WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[nightstar.train]

4 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

In this report WCRC is quoted as saying that the timing of the resumption of the Jacobite services is 'entirely out of our control'. 

 

Actually not: if WCRC bothered to make their stock compliant with the regulations, they could start to run again. The timing of the fitment is entirely under WCRC control.

 

However, if your business plan is to evade the regulations for as long as possible, then I agree.

 

Indeed WCRC have a rake of Mk2 air-cons fitted with CDL. They could have them up at Fort William and the Jacobite running tomorrow. Would get the service up and running and revenue coming in whilst they fit a rake or two of Mk1s with CDL. But that would require them admitting they're wrong. 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

13 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I was under the impression that the dispute between WCRC & ORR was purely about CDL.

It is. WCRC have a Regulation 4 exemption certificate valid until 2028: https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-05/wcrc-regulation-4-exemption-certificate-for-wcrc.pdf

 

13 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Does this mean that:-

1-even if a fully compliant CDL system is fitted, there is no guarantee that WCRC can continue to use Mk1's?

There is no guarantee that anyone will be allowed to continue to use Mk1s on the main line, and Regulation 4 exemptions may be withdrawn at any time. However, in their most recent guidance document, ORR have reiterated that Regulation 4 exemption requests will continue to be considered provided certain modifications are made to the carriages, and that a satisfactory inspection and maintenance regime is in place.

 

This is the same document that said that Regulation 5 exemptions for central door locking will only be issued after March 2023 in exceptional circumstances.

 

13 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

2-Are ORR placing other requirements on WCRC in respect of crash worthiness improvements before granting continued exemption to run Mk1's?

Presumably WCRC have already made the necessary modifications and the ORR are happy with their inspection and maintenance regime.

Edited April 9 by Jeremy Cumberland

[TheSignalEngineer]

17 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Be careful what you wish for.

 

 

Brit15

 

 

Ryanair?

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 08/04/2024 at 10:48, phil-b259 said:

But train paths at 25mph on the WHL are not available without totally decimating the Scotrail regular timetable!

 

So even if WCR put forward that as their justification for not installing CDL they still wouldn’t be able to rub the Jacobite as NR would not be able to provide any suitable train paths.

 

The present agreement is for trains of 6 or 7 coaches at line speed which is Max 45mph.

 

As I said earlier 25 mph isn't an option without rewriting the whole timetable for the west of Scotland north of the Clyde. Taken to the ultimate extreme that could have a knock on effect on the morning peak at Euston.

[ruggedpeak]

5 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

 

The present agreement is for trains of 6 or 7 coaches at line speed which is Max 45mph.

 

As I said earlier 25 mph isn't an option without rewriting the whole timetable for the west of Scotland north of the Clyde. Taken to the ultimate extreme that could have a knock on effect on the morning peak at Euston.

The 25 mph limit is irrelevant to the WCRC issue anyway, it relates to the Light Railway regulations for the entire operating environment, used by heritage railways to avoid the cost of full scale compliance.

 

The WHL is not a light railway. Full regulations apply to all aspects, so non-CDL stock is not permitted except by exemption.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

31 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

The WHL is not a light railway. Full regulations apply to all aspects, so non-CDL stock is not permitted except by exemption.

The RSR99 Schedule 1 definition of a railway makes no mention of "light railways", but instead refers to a line speed exceeding 25 mph. Perhaps WCRC's next line of attack will be to get some random MPs to sign a letter petitioning NR to lower the speed limit between Fort William and Mallaig. It sounds about as sensible to me as their current approach.

[adb968008]

45 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

 

The present agreement is for trains of 6 or 7 coaches at line speed which is Max 45mph.

 

As I said earlier 25 mph isn't an option without rewriting the whole timetable for the west of Scotland north of the Clyde. Taken to the ultimate extreme that could have a knock on effect on the morning peak at Euston.

Can you explain to me this…

1015 to Mallaig…  theres nothing else off the Mallaig line since the 0815 to Mallaig.

