-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Mainline Steam
- Thread starter tiptoptaff
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I believe there was a "blow back" in a tunnel recently. I am not condemning WCRC. Anyway I see opinion is against me so I'm not going to comment any further.
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
Steam engines are living, breathing machienes. It could have happened to anyone. From a young fresh faced fireman firing a preserved loco, to the most experienced fireman the big four could have ever had
Sorry but if we took that attitude on the mainline then what would we have? Sorry I released the doors on the wrong side and someone fell out but it could happen to anyone. It happened, it was dangerous, therefore questions should be asked as to why it happened. Not just swept under the carpet.
driver9000
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 4,558
A search of the RAIB website for documents referring to West Coast Railway Company returns no reports into incidents they have been involved in. I also searched for another TOC just to test that it would search for reports and it did return those documents.
I think it's fair to say that WCRC haven't been involved in an accident that has been under RAIB scrutiny (Ordsall Lane excepting). They aren't the cowboys they are made out to be.
I think it's fair to say that WCRC haven't been involved in an accident that has been under RAIB scrutiny (Ordsall Lane excepting). They aren't the cowboys they are made out to be.
Who said it was swept under the carpet? The nature of the beasts means that there's plenty of opportunity for things to go wrong. Something's gone wrong here - I'm sure it'll have been investigated and lessons learned to hopefully prevent a repeat - what more could you ask from a professional train operator? Bear in mind that it was in the crew's best interests to avoid a blowback, as they were the ones who were badly burned...
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
The RAIB bulletein explains why it happened - the blowers weren't on full and the firebox door wasn't clsoed when they entered the tunnel. They were distracted by dealing with the priming incident taking place, and their view hampered by the fact the 47 had been left on the front. It was a case of not knowing how much time they had to react, so dealt with what was in front of them. It could be held, that yes, the crew were at fault. But it was an accident, and no one was seriously injured.
I just don't see what your gripe with WCR is. The steam crews are trained the same way DBs crews are, who, as previously stated on this thread, only really drive Steam part time as well.
Whether you think they're substandard or not, they are held to the same exacting standards any other TOC is held to, as they are actually an official TOC. They hold that status for a reason. They are the only Railtour operator to do so, so they must be doing something right
I just don't see what your gripe with WCR is. The steam crews are trained the same way DBs crews are, who, as previously stated on this thread, only really drive Steam part time as well.
Whether you think they're substandard or not, they are held to the same exacting standards any other TOC is held to, as they are actually an official TOC. They hold that status for a reason. They are the only Railtour operator to do so, so they must be doing something right
Have you actually driven off depot yet?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't think so. They are just as likely to get prosecuted as any other railway employee. One was very lucky not to be, last year.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I will give you a Fact. As you are aware, one heritage outfit, has a mainline safety case, which allows for the use of volunteer staff. Lengthly negotiations took place before this was granted. The regulatory bodies have no concerns about the motivation of volunteer staff at all, as it ios recognised that they WANT to be there, they aren't just there for the money.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Single bore tunnel, diesel on the front (think what that will do to the air flow at the front of the steam loco) - not a pleasant situation for the crew to have found themselves in. The incident was attended at the time, and the driver was allowed to continue with his turn. That tells me that there was no significant concern about his actions. Conversations subsequently, have confirmed that viewpoint.
I think we have someone here, with a gripe against anyone involved in the operation of heritage traction, be they volunteers or charter crews.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
I'm aware of one person who started as a cleaner at 16 (had been working on a heritage railway since 13/14 though), and now, at 19 or 20 has just qualified as a mainline fireman with a charter company.
It appears that it took years of commitment, hard work, travelling and labour to get there though.
It appears that it took years of commitment, hard work, travelling and labour to get there though.
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
Clearly! I don't understand it. I've been stood on a Bullied and not particularly favoured the view unobstructed, let alone with a 47 plonked on the front! Can't comment on a Britannia (yet), but I can imagine it's much better!
That's a strange thing for a qualified driver to say.
As you well know, a driver has to be conversant with the rules & regs governing other staff on or about the railway.
This leaves you in a position to challenge instructions from staff such as lookouts, COSS and handsignallers all the way to IECC signallers, PICOPS and ES.
It's a little silly to state "don't concern yourself with the perceived failings of others." when the truth is you should be doing exactly that!
