WCRC Licence Suspended

To be clear, I did mean the WCRC leopard, not RTC.

 

Thought it was the playwright Richard Sheridan who originally said this- he was an MP from 1780 to 1812. Churchill can't be credited for every witticism to emerge from the political sphere (although he gave it a damn good try!).

 

So what would have happened if it was a FGW train? Would FGW have had their licence suspended? Are charter operators being treated harshly?

 

The majority view on here is that the action was not the consequence of a single event, though WB was the trigger.

 

Which is the correct answer, a section of rope was handed out, and through probable errors and misjudgements it ran out, hence NR and ORR involvement.

The warning signs were for all to see in mid 2014, when a summer ban came, due to another lineside fire, which was avoidable.

Don't think there is an easy answer to this, ideally a new TOC evolves, however, who wants to do that in a difficult market place, with all of the uncertainty that has been created.

 

I don't understand how anyone can say that - are you seriously trying to suggest that Network Rail deliberately tried to undermine mainline steam and/or WCRC by not taking a sufficiently robust approach to resolving their safety concerns? That's absolutely insane.

 

If it had been a FGW train the investigation by Network Rail would have followed a similar path to the one that took place. If the investigation had revealed similar issues with FGW then there would have been consequences. What those would have been depends what was found. It is interesting to compare and contrast the DCR SPAD and the WCR one.

 

I think he's right.
Some people in NR would ban all trains if they had their way.
WCRs have been told off for not doing all of their homework, so have been suspended from school.......

 

Failing to do your homework doesn't put livelihoods at risk, doesn't put the future of mainline steam at risk and most importantly doesn't put peoples lives at risk.

 

They are with WCRC because no-one else has been able to come up with the goods. Don't forget it wasn't that long ago that we were discussing if Steam Dreams could survive because DBS were constantly dropping them in the mire.

 

In other words, the current number of railtours per year are/were unsustainable. At the same time, the number of repeat itinerary tours cancelled was quite an annoyance, and in the light of recent events, one wonders whether it was genuinely a case of lack of bookings or actually a lack of resources to run them. I've always thought the concept of 'less is more' will get you through in the end. Anyway, if NR have an anti-steam streak (which I wouldn't blame them for these days), why haven't DBS been thrown off the lines in this regard?

Bias against steam is an argument that doesn't really stack up, as the current situation is purely a case of network and ORR vs TOC, with steam being collateral damage because of the way the market has developed over the last five or six years. Its the latter fact that is the real tragedy in this, as there were pretty much no alternatives, and might well say more about the market as a whole than anything else- it simply isn't worth anyone's while unless they are not in the business of making serious money.

 

Lineside rumour is that the file on the DCR SPAD has not been closed so one can't compare DCR and WCR - yet !

 

The key fact is that one was suspended once the investigation began, the other was not.

 

Without any knowledge of whether it has been closed or not, we all know what lineside rumour is like...

 

What a rubbish post. "Homework" is documentation and procedures by any other name.

 

I'm sorry, but this post is totally missing the point and is ill informed. I think the vast majority of people feel that Network Rail have acted completely appropriately and their actions reflect the very serious nature of this incident (& others). Network Rail are ultimately responsible for the safety of passengers on their network, if they don't feel an operator is able to operate in a safe manner they have every right to ban them until they get their house in order. West Coast have been given chances, haven't co-operated and are now suffering the consequences - I have no sympathy. The fact this operator happens to run steam locomotives is irrelevant, I don't see Network Rail looking to ban DBS..

I do feel sorry for the tour operators caught up in this and I do feel for those who are completely reliant on West Coast for their income, but if we want to keep steam on the mainline we need to play by the rules and act responsibly. 1968 is a very long time ago now, but I fear some in West Coast are thinking like it is yesterday and there is a culture within that thinks that they know best.

 

Sorry, but I think it is you effectively dismissing correctly documented procedures as "homework" (and hence by implication not a core part of "school work" but an add-on, albeit a very important one) who shows a total of lack of appreciation of the modern world.

In many, many lines of business, not just those where mistakes could cost lives, the doctrine is very simple:

• You document how you are going to approach your task
• You document that those approaching the task have the necessary knowledge and experience and understand what is expected of them
• You document that the combination of clear procedures and staff that understand them means those procedures have been followed in undertaking the task
• You periodically check and document those checks that procedures are being followed and staff retain their competencies to do them
• You retain all you systems and compliance documentation in an orderly manner so you can prove you have done what you said you would do using competent staff in the way you said you would do it
• When something goes wrong, you make available your records, you co-operate with whoever is needing to see them and work with them to learn any lessons which need learning and implement any changes to your procedures and the documentation of them that may be necessary and provide such proof of these changes as is required

This is absolutely core to numerous professions and how they HAVE to work. It is not an important bolt-on but an essential part (pre-requisite even) to working in those areas. The Rail industry is at its core the movement of large numbers of people and amounts of goods at potentially very high speeds, and these are processes that need to be carefully and fully controlled.

The past is a "different country" and we must accept "they did things differently there". We all aim to recreate or evoke it in the railway heritage movement but if we ever forget that we do so in the modern world and believe that we can do everything "just the way we used to", we are in real danger of destroying what we seek to conserve.

Steven

 

Don't think I am missing the point at all, I became party to a set of conversations that took place after the Olton Hall incident.

Suffice to say, and I said it at the time, IF what is being asked for verbally, that is then provided, is then requested in another format by email, after submission, makes the submitter of information look to be in the wrong.

That is probably why the withdrawal of co-operation came into focus, the constant mi-interpretation of requested paperwork, and being effectively messed around, time wasted, you all know the drill.

A very clever political game was played at that time, and whilst I agree the recent incident is the final straw towards a possible ban, the efforts by certain high level "professionals" to make life difficult are now in focus.

Safety is paramount, if NR had any concerns, why did they not ask to see the paperwork BEFORE the season started, and not after an incident.

That is where the focus should be, its typical to do something after the event, in that respect NR have failed.

 

Sorry, but if you let yourself get into a position where you react to verbal requests and then find a different written request, it rather underlines the issue is an "old fashioned attitude" - discuss what is needed by all means, but always have a written record of what is agreed needs doing and what is actually needed, then ensure that you supply a written reply but nevertheless discuss in minutes meetings what you are presenting.

Being able to claim one thing was being said and another was being requested in writing may be convenient but the simple fact is, without a written record, nobody can prove the contents of a conversation or 'phone call.

The Adjudicator's report was quite clear - if Network Rail could be criticised it was for being too lenient over the fire-risk issue (which was not directly centred on "causing fires" but how that came about and the reaction to it).

I seem to recall the suspension notice mentioned WCRC had unilaterally withdrawn form dealing with issues raised by Network Rail in an audit in January 2015. The national network doesn't work to seasons, but surely that implies concerns had been raised but not addressed?

Steven