89001 possibly returning to service

[njee20]

Yes, that makes total sense, it’s just interesting it’s suddenly become a concern when clearly it wasn’t when trials of the GWR ones were being undertaken.

 

Anyway, the 89 is a far more interesting discussion point. I’d love to see it back in service, be a shame Chris Marchant is no longer doing the N gauge one as it would have potentially been a new source of sales for him!

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hi all,

 

Thanks for the explanation on the "ladder" issue.

 

Wouldn't the simplest solution be to lengthen the top cables so they hang too low to form the top "rung"?

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

[nightstar.train]

Interesting. Obviously though the GWR ones are deemed acceptable, or are they now being modified? Seems a little hypocritical of the ORR otherwise

My understanding is that the guy killed himself doing this in Manchester in 2017. By the time last year that the ORR had decided these cables are dangerous the 800s were in use on the GWML. The issue is not serious enough for a fleet withdrawal (as the Pendos are still running too), but introducing the 800s on the ECML would create a new risk that doesn’t exist now, and that’s not acceptable. All trains will be modified in due course though.

[woodenhead]

Use the corridor connections as a conduit for the cables (joke)

 

Why don't Scotrail take on some more HSTs and replace the LNER Edinburgh to Inverness services and the IETs just turn back at Edinburgh.

[Zomboid]

Use the corridor connections as a conduit for the cables (joke)

 

Why don't Scotrail take on some more HSTs and replace the LNER Edinburgh to Inverness services and the IETs just turn back at Edinburgh.

Getting a bit off topic, but presumably because there is a demand for a through train between points north of Edinburgh and points south. Nothing suppresses demand quite as effectively as making passengers change trains when previously they didn't have to.

[Bon Accord]

I think it comes down to making risks "As Low As Reasonably Practicable". Is the issue serious enough that it's reasonable to withdraw the GWR trains when they don't have an alternative? Probably not. But LNER are in a different situation where they have trains to run their services and so there's no immediate need to bring the new ones into service with the issue unresolved.

 

But the excuse being used to permit operation on GWR services are quite firmly commercial considerations and they should not have any bearing on derogations being issued, otherwise it not only makes a mockery of the whole process but could also land the powers that be in legal trouble should someone decide to commit hari-kari in such a manner on the Western.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Personally I think it would be marginally easier to return 89001 to revenue service with a TOC than for East Midlands to start a Manchester - London via Bakewell service using the Fell.

[Zomboid]

But the excuse being used to permit operation on GWR services are quite firmly commercial considerations and they should not have any bearing on derogations being issued, otherwise it not only makes a mockery of the whole process but could also land the powers that be in legal trouble should someone decide to commit hari-kari in such a manner on the Western.

It's not really, it's just about what a reasonable response to the risk. It's not a reasonable response to effectively shut down the GWML (and WCML) Intercity services, but it is entirely reasonable to not introduce the risk to the ECML until it's mitigated.

[Bon Accord]

It's not really, it's just about what a reasonable response to the risk. It's not a reasonable response to effectively shut down the GWML (and WCML) Intercity services, but it is entirely reasonable to not introduce the risk to the ECML until it's mitigated.

 

But again, the justification being used is a commercial consideration - that should never enter into the equation lest an organisation leave itself wide open, especially in this case where a like for like comparison can be made.

Ignoring an assessed risk because of the likelihood of operational hassle is never going to stand up in court or beyond.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Bon Accord

[nightstar.train]

But again, the justification being used is a commercial consideration - that should never enter into the equation lest an organisation leave itself wide open, especially in this case where a like for like comparison can be made.

Ignoring an assessed risk because of the likelihood of operational hassle is never going to stand up in court or beyond.

But everything carries a risk, every single thing. Where do you draw the line? Every single trains journey carries a risk of ending in disaster, as does every single flight and car journey. The risk is quite low, but is non zero. So we accept the risk and carry on. I’m going to walk to the shop to buy milk. There is a non zero chance I’ll be struck by a car and killed. But the risk is low. The risk of some numpty climbing the end of a railway carriage and getting electrocuted is low. The Pendos have been running for 15+ years and only one person has done it. And also personal responsibility comes into play. It’s not like the train can spontaneously make you be on the roof, you must make a conscious decision to climb up, ignoring posted warning notices. If the trains posed a high risk they would undoubtedly be withdrawn for checks and modifications, but a line must be drawn somewhere lest we all cower in our homes never going out. And yes commercial considerations such as shutting all long distance WCML and GWML services do come into play.

