Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

[kingqueen]

RRB services are a courtesy

Albeit, as you point out, provided by TOCs as the most expedient way to meet their legal obligation to enable passengers to complete their journey despite rail disruption.

and free to use by anyone holding a valid rail ticket for that route

Yes indeed. Payment of the fare that resulted in that rail ticket (except for edge cases where it could be argued the rail ticket is free) inherently includes consideration of a person’s being given a right to be carried, whether for one or more journeys and whether or not the right is exercised, as the legislation puts it.

therefore are considered at law a PH/contract and therefore do not come under PSVAR rules

That is not the definition used in the PSVAR. Categorisation of the service under S6 Transport Act 1985 is not referenced at all in the PSVAR and has no impact whatsoever in determining susceptibility to the PSVAR. We're talking about two entirely separate things here. Conflating the two is incorrect and unhelpful.
Take, for example, the term "local services".
S2 Transport Act 1985 defines "local services". This is the definition used by the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations.
S6(1) Transport Act says that S6 only deals with that subset of local services that aren't London services, certain school buses or rail replacement services:

In this section “service” means a local service which is neither a London local service nor a service which falls within subsection (1A) nor a service provided under an agreement...

All well and good. So as the rest of S6 is about registration of services with the Traffic Commissioner and compliance with registration requirements, said obligations don't apply to rail replacement buses (or London services or certain school buses.)
HOWEVER: the PSVAR doesn't have the same qualification. It simply says that all local services (as defined in Section 2) are subject to the regulations. It doesn't say "a local service which is neither a London local service nor a (school bus) nor a (rail replacement bus)". There isn't that exception in the regulations. It goes for the full fat version, the full gamut of local services, including those that are exempt from the obligation to register with the Traffic Commissioners.
If it didn't, then all buses in London would also be exempt from the accessibility regulations.

 

[Robertj21a]

therein lays the problem with the OP's argument.... I and others have all pointed out more than once no fares are charged on an RRB, no matter how much he wants to think they are... RRB services are a courtesy and free to use by anyone holding a valid rail ticket for that route therefore are considered at law a PH/contract and therefore do not come under PSVAR rules, or for that matter, local service rules or scheduled express!

However, I and others, have also pointed out that a pre-planned rail replacement bus/coach service should indeed come under PSVAR legislation. We're just going round in circles and making no progress !

I don't know precisely what some others are envisaging but I am only talking about a rail replacement service that has been planned in advance [I'm hoping that we can all agree that an 'emergency' situation is fairly irrelevant as virtually anything is permitted].
In planning for the replacement bus/coach there is, in my experience, a specific schedule drawn up where the vehicle will leave specific points at specific times (i.e it's not vague or ad hoc). The passenger will have paid a fare (to the TOC) that allows him/her to travel on that service. It meets the criteria for a PSVAR-compliant vehicle to be needed. The business of the fare not being paid *direct* is irrelevant, it's the fact that a fare has been paid that allows the passenger to travel over that part of the journey.

I assume that everybody fully understands that a 'coach with steps that can't take a wheelchair...... etc etc' is permitted, currently, to be used (until 2020) - as highlighted by the poster originally. With due allowance for this situation until 2020, I need somebody to clearly explain why they believe that a PSVAR-compliant vehicle is not needed for a pre-planned rail replacement service.

 

[talldave]

However, I and others, have also pointed out that a pre-planned rail replacement bus/coach service should indeed come under PSVAR legislation. We're just going round in circles and making no progress !

And in the process, making this a prime candidate for the most boring thread of the year. If the TOCs are in the wrong, take them to court. The outcome will make for an interesting read!

 

[Dai Corner]

As I said several pages back, the difficulty is that different definitions are used for different purposes (PSVAR, drivers hours regs, requirement to register with the Traffic Commissioner etc).

We've seen all the arguments played out but only a court can give an authorative answer. Are you up for that OP?

 

[lincman]

I have read through this thread, and it's cherry picking of various pieces of legislation, but the fact remains that the countries largest operator of long distance coaches National Express still state that coaches do not have to be fully accessible until 2020, does that mean they are operating outside PSVAR or is there interpretation wrong.

 

[Dai Corner]

I have read through this thread, and it's cherry picking of various pieces of legislation, but the fact remains that the countries largest operator of long distance coaches National Express still state that coaches do not have to be fully accessible until 2020, does that mean they are operating outside PSVAR or is there interpretation wrong.

