.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Hard to say. Some firms have good management and some bad. Drivers are also not a homogenous group either, and that a driver may not always be an accurate reflection on a firm.

You get good drivers and bad drivers at any company, but what is interesting is how those companies deal with it.

I think Tyrers' reaction suggests poor management.

 

[Djgr]

Gosh. There are some shocking people working in the transport industry.

 

[markymark2000]

I also wonder how the retraining is being framed, if it’s a case of the company saying something like come on lads you need to be on your best behaviour because we’re being audited by Disabled rail activists and it’s costing us a lot of money wink wink nudge nudge, I feel that automatically creates an adversarial relationship between the drivers and wheelchair users whereas if the training is framed more like this is an integral core part of your role and if you’re not doing it then you can be penalised, that would go a long way.

Even better than just training drivers, manufacturers should be making it easier for operators to carry wheelchairs. None of this 'you have to remove multiple seats and then use 1700 straps with each vehicle being different etc.

Why can't Caetanos (Levante)/Plaxtons (Profile and older Panthers) 'magic seat' style work on other coach models? I get that some coaches have the lifts in different places, but surely a similar logic could be applied to having moveable backrests with straps attached to the base of the seat and the seatbelt attached to the main backrest.
Everything attached to the seat so less reasons to not have straps etc, and much simpler to sort so training is easier and drivers will retain knowledge easier as it's simpler, not many different ways of doing things.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

my comments about a toxic culture arent just based on this incident alone, but on a number of instances that I’ve heard of when drivers drive past people in wheelchairs or refuse to board them.

No, and I was thinking of the A&A Coach Travel case too so sometime it is a management issue. In others, it can be a bad apple.

I can think of numerous examples where I've been travelling and drivers have deployed wheelchair ramps on bus services. Some are a bit miserable about it (but they were just quite hard faced anyway) and others have been very attentive.

You get good drivers and bad drivers at any company, but what is interesting is how those companies deal with it.

I think Tyrers' reaction suggests poor management.

In terms of culture, a poor management approach will probably be reflected by the staff. However, one individual being an idiot (trying to keep things clean) doesn't mean that it must be a reflection on culture.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

Even better than just training drivers, manufacturers should be making it easier for operators to carry wheelchairs. None of this 'you have to remove multiple seats and then use 1700 straps with each vehicle being different etc.

Why can't Caetanos (Levante)/Plaxtons (Profile and older Panthers) 'magic seat' style work on other coach models? I get that some coaches have the lifts in different places, but surely a similar logic could be applied to having moveable backrests with straps attached to the base of the seat and the seatbelt attached to the main backrest.
Everything attached to the seat so less reasons to not have straps etc, and much simpler to sort so training is easier and drivers will retain knowledge easier as it's simpler, not many different ways of doing things.

Well firstly it is a propriety design so there are limited supplier options, secondly it requires a wider entrance so most vehicles can't accommodate it through the front door (only limited manufacturers tried it and orders were limited except for Caetano & National Express which was a bespoke order & design) and if you aren't going to come through the front door you need to move more seats to allow the wheelchair to be positioned (on the magic floors it is that they can use the lift sat in the entrance for manouvring that avoids having to take out more than one row) and thirdly it does require compromises in the seating that may not be as favoured if an operator is buying the vehicle primarily for private hire or tours/trips - a lot of scheduled operators, particularly those who aren't running with bookings will normally just take out the seats anyway and run with the empty gap to avoid the disruption that occurs. That said, you are probably right that there should be a solution that reduces the amount of work from the driver to make space that sits between the current two options.

As with so many such issues, it is less the incident itself that causes the problem but the reaction of the driver and even more so the staff & management dealing with the subsequent complaint that affects how the customer feels. We had one this week with a driver struggling with a powered ramp - we swapped the bus for the next trip with one with a more common (for us) manual ramp, apologised profusely and made sure the customer was phoned back and explained what was happening and the complaint never materialised. It is harder for a long distance coach or rail replacement where distance makes such quick actions harder but it is still in how the complaint is handled that smooths it over or blows it up.

 

[Megafuss]

I have to say, the comments from the member of staff at Northern are absolutely appalling. I hope whoever made those remarks has been fired in to the sun.

The Railway has its accessibility problems, most of which won't be solved without copious amounts of money. But that isn't the fault of disabled people and I think it a diabolical attitude to have when faced with people that aren't as able bodies as themselves. They just want to get around the country like able bodied people. It's 2025 for goodness sake

 

[Hophead]

Typically, what proportion of rail replacement vehicles do coaches represent? Obviously, coaches will be preferred for longer distance work, but most of the replacements I see are just buses, which all have a wheelchair space. At weekends, there are plenty of buses not required on TfL work, and most companies in the south-east seem to be able to offer up a few double deckers on Saturdays (more on Sundays of course).

