Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

[kingqueen]

Was the accessible bus under contract to Northern or were the volunteers running it off their own bat without Northern's knowledge? It would have been a better option for you on the outward journey than the taxi if you'd known about it.

I don't know. Yes indeed it would have been better on the outward, if I'd known about it and assuming it was running at that time.

When booking the taxi, did Northern tell the taxi operator that you were a 6' 7" wheelchair user?

I don't know, but Northern's assistance booking team did know.

Did you tell Northern what time you would be returning (subject to the steamer running on time)?

Yes indeed. I told them when I made the access booking on Sunday night (5 days earlier) and it was in the assistance booking confirmation that came through on Tuesday evening. There had also been other comms between me and Windermere station manager by phone, and with Northern assistance by email, prior to the day. On the day, on arrival at Windermere, I confirmed my return time with Northern staff, who then booked my return taxi - which apparently Northern had not booked in advance, despite all my comms over the previous days.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think then it comes down to the interpretation of the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter... an analogy being in Domestic drivers hours rules which state that within any 14 day period a driver must have a 24 hour rest period.... now conceivably that means a bus driver can be rostered to work 365 days a year... is that the spirit of the law? obviously not... the spirit is that you will have a day off at least once every 14 days... in effect somewhere nearer 36- 40 hrs off.... and I wouldn't like to defend a rota that worked a driver 7 days a week 52 weeks a year... certainly not in any law court!

I genuinely can't work out how that says a driver could work 365 days a year. It clearly says "a 24 hour rest period" (clearly a single period), not "24 individual hours of rest".

 

[JamesT]

I genuinely can't work out how that says a driver could work 365 days a year. It clearly says "a 24 hour rest period" (clearly a single period), not "24 individual hours of rest".

Ignoring the other days which presumably have shorter breaks between shifts making them easier to schedule every day. You have a shift that runs until midday, your 24 hours break, then another shift starting at midday. Voila, you’ve worked every day despite having a 24 hour break.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ignoring the other days which presumably have shorter breaks between shifts making them easier to schedule every day. You have a shift that runs until midday, your 24 hours break, then another shift starting at midday. Voila, you’ve worked every day despite having a 24 hour break.

So it does, I was evidently being thick

 

[DarloRich]

At the moment, under the Pubic Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations, all buses that operate to a schedule and that carry any person or persons for whom payment has been made by somebody to anybody for their right to travel, are obliged to be wheelchair accessible. (Bar the 20-day-a-year heritage exemption.) Rail passengers have bought a ticket granting the entitlement to travel on rail replacement buses, which (theoretically) run to a timetable. So rail replacement buses have to be accessible.
Scheduled coaches don't have to be accessible, yet. As of 1st January 2020, they have to be in the same way as buses, as described above. NB: coaches used for private hire trips etc. aren't caught by this law, only those running to a schedule etc. as above.
I attempted to catch rail replacement services yesterday. There were many inaccessible coaches.
My concern is: come 2020, when there is a need for rail replacement buses, will there be sufficient accessible buses and coaches to meet the demand?

I try to avoid replacement coaches but i cant say oi have ever seen an accessible one. On my local line we most often get 15/20 seat mini coaches. If someone has mobility issues I assume they are given a taxi as they wouldn't be able to board those vehicles. Is that not an acceptable solution to the issue?

I further suspect that the private hire loop hole will be used to exempt these vehicles in future. They will NOT run to a timetable. Because of the rural nature of my local line the "stopping" coaches used on my line cant get close to the timetable while the "fast" coaches get between Bedford & Bletchley quicker than the train so beat the timetable!

 

[northwichcat]

So reviewing the thread so far it appears the two most relevant points are:

1. The drivers on rail replacement buses work to the EC directive, rather than the more flexible UK arrangements (which only apply to scheduled bus services) which isn't to the advantage of any operator using a 100% accessible fleet and suggests the Traffic Commissioner would not see a rail replacement bus as a scheduled bus service.
2. There won't be enough accessible coaches by 2020 to ensure that every vehicle running a rail replacement service is accessible.

Consequently my opinion is that if a wheelchair user took a rail operator to court because they provided 2 x inaccessible coaches and an accessible minibus the case would be thrown out. However, if they sent 2 x inaccessible coaches and didn't arrange an accessible minibus (or similar) or if the wheelchair passenger arrived at their destination much later as a result of not being able to board the inaccessible vehicles then the case should be successful.

