Thankyou for pointing that out, saved me a job! Preserved railways run trains. Mainline railways run trains. The law of probability would suggest that where any train is concerned, there is a chance of it derailing... Must make all Network Rail/TOCs employees cowboys aswell given that there are also incidents on the mainline....
I don't particularly want the figures. If we're going to make meaningful comparisions between the mainline and heritage railways though, as you seem to want to do, we're going to need them. I'm quite prepared for the fact that there might be more incidents per passenger-mile (or however they're measured) on heritage railways - there's no point pretending that there aren't more potential risks given the nature of the operation.
Utter rubbish, I'm afraid. A volunteer Fireman, to take perhaps a more obvious example, works far harder than any mainline Driver that I've seen in the last few years. There are plenty of tasks that have to be done whether you want to or not too.
No dispute so far (though I'd question the need to make an emergency broadcast and stop the job if you've dropped one axle off in a group of sidings well away from any running lines)...
...but, once you've stopped the job and made everything safe, it's time for a sensible and proportionate reflection on what's happened. The term "serious BIG incident" isn't defined anywhere that I've seen, but it conjures up images of dozens of fire engines racing to the scene, with air ambulances landing alongside and all sorts of other emergency vehicles arriving too. Derailing a loco clear of a running line, whether one axle or the whole lot, needs to be treated seriously and investigated thoroughly to ensure that any lessons can be learnt - no arguments there - but in the grand scheme of things, it's no more than a relatively minor oopsie. For what it's worth, I'd say exactly the same if a loco ran through the traps at the end of my Down Goods line at work this afternoon.
There's no suggestion that anything coming off a set of traps, or indeed any other sort of derailment, wouldn't be investigated thoroughly and properly. I've never heard such an incident - on the big railway or otherwise - described as a "serious incident" though, never mind a "serious BIG incident".
Quite apart from the risk of finishing up gripping the brass rail, the opportunities to be killed or seriously injured yourself, or do the same to someone else, are still plentiful if you don't carry out your duties properly. I've no doubt also that any substantial error on my part on a heritage railway would quickly find its way to my workplace and have at least some sort of effect there too.
Ah, I'm sure you've asked them all. I feel that the consensus from railway staff in general who are not in the heritage scene look on us as well-organised and safely-run outfits. Would you disagree with that?
) going down the pan if you get it wrong.
I take the point about it being a hobby not a job - but, on the other hand, everyone's there because they want to be there, which I think makes a big difference. Preserving one's own pride is a big thing when it comes to a hobby like this, and there's nothing to motivate you to do a job properly like the thought of many years' hard work (there, said it again
What's a heritage railway if it's not real? It's also worth pointing out that most heritage railways have a fairly substantial base of (paid) full-time staff.
That's where I think we're getting tangled up. I accept that a similar incident, or another incident with a similar root cause, could be much more serious in terms of injury and damage, which is why it's important to investigate it properly, find out what went wrong and do something if necessary to address any shortcomings - and I'd never suggest doing otherwise, and least of all sweeping it under the carpet entirely. My point - which I'd still be making if it involved the trap points outside the window at work! - is that the derailment itself was a relatively minor incident - the potential consequences are a different matter altogether, as addressed above.
I take the point about it being a hobby not a job - but, on the other hand, everyone's there because they want to be there, which I think makes a big difference. Preserving one's own pride is a big thing when it comes to a hobby like this, and there's nothing to motivate you to do a job properly like the thought of many years' hard work (there, said it again
If the reverser hadn't slipped, there wouldn't have been an incident at all! You're right generally though - everything needs to be properly recorded and investigated, and I've never tried to say otherwise. That doesn't make the initial incident itself any more serious though.
That's a fair comment. It's worth remembering that there are bad eggs wherever you go though - personally, I think I've seen more of it on the big railway, where familiarity can sometimes breed contempt, than on heritage railways where many staff are a little less confident and, potentially, complacent.
Not at all - it's all about how you approach it
. It's perfectly natural and expected to defend oneself against unsubtantiated claims and criticism, of course!I don't want to get too deep into the NYMR incident, as the detailed working of locos is beyond my knowledge and it's obviously still a sensitive subject for many people. What I meant, though, is that, if the reverser hadn't slipped, no-one would have been any the wiser so there'd not have been an investigation. If anyone had become aware that it hadn't been locked into place (and I apologise now if I'm wrong and that it was a mechanical fault of some sort!) - an Inspector observing, for example - then I'd suggest that'd be handled as a disciplinary or competence matter rather than an 'incident' investigation. Would a TOC carry out a full investigation if (to pick a similar example) a Driver failed to set the DRA when required to?