WCRC Licence Suspended

Picked this up on RMweb.

"PhilH, on 05 May 2015 - 10:20, said:
As a point of information, and to back up some of the above posts, I was on the support crew with 70000 on the first two days of GB8, which was the only whiff of steam the participants got. It was crewed with DBS staff, driver + fireman (who are usually interchangeable) and TI.

Because of the lack of steam qualified drivers (all DBS steam crew are DBS freight drivers) they pull them in from all over the place. This means that as they count travelling time as part of their working day they might only do three hours on the footplate before they have to be replaced by another crew.

So over the course of a long trip you might get through three or four crews, say eight or nine men. This obviously is a drain on DBS's resources as it means that they can't be doing their core work, of which they have plenty at the moment.

This, as much as anything, is why it is often said that mainline steam will die out in the future. I think it has been proved that the West Coast way of doing things is perhaps not the way forward, so I'm not sure where that leaves us."

So this can hinder any further idea that DBS could do more mainline steam runs.

 

In the near future it may well do, however DB Schenker have a lot of drivers on their books and, amongst them, there will be a few who volunteer on preserved railways and could easily be trained up for mainline firing duties pretty quickly should a financial case be made for it. The more work that comes their way then the more they should be able to resource (in the longer term).

 

The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided Transport systems) Regulations 2006 (EARR) is the document that separates the juristiction between the inspectors for ORR and the HSE. However it is explained in simplified form by this memorandum of understanding.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/howwework/framework/mou/orrmou.pdf

The document is very detailed and is used to clear any grey areas for responsibility. For example a railway in a factory or refinery would be under the HSE, a railway in a mine/quarry would be HSE (except under certain circumstances) and designated exchange sidings with NR would be the ORR. An incident in a heritage railway workshop would depend on whether the work involved equipment for use on the same railway or for a third party.
Most miniature railways, which operate within a site such as an amusement park or fairground, are enforced by HSE or Local Authorities. ORR only enforces for miniature railways (i.e. railways below 350mm gauge) that cross a public highway.

 

And herein lies the entirely unknown - will it become viable or attractive for DBS to do this or if not so, in the case of the demise of WCRC are we hoping for some as yet unknown miracle.

 

There will be plenty of heritage railways they could hire for training days to two to find any new fireman/ drivers, and then to get them trained up to a level where they can start on the main lines.

 

Is it possible then that a TOC could be found wanting in some key aspects by HMRI during a proactive visit and advised in a way that would assist the TOC in identifying what improvements are necessary? Helping them to help themselves to arrest decline before it becomes so serious as to warrant punitive enforcement action?

 

Yes, obviously. Whether it assists them in arresting the decline will rather depend on whether the advice is listened to and acted upon. It is also fair to say that the visits are not intended to be free consultancy either and the company is rather expected to have its own audits and other systems designed to prevent decline in the first place. If found wanting in "key aspects" it is more likely there will be an enforcement notice or removal of operating licence or similar. There is an expectation that the house will be in order already when the ORR comes to visit. In this respect the "behaviour" of the HMRI as part of ORR is rather harder than it perhaps was 20 years ago, but then times and attitudes have changed.

 

Enforcement visits in my field are intended to assist businesses towards compliance providing advice and guidance where appropriate. There is also a duty to explain to the business what the consequence of failure to achieve compliance will be.
The original responses seemed to indicate that the problems at WCRC would have been detected as a consequence of post incident investigation only. Based on the more recent replies it appears that regular planned visits are in fact conducted so it's rational to believe it would have been known by the regulators for some time WCRC was inadequate in the key areas later made public and that WCRC would have been informed accordingly, long before the suspension .
While this changes nothing, its reassuring to find out conclusively that it is probable ample opportunity for improvement is likely to have been given and therefore the suspension is justified as a last resort.
What is rather more shocking is that it is equally probable WCRC has failed to heed the advice given despite being no doubt made aware of the consequences of failure to improve. In particular the employment of consultants only after the suspension beggars belief if the issues were plainly acute for some time before that. For a business wholly predicated upon being certificated this must be regarded as reckless folly of the highest order.
Sorry if that's bashing but if they've been offered advice and guidance one can only lead a horse to water .......

 

We already have some sort of limited insight into the way that DB Schenker might view the business potential for any sort of greater involvement in future resourcing for steam charters on the main line. An article in the “Down Main” section of SR432 last September looked at the future pathing problems that will attend the scheduling of steam charters. Prominent within this article are the views of Nick Gibbons, DBS head of national planning and contractual performance.

