5362 has issues with its front blinds.
The 4 is more or less centre, with the rest of the display condensed in to the remaining section.

(16 Apr 2016, 1:33 pm)Andreos1 wrote 5362 has issues with its front blinds.
The 4 is more or less centre, with the rest of the display condensed in to the remaining section.

This issue is caused by drivers not switching off the bus correctly. When the master switch is turned off and the bus is started up correctly, the display will revert back to how it usually looks.

See attached photo - Davie and DanPicken recently spotted 5363 with the same issue, but it was fine the following morning in the depot, after the master switch had been turned off.

It's happened since the vehicles were new to Washington, apparently, but just seems to have cropped up more often recently.

So does this mean that 3814-3832 will be retired by January 1st as I noticed they have a step entrance when I was on 3822 yesterday on the V7


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk

(17 Apr 2016, 10:35 am)TEN 6083 wrote So does this mean that 3814-3832 will be retired by January 1st as I noticed they have a step entrance when I was on 3822 yesterday on the V7


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk

It does indeed. Unless they are planned to be used on services which aren't registered (ie can't take cash fares) - more common for independent operators.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36534907

Wheelchair case taken to high court.

(15 Jun 2016, 5:24 am)Andreos1 wrote http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36534907

Wheelchair case taken to high court.

Surprised this is still ongoing. I remember reading about it at the time.

(15 Jun 2016, 5:27 am)Dan wrote Surprised this is still ongoing. I remember reading about it at the time.

This should be the end of it either way. The actual judgement was ages ago, but it was overturned at the High Court on appeal.

It's anyone's guess what the Supreme Court will decide. I personally think the claimant will win his case, so it'd be interesting to see how that's implemented in practice.

(15 Jun 2016, 6:25 am)Adrian wrote This should be the end of it either way. The actual judgement was ages ago, but it was overturned at the High Court on appeal.

It's anyone's guess what the Supreme Court will decide. I personally think the claimant will win his case, so it'd be interesting to see how that's implemented in practice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38663322


Here is the outcome.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-38795688

Incident in Wakefield just days after ruling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43330690

Further changes ahead for wheelchair users following supreme court ruling.

So PSVAR grows to capture all* coaches from 1st Jan 2020... I wonder if this will apply to the wealth of school contracts in County Durham, many of them that probably aren't compliant at present, or whether an exemption has been applied?

Be interesting to see what's running about in the first week of Jan.

(26 Dec 2019, 11:01 pm)Adrian wrote So PSVAR grows to capture all* coaches from 1st Jan 2020... I wonder if this will apply to the wealth of school contracts in County Durham, many of them that probably aren't compliant at present, or whether an exemption has been applied?

Be interesting to see what's running about in the first week of Jan.

They’ve all/mostly gone out to tender, from operators who weren’t able to source PSVAR compliant vehicles by 1 January 2020, and will see a number of very small operators closing their doors.

A lot of the Durham County Council school contracts are permitting the use of single decks opposed to coaches, which is how Go North East have been quite fortunate in their disposal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(27 Dec 2019, 6:53 am)Dan wrote They’ve all/mostly gone out to tender, from operators who weren’t able to source PSVAR compliant vehicles by 1 January 2020, and will see a number of very small operators closing their doors.

A lot of the Durham County Council school contracts are permitting the use of single decks opposed to coaches, which is how Go North East have been quite fortunate in their disposal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is there any reason why there is a preference for coaches over single decks?
When I was in school I would have preferred to go on a single deck than a coach, mainly because I'm too lazy to go up the stairs!

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

(26 Dec 2019, 11:01 pm)Adrian wrote So PSVAR grows to capture all* coaches from 1st Jan 2020... I wonder if this will apply to the wealth of school contracts in County Durham, many of them that probably aren't compliant at present, or whether an exemption has been applied?

Be interesting to see what's running about in the first week of Jan.

