The End of the Yellow Panel

[scouser]

It would be nice to think that the people at the sharp end in any industry are listened to regarding safety.

In reality, it doesn't always happen. As regards peoples safety, the "we don't need elf and safety gang" will soon point out why the people doing the work are talking nonsense.

What's the odd life here or there so long as the train looks nice?

[The Stationmaster]

The TSI as a European specification has to apply to all EU Member State railways or it is not fit for purpose in terms of delivering interoperability. Whilst the British rail network has traditionally used a yellow panel, other railways use red or other colours. So specifying a yellow front end in the TSI would create the same problems for other countries as the TSI specifying, e.g. a red front would create for us.

 

I'm not familiar with the specific requirements of the TSI, but I'm sure it doesn't say we can't continue to use the yellow panel. But equally we cannot refuse network access to a loco/train that does not have a yellow panel provided that the operator can demonstrate that it's absence doesn't reduce the overall level of safety (or whatever the correct terminology is). I for one am prepared to accept that the ORR / Railways Inspectorate are competent to make that assessment.

 

 

Other people have opinions too.

Do those who work on the track actually say that?

The decision would be made by an operator subject to them carrying out a risk assessment and consulting with all interested parties (i.e basically consulting with NR although possibly any maintenance contractors and depot operators);  the operator would probably also involve a NoBo (Notified Body) to review the paperwork and process especially in view of the matter being a potentially 'tricky' one.  The ORR would not get involved in giving agreement as such as it is effectively under a ROGS procedure which only requires TSI compliance plus - in the UK - compliance with the relevant standard(s) and that is that.  

 

However the ORR's Inspectorate could potentially get involved if the trains enter service and a complaint is made that they are not sufficiently visible.  Their procedure would normally be to first inspect the relevant paperwork - i.e. ensure the train is TSI compliant, that a properly documented risk assessment was carried out with full supporting evidence, and that the necessary consultation with involved parties was carried out.  Provided all of that has been done correctly by the train operator and all the information is there in a proper format the only argument might be over the quantitive estimate of risk and the figures it was based on; ORR would have no powers to issue an improvement Notice (i.e. paint the ends yellow) if the case for not doing so has been properly made.

 

However it might well go beyond that with a union getting involved and creating a fuss or - one sincerely hopes  not - a possible injury or fatality linked to the absence of a yellow panel (if such link could be proven). We are then into a very subjective area and the result would probably be an equally subjective decision.

[wombatofludham]

With regards to the TSI being an EU directive.  I would have thought that if the Railway Authorities had qualms and were to feel that yellow ends were essential they could apply for a derogation for the domestic network, leaving the only truly "interoperable" line (i.e the one stretch of line NOT requiring British loading gauge stock, HS1) out of the derogation because as a High Speed line different and more rigid safety rule apply to that line (better fencing, no public crossings, different working rules for track access, etc).  Some while back the EU introduced a directive on the maximum height of double deck buses but the UK, Ireland and Germany were granted derogations for buses working wholly within those member states although international double deck coaches still must not exceed 4m height, so given that the domestic network still contains a substantial number of user-worked or foot crossings, lower standards of fencing and permits live trackside working, plus any "inter-operable" rolling stock from Europe will HAVE to be specially built to meet the British loading gauge, it would be entirely reasonable to apply for a derogation that any stock inter-operating on the domestic network will have to have a yellow front.  Differentiating between the only UK route that would be truly inter-operable and the rest of the network which requires smaller loading gauge rolling stock, on the basis of the differing standards of access to the live railway applicable would be very hard for the EU to fight against. 

 

In rural areas with farm crossings and footpath crossings, yellow ends really are useful to the public, the lights of trains like the 150 and 158 are often hidden behind low hedges and vegetation until you are virtually on the crossing, the yellow front however can often be seen through the neighbouring vegetation beforehand, at least in daylight hours and normal visibility so I still fail to see what the issue is with painting the front yellow.  There are a number of foreign railways with yellow fronted liveries (Belgium, Hungary, Ireland amongst others) so it's not as if other railways haven't picked up the idea.  I doubt Joe and Joanna Numpty are put off catching a train because of a "vile" yellow end, and once on board won't notice it, so precisely who has a wasp up their knickers about yellow paint on the front?

