Because she is female......

Whether a loco owner has a veto or not depends entirely on the contract between the railway and themselves. If they have a term in the contract permitting it, then they may put their foot down. If they don't, then tough.

Having negotiated the odd hire contract in my time, its the first thing you look at.

 

how come you never see any girls hanging out of carraiges and waving theyre arms at Diesel galas?

Mike

 

Agreed. And in my view the sensible answer to any such clause is "On yer bike!" There are one or two locomotive owning GROUPS which may have members who have the correct qualifications to be on the footplate, but very few Single owners have those qualifications - even if they are qualified drivers, they are probably not qualified as inspectors and therefore capable of assessing any other individual's competence.

I will stand by my original comments and agree to disagree with Ralph by saying that it is in the interests of the operating railway to retain full control over any privately owned machine on their railway - and that has to include the right to refuse access to anyone, including owners, to the footplate unless the railway is fully convinced of their competence to be there. It must also ensure that the locomotive owners cannot restrict its use in traffic just because they may not like the driver on the day - the only way in which a driver should be removed from their position is if it is proved that he or she has acted in a way likely to have damaged the locomotive and only then following a fully convened enquiry and disciplinary process if their actions require this.


I do not want Ralph to think I'm casting any doubt on his owning group's integrity - that isn't the case at all. This is just my own personal view regarding the use of privately owned locos on railways - and on that note I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one!

 

Probably because they have more sense than those who go "Hitler Saluting!!!!!"

 

I would agree with you if they were running their locomotive on their 'own' railway which they managed - then they can decide who does what. But most loco owners are operating on another organisation's railway. Clearly, it is up to the railway organisation to agree (or not) with a loco owner's requirements, but I'm surprised that operating agreements exist with such open clauses on who can or can't drive.

Richard

 

Is the correct answer. It is the operating railway only, who has to answer concerning competence issues (or lack of) relating to their railway and no-one else. If a group or owner wishes their loco to go to that railway, then they accept that railway's Competence Management System (if they are not happy, they don't send their loco, simples). This does not preclude any agreement to provide any specialst training to footplate crews in respect of operating that specific loco and the operating railway may decide that it is only beneficial to train X numbers of staff. I cannot imagine any astute operating railway defering their competence matters to others or allowing outsiders (of whom they may well have no proof of ability to assess competence) to dictate competence of their staff, outside of their CMS

 

In your world it might be the owners rights but not in the world of railways, which are governed by legislation. The responsibility for operation falls fairly and squarely on the railway The owner may wish to have a clause in the contract giving him a veto but it would be interesting to know on what grounds he could apply it. A subjective opinion would not hold much water in a contractual dispute. In terms of who has the right to be on the footplate, as far as the NYMR is concerned, that rests fairly and squarely with the driver. I've known owners reps be kicked off the footplate before today. Even an Inspector has to ask permission to ride on the footplate and always does.
I rarely agree with Ian (1210) but, in this case, I do.

 

As a member of an owning group I could not disagree with you more regarding who has a say in who gets access to the footplate. Whilst the railway will roster crews from their list of competent persons, the owning group should have the right to have a competent representative on the
footplate each time the loco runs and have the right of veto should any of the crew mistreat the loco. No names, no pack drill but I could quote at least one example where a driver completely flouted the loco owner's list of preparation and handling instructions and the owner subsequently informed the railway that said driver would not be allowed back on the footplate until he proved he could handle the loco according to instructions.
You should remember that owners and owning groups have spent a small fortune on restoring their locos and to say that they should have no input on who has access to the footplate is not on IMHO.

 

Let's put a bit of perspective into this debate before we go to WW3.

What I and others have said regarding "Operator" v "Owner" is the basis upon which all negotiations should be conducted, ie The RAILWAY has to control the operation of the locomotive, not by choice, but by Law.

Having said that, there is nothing to be gained by the operating railway who simply states "This is how it will be done, end of story!" Negotiation is always a two way thing and it's quite clear from the fact that there are lots of privately owned locos out there, that in the main, owners and operators have got it right.

I am involved in the hiring out of both BELLEROPHON and SIR BERKELEY on behalf of VCT. Both those locos also have operating agreements with their respective "home railways" and VCT basically lets the two railways concerned "get on with it" and operate them. However, we DO reserve the right to send an owner's representative and he/she can advise each railway accordingly. It's in the agreement and it's all done on a perfectly friendly and non-belligerent basis. When our locos visit other organisations, we send crews with them and our hire agreements allow for these crews to be on the footplate if necessary. This is always done since both locos, being elderly industrial locos, have their little idiosyncracies which many railways would normally be unaware of.

What actually happens in practice [And I guess does for the majority of hires!] is that the owner's reps help prepare the loco and ensure all is well, then end up having a ride out on the home railway's locos as well!! In other words, once satisfied that all is well, everyone relaxes and has an enjoyable experience, knowing that the loco concerned is in good hands, and the railway knowing there's the owner's reps "on call" in case of need.

