WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[Morello Cherry]

On 12/04/2024 at 12:17, lmsforever said:

When you think how many years we used these coaches day in day out and thought nothing of it but now people have become so sheltered and basically ueselless  they cant think for themselves and have allowed people who should  know better.  It seems as though the organisations who carry out these witch hunts are representing groups who are totally not in the real world and are constantly looking to make trouble for anyone .Surely  people are able to be safe and be responsible  but we are living in real  nanny state .

 

125 deaths and however many more injured in 5 years shows that this just isn't true.

 

Those deaths were all avoidable. Far from being a nanny state, the railway and government is doing what any state should do, namely taking steps to protect its citizens from being killed  in ways that could have been avoided.

 

Just because you didn't die or weren't injured by a door does not mean that they were safe or that somehow people were smarter 50 or 100 years ago. It is a selfish indulgent,  "I'm alright Jack" attitude.

 

And guess what, CDL has absolutely zero detriment to your journey.

 

I like my railway journeys to be as safe as possible whether that means continuous brakes (C19 rule change), interlocking signalling, restrictions on working hours to avoid fatigue, Steel rolling stock, AWS, TPWS, (C20). Almost all major safety changes have come from pressure from outside the railways  - state, inspectorate or unions. Or was that nanny statism as well?

 

And CDL is just the latest step to make our railways safer. I struggle to work out why you object to making the railway safer for passengers? CDL so doors don't fly open when people are on board is a good thing and the fact that  i can stand on the platform as the train comes in and not worry about some idiot opening the door into my face is also a good thing.

 

ORR demanding CDL for WRC is simply requiring them to meet the same safety standards that everyone else on the mainline has been operating to for more than the last 30 years.

 

And oh yeah, plenty of people did come to grief 'thinking for themselves' such as that railway photographer who fell off the Victoria Bridge. So let's put this lie to bed once and for all.

Edited April 13 by Morello Cherry

[nightstar.train]

Found a video on the book of faces of the train. My up to date coaching stock 2024 book is out of date as the Mk2F FO is clearly maroon and not umber/cream. 

 

https://www.facebook.com/mrdouglasclark/videos/3798887400330078?idorvanity=879470575759230

[TheSignalEngineer]

12 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

The top voted post suggested that Brighton beach should be off limits as people might walk into the sea and drown.........

I would have thought that there was a bigger risk of injury from stumbling on the uneven stony surface. Perhaps it should be concreted over or removed completely.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, rogerzilla said:

The last time I hired a big lorry (7.5t) it didn't have seatbelts.  When a  vehicle exceeds a certain mass, it isn't going to stop fast enough to throw you through the windscreen.

 

Regardless of its size or mass, UK laws require ALL motor vehicles to be fitted with seatbelts which MUST BE USED by the occupants while the vehicle is in motion.

 

The only exceptions are for historic vehicles which did not come with seatbelts (or the provision for them when built), PSV vehicles (busses) and obviously motorcycles 

[phil-b259]

12 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

Good luck with that! I made the mistake on engaging with the online comments. Never received so many downvotes for any point I've made. I had the audacity to suggest that perhaps WCRC was not as innocent as they claimed and that preventing fatalities was a good idea. The top voted post suggested that Brighton beach should be off limits as people might walk into the sea and drown...........

 

I'm not surprised, the Telegraphs readership are generally very much right wing 'state actions = bad' 'private business = 'excellent' mentality with an added does of selfish self entitlement which comes from generally being well off.

 

Its not nicknamed the 'Torygraph' for nothing....

[Morello Cherry]

13 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

The top voted post suggested that Brighton beach should be off limits as people might walk into the sea and drown...........

 

Which ignores that Brighton beach like many other beaches has red and yellow flags telling you when it is or is not safe to swim. It also has lifeguards who can prevent you from swimming. A bit like if you had stewards by each door telling you whether it was safe to open them or not and could prevent you from opening them when it was unsafe to do so. Oh wait....

