WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I always wonder what the H&S is like in the offices of media companies, given that they spend a lot of their time telling us all that H&S is a bad thing. 

[Phil Parker]

10 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I always wonder what the H&S is like in the offices of media companies, given that they spend a lot of their time telling us all that H&S is a bad thing. 

 

Not all of them, mainly the papers desperate to scare you into buying.

 

I do remember a fun session on the Jeremy Vine show many years ago. He had the boss of the H&S organisation in, and proceeded to berate him because the newly fitted-out toilets all had little warning stickers alerting users to very hot water coming out of the hot tap. Vine was as outraged as only someone who hasn't bothered to do any research or thinking can be. The H&S man said, "I don't know why they are they. It's not something we require." He had to repeat this to Vine several times until it sunk in...

[Dunsignalling]

38 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Not all of them, mainly the papers desperate to scare you into buying.

 

I do remember a fun session on the Jeremy Vine show many years ago. He had the boss of the H&S organisation in, and proceeded to berate him because the newly fitted-out toilets all had little warning stickers alerting users to very hot water coming out of the hot tap. Vine was as outraged as only someone who hasn't bothered to do any research or thinking can be. The H&S man said, "I don't know why they are they. It's not something we require." He had to repeat this to Vine several times until it sunk in...

Not at all surprised.

 

I concluded the second time I saw/heard Mr Vine on air that his absolute favourite thing is the sound of his own voice. Irrespective of the BS he's spouting or what anyone else has said.

[woodenhead]

So keeping to the topic - is there any actual news regarding WCRC or are they simply running the Jacobite again now with some Mk2s in the mix to be compliant?

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I always wonder what the H&S is like in the offices of media companies, given that they spend a lot of their time telling us all that H&S is a bad thing. 

Even media companies have to have their own safety procedures.  If you leave a paper cut untreated, it might go septic.

 

Among my other duties I had H&S responsibility in an office that processed Investment plans.  I had to do my Scrooge bit when I caught the girls trying to put up Xmas decorations.  One table stacked on top of another and an even more precarious arrangemnt of chairs to climb onto it!

 

[rodent279]

10 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

One table stacked on top of another and an even more precarious arrangemnt of chairs to climb onto it!

Nah, nuffin wrong wiv dat, naamby-paamby woftee softee elf & softee gorn maad!

 

I was shocked to visit my dad's one day, to find him & the home help replacing a light bulb. 85 year old stood on a stool doing the bulb, home help on the floor holding the new one. What could possibly go wrong?

 

(I'm not suggesting it would be better if they swapped places either-the daft thing was there was a perfectly good step ladder with a handrail in the utility room).

[phil-b259]

13 hours ago, woodenhead said:

So keeping to the topic - is there any actual news regarding WCRC or are they simply running the Jacobite again now with some Mk2s in the mix to be compliant?

 

It seems that way - although based on what 'The Stationmaster' has said up thread WCRC are still in breech of the regulations around Mk1s by virtue of the fact that the public still have access to said coaches.

 

As others have also noted however the ORR has a finite number of staff but an awful lot of things to oversea so cannot afford to spend all their time on WCRC - so it may be that the current situation is being unofficially considered acceptable* for the time being as long as no report able incidents occur.

 

*That does not mean that further enforcement action will not be taken in future of course.

Edited May 10 by phil-b259

[pete_mcfarlane]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

As others have also noted however the ORR has a finite number of staff but an awful lot of things to oversea so cannot afford to spend all their time on WCRC - so it may be that the current situation is being unofficially considered acceptable* for the time being as long as no report able incidents occur.

 

*That does not mean that further enforcement action will not be taken in future of course.

The problem with that approach is that delayed enforcement can be presented as 'they were OK with this last week and have randomly changed their mind' 

[Michael Hodgson]

I can't see the ORR taking that line.  More likely that they haven't officially been made aware of the current practice. 

 

They've made their position clear, but it's not their job to go in daily to estabish whether or not they are compliant today, nor would it be reasonable for them to have the resources to do that.

