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.
utter rubbish and no doubt libelous. lawyers would have a field day with you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One must also wonder how much financial reserve WCRC has to weather the period of non earning.
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.
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.
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?
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."
You're being a bit petty. It's a minor mistake in the grand scheme of things.
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?
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?
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.
.)
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.
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.
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.
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.