phil-b259

The ORR enforces (via regulation) what THE UK PARLIAMENT) has decided should apply. Why do you think the Heritage Railway Association holds events, seminars and lobbies MPs? It is THE UK PARLIAMENT which has decided that Heritage Railways can be exempted from certain things which PARLIAMENT has decided will apply to the national rail network. Whether thats for commercial reasons, safety reasons or because they think that their local Heritage Railway closing may threaten their parliamentary majority is irreverent to the ORRs work. The UK Parliament could, if it wanted make WCR operations exempt from ORR oversight if it wished - all it takes is a parliamentary bill or two.... If the ORR was supposed to care about commercial matters with respect to safety regulations then it would have been instructed to do so by the UK Parliament - but it hasn't! Therefore any attempts to use that as an argument why regulations don't apply etc can be thrown out. I know that there is an aversion to Politics on this forum but I really wish people would wake up the reality that the majority of decisions made by Government bodies are directly due to the polices and instructions handed down by those who inhabit the Palace of Westminster! If anyone doesn't like the rules / priorities / etc the ORR applies then its the politicians you need to be focusing on!

I'm sure there are those within Whitewall (plus certain political parties) who would love the opportunity to turn it into a pioneering self driving EV motorway instead.

The same reason why you need to go a working at height course when your employer wants you to climb ladders but DIY stores can quite happily sell you a ladder to use at home without the need to seeing proof that you have undergone training - name practicality and voter backlash as stores shut, jobs are lost and people are directly impacted if you can no longer go down B&Q and buy a ladder or a power saw.. Outlawing the purchasing of ladders and many DIY tools would do wonders for A&E as it would significantly reduce the number of 'DIY gone wrong' incidents which cost the NHS large sums of money to sort out. As would mandatory re-testing of motorists every 5-10 years...... As you correctly note the consequences of falling out of a Heritage railway carriage going at 20mph are not materially any different to a national rail train doing the same speed* so yes, in principle there is certainly a strong case for various regulations to be applied to Heritage railways, particularly those with restricted clearances or tall bridges etc. However extending all ORR regulations to Heritage Railways would be just like banning the sales of ladders and DIY tools to the general public - the fall out would be widespread and voters would not tolerate it. Heritage railways carry many more passengers, employ many more people and generate far more economic benefits (not to mention tax revenues) across the UK as a whole than charter operations do in each calendar year. Hence the solution of effectively having two regulatory regimes (be it with respect to ladders or railways) with different regulatory requirements for both and a clear dividing line between them. Charter trains, because they straddle this line unfortunately as is always the case the most stringent standards have to apply so as to be conversant with the law. *though it should be noted that injuries / the likelihood of death from an impact does not rise in a linear fashion with impact speed (hence the "hit me at xx mph and there is an 80 % chance I will die, hit me at xx and there is an 80% chance I will live" type adds you used to see on the TV)

I fear not - there are far too many railway enthusiasts stuck in the 1950s / or who fail to appreciate the difference between a real railway and a train set. The statistics make it clear - far from everything being 'fine' in the 'olden days' the real railway has a long history of killing both workers and passengers through a lacklustre / penny pinching approach to safety. The fact that we have robust regulation these days is something to be celebrated - and unlike the doom mongers on here I'm quite sure that what with Harry Potter being the worldwide success it is that in time someone will come up with a complaint product offering which works* *Note - most Harry Potter fans are NOT train enthusiasts! Providing its got a steam loco on the front and vaguely 'old fashioned' looking coaches (which basically means anything pre-dating the Mk2 aircons) on it they really won't care. They basically fall into the same category as folk who say they have 'seen ' the Flying Scotsman at York when whet they have actually seen is Mallard with a 'Flying Scotsman' headboard

Indeed so - but as this case demonstrates its not the regulator which is 'overexerting' - a UK Judge decided on the basis of the evidence put before them the regulators reasoning and demands were sound. If the ORR was somehow acting well outside what the law thought was proportionate it would have something to say on the matter. Which means that any change has to start with a fundamental rethink of UK law - including a conscious decision to junk several centuries of case law / legal prescient - maybe even as far back as 1066. Somehow, I suspect the chances of that happening are sim....

You are aiming at the wrong entity! The ORR does not write UK law - which is what the regulations are there to protect operators against transgressing and as such contravening UK law. If someone feels the ORR have got things wrong they can, as with WCR, go and put the matter before a Judge. The Judge will then examine whether the ORR regulation being contested is deemed an appropriate way with complying with UK law! If as you contend, the ORRs regulations are 'over the top' / excessive then the Judge has the power to rule against the regulators requirements as going beyond what the law requires (and case law will in fact reveal cases where Judges have taken such action in the past). The fact that organisations generally don't go round challenging the ORR is thus because professional legal advice (not the views of an armchair lawyer looking through rose tinted glasses) will conclude that the ORRs regulations are likely to be proportionate to what THE LAW requires where they to be tested in the UK courts.

