RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 2, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 2, 2014 While I am by no means in Stationmaster's league when it comes to rules and regulations - having not been examined, or been required to be so, for more than 30 years, when I ceased to be Operating Assistant for the South Eastern Division - some of the cavalier practices being touted as the norm in this thread are distinctly disturbing. The idea that the mere owner of a loco can dictate terms to the railway upon whose rails - and within whose Safety Case - it reposes, is frankly ludicrous. If this is just the thin end of a very large wedge of safety-related "normal practices" in the preservation sector, it is only a matter of time before something deeply nasty happens. This train ran away for a distance of 1.8 miles. How many foot crossings and other interfaces with the real world might there be in such a distance? I predict the ripples from this unfortunate pebble in the pond may spread quite a long way - and a good thing, too. Alas very true Ian. The ORR/HMRI have had a 'strong interest' in safety standards and procedures in the heritage sector for some years now and there has been a strong belief that that there has also been considerable under-reporting of reportable incidents (which are covered by a much wider range of things than simply what there should be in the Railway's Rule Book. Several well known Railways have come under very strong criticism for lack of or inadequate SMS (Safety Management Systems) and not too long back one was sitting on an Improvement Order which very narrowly escaped being turned into a Prohibition Order, which would have closed them down, while at least one has been prosecuted (albeit under the wrong legislation but they couldn't afford to fight the case in Court). I have no doubt from what I am aware of from the past plus incidents such as this that the level of ORR 'interest' will be maintained and that it might lead to more searching examination of a Railway's procedures at the time of any Inspection or visit. I believe - from what I have heard secondhand so it might not be entirely correct - that the HRA is looking to take a more involved and 'well advised' line in this area as there are a wide range of issues which extend beyond pure operational matters to such areas as workshops, and worksites where infrastructure work is taking place (which can involve CDM regulations instead of or in addition to a Railway's operational procedures), and to many other areas. For example 'drink & drugs' policy and procedures should be exactly the same on a Heritage railway as they are on the national network although I think most Railways are probably by now more than aware of that and have suitable procedures in place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Richard E Posted June 2, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 2, 2014 There is one thing here that I have not said - as a founder contributor (financially and in body) to GCR (N) I really do hope that this incident does not impact on the work done by all the volunteers and benefactors (particularly David Clarke) of the GCR over the years. The company is in a unique position and cannot afford to lose that which is hard earned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I hope so too, but unless certain lines get their act together, such incidents may have serious repercussions for all heritage railways. There's already been some "nasty" incidents including a couple fatalities involving volunteer staff which I'm sure we're all aware of. Is it luck or good judgement that so far there's been nothing that I know of that's involved passenger fatalities. Let's keep it that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Any railway that issues an instruction, verbal or written, not to apply a handbrake when leaving stock unattended should not be in the business of running a railway. A for Ozzyo's preparing a loco, I'd suggest on a diesel with 2 handbrakes, make sure at least one of them is applied; if it's a class 40 make sure they are BOTH applied (see my thread elsewhere as to what happens when you don't); leave scotches in place and handbrakes on until the loco has built up enough air or vacuum to apply the loco brake. Please take note from the professional railwaymen who frequent this forum! My reply of preparing a loco was from 30 years back and was said under the IIRC letters, the driver may have started the loco and got the loco brakes working at the front end and then went around the loco and then removed the chocks after checking the hand brake in the rear cab! But it would also depend on the grade, the driver and loco class. "most preserved railways don't use hand brakes" Sorry matey, only one way to say this...nonsense. If the preserved railway does not use it's handbrake's it will shut down one day, one way or another. If the scrap men find out that some thing can be moved away they will move it to a nice place and remove what they want. It has happened up in this part of the woods. By the sound of it the 37 ran away due to the fact it was secured on the straight air brake and then the drivers key was taken out. This shuts down the desk but also stops the compressors from running, hence air leaked off and it went for a trundle on its own. It may have helped if the bags were coupled up to the coach and the handbrake applied on the loco then? This was mentioned very early on. OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted June 2, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 2, 2014 On thing that I know the ORR are very concerned about is that a lot of incidents have happened at Gala's. There is a suggestion that some train crews have been doing a bit of 'grandstanding' for the crowds. It was certainly something that was mentioned at a briefing that i went to last year. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 2, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 2, 2014 I hope so too, but unless certain lines get their act together, such incidents may have serious repercussions for all heritage railways. There's already been some "nasty" incidents including a couple fatalities involving volunteer staff which I'm sure we're all aware of. Is it luck or good judgement that so far there's been nothing that I know of that's involved passenger fatalities. Let's keep it that way. There have been passenger injuries (all minor I believe) and I know that one Railway has had a child fall between a train and a station platform during a 'Santa' event (I know of that one as I was originally asked to act as an indepenedent Chairman for the Railway's internal inquiry but as it happens my back was in one of its awkward moods so someone else did the Chairing instead). I am aware also that in a number of cases members of the travelling public have reported incidents on heritage/leisure railways to the ORR although soem of these were not really incidents where the Railway could have been considered to be at fault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 On thing that I know the ORR are very concerned about is that a lot of incidents have happened at Gala's. There is a suggestion that some train crews have been doing a bit of 'grandstanding' for the crowds. It was certainly something that was mentioned at a briefing that i went to last year. Jamie It's not just grandstanding, it's as I mentioned earlier so many irregular staff come out to play at a gala it can be a nightmare for people there who actually know what they are doing. But then again when the ups are reported 9/10 times nothing is done about it, I can think of one tit at Goathland who had to have the Guard come on the phone after every move to tell him what levers to pull because he was so incredibly inept he didn't have a clue what was going on, and this is not an isolated case. It's a miracle someone hasn't been hurt or killed with some of the clowns who come out of the woodwork at a special event weekend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted June 2, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted June 2, 2014 I don't quite understand that...certainly on the railway I volunteer on those of us carrying out activities that are deemed as safety critical, eg footplate crews, guards, signalmen etc., are subject to regular assessments by inspectors and are rostered regular turns to maintain competency. Edit carntnspel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyram Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 It's not just grandstanding, it's as I mentioned earlier so many irregular staff come out to play at a gala it can be a nightmare for people there who actually know what they are doing. But then again when the ###### ups are reported 9/10 times nothing is done about it, I can think of one tit at Goathland who had to have the Guard come on the phone after every move to tell him what levers to pull because he was so incredibly inept he didn't have a clue what was going on, and this is not an isolated case. It's a miracle someone hasn't been hurt or killed with some of the clowns who come out of the woodwork at a special event weekend. Then I hate to say it is the railway's responsibility to deal with this ineptness. At the end of the day if you are not trained for the job you should not be doing it whether it is a gala or not! I find this incident on the NYMR very shocking! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 2, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 2, 2014 Then I hate to say it is the railway's responsibility to deal with this ineptness. At the end of the day if you are not trained for the job you should not be doing it whether it is a gala or not! I find this incident on the NYMR very shocking! The Railway's SMS should include a section on training, qualification, refresher training, maintenance of records of number of turns worked, briefing on changes and so on including teh relevant procedures and i would expect in the instance mentioned by Boris for there also to be written Instructions regarding operation of the ground frame. How these are kept and filed is a matter of choice as there are several different ways of doing that. Oh, and the SMS, along with the Railway's Safety Policy Statement, should be available for inspection by the staff should they so wish although obviously personal records would not be. It is also something an external (operational safety) auditor would be likely to be checking as the ORR folk also tend to take an interest in such procedures and records. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 What's even more frightening is that it wasn't the signalman telling the Guard, it was the Guard telling the signalman what levers on the frame to pull. This individual was a qualified signalman although how the hell he did it is anybodies guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
byron Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 What's even more frightening is that it wasn't the signalman telling the Guard, it was the Guard telling the signalman what levers on the frame to pull. This individual was a qualified signalman although how the hell he did it is anybodies guess. Do not worry Boris - at the rate the NYMR is going it will not be long before "one train operation" (note - not one engine in steam) will be in force. Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger440 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Do not worry Boris - at the rate the NYMR is going it will not be long before "one train operation" (note - not one engine in steam) will be in force. Mike Is it that bad???? im likely to be popping up to whitby soon. Was thinking of having a ride as i think the last time i was there was 84/85 maybe? Im with stationmaster on this though. Im staggered that the inconvienience of unlocking locos to move them over-rides the operational soundness of screwing the handbrake down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhf19 Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 At Butterley, common user loco's are generally hand braked as access to the cab is provided easily. On privately owned loco's the hand brakes are left off and are scotched securely making sure the downhill end scotch can't be taken out my kids etc etc. This is an accepted practise that has been risk assessed and accepted by ORR/HMRI. It would be an absolute nightmare to have keys for all loco's and even more so making sure they are locked up again properly in case the railway has a visit from the thieves. Pretty much all loco's have had their locked changed from the standard BR No.1 key as these are just far to easy to come by. Before suggesting its unsafe and bad practise, maybe consider that the railways carrying out the above practise actually have experience of its safe use and it has actually been deemed safe for use by the railway inspectorate and internal risk assessing. Most people know what happened when the handbrake got left on 31 271 after the first abortive convoy move at 5am in the morning. It went a few days later with hand brake rubbing as nobody checked it was fully off due to the policy of not using handbrakes on diesel loco's (a non Butterley bloke applied it) It ended up setting hot axle box detectors off and being dumped at Thirsk with serious flats, being road transported back to Butterley, clattering down the Butterley branch and resulted in DB paying out for new tyres on a couple of wheel sets! Oh and the year it was out of traffic! As someone who works in both paid and volunteer capacity at a heritage railway for many years, the issue of keys for locked locos is non-starter. We have a policy of using a standard padlock for all locos so only one key is needed. Any owner who wants to use their own lock must supply a spare key as the railway reserve the right to cut off any non-standard lock if no key is available. It is not an operational nightmare, it simply means that a bit more time has to be taken in unlocking and relocking locos during shunting. The issue with 31 271 is simply down to poor prep prior to the locos leaving the railway. A simple rotation test will have highlighted the problem. We carry one out when the consist is assembled, along with brake test and, as a back up, as the consist moves onto NR, the person handing over the locos a final rotation test is carried out, also checking for any pipes not secured on dummies, low hanging couplings and that the tail lamp is fitted and working. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danemouth Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Please excuse my ignorance but what's a "rotation test" please? Many thanks, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted June 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 4, 2014 Please excuse my ignorance but what's a "rotation test" please? Many thanks, Dave Not ignorant, Dave, I think it merely means all wheels are revolving when in motion, so the handbrake is not effective and damaging things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 4, 2014 Please excuse my ignorance but what's a "rotation test" please? Many thanks, Dave As Ian says Dave - not so much a 'test' (although it is sometimes done specially as such) but basically a check to make sure all the wheels are rotating properly without any sign of brakes, or anything else, rubbing or dragging. On some of the more fancy modern day trains there are inbuilt sensors and software to do exactly the same thing - but they have been known (very rarely) to not work correctly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danemouth Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Thanks Ian and Mike for the prompt response - it's these little things I find interesting on the prototype, Regards, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mike Bellamy Posted May 21, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 21, 2015 Report now published - I'm not qualified to comment . . . . . BBC News Report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-32827426 RAIB Report https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/555c9d0640f0b669c4000004/150521_R042015_Loughborough_Central.pdf . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyram Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Very interesting. A shame this report has emerged straight after the good news of yesterday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Depot Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I may have missed it, but what happened to the loco? was it repaired? cheers Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyram Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I may have missed it, but what happened to the loco? was it repaired? cheers Keith As a G.c member I can honestly tell you......I have no idea. It's last known location was in the shed with blue plastic over the damage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 A flickr search suggests it was moved to Burton, and may well still be stored there...https://www.flickr.com/photos/90265707@N03/16176384223/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 So reading the report, I reach 2 conclusions: 1)The root cause was an incorrectly applied chock and a lack of applied handbrakes. 2)The GCR was incredibly lucky the accident wasn't more serious. Fair comment, that'll be official arse kickings to the staff involved... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 The really interesting thing I found about that report is that it doesn't list the loco's air brakes leaking off as a causal factor (in paragraph 136). In fact, aside from the maintenance section, the loco air brakes, which were the other mechanism holding the train in place, do not appear to have been considered in the report. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.