amigacooke
Well-known member
Which government transport ministers, that is, are they still in post after the reshuffle?
West Coast Railways Banned Again from UK Rail Network.
- Thread starter wholbr
- Start date
Hi amigacooke and everybody.
A good question there amicooke. I do not know if Britain has a rail minister at the moment as Claire Perry was asked by the new Theresa May led goverment to remain in that position. However as you probably know she decided to resign after the government was fully set up due probably over the well publicised problems with Southern Rail in your neck of the woods.
I am engaged with lobby group as I have offered my services drawn from my industrial safety background. However the group is being headed up by a barrister and several solicitors (freely offering their servises) who are at this time sorting out the meetings with whatever transport ministers are in position and the office of the rail and road regulater.
In the above, I am not involved much at the moment, but I am hoping to be at a later stage if it gets that far.
Bill
A good question there amicooke. I do not know if Britain has a rail minister at the moment as Claire Perry was asked by the new Theresa May led goverment to remain in that position. However as you probably know she decided to resign after the government was fully set up due probably over the well publicised problems with Southern Rail in your neck of the woods.
I am engaged with lobby group as I have offered my services drawn from my industrial safety background. However the group is being headed up by a barrister and several solicitors (freely offering their servises) who are at this time sorting out the meetings with whatever transport ministers are in position and the office of the rail and road regulater.
In the above, I am not involved much at the moment, but I am hoping to be at a later stage if it gets that far.
Bill
Last edited:
amigacooke
Well-known member
You mention that the lobby group is seeking to have discussions on 'the unrestricted use of heritage locomotives and rolling stock on Britain's mainline network'. I was under the impression that steam locomotives work under gauging and speed restrictions when on network rail.
Hi amigacooke and everybody.
amigacooke, the lobby group are to question the "general unrestricted running" of heritage consists on the mainline which are of coarse subject to schedule and technical limitation as any other service would be. The progress has been so far that the lobby group has got itself registered and a letter has been sent to the Department of Transport with copy to the Office of Rail and Road generally outlining the concerns of the group in regard to Heritage use on the mainline.
The department replied quite promptly requesting a meeting with representatives of the group suggesting that this could be held in the autumn. The procedure will be then (as I understand it) that the representatives from the department and the Office of Road and rail will listen to the points made by the lobby group and if they feel they are in anyway valid, ask the group to forward a detailed citation of their concerns and how they feel they could be addressed.
The above citation will then be considered by both departments and if agreed by both that the concerns have grounds for a change in legislation or Network Rail operating procedure then the first steps could be made in parliament or within the the rail regulation structure for those changes to be made. I would emphasise that everything is at the very first stages of the foregoing procedure, but it is underway.
The lobby group is not looking at a complete ban on mainline running by heritage units, but that they should not be allowed to run on the East and West coast mainlines, the Great western mainline along with heavily used commuter routes around major cities in the south east, north west and north east. The group is suggesting that full regular Heritage services should be granted in areas such as Cornwall and North west Wales all year round which would boost tourism in these economically depressed areas.
The lobby group members who will be attending the first meeting with the transport department and rail authorities are all full time members of the legal profession, but also more importantly registered members of IOSH and NEBOSH, the two leading industrial safety bodies in the UK.
Should be a good meeting,
Bill
amigacooke, the lobby group are to question the "general unrestricted running" of heritage consists on the mainline which are of coarse subject to schedule and technical limitation as any other service would be. The progress has been so far that the lobby group has got itself registered and a letter has been sent to the Department of Transport with copy to the Office of Rail and Road generally outlining the concerns of the group in regard to Heritage use on the mainline.
The department replied quite promptly requesting a meeting with representatives of the group suggesting that this could be held in the autumn. The procedure will be then (as I understand it) that the representatives from the department and the Office of Road and rail will listen to the points made by the lobby group and if they feel they are in anyway valid, ask the group to forward a detailed citation of their concerns and how they feel they could be addressed.
The above citation will then be considered by both departments and if agreed by both that the concerns have grounds for a change in legislation or Network Rail operating procedure then the first steps could be made in parliament or within the the rail regulation structure for those changes to be made. I would emphasise that everything is at the very first stages of the foregoing procedure, but it is underway.
The lobby group is not looking at a complete ban on mainline running by heritage units, but that they should not be allowed to run on the East and West coast mainlines, the Great western mainline along with heavily used commuter routes around major cities in the south east, north west and north east. The group is suggesting that full regular Heritage services should be granted in areas such as Cornwall and North west Wales all year round which would boost tourism in these economically depressed areas.
