-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What are TOCs doing post accessible RRB advice?
- Thread starter kingqueen
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
As most of the platforms the Anglia Stadler calls at are actually near any standard height there isn't as much level boarding there either and ramps still need to be used.
There are platform standards which mostly revolve around minimising the need to change them, but are there any actual on train floor height standards?
Crossrail (core) and Heathrow have level boarding at 1100mm floor/platform height. But the GE preferred about circa 1000mm platform height on the inners where as GW preferred circa 850mm.
Realistically we are starting from 40-50 early Victorian railway company standards at the majority of stations.
For ambulatory individuals (especially those with mobility problems) if completely level boarding isn't possible a large step is safer than a small stepas regards trips /fall hence the 915-1100mm difference equating to a normal step height in building.
Temple Meads
Established Member
There are lots of areas where this simply isn't possible, and using diversion routes usually means stations are bypassed which then require replacement transport.
reytomas1228
Member
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 41
Every station that GA has shown the Stadlers at has had level boarding, on the Wherry lines, Norwich, Cambridge, Lowestoft, etc. By their own estimate, 70% of the stations where Stadlers will call will have level boarding. Keeping in mind that level boarding is max +/- 50mm step size, platform heights from 880-980 mm would by definition allow for level boarding for the Stadlers (930 mm retractable step).
Having seen and analysed some raw data of every platform in the country, a very rough estimate suggests that 50-70% of all platforms would fall within this range, which is a not a trivial amount. So while not perfect, the introduction of these trains in GA and in South Wales will have an enormous impact on independent accessibility and this should become a standard for the whole network. I also realise this is all massively off-topic and I apologise for this.
duffield
Established Member
Yes, that's why I said 'where possible'. There are a number of TOCs who could use diversions but don't; if RRBs become much more expensive or very difficult to come by the balance may change and they may (say) change from exclusively using a fairly large number of RRBs to mostly using diversions with (say) just one or two accessible RRBs for the intermediate stations which can't be served by the diversion.
An example would be WCML diversions over the S&C, which don't currently happen due to various factors like the length of the diversion, the expense of maintaining route knowledge or hiring route conductors, rolling stock issues etc - but this issue might tip the financial balance for the TOC towards taking the large majority of through passengers over the diversion and managing with (say) one or two accessible RRBs for the intermediate stations. It might be worse for some passengers who don't want a very long diversion but if the finances stack up the TOC might do it regardless.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Or will they simply decide that if there's engineering work that Sunday there is simply no service?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
A wheelchair lift isn't specialist equipment!
As for the cost, the entire Megabus fleet is wheelchair accessible, and they charge £10 a ticket and still make money.
What it might mean is the end of the cowboy coach companies providing any old backfiring banger on RRBs.
I disagree - wheelchair lifts are specialist equipment. Take a close look at them - lots of intricate equipment, easily damaged or defective (rendering the vehicle legally unusable) and a requirement for expensive servicing. Additionally they reduce the seating capacity for perhaps a few wheelchair users per year.
The megabus fleet is all wheelchair accessible (it has to be to be legal), but this has been achieved by a particular design of coach [bearing in mind the comment above regarding lifts] with a large front overhang, and the driver effectively separated on another deck from most other passengers. These two features are not generally suitable for school contract work, which is the bread and butter of most coach operators.
Temple Meads
Established Member
Most accessible coaches to be found on rail replacement services are very well used examples, previously used on express work, so are more likely to fit your description than a luxury touring coach or a vehicle used for private hire where condition is often invaluable to securing repeat business.
A wheelchair lift is very much specialist equipment, by the way.
Nick Ashwell
Member
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 391
Just because something is specialised doesn't mean it shouldn't be standard. All buses and coaches should be required to be accessible whether used as RRBs or indeed any other work however that's only viable with new builds and you could possibly give say fifteen years for operators to replace inaccessible ones. Allowing new, inaccessible public transport to be built should be banned full stop.
kingqueen
Member
I agree entirely Nick.
I'd argue that the 15 years have already passed, mind you.
All new coach stock in use for rail replacement services have been required to be accessible since 2005, and the 2020 deadline has been set since 2000. But transport operators didn't notice, nor was it brought to their attention.
