Jump to content
 

NR suspend WCRC from tonight


Recommended Posts

It seems that, as things stand at the moment, most of the tours set for tomorrow have been thrown out of the window. However, no sign of anything after that being affected: http://railwayherald.com/railtours

Then again, I have no idea how reliable/up to date that website is.

 

Regards,

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until we know the full facts that does not make you or me or any other poster right unless you are saying that these people are quoting from information that is not in the public domain, which I doubt, but is a simple question for those people to confirm one way or the other, until then all is speculation.

 

As the incident at FCC (not GN) as highlighted by that other post proves you can have all the checks and compliance you want but there can still be a rogue element that those checks and compliance won't show up. It's not always down to "management".

 

What im saying is, some people, including on here, have a better understanding than you do, of the contractural and legal relationships that exist between the various bodies and organisations that make up the modern railway as well as the obligations placed upon those entities. That greater understanding allows a more informed opinion to be formed, than, say, the man in the street who knows nothing about railway operation. 

 

As has already been pointed out above, a lot of the facts are already in the public domain. Hence, i suspect, why myself and other posters find your position somewhat at odds with what, at least to some of us, is an obvious conclusion.

 

I spent long enough in the railway to know, that long periods with a lack of strong management and direction will result in a slipping of standards. Thats not a railway thing, its human nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Phil,

 

You say NR shouldnt have to babysit which is true but like vosa DO they have have the gov rules set out and issue licenses for HGVs. Yet they still carry out spot checks on HGVs and companies to make aure they are playing ball. How is this any different?

You say NR hust provides the infrustructure is that were the case they wouldnt be able to stop a TOC from running, just like WCR have a managerial responability over its staff and should deal with them NR has the same responability when it comes to all TOCs.

Paul my thoughts are in no way rose tinted regards WCR just a mere observation as to the bigger picture, like in my job I cannot punish people if they have been warned they are doing it wrong but not shown them the right way to do it.

 

You are still missing the point.

 

Yes road haulage operators must have everything in order if the VOSA decides to do a spot check BUT THEY DO NOT GO ROUND AUDITING THE INTERNAL SYSTEMS OF ROAD HAULIERS. Road hauliers should be doing that themselves - with assistance of PRIVATE SECTOR VERIFICATION FIRMS if needed.

 

Spot checks are NOT AUDITS - they are merely a safeguard just in case the operator is not doing what they should be under the relevant legislation. If the operator has concerns about their own procedures they should be taking steps to buy in the necessary expertise to sort out any issues BEFORE anything goes wrong or the authorities call by to do a spot check.

 

This goes along with the massive political changes over the past couple of decades where the emphasis has changed from Government bodies telling companies how to structure themselves with regard to safety, to state bodies telling companies they need to sort out the specifics themselves in a 'Safety Management System' (SMS) - but have all the necessary information available to DEMONSTRATE they comply with the regulations should a inspector call.

 

Similarly on he railways Network Rail DO NOT AUDIT TOCs / FOCs INTERNAL SYSTEMS - there are plenty of privately owned commercial companies out there which provide such a service. If you look through the Railways and Other Guided Systems (ROGS) legislation - it is quite clear - ALL operators are required to have a good quality functioning safety management system. - You should note that what constitutes a SMS is left entirely up to the operator concerned, but it must cover things like random OTDMR sampling, the way safety information is passed to crews, how they will be assessed on the competences and the results, etc.

 

As others have pointed out when TOCs like FCC have an incident, NR will ask to see the evidence that the TOC is managing itself correctly and complying with the SMS it produced when it took over the franchise. At no stage was Network Rail involved with auditing the SMS (a task which should be done regularly I hasten to add - otherwise how does the TOC still know it is fit for purpose?  (which is an OBLIGATION under ROGS) ). All they did, was after the incident, to see evidence that the SMS was in place and fit for purpose. In this case everything was in order and as a result no action was taken by NR / ORR - although FCC and the ORR (note NR were not involved) did themselves take action against the driver leading to his arrest and prosecution.

 

If however the SMS is found to be wanting (like D&CR at Stafford or as has happened with WCR) then the TOC / FOC gets thrown off the network till the company can demonstrate - WITH ASSISTANCE FROM THOSE SPECIALIST PRIVATE COMMERCIAL COMPANIES OUT THERE - that they have a good, functioning and fit for purpose SMS out there.