 

Edited April 13 by Morello Cherry

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Morello Cherry said:

Just because you didn't die or weren't injured by a door does not mean that they were safe or that somehow people were smarter 50 or 100 years ago. It is a selfish indulgent,  "I'm alright Jack" attitude.

 

As is usually the way with these sort of issues, people only believe there is a problem when the victims are known to them.  Since they didn't know anyone affected by opening slam doors, it obviously didn't happen.  It is the same mindset that led a certain group to believe that the Covid-19 pandemic was all some enormous world conspiracy.

[The Stationmaster]

25 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I'm not surprised, the Telegraphs readership are generally very much right wing 'state actions = bad' 'private business = 'excellent' mentality with an added does of selfish self entitlement which comes from generally being well off.

 

Its not nicknamed the 'Torygraph' for nothing....

Not necessarily that Phil.  Their standard of journalism is now pretty low on many subjects - such as this one.  They've got a story here which might conjure up what you said on the part of some readers but there was more to it than that (e.g. the MPs' letter, the economic effects, etc).  But what the article lacked was an almost complete absence of background and balance apart from the DfT statement  - which at least put the MPs and Ministers in their place with what amounted to a.veiled threat.

 

But the rreal problem with the article was its lack of background and - like far too much modern so called journalism - the fact that it read more like a WCRC press handout that a decent bit of journalism.  The same 'paper a while back told us that because Hattons were closing down and the Warley show at the NEC was ceasing that meant the end of railway modelling in Britain.  They subsequently failed to failed to report the new style Warley club show or warners plans for a large show at teh NEC at the same time of year as the erstwhile Warley.   

 

So not so much political bias (of which there is some) but really third rate 'journalism' from poor reporters who can't even write decent English.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Not necessarily that Phil.  Their standard of journalism is now pretty low on many subjects - such as this one.  They've got a story here which might conjure up what you said on the part of some readers but there was more to it than that (e.g. the MPs' letter, the economic effects, etc).  But what the article lacked was an almost complete absence of background and balance apart from the DfT statement  - which at least put the MPs and Ministers in their place with what amounted to a.veiled threat.

 

But the rreal problem with the article was its lack of background and - like far too much modern so called journalism - the fact that it read more like a WCRC press handout that a decent bit of journalism.  The same 'paper a while back told us that because Hattons were closing down and the Warley show at the NEC was ceasing that meant the end of railway modelling in Britain.  They subsequently failed to failed to report the new style Warley club show or warners plans for a large show at teh NEC at the same time of year as the erstwhile Warley.   

 

So not so much political bias (of which there is some) but really third rate 'journalism' from poor reporters who can't even write decent English.

The Telegraph is hardly on its own in the leagues of poor reporting of anything that involves an element of technical, scientific or specialist knowledge. I'm a leftie-leaning Guardian reader, and their reporting will be just as bad when it comes to facts and analysis. They won't, of course, report the Jacobite saga because there isn't really any angle for them - they will be generally pro-health and safety and generally pro-regulator, and of course the regulator hasn't said or done anything.

 

Aren't you getting a little carried away in criticising their standard of written English, though? I might bemoan newspapers and journalists, but the standard of Engish is usually excellent. Of course, if you insist on "different from", "it was he" and "the person to whom I spoke" then you might be out of luck, but they were silly rules anyway.

 

Anyway, I posted a couple of questions a little while ago which no one has yet answered. WCRC are currently moving a Black Five, a Mk1 BSK as a support coach, four Mk2fs and a Mk1 RMB to Fort William. The support coach is fine - if it doesn't carry fare paying pasengers it needs neither Regulation 4 nor Regulation 5 exemption. But... 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Air condiitoned Mk2fs then. Two questions for those in the know:

1. What will power the air conditioning

2. What's the CDL status of 1860? I've not previously thought about catering vehicles, and 1860 was an RMB, so unless it has been extensively modified, it'll still have plenty of seating.

