WCRC again...this beggars belief

[Captain Kernow]

All humans are fallible, and it is a fallacy to claim that you can trust someone just because of who they are employed by.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that statement, but in this case there will be an element of a risk-based approach, and clearly the ORR feel that - all things being equal - the risk of identical TPWS-related incidents happening is currently lower with DBS.

[avonside1563]

45407 witnessed this morning at Hereford taking water and then just north of the junction for Worcester getting well into her stride heading for Shrewsbury. All in the capable hands of a west coast crew and no SPADs evident!

[Grovenor]

Missed it last time I looked, but yes the notice is there now!

https://drive.google.com/a/orr.gov.uk/file/d/0BxwiHVUgdJBhaWI0UnNwZHBhLU0/view?pli=1

 

It does appear to be the installation of the isolation device within reach of the driver that is the issue. ie non-compliance with the relevant provision.

 

2.3.6 AWS/TPWS full isolation switch Traction units are fitted with an AWS/TPWS full isolation switch. This switch cannot be reached from the driving position. Some traction units are fitted with a visual indicator to advise the driver that the on-board AWS equipment is isolated.

It would seem reasonable that the inspector is interpreting "driving position" to include all of the cab. Perhaps the original installer thought otherwise.

Where are they usually fitted on diesels/electrics?

Regards

[Boris]

Missed it last time I looked, but yes the notice is there now!

https://drive.google.com/a/orr.gov.uk/file/d/0BxwiHVUgdJBhaWI0UnNwZHBhLU0/view?pli=1

 

It does appear to be the installation of the isolation device within reach of the driver that is the issue. ie non-compliance with the relevant provision.

It would seem reasonable that the inspector is interpreting "driving position" to include all of the cab. Perhaps the original installer thought otherwise.

Where are they usually fitted on diesels/electrics?

Regards

 

IIRC on the brake frame in the engine room.  It's not somewhere you or your mate can easily reach anyway.

[Supaned]

Depends on the traction. On 220 and 221 units the isolation switch is operated using a driver's key and is located on the rear cab bulkhead behind the secondman's seat , ie the driver CANNOT isolate it whilst on the move. Isolating it also puts a fault light on the desk as a visual reminder.

 

Pretty much all recent traction has the isolation switch located out of the driver's reach deliberately so that it can't be isolated whilst on the move. As I said in a previous post , whilst the location of the isolating switch in a steam loco may be part of the issue here , the real problem is it's misuse by a small number of footplate crew ,so while moving it will prevent such things from happening again , a simpler fix would be for the individuals concerned to be retrained or removed from driving duties if they are unable to work to the 2015 rulebook.

[96701]

Depends on the traction. On 220 and 221 units the isolation switch is operated using a driver's key and is located on the rear cab bulkhead behind the secondman's seat , ie the driver CANNOT isolate it whilst on the move. Isolating it also puts a fault light on the desk as a visual reminder.

 

Pretty much all recent traction has the isolation switch located out of the driver's reach deliberately so that it can't be isolated whilst on the move. As I said in a previous post , whilst the location of the isolating switch in a steam loco may be part of the issue here , the real problem is it's misuse by a small number of footplate crew ,so while moving it will prevent such things from happening again , a simpler fix would be for the individuals concerned to be retrained or removed from driving duties if they are unable to work to the 2015 rulebook.

I disagree with your opinion here. If it was my railway, I would do both.

[modfather]

14x and 15x have a latching main isolation switch, or a large sealed switch and a sealed temp isolation switch.

 

They also have a warning light and record on the otmr. The latching switches need a special reset key that only fitters have.

[Supaned]

I disagree with your opinion here. If it was my railway, I would do both.

 

If it was up to me , the individuals concerned would not be driving any locomotives again. However , some may feel that is somewhat harsh , hence the suggestion of re-training. Moving the isolation equipment as a long term fix is certainly a solution and perhaps one for the future regulations.

[Colin_McLeod]

If it was up to me , the individuals concerned would not be driving any locomotives again. However , some may feel that is somewhat harsh ,

Not harsh when the alternative is telling people their loved ones are dead because of a fatal SPAD by some steam train enthusiasts who liked to break the safety rules.

[PhilH]

Not harsh when the alternative is telling people their loved ones are dead because of a fatal SPAD by some steam train enthusiasts who liked to break the safety rules.

 

You're getting carried away now...would, should, could, maybe, perhaps, possibly are all words which feature too much in threads like this, or taking an argument / perspective to a hypothetical conclusion...... the Daily Mail we're not hopefully.

 

While we're at it , check the statistics. spads (which this one was not) are commonplace on today's railway and not limited to 'some steam train enthusiasts who liked to break the safety rules.' This, in itself, which you obviously are trying to use in a derogatory fashion, is not even factual.

