WCRC Exemption from CDL (central door locking) regulations until September

[anothertyke]

Problem is that the dispensation they had required them to do certain things to mitigate the risk, which they failed to do consistently, and were caught out by a spot check. So to some extent they are the architects of their own misfortune.

Are they? Let's suppose the spot check in the summer had found everything hunky dory. The ORR's decision making re CDL would have been just the same. The JR of that process would have been the same. The outcome will be the same because the JR is about process not facts. But what's true is that the lost revenue of what happened in the summer would have gone a bit of the way towards funding the CDL.

Once ORR decided to end the exemption for charters, the operators/owners had a choice. Vintage, LSL, Belmond and SRPS decided to comply. WCR decided to try to fight it. They have had their day in court and in a month we will know the verdict and in two months we will know the next steps.

 

[John R]

Are they? Let's suppose the spot check in the summer had found everything hunky dory. The ORR's decision making re CDL would have been just the same. The JR of that process would have been the same. The outcome will be the same because the JR is about process not facts. But what's true is that the lost revenue of what happened in the summer would have gone a bit of the way towards funding the CDL.

Once ORR decided to end the exemption for charters, the operators/owners had a choice. Vintage, LSL, Belmond and SRPS decided to comply. WCR decided to try to fight it. They have had their day in court and in a month we will know the verdict and in two months we will know the next steps.

Are you confident that as part of its evidence to the JR ORR has not mentioned the fact that WCR has shown itself to be complacent in terms of consistent implementation of the previously agreed mitigations? Leaving ORR no alternative but to move to a solution that doesn’t rely on WCR’s compliance on a day to day basis.

 

[anothertyke]

Are you confident that as part of its evidence to the JR ORR has not mentioned the fact that WCR has shown itself to be complacent in terms of consistent implementation of the previously agreed mitigations? Leaving ORR no alternative but to move to a solution that doesn’t rely on WCR’s compliance on a day to day basis.

Well I'm not a lawyer and I wasn't there and I haven't yet read any reports of the proceedings. So I know nothing.....

I'm fairly confident that (a) the JR outcome will turn on the legitimacy of the process by which ORR decided that the exemption should end and (b) the fact that the case reached the point of public hearing, unlike many JR applications, shows that there is a point of public interest at stake.

 

[12LDA28C]

Vintage, LSL, Belmond and SRPS decided to comply.

And how many of those operators now run trains fully fitted with CDL?

 

[anothertyke]

And how many of those operators now run trains fully fitted with CDL?

I think LSL do. I think the others all have a plan and an exemption during delivery.

 

[LUYMun]

And how many of those operators now run trains fully fitted with CDL?

It'd be more straightforward to mention which ones don't comply.

 

[renegademaster]

And yet those of us who know people that have died at work due to poor safety practices might regard cynicism about health and safety as misplaced.

This emotive jab doesn't work for this situation

People make the active choice for leisure purposes to get on heritage trains. Mabye the operators can make clearer the lesser safety of them compared to modern stock (but still contextualize it to the ultimately minuscule risk it is). At the end of the day the passengers of the Jacobite are not forced to ride it to make a living, it's people who want a fun day out and people do much more dangerous things for their day outs and nobody is suggesting we ban mountain bike tracks or trampoline parks

 

[1Q18]

This emotive jab doesn't work for this situation

People make the active choice for leisure purposes to get on heritage trains. Mabye the operators can make clearer the lesser safety of them compared to modern stock (but still contextualize it to the ultimately minuscule risk it is). At the end of the day the passengers of the Jacobite are not forced to ride it to make a living, it's people who want a fun day out and people do much more dangerous things for their day outs and nobody is suggesting we ban mountain bike tracks or trampoline parks

’This train may be hazardous to your health’. I’m sure publicising that would do wonders for the passenger numbers.

 

[SteveM70]

’This train may be hazardous to your health’. I’m sure publicising that would do wonders for the passenger numbers.

How about "driving to Fort William will be statistically more hazardous to your health than getting the Jacobite"?

 

[John R]

This emotive jab doesn't work for this situation

People make the active choice for leisure purposes to get on heritage trains. Mabye the operators can make clearer the lesser safety of them compared to modern stock (but still contextualize it to the ultimately minuscule risk it is). At the end of the day the passengers of the Jacobite are not forced to ride it to make a living, it's people who want a fun day out and people do much more dangerous things for their day outs and nobody is suggesting we ban mountain bike tracks or trampoline parks

People aren’t forced to go on a theme park ride either, but the argument “well you accepted the risk - tough” isn’t used when there is a serious accident or death.

 

[renegademaster]

People aren’t forced to go on a theme park ride either, but the argument “well you accepted the risk - tough” isn’t used when there is a serious accident or death.

