WCML blocked by freight train fire

[Talltim]

It does sound like red tape for the sake if it then

[Oldddudders]

It does sound like red tape for the sake if it then

Bit of a rock and a hard place, this one, really. If you let money talk all the time - as rail privatisation obviously encourages - then there really are risks that people will cut corners to save dosh. Since the first fatality at the Rainhill Trials, railways have been seen to have the scope for tragic "accidents" and there is therefore a need to have some safety checks and balances to ensure the system does what it should and operates harmoniously for the benefit of customers and staff - and the general public - alike. C21 style demands that should be accomplished by lots of precisely written procedures and auditing. Lugubrious, expensive, but necessary, I think.

[The Stationmaster]

Bit of a rock and a hard place, this one, really. If you let money talk all the time - as rail privatisation obviously encourages - then there really are risks that people will cut corners to save dosh. Since the first fatality at the Rainhill Trials, railways have been seen to have the scope for tragic "accidents" and there is therefore a need to have some safety checks and balances to ensure the system does what it should and operates harmoniously for the benefit of customers and staff - and the general public - alike. C21 style demands that should be accomplished by lots of precisely written procedures and auditing. Lugubrious, expensive, but necessary, I think.

I think that is very much the case - and it goes further than that. The whole nature of the way the railway is staffed has changed enormously since privytisation and vast amounts of 'experience' has been chucked out so folk no longer have the opportunity to 'learn their trade' through handed down knowledge and gradual development of experience. Plus with a frequently largely non-railway background ownership which doesn't understand the reasons for many things there are efforts to take out what are seen as 'traditional' or 'old fashioned' costs and this needs to be somehow regulated. Safety Cases were supposed to do that and now ROGS does it through what are basically the same thing in the shape of SMS - a manual of how the company manages its safety down to quite low levels of detail.

 

Is it a waste? - well perhaps not when you consider what happened in one TOC which set about 'cost saving' by the 'slash & burn' approach and was subsequently found to have neglected the management of Driver standards (by cutting out the folk responsible for that process) to the extent that its SPAD figures not only increased but were not reported until they started to come to light from other sources. In its case the external audit process fell short because Railtrack had also cut back and weren't doing it in sufficient depth or frequently enough and as a result there was a an increased potential for collisions and possible injuries or even deaths. Hence a lot of more recent external audit for TOCs has concentrated on the minutiae of safety critical stuff.

 

It is quite one thing to go into a company and audit its SMS - ensuring that, like its Safety Case had done, it has the necessary structures and procedures in place; it is another to go in and audit how it is (or isn't) applying its procedures but then I would say that as I do the latter.

[Talltim]

The simple answer, if you need a safety case, or whatever todays trendy name for it is, is to have one for each type of stock that is applicable to all operators. Then you don't get this situation where Virgin can't hire a loco (and crew with appropriate traction and route knowledge) because they don't have some paperwork that is so long winded that no-one will read it. Instead everyone will have the paperwork that no-one will read.

[brushman47544]

The simple answer, if you need a safety case, or whatever todays trendy name for it is, is to have one for each type of stock that is applicable to all operators. Then you don't get this situation where Virgin can't hire a loco (and crew with appropriate traction and route knowledge) because they don't have some paperwork that is so long winded that no-one will read it. Instead everyone will have the paperwork that no-one will read.

I have to say I do see the need for some sort of safety case or SMS as Olddudders and The Stationmaster have commented. Other industries, including shipping, have the same sort of thing. What I do wonder, however, is if sometimes things are taken too far and work against the railway.

 

Whilst I can understand that a TOC should have the stock operating its services on its "safety case", I fail to see why a TOC can't hire a particular loco plus driver to work a train made up of rolling stock already on its "safety case". Perhaps best to explain by example. A Class 90 hauled Virgin service fails on a two track stretch of main line. Show stops. But there's a Class 86 stabled 10 minutes away. So the Class 86 is sent to clear the line. However, if the Class 90 had not been available to work the train, as I understand the rules the Class 86 would not be allowed to be diagrammed to it as it was not on Virgin's "safety case". What is the difference in safety terms? Either it's safe to use the Class 86 or it isn't.