All this does is highlight that humans are fallible - and those humans which inhabit the USA are just as likely to make mistakes as they are in the rest of the world. Had you felt like it then I'm sure you could have sued the operator and got compensation. In fact being the US there probably would be many law firms keen to sue as that seems to be default approach to ever single thing that annoys however trivial. Just because something happens overseas does not mean it is considered acceptable practice were it to be tested in a court of law... Plus as law differs considerably between nation states trying to use what a foreign court may / may not do as what would happen in UK courts doesn't wash.

Because when hauled up in front of a judge in a British court practices which would be tolerated elsewhere are JUDGED ILLEGAL UNDER UK LAW! Moreover the ORR (and other regulations) do NOT write the actual laws which the regulations are based round. The ORR (and others) draw up regulations based on the simple premise that if entities follow the regulations then the UK legal system will not find any laws have been transgressed. And thanks to the UKs use of a 'common law system - once a judge in one case finds that a particular law has been transgressed then it gets entered into 'case law' which sets the benchmark for subsequent cases. For example the ORRs regulations which are all about preventing access to the trackside (and taking action against companies which do not proactively try and stop such things) are not something they came up with because they felt like it - the regulations are a symptom of the fact that Parliamentary legislation has required railways to be fenced off from adjoining land etc. Another example would be the use of High-Visibility clothing - again its the fact that we have legislation called the Health and Safety At Work Act enforced by the UK courts which frames the regulations the ORR issue. It would be interesting to stick you in front of a Judge - because they I suspect they would very quickly get you tied up in knots and demolish all the points you raise very quickly!

Generally speaking within Grater London generally speaking there is very little need for the use of a private motor car - and those who continue to selfishly use one deserve everything they get in terms of delays. If there is congestion to public transport then the solution is more bus priority measures etc, not rolling back restrictions on selfish motorists!

Which is exactly the strategy I am employing.

You are confusing two seperate things - braking and CDL Although on trains fitted with power worked doors from the outset the doors are interlocked with the brakes there is actually no specific requirement for a retrofitted CDL system to do the same. Nor is there are requirement for the system to prevent the brakes being released and the train moving off or even that all doors are detected closed before the system can be activated. in essence CDL is something operated by the train guard AFTER all doors have been confirmed closed by them / platform staff to prevent them from being opened again. As such the only relevance to the braking system is that the air pipe running the length of the train provides a source of air which can be used to power the CDL mechanism. Electric power supplied from Batteries / ETS or a vacuum from the vac pipe can also be used a ‘power source’ for the mechanism if so desired - it’s just that nobody has invested/ designed a backlog powered system yet while the ex BR air operated system (which could be retrieved from coaching stock being scrapped or an electromagnetic based solution as pioneered on the Hastings diesels / CIGs used on the Lymington branch are ‘off the shelf’ solutions and are thus relatively cheap.

There is no requirement to 'authorise' anything of the sort. Firstly because the ORR have long made it clear that its up to the operator to test and certify systems to be suitable to meet the requirements which the ORR lay down. In effect all the ORR will say to anyone is "YOU provide evidence of the independent and properly evaluated testing YOU have done to show YOUR design meets what the regulations states" which is very different form "Show us what you are doing and we will approve a specific type / combination of equipment" Secondly, as far as the ORR are concerned the exact braking system that a passenger vehicle may be equipped with and the exact type of CDL mechanism used are completely separate things, designed to do different jobs and fall under completely separate categories as far as regulations pertaining to the use of passenger rolling stock Just because you have air brakes does not mean an air based CDL system has to be used (and on dual braked stock the an electro-magnetic solution is probably more versatile). The only reason Vac brakes with CDL has not yet been done is nobody has thought it worth wile / been able to design a Vacuum based CDL system - not that it needs some form of 'authorisation' Moreover if someone invented a vacuum based CDL system that could be proved to meet the basic requirement of preventing a passenger from being able to open a locked door (however much they pull / push / bash it) then the ORR would have no issue with such a system being employed.

Because the north station was owned by a rival company! You rather forget the GWR and the LSWR / SR were competing against each other for business and there was no incentive to make through workings easy. Had the Bodmin & Wedford Railway entered into the ownership of the GWR rather than being bought by the LSWR then things may well have been different…..

Thats not surprising, but done for sound reasons. Elizabeth line trains (which is what you have to change on to at Ealing) run at irregular intervals because thats the only way of pathing them (plus freight etc) along the GWML. Changing them would result in a significant reduction in the number of trains which can be provided which is not sensible given passenger loading on Elizabeth line services while the Greenford shuttle timings are also constrained as its operated by a single unit which cannot wait around to make connections without making the service frequency on the branch even worse. Of course the Greenford end does have a pretty frequent central line service which can be utilised rather than going via West Ealing if central London is your destination... But none of the above (including your observations) are of any relevance to the thread which is about model coaching stock

Minehead does not require the reversal on route in a small station with limited space. Please go re-read my earlier post and take a look at Satellite imagery of Bodmin! If you want to compare Minehead with somewhere the Newquay NOT Padstow is what you want to do in terms of the sort of trains which could be accommodated.

