West Coast Railways Suspended (now reinstated)

[najaB]

That would be very difficult to resource economically because the charter market is so peaky. Employ enough crews to cope with a summer weekend and on a winter weekday most of them will be earning money for doing nothing. The WCR model of zero-hours contracts and the DBS one of full-time staff who spend most of their time doing other things both get round this problem (but the WCR one creates other problems instead).

True, I hadn't thought about that. One solution could be to have a large enough cadre of full-time drivers to cover the quiet season, and have them act as supervisors for the peak-time drivers who would be on contract.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

True, I hadn't thought about that. One solution could be to have a large enough cadre of full-time drivers to cover the quiet season, and have them act as supervisors for the peak-time drivers who would be on contract.

Way back in the day - one of BR's issues in keeping the Vale of Rheidol going was the tricky task of "what do you do with qualified drivers in the 7 months of the year when there is little productive work around" - earnings in the Summer period were generally good , but the dead months were a real problem. Answers on a postcard please.

 

[alexl92]

What do WCRs zero-hours drivers do at other times?!

 

[E&W Lucas]

True, I hadn't thought about that. One solution could be to have a large enough cadre of full-time drivers to cover the quiet season, and have them act as supervisors for the peak-time drivers who would be on contract.

Nonsense.
A driver is competent, or they simply aren't. They aren't "supervised"!
Mainline driving is a task that has to be performed day in, day out. Steam, by virtue of the nature of the technology, needs to be worked on very regularly. You can't pick it up for a few weeks in the summer, then go and do another job for the rest of the year. I suspect something of that nature, will feature in the industry feedback to the ORR.

 

[najaB]

Nonsense.
A driver is competent, or they simply aren't. They aren't "supervised"!
Mainline driving is a task that has to be performed day in, day out. Steam, by virtue of the nature of the technology, needs to be worked on very regularly. You can't pick it up for a few weeks in the summer, then go and do another job for the rest of the year. I suspect something of that nature, will feature in the industry feedback to the ORR.

The 'peak time' drivers I was referring to would be mainline drivers during their day jobs - just not on steam all the time. They would work on contract to the proposed open access operator in a similar manner to how WCR currently sources their drivers.

Apologies, I used the word supervisor when I meant inspector - it was in reference to the comment that DRS use three on the footplate: driver, fireman and inspector. That way there would always be a full-time steam driver on board.

 

[D1009]

I doubt very much it will be a TOC but open access, they are totally different.

TOC stands for Train Operating Company, which includes Open Access.

 

[alexl92]

Evening all,

wnxx have just tweeted 'WCRC/NR Resolution shortly' with a link, but I'm not a subscriber. Is anyone on here a member and are you able to fill in those of us who aren't on the latest, assuming it is actually some breaking news?

Cheers

 

[46223]

A move from NYMR to Fort William on Monday. Interesting........Riley's 5s?
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U55485/2015/05/11/advanced

 

[cf111]

Unconfirmed rumours that the suspension has been lifted as of midnight - nothing more of any substance.

 

[46223]

Another interesting move.....stock for the Jacobite??

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U10779/2015/05/09/advanced

 

[krus_aragon]

Way back in the day - one of BR's issues in keeping the Vale of Rheidol going was the tricky task of "what do you do with qualified drivers in the 7 months of the year when there is little productive work around" - earnings in the Summer period were generally good , but the dead months were a real problem. Answers on a postcard please.

A good point, gloriously put.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unconfirmed rumours that the suspension has been lifted as of midnight - nothing more of any substance.

Withheld until polling day was over?

 

[PHILIPE]

If it is correct that Network Rail have lifted the ban, it could still be back on again once ORR have finished their investigations.

 

[hwl]

NR Press Release revoking the suspension:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-revoke-west-coast-railways-suspension-notice

 

[Zoidberg]

To help those unable to access links,

Friday 8 May 2015

Network Rail is now satisfied that West Coast Railways have addressed all of the actions set out in the suspension notice issued on Friday 3 April.

As a result, Network Rail has revoked the suspension as of 12:01am on Friday 8 May.

A PDF of the letter sent to West Coast Railways can be accessed via the link above. I'm unable to cut and paste an extract from that but it contains the words:

"We recognise and welcome ... phased return of services to allow you ... to implement your new procedures before use with a wider range of services."

 

[mirodo]

Full text of the letter:

Dear David

Revocation of Suspension Notice

I can confirm that as you have now satisfactorily addressed all of the actions we set out in our Suspension Notice of 1st April we will lift the suspension of your Track Access

The Suspension Notice will be revoked in accordance with Clause 2.5.4 of Schedule 6 of the Track Access Contracts, with effect from 00.01 on Friday 8th May 2015. We welcome the commitment West Coast Railways has made to improving safety management; the changes to your Safety Management System (SMS); and the three new roles (Director/General Manager, Head of Safety and Non-Executive Director) being introduced to strengthen safety leadership and corporate governance. We note your appointment before services recommence of your new Non-Executive Director and Alex McGregor of Lloyds Register as interim Head of Safety pending the permanent appointment; and for the ongoing engagement of First Class Partnerships to ensure that changes to the SMS are implemented effectively.

We recognise and welcome that you intend to put in place a phased return of services, to allow you and your most experienced staff to implement your new procedures before use with a wider range of services.

We look forward to working closely with you and your new leadership team. This will include reviewing with you in three months the progress made by you in working within your new governance structure and Safety Management System.