I know a few drivers who "might just find yourself, on the wrong end of an incident." and the reason for these incidents is simple - they didn't concern themselves with the failings of others, took instructions at face value and paid the penalty.
On a slightly different note (well, a different company to the one mentioned here) there are TOC/FOC's out there employing 'questionable' staff - there is an RAIB investigation ongoing at the moment (I'm sure most known the incident I'm talking about but if not here's the preliminary link: http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/current_investigations_register/120426_stafford_spad.cfm).
Rather than advising a driver to 'mind his own business' I'd argue the opposite and suggest they take an active role in these matters.
Afterall, you could be on the ball for years but what about the other driver approaching the junction?
Are you suggesting that Drivers ought to be conversant with the signalling regs? I've no problem with a Driver questioning something that seems unusual (who knows, it might be wrong - don't get me wrong, I'm certainly in favour of us all looking out for one another), but I wouldn't expect one to then go on to challenge my knowledge and application of the finer points of the signalling regs!
I'll rephrase that - don't be so busy sticking your nose into things that don't directly concern you, that you mess up yourself!
I think my post is clear enough Tomnick.
'Conversant' doesn't mean 'fully qualified'.
Apologies if my post came across all 'drivers -vs- the world' (even though, at times, it feels that way!).
I wasn't suggesting that.
The 'other' member I quoted originally seemed to be advocating drivers sticking to driving and remain oblivious to everything else lest they drop in somehow.
Out in the big world there are two people who really count - driver and signaller.
Unfortunately there are 'other' grades who can have a massive affect on the decisions made by both drivers and signallers (I've listed a few already).
That can start at a simple 'wrong routing' because control got involved and gave duff information (again) all the way to a SPAD because the ES/PICOP representative (ha!) put the protection in the wrong place.
It's foolish to remain ignorant of the responsibilities of those staff and I'm sure you'll agree.
I totally agree with your idea of 'looking out for one another' but that takes nothing away from the fear that there might be some 'cowboys' out there driving on the same infrastructure every day of the week.
If true, it's very worrying and I reserve my right to talk about it and discuss it wherever I'm allowed.
Asking me and others to 'mind my own business just in case I have my own incident' is strange and a little blinkered and is the reason I challenged the assumptions.
E&W Lucas said:
Rephrased but still not clear I'm afraid.
Explain how Dave1987 could ever mess up by showing concern at the possibility of cowboy operators out there.
E&W Lucas said:
I have no bias for/against 'steam' yet share the same concerns.
Does that mean I have a gripe too?
There's a counter argument - is there a chance you're so eager to defend 'steam' against what you perceive as an 'attack' that you're missing the point, the big picture?
Two issues here -
.
The OP making ill informed comments about anyone involved in the operation of heritage traction. Not the first time he has done it either.
The wider issue of fly by night operators, on the fringes of the industry. I knew about that SPAD as soon as it happened, and I fully share your concerns. There is more to come out of that one, believe me. When was the last time you saw the RAIB investigate a SPAD?
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
I'm sorry but where did I do that?
He mentions 'OP' but don't think he means 'OP'.
Clarity isn't what it once was it seems
Yes, I'll agree with that.
It didn't read that way to me.
I can't speak for the OP but I'm sure he isn't suggesting there are major problems with all staff at all locations.
I believe you.
I'm sure neither of us are in possession of the all the facts so I won't be making any assumptions just yet (except to say the speeds and details involved that I have seen in print make for some 'interesting' reading
hock
.
You still haven't told me how:
Clarity isn't what it once was it seems
E&W Lucas said:
Yes, I'll agree with that.
E&W Lucas said:
It didn't read that way to me.
I can't speak for the OP but I'm sure he isn't suggesting there are major problems with all staff at all locations.
E&W Lucas said:
I believe you.
I'm sure neither of us are in possession of the all the facts so I won't be making any assumptions just yet (except to say the speeds and details involved that I have seen in print make for some 'interesting' reading
hock.You still haven't told me how:
Jonfun
Established Member
I'm with E&W on this one. Having listened to Dave "Heritage railway volunteers are unsafe because I went once and saw someone without a hi-viz" 1987's claptrap in a previous thread, he seems to have formed the opinion unless you're full-time, permanent staff you're going to cause an accident, and if you are in that form of employment you'll never have an incident. Of course, now many of his posts simply say "Deleted", it's hard to back up this assertion.