Good point!

Looking at it another way, if a coach is used for National Express duties Monday-Saturday does it somehow become non-compliant if used for rail-replacement on Sunday?

 

[richw]

I have read through this thread, and it's cherry picking of various pieces of legislation, but the fact remains that the countries largest operator of long distance coaches National Express still state that coaches do not have to be fully accessible until 2020, does that mean they are operating outside PSVAR or is there interpretation wrong.

National Express is correct,

All full size single deck buses over 7.5 tonnes will be fully accessible from 1 January 2016, and all double deck buses from 1 January 2017.

New buses weighing up to 7.5 tonnes and coaches have been required to have wheelchair access from 1 January 2005.

All buses weighing up to 7.5 tonnes have been required to be fully accessible from 1 January 2015 and coaches will be fully accessible from 1 January 2020.

Around here many smaller firms have taken some seats out of Mercedes Varios to bring them under 22 seats. There are many varios running around with a great big gap at the back where the seats used to be!

I know another operator who has openly admitted he will be running non compliant buses under the 20 day rule, and hope he doesn’t get caught. He’s fairly confident he’ll be ok, because there is no requirement to keep records of which buses have been used on the stage service, so no evidence he’s used the bus more than 20 days unless a (1 of 3) PSVAR inspector spends over 20 days observing his route!

 

[Stompehh]

I have read through this thread, and it's cherry picking of various pieces of legislation, but the fact remains that the countries largest operator of long distance coaches National Express still state that coaches do not have to be fully accessible until 2020, does that mean they are operating outside PSVAR or is there interpretation wrong.

Good point!

Looking at it another way, if a coach is used for National Express duties Monday-Saturday does it somehow become non-compliant if used for rail-replacement on Sunday?

Coaches are not subject to the legislation until 2020 and no one in this thread (on either side) is disputing that - the discussion is whether the legislation currently applies for buses and will apply for coaches in 2020.

To be honest, going by the PSVAR regs, I think @kingqueen has the correct interpretation here, by the letter of the law. Other posters are using interpretations/definitions from other acts (e.g. registration of bus service with traffic commissioner) which are not relevant when talking about PSVAR. Of course, in practice, it seems the interpretation is different - it would be interesting to see a test of this in court.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I know another operator who has openly admitted he will be running non compliant buses under the 20 day rule, and hope he doesn’t get caught. He’s fairly confident he’ll be ok, because there is no requirement to keep records of which buses have been used on the stage service, so no evidence he’s used the bus more than 20 days unless a (1 of 3) PSVAR inspector spends over 20 days observing his route!

But it is very easy to check, if you run the service for 41 days and only have two buses, you will have to show how you did it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Coaches were a completely different kettle of fish.... quite simply the problem of accessibility couldn't be cured by lowering the floor for the obvious reason that you need the luggage locker capacity! Once experiments took place with lifts in service, there were a number of issues raised, some of which, I'm afraid, still haven't been ironed out... so therefore accessible coaches are only now becoming the norm... for express coaches anyway... remember there is no law compelling an operator of coaches that only operates tours/ PH's to buy accessible coaches... and that really is the ultimate failure of accessibility legislation.... don't disabled people want to go on holiday? or on a day trip?

Taking the view that passive provision is better than active provision, the Interdecker type design with the driver sitting low down and the wheelchair user(s) immediately behind (and two rows of seats on the other side for those who can't climb the steps), then steps to the main seating behind that, is probably the best way to deal with the requirement. Having the driver as low down as possible also has other benefits - road safety (more likely to see a cyclist) and separating them from the passengers (so less likely for someone to distract them).

TBH, if they want to solve this properly[1], they simply need to require that all new PCVs registered after a given date must be able to take at least one wheelchair. Then, like buses, it'd filter through far more quickly than trains because coaches have a far shorter working life generally.

[1] Doesn't solve a toilet issue, but toilet stops on demand are much easier for a coach.

 

[lincman]

I would point out that PSVAR is a statutory instrument and not an act. The Act governing the operation of buses and coaches is still the 1985 Transport act

 

[pemma]

No, it is sunny Longport! Not heard of any replacements for us yet, we can but dream of more than one coach though.

Ah yes I forgot about the EMT 153s. However, it seems they'll be 14 x 156s off-lease by the end of 2019 which don't have a future home yet.