I fully sympathise with Spamcan81 and his experience. But I have to refer him to my previous comments where I have pointed out that this is the sort of example where, if a problem has been experienced and the driver has refused to take notice, then this has to be reported to the operating railway and an enquiry held. If the operating railway is anything like professional [Which they are], such an incident should be taken very seriously and be fully investigated, and appropriate action taken and of course, the locomotive owner should be involved in this process. What should emerge is a decision which both sides would agree with and respect.

 

I agree absolutely. The Railway always has the final say. Owners reps are always welcome, as is their advice, but they do not dictate who drives, or fires. That must be the operating Railway's staff. Relations are usually extremely cordial,as they should be between grown-ups and professional amateurs. I have only ever taken issue once with an owner's representative and had to remind him who was boss and, who, incidentally, also carried the can if things went wrong. He quickly backed down and it was evident he was not even qualified footplate crew.

On the other side of the coin, the crew with the engine in my avatar pic were completely professional. They prepared the engine themselves and handed it over to us once their testing was complete. It was a Vidal Sassoon "Wash & Go" job. They were brilliant, as was the machine.

The Railway's driver must be the authority on the footplate and I have no issue with sex here. If I am a guest on another Railway's engine, I defer to the driver and fireman, whatever their sex or age. They are the boss. I expect no less from my guests, nor do I receive it. I have been fortunate to carry many ex-BR footplatemen, whose knowledge and experience far exceeds my own. They have been, without exception, polite, courteous and accepted advice or instruction without question.

If a situation arose where an owner, or owner's representative took serious issue with my authority, either they would leave the footplate, or I would.

 

This is a very interesting discussion, quite departed from Lewisb06's original question (the situation behind his question - I am fully aware of because I know the persons involved).

However, I don't think the discussion has got much further to go, so may I be so bold as to sum up:-

Drivers think that they are in charge of everything, becuase they have earned the position through hard work/ god given right.
Owners have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds and loads of personal effort to restore the locos, so think they have a right to be included in the process to decide who can operate their pride and joy.
Railways have to provide a service with the staff they have a available, with a wide range of abilities, Owners will ALWAYS have more onerous standards for operating staff than railways.

 

60532, Durham, 1994. What does that incident have to tell us regarding this issue?

I'd say, that it's the responsibility of the railway/TOC to maintain a pool of competent drivers, not "a wide range of abilities". The railway must know its drivers' experience, and be able to introduce one to the owner's rep, confident that (s)he can operate (not necessarily the same as "is experienced with") the loco type in question. If no such driver is in its pool, then the owner can and should decide.
This seems to me like an everyday issue, given the number of visiting exotics on preserved lines these days. But the only criterion can be competence.

 

Drivers are in charge of the loco, that is an indisputable fact and they are drivers not through hard work or god given right but because they have proved their competency to that railway. If someone questions that competency, they are questioning the railways Safety Management System.
You've also missed out one very important fact:- in law, the railway is responsible for the safe operation, not the owner.

 

The problem is how does a driver/fireman prove competence on a loco type that is visiting their railway for the first time? There will be no doubt that they will be able to operate it safely but will they be able to operate it properly? There is a difference between the two. I remember when 34081 visited one railway, we sent a list of instructions to aid those not familiar with a Spamcan. Our chief engineer was on the footplate to observe and the driver referred to the these instructions and said that he didn't need to read them as he knew all he needed to know about driving and promptly set off with the atomiser turned off. Incidents such as this are what make loco owners a bit jumpy.

 

How is a driver supposed to become competent if not by hard work?
Compentency assessments are carried out by "Peer review". Or, an inspector decides whether they like the way a driver does it or not - assessed according to laid down standards - of course!

 

By knowledge and experience. I'm not sure if you classify this as hard work but I don't. Shovelling 8 tons of coal might be both hard work and an experience but, IMHO, it is not experience!

 

I think shovelling 8 tons of varying coal into the fireboxes of different classes of engine (and even different engines of the same class) on very different days and observing & learning how the engine reacts to what you are doing is, IMHO, experience. This experience is what makes a fireman more efficient in coal and water and less harmful to a boiler.

 

As regards the final authority, if I refer you to the last line of my earlier post; if the owner's rep gets off the engine, the job can continue; if I get off, it doesn't, because the rep isn't authorised, or insured, to drive the machine on my Railway without supervision. If push ever came to shove in that extreme circumstance, I would just inform the guard and signalman that there was no driver on the engine, the signal would not be lowered and the guard would not give authority to proceed. It would be a sad day if it ever came to that, mind.

 

Seems we have drifted off topic here, so...

Has any other railway managed to run a completely female operated train?
Does any other railway have enough competant female staff to do so?

Didcot GWR175 earlier this year - Pannier Tank No. 9466 driven by Marie Saville and fired by Ann Davies, came under the control of guard Ann Middleton. Sarah Sewell trainee Station Staff.