WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[Ken.W]

On 18/01/2024 at 14:03, Gilbert said:

From Pathfinder..

 

ANNOUNCEMENT: 

THE SETTLE & CARLISLE WINTER EXPRESS
SATURDAY 24 FEBRUARY 2024

Due to a change in circumstances, our original 1960's carriages from West Coast Railway Co are unavailable for this rail excursion. But fear not! We've turned this challenge into an opportunity to transport you back in time to the unforgettable blue and grey era of the 1980s.
Embark on a spectacular journey featuring Southern Railway Battle of Britain Class, No. 34067 'Tangmere' pulling a rake of blue and grey coaching stock. Visually we will make fond memories of the days when 34092 'City of Wells' performed these duties, four decades ago over the same route. We extend our gratitude to Riviera Trains for their generous contribution, providing us with their carriages, enabling us to run this excursion.

 

That would be the best solution to this situation

 

Just let those imbeciles at WCR get themselves banned (as they should have been years ago) and allow others who are willing to comply with the regulations take their place

[mikeford2002uk]

I do wonder if there will be an announcement of the Cumbria mountain express next Saturday which will the first WCRC operated railtour since the judicial decision 

https://www.railwaytouring.net/the-winter-cumbrian-mountain-express---27-01

 

Nothing on real train times yet either

 

Mike

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Ken.W said:

 

That would be the best solution to this situation

 

Just let those imbeciles at WCR get themselves banned (as they should have been years ago) and allow others who are willing to comply with the regulations take their place

One thing to consider, and I am not defending WCRC, but Pathfinder were quite happy to use WCRC Mk1 coaches with it's tours until they no longer could, sister company Riviera sold it's Mk1s to WCRC to avoid having to convert them and I assume that Pathfinder was then happy to use WCRC Mk1s which may or may not have included the ones Riviera sold.

 

So other companies whilst not wanting themselves to add CDL were quite happy using the stock and passed other stock on to WCRC because it had the derogation it has now lost.

[TheSignalEngineer]

WARNING:- Serious Tread Drift alert

 

On 20/01/2024 at 07:50, St Enodoc said:

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.

Although the range of goods has now expanded, when I first went to Gorran Haven in Cornwall the Mr Cakebread who traded from this shop was a baker.

 

</kml> 

[Gilbert]

10 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

One thing to consider, and I am not defending WCRC, but Pathfinder were quite happy to use WCRC Mk1 coaches with it's tours until they no longer could, sister company Riviera sold it's Mk1s to WCRC to avoid having to convert them and I assume that Pathfinder was then happy to use WCRC Mk1s which may or may not have included the ones Riviera sold.

 

So other companies whilst not wanting themselves to add CDL were quite happy using the stock and passed other stock on to WCRC because it had the derogation it has now lost.

To be fair to PF they do have a lot of stewards on their trains....they seem to spend a lot of their time in the vestibules but mainly stopping those who choose to ignore the "please on  no account stick anything out of the windows...." announcements etc.

On a recent tour they were seriously considering ejecting some of their travellers...I don't know if they did.

Edited January 21 by Gilbert

[adb968008]

21 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

WARNING:- Serious Tread Drift alert

 

Although the range of goods has now expanded, when I first went to Gorran Haven in Cornwall the Mr Cakebread who traded from this shop was a baker.

 

</kml> 

Broadened his horizon ?

I hope that didn't turn up any issues.

Edited January 21 by adb968008

[TheSignalEngineer]

23 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

So other companies whilst not wanting themselves to add CDL were quite happy using the stock and passed other stock on to WCRC because it had the derogation it has now lost.

The 'Legals' could probably have a field day (or a few hundred) arguing about the distinction between Railway Companies, Rolling Stock owners and Train Operating Companies. 

From memory, the only TOCs currently operating Heritage passenger trains on the main line are LSL, WCRC, DB Cargo, GBRF, Vintage Trains, and in the case of NYMR only permitted between Battersby Junction, Grosmont and Whitby at 25mph max.

Tour promoters don't necessarily own the rolling stock and locos, and need not be TOCs. The TOCs don't always own the stock and locos involved although Vintage Trains do and trying to track your way through the Hoskings Empire would take too long to explain. 

[Gilbert]

I assume this won't be as pictured?

 

https://www.railwaytouring.net/bath-and-gloucester

 

 

[black and decker boy]

11 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

The 'Legals' could probably have a field day (or a few hundred) arguing about the distinction between Railway Companies, Rolling Stock owners and Train Operating Companies. 

From memory, the only TOCs currently operating Heritage passenger trains on the main line are LSL, WCRC, DB Cargo, GBRF, Vintage Trains, and in the case of NYMR only permitted between Battersby Junction, Grosmont and Whitby at 25mph max.

Tour promoters don't necessarily own the rolling stock and locos, and need not be TOCs. The TOCs don't always own the stock and locos involved although Vintage Trains do and trying to track your way through the Hoskings Empire would take too long to explain. 

