WCRC Licence Suspended

If its about WCRC yes. If the informed discussion is about "how the system works" then it not froth arguably.
How can the process, for example, permit systemic failings to go undetected such that it takes major events to trigger probing before they are uncovered?
The broader outlook is that greater scrutiny will become the norm one suspects so in that sense the bar is likely to be raised.
The present system relies to some extent on the commercial professionalism of the companies involved. A business like WCRC doesn't fit with orthodox market conventions so perhaps the system needs to be more flexible to cater specifically for niche operators?

 

Yes, quite. As soon as you play that game, you risk starting a chain of events, that in the event of an accident, and the inevitable blame game could be traced back to those "different rules" having applied. Also, we're yet to be shown any evidence that in the case of WCR it was anything to do with their "uniqueness" or otherwise that contributed to them failing to do what they should have been doing.

 

I was with you 100% until your last sentence. You seemed to be making a very good case for greater scrutiny and rigour to prevent the systemic failings that appear to have occured, before suggesting the likes of WCR should in some way enjoy more flexibility. Wouldn't that then remove the very effect that a process with greater scrutiny would be designed to achieve ?

 

Certainly not but in terms of how approval is granted and the ongoing surveillance. The mainstream businesses are sufficiently large and part of larger corporations. Documented systems and procedures with regularised internal evaluation and published corporate reports are the norm. The TOC system relies upon this
Might it be possible for niche players to submit to greater external validation as an alternative model if they don't possess the scale to warrant the large corporate diligence functions that the big boys have?
This is what I mean by flexibility in order to establish assurance through earned recognition rather than the self declaration which seems to have been a source of weakness in this case. An incremental risk based regulatory process in other words.

 

But if WCRC is to be allowed to continue with Vacumn-Brake stock in a MDTR that expects all trains to have Air-Brakes the NR has to provide some leeway within its rules to allow that to an "Open Access Operator" else the "restriction" to Air-Braked vehicles only could be seen as a bar to Open Access.

There has to be a bit of "give-and-take" in this situation and I presume that confidential negotiations are taking place to tease the current procedures to allow this. Whilst possibly a daft question in the current scenario I wonder if the operation of a modern steam locomotive can be achieved safely without the presence of TPWS / AWS but with some other fittings specifically designed for steam locomotive operation on the main line. There seems to be successful steam operation abroad so what changes were required to locomotives / procedures to allow this - accepting that trains had air-brakes and no change was required to handle the "braking" aspect of such operations.

Given the high costs being incurred at the present time I wonder if there is cheaper - but equally safe - system that could be developed within the UK and would it be cheaper than the present "antagonistic" approach that appears to be being adopted on both sides ?

 

If you're saying what I think you're saying I don't agree, different rules for different people is a non starter, it won't/can't work.
Fred talks of braking systems, if eventually the authorities say "Air Brakes only" then ALL operators will have to equip their fleets to enable them to continue to operate.
Many folk have spent money (lots of it) fitting dual systems.

 

You raise some interesting questions, but as with most of the other interesting questions that emerged on this thread, we don't have the answers so the frustration goes on.

I take your point re operation of vacuum braked stock, and how there's already been some teasing in the system to allow for that, but as I understand it, this situation has arisen due to WCR being found lacking within whatever framework had been agreed with NR already. It seems to me therefore we are talking about a system that tests compliance more effectively so we don't arrive at that situation again. It will be agreed in advance that certain red lines cannot be crossed, and WCR, or indeed any other similar Operator would have to prove compliance on a regular basis. It does seem that if they are to be allowed back, they will need to be "baby sat" until they can be trusted again. Whose role would that be though ?

 

That was my first instinct on reading that to be honest, but after reading Fred's post I can see how some rules have already been adapted, or "teased". When it comes to ANYTHING that could lead to "essential eyes being taken off essential balls" however, that is definitely a non-starter.

 

Perhaps you could point me to where the "MDTR" "expects" all trains to be air braked? The Group Standard (a document from which a well argued case for exemption could be made if necessary) doesn't state this is the case - it actually lists vacuum brakes in an appendix describing for information purposes the principle on which various braking systems work. New vehicles with Vacuum brake would require an exemption from the Standard. I understand (Steve of this parish is the expert on this) that the legal requirements are not even as prescriptive as a continuous braking system as long as a train has a means of bringing itself safely to a stand. The reality is that most operators choose not to maintain certified competence for their staff on vacuum brakes, not that there is any ban. This is just the same as they choose not to have staff certified as competent to operate steam.

And for crying out load - "Open Access" does not mean anybody can run anything anywhere in any manner it sees fit! "Open Access" means that any operator can access the network as long as they satisfy both the infrastructure controller and safety regulators that they have and comply with suitable systems and procedures in place to enable them to do so in a safe manner using the equipment they have stated they will be using.

As far as I am aware, all Western European and probably all former Eastern European nations have their own equivalent of AWS. The "trick" of TPWS is that it works off AWS, thus making the equipment actually easier to fit to steam locos (which have carried AWS in service) than a brand new train protection system. Most European countries also have programmes similar to TPWS but not all have them fitted to all lines yet - which is why there have been head-on crashes, side swipes etc. (not obviously involving steam, although a steam loco crew witnessed a side-swipe in the Netherlands which TPWS may well have prevented in the UK) in recent years on lines not so equipped.

TPWS offers the cost advantages of a mass demand and has been successfully adapted for use on steam, so why change it? An alternative system would cost so much to develop that even if the bits to fit it were much cheaper, the overall system cost would surely struggle to be. And, of course, this assumes that an alternative system would be seen by ORR as sufficient to qualify as meeting the legal requirement for a train protection system.

