Is a rail replacement bus (RRB) a train? (for legal purposes)

[Fawkes Cat]

I'm struggling to see why everyone is making such worrying remarks. I don't see that this is a matter within the purview of railway law at all. Although rail replacement bus services are provided so that train operators comply with their obligations to ticket-holders, they are not subject to the Railway Byelaws. Neither do Penalty Fares or the Regulation of Railways Act apply. These would be the three typical pieces of law under which fares offences are dealt with.

This is an interesting view, and I have no idea whether it is correct or not.

Do any of our experts on here have any comment?

Well look at the law and decide for yourself, for example:

“train” means any item of rolling stock and includes any carriage, wagon or locomotive;

Buses roll...

If we need to discuss this point is it worth taking it into a separate thread lest we confuse the advice we're giving the OP?

I'm taking up the suggestion I made myself on https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stupidly-gave-fake-details.205725/

Although I appreciate there has been some further comment on that thread about this point, I don't really feel we've bottomed whether - as far as the law is concerned - you need a ticket for a Rail Replacement Bus as much as you do for the train that it's replacing. In terms of what the legislation means (that you should pay the right fare at the earliest opportunity, and there's an assumption that that opportunity will generally be before starting to travel) it seems to me that in this context RRB = train. But is that what the letter of the law says - either on its face, or as interpreted by the courts?

 

[Llanigraham]

Would the "man on the Clapham omnibus" consider it a train service? In my mind he would since it is substituting for the train.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The Railway Byelaws 2005 are secondary legislation made under the powers granted by section 219 of the Transport Act 2000. Those powers solely give the power to regulate conduct etc. in relation to "railway assets".

Section 254 of the 2000 Act directs the reader to Part I of the Railways Act 1993 for the interpretation of terms used in both Acts.

Section 6(2) of the 1993 Act defines "railway assets" as:

(a) any train being used on a network, whether for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods by railway or for any other purpose whatsoever;
(b) any network;
(c) any station; or
(d) any light maintenance depot.

If we want to know whether the Byelaws can apply to a RRB, we must see if it fits into any of those four categories. Quite clearly it can't fall into (b), (c) (d).

Section 83 of the 1993 Act defines "train" as:

(a) two or more items of rolling stock coupled together, at least one of which is a locomotive; or
(b) a locomotive not coupled to any other rolling stock;

and "rolling stock" as:

any carriage, wagon or other vehicle used on track and includes a locomotive;

Clearly a bus cannot be "rolling stock" because it is not used on "track", which itself means:

land or other property comprising the permanent way of any railway, taken together with the ballast, sleepers and metals laid thereon, whether or not the land or other property is also used for other purposes

...and it cannot be a "locomotive", because that is defined as:

any railway vehicle which has the capacity for self-propulsion (whether or not the power by which it operates is derived from a source external to the vehicle);

...since any "railway vehicle" must be:

... constructed or adapted to run on flanged wheels over or along track

No RRB I am aware of has flanged wheels, so an RRB cannot possibly be a train under the above definitions, and accordingly the Byelaws do not have the power to regulate conduct on an RRB.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The above post addresses the situation in relation to the Railway Byelaws. In terms of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, these do not apply to RRBs for the same reason the Byelaws do not. The 2018 Regulations are secondary legislation made under the powers granted by the 1993 Act, and apply only to (Regulation 4(1)):

A person travelling by, present on, or leaving a train

And since this is secondary legislation made under the 1993 Act, that Act's meaning of "train" applies (which, as discussed above, excludes an RRB from being a "train").

As for the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, this is a rather trickier issue. Unfortunately there is no definition of the crucial word of "railway" in that Act - since section 5 applies to:

Every passenger by a railway

However the introductory text states the Act exists to "amend the Regulation of Railways Acts". The Regulation of Railways Act 1871 in section 2 defines "railway" as:

the whole or any portion of a railway or tramway, whether worked by steam or otherwise, which has been authorized by any special Act of Parliament the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 or by any certificate under Act of Parliament

The term "company" (which is referenced in section 5 of the 1889 Act as being the organisation whose employees can inspect tickets) is defined as:

a company incorporated either before or after the passing of this Act
(a) for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, or working a railway in the United Kingdom (either alone or in conjunction with any other purpose), or
(b) which works a railway, or operates a station or a train, in the United Kingdom, and includes, except when otherwise expressed, any indidual or individuals not incorporated who work a railway, or operate a station or train, in the United Kingdom or who are owners or lessees of a railway or station in the United Kingdom or parties to an agreement for working a railway or operating a station or train in the United Kingdom

Again the term "train" comes up, which is given a definition by the 1993 Act, and which we know cannot describe an RRB (by common sense even if the 1993 Act were to be deemed irrelevant). Obviously an RRB isn't a station, and the operation of an RRB isn't "authorized" [sic] under a special Act of Parliament. Accordingly, whilst train companies may operate RRBs in order to comply with their franchise (currently Emergency Measures Agreement) obligations and their contractual obligations to passengers, passengers using RRBs aren't passengers by the railway. They are bus passengers as far as the law is concerned.

