WCRC again...this beggars belief

[Edwin_m]

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.

This is what I thought someone might say.  If this is so and WCR staff can't be trusted not to touch a TPWS isolation valve if it is put somewhere accessible, then how can they be trusted to carry out all the other safety duties required of footplate crew?  In my view it just doesn't compute. 

[Boris]

This is what I thought someone might say.  If this is so and WCR staff can't be trusted not to touch a TPWS isolation valve if it is put somewhere accessible, then how can they be trusted to carry out all the other safety duties required of footplate crew?  In my view it just doesn't compute. 

 

This current ORR notice would probably indicate that the ORR are taking a special interest in WCR.  However this problem reflects badly on all operators of steam traction both on the mainline and off, and we already know that the ORR are particularly interested in the heritage sector in general.  It only makes life harder for people in the long run.

[PhilH]

This current ORR notice would probably indicate that the ORR are taking a special interest in WCR. However this problem reflects badly on all operators of steam traction both on the mainline and off, and we already know that the ORR are particularly interested in the heritage sector in general. It only makes life harder for people in the long run.

Why would it reflect badly on, say, DBS as operators of steam traction on the main line? Also I'm not too sure how incidents of TPWS misuse on the mainline by one operator would impact on what I do on a heritage railway.

 

Is your statement quantifiable or just conjecture?

[96701]

I assume that On Train Monitoring Recorders monitor the status of the TPWS, AWS and train speed. Could it be feasible that the ORR inspectors have reviewed such records?

[phil-b259]

I assume that On Train Monitoring Recorders monitor the status of the TPWS, AWS and train speed. Could it be feasible that the ORR inspectors have reviewed such records?

 

Perfectly feasible. In fact regular and random sampling by the company's own management is expected by the ORR - and I believe companies have an obligation to flag up transgressions to the ORR complete with an action plan as to how they will be prevented in future.

[phil-b259]

This current ORR notice would probably indicate that the ORR are taking a special interest in WCR.  However this problem reflects badly on all operators of steam traction both on the mainline and off, and we already know that the ORR are particularly interested in the heritage sector in general.  It only makes life harder for people in the long run.

 

Please do not confuse two separate issues.

 

The reason why the ORR are taking a close look at the Heritage sector is that over the past few years there have been too many incidents where examination of the railways "Safety Management system" (which all railways are legally required to have under ROGS legislation) have been proved to be majorly deficient. The ORR quite correctly take the view that Heritage railways have had long enough to comply with the law so the failure to have a good quality SMS in place needs a strong response from them - including suspending operations until the issues are fixed in some cases.

 

The issue with WCRs apparent inability to follow the rule book with regard to TPWS is a totally separate issue and as such has no implications for other operators of main line steam like DBS (who do seem to have no problems coping with the necessary requirements as regards TPWS). Neither does the ORRs action have any relevance to Heritage railways directly - though it should be noted that if any Heritage railway increased its line speed from the default 25mph and TPWS had to be installed to mitigate against SPADs (as per the offical ORR position on what the call 'minor railways') then the ORR would be similarly intolerant of abuse of the TPWS system.

 

If a link is to be made between the two it can only be that the ORR are serious about the requirements they impose on both mainline and minor / heritage railways when it comes to obeying the rules as pertaining to the relevent networks, plus having a suitably strong SMS to deal with any breaking of said rules.

[newbryford]

Apparently, it's not just WCRC with a problem.

 

“The Office of Rail and Road has made West Coast Railways aware of a problem with certain steam locomotives operating on the main line,” said WCR Managing Director Pat Marshall. “WCR is working with the ORR and locomotive owners to resolve this problem. We will continue to operate steam charters on the main line with locomotives that are not affected by this problem. This issue has the potential to affect all other operations of steam locomotives on the main line.”

 

Cheers,

Mick

[The Stationmaster]

This current ORR notice would probably indicate that the ORR are taking a special interest in WCR.  However this problem reflects badly on all operators of steam traction both on the mainline and off, and we already know that the ORR are particularly interested in the heritage sector in general.  It only makes life harder for people in the long run.

