The Steam Ban around York

If that's still the case, then they are a very 'old school' IT team. All of our IT processes have to be clearly documented. It cannot be left to the whims and experiences of any particular technician (or at least, if it is, they have to be documented so other's can follow). In this day and age, and in most industries, too much is at stake if the IT side of things are unreliable.

The IT situation you pose does appear very similar to the WCR / NR situation, where essentially NR are asking for procedures to be properly documented and WCR are refusing to do so (presumably this is the case, as they are refusing to provide the documentation) and I think the 'chairman' even says words to the effect of "it isn't documentation, but actions that count". We used to have an IT technician who was quite brilliant, but no one knew what he was up to, so if things went belly up and he was off, we were pretty much stuffed until he returned. It's not the way to operate in this day and age and WCR need to move away from 'old school' thinking if they want to keep steam on the mainline in the years to come.

 

You both sound as though you're from the dark ages to me. Separating 'business' from 'IT' ensures you're not going to build the right thing, dependency on individuals rather than teams, and enforced documentation sounds very 90s!



Simon

 

I'm about half-way through reading this but it's an absolutely fascinating insight into how WCRC operate and their philosophies from their Chairman and NR's response to dealing with them.

 

There's irony in this story. What NR got upset about was that (a) the steam loco provided traction when it shouldn't have (given the declared amber status in that area on that day) and (b) WC failed to give a clear and consistent account of whether they agreed that this had happened, why it had happened, and what they were doing to stop it happening again. If the driver had shut off steam (apart from a breath for lubrication) when the loco crossed the boundary into the LNE area, the fire would still have happened, but WC's explanation of the cause, and their plans to reduce the risk in future, would have been accepted and there would have been nothing to argue about. On the other hand, if the lump of coal hadn't fallen out and started a fire, how much fuss would anyone have made about the loco working when it shouldn't have?

 

I suspect you don't know IT. I cannot think of many companies where the company sales guys are the IT techies.

Indeed from large banks with 20-30k people working in an IT function, right down to a small retail store with 2-3 guys... IT is a separate department serving it's underlying business in a Customer / Supplier model.

I suggest you read ITIL to understand how it works, there really isn't many other methodologies in IT relating to service management.

I agree entirely, I never said it was good practice, indeed it's bad practice, but never the less it happens, still and all too frequent with companies that don't have a Service Management methodology in place.
The out of context example i suggested here is the typical case that ITIL seeks to address in the IT domain, a railway equivalent is maybe a suggestion as to whats needed (if there isn't one already), accepting change however can be a difficult and long journey. IT is a new industry with a history of complete industry change every 10 years or so so is designed to adapt to change.. Railways have nearly 2 centuries of entrenched history and culture, as well as unions which are just as old..
Charles Darwin clearly defines the outcomes in these situations.. Adapt to Survive.

Today I went to look at schools for my daughter, each had a Mission Statement and a Business Relationship Manager..


I know I won't be popular saying this, but there was a definite Old vs New world element to this dispute, and it's the New that won and the reasons are clear as to why.

 

Olton Hall's run is the cause of all this trouble to have happened, but I cant go bad mouthing that run too much as I was a passenger on that train. It has just got ridiculous this has and now im worried about the 2015 trains as The Hadrian is one that im interested in.

 

As the story developed in the summer and as an armchair enthusiast with almost negligible knowledge of modern railway bureaucracy, I thought that NR (LNE) were over reacting and that there was prejudice against steam operations. But I have just read the report and all the appendices for the second time. In my professional career I was involved with exchanges similar to these although in a very different context. Frankly I am astonished at the responses from WCR. If WCR had complied with the requests from NR without prevarication I believe the situation could have been rapidly resolved. David Smith's intervention seems to me very poorly judged. I hope that now this has been adjudicated, a good working relationship can be established between WCR and NR. If not I fear the future for mainline steam will be bleak.

 

Notwork Fail have always had a dislike to steam and have wanted rid of it for years, what is more confusing though is they have barred it from the ECML but not the line to Whitby that the North Yorkshire Moors Rly use in getting to Whitby. It's almost like they are just trying to take the piss with us members of the public and to add insult to injury they have ruined 3 tours that I was planned to travel on this year.

July 12th's: Wizards Express with 5972 Olton Hall. Stopped the loco at Leeds and they kicked her off at York.
July 16th's: Scarborough Spa Express which should have had 46115 Scots Guardsman was diesel hauled, luckily for me WCRC have been very supportive over this and have offered me a free trip on one of the 2015 trains (IF IT DOES RUN THAT IS).
&
August 1st's: Scarborough Flyer which should have had 46233 Duchess of Sutherland was cancelled and ruined both my chances of visiting Scarborough this year.

