WCRC Licence Suspended

2 DBS class 67s worked to Carnforth this afternoon from Arpley to collect stock and then run to Doncaster tonight for tomorrows Cleethorpes - Llandudno tour for WCRC.

 

Something I don't understand - how does the ban on WCRC operated services affect the use of WCRC-maintained stock operated by other TOCs?

If part of NR's concern is about the workings of WCRC's safety management system (as suggested in point 4 of the suspension notice), then presumably that could possibly include the maintenance regime of their rolling stock. WCRC have already had at least one high-profile failure of an engine on the mainline that can be traced back to the maintenance regime - Tangmere at Winchfield. So if WCRC stock (or locos) is going to be used by other operators, what is the process for certifying that it is fit to run - especially at such short notice?

Genuine question - it seems a grey area from what is written on the suspension notice, though clearly that suspension notice refers to other documents that aren't in the public domain. Certainly, if WCRC are relying on the fact that they might be able to honour their tour commitments by finding other operators to operate them, but using WCRC stock, then it feels like an important question.

Tom

 

Rest assured, be it WCR, DBS, DCR or DRS, all passenger carrying charter stock is fully inspected, regardless of ownership by the operator before it enters traffic on each occasion. Thus, DBS will have inspected the WCR stock, independant of WCR before they will bring it into use under their Safety Case. So DBS inspectors deem the set of stock inspected to be up to their own standard for passenger train operation.

 

Tom - I too find it odd that the WCRC stock can be used as the safety case must rely on WCRC paperwork. The only explanation I can envisage is that the stock is owned by a separate entity within WCR to which the ban does not apply

 

Which of David Smith's companies has been banned and which of his companies own the stock?

 

Perhaps the following posting on WNXX may help understand the situation;

A number of muddles have crept into this discussion, firstly that it's not WCR's Railways Act Licence that has been suspended. NR has exercised its rights under WCR's Track Access Contract to suspend WCR's access to the Network because of Event of Default which NR says has occurred. The mechanism being used by NR is explained in last year's Access Dispute Adjudication (ADA20) available on the Access Dispute Committee's website.

When WCR referred to a 'used' Licence I think it meant a 'user Licence'. That isn't a recognised term, which reflects WCR's spelling and grammatical errors, but what it meant was that WCR's services will be operated by another operator under that operator's own Licence and Safety Certificate.

WCR has to satisfy NR on the points explained by NR before the Suspension Notice will be lifted. Yes, if NR has acted improperly WCR will be entitled to compensation, but following ADA20 and the facts about the SPAD at SN45 disclosed by the RAIB one must wonder what prospects WCR would have of a successful claim.

As well as the RAIB's investigation I will be very surprised if the ORR won't be looking very closely at WCR's operations. It is they would have power over WCR's Licence (and is nothing to do with Parliament, so the dissolution has no effect on these processes).

I am very surprised by the number of contributors to this forum still talking about Safety Cases. Safety Cases are dead; they were replaced by Safety Certificates and Authorisations as long ago as 2006, when ROGS came into force (although it took a year or so for pre-existing Safety Cases to lapse).

This posting has been copied from a posted thread on WNXX and copied by me for the information of posters on this thread.

 

Many thanks Fred, this is all extremely interesting. Suspect the use of the term "safety case" is not meant specifically, but to describe the authority a TOC's authority to operate steam on the mainline. Certainly not something worth getting worked up about in any case, : )

 

An Operator's Safety Management System (SMS) must cover how it deems stock it is to use if Fit to Run - however, it does not include the maintenance procedures used in workshops, even for an integrated operator such as a heritage railway. In that case (as WCRC are normally in this position), the "engineering division" presents rolling stock for acceptance as fit to run by the "operating division".

Part of those procedures will include examination of the records that must be kept by the engineering operation, and procedures used by the engineers do need to meet required standards (and be recorded appropriately and compliance with what is stated as "the system" needs to be demonstrated) but these are not part of the SMS/Track Access system - simply the fact that the operator has appropriate procedures to verify the fitness to run on the day.

Hence, a non-operator rolling stock owner will have the necessary systems in place to prove to the operator of their stock that engineering processes are compliant with required standards but the operator must ensure that the stock is fit to run as part of its SMS.

Steven

 

One good side-effect of this unfortunate turn of events is that I'm learning much more about how the different parts of the railway business interact with each other. Thanks Ian, Fred, Steven and the rest of you for your contributions to my education.

 

Love this for attempted media/customer management/spin, trying to make it look like WCRC instigated the enquiry.

 

According to UK Steam Info website a block has been put on railtours involving this company as of April 4th.

 

I think you need to catch up on the other thread!

 

BTW, if anyone is wondering why WCRC stock but DBS locos for today's ECS/tomorrows tour, the Track Access Contracts include lists of "Specified Equipment" and I believe DBS no longer have Class 47s on their Track Access Contract (I believe they may have a separate one for charter from freight work). Likewise, even if they did, they would probably not have drivers with suitable route knowledge who also "sign" Class 47s for traction knowledge.

Steven

 

Here are three photos of 67026 & 67005 leaving Carnforth this afternoon (Fri) with the WCRC Pullmans for the tour promoted by WCRC from Cleethorpes to Chester and Llandudno tomorrow.

http://andrewstransport.smugmug.com...-2015/46702470_RDt8xq#!i=3970377436&k=Kd4wRjH

Cheers

Andrew N

 

This is why despite the C&W dept maintaining heritage railway rolling stock the final decision to run rests with the guard and his / her daily train examination and brake test. Similarly the drivers loco exam before comming off shed

 

Well, given what has been made public, neither am I..........

"IF" WCRC emerge the other-side of 15th May out of all this, they won't be smelling of roses and I suspect NR will be all over them like a rash, and under the microscope for a very long time until they are satisfied lessons have been learnt, and robust procedures put in place, and maintained.

At the end of the day this is going to hurt WCRC hard in the pocket in many ways........ can they survive this?.......... I for one have no idea!

The upside to all this?......... WCRC now have the opportunity to carry out essential repairs & maintenance to motive power, as well as the re-training of footplate crew to accepted standards.

 

From local media:
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/...ed_after_100mph_near_miss_at_Wootton_Bassett/

 

Thanks Steven - that makes a lot of sense.

If I've understood it correctly: if an operator (for example, another ToC) wishes to use WCRC-maintained coaches for a rail tour, then the operating ToC needs to be able to reassure itself that the maintaining organisation (in this case WCRC) has appropriate engineering processes in place to maintain the vehicles. That's a pre-requisite before you even get to the detailed "on the day" fitness to run examination.

So in the specific circumstance that WCRC's whole safety management process has been questioned, I don't understand how another ToC could take that reassurance - unless WCRC are able to privately reassure them that the specific areas that have been called into doubt by Network Rail are not related to vehicle maintenance. In principle, if the operating ToC has had a long relationship with WCRC of using WCRC-maintained vehicles, then they probably have had considerable opportunities to examine records as they see fit; however, for a hire arranged at very short notice, that verification of records by the operator may be much harder to arrange.

Isn't this in essence a similar situation as with Tornado, but in reverse? In other words, WCRC as an operator refused to operate Tornado because the engineering organisation that maintained Tornado could not offer WCRC (as an operator) sufficient assurance about their engineering procedures?

Tom