WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[5944]

1 minute ago, The Stationmaster said:

But it would seem to have been proven that WCRC could not be trusted to provide the level of stewardship their own mitigation procedure required.  I'm not quite sure how you otherwise deal with an organisation which has, more than once, demonstrated a failure to do what it had undertaken to do in order to secure an exemption (which in any case was of a limited term and would eventually expire anyway)?  

Exactly. The report from the court case clearly states on one occasion a passenger forced their way past a steward and alighted from a moving train. CDL should prevent that from happening, unless they decide to try and jump out of the window!

[black and decker boy]

Those asking for / saying ORR hasn’t done a Cost benefit assessment should read this document in the ORR website.

 

ORR CDL impact assessment 2021

 

It is indeed an impact assessment to confirm if the costs of CDL make the ending of reg 5 exemptions reasonable practicable. It has values for using recovered CDL, a new off the shelf electro-magnetic CDL and a bespoke new system of CDL.

 

(Spoiler: it find that the cost is not a barrier to CDL fitment)

[black and decker boy]

57 minutes ago, Legend said:

Of course not .  You identify the risk , assess it , and you put procedures in place to mitigate the risk . But in the case of the Jacobite that may not be CDL but enhanced stewardship .  Again what I am looking at is a pragmatic view, and no that doesn’t mean I’m prepared to accept injuries , but is there another way to manage the perceived risk  that allows this train to continue to run ? 

ORR guidance sets of explicitly what needs to be provided by an operator seeking to use a non-CDL safety system for their hinged doors, that a quantitative risk assessment is required and that an assessment following the hierarchy of controls as laid out in the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regs 1999.

 

the determination letters refusing further regulation 5 exemptions by ORR and the court judgement make clear that WCRC did not provide the in suitable format or sufficient detail. 
 

the prohibition notices last year (and various other incidents on WCRC trains) show that WCRC do not achieve their own prescribed safety systems & standards.

 

why therefore would anyone accept a badly produced request for further exemption from a 25 year old law that all other operators have agreed to comply with?

[DavidBird]

3 hours ago, BoD said:

 

...

According to that report on the cruise economy Fort William only allow one cruise ship to dock per day and then it is one of the much smaller boutique size ships. I have only ever seen that size ship at Oban too.  Do any cruise ships get to Mallaig?  When I have been in Mallaig the town certainly seems to fill and empty with the coming and going of the Jacobite.

 

I don't think WCRC are overstating things when playing the tourist effect on the economy card - I'm not saying that that it makes it a valid argument in this case though.

 

 

 

Yes, they do... and on at least one occassion they involved "The Jacobite"

 

An early morning encounter with the "MV Boreal" and it's foghorn got me out of bed to see through the fog the ECS Jacobite private charter arrival and departure full of cruise passengers

 

https://mallaig-harbour.com/harbour-news-june-2018/

 

 I did even post a photo of the train, but it was lost in the forum crash...

 

 

 

Edited January 14 by DavidBird

[jjb1970]

Confidence in an organization is similar to reputation, it takes a lot of effort to establish and maintain but it's easy to blow it. And once blown it's difficult to re-establish. As others have highlighted, given the track record of WCRC why would anyone have any confidence that they'd implement an effective operational control? They were already supposed to be doing it but weren't. And at some point it's entirely reasonably to say 'you've had a derogation/waiver from this regulation for 25 years, it's time you complied'. Derogations and waivers are usually for exceptional circumstances, for transitional periods or cases where there are genuine arguments that a regulation is inappropriate for a particular case. They're not supposed to be opt outs because it is inconvenient to comply or because organizations don't want to.

[jjb1970]

On things like coffee cup labels, warnings about packets of nuts containing nuts etc, I agree some of them are a bit silly. Many of these things are down to corporate risk aversion and fear of litigation. On the other hand, what does it cost to include a warning note on a cup or a nut packet? Given companies routinely spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s on corporate branding, re-branding, promotional packaging, corporate sponsorship packaging etc I think it'd be difficult to claim the cost of printing 'warning - contains hot liquid' on tea and coffee cups adds much to the cost model of business or increases prices to consumers. 

