The Steam Ban around York

There is little doubt that WCR can be a petty, stubborn, recalcitrant bunch when they want to be, as witnessed by the Tornado debacle. This is not a Tornado size issue where you can throw a small chunk of business resources to the wolves, this is a major chunk of revenue that needs a pragmatic business led approach rather than an oligarch led toys out of pram approach.

Its a pity DBS couldn't resource steam tours and excursions any more, this business needs a little competition to prevent this kind of pettiness.

 

There is a perception that in providing a heritage era product this has to be matched by a business culture from the same period.
Notwithstanding that wcr has been outstandingly successful it has been achieved without much competition as has been observed. One wonders in what ways the market would be better if there were more comparable operators.
Judging by the anecdotal remarks on here and elsewhere the wcr cultural approach to operations is similar to many larger heritage lines but they use somebody else's metals. This means they have to play by somebody else's rules not only doing the right thing but being seen to be doing it.
It seems obvious that wcr wouldn't have developed as much as they have without the ability to negotiate in a professional manner befitting of the modern business context. Seems like they will have to do so again.

 

The major difference is that wcr operates its own locos whereas DBS don't. If the problem is seen to be principally the wcr fleet and other loco owners are affected because wcr is also the toc its a stalemate.

 

More likely NR expect WCR to keep a "black book" tho the correct term is "risk assessment register" and during periods of high fire risk, roster appropriate resources to do the service & meet your customers expectations. In this case Oulton Hall was the wrong loco at the wrong time, tho there was the pressure of the public persona of the "Hogwarts Express", the looming deadline of its withdrawal, and the opportunity to cash in on it at the last moment.

It would have course help if NR had a coherent, consistent, national policy on steam tour fire risk. But we don't, we have diesel "tail pushers", diesel "pilots", diesel "tucked in behind" and "just diesel" depending on what region it is, who is on duty. and what they thad for breakfast.

No idea what the consist was that day of the fire, but it seems to me that a "light stream, diesel tucked in behind" would have been an ideal scenario for all parties.

 

But was it a "light steam rear pusher"? But more to the point Does NR allow that? Or rather "does that region allow that"? Many will tell you its against the rule book, but i can tell you and show you that its accepted as a valid working consist on many occasions, rule book or not in certain NR regions. And there, as I pointed out is the crux of the matter, no clear documented agreed national policy. I have some sympathy for WCR despite their intransigence having to work with such differing policies, it needs all parties to sit down and hammer out this on a national basis, and then all regions have to do is declare when and where the fire risk is.

 

I think proportionality is the thing here.

Network Rail has the morale high ground.. the loco caused a fire.
But was their response proportional ?

This can be demonstrated by response to the situation elsewhere ie. other bans / restrictions & reactions elsewhere on the network in the past / length of ban / conditions (environmental / terms etc)

NR have to back their man in a legal dispute, otherwise they are wide open to damages and costs. But at the same time proportionality / response to the incident will be quite hard for Network Rail to explain...

Of course, next comes calculating damages (which is where by cancelling / rather than re-routing) WCRC can demonstrate considerable loss as a result of NR's actions.
NR probably cannot demonstrate much damage (a burnt patch of grass and legal advice costs).. therefore making proportionality difficult to prove.

If NR are found to have used disproportionate response WCRC could be open to a receive considerable damages from NR and costs.

If NR are able to demonstrate that this measure was necessary & proportionate (i.e. localised and specific to conditions in the area for no longer than necessary) and also similar in nature to other bans in the past, they could have precedent for how to act in the future and WCRC left with considerable costs but not much damages from NR.

Was the ban in place during inclement weather for instance ? or was the ban in place around York at the same time the weather was the same elsewhere and they could run without a ban..

Of course contract conditions play a part here (and I doubt any of us know what those terms are) so cannot comment and this could / would be a deciding factor on if any contract was breached.

I think this could be long and expensive, it could also have deep impact for the future of mainline steam.

Lets hope mediation resolves it.

 

I agree with what you say. My point was that the other loco owners may be affected by NR blanket wcr ban the origin of which seems to be CRRES owned loco starting a fire and probably influenced by 48151 doing infinitely worse last summer.
Perhaps NR has asked wcr to make sure its house is in order with demonstrable control measures. If it has not adequately done so in house the collateral damage is a ban on all wcr operated steam regardless of ownership.
The missing information is whether DBS operated steam would be permitted. Wcr could legitimately ask for evidence of DBS acceptable practice that is thought by nr to be missing from wcr procedures.

 

“West Coast Railways has been suspended from running steam charters on the London North Eastern and East Midlands route which covers Yorkshire, since July 12. That was due to a line side fire caused by one of their services which was in breach of our steam operations protocol.

“We are awaiting a response from West Coast Railways about the corrective actions that will be put in place to avoid such a breach recurring. It should be a simple matter to provide clarity on the corrective action to be taken and the resolutions of this issue is easily achievable upon receiving such a response,”


Without knowing what the breach was, we cannot guess to what the corrective actions would be.

