kingqueen
Member
I agree, by the wayAs I said several pages back, the difficulty is that different definitions are used for different purposes (PSVAR, drivers hours regs, requirement to register with the Traffic Commissioner etc).
I agree, by the wayAs I said several pages back, the difficulty is that different definitions are used for different purposes (PSVAR, drivers hours regs, requirement to register with the Traffic Commissioner etc).
I did no such thing, and no reasonable interpretation of what I wrote could come up with that conclusion.
I said that I have asked the Department for Transport, the Office of Rail and Road and the DVSA for their information as to whether (some) rail replacement services are subject to the accessibility regulations, and that I've commissioned a barrister to produce an informed opinion on the situation, and that whilst I haven't ruled out legal action down the line, I'm trying these other routes for an "official" answer before considering whether to take legal action. So I haven't made any decision to take legal action, I haven't even considered doing so yet - and when I do, I won't be "looking for a case to take to court".
Claiming this is "looking for a case to take to court" is unsupportable twisting of my words.
sorry but where did I claim that they had expressed an opinion... dare I say it, if you are going to ask someone to stop "twisting your words" then it isn't a good idea to twist that persons words in your response!It would mean that you are wrong, and that some other posters are wrong (not all.) However "the entire Bus/coach industry" hasn't expressed an opinion on this (you made a sweeping generalisation there), and the Traffic Commissioners and the Rail Regulatory authorities have neither given an opinion on the subject nor published anything stating either way. Which is why I'm asking them. So your claim that they believe that PSVAR doesn't apply to rail replacement buses is not verifiable.
The fact that you need a contract with a TOC before you board is irrelevant for the purposes of determination as to whether they are subject to PSVAR.
No, of course not, because it is provided under a different basis than that of those local services which are required to register with the Traffic Commissioner. But that is not relevant for the purposes of determination of applicability of PSVAR. It is not only services that are subject to the obligation to register with the Traffic Commissioners, that are subject to the PSVAR. That's why the PSVAR refer to Section 2 for the definition of local services, and not to Section 6.
Whether or not a service is a scheduled service under the Transport Act 1985 is irrelevant, because the PSVAR uses its own internal definition and criteria of a "Scheduled service" and makes no reference to the Act in this regard.
I'm not claiming anything of the sort. The simple fact is you purchase a rail ticket which means you enter a contract with the TOC to travel between 2 points. The fact that they then put you on a replacement bus is immaterial. you still haven't paid for a bus journey you've paid for a rail journey. They have just transferred you to a free, gratis, complimentary replacement bus. So you, as a passenger, haven't paid a fare to travel on the bus... now it could be argued that the train operator has paid a bus fare on your behalf... but they haven't. that's not how RRB contracts work. The bus operator isn't paid per passenger carried... or by how far that passenger travels.. the TOC will say to the bus operator "I need a bus for this saturday... 6am- midnight" the bus operator will then quote a price for the hire of the vehicle for that time period. The payment will not be dependant on how many passengers use the bus or how far they travel... therefore no seperate fares have been paid.
And the 1981 Public Passenger Vehicles Act.I would point out that PSVAR is a statutory instrument and not an act. The Act governing the operation of buses and coaches is still the 1985 Transport act
Where does it say in the regulations that the payment has to be to the bus operator? I don't believe it does.
At the end of the day, if I am travelling between Newport and Bristol Parkway and it is a replacement bus instead of a train, I have still paid a fare to travel on that bus. Sure it may have been a railway fare, but the regulations do not say it has to be a bus fare, and as journey is by bus and I paid the fare, in simple English, I have paid a fare to travel on the bus.
As I said, I think a lot of this is just down to very poor and vague wording. In no way do I think the regulations actually mean for such services to be included, but the poor wording means that at very least there is an argument that could be made.
I'm going to ask a rather strange question now.... you're on a plane back from Malaga to Luton Airport. Halfway back the captain says "Due to fog at Luton we will be diverting to Bristol. When we get there go to the customer services desk, as the airline has organised a coach to take you home, as an apology for the inconvenience caused, anyone who wishes to will be dropped at the bus stop nearest their door."
Now the question is... would that "Plane replacement service" be subject to PSVAR? after all it is could be argued that everyone on board has paid a fare!
