Central locking for heritage trains

[12C]

Obviously this risk can't be mitigated by placing a cover over a bolt, however, to my mind, that seems like a perfectly sensible method of work. Would it not be worth WCR simply investing their legal money into implementing this modification (assuming it meets regulatory requirements)?

At the moment the ORR seem pretty determined that it has to be a centrally operated locking system, although as mentioned earlier this carries its own risks in the event of short platforms or loco/power source failure.

However if I were in charge of an operator using heritage stock, I would certainly be putting this argument to them to try to reach a compromise. Maybe a heavier duty manual lock, rather than the current DIY store ones, with a cover and clear signage not to be touched by passengers except in emergency, and a window bar fitted.

For purely steam operated, vacuum braked charters it would be a lot more affordable and feasible doing this than trying to rig up some sort of on board power supply.

 

[43096]

I rather get the feeling several on here are not aware of the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle of risk management. If other heritage stock operators have CDL systems, then manually operated sliding bolts are not really ALARP. There is no good reason why WCRC should not comply - other oeprators (e.g. Hastings Diesels) have fitted CDL systems from scratch, so there is no reason why WCRC cannot do the same (putting aside the clearly seriously deficient safety culture in the organisation).

 

[driverd]

I rather get the feeling several on here are not aware of the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle of risk management. If other heritage stock operators have CDL systems, then manually operated sliding bolts are not really ALARP. There is no good reason why WCRC should not comply - other oeprators (e.g. Hastings Diesels) have fitted CDL systems from scratch, so there is no reason why WCRC cannot do the same (putting aside the clearly seriously deficient safety culture in the organisation).

I think the main difference would be the electric supply to carriages. I'm no expert at all, but I'd assume 205s have an equivalent of a DMUs 24v bus that runs through the unit. If you have a readily available source of power, it's a lot easier to add systems on.

The Mk1 carriages, as i understand it (again, no expert on steam hauled stock), may lack this. Whilst there is a precedent set for DEMUs, I wouldn't know if you could run a CDL system reliably off a 12v caravan battery (again, don't know if this is the power source WCRC use, but it is the case for a few preserved railways).

If you require a generator fitting to a vehicle and for this to be hailed on every train, it adds substantially to your cost - and arguably takes you to a place so far removed from whats been done on the Hastings unit, that you could almost say sliding door mk3s, infact, set your CDL precedent.

I'm far far from advocating for a poor safety culture - as I pointed out in my earlier post, prior to the one above - but as a cost effective solution, a bolt behind a "break glass in case of emergency" cover, seems a sufficient compromise.

 

[12C]

I rather get the feeling several on here are not aware of the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle of risk management. If other heritage stock operators have CDL systems, then manually operated sliding bolts are not really ALARP. There is no good reason why WCRC should not comply - other oeprators (e.g. Hastings Diesels) have fitted CDL systems from scratch, so there is no reason why WCRC cannot do the same (putting aside the clearly seriously deficient safety culture in the organisation).

I am quite aware of ALARP, but I would argue that on rolling stock with no reliable electricity supply and no air supply, fitting power operated CDL may not fall under the category ‘reasonably practical’. Other operators who have fitted the system are only those with an onboard power supply (Hastings/Swanage) or those which always operate steam charters with a diesel in tow providing ETS (LSL). It is a different situation for a steam only operated service, and I think if the ORR do not give any leeway on this matter many such charters could cease to exist, which I think would be a shame.

I also struggle to see where exactly the higher risk lies with a substantial manual bolt, accessible by staff only who are properly trained in its use, and window bars. We have already found in this thread that power operated CDL often unlocks the whole train on short platforms (with I guess the non platformed doors supervised by stewards) and will unlock all doors should the power supply shut down, which can be a regular occurrence with heritage traction, and the ORR seem to find this acceptable. Neither of these situations would occur with staff operated manual control.

I completely agree any operators not following the rules should be taken to task, but I think it would be a great shame if traditional main line steam hauled trains with Mk1 stock ended. There are many other operators who do follow the rules (Vintage trains/SRPS/NYMR/VSOE to name a few), not all of which may be able to afford making these adaptations.

 

[Falcon1200]

I also struggle to see where exactly the higher risk lies with a substantial manual bolt, accessible by staff only who are properly trained in its use

How would such a bolt be made inaccessible to passengers? It would have to be fairly easy to reach for the staff to operate it, and signs alone would not I think deter impatient passengers.

