• 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.

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
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....
I agree entirely on that,
The thought makes me exhausted, though!
 
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
Not if the service is not available to the public, ie: is not registered with the traffic commissioners
Round the circle we go again...

PSVAR applies to local services, as defined by Section 2 of the Transport Act 1985, not just registered local services as defined by Section 6 of the Transport Act 1985.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
Having read all the relevant pieces of legislation involved I've got to say that it is, at best, a totally shambolic and confused situation; not helped by different pieces of legislation using the same terms to mean totally different things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
The Office of Rail and Road have published full legal advice on the applicability of the accessibility regulations to rail replacement buses.
To summarise: bar some exceptional circumstances, it is required that rail replacement vehicles are compliant with PSVAR, i.e. are wheelchair accessible. Train operating companies who procure inaccessible rail replacement services are criminally liable.
The ORR are now re-consulting on TOC accessibility guidance on this point.

In that case I can see the facility being removed in some areas!
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
Selected relevant quotes from Counsel's advice to the ORR
"It should be noted for the sake of completeness that “local services” which are rail replacement services are not subject to the requirement to be registered with the traffic commissioner: see s. 6(1) and (1D) of the Transport Act 1985. The Regulations do not specify that only registered local services are included; they refer to all “local services” which therefore in principle includes rail replacement services."
The rail passenger’s fare includes the right to be carried by rail and by road where necessary / applicable. It is thus a service which includes one for carriage by road.
(emphasis in original)
it does not matter that the passenger does not pay the bus or coach company for the road service. S/he is paying a “separate fare” in the sense of an individual fare paid to the TOC which entitles the passenger to be carried by road.
the types of rail replacement services which will not be “regulated public service vehicles” “in use” are those services which are non-local (such as long distance services which have at least 15 miles between each stop) and which are also non-scheduled i.e. do not have scheduled stopping points, times or routes. This would appear to be a fairly unlikely combination, at least for planned services, so far as I am aware.
Otherwise, it will only be those services which are otherwise exempt i.e. because the vehicle providing the service satisfies the 20 day rule, which do not need to comply with the Regulations.
Does it make a difference if the service is planned or unplanned?
There is no distinction in the Regulations between planned and unplanned services, as follows from the reasoning set out above. Thus, so long as a service is either “local” or “scheduled” (or both), it will be covered by the Regulations, whether or not it is a last minute service.
unless the TOC has used at least all reasonable endeavours to satisfy itself that services which fall within the Regulations are going to be provided using vehicles which have accessibility certificates, it seems to me that it will be putting itself at risk at least of criminal liability (whether jointly with the bus providers, or otherwise). The circumstances would have to be clear enough to give rise to such liability (the criteria for local or scheduled services being provided would need to be sufficiently clear in advance) because of the criminal nature of the liability; but this would seem likely in light of the advice given above.
Accordingly, subject to the limited exemptions, a significant proportion of rail replacement services will need to comply with the Regulations. The main exemptions are vehicles more than 20 years old which are providing the service for less than 20 days per year, and long-distance services (where all stops are 15 miles or more apart) which are also unscheduled. The scope for these would appear to be relatively limited.
Those using and operating the vehicles are thus likely to be in contravention of the criminal offence under section 175 of the EA if they are providing the service in vehicles which do not comply with the Regulations. However, my view is that there is at least a material risk that TOCs who are contracting for the provision of these services could also be caught by the criminal offence by virtue of section 175(1)(1)(c) because they may be “causing or permitting” a regulated public service vehicle to be used on a road without complying with the Regulations.
Plain English:
Therefore, it is likely that most rail replacement services do need to be accessible to disabled people in order to comply with the law. The only ones that do not are non-local, un-scheduled services i.e. long-distance services which do not have specified stops, times or routes. There is also an exemption for services provided by vehicles which are 20 years old and which are only used for providing that service less than 20 days a year.
The final issue is who would be guilty of the criminal offence if a rail replacement service did not comply with the law. This has not been tested in relation to rail replacement services, but my view is that it is not just the bus / coach companies who are at risk, but also potentially the train companies themselves because they can be said to be the ones causing the services to happen and it can be said to be within their power to ensure that only compliant vehicles are used.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
The likelyhood is there isn’t enough supply to meet demand. Will we see coach companies refusing the work? Or just worse availability than at present trying to find a RR
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
This is very interesting, albeit still just 'Advice' at this stage. Many rail replacements are operated by coaches, partly because they are better suited to carry luggage than buses, and partly because coaches are often more readily available than buses. The proportion of PSVAR-compliant coaches is slowly increasing (largely due to surplus ex-National Express coaches being sold on to other operators) but there is a sizeable deficiency at present.

I see a dilemma on the horizon.
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,035
We had ex-NatExpress, and had the wheelchair option removed. If forced to have accessible buses, I see there just being no transport at all. Be careful what you wish for. If it turns out disabled people did away with public transport for everyone else, I can see the equality we fought so hard for to be taken away again
 

Sweetjesus

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2019
Messages
149
I read through first few pages of this thread. I do see a lot of people mentioning why such scenario has not been tested in a court.

