South Devon Rly: floorless toilet

[Cowley]

It’s good to see that statement from the SDR, I’m not sure what else they could really say at this point.
It is very much my local railway and from my personal experience has always seemed very well run, and in the last couple of decades since they went in a separate way from the Torbay & Dartmouth they’ve gone from strength to strength.
Clearly something went horribly wrong here and I should imagine that a lot of changes in procedure will have taken place since this event.
It’s perhaps also worth thinking about this though - How many of us (me included) that are passing comment on this forum, would be happy to give up a precious weeks holiday lifting the urine stained lino in that toilet, cutting back the soggy, stinking rotten wood and scraping the rust off the chassis before welding it up and putting it all back together again?
It’s not exactly glamorous is it? That is the reality of looking after these old coaches though.
I can’t imagine that they’re the only railway to have cut corners due to lack of resources/staff.

 

[Tom B]

I appreciate it's an unpleasant job, especially for a volunteer. But if it can't be done safely and properly, it shouldn't be done at all. The consequences could have been considerably more severe in this case; by good fortune they weren't.

 

[Chris M]

The unpleasant job was done safely and (presumably) properly. What wasn't done properly was the decision to put it back into service without a floor (because who had ultimate responsibility was unclear), and following that decision.

• securing of the door (although to be fair it was thought to be secure, and probably was initially)
• communicating the reason the toilet was out of use.

I suspect that the on-train staff would not have allowed the carriage to run without a fully secured door, that was tested secure every trip, had they known there was no floor.

 

[Shenandoah]

Agreed, a quite unpleasant job and one, as far as I know, can have big health as well as safety issues.
Maybe it is time for heritage lines to up their game and employ more salaried staff on some of the more safety critical work, which should ensure greater supervision and accountability.
Before the cry 'cannot afford it' goes up it is notable that monies are raised to restore locos, rolling stock and structures, so money for the safe operation of the railway should always be a priority.

 

[43096]

The unpleasant job was done safely and (presumably) properly. What wasn't done properly was the decision to put it back into service without a floor (because who had ultimate responsibility was unclear), and following that decision.

• securing of the door (although to be fair it was thought to be secure, and probably was initially)
• communicating the reason the toilet was out of use.

I suspect that the on-train staff would not have allowed the carriage to run without a fully secured door, that was tested secure every trip, had they known there was no floor.

Sorry, but that vehicle just should not have been in service. End of.

People I know who are responsible for FTR and train prep on preserved lines would never have allowed that vehicle into traffic.

 

[headshot119]

Agreed, a quite unpleasant job and one, as far as I know, can have big health as well as safety issues.
Maybe it is time for heritage lines to up their game and employ more salaried staff on some of the more safety critical work, which should ensure greater supervision and accountability.
Before the cry 'cannot afford it' goes up it is notable that monies are raised to restore locos, rolling stock and structures, so money for the safe operation of the railway should always be a priority.

Did you read the report? Everyone who made the decision to put the coach into service was paid...

 

[Shenandoah]

Did you read the report? Everyone who made the decision to put the coach into service was paid...

Of course I have read the report and seen the BBC tv reports initially and subsequently.
My comments had no relationship to who, why or whether the carriage should have been in service.
What I wrote was concerning the conditions under which those who have to maintain and repair carriages have to work and the supervision and accountability of their work.
Just in case you have a comment about the mention of a television report this is the tv picture of the carriage in question.

 

[headshot119]

Of course I have read the report and seen the BBC tv reports initially and subsequently.
My comments had no relationship to who, why or whether the carriage should have been in service.
What I wrote was concerning the conditions under which those who have to maintain and repair carriages have to work and the supervision and accountability of their work.
Just in case you have a comment about the mention of a television report this is the tv picture of the carriage in question.

So you understand that those responsible for supervising the work, and for putting the carriage back into service where paid, but you feel more paid staff are needed so there is better supervision and accountability.

 

[Shenandoah]

I think we are at an impasse.
I am making no comments about putting carriages into service, simply maintaining them. Read posts 61, 62 and 63 which were those that my post 64 continued.
No further comment.