[Talltim]

What I meant is that you have a 'UKRail' safety case that covers all companies. Don't have individual, often partially duplicated, ones for each operator. After all, an item of equipment is either safe or it isn't

[Edwin_m]

There are arrangements where Network Rail can commandeer any suitable locomotive to clear the line, regardless of operator SMS or just about anything else. There is also scope to run traction on other people's SMS, but that sometimes falls foul of things like the other operator not having a safety case to carry passengers, or not including the first operator's rolling stock.

 

Having an industry-wide SMS probably would mean that every operator would have to work to exactly the same set of highly detailed rules, many of which would be irrelevant, and there would be much less scope for an individual operator to introduce more innovative methods of working. There is also a good argument to say that the company that operates a particular SMS should have some influence in and responsibility for what is in it.

[The Stationmaster]

What I meant is that you have a 'UKRail' safety case that covers all companies. Don't have individual, often partially duplicated, ones for each operator. After all, an item of equipment is either safe or it isn't

The latter is exactly the relevant point - which is why rolling stock and traction was dealt with through a separate system (as I have previously explained - it now has slight differences because of the introduction of the 'Notified Body' because they can become the sign-off organisation). But let's get this clear - if, say, a Class 86 was cleared for passenger train operation then a Class 86 remains cleared for passenger train operation until lack of use results in that acceptance lapsing. All a train operator had/has to do is demonstrate that they have a system to ensure they are using appropriately cleared traction and have in place the means to train their staff to maintain and drive it, have a means of ensuring that they use the correct spare parts with appropriate certification of materials /components and have a means of ensuring that they comply with their own procedures for all these things. Provided those basics are there and their documentation takes care of any special features (e.g Selective Door Opening at short platforms) then all they need to do is check that everything is covered if they want to add something tractionwise to their list.

 

Where the problems could come is if they want to add a traction type which is not already covered and which then needs to be certified (still a long process needing exert handling).

 

A TOC can hire in whatever it wants in the traction line provided it is already safety cleared and is appropriately cleared - in fact I was one of the first people in the industry to get involved in hiring out traction and vehicles (although not for passenger trains - I'd only been involved in that in the preservation world some years previously) and they went with our Drivers on our Safety Case because the hirer didn't have the work involved covered in their Safety Case. It was, and is, simple with locos.

 

To get back to the earlier point there are far more critical things than Safety Cases/SMS and the important one is how can a company hire in a type of loco if it has nobody passed to drive it or used to handling that type on the sort of trains it runs? If your Drivers and maintainers etc have lost that knowledge a ClassXX won't be much use to you. And probably even worse with some sorts of (usually older) coaching stock where staff have also lost knowledge and special features which were once in your procedures have vanished and need to be rewritten and trained back in - all that takes time & resources a TOC might not have or is unwilling to pay for.

 

As far as clearing the line (of a failed train) is concerned the Access Conditions have always provided for any suitable available traction unit to be used in order to quickly clear the line and the operator whose train has failed has to pay for it while the operator whose loco etc is used gets paid for it. But that is only 'to clear the line' - what happens after that is down to the operator of the failed train and (if they were clever) any contracts they might have made in advance for such eventualities - assuming they were prepared to stand the cost of such contracts. I have a gut feeling that nowadays most TOCs are likely to be far more interested in avoiding the cost than they are in maintaining such contracts or such things as a fleet of 'Thunderbirds'.

[jonathan452]

Getting back on topic-:

http://www.class90el...orums_area.html

90008

Administrator

Joined: 26 Jan 2011

Posts: 1165

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:49 am

I have been informed from a reliable source that two of the powerpacks from 90042 will be donated to 90044 having caught fire on Monday 17th October at Berkhamsted. The future for 90042 is not looking good.

[Talltim]

As far as clearing the line (of a failed train) is concerned the Access Conditions have always provided for any suitable available traction unit to be used in order to quickly clear the line and the operator whose train has failed has to pay for it while the operator whose loco etc is used gets paid for it. But that is only 'to clear the line' - what happens after that is down to the operator of the failed train and (if they were clever) any contracts they might have made in advance for such eventualities - assuming they were prepared to stand the cost of such contracts. I have a gut feeling that nowadays most TOCs are likely to be far more interested in avoiding the cost than they are in maintaining such contracts or such things as a fleet of 'Thunderbirds'.

