WCRC banned from running trains on the mainline from 18th Feb 2016 now rescinded

[DarloRich]

Another stop short and release at Bath Spa with a 1Z. Train then moved with all doors open and passengers boarding and alighting to the correct point.

i guess he test will be how they respond and how the reporting and rectification of this issue are handled . A test for any new people and procedures!

 

[IrishDave]

Another stop short and release at Bath Spa with a 1Z. Train then moved with all doors open and passengers boarding and alighting to the correct point.

Serious question: once the train had come to a stand short of the correct stopping position (for whatever reason) and the doors had been opened, what is the correct procedure according to the rule book? Should the train have essentially been dispatched by the guard/platform staff in order for it to draw forward safely?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Hang on... A metal object hitting the con rail and shorting it is very serious indeed.

It could have caused the traction current to trip.

It could've resulted in the chain being welded to the con rail and being torn from the loco in question. That could cause either shoes to be ripped off units or worse.

That in itself was a dangerous incident.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If it was something hitting the con rail, would it not have been a white flash?

NR tell me that no incident in the area has been reported to them but they are still investigating.

Yes - I'd have expected a blue / white flash like from a normal arcing which is why at first I asked if someone might have thought it funny to lay a detonator for it. This was, however, a huge flash about three or four times more intense than any arcing I have ever seen - and I'm used to the huge flashes from units arcing over the pointwork at either end of the station.

 

[BestWestern]

Serious question: once the train had come to a stand short of the correct stopping position (for whatever reason) and the doors had been opened, what is the correct procedure according to the rule book? Should the train have essentially been dispatched by the guard/platform staff in order for it to draw forward safely?

Ideally, Passcom operated to prevent exactly the sort of incident that ocurred, and then simple communication between Driver & Guard; "come to a clear understanding" as the Rulebook likes to say. It may have been simpler to leave the train where it was and unload via the platformed doors, moving people down the train as required, or it may have been decided to resecure all doors and draw further along the platform.

For the Driver of an HST, the first rule in the book is that with any station call, once you've come to a stand, correctly or otherwise, you do not move until you've conversed with your Guard; in case the doors have indeed been released. I can't speak for WCRC or loco hauled stock in general, but something very similar would make sense.

 

[SPADTrap]

Serious question: once the train had come to a stand short of the correct stopping position (for whatever reason) and the doors had been opened, what is the correct procedure according to the rule book? Should the train have essentially been dispatched by the guard/platform staff in order for it to draw forward safely?

If you have a guard then you need to communicate with them to ensure the doors are not released if the train is not in the correct stopping point and so the passengers can be informed. If however the doors have been released either DOO or by the guard then the rule book is clear on a few important details.

Before you move the train anywhere, even to the correct stopping point a thorough check must be made to ensure no one has fallen from or exited the train. This can be done by either driver or guard if the train has one.

If you or the guard are not sure or if someone has then you must inform the signaller/driver immediately and consider the actions required to keep that person safe.

The doors absolutely MUST be closed again and the train checked before any movement takes place to get the train to the correct stopping point, the last thing I'd do is continue to detrain at an incorrect point, even if using egressed doors only, secure the train and position it correctly before taking further action, this incident will need reporting so the likelihood of continuing in service is low anyway.

You also have to be 100% that no one is in danger if you move the train. If you move a train that has stopped short and released and you hurt someone you can expect your day in court to end badly.

Stop shorts are nasty incidents that can go even more wrong very quickly, I've seen CCTV of stop short incidents at my TOC and in every one the passengers wishing to alight from non platformed coaches have noticed what has happened but still decided to attempt to alight anyway and have been injured badly in the process, in one case an elderly lady and her daughter made the jump from an EMU leading to the elderly lady breaking both hips. In the same incident a passenger pulled the PASSCOM and then followed them out the doors onto the tracks, no one thought it safer or worthwhile waiting. It can be a trap for train crews to think 'they'll see and stay on the train' but experience tells me this isn't the case.

 

[BestWestern]

Presumably stewards stationed at door short of the platform would have noticed before unlocking...

 

[NSEFAN]

That's the point I was making. They days of Mark 1s should be coming to an end.
Air Con Mark 2s can be formatted for the luxury, or Bums on Seats markets. That should be the future for the mainline.

Mark 1s with all their problems with crash worthiness can stay on the 25mph heritage railways.

You seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. How many people have come to harm in recent times specifically because of the design of the Mk1? Moving entirely to luxury carriages would make all railtours expensive and inaccessible for anyone except the most wealthy. The fact we have TPWS means that collisions are extremely rare nowadays, which is why older stock is allowed to continue for occasional charter usage. To me this is an acceptable compromise, especially given that I'm more likely to die driving to the station than on the train!

Despite all the things said about WCRC, the ORR believes that they have proven themselves to be safe to operate, so I don't think we'd be seeing Mk1 stock running on the mainline if it was a serious danger to the public. I expect that it will be market forces (i.e. the cost of maintaining stock) that will be the eventual demise of heritage stock on the mainline. For now it seems that it's still affordable to operate, so until then I will be enjoying affordable railtours and wondering how on Earth my ancestors back in 19-dickety-two managed to not die without those sliding locks...

 

[Marklund]

You seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

No, I have a different opinion to you. That is all.

How many people have come to harm in recent times specifically because of the design of the Mk1?

For crash worthyness, AFAIA, none.
However the ones operating without CDL, that's asking for trouble. Fit them or keep them to heritage operations.

Moving entirely to luxury carriages would make all railtours expensive and inaccessible for anyone except the most wealthy.

I guess you never read the post properly, or have never been on a charter where the Standard class ex-Virgin or Anglia stock could never be described as luxury!

The fact we have TPWS means that collisions are extremely rare nowadays, which is why older stock is allowed to continue for occasional charter usage. To me this is an acceptable compromise, especially given that I'm more likely to die driving to the station than on the train!

If the Wootton SPAD had a more serious outcome, I'm sure you'd revise your opinion.

Despite all the things said about WCRC, the ORR believes that they have proven themselves to be safe to operate, so I don't think we'd be seeing Mk1 stock running on the mainline if it was a serious danger to the public. I expect that it will be market forces (i.e. the cost of maintaining stock) that will be the eventual demise of heritage stock on the mainline. For now it seems that it's still affordable to operate, so until then I will be enjoying affordable railtours and wondering how on Earth my ancestors back in 19-dickety-two managed to not die without those sliding locks...

Affordable charters can, and in fact do, operate with Mark 2 stock.
I'm guessing it's more of a Enthusiast thing of keeping old stock going, than moving with the times.

Again, the mainline isn't a train set. If the standards for mainline operators can not be met by charter operators, then sadly, they should not be running there.

 

[QueensCurve]

Problems are:
a) it would be very expensive

Yes, but against that are the costs of disruption from one train blocking a single line perhaps hundreds of times during the life of the signalling.

b) depending on how often you install facing crossovers you would find cases where trains were blocked between crossovers

There is the possibility of that happening but there would be a limit to the number of trains so blocked - and an exit route for those that are.

c) I'm a tad old-fashioned but I'm not keen on high speed facing points

High speed facing points are a fact of life and as I understand it all points are locked and detected in modern multi-aspect signalling areas.

d) given the volume of traffic on many of our two-track main lines using the bidirectional facility would be difficult.

Obviously it would be of little use in, say, the thameslink core where you could never get a path for a train wrong line within the timetable. Such cases could be taken on their merits.

Problem with my response to (a) is that, on a discounted cash-flow basis, it is more attractive to spend money later than now. It may however be the price of ensuring a reliable railway for future.

 

[najaB]

If the Wootton SPAD had a more serious outcome, I'm sure you'd revise your opinion.

Venturing into the realms of speculation here, but everything I've seen so far indicates that a fully functional TPWS system would have been capable of stopping the WCRC train before there was danger of collision.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[Marklund]

Venturing into the realms of speculation here, but everything I've seen so far indicates that a fully functional TPWS system would have been capable of stopping the WCRC train before there was danger of collision.

Possibly is, but it wasn't far away from something more serious, so it's nothing to be blazé about hence the suspension.

 

[Deepgreen]

This was the train at Carshalton yesterday morning. A close inspection shows an object hanging down over the conductor rail from the rear of the lead locomotive, but the perspective is such that it is hard to tell how close it actually is to the rail and whether, therefore, it could have touched the rail at Epsom. If something did make contact, I would have expected some form of indication to have become obvious to the driver (the flash, smoke, smell, electrical oddities, etc.). Presumably no action was taken and the train continued as planned?

Edit - having checked RTT, I see no delay at/after Epsom, but also note that the Salisbury stop was left 29 early! Was anyone booked to board there, I wonder? Was the huge acceleration against booked times simply owing to the double-headed 47s' 95mph limit (not even sure if the second loco was working) rather than steam's 75mph?

