Britannia 70000 withdrawn from NNR Steam Gala

[phil-b259]

Moving back to the thread title, it has been confirmed that Britannia will not be guest staring at the Bluebell's East Grinstead opening celbrations. While in some ways it's nice the event will only be Bluebell engines, it does make the motive power situation tight and if any of the home fleet develop issues (the only big engines we have are the U and the hired 9F) train lengths might have to be reduced from the planned six coaches with knock on effects on passenger capacity.

 

A replacement loco was sought but unsurprisingly given the short timescale nothing could be found.

[Tom Bayford]

Moving back to the thread title, it has been confirmed that Britannia will not be guest staring at the Bluebell's East Grinstead opening celbrations. While in some ways it's nice the event will only be Bluebell engines, it does make the motive power situation tight and if any of the home fleet develop issues (the only big engines we have are the U and the hired 9F) train lengths might have to be reduced from the planned six coaches with knock on effects on passenger capacity.

 

A replacement loco was sought but unsurprisingly given the short timescale nothing could be found.

Tis bit of a problem that i cant remember the exact details of the extensions gradient but on a wet day i think even the U will struggle

[RJS1977]

Especially given that the gradients through Imberhorne cutting are steeper than originally planned in the interests of removing less rubbish and beating the landfill tax deadline. I hope that doesn't come back to bite them...

[phil-b259]

Especially given that the gradients through Imberhorne cutting are steeper than originally planned in the interests of removing less rubbish and beating the landfill tax deadline. I hope that doesn't come back to bite them...

There wasn't any other realistic option. The deadline was an absolute, something that couldn't be altered, extended or even bent in terms of reference (due to EU inspired - though Westminster drafted - environmental legislation IIRC).

[colin penfold]

I'm sorry to be picky, but this post is about Britannia withdrawing from the North Norfolk Railway Gala.

 

Can anyone update us with how she is following her unfortunate mishap? Is there any news about how the accident will be investigated?

 

There are threads elsewhere to discuss the Bluebell

[The Stationmaster]

I'm sorry to be picky, but this post is about Britannia withdrawing from the North Norfolk Railway Gala.

 

Can anyone update us with how she is following her unfortunate mishap? Is there any news about how the accident will be investigated?

 

There are threads elsewhere to discuss the Bluebell

Quite agree Colin although sometimes threads do tend to wander a bit off course  

 

To the matter in hand - there appears to be very little on the 'net.  70000 has gone somewhere (Bury?) for assessment of the damage so until the results of that are made known (assuming they will be?) there's little that can be said apart from the fact that slow speed collisions can result in damage in all sorts of places that are not immediately obvious or equally they can result in very little, it depends on all sorts of factors in the collision itself.  One 'net source states the NNR are carrying out an investigation into the incident (I would be far more worried if they weren't!) but whether or not the results of that will ever be made public is a different issue - I would assume that they are under no obligation to do so as what appears to have happened was basically a low speed collision involving (as far as I've heard) no injuries to staff or passengers.

 

Presumably the incident was reported to RAIB and they do have an interest in such collisions but I suspect they would be guided by the results of the NNR's inquiry and the involvement, or not, of any injuries.  The level of damage - as far as is in the public domain thus far - would seem unlikely to stir their interest but potential braking/handling issues might.  I would be very interested to learn if the 'Brit' stopped short before coming forward to couple and if there is any evidence that such a stop was not made and the RAIB find out there will no doubt be a further flurry of paperwork from them in view of their fairly recent rejoinder on that very subject following the fatality on the NYMR.

 

But it's still all a matter of 'wait & see'.

[Bells n Whistles]

The way I heard it, the speed of impact and damage sustained were both rather more than the NNR's statement would suggest. Having said that, Britannia was clearly well enough to be towed home (tender first and with no following vehicles!) on 11 March. The RAIB is likely to take an interest in an event resulting in two major locos out of service for some weeks.  Fortunately nobody seems to have been hurt.

[The Stationmaster]

 The RAIB is likely to take an interest in an event resulting in two major locos out of service for some weeks.  Fortunately nobody seems to have been hurt.