(27 Dec 2019, 6:53 am)Dan wrote They’ve all/mostly gone out to tender, from operators who weren’t able to source PSVAR compliant vehicles by 1 January 2020, and will see a number of very small operators closing their doors.

A lot of the Durham County Council school contracts are permitting the use of single decks opposed to coaches, which is how Go North East have been quite fortunate in their disposal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Teesside has more of a problem with school contracts using coaches, apparently. Parents whose kids pay for their transport places have been told they are likely to have to find alternative transport. https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess...g-17393145

(28 Dec 2019, 10:18 pm)BusLoverMum wrote Teesside has more of a problem with school contracts using coaches, apparently. Parents whose kids pay for their transport places have been told they are likely to have to find alternative transport. https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess...g-17393145

How long have they known about this change? Certainly longer than the couple weeks notice that they're giving passengers! They would have known about this change when the the tender went out so why would the council even give them the contract if they would be non-compliant?

I struggle to feel sympathy for the smaller operators, at the end of the day they've had years to plan ahead to make sure everything is compliant, and if they haven't it's their own fault. You can argue that they don't have the money to replace/modify vehicles like the big operators do, well then they shouldn't be in the business then

(28 Dec 2019, 11:15 pm)streetdeckfan wrote How long have they known about this change? Certainly longer than the couple weeks notice that they're giving passengers! They would have known about this change when the the tender went out so why would the council even give them the contract if they would be non-compliant?

I struggle to feel sympathy for the smaller operators, at the end of the day they've had years to plan ahead to make sure everything is compliant, and if they haven't it's their own fault. You can argue that they don't have the money to replace/modify vehicles like the big operators do, well then they shouldn't be in the business then

That was my thought, too, tbh. Hardly fair on kids who now need to be out of the door at silly o clock.

(29 Dec 2019, 12:30 am)BusLoverMum wrote That was my thought, too, tbh. Hardly fair on kids who now need to be out of the door at silly o clock.

From what I read, it looks like the council are pretending they didn't know the changes would apply to school bus services. I don't know why they would think it wouldn't!
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but last time I checked disabled children weren't magically healed once they put their uniform on!

I was always the type of person that would take a public bus over a scholars anyway, I have very fond memories of the few times I used the scholars, mostly the smell of burning hair, and falling down the stairs because someone thought it would be hilarious spill some lube all over them!

(28 Dec 2019, 11:15 pm)streetdeckfan wrote How long have they known about this change? Certainly longer than the couple weeks notice that they're giving passengers! They would have known about this change when the the tender went out so why would the council even give them the contract if they would be non-compliant?

I struggle to feel sympathy for the smaller operators, at the end of the day they've had years to plan ahead to make sure everything is compliant, and if they haven't it's their own fault. You can argue that they don't have the money to replace/modify vehicles like the big operators do, well then they shouldn't be in the business then

To be fair, there could be a multitude of issues or reasons behind the decision. 
Just a couple I can think of off the top of my head: short-term cashlow, the mechanical failure of a PX (inbound or outbound), a deal falling through...
Sure we could come up with a fair few more if we all put our heads together.

(29 Dec 2019, 1:32 am)streetdeckfan wrote From what I read, it looks like the council are pretending they didn't know the changes would apply to school bus services. I don't know why they would think it wouldn't!
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but last time I checked disabled children weren't magically healed once they put their uniform on!

To be fair, you didn't have to look far in the trade press, to see this matter being debated, in the months leading up to today.

Initial guidance from the DfT was open to interpretation, which muddied the waters. It was originally suggested that school services which do not take any fares (and hence are not registered bus services that claim BSOG etc), and are instead paid for by an alternate means (either by a local authority or directly from a school), did not have to conform to PSVAR.

If you, as a small business with relatively low profits, did not have to go to the expense of replacing your fleet with newer vehicles which do conform to PSVAR, why would you? Many of these small operators just about cover their costs and provide a small number of people with a wage, and it's Private Hires (school trips to the baths etc) that contribute towards the greater profits of the business.