 

[alex397]

It does rather anger me that so much time and money has been put into the transport industry to make it more accessible to disabled users, but all it takes is poor staff and management to spoil that.

I’m not a wheelchair user, but it does seem to me a wheelchair user has to still be very strong-willed to use public transport.

 

[Eyersey468]

You'd think this would make sense, just as it would make sense for the service car on NatEx to be accessible but a duplicate might not need to be as the wheelchair user can be accommodated on the service car, but my understanding is that this isn't the case and all have to be accessible.

Regarding NX, my understanding is while the service car has to be wheelchair accessible a duplicate doesn't have to be as its one wheelchair per service

 

[markymark2000]

Well firstly it is a propriety design so there are limited supplier options, secondly it requires a wider entrance so most vehicles can't accommodate it through the front door (only limited manufacturers tried it and orders were limited except for Caetano & National Express which was a bespoke order & design) and if you aren't going to come through the front door you need to move more seats to allow the wheelchair to be positioned (on the magic floors it is that they can use the lift sat in the entrance for manouvring that avoids having to take out more than one row) and thirdly it does require compromises in the seating that may not be as favoured if an operator is buying the vehicle primarily for private hire or tours/trips - a lot of scheduled operators, particularly those who aren't running with bookings will normally just take out the seats anyway and run with the empty gap to avoid the disruption that occurs.

I have significant experience with wheelchair lifts, straps and accessibility equipment etc as I do it regularly in my job. In fact over the past 2 weekends, I've either watched or assisted in loading around 10 wheelchairs onto coaches, thus I'm very aware of the challenges and differences.

Magic floor/front entrance style, agreed doesn't work for all manufacturers. They are the best style though and work much better with the infrastructure we have (or rather, don't have).
Even without copying magic floor and magic seats though, the basic idea of having seats act as backrests and have straps attached to seat bases, and basic belt extenders is something that seriously needs looking at (thus refusing the need for as many straps, and as many separate bits and processes).

As with so many such issues, it is less the incident itself that causes the problem but the reaction of the driver and even more so the staff & management dealing with the subsequent complaint that affects how the customer feels.

Reactions of staff do of course have a big impact, however as soon as you delay someone's journey, or even worse leave them behind because the driver isn't fully aware of the lift/straps operation or the lift is broken or you are faffing to take seats out (delete as appropriate) that is an issue.
The only time I have sympathy with an operator or driver on this is where the driver knows what they are doing, and everything was tested on walk around check, and it's an issue that has arisen since the walk around check, which couldnt have been foreseen by the driver.

These things break sometimes, as all moving bits do, but in a lot of cases the issues are, drivers are driving buses where they aren't familiar with the equipment (goes against guidance from OTC. McGills Dundee even got pulled into a public inquiry for this due to issues on their Fly coach service) and/or proper checks aren't happening on walkaround (if a driver is checking on walkaround, they should know how it all works because that's part of testing).

 

[GusB]

Magic floor/front entrance style, agreed doesn't work for all manufacturers. They are the best style though and work much better with the infrastructure we have (or rather, don't have).

I assume that when you refer to infrastructure you're referring to are drive in, reverse out bus stations; front entrances and lifts are definitely the best solution here. I brought this up when the electric Yutongs were introduced on the Stagecoach Bluebird M96 route; I really can't see how centre doors can work.

The only time I have sympathy with an operator or driver on this is where the driver knows what they are doing, and everything was tested on walk around check, and it's an issue that has arisen since the walk around check, which couldnt have been foreseen by the driver.

These things break sometimes, as all moving bits do

Indeed, things do break. It's not the fault of a driver who finds themselves experiencing problems with equipment that was deemed to be working at the beginning of the day.

What matters is how any issues are handled when a problem arises. If it's physically impossible to board a disabled passenger on the spot, a decision should be made as to how that passenger should be conveyed; that decision needs to be made with the agreement of the passenger. Is a taxi the best solution?*

*I realise that this that opens up a whole new can of worms due to the availability of accessible taxis.

In 2025, we really shouldn't be having this discussion. The first accessible coaches I recall seeing were 55-plated; that was twenty years ago!

 

[stadler]

We really ought to just introduce a new policy that all rail replacement services must be low floor buses. Not just PSVAR compliant but also low floor. There are hundreds of low floor bus operators with hundreds of low floor bus vehicles in all parts of the country so there is really no excuse for sometimes using coaches.

