• 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!

Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The point is many people, including insurers, are not happy being on the motorway with no seatbelts. Others have a more lax view of safety.

The point is that the railway needs to comply with the law and any terms of insurance (which insurers are you talking about?) and does not need to concern itself with your (or my) preferences. Personally I am happier on a (proper, with hard shoulder) motorway than a dual carriageway A road as the former is demonstrably and provably safer.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
In a worse case scenario, a coach travelling at 62mph does a full emergency stop. Passengers wearing seatbelts will be fine. Passengers who have chosen not to wear seatbelts are unable to make any claim as they chose not to wear them.
A bus travelling at 62mph does a full emergency stop. Fitted with high back seats, passengers can sustain severe injuries off the seat in front. Aisle seat passengers can even be thrown into the aisle and down the aisle & in some cases through the front windscreen. It has happened it isn’t pretty. As they had taken all the precautions available this leaves the bus company liable for damage claims. If the bus has low back seats, many passengers can be thrown over them and it’s even worse. Of course, it’s rare that a bus or coach will do a full emergency stop, but it does happen and injuries do result, this why operators are not happy about motorway running & most routes scheduled to do it use specific seatbelt fitted buses. Of course, people may choose not to wear them, but that then becomes their choice.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
In a worse case scenario, a coach travelling at 62mph does a full emergency stop. Passengers wearing seatbelts will be fine. Passengers who have chosen not to wear seatbelts are unable to make any claim as they chose not to wear them.
A bus travelling at 62mph does a full emergency stop. Fitted with high back seats, passengers can sustain severe injuries off the seat in front. Aisle seat passengers can even be thrown into the aisle and down the aisle & in some cases through the front windscreen. It has happened it isn’t pretty. As they had taken all the precautions available this leaves the bus company liable for damage claims. If the bus has low back seats, many passengers can be thrown over them and it’s even worse. Of course, it’s rare that a bus or coach will do a full emergency stop, but it does happen and injuries do result, this why operators are not happy about motorway running & most routes scheduled to do it use specific seatbelt fitted buses. Of course, people may choose not to wear them, but that then becomes their choice.

A bus or coach is much more likely to have to do a full emergency stop on a fast non-motorway with its at-grade junctions, private accesses and generally poorer visibility though.

I don't think any the service buses I've travelled on on motorways around South Wales and Bristol have seatbelts.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
In a worse case scenario, a coach travelling at 62mph does a full emergency stop. Passengers wearing seatbelts will be fine. Passengers who have chosen not to wear seatbelts are unable to make any claim as they chose not to wear them.
A bus travelling at 62mph does a full emergency stop. Fitted with high back seats, passengers can sustain severe injuries off the seat in front. Aisle seat passengers can even be thrown into the aisle and down the aisle & in some cases through the front windscreen. It has happened it isn’t pretty. As they had taken all the precautions available this leaves the bus company liable for damage claims. If the bus has low back seats, many passengers can be thrown over them and it’s even worse. Of course, it’s rare that a bus or coach will do a full emergency stop, but it does happen and injuries do result, this why operators are not happy about motorway running & most routes scheduled to do it use specific seatbelt fitted buses. Of course, people may choose not to wear them, but that then becomes their choice.

I'm not sure where some of your information is coming from (though I thought you'd previously suggested that you are a coach operator....??).
There are many service buses in regular use on motorways. Most are run by some of our most professional operators. Are you suggesting that they are doing something illegal (what ?), or just that you don't agree with what they are doing.
I've never heard of insurers expressing concerns over these arrangements, is it most of them, or just one ?
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
The large operators will be self-insured, so it’s their own risk assessment that matters in that case.
Railways are normally very risk adverse, it seems they aren’t bothered when transferring responsibility elsewhere.
It’s not illegal for non seatbelt fitted service buses to use motorways. It’s just not good practice. That doesn’t, of course, mean it doesn’t happen. Not that it shouldn’t. But the less it happens the better
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
The large operators will be self-insured, so it’s their own risk assessment that matters in that case.
Railways are normally very risk adverse, it seems they aren’t bothered when transferring responsibility elsewhere.
It’s not illegal for non seatbelt fitted service buses to use motorways. It’s just not good practice. That doesn’t, of course, mean it doesn’t happen. Not that it shouldn’t. But the less it happens the better

I suspect they do insure the larger risks involving multiple deaths and life-changing injuries such as the scenario you described.