I am not really clear as to what your final comment means - as far as I can see, the only occasions when the present system is "antagonistic" is if somebody chooses to make it such. Like all systems, procedures and rules are laid down and certainly in respect of Group Standards (which cover such things as OTMR amongst many, many other areas), well argued cases for exemption can be made and accepted - a steam loco needs about 80 exemptions from group Standards to run on the network - the fact these are routinely granted suggests that it isn't a case of "everybody has it in for steam" except in the minds of a few people who perhaps don't really grasp the systems they take issue with.

Steven

 

What seems to be conspicuously absent from the Nat Pres Collective is a cogent and defensible argument OPPOSING the revocation of WCR’s licence by ORR. If someone had been able put one forward, David Smith might have snatched your hand off. As it is, ORR have been left with a clear home run at it. Nat Pres is not alone in this, the railway Great and Good also seem to have decided WCR is to be allowed to dangle on the end of the rope. The cavalry are not coming over the hill to Carnforth any time soon.

I suggest that revoking the licence is the best solution for everyone, and the only one fully compliant with the over-arching risk-management principle of ALARP. In its favour; such an outcome allows ORR to be seen to have done some actual regulating, and more importantly, allows WCR to apply for a new licence, this time to 2015 standards, not those in force during Railtrack’s rather, ahem, buccaneering safety regime back in 1994 when WCR was born.

It would be a mercy killing by ORR and in the medium to long term, a constructive act of kindness. "Old" WCR faces years of prosecution, civil action and a burned public and industry reputation. A “Phoenix” WCR will emerge, probably with new management and a clean sheet, perhaps as early as 2016. They would have time to do properly what they are now trying to do on the fly – so far with no success at all. Making a 21st century Silk Purse out of a 1990s Pig’s Ear was never going to be easy. The work they are doing now will stand them in good stead for a new application, particularly if their current Chairman does the honourable thing and falls on his sword.
This time, NR chose their terms of engagement very carefully, cleverly starting a fight they don’t have to finish. ORR can do it for them. Main Line Steam will return fitter, properly compliant, and better equipped to overcome the appalling harm done in the market by the GB8 fiasco et al. The wheat will be sorted from the chaff, even if the methodology seems a bit Stalin-esque Show Trial at the moment.

In the interregnum, heritage railways will have a lot of big and slightly desperate hire engines to choose from. Some of the 2015 Autumn Steam Galas will be truly epic.

 

Excellent post, puts to bed a number of areas of doubt, (in my mind) arising from Fred's post.

One point regarding the TPWS / AWS system fitted to mainline steam locomotives though. We know the system on Tangmere was overridden. Should it be possible to override the system like that ? I can understand there may be circumstances where it has to be overridden, but surely the process of doing so shouldn't be so straightforward ?

 

That's probably the most optimistic scenario in the event of revocation of WCR's license by ORR I have read so far. I don't think many have really thought about that issue in any depth yet as they are still hoping for some miracle resulting in WCR returning to operations.

You've persuaded me as it happens that a lethal injection in the arm of WCR from the hands of the ORR would probably be the best thing for everyone. I'm not entirely convinced of the "Phoenix WCR" would emerge as quickly as 2016, but I do believe it would emerge, and when it did it would be a much fitter and more respected beast.

The other worry I have is whether some in the industry may see this as a good time to kill off mainline steam altogether, though it does seem like this isn't possible legally, certainly not easily, so hopefully not.

 

I would suggest the best action is for WCRC to be made compliant and keep the license.

If you like seeing big game cats on a leash in a small compound then you go to the zoo, yes. One has to ask tho, many of them wont be able to be moved around, limited options for LE moves remember.

 

"Flexibility" need not mean "laxity". I'm sure that Bean Counter will put me right, but I would imagine that an organisation like the NYMR only has to demonstrate that its personnel and systems are competent for safe working from Battersby to Whitby. That must require a much simpler structure than for WCRC who wish to roam the entire system.

 

I'm tempted to move "license" to the Smart phones thread!

 

I don't see why the status of WCR's licence affects their criminal or civil liability for anything that has happened in the past, which in any case must be deep in the realms of speculation.

What we have out there from NR is a statement saying that some of the seven points in the letter have been addressed. Indeed as I recall those points there are some which could be addressed by saying 'OK we have revised our SMS to say X and we will ensure it is implemented systematically.......' There are others, in particular point 7, which are about safety culture where a month is not going to be enough to demonstrate that. But even there, some 'What we are in the process of doing.....' statements would be evidence of intent. Appendix 8 of the RAIB Stafford report could be a useful template.

Suppose NR were satisfied that WCR had responded appropriately to its letter. Suppose the consultation does not generate any other points beyond the issues which concerned NR. Would revocation still be an appropriate regulatory response? It would certainly be a big call.

 

There are circumstances when the TPWS needs to be overridden and (AFAIK) all locomotives have this facility, not just steam locos and it is pretty straightforward. It relies on the drivers integrity and the watchful OTMR to ensure that it only happens when necessary.

 

I think it's time this idea was put to bed - if there was any desire in Network Rail to 'kill off' mainline steam they'd have capitalised on the failures exposed by last years steam ban but if anything they did the opposite, failing to extend or widen the ban and perhaps allowing WCRC to underestimate their importance as a result.

No doubt there are concerns within Network Rail and TOCs over the way mainline steam is operated, but who could blame them after recent events? These concerns won't be addressed by enthusiasts or WCRC making accusations of conspiracy and victimisation against steam, or making attacks on individuals, but by having a professional 21st century attitude to operating on the national network.

 

As friend Bean Counter has said, the legal requirements for brakes are not a lot less prescriptive than they once were. They are contained in the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997 and consist on just one sentence: "The operator of a vehicle shall ensure that a suitable and sufficient braking system is provided and maintained for that vehicle and, where the vehicle is part of a train of vehicles, for that train of vehicles."