The only companies with reg4 exemptions to operate mk1 based rolling stock are listed on the ORR website as:

VSOE

GSWR (Royal Scotsman)

London Underground 

Riviera Trains - just buffets & a generator car

Hastings Diesels

NYMR

LSL

Vintage Trains

WCRC

 

https://www.orr.gov.uk/guidance-compliance/rail/health-safety/infrastructure/mark-1-rolling-stock/mark-1-and-hinged-door-exemptions

 

GBRF and DBC are not the owner / operator of the rolling stock.

Edited January 22 by black and decker boy
Missed NYMR

[TheSignalEngineer]

Vintage Trains have agreed a CDL fitment programme with ORR and their stock now has retention tanks fitted. They are also fitting / reactivating air brakes on their stock according to their latest press release.

Edited January 22 by TheSignalEngineer

[Ohmisterporter]

I may have misread what B&D boy wrote so correct me if I am wrong but can the doors on London Underground be opened manually while the train is in motion?

Edited January 22 by Ohmisterporter

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Ohmisterporter said:

I may have misread what B&D boy wrote so correct me if I am wrong but can the doors on London Underground be opened manually while the train is in motion?

I believe LU may have some ex-BR stock in the form of a 4-TC?

[4630]

1 hour ago, Ohmisterporter said:

I may have misread what B&D boy wrote so correct me if I am wrong but can the doors on London Underground be opened manually while the train is in motion?

 

From images that I've seen on the internet the LU's 4-TC is fitted with CDL.  And door window bars too as it happens.

[Nick C]

15 minutes ago, 4630 said:

 

From images that I've seen on the internet the LU's 4-TC is fitted with CDL.  And door window bars too as it happens.

It is, yes, so it can be used on Mainline railtours. I also note that the SETG have announced that they are going to fit CDL and retention tanks (along with GSMR and OTMR) to the 4VEP to allow mainline use - and a VEP has a lot of doors - 60 if I can count correctly, compare with 48 in a 12-car set with the previously quoted 4 per coach...

 

https://www.setg.org.uk/4vep-returning-to-traffic-in-2024-with-new-fundraising-appeal/

[pete_mcfarlane]

On 21/01/2024 at 10:08, Oldddudders said:

Never having been a driver, I am baffled why any driver would not relish the reassurance such systems offer if he becomes distracted, which I imagine to be much more likely on a steam locomotive with its footplate complexities, compared to modern traction. Were a TPWS equivalent available for the family car, I think most of us would opt-in. 

I am reminded of that possibly apocryphal story about somebody taking the batteries out of their Carbon Monoxide detector because the beeping sound was giving them a headache.  

[roythebus1]

Re the Wooton Bassett incident, it turned out the drive used to work at the same depot as me back in the 1980s. I was a bit shocked to discover that a few years after the event. I've not seen him for many years so have not broached the subject with him, but we're still in touch on social media.

[2251]

6 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

I believe LU may have some ex-BR stock in the form of a 4-TC?

 

The position of LU is, in think, in part due to the definition of "Mark I rolling stock" in the 1999 Regulations. It is defined as  "rolling stock which has a structural underframe which provides its own longitudinal strength and has a passenger compartment created on the underframe which relies mainly on the underframe for its longitudinal strength". in other words, it does not mean BR Mark I stock at all, but something very different.

 

Various operators were given a blanket exemption by Regulation 4 from the ban on Mark I stock: 

 

"(1) No person shall operate, and no infrastructure controller shall permit the operation of, any Mark I rolling stock on a railway.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to rolling stock which at the relevant time is being exclusively operated other than for the carriage of fare paying passengers or by London Underground Limited, Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive, Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive or Serco Metrolink Limited."

 

In the case of LU that presumably reflected the amount of its stock which while not BR Mark I in origin is  "Mark I rolling stock" for the purposes of the Regulations.

[Matt37268]

6 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I am reminded of that possibly apocryphal story about somebody taking the batteries out of their Carbon Monoxide detector because the beeping sound was giving them a headache.  

That really wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve had people really surprised that I’ve tried to get in touch with and ‘didn’t hear you call’ because their phones on silent. 

[Ken.W]

7 hours ago, 2251 said:

 

The position of LU is, in think, in part due to the definition of "Mark I rolling stock" in the 1999 Regulations. It is defined as  "rolling stock which has a structural underframe which provides its own longitudinal strength and has a passenger compartment created on the underframe which relies mainly on the underframe for its longitudinal strength". in other words, it does not mean BR Mark I stock at all, but something very different.

 

Various operators were given a blanket exemption by Regulation 4 from the ban on Mark I stock: 

 

"(1) No person shall operate, and no infrastructure controller shall permit the operation of, any Mark I rolling stock on a railway.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to rolling stock which at the relevant time is being exclusively operated other than for the carriage of fare paying passengers or by London Underground Limited, Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive, Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive or Serco Metrolink Limited."

 

In the case of LU that presumably reflected the amount of its stock which while not BR Mark I in origin is  "Mark I rolling stock" for the purposes of the Regulations.