If I'm wrong on that and a court does rule that all coaches must be accessible then because of the second point above I would expect the number of rail replacement services to be reduced significantly with more ticket acceptance arrangements on existing alternative forms of transport instead. For example, say TPE couldn't operate services between Huddersfield and Manchester or between Manchester and Manchester Airport, instead of running a replacement service between Huddersfield and Manchester Airport they'll only run one as far as Manchester, where passengers are forced to change to Metrolink.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I try to avoid replacement coaches but i cant say oi have ever seen an accessible one. On my local line we most often get 15/20 seat mini coaches. If someone has mobility issues I assume they are given a taxi as they wouldn't be able to board those vehicles. Is that not an acceptable solution to the issue?

I further suspect that the private hire loop hole will be used to exempt these vehicles in future. They will NOT run to a timetable. Because of the rural nature of my local line the "stopping" coaches used on my line cant get close to the timetable while the "fast" coaches get between Bedford & Bletchley quicker than the train so beat the timetable!

Planned rail replacement (as opposed to ad-hoc) does run to a timetable. It just isn't the same one as the trains run to.

 

[northwichcat]

Most excellently, they had changed the dot matrix display to say "Choo Choo! I'm a train!"

A Glasgow operator came up with that idea, some photos of their coaches went viral and now lots of operators have copied the idea.

 

[northwichcat]

Ah, I guess I'm getting old enough that I wouldn't call that heritage

I suppose in 2018 you could say if it meets the requirements for a public bus service it's not a heritage vehicle but if it doesn't then it is. Certainly there's buses of a similar age still being used on public bus services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose in 2018 you could say if it meets the requirements for a public bus service it's not a heritage vehicle but if it doesn't then it is. Certainly there's buses of a similar age still being used on public bus services.

It was possibly more because it looks like a modern bus even if it's first generation low floor. Apart from minor stylistic points and engine developments they are roughly the same as they were when first introduced around 2000.

 

[Bantamzen]

So reviewing the thread so far it appears the two most relevant points are:

1. The drivers on rail replacement buses work to the EC directive, rather than the more flexible UK arrangements (which only apply to scheduled bus services) which isn't to the advantage of any operator using a 100% accessible fleet and suggests the Traffic Commissioner would not see a rail replacement bus as a scheduled bus service.
2. There won't be enough accessible coaches by 2020 to ensure that every vehicle running a rail replacement service is accessible.

Consequently my opinion is that if a wheelchair user took a rail operator to court because they provided 2 x inaccessible coaches and an accessible minibus the case would be thrown out. However, if they sent 2 x inaccessible coaches and didn't arrange an accessible minibus (or similar) or if the wheelchair passenger arrived at their destination much later as a result of not being able to board the inaccessible vehicles then the case should be successful.

If I'm wrong on that and a court does rule that all coaches must be accessible then because of the second point above I would expect the number of rail replacement services to be reduced significantly with more ticket acceptance arrangements on existing alternative forms of transport instead. For example, say TPE couldn't operate services between Huddersfield and Manchester or between Manchester and Manchester Airport, instead of running a replacement service between Huddersfield and Manchester Airport they'll only run one as far as Manchester, where passengers are forced to change to Metrolink.

The availability of accessible coaches / buses will doubtless be an issue post 2020. There is just no way that all operators will be able, or even willing to replace fleets on the chance that they might get a RBB contract in a little under 2 years. Even where they have, depending on the area, when they were booked with the operators, the operators schedule etc there will absolutely still be occasions when it is simply not possible to provide these. What worries me as with yourself is that the issues raised with the TPE MKIII stock could find themselves being translated into RRBs in future, and passengers could be faced with even more delays if accessible vehicles are not available. I can see occasions where an operator arrives with a non-accessible vehicle & the TOC staff have to send it on its way with bemused passengers looking on.

 

[kingqueen]

On my local line we most often get 15/20 seat mini coaches.

They're exempt from the accessibility regulations, only buses/coaches with 22 or more seats are caught by the regulations.

If someone has mobility issues I assume they are given a taxi as they wouldn't be able to board those vehicles. Is that not an acceptable solution to the issue?

As I discuss above, whilst it sounds like a reasonable alternative the reality is that it often isn't comfortable, safe or reliable.

