WCRC loses judicial review in High Court

[Dai Corner]

Full Waveform Inversion - any better, polite, ideas?

Viridien: Seismic Full-Waveform Inversion (FWI)

Full-Waveform Inversion (FWI) accurately computes highly detailed, data-driven models of subsurface velocity, absorption and reflectivity for use in seismic imaging and interpretation.

www.cgg.com

Fatalities and Weighted Injuries.

 

[The Puddock]

More info on FWI with a worked example (looking at trespass rather than door locking).

 

[robert thomas]

In fairness to West Coast this retrospective legislation does contrast with the position on the roads where, for instance, older cars predating searbelt legislation are not required to be retrospectively fitted with them and are still legal to drive

 

[snookertam]

I took this as WCRC hinting that the taxpayer, or the shopkeepers and caterers of Mallaig, might like to chip in?

If so, that’s outrageous.

Also, didn’t know there were so many experts on the economy of Mallaig on here. Seems to be a lot of wishful thinking that much of that part of the west coast of Scotland’s appeal is because of a steam train. Nae bother.

 

[357]

In fairness to West Coast this retrospective legislation does contrast with the position on the roads where, for instance, older cars predating searbelt legislation are not required to be retrospectively fitted with them and are still legal to drive

I think if going to be used for comparison, we need to be looking at private hire and commercial use laws. Not many people own their own train and use it as a personal vehicle.

 

[renegademaster]

I think if going to be used for comparison, we need to be looking at private hire and commercial use laws. Not many people own their own train and use it as a personal vehicle.

Theirs old routemasters with open backs still operating commercially

 

[Bill57p9]

I am presuming Fatalities & Weighted Injuries, i.e. a measure of how many fatalities (and injuries weighted to give a single figure) would be predicted over the same duration with the "do nothing" option. And I do get the point that it can be argued that stewards are not a "do nothing" option but another option that could be scored in the same way.

Need to remember that heritage rail is primarily about keeping something alive that would otherwise be lost, rather than primarily making profit in the traditional business sense.

Agreed, though heritage rail will only survive where it is financially viable in some way. That can be through benefactors rather than operating costs Vs revenue (e.g. LSL) but the point still stands.

It should also be acknowledged that there is a substantial gulf between a low speed heritage rail operation and heritage sharing high speed main line metals. WCRC's derogation covers their entire operation up to 95mph, not just the relatively slow speed, 3 station Jacobite which is closer in principle to the NYMR Whitby operation.

 

[3RDGEN]

If so, that’s outrageous.

Also, didn’t know there were so many experts on the economy of Mallaig on here. Seems to be a lot of wishful thinking that much of that part of the west coast of Scotland’s appeal is because of a steam train. Nae bother.

In the court case WCRC claimed; "The Jacobite contributes £19.3m a year to the Scottish economy on top of £4.72m in ticket revenue from 101,429 passenger journeys". You would assume most of that goes into the Fort William / Mallaig area.

"https://news.stv.tv/scotland/hogwarts-express-operator-loses-high-court-challenge-over-door-safety".

There's also the loss of Track Access payments to Network Rail to consider if the service isn't replaced. WCTC must contribute a large part of the total for the Mallaig branch compared to ScotRail light weight units, then again a less wear and tear on the track will occur so less maintenance/renewals will be required going forward.

 

[Titfield]

I don't see the use in such vague speculation.

It may be vague in terms of timing but I think it is inevitable. Legislation, particularly H and S legislation, has become far more onerous over time. You only have to consider how many business owners have sold up citing bureaucracy or legislation as a factor in their decision, to see the trend developing.

Prudent Heritage Railway Boards would be asking the question how can we manage this risk to our business? Can we , with others, collaborate on developing a workable system for installing cdl on Mk 1 coaches? Can we introduce a rolling programme to install on our fleet over say 7 years?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am presuming Fatalities & Weighted Injuries, i.e. a measure of how many fatalities (and injuries weighted to give a single figure) would be predicted over the same duration with the "do nothing" option. And I do get the point that it can be argued that stewards are not a "do nothing" option but another option that could be scored in the same way.

Agreed, though heritage rail will only survive where it is financially viable in some way. That can be through benefactors rather than operating costs Vs revenue (e.g. LSL) but the point still stands.

It should also be acknowledged that there is a substantial gulf between a low speed heritage rail operation and heritage sharing high speed main line metals. WCRC's derogation covers their entire operation up to 95mph, not just the relatively slow speed, 3 station Jacobite which is closer in principle to the NYMR Whitby operation.

I don't know about Whitby, but fitting CDL to their DMU was necessary for the Swanage Wareham operation.

 

[Townsend Hook]

It may be vague in terms of timing but I think it is inevitable. Legislation, particularly H and S legislation, has become far more onerous over time. You only have to consider how many business owners have sold up citing bureaucracy or legislation as a factor in their decision, to see the trend developing.

