Doors and Droplights

That is the argument, which I understand and allows me to take the "open to persuasion" position that I do. However, it is generally presented as an abstract argument, devoid of figures. That is my challenge with the current situation, where a broad argument is being made but not being anchored in any kind of data that would allow interpretation of the risk, and the judgments that are being exercised on proportionality.

 

Many of us may have views about proportionality and that was largely what WCRC's position was about, but it was not what the court case was addressing. The time for challenging the proportionality of the requirement would have been when it was first introduced. Instead, the affected TOCs, having been granted exemptions, presumably hoped that those exemptions would continue for ever. When ORR finally told them it wasn't for ever, SLS fitted CDL and VT (which does not have money to spare) committed to doing so on a reasonable time scale. That has left WCRC out on a limb.

 

As a further comment on my earlier post.
One of the possible reasons why the vegetation was cut back to 6 metres from and above rail.
The use of Road/ Rail Equipment to place the OHLE components plus the actual wiring operation means that the risk of damage to the equipment is increased by not clearing the vegetation, once the wiring is in place then it gets forgotten about.

 

Yes it was the Whitby section.

 

Wonder if looking out of windows will be allowed on the Grosmont - Pickering section. But if it's the Whitby set, I can't imagine they'll derestrict the droplights.

 

I agree to as point, but you could have equally said the same thing about say the Paris Metro for Brits in the 70's. A London Underground train would not remove your arm if between the doors, a very good chance it would have in Paris.
So move forward to 2024 and whilst they may be a case to argue on the Jacobite specifically, which could be managed other ways we have a "safety argument" from the regulator that is only an argument it seems when it suits them.
No I know that sometimes there are regulations that sometimes have a different end date for implementation for new product and existing product. It happens a lot in aviation, but to my knowledge never for something deemed "safety critical" on those days of the week that suits the ORR.
Logic would say if you are worried about doors being left open, or being able to be opened then you do not have one date for one TOC and different dates for the others. If it is really a safety issue a DECENT regulator would have set an end date that must be met BY ALL. That may be in the future, or if it is that serious they should have made it in the past from where we are now.
To my mind what is safe about and RTC tour that must operated with CDL fitted Mk2's sitting in a platform at Carlisle next to a Vintage Trains set of Mk1 and Mk2 stock without CDL as happened a few weeks back? Is the Vintage tour thus "dangerous"?
The whole concept of we will give you an exemption if you have a plan is bonkers in my view, and shows a regulator not in control. It is either a safety issue or not.
Passengers do not say " I will wait until CDL is fitted to try to open the door when the train is moving"

 

Exactly this. The current situation is ridiculous - it is either safe or it isn’t and should therefore be a requirement or not. You can’t simply assume an exemption makes you safe!

 

If only safety measures were that clear cut. The exemptions permit Mk1s to run on the national network, when they were otherwise all removed 20 years ago - because they were banned. Does that mean Mk1a are dangerous? Or does it mean that the risk (that word again) of using them on limited traffic, under certain conditions, is acceptable in comparison their mass use on London suburban trains?

 

Wel lit sort of is because regardless of the WCRC position, that I think is wrong, you cannot for example say Vintage and Belmond are safe but WCRC are not.
It is one or the other.
ORR = Office of Random Regulations?

 

You have sort of made my point with your aircraft door analogy.
So this is not a major safety issue, ergo WCRC should be allowed to operate Mk1's until the last implementation date an exemption exists for, then if they have not done it their MK1's are banned.

 

They did, and they are until the required precautions - or a plan to implement them - are in place.

Which, beyond acknowledging that the WCRC case has helped bring about increased scrutiny of this aspect of heritage railway operation (and NYMR in particular), does not help us with the specific measures that NYMR are seeking to implement. Measures which take NYMR away from failsafe in certain important regards, and risk setting precedents for other railways for whom they may not be relevant.

 

The vegetation issue is now that big that I don't think NR can get on top of it. The issue in my view has its origins in the early days of privatisation, when cost cutting within Railtrack was rife. Vegetation maintenance was an easy one to drop as it wasn't safety critical and would take a few years to have any affect. History tells us many more serious procedures were overlooked too which did end up having tragic consequences and led to the failure of Railtrack.
We all know though from our own gardens that once a few cyclical cut backs are missed that it is then very difficult to get back on top and a small job becomes far bigger. Imagine 1000s of miles of overgrown backyards - I can't blame NR for being reactive rather than proactive.
My big fear though is how many of our railway structures have become linear forests. Take a look at some of the videos from today with 5043 climbing through Edge Hill - those cuttings are virtually green with buddlea and medium sized trees growing out of the walls into the catenery. Sooner or later one of these walls will fail due to water ingress from root damage &/or stress fracture. Many viaducts are the same.
My fear is that Network Rail's own finances aren't currently that much better than Railtrack 25 years ago..

 

I've not had a chance to read all this thread, but I think mention of heritage railways may be ok? If not, mods please remove my post.

I've done a lot of heritage line visits recently, all on my beloved ex SR region - Spa Valley, KESR, Mid Hants and Swanage.

From what I've seen with people leaning out of windows, it can only be a matter of time before ORR intervene. I have no idea what sort of intervention that would be, or how it would be enforced. But in advance of any such action, I would strongly suggest that those wanting to stand and enjoy the noise of a loco working, do so next to just a part open window with the listening ear still just inside the coach, so that 100% of the listener is still inside the coach.

If we (including the heritage lines themselves) get into the habit of self-regulating this matter I would hope that there will be no enforced action by ORR. And yes, it may sadly see some regulars stop visiting such as galas. But from what I am increasingly seeing and hearing it seems it is the non-enthusiast events such as dining trains, other on board activities, Thomas, Father Christmas and Polar Express trains etc that make the money for some, if not a lot of heritage lines.

Bryan B

 

My understanding from previous discussions on here is that heritage railways are required to manage the risk, but that one way they can do so is to keep all lineside structures and vegetation far enough away from the track. Provided that they document this as their risk control measure and abide by their documented procedures, leaning out of droplights should be perfectly safe. That should however imply removal of "Do not lean out" notices, as those would imply a lack of assurance that all obstacles are far enough away.

 

I'm not completely sure I agree; the risk assessment and also encouragement of safe behaviour are not mutually exclusive.

 

The trouble with risk assessments is that are subjective. What one railway says is O.K. another says is not. Or one guard gets upset by any head out of the window, whilst others do not.
It then falls back into a lowest common denominator (ORR) of lock it & or bar it.

 

It may do, but it shouldn't. A properly conducted risk assessment should be objective and measurable, and then the instructions given on managing that risk consistent.

That may not always be straightforward, especially in a volunteer based organisation, but the principle should be achievable.