The Steam Ban around York

No surprise there, but as far as I'm concerned, NR did make their red lines fairly clear at the time. The LNE is a powderkeg of bottlenecks at the best of times, and there's nearly always a track circuit failure in the area when you don't want it, so it boils down to the fact that steam in summer conditions is just a risk too far, and WCRC just happened to prove it just when a new system was implemented. Tough as it is, no-one can honestly say they haven't been given enough chances. Where this leaves summer steam in the York area for 2015 is moot, but I'd be interested to see the extent to which DBS operations are affected, if at all.

 

Full report is here

http://www.accessdisputesrail.org/New ADC Web/Access Dispute Adjudications/ADA20 Documents/ADA20 determination.pdf

5.4.3 / 5.4.4 refers to a youtube video used as evidence at Bell Busk, 2km beyond the point of the incident where 5972 was under power and that the locomotive was only shut off at this point on a falling grade..

The video in question is stated in NR's statement of defence 5.9 (d) (watch the times stated in 5.4.4 : 2m 23s - 3m 10s):



5.7.15- 5.7.23 make interesting reading...

5.7.39 places procedural (not Technical) blame at WCR. It was previously accepted the cause of the fire, lay in LM territory (and a hole burned through the ashpan of the locomotive allowing burning coal onto the track over the ensuing distance travelled), but the issue NR has, is that the safety management system used by WCR did not ensure the locomotive was not under power, as seen in the video taken in LNE territory...

5.7.43 .. No comment.

 

5.7 onwards does not make pretty reading and certainly doesn't reflect well on WCRC.

Chris

 

There's around 40 documents on the access dispute website relating to the case, the appendices give good insight into the communication breakdown and misunderstandings that occurred.

Both sides tried really hard to accommodate each other, and there was a lot of constrained emotion. (It was an a-typical Business vs Technical clash) and a classic service management function / process issue between the parties, neither party was communicating in the same language and had different expectations of the other.

When you read them, the solution was so magically simple !
Following the decision, the final letters between the parties were hardly "kiss and make up" but at least were encouraging that both accepted the outcome and that something might go somewhere.

 

The Report.

I can remember a railway network in Britain once where that would have all been dealt with by a single telephone call.

Caller "If your bl.dy steam locomotive sets fire to my railway again I will personally insert the fire hose up your backside and turn the water on."

Recipient "Message understood".

Yes, there were some very down to earth people I worked with who would cut through everything and resolve such a matter on the spot like that.

And yes, yes, I know, as I often say myself, nothing stays the same for ever.

 

After reading that, and as mentioned it does not make pretty viewing, how would RYTC etc.., feel about the cancellations and loss of revenue.

 

Ah, but that's common sense and as we all know, common sense died long ago.

It's much the same with the EU Lorry thread, lot's of highly skilled man who have been doing the job safely and correctly for many years being swamped with new rules and regulations.
Sure, safety is paramount, but it needs a great deal of common sense as well.

 

West Coast will have lost a lot of money through this, no compensation. Rules are Rules.
The problem is it so easily could reoccur at any time again.

 

That certainly didn't appear to be the case from my reading of the report. WCRC appeared to display the exact same arrogance towards NR as they do towards loco owners, enthusiasts, and everyone else they deal with who happens not to agree with them on any particular issue. It's rather worrying for the future that this organisation hold something close to a monopoly on mainline steam.

 

Very good reading, but no mention of increased vegetation on NR lines,and if a coal had fallen out would not have caused a fire in the first place.

 

I would suggest you read the 27 or so separate appendices... there was considerable dialog between both sides and the letters/emails point towards meetings and telephone conversations in addition. Sure it was a dispute and each side stands their ground to their beliefs but don't confuse that with arrogance, If anything I'd suggest the arrogance was in the grounded strength of conviction by Network rail and the frustration from the WCR side. That said reading the material, in my opinion I think WCR could have handled the situation differently on some occasions.

Its always to going to be an up hill struggle to convince a 3rd party that a fire on a railway line is "safe" in, what amounts to an argument about safety. In this case the chair person accepted the Technical argument (by WCR) but accepted the the Process argument (by NR) and held the process not the technical to be the underlying problem and thus won the case for NR.

Had the technical been identified as the underlying problem .. consequences for mainline steam would have been pretty bad.

Network Rail did not seek costs or damages, WCR put damages at £275k + Business goodwill according to the records.
No order was made to costs (both sides pay their own).

In the evidence submitted there was a historical breakdown of delay minute costs to steam (both WCR and DBS) which was interesting reading, the particular incident in point was around £8k and 400 minutes of delay [which considering the route/location close to Helifield seems too high in my opinion ], there was no breakdown for those 400 minutes.
It went on to list approx £1.2m in delay minutes to steam costs over several years. It could maybe be an indicator of what NR could have been seeking to damages or influence the outcome of the judgement had technical issues with Steam been to blame.