The lobby group members who will be attending the first meeting with the transport department and rail authorities are all full time members of the legal profession, but also more importantly registered members of IOSH and NEBOSH, the two leading industrial safety bodies in the UK.
Should be a good meeting,
Bill
Last edited:
BLACKWATCH
Mechanical Engineer
If some of these people in the 'lobby group' had their way, they would try to ban the loco fireman from farting on the footplate, in case he set fire to his overalls. 
cyberdongreen
AKA: cyberdonblue
:hehe::hehe::hehe: I agree entirely, Blackwatch. There are too many Solicitors and Barristers poking their noses into everything these days. They think the World revolves around them. In reality they are very dangerous people. Just look at some of their practices and how they've lobbied to have the law changed to such a degree that nowadays, if you set foot in a courtromm, you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. Smiling assassins, every one of them, and money is their god.
Most of the British Parliament is made up of ex-lawyers, and we Brits know what a shambles that place is (and what a bunch of crooks most of 'em are with their expenses claims.) You can lobby all you like, my friend, but unless you've got millions to grease a few palms you're getting nowhere.
Dave
Most of the British Parliament is made up of ex-lawyers, and we Brits know what a shambles that place is (and what a bunch of crooks most of 'em are with their expenses claims.) You can lobby all you like, my friend, but unless you've got millions to grease a few palms you're getting nowhere.
Dave
captainkman
You are reading this.
Hehe... I've seen that before.
In all seriousness though. This occurred over here with the bloody insurance companies and lawyers. The local Wolfeboro Railroad, which ran a beautifully restored B&M steam engine and a string of cars over the former B&M Sandborne to Wolfeboro branch in New Hampshire between the two namesake towns.
The companies insurance premiums jacked up suddenly due to no reason at all other than to raise them as that was the thing to do, and sadly the company had to shutdown its popular route. Today the line is mothballed by the state with no plans of operating it other than by a few speeders which run on it as part of a club.
In all seriousness though. This occurred over here with the bloody insurance companies and lawyers. The local Wolfeboro Railroad, which ran a beautifully restored B&M steam engine and a string of cars over the former B&M Sandborne to Wolfeboro branch in New Hampshire between the two namesake towns.
The companies insurance premiums jacked up suddenly due to no reason at all other than to raise them as that was the thing to do, and sadly the company had to shutdown its popular route. Today the line is mothballed by the state with no plans of operating it other than by a few speeders which run on it as part of a club.
Hi everybody.
Doubtless with his qualifications he could have received much higher fees for his services representing the rich and powerful in the high or appeal courts in cases such as “degradation of character” or their divorce settlements from their third or fourth wife or likewise.
I have met the above Barrister in person several times by way of my long involvement in industrial safety and their is no one I have greater respect for throughout British industry or the UK court system when it comes to representation of ordinary working people with their backs pushed up against the wall. As he is always heard to be joking by stating “the Trades Unions are the worst payers in the legal profession, if you can ever get your money at all”. He has offered his services for free to the lobby group, therefore money is most definitely not his priority in this representation.
As in all trades and professions cyberdongreen, there are both good and bad, competent and incompetent, grabbers and givers. Therefore best practise is to “not tar all with the same brush”. Also in regards to the foregoing, one of the solicitors involved in heading up the lobby group also works full time for a trade union defending employees in their workplaces. Someone else no doubt who could receive a much higher salary and easier life in the property transfer market or likewise.
In regards to your above remarks cyberdongreen on the British parliamentary system, well, it certainly has its faults. However it is all that stands between this population and anarchy. Parliament defends what freedoms we have by way of the legislation it lays down for police and other bodies to follow. Perhaps cyberdongreen you feel that Britain would be better off under the governance and loving care of North Korea's “leader” Kim jong-un or other such similar regime. It has often been stated that “democracy is a poor system of government, but all the others are far worse”.
Also in the above (and to bring the thread back on topic) since the mid 1980s successive Governments of the above parliament have continuously invested Billions of pounds into the UK's rail infrastructure giving this population one of the greatest passenger systems in the world. We can all argue in regard to what part of the country should have the largest share of that investment or what equipment should be allowed to run on the network.
However in the above Britain's railways are there and widely used whatever the problems. The foregoing was brought about by the UKs parliamentary system, and I for one among many millions find myself very thankful.
