WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[Mark Saunders]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

More likely on level crossing gates I suspect.

I believe all now battery electric!

[Matt37268]

6 hours ago, Reorte said:

Maybe slightly more dangerous since lots of people aren't used to straightforward trains without buttons to do everything for them and where a bit of common sense needs to be applied about windows, but what's mostly changed are attitudes. Personally I don't share that change of attitude but the rules are the rules and it's up to operators to follow them - and, as I said at the start of this thread, a company that seems to have a cavalier attitude towards one rule, whatever I think of it, is more likely to have the same attitudes towards others, ones I'd very much prefer they took more seriously.

I agree with that, and if we’re honest WC does have ‘previous’ with those in charge regarding its previous misdemeanours. 

[Reorte]

4 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Mrs JJB genuinely didn't have a clue how to open the doors of a Mk.3 coach and was gobsmacked when I did a 'watch and learn' demonstration of pulling the door window down and using the door handle on the outside of the coach. She is from acountry many British people probably still look down on (assuming they've heard of Indonesia) yet I don't think she'd ever seen anything quite so primitive. It used to amuse me when many of my rail enthusiast friends would laugh at foreign visitors getting stuck because they couldn't figure out how to open the doors, it never struck then to wonder how much those same foreigners must have been laughing at us for sticking with such a backward door arrangement.

Your primitive is my simple and straightforward! Putting various good reasons like accessibility aside for a moment I always find it a rather grating, not to mention somewhat absurd, whenever I encounter powered or electronic means of doing things that I found worked to my satisfaction without that.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Reorte

[phil-b259]

On 09/08/2023 at 14:14, Michael Hodgson said:

So if the replacement bus falls off a cliff killing some passengers, should that be classed as a railway accident and investigated under railway rules and included in railway accident statistics?

Investigation and prosecutions concerning Road Traffic Incidents remains in the hands of the Police / CPS.

 

The ‘road’ element within the ORR is essentially only about Health & Safety of the workforce and not motorists / road vehicle occupants.

 

Incidents involving Rail replacement busies are therefore not within the remit of the ORR to investigate.

[Grovenor]

The latest RAIB report does mention that they are assisting with establishing an equivalent organisation for roads, unless I misread it.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Grovenor said:

The latest RAIB report does mention that they are assisting with establishing an equivalent organisation for roads, unless I misread it.

 

They do - but the point is that roads / the legislation covering them (and motor vehicles / driving licences etc) exist in a fundamentally different legal framework and therefore the ability for meaningful change to come about following road based incidents is considerably reduced as a result

 

For example while HGV / coach operators have things like speed limiters and limits on working hours (just like rail workers) the same is not true for car drivers. 

 

So if a car driver has a microsleep or a vehicle defect and causes a HGV to be involved in an incident as a result then the 'road equivalent' of the RAIB has much less scope to investigate / recommend things - because the law places no strict limits (nor has any way of enforcing) driving / rest hours of private motorists. Yes the Police / CPS may wish to consider various motoring offences - but that again is subjective act and the degree to which they may be (or may not be) pursued will vary.

 

Again, take vehicle safety standards - in the rail industry the RAIB can issue recommendations that are easily incorporated into group standards - because said group standards are not Parliamentary 'law' in themselves. By contrast anything involving the standards pertaining to road vehicles safety standards is indeed a matter of 'law' - specifically the piece of parliamentary legislation entiteld "The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2020"

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by phil-b259

[jjb1970]

7 hours ago, Reorte said:

Your primitive is my simple and straightforward! Putting various good reasons like accessibility aside for a moment I always find it a rather grating, not to mention somewhat absurd, whenever I encounter powered or electronic means of doing things that I found worked to my satisfaction without that.

 

It's not the manual doors that were primitive, lots of applications have manual doors and they work perfectly well though there are very good arguments for remotely operated power closing doors on trains to assist with dispatch (remote locking is separate and distinct). The primitive bit was pulling the window down and hanging out of it to use the outside door handle, I'm struggling to think of anywhere else I've ever seen that. I've used manual doors on many trains around the world but I don't remember having to use the outside door handles anywhere else. That's what defeated so many foreign visitors, not that the doors were manual.

[jjb1970]

The RAIB, and its sister organizations the AAIB and MAIB are tasked with investigating incidents purely to establish what went wrong and to assist in preventing recurrences, they are not enforcement bodies, and if there are potential legal violations it is for the competent enforcement authorities and CPS to act and for a court to decide whether or not the law was broken. 