 

[12C]

How would such a bolt be made inaccessible to passengers? It would have to be fairly easy to reach for the staff to operate it, and signs alone would not I think deter impatient passengers.

Apologies for the terrible artwork but this is roughly what I was thinking of, a hinged plastic cover, with a breakable panel for emergency use, lockable with a carriage key.

 

[paul1609]

I am quite aware of ALARP, but I would argue that on rolling stock with no reliable electricity supply and no air supply, fitting power operated CDL may not fall under the category ‘reasonably practical’. Other operators who have fitted the system are only those with an onboard power supply (Hastings/Swanage) or those which always operate steam charters with a diesel in tow providing ETS (LSL). It is a different situation for a steam only operated service, and I think if the ORR do not give any leeway on this matter many such charters could cease to exist, which I think would be a shame.

I also struggle to see where exactly the higher risk lies with a substantial manual bolt, accessible by staff only who are properly trained in its use, and window bars. We have already found in this thread that power operated CDL often unlocks the whole train on short platforms (with I guess the non platformed doors supervised by stewards) and will unlock all doors should the power supply shut down, which can be a regular occurrence with heritage traction, and the ORR seem to find this acceptable. Neither of these situations would occur with staff operated manual control.

I completely agree any operators not following the rules should be taken to task, but I think it would be a great shame if traditional main line steam hauled trains with Mk1 stock ended. There are many other operators who do follow the rules (Vintage trains/SRPS/NYMR/VSOE to name a few), not all of which may be able to afford making these adaptations.

NYMR have reduced their SMS to 25 mph and given up running Grosmont to Battersby in order to gain an exemption for another 5 years. The SRPS and VSOE rolling stock are air or dual braked so it's not the issue it is for WC. I would have thought its very unlikely that the ORR will grant any sort of exemption or approval whilst the original decision is subject to a judicial review.

 

[Bill57p9]

Apologies for the terrible artwork but this is roughly what I was thinking of, a hinged plastic cover, with a breakable panel for emergency use, lockable with a carriage key.

I saw that drawing on the Jacobite cancellation thread and agree that it appears a pragmatic and effective solution to the problem of passengers operating the secondary door locks.

I am unsure though how much of the desire for CDL is driven by the feedback to the guard, i.e. confirmation that the doors are all locked before setting off. Just interesting to know what risk mitigations are being satisfied here.

 

[MotCO]

The Mk1 carriages, as i understand it (again, no expert on steam hauled stock), may lack this. Whilst there is a precedent set for DEMUs, I wouldn't know if you could run a CDL system reliably off a 12v caravan battery (again, don't know if this is the power source WCRC use, but it is the case for a few preserved railways).

Is there not already an electricity supply in carriages to provide lighting?

 

[paul1609]

Is there not already an electricity supply in carriages to provide lighting?

Yes there is, but as discussed previously its inadequate to power a CDL system and there is no system that can be fitted that has industry acceptance for mainline operation.

 

[12C]

I am unsure though how much of the desire for CDL is driven by the feedback to the guard, i.e. confirmation that the doors are all locked before setting off. Just interesting to know what risk mitigations are being satisfied here.

Radios maybe? Or taking it a bit further I’m sure it wouldn’t to too difficult for the bolt to be able to energise a bodyside hazard light when opened, which could just run off the existing carriage lighting supply.

 

[paul1609]

Radios maybe? Or taking it a bit further I’m sure it wouldn’t to too difficult for the bolt to be able to energise a bodyside hazard light when opened, which could just run off the existing carriage lighting supply.

The issue really isn't technical, it's the cost of getting approval for rolling stock that nobodies quite sure how long it has left on the mainline, set against what's a very marginal operation (think overhaul costs of loco and cost of coal).

 

[DarloRich]

You aren't going to get any of the Heath Robinson ideas floated here approved when the ORR have given an exemption and subsequently found that exemption not being complied with. The ORR are on the war path now and operators and spotters only have themselves to blame.

it's the cost of getting approval for rolling stock that nobodies quite sure how long it has left on the mainline

And that is a fair point : Jacobite wise i wonder if the Scottish Government might be helpful with some financial support.

EDIT: I note ORR have, today, issued Safety Management Systems: guidance for minor and heritage railways: https://www.orr.gov.uk/about/who-we-work-with/railway-networks/minor-heritage-railways

 

[eldomtom2]

EDIT: I note ORR have, today, issued Safety Management Systems: guidance for minor and heritage railways: https://www.orr.gov.uk/about/who-we-work-with/railway-networks/minor-heritage-railways

And do you have any proof this is related? A document like this will presumably have taken several months to produce.