 

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C10932/2024-04-09/detailed

 

It passes 1Y61 at Glenfinnan 

It passes (today only) the LSL working at Arisaig.

Arrives 1230 Nothing happens at Mallaig until 1338 from Glasgow.

departs 1410
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C10935/2024-04-09/detailed

passes nothing, until arriving at 1603 at ftw, with a Mallaig departure at 1609.

A 0930 from ftw wouldnt affect anything and allow an extra hour…

 

A 1340 departure from Mallaig would add 30 minutes, or a 1310 departure, and pass at Arisaig would allow an hour, still leaving 40 mins to run round and water at Mallaig… something preserved lines and railtours can do in 15-20 mins.

 

Surely an extra hour each way is enough to avoid rewriting the entire UK timetable as suggested ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

We (mainly @Stevebr and @The Stationmaster) went through timings in detail early on in this thread.

19 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Arrives 1230 Nothing happens at Mallaig until 1338 from Glasgow

Nothing happens at Mallaig till 13:19 when the down Scotrail needs the token at Arisaig. If it only travels at 25 mph, it won't arrive in Mallaig at 12:30. So when will it arrive? What recovery allowance is there? Will it have time to run round before the down Scotrail requires the token.

 

24 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

A 0930 from ftw wouldnt affect anything and allow an extra hour…

...to Glenfinnan. But not from Glenfinnan to Mallaig.

 

26 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

departs 1410
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C10935/2024-04-09/detailed

passes nothing, until arriving at 1603 at ftw, with a Mallaig departure at 1609.

In the summer it passes the second down Jacobite at Arisaig, which can't run any earlier because it is following the down Scotrail.

 

This is a good post to start, if you want to look at timings in detail. There is further information in later posts:

 

However, don't think of this as anything other than an academic exercise, for our own amusement. There is no provision in the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 to allow Regulation 5 exemptions for trains that only run at 25 mph. The exemption is for railways whose line speed is 25 mph or less

[The Border Reiver]

6 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

All the seats in RAF passenger aircraft face rearwards for safety (as per adb's experience) but the passengers are not paying for the ride and have to do as they are told without question. Flying backwards is not conducive to relaxing.

I flew to the USA on a RAF VC-10 and yes we faced towards the rear. Also, no alcohol on the plane only orange juice. When we landed at Dulles airport we were met by a wing commander in a cadillac with a boot full of gin and tonic :)

[roythebus1]

The cost of seat belts on trains per casualty was investigated in the Hidden Report. I can't remember the cost per life, but it was ££hundreds of millions of "investment" to save one life.

 

There was a delay report I saw many years ago at Victoria, something like "we regret the 0820 to orpington is delayed due to an avalanche in Switzerland". I asked at the time, who explained the Night Ferry from Paris was delayed awaiting a connection from Switzerland, so the Night Ferry meant it ran in the path of the inward 0820 to Orpington.

Edited April 9 by roythebus1

[TheSignalEngineer]

5 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Can you explain to me this…

1015 to Mallaig…  theres nothing else off the Mallaig line since the 0815 to Mallaig.

 

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C10932/2024-04-09/detailed

 

It passes 1Y61 at Glenfinnan 

It passes (today only) the LSL working at Arisaig.

Arrives 1230 Nothing happens at Mallaig until 1338 from Glasgow.

departs 1410
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C10935/2024-04-09/detailed

passes nothing, until arriving at 1603 at ftw, with a Mallaig departure at 1609.

A 0930 from ftw wouldnt affect anything and allow an extra hour…

 

A 1340 departure from Mallaig would add 30 minutes, or a 1310 departure, and pass at Arisaig would allow an hour, still leaving 40 mins to run round and water at Mallaig… something preserved lines and railtours can do in 15-20 mins.

 

Surely an extra hour each way is enough to avoid rewriting the entire UK timetable as suggested ?

 We had a long discussion about this something like 56 pages ago. I think there is a train graph posted about page 9 if you want to come up with a reasoned explanation of how the line works. 

