Jeremy Cumberland

RSR99 Regulation 5 refers only to "hinged doors for use by passengers for boarding and alighting from the train". If there aren't any of these, then Regulation 5 does not apply. Given the context of when this was written, I am pretty sure that the doors the legislators implicity wished to exclude were those for drivers, guards and catering staff, and they had no inkling of what might take place 25 years later in Scotland. RSR99 says nothing about locking doors that aren't for passenger use, and of course guard's doors aren't locked. I am pretty sure that the CDL-fitted 3-CIG units used on the Lymington branch didn't have CDL on the guard's doors; they were simply labelled "Guard". Possibly the guard's area was secured to prevent passenger access (as I imagine the Hastings unit's guard's areas might be), but they never used to be on 4-CIGs in pre-RSR99 days. At this point it is worth noting that RSR99 Regulation 5 does not distinguish between outward and inward opening doors. This might seem strange, but there it is. The VSOE Pullmans, for example, have a current Regulation 5 exemption certificate. As far as I can tell, there are no longer any ordinary Mk1 catering vehicles with Regulation 5 exempton certificates, apart from some on the NYMR authorised between Grosmont and Whitby only. Vintage Trains Limited has a number of Mk1 TSOs and other vehicles with Regulation 5 exemption certificates, but the only catering vehicles on the list are Pullmans. The other two operators with Regulation 5 exemption are VSOE and The Great Scottish & Western Railway Company Limited, and in both cases the certificates cover mostly Pullmans. If non-CDL-fitted catering vehicles are in current use on main line charters, I am sure many people contribuiting to this thread would be interested in hearing how they are worked. Alternatively, if the vehicles are CDL-fitted, are doors only for use by catering staff also CDL fitted, are they locked, or are the simply labelled and left unlocked?

I haven't read a single report that the doors are locked out of use.

I'm still a regular cash user. Most of the takeaways where I live don't take cards amd some of the local shops have expressed a preference for cash, so I tend always to have some cash on me. At a show, I'll happily pay by whichever method incurs the least cost to the club. I wouldn't dream of using a credit card, for example, which probably costs the club money, but I have no idea whether cash or debit card is the better option, and don't mind being advised that one method or other is better for the club.

I like the idea of cash readers. I present my £10 note. It gets scanned. I put the note back in my pocket. I'm not sure what's in it for the club, though.

That's very informative. Two thoughts occur to me: I've said before that the NYMR annual pass might be a poor business model, and the table seems to support that assertion. If a person gift aids their "donation", then the NYMR will receive £62, but this is still onluy £1.30 a mile for one return trip, firmly in the middle ground. Yet for this £62 (or a non-gift-aided £49.50) the passenger is entitled to unlimited travel, so if lots of people people actually make use of the annual pass facility, the income per mile quickly reduces. Someone only wanting a day ticket and asked to pay £49.50 for an annual pass may well think that if £49.50 is the correct rate for an annual pass, then it must be shockingly expensive for a day ticket, and so choose not to buy. However, we can see from the table that £49.50 is actually a reasonable rate for a day ticket given the mileage. It is also worth pointing out that children travel free on the NYMR. Rates for children and families vary enormously between different railways. The NYMR fares now look to me to be rather good value, even though at first glance they appear to be rather expensive.

I see most people posting recently seem convinced that WCRC must be breaking some rule or other based on past performance, but I have yet to see any evidence that they are. I have to read, understand and interpret various regulations at work. Compared with many other regulations, the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 are simplicity itself, and it is clear from the photographs we've seen and reports from people that have actually travelled on hte train that WCRC are compliant with Regulation 5. The non-CDL fitted doors are clearly labelled that they are not for passenger use; they are not in fact being used by passengers, and no one (from WCRC or otherwise) is encouraging passengers to ignore the signs and use the doors. Read the the regulations here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2244/contents/made @The Stationmaster has stated that according to the Rule Book, if the outside doors of a vehicle are locked, then no one may travel in the vehicle, but I have yet to see any evidence that the doors are locked. There is no requirement in RSR99 for hinged doors not for use by passengers to be locked.

78°C is unnecessarily hot, but if it is a recirculating hot water supply (as is usual in commercial premises), it needs to be above 50°C to kill legionella bacteria (55°C is recommended in Britain). This is hot enough to scald, so you might still need the warning label.

A single, surely.