I further suspect that the private hire loop hole will be used to exempt these vehicles in future.

My interpretation of the legislation is that there isn't such a loophole.

They will NOT run to a timetable.

Actually it is "local or scheduled" services, and "local services" is defined as where the stops are less than 15 miles apart. Though the situation is legally complicated: although I've done a lot of research around the issue and am relatively confident in my analysis, I'm not legally trained and may be incorrect.

 

[WelshBluebird]

a) check my reply to Dai Corner's post. The windermere service is not normal for rail replacement. The usual process is to advertise that there will be a replacement bus service with no timetable. Therefore not operating to a schedule... therefore not subject to PSVAR!

This may have been covered since, but certainly in my experience 90% of the time, RRB's ARE advertise to a timetable.
Certainly whenever the Severn Tunnel is shut, GWR do publish timetables for the buses (usually not leaving enough time!) and ATW do the same for the valley lines into Cardiff when there is work going on.

I have noticed quoted rules that say to be a PH then the fare has to be the same for all pax .... here's a simple question.... you're getting on a rail replacement service.... how much have you paid to get on that bus?

I have paid a portion (or all) of the rail fare.
E.g. if I have to get a replacement bus on a journey from Bristol Parkway to Newport when the Severn Tunnel is shut, I would have paid exactly the same price as a rail ticket to get on the bus.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

This may have been covered since, but certainly in my experience 90% of the time, RRB's ARE advertise to a timetable.
Certainly whenever the Severn Tunnel is shut, GWR do publish timetables for the buses (usually not leaving enough time!) and ATW do the same for the valley lines into Cardiff when there is work going on.



I have paid a portion (or all) of the rail fare.
E.g. if I have to get a replacement bus on a journey from Bristol Parkway to Newport when the Severn Tunnel is shut, I would have paid exactly the same price as a rail ticket to get on the bus.

but the crucial point at law is that you haven't paid to get on the bus! you have bought a rail ticket. The fact that you have been on a Rail Replacement Bus for part {or even all} of the journey is immaterial. TOC's are legally obliged to run a service, which is why RRB's exist in the 1st place. YOU as a passenger do not enter into any form of contract with the bus/ coach operator. A Rail Replacement Bus/ Coach at law is considered a PH/ Contract vehicle.

The test as to whether a working comes under Local/ scheduled service is that the service runs to a timetable and that you pay a fare. As you pay no fare then it isn't a scheduled service and therefore doesn't come under PSVAR.

I would refer you back to my post #35:

Perhaps at this stage I could give an example of a PH that might shed some light on the subject...

I recently took part in a PH where the client had asked for a 1/2 hrly circular service. The service was operated to a published timetable. The pax using the service had paid a "fare" in that they had paid for a ticket for the day's event. The vehicles used on the service were not subject to PSVAR as it was deemed a PH/ contract at law... does that sound like a Rail Replacement?

 

[Qwerty133]

They're exempt from the accessibility regulations, only buses/coaches with 22 or more seats are caught by the regulations.As I discuss above, whilst it sounds like a reasonable alternative the reality is that it often isn't comfortable, safe or reliable.My interpretation of the legislation is that there isn't such a loophole. Actually it is "local or scheduled" services, and "local services" is defined as where the stops are less than 15 miles apart. Though the situation is legally complicated: although I've done a lot of research around the issue and am relatively confident in my analysis, I'm not legally trained and may be incorrect.

Local services are the services for which UK rather than EU drivers hours apply. As well as stops being less than 15km apart these have to be less than 30/40km in length and be registered with the transport commissioner. Rail replacement services are never registered so do not fall under the local services definition.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Local services are the services for which UK rather than EU drivers hours apply. As well as stops being less than 15km apart these have to be less than 30/40km in length and be registered with the transport commissioner. Rail replacement services are never registered so do not fall under the local services definition.

No, but it's hard to say a planned bustitution isn't scheduled. Most are.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

No, but it's hard to say a planned bustitution isn't scheduled. Most are.

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.

 

[kingqueen]

Local services are the services for which UK rather than EU drivers hours apply. As well as stops being less than 15km apart these have to be less than 30/40km in length and be registered with the transport commissioner. Rail replacement services are never registered so do not fall under the local services definition.