It might be as simple as someone not having signed a piece of paper before departure or something mechanical with the loco..
short answer is.. none of us know.

The fact it has dragged on so long, suggests it's something more complicated than just a piece of paper or it's grown into a personality dispute and positions became entrenched.

If it's a personality dispute there's a chance than more senior decisions makers will come to an agreement. If not.. I'd imagine High Court might be one outcome amongst other possibilities but i'd imagine neither side would really want that.

 

Interesting point that if NR insists that steam locomotives should be fit to run on the the network then - in fairness to conditions of "Open Access" requirements - one should insist that the network be fit for steam locomotives to operate. Whilst not expecting the provision of water towers or water troughs at NR expense there is the consideration that vegetation should be better maintained than it currently is - and that is NR's responsibility.

It appears that the York Route Director has locked NR into a corner that sadly means NR headquarters have to support him irrespective of who is right - good management always supports its staff externally but disciplines internally. As many have suggested the involvement of lawyers is a "sledge hammer to crack a nut" action that will cost dearly in terms other than money; negotiation is better but - I wonder - is that made more difficult by a personalty clash i.e. The Irresistable Force meeting The Immovable Object ?

 

Do we know what the Steam protocol is? Do WCR have a good idea what it is? Does NR in fact have a proper national steam protocol? I would suggest "no" is the answer to most of that. And that is where the problem lies.

 

I think it has dragged out to the extent where it has become a dispute. With NR(NE) banning WCRC and the latter objecting to the manner in which it is handled, with briefings taking place and positions becoming reinforced by statements put out, this is unlikely to be resolved quickly.

While WCRC have admitted Olton Hall did cause a fire, I see the resulting immediate ban on WCRC is more akin to an attempt to remove WCRC from the area around York as NR tries to maintain and improve punctuality figures in one of the regions biggest bottleneck. While NR are right to point out that here results matter - such as targets set for opperation, damages to be paid by NR to companies if targets are missed and the pressure of fines coming from the ORR for bad performance - the damage to WCRC by imposing such a ban for such a length of time has to be seen as dispoportionate. The same happened last year, in which other regions reintroduced the ability to run steam in a dry summer - the NR(NE) area held out longest.

Matters to improve this would be a national fund for steam delay compensation to be set up and sent to regions on a ratio of who runs most steam. This has to be a factor given the NE around York which includes access to the Settle to Carlisle line in the congested Leeds area sees the most steam nationally. Delays here could cost NR thousands when the cap is reached for compensation on a tour. NR would want to block access to this, but I think that really NR has to take into account that the lines here are the most popular and act accordingly, especially with the S+C, and the NRM and Scarbrough being able to see tours ran from one area.

WCRC engines do have a habit of beign pyromaniacs, which doesnt help. Olton Hall and probably the 8F are worst, but all steam engines stand such a risk. Earl of Mount Edgcube caused a fire when heading to Scotland, so it isnt just their own fleet and examples can be found for this anywhere. While WCRC might want to take extra steps to remindy this and reinforce the idea that steps have been taken, that would help show they are willing to be more responsible.

Otherwise we are heading to need to sort out national conistent protocols and policy, admiting where steam cna and can not go, as well as revisiting the idea of a cap on delay payments from tours.

All of which could be controversial for the future of mainline steam nationally.

 

Didn't NR make a similar statement about resolving the ban imposed a few years back? That was following the lineside fires started by a LE move on the ECML.

 

For a public facing business wcr conducts itself in a very insular way.
The press release it issued sought to publicly personalise where the conflict lies whilst being dismissive of the need to have tangible procedures in place preferring to rely on good practice being understood it seems without the need for records backing this up.
It would be far wiser for wcr to admit their mistakes, whatever they may be, demonstrate the corrective action that will satisfy nr.
NR could also admit it was excessively cautious but has to safeguard the system at all times.
Joint press release, problem solved, mess averted. Back in the real world, however .........

 

But wasnt that whole question of the cap on delay payments,after interminable debate and negotiation,only settled a couple of years or so ago? Surely neither side would want to reopen it again so soon?

 

I keep thinking back to the posts by Rule55 last year. If the traffic light for the LNE area was turned to amber on,say, July 9 and the LNE area's requirement in amber conditions was diesel upfront and assisting -- as was the case on the SSE and Waverley last year-- then the immediate cause may simply have been failure to follow agreed procedures.

 

The statement from Network Rail could be read in two ways - that it was the fire which was in breach of the protocol, or that it was the train/engine which was in breach. The first suggests a problem with NR (because not all fires can be eliminated) whilst the second suggests a problem with WCR. Some of the conspiracy theorists are inevitably let loose in such a situation, but those who suggest that NR need to cut back vegetation to prevent fires are way off track. The environment has to suffer just so the occasional steam special can go past? This seems to me to be a business dispute which will only be resolved by either one party capitulating or by mediation. I'm just glad that the only tour I'm booked on for the rest of the year goes nowhere near that region!