Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

[Teflon Lettuce]

No, it was just standard spec to have 8 grab handles for standees on the Stagecoach Express fleet at that time. The same coaches were used on the X5 (Oxford-Cambridge), probably the other X5 (Penrith-Keswick) and a load of the Scottish express routes.

grab rails/ standees are a red herring. If a vehicle is limited to 59mph and doesn't have seatbelts it is legally a bus. If it is limited to 62.5mph then it is a coach.

 

[kingqueen]

grab rails/ standees are a red herring. If a vehicle is limited to 59mph and doesn't have seatbelts it is legally a bus. If it is limited to 62.5mph then it is a coach.

The Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations defines buses and coaches as follows.

"bus” means a public service vehicle designed and constructed for the carriage of both seated and standing passengers which is of category M2 or M3 (as defined in Annex II(A) to the 1970 Directive) and has a capacity exceeding 22 passengers, in addition to the driver;

“coach” means a public service vehicle designed and constructed for the carriage of seated passengers only which is of category M2 or M3 (as defined in Annex II(A) to the 1970 Directive) and has a capacity exceeding 22 passengers, in addition to the driver

Therefore at least in terms of the accessibility regulations and obligations / deadlines under them, the only difference is that buses are "designed and constructed for the carriage of both seated and standing passengers" whereas coaches are "designed and constructed for the carriage of seated passengers only".
The speed limiter is not relevant to this determination.

The practical effect is that for all rail replacement services that are subject to PSVAR, being local services (defined as ones that have stops less than 15 miles apart) AND/OR scheduled services (defined as ones ruining to a published timetable), that are run at separate fares, any vehicle which allows standing must be accessible, and any vehicle which doesn't allow standing must be either over 13 years old or accessible.

 

[kingqueen]

It seems the logical outcome would be to not run RRBs to a timetable and run them on an ad hoc basis. Easy answer but a detriment to trying to plan a journey.

To me, the answer would be to ensure buses and coaches used on rail replacement services are accessible, particularly for planned rail replacement services - but until that wonderful time when all such vehicles are accessible, that may be very difficult to achieve!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations defines buses and coaches as follows.



Therefore at least in terms of the accessibility regulations and obligations / deadlines under them, the only difference is that buses are "designed and constructed for the carriage of both seated and standing passengers" whereas coaches are "designed and constructed for the carriage of seated passengers only".
The speed limiter is not relevant to this determination.

The practical effect is that for all rail replacement services that are subject to PSVAR, being local services (defined as ones that have stops less than 15 miles apart) AND/OR scheduled services (drained as ones ruining to a published timetable), that are run at separate fares, any vehicle which allows standing must be accessible, and any vehicle which doesn't allow standing must be either over 13 years old or accessible.

but you are still labouring under the false impression that Rail Replacement is considered a scheduled service at law. IT ISN'T. All rail replacement services are legally considered a private hire... in that the TOC or Network Rail has hired in the vehicles to provide a replacement to the train. As such all Rail replacement services are constrained by EC driver rules and not Domestic.

I have noticed quoted rules that say to be a PH then the fare has to be the same for all pax .... here's a simple question.... you're getting on a rail replacement service.... how much have you paid to get on that bus?

As to your interpretation of what constitutes a bus or coach... I was stating the generally accepted understanding of the difference as determined by Construction and Use regulations

 

[mark-h]

Coaches that were first used on or after 1st January 2005 are subject to PSVAR now (if used on scheduled services at separate fares, as per the above.)

Looking at the Plaxton range of coaches wheelchair accessibility is not available in every model of coach (and is an optional extra for some of them).

Assuming that coach operators continue to buy inaccessible coaches, which are legal to use on private hires, there will be a shortage of accessible coaches for rail replacement services.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Looking at the Plaxton range of coaches wheelchair accessibility is not available in every model of coach (and is an optional extra for some of them).