 

[Robertj21a]

I have read through this thread, and it's cherry picking of various pieces of legislation, but the fact remains that the countries largest operator of long distance coaches National Express still state that coaches do not have to be fully accessible until 2020, does that mean they are operating outside PSVAR or is there interpretation wrong.

I'm not aware that anybody has said anything different !. The original posting related to post-2020 from the outset.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I, like others, am fed up with going round in circles. It is clear that the OP has an agenda and will not be swayed by anything said or any advice given. But I will try one more time, using the PSVAR regulations he keeps quoting.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1970/regulation/3/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1970/regulation/3/made

This is the next page of the same regulations that the OP keeps quoting, and deals with what vehicles need to be compliant at what date....

Paragraph 9 b quite clearly states: "references to a vehicle being “used” or “in use” means the regulated public service vehicle is being used to provide either a local service or a scheduled service."

As Rail Replacement services are not a local or scheduled service as defined in the Road Transport act they therefore do not fall under PSVAR, no matter how much the OP wishes to argue otherwise!

 

[lincman]

As I understand RRB's are not registered local services, they are also not scheduled services as the "schedules published by the Train Operating Company" are for the benefit of Rail ticket holders only and is therefore not a scheduled public service and is covered by PSVAR regulations.

 

[lincman]

As I understand RRB's are not registered local services, they are also not scheduled services as the "schedules published by the Train Operating Company" are for the benefit of Rail ticket holders only and is therefore not a scheduled public service and is not covered by PSVAR regulations.

I, like others, am fed up with going round in circles. It is clear that the OP has an agenda and will not be swayed by anything said or any advice given. But I will try one more time, using the PSVAR regulations he keeps quoting.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1970/regulation/3/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1970/regulation/3/made

This is the next page of the same regulations that the OP keeps quoting, and deals with what vehicles need to be compliant at what date....

Paragraph 9 b quite clearly states: "references to a vehicle being “used” or “in use” means the regulated public service vehicle is being used to provide either a local service or a scheduled service."

As Rail Replacement services are not a local or scheduled service as defined in the Road Transport act they therefore do not fall under PSVAR, no matter how much the OP wishes to argue otherwise!

Sorry my typing is not always as quick as my thoughts. I must state I totally agree, Accessible vehicles are not required by law on RRB's

 

[richw]

But it is very easy to check, if you run the service for 41 days and only have two buses, you will have to show how you did it!

Hires etc. Quite a lot of these operators have mates at other operators who will “hire” them a bus on paper!

@Teflon Lettuce im glad you pointed that the OP has an agenda. He’s well known for that but didn’t want to be the first to highlight!

 

[Robertj21a]

Sorry my typing is not always as quick as my thoughts. I must state I totally agree, Accessible vehicles are not required by law on RRB's

As I have said many times I disagree, but am exhausted by needing to repeat myself so many times. I note that nobody has responded to my question from earlier today.

 

[lincman]

I feel the confusion is caused by the wording, pre planned Rail Replacement work is operates to a schedule ( or if you prefer a timetable), as drivers ,supervisors and passengers need to know where to be and when and each passenger has paid a separate fare to the TOC concerned, but the contract to travel is with TOC not the vehicle operator, and separate fares cannot be purchased to travel on the vehicle unless acquired from the TOC it is therefore a closed contract, and not liable to PSVAR under the regulations of the 1985 act. The only time that a bus is required to PSVAR requirements is on registered services. That is my understanding I willing to be convinced otherwise.

 

[kingqueen]

We've seen all the arguments played out but only a court can give an authorative answer. Are you up for that OP?

I'm not at that stage yet. Partly because of the potential for negative indirect consequences as noted through the thread; partly because court should always be a last resort. So I'm not ruling it put

I'm exploring other options to get an official opinion on it. I've asked the DFT, the ORR and the DVSA, and am awaiting an answer from them as to whether and under what circumstances rail replacement coaches and buses are subject to PSVAR. And I've commissioned an expert barrister to produce a report on it.

Doubtless none of the above will be a speedy process.

 

[kingqueen]

I have read through this thread, and it's cherry picking of various pieces of legislation, but the fact remains that the countries largest operator of long distance coaches National Express still state that coaches do not have to be fully accessible until 2020, does that mean they are operating outside PSVAR or is there interpretation wrong.

