Urgent Safety Advice today from the RAIB

[Fat Controller]

Someone quoted the example of dustbin lorries as having reversing alarms etc fitted. Looking at the statistics for accidents involving them, they desperately need them:-

  https://www.hse.gov.uk/waste/transport.htm

I do find it odd that it's not formally mentioned in the Rule Book;  at Eurotunnel, it's part of the mandatory 'Channel Tunnel Certification', along with safe distances from track and catenary.

[martin_wynne]

It does rather depend on the wording.

 

If Rule A says "You must use the Authorised Walking Route at all times.", then a Rule B about precautions when crossing between vehicles elsewhere is contradictory and potentially confusing.

 

It's possible to see why it might have been removed -- if you are provided with safety advice about some activity, it is reasonable to assume it is an activity which you may sometimes be doing.

 

Martin.

[caradoc]

3 hours ago, letterspider said:

I see EMUS's with cameras aiming at the pantograph, ensuring it is in contact. Cameras at the back on the sides of lorries. Cameras on aeroplanes showing pilot views. Many cameras on and in buses for many reasons.

Is there any reason why cameras upon trains couldn't be installed to minimise the risks of these sorts of accidents?

 

A couple of points to make;

 

Some trains already have forward facing cameras (and in some cases the pictures can be accessed from Control Centres).

In any case, how do you think a forward facing camera would have prevented this sad event; The Driver of the moving train was in the leading, not the rear, cab ?

 

[Rods_of_Revolution]

 

Quote

• You must use authorised walking routes if they are provided.
• If you have to cross the line, you must not step on rails or sleepers or between movable parts of points.
• If you have to use a mobile phone, first move to a position of safety and then stand still until you have finished using the phone.
• Do not wear anything that makes you less able to see or hear approaching trains.
• Do not allow yourself to be distracted by anyone or anything.
• Keep a good lookout for approaching trains.
• Make sure you look up at least every 5 seconds so that you can reach a position of safety and be in it no less than 10 seconds before an approaching train arrives.

 

Above is the part of the rule book in question.

 

Firstly the driver should have been using the authorised walking route. Secondly, if an authorised walking route was not provided he should have applied point 7, '...so that you can reach a position of safety and be in it no less than 10 seconds before an approaching train arrives.'. If you're moving between rail vehicles with a gap of half a meter, there's no way he could have reached a position of safety 10 seconds before the train arrived. The only ambiguous part is 'approaching;' Is a train you assume will remain stationary to be regarded 'approaching?' And should you apply point 7 with an assumption that any stationary train (which you're not in control of) could start to approach at any moment? Should this be mentioned in the rules?

 

Regards,

 

Jack

[letterspider]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

A couple of points to make;

 

Some trains already have forward facing cameras (and in some cases the pictures can be accessed from Control Centres).

In any case, how do you think a forward facing camera would have prevented this sad event; The Driver of the moving train was in the leading, not the rear, cab ?

 

 

If the front cab had

             180 forward facing ultrasound at buffer level

             audible alarm and/or flashing light when in coupling mode / about to set off

that would give audible and visible warning to driver and ground staff

It has been mentioned above that all this bleeping would upset local residents - we hear this all the time with bin lorries and we already have audible alarms when doors close on the platforms.

IIRC I am seeing and hearing these alarm warnings everytime luggage handlers, refuelling and tractor units are in the vicinity of commercial aircraft.

 

 

Picking up a comment above, perhaps instead of 'BT call managers' transitioning into the railways, you need nuclear and aeronautical engineers (or at least that level of discipline) who have a more stringent insight into fail safe planning.

I know that the NHS is suffering error rates towards 10% and they are looking at those industries where they are striving for 1% to 0% , for better ideas on mitigating risk in the NHS. (I can't find comparable error rates for rail industry fatalities)

 

 

 

 

[iands]

14 minutes ago, letterspider said:

.... you need nuclear and aeronautical engineers (or at least that level of discipline) who have a more stringent insight into fail safe planning.

