WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Yet another case of making a change without fully thinking through the potential consequences...

 

And the alternative is?

 

What all those moaning and groaning about speed limits need to remember is that the laws of physics don't change regardless of the posted limit. If a pedestrian - and by extension a cyclist - is hit at 20mph there is a significantly higher chance of the injuries being survivable and 'non life changing'

 

At 30mph - a mere 10mph more the chances of them dieing / left with life changing injuries skyrocket.

 

So while a lower limit might potentially cause more incidents overall, the fact that those incidents are more survivable should not be underestimated - particularly as in a civilised society we should always prioritise life over materialistic considerations....

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, roythebus1 said:

"putting up prominent signs and making announcements over the public address system."

 

I wonder how many heritage trains have a PA system? On many I suspect it's the guard bellowing at the top of his or her voice! :)

 

Not many - but its something which railways may want to consider in future, particularly if they have rolling stock which is suitable (and lets not forget BR was able to fit it to Mk1 based EMUs)

 

As I have pointed out simply refusing to consider doing something out of principle cuts very little ice with the ORR and it only takes one particularly nasty incident on a Heritage railway to upset the status quo...

[roythebus1]

On my local heritage railway there was an "incident" in the workshop the other week and the workshop had to be shut down for a short period. I don't know what it was, but it's the 2nd incident in the workshop in the last few years. H&S involved, but that affected loco availability.

[Nick C]

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

And the alternative is?

The proper alternative is, I suspect, far too complex and nuanced for either untrained internet commentors (like me) or policitians - but certainly not simply throwing on a blanket speed limit and saing "look, see, we did something!"

 

More likely a combination of some speed limit reductions, better separation of different traffic types, better traffic management and more education for all types of road users. 

 

16 minutes ago, roythebus1 said:

I wonder how many heritage trains have a PA system? On many I suspect it's the guard bellowing at the top of his or her voice! :)

 

All of ours (Watercress line) do - particularly as one of our stations has short platforms so for longer trains the guard needs to make announcements regarding that.

[cctransuk]

9 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And the alternative is?

 

What all those moaning and groaning about speed limits need to remember is that the laws of physics don't change regardless of the posted limit. If a pedestrian - and by extension a cyclist - is hit at 20mph there is a significantly higher chance of the injuries being survivable and 'non life changing'

 

At 30mph - a mere 10mph more the chances of them dieing / left with life changing injuries skyrocket.

 

So while a lower limit might potentially cause more incidents overall, the fact that those incidents are more survivable should not be underestimated - particularly as in a civilised society we should always prioritise life over materialistic considerations....

 

You miss the point completely!

 

You can impose speed limits to your heart's content - but if those limits are not enforced, and the prosecutions publicised, there will be no reduction in overall speed and no consequential reduction in accident severity.

 

Whatever makes you think that we live in a civilised society - and what SHOULD be a social priority is rarely a consideration in real life.

 

CJI.

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, cctransuk said:

 

You miss the point completely!

 

 

A lack of enforcement is a completely different issue as to whether a measure may be desirable in terms of the laws of physics! - and that is what ultimately is driving the push for lower limits, be it to reduce air pollution, reduce noise pollution or the desire to continue to reduce KSI stats.

 

I have deliberately been careful about my wording because in practical terms its impossible to spout off about specific limits in specific places as that requires an understanding of the risks, number of vulnerable users, etc in any given location - and the need for enforcement (either by passive highway design or active enforcement by cameras / the police) is similarly dominated by site specific considerations and not a thing which has any bearing with respect to the fundamental laws of physics.

 

Its a sad fact of life that far too many motorists, ensconced in their nice sturdy metal box are oblivious to the needs of other more vulnerable road users out there who lack such protection and automatically assume that any particular measure is deliberately being done to them out of spite rather than grounded in scientific fact. 

 

 

 

[beast66606]

35 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And the alternative is?

 

 

Ban cycling ? - if people lean out of the window and get injured then to reduce that we must stop them leaning out so the logical conclusion would be if people ride bikes and get injured we should stop them riding bikes.

 

(Mostly tongue in cheek)

[phil-b259]

As interesting as it might be for some - can we please take the discussion over speed limits elsewhere. This thread is supposed to be about the safety standards on railways....

[Mike_Walker]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

A lack of enforcement is a completely different issue as to whether a measure may be desirable in terms of the laws of physics! - and that is what ultimately is driving the push for lower limits, be it to reduce air pollution, reduce noise pollution or the desire to continue to reduce KSI stats.

 

But surely these 20mph limits increase pollution.  When I drive through one I really need 3rd gear and the engine as a consequence is revving faster that at 30mph in 4th.

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, beast66606 said:

 

Ban cycling ? - if people lean out of the window and get injured then to reduce that we must stop them leaning out so the logical conclusion would be if people ride bikes and get injured we should stop them riding bikes.

 

(Mostly tongue in cheek)

 

Cycles were around before motor vehicles so it could be regarded as they have 'grandfather rights' which motor vehicles don't

 

Just like Heritage railways - versus Network Rail / modern traction where the former have things like a reduced speed limit to compensate for their shortcomings compared to the latter...