This being the case, the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 is the relevant industry-specific law here. Regulation 7 deals with fares and tickets, but it contains no provisions criminalising (purportedly) attempted fare evasion. Accordingly the OP did not commit an offence under this.

The only offence which I could possibly see to be made out here would be under the Fraud Act 2005. But each of the offences enumerated there have a high bar to reach before they are proven, and it isn't necessarily the case that presenting a ticket which was, unknown to the passenger, invalid is necessarily an offence under the 2005 Act.

 

[SteveM70]

Back in the late 1980s when I was at university one of our lecturers began a lesson by asking “would anybody like to define a bus?”

Oh how we laughed, surely this was the daftest question ever

And now here we (almost) are again

 

[hkstudent]

Back in the late 1980s when I was at university one of our lecturers began a lesson by asking “would anybody like to define a bus?”

Oh how we laughed, surely this was the daftest question ever

And now here we (almost) are again

Well, there are loads of ambiguity (and even contradictions) in the legal text that leads to arguments...
That's not a silly question as it was triggered by a not well-defined legal text...

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Would the "man on the Clapham omnibus" consider it a train service? In my mind he would since it is substituting for the train.

On that basis you wouldn't have to wear a seatbelt on a rail replacement coach, since trains don't have them, and you would be allowed to walk up and down the aisles whilst it's in motion.

And what about if there's ticket acceptance on local buses instead. Are different passengers then subject to different sets of criminal offences depending on the ticket they hold?

A thing that runs on flanged wheels along rails is a train; a thing that runs on rubber tyres along a road is a bus. That there is a connection in terms of who is chartering or organising the mode of transport doesn't change the applicable laws.

 

[hexagon789]

Well this RRB at least thinks it's a train:

 

[hkstudent]

Well this RRB at least thinks it's a train:
View attachment 79951

That's lovely...

 

[Merle Haggard]

Just an observation. There's a requirement (I think) that RRBs will have to be PRM-suitable. Is this requirement under road or rail legislation? I know that's just one situation, but it might provide a clue.

 

[richw]

The Railway Byelaws 2005 are secondary legislation made under the powers granted by section 219 of the Transport Act 2000. Those powers solely give the power to regulate conduct etc. in relation to "railway assets".

Section 254 of the 2000 Act directs the reader to Part I of the Railways Act 1993 for the interpretation of terms used in both Acts.

Section 6(2) of the 1993 Act defines "railway assets" as:


If we want to know whether the Byelaws can apply to a RRB, we must see if it fits into any of those four categories. Quite clearly it can't fall into (b), (c) (d).

Section 83 of the 1993 Act defines "train" as:


and "rolling stock" as:


Clearly a bus cannot be "rolling stock" because it is not used on "track", which itself means:


...and it cannot be a "locomotive", because that is defined as:


...since any "railway vehicle" must be:


No RRB I am aware of has flanged wheels, so an RRB cannot possibly be a train under the above definitions, and accordingly the Byelaws do not have the power to regulate conduct on an RRB.

I’ve just noticed as an aside, class 153 working solo doesn’t appear to initial fall into any Of those categories!

 

[hexagon789]

Just an observation. There's a requirement (I think) that RRBs will have to be PRM-suitable. Is this requirement under road or rail legislation? I know that's just one situation, but it might provide a clue.

I believe that's under rail on the basis the bus is providing a substitute to a rail service

 

[mmh]

I’ve just noticed as an aside, class 153 working solo doesn’t appear to initial fall into any Of those categories!

It does, it's a locomotive not coupled to any other rolling stock, which makes it a train.

 

[35B]

Just an observation. There's a requirement (I think) that RRBs will have to be PRM-suitable. Is this requirement under road or rail legislation? I know that's just one situation, but it might provide a clue.

Neither road nor rail, and the Informed Sources Preview email suggests some interesting discussion to be had on that point when the July issue of Modern Railways arrives.

 

[Fokx]

Section 83 of the 1993 Act defines "train” as (a) two or more items of rolling stock coupled together, at least one of which is a locomotive; or
(b) a locomotive not coupled to any other rolling stock;

And there we have it, the class 153 is NOT a train :P

 

[mmh]

And there we have it, the class 153 is NOT a train :P

Unfortunately, the 153 is a locomotive by those definitions.

 

[SargeNpton]

"Again the term "train" comes up, which is given a definition by the 1993 Act, and which we know cannot describe an RRB (by common sense even if the 1993 Act were to be deemed irrelevant). Obviously an RRB isn't a station, and the operation of an RRB isn't "authorized" [sic] under a special Act of Parliament. Accordingly, whilst train companies may operate RRBs in order to comply with their franchise (currently Emergency Measures Agreement) obligations and their contractual obligations to passengers, passengers using RRBs aren't passengers by the railway. They are bus passengers as far as the law is concerned.

This being the case, the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 is the relevant industry-specific law here. Regulation 7 deals with fares and tickets, but it contains no provisions criminalising (purportedly) attempted fare evasion. Accordingly the OP did not commit an offence under this."