No, they are correct. As I stated in my original post, not all coaches in use on local or scheduled services have to be accessible until 2020.
Coaches first used before 2005 are exempt from the requirement to comply with the accessibility regulations, until 2020.
Any coach used for the first time after that date is required to be wheelchair accessible, if used on local or scheduled services (this doesn't apply to excursions or tours)

 

[kingqueen]

Good point!

Looking at it another way, if a coach is used for National Express duties Monday-Saturday does it somehow become non-compliant if used for rail-replacement on Sunday?

Simply: No.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

No, they are correct. As I stated in my original post, not all coaches in use on local or scheduled services have to be accessible until 2020.
Coaches first used before 2005 are exempt from the requirement to comply with the accessibility regulations, until 2020.
Any coach used for the first time after that date is required to be wheelchair accessible, if used on local or scheduled services (this doesn't apply to excursions or tours)

but, as people keep on telling you, Rail Replacement services are not local or scheduled services as defined by the Transport Act 1985 [as amended]... and I refer you to Section 3 paragraph 9b of the PSVAR regulations you keep quoting!

 

[kingqueen]

I, As Rail Replacement services are not a local or scheduled service as defined in the Road Transport act they therefore do not fall under PSVAR, no matter how much the OP wishes to argue otherwise!

They are local services as defined by the Transport Act 1985.

Section 2 defines local services. Section 6 then says that local services that aren't in London, certain school buses or rail replacement services, are subject to registration. That doesn't affect the definition of local services under Section 2.

I object to your repeated claim that I have some form of agenda or in any way being disingenuous. It does nothing for your argument and in any case is not true. I remind you of the forum rules and ask that you treat me with respect.

It is your responsibility to ensure all your contributions to this forum are respectful ...

• We aim to create a friendly environment for all members, where individuals respect each other. Please ensure your contributions comply with this. ...
• Your contributions must not defame any person or organisation.

This is the third time you have said that this is your last word on the subject. On the previous two occasions, you have gone against that and posted messages accusing me of having a hidden agenda, implying that I am in some way being disingenuous. I should be grateful that should you decide to post again on this issue, you don't post such allegations again. I have conducted this debate without any such personal judgment or vitriol, and should be grateful of being afforded the same courtesy.

Thank you

 

[kingqueen]

As I understand RRB's are not registered local services, they are also not scheduled services as the "schedules published by the Train Operating Company" are for the benefit of Rail ticket holders only and is therefore not a scheduled public service and is covered by PSVAR regulations.

That is not my understanding.
School bus schedules are published only for the benefit of children at the relevant schools, yet those school buses are subject to PSVAR regulations (unless they are exclusively used by those children entitled to free school transport.)

 

[kingqueen]

Around here many smaller firms have taken some seats out of Mercedes Varios to bring them under 22 seats. There are many varios running around with a great big gap at the back where the seats used to be!

That's a new one to add to the other wheezes:

• Removing banging straps and standing capacity so that buses meet the legal definition of coaches and don't have to be accessible until 2020
• Restricting school buses to kids entitled to free school transport in order to make PSVAR non-compliant (or keeping quiet about allowing others to pay fares to occupy spare seats)
• Using and abusing the 20 day heritage law (as you state)

Cheers
Doug

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

They are local or scheduled services as defined by the Transport Act 1985.

Section 2 defines local services. Section 6 then says that local services that aren't in London, certain school buses or rail replacement services, are subject to registration. That doesn't affect the definition of local services under Section 2.

I object to your repeated claim that I have some form of agenda or in any way being disingenuous. It does nothing for your argument and in any case is not true. I remind you of the forum rules and ask that you treat me with respect.

This is the third time you have said that this is your last word on the subject. On the previous two occasions, you have gone against that and posted messages accusing me of having a hidden agenda, implying that I am in some way being disingenuous. I should be grateful that should you decide to post again on this issue, you don't post such allegations again. I have conducted this debate without any such personal judgment or vitriol, and should be grateful of being afforded the same courtesy.

Thank you

ok... seeing as though you have now not only identified who you are in a previous post, and now you have admitted that you are looking to form a case to take to court...

I'm exploring other options to get an official opinion on it. I've asked the DFT, the ORR and the DVSA, and am awaiting an answer from them as to whether and under what circumstances rail replacement coaches and buses are subject to PSVAR. And I've commissioned an expert barrister to produce a report on it.

