WCRC Licence Suspended

From a normally well-informed source on Wnxx forum, WCRC ban has definitely not been lifted:

IF wrote:TonyMiles wrote:Er - well, NR might be able to bring forward the end of its suspension but ORR is in the middle of a 28 day stautory consultation period - it can't end that process now it has begun and, if it so wishes, I understand it can require the NR suspension to remain (or impose one of its own).

There are several parallel processes underway now so resolving one may not mean they are all resolved and ORR has been clear that it may take time to work through the responses it is getting.
We shall see.IF wrote:Then I should have put 'unable to get it confirmed or get any additional information' hence why I've only mentioned it now. I'm well aware of the complexities of the situation and personally would prefer to see some kind of public statement from at least one of the parties involved before publishing anything statement like on the site/here.


Whilst ORR and NWR are obviously not obliged to Tony, Ian makes a good point. There is huge media interest in this and the rumours of GB VIII and possibly use of vac braked steam locos is prompting some people to think that a "U turn" to quote one poster has been made.

As I understand it the consultation should be completed on 15th May after which ORR and NWR consider whether to revoke the WCR licence. Until then it is suspended but WCR crew and rolling stock can be hired by other companies and presumably the engineering side continues to repair and maintain locos and rolling stock.

I agree - if it is permissible to say anything. Certain areas - such as ORR considering whether a criminal act has taken place (which ORR has said it is considering) can't be added to and I'd guess WCRC's lawyers have advised against making any statements that could impact on that as well. All parties are being guarded, rightly, because of various legal obligations.

The view at the NRM dinner last week was that some people have tried to resolve the situation by stating in various places that things have been sorted out etc. etc. (as if talking about it will make it happen). Nobody will produce a resolution by talking about it or making ill-founded suggestions that everything has been resolved. The people properly involved in this are working through "due process", taking their time to get it right and to ensure any resolution is fully approved by all concerned and that safety is put before anything else. I don't think anyone genuinely involved or concerned would be posting hints and rumours from discussions that are still ongoing - they are more professional than that. In addition - yes there is huge media interest in this, as there is in a lot of legal issues across the UK but I'm not aware that any level of interest means that the police, a judge or jury would drop a few hints on forums or to "mates" about how a case was being handled or its likely outcome.

I'm sure that as soon as the legal teams involved in the various processes can sign off a statement it will be issued - and until then..

 

The major source of "information" seems to be RTC which has emailed its customers with supposed quotes from the chairman of WCRC according to various posts. This may be what is alluded to in that no amount of propaganda or posturing will affect the process. It seems the official position remains as per the published timelines unless formally stated otherwise.

 

Also from WNXX:

"No the ban has NOT been lifted. I had an email from NR 30 mins ago. Discussions are ongoing following the submission of their paperwork."

 

I agree there's 'due process' going on, but as already mentioned, the situation is muddied somewhat by the positive spin seemingly being given to customers such as RTC. However, I agree that there are more kites being flown on this subject than feature in Mary Poppins!

 

With 44871&45407 proposed movement to Shrewsbury, is this definite?

 

By no means. Nothing is certain until they actually arrive in Shrewsbury, and a WCRC crew is identified on the footplate.

 

Overseen by a DBS pilotman/inspector ?

 

There are some of us who are privy to much which is actually going on behind the scenes. I am fortunate to have access to it, albeit limited. There are many who think that RTC were a tad hasty in saying all was well with GB8 and steam legs had been reinstated. It may well be the case, but as mentioned above, it is unlikely to involve WCR unless of course their steam crews are excluded from the ban and can be hired out. Gosh, it really is leaving things hanging in the balance here. The GB8 travellers must be a little apprehensive just now with this uncertaintly.

 

If the consultation must legally run its course its hard to see how ORR could viably countenance WCRC being reinstated in the meantime with the inherent risk of another incident occurring, slight as it may be.

 

I Wonder, can ORR veto any NR decision to lift the ban on WCRC until its own investigations are complete because i do wonder would NR want to re instate west coast, only to be told by ORR that they are not a fit operator in their view and have to ban them all over again?

 

Not sure if this clarifies anything Martin,

http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/regulation-of-network-rail

 

The fact of ORR issuing the consultation letter means that they see a prima facie case to revoke the licence. They can of course decide not to, after all, in the light of WCRC's remedial actions and/or the responses to the consultation from other organisations on the railway. But what harm might revocation do to any of those organisations to cause them to say, in effect, "No, please don't stop WCRC operating"? (That is an open question, not rhetorical. I'm not saying that I think there is no reason for them to say that, only that I don't know what reasons they might have.)

 

Being a cynic IMHO replies are more likely to be either, no return, neutral or "we have concerns re WCR but have not had hard evidence to make a complaint". The only other response I can envisage is "was the suspension necessary". This would not be for WCR benefit but themselves if they faced the same situation

 

As mentioned earlier one of the purposes of the consultation is probably to carry out, in effect, an impact assessment of any revocation so that ORR can be made aware of any consequences that may not be otherwise apparent its action may cause . Thus if there are parts of the industry that may be disproportionately affectd by WCRC being uanable to fulfil contractual obligations in the longer term, for example, ORR probably need to know that some contingency may be necessary or an assessment of capacity elsewhere in the industry if a void is created. The ORR propably has to take into account the wider market picture to avoid any issues that may be destabilising potentially leading to other safety issues if pressures occur in the remaining operators. Its a fact finding mission to inform the ultimate decision and best prepare for the outcome.

 

In the abstract, there are two reasons for a consultation, normally.

Firstly this is what we plan to do and this is why we plan to do it. Can anyone we are consulting see any issues with the way we have reached our conclusion or other factors that we should have considered or been brought to our attention.

Secondly subject to the above, we are minded to carry out this action, and feel you should be aware of this in order that you can, if you feel it necessary, plan accordingly.

I would see both of these applying in this situation.

 

While their concerns are totally understandable, it does rather seem like NR and ORR, are saying their own things when really they should be singing in unison from the same hymm sheet, certainly we shoulden't be in a situation where one is satisfied and the other isn't for example.

 

Why? ORR regulate both NR and the TOCs, NR have only to be concerned with what happens on their network. I'd be very concerned if ORR and NR were too closely aligned as it would suggest that NR had started to get too much influence over ORR.