WCRC Licence Suspended

I think the overall effect may be neutral. NR must have thought very carefully before going public but obviously decided that by doing so they have the greatest chance of getting compliance, or if WCR wont or cant comply then the probable severe reduction in main line steam. The next few weeks will be interesting.

Don

 

I seem to recall that during the recent LUL steam operations, a camera was provided at the front, connected to a screen in the cab of Met 1?

 

In theory yes, but depends what crews are steam competent and have route knowledge, good chance for many requirements they cant resource it with current staff.

Ironically DCR were the ones involved with the Stafford class 47 SPAD a while back, with a number of worrying issues.

 

Mr Knowwun--- Statto may correct me but I'm pretty sure passengers did drop after Hatfield; indeed I think 2000/1 is the only year in the last twenty rail passenger traffic has fallen. I well recall 1.5 hours to Peterborough and 4 hours to Leeds during the aftermath and that had a big effect on ECML traffic as you would expect. That was different of course in many ways. IMHO the specialist charter market will be back there as soon as there are accredited suppliers ready and able to supply and we just have to hope that is sooner rather than later.

 

Might have been misinformation regarding the locomotive, and I concur that an air hose can be seen on photos of the front and rear buffer beam- what about the support coach?

Anyway, this is a minor detail when the fact remains that owning groups will have to pick up the pieces if their locomotives are stranded far from their traditional bases, and it will potentially cost more money for the members involved.

 

I don't think they had much choice!

Could you imagine what would be going on right now if WCRC had been banned "on the quiet"?..............

Tour operators having to phone up/email customers telling them their train was cancelled. but sorry can't tell you why............ the interweb would be in melt down with all the possible reasons being bandied about - forums would be in lock down because the mods would never be able to keep up.............Never mind god knows how many phones ringing off the hook with people trying to get answers!

 

NR had to get their side of the story out there first, otherwise there might have been a repeat performance of last year's fire-risk pantomime. If they had kept quiet as they did regarding the circumstances surrounding last July, then the situation could have been open to manipulation- ie. descending into a 'David v Goliath' farce (the pun is purely coincidental in this regard). At least it is pretty clear from the word go where NR's concerns lie.

 

The railway press has been somewhat wary of criticising WCR in the past, unsurprising given their need for advertising revenue. I wonder if that will change from now on?
Dave

 

Some things surprise me about this action. In the industry where I have experience of producing formal documents (pharmaceutical manufacturing) it is customary for users of the service providers to audit them periodically. Thus I would have expected WCR to audit loco owners and I would expect companies hiring rolling stock to audit WCR. It's all part of the back-covering process. Most of all, though, I would have expected NR to have audited WCR the moment any concerns began to arise. I'd be even more surprised if this didn't happen a lot more in future, and it will be a major headache for WCR because they will have to be squeaky clean from now on. Having been barred once the precedent and mindsets have been set, and it will be a lot easier to do on subsequent occasions.

 

Given the reluctance of WCR to cooperate with NR over the East Coast fire ban do you think organisations with less clout would get a satisfactory response to requests for audit information from WCR. I have my doubts.

 

It's very simple, you don't do business with anyone that refuses to be audited, although if there is a virtual monopoly that does make life difficult. What it should mean is that the railtour operators can continue to hire stock from WCR because they have audited maintenance records and are satisfied with what they have seen. If they haven't they should be thinking about it as presumably they could be open to legal action for negligence if there was to be an accident as a result of maintenance deficiencies. And if the safety documentation at WCR is not up to scratch, why is there any reason to believe that maintenance records are any better?

 

The MoD used to have resident inspectors at suppliers' factories. But that mode of working was superseded donkeys' years ago by the MoD instead looking at the suppliers' quality management systems, and that in turn was superseded by independent third-party certification of those systems, which then became normal practice across many sectors of industry, service industries as well as manufacturing. However I acknowledge that companies may sometimes still need to conduct their own audits of subcontractors if those are not third-party certified or if the third-party certification doesn't cover the necessary scope.

Anyway it seems pretty clear that someone will be looking very closely at WCRC's systems.

 

There is a RAIB report on a freight train derailment caused by press on bearings comming loose on an axle. The axle manufacturer had certified the axles as compliant and consequently the wagon builder didnt check but relied on the paperwork. The RAIB checked a sample of axles and all were undersize with the likelyhood of loose bearings. Perhaps we should go back to the bad old days and have quality control on materials in.

 

Given the woes dodgy stays have caused in the recent past, I bloody hope so!

 

I guess it's a case of ensuring the correct standards are being applied and met in the first place.

Generic "quality standards" (similar to ISO 9001, which seems popular these days) don't actually guarantee what's being produced is any good in themselves - just that the quality remains consistent (possibly consistently bad!) and the processes/materials etc. are managed such that they can be traced and confirmed (but don't necessarily ensure the materials and processes are appropriate for what's required in the first place).

Relying on quality standards is only any good if you know actually what those standards are for, and then able to determine if they are appropriate for what you're trying to ensure.

 

Oh but how much more fun!!!

Don

 

"Fun" it might have been, but not if you were at the wrong end of it all..........

As for the timing of this, strange how a 4 day weekend will calm things down, no one available anywhere "for comment"...... Tuesday/Wednesday could be interesting!

 

I learned a long time ago that bits of paper mean nothing and quality assurance is a pipe dream. I can offer plenty examples to support this view and with some very reputable firms.

 

Oh how very true.