WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[thegreenhowards]

13 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

In each instance who would get sued if things went wrong?

 

 

It sounds like you'd be happy to get a discount from someone who cuts corners. Your car service? Your dentist or optician?

Andy,

 

I appreciate that ‘shades of grey’ are difficult in a legal process. I was trying to make the case that the public at large make (probably sub-conscious) risk assessments with a very different weight put on the risk of an accident than safety professionals. And, as a liberal at heart, I would like to see the state allow more personal responsibility rather than less. And any laws should be in line with how society views risks rather than dictated by those who I would regard as safety zealots.

 

As for getting discounts from someone who cuts corners, it depends on your definition of cutting corners. I wouldn’t go to someone who was clearly unsafe. But a discount from someone who doesn’t ‘gold plate’ the solution then definitely. For example, I use the local garage for my service, rather than paying extra for a Jaguar service. 

Regards

 

Andy

 

[thegreenhowards]

14 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Have you ever considered that the child might be on the platform as the train runs in, the steward is elsewhere / distracted (or not present as the ORR repeatably discovered when they visited the Jacobite operation last year) or your garden gate bolt not been done up because the Steward forgot and someone flings the door open so they can be first off to get a pic of the loco...

 

Stop being selfish and consider others - not everyone (or everyones children) is / are as perfect as you think yourself / yours to be...

 

 

If WCRC are not providing stewards when they ought to do so, then they don’t have a leg to stand on, and I would accept that as a reason to take action against them. But not against all operators of such doors.

 

I don’t think I’m being selfish to ask whether £10 per ticket is a reasonable price to pay for a tiny reduction in risk. I can afford it, but the Jacobite is already quite expensive and there are many who I will be put off by the price. Even worse, if the end result is the end of Mk 1s on the mainline, then I probably won’t be paying the fare in the first place.

 

Andy

[rodent279]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

CDL was introduced for one very simple reason - it would remove an unregulated, irrational, decision process from the control of train doors, i.e. it would stop human beings doing something they shouldn't do and opening a door at the wrong time.   In consequence it would reduce the number of deaths which occurred every year due to the lack of something to prevent human beings stupidly hurting or killing themselves and others.  And somebody probably also put the usual method of costing such a step in improving safety against the cost of lives saved.

I think this is probably the most succinct explanation of the need for CDL that i have seen. It is a fact that people cannot be trusted to alway act sensibly, within the rules and with consideration for others. And it is a fact that equipment (I.e. manual door locking mechanisms) can an do fail. CDL, whilst I am sure not infallible, adds an extra layer of protection against either misuse or malfunction of slam doors. We need to remember that not all "door incidents" were caused by numpties who deserved to be removed from the gene pool.

The argument that "No-one has thus far been killed or injured" (ttbomk) on the WHL steam excursions is, as has been stated above, a shoal of red herrings. There is nothing special about that line or the trains that makes it exempt; rather, the opposite. The associations with the Harry Potter films, the fact that it stops on Glenfinnan viaduct, and the fact that a large proportion of passengers will be there for the Harry Potter connections (and therefore not necessarily familiar with trains, let alone slam door trains), makes it a matter of time before something untoward happens.

Edited April 23 by rodent279

[Neil]

Almost eighty pages in; has WCRC become a proxy for a debate between those who take a libertarian standpoint and those who prefer collective responsibility?

[ruggedpeak]

16 hours ago, woodenhead said:

You know we cannot talk of those people on this forum, they are always watching and will come down on the mods like a ton of bricks to remove any reference to them.

 

Our Masters and Overlords is the correct description.

All Hail Andy and Phil.....

[Jeremy Cumberland]

10 minutes ago, Neil said:

Almost eighty pages in; has WCRC become a proxy for a debate between those who take a libertarian standpoint and those who prefer collective responsibility?

It started with the sixth post on the first page. This is not intended to cast any aspersions on that particular poster, because it was always bound to happen, and quite rightly so, in my opinion.

 

WCRC are obliged to follow certain rules to be able to operate trains, and I think everyone accepts this as a general principle.

 

Many of the rules are of a purely operational nature that the public generally aren't interested in. This applies to most of the rule book.

 

Then there are rules that have a more political aspect to them, and this is often the case with rules applied by statute rather than via the rule book. Central Door Locking is one of these. We don't know what went on behind the scenes, but it is easy to imagine HMRI lobbying the Secretary of State for Transport to enact legislation to prohibit Mk1 coaches and slam doors without central door locking. In 1999, the Secretary of State for Transport, John Prescott, agreed, and introduced the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 to Parliament, which passed it.

