What are TOCs doing post accessible RRB advice?

kingqueen · 4 Oct 2019

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?

RailUK Forums

johntea · 5 Oct 2019

I always assumed they just lay on a accessible taxi?

Up here in Yorkshire Arriva now seem to provide a lot of RRB service anyway and their buses are accessible to begin with!

Aictos · 5 Oct 2019

They could just put on a low rider bus

johntea said:
I always assumed they just lay on a accessible taxi?

Up here in Yorkshire Arriva now seem to provide a lot of RRB service anyway and their buses are accessible to begin with!

That’s what Thameslink do as well, on one trip I had with them it was a GoAhead London single decker bus so they’re getting ready!

hwl · 5 Oct 2019

kingqueen said:
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?

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...

Robertj21a · 5 Oct 2019

The main problems will be in the provincial areas where coaches are routinely used. I daresay that TOCs will have to ensure that a fully accessible taxi is always available.

hwl · 5 Oct 2019

Robertj21a said:
The main problems will be in the provincial areas where coaches are routinely used. I daresay that TOCs will have to ensure that a fully accessible taxi is always available.

I've now read all the documents including legal advice in full.

None of it points to the OPs conclusion that nearly every RRV will need to be wheelchair accessible. It is about providing an accessible service.

Worth noting:

Emergency RRVs aren't covered as they are unscheduled.

"For the purposes of a minister of state" is an interesting exclusion...

Accessible taxis will be in high demand in many areas of the country.

kingqueen · 5 Oct 2019

hwl said:
I've now read all the documents including legal advice in full.

None of it points to the OPs conclusion that nearly every RRV will need to be wheelchair accessible. It is about providing an accessible service.!

Read it again, or other people read it.

It says:

My advice is that the requirements of the Regulations apply to rail replacement buses and newer coaches which are providing local and/or scheduled services, and to all such coaches from 1st January 2020.

hwl said:
Emergency RRVs aren't covered as they are unscheduled.

It doesn't say that either. It says that "local" buses are covered, that being any bus or coach service where stops are less than 15 minutes apart (and explicitly states that services don't have to be registered with the Traffic Commissioner to be "local".) So unless every stop on a rail replacement route is more than 15 miles apart, it's a "local" service and thus covered.

There is no distinction in the Regulations between planned and unplanned services, as follows from the reasoning set out above. Thus, so long as a service is either “local” or “scheduled” (or both), it will be covered by the Regulations, whether or not it is a last minute service.

The situation in which unplanned services might nonetheless fall outside the Regulations is where they are non-local services which also fall outside the definition of “scheduled.” This could conceivably cover a long-distance service run at the last minute without any scheduled times, for example (see paragraph 57 above) but this seems fairly unlikely, bearing in mind TOCs’ passenger information obligations and industry-accepted good practice.

"For the purposes of a minister of state" is an interesting exclusion...

It is.
Are rail replacement buses provided "for the purposes of a minister of state?" How remote do the vehicles have to be from said "purposes" before this is disengaged?

dtaylor84 · 5 Oct 2019

hwl said:
Emergency RRVs aren't covered as they are unscheduled.

I'm not sure how you get to that conclusion. It describes emergency RRVs as "unplanned" not "unscheduled", and explicitly says they are unlikely to be "unscheduled" which would be required to be outside of the Regulations:

ORR Legal Advice said:
2. [...] Rail replacement services (“RRS”) can encompass a variety of different types of service such as:
[...]
b. an unplanned bus or coach provided in cases of last minute failure or disruption on the line (e.g. signal failure or an emergency weather event). These will not be advertised in advance because of the last minute nature of the events.

59. There is no distinction in the Regulations between planned and unplanned services, as follows from the reasoning set out above. Thus, so long as a service is either “local” or “scheduled” (or both), it will be covered by the Regulations, whether or not it is a last minute service.

60.The situation in which unplanned services might nonetheless fall outside the Regulations is where they are non-local services which also fall outside the definition of “scheduled.” This could conceivably cover a long-distance service run at the last minute without any scheduled times, for example (see paragraph 57 above) but this seems fairly unlikely, bearing in mind TOCs’ passenger information obligations and industry-accepted good practice.

reytomas1228 · 5 Oct 2019

Also, are we really going to pretend that "accessible taxis" are indeed acceptable for all wheelchair users? My husband is a power wheelchair user and is unable to safely fit almost all accessible taxis (not even the new electric ones in London). So either the buses must be accessible, or the service will fall far below the intended standards

jeyer · 5 Oct 2019

reytomas1228 said:
Also, are we really going to pretend that "accessible taxis" are indeed acceptable for all wheelchair users? My husband is a power wheelchair user and is unable to safely fit almost all accessible taxis (not even the new electric ones in London). So either the buses must be accessible, or the service will fall far below the intended standards

I am the same. In my wheelchair, I am too tall to fit into a London Black Cab. Given enough time, I might be able to slowly work my way into one of the new electric ones, and have a few centimetres clearance from the roof once I'm in, but I fear going over a large bump could force my head into the ceiling risking serious injury.
When I have given a train company my height requirements, the booked cab has either never arrived, or was just a "normal" accessible cab, without enough clearance. I look forward to when I don't have to worry about that and will be able to just get on the RRB like everyone else.
Just saw this on twitter. This should never happen: https://twitter.com/walla7437/status/1180496752622936064

Temple Meads · 6 Oct 2019

jeyer said:
I look forward to when I don't have to worry about that and will be able to just get on the RRB like everyone else.