What I still don't get is why you think a bus on a motorway at 60mph is a more dangerous place to be than the same bus on a non-motorway dual carriageway built to lower standards at similar speeds or indeed a single carriageway road at slightly lower speeds.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I suspect they do insure the larger risks involving multiple deaths and life-changing injuries such as the scenario you described.

What I still don't get is why you think a bus on a motorway at 60mph is a more dangerous place to be than the same bus on a non-motorway dual carriageway built to lower standards at similar speeds or indeed a single carriageway road at slightly lower speeds.

I think it has to just be a personal 'bee in bonnet' thing. Given that the same service bus is quite capable of doing the same speed on ordinary roads, with oncoming heavy trucks, road junctions, bends etc etc I think most passengers would recognise that a motorway must be much safer (as the statistics confirm).
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
Generally buses will be going slower on non-motorways, the risks there are more known, bends, roundabouts, etc, which a driver will slow naturally for. An emergency brake at lower speed is less harmful too. Motorways often give rise to actions from other drivers that can’t be anticipated so emergency stops are more severe when they happen.
Im not saying they happen often, I’m not saying buses should never use the motorway, but I am saying the consequences of it when it does happen is much more severe than a seatbelt fitted coach.
Yes, accidents happen at low speed too and seatbelts would help then, but higher speeds make the consequences much more severe.
But if people want to travel on motorways on long journeys without a seatbelt they are welcome to do so. But I see it as a step backwards and I fail to see how those arguing in favour of it consider it an advancement.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
Generally buses will be going slower on non-motorways, the risks there are more known, bends, roundabouts, etc, which a driver will slow naturally for. An emergency brake at lower speed is less harmful too. Motorways often give rise to actions from other drivers that can’t be anticipated so emergency stops are more severe when they happen.
Im not saying they happen often, I’m not saying buses should never use the motorway, but I am saying the consequences of it when it does happen is much more severe than a seatbelt fitted coach.
Yes, accidents happen at low speed too and seatbelts would help then, but higher speeds make the consequences much more severe.
But if people want to travel on motorways on long journeys without a seatbelt they are welcome to do so. But I see it as a step backwards and I fail to see how those arguing in favour of it consider it an advancement.

My point is that the speeds on non-motorways can be similar but the hazards are far more numerous. Thus the overall risk is greater.

There are points in the road network where a motorway ends and becomes an A road with virtually nothing to distinguish the two apart from the colour of the signs. Do you think passengers should be told they can take take off their seat belts at that point?
 
Last edited:

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
My point is that the speeds on non-motorways can be similar but the hazards are far more numerous. Thus the overall risk is greater.

For cars probably. But buses less so. Unless Road is straight they will be going slower
 

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
2,943
Going back to the question of how to provide adequate RRBs, am I right in understanding that if there is no charge for a passenger using a coach, then the coach doesn't have to be PSVAR compliant? In which case, what would happen if there was no charge for using an RRB - i.e. use was not restricted to people holding valid railway tickets, but anyone could turn up and travel?
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
At what speed do you consider it safe not to wear a seat belt on a bus?


There’s no safe speed for not wearing a seatbelt. Just more severe injuries the faster it goes.
Of course, there are many practical reasons as to why buses don’t have them fitted in general.
There’s a reason that coaches, which do a lot of motorway miles, do have seatbelts fitted.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
There’s no safe speed for not wearing a seatbelt. Just more severe injuries the faster it goes.
Of course, there are many practical reasons as to why buses don’t have them fitted in general.
There’s a reason that coaches, which do a lot of motorway miles, do have seatbelts fitted.

Why aren't you arguing for seatbelts to be compulsory where there is more than, say, ten minutes between stops then?

I'm going to leave it there as we've got way off topic for this thread.
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
Why aren't you arguing for seatbelts to be compulsory where there is more than, say, ten minutes between stops then?

I'm going to leave it there as we've got way off topic for this thread.

Because that isn’t classed as a local bus service already.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Going back to the question of how to provide adequate RRBs, am I right in understanding that if there is no charge for a passenger using a coach, then the coach doesn't have to be PSVAR compliant? In which case, what would happen if there was no charge for using an RRB - i.e. use was not restricted to people holding valid railway tickets, but anyone could turn up and travel?

