WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, rodent279 said:

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.

I think these are exactly the sort of problems which have been highlighted when seatbelts have been looked at in the past.

 

As I see it seatbelts on trains require

 

(1) A total ban on standing passengers

 

(2) All seats to be facing the same direction (so that if someone isn’t wearing a belt when the train decelerates they impact the seat in front and not the passenger sitting opposite).

 

(3) Alterations to ticket T&Cs which put an onus on passengers to use said seatbelts when seated.

 

The top two being features of long distance coaches and planes…..

Edited April 10 by phil-b259

[Wheatley]

46 minutes ago, nightstar.train said:

 

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.

This. 

 

I posted earlier that this is not about whether or not CDL is a good idea, or seatbelts, or Mk1 crash worthiness, or speed limits or any of the other irrelevant noise. 

 

This is about whether the Statutory Regulator has the authority to regulate that which it is statutorily appointed to regulate, without having to accommodate anyone who thinks they should  be exempt because their mate is an MP. 

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

the standee MUST NOT be subjected to a grater risk of injury than the seated person!

 

They already are, and have been for 2000 odd years… you stand on a moving platform that suddenly stops, without something to stabilise yourself with or an object to stop that movement.. you will propel  much further than someone seated, whom has an object to hold onto, or barrier infront of them stop that momentum…
 

anyways it is off topic, ive made my point and let it rest.

 

 

 

more relevant, Elsewhere reports LSL loadings of c70 monday, c40 tuesday.

The hardy faithful made it on Monday but already sunk by Tuesday.

 

tbh I cannot see a Scotrail mk3 set with a 37 having much appeal this summer, but apparently its staying around a while.

As much as I like the mk3 set in Scotrail, I think its appeal is more to enthusiasts than tourists.

It doesnt offer anything different to a 156 on this route.

 

Perhaps they should move the B1 up there, that may change things a little, and lets face it the B1 is over cooked in the wrong restaurant down south, no one would miss it down south, but it would liven up the Highlands a bit and help establish LSL for next year. It also carries the name a lot of American tourists will relate to.

 

maybe repaint the mk3’s into 1980’s WHL Green and Cream for next year ?

 

Edited April 10 by adb968008

[Jeremy Cumberland]

3 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Perhaps they should move the B1 up there

As soon as the carriages went north, I expected a kettle to follow in due course. WCRC seem willing to spend money on stock positioning movements, and I expect they will be willing to spend money on locomotive hire charges too. All this preparation for a train service they can't really expect to run demonstrates the same pig-headedness as refusing to fit CDL, but at least moving a steam locomotive to Fort William will give them some more publicity and allow them to moan again about being hard done by. Look, it's not us who is stopping the train from running.

 

I'll quote again from the ORR's July 2021 update to the Guide to Operation of Mark 1 type and hinged door rolling stock.

Quote

The current long-term exemptions relating to the operation on the mainline railway of vehicles with hinged doors not fitted with CDL are due to expire in March 2023. In light of the passenger safety purpose of the RSR99, ORR expects to issue further exemptions from regulation 5 only in exceptional circumstances.

ORR published this nearly 3 years ago. The March 2023 deadline passed over a year ago. Yet still WCRC sees fit to ignore it. They are one of the largest operators of charter stock in Britain. The coaches involved are pretty much standard Mark 1s. What, exactly, are the exceptional circumstances?

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

As soon as the carriages went north, I expected a kettle to follow in due course. WCRC seem willing to spend money on stock positioning movements, and I expect they will be willing to spend money on locomotive hire charges too. All this preparation for a train service they can't really expect to run demonstrates the same pig-headedness as refusing to fit CDL, but at least moving a steam locomotive to Fort William will give them some more publicity and allow them to moan again about being hard done by. Look, it's not us who is stopping the train from running.

Apologies some confusion.. the B1 .. 61306 is LSLs property, I was suggesting for their mk3’s.

61306 hasnt worked for wcrc since steam dreams was sold to LSL.

 

My thoughts are LSL may try a service this summer with the 37’s, but maybe also the B1, but they could go with the B1 next year.