No, the RAIB's interest is in the matter of a collision (which is what appears to have happened, i.e. one loco came into unintended contact with another for some reason).  

 

The fact that two 'major' (I thought one was a Class 2 loco?) locos were involved is not specially relevant except in regard to any technical or manning issues which might be involved as a consequence of the locos being of a particular type.  The fact that the locos might be out of service for whatever period is completely irrelevant, the consequential damage resulting from the incident only becomes relevant (other than to, or indicative of, potential causation of the incident) if the repair costs are likely to amount to at least 2 million Euros.

 

If the RAIB does investigate past form suggests that they will be far more interested in the state, and diligence in application, of the NNR's SMS (Safety Management System) and very likely its method of promulgating of recently issued safety reminders than in the fact that a loco or two might be out of service for however long.

[phil-b259]

I know this thread is about Britannia, but just to add to preservations woes, I was informed from several sources that the Mid Hants have also suffered a collision incident recently involving Lord Nelson and Wadebridge, with the laters tender tender coming off worse.

 

If true then I imagine the RAIB and ORR will be asking lots of questions to Heritage railways about their procedures over the coming weeks.

[The Stationmaster]

I know this thread is about Britannia, but just to add to preservations woes, I was informed from several sources that the Mid Hants have also suffered a collision incident recently involving Lord Nelson and Wadebridge, with the laters tender tender coming off worse.

 

If true then I imagine the RAIB and ORR will be asking lots of questions to Heritage railways about their procedures over the coming weeks.

I would think that might be possible Phil.  The unfortunate fatality on the NYMR revealed a flaw in their operating Rules (or in their application) which should not have been there and as a consequence all railways in the HRA were advised of this after a note from the ORR (strangely the ORR did not advise railways who aren't in the HRA but I was in any case well ahead of the game in respect of those I deal with, our reminder had gone out very shortly after the NYMR incident and was reiterated after we heard of the ORR advice).

 

It is a possibility that a similar shortcoming might have been involved in either or both of these collisions - I obviously don't know if that is or isn't the case but it can be a factor in low speed collisions of this nature and RAIB might well take an interest if only to ascertain if that is (or isn't) the case although I would trust that it is not necessary to remind either of these Railways of this particular Rule.  

 

Incidentally the problem arises because some of the 'heritage' etc Railways like to use old BR Rules and - possibly as a result - do not tend to keep up with more recent developments in Rules & Regs.  A lot of the latter hardly affect most lines but quite a lot do, especially in respect of personal safety and occasionally (as in the NYMR case) in respect of shunting although that particular change dates back a good few years.  Nowadays what should always have been 'good practice' on any railway to regularly review Rules & Regs should be included as a written procedure as part of the Railway's SMS and that can explain why if any shortcoming is found in the Rules themselves the spotlight then turns to the SMS and Improvement Notices start to waft through the ether.

[Boris]

The problem is that it is very difficult to define what is best practice with respect to something like shunting, last time I read the NWR rulebook it was exactly what we were doing on the NYMR both before the fatality and after.  We have spoken to other railways concerning what they do with regards to safety critical monitoring, training and examination of staff and, without going into details, the NYMR is streaks ahead of most (if not all) of them in terms of what it does regarding compliance checking/exams and the like and yet this accident still happened.

 

It would make sense for members of the preservation movement to sit down and share ideas, not the people in the offices who have never seen a buck-eye, but the people who actually do the job to sit and talk to each other, compare notes and exchange ideas, personally I feel that would be 100 times more use than directives from the ORR, notices from the HRA etc.  A similar approach was adopted to boiler standards management via working parties and the like and whilst it seems to have been slow going some headway is definitely being made.

 

Hell, I went to the GCR for the first time this year and watched a bloke lifting a buck-eye and setting buffers as the coach was bring propelled back towards the target vehicle, and then spend several minutes effing and blinding because the buck-eyes wouldn't take (hint: they work better if at least one of the jaws is open). 

 

The only way of improving any further would be to introduce a universal qualification system that applied to all preserved railways, independently checked and enforced, and that isn't going to happen any time soon. 