That is incorrect. There may be separate legislation that also defines "local services" e.g. for driver hours, but the accessibility regulations make no reference to registration with the traffic commissioner and also no restriction on overall length.

Section 2 of the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations says:

In these Regulations ...
“local service” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985(5);

Section 2 of the Transport Act 1985 says, in it's entirety,

Local services.
(1) In this Act “local service” means a service, using one or more public service vehicles, for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares other than one—
(a) which is excluded by subsection (4) below; or
(b) in relation to which (except in an emergency) one or both of the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are met with respect to every passenger using the service.
(2) The conditions are that—
(a) the place where he is set down is fifteen miles or more, measured in a straight line, from the place where he was taken up;
(b) some point on the route between those places is fifteen miles or more, measured in a straight line, from either of those places.
(3) Where a service consists of one or more parts with respect to which one or both of the conditions are met, and one or more parts with respect to which neither of them is met, each of those parts shall be treated as a separate service for the purposes of subsection (1) above.
(4) A service shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as a local service if—
(a) the conditions set out in Part III of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act (trips organised privately by persons acting independently of vehicle operators, etc.) are met in respect of each journey made by the vehicles used in providing the service; or
(b) every vehicle used in providing the service is so used under a permit granted under section 19 of this Act.
(5) Subsections (5)(b), (c) and (6) of section 1 of the 1981 Act (meaning of “fares”) shall apply for the purposes of this section.

So whether or not a bus service is registered with the Traffic Commissioners, and whether it is less or more than a certain overall length, are not relevant to whether a bus service is considered a local service for the purposes of the accessibility regulations.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

That is incorrect. There may be separate legislation that also defines "local services" e.g. for driver hours, but the accessibility regulations make no reference to registration with the traffic commissioner and also no restriction on overall length.

Section 2 of the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations says:


Section 2 of the Transport Act 1985 says, in it's entirety,


So whether or not a bus service is registered with the Traffic Commissioners, and whether it is less or more than a certain overall length, are not relevant to whether a bus service is considered a local service for the purposes of the accessibility regulations.

and therein lays the reason why Rail Replacement buses are not covered by PSVAR...

Local services.
(1) In this Act “local service” means a service, using one or more public service vehicles, for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares other than one—
(a) which is excluded by subsection (4) below;

4) A service shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as a local service if—
(a) the conditions set out in Part III of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act (trips organised privately by persons acting independently of vehicle operators, etc.) are met in respect of each journey made by the vehicles used in providing the service;

As a Rail Replacement service is organised by the TOC's {or a 3rd party agent on their behalf} and independantly of the bus company, and because a member of public cannot get on said vehicle and pay a fare it is not a scheduled local service so is exempt from PSVAR

 

[kingqueen]

YOU as a passenger do not enter into any form of contract with the bus/ coach operator.

It is not necessary for a passenger to enter in a contract with the provider in order for the service to be a scheduled or local service and thus to be subject to the PSVAR.

A Rail Replacement Bus/ Coach at law is considered a PH/ Contract vehicle.

You keep expressing your opinion to this effect, but not backing it up. Repeating it, believing it fervently, and acting according to that belief, doesn't make it any more independently evidenced or demonstrably accurate.[/QUOTE]The test as to whether a working comes under Local/ scheduled service is that the service runs to a timetable and that you pay a fare.[/QUOTE] Not quite. The person travelling doesn't have to be the person who paid the fare, the recipient of that payment doesn't have to be the bus company, and the payment can be as part of a payment for other things.
Subsection (5)(b) of section 1 of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981 (meaning of “fares”) says:

(b)a payment made for the carrying of a passenger shall be treated as a fare notwithstanding that it is made in consideration of other matters in addition to the journey and irrespective of the person by or to whom it is made

I understand your premise that the rail ticket doesn't so much give the passenger the right to travel on the bus but simply puts the train operating company under an obligation to transport the passenger to the destination by whatever means. However I think that is tenuous: the actuality is that where rail replacement buses are in operation, the ticket that the passenger has bought means they can travel on the rail replacement bus if they want to. They can't travel on the bus if they haven't that rail ticket. And if they refuse to catch the rail replacement bus then the TOC will not provide some other form of transport for them (unless they are unable due to some disability access issue). So the reality on the ground is that the ticket one has purchased gives one the right to travel on that bus.

