Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

[kingqueen]

Likely to be considered PSVAR obligated 'if they meet the above criteria'.

To be exact (not intending to nit-pick)

it is our view that PSVAR is likely to apply to rail replacement services meeting the above criteria

There's a subtle difference, in my view. The implication to me is that those rail replacement services that meet the criteria are required to be accessible; i.E. There's the implicit assumption some are.

"If" gives the possibility that rail replacement buses aren't ever, i.E. Never have to be accessible. Which I don't think was the intent behind what he wrote.

 

[lincman]

From my perspective there is an element of trying to make the facts fit the narrative. It is quite simple if the RR service is less than 50kms it must registered with the Traffic Commissioners as a registered service to require PSVAR vehicles to be operated. Any member of the public cannot walk up and pay the driver, to travel on a RR service you must have a ticket issued by the TOC. Coaches on service do not have to be PSVAR until 2020. Any operator collecting a fare whilst on RR is breaking the law, unless authorised by the TOC, which is something I have never come across.

 

[Robertj21a]

Typical Civil Servant waffle.

In short - “we can see what you’re saying, but we cannot definitely confirm it; speak to a lawyer if you want to use it in a court of law”

A civil servant is just that. He can't say what a court of law might determine. I thought it was quite clear, not sure why others are trying to make matters more difficult.

 

[JN114]

A civil servant is just that. He can't say what a court of law might determine. I thought it was quite clear, not sure why others are trying to make matters more difficult.

They literally say “the answer is not as clear cut as you may have hoped”.

They presented their interpretation of the legislation.

 

[lincman]

To be exact (not intending to nit-pick)

There's a subtle difference, in my view. The implication to me is that those rail replacement services that meet the criteria are required to be accessible; i.E. There's the implicit assumption some are.

"If" gives the possibility that rail replacement buses aren't ever, i.E. Never have to be accessible. Which I don't think was the intent behind what he wrote.

There may well an implicit assumption but there is no substance in law back that assumption

 

[Dai Corner]

They literally say “the answer is not as clear cut as you may have hoped”.

They presented their interpretation of the legislation.

An interpretation that is no more or less valid than those expressed in the preceding 360-odd posts.

 

[lincman]

Please consider, PSVAR is a guide to the construction of each type of vehicle which is required to operate on the various types of services as defined by the 1985 transport act. It is not a definition of types of services vehicles should be used on

 

[mde]

It's almost as if 'Sir Humphrey' had read this thread and summarised.

The answer is much too clear to be a Humphrey Appleby special - no doubt at the appropriate juncture, in the fullness of time, when the moment is ripe, someone will have a test case, but, until then this does does give a reasonable interpretation of what should be provided in the majority of cases (e.g. where a RRB is 'planned' rather than an on-the-day substitution due to service disruption, albeit, in the latter ticket acceptance with local operators could help for some local journeys).

Thanks @kingqueen for that.

 

[TUC]

Whether or not rail replacement vehicles currently have to be accessible, too often TOCs are not helpful in their pubkicity as to alternatives for pasengers requiring them. Too many rail replacement posters say along the lines of 'sorry ve are unsble to take bicycles, wheelchairs snd non-folding pushchairs'. Surely the posters should advise wheelchair users to contact the TOC so that suitable altetnative transport can be arranged for them?

 

[lincman]

The simple fact remains PSVAR is exactly what it says it is, it is a Statutory Instrument for the guidance of the construction and adaptation of vehicles to meet the accessability requirements of the 1985 Act. It has nothing to do with types of operation.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Given everyone is still debating it, it clearly is far from clear-cut. Anyone saying it is hasn’t read (or at least understood) it.
The DFT have definitely NOT said, we’ll tell all TOC’s to make sure RRBs are fully accessible. So I’m not convinced that’s what the DFT think. Or, put more bluntly, we are absolutely no further forward at all. Nothing at all has changed with RRB provision. A complete and total waste of everyone’s time. Until such time that they decree all RRB must be fully accessible they will remain not fully accessible. They won’t decree that, but by all means waste time and tax payers money getting them to reply more meaningless letters. But without a clear & totally unambiguous “All RRBs must be fully accessible” then RRBs will not be, nor can be, as the simple fact is there are just not enough of them.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Given everyone is still debating it, it clearly is far from clear-cut. Anyone saying it is hasn’t read (or at least understood) it.
The DFT have definitely NOT said, we’ll tell all TOC’s to make sure RRBs are fully accessible. So I’m not convinced that’s what the DFT think. Or, put more bluntly, we are absolutely no further forward at all. Nothing at all has changed with RRB provision. A complete and total waste of everyone’s time. Until such time that they decree all RRB must be fully accessible they will remain not fully accessible. They won’t decree that, but by all means waste time and tax payers money getting them to reply more meaningless letters. But without a clear & totally unambiguous “All RRBs must be fully accessible” then RRBs will not be, nor can be, as the simple fact is there are just not enough of them.

and then of course there is the point that I keep making... when does a Rail Replacement service become fully accessible? is it when there are sufficient vehicles meeting each train to match the train's wheelchair carrying potential? or is a RRS still considered only partially accessible until ALL vehicles have a wheelchair space... and if that's the case what then happens if twice as many wheelchairs are carried to meet a train than the train has capacity for?

