HRA response to Rail Vehicle Accessibility ( Consultation) - (sheet 1 of 5)

The Heritage Railway Association

The Heritage Railway Association (HRA) is the trade association of the 115 Heritage Railways and Tramways in Great Britain. The HRA membership comprises organisations with a mixture of paid and unpaid staff whose average ratio is 1:10. The turnover varies from very small to over £5,000,000 per annum with an average of around £500,000. The sector has a combined turnover of around £72 million and operates in the , heritage and tourism fields which directly affect local businesses and local employment with total turnover of around £115 million. The management of these organisations is often in the hands of persons who are volunteers. Our members have broad business, safety and public interests including disability access issues. We cover the whole of the UK with strong interactions with colleagues in Europe. Our members’ operations are monitored by Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate and other bodies. We meet regularly with representatives of our members and communicate using a bi-monthly newsletter as well as electronic communication. We therefore represent a group of small companies and provide guidance on a wide range of issues to our members.

Section 3.1

Question 1: For the additional RVAR requirements only, do you agree that a coming into force date of 31 December 2010 is appropriate?

Response: We believe that this is too soon and so would suggest that the date be set for 31 December 2012

Section 3.1

Question 2: Do you agree that these revisions to the technical accessibility requirements are reasonable and will not have the effect of making currently regulated rail vehicles non-compliant?

Response: The period between putting provisions into place and for those provisions to come into force of one year in considered rather short. We would suggest at least 2 years should elapse and hence propose 31 December 2012 as a more suitable date. HRA response to Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Light Rail Consultation) - (sheet 2 of 5)

Section 3.1

Question 3: Do you agree that provisions for the accessibility of fixed telephones and sleeping accommodation should be removed from RVAR?

Response: Yes

Section 3.1

Question 4: Do you agree that the end date by which time all light rail vehicles must be accessible should be set at 1 January 2020?

Response: This is the better of the alternatives offered.

Section 3.1

Question 5: Do you agree that this revised definition of "guided transport" should be used for the purposes of RVAR?

Response: We note that there is no definition of ‘guided transport’ as such in the proposed Regulations, although the words are used in Regulation 2 (2) and (4). However taking into account the full text of 3.1.27 to 3.1.29 of the consultative document; we consider the revisions appropriate; subject to our additional comments at the end of this response.

Section 3.1

Question 6: Do you agree that the accessibility requirements of Schedule 3 of RVAR 09 should only apply to refurbishment contracts that are entered into, in writing, after 30 June 2010?

Response: We believe that this is too soon and so would suggest that the date be set for 31 December 2012.

HRA response to Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Light Rail Consultation) - (sheet 3 of 5)

Section 3.2 Question 7: Do you agree that the preferred option (3) of non- implementation of a compliance certification regime is appropriate? Response: Yes; it is the best of the options offered.

Section 3.3

Question 8: Do you agree with the preferred option (3) of bringing enforcement of light rail vehicle accessibility under the same regime that heavy rail vehicles are already under? Response: No. The Association believes that the best option is for the civil penalty regime approved by Parliament as recently as 4 years ago under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, should be adopted. The criminal penalties under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 are excessive for the generally minor infringements that occur in this field. Consistency with mainline railways should not be an issue. If, despite what the Association urges, criminal sanctions are insisted on, then in the event of a contravention, we would ask that a defence should be made available similar to that appearing in safety legislation, for example that contained in regulation 9(1) of the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997, that a person charged be allowed to prove by way of defence that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the contravention

Section3.3

Question 9: Having considered issues including the effectiveness of ORR’s current Notice regime, consistency with heavy rail and possible fettering of ORR’s activities, do you believe it is necessary and appropriate for ORR to retain the power to take an immediate criminal prosecution for a breach of RVAR?

Response: No – see the Association’s answer to question 8

HRA response to Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Light Rail Consultation) - (sheet 4 of 5)

Section 3.4

Question 10: Do you agree that that the owners or lessees of rail vehicles, in addition to operators, should be eligible to apply for an exemption order in their own right?

Response: Yes

Section 5

Question 11: Do you agree that this impact assessment presents a realistic representation of the costs and benefits of the Regulations?

Response: Yes, on the assumption that all Heritage Vehicles are exempt. If however this assumption is incorrect we would need to see a more robust IA before agreeing to this statement.

Additional Items: There are a number of items that we would wish to raise that do not directly fit into the questions posed. Definitions: Rail vehicle. The proposed Regulations contain no definition of this term, so by implication reliance is placed on the definition contained in section 46(6) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. But clearly the proposed Regulations sometimes use the term in senses at variance with that definition. For example, regulation 3 refers to a class of vehicle brought into use before 1 January 1999, whereas section 46 refers to a class of vehicle brought into use after 31 December 1998. There is a further problem with the definition as mentioned below under Prescribed modes of guided transport. Tramway. This term presumably has the definition ascribed to it by section 46 of the DDA 1995. May we suggest, as in our letter of 2 June last, in response to the Department's paper on the proposed Networks Exemption Order, that the revised definition of this term now used in safety legislation is also adopted for these Regulations? See further the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006, regulation 2 and Schedule 6. HRA response to Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Light Rail Consultation) - (sheet 5 of 5)

Other definition related items References are to pages in the printed version of your consultative document Lift (page 94). The definition of this term contains the phrase "inclined at an angle of more than 15 degrees to the horizontal" which seems to overlap with the definition of some cableway installations. Would it not be more appropriate to follow the definition contained in the Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) Order 1992 and refer to inclination "at an angle of less than 15 degrees to the vertical"? Narrow width vehicle (page 94). We wonder whether this concept might be developed to deal with those narrow-gauge lines over 350mm which have physical constraints occasioning problems with meeting RVAR requirements, a further topic touched on in our letter of 2 June. (page 96). The definition of this term would exclude single self-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles (such as class 153s). We take it that this is intended, but such vehicles can be capable of being taken to be in certain instances (see the definition of "" in section 83(1) of the Railways Act 1993). We wonder whether this aspect has been fully considered. Prescribed modes of guided transport (page 96). Although the definition specifically excludes cableway installations, it would appear that the proposed Regulations apply to rail-mounted cableways because this mode falls within the definition of "rail vehicle" which, as stated above, is derived from section 46 of DDA 1995. It will be seen that that definition draws on the definition of "railway" contained in section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992, which is wide enough to encompass rail-mounted cableways. Tramcar (page 115). In paragraph 10 of Schedule 1, where the longitudinal plane of handrails is specified, we would suggest that there is also need to make reference to the vertical plane. In paragraph 10(3), we applaud the degree of discernment which led to the special provision for "open-topped double-decker tramcars", but urge that the words "double-deck open-top tramcars" would be more technically felicitous. ------end of HRA response ------Please send your responses to: by post: Rail Vehicle Accessibility Team (Light Rail Consultation) Department for Transport Zone 4/32 Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR by e-mail: [email protected] (please include "Light Rail Consultation" in the heading)