• 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

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
Do you mean Firstgroup's point that they do not consider that payment for a rail ticket includes payment of a fare for the purposes of Rail Replacement Road transport?

The Department for Transport has said:
whilst it is ultimately for the Courts to interpret the legislation, we would consider that a fare has been paid for a journey even if it has been paid to a Train Operating Company rather than the operator of the rail replacement service.
My barrister's opinion (which I sought separately to and significantly before the ORR, and is independent) says:
In view of the very broad definition of a fare in the 1981 Act it is my opinion that it could encompass a fare that has been paid to a rail operating company for transport by both rail and, where required as a replacement, the bus.
I attach the opinion for interest.
 

Attachments

  • Replacement buses revised 2019 jan.docx
    26.9 KB · Views: 17

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,519
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
While I'm not wholly in agreement with your approach (because I don't think the requirement for each vehicle used to be accessible is sensible in the slightest and is already resulting in the use of vehicles which are unsuitable for people with far more common disabilities than wheelchair use, namely toilet urgency and back issues), your interpretation does tally with the interpretation of "hire or reward" in driver licensing, which encompasses any direct or indirect payment entitling travel - for instance a Scout minibus is always operated for hire/reward because of the membership fees paid.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I would agree that a test case would solve the situation, but that will not be required until the derogation expires in April

I thought it was possible to bring a 'friendly' test case at any time if both parties felt that it might be beneficial ?
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
I thought it was possible to bring a 'friendly' test case at any time if both parties felt that it might be beneficial ?

But possibly a waste of time and money if the Government are thought to be considering changing the law?
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
I don't think the requirement for each vehicle used to be accessible is sensible in the slightest and is already resulting in the use of vehicles which are unsuitable for people with far more common disabilities than wheelchair use, namely toilet urgency and back issues
It would be extremely interesting if a test case were to be brought before the courts on this issue, especially if in parallel with the wheelchair issue.

By way of example, my mother-in-law has a medical condition which requires easy access to a toilet. As a result, she will not travel by coach - even where toilet facilities are provided, they are too often locked out of use. If an RRB service is operating when she's planning to visit, the trip gets cancelled outright. If toilet facilities were withdrawn entirely to provide wheelchair accomodation, I imagine a lot more people would take that course of action.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,519
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It would be extremely interesting if a test case were to be brought before the courts on this issue, especially if in parallel with the wheelchair issue.

I would love to see one brought. The most visible disability is wheelchair use, and most wheelchair adaptations (lifts and the likes) benefit everyone, so all is great. But in this case, the likely outcome of enforcing the law is disbenefit to almost everyone other than wheelchair users, whether disabled or not, but also a very specific disbenefit to some very common non-wheelchair-using disabilities. A sensible way to implement such an anti-discrimination law is that anyone showing up in a wheelchair for a given timed rail replacement service must be carried at that time by what legal mode of road transport the TOC deems fit, not that every single coach must be accessible. Or if it's an "as and when" shuttle service, that the wheelchair user must wait no more than the average waiting time for an able bodied passenger (as the able bodied passenger waits for a bus to fill up).

A similar example to this might be if a new station was being built and access was only by a long wheelchair ramp, with no direct staircase or lift. Great for a wheelchair user, but it may mean someone who can walk but only a very short distance cannot use the station. Yet most people would think "box ticked" - that is not good enough.

If you're putting on a replacement service for a Class 153 on Ormskirk to Preston, this almost certainly means a low floor bus is going to be the best option - it's a short journey anyway. But if you are replacing a Pendolino with say 10 coaches, there is really no need for any more than 1 or 2 of those to be accessible, and sending an accessible taxi is also an option.

(I'm conscious some wheelchair users don't like accessible taxis for various reasons, but provided they are legal that is just one of those things, just as I don't like the fact that there are only 12 seats in a Class 153 that I can physically sit in, say, or that RRBs are typically coaches with very little legroom - the remedy there is to push for a change in the law on accessible taxis, not on RRBs)

By way of example, my mother-in-law has a medical condition which requires easy access to a toilet. As a result, she will not travel by coach - even where toilet facilities are provided, they are too often locked out of use. If an RRB service is operating when she's planning to visit, the trip gets cancelled outright. If toilet facilities were withdrawn entirely to provide wheelchair accomodation, I imagine a lot more people would take that course of action.