[phil-b259]

15 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

The problem with that approach is that delayed enforcement can be presented as 'they were OK with this last week and have randomly changed their mind' 

 

That depends as to whether they were 'officially' aware an infringement was occurring or not.

 

The ORR only has a finite number of personnel (who are all entitled to reasonable working hours and days off etc) plus the ORR would wish to ensure it has evidence which stands up in a court of law (particularly given WCRCs love of resorting to the courts instead of complying) before taking action.

Edited May 10 by phil-b259

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

It seems that way - although based on what 'The Stationmaster' has said up thread WCRC are still in breech of the regulations around Mk1s by virtue of the fact that the public still have access to said coaches.

 

As others have also noted however the ORR has a finite number of staff but an awful lot of things to oversea so cannot afford to spend all their time on WCRC - so it may be that the current situation is being unofficially considered acceptable* for the time being as long as no report able incidents occur.

 

*That does not mean that further enforcement action will not be taken in future of course.

This is an interesting one because in fact, from what has been said by various people about, for example access to vehicles with CET but no CDL, WCRC are in contravention of the Rule Book as well as, in effect, being in contravention of the Regulations (unless they nave been given an exemption).

 

Contraventions of the Rule Book are a railway operational matter and therefore not necessarily within the purview of the Railway Inspectorate.   So - depending on what is in their Licence - WCRC might be in breech of that because surely they are required to comply with the RSSB Rule Book as are other train operators?

[jjb1970]

18 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Not all of them, mainly the papers desperate to scare you into buying.

 

I do remember a fun session on the Jeremy Vine show many years ago. He had the boss of the H&S organisation in, and proceeded to berate him because the newly fitted-out toilets all had little warning stickers alerting users to very hot water coming out of the hot tap. Vine was as outraged as only someone who hasn't bothered to do any research or thinking can be. The H&S man said, "I don't know why they are they. It's not something we require." He had to repeat this to Vine several times until it sunk in...

 

The sillier examples of 'elf n'safety' gone mad are generally down to people who don't really know what they're doing blaming the HSE, HSAW act etc.

 

However, in the case of hot water taps, I worked in an office development where the hot water was dangerously hot, I measured it at 78C which is way above what it should have been and a real scolding hazard. The building services people addressed the risk by putting stickers up warning of hot water. I was the crank who hit the roof, a sticker isn't a risk management control, and people seeing the sticker were liable to dismiss it as 'elf n'safety' gone madness rather than a genuine and very real safety hazard. Building services claimed it was impossible to reduce the set point, I think I upset them and our own management by saying if that really was the case then get rid of the building services department and employ people who knew their job. The ultimate irony was it was the global technology centre of one of the worlds most famous risk management organizations and full of engineers who'd quite happily have addressed the problem if allowed.

 

However, I digress.

[Bucoops]

18 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Not all of them, mainly the papers desperate to scare you into buying.

 

I do remember a fun session on the Jeremy Vine show many years ago. He had the boss of the H&S organisation in, and proceeded to berate him because the newly fitted-out toilets all had little warning stickers alerting users to very hot water coming out of the hot tap. Vine was as outraged as only someone who hasn't bothered to do any research or thinking can be. The H&S man said, "I don't know why they are they. It's not something we require." He had to repeat this to Vine several times until it sunk in...

 

Jeremy Vine. If gutter press were a person...

[Jeremy Cumberland]

5 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

However, in the case of hot water taps, I worked in an office development where the hot water was dangerously hot, I measured it at 78C which is way above what it should have been and a real scolding hazard.

78°C is unnecessarily hot, but if it is a recirculating hot water supply (as is usual in commercial premises), it needs to be above 50°C to kill legionella bacteria (55°C is recommended in Britain). This is hot enough to scald, so you might still need the warning label.

[Wheatley]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Contraventions of the Rule Book are a railway operational matter and therefore not necessarily within the purview of the Railway Inspectorate.   So - depending on what is in their Licence - WCRC might be in breech of that because surely they are required to comply with the RSSB Rule Book as are other train operators?

