Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2023 15:27, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:23:18 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Every car sold has door locks that lock soon after it starts moving, I
>>>>> somehow doubt that they cost that much!
>>>>
>>>> Now try fitting it to a Mk 1 Cortina, which dates from the same era as
>>>> Mk1 carriages (manual everything).
>>>
>>> First find a Mk 1 Cortina…
>>
>> There's probably more of them in existence than Mk 1 carriages allowed on
>> NR tracks.
>
> Though I’d hazard there are probably more seats in surviving Mk 1 carriages
> than in surviving Mk 1 Cortinas.
>
>

Unfortunately <https://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/?page=2&q=Cortina> doesn't
differentiate by Marks so you'd have to dig deeper into the details (year
of registration) to find out.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2023 15:27, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:23:18 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Every car sold has door locks that lock soon after it starts moving, I
>>>>>> somehow doubt that they cost that much!
>>>>>
>>>>> Now try fitting it to a Mk 1 Cortina, which dates from the same era as
>>>>> Mk1 carriages (manual everything).
>>>>
>>>> First find a Mk 1 Cortina…
>>>
>>> There's probably more of them in existence than Mk 1 carriages allowed on
>>> NR tracks.
>>
>> Though I’d hazard there are probably more seats in surviving Mk 1 carriages
>> than in surviving Mk 1 Cortinas.
>>
>>
>
> Unfortunately <https://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/?page=2&q=Cortina> doesn't
> differentiate by Marks so you'd have to dig deeper into the details (year
> of registration) to find out.

Yes, I couldn't find the number of surviving Mk 1 Cortinas, either. I'm
guessing that it's in the low three figures.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 30/11/2023 15:27, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:23:18 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Every car sold has door locks that lock soon after it starts moving, I
>>>> somehow doubt that they cost that much!
>>>
>>> Now try fitting it to a Mk 1 Cortina, which dates from the same era as
>>> Mk1 carriages (manual everything).
>>
>> Absolutely. In particular the electrical system would not be able to
>> stand the on-going extra load (was the Mk 1 Cortina alternator or dynamo
>> fitted?). Not just a case of fitting new locks but also the switches and
>> sensors needed for operation. Oh, and new ignition keys etc to control
>> the locks etc etc.
>>
>
> Surely they'd (these theoretical automatic door locks on a Mk 1 Cortina)
> operate once per journey; 3-5 tiny motors, so far less demand than wipers
> or headlights. You'd need an electronic speed sensor adding to one point of
> the speedo cable, plus one motor per door lock to pull the existing
> mechanism in the 'lock' direction only. Very much achievable, I think.

Interestingly, WCR cites an air-operated CDL system for Mk 1s used by
another charter company (presumably LSL?). It could be that Hosking owns
that system and won't release it to his main competitor?

On 02/12/2023 23:11, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Surely they'd (these theoretical automatic door locks on a Mk 1 Cortina)
> operate once per journey; 3-5 tiny motors, so far less demand than wipers
> or headlights. You'd need an electronic speed sensor adding to one point of
> the speedo cable, plus one motor per door lock to pull the existing
> mechanism in the 'lock' direction only. Very much achievable, I think.

Normally the door locks operate at a particular speed, you hear the
clunk as you accelerate up from a stop.

I think the French pioneered them, I can remember my Renaults having
them long before they became a requirement in the UK and at the time, I
read that they were compulsory there.

On 03/12/2023 07:57, JMB99 wrote:
> On 02/12/2023 23:11, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Surely they'd (these theoretical automatic door locks on a Mk 1 Cortina)
>> operate once per journey; 3-5 tiny motors, so far less demand than wipers
>> or headlights. You'd need an electronic speed sensor adding to one
>> point of
>> the speedo cable, plus one motor per door lock to pull the existing
>> mechanism in the 'lock' direction only. Very much achievable, I think.
>
>
> Normally the door locks operate at a particular speed, you hear the
> clunk as you accelerate up from a stop.
>
> I think the French pioneered them, I can remember my Renaults having
> them long before they became a requirement in the UK and at the time, I
> read that they were compulsory there.
>
>

