Main Line Steam - Possible ramifications of the WCRC suspension

The road had been set for Tangmere by the time it got to the junction so there should have been no chance of a down train hitting the charter

Don

 

Indeed it did, 31 dead.

 

Removed

 

I can give a brief indication of the culture expected and the process involved after a reportable incident from personal experience following a RAIB reportable incident involving no passengers a few years ago.
In the time between informing RAIB and the first investigator arriving in my office we had pulled the following documentation ready for them to see:
- competency files of each SC member of staff involved (driver, shunter and signalman), each of these contained documentation of their original training and assessment, a record of all assessments and full copies of the most recent competency and medical assessments, including recent riding reports by inspectors;
- a full copy of the SMS together with original independent audit and the most recent audit, with relevant sections marked, including the organisational charts showing responsibility from Director level to footplate/trackside;
- copies of the signalling plans for the location, together with recent inspection documentation.

On arrival these were the first documents that were examined, before the second investigator arrived and the site was examined. Having all documentation ready definitely worked in our favour, and as the senior manager who was designated as responsible I was glad that within an hour we had all relevant documentation available and copied for them to take away.

Despite this, and quite correctly, HMRI/ORR visited within weeks to fully check our safety management systems - but having them available and having an obvious approach of being diligent set up a dynamic that was only for the good of the operating company, with no subsequent enforcement action (prosecution).

From this experience I would say that RAIB investigation, parallel ORR investigation (with the possibility of enforcement by prosecution) is the least that can be expected when any incident happens - let alone a situation where there is 'history' as well. None of this need be scary in a diligently run organisation, but even when you think the ducks are lined up it can be 'uncomfortable'!

 

The problem with starting a post with "For those of us that don't know, its logical to presume....." is that if your initial presumption is not correct, the rest of the post will also be wrong.

What this thread is revealing is how little people understand about the contractual and 'business' issues surrounding the modern railway. This is leading to speculation that we need to be careful of.

 

In the short term - which of the steam tours between now and 16th May might DBS be able to resource? In particular, how much, if any, of GB8 can run?

In the longer term, I see 2 scenarios:

1. WCRC are able to continue as a TOC. There may be a further delay beyond May while WCRC meet the 7 points, and there may be lots of conditions and restrictions (re-training and assessment, extra supervision, who knows what...) to cope with in the short/medium term. Some tours may still have to be cancelled, postponed or re-routed, but hopefully most of the summer programme will survive.
2. WCRC either can't, or decide not to, continue as a TOC. In that case, the best alternative is a friendly take-over of the TOC business by some "experienced railwaymen" with the backing of WCRC's customers (steam and diesel) and loco owners. I see no reason why David Smith couldn't be a shareholder in the new company. Even with Carnforth's active support, this won't be quick - given earlier postings, the lead time will be more than 3 months. If work on this has started already, a new "heritage TOC" might be ready to go by late July, but that's being super-optimistic. The worst case would be that WCRC pull up the drawbridge and refuse to co-operate with any new operator, in which case it might be difficult, perhaps impossible, to set up a replacement. I can't see that happening, though. For one thing, the Carnforth businesses will still need work for their steam, diesel and carriage fleets, and WCRC is quite a significant tour promoter, in its own right and through its Compass subsidiary. Their diesel-hauled tours could be operated by DBS, DRS or someone like that, but as we've discussed at some length, a specialist steam/heritage TOC is needed to keep anything like the existing level of mainline steam activity.

Personally, I've no axe to grind. I want to see mainline steam continue for as long as possible, with as little bad blood and loss of funds (particularly for the loco owners) as possible. What I'd hate to see is a protracted and public dispute that damages the reputation of "steam trains" in general, and which would only benefit m'learned friends!

 

I have to agree, we dont know what the background is to all of this. It may be that ORR investigation is normal after such an incident, or its because there are things that NR/ORR are not happy about, let the experts carry out due process we will all get to read the full report once its published any way.
In the meanwhile there will be a much reduced main line program its unfortunate, but theres nothing else that can be done until investigations are complete ,then and only then will a decision be made , if it leads to the removal of WCRS 's certificate then we will just have to wait and see what happens.

 

Would it be to crazy of an idea for VT to establish their own operating company? How much more infrastructure would they need?

 

Not totally crazy, but can't be done in time for this summer's Shakespeare services, and would only be a last resort, in my opinion. Why would they want their own TOC, with the overheads that involves, when a reformed WCRC can do the job?

 

Correct

 

Why? The general principles are in the public domain through ORR and ROGS. Steer clear of company specifics for sure but the general arrangements for making sure standards are adhered to should be for open discussion surely?

 

Open discussion, yes, but with respect 26D_M your earlier "its logical to presume" post was factually incorrect, so I think we need some caution or there will be lots of material here that is posted in good faith but is wrong, so leads to things going off at a tangent.

 

I suggest you read what was written by Big Al in post no:166

 

I think we're at cross purposes but its possibly better in another thread of its own on reflection.
The general principles about how railway safety standards are monitored and/or audited is a public accountability matter and not only germane to the suspension of wcrc. It would be very interesting if those with expertise were prepared to share it as others have been kind enough to do so already in other respects.

 

Maybe but how I was reading Big Al's post, was that those who are in the know about what, how and who did what etc etc are keeping it to themselves aka "keep their own counsel"

 

As things stand at the moment,and given there is an investigation underway, that is the best thing to do.

 

I quite agree in the context of this specific subject. My broader interest is in the generality of how tocs get a licence and then how the ongoing assessment is conducted.
Having researched a little more it seems to be a largely self certification regime but ad i said its probably a new separate thread required to differentiate from the matter under discussion here.

 

Correct. I have a friend who works for WCRC, the incident has not been mentioned, and I haven't asked.