Grosmont collision - RAIB report

[Aire Head]

The RAIB report has been published today for the collision between a Class 20 and a stationary train in Grosmont station back in September.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-digest-082021-collision-at-grosmont/collision-between-a-locomotive-and-a-passenger-train-at-grosmont-21-september-2021

 

It's an interesting read but the last paragraph is quite surprising to say the least.

 

[Bucoops]

16 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

The RAIB report has been published today for the collision between a Class 20 and a stationary train in Grosmont station back in September.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-digest-082021-collision-at-grosmont/collision-between-a-locomotive-and-a-passenger-train-at-grosmont-21-september-2021

 

It's an interesting read but the last paragraph is quite surprising to say the least.

 

 

That definitely raised an eyebrow. Hopefully (and I have no doubt) they will learn from this and be a better railway as a result. I do enjoy a nice trip on the NYMR, it comes across as a very professional railway.

[Aire Head]

1 minute ago, Bucoops said:

 

That definitely raised an eyebrow. Hopefully (and I have no doubt) they will learn from this and be a better railway as a result. I do enjoy a nice trip on the NYMR, it comes across as a very professional railway.

 

Yes I have no doubt too they have always seemed a very professional outfit to me too.

[cessna152towser]

A very interesting read.

A railway which I used to enjoy travelling on though it has been some years since I have been on NYMR.

I have a certificate, as a sponsor of the NRM/Steam Railway magazine Flying Scotsman vaccuum brakes appeal some years ago, which says I will be entitled to a ride behind Flying Scotsman on the NYMR.    I have not yet got to the bottom of why this has never happened yet,  with the NYMR and NRM seemingly blaming each other.  Last I heard from NRM, the ride behind Flying Scotsman would still happen, but on a different heritage railway.

[Titan]

"The traction inspector had worked on NYMR since 1997 and had been a volunteer for 23 years prior to that. He had maintained and driven all the diesel locomotives that NYMR operated."

 

It does sound like just an administrative oversight, there seems no doubt about the traction inspectors competence and experience, there was just not the paperwork to back it up.  Still not exactly ideal nevertheless.

[RJS1977]

I'm rather confused by the reference in Section 3 to a fireman....

[Joner]

Presumably from the steamy they replaced as it had an AWS fault?

 

 

[Bomag]

2 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

I'm rather confused by the reference in Section 3 to a fireman....

 

I believe the fireman acts as the shunter at Whitby, or had done in the past.

[Boris]

On 24/12/2021 at 00:11, RJS1977 said:

I'm rather confused by the reference in Section 3 to a fireman....

It's the grade of the person on duty that the NYMR uses, rules passed and qualified to fire steam locos as opposed to secondmen who may well be rules passed but don't fire steam locos due to being in the diesel of promotion rather than steam.  So you could get a fireman rostered on a diesel but not a secondman rostered on a steam loco.  It's the same sort of thing with platform staff, you have a grade Station Foreman who is passed to assist with train despatch and Station Staff who shut doors, assist passengers and lick windows but aren't passed to assist with the departure process.

 

I dunno why the NRM couldn't honour the certificates for Flying Dustman as one of the first places it ran after the NRM money pit overhaul was the NYMR.  Smells like preservation politics to me.

 

 

Edited December 25, 2021 by Boris

[woodenhead]

5 minutes ago, Boris said:

It's the grade of the person on duty that the NYMR uses, rules passed and qualified to fire steam locos as opposed to secondmen who may well be rules passed but don't fire steam locos due to being in the diesel of promotion rather than steam.  So you could get a fireman rostered on a diesel but not a secondman rostered on a steam loco.  It's the same sort of thing with platform staff, you have a grade Station Foreman who is passed to assist with train despatch and Station Staff who shut doors, assist passengers and lick windows but aren't passed to assist with the departure process.

 

 

Lick the windows?

 

Are you so short of money that volunteers have no access to buckets of water and a sponge 

[Boris]

16 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Lick the windows?

 

Are you so short of money that volunteers have no access to buckets of water and a sponge 

Health and safety, the minimum age requirement for NYMR station staff is 150, they can't lift the sponge nevermind the bucket.

 

 

[avonside1563]

On 23/12/2021 at 23:54, Titan said:

"The traction inspector had worked on NYMR since 1997 and had been a volunteer for 23 years prior to that. He had maintained and driven all the diesel locomotives that NYMR operated."

 

It does sound like just an administrative oversight, there seems no doubt about the traction inspectors competence and experience, there was just not the paperwork to back it up.  Still not exactly ideal nevertheless.

Unfortunately the paperwork involved with competence records is becoming more and more involved and the ORR inspectors more and more rigorous about it - perhaps to the extent it may be the nail in the coffin for some smaller heritage lines that have neither the time nor the manpower to keep it up to date. Hopefully it isn't and a degree of proportionality will be applied, although that seems unlikely in the current climate.

[Oldddudders]

27 minutes ago, avonside1563 said:

Unfortunately the paperwork involved with competence records is becoming more and more involved and the ORR inspectors more and more rigorous about it - perhaps to the extent it may be the nail in the coffin for some smaller heritage lines that have neither the time nor the manpower to keep it up to date. Hopefully it isn't and a degree of proportionality will be applied, although that seems unlikely in the current climate.