I had them on my Renault about 30 years ago.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:20:37 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:42:53 +0000, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:01:57 +0000, ColinR
>><rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 30/11/2023 10:48, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 07:33:16 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:22:27 +0000, Scott
>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:39:14 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:10:20 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:05:34 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 22:33:00 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not just the cost of the locks but also the central locking system, on
>>>>>>>>>> carriages with dynamos so power supplies would need to be upgraded.
>>>>>>>>>> Saying "locks" is simplifying the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whatever happened to common sense? How many relevant incidents have
>>>>>>>>>> happened over the years on this stock, if any.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The specific problem with railway carriages is that everywhere else on the
>>>>>>>>> main line (and every metro and tram line) the doors are now centrally
>>>>>>>>> locked. So it's what rail passengers are used to, and what people expect.
>>>>>>>>> Unlocked doors are, therefore, a departure from the norm, and the fact that
>>>>>>>>> it is a departure from the norm is what exacerbates the danger.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's fair comment, but what is the magnitude of the danger in the
>>>>>>>> first place?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The danger is potentially fatal. Falling out of a train door while the train
>>>>>>> is in motion has a very high prospect of killing you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I assume passengers are not used to opening the door
>>>>>>>> whilst the train is not at a station. They may open the door early (as
>>>>>>>> was the custom on SR) but the train would be moving slowly and
>>>>>>>> passengers on the platform would be fully aware of the approach of the
>>>>>>>> train. I wonder what the statistics day about passengers falling out
>>>>>>>> of slam door trains and persons being hit by the door of a moving
>>>>>>>> train.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You appear to be assuming that the probability of an incident is the only
>>>>>>> risk factor. But it isn't. The severity of a potential incident is also
>>>>>>> significant. Here, for example, is a typical risk severity matrix:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.businessanalyststoolkit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/riskseveritymatrix.png
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as the railways are concerned, someone falling out of an unlocked
>>>>>>> door is somewhere at the bottom right of that grid: rare likelihood but
>>>>>>> major or critical severity. Historically that's been tolerated because the
>>>>>>> technology simply didn't exist to effectively mitigate it. But the
>>>>>>> technology does exist now, so it is now also considered the norm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What exacerbates the issue is that unfamiliarity with unlocked doors is
>>>>>>> likely to exacerbate the risk. People are more likely to be careless if they
>>>>>>> mistakenly think that something else is keeping them safe. They're still
>>>>>>> unlikely to deliberately open a door while the train is in motion, but
>>>>>>> opening a door when the train is at a standstill but where that specific
>>>>>>> door doesn't happen to be at a platform is much more likely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> All fair comment. I wonder what the court will decide:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cityam.com/hogwarts-express-operator-spells-trouble-for-rail-regulator-in-court-duel-over-heritage-train-safety/
>>>>>> West Coast Railways began its judicial review in London’s Royal Court
>>>>>> of Justice on Tuesday, against industry watchdog the Office for Rail
>>>>>> and Road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At first I assumed the case would call at the Court of Session, but I
>>>>>> see West Coast Railway Company is based in England and of course the
>>>>>> ruling will apply across GB (quaere NI?).
>>>>>>
>>>>> It will only apply to England and Wales, a definitive decision in an
>>>>> English Court can only be "persuasive" (or even totally irrelevant) in
>>>>> Scotland. Northern Ireland would tend to follow an English decision
>>>>> but there is a possibility of a previous decision in their own
>>>>> judicial system which would impede use of an English one.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. Even for a GB regulator in a reserved matter? That would
>>>> mean Ofcom decisions about the BBC would not automatically apply in
>>>> Scotland, which could certainly lead to interesting consequences.
>>>
>>>What is reserved about this? ORR covers the whole of railways in
>>>England, Wales and Scotland:
>>>https://www.orr.gov.uk/about/how-we-work/strategy-duties/law-and-our-duties
>>>As the ORR is based in England I suspect that an English court ruling
>>>will apply to the ORR even if it refers to a Scottish railway.
>>
>The ORR does not pass legal judgments. As with other cross-border
>organisations it can usually deal with matters on both sides of the
>border as one matter as long as there is no clash of any legal
>features; one such thing could be the standard of evidential proof
>required where criminal law is involved.
>
>>Reserved is the technical term for anything that is not devolved. See:
>>https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/devolved-and-reserved-matters/
>>
>Wrong. "Reserved" is anything in the Scotland Act which is
>specifically listed as a reserved matter; everything else is not
>reserved. Many things were already Scottish matters before the
>Scotland Act either because functions had been transferred to the
>Scottish Office in the preceding century or so or were excluded from
>becoming part of UK matters in 1707 (e.g. the Kirk, the legal system
>and local government) and were never later made UK matters (e.g. Poor
>Laws). The Scottish NHS (e.g.) is not devolved because there has never
>been a UK NHS; it has always been a separate body.