                     

The reason why the first Jacobite doesn't use the available path an hour or so earlier is because the first Down arrival at Fort William is the Highland Sleeper which is booked in at 1000 hence the 1015 Down Jacobite. If the train departed at 0930 it would have to wait at Glenfinnan for an Up train to pass, strangely enough the train which crosses that Up train in the summer timetable is the 1015 Down Jacobite. The latest a steam train could depart Fort William is 0900. It would then pass the 1010 from Mallaig at Arisaig.

 

Here's my doodle of a line occupation chart based on last summer's WTT for the Mallaig line. Don't forget that many of the trains involved cross at other stations to the south and are also portions of Oban services to Crianlarich. 

 

The coloured blocks represent the period when a token is in use. Blue are Scotrail, Red are Jacobite. The yellow ones are the STP paths used by LS on 9th April. One clashes with the second Down Jacobite path (orange part) so is not normally available. 

 

For an example of other complications the 1815 train from Mallaig  arriving Fort William at 1937 connects with the Up Sleeper departing at 1950. As the Sleeper is parked up at the station from 1800 the second Up Jacobite path arriving at 1908 has to get off to depot before the 1815 from Mallaig can pass Fort William Junction.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, roythebus1 said:

The cost of seat belts on trains per casualty was investigated in the Hidden Report. I can't remember the cost per life, but it was ££hundreds of millions of "investment" to save one life.

 

There was a delay report I saw many years ago at Victoria, something like "we regret the 0820 to orpington is delayed due to an avalanche in Switzerland". I asked at the time, who explained the Night Ferry from Paris was delayed awaiting a connection from Switzerland, so the Night Ferry meant it ran in the path of the inward 0820 to Orpington.

That's rather like the time our flight from Singapore to Sydney was delayed by snow...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

...in London.

[phil-b259]

On 09/04/2024 at 08:51, adb968008 said:

Were those researchers from the accountancy team by any chance ?

 

I’m sorry the argument that everyone can assume the risk of death in a crash because it reduces revenue and increases inconvenience flies in the face of everything we are told the ORR is supposed to be for..

I dont see why seat belts couldn't be fitted and optional for use ?.. seatbelts arent revolutionary, and are not expensive… LNER are certainly moving towards an airline style all seated railway, maybe it time they upped safety too.

Whilst accepting the partisan nature of this thread, those showing support for posts reducing safety, is exactly what it is…a show support for reducing safety on a thread debating challenging of safety by another operator… which I find hypocritical.. surely safety is safety, not selective safety to those in vogue vs those who arent.

 

 

I don’t know the specifics of the study and as it was done by BR before privatisation the mechanics of the study may not be the same as if it were done today.

 

However the point still stands that seat belts would only have a chance of protecting seated passengers - and unless you ban standees then your risk reduction will only apply to some of the trains passengers!

 

That goes against all modern safety regulation - in effect what you are saying is that some passengers are more valuable than others and have a grater ‘right’ to safety than others - which any court of law would find to be ridiculous not to mention an act of negligence by whichever company installed them.

 

Therefore if you had a train company which fitted seatbelts and an incident occurred where a standing passenger suffered a minor injury then there is a very good chance they could take the train company to court for providing seat belts for seated passengers but doing nothing to protect those standing dispute both types of passengers having potentially paid the same fare.

 

seatbelts in other forms of transport are fine precisely because the relevant la2s prohibit the carriage of standing passengers and thus EVERYONE experiences the same level of safety.

 

As I said earlier there is also the little matter that in terms of safety, it’s far better to eliminate the possibility of something happening than deal with mitigating the risk - that’s why the HSE say best practice is to design things so they do not need the use of a ladder to access them (e.g. have the equipment be able to be lowered to ground level like the ‘fold down’ signals we see on the rail network) than address the risks resulting from ladder use by sending people on ‘working at height’ training  and issuing fall restraint equipment.

 

Thus, it’s far better in railway terms to invest in preventing collisions etc from happening in the first place (TPWS, better fencing, better drainage removing level crossings etc) than seatbelts (given the legal difficulties surrounding their fitment to trains which also permit standing passengers.

