Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

cancelled

 

I don't disagree, but it may be out of our hands if the ORR insists that we use whistles as part of our SMS

 

Why would the ORR insist on that?

The ORR isn’t in the business of setting prescriptive policies about how heritage railways operate. What it wants to see is that you have robust processes in place to identify and manage risks - that’s quite a different requirement. A “one engine in steam” operating environment on part of the line is a mitigation of the risk of someone lineside being hit unawares by a moving vehicle. What the ORR would want to see is basically have you carried out an adequate process of identifying and mitigating risks. Whistling before moves is an important mitigation in a multi-loco environment, but you could argue it is not required in a single loco environment.

Tom

 

From previous examinations of various potential schemes for PE, three issues come to mind:-

1. In the absence of any specific details (yet), IMHO it is not an unreasonable assumption that - in order to maximise the length of train that can be-round at PE in the limited space available - the engine will have to run from the loop under the Chruchtown bridge and then return to the platform road. I would expect a short warning whistle prior to commencing that move.

2. Anyone at PE waiting for an Up train will have very limited, if any, sight of it approaching although one might expect them to hear it. I would sugegst that a warning whistle before entering under the bridge would be a wise precaution, unless there is going to be permanent staffing at PE to stop the public wandering into unsuitable locations.

3. It became apparent with previous planning applications, including the original one for Phase 2A, that they had been submitted without any prior drafting of any outline Operational Requirements. Without knowing what movements will be required in order to meet such ORs, how can the railway give any commitments about the use of whistles or other devices?

 

Again, I don't disagree, but let's say that ENPA will only allow us to rebuild Parracombe as a long siding, then straight away we could end up with a locomotive at each end of the train. Does that not count as more than one engine in steam?

 

Only on the strictest note of pedantry. Because at no time will either engine be operating independently of either the train, or each other. The train would be one permanent continuous entity. The fact that there is a permanently coupled locomotive at either end has no bearing in this.

 

'One Engine in Steam' was usually described in the Regulations as "one engine, or two engines coupled together". To that extent, the later term of "One Train Working" had more validity perhaps.

The other point to consider is not to confuse the method of block working of the single-line section with the actual mechanics of how the train and its engine(s) are worked. For example, one idea that was considered at one time for the 'shunt release' method of working that involved a potential siding at CFL for the shunt engine envisaged that the OES section would stop/start at CFL, the section between CFL and the end of the line at PE then being worked under 'Station Yard' principles, so you could shunt as many engines as you liked around then!

Then we get into the semantics as to whether OES is actually a method of block working anyway, given that currently the GF operator at WB can issue the staff to go to KL without the need to get permission from the far end to occupy the section. And if there is no 'block post' at KL (or PE) then WB is technically a non-block post either, as it is not doing 'block working' to another block post, so can you actually have a 'block section' between two non-block posts anyway?

At which point, my brain gives up in the heat !