And that would be unacceptable.

Mind you, this specific disability is never taken seriously enough, leading to many parks and public places being totally inaccessible to people with what may well be the most common disability there is (made worse by increased CCTV etc meaning "using a bush" is increasingly no longer an option, and isn't a realistic option for women anyway). I would love to see some legal challenges on that.
 
Last edited:

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
1,057
Location
London E14
A similar example to this might be if a new station was being built and access was only by a long wheelchair ramp, with no direct staircase or lift. Great for a wheelchair user, but it may mean someone who can walk but only a very short distance cannot use the station. Yet most people would think "box ticked" - that is not good enough.
When I first injured my back, I could manage some stairs but not too many and only if there was a handrail on my left, escalators were no problem. I couldn't really walk long distances either, but I was not in a wheelchair. I discovered that many step-free routes involve significantly longer walking distance than the stepped route but there is no way of knowing this in advance. At King's Cross St Pancras, changing from the Victoria line to the Northern line via steps only involves a couple of short flights and short passageways, but the step-free route requires walking basically the length of the complex and half way back again.
There used to be a great website called "Direct enquiries" that detailed all the routes around all the stations, but it's no longer online.
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
the remedy there is to push for a change in the law on accessible taxis, not on RRBs
This issue wasn't caused by anybody pushing for a change in the law on rail replacement vehicles; it is an existing criminal offence under 20 year old legislation, to operate an inaccessible vehicle on rail replacement services (i.e. one that has prescribed minimum legroom, route displays, handholds for people with walking difficulties, high contrast on surface level changes etc.)

Should you disagree with the legislation then there's the standard process to go through to change it, I.e. convince elected representatives to go through the Parliamentary process to change it. That would be you pushing for a change in the law on accessible vehicles rather than the other way round.
 

lincman

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Messages
118
This issue wasn't caused by anybody pushing for a change in the law on rail replacement vehicles; it is an existing criminal offence under 20 year old legislation, to operate an inaccessible vehicle on rail replacement services (i.e. one that has prescribed minimum legroom, route displays, handholds for people with walking difficulties, high contrast on surface level changes etc.)

Should you disagree with the legislation then there's the standard process to go through to change it, I.e. convince elected representatives to go through the Parliamentary process to change it. That would be you pushing for a change in the law on accessible vehicles rather than the other way round.

Sorry to disagree, but as yet it has not been proven that this is an offence, it is only an opinion
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,519
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Sorry to disagree, but as yet it has not been proven that this is an offence, it is only an opinion

This is a big weakness in our legal system in my view - logic would be if a piece of legislation wasn't clear in what it meant in a given situation that we would return to those who made the legislation to clarify it, or to Parliament to legislate to clarify it. Instead we have lots of very expensive people guessing what a particular badly drafted law means, which can often change over time.

If Parliament were asked, I expect they would come back with a view that the service must be accessible, not each individual vehicle, as that is what is logical to me. For RRBs, the law as it (allegedly) stands is like requiring a wheelchair space to be provided in every coach of a Pendolino, when demand does not dictate this to be anywhere near needed.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
This is a big weakness in our legal system in my view - logic would be if a piece of legislation wasn't clear in what it meant in a given situation that we would return to those who made the legislation to clarify it, or to Parliament to legislate to clarify it. Instead we have lots of very expensive people guessing what a particular badly drafted law means, which can often change over time.

If Parliament were asked, I expect they would come back with a view that the service must be accessible, not each individual vehicle, as that is what is logical to me. For RRBs, the law as it (allegedly) stands is like requiring a wheelchair space to be provided in every coach of a Pendolino, when demand does not dictate this to be anywhere near needed.

Indeed. I doubt it was the intention of Parliament to give the needs of unusually tall wheelchair users who frequently find themselves travelling on railway routes which are replaced by road transport priority over those of wheelchair users of normal stature, those with other disabilities and those of the general public.

