RRB with non-working chair lift

[randyrippley]

At the moment Rainford-Kirkby (Merseyside) is an RRB service while the Headbolt Lane works are carried out.

Today I saw a totally unacceptable failure to provide support to a wheelchair user.
He got on the train at Wigan Wallgate, using a joystick controlled electric wheelchair. He was unaccompanied and from what I could see had a level of disability similar to Steven Hawking (I apologise in advance if I'm offending anyone, no insults intended).
I presume he had ramp assistance getting on/off the train, but I next saw him at the RRB bus stop on the road which passes over the station.
The RRB was an ex-Stagecoach high-floor coach which had clearly seen better days and had a wheelchair lift fitted to run in the front entrance. The coach was painted blue and branded as "The Big Coach Company.
I got on, as did another passenger and his son. When it became the wheelchair users turn to board, it was first necessary to remove the safety handrail which stops anyone from falling down the steps. This has a vertical hinge, and locking device which holds it firmly to the floor. Too firmly - the driver was unable to release the locking device. Both I and the other passenger tried but also failed. Getting Northern to call a taxi was suggested, but discarded as the station was unstaffed.
After around ten minutes the driver apologised to the wheelchair user and stated he would have to wait fifteen minutes for the next bus. I didn't hear what the reply was (if any) but the wheelchair user set off down the road, with what intention I have no idea. We left, leaving him behind, after a few minutes crossing with the next RRB - which looked an identical machine, so may well have had the same problem.

So you have a disabled person offloaded from a train and abandoned at an unmanned station
An RRB which is either faulty, or has an untrained driver
No way of resolving the issue by calling a taxi.

Not Northern's finest day


PS - If the chap involved is reading this, I apologise for raising the issue without speaking to you first, but that would have been impossible and the problem is too serious to ignore

 

[skyhigh]

PS - If the chap involved is reading this, I apologise for raising the issue without speaking to you first, but that would have been impossible and the problem is too serious to ignore

Have you raised it somewhere other than here?

 

[randyrippley]

Have you raised it somewhere other than here?

no, wasn't sure what / how / where to

 

[skyhigh]

no, wasn't sure what / how / where to

Northern customer services would be a good starting point.

Northern will specify an accessible vehicle. If the vehicle isn't supplied to that specification it isn't really their fault - the supplier (in this case Arriva Road Travel) should be auditing and managing the vehicles they use.

If Arriva haven't logged the issue Northern might be unaware - particularly if you say the station was unmanned and no Northern staff were present.

 

[Mak1981]

I'm fairly certain that this may actually have been a criminal offence, I'm sure that if a wheel chair compliant vehicle is sent out on the road with a defect such as this it's actually a criminal offence, I do know that if a wheel chair accessible taxi is out on the road and the ramp has been forgotten that is actually an offence so I would imagine this would also be, unless the fault had just occurred but that I would guess would probably be unlikely

So I would maybe even consider at least reporting the issue to the traffic commissioner or even the police

 

[Roger1973]

Would have thought that testing the ramp / lift ought to be part of the driver's start of day checks.

It's a while since I did rail replacement control work, and we didn't have wheelchair lift fitted vehicles then, so I don't know if the controllers at the start of the vehicle's working are expected to request a test of this kit. I wasn't expected to do detailed checks of vehicles when I did it.

Presume that there was no rail replacement controller at this particular station? (in which case they should have contacted duty manager / control room) - alternatively, would have thought that coach driver should have had a contact phone number in case of any problems, and this would seem a reasonable thing to contact them for rather than just leave a passenger behind in these circumstances.

Not entirely sure this is a 'criminal offence' - not every breach of the law constitutes a criminal offence - traffic commissioners might take an interest if the detail can be reported, and whoever organises rail replacement for this TOC ought to take it up.

Whether the TOC will want to take up a complaint raised by a third party, I wouldn't like to say.

 

[Mak1981]

Not entirely sure this is a 'criminal offence' - not every breach of the law constitutes a criminal offence - traffic commissioners might take an interest if the detail can be reported, and whoever organises rail replacement for this TOC ought to take it up.

A quick look through Google suggests it is an offence, potentially 6 penalty points and £2500 fine for driver for failing to meet the required standards, more likely the company to be prosecuted but the driver is potentially on the hook as well

 

[Bill57p9]

It is almost certainly a breach of contract: Arriva Road Travel contracted by Northern to provide an accessible vehicle which they failed to do.