 

[rogerzilla]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Regardless of its size or mass, UK laws require ALL motor vehicles to be fitted with seatbelts which MUST BE USED by the occupants while the vehicle is in motion.

 

The only exceptions are for historic vehicles which did not come with seatbelts (or the provision for them when built), PSV vehicles (busses) and obviously motorcycles 

It was quite a few years ago, but about 20 years after they became compulsory for cars.

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, nightstar.train said:

 

And for those like me who don't have the full Platform 5 pocket book memorised:

45212 is an LMS black 5

35486 is a Mk1 BSK support coach

6000, 6022 and 6103 are all Mk2F SO in maroon

1860 is a Mk1 RMB in maroon. Has this been CDL fitted, or will they use it with the doors locked OOU?

3360 is a Mk2F FO in Pullman umber and cream.

Interestingly on the now withdrawn exemption list … only 1860 is listed.

The rest are not in the doc, so are either not needing an exemption, or not exempt.

 

A video online shows cdl on all but 1860 and 35486.

 

I wonder if the 47 will be a tail gunner on passenger services or if 35486 has some mods ?..

 

35486 used to be the support coach for 60009/61994, not sure this would go out day in / day out on the train. 

Edited April 13 by adb968008

[rodent279]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I'm not surprised, the Telegraphs readership are generally very much right wing 'state actions = bad' 'private business = 'excellent' mentality with an added does of selfish self entitlement which comes from generally being well off.

 

Its not nicknamed the 'Torygraph' for nothing....

TBH, reading the Telegraph comments, it makes the D@!ly F@!l look rational, level headed and even handed.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

32 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The rest are not in the doc, so are either not needing an exemption, or not exempt.

The mark 2s are exempt from both regs (they aren't Mk1s and they have CDL).

If the BSK isn't used by fare paying passengers, it is exempt from both regs (I see that it is not included in the WCRC's regulation 4 exemption certificate).

1860 has a regulation 4 exemption certificate. I have no idea what its regulation 5 status is. Perhaps it now has CDL fitted.

 

I wonder what the rules are for locking all the doors on a carriage carrying passengers out of use.

 

38 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

35486 used to be the support coach for 60009/61994, not sure this would go out day in / day out on the train. 

I think either it or one of the other vehicles at Fort William will have to, because the Mk2 set does not appear to have accommodation for the guard.

[phil-b259]

31 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

 

I wonder what the rules are for locking all the doors on a carriage carrying passengers out of use.

 

 

If you mean securing all* doors with a railway staff issue carriage key then this would not be permissible because passengers would have no way of deactivating the locks in an emergency. CDL (and more modern systems) always have an emergency override facility inside and outside the carriage which allows the locking system to be disabled and the door opened.

 

*Its perfectly acceptable to lock some doors out of use at the planning stage (charter operators usually lock the middle doors on Mk1 stock out of use) - but I expect the exact number would depend on the outcome of a risk assessment (which would consider whether the locked door at the end of one carriage was right next door to a unlocked door in the next carriage for example.

Edited April 13 by phil-b259

[adb968008]

36 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

If you mean securing all* doors with a railway staff issue carriage key then this would not be permissible because passengers would have no way of deactivating the locks in an emergency. CDL (and more modern systems) always have an emergency override facility inside and outside the carriage which allows the locking system to be disabled and the door opened.

 

*Its perfectly acceptable to lock some doors out of use at the planning stage (charter operators usually lock the middle doors on Mk1 stock out of use) - but I expect the exact number would depend on the outcome of a risk assessment (which would consider whether the locked door at the end of one carriage was right next door to a unlocked door in the next carriage for example.

The one I see is the buffet…

 

if its not got anyone assigned seating, but yet passengers can stil enter to buy stuff, and presumably sit in its limited seats… can they lock all doors out of use ? 
 

this is the coach in question, and I know first hand that an rmb has six doors that passengers can use..
 

