Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

[lincman]

The simple fact remains Rail Replacement is not a bus service, it is a substation on of the rail service therefore not liable to standard regulations

 

[kingqueen]

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.

It doesn't mention then in specific. We were talking about nomenclature; you said

the 2005 Railways Act refers to bus substitute services whereas PSVAR refer to Rail Replacement Buses...

- was just pointing out that the term "rail replacement buses" isn't mentioned in PSVAR, so that's not the case. It is still my argument that some scheduled rail replacement services are subject to PSVAR.

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!

Me too. They scoop up wheelchair users and leave their wheelchairs behind. I guess at least they take the wheelchair user!

,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...

No, I'm just after wheelchair users, and disabled people in general, having access to the services everybody else takes for granted. Including rail replacement services.

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?

It's not a crusade.
Wheelchair users wanting to travel together is important, e.g. I know a married couple in wheelchairs who would love to be able to do so on public transport,, as non-disabled people can, but it's a long way down the line access for one wheelchair is often not afforded. Wheelchair users upstairs on buses: of course not, give it a rest would you?

This track sums up my approach, in case it's of interest.

 

[kingqueen]

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.

It depends what you mean by "regulated".
In the context of PSVAR's glossary:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1970/part/I/made

"regulated public service vehicle” means any public service vehicle to which these Regulations apply in accordance with regulation 3(1)

And according to section 3 of the PSVAR, it means

public service vehicles of the types described respectively in paragraphs (2) to (7)

The PSVAR make no reference to services registered with the traffic commissioner, neither do they refer to any section of any other law which makes any reference to services registered with the traffic commissioner.
They make reference to Section 2 of the Transport Act 1985, which defines local services,

In this Act “local service” means a service, using one or more public service vehicles, for the carriage...

But not to Section 6, which deals with that subset of local services that must be registered with the Traffic Commissioners.
Section 6 specifically exempts rail replacement services from the obligation to register with the Traffic Commissioner. But Section 6 isn't mentioned in the PSVAR, only the superset, Section 2, so my interpretation is that this is irrelevant for the purposes of applicability of PSVAR.
Section 6 also specifically exempts London bus services from the obligation to register with the traffic commissioner. Presumably if we accept that rail replacement services aren't local services for the purposes of PSVAR because they aren't registered with the traffic commissioners, we should also say that all buses in London are similarly exempt. Which seems like a fallacy.
That's my interpretation, anyway.

 

[kingqueen]

Exactly this! Doug Paulley maybe remembered in history as the man who did away with rail services during engineering.

Please give it a rest. I am alive to the possibly of paradoxical unintended consequences of raising this issue, and continually reminding me of it is counterproductive - it makes my childish element (which I know I must suppress) want to react against it!

 

[kingqueen]

The simple fact remains Rail Replacement is not a bus service, it is a substation on of the rail service therefore not liable to standard regulations

That is not my understanding of it.
As I say: if rail regulation / law and not bus regulation / law apply, presumably this also means drivers can travel at the rail speed limit etc etc etc

 

[lincman]

To reply to your childish reply drivers must drive to relevant speed limit for the road on which they are travelling.

 

[kingqueen]

To reply to your childish reply drivers must drive to relevant speed limit for the road on which they are travelling.

Yup. Similarly buses are buses and not trains, including for PSVAR.

 

[Deafdoggie]

This will only be resolved by a court case. The DFT have explained they don’t agree with you. No TOC or Bus company lawyers agree with you.
But if you believe you’re right take it to court. But it isn’t going to change any other way at all.

 

[kingqueen]

This will only be resolved by a court case. The DFT have explained they don’t agree with you.

No they didn't. They said no such thing.

No TOC or Bus company lawyers agree with you.

You've asked them all?!!!

But if you believe you’re right take it to court.

I thought you were advising me against that?
What are you attempting to communicate or achieve with this post anyway? Browbeating me into what? If you haven't anything useful to say such that you resort to personalizing the issue, best to say nothing at all.

