THERE are increasing concerns about the replacement of trains by buses and coaches while Network Rail and contractors undertake engineering work.
Delays, discomfort and inconvenience to passengers, as well as lost business to train operators, are all stated criticisms of ‘rail replacement services’.
But, although less often mentioned, safety is another significant factor.
There was a tragic reminder of this last month when a packed bus careered off a road in Sussex, seriously injuring three people. Many other passengers had to be treated at the scene for minor injuries.
The double-decker bus was transporting 70 rail passengers between Berwick and Lewes stations. A spokesman for Sussex Police said the driver of the rail-replacement service “lost control” and ploughed into a field as it cornered a sharp bend in Station Road, Berwick.
There were suggestions that the bus may have been blown over by the high winds. But the incident got little publicity because, that same day, media attention was on the West Coast main line, which had to be closed in two places because containers had been blown off freight trains – something which I (and many others) can’t recollect ever happening before.
As a result – ironically – emergency bus services were introduced between Carlisle and Preston and south of Milton Keynes, in addition to all the others operating that weekend because of planned engineering work.
Rail has an unprecedented safety record compared with road transport, so I think it can reasonably be said that none of those people injured when the replacement bus crashed would have been harmed had they been able to complete their journeys, as they had paid to do, on a train.
As a report by the consumer group TravelWatch NorthWest pointed out: “Whilst closing a line completely may possibly be safer for the track workers, it increases the danger for passengers, and since passengers will be affected in greater numbers, the overall risk will be greater…there is also a higher risk of slips, trips and falls when transferring between train and bus and carrying luggage.”
TravelWatch evidently did not include in its considerations the risk of buses being involved in road traffic accidents. But its report adds: “A realistic risk assessment is required which takes into account the comparable levels of risk to passengers and track workers. In most instances the least risky option will be to keep the trains running and to keep passengers on them.”
The people who were injured while travelling on the bus that crashed in Sussex were rail passengers. So will they be counted in the casualty figures prepared by the Office of Rail Regulation and Her Majesty’s Rail-way Inspectorate?
I doubt that they will. But I believe that they should be, and that the whole question of the definitions and legalities of buses replacing trains needs to be looked into – urgently.
When I spoke with members of HMRI, they were adamant that rail replacement services were part of the overall rail service, that passengers travelling on them were carried in accordance with the National Conditions of Carriage, and that they were regulated by the ORR.
So, I asked, was HMRI – or the Rail Accident Investigation Branch of the Department for Transport – investigating the circumstances of the Sussex incident that led to rail passengers being injured?
They had to admit this was not the case. The bus crash was being investigated by Sussex Police, and its consequences would be included in road casualty statistics.
This is clearly unacceptable.
So, too, is the fact that rail passengers, when transferred to buses and coaches, are not entitled to the same level of on-board service as they can expect on a train. For, while it may be claimed that rail replacement services are regulated by the ORR, the
reality is that buses and coaches are operated under the requirements of Public Service Vehicle Regulations. These are often in conflict with what is allowed of passengers on trains.
For example, one of the benefits of travelling by train is the opportunity to eat and drink. But many rail passengers are prohibited refreshments when travelling on replacement buses and coaches – even though their journeys may last several hours.
For example, the conditions relating to FirstGroup’s bus operations (in York, for example) bluntly state: “Passengers must not consume food or drink on vehicles.”
Many other bus and coach operators have adopted ‘standard’ wording for their conditions, such as: “Food and drink, including alcoholic beverages, except for small items of confectionery (such as sweets or chocolate) may not be consumed on the vehicle without the prior written consent of The Company in writing (sic).”
This sort of approach is so in conflict with railway practice that a bus or coach can hardly be said to replace the train service customers have paid for and are entitled to expect.
As TravelWatch NorthWest noted: “Replacing a train service by a bus almost always results in an inferior service. … Every effort should therefore be made wherever possible to avoid suspending a rail service and replacing it by a bus.”
But where a bus does replace a train, the service provided must surely match that of the rail service that passengers have paid for.