What are TOCs doing post accessible RRB advice?

[TPO]

Maybe Network Rail's SCO arm that has the Engineering trains and control of strategic engineering plant such as tampers should also have a RRB fleet..... a specified number of vehicles would be allocated to the same location as the Engineering Trains. Can't see why they couldn't source bus drivers for the RRB fleet the same way they do for engineering train locos/drivers.

TPO

 

[HSTEd]

As for the cost, the entire Megabus fleet is wheelchair accessible, and they charge £10 a ticket and still make money.

Megabus also achieves very high levels of fleet utilisation.

How precisely will this be managed with RRB type services, which are by their very nature stop start and part time affairs?

 

[Deafdoggie]

What it might mean is the end of the cowboy coach companies providing any old backfiring banger on RRBs.

Given what RRB pay, that is a reasonable bus to provide. You get what you pay for.

 

[Tom B]

Given what RRB pay, that is a reasonable bus to provide. You get what you pay for.

There must be a reasonable level of payment to the operators - Sullivans in South Mimms seem to have a large fleet of middle-aged deckers in decent nick for RRBS.

 

[Temple Meads]

Ironically most of the really unpleasant vehicles I've travelled on during RRS are either tired former express coaches* or service buses unsuitable for long journeys.

*Supposedly accessible but in reality the wheelchair lifts were probably non-functioning.

 

[Deafdoggie]

There must be a reasonable level of payment to the operators - Sullivans in South Mimms seem to have a large fleet of middle-aged deckers in decent nick for RRBS.

Generally they use what coaches they have available. Some operators have a better range. Some just have school buses available at the weekend

 

[Bikeman78]

Well as has been mentioned above, there are those for whom a toilet is essential owing to a condition that prevents them going very long without one, so a lack of a toilet may be inconvenient or even slightly uncomfortable to those with normal bodily functions whereas for some unfortunates, it could prevent them continuing their journey, - effectively leaving them stranded. So the 'equally bad' excuse is not relevant as it completely fails to meet the needs of some. If the train normally has a toilet, then so should the replacement for the train.

I've never been on a rail replacement bus that has had a toilet. Admittedly I've not been on one at all for several years.

 

[Robertj21a]

Given what RRB pay, that is a reasonable bus to provide. You get what you pay for.

About time that certain TOCs paid out a bit more in order to ensure better quality transport for their passengers.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Under the 'Schedule 4' Planned Restrictions of Use provisions of the track access agreement (aka Possessions Regime) there is a broadly fixed compensation formula for 'bus costs'. (I am aware that there are specific provisions for negotiated costs for large blockades but let's stick to bread and butter, routine work.)

I presume that the payment rates were recently reviewed and updated at the Periodic Review for Control Period 6, which started on 1 April 2019.

Having retired some years ago I am no longer familiar with the details of how things pan out in practice but can anybody working on RRB contracts advise whether the current rates actually cover '100% decent accessible vehicles'?

 

[Deafdoggie]

The short answer is no. Or at least, what is paid to coach operators doesn’t. What TOCs are paid may, or may not, be the same amount of course!

 

[RJ]

In London and surrounding areas most are run using TfL spec buses either still in TfL franchisee use as the weekday requirement is higher or recently retired from TfL service use so a far smaller issue than it might appear. One exception is SWR use a mix of buses and coaches if it is a big closure ( e.g. Clapham Jn - Wimbledon) but given the frequency service you would only be waiting another 2 minutes for a bus instead of a coach in this case. For smaller closures SWR are all accessible bus.

Hence I'd suggest this is mainly a not near London issue...

TfL do use non-TfL spec buses when there aren't enough appropriate spare vehicles available. In the last few months there have been appearances from Reading Buses, Centrebus, Trustybus, Redbridge Council, Arriva The Shires, Ensignbus, Go-Coach and others. The PVR on Saturdays isn't much lower than weekdays and when a lot of closures clash, other operators have to be used. Though the buses are usually PSVAR compliant.

As for TOCs in London, some stipulate minimum vehicle age which would mean all buses but those upseated for school work are PSVAR compliant by default. Others don't have any qualifiers beyond single deck/double deck, because there's often a shortage of available vehicles. When some lines in London are shut, it is very, very evident that there are nowhere near enough buses available to cover all the duties. It's not even just vehicle shortages, it's driver shortages too. Sometimes operators take on the work when they have no drivers available to do it. If rail closures weren't so erratic in nature there'd be a bigger pool of drivers who are well suited to rail replacement work. I'm a serial, dedicated (by choice) rail replacement driver and I go wherever the work is.

