Recommissioning after Coronavirus

It would a very brave preserved railway that went ahead with santa specials if the "advice" from the local council was not to do so.

 

Indeed, but it would be a very stupid railway that didn't take legal advice on the ability to operate.

I've read the draft regulations, and I have formed my view as a legal professional who has advised extensively on the Covid regulations. I would be very interested to know the professional expertise of the person who has given this advice to the GCR.

Sent from my SM-G770F using Tapatalk

 

It'd be a brave local council to issue such advise without it being 'green lit' at by higher authority.

 

Speaking as someone who works for a local authority, I'm afraid we usually have access to exactly the same information as the general public.

Sent from my SM-G770F using Tapatalk

 

Yikes! The difference then surely has to lie in accessing, understanding and acting upon said information ..... one hopes!

Your observation rather reinforces my long held view that our democracy, from top to bottom, is in sore need of a root and branch shake up, to make it fit to serve us all. Somehow, I doubt I'll live to see that happen though!

 

That's what the MHR are doing.

 

Indeed. You just need to into the Britannia wearing a Gales sweatshirt.

 

I imagine they did but this statement in the GCR weekly email I felt was somewhat vague over an issue with potential bad publicity consequences (not to mention people's health).
"but clarification was sought via Charnwood Borough Council (who needed no doubt to check back to central Government). The clock of course keeps ticking and days passed before the green light was given!"

I would have thought a more definitive statement of who approved it would have been better as on the face it of appears different to Tier 3 requirements on the .gov.uk site.
At work I would have been criticised for such a non attributable approval.

 

Mods if you feel this is in the wrong thread please move.

I wonder now that the government has back nearly all the rail franchises (following the hand back of SWR and Avanti this week coupled with ongoing discussions with First over TPE) and have already taken back control of NR if we feel that going forward a very cash strapped Treasury will take a dim view (via the DfT) of a cap on delays caused by charters?

This of course presumes that the current "pass the parcel" delay scenario driven by delay repay and NR delays continues. I have always found it strange that rail offers delay repay at 15 minutes yet using a bus/coach or your own car offers nothing. I do appreciate that there may be agreements in place that protect the current position for charters, but as we all know agreements are only good until a Government passes a law to change or replace it.

I know from working through various financial crises in the aviation industry that all costs will be looked at, and of cause post Covid it will be many times worse than those aviation events. I even had colleagues at US Air who were told to take as many hotel pens as possible on company or holiday trips to avoid the airline having to buy biros.

I think most of us feel that steam charters especially have a difficult enough financial environment with the costs involved and I for one would hate to see them priced out of the market.

What thoughts does anyone have?

 

For franchised operators schedule 8 payment for delays are made from network rail to the operator for failing to deliver the ORR contracted level of performance at the defined monitoring points. The franchise operator also will make a payment if they don't deliver their benchmarks. As a general rule network rails payment rate is significantly higher than that of an operator.

The operators payment is based on operator on self delay as a proxy for the delays caused to others. Under the model delays caused by another operator are paid by network rail and then the proxy is used as a way of getting the money back from the causer of the delay. The hub and spoke model.

The payment rates are calculated every 5 years (control period) as are the performance levels. A major part of the payment is based on the revenue on each service. Clearly with the collapse in revenue due to covid19 the payment rates are completely out of kilter with reality. Also because performance has been significantly better since covid19 the benchmarks for performance have the same problem! What this means in general terms is network rail are receiving significant schedule 8 income that the operators are not receiving back in the fare box - however operators costs are generally being covered by the Dft. The converse is true for possessions - schedule 4 - where operators are receiving far more in compensation than is being lost in revenue.

To recalibrate the system normally takes 2 years (at least a years worth of data is needed to establish the base performance levels) so it is unlikely to happen within the current control period (ends March 31 2024). However I foresee major change coming if franchises become based purely on delivering a set of outcomes (rewarded/punishment for levels of performance) and all revenue goes back to treasury via the Dft. Given that network rail is funded by the treasury via the ORR then schedule 4 and 8 would be of limited importance.

Freight and open access is clearly different but the system is going to have to be significantly altered.

So change is coming but it will be a few years in arriving!

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Tapatalk

 

Which railways are affected by today's changes to the tier system? I see the Epping Ongar have cancelled their operations.

 

Epping-Ongar's announcement on their website has some very concerning implications. It states that they wanted to open but were unable to convince the local authority. My understanding is that regulation of railways is solely the preserve of ORR, the legislation such as ROGS enshrines that in law. The idea that a local authority, whose competence begins and ends at taxi licences, has stepped into the realm of railway regulation should concern the entire heritage railway sector.

Doubtless the LA could make life hard with ancillary activities such as cafe and shop, but I am genuinely surprised that E&OR have accepted the LA as having any competency in this area.

 

The ORR will tell you that compliance or non- compliance with the COVID regulations is none of their concern and is a matter for others.

 

One organisation may have many regulatory bodies for different parts of their function. The EOR, like all heritage railways, are ultimately a visitor attraction.

Sent from my SM-G770F using Tapatalk

 

How are they regulating a railway? They’re determining whether an event may happen, which happens to be on a railway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

ORR have a strong interest in pandemic-related matters - hence the guidance they have published - see here: https://www.orr.gov.uk/coronavirus-advice

From a regulatory standpoint, EOR are a railway, and are therefore regulated by ORR. Whilst I agree that a LA may "express concern", and (as has been previously stated) it would be a brave railway which chose to ignore concerns expressed by the LA, that is NOT the same as a railway needing a LA's consent to operate. EOR's website statement is clear that the sought consent from the LA and that consent was refused. To repeat myself, this is a very dangerous precedent.

Of course, it could be that the website entry has been drafted with someone who may have missed the nuances of the situation.

 

Indeed, nuance will be critical. And the ORR guidance linked is clear that they aren’t the sole regulatory body involved in how a railway should operate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There is government guidance issued on
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19/the-visitor-economy
If you scroll down to the summary table of key restrictionas and look at the column headed Tier 3 you will find the following statement:

If a heritage railway service is provided primarily for dining or other recreational purposes; or for the carriage of passengers from the same start and end point then this is an indoor attraction and must close in tier 3. If the heritage railway service is going from place to place (i.e. point A to point B), it is considered ‘public transport’ and can be permitted if required for the purposes of transport in tier 3 provided all social distancing and face covering requirements are followed.

That's pretty clear to me.