Even the wheelchair accessible coaches are still nowhere near as accessible as a low floor bus. The lifts on some models can be very unreliable and often not work. They often require seats to be taken out which can often only be done at depots. Other types of disabled people and elderly people can find it very hard to walk up the steep steps in to the coach. They are not a good choice for rail replacement.

Almost all the issues that wheelchair users and other disabled people have with rail replacement seem to occur on coaches. So just mandating low floor buses would make it much better. Far more accessible for everyone.

 

[GusB]

We really ought to just introduce a new policy that all rail replacement services must be low floor buses. Not just PSVAR compliant but also low floor. There are hundreds of low floor bus operators with hundreds of low floor bus vehicles in all parts of the country so there is really no excuse for sometimes using coaches.

Even the wheelchair accessible coaches are still nowhere near as accessible as a low floor bus. The lifts on some models can be very unreliable and often not work. They often require seats to be taken out which can often only be done at depots. Other types of disabled people and elderly people can find it very hard to walk up the steep steps in to the coach. They are not a good choice for rail replacement.

Almost all the issues that wheelchair users and other disabled people have with rail replacement seem to occur on coaches. So just mandating low floor buses would make it much better. Far more accessible for everyone.

I disagree. By mandating low-floor buses for rail-replacement work, you're also mandating uncomfortable journeys for those passengers who are travelling for longer distances.

Where I live there aren't hundreds of low floor bus operators with hundreds of low floor buses.

 

[darloscott]

I disagree. By mandating low-floor buses for rail-replacement work, you're also mandating uncomfortable journeys for those passengers who are travelling for longer distances.

Where I live there aren't hundreds of low floor bus operators with hundreds of low floor buses.

Indeed, where are you going to get hundreds (and I mean hundreds) of spare low floor vehicles that are suitable for long distance rail replacement work. They’re okay on local work but even then there are limited numbers outside of the South East to be used and it’s mostly coach operators who have the resources to operate the rail replacement services.

Unless you do like they have here in Australia (SEQld) where government bought a fleet of vehicles and dished them out to operators to use on contracts but also must be available for use in big rail replacement projects. That doesn’t help when the schools are back of course and there isn’t enough vehicles to go round…!

 

[Cesarcollie]

We really ought to just introduce a new policy that all rail replacement services must be low floor buses. Not just PSVAR compliant but also low floor. There are hundreds of low floor bus operators with hundreds of low floor bus vehicles in all parts of the country so there is really no excuse for sometimes using coaches.

Even the wheelchair accessible coaches are still nowhere near as accessible as a low floor bus. The lifts on some models can be very unreliable and often not work. They often require seats to be taken out which can often only be done at depots. Other types of disabled people and elderly people can find it very hard to walk up the steep steps in to the coach. They are not a good choice for rail replacement.

Almost all the issues that wheelchair users and other disabled people have with rail replacement seem to occur on coaches. So just mandating low floor buses would make it much better. Far more accessible for everyone.

Most longer-distance rail replacement requires tachograph-fitted vehicles as drivers are on EU hours. Most buses don’t have them, and the drivers work on domestic hours.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We really ought to just introduce a new policy that all rail replacement services must be low floor buses. Not just PSVAR compliant but also low floor. There are hundreds of low floor bus operators with hundreds of low floor bus vehicles in all parts of the country so there is really no excuse for sometimes using coaches.

Using buses on long trips discriminates against people who have a toileting disability, which is much more common than wheelchair use. I don't understand why that isn't taken more seriously to be honest.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

We really ought to just introduce a new policy that all rail replacement services must be low floor buses. Not just PSVAR compliant but also low floor. There are hundreds of low floor bus operators with hundreds of low floor bus vehicles in all parts of the country so there is really no excuse for sometimes using coaches.

Even the wheelchair accessible coaches are still nowhere near as accessible as a low floor bus. The lifts on some models can be very unreliable and often not work. They often require seats to be taken out which can often only be done at depots. Other types of disabled people and elderly people can find it very hard to walk up the steep steps in to the coach. They are not a good choice for rail replacement.

Almost all the issues that wheelchair users and other disabled people have with rail replacement seem to occur on coaches. So just mandating low floor buses would make it much better. Far more accessible for everyone.

