NR suspend WCRC from tonight

[BigAndy]

Without making any speculation whatsoever, having watched both videos posted above - in particular the vid at post #316 - it is interesting to hear the female station staff come to the loco crew and ask " Why did we move forward". You can't hear the driver's full reply but he can be heard to say "......was on green, wasn't it?"

Tthe female then replies " You've accidentally moved forward"

She says that, nodding her head. She then turns to the Supervisor and says " F***in hell " as she continue to turn away, before they both walk back down the platform.

 

I'm not going to comment on anything any further and that video may well be used eventually as evidence of what happened.

[acko22]

Phil-B,

 

Thanks for the reply any very fair points, all in all I think we can all say without speculation any which way you look at it with WCR already been under the a microscope this won't have done them any favours!

[phil-b259]

How long was this train and how long is the platform space from the RA marker to the far end?

 

(I only ask as I have seen a few comments on a couple of forums over the last year or two criticising the number of coaches added to these heritage runs in a bid to maximise the revenue and wonder on the length verses say an HST).

Reading station platforms comfortably hold a 9 coach HST set and as a MK1 coach is a fair bit shorter than a MK3 (on the Southern a 10 car 442 is about the same length as a 12 car electro star or CIG / VEP / CEP formation) even the longest charter train would fit comfortably at Reading.

 

The issues with the number of coaches on charters is not about platform lengths as that can be managed through other methods (such as people alighting from a specific number of coaches, i.e. the front 4 for example). It's rather making sure the steam locomotive can handle the load and not get stuck on gradients etc. if it looks like this will be the case then a diesel helper is often insisted on by NR or the number of coaches reduced accordingly.

[Glorious NSE]

Phil-B,

 

Thanks for the reply any very fair points, all in all I think we can all say without speculation any which way you look at it with WCR already been under the a microscope this won't have done them any favours!

Like it or not they do effectively operate under a microscope, as there can't be much they do that isn't photographed and videod by the enthusiast community.

 

I think I'm with Titan here, I do hope this is an opportunity to show a new face of post incident professionalism and be all the better for it, rather than the deflection, denial and 'everyone's out to get us' attitude to anything negative that appears to have been the norm pre-Wootton Bassett.

[The Stationmaster]

How long was this train and how long is the platform space from the RA marker to the far end?

 

(I only ask as I have seen a few comments on a couple of forums over the last year or two criticising the number of coaches added to these heritage runs in a bid to maximise the revenue and wonder on the length verses say an HST).

Engine plus 9 is what I counted on the video although possibly the diesel might also have been on the back or maybe it was 'shadowing'.  However it is notceable in the first linked video that the train with diesel on the front is standing further from the end of the platform than was the case with the steam engine (and that is it not foul at the west judging by a  train departing from Platform 12 on a green aspect.  What is not clear on that video is quite how the Driver of the diesel gets the ready-to-start signal from the Guard.

[acko22]

Mike,

 

you are a font of knowledge on this (not been a steam person myself) but doesn't the driver sit on the left just like on they do these days??

 

If so when watch the second video you can see his shadow and on part of the video you see him with what looks like a hand held radio, which could have added to things but in either case could he (not saying he strictly has to), asked his who I believe may have been his fireman who was hanging out of the platform side window to keep an eye out for him?

[Gary H]

The train moved without permission - if passengers were alighting or doors open there could still have been serious injury.

 

It's not a SPAD across a junction but it's still serious nonetheless,

 

I am perfectly aware of that fact, thankyou.

Stating the bleedin obvious.

[The Stationmaster]

Mike,

 

you are a font of knowledge on this (not been a steam person myself) but doesn't the driver sit on the left just like on they do these days??

 

If so when watch the second video you can see his shadow and on part of the video you see him with what looks like a hand held radio, which could have added to things but in either case could he (not saying he strictly has to), asked his who I believe may have been his fireman who was hanging out of the platform side window to keep an eye out for him?

There does appear to be something like a radio in his hand - in fact at one point in the video I thought I could see two in the cab.  What is not clear is what method was used to convey the ready-to-start signal from the Guard to the Driver (or I suppose possibly even what method was supposed to be used - that's another very interesting and somewhat wider question).