 

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

However the point still stands that seat belts would only have a chance of protecting seated passengers - and unless you ban standees then your risk reduction will only apply to some of the trains passengers!

 

That goes against all modern safety regulation - in effect what you are saying is that some passengers are more valuable than others and have a grater ‘right’ to safety than others - which any court of law would find to be ridiculous not to mention an act of negligence by whichever company installed them.

 

Therefore if you had a train company which fitted seatbelts and an incident occurred where a standing passenger suffered a minor injury then there is a very good chance they could take the train company to court for providing seat belts for seated passengers but doing nothing to protect those standing dispute both types of passengers having potentially paid the same fare.

 

seatbelts in other forms of transport are fine precisely because the relevant la2s prohibit the carriage of standing passengers and thus EVERYONE experiences the same level of safety.

 

Doesnt this same logic apply to CDL ?

 

if i am sat in my seat, or even standing in the saloon, CDL offers me no protection at all… zip, nada, nothing.

it only protects those standing at or trying to exit the door…specifically those who using it when they shouldnt be.

 

it is in fact the opposite of the above in that its a safety feature protecting those standing but doing nothing for those seated.

 

You could argue everyone uses a train door eventually, but equally I doubt any passenger boards a train without expecting a seat too.

 

i’m not arguing against cdl, i’m arguing for seatbelts on trains, as at least an optional… as a family man i’d have my kids wearing an airline style lap belt on a higher speed service, just as they do on a plane, car, anywhere else.

 

Quote

Therefore if you had a train company which fitted seatbelts and an incident occurred where a standing passenger suffered a minor injury then there is a very good chance they could take the train company to court for providing seat belts for seated passengers but doing nothing to protect those standing dispute both types of passengers having potentially paid the same fare.

 

If we hadnt scrapped over 1200 rail vehicles in the last few years there might be less standing passengers.

I’d argue a passenger without a seat should pay less fare as they arent getting a seat, but I know that will never fly, as your paying for a journey, not the seat.

 

However if someone isnt entitled to expect a seat on a train, then surely they arent entitled to expect equal safety… afterall standing is more dangerous than seating anyway… as the seat gives better protections today even without a seatbelt….. so standing passengers already face greater safety risks… yet ive not seen any lawsuits about this… people have been standing on transport going back to the Ancient Egyptians.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10 by adb968008

[nightstar.train]

11 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

 We had a long discussion about this something like 56 pages ago. I think there is a train graph posted about page 9 if you want to come up with a reasoned explanation of how the line works. 

                     

The reason why the first Jacobite doesn't use the available path an hour or so earlier is because the first Down arrival at Fort William is the Highland Sleeper which is booked in at 1000 hence the 1015 Down Jacobite. If the train departed at 0930 it would have to wait at Glenfinnan for an Up train to pass, strangely enough the train which crosses that Up train in the summer timetable is the 1015 Down Jacobite. The latest a steam train could depart Fort William is 0900. It would then pass the 1010 from Mallaig at Arisaig.

 

Here's my doodle of a line occupation chart based on last summer's WTT for the Mallaig line. Don't forget that many of the trains involved cross at other stations to the south and are also portions of Oban services to Crianlarich. 

 

The coloured blocks represent the period when a token is in use. Blue are Scotrail, Red are Jacobite. The yellow ones are the STP paths used by LS on 9th April. One clashes with the second Down Jacobite path (orange part) so is not normally available. 

 

For an example of other complications the 1815 train from Mallaig  arriving Fort William at 1937 connects with the Up Sleeper departing at 1950. As the Sleeper is parked up at the station from 1800 the second Up Jacobite path arriving at 1908 has to get off to depot before the 1815 from Mallaig can pass Fort William Junction.

 

Thanks for this, and earlier posts by yourself and @The Stationmaster. It really is fascinating how the timetable of a very minor branch in the wilds of Scotland affects/is affected by trains all the way to Glasgow and even London! 