 

[paul1609]

EDIT: I note ORR have, today, issued Safety Management Systems: guidance for minor and heritage railways: https://www.orr.gov.uk/about/who-we-work-with/railway-networks/minor-heritage-railways

Its only an update on a previous document and its worth pointing out that West Coast aren't covered by this, they are a mainline TOC. The only heritage railway that has a licence to operate on the mainline are the NYMR who have just had their exemption from CDL extended by another 5 years (specifically for Grosmont to Whitby).

 

[12C]

The ORR are on the war path now and operators and spotters only have themselves to blame.

There is one operator who only has themselves to blame but there are several others who have operated very responsibly without incident for years. The vast majority of railtour passengers I find are very well behaved nowadays.

It’s a shame the ‘Office of Rail and Road’ don’t pursue the same warpath towards road safety as they do heritage rail operations, if they did it might help reduce the average 2000 deaths a year on the UK’s road network.

 

[jumble]

At the moment the ORR seem pretty determined that it has to be a centrally operated locking system, although as mentioned earlier this carries its own risks in the event of short platforms or loco/power source failure.

However if I were in charge of an operator using heritage stock, I would certainly be putting this argument to them to try to reach a compromise. Maybe a heavier duty manual lock, rather than the current DIY store ones, with a cover and clear signage not to be touched by passengers except in emergency, and a window bar fitted.

For purely steam operated, vacuum braked charters it would be a lot more affordable and feasible doing this than trying to rig up some sort of on board power supply.

Perhaps the ORR remember the 12 people who died in the Taunton Sleeper fire owing to locked doors that were not fail safe

 

[12C]

Perhaps the ORR remember the 12 people who died in the Taunton Sleeper fire owing to locked doors that were not fail safe

Any cover over the lock would obviously have to have a breakable panel to open it in an emergency. This would be no different to current CDL stock which has an emergency release behind glass or any modern automatic doors which have an emergency egress.

 

[Bill57p9]

It’s a shame the ‘Office of Rail and Road’ don’t pursue the same warpath towards road safety as they do heritage rail operations, if they did it might help reduce the average 2000 deaths a year on the UK’s road network.

Totally agree.
I'm not saying that rail safety is a bad idea at all, however the risk tolerance for road transport is a good order of magnitude greater. Even to the level that relatively low cost safety standards, such as seat belts, are not retrospectively applied.

 

[DarloRich]

And do you have any proof this is related? A document like this will presumably have taken several months to produce.

none - I just thought it was interesting and perhaps indicative of an enhanced ORR interest in heritage railways

There is one operator who only has themselves to blame but there are several others who have operated very responsibly without incident for years. The vast majority of railtour passengers I find are very well behaved nowadays.

It is tough on those who played fair but the rules were clear and exemptions were given. Those emptions were not complied with. The price of that must be paid.

It’s a shame the ‘Office of Rail and Road’ don’t pursue the same warpath towards road safety as they do heritage rail operations, if they did it might help reduce the average 2000 deaths a year on the UK’s road network.

that is just whataboutary and of no value in this debate. This about railways. What happens on the roads, in the air or on the sea is of no concern.

Its only an update on a previous document and its worth pointing out that West Coast aren't covered by this, they are a mainline TOC. The only heritage railway that has a licence to operate on the mainline are the NYMR who have just had their exemption from CDL extended by another 5 years (specifically for Grosmont to Whitby).

I posted it here as this is a thread about heritage lines but the points about WCRC and NYMR are noted.

 

[12C]

that is just whataboutary and of no value in this debate. This about railways. What happens on the roads, in the air or on the sea is of no concern.

I think it is of some relevance to the debate when the organisation responsible for enforcing these changes also assesses safety on the UK highway network. As mentioned above they are not forcing, for example, heritage coach operators to retrospectively add seatbelts or ABS to their vehicles, despite the risk of an accident on the road network being much higher.

 

[43096]

I am quite aware of ALARP, but I would argue that on rolling stock with no reliable electricity supply and no air supply, fitting power operated CDL may not fall under the category ‘reasonably practical’. Other operators who have fitted the system are only those with an onboard power supply (Hastings/Swanage) or those which always operate steam charters with a diesel in tow providing ETS (LSL). It is a different situation for a steam only operated service, and I think if the ORR do not give any leeway on this matter many such charters could cease to exist, which I think would be a shame.

