• 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.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
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

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)...
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,543
thank you very much indeed Robert, I appreciate your comment a lot.

I'd echo that. As a guard your videos are very useful instructional aids, unfortunate though the circumstances are. I watch them regularly for examples of how things can go wrong and the impact this can have and I've referred them to others as well.

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? My training for providing passenger assistance (which was a number of years ago) basically included deploying the ramp, being a sighted guide and pushing a manual wheelchair. There was little to no mention of the impact of failed assistance, or indeed things like how an accessible taxi turning up at some stage isn't a panacea for all ills.

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.
 

Temple Meads

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2010
Messages
2,230
Location
Devon
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.
I suspect they are vehicles previously used on GNE's National Express work, and recently replaced.
 

lincman

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Messages
118
That is certainly a positive step. Hopefully there'll be more of this to come.
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.
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
I'd echo that. As a guard your videos are very useful instructional aids, unfortunate though the circumstances are.
Thank you.
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?
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.
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.
Absolutely spot on. Agree entirely. As put across so well in this post on "Just Ask Don't Grab".
 
Last edited:

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,676
Location
Sheffield
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.
 
Last edited:

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
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.
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.
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
8,383
Location
Back office
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.

In the past BSOG was paid for rail replacement services - this was stopped in 2012 after the policy gained negative publicity in the national press.

On a personal level I'm a proponent for accessible travel on buses. I've got a couple of low floor vehicles which are fully compliant on the lower deck but aren't PSVAR certified because they require two additional bell pushes upstairs - so I'm working on upgrading them to be certified, a cost I hadn't anticipated as I bought the first one before the revelation in September 2019.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
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.

I'm not sure what the point of BSOG for RRB services would be anyway. If operators received BSOG from DfT they would inevitably then quote cheaper prices for the RRB work (as part of the competitive process), so the gainers would be TOC/NR, who are funded by the DfT in the first place. So just an unnecessary money go round.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
The PSVAR includes multiple requirements other than just wheelchair accessibility; for example, route information,

Is route information required to be provided or is the vehicle just required to be able to provide it?

It would be a big job to enable current busses to provide info on RRB routes.

Two very interesting an informative posts, thanks
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
No doubt - it is being made worth their while to do it!

FSW are Running a rail replacement this week requiring 20+ vehicles. Service busses making up the numbers,

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.

To claim BSOG the scheduled service need to run for a minimum period - 6 weeks I believe
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
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
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
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

Reading that literally, it says the requirement kicks in once a vehicle has been used for 21 days, not once a service has been running for 21 days.

Consider a vehicle used on different services and a service operated by different vehicles.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
how lonfg before they would run out of buses for the Conway valley <:D<:D

It requires several (at least 2, maybe 3) to maintain the same timetable as the trains - have a nose at it! Always surprises me that they do that rather than changing the timetable so it could be done with one.

The Valley is normally done with a PSVAR compliant service bus, though.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
Considering that,
most areas have rrb services running for a limited number of weekends, and that operators do not usually use more than a percentage of their vehicles on RRb at any one time could the 21 day rule be used to fiddle the system, especially as many of the big jobs are for limited distances and can be covered by buses?
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
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.

it completely exempts all conditions if the vehicle is over 20 years old.
 

lincman

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Messages
118
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.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
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.

There is the fairly standard definition of "a service for which BSOG can be claimed" but I'd imagine for each law it requires its own specific legal precedent to be set.

I certainly don't think the use of local style buses on long distance rail replacement is a suitable option, even if for now it may be the easiest way to comply (not least because it causes issues for those with other disabilities, e.g. back issues or frequent toilet need). I still favour a change in the law to require the provision rather than each vehicle to be accessible in this context, which could be achieved by replacing a Pendolino with, say, 10 high floor coaches and an Optare Solo.
 

lincman

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Messages
118
No. I've done so any number of times, so has the ORR and so has both the initial and final legal advice.
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.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
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.

If 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.
 

lincman

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Messages
118
If 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.
I would agree that a test case would solve the situation, but that will not be required until the derogation expires in April
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top