I am quoting the UK Parliament website, though I would tend to agree
with you in terms of how it is expressed in the Scotland Act.

I believe the Scottish NHS was in the past administratively devolved
but not politically devolved in the sense that political
responsibility lay with the Secretary of State for Scotland as a
member of the UK Cabinet (although it is difficult to ascribe a
meaning to the word 'devolved' prior to the passage of the Scotland
Act) .

On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 16:45:12 +0000, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:20:37 +0000, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:42:53 +0000, Scott
>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:01:57 +0000, ColinR
>>><rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 30/11/2023 10:48, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 07:33:16 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:22:27 +0000, Scott
>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:39:14 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:10:20 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:05:34 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>>>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 22:33:00 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not just the cost of the locks but also the central locking system, on
>>>>>>>>>>> carriages with dynamos so power supplies would need to be upgraded.
>>>>>>>>>>> Saying "locks" is simplifying the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever happened to common sense? How many relevant incidents have
>>>>>>>>>>> happened over the years on this stock, if any.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The specific problem with railway carriages is that everywhere else on the
>>>>>>>>>> main line (and every metro and tram line) the doors are now centrally
>>>>>>>>>> locked. So it's what rail passengers are used to, and what people expect.
>>>>>>>>>> Unlocked doors are, therefore, a departure from the norm, and the fact that
>>>>>>>>>> it is a departure from the norm is what exacerbates the danger.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's fair comment, but what is the magnitude of the danger in the
>>>>>>>>> first place?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The danger is potentially fatal. Falling out of a train door while the train
>>>>>>>> is in motion has a very high prospect of killing you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I assume passengers are not used to opening the door
>>>>>>>>> whilst the train is not at a station. They may open the door early (as
>>>>>>>>> was the custom on SR) but the train would be moving slowly and
>>>>>>>>> passengers on the platform would be fully aware of the approach of the
>>>>>>>>> train. I wonder what the statistics day about passengers falling out
>>>>>>>>> of slam door trains and persons being hit by the door of a moving
>>>>>>>>> train.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You appear to be assuming that the probability of an incident is the only
>>>>>>>> risk factor. But it isn't. The severity of a potential incident is also
>>>>>>>> significant. Here, for example, is a typical risk severity matrix:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.businessanalyststoolkit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/riskseveritymatrix.png
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as the railways are concerned, someone falling out of an unlocked
>>>>>>>> door is somewhere at the bottom right of that grid: rare likelihood but
>>>>>>>> major or critical severity. Historically that's been tolerated because the
>>>>>>>> technology simply didn't exist to effectively mitigate it. But the
>>>>>>>> technology does exist now, so it is now also considered the norm.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What exacerbates the issue is that unfamiliarity with unlocked doors is
>>>>>>>> likely to exacerbate the risk. People are more likely to be careless if they
>>>>>>>> mistakenly think that something else is keeping them safe. They're still
>>>>>>>> unlikely to deliberately open a door while the train is in motion, but
>>>>>>>> opening a door when the train is at a standstill but where that specific
>>>>>>>> door doesn't happen to be at a platform is much more likely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All fair comment. I wonder what the court will decide:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cityam.com/hogwarts-express-operator-spells-trouble-for-rail-regulator-in-court-duel-over-heritage-train-safety/
>>>>>>> West Coast Railways began its judicial review in London’s Royal Court
>>>>>>> of Justice on Tuesday, against industry watchdog the Office for Rail
>>>>>>> and Road.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At first I assumed the case would call at the Court of Session, but I
>>>>>>> see West Coast Railway Company is based in England and of course the
>>>>>>> ruling will apply across GB (quaere NI?).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It will only apply to England and Wales, a definitive decision in an
>>>>>> English Court can only be "persuasive" (or even totally irrelevant) in
>>>>>> Scotland. Northern Ireland would tend to follow an English decision
>>>>>> but there is a possibility of a previous decision in their own
>>>>>> judicial system which would impede use of an English one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. Even for a GB regulator in a reserved matter? That would
>>>>> mean Ofcom decisions about the BBC would not automatically apply in
>>>>> Scotland, which could certainly lead to interesting consequences.
>>>>
>>>>What is reserved about this? ORR covers the whole of railways in
>>>>England, Wales and Scotland:
>>>>https://www.orr.gov.uk/about/how-we-work/strategy-duties/law-and-our-duties
>>>>As the ORR is based in England I suspect that an English court ruling
>>>>will apply to the ORR even if it refers to a Scottish railway.
>>>
>>The ORR does not pass legal judgments. As with other cross-border
>>organisations it can usually deal with matters on both sides of the
>>border as one matter as long as there is no clash of any legal
>>features; one such thing could be the standard of evidential proof
>>required where criminal law is involved.
>>
>>>Reserved is the technical term for anything that is not devolved. See:
>>>https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/devolved-and-reserved-matters/
>>>
>>Wrong. "Reserved" is anything in the Scotland Act which is
>>specifically listed as a reserved matter; everything else is not
>>reserved. Many things were already Scottish matters before the
>>Scotland Act either because functions had been transferred to the
>>Scottish Office in the preceding century or so or were excluded from
>>becoming part of UK matters in 1707 (e.g. the Kirk, the legal system
>>and local government) and were never later made UK matters (e.g. Poor
>>Laws). The Scottish NHS (e.g.) is not devolved because there has never
>>been a UK NHS; it has always been a separate body.
>
>I am quoting the UK Parliament website,
>
Which is not always right but can give good pointers.