 

Whatever one's opinion of them is,WCRC are a bona fide TOC who supply steam crews as part of their business, as do DBS. so if you are going to try and make a 'smart' remark, please at least make sure it's based on fact.

[Reorte]

If it was up to me , the individuals concerned would not be driving any locomotives again. However , some may feel that is somewhat harsh , hence the suggestion of re-training. Moving the isolation equipment as a long term fix is certainly a solution and perhaps one for the future regulations.

It depends really, if they were genuinely ignorant of how they should be operating or not (and one of the purposes of training is to impart information, not rely on "you should find out for yourself"). That said I find it rather hard to imagine that they wouldn't know  and it's a lack of training that's the issue.

 

As for the location of the valve it sounds like the problem is that on a steam loco the choice is "within easy reach" or "need to leave the loco", neither of which are ideal. If you can trust people to do what they're supposed to inside the cab sounds better since that's less risk on the occasions entirely legitimate access is needed. Is it something that can be used "casually" (i.e. just turn a knob) or does a cover need removing or a key used or something like that?

[Talltim]

Not harsh when the alternative is telling people their loved ones are dead because of a fatal SPAD by some steam train enthusiasts who liked to break the safety rules.

How do you know they even like steam trains?

Me = Works in IT support - Hates computers

[Supaned]

I highly doubt ignorance or a lack of training is the issue.

As far as I know , WCRC footplate crews are all experienced drivers with many years of service - there is simply no way they would not know the rules applying to TPWS , and if that was the case then they are not competent to be driving on the main line in the first place , so either there is a failure in WCRC's traincrew assessment system (ie drivers being passed when evidently they are not competent to do the task) , or , the individuals concerned wilfully took actions contravening the rulebook.

 

I imagine their intentions were purely in the interests of "keeping the job running" rather then with any genuine malice , unfortunately best intentions or not , isolating a vital safety system is not acceptable and the potential consequences at Wootton Bassett don't bear thinking about.

 

Yes , a lot of ifs , buts , maybes and what ifs , unfortunately today's rail industry has to be like that , following corporate legal cases and litigation after accidents in recent years.

[Reorte]

I imagine their intentions were purely in the interests of "keeping the job running" rather then with any genuine malice , unfortunately best intentions or not , isolating a vital safety system is not acceptable and the potential consequences at Wootton Bassett don't bear thinking about.

The odd thing is though with everything being monitored and recorded these days I find it strange that anyone would do such a thing unless they honestly believed that they weren't doing anything wrong. But as you say it sounds unlikely that anyone working on the railways would think that either. It just doesn't add up unless perhaps it's a spur-of-the-moment panic resulting in bad decision making (perhaps the sort of thing a lock might reduce), which should be very rare, and multiple similar-ish events with the same company makes that look a bit of a stretch. Oh well, that's why we have investigations, to get to the bottom of that.

[Edwin_m]

While we're at it , check the statistics. spads (which this one was not) are commonplace on today's railway and not limited to 'some steam train enthusiasts who liked to break the safety rules.' This, in itself, which you obviously are trying to use in a derogatory fashion, is not even factual.

The last SPAD-related accident on the national network resulting in casualties was Ladbroke Grove.  Since then the introduction of TPWS has reduced the risk of SPAD-related casualties by about 70% - it doesn't always prevent the SPAD but it will often stop the train after passing the signal but before it can come into collision with another train. 

 

So, inverting the above logic, running around with the TPWS isolated increases the risk of SPAD-related casualties by about 133% which ought to be causing you a lot of concern if you believe SPADs are "commonplace"*.  Especially for a steam excursion using Mk1 stock with poorer crashworthiness and less effective braking. 

 

*In fact it's less than one per day, see page 22 of http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/2015-07-aspr-key-findings-2014-15.pdf

[PhilH]

The last SPAD-related accident on the national network resulting in casualties was Ladbroke Grove.  Since then the introduction of TPWS has reduced the risk of SPAD-related casualties by about 70% - it doesn't always prevent the SPAD but it will often stop the train after passing the signal but before it can come into collision with another train. 

 

So, inverting the above logic, running around with the TPWS isolated increases the risk of SPAD-related casualties by about 133% which ought to be causing you a lot of concern if you believe SPADs are "commonplace"*.  Especially for a steam excursion using Mk1 stock with poorer crashworthiness and less effective braking. 

 

*In fact it's less than one per day, see page 22 of http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/2015-07-aspr-key-findings-2014-15.pdf

 

Not disagreeing with any of that but it's nothing to do with what I'm saying.