Interesting* - but not really applicable to the original question of what Padstow would be like in 2024 because given what we k ow about the growth in car usage railways would still have been rationalised and these later add on lines are the most likely candidates for closure. *Would potentially create for a more interesting model of Padstow set in the 1930s though.

Which is why the Newquay branch offers more prospects. Yes it was heavily rationalised but even after that it could still take full length HSTs - plus if you moved to an inland location there is China clay traffic to be had (even if it involves some fiddling with geography / geology to relocate the China clay loading / unloading facilities. But I do get the appeal of Padstow….

Indeed - but that doesn't mean you sit there pretending time stood still in all other respects than they type of trains used! The big 4 and even pre-grouping lines were not adverse to closing lines if they lost too much money - there were a whole load of them in the 1930s after the wall street crash and general economic slump. BR was axing unprofitable lines well before Beeching arrived on the scene too! Even in countries like France which did not have a Beeching like purge lines continued to be shut throughout the 60s, 70s 80s, 90s, 2000s, etc as passenger and freight volumes continued to be abstracted by the car and lorry. SO with respect to Padstow, however you cut it by 2024 the ONLY line that would have ever stood a chance of staying open (and thus what you should be basing your scenario around if you are seeking to portray such a reality) is the GWR link via Bodmin General.

Of course they didn't - but anyone with any degree of sense would realise that the only realistic way Padstow could have ever survived until the present day is as a feeder to the GWR line at Bodmin Parkway. So although obviously people are free to model what they like if you want to produce a convincing model of Padstow as it might be today then you cannot discount the effects of the widespread growth in car ownership or the call for improved roads which that generated, all of which points towards the only rail link having any chance of being retained being through to the GWR

I think Bodmin General is a bit better than Bourne End - I estimate Bodmin General to be able to take about 5 Mk1s and a loco (leaving space for it to run round) A single Voyager unit or one of the shorterned HST sets opperated by GWR would fit too as would 2x 15X or 16X units

Oh and just to say I know Padstow was a LSWR / SR terminus but even with the best rose tinted specs you can buy there is simply no way in the world the North Cornwall Railway via Camelford etc would have remained open even with the most optmistic hindsight! You cannot dis-invent the motor car nor expect the UKs road system to be perpetually stuck in the 1920s.... If Padstow did keep a rail link it would be in the form of trains to Bodmin Parkway connecting with GWR services not to slow trains meandering through sparsely populated Cornwall and Devon to Oakhampton / Exteter / Waterloo....

The biggest constraint you have (strategic decisions aside) is the need to reverse at Bodmin General on every trip. Even if you plot a different course in terms of politics and rail strategy etc then that constraint isn't going to vanish - its a physical constraint rather than the result of a policy decision and still rule out long trains like full sized HSTs... OK you can imagine infrastructure improvements happened but the more you deviate from reality the less like a model of Padstow it becomes.... If you want to model longer trains (and trains with more variety) then to be honest the Newquay branch is a far better bet if you are looking for a real world location to model.

I get the impression that pre Covid / DfT imposed cuts / Industrial relations collapsing (due to DfT meddling) GWR did actually care about its SW branches plus the condition of their fleets and the management / staff would do their best to put on a decent service using the 15X fleet.

Given the need to reverse at Bodmin (General) and the constrained station there you can rule out pretty much everything other than 1st or 2nd generation DMUs and ceratinly no through trains* * Though a Voyager might fit you need to remember that before them you had HSTs and 7 coach Mk2 rakes - neither of which would fit at Bodmin. HSTs (and now IETs) to Newquay were (/ are) only possible because the branch infrastructure could cope with them from the outset (i.e. no need to reverse at a short station on route) In 2024 it would be worked by the same units used on the St Ives branch (i.e. a15X DMU) - and in fact given the popularity of both resorts the amount of custom would probably be similar In terms of freight - its the same story, the need to reverse put significant limits on train lengths while the tightly curved China Clay branch to Wedford Bridge would not accept long wheelbase wagons. Thus the only non-passenger workings you would see would, as with the St Ives branch, be the occasional visit by a weedkilling train in the summer. As such it would be a relatively boring model, but deffinatly one which would have been worth keeping open - unlike some of the other routes in the area...

Thats up to the Scottish Government and Scottish voters. How they get the money to fit CDL is largely up to them (though a grant from a Scottish Governmental body could be challenged by other charter operators as an illegal subsidy unless carefully structured) - the main thing is making sure they are not allowed to operate non CDL coaching stock on any of their trains.