 

wcrc has been relying on Ian Riley for locos in recent years… 45407,44871 and 45212 for the whl.

I think the thing not to under estimate is Ian Rileys locos are a self contained unit… loco, support crew and maintenance business, and daily operation on the whl would require considerable maintenance and support… during and in between seasons. Having 3 near identical locos in a pool probably also helps a lot, as does the legendary standard of maintenance.

i’m not sure its quite so simple for lsl to just hire Rileys black5’s… the lsl model seems to be one of taking responsibility for the loco as a hire, or formally absorbing the group into its fold.. Rileys cannot be assumed to be ok with just handing them over, nor LSL adopting a preferential approach to another supplier.  I dont recall LSL ever using Rileys for many years, so strategically WCRC maybe more important to them, indeed they must have some sort of contract to supply for the whl in the first place.

 

As long as wcrc are operating the mk 2’s down south, wcrc only have a handful of locos to pick from, including 45407 and 44871 (and 34072).. and as they start the 9 day tour of Britain (The Great Britain) its really only those 3 locos and the 1 set of coaches they can use to do it… a long nationwide trip in mk2e’s awaits those paying upto £4k per head for.
Not sure why 45212 isnt out, but it may just not be needed, with only 1 set of coaches in play, but it might perhaps do the Lancaster - Hellifield turn next week on the GB railtour, as a reversal is required at Helifield… and 34067 goes to Glasgow, steam starts becoming a little short, as both 45407 and 44871 are double heading to Inverness.

 

Its maybe this trip that is the decider on whats lucrative to WcRC… a 9 day railtour, or a daily grind in the highlands, for its 1 rake of coaches.

 

After this trip is over, they may take the mk2’s and Black5s north and make a go of it this summer.

That said.. we are in winter heat season currently, what state is the aircon in these mk2’s and will it be bearable in the summer, any where, not just the highlands, to use them ?

 

Of course wear on the whl affects coaches too, and arent the coaches rotated with replacements from Carnforth mid season, but thats not possible with 1 rake.

 

As for next year, 1 loco and one rake would be foolhardy for LSL to start up a daily operation.. locos fail, need washouts, maintenance etc… A minimum of two would be needed, but if they are different, you cant just borrow one bit off the other whilst someone heads in a van back south for a spare part… so 2 locos and 5 days a week maybe prudent with 1 train a day… LSL couldnt do more than that anyway as they only have 2 suitable locos (45231 and 61306) and 1 rake of Scotrail mk3’s… unless they cannabalise other parts of their operation… which begs the question, what happens if the mk3’s need repair mid season ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10 by adb968008

[Morello Cherry]

41 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

They already are, and have been for 2000 odd years… you stand on a moving platform that suddenly stops, without something to stabilise yourself with or an object to stop that movement.. you will propel  much further than someone seated, whom has an object to hold onto, or barrier infront of them stop that momentum…
 

 

What you seem to be missing is that it is about risk. The risk of injury of falling on a slow moving city bus is lower than on a coach on a motorway or a plane (despite however much Ryanair et al might want to introduce standing on planes). Likewise, the risk from falling on the lower deck is lower than the upper deck - hence no standing on the upper deck.

 

And so it is that the risks associated with falling from a train at 45mph are greater than at 25mph.

 

Secondly, safety rules are not fixed and permanent but rather evolve across time, often in response to the last incident that showed the limitations of the current rules. Hence, if there are more incidents such as the GCR then we may well find CDL being introduced. (The Ffestiniog of course never stopped locking everyone in). If there is a bad bus accident then there may be a change in attitude to seatbelts on buses, just as bad accidents involving coaches drove the introduction of seat belts on coaches. Just because there were toilets that emptied onto the track in the past doesn't mean that there will be in the future, just because there isn't a requirement for CDL on preserved lines today doesn't mean that there won't be in 20 years time.

 

Finally, there is an element of cakism in the WCR. On the one hand the argument is but we always used to have slam doors and everyone knows what to do, and on the other the PR spin is that there are all these Harry Potter fans who have travelled the world to ride on the train - and who by extension won't have travelled on a MK1 before. So if all the passengers are tourists who by the very nature of tourism will likely to be more unfamiliar than familiar then it makes sense to mitigate the risk by ensuring you have CDL or if you don't have CDL to then ensure that you are fully meeting the requirements of your exception from CDL.