Which brings me back to the original question as posted: what are TOCs doing as a result of the ORR's legal advice that rail replacement buses are in scope?
Cheers
Doug
I'd argue that the 15 years have already passed, mind you.
All new coach stock in use for rail replacement services have been required to be accessible since 2005, and the 2020 deadline has been set since 2000. But transport operators didn't notice, nor was it brought to their attention.
Which brings me back to the original question as posted: what are TOCs doing as a result of the ORR's legal advice that rail replacement buses are in scope?
Cheers
Doug
The equipment being used by operators servicing National Express and Citylink suggests otherwise. The seats in the designated wheelchair area can be removed/re-installed in minutes.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Some of the fleet are Elite i interdecks and some are double decker Jonckheere coaches. But not all are. And NatEx's examples are mainly bog standard Elites or Caetanos.
The point is Stagecoach can use these coaches and still make money from low fares, so the point still stands.
School contract work will be covered by PSVAR from 1 January unless no fare is charged.
Solent&Wessex
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 2,683
The important thing you are missing here about NatEx and Megabus is that their vehicles are intensively used.
School buses are not. They are used for an hour each morning, an hour each afternoon and can do very little in between. Of they are just parked up during holidays. Rail replacement work is an occasional nice to have for some operators, but it is erratic, depends a lot on what work is available and with what frequency in the area you operate, and you are dealing with a generally low margin industry for most small and regional bus and coach operations. Investing heavily in a fleet of new or more expensive vehicles which see comparatively little use and often infrequent RR use doesn't stack up for many companies.
School buses are not. They are used for an hour each morning, an hour each afternoon and can do very little in between. Of they are just parked up during holidays. Rail replacement work is an occasional nice to have for some operators, but it is erratic, depends a lot on what work is available and with what frequency in the area you operate, and you are dealing with a generally low margin industry for most small and regional bus and coach operations. Investing heavily in a fleet of new or more expensive vehicles which see comparatively little use and often infrequent RR use doesn't stack up for many companies.
Most of the megabus fleet is Elite i or Van Hool Interdecks, with some Van Hool double deckers. Only 2 vehicles have lifts (+ a few contractor operated vehicles). There are no Jonckheere coaches involved, and have not been for many years.
Stagecoach use these vehicles on long distance services; comparing the economics of this with that of school contracts and private hires is a bit like saying Maersk can make money on container ships across the Atlantic so anybody else should be able to make money running the same across to the Isle of Wight. Your point does not stand.
Much school contract work will not be covered by PSVAR from 1 January because no fare is charged.
The current wheelchair lift equipment is expensive to have installed, expensive to service and maintain and not particularly robust (delicate mechanism being jolted around on our roads), potentially legally disabling the vehicle at any time. If the vehicle is going to be used on scheduled public transport services then by all means specify PSVAR, although it must be borne in mind that the additional costs are not being borne by society at large, but by the other passengers in the bus. Higher costs = higher fares = fewer passengers = fewer services (and more people travelling by inaccesible cars)
Contracts and private hires etc are not public transport.
kingqueen
Member
I'd be interested to know the proportion of school bus transport that does / doesn't have space capacity filled by kids who aren't entitled to free school transport. Are there any statistics collated anywhere?
As someone with a toilet related health condition, I quite agree with you there. My employer has to take it into account. Of course how many buses have loos? Coaches do but those aren't wheelchair accessible. No easy solutions.
In my opinion a bus going along at a low speed stopping often might be fine for someone as it isn't jolting around so much but one going faster and jolting around more might cause someone to need the loo, as their insides are shaken up more.
Deafdoggie
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 3,079
As stated in a different thread on the same subject, there simply aren’t enough wheelchair accessible coaches around to make every RRB wheelchair accessible. Coach operators aren’t buying the more expensive wheelchair coaches that they don’t need. Private hours, day tours, holidays and school buses do not require them. If RRB say they do require them then these coach companies will simply stop doing RRB, it’s not their bread and butter work.
