SVR General Discussion

At my own TOC, there is an active campaign set by our Operations Standards department to raise awareness of the risks of ECS moves to and from depots, in the very sort of parameters you mention, due to a perceived large ratio of incidents per ECS move versus passenger services.

 

I also think a few things need to be set out here.

I don't believe anybody here has said it outright cannot happen. Like any proposal, the overall idea likely can be achieved.

In fact, there is a scenario of mainline TOC operating a service into a heritage railway on frequency that can be highlighted here. 'The Royal Scotsman', over the Strathspey Railway, to and from Boat of Garten.

But that service might very well highlight why the Severn Valley service is not a case of can't, but is a case of won't. When you consider the frequency of the Scotsman onto Strathspey metals, alongside the ticket price for said train, GBRF/Belmond have the budget able to accommodate this method of working. They also change over the locomotive on the train, from GBRF 66 whatever is air braked and available in the Strathspey's fleet. So no requirement for GBRF to sign beyond Aviemore station, likewise for Spey crews to sign and drive 66's. As Mk1's and Mk2's are part of the core fleet at Strathspey, the train make up of the Scotsman itself is not foreign to Spey crews, but with air braking requires rostered guards to be passed out on air brake systems. A minor training situation rather than learning entirely new tractions, or new routes.

So, we come back to the Severn Valley. We aren't talking about a train that can have the mode of propulsion changes, we're looking at the same DMU passing from mainline metals and through to Bewdley as a single service. That requires one of three methods:

Method 1 - WMR crews operate throughout. This situation requires the driver and guard to learn a new rulebook and sign a new route. At my own TOC, my rules and traction assessments as a driver is undertaken every 3 years. First day for the RSSB Network Rail rules, second day for traction. If you add in the requirement to learn another rule book, then comes the need to test. 1 additional day every three years may not seem like much, but you then apply that over just a typical link of 20-30 drives in a depot, adds up in terms of another day not driving.

Also, who undertakes the additional rules tests? Is the cost allocated to WMR or SVR?

SVR most likely has a different method for reporting line defects/signal issues etc. On Network Rail lines, the RSSB Rulebook mandates that we must carry multiple copies of certain forms to fill out alongside the signaller while reporting on GSMR. What is the equivalent on SVR, and if similar type forms, where will these be accessed when booking on and off duty?

Method 2 - Handover. As it suggests, the train is handed over to SVR crews at the boundary. Now, this can break down into two sub sections. The first is that the service is then continued to Bewdley by SVR crews, but as a WMR service. That comes with the Union issues that Harry has previously mentioned, that it is possible that a regular TOC service is being operated by a member of staff not employed by said TOC, subject to the same T&Cs/benefits, and perhaps undercutting the cost that an WMR is seen as. You also need the SVR crew to be trained on the traction. Who is undertaking such training, is it within the operational standards that WMR set out (in acknowledgement to requirements set by the train leasing company), and who is conducting paying for that training, assessment and continued monitoring (OTMR downloads, in cab driving assessments, and three yearly Traction assessments)?
The second of the sub section to this, is handover to a route conductor but continued WMR staff in the seat. That happens quite often for galas etc, but such a regular operating service of multiple trains per day, may be difficult to resource and also will incur the additional costs of two drivers and to guards per service between mainline and Bewdley.

Method 3 - SVR trains operate the train between Kidderminster Mainline and Bewdley, a la NYMR style. Requires passing out of SVR crews on traction, RSSB rulebook and route to and from Kidderminster mainline station. Thus also subject to the RSSB standards of assessments, frequency etc. But also, if the SVR operates the service outright from there, then the leasing charge for the train and path are suddenely allocated to SVR. Still not cheap, and that would come as part of SVR's overall costing to the package.

There's going to be a lot more detail needed in these three, and I'll be the first to admit, I've tackled this post purely from a Train Crew perspective. And not every nuance, but sadly my break ends and off to work I go....

 

Understood, and largely agreed. Method 1 is, realistically, the only way this might happen. The questions are real and serious, but are capable of being dealt with intelligently by reasonable people. I'd be interested to know what the material differences are between SVR and RSSB rulebooks, and how difficult it would be to handle those as local rules as part of the wider rules training.

What bugs me is the tension between the need for rules in the industry, and the increasing lack of flexibility or intelligence. It's a theme that is emerging in the overspeed incidents on the ECML, where there are suddenly multiple occurrences of drivers taking divergent routes while not recognising the impact of the speed change, and the answers seem to be "more rules" and "more controls", yet there is outrage when it's suggested that route knowledge is insufficiently robust as a way to ensure safety, and some form of automation may be required. Special care is required and should be expected - but to the extent suggested?

 

"No change to infrastructure"
Are you going to leave all eg the firebuckets on the station on a day when the station doesn't have 4 or 5 volunteers keeping an eye on it?

How about all those vintage-style posters?