I hope the Government will change the law to remove the ambiguity and mandate a pragmatic solution.
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
Looking at the coaches and mini-buses being used on the RRB's for the Cambrian today none appear to allow wheelchairs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
The 2002 Statutory Code of Practice: Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers (attached), written by the Strategic Rail Authority, to which "All licensed passenger train operators and station operators (were) required as a condition of their licence to have due regard", obliged TOCs to use accessible vehicles for all planned engineering work and wherever possible for unplanned.
B8.2 Substitute transport
Pre-planned
Buses or other substitute transport arranged on a pre-planned basis must be accessible to disabled people.
Where passenger train services are affected by engineering works at short notice, it is recommended that passenger train operators provide accessible buses where reasonably practicable.
Financial penalties can be imposed if operators fail to meet these requirements.
Every subsequent Code of Practice, including the current one, has had similar requirements:
Buses or other substitute transport should be accessible to disabled people.
Through the licence system and the station access conditions, passenger train operators are required to submit details of services they will run where there are planned engineering works by Network Rail. It is a requirement of the Regulator that this information is provided at least twelve weeks before the engineering works take place. Passenger train operators should ensure that accessible substitute transport is provided during such engineering works.
Where passenger train services are affected by engineering works at short notice, it is recommended that passenger train operators provide accessible buses, where reasonably practicable, at no extra charge.
TOCs and other industry members have made much of the fact that the industry didn't realise that rail replacement vehicles are subject to PSVAR until my judicial review threat resulted in the ORR soliciting and publishing legal advice. However every TOC has been obliged by its license to be fully aware of the obligation to run accessible RRBs, for at least the last 18 years. Despite this, most TOCs aren't or weren't even aware which, if any, of their services are run with accessible vehicles, and for may TOCs a (sometimes tiny) minority of the rail replacement vehicles are accessible.
I would like to know what TOCs were doing over the past 18 years in order to attempt to comply with this obligation? It looks like "very little to nothing" from my end. And what have the SRA and successors done about this failure?
 

Attachments

  • SRA Code of Practice (Published Feb 2002).pdf
    555.7 KB · Views: 3

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
'Buses or other substitute transport' doesn't seem to preclude accessible taxis being provided for wheelchair users.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,519
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
'Buses or other substitute transport' doesn't seem to preclude accessible taxis being provided for wheelchair users.

It doesn't. But all vehicles used have to comply, so if the coaches already have to be compliant what would be the point?

Actually, it arguably also means that you can't put 4 able bodied people in a minicab?
 

lincman

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Messages
118
The 2002 Statutory Code of Practice: Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers (attached), written by the Strategic Rail Authority, to which "All licensed passenger train operators and station operators (were) required as a condition of their licence to have due regard", obliged TOCs to use accessible vehicles for all planned engineering work and wherever possible for unplanned.Every subsequent Code of Practice, including the current one, has had similar requirements:TOCs and other industry members have made much of the fact that the industry didn't realise that rail replacement vehicles are subject to PSVAR until my judicial review threat resulted in the ORR soliciting and publishing legal advice. However every TOC has been obliged by its license to be fully aware of the obligation to run accessible RRBs, for at least the last 18 years. Despite this, most TOCs aren't or weren't even aware which, if any, of their services are run with accessible vehicles, and for may TOCs a (sometimes tiny) minority of the rail replacement vehicles are accessible.
I would like to know what TOCs were doing over the past 18 years in order to attempt to comply with this obligation? It looks like "very little to nothing" from my end. And what have the SRA and successors done about this failure?

You are quite right that TOC have done very little in fact nothing to further this requirement. There appears to be a misconception that bus and coach operators are putting Rail Replacement work as a high priority within there business which of course is not the case. The TOC's have no control over vehicle availability operators will not spend the money required on what is to all intents marginal work. The reality is most local Rail Replacement is done by local service buses which have been compliant for many years, the difficulty arises with longer journeys which for comfort and luggage space require coaches. The use of coaches will be a grey area until the issue of PSVAR 2000 is settled in court.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
Today’s (1st March) rail replacement between Truro and Penzance was 100% accessible. Operated entirely by First south west (FSW), as was the previous week long blockade at the same locations over February half term, although the appearance of a team coach Tourismo was the only non psvar vehicle in half term.
FSW have built up a decent sized fleet of psvar coaches as well as being able to call on their bus service fleet.
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
Today’s (1st March) rail replacement between Truro and Penzance was 100% accessible. Operated entirely by First south west (FSW), as was the previous week long blockade at the same locations over February half term, although the appearance of a team coach Tourismo was the only non psvar vehicle in half term.
FSW have built up a decent sized fleet of psvar coaches as well as being able to call on their bus service fleet.

