WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

7 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Growing up in West Wales, I don't recall ever reading/hearing about anyone being hit by a train door or falling out of one.  Are you suggesting the regulations on slam door stock didn't need to be applied there, only in the locations/routes where there had been serious injuries or fatalities? 

👍

 

Even fatal injuries often don't get reported in the media. I spent many years dealing with fatal and serious injury RTC's in London and often they would not even rate a mention in the local paper unless there was something 'extra' to make it noteworthy, something I found rather sad. Just because people don't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

7 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

👍

 

Even fatal injuries often don't get reported in the media. I spent many years dealing with fatal and serious injury RTC's in London and often they would not even rate a mention in the local paper unless there was something 'extra' to make it noteworthy, something I found rather sad. Just because people don't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

That's because they are alas a fact of life. With so many people around even pretty low chance events happen to someone on a fairly regular basis, which is why they won't often be reported (although usually they do seem to crop up in local papers and their online equivalents).

 

We might bemoan that being a fact of life, and of course it's not at all good, but I fear a world where we've done a lot more to prevent these what are actually very low risks far more than I fear the risk. You can, of course, find exceptions. Usual disclaimer that in the more thread-specific situation I'm not supporting WCRC or agreeing with their approach.

42 minutes ago, Reorte said:

That's because they are alas a fact of life. With so many people around even pretty low chance events happen to someone on a fairly regular basis, which is why they won't often be reported (although usually they do seem to crop up in local papers and their online equivalents).

 

We might bemoan that being a fact of life, and of course it's not at all good, but I fear a world where we've done a lot more to prevent these what are actually very low risks far more than I fear the risk. You can, of course, find exceptions. Usual disclaimer that in the more thread-specific situation I'm not supporting WCRC or agreeing with their approach.

I'm not 100% clear on what point you are trying to make but in the spirit of discussion I would say:

 

1) what is the evidence base of saying "they usually crop up in local papers.." - is that based on knowing about all the incidents locally and then seeing how many reported? I have been involved in plenty of incidents that did not get reported when I have searched for any info.
 

2) what do you mean by 'low risk' and how does that play into the wider risk assessment process, which is not just about risk? The intention with CDL is to deliver on a clear and thought out decision that people dying or being injured due to issues with slam door stock should be eliminated, and that the cost of doing so is regarded as appropriate and proportionate.
 

3) What safety authorities are sometimes trying to achieve, and CDL is a good example, is pointless deaths and serious injuries occuring to innocent people who are not or should not be in a hazardous environment. Being hit by a coach door or falling out of one on amoving train is a horrible, pointless, and avoidable way of dying. That is totally different from working in a high risk environment like PW on a live railway for example might result in death or injury, but that is not pointless, it is hazardous but if correctly RA'd etc it is necessary. I have worked in hazardous environments and understood that if things went wrong the outcome would be bad but accepted that. What I really didn't want to happen or accept was something dumb happening to me like some muppet opennng a train door and smacking me on the head resulting in life changing injuries. Why is preventing stupid deaths and injuries a bad thing, especially when it is entirely affordable by those paying for it?

Edited April 22 by ruggedpeak

36 minutes ago, Reorte said:

at some point I find the solutions more obnoxious than the problem and would prefer to live with the risk

That is fair enough if it were only you involved and happy to take the risk.  Others (the majority?) might prefer to have mitigations put in place to reduce that risk. I know you were speaking in more general terms, but  I wouldn’t like to be the one hit by a moving open door because someone else found fitting CDL ‘obnoxious’.

26 minutes ago, BoD said:

That is fair enough if it were only you involved and happy to take the risk.  Others (the majority?) might prefer to have mitigations put in place to reduce that risk. I know you were speaking in more general terms, but  I wouldn’t like to be the one hit by a moving open door because someone else found fitting CDL ‘obnoxious’.

Or indeed having to be the unfortunate person having to scrape human remains from track, platforms, carriage sides etc.

1 hour ago, BoD said:

That is fair enough if it were only you involved and happy to take the risk.  Others (the majority?) might prefer to have mitigations put in place to reduce that risk. I know you were speaking in more general terms, but  I wouldn’t like to be the one hit by a moving open door because someone else found fitting CDL ‘obnoxious’.