I think this is a situation that is going to remain in total confusion until such time as there is a test case which goes through the entire court system, seeing as though the DfT can only give a Sir Humphrey reply which clearly states that it cannot be taken as a legally binding decision!

 

[lincman]

The answer to your question is very simple, under current legislation, never

 

[kingqueen]

From my perspective there is an element of trying to make the facts fit the narrative.

No, it's you doing that.

It is quite simple if the RR service is less than 50kms it must registered with the Traffic Commissioners as a registered service to require PSVAR vehicles to be operated.

That is not the case and there is nothing in the law to say it is. You are simply stating your strongly held belief and interpretation, but such is fundamentally flawed.

Any member of the public cannot walk up and pay the driver, to travel on a RR service you must have a ticket issued by the TOC.

That's irrelevant to the determination as to whether PSVAR applies or not. Much the same is the case for many school buses, but doesn't

Coaches on service do not have to be PSVAR until 2020.

All coaches first used after January 2005 and used on PSVAR services have to be accessible now. It is only coaches first used before 2005 that are subject to the 2020 deadline.

Any operator collecting a fare whilst on RR is breaking the law, unless authorised by the TOC, which is something I have never come across.

To whom the fare is paid is irrelevant.

 

[kingqueen]

Please consider, PSVAR is a guide to the construction of each type of vehicle which is required to operate on the various types of services as defined by the 1985 transport act. It is not a definition of types of services vehicles should be used on

It directly states and defines which types of routes they should be used on, as you would know if you actually read it.

 

[kingqueen]

The answer to your question is very simple, under current legislation, never

To which question?

 

[mde]

Whether or not rail replacement vehicles currently have to be accessible, too often TOCs are not helpful in their pubkicity as to alternatives for pasengers requiring them. Too many rail replacement posters say along the lines of 'sorry ve are unsble to take bicycles, wheelchairs snd non-folding pushchairs'. Surely the posters should advise wheelchair users to contact the TOC so that suitable altetnative transport can be arranged for them?

There is perhaps a cynical answer to that - alternative transport costs more!

Cynics aside however, the lack of 'plain English' in railway communications is a bit of an own goal sometimes, if communications were clearer then they'd be better understood by folks and would ultimately generate fewer queries from people who are utterly confused as the messaging is so poor…

 

[lincman]

It directly states and defines which types of routes they should be used on, as you would know if you actually read it.

I have deliberately attempted to be polite as possible with my replies, but now I will be blunt. I have worked in passenger transport for over 40 years and I have worked with PSVAR and the 1985 act, so I have read these documents many times., and you are using confusion to project your agenda. I will put this as directly as possible your premise is not only flawed it is not relevant, I suggest you read the 2 in conjunction with each other, and please do not attempt tp patronise me again

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I have deliberately attempted to be polite as possible with my replies, but now I will be blunt. I have worked in passenger transport for over 40 years and I have worked with PSVAR and the 1985 act, so I have read these documents many times., and you are using confusion to project your agenda. I will put this as directly as possible your premise is not only flawed it is not relevant, I suggest you read the 2 in conjunction with each other, and please do not attempt tp patronise me again

to be fair to the OP, I've also worked in the bus industry for over 30 years and I have also read and re-read all of the documents involved and whether we like it or not they are all worded to cause as much confusion and grey areas as possible, as do most documents produced for transport policy. The biggest problem that I see is that different documents use the same wording to mean different things. Don't forget many MP's are qualified lawyers... they have a vested interest in making things as clear as mud so that they, and their cronies can milk the taxpayer with years of wrangling and arguing through the courts.

As an example I return to my question about the number of wheelchair spaces you need to provide on a replacement service to make it fully accessible... is it the number of spaces available on the train it is replacing? or is it every vehicle... which could lead to more wheelchairs being carried than the train has capacity for..

to put it into a purely bus scenario... your regular, low floor tri axle DD breaks down. It has a capacity of 100 passengers + 1 wheelchair. You don't have any DD's left to send out only a MPD. Now you know that the next journey is at peak hr and you KNOW you are going to need the capacity. You can provide an extra driver, but the only other vehicle available is your top executive coach with 5 steep steps and no wheelchair lift...
To make sure you don't inconvenience anybody you send the 2 vehicles out with strict instructions that the coach always stays behind the MPD as a duplicate. At the terminus a wheelchair boards the MPD... 3 stops down the road another wheelchair user tries boarding to be told "sorry I've got a wheelchair on already so can't take you" as the MPD pulls away along comes the coach with a slipboard announcing it is on the same service... does the wheelchair user then have a claim that the service provided wasn't fully accessible?

by one reading of all the relevant legislation the answer would be no, but then according to another reading there is no legal way that the coach could be used on a local service, even as a duplicate.