 

With all due respect, the UK rail industry has been developing and implementing "a more stringent insight into fail safe planning" for an awfully long time, long before aeroplanes were invented, and even longer before the nuclear industry came on the scene. Yes, we can all learn from each other's experiences and look to adopt "best practice". I haven't studied any H&S statistics on the actual accidents sustained in other industries and what mitigations these other industries have put in place as preventative measures, but it would be interesting to see how many, if any, could be adapted/adopted for the rail industry. 

[Rugd1022]

It's all well and good wanting to fit reversing alarms to locos but from a freight driver's point of view there are places we go where such an alarm wouldn't be heard where it counts at the rear of the train during propelling movements above the normal din of daily operations. For instance, this morning I was shunting 6O51 at Stewarts Lane, right next to the extremely hectic and very noisy London Concrete terminal, propelling a rake of 22 loaded stone wagons round a sharp bend into the Engine Shed Sidings using radio communication with the shunter who was (rightly) preceeding the move on foot at the back of the train. There is so much ambient noise in areas like this that I doubt anyone would even notice a beeping noise coming from a loco hundreds of yards away. I for one don't need the unnecessary added distraction of more noise in and around the cab whilst struggling to hear the shunter's instructions above the noise of the loco itself. To get those 22 wagons unloaded for a right time departure with the empties takes a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, and running round with awkward sight lines for both driver and shunter. There are other terminals like this all over the country with numerous noise and movement related distractions.

 

The same applies to reversing cameras with view screens in the cab, it's one more thing in the cab we don't need, we're meant to keep a constant eye on the speedo when shunting and having to look at a screen as well is just daft. The idea of having a camera fitted is pointless anyway unless every rake of wagons were fixed sets with cameras mounted at both ends, the cost of through wiring each set would be astronomical and in many cases even fixed sets change formation during the course of normal operations (they don't always return to the quarries in the same order they left). To be of any use at all these cameras would need to be kept clean at all times, something which would be impractical at the quarries and terminals we go to day in, day out. If the use of these cameras were written into the Method Of Work for any given location then any failure of the equipment would render the set of wagons as useless until repairs can be made, this would be unacceptable in day to day operations.

 

The point about official walking routes has been raised and rightly so of course, but many of the places we go to don't have any. Even where they do exist they are of no use when shunting, the groundstaff need to be able to walk anywhere in any given location they can see the movement whilst calling the driver back etc. There may well be a walking route from the car park to the yard office but most of the job involves walking between rakes of wagons and stepping across sidings or running lines etc, it's in the very nature of the job.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Rugd1022

[Rods_of_Revolution]

21 minutes ago, letterspider said:

 

If the front cab had

             180 forward facing ultrasound at buffer level

             audible alarm and/or flashing light when in coupling mode / about to set off

that would give audible and visible warning to driver and ground staff

It has been mentioned above that all this bleeping would upset local residents - we hear this all the time with bin lorries and we already have audible alarms when doors close on the platforms.

IIRC I am seeing and hearing these alarm warnings everytime luggage handlers, refuelling and tractor units are in the vicinity of commercial aircraft.

 

 

Picking up a comment above, perhaps instead of 'BT call managers' transitioning into the railways, you need nuclear and aeronautical engineers (or at least that level of discipline) who have a more stringent insight into fail safe planning.

I know that the NHS is suffering error rates towards 10% and they are looking at those industries where they are striving for 1% to 0% , for better ideas on mitigating risk in the NHS. (I can't find comparable error rates for rail industry fatalities)

 

 

 

 

 

The rules state that 'You must use authorised walking routes if they are provided.' At Tyseley Depot there are authorised walking routes, but it requires that you walk all the way to either end of the depot to safely cross. A member of staff may choose to disregard the rules and cross in between trains as it's quicker than walking to the authorised crossing, but they may a price for doing so.