 

That's why we live in a democracy. Without going in to too many details (otherwise it could descend in to politics rapidly) in a democracy the law hopefully reflects the majority opinion on such matters, and so I accept that that's what it is even when I disagree, and it's why I might grumble about it but wouldn't do more than that (well obviously I'm not in any position to do anything other than grumble or agree here, but I hope you get the point). That, in part, explains my not standing with WCRC on this matter even though you might expect me to.

 

edit: removed erroneous confusing extra "not" at the end

Edited April 22 by Reorte

9 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

This thread seems to have come down firmly on the side of the ORR. To my mind we have a classic David v Goliath situation, with the ORR being an arrogant, overbearing, undemocratic beaureacracy which is completely out of touch with how ordinary people assess risks (for example look at the different attitudes to working on ladders at home and at work). WCRC have clearly made some mistakes but thank goodness that some organisations are prepared to put their neck on the line and stand up against unnecessary expenditure and state sponsored bullying. I for one, don’t want to travel in mark 2s or spend an extra £10 for a useless safety initiative.

 

I apologise if I’ve missed it in the 70 odd pages on here, but how many people have been injured in the 40 years of running steam on the West Highland?

 

Andy

 

One of the "mistakes" that WCRC made nearly caused the worst rail accident in recent years. It was sheer good luck that their charter train didn't plow into an HST. They have very poor form when it comes to safety standards. 

 

But talking specifically about CDL. It isn't just related to their operations on the WHL to Mallaig, but to all their operations. They run up to 5 trains a day during their peak times, all over the network and interacting with service trains. And unfortunately WCRC have poor form when it comes to doors and accidents. From the judicial review (that they lost)*

 

Quote

In June 2022 a passenger alighted from one of the Claimant’s train doors as it left the station, having overcome the steward attempting to stop him and opening the door himself.  He was caught by platform staff as the train was moving.

Quote

We note that the Applicant has had two incidents relating to PTI and train dispatch in recent years, one before the application was made and one since. We consider that the fitment of CDL could have actively prevented these incidents occurring.

 

It seems to again be luck that no one was hurt in these cases. In the first quoted the passenger could've been hurt falling from a moving train, and platform staff, other passengers, train spotters could've been hurt by a swinging door coming down the platform. 

 

It is not a David vs Goliath situation. It's a lone cowboy refusing to play by the rules that every single other operator plays by. 

 

*https://assets.caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2023/3338/ewhc_admin_2023_3338.pdf

43 minutes ago, BoD said:

That is fair enough if it were only you involved and happy to take the risk.  Others (the majority?) might prefer to have mitigations put in place to reduce that risk. I know you were speaking in more general terms, but  I wouldn’t like to be the one hit by a moving open door because someone else found fitting CDL ‘obnoxious’.

 

But I'll bet you are a sensible guy that doesn't stand at the edge of a platform when a train comes in . We seem to be designing rules that compensate for lack of common sense , whether that is the guy standing on the platform , who shouldn't be close to edge or the guy on the train that shouldn't be opening the door . 

 

Now don't get me wrong .There are rules in place and WCRC seem to be doing everything possible to circumvent them . Is this the type of organisation we want on our railway ?

 

I also remember people falling out of trains , but from memory these were people in high speed trains and inter city trains before CDL where doors could appear to be shut but were on the latch . So yes these trains obviously needed them . I think that's different from mk1s puttering up and down to Mallaig . it's difficult to distinguish between rules on a heritage railway and the Jacobite . Yes I know one runs at 25mph and the other at 40mph . is that 15mph so significant? As I've said before , more people die going up Ben Nevis than are injured on the Jacobite , should we stop them going up the mountain , maybe put railings up ?

 

There surely got to be a place for common sense somewhere . You can't legislate all lunacy out 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 22 by Legend

11 minutes ago, Legend said:

I also remember people falling out of trains , but from memory these were people in high speed trains and inter city trains before CDL where doors could appear to be shut but were on the latch . So yes these trains obviously needed them . I think that's different from mk1s puttering up and down to Mallaig . it's difficult to distinguish between rules on a heritage railway and the Jacobite . Yes I know one runs at 25mph and the other at 40mph . is that 15mph so significant?

 

As stated before the regulations apply to ALL of WCRC, not just the Jacobite. And they operate services on the main line at up to 90mph, and passing trains doing 125mph. 

And again the fact that the Mallaig extension is 40mph, and that heritage railways run at 25mph is a shoal of red herrings. There are no regulations currently for heritage railways to fit CDL. There ARE regulations for operators on the national network to fit it. Full stop. WCRC are refusing to do so as they don't want to spend the money. That's it, that's the whole issue when you boil it down. 

