25901 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 A Cumbrian Mountain Express on Sat and The Hadrian on Monday both now showing as canx. Saturday's "The Wansbeck" showing cancelled as well as next saturdays "Central Wales Explorer" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steadfast Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Missed that, what happened with DCR at Stafford?. Rob https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/410723/130916_R162013_Stafford.pdf All in here I appreciate there's a lot of distractions on a steam loco footplate; blowers, fires, water, other bods on the footplate, sighting difficulties, along with AWS/TWPS and whatever, but signal observation should be top priority. . The report so far by RAIB comments that the effects of the AWS brake application were overridden. A tad worrying if the crew can circumnavigate the safety systems on a loco, especially during a brake application caused by that system. I'm not aware of how the system interacts with a steam loco, but however it was overridden, I cannot see how it was a routine action by the crew. Yes these systems can be isolated in the event of a failure, but to isolate with the train in motion strikes me as plain daft.If the steam train had been where it was a minute earlier we would be looking at this in a completely different light. Safety is so paramount to the modern railway, that I'm still in disbelief at reading what the RAIB have uncovered jo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Simon Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Hi, This thread is about the ban not the SPAD, the report is being written and investigated, lets not try and analysis it. Simon P.S. This is not aimed at anybody, just in general Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted April 2, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 2, 2015 I believe the reason for the ban was due to a SPAD involving 34067 Tangmere at Wotton Basset junction on 7th March 2015, and NR have found WCRC's response as being 'ineffectual', hence why the ban is in place. It wasn't just that incident at WB Jnc but it was the straw that broke the camels back. However, It cannot be denied that passing a red signal protecting a 125 MPH junction could have been catastrophic in the extreme! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Fitness Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I was booked on the Wansbeck. Gave up a 12 hour Sunday shift coz I couldn't get back from York on Saturday night. Never mind, I'm still going to York, I'll just have to go to the model railway exhibition instead! Iwas a bit cheesed off but of course there will be loads of people with bigger problems to sort out. JF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 The report so far by RAIB comments that the effects of the AWS brake application were overridden. A tad worrying if the crew can circumnavigate the safety systems on a loco, especially during a brake application caused by that system. I'm not aware of how the system interacts with a steam loco, but however it was overridden, I cannot see how it was a routine action by the crew. Yes these systems can be isolated in the event of a failure, but to isolate with the train in motion strikes me as plain daft. If the steam train had been where it was a minute earlier we would be looking at this in a completely different light. Safety is so paramount to the modern railway, that I'm still in disbelief at reading what the RAIB have uncovered jo For the record, it was always possible for a driver to over-ride an AWS brake application and it was absolutely necessary that he could. The brakes would otherwise have been activated every time he passed a Distant at caution. It should be remembered that AWS was a REMINDER, nothing more. It took the braking out of the driver's hands only if he failed to react to the warning. TPWS is a different matter. I realise that this is nothing to do with the ban and apologise for staying off topic, but fely that this needed clarifying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJ Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 It is only inevitable that an operator gets a full ban, this will be one of the first since the opening up of the network to private operators. Let's hope all major and minor operators take notice of NR's actions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiderHead Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 You're forgetting the owner's representative. Shouldn't they be in a carriage like all the other passengers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted April 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 2, 2015 Why? And why the emphasis on passengers? We are on the footplate to keep an eye on how the locomotive is operated...not from the railway's point of view, but from the owner's. We help in problem solving 'on the hoof' so to speak , an example might be what to do if the air pump packs up or isn't running as we would like it. We prepare the locomotive, we maintain the locomotive, we repair the locomotive, we are familiar with the systems on that locomotive, probably more so than a crew that might not have been on that locomotive for a long time, sometimes not at all. That's why we are on the footplate. Passengers we ain't matey.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mow Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 BBC coverage - includes this gem at the end."The Carnforth-based company runs charter trips on routes such as the picturesque Settle to Carlisle line, which runs through Yorkshire Dales, as well a route taking in Fort William in Scotland using the Hogwarts express engine featured in the Harry Potter films." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-32167724 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted April 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 2, 2015 Given the apparent severity of the incident, as reported by RIAB so far, it is somewhat reassuring that NR have taken robust and positive action to avoid potential disaster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 The ban seems a bit harsh to me. So a driver / crew / team made a serious mistake. Yes, suspend those involved pending an investigation, but ban the whole operation ?. What if a Virgin Pendolino driver did similar - completely ground the Virgin fleet - for over a Month ? Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Speaking as a train driver for a mainline TOC I am quite relieved that NR have taken this action, for the crew to be so blasé about isolating a safety system in this manner is rather un-nerving. I hope they can sort this out but lets not underestimate how serious this SPAD could have been if the timing had been a bit different. One thing we can all be sure of, if this gets sorted and WCRC are allowed out on the mainline again to play trains, they will be watched like never before! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 The ban seems a bit harsh to me. So a driver / crew / team made a serious mistake. Yes, suspend those involved pending an investigation, but ban the whole operation ?. What if a Virgin Pendolino driver did similar - completely ground the Virgin fleet - for over a Month ? Brit15 It's not about a single incident though it looks like it was the final straw for NR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted April 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 2, 2015 The ban seems a bit harsh to me. So a driver / crew / team made a serious mistake. Yes, suspend those involved pending an investigation, but ban the whole operation ?. What if a Virgin Pendolino driver did similar - completely ground the Virgin fleet - for over a Month ? Brit15 The ban is not about the incident alone. A Network Rail spokesperson said: “Network Rail has issued a suspension notice to West Coast Railway Company Limited (WCR) as a result of ongoing safety concerns. A Network Rail letter to the operator stated: “Network Rail has had concerns about WCR’s performance of its safety obligations for some time, and recent events lead Network Rail to believe that the operations of WCR are a threat to the safe operation of the railway.” http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/scotrail-steam-train-operator-has-permit-suspended-1-3737193 This is not just one driver/crew making a serious mistake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted April 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 2, 2015 The ban seems a bit harsh to me. So a driver / crew / team made a serious mistake. Yes, suspend those involved pending an investigation, but ban the whole operation ?. What if a Virgin Pendolino driver did similar - completely ground the Virgin fleet - for over a Month ? Brit15 It wasn't a mistake, it was a wilful action....that's the point surely? I think that the point about West Coast is a 'three strikes and you're out' scenario. Reading the NR statement other things, together with unhelpful responses from WCRC, have led to this action, not just a single event. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 But Virgin (and all other TOCs) have effective management structures in place, something WCRC apparently didn't! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted April 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 2, 2015 The wider issue is if this had gone catastrophically wrong it would not be unreasonable to assume that one consequence would be all railtours and non-timetabled special services would be stopped indefinitely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted April 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 2, 2015 The reasoning is in this letter linked to earlier. See download at bottom. http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/statement-west-coast-railways-suspension-notice Note the two bullet points in page 1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 The reasoning is in this letter linked to earlier. See download at bottom. http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/statement-west-coast-railways-suspension-notice Note the two bullet points in page 1. Thanks - I understand the action a little better. Probably the best thing to do in the circumstance(s). Safety is paramount. Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods_of_Revolution Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 It's not just this incident, they have had a certain reputation for a while within the industry. There are proceedures which permit isolating the AWS/TPWS and moving the train with them isolated. It's certainly not acceptable to isolate safety systems on the move, without informing and seeking permission from the signaller and your own maintaince control. Running a train with safety systems isolated or defective is a big deal and there are very explicit procedures in place for doing so; deliberately deviating from those proceedures is not only career limiting but potentially fatal. Regards, Jack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted April 2, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 2, 2015 The wider issue is if this had gone catastrophically wrong it would not be unreasonable to assume that one consequence would be all railtours and non-timetabled special services would be stopped indefinitely.I'd hope that more level heads would prevail, since the issue appears to be more with a company that happens to do railtours than the concept of railtours. Speaking entirely hypothetically a similar situation could arise with a company running regular timetabled services (for that matter arguably the Jacobite is one of those) and receive the same treatment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted April 2, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 2, 2015 I'd hope that more level heads would prevail, since the issue appears to be more with a company that happens to do railtours than the concept of railtours. Speaking entirely hypothetically a similar situation could arise with a company running regular timetabled services (for that matter arguably the Jacobite is one of those) and receive the same treatment. WCRC don't just do railtours. Many of their drivers are hired out to other companies - Colas, DRS, Network Rail, FGW etc as route conductors and drivers for example The knock-on effect of suspending all WCRC operations and staff will be far reaching beyond railtours. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I would suspect it's highly unlikely that the AWS was isolated on the move. As I said in an earlier post, there's so many distractions on a steam loco that it could be the AWS sounded, the driver cancelled it in accordance with the rules and didn't make the brake application for whatever reason. Part of the blame could be put on the conductor driver (if the train's driver did not sign the road) who can be held responsible. It could be a dozen other things going on at the same time. We won't know until the full report comes out. Railway safety is paramount. Remember part of the cause of the West Drayton crash was a train being allowed to run with the AWS isolated and the driver being distracted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I would suspect it's highly unlikely that the AWS was isolated on the move. From https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dangerous-occurrence-at-wootton-bassett-junction-wiltshire Evidence shows that the driver and fireman instead took an action which cancelled the effect of the AWS braking demand after a short period and a reduction in train speed of only around 8 mph. The action taken also had the effect of making subsequent AWS or TPWS brake demands ineffective. What I suspect we don't know until the report comes out is how intentional that action was...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.