Taking the illustrations that he chooses to demonstrate the advent of a far more constrained operating environment, they suggest the sort of thinking that doesn’t really expect that what we have come to regard as a sort of golden age for main line steam will last much longer. For example

1. He projects the crunch will come with major changes to the UK timetable planned for implementation in December 2018, affecting core routes but with a “ripple effect through the network

2. He predicts significant constraints in the interim period, as the timetable goes through step-changes to get to that point, reflecting all the attendant disruption of infrastructure work

3. He cites Paddington and the GWML (relief line capacity), the ECML direct line to York (except maybe diversionary routes), Trans-Pennine via Diggle, and the London end of the WCML (especially with the advent of HS2 work at Euston) as clear examples of potential future no-go areas

4. And the constraints posed by the no-go routes will, he contends, impact in turn on the accessibility to and connectivity with those routes where the pathing of steam charters is seen as less challenging

5. In identifying a longer term vulnerability due to lack of guaranteed, protected charter paths, he observes that in future it may well be a question of matching motive power (and presumably trailing load) and its performance characteristics – steam or otherwise - to such paths as can be made available, not vice versa.

All thought provoking stuff. But what really matters is not whether these scenarios and predictions for main line steam materialise to the fullest and bleakest degree. What does matter, it seems to me, is that a commercial organisation is taking a dispassionate view of market prospects and business opportunities that is extremely unlikely to commend the commitment of significantly enlarged resources to recreate the previous status quo for main line steam.

I think that those who might look to DBS as a potential saviour to the resource issues posed by main line steam operations in the medium to longer term future really ought to think again in the light of this evidence.

And the bottom line is that, whatever the outcome of the current WCRC debacle and whenever it materialises, it’s looking increasingly unlikely that we will ever go back to the sort of main line steam landscape that we have enjoyed in the past – not its (virtually) network wide geography, not its huge numbers and choice of charters, and not its broadly accessible ticket pricing that we have all enjoyed in the past.

I suppose the only comfort that I can take from all of this is that at least “box-on-the-back” and such-like issues all seem to pale into insignificance.

 

We do know the following from the Network Rail suspension letter:

"Network Rail also has serious concerns about the fact that WCR unilaterally suspended the
response to Network Rail’s review of WCR’s Safety Management System undertaken in January
2015. The review raised some serious and significant issues and there was no communication with
Network Rail to explain that the response was being suspended"

Steven

 

Nobody in their right mind can rationally believe DBS will step into what we might regard as "the breach ". At best DBS will probably continue with the same business model they have for steam. For the reasons outlined so cogently by Steven above any WCRC replacement will likely only operate on a fraction of the scale we've recently enjoyed. That goes for WCRC too if they return to the fold .
Personal forecasts and I'd be delighted to be proved emphatically wrong because I hoped these halcyon days would last a while longer.

 

It seems to me that we are going to be looking at a 'BR'Era approach again with fixed itinerary's, connecting to 'National Rail' services.

BTW any news on The Jacobite?

 

I've said that at least twice already, but it either gets ignored, or poo - poohed.............

But the proof, as this at the mo is all speculation, will be when we hear from NR & the ORR - and then I expect this thread to go into meltdown - pretty much as I expect a n other thread to do the same come Sunday evening.......

 

Surely not the one with close to 1 Million views?

 

Not only are there pages of non-news but it's full of doom and gloom! Nobody really knows what's happening until there are official announcements so perhaps we should all just bide our time and hope for the best?

Perhaps it's a generational thing but I like to see the glass half full until I am proven otherwise - and while I agree with the suspension I see no reason why there can't be an adapted service that meets guidelines from NR.

Perhaps our negative energies should be channelled into promoting the things wcrc did well so as to show our support for main line steam that we all no doubt want to continue for as long as possible!

I am in no way making light of safety concerns and if wcrc have significant failings they must put them right but reading through pages of doom and gloom does nothing to help our or west coasts cause.

 

Not "rocket science" to work it out is it!

This one & that keep clogging up me inbox !

 

Its not just that, we're just going round & round in ever decreasing circles rehashing same old, same old.............

I've said my piece way back when, and now like everyone else, await something concrete from NR/ORR - its all we can do - so it would be nice if folks would stop repeating things and let this thread go to sleep for a while.........

 

You'll be lucky.

 

I forgot to add a smilie