[Bon Accord]

But everything carries a risk, every single thing. Where do you draw the line? Every single trains journey carries a risk of ending in disaster, as does every single flight and car journey. The risk is quite low, but is non zero. So we accept the risk and carry on. I’m going to walk to the shop to buy milk. There is a non zero chance I’ll be struck by a car and killed. But the risk is low. The risk of some numpty climbing the end of a railway carriage and getting electrocuted is low. The Pendos have been running for 15+ years and only one person has done it. And also personal responsibility comes into play. It’s not like the train can spontaneously make you be on the roof, you must make a conscious decision to climb up, ignoring posted warning notices. If the trains posed a high risk they would undoubtedly be withdrawn for checks and modifications, but a line must be drawn somewhere lest we all cower in our homes never going out. And yes commercial considerations such as shutting all long distance WCML and GWML services do come into play.

 

If the risks are so trivial as you state then why do the LNER sets have the restriction?

As I said before, commercial considerations should not come in to play in such matters because if it is actively acknowledged that they do then that can only spell trouble if someone injuries themselves on the GWR sets. There should be either restrictions on both or restrictions on none.

My own employer got into trouble with such "commercial considerations" in the realm of risk assessment, as the RA form had a note that additional control measures should only be implemented if cost effective. There was an incident where the additional control measures were not implemented on cost grounds - and if they had been may have prevented the incident - and they were torn to pieces by the legal people.

That is the world we live in today, like it or not.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Bon Accord

[jim.snowdon]

Everything does indeed carry a risk, and no activity is risk free. That is why the important term in safety, and one which predates the Health & Safety at Work Act, is reducing risk to "as low as is reasonably practicable". The Law does not require risk to be reduced to zero, but recognises that to attempt to do so can be simply uneconomic. Exactly what constitutes "reasonably practicable" is not, and cannot be quantified; it rests with the legal opinion of a judge, having regard for previous relevant judgements.

The problem now, is that whereas in the past, experienced engineers and operators would take decisions based on experience in the real world, today's train operators tend to run scared of anything that might end up in a court, rather than take a measured view. Some are particularly risk-averse. The situation is compounded by the requirement, in the H&SAW Act, of a Duty of Care to not just employees but anyone who may be on the employer's premises, even when they are acting irresponsibly. But, again, what defines a duty of care as being adequate in legal terms is not codified. There is guidance by way of recognised Codes of Practice, but even that, ultimately, is not 100% definitive.

 

Jim

[DY444]

If the risks are so trivial as you state then why do the LNER sets have the restriction?

As I said before, commercial considerations should not come in to play in such matters because if it is actively acknowledged that they do then that can only spell trouble if someone injuries themselves on the GWR sets. There should be either restrictions on both or restrictions on none.

My own employer got into trouble with such "commercial considerations" in the realm of risk assessment, as the RA form had a note that additional control measures should only be implemented if cost effective. There was an incident where the additional control measures were not implemented on cost grounds - and if they had been may have prevented the incident - and they were torn to pieces by the legal people.

That is the world we live in today, like it or not.

 

There's a lot of politics and arguing going on over the introduction of the IEPs on the ECML and my suspicion is that this particularly "safety" issue has been thrown into the mix as a further thing to beat Hitachi over the head with.    

[Talltim]

If you grounded all the IEPs on the GW mainline you would be creating much more risk on the roads, both directly through collisions and indirectly through pollution.

[black and decker boy]

Now that the wires are live to Newbury & Bristol parkway, you could swap IET for some nice comfy (worn in) class 315s.

 

Should impress the Thames valley & Country club commuters nicely :-)

[TravisM]

I can’t understand why they don’t just fit a similar style of inter car barriers on the IET’s like London Underground did on their A, C and D stocks. Simple and quick to fit, flexible as well.

[Zomboid]

But again, the justification being used is a commercial consideration - that should never enter into the equation lest an organisation leave itself wide open, especially in this case where a like for like comparison can be made.

Ignoring an assessed risk because of the likelihood of operational hassle is never going to stand up in court or beyond.

It's that word "reasonable". Is it reasonable to stop the whole GWML and WCML train service over this risk? No. It would create other risks elsewhere and is disproportionate to the risk caused by the inter-car cables. Is it reasonable to not introduce that same risk elsewhere? Might be, depends on the wider impact of the mitigation. And yes, that includes commercial considerations.

 

A ridiculous overexaggeration of the point is that one day it is nearly inevitable that an aircraft will crash into a train. We could bury every railway to mitigate that, which would be ridiculous, but the only reason not to is commercial. The same basic principle applies to all risks.

