WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR.

[johnofwessex]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You forget that in exchange for NR absorbing the costs of delay minutes for charter trains charter train operators, said operators have to accept that they are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to getting things moving during disruption.

 

From what I can see it also appears that a set of points may have been run through while set in the wrong direction (thus making them unusable by any train in any direction for the rest of the day) during a shunt manoeuvre by loco off the charter set (loco stopped in the wrong place then after changing ends the driver took a signal which had been cleared for another train) which caused chaos to all other operators services through Preston for the rest of the day..

 

 

Oh dear...........

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Surely you need some sort of override to deal with failures.  Over the years I've sen a few tube trains running empty with a door stuck open and a LT railwayman standing on board, presumably to make sure nobody boards it en route.

I don't now how common it is but some Traction Interlock Systems (TIS) interlocked with door controls and CDL are speed related and not absolute..  For example on a 373 Eurostar set the TIS interlock only applied at relatively low speeds and disengaged once the train was running above that speed range.  Thus it was possible to manually force open a door, even though the electric door release control was still inactive, in such a situation.

 

Hence one failed illegal entrant to Britain in course of immediate return from Waterloo to Paris managed to force open a door and jump out - never to be seen again.  Which also proved that it had been a waste of BR money adding the necessary fittings to allow such miscreants to be firmly handcuffed to the interior of the train in the compartments provided for Immigration Service use.

[adb968008]

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You forget that in exchange for NR absorbing the costs of delay minutes for charter trains charter train operators, said operators have to accept that they are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to getting things moving during disruption.

 

 

a lot of wcrc’s passengers are elderly in years and as such a day out that becomes a 24 hour coach trip could actually pose a health risk to some.. not just stress, missed medications etc.

 

it’s unreasonable to expect a passenger for a day out to pack an overnight bag. Granted last night was unfortunate and the 2000 Preston- Euston wasn’t cancelled for other reasons making it more difficult. 

 

Network Rail and WCRC can play hard ball with each other but I would like to hope the passengers should be kept out of it.

Maybe Railtour promotors /Network rail need to consider alternative routes home ?, as I’m sure they won’t want to be left holding blame for a passengers health ?

 

It has all the hallmarks of “problem solving but ignoring the critical factor”- the passenger, whenever the network goes pop for whatever reason… agreed these passengers were unlikely to egress to the track but the “shrug shoulders” response to passengers is a concern that is seen in every incident like this.. that carousel is running out of empty chambers before something critical happens somewhere…

 

 

Edited January 28 by adb968008

[adb968008]

On a different tangent, would that be a SPAD then  ?

Surely the loco cannot run through points set against, with a signal set for that direction ?

 

[Wheatley]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Network Rail and WCRC can play hard ball with each other but I would like to hope the passengers should be kept out of it.

 

Network Rail's obligations to WCRC (and vice versa) are set out in their Track Access Agreement, same as every other operator. There's no need for anyone to play hardball. 

[Ken.W]

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Anything built now regardless of whether its a multiple unit or a loco haulled coach will be expected to have the door locking interlocked with the brakes so a door which is not proved to be locked will prevent the train moving off.

 

Doing it this way will prevent human error (as in the Guard not observing the locking system has a problem and the right away being given with doors unsecured which is a possibility if you don't link the door system to the brakes (or traction system).

 

Not sure if the BR system fitted to the M2 / M3 fleet had any interlocking though - given money was tight and it was basically a 'do minimum' solution (as opposed to rebuilding the coaches with powered doors say) then it may not have done.

 

Whether the ORR would be happy with that today is another matter of course.

 

 

 

Two different systems to consider here

 

All trains I've dealt with that have centrally controlled power operated doors do have an Interlock of some sort, power, brake, or both

 

The CDL system as retro- fitted to slam-door stock is a secondary locking system and is not interlocked, AFAIK, on any stock.

 

EG, 

91/Mk4 has Interlock on both power and brake. Traction power can't be obtained without Interlock, but in addition, if interlocks lost above 3mph the brakes dumped.