[The Stationmaster]

With regards to the TSI being an EU directive.  I would have thought that if the Railway Authorities had qualms and were to feel that yellow ends were essential they could apply for a derogation for the domestic network, leaving the only truly "interoperable" line (i.e the one stretch of line NOT requiring British loading gauge stock, HS1) out of the derogation because as a High Speed line different and more rigid safety rule apply to that line (better fencing, no public crossings, different working rules for track access, etc).  Some while back the EU introduced a directive on the maximum height of double deck buses but the UK, Ireland and Germany were granted derogations for buses working wholly within those member states although international double deck coaches still must not exceed 4m height, so given that the domestic network still contains a substantial number of user-worked or foot crossings, lower standards of fencing and permits live trackside working, plus any "inter-operable" rolling stock from Europe will HAVE to be specially built to meet the British loading gauge, it would be entirely reasonable to apply for a derogation that any stock inter-operating on the domestic network will have to have a yellow front.  Differentiating between the only UK route that would be truly inter-operable and the rest of the network which requires smaller loading gauge rolling stock, on the basis of the differing standards of access to the live railway applicable would be very hard for the EU to fight against. 

 

In rural areas with farm crossings and footpath crossings, yellow ends really are useful to the public, the lights of trains like the 150 and 158 are often hidden behind low hedges and vegetation until you are virtually on the crossing, the yellow front however can often be seen through the neighbouring vegetation beforehand, at least in daylight hours and normal visibility so I still fail to see what the issue is with painting the front yellow.  There are a number of foreign railways with yellow fronted liveries (Belgium, Hungary, Ireland amongst others) so it's not as if other railways haven't picked up the idea.  I doubt Joe and Joanna Numpty are put off catching a train because of a "vile" yellow end, and once on board won't notice it, so precisely who has a wasp up their knickers about yellow paint on the front?

 

A derogation ought to be no problem at all for a 'traditional British loading gauge' line as there were certainly quite a few put in place when the new system came into being (mainly a consequence of loading gauge matters of course) because if they hadn't existed it would have been impossible to fully assess and pass numerous new works.  However I doubt one would be considered for a new line which is otherwise TSI compliant for interoperability - e.g. it would be difficult to support the reasoning for having such a derogation in respect of HS1 (CTRL).   

[wombatofludham]

A derogation ought to be no problem at all for a 'traditional British loading gauge' line as there were certainly quite a few put in place when the new system came into being (mainly a consequence of loading gauge matters of course) because if they hadn't existed it would have been impossible to fully assess and pass numerous new works.  However I doubt one would be considered for a new line which is otherwise TSI compliant for interoperability - e.g. it would be difficult to support the reasoning for having such a derogation in respect of HS1 (CTRL).   

 

I would expect a new line built to European gauge to comply with TSI and be exempt from the need for yellow paint on TSI compliant stock as new works are highly unlikely to be built with level crossings accessible by the terminally stupid, and be built with safe working provision for track workers, examples where yellow ends are an important back up safety feature. 

 

The issue really is with the existing network where the presence of footpath and user worked crossings and workforce on and about the track are most likely to be encountered, but which isn't truly "inter-operable" with European stock unless specially built to UK loading gauge, so by default, isn't really compliant with inter-operability concepts in the first place.  Therefore is it really necessary for the UK classic network to apply arguably inferior conspicuity requirements depending solely on lighting for visibility so as to allow any European rolling stock to work across the UK when it can't fit through our platforms and bridges, just for the sake of bureaucratic box ticking?  By all means apply the EU TSI regs to HS1 (and 2 if built to European gauge) but it seems overkill and inappropriate to apply it to routes which will never see a DB ICE or Italian ETR500.

[The Stationmaster]

I would expect a new line built to European gauge to comply with TSI and be exempt from the need for yellow paint on TSI compliant stock as new works are highly unlikely to be built with level crossings accessible by the terminally stupid, and be built with safe working provision for track workers, examples where yellow ends are an important back up safety feature. 

