WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, stewartingram said:

Just fot clarification, about this contract that expires later this year? Can someone actually clarify this.

I assume we are talking about the train path in the timetable, that is issued by NR? WCR would have this path allocated to them (and paid for), for their sole use, so that the Jacobite can become a regular train. Just the same really as the freight operators, who have bought paths for their trains, but often only use them as required. So if GBRF have a path, but next Tuesday their freight doesn't run, Freightliner can't run a train instead,

That opens a can of worms.

I don't see it as the same at all.

WCR are unable to use their path due to not being able to provide a legal train.

I would see that as being in default of the contract.

I see no valid reason why another operator could be allowed to use the path if they so wanted.

WCR could of course sue. But that would make them look rather stupid. As things are that would presumably not bother them.

If other people wanted the service to run, then I see no reason to be nice and coopertaive to WCR.

Bernard

[Michael Hodgson]

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

And there was, alas, the incident where someone nearly fell out. of one because when they opened a toilet door they found that there was no floor inside (not WCRC I hasten to add).

 

Indeed.  That one was the South Devon Railway; they were fined £40,000

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-02-2018-child-nearly-falling-through-a-missing-toilet-floor-south-devon-railway

 

But it's not just Mk 1 stock that has problems with doors

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/incident-on-the-nene-valley-railway

 

The point is that the typical customer is a tourist with kids, and their safety has to be taken seriously.

 

[Nick C]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The point is that the typical customer is a tourist with kids, and their safety has to be taken seriously.

 

And more to the point, a tourist with kids who has probably never seen a train with manual doors before...

[pete_mcfarlane]

12 hours ago, Nick C said:

And more to the point, a tourist with kids who has probably never seen a train with manual doors before...

I was waiting for a NYMR train at Whitby about 5 years ago, and the people in front of me were being given instructions on how to use the train to get to the Harry potter station. Which thy were struggling to understand ("Look out for the signs with the station name..."). So at least some of these people probably have never used a train of any kind before. 

Edited March 24 by pete_mcfarlane

[Covkid]

On 22/03/2024 at 16:28, adb968008 said:

if no one has yet done a vb cdl with the required electrics, then I assume someone has to authorise it for rail use first.

 

in thats case everyone is screwed come year end, and wcrc has imo no chance of doing that much stock in a year.

 

it is game over once the egg timer runs out and for wcrc it already has.

 

oh well, its quiet this year, its going to be quieter still next year, unless someone can rustle up more mk2 / mk3 air cons… not that much with AB in steam is around in operation to run them.

WHL is a dead kipper without an exemption.

 

On 23/03/2024 at 09:05, 62613 said:

Anyone up for the challenge? A pure mechanical system is non - starter, I think. I'm thinking about something that works directly off the brake cylinder actuating a solenoid, with an electricomagnetic lock. Against such a system might be; why operate it off the vacuum cylinder when you can operate the lock without it anyway; and, what would happen when the vacuum is destroyed when braking? 

 

On 23/03/2024 at 09:43, PhilH said:

In simple terms vac brakes depend on a vacuum being maintained on one side of a piston in a cylinder whilst atmospheric pressure is introduced to the other side of the piston when the brake valve is actuated.This is often referred to as the train pipe side and the chamber side. Therefore there should always be a vacuum on the chamber side of the system otherwise the brakes wouldn't work.

 

21 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

You are confusing two seperate things -  braking and CDL

 

Although on trains fitted with power worked doors from the outset the doors are interlocked with the brakes there is actually no specific requirement for a retrofitted CDL system to do the same. Nor is there are requirement for the system to prevent the brakes being released and the train moving off or even that all doors are detected closed before the system can be activated.

 

in essence CDL is something operated by the train guard AFTER all doors have been confirmed closed by them / platform staff to prevent them from being opened again.

 

As such the only relevance to the braking system is that the air pipe running the length of the train provides a source of air which can be used to power the CDL mechanism.

 

Electric power supplied from Batteries / ETS or a vacuum from the vac pipe can also be used a ‘power source’ for the mechanism if so desired - it’s just that nobody has invested/ designed a backlog powered system yet while the ex BR air operated system (which could be retrieved from coaching stock being scrapped or an electromagnetic based solution as pioneered on the Hastings diesels / CIGs used on the Lymington branch  are ‘off the shelf’ solutions and are thus relatively cheap.

 

In case anyone thinks there isn't a CDL system for vacuum braked stock just look at the DMUs on the Swanage raiway.  As 3 car class 117 DMU and a class 121 "bubble car" were fitted with magnetic CDL in order to operate over Network Rail metals from the Swanage Railway into Wareham.

