Is the ORR in any way obligated to carry out the recommendations or can they exercise their own judgment?
ORR is supposed to take economics as well as safety into account when enforcing changes, but usually doesn't. However they are generally quite reluctant to enforce anything directly - it's usually done by leaning on the industry members and the standards committee.
I'm sensing an interesting tale here, do tell!I assume you have never been on the receiving end of an orr enforcement notice then!
I assume you have never been on the receiving end of an orr enforcement notice then!
As it happens, no. They are actually called "Improvement Notices" and there aren't many of them - typically 10 to 15 a year, which isn't very many. And most are not linked to accidents investigated by RAIB. Separately, ORR follows up on and monitors compliance with the recommendations put on industry members by RAIB. Ultimately they can issue an improvement notice for a RAIB recommendation, but it doesn't seem to happen very often.
Have the issues that caused the doors to slam shut extra quick on networkers while sounding no hustle alarm been fixed yet?
Might be better to link to this version… it seems to take roughly a year for the ORR to proffer their reply.The ORR publishes its responses to RAIB recommendations every year, I believe. E.g.
https://orr.gov.uk/rail/health-and-...ecommendations/responses-to-raib-reports-2019
Yes, and the old way of preventing a hustle alarm has been fixed too.
The Wootton Bassett SPAD incident refers to a railway incident in the United Kingdom on 7 March 2015, where a steam-hauled charter train passed a signal at danger (SPAD) and subsequently came to a stand across a high-speed mainline junction. Another train, that had right of way, had passed through the junction 44 seconds earlier and no collision occurred nor was any damage done. The incident occurred near Wootton Bassett Junction, Wiltshire.
As a direct result of the incident Network Rail banned the train's operator, West Coast Railway Company (WCRC), from operating trains anywhere on the British railway network. The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) opened an investigation into the incident, which it called a "dangerous occurrence". The incident was rated the most serious SPAD in the United Kingdom since December 2010. Following improvements made by WCRC, the ban was lifted. A subsequent incident led to a further ban, which was later lifted.
In December 2015, the Office of Rail and Road initiated a prosecution against the driver of the train and WCRC for offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The case was heard in June 2016. Both WCRC and the driver of the train pleaded guilty. WCRC was fined £200,000 plus costs. The driver received a sentence of four months' imprisonment, suspended for eighteen months.
In May 2016, the RAIB published a report on the incident, which largely blamed the incident on the train crew tampering with a safety system that would otherwise have safely brought the train to a halt.
Recommendations are exactly that,
however if a party has received a recommendation, but it is not acted upon; a court would take a dim view of said party, if, there was a further incident for the same reason
In fact look at the final sections of most RAIB report, normally involved parties are falling over themselves to tell the RAIB they've implemented their recommendations before the recommendations were even recommended.
(speaking from the Maritime Sector) yes - they will have recommendation meetings with the *AIB ahead of publication of the reportsIs it fair to assume that the parties will know about the recommendations before the report is published?
however if a party has received a recommendation, but it is not acted upon; a court would take a dim view of said party, if, there was a further incident for the same reason