9 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

This thread seems to have come down firmly on the side of the ORR. To my mind we have a classic David v Goliath situation, with the ORR being an arrogant, overbearing, undemocratic beaureacracy which is completely out of touch with how ordinary people assess risks (for example look at the different attitudes to working on ladders at home and at work). WCRC have clearly made some mistakes but thank goodness that some organisations are prepared to put their neck on the line and stand up against unnecessary expenditure and state sponsored bullying. I for one, don’t want to travel in mark 2s or spend an extra £10 for a useless safety initiative.

 

I apologise if I’ve missed it in the 70 odd pages on here, but how many people have been injured in the 40 years of running steam on the West Highland?

 

Andy

I think the expression 'WCRC have clearly made some mistakes' should enter a competition for the best railway related understatement of the decade (excluding those made by politicians).  Even Christian Wolmar - much to my amazement if I am honest - has understood what the real issue is and has come down firmly in support of the action on the part of the regulating authority.

 

4 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Although support crews are mentioned in the ORR's guidelines, that's not what the statute says, which only mentions fare paying passengers. I see no reason why a non-CDL-fitted coach could not be used by invited guests having no railway experiences at all. The RMB could be used by hired-in caterers. The doors would need to be unlocked, of course, and labelled not for public use.

 

The statute appears to prohibit entry of fare-paying passengers to such a coach (so it would have to be at-seat service), but I would not like to say for certain.

 

Why conflate statute with the reality of actually ensuring safety on a railway?  For example the statute requirement to have continuous brakes on passenger trains was done away with some years ago so are you saying that if statute applies there is no need for continuous brakes on passenger trains?

 

2 hours ago, 2251 said:

 

While it is certainly the case that the 1999 Regulations would not prohibit that, WCRC is subject to the general duties in Part I of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 -- including the duties to non-employees under sections 3 and 4 (note that a railway carriage would appear to be "premises" as defined by section 53).

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/part/I/crossheading/general-duties

 

For my own part, I would not want to sign off the use of non-CDL coaching stock by sub-contracted non-railway staff without a pretty robust risk assessment. 

 

 

The position regarding passengers (whether or not they have paid a fare) is simple - they must travel in a vehicle fitted with CDL and the CDL must be in full working order.  

 

As far as people travelling in support coaches are concerned the situation there was made perfectly clear back in. BR days and has not changed since.  And that policy was fully backed by SLOA who put their name to it as well.  When it was applied in the late 1980s some very well known people in the world of railway preservation involved with locos operating on the main line expressed considerable disgust with 'this new nonsense'.  But it made no difference everyone travelling in a support coach, whoever they were, had to be qualified in the relevant track etc safety Rules - no exceptions.  Based as much as anything on my experience from direct involvement in mainline steam working back then but also my wider railway experience I wouldn't allow anyone to be in a position on a train if they do not have the knowledge of how to deal with any potential consequenc es of being there

 

As it happens I was one of the two people - involved at that time with loco owners who were members of SLOA - who were authorised to examine people in their knowledge of the relevant Rules and what they meant in practical situations.  Both of us were BR staff anyway and as it happened I was already authorised to examine BR staff and issue the necessary documentation as far as on-track etc safety was concerned.  

 

At the end of the day this all comes back to safety - safety of the individual person travelling on a train as well the safety of people standing on a station platform etc.  And thinking of the possible consequences it's also about not exposing anyone to the nasty business of dealing with the remains of those whom proper safety procedures would have protected.  

 

 

7 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

There are many readers of the Daily Telegraph who agree with you.

 

If it was your child, killed while standing on a platform and hit by the uncontrolled opening of a hinged door, would you consider the £10 a useless safety initiative?

 

As they say with financial investments, history is no guarantee to future performance. Same with safety: we no longer think just about preventing what has happened in the past, but what is reasonably foreseeable. What ORR is doing is entirely in keeping with UK safety law.

How would my child be hit, if there is a steward by the door and a bolt across it? Yes I know that someone once overpowered a steward, but the risk is minuscule and the cost not so. My child is in far more risk crossing the road.
 

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a reader of the Torygraph!

3 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Possibly, mostly by one person trying to stick up for the poor, innocent, hard done-by WCRC it would appear.....

 

 

oh, hello.. am I in the crosshairs?