 

Technically I imagine you could hook a vacuum braked steam loco on the front of the three car class 117 and haul it, probably dependant on there being a competent driver in the cab of the DMU to allow engines to run for heating and lighting. Whether Network Rail / ORR would allow it is probably another matter, and I doubt the 117 has an accesible UAT (retention toilet) fitted. 

 

I am afraid that IMHO WCR kept stalling and stalling the ORR whilst their competitors decided to jump through the necessary hoops to retain their licences.   That is all. 

Edited March 24 by Covkid

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Just fot clarification, about this contract that expires later this year? Can someone actually clarify this.

I assume we are talking about the train path in the timetable, that is issued by NR? WCR would have this path allocated to them (and paid for), for their sole use, so that the Jacobite can become a regular train. Just the same really as the freight operators, who have bought paths for their trains, but often only use them as required. So if GBRF have a path, but next Tuesday their freight doesn't run, Freightliner can't run a train instead,

Don't confuse two different things.  Their contract allows them access to the network which in turn allows them to bid for paths.  Generally (but not always) provided they make a compliant bid into white space on the graph bid would be accepted - but NR is not necessarily bound to accept even a compliant bid.

 

As they are clearly a charter train operator (that is specified in their contract) they have no Grandfather Rights to any paths nor do they have any rights to paths protected (to the extent they would be protected) for a long term customer who is either franchised operator, or an open access operator of timetabled services or a freight operator whose paths are noted in their contract (and even then those protections are not necessarily absolute).  As adb put it WCRC as a business is very different from the operator of any sort of regular timetabled service.

 

In the case of The Jacobite they are most likely, I think, to have bid for dated paths only during their season of operation.  It is highly debatable  if those paths are in any way protected and they are certainly not protected by their original Access Contract - they are clearly noted therein as a charter train operator.  And - as already stated - there is also the default clause in their contract and I would regard their seeming inability to provide compliant rolling stock as a default (there could be different views in that respect).

 

Now if I wind it back to the days when I was Deputy Chairman of the Timetabling Sub-Committee in the Access Dispute resolution process this is exactly the sort of case we would have heard.  The operator is unable to use the paths - for a variety of reasons - and the infrastructure owner decides to accept a bid which is foul of, or runs right through, one or more of those paths.  The operator objects but the infrastructure owner won't budge so the operator's only reciurse (as things were back then) is to submit a case to our committee.  Step 1 is for the Secretary to the committee to decide whether or not there is a valid case and on occasion cases were rejected at that stage, with an explanation why that was being done.  

 

In this case the Committee would probably hear the appeal and we would consider it on the basis of the Access Contract and the Access Conditions - and it would be rejected for several reasons -

1  The paths are not protected by the Access Contract (they are not specified in it - unless there has been an amendment which has  changed that),

2.  The operator is in effect in default because he is unable to provide compliant rolling stock and is therefore unable to use the paths he has bid for.

3.  Because of the default the infrastructure owner is at liberty - as provided in the Access Conditions (as they stood back then) - to accept bids which foul or time through the paths in question.

 

Things have changed since then and the legal trade (at yet another on-cost to the industry) have now got involved in this process.  But the basic facts appear to be unchanged - the paths are not protected by the Access Contract and the operator is in any case unable to use those paths because he is  unable (or unwilling) to provide compliant rolling stock.

Edited March 24 by The Stationmaster

[DavidBird]

On 18/03/2024 at 19:51, Boris said:

..

I did find WCRCs refusal to fit CET toilets disagreeable, railway folks shouldn't have to be playing in aerosolised poo in 2024.

 

Neither should their immediate neighbours.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

There has been a further announcement from WCR regarding the Jacobite bookings...

 

https://westcoastrailways.co.uk/news/important-announcement-the-jacobite

 

An interesting take on the matter, and one I suspect the ORR may not fully agree with! 

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Claude_Dreyfus said:

There has been a further announcement from WCR regarding the Jacobite bookings...

 

https://westcoastrailways.co.uk/news/important-announcement-the-jacobite

 

An interesting take on the matter, and one I suspect the ORR may not fully agree with! 

Interesting. It's very selective in what it says. One might be tempted to say it's the truth and nothing but the truth but certainly not the whole truth!

[jjb1970]

To say it again, operating within the law and being compliant with regulations is not optional. If a company is unable or unwilling to do so then stop it operating. If that means they go out of business then the fault lies with those in senior positions who are unwilling or unable to ensure that the company is compliant.

 

This may sound harsh but while I will have sympathy for affected employees (most of whom will be decent people doing their job) I will have zero sympathy for WCRC as an entity if they go down the toilet. If they can't be bothered to take compliance seriously then they deserve to go down the toilet.

