Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

[Dai Corner]

I suspect that most wheelchair users would not be happy at 40mph on a bus between Watford and Milton Keynes.

But at least they'd be in the same boat (sorry, bus) as their fellow passengers, which is what some seem to want (even if they could be in a 70mph taxi).

 

[harz99]

TBH, my feeling is that this thread has run it's course.

The same opinions by the opposing sides keep getting rehashed and nothing new is forthcoming. Various tangents have come and gone.

Time to lock the thread surely?

 

[Deafdoggie]

On most public bus services the defined stops are so close together that there's only one plausible route they could take between any pair of stops; effectively the stops define the route.

But where that isn't the case, I've encountered variation between drivers. For instance, around a decade ago I often caught a bus out of Leeds bus station with its next stop on Boar Lane; about half the days, the bus would leave the bus station and turn left at the roundabout (along Eastgate) and half turn right (down St Peter's Street). Both ways worked; they varied in distance, traffic lights, and queues, so one wasn't clearly better than t'other.

For practical purposes (where passengers could board and alight the bus, and and what times) the overall ‘route’ of the buses was the same in both cases; it was a scheduled bus service, operating to a published timetable.

There will be a defined route, and drivers should stick to it. But there are times when, if there are no stops, it doesn’t matter-but it still should be using the registered route.

 

[lincman]

There will be a defined route, and drivers should stick to it. But there are times when, if there are no stops, it doesn’t matter-but it still should be using the registered route.

Rail Replacement services are not registered ergo, no route to follow

 

[Dai Corner]

Rail Replacement services are not registered ergo, no route to follow

Out of interest, when an operator registers a local bus service with the Traffic Commissioner how much detail of the route does he have to give? Each stop, obviously, but what else? For example, one route I am familiar with calls at Newport bus station, then Cwmbran bus station which is about five miles away and there are at least two sensible routes between them.

 

[richw]

Out of interest, when an operator registers a local bus service with the Traffic Commissioner how much detail of the route does he have to give? Each stop, obviously, but what else? For example, one route I am familiar with calls at Newport bus station, then Cwmbran bus station which is about five miles away and there are at least two sensible routes between them.

Full details of every road used. This is the form they submit

https://assets.publishing.service.g..._data/file/716511/PSV350_-_amended_May_18.pdf

 

[lincman]

When registering a service you must state the start and finish point and every road and street used and any variation eg where a route deviates due to one way streets each street must be limited, the regulations are most prescriptive. Have a look ay PSV355a it will show how much information is required

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder of our Forum Rules, especially those under the heading 'Respectful'.

Our rules do also state that "if any content causes you concern, please alert us to it, by reporting it."

Please do not attempt to contact moderators by posting on the forum. Any contact relating directly to a post should be done through the report button, and general queries using the 'Contact Us' form. If a post isn't reported, there can be no expectation we have seen it.

Apologies for the interruption, it is good to see the thread is back on topic

 

[Dai Corner]

Full details of every road used. This is the form they submit

https://assets.publishing.service.g..._data/file/716511/PSV350_-_amended_May_18.pdf

When registering a service you must state the start and finish point and every road and street used and any variation eg where a route deviates due to one way streets each street must be limited, the regulations are most prescriptive. Have a look ay PSV355a it will show how much information is required

Thanks.

Specifying the route in this much detail is a key difference to RR services, where surely only the stations to be called at will be specified. I think this lends weight to the argument that PSVAR don't apply to RR, since a condition (quoted several times above) is that the service follows a specified route.

 

[Robertj21a]

Although many recent postings have, understandably, now been removed it's worth just highlighting that there will never be any proper answers to the various questions posed without at least a test case in the courts.

 

[Smylers]

... there will never be any proper answers to the various questions posed without at least a test case in the courts.

Presumably that would be against the train operator, rather than the contracted bus provider?

Does PSVAR mention remedies or sanctions for breaking its rules?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Presumably that would be against the train operator, rather than the contracted bus provider?

Does PSVAR mention remedies or sanctions for breaking its rules?