 

[lincman]

There will not be a legal challenge, as anyone who has read PSV 353A Registration of Local Bus Services will see clearly, that RRBS are not services that are covered by PSVAR, and to quickly clear up the point regarding London, all services are operated und London Bus Permits issued by TFL in lieu of the Traffic Commissioners.

 

[Dai Corner]

Any replies from ORR, DVSA or your barrister yet?

I'm not at that stage yet. Partly because of the potential for negative indirect consequences as noted through the thread; partly because court should always be a last resort. So I'm not ruling it put

I'm exploring other options to get an official opinion on it. I've asked the DFT, the ORR and the DVSA, and am awaiting an answer from them as to whether and under what circumstances rail replacement coaches and buses are subject to PSVAR. And I've commissioned an expert barrister to produce a report on it.

Doubtless none of the above will be a speedy process.

 

[kingqueen]

There is nothing in PSV 353A that says that only registered local bus services are subject to PSVAR and not other local bus services. The idea that only registered local bus services are subject to the public service vehicle accessibility regulations is a fallacy. Registration or otherwise is an irrelevant distraction on this regard.

There are such things as local bus services that aren't registered. That's why there are two sections on this issue in the Transport Act 1985: Section 2 which deals with local bus services, and Section 6 which deals with registered local bus services.

Nowhere does anything say that a local service must be registered before it is subject to PSVAR. If you think my interpretation is incorrect: show me where I'm wrong. Show me where the legislation any of it, says that.

 

[kingqueen]

Any replies from ORR, DVSA or your barrister yet?

The DVSA, responded as I quoted earlier (yesterday?) - The DfT stated their response was joint with the DVSA.

The ORR: still waiting for their response.

The barrister: won't be able to look at it until mid July because of other work pressures.

 

[lincman]

Please give one example of a non registered local bus service

 

[158756]

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.

I don't buy this excuse. Accessible coaches and low floor buses have been commonplace for years. The PSVAR have been known about for nearly twenty years - new vehicles should have planned for it. The rail industry isn't prepared to pay anything more than strictly necessary though - similar to how we are probably going to have inaccessible trains running about in 2020, again having done nothing with over 20 years notice to improve.

 

[Deafdoggie]

The DFT made it very clear that it was not the answer you wanted. How much clearer do you want it?
I’m neither advising you to take it to court or not. I’m merely saying this will never be settled until it is.
There is no TOC or bus company providing fully accessible buses, they aren’t even any providing all wheelchair-accessible ones (remember mobility is not the only disability, so FULLY-accessible needs to be so much more than having a wheelchair space) so either all their lawyers feel the law doesn’t require it, or they all go against their lawyers advice which would be fool hardy. So I think it’s fair to say that all lawyers are together on this. But yes, all the company lawyers I’ve spoken to (remember, although in theory bus companies are in competition to each other, they actually all get along quite nicely and share their information with each other) can’t really see how it applies, at best there’s too much doubt, and all cases, if they were taken to court, have to be proven beyond doubt. All the DFT response to you has done is add more doubt, as they seem unclear themselves what they mean. I know you are adamant it’s really clear, but that doesn’t mean it’s clear to anyone else at all.
This argument will just rumble on because it most certainly isn’t going to change unless companies are forced to by a court.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I don't buy this excuse. Accessible coaches and low floor buses have been commonplace for years. The PSVAR have been known about for nearly twenty years - new vehicles should have planned for it. The rail industry isn't prepared to pay anything more than strictly necessary though - similar to how we are probably going to have inaccessible trains running about in 2020, again having done nothing with over 20 years notice to improve.

The “problem” is that private hire coaches don’t need to be wheelchair accessible. They are the ones most likely to be used on RRB, so there really isn’t much else that can be done. There just aren’t the wheelchair accessible buses, due to the huge costs involved.

