West Coast Railways prohibitedfrom running trains
Discussion
Office of Rail Regulator has prohibited WCRC from operations.
http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/news-and-announce...
http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/news-and-announce...
The boss runs it like his own personal train set, rules and regs are for other companies. The Wooton Bassett driver has a court date but has been refused legal assistance from ASLEF despite being a member for 50years. He has a barrister but win or loose it's going to cost him all he has. I'm not sure when or if any corperate charges are being bought, a chance conversation with someone from the ORR just after the event leads me to think the ORR are pressing for this. The owner has the attitude that "if I cant run it no one else is going to either". There are 50 full time employees mostly based at Carnforth who I feel sorry for. Financially I wonder how WCR can afford another suspension as train tour promoters must bit absolutely fed up with them.
Stedman said:
I'm surprised it's taken so long. I just don't understand why the bloke didn't make the 2 minute phonecall to say he'd missed the AWS.
That was the original balls-up (for which there is very little / no excuse whatsoever when you realise the press 'reset and go' has received over the years since the introduction of TPWS).A more recent incident near Doncaster forced the ORRs hand and caused the withdrawal of operating licence.
I'll be honest and say that if its true ASLEF are refusing legal aid then that's a little off!
Strange a Union finding someone guilty before trial...
Boatbuoy said:
Who are the alternative charter operators to WCR?
This time last year, WCRC handled 90% of steam charter trains. I don't know what the current figure is, but probably not much different.On another forum ( http://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?... ) a poster gave this information in April last year about the only other player currently on the scene, DBS. I can't vouch for its accuracy:
the poster said:
DBS employ a total of just 12 steam footplate crew across the UK. That does not leave a great deal of scope to expand their steam charter business.
legzr1 said:
I'll be honest and say that if its true ASLEF are refusing legal aid then that's a little off!
Strange a Union finding someone guilty before trial...
Somebody like Breadvan72 could probably give a definitive answer but I don't think he spends much time on this sub-forum!Strange a Union finding someone guilty before trial...
As I understand the legal system, a brief must truly believe that their client is innocent of the alleged offence. I suspect the driver (who has been named on other forums but I'm not going to name him here just to be on the safe side) has said something to the ASLEF barrister which would make it difficult for the brief to represent him.
Either that, or the OTMR (On Train Monitoring Recorder) evidence is conclusive in itself. If a driver says at an enquiry that he did A,B and C then a download of the system will back him up - or not, as the case may be.
Just my speculation, of course, but it seems to make some sort of sense.
Edited by rs1952 on Thursday 18th February 21:18
rs1952 said:
Somebody like Breadvan72 could probably give a definitive answer but I don't think he spends much time on this sub-forum!
As I understand the legal system, a brief must truly believe that their client is innocent of the alleged offence. I suspect the driver (who has been named on other forums but I'm not going to name him here just to be on the safe side) has said something to the ASLEF barrister which would make it difficult for the brief to represent him.
Either that, or the OTMR (On Train Monitoring Recorder) evidence is conclusive in itself. If a driver says at an enquiry that he did A,B and C then a download of the system will back him up - or not, as the case may be.
Just my speculation, of course, but it seems to make some sort of sense.
Yes, I understand what you're saying but even a guilty man pleading guilty requires legal representation to argue mitigating circumstances (I'm making no accusations as to whether the driver in this case is guilty or not!).As I understand the legal system, a brief must truly believe that their client is innocent of the alleged offence. I suspect the driver (who has been named on other forums but I'm not going to name him here just to be on the safe side) has said something to the ASLEF barrister which would make it difficult for the brief to represent him.
Either that, or the OTMR (On Train Monitoring Recorder) evidence is conclusive in itself. If a driver says at an enquiry that he did A,B and C then a download of the system will back him up - or not, as the case may be.
Just my speculation, of course, but it seems to make some sort of sense.
Edited by rs1952 on Thursday 18th February 21:18
For his own Union to deny that representation sounds VERY unusual especially when that is what membership is sold on.
The ASLEF attitude may come from their general dislike of WCR and the employment of retired drivers as a part time work force. I can't remember for sure without going back through old conference minuets but a motion may have been passed regarding this. What I do know is this is not the first driver who has found himself in court for disabling the TPWS and then having an incident. ASLEF and TOCS view these incidents as potential dismissal issues(only drug/achcohol is worse). So if procedures have been followed correctly by the TOC during the investigation, ASLEF will not defend the driver. So the Wooten driver is not really being singled out, he clearly broke rules of reporting to the signaller following the initial emergency brake application at the temporary speed, even if he didn't personally isolate the TPWS. He does have a barrister but obviously he's got to find the money for cost's from his own pocket.
Swindon Magistrates have "kicked the case upstairs"
http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/01/2...
http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/01/2...
legzr1 said:
Stedman said:
I'm surprised it's taken so long. I just don't understand why the bloke didn't make the 2 minute phonecall to say he'd missed the AWS.
That was the original balls-up (for which there is very little / no excuse whatsoever when you realise the press 'reset and go' has received over the years since the introduction of TPWS).A more recent incident near Doncaster forced the ORRs hand and caused the withdrawal of operating licence.