 

As well as the proximate issue, their whole approach to the CDL matter makes me wonder about how they operate in general. Especially given their somewhat chequered record. There should be no room for companies who think safety and legal compliance are bureaucratic inconveniences (which is the impression I get of senior WCRC leadership), if that's their attitude they don't deserve to be allowed to continue.

[Bernard Lamb]

Time for the watchdog to bite.

Enough is enough.

You do not expect an exemption. You plead and grovel and promise to comply ASAP.

Bernard

[Gilbert]

 

[Legend]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

To say it again, operating within the law and being compliant with regulations is not optional. If a company is unable or unwilling to do so then stop it operating. If that means they go out of business then the fault lies with those in senior positions who are unwilling or unable to ensure that the company is compliant.

 

This may sound harsh but while I will have sympathy for affected employees (most of whom will be decent people doing their job) I will have zero sympathy for WCRC as an entity if they go down the toilet. If they can't be bothered to take compliance seriously then they deserve to go down the toilet.

 

As well as the proximate issue, their whole approach to the CDL matter makes me wonder about how they operate in general. Especially given their somewhat chequered record. There should be no room for companies who think safety and legal compliance are bureaucratic inconveniences (which is the impression I get of senior WCRC leadership), if that's their attitude they don't deserve to be allowed to continue.

Completely agree . WCRC seem to be being completely pigheaded on this , and it’s a fair point if they have this attitude towards CDL what other laws don’t they think they should be adhering too .  You really want to grab them and say for goodness sake (or worse) just get on with it . 
 

i think we now have to figure out ways of getting rid of WCRC completely and replacing them with another operating company . Won’t save this year , but hopefully we can get something better next year . 

[pete_mcfarlane]

I like the way that they quote the court case as if the verdict went in their favour, rather than the Judge ripping their case to pieces. 

 

15 minutes ago, Legend said:

i think we now have to figure out ways of getting rid of WCRC completely and replacing them with another operating company . 

I think WCRC are already working on that....

[adb968008]

48 minutes ago, Legend said:

Completely agree . WCRC seem to be being completely pigheaded on this , and it’s a fair point if they have this attitude towards CDL what other laws don’t they think they should be adhering too .  You really want to grab them and say for goodness sake (or worse) just get on with it . 
 

i think we now have to figure out ways of getting rid of WCRC completely and replacing them with another operating company . Won’t save this year , but hopefully we can get something better next year . 

My worry is stubborn people make stubborn decisions.

theyve made there money, they could chose retirement.

 

if faced with walking the plank, they could take it with them to the bottom of the ocean… if they scrap all their stock and use it to build water features at their homes, rather than sell it on, it will be hard for anyone to fill their boots as simply there isnt the rolling stock out there, for anyone no matter how deep there pockets to fill the coaching stock fleet and spares wcrc has.

 

just look at the mainline tour program this year.. theres a gap of at least 60-70 vehicles currently… tours canceled all over, or simply dont exist this year.

 

if wcrc is to go, persuading them to hand over the reins may need to be a bit more diplomatic than the current approach, but I dont see an obvious buyer, unless difference with lsl were put to one side.

 

I would have a concern at lsl having a near monopoly on railtours.. we saw that impact when Wootton Bassett happened. Indeed theres a black hole in Crewe when it comes to steam locos there already engines go in and dont come out, controlling all the rolling stock too would be bad for other mainline steam loco groups, who arent aligned to lsl… 6201,46233,45596,35028, 61264, 62005, Rileys Black5’s etc.

 

I still dont see how lsl makes enough money to be self sustaining long term either.

 

That said, WHL could provide a home for 61306 which is about as exciting as a Thameslink 700 everywhere else, but it still needs c26 coaches, which lsl dont have, and a few other steam loco owners willing to submit to lsl’s processes, protocols and controls to fully replace wcrc… 

 

If wcrc has to go so be it. But dont expect a shoe in replacement, and if they did shut down and throw it all in the bin, they certainly wouldnt be the first company to make such a decision, it might even be tax advantageous to bin it all and flatten carnforth and turn wcrc into a housing redevelopment company instead.

 

 

Edited March 30 by adb968008

[Northmoor]

I was most amused by point 4-2

"In fact it is WCR’s contention, as submitted in their application for an exemption continuation, and in the comprehensive risk assessment attached to the application (produced by an independent Health & Safety company), that the current method of having two door locks fitted to each door (one main lock, plus a secondary deadbolt), plus having a steward present in each carriage, is far safer than having to spend millions of pounds to fit CDL". 