Many buses that do jobs in London are less than 20 years old and PSVAR compliant - but quite a few will have been upseated for school contracts and the like and are non-compliant. Another threat to rail replacement in London is looming in October 2020 when LEZ will require buses to conform to Euro 6 standards. I suspect the TOCs may have to bear the cost of the non-compliance charge as there will be nowhere near enough spare buses to comply with this. With a requirement for all RRBs to be PSVAR with a whole 2 months of notice, I can forsee some rail replacement routes being abandoned completely and everybody having to make other arrangements.

 

[kingqueen]

With a requirement for all RRBs to be PSVAR with a whole 2 months of notice, I can forsee some rail replacement routes being abandoned completely and everybody having to make other arrangements.

Indeed.
I don't know about 2 months notice though. There's been either 19 years of notice, when the legislation was enacted, or 0 days notice, given that the ORR legal advice relates to the existing, current status of the law. It's only coaches built or first used before 2005 that aren't required to be compliant now but are in January 2020 - all buses already are (bar the 20+yo/20 day exemption) and coaches less than 15 years old are already caught.

 

[philthetube]

Even if prices paid to operators went up by 25% there would probably still not be enough suitable vehicles available, a coach used on schools all year round with the occasional rrb job, which is often the case would never earn enough to repay the costs/investment.

Enough vehicles will never be available unless legislation requires that all vehicles are suitable for wheelchairs, and that will never happen because of the huge implications to education budgets.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Even if prices paid to operators went up by 25% there would probably still not be enough suitable vehicles available, a coach used on schools all year round with the occasional rrb job, which is often the case would never earn enough to repay the costs/investment.

Enough vehicles will never be available unless legislation requires that all vehicles are suitable for wheelchairs, and that will never happen because of the huge implications to education budgets.

This is exactly it! RRB provides a bit extra work for school buses that would otherwise be doing nothing. It’s not ‘bread and butter’ work to an operator, they aren’t going to upgrade their fleet for it, they’ll just do without it.

 

[KingJ]

The Rail Minister has today written to the Rail Delivery Group regarding "time limited dispensations" to rolling stock for compliance with accessibility legislation. However, the full letter (see the PDF on the link) also includes a few relevant bits on the accessibility of replacement transport too;

I also understand there is more work needed to prevent the practice of operating rail replacement bus and coach services that are not compliant with relevant accessibility regulations. Currently I am only willing to grant a short one-month extension for the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2020 to ensure that passengers are not left without rail replacement services during this time.

During this time, I expect TOCs to do all they can to source compliant vehicles before considering using non-compliant ones. Where non-compliant vehicles are used, TOCs must provide passengers who require it with accessible alternative transport, such as taxis. Arrangements must be made in advance to ensure such alternative transport is readily available during planned engineering works, to avoid any unnecessary and extended waiting periods for those passengers who require it.

The Government’s position is unequivocal. The industry must urgently address the issue of providing accessible rail carriages and replacement bus and coach services. Delivering an accessible service for every passenger on every rail journey is essential to creating an inclusive and accessible railway. It must not be delayed any longer.

 

[TUC]

On Monday, the Office of Rail and Road published legal advice that nearly every Rail Replacement Vehicle must be wheelchair accessible, and that train operating companies are at risk of criminal prosecution if they run inaccessible ones.

Given so few available vehicles are wheelchair accessible, what are Train Operating Companies doing about this situation?

I wouldn't say few coaches are wheelchair accessible. Some aren't for sure, but National Express and Megabus' own requirements, together with the increasing legal requirements, are leading to more and more being in place.

 

[TUC]

There is a broader issue of TOCs wrongly discouraging wheelchairs users from travelling when RRBs are in place. Too many posters and announcements say, alongside the inability for RRBs to carry non-foldable pushchairs and bicycles, that they cannot carry wheelchairs. Surely they should say that, if a RRB is not accessible, separate arrangements will br made for passengers in wheelchairs.

 

[Robertj21a]

There is a broader issue of TOCs wrongly discouraging wheelchairs users from travelling when RRBs are in place. Too many posters and announcements say, alongside the inability for RRBs to carry non-foldable pushchairs and bicycles, that they cannot carry wheelchairs. Surely they should say that, if a RRB is not accessible, separate arrangements will br made for passengers in wheelchairs.

From 1st Jan 2020, all rail replacement vehicles should meet PSVAR (disabled) requirements. Those TOCs need to amend any literature.

