Friends of the Rail Forum

Anger as another Thomas the Tank Engine event is axed
30/01/2008


Another Thomas the Tank Engine event was axed because of "over-the-top" new rules yesterday.

The firm which licenses Thomas - Hit Entertainment - wants Fat Controllers to go on training courses and everyone associated with the event to undergo Criminal Records Bureau checks.

Swanage Railway in Dorset - which has held the half-term events in February and October for 24 years - said the laws were unworkable at such short notice. Assistant Dave Green said: "These rules are over-the-top."

The North Yorkshire Moors Railway also pulled its event last week.

mirror.co.uk

Criminal Records checks? What for? Molesting under-age steam engines in blue drag? Fat controllers consorting at the line-side with thin firemen in view of impresionable children?

Purportedly HIT wants to ensure that nobody on the Sex Offenders' Register is remotely connected with the events, and to ensure that Fat Controllers live up to whatever standards HIT decrees.

A lot of UK rail enthusiasts suspect that it's just a ploy for HIT to make more money, or gradually squeeze them out completely if they are not considered worthwhile by HIT. I believe I've read elsewhere that HIT has increased the fees they charge to preserved railways for Thomas events.

Other rail enthusiasts are asking, probably only half tongue-in-cheek, whether we shouldn't just dump Thomas and concentrate more on Ivor the Engine events, or even Sammy the Shunter (Ivor was s staple of my childhood but Sammy was before my time). I believe there is at least one Ivor the Engine lookalike in existence.

Yet others point out that whether we like it or not, Thomas events are probably responsible at least in part for a new generation of young railway enthusiasts who are now working members of heritage railways.

Incidentally, have a look at the picture of Thomas here.

I wonder where the newly-trained Fat Controller and his non-sex-offender minions were?

I do not think it is unreasonable to require a check that someone is not on the sex offenders register - this actually (I think) is normally a requirement for people who work on a full time basis with children. It would relate to reducing the legal exposure, or ensuring legal compliance, for the operators.

Fat controllers - well I suppose given that they are serious about the diet thing - maybe relevant. Home cooking is to become mandatory for all schools as part of their fat effort, so it is being taken seriously.

Kevin, I don't think anyone has a problem with checking the Sex Offenders' Register for people working directly with children, whether part or full time, but the question is where to draw the line. Most staff at a Thomas event have nothing to do with the children, and it's expensive to do the vetting. One could also question why specifically for a Thomas event - heritage railways have large numbers of children almost every day of the year, yet staff are not required to be vetted. For that matter, sweet and toy shop owners have large numbers of children in their shops and are not required to be vetted. I would have thought that there should be some reasonable test of how much access to children someone needs before requiring vetting. Some of the UK agencies I work for require me to sign a declaration that I am not on the register - they don't ask for proof (although I have it if required).

As for the Fat Controller, I think they're more worried about his behaviour than his degree of fatness. In the USA apparently he is not referred to as the Fat Controller any more, but Sir Topham Hat. In UK I think the term Fat Controller is still OK.