Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

An interesting paper, but rather inconclusive.

 

The Environment bill will not impact on steam locomotives. It doesn't need to; there is ample legislation with regard to operation of railway locomotives and smoke emission within the Clean Air Act 1993 as sitimela43 referred to in post 5496. There is no intention of repealing this, as far as I'm aware. Emission of dark smoke is not permitted and this is defined as equal or darker than Ringelmann 2. http://londonboaters.org/sites/default/files/Ringelmann Smoke Chart.pdf
However, any smoke is subject to legislation. As sitimela43 said, the critical words are: "The owner of any railway locomotive engine shall use any practicable means there may be for minimising the emission of smoke from the chimney on the engine and, if he fails to do so, he shall, if smoke is emitted from that chimney, be guilty of an offence." An EHO could easily argue that you could burn smokeless fuel and he would probably be right. After all, that was a requirement of tramway engines which meant they had to burn coke so wouldn't be a new thing.

 

That there is always something new to learn is certainly true. I'd never heard of this before, and I daresay not that many others have, either.
However, armed with that knowledge, and should the railway ever reach Parracombe, I can forsee a new pastime becoming very popular locally, and the phenomenon of members of the community closely observing every train, with pieces of card held up in front of their faces. I could imagine something like that being extremely daunting to even the most experienced of locomotive crews.
Be SEEING you...

 

Three thoughts on this:-

1. In the case of locomotives owned by preservation groups, would the individual members be severally liable?
2. In the case of locomotives owned by preservation groups, if they can prove that they have taken 'all practical means', then it would appear that they are not guilty of an offence if there is still smoke anyway.
3. What about the situation where the locomotive is owned by A (either an individual or a group of people), but operated (perhaps on loan etc) by railway B, and B fail to follow some procedure devised by A to minimise smoke, then who is liable - A or B?

 

I have visions of a 'panel' of residents sat on a nearby wall holding up large pieces of card carrying any of the numbers 0-9, the winner (?) in this case being the engine with the lowest score? A new film perhaps (Carry On Smoking) or panel game (Smokeless) (or, for turntable lovers, Pointless ) or 'Strictly Come Coughing' perhaps ?

 

The legislation is indeed badly written. it is fortunate that I don't think any railway/owner has yet been prosecuted under it.

 

I think the subject of locomotive smoke and who might be liable in what way in which circumstances has been discussed on here before. Anyone remember where?

 

I really don't see how else you would draft it. "All practicable steps" gives plenty of wiggle-room. Compared to the alternatives, "as low as reasonably possible" (which is an output test, not an input test - ie the theoretical lowest smoke) , or specific measures (which will be clunky, usually wrong at outset and outdated quickly), or (God forbid) the current "failing to take all possible steps to prevent" (anti-bribery, competition law etc) where you are damned unless squeaky-clean, is much the best. You are judged on the steps you could take, having regard to your resources, skill base etc.

The current trend is toward a very untraditional approach which pretty much says "don't do the bad thing. We don't quite know exactly what the bad thing is, but it's up to you to show you didn't do it". You really don't want anything redrafting at the moment.

 

Here ...

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/smoke.1418969/

(I'd remembered the thread, and in particular the discussion about where responsibility lay. I'd forgotten that I'd started it!)

Tom

 

The "owner of any railway locomotive engine shall use any practicable means there may be for minimising the emission of smoke from the chimney on the engine" was in the original Clean Air Act 1956, and copied into the updated Clean Air Act 1993. I guess in 1956 there were few steam locomotives operated by anyone other than their owners.

 

“All practicable steps” may be that, but it also puts the burden of proof onto proving that everything that could have been done was done. That is a defence, but using it would be to thread the eye of a needle.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Since it's a criminal offence I'd've thought the burden of proof would be on the prosecutor. They'd need to prove the emission of smoke was not already minimised (doesn't mean eliminated); that a means of reducing it existed which hadn't been used; and was practicable.

 

Compared to others, I'd take my chances on that one every day of the week.

The 93 act actually says "any practicable steps" how that would play out, I don't know. As noted, it is a criminal act, but defences can be raised on much lower standards of proof

 

I suspect that any investigation would start with a dialogue between the parties. Prosecution would only follow if possible improvements weren’t made and the offence repeated. If you look at (for example) the prosecution of illegal landfill operations it takes years of repeated warnings being ignored before action is taken (and the penalties are so light as to be a joke, but that’s another story).

 

damage caused by a fire over the weekend at Chelfham school below the viaduct

 

No doubt caused by all the steam trains continuously roaring over the viaduct day and night ....

 

Disgruntled former pupil?
I gather it had a bit of a "past".

 

Getting closer to Bridge 64:

https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/news/return-parracombe-appeal-july-update

 

Or is this to facilitate the proposed development of the site.

 

Maybe a bit unlikely as the site is listed for sale at £950,000 with planning permission for 15 houses.