Bill
Cyberdongreen, in regard to the barrister heading up the lobby group I referred to in my posting at #102 of this thread, I would wish to give forum the background of that person. He has spent almost all of his career since qualification being engaged in representing workers who have incurred workplace injury or unfair dismissal at the hands of their employers. He carries out the foregoing by way of representation of those workers in the industrial or civil courts of Great Britain at the behest of those employees or former employees Trades unions.
Doubtless with his qualifications he could have received much higher fees for his services representing the rich and powerful in the high or appeal courts in cases such as “degradation of character” or their divorce settlements from their third or fourth wife or likewise.
I have met the above Barrister in person several times by way of my long involvement in industrial safety and their is no one I have greater respect for throughout British industry or the UK court system when it comes to representation of ordinary working people with their backs pushed up against the wall. As he is always heard to be joking by stating “the Trades Unions are the worst payers in the legal profession, if you can ever get your money at all”. He has offered his services for free to the lobby group, therefore money is most definitely not his priority in this representation.
As in all trades and professions cyberdongreen, there are both good and bad, competent and incompetent, grabbers and givers. Therefore best practise is to “not tar all with the same brush”. Also in regards to the foregoing, one of the solicitors involved in heading up the lobby group also works full time for a trade union defending employees in their workplaces. Someone else no doubt who could receive a much higher salary and easier life in the property transfer market or likewise.
In regards to your above remarks cyberdongreen on the British parliamentary system, well, it certainly has its faults. However it is all that stands between this population and anarchy. Parliament defends what freedoms we have by way of the legislation it lays down for police and other bodies to follow. Perhaps cyberdongreen you feel that Britain would be better off under the governance and loving care of North Korea's “leader” Kim jong-un or other such similar regime. It has often been stated that “democracy is a poor system of government, but all the others are far worse”.
Also in the above (and to bring the thread back on topic) since the mid 1980s successive Governments of the above parliament have continuously invested Billions of pounds into the UK's rail infrastructure giving this population one of the greatest passenger systems in the world. We can all argue in regard to what part of the country should have the largest share of that investment or what equipment should be allowed to run on the network.
However in the above Britain's railways are there and widely used whatever the problems. The foregoing was brought about by the UKs parliamentary system, and I for one among many millions find myself very thankful.
Bill
Last edited:
amigacooke
Well-known member
I hope that extends to operators of heritage locomotives and rolling stock.
borderreiver
Well-known member
The Train Operating Companies in the UK which have charter/heritage trains as part of their business have significant challenges to overcome in order to run their trains on the regular UK network. The administrative burden is immense, paths are becoming hard to secure and, as the operators of A1 pacific Tornado recently found out, something can come out of a clear blue sky to stop them running. A software bug de-registered them from the network and because the onboard computer did a "HAL9000" on them, refusing them access to the network from the sidings at York they could not do anything about hauling their booked train to London.
In the longer term the decision by Network Rail to move towards demanding retention toilets will either limit the numbers of coaches available to charters or drive prices up. I feel that issues surrounding coaching stock have been the elephant in the room for some time. MK1 slam door stock was removed from main line service a decade ago on grounds related to crashworthiness and slam door safety, so it makes it a tough call to consider making engineering upgrades regarding retention toilets on vehicles that might only have a short service life if Network Rail decide to embargo MK1s from operating on the UK network. Had the West Coast SPAD (Signal Passed At Danger) incident resulted in a collision with the HST then we might have already been in a place with a Mk1 ban now.
Safety Cases by TOCs like West Coast will inevitably have to take coaching stock health and safety in to consideration when wanting to operate. If there is an incident which leads to fatalities, then it will be right at the top of the list for enforcing. Purists might wail at the idea of steam locomotives hauling MK3 coaches but unless someone pays a hell of a lot of money to build "retro" style coaches that meet crashworthiness standards, while having automatic doors and retention toilets, then hauling MK3s modified with retention toilets will likely be the only option for main line steam within a decade.
In the longer term the decision by Network Rail to move towards demanding retention toilets will either limit the numbers of coaches available to charters or drive prices up. I feel that issues surrounding coaching stock have been the elephant in the room for some time. MK1 slam door stock was removed from main line service a decade ago on grounds related to crashworthiness and slam door safety, so it makes it a tough call to consider making engineering upgrades regarding retention toilets on vehicles that might only have a short service life if Network Rail decide to embargo MK1s from operating on the UK network. Had the West Coast SPAD (Signal Passed At Danger) incident resulted in a collision with the HST then we might have already been in a place with a Mk1 ban now.
