WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[rogerzilla]

59 minutes ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

" 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.

I only have a car licence, so 7.5t is my limit!  I agree air brakes are rather impressive.

[john new]

13 hours 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.

And it is mildly irritating for pax when it is done as you see it, forget it is locked, and walk to the nearest door when boarding or leaving. Habit I guess from a lifetime using Mk1s. As on the local EMUs there only are end doors going to them is instinctive.

[GrumpyPenguin]

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

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.

Very true, but it's not going to end well with body parts trapped between bike (very hard & sticky out bits) & other traffic (also hard but probably less sticky out bits).

[frobisher]

19 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

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.

 

Presumably if has no doors that are available for passenger use (i.e. always locked beyond use) then it would not need CDL.

[adb968008]

Just passed some shiny mk2defs at Southall in wcrc livery cdl fitted. (Theres some wrecks here to, but lets not be confused those are in vtec/IC).

 

as the GBRailtour is somewhere north, and another rake to FTW, it looks like wcrc has a third rake underway.

 

 

Edited April 14 by adb968008

[Jim Martin]

16 hours ago, rodent279 said:

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

The comments are always the worst part of any newspaper website. I generally read the Guardian, and it's the same there.

[Covkid]

18 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

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... 

 

 

17 hours ago, adb968008 said:

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. 

 

14 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.

 

6 hours ago, darrel said:

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. 

 

I am struggling with this.  

When BR operated RMBs they were part of the seating accommodation of the train.  Originally RMBs were basically a 64 seat TSO with two seating bays converted to house a very small kitchen, counter and panty. I am not sure if they were subsequently modified but a store room was built into the place of the seating bay adjacent to the counter - meaning three of the eight seating bays of the 64 seat TSO were taken up  with the catering area. Therefore, the majority of the coach was second class seating.

 

My strongest memory of RMBs was a journey on the far north line - 26042 to Brora for 26046 back to Inverness. The buffet steward made the same train swap as me, but on the northbound journey he made a fresh boiled egg sandwich.  I probably rode in the leading coach for the Sulzer thrash, but the RMB provided a very important complement of seats as one of maybe four passenger vehicles and a couple of BGs on the train. 

 

The point I am making is that I cannot imagine WCR restricting it's passengers from the equivalent of 5/8ths of a TSO. 

[Legend]

Who knows what WCRCs interpretation of the rules are . I have a feeling they may be different from the ORR with reference doors locked out of use on RMB

 

What is interesting is that as I see it WCRC have eventually capitulated realising the only way they are going to get to run Jacobite is with CDL stock .   This whole episode has not convinced me they are fit to be on our railway though . 

Edited April 14 by Legend

[JohnH]

Could they use the RMB with stewards on each door?

[Bucoops]

28 minutes ago, JohnH said:

Could they use the RMB with stewards on each door?

 

As that is the method they said they would use previously, and then repeatedly did not, I don't think the ORR would agree to it.

[BoD]

Wouldn’t it also mean issuing/re-issuing an exemption.  Not very likely.

[John Besley]

9 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

" 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.

 

Back in the day a 7.5T is what you cut your teeth on before taking a class 1 

[ruggedpeak]

The upshot of all this is presumably that WCRC will use Mk2def's and everyone will be happier, especially the punters who no longer have to look through steamed up windows on the rare occasions it is cold/damp/raining on the West Coast of Scotland 🤣 . WCRC won't have to employ door stewards. ORR will no doubt do inspections etc, meanwhile LSL have got their foot in the door up there.

 

No one at DfT or ORR was ever going to put their career on the block for WCRC, the naive MP's have been put back in their box, the PR stunts have generated as much anti-WCRC sentiment as pro, especially in Scotland. So what will WCRC have achieved at the end of this? A rhetorical question of course.

 

And of course there is still time for WCRC to go all in and snatch total disaster from the jaws of defeat, who would bet against them doing really dumb even at this stage?

 

Definitely need some TV company to a fly on the wall documentary about WCR's management......

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, JohnH said:

Could they use the RMB with stewards on each door?

No - that would require an official exemption to be issued by the ORR for the RMB

 

Please remember the use of Stewards was a mitigating measure for the absence of a CDL system.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Covkid said:

 

 

 

 

I am struggling with this.  

When BR operated RMBs they were part of the seating accommodation of the train.  Originally RMBs were basically a 64 seat TSO with two seating bays converted to house a very small kitchen, counter and panty. I am not sure if they were subsequently modified but a store room was built into the place of the seating bay adjacent to the counter - meaning three of the eight seating bays of the 64 seat TSO were taken up  with the catering area. Therefore, the majority of the coach was second class seating.

 

My strongest memory of RMBs was a journey on the far north line - 26042 to Brora for 26046 back to Inverness. The buffet steward made the same train swap as me, but on the northbound journey he made a fresh boiled egg sandwich.  I probably rode in the leading coach for the Sulzer thrash, but the RMB provided a very important complement of seats as one of maybe four passenger vehicles and a couple of BGs on the train. 

 

The point I am making is that I cannot imagine WCR restricting it's passengers from the equivalent of 5/8ths of a TSO. 