Very much on the money Boris.

 

The ORR has been taking an interest in the heritage sector for some years due mainly to a suspicion from what was known that there was considerable under-reporting of reportable incidents, the rising number of passengers, and things which had come to light when a number of incidents (both operating and engineering related) had been subject to formal investigation.  this it was decided as a matter of policy that the ORR HMRI Inspectorate would take a much closer interest in the sector.

 

What then happened probably justified such interest as the more stones they lifted the more nasty things crawled out from underneath them - non-existent/very poor record keeping, lax or non-existent supervision and so on. all of these were in effect long-standing issues which the various railways' procedures should be dealing with but as they looked around during routine visits they found they weren't.  At the same time ROGS was coming in and it should have been a simple matter for existing procedures to be transferred into the SMS structure which it required but again it was found that in some instances which were uncovered that not only were certain railways not doing what they were already supposed to be doing but they hadn't incorporated it into their SMS and in some cases they hadn't even produced an SMS - hence the spotlight has stayed on the heritage sector.

 

The situation with mainline minor operators has been rather different and it probably wasn't receiving much attention until a certain SPAD happened involving a diesel loco at Stafford - what crawled out from under that stone opened up various other cans of worms but I don't think there was much going on in the way of visits from HMRIs.  Then came the Wootton Bassett SPAD and that revealed 'major shortcomings' at WCRC which they are supposed to be sorting and obviously ORR is keeping them under its beady eye.

[phil-b259]

Apparently, it's not just WCRC with a problem.

 

“The Office of Rail and Road has made West Coast Railways aware of a problem with certain steam locomotives operating on the main line,” said WCR Managing Director Pat Marshall. “WCR is working with the ORR and locomotive owners to resolve this problem. We will continue to operate steam charters on the main line with locomotives that are not affected by this problem. This issue has the potential to affect all other operations of steam locomotives on the main line.”

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

Ahem, lets have a look at that more closely shall we.

 

The words are being spoken by a WCR employee who is naturally putting WCRs spin on the situation through the use of suitable language. I am not blaming him from doing this as its what any company, be they a supermarket or a bank would do if they were found to be behaving badly.

 

Thus when reading the words being spoken by the WCR representative you need to remember that it is in WCRs interests to:-

 

(1) Downplay the seriousness of the situation (as in 'aware of a problem' rather than we have been found to let locomotives out on the network with key safety devices isolated)

(2) Get the message out that they are working hard with the ORR  in a positive manor (i.e. more as partners than a business being sanctioned by a regulatory body)

(3) Try and insinuate that other operators of steam traction have something to worry about (when there is no evidence they are making the same errors as WCR - hence talk of 'potential problems').

 

With regard to point (3), the only way WCR are right is if the likes of DBS or NYMR crews start isolating TPWS equipment without authorisation AND said companies do not have a suitably tough SMS to detect such things and take appropriate action against the individuals concerned. Or to put it another way if they behave in a similar manor to WCR has this year.

[The Stationmaster]

Apparently, it's not just WCRC with a problem.

 

“The Office of Rail and Road has made West Coast Railways aware of a problem with certain steam locomotives operating on the main line,” said WCR Managing Director Pat Marshall. “WCR is working with the ORR and locomotive owners to resolve this problem. We will continue to operate steam charters on the main line with locomotives that are not affected by this problem. This issue has the potential to affect all other operations of steam locomotives on the main line.”

 

Cheers,

Mick

Slightly weasel words there I suspect.  The Prohibition Notice was only served on WCRC and not, as far as the ORR website indicates, on any other mainline steam loco operator or owner.  You could thus read the summary to say that it only applies when WCRC are operating locos and not when anybody else is operating them (the full copy of the Notice is not yet online as far as I can seen).  

 

It would be very speculative to say why that was the case but I think I can guess and so might others.

[keefer]

all seems fine with the statement until you get to: "This issue has the potential to affect all other operations of steam locomotives on the main line."

instantly turns a very specific bollocking into one which could be applied to everyone.....