 

[kingqueen]

Please give one example of a non registered local bus service

I could be facetious and say "rail substitute services" but I will say, to quote PSV535A,

In England and Wales, school services provided on behalf of the local education authority (LEA) where the LEAis fulfilling its obligation to provide such transport, as long as the only fare-paying passengers carried are:
- People receiving education or training at the school or college;
- People supervising or escorting them;
- People involved with the provision of education or training at these premises.

Hansard tells me in some circumstances such are subject to PSVAR.

 

[kingqueen]

Duplicate

 

[lincman]

The example given is a Closed contract not available to the general public, therefore not a local service, please try again, a non registered local service

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

we are now over 400 posts into the thread so what have we learned/ achieved? absolutely nothing. It is clear that the various regulations are as clear as mud as to what is/ isn't required. It can't even be agreed whether RRB's do or don't have to be accessible. Nor can anyone agree what does/ doesn't constitute a fully accessible RRS. What is clear is that the OP has one view and that the majority of other posters on this thread disagree with his viewpoint to some degree or another. I'm sorry @kingqueen if you're not getting the answers you want, but I'm afraid that that is part of life. The problem with the law is that it so vaguely written that it is like Bible study... you pull out a couple of verses out of context and then you can twist the Bible to mean anything you want it to, much the same as the law, especially when there are more than one competing pieces of legislation.
I think, in part you have your answer as to the likely outcome of any legal action... if you count the ratio of those that agree with your assessment of the law and those that don't you come up with a balance of probabilities as to which view is correct. Of course, it can be that the minority view is eventually seen as the correct view and I am willing to stand corrected by a fully tested legal case.

 

[Caleb2010]

Sorry, but a good percentage of the previous 400 posts have clearly pointed out that Rail Replacement Bus journeys are not registered local bus services, they've pointed out the reasons behind this, they've pointed out how the contracts are awarded for substitute journeys, how - therefore vehicles used are not subject to the same regulations as local us services, and why!

There have been replies from those within the bus industry with several years experience, I myself have over 40 years, 20 of which has been spent operating rail replacement.

Similarly, many with experience in the rail industry sourcing vehicles for rail replacement!

After all of these replies, and basically they say the same thing, you still choose to disregard their experience led answers!

Are you not just going around in circles arguing over something you didn't like the answer to when the question was first answered.

Don't you think for one minute that if these journeys were subject to the regulations the vehicles used would all be accessible already.

 

[kingqueen]

The DFT made it very clear that it was not the answer you wanted. How much clearer do you want it?

There's a difference between something being "not as clear cut as (I) may have hoped" and "The DFT have explained they don’t agree with you". The latter would be difficult as when emailing him, I didn't give my opinion or interpretation; I simply asked whether and in what circumstances scheduled rail replacement buses and coaches may be subject to. I carefully avoided giving my opinion or interpretation because I didn't want to bias him.

So yes, the legislation is not as clear cut as I'd have hoped, he's right there. Having to diddle around the definition of "route", "scheduled" etc etc doesn't help anybody. But he didn't say he disagreed with me.

(remember mobility is not the only disability, so FULLY-accessible needs to be so much more than having a wheelchair space)

Yes, fully aware of this, and also acutely aware it is all too easy to lazily conflate the two.

so either all their lawyers feel the law doesn’t require it, or they all go against their lawyers advice which would be fool hardy.

There is a third option: it may be they have simply not realised it. I raise again: the three national coach providers (National Express, Megabus and Citybus) had a clear policy up to this year that wheelchair users must give 36 hours notice and can't travel spontaneously. After I complained to the police, they have all acknowledged that this was contrary to the Conduct Regulations and changed their conditions of carriage. Now the DFT is asking them to justify their failure to comply.

 

[kingqueen]

The “problem” is that private hire coaches don’t need to be wheelchair accessible.

Yep. You, me, @Teflon Lettuce are agreed on this.

I understand coach providers are buying new, inaccessible, coaches even now, because they don't have to be accessible for use on coach trips.