2013's Yorkshire Coast Express didn't help things when it was claimed that 48151 set the trackside ablaze around Malton on the way back to York from Scarborough, that was later discovered to be a farmer who started the fire to try and get compensation (Even worse for me was I was on that tour and as a result didn't reach home till near 3am the next morning).

 

I think all will be sorted when NR call WCRC to supply locos for snow ploughing duties.

 

Ah at last a sensible post well away from the other crap posted which is mostly Hearsay

 

I'd forgotten all about them. Thanks for reminding me - NOT.

 

What I was referring to was 48151 setting fire to a viaduct on the Cumbrian Coast route in May 2008. I'm making an assumption the increasing levels of NR stringency regarding lineside fires stem from that event, with 30777 at Doncaster in 2011, 5043 (lineside fires in the Chilterns) in April 2013 adding to the mix, with 5972 this year providing the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

I don't think historical issues have come into this, it seems to be procedural ones.

 

Presumably if there had not been a lineside fire in the last five years, no-one would have bothered to invent the red amber green conditions set of rules. So in that limited sense history was relevant. Either there would have been a steam ban from early July in the LNE zone or there would not. Beyond that I totally agree that the Adjudicator determined the case on its merits as he saw them. The only bit of history he mentioned was the derailment at Manchester in dismissing WCR's claim of double standards.

Could I ask rule55 a question--- and anyone else who might know. Last year you were saying that in conditions where the diesel was providing the power, it needed to be on the front or in behind. But my reading of the NR notice is that the assisting diesel might either be at the front or on the back. Was it OK for the train to go forward from Hellifield with 47580 on the back? Unless I missed something, I don't think that was criticised of itself by either NR or the Adjudicator.

 

Its pretty clear that the Oulton Hall incident escalated to a ban on WCR because WCR tried to bluster (almost to the point of covering up?) their way through an operational issue that had relevance to their SMS. They couldn't prove the driver was aware or had been breifed of the need to run under amber conditions in that route area. The bluster included such ridiculous tactics of the "If you think you are big enough - try and hit me" kind (telling NR to report them to the ORR) And then to bring in the derailment of the diesel? what kind of stupid tactic was that - the "Nah Nah look what they did" type. A guaranteed fail.

A SMS system is not the preserve of in the field operational types and to suggest (AS WCR did) that a director (albeit a commercial one) has nothing to do with/is not aware of the company SMS is a clear failing. An SMS also exists to act as a conduit to collect and absorb issues and to further mitigate against them repeating, it is NOT a defence shield. This last bit is key.

Had WCR said, "Yes sorry, yup there was a fire, caused by a hole in the firebox screen, thats fixed, and this is what we are doing to stop that happening again. You are right we can't prove that the driver had been briefed about the new protocol, thank you for bringing that to our attention, this is what the new protocol is designed to iron out. Here is what we intend to do in the future to prevent it happening again and it will be included in the SMS"

In the contact between the parties the NR RD was even giving them clues that this is what he wanted to hear, but WCR were at that point suffering from Macho deafness.

As I said right at the start of this sorry affair, WCR suffer from a poor management culture, and this episode does nothing more than reinforce that assertion. WCR attitude led to and lost them this case, nothing more or nothing less.

One good thing comes out of this. We as a community now have seen, in print, the Fire Risk Steam Protocol. Should provide endless coal to the fire in the "Diesels on the back" thread!

 

Diesel can be on the rear (and has been assisting so on many occasions).

One of the readings I noted here, was, what many of us has suspected for quite some time (which unfortunately is depressing reading to anyone who likes mainline steam).. is the following direct quote:

Mainline steam is heading to a sad place right now.. Summer the risk is largely Red / Amber, Autumn diesels are needed for railhead protection. With the amounts of Weather / Engineering works that take place in Winter months..

Whilst some like to give WCR a kicking, remember they are the cavalry regiment that takes this battle on.. would we be better if enthusiasts with their pitchforks and cameras took this to Network Rail ?

There is a former member here, who espoused the idea of a middle man to manage / represent the industry, on this occasion I think he's probably right.

who'd want to be operating a mainline steam business eh ?

 

Not just that protocol, there is a mass of interesting information about operating steam on the mainline in all those appendices. The potential for many more hours of idle speculation has greatly increased.

 

Unfortunate then that they seem to model themselves on the Light Brigade.