Assuming that coach operators continue to buy inaccessible coaches, which are legal to use on private hires, there will be a shortage of accessible coaches for rail replacement services.

what seems to be forgotten... there are something like 400 coaches on Nat Ex services... along with many more on Megabus... generally speaking these coaches are only on frontline service for 3-5 years... so there are already large numbers of wheelchair accessible coaches available for other work.

 

[kingqueen]

If all that the op writes above is correct and I've no reason to doubt it, although others seemingly have a differing view which makes me think otherwise it begs the followoing:-

if true then why hasn't anyone taken a toc or company operating the buses/coaches to court?

Why hasn't anybody ever prosecuted a bus driver for refusing to operate a ramp or to allow wheelchair users access to unoccupied wheelchair spaces? Why hasn't anybody prosecuted coach firms for refusing to allow spontaneous travel for wheelchair users? Why do shops and businesses fail to have ramps to afford access for disabled people, contrary to the Equality Act? Why is accessibility legislation so often not enforced? I have some ideas about a lot of reasons why this happens, but I think the key point is: accessibility legislation is often not followed or enforced, or even known about by those who legally have to follow it.

what has the op done themselves about this?

Nothing. Yet. Please feel free

what really is the point of the thread at all?

I wanted to know whether or not it was likely that come 2020 there will be sufficient accessible buses and coaches to provide rail replacement services. Since which it has expanded into a discussion as to whether rail replacement services are subject to accessibility legislation or not, and the reasons for thinking such. Which to me is a valuable discussion and exploration.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Why hasn't anybody ever prosecuted a bus driver for refusing to operate a ramp or to allow wheelchair users access to unoccupied wheelchair spaces? Why hasn't anybody prosecuted coach firms for refusing to allow spontaneous travel for wheelchair users? Why do shops and businesses fail to have ramps to afford access for disabled people, contrary to the Equality Act? Why is accessibility legislation so often not enforced? I have some ideas about a lot of reasons why this happens, but I think the key point is: accessibility legislation is often not followed or enforced, or even known about by those who legally have to follow it.

I would point you to the recent Pauley case where First were taken to court because the driver refused to force passengers to move from the wheelchair bay of the bus!

 

[Dai Corner]

but you are still labouring under the false impression that Rail Replacement is considered a scheduled service at law. IT ISN'T. All rail replacement services are legally considered a private hire... in that the TOC or Network Rail has hired in the vehicles to provide a replacement to the train. As such all Rail replacement services are constrained by EC driver rules and not Domestic.

I have noticed quoted rules that say to be a PH then the fare has to be the same for all pax .... here's a simple question.... you're getting on a rail replacement service.... how much have you paid to get on that bus?

As to your interpretation of what constitutes a bus or coach... I was stating the generally accepted understanding of the difference as determined by Construction and Use regulations

Is the difficulty that the law uses different definitions of 'bus', 'coach' and 'scheduled service' for the purposes of the PSVAR, the EU/domestic drivers' hours rules and the Construction & Use Regs?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Is the difficulty that the law uses different definitions of 'bus', 'coach' and 'scheduled service' for the purposes of the PSVAR, the EU/domestic drivers' hours rules and the Construction & Use Regs?

I think then it comes down to the interpretation of the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter... an analogy being in Domestic drivers hours rules which state that within any 14 day period a driver must have a 24 hour rest period.... now conceivably that means a bus driver can be rostered to work 365 days a year... is that the spirit of the law? obviously not... the spirit is that you will have a day off at least once every 14 days... in effect somewhere nearer 36- 40 hrs off.... and I wouldn't like to defend a rota that worked a driver 7 days a week 52 weeks a year... certainly not in any law court!

 

[kingqueen]

but you are still labouring under the false impression that Rail Replacement is considered a scheduled service at law. IT ISN'T. All rail replacement services are legally considered a private hire...

You keep saying that; but just saying it doesn't make it true.
There is nothing in the legislation that says this.

As such all Rail replacement services are constrained by EC driver rules and not Domestic.

