Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

[WelshBluebird]

I do think there is a need for legislation on provision - something like a maximum journey time without provision, and in all cases if not provided there must be provision at a certain number of stations open for the full period of service, and any passenger requiring use must not be disadvantaged via the ticketing system (e.g. if you're on an Advance or the last off peak train).

More widely I think the statutory requirement for local authority provision needs to return.

With an ageing population, non-provision is causing people to be near housebound.

I'd agree with that too. Though I still think that removing toilet facilities where some already exist, because you can't be bothered to make it accessible, should not be an acceptable or legal option.
Of course, it isn't just an aging population. Some people have to deal with conditions that mean access to a toilet is pretty damn important, some people have babies or young children who can't "just hold it", some services (I am specifically thinking late night services, or those after a Wales international in Cardiff!) need toilets because of the sheer number of people who will need the facilities, etc etc.

I think that's what's going to happen in the Cardiff Valleys, together with extended toilet stops on the last services of the day.

To be honest I will only believe that when I actually see it (and when those station toilets aren't closed early and when those extended toilet stops aren't wiped out by delays etc).

 

[kingqueen]

regulated buses are those that must comply with PSVAR. Rail replacement is unregulated so on that line it is key they don’t need to comply.

By "regulated" it means those bus and coaches that are subject to PSVAR. That bit about "regulated buses are those that must comply with PSVAR" simply means the context in question, in this case the Conduct Regulations, "regulated" means "those buses that are subject to PSVAR".

 

[t_star2001uk]

As i understand it, a majority of TOC's use the services of a booking agent to provide road transport, not only for emergency situations, but for planned engineering works as well. The booking agent will hire in vehicles as private hire who will then work under the instruction of the TOC.

 

[Deafdoggie]

As i understand it, a majority of TOC's use the services of a booking agent to provide road transport, not only for emergency situations, but for planned engineering works as well. The booking agent will hire in vehicles as private hire who will then work under the instruction of the TOC.

After the demise of Fraser Eagle most are booked direct with TOC's now. Some TOC's better at this than others. First, for example have a department where all their TOC's go to who contact bus companies direct from there. Whereas Arriva TOC's just all do their own thing

 

[Flying Snail]

Of course, you could easily legislate for that by saying that removing facilities that already exist instead of making them accessible is not compliant with the regulations.

And what legislation do you propose to compel private coach hire companies to buy and keep fleets of accessible coaches to be made available to Rail companies on demand?

Or are rail companies going to be obliged to keep fleets and staff of their own on standby to cover any RRB requirements?

The fact that disability campaigners simply refuse to acknowledge is that providing equal access on public transport is a massive logistical and financial burden, one that in many cases is totally out of proportion to the numbers actually affected.

It is already the case that requiring full accessibility has a severely detrimental effect on the finances required to provide facilities such as new build stations, resulting in some cases in no facilities for anyone being the outcome. Sadly it appears that many would rather nobody get something than their protected group accept not being afforded 100% parity.

You can legislate that every deserving group get their needs met the same as everyone else but if it becomes ruinously expensive or impractical to achieve this the default response to situations where rail transport is suspended may end up being no services, no RRB, no services for anyone so no discrimination.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

You can legislate that every deserving group get their needs met the same as everyone else but if it becomes ruinously expensive or impractical to achieve this the default response to situations where rail transport is suspended may end up being no services, no RRB, no services for anyone so no discrimination.

I might be wrong, but wouldn't suspension of a rail service for engineering without an RRB be illegal? isn't there something in the law that compels TOC's to operate unless they obtain an Act of Parliament to withdraw it? isn't that the reason for "ghost" trains?

 

[Deafdoggie]

But if they have to have an accessible coach, and there isn't one-what then?

 

[WelshBluebird]

And what legislation do you propose to compel private coach hire companies to buy and keep fleets of accessible coaches to be made available to Rail companies on demand?

