Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

HH · 9 Feb 2020

Dr Hoo said:
For Control Periods 4 and 5 the Schedule 4 Restrictions of Use regime included ‘cover’ for bus costs (as well as revenue loss) and the structure of Access Charge Supplements reflected this. The TOCs are ‘held harmless’ by the DfT (or equivalent franchising or concessioning body) to financial changes at a Periodic Review. Obviously assumptions are made about future bus costs, no doubt based heavily on previous experience. Thus the TOCs have had relatively low risk in this area.

I have been retired too long to know whether a similar arrangement has been applied for Control Period 6 but would be surprised if it hadn’t been.

The situation would now appear to be that RRB costs are likely to rise significantly because of changes in legal understanding since the Periodic Review 2018, carried out with the full involvement of public bodies, notably ORR, DfT and Network Rail. I can understand why thinly capitalised TOCs are uneasy that they have to take all the ‘hit’ if they had been planning more or less on business as usual.

No changes in CP6 to the principle of the TOCs being held harmless, but bus payments will have been based on historic cost and TOCs are now nervous that PSVAR is going to see costs rise significantly.

RailUK Forums

The Planner · 9 Feb 2020

HH said:
Well Sch4 is designed to punish the infrastructure provider if they fail to give long enough notice. So, working as intended, maybe?

I expect electrification of both the GWML and NWEP has cost a bomb. The notice shouldnt an issue as you don't get penalised if everyone is aware at the CPPP (confirmed period possession plan)

HH · 9 Feb 2020

The Planner said:
I expect electrification of both the GWML and NWEP has cost a bomb. The notice shouldnt an issue as you don't get penalised if everyone is aware at the CPPP (confirmed period possession plan)

It shouldn't be, but I know that some franchises have been getting larger than expected Sch4 payments because of NR giving late notice. No excuse IMO.

RJ · 9 Feb 2020

HH said:
No changes in CP6 to the principle of the TOCs being held harmless, but bus payments will have been based on historic cost and TOCs are now nervous that PSVAR is going to see costs rise significantly.

It will. The core work that a lot of coach operators do falls outside of the scope of PSVAR, so their coaches don't have to be compliant and thus are available if spare. These vehicles seem to form the majority of coaches that do rail replacement.

The challenge is getting bus operators to voluntarily acquire PSVAR certified coaches to do this work. For that to happen in large numbers it has to be worthwhile for the bus operators - 4 days of guaranteed work a week, every week at a fair price would prompt that investment. Adhoc work that may not even be available every week and/or requires £100 of fuel in dead running to get to isn't likely to prompt that investment by itself at typical rates. Eventually most coaches will comply, but given the number of 15+ year old coaches in operation, that could take a while. And even so, having vehicles sitting spare costs £££s hence why a consistent flow of work would help - another challenge given the nature of rail closures.

It's inevitable - the cost of procuring rail replacement vehicles is going to increase so the focus should have shifted onto how that will be funded by now. It will increase further when vehicles have to be Euro 6 compliant to enter certain cities - London from October 2020 for example when anything that isn't compliant (i.e many pre-2015 coaches that haven't been upgraded) will be charged up to £200 a day to enter depending on which standard they conform to.

Robertj21a · 10 Feb 2020

RJ said:
It will. The core work that a lot of coach operators do falls outside of the scope of PSVAR, so their coaches don't have to be compliant and thus are available if spare. These vehicles seem to form the majority of coaches that do rail replacement.

The challenge is getting bus operators to voluntarily acquire PSVAR certified coaches to do this work. For that to happen in large numbers it has to be worthwhile for the bus operators - 4 days of guaranteed work a week, every week at a fair price would prompt that investment. Adhoc work that may not even be available every week and/or requires £100 of fuel in dead running to get to isn't likely to prompt that investment by itself at typical rates. Eventually most coaches will comply, but given the number of 15+ year old coaches in operation, that could take a while. And even so, having vehicles sitting spare costs £££s hence why a consistent flow of work would help - another challenge given the nature of rail closures.

