If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Discussion in 'Narrow Gauge Railways' started by 50044 Exeter, Dec 25, 2009.

  1. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,132
    Likes Received:
    17,154
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    An interesting paper, but rather inconclusive.
     
  2. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,142
    Likes Received:
    8,575
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    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.
     
  3. Mark Thompson

    Mark Thompson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    3,015
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    E sussex
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    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...o_O
     
  4. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    5,846
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    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?
     
  5. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    5,846
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    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 ?
     
    Biermeister and Mark Thompson like this.
  6. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,142
    Likes Received:
    8,575
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    The legislation is indeed badly written. it is fortunate that I don't think any railway/owner has yet been prosecuted under it.
     
  7. MellishR

    MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,105
    Likes Received:
    4,364
    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?
     
  8. Bikermike

    Bikermike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    1,383
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Thameslink territory
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    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.
     
  9. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    23,900
    Likes Received:
    48,394
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    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
     
    MellishR likes this.
  10. Miff

    Miff Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    2,139
    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.
     
  11. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,132
    Likes Received:
    17,154
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    “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
     
  12. Miff

    Miff Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    2,139
    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.
     
  13. Bikermike

    Bikermike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    1,383
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Thameslink territory
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    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
     
  14. Snail368

    Snail368 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Invasive weed control and eradication
    Location:
    Daventry, Northamptonshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    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).
     
  15. Meatman

    Meatman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2018
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    610
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Burrington,devon
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    damage caused by a fire over the weekend at Chelfham school below the viaduct IMG_20220724_141714.jpg
     
  16. Meiriongwril

    Meiriongwril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    722
    Likes Received:
    529
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cymru
    No doubt caused by all the steam trains continuously roaring over the viaduct day and night .... :rolleyes:
     
  17. Mark Thompson

    Mark Thompson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    3,015
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    E sussex
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Disgruntled former pupil?
    I gather it had a bit of a "past".
     
    H Cloutt likes this.
  18. goughball01

    goughball01 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    69
    Gender:
    Male
  19. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    685
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Or is this to facilitate the proposed development of the site.
     
  20. Penrhynfan

    Penrhynfan New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    81
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe a bit unlikely as the site is listed for sale at £950,000 with planning permission for 15 houses.
     

Share This Page