WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[black and decker boy]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Have ORR set a deadline for CDL?

Automatic /long term exemption under regulation 5 of the 1999 Railway Safety Regs ended in March 2023. ORR published that policy in 2021. 
 

The clue is the use of exemptions. The RSR does not allow non-CDL fitted carriages in passenger use by default.

[The Stationmaster]

On 29/11/2023 at 10:21, ngtrains.com said:

Certainly at some point it was between 15” & 12 1/4” as that was the justification for the narrower gauge. I expect that ‘loophole’ has been closed now.

A railway with a track gauge of less than 350mm (=13.78") does not require a Safety Management System  (SMS) unless it crosses a public highway, on the level or not.

 

As far as main line operation of heritage trains is concerned they are covered by the same legislation and requirements as any other operator unless an exemption (usually conditional) has been granted by the ORR,   The speed of the train is irrelevant for both that and for a heritage railway - what matter is the line speed.

 

In my view I think the WCRC should sotp messing about and bite the bullet.  If they can't provide the staffing their exemption requires it's a waste of time arguing the matter on court.

[Kris]

Just being reported that WCRC have lost the case. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-67804969

 

[4630]

For those interested in details beyond what appears in the media, here is the Approved Judgement from the Royal Courts of Justice published earlier today.

 

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

 

 

[Neil]

I do wonder how much money WCRC have spent contesting the requirement to fit centralised door locking.

[john new]

2 hours ago, Kris said:

Just being reported that WCRC have lost the case. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-67804969

 

Assuming true, sad, but inevitable. 

[Darius43]

No need to assume that it’s true as it is true.  A link to the text of the court judgement was posted above your post.

 

Worth reading if you can spare the time.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

Edited December 22, 2023 by Darius43

[Nick C]

44 minutes ago, Darius43 said:

No need to assume that is true as it is true.  A link to the text of the court judgement was posted above your post.

 

Worth reading if you can spare the time.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

Indeed, very much worth a read, as it also gives a lot more detail as to why the dispensation renewal was refused in the first place...

[Wheatley]

The company ... argued that its door procedures were as safe as a central locking mechanism

 

Well they might be if they were actually applied. 

[Nick C]

14 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

 

 

 

Well they might be if they were actually applied. 

And if they did the risk assessments they'd been asked for to prove it...

[jjb1970]

Any operator of a safety critical process arguing for reliance on procedures as an alternative to engineered solutions is troubling and would raise a huge red flag in my view. I'm not arguing against procedures, safety rules etc, but it's always better to engineer out identified risks than rely on a procedure to mitigate. Elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, PPE. I was taught that as a marine engineer cadet over 30 years ago.

[scottystitch]

4 hours ago, 4630 said:

For those interested in details beyond what appears in the media, here is the Approved Judgement from the Royal Courts of Justice published earlier today.

 

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

 

 

31. 4.3.9 and 4.3.10 are the clinchers for me…

 

Best

 

Scott. 

[rodent279]

Is all of WCRC's mainline mk1 stock not fitted with CDL? Including the stock used for railtours, not just the Jacobite?

[scottystitch]

On 22/12/2023 at 19:32, jjb1970 said:

Any operator of a safety critical process arguing for reliance on procedures as an alternative to engineered solutions is troubling and would raise a huge red flag in my view.

Worse than that, at the same time as arguing for reliance on procedures, on at least two occasions those procedures clearly weren’t being carried out. 
 

On top of that, they’ve had since 01/01/05 to come to an engineering solution.  One could suggest they were showing contempt for the regulation, both in practice and in spirit. 
 

Best

 

Scott. 

Edited December 28, 2023 by scottystitch

[rodent279]

33 section 3.15.5 shows the flaw in the stewarding arrangement-1 steward per coach, 4 doors, stewards cannot be in 4 places at once, and can be distracted or coerced.

 

Yes, we did all travel on trains with slam doors back in the day, when men were men, and most of us got away with it.  But ~12 fatalities per year occurred due to persons opening doors other than whilst stationary in a platform. That statistic reduced to 2-4 per year after the introduction of CDL on the MK2/MK3 fleets, and the replacement of a lot of loco hauled trains with Sprinters etc.