They are still very profitable with their current level of regulation, heritage rail is starting to get very strained under the weight of it. I'm not saying that their isn't a place for safety regulations but it doesn't need to be taken to extent where their has to be absolutely zero chance of anything every going wrong otherwise we'd just be contained to padded rooms our whole lives

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are still very profitable with their current level of regulation, heritage rail is starting to get very strained under the weight of it. I'm not saying that their isn't a place for safety regulations but it doesn't need to be taken to extent where their has to be absolutely zero chance of anything every going wrong otherwise we'd just be contained to padded rooms our whole lives

There is a wider question when it comes to subsidised rail as to whether adding subsidy or increasing fares for increased safety can be justified, because if fares were lower fewer would go by car, and that subsidy might be better spent on improving a dangerous road junction or two. However this doesn't really apply to commercial leisure operations like this, and all that's being asked is to meet the standard mainline stock has met for 20+ years by installing central door locking.

 

[paul1609]

There is a wider question when it comes to subsidised rail as to whether adding subsidy or increasing fares for increased safety can be justified, because if fares were lower fewer would go by car, and that subsidy might be better spent on improving a dangerous road junction or two. However this doesn't really apply to commercial leisure operations like this, and all that's being asked is to meet the standard mainline stock has met for 20+ years by installing central door locking.

What would be really interesting to know is how many incidents there have been in those 20 years due to the lack of CDL and is there a sudden trend of the incidents worsening?

 

[anothertyke]

What would be really interesting to know is how many incidents there have been in those 20 years due to the lack of CDL and is there a sudden trend of the incidents worsening?

Happy to be corrected but having read hundreds of posts on three sites I haven't heard of a single case on the main line which CDL would have prevented. There have been deaths from leaning out of windows (Balham for example) and there have been injuries to people alighting on to the ramps at short platforms on heritage lines.

 

[jfollows]

Happy to be corrected but having read hundreds of posts on three sites I haven't heard of a single case on the main line which CDL would have prevented. There have been deaths from leaning out of windows (Balham for example) and there have been injuries to people alighting on to the ramps at short platforms on heritage lines.

I believe that it was originally introduced following a number of deaths on main line trains - WCML Trent Valley in particular - and the case for its introduction in terms of lives saved per £ spent was overwhelming at the time. I am of a generation accustomed to opening train doors before the train had stopped - but not when running at 100mph - and I agree that the risk was low, but wasn’t zero, and if you justify safety improvements according to a metric of cost-effectiveness then it was an obvious prime case.

 

[anothertyke]

I believe that it was originally introduced following a number of deaths on main line trains - WCML Trent Valley in particular - and the case for its introduction in terms of lives saved per £ spent was overwhelming at the time. I am of a generation accustomed to opening train doors before the train had stopped - but not when running at 100mph - and I agree that the risk was low, but wasn’t zero, and if you justify safety improvements according to a metric of cost-effectiveness then it was an obvious prime case.

Thanks. Do you have any references to reports or analysis? Looking through the railway inspectorate list for that time, they don't seem to have investigated that type of accident.

 

[snowball]

I believe that it was originally introduced following a number of deaths on main line trains - WCML Trent Valley in particular

I seem to remember reading about 40 years ago that there were a number of deaths of people falling out of trains in the Trent Valley area. It was suggested that it was the right distance from London for people on Friday evening trains out of Euston to have got drunk in the buffet and opened an outside door in mistake for the door to the toilet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I seem to remember reading about 40 years ago that there were a number of deaths of people falling out of trains in the Trent Valley area. It was suggested that it was the right distance from London for people on Friday evening trains out of Euston to have got drunk in the buffet and opened an outside door in mistake for the door to the toilet.

Though that is rather far fetched when you consider that you have to lean out of the window to do it. There were also theories that bodyside distortion was causing it if I recall.

 

[43096]

I seem to remember reading about 40 years ago that there were a number of deaths of people falling out of trains in the Trent Valley area. It was suggested that it was the right distance from London for people on Friday evening trains out of Euston to have got drunk in the buffet and opened an outside door in mistake for the door to the toilet.

How do you open a window, reach out, push the handle down and push the door open, rather than just opening the toilet door - even when drunk?

