kingqueen
Member
thank you very much indeed Robert, I appreciate your comment a lot.Although I am not directly affected, I applaud the efforts made by you for the benefit of many others.
thank you very much indeed Robert, I appreciate your comment a lot.Although I am not directly affected, I applaud the efforts made by you for the benefit of many others.
Another sneak peek! The next ‘Northern Coaching’ vehicle tidied up for our PSVAR compliant rail replacement and contract operations in a series of retro liveries from North of England coach names with recent historical connections to GNE (+ companies EY acquired in the 1990s)...
thank you very much indeed Robert, I appreciate your comment a lot.
Go North East are starting to get a PSVAR compliant fleet ready for rail replacement work. Their MD Martijn Gilbert Tweets
https://twitter.com/martijngne/status/1229787871533551618?s=21
I suspect they are vehicles previously used on GNE's National Express work, and recently replaced.That is certainly a positive step - supply and demand has changed the price paid for compliant vehicles, evidently enough to prompt this kind of investment. Hopefully there'll be more of this to come.
That is certainly a positive step. Hopefully there'll be more of this to come.
First South West have a fleet of 18 psvar coaches now with what seems like more daily lately!
I do not feel more operators will go down this road until the whole issued is resolved, remember until PSVAR is tested in court we are still working on advice from a Barrister. Many disagree with her assumptions including First Group. and will DFt be happy to pay BSOG on RRB local services, which in the past they refused to do.That is certainly a positive step. Hopefully there'll be more of this to come.
Thank you.I'd echo that. As a guard your videos are very useful instructional aids, unfortunate though the circumstances are.
I haven't! Whilst in some respects I'm clearly not averse to sticking my neck out, I'm not great at doing self promotion. However when things have gone wrong, I've sent my videos to access managers for the purposes of their investigation - and that has resulted in them asking my permission to use them in training (which was very polite of them, given I wouldn't know if they did, the videos area in the public domain and are creative commons anyway) so they are being used for some TOCs' access training.Have you ever considered, as the footage is in the public domain already, approaching train operators and offering the footage you've produced for training purposes?
Absolutely spot on. Agree entirely. As put across so well in this post on "Just Ask Don't Grab".The most helpful thing I have always found is to be candid with the person I'm assisting and ask how is best for me to assist them, should they need any help at all.
What has Bus Services Operators Grant got to do with the applicability of Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations to Rail Replacement Coaches?will DFt be happy to pay BSOG on RRB local services, which in the past they refused to do.
Thanks.I think @lincman is implying that if RRBs are now considered a ‘scheduled’ service rather than a private hire, with the PSVAR responsibilities and requirements that entails, then operators should be able to claim the benefits of operating a ‘scheduled’ service.
I do not feel more operators will go down this road until the whole issued is resolved, remember until PSVAR is tested in court we are still working on advice from a Barrister. Many disagree with her assumptions including First Group. and will DFt be happy to pay BSOG on RRB local services, which in the past they refused to do.
Thanks.
That would require legislative change (albeit secondary legislation) because rail replacement services are specifically excluded from bus service operators grants, under regulation 3(3)(i) introduced by the Bus Service Operators Grant (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013/2100.
Interestingly, there's no equivalent exemption for rail replacement services in the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations.
The PSVAR includes multiple requirements other than just wheelchair accessibility; for example, route information,
No doubt - it is being made worth their while to do it!
I think @lincman is implying that if RRBs are now considered a ‘scheduled’ service rather than a private hire, with the PSVAR responsibilities and requirements that entails, then operators should be able to claim the benefits of operating a ‘scheduled’ service.
However, as they are not registered as a proper bus service, with all the notice periods necessary, I doubt this would apply.
That's a very interesting question. My understanding is that the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations solely relate to physical features of a bus or coach, I.e. they dictate what route displays must be present in order for the vehicle to be compliant. But separate regulations require that when a PSVAR compliant vehicle is in use, the driver must use the route displays EXCEPT for temporary services.Is route information required to be provided or is the vehicle just required to be able to provide it?
That's a very interesting question. My understanding is that the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations solely relate to physical features of a bus or coach, I.e. they dictate what route displays must be present in order for the vehicle to be compliant. But separate regulations require that when a PSVAR compliant vehicle is in use, the driver must use the route displays EXCEPT for temporary services.
Under The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which inserted into the conduct regs the obligation to use route displays etc. except:
"shall not apply to an emergency replacement vehicle or to a temporary service vehicle until 21 days has elapsed from the day when the vehicle is first used as an emergency replacement vehicle or as a temporary service vehicle, provided that—
A) the route number (if any) and a destination shall be displayed either on the front or on the nearside of the vehicle as close as practical to the foremost passenger entrance"
See the legislation for the full context. So I don't think that rail replacement services are required to use the route indicators, unless they run for over 21 days (I guess like happened on the Settle and Carlisle following the landslip, and again during the regular Saturday strike timetable.)
Cheers
how lonfg before they would run out of buses for the Conway valley
It only exempts the obligation to show route information on all the vehicle's displays. It doesn't exempt the obligation to operate accessible vehicles on those services.could the 21 day rule be used to fiddle the system
It only exempts the obligation to show route information on all the vehicle's displays. It doesn't exempt the obligation to operate accessible vehicles on those services.
I must say that I agree entirely with your statement regarding PSVAR only relating to the physical features of the vehicle, please clear up a definition of a local service.That's a very interesting question. My understanding is that the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations solely relate to physical features of a bus or coach, I.e. they dictate what route displays must be present in order for the vehicle to be compliant. But separate regulations require that when a PSVAR compliant vehicle is in use, the driver must use the route displays EXCEPT for temporary services.
Under The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which inserted into the conduct regs the obligation to use route displays etc. except:
"shall not apply to an emergency replacement vehicle or to a temporary service vehicle until 21 days has elapsed from the day when the vehicle is first used as an emergency replacement vehicle or as a temporary service vehicle, provided that—
A) the route number (if any) and a destination shall be displayed either on the front or on the nearside of the vehicle as close as practical to the foremost passenger entrance"
See the legislation for the full context. So I don't think that rail replacement services are required to use the route indicators, unless they run for over 21 days (I guess like happened on the Settle and Carlisle following the landslip, and again during the regular Saturday strike timetable.)
Cheers
I must say that I agree entirely with your statement regarding PSVAR only relating to the physical features of the vehicle, please clear up a definition of a local service.
No. I've done so any number of times, so has the ORR and so has both the initial and final legal advice.I must say that I agree entirely with your statement regarding PSVAR only relating to the physical features of the vehicle, please clear up a definition of a local service.
Sorry to disagree the ORR have nothing to do with PSVAR or service operation and as such cannot define a local service. They have accepted one barristers opinion which many believe is flawed, including myself.No. I've done so any number of times, so has the ORR and so has both the initial and final legal advice.
I'd love to read any barrister's competing opinion.They have accepted one barristers opinion which many believe is flawed, including myself.
Sorry to disagree the ORR have nothing to do with PSVAR or service operation and as such cannot define a local service. They have accepted one barristers opinion which many believe is flawed, including myself.
I would agree that a test case would solve the situation, but that will not be required until the derogation expires in AprilIf that view was shared by many others I would have expected at least a test case through the courts to be underway. My intetpretation is that it's a sensible opinion, but one which many simply don't like.