 

The facts seem fairly straightforward - the train reportedly moved forward when it should not have.  We don't now why - fairly clearly the Driver actually made it move but, again we don't know why.

 

For some reason he train had drawn up a long way in relation to the length of the platform which might or might not be a factor in what took place.  It was well past the 10 coach stopping point marker board (local knowledge) and in fact the '10 coaches' are modern length vehicles not Mk1 vehicles.  (The marker board is more or less opposite the front end of the steam engine in the first video and is also the stopping mark for 2+8 HSTs).

 

The fact that the train moved when it should not have could be down to a variety of reasons - that is up to someone to establish and take the necessary steps to prevent it happening in the future.

 

We also know that the Driver would seem to have been relieved of responsibility for working the train - we don't know who took the initiative in that respect and who made the decision.

 

If I were inquiring into the incident I know what questions I would ask and whom I would ask them of (and the range of people I would like to ask things of is far wider than one might immediately think, and would not just include WCR personnel.  And I would be looking for some paperwork from various sources, not just WCR).

 

And of course we on here haven't really got the faintest idea why it happened or where the responsibility lies for the train moving when it should not have.

[Boris]

Given all the hassle steam charters actually cause these days with these incidents, trespass, delay etc, is it time we drew a line under it and confined steam engines to preserved lines?

[Glorious NSE]

Given all the hassle steam charters actually cause these days with these incidents, trespass, delay etc, is it time we drew a line under it and confined steam engines to preserved lines?

Stirrer...

[Swifty11]

Given all the hassle steam charters actually cause these days with these incidents, trespass, delay etc, is it time we drew a line under it and confined steam engines to preserved lines?

 

You'll be shot for that opinion by some Boris!

 

 

 

Just to inform you, there were numerous reports of a SPAD however this turned out not to be the case. One of the passengers said the train moved forward between 3 and 5 feet with the doors open and moved before the RA. So the signaller was contacted to change the signal from green back to danger

 

By the looks of it, misunderstanding between despatch and the driver at the helm

 

Nothing wrong with this post?

[Boris]

You'll be shot for that opinion by some Boris!

It's just a purely theoretical question

 

*insert innocent whistling*

[Gary H]

Given all the hassle steam charters actually cause these days with these incidents, trespass, delay etc, is it time we drew a line under it and confined steam engines to preserved lines?

And on that bombshell............

[RANGERS]

Stirrer...

'Fraid that today's railway is expected to carry more passengers, on more trains running on around half the track mileage and half the passenger seat capacity that existed in the immediate post war years. Much of this happens in an environment controlled by signalling which ranges from Victorian to that engineered in the sixties. The demands on capacity are such that the spare paths as do exist will inevitably be open to the highest bidder before much longer, and the likelihood is that will price steam operators out for all but the least desirable timings/ routes anyway.

 

Much though we all love to see the sight of steam on the mainline, the case for it on a network straining under the weight of burgeoning demand, is rapidly diminishing.

[RJS1977]

I was on top of the MSCP and observed the whole incident though of course the guard and any passengers would have been on the wrong side of the train for me to see.

 

Two observations:

 

1) During the whole period in which Mayflower was in the station, there was steam coming from the cylinder drain cocks.

 

2) Although the 37 arrived and was coupled on the front, Mayflower departed under her own steam (eventually) with the same crew in the cab.

 

I would think based on this it's likely the regulator was leaking slightly and eventually caused the loco to move forwards hence the comment about "You accidentally moved forwards", which sounded to me like a repeat of what the driver was saying.

[Reorte]

'Fraid that today's railway is expected to carry more passengers, on more trains running on around half the track mileage and half the passenger seat capacity that existed in the immediate post war years. Much of this happens in an environment controlled by signalling which ranges from Victorian to that engineered in the sixties. The demands on capacity are such that the spare paths as do exist will inevitably be open to the highest bidder before much longer, and the likelihood is that will price steam operators out for all but the least desirable timings/ routes anyway.

 

Much though we all love to see the sight of steam on the mainline, the case for it on a network straining under the weight of burgeoning demand, is rapidly diminishing.

And with the current position as long as steam running can find a spot it'll still continue. The current railway is both a blessing and a curse for steam - a blessing since it's not by its nature discriminated against in ways it may once have been, a curse because of how busy the railway is in many places. It may well get harder for it to, which will reduce the number running, but I hope people look for ways for it to continue, not for reasons to stop it (and some of the reasons aren't steam-specific anyway).