 

At the end of they you need to start accepting the facts and stop making excuses. NR are under no obligation (nor do they have the necessary skills and in house capacity) to help WCR sort out the mess they themselves have created by NOT COMPLYING WITH ROGS LEGISLATION. The fact that WCR happen to be an open access operator and operate most steam charters has nothing to do with their abject failure to have a good quality and functioning SMS in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are still missing the point.

 

Yes road haulage operators must have everything in order if the VOSA decides to do a spot check BUT THEY DO NOT GO ROUND AUDITING THE INTERNAL SYSTEMS OF ROAD HAULIERS. Road hauliers should be doing that themselves - with assistance of PRIVATE SECTOR VERIFICATION FIRMS if needed.

 

Spot checks are NOT AUDITS - they are merely a safeguard just in case the operator is not doing what they should be under the relevant legislation. If the operator has concerns about their own procedures they should be taking steps to buy in the necessary expertise to sort out any issues BEFORE anything goes wrong or the authorities call by to do a spot check.

 

This goes along with the massive political changes over the past couple of decades where the emphasis has changed from Government bodies telling companies how to structure themselves with regard to safety, to state bodies telling companies they need to sort out the specifics themselves in a 'Safety Management System' (SMS) - but have all the necessary information available to DEMONSTRATE they comply with the regulations should a inspector call.

 

Similarly on he railways Network Rail DO NOT AUDIT TOCs / FOCs INTERNAL SYSTEMS - there are plenty of privately owned commercial companies out there which provide such a service. If you look through the Railways and Other Guided Systems (ROGS) legislation - it is quite clear - ALL operators are required to have a good quality functioning safety management system. - You should note that what constitutes a SMS is left entirely up to the operator concerned, but it must cover things like random OTDMR sampling, the way safety information is passed to crews, how they will be assessed on the competences and the results, etc.

 

As others have pointed out when TOCs like FCC have an incident, NR will ask to see the evidence that the TOC is managing itself correctly and complying with the SMS it produced when it took over the franchise. At no stage was Network Rail involved with auditing the SMS (a task which should be done regularly I hasten to add - otherwise how does the TOC still know it is fit for purpose?  (which is an OBLIGATION under ROGS) ). All they did, was after the incident, to see evidence that the SMS was in place and fit for purpose. In this case everything was in order and as a result no action was taken by NR / ORR - although FCC and the ORR (note NR were not involved) did themselves take action against the driver leading to his arrest and prosecution.

 

If however the SMS is found to be wanting (like D&CR at Stafford or as has happened with WCR) then the TOC / FOC gets thrown off the network till the company can demonstrate - WITH ASSISTANCE FROM THOSE SPECIALIST PRIVATE COMMERCIAL COMPANIES OUT THERE - that they have a good, functioning and fit for purpose SMS out there.

 

At the end of they you need to start accepting the facts and stop making excuses. NR are under no obligation (nor do they have the necessary skills and in house capacity) to help WCR sort out the mess they themselves have created by NOT COMPLYING WITH ROGS LEGISLATION. The fact that WCR happen to be an open access operator and operate most steam charters has nothing to do with their abject failure to have a good quality and functioning SMS in place.

 

What i probably wanted to say, but couldn't be bothered to type out!

 

Well put i must say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

 

Ok I get what you are saying and a lot of it is left down to companies looking after themselves.

What concerns me is the issue about it and a point I (poorly mostly likely) am trying to say is shouldn't there be mandatory system in place one recognized by all TOCs which they cannot deviate from which then is audited not so much permanently but on random occasions to ensure that all TOCs are inline with the rules and needs of the industry.

 

Leaving it to the individual companies to do it themselves to get someone in seems rather a haphazard approach, where as if the threat of NR, the ORR or who ever sending someone in at any given time gives them more emphasis on making sure all procedures are followed to the letter and been proactive as no one wants to loses money through been kicked off the network. Instead of what seems to be the current approach of taking action in hindsight to these breaches.

 

While I know that some of these issues may be small but with a build up of them it could result in a far bigger concern and potentially a major incident. Maybe and this goes above WCR and NR possibly even ORR but I think that there needs to be a change that ensures ALL concerned in the rail industry are proactive in all matters instead of still be stuck in some way to the old days when things only changed after an incident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of mandatory standards that companies still have to comply with.  However there is a view that it's impossible to control everything by standards because different TOCs have different requirements, it stifles innovation, and in effect the safety responsibility passes to the body that sets the standards (or at least becomes unclear). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are still missing the point.