 

On the HST, we had no interlock with the CDL, nor any indication in the Cab.

[Ian Hargrave]

12 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

a lot of wcrc’s passengers are elderly in years and as such a day out that becomes a 24 hour coach trip could actually pose a health risk to some.. not just stress, missed medications etc.

 

it’s unreasonable to expect a passenger for a day out to pack an overnight bag. Granted last night was unfortunate and the 2000 Preston- Euston wasn’t cancelled for other reasons making it more difficult. 

 

Network Rail and WCRC can play hard ball with each other but I would like to hope the passengers should be kept out of it.

Maybe Railtour promotors /Network rail need to consider alternative routes home ?, as I’m sure they won’t want to be left holding blame for a passengers health ?

 

It has all the hallmarks of “problem solving but ignoring the critical factor”- the passenger, whenever the network goes pop for whatever reason… agreed these passengers were unlikely to egress to the track but the “shrug shoulders” response to passengers is a concern that is seen in every incident like this.. that carousel is running out of empty chambers before something critical happens somewhere…

 

 

Which elderly said passenger could have been me,Except that I have already concluded that getting up in the middle of the night to join one of these grey power specials isn’t for me in any case and not within my comfort zone,either health or wealth wise. 

 

Edited January 29 by Ian Hargrave
Duplication of text

[Wheatley]

Deleted. Pointless. 

 

Edited January 29 by Wheatley

[phil-b259]

14 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

a lot of wcrc’s passengers are elderly in years and as such a day out that becomes a 24 hour coach trip could actually pose a health risk to some.. not just stress, missed medications etc.

 

it’s unreasonable to expect a passenger for a day out to pack an overnight bag. Granted last night was unfortunate and the 2000 Preston- Euston wasn’t cancelled for other reasons making it more difficult. 

 

 

We’ll if WRCs loco hadn’t effectively SPADed a signal and run through some points there wouldn’t have been any issue in the first place.

 

With only a single platform available at Preston station thanks to the damage it’s perhaps inevitable that the Charter ended up at the bottom of the pile….

 

[adb968008]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

We’ll if WRCs loco hadn’t effectively SPADed a signal and run through some points there wouldn’t have been any issue in the first place.

 

With only a single platform available at Preston station thanks to the damage it’s perhaps inevitable that the Charter ended up at the bottom of the pile….

 

I get all of the above.

 

But the statement implies the passengers are to blame, or at least be penalised.

 

They are the victims.

This doesnt just apply to saturdays events, anytime any event flops the system, passengers are made into victims, and increasingly are being held against their will, in insanitary conditions for several hours…

 

They are often then victimised a second time when they take matters into their own hands…

 

The system isnt work for the passenger, in an event situation.

That to me is a failure.

Edited January 29 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

13 hours ago, adb968008 said:

On a different tangent, would that be a SPAD then  ?

Surely the loco cannot run through points set against, with a signal set for that direction ?

 

Correct.

 

Though things are confusing it’s not a SPAD as such because the loco involved didn’t actual go far enough to be behind a signal which applied tho their line in the first place!

 

It seems like the loco stopped short and after the driver changed ends they went and took a signal which actually applied to a different line as ‘theirs’ and seeing it was at a proceed moved off back towards the station.

 

This short of thing (if true) demonstrates why drivers NEED up to date and accurate route knowledge…..

[adb968008]

6 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Correct.

 

Though things are confusing it’s not a SPAD as such because the loco involved didn’t actual go far enough to be behind a signal which applied tho their line in the first place!

 

It seems like the loco stopped short and after the driver changed ends they went and took a signal which actually applied to a different line as ‘theirs’ and seeing it was at a proceed moved off back towards the station.

 

This short of thing (if true) demonstrates why drivers NEED up to date and accurate route knowledge…..

That is concerning, given Preston loco changes is one of the more common activities on the network for West Coast..

They use Preston for loco changes very often… I would have thought it “common ground”, more so than many other places.

However if it is true that the loco is stopped in section (as its not passed the signal) , how come the points could be changed ?)

