RTC 2025

WCR have been very honest about their stance.

 

34067 with the last down Waverley of the summer at Niffany Bridge, Skipton and approaching Long Preston.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/90397953@N02/54771354510/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/90397953@N02/54770171067/in/photostream/

 

Which appears to be, throwing a Tantum when told no, , No you will not get further exemptions, to fitting CDL, everyone else has agreed and are doing it,
Then when faced with only having air braked stock that's already compliant, refuse to fit the air braking equipment to your own engines that have not got it already fitted, instead relying on third parties who have fitted air braking,

 

Blimey, wish I could remember more useful stuff each day than this!!

 

But that's not dishonest is it? It might be foolish, it might be non-commercial, it might be very unfortunate for those of us who think VT's way of complying with the ORR is pretty sensible and not rocket science, but it is not dishonest. Words have meaning and should be weighed carefully.

 

But Martin, the changed stance from ORR wasn’t “you must fit door retention by xx date”, as was done with TPWS.
The changed assessment guidance for ORR inspectors reviewing RSR99 Reg 5 applications is something like “we want centrally controlled door retention, but we will consider alternatives”.

Which ORR duly did for NYMR.

 

I am indeed, I have not once intended to come across as difficult rude.

I have read all those challenges relating to my opinion and, given that unforuntely some (but not all) of my views seem to upset the high command on here, I have chosen to keep quiet on them and keep them to myself. I am very much as say it how it is person but at the same time I am mature enough and can read a room well enough to realise when perhaps that approach isn't suitable in any particular situation.

 

The views do not offend; the manner of their presentation sometimes does. It also amuses, but more in the sense of "laugh at" than "laugh with".

 

I don't, but what I meant by it was that, unless they are going to hire in locos, they need to looking at the situation without a stubborn attitude and realise that without some coach or loco modifications their current situation will not improve. I used the phrase 'be honest' loosely in place of a harsher that perhaps isn't suitable.

Regarding the brakes, yes I meant air brakes to suit they mk2 stock.

I know that, simply a mistake.

 

That is where I think it went wrong, it was the moment other operators began to show that it could be done and for a reasonable cost which made the ORR rethink their stance on granting futher exemptions.

I think that dishonest was a poor word choice from Martin but what he is saying is logical in that perhaps saying that they need to be more open and accepting of the ORR's decsion would be better than continuing to be stubborn.

Noted for the future, as I have said before I never once set out to offend whether it be with my views or how I present them.

 

Seemingly unusual is an arrival and departure from Carlisle Platform 1. Don't think I've done steam from it before, but it certainly limits options for the regulation record snap.

 

You do realise that facility exists to edit your post?
I always review mine after posting, as invariably there’s a typo or error in there somewhere,.

 

This was the statement on Riley & Son FB two days ago - they were clearly happy with the testing ……