West Coast Railways Suspended (now reinstated)

[alexl92]

Why - the "driver" was trying to hide the fact that he had failed to cancel an AWS warning (for a TSR), and prevent the train being brought to a stand as a result. That much is obvious.
Why on earth he did it, (it's a sacking offence) who knows?
The "what and how" are clearly understood, as other operators of mainline steam, have been told to make modifications as necessary to prevent a recurrence.

It's why he did it that I'm interested to know. Why would they override the braking?!

 

[edwin_m]

Why - the "driver" was trying to hide the fact that he had failed to cancel an AWS warning (for a TSR), and prevent the train being brought to a stand as a result. That much is obvious.
Why on earth he did it, (it's a sacking offence) who knows?
The "what and how" are clearly understood, as other operators of mainline steam, have been told to make modifications as necessary to prevent a recurrence.

I don't think we know any such thing and I'm rather shocked that someone claiming to be a driver should speculate in this way given how upset some of the traincrew on this forum get when one of their colleagues receives some minor criticism. For all we know at the moment, the driver could have been trying to keep the train moving to avoid delays.

RAIB reports typically come out a year or more after the event. However if there is a prosecution (which is possible, the consequences of actions of this type can be worse than sacking) it is unlikely to appear until after the verdict.

 

[E&W Lucas]

I don't think we know any such thing and I'm rather shocked that someone claiming to be a driver should speculate in this way given how upset some of the traincrew on this forum get when one of their colleagues receives some minor criticism. For all we know at the moment, the driver could have been trying to keep the train moving to avoid delays.

You clearly have no understanding of railway operations. Any form of brake application, not initiated by the driver, and you let the train come to a stand, and do not move without permission from the signaller. That is because drivers have been stopped by TPWS, after a SPAD, and have not realised that this is what has happened. A rule that is there for good reason, and one which we all understand.

From the RAIB interim report - it's all there. If you're familiar with the AWS equipment on a steam loco, there is enough information to tell you exactly what has been done, something that has been done explicitly to those who have to take immediate actions after this incident.

"The RAIB’s preliminary examination has shown that, at around 17:24 hrs, train 1Z67 was approaching signal SN43 at 59 mph, when it passed over the temporary AWS magnet associated with the TSR. This created both an audible and visual warning in the locomotive’s cab. However, as the driver did not acknowledge this warning within 2.7 seconds, the AWS system on the locomotive automatically applied the train’s brakes. This brake application should have resulted in the train being brought to a stand. In these circumstances, the railway rule book requires that the driver immediately contact the signaller.

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."

Every driver I know wants to see people like this off the network. It could be one of us coming the other way next time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's why he did it that I'm interested to know. Why would they override the braking?!

What concerns me more, is that there were two people on that footplate, and they both went along with it.

 

[notadriver]

Absolutely 100 percent E&W Lucas. All drivers accept so called 'reset and go' incidents (as they are called) are unforgivable. Well I think so anyway.

 

[Robertj21a]

You clearly have no understanding of railway operations. Any form of brake application, not initiated by the driver, and you let the train come to a stand, and do not move without permission from the signaller. That is because drivers have been stopped by TPWS, after a SPAD, and have not realised that this is what has happened. A rule that is there for good reason, and one which we all understand.

From the RAIB interim report - it's all there. If you're familiar with the AWS equipment on a steam loco, there is enough information to tell you exactly what has been done, something that has been done explicitly to those who have to take immediate actions after this incident.

"The RAIB’s preliminary examination has shown that, at around 17:24 hrs, train 1Z67 was approaching signal SN43 at 59 mph, when it passed over the temporary AWS magnet associated with the TSR. This created both an audible and visual warning in the locomotive’s cab. However, as the driver did not acknowledge this warning within 2.7 seconds, the AWS system on the locomotive automatically applied the train’s brakes. This brake application should have resulted in the train being brought to a stand. In these circumstances, the railway rule book requires that the driver immediately contact the signaller.

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."

Every driver I know wants to see people like this off the network. It could be one of us coming the other way next time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What concerns me more, is that there were two people on that footplate, and they both went along with it.