[caradoc]

12 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

if i am sat in my seat, or even standing in the saloon, CDL offers me no protection at all… zip, nada, nothing.

it only protects those standing at or trying to exit the door…

 

 

CDL protects anyone, whether they were previously seated or not, who decides to try and open a door at an unsafe time or location.

 

[Talltim]

16 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

if i am sat in my seat, or even standing in the saloon, CDL offers me no protection at all… zip, nada, nothing.

it only protects those standing at or trying to exit the door…

 

 

 

Or standing on the platform as an open door comes towards them!

[Ryde-on-time]

17 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Doesnt this same logic apply to CDL ?

 

if i am sat in my seat, or even standing in the saloon, CDL offers me no protection at all… zip, nada, nothing.

it only protects those standing at or trying to exit the door…

 

 

It also protects people waiting on a platform. This thread seems to be going around in circles and I have previously mentioned an incident on a preserved railway where someone towards the same front of the same train as me opened a door as the train approached the platform so was wide open along the length of the station. There was an event on and the platform crowded but thankfully the staff had moved people back from the edge, they were yelling warnings, and no injuries occurred. It illustrated to me that because the CDL rules have been in place for so long passengers are no longer aware of the dangers and implementing the rules is more important than ever

 

The train was still going at a reasonable entering the station and being struck by an open door would do some damage. There would not be several staff at stations where the Jackobite stop at to warn people to stand back (just because WCRC can't be bothered after 25 years to comply with the rules?!?)

[adb968008]

27 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

CDL protects anyone, whether they were previously seated or not, who decides to try and open a door at an unsafe time or location.

 

 

Seatbelts protects anyone, whether they were previously standing or not, who decides to use them at an unsafe time or location.

 

27 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, Ryde-on-time said:

 

It also protects people waiting on a platform. This thread seems to be going around in circles and I have previously mentioned an incident on a preserved railway where someone towards the same front of the same train as me opened a door as the train approached the platform so was wide open along the length of the station. There was an event on and the platform crowded but thankfully the staff had moved people back from the edge, they were yelling warnings, and no injuries occurred. It illustrated to me that because the CDL rules have been in place for so long passengers are no longer aware of the dangers and implementing the rules is more important than ever

 

The train was still going at a reasonable entering the station and being struck by an open door would do some damage. There would not be several staff at stations where the Jackobite stop at to warn people to stand back (just because WCRC can't be bothered after 25 years to comply with the rules?!?)

Case study on cdl for preserved railways right there.

 

 

what i’m questioning is selective safety, which is pervading this thread.

 

seatbelts work, have worked for 7 decades on every single mode of transport, except rail…

 

cdl is designed to protect, yet despite the known dangers artificial barriers are constructed to ring fence certain groups from safety requirements.
 

its feel a bit hypocritical to attack one company challenging safety because of its expense, whilst trying to protect the artificial barriers ring fencing others from incurring the same expense of safety in others…

 

especially when using 1990’s stats for enforcing said safety on one group (cdl) , whilst ringing up 1990’s stats on not enforcing it on those behind the artificial barriers (seatbelts)…

But if someone falls off a viaduct at 5mph theres got to be questions asked about cdl for all… and I am concerned with riding 800’s after the NL incident, and do feel seatbelts on 100mph+ services are not a bad idea, even if they are optional.

its somewhat worrying knowing British people dont know how to use a door handle anymore in 2024, despite living in a world of door handles for over 2000 years, just because its on wheels, I should know better, Alexa had an outage last night, and Twitter was heaving with statements about not being able to turn on/off lights…

perhaps its time the studies and stats were revised in a 2020’s context, and the barriers ringfencing be considered against learned lessons from outside the rail industry too ?

Edited April 10 by adb968008

[pete_mcfarlane]

14 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

There was a delay report I saw many years ago at Victoria, something like "we regret the 0820 to orpington is delayed due to an avalanche in Switzerland". I asked at the time, who explained the Night Ferry from Paris was delayed awaiting a connection from Switzerland, so the Night Ferry meant it ran in the path of the inward 0820 to Orpington.