Doubtless this legal point vwould have to go through the courts to be decisively settled once and for all. However like you, I'm pretty confident in my interpretation.

 

[kingqueen]

and therein lays the reason why Rail Replacement buses are not covered by PSVAR...

Local services.
(1) In this Act “local service” means a service, using one or more public service vehicles, for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares other than one—
(a) which is excluded by subsection (4) below;

4) A service shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as a local service if—
(a) the conditions set out in Part III of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act (trips organised privately by persons acting independently of vehicle operators, etc.) are met in respect of each journey made by the vehicles used in providing the service;

As a Rail Replacement service is organised by the TOC's {or a 3rd party agent on their behalf} and independantly of the bus company, and because a member of public cannot get on said vehicle and pay a fare it is not a scheduled local service so is exempt from PSVAR

I've already been over the conditions set out in Part III of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act (trips organised privately by persons acting independently of vehicle operators, etc.)
For it to apply, as stated in said conditions, amongst other things:

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

So if the bus has been advertised on TOC websites, the journey planner, National Rail Enquiries disruption information pages etc. it isn't private and isn't exempt from the PSVAR.
Also

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.

So all passengers must go to the terminus or thereabouts. If a bus drops off passengers en route to the terminus, it's not a private hire and it is not exempt from PSVAR.

Then also the bit about the fare charged not varying with distance, which we have previously discussed and disagreed upon.

Whether or not "a member of public cannot get on said vehicle and pay a fare" is irrelevant for determination on whether or not the service is a local bus and thus subject to the PSVAR.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

It is not necessary for a passenger to enter in a contract with the provider in order for the service to be a scheduled or local service and thus to be subject to the PSVAR.You keep expressing your opinion to this effect, but not backing it up. Repeating it, believing it fervently, and acting according to that belief, doesn't make it any more independently evidenced or demonstrably accurate.

The test as to whether a working comes under Local/ scheduled service is that the service runs to a timetable and that you pay a fare.[/QUOTE] Not quite. The person travelling doesn't have to be the person who paid the fare, the recipient of that payment doesn't have to be the bus company, and the payment can be as part of a payment for other things.
Subsection (5)(b) of section 1 of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981 (meaning of “fares”) says:


I understand your premise that the rail ticket doesn't so much give the passenger the right to travel on the bus but simply puts the train operating company under an obligation to transport the passenger to the destination by whatever means. However I think that is tenuous: the actuality is that where rail replacement buses are in operation, the ticket that the passenger has bought means they can travel on the rail replacement bus if they want to. They can't travel on the bus if they haven't that rail ticket. And if they refuse to catch the rail replacement bus then the TOC will not provide some other form of transport for them (unless they are unable due to some disability access issue). So the reality on the ground is that the ticket one has purchased gives one the right to travel on that bus.

Doubtless this legal point vwould have to go through the courts to be decisively settled once and for all. However like you, I'm pretty confident in my interpretation.[/QUOTE]

you keep trying to say that Rail Replacement vehicles are subject to PSVAR whilst I, and many others keep telling you that they aren't. We have provided evidence through either experience or documentation. You keep coming back and saying we are all wrong because we do not agree with you... now you have provided evidence of your own which proves us all right and yourself wrong. I really don't know what else to say on the subject, but I will try once more to explain it... using the evidence you have provided.

only vehicles used on registered local services or scheduled express services as defined under the appropriate acts of parliament. So the question is... do Rail Replacement services qualify as such as stated in the relevant acts?

so what is a registered local service?

your evidence:
Local services.
(1) In this Act “local service” means a service, using one or more public service vehicles, for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares other than one—
(a) which is excluded by subsection (4) below; or
(b) in relation to which (except in an emergency) one or both of the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are met with respect to every passenger using the service.
(2) The conditions are that—
(a) the place where he is set down is fifteen miles or more, measured in a straight line, from the place where he was taken up;
(b) some point on the route between those places is fifteen miles or more, measured in a straight line, from either of those places.

the obvious answer here is yes it does... but there is an exclusion which is in subsection 4:

(4) A service shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as a local service if—
(a) the conditions set out in Part III of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act (trips organised privately by persons acting independently of vehicle operators, etc.) are met in respect of each journey made by the vehicles used in providing the service;

as a Rail Replacement Service is organised privately by "persons acting independently of vehicle operators" it isn't considered a Local Registered Service or a scheduled express service.. ergo it is considered a PH/ contract service ergo it is exempt from PSVAR

I really don't know how much simpler I can explain things.... tbh, as it is there in black and white in your own evidence I can only assume you are being vexacious and that you have your own hidden agenda here!