Or are rail companies going to be obliged to keep fleets and staff of their own on standby to cover any RRB requirements?

The fact that disability campaigners simply refuse to acknowledge is that providing equal access on public transport is a massive logistical and financial burden, one that in many cases is totally out of proportion to the numbers actually affected.

It is already the case that requiring full accessibility has a severely detrimental effect on the finances required to provide facilities such as new build stations, resulting in some cases in no facilities for anyone being the outcome. Sadly it appears that many would rather nobody get something than their protected group accept not being afforded 100% parity.

You can legislate that every deserving group get their needs met the same as everyone else but if it becomes ruinously expensive or impractical to achieve this the default response to situations where rail transport is suspended may end up being no services, no RRB, no services for anyone so no discrimination.

I was specifically talking of the case where a vehicle (be it rail or road) currently has a toilet that is not accessible, there is an option to put in an accessible toilet, but instead, to save money, they choose to rip out the toilet altogether. However, since you ask:

Regarding coach companies keeping fleets of accessible coaches, my view is that all fleets of all coaches any company keeps should be accessible. I really think we have dropped the ball on this. Accessible coaches and buses are not a new concept at all (especially buses).

In terms of RRB's, you realise that simply not providing them really isn't an option right? In cases of emergency RRB's that were not planned, there is a legal and contractual duty to get a passenger to their destination unless that is literally impossible. And in the case of planned RRB's, well lets say I'd love to see the PR disaster if that was to happen! I swear sometimes railway enthusiasts are the ones who think of the best way to totally decimate public confident in the railways.

But if they have to have an accessible coach, and there isn't one-what then?

The ToC has to try its best basically. Things like accessible taxis exist. Things like accessible coaches and buses exist. If the RRB's are planned in advance, then there is no excuse really. GWR manage just fine to provide accessible buses when doing RRB's when the Severn Tunnel is shut for example. Obviously for emergency RRB's that is a different ball game, and then its basically best effort and failing that accommodation (just as if they were unable to transport anyone else to their destination). Again, GWR tend to offer ticket acceptance on local buses (which are accessible) in the Bristol / Bath area when there is disruption.

 

[OneOffDave]

The fact that disability campaigners simply refuse to acknowledge is that providing equal access on public transport is a massive logistical and financial burden, one that in many cases is totally out of proportion to the numbers actually affected.

Pardon us for wanting to be able to leave the house and go to work like the rest of you do. Perhaps the acceptable alternative is for me to drive to work and get compensated for the extra time I'd waste sat in traffic. Or should we all give up work and then you could forgo all the tax we pay?

It could be argued that if a station has fewer than a thousand passengers a year then it's far too expensive to keep it open. I'd be more than happy to see that as it'd save money and not cause that much impact, perhaps raise that to two thousand. Why bother running late night trains? How many of them actually make money?

 

[Deafdoggie]

That is all well and good, and generally what happens. But in more remote areas, there just aren't the operators to choose from, and you have to take what you can get. if a TOC calls up and says we want fully accessible coaches "We haven't got any" is the response. If they are planning ahead "They cost more" is the response, How much fare rise would passengers take to have accessible coaches on the route instead of coaches? Price wins I am afraid. It might not be the way in the ideal world, but it is the world in which we live.

The toilet issue isn't all about cost. Take the 153 as an example, the extra space required removes so many seats, as the unit becomes useless. At my local station, all we have is 153's So are we to have no toilets, no trains, or a toilet that everyone apart from wheelchair users can access? It is not ideal at all, and I accept that, but something is better than nothing.

 

[pemma]

I might be wrong, but wouldn't suspension of a rail service for engineering without an RRB be illegal? isn't there something in the law that compels TOC's to operate unless they obtain an Act of Parliament to withdraw it? isn't that the reason for "ghost" trains?

But if they have to have an accessible coach, and there isn't one-what then?