Some trade press articles to have a read of:
https://cbwmagazine.com/dft-announce-a-t...-services/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/mi...ation-law/
https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articl...ules-apply

(29 Dec 2019, 11:41 am)Dan wrote To be fair, you didn't have to look far in the trade press, to see this matter being debated, in the months leading up to today.

Initial guidance from the DfT was open to interpretation, which muddied the waters. It was originally suggested that school services which do not take any fares (and hence are not registered bus services that claim BSOG etc), and are instead paid for by an alternate means (either by a local authority or directly from a school), did not have to conform to PSVAR.

If you, as a small business with relatively low profits, did not have to go to the expense of replacing your fleet with newer vehicles which do conform to PSVAR, why would you? Many of these small operators just about cover their costs and provide a small number of people with a wage, and it's Private Hires (school trips to the baths etc) that contribute towards the greater profits of the business.


Some trade press articles to have a read of:
https://cbwmagazine.com/dft-announce-a-t...-services/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/mi...ation-law/
https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articl...ules-apply

I suppose that's the issue with the government, some of the PSVAR was incredibly detailed in what operators had to do to be compliant, yet some had nothing to it at all!

I personally don't see how anyone could have interpreted it otherwise, but I suppose if you're coming from the position of having to pay for the changes, that may sway your view of it.

I suppose with private hire, it's easier for the operator to plan around any passengers with disabilities because they know in advance who will be travelling, but I remember when I was in school, we had someone in a wheelchair in our class, and on school trips they had to travel in a separate vehicle to the rest of us. While it doesn't leave anyone with disabilities stranded, it's certainly not nice for them as I'd imagine they'd feel excluded

I feel it would be a shame if it caused any more family owned firms to go out of business. The North East has lost numerous long standing independent operators in the past five years.

Charles

(29 Dec 2019, 11:41 am)Dan wrote To be fair, you didn't have to look far in the trade press, to see this matter being debated, in the months leading up to today.

Initial guidance from the DfT was open to interpretation, which muddied the waters. It was originally suggested that school services which do not take any fares (and hence are not registered bus services that claim BSOG etc), and are instead paid for by an alternate means (either by a local authority or directly from a school), did not have to conform to PSVAR.

If you, as a small business with relatively low profits, did not have to go to the expense of replacing your fleet with newer vehicles which do conform to PSVAR, why would you? Many of these small operators just about cover their costs and provide a small number of people with a wage, and it's Private Hires (school trips to the baths etc) that contribute towards the greater profits of the business.


Some trade press articles to have a read of:
https://cbwmagazine.com/dft-announce-a-t...-services/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/mi...ation-law/
https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articl...ules-apply

That's exactly the issue facing many operators in the Tees Valley, in that many school services are paid for by parents either directly to the operator or through the school. It was presumed by many operators that any school service, as Dan says, wasn't registered didn't therefore have to comply to PSVAR. There's been a clause for a while that any service carrying a group of passengers to one point (eg a school/college), organised and advertised by another entity (eg a school/college) and paying one flat fare (eg most school/college services) don't have to be registered and that's what a lot of services run under.
It's only recently (in last few months) come to light that all of these services will have to comply which hasn't left much time to bring in vehicles required. There has already been a few school services dropped that will leave kids stranded, such as Carmel College (through Darlington Council, operated by Enterprise Travel) and Nunthorpe School (Compass Royston). Expect you'll see more and more kids being stranded if this is enforced as tenders get thrown in by coach operators. For those who do invest in compliant vehicles you may see those dipping into service work with potential competition for established operators...

