WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[woodenhead]

Just now, adb968008 said:

That needs the diesel too, unless the weather gets warmer.

Or a generator coach, I am sure they know what they are doing.

[adb968008]

Just now, woodenhead said:

Or a generator coach, I am sure they know what they are doing.

I’ll take the 47 over the generator, that blue/grey brake generator is a right noisy beast… at least the 47 sounds like it belongs there… the other sounds like a bouncy castle inflator.

[TheSignalEngineer]

5 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Interestingly I am reading Riviera sold it's Mk1s to West Coast who had derogation (at the time) to use them on the mainline.

 

 

Riviera reportedly sold their Mk1s except for catering and staff coaches to WCRC just over a year ago.

Eleven coaches moved to Carnforth on 10/01/2023, namely 3097, 3119, 3121, 3123, 3141, 3146, 3147, 3149, 4991, 4998 and 5009.

 

Railways Illustrated reported that WCRC were to fit retention tanks and CDL modifications Riviera was unwilling to fund.

[Northmoor]

The new Heritage Railway reports that WCRC are to "work with the ORR to find a solution to the CDL issue".  What amounts to a staring contest  apparently counts as working with someone.

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Riviera reportedly sold their Mk1s except for catering and staff coaches to WCRC just over a year ago.

Eleven coaches moved to Carnforth on 10/01/2023, namely 3097, 3119, 3121, 3123, 3141, 3146, 3147, 3149, 4991, 4998 and 5009.

 

Railways Illustrated reported that WCRC were to fit retention tanks and CDL modifications Riviera was unwilling to fund.

Seems sensible, the coaches don't seem to fit their business model and required expensive alterations, plus there was a willing buyer. No business invests in equipment it no longer needs or for which the investment is not economic for them.

 

 

[ruggedpeak]

42 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

The new Heritage Railway reports that WCRC are to "work with the ORR to find a solution to the CDL issue". 

I didn't realise the ORR offered CDL fitting services 🤣

[rodent279]

Am I alone in thinking this is like watching a sort of a railway version of EastEnders/Coronation St/<insert favourite naff soap opera here>?

[Matt37268]

4 hours ago, BoD said:

Obviously that assumes that the AWS/TPWS etc systems are all working as they should.  Nobody would ever dream of overriding them, would they?

Whatever could you mean by that? 😉

[TheSignalEngineer]

29 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Am I alone in thinking this is like watching a sort of a railway version of EastEnders/Coronation St/<insert favourite naff soap opera here>?

We're beyond that already. We passed Ant and Dec on Tuersday.

[St Enodoc]

14 hours ago, nightstar.train said:

the overall risk is acceptable as low as reasonably practicable.

The terms "acceptable" and "tolerable" are no longer in the risk management dictionary.

[phil-b259]

35 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

The terms "acceptable" and "tolerable" are no longer in the risk management dictionary.

 

Correct and for a very good reason!

 

No risk should EVER be seen as 'acceptable' by anyone - risks will, if allowed to become 'events', cause harm.

 

It therefore follows that responsible risk management is to continually seek to reduce them as much as technology and finance allows and not sit back claiming risks are 'acceptable'

Edited January 19 by phil-b259

[St Enodoc]

10 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Correct and for a very good reason!

 

No risk should EVER be seen as 'acceptable' by anyone - risks will, if allowed to become 'events', cause harm.

 

It therefore follows that responsible risk management is to continually seek to reduce them as much as technology and finance allows

 

However precisely because we recognise that in practical terms its hugely costly or just downright impossible to eliminate risk given that its rarely possible to eliminate risk completely. 

Hence "reasonably practicable", as we discussed a few pages ago.

[david.hill64]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

The terms "acceptable" and "tolerable" are no longer in the risk management dictionary.

 

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Correct and for a very good reason!

 

No risk should EVER be seen as 'acceptable' by anyone - risks will, if allowed to become 'events', cause harm.