 

That statement would have been true if they'd actually done that, but since the regulator found they weren't employing enough stewards, it isn't.

[Bucoops]

So they seem to be trying to make the ORR to be the evil overlord, trying to get public opinion on their side to pressure them into backing down.

 

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Wheatley]

"The ORR has a policy (called Regulation 5)..."

 

Describing Regulations made by the Secretary of State under powers conferred by an Act of Parliament as an "ORR policy" is certainly an interesting take on reality. 

 

Although I share adb's concerns that Smith will just gas axe the lot if his tantrums don't work, I don't see that as a reason to keep letting him have more sweeties after he's been told no. Quite the opposite in fact. 

 

It certainly won't be a concern to ORR, they have no remit to take any operator's threat to take their ball home into account. 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

24 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

So they seem to be trying to make the ORR to be the evil overlord, trying to get public opinion on their side to pressure them into backing down.

 

Yeah, good luck with that.

They'll likely succeed with the public opinion part.

 

Outside of the railway industry, I don't see anyone making counter-arguments. ORR doubtless feel it's not their business to get into a public argument; they don't even have grounds for a press release or public statement unless WCRC make an outright accusation.

 

The general public have no idea of the dangers of slam doors. Many of us are old enough to remember their being the norm, and no harm ever happened to us, personally, did it? The numerous injuries and deaths that did occur were not widely reported, and the eventual move away from slam doors was prompted by awareness within British Rail, who commisioned a report from the HSE, not from public pressure or any sort of press campagin.

 

Will the ORR back down? I have no idea, but given the spinelessness of today's politicians, I wouldn't be too surprised to find the ORR being leaned on to come up with some compromise. It's no good pretending that independent regulators are truly independent of political interference, when they are appointed by government ministers.

[4630]

13 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

 

 

Will the ORR back down? I have no idea, but given the spinelessness of today's politicians, I wouldn't be too surprised to find the ORR being leaned on to come up with some compromise. It's no good pretending that independent regulators are truly independent of political interference, when they are appointed by government ministers.

I would suspect that the issue for the ORR will be to ensure that in the (probable/likely/inevitable)* future incident, that they are not left in the legal firing line for having granted some form of exception.

 

Particularly so if they do come under political interference as you can guarantee that the politicians will make sure that they’re not left embarrassed. Plausible deniability is everything here. 
 

 

* delete as appropriate. 

Edited March 30 by 4630

[PhilH]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

 

 

I still dont see how lsl makes enough money to be self sustaining long term either.

 

 

 

 

LSL never has been concerned with making money. Hosking is worth a bit under £400 million, makes oodles from his other ventures and can make losses at LSL to set against other income. If you could have seen the money that was thrown at it when I was there with no hope of getting a return on that it would have made your eyes water.

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

 

I think WCRC are already working on that....

 

WCRC2 ?

 

 

[jjb1970]

The big problem for WCRC and potential spineless ministers willing to apply pressure on their behalf is the legal decision. That leaves a trail visible from space should they get a waiver of some sort and someone dies in a door related incident as the decision was pretty blunt and didn't pull any punches. That gives the regulator a much stronger position and means ministers will have an adviser saying 'are you sure this is wise?', it might even be called courageous. So while it is not impossible that they could turn this into a popular cause celebre and hope for political interference I think it'll be difficult. Hopefully the politicians will leave it with the professionals.

[johnofwessex]

Scotrail seem 'on the ball' about the 'tourist' potential of their routes and have opertated steam in the past.

 

Clearly its not impossible for some sort of 'Tourist Train' to be operated by them either directly or on their behalf.

 

In the long term I do wonder if it might be possible to produce some sort of 'Tourist Stock' compatable with both historic and modern traction but I suspect it wont be cheap

[ardbealach]

Since the start of this debacle over door locks, I cannot help but think that WCR just want to be out of the FW to Mallaig Jacobite operation.  They might be making money on the venture - only they have the figures to hand of the profit / loss.  But FW is quite a distance from the WCR Carnforth base.  

If it is a loss making venture, or that they have had enough of running the service, for WCR simply to say publicly that they are giving up the Jacobite operation would bring all manner of opprobrium upon the WCR from the businesses in the Lochaber area who benefit from the service continuing.  

 

We all know that the loss of the income from the Jacobite would be quite dramatic for the area if the service ended.   If WCR made their own decision to cease running, the local Lochaber contempt for WRC would quite unimaginable, more especially if another operator is unwilling to take on the service. 

So why should WCR spend money on door locking upgrades if they have no intention in continuing the service?  And how much easier is it for them to now formally to withdraw the service and simply blame the ORR for bringing them to the decision of not continuing running the Jacobite. (Alisdair)