West Coast Railways Suspended (now reinstated)

[jimm]

utter rubbish and no doubt libelous. lawyers would have a field day with you.

Rubbish perhaps, but not libellous, as Network Rail is an arm of the Government, so cannot sue for defamation.

 

[LAX54]

Surprised to hear this story on the Radio 2 news. They said that 'West Coast Railways' have been suspended over safety breaches. I wonder how many people will think it's Virgin Trains that have been suspended, particularly as many services this weekend are suspended!

A bit of an own goal here. Surely NR press office should be making clear that West Coast Railways is a charter operator etc.

I wonder what'll appear in the Daily Mail.

Pretty sure it's already been inn the Mail, and no, no mention of Virgin, pretty sure also that many of the travelling public know who Virgin are, and will not confuse them with WCR. Mr Branson is a well known and publicised barnd name.

 

[Tracky]

Sounds like desperate spin.

They don't seem to realise that the industry safety culture is built on holding hands up and admitting to mistakes. When any individual, department or company tries to cover things up, they tend to come off worse for it.

 

[cf111]

They don't seem to realise that the industry safety culture is built on holding hands up and admitting to mistakes. When any individual, department or company tries to cover things up, they tend to come off worse for it.

It looks to me that this is Network Rail's main concern - the driver passing the signal at danger and his apparent decision to isolate two safety systems are, of course, very serious incidents and should be treated as such. However I think I am correct in assuming that the reaction of WCR to what has happened is more the issue than the incident itself.

Have Network Rail (or any other regulatory body) taken this decision before against any other TOC? I ask purely out of curiosity.

 

[AlterEgo]

Surprised to hear this story on the Radio 2 news. They said that 'West Coast Railways' have been suspended over safety breaches. I wonder how many people will think it's Virgin Trains that have been suspended.

Ordinary people have no idea that Virgin Trains' operating name is West Coast Trains, so I seriously doubt there would be confusion.

 

[Argosy]

This is nothing to do with getting steam trains off the Network, it is about running a safe railway and a TOC which is not up to scratch, and - as per the letter from NR - the response by WCRC senior management to an incident. There are three other TOC's which run steam on the network who are unaffected by this.

Who are the three other TOC's? I only know of one other operator, DBS, who are the other two? I thought DRS was going to apply for a licence but then didn't. Don't know who the third would be unless you mean NYMR.

Incidentally so far as I am aware no TOC's have steam licences. WCR is not a TOC but a TO. I only found this out reading the lengthy dispute hearing report into the 2014 'coal dropped from the locomotive incident' near Bell Busk. It was the Hearing Chair Clive Fletcher-Wood who enlightened me into the difference between a TOC and TO. A TOC by the way is a franchised or open access (and thus passenger) train operator so it seems (source Access Dispute Adjudication ADA20 section 3.1.)

 

[bramling]

Nail on head here.

If their employer's s management and processes are up to scratch, individuals behaving in a risky way will probably be identified before a serious incident occurs and offered support to work in a better way, or if necessary removed from duties they may be unsuitable for. If a serious incident does occur the employer needs to co-operate with inquries and implement corrective actions. These procedures are collectively part of the Safety Management System that the operator needs to have in order to be allowed to run.

This isn't about one individual or even several, it's about the company as a whole either not having a suitable SMS or not doing what the SMS says it will do.

I agree with this, at the end of the day *all* companies need to have processes in place to ensure the risk of these incidents is as low as possible.

From an enthusiast point of view, it is both disappointing and concerning that this incident has occurred, especially not too long after the Stafford SPAD fiasco. Hopefully lessons will be learned.

However it is worth putting some perspective on the matter, even with today's safety culture, TOCs are not immune to these incidents either. The Hitchin SPAD springs to mind, also the Chiltern Railways Greenford incident. I can also think of a good few that I've dealt with in my time that haven't become public knowledge where an incident (thankfully not with serious consequences) has occurred and correct procedures have not been followed for one reason or another.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I do wonder what's going on behind the scenes to cause this. I wonder what the specific issues with WCR are, given there have been plenty of recent incidents not resulting in TOCs losing licences. There must be something dubious at WCR.

We know Network Rail don't really want steam on the main line anymore, and WCR sued them not so long ago, so I understand why WCR are saying this is a convenient smokescreen. I don't think it is, but can see why the cynical would wonder.

 

[RPTC]

To better understand the situation I'd suggest reading this arbitrators decision regarding an earlier incident involving WCR. This occured in 2014 and the report came out in October. Note the comments about WCR's safety performance, especially their actions in section 5.7, as well as the decision.

http://www.accessdisputesrail.org/N...tions/ADA20 Documents/ADA20 determination.pdf

Then bear in mind that NR report WCR stopped engaging in safety matters in January this year, and have now had a SPAD that could have had a HST at speed hitting the WCR train.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dangerous-occurrence-at-wootton-bassett-junction-wiltshire

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/resources/wcr-suspension-notice

This suspension has little or nothing to do with steam traction per se, and all to do with complying with fundamental rail safety protocols.