The rail replacement bus that might not turn up because there aren't enough accessible vehicles available.

At least everyone will be in your position, I suppose.

Terry Tait · 6 Oct 2019

Getting a bit ridiculous now

Bletchleyite · 6 Oct 2019

Temple Meads said:
The rail replacement bus that might not turn up because there aren't enough accessible vehicles available.

Therein lies the issue. I predict that this means RRB provision will reduce significantly, or will have to end up using unsuitable vehicles (i.e. low-floor double-decker city buses without toilets[1]) on very long runs.

Clearly the sensible and practical solution to this is that there should be enough accessible vehicles (of whatever type) that a wheelchair user turning up "on spec" using a form of wheelchair which is permitted on a train (so not very large electric chairs or some kinds of scooter) can be carried with a wait no longer than an able bodied person. Requiring each coach in use to be accessible is silly, and the law really should be changed.

[1] When is a medical-related urgent toilet need going to be seen as a disability on a par with others? Its omission really does seem as odd as it is disgraceful.

Bletchleyite · 6 Oct 2019

reytomas1228 said:
Also, are we really going to pretend that "accessible taxis" are indeed acceptable for all wheelchair users? My husband is a power wheelchair user and is unable to safely fit almost all accessible taxis (not even the new electric ones in London).

Is his chair permitted on a train?

kingqueen · 6 Oct 2019

Bletchleyite said:
When is a medical-related urgent toilet need going to be seen as a disability on a par with others? Its omission really does seem as odd as it is disgraceful.

I'd argue that legally it is a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act, in that it is an impairment that has a substantial and long- term negative impact on the person's ability to carry out day- to- day tasks; and that service providers are therefore under a duty to make reasonable adjustments to practices that put such persons at a substantial disadvantage.

Bletchleyite · 6 Oct 2019

kingqueen said:
I'd argue that legally it is a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act, in that it is an impairment that has a substantial and long- term negative impact on the person's ability to carry out day- to- day tasks; and that service providers are therefore under a duty to make reasonable adjustments to practices that put such persons at a substantial disadvantage.

The trouble is that these definitions are quite narrow. For instance, the non-provision of public toilet facilities in a public park means such a person is excluded from use of the park. Or, back on topic, RRBs moving to use toiletless city buses to accommodate wheelchair users means that someone who has this problem (which is far more common than wheelchair use - applying, to some extent, to almost all elderly people) may not be able to travel.

Terry Tait · 6 Oct 2019

PRM needs to be done with common sense, not some officebound grey suited nincompoop in a government department.

Spartacus · 7 Oct 2019

Terry Tait said:
PRM needs to be done with common sense, not some officebound grey suited nincompoop in a government department.

Common sense regulations, where do you think you are demanding such lunacy?! :lol:

Like others I can foresee a steady decline in the provision of emergency replacement buses, either through getting normal low floor buses turning up all the time, probably the lousy ones with almost-critical faults left at the depot, or simply no provision at all, with passengers left to wait out the disruption or make their own alternative arrangements and claim back, or not as is likely to be the case. I can see that happening a lot with disruption at peak times when getting hold of any spare buses and drivers at all is next to impossible.

Similar to how in places trains with no toilets replaced those with a small one, you can’t be done for breaking the law on replacement buses if you don’t provide any..... It’s not discriminatory if it’s equally bad for everyone.

Meerkat · 7 Oct 2019

Terry Tait said:
PRM needs to be done with common sense, not some officebound grey suited nincompoop in a government department.

There is a militant disability lobby which is happy to go to court.
They are also very good at PR - tabloids love a sad faced wheelchair user with a scandalous sounding headline - and which minister/MP wants to be seen arguing with someone in a wheelchair?

I understand the need for it to keep the government/business feet to the fire, but I do worry how happy they are for equality to mean poor service for everybody just to make a point.

AM9 · 7 Oct 2019

Spartacus said:
Common sense regulations, where do you think you are demanding such lunacy?!

Like others I can foresee a steady decline in the provision of emergency replacement buses, either through getting normal low floor buses turning up all the time, probably the lousy ones with almost-critical faults left at the depot, or simply no provision at all, with passengers left to wait out the disruption or make their own alternative arrangements and claim back, or not as is likely to be the case. I can see that happening a lot with disruption at peak times when getting hold of any spare buses and drivers at all is next to impossible.

There are two ways to fix that, the cheaper way is to make changes that reduces incidents of service failure to genuine emergencies only. The alternative is to invest in dedicated vehicles that enable the replacement service to comply with thw equality legislation. What we have at the moment is haphazard provision and an attitude that 'what looks the same (to an untrained eye) is the same', whereas in the eyes of an expert and the law, the provision is frequently woefully inadequate and the TOC is therefore liable to be prosecuted.