Surely this thread is overlooking the obvious - a heritage vehicle can be used on local bus services for up to 40 days per calendar year. So presuming rail replacement buses are legally local bus services even if a coach hire company only had 5 inaccessible coaches they could provide 2 vehicles to run rail replacement services every Saturday and Sunday for an entire year. OK unless those coaches were used on duplicate services, TOCs would need to provide an alternative way of transporting wheelchair users but it doesn't prevent them being used.

 

[pemma]

The toilet issue isn't all about cost. Take the 153 as an example, the extra space required removes so many seats, as the unit becomes useless. At my local station, all we have is 153's So are we to have no toilets, no trains, or a toilet that everyone apart from wheelchair users can access? It is not ideal at all, and I accept that, but something is better than nothing.

Is your local station in Wales? If not the 153s will be replaced by something else by the end of 2019, whether it's D-Trains, other Sprinters, Turbostars or even brand new trains (the Anglican routes are getting brand new FLIRTs to replace their 153s.)

 

[Deafdoggie]

Surely this thread is overlooking the obvious - a heritage vehicle can be used on local bus services for up to 40 days per calendar year. So presuming rail replacement buses are legally local bus services even if a coach hire company only had 5 inaccessible coaches they could provide 2 vehicles to run rail replacement services every Saturday and Sunday for an entire year. OK unless those coaches were used on duplicate services, TOCs would need to provide an alternative way of transporting wheelchair users but it doesn't prevent them being used.

RRB are not a registered bus service-apart from Wedgwood and Barlaston of course! Which do, as a result, get accessible buses.

Is your local station in Wales? If not the 153s will be replaced by something else by the end of 2019, whether it's D-Trains, other Sprinters, Turbostars or even brand new trains (the Anglican routes are getting brand new FLIRTs to replace their 153s.)

No, it is sunny Longport! Not heard of any replacements for us yet, we can but dream of more than one coach though.

 

[WelshBluebird]

That is all well and good, and generally what happens. But in more remote areas, there just aren't the operators to choose from, and you have to take what you can get. if a TOC calls up and says we want fully accessible coaches "We haven't got any" is the response. If they are planning ahead "They cost more" is the response, How much fare rise would passengers take to have accessible coaches on the route instead of coaches? Price wins I am afraid. It might not be the way in the ideal world, but it is the world in which we live.

Ass I said, in my view we really shouldn't still be in a situation where operators have fleets of inaccessible vehicles. We have had ages to sort this out. The idea of accessibility is not a new one. Sadly, one now are people actually starting to take notice of it (and that is only because of the law).

The toilet issue isn't all about cost. Take the 153 as an example, the extra space required removes so many seats, as the unit becomes useless. At my local station, all we have is 153's So are we to have no toilets, no trains, or a toilet that everyone apart from wheelchair users can access? It is not ideal at all, and I accept that, but something is better than nothing.

Surely that is a problem of inadequate rolling stock though, rather than the concept of having an accessible toilet being too high a bar to reach.
There are solutions to issues like this, but the rail industry is too stubborn and too willing to do the easy thing instead.
In terms 153's, we are just about to have a load of pacers essentially scrapped. So instead of that, why can't they be sent to strengthen services currently just operated by a 153, then the 153 can be fitted with an accessible toilet without worrying much about loss of seats, and those services get extra capacity too! Now, I am sure it isn't quite as simple as that, but seriously, if the industry really wanted to do something about poor accessibility on the railways we would not be in this situation still (and that comment is not just about RRB's but about accessibility in general - e.g. putting in a steep ramp to a platform that a wheelchair user can't actually use without assistance and calling that "accessible").

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Ass I said, in my view we really shouldn't still be in a situation where operators have fleets of inaccessible vehicles. We have had ages to sort this out. The idea of accessibility is not a new one. Sadly, one now are people actually starting to take notice of it (and that is only because of the law).