 

Yes road haulage operators must have everything in order if the VOSA decides to do a spot check BUT THEY DO NOT GO ROUND AUDITING THE INTERNAL SYSTEMS OF ROAD HAULIERS. Road hauliers should be doing that themselves - with assistance of PRIVATE SECTOR VERIFICATION FIRMS if needed.

 

Spot checks are NOT AUDITS - they are merely a safeguard just in case the operator is not doing what they should be under the relevant legislation. If the operator has concerns about their own procedures they should be taking steps to buy in the necessary expertise to sort out any issues BEFORE anything goes wrong or the authorities call by to do a spot check.

 

This goes along with the massive political changes over the past couple of decades where the emphasis has changed from Government bodies telling companies how to structure themselves with regard to safety, to state bodies telling companies they need to sort out the specifics themselves in a 'Safety Management System' (SMS) - but have all the necessary information available to DEMONSTRATE they comply with the regulations should a inspector call.

 

Similarly on he railways Network Rail DO NOT AUDIT TOCs / FOCs INTERNAL SYSTEMS - there are plenty of privately owned commercial companies out there which provide such a service. If you look through the Railways and Other Guided Systems (ROGS) legislation - it is quite clear - ALL operators are required to have a good quality functioning safety management system. - You should note that what constitutes a SMS is left entirely up to the operator concerned, but it must cover things like random OTDMR sampling, the way safety information is passed to crews, how they will be assessed on the competences and the results, etc.

 

As others have pointed out when TOCs like FCC have an incident, NR will ask to see the evidence that the TOC is managing itself correctly and complying with the SMS it produced when it took over the franchise. At no stage was Network Rail involved with auditing the SMS (a task which should be done regularly I hasten to add - otherwise how does the TOC still know it is fit for purpose? (which is an OBLIGATION under ROGS) ). All they did, was after the incident, to see evidence that the SMS was in place and fit for purpose. In this case everything was in order and as a result no action was taken by NR / ORR - although FCC and the ORR (note NR were not involved) did themselves take action against the driver leading to his arrest and prosecution.

 

If however the SMS is found to be wanting (like D&CR at Stafford or as has happened with WCR) then the TOC / FOC gets thrown off the network till the company can demonstrate - WITH ASSISTANCE FROM THOSE SPECIALIST PRIVATE COMMERCIAL COMPANIES OUT THERE - that they have a good, functioning and fit for purpose SMS out there.

 

At the end of they you need to start accepting the facts and stop making excuses. NR are under no obligation (nor do they have the necessary skills and in house capacity) to help WCR sort out the mess they themselves have created by NOT COMPLYING WITH ROGS LEGISLATION. The fact that WCR happen to be an open access operator and operate most steam charters has nothing to do with their abject failure to have a good quality and functioning SMS in place.

Interesting in that this is a different approach by the official agencies to the one applied to the British shipping industry. There while the companies SMS is written by the company (or an outside contractor) it is audited by the Marine Coastguard Agency who not only audit the company, but also the individual ships, on a regular schedule. In the case of the company I work for the audit has always been done by MCA personnel.

 

Jeremy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Phil,

 

Ok I get what you are saying and a lot of it is left down to companies looking after themselves.

What concerns me is the issue about it and a point I (poorly mostly likely) am trying to say is shouldn't there be mandatory system in place one recognized by all TOCs which they cannot deviate from which then is audited not so much permanently but on random occasions to ensure that all TOCs are inline with the rules and needs of the industry.

 

Leaving it to the individual companies to do it themselves to get someone in seems rather a haphazard approach, where as if the threat of NR, the ORR or who ever sending someone in at any given time gives them more emphasis on making sure all procedures are followed to the letter and been proactive as no one wants to loses money through been kicked off the network. Instead of what seems to be the current approach of taking action in hindsight to these breaches.

 

While I know that some of these issues may be small but with a build up of them it could result in a far bigger concern and potentially a major incident. Maybe and this goes above WCR and NR possibly even ORR but I think that there needs to be a change that ensures ALL concerned in the rail industry are proactive in all matters instead of still be stuck in some way to the old days when things only changed after an incident.

The issue here is over the past three decades it has been official Government policy to step back from actually being too involved with 'day to day' things. This is because Goverment believes that:-

 

(1) Companies vary considerably in size, spheres of operation and a 'one size fits all' approch can be unduly restrictive / burdensome

 

(2) withdrawing from day to day oversight allows private companies the chance to fill the gap in the market in terms of providing safety / quality assurance. This is good because in true conservative tradition private companies can compete against each other and can potentially offer other services alongside the basic safety stuff - all of which is supposed to be good for the economy and the consumers of such services and complies with the state = bad / inefficient, private = good mantra.