Prudent Heritage Railway Boards would be asking the question how can we manage this risk to our business? Can we , with others, collaborate on developing a workable system for installing cdl on Mk 1 coaches? Can we introduce a rolling programme to install on our fleet over say 7 years?

I think heritage railway management have enough financial challenges on their plates as it is right now without creating fictional future legislation to try and comply with.

It will never happen but even if such regulations were to be introduced then overnight compliance would not be required (the regulations pertinent to this case have been in force for nearly a quarter of a century, after all), simply because it would shut down every heritage railway in an instant and many would not be able to reopen. It is a truly ludicrous scenario to propose and it is most certainly not the foregone conclusion that some on this thread seem to think.

 

[30907]

And I do get the point that it can be argued that stewards are not a "do nothing" option but another option that could be scored in the same way.

....allowing for their proven fallibility, which is a significant factor AIUI in this case.

It should also be acknowledged that there is a substantial gulf between a low speed heritage rail operation and heritage sharing high speed main line metals. WCRC's derogation covers their entire operation up to 95mph, not just the relatively slow speed, 3 station Jacobite which is closer in principle to the NYMR Whitby operation.

The risk of being injured by a door opened prematurely as the train enters the platform at 20mph is the same, even if someone falling from the train might survive at 40mph but not 95.

It may be vague in terms of timing but I think it is inevitable. Legislation, particularly H and S legislation, has become far more onerous over time.
Prudent Heritage Railway Boards would be asking the question how can we manage this risk to our business? Can we , with others, collaborate on developing a workable system for installing cdl on Mk 1 coaches? Can we introduce a rolling programme to install on our fleet over say 7 years?

The ban on slam doors was more a result of public/media concern than the application of existing legislation IIRC.
HRA members will be concerned about an equivalent issue leading to widespread negative publicity. Failure to platform trains correctly, leading to falls, is one topic I am aware of, for example.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

In the court case WCRC claimed; "The Jacobite contributes £19.3m a year to the Scottish economy on top of £4.72m in ticket revenue from 101,429 passenger journeys". You would assume most of that goes into the Fort William / Mallaig area.

...and if the stated profit figure of £1 million on the Jacobite is wholly accurate, that means their profit margin is around £10 per passenger.

Any suggestion by WCRC that anyone other than themselves should be paying towards the fitting costs is just taking the mickey.

 

[Killingworth]

...and if the stated profit figure of £1 million on the Jacobite is wholly accurate, that means their profit margin is around £10 per passenger.

Any suggestion by WCRC that anyone other than themselves should be paying towards the fitting costs is just taking the mickey.

The word 'profit' is used in many scenarios. When a business finally goes bust it's normally found that figures had been massaged for different purposes not least PR. Usually by that time anyone regularly trading with them knows the truth but is then in too deep to escape the financial fallout.

 

[Titfield]

I don't know about Whitby, but fitting CDL to their DMU was necessary for the Swanage Wareham operation.

Because the service ran over network rail "metals" from Worgret Junction to Wareham.

....allowing for their proven fallibility, which is a significant factor AIUI in this case.

The risk of being injured by a door opened prematurely as the train enters the platform at 20mph is the same, even if someone falling from the train might survive at 40mph but not 95.

The ban on slam doors was more a result of public/media concern than the application of existing legislation IIRC.
HRA members will be concerned about an equivalent issue leading to widespread negative publicity. Failure to platform trains correctly, leading to falls, is one topic I am aware of, for example.

Going slightly off topic but who 12 months ago had heard of, let alone had concerns about, XL Bully Dogs.

When the media gets hold of an issue a chain of events can be started with consequences unimaginable at the time of the first report.

 

[eldomtom2]

Prudent Heritage Railway Boards would be asking the question how can we manage this risk to our business? Can we , with others, collaborate on developing a workable system for installing cdl on Mk 1 coaches? Can we introduce a rolling programme to install on our fleet over say 7 years?

Prudent heritage railway boards would presumably first be asking whether CDL requirements are actually the most likely new safety requirements to be introduced.

 

[Titfield]

Prudent heritage railway boards would presumably first be asking whether CDL requirements are actually the most likely new safety requirements to be introduced.

There may well be others and that is for a prudent heritage railway board to consider.

Perhaps tanking of toilets may turn out to be the topic that comes to the fore.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There may well be others and that is for a prudent heritage railway board to consider.

Perhaps tanking of toilets may turn out to be the topic that comes to the fore.

Probably more likely preserved railways would just do away with on board toilets as journeys are very short and stations pretty much always have them.

 

[Titfield]

Probably more likely preserved railways would just do away with on board toilets as journeys are very short and stations pretty much always have them.

Thanks that has been mooted on the line I know best. I understand that the "barrier" to this are Santa Specials and similar events where the children are on the train for C1 hour and can have need of a toilet.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Probably more likely preserved railways would just do away with on board toilets as journeys are very short and stations pretty much always have them.

What's the journey distance (and lavvy provision) on the Jacobite? 41 miles each way, isn't it? Certainly expect something for a £65 day return.