In the other direction there are stories of French rural metre gauge lines being delayed due to problems on the Southern Region (which delayed the boat train, and all of its onward connections). 

[nightstar.train]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

its somewhat worrying knowing British people dont know how to use a door handle anymore in 2024, despite living in a world of door handles for over 2000 years,

 

Show me a house or office or any building door where you have to open the window and lean through it to turn the door handle. And a house door where the handle has two latching positions and if it's not firmly slammed onto the second position it can spring open without warning and injure people. It's a simple fact that the vast majority of the public and overseas visitors will never have encountered this type of door and handle arrangement and may not know how to use it correctly. And if you lean against a door in a house and it unexpectedly falls open the risk of injury is far lower than if you're travelling on a train. Your not going to fall off a viaduct or encounter another train travelling at 100mph. 

 

And yes maybe trains should have seatbelts, and maybe preserved lines should have CDL. But that's not what's under discussion here. There are no regulations requiring either currently. There ARE regulations requiring WCRC to have CDL fitted to run their trains, which they are refusing to do. That is the start and end of it.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

Seatbelts protects anyone, whether they were previously standing or not, who decides to use them at an unsafe time or location.

 

I would love you to demonstrate how a seatbelt helps a standing passenger from being flung down the carriage / to the floor due to sudden deceleration…

 

Yes a seatbelt will potentially stop those seated from adding to the numbers sent flying - but I repeat that given seated and standing passengers can potentially have paid exactly the same price (or the standee has paid even more than the seated person if the latter has an advance ticket) then, in law, the standee MUST NOT be subjected to a grater risk of injury than the seated person!

 

It doesn’t mater whether a person is seated or not - they all have to enter and exit the train at some point and as such CDL helps protect them all from exiting / entering the train when it is unsafe to do so, be it while they are passing though the train while in motion, waiting by the door to alight or even preventing them from boarding a train which is about to start moving off from a platform.

Edited April 10 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Doesnt this same logic apply to CDL ?

 

if i am sat in my seat, or even standing in the saloon, CDL offers me no protection at all… zip, nada, nothing.

it only protects those standing at or trying to exit the door…specifically those who using it when they shouldnt be.

 

it is in fact the opposite of the above in that its a safety feature protecting those standing but doing nothing for those seated.

 

You could argue everyone uses a train door eventually, but equally I doubt any passenger boards a train without expecting a seat too.

 

i’m not arguing against cdl, i’m arguing for seatbelts on trains, as at least an optional… as a family man i’d have my kids wearing an airline style lap belt on a higher speed service, just as they do on a plane, car, anywhere else.

 

 

If we hadnt scrapped over 1200 rail vehicles in the last few years there might be less standing passengers.

I’d argue a passenger without a seat should pay less fare as they arent getting a seat, but I know that will never fly, as your paying for a journey, not the seat.

 

However if someone isnt entitled to expect a seat on a train, then surely they arent entitled to expect equal safety… afterall standing is more dangerous than seating anyway… as the seat gives better protections today even without a seatbelt….. so standing passengers already face greater safety risks… yet ive not seen any lawsuits about this… people have been standing on transport going back to the Ancient Egyptians.

 

 

 

 

 

No it doesn’t - CDL is not applied selectively to individual passengers - and you know it so stop twisting things to suit you agenda!

 

If you want to discuss seatbelts on trains then that’s fine to do as a standalone topic - but have the sense to realise they have as much relevance to CDL as door locks on planes or road vehicles have to seatbelts in said transport (I.e. none)

 

Edited April 10 by phil-b259

[rodent279]

Would an interesting legal situation if seatbelts were fitted, but not compulsory, and a passenger who chose not to use one got thrown into/against a belted passenger, causing serious injury.

 

How would that work out? Who is responsible?

Passenger-but seatbelt not compulsory?

TOC- but passenger had belt and could have worn it?

 

Legal minefield which I think TOCs would want to avoid like the plague, unless forced to by government.