Am I missing something here......

The ImberBus event is a fully registered scheduled service even though it operates on just one day. Fares are paid to ride on any participating bus and the revenue generated goes to good causes. The team who arrange Imberbus have always ensured that a few `new` Routemasters work alongside traditional RM`s to provide for access needs. Everyone who attends seems to have nothing but high praise for the way in which the event runs. The only significant revenue stream that the church at Imber receives is from this event.

So if a significant unforeseen long-term `blockage` to a rail/tube line occurs that severs a major route thus requiring alternative road transport replacement, is it really right to cause massive inconvenience to potentially thousands of people who would be grateful for their journey to continue in part by an `older` vehicle that should not be used? If it meant taking a few accessible buses away from their usual routes to be part of the replacement transport to show a will to provide for everyone, common sense thinking and practicality has to play a big part. Where would thirty, or forty or fifty fully accessible buses suddenly come from to cover a major need? How many operators have a great quantity of spare vehicles and drivers?

Absolutely spot on Neil I would say but isn’t it the most powerful lobby that wins over common sense when policy is developed ? I don’t know where the much reduced H15 stands now or is that ok as there are alternative accessible vehicles running in which case Imberbus should be able to carry on ?

My bus number (if any): RML2747

Well, if all really does mean `all`, I can`t see how the 15H can continue even if it is just a handful of non-accessible buses running alongside many that are unless an exemption is made to permit a mixed operation if accessible vehicles are the majority. I can`t see the will being there to permit this.

At ImberBus, the proportions are different. Majority non-accessible buses, minority that are - and all running on a registered, timetabled service. Likewise, the Great Dorset Steam Fair service. It`s registered and timetabled to fill a need to get people to an event in the middle of nowhere. True, it would be possible to replace the `heritage` buses used this year and last with compliant deckers as the event falls in August when the lack of school contracts creates spare vehicles but the end result is that a wheelchair user is going to alight onto a sloping field with all the challenges of moving on from there. So even if the heritage vehicles are replaced in 2020 by compliant buses, the use to a wheelchair user doesn`t improve either side of the time on the bus.

Earlier this year here in Bournemouth there were several railway suicides within a short time span. Unusual and desperately sad with each media covered case potentially putting the idea into other troubled minds. This isn`t the place to discuss social failings but one thing that became very clear and announced at each relevant time was the failure to source replacement road transport due to the commitment of local operators to covering school buses. And school buses always come first even if that means taking a bus and driver away from front line service. The length of duty now is quite widely in excess of ten hours and in many instances eleven hours. There is no longer the scope for a driver doing two or three hours overtime on emergency rail even if vehicles are available. The proof is already here that even when surrounded by fleets of compliant buses, a `one off` emergency need cannot be covered so where do we go when a `Dawlish track washed away` issue forces a two month closure?

Maybe my thinking isn`t as pc as it needs to be but I cannot comprehend how it can be right that any respected operator (and one in particular) can have a shed full of serviceable (but non-compliant) buses and a pool of willing volunteer crew members just a phone call away but come 1/1/20 cannot do what they have a proven and appreciated record of doing successfully. It is now written in law that all users are provided for. No issue with that on a day to day, normal scenario basis. But in an emergency unforeseen situation, how can it be right to discriminate against thousands of people who could use a non-compliant bus in order not to upset a few that cannot? As Roy pointed out, in an emergency situation it would make good sense to have accessible taxi`s on standby that could even be a better option for a disabled user if their journey before of after the bus travel element could also be provided for. In such an instance, a person unable to use a non-compliant bus would be free of the vast crowds that are often synonymous with emergency rail replacement and would have a much better experience. Or is this this common sense thinking now out of date? Has anybody actually asked the groups representing less able users what they would prefer in emergency situations?

The heritage route 15X is probably a "special service" and special services are exempt to a greater degree. they may be registered, but don't quality fo fuel duty rebate or BSOG or whatever it's called this year. Rail replacements have now got the right to claim BSOG/FDR.

Such registered services don't have to accept senior bus passes and if they did would not get rebated for their acceptance; rail replacement can't claim for senior passes, but still claim BSOG.

The Ensign running Day extras are I suspect extras on a compliant service. Ensign advertise that senior passes are not accepted on the extra services because they don't get paid for them. I suspect the EOR services may be the same.

I seem to remember when the age ban was proposed many years ago there was a limit of I think 25 days per year when an individual bus can be used on a regular service. That may be why the EOR "gets away" with it as they have a large enough fleet to not use the same bus more than 25 times. But as I mentioned earlier, there's nobody to enforce it anyway.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

The easiest solution is stop providing top quality tour coaches for rail replacement and obtain a fleet of low cost time expired DDA compliant service buses from Barnsley for rail replacement work ?

