As most of the platforms the Anglia Stadler calls at are actually near any standard height there isn't as much level boarding there either and ramps still need to be used.Maybe after more than 20 years after DDA, the transport industries could have sorted this out on their own. Despite all this, disabled passengers have to deal with being left on trains, failed ramp assistance, not being able to board buses, having to plan every journey (and contigencies) hours or days in advance, and the daily humiliation that comes with it. Despite the so-called "militant disability lobby," all upcoming new rolling stock except those from Stadler Rail will have train floors above the national standard, meaning that independent level boarding on the majority of the railways will be impossible for decades regardless of future platform standardisation. Expecting RRBs to at least emulate the level of accessibility as the railways themselves after having so many years to improve, should not be an unreasonable adjustment.
I wonder if this will mean (where possible) TOCs will be more likely to run trains via diversions, even if lengthy, rather than use RRBs?
As most of the platforms the Anglia Stadler calls at are actually near any standard height there isn't as much level boarding there either and ramps still need to be used.
There are platform standards which mostly revolve around minimising the need to change them, but are there any actual on train floor height standards?
Crossrail (core) and Heathrow have level boarding at 1100mm floor/platform height. But the GE preferred about circa 1000mm platform height on the inners where as GW preferred circa 850mm.
Realistically we are starting from 40-50 early Victorian railway company standards at the majority of stations.
For ambulatory individuals (especially those with mobility problems) if completely level boarding isn't possible a large step is safer than a small stepas regards trips /fall hence the 915-1100mm difference equating to a normal step height in building.
There are lots of areas where this simply isn't possible, and using diversion routes usually means stations are bypassed which then require replacement transport.
There has to be a reasonability limit on how much money is spent.
The need for more specialised RRBs means blockade costs rise
A wheelchair lift isn't specialist equipment!
As for the cost, the entire Megabus fleet is wheelchair accessible, and they charge £10 a ticket and still make money.
What it might mean is the end of the cowboy coach companies providing any old backfiring banger on RRBs.
What it might mean is the end of the cowboy coach companies providing any old backfiring banger on RRBs.
The equipment being used by operators servicing National Express and Citylink suggests otherwise. The seats in the designated wheelchair area can be removed/re-installed in minutes.Additionally they reduce the seating capacity for perhaps a few wheelchair users per year.
The megabus fleet is all wheelchair accessible (it has to be to be legal), but this has been achieved by a particular design of coach [bearing in mind the comment above regarding lifts] with a large front overhang, and the driver effectively separated on another deck from most other passengers.
school contract work, which is the bread and butter of most coach operators.
Some of the fleet are Elite i interdecks and some are double decker Jonckheere coaches. But not all are. And NatEx's examples are mainly bog standard Elites or Caetanos.
The point is Stagecoach can use these coaches and still make money from low fares, so the point still stands.
School contract work will be covered by PSVAR from 1 January unless no fare is charged.
Just because something is specialised doesn't mean it shouldn't be standard. All buses and coaches should be required to be accessible whether used as RRBs or indeed any other work however that's only viable with new builds and you could possibly give say fifteen years for operators to replace inaccessible ones. Allowing new, inaccessible public transport to be built should be banned full stop.
I'd be interested to know the proportion of school bus transport that does / doesn't have space capacity filled by kids who aren't entitled to free school transport. Are there any statistics collated anywhere?Much school contract work will not be covered by PSVAR from 1 January because no fare is charged.
As someone with a toilet related health condition, I quite agree with you there. My employer has to take it into account. Of course how many buses have loos? Coaches do but those aren't wheelchair accessible. No easy solutions.Therein lies the issue. I predict that this means RRB provision will reduce significantly, or will have to end up using unsuitable vehicles (i.e. low-floor double-decker city buses without toilets[1]) on very long runs.
Clearly the sensible and practical solution to this is that there should be enough accessible vehicles (of whatever type) that a wheelchair user turning up "on spec" using a form of wheelchair which is permitted on a train (so not very large electric chairs or some kinds of scooter) can be carried with a wait no longer than an able bodied person. Requiring each coach in use to be accessible is silly, and the law really should be changed.
[1] When is a medical-related urgent toilet need going to be seen as a disability on a par with others? Its omission really does seem as odd as it is disgraceful.
It might just be me but can I clarify PSVAR in relation to school runs wef Jan 2020........
If the bus/coach is on a 'closed' (usually Council organised) school contract, with NO passengers paying separate fares then it does not need to be PSVAR compliant. ?
If a bus/coach works a school run that takes any fares (directly or indirectly) then it must be PSVAR compliant ?
Some of the fleet are Elite i interdecks and some are double decker Jonckheere coaches. But not all are. And NatEx's examples are mainly bog standard Elites or Caetanos.
The point is Stagecoach can use these coaches and still make money from low fares, so the point still stands.
School contract work will be covered by PSVAR from 1 January unless no fare is charged.
I agree entirely Nick.
I'd argue that the 15 years have already passed, mind you.
All new coach stock in use for rail replacement services have been required to be accessible since 2005, and the 2020 deadline has been set since 2000. But transport operators didn't notice, nor was it brought to their attention.
Which brings me back to the original question as posted: what are TOCs doing as a result of the ORR's legal advice that rail replacement buses are in scope?
Cheers
Doug
The ones who campaigned for the law, 20+ years ago, you mean?Alas I just foresee the demise of the RRB due to the demand of wanting every last one of them to be wheelchair accessible, even at the expense of alienating other disabled people or the travelling public as a whole
Similar in London. Some years ago the East London Line had extended closures a couple of times for works, and Wapping to Rotherhithe initially had a substitute bus through the Rotherhithe Tunnel, which needed to be a narrow track midibus to suit the restrictions of the tunnel. Second closure and there was nothing at all provided, stated because there are no narrow track minibuses on the market which are fully accessible.That is correct. This has already led to a number of school services which were open to both, now not taking any fare payers, thus a standard coach can operate it
Or the famous ECML barriers. VTEC were told to staff all their barriers at certain times, so instead they ripped them outIt's the same as toilets in trains. If there's one, it has to comply. But nothing to stop operators ripping them out completely.
The ones who campaigned for the law, 20+ years ago, you mean?
Or do you mean disabled people working at the ORR, who obtained the legal opinion stating that RRBs are subject to the accessibility regulations?
Or perhaps the ones at the Department for Transport, who also openly stated their opinion that RRBs should be accessible?
Strange to assume that the parties responsible are all disabled people.
Second closure and there was nothing at all provided, stated because there are no narrow track minibuses on the market which are fully accessible.
A good excuse, but isn't true; both the Solo Slimline and the Alero would have fit the bill.
Or a 17 seater Transit, LDV, Peugeot or whatever with a wheelchair lift in the back.
It's excuses.