>though I would tend to agree
>with you in terms of how it is expressed in the Scotland Act.
>
>I believe the Scottish NHS was in the past administratively devolved
>but not politically devolved in the sense that political
>responsibility lay with the Secretary of State for Scotland as a
>member of the UK Cabinet (although it is difficult to ascribe a
>meaning to the word 'devolved' prior to the passage of the Scotland
>Act) .
>
Three systems were originally created, each with their own set of
legislation; none being subsidiary to any other. -
1. England and Wales - National Health Service Act 1946
2. Scotland - National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947,
3. Northern Ireland - Health Services Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 -
not an NHS but a combined health and social care system.

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 09:33:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey
<mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 07:33:16 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> It will only apply to England and Wales, a definitive decision in an
>> English Court can only be "persuasive" (or even totally irrelevant) in
>> Scotland. Northern Ireland would tend to follow an English decision but
>> there is a possibility of a previous decision in their own judicial
>> system which would impede use of an English one.
>
>It seems to be an English case to me. The dispute between the ORR (based
>in London) and West Coast Railways (based in Carnforth). The action being
>disputed is the issuing (or not issuing) of a derogation by ORR, which is
>between ORR and the company - the train itself isn't directly part of the
>dispute. So it seems to me that the location of the Jacobite train is
>irrelevant, as both parties to the dispute are in England.
>
In most such cases there is no necessity for separate action in
Scotland as long as it remains a hypothetical matter.

