Fire Risk

At least equal in my question was wondering whether there is scope to relax the formal type competencies on diesels

 

I suppose the answer to that, in part, is how onerous it is to assess and pass someone once they have a ticket for 25, say, for a 33? Plus variants of sub class?!
I'm sure its possible to do some serious damage by being unaware of a small but significant facet, especially at the prep stage. Even some 08s are different from each other for example.

 

Understood, and accepted. But given the discussion about steam types, I'm struggling to understand the principle for why they're treated so differently (as distinct from "because they've always been")

 

Becuase that principle is why steam locomotives are allowed on the main line. Imagine trying to present the safety case for a steam loco ab initio
"so we put the large pressurised vessel on a really heavy chassis, fuel it with a very inefficient, highly polluting fuel source, have a drive system that magnifies the rotational force (for track damaging purposes) and doesn't respond automatically or even predictably to the controls... and then we put the crew in a position of minimal visibility and direct exposure to live steam escape and blowback. So can we run them please?"

There was some logic to it when it started, as nobody had the basic fault-finding experience, and every diesel had things that would render the unit inoperable for simple things (eg fuses, cut-outs etc). With no base experience, the drivers had to know exactly what to do in terms of eg starting procedures and re-setting, which had to be done on a class-by-class basis.

 

The differences in faults and failures is the main reason. If you don’t know where the distributor release is on a class 20, you won’t find it and knowing where it is on a 47/4 isn’t much help either.

 

I suppose I'm saying the principles of assessment and demonstrated compentce I was familiar with weren't that much different for steam relative to diesel but other organisations may have been less granular for steam than diesel.
I don't know much about being passed for driver on mainline steam but I understand it is far easier to be awarded traction competence than it is to get the required level of route knowledge. Probably most of the crews on the mainline have gained extensive footplate experience on heritage lines and some will have even been on BR in the sixties I guess. I don't know what paramaeters LSL, for example, have given they have the broadest pool of steam loco types operating on the mainline. Are their drivers signed simply for steam traction or by loco? The A2 is significantly different to the A4s in some key handling aspects but does an LSL steam driver have a ticket which automatically covers both?
To illustrate, when 71000 was based at Bury not everyone signed off for BR Standards was authorised for the Duke. Its uniqueness wasn't confined to the original singular design but the braking stystem was modified when the air brakes were added I seem to remember. It in effect became like a diesel in that air was the 'native' system with supplementary vac system. Which was very different to 92214 that we had at the same time.
Even with all the training/assessment precautions we still managed to endure a 'prang' at Rawtenstall involving 71000 and a very experienced driver.
We also had the B12 for a while, that is very different in many respects. Of course heritage crews are also involved in the preparation which I don't think the mainline drivers do. There was as much attention paid in my time to observing a 'trainee' carrying out driver prep as on the road because failures in diligence could have serious consequences equal to handling issues.
Finally, I would observe that my generation was lucky in some ways to have instructors who had footplate experience of BR steam, had seen and done everything, their knowledge was first hand. Inevitably subsequent trainers are one or more steps removed from that history. Whether that improves or deteriorates the quality of training I don't know but I think it must be harder to build up the same wealth of knowledge as a part time volunteer compared to learning frommsomeone who did it for a living for a few years.
Although a well-known loco engineer of this parish () was always inclined to refer to the ex BR guys as "ASLEF b******s" because he thought them most likely to break the locos he'd spent time making fit. He alao thought we'd all eventually become ASLEF etc

 

It's probably worth remembering that there aren't an infinite supply of different classes of loco...and they aren't infinitely different.

Within driver or fireman training, you would expect building up the core skills to take place over time and for that time to include sampling a range of loco types as part of the process. If you take Bluebell as a reasonable example (I'm not an official spokesman!) we have a range of engines to cover. For firing, it probably takes a couple of years depending on the individual and their time available. The chances are that within the training period you will have been on each class at least once, if not several times. The assessment then covers a shunting day, a small engine day and a large engine day.

This qualifies you for every type then in traffic, but we also have a process for when new types come in and the key differences, for example the Atlantic is quite unusual with air brakes, large round top boiler etc. An additional layer would be the owners rep (or inspector) if we had a short term visitor.

I'm not sure we, the movement, need to over complicate this?

Sent from my CPH2621 using Tapatalk

 

I agree with that and it is more straightforward to qualify for firing even though it is arguably the more skilled role
Your situation with the Atlantic mirrors our experience when the B12 visited and I imagine if it vists Bluebell in due course there would be a fairly simple driver 'conversion' authorisation process.
Would you distinguish much in terms of demonstration of competence between an original Bulleid and a rebuild?
Although the principles of the various vac brake valves are similar, in practice the handling takes some 'recalibration' when you've been used to an LMS brake valve say, compared to LNER or Southern design. But I agree its largely a case of concentration and adjustment of technique.

 

Agreeing with your point but if that was circa 2008 Alan there wouldn't be anyone with experience of firing the LN within 20+ years and approaching 50 years with ex BR knowledge. It ran for 5 years or so in the early 80s, so maybe 25 firing turns, all in northern England.
When it returned I think it had a few days at ELR after the air brakes were fitted and then did a much delayed test run round the Hellifield circuit.
My point being if the guy given the job wasn't competent, how would he have gained competence beforehand and who did have it? My hunch is he was learning on the job with that loco and it was a harsh lesson. The only comparable loco, firing wise, would be 6024 at that time and he was probably more familiar with Bulleids, a rather different animal I suspect.

 

Returning to the topic of fire risk, there are other problems caused by prolonged hot weather.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/g...r-slowing-down-trains/ar-AA28Nq7n?uxmode=ruby
The West of England line is in trouble again, just as it was last year and Ely - Lynn has trouble with the peat subsoil drying out. Other reports refer to Ely - March. Norwich to Yarmouth and Lowestoft and Wickford - Southminster being at risk.
(When it rains there will be too much too quickly and there will be embankment and cutting slips .... )

Cheers, Neil