[pete_mcfarlane]

And with the current position as long as steam running can find a spot it'll still continue. 

I think you're probably right, and in any case surely this isn't a 'steam' issue, it's one about charter trains in general? These tend to run at weekends when there are generally fewer scheduled trains, so there should always be space for them on the network. 

[phil-b259]

I was on top of the MSCP and observed the whole incident though of course the guard and any passengers would have been on the wrong side of the train for me to see.

 

Two observations:

 

1) During the whole period in which Mayflower was in the station, there was steam coming from the cylinder drain cocks.

 

2) Although the 37 arrived and was coupled on the front, Mayflower departed under her own steam (eventually) with the same crew in the cab.

 

 

Just because the same grew are in the cab and steam was seen doesn't mean Mayflower was doing any work. Please be aware that to move a steam engine at its maximum permitted speed it needs to be in steam so as to be able to provide lubrication to the cylinders etc. As such ditching the fire was not an option and Mayflower would have needed a crew to look after it even if it was being dragged in light steam. Also producing another set of crew competent with the engine (let alone with suitable route knowledge - note if the steam loco was being 'worked', piloting by another loco makes no difference to the requirement for the steam crew to have the necessary route knowledge) at the click of your fingers would have been nigh on impossible.

 

Thus I would suggest that the crew driving Mayflower were permitted to remain on the footplate with strict instructions not to do anything that would asst the trains movement - which would solely be in the hands of the class 37 and its crew. The job of the crew on Mayflower would be restricted to looking after the fire and boiler such that enough steam was provided for lubrication for the trip back to Southall.

[phil-b259]

 

I would think based on this it's likely the regulator was leaking slightly and eventually caused the loco to move forwards hence the comment about "You accidentally moved forwards", which sounded to me like a repeat of what the driver was saying.

 

If this was the case then it merely throws the focus of the enquiry onto WCRs fitness to run / maintenance regimes rather than the actions of the crew. A leaking regulator is not something that should be tolerated by any main line certified engine and if there were any suspicions about this during the preparation of Mayflower before the tour started (or if it developed en route) that it would misbehave in such a manor then the tour should have been cancelled / terminated early and WCR will have some serious explaining to do.

 

Ultimately if WCR have followed correct procedures throughout and the incident + any follow on actions can be proved to have been handled correctly (however it was caused) then WCR have nothing to fear. If however it is found that WCR have not followed their enhanced SMS there will be trouble.

[Hilux5972]

If this was the case then it merely throws the focus of the enquiry onto WCRs fitness to run / maintenance regimes rather than the actions of the crew. A leaking regulator is not something that should be tolerated by any main line certified engine and if there were any suspicions about this during the preparation of Mayflower before the tour started (or if it developed en route) that it would misbehave in such a manor then the tour should have been cancelled / terminated early and WCR will have some serious explaining to do.

 

Ultimately if WCR have followed correct procedures throughout and the incident + any follow on actions can be proved to have been handled correctly (however it was caused) then WCR have nothing to fear. If however it is found that WCR have not followed their enhanced SMS there will be trouble.

I thought it was someone from Network Rail that did the fitness to run exam. If that is the case, and the regulator is proved to be faulty, then surely the blame will be with NR and not WCR?

[RANGERS]

I think you're probably right, and in any case surely this isn't a 'steam' issue, it's one about charter trains in general? These tend to run at weekends when there are generally fewer scheduled trains, so there should always be space for them on the network.

 

It is an issue with charters per se, the crux of it is that the access charges likely to be levied as space becomes more scarce will be such that it could make charter trains unviable. Weekend paths are generally more available, in theory making them cheaper and more so in some areas more than others, but on the main lines it is becoming more and more under scarce, especially those areas where there is still room for weekend traffic growth. steam trains in particular given the added costs of running them and the greater likelihood of a problem developing, could be the biggest casualties.

 

If we assume that track costs will rise, a fair enough assumption as NR/ HMG seek to minimise the cost of the railway to the taxpayer and open access becomes more of an auction, a failure which caused major issues with other TOCs using the line could lead to massive re-imbursement claims. The TOCs will be looking for some parity, why should charter operators be treated any differently? The cost of bearing these directly would likely make that option prohibitive and the cost of insurance could make it uneconomic.