 

[mjc]

They are still very profitable with their current level of regulation, heritage rail is starting to get very strained under the weight of it. I'm not saying that their isn't a place for safety regulations but it doesn't need to be taken to extent where their has to be absolutely zero chance of anything every going wrong otherwise we'd just be contained to padded rooms our whole lives

It’s not about zero chance, but it’s about ‘As low as reasonably practicable’ which is a principle long enshrined in our health and safety law. That doesn’t mean ‘as low as possible’ or ‘at all costs’ but it means that the organisation has to show that they’ve taken all reasonable steps and that any steps they haven’t taken as disproportionate to the risk.
And risk isn’t about actual occurrence; just because something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it can’t in the future. If ORR allowed WCRC an exemption and there was a fatal injury then I expect that ORR and WCRC would find themselves before the coroner and quite possibly a criminal court (with the family and friends of the deceased looking on) trying to explain why central door locking wasn’t reasonably practicable. I really don’t blame ORR for their stance.

 

[jfollows]

Thanks. Do you have any references to reports or analysis? Looking through the railway inspectorate list for that time, they don't seem to have investigated that type of accident.

No.
As you've probably guessed, I was relying on the (fallible) Mark 1 memory, but it's now been partly substantiated by others' comments.
If I'd had any references, I'd have included them, I'm sure!
I'm also unsure as to whether these sorts of incidents would have led to a formal report at the time.

 

[Killingworth]

In Mk 1 days and earlier each suburban compartment had 2 doors. Of course it waa dangerous when they all opened before the train came to a halt in terminal stations. In films people would climb out of one and into the next while in transit- or leap onto the embankment and walk away with hardly a scratch.

How times have changed. It's no longer necessary to wrestle with old leather straps to lower windows. That's part of a nostalgic experience for me but a nightmare for my wife when she travelled alone.

If mainline operation is to contine heritage stock must be made as compliant with modern requirements as possible. If they aren't trip and slip lawyers will have a field day if there should be any accident. If oither operators have done so West Coast would be more vulnerable.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

Passenger Falls From Train Doors: Report of an HSE Investigation perhaps this 1993 report will set the regulatory scene

Passenger falls from trains, when considered against the extremely large number of passenger journeys made on the British Rail network, are relatively rare. But they represent the single most significant cause of passenger fatalities in the railway industry at present.

 

[anothertyke]

Passenger Falls From Train Doors: Report of an HSE Investigation perhaps this 1993 report will set the regulatory scene

Thanks. Chapter 6 is an interesting read.

 

[jfollows]

Thanks. Chapter 6 is an interesting read.

Indeed.
270 incidents over 8 years, of which 155 were fatalaties.

 

[3RDGEN]

WCRC appear to be making the argument that the measures they have in place, secondary door locks and stewards in each coach, replicate those that CDL provides in reducing the risk of passengers accessing/falling out of doors on the move. Given tours are fully booked without standees it's not like the old mainline situation were passengers stood next to and lent on slam doors routinely without supervision. So do you continue with the current measures, fully enforced, or spend millions on a CDL system that gives little benefit over the current situation, the court will decide.

 

[31160]

WCRC appear to be making the argument that the measures they have in place, secondary door locks and stewards in each coach, replicate those that CDL provides in reducing the risk of passengers accessing/falling out of doors on the move. Given tours are fully booked without standees it's not like the old mainline situation were passengers stood next to and lent on slam doors routinely without supervision. So do you continue with the current measures, fully enforced, or spend millions on a CDL system that gives little benefit over the current situation, the court will decide.

The problem is that it isn't being fully enforced though, how many times do WCRC have to be caught doing something they shouldn't be doing before someone dies

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is that it isn't being fully enforced though, how many times do WCRC have to be caught doing something they shouldn't be doing before someone dies

It's also not "fail safe" in that there's nothing to specifically stop a passenger opening a bolt while a steward goes to the toilet or something.

Would an acceptable option be replacing the bolts with a lock requiring a key and including an emergency release handle behind glass? That would seem to stop abuse, and could include a window lock too. And the steward would just unlock it. Could also mean a need for fewer stewards.

 

[D365]

Presumably on a "first they came for the local doors" basis. The railway is going to keep inventing regulations until running a heritage operation is impractical so the more that can be done to slow them down the better from WCR's point of view.

Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your view as to what the railways are for.

See below:

And it's hardly like it was the first time WCRC were shown to not be in complete compliance with the rules. The fact they were given any dispensations at all given their past record suggests that the much maligned Health & Safety brigade were actually being more than reasonable.

The problem is that it isn't being fully enforced though, how many times do WCRC have to be caught doing something they shouldn't be doing before someone dies

Don't tell me what's next... ETCS is being rolled out with the specific intention of getting in the way of charter operations?

 

[D6130]

Though that is rather far fetched when you consider that you have to lean out of the window to do it. There were also theories that bodyside distortion was causing it if I recall.

Until about 40-50 years ago most - if not all - Mark 1 and earlier coaching stock had sliding internal door opening catches....in fact, IIRC, the Southern Region 4-VEP (class 423) units had them right up to the end.