 

The main issue I see for a road equivalent is volume. Rail, air and maritime incidents are relatively unusual, in the case of road transport incidents are an everyday occurrence, multiple incidents every day. Even if limited to commercial transport (trucks, delivery vans, buses, taxis) it'd either need a huge body or some pretty rigorous filtering to decide what a Road AIB would investigate. And how much value would it really offer? Unlike with rail, aviation and marine the Police are very proficient at investigating road incidents and can normally establish what happened pretty quickly, including underlying issues and not just fixing on proximate causes.

[johnofwessex]

My wife was watching 'Chav Camera Action'

 

A car pulling out of a Garden Centre collided with a motorcyclist.

 

Open & Shut you might say, however investigation showed that just prior to the collision he had been doing 120mph and they had no time to see him in a 50mph limit area.

 

The point made by Brake amongst others is that not investigation crashes makes it much harder for 3rd parties get justice in the form of compensation because there is no proper investigation of what happened and why.  Were accidents to be investigated with consequences for those found responsible - which I suggest dont have to be criminal, sadly in this case it was decided NOT to prosecute because of his injuries but I suggest a 'non criminal' route to taking driving licences away would be a big help

[Crisis Rail]

On 22/07/2023 at 09:22, Legend said:

Big blow to Lochaber . 

Glenfinnan will be quiet. 

[Reorte]

19 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

It's not the manual doors that were primitive, lots of applications have manual doors and they work perfectly well though there are very good arguments for remotely operated power closing doors on trains to assist with dispatch (remote locking is separate and distinct). The primitive bit was pulling the window down and hanging out of it to use the outside door handle, I'm struggling to think of anywhere else I've ever seen that. I've used manual doors on many trains around the world but I don't remember having to use the outside door handles anywhere else. That's what defeated so many foreign visitors, not that the doors were manual.

I can understand it confusing people but I don't think "primitive" is the right word. Weren't the outside handles deliberate to reduce the chances of people opening them in the wrong place, rather than being as simple as possible?

[newbryford]

On 11/08/2023 at 19:25, phil-b259 said:

 

Incidents involving Rail replacement busies are therefore not within the remit of the ORR to investigate.

 

Like this one three days ago

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by newbryford

[ColinK]

That’s going to be an interesting one to sort out.  As a coach, especially a tri-axle like this one, turns right the left rear corner swings to the left resulting in accidents like this.   Structures like canopies should be set back far enough (or high enough) to prevent this kind of event happening.  So while the coach driver will get part of the blame, part of the blame should be down to the building designer (or failure by whoever specified the design to allow for rail replacement coaches), maybe if there was a rail replacement co-ordinator present he/she told the coach to go there.

 

The key point for everyone is be very careful when passing a bus, coach or lorry that is going to turn left or right as the tail will swing out  possibly into your path.  Much to the anger of motorists, some drivers of big vehicles will deliberatly block both lanes when turning to prevent other motorists squeezing past and getting hit by the rear corner of the big vehicle.  Of course there is always the stupid person on a cycle or motorbike who will try and squeeze through the gap and put themselves at risk of getting squashed.

[chris p bacon]

2 hours ago, ColinK said:

So while the coach driver will get part of the blame,

 

Being the person with sole responsibility for driving the coach then the driver is wholly to blame. If he couldn't see the canopy which is over a pedestrian area, then he shouldn't be behind the wheel as he put the coach in a place that only pedestrians should be,.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@57.2859031,-2.373583,3a,75y,339.08h,72.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spgbD6nqiWvJwR5U6G9S0Zg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

 

[25kV]

I'm pretty sure that when Inverurie station was built, there were no rail replacement bus services to design for.

[Wheatley]

1 hour ago, chris p bacon said:

 

Being the person with sole responsibility for driving the coach then the driver is wholly to blame. If he couldn't see the canopy which is over a pedestrian area, then he shouldn't be behind the wheel as he put the coach in a place that only pedestrians should be,.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@57.2859031,-2.373583,3a,75y,339.08h,72.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spgbD6nqiWvJwR5U6G9S0Zg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

 

 

Correct. Some years ago I successfully defended a claim against RRNE by a bus company who hit the canopy at Bridlington, anc alleged it was our fault because we hadn't signed it as being low. Our argument that it didn't need to be signed because it was entirely over the pedestrian pavement and not the road was accepted, and they also had to pay for the damage to the canopy. 

 

The same company later reversed into a very large tree at Beverley and tried to claim for that too. 

[Michael Hodgson]

15 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

 

The same company later reversed into a very large tree at Beverley and tried to claim for that too. 

 

If the tree was stationary, it's the road user's fault.