 

What is more troubling is the substantive issue. Something people may lose sight of is that even if a passenger or customer does something silly or has a lapse of judgement it does not remove legal obligations and responsibilities from others or alter their duty of care. Indeed, part of risk management is considering maloperation, human factors and the potential for people induced incidents (one of many reasons why if any accident report lists human error as the principal cause of an accident I'd send it back with a note to have another go). At the risk of being the odd one out, while I find elements of litigation culture distasteful I also think that if it is what motivates organizations to be serious about safety then it's not all bad and contributes something to society. 

 

On the infamous McCoffee thing, this Wiki page seems pretty fair and balanced:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

Regardless of whether the claimant was also at fault the case was woefully misreported by most of the media. 

[ruggedpeak]

6 hours ago, Legend said:

Of course not .  You identify the risk , assess it , and you put procedures in place to mitigate the risk . But in the case of the Jacobite that may not be CDL but enhanced stewardship .  Again what I am looking at is a pragmatic view, and no that doesn’t mean I’m prepared to accept injuries , but is there another way to manage the perceived risk  that allows this train to continue to run ? 

The High Court judgement and associated papers make very clear, that enhanced stewardship had been tried and demonstrably failed on the Jacobite. The risk has been looked at repeatedly by people qualified to do so and the decision is clear to those professionals. The evidence of injury and fatality due to lack of CDL is clear and deemed unacceptable, and the ORR's decisions have been judged by a High Court Judge at Judicial Review as rational, evidenced and lawful.

 

And yet some think that this is irrelevant and the delusions of 'common sense' and 'pragmatism' are more applicable.

 

EDIT - I would strongly suggest reading the High Court Judgement before commenting, it is very informative and clear. Here's a flavour, this from the Judge's response to the accusation that ORR were acting irrationally (para. 94):

 

By reason of the factual analysis set out above addressing the proportionality of the ORR’s decision the Court is not persuaded that the ORR’s decision can be said to be, in any way, irrational. There is a legislative prohibition on hinged doors operating without central door locking. The specialist safety regulator was not satisfied that the Claimant had demonstrated its method of operations provided an equivalent level of safety. There is an evidential basis for the ORR’s concerns, not least because there have been several safety incidents on the Claimant’s trains.

 

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

Edited January 14 by ruggedpeak
court extract

[frobisher]

5 hours ago, BoD said:

Kirkwall has a much greater number of cruise visitors than Lochaber

 

To be fair, yes, we have roughly 10-15 times the number of liners visiting Orkney than stop at Oban (though some of those are the same ones...).  I find it rather amusing when Amsterdam kicks off saying 15 liners a year is just too much for them to handle (Orkney has 270+ liner stops this summer scheduled).

 

5 hours ago, BoD said:

(Do you ever get more?)

 

Yes.  These year we have one occasion with 5 (admittedly these are all very small ones), 3 with 4 and 17 days with 3 arriving at the connected Mainland. and probably about 30 days with 2.

Edited January 14 by frobisher

[Ohmisterporter]

If WCRC do not fancy cdl how about following the Talyllyn and Ffestiniog example and have guards locking/unlocking  the doors from the outside? More time consuming maybe but are station stop times as critical as the mainline TOCs experience? Obviously WCRC trains on the mainline network run faster than TR and FR trains, is that why guards locking doors individually are not used?  

[Supaned]

4 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

If WCRC do not fancy cdl how about following the Talyllyn and Ffestiniog example and have guards locking/unlocking  the doors from the outside? More time consuming maybe but are station stop times as critical as the mainline TOCs experience? Obviously WCRC trains on the mainline network run faster than TR and FR trains, is that why guards locking doors individually are not used?  

 

Locking doors out of use on main line trains is not an accepted method of working - doors should only be locked out in the event of a defect or if the train is not in passenger service - I suspect the Welsh NG lines do so under the light railway order conditions. Per the NR rulebook , if certain doors on a vehicle are locked out then the entire vehicle must be emptied of passengers and taken out of use - this isn't practical even if it were an accepted method of working.

[TheSignalEngineer]

8 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I read that as "until someone dies or is seriously injured, we won't do anything".

Two of our neighbouring councils have been found at fault and faced with big legal bills following fatal accidents to motor cycle riders who hit potholes. In one case the Leader of the council was on record in the local press saying that it was cheaper to leave the potholes on the road concerned than provide traffic calming measures. He was sadly proved wrong and not only ended up paying the compensation for the accident but also had to pay for about half a mile of resurfacing with chicanes to prevent people racing along the new smooth surface.

