West Somerset Railway General Discussion

The "idiots" are the trespassing gricers (e.g. those who created the scenes witnessed on one of Flying Scotsman's post overhaul trips) and not WSC management.

PH

 

Does that mean that there is a possibility that the WSR may reconsider?

 

Again, please do not tar LSP holders with the same brush as trespassing gricers. The point of an LSP is that we are lineside legally.

 

Insurance companies are unlikely to be able to differentiate. To them it will be a situation of " a gricer is a gricer is a gricer".

PH

 

Is it the WSR or more likely the insurance company who doesn't want to cover the railway for the LSP so until we know stop blaming the WSR as insurance company are very touchy over things they don't understand, and this normanly means a hefty increase in the cost of the cover, or lose this cover altogether.

 

That remark is totally uncalled for. Do you really think the WSR PLC had any real choice in the matter? There is a very real possibility that other Heritage Railways will do the same for the same valid reasons.

 

Exactly. In the same way insurance companies are totally unable to distinguish between a driver who is insured and one who isn't.

 

Don't think I'd necessarily agree with that. Surely the reason that many lines have over the last decade or so introduced mandatory PTS for holders of line side permits is precisely so that they can demonstrate a difference between people who are on the line side legitimately, and those who are not; and also to be able to demonstrate that anyone with legitimate access has received a level of training about the specific and general hazards of being line side.

Tom

 

See posts 4145 and 4146.

PH

 

In common with all heritage railways the management of the WSR will be finding itself in a difficult situation regarding the issue of Lineside Photographic Passes. At the present time there is very little guidance for heritage railways on the subject. As far as I can find the HRA only briefly covers it in section 12 of their Guidance Note "A0205 Personal Track Safety" available for all to read on the HRA web site under "documents". Section 5 refers to the need to have PTS holders medically assessed, another difficulty.

When a railway invites members of the public to go onto the lineside with a LSP it encumbers itself with an additional liability for the safety of that person. Safety is never absolute and there are always risks however small. The LSP holder who is bitten by an adder or who breaks their leg after stumbling into a rabbit hole covered by undergrowth may well decide that the railway had not taken due precautions to ensure their safety. It is then becomes a legal issue with liability being contested (and we all know how lawyers enjoy a good chat in court!). There are plenty of blame culture organisations touting for business at somebody else's expense.

Given the above it is understandable that any railway (and their insurers) will choose to absolve themselves of any responsibility for a service that they are not obliged to provide, however desirable. The good news is that Faol's post indicated that "The Railway will enter into discussion with the HRA to see what is the general advice is with regards to this matter." This indicates that efforts are being made to find a suitable arrangement in the long term.

Andy.

 

The mandatory PTS is more likely to be another H&S 'tick in the box' to show that the management have complied with their requirement to demonstrate a "Duty of Care" than anything else.
After all, if they just let anyone loose lineside and they were injured the company would have no defence. At least with a mandatory PTS the management could say "Well we told them..." Just another case of 'cover your... donkey' I think.

 

With your sort of attitude, I doubt it's a real loss.

 

Will this mean a potential increase in the amount of people volunteering especially for trackside workers?

 

Do we know what the other engine will be for Scotsman visit? Wouldn't want to book tickets without knowing this.

 

Yawnado?.............

 

Could it be King summit or other?

 

I'm not sure that even withdrawing LSPs altogether will work. If some idiot goes onto the lineside without bothering to apply for an LSP, and then gets hurt, I imagine some elderly gentleman of the law in fancy dress might still award him compensation. The law treats everyone like a seven year old child.

 

Petition underway!


https://www.change.org/p/paul-conib...source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

 

When I was involved in the management of another railway about ten years ago I was involved in discussions about the situation of Lineside Passes.

The key issue, as far as the insurers were concerned, revolved around liability and active management of risk. The nub was that:
- a trespasser was taking their own risk - though the railway would be liable if it did not correctly warn people of trespass, and take active action to tackle any instances that arose.
- if the railway offered access to the lineside it took responsibility for the holder and imported the duty to care for them. In essence, the holder either had the become an employee (or gratuitous employee) or be treated as a contractor. In either case a responsibility to manage and monitor was established - in one discussion it was pointed out that we needed to monitor holders for things such as compliance with alcohol/drugs/compliance with time restrictions.

These discussions arose as a result of a particular incident involving someone who had permission to be lineside, and it became clear that to manage holders and their activities to the satisfaction of the insurers and in satisfaction of relevant regulations was not cost-effective. It became obvious that as passive management ('we have provided training so are not responsible for what people get up to subsequently') was not acceptable either to insurers or regulators and, as a consequence, access to the lineside became much more restricted (and trespass actively policed).

Many will baulk at this, but it is the reality of where a railway will find itself. In the end, even £50 is nowhere near the actual cost of providing training, supervision and management to the required level to satisfy external demands.

 

Petitions, referenda, Huh! Many years ago some students at (I think) Cambridge hawked a petition about the streets of that city saying it was about capital punishment. They got lots of signatures to a document which read something like "We the undersigned do petition the Home Secretary that we be hanged by the neck until we are dead."

PH