Ukrailtour - Berwick upon Twead

[sidmouth]

Interesting tour today:
Out with scotrail liveried 90. Took York avoiding line. Return due departure 17.05 over 3 hours late due to two "incidents"
1) train driver at craigentiny (where train wad serviced) was taken off train prior to departure from there. Did he SPAD?. Took 2 hours to get a replacement driver.
2) Train stopped at Dunbar. 67 on back was found to have had hand brake left on. Train allowed to proceed to Berwick at low speed, as 67 now had flats... Meanwhile another 67 was sent light (assume from Newcastle) to take our 67 off the back, which was done in a loop just south of Berwick. Our train (with 90 on front) eventually set off about 20.20 from the station at 20.20 and from the loop at 20.50.
Due to late running, train terminated at Doncaster (about 23.20) due to planned engineering works to the south, with all passengers then being bussed back.
An interesting day indeed.

 

[90019]

Was it running late on the way north?
I think it was about 30 mins late when it passed me a few miles out of Edinburgh. Ending up behind a North Berwick stopper won't have helped, but it can't have added that much on.

 

[theblackwatch]

Had the dining passengers finished dinner by the time everyone was turfed off? Feel sorry for everyone on board which no doubt included a load of retired people (who seem to make up a large proportion of UKR's diners) and also John Farrow and his team. I dread to think what time everyone got back to King's Cross.

 

[sidmouth]

Was it running late on the way north?
I think it was about 30 mins late when it passed me a few miles out of Edinburgh. Ending up behind a North Berwick stopper won't have helped, but it can't have added that much on.

About 20 min late into Berwick. Been track problems further south (can't remember where) which delayed all services. We then got looped to allow all the other trains to get back on schedule. Great...
Ps my OP, yes problems were down to DBS but on the otherhand IF it was a SPAD incident that caused the driver to be suspended, which then led to all the subsequent incidents then I can't help wondering if the Network Rail policy actually led to increased safety risks wrt need to bus passengers and roads being inherently less safe than travel by rail. Personny I wouldn't like to blame DBS because we are all human, but I might Network Rail because of how they seem to treat rail tour passengers as second class citizens...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Had the dining passengers finished dinner by the time everyone was turfed off? Feel sorry for everyone on board which no doubt included a load of retired people (who seem to make up a large proportion of UKR's diners) and also John Farrow and his team. I dread to think what time everyone got back to King's Cross.

I was travelling "premier" and yes we all finished our food, which was excellent. 10 out of 10 to John's team for keeping us informed, ensuring that the onward coaches were waiting for us at Doncaster and reassuring passengers "that we will get u home" and that all reasonable expensesx would be paid particularly for those missing onward train connections and having to get a taxi home. There was a guy on our coach to Peterborough getting an onward taxi to Birmingham: he'd previously booked on a night coach from London to Birmingham, and I wonder how much that will eventually cost DBD... ps we even had the DBS guard on the train apologising on behalf of DBS!

 

[theblackwatch]

I had no doubt UKR would do its best to look after its customers, I'm sure that the success of HRT/UKR can be put down to the service which customers get especially when things go wrong. A friend of mine travelled with another operator last year and when the train was terminated short they were basically left on their own to wait on the tour at Peterborough for 2 hours until coaches (travelling down from York!) turned up to take them home by road. He did at least receive a 50% refund within a few days though. Yes, things go wrong, but it is the way they are dealt with which is important - people will come back if they think the promoter has done their best to look after them.

 

[networkrail1]

From what i have read Network Rail did nothing wrong at all.

Engineering work is planned in advance so seeing as the train was late getting to doncaster the possession would of been taken on time it was not Network Rail's fault you were late.

If the driver did SPAD he has to be relieved and a new driver dispatched to take over again not Network rail's fault.

Faults with the track that require emergency attention sometimes happens would you rather Network Rail not hold your train up and let it through only to find the train derails and your tour is canceled.

It really grates me that the first thing people blame if their train is delayed is Network Rail.

Even when most of the time they have nothing to do with it.

All the best.