 

It therefore follows that responsible risk management is to continually seek to reduce them as much as technology and finance allows and not sit back claiming risks are 'acceptable'

Very strange. Most - probably all - of the Safety Plans that I have reviewed in recent years use the standard ALARP triangle. The peak region contains risks that are identified as intolerable and must be eliminated/mitigated. The base of the triangle contains those risks that are deemed acceptable without further review (and there are a lot of these) while the majority of risks fall into the tolerable region. Those risks in the tolerable region are subject to continuing reviews to ensure that the risk is As Low As Reasonably Practicable. (Some Safety Plans also allow for unacceptable risks. These are risks that are usually time bound and where elimination measures are not reasonable practicable. They are permitted if management accepts them. Happens sometimes during system migration).

 

Risk is probability times consequence. An example of an acceptable risk: there is a possibility that a jumbo jet could crash onto a station building causing multiple casualties. This is an example of a high consequence but extremely low frequency event where the costs of mitigation (eg rebuilding the station underground) are grossly disproportionate to the benefit. Management would not be criticised for not having this under review. There will be many other risks that are deemed to be acceptable. Risks associated with signalling equipment assessed to be SIL4 are likely to be considered to be acceptable even though SIL4 does not guarantee absolute safety, for the very simple reason that absolute safety does not exist.

[St Enodoc]

29 minutes ago, david.hill64 said:

 

Very strange. Most - probably all - of the Safety Plans that I have reviewed in recent years use the standard ALARP triangle. The peak region contains risks that are identified as intolerable and must be eliminated/mitigated. The base of the triangle contains those risks that are deemed acceptable without further review (and there are a lot of these) while the majority of risks fall into the tolerable region. Those risks in the tolerable region are subject to continuing reviews to ensure that the risk is As Low As Reasonably Practicable. (Some Safety Plans also allow for unacceptable risks. These are risks that are usually time bound and where elimination measures are not reasonable practicable. They are permitted if management accepts them. Happens sometimes during system migration).

 

Risk is probability times consequence. An example of an acceptable risk: there is a possibility that a jumbo jet could crash onto a station building causing multiple casualties. This is an example of a high consequence but extremely low frequency event where the costs of mitigation (eg rebuilding the station underground) are grossly disproportionate to the benefit. Management would not be criticised for not having this under review. There will be many other risks that are deemed to be acceptable. Risks associated with signalling equipment assessed to be SIL4 are likely to be considered to be acceptable even though SIL4 does not guarantee absolute safety, for the very simple reason that absolute safety does not exist.

We're getting a bit deep here, David, but I acknowledge your first comment about determining the tolerability of risk using the "ALARP Triangle" (which many commentators consider to be badly named) but would stress that this is about the risk to an individual member of an exposed group. However, ALARP/SFAIRP is the legal requirement that must be demonstrated by weighing the risk against the time, trouble and money needed to control it (see "ALARP and SFAIRP" in https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/expert/alarpglance.htm). It's not possible to determine whether the test is satisfied solely from the triangle, other than for the Intolerable region where no ALARP/SFAIRP argument is likely to be accepted by the relevant regulator. For the Broadly Acceptable region, an ALARP/SFAIRP argument is still needed but it should be simple and straightforward to construct, often by reference to established standards and good practice.

 

Here are two articles by a well-respected practitioner (whom I know and have worked with) that may be of interest to some here:

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sfairp-what-you-being-told-probably-wrong-andy-petrie

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sfairp-alarp-different-why-people-keep-getting-wrong-andy-petrie

[Gilbert]

Interesting chat on here.

 

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Riveria's website says that it is "the leading provider of high quality special trains in the UK". http://www.riviera-trains.co.uk/

 

I would argue Mk1's are not that part of that business proposition, and I would guess given the age, lack of crash worthiness, lack of "quality" etc of Mk1's they did not fit their business model, and that the use of Mk1's on the mainline is likely over time to become more problematic as passenger safety is tightened. I guess (again) that using Mk1's even with CDL will only have a limited lifespan before they are non-compliant for use on the NR network. WCR may have hastened that process given the issues under discussion and the High Court Judgement that has made the situation crystal clear for all involved.

