Edwin_m Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 If it's simply about the isolation valve being in the cab then why doesn't the ban apply to all steam locos with the valve in the cab, regardless of operating company? Or is WCR the only operator of locos with the valve in the cab? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phill Dyson (onslaught832) Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I wonder if they will be given another 'second chance' to sort themselves out?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 26, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2015 The electrics need to be turned on too...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Presumably all these installations were inspected for compliance and approved prior to use, so why is the VAB concerned not in the frame as well. Or does WCR self certify? Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 26, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2015 Presumably all these installations were inspected for compliance and approved prior to use, so why is the VAB concerned not in the frame as well. Or does WCR self certify? Regards All TOCs are able to carry out their own ftr exams providing the person doing them is certified as competent to do so. The organisation I am connected with use third party examiners having no certified personnel at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom J Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 It should be borne in mind that this is a perfectly normal thing to do (pass out your own people) in every aspect of railway ops. The railway wouldn't run if this didn't happen. The buck stops with the 'duty holder' - that's why operators have licences issued by ORR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted November 26, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 26, 2015 If it's simply about the isolation valve being in the cab then why doesn't the ban apply to all steam locos with the valve in the cab, regardless of operating company? Or is WCR the only operator of locos with the valve in the cab? Because its not the location of the valve that is the issue - the ORR do not trust WCR staff to obey the rule book and not tamper with it unless authorised to do so by NR route control. DBS and other operators of steam locomotives are not affected because the ORR trusts their staff to comply with the rule book at all times with regard to AWS / TPWS isolations and steam locos operated by them can continue to have the isolation valve within the cab. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 26, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2015 Because its not the location of the valve that is the issue - the ORR do not trust WCR staff to obey the rule book and not tamper with it unless authorised to do so by NR route control. DBS and other operators of steam locomotives are not affected because the ORR trusts their staff to comply with the rule book at all times with regard to AWS / TPWS isolations and steam locos operated by them can continue to have the isolation valve within the cab. Where this falls down is that WCR staff do not only crew WCR locomotives. A loco owner / group will be asked to supply a loco for a trip by that trip's organiser. If this is not a WCR steam loco (of which there are only two at present) and crew then a fully prepared and certified loco is supplied by the owner, plus a support crew to look after / do the dirty work for the trip. The operating crew (driver, fireman and TI where applicable) for that trip is then supplied by a third party certified to be able to do so, which can be WCRC or DBS, to name a couple. So it can be seen that West Coast crews, being the largest body of crews in the market, are able and do get around and crew a large number of other owners' locomotives, irrespective of inside valve or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted November 26, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2015 I believe that Riley's locos have a different arrange with regard to the AWS / TPWS isolation valve which means it cannot be operated from within the cab (like "Mayflower"). As such the ORR have given permission for WCR to operate 45407. As further locos are modified and the AWS / TPWS isolation valves move out of their cabs, the number of locos WCR will be allowed to operate will increase. I have spoken with certain parties and can confirm that Phil is broadly correct. Certainly the B1 and Black 5 mentioned can be currently crewed by WCR. More locos will be added to the list of 'permitted WCR' locos, provided a relatively inexpensive modification (as I understand it) is done. There's a bit more to this, however, which I can't really mention here, but I am confident of an eventual positive outcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 The thing to remember is that the valves in question are there to be used to allow the train to proceed when the TPWS has failed, so originally I can see the logic in not requiring drivers to crawl round underneath or outside locos on a busy running line. This of course works on the rationale that just because its there people won't abuse it, unfortunately human nature has proved us wrong. Mind you this is why sealed emergency release button on block shelves in signal cabins are now at the side of the wooden case, not at the back because despite the admonishment "not to be used to traffic purposes" some signalmen would poke a small hole through the front with a paperclip and use it to operate the release. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I assume that disciplinary action has been taken against the footplate crew, are they still employed? Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim H Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 As for the B1, it passed my house in Reading this lunchtine with a rake of WSR Mk2s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I'll just park this here for a bit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 You need the new version published by the Office of Rail and Road Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 You need the new version published by the Office of Rail and Road You might need to tell West Coast that rather than me..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 As for the B1, it passed my house in Reading this lunchtine with a rake of WSR Mk2s. Probably not a whole rake... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 26, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2015 While the Prohibition Notice does not yet seem to be in the Public Register the summary reference is now on the ORR site and is noted as issued on 24 November with a required compliance date of 24 November and is marked off as 'complied'. The summary reads as follows - The notice was served as WCRC has failed to ensure that steam locomotives are fitted with TPWS with effective means to prevent casual, inadvertent or improper interference with over-riding the TPWS and AWS. I take the 'complied' word to indicate that either WCRC has modified any non-compliant locos to make them compliant (unlikely I would have thought unless they were expecting the Notice) or (probably more likely) they have stopped any non-compliant locos pending modification. There is no indication in the above wording about what has caused the ORR to issue the Notice as there is no reference to any incident although possibly there might be more information in the full document when it appears in the Public Register, equally of course it could just as easily have come to light during an ORR routine inspection. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 26, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2015 They're not doing too well, they had to drop three coaches off the trip with the B1 today at Reading because of dragging brakes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 26, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2015 While the Prohibition Notice does not yet seem to be in the Public Register the summary reference is now on the ORR site and is noted as issued on 24 November with a required compliance date of 24 November and is marked off as 'complied'. The summary reads as follows - The notice was served as WCRC has failed to ensure that steam locomotives are fitted with TPWS with effective means to prevent casual, inadvertent or improper interference with over-riding the TPWS and AWS. I take the 'complied' word to indicate that either WCRC has modified any non-compliant locos to make them compliant (unlikely I would have thought unless they were expecting the Notice) or (probably more likely) they have stopped any non-compliant locos pending modification. There is no indication in the above wording about what has caused the ORR to issue the Notice as there is no reference to any incident although possibly there might be more information in the full document when it appears in the Public Register, equally of course it could just as easily have come to light during an ORR routine inspection. Pink Floyd best summed it up...A Momentary Lapse of Reason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
25901 Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 While the Prohibition Notice does not yet seem to be in the Public Register the summary reference is now on the ORR site and is noted as issued on 24 November with a required compliance date of 24 November and is marked off as 'complied'. The summary reads as follows - The notice was served as WCRC has failed to ensure that steam locomotives are fitted with TPWS with effective means to prevent casual, inadvertent or improper interference with over-riding the TPWS and AWS. I take the 'complied' word to indicate that either WCRC has modified any non-compliant locos to make them compliant (unlikely I would have thought unless they were expecting the Notice) or (probably more likely) they have stopped any non-compliant locos pending modification. There is no indication in the above wording about what has caused the ORR to issue the Notice as there is no reference to any incident although possibly there might be more information in the full document when it appears in the Public Register, equally of course it could just as easily have come to light during an ORR routine inspection. I love the use of the word "casual" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I love the use of the word "casual" So do I, especially coupled with the word sex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
25901 Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 On a lighter note, just found this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottishlocos Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 The thing to remember is that the valves in question are there to be used to allow the train to proceed when the TPWS has failed, so originally I can see the logic in not requiring drivers to crawl round underneath or outside locos on a busy running line. This of course works on the rationale that just because its there people won't abuse it, unfortunately human nature has proved us wrong. Mind you this is why sealed emergency release button on block shelves in signal cabins are now at the side of the wooden case, not at the back because despite the admonishment "not to be used to traffic purposes" some signalmen would poke a small hole through the front with a paperclip and use it to operate the release. Guys I work for a company which is involved with piplines and valves and the valves we have can be locked out with padlock or chain is this possible on these locos? Stop anybody from operating it unless something happens as Boris describes. Also hearing that WCRC may lose Royal Scotsman due to previous incident so this will certainly not help Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted November 26, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2015 Safety first. If the operator cannot be trusted to follow safety rules, then they should not be allowed to operate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 It should be borne in mind that this is a perfectly normal thing to do (pass out your own people) in every aspect of railway ops. The railway wouldn't run if this didn't happen. The buck stops with the 'duty holder' - that's why operators have licences issued by ORR. Rolling Stock Acceptance is not the same as passing out staff as competent, neither is it the same as a fit to run exam following maintenance, However this link http://www.rssb.co.uk/pages/improving-industry-performance/vehicle-acceptance-bodies.aspx reveals The implications of the changes are that the exclusive mandatory requirements to use only a Vehicle Acceptance Body to verify compliance with Railway Group Standards no longer apply. In parallel to this change, the definition of the Certificate of Engineering Acceptance was modified to reflect the categories of bodies that can issue such certificates. So it does appear that an operator can now self certify. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.