 

I got involved in a problem with a sunken and broken drain in a village where I lived about 20 years ago. After several months of cars and lorries bouncing into the hole and not being able to get anything done about it due to all parties buckpassing I phoned the Highways Agency, County and Borough Councils and water company and put the same question to all of them.

"You've known about this for ... months. If someone hits the hole and has a fatal accident, who holds the Go To Jail Card?".

Three days later the drain had been rebuilt with new ironwork and the road resurfaced around it. 

Edited January 14 by TheSignalEngineer

[Jeremy Cumberland]

2 hours ago, Supaned said:

I suspect the Welsh NG lines do so under the light railway order conditions.

I forget the details but locking doors on the Ffestiniog long predates the Light Railways Act (1896). I am pretty sure it was a requirement made by the inspecting officer from the Board of Trade, quite likely when the railway opened to passengers in 1865. It is in the rule book, and it is compuslory for outward opening doors.

 

Incidentally, it is well recognised in the heritage sector that locking passengers in with ordinary carriage locks is not permitted, and that the Ffestiniog is very much an exception with special authorisation. Given the option, I think quite a few railways would like to lock passengers in as a means of controlling passengers or dealing with awkward doors (see other threads on this forum). Passengers need a means of escape in the event of an accident, and any central door locking system needs some sort of override - it is not as simple as many people appear to think.

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

any accident report lists human error as the principal cause of an accident I'd send it back with a note to have another go

A man after my own heart.

[LNER4479]

13 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Passengers need a means of escape in the event of an accident, and any central door locking system needs some sort of override - it is not as simple as many people appear to think.

Indeed. If it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

The doors of the carriages in the Armagh (1889) accident were locked such that the passengers couldn't open them ...

 

 

[rodent279]

So, if WCRC have now been banned from using their Mk1s on the mainline with immediate effect, that must place a whole load of railtours at risk? For example, the tour I did with a pair of 33s in early Dec was all WCRC mk1s. Ok they could have used a rake of mk2s, but only if they are not required elsewhere. Cromptons being air braked and ETH fitted could brake and power them, but certain kettles would have a problem.

[Darius43]

According to the RailAdvent website: “WCRC says passengers will be contacted if their service is going to be cancelled due to the exemption being revoked.”

 

There is no mention of this issue on either the Railway Touring Company or the Steam Dreams websites.  Presumably they are still taking bookings and hoping that the issue will be resolved before cancellations become necessary…

 

Some friends and I are booked on a day trip from London to Cardiff in April so I am an interested party so to speak.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

Edited January 15 by Darius43

[Legend]

Are he SRPS Mk1s compliant ie have central door locking?  They are used on the mainline so I assume they have CDL. Could that be an option ie renting some compliant stock , if not SRPS maybe somewhere else . I’m not up on who has what . 

[ruggedpeak]

5 minutes ago, Darius43 said:

According to the RailAdvent website: “WCRC says passengers will be contacted if their service is going to be cancelled due to the exemption being revoked.”

 

There is no mention of this issue on either the Railway Touring Company or the Steam Dreams websites.  Presumably they are still taking bookings and hoping that the issue will be resolved before cancellations become necessary…

 

Some friends and I are booked on a day trip from London to Cardiff in April so I am an interested part so to speak.

I suggest contacting them and say you are worried about your trip given recent news on door locking and see what they say.......

[Darius43]

7 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

I suggest contacting them and say you are worried about your trip given recent news on door locking and see what they say.......

I have done just that - let’s see if I get a reply and, if so, what it is…

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[Darius43]

They have replied that all their trains have CDL fitted and their trips will be unaffected.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

 

[Siberian Snooper]

If that's the case, why did they spend the money on a judicial review?

 

Fitting CDL isn't a 5 minute job, we (DML) got 6 weeks to turnaround a HST set.

 

 

[AMJ]

Every operator has to comply with all rules no matter who they are.  These are designed to limit the ability for the stupid people doing stupid things like trying to open a door whilst the train is moving.