 

[kingqueen]

Sorry, but a good percentage of the previous 400 posts have clearly pointed out that Rail Replacement Bus journeys are not registered local bus services,

They have indeed. But that misses the point: bus services don't have to be registered local bus services in order for them to be subject to the PSVAR. They can be local services that aren't registered, or they can be scheduled services.

After all of these replies, and basically they say the same thing, you still choose to disregard their experience led answers!

I don't disregard such, nor do I choose to do so, I simply disagree.

Are you not just going around in circles arguing over something you didn't like the answer to when the question was first answered.

I haven't asked whether rail replacement bus services are subject to PSVAR or not. Other people have provided their views, unsolicited. (Not that I object to anybody doing so, that's the nature of discussion!

Don't you think for one minute that if these journeys were subject to the regulations the vehicles used would all be accessible already.

It's not something I discount out of hand, but it's also not something I consider to be axiomatic either.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

There is a third option: it may be they have simply not realised it. I raise again: the three national coach providers (National Express, Megabus and Citybus) had a clear policy up to this year that wheelchair users must give 36 hours notice and can't travel spontaneously. After I complained to the police, they have all acknowledged that this was contrary to the Conduct Regulations and changed their conditions of carriage. Now the DFT is asking them to justify their failure to comply.

Not wanting to open up a completely new can of worms but it is worth asking.... why did you complain to the police? that seems bizarre... why not contact the companies direct and ask them for an explanation. Now I can't speak for Megabus/ Citylink in Scotland as many of the services north of the border double up as local bus services where there would be no other service, but certainly in England and Wales you cannot "spontaneously" travel on Nat Ex/ Megabus no matter who you are... you have to book a ticket in advance whether disabled or able bodied... so where have they "discriminated" against you by requiring notice that you wish to travel?

 

[lincman]

I find that your argument that the whole industry simply have not realised, just goes show that you will only opinion that counts is yours. Go on with your quest and please if you are right and everybody else is wrong do let us all know, and I shall be at my local station stopping every single non accessible vehicle from operating.

 

[richw]

Your selecting parts of your contacts reply to suit your argument,

Ignoring parts such as

service, using one or more public service vehicles, for the carriage of passengers at separate fares -
(a) along specified routes,
(b) at specified times, and
(c) with passengers being taken up and set down at pre-determined stopping points, but does not include a tour service..."

All that said, there may be circumstances in which a rail replacement service does not meet all of the above criteria

Rail replacement often doesn’t have a specified route, just specified calling points.
A completely hypothetical scenario, but rail replacement bus driver is asked to run a fast service Exeter St David’s to Paddington. (I’ve used these stations simply because I’m familiar with two routing options, of similar driving time). The driver could choose to go M5 & M4, or alternative use the A303.
There’s no specified route just specified calling points. It therefore fails the test at point (a).

 

[kingqueen]

Not wanting to open up a completely new can of worms but it is worth asking.... why did you complain to the police? that seems bizarre... why not contact the companies direct and ask them for an explanation.

I did. That worked in one provider, but not the other two. The thing is it's a criminal offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine, an endorsement of one's PSV licence and a criminal record. Offences with those consequences are usually investigated by the police.

NB: no coach driver had any such consequence, thankfully, as I was clear it was the coach companies' issue.

but certainly in England and Wales you cannot "spontaneously" travel on Nat Ex/ Megabus no matter who you are... you have to book a ticket in advance

You don't, actually. You can rock up at e.g. Leeds coach station ticket office and buy a ticket for departure in 10 mins time, you can buy them online just before getting on, or you can buy coast tickets from the driver when you get on.

 

[kingqueen]

I find that your argument that the whole industry simply have not realised, just goes show that you will only opinion that counts is yours. Go on with your quest and please if you are right and everybody else is wrong do let us all know, and I shall be at my local station stopping every single non accessible vehicle from operating.

I sincerely doubt you will follow through on that promise.