(30 Dec 2019, 4:10 pm)tyresmoke wrote That's exactly the issue facing many operators in the Tees Valley, in that many school services are paid for by parents either directly to the operator or through the school. It was presumed by many operators that any school service, as Dan says, wasn't registered didn't therefore have to comply to PSVAR. There's been a clause for a while that any service carrying a group of passengers to one point (eg a school/college), organised and advertised by another entity (eg a school/college) and paying one flat fare (eg most school/college services) don't have to be registered and that's what a lot of services run under.
It's only recently (in last few months) come to light that all of these services will have to comply which hasn't left much time to bring in vehicles required. There has already been a few school services dropped that will leave kids stranded, such as Carmel College (through Darlington Council, operated by Enterprise Travel) and Nunthorpe School (Compass Royston). Expect you'll see more and more kids being stranded if this is enforced as tenders get thrown in by coach operators. For those who do invest in compliant vehicles you may see those dipping into service work with potential competition for established operators...

To me, it shouldn't be about whether a service is registered or not, if they carry passengers, they should have to comply. End of.

I personally think the issue still lies with the local authority, sure everyone might have presumed that they wouldn't have to comply, but I would have thought that the local authority would have had their own requirements to make sure that the vehicles they run comply rather than going purely on the lowest price.

(30 Dec 2019, 4:42 pm)streetdeckfan wrote To me, it shouldn't be about whether a service is registered or not, if they carry passengers, they should have to comply. End of.

I personally think the issue still lies with the local authority, sure everyone might have presumed that they wouldn't have to comply, but I would have thought that the local authority would have had their own requirements to make sure that the vehicles they run comply rather than going purely on the lowest price.

Problem there is a lot of school services these days are not local authority backed - they're private contracts with the schools (or indeed parents) themselves. Majority of local authority contracted school buses will not have to comply as they're used only by kids with passes. Of course the schools etc didn't know anything about PSVAR coming in until local authorities told them a few months ago. Now it's all a bit of a rush to comply - the price of old Levante's has gone through the roof!

(30 Dec 2019, 5:31 pm)tyresmoke wrote Problem there is a lot of school services these days are not local authority backed - they're private contracts with the schools (or indeed parents) themselves. Majority of local authority contracted school buses will not have to comply as they're used only by kids with passes. Of course the schools etc didn't know anything about PSVAR coming in until local authorities told them a few months ago. Now it's all a bit of a rush to comply - the price of old Levante's has gone through the roof!

But then we have to ask why is it, after all these years, they've only in the past few months realised they had to comply?
Was it a case of them hoping that if they didn't say anything, nobody would realise that the regulations weren't specific enough to include that type of work?
Or was it a case of them genuinely not realising that they had to comply because in the past they were excluded?

But like I said above, at the end of the day that shouldn't matter. People don't stop needing accessible buses just because it's paid for by a school or parents

(30 Dec 2019, 5:55 pm)streetdeckfan wrote But then we have to ask why is it, after all these years, they've only in the past few months realised they had to comply?
Was it a case of them hoping that if they didn't say anything, nobody would realise that the regulations weren't specific enough to include that type of work?
Or was it a case of them genuinely not realising that they had to comply because in the past they were excluded?

But like I said above, at the end of the day that shouldn't matter. People don't stop needing accessible buses just because it's paid for by a school or parents

I think it was a case of literally assuming only registered services would be encompassed by the regulations, and as nobody had said otherwise until a few months ago then everyone thought that was the case. I read it differently in that all fare paying services would be included, but there we go. I didn't expect fares paid off-bus would be included, eg private schools & rail replacement.
In the last hour there's been an announcement that PSVAR has been delayed until 31st July, to cover the rest of 2019/20 school year, for home to school services only. Rail replacement will still have to comply from 1st February, and registered services (presumably!) from 1st January.

(30 Dec 2019, 6:34 pm)tyresmoke wrote I think it was a case of literally assuming only registered services would be encompassed by the regulations, and as nobody had said otherwise until a few months ago then everyone thought that was the case. I read it differently in that all fare paying services would be included, but there we go. I didn't expect fares paid off-bus would be included, eg private schools & rail replacement.
In the last hour there's been an announcement that PSVAR has been delayed until 31st July, to cover the rest of 2019/20 school year, for home to school services only. Rail replacement will still have to comply from 1st February, and registered services (presumably!) from 1st January.