Surely the fairy godmother, if there was one, was the GWR. In the early years, British Railways closed very few railways it inherited, and most of these were because of an urgent need to spend money on the formation or track. Corris closed in 1948 and Red Wharf Bay closed in 1952, both in need of repairs. The Canterbury and Whitstable closed in 1952 when Whitstable Harbour became unusable. The Mid Suffolk Light Railway was probably the first line British Railways closed on purely revenue versus operating costs grounds, in July 1952, and other closures followed at a moderate pace. The Welshpool & Llanfair hanging on for another four and a half years probably matches its status in British Railways' hierarchy of loss-making lines. However, it might not be a coincidence that the local MP, Clement Davies, was leader of the Liberal Party until September 1956, and it is easy to imagine his campaigning for the line to be kept open. He was a friend of Churchill's, who apparently offered him a cabinet position in his 1951 government, and probably had more political power than his party's number of MPs (six) might suggest.

I like it. Unfortunately, never having been a BR guard or shunter, I've never had my own personal Bardic. Those I've been issued with for particular night time jobs have invariably been infrequently used, and stiff.

To you professional guards and shunters: are you able to deftly flick from white to red (or green) using the hand that's holding the Bardic? I have never acquired the knack (if there is one), and have always used two hands to change from white to red.

To be fair, @Chimer hasn't quite drawn it as the Hungerford Bridge plan, which has a crossover from the bottom road to the up (or down) main. Although in my own models (which I admit are mostly in my imagination rather than actually built) I aim for a degree of realism in trackwork, signalling and operation, and wouldn't dream of omitting trap points where they were needed, I don't think most railway modellers are interested in such things. The important thing for most of us is to have a layout that is fun to operate, and it is hard to think of trap points adding to the fun. Furthermore, they can barely be seen from an ordinary viewing distance. Also, since there appear to be no goods sidings in the plan, I am not sure that a trap would be needed on the bottom road anyway, unless it was used for storage of vehicles in which case it would be need to be trapped at both ends. The middle road wouldn't have a trap point of course, but the middle road might have a starter immediately before the crossover, which would act as a limit for shunting moves if the bottom road were being used for a departing train.

I suspect @No. 800 Maedbh wishes to use the biottom brown line for shunting while using the top brown line for a departing train, so an additional section will be needed for the bottom brown line, from the points on the left up to the orange double slip. If @No. 800 Maedbh wishes to use the top brown line for shunting while a departing train uses the bottom brown line, then the top brown line will also need a separate section, from the points on the left up to the green double slip. I expect you'll want isolated sections at the ends of each road that can accept an incoming train, to isolate the incoming locomotive while you bring in another locomitive to shunt the train or to pull it out of the station. These aren't part of cab control, but they will still have switches on the control cabinet, with just an on off function. Use an insulated rail joiner on one rail only, and use a SPST on-off switch (you can use other types of two-position switch and not connect the unwanted terminals).

Well, yes, it's possible - which is why I mentioned it - but I don't think it sounds at all likely. Since my earlier post I've checked who the NYMR PLC shareholders are, and there is only the Trust (there are other shares owned by individual supporters, but those shareholders don't receive dividends or have voting rights). There is no reason for NYMR PLC to wish to make a profit, and plenty of perfectly legal ways of ensuring it doesn't, that I can't imagine this annual pass thing being part of any tax avoidance scheme. Since the Trust's primary charitable aim is to support the North York Moors Railway, I can't see the Charity Commissioners objecting either. Really, although the arrangement seems somehow weird, I can't find anything wrong in it, except that if the NYMR have misjudged things, they might now have to accommodate more passengers for no extra revenue.

It seems rather a good example to me, since it is something everyone involved in heritage railways will recognise, and it covers a multitude of questions: Is an out and back ride VAT exempt? Yes Is a ride for which travelling on a train is only part of the experience VAT exempt? Yes, but see the later note regarding wine and dine trains. Being on a moving train has to be the most important element. Is everything that makes up the package VAT exempt, not just the rail travel part? Yes, if transport is the most important element. Mince pies, drinks and presents from Santa are specifically listed as being VAT exempt as well, when included in the price of the train ride. This then leaves two main criteria for VAT exemption: Trains have to go between two or more stations where passengers can leave the train, and not be wholly within "a place of entertainment". I am not sure whether there has to be provision to leave the station, and there is certainly no requirement for passengers to actually leave the train. Being on a moving train must be the most important element of the ticket. Wine and dine trains get a specific mention because on many short railways the train stands still for a lot of the time, and so doesn't qualify for VAT exemption. In the context of the NYMR, I expect their wine and dine trains are VAT exempt. I linked to the shorter guidance note in my earlier post. Here is a more detailed one: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-transport/vtrans030600 Not that I am aware of. I expect different railways adopt different structures to suit their own needs. I have been closely involved with only one railway which had a "commercial" operating company majority owned by a charitable trust, and one of the main purposes of the trust was to attract donations free of tax and use them to help support the railway. The trust had no staff and did not directly engage in heritage/preservation activities. The operating company was expected to balance its books as well as possible, but it was not expected to generate profits as such. However, there were also commercial offshoots, set up as subsidiary companies, that were expected to generate profits (which went back into the railway).