[TravisM]

Getting back on topic, I’ve just spoken to a friend who works for GBRf and he told me that they are in talks with the AC Locomotive Group into hiring 89001 which to me makes better sense. Maybe they plan to sub lease it to LNER for the short term until the issues with the IET’s is resolved.

[njee20]

If the risks are so trivial as you state then why do the LNER sets have the restriction?

As I said before, commercial considerations should not come in to play in such matters because if it is actively acknowledged that they do then that can only spell trouble if someone injuries themselves on the GWR sets. There should be either restrictions on both or restrictions on none.

You’re too black and white. Imagine the issue was that they discovered the toilet floor got slippery when wet. You may decide LNER would wait whilst that risk was mitigated, but you’re unlikely to withdraw the entire GWR fleet immediately to resolve it. It’s still a safety issue, but there will be a commercial consideration, essentially the chance and cost of a claim versus the cost of mitigating or remediating. But that’s still OT!

 

Edit: cross posted, 89 on freight would be awesome!

Edited January 1, 2019 by njee20

[Titan]

As I said before, commercial considerations should not come in to play in such matters because if it is actively acknowledged that they do then that can only spell trouble if someone injuries themselves on the GWR sets. There should be either restrictions on both or restrictions on none.

 

To put it simply, if the GWR sets/Pendolinos are taken out of service, more people will die. If the LNER sets do not enter service fewer people will die.

 

It is not a commercial decision, but a logical one which takes account of all risks, not just a blinkered approach concentrating only on railway risks.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Titan

[Ken.W]

If LNER are desperate for 125mph trains surely the obvious solution is to get some ex FGW HSTs. As long as it’s only for 12 months, before PRMI rears it’s head.

 

That would seem to be the easiest option, and no issues with driver training - just a briefing notice on the minor post refurb differences and their ATP isolated out of use, as when we've had GW power cars on hire in the past

 

LNER want something which will maintain Cl91 timings. This will exclude 2+9 HSTs as they only have 4,500HP vs 6100HP for a 91, 5800HP for the 89 and 5000HP for the 90s . The lower continuous rating of the 89 is balanced by the higher maximum rating.

 

No problem there either. With the regular timetable, timings differ little between trains, and some of the fastest, the hourly Newcastle - Darlington - York - Kings X only are HSTs anyway as these include the Inverness and Aberdeens. And remember, an HST's faster than a 91 up to about 60.

 

I was amused the other week to see a new LNER poster boasting Newcastle to Kings X in only 2hrs 51min.

Only 15 mins slower than Intercity was, wow!

Edited January 1, 2019 by Ken.W

[Bon Accord]

You’re too black and white. Imagine the issue was that they discovered the toilet floor got slippery when wet. You may decide LNER would wait whilst that risk was mitigated, but you’re unlikely to withdraw the entire GWR fleet immediately to resolve it. It’s still a safety issue, but there will be a commercial consideration, essentially the chance and cost of a claim versus the cost of mitigating or remediating. But that’s still OT!

 

Edit: cross posted, 89 on freight would be awesome!

 

Black and white through experience. I've seen quite a few similar things happen over the years and the first question invariably asked post incident is why have two sets of rules for the same operation.

[Bon Accord]

To put it simply, if the GWR sets/Pendolinos are taken out of service, more people will die. If the LNER sets do not enter service fewer people will die.

 

It is not a commercial decision, but a logical one which takes account of all risks, not just a blinkered approach concentrating only on railway risks.

That same balanced approach whereby lines are closed as a precaution during adverse weather regardless of whether an incident has occurred or not, thereby forcing anyone who really wants to travel onto the roads which are of course allowed to remain open?

[njee20]

Very rarely, in very extreme circumstances, hardly comparable. Not remotely the same level of disruption as removing most of GWR’s fleet in one fell swoop because some reprobate acting illegally may do themselves a mischief!

 

Can we stop with the tangent though, and get back to the 89.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I was amused the other week to see a new LNER poster boasting Newcastle to Kings X in only 2hrs 51min.

Only 15 mins slower than Intercity was, wow!

I was checking out some trains from Birmingham to London the other day. A Pendo is generally 5 - 6 minutes faster than the original electric service from 1967 when it was timed to be capable of doing with a Class 81/85 and 12 vac braked Mk1s. The WMT service via Northampton is about the same timings as when it was a 310 unit, which were limited to 75mph due to problems if they were coupled to a 304.