 

Once again, WCR brought this on themselves. They had the exception - they f'ed up by cutting corners on health and safety again (and with a rap sheet as long as Norman Stanley Fletcher) and now they are crying about how they are being hard done by. Sorry but not sorry but they can jog on.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

They already are, and have been for 2000 odd years… you stand on a moving platform that suddenly stops, without something to stabilise yourself with or an object to stop that movement.. you will propel  much further than someone seated, whom has an object to hold onto, or barrier infront of them stop that momentum…
 

 

I was speaking with respect to new  safety initiatives.

 

The railway is full of things which the safety regulators tolerate because it is impractical to replace them wholesale - 3rd rail, tunnels without emergency access shafts, stations on curves / gradients, level crossings etc.

 

Fitting central door locking is by contrast very much a practical proposition - stop pretending it isn’t..

 

Seatbelts very much fall into that ‘it’s impractical’ category as regards the existing rail network - not least because voters will not tolerate being told they must pre-book / can only board trains if the operator can guarantee there is a seat for them to use.

 

However If trains were invented these days then, as with planes I suspect that standees would not be permitted - and as such they might be applicable to new build systems…..
 

For example, given the significantly higher speed of HS2 trains. providing that whilst on HS2 infrastructure all passengers are required to have a guaranteed seat reservation (and standees get chucked off before the trains reach HS2 infrastructure) then seatbelts could well be seen as a suitable safety measure.

 

 

Edited April 10 by phil-b259

[Jeremy Cumberland]

36 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Apologies some confusion.. the B1 .. 61306 is LSLs property, I was suggesting for their mk3’s.

61306 hasnt worked for wcrc since steam dreams was sold to LSL.

Thanks. I've just looked it up. It's painted green. Doesn't anyone have a red engine?

 

Pub quiz question for the non-railfan. Which of these is the Harry Potter engine?

a.

 

b.

 

c.

 

d.

[adb968008]

11 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Thanks. I've just looked it up. It's painted green. Doesn't anyone have a red engine?

 

Pub quiz question for the non-railfan. Which of these is the Harry Potter engine?

a.

 

b.

 

c.

 

d.

a rare photo of the top one there… 5972 in green.
 

nunney castle is an lsl engine, and its a castle….  (Most people would never question it as a sister of Hogwarts Castle).

its also got most of the right numbers, just in the wrong order.. 5029 vs 5972.

personally i’d love to see it in red with Stanier fittings….

 

whether it would be allowed on the WHL is something else.

 

 

Edited April 10 by adb968008

[Northmoor]

On 09/04/2024 at 10:51, black and decker boy said:

there is still going to be loose and therefore airborne luggage as no plane style lockers and often no seat or space under seat for bags.

 

Most (survivable) air accidents are during the take-off or landing phases.  Take-off and landing speeds of airliners are higher than most train services ever get to, so any accident is likely to be violent, hence why overhead luggage lockers click shut.  I can maybe foresee trains on HS2 being designed with overhead luggage lockers instead of a shelf. 

It is noticeable that racks on modern trains are notably more "restraining" of luggage - you almost have to lift it up and out, which is difficult for the short, elderly or infirm - but then even the 10mph Cannon St crash generated a lot of human/luggage injuries.

[StuAllen]

Casual observation from my train journey today - we’re currently spending a week in Devon so travelled on the Dartmouth Steam Railway today, the train was all Mk1 coaches, none had CDL or stewards at the doors - I know it’s a heritage line so different rules. When coming into the station at either end of the line there was an announcement reminding passengers not to open the doors until the train had stopped, there was also an announcement when we stopped outside the station just before the level crossing warning that we’re not at a station so don’t open the door. 
 

That said, being flippant I don’t think the warnings were necessary - no-one seemed capable of being able to open the doors anyway, I think I opened 3 doors from the outside where people on the inside looked confused, I’m not quite 50 and live in Sussex so grew up with Mk1 EMUs so working the doors was 2nd nature, the people struggling were older and slightly younger - one group were trying to pull the lip at the bottom of the window and another were just pointing at the blanking plate on the back of the handle, it didn’t seem to occur to them that they needed to open the window and reach out to use the handle. 
 