 

the nearest equivalent I can think of is a 'wayward' MP being correctly outed for nefarious practices by the press, then complaining in The House that all Members are at risk from said exposure

[Titan]

Apparently, it's not just WCRC with a problem.

 

“The Office of Rail and Road has made West Coast Railways aware of a problem with certain steam locomotives operating on the main line,” said WCR Managing Director Pat Marshall. “WCR is working with the ORR and locomotive owners to resolve this problem. We will continue to operate steam charters on the main line with locomotives that are not affected by this problem. This issue has the potential to affect all other operations of steam locomotives on the main line.”

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

Where does it say that? It might imply that, but that is typical WCR bluster in order to try and deflect attention away from themselves. It hardly tells the whole truth - does not even imply, let alone mention that they have been banned despite that being most significant. Not only that, but there is not really a 'problem' with the locos either - just the way they are operated, the locos without the 'problem' being the ones that have been deemed impossible for WCR to operate incorrectly. The last line again is incomplete, as it should have added "if the other operators have as cavalier an attitude to the rules as we do" Which it appears that they don't. It is of course possible that thanks to WCR all steam locomotives may need to be modified whether necessary or not if it is deemed that you must have consistent rules for everyone, but if it is only WCR that have a problem sticking to the rules then maybe it could be made part of the conditions of their license only so that it does not unfairly affect others?

[rockershovel]

all seems fine with the statement until you get to: "This issue has the potential to affect all other operations of steam locomotives on the main line."instantly turns a very specific bollocking into one which could be applied to everyone.....the nearest equivalent I can think of is a 'wayward' MP being correctly outed for nefarious practices by the press, then complaining in The House that all Members are at risk from said exposure

I don't know that THAT is a very happy analogy, given the extent to which MPs seem to regard themselves as either not subject to the law of the land, or not subject to sanctions if so

[Oldddudders]

I don't know that THAT is a very happy analogy, given the extent to which MPs seem to regard themselves as either not subject to the law of the land, or not subject to sanctions if so

Precisely why it is apposite, actually. There is clearly an element in the heritage sector that thinks having a jolly time running trains is not to be spoilt by adhering to rules and regs hard-won in 185 years of bitter and tragic experience.

 

The more OR&R sit on the heritage sector, the safer things will be. Even at 25 mph you can do an awful lot of damage and kill people. And 25 mph makes a potential closing speed between trains of 50 mph. The 75 mph allowed on the main line is even more lethal, so absolute adherence is surely a minimum requirement.

 

These are not just models sized up.

[PhilH]

Very much on the money Boris.

 

The ORR has been taking an interest in the heritage sector for some years due mainly to a suspicion from what was known that there was considerable under-reporting of reportable incidents, the rising number of passengers, and things which had come to light when a number of incidents (both operating and engineering related) had been subject to formal investigation. this it was decided as a matter of policy that the ORR HMRI Inspectorate would take a much closer interest in the sector.

 

What then happened probably justified such interest as the more stones they lifted the more nasty things crawled out from underneath them - non-existent/very poor record keeping, lax or non-existent supervision and so on. all of these were in effect long-standing issues which the various railways' procedures should be dealing with but as they looked around during routine visits they found they weren't. At the same time ROGS was coming in and it should have been a simple matter for existing procedures to be transferred into the SMS structure which it required but again it was found that in some instances which were uncovered that not only were certain railways not doing what they were already supposed to be doing but they hadn't incorporated it into their SMS and in some cases they hadn't even produced an SMS - hence the spotlight has stayed on the heritage sector.

 

The situation with mainline minor operators has been rather different and it probably wasn't receiving much attention until a certain SPAD happened involving a diesel loco at Stafford - what crawled out from under that stone opened up various other cans of worms but I don't think there was much going on in the way of visits from HMRIs. Then came the Wootton Bassett SPAD and that revealed 'major shortcomings' at WCRC which they are supposed to be sorting and obviously ORR is keeping them under its beady eye.