The fact that it is a rail replacement is what dictates that it must comply with PSVAR - the 'fare' on it is irrelevant as it's automatically included in the price of your rail ticket.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
The fact that it is a rail replacement is what dictates that it must comply with PSVAR - the 'fare' on it is irrelevant as it's automatically included in the price of your rail ticket.

What's to stop a TOC telling passengers 'We're unable to run trains between X and Y today, but as it happens there is a free bus between the two stations'. Obviously they'd forego some revenue but would it be a way round the regulations I wonder?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What's to stop a TOC telling passengers 'We're unable to run trains between X and Y today, but as it happens there is a free bus between the two stations'. Obviously they'd forego some revenue but would it be a way round the regulations I wonder?

Given that RRBs are to all intents and purposes free anyway, that's an interesting point. How it would work with ticketing I'm not sure, though, in terms of people already having them.
 
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Messages
187
Location
Eccles Signal Box
Given that RRBs are to all intents and purposes free anyway, that's an interesting point. How it would work with ticketing I'm not sure, though, in terms of people already having them.

If a RRB doesn't turn up and it's the last service of the day, the TOC is contractually obliged to make alternative arrangements for anyone with a valid ticket. Anyone without a valid ticket has a long walk ahead of them.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
What's to stop a TOC telling passengers 'We're unable to run trains between X and Y today, but as it happens there is a free bus between the two stations'. Obviously they'd forego some revenue but would it be a way round the regulations I wonder?

Given that RRBs are to all intents and purposes free anyway, that's an interesting point. How it would work with ticketing I'm not sure, though, in terms of people already having them.

But if it was free to all comers, i.e. if you just travelled on the bus it cost £0?

if tickets were only required up to A and onwards from B with the bus totally free then it would be exempt. But if even one passenger held a through ticket from before A until after B psvar would apply. This would be likely on period return leg tickets, as the operator could withdraw through tickets with specific dates
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
But if it was free to all comers, i.e. if you just travelled on the bus it cost £0?

It's irrelevant that others might travel for free. The point is that it's an integral part of a rail journey that passengers have paid for. It has only been provided because a train cannot proceed as it would normally.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
It's irrelevant that others might travel for free. The point is that it's an integral part of a rail journey that passengers have paid for. It has only been provided because a train cannot proceed as it would normally.
But if through ticketing wasn’t available and only split ticketing through a planned blockade and a complimentary bus was provided to link the two split tickets I believe this would exempt it
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
But if through ticketing wasn’t available and only split ticketing through a planned blockade and a complimentary bus was provided to link the two split tickets I believe this would exempt it

What about season tickets?
 

221129

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2011
Messages
6,520
Location
Sunny Scotland
But if through ticketing wasn’t available and only split ticketing through a planned blockade and a complimentary bus was provided to link the two split tickets I believe this would exempt it
Which just isnt going to happen.

How would that work with emergency replacements or short notice ones?

What about people with Season tickets?
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
But if through ticketing wasn’t available and only split ticketing through a planned blockade and a complimentary bus was provided to link the two split tickets I believe this would exempt it

In theory, I guess it would be legal - but I doubt it's ever going to happen.
 

lincman

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Messages
118
In theory, I guess it would be legal - but I doubt it's ever going to happen.
All these ways around the situation are irrelevant. At present the industry is working on an unchallenged piece of advice by one barrister accepted by the ORR, it does not mean that that view is the law. There are many in the industry feel this is open to challenge and disagree with her assessment, until this happens I feel the whole situation is in limbo
 

Meole

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2018
Messages
452
What's to stop a TOC telling passengers 'We're unable to run trains between X and Y today, but as it happens there is a free bus between the two stations'. Obviously they'd forego some revenue but would it be a way round the regulations I wonder?
Which is what TFW have done, providing bus service without any rail conductors and thus no ability to buy tickets given none on stations.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
Passengers are personally liable in the event of being stopped and a law enforcer deciding to punish. So it’s their choice
I didn't think it was compulsory to wear a seatbelt on a bus. What about standing passengers? The main reason the Knightswood Ailsas had seatbelts was because they did school runs. Most of the school runs had a rush hour passenger working tagged on to the diagram but it was common to see one or two out all day on the X6 and X7. I cannot recall what type of bus covered the other workings on those routes or whether they had seatbelts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top