I’m not using this to defend WCR, as I think the case is clear, but it is a good example to show not everyone knows how to use the doors properly so a good reason to improve the safety of them.

 

 

[woodenhead]

Was it the Dartmouth or South Devon where they had the MK1 coach toilets with no floors in them?

 

Somewhat bigger risk that opening doors.

[StuAllen]

15 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Was it the Dartmouth or South Devon where they had the MK1 coach toilets with no floors in them?

 

Somewhat bigger risk that opening doors.

South Devon https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a821a4aed915d74e6235cc3/180130_R022018_South_Devon_Railway.pdf.
 

Were they just highlighting there’s no retention tanks? 😜

 

 

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Morello Cherry said:

Once again, WCR brought this on themselves. They had the exception - they f'ed up by cutting corners on health and safety again (and with a rap sheet as long as Norman Stanley Fletcher) and now they are crying about how they are being hard done by. Sorry but not sorry but they can jog on.

My (perhaps selfish) concern is that if/when WCRC's luck runs out and there is a fatality on a steam railtour, the knee-jerk reaction will be to ban all heritage stock from the main line.  You can be certain that if the Bullied Pacific had been running a minute earlier at Wootton Bassett, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now because there would be no main line steam to discuss.

 

Oh and CDL is only difficult to fit to vacuum-braked stock, it's relatively simple where you have an air supply for the brakes, so use air-braked stock.  I'll hazard a guess that fitting air braking to a steam loco is cheaper than fitting multiple VB carriages with CDL.  Vacuum brakes were last used by service trains with the withdrawal of the last 1st Gen DMU; it is non-standard, very few people are trained on its operation and compared to AB its performance is known to be deficient (or at least the stock fitted with it underperforms compared to later AB stock).  It won't be long before the RSSB force it to be abolished in main line operations.

Edited April 10 by Northmoor
2nd para

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

My (perhaps selfish) concern is that if/when WCRC's luck runs out and there is a fatality on a steam railtour, the knee-jerk reaction will be to ban all heritage stock from the main line.  You can be certain that if the Bullied Pacific had been running a minute earlier at Wootton Bassett, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now because there would be no main line steam to discuss.

34067 is indeed a worry some machine, especially around the letter W…

Weymouth.. hit the buffers, Winchfield .. dropped a conrod, Wootton Bassett .. nearly crashed.

 

But it also had a reputation on Martin Mill, Upton Scudamore, Filton bank, Upwey, Hemerdon, Dover.. the list just kept going and going… its sat down on every hill in the south.

 

I’m not convinced that unrebuilts should be on the mainline… i did a trip with it many years ago and half my video was it slipping… back in the 1980’s 34092 wasnt much better, even with its Giesel it wasnt the strongest. If 34023 ever cones back i’d be interested to see how it climbs Imberhorne.

 

 

Edited April 10 by adb968008
Winchfield, to keep the dogs happy.

[Matt37268]

10 hours ago, nightstar.train said:

 

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! 

If you’ve ever read ‘Railway Adventure’ you’ll find how Mr Rolt makes a comment on about how much a 2 or 3 minute delay in somewhere like Manchester or Birmingham could have a knock on delay at Twywn when trying to arrange a connection with the Talylln.
More recently the same points been made regarding the NYMR with their services to Whitby, if something cocks up there apparently the ripples can be felt back as far as Leeds and Manchester. 

Edited April 10 by Matt37268

[Morello Cherry]

38 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

My (perhaps selfish) concern is that if/when WCRC's luck runs out and there is a fatality on a steam railtour, the knee-jerk reaction will be to ban all heritage stock from the main line.  You can be certain that if the Bullied Pacific had been running a minute earlier at Wootton Bassett, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now because there would be no main line steam to discuss.