 

 

I think, from experience of them, that MK1 FOs used ina 'dining experience' configuration are quite a marketable thing - provided, obviously, they are compliant with all safety requirements and have good bogies.  They convey an aura which few, if any, original fit  later vehices can really capture but with the penalties of single glazing, droplights, and possibly poor heating. 

[ruggedpeak]

Having commented on the clarity and wisdom of the High Court's Judgement re WCR, and wishing to inject some levity I see this from the recent judgement on whether Walker's Poppadoms are crisps or not for VAT purposes. This response to Walkers lawyers arguing that they must be Poppadoms as that is what it says on the packet....

 

"Judge Fairpo said: “Nominative determinism is not a characteristic of snack foods. Calling a snack food ‘Hula Hoops’ does not mean that one could twirl that product around one’s midriff. Nor is ‘Monster Munch’ generally reserved as a food for monsters.”

 

Absolute frickin' genius, M'Lud. Walkers lost.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12984349/Walkers-Poppadoms-crisps-popular-Indian-starter-judge-rules-brand-tried-class-product-food-snack-save-millions-pounds-VAT.html

 

Space Invaders. Wotsits. Skips. French Fries. Discos. Niknaks. Quavers. The potential for this Judgement to go down in Judicial folklore was huge.

 

'Nominative Determinism' is my phrase for next week. Definitely throwing that in a Teams meeting.....

[Northmoor]

14 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

'Nominative Determinism' is my phrase for next week. Definitely throwing that in a Teams meeting.....

Back when I was an A-level student I used to read New Scientist in the school library.  People were sending in letters to the mag for years, describing businesses or professionals as examples of Nominative Determinism.  There were some absolute gems: Mr Leakey (Boat Builder), Swindels (Accountants).  Even the Company Secretary at a Ministry of Defence Agency where I worked, got mentioned: Ms Peace.

[adb968008]

Meanwhile an aircon mk2 M5985 entered the network, reportedly fitted with sliding doors, and some openable seat window hopper style top-lights this week.

 

Meet the next standard…

 

[rodent279]

Straying slightly from topic, does anyone know why, when cdl was fitted to mk2 & 3 aircon stock, inside door handles were not fitted and the droplights sealed in the up position?

[Ken.W]

On 23/12/2023 at 23:19, rodent279 said:

Someone on RMWeb, forget who, posted words to the effect that every safety rule/clause/law was found at the bottom of a bucket of blood.

 

The other version of that quote is;

 

Remember, lad, all those rules are written in blood

[The Johnster]

On 24/12/2023 at 13:05, Welchester said:

 

It was, I think, @The Johnster. It made a profound impression.

Guilty as charged. 

[Ken.W]

On 31/12/2023 at 21:34, adb968008 said:

I wonder, if Chilterns Mk3’s could be a useful lifeline to wcrc… sliding door, cdl fitted, retention tanks all done and ready 

 

Certainly would do the job on many S&C jobs etc, which is the bulk of the none-WHL work… theres at least 2 x10 rakes +5 spares there they could get, even take the DVTs and put generators in etc.

 

From what I've read of WCR,  they could probably still manage to fall foul of the regulations even with these

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Back when I was an A-level student I used to read New Scientist in the school library.  People were sending in letters to the mag for years, describing businesses or professionals as examples of Nominative Determinism.  There were some absolute gems: Mr Leakey (Boat Builder), Swindels (Accountants).  Even the Company Secretary at a Ministry of Defence Agency where I worked, got mentioned: Ms Peace.

It was a running theme in the Sunday Express' Michael Watts column for many years - called the Department of Appropriate Names (DAN).

 

In a company I worked for, the expert in fire engineering was a Mr Woodburn.

[Bucoops]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/25/whats-in-a-name-phil-mccann-lightens-the-nations-mood