Steam train SPAD Wootton Bassett

Steam train SPAD Wootton Bassett

Author
Discussion

saaby93

Original Poster:

32,038 posts

177 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-320...

Signal warning worked but cancelled in cab

Network Rail suspends West Coast Railway trains
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-32...

rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Friday 3rd April 2015
quotequote all
Much more detail here:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/state...

And a preliminary report is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dangerous-occur...

West Coast Railways have issued the following statement on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/westcoast.railways

Network Rail and West Coast Railways

West Coast Railways are working hard to reverse the current suspension imposed by Network Rail by fully satisfying their concerns. Passengers booked to travel with West Coast Railways and on their associated trips should not be concerned, if necessary West Coast Railways will charter the service of another licensed operator using the same traditional carriages and trips will be unaffected, but West Coast Railways hope this won’t be necessary and trust any issues will be resolved to the satisfaction of network rail.

W124Bob

1,744 posts

174 months

Sunday 5th April 2015
quotequote all
West Coast Railways should work hard to obey the rules, driver was slow cancelling the AWS warning at a double yellow as the brake started to apply one of two firemen on the footplate isolated the the TPWS/AWS and the brakes released. This is an absolute NO NO. He should have let the train come to a stand and then contact the signaller given details and not moved until told. So as the train approaches the single yellow there is now no warning claxon so everyone on the footplate misses it and the train then passes the red signal protecting the junction. Drivers have been sacked for this type of thing recently and even prosecuted. There is an element within Network Rail who are itching to to kick steam of the mainline. The intial missing the AWS is not in it's self serious if you follow the rules, yes I'll get a telling off, the data recorder will be down loaded and speeds checked and braking curve etc. There is less than a 5 sec window to cancel the AWS and very strict rules about when it can be isolated.

Zad

12,695 posts

235 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
Network Rail will be rubbing their hands at this. Just the sort of thing they need to act like a 5 year old hiding behind mummy's skirts, pointing at the nasty boy shouting "mummy mummy, I told you, I told you" with s sneer on their face. The uksteam.info site makes sad reading at the moments, many many tours cancelled.

Hopefully they can get a grip on this and get things properly sorted. I imagine the people involved will all be suspended, and refresher training for all crew arranged as soon as possible, so in theory it should only take a few days, but I have no doubt Network Rail will make as much out of this as possible.

legzr1

3,843 posts

138 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
Or it could be that NR have had serious concerns for quite a while and, faced with a management structure incapable or unwilling to make meaningful changes have had no choice but to suspend their licence.

Spads are bad.

This is another whole world!

ecsrobin

17,019 posts

164 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
Zad said:
Network Rail will be rubbing their hands at this. Just the sort of thing they need to act like a 5 year old hiding behind mummy's skirts, pointing at the nasty boy shouting "mummy mummy, I told you, I told you" with s sneer on their face. The uksteam.info site makes sad reading at the moments, many many tours cancelled.

Hopefully they can get a grip on this and get things properly sorted. I imagine the people involved will all be suspended, and refresher training for all crew arranged as soon as possible, so in theory it should only take a few days, but I have no doubt Network Rail will make as much out of this as possible.
It wasn't netowrk rail that caused this problem though is it if the crew performed the correct procedures tours wouldn't be getting cancelled.

W124Bob

1,744 posts

174 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
With the RAIB and Office of the Rail Regulator involved thats about as serious as it gets, NR have the sanction to suspend a drivers licence regardless of who he/she works for. In this case the drive had long retired from a full time career so this was just a part time driving job(nearly all West Coast Railways drivers are ex mainline)the 2 firemen on the footplate don't even have to know the route, so the traction inspector may have to carry some of the responsibility, he also works for West Coast Railways. A week ago I had an OFTR official ride with me, although not involved directly he hinted that one area they are looking at is evidence of regular flouting of rules. All companies self police their own drivers, but theres a huge difference in the way that frontline company A does it and some of the small companies who are in reality more interested in keeping the wheels turning.

saaby93

Original Poster:

32,038 posts

177 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
I cant see how network rail can be blamed for this

I was seriously impressed that the steam loco was fitted with devices to prevent SPADs in case of driver error.
To find that theyve merely switched the thing off is incredibly less impressive

Rather than saying theyre trying to find a way around the ban the steam co should be putting in some serious retraining measures and show theyve realised how seriously they should be taking it

rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
As was pointed out on another forum, the facts of the matter appear to be clear. The reasons, however, still need to be established:

1. The TPS/AWS seems to have been isolated by the crew after it went off at a temporary speed restriction (85mph). The maximum permitted speed for steam locomotives is 75mph and it is possible (although probably stupid in the extreme) that the driver did not make himself sufficiently aware that the TSR was there and thought that the warning systems had malfunctioned.