 

I find that funny that they class Tyne & Wear Metrocars as Mk1 stock

[Ken.W]

13 hours ago, Nick C said:

It is, yes, so it can be used on Mainline railtours. I also note that the SETG have announced that they are going to fit CDL and retention tanks (along with GSMR and OTMR) to the 4VEP to allow mainline use - and a VEP has a lot of doors - 60 if I can count correctly, compare with 48 in a 12-car set with the previously quoted 4 per coach...

 

https://www.setg.org.uk/4vep-returning-to-traffic-in-2024-with-new-fundraising-appeal/

 

That's Interesting.

 

So, if SETG are going to be able to fit CDL to 60 doors on just a 4 car set, just what is WCRs problem with fitting it to just 48 doors on 12 cars?

[phil-b259]

17 hours ago, Nick C said:

It is, yes, so it can be used on Mainline railtours. I also note that the SETG have announced that they are going to fit CDL and retention tanks (along with GSMR and OTMR) to the 4VEP to allow mainline use - and a VEP has a lot of doors - 60 if I can count correctly, compare with 48 in a 12-car set with the previously quoted 4 per coach...

 

https://www.setg.org.uk/4vep-returning-to-traffic-in-2024-with-new-fundraising-appeal/

 

A simple expedient would be to secure a number of doors per carriage out of use thus meaning those doors would not need CDL equipment. I believe a number of charter operators have already done this with loco hauled Mk1s where the doors giving access to the centre vestibules have had their door handles etc removed. Given the VEP passengers would be charter customers and not City commuters the reduced number of usable doors would not present an issue with respect to dwell times....

Edited January 23 by phil-b259

[johnofwessex]

18 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

A simple expedient would be to secure a number of doors per carriage out of use thus meaning those doors would not need CDL equipment. I believe a number of charter operators have already done this with loco hauled Mk1s where the doors giving access to the centre vestibules have had their door handles etc removed. Given the VEP passengers would be charter customers and not City commuters the reduced number of usable doors would not present an issue with respect to dwell times....

 

Thats how the Swanage DMU's have been done

[5944]

1 hour ago, johnofwessex said:

 

Thats how the Swanage DMU's have been done

 

Four doors per coach per side have been fitted with electromagnetic door looks - you can make out the plates at the bottom and the lack of door handles on the sealed doors.

[Covkid]

16 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

Re the Wooton Bassett incident, it turned out the drive used to work at the same depot as me back in the 1980s. I was a bit shocked to discover that a few years after the event. I've not seen him for many years so have not broached the subject with him, but we're still in touch on social media.

Indeed. Nice guy. He invited me for a whole turn on the footplate of a BR 4MT tank along with his brother as fireman and during the course of the day two more drivers from their depot. Had a great time and really enjoyed the experience, albeit on a dirty old steam engine. I am told that the 80xxx are supposed to me one of the smoothest riding steam locos, so I dread to think what a rattley old knacker rides like !!!

 

A mate of mine was on the following Bristol-Paddington HST at Wootton Bassett and had to confirm each signal to (I think it was) Swindon B back then.  Fortunately it turned out to be a huge "lesson learnt" for everyone involved.    

[The Stationmaster]

43 minutes ago, Covkid said:

Indeed. Nice guy. He invited me for a whole turn on the footplate of a BR 4MT tank along with his brother as fireman and during the course of the day two more drivers from their depot. Had a great time and really enjoyed the experience, albeit on a dirty old steam engine. I am told that the 80xxx are supposed to me one of the smoothest riding steam locos, so I dread to think what a rattley old knacker rides like !!!

 

A mate of mine was on the following Bristol-Paddington HST at Wootton Bassett and had to confirm each signal to (I think it was) Swindon B back then.  Fortunately it turned out to be a huge "lesson learnt" for everyone involved.    

It would have been what had become Swindon A, i.e. the original Swindon panel.  Swindon B controlled basically Challow (inclusive) to. just east of Didv cot and all of the previously Reading control area on the Dicot- Oxford route/. It was created as a consequence of the infrastructure alterations I required for my scheme to cater for the movement of imported coal to Didcot Power Station from a port west of Didcot.

 

17 hours ago, 2251 said:

 

The position of LU is, in think, in part due to the definition of "Mark I rolling stock" in the 1999 Regulations. It is defined as  "rolling stock which has a structural underframe which provides its own longitudinal strength and has a passenger compartment created on the underframe which relies mainly on the underframe for its longitudinal strength". in other words, it does not mean BR Mark I stock at all, but something very different.

 

Various operators were given a blanket exemption by Regulation 4 from the ban on Mark I stock: 

 

"(1) No person shall operate, and no infrastructure controller shall permit the operation of, any Mark I rolling stock on a railway.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to rolling stock which at the relevant time is being exclusively operated other than for the carriage of fare paying passengers or by London Underground Limited, Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive, Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive or Serco Metrolink Limited."

 

In the case of LU that presumably reflected the amount of its stock which while not BR Mark I in origin is  "Mark I rolling stock" for the purposes of the Regulations.

That definition surely describes exactly BR Mk1 passenger, including NPCCS, rolling stock along with virtually all passenger rolling stock still in use (in 1999) constructed by the main line railways prior to 1948 including any vehicles remaining with wooden bodies.