 

Compliance with the 8000 series Rule Book modules has been fairly near the top of every Safety Certificate application I've ever read. 

5 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I was shocked to visit my dad's one day, to find him & the home help replacing a light bulb. 85 year old stood on a stool doing the bulb, home help on the floor holding the new one. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Went home for the weekend once to find my then 70-odd yo mum huffing and puffing a bit, and wincing as she got up. "I've hade a bit of a bump" she said. "Tell him the rest" says dad. She fell off the worktop she was standing on to clean the tops of the kitchen cupboards, landing ribs first on the chair she had used to climb onto the kitchen table to reach the worktop. 

 

The difference is that you are allowed to take all the controls away in your own house and let common sense/Darwin sort it out. Not in a public place or if you're any sort of public or corporate body. 

 

1 hour ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

The problem with that approach is that delayed enforcement can be presented as 'they were OK with this last week and have randomly changed their mind' 

Only if they said it was ok last week. Otherwise that's like contesting a speeding conviction on the grounds that you drive that fast every day and no-one stopped you before. 

[john new]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

78°C is unnecessarily hot, but if it is a recirculating hot water supply (as is usual in commercial premises), it needs to be above 50°C to kill legionella bacteria (55°C is recommended in Britain). This is hot enough to scald, so you might still need the warning label.

Sensibly with wording alongside that says something like “Genuine warning, this really does run very hot.” I have come across several hot taps in venue toilets over the years that were running very hot and where there wasn’t a warning.

[Michael Hodgson]

26 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

 

Otherwise that's like contesting a speeding conviction on the grounds that you drive that fast every day and no-one stopped you before. 

 

That's not a defence.  It's a request for further offences to be taken into consideration.

[pete_mcfarlane]

2 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

The problem with that approach is that delayed enforcement can be presented as 'they were OK with this last week and have randomly changed their mind' 

 

 

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

That depends as to whether they were 'officially' aware an infringement was occurring or not.

 

The ORR only has a finite number of personnel (who are all entitled to reasonable working hours and days off etc) plus the ORR would wish to ensure it has evidence which stands up in a court of law (particularly given WCRCs love of resorting to the courts instead of complying) before taking action.

I was thinking more of how it's will be presented in the media when the inevitable happens, given that we've already seen a load of petitions and letters from MPs on the back of what is basically a sob story about the nasty regulators. None of which has any actual impact on the outcome, but must generate a load of extra work for everyone involved.  

[Michael Hodgson]

6 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

 

 

I was thinking more of how it's will be presented in the media when the inevitable happens, given that we've already seen a load of petitions and letters from MPs on the back of what is basically a sob story about the nasty regulators. None of which has any actual impact on the outcome, but must generate a load of extra work for everyone involved.  

The media are a fickle shower of scumbags.  They would do a complete volte-face right now without batting an eye if some kid gets injured today by falling out of one these trains.  They would still be attacking the regulators, but for not doing enough to protect the public.  The MPs would be just as bad.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

I see most people posting recently seem convinced that WCRC must be breaking some rule or other based on past performance, but I have yet to see any evidence that they are.

 

I have to read, understand and interpret various regulations at work. Compared with many other regulations, the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 are simplicity itself, and it is clear from the photographs we've seen and reports from people that have actually travelled on hte train that WCRC are compliant with Regulation 5. The non-CDL fitted doors are clearly labelled that they are not for passenger use; they are not in fact being used by passengers, and no one (from WCRC or otherwise) is encouraging passengers to ignore the signs and use the doors. Read the the regulations here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2244/contents/made

 

@The Stationmaster has stated that according to the Rule Book, if the outside doors of a vehicle are locked, then no one may travel in the vehicle, but I have yet to see any evidence that the doors are locked. There is no requirement in RSR99 for hinged doors not for use by passengers to be locked.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

That's not a defence.  It's a request for further offences to be taken into consideration.