This is a quite disturbing quote from the NR letter:

"Network Rail also has serious concerns about the fact that WCR unilaterally suspended the response to Network Rail’s review of WCR’s Safety Management System undertaken in January 2015. The review raised some serious and significant issues and there was no communication with Network Rail to explain that the response was being suspended" And 2 months later they have a very serious near miss.

 

[Tracky]

Very informative post that.

Also as far as previous incidents go it is worth noting the SPAD on 30/11/13 which became a farce...

 

[mtbox]

It looks to me that this is Network Rail's main concern - the driver passing the signal at danger and his apparent decision to isolate two safety systems are, of course, very serious incidents and should be treated as such. However I think I am correct in assuming that the reaction of WCR to what has happened is more the issue than the incident itself.

Have Network Rail (or any other regulatory body) taken this decision before against any other TOC? I ask purely out of curiosity.

The driver did NOT isolate any safety systems.
If people read the RAIB preliminary report properly, they would understand this.
Something happened, obviously.
Everybody needs to calm down and let the RAIB do their job and wait for the report to come out before hanging anybody out to dry.

 

[Llanigraham]

I do wonder what's going on behind the scenes to cause this. I wonder what the specific issues with WCR are, given there have been plenty of recent incidents not resulting in TOCs losing licences. There must be something dubious at WCR.

We know Network Rail don't really want steam on the main line anymore, and WCR sued them not so long ago, so I understand why WCR are saying this is a convenient smokescreen. I don't think it is, but can see why the cynical would wonder.

Complete and utter rubbish!
Read the end of previous page to this.

 

[30907]

We know Network Rail don't really want steam on the main line anymore, and WCR sued them not so long ago, so I understand why WCR are saying this is a convenient smokescreen.

WCR don't seem to be saying this at the moment, to be fair, even if they may have done in the past.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

One must also wonder how much financial reserve WCRC has to weather the period of non earning.

This will give you an idea:

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/03066109/WEST-COAST-RAILWAY-COMPANY-LTD/financial-accounts

The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 31/03/2014 reported 'cash at bank' of £663,171, 'liabilities' worth £2,581,737, 'net worth' of £1,492,868 and 'assets' worth £3,173,029.

Aside from that quote, there are more details with graphs etc on the site.

 

[Glenmutchkin]

Some muppet on BBC Radio 4's Six O'Clock News reported this story and talked about the 'Jacobean' steam train from Fort William to Mallaig. Why do we pay these people?

 

[Clarence Yard]

The RAIB report is very carefully worded, in case of following (publication) legal action against an individual or individuals. But it implies that an on board safety system was indeed isolated.

Just what that was can easily be worked out by looking at remedy 2 in the NR letter.

The important thing is that West Coast get down to sorting their SMS out and get some serious help in with that process of reassuring NR. Then they will have a very good chance of being back on the rails fairly soon.

 

[Chris125]

We know Network Rail don't really want steam on the main line anymore, and WCR sued them not so long ago, so I understand why WCR are saying this is a convenient smokescreen. I don't think it is, but can see why the cynical would wonder.

When have Network Rail ever suggested that they don't want steam on the mainline? If anything was a convenient smokescreen it was WCRC's attempt to suggest an anti-steam agenda behind the LNE ban, but that was rightfully given short shrift in the independent adjudication linked to above.

Chris

 

[Dasher]

It's well known that where there's a will there's a way, if the ultimate aim of any participants in a dispute is the same, a successful conclusion can usually be reached, a problem arises when one party does not have the same aim in mind and uses the dispute for their own long term agenda.

 

[scotsman]

Some muppet on BBC Radio 4's Six O'Clock News reported this story and talked about the 'Jacobean' steam train from Fort William to Mallaig. Why do we pay these people?

You're being a bit petty. It's a minor mistake in the grand scheme of things.

 

[ainsworth74]

This isn't about Network Rails apparent dislike of steam or them attempting to secure a permanent ban of all steam operations on the mainline network (though I'm not sure there's much in the way of evidence to support that theory). This is about the fact that Network Rail have lost confidence in WCRC's ability to effectively manage safety. The SPAD could have occurred with a WCRC 47 on the front and I'm confident the same suspension would have resulted.

So could we perhaps stop being sidelined into conspiracy theory land of this being big bad Network Rail trying to, by slight of hand, get steam banned?

 

[cf111]

The driver did NOT isolate any safety systems.
If people read the RAIB preliminary report properly, they would understand this.
Something happened, obviously.
Everybody needs to calm down and let the RAIB do their job and wait for the report to come out before hanging anybody out to dry.

"The RAIB has found evidence that the driver of 1Z67 did not bring the train to a stand and contact the signaller after experiencing this brake application. Evidence shows that the driver and fireman instead took an action which cancelled the effect of the AWS braking demand after a short period and a reduction in train speed of only around 8 mph. The action taken also had the effect of making subsequent AWS or TPWS brake demands ineffective."