The centre door is a small corridor between the buffet and store room.. the end two are regular doors…

 

 

 

and all 3 on this side are regular doors.

to me this is a regular coach, and althoug wcrc take centre doors out on their tso/fo i’m not sure thats the case on an rmb.

 

its not got any exterior cdl lights on what went north today.

 

Today…

 

 

all urls not mine…

 

it was also the only one on the revoked exemption list..

 

 

Edited April 13 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

16 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The one I see is the buffet…

 

if its not got anyone assigned seating, but yet passengers can stil enter to buy stuff, and presumably sit in its limited seats… can they lock all doors out of use ? 

 

 

It all depends on the risks...

 

If that RMB is sandwiched between two CDL fitted vehicles with end doors then locking out all the doors on the RMB wouldn't have present a huge risk. After all the Mk1 RU vehicle didn't have any passenger doors from the beginning - people had to board using the doors on adjacent coaches...

 

And if the RMB doors are all secured out of use to passengers then, legally speaking the requirement to fit CDL to it or get an exemption for it from the ORR also disappears!

Edited April 13 by phil-b259

[black and decker boy]

The doors on the RMB (and support coach) wouldn’t need CDL if marked for staff use only as per the regs.

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

When a  vehicle exceeds a certain mass, it isn't going to stop fast enough to throw you through the windscreen.

Which is a different, but equally important, question.

[Michael Hodgson]

6 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The only exceptions are for historic vehicles which did not come with seatbelts (or the provision for them when built), PSV vehicles (busses) and obviously motorcycles 

An oversight?  An awful lot of bikers seem to fall off when they have accidents.

[St Enodoc]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

An oversight?  An awful lot of bikers seem to fall off when they have accidents.

Four wheels good, two wheels bad - as George Orwell didn't write.

[darrel]

7 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

The doors on the RMB (and support coach) wouldn’t need CDL if marked for staff use only as per the regs.

The RMB wouldn't be allowed to have any passengers on it at all. Some have suggested that the doors could be locked shut. But going by the rule book passengers would not be allowed to travel in that coach. 

[GrumpyPenguin]

14 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

The last time I hired a big lorry (7.5t) it didn't have seatbelts.  When a  vehicle exceeds a certain mass, it isn't going to stop fast enough to throw you through the windscreen.

" a big lorry (7.5t) " - sorry, that made me laugh ! 7.5t is whats know as a "puddle jumper".

 

FYI I've been driving fully loaded HGV's (proper "lorries") and had to use full emergency braking on more than one occasion & can assure you that the decelleration would be quite capable of "throwing you through the windscren" if not for wearing the seatbelt/holding on tight.

[GrumpyPenguin]

13 hours ago, Morello Cherry said:

the fact that  i can stand on the platform as the train comes in and not worry about some idiot opening the door into my face is also a good thing.

What happened to "duty of care for yourself then ?"

Would it not make sense to stand away from the plateform edge ?

Maybe, they could paint a yellow line or something away from the platform edge & errect some instructional signs for those that need assistance !

[GrumpyPenguin]

6 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

An oversight?  An awful lot of bikers seem to fall off when they have accidents.

Every single biker I know tells me that when an accident is inevitable they are better off away from the bike which means that many do not "fall off", they "get off".

 

I once witnessed a biker "loose it" on a sweeping bend - as the bike went down he "got off", tucked his arms in & rolled to a stop - minor bruising & trashed leathers - the bike however rolled, cartwheeled & bounced several times - you certainly would not want to be strapped to it !

[ruggedpeak]

26 minutes ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Every single biker I know tells me that when an accident is inevitable they are better off away from the bike which means that many do not "fall off", they "get off".

 

I once witnessed a biker "loose it" on a sweeping bend - as the bike went down he "got off", tucked his arms in & rolled to a stop - minor bruising & trashed leathers - the bike however rolled, cartwheeled & bounced several times - you certainly would not want to be strapped to it !

Have an incident on two wheels and it is largely luck what happens. Separating from the bike and sliding across the centre markings into oncoming traffic or street furniture often doesn't go well for example.