[DavidH]

Hell, I went to the GCR for the first time this year and watched a bloke lifting a buck-eye and setting buffers as the coach was bring propelled back towards the target vehicle, and then spend several minutes effing and blinding because the buck-eyes wouldn't take (hint: they work better if at least one of the jaws is open).  

I hope you reported that to the railway? Management might not be aware things are being that way done (by at least one person).

[Pete 75C]

I read an update on the Heritage Railways facebook page (sorry - don't have the link but will try to find it) that stated Britannia left the NNR hauled by Ian Riley's swallow-liveried Class 37. Beast66606 (thanks) recently posted some pics - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69291-a-37-a-black-5-and-brittannia/ Britannia was in steam, because after reversal at Cromer, it was the leading engine on the Cromer - Norwich section. That simple fact would lead me to believe that any damage is cosmetic only. Hope so. Pete.

[The Stationmaster]

The problem is that it is very difficult to define what is best practice with respect to something like shunting, last time I read the NWR rulebook it was exactly what we were doing on the NYMR both before the fatality and after.  We have spoken to other railways concerning what they do with regards to safety critical monitoring, training and examination of staff and, without going into details, the NYMR is streaks ahead of most (if not all) of them in terms of what it does regarding compliance checking/exams and the like and yet this accident still happened.

 

It would make sense for members of the preservation movement to sit down and share ideas, not the people in the offices who have never seen a buck-eye, but the people who actually do the job to sit and talk to each other, compare notes and exchange ideas, personally I feel that would be 100 times more use than directives from the ORR, notices from the HRA etc.  A similar approach was adopted to boiler standards management via working parties and the like and whilst it seems to have been slow going some headway is definitely being made.

 

Hell, I went to the GCR for the first time this year and watched a bloke lifting a buck-eye and setting buffers as the coach was bring propelled back towards the target vehicle, and then spend several minutes effing and blinding because the buck-eyes wouldn't take (hint: they work better if at least one of the jaws is open). 

 

The only way of improving any further would be to introduce a universal qualification system that applied to all preserved railways, independently checked and enforced, and that isn't going to happen any time soon. 

The question of a 'common qualification' often crops up and I believe it has arisen again recently in comparison with the IRSE Licensing system.  However I - and I think quite a few other people - remain of the view that it isn't a particularly good idea becaues it can't (obviously) take account of local differences and site/railway knowledge which is often a critical matter for a lot of operational work.  For example a Driver might well be a qualified Driver but he still won't have Road Knowledge or knowledge of locally applicable Instructions and the features of the infrastructure so he/she would still require a Conductor until such time as that knowledge was attained.

 

A lot of what comes out the atrociously arranged National Rule Book is not relevant to heritage top railways but some of it is - for instance the particular change relating to shunting although it is now old hat on the national network as it dates from the 1990s (but I was incorporating it in Driver and Shunter training and our Railway's Rules & Regs back in the late 1980s as it's something I've always regarded as commonsense - I even used to do it on the big railway back in the late 1970s when it was my neck on the attaching & detaching block and I pushed for it to be incorporated in the 1985 BR Rule Book amendment).

 

As it happens I share your view about the HRA and, in some respects, about the ORR as there is a lot of detachment from practicality (putting it politely) which can sometimes do more harm than good - possibly why people might not take proper note of something sensible when it does appear.  Getting practical folk together is never a bad idea but sometimes it can mean that something which is not best practice tends to get overlooked because a majority might not be up to date with everything.  As it happens I have noticed that the Rule which should apply in these particular circumstances tended not to be applied anything like universally in the heritage sector although I haven't watched such activity on any Railways since the ORR/HRA note was issued so I don't know if things have changed.

[Pete 75C]

Hell, I went to the GCR for the first time this year and watched a bloke lifting a buck-eye and setting buffers as the coach was bring propelled back towards the target vehicle, and then spend several minutes effing and blinding because the buck-eyes wouldn't take (hint: they work better if at least one of the jaws is open).

 

As a secondman, I raised and lowered more buckeyes and set more buffers than I care to remember. Had I done so with stock in motion towards me on the same line, I could have expected to be sacked. That was back in the mid 80s when the Health & Safety we know today was in its infancy. There's trying to save some time and then there's just plain stupid. Pete.