 

Statutes are always open to change, and a new administration has the power to revoke or amend those made by a previous government. A political party might include promises to revoke certain legislation in their manifesto, if they think it does not match their ideology or they think they will win votes by it. Individual citizens can lobby their MP to get RSR99 Regulation 5 revoked, if they wish. Perhaps if Boris Johnson - that lover of open platform buses - had still been Prime Minister when the current issue first arose, he might have been persuaded to change the regulation. He might also have leant on ORR to modify their approach to granting exemptions, but the ORR are nominally independent and could have resisted; they would not have been able to resist a change in the law, though.

 

But on the whole, I don't think there is either public enthusiasm or political will for relaxing the current rules. Not everyone is happy with them, that is sure, and over the past months, WCRC have focused on winning public opinion over to their side. I am not sure what they then hoped to do with this public opinion. Put pressure on the ORR, I suppose, since there is no sign that I can see that they are trying to get the regulation overturned or amended, but as I said earlier, ORR are not easy to put pressure on.

 

For myself, I am more interested in knowing exactly how the Mk1s in the set are being managed to comply with the regulations, and I'd love to hear a first hand account of what it is like riding in an unheated, unvented and more-or-less sealed Mk2 in both the cold and damp we've had recently, and in the bright sunshine we've got today. I'd also like to know what WCRC tell passengers about why they have to sit in this carriage, but aren't allowed into that one (if that is, indeed, what they are told).

[adb968008]

Highland clearance…

 

37409 and the mk3 dbso set is going home.

 

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:U11109/2024-04-23/detailed

 

You have to wonder what the point of it going in the first place was really all about.

Doesnt get back to Crewe until 10pm, so a chance for Northern enthusiasts to get their cameras out.

 

 

Edited April 23 by adb968008

[Reorte]

9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The only problem with 'society as a whole' is that almost invariably society as a whole is not sufficiently informed about all the relevant facts and how they inter-relate to be able to reach a properly informed and reasoned decision.  Such decisions often just go with either gut reaction or some variant of pre-formed prejudice with only a small part of the whole actually bothering to look into the facts and the various conflicting points.

That's true for specific issues but the general level of acceptable risk vs responsibility should absolutely reflect society's overall attitude towards it. It's then up to the experts in the relevant areas to set the rules broadly in line with that for their fields.

 

Being uninformed means it's far more likely that someone will misjudge the level of risk (and it could be judging it higher or lower than it really is), but that's not the same issue as deciding at what point do we find living with it preferable to the mitigation, and as I mentioned earlier we've all got a point where we do. And you can't say anyone's point is objectively right or wrong. That's why the only reasonable approach is to aim for the majority's, leaving it to the experts to work out how to apply that to their area. Otherwise you've gone down the path of telling people what they should think and feel.

[Mike_Walker]

I think if you asked a broad cross section of the Great British Public if there should be a means of preventing them falling out of moving trains they'd almost universally reply "yes".  At the end of the day that is what CDL does.

 

A week or so ago I was chatting to a neighbour who knows very little about railways but had read reports in the national press that "all steam trains were to be banned" over this dispute.  I explained to him the background to why CDL should be fitted and the role of both WCRC and the ORR in this and he fully accepted the argument and agreed that WCRC should follow the rules in place for a very good reason.

 

As others have said, those that are making the most noise in support of WCRC are those who are not in possession of or understand the full facts.

[phil-b259]

21 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Parents are also responsible for keeping their brutes under control & out of danger.

That defence does not work in a court of law!

 

The law nowadays works in the premise that  parents / guardians / caters may not always be able to keep minors in line and organisations which interact with minors need to make sure they take appropriate mitigation.

 

Stop looking through rose tinker spectacles and wake up to how the REAL WORLD - particularly AS DEFINED BY THE UK COURT SYSTEM works!

[woodenhead]

2 hours ago, Neil said:

Almost eighty pages in; has WCRC become a proxy for a debate between those who take a libertarian standpoint and those who prefer collective responsibility?

Reminds me of this Marlon Brando interview, so people thinking in black and white, right or wrong, good or bad terms has been with us much longer than it seems, but perhaps is more obvious now due to the internet allowing more and more people to simply express things in these terms.