As a final aside.... if, as you state, Rail Replacement services do not come under contract/ PH rules, but instead come under local service rules then how comes not one single bus operator has ever been prosecuted for failing to register said Rail Replacement services?

 

[WelshBluebird]

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.

But they are also scheduled in that they run to a timetable that is publicly accessible and advertised.

but the crucial point at law is that you haven't paid to get on the bus! you have bought a rail ticket. The fact that you have been on a Rail Replacement Bus for part {or even all} of the journey is immaterial. TOC's are legally obliged to run a service, which is why RRB's exist in the 1st place. YOU as a passenger do not enter into any form of contract with the bus/ coach operator. A Rail Replacement Bus/ Coach at law is considered a PH/ Contract vehicle.

The test as to whether a working comes under Local/ scheduled service is that the service runs to a timetable and that you pay a fare. As you pay no fare then it isn't a scheduled service and therefore doesn't come under PSVAR.

I would refer you back to my post #35:

But as part of buying a rail ticket, you have paid to get on the bus (assuming the bus part is advertised as making up part of the journey prior to you buying the ticket).
Who pays who to provide the service is of no concern to the passenger. If a company paying another company to operate a service had anything to do with this kind of thing, what happens where a service is contracted to a different bus operator? (as is the case for some actual normal local bus services).

Being honest, I don't know enough about the law to know what specifically is required in terms of accessibility, and so I am not making any claims regarding that. However, as far as I can see:

• If I pay a fare for a journey, and part of that journey involves a bus, then I have paid to travel on that bus.
• If a bus has a publicly advertised timetable, then that service is scheduled.

Now, if those things mean that rail replacement buses must be accessible or not, I have no idea.

because a member of public cannot get on said vehicle and pay a fare

But they can. Its just the fare has to be a rail ticket rather than buying a ticket onboard the bus.

As I said above, I am not disagreeing or agreeing with if such services are covered by accessibility laws or not.
However you are making some vast generalisations about rail replacement bus services that just are not true.

 

[AndrewP]

Having procured private bus services in the past I think there is one point here that may have been missed.

As the bus service will be purchased by the TOC there is nothing to stop them specifying accessible busses for some the services.

As most of the school buses I see are ex London double Deckers from the early to mid 2000s and these seem to provide many if not most rail replacement services I have seen there should not be any cost implications either.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

But they are also scheduled in that they run to a timetable that is publicly accessible and advertised.

please refer to post #35 above. This was an event which had a round robin 1/2 hrly service.. there was a timetable which was published... not everyone had to go to the ultimate destination of the vehicle. 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.

But as part of buying a rail ticket, you have paid to get on the bus (assuming the bus part is advertised as making up part of the journey prior to you buying the ticket).

no, you haven't paid to get on the bus... you have purchased a rail ticket. As I have stated before, just because you are then forced by the TOC to get on a bus to complete your journey is immaterial. You, as a passenger, have not paid to get on a bus!

 

[kingqueen]

there is an exclusion which is in subsection 4:
(4) A service shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as a local service if—
(a) the conditions set out in Part III of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act (trips organised privately by persons acting independently of vehicle operators, etc.) are met in respect of each journey made by the vehicles used in providing the service;

as a Rail Replacement Service is organised privately by "persons acting independently of vehicle operators" it isn't considered a Local Registered Service or a scheduled express service.. ergo it is considered a PH/ contract service ergo it is exempt from PSVAR

I just directly quoted "the conditions set out in Part III of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act (trips organised privately by persons acting independently of vehicle operators, etc.)", which is the exemption you claim supports your assertion that rail replacement buses are private hire and not local services. But for completeness, here it is in its entirety:

Alternative Conditions Affecting Status or Classification
5 Arrangements for the bringing together of all the passengers for the purpose of making the journey must have been made otherwise than by, or by a person acting on behalf of—

(a) the holder of the PSV operator’s licence under which the vehicle is to be used, if such a licence is in force.