 

The bottom line is follow the rules and use the authorised walking routes.

[Steadfast]

26 minutes ago, Rugd1022 said:

 

 

The point about official walking routes has been raised and rightly so of course, but many of the places we go to don't have any. Even where they do exist they are of no use when shunting, the groundstaff need to be able to walk anywhere in any given location they can see the movement whilst calling the driver back etc. There may well be a walking route from the car park to the yard office but most of the job involves walking between rakes of wagons and stepping across sidings or running lines etc, it's in the very nature of the job.

Sorry to distract from the topic of the thread slightly, but 10/10 Nidge, as one of those in the role you describe you've summed it up perfectly.

 

Jo

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, letterspider said:

 

If the front cab had

             180 forward facing ultrasound at buffer level

             audible alarm and/or flashing light when in coupling mode / about to set off

that would give audible and visible warning to driver and ground staff

 

The last thing the railway needs are additional features on trains that, if they fail to work, cause the train to be unfit for service and thus need to be removed from service until repaired.

 

Thus any additional features need to be carefully considered, and any potential benefits considered against the negatives.

 

But, particularly with the audio warnings, they will tend to go off frequently enough in a depot that after the first week everybody will simply automatically tune them out and pay no attention to them.

Edited March 5, 2020 by mdvle

[roythebus]

There's some sensible views on here from the professional railwaymen. This topic was discussed on the FB "Lost Boys" group, a group of drivers and secondmen from 1968-1988, the last of the traditionally trained locomen. They were amazed that this has been dropped from the rule books as indeed I was.

 

It would seem that the unfortunate victim also ignored what should be Rule 1 in every Railway Rule Book, NEVER assume anything! He was apparently a man with quite a bit of seniority, maybe just outside the "Lost Boy" era. 

 

There was a lot of questioning what gap you should leave when walking between trains. 50'-60' some said, others 6'. the trouble is as others have said, when you're working on the ground as aprt of the job, not going to or from "the job" there is often no walking route. That's where the 6 foot rule used to come into play except when going between to couple or uncouple.

 

It's a rule on heritage railways that a loco should sound the whistle or horn before every movement, but the nimbys have put paid to that on the big railway. The other rule we have is the written 60' between stationary vehicles. Remember the guard who was killed on the NYMR? He had sufficient gap but the loco unexpectedly went back onto the train!

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

 

Above is the part of the rule book in question.

 

Firstly the driver should have been using the authorised walking route. Secondly, if an authorised walking route was not provided he should have applied point 7, '...so that you can reach a position of safety and be in it no less than 10 seconds before an approaching train arrives.'. If you're moving between rail vehicles with a gap of half a meter, there's no way he could have reached a position of safety 10 seconds before the train arrived. The only ambiguous part is 'approaching;' Is a train you assume will remain stationary to be regarded 'approaching?' And should you apply point 7 with an assumption that any stationary train (which you're not in control of) could start to approach at any moment? Should this be mentioned in the rules?

 

Regards,

 

Jack

Jack, my reading of those seven points shouts "running lines", for which situation they seem eminently sensible. Sidings, yards and depots are a different world and as such need different rules/instructions/guidelines.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

Just now, St Enodoc said:

Jack, my reading of those seven points shouts "running lines", for which situation they seem eminently sensible. Sidings, yards and depots are a different world and as such need different rules/instructions/guidelines.

 

I think that's only because they are aimed at the broadest range of people, most of whom will be working near main running lines. That said, I think they are just as relevent regardless of whether the context is a main running line or a depot/yard.