 

(Also Mostly tongue in cheek)

[phil-b259]

23 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

But surely these 20mph limits increase pollution.  When I drive through one I really need 3rd gear and the engine as a consequence is revving faster that at 30mph in 4th.

 

I was keeping things general - because studies have shown that for most IC cars, around 50mph tends to be the speed at which emissions are at their lowest - and thats why we have seen  60mph or 50mph limits applied to motorways M1 at Medowhall) or dual carriageways (A331 at Farnborough) where air pollution is a concern.

 

However neither of those two examples involve pedestrians or cyclists - and in any case emissions can be solved by hybrid or electric vehicles or even just newer and clear IC powered vehicles. In other words a 20mph plus a ULEZ setup could potentially produce less harmful emissions than a 30mph with no ULEZ 

 

By contrast we don't have a way of similarly improving the human body so vehicles simply bounce off people or have people bounce off roads with minor cuts and grazes at all speeds - hence the point that the science behind reducing limits is sound where people / cyclists and motor vehicles mix.

 

Similarly noise tends to increase with speed and lowering the limit may be a desirable thing where a road passes very close to housing - but again the criteria here does not involve the squishyness of human bodies...

 

Note that proper risk management advocates best practice is to remove the hazard rather than mitigate it (which is what reducing speed limits does), so with respect to roads the ideal is to switch cars onto their own new roads where pedestrians and others are banned or alternatively devise other infrastructure solutions which similarly remove pedestrians and cyclists from being in close proximity to motorists.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by phil-b259

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

If a pedestrian - and by extension a cyclist - is hit at 20mph there is a significantly higher chance of the injuries being survivable and 'non life changing'

 

At 30mph - a mere 10mph more the chances of them dieing / left with life changing injuries skyrocket.

Just as, possibly more, importantly, the lower speed gives both parties a longer reaction time in which to avoid or minimise an accident.

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

A lack of enforcement is a completely different issue as to whether a measure may be desirable in terms of the laws of physics! - and that is what ultimately is driving the push for lower limits, be it to reduce air pollution, reduce noise pollution or the desire to continue to reduce KSI stats.

 

I have deliberately been careful about my wording because in practical terms its impossible to spout off about specific limits in specific places as that requires an understanding of the risks, number of vulnerable users, etc in any given location - and the need for enforcement (either by passive highway design or active enforcement by cameras / the police) is similarly dominated by site specific considerations and not a thing which has any bearing with respect to the fundamental laws of physics.

 

Its a sad fact of life that far too many motorists, ensconced in their nice sturdy metal box are oblivious to the needs of other more vulnerable road users out there who lack such protection and automatically assume that any particular measure is deliberately being done to them out of spite rather than grounded in scientific fact.

 

I fully understand all of the theory, and the effects of site conditions - but what matters is whether a scheme achieves its objectives in the real world.

 

Having pioneered, with special DoT approval, many innovative forms of 'traffic-calming' measures and cycle priority / segregated / shared-use facilities, I am acutely aware that desirability and theory are rarely fulfilled in the 'real world'.

 

Human nature being what it is, if an imposed regime can be circumvented for short-term convenience, it will happen frequently, despite the very obvious dangers incurred.

 

After forty years of putting excellent theory and well-meant intention into practice, I regret to say that I do not feel that I achieved much in real terms.

 

I was responsible for many radical changes to road layouts and user priorities, which should have made quite significant changes to the experiences of all road-users.

 

In truth, most scheme aims were defeated by user abuse - which could only have been prevented by proper enforcement of restrictions. The idea that a scheme should be self-enforcing is,  IMHO, unachievable - given the extent to which road users are prepared to put self-interest before all else!

 

Sorry, but that is my honest conclusion now that I am happily retired from seeking to achieve the impossible.

 

CJI.

[roythebus1]

I fail to see what mot of this discussion has to do with railway safety!

 

[frobisher]

On 06/09/2023 at 18:52, cctransuk said:

The bottom line, though, is that if you don't have the resources to enforce; what is the point of any new restrictions?

 

I somewhat think the whole point of the action was to get WCR to comply with the EXISTING restrictions...

[Matt37268]

25 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

I somewhat think the whole point of the action was to get WCR to comply with the EXISTING restrictions...

I’d also say that the ORR did have the resources to enforce its restrictions with WCR and quite rightly did so earlier this year. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Matt37268

[chris p bacon]

On 06/09/2023 at 18:23, phil-b259 said:

It’s also sometimes known as the ‘duck test’ in law - i.e. if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck then a reasonable man is justified to assume that the item in question is indeed  ‘a duck’

 Where that falls down in todays society is that the Duck may well self identify as a horse called Mabel. 
 

I’ve thought about self identifying as a dining room table as they get laid everyday…..😬

[roythebus1]

40 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 Where that falls down in todays society is that the Duck may well self identify as a horse called Mabel. 
 

I’ve thought about self identifying as a dining room table as they get laid everyday…..😬

Or the Italain girl back in the mid-1960s who told her mama she wanted to be "Veectoria Choo bellini." Mama asked her to explain, and she showed her mama the Evening News headline "Victoria Tube Line laid by 2000 men in 2 years"

[Neil]

On 07/09/2023 at 10:05, phil-b259 said:

 

And the alternative is?