(b) the driver or the owner of the vehicle or any person who has made the vehicle available under any arrangement, if no such licence is in force,

and otherwise than by any person who receives any remuneration in respect of the arrangements.

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

7 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.

8 No differentiation of fares for the journey on the basis of distance or of time must be made.

So the exemption for "persons acting independently of vehicle operators" is only effective if the conditions in 6, 7 or 8 are satisfied.

Personal judgment, labelling and invective are not productive or helpful in debating the issues. I have not criticised or made assumptions about you and should be grateful if you didn't about me. On my side I have been conducting a dispassionate debate and analysis on this issue. I am not being vexatious; whilst I obviously have the ulterior motive of wanting better access for disabled people and better compliance with their rights (as have you) that agenda isn't hidden and isn't in any way nefarious, and hasn't affected my conduct in this discussion.

if, as you state, Rail Replacement services do not come under contract/ PH rules, but instead come under local service rules then how comes not one single bus operator has ever been prosecuted for failing to register said Rail Replacement services?

I have no idea. As complete guesses: perhaps the definition used is different? We've already identified that other definitions are different in the PSVAR than in other legislation. Or perhaps local services don't have to be registered if they're temporary? Or perhaps rail replacement buses are exempted from the registration requirement? I honestly don't know, it is not something I've looked in on.

 

[northwichcat]

As the bus service will be purchased by the TOC there is nothing to stop them specifying accessible busses for some the services.

A TOC will use a third party who themselves will use other third parties. For example, First Travel Solutions offer a Rail Support Solution.

Sometimes disruptions happen. Whether it’s planned works or unforeseen circumstances, the impact can be big. And when that happens to a national travel system that millions rely upon each day, then there needs to be a plan in place to ensure services remain as smooth as possible.

First Travel Solutions provides expert rail transport services and support to train operators up and down the country with alternative travel for both passengers and crew. We understand that the transfer from travelling by rail to bus or coach isn’t always the most enjoyable, but we strive to make it as efficient and seamless as possible.

When something unexpected happens, we can be there in no time. With our 24/7 control and management centre and our carefully selected base of nationwide drivers and vehicles, we can respond quickly to any situation. We also employ a network of over 500 fully trained and uniformed coordinators, who play a major role in customer service and ensuring the smooth running of our rail transport services.

But that’s not all, First Travel Solutions also manages the whole process for you from beginning to end. That involves liaising with local authorities, the Highways Agency and police to ensure we not only meet and exceed your expectations, but that we do so safely and legally.

For further details, please call 0844 854 2560 or email travel.solutions@firstgroup.com.

https://www.firsttravelsolutions.com/rail

That doesn't mean First Group have enough of their own buses to use, it means First Group will take responsibility for sourcing vehicles whether they come from a First Bus depot or the depot of a local coach hire company.

 

[WelshBluebird]

please refer to post #35 above. This was an event which had a round robin 1/2 hrly service.. there was a timetable which was published... not everyone had to go to the ultimate destination of the vehicle. 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.

no, you haven't paid to get on the bus... you have purchased a rail ticket. As I have stated before, just because you are then forced by the TOC to get on a bus to complete your journey is immaterial. You, as a passenger, have not paid to get on a bus!

As I said my replies are mainly around how RRB's operate, rather than the specifics of accessibility and the law.

You stated earlier in the thread that "A rail replacement service does not operate to a published timetable". Except that generally is not the case at all, planned RRB's generally do operate to a published timetable.
You also said that passengers haven't paid to travel on a bus. Which is plainly false when they have paid for that train ticket, and that train ticket requires them to take the bus as part of their journey.

Now, those specifics may not on their own mean the vehicles have to be accessible, but to just say, as you did, that RRB's do not run to a timetable, is just false.

 

[kingqueen]

As the bus service will be purchased by the TOC there is nothing to stop them specifying accessible busses for some the services.

I agree with you entirely.

In fact, statutory guidance says that TOCs should or most attempt to do so. (Quoted a couple of places up.)

I wonder how many TOCs do so, and how much effort they put in when attempting!

As most of the school buses I see are ex London double Deckers from the early to mid 2000s and these seem to provide many if not most rail replacement services I have seen there should not be any cost implications either.

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...

 

[northwichcat]

You also said that passengers haven't paid to travel on a bus. Which is plainly false when they have paid for that train ticket, and that train ticket requires them to take the bus as part of their journey.

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.