York and Scarborough steam 2015

It seems that some people still don't get why WCRC were banned from operating in the LNE region.

Here's the report:

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

At no point does this mention that NR used issues of personality, train performance or 'business targets' to ban WCRC.

 

Well said Neil

 

Hear hear. People really need to read this (or Section 5 as a minimum) before they comment. It was entirely within WCR's gift to nip this in the bud and secure a rapid return to the status quo. However they chose not to, and ended up looking far short of professional.

 

Indeed, but it's still in the minds of some people that there's a conspiracy afoot in NR to ban steam or it's all down to the Route Director disliking WCRC. If people can't be bothered to read the report that's been available for several weeks and discussed in other threads than perhaps they shouldn't comment on the situation at all.

 

Re Harrogate, yes 6233 touched a bridge some years ago, but I think everything up to and including 5690 operated subsequent to that. More of a problem is that the evening slot out of Leeds has been taken by East Coast and I should think the slot position between York and Leeds might also be difficult. Rather like Standedge in fact, what was possible in the past is problematic now because of frequency creep.
The three mainstays of steam in the north on capacity and attractiveness grounds ought to be York-Scarborough, the S and C and Carnforth-Sellafield, but unfortunately two out of these three seem currently to be out of bounds.

 

Which is a really sad state of affairs, and does nobody any favours, the fact it is reported it could be fixed, and is not, puts any daily trips to Scarborough in all doubt.

Perhaps as intimated, another operator is required for this role moving forward, I am sure the NRM are looking into ways of maximising return against investment on 4472.

Twice a week, 2 trips a day, is perfectly adequate, and I am sure the shopkeepers of Scarborough would be delighted to see regular steam back.

 

Sorry but that can only be applied to this one incident. The document does in fact make one mention to the idea of fires being caused by the operation of steam locomotives on the Network, in section 4.5.2. Here the Chair decides to ignore this evidence that the fires according to the number of services is proportionate to each operator as not being relavent to this dispute over whether NR was right to enforce its policy and procedures so much and subsequently ban WCRC steam in the LNE region. The Chair is right to do so, the decision was put to him about this one incident and how events related to it.

However, that is not the case for future steam operation and our thoughts here are not about whether that ban was right or not to be imposed, but rather what is the liklihood of such a ban returning given that it has in the LNE region for 2 years out of three. While steps could have been taken by WCRC to defuse the situation and accept where changes could have been made to resolve the issue more quickly, the return to normal operations and good safe working practice between the two was the main objective for this review (5.12.7 and 6.3). In light of this the issues about train performance and/or the financial penalities that Network Rail pays as a result of a charter running late or causing distruption return as factors behind the reasoning in how Network Rail seeks to mitigate factors to cause distruption. The first large steam ban was in a case of a heat wave and saw steam power assisted by diesel, due to the likelihood of fires, but more so because such cases see Network Rail pay out and also have its performance figures effected - measures that stand whether the organisation is effective and meets its own business targets. The second was the result of a trial procedure, which triggered the process of wanting action taken and clarification which WCRC was reluctant to oblige with. WCRC could have been more diplomatic to resolve the issue quickly, but the result was NR thinking it right to maintain the ban on operation as without such confidence there would be the likelihood of further events which in turn cause distruption, thus delays and impact on performance and payments.

I would have thought that there would be substancial discussions between the parties interested (including DBS) so that many likely scenarios were thought of and plans in place for them, but this appears not to have happened. WCRC have decided to mitigate the liklihood of further such disruption and the chance of lost or lower revenues by moving their operations for the next coming season. As a result, such a move means less chance of a ban in the LNE area literally because of less steam operation there next season during the time when the SSE would have been running, not throughout the rest of the season where York is an attractive destination. This change in operation is not just based on that one report or the dispute that led to it, but rather a number of issues and caused over a number of years.

 

The report is about one incident but reflected throughout, sometimes clearly, sometimes faintly, are the management attitudes and practices of WCR. It seems to me as an observer, that WCR have decided to do nothing about making their management systems more compatible with the demands of a 21st century mainline railway, but have tried to find a way to carry on as usual. I think that approach is likely to fail sooner rather than later.

 

Following on from posts by Fred Kerr in another thread, and a conversation yesterday, I would say a political game is being played here, the big loser is LNE steam operations.

My view on the situation has been completely turned around 180 degrees,.

 

It's a shame some of you can't read between the lines.
It was a very thorough investigation and WCRC certainly did themselves no favours in the strange mixture of statements they made. The result was that the adjudicator has got bogged down by procedural problems but failed singularly to put the basic issue into perspective.
If the WCRC safety procedures were so fatally flawed then all other Network Rail regions would have had the same concerns and would have had no alternative but to also ban them immediately. That this didn't happen anywhere else clearly indicates the York response was excessive.
Just because an adjudicator makes a decision it doesn't, necessarily, make it correct.
You may want to ask yourselves why other regions were happy to allow WCRC to continue working and come to your own conclusion. You may also wonder whether trapping several locos at various locations without allowing them to move under any arrangements what-so-ever was an over-reaction.
P.S. I have read the whole report.

 

Maybe the other regions did not have an incident that would warrant invoking a policy. I would imagine the furore would have been greater still if an outright ban was imposed on the basis of a localised occurrence.
The other regions may also have subtly different polices more suited to their geographic circumstances.
All speculation but i don't think your reading of between the lines is the only interpretation that could reasonably be reached.

 

Sorry sir, the ban was not about the incident but concerns about WCRC procedures to comply with the "traffic lights" system introduced by NR.

 

Why should that vary from region to region ?, is a TOC safer or less safe depending on where it's operating ?, From what I've seen, apparently there's been plenty that's been said that has not been recorded in writing, and therefore cannot be used as proof for or against, doesn't mean it wasn't said however.

 

Absolutely. The ban was incurred by the failure to provide a satisfactory response to LNE region, an incident which was by its nature localised.

 

I'd argue the response from other areas also suggests a certain amount of goodwill towards mainline steam in Network Rail, something we should be thankful for.

 

IF, what is requested in face to face meetings, (none of which are recorded, or mentioned in the report) , turn into finger wagging affairs from the NR standpoint, the goalposts are moved regularly, what is requested fits what is asked for at the time, then you may start and join the dots on this one. A political game, with the NR route director coming up as being correct, but only by the game he has played. If the non recorded meetings, face to face were included in it, a very different report would have ensued.

Its the easiest thing in the world to write a report with only part of the story being able to be used as evidence, to that end I have a lot of sympathy towards WCRC, they were stitched up, politically speaking.

 

IF, the route director runs out of patience in a face to face meeting, amidst much acrimony, and then instigates a procedure, that he changes at his behest to make a company look amateur, when in fact they are confirming with all requests, its just they move the goalposts verbally, but not in writing, to prevent a papertrail, and means of recourse, you may get a better idea of what has taken place.

It will also be shown in the results for NR next year if the action shows any improvement in statistics, I would think not, as the knitting will no doubt he down today because of wind etc...

As I mentioned before, after being briefed on this, I have more than enough sympathy with the wcrc situation.

 

The learning point here is that in these situations it pays to stick to written comms, eg email, and if there are verbal comms, then play them back to the other half in email form, saying "I just want to place on record the conversation we had on [date & time]". Held me in good stead at work when up against large multinationals who though they could throw their weight about. And never lose your rag, no matter what the provocation.