2. With TPS/AWS disabled, everybody on the footplate managed to miss sighting signal SN43 which was showing single yellow

3. When the driver saw signal SN45 at danger, he dropped all anchors, but it was too late and he brought his train to rest fouling Wootton Bassett junction. For those who don't know (and I doubt there are many who don't know reading this thread but just in case there are one or two) this is the point where the Paddington to South Wales and Bristol lines diverge, and is full of trains hammering through it at 100mph+

4. A very serious incident if not a catastrophe was only avoided by sheer luck. The result of a HST doing 100mph colliding with the boiler of a Bulleid pacific doesn't bear thinking about.

As regards item (1) there are at least two drivers who have contributed to this thread so far, and they will know that there are strict rules governing what to do in the event of a suspected TPS/AWS failure. Carrying on and passing signals at danger is not one of the remedies in those rules.

theboss

6,878 posts

218 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
rs1952 said:
As was pointed out on another forum, the facts of the matter appear to be clear. The reasons, however, still need to be established:

1. The TPS/AWS seems to have been isolated by the crew after it went off at a temporary speed restriction (85mph). The maximum permitted speed for steam locomotives is 75mph and it is possible (although probably stupid in the extreme) that the driver did not make himself sufficiently aware that the TSR was there and thought that the warning systems had malfunctioned.

2. With TPS/AWS disabled, everybody on the footplate managed to miss sighting signal SN43 which was showing single yellow

3. When the driver saw signal SN45 at danger, he dropped all anchors, but it was too late and he brought his train to rest fouling Wootton Bassett junction. For those who don't know (and I doubt there are many who don't know reading this thread but just in case there are one or two) this is the point where the Paddington to South Wales and Bristol lines diverge, and is full of trains hammering through it at 100mph+

4. A very serious incident if not a catastrophe was only avoided by sheer luck. The result of a HST doing 100mph colliding with the boiler of a Bulleid pacific doesn't bear thinking about.

As regards item (1) there are at least two drivers who have contributed to this thread so far, and they will know that there are strict rules governing what to do in the event of a suspected TPS/AWS failure. Carrying on and passing signals at danger is not one of the remedies in those rules.
Well said.

nc107

464 posts

207 months

Tuesday 7th April 2015
quotequote all
The most damning thing about the episode are NRs comments about the overall management culture and focus on safety. This is a much more general and serious point. Reading between the lines it seems there is a suggestion that, given the former, further incidents were inevitable. The relationship between WCR and NR seem to have been rather confrontational in the recent past, NR having previously expressed concerns of a similar nature.

An incident of this nature (I understand from collegues that the mainline train passed the junction only some 60s before the steam train crossed onto the mainline) would always, on its own, be subject to a deep and involving investigation. When coupled to serious misgivings about the operators more general attitude to their role in the operating safety of the railway I really don't see what alternatives NR had.

This is an extract from the NR suspeniosn letter:

"Network Rail believes that an Event of Default has occurred because a breach of the Safety
Obligations has already taken place or, in the alternative, is reasonably likely to take place. You are
aware that Network Rail has had concerns about WCR’s performance of its Safety Obligations for
some time and recent events lead Network Rail to believe that the operations of WCR are a threat to
the safe operation of the railway. Specifically:

WCR’s senior management response to the recent SPAD at SN45. This ranked as the most
serious SPAD that has taken place this year when the industry risk ranking methodology was
applied;

The response by the senior management of WCR to the issues raised in the meeting of 30
March 2015, where WCR demonstrated that its controls, communication and commitment
following the recent SPAD were inadequate;

Network Rail also has serious concerns about the fact that WCR unilaterally suspended the
response to Network Rail’s review of WCR’s Safety Management System undertaken in January
2015. The review raised some serious and significant issues and there was no communication with
Network Rail to explain that the response was being suspended"

And one of the requirements for re-instatement of WCR TCA is to

"Clarify the safety accountabilities for each Director and independently review the effectiveness
of the company’s safety assurance and governance arrangements to demonstrate that those
accountabilities are discharged."

I'm not sure I've seen words like that before from NR and I've been in the industry 30 odd years and seen a fair few incident reports and NR missives.

Zad

12,695 posts

235 months

Tuesday 7th April 2015
quotequote all
I think you perhaps misunderstand me. I'm not for one second saying that WCR employees aren't to blame for this incident, which had the potential to be very serious indeed, and has exposed what must be failures at operational and supervisory levels within WCR. I wonder though, if someone like Virgin had done something similar, would they have been banned en-masse from the entire network? Or would immediate staff suspensions and thorough investigation into staff skill levels, safety training and culture have been sufficient?