 

i’m not sticking up for them, i’m not going to defend them against safety, but that doesnt mean to say I have to agree with everyone on here…

 

i’m trying to taking a balanced view against a mob that is quite definitely against them, and trying to see why they are doing what they are doing.

As its 1 voice against an army, (I used to live near Millwall so you get used to it), its not surprising ive got more posts, but admittedly ive wandered OT for probably 50% of those posts.

 

I have learned quite a lot from some contributors in this thread, and certainly respect some viewpoints, even if I might spar with them.

 

Ive not been on a wcrc train in a decade, so I hardly care, though as this season maybe the final season the common man can get a decent priced ticket, I may give it one last hurrah. But the way I see it is mainline steam has been waning since 2012, before Wootton Bassett and were simply seeing those closer to the fire squirm as it gets hot, and its only time until the meteor hits carnforth.

 

I felt this on Pathfinders tour with the western last week too, they were quite paranoid about social media seeing something, and theyve nothing to do with wcrc.

 

oh look is that an unlocked cdl door, hanging off the platform end ?

 

At Tame Bridge Parkway it got even more dangerous as its only a 4 coach platform, and CDL is not SDO….on a 12 coach train… but fortunately there was stewards to protect them… but stewards arent recognised as being required for CDL once its in place… phew it was lucky that someone thought to be safer than that… disaster avoided… could have been really ugly…. But nah its not a wcrc operated train so no one cares.

 

it was nice an cool in the buffet car too… all those open windows, and droplights protected only by a latch but its ok because theirs a big green sign limiting liability/making compliance…

 

is it ok for Pathfinder to put a non compliant mk1 in the rake but not wcrc on the Jacobite ?

Maybe I see things differently, with a clearer head… because I can look at it from a commercial angle, rather than a subsidized unionised public sector money pit in all but name angle. I also see loads of hypocrisy in the thread.

Ive also got no axe to grind against any TOC… I dont really care.

 

I will say others are catching me up in posts as a combination of becoming a bit more disinterested, and summers coming attracting me to other things. My gut tells me the mainline is going to be a quieter place next year, and not just wcrc.

 

Anyway As you chose to bait me, I would like to say this post…., full of top shelf hit em hard language…

 

On 20/04/2024 at 21:36, ruggedpeak said:

Agree, but a court will want to know what they are doing running non-compliant stock in the consist if there is an accident etc. There appears to be no legitimate business reason for running unusable empty coaches, that will cost to operate and increase fuel costs etc. A longer train may make an incident involving speed and mass related physics like momentum potentially worse than it needed to be. Tricky one to explain and an accusation of playing games with the ORR could be hard to defend. Courts will look into exactly what people were up to rather than what they said they were up to, and make judgements such as "you tried to flex the rules by putting non-passenger compliant coaches interspersed with compliant ones for reasons X, Y and Z, but based upon the detail of the regulations and the evidence of your actions and motives as provided it appears that in fact those non-compliant coaches were arguably in passenger use under the regs despite being locked out.." It is a dangerous game to play, Judges aren't stupid and can and do extrapolate when required.

 

Also what is the rationale for inserting several of them in between coaches that are used by the public on a train in public service? Why not all together at one end, if the Mk1's are locked out of use and passengers can't get from one Mk2 to another? Again from a broader safety perspective this does not seem sensible? Not exactly climate friendly hauling several deliberately empty coaches back and forth using coal power either!

 

All rhetorical questions...maybe there is a sensible reason for all of this, it just eludes some of us mortals..........🤪

 

With this 1 line response to shut it all down, was for me the most entertaining, informative and symbolic one liner ive seem in this thread so far.

 

😀

 

On 21/04/2024 at 01:00, Railpassion said:

The Mk1 inbetweeners power the MK2 kit from their dynamos. 

A quite interesting solution, which if the case suggests a cdl power solution for mk1’s also ?

 

Edited April 22 by adb968008

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

Growing up in West Wales, I don't recall ever reading/hearing about anyone being hit by a train door or falling out of one.  Are you suggesting the regulations on slam door stock didn't need to be applied there, only in the locations/routes where there had been serious injuries or fatalities? 

No, but there might be a common sense approach which applied different rules depending on speed and traffic density.

5 hours ago, rodent279 said:

and dozens of injuries, during the first 10 or so years, up to about 1994, from when the majority of pasenger trains started to have some flavour of power operated doors, or manual doors under the control of CDL. 

So very few since manual bolts were put on the doors?