 

The issue really is with the existing network where the presence of footpath and user worked crossings and workforce on and about the track are most likely to be encountered, but which isn't truly "inter-operable" with European stock unless specially built to UK loading gauge, so by default, isn't really compliant with inter-operability concepts in the first place.  Therefore is it really necessary for the UK classic network to apply arguably inferior conspicuity requirements depending solely on lighting for visibility so as to allow any European rolling stock to work across the UK when it can't fit through our platforms and bridges, just for the sake of bureaucratic box ticking?  By all means apply the EU TSI regs to HS1 (and 2 if built to European gauge) but it seems overkill and inappropriate to apply it to routes which will never see a DB ICE or Italian ETR500.

 

I suspect that - box ticking apart - it does allow for a degree of commonality in design & construction of traction units (which is an important part of what TSI is about).  Thus an adapted design for the UK market, or from the UK market, could include a common electrical/light fit even if it is a different size.

[brushman47544]

By all means apply the EU TSI regs to HS1 (and 2 if built to European gauge) but it seems overkill and inappropriate to apply it to routes which will never see a DB ICE or Italian ETR500.

But the real issue for classic lines is international freight trains, not high speed trains. Who knows what the future brings but what if an operator of exported Class 92s wanted to run them through on freight from the continent and they had by then red fronts and nice powerful TSI compliant headlights? A derogation may well be sought in such case.

[david.hill64]

But the real issue for classic lines is international freight trains, not high speed trains. Who knows what the future brings but what if an operator of exported Class 92s wanted to run them through on freight from the continent and they had by then red fronts and nice powerful TSI compliant headlights? A derogation may well be sought in such case.

You would not need a derogation as you comply with the standard.

 

The issue is whether or not your operations safety case has addressed the risk that previously had been mitigated by the yellow panel and is now mitigated by a combination of headlights (TSI compliance) and yellow fronts.

 

If the operator can show that the risk to rail workers and the general public of being struck by the train is negligible as a result of TSI compliance, the operator need do no more.

 

However, given the number of people hit by trains every year (excluding suicides) I cannot believe that the risk will be negligible. More likely it is tolerable and as such it must be ALARP - as low as reasonably practicable - and as I continue to point out, the cost of yellow paint is insignificant. Therefore the operator has a duty to apply it.

 

Yellow was chosen as it is easily visible and is usually the last visible part of the spectrum for those with failing eyesight. That is not of relevance to track workers of course, but may well apply to an old lady walking her dogs across an unprotected crossing.

 

Why any operator would choose to run the risk of not applying yellow paint when yellow plus lights is seen as best practice is beyond me.

[phil-b259]

Other people have opinions too.

Do those who work on the track actually say that?

Yes they do! - not just me. However I do accept that given the size of the workforce there will be other views.

 

I tell you what, how about the powers that be undertake a real and meaningful survey of individual workers views so we have some certainty rather than office boffins telling us we have nothing to worry about......

[phil-b259]

For those who haven't seen the Press Release;

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/hitachi-awarded-transpennine-express-multiple-unit-contract.html

Yuck - and to me the black fronts looks 'unfinished' not stylish anyway. Besides you could simply replace the black with yellow and still keep that fancy blue / silver livery wrapping round the ends without any trouble at all.

[newbryford]

Yuck - and to me the black fronts looks 'unfinished' not stylish anyway. Besides you could simply replace the black with yellow and still keep that fancy blue / silver livery wrapping round the ends without any trouble at all.

 

You mean something like this?

 

I quite like yellow......

 

Cheers,

Mick

[phil-b259]

You mean something like this?

 

I quite like yellow......

 

Cheers,

Mick

Yup. Miles better than black from both a safety AND austhetics point of view.

 

(Note this relates the front end arrangement. As to the proposed livery in general, it screens cheap tacky boy racer to me rather than something suitable for a train. Seeing that livery makes me long for FGW dynamic lines livery which despite being bold and shouty, did at least have an element of style with those swirly bits).

[brushman47544]

You would not need a derogation as you comply with the standard.

The issue is whether or not your operations safety case has addressed the risk that previously had been mitigated by the yellow panel and is now mitigated by a combination of headlights (TSI compliance) and yellow fronts.

If the operator can show that the risk to rail workers and the general public of being struck by the train is negligible as a result of TSI compliance, the operator need do no more.

