jonny777 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Thanks for the information. I was not being facetious, I really do have no idea about the workings of these safety devices. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete55 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 http://railwayherald.com/uknews/orr-issues-prohibition-notice-on-wcr This give more information and says it need locomotive modifications to lift the prohibtion order hence the differentiation between steam and diesel. It also says Mayflower and a second loco are not now prohibited, so it appears not to be a blanket ban on all WCRC steam operations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven156 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Thanks for the information. I was not being facetious, I really do have no idea about the workings of these safety devices. http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/RS522%20Iss%202.pdf The railway rulebook covering AWS and TPWS. It makes for good bed time reading! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 24, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 24, 2015 As a point of interest the loco in question, 45231, is under new ownership and would not have been seen out on the main line again until it had received quite a large amount of tlc, it not being perceived to be in very good condition. One would hope and expect that any modification to the TPWS system would be carried out at this time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 24, 2015 Whilst we have to be careful about making judgements too quickly, it does look rather worrying that a company could get into trouble over isolating or switching off the loco TPWS system so soon after the incident earlier this year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 24, 2015 Is it possible that this could've happened as a legitimate procedure when some equipment failed, and the ban is down to needing to be satisfied that the locos are adequate so it shouldn't need to happen again, rather than anyone doing anything they shouldn't have? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 If it was done for legitimate reasons there would be no ORR investigation and certainly no ban... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
25901 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 It also says Mayflower and a second loco are not now prohibited, so it appears not to be a blanket ban on all WCRC steam operations. Or loco's that are privately owned and not WCRC owned Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 24, 2015 If it was done for legitimate reasons there would be no ORR investigation and certainly no ban... Not even if the reason for it is more that they are unhappy with the locos rather than the company? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 What did I predict?it has gone from reporting facts to "what if's". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 24, 2015 If it was done for legitimate reasons there would be no ORR investigation and certainly no ban... Quite. Isolating the TPWS can be done, BUT ONLY AFTER SPECIAL AUTHORISATION, which would BE RECORDED in the appropriate places AT THE TIME IT WAS ISSUED (I.e. It cannot be post dated or, in most cases, given in advance) For a TOC for example the authorisation might be on the basis that the train needs to get to station XX so passengers can be de-trained and the unit sent to the depot for repair. The situation at Bescot described by one poster where authorisation for the routine isolation of TPWS for certain moves only (such authorisation having been underpinned by a proper risk assessment) is very rare and certainly does not override the normal requirements with regards to isolating the TPWS outside of that particular location / scenario. The issue the ORR have identified with West Coast Railways is the UNAUTHORISED isolation of the TPWS. West Coast and some of their footplate crews still clearly haven't learnt the lessons from the Wooton Basset incident which raises serious questions as to whether they should be allowed to operate on the mainline full stop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 24, 2015 Page 351 operation of the isolation of TPWS. Note it always includes informing the Signaller for a fault. Passing a signal at danger means the driver can operate the override but this resets after about 20 seconds and becomes active again. Isolation is different in that it has to be switched back on and must be specifically authorised. http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/rulebooks/GERM8000-master-module%20Iss%201.pdf#page336 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Not even if the reason for it is more that they are unhappy with the locos rather than the company? No, not even if. For a ban to happen something has gone seriously wrong with rules or procedure. They are either compliant or not. Being unhappy or any other emotion does not count. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 24, 2015 Or loco's that are privately owned and not WCRC owned It also says Mayflower and a second loco are not now prohibited, so it appears not to be a blanket ban on all WCRC steam operations. I believe the reason Mayflower is exempted from the WCR prohibition on steam traction is simply due to the location of the AWS / TPWS isolation valve. Unlike most other mainline certified locos, the valve on Mayflower was specifically placed outside the cab - in other words before it can be operated the train must first come to a stand, and depending on the number of lines at site, a line blockage of the adjacent line must be taken for the crew to operate it. The incident at Wotton Basset back in the Spring, and the latest incident in Doncaster that have given rise to the ORR prohibition notice were situations where the loco crew decided to isolate the AWS / TPWS off their own back while running at speed. As has been pointed out numerous times such actions are a flagrant breach of the rule book which mandates the train stop and AUTHORISATION OBTAINED from route control / the signalman BEFORE the isolating valve is used. Given this history - which only seems to be a problem with WCR, the ORR clearly believe that WCRs crews cannot be trusted so the relevant valve must be placed out of their reach while moving. It should also be noted that DBS can continue to operate 'unmodified' steam locos - presumably because their crews can be trusted not to disobey the rule book when it comes to AWS / TPWS isolations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 24, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 24, 2015 The ORR notice does not mention isolating the valve whilst running at speed, indeed does not mention isolating the VALVE at all. Probably best not to speculate... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 24, 2015 Is it possible that this could've happened as a legitimate procedure when some equipment failed, and the ban is down to needing to be satisfied that the locos are adequate so it shouldn't need to happen again, rather than anyone doing anything they shouldn't have? Possible but unlikely. While I do not have the exact details to hand I'm sure there are mainline steam locomotives operated by both say DBS and WCR, yet the ORR have only taken action with regard to WCR. Moreover they are quite explicit as to why - it was the CREW ISOLATING THE TPWS on a loco in Doncaster. OK it could be argued that this was a 'one' off incident but such an explanation doesn't square with the ORRs prohibition on ALL steam locomotives that have not been modified in some way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 24, 2015 The ORR notice does not mention isolating the valve whilst running at speed, indeed does not mention isolating the VALVE at all. Probably best not to speculate... Point taken with respect to Doncaster - though the RAIB report into Wootton Basset did prove that such things could easily be done on the move. However even if that particular point is removed from the equation, the ORR are quite clear that a unauthorised (otherwise they would never have got involved) TPS isolation was made on a WCR operated steam locomotive, which demonstrates an ongoing risk to railway passengers by WCRs continued operation of such locomotives. The ORR have stated that unless steam locomotives are modified in a certain way WCR cannot operate them. That 'modification' is, at the present time, unspecified, but we know that Mayflower already has it - and given what the ORR say, is it unreasonable that said modification might have quite a lot to do with whatever isolates the TPWS? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 The wording is a little strange . If you turn off the TPWS isolation equipment surely you can't use it for isolating the TPWS? (Yes, I know) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I still don't see what the problem is here, you have a TPWS activation (or you stop over the mat!) you stop the train, well, let it stop, you contact the signaller, you do the necessary and you carry on. It costs you a few minutes at most, it happens several times a day on the rail network and its a minor inconvenience, no more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 25, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2015 I still don't see what the problem is here, you have a TPWS activation (or you stop over the mat!) you stop the train, well, let it stop, you contact the signaller, you do the necessary and you carry on. It costs you a few minutes at most, it happens several times a day on the rail network and its a minor inconvenience, no more. The problem is it is not in the public domain AFAICS what the issue was. It was an irregularity deemed. serious enough for the ORR to make this statement, but let's not make assumptions about the circumstances leading to this statement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 The problem is it is not in the public domain AFAICS what the issue was. It was an irregularity deemed. serious enough for the ORR to make this statement, but let's not make assumptions about the circumstances leading to this statement Indeed, I just don't see why, given the recent happenings with WCRC they wouldn't follow the established procedure, its a minor inconvenience nothing more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted November 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2015 Well it depends why it activated. On a PSR you'd only fiduciary need authority from WC via control to move them on, with a train stop grid it can be counted as a technical SPAD if they would have passed it without the intervention. This usually means they are only allowed to move forward to get out of the way like an actual SPAD and can only pass one controlled signal (when it shows proceed). As usual there are often several points to be considered to make the decision which are known to Driver and Signalman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold CovDriver Posted November 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2015 The wording is a little strange . If you turn off the TPWS isolation equipment surely you can't use it for isolating the TPWS? Yes I agree the wording can confusing but the correct name for the equipment is in fact Temporary TPWS isolation switch. It may happen on a daily basis across the network but its a very serious piece of equipment when it is activated. I've had this drummed into me whilst I've been on my drivers course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gismorail Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Well this thread seems to be going nowhere fast except that the arm chair experts get to flex their grey matter and amaze us with their wealth of knowledge. As has been said earlier it is just wild assummptions until the real facts come to light. One thing that many will be concerned about and with good reason is the fact that a safety issue has been breached and that can but fuel the fire to ban steam from the main line for good. Now where would that leave a multi million pound industry .....!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted November 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2015 I believe the reason Mayflower is exempted from the WCR prohibition on steam traction is simply due to the location of the AWS / TPWS isolation valve. Unlike most other mainline certified locos, the valve on Mayflower was specifically placed outside the cab - in other words before it can be operated the train must first come to a stand, and depending on the number of lines at site, a line blockage of the adjacent line must be taken for the crew to operate it. Isn't that exactly the solution I suggested on the previous thread? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/104135-tangmere-spad-raib-update/?p=2059289 Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.