The truth is that equality act claims are very rare. It is rare enough that court staff usually do not know how to deal with the claim and more than likely than not will make a court error by mishandling the case at least once at some point.

Claiming the given scenario is not an Equality Act violation because it hasn't been tested in a court is flawed assumption to make and shouldn't be mentioned at all.

We had ex-NatExpress, and had the wheelchair option removed. If forced to have accessible buses, I see there just being no transport at all. Be careful what you wish for. If it turns out disabled people did away with public transport for everyone else, I can see the equality we fought so hard for to be taken away again
Unfortunately true.

But I'm inclined to say if such service cannot be reasonably adjusted to be accessible for most of people, the service should not be provided in the first place. Companies exist to make money and they should make money in a way that's fair for the most people.
 

Parham Wood

Member
Joined
13 Jun 2011
Messages
329
Would a simpler solution in the meantime be to provide taxis for disabled people (those who cannot board coaches without disabled facilities)? Some sort of pre-booking arrangement would be required. An inconvenience for the disabled but better than no buses for everyone.
 

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
2,943

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
We had ex-NatExpress, and had the wheelchair option removed. If forced to have accessible buses, I see there just being no transport at all. Be careful what you wish for. If it turns out disabled people did away with public transport for everyone else, I can see the equality we fought so hard for to be taken away again

As you've warned several times above. And doubtless many will see disabled people as being responsible for this situation. Whereas I see the whole situation as being caused by the industry's failure to comply with the criminal law, that being the law we fought for that obliges transport operators to move to accessible buses and coaches in steps by 2020. It is RRB providers and TOCs that have not complied with their criminal law obligations that are at fault.
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
Would a simpler solution in the meantime be to provide taxis for disabled people (those who cannot board coaches without disabled facilities)? Some sort of pre-booking arrangement would be required.
That is what currently happens.
An inconvenience for the disabled but better than no buses for everyone.
This simpler solution has the disadvantage that it requires TOCs and rail replacement vehicle providers to commit a criminal offence.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,085
One solution is using accessible buses rather than non-accessible coaches. This should be doable on a Sunday but more difficult during the rest of the week when the buses are likely to be working scheduled services.

And probably impossible if it is an emergnecy service during a weekday rush hour.
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
And probably impossible if it is an emergnecy service during a weekday rush hour.

I agree.
Train operating companies are now in the impossible solution that there are insufficient available accessible vehicles such that when they have to provide rail replacement services they have no choice but to provide inaccessible vehicles, but to provide inaccessible vehicles is illegal, unless one of the specific or limited exemptions apply
 

Temple Meads

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2010
Messages
2,230
Location
Devon
Standard service buses are often unsuitable for rail replacement work, especially on long trips, having next to no luggage space and usually rather uncomfortable compared to a coach, and that's if you can find enough to do the work!
 

cainebj

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
2,622
Location
UK
Whereas I see the whole situation as being caused by the industry's failure to comply with the criminal law, that being the law we fought for that obliges transport operators to move to accessible buses and coaches in steps by 2020. It is RRB providers and TOCs that have not complied with their criminal law obligations that are at fault.

I think it's quite unfair to blame the operators with this one. The fact is the laws regarding transport accessibility are rather poorly written and are greatly open to interpretation. You could ask 5 industry experts to clarify what the accessibility laws mean as are currently written, and you could get 5 different responses back. It is becoming clearer now that the industry-wide generalised interpretation has been the wrong one. To me the real people at fault are those who wrote the laws so open to interpretation to begin with, there should have been greater clarity from the outset as to what is in scope of the regulations and what is not. The industry is currently going through the same arguments with home to school services due to lack of clarity. The vagueness and open interpretation is failing passengers with disabilities.

In my opinion it is quite telling that the ORR has only sought this "provisional advice" to clarify the situation now in September 2019, when coaches used on rail replacement that were built new since 2001 should have been complying with PSVAR (Schedule 3 only for coaches new between 1st January 2001 and 31st December 2004, full schedules 1 and 3 for coaches since 1st January 2005). That is a potential 18 years where many PSV operators and rail replacement providers have been in breach of the law, and all because of how poorly written and open to interpretation it is. Why is it only being questioned now 18 years after the first new coaches should have been complying?

DVSA do from time to time conduct roadside checks at railway stations to ensure operators are complying with the law, which does include PSVAR compliance. They have seemingly never questioned the lack of PSVAR compliance on any of the vehicles used during any of their spot checks, have they been working to the same lack of clarity over what is in scope and what isn't?
 