 

So how come it suddenly becomes 'safe' to use a combination of equipment with no safety case/SMS when the line needs to be cleared?

[The Stationmaster]

 

So how come it suddenly becomes 'safe' to use a combination of equipment with no safety case/SMS when the line needs to be cleared?

It's no more or less 'safe' than it is at any other time - read what I wrote in the first Para of Post No.33; it's about a lot more things than a Safety Case/SMS and it's about the ability of an operator to be physically able to operate the loco type concerned.

 

Let us take a simple example - Operator A works all his passenger trains with Class 37 locos and his Drivers are, naturally, trained to drive them and are therefore fully up to date on the knowledge of that loco. But one day one of them fails and the train is moved 'to clear the line' by a Class 47 belonging to Operator B (it can do so if it is brake/coupling compatible even tho' it might not be train heat compatible). But the Class 47 cannot work the train forward (unless there happens to be a contract in place between A & B for that to be done and B's Drivers are suitably trained etc) because A's Drivers don't know Class 47s (even tho' they might well once upon a time have been trained on them as the 'Basic Diesel Loco').

And this is how A's safety procedures come into play; it isn't so much because Class 47s weren't mentioned in A's Safety Case etc but because the detail of the Safety Case/SMS has, quite rightly, established procedures which don't allow its Drivers to drive locos which they aren't currently qualified to drive and where there is no record of them having such qualification and current handling experience.

Some parts of BR weren't so fussy about such things but in those days nobody was quite so keen to have a paper-trail to prevent them being sued in the event of an 'incident'.

[Supaned]

Correct , Mike.

 

Sadly today's railways are all about covering rear ends with mountains of paperwork "just in case" something goes wrong. let's be honest , 99.99% of the time nothing will , but for that one occasion where it does , somebody has to take the blame (if only so cost can be apportioned).

 

Regarding locomotives , drivers are required to drive a particular type of locomotive once every 12 months - once that period has lapsed , they are entitled to ask for a "refresh" on the type . If they are out of date , drive the traction anyway and have an incident , the first point of call will be the driver , because on paper he is no longer competent on the traction. So in the case of VT drivers , ALL of them are no longer competent on classes 86 or 87 , as the type has not been in use for over 12 months ; it is highly likely that the drivers will have had to remove them from their traction cards. Regardless of whether the driver actually could still drive the locomotive type concerned , that's how it works , like it or not.

[298]

There appears to have been a numbers of fires over the last few years on Freightliner electrically hauled services, involving both Class 86 & Class 90 locos. Is it me or do these fires appear to be more common than in BR days and if so is there a common theme?

 

The factors that come to mind are that the locomotives are getting older, possibly do more miles annually than they did in the past and changes to the maintenance regime for these locos.

 

Is anyone else of the same opinion and is there an underlying common cause?

 

XF

 

 

The class 90 fires pretty much seem to involve the traction powerpacks, but with varying levels of damage. AFAIK they've only involved 90042, '44 and '50, without any underlying common theme. EWS admitted responsibility for the latter but there's no indication a changed maintenance regime since then has caused the recent fires. Also, I don't think their use on class 1's has anything to do with it as Freightliner reguarly hired '42 and 46 to Virgin a decade ago, and the regular use of different locos on the Pretendolino is more ot do with diagramming and pleasing bashers than trying to spread the work amongst the fleet instead of over-stressing one loco on an easy diagram.

 

As for the 86's, most of those fires are due to a "handbrake release failure" and 86501 ought to be given 86219's name for it's repeated rises from the ashes.

[Talltim]

Am I right in thinking that if a driver has traction knowledge, but not route knowledge, he can be 'piloted' by a driver with the route knowledge? i.e. in the case above, ignoring safety cases, a driver with 47 knowledge from company B could take the train foward piloted by the original driver from company A who drives the route every day?

[96701]

I believe that's how tampers on track machines get to strange locations.

[The Stationmaster]

Am I right in thinking that if a driver has traction knowledge, but not route knowledge, he can be 'piloted' by a driver with the route knowledge? i.e. in the case above, ignoring safety cases, a driver with 47 knowledge from company B could take the train foward piloted by the original driver from company A who drives the route every day?