Oh no it isn't!  I was caught doing about 35mph on a 30mph dual carriageway when the chap in the dark blue uniform stopped the start of my explanation was that I was only doing 35 despite it being a 40 mph limit.  He x carried on his side of the conversation by adding  that not bein aware of a speed limit could be cnstrued as an offence - not that he was c going to construe it that way as it was dual carriageway and he could understand my erroneous impression.  Off to Speed Awareness Course - the first time I'd ever been on one of those but I have to say that the second one I attended was far better run and made much more sense.

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

I see most people posting recently seem convinced that WCRC must be breaking some rule or other based on past performance, but I have yet to see any evidence that they are.

 

I have to read, understand and interpret various regulations at work. Compared with many other regulations, the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 are simplicity itself, and it is clear from the photographs we've seen and reports from people that have actually travelled on hte train that WCRC are compliant with Regulation 5. The non-CDL fitted doors are clearly labelled that they are not for passenger use; they are not in fact being used by passengers, and no one (from WCRC or otherwise) is encouraging passengers to ignore the signs and use the doors. Read the the regulations here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2244/contents/made

 

@The Stationmaster has stated that according to the Rule Book, if the outside doors of a vehicle are locked, then no one may travel in the vehicle, but I have yet to see any evidence that the doors are locked. There is no requirement in RSR99 for hinged doors not for use by passengers to be locked.

OK, lets suppose that there is no technical breach of the railways regs, what about the general statutory duties under HASAWA? What is being argued here is the following:

 

"To get around the regulations requiring the doors [in a railway carriage used by the public on a public service train] to be locked to stop people falling out, we decided to leave them unlocked and stuck notices on them".

 

I'm interested in the argument under the general duties of HASAWA in respect of this, and whether a court and regulator may interpret this approach as 'gaming' the regs? For example the hierarchy of controls makes clear that elimination of a hazard or risk (falling out of a train due to unlocked doors) is far better than mitigation measures (sticking a notice on an unlocked door). Moving from eliminiation to arguably weak and ineffectual mitigation (paper notice stuck on the window) is a breach of the general duties and IIRC some specific [non-railway] ones. How exactly is an operator doing this not in breach of the general duties downgrading the safety processes, unlocking a door that should be locked?

 

A useful reminder of how safety law and railway regs operate, ORR spells it out [my bold]:

 

As the health and safety regulator for the rail industry, we deliver advice and enforcement to help ensure the safety of both passengers and workers.

As well as being required to comply with the rail-specific legislation below, rail industry professionals must also comply with general health and safety legislation. Guidance regarding these can be found on the Health and Safety Executive’s website.....

 

https://www.orr.gov.uk/guidance-compliance/rail/health-safety/laws

 

For those that miss that helpful explanation they also make specific reference on the page about Mk1's:

 

While applications under regulation 6 for exemptions to regulation 5 requirements will be considered, stricter criteria in line with Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (in particular the application of Schedule 1, considerations of the hierarchy of risk control) will form an integral part of the evaluation of any application. 

 

https://www.orr.gov.uk/guidance-compliance/rail/health-safety/laws/railway-safety-regulations-1999

 

For the record we have no idea what WCRC are actually doing with the doors or what other factors they are operating with in reality, and I would be surprised if this (unlocked doors relying on notices) is their actual position.

 

As an aside, for the 'elf and safety gone mad brigade, ORR did a post-regulation evaluation of Reg 5 and concluded:

 

"Summary
ORR has confirmed in its revised guidance on RSR99 Reg 5 (hinged door stock) to cease the routine issuing of exemptions. The option for issuing exemptions remains but will only be considered under the most stringent of conditions (details of which form part of the guidance) and in line with the requirements of the MHSW99. Real-world costings provide by Charter Heritage operators (2 out of 3 of the main operators) already undertaking CDL fitment indicates that although the requirement under RSR99 Reg 5 is absolute, the cost of fitting CDL to hinged door rolling stock and carriage formations is nonetheless ‘Reasonably practicable’ when considered against the Value of Preventing a Fatality. Moreover fitting an electro-mechanical CDL system while estimated to represent marginally higher costs would still allow the largest scale operator to fit all the carriage sets used and still have a fully CDL equipped carriage set and 9 ‘spare’ carriages in hand and still be under the Value of Preventing a Fatality."