I've said my piece before so I won't bore the forum with it again, but I will say of course there are some people who work with heritage traction that don't take safety seriously. But there are plenty who work for mainline TOCs full time who don't either - the most recent example being the 4 coach train I was on which arrived into a 3 coach platform on a dark evening and all doors released by the conductor, cue people nearly falling out of the train into the cess. You'll note, I don't use this one example to try and force through a clearly incorrect and probably offensive viewpoint that all Northern Rail conductors are rubbish at their jobs.
If Dave ever happens to be up North and fancies bobbing along to my main pres line (we do a Priv rate most operating days!), and I'm about he's quite welcome to pop into the van for a brew, chat and a watch of what actually goes on if it'll help dispel this fear he seems to have gained.
Jon
I haven't read the posts you hint at so I post on hear without prejudice and speak as I find.
Nice offer you made btw - would be good if it could be arranged and you could discuss things face to face.
I have no interest personally but I'm up for a free cuppa!
Apologies if I vented my frustration in the wrong direction and missed the point of your post slightly! The discussion does seem to have moved away from mainline steam crews (where there seems to be no evidence of a lack of competence) towards the 'cowboy' outfits (which I shall refrain from further comment on). It does, of course, pay to have a good understanding of the duties of others - something which is in danger of being lost as the Rule Book shows us less and less of 'the other side' and cab rides or box visits become even rarer!
I deleted my posts because it seems if you're opinion doesn't match others then people threaten you with Libel action. Not knowing the laws on Libel and freedom of speech I thought it best to delete my posts.
Of the few heritage lines I have visited most people volunteering do seem to act in a safe way but as we all know it only takes one bad apple to cause an accident. I don't see how you can call the comment on the previous thread "claptrap". Standing in the four foot leaning on the platform without a high-vis and I doubt he had a line block in place either, is such bad practice. I apologise for tarring all heritage volunteers with the same brush.
After tonights fiasco at Rhyl I think Steam Trains should be kept on the preserved railways
What, just because it failed? On that basis, I think 66s should immediately be consigned to the scrapyard - anything can expire on the mainline, and reliability figures would be more useful than quoting a single example that could just as easily have been a 221 or 175...
And the ratio of 66's to steam on the mainline is! Sorry Tomnick but that tour had no contingency plan in place and the operator needs to be investigated on the reasons why. Last night did nothing at all to validate the running of steam or old diesel trains on the "fare paying mainline" network especially when you look at the time it took for the rescue. I have seen steam services with loco's hooked up on the rear on many occasions, this one didn't have a loco on the rear - poor organisation and to be honest I still think unless the companies running these sort of services can prove that there is such a contingency plan for failures in place they should not be permitted to run them! To add, if you looked at the statistics on the running minutes of all the TOC's against the delay ratio last nights fiasco will most likely win!"
It's one thing to suggest that steam tours need better contingency plans (though it does sound as though the rescue attempt drowned itself in a frustrating amount of paperwork), but quite another to suggest that they be banned altogether! The last failure I was involved with (a 66) blocked the line for a similar amount of time - more to do with the modern railway's inability to quickly make an effective decision than anything else.
So if we agree to dissagree then - Steam trains should have a better contingency plan or not be alowed to run on main line?
I don't think we're disagreeing that much. I think the problem's wider than just kettle tours though - any failure (or other incident) seems able to cause a disproportionate amount of delay as the various Controls bumble around each other and don't make much useful progress towards actually clearing the line. I can see the case for conveying an 'insurance policy' at the rear of the train - but I think it'd be far more productive if we could instead all work together more effectively, without nonsense about one TOC's loco not being allowed to assist for no good (in my opinion!) reason, to improve the 'contingency plan' for any failure!
theblackwatch
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2006
- Messages
- 10,889
But a Class 66 or 67 without contingency which can (and has in the past) caused considerable delay would be fine then?
Beveridges
Established Member
Even older diesels normally have two locomotives at the head (or top & tail) nowadays for backup, never mind steam. Rare to see class 31s, 37s, 47s or 56s to go out on their own nowadays. Even 56s, which are "relatively" recent compared to most other traction, had to have two locomotives on the DCR scrap trains from Peak Forest, to cover the chance of a failure. Christ knows why they let much, much older kettles run without any backup locomotive.
- Status