Plenty of coaches have operated with doors locked out of use to passengers - and at least one type of Mk1 (the RU) didn’t have any passenger doors at all!

 

All the ORR will require is that before locking  all the doors out of use is that someone has risk assessments the implications for emergency evacuations - but this should NOT be confused with a requirement that all doors must be available in an emergency!

 

As I said earlier if the RMB is sandwiched between two CDL fitted carriages with end doors then the risks of locking the RMB doors out of use will be minimal and as such there will be no issues as far as the ORR are concerned with it carrying passengers.

 

 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

11 hours ago, darrel said:

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. 

Do you have a rule book you can quote from?

 

There is nothing in RSR99 that precludes taking doors out of passenger use. It is only doors for use by passengers that require CDL. Of course, there may well be some other rule that prevents operators from locking doors out of use.

 

@phil-b259 pointed out earlier in this thread that Mk1 RUs didn't have any passenger doors - something I had forgotten (and now that I do some checking, I don't think RBs had passenger doors either). Would these be permitted today? Doubtless the loose seats that RUs used to have wouldn't be permitted, but these could be replaced with fixed seats.

 

I see WCRC does have an RU in its fleet (1961), but it has had the seating removed.

 

Edit: I spent so long writing this that Phil got in before me.

Edited April 14 by Jeremy Cumberland

[BoD]

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

Definitely need some TV company to a fly on the wall documentary about WCR's management......

Except they would somehow manage to come across as the wronged party and twist it into a tale of David v Goliath. 

[Covkid]

5 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

The upshot of all this is presumably that WCRC will use Mk2def's and everyone will be happier, especially the punters who no longer have to look through steamed up windows on the rare occasions it is cold/damp/raining on the West Coast of Scotland 🤣 . WCRC won't have to employ door stewards. ORR will no doubt do inspections etc, meanwhile LSL have got their foot in the door up there.

 

Do you think ?

I would probably expect to see green algae water sloshing around between the inner and outer skins of the windows

[jjb1970]

11 hours ago, Jim Martin said:

The comments are always the worst part of any newspaper website. I generally read the Guardian, and it's the same there.

 

They're often my favourite bit when I bother to visit such sites, the entertainment value can be splendid. The thing I find interesting/amusing is just how many comments conform with the stereotypes for their readers.

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

They're often my favourite bit when I bother to visit such sites, the entertainment value can be splendid. The thing I find interesting/amusing is just how many comments conform with the stereotypes for their readers.

A bit like RMweb then...

[31A]

15 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

On 14/04/2024 at 07:43, darrel said:

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. 

Do you have a rule book you can quote from?

 

[5944]

15 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Do you have a rule book you can quote from?

 

There is nothing in RSR99 that precludes taking doors out of passenger use. It is only doors for use by passengers that require CDL. Of course, there may well be some other rule that prevents operators from locking doors out of use.

 

@phil-b259 pointed out earlier in this thread that Mk1 RUs didn't have any passenger doors - something I had forgotten (and now that I do some checking, I don't think RBs had passenger doors either). Would these be permitted today? Doubtless the loose seats that RUs used to have wouldn't be permitted, but these could be replaced with fixed seats.

 

I see WCRC does have an RU in its fleet (1961), but it has had the seating removed.

 

Edit: I spent so long writing this that Phil got in before me.

The RUs and RBRs have emergency doors that can only be opened from the inside, as well as the doors in and around the kitchen area. I'd be very surprised if ORR allowed WCRC to run with a passenger-carrying RMB in the middle of the set with all the doors locked shut.

 

But I'm sure all will become clear soon as the empty stock arrived at Fort William on time this morning. 6 degrees and windy up there at the moment. It's going to be bloody cold on the train as WCRC contrived to send their only non-ETS fitted 47 up with the stock. How long will the batteries last for the lights and CDL? I can only hope they've found some way of charging them up, otherwise it's going to be a disaster.

[5944]

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/ViYzQA2jJ15C4WvJ/

 

45212 tender first. Looks very dark in the coaches! 

 

Edit - load 7. Four CDL Mk2s and three Mk1s with the doors locked out of use.

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/UH7aiw9TJNM2qiCW/

Edited April 15 by 5944

[woodenhead]

Couldn't see a loco on the back of for ETH etc and why is there a mk1 between each mk2.

 

Are they trying to prove something here or finding a way to get around the regulations and avoid fitting CDL to the Mk1s.

 

It certainly arrived with a 47 on the tail as the ECS from Carnforth.

 

 

Edited April 15 by woodenhead

[5944]

22 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Couldn't see a loco on the back of for ETH etc and why is there a mk1 between each mk2.

 

Are they trying to prove something here or finding a way to get around the regulations and avoid fitting CDL to the Mk1s.

 

It certainly arrived with a 47 on the tail as the ECS from Carnforth.

 

 

Because in their wisdom, rather than sending one of their dozen or so ETS fitted 47s/57s up the Fort William, the ranch dispatched 47245. The other two WCRC locos up there are a pair of non-ETS fitted 37s.

 

I really feel for the passengers today. You have two hours in cold, very wet and very windy Mallaig, and your train back is a set of cold, dark Mk2s that have been parked up for years until this week. WCRC are massively shooting themselves in the foot with this farce of an operation.