In practical terms the answer is 'yes' although really the conducting Driver ought at least to know a bit about the braking capability of the 'new' loco (some operators now include train handling alongside traction and route knowledge competence). So it could be done as you suggest if Company A is willing to pay Company B for the service and put a suitable contract in place (and it should in fact satisfy itself that Company B is competent to undertake the work). In most cases it is likely, unless things have changed, that Company B would want a longish term contract.

 

It all depends whether they want to do it and how much they are prepared to pay and how they balance that against the cost of the alternative - I was charging £350 plus VAT for a Driver per shift 16 years ago and around £600-700 for a loco per working day plus fuel and servicing costs on extended-day hires. I haven't got a clue what the rates are now (and they no doubt still vary between companies) so it might not be the sort of option which would appeal to some operators - and I also had some tentative train recovery contracts in place which would have cost me getting on for £1,000 per trip to get a stranded train back to depot after it had been 'cleared off the running line'.

[brushman47544]

I understand and accept all the points being made about safety cases/SMS, driver competence, and costs, but that is really missing the fundamental point I at least was trying to make.

 

In purely safety terms, why is it "safe" for a loco to "clear the line" (perhaps running for some considerable distance at line speed in the process) using a loco and fully qualified driver of the company operating the loco (e.g. DRS loco + DRS driver on Virgin passenger service), but not for the same loco and driver to be allocated to the train prior to departure. The analogy in the aviation sector is a wet lease, as opposed to a dry lease: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_lease#Wet_lease.

[The Stationmaster]

I understand and accept all the points being made about safety cases/SMS, driver competence, and costs, but that is really missing the fundamental point I at least was trying to make.

 

In purely safety terms, why is it "safe" for a loco to "clear the line" (perhaps running for some considerable distance at line speed in the process) using a loco and fully qualified driver of the company operating the loco (e.g. DRS loco + DRS driver on Virgin passenger service), but not for the same loco and driver to be allocated to the train prior to departure. The analogy in the aviation sector is a wet lease, as opposed to a dry lease: http://en.wikipedia....lease#Wet_lease.

'Clear the line' would in many (most?) cases be unlikely to take place at line speed - it simply means 'get the failure out of the way', i.e. to the nearest suitable loop or siding.

If suitable contracts, a suitable loco, and suitably trained Driver are available you could put it on the train prior to departure - if such a combination exists and the operator hiring in is prepared to pay for it. But nowadays a lot of the remaining loco fleet is incompatible with passenger train working for a variety of reasons and is generally not capable of the speeds and acceleration needed to keep time.

 

So nothing wrong with something approaching a wet lease situation (in fact I was involved in several such contracts - hiring out train and Drivers etc - in what were I think probably some of the earliest examples of their sort on the dis-integrated railway) the major difference from the airline situation is that the train runs on the Access Contract of the operator hiring it in and has to be covered by their insurance while any particular safety case type issues have to be handled by them as its on their Access Agreement with the network owner.

[Supaned]

part of the reason that "wet leases" don't take place very often is one of trade union relations , more specifically , why is a driver from company A not being used to drive his own companies train when they are hiring a driver from B? this may seem rather outdated , but a lot of these attitudes remain.

[brushman47544]

'Clear the line' would in many (most?) cases be unlikely to take place at line speed - it simply means 'get the failure out of the way', i.e. to the nearest suitable loop or siding.

If suitable contracts, a suitable loco, and suitably trained Driver are available you could put it on the train prior to departure - if such a combination exists and the operator hiring in is prepared to pay for it. But nowadays a lot of the remaining loco fleet is incompatible with passenger train working for a variety of reasons and is generally not capable of the speeds and acceleration needed to keep time.

 

So nothing wrong with something approaching a wet lease situation (in fact I was involved in several such contracts - hiring out train and Drivers etc - in what were I think probably some of the earliest examples of their sort on the dis-integrated railway) the major difference from the airline situation is that the train runs on the Access Contract of the operator hiring it in and has to be covered by their insurance while any particular safety case type issues have to be handled by them as its on their Access Agreement with the network owner.

Thanks for the additional clarification Mike. I started to compile a reply picking up on your words "If suitable contracts", which obviously do not exist simply to 'get the failure out of the way', and the difference that makes. But then I decided it's just another consequence of the now over-regulated and "dis-integrated" railway and getting rather . So I'll shut up