That's the odd thing about the law... any test case would likely be against the contracted bus provider... after all the onus is on the bus operator to comply with PSVAR

 

[Smylers]

That's the odd thing about the law... any test case would likely be against the contracted bus provider... after all the onus is on the bus operator to comply with PSVAR

Hmmm, but the passenger's ticket is with the train operator; it's the TOC's responsibility to provide suitable transport. The passenger quite likely doesn't even know who the bus operator is.

If the TOC contract a third party to provide something, and that third party provides exactly what's requested by the TOC, then it doesn't seem like it's the third party's fault if the TOC should've asked for something different.

 

[Dai Corner]

Hmmm, but the passenger's ticket is with the train operator; it's the TOC's responsibility to provide suitable transport. The passenger quite likely doesn't even know who the bus operator is.

If the TOC contract a third party to provide something, and that third party provides exactly what's requested by the TOC, then it doesn't seem like it's the third party's fault if the TOC should've asked for something different.

More for the lawyers to get paid to argue about!

 

[lincman]

Rail Replacement are in fact a Private Hire arranged by a TOC to convey it's passengers only on a section of route which is impassable by rail. There is no implied public service as defined by law.

 

[Robertj21a]

Rail Replacement are in fact a Private Hire arranged by a TOC to convey it's passengers only on a section of route which is impassable by rail. There is no implied public service as defined by law.

Can you provide something that proves that ? - it sounds like just someone's interpretation, which is why I said anything on this whole topic will need at least a test case through the courts.

This thread is now all a bit of a waste of everyone's time as we're merely going over the same ground time and time again.

 

[lincman]

It is quite simple you cannot board the vehicle without a rail ticket, so it is not a scheduled public service, it is not registered with the Traffic Commissioners so it is not a Local Service, and the vehicle operator must not carry any passengers who is not in possession of a rail ticket. I will go so far as to say I doubt if there will ever be a test case as Rail Replacement has absolutely nothing to do with bus and coach operations.

 

[Robertj21a]

It is quite simple you cannot board the vehicle without a rail ticket, so it is not a scheduled public service, it is not registered with the Traffic Commissioners so it is not a Local Service, and the vehicle operator must not carry any passengers who is not in possession of a rail ticket. I will go so far as to say I doubt if there will ever be a test case as Rail Replacement has absolutely nothing to do with bus and coach operations.

So, as I suggested, just your interpretation. I can easily disagree with you on a wide range of issues but it's of no use to either of us without a court ruling.

 

[lincman]

I have to say that although was fun, it is has now become tiresome. If people think that for one minute that the hundreds of operators, the Train Operating Companies, The DVAS and the police(disability discrimination is a criminal offence) are not aware of the relevant laws for this or any type of operation your are I sadly mistaken. There has been no prosecutions for this type of operation because no offences have been committed. You can have interpretation and easily disagree with me, but again I state this is not a matter for conjecture the laws are quite explicit, the only way to get a court ruling is bring one yourself but who against?

 

[kingqueen]

But at least they'd be in the same boat (sorry, bus) as their fellow passengers, which is what some seem to want (even if they could be in a 70mph taxi).

If the 70mph taxi was reliable, safe and comfy I would of course be happy with such. But the reality of my experience is that they aren't any of these things.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

If the 70mph taxi was reliable, safe and comfy I would of course be happy with such. But the reality of my experience is that they aren't any of these things.

But to be fair, that is more a failing of the taxi trade/ regulation and without wishing to sound controversial why should bus operators be burdened with more regulation etc just because taxi regulation is so lax? I, for one, believe it's about time taxi drivers were subjected to the same level of scrutiny regarding driving standards as bus drivers are... why is it if you drive a minibus with 8 seats for hire & reward {to use an old fashioned phrase} you need nothing but a car licence... whereas if your minibus has 9 or more seats you need a PCV... after all both drivers are engaged in the same activity... driving one or more people for a fare...

 

[kingqueen]

Hmmm, but the passenger's ticket is with the train operator; it's the TOC's responsibility to provide suitable transport. The passenger quite likely doesn't even know who the bus operator is.