Rail Replacement Buses/Coaches are not public service vehicles. They are vehicles that are on private hire to the TOC; so it is up to the TOC to determine who who is allowed to travel on them and between which points.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

"Again the term "train" comes up, which is given a definition by the 1993 Act, and which we know cannot describe an RRB (by common sense even if the 1993 Act were to be deemed irrelevant). Obviously an RRB isn't a station, and the operation of an RRB isn't "authorized" [sic] under a special Act of Parliament. Accordingly, whilst train companies may operate RRBs in order to comply with their franchise (currently Emergency Measures Agreement) obligations and their contractual obligations to passengers, passengers using RRBs aren't passengers by the railway. They are bus passengers as far as the law is concerned.

This being the case, the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 is the relevant industry-specific law here. Regulation 7 deals with fares and tickets, but it contains no provisions criminalising (purportedly) attempted fare evasion. Accordingly the OP did not commit an offence under this."

Rail Replacement Buses/Coaches are not public service vehicles. They are vehicles that are on private hire to the TOC; so it is up to the TOC to determine who who is allowed to travel on them and between which points.

That is true; I had local bus ticket acceptance in mind when I wrote that. As far as I can tell, there isn't any relevant legislation specific to private hire buses or coaches.

 

[jumble]

T

Section 83 of the 1993 Act defines "train" as:


a

It is interesting to note that a single vehicle Railbus would not be classed as a a Train either according to Section 83 of the 1993 Act
( are there any left on Public Rail Networks?)

 

[some bloke]

I don't really feel we've bottomed whether - as far as the law is concerned - you need a ticket for a Rail Replacement Bus as much as you do for the train that it's replacing.

National Rail Condition of Travel 27.4 says,

"In all other respects" [ie apart from luggage, cycles etc and refunds] "these Conditions apply to the use of rail replacement services."

It would be odd if there were no rules about behaviour on these, or the need for tickets. A breach of conditions doesn't automatically create a criminal offence, so we might think the remedy would be by civil action.

 

[philthetube]

It is interesting to note that a single vehicle Railbus would not be classed as a a Train either according to Section 83 of the 1993 Act
( are there any left on Public Rail Networks?)

But a bendybus could

 

[London Trains]

It is interesting to note that a single vehicle Railbus would not be classed as a a Train either according to Section 83 of the 1993 Act
( are there any left on Public Rail Networks?)

Class 139 on the Stourbridge shuttle?

 

[DJ_K666]

Unfortunately, the 153 is a locomotive by those definitions.

Maybe "Heap of junk" would be more accurate lol

Sums up most buses too if I'm honest

 

[Romsey]

Going back to first principles in the industry planning process, the term is " Rail Replacement Road Service".
Such services are specified in the Engineering Access Plan and are part of the train planning process for amended timetables.
So it's planned in the same way as trains but operates on roads....

The idea was blurred when Leyland Nationals still roamed the country and were used on RRRS, particularly in areas where Pacers worked!

 

[DJ_K666]

Still doesn't mean I'll more than cursorily check tickets when I am on a 'Rail replacement Road Service' If you egt on a train you don't show your ticket to the driver, do you. You show it to the guard or the ticket inspector. The driver is a driver and will try and drive and try not to eat anybody on the way.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Still doesn't mean I'll more than cursorily check tickets when I am on a 'Rail replacement Road Service' If you egt on a train you don't show your ticket to the driver, do you. You show it to the guard or the ticket inspector. The driver is a driver and will try and drive and try not to eat anybody on the way.

True; however on virtually all bus services around the country, the role of driver now encompasses the duties that would formerly have been undertaken by the conductor (e.g. checking and issuing tickets).

 

[DJ_K666]

True; however on virtually all bus services around the country, the role of driver now encompasses the duties that would formerly have been undertaken by the conductor (e.g. checking and issuing tickets).

Yes. In Brighton bus drivers are officially called Driver Conductors. Most of them on rail (and Brighton & Hove had regulars who appeared on Rail duties) would barely even look at a ticket even when doing scheduled bus work, in fact there was one driver (now long retuired) who would look out of the window and just wave everyone on with his hand at bus stops. Generally RRB duties are voluntary overtime as it's really easy money. Especially when you're spare at Three Bridges, you can hide right in the back corner and only appear when there is a cup of tea about.

 

[30907]

The driver is a driver and will try and drive and try not to eat anybody on the way.

Glad to hear it (Threads on here need light relief)

 

[MotCO]

Would the "man on the Clapham omnibus" consider it a train service? In my mind he would since it is substituting for the train.

Did someone call?

 

[JBuchananGB]

Back in the day when RRBs ran from Newbury Park to Billericay (maybe they still do, but I have been away from the area for 18 months), having tapped out my Oyster at Newbury Park, I could never find anyone to sell me a ticket to ride the RRB to Billericay.
In the other direction, joining the bus at Billericay was just a question of tacking on the end of the stream of train passengers and boarding the bus. Then tap in the Oyster at Newbury Park. Not sure what else I was supposed to do really.