Certainly it needs to be reported so that organisational lessons can be learned to avoid a repeat.

 

[Class800]

Not sure how it's a breach if they did their best but there was a fault with the vehicle. Things aren't perfect, mechanical issues happen. Yet they should try their best to find an alternative way, which they did, the next bus, and we don't know if that worked or not.

 

[Towers]

Not sure how it's a breach if they did their best but there was a fault with the vehicle. Things aren't perfect, mechanical issues happen. Yet they should try their best to find an alternative way, which they did, the next bus, and we don't know if that worked or not.

The issue would be around how long the fault had been present, and whether basic maintenance was sufficiently diligent to detect and remedy it. It is most certainly a requirement for drivers to conduct a series of checks at the beginning of each day, however I don’t know whether that would include a physical check of wheelchair lift operation on this type of vehicle.

 

[scrapy]

It's highly possible that the device was tested in line with requirements and failed subsequently and/or there was a fault that another driver with a different strength level or a slightly different way of doing things didn't notice because it worked for him/her.

I can't think of much more Northern or Arriva Rail Replacement could have done if they specified accessible vehicles so have probably shown reasonable care. They usually have a bus coordinator at Rainford, but even if they weren't there I doubt the lack of staff would have made much of a difference, as it was stated there would have 15 minutes so I doubt that any member of staff could have summoned an accessible taxi much quicker.

Yes the bus company and/or could potentially be committing an offence if checks haven't taken place but proving it for a one off incident is near impossible and would probably need to be a regular occurrence for any action to be taken especially if the fault was fixed straight afterwards.

Incidentally does the OP feel the driver should have taken the vehicle out of service when the fault was identified and not allowed anyone to travel, they wouldn't then be discriminating against anyone.

 

[randyrippley]

You're missing the point.
It isn't just that the bus was faulty, but that there was no-one present from Northern, and no bus co-ordinator there. From what was said the lift clearly had not been tested - and by implication probably not used for some time.
As for the following bus, being a seemingly identical machine it would not be surprising if it had an identical fault

As for taking it out of service, there were only three of us actually using it. Removing it from service would hardly have been a problem. Though again you're missing the point: the lift should have been working

 

[rob.rjt]

Incidentally does the OP feel the driver should have taken the vehicle out of service when the fault was identified and not allowed anyone to travel, they wouldn't then be discriminating against anyone.

And this it the issue.

Accessibility of transport is a worthy goal but it can lead to a worse service for everyone - e.g. whilst this was not a busy coach, what if it had been. Should 60 people be delayed or 1. The coach is not unsafe or unusable for 59 of those people.

I think this has been discussed on these forums before in terms (I think) of toilets - you end up with no toilets rather than fitting accessible toilets.

 

[Goldfish62]

Would have thought that testing the ramp / lift ought to be part of the driver's start of day checks.

It is. The responsibility lies fairly and squarely with the driver who conducted the first use check on the day. Secondary is the operator's maintenance regime which allows ramps/lifts to get in such a state.

 

[randyrippley]

I've reported it to Northern customer services, will be interesting to see what comes back - if anything.
Having said that, as I wasn't the person affected it may well be that they can't legally respond to me

And this it the issue.

Accessibility of transport is a worthy goal but it can lead to a worse service for everyone - e.g. whilst this was not a busy coach, what if it had been. Should 60 people be delayed or 1. The coach is not unsafe or unusable for 59 of those people.

I think this has been discussed on these forums before in terms (I think) of toilets - you end up with no toilets rather than fitting accessible toilets.

No it's not the issue
The issue is that an unescorted seriously disabled person was denied boarding with no-one present to oversee or confirm alternative arrangements. There was no-one there to organise a taxi. No-one there to ensure the next bus was suitable. No-one there to make sure he wasn't stranded

 

[Archvile]

He was unaccompanied and from what I could see had a level of disability similar to Steven Hawking (I apologise in advance if I'm offending anyone, no insults intended).

The 'Stephen Hawking Scale of Disability' is perfectly acceptable, I wouldn't worry.

Furthermore, as mentioned above this is a criminal offence, but tricky to prosecute in the same manner as a broken tail light - the driver will simply attest that it was working when he performed his daily checks.