However, given the number of people hit by trains every year (excluding suicides) I cannot believe that the risk will be negligible. More likely it is tolerable and as such it must be ALARP - as low as reasonably practicable - and as I continue to point out, the cost of yellow paint is insignificant. Therefore the operator has a duty to apply it.

Yellow was chosen as it is easily visible and is usually the last visible part of the spectrum for those with failing eyesight. That is not of relevance to track workers of course, but may well apply to an old lady walking her dogs across an unprotected crossing.

Why any operator would choose to run the risk of not applying yellow paint when yellow plus lights is seen as best practice is beyond me.

I agree with you but you were missing my point. IF a red front was a requirement for operation on another European rail network and the locos headlights were TSI compliant, then painting the front yellow for the British network could mean non-compliance for the operator's "home" network. In such cases the TSI provides a way to enable through running in such cases.

[russ p]

Yuck - and to me the black fronts looks 'unfinished' not stylish anyway. Besides you could simply replace the black with yellow and still keep that fancy blue / silver livery wrapping round the ends without any trouble at all.

Those things look awful yellow or no yellow, the railway is going to be an uncomfortable place to be in next few years. As javelins I tolerate sitting with no window to Ashford as they are so fast but transpennine at 125mph for over two hours ,in something with an interior with all the charisma of a 1985 Nissan bluebird if that's not too racist no thank you.

I see just because these airfix kits are assembled in Aycliffe they are getting loads of orders

[Colin_McLeod]

Not a yellow front in sight.

[phil-b259]

Not a yellow front in sight.

FB_IMG_1459703618361.jpg

 

And that proves what exactly?

 

I don't work in Germany I work in the UK. As such it makes sod all difference to me what the Germans do - that is up to them - but here in the UK yellow ends have been benifical to those on the railway for 50 years and if they are to go it must only because WE the BRITISH TRACK WORKERS agree to it. As others have noted the Netherlands has a better Safety record when it comes to trackworkers - and for many decades the coperate NS livery has had a lot of yellow in it - hardly a co-incidence in my book.

[Colin_McLeod]

And that proves what exactly?

 

 

Not meant to prove anything exactly. Just a nice picture and no need to get your knickers in a twist with all those CAPITAL letters.

 

☺

[Wheatley]

Colin_McLeod, on 03 Apr 2016 - 18:15, said:

Not a yellow front in sight.

 

Just several times the UK's workforce accident rate.

[phil-b259]

Not meant to prove anything exactly. Just a nice picture and no need to get your knickers in a twist with all those CAPITAL letters.

 

☺

 

Fair enough - and it is a good picture.

 

However given the thread title and some of the views expressed earlier on, I am naturally suspicious of such pictures.

[wombatofludham]

And that proves what exactly?

 

I don't work in Germany I work in the UK. As such it makes sod all difference to me what the Germans do - that is up to them - but here in the UK yellow ends have been benifical to those on the railway for 50 years and if they are to go it must only because WE the BRITISH TRACK WORKERS agree to it. As others have noted the Netherlands has a better Safety record when it comes to trackworkers - and for many decades the coperate NS livery has had a lot of yellow in it - hardly a co-incidence in my book.

 

Not just track workers.  Since I moved to Wales and encounter far more level crossings in my day to day meanderings than even in level crossing infested Norfolk where I used to live, I genuinely find the yellow end on approaching trains is often noticed before the lighting.  Whilst I am naturally obeying the traffic signals at my local vehicular crossings, if I was at a footpath crossing or user worked crossing I'd find that yellow end quite reassuring and would welcome it as an extra layer of safety together with lights and sounding the horn.  The public are often too stupid to live and have the common sense of a gnat, so it pays for the Railway Authorities never to underestimate the idiocy of Joe and Joanna Numpty and their blissful ignorance of reality, and insist on every possible reasonably practical safety feature, and a bit of yellow paint isn't exactly expensive or impractical.

[brianusa]

The End of the Yellow Panel, discussion. Will it ever end? Everything that can be said must have been said both for and against and its beginning to sound like the US election in capital letters. To sum up. you either like it or dislike it. If you work on or near the tracks, you like it. If you don't feel free to either like or dislike it. In the end it won't make an iota of difference in the great scheme of things!

 

Brian.

[brianusa]

To conclude EYP, an article in this months RM more or less confirms it.

 

Brian.