 

[swj99]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-44112957

A steam railway trust has been fined £40,000 after a boy nearly fell through the open floor of a toilet cubicle.
Anna Patch's three-year-old son escaped serious injury last June after being pulled back by his mother, a magistrates' court heard.
An Office of Rail and Road (ORR) investigation discovered that the toilet floor had been missing from the carriage for two months.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I am surprised the fine was that low.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I am surprised the fine was that low.

It does sound low, but the danger with a higher fine is that none of it gets paid because the business can't afford it. I make no comment on the ability or otherwise of the SDR to pay a higher penalty.

 

[Shenandoah]

In addition to the fine there is also over £10000 costs, not to mention pretty harsh comments by the Inspector

 

[YorkshireBear]

In addition to the fine there is also over £10000 costs, not to mention pretty harsh comments by the Inspector

And massive ramifications for the wider Heritage Railway sector.

 

[richw]

Will the fine amount be based on the financial ability of the organisation?

 

[Shenandoah]

https://www.southdevonrailway.co.uk/2018/05/14/south-devon-railway-trust-media-statement/

South Devon Railway Trust – Media Statement

Office of Rail & Road (ORR) Prosecution, 14 May 2018

Following the conclusion of today’s Court hearing at Newton Abbot Magistrates Court, a South Devon Railway Trust spokesman said:

“First of all, we have once again offered our sincere apologies to Ms Anna Patch, her son and family for what occurred during their trip on the SDR on 22 June 2017.

“The South Devon Railway Trust fully acknowledges the shortcomings which occurred, and entered a guilty plea today to the charges brought against the railway by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).

“Despite the SDR’s good health and safety record, we accept that we did not meet health and safety standards in this case, and put our customers at risk.

“The SDR takes the safety of its customers and staff very seriously, and has put every effort into making improvements to its systems, including a new Safety Management System, to ensure that this incident could not happen again.

“This includes complying with the requests of the ORR, and going further to put in place new infrastructure to modernise our approach to carriage maintenance.

“The SDR accepts and regrets that improvement was needed at the time of the incident – hopefully it can be seen that the Trust has reacted appropriately and seriously in the circumstances.

“Whilst the fine we received today is a significant one, we have been making contingency plans for it and also have a helpful period of time in which to pay. As a result, the SDR will continue to operate our popular heritage steam trains and services as normal.”

 

[Chris M]

Will the fine amount be based on the financial ability of the organisation?

AIUI, what a guilty party can afford to pay is routinely taken into account when setting the level of a fine - legislation almost always sets only a maximum level for a fine.

 

[XDM]

Chris M is exactly right.
And the HSE in their submissions to the sentencing bench always set out examples of fines previously levied by other courts & the turnover of the guilty exampled companies as guidelines for the bench.
Of course the three magistrates sitting are entitled to decide the fine on the basis of the facts they hear. But probably none of them have ever sat on an HSE prosecuted case before, the JPs are volunteers, so they take the HSE advice & their clerk of the Court's view seriously.
I thought the fine was a bit steep for a relatively small charity that pleaded guilty at the first opportunity( normally a 30% discount).

 

[BestWestern]

Chris M is exactly right.
And the HSE in their submissions to the sentencing bench always set out examples of fines previously levied by other courts & the turnover of the guilty exampled companies as guidelines for the bench.
Of course the three magistrates sitting are entitled to decide the fine on the basis of the facts they hear. But probably none of them have ever sat on an HSE prosecuted case before, the JPs are volunteers, so they take the HSE advice & their clerk of the Court's view seriously.
I thought the fine was a bit steep for a relatively small charity that pleaded guilty at the first opportunity( normally a 30% discount).

I wonder would the fine have been less had the child involved not come so close to serious injury? I recall, if the reports were entirely accurate, that the boy's mother essentially dragged him up off the bogie. Presumably this was frighteningly close to being a potential fatality. Does the issuing of penalties reflect the specific consequences, or only the offence itself?