[phil-b259]

It is an issue with charters per se, the crux of it is that the access charges likely to be levied as space becomes more scarce will be such that it could make charter trains unviable. Weekend paths are generally more available, in theory making them cheaper and more so in some areas more than others, but on the main lines it is becoming more and more under scarce, especially those areas where there is still room for weekend traffic growth. steam trains in particular given the added costs of running them and the greater likelihood of a problem developing, could be the biggest casualties.

 

If we assume that track costs will rise, a fair enough assumption as NR/ HMG seek to minimise the cost of the railway to the taxpayer and open access becomes more of an auction, a failure which caused major issues with other TOCs using the line could lead to massive re-imbursement claims. The TOCs will be looking for some parity, why should charter operators be treated any differently? The cost of bearing these directly would likely make that option prohibitive and the cost of insurance could make it uneconomic.

 

Please don't forget that under current arrangements most charter operators have their liability for delay penalties capped at a ridiculously low level by industry standards with Network Rail picking up the rest of the bill for compensating other TOCs / FOCs - which still has to be paid in full to the likes of FGW / Virgin if a charter causes a problem.

 

If NR, under Government pressure raises the cap or does away with it completely,  main line steam / Heritage diesel charters will disappear from the network as a single delay will bankrupt most tour companies

[kenw]

Although as has been stated it's 'at least not a spad', the so called "platform - train interface" as it's termed, is currently seen as the biggest risk area after level crossings. and as such has often been forcefully briefed in safety briefings on the need to follow correct procedures in event of stopping in the wrong place, or preventing accidental or unauthorized movement. In view of previous issues with WCRs safety briefing to crews, as in last year's steam ban case, I expect they'll be facing detailed questions over what briefing have taken place on this issue before this incident occurred

 

Another issue this could highlight is the continued use of Mk1 Stock, which steam charters rely on. It may already be so following W.B. as it doesn't meet current crash worthiness requirements, and part of it continuing to be allowed to operate has, I believe, been it's limited use on charters had been considered relatively low-risk. Incidents such as this latest may also call into question their lack of central locking

[phil-b259]

I thought it was someone from Network Rail that did the fitness to run exam. If that is the case, and the regulator is proved to be faulty, then surely the blame will be with NR and not WCR?

 

NO - Can we please quash this idea that NR is some sort of BR clone who are the people everything comes down to organise and be responsible for.

 

NR is merely a provider of infrastructure and sets the requirements operators have to meet to run over that infrastructure. It is down to the operator to have sufficient procedures in place to ensure they meet those requirements in the form of a proper SMS. NRs involvement is merely to undertake a spot check from time to time that said SMS is being followed with the powers to suspend operators it it feels safety is being compromised. The ORR are the ones with the power to ban / revoke train operators Licences for inadequate SMS / non compliance with ROGS legislation.

 

With respect to a fitness to run exam - the person why undertakes said exam merely needs to be defined as competent to do so under the operators SMS - it makes no difference who their employer is. However being competent will, when it comes to running on NR, mean that said persons or their organisation is approved by Network Rail to undertake such examinations. Furthermore the results of such an exam must be passed on to Network Rail who have the power to veto a vehicles operation if they don't like what they see.

[phil-b259]

 

Another issue this could highlight is the continued use of Mk1 Stock, which steam charters rely on. It may already be so following W.B. as it doesn't meet current crash worthiness requirements, and part of it continuing to be allowed to operate has, I believe, been it's limited use on charters had been considered relatively low-risk. Incidents such as this latest may also call into question their lack of central locking

 

This is the important point for me. As the authorities admit, the large scale Mk1 EMU replacement programmes plus the fitment of TPWS has addressed the collision element of using MK1s but not having a central door locking system which is interlocked with the brakes (a manually operated bolt from B&Q does not count as a central door locking system in my book regardless of how many attendants you have on board) so that the train cannot move if a door is open is still a big risk.

 

Charter operators will need to think carefully about this going forward as the ORR have made it clear there are several aspects of charter train operation the industry needs to be taking action on if it wants to continue and it won't be too long we will get to a stage when the ORR demand a much more fool prof system with regard to doors.