All in all an interesting read / collection of documents, I'm sure everyone concerned is keen to put it all behind them and move on. I think an important thing here, is that there was no assertion that anything was unsafe or improper, just procedural changes required.

 

The request from NR appeared pretty clear, consistent and considered perfectly reasonable by the ADA Chair, yet WCR continually refused to provide the necessary information to satisfy NR that the issues raised had been addressed. WCR simply wanted NR to believe that they had improved the procedures without providing any evidence that they actually had. This continued refusal certainly came across as arrogant to me and appears to be the primary reason that the ban continued for so long.

I also found it interesting to see the criticism of NR for revoking the ban at the end of September, even though they still hadn't received the necessary evidence of improved procedures from WCR. There were also hints that the ban should really not just have covered the LNE region, but been more widespread. This may well have implications for any future breaches.

 

Perhaps one could be referred to paragraph 3.10:

"The risk of fire created by the operation of steam locomotives on a Network no longer configured for large scale steam operations (for example, by way of clearance of vegetation in cuttings and on embankments) was clearly within the contemplation of the Parties. Clause 3.6 of Schedule 5 to the TAC (quoted in Appendix "B") sets out provisions enabling NR to give notice that a steam locomotive would not be permitted to operate a planned service, with WCR having the option of cancelling the service or operating it with diesel traction instead."​

As such, the ruling does make mention of the increased vegetation in respect of the national rail network no longer being configured to be suitable for large scale steam operations. It is because of this, that provision is made for NR to revoke permission for steam locomotives to run when there is an increased risk.

 

That certainly is one view, I know in my industry, almost daily I come across situations where Business requirements and Technical details are in conflict, with both parties asserting their response is meeting the demands of the other. Inevitably that can lead to great conflict and some very interesting discussions if the correct Management processes are not in place to understand, translate and resolve.. To me reading this collection of documents fits that experience very well.

As an example, and out of context, Imagine a Business manager asking an IT team to deliver a set of requirements. IT delivers but it doesn't work, the Business wants assurance that what it asks for will be delivered next time, and suggests the IT team makes proper documentation and follows set standards... IT's response is usually "thats my job let me get on with it you do yours".. IT people hate documentation and process as it constrains creativity, Business loves it as it provides set guidelines and removes ambiguity... it's the Service Management methodology and the Process model that provides, which is the thing that brings the two sides together....

 

I will have to carefully read all info again but the determination seems to put the responsibility for the issues on WCR for not answering the technical questions. Was this a one off or has this sort of thing occured before as one poster has sugested?

 

The links on page http://www.accessdisputesrail.org/New ADC Web/Access Dispute Adjudications/ADA determinations.htm to the other documents don't seem to be working,

Paragraphs that I would highlight as most significant in the report itself, for anyone who is interested but doesn't want to plough through all of it, are:
2.3 and 2.4 introducing a crucial point, that there were separate, though related, technical and procedural issues.
5.7.15
5.7.26 & 27
5.7.38 to 40
5.7.41 to 44 concerning proportionality
5.8.3 and 4
5.9.3 and 4
5.10
5.11.5.
6.3

 

The links can be made to work by substituting '/' for the '\' after the word documents in the linked address. That's how I got them opened. There is a lot to trawl through however and the sun is shining outside should you not wish to waste an hour or more of your life..

 

I didn't see any suggestion of that in the Network Rail documents I read on that site, so if it is, they didnt seek to use it for their advantage in this dispute.
It, at least to me, seems that NR's response was based on the specific event that occurred, if this was "a straw to break the camels back scenario" one would assume Network Rail would be trying to draw attention to that as to their justification in the ban, as that would be quite a strong argument.

The only "pre-context" events I saw referenced, was Network Rails' stats on delay minutes attributed to mainline steam, and WCRs statement with regard NR consistency, highlighting the Ordsall lane accident... it looks like the chair person disregarded these as not relevant to this event, which suggests this is based on the single event, not a recurring problem.


I think it would be pertinent to quote from the documents if anyone feels differently, hear say and personal opinions about WCRC isn't a factual / independent source.

 

What a shame. My reading of it is that it was not so much what happened on the day as what happened afterwards which caused the ban to be enforced for as long as it was. Inviting NR to Carnforth for a visit the week after for a 'here's what happened, here's what we've done about it' might have produced a better result for WCR. I hope that happens now because it seems like the ban is only suspended for the duration of Green fire conditions, not revoked.

Of course one feature of this report is the utter disparity of resources between the parties., that's not an excuse, just an observation of what the Adjudicator was dealing with.

ADB--I assume the 400 delay minutes must have been at Leeds where the loco was removed and onwards to York where the train was running out of path. I don't think there were any delays out in the country.