A number of issues with this blanket proposal:

1. Speed - low floor buses generally have a much lower maximum speed than a coach so for long distance travel it will significantly slow the journey. In a previous employment I used to do quite a bit of rail replacement and my employers had a fleet of semi-coach spec Olympians that could comfortably hit 60mph and on Three Bridges to Brighton replacements the London drivers could leave 10-mins before me but I would still overtake them only about half-way down the dual carriageway.
2. Motorways - Most buses are not designed for sustained high speed running so there are reliability issues with running lots of urban spec buses on fast & long runs.
3. Luggage - Standard low floor buses have very limited luggage capacity and for the Intercity routes there are a lot of travellers carrying significant amounts of luggage.
4. Distance - A lot of intercity closures cover quite long distances, this means that vehicles are running on EU rules requiring tachos. Most buses, and their drivers, work on domestic hours so don't have them.
5. Availability - Particularly for Saturdays, as well as the big holiday closures, most buses are still required for normal services so there is a limited supply whilst a lot of coach operators have significant school commitments which means they have spare vehicles & drivers at weekends and holidays.
6. Comfort - Again for long distance flows & closures a base spec bus will not offer the required quality (including possibly toilets).
I'm sure there are couple of other issues and compromises that I have missed or forgotten but it does give a basis of the issues.

Of course having a low-floor bus doesn't really help wheelchair accessibility if you don't have a pavement to load from then the low-floor and ramp are useless and a lift is actually more useful (when I was driving rail replacement around half the station pickups were just in the car park without a pavement though that may have changed now low-floors are more universal as it is over 15 years since I did that sort of thing regularly).

The issue was largely created by the rail industry, someone (or multiple someones) got it into their head that PSVAR didn't apply to rail replacement work and so no one specified such vehicles and so none of their regular contractors bought them as the rail operators wouldn't pay the extra cost of using them - you need to remember that any vehicle built after 2005 and used on rail replacement should have been wheelchair accessible from the start. It is only just before the final deadline when all coaches needed to be wheelchair accessible that it was pointed out that they should be using wheelchair accessible vehicles which caused the crisis we are still dealing with - not enough vehicles, not enough experience for drivers and managers and compromised retrofits that are less optimum in usage than a purpose built vehicle.

 

[Hyebone]

Is there a reason partially low floor coaches such as the Plaxton Panther LE aren't more commonplace in coaching fleets?

 

[Megafuss]

Is there a reason partially low floor coaches such as the Plaxton Panther LE aren't more commonplace in coaching fleets?

Luggage space is poor for traditional coach operation.

To that end, they are only really suited for interurban Stagecarriage work.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is there a reason partially low floor coaches such as the Plaxton Panther LE aren't more commonplace in coaching fleets?

They're expensive and luggage space is poor. The Plaxton Elite i and the Plaxton Panorama are also coaches with low-floor access but with much better luggage space, however they're also very expensive buses to own and run.

As for the number of drivers with defective equipment, I remain very sceptical about that. I used to see it all too often that bus drivers wouldn't deploy the manual ramp on buses as it was "broken" or they "had a bad back". It was also not exactly uncommon for buses to fail to stop as they were "full", even though they clearly weren't. I had to take to making sure I used bus stops that always had other people waiting at them to avoid that particular behaviour from Stagecoach in Newcastle's drivers.

Bus operators have largely been forced to clamp down on drivers behaving like that (or at least make it look like they have), but it doesn't look like we've reached that stage with coach operators.

In terms of culture, a poor management approach will probably be reflected by the staff. However, one individual being an idiot (trying to keep things clean) doesn't mean that it must be a reflection on culture.

I'm not so interested in the driver making unfounded allegations, more that the management at Tyrers then thought it appropriate to spread those allegations to all and sundry. Being charitable, maybe they thought they were defending their driver. Being less charitable, I can only presume they were intending to discredit the individual.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm not so interested in the driver making unfounded allegations, more that the management at Tyrers then thought it appropriate to spread those allegations to all and sundry. Being charitable, maybe they thought they were defending their driver. Being less charitable, I can only presume they were intending to discredit the individual.

None of us can say what Tyrers motivation might have been. It may have been that they did believe what their driver told them. There is a grey area with Tyrers - no such ambiguity with the driver.

Once you get past someone fabricating a version of events (which is extremely serious), I think you have to consider that there were vehicles present and drivers weren't trained to use the equipment which is pretty poor TBH.

 

[Titfield]

I can not speak for Tyrers but the bus and coach companies I have been involved with have invested considerable time and effort in training drivers in customer care and accessibility issues.

One of the issues I have witnessed though has been a small but vocal minority of drivers who at the least knock the training and at the worst endeavour to sabotage the training.

As regards "problem passengers" (and by that I mean behavioural issues and not those who require assistance) their behaviours should be caught on CCTV etc and passed to management so those behaviours can be reviewed and appropriate action taken.

If the ramp or equipment becomes defective during the duty then it should be written up as defective so it can be rectified before the vehicle re-enters service.There should be no reason for a vehicle entering service with a defective ramp or associated equipment.