That's for different purposes. Scheduled services are defined in the public service vehicle accessibility regulations, as quoted above, and they make no reference to such - the PSVAR defines scheduled services in the PSVAR itself. As indeed they define the difference between buses and coaches differently than under the construction and use regulations, as you've noted. And we are talking about accessibility here, so it is the PSVAR that count, not the Construction and Use regulations.

I have noticed quoted rules that say to be a PH then the fare has to be the same for all pax .... here's a simple question.... you're getting on a rail replacement service.... how much have you paid to get on that bus?

I (and the statutes) did not say that all passengers have to pay the same fare. What I quoted was Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981: "No differentiation of fares for the journey on the basis of distance or of time must be made." This has to be true in order for the service to be defined as a private hire.

A single on the 1930 today from Oxenholme to Kendal (3 miles) is £2.50. From Oxenholme to Staveley (8.6 miles) it's £4.30. The difference between the two is due to the difference in distance travelled.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

You keep saying that; but just saying it doesn't make it true.
There is nothing in the legislation that says this.
That's for different purposes. Scheduled services are defined in the public service vehicle accessibility regulations, as quoted above, and they make no reference to such - the PSVAR defines scheduled services in the PSVAR itself. As indeed they define the difference between buses and coaches differently than under the construction and use regulations, as you've noted. And we are talking about accessibility here, so it is the PSVAR that count, not the Construction and Use regulations.

are you being deliberately antagonistic? are you dogmatically going to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with your prejudged view of the situation? I and others have told you that, for various reasons PSVAR does not and will not for the foreseable future cover Rail Replacement.

I (and the statutes) did not say that all passengers have to pay the same fare. What I quoted was Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981: "No differentiation of fares for the journey on the basis of distance or of time must be made." This has to be true in order for the service to be defined as a private hire. A single on the 1930 today from Oxenholme to Kendal (3 miles) is £2.50. From Oxenholme to Staveley (8.6 miles) it's £4.30. The difference between the two is due to the difference in distance travelled.

your premise is that Rail Replacement comes under scheduled services whereas I, and others contend that it comes under PH. Under the test of the law does a Rail Replacement pass the test for PH.... yes it does. The amount you are charged as a pax for getting transferred to a bus/ coach is £0.00 no matter where your journey begins/ ends or how much you paid for your rail ticket. The example you present above is a total red herring. When you get to the stn at Oxenholme whether you wish to go to Stavely, Kendal or Penzance for that matter you purchase a ticket for a rail journey and enter into a contract with the TOC for them to provide the journey. If they are unable to provide a journey due to engineering works or any other reason they are legally obliged to ensure you can complete your journey in a timely manner. The fact that they might decide to hire in a bus/coach to discharge their legal obligation is neither here nor there as to how much you have paid to get on that bus/ coach. It is quite simply nothing. You have not paid a penny. Therefore as such, Rail Replacement services are treated as Private Hires at law and are not subject to PSVAR either now or in 2020!

And tbh, I am tiring of seeing you post things which try and suggest that the RPT industry consistantly and regularly play fast and loose with the law!

 

[kingqueen]

I would point you to the recent Pauley case where First were taken to court because the driver refused to force passengers to move from the wheelchair bay of the bus!

I am Doug Paulley,
And First were not taken to court because the driver refused to force partners to move from the wheelchair bay of the bus.
I took Firstbus to court for failing to do more to try to make it more likely that use of the wheelchair space is not denied to wheelchair users, due to abuse of the space by non-disabled people.
To quote the judgment:

FirstGroup could reason ably be expected to adjust its policy. It should have been made clear to passengers, and to their drivers, that wheelchair users had priority over anyone else in the occupation of the wheelchair space and that other passengers would be required, not merely requested, to move out of it if a wheelchair user needed it. With a proper system of notices, making the position plain, backed up with firm statements from the driver, everyone would know where they stood. The culture would change. Disruption and confrontation would be unlikely. It is obviously reasonable to expect bus operators to do more than FirstGroup did in this case.