 

Oh and CDL is only difficult to fit to vacuum-braked stock, it's relatively simple where you have an air supply for the brakes, so use air-braked stock.  I'll hazard a guess that fitting air braking to a steam loco is cheaper than fitting multiple VB carriages with CDL.  Vacuum brakes were last used by service trains with the withdrawal of the last 1st Gen DMU; it is non-standard, very few people are trained on its operation and compared to AB its performance is known to be deficient (or at least the stock fitted with it underperforms compared to later AB stock).  It won't be long before the RSSB force it to be abolished in main line operations.

 

I agree with you. I think the heritage rail sector has been very lucky so far - Wootton Bassett, trespassers on the line at various events (think the dude at the level crossing), the SDR, the GCR, incidents at the NYMR.

 

These are near misses by fractions of seconds, or centimetres.

 

The heritage sector is in John Bradford territory - 'there but for the grace of god go I'.

 

Think how the authorities, politicians and media would have reacted if the mother had not caught the toddler? Or as you say Wootton Bassett, or if someone is killed falling out of a poorly secured door.

 

I would say that all of these incidents were avoidable but also that the warning signs had been present for a while.

 

I haven't volunteered for years, but the first thing I was taught was if in doubt fail safe. I made a visit I reckon about a decade ago to one of the heritage lines which was to later have a safety incident. We arrive at the end of the line, everyone gets off, the engine is unhooked. At which point I hear a scream from a woman standing next to me, 'my dog is under the train'. No idea how it got under the train.  One of the blokes with them says 'I'll go and get it'. My immediate reaction is 'sh*t - stop the loco running round'. There are some older volunteers doing some painting, I go and tell them 'there is a dog under the train and a bloke is getting onto the track'. The response 'Again?'. I'm like dude, the engine is doing its run round procedure, there is a bloke and a dog under the train. The guy ambles to the group where the bloke has got the dog, the guy then proceeds to lecture the bloke that he is lifting the dog up wrong and will break the dog's back.

 

Not 'stay there, don't move until we've made sure that the loco isn't moving' Not 'what the hell are you doing under the train carrying a large dog, let me make sure sure the engine is stopped', but 'don't carry the dog like that you'll break his back'.

 

Bloke carries the dog under the carriage out onto the loop side, then walks around the carriages carrying the dog.

 

At no point in time do I see that anyone has made any effort to stop the loco running round and it shortly clanks past (I'm guessing about 90 seconds after the bloke gets up onto the platform). It is clear to me that no one has warned the footplate crew.

 

No platform staff or 'station master' appears to find out what has happened, the group wander off, seemingly completely oblivious, and the older volunteers go back to their painting.

 

It struck me the lack of professionalism and basic safety awareness.

 

I was not surprised when there was a later incident that made the national press and which brought the authorities into play.

 

I don't think the attitude was a one off at one line, on another railway, when buying my tickets I was greeted with an unasked for rant about 'elf 'n safety' (and they did use the term 'elf'). Again, which was to me revealing about that person's attitude towards rules and regulations about safety. If you dismiss them as an imposition then you are not going to apply them seriously.

 

Now, it strikes me that we are reaching a new stage - the ORR is clearly taking a much closer look at safety in the heritage sector due to the near misses. I hope that this means that we are entering into a new era of professionalism, and with that greater safety and hopefully no more near misses. However, it is clear to me that, WRC are like those volunteers on the platform or the person in the booking office, they don't get it and they don't believe it in. What worries me is that one of the refuseniks who views it all as a terrible imposition by government that they can't do what they used to do in 1955, 1975 or 1995, is going to play fast and loose with the rules and we're not going to have a near miss, we are going to have fatalities and serious injuries and then there will be true hell to pay.

 

If the ORR takes a tough line with WRC and we get a sea change and people realise that no you are not playing trains with your mates, and no this isn't how it used to be in the 1970s, then that is only a good thing for the industry as a whole.

 

 

 

[Matt37268]

56 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

34067 is indeed a worry some machine, especially around the letter W…

Weymouth.. hit the buffers, Woking .. dropped a conrod, Wootton Bassett .. nearly crashed.

 

But it also had a reputation on Martin Mill, Upton Scudamore, Filton bank, Upwey, Hemerdon, Dover.. the list just kept going and going… its sat down on every hill in the south.