I'll be honest and say that if its true ASLEF are refusing legal aid then that's a little off!
Strange a Union finding someone guilty before trial...
neilb62 said:
There are certain things that ASLEF will not represent a Driver for, anything concerning Drink and or Drugs for instance and TPWS reset and goes. Remember most modern trains (n/a here obviously) have recording equipment so the trial is not needed to find guilt! It's often a given these days.
Aslef advertise 'expert' legal advice as part of their recruitment drive (well, they did 30 years ago - I'm guessing they still do) - I can't remember ever seeing a list of things excluded.Does someone sit at Aslef HQ deciding the merit of cases before instructing Legal firms?
If so, what qualifies them to make such decisions?
If not, who does make the decision?
If the loco in question wasn't fitted with OTDR / Q-Tron then how is any guilt already decided (especially when the trial hasn't even begun yet) ?
Genuine questions btw, I have no axe to grind but I'm a little taken aback by Aslefs decision not to provide legal representation.
W124Bob said:
The ASLEF attitude may come from their general dislike of WCR and the employment of retired drivers as a part time work force..
That's no excuse I'm afraid - Aslef are happy to accept subs from these drivers knowing full well who they work for and the likelyhood of already drawing pensions and being employed on zero-hour contracts.If the dislike of such contracts and employers is so great then why not refuse membership and make a real point?
Unless this comes under the heading "questionable decisions" and is filed in the same cabinet as sanctioning rest day working at a company making staff redundant...
legzr1 said:
Aslef advertise 'expert' legal advice as part of their recruitment drive (well, they did 30 years ago - I'm guessing they still do) - I can't remember ever seeing a list of things excluded.
Does someone sit at Aslef HQ deciding the merit of cases before instructing Legal firms?
If so, what qualifies them to make such decisions?
If not, who does make the decision?
If the loco in question wasn't fitted with OTDR / Q-Tron then how is any guilt already decided (especially when the trial hasn't even begun yet) ?
Genuine questions btw, I have no axe to grind but I'm a little taken aback by Aslefs decision not to provide legal representation.
Things have changed a lot in the last 30 years, for any of the things I mentioned you won't even get representation at local level let alone a solicitor! No the loco wasn't fitted with ODTR but on his own admission the fireman isolated the TPWS whilst it was on the move and didn't tell the Driver, none the less its the Driver who carries the can. Sadly the whole WCRC mindset can probably be summed up by a bloke who left my depot on retirement to go and work for them, 'now I can do what I want not what any fDoes someone sit at Aslef HQ deciding the merit of cases before instructing Legal firms?
If so, what qualifies them to make such decisions?
If not, who does make the decision?
If the loco in question wasn't fitted with OTDR / Q-Tron then how is any guilt already decided (especially when the trial hasn't even begun yet) ?
Genuine questions btw, I have no axe to grind but I'm a little taken aback by Aslefs decision not to provide legal representation.
ker tells me' were his parting words to me.I can't speak for the English jurisdiction, but as someone previously at the bar in another Commonwealth jurisdiction the guidance was that if the accused admitted guilt to their Barrister, then their counsel couldn't run an alibi defence which on the basis of their client's admission they knew to be a fabrication.
The Barrister as an officer of the court has a duty to the court to ensure that justice is done - which means having no complicity in perjury.
Likewise the prosecution has a duty to the court to be dispassionate in the execution of their duty with an interest only in getting a just result rather than an objective of convicting a specific individual. That is, they must follow the evidence wherever that takes them - even if it means requesting a discharge without conviction.
The accused could still plead "Not Guilty" notwithstanding an admission of guilt to their Barrister, but their counsel could not run a defence based on invented evidence or perjurious testimony. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove the case to the required standard of proof.
In reality a Barrister never asks their client about their guilt or innocence as it's irrelevant - all that's relevant is what can be proven. It's very much a issue of the prosecution's evidence v the defence's.
Some less common cases may involve a specific category of defence in which the burden of proof is reversed - thereby requiring the accused to establish the defence to a lesser standard such as "on the balance of probabilities" & then it must be rebutted by the prosecution sufficiently to remove all reasonable doubt as to guilt.
The Barrister as an officer of the court has a duty to the court to ensure that justice is done - which means having no complicity in perjury.
Likewise the prosecution has a duty to the court to be dispassionate in the execution of their duty with an interest only in getting a just result rather than an objective of convicting a specific individual. That is, they must follow the evidence wherever that takes them - even if it means requesting a discharge without conviction.
The accused could still plead "Not Guilty" notwithstanding an admission of guilt to their Barrister, but their counsel could not run a defence based on invented evidence or perjurious testimony. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove the case to the required standard of proof.
In reality a Barrister never asks their client about their guilt or innocence as it's irrelevant - all that's relevant is what can be proven. It's very much a issue of the prosecution's evidence v the defence's.
Some less common cases may involve a specific category of defence in which the burden of proof is reversed - thereby requiring the accused to establish the defence to a lesser standard such as "on the balance of probabilities" & then it must be rebutted by the prosecution sufficiently to remove all reasonable doubt as to guilt.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff