SVR General Discussion

I think it is quite reasonable that a railway places limits on staff (paid or volunteer) sharing photos where those photos are taken from an area of privilege, i.e. from a viewpoint not open to the public.

As an example not related to this instance - someone might post a "newsworthy" photo of the arrival of a large consignment of non-ferrous castings, and in the process provide good information about where and what to the metal fairies.

In the current case, knowing that the incident is inevitably going to be pored over in an internal, and possibly external, investigation, I'd be amazed that anyone felt it was sensible to release photos that would inevitably generate more heat than light.

Tom

 

I am not saying the end results are different but that the initial response is. For example sharing of ATC transmissions, and there is of course far more likelihood of public CCTV or just phone video to allow the public to have more access to info. Take the UPS MD11 crash where there are two or three angles of the powerplant detaching from the wing, and of course these days onboard filming of just about every incident by the pax. The set up of most rail locations do not allow that luxury.
Yes spares are loaned out frequently, although the weekend our AOG desk loaned Iran Air some item on the USA Black List gave us mere mortals a chuckle one Monday morning as they tried to get it back.

 

Well it still moves and isn't twisted beyond all recognition.
It's the detailed examination that will show the true picture of the damage.

 

Curious choice of shunters wagon though. It suggests that the damage to the structure isn’t too bad if they are prepared to hang other locos off the tender.

 

Agreed and this is one of the curses of social media and the rush to get 'likes' or clicks especially when it's so easy and quick to post.

 

That's said, 100% of close-up modern traction photos shared from places such as DB Toton, are seemingly from enthusiast drivers - nobody else gets access these days. I'm not personally seeing the issue unless there's something commercially sensitive being shared.

In terms of a damaged Hagley Hall, I've only seen videos posted on YouTube which are seemingly from paying customers. Not sure how you can prevent shared media in those cases.

 

You can’t do anything about a member of the public taking a photo from a public vantage point - but that’s not the same as a member of staff taking a photo from inside a shed or workshop.

The video of shunting had the back of the tender sheeted over, presumably because the railway realise they can’t prevent the filming, but can at least avoid a micro-dissertation on the precise amount of denting!

Tom

 

To be fair to the lady in question, a fair number of the Bluebell vintage coaches (including the Metropolitans?) did use to have an interior handle or latch to open the door with but these have subsequently been removed. I did notice on a visit a few weeks back that the posted instructions inside one coach I traveled in still made reference to an interior handle, so you can understand why some passengers are a little confused when faced with a flat brass plate!

 

I don't disagree Peter. My point was really about how many 'employees' on the big railway take images that they share on media such as Flickr. I'm sure they wouldn't in a case of an incident however.

 

That's rather the point!

 

I am sure that the SVR's Rule book contains a clause that states that employees (and that includes unpaid volunteers) MUST NOT make statements to the media. and I expect it also says something along the lines "If you breach the rules and regulations you may be subject to discipinary action "
Obviously I have not seen any of the photographs taken from inside the shed as I do no unsocial media, But it does not look to me that 4930 entered the shed at 25mph! Is that the road that 82045 is kept.
I will agree that it was lucky that no other loco were parked, or nobody was working near the door.

 

Just to pick up on this as a Bluebell regular, the Mets used to have internal handles as you say, but had the locks replaced a year or two ago and no longer do.
The SECR 100 seater 1098 retains the internal handles. The only other coach I can think of is maybe LSWR 1520, but it is run so little I cannot remember.

 

How exactly did a thread about the Severn Valley Railway suddenly develop into a discussion about carriage door handles on the Bluebell?

 

Someone randomly responded to a post from 12 years ago!

Tom

 

I've heard of slow readers but . . . !

 

A cunning plan to divert things away from the current hot topic?

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...1J8ZjmLSmwQLVoUqKCo7HVrtcl&id=100064471998754

Our flagship locomotive 4930 Hagley Hall was involved in an incident at Bridgnorth motive power depot on the evening of Sunday 12 July.

Happily no one was injured in the incident and we're currently assessing the locomotive. We've begun a full investigation to establish exactly what happened and we can't comment further until that is complete. We've informed the Office of Rail and Road, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and our insurers.

Once we know the extent of the damage to the locomotive and its tender we will commence repairs. As the damage is still to be fully determined, we cannot give a timescale for the locomotive's return to service and will post an update once we know more.