On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 00:22:43 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 16:45:12 +0000, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:20:37 +0000, Charles Ellson
>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:42:53 +0000, Scott
>>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:01:57 +0000, ColinR
>>>><rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 30/11/2023 10:48, Scott wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 07:33:16 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:22:27 +0000, Scott
>>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:39:14 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:10:20 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:05:34 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 22:33:00 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just the cost of the locks but also the central locking system, on
>>>>>>>>>>>> carriages with dynamos so power supplies would need to be upgraded.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying "locks" is simplifying the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever happened to common sense? How many relevant incidents have
>>>>>>>>>>>> happened over the years on this stock, if any.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The specific problem with railway carriages is that everywhere else on the
>>>>>>>>>>> main line (and every metro and tram line) the doors are now centrally
>>>>>>>>>>> locked. So it's what rail passengers are used to, and what people expect.
>>>>>>>>>>> Unlocked doors are, therefore, a departure from the norm, and the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>> it is a departure from the norm is what exacerbates the danger.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's fair comment, but what is the magnitude of the danger in the
>>>>>>>>>> first place?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The danger is potentially fatal. Falling out of a train door while the train
>>>>>>>>> is in motion has a very high prospect of killing you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I assume passengers are not used to opening the door
>>>>>>>>>> whilst the train is not at a station. They may open the door early (as
>>>>>>>>>> was the custom on SR) but the train would be moving slowly and
>>>>>>>>>> passengers on the platform would be fully aware of the approach of the
>>>>>>>>>> train. I wonder what the statistics day about passengers falling out
>>>>>>>>>> of slam door trains and persons being hit by the door of a moving
>>>>>>>>>> train.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You appear to be assuming that the probability of an incident is the only
>>>>>>>>> risk factor. But it isn't. The severity of a potential incident is also
>>>>>>>>> significant. Here, for example, is a typical risk severity matrix:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.businessanalyststoolkit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/riskseveritymatrix.png
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As far as the railways are concerned, someone falling out of an unlocked
>>>>>>>>> door is somewhere at the bottom right of that grid: rare likelihood but
>>>>>>>>> major or critical severity. Historically that's been tolerated because the
>>>>>>>>> technology simply didn't exist to effectively mitigate it. But the
>>>>>>>>> technology does exist now, so it is now also considered the norm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What exacerbates the issue is that unfamiliarity with unlocked doors is
>>>>>>>>> likely to exacerbate the risk. People are more likely to be careless if they
>>>>>>>>> mistakenly think that something else is keeping them safe. They're still
>>>>>>>>> unlikely to deliberately open a door while the train is in motion, but
>>>>>>>>> opening a door when the train is at a standstill but where that specific
>>>>>>>>> door doesn't happen to be at a platform is much more likely.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All fair comment. I wonder what the court will decide:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cityam.com/hogwarts-express-operator-spells-trouble-for-rail-regulator-in-court-duel-over-heritage-train-safety/
>>>>>>>> West Coast Railways began its judicial review in London’s Royal Court
>>>>>>>> of Justice on Tuesday, against industry watchdog the Office for Rail
>>>>>>>> and Road.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At first I assumed the case would call at the Court of Session, but I
>>>>>>>> see West Coast Railway Company is based in England and of course the
>>>>>>>> ruling will apply across GB (quaere NI?).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It will only apply to England and Wales, a definitive decision in an
>>>>>>> English Court can only be "persuasive" (or even totally irrelevant) in
>>>>>>> Scotland. Northern Ireland would tend to follow an English decision
>>>>>>> but there is a possibility of a previous decision in their own
>>>>>>> judicial system which would impede use of an English one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. Even for a GB regulator in a reserved matter? That would
>>>>>> mean Ofcom decisions about the BBC would not automatically apply in
>>>>>> Scotland, which could certainly lead to interesting consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is reserved about this? ORR covers the whole of railways in
>>>>>England, Wales and Scotland:
>>>>>https://www.orr.gov.uk/about/how-we-work/strategy-duties/law-and-our-duties
>>>>>As the ORR is based in England I suspect that an English court ruling
>>>>>will apply to the ORR even if it refers to a Scottish railway.
>>>>
>>>The ORR does not pass legal judgments. As with other cross-border
>>>organisations it can usually deal with matters on both sides of the
>>>border as one matter as long as there is no clash of any legal
>>>features; one such thing could be the standard of evidential proof
>>>required where criminal law is involved.
>>>
>>>>Reserved is the technical term for anything that is not devolved. See:
>>>>https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/devolved-and-reserved-matters/
>>>>
>>>Wrong. "Reserved" is anything in the Scotland Act which is
>>>specifically listed as a reserved matter; everything else is not
>>>reserved. Many things were already Scottish matters before the
>>>Scotland Act either because functions had been transferred to the
>>>Scottish Office in the preceding century or so or were excluded from
>>>becoming part of UK matters in 1707 (e.g. the Kirk, the legal system
>>>and local government) and were never later made UK matters (e.g. Poor
>>>Laws). The Scottish NHS (e.g.) is not devolved because there has never
>>>been a UK NHS; it has always been a separate body.
>>
>>I am quoting the UK Parliament website,
>>
>Which is not always right but can give good pointers.