If the TOC contract a third party to provide something, and that third party provides exactly what's requested by the TOC, then it doesn't seem like it's the third party's fault if the TOC should've asked for something different.

I agree about the dichotomy between the TOC being the service provider and yet the contracted bus company being subject to the Act and thus liable.

I guess one could argue: if the contract specified other issues which broke the law, e.g. that the buses should go at 80mph, the bus company would still be breaking the law if they complied with that contract.

Or, perhaps, if the contract didn't specify at what speed they should go, the default assumption would be: within the speed limit and safety, as required by the law. So perhaps bus and train companies could expect or imply that all such transport to be PSVAR compliant because the law requires it (if indeed it does).

 

[kingqueen]

1) public services don't have to be open to the public to be defined as such - the prime example being school buses, many of which are only open to children, going to specified schools, and with prior agreement (often involving payment) between the child('s parents or guardian) and the local authority

2) local services are not the same thing as registered local services, and PSVAR applies to the former, not just the latter

3) rail replacement services are not provided "free" / "gratis", as confirmed by the Department for Transport

4) My my view is as valid as anybody else's, irrespective of their position and esoteric within the industry. Disagreeing with somebody else's interpretation is not a degrading insult to their profession and experience and should not be taken as such.

 

[kingqueen]

But to be fair, that is more a failing of the taxi trade/ regulation and without wishing to sound controversial why should bus operators be burdened with more regulation etc just because taxi regulation is so lax? I, for one, believe it's about time taxi drivers were subjected to the same level of scrutiny regarding driving standards as bus drivers are... why is it if you drive a minibus with 8 seats for hire & reward {to use an old fashioned phrase} you need nothing but a car licence... whereas if your minibus has 9 or more seats you need a PCV... after all both drivers are engaged in the same activity... driving one or more people for a fare...

Yes, taxis should be more reliable, more comfortable and not transport people in a dangerous fashion, I agree.

 

[lincman]

I agree the situation is a difficult one, but as kingqueen stated if the contract specified requires, if it is indeed a contract between a coach operator and a TOC PSVAR does not apply.

 

[kingqueen]

Specifying the route in this much detail is a key difference to RR services, where surely only the stations to be called at will be specified. I think this lends weight to the argument that PSVAR don't apply to RR, since a condition (quoted several times above) is that the service follows a specified route.

I agree that the fact that other services' routes are specified in such detail makes it more likely that it could be determined that rail replacement services aren't following a specified route, and thus not subject to PSVAR on that basis.

Doubtless more for lawyers to chew upon if it ever did become a test case...

 

[kingqueen]

I agree the situation is a difficult one, but as kingqueen stated if the contract specified requires, if it is indeed a contract between a coach operator and a TOC PSVAR does not apply.

...PSVAR still applies when a coach operator runs school buses under contract with the Local Authority, even if PSVAR isn't specified in the contract.

 

[kingqueen]

PLEASE NOTE: My comment was not aimed at you in any way shape or form... rather it was aimed at a particular poster who keeps on posting exactly the same message to anyone who dares to argue against his {and by extension} your viewpoint. His posts add nothing to the debate and are designed purely to bully any opposition into just giving up and not posting. I'm sorry if you thought that it was in any way aimed at you

Thanks, noted and appreciated.
At risk of going off topic: my impression is that said poster is simply responding to others' similarly repeated posts, making clear that said posts are opinion and as we all seem to believe the actual position will only ever be settled by a test case (if there is ever one)

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

out of interest... a little bit of lateral thinking... to speed up the availability of compliant coaches have you thought about campaigning to make ALL coaches legally required to be compliant no matter what use they are for? After all... why shouldn't a wheelchair user be able to go on a coach holiday? And if tour coaches had to be compliant then the entire coach fleet would become compliant a lot faster.... just a thought....

 

[lincman]

...PSVAR still applies when a coach operator runs school buses under contract with the Local Authority, even if PSVAR isn't specified in the contract.

Not if the service is not available to the public, ie: is not registered with the traffic commissioners