 

[najaB]

Here I fixed it for you...

I was trying to stay on the safe side of the speculation line - I've managed a whole week now without a post being deleted!

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[NSEFAN]

Affordable charters can, and in fact do, operate with Mark 2 stock.
I'm guessing it's more of a Enthusiast thing of keeping old stock going, than moving with the times.

Again, the mainline isn't a train set. If the standards for mainline operators can not be met by charter operators, then sadly, they should not be running there.

My concern isn't so much for the Mk1 vehicles themselves, but more the fact that their withdrawal in service could see an increase in cost to charter train passengers, caused by a large reduction in fleet size. If there's plenty of Mk2 vehicles to suit the bill then that's fine, but I don't see how vehicles that have been used for well over 60 years can suddenly be determined to be unsafe, assuming that they are being correctly maintained. Of course you wouldn't build new vehicles without CDL and without good crumple zones, but that doesn't in turn mean that older vehicles are therefore dangerous. To demand the withdrawal of such vehicles under all circumstances is what I meant about making a mountain out of a molehill.

I know that there is an issue of modern passengers not being familiar with slam door operation and trying to operate the doors when it's not safe to do so. This is why secondary locking is fitted and stewards are present to operate them and oversee the doors. The carriages are also only used on occasional charter trains, so the amount of exposure to risk is further minimised. The fact that the ORR thinks this is okay suggests to me that it is an acceptable compromise.

Even if Wootton Bassett had resulted in a collision (and it could have been very nasty), it would still have been a rare event. Thankfully there was no collision, and it revealed that the agreed principles and rules of operation were not being followed. Actions have been taken since to deal with this, hence, WCRC being allowed to operate again.

 

[Deepgreen]

If it was at the trailing end of the first loco, then it would probably have gone unnoticed by the driver. He/she wouldn't be able to see the flash (opposite end and wrong side in relation to the driving seat), any smoke/smell would probably be dispersed by the movement of the train and what electrical oddities are to be expected with a diesel hauled train operating over a 3rd rail line? Diesels operating under the wires or over 3rd rail don't have any form of indication as to what is happening with the traction current.

I was just wondering if an 'injection' of 750v DC into a class 47's frames, body, wiring, etc., might have an impact on any of the loco's systems? Maybe a contact with the juice rail wouldn't have any impact on the train, but I just assumed it would.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

This was the train at Carshalton yesterday morning. A close inspection shows an object hanging down over the conductor rail from the rear of the lead locomotive, but the perspective is such that it is hard to tell how close it actually is to the rail and whether, therefore, it could have touched the rail at Epsom.?

That would be the trailing locomotive on the way back wouldn't it? unless the train was running in a completely circular route ( I haven't checked on RTT yet ).

From the size and volume of the flash ( I heard it from quarter a mile away while looking from through the attic skylight; my wife heard it from downstairs while watching TV ) I would have expected it to be very noticable to the driver if it was either end of the lead locomotove.

 

[QueensCurve]

Problems are:

a) it would be very expensive
b) depending on how often you install facing crossovers you would find cases where trains were blocked between crossovers
c) I'm a tad old-fashioned but I'm not keen on high speed facing points
d) given the volume of traffic on many of our two-track main lines using the bidirectional facility would be difficult.

Even if Wootton Bassett had resulted in a collision (and it could have been very nasty), it would still have been a rare event. Thankfully there was no collision, and it revealed that the agreed principles and rules of operation were not being followed. Actions have been taken since to deal with this, hence, WCRC being allowed to operate again.

It being a "rare event" somewhat misses the point as:-

1. It would have been avoidable had the safety systems to prevent they been operational
2. It was a serious violation by the train crew to interfere with those systems so as to interfere with the safety systems so that they could not prevent the collision.

Given the relatively poor crashworthyness of the heritage stock it would have been a very severe event.

PS. It is perhaps wrong to equate crashworthiness with "crumple zones". Cars have crumple zones in the unoccupied parts to absorb energy while the passenger compartments are reinforced to prevent intrusion and protect the occupants. Rail vehicles don't have unnocupied areas. If you are in the vestibule or toilet and that is in the crumple zone, you get crushed.

 

[CosherB]

From the horses mouth ..... ORR media interview in response to the removal of WCRCs prohibition notice.

http://www.railmagazine.com/news/ne...cision-to-lift-west-coast-railway-prohibition

In your letter issued with the Prohibition Notice, you said the governance changes required should include an autonomous chief executive, a safety executive, an engineering executive, and for the chairman to take a step back. Have all of these things happened?

