West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Indeed, it doesn't even say that this is the WSR.

 

The idea that the only time that a shareholder can have any influence on a company of which they are a part owner is at the AGM is a myth fostered by management boards to prevent them having to deal with their employers more than once a year.

 

As there is no phone then the sighting should be compliant.
As don't know who the authorised user is then I hope he has been instructed how to use the crossing correctly and safely

 

Given the number of RAIB reports into (mis)use of User Worked Crossings I would expect ORR to take a close interest in this one.
Pat

 

The original poster did mention that it was a new sign. Maybe the installation is not yet complete.

 

And the alternative is do nothing and everything carries on as before, and what has been achieved?

Either way the HRA hasn't achieved anything.

The expectation that the HRA would achieve something is because the HRA has inserted itself into WSR affairs, if they had said from the outset - 'local issue that needs local resolution, nothing to do with us' fair enough. Also, considering the HRA was involved in the Ex-6 it does not seem to be a surprise that there might be the expectation of involvement again.

I think that if your management brings your line into financial and reputational crisis then that can be counted as rogue management. If however, you think it is an example of good, or even competent management that is fine, that is of course your opinion and you are entitled to it, however, like if you thought juggling with chainsaws was a good idea, I'd not think much of it as an opinion.

My point remains this - a number of lines have got away with less than stellar management in recent years, able to bumble along with the odd local punch up. Covid has brought financial matters to a head. It is I think unlikely that say LlR would have hit the wall despite the engineering issues without Covid for example. I don't think that the shake out from last year is going to be instant, there are I suspect lines that are banking on a bumper summer in the hope that they can claw things back and that may well not do as well as they hope and not survive. The HRA isn't set up to deal with lines in crisis because it had been so rare in the past, however, because of Covid, it is going to become a more frequent issue. If the HRA does take a leading role then good, but the flipside is that it will mean being more pro-active with its members which will be difficult to do because it will be 'criticising your own'.

I would also add, that while there have been examples in the past of lines and groups getting themselves in trouble it appears to me that the lessons that should have been learnt have been forgotten. History sadly is littered with people who either didn't learn the lessons, forgot the lessons or learnt the wrong things. Finally, while Nabarro is part of SVR institutional memory, it isn't part of the wider industry memory.

 

I am by no means an expert on such things, but by coincidence my current activity with another heritage railway has brought me into contact with the matter of UWC (User Worked Crossings) and their safety issues. A number of issues spring immediately to mind

1. The user is instructed to telephone someone (who?), but no telephone is provided at the crossing (not uncommon for accommodation-type locations) nor a telephone number for those who may have access to a mobile (or else manage to use a phone in the pub!)
2. The reference to "crossing operator" might be taken to mean that there is actually someone supposedly present to operate the crossing for them
3. The first part of the instruction is effectively merely advice, as the user is not being instructed to obtain actual permission to cross
4. There is no mention whatsoever of the responsible railway (owner) of the crossing.
5. It omits even the most basic 'STOP LOOK LISTEN' commands.

The whole layout of the sign looks most odd and leads to some weird phrasing and positioning of words.

 

An incomplete installation can be as much of a safety hazard as a missing installation, rather like opening a new crossing before you're able to install the gates.

 

I would have thought that a statement from the HRA would, rather than directly change the minds of the Plc board, provide a turning point in opinion against the board by others. For some people, they won't be sure which side is in the right, a plague in both your houses etc. but direction from the HRA could help. It might provide cover for those WSR volunteers who know things are wrong but are too afraid to speak up, and it might even be a wake up call to some of those who blindly follow the current leadership regardless.

 

Can I just clarify one thing. The HRA members are other heritage railways or tramways, and rolling stock owners. So when people keep commenting on what the HRA members should or should not do with regard to WSR, I'd suggest that the members are understandably not interested in getting directly involved.
The only individual people involved with HRA are the Directors and Officers appointed to run HRA, but they are not members as such. And their roles are defined by the objectives set by their members (i.e. heritage railways) for their trade association.

 

If there is only one authorised user who has been told how to use the crossing(with a signed declaration), also it is locked (AU has a key), therefore preventing anyone else using the crossing and if there is a clear understanding how the crossing is to be used by the AU then having no phones should not be an issue.

 

A sequence of RAIB reports would suggest that those safeguards are of limited value, especially where tradesmen or personal visitors use the crossing more or less well controlled by the authorised user.

 

If no telephone is provided at a crossing the authorised user(s) are provided with the telephone number of the controlling signal box.
The sign is a standard 541 crossing sign. As others have stated the authorised users should be provided with the contact number for contacting the controlling signal box.

Its a standard 541 sign. The 536 Stop Look & Listen sign is provided at pedestrian and bridleway level crossings.

 

He uses it as and when he feels like it, doesn't check the timetable, doesn't consult with staff if the station is manned, doesn't always close the gates if he comes back out but is returning a few times, he can be a nightmare!

 

Shouldn't check the TT anyway. Lets hope the risk assessment and maybe a narrative RA addresses the above.

 

So precisely the sort of authorised user that RAIB are worried about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That is an alternative. It is not the only alternative.

 

What are the other alternatives that haven't been tried?