This isn't meant to be dig at you personally, but I don't see how you can think all fare paying services would be included, but not fares paid off-bus.
At the end of the day, money is changing hands for that service to be run, it doesn't matter when or where that money was paid, or who paid it. 

This is the issue with the way our government/legal system works. They prefer to leave things up to interpretation rather than setting things in stone, which in some cases is very helpful as not every situation is the same, but in this case has caused a plethora of issues

(30 Dec 2019, 6:54 pm)streetdeckfan wrote This isn't meant to be dig at you personally, but I don't see how you can think all fare paying services would be included, but not fares paid off-bus.
At the end of the day, money is changing hands for that service to be run, it doesn't matter when or where that money was paid, or who paid it. 

This is the issue with the way our government/legal system works. They prefer to leave things up to interpretation rather than setting things in stone, which in some cases is very helpful as not every situation is the same, but in this case has caused a plethora of issues

It could be cast in bronze never mind set in stone, and you'd still get someone trying to find a loophole in it. The DfT guidance could have been clearer from the start, but there has still been a lot of trying to find that loophole. The regulations would have had to come in at some point. It could have been 2030 and you'd still have people unhappy with it, that they're not ready, etc.

Some coach operators invest massively in their fleets, but still won't be able to operate the full demands of the school contracts they have. Others invest very little and won't be able to at all. In my opinion, a lot of this has been down to the way Public Sector procurement works, and that it is based on the most economically advantageous tender. I haven't seen many (if any!) local authorities making wheelchair accessible vehicles a requirement in their schools contracts. There's also the short (single academic year) length of contracts that some local authorities are using, which doesn't give a business any security to invest in their fleet. Especially if such a high percentage of their business is this type of work. Ultimately it has created a race for the bottom; a low frills service for bottom dollar. 

I'm pleased a short extension has been agreed, to avoid us nose-diving off a cliff. There needs to be some sensible discussions now, including around tendering, so that these important school services can continue.

(01 Jan 2020, 3:22 pm)Adrian wrote It could be cast in bronze never mind set in stone, and you'd still get someone trying to find a loophole in it. The DfT guidance could have been clearer from the start, but there has still been a lot of trying to find that loophole. The regulations would have had to come in at some point. It could have been 2030 and you'd still have people unhappy with it, that they're not ready, etc.

Some coach operators invest massively in their fleets, but still won't be able to operate the full demands of the school contracts they have. Others invest very little and won't be able to at all. In my opinion, a lot of this has been down to the way Public Sector procurement works, and that it is based on the most economically advantageous tender. I haven't seen many (if any!) local authorities making wheelchair accessible vehicles a requirement in their schools contracts. There's also the short (single academic year) length of contracts that some local authorities are using, which doesn't give a business any security to invest in their fleet. Especially if such a high percentage of their business is this type of work. Ultimately it has created a race for the bottom; a low frills service for bottom dollar. 

I'm pleased a short extension has been agreed, to avoid us nose-diving off a cliff. There needs to be some sensible discussions now, including around tendering, so that these important school services can continue.

Like you say, it's become a race to the bottom. Which, I can understand as school budgets are tight.
And I can see why they may think there is a reason for not having the regulations apply.
For instance if there are no children at a school in a wheelchair, why would they need to spend extra acquiring a bus that can handle a wheelchair? (the answer obviously being what if someone has an accident half way through the school year)

(30 Dec 2019, 5:31 pm)tyresmoke wrote Problem there is a lot of school services these days are not local authority backed - they're private contracts with the schools (or indeed parents) themselves. Majority of local authority contracted school buses will not have to comply as they're used only by kids with passes. Of course the schools etc didn't know anything about PSVAR coming in until local authorities told them a few months ago. Now it's all a bit of a rush to comply - the price of old Levante's has gone through the roof!

Whilst at the same time, presumably, the prices of non PSVAR vehicles have gone through the floor...