“One of the key things for us to lift the prohibition was for the board to put in place a health and safety sub-committee of the board that has real railway experience. They’ve done that.

“We’ve met the person they’ve appointed to head that board and he is a very experienced rail professional. The chairman will not be on the sub-committee, but their new non-executive director will play a very important part of it.

“Their new head of safety has been in place since November. He’s having an impact on the company and some of the things he’s put in place are already showing an improvement. He will sit on the sub-committee. We feel that’s a very important step forward.

“We’ve also met the head of engineering and believe he’s an extremely competent fellow...

http://www.railmagazine.com/news/ne...oast-railway-prohibition#sthash.F3osoIKK.dpuf

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[NSEFAN]

PS. It is perhaps wrong to equate crashworthiness with "crumple zones". Cars have crumple zones in the unoccupied parts to absorb energy while the passenger compartments are reinforced to prevent intrusion and protect the occupants. Rail vehicles don't have unnocupied areas. If you are in the vestibule or toilet and that is in the crumple zone, you get crushed.

Yes you are right. Strong bodied vehicles and reinforced windows are the standard now I believe, to prevent people from being ejected from the carriages in the even of a severe collision.

 

[edwin_m]

Rail vehicles don't have unnocupied areas. If you are in the vestibule or toilet and that is in the crumple zone, you get crushed.

Current rail vehicle designs have a "crumple zone" at each end of each coach, which is normally occupied by equipment cabinets although there is of course the gangway through the middle. Whether this has ever saved any lives is a separate question.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With regard to CDL or bolts manned by stewards, how difficult (leaving costs aside for a moment) would it be to fit the charter rakes of mk1s with a CDL system similar to that found on HSTs? Mk1s of course would need 6 per carriage and if on a steam-hauled charter I assume some sort of power source would be required.

 

[najaB]

Possibly is, but it wasn't far away from something more serious, so it's nothing to be blazé about hence the suspension.

I don't think anyone was being blaze about it - there was near universal support for the suspension action when it was taken.

 

[D1009]

Generally there's not enough for each door to have its own steward so they'll walk down and undo them on approach to stations.

If that is the case, it's a cause for concern, as presumably that means if the train stops in the wrong place passengers are left to their own devices as to what to do. I thought the stewards had to ensure the train was in its correct position before releasing the bolts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With regard to CDL or bolts manned by stewards, how difficult (leaving costs aside for a moment) would it be to fit the charter rakes of mk1s with a CDL system similar to that found on HSTs? Mk1s of course would need 6 per carriage and if on a steam-hauled charter I assume some sort of power source would be required.

I'm not sure a CDL system has been designed that would fit a Mk 1 door. As far as I am aware, the centre doors on the Mk 1 and Mk 2 charter sets have all been locked out of use, so there would be a maximum of 4 per coach.

 

[dgl]

If that is the case, it's a cause for concern, as presumably that means if the train stops in the wrong place passengers are left to their own devices as to what to do. I thought the stewards had to ensure the train was in its correct position before releasing the bolts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm not sure a CDL system has been designed that would fit a Mk 1 door. As far as I am aware, the centre doors on the Mk 1 and Mk 2 charter sets have all been locked out of use, so there would be a maximum of 4 per coach.

I suppose if they are using manually operated bolts at the moment them some sort of solenoid bolt with a switch fitted on either the door or frame (on the opposite side of the solenoid) to confirm that it is locked and therefore closed. Would need power but could use latching solenoids so only a little power is needed (basically to switch the relays and to operate an all doors (or individual door) light).

Would be relatively simple to implement and would need minimum cabling between the carriages.

 

[Marklund]

I don't think anyone was being blaze about it - there was near universal support for the suspension action when it was taken.

I was referring to being blazé about the reliance on TPWS as the main protector for occupants of carriages.

Colwich was mainly Mark 2/3s. Just as well. A high speed collision with Mark 1s doesn't bear thinking about. The Cannon Street low speed collision was bad enough.

 

[najaB]

I was referring to being blazé about the reliance on TPWS as the main protector for occupants of carriages.

The main protection is a competent driver who follows the rules. TPWS is the second line of defence.

 

[Marklund]

The main protection is a competent driver who follows the rules. TPWS is the second line of defence.

Well, yes!
TPWS for PSRs isn't always fail safe, nor indicated that it's failed - that's why I have reservations over it.

Oh, and NRs plans for it's future maintenance, (but that's going way off topic)...