 

What all those moaning and groaning about speed limits need to remember is that the laws of physics don't change regardless of the posted limit. If a pedestrian - and by extension a cyclist - is hit at 20mph there is a significantly higher chance of the injuries being survivable and 'non life changing'

 

At 30mph - a mere 10mph more the chances of them dieing / left with life changing injuries skyrocket.

 

So while a lower limit might potentially cause more incidents overall, the fact that those incidents are more survivable should not be underestimated - particularly as in a civilised society we should always prioritise life over materialistic considerations....

 

Actually I guess that in reality there will be fewer accidents, 20mph buys you a bit more reaction time than 30mph and that in a few years all the fuss and bother will be over and driving through built up areas at 20mph will be the norm. In many cities you do well to get up to 20 even without restrictions. 

 

To bring this back to the Jacobite, if hanging heads out of the windows is effectively policed and the risks of door opening  at the wrong time well managed then the average punter will see this as the norm and won't indulge in potentially risky behaviour. Everyone will have a nice ride through lovely scenery without incident and no unfortunate will have walk alongside the line picking up missing body parts which is what we all want.

[rodent279]

3 hours ago, Neil said:

 

Actually I guess that in reality there will be fewer accidents, 20mph buys you a bit more reaction time than 30mph and that in a few years all the fuss and bother will be over and driving through built up areas at 20mph will be the norm. In many cities you do well to get up to 20 even without restrictions. 

 

To bring this back to the Jacobite, if hanging heads out of the windows is effectively policed and the risks of door opening  at the wrong time well managed then the average punter will see this as the norm and won't indulge in potentially risky behaviour. Everyone will have a nice ride through lovely scenery without incident and no unfortunate will have walk alongside the line picking up missing body parts which is what we all want.

Exactly the point i made above about lower speeds giving more time to react for both parties.

[The Stationmaster]

On 07/09/2023 at 10:03, Ricochet said:

I want to be clear on the heritage railway point that when i say 'leaning' i do not mean leaning several feet out of the window. I mean 'looking', as in standing at the window on the end of a carriage and glancing around the lip of the window, just enough to see the locomotive. I am aware that leaning out a foot or two is dangerous, and is a practice i do not partake in. I'd consider there to be a difference between leaning and glancing around the window lip. 

In many cases on today's  railway (albeit perhaps not so much in the heritage/leisure sector?)  sticking even your nose out of the window is asking to get it damaged.  The number of places, even on mainline routes, where the lineside jungle brushes against the sides of passing trains is countless and it's not just foliage but even branches and brambles.  You've got to be pretty stupid to even open a droplight let alone lean  out of it.  

 

And if you don't realise that is going to happen the danger is even greater.

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 05/09/2023 at 19:20, Wheatley said:

Yes it's not like anyone has ever been killed hanging out of a train window. Oh hang on ...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/04/narrative-verdict-in-inquest-into-death-of-woman-who-leant-out-of-train-window

 

Several others to choose from including a charter train in North Wales a few years ago. 

A trainspotting school friend of mine was found dead on a train with a head injury c1970. Matching blood type was found on the corner post of a Midland Railway signal box a few miles back.

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 09/09/2023 at 22:43, The Stationmaster said:

In many cases on today's  railway (albeit perhaps not so much in the heritage/leisure sector?)  sticking even your nose out of the window is asking to get it damaged.  The number of places, even on mainline routes, where the lineside jungle brushes against the sides of passing trains is countless and it's not just foliage but even branches and brambles.  You've got to be pretty stupid to even open a droplight let alone lean  out of it.  

 

And if you don't realise that is going to happen the danger is even greater.

And in the Petteril Bridge derailment report this week the RAIB is expecting freight drivers to look back along the train to check it is running correctly hen it is safe to do so. In my recent experience*of vegetation scraping the side of the train there's not much chance of finding anywhere to do it on the driver's side and he can't look down the other side without leaving the chair.

 

*Latest trip from Manchester to Chester via Stockport. There are a couple of spots on the single line between Mouldsworth and Mickle Trafford that are like riding through a carriage washer when it is raining. The vegetation scrubs the dirt off both sides of the train at the same time.🫣

[PhilH]

On 09/09/2023 at 22:43, The Stationmaster said:

In many cases on today's  railway (albeit perhaps not so much in the heritage/leisure sector?)  sticking even your nose out of the window is asking to get it damaged.  The number of places, even on mainline routes, where the lineside jungle brushes against the sides of passing trains is countless and it's not just foliage but even branches and brambles.  You've got to be pretty stupid to even open a droplight let alone lean  out of it.  

 

And if you don't realise that is going to happen the danger is even greater.

When I was part of Hoskings organisation I remember going out with a rake of blood and custard coaches, freshly painted, looking fabulous, on their  first railtour. At the end of the day you should've seen the state of them, scratched from here to the end of next week,such a shame.

[roythebus1]

It's not possible to look out of a side window on some of the modern traction as there isn't one!