 

[kingqueen]

From 1st Jan 2020, all rail replacement vehicles should meet PSVAR (disabled) requirements. Those TOCs need to amend any literature.

They should amend their literature I agree, to say that the Train Operating Company will have accessible taxis available. The Department route Transport has given one month's grace (so far) to 1st February 2019, but has required that all TOCs ensure that accessible taxis etc. are available at short notice for all rail replacement work. Better than the 90 minutes I've had to wait in the past...

The Office of Rail and Road have started a new consultation into TOC obligations regarding accessibility of rail replacement vehicles. They say that whilst it is a criminal law obligation that rail replacement vehicles be accessible, that's for the DVSA to enforce and the ORR doesn't intend not to mandate it in TOC Accessible Travel Plans. This is because the rail industry has not realised that rail replacement vehicles are covered by access regulations and there aren't enough vehicles to provide such.

The ORR requested data from TOCs about rail replacement vehicles. TOCs indicated they used 55,351 coaches over the past year. The CPT estimates that there are or were 1,200 accessible coaches available for rail replacement, of which 600 have had accessibility features removed, leaving 600 accessible coaches available in the country.

 

[JonathanH]

I wouldn't say few coaches are wheelchair accessible. Some aren't for sure, but National Express and Megabus' own requirements, together with the increasing legal requirements, are leading to more and more being in place.

Very few National Express (and even fewer Megabus) vehicles seem to make it into the fleets of coach hire companies. It is quite rare to see Levantes working rail replacement services despite the fact it has been the standard National Express coach for a long time now (13 years?) and many National Express operators are on their second (or third) generation of these coaches.

The 'magic floor lift' doesn't seem to be a feature of other coach fleets.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Very few National Express (and even fewer Megabus) vehicles seem to make it into the fleets of coach hire companies. It is quite rare to see Levantes working rail replacement services despite the fact it has been the standard National Express coach for a long time now (13 years?) and many National Express operators are on their second (or third) generation of these coaches.

The 'magic floor lift' doesn't seem to be a feature of other coach fleets.

As stated elsewhere, the wheelchair lift is often removed when the coaches retire from’ service’ work. Is not need for private hire. If all RRBs need to have wheelchair lifts, there will be no RRB

 

[Bletchleyite]

As stated elsewhere, the wheelchair lift is often removed when the coaches retire from’ service’ work. Is not need for private hire. If all RRBs need to have wheelchair lifts, there will be no RRB

Really what makes sense is an accessible taxi on demand (and I mean on demand i.e. it's sat there waiting, and if one is used another is called in, not "we'll call one for you mate, it'll be half an hour"), not making all the bus vehicles accessible. A taxi is not equivalent to a train, but it is to a RRB, realistically speaking.

I suspect this will be the outcome in the end.

 

[Llanigraham]

Really what makes sense is an accessible taxi on demand (and I mean on demand i.e. it's sat there waiting, and if one is used another is called in, not "we'll call one for you mate, it'll be half an hour"), not making all the bus vehicles accessible. A taxi is not equivalent to a train, but it is to a RRB, realistically speaking.

I suspect this will be the outcome in the end.

That's going to fun in areas where taxi's are few and far between!
I can't think of any "accessible" ones around here.

 

[Cardiff123]

Can someone clarify for me what the situation will be from 1st February, because i'm confused. Will be it law that all RRB's and/or coaches must be completely accessible or they can't be used by TOCs, or that non-accessible RRBs and/or coaches can be used, as long as fully accessible taxis are also ready to transport disabled passengers, who cannot use the buses or coaches provided by a TOC?

Clearly if all non-accessible buses and coaches are banned for use by TOCs from 1st February, outside of London, that's pretty much the end of rail replacement services during planned engineering work, especially long distance RR services, such as those in place during this Christmas period between Bristol - Newport - Cardiff - Bridgend

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe it is supposed to be the former, however this is stupid and I can't see it happening.

 

[kingqueen]

Really what makes sense is an accessible taxi on demand (and I mean on demand i.e. it's sat there waiting, and if one is used another is called in, not "we'll call one for you mate, it'll be half an hour"), not making all the bus vehicles accessible. A taxi is not equivalent to a train, but it is to a RRB, realistically speaking.

The theory sounds wonderful. But the reality doesn't match up.

