Jacobite 2026

With respect to that lady, she has built a business that is entirely dependent on one single supplier. Now I'm not a business owner, but to a layman like me that does not seem like good business sense. In her position I would be looking at diversifying and bringing in revenue from other sources.

 

Like implying the the ORR might be responsible for the late start to the season.

 

The Jacobite has been running for over 30 years so it seems a sound business decision, the tea room has also doubled in size the last 20 years. There was no reason to assume it wouldn’t carry on

 

Yes, the statement from WC has a strong element of "the Jacobite would commence tomorrow but the ORR won't let us".
The truth being ORR has made the conditions for what WC wish to do explicit for several years and WC has resisted until the point of almost self-destruction where the Jacobite is concerned.
It still remains to be seen what conditions would be applied to any new R5 exemption granted, given ORR found the previous mitigation measures WC were supposed to deploy under the extension of the last exemption were not diligently adhered to. The question an inspector might ask, when faced with a new R5 application, is 'what control measures are in place to prevent a recurrence of the lapses which occured during the previous exemption'?
The possibility therefore exists that an exemption may be issued but only with a more onerous system of precautions in place. That is to say an expectation of added control. Fairly safe to assume if an exemption is in place the ORR will be watching/testing/sampling like a hawk.

 

Jesus Christ. Never knew we had so many ORR inspectors on here Everyone seems to know so much about it all!

The statement quite clearly does not read anything like we would start the Jacobite tomorrow but the ORR won’t let us -

While this safety upgrade is a significant undertaking, we are currently working in close partnership with the ORR to finalise a timeline that balances the technical requirements of the installation with our goal of commencing the 2026 Jacobite season

- It quite literally says they need to finalise a timeline. How is that anything like saying we’d do it tomorrow?!

 

The language is a lot more collaborative than a lot that's come out of Carnforth previously. But it still creates an impression that if agreement can't be reached, it would be ORR who would be unreasonable in failing to agree.

 

I mean I sort of can’t help but side with that. If, and it’s a big if, the whole operation can be risk assessed, carried out safely, etc, alongside a fitment plan, I don’t see why the ORR should turn it down.

 

That is where the two of our perspectives differ materially, in terms of where the emphasis lies between the regulator and organisations wishing to operate. While we both agree on the fundamentals of risk assessment, etc., there is then a difference around the burden of proof. As I read you (and some others), the burden is for ORR to demonstrate that the operator is non-compliant; I and some others see it as for the operator to demonstrate to ORR's satisfaction that they are compliant.

The difference is subtle, but critical. And in the case of my earlier post, it informs my interpretation of the WCRC statement, and the implied burden on ORR to agree with WCRC. Perhaps a "what if" is necessary, should WCRC's application be unsuccessful. Would that statement be followed by one written as "we regret that ORR have not approved our plans and we are now unable to operate" or "we regret that ORR have not approved our plans and we look forward to working with them to refine those plans to address their concerns"? Voice matters.

 

Now who's "the inspector"?

 

What are you suggesting, that she set up as a TOC to ensure her trade in tourists visiting is secured?

Commercial business in putting positive spin on press release shocker....

 

You still going on?

 

The lady in question used to work on the Jacobite trains hawking Harry Potter merchandise to passengers. She clearly had a business relationship with WCR, though whether as an employed member of staff or a franchisee, I don't know. When the last Jacobite/ORR suspension was going on (unstewarded doors etc) she was very vocal on the alleged iniquity of the ORR but strangely silent about her WCR affiliations.

 

WCRC have got no chance of an R5 exemption. It's been over two years since the Mk1s were withdrawn. They were being watched like a hawk before and they still didn't comply.

Until enough vehicles are fitted with CDL and commissioned for use, their only options are to not run anything or to use Mk2s.

 

The requirement upon ORR is to judge an application on its merits. It would therefore fall to WC to offer a convincing case that those factors and events you have cited would be managed out of recurrence. It should be noted that the suspension notice in 2023 was lifted and the Jacobite operated under the conditional exemption for the remainder of the season. So WC might say "we demonstrated the necessary diligence".
The complicating factor is the now 2+ years where no non-compliant stock has been in passenger service. ORR might deem that poses additional risks and require extra precautions. If WC has demonstrated their mk1 CDL system to ORR, might ORR wonder why WC needs an exemption to run the Jacobite if there is a compliant rake of mk1s ready. If WCs idea is to run one compliant rake and one under exemption, morning and afternoon repectively, one could see that being regarded as having additional risks.

 

Although the suspension of service notice for the Jacobite was lifted as you say. The R5 exemption certificate for CDL fitting that WCRC already had, was revoked by ORR in 2024. What WCRC currently seem to be after is to be able to use their Mk1's as they did before, whilst they fit CDL over an unspecified time, as other operators were allowed to and have done so. The only current exemption is for the NYMR which was issued in 2023 and was one of of the last ones to be issued.

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall seeing something about ORR saying no new exemptions would be issued after that.

Dave B

 

BBC Scotland's reporting on the matter confirms no agreement has been reached on any derogation: "The ORR said no agreement had been reached on an exemption and the application was being reviewed." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj3786x28eeo

We will all have to wait and see what happens over the next few weeks..

 

Found on Facebook. I know that is not the most reliable source of information, but this leaves no grounds for misinterpretation.


Cheers, Neil

 

Highly likely, I would have thought. Just over a week away now.