Temple Meads

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2010
Messages
2,230
Location
Devon
IF vehicles used on emergency rail replacement work have to be accessible then that will mean lots of passengers having to wait longer for transport, probably indefinitely in some cases.
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
The fact is the laws regarding transport accessibility are rather poorly written and are greatly open to interpretation.
I agree that they are over complicated and that a clear Government statement as to the applicability of the regulations to RRBs, written 19 years ago, would indeed have been of great benefit to all.
DVSA do from time to time conduct roadside checks at railway stations to ensure operators are complying with the law, which does include PSVAR compliance. They have seemingly never questioned the lack of PSVAR compliance on any of the vehicles used during any of their spot checks, have they been working to the same lack of clarity over what is in scope and what isn't?
I agree there are significant questions as to why the DVSA, as the regulator with responsibility for PSVAR compliance, hasn't taken either proactive or reactive action on this issue.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
Regarding DVSA not dealing with non compliance with psvar on rail replacements. Coaches aren’t required to comply until 1/1/20 so as yet not relevant
 

cainebj

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
2,622
Location
UK
Regarding DVSA not dealing with non compliance with psvar on rail replacements. Coaches aren’t required to comply until 1/1/20 so as yet not relevant

It is actually relevant. Any coach built from 1st January 2001 being used on scheduled service has had to comply with schedule 3 (destination boards, grab rails, floor slope angles, step heights), and any coach built from 1st January 2005 has had to comply with schedules 1 and 3 (full wheelchair accessibility). 1st January 2020 is just the date for all coaches to comply with schedules 1 and 3 to be used on scheduled service.

Table.jpg

Source: DVSA MovingOn blog
 

Smylers

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2010
Messages
30
Location
Ilkley
I think it's quite unfair to blame the operators with this one. The fact is the laws regarding transport accessibility are rather poorly written and are greatly open to interpretation.
That's true ... but only if you accept that operators should do the least they can get away with under the law.

An operator could still choose to ensure that wheelchair users are suitably catered for, even with an unclear law, or indeed no law at all. Apparently they don't, which is why a law is needed. But that's no reason to portray operators as blameless.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
As you've warned several times above. And doubtless many will see disabled people as being responsible for this situation. Whereas I see the whole situation as being caused by the industry's failure to comply with the criminal law, that being the law we fought for that obliges transport operators to move to accessible buses and coaches in steps by 2020. It is RRB providers and TOCs that have not complied with their criminal law obligations that are at fault.

A large-scale RRB operation is very different from a bus or road coach operation, though. Often several coaches replace one train. There's really no need for all of them to be accessible, any more than there is any need for a wheelchair space and a large bog in every coach of a 12-car London commuter service.

What is needed is equivalence of opportunity to travel - i.e., if a wheelchair user rocks up, they wait no longer than a non-wheelchair user to travel.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
A large-scale RRB operation is very different from a bus or road coach operation, though. Often several coaches replace one train. There's really no need for all of them to be accessible, any more than there is any need for a wheelchair space and a large bog in every coach of a 12-car London commuter service.

What is needed is equivalence of opportunity to travel - i.e., if a wheelchair user rocks up, they wait no longer than a non-wheelchair user to travel.

I hesitate to disagree but in my view this is never going to be remotely achievable because no one knows how many wheelchair users are going to turn up at the same time so any spaces provided might already be occupied.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
I hesitate to disagree but in my view this is never going to be remotely achievable because no one knows how many wheelchair users are going to turn up at the same time so any spaces provided might already be occupied.

On a train there’s one or two wheel chair spaces, like wise on the Booked replacement transport in my opinion there should be a similar or greater number of wheelchair accessibility. A HST carried 500ish with 2 wheelchair spaces from memory. That would take 10 coaches to replace with 2 wheelchair spaces between them to match the trains capacity.
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
On a train there’s one or two wheel chair spaces, like wise on the Booked replacement transport in my opinion there should be a similar or greater number of wheelchair accessibility. A HST carried 500ish with 2 wheelchair spaces from memory. That would take 10 coaches to replace with 2 wheelchair spaces between them to match the trains capacity.

I can see the logic and the maths.
That's not the way the law is currently constructed, however.
I can't see the law being changed any time soon.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,304
Location
Isle of Man
We had ex-NatExpress, and had the wheelchair option removed. If forced to have accessible buses, I see there just being no transport at all.

If coach companies are actively removing wheelchair lifts because it costs them money to maintain, then that is an industry problem. Blaming disabled people for it seems a bit rich.

Yes, disability rules might increase RRB contract prices, but as the rail industry are receiving rail fares without having the cost of running a rail service the rail industry can afford it.

Plaxton have just launched a low floor coach, so the excuses won't wash anymore. It's not even that every RRB has to be accessible, just that each scheduled departure has to have an accessible option (run an accessible coach and non-acvessible duplicates).

Just to add, from 1 January 2020 PSVAR will apply to all coaches used on "in-scope" work, i.e. if a fare is charged. Guidance states this can be charged and paid indirectly, e.g. a concert ticket which includes travel as part of the package.

https://www.route-one.net/news/psvar_in_coaches__how_will_changes_affect_you_/

So availability will have to increase.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sprunt

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2017
Messages
1,156
Apologies if it's already been mentioned somewhere in this 19 page thread, but to avoid me reading the whole thing, how long ago would TOCs have known about the requirements that come into force in 2020?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top