In taxis, I travel with the back of my head and often my shoulders rammed against the ceiling. Usually backwards, and always without being able to see out of the window. It's always uncomfortable, often vomit-inducing. Also usually the taxi driver fails to strap me or my wheelchair in properly.
I've got friends that simply can't travel in taxis because of this reason. Me: it simply makes for a very uncomfortable indeed journey and aches and pains for a few days afterwards.
On buses and coaches, there's no problem with headroom or views. On coaches, I always get to travel facing forwards.

I suspect this will be the outcome in the end.

It's certainly the situation for January. Beyond that, the Department for Transport will either have to issue further Special Authorisations or have to issue legislation. Because they're clear that the legislation (enacted in 2000) applies to rail replacement vehicles. To do anything other than continue to issue continued mass exemptions will require changes in the legislation in order to remove rail replacement from the current duty to use accessible vehicles. It will be a brave Government that introduces legislation actively removing or limiting existing accessibility legislative obligations - and such a change would definitely be subject to judicial review under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On buses and coaches, there's no problem with headroom or views. On coaches, I always get to travel facing forwards.
It's certainly the situation for January. Beyond that, the Department for Transport will either have to issue further Special Authorisations or have to issue legislation. Because they're clear that the legislation (enacted in 2000) applies to rail replacement vehicles. To do anything other than continue to issue continued mass exemptions will require changes in the legislation in order to remove rail replacement from the current duty to use accessible vehicles. It will be a brave Government that introduces legislation actively removing or limiting existing accessibility legislative obligations - and such a change would definitely be subject to judicial review under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Even though this means the end of the RRB, i.e. there will simply be no service at all for engineering periods, as there are not enough accessible vehicles around to ensure all vehicles are accessible?

Regarding taxis, you must be very tall to have that issue - are there vehicles that are suitable, e.g. minibus type taxis with a lift of the type used for community transport services? There are plenty of those about, and surely those must be an option.

It's just stupid to me to require all vehicles to be accessible. I don't see why the requirement should not be that there is provision, on any given departure, to carry the same number of wheelchair users as the train service had wheelchair spaces, regardless of how that is achieved. I agree that taxi pictured is not suitable for you, but I don't see that travel on a coach specifically should be a requirement, after all I'd far rather be on a train and I'm sure you would too.

 

[kingqueen]

Can someone clarify for me what the situation will be from 1st February, because i'm confused. Will be it law that all RRB's and/or coaches must be completely accessible

Unless the Department for Transport issues further Special Authorisations (as they have for January) or changes the legislation: yes that is correct.
NB: it is currently illegal for any inaccessible rail replacement coach built in the last 15 years to be used on rail replacement services, and for any inaccessible rail replacement bus to be used (except for an insignificant exemption for 20+ year old buses used for a maximum of 20 days a year.) So this isn't anything new. The bus and train operating companies have been breaking the law for years.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The ORR requested data from TOCs about rail replacement vehicles. TOCs indicated they used 55,351 coaches over the past year. The CPT estimates that there are or were 1,200 accessible coaches available for rail replacement, of which 600 have had accessibility features removed, leaving 600 accessible coaches available in the country.

Could you clarify that point please. There are 600 or 1200 accessible coaches in existence which is the absolute maximum that could theoretically be made available for rail replacement services or there are 600 or 1200 that are available for rail replacement services?

 

[PhilStockley]

Will be it law that all RRB's and/or coaches must be completely accessible or they can't be used by TOCs,

Yes

or that non-accessible RRBs and/or coaches can be used, as long as fully accessible taxis are also ready to transport disabled passengers, who cannot use the buses or coaches provided by a TOC?

No

But as everyone seems to be acknowledging, there is a significant shortage of accessible coaches, which is why the exemption from 1st Jan to 1st Feb has been granted in the first place. Nothing dramatic will change between 1st January and 1st February - there aren't hundreds of accessible coaches parked in a warehouse awaiting delivery somewhere - so expect a further fudge between now and 1st February to kick the can a bit further down the road (or possibly a definitive solution, although a fudge seems more likely).

Unless the Department for Transport issues further Special Authorisations (as they have for January) The bus and train operating companies have been breaking the law for years.

No they haven't - at least not in respect of coaches. PSVAR only applies to coaches used on *any* scheduled service from 1st January 2020, so up until now it has only been an issue in respect of buses (and most of these have been accessible for some time because they are also used on local bus services, so it is only the small subset of non-accessible buses that has infringed the law. And the operators of those would argue that this hasn't been clear, because rail replacement has always fallen into a grey area, so these vehicles have been being used in perfectly good faith, not because of some wanton desire by criminal bus operators to get round the law).