North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Would your colleague like to volunteer for emptying controlled emission toilet tanks?

 

Wouldn't bother me - since a viral infection two years ago I can't smell faecal matter. Other smells are just distorted, like perfumes (which also contain scatoles).

 

Why wouldn't he? If he was prepared to the job on planes, I can't see that CET tanks would be any worse. I would certainly be prepared to do it, if given a quick lesson in what do - I don't think I'd need a training course! My house has septic tank drainage and the tanker driver who comes round periodically to empty it wears no more PPE than a pair of red rubber gloves - these tankers suck the waste from the tank and since they are sucking it from above ground there's no spray of waste even if there's a leak. Most of us working as volunteers have had experience of having to clean toilets, or clean up vomit on occasion, although I suppose those working insulated in signalboxes don't get those experiences.........

 

Cleaning the toilets at Levisham has long been part of the volunteer signalman's role. As a former coach driver I'm enured to cleaning up the mess left by the travelling public!

 

One thing I’d like to know is the nature of this legislation about which @Lineisclear is talking.

 

The NYMR proposals all sound very sensible given the financial constraints they are suffering even though many of there services I’ve travelled on / observed have effectively been running at capacity.

 

I keep saying it, Whitby train loadings don't seem to be a problem so I don't have a problem with those fares being low, but I welcome a reduction in later Pickering or Grosmont departures to encourage more people to travel to enjoy the Yorkshire countryside and the railway running through it -t that is really what the NYMR is about! That's where the marketing effort is needs to be squarely centred,

 

So you are suggesting that £49.50 is low?
What reduction are you welcoming, fares or less trains? as it is very unclear.
If all the Whitby trains are well loaded surely that implies that is the destination folks are keen on. Do you not get to see the countryside on those trains then?

 

That can't be worse than having them empty over you when you are attaching/detatching a loco to a train, as used to happen.

Peter

 

I suspect he means this (as discussed in a bulletin from a law firm). https://www.mills-reeve.com/blogs/c...ent on,protection elements of the legislation.

 

I'll try despite having had a couple of Friday evening relaxing glesses of wine! There are two legislative changes. The first is the Terrorism Protection of Premises Bill otherwise known as Martyn's Law. It's a response to the Manchester Arena attack. It imposes duties on the controllers of premises that vary in severity depending on their likely occupancy. Unfortunately the way premises are defined includes, in the case of railway stations, not just buildings but platforms, car parks, approach roads etc with the premises meaning buffer stop to buffer stop. So in the case of the NYMR the entire line from Pickering to Grosmont is a single premise. This becomes problematic when likely occupancy is assessed. Under 200 people at any one time there's no problem. Above 200 and the railway has to have an evacuation plan, its staff (including volunteers) must have annual training in terrorism response measures and the railway is expected to be able to conrol acccess to and egress from its premises. Above 800 people and the obligations ramp up considerably. The railway must appoint someone to take responsibility for terrorism security and must invest in control and monitoring facilities. It has to register with a new Security Industry Authority and to have its control and monitoring arrangements approved. In default there are sanctions including prohibition on activities and eye watering fines. Even for the lower capacity premise if there is an event at which 800 or more people may be present at the same time the higher capacity obligations apply. Obviously that might make special events and galas uneconomic. The main impact I highlighted is the duty to ensure that all personnel, including volunteers, that might reasonably need to be aware of terrorism threats, have been trained every year. The HRA has been lobbying hard for common sense amendments recognising that the national rail network is excluded from the Bill because it has its own pre-existing security regime. Under that regime all heritage railway stations would be subject to fairly light touch security but as heritage railways are treated as hospitality venues (like Manchester Arena) a much tougher more expensive regime is deemed necessary.

The other legislative change I have yet to study in depth is driven by the desire to mitigate the consequernces of signing up for expensive Gym membership. People may join and then realise quickly it' s not for them. However cancellation of membership may involve annual liability for hundred of pounds. The same goes for automtic renewals. As can happen the laudable aim of protecting people in those circumstances can have unintended consequences. I understand the Law will impoise a cooling off period of 14 days. Cancelletion during that period will require the organistion to give a full refund. The sort of problem that creates is where someone has joined in order to benefit fron member discounts. We've had instances on the NYMR where holidaymakers have joined to get the 50% discount. If they did that onced the Law takes effect they might travel at half price multiple times during theirf holiday but cancel before the end of the cooling off period. If so they would still get their full membership fee refunded. As suggested earlier there could be problems where membership is a condtion of volunteering as someone already rostered might have terminated their membership by the date of their turn of duty . It's also understandable that railways want to show their appreciation of new members by sending them welcome packs, copies of magazines and membership cards etc. the cost of which would be forfeit. if the member cancels.

I hope that helps!

 

Thanks. On the face of it, it looks like bad news for charities if exemptions aren’t made.

 

So is the second one the same as that linked to by @huochemi ?

 

Perhaps you need to consider a new hobby. This one appears to be getting you unduly worked up.

 

Thanks. It’s the effect on gift aid that grabbed my attention in the blog hunched linked to. The points you’ve mentioned do not seem like good news either.

 

I could just sit back and let it all happen. Instead I've spent many hours engaging with legislators to get some common sense protection for the heritage railway sector. There are encouraging signs that will be successful.

 

I wish you luck and thank you for your efforts.

 

For the second issue, is it not possible to restrict discounts etc until after the cooling off period?

 

I suspect the pragmatic view of such might be to be happy that you have had multiple half fares from someone who may otherwise have only travelled once or perhaps not at all!

The numbers would tell, but my gut feeling would be that actual number of people doing that is likely to be rather small. Firstly, you've got to be a somewhat devious person to do so, and many people aren't that devious; there is also the point that generally when you come back from holiday, the first thing you end up doing is a mountain of washing and the second thing is facing the prospect of about a million emails in your work inbox - in the circumstances, systematically cancelling memberships taken out while on holiday is probably low on the agenda ...

It's right that a trade body like the HRA should keep a close eye on legislation and lobby where they feel that a new law may have unintended consequences: but equally, it's probably best not to be completely Chicken Licken about every single thing! If 20 people per week through the summer holiday sign up as members to get cheap tickets and two per week subsequently back out within the cooling off period, I'd take that as a win!

Tom

 

That’s fair comment Tom. To be honest I’m more relaxed about the legislative change to cancellation rights than I am about the effect of Martyn’s Law. All we can do is try to ensure the impact on heritage railways is understood and press for amendments to mitigate where possible. After that it’s down to individual railways to decide what adjustments, if any, are sensible.