I don't claim to have any real knowledge of such matters but even I, as an outsider, can see that the laid down procedures are eminently sensible and should be adhered to rigidly. Quite what the 2 on the footplate were thinking is difficult to imagine.

 

[edwin_m]

You clearly have no understanding of railway operations. Any form of brake application, not initiated by the driver, and you let the train come to a stand, and do not move without permission from the signaller. That is because drivers have been stopped by TPWS, after a SPAD, and have not realised that this is what has happened. A rule that is there for good reason, and one which we all understand.

Having been working in the rail industry for 27 years, involved among other things in the development of the TPWS system, I am well aware of that. Indeed had I not known previously I would have learned this fact in the two years I have been on this forum.

My concern is this statement of yours:

Why - the "driver" was trying to hide the fact that he had failed to cancel an AWS warning (for a TSR), and prevent the train being brought to a stand as a result. That much is obvious.

Your statement is pure speculation on a matter which could become the subject of legal action. As you yourself acknowledge later in the same post, we do not know why this action was taken (or indeed which member of the crew took it).

 

[E&W Lucas]

Having been working in the rail industry for 27 years, involved among other things in the development of the TPWS system, I am well aware of that. Indeed had I not known previously I would have learned this fact in the two years I have been on this forum.

My concern is this statement of yours:



Your statement is pure speculation on a matter which could become the subject of legal action. As you yourself acknowledge later in the same post, we do not know why this action was taken (or indeed which member of the crew took it).

Forget TPWS, and step back to the 1950s.
From the report, the driver received an AWS warning for a TSR, which he failed to cancel/ could not cancel. Either way, he should have allowed the train to come to a stand, and spoken to the signaller. Failure to do this is a "reset and continue" - dismissal and possible prosecution.

If you knew steam, you would know that there is an action you could take, after the brake had started to apply, that would cause the application to release. This action would also cause the subsequent failure of the TPWS system to apply the brakes, on the approach to the junction signal. There is no doubt that this is the action that was taken, as mainline steam operators have been required to implement steps to make it more "difficult" in future. So much is in the NR suspension letter to WCR, and I can assure you has been briefed out elsewhere. I've had the "What would your solution be?" conversation with the relevant manager.

I agree that we do not know precisely who carried out the action, but the driver remains responsible. There is no "accidental" explanation for what happened. As for prosecutions, I hope that there will be. Again, I don't think you'll find too many drivers who will disagree.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If you knew steam, you would know that there is an action you could take, after the brake had started to apply, that would cause the application to release. This action would also cause the subsequent failure of the TPWS system to apply the brakes, on the approach to the junction signal. There is no doubt that this is the action that was taken, as mainline steam operators have been required to implement steps to make it more "difficult" in future.

Since just about everyone now knows exactly what was done but nobody seems willing to state it, I wonder - is there some legal reason that is preventing people from saying it outright and openly in print?

Or is it more a case of making sure of not letting the yobbish vandals in society what it is in case they carry out, unseen, the said action on a stabled steam locomotive somewhere?

 

[martynbristow]

Since just about everyone now knows exactly what was done but nobody seems willing to state it, I wonder - is there some legal reason that is preventing people from saying it outright and openly in print?

Or is it more a case of making sure of not letting the yobbish vandals in society what it is in case they carry out, unseen, the said action on a stabled steam locomotive somewhere?

I know why, but I can't explain it as I'm not a driver/fireman and have no knowledge of the locomotive :/

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I know why, but I can't explain it as I'm not a driver/fireman and have no knowledge of the locomotive :/

I know what they did ( although not the why - only the crew themselves will know that ); I'm simply wondering why it's not being said openly...

Before anyone asks, I'm not going to say myself as I am working on the assumption that there is a very good reason why nobody is saying...

 

[DownSouth]

Before anyone asks, I'm not going to say myself as I am working on the assumption that there is a very good reason why nobody is saying...

Quite possibly that everyone assumes that there's a good reason that nobody else is saying, and does likewise even if they have no idea what it is.

 

[ainsworth74]

This thread should only be used for discussion of the WCRC suspension (now lifted) or a future suspension in the, hopefully, unlikely event of another one being enforced. Discussion of the recent incident at Reading should use this thread.