Jacobite 2026

Mark 1 99318 may haave been fitted with CDL - see the box near the number. It has had its buffet section replaced by seating bays with windows.

https://andrewstransport.smugmug.com/WestCoastRailwaysWCRC/Carnforth-Steamtown-2026/i-J4bskhz

Andrew N

 

That does appear to be an emergency egress device for CDL fitted stock.

Also I believe the the blanked window side is the other side to the photo.

 

https://www.removepaywall.com/searc...in-operator-waiting-learn-fate-rail-regulator

The bit in bold is interesting. If they follow through with that promise, then either WCRC will have to admit defeat and fit Mk1s with CDL, or it's game over for the Jacobite.

 

Let’s be honest they should get an exemption. The rail regulator and organisational bodies are there to focus on the future of the railways not the past. What’s done is done.

Ultimately it’s pretty simple, they want an exemption to run unfitted stock whilst they fit stock, and in turn they will swap them out. If what I’ve been told is correct 7 MK1s are fitted (Including 99318 photos posted earlier of this) for the morning train, with a MK2 regular set for the afternoon train as per pre-2024 operations. So that should be a big tick off for the ORR as Jacobite was a big concern.

 

Personally I don't see why West Coast should be given an exemption nor do I think they should be given one -

• They have had a couple of years now to fit CDL in Mk1s but have chosen not to (at least until recently if what you say is correct although there were also similar rumours this time last year!)
• They have not really engaged with the process other than the JR which they lost
  
• They missed the original deadline of submitting a fitment plan - yes it can be argued that given the JR that is understandable then afterwards they made no attempt until now to then agree a fitment plan, if they have been fitting stock why did they not agree one earlier on in this process or alternatively if they have fitted it very quickly then why do they need one.
• They have repeatedly tried to force the regulator to overturn their decision through political and public lobbying and PR campaigns, I am not a fan of many of the elements of the approach to regulation by the ORR but I do not believe people who are involved in safety should be interfered with in this way especially given their decision was upheld by the JR
• Even if a fitment plan is now agreed they do not have the best record when it comes to doing what is agreed with the regulator and if they were awarded one I can see them trying to use it as proof that CDL should not be mandatory and starting the fight again.
• They, by their own choosing, have proven they can continue to operate without using Mk1s, that they have arguably made a commercial decision not to invest in fitment of some of their stock (unlike other operators) is their choice and if the outcomes are not favourable that is on them as a business not the regulator. I appreciate some will see that as an oversimplification of the situation.

One slight side note to this is how compatible are the systems that have been implemented with each other? Since as I think there has not been 1 single design adopted by everyone in 5-10 years time are we going to run into issues where some stock changes hands or is supplied on a short term lease only to find there are problems working together?

 

If that’s correct and there is a genuine plan, then I agree. But it has to be based on something tangible, not just “trust me”.

 

It seems to me WC is acting as if a crisis for them should be an emergency for others. What is fundamentally different now to the application for exemption made in early 2024? Logically the only difference could be the concession to a fitment plan by the owner, so in essence the owner has faffed around for two years. On that basis what faith can ORR have that fitting will take place as proposed?
The hazard of stock lacking CDL has been eliminated from the network, there are not now any R5 exemptions, so the ORR has to weigh up what sort of exemption would be proportionate to the risks. The regulator issued some short term exemptions post 2023 to allow those owners to complete necessary works on their fleets.
Now obviously WC owns a lot more vehicles which we can safely assume the firm will use as a 'bargaining tactic' in their plea for a new and lengthy exemption application. ORR might be well within its rights to say, you can have an exemption comparable to that the other owners had so get as many fitted as you can. Plainly WC doesn't "need" an exemption to operate national charters so it would be imprudent of ORR to allow many tens of non-compliant coaches back into passenger use.

 

And that’s where it gets murky. One view is, as you’ve suggested, that none of these carriages are in passenger service and therefore there is no case for even an interim exemption. Another would recognise there is a background and allow some slack for resolution given the genuinely limited risk profile

 

The SRPS CDL system will work with what LSL have (legacy / retro fit). The only constraint is that vehicles can’t be mixed, I.e. SRPS vehicles would have to be marshalled together, with LSL stock at one end of the set or the system won’t work properly. Don’t ask me why!

 

“Let’s be honest” - many of us are sick and tired of WCRC’s nonsense.

 

I agree that arguments over the value of CDL might be weak but that train has left the station.
Taking the perspective of an Inspector, knowing one would be accountable for a decision and also knowing the compliance history of the firm in question, am I prepared to allow a short term reversion to a degraded system? By degraded, exempted vs CDL fitted stock.
As said upthread the wibble at the lineside is that WC is seeking four years exemption to allow fitting of the entire fleet.
Had this scenario been March 2024 ORR might have agreed an application. Now, the aims of RSR1999 having been acheived, is the case to revert to the exemption regime compelling enough? Is the Regulator obliged to look for work arounds simply so that the Jacobite survives?

 

The afternoon train pre 2024 was mixed Mk1&2 airbraked stock so couldn’t be worked by the K1. I can understand why they won’t run without an exemption as the passenger carrying capacity is reduced by two coaches with non compliant Mk1 brakes needed in the formation reducing capacity by about 100 seats.
I would hope the ORR will see the wider picture including the effect on the local economy, especially at Mallaig where the extra 700 visitors in the high season have little to do but spend money. I know that during the time it didn’t run a few years ago the Harry Potter shop saw a 40% downturn in business. I won’t hold my breath though as bureaucrats very rarely do.

 

The effect on the local economy might perhaps be reason for the Scottish government to magic up some cash, but it is absolutely not ORR's problem. WCRC are now saying "Give us time", but they have wasted time since losing the Judicial Review.

 

Not sure cash is going to change things in the short term unless its enough to hire in another operator... ( Vintage ? )

 

I would ask the question slightly differently, and question whether the regulator is required to refuse any request.

The compliance history is then the ghost at this particular feast.

 

Why should the Scottish government give any money to a company that made nearly £3m profit in the previous financial year?

 

Everybody is just conveniently ignoring that fact that coaches have been fitted. Doesn’t suit the narrative to acknowledge that. As I said above one of the big areas of concern is the Jacobite operations and according to some fairly well placed people 7 MK1S are done and waiting to go based on ORR sign off of this fitment plan, whilst a rake of MK2 A-C are ready for the PM train, most of which were done last year anyway.

Based of some of the comments above though I don’t even know why WCR are trying. They might as well as chuck the towel in and put a huge hole in the mainline scene for good, as cuts fairly clearly many don’t want them to operate successfully.

 

I never said anything different about the K1 so not sure how that’s relevant?

 

I would like them to operate successfully. I also want them to do so under the same rules as everyone else.

What confuses me is what exemption might be necessary if things are as you suggest. Or am I misreading "done"?