 

[kingqueen]

I have worked in passenger transport for over 40 years and I have worked with PSVAR and the 1985 act, so I have read these documents many times.

I mean no disrespect to you or your career, but I still think your contention of the impact of the various legislation is incorrect. I invite you to do so again, with an open mind. This bit is apposite:

]
PART IIApplication of Regulations, Exemptions and Recognition
Application
3.—(1) These Regulations apply to public service vehicles of the types described respectively in paragraphs (2) to (7) (a “regulated public service vehicle”) in the manner and to the extent set out in this Part.

and you are using confusion to project your agenda.

I am not. I intend no such thing, and I've been entirely clear throughout as to my interpretation.
Why would I use confusion? For what agenda? And how would it help me to achieve any such supposed agenda?
I'm being straightforward throughout. I've been relentlessly consistent with my understanding and interpretation of the legislation, whilst also being open to other people's input / to the possibility that I may be wrong.
Labeling me as being disingenuous and calculating for some nefarious end isn't helpful or accurate.

I will put this as directly as possible your premise is not only flawed it is not relevant, I suggest you read the 2 in conjunction with each other,

I did so here, along with the PPV 1981. What have I got wrong?

and please do not attempt tp patronise me again

A reciprocal request: please don't assume that your understanding and interpretation of the legislation is unquestionably infallibly accurate. Particularly please don't treat such as the inalienable truth rather than what it actually is, which is your understanding or belief, based on 40 years of working in this sector. Approach it from a fresh mindset.
For example: claims like (for bus services)

less than 50kms it must registered with the Traffic Commissioners as a registered service to require PSVAR vehicles to be operated.

My understanding is that this claim is simply not supported by the legislation. Please can you show me where it is?

 

[lincman]

Thank you for thoughts, but the crux boils down to the fact rail replacement is not a bus service, the schedules published if pre planned are by definition for a bus to operate along the route taken by the train at the appropriate speed. It is not a replacement bus service, it is bus operating defacto as a train. The 2005 railways act states that these services are substitute not replacements, therefore PSVAR specification vehicles are not required

 

[kingqueen]

There's nothing in the legislation to say that PSVAR is inapplicable to rail replacement services. PSVAR says PSVAR applies to scheduled services as defined in PSVAR, and local services as defined in Section 2 Transport Act 1985 (not section 8 or any other section) - whether the services are a bus operating de facto as a train or not is not relevant to whether or not it is subject to PSVAR. Perhaps it is a reason for other purposes, but for PSVAR...
I assume the bus / de facto train would be subject to the national 60mph speed limit or whatever even if the train it isn't replacing, so to speak, would do 125mph. Because there are different legal regimes for the different modes of transport.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Thank you for thoughts, but the crux boils down to the fact rail replacement is not a bus service, the schedules published if pre planned are by definition for a bus to operate along the route taken by the train at the appropriate speed. It is not a replacement bus service, it is bus operating defacto as a train. The 2005 railways act states that these services are substitute not replacements, therefore PSVAR specification vehicles are not required

and that just proves what I said about the confusion of wording... the 2005 Railways Act refers to bus substitute services whereas PSVAR refer to Rail Replacement Buses... now surely the intention is that the 2 different pieces of legislation are referring to the same thing ie buses/ coaches operating along a route when the railway is temporarily out of action. Of course, the cynic in me says the lawmakers have deliberately used 2 different words so that there can be confusion which can only ever be resolved either a) by further legislation or {much more likely} b) years of endless toing and froing through the courts lining the pockets of the lawyers...

 

[kingqueen]

Actually, the PSVAR doesn't refer to rail replacement buses, or (rail) substitute services, or said services by any other nomenclature. It simply doesn't refer directly to said services at all.

 

[lincman]

Actually, the PSVAR doesn't refer to rail replacement buses, or (rail) substitute services, or said se interpretation.
Why would I use confusion? For what agenda? And how would it help me to achieve any such supposed agenda?
I'm being straightforward throughout. I've been relentlessly consistent with my understanding and interpretation of the legislation, whilst also being open to other people's input / to the possibility that I may be wrong.
Labeling me as being disingenuous and calculating for some nefarious end isn't helpful or accurate.
I did so here, along with the PPV 1981. What have I got wrong? A reciprocal request: please don't assume that your understanding and interpretation of the legislation is unquestionably infallibly accurate. Particularly please don't treat such as the inalienable truth rather than what it actually is, which is your understanding or belief, based on 40 years of working in this sector. Approach it from a fresh mindset.
For example: claims like (for bus services)
My understanding is that this claim is simply not supported by the legislation. Please can you show me where it is?

