Smoke

Unsurprised, saves all the complexity of arguing responsibilities in court. Put the liability on the loco owner and there's no argument over who is to blame. If the owner then wants to have their locomotive operated by some else its down to the owner to ensure they'll operate it legally. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar principle applied with safety matters. It's kinda like the employer getting fined if an employee doesn't follow H&S procedures.

 

A bit, but the implications can be pretty rough justice where you have criminal liability on the owner but actual responsibility on someone else entirely. At least an employer can (in theory anyway) control their employees.

Bridging that gap on data protection keeps a lot of highly qualified lawyers in profitable work while leaving ordinary mortals like me not especially wiser when it comes to what it all means in practice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Fascinating snapshot in time! No A4 action though...but I did spot a couple on top shed. Thanks for posting

 

I do not follow this assertion that it is the loco owner who will be taken to task over the production of black smoke. Surely it is the railway that operates the loco who will be prosecuted, not the owner - unless of course they are one and the same. So if someone blacks out Grosmont or Pickering by mismanaging the fire on, say, the J27 it is the NYMR as operator rather than NELPG as owner who is liable to be prosecuted.

Peter

 

That would be logical, but the wording of the legislation is unfortunately clear.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Surely it depends which legislation you choose to use. I'm sure that it is the railway that stands to be prosecuted, certainly in North Yorkshire. The prosecutors are not going to bother which particular loco has been naughty, they will prosecute the railway and I'm sure that the railway is in no doubt about that. I keep smoke under control to protect the good name of the railway, not the owner of the engine I happen to be on.

Peter

 

Only one, Tom? Only one! Your experience is obviously lacking with regard to 'small' locomotives.

 

Had that happen with a Class 37 on the return working of a steam special out of Weymouth some years ago. Sticky governor on the engine?

 

If there is no information provided, the enforcement agency will start off by going after the landowner, who will pass it down to the railway (if different), who will pass it down to the owner (if appropriate), who will pass it to the entity operating it...

 

I think 55022 and some of the 50 Alliance Loco’s have had pre heaters fitted for the reasons you’ve mentioned.

 

I completely understand the question, and the answer based on the legislation as shared here is completely counter-intuitive. And I wonder if that's why the legislation is little used on railways - that it's effectively unenforceable.

As for the quality of firing practice, I completely agree that the right approach is to be thoroughly professional about it.

 

What a bizarre thread. It doesn't matter a damn what we think the law ought to be, or that we think it wrong or unjust or anything else. The law is what's written in the relevant act(s) of Parliament.

 

Hello
I have watched (maybe all to many)videos of steam locomotives, and it seems to me that stoker- fired locomotives has a tendency to create more black smoke than hand fired one?
Or is this something I probably just imagine?

Knut

 

Yeah ..... constant exposure to all those colossal Terriers, Wainwright Ps nad a B4, not to mention the titanic Baxter are bound to turn an engineman's head.

 

No expert, but I'd imagine you are right. First, hand firing should be more controlled and accurate, and second, I believe stoker fired locos tend not to like large lumps of coal. They can jam the feeder screw, so the coal used is generally smaller, probably with more coal dust, which would tend to be drawn through the tubes unburned, producing black smoke.

 

The wording of the 1993 Act was lifted from the first Clean Air Act of 1956 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/4-5/52/section/19/enacted?view=plain) if not earlier.
That Act followed the Beaver Committee Report into Air Pollution (pea soupers and all that). Fun fact: it was initially introduced as a Private Member’s Bill by one Sir Gerald
Nabarro, later of SVR fame, who Monty Python alleged had a pet prawn called Simon. I suspect many 1956 Parliamentarians would have had experience as owners or operators of locomotives.

A caveat that it's against public policy to indemnify someone for their criminal acts (the Act refers to "civil or criminal proceedings"). So you can't claim back, for example, criminal fines.

It's a legal test, a Google search will bring up more. One quotes "The term "so far as is reasonably practicable" means that the degree of risk in a particular situation can be balanced against the time, trouble, cost and physical difficulty of taking measures to avoid the risk." It's a balance that a judge or jury will weigh in the circumstances of that particular case/event. In my non-legal experience, it's fairly common (see also 'reasonable').

Patrick

 

Thanks for your reply staffordian. I had much of the same theories like you but find it still interesting to ask.