2 hours ago, stewartingram said:

I wonder if the ORR are actually aware of how they are running the present Jacobite? One one think so, but are they?

I cant imagine them, and their lawyers not watching every move.

whats more theres a volunteeer army just waiting to tell tale on every move my wcrc too.

 

I reckon its not are they aware, but how much info can they handle, pretty soon i’m expecting a dedicated snitch hotline for wcrc related incidents to be set up.

 

“Hello welcome to the ORR hotline, if your call is in relation to wcrc, press 9, if its a major emergency not involving wcrc please hold for other options….”

 

Edited April 22 by adb968008

3 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

How would my child be hit, if there is a steward by the door and a bolt across it? Yes I know that someone once overpowered a steward, but the risk is minuscule and the cost not so. My child is in far more risk crossing the road.
 

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a reader of the Torygraph!

I also read the Telegraph (or mainly do the sudoku and read the business pages) but here we are beyond that.  Don't forget that EWCRC had an exemption for The Jav con bite based on the very fact that doors would have a secondary bolt and stewards provided to ensure those bolts were not interfered with.  Good arrangement, made a degree of sense (pending fitting of CDL).

 

So what did WCRC do - they didn't bother to have enough stewards to cover every pair of doors.  And guess what - the Railway Inspectorate caught them out (hardly difficult and no doubt at least one passenger had reported WCRC to the Inspectorate).   Putting it rather more brutally WCRC proved that they could not be trusted to manage their. own safety mitigation.  I would hardly call that 'a mistake' and more a matter of inadequate or incompetent safety management (if not worse).

8 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

 

 

If it was your child, killed while standing on a platform and hit by the uncontrolled opening of a hinged door, would you consider the £10 a useless safety initiative?

 

If it were my child, they would be standing behind the yellow line like me… obeying the army of staff who tell bystanders, often quite forcefully, to be rightly standing behind that yellow line.

 

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Why conflate statute with the reality of actually ensuring safety on a railway?

Because this is ultimately a legal dispute between WCRC and the ORR. ORR only have powers vested in them by Parliament and government ministers. We have already seen WCRC's willingness to take the matter to court.

 

WCRC also have to obey the Rule Book, but since no one has said anything about CDL in relation to the Rule Book, I assume it is not mentioned.

 

I also expect NR to impose conditions as part of WCRC's access agreement, but there is nothing that suggests to me that CDL is involved, otherwise the matter would surely have arisen through some other channel, such as NR refusing to let the train run.

 

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

For example the statute requirement to have continuous brakes on passenger trains was done away with some years ago so are you saying that if statute applies there is no need for continuous brakes on passenger trains?

As far as I am aware, continuous train brakes have never been a blanket legal requirement in Britain. The 1889 Act authorised the Board of Trade to order a company to fit continuous brakes within a set period of time. Most railway companies did, in the end, adopt continuous train brakes, and this was then enforced within the Rule Book. Many variations (or exemptions, if you prefer), permitted by the Board of Trade and their successors, have existed over the years, notably in the operation of mixed trains (the wording of the 1889 Act says "The brake must be capable of being applied to every vehicle of the train, whether carrying passengers or not"), and some railways were very late in introducing continuous train brakes, the Talyllyn, for example, not doing so till about 1990.

 

I believe the current law requires "a suitable and sufficient braking system" for each vehicle and, where the vehicle is part of a train of vehicles, for that train of vehicles (The Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997).

 

Continuous train brakes on the NR network is in the Rule Book.

1 hour ago, nightstar.train said:

 

One of the "mistakes" that WCRC made nearly caused the worst rail accident in recent years. It was sheer good luck that their charter train didn't plow into an HST. They have very poor form when it comes to safety standards.

Repeating myself, but that's why I'm not supporting them here. If they had a spotless record for operating safely I'd be rather more sympathetic, but that was bad by the standards of any time, and their reluctance to toe the line (whatever I think of the line) rather suggests that they simply don't have the right attitude. If I was in their position and really wanted to show that I'd fixed the very serious issues I'd be bending backwards to comply, even if muttering under my breath about what I'm complying with in some cases.

So with respect to the original topic, just to recap:-

 

- WCRC has now provided rake(s) of MK2 coaches with CDL fitted for the Jacobite trains.

- These trains are unheated.

- The steam loco they use has broken down at least once.

 

Is this an accurate summary?
 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

 

21 minutes ago, Darius43 said:

The steam loco they use has broken down at least once.

Did it break down or just have problems with adhesion.