 

Edited January 29 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I get all of the above.

 

But the statement implies the passengers are to blame, or at least be penalised.

 

They are the victims.

This doesnt just apply to saturdays events, anytime any event flops the system, passengers are made into victims, and increasingly are being held against their will, in insanitary conditions for several hours…

 

They are often then victimised a second time when they take matters into their own hands…

 

 

 

WRC passengers are not to ‘blame’ for the incident - but the basic truth is the only reason they were able to afford tickets* in the first place is that NR agreed to absorb any delay minutes that WCR caused.

 

Given the chaos the damage to the points caused the compensation NR would have had to pay out to other TOCs would have been huge!

 

* If charter train companies had to insure themselves against the huge potential costs of delay minutes then there is no way they would be able to afford to stay in business.

[adb968008]

7 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

WRC passengers are not to ‘blame’ for the incident - but the basic truth is the only reason they were able to afford tickets* in the first place is that NR agreed to absorb any delay minutes that WCR caused.

 

Given the chaos the damage to the points caused the compensation NR would have had to pay out to other TOCs would have been huge!

 

* If charter train companies had to insure themselves against the huge potential costs of delay minutes then there is no way they would be able to afford to stay in business.

Perhaps railtour tickets themselves need to come with insurance ?

 

A lot of things went wrong here aiui..

 

1. the 86 had issues (not neccessarily wcrcs fault as its privately owned) and delayed the whole day
2. the 47 on the rear aiui wasnt 100mph, (75mph restricted ive read mentioned, and was added at NR insistence).

3. The incident at Preston

4. The cancelation of the 2000 to Euston (thus depriving the last ride home).

5. Engineering works closing the route back.

The combination of events shares blame across Network Rail, the 86 owner, Wcrc and Avanti to fail the end passenger.

 

(I put Avanti as I understand operators are supposed to help each other, but theres was canceled).

 

It wasnt one single event but a series of isolated ones that lead to a culmulative events for the passenger.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29 by adb968008

[caradoc]

1 minute ago, adb968008 said:

The combination of events shares blame across Network Rail,

 

In what way is Network Rail to blame? From what we know the initial delays were due to a defective loco, and the huge delay at Preston was caused by Driver error; There is every chance that the Driver involved was not able, or authorised, to continue working after that incident. 

 

[adb968008]

6 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

In what way is Network Rail to blame? From what we know the initial delays were due to a defective loco, and the huge delay at Preston was caused by Driver error; There is every chance that the Driver involved was not able, or authorised, to continue working after that incident. 

 

Aiui

 

1. Network rail insisted on a 47 being added to the rear, and speed restricted the train to 75mph, for the whole day… no 47.. 100mph running would have been possible with the 86.. instead the tour lost even more time.

 

Happy to be corrected on this point, i’m reading the same online sources as everyone else.

 

2. A decision to delay WCRCs train at Preston, in knowlegde the route to London was subject to closure for engineering works making a return to London impossible.

 

- The 47 they insisted upon, could have been used vice the 86 from Preston, Preston is bi-signalled and replatforms at either end is routine movements daily… the tour could have got out, neither the stock, if the 47 was not involved, question is why it didnt and was there any urgency or consideration to line closure / alternative routing ?

 

 

ive never seen a cme run from Euston with an 86 on the front and 47 on the rear… usually the 86 takes the job alone.

 

What lessons could be learned here ?

Edited January 29 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

19 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

(I put Avanti as I understand operators are supposed to help each other, but theres was canceled).

 

 

Yes and no…

 

There have been instances where after an incident on the ECML ticket acceptance on EMR say has been declined because EMR routes were undergoing engineering work and were already running with significantly reduced capacity.

 

[caradoc]

17 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

2. A decision to delay WCRCs train at Preston

 

Who made that decision, and why? 

 

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Who made that decision, and why? 

 

If the decision was after the run through then it would most likely have been because a new driver was required, plus the loco would have needed checking / replacing and then there is the whole matter of actually finding a time slot to extricate the train from where it was sat with the available infrastructure much reduced as a result of the run thru damage.