Safety Cases by TOCs like West Coast will inevitably have to take coaching stock health and safety in to consideration when wanting to operate. If there is an incident which leads to fatalities, then it will be right at the top of the list for enforcing. Purists might wail at the idea of steam locomotives hauling MK3 coaches but unless someone pays a hell of a lot of money to build "retro" style coaches that meet crashworthiness standards, while having automatic doors and retention toilets, then hauling MK3s modified with retention toilets will likely be the only option for main line steam within a decade.
Hi amigacooke and Everybody.
(1) Heritage diesel locomotives. Concerns limited to nothing else but performance issues when operating on High density traffic mainlines (East coast, West coast and Great Western etc.
(2) Heritage Rolling Stock. Concerns and issues in regards to Health & safety matters (see Borderrevivers excellent posting at #112 of this thread)
(3) Heritage steam locomotives. Concerns in regards to safe operation on high volume traffic mainlines especially in dark and poor weather conditions due to the limited visibility from the footplate of these locomotives. Concerns also in regards to Performance issues again on high traffic volume mainlines.
In the above (1,3), it has to be remembered that it was the limited performance of the locomotive “Tangmere” that placed the very high stress factor to remain on schedule on the driver of the heritage tour consist involved in the Wotton Basset Spad.
As the high court judge hearing the Spad case commented, the driver held a perfect 30 year plus safety record prior to the incident. However the above stress made him make a series of unsound and hazardous decisions which at its conclusion severely endangered the nearly eight hundred passengers and crew on both trains.
Bill
Amigacooke, I would entirely agree with your above comment and hopes. I believe that in the initial meeting with the Department of Transport Ministers and representatives from The Office of Road Rail the lobby group will break down their concerns into three groups.
(1) Heritage diesel locomotives. Concerns limited to nothing else but performance issues when operating on High density traffic mainlines (East coast, West coast and Great Western etc.
(2) Heritage Rolling Stock. Concerns and issues in regards to Health & safety matters (see Borderrevivers excellent posting at #112 of this thread)
(3) Heritage steam locomotives. Concerns in regards to safe operation on high volume traffic mainlines especially in dark and poor weather conditions due to the limited visibility from the footplate of these locomotives. Concerns also in regards to Performance issues again on high traffic volume mainlines.
In the above (1,3), it has to be remembered that it was the limited performance of the locomotive “Tangmere” that placed the very high stress factor to remain on schedule on the driver of the heritage tour consist involved in the Wotton Basset Spad.
As the high court judge hearing the Spad case commented, the driver held a perfect 30 year plus safety record prior to the incident. However the above stress made him make a series of unsound and hazardous decisions which at its conclusion severely endangered the nearly eight hundred passengers and crew on both trains.
Bill
Last edited:
MK1 carriages are on borrowed time anyway, probably unlikely to see any further extensions. http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...ch/infrastructure-safety/mark-i-rolling-stock
Further info here if any one is interested http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...rk-i-and-hinged-door-rolling-stock-exemptions
Further info here if any one is interested http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...rk-i-and-hinged-door-rolling-stock-exemptions
amigacooke
Well-known member
Couldn't see anything there to suggest that further exemptions will not be granted.
Hi Everybody.
The allowing of coaching stock that do not have retention toilets to run on the network should have been brought to an end many years ago. Raw untreated human faeces and urine on the tracks along with all the paper etc that is ejected with it is a severe health hazard to line maintenance workers who are already subject to working very unsocial hours in all weather conditions throughout the year to keep us rail users safe.
In the above, why then subject those workers to having to deal with cleaning up this human waste or working around it when not having it deposited on the tracks is easily achieved. Again, why not offer back to the track maintenance workers some of the Healthy,safe conditions they strive to give others by their efforts
There is also the matter of where rail lines run close to people's houses. As we have all witnessed flying insects congregate on faeces of any kind and then can enter nearby buildings spreading contamination and and disease. Cleaning up dog faeces etc from your back garden is easily carried out. However, when human faeces is deposited on a rail line and that rail line runs past the bottom of your back garden...NOT POSSIBLE.
There is also the problem of central door locking seemingly being impossible to fit to much of the existing heritage coaching stock. As the incident at Bath Spa station demonstrated a few months ago the foregoing lack of central locking can result in highly hazardous situations developing for passengers on any train wanting to depart the coaches at a station should the consist over run or pull up short of the platform.
Along with the above, there is also the hazards to passengers waiting on a platform to board a train that does not have central locking doors. It can happen that those waiting to board will be hit by those non-controlled doors when passengers on the incoming consist open said doors before the train comes fully to a halt. I am sure many of us with extensive rail travel experience will have seem the above happen in former years.