But that still doesn't connect WCR's misdemeanors to the heritage sector, or, indeed, DBS.

 

As you rightly point out the heritage sector have had their own share of transgressions which has rightly caught officialdom's eye...but that has nothing to do with WCR. And, as far as I am aware, there has been no increased spotlight on an operator such as DBS because of them.

[woodenhead]

One observation - the ban on WCRC isn't blanket and locomotives are being released back into use after mods.

 

If WCRC had done something again which was really bad or a close miss and so far everything looks to be conjecture then ORR would be punishing WCRC with a blanket ban and sending someone in again to look at the SMS or worse removing all their licences and formally shutting down the operation due to ongoing and flagrant disregard for safety.

 

This to me looks more like the ORR has identified a risk in the SMS, have acted to mitigate the risk and because of WCRCs history banned certain locomotives till they are compliant.  For other companies with no previous issues they are probably on warning to address the same issue in a timely manner.

[Supaned]

Presumably because DBS footplate crews (whose full-time day job usually involves operating freight trains on the mainline network) are more than capable of adhering to the laid down rules relating to TPWS and it's operation , and there will be documentation by way of assessments , data recorder downloads and similar to confirm their competence.

 

Put simply for those who may not be aware :

1) A train may not enter service if the TPWS equipment is isolated or defective. There is no clause that states "except if the traction unit is a steam locomotive".

2) In the event of an unsolicited brake application which MAY have been caused by a TPWS activation , the driver is required to stop IMMEDIATELY and contact the controlling signaller. There is no clause that says "except if the traction unit is a steam locomotive".

3) If the TPWS equipment becomes defective , the driver must contact the controlling signaller to advise of this and any isolation which may result. Note that if this is done as per the procedures via a signal post telephone , NRN radio or GSM-R , there will be a recording of the conversation ie a record of the event. There is no clause which states "If the traction unit is a steam locomotive then this does not apply".

 

Whilst not aware of the full facts regarding WCRC , one of these procedures was clearly not followed. Had they carried out procedures correctly in any of the cases then the ORR would have had no need to issue it's notice as the operating rules cover such eventualities.

 

TPWS was installed for a reason , and it has to be said has been very successful in what it does. In my experience , if a train is operated within the rules and parameters then there is minimal involvement with it on a day to day basis (ie it doesn't cause brakes to apply unneccessarily or bring trains to a grinding halt every 5 minutes). Whilst there may be issues with interfacing the equipment with steam locomotives (I understand that noise levels in the cab can be a lot higher so audible warnings could be missed) , there are engineering solutions to this (ie visible indications such as a flashing light to supplement the audible warnings) , and I'd suggest the lack of recorded incidents when using footplate crews from the likes of DBS would confirm that it is possible to operate steam traction on the main line safely and without TPWS problems.

[The Stationmaster]

But that still doesn't connect WCR's misdemeanors to the heritage sector, or, indeed, DBS.

 

As you rightly point out the heritage sector have had their own share of transgressions which has rightly caught officialdom's eye...but that has nothing to do with WCR. And, as far as I am aware, there has been no increased spotlight on an operator such as DBS because of them.

Absolutely so Phil - which is why I highlighted what 'attention' has been given so far (as far as I know) to the 'smaller' mainline operators.  As far as I am aware they have received nothing like the attention which has been given to the heritage sector with only two of them thus far receiving any sort of indication (either in correspondence or Notice form) from the ORR that they need to put their house in order (and one of them does not operate steam on the mainline: or indeed anywhere else to my knowledge).

One observation - the ban on WCRC isn't blanket and locomotives are being released back into use after mods.

 

If WCRC had done something again which was really bad or a close miss and so far everything looks to be conjecture then ORR would be punishing WCRC with a blanket ban and sending someone in again to look at the SMS or worse removing all their licences and formally shutting down the operation due to ongoing and flagrant disregard for safety.

 

This to me looks more like the ORR has identified a risk in the SMS, have acted to mitigate the risk and because of WCRCs history banned certain locomotives till they are compliant.  For other companies with no previous issues they are probably on warning to address the same issue in a timely manner.