On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 00:34:02 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 09:33:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey
><mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 07:33:16 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> It will only apply to England and Wales, a definitive decision in an
>>> English Court can only be "persuasive" (or even totally irrelevant) in
>>> Scotland. Northern Ireland would tend to follow an English decision but
>>> there is a possibility of a previous decision in their own judicial
>>> system which would impede use of an English one.
>>
>>It seems to be an English case to me. The dispute between the ORR (based
>>in London) and West Coast Railways (based in Carnforth). The action being
>>disputed is the issuing (or not issuing) of a derogation by ORR, which is
>>between ORR and the company - the train itself isn't directly part of the
>>dispute. So it seems to me that the location of the Jacobite train is
>>irrelevant, as both parties to the dispute are in England.
>>
>In most such cases there is no necessity for separate action in
>Scotland as long as it remains a hypothetical matter.

I think that's right but hypothetically if West Coast Railways were to
run the service without holding a derogation, any criminal case would
call in the Scottish courts. Quaerere - could a contempt of an English
court be constituted by an act taking place in Scotland?

On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 10:10:59 +0000, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 00:22:43 +0000, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 16:45:12 +0000, Scott
>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:20:37 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:42:53 +0000, Scott
>>>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:01:57 +0000, ColinR
>>>>><rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 30/11/2023 10:48, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 07:33:16 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:22:27 +0000, Scott
>>>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:39:14 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>>>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:10:20 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:05:34 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 22:33:00 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just the cost of the locks but also the central locking system, on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> carriages with dynamos so power supplies would need to be upgraded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying "locks" is simplifying the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever happened to common sense? How many relevant incidents have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened over the years on this stock, if any.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The specific problem with railway carriages is that everywhere else on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> main line (and every metro and tram line) the doors are now centrally
>>>>>>>>>>>> locked. So it's what rail passengers are used to, and what people expect.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unlocked doors are, therefore, a departure from the norm, and the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is a departure from the norm is what exacerbates the danger.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's fair comment, but what is the magnitude of the danger in the
>>>>>>>>>>> first place?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The danger is potentially fatal. Falling out of a train door while the train
>>>>>>>>>> is in motion has a very high prospect of killing you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I assume passengers are not used to opening the door
>>>>>>>>>>> whilst the train is not at a station. They may open the door early (as
>>>>>>>>>>> was the custom on SR) but the train would be moving slowly and
>>>>>>>>>>> passengers on the platform would be fully aware of the approach of the
>>>>>>>>>>> train. I wonder what the statistics day about passengers falling out
>>>>>>>>>>> of slam door trains and persons being hit by the door of a moving
>>>>>>>>>>> train.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You appear to be assuming that the probability of an incident is the only
>>>>>>>>>> risk factor. But it isn't. The severity of a potential incident is also
>>>>>>>>>> significant. Here, for example, is a typical risk severity matrix:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.businessanalyststoolkit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/riskseveritymatrix.png
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As far as the railways are concerned, someone falling out of an unlocked
>>>>>>>>>> door is somewhere at the bottom right of that grid: rare likelihood but
>>>>>>>>>> major or critical severity. Historically that's been tolerated because the
>>>>>>>>>> technology simply didn't exist to effectively mitigate it. But the
>>>>>>>>>> technology does exist now, so it is now also considered the norm.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What exacerbates the issue is that unfamiliarity with unlocked doors is
>>>>>>>>>> likely to exacerbate the risk. People are more likely to be careless if they
>>>>>>>>>> mistakenly think that something else is keeping them safe. They're still
>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to deliberately open a door while the train is in motion, but
>>>>>>>>>> opening a door when the train is at a standstill but where that specific
>>>>>>>>>> door doesn't happen to be at a platform is much more likely.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All fair comment. I wonder what the court will decide:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cityam.com/hogwarts-express-operator-spells-trouble-for-rail-regulator-in-court-duel-over-heritage-train-safety/
>>>>>>>>> West Coast Railways began its judicial review in London’s Royal Court
>>>>>>>>> of Justice on Tuesday, against industry watchdog the Office for Rail
>>>>>>>>> and Road.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At first I assumed the case would call at the Court of Session, but I
>>>>>>>>> see West Coast Railway Company is based in England and of course the
>>>>>>>>> ruling will apply across GB (quaere NI?).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It will only apply to England and Wales, a definitive decision in an
>>>>>>>> English Court can only be "persuasive" (or even totally irrelevant) in
>>>>>>>> Scotland. Northern Ireland would tend to follow an English decision
>>>>>>>> but there is a possibility of a previous decision in their own
>>>>>>>> judicial system which would impede use of an English one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting. Even for a GB regulator in a reserved matter? That would
>>>>>>> mean Ofcom decisions about the BBC would not automatically apply in
>>>>>>> Scotland, which could certainly lead to interesting consequences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What is reserved about this? ORR covers the whole of railways in
>>>>>>England, Wales and Scotland:
>>>>>>https://www.orr.gov.uk/about/how-we-work/strategy-duties/law-and-our-duties
>>>>>>As the ORR is based in England I suspect that an English court ruling
>>>>>>will apply to the ORR even if it refers to a Scottish railway.
>>>>>
>>>>The ORR does not pass legal judgments. As with other cross-border
>>>>organisations it can usually deal with matters on both sides of the
>>>>border as one matter as long as there is no clash of any legal
>>>>features; one such thing could be the standard of evidential proof
>>>>required where criminal law is involved.
>>>>
>>>>>Reserved is the technical term for anything that is not devolved. See:
>>>>>https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/devolved-and-reserved-matters/
>>>>>
>>>>Wrong. "Reserved" is anything in the Scotland Act which is
>>>>specifically listed as a reserved matter; everything else is not
>>>>reserved. Many things were already Scottish matters before the
>>>>Scotland Act either because functions had been transferred to the
>>>>Scottish Office in the preceding century or so or were excluded from
>>>>becoming part of UK matters in 1707 (e.g. the Kirk, the legal system
>>>>and local government) and were never later made UK matters (e.g. Poor
>>>>Laws). The Scottish NHS (e.g.) is not devolved because there has never
>>>>been a UK NHS; it has always been a separate body.
>>>
>>>I am quoting the UK Parliament website,
>>>
>>Which is not always right but can give good pointers.
>
>It must deserve some respect though -:)
>>
Like the curate's egg, it can be good in parts but not so good in
others but a reasonable amount of referencing seems to be usual. It is
certainly usually better than the gov.uk website.