Simon

 

[sidmouth]

I totally accept that engineering works must start prompt, particularly as they've probably planned a few years in advance, and therefore the train had to be terminated (no question about it). Also, the need for routine maintenance to sort out what ever fault was found on the track. Just seemed that when we were stopped on the way up that we were then put at the back of the queue (to let the other delayed trains pass). Seems to me a case of minimising delay minutes but that delay minutes per rail tour passenger do not seem to figure in the calculation.

The only question I had was on the possible SPAD and the need to relieve the driver; was this a rule (the need to suspend the driver) created from the former BR or railtrack, and what are the benefits behind the need for the immediate suspension.
If it was a SPAD then I suspect the other error re leaving the hand brake on flowed from this (in all the confusion).

 

[33056]

The only question I had was on the possible SPAD and the need to relieve the driver; was this a rule (the need to suspend the driver) created from the former BR or railtrack, and what are the benefits behind the need for the immediate suspension.

The procedures following an operating incident have been the same for a number of years, dating back to the 1990s. That is to say that following such an incident, it is normal for parties directly involved to be tested for drink and drugs and to be suspended from duty until the results are known - usually a couple of days.

If the results are positive (that is a very rare occurrence thankfully!), or the person concerned has a history of "safety of the line" incidents, then it would create huge problems with regard to any possible disciplinary action if the person concerned were to continue working. There is also the issue that if somebody has been involved in an incident, it might prey on their mind in the immediate aftermath so it is usually better that they do not carry out any safety critial duties straight away.

 

[sidmouth]

Ta for response 33056; glad I'm not a train driver as I'd be a gibbering wreck constantly worrying about SPADding rather than concentrating about the job in hand.
Any way just had a letter from UK railtours with apologies, confirming compensation details for any out of pocket expenses plus 50% refund of rail element of fare (ex food, bus and any entrance fees) plus £20 towards next railtour if taken as credit. 10 out of 10 to UK railtours and wonder if any other train tour companies would have been as generous, particularly as it wasn't their fault.

 

[scotsman]

Ta for response 33056; glad I'm not a train driver as I'd be a gibbering wreck constantly worrying about SPADding rather than concentrating about the job in hand.

And that is one of the reasons you can SPAD in the first place

 

[westcoaster]

I read elsewhere that the reason for the delay was the fact the train was put on an un-electrified siding at craigtheny.

 

[sidmouth]

I read elsewhere that the reason for the delay was the fact the train was put on an un-electrified siding at craigtheny.

All I knew was that the train had a driver and then suddenly it had to find a new driver. I therefore inferred a SPAD but putting the train into an un-electrified siding - would this have the same consequence re the driver?
We came back hauled by a 90, which I assume was the same as on the way up in the morning. However, I would have thought putting a train into a non-electrified siding would have damaged the pantograph though on the other hand if one is going to damage a pantograph then Craigentinny is the place to do it!

 

[ainsworth74]

However, I would have thought putting a train into a non-electrified siding would have damaged the pantograph

It's possible that the driver realised that the even with breaking (presumably hard) that they were going to run off from under the wires so put the pan down before they did.

Of course this is total guesswork on my part.

 

[Fred26]

I had wondered what had happened to this train. We debated in the office whether the tour company would put the passengers up in a hotel or taxi them home. We settled on hotels, with the train taking them back south the next day. We never even considered coaches.

 

[paul1609]

I had no doubt UKR would do its best to look after its customers, I'm sure that the success of HRT/UKR can be put down to the service which customers get especially when things go wrong. A friend of mine travelled with another operator last year and when the train was terminated short they were basically left on their own to wait on the tour at Peterborough for 2 hours until coaches (travelling down from York!) turned up to take them home by road. He did at least receive a 50% refund within a few days though. Yes, things go wrong, but it is the way they are dealt with which is important - people will come back if they think the promoter has done their best to look after them.

Ive only been on one UK Railtour trip to Dungeness but it is obvious when John comes round that he personally knows a very high percentage of his customers it felt more like a club outing than any other railtour I've been on.