You don't seem to understand the 'RP' bit (Reasonably Practicable). It is reasonably practicable for a train in the 21st century to have a suitable power supply, for example.

I also struggle to see where exactly the higher risk lies with a substantial manual bolt, accessible by staff only who are properly trained in its use, and window bars. We have already found in this thread that power operated CDL often unlocks the whole train on short platforms (with I guess the non platformed doors supervised by stewards) and will unlock all doors should the power supply shut down, which can be a regular occurrence with heritage traction, and the ORR seem to find this acceptable. Neither of these situations would occur with staff operated manual control.

As I have stated before, CDL can be fitted with SDO. The biggest risk - as we have seen with the Jacobite shambles - is around the competence of staff and their ability to apply the process robustly and constantly.

 

[eldomtom2]

none - I just thought it was interesting and perhaps indicative of an enhanced ORR interest in heritage railways

I don't think it does indicate that, the ORR have advocated safety management systems for heritage railways for a long time and obviously producing advice on the topic is part of that. I think you are just taking an opportunity to have a go at heritage railways.

 

[DarloRich]

I think it is of some relevance to the debate when the organisation responsible for enforcing these changes also assesses safety on the UK highway network. As mentioned above they are not forcing, for example, heritage coach operators to retrospectively add seatbelts or ABS to their vehicles, despite the risk of an accident on the road network being much higher.

I don't think it is fair comparison. For instance, I am not sure the ORR have that power in relation to roads. Aren't Local Authorities also responsible for road safety?

The ORR have also come the regulation of the roads late and without the kind of inherited and mature inspection structure and approach to safety that we have in relation to railways ( and airways and ships)

I don't think it does indicate that, the ORR have advocated safety management systems for heritage railways for a long time and obviously producing advice on the topic is part of that. I think you are just taking an opportunity to have a go at heritage railways.

ok - if that is what you want to think nothing will persuade you otherwise. It is incorrect btw but that doesn't matter. I really enjoy heritage railways but what will kill them is the kind of attitudes to safety shown by many posters in this thread.

The ORR gave the sector the benefit of the doubt in the shape of derogations to safety standards - You must see how finding out those derogations have been, allegedly, abused ( perhaps more than once) might annoy the ORR a tad! You really don't want to annoy the ORR. If you do you tend to pay the price.

 

[Bikeman78]

Plus that people want to be able to hear and smell the steam locomotive. Aircon coaches don't offer that. Though fitting hopper windows to Mk2 aircons is possible, the Virgin West Coast sets had a few per coach for the inevitable aircon failures.

Exactly. What's the point in travelling behind a steam loco in a sealed carriage? I haven't done a main line loco hauled railtour for over 10 years. I'd rather give my money to preserved lines.

 

[DarloRich]

Exactly. What's the point in travelling behind a steam loco in a sealed carriage?

to have a nice day out, visit somewhere new, a good meal, a few glasses of wine, look at the scenery and enjoy some pleasant company. Most people couldn't give a tinkers cuss about hearing a steam loco working!

PS - I appreciate that for posters here that is really important but it isn't for most people travelling imo.

 

[Bikeman78]

to have a nice day out, visit somewhere new, a good meal, a few glasses of wine, look at the scenery and enjoy some pleasant company. Most people couldn't give a tinkers cuss about hearing a steam loco working!

PS - I appreciate that for posters here that is really important but it isn't for most people travelling imo.

Fair enough, but then why bother hauling the train with a steam loco? Use a cheaper diesel instead. Anyway, I can think of better ways to have a day out than setting off at 5 am.

 

[DarloRich]

Fair enough, but then why bother hauling the train with a steam loco?

because that's what people want and will buy tickets for more often than they will for a diesel - I didn't say it was logical!

Anyway, I can think of better ways to have a day out than setting off at 5 am

that is better argument and one I can subscribe to!

 

[eldomtom2]

ok - if that is what you want to think nothing will persuade you otherwise. It is incorrect btw but that doesn't matter.

I'd believe that more if you didn't have a history of snideness towards enthusiasts, and not just in safety-related matters.

 

[cf111]

I note that WCRC are advertising for more stewards for the Jacobite. Could be connected, although perhaps not.

West Coast Railways - Careers

West Coast Railways - Careers - Recruitment - Apply online

westcoastrailways.co.uk