 

If you're ground staff and you need to move to a position to see a train back, but that position isn't covered by an authorised walking route, you just don't use an authorised walking route, because their isn't one and the rules state you 'must use authorised walking routes if they are provided.' If they are not provided for the position you need to be in, then you access the position whilst observing the rules listed after:

• If you have to cross the line, you must not step on rails or sleepers or between movable parts of points.
• If you have to use a mobile phone, first move to a position of safety and then stand still until you have finished using the phone.
• Do not wear anything that makes you less able to see or hear approaching trains.
• Do not allow yourself to be distracted by anyone or anything.
• Keep a good lookout for approaching trains.
• Make sure you look up at least every 5 seconds so that you can reach a position of safety and be in it no less than 10 seconds before an approaching train arrives.

All of those rules to me seem valid and appropriate whether you're on a main running line or a depot/yard. I do think the last point should be expanded to include trains at rest, so you need to be able to get to a position of safety with 10 seconds to spare should a stationary train begin to moving. Even if you're ground staff, unless you've got a specific reason to be between vehicles, always making sure you're at least 10 seconds away from being hit by a train is reasonable whilst moving around the yard. As ground staff, 99% of the time you'll be in a position of safety anyway, as no one makes a habit of hanging around in the 4ft.

 

That's my take, but I've only worked around depots and not out on the mainline.

[Andrew Young]

Whilst the RAIB have now published their ‘Urgent Advice’ four months after the tragic event at Tyseley, my employer (our drivers go on Tyseley too) had already written to each driver shortly after the event about personal safety on depots.

 

The subject of safety on depots had been on our safety briefs over the last twelve months following a near Mids at another depot (along with improvements to the crossing points at this other depot).

 

Train movements on depots can be almost silent and when the first crossing point you come to is blocked by a stabled unit, there is the temptation to go for the gap that’s there. You really do need to have eyes in the back of your head when walking about any depot as just the slightest lapse in concentration can have tragic results.

[letterspider]

12 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

The last thing the railway needs are additional features on trains that, if they fail to work, cause the train to be unfit for service and thus need to be removed from service until repaired.

 

Thus any additional features need to be carefully considered, and any potential benefits considered against the negatives.

 

But, particularly with the audio warnings, they will tend to go off frequently enough in a depot that after the first week everybody will simply automatically tune them out and pay no attention to them.

 

 

I am surprised how many thumbs up your reply received

 

These features are there to protect people's lives. They are already working reliably in other industries as I have already described.

If failure of a safety system is causing a train to be out of service for repairs GOOD. Perhaps there needs to be better maintenance intervals?

 

If everybody in a depot 'zones out' from warnings - then at least the employer have dispatched their duty to mitigate risks - if the employee does not heed visible and audio warnings - they are unlikely to remember something in a rulebook they may never have read all the way through and possibly forgotten. However those systems would have given them better protection

 

What I do not see as acceptable is to use cost as an excuse - when the technology is reliable and available and relatively cheap and what has not been proferred is a better alternative to what is already available.

 

In the meantime I would have hoped the accident review board should have been a lot more proactive and forward thinking in its report (I have not read it) and suggested active safety measures (such as these or maybe something better) to be installed in all motive power going forwards and an urgent assessment into the possibility of retro fitting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Oldddudders]

•  

26 minutes ago, letterspider said:

In the meantime I would have hoped the accident review board should have been a lot more proactive and forward thinking in its report (I have not read it) and suggested active safety measures (such as these or maybe something better) to be installed in all motive power going forwards and an urgent assessment into the possibility of retro fitting.

It would seem that despite the patient explanations from several railwaymen, above, you persist with this impractical nonsense. Do tell us on what basis you know better than those whose daily lives involve working in the sort of environment in which this tragedy occurred, and why you continue to imagine anyone else will listen? 

[caradoc]

17 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

 

At Tyseley Depot there are authorised walking routes, but it requires that you walk all the way to either end of the depot to safely cross. A member of staff may choose to disregard the rules and cross in between trains as it's quicker than walking to the authorised crossing, but they may a price for doing so.