If truth be known, the technology to produce accessible buses has been around for nearly 70 years! {think Bristol Lodekka, Leyland Lowloader et all}, but back in those dark distant days there wasn't a political or commercial will to make buses accessible for disabled people... indeed, dare I say it but back then the best attitude a disabled person could expect was pity with a shrug of the shoulders and "what can we do?"

It wasn't until the mid '90's that low floor single deckers became available, with DD's appearing at the turn of the century... and even then there was reluctance initially to purchase them as there was a cost premium of approx 15% over established types... something that the industry couldn't afford at the time commercially... especially with the extra cost having unknown benefits.

Now, ok, we are a quarter century on from those first low floor buses... so why has it taken so long for the whole of the bus park to become low floor? Quite simply... the total life of a bus is approx... you guessed it.... 25 yrs! So only now are the last step entrance buses disappearing from any form of service [apart from heritage]

Coaches were a completely different kettle of fish.... quite simply the problem of accessibility couldn't be cured by lowering the floor for the obvious reason that you need the luggage locker capacity! Once experiments took place with lifts in service, there were a number of issues raised, some of which, I'm afraid, still haven't been ironed out... so therefore accessible coaches are only now becoming the norm... for express coaches anyway... remember there is no law compelling an operator of coaches that only operates tours/ PH's to buy accessible coaches... and that really is the ultimate failure of accessibility legislation.... don't disabled people want to go on holiday? or on a day trip?

 

[kingqueen]

Surely this thread is overlooking the obvious - a heritage vehicle can be used on local bus services for up to 40 days per calendar year. So presuming rail replacement buses are legally local bus services even if a coach hire company only had 5 inaccessible coaches they could provide 2 vehicles to run rail replacement services every Saturday and Sunday for an entire year. OK unless those coaches were used on duplicate services, TOCs would need to provide an alternative way of transporting wheelchair users but it doesn't prevent them being used.

20 days actually, and only for coaches whose first use was over 20 years ago.

 

[Qwerty133]

20 days actually, and only for coaches whose first use was over 20 years ago.

Won't be a problem for a lot of dodgy smaller coach firms to provide poorly maintained coaches older than 20 years that are held together with masking tape

 

[pemma]

20 days actually, and only for coaches whose first use was over 20 years ago.

So just adjust the numbers and the same idea works.

 

[pemma]

Won't be a problem for a lot of dodgy smaller coach firms to provide poorly maintained coaches older than 20 years that are held together with masking tape

And if you're running a TPE replacement service don't worry it's up north so we're not fussed with nice to have features like wheels: https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/Bus-wheel-838041.jpg

 

[richw]

By "regulated" it means those bus and coaches that are subject to PSVAR. That bit about "regulated buses are those that must comply with PSVAR" simply means the context in question, in this case the Conduct Regulations, "regulated" means "those buses that are subject to PSVAR".

Your wrong. Rail replacement and private hire and tour operators are not regulated. There is no discussion around this, the rules are very much in black and white on this.

 

[richw]

Won't be a problem for a lot of dodgy smaller coach firms to provide poorly maintained coaches older than 20 years that are held together with masking tape

There’s only 3 inspectors to cover the whole of England and Wales. The chance of being caught is slim.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

There’s only 3 inspectors to cover the whole of England and Wales. The chance of being caught is slim.

are you sure about that? there are at least half a dozen VOSA {or whatever it's called this week} inspectors in S Wales that I know of!

 

[richw]

are you sure about that? there are at least half a dozen VOSA {or whatever it's called this week} inspectors in S Wales that I know of!

There are 3 that cover PSVAR compliance. There are many more that cover vehicle safety and roadworthiness

 

[Mugby]

Should a TOC be expected to source accessible buses/coaches if the stations on it's line aren't accessible anyway?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

There are 3 that cover PSVAR compliance. There are many more that cover vehicle safety and roadworthiness

oh right, sorry I misunderstood... though odd that the regular safety inspectors aren't trained to check PSVAR compliance...

