On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 03:35:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <dgmooi99gslr5mqje5jh53vevqnt3jgkdm@4ax.com>, at 17:09:38 on
>Wed, 27 Dec 2023, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 16:35:36 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <umgq6r$3scal$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:19:23 on Wed, 27 Dec
>>>2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>The most common system for Mk 1 -style doors is a magnetic system fitted at
>>>>the bottom of the door - used on ATW/CT bubble car DMUs, SWT EMUs on the
>>>>Lymington branch, Swanage Railway DMU for services to Wareham, and perhaps
>>>>others.
>>>>
>>>>In addition to the mechanism fitted to each door, you will need an
>>>>indicator light on the bodyside of each vehicle, external and internal
>>>>override switches (how many?), two jumper sockets and some cabling to join
>>>>them all together. Presumably there will also be a battery and a control
>>>>unit on each vehicle too. As for control panels, the mainline convention is
>>>>two panels per vehicle on opposite corners (with a few exceptions);
>>>>however, if the WCRC stock will only ever call at stations long enough to
>>>>hold the whole train, i.e. no requirement for Selective Door Operation
>>>>(SDO), then it's possible that they might be able to have control panels in
>>>>the guard's vehicle only.
>>>
>>>I already said the platforms at Mallaig need SDO for 7-car trains (and
>>>quite likely the forward doors on the next carriage).
>>
>>Would there be a business case to change the maximum length of the
>>train to 6-car if this would result in significant savings in the cost
>>of modifications?
>
>Seems unlikely as the reduction in capacity would cost a lot in reduced
>fares revenue.
>
>Also, it has a stop scheduled at Glenfinnian, and I don't off-hand know
>the platform length there (or at Fort William).

Plus I assume they would want the flexibility to use the same stock
elsewhere.

I assume next stage in proceedings would be the Supreme Court. Do you
- or does anyone here - expect it to reach this stage?

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 03:35:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <dgmooi99gslr5mqje5jh53vevqnt3jgkdm@4ax.com>, at 17:09:38 on
>> Wed, 27 Dec 2023, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 16:35:36 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <umgq6r$3scal$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:19:23 on Wed, 27 Dec
>>>> 2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> The most common system for Mk 1 -style doors is a magnetic system fitted at
>>>>> the bottom of the door - used on ATW/CT bubble car DMUs, SWT EMUs on the
>>>>> Lymington branch, Swanage Railway DMU for services to Wareham, and perhaps
>>>>> others.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to the mechanism fitted to each door, you will need an
>>>>> indicator light on the bodyside of each vehicle, external and internal
>>>>> override switches (how many?), two jumper sockets and some cabling to join
>>>>> them all together. Presumably there will also be a battery and a control
>>>>> unit on each vehicle too. As for control panels, the mainline convention is
>>>>> two panels per vehicle on opposite corners (with a few exceptions);
>>>>> however, if the WCRC stock will only ever call at stations long enough to
>>>>> hold the whole train, i.e. no requirement for Selective Door Operation
>>>>> (SDO), then it's possible that they might be able to have control panels in
>>>>> the guard's vehicle only.
>>>>
>>>> I already said the platforms at Mallaig need SDO for 7-car trains (and
>>>> quite likely the forward doors on the next carriage).
>>>
>>> Would there be a business case to change the maximum length of the
>>> train to 6-car if this would result in significant savings in the cost
>>> of modifications?
>>
>> Seems unlikely as the reduction in capacity would cost a lot in reduced
>> fares revenue.
>>
>> Also, it has a stop scheduled at Glenfinnian, and I don't off-hand know
>> the platform length there (or at Fort William).
>
> Plus I assume they would want the flexibility to use the same stock
> elsewhere.
>
> I assume next stage in proceedings would be the Supreme Court. Do you
> - or does anyone here - expect it to reach this stage?
>

Their legal fees must be approaching the cost of doing the work if they
take it any further.

On 28/12/2023 10:12, Tweed wrote:
>> I assume next stage in proceedings would be the Supreme Court. Do you
>> - or does anyone here - expect it to reach this stage?
>>
> Their legal fees must be approaching the cost of doing the work if they
> take it any further.

Well, it appears from their submissions that their legal team are not
the sharpest ones out there, and any one with a bit of sense will
realise their case has nowhere else to go as it is so weak.

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 10:38:41 +0000, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com>
wrote:

>On 28/12/2023 10:12, Tweed wrote:
>>> I assume next stage in proceedings would be the Supreme Court. Do you
>>> - or does anyone here - expect it to reach this stage?
>>>
>> Their legal fees must be approaching the cost of doing the work if they
>> take it any further.
>
>Well, it appears from their submissions that their legal team are not
>the sharpest ones out there, and any one with a bit of sense will
>realise their case has nowhere else to go as it is so weak.

Do you know if there will be an award of expenses in favour of ORR?

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 03:35:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <dgmooi99gslr5mqje5jh53vevqnt3jgkdm@4ax.com>, at 17:09:38 on
>>> Wed, 27 Dec 2023, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 16:35:36 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <umgq6r$3scal$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:19:23 on Wed, 27 Dec
>>>>> 2023, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The most common system for Mk 1 -style doors is a magnetic system fitted at
>>>>>> the bottom of the door - used on ATW/CT bubble car DMUs, SWT EMUs on the
>>>>>> Lymington branch, Swanage Railway DMU for services to Wareham, and perhaps
>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to the mechanism fitted to each door, you will need an
>>>>>> indicator light on the bodyside of each vehicle, external and internal
>>>>>> override switches (how many?), two jumper sockets and some cabling to join
>>>>>> them all together. Presumably there will also be a battery and a control
>>>>>> unit on each vehicle too. As for control panels, the mainline convention is
>>>>>> two panels per vehicle on opposite corners (with a few exceptions);
>>>>>> however, if the WCRC stock will only ever call at stations long enough to
>>>>>> hold the whole train, i.e. no requirement for Selective Door Operation
>>>>>> (SDO), then it's possible that they might be able to have control panels in
>>>>>> the guard's vehicle only.
>>>>>
>>>>> I already said the platforms at Mallaig need SDO for 7-car trains (and
>>>>> quite likely the forward doors on the next carriage).
>>>>
>>>> Would there be a business case to change the maximum length of the
>>>> train to 6-car if this would result in significant savings in the cost
>>>> of modifications?
>>>
>>> Seems unlikely as the reduction in capacity would cost a lot in reduced
>>> fares revenue.
>>>
>>> Also, it has a stop scheduled at Glenfinnian, and I don't off-hand know
>>> the platform length there (or at Fort William).
>>
>> Plus I assume they would want the flexibility to use the same stock
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> I assume next stage in proceedings would be the Supreme Court. Do you
>> - or does anyone here - expect it to reach this stage?
>>
>
> Their legal fees must be approaching the cost of doing the work if they
> take it any further.
>
>

Especially considering the subject is about doors and will be an open or
shut case.

GH