But that wasn't what I said in your quote. What I said was:
"Why hasn't anybody ever prosecuted a bus driver for refusing to operate a ramp or to allow wheelchair users access to unoccupied wheelchair spaces? "
Note: UNOCCUPIED wheelchair spaces, and prosecuted a BUS DRIVER. This is under separate legislation: the catchily titled Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) (Amendment) Regulations 2002. Such require bus drivers to operate the ramp and to allow access to unoccupied wheelchair spaces - yet the Department for Transport said that no body is tasked with enforcing the Conduct Regulations, and no driver has ever faced enforcement for breaching them.

Which brings me back to my original point: accessibility laws are poorly enforced, and the applicability of PSVAR to rail replacement buses is one example.

 

[Clip]

.....

Why hasn't anybody ever prosecuted a bus driver for refusing to operate a ramp or to allow wheelchair users access to unoccupied wheelchair spaces? Why hasn't anybody prosecuted coach firms for refusing to allow spontaneous travel for wheelchair users? Why do shops and businesses fail to have ramps to afford access for disabled people, contrary to the Equality Act? Why is accessibility legislation so often not enforced? I have some ideas about a lot of reasons why this happens, but I think the key point is: accessibility legislation is often not followed or enforced, or even known about by those who legally have to follow it.

what has the op done themselves about this?

Nothing. Yet. Please feel free

To be honest I'm not sure you have answered what i was actually asking you you have just replied with questions to which i just do not know the answers to but yorkie has filled me in on the information that it was you who won the case against First group so you would know the answers to the questions you have asked me surely?

I'm well aware the accessibility for all isn't where it should be but you seem to have a differing opinion to others on the subject of RRBs and as such i'm pretty sure that you are not going to find a definitive answer on this forum as you cant seem to grasp what others are saying. Isn't there a higher body you can enquire too to finally get this settled rather than going off an interpretation of a document which others interpret another way?

Thats why i wondered what the thread was for when you have jist shunned others views when they dont agree wih you

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I am Doug Paulley,
And First were not taken to court because the driver refused to force partners to move from the wheelchair bay of the bus.
I took Firstbus to court for failing to do more to try to make it more likely that use of the wheelchair space is not denied to wheelchair users, due to abuse of the space by non-disabled people.
To quote the judgment:

But that wasn't what I said in your quote. What I said was:
"Why hasn't anybody ever prosecuted a bus driver for refusing to operate a ramp or to allow wheelchair users access to unoccupied wheelchair spaces? "
Note: UNOCCUPIED wheelchair spaces, and prosecuted a BUS DRIVER. This is under separate legislation: the catchily titled Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) (Amendment) Regulations 2002. Such require bus drivers to operate the ramp and to allow access to unoccupied wheelchair spaces - yet the Department for Transport said that no body is tasked with enforcing the Conduct Regulations, and no driver has ever faced enforcement for breaching them.

Which brings me back to my original point: accessibility laws are poorly enforced, and the applicability of PSVAR to rail replacement buses is one example.

Hi Doug. First of all let me assure you that if you were to get on my bus and someone refused to move out of the wheelchair bay then I would refuse to move the bus until they had either a) complied with my request or b) left the vehicle.

As to the original point of the discussion... the problem is that there are obviously a large number of competing legislations here... PSVAR, Road Transport Acts, Railway law, contract law etc.

it obviously leaves a lot open to interpretation and will not be sorted until there have been a number of test cases. However, could it be that the reason why Rail Replacements are generally treated as PH under PSVAR simply because of this fact.... a disabled person turns up and there isn't an accessible bus/ coach for them to board.... as the TOC has a legal responsibility under contract law to ensure the pax can complete their journey they will order a taxi. Now I don't know about you, but I would certainly be over the moon to be provided with my own personal transport rather than have to squash in with the hoy poloi!

 

[kingqueen]

are you being deliberately antagonistic? are you dogmatically going to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with your prejudged view of the situation?

No, I'm simply and calmly giving my understanding of the law as it stands, and backing it up with the legislation in question.

I and others have told you that, for various reasons PSVAR does not and will not for the foreseable future cover Rail Replacement.

You have indeed given your opinion to that effect in this matter.

The amount you are charged as a pax for getting transferred to a bus/ coach is £0.00 no matter where your journey begins/ ends or how much you paid for your rail ticket. The example you present above is a total red herring. When you get to the stn at Oxenholme whether you wish to go to Stavely, Kendal or Penzance for that matter you purchase a ticket for a rail journey and enter into a contract with the TOC for them to provide the journey. If they are unable to provide a journey due to engineering works or any other reason they are legally obliged to ensure you can complete your journey in a timely manner. The fact that they might decide to hire in a bus/coach to discharge their legal obligation is neither here nor there as to how much you have paid to get on that bus/ coach. It is quite simply nothing. You have not paid a penny. Therefore as such, Rail Replacement services are treated as Private Hires at law and are not subject to PSVAR either now or in 2020!

I disagree with your interpretation. For journeys that involve a rail replacement public service vehicle, the fare paid for the rail ticket entitles the passenger to travel on the necessary rail replacement bus. As you said earlier, no rail ticket, no right to travel on that bus. The legal construction as to the fact that the TOC is obliged to provide some form of transport to the destination, and that form of transport may be a bus, is not relevant.

And tbh, I am tiring of seeing you post things which try and suggest that the RPT industry consistantly and regularly play fast and loose with the law!

Feel free to not read my posts if it winds you up, however if you do I would suggest checking what I actually say before claiming I've said something else.

 

[kingqueen]

Hi Doug. First of all let me assure you that if you were to get on my bus and someone refused to move out of the wheelchair bay then I would refuse to move the bus until they had either a) complied with my request or b) left the vehicle.

Good for you, I support you 100%.

As to the original point of the discussion... the problem is that there are obviously a large number of competing legislations here... PSVAR, Road Transport Acts, Railway law, contract law etc.

it obviously leaves a lot open to interpretation and will not be sorted until there have been a number of test cases.

Yes indeed - The complications of such are doubtless why we are having this debate. I guess the difficulty is whether there ever will be the test cases required to nail this down 100%. Given the PSVAR have been around and in place to varying degrees since 2000, and there haven't been test cases regarding rail replacement vehicles thus far... (to the best of my knowledge)

However, could it be that the reason why Rail Replacements are generally treated as PH under PSVAR simply because of this fact.... a disabled person turns up and there isn't an accessible bus/ coach for them to board.... as the TOC has a legal responsibility under contract law to ensure the pax can complete their journey they will order a taxI.

My understanding or interpretation is that this may be an argument under the reasonable adjustment requirement of the Equality Act, but not so much under the PSVAR.

Now I don't know about you, but I would certainly be over the moon to be provided with my own personal transport rather than have to squash in with the hoy poloi!

I can see why this would appear preferable, but the reality doesn't work out that way in my experience.

On Friday, I went to Lake Windermere for a trip on the steamer. Northern booked a taxi for me from Oxenholme to Windermere. I am 6'7" so I had to travel with the back of my head and my shoulders jammed against the ceiling. Also the taxi driver didn't restrain my wheelchair, and didn't provide a seat belt. I was left to rattle around in the back, side on to the direction of travel, at great discomfort and risk.

Northern booked a taxi for the return journey. It didn't turn up. When Northern phoned to chase, they were informed that the taxi was 30 miles away and would thus take 40+ minutes to arrive. This meant I would have missed connections at Oxenholme and Lancaster, and got home very late.

Then amongst all the inaccessible coaches, an accessible bus turned up. It was a heritage vehicle, restored and driven by volunteers from the Workington heritage vehicle trust (evidently an excellent organisation to whom I'm very grateful, I left a donation!) They loaded me and a couple of extraordinarily drunk and lairy other passengers, and drove us promptly, in comfort and safety, to Oxenholme.

Even with the drunk and unpleasant other passengers, it was very much preferable than the taxi on the outward journey and the non-existent taxi on the return!

 

[Robertj21a]

As I said earlier, my clear understanding is that a rail replacement service that is pre-planned, over a specific route, and operating to a schedule, needs PSVAR compliant vehicles.
It is only 'emergency' rail replacements where this requirement can be ignored.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

On Friday, I went to Lake Windermere for a trip on the steamer. Northern booked a taxi for me from Oxenholme to Windermere. I am 6'7" so I had to travel with the back of my head and my shoulders jammed against the ceiling. Also the taxi driver didn't restrain my wheelchair, and didn't provide a seat belt. I was left to rattle around in the back, side on to the direction of travel, at great discomfort and risk.

I hope you reported the driver to his employer/ licensing authority... though in my experience if there is any public transport where there is zero customer service and very little compliance it is the taxi trade {tin hat on}

as an aside, I still can't work out why PH/ holiday/ touring coaches were ever left exempt from the PSVAR don't disabled people go on day trips/ holidays?!

 

[pemma]

I'm not sure about the 'no ticket no right to travel' the railways operate on the basis you pay at the first opportunity if you don't already have a ticket. A TOC doesn't have the right to leave passengers at an unstaffed station with no TVM because they have no ticket.

There's also examples of fares where you don't pay any extra for travelling further e.g. London to Leeds may be the same price as London to Horsforth. If a London train is delayed and a group of passengers all miss the last train to Horsforth and a replacement bus is organised then it's effectively a courtesy bus.

 

[kingqueen]

I hope you reported the driver to his employer/ licensing authority... though in my experience if there is any public transport where there is zero customer service and very little compliance it is the taxi trade {tin hat on}

Thanks. I did! He was licensed by Preston council, when j phoned them up they were very helpful, kind and supportive. I have put in a formal concern.

as an aside, I still can't work out why PH/ holiday/ touring coaches were ever left exempt from the PSVAR don't disabled people go on day trips/ holidays?!

I agree 100% there.

 

[pemma]

I hope you reported the driver to his employer/ licensing authority... though in my experience if there is any public transport where there is zero customer service and very little compliance it is the taxi trade {tin hat on}

as an aside, I still can't work out why PH/ holiday/ touring coaches were ever left exempt from the PSVAR don't disabled people go on day trips/ holidays?!

I think it's so genuine heritage vehicles can be used on tourist lines in the same way PRM won't force East Lancs Railway to close and doesn't prevent traditional trams being used on the Blackpool seafront.

 

[kingqueen]

I'm not sure about the 'no ticket no right to travel' the railways operate on the basis you pay at the first opportunity if you don't already have a ticket. A TOC doesn't have the right to leave passengers at an unstaffed station with no TVM because they have no ticket.

There's also examples of fares where you don't pay any extra for travelling further e.g. London to Leeds may be the same price as London to Horsforth. If a London train is delayed and a group of passengers all miss the last train to Horsforth and a replacement bus is organised then it's effectively a courtesy bus.

Yes indeed. I wonder if these "edge cases" would result in disapplying PSVAR to rail replacement buses in general, or just to those services in specific...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I hope you reported the driver to his employer/ licensing authority... though in my experience if there is any public transport where there is zero customer service and very little compliance it is the taxi trade {tin hat on}

I must admit that that (and I agree with you when it comes to the trade outside London) is why I shed few tears for anyone who complains that Uber etc steal their business. The whole trade, London black cabs aside, is just about as disreputable as any of it.

What was the heritage accessible bus? I'm intrigued.

FWIW, the situation you describe was clearly inadequate - an unsuitable vehicle and an unacceptable wait. I'd suggest there should be some legal cases against the railway for this kind of thing and then they'd buck their ideas up and obtain suitable vehicles (accessible high-roof minibuses, say) from more local suppliers.

 

[kingqueen]

I must admit that that (and I agree with you when it comes to the trade outside London) is why I shed few tears for anyone who complains that Uber etc steal their business. The whole trade, London black cabs aside, is just about as disreputable as any of it.