 

I’m not convinced that unrebuilts should be on the mainline… i did a trip with it many years ago and half my video was it slipping… back in the 1980’s 34092 wasnt much better, even with its Giesel it wasnt the strongest. If 34023 ever cones back i’d be interested to see how it climbs Imberhorne.

 

 

I think you’re being a bit melodramatic there, or are you just trying to be controversial on purpose?
I think we know that Tanger’s has had it’s problems but not all of them can be placed at the fault of it’s design. 
I’d have to say Winchfield (not Woking, please if you’re going to single out incidents then please do some basic research before posting) and Wooton Bassett were down to the responsibility of those responsible of its operation and maintenance. 

If your really that concerned about the performance of an original condition ‘Spam Can’ on a pres line rather than wait until 34023’s back in action why not have a look or get in touch with SLL or the Mid Hants and see how they’ve got on with 34070 recently to see how that’s coped recently? It’s hardly straight and level between Alton and Alresford is it? 
 

[TheSignalEngineer]

26 minutes ago, Matt37268 said:

If you’ve ever read ‘Railway Adventure’ you’ll find how Mr Rolt makes a comment on about how much a 2 or 3 minute delay in somewhere like Manchester or Birmingham could have a knock on delay at Twywn when trying to arrange a connection with the Talylln.
More recently the same points been made regarding the NYMR with their services to Whitby, if something cocks up there apparently the ripples can be felt back as far as Leeds and Manchester. 

I remember in discussions about a bypass scheme in the north where the standing joke was that when modelling the area introducing an incident on the existing road layout would have a ripple effect round the world as a large proportion of the aircrew based at Manchester used it to get to work.

 

Any Road Up, time for a break. This thread has done more laps than the Super D currently sitting on my roundy, it's making my head go dizzy.

[Pacific231G]

11 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Doesnt this same logic apply to CDL ?

 

 

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.

There's no sensible comparison between an aircraft or road vehicle and a train. The chances of a collision or derailment while on a train are minute compared with a road vehicle which is also likely to swerve or brake heavily to avoid an accident. While an air accident is probably equally unikely, at least on a scheduled flight, the chances of heavy turbulence, a violent manouevre , a heavy landing  or an aborted take-off are fairly common- that's why one is required to wear one's seatbelt during take off and landing and advised to while seated throughout the flight.

Seat belts in cars had a massive effect on fatalities and "life changing" injuries. On trains, any benefit would be very close to zero but the cost would not be.

 

[ruggedpeak]

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

There's no sensible comparison between an aircraft or road vehicle and a train. The chances of a collision or derailment while on a train are minute compared with a road vehicle which is also likely to swerve or brake heavily to avoid an accident. While an air accident is probably equally unikely, at least on a scheduled flight, the chances of heavy turbulence, a violent manouevre , a heavy landing  or an aborted take-off are fairly common- that's why one is required to wear one's seatbelt during take off and landing and advised to while seated throughout the flight.

Seat belts in cars had a massive effect on fatalities and "life changing" injuries. On trains, any benefit would be very close to zero but the cost would not be.

I wouldn't worry, they are trolling on behalf of WCRC trying to find ways that is it "hypocritical" etc that WCRC have to fit CDL, all due to the hate crimes and partisan nature of RMWebers! 🤣Apparently Hamish Macbeth is already struggiling with the volume of reports of people criticising WCRC!

 

 

 

 

[Nick C]

14 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

... and as such they might be applicable to new build systems…..

 

For example, given the significantly higher speed of HS2 trains. providing that whilst on HS2 infrastructure all passengers are required to have a guaranteed seat reservation (...

That is the case for many high-speed trains on the continent I believe - certainly PKP IEP services are reservation-only.

[PhilH]

11 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

 

 

Any Road Up, time for a break. This thread has done more laps than the Super D currently sitting on my roundy, it's making my head go dizzy.

This. Good job Greta Thunberg doesn't know about it.

[The Stationmaster]

On 07/04/2024 at 11:09, St Enodoc said:

I was thinking also of the outcome of the compliance inspections regarding the implementation of the controls to be applied in support of the previous exemption(s).