If not, it's an Act of God, so you sue Him.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Michael Hodgson

[The Stationmaster]

On 12/08/2023 at 07:00, johnofwessex said:

My wife was watching 'Chav Camera Action'

 

A car pulling out of a Garden Centre collided with a motorcyclist.

 

Open & Shut you might say, however investigation showed that just prior to the collision he had been doing 120mph and they had no time to see him in a 50mph limit area.

 

The point made by Brake amongst others is that not investigation crashes makes it much harder for 3rd parties get justice in the form of compensation because there is no proper investigation of what happened and why.  Were accidents to be investigated with consequences for those found responsible - which I suggest dont have to be criminal, sadly in this case it was decided NOT to prosecute because of his injuries but I suggest a 'non criminal' route to taking driving licences away would be a big help

And what you say - highlighted in bold by me - might get abut nearer having a separate 'Road Accident Investigation' whatever.  At the moment the  police are tasked with the investigation of road accidents and moving that to a separate agency might  possibly be a way to save money but more importantly it would move it away from a potentially criminal investigation to one which is completely neutral and purely interested in causes and prevention rather than making recommendations to the CPS.

 

But having said that there will inevitably be a situation where investigations need to consider a criminal (i.e. law broken) aspect and then the police would have to be involved and would have to collect evidence.  So not really comparable with the way RAIB - for example - works (although there can there also be a criminal element involved which brings in BTP or the verdict reached by an Inquest.).

 

On balance - whether they like it or not - it might be best to leave road incident investigation solely in the hands of the police.

[Derekl]

7 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

On balance - whether they like it or not - it might be best to leave road incident investigation solely in the hands of the police.

There is a high degree of police expertise in the investigation of road accidents - very apparent when dealing with complex or multi-vehicle accidents. I am not sure that this would transfer easily to another body.

[adb968008]

On 11/08/2023 at 19:48, Grovenor said:

The latest RAIB report does mention that they are assisting with establishing an equivalent organisation for roads, unless I misread it.

If every road incident gets an RAIB response thats going to be one very busy office and is going to need an army of people with a job for life plus overtime !

[adb968008]

4 hours ago, Derekl said:

There is a high degree of police expertise in the investigation of road accidents - very apparent when dealing with complex or multi-vehicle accidents. I am not sure that this would transfer easily to another body.

 

where theres blame theres a claim..

 

Leave it with the Police and the insurance industry.

[DavidBird]

On 12/08/2023 at 07:58, Crisis Rail said:

Glenfinnan will be quiet. 

 

It's not, believe me.

Even with the large 2nd car park, there were still vehicles parked on the main road up the hill on Friday, effectively reducing it to a single lane. There was no noticeable difference to the usual chaos in Glenfinnan when the "Hogwarts Express" (yes, I know!) was off and now that it's back on.  Most seem to come just to see the  "Harry Potter Bridge".

There is also now a very obvious muddy scar of a path through the heather to a point overlooking Eileann na Moine in Loch Eilt, where Ralph Fiennes played a character in great triumph at stealing from a dead man something that wasn't his anyway. The background of these scenes were digitally altered to avoid seeing a ScotRail Sprinter going past the magical location! Car parking on the verge at this location is starting to get problematic too.

[Legend]

13 hours ago, adb968008 said:

If every road incident gets an RAIB response thats going to be one very busy office and is going to need an army of people with a job for life plus overtime !

 Plus the roads would be closed for an in ordinate amount of time ! 

[Wheatley]

At the risk of letting the truth get in the way of a good rant, this is what is proposed for the new Road Safety Investigation Branch -  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-countrys-first-ever-investigation-branch-focused-on-road-safety

 

 

Quote

The branch will investigate themes in the causes of collisions, as well as specific incidents of concern, to learn valuable road safety lessons. It will make independent safety recommendations to organisations, such as government and police forces, to better shape the future of road safety policy and provide better, greener and safer journeys for people right across the country

 

Quote

The branch will not identify blame or liability and so does not replace police investigation. It will instead draw on all the available evidence to make recommendations to improve road safety and mitigate or prevent similar incidents in the future.  

 

[Nick C]

59 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

At the risk of letting the truth get in the way of a good rant, this is what is proposed for the new Road Safety Investigation Branch -  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-countrys-first-ever-investigation-branch-focused-on-road-safety

So basically something akin to the 'safety digests' that the RAIB have been putting out - which focus on common themes rather than specific incidents.

 

One of the key things of RAIB investigations is that they don't apportion blame - because doing so might make people less likely to speak freely...