 

If the cost of saving those lives is removing the ability to lean out of a door window on a moving train, open a door whilst still moving and jump off onto the platform, board a train while it's leaving a platform etc (all of which I've done), I've got no problem with that.

 

And if 18 years isn't long enough to plan for this, how long is?

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, john new said:

Assuming true, sad, but inevitable. 

Inevitable, yes. It's pretty much what I said earlier IMO - whatever they think of the rules (and I've sympathy there) they're going to get nowhere by fighting them, and it's not a sign of a responsible operator to try to avoid them regardless of what they think - if you disagree with them you follow them anyway, whilst trying to make your case. There seems to have been no sign of that, no sign of even attempting to comply.

[Bucoops]

We work to "guides" issued by the HSE - under their HSGxxx publications. As they are GUIDES we are permitted to use an alternative method. But that happens only in very rare cases as ultimately if it ended up in a prosecution we would need to have an airtight reason for not following the "guide". 

 

A court is not going to override safety guides, let alone regulations, without exceptional circumstances - this verdict is of no surprise whatsoever.

[scottystitch]

6 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

 

 

And if 18 years isn't long enough to plan for this, how long is?

⬆️ This. 

[scottystitch]

Having read the report from beginning to end, the biggest surprise, for me, is that someone on WCRCs legal team believed they could possibly be successful with their action…

 

Contrary to Reorte’s aside, and with all due respect for his view, I find it difficult to have any sympathy for WCRC.

 

Best

 

Scott.

Edited December 22, 2023 by scottystitch

[black and decker boy]

44 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Is all of WCRC's mainline mk1 stock not fitted with CDL? Including the stock used for railtours, not just the Jacobite?

Correct, none of their hinged door stock has working Central Door Locking.

 

This judgment isn’t the end of WCRC or the Jacobite (and despite a lot of noise, was never particularly about the Jacobite). WCRC can follow all of the other heritage operators of hinged door stock and enter into a binding commitment programme with ORR.

 

ORR should then issue a new exemption covering the period for fitment.

 

Mind you, WCRC may throw their toys out of the pram but as they’ve just spent a few £million buying a jubilee, I doubt they are that short of cash or wanting to give up.

[keefer]

57 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

ORR should then issue a new exemption covering the period for fitment.

Should they though?

WCRC couldn't/wouldn't even comply with the Exemption already granted i.e. they were given the chance to do things their way (with specified conditions) but, even then, failed to do so.

In an increasingly safety-critical industry, WCRC had already been given the benefit of doubt - not any more.

 

 

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

Mind you, WCRC may throw their toys out of the pram but as they’ve just spent a few £million buying a jubilee, I doubt they are that short of cash or wanting to give up.

There is a long list of people in railway preservation history who were apparently unable to find the cash for things they needed to spend it on, because it had all apparently gone on the things they wanted to spend it on. 

 

Other operators can manage to conform to the rules.  WCRC choose not to and they have been found out.  I look forward to almost no coverage of the outcome in the next issues of Heritage Railway (but probably half a page on what the Jubilee's next livery will be).

[Robin Brasher]

The Swanage Railway has fitted central locking on their DMU service to Wareham so there is no reason why other railway companies should not do the same.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Robin Brasher
Inserted not

[Fishoutofwater]

6 minutes ago, Robin Brasher said:

The Swanage Railway has fitted central locking on their DMU service to Wareham so there is no reason why other railway companies should do the same.

did you miss a "not" there?

[black and decker boy]

38 minutes ago, keefer said:

Should they though?

WCRC couldn't/wouldn't even comply with the Exemption already granted i.e. they were given the chance to do things their way (with specified conditions) but, even then, failed to do so.

In an increasingly safety-critical industry, WCRC had already been given the benefit of doubt - not any more.

 

 

It’s never been a vendetta against WCRC and ORR have made clear they would have given a new exemption if the right evidence (or CDL fitment plan) had been offered to them.

Regulators cannot treat WCRC any differently to LSL, Riviera etc but past failures would, in my world, mean frequent un-announced inspections (or the type dive in the Jacobite)