 

(3) Withdrawing from day to day monitoring allows a reduction in Government employed staff thus generating cost savings. In theory the displaced jobs will be compensated for by private companies expanding to fill the gap.

 

(4) It forces organisations that have used Government services as a substitute for paying commercial rates for things to take responsibility for themselves. For example in the Heritage railway sector it used to be the case that the HMRI would give detailed advice as regards any alterations the railway wished to make as well as signing them off. Nowadays a heritage railway only needs the alteration to be signed off by a 'competent person' NOT the HMRI. This change only works because under ROGS the railway itself has to have a SMS / proven auditable trail as to how they know said person is competent - and this is what the HMRI will be primarily be concerned with if the installation is defective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Interesting in that this is a different approach by the official agencies to the one applied to the British shipping industry. There while the companies SMS is written by the company (or an outside contractor) it is audited by the Marine Coastguard Agency who not only audit the company, but also the individual ships, on a regular schedule. In the case of the company I work for the audit has always been done by MCA personnel.

Jeremy

Shipping is a odd situation because of the way it works.

 

In general railway or road operators and their equipment are based within the EUand as such are bound by various EU directives etc. as such they are considered more trustworthy and have a relatively free hand construct safety policy themselves as it is expected they will have the resources and knowledge to do the right thing - with regulators having a hands off approach.

 

In the maritime sector you have 'flags of convenience' and ships from all over the world docking in the UK, etc which means that leaving things up to the companies themselves is a much more risky move than in the rail or toad sectors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Interesting in that this is a different approach by the official agencies to the one applied to the British shipping industry. There while the companies SMS is written by the company (or an outside contractor) it is audited by the Marine Coastguard Agency who not only audit the company, but also the individual ships, on a regular schedule. In the case of the company I work for the audit has always been done by MCA personnel.

 

Jeremy

Something similar does happen in parts of the rail industry.  There are standards and guidelines for the preparation and structuring of SMS and the ORR (through HMRI) does call them in for inspection in the heritage sector should they have a reason, or an inkling of a reason, to so so.  If they are not satisfied that an SMS is up to what they regard as the required standard and containing relevant procedures they can, and have, serve Improvement Orders (or even Prohibition Notices although I don't think they have actually served any - simply said they would if compliance was not delivered within a set timescale).  There is now a fairly standardised basic layout for SMS in the heritage sector at last being promoted by the HRA.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify the road haulage sector, VOSA no longer exists, it is now part of the DVSA. Initially, licences to operate lorries and buses are granted by the area Traffic commissioners, an independent body of people. DVSA/VOSA are the enforcement arm of the road transport licencing regime.

 

Their latest edict when investigating operators is to advise on best practice rather than blindly issue "naughty boy" notices everywhere as they used to. They have wide-ranging powers but cannot force an operator off the road. That can only happen after that operator has been to a Public Inquiry in front of a Traffic Commissioner. Then there is a further appeal to the Transport Tribunal.

 

So it is possible in road transport for a bad operator to continue in business for quite a long time before they are forced off the road! Individual defective vehicles (and drivers) can be issued with a Prohibition Notice (PG9) which prohibits further movement of a vehicle until the defects have been repaired or the driver from driving until he has had sufficient rest or whatever he's done wrong (usually driver's hours breaches) has been rectified. A large wheel clamp ensures lack of further movement!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

So it is possible in road transport for a bad operator to continue in business for quite a long time before they are forced off the road! Individual defective vehicles (and drivers) can be issued with a Prohibition Notice (PG9) which prohibits further movement of a vehicle until the defects have been repaired or the driver from driving until he has had sufficient rest or whatever he's done wrong (usually driver's hours breaches) has been rectified. A large wheel clamp ensures lack of further movement!

As in the case reported yesterday, were a company employed a banned driver to drive a tipper lorry. He went through a red light and killed a cyclist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the maritime sector you have 'flags of convenience' and ships from all over the world docking in the UK, etc which means that leaving things up to the companies themselves is a much more risky move than in the rail or toad sectors.

A little time browsing the reports on the MAIB website and comparing with those of the RAIB or AAIB will suggest that this viewpoint is entirely justified. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little time browsing the reports on the MAIB website and comparing with those of the RAIB or AAIB will suggest that this viewpoint is entirely justified. 