Spartacus said:
Similar to how in places trains with no toilets replaced those with a small one, you can’t be done for breaking the law on replacement buses if you don’t provide any..... It’s not discriminatory if it’s equally bad for everyone.

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.

Tetchytyke · 7 Oct 2019

A true emergency RRB is unlikely to be scheduled as the RRB won't run to a timetable- it'll come when it comes. So this will cover those situations when RRBs are brought in after a major signalling failure, for instance.

Once you're passed the initial emergency, and an RRB timetable is implemented (e.g. after flooding) then yes, there should be PSVAR-compliant provision for every scheduled journey. I don't see why this is unreasonable.

There certainly should be for planned RRBs (e.g engineering blockades) and perhaps this might swing TOCs back towards diversionary routes and away from whatever clapped out coach they can drag from somewhere.

Bletchleyite · 7 Oct 2019

Arctic Troll said:
A true emergency RRB is unlikely to be scheduled as the RRB won't run to a timetable- it'll come when it comes. So this will cover those situations when RRBs are brought in after a major signalling failure, for instance.

It won't, though, because it's scheduled or local. Most trains fit the definition of local, unless you're talking about a long non-stop IC run.

Bletchleyite · 7 Oct 2019

Arctic Troll said:
Once you're passed the initial emergency, and an RRB timetable is implemented (e.g. after flooding) then yes, there should be PSVAR-compliant provision for every scheduled journey. I don't see why this is unreasonable.

That is sensible but is not what the advice says. The advice says every vehicle used must comply.

Class 170101 · 7 Oct 2019

hwl said:
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...

I disagree with your last sentence its definitely a London issue as well.

What does the latest guidance have to say about stations in respect of the Rail Replacement issue? Interchange between buses and trains are often made at stations not normally suited for large numbers of people and also may not have accessible facilities.

Nearer to London few operators bus services into London or on the direct line of route instead they bus to adjacent BR lines or even tube lines which have greater accessibility issues than some outer stations. These stations are most likely used to save bus costs and shorten journey times on RR Buses but also for practical reasons in that the space around major urban centres like London is limited as to what sort of bus operation can be carried out.

Most operators in my experience bus from a hub station direct to the London terminus of their Line rather than via the tube for wheelchair users which seems to be common sense but could possibly be illegal from next year.

duffield · 7 Oct 2019

I wonder if this will mean (where possible) TOCs will be more likely to run trains via diversions, even if lengthy, rather than use RRBs?

Spartacus · 7 Oct 2019

duffield said:
I wonder if this will mean (where possible) TOCs will be more likely to run trains via diversions, even if lengthy, rather than use RRBs?

Even with diversions most services will require some sort of RRB will be required for intermediate stops unless..... Ultimately experience tells me it’ll mean more timetables dropping every service or stop possible when there’s planned works. I can think of at least one occasion where a TOC has dropped a station call entirely when it’s not been required by the franchise after being taken to task about RRB/taxi provision during engineering works.

reytomas1228 · 7 Oct 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Is his chair permitted on a train?

Sorry my response is a bit delayed, but yes his chair is permitted on all rolling stocks that we've tried, even GWR HSTs and the Underground's Central line 1992 stock. Its a height issue with the taxis.

reytomas1228 · 7 Oct 2019

Meerkat said:
There is a militant disability lobby which is happy to go to court.
They are also very good at PR - tabloids love a sad faced wheelchair user with a scandalous sounding headline - and which minister/MP wants to be seen arguing with someone in a wheelchair?

I understand the need for it to keep the government/business feet to the fire, but I do worry how happy they are for equality to mean poor service for everybody just to make a point.

Maybe after more than 20 years after DDA, the transport industries could have sorted this out on their own. Despite all this, disabled passengers have to deal with being left on trains, failed ramp assistance, not being able to board buses, having to plan every journey (and contigencies) hours or days in advance, and the daily humiliation that comes with it. Despite the so-called "militant disability lobby," all upcoming new rolling stock except those from Stadler Rail will have train floors above the national standard, meaning that independent level boarding on the majority of the railways will be impossible for decades regardless of future platform standardisation. Expecting RRBs to at least emulate the level of accessibility as the railways themselves after having so many years to improve, should not be an unreasonable adjustment.

Meerkat · 8 Oct 2019

There has to be a reasonability limit on how much money is spent.
The need for more specialised RRBs means blockade costs rise, so enhancement costs rise, and less becomes affordable.

For weekend blockade work maybe they need to share buses with school travel

Bletchleyite · 8 Oct 2019

Meerkat said:
There has to be a reasonability limit on how much money is spent.
The need for more specialised RRBs means blockade costs rise, so enhancement costs rise, and less becomes affordable.

For weekend blockade work maybe they need to share buses with school travel

School travel mostly uses non-accessible coaches and high floor buses, because wheelchair users are transported separately.

They often also use 3+2 seated coaches (as a replacement to the old practice of "3 kids on 2 adult seats" in the days of old style benches without belts) which are not suitable for adult passengers.

What are TOCs doing post accessible RRB advice?

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member