North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Hopefully then there are well-connected people with positions of influence in the HRA strongly making the case at every level that the costs and benefits of fitting CDL to heritage stock are completely disproportionate to the risk being mitigated

Tom

 

So apart from passing trains at slow speed in loops (which by obliterating the timetable frequency the SMT have managed to minimise ),what are these multitude of high risk areas …the non existent bridges between Pickering and Goathland ,the close cliff faces between Levisham and Goathland..the virtual low hanging trees within 100 metres of the line ?

 

More likely someone trying to lead the NYMR into financial oblivion will try and drag the rest of the sector behind …
Why have a risk assessment that says a tannoy announcement to say please keep body parts inside the stock at one or two passing points is sufficient to mitigate the risk when you can plead for the membership you appear to despise for £100,000s to fit CDL/seal windows up so completely alienating said members in the future…
Or if the risk is of a door lock failure at low speed then maintain the locks ….i always believed the reason for CDL on the mainline was for the higher speed running …and preserved lines were exempt due to 25mph limit ….

 

Have you had to argue that and convince people or are you simply saying that to help with your argument? It's the NYMR all over, taking the easy option every time. The centre doors on Mk.1 stock could be retained and simply locked out of use on those vehicles on the curved platform; that's only a part of the train.

 

Take a look at the Mk1s running around on the national network and they all have the centre doors either removed or welded shut. Have another look at the modern rolling stock and there are very few "new" units with doors on the very ends these days.

CDL along with CET/ no toilets is an ever approaching horizon for heritage railways, whether we like it or not. As for "its only on the national network" That is todays thinking but with the ORR laying down the law more and more on heritage railways. We as a railway sector have a very high percentage of incidents to number of railways compared the mainline. We have been given a "light touch" by the ORR in their words but not anymore. I know the TR and FR/WHR lock the doors between stations on the budget lock and rely on either station staff/ TTIs to open at stations. This is one option for most railways providing there are the staff to do the locking/ unlocking.

There are many systems out there that can be fitted to mk1/2s in preservation. Those of us with more vintage rolling stock, SVR, Bluebell, IoWSR, KESR etc will have to be more inventive with how it is intergrated into the older vehicles. We at the SVR have had very early conversations about this very subject, 8 coach trains and platforms that were built for 3-4 coaches dont mix very well. CDL on a 1915 Toplight is challenging but not insurmountable with the right system as it could an electromagnet type system that is hidden within the bottom stringer, for instance. A system very similar to fire doors can be adapted, where upon the fire alarm going off in a building, certain doors are held open by the electromagnet and they are released upon alarm.

Tannoys are only effective if people listen.

As for the NYMR using on the Grosmont-Pickering section. There could be an operational convenience to leave it switched in across the whole operation rather than keep turning it on and off at Grosmont, plus we dont know how it will be intergrated with the vacuum system. I would imagine it would be similar to the dimbo valves on the handbrakes that prevent the driver creating more than 12-15inches, therefore limiting the chance of moving with doors open.

 

CDL is not a legal requirement on heritage railways so the ORR cannot require it. That's because the regs were purposely written to exclude railways running at 25 mph or less. The problem with running to Whitby is the line speed is 30 mph so they are technically required by law. However, the law allows the ORR to give an exemption to this requirement, which they have done in the past and continue to do. Unlike other train operators, the exemption includes a requirement for a max speed of 25mph so essentially bringing operations outside outside the regulations in all but name. Again, unlike other train operators exemptions, there is no time limit for fitting CDL. The only limitation on time is that the exemption only runs for five years, expiring on 2028, but that is standard practice. An interesting and perhaps embarrassing requirement of the exemption states that "the Company must ensure that passenger loadings do not exceed the total seating capacity available within the relevant Rolling Stock". The full exemption is available here: https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...regulation-5-certficate-of-exemption-nymr.pdf

 

As I've said in a recent post, the ORR can't require CDL or anything else equivalent on heritage railways because it is not a legal requirement.