No because such services would not be operating to a timetable and so cannot be called scheduled.
ok another example then.... Luton airport is closed... they lay on a shuttle bus service to Stansted because that's where all flights have been diverted to... they announce that the service will run every 5 minutes....now it is a scheduled service... but has a fare been paid for that service? that's the questionNo because such services would not be operating to a timetable and so cannot be called scheduled.
ok another example then.... Luton airport is closed... they lay on a shuttle bus service to Stansted because that's where all flights have been diverted to... they announce that the service will run every 5 minutes....
Seperate fares is the downfall in the theory. The bus company doesn’t receive seperate fares per passengers, they receive a set rate, approx £50 per hour on GWR for example.
Secondly buses join the queue at the origin station on planned replacement, therefore are not running to schedule as they get sent on their way by the controller when they are full.
Very much depends on the operation. Certainly on the South Wales Valleys when there are replacement buses between them and Cardiff, there absolutely is a timetable that services run to. As is there for the GWR replacement buses in operation between Newport and Bristol Parkway this weekend.
In which case, school buses should not need to be accessible.My simple rule of thumb is quite simple, if the service is available to the "General Public" it needs to be accessible. If the service is restricted ie: the passenger needs a specific pre purchased ticket as Rail ticket and the general public is excluded then it does not need to be accessible. Please do not think that I am in any way unsympathetic to your aspirations, but these things take time.
Yep.(b)references to a vehicle being “used” or “in use” means the regulated public service vehicle is being used to provide either a local service or a scheduled service."
Therefore only vehicles used on local or scheduled service are covered by PSVAR.
Yep. Scheduled services are defined in the PSVAR, local services defined in the PSVAR as being defined under S2 Transport Act. But:Ergo the question is whether Rail Replacements come under the scope of local/ scheduled services.
It may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to me, and I contend that rail replacement services do not meet the conditions to be exempted from being considered as a scheduled service, as defined under the PSVAR, or a local service, as defined under S2 Transport Act.obviously, Rail Replacement services do, one way or the other, meet the conditions to be exempted from being considered a scheduled/ local service.
Every service could disapply itself from this requirement, rail replacement or otherwise. I think that breaking it down like this is stretching the definition to breaking point.RRB is in operation from A to D via B and C.... what if the journey is considered 3 different journeys... A to B B to C and C to D... in that case everyone boarding at A have paid the same fare and have travelled the full length of route to B ok so half the people stay on board at B and go on to C... that is immaterial B to C is a seperate journey {much as happens on local services which have been "split" to comply with the 50km rule}
I note that you repeatedly ignore my posts regarding how RRB do not meet the definition of scheduled service under PSVAR due to the fact that no fares are charged.... you really are beginning to remind me of Vikki Pollard "yeah but no but yeah but" It seems to me that you will keep asking the same questions in different ways until everyone gives up and agrees with you... and you then ignore anything that you can't argue back against.Yep. Yep. Scheduled services are defined in the PSVAR, local services defined in the PSVAR as being defined under S2 Transport Act. But:
It may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to me, and I contend that rail replacement services do not meet the conditions to be exempted from being considered as a scheduled service, as defined under the PSVAR, or a local service, as defined under S2 Transport Act.
Every service could disapply itself from this requirement, rail replacement or otherwise. I think that breaking it down like this is stretching the definition to breaking point.
Again I say... you purchase your rail ticket... that means you enter into a contract with the TOC for you to travel with them... you get halfway to your destination and the line is blockaded and there is a replacement bus service {because the TOC has a mandatory obligation to provide the service} and you are transferred to the bus to complete your journey. What fare have you paid to get on that bus? It doesn't matter what is printed on your rail ticket, that is your fare for the rail journey. The point is that you have not paid a single penny to get on the bus. No fare. Nada. Therefore Rail Replacement Services are exempt from PSVAR.
but specifically, and this really does matter at law... your contract is for rail travel. Now the oddity at law of a TOC is, as I am sure you are aware, that they cannot refuse to enter into that contract. ie they can't say "sorry line closed, find an alternative way" they have to offer to complete your journey.I understand your point but disagree.
Paying for a rail fare entitles one to avail oneself of the services provided or procured by the TOC or TOCs concerned in order to get to the destination. Where part or all of that journey is disrupted and cannot be continued by rail, the TOC has an obligation to provide alternative transport wherever possible. This is typically by means of a rail replacement bus. So when paying for a fare, one is entering into a contract with the TOC for a fee; and that fee entitles one (as part of a package of rights) to access said alternative transport provided by the TOC.