There's nothing in the legislation to say that PSVAR is inapplicable to rail replacement services. PSVAR says PSVAR applies to scheduled services as defined in PSVAR, and local services as defined in Section 2 Transport Act 1985 (not section 8 or any other section) - whether the services are a bus operating de facto as a train or not is not relevant to whether or not it is subject to PSVAR. Perhaps it is a reason for other purposes, but for PSVAR...
I assume the bus / de facto train would be subject to the national 60mph speed limit or whatever even if the train it isn't replacing, so to speak, would do 125mph. Because there are different legal regimes for the different modes of transport.

Section 40 2005 Railways Act states that these are substitute not replacement services. I would be grateful if you could define your interpretation of the legal definition of a local service, I am quite willing to be corrected in my belief

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Actually, the PSVAR doesn't refer to rail replacement buses, or (rail) substitute services, or said services by any other nomenclature. It simply doesn't refer directly to said services at all.

sorry but now you're just nit-picking against people who are trying to support you... whilst PSVAR does not directly mention Rail Replacement buses, it does mention scheduled bus services and you yourself have referred back to the relevant legislation that DOES mention Rail Replacement services. You can't have it both ways. Either PSVAR does mention them {whether directly or by association} or it doesn't. And actually having quickly scanned through the PSVAR again I actually find it mindboggling that vehicles specifically built to be used for transporting sick/ injured persons are exempt... meaning wheelchair users have no legal right to access to an emergency ambulance under these regulations!

Now I for one have tried to have sympathy with your viewpoint, but now I am beginning to wonder if you are just on some crusade to tie the bus industry up in so much micro management and red tape that it collapses in a heap and leaves everyone absolutely equal... with no bus service at all... may I ask what you will do next if you get your way on this crusade? campaign for the equal right for wheelchair users to travel in pairs on buses? or how about a campaign to have wheelchair lifts fitted to all DD's because it is discrimatory for wheelchair users to be unable to access the top deck?

 

[kingqueen]

Section 40 2005 Railways Act states that these are substitute not replacement services.

Yes, I have read that. Nowhere does it say that the fact that it is a substitute service means that PSVAR doesn't apply.

A genuine question: where in legislation, contracts, licences etc. is a TOC's obligation to run rail replacement / substitution services (where possible) set out please? I ask because I don't know.

I would be grateful if you could define your interpretation of the legal definition of a local service, I am quite willing to be corrected in my belief

Very happy to - please read my post where I went into such, here.

 

[lincman]

I fully agree with your assessment of a regulated local service, but for it to be a regulated service of 15 miles or less it must be registered with the Traffic Commissioners.

 

[Bantamzen]

For what's its worth, that response from the DfT says to me in an ambiguous way as possible that the aspiration is that all RRB would be compliant, but they don't quite want to be held to that because in reality they know that it isn't going to be a) fully possible & b) legally enforceable. And this really reflects the reality of the situation, no matter what people might want & expect, many vehicles that could be used for RRBs will not be fully compliant, and no TOC is going to want the situation of these showing up with hundreds of people waiting, only to turn them away because any wheelchair users would have to be provisioned for separately.

Of course this might one day be challenged, with the possible outcomes of either this position being reinforced so long as disabled passengers are offered an alternative, or that all RRBs must be fully compliant and many services simply cancelled throughout where TOCs cannot source suitable vehicles. Because the reality is that many coach operators do not have sufficient cash flows and capital to completely replace fleets just in case they are offered RRB contracts.

 

[Deafdoggie]

For what's its worth, that response from the DfT says to me in an ambiguous way as possible that the aspiration is that all RRB would be compliant, but they don't quite want to be held to that because in reality they know that it isn't going to be a) fully possible & b) legally enforceable. And this really reflects the reality of the situation, no matter what people might want & expect, many vehicles that could be used for RRBs will not be fully compliant, and no TOC is going to want the situation of these showing up with hundreds of people waiting, only to turn them away because any wheelchair users would have to be provisioned for separately.

Of course this might one day be challenged, with the possible outcomes of either this position being reinforced so long as disabled passengers are offered an alternative, or that all RRBs must be fully compliant and many services simply cancelled throughout where TOCs cannot source suitable vehicles. Because the reality is that many coach operators do not have sufficient cash flows and capital to completely replace fleets just in case they are offered RRB contracts.

Exactly this! Doug Paulley maybe remembered in history as the man who did away with rail services during engineering. However, only a test court case will resolve this once and for all, and no one seems willing to risk it, as the stakes are too high.