The vast majority of the general public are not too bad, but as soon as you open the railway up on what is effectively uncontrolled access, your vandalism risk goes up.
(I occasionally pass through Hanwell station on the GWML. It always seems to be graffiti'd or otherwise unloved. I assume the area is no better or worse than either side, but it always looks worse - I suspect some of it is becuase the painted surfaces are less easy to rapidly clean)

 

Where are people going to park? Bewdley seems to be quite limited in parking when you have SVR staff/ volunteers and visitors at the best of times without people taking up the parking spaces for close to 12 hours contributing nothing to the railway.

 

Which is why I think any economic argument would come around serving high season leisure traffic, rather than commuting. You are then talking a couple of services a day on high days and holidays rather than regular services throughout the year.
Summer weekends, when Kidderminster is choked with Safari park traffic and 15 minutes to do 3 miles suddenly looks attractive!

I doubt this scheme will ever see the light of day, just as 'Safari Park Halt' has never been built and the line between Tenbury Junction and Stourport remains unbuilt by railway industry students! However, I am curious to see where this idea stems from and if a 196 did appear on a trial I would probably travel from Bewdley to Birmingham on it for the novelty.
I rather enjoyed my double headed hall trip to Snow Hill from Bewdley in 2007!!

 

I just honeslty see the whole idea as a total non starter. The general consensus even if it was to happen seems to be high days and holidays when the SVR runs its busiest traffic and when the charter path is often taken up. That charter path being taken doesn’t allow for any more trains to run, without knocking the public WTT.

Are the SVR likely to turn down an £x0,000 charter hire for a WMR shuttle? I just don’t see it. Now yeah you can argue that’s reliant on there being a charter, but unless there’s a clause that says SVR traffic comes first so if we do get a charter you have to cancel your shuttle, I don’t think it’s worth the gamble. And in the same clause will WMR want to cancel services based on said clause?

You’ve then got the aspect of crew. Now yeah you could ask the paid staff at WMR to do the job, assuming it’s their day in work of course. If it’s their rest day they may volunteer to do the job, but they don’t have to. Are you going to train xxx number of drivers on the SVR route, rules, etc at a huge cost to ensure coverage of the service? Or just gamble you can staff it with those who sign both sides of the fence? And that’s before the afore mentioned rule book differences, union agreements, etc come in to it.

You could train SVR volunteers, but I doubt you’d find many willing. I can’t think of many drivers who are going to agree to driving a 196 voluntary, if any at all. I also don’t think WMR or the leasing company do the units would be happy with what is technically classed as ‘amateurs’ and light railway men working with their units or service.

Then comes the question of failure. If a WMR service sets down who pays the bill to the SVR for the delays? Who rescues it?

What about other delays? Do the SVR have to pay a big bill to WMR if a lineside fire forces the WMR service to be cancelled?

Honestly on paper it may sound great, but it’s not. It’s got more holes than a caulinder!

 

Leaving aside the commercial side for a moment, which I agree makes it seem unlikely, the closest parallel to demonstrate it ought to be technically possible would I suppose be the SWR service to Corfe Castle over Swanage metals. Presumably there they found a way to manage the two different rulebooks, and all the other problems thrown up here?

 

I will let someone in the know from the railway answer that but once a week for a few weeks in the summer on a unit that I understood would have just sat in Jersey Sidings all day does not even pass @acorb couple of services a day on high days and holidays test. Plus of course the only interface with other SR services was the half a mile between Norden and Corfe.
I also think if people feel that @2857Harry & @jonathonag are being difficult a read of the thread on RailUK Forums would show how difficult things are or can be made on the railway.
Put simply the question was why on a day when there was a PHBT incident on the WCML the doors on a Pendolino stuck in Rugby station (where it was not due to call) could not be opened for various safety reasons. Rugby of course being an Avanti station where Pendolinos call.

 

Leaving aside the technical details, my hunch is you might end up in the situation where on days when there is demand for such a service, there is no capacity; and on days where there is capacity, there is no demand!

Tom

 

The other point to raise about the comparison, is the distance between SWR metals and the first Swanage station. Even if Swanage run up to Norden (not considering the Wareham heritage shuttles, as they seem to have fallen off the plan?), that's a gap of 5 miles.
I can see the advantage of running the occasional through service of once a day for a few weeks a year, especially when during the summer, the A351 can be hellish.

In comparison, it's what, a couple of minutes walk between Kidderminster mainline and SVR stations?

A more realistic idea, would be for a regular DMU shuttle (using SVR owned rolling stock) between Bewdley and Kidderminster SVR.

However, to match the suggestion of multiple workings per day, you re-enter the need for guaranteeing X amount of staff per day (which would fall into the paid staff realm), alongside suitable fleet of rolling stock to cover for maintenance or failures, and suddenely that costing will begin to look unrealistic versus the income it may generate.

That's before considering the WTT constraints that Harry has pointed out too sadly.

 

If that. It's 230 feet entrance to entance.

 

And of course people were coming to a railway that had no regular train service from Wareham at that time.
The 3 or 4 trips I did to Wareham or Poole the year it went there for some reason had about 10 of us on each trip. Tickets were sold by the then Swanage Customer Service Manager and when my Dad took a ride on the evening return to Weymouth no one could sell him a ticket.
It seemed a low key operation.