Where disruption which results in the use of rail replacement buses is known about in advance, TOCs often refuse to convey cycles. Are they allowed to do that, in your opinion?I understand your point but disagree.
Paying for a rail fare entitles one to avail oneself of the services provided or procured by the TOC or TOCs concerned in order to get to the destination. Where part or all of that journey is disrupted and cannot be continued by rail, the TOC has an obligation to provide alternative transport wherever possible. This is typically by means of a rail replacement bus. So when paying for a fare, one is entering into a contract with the TOC for a fee; and that fee entitles one (as part of a package of rights) to access said alternative transport provided by the TOC.
An unquantifiable proportion of the rail fare, by which one enters into a contract with the TOC including the obligation of the TOC to make all reasonable efforts to get the passenger to the destination and the right of the passenger to travel on relevant services.Again I say... you purchase your rail ticket... that means you enter into a contract with the TOC for you to travel with them... you get halfway to your destination and the line is blockaded and there is a replacement bus service {because the TOC has a mandatory obligation to provide the service} and you are transferred to the bus to complete your journey. What fare have you paid to get on that bus?
I have been having a look at the National Rail Conditions of Travel. The conditions don't say that the fare paid for the ticket is solely paid for the rail portion.It doesn't matter what is printed on your rail ticket, that is your fare for the rail journey.
Quite clearly "scheduled", by-the-byWhen you buy a Ticket to travel on scheduled train services on the National Rail Network you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use. The Conditions set out the rights and obligations of passengers and the Train Companies...
If things go wrong we will, in the circumstances set out in this document below, ... make sure you get home by another means of transport ...
From time to time, it may be necessary to replace a train service with a bus or coach. ...
Wherever engineering work is planned in advance we will make you aware of any need to operate a rail replacement service. The Train Company or Licensed Retailer from whom your purchase your Ticket will include any extended or altered times in timetable information. This information will also be provided at www.nationalrail.co.uk so that you can make an informed decision about your travel plans.
So there is no difference between the Rail portions of the trip, and the Coach / Bus portions. The ticket covers those elements of the trip that are done by Coach, every bit as much as those portions of the trip that are done by Rail. Hence the fare paid incorporates the right to travel on the Coach / Bus segments just as much as it pays for the right to travel on the Rail segments.If the replacement is at short notice and you cannot complete your journey because we are unable to transport your luggage, articles, animals and/or cycles by road vehicle, and you therefore decided not to travel, you will be entitled to claim a refund...
In all other respects these Conditions apply to the use of rail replacement services
where does it say catagorically "scheduled"? in any case it has already been established in this thread that "scheduled" as in "planned" is not what is meant by PSVAR rules, but that the route runs to a fixed timetable, a set route and that differential fares are charged. Where, in the conditions of carriage does it specifically say you are paying to travel on an RRB? what the conditions of carriage is that you are entering into a contract with the TOC for them to get you to your destination.... and then sets down how they will effect that contract should they be unable to provide a train for that purpose. As I have now stated more than once, you purchase a rail ticket, but should the TOC not be able to meet their statutory duty to provide a train service they will provide a RRB free of charge to the passenger.An unquantifiable proportion of the rail fare, by which one enters into a contract with the TOC including the obligation of the TOC to make all reasonable efforts to get the passenger to the destination and the right of the passenger to travel on relevant services.I have been having a look at the National Rail Conditions of Travel. The conditions don't say that the fare paid for the ticket is solely paid for the rail portion.
Quite clearly "scheduled", by-the-by
So there is no difference between the Rail portions of the trip, and the Coach / Bus portions. The ticket covers those elements of the trip that are done by Coach, every bit as much as those portions of the trip that are done by Rail. Hence the fare paid incorporates the right to travel on the Coach / Bus segments just as much as it pays for the right to travel on the Rail segments.
So I still disagree with your interpretation.
I totally despair with some of the silliness on here. It's certainly a complicated issue but many people are just going over the same ground all the time. Nobody takes any notice of issues that don't suit their own personal agenda and it's made it impossible to have any sensible debate. Probably best if I just leave you to it - a test case would be a nice way forward and I hope it progresses in the way I expect it will.
but of course the problem is that TOC's are legally obliged to provide a replacement service if they are unable to operate the train service. catch 22 for them!I'd agree but for one concern. This is exactly the kind of case that legal teams thrive on, and could go on long enough for Whitehall civil servants to cave in and set regulations that mean only accessible vehicles can ever be offered, be there disabled persons that require them or not. And when it is not possible, which will happen, services will simply be cancelled completely to the detriment of able bodied and disabled people alike.