I am copying this letter to your Company Secretary and to Ian Bertram at ORR.

Yours sincerely

Paul McMahon
Director, Freight

 

[D1009]

If it is correct that Network Rail have lifted the ban, it could still be back on again once ORR have finished their investigations.

I'd have thought it unlikely NR would issue the revocation without consulting the ORR.

 

[alexl92]

NR have lifted the ban and the ORR will monitor WCR as they restart operations.

 

[bnm]

I'd have thought it unlikely NR would issue the revocation without consulting the ORR.

I'd've thought it unlikely NR would pre-empt the ORR investigation into one specific incident.

More likely that 'innocent unless proven guilty' has come into play.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd've thought it unlikely NR would pre-empt the ORR investigation into one specific incident.

More likely that 'innocent unless proven guilty' has come into play.

I think given that the ORR is also investigating, NR would be morally obliged, if not required by some regulation or other, to consult them before allowing WCR to run.

If the sort of defects being suggested had been discovered by ORR before or instead of NR then WCR would almost certainly have had its operating license suspended. If ORR has any concerns that haven't been addressed it is still possible for them to do this, but it is to be expected that the consultants engaged by WCR have seen that one coming and made sure everything is dealt with.

 

[RPTC]

I'd have thought it unlikely NR would issue the revocation without consulting the ORR.

They probably will have, but the simple fact is NR are bound by the legislation and regulations governing the suspension and the basis of it. NR issued the suspension and said it would be removed if specific requirements were complied with. As it appears that these have complied with they have to lift the suspension, otherwise WCR could make a claim against NR for damages, malfeasance or whatever.

The ORR activity has nothing to do with the NR suspension in a legal sense, and if WCR have complied as stated, then NR must lift the suspension. It is for the ORR to take whatever steps it feels necessary under whatever powers it has, but this does not relate directly to NR's suspension.

Thus no doubt NR will have spoken with ORR, but the ORR process started after and separately to NR's, and any deviation from the appropriate processes will leave NR and ORR open to legal challenge. ORR will deal with their matters in their own good time.

I note NR have taken a very sensible approach and made WCR appoint named individuals to key safety positions, people with the experience and credibility to address the issues. And people who fully and properly understand the implications of being in that position.

 

[Robertj21a]

I note NR have taken a very sensible approach and made WCR appoint named individuals to key safety positions, people with the experience and credibility to address the issues. And people who fully and properly understand the implications of being in that position.

Seems quite amazing that this wasn't already documented. Far too easy to avoid responsibility if names aren't recorded.

 

[RPTC]

Seems quite amazing that this wasn't already documented. Far too easy to avoid responsibility if names aren't recorded.

Not uncommon to find companies avoid having specifically named individuals who are "in the frame" if something goes wrong, given they could end up in prison. The people now involved at WCR will have only done so if they have a large degree of autonomy to change whatever they think is required. And presumably for a nice fee!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Looks like WCR have someone who understands rail safety:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/alex-m...eokp_posts_secondary_cluster_res_author_photo

 

[Bertie the bus]

I'd've thought it unlikely NR would pre-empt the ORR investigation into one specific incident.

More likely that 'innocent unless proven guilty' has come into play.

The ORR aren't investigating one specific incident. The RAIB are. The ORR's investigation, from the information they have released, is far broader than one incident.

 

[edwin_m]

They probably will have, but the simple fact is NR are bound by the legislation and regulations governing the suspension and the basis of it. NR issued the suspension and said it would be removed if specific requirements were complied with. As it appears that these have complied with they have to lift the suspension, otherwise WCR could make a claim against NR for damages, malfeasance or whatever.

The ORR activity has nothing to do with the NR suspension in a legal sense, and if WCR have complied as stated, then NR must lift the suspension. It is for the ORR to take whatever steps it feels necessary under whatever powers it has, but this does not relate directly to NR's suspension.

Thus no doubt NR will have spoken with ORR, but the ORR process started after and separately to NR's, and any deviation from the appropriate processes will leave NR and ORR open to legal challenge. ORR will deal with their matters in their own good time.

This is all likely to be true, but I'm sure NR would have consulted ORR before lifting their ban, so that ORR could impose their own ban if there were still other problems remaining that weren't within the scope of the NR investigation. Also if NR had discovered anything else that justified a ban then it wouldn't have been lifted, WCR would have got another letter explaining the new problems.

 

[Robertj21a]

Not uncommon to find companies avoid having specifically named individuals who are "in the frame" if something goes wrong, given they could end up in prison. The people now involved at WCR will have only done so if they have a large degree of autonomy to change whatever they think is required. And presumably for a nice fee!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Looks like WCR have someone who understands rail safety:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/alex-m...eokp_posts_secondary_cluster_res_author_photo

Perhaps these other companies should now look to include specific names. The whole point is to ensure compliance with the law, not to make it easy to squirm out of accountability.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

As the title suggests an article on the recent WCR incident.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32622534

 

[D1009]

I think that's called "old news".

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

I think that's called "old news".

Agreed, but the BBC website only posted this earlier today. So I thought it relevant enough.

 

[bnsf734]

Well I for one had missed the news about the West Coast Railways licence suspension being lifted on Friday 8 May. (That will teach me to watch the election coverage on the TV!) until I read this article so maybe not such old news after all....

 

[AndyPJG]

I think that's called "old news".

Only 3 days old, as it says suspension has now been lifted?