It's inevitable - the cost of procuring rail replacement vehicles is going to increase so the focus should have shifted onto how that will be funded by now. It will increase further when vehicles have to be Euro 6 compliant to enter certain cities - London from October 2020 for example when anything that isn't compliant (i.e many pre-2015 coaches that haven't been upgraded) will be charged up to £200 a day to enter depending on which standard they conform to.

Not sure about 'eventually most coaches will comply'. There's no legislation requiring coaches to comply with PSVAR if they are only to be used for private hire etc.

richw · 10 Feb 2020

RJ said:
It will. The core work that a lot of coach operators do falls outside of the scope of PSVAR, so their coaches don't have to be compliant and thus are available if spare. These vehicles seem to form the majority of coaches that do rail replacement.

The challenge is getting bus operators to voluntarily acquire PSVAR certified coaches to do this work. For that to happen in large numbers it has to be worthwhile for the bus operators - 4 days of guaranteed work a week, every week at a fair price would prompt that investment. Adhoc work that may not even be available every week and/or requires £100 of fuel in dead running to get to isn't likely to prompt that investment by itself at typical rates. Eventually most coaches will comply, but given the number of 15+ year old coaches in operation, that could take a while. And even so, having vehicles sitting spare costs £££s hence why a consistent flow of work would help - another challenge given the nature of rail closures.

It's inevitable - the cost of procuring rail replacement vehicles is going to increase so the focus should have shifted onto how that will be funded by now. It will increase further when vehicles have to be Euro 6 compliant to enter certain cities - London from October 2020 for example when anything that isn't compliant (i.e many pre-2015 coaches that haven't been upgraded) will be charged up to £200 a day to enter depending on which standard they conform to.

most of the coaches seen are lower value vehicles £15-20,000 kind of second hand value. Cheapest psvar coaches I can find advertised for sale at the moment are £75000. Why would any operator spend an extra 60,000 for maybe a few days a year rail work?

weastebusdepot · 10 Feb 2020

richw said:
most of the coaches seen are lower value vehicles £15-20,000 kind of second hand value. Cheapest psvar coaches I can find advertised for sale at the moment are £75000. Why would any operator spend an extra 60,000 for maybe a few days a year rail work?

The solution several small operators seem to have gone for is to buy the cheapest single deck service bus they can get from Stagecoach and do nothing to it and even leave it in tatty Stagecoach livery. Then if they get a call for rail replacement, they can leave their none compliant luxury coaches parked up in the yard and send that out instead. All laws complied with and everyone gets what they paid for.

richw · 10 Feb 2020

weastebusdepot said:
The solution several small operators seem to have gone for is to buy the cheapest single deck service bus they can get from Stagecoach and do nothing to it and even leave it in tatty Stagecoach livery. Then if they get a call for rail replacement, they can leave their none compliant luxury coaches parked up in the yard and send that out instead. All laws complied with and everyone gets what they paid for.

never seen a service bus on rail down in these parts, other than occasionally on the local short branch lines

hwl · 10 Feb 2020

The obvious short term change I can see happening is rethinking RRB routes so as many as possible can be run using low floor buses rather than coaches.

Bletchleyite · 10 Feb 2020

hwl said:
The obvious short term change I can see happening is rethinking RRB routes so as many as possible can be run using low floor buses rather than coaches.

Shortening the routes is one way - rather than one long RRB, run train shuttles connected by a shorter RRB run.

hwl · 10 Feb 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Shortening the routes is one way - rather than one long RRB, run train shuttles connected by a shorter RRB run.

I was thinking shortening without more rail running e.g. 2 buses vs 1 coach or run end to end with a coach and do intermediate stations with 2 separate partial bus routes. (Given bus limitations but the relatively better availability of accessible buses)

lincman · 10 Feb 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Shortening the routes is one way - rather than one long RRB, run train shuttles connected by a shorter RRB run.

The problem with the solutions being put forwards at the present are obsvious to anyone in the industry. The returns on Rail Replacement do not warrant the expenditure on compliant vehicles, shorter routes in circumstances where coaches are the best option so as to use service buses is a non starter due to higher costs and the additional number of vehicles required, and the biggest problem of all a significant shortage of drivers.