 

So all operators had plenty of notice that exemptions were not going to handed out like Haribo since July 2021

 

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-07/hinged-door-rolling-stock-impact-assessment-july-2021.pdf

Edited May 10 by ruggedpeak
typo

[ruggedpeak]

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Oh no it isn't!  I was caught doing about 35mph on a 30mph dual carriageway when the chap in the dark blue uniform stopped the start of my explanation was that I was only doing 35 despite it being a 40 mph limit.  He x carried on his side of the conversation by adding  that not bein aware of a speed limit could be cnstrued as an offence - not that he was c going to construe it that way as it was dual carriageway and he could understand my erroneous impression.  Off to Speed Awareness Course - the first time I'd ever been on one of those but I have to say that the second one I attended was far better run and made much more sense.

Indeed, not knowing the speed limit is a good case for driving without due care and attention, but not enforceable as a court would not allow two bites of the offences cherry for the simple act of speeding ☹️ 

 

Your initial statement is excellent evidence to support the speeding offence as a direct admission and hopefully was included in the officer's notes and if recently occured on their bodycam 😀

[298]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

I see most people posting recently seem convinced that WCRC must be breaking some rule or other based on past performance, but I have yet to see any evidence that they are.

 

From what I gather from learned comments on a thread elsewhere, the rule was written to protect the service should a coach fail in traffic so the set could continue, but there is a line that states stock is not allowed to leave a depot with faulty CDL. My own interpretation of this is WCRC are chancing their luck by implying that Fort William isn't a depot and the train was re-formed before being put into service as mitigation. 

 

Regardless of this, there have been some extremes of temperature up there recently and riding in a MK2 Aircon without any working from of heat control doesn't present a good image to the customer. 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

I see most people posting recently seem convinced that WCRC must be breaking some rule or other based on past performance, but I have yet to see any evidence that they are.

 

I have to read, understand and interpret various regulations at work. Compared with many other regulations, the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 are simplicity itself, and it is clear from the photographs we've seen and reports from people that have actually travelled on hte train that WCRC are compliant with Regulation 5. The non-CDL fitted doors are clearly labelled that they are not for passenger use; they are not in fact being used by passengers, and no one (from WCRC or otherwise) is encouraging passengers to ignore the signs and use the doors. Read the the regulations here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2244/contents/made

 

@The Stationmaster has stated that according to the Rule Book, if the outside doors of a vehicle are locked, then no one may travel in the vehicle, but I have yet to see any evidence that the doors are locked. There is no requirement in RSR99 for hinged doors not for use by passengers to be locked.

Are you an expert of the Railway Rule Book published by RSSB, have you bothered to sign on to the RSSB website so that you can read it ?  And of course reading hardly means that you have ever been qualified in railway Rules  or that you understand them.

 

Simple fact - reported on here is that Mk1 coaches fitted with CET are being used on The Jacobite and that the exterior doors of those coaches have been locked out of use.  Rule Book Modules TW1 and TW5 make it absolutely clear that passengers must not be allowed to travel in any coach on which all the exterior doors have been locked out of use (that even includes vehicles fitted with CDL).  And don't forget that nowadays, and for over a couple of decades past the contents of many Rules have had to take risk assessments into account.

 

So in this instance forget spouting Regulations and what have you - when it comes down to it on the operational railway what counts is what exemptions might or might not have been granted and the final arbiter is in any case the RSSB railway Rule Book and any Appendix to it.  Railway staff don't wander round with piles of Regulations in their pockets and they have probably never heard of RS99, for the simple reason that there is no need for them to have heard of it.; they are trained in the Rules pertinent to their jobs because that is what matters.