They have the advantage of a seasonal fleet requirement with RRB work in the quiet season for their own bus/coach needs. Everyone a winner.
However lots of RRB doesn’t have a seasonal operator with spare out of season capacity.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
They have the advantage of a seasonal fleet requirement with RRB work in the quiet season for their own bus/coach needs. Everyone a winner.
However lots of RRB doesn’t have a seasonal operator with spare out of season capacity.

The seasonal fleet is mainly open toppers. The fact is it was half term and a weekend was a bigger contributory factor with a huge college contract in Cornwall. FSW have around 20 psvar coaches in fleet now as well, for hire etc
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,415
Do dial-a-ride services operate at weekends?
If not then that is a load of fully accessible vehicles with lots of headroom for planned blockades.
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
If, as some people want, ALL Rail Replacement vehicles must be wheelchair accessible (at the expense of other disabilities) what would happen if the last train of the night was cancelled and only non-wheelchair taxis were available, even though no wheelchair passengers were waiting? Would everyone get left? Would an exception be made in this case-on what grounds though, that couldn’t be used in other cases?
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
At the risk of rising to bait:
If, as some people want, ALL Rail Replacement vehicles must be wheelchair accessible
I've not seen anybody express that they want that all rail replacement vehicles must be wheelchair accessible. Where have you heard some people express that? For instance, I have never expressed the wish that all rail replacement vehicles must be wheelchair accessible. All I want is that both the law, and the Statutory Code of Practice, be adhered to. Neither of which oblige that all rail replacement vehicles must be wheelchair accessible.
(at the expense of other disabilities)
The Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations require:
:- vehicle floors to be slip-resistant
:- priority seating with ability to access without stairs and a maximum slope of the floor, as close as possible to the entrance and with space for assistance dogs
:- any steps to be slip and trip resistant and to have sufficient colour contrast that they be clear to partially sighted people
:- handrails or other handholds at prescribed locations
:- communication and indication systems
:- route and destination displays with prescribed readability at set locations
:- the seating to comply with prescribed dimensions including height, width, distance to the seat in front etc.
None of which has much of anything to do with wheelchair access, but is apparently to ensure accessibility for people with visual and hearing impairments and mobility impairments that don't result in wheelchair usage.
You have previously indicated that you are concerned that obliging PSVAR compliance will result in old / service buses being inappropriately used thus causing disabled people with bad backs etc. access barriers, and that it will result in fewer vehicles with toilet facilities being used (despite the fact that very few rail replacement vehicles currently have toilet facilities), but even those arguments do not mean that pursuing PSVAR compliance somehow constitutes wheelchair accessibility being sought at the expense of access needs for people with other impairments.
what would happen if the last train of the night was cancelled and only non-wheelchair taxis were available, even though no wheelchair passengers were waiting?
Your hypothetical situation is specious, because to the best of my knowledge nobody has suggested that TOCs should ban the use of inaccessible taxis, and because it is not an offence to use inaccessible taxis. However accepting the insupportable premise that (against all evidence and reason) such a ludicrous rule were implemented, what would happen is that accessible taxis would be called in from out of area. As happened with me the other week, when inaccessible rail replacement coaches in use on the Harrogate line resulted in me being left stuck in my wheelchair in Harrogate after the last bus home. There are never any accessible taxis working in Harrogate on an evening or a weekend.
 
Last edited:

lincman

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Messages
118
If, as some people want, ALL Rail Replacement vehicles must be wheelchair accessible (at the expense of other disabilities) what would happen if the last train of the night was cancelled and only non-wheelchair taxis were available, even though no wheelchair passengers were waiting? Would everyone get left? Would an exception be made in this case-on what grounds though, that couldn’t be used in other cases?
If the view taken by some on this forum is taken as the law of the land, there would be no exception as this would be a criminal offence, and the ramifications for the driver and operator would be catastrophic .
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
With most overseas work getting cancelled, and a lot of inbound tourist tours also being cancelled, there’s a lot of spare PSVAR coaches and drivers going at the moment.
I suspect a number of operators will go under if the situation persists. For some this is Bread & Butter work that’s all gone. Although important to us, it’s not our main source of work, and we’ve lost twenty weeks worth of work already. Suddenly RRB work is looking attractive for coach operators.
Should schools close this will effect even more operators. Contracts vary of course, but many only pay for what is provided, so if nothing provided they aren’t paid for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top