Bletchleyite · 10 Feb 2020

lincman said:
The problem with the solutions being put forwards at the present are obsvious to anyone in the industry. The returns on Rail Replacement do not warrant the expenditure on compliant vehicles, shorter routes in circumstances where coaches are the best option so as to use service buses is a non starter due to higher costs and the additional number of vehicles required, and the biggest problem of all a significant shortage of drivers.

Then they'd best get thinking, hadn't they? The industry and those within it appear just to be naysaying and not acting. Short of a change in the law they will have to find a solution of some kind.

Robertj21a · 10 Feb 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Then they'd best get thinking, hadn't they? The industry and those within it appear just to be naysaying and not acting. Short of a change in the law they will have to find a solution of some kind.

I can't see the bus/coach operators doing anything as RR work is only an incidental, and costs of acquiring compliant vehicles are high. It's up to TOCs to decide how to take this forward.

Bantamzen · 10 Feb 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Then they'd best get thinking, hadn't they? The industry and those within it appear just to be naysaying and not acting. Short of a change in the law they will have to find a solution of some kind.

Who should be getting thinking? The TOCs trying to hire non-existing compliant vehicles, or the operators who are not required to procure them on the off chance that they get offer RRB work?

Bletchleyite · 10 Feb 2020

Bantamzen said:
Who should be getting thinking? The TOCs trying to hire non-existing compliant vehicles, or the operators who are not required to procure them on the off chance that they get offer RRB work?

The TOCs will need to think how they will deliver their franchise obligations in the context of the legal framework under which they must operate, and how they will fund that delivery.

Some of the things they might have to do, e.g. diverting trains rather than bustituting them, are definitely to the passenger's benefit. We got quite good at that for a bit (e.g. S&C diversions and Virgin's 15-car Voyager blockade busters) but it has gone lazy again.

Fawkes Cat · 10 Feb 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Short of a change in the law they will have to find a solution of some kind.

But there is an easy solution of some kind. Stop operating RRBs.

Of course, this leaves passengers without any way to travel, but it is a solution. Albeit one that might lead to a great deal of shouting from passengers, Transport Focus, the media, MPs...

Robertj21a · 10 Feb 2020

Bantamzen said:
Who should be getting thinking? The TOCs trying to hire non-existing compliant vehicles, or the operators who are not required to procure them on the off chance that they get offer RRB work?

As I said, it's down to the TOCs. The bus/coach operators aren't going to be bothered by any loss of RR work and it's the TOCs/NR who create the problem. Presumably, they need to plan differently, divert more often, or seek dispensation to temporarily shorten routes, without replacement.

Bletchleyite · 10 Feb 2020

Fawkes Cat said:
But there is an easy solution of some kind. Stop operating RRBs.

Of course, this leaves passengers without any way to travel, but it is a solution. Albeit one that might lead to a great deal of shouting from passengers, Transport Focus, the media, MPs...

Other than in "get out" scenarios like extreme weather, that would constitute a breach of their franchise agreement, and is therefore not an "easy" solution.

Bantamzen · 10 Feb 2020

Bletchleyite said:
The TOCs will need to think how they will deliver their franchise obligations in the context of the legal framework under which they must operate, and how they will fund that delivery.

Some of the things they might have to do, e.g. diverting trains rather than bustituting them, are definitely to the passenger's benefit. We got quite good at that for a bit (e.g. S&C diversions and Virgin's 15-car Voyager blockade busters) but it has gone lazy again.

Robertj21a said:
As I said, it's down to the TOCs. The bus/coach operators aren't going to be bothered by any loss of RR work and it's the TOCs/NR who create the problem. Presumably, they need to plan differently, divert more often, or seek dispensation to temporarily shorten routes, without replacement.

I'd be all for more use of the network, but let's face it there are enough problems with capacity without shoehorning diversions down already maxed out paths. We could of course rethink future improvements to fir them around the legislation, but this will likely result in fewer taking place, which doesn't help the original problem. Or we could rethink the legalisation to allow TOCs to continue to seek the use of RRBs whenever appropriate, with the explicit instruction to TOCs where only non-compliant vehicles are immediately available that suitable provision be made for any passenger making themselves known as unable to use these.

