North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

.

 

Yes .
The recommendation to heritage lines is …
‘The intent of this recommendation is to improve heritage railways’ management of the risk associated with passengers leaning out of vehicles.

Operators of heritage railways, using stock that passengers could lean out of, should review their risk assessments for people leaning out and
implement any additional mitigation measures necessary to achieve an acceptable level of safety .’

So risk assess the lineside risks ..all those invisible lineside structures and overhanging trees between Levisham and Goathland etc ..
Then mitigate the risks by removing those invisible branches etc .
No where does it say you must issue every passenger with a bag of cotton wool and lock them in a hermetically sealed coffin ..a risk assessment might find that more of a risk in the event of an accident or fire .Still if the SMC want to increase the bank overdraft ,losses and drive more passengers away because of one person’s interpretation ….

 

The point I was trying to make earlier, and apparently failing, was that that is not just the risk associated with a passenger leaning out of a window but ANY risk to a passenger whether or not the passenger was effectively at fault (inebriated / being daft / not using common sense / ignoring signs etc). And that there was a specific reference to heritage railways within the RAIB report despite the accident involving a ToC. Take the two points together and it shows that ALL heritage railways have to be mindful of the potential severe legal consequences of their actions, and that @Lineisclear ought occasionally be listened to rather than continually nitpicked.

 

All of which is true - but does not mean that the conclusions advanced followed. Risk assessment is simply that; the failure that cost GWR £1m was about the fact that they didn’t act on the information available to them.

Setting aside debates over the interpretation of the “RP” in ALARP, there are a number of ways that the risk of window hanging can be mitigated, especially on a single track railway. They also have their own risks, which need to be considered and the balance assessed. For example, in non air conditioned stock, there is also a risk of heat build up if the air can’t circulate effectively, which places some passengers (particularly elderly and very young) at heightened risk. The vulnerability to prosecution would be no less if any previous decision to restrict windows didn’t take that risk, properly assessed, into account.

It’s also instructive to compare the fine issued to GWR recently with that for the SDR a few years ago. The SDR received a much smaller fine, despite arguably a far more egregious breach of health and safety law. That suggests that judges do consider corporate size as one of the factors in such fines. If I’m correct in that interpretation, reference to the punishment meted on GWR is somewhat misleading.

 

The NYMR is managing to satisfy ORR requirement between Grosmont and Whitby by using volunteer door stewards to control those who might otherwise be tempted to door hang on that section. However, that is not a viable long term solution. Various ways of physically locking doors and droplights are being investigated including those adopted by main line operators. The report quoted by D7076 confirms that beween Pickering and Grosmont the NYMR's approach must be based on rigorous risk assessment. That probably means changing internal signage, ensuring regular inspection of lineside vegetation by those qualified to the necessary standard with prompt pruning of branches that might present a challenge. That’s the point at which difficulties arise. Whatever control measures must be provided over the National Network it’s generally accepted that there are no clearance issues between Grosmont and Whitby. The same is not true between Grosmont and Pickering. There have been instances of coach paintwork being damaged by vegetation and there is limited clearance at Grosmont tunnel and in Goatland Station. So the issue ( identified by others by the way) is whether it's defensible to have drop light restrictions operational on one section of line, where there is virtually no risk, but disabled on another section where there is?

 

The South Devon Railway had to pay the fine themselves, money that could have been used for more fruitful purposes.
The GWR fine was ultimately paid by the state, back to itself. Which is cheaper for HM Treasury, DfT & Network Rail than providing funding and sufficient management to control lineside vegetation.

 

My comment was at an individual organisational level.

 

Thank you - that's fair. The questions that then arise are about what options might exist, and what might be proportional and effective. Ignoring money, I'd have suggested that if vegetation is causing damage, and that is part of an H&S assessment, one of the first things that needs considering is how the vegetation can be brought back under control.

 

ORR Railway Safety Publication 5, GUIDANCE ON MINOR RAILWAYS, provides clear guidance as to minimum clearances between track and structures, which could also be used as a benchmark for minimum clearances between track/train and vegetation.
ORR have chosen to not maintain this excellent document, having passed that responsibility onto HRA.
Links below:-

https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/10959/download
https://www.hra.uk.com/storage/HGR-A0000 Guidance on Minor Railways.pdf

 

I wish money could be ignored. One of the criticism sometimes made of the NYMR is that it's a green corridor lined by trees that spoil the view. There 's a lot of potentially troublesome vegetation to control! If that was done to the applicable standard then perhaps droplight restrictions could be disabled between Pickering and Grosmont but their existence would raise the bar in terms of proportionate response to any risk.

 

Relax, I'm not suggesting money can be ignored outright - merely that by removing a constraint, the underlying problem can be understood more clearly.

Entirely separately, visiting for the first time in several years for the diesel gala this year, I think the "green corridor" criticism is entirely valid, and was struck by how much the views have become boxed in by tree growth.

 

Yes, it's a challenge made greater because of the SSSI status of both our own and adjoining land.

 

That's clearly an issue that can't be ignored, although I suspect much of the tree growth has occurred in recent decades, so a review could demonstrate that the aim was to maintain the longer term characteristics of the landscape. When I was volunteering in lineside clearance on a different heritage railway, many years ago, in a lowland area where willow and hawthorn grew very fast, we adopted the policy in some areas of leaving specimen trees near the boundary every 20 or 30 yards or so, which didn't interrupt passengers' view of the scenery too much, but which gave the impression of an avenue looking along the track

 

I suspect there's a wider policy issue here, especially given the very broad interpretation of responsibilities taken by the likes of Natural England. I don't envy those trying to balance responsibilities in these areas.

 

I think the important point is that lineside management in an SSSI, even for statutory undertakers like Network Rail and the NYMR, is only possible within the confines of permission given by Natural England. That's normally in the form of a general asssent for specified activities.

 

Precisely my point about policy - see the wider policy discussion around the planning issues on HS2 or the Lincoln bypass, and the approach taken by Natural England, and especially their lack of a duty to balance objectives.

 

I seem to remember a science fiction work (I remember one by Niven, but the one I'm thinking of was much more dystopian) about a future in which people are completely coddled from the consequences of any errors on their part.

Noel

 

Have the areas designated as an sssi been expanded over time, as I'm sure it was only the Fenbog area that was one before.
Natural England is guilty of mission creep, I recently read how a long standing kite flying festival has now effectively outlawed by them. This is the problem with QANGOs, there is no accountability to the electorate and they are vulnerable to take over by activists.
(Will post a link to the article if I can find it).

Sawdust.

 

I think https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd18my2e31qo may cover the purpose.

 

I can understand volunteer stewards not being a long term solution (at least for those at Cabot Square).
Hence as I understand why the DMU's for the Wareham service (which was about a mile on NR if you count the bit on the branch that is still theirs) were fitted with CDL and windows that open about 3 inches. Which gave a fine example on an even reasonably mild day of @35B point about on board heat issues.