 

I would imagine it is for keeping all operations on NR held to a uniform standard. I would have thought that if that is the case they would want to do the same with heritage railways, and if that is satisfactory approach for them, why should it not be for insurance companies, who are primarily concerned with risk, be particularly concerned, given the wealth of evidence that there is no real risk?

 

The requirements included in the 1999 regulations regarding slam door stock was essentially to force TOC's to get rid of Mk.1 and similar coaches as they were reluctant to do so. That is well known. It is also the reason why the 25mph limit was included so that heritage railways were not drawn in. by default.

 

I have not spoken to the ORR on the subject as it is really not for me to do so (at least not directly) but I am not aware that they are wanting to impose any restrictions other than those in the exemption, which they really have to do under the 1999 regulations.

 

I agree with you in principle, but as RAIB have reported on an incident involving a platform fall, the risk is identifiable.

 

I'm 99% certain the SVR had a child fall out of a door that came open in service a few years ago. Even so, just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

AFAIK the only scheduled passenger service operated by a TOC using slam door stock is Great Western's Night Riviera. The last commuter stock south of the Thames went 20 years ago. The amount of people who have used slam doors is dwindling rapidly.

 

But not frequent.

I am 100% in favour of safe operating, but it is important that we retain some sense of proportion. I am not entirely convinced we are. CDL on heritage railways??? There’s no evidence to support that requirement universally.

The ORR asked railways to pay attention to the risks of people leaning out of the train and coming into contact with structures. Some seem to take the view that this was an instruction to fit window bars. On the Watercressline a gauging train was run and at the tightest points the train was stopped and the distance measured. The conclusion was that nobody could reach anything without getting so far out of the window that they would have fallen out already. Photos and measurements were shared with the ORR who said “thank you” and commented they wished others had undertaken the same work. Job done.

 

Laws and regs can be changed of course.

And when we have to get to this "level of protection" who knows what comes next. Mind you I could equally have posted it in the wind up thread.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgxezegz8yo

 

I would be interested to see data regarding incidents that are related to the use of slam door non CDL stock, and some analysis related to passenger numbers.

There has to be discussion about how significant the risk is (a risk assessment.......) and the likelihood, and then justifying controls- bearing in mind that control measures should be reasonably practicable, both on difficulty of execution and cost.

The flip side is that a railway could have to justify why they didn't employ additional controls, in the case of an incident.

I have said it elsewhere- everyone needs to embrace a positive safety culture, meaning we have to accept some change- but that has to be moderated by ensuring the decision making process is sound.

Chris

 

That was in the late 90s on a private charter. The child in question had been reprimanded at least 3 times for playing with the doors and then the incident happened.

As it stands now. Any Obo trip has a TTI/steward on board when in use. This came about during a review of our whole operating risk assesment carried out post covid.

 

Many years ago on the NYMR an evening train was being operated including a private party. I think it was a stag party but could be wrong. Anyhow, two very drunken passengers decided it would be fun to open a door and climb onto the coach roof. I’m not sure how they managed it but one did. Unfortunately they chose to do it near a bridge. The bridge survived but the man didn’t. I guess CDL would have prevented this but do we really need or even want legislation to cover for such mindless acts?

 

Indeed. I recently had to show a young couple how to open the door of a Mk1 on a heritage line. They were perplexed by the lack of buttons or internal door handles, or any other visibly obvious means of opening the door.

I confess that it took me a while to master the art of opening and closing door windows on the SVR's pre-nationalization carriages. While the operation of the leather strap may have been obvious, the movable shelf (on which the closed window sits) was not.

If CDL ever becomes compulsory on heritage lines, I wonder how it will be applied to the open-top and open-sided carriages found on some narrow gauge and miniature railways.

 

The only way it will happen is if a few idiots in the heritage railway movement say our risk assessment says it would reduce an already small risk even more so we should really be doing this and start to create precedents.

 

I look around the heritage railway “industry” and I worry sometimes about the number of well meaning but under experienced leaders.