60 years into the standard-gauge preservation movement, I suspect there are now huge numbers of important but dull and tedious admin tasks, that really do not appeal in any way to the average society member, who wants to help run trains. The fact that without that paperwork the society may be closed down is a tough pill to swallow, especially if the member watches others doing all the jobs he/she had in mind when joining. 

[woodenhead]

On 23/12/2021 at 23:54, Titan said:

"The traction inspector had worked on NYMR since 1997 and had been a volunteer for 23 years prior to that. He had maintained and driven all the diesel locomotives that NYMR operated."

 

It does sound like just an administrative oversight, there seems no doubt about the traction inspectors competence and experience, there was just not the paperwork to back it up.  Still not exactly ideal nevertheless.

I know there has to be proportionality in all this, but it has to be remembered in this case the locomotive had been on the mainline to Whitby under the eyes of the traction inspector.  All personnel on the mainline have to be held to the same level of accountability and scrutiny.

[Boris]

What annoys me as an NYMR member and volunteer is that the NYMR has 1-2 people who are paid full time to deal with exactly this stuff and making sure one of your inspectors has up to date paperwork before they accompany/sign off anyone else is quite fundamental.  I can understand it with smaller railways who rely on volunteers to look after this kind of thing but when you have staff who are employed 36 hours a week to look after it there has got to be a performance issue there.

[Chris M]

Crashing into a train that you know is there is very poor driving for which there can be no excuse. Lack of visibility and lack of familiarity with the loco are all the more reason to be cautious. 

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Chris M

[SamThomas]

As an HGV driver I oftern have to reverse without seeing how close the back of my truck is to anything else, so if I am not exactly sure that I have enough room I get out & have a look if there is not a competent banksman available.

[Boris]

1 hour ago, SamThomas said:

As an HGV driver I oftern have to reverse without seeing how close the back of my truck is to anything else, so if I am not exactly sure that I have enough room I get out & have a look if there is not a competent banksman available.

And I would also assume in the absence of a banksman reverse at a speed that meant, should you collide with anything no major damage will occur?

[Wheatley]

4 hours ago, avonside1563 said:

Unfortunately the paperwork involved with competence records is becoming more and more involved and the ORR inspectors more and more rigorous about it - perhaps to the extent it may be the nail in the coffin for some smaller heritage lines that have neither the time nor the manpower to keep it up to date. 

Unfortunately it's just as easy to kill passengers and staff/volunteers on a heritage railway as it is on the real one so I have no problem with ORR and RAIB taking a robust approach with them. Shunting has historically been an extremely dangerous job - I suspect the heritage sector now carries out a significant proportion of 'real*' shunting, maybe even the majority of it by the very nature of its operations.  

 

Let's face it, keeping the bloody paperwork straight is the easiest bit of managing competence ! 

 

*(i.e. getting in between as opposed to just moving units from one siding to another).

[SamThomas]

6 hours ago, Boris said:

And I would also assume in the absence of a banksman reverse at a speed that meant, should you collide with anything no major damage will occur?

You assume wrong because you did not read my post correctly.

 

I was simply making the point that a driver of anything should ensure that his manuavering area is clear before he enters it.

 

& before anyone points it out I have spelt manuavering incorrectly.

[rab]

10 hours ago, SamThomas said:

You assume wrong because you did not read my post correctly.

 

I was simply making the point that a driver of anything should ensure that his manuavering area is clear before he enters it.

 

& before anyone points it out I have spelt manuavering incorrectly.

Except that in the case of the Grosmont incident,

the driver knew he was reversing towards something;

the problem being he was reversing too quickly.

[Bomag]

2 hours ago, rab said:

Except that in the case of the Grosmont incident,

the driver knew he was reversing towards something;

the problem being he was reversing too quickly.

 

The implication from the report was that the forward facing controls were being used, so it was not reversing. Perhaps there would been a better view of the coaches if it was being driven from the right.

[njee20]

Given it references the curve in the platform I'd have said that was a certainty.

It seems the crux of the issue was that the driver thought he had more space, and by the time anyone said anything (because surely the driver would know how much space he had when entering an occupied platform, right!?) it was too late to stop in time. No one comes out of it smelling of roses, but I'll forgive everyone else present for assuming that the driver was proceeding at a speed commensurate with the level of risk of the manoeuvre (which I've relied on spel chekking for).

[Jeremy Cumberland]

Quote

Although there were four people in the cab of the locomotive when the accident occurred, RAIB has found no evidence to suggest that this caused a distraction to the driver.

Surely this answers the wrong question. Did their presence distract the driver? Probably not. However, did they influence the actions of the driver? Quite likely.

 

Having one superior and two juniors in the cab could add quite a lot of pressure, and I can easily imagine the driver thinking that he had to do everything "properly", and to act with confidence. The strange thing to me is that the driver should change driving positions; he apears to have had far better visibility where he was, and all he would need would be for one of the other people present (presumably the fireman) to relay the signal indication to him. If there were just the two of them, then perhaps the driver would have crossed over to see the signal indication for himself, but it is natural that he wouldn't with two other people standing in the way.

 

Perhaps the rule is to always use the controls for the direction of travel, but this seems to me to be unnecessarily restrictive for shunting moves. It is not at all like needing to use the forward cab in dual-cab locomotives, which is a sensible requirement.

[Michael Hodgson]

14 hours ago, SamThomas said:

& before anyone points it out I have spelt manuavering incorrectly.

 

Not if tha tawks Yorkshire.