 

'Less than one a day', on a modern railway, still makes them commonplace in my book.

[Colin_McLeod]

You're getting carried away now...would, should, could, maybe, perhaps, possibly are all words which feature too much in threads like this, or taking an argument / perspective to a hypothetical conclusion...... the Daily Mail we're not hopefully.

 

While we're at it , check the statistics. spads (which this one was not) are commonplace on today's railway and not limited to 'some steam train enthusiasts who liked to break the safety rules.' This, in itself, which you obviously are trying to use in a derogatory fashion, is not even factual.

 

Whatever one's opinion of them is,WCRC are a bona fide TOC who supply steam crews as part of their business, as do DBS. so if you are going to try and make a 'smart' remark, please at least make sure it's based on fact.

 

I seem to have touched a nerve Phil.  Passing signals at danger can lead to fatal accidents. There are countless incidents of that in the past. Fact.

I did not make any "smart remark"  - I stated my opinion that banning people who disobey the rules is not harsh when the alternative is telling people their loved ones are dead because of a fatal SPAD by some steam train enthusiasts who liked to break the safety rules. 

[Reorte]

I seem to have touched a nerve Phil.  Passing signals at danger can lead to fatal accidents. There are countless incidents of that in the past. Fact.

I did not make any "smart remark"  - I stated my opinion that banning people who disobey the rules is not harsh when the alternative is telling people their loved ones are dead because of a fatal SPAD by some steam train enthusiasts who liked to break the safety rules. 

Sorry but the tone is "smart remark" when you're making comments about "liked to break safety rules". I doubt that anyone is disagreeing with the meat of what you're saying, just the way in which it's said. Painting images of death and destruction and "YOU try explaining that!" whenever there's a question about safety doesn't help, even when there is a real increased possibility of it. After all the only way you can ensure that never happens on the railway is to remove the railway; anything less and you could use the same line. It distracts from rather than emphasises the real issues, and this very much is a real issue.

[Titan]

Not disagreeing with any of that but it's nothing to do with what I'm saying.

 

'Less than one a day', on a modern railway, still makes them commonplace in my book.

 

But to make it fair, you need to compare like with like. Once you eliminate all the spads that did not involve the train crew deliberately isolating the TPWS, are there any TOCs that have had more spads than WCR?

 

And if so, how 'commonplace' are they?

[PhilH]

But to make it fair, you need to compare like with like. Once you eliminate all the spads that did not involve the train crew deliberately isolating the TPWS, are there any TOCs that have had more spads than WCR?

 

And if so, how 'commonplace' are they?

 

I don't know individual figures so I won't speculate. What we can say categorically is this latest incident did not involve a spad (as not mentioned in ORR statement), so, again, the wrong tree is being barked up.

[Reorte]

But to make it fair, you need to compare like with like. Once you eliminate all the spads that did not involve the train crew deliberately isolating the TPWS, are there any TOCs that have had more spads than WCR?

 

And if so, how 'commonplace' are they?

To get a good idea to compare standards I'd have thought it would also be worth knowing how many were prevented by AWS and / or TPWS (the best driving would mean that they never get triggered at all). The different routes involved for different TOCs might still make it meaningless though, with some signals being known to be more likely to be missed than others.

I don't know individual figures so I won't speculate. What I will state categorically is this latest incident did not involve a spad.

All links in the chain though. Although I don't feel that emphasising the worst scenario you could imagine every time something happens is helpful neither is regarding something as not that big a worry because it didn't reach a more "dramatic" (apologies for that word, I struggled to find another) stage.

[martin_wynne]

It was pure luck that Wootton Bassett didn't result in a catastrophe. You can't rely on luck next time, so something has to change.

 

Moving the switch, sacking the crew, closing down the company, changing the signals, new cab indicators, new interlocks, ... I don't know enough to know which.

 

But something has to change.

 

Martin.

[Titan]

I don't know individual figures so I won't speculate. What we can say categorically is this latest incident did not involve a spad (as not mentioned in ORR statement), so, again, the wrong tree is being barked up.

 

Surely the isolation of TPWS requires the same tree to be barked up, irrespective of whether it led to a spad or not?

[Fat Controller]

This publication from Network Rail concerns Category A SPADs:-

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4821.aspx

Of the 303 SPADs, 31 reached the Fouling Point; only one of these was on a signal fitted with TPWS. It would be interesting to see how many of the other 272 were on TPWS-fitted signals.

For any meaningful comparison between operators (TOCs, FOCs, Infrastructure Maintenance Companies and others), you'd have to factor in the number of trains run by each entity, and probably also the total distance run. Only then could you establish a 'league table' of the 'riskiest operators'.

[PhilH]

Are we going back to talking about WB now?