What I am saying is that two wrongs don't make a right. NR's attitude in the past has been less than helpful, with a perception among many onlookers that they are dogmatically anti-steam, and will do anything within their powers to stop it running main line, even when perfectly safe and reasonable to do so, and that this incident has provided fuel for that. This in turn has (in my perception) escalated and led to a bull-headed culture within WCR. I'm sure we all know people who will get entrenched in an argument to the point that they say and do stupid things, I believe we are now in this situation.

I imagine the insurers aren't exactly happy either, I can imagine them withdrawing cover until they are happy with staff training and practises. It may seem extreme, but I wonder if there is the potential for cockpit voice/video recorders to be fitted. If nothing else it may concentrate the minds of footplate staff who are tempted to bend the rules.

Yertis

18,016 posts

265 months

Tuesday 7th April 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
yes

Sadly I can see another steam ban coming along.

Stedman

7,213 posts

191 months

Tuesday 7th April 2015
quotequote all
SPAD's happen. They're not good, but that's the reality. There's a variety of reasons why they do happen, but fk me as a driver myself this is BAAAAD

rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Tuesday 7th April 2015
quotequote all
Yertis said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
yes

Sadly I can see another steam ban coming along.
A steam ban following this incident and "justified" by it would not be rational. The fact that the locomotive was a steam engine has no bearing on the SPAD.

Whilst the result may have been unusual should any other train have collided with it, it would have been just as serious if any two trains collided when one was stationary fouling a junction and the other was doing 100+

theboss

6,878 posts

218 months

Tuesday 7th April 2015
quotequote all
rs1952 said:
Whilst the result may have been unusual should any other train have collided with it, it would have been just as serious if any two trains collided when one was stationary fouling a junction and the other was doing 100+
I'm no expert, but I suspect a bad accident involving hundreds of passengers sat in heritage stock (not sure what was involved in this case - are they still allowed to use Mk1?) would have a considerably worse outcome than any two more modern trains colliding.

rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Wednesday 8th April 2015
quotequote all
theboss said:
rs1952 said:
Whilst the result may have been unusual should any other train have collided with it, it would have been just as serious if any two trains collided when one was stationary fouling a junction and the other was doing 100+
I'm no expert, but I suspect a bad accident involving hundreds of passengers sat in heritage stock (not sure what was involved in this case - are they still allowed to use Mk1?) would have a considerably worse outcome than any two more modern trains colliding.
Not at the potential speeds we are talking about here. The passengers in a HST that collides with another train when moving at 100mph are going to be no better off than those in the stationary train.

I believe that the train was formed with Mk1 stock, but that rake also gets dragged around the country by heritage diesel traction as well.

Stedman

7,213 posts

191 months

Wednesday 8th April 2015
quotequote all
Just to add to this and to touch on what Bob said, missing an AWS isn't the end of the world. It should have been reported as soon as it happened and the train shouldn't have been moved before then. This whole incident could have been avoided, or the severity of the SPAD grately reduced if the system wasn't isolated.

I wonder how much poo the driver+fireman are releasing at the moment.

rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Wednesday 8th April 2015
quotequote all
Stedman said:
I wonder how much poo the driver+fireman are releasing at the moment.
If the sequence of events we currently think are true are actually true, then it is likely that the driver won't be allowed on railway premises again, let alone a footplate. That might have a bearing on the matter

W124Bob

1,744 posts

174 months

Wednesday 8th April 2015
quotequote all
My knowledge of the crew involved is limited, but the driver concerned is well over pension age with a full time career behind him. Removing his licence to drive with the loss of a job would be no hardship. It's the potential for prosecution which will be the great worry, First Great Western sacked a driver last year for a similar incident(low speed branch line though), he was then prosecuted and found guilty. In the WCR incident with 4 people on the footplate there may be more difficulties getting a successful prosecution. What is more worrying is whether the isolation of safety equipment has become custom and practice and this is what the RAIB and Office of the Rail Regulator will be trying to establish. Anecdotal evidence from people close to WCR leads me to suspect there is a lot of rule bending( particularly driving hours for those part timers with full time employment in safety critical jobs else where). I have reams of paper work to prove my competency, data recorder downloads, rules question print outs, simulator sessions recorded and good old fashioned rides from driver managers as will any driver working for the big train companies. WCR just won't have the same evidence, making it far easier to tick a few boxes. With a small work force scattered across the country it more or less relies on self policing.

Edited by W124Bob on Wednesday 8th April 20:03