 

The mention of foreign ships is irrelevant, as MAIB covers not only proper ships but also fishing/leisure vessels and all foreign vessels which have incidents within UK jurisdiction. The safety management system of British ships, operating in UK waters with British crew are still subject to a three prong inspection/audit system: company internal, regulatory external (MCA) and regulator approved external verifiers (class societies), all on an annual basis, as well as being subject to random spot checks by the MCA or appropriate port state control.

I am somewhat surprised at just how much autonomy UK rail operators seem to have in comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The mention of foreign ships is irrelevant, as MAIB covers not only proper ships but also fishing/leisure vessels and all foreign vessels which have incidents within UK jurisdiction. The safety management system of British ships, operating in UK waters with British crew are still subject to a three prong inspection/audit system: company internal, regulatory external (MCA) and regulator approved external verifiers (class societies), all on an annual basis, as well as being subject to random spot checks by the MCA or appropriate port state control.

I am somewhat surprised at just how much autonomy UK rail operators seem to have in comparison.

That is due to the structure etc of the industry - you don't get 'flags of convenience' in the European rail industry for example which means that the required inspection regime can be a bit less hands on as the risks of a rouge operator slipping through the net are less.
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is due to the structure etc of the industry - you don't get 'flags of convenience' in the European rail industry for example which means that the required inspection regime can be a bit less hands on as the risks of a rouge operator slipping through the net are less.

 

 I say again, mention of FOC is irrelevant - the inspection regime I'm talking about applies to UK ships with UK crews in UK waters, just the same as UK rail operators with UK staff operating on the UK railway system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mention of foreign ships is irrelevant, as MAIB covers not only proper ships but also fishing/leisure vessels and all foreign vessels which have incidents within UK jurisdiction. The safety management system of British ships, operating in UK waters with British crew are still subject to a three prong inspection/audit system: company internal, regulatory external (MCA) and regulator approved external verifiers (class societies), all on an annual basis, as well as being subject to random spot checks by the MCA or appropriate port state control.

I am somewhat surprised at just how much autonomy UK rail operators seem to have in comparison.

Some of the things that appear in MAIB reports indicate gross failures of the Safety Management System or its application.  For example the most recent one indicates that a set of lifeboat release gear had been obviously faulty for some years despite records of regular checks and tests, and strongly implies that most of the safety records on a particular ship had been falsified.  This was a foreign-flagged ship in British waters, the problem being revealed when the crew were asked to undertake a lifeboat drill during a port inspection. 

 

I can't imagine any of our TOCs tolerating such a basic failure of safety gear, and if they were caught doing so they would be much deeper in the mire than WCR has recently been.  You could say that if there were more inspections more defects woudl be found, but I think our traincrew are safety-conscious enough that someone would report and ultimately blow the whistle externally if they found anything similarly unsatisfactory. This is unlike on a ship where the rest of the crew are often cowed into silence by the master.  The more interventionist nature of marine safety examination looks to be justified by the number of problems found, not to mention the fataility rates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the things that appear in MAIB reports indicate gross failures of the Safety Management System or its application.  For example the most recent one indicates that a set of lifeboat release gear had been obviously faulty for some years despite records of regular checks and tests, and strongly implies that most of the safety records on a particular ship had been falsified.  This was a foreign-flagged ship in British waters, the problem being revealed when the crew were asked to undertake a lifeboat drill during a port inspection. 

 

I can't imagine any of our TOCs tolerating such a basic failure of safety gear, and if they were caught doing so they would be much deeper in the mire than WCR has recently been.  You could say that if there were more inspections more defects woudl be found, but I think our traincrew are safety-conscious enough that someone would report and ultimately blow the whistle externally if they found anything similarly unsatisfactory. This is unlike on a ship where the rest of the crew are often cowed into silence by the master.  The more interventionist nature of marine safety examination looks to be justified by the number of problems found, not to mention the fataility rates. 

 

Yes, a foreign flagged ship, therefore an irrelevant example. I'm talking solely about UK flagged/owned/operated/crewed ships and the tripartite inspection/audit regime they fall under, a regime which seems much stricter than that imposed on UK operated/staff railway companies. That has absolutely nothing to do with foreign vessels as these are craft operating to UK standards and laws, crewed by individuals with UK qualifications, in exactly the same manner UK railway companies operate to UK standards and laws, with staff holding UK qualifications.