 

[Chris116]

I spent 20 years as a Travelling Ticket Inspector and 17 as a Guard on the Mid Hants Railway. During that time the number of people who could not open or close the doors on the carriages was amazing. On at least half my duties I met people who were pushing the rubber door stops in an attempt to open a door! On one occasion I was asked by a teacher, who was leading a school party, to close the windows and turn the air conditioning on as it was too hot. She was most upset with me when I explained that having the windows open was the only air conditioning that Mk 1 carriages have.

 

I have travelled widely on other preserved lines and witnessed the same behaviour at most of them. The public do not understand Mk 1 doors and unless the staff watch them carefully they can cause a dangerous situation at any time on a journey.

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

If WCRC are not providing stewards when they ought to do so, then they don’t have a leg to stand on, and I would accept that as a reason to take action against them. But not against all operators of such doors.

 

I don’t think I’m being selfish to ask whether £10 per ticket is a reasonable price to pay for a tiny reduction in risk. I can afford it, but the Jacobite is already quite expensive and there are many who I will be put off by the price. Even worse, if the end result is the end of Mk 1s on the mainline, then I probably won’t be paying the fare in the first place.

 

Andy

It’s a statistical fact that Humans are very bad at repetitive tasks and in terms of H&S measures there is an alarming trend for people not to do things….

 

Have you ever considered why cars now come with seatbelt sensor that make a racket if it detects you are driving along but they are not deployed for example or why electric lawnmowers come with the need to press 2 buttons (one with each hand) to get them started?

 

Both the above will be more expensive to build than products which didn’t have these features…..

 

Good H&S practice / regulation seeks to automate or build saferty into the device being used precisely to avoid human mistakes - and the railways are no different.

 

Yes stewards can be effective but they are human and y can forget / go off sick / be distracted where as an automated system cannot!

 

Also stewards have to be paid, accommodation be found for them etc where as an automated system after it’s initial fitment has relatively low ongoing costs.

 

Therefore assuming WCR still want to operate the Jacobite for the next 10 years then I bet the actual cost of CDL with regard to ticket prices will be less than paying for the army of stewards (including having enough spare people so that in cases of sickness the train still ins with the required numbe)

[Reorte]

9 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

I have travelled widely on other preserved lines and witnessed the same behaviour at most of them. The public do not understand Mk 1 doors and unless the staff watch them carefully they can cause a dangerous situation at any time on a journey.

Lack of understanding because people are simply unused to them is one of the more persuasive arguments for me.

[ruggedpeak]

1 minute ago, Chris116 said:

I spent 20 years as a Travelling Ticket Inspector and 17 as a Guard on the Mid Hants Railway. During that time the number of people who could not open or close the doors on the carriages was amazing. On at least half my duties I met people who were pushing the rubber door stops in an attempt to open a door! On one occasion I was asked by a teacher, who was leading a school party, to close the windows and turn the air conditioning on as it was too hot. She was most upset with me when I explained that having the windows open was the only air conditioning that Mk 1 carriages have.

 

I have travelled widely on other preserved lines and witnessed the same behaviour at most of them. The public do not understand Mk 1 doors and unless the staff watch them carefully they can cause a dangerous situation at any time on a journey.

So real world experience, health & safety reports, legal requirements. comments by respected railway experts. No doubt the conspiracty theorists and common sensers will still think there is no need for it.

 

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

It’s a statistical fact that Humans are very bad at repetitive tasks and in terms of H&S measures there is an alarming trend for people not to do things….

 

Have you ever considered why cars now come with seatbelt sensor that make a racket if it detects you are driving along but they are not deployed for example or why electric lawnmowers come with the need to press 2 buttons (one with each hand) to get them started?

 

Both the above will be more expensive to build than products which didn’t have these features…..

 

Good H&S practice / regulation seeks to automate or build saferty into the device being used precisely to avoid human mistakes - and the railways are no different.

 

Yes stewards can be effective but they are human and y can forget / go off sick / be distracted where as an automated system cannot!

 

Also stewards have to be paid, accommodation be found for them etc where as an automated system after it’s initial fitment has relatively low ongoing costs.

 

Therefore assuming WCR still want to operate the Jacobite for the next 10 years then I bet the actual cost of CDL with regard to ticket prices will be less than paying for the army of stewards (including having enough spare people so that in cases of sickness the train still ins with the required numbe)

Feeding the troll won't change anything. They have no demonstrable understanding of the most basic elements of safety (as you have highlighted re: the critically important element of "Human factors") nor have bothered to actually read the thread, the comprehensive JR judgement or other relevant docs.

 

Applying 'common sense' to everything as its easier than thinking. After all common sense has worked so well with drink driving, Grenfell, guns in the US, quality control at Boeing etc.

