Discussion in 'Narrow Gauge Railways' started by AndrewT, Jul 17, 2012.
Absolutely brilliant news.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
RIAB report 02/2020: Runaway locomotive at Beddgelert, North Wales, 16 April 2019
Given the cause appears to have been a "ticking time bomb" for 18 years, we can count ourselves fortunate the lesson was learned with no injuries or worse. Of interest, were the same mods made to t'other Funkey?
As much the question - and I've still to read the report - I'm a little uneasy that this is the 3rd RAIB report or Safety Digest in connection with the Festiniog and Welsh Highland in about as many years, and that the previous one (from 2008) also related to what people had or hadn't done, not something from totally outside.
Two separate questions relate to that 'what people had or hadn't done', contingent on whatever it was being a matter of (a) failure to adhere to existing guidelines - i.e. human error, or (b) no relevant guidelines existing in the first place - i.e. systemic shortcoming.
The fourth RAIB recommemdation, that the report and it's conclusions be disseminated around the entire heritage rail sector, is quite illuminating, as tbh, I'd expect such a measure to be normal practice under virtually all circumstances in any event.
It seems a bit strange to me because Conway Castle used to have a deadman's. This I know because when running light back across the cob the driver let it go to demonstrate how it worked. Apparently it doesn't anymore?
The stuff with the nicknames is just FR cliquishness.
That last recommendation is indeed interesting - though too many report recommendations are focused on the organisation(s) involved in the incident, and not a wider audience. But whether the issues identified are (using your classification) human error or systemic in themselves, I do worry that if there are repeated "human error" incidents somewhere in a small organisation, even if in themselves unconnected, it may suggest something more "systemic". I hope I'm being pessimistic.
Thanks. Perhaps the FR should consult the MoT regulations if they are looking for inspiration on how to write the procedures https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-ins...senger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/1-brakes
and invest in one of these?
Yes, but if the brakes worked at 100% efficiency, more stock would be out of service with wheel flats after skidding and sliding down those wet Welsh hills....
I am led to believe it still has a dead mans handle. But the adaption to the brakes meant that, even if this was used, the brakes applied insufficiently to make a difference.
I think you're getting confused with Vale of Festiniog there. Conway Castle doesn't even have a cab at the moment never mind a DSD.
The deadmans system on Conway and Cricceth castles was integrated with the push pull system. As both locos are mainly used at yard shunters these days the electrical system was simplified.
Glad to be corrected Tim. I thought I'd read it had - somewhere!
The breaking modifications were made to Vale of Festiniog as mentioned in the RAIB report above. This prevented a full application of the loco air brake at certain wear levels.
All the deadmans device does is take the engine out of gear and apply the same loco air brake. It is mentioned in the report because this was an out of hours lone working. The driver had the loco in shunt mode so the deadmans device wasn't active, and there was some confusion over the rules in this area. The deadmans device wouldn't have prevented the incident, but it is within the scope of the investigation.
This isn't related to the deadmans device being removed on Conway Castle.
That's the reason I believed it was still fitted, as I was aware. Even if the dead mans was operational, it wouldn't have applied the brakes in this situation. My knowledge of this loco is minimal.
From the report's wording, though there's a stated need for improved documentation and understandable concern surrounding the Dead Man's Handle (which, though obviously a key safety sytem, if I'm reading the report correctly, seems unlikely to have had a direct bearing on the outcome of this incident), I remain unclear whether the underlying cause was down to any shortcoming in the modification's concept, it's implementation during the design process, some error in installation, inadequate maintenence, or some combination of all those factors ..... plus the poor rail surface conditions mentioned.
Though the event has been listed for some time now, this YouTube clip, promoting the 1870 Fairlie Eventful bash, this coming June, popped up this week and contains something that many will have been waiting a long time to hear:
It's only a couple of minutes long, but the usual caveat about mobile data limits applies.
And one has to keep the sound turned down to avoid the stupid "music", so if there is some commentary at any point I have missed it. What's wrong with the sounds of the trains as a natural soundtrack?
Not commentary. Just keep it muted and see the screen at 2m00s .... (don't want to spoil the surprise for anyone who's not aware of ■■■■■ ■■■■□■ □□□□□□ □□□□, after all these years. Cryptic, eh?)
btw I agree about extraneous iffy muzak, though it's hardly rare these days .... my particular pet hates being banjos - where 'perfect pitch' ought to mean slinging it into a khazi, without hitting the seat - and bl**dy barrel organs!
So cryptic it gone over my head...
Any guest Fairlies attending?
I will get my coat!
Separate names with a comma.