Common sense solution would be a wheelchair accessible taxi provided by the contracted coach operator. I'd even be tempted to pay for this myself, as the driver, then claim it back from my employer, but that's just me.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Whilst checking the lift/ramp is undoubtedly a part of the first user check, such checks have a habit of assuming that defects only developing whilst the vehicle is safely parked up in the yard. Not saying it is or isn't the case here, but it is perfectly possible that what was working when the coach left the depot in the morning, failed during the course of the day.

It would be unreasonable, whatever the letter of the law states, for the vehicle to be immediately removed from service (I.e, turf off those already on board), however the vehicle absolutely should not continue in service once those on board have alighted.

The apparent lack of any sort of support is the more pressing issue here, IMO

 

[GusB]

I would hope that testing of the lifts would be part of the daily vehicle check, as otherwise some of the equipment could go for months without seeing any use at all. This is purely my own experience, of course, but I've only ever seen the wheelchair lift on an accessible coach used once over the course of many journeys. To clarify, this was on a regular scheduled bus service, not rail replacement.

On that occasion the driver knew exactly what they were doing but, when companies are having to use agency drivers, I'd be concerned that adequate training wasn't being provided for the specific vehicle type.

As suggested above, it could be that the lift was checked first thing and subsequently developed a fault. The OP said:

The RRB was an ex-Stagecoach high-floor coach which had clearly seen better days and had a wheelchair lift fitted to run in the front entrance

While we don't know exactly how old the coach involved was, the first accessible coaches that I recall being used by Stagecoach were introduced in 2005 (there may be earlier examples), so I think it's fair to say that they'll be getting on a bit.

 

[Goldfish62]

It would be unreasonable, whatever the letter of the law states, for the vehicle to be immediately removed from service (I.e, turf off those already on board), however the vehicle absolutely should not continue in service once those on board have alighted.

If the DVSA undertook a roadside check they would issue a prohibition notice (PG9) for a defective ramp/lift. The vehicle wouldn't be able to continue in service, but depending on the circumstances they may allow it continue in service until the end of its current journey.

 

[Hadders]

We don’t know when the failure of the wheelchair lift occurred but it seems to me that the biggest failure was not arranging for a taxi to be summonsed for the customer once the fault had been identified.

The driver should have initiated this via his control, it shouldn’t need Northern staff to be present to do this.

 

[island]

If the next coach was going to be in 15 minutes I think asking the passenger to wait for that (and paying any applicable DelayRepay) is not an unreasonable response to the situation. Certainly not the most customer-friendly option but not unreasonable. An accessible taxi could easily take as long or longer to arrange, and the coach driver’s “control” might not have the facilities to do so readily.

As to the defect itself, it seems like an avoidable but very unfortunate circumstance.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

If the next coach was going to be in 15 minutes I think asking the passenger to wait for that (and paying any applicable DelayRepay) is not an unreasonable response to the situation. Certainly not the most customer-friendly option but not unreasonable. An accessible taxi could easily take as long or longer to arrange, and the coach driver’s “control” might not have the facilities to do so readily.

As to the defect itself, it seems like an avoidable but very unfortunate circumstance.

How reliable are RRB though? Will it be 15 mins? Will it even turn up? In my experience its like drawing straws as to if, when and what turns up. Leaving a disabled person like that is unacceptable, and the driver should have called someone to reassure the passenger, someone was definitely on their way and would be able to transport them.

 

[jon0844]

I think the passenger should have been given the choice of waiting or getting an accessible taxi, along with advice on getting compensation.

Things do go wrong and I think most people accept that, but it's how someone tries to make things right that matters.

 

[markymark2000]

Would have thought that testing the ramp / lift ought to be part of the driver's start of day checks.

Yes it should be but I can tell you with absolutey certainty that 99% of drivers do not check any wheelchair facilities as part of the morning walk around check. Rail Replacement often sees buses with no wheelchair straps or the lift doesn't work (A good number of instances of crowbars being used to put lifts back inside the bus).

It's a while since I did rail replacement control work, and we didn't have wheelchair lift fitted vehicles then, so I don't know if the controllers at the start of the vehicle's working are expected to request a test of this kit. I wasn't expected to do detailed checks of vehicles when I did it.