 

I'm expecting the next issue will be opening door windows, these will probably end up with bars on to stop folks doing the following

 

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, Siberian Snooper said:

If that's the case, why did they spend the money on a judicial review?

 

Fitting CDL isn't a 5 minute job, we (DML) got 6 weeks to turnaround a HST set.

Interesting response to Darius' query. All we can do is see what happens next as there so many potential permutations. As to what WCR's thinking is around this, who knows. May be it is all part of a cunning plan soon to be revealed.

 

I will go completely off piste and ask why, if the trains are so profitable, don't they make/adapt a proper safety compliant observation car and charge extra to be in that, one that lets people experience more than trying to lean out of a window? Is exactly what Scotrail used to do with a supplement IIRC.

 

EDIT: According to the recent and excellent SDEG book on steam heat 37's (page 6), up until 1984 when the steam hauled Jacobite started there were observation cars on both ends of WHL trains. In answering my own question perhaps the emissions from the steam loco are problematic, however one assumes that can be addressed.

 

Not connected with SDEG but their books are excellent

 

Edited January 15 by ruggedpeak
update

[Darius43]

47 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

If that's the case, why did they spend the money on a judicial review?

 

Fitting CDL isn't a 5 minute job, we (DML) got 6 weeks to turnaround a HST set.

 

 

The “they” in my post isn’t WCRC, it’s the railway tour operator.  On previous tours of theirs that I have been on, WCRC coaching stock was used - hence the question to them.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[25kV]

On 13/01/2024 at 13:03, Northmoor said:

3. How many people who fell out of British trains in the 1980s, could actually see that the door was open?

 

This brings to mind a personal experience, worth recalling given that there's often an assumption that people who fall/fell from moving trains were somehow being stupid or lacked common sense (I'll let you all judge whether I fall into either category!).

1989, I think, and I was in my late teens on a charter to Spalding.  The stock was air-con Mk2s for the most part with a 47 up front.  Having had plenty of experience getting smuts (and occasional branches) in my eyes from leaning out of windows on heritage railways, I was always more inclined to be more "face in open window" than "head out of open window" when travelling at any greater speeds.  At most a "half-eye peep" around the corner to get a glimpse ahead.  I was also somewhat wary of putting my weight on doors, so tended to not lean on any portion of a door I was looking out of, preferring to steady myself with a hand on the panel adjacent to the door.

So the train had joined the ECML just north of Doncaster, and was now accelerating along the Up Fast towards the station.  I half-eyed around the window and spied the front end of 89001 sitting in the north bay - I'd never seen it before, so readied my camera in the droplight opening, and snapped off a couple of photos as we swept by.  I glanced out after my final photo, when a member of staff (I assume) on the down platform pointed at me and yelled "DOOR!"

I'd heard this yelled often enough in the heritage sector to know what he meant.  I glanced down and the exterior handle was vertical.  I had just enough time to acknowledge this with a wave to the man who had yelled as I ducked inside.  I knew that usually on manual doors there was a secondary latch on the mechanism that would stop a door swinging all the way open if the handle was released too soon (i.e. had sprung back to horizontal before being opened more than an inch or so) so assumed the door was probably not quite completely closed, but probably within that second latch.  I gave it several hard tugs inwards but it didn't budge and there was no click.  Sticky door?  Sticky door with sticky handle?  I was now somewhat concerned and didn't want to leave the door unguarded, particularly as I had no confidence that if the door were to open at speed, say as another train passed, the handle would spring back fast enough to catch the secondary latch.  As I was contemplating heading for the van to inform the guard, luck intervened and the guard happened to walk by.  He put his whole weight into pulling it, but it took a couple of goes before the latch engaged and the handle returned to horizontal.  I think he may have t-keyed it too, just in case.

Ever since then I've imagined how that set of circumstances could have ended up very differently.  Had I been less knowledgeable, had I been more prone to leaning on doors when looking out, or leaning further out, or just a regular passenger leaning on the door to enjoy the breeze...  I admit, I assumed the door was fully closed, but it was impossible to tell from the inside that it wasn't. 

Slightly less seriously, had I ended up spread between the fast lines at Doncaster that day, there's also a small chance that the loco I'd been keen to photograph might not still be around either!  😉

But sincere thanks to that eagle-eyed guy on the platform at Doncaster!