My bus number (if any): RML2747

It’s a shame that vintage buses and non DDA coaches will no longer be allowed on rail replacement work as when the hundreds of often frustrated commuters are faced with the inconvenience of a cancelled rail journey, at the least in London, previously the chance arrival of an RT or RM (or any bus) must go some way to sweetening the journey experience for many members of the public and the whole atmosphere and PR of the situation. It seems a bit ironic particularly as has been said these are the buses and coaches that are usually sitting available for use rather than normal service buses in an emergency. In London if on tube replacement much of the underground network isn’t disabled accessible anyway so wouldn’t really be detrimental to anyone ? It’s a shame that there’s not a stronger common sense lobby to balance policy making in these situations ?

My bus number (if any): RML 2747

If this issue isn`t resolved quickly in a common sense way it will only be a matter of time before a major rail blockage creates a need for replacement road transport on a weekday when vehicle and driver resources are at full capacity covering normal service work. Then, at the point where a lot of people need moving and the existing nearby alternatives are seen to be incapable of coping with the increased demand and tempers start to boil, someone is going to have to say `do you want this to continue or do you want the situation turned around quickly with non-compliant but perfectly usable vehicles?`. At the point where it becomes obvious that a new piece of legislation massively disadvantages the majority, an emergency rail replacement exclusion may have to be made. It is so obvious that when normal service work is at maximum use, there are simply not the resources standing idle just waiting for the call. Plenty of coach operators could get involved between school runs and a good few provincial firms whose largely seasonal business would be ideally placed to cover unexpected work but how many of these are going to involve compliant vehicles? And as for the shed full of heritage deckers that have been so useful in the past........

As I said earlier, "special services" such as those mentioned above are largely exempt as the y do not qualify for fuel duty rebate. the law has been clarified that rail replacement does qualify for FDR.

The first instance of PAVAR (which has actually been law for several years now) affected me this weekend. Doing a rail replacement for Sullivan Buses at Newbury Park, as standby driver I usually take alon a stove and tea making facilities, much appreciated by our drivers. But tragedy, I forgot to take the cups! Disaster. I know I thought, I'll ask a coach driver, loads of them have got tea making facilites and no doubt I can scrounge a few cups for someone. Of the 100-odd coaches on the service, none had tea machines on board. It turns out theose are used for tour work and are not PSVAR compliant. All we had were the London sightseeing and airport transfer coaches. I did eventually find a driver with a few plastic cups so all was not lots.

But on a couple of buses, PSVAR faults were noted, route numbers or information missing is now a PSVAR offence. It's a bit like when the same regulations were applied to the rail indusrty. If for instance a light for the disabled was not working, that carriage had to be locked out of service. It was pointed out that something like the York-Whitby line is run with a single car unit with a train every 4 hours. Better a train with no light than no train at all. The law was amended.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

Let’s hope similar common sense will prevail in this predicament Roy !

My bus number (if any): RML 2747

Just to clarify some of the above comments.

1. The 15H operated under a DfT exemption.
2. EOR and Ensignbus operate their vehicles strictly within the allowed number of days per year per vehicle.

My bus number (if any): RM1368

That's what I thought the answer would be. :) It just makes the service more expensive to operate as you need 3 times as many buses as before. Not to worry, at least you get variety.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

Rail passengers expect to travel by train with a reasonably easy access onto and off from the train. Also space to put their luggage. If there are no trains, the closest to that requirement should be provided. Train fares in the UK are not cheap!

People tend forget that this isn't just about people in wheelchairs, it is about people with impaired mobility, impaired vision, the elderly, pregnant women, those whom have suffered injuries or are post op on crutches, all of whom cannot easily climb stairs,or stand for too long.

With all due respect to RT and RM owners, I really would not want an RT or RM turning up in place of a train, if I had luggage and there is a possibly to have to go upstairs for a seat.
The general public do not care if an RT or RM turns up, they just want the warm comfortable ride they'd get on most modern buses and on off peak trains.


Planned train replacements use coaches for long distance passengers and buses for suburban services where most are not carrying luggage, access to these vehicles should be as easy as possible. That is what I see happening now with these new regulations.

We are getting a long way from Routemasters now and this group has never allowed opinions or comments on government or TFL policies, and that is what this has now become, so I am locking this thread now.

My bus number (if any): RTL 960, RM 1585, RML 2667 and several RTs