 

 

[Reorte]

7 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

Feeding the troll won't change anything. They have no demonstrable understanding of the most basic elements of safety (as you have highlighted re: the critically important element of "Human factors") nor have bothered to actually read the thread, the comprehensive JR judgement or other relevant docs.

Just who is the troll with no basic understanding? Assuming bad faith and ignorance with people you disagree with is simply being rude.

[AY Mod]

22 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Parents are also responsible for keeping their brutes under control & out of danger.

 

Sometimes the parent may be less well informed or placed to see where risks and dangers may be. As an example there have been several instances of children killed on bouncy castles after the wind has caused incident or even the inflatable exploding. Should the parent be responsible for making a judgement on the weather or the safety of the operator? Where does a libertarian stand on such incidents? Conversely there'd be an outcry from some parents if headlines said that bouncy castles are to be banned. I don't know how well bouncy castles are regulated (probably not at all) but would a parent consider any of these possibilities? Unlikely, they just want their kids to have fun but ideally they'd like them to come off the castle in one piece if asked.

[ruggedpeak]

22 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Just who is the troll with no basic understanding? Assuming bad faith and ignorance with people you disagree with is simply being rude.

It is self evident who the troll is. And bad faith is coming into a thread that has had extensive discussion on complex safety issues and saying that you should just apply common sense, a demonstrably nonsense concept and it is clear from their posts they have not bothered to understand the issues or even read any of the relevant documents. I have no problem disagreeing with people who have some idea what they are talking about or have at least bothered to try and understand the issues, but posting simpled-minded lazy nonsense is rude.

 

And frankly it is insensitive of this troll when a number of us on here have had to deal with the tragic consequences of those who decided safety was not their priority or could be ignored. Something they'd know if they'd bothered to read before posting. I've dealt with the scene at an entirely avoidable double fatality on the railway, it was not nice. Common sense failed that night. So I will call out those who make false accusations, smears or talk nonsense on matters of life and death because I know what happens with people start making decisions about things they don't understand. It is a shame that more people lack the courage to do so, as some of the tragedies that continue to happen might be avoided.

 

I am also assuming nothing, I am reacting to what is in front of me which is clear evidence of ignorance. If you think I am being rude then report me to the Mods, noting that one of them has already challenged this particular troll for their comments. Is it really rude to call out someone who states that they won't pay an extra £10 on a near £100 ticket to comply with the law (law and a  decision subject to full High Court scrutiny and confirmed as legal) to ensure the safety of everyone on a family orientated tourist attraction with a known risk of fatality? I'd question the moral standards of anyone who think safety is less important than a small addition to the cost of a non-essential leisure actuivity, however uncomfortable that makes so called 'liberals' feel (their classification, not mine). But of course for so called liberal types it all about their feelings rather than reality or other people or bothering to actually know what they are talking about or listen to experts, of which there are a number on here.

Edited April 23 by ruggedpeak
typo

[Reorte]

6 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

It is self evident who the troll is.

Some apologies required from me then, coming shortly after one of my posts I thought you were accusing me of that.

[ruggedpeak]

4 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Some apologies required from me then, coming shortly after one of my posts I thought you were accusing me of that.

Nope, not you!

[david.hill64]

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I don’t think I’m being selfish to ask whether £10 per ticket is a reasonable price to pay for a tiny reduction in risk. 

No, you are not being selfish, but that misses the point.

 

Under UK Health and Safety Law, risks have to be As Low As Reasonably Practicable if they cannot be eliminated or made negligible. This is calculated using an economic figure for the Value of a Fatality Prevented. Currently for single fatality events this is about £2.4 million. (Sorry I don't have the current figure to hand and my search function is being slow). So if you think that there is a chance over the lifespan of the Mark 1 coaches used by WCRC that one life might be saved by fitting CDL, then WCRC needs to spend up to that amount. The court's assessment was that CDL fitment was reasonably practicable. Whether that results in a £1, £10 or £100 supplement to the fare to cover that cost is WCRC's business. Personally, given the experience with stewards and bolts, we know that that mitigation measure is not as effective as CDL.

 

Yes the risks are small. Fortunately we are at the stage now where the railway is inherently safer than it's ever been. Unfortunately that means that the cost of further risk reduction is high. However, if the risk is not ALARP then measures need to be taken to make it so. In the case of these relatively low probability risks, the ORR has been able to take a pragmatic view and allow generous timescales for the enactment of the fitment programmes. 