[caradoc]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

If the decision was after the run through then it would most likely have been because a new driver was required

 

Agree; When I was a Controller any Driver involved in such an incident would be relieved, not allowed to work forward and would require to be interviewed, by NR as well as the Train Operator's own staff. Depending where the necessary staff were, this could take some time to organise. Also, given that on parts of the WCML the only time without traffic for reasonable period is Saturday night, it is very unlikely that multiple possession would be held off to pass one train. 

 

[adb968008]

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

If the decision was after the run through then it would most likely have been because a new driver was required, plus the loco would have needed checking / replacing and then there is the whole matter of actually finding a time slot to extricate the train from where it was sat with the available infrastructure much reduced as a result of the run thru damage.

There was a replacement loco.. the 47 (47746) that was dragged about all day… it would be at the London end, as 34067 came in from Lostock Hall direction.

 

seem here..

 

 

Could the 47/ecs not just reverse north out of Preston and pull forwards into any of 1-5 which were still operational, and meandered onto London without the 86 / driver ?

 

(This is a routine shunting move for Northerns units, indeed some did such ecs moves that evening)

 

The 86 came down from Carnforth LE, and can be seen in the above video preparing as 34067 departs.

 

Would the 47 be unmanned running all day on the back ? - especially as it is suggested assistance from the 47 was given on the hills to 34067 during the day ? … if so.. is this not a “spare” driver for the “spare” 47 ?

 

Who knows, but 34067 arrived 29L from Carlilse, at 1829 and had 15 mins remaining for an OT departure at 1840.

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:U66465/2024-01-27/detailed

 

86259 looks to have been in p7 since lunch, but moved before 1829 as this video shows 86259 was not in p7 when 34067 arrived

 

but by 1858 it was at Preston south and into the station by 1911..  a long time but rtt looks unreliable…suggesting it went into p4, when the railtour was in p6… especially as two VT southbounds used p4 at 1910 and 1920.

 

Though the lack of a timing at Ribble jn might be an indication of something.. was 86259 sitting at Preston south as 34067 arrived.. ? Theres alterntive suggestions out there, that it was the 47 not the 86.

 

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:U66469/2024-01-27/detailed

After that 3 hours passed before a 2157 departure.

 

Edited January 29 by adb968008

[black and decker boy]

The 47 speed restriction wouldn’t be a NR thing but a WCRC safety case thing, possibly brake block type or wheel profile / tyre thickness related

 

having a 47 on the rear doesn’t mean you have 2 drivers on board the train and with suitable traction / route knowledge and hours available. If you listen to Mssr Smith & Shuttleworth, thee is no money in charters so paying for more drivers than you need seems unlikely.
 

Maybe part of the delay was getting a suitable new driver to come from home to work back south.

[uax6]

You seem to be being deliberately provocative for the sake of it again. Its as if you have an axe to grind against Network Rail.....

 

There are things that have to be done for an operational incident that has been said above, and you seem to think that TOC's have train crew all over the place ready to take over at the drop of a hat, this simply isn't true. 

With knowledge of how these things work, getting them moving again in 4 hours seems pretty slick to me (don't forget that the Bobby in the box also probably had to piss in a bottle too).

 

Again it brings up WCRC's driver standards again though doesn't it? 

 

Andy G

[john new]

3 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

The 47 speed restriction wouldn’t be a NR thing but a WCRC safety case thing, possibly brake block type or wheel profile / tyre thickness related

 

having a 47 on the rear doesn’t mean you have 2 drivers on board the train and with suitable traction / route knowledge and hours available. If you listen to Mssr Smith & Shuttleworth, thee is no money in charters so paying for more drivers than you need seems unlikely.
 

Maybe part of the delay was getting a suitable new driver to come from home to work back south.

Aren’t they (47s) 75mph locomotives everywhere these days. 
 

[rodent279]

Good job it wasn't Tangmere that overran the points, or people may start boycotting it!