The Steam Ban around York

Drivers never had a TI on board in the days of steam.

 

It's not really for NR to comment on, they should be fuel agnostic.

 

.. but perhaps the oil would have come in handy on the resultant troubled waters?

 

I'd suggest reading from 5.7 onwards if you want the 'meat' of the report.

Regarding the lineside fire the problem wasn't technical - WCRC were found to have "complied with all technical requirements placed on it" - it was a procedural issue concerning the driver and his knowledge of the Amber restriction.

Chris

 

The WCR attitude reflects exactly the evolutionary process. A hobby has turned rapidly into a business without the necessary professional maturity developing at the same pace.
If the management are wise they will use this episode as an opportunity for improvement.

 

On a more general note I cannot believe the amount of personal information that has been left on the documents which have been published for anyone to download on the web. Email address, mobile numbers etc. Commonly see this sort of documentation released elsewhere but with this information removed.

Most of the WCRC documents have been published on line in word format on headed paper and the signatures left on as images, if anyone was inclined to maliciously try and create documents it's a signed alterable template?

Just doesn't an display any form of documentation management at the arbitrator prior to release into a public downloadable domain.

 

Where do people see the e-mails cited apart from the quoting and referencing in the actual report? Trying to find the original link on the AD website is a nightmare.

 

Having spent rather too long reading that lot of documents whilst I have some sympathy with WCRC's position that practical action should be more important than "paperwork" and procedures, unfortunately that is a rather quaint and outdated view in 2014. It doesn't matter whether you are a train operator, a solicitor, or a doctor - if you operate in a regulated industry you either do what the regulator says, and document it appropriately or you give up and find something else to do. I'm sure in terms of engineering etc WCRC do pretty well, however some of the finer skills around that seem a bit unpolished.

 

There is a link in an earlier post to the whole suite documents http://www.accessdisputesrail.org/New ADC Web/Access Dispute Adjudications/ADA determinations.htm

most of the evidence docs are zipped so I could only open via a computer.

 

Was it not a WCRC loco that suffered a major failure on the mainline at Winchfield almost one year ago to the day? As I recall, the subsequent investigation indicated that WCRC were not following their own SMS and, specifically, the cause was a modification to the original design of a component in which the design modification and the certification of its suitability was carried out by the same person, which is an obvious conflict of interest. That suggests to me that there is more awry at WCRC than "engineering good, paperwork bad".

Tom

 

Wasn't the engineering modification done during the restoration - or I could have imagined that, it was a year ago?

 

You and Tom are correct. The modifications to Tangmere were done prior to WCR control however, the RAIB report did recommend that WCR review and improve its SMS.

https://aib-cms.co.uk/sites/raib/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2014/report132014.cfm

Page 30/31


"Observations
20


Maintenance arrangements


99
The maintenance arrangements for ‘Tangmere’ were not in accordance with the principles of WCRC’s safety management system.



100 ‘Tangmere’ is based at WCRC’s Southall depot while it is in service, but major overhauls and other work take place at the company’s main base at Carnforth.


101 The company’s safety management system is written for the circumstances in which maintenance of steam locomotives is carried out by the owners of the locomotive, who act as suppliers to WCRC and certify that maintenance has been carried out in accordance with a plan which has been validated by WCRC. Competent WCRC staff should then carry out a FTR examination before each
journey to confirm that the locomotive is in a safe condition. However, because ‘Tangmere’ is owned by a company associated with WCRC (paragraph 10), the same person (the operations engineer) certified that maintenance had been done, and then carried out the FTR examinations. He had been doing this since 2007, as part of his role as the person responsible for looking after ‘Tangmere’ during its main line service, out-stationed with the locomotive at Southall.

102
The management of WCRC had complete confidence in the operations engineer. Consequently, his work with ‘Tangmere’ was not subject to any monitoring, supervision or audit. He had completed full paper records for scheduled maintenance and FTR examinations, corresponding to ‘Tangmere’s’ movements over the period that he had been in charge of it during which time it had run about 50,000 miles (80,000 km).



103 There is no evidence that the maintenance or inspection of ‘Tangmere’ was in
any way deficient, or causal to the accident on 23 November. However, the absence of any checks on the work that had been carried out, and the potential for a conflict of interest between the maintenance and inspection roles, meant that this situation was not in accordance with the principles of WCRC’s safety management system."

Page 38
"The intent of this recommendation is that the maintenance arrangements for steam locomotives operated by West Coast Railway Company should be consistent and in accordance with the provisions of its safety management system.

West Coast Railway Company should review and improve its safety management system to take account of the need for assurance that the standards of maintenance work carried out on locomotives owned and/or operated by the company are adequate, consistent and subject to monitoring and supervision independent of those doing the work (paragraph 121a)."

 

It does seem as though WCR management believes it they ought not to be accountable. If they thought that by presenting NR with the evidence it sought would lead to a more severe sanction only wcrc can answer.
Whether or not NR was heavy handed this was not a battle over a point of principle WCR could ever win. NR was within its rights to seek evidence of preventive measures on the part of WCR. In resolutely failing to provide it and turning the issue into a supposed personality clash WCR squarely took aim at its own foot and pulled the trigger.
Yes NR might be officious and bureaucratic but answer the charge, prove you've brought the issue under control and get back to business.

 

They did sometimes. But not that often. If TI is what we used to call Loco Inspector, and not Ticket Inspector!

I remember after a good fast run down Roundwood, when the Inspector who had been on the footplate, was talking to the driver about the enthusiasts gathered round the loco at Southampton, and I caught the words from the Inspector, "Yes, these young enthusiasts certainly like their footplate rides". Yes, it happened.

Oh, getting back to topic. I guess the TI had been on board to check there were no rockets getting too close to such as crop fields or the wood yard at Eastleigh.

Re the latter. The driver, the fireman the inspector and the young man who handled the claim at BR SR HQ over that fire were all, of course on the loco and train as I was, and all are still with us today! And last time I passed so was a wood yard. NOT the same one!

Perhaps if we get a break from the main purpose of this thread that young man who handled the claim at Waterloo can expand a little on it.

Right everyone, back on topic now. Sorry for my interruption.

 

It would be a surprise if the assessment body responsible for deciding whether to award TOC status viewed either scenario favourably.
It really depends on how rigorous the assessment process is.

 

Usually if the crew had a reputation..........

 

The point is that nowadays the industry is dominated by regulations, rules, standards, orders and instructions to which compliance must be demonstrated to continue to trade.
Without proving compliance you have no business. It should come as no great surprise to be expected to do so regularly and particularly after any out of course occurrence.
Reading the reports, WCR seem to somehow object to this principle choosing to believe they are victims of an 'agenda'. Reacting this way is unlikely to improve the esteem they are held in by NR so is counter productive.
Had anyone from a heritage railway had problems getting operational info from wcr when they are moving to/from and the hr sms contains requirements to verify procedures?