[rodent279]

34 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

  22 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Parents are also responsible for keeping their brutes under control & out of danger.

Parents may well be responsible, but does the "brute" deserve death or serious injury because of the negligence of another person misusing a door, or from a malfunctioning door? 

Anyone who thinks that it is not worth trying to mitigate that risk needs to take a look at themselves.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but time and again real world experience proves that it is not enough.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

It started with the sixth post on the first page. This is not intended to cast any aspersions on that particular poster, because it was always bound to happen, and quite rightly so, in my opinion.

 

WCRC are obliged to follow certain rules to be able to operate trains, and I think everyone accepts this as a general principle.

 

Many of the rules are of a purely operational nature that the public generally aren't interested in. This applies to most of the rule book.

 

Then there are rules that have a more political aspect to them, and this is often the case with rules applied by statute rather than via the rule book. Central Door Locking is one of these. We don't know what went on behind the scenes, but it is easy to imagine HMRI lobbying the Secretary of State for Transport to enact legislation to prohibit Mk1 coaches and slam doors without central door locking. In 1999, the Secretary of State for Transport, John Prescott, agreed, and introduced the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 to Parliament, which passed it.

 

Statutes are always open to change, and a new administration has the power to revoke or amend those made by a previous government. A political party might include promises to revoke certain legislation in their manifesto, if they think it does not match their ideology or they think they will win votes by it. Individual citizens can lobby their MP to get RSR99 Regulation 5 revoked, if they wish. Perhaps if Boris Johnson - that lover of open platform buses - had still been Prime Minister when the current issue first arose, he might have been persuaded to change the regulation. He might also have leant on ORR to modify their approach to granting exemptions, but the ORR are nominally independent and could have resisted; they would not have been able to resist a change in the law, though.

 

But on the whole, I don't think there is either public enthusiasm or political will for relaxing the current rules. Not everyone is happy with them, that is sure, and over the past months, WCRC have focused on winning public opinion over to their side. I am not sure what they then hoped to do with this public opinion. Put pressure on the ORR, I suppose, since there is no sign that I can see that they are trying to get the regulation overturned or amended, but as I said earlier, ORR are not easy to put pressure on.

 

For myself, I am more interested in knowing exactly how the Mk1s in the set are being managed to comply with the regulations, and I'd love to hear a first hand account of what it is like riding in an unheated, unvented and more-or-less sealed Mk2 in both the cold and damp we've had recently, and in the bright sunshine we've got today. I'd also like to know what WCRC tell passengers about why they have to sit in this carriage, but aren't allowed into that one (if that is, indeed, what they are told).

If we go back well over a century people were regularly killed or injured where roads crossed railways on the level.  So Parliament - in some of the earliest railway legislation made stipulations for such a situation.  Those stipulations inconvenienced some people using the roads but they saved a lot of lives - probaby running into many hundreds or more over time.

 

Now numerous people complain about being delayed at level crossings so if we apply your logic public opinion among those people would suggest that all those safety features where a railway crosses a road on the level should be removed and that all level crossing legislation is 'bad'.

 

CDL has saved lives - there are people walking around today who would be underground in a wooden box if it had not been introduced.  Presumably - by your argument - it too is 'bad' and we should let people kill themselves, and others, through their own stupidity and ignorance  (plenty of that about when it comes to slam doors on railway rolling stock)?  That is what you are in effect arguing for - the rule of the unknowing led by the unseeing.  Surely if something which comes at a pretty low price over its working life saves even the serious injury of just one person then it is worth doing"  And WCRC has millions more than even the most pessimistic figures suggest it would cost them to install that very basic safety feature on its rolling stock.  If others are doing it what is so special about that bunch - apart from its very loud, parsimonious,  rabble rousing, voice?.

 

 

 

[ruggedpeak]

For those who want an entirely independent view from those actually using the Jacobite I suggest googling the train and looking at the latest Google reviews. I don't know how to link directly to the reviews, and you will need to sort them by date as they post the highest ranked first.

 

Trigger Warning - not all of the latest reviews are 5 stars.

[AY Mod]

11 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

I don't know how to link directly to the reviews, and you will need to sort them by date as they post the highest ranked first.

 

Hopefully this link works (but still needs sorting as you say) https://www.google.co.uk/travel/entity/key/ChkI6rm27Li32cJTGg0vZy8xMXN2Zno0andrEAQ/reviews?ei=UKQVZZemCqSI8LAP2o-W-Ao&sa=X&ts=CAEaBAoCGgAqBAoAGgA