"Shortly after passing the AWS magnet for the TSR, the train passed signal SN43, which was at caution. Although the AWS warning associated with this signal was acknowledged by the driver, the speed of the train was not then reduced appropriately on the approach to the next signal, SN45, which was at danger. Because of the earlier actions of the driver and fireman, the TPWS equipment associated with signal SN45 was unable to control the speed of the train on approach to this signal."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dangerous-occurrence-at-wootton-bassett-junction-wiltshire

I am not hanging anyone out to dry, but perhaps "isolated" was the wrong word to use. The information above shows that there is evidence that the people in the locomotive took action(s) which stopped the safety systems from working as they should do.

Why they did this is something the RAIB will have to find out, but the published facts as they currently stand are easy to understand. I am just thankful that this incident did not result in an accident.

 

[Glenmutchkin]

You're being a bit petty. It's a minor mistake in the grand scheme of things.

Oh no it isn't.

Jacobean is architecture.

Jacobite is politics.

The guy who was reporting sounded remarkably like a Scot to me. Should have got it right.

 

[RPTC]

This isn't about Network Rails apparent dislike of steam or them attempting to secure a permanent ban of all steam operations on the mainline network (though I'm not sure there's much in the way of evidence to support that theory). This is about the fact that Network Rail have lost confidence in WCRC's ability to effectively manage safety. The SPAD could have occurred with a WCRC 47 on the front and I'm confident the same suspension would have resulted.

So could we perhaps stop being sidelined into conspiracy theory land of this being big bad Network Rail trying to, by slight of hand, get steam banned?

The irony is that if people had spent less time on the conspiracy theories and more time complying with basic safety practices there wouldn't be a threat to steam. And how arrogant is it to not cooperate with NR on safety? What planet are some of these people on? How can it be good for a business to start a protracted fight with the network operator, and despite being given at least one very clear arbitration decision that states processes are inadequate, they carry on? I cannot fathom what anyone involved was thinking.

It would not surprise me if the safety or risk management department at NR is crunching the numbers over other operators' safety performance to make sure there aren't any other potential disasters in the making. I suspect life will be a lot tougher for the other operators. This situation was completely avoidable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh no it isn't.

Jacobean is architecture.

Jacobite is politics.

The guy who was reporting sounded remarkably like a Scot to me. Should have got it right.

Wasn't that well known Scot Mel Gibson was it?

 

[Glenmutchkin]

Wasn't that well known Scot Mel Gibson was it?

Sounded a bit more authentic to me.

 

[Saltleyman]

Let's face it there are only three words to sum this up :-

John Major - PRIVATISATION !!!

Need I say more ?

 

[theblackwatch]

Who are the three other TOC's? I only know of one other operator, DBS, who are the other two? I thought DRS was going to apply for a licence but then didn't. Don't know who the third would be unless you mean NYMR.
.)

Yes the NYMR is one, the other is DCR who are able to operate steam, although not on passenger trains as they don't currently have a license to operate passenger services.

 

[ac6000cw]

The irony is that if people had spent less time on the conspiracy theories and more time complying with basic safety practices there wouldn't be a threat to steam. And how arrogant is it to not cooperate with NR on safety? What planet are some of these people on? How can it be good for a business to start a protracted fight with the network operator, and despite being given at least one very clear arbitration decision that states processes are inadequate, they carry on? I cannot fathom what anyone involved was thinking.

It would not surprise me if the safety or risk management department at NR is crunching the numbers over other operators' safety performance to make sure there aren't any other potential disasters in the making. I suspect life will be a lot tougher for the other operators. This situation was completely avoidable.

I agree - especially the 'completely avoidable' part.

And some people are talking about this as a 'loss of licence' - this is currently a temporary suspension of the right to operate on the network, while investigations are carried out into safety related issues. If WCR have any sense at all, they should be moving heaven and earth to get their safety management systems sorted out as quickly as possible.

 

[Tracky]

If WCR have any sense at all, they should be moving heaven and earth to get their safety management systems sorted out as quickly as possible.

I look forward to May 15th with interest...

 

[ainsworth74]

If WCR have any sense at all, they should be moving heaven and earth to get their safety management systems sorted out as quickly as possible.

Hopefully but I'm not totally sure that will be the outcome. Going back to the Access Dispute Adjudication from last year some of the correspondence by WCRC to NR LNE is stunning in its arrogance. Especially when contrasted with NR LNE's cool and calm professionalism in all of their correspondence and their Statement of Defence.

That being said money is often a great motivator and WCRC are, at the end of the day, a business. You would therefore expect that they will do whatever they can to get the money flowing back in again. As someone else said May 15 should be interesting...

 

[mcmad]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dangerous-occurrence-at-wootton-bassett-junction-wiltshire

I am not hanging anyone out to dry, but perhaps "isolated" was the wrong word to use. The information above shows that there is evidence that the people in the locomotive took action(s) which stopped the safety systems from working as they should do.

Why they did this is something the RAIB will have to find out, but the published facts as they currently stand are easy to understand. I am just thankful that this incident did not result in an accident.

I suspect that the below in the Network Rail letter probably covers what was used to avoid the AWS brake application:-

"2. Demonstrate there is in place an effective and secure system of tamper-evident seals for train
protection isolator cocks on all relevant traction"