If they wanted to do that, they could have done so much more clearly, as they did (for other purposes) in S6 Transport Act 1985.to specifically exempt Rail Replacement services maybe?
The Conditions of Travel are clear that, with the exception of the potential practical inability to accept some types of luggage, articles, animals and cycles, in all other respects the conditions apply to the use of rail replacement services. So there is no reason to think that the rail replacement services are treated any different from the rail journey element they replace, in terms of fares.after all... the replacement bus is put on as a courtesy. you are not charged for it. therefore you don't pay a fare, therefore RRB's do not meet the test to be included in PSVAR rules
That is demonstrably incorrect; I have shown how the PSVAR interact with the Transport Act 1985 and the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981, in some detail; indeed I did so in the email you quote.Right, considering that you believe that PSVAR are the only rules that need to be considered [in glorious isolation to the rest of law]
It is your assertion that rail replacement buses are free. You have not backed that up with anything in statute (be it primary or secondary legislation) or anywhere else; you have just repeated it many times in the assumption that by doing so you are an inalienable and unquestionable authority of that fact.you cannot or will not explain what fares have been paid... again I point out that you get on the replacement bus for free... there is no way round this fact, no matter how much you try.
no, what it means is that the replacement bus service does not nullify any duty or obligation that either party to the contract {pax/ TOC} has... so in the same way as, for example, if you were abusive towards a member of the TOCs staff you would be refused travel without recompense then the same conditions apply to the RRBIf they wanted to do that, they could have done so much more clearly, as they did (for other purposes) in S6 Transport Act 1985.
The Conditions of Travel are clear that, with the exception of the potential practical inability to accept some types of luggage, articles, animals and cycles, in all other respects the conditions apply to the use of rail replacement services. So there is no reason to think that the rail replacement services are treated any different from the rail journey element they replace, in terms of fares.
If any of the station stops on the rail replacement service are less than 15 miles apart, then those elements of the route are "local services" - you could end up with (say) two "local services" with an over-15-mile segment between them that isn't, for example.Now, I'm not an expert, but if a "Scheduled Service" has to include "(a)along specified routes,
(b)at specified times" then this doesn't include RRB, or at least ALL RRB, so are therefore excluded.
I can pay for the fare right now on any of a number of TOC and third party websites - just tried!I have tried to pay to travel on one, but there is simply no way to! However much I tried Alsager to Longport return can simply not be paid for. There is no way at all to pay
ok so you keep of accusing me of being wrong, and failing to back up my assertions... so provide the evidence that, at law, you have been deemed to have paid a fare to use the RRB. At the end of the day, you are the one who asks questions, gets given answers, and then spends hours going yeah but no but. I have been consistent in my answers to you. I don't have all the legal documents surrounding me and at hand but I have been involved in RRB's both as a driver and organiser, so know what guidelines I am expected to abide by... so please if you really do think that the law states that you have paid to use the RRB then please test it at court.That is demonstrably incorrect; I have shown how the PSVAR interact with the Transport Act 1985 and the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981, in some detail; indeed I did so in the email you quote.
It is your assertion that rail replacement buses are free. You have not backed that up with anything in statute (be it primary or secondary legislation) or anywhere else; you have just repeated it many times in the assumption that by doing so you are an inalienable and unquestionable authority of that fact.
I have shown that the Conditions of Travel - which set out the basis of the contract entered into when a ticket is bought - state that aside for the practical elements affecting what luggage can be carried, for the purposes of the contract rail replacement buses are to be treated the same as the trains they replace.
Where is your evidence that rail replacement buses are free? What is your basis for stating this? What legal basis? Because that's what we're talking about; the applicability of the accessibility regulations to rail replacement buses, through the various primary and secondary legislation. And to the best of my knowledge, nowhere does any of it state that rail replacement services are considered to be "free". On the contrary, as you have previously stated, they are to meet the obligation on the part of the train operating company to enable passengers who have purchased a ticket, to complete the journey set out on that ticket, and are legally treated precisely the same as the train they replace.