I have had honourable cabbies, happily - though increasingly few!

What was the heritage accessible bus? I'm intrigued.

X805 SRM – M.A.N. Lowliner
Most excellently, they had changed the dot matrix display to say "Choo Choo! I'm a train!"

FWIW, the situation you describe was clearly inadequate - an unsuitable vehicle and an unacceptable wait. I'd suggest there should be some legal cases against the railway for this kind of thing and then they'd buck their ideas up and obtain suitable vehicles (accessible high-roof minibuses, say) from more local suppliers.

Thank you

 

[Dentonian]

Why hasn't anybody ever prosecuted a bus driver for refusing to operate a ramp or to allow wheelchair users access to unoccupied wheelchair spaces? Why hasn't anybody prosecuted coach firms for refusing to allow spontaneous travel for wheelchair users? Why do shops and businesses fail to have ramps to afford access for disabled people, contrary to the Equality Act? Why is accessibility legislation so often not enforced? I have some ideas about a lot of reasons why this happens, but I think the key point is: accessibility legislation is often not followed or enforced, or even known about by those who legally have to follow it.Nothing. Yet. Please feel free I wanted to know whether or not it was likely that come 2020 there will be sufficient accessible buses and coaches to provide rail replacement services. Since which it has expanded into a discussion as to whether rail replacement services are subject to accessibility legislation or not, and the reasons for thinking such.

I note you don't mention taxi drivers refusing to assist wheelchair users, which I recall was highlighted as an incident at Oxenholme on Friday (ish). And also, parking/traffic wardens/CEO/EEOs (or whatever they are called this week) refusing to tackle bus stop blocking.

 

[Dentonian]

I note you don't mention taxi drivers refusing to assist wheelchair users, which I recall was highlighted as an incident at Oxenholme on Friday (ish). And also, parking/traffic wardens/CEO/EEOs (or whatever they are called this week) refusing to tackle bus stop blocking.

Sorry; ignore the first point - my computer can't keep up with the replies, and was about 10 behind, so I'm NOW guessing it was you involved in this very incident.

 

[Dentonian]

To me, the answer would be to ensure buses and coaches used on rail replacement services are accessible, particularly for planned rail replacement services - but until that wonderful time when all such vehicles are accessible, that may be very difficult to achieve!

Where would the (accessible) buses be available, especially if RR's include peak hours?

 

[Bletchleyite]

X805 SRM – M.A.N. Lowliner

Ah, I guess I'm getting old enough that I wouldn't call that heritage

 

[Dai Corner]

On Friday, I went to Lake Windermere for a trip on the steamer. Northern booked a taxi for me from Oxenholme to Windermere. I am 6'7" so I had to travel with the back of my head and my shoulders jammed against the ceiling. Also the taxi driver didn't restrain my wheelchair, and didn't provide a seat belt. I was left to rattle around in the back, side on to the direction of travel, at great discomfort and risk.

Northern booked a taxi for the return journey. It didn't turn up. When Northern phoned to chase, they were informed that the taxi was 30 miles away and would thus take 40+ minutes to arrive. This meant I would have missed connections at Oxenholme and Lancaster, and got home very late.

Then amongst all the inaccessible coaches, an accessible bus turned up. It was a heritage vehicle, restored and driven by volunteers from the Workington heritage vehicle trust (evidently an excellent organisation to whom I'm very grateful, I left a donation!) They loaded me and a couple of extraordinarily drunk and lairy other passengers, and drove us promptly, in comfort and safety, to Oxenholme.

Was the accessible bus under contract to Northern or were the volunteers running it off their own bat without Northern's knowledge? It would have been a better option for you on the outward journey than the taxi if you'd known about it.

When booking the taxi, did Northern tell the taxi operator that you were a 6' 7" wheelchair user? Did you tell Northern what time you would be returning (subject to the steamer running on time)?

Good communication could have made your day go much more smoothly.