Which is highly relevant in the case of WCRC and its somewhat poor (to say the least) record of wider lack of compliance with various very basic procedures. 

 

I've missed a lot of the preceding pages but irrespective of one's views on risk assessment,  various legislation & regulations, the ORR, the Railway Inspectorate, and downright basic railway safety & common sense, the simple fact is that WCRC have shown over the years a continuing cavalier attitude to such things and have come very close to killing people as a result.  I don't think the leopard is suddenly about to change its spots and its present actions seem to me to confirm that.  

 

They know what they need to do in order to comply and they have (or can afford to borrow) the money they need to do it (after a loss of £923 600 in their FY end March 2021 in the following two years the company made total retained profits of just over £3.5 million; WCRC has plenty of cash and the controlling group has even more).  incidentally its book value of its locos and rolling stock is only £2.4 million.

 

Incidentally as far as its coaching stock fleet is concerned it is many years since I passed Carnforth but it used to give a very good impression of siding accommodation for withdrawn, deteriorating, coaches with a large number sitting there quietly rusting away.  Are they still there and do they count them in their total fleet to be fitted with CDL?

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Incidentally as far as its coaching stock fleet is concerned it is many years since I passed Carnforth but it used to give a very good impression of siding accommodation for withdrawn, deteriorating, coaches with a large number sitting there quietly rusting away.  Are they still there and do they count them in their total fleet to be fitted with CDL?

The now withdrawn exemption was a pretty accurate list of the serviceable fleet.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-07/wcrc-regulation-5-exemption-certificate-for-wcrc.pdf

 

 

I checked it against several coaches not seen for a while, for example Accurascales mk2bs etc and the mk2es which weren't listed as they have cdl… the mk2bs havent been seen in several years, so may be in the scrap lines.

 

Reality is WCRC has a humungous amount of stock… way more than 130, perhaps 200..

But a lot of it is rot.. mk1 sleepers, lnw sleeper from steamtown days, RES PCVs used to be at Helifield, abandoned mk2es in Southall.

Some has been stripped for scrap already in recent years.

 

They also have the exempt mk2e rake which made a reappearance this year extra to that exemption list and which they can still and are using.

Dissecting the now withdrawn exemption, you can pinpoint some oddities, which I suspect would never be viable for cdl, and so are probably never going to return back…

 

1. Queen of Scots consists of an LNW saloon,  observation, GNR teak coach etc… these are all generically listed as “mk1’s…”… each would require bespoke conversions, air braking may never be an option etc…

 

2. Lakeland Pullman, these are the old Manchester Pullman mk2’s with unusual doors, again a bespoke solution. These coaches arent used very often either, so am unsure if they can return.

 

3. The others are the Metro Cammell mk1 pullmans, again non standard doors / fittings, though a lot has been spent on these… its a dilemma, VT has a couple also, including recently restored “Eagle”, they may not fit a standard cdl, but are too valuable to ignore.

4. two mk3 sleepers.

 

 

Take that lot out of the 130 your down to.. 94.. truly mk1/mk2 coaches.

of those 94

 

6 Catering

12 Brakes (one listed as support)

32 First (29 FO, 3 FK of which 2 are in FTW today now as FO conversions).

42 Second (39 SO, 3 SK).

 

Then theres 9 passenger vehicles in the Northern Belle set, these include 325, 3247, 3275, 3267, 1953, 3273, 3174 in the now withdrawn exemption list… but at least enough have been cdl fitted to appear on the mainline in 2024.

 

So brings us to circa 85 coaches… remaining for routine use…

WHL uses 28, 14 (a 6x, 7x, 1 spare) and I understand mid summer are rotated for maintenace, tyre wear etc … so x2.

various gen groups do support a July rake swap.

 

So leaves 57.. enough for 5 rakes, not withstanding the met camm mk1’s often appear in standard rakes.

 

the figure of 6 catering stands out, as not being very many, a quick look at my Platform 5 lists 15, inc some conversions, so I guess they are in other ways exempt. 
 

which ever way you slice it, they have the largest fleet of mainline registered rolling stock, and then largest fleet of spares stock.

Edited April 11 by adb968008