Now which is the most practicable?

Bletchleyite · 10 Feb 2020

I would favour the requirement that the service must be accessible, i.e. it should be possible for a wheelchair user to travel at any time where a service is advertised. I'd extend that to the likes of NatEx and Megabus, who must surely now be turning more people away due to the reduced possibility of using duplicates - if the service car is accessible then duplicates should be allowed to be non-accessible.

So for RRBs, a regular coach plus an accessible taxi departing at 1000 (or whatever) should be as acceptable as an accessible coach.

I know some don't like accessible taxis because their height makes them uncomfortable, but I don't like 3+2 coaches because my height and, er, girth, makes them uncomfortable. Both are legal and so both can be used.

Robertj21a · 10 Feb 2020

Bantamzen said:
I'd be all for more use of the network, but let's face it there are enough problems with capacity without shoehorning diversions down already maxed out paths. We could of course rethink future improvements to fir them around the legislation, but this will likely result in fewer taking place, which doesn't help the original problem. Or we could rethink the legalisation to allow TOCs to continue to seek the use of RRBs whenever appropriate, with the explicit instruction to TOCs where only non-compliant vehicles are immediately available that suitable provision be made for any passenger making themselves known as unable to use these.

Now which is the most practicable?

For the disabled passenger, or the TOC ?

Bantamzen · 10 Feb 2020

Robertj21a said:
For the disabled passenger, or the TOC ?

Both, if a TOC is unable to source accessible vehicles it has a responsibility to try to get all passengers on the move as soon as possible. And if a disabled passenger finds themselves waiting for a replacement bus that is not available, then they would want to be offered others means of completing their journey. So if none can be acquired in a reasonable timescale, then the best option is to hire whatever is available for those that can use them, and provide alternative transport for those that cannot, including any companions.

Bletchleyite · 10 Feb 2020

Robertj21a said:
For the disabled passenger, or the TOC ?

Both. Each wheelchair user only requires one wheelchair space. It doesn't matter how many other empty ones there are.

It is also important to note that wheelchair use is not the only disability, nor even the most common one.

Robertj21a · 10 Feb 2020

Bantamzen said:
Both, if a TOC is unable to source accessible vehicles it has a responsibility to try to get all passengers on the move as soon as possible. And if a disabled passenger finds themselves waiting for a replacement bus that is not available, then they would want to be offered others means of completing their journey. So if none can be acquired in a reasonable timescale, then the best option is to hire whatever is available for those that can use them, and provide alternative transport for those that cannot, including any companions.

If you mean that the default posìtion is to use a suitable taxi then I assume that these would be *readily* available to meet the trains, not subject to a phone call when required ? - that will cost the TOC quite a lot, particularly as a second taxi will be needed once the first one is used.

Dai Corner · 10 Feb 2020

Robertj21a said:
If you mean that the default posìtion is to use a suitable taxi then I assume that these would be *readily* available to meet the trains, not subject to a phone call when required ? - that will cost the TOC quite a lot, particularly as a second taxi will be needed once the first one is used.

Cheaper than a PSVAR coach though? A knock-on effect would be that if all the accessible taxis in an affected area are sat around at railway stations they won't be available for other journeys.

Bletchleyite · 10 Feb 2020

Dai Corner said:
Cheaper than a PSVAR coach though? A knock-on effect would be that if all the accessible taxis in an affected area are sat around at railway stations they won't be available for other journeys.

Taxis can of course be brought in from elsewhere just like the buses.

Robertj21a · 10 Feb 2020

Does anyone know if new taxis nowadays *have* to be capable of taking wheelchairs ?

Bletchleyite · 10 Feb 2020

Robertj21a said:
Does anyone know if new taxis nowadays *have* to be capable of taking wheelchairs ?

I think most Councils require it for hackney carriages if nothing else.

Private hire no.

Bantamzen · 10 Feb 2020

Bletchleyite said:
I think most Councils require it for hackney carriages if nothing else.

Private hire no.

Not all councils require hackney taxis to be wheelchair accessible, Bradford for one city still has a large fleet of non-compliant ones, as does Leeds.

Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member