 

 

Which highlights a facet of human nature, whether on a railway depot or anywhere else. We tend to take the shortest route; Look at any location where the paving makes a right-angled turn and there will inevitably be a muddy but more direct trodden path across the angle.

[letterspider]

21 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

•  

It would seem that despite the patient explanations from several railwaymen, above, you persist with this impractical nonsense.

You are of course entitled to your views and opinions. To be clear - my question was... if all of this 'impractical nonsense' is already in wide use in other areas of daily lives, then why not on motive power. However I have done some websearching and found out that there are EU projects such as this

https://shift2rail.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/S2R-SMART-project-Vienna-2018-COMPLETE-final.pdf

already in the research phase - (this example appears to be for protecting permanent way gangs during maintenance

 

Do tell us on what basis you know better than those whose daily lives involve working in the sort of environment in which this tragedy occurred, and why you continue to imagine anyone else will listen?

I will rather decline thanks - I was only asking a question as to whether simple, existing technological solutions could have saved this man's life but I believe your reply has adequately answered that question.

 

 

 

 

[Talltim]

23 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Which highlights a facet of human nature, whether on a railway depot or anywhere else. We tend to take the shortest route; Look at any location where the paving makes a right-angled turn and there will inevitably be a muddy but more direct trodden path across the angle.

They are called desire lines

Edited March 6, 2020 by Talltim

[Talltim]

You have to remember that you have to balance safety everywhere. If you introduce extra technological safety systems, they will have costs; fitting, maintenance and disruption due to failure. If you load all these costs onto the already pretty safe railway, then you risk pushing customers onto the far less safe roads.

[Hobby]

Jack's posts summarised it for me.

 

TBH the addition of low level cameras/sensors seem like a red herring to me. In the case in point unless the driver happened to look at the screen at exactly the right time he wouldn't have seen the person attempting to cross as he was moving at the time and would probably have been looking elsewhere. I could come up with lots of "improvements" we could make to make things safer for everyone, but at the end of the day someone will still manage to prove our safety systems less safe than we thought.

 

As one of those "non railway" staff that are looked down on so much by some contributors i would add that when i joined the railway and was given PTS training the use of authorised walking routes was given great emphasis as was avoiding putting ourselves in a dangerous position. We were also told that we were never (repeat, never) to go between two vehicles unless we had come to an agreement with the driver(s) before doing so, as far as I am aware that requirement has not changed, though these days is very rare for those of us in the passenger guard role to have to do so.  

 

We have to accept that this was a tragic accident and, like all accidents on the railways, we can all take something from it. I am sure that's why RAIB did what they did.

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

It does rather depend on the wording.

 

If Rule A says "You must use the Authorised Walking Route at all times.", then a Rule B about precautions when crossing between vehicles elsewhere is contradictory and potentially confusing.

 

It's possible to see why it might have been removed -- if you are provided with safety advice about some activity, it is reasonable to assume it is an activity which you may sometimes be doing.

 

Martin.

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Jack, my reading of those seven points shouts "running lines", for which situation they seem eminently sensible. Sidings, yards and depots are a different world and as such need different rules/instructions/guidelines.

It is in fact from a different part of the Rule Book - not from the section covering safety Rules for drivers.  This reflects one of the problems inherent in the RSSB Rule Book in that instead of placing all personal safety Rules in one section and having that section applicable to everybody some personal safetyRules are elsewhere and are not comprehensive nor do they cross reference back to the section that does cover personal safety Rules. (it is my copyright incidentally).

 

It is in fact remarkably simple to produce a totally common set of personal safety Rules applicable to everyone and I forever wonder why on earth RSSB doesn't do it in their Rule Book (which situation they then compound by issuing the separate little extract booklets).   I append below is an extract from an early draft of a  a new Rule Book I wrote several years back for a well known leisure railway - the terms 'a position of safety' and 'authorised or safe walking route' had already beend defined earlier in this section of the book

 

If You Have To Cross Any Line Or Siding

 

When you cross a line, even a siding, you expose yourself to greater danger because this where there are trains, unexpected movements and often very poor sighting.