You're confusing the difference between flag state and port state - the former is the standards applied to vessels operating under a national (e.g. UK) flag, the latter is an entirely separate inspection regime which applies only to foreign vessels and which is far less in depth than those applied by flag state, as a foreign vessel is just that - foreign soil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ORR has issued an improvement notice to WCRC http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/17975/wcrc-improvement-notice-may-2015.pdf

More detail on The Railway Herald site. http://railwayherald.com/uknews/orr-issues-improvement-notice-to-wcrc

Thought this was interesting

 

 

It is understood that the company will continue to inform the ORR each time it wishes to run a train, and a decision will then be taken as to whether an inspector should attend or not. This represents no change from the current method of operation, see story on Page 15 of this issue.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if there had been any desire within the ORR or NR to restrict or deny charter traffic on an ever busier railway then this would have been their chance to do so.

 

As it stands NR revoked WCRC's licence whilst they resolved the SMS matter and then lifted it within a reasonable timescale.  ORR could have again revoked that licence but also chose to recognise the work WCRC has done on it's SMS and allow it to keep running.

 

To me that says that both NR and the ORR recognise the value of the charter market and the importance in this market that the running of WCRC represents which can only be a good thing for chartering long term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The ORR has issued an improvement notice to WCRC http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/17975/wcrc-improvement-notice-may-2015.pdf

More detail on The Railway Herald site. http://railwayherald.com/uknews/orr-issues-improvement-notice-to-wcrc

Thought this was interesting

Bloomin' heck - that is some Improvement Notice, effectively saying please (re)write your SMS and produce the evidence to back up what you've been saying so far, and you've got 8 weeks to do it.  I'm not saying that what it requires isn't feasible within that timescale but it is definitely going to keep their consultants busy for a month or two and it indicates they are lacking some rather important basic stuff in what paperwork they do have  (which is a bit odd as some of it really is very basic to properly managed operation and should have existed long before ROGS and the introduction of SMS).

I think if there had been any desire within the ORR or NR to restrict or deny charter traffic on an ever busier railway then this would have been their chance to do so.

 

As it stands NR revoked WCRC's licence whilst they resolved the SMS matter and then lifted it within a reasonable timescale.  ORR could have again revoked that licence but also chose to recognise the work WCRC has done on it's SMS and allow it to keep running.

 

To me that says that both NR and the ORR recognise the value of the charter market and the importance in this market that the running of WCRC represents which can only be a good thing for chartering long term.

Not exactly.  NR have no power to revoke WCR's Operating Licence, they merely refused them access to their network until certain things happened, or were put in hand with a demonstrable timescale for implementation.

 

ORR have followed what is fairly normal procedure in that they have found instances of non-compliance and have accordingly issued an Improvement Notice with a date by which the required work should be completed and procedures be put in place and become operational.  In fact the Improvement Notice makes very clear that there are substantial areas to address within the SMS and a reasonable (in my view) timescale has been granted to WCR to put things right - that is what normally happens when they find such shortcomings.  The important bit  for WCR is now to do what is required by due date and to a standard acceptable to the ORR Inspector.

 

The ORR has no 'interest' in, or regard for, market situations in circumstances such as these - in just the same way as Improvement Notices have in the past been served on, or prosecutions taken place, against various heritage railways ORR's interest is in seeing the job done properly and effectively with the necessary procedures and monitoring put in place within the stated timescale.  Failure to comply can result in the threat, or actuality, of a railway or operator being forced to cease operations by means of a Prohibition Order - it all depends on their properly complying with the Improvement Order and its timescale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW,

 

That is a serious b*****king from the ORR! AS for time scales for what needs to be done I have no idea.

 

The one point from the Railway Herald stands out to me stating the "Improvement notice with be considered when WCRC is required to renew its safety certificate" but when is that?

 

While Mike aka Stationmaster rightly states the market situation is not of interest but business world does! Will there be a shift closer to the time with people looking for other steam operators when that time comes as people may worry WCR are not going to get its safety certificate renewed due to recent events? I know only time will tell but it will be interesting especially with the Royal Scot Mainline Steam Trust taking over Crewe Diesel and opening it's own facilities that can potentially rival WCR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

As Acko22 points put above that is a very serious notice.   The fact that they have to inform ORR every time they want to run a train and then wait for a decision as to whether an Inspector should attend seems to point that there are some serious holes in the safety case.

 

 

Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...