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