 

[12LDA28C]

The somewhat related question - does this sound the end of vacuum-braked stock and locomotives on the main line? Or are we now likely to see the reemergence of the ‘generator car’ to provide power for a CDL system.

I imagine Jeremy Hoskins will be having a very merry Christmas this year, having just seen his principal market competitor severely hamstrung - presumably this outcome is what LSL/Saphos were hoping for when they brought the original complaint to ORR. (Call me cynical)

Vintage appear to have a plan to fit CDL to their stock and they run vac-braked trains so I don't see why this should spell the end of vacuum-braked operation on the main line.

 

[island]

What's the journey distance (and lavvy provision) on the Jacobite? 41 miles each way, isn't it? Certainly expect something for a £65 day return.

They have toilets on board which are unlocked once the train sets off.

 

[12LDA28C]

I do as well. It's now time WCRC got together with other heritage operations to design a system workable on vacuum braked coaches.

Surely Vintage already have such a design and have informed the ORR of their intention to fit it.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm far from convinced that any heritage operate needs to alarm themselves unduly. The ORR are almost certain to want them to do it eventually but one thing that comes across clearly from the judgement is that the ORR don't want to drive anyone out of business to comply. They appear quite willing to grant extensions to any deadlines where there is a planned scheme of a work with a fixed end date. If WCRC had been applying for an extension on the basis that they needed more time to fit their stock because they had a scheme but it was taking longer than expected, they needed to spread it out over another season for financial reasons, or similar I would not be at all surprised to discover the ORR would have looked favourably on that. Instead WCRC seem to have taken the view that they should be exempt, completely, from any requirement whatsoever. I would suggest a heritage railway with an eye on the future should start thinking about coming up with scheme to fit their stock with CDL over the next few years or so. Then when the ORR do start making moves in the direction of requiring it on heritage operations they'll already been in a strong position. Particularly if financial or practical considerations mean they need to ask for a bit more time to fit their fleet.

Nothing I've read suggests that this is the death knell for heritage operations or indeed mainline railtours.

 

[43096]

The word 'profit' is used in many scenarios. When a business finally goes bust it's normally found that figures had been massaged for different purposes not least PR. Usually by that time anyone regularly trading with them knows the truth but is then in too deep to escape the financial fallout.

Businesses don’t go bust through lack of profit. It’s cash (or lack of) that does for them.

Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, cash is reality.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm far from convinced that any heritage operate needs to alarm themselves unduly. The ORR are almost certain to want them to do it eventually but one thing that comes across clearly from the judgement is that the ORR don't want to drive anyone out of business to comply. They appear quite willing to grant extensions to any deadlines where there is a planned scheme of a work with a fixed end date. If WCRC had been applying for an extension on the basis that they needed more time to fit their stock because they had a scheme but it was taking longer than expected, they needed to spread it out over another season for financial reasons, or similar I would not be at all surprised to discover the ORR would have looked favourably on that. Instead WCRC seem to have taken the view that they should be exempt, completely, from any requirement whatsoever. I would suggest a heritage railway with an eye on the future should start thinking about coming up with scheme to fit their stock with CDL over the next few years or so. Then when the ORR do start making moves in the direction of requiring it on heritage operations they'll already been in a strong position. Particularly if financial or practical considerations mean they need to ask for a bit more time to fit their fleet.

Nothing I've read suggests that this is the death knell for heritage operations or indeed mainline railtours.

Balanced and sensible. I would only add, and this is where WCRC fell down, that having sensible well-balanced and provable interim mitigation plans would be a must.

 

[StephenHunter]

Nothing I've read suggests that this is the death knell for heritage operations or indeed mainline railtours.

The Mark 2fs and Mark 3s already have CDL. The Mark 1s must be getting a bit long in the tooth now; how easier is it to get/make new parts for them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Mark 2fs and Mark 3s already have CDL. The Mark 1s must be getting a bit long in the tooth now; how easier is it to get/make new parts for them.

Pretty easy, they're old heavy engineering, any decent shop can fabricate parts.

 

[Wolfie]

Businesses don’t go bust through lack of profit. It’s cash (or lack of) that does for them.

Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, cash is reality.

Cash flow is absolutely key.

 

[Dave S 56F]

It's not exactly as if 10A don't keep the M.K.1 fleet in clean good working order cos they do they have crash strengthening pillars in each coach.
the vac brakes and wheelsets on carnforths fleet are in good condition not sure if carnforth have a wheel lathe for carriage wheel flats. (think they do)
The lighting and toilets are upgraded with retention tanks in carnforths carriages although lights work on dynamo and D.C. batteries the carriage steel work on most of the carriages at carnforth are not corroded and cleanly polished in maroon.
the only big snag now for the carnforth carriage fleet is do the engineers and W.C.R.C. have a sustainable and affordable plan to fit all their rakes of carriage fleet out with C.D.L. the O.R.R. can agree on the big question?