No, this is never requested of any coordinator. IT would take too much time and I think that all of the Rail Replacement firms know that they wouldn't have much of an operation left by the time you have gotten rid of every bus where the driver doesn't know how to use the lift, the lift is broken, there are no straps to secure the wheelchair etc etc. You could genuinely get rid of 90% of vehicles by doing these checks and it's simply not worth the risk when the lifts are rarely used. I am not saying that it is right, I am saying what happens. I have been a rail replacement coordinator recently and reported these issues. The control room tells me not to check because I would risk ruining the operation. When informed of the issues, they say they will take it up with the company and the next day, the bus is back out again with the same issues. You can report things for months, nothing gets sorted because there is too much of a shortage of firms who are 'compliant' to do rail replacement. Either you have a none compliant bus or no bus. With some of the things that I have seen recently (buses running on revoked ops licences, drivers doing 20+ hour shifts on consecutive days), nothing surprises me anymore.

Presume that there was no rail replacement controller at this particular station? (in which case they should have contacted duty manager / control room) - alternatively, would have thought that coach driver should have had a contact phone number in case of any problems, and this would seem a reasonable thing to contact them for rather than just leave a passenger behind in these circumstances

I passed through Rainford and Kirkby on this block and saw no one there at all so I presume Northern hasn't requested any staff to coordinate.

You're missing the point.
It isn't just that the bus was faulty, but that there was no-one present from Northern, and no bus co-ordinator there. From what was said the lift clearly had not been tested - and by implication probably not used for some time.
As for the following bus, being a seemingly identical machine it would not be surprising if it had an identical fault

Unfortunately, you can't have a coordinator or staff at every single station. It's just not practical. There isn't enough bus coordinators to do it and even if there was, it would come at a huge cost to taxpayers. Drivers are are given the control rooms numbers so that they can make arrangements or failing that, at least ring the depot to try and see if they are doing something wrong. It's not good that this wasn't done on this occasion.

While we don't know exactly how old the coach involved was, the first accessible coaches that I recall being used by Stagecoach were introduced in 2005 (there may be earlier examples), so I think it's fair to say that they'll be getting on a bit.

Upon googling based off the information available, I would guess it's an Ex Stagecoach Volvo B7 Plaxton Profile.

If the next coach was going to be in 15 minutes I think asking the passenger to wait for that (and paying any applicable DelayRepay) is not an unreasonable response to the situation. Certainly not the most customer-friendly option but not unreasonable. An accessible taxi could easily take as long or longer to arrange, and the coach driver’s “control” might not have the facilities to do so readily.

As to the defect itself, it seems like an avoidable but very unfortunate circumstance.

The 15 minute wait is just waiting for the next bus to arrive. The timetable is hourly departures with the bus arriving in Rainford and seemingly having a 45 minute break before doing the next trip back out.

 

[island]

The 15 minute wait is just waiting for the next bus to arrive. The timetable is hourly departures with the bus arriving in Rainford and seemingly having a 45 minute break before doing the next trip back out.

In that case I think "wait for the next bus" would not have been appropriate.

 

[The exile]

It would be unreasonable, whatever the letter of the law states, for the vehicle to be immediately removed from service

One could consider it unreasonable for it not to continue in service until a replacement had arrived. There are plenty of other protected characteristics that do not require the chair lift but could be equally / more seriously disadvantaged by there being no bus at all. It should of course be incumbent on the operator to source a suitable replacement asap (regardless of cost).

 

[MotCO]

With regard to testing of lift euipment, I believe TfL require all buses to have a ramp check everytime the engine is started. This seems to be a fail-proof system of making sure the ramps work.

 

[158841]

I have been on the same rail replacement with the same spec of coach mentioned above and I believe northern have gone for an operator with a cheap and cheerful response, whilst the wheelchair users of the Rainford line may well be a very low number, it's disgusting that this isn't being raised with the company.



They will never hire a full time rep to be both at Kirkby (ticket office staffed) and Rainford due to cost, heaven forbid.

There is normally a spare vehicle at Rainford waiting in the wings to take over any delays, vehicle issues which again seemed to be the same operator.

Northern themselves don't have anything to do with who what where when why it's down to Arriva Rail Replacement team of which I believe a member on here is one of!

He can then give us a response.

 

[skyhigh]

I believe northern have gone for an operator with a cheap and cheerful response

Northern contract Arriva to provide rail replacement buses. They don't specify what operator should be used.

 

[Glasgowbusguy]

A non operational ramp or a lack of straps to secure a chair are both PG9 defects with immediate prohibition