 

[lincman]

At the moment, under the Pubic Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations, all buses that operate to a schedule and that carry any person or persons for whom payment has been made by somebody to anybody for their right to travel, are obliged to be wheelchair accessible. (Bar the 20-day-a-year heritage exemption.) Rail passengers have bought a ticket granting the entitlement to travel on rail replacement buses, which (theoretically) run to a timetable. So rail replacement buses have to be accessible.
Scheduled coaches don't have to be accessible, yet. As of 1st January 2020, they have to be in the same way as buses, as described above. NB: coaches used for private hire trips etc. aren't caught by this law, only those running to a schedule etc. as above.
I attempted to catch rail replacement services yesterday. There were many inaccessible coaches.
My concern is: come 2020, when there is a need for rail replacement buses, will there be sufficient accessible buses and coaches to meet the demand?

Please can define how payment by somebody fits within where separate fares are charged, and could you give your interpretation of section 6 1985 Transport act with regards to RRB

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Please can define how payment by somebody fits within where separate fares are charged, and could you give your interpretation of section 6 1985 Transport act with regards to RRB

therein lays the problem with the OP's argument.... I and others have all pointed out more than once no fares are charged on an RRB, no matter how much he wants to think they are... RRB services are a courtesy and free to use by anyone holding a valid rail ticket for that route therefore are considered at law a PH/contract and therefore do not come under PSVAR rules, or for that matter, local service rules or scheduled express!

 

[kingqueen]

Your wrong. Rail replacement and private hire and tour operators are not regulated. There is no discussion around this, the rules are very much in black and white on this.

Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 2000 s2(1):

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

So in this context, "regulated public service vehicle" only means vehicles that are subject to the accessibility regulations. It does not imply that they are regulated in some other way, for examine through registration with the Traffic Commissioner.

Regulation 3(1) states:

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
(2) A single-deck bus which weighs more than 7.5 tonnes and is in use on or after 31st December 2000...

And so on. It defines whether particular vehicles are subject to the PSVAR and from when, based on whether they are buses or coaches, how many decks they have, their weight, their manufacturing date and their date of first use.

That is the only meaning of "regulated public service vehicle" in this context. I understand it has different meanings in other contexts, but that isn't relevant to determination as to whether or not vehicles are subject to the PSVAR.

 

[kingqueen]

Should a TOC be expected to source accessible buses/coaches if the stations on it's line aren't accessible anyway?

Good question. Also TOCs already have to provide alternative transport for stations that disabled people can't access (which also includes e.g. blind people at unstaffed fully step free stations.)

But then the UK rail system is all interconnected (with the exception of the Island Line). I guess if the rail replacement bus was between the two last stations on a branch line, and both stations are wheelchair inaccessible, then providing accessible coaches may seem a bit overkill. However geographical circumstances in which wheelchair users would never be expected on a section of line must surely be relatively rare, because they may be passing through or whatever?

 

[kingqueen]

Please can define how payment by somebody fits within where separate fares are charged

Certainly. It is in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act S1(5)(b)&(c):

(b) a payment made for the carrying of a passenger shall be treated as a fare notwithstanding that it is made in consideration of other matters in addition to the journey and irrespective of the person by or to whom it is made;
(c) a payment shall be treated as made for the carrying of a passenger if made in consideration of a person’s being given a right to be carried, whether for one or more journeys and whether or not the right is exercised.

it's a very broad definition. If anybody has paid anybody some money for anything which includes "consideration of a person's being given a right to be carried" on a public service vehicle, then the journey is at separate fares.

and could you give your interpretation of section 6 1985 Transport act with regards to RRB

In the context of the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations, the obligation to register services with the Traffic Commissioners is irrelevant because the PSVAR makes no reference to said registration or otherwise. Its definition of which services are subject to the Accessibility Regulations is self-standing and makes no reference whatsoever to S6 of the Transport Act. So the fact that rail replacement buses are not required, or even able, to register with the Traffic Commissioners has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not they are subject to the public service vehicle accessibility regulations.