CPA Bulletin

www.cpa.uk.net CPA Bulletin > November 2021 49 RAIL PLANT ASSOCIATION: 2 Article 17 followed on with the Link-up theme and added the importance of having plant skilled auditors with knowledge in plant maintenance, use and hire. Interestingly, the article also alluded to the development of training packages in development by the RPA for plant operators and fitters. As we know the plant operator competence later became a City and Guilds (CITB) qualification (issuing operators with their CTA card of competence), then operator competence was taken in-house by Network Rail under their Sentinel Scheme. But the fitter competence and assessment materials remains firmly within the RPA. The next few articles steered towards the challenges faced from the Vehicle Acceptance Body (VAB). These bodies are responsible for the detailed scrutiny of new on-track plant and issue of the ‘Certificate of Engineering Acceptance’ (oddly shortened to EAC) for each item of on-track plant passing their checks. Of course, those awarding bodies and awarded certificates are still a requirement today, albeit with a slight name change (and many laborious hours for businesses having to conduct changes to their management system documents) from VAB to PAB (Plant Assessment Body), and from EAC to ECC (Engineering Conformance Certificate). The challenges faced by plant owners followed a number of VABs having their licences revoked. Thus, leaving a bottle neck for plant owners wanting to get their plant certified and hired to their customers. The knock on effect of reducing VABs led to a significant increase of charges for their services, coupled with the delay to the plant owner who could not generate any revenue from hiring their newly procured plant because their shiny new investment was awaiting engineering certification. In the end, it led to the release of new items of on-track plant under a ‘temporary’ EAC. Apparently this was permitted under the old railway group standard GM/RT1300. I’ve not heard of that ever happening under RIS1530PLT (which replaced GM/RT1300 in April 2006). In addition, a meeting held between Railtrack, the M&EE Group, the RPA and VABs led to some positive outcomes such as the review to see if the vast number of railway standards, designed primarily for rolling stock, were relevant to on-track plant. It sounds like we have a luxury nowadays where most of what we need as plant providers can be sourced from one Infrastructure Plant Manual. Time for reflection Plant owning companies, still feel the same frustrations from ‘hold-ups’ when introducing of new plant. Albeit, not due to lack of certifying bodies, but more due to complexity of plant being built, a matured RIS1530PLT standard, and possibly due to Network Rail’s Product Approval process. The cost, however, has increased considerably. In GM/RT 1300 days, the scrutiny process was only for the introduction of new plant. Post 2006 when RIS1530PLT superseded GM/RT1300, engineering scrutiny takes place every seven years. And yes, it can be very costly. Can we have more mid-week shifts please Mr Network Rail? On the whole, I thoroughly enjoy working on the railway with on-track plant. Of course, there are ongoing issues, but they’re softened by the pleasure of working with likeminded professionals who love plant, railways and seeking new innovation for our industry. In previous articles we discussed how on-track plant safety has improved over the years through the introduction of POS, Rail PPS and learning from past accidents. Before I get off the train, here’s a reminder why history helps pave the way for safety. At our September RPA meeting, Paul Helks (from AP Webb) made a profound point. He said “we’ve come a long way since the fatal accident at Tebay in 2004. Let us not forget that event nor any others that have caused harm to people. Let us not forget to learn from mistakes made. Let us not forget to teach all new workers joining our railway family about these terrible events. Let us not forget...”