It looks more to me as if the ORR have detected a lax application of, and attitude to, the application of Rules & procedures and the monitoring of them within WCRC - possibly as part of their ongoing investigation of the Wootton Bassett incident or possibly as a result of another incident of some sort.  That in itself is far more significant, and worrying, than picking up a 'risk' in the structure of the SMS and I suspect might relate as much to past history and 'custom & practice' as to anything else.  Rules & procedures are simply one part of an SMS and they existed long before an SMS was required, as did requirements for training, training records, proper examination and qualification of operating staff, ensuring that their knowledge was kept up to date - and monitoring in service that things were being carried out correctly.  Equally if they had picked up a risk in the SMS they would, if it is considered sufficiently serious, have issued an Improvement Notice - not a Prohibition Notice requiring immediate compliance.

 

As I stated above there is no indication on its website that the ORR has communicated with other mainline operators of steam engines although a reminder letter might have been sent.  But a reminder letter is exactly that - it assumes that the procedures are all in place and is just a gentle nudge, in no way can it be construed as 'a warning'.

[Titan]

If WCRC had done something again which was really bad or a close miss and so far everything looks to be conjecture then ORR would be punishing WCRC with a blanket ban and sending someone in again to look at the SMS or worse removing all their licences and formally shutting down the operation due to ongoing and flagrant disregard for safety.

 

 

I am not sure that it is within ORR's remit to 'punish' anyone. Any ban is likely to be on safety grounds alone. If this is the case then they may not be able to justify a ban on locos where the TPWS cannot be isolated until the train has come to a halt, even if the transgression was really bad.

[The Stationmaster]

I am not sure that it is within ORR's remit to 'punish' anyone. Any ban is likely to be on safety grounds alone. If this is the case then they may not be able to justify a ban on locos where the TPWS cannot be isolated until the train has come to a halt, even if the transgression was really bad.

While I have ticked 'agree' and do agree with much of what you have said the ORR does have the ability (I think it might be officially described as 'a power', not sure without checking) to bring prosecutions where they consider such action necessary and they have done so both in respect of the national network and within the heritage sector.  Obviously in such circumstances they do not award the 'punishment' as such because it depends on the outcome of the court case, any requirements or guidelines included in statute, and the decision of the judge in the event of a guilty verdict being returned.

 

The ORR of course also has the power of issuing Improvement and Prohibition Notices while these are clearly a safety measure some on whom such Notices are served could conceivably regard them as ' a punishment'.

[jjb1970]

Do WCR use the same media/PR people as VW? We got caught but everybody else does it so really we did nothing wrong sort of argument. Actually, that is unfair, VW did have the decency to put their hands up and apologise.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

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!  

Trouble is, rules designed in some legalese language designed to cover everything sometimes ends up resembling this if you read too much of it in one hit...

[rab]

I'm obviously missing something here but it seems a bit unfair to me that loco owners have to carry out and pay for a modification just because of someone else's incompetence.

[Boris]

I'm obviously missing something here but it seems a bit unfair to me that loco owners have to carry out and pay for a modification just because of someone else's incompetence.

 

But that's the way the system works, you want to play on their railway, you have to play by their rules.  Hence fitting OTMR, GSMR, TPWS and the like to privately owned locos on the mainline, some of which were arguably adopted originally because of some design flaw in their predecessor or practices exposed or exploited by human factors.  Rerouting pipework to move the valves is more of a pain in the arse job rather than a big expensive one thankfully.

[4069]

The prohibition notice is on line at https://sites.google.com/a/orr.gov.uk/orr-public-register/improvement-and-prohibition-notices. You have to scroll down and hunt for it- there doesn't seem to be any logic to the order.

 

I'll just observe that every railway safety device- from block working and power brakes to TPWS - has been introduced because somebody's incompetence exposed the weaknesses of the previous arrangements. Everybody else then had to fall into line. That's the way it is, and has always been. All humans are fallible, and it is a fallacy to claim that you can trust someone just because of who they are employed by.