On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 10:15:34 +0000, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 00:34:02 +0000, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 09:33:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey
>><mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 07:33:16 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> It will only apply to England and Wales, a definitive decision in an
>>>> English Court can only be "persuasive" (or even totally irrelevant) in
>>>> Scotland. Northern Ireland would tend to follow an English decision but
>>>> there is a possibility of a previous decision in their own judicial
>>>> system which would impede use of an English one.
>>>
>>>It seems to be an English case to me. The dispute between the ORR (based
>>>in London) and West Coast Railways (based in Carnforth). The action being
>>>disputed is the issuing (or not issuing) of a derogation by ORR, which is
>>>between ORR and the company - the train itself isn't directly part of the
>>>dispute. So it seems to me that the location of the Jacobite train is
>>>irrelevant, as both parties to the dispute are in England.
>>>
>>In most such cases there is no necessity for separate action in
>>Scotland as long as it remains a hypothetical matter.
>
>I think that's right but hypothetically if West Coast Railways were to
>run the service without holding a derogation, any criminal case would
>call in the Scottish courts. Quaerere - could a contempt of an English
>court be constituted by an act taking place in Scotland?
>
I don't think simply crossing the border makes an English entity
immune from an injunction of an English court but that idea could
maybe be strangled at birth by any injunction preventing removing
relevant assets from the jurisdiction. Cross-border complications
might be more a feature of family law than company law.
If the lack of derogation means there is a criminal offence committed
plain and simple then that is presumably simply a matter of which side
of the border they get their collar felt deciding if they appear in a
Scottish or English court.