 

B.4a Never assume that people such as loco Drivers or shunters can see you, their job is the movement they are making - not looking for you!

 

B.4b Whenever possible cross at an approved crossing place if one is available.

 

B.4c If there is a made up (to rail level) foot crossing available use it, but use it with care especially if it is wet or icy.

 

B.4d Always pick a safe place to cross – this is one where it is easy to reach a position of safety because there are a minimum number of lines and where there are fewer hazards and the best view in all directions from which a train might approach.

 

B.4e Before you cross STOP, LOOK, and LISTEN and keep on doing that as you cross.

 

B.4f Cross all the way, don’t stop for a chat or to look at a nice view – get to the next position of safety at the earliest opportunity but do not run.

 

B.4g Do not cross if there are any rail movements at all in the vicinity, even if you think they don’t affect you.  Only cross if you are absolutely sure that movement cannot get onto the line(s) you are going to cross.

 

B.4h If a signal is at danger it does not mean that a train won’t come along but if a signal is off it probably does mean that there will be a train coming soon.

 

B.4J If you have to step over rails take great care to avoid tripping.

 

Working Or Walking In Yards or Near Sidings

 

Yards and sidings present greater hazards because stabled vehicles cannot obstruct sight lines and it can also be more difficult to get to a position of safety.

 

B.5a In yards or around sidings always use the route which keeps you nearest to a position of safety.

 

B.5b Do not walk between sidings when you can walk outside the siding area.

 

B.5c Do not cross any line or siding within 20 feet of a standing vehicle, you don’t know if it is going to move and it might move silently with no warning.

 

B.5d Do not cross any line or siding between a vehicle and the siding stop blocks (buffer stops), go round the end of the siding.

Walking Where Work Is taking Place on Locomotives

 

Steam locos pose numerous hazards for the unwary and diesels can also pose a differing set of hazards to the unwary.

 

B.6a. Keep clear of any area where any work is being carried out on a loco there is a risk of injury from escaping steam or hot water, there is a chance that a loco might move without warning, and numerous other hazards.

 

B.6b Do not cross the line in front of or behind a loco, even if you think it is dead and is unable to move.

 

[martin_wynne]

12 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

stabled vehicles cannot obstruct sight lines

 

Mike, a typo there?

 

Martin.

[stewartingram]

15 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Mike, a typo there?

 

Martin.

And here?

 

B.4e Before you cross STOP, LOOK, and LISTEN and keep on doing that as you cross.

[iands]

5 hours ago, letterspider said:

What I do not see as acceptable is to use cost as an excuse - when the technology is reliable and available and relatively cheap and what has not been proferred is a better alternative to what is already available.

 

I wasn't using "cost" per se as an excuse for not doing anything. With any cost expenditure it is normal to expect a benefit, or to put it another way, what "value" can be expected and how is the value (or benefit) to be defined?

 

Yes, technology is generally available. Is that technology reliable, maybe reasonably reliable, but is it 100% reliable (24/7 365 days/annum)? Cheap? define cheap? Each item of proposed equipment may only cost a few pounds, but what about the cost of design, approval and acceptance for different configurations of rolling stock, and then the cost of installation, testing, commissioning and Entry into Service? Bearing in mind the number of "cabs" involved in the UK fleet, the cost is soon mounting up to quite a significant figure (10s of millions if not more). 

 

So who will pay for these systems? The TOCs/FOCs, the leasing companies, the DfT, the passenger (through higher ticket fares)?

 

I don't know the full circumstances of the tragic accident at Tyseley (i.e. why the person concerned did what he did), but thankfully this type of accident is very rare on today's railways and I think a more effective way to spend the money would be to ensure authorised/safe walking routes are provided and backed-up by reinforcing training and safety documentation.

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by iands
minor edit (missing word)