I will withdraw the claim that you have a hidden agenda...

ok... so you deem Rail Replacement buses as being either local services or scheduled services as defined by the Transport Act 1985... so that would mean that you are right, and I am wrong, other posters here are wrong, the entire Bus/ coach industry is wrong, the TOC's are wrong, the Traffic Commissioners are wrong and the Rail Regulatory authorities are wrong!

Rail Replacement services are NOT public services as you can only use them if you have a contract with the TOC before you are allowed to board. Think of it this way.... you arrive at your local stn to find out that the journey you want to make is to be entirely on a rail replacement service... you haven't purchased your rail ticket yet... so you board the bus {owned by your local bus service operator for completeness} and show your concessionary pass or, if not elderly/ disabled, you show your monthly pass that you purchased from the operator yesterday.... will you be accepted for travel?

Therein lays the answer. Whether you like it or not a Rail Replacement service is a contract/PH and not a scheduled service as defined by the Road Transport Act 1985

 

[WelshBluebird]

As Rail Replacement services are not a local or scheduled service as defined in the Road Transport act they therefore do not fall under PSVAR, no matter how much the OP wishes to argue otherwise!

In the context of the PSVAR regulations, "scheduled service" has a specific meaning that is defined within the regulations and has nothing to do with the Roat Transport Act. Specifically it means:
"A service, using one or more public service vehicles, for the carriage of passengers at separate fares— (a) along specified routes, (b) at specified times, and (c) with passengers being taken up and set down at pre-determined stopping points, but does not include a tour service".

Now it RRB's certainly do operate along specific routes, at specific times and with passengers being taken up and set down at pre-determined stopping points. So I guess the only real question is "for the carriage of passengers at separate fares", which we both have already disagreed on so there is no point repeating that bit (but basically, the regulation does not specify paid a faredirect to the bus operator, nor does it say paid a fare onboard the bus, not does it specify specifically the fare being a bus fare - just that a fare is paid for the journey).

As I said, what that means in regards to RRB's being subject to these regulations or not - I have no idea. my own personal feeling is that if they are not right now, then they should be, but that is more because i believe all public transport should be genuinely accessible.

National Express is correct,
Around here many smaller firms have taken some seats out of Mercedes Varios to bring them under 22 seats. There are many varios running around with a great big gap at the back where the seats used to be!

I know another operator who has openly admitted he will be running non compliant buses under the 20 day rule, and hope he doesn’t get caught. He’s fairly confident he’ll be ok, because there is no requirement to keep records of which buses have been used on the stage service, so no evidence he’s used the bus more than 20 days unless a (1 of 3) PSVAR inspector spends over 20 days observing his route!

Doesn't make it right though does it?
As I said earlier, it should be deemed non complient with the regulations to remove existing facilities (in this case seats) to skirt around the law.
As for the operator you know, personally I find that simply disgraceful behavior and they should lose their license to operate for planning to break the law like that.

 

[kingqueen]

I note that nobody has responded to my question from earlier today.

This one?

I need somebody to clearly explain why they believe that a PSVAR-compliant vehicle is not needed for a pre-planned rail replacement service.

I wish I could but I'm not not in a position to do so because I don't believe that rail replacement services are subject to PSVAR. (I know you weren't asking me to explain )
Doubtless others who think such aren't subject to PSVAR believe that they've explained why - and think I'm being deliberately obtuse in my disingenuous agenda-fuelled intent not to understand or take in their reasoning. Which I am not.

 

[kingqueen]

separate fares cannot be purchased to travel on the vehicle unless acquired from the TOC it is therefore a closed contract

A fare is a separate fare no matter who it is paid to, who pays it, if the payment includes other things than just the bus / coach journey, and even if the person paid for doesn't actually travel.
Public Passenger Vehicles Act S1(5)(b)&(c):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/14/section/1

(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;
(c) a payment shall be treated as made for the carrying of a passenger if made in consideration of a person’s being given a right to be carried, whether for one or more journeys and whether or not the right is exercised.

The only time that a bus is required to PSVAR requirements is on registered services.

There is nothing in the regulations that says only buses registered with the Traffic Commissioners are subject to the PSVAR.
If this was the case, then any buses in use in use in London wouldn't be subject to the PSVAR, because they are also exempted from the obligation to register with the Traffic Commissioners.