GCR TPO set

You are quoting that out of context, it looks to me to be part of a pitch about arranging things at short notice and does not suggest any lack of standards: "Our facilities – unrivalled on any other private railway in the UK are often available at short notice, cutting the red tape and the cost of getting access to the national network."

 

....for test trains only, and to which separate regulations apply (Railway closed for other traffic, lineside permits withdrawn etc. - GCR staff will be able to list). Normal, passenger services limited to 25mph as far as I am aware, TPOs can run at higher on operating days but conveying staff only.

The different degree of regulation for differing speeds illustrates my point, I would suggest.

I would stress my comment was in answer to the general "well, what can you expect from amateurs"/"heritage railways are inherently unsafe" line taken by some posters and not referring specifically to the GCR or any other line but to the process by which risk is assessed and differing measures applied depending upon various factors, including speed.

Steven

 

I have made one such comment, hardly an intent, kindly demonstrate this or retract your statement.

 

If the Handsignalman is not clearly visible to the Guard (if the Guard is looking out), then he may not be doing his job as well as I would expect!

 

To be fair to the handsignalman he had to stand in a place of safety. The train was negotiating a left hand bend with the brake 4th coach and there were bushes growing right up to the cess. From where I was the base of the signal was not visible and the bush had yellowish leaves. To be readily visible the hand signalman would have had to stand closer than 6 ft from the nearest rail. Also my concentration was on the doll which I was expecting to clear. From the point I made a decision I could not look out as the setter was the other side of the brake. Having stopped the handsignalman was visible. I should add that no one adversly comented on my decision to stop the train.

Dave

 

Need a taller handsignalman, Or some lineside bush-clearance.

Presumably there were no facing points involved, (unless the Driver had previously been instructed that the route was set), otherwise the Handsignalman would have stopped the train first, before instructing the Driver.

(Of interest to me as I've been having to do a bit of handsignalling myself recently)

 

I don't remember that in any HSM course i've done. The Signalman tells you to flag him past and you do, route setting is not your concern.

 

Obviously different railways may have differing rules. If one of our drivers sees a handsignalman displaying a Yellow flag at a signal which protects facing points, he/she will stop for confirmation of the route set and locked, unless they have previously been advised that when a proceed handsignal is shown then the route is set and locked for the (insert line).

On one recent occasion when a signalman instructed me to display the Yellow without first stopping the train, 2 out of 3 drvers stopped anyway to ask which route was set.

 

Its perhaps depends on the department and railway you work on, from my experience when I started at Quorn in 2002 , I was told the basics of hi viz whilst on the line and how to cross and walk on it safely etc, (some of which would be considered "common sense"), I had a copy of the 1996 rule book given to me. however I didn't really understand it being only 13. lol however the senior management has changed a few times since then , so things maybe considerably different.

However If I started on another railway now, Id expect to see a copy of the safety management system and an explanation as to what it is and how it works, obviously depending on where you work and in what area on a railway, will depend which parts are relevant to you.

Also Id expect to receive some sort of rule book standard, and an introduction to this and the above before I started work, and that would be the basics. (this I've learnt from experience of working on a few other heritage railways, and the way they approach new recruits (as well as old ones)


I don't know how it works on the GCR nowadays though or what systems have been adopted and are in place?

Maybe someone else can comment?

D Smith

 

http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/current_investigations_register/140512_loughborough_central.cfm

 

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch has published its initial report into the crash between a Class 37 diesel propelling a TPO coach and a rake of five coaches at Loughborough station on the Great Central Railway on May 12. The report can now be seen at www.facebook.com/heritagerailway

 

Interesting reading. It states that the engine was off, the air brakes on, but both handbrakes off, and one wheel only had a chock. The TPO was connected to it but not its braking system. So if its air brakes bled off all that was holding it apparently, on a 1 in 330 gradient, was a chock.

 

Does anyone know if the extent of damage to W80301 has yet been quantified, and whether the TPO is repairable or not? There is no further update on the RVP website.
Presumably also the green MK1's that were hit by the 37 and the TPO also have sustained damage.
I wonder if the GCR carries "damage" insurance to cover these issues?

As far as the class 37 is concerned, given the current demand for finding 37's to return to mainline work, I suspect it will have a good chance of repair.

 

Not from what I've heard. If it's correct, the engine travelled further than the loco. A good source of spares, perhaps.

It does indeed make interesting reading. It also seems quite detailed for an initial statement of investigation by the RAIB. What happened is now no longer conjecture but the investigation of the culture that created the event will be very revealing.

 

I was surprised to read that the RAIB explained that a chock and a Scotch were the same thing. I was shown that a Scotch has a toe on it and the wheel sits upon it making it impossible for it to be 'accidentally' removed, whilst a chock can be any old lump of timber jammed against the wheel.

 

I'd call that a skid or a skate. I'd also say a wheel was scotched if it had been prevented from moving by some means, such as a chock, skid or skate. Or even a locker. I think it is all down to terminology and possibly the locality in which you were brought up.

 

Interesting - I wonder if there is a regional or company difference in meaning? I always understand the meanings the opposite way round, i.e. a chock is a wedge specifically shaped to fit under a wheel and prevent movement, whereas scotch (noun or verb) is any device or practice to prevent movement. For example, reading old accident reports, you sometimes hear that someone put stones under a wheel to scotch (or act as a scotch) but I've never seen chock used in the same way. I've also seen an old photo (LCDR as I recall) of what was described as a scotch block on the exit from a siding that could be bolted across a rail to prevent movement from the siding onto the mainline: it was the kind of situation in which you would expect a trap point, but in a very congested location, so the scotch block used much less space.

Then there is "sprag", which I've always understood to be a stout shaft of wood which can be put through the wheels of a vehicle to scotch any movement...

Tom

 

Railway Group Standards, big railway rule book, use "scotch" in the shunting module. BR Black book refers to hand scotches and sprags. Chock is probably one of those terms in common use which is not defined.

Before critisising reports it is worth remembering that whilst reports are under the control of professional inspectors many investigstions to ascertain the facts are conducted by professional railwaymen acting as experts in behalf or RAIB and use of queloquial phrases may creep into their vocabulary. Do we understand what was meant? Well its clear to me.

 

Calm down, no criticism thought or implied. Just an observation and yes, we all know what was meant in the report.

 

It might be an idea to remember this is the C & W thread, not an operating issues one. How about a bit more info on the damage sustained by the vehicles involved?