Service work buses maybe low floor, but not only are there not large numbers of spare ones (certainly outside London) but the drivers are on domestic drivers hours. To do RRB they need to be on the more restrictive EU coach driving hours, thus meaning most bus driving duties can’t be done by them, not will they be able to do any overtime. It’s all a mess and the only sensible solution is to provide a wheelchair accessible coach on each route, but not every single coach. Alas I just foresee the demise of the RRB due to the demand of wanting every last one of them to be wheelchair accessible, even at the expense of alienating other disabled people or the travelling public as a whole
Service work buses maybe low floor, but not only are there not large numbers of spare ones (certainly outside London) but the drivers are on domestic drivers hours. To do RRB they need to be on the more restrictive EU coach driving hours, thus meaning most bus driving duties can’t be done by them, not will they be able to do any overtime. It’s all a mess and the only sensible solution is to provide a wheelchair accessible coach on each route, but not every single coach. Alas I just foresee the demise of the RRB due to the demand of wanting every last one of them to be wheelchair accessible, even at the expense of alienating other disabled people or the travelling public as a whole
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,518
It might just be me but can I clarify PSVAR in relation to school runs wef Jan 2020........
If the bus/coach is on a 'closed' (usually Council organised) school contract, with NO passengers paying separate fares then it does not need to be PSVAR compliant. ?
If a bus/coach works a school run that takes any fares (directly or indirectly) then it must be PSVAR compliant ?
If the bus/coach is on a 'closed' (usually Council organised) school contract, with NO passengers paying separate fares then it does not need to be PSVAR compliant. ?
If a bus/coach works a school run that takes any fares (directly or indirectly) then it must be PSVAR compliant ?
Deafdoggie
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 3,079
That is correct. This has already led to a number of school services which were open to both, now not taking any fare payers, thus a standard coach can operate it
The Plaxton Elite and the Caetano Levante are not "bog standard" they were designed in collaboration with National Express to meet the exact operational requirements and PSVAR regulations
Coaches have been built to the purchasing operators requirement to fit the type of work they do within PSVAR regulations or not as the case maybe , RRB has been differently interpreted by many people over the years and I believe people will still come to different conclusions to the author of this new advice.
kingqueen
Member
The ones who campaigned for the law, 20+ years ago, you mean?
Or do you mean disabled people working at the ORR, who obtained the legal opinion stating that RRBs are subject to the accessibility regulations?
Or perhaps the ones at the Department for Transport, who also openly stated their opinion that RRBs should be accessible?
Strange to assume that the parties responsible are all disabled people.
Similar in London. Some years ago the East London Line had extended closures a couple of times for works, and Wapping to Rotherhithe initially had a substitute bus through the Rotherhithe Tunnel, which needed to be a narrow track midibus to suit the restrictions of the tunnel. Second closure and there was nothing at all provided, stated because there are no narrow track minibuses on the market which are fully accessible.
It's the same as toilets in trains. If there's one, it has to comply. But nothing to stop operators ripping them out completely.
causton
Established Member
Or the famous ECML barriers. VTEC were told to staff all their barriers at certain times, so instead they ripped them out
Deafdoggie
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 3,079
I’m not referring to anyone in particular. Just merely that any requirement to make every RRB on every route wheelchair accessible will result in there being none at all, or using buses without toilets. Thus either everyone suffers or those with bladder/bowl problems suffer, meanwhile wheelchair spaces get carried around empty. the ideal is to make wheelchair spaces available on request, but it simply isn’t going to be possible, however desirable, to have every RRB wheelchair accessible on every journey.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
A good excuse, but isn't true; both the Solo Slimline and the Alero would have fit the bill with the restrictions at the time. With the restrictions as they are now, even a breadvan won't go through; when I was doing some moving for a friend who lives in Southwark, my Mercedes Sprinter hire van was too big for the tunnel.
We were hearing the same stories of doom and gloom when low-floor accessibility regulations first came in for service buses. It was horsepoo then, too.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Or a 17 seater Transit, LDV, Peugeot or whatever with a wheelchair lift in the back.
It's excuses.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
To be fair, the restriction now on the Rotherhithe tunnel is 6'6 width. Most commercial vans are too wide; the Ford Transit is 7' wide, the Sprinter is 7'5. My Nissan Qashqai only just fits. I'm not sure when TfL reduced the restrictions to 6'6.
- Status