WCRC Licence Suspended

What evidence do we have that NR or ORR have said anything at all other than forum speculation and "normally reliable sources". As far as I am aware neither have made any new statement and speculation that WCR will run a leg of GB is exactly that, plus a handful of wishful thinking

 

From the ORR website:

"What we do
We regulate the rail industry's health and safety performance, we hold Network Rail and High Speed 1 (HS1) to account and we make sure that the rail industry is competitive and fair. From 1 April 2015 we are also the independent monitor of Highways England."

In other words, health and safety is one important criterion of their regulatory function, but not the only one - they also have to ensure the industry is competitive and fair.

Disregarding the specifics of the WCRC case for a moment, I think that does mean that you have safety at a price. One interpretation of "we make sure that the rail industry is competitive and fair" is that you wouldn't have safety at all costs; for example, if implementing ever more rigorous safety standards meant that rail was no longer competitive with other, less regulated, forms of transport (such as road). In other words, we want a safe railway, but not at the expense of it being too expensive to use in comparison with non-rail alternatives.

Turning now to matters within the rail industry, I'd interpret the bit about being "fair" as saying that they have to hold WCRC to equivalent regulatory standards (including safety) as any other operator in the charter sector (specifically, as DBS). Otherwise, you could end up with a situation (and I am explicitly not saying that that is the case here) where company A could undercut its rivals by operating in a risky fashion.

It is entirely plausible that ORR's actions could cause WCRC to cease trading, which would (temporarily) leave a monopoly provider in the market. You could argue that that goes against the competitiveness remit, but I don't read the objectives of ORR as saying that they necessarily have to ensure that there always is competition, only that the market conditions allow any competition there is to be conducted on fair terms, and the regulatory burden is not so great as to either prevent new market entrants, or kill the market totally.

I should add - that's my interpretation as an interested outsider, not someone within the rail industry. I have no specific knowledge of the details of this particular case.

Tom

 

Just a difference of opinion if there is one suggests to me one layer more of bureaucracy than is actually required, and a difference of opinion in my mind implies someone is not finding as they should (ie they can't both be right if having different views), all hypothetical, but entirely quite possible.

 

Entirely possible, if only because their view of risk may differ. If you accept the idea of open access to a railway network provided by a monopoly supplier, then you should not be surprised that there are both organisations. After all, and in an alternate universe, what protection would an operator have if Network Rail chose to block access on spurious "safety" grounds if the appeal was also to Network Rail?

To draw an analogy, it's very similar to the CAA and its regulation of the air industry. An airport might bar an airline for its behaviour, but that may not be enough to get the airline banned from UK airspace.

 

Safety always has a price. Seem to recall the rail industry has a price per fatality when assessing the cost benefit of safety improvements.

 

Thanks

How many mainline steam locos are there at the moment?

 

UKsteam.info has a pretty good list here: http://www.uksteam.info/tours/locos.htm

 

Let's see
44871, 45407, 45690, 45699, 46115, 46233, 61306, 70000, 4965, 61994, 62005, 35028 and 34067

5043, 48151 and 60007 are waiting in the wings.
Will 70013 do anything this year?

45305 hasn't done a tour since 2013.
60009, 34046 in Crewe
60163 shall be doing British Pullman duties
45231 in repair, 44932(?)
The 2 panniers.

 

Anything missing?
Should 6201, 6023 count
4936 is registered but has been doing tourist lines mainly.

 

How does the RAIB fit in here? Its investigations are carried out to find out what happened so as to avoid a repetition but without attaching any blame. Would the ORR's and NR's final decisions not rest on evidence supplied by RAIB, something that may take time to gather?

 

We discussed this earlier. The consensus seemed to be that RAIB will take many months, and ORR will almost certainly not want to wait that long.

 

RAIB and ORR investigations are separate and performed with differing purposes. RAIB seek to inform improvements to avoid repetition of accidents and incidents. ORR may need to investigate with a view to prosecutions or certainly do so in their role as Safety Regulator. As far as I am aware, there is not usually sharing of evidence - the whole point of RAIB is to separate "learning lessons" from "action on failings" to enable those lessons to be based on the most accurate possible information as to what happened.

Steven

 

But isn't the most accurate and detailed information on an incident likely to be gathered by the experts from RAIB? Why not share evidence whilst still keeping the roles of RAIB and ORR separate?

 

Yes Beancounter and in the case of the fatal accident at James Street in Liverpool, the RAIB report did not appear until well after the court case and arguably provided information or at least professional interpretation of events which was not available to the judge and jury. There are good arguments for separation and independence of the investigative function because its paramount purpose is to establish what happened and why and learn lessons but sometimes there are counter-arguments. Choosing words carefully here.

 

I seem to recall that RAIB were not allowed to publish their report until after conclusion of the criminal prosecution in respect of James Street but that tragic case well illustrates the difference between the two bodies and their roles. ORR interviews can well be undertaken under caution, as they need to be capable of use as evidence in a prosecution. RAIB is precisely intended to learn more by its evidence not being used to prosecute. There have been incidents before RAIB was formed when nobody would own up to what they had - or hadn't - done for fear of prosecution and as the caution says "You have the right the remain silent". RAIB was formed to at least try and ensure lessons to avoid a re-occurrence of any incident could be learned.

Steven

 

A minor but important clarification of the caution - actually reads "You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.".
The important point is that a court can be directed to draw an inference from any "silence" nowadays and the later attempt to rely upon information not mentioned when interviewed.