However in the above, as with faeces on the tracks there is no need for cartridge door hazard situations to occur in a “present day” rail environment. In my humble opinion, coaches that cannot be equipped with retention toilets (inclueding the few still in general everyday use By TOCs) and those without central locking doors should immediately be removed from service on the mainline network or as soon as replacement stock can be obtained by the TOCs whatever the cost. MK1 coaches and others could still then be seen running or travelled on by way of Britain's numerous heritage railways which may also have the benefit of improving their revenues.
Bill
Amigacooke, if your above posting has meaning that you would wish to see a further extension of the MK1 coaches being allowed to run on the mainline network beyond 2023, then i am afraid i would be entirely against that being allowed to happen. To go further, I would wish to witness the withdrawal of the these hazardously designed and unhygienic vehicles almost immediately.
The allowing of coaching stock that do not have retention toilets to run on the network should have been brought to an end many years ago. Raw untreated human faeces and urine on the tracks along with all the paper etc that is ejected with it is a severe health hazard to line maintenance workers who are already subject to working very unsocial hours in all weather conditions throughout the year to keep us rail users safe.
In the above, why then subject those workers to having to deal with cleaning up this human waste or working around it when not having it deposited on the tracks is easily achieved. Again, why not offer back to the track maintenance workers some of the Healthy,safe conditions they strive to give others by their efforts
There is also the matter of where rail lines run close to people's houses. As we have all witnessed flying insects congregate on faeces of any kind and then can enter nearby buildings spreading contamination and and disease. Cleaning up dog faeces etc from your back garden is easily carried out. However, when human faeces is deposited on a rail line and that rail line runs past the bottom of your back garden...NOT POSSIBLE.
There is also the problem of central door locking seemingly being impossible to fit to much of the existing heritage coaching stock. As the incident at Bath Spa station demonstrated a few months ago the foregoing lack of central locking can result in highly hazardous situations developing for passengers on any train wanting to depart the coaches at a station should the consist over run or pull up short of the platform.
Along with the above, there is also the hazards to passengers waiting on a platform to board a train that does not have central locking doors. It can happen that those waiting to board will be hit by those non-controlled doors when passengers on the incoming consist open said doors before the train comes fully to a halt. I am sure many of us with extensive rail travel experience will have seem the above happen in former years.
However in the above, as with faeces on the tracks there is no need for cartridge door hazard situations to occur in a “present day” rail environment. In my humble opinion, coaches that cannot be equipped with retention toilets (inclueding the few still in general everyday use By TOCs) and those without central locking doors should immediately be removed from service on the mainline network or as soon as replacement stock can be obtained by the TOCs whatever the cost. MK1 coaches and others could still then be seen running or travelled on by way of Britain's numerous heritage railways which may also have the benefit of improving their revenues.
Bill
Last edited:
BLACKWATCH
Mechanical Engineer
There is no need for anyone to be hit by opening doors, if those waiting on the platform abide by the rule of 'standing behind the yellow line' or 'keep back from the platform edge' as announcers are always saying, until the train has stopped.
Some travellers are just in too much of a hurry to board, that common sense goes out of the window.
Hi Blackwatch and everybody
Blackwatch it is the overcrowding on the UKs railways that causes people to surge forward to the edge of the platform as the train come in to the station these day. The forgoing happens as passengers attempt to "get a seat" in front of others. Therefore when a train arrives into a station without central locking doors people still move forward out of habit if they are regular rail travellers and "BANG"
I do not Know if you are a regular rail traveller Blackwatch, but boarding a HST consist on a weekday morning or evening at an intermediate station runs only second to a full Rugby Union International scrum. (absolutely the truth)
Biil
Blackwatch it is the overcrowding on the UKs railways that causes people to surge forward to the edge of the platform as the train come in to the station these day. The forgoing happens as passengers attempt to "get a seat" in front of others. Therefore when a train arrives into a station without central locking doors people still move forward out of habit if they are regular rail travellers and "BANG"
I do not Know if you are a regular rail traveller Blackwatch, but boarding a HST consist on a weekday morning or evening at an intermediate station runs only second to a full Rugby Union International scrum.
(absolutely the truth)Biil
Last edited:
amigacooke
Well-known member
I agree, I don't think it is beyond the wit of man to adapt toilets in any coach to not dump their contents on the track.
As to non-locking doors, I travelled for many years in my youth in those coaches and never saw an accident. Surely Mk 1 coaches are more dangerous than modern coaching stock, but the point is are they too dangerous? Those who are prepared to offer exemptions clearly do not think so.