Is new third rail totally banned in the UK?

[jjb1970]

Not that I really disagree with what you're saying, but on this point, you only have to look at the roads to see what some people will do. They've presumably had training (they've had to pass a driving test anyway). That said judging by your various postings you've far more experience of how people having to work in potentially dangerous situations behave than I do.

Indeed, driving is a good example of how people are trained to do something and in almost all cases know what they should and shouldn't do yet still do stupid things.

 

Employers and those in managerial/supervisory positions have a responsibility to those who they employ and/or manage. I always took the attitude that if I applied the safe system of work, got out on plant and upheld H&S standards then if somebody did something stupid on a nightshift (when the cats away the mice will play) I'd have been upset at somebody being hurt but I'd feel comfortable about my own behaviour. If I'd turned a blind eye, ruled by e-mail and made no effort to get outside on plant and generally accepted shoddy safety standards then if somebody got hurt I'd consider myself culpable. When I was shift charge engineer in a power station I worked for an ops manager who was known as ironside because he never left his seat, had no idea what happened outside his office and who was held in contempt. I made a point of getting out on plant as ops manager and still hold the view that managers are supposed to manage, if there is one excuse that really makes me cross in the aftermath of an incident it is the "we didn't know" excuse from managers. On the other hand I also ended up deciding the softly softly zero blame culture didn't work, as zero blame was interpreted as zero accountability and some people just took the p*ss. I ended up taking quite a hardline approach and funnily enough although I'm sure it did nothing for my popularity people took the safety rules more seriously. There is a balance and going too soft on enforcing rules is just as bad as being a martinet and indulging in the blame game in terms of safety culture I think. Ultimately a rule is a rule and people have to follow them, a good safety culture needs some indulgence to mistakes and if people recognise their misakes positive re-inforcement is better than punishment I think, if they just extract the urine then there are other tools in the box.

[w124bob]

It is only dangerous to those who shouldnt be anywhere near it in the first place, but unfortunately some desk based warrior has decided having such 'dangerous' things where trespassers could hurt themselves is no longer acceptable.

Dangerous to who exactly?

 

The only people it is dangerous to are people who shouldnt be anywhere near it in the first place!

There are probably more pen related accidents than third rail. There was talk at one time of a Kirby extention to Wigan which would have been relatively easy given the simple track layout. Local gossip from a few years ago even hinted that the bay at Wallgate was retained for Mersey Rail use, it rarely saw any daytime use and acted as an overflow for the small carriage sidings at night.

[jim.snowdon]

There are probably more pen related accidents than third rail. There was talk at one time of a Kirby extention to Wigan which would have been relatively easy given the simple track layout. Local gossip from a few years ago even hinted that the bay at Wallgate was retained for Mersey Rail use, it rarely saw any daytime use and acted as an overflow for the small carriage sidings at night.

Possibly not. Accidents involving the third rail are still too common, but barring actual deaths, which are fortuitously few, they don't make the headlines. Such accidents are, quite rightly in this day and age, not acceptable and doing nothing about the safety hazards posed by live conductor rail would not be an option.

 

Jim

[Trog]

Possibly not. Accidents involving the third rail are still too common, but barring actual deaths, which are fortuitously few, they don't make the headlines. Such accidents are, quite rightly in this day and age, not acceptable and doing nothing about the safety hazards posed by live conductor rail would not be an option.

 

Jim

 

Should we not sort out the motor car before worrying too much about the risks of DC conductor rails?

[jim.snowdon]

Should we not sort out the motor car before worrying too much about the risks of DC conductor rails?

I wouldn't disagree with you, but Society is a strange thing, as is the corporate fear of taking a H&S case as far as a court in order to allow a judge to determine.

 

Jim

[jjb1970]

Should we not sort out the motor car before worrying too much about the risks of DC conductor rails?

That's the standard argument against any industrial health and safety effort. Quite aside from the moral and ethical responsibility of employers to protect the safety of their employees (even if those employees aren't bothered) there are legal obligations and liabilities under the health and safety at work act, electricity at work regulations etc. Society should strive to improve road safety AND industrial safety.

[Trog]

And what about platforms that unfenced 3'-0" drop is a huge hazard, members of the public could really hurt themselves falling off that.

[jjb1970]

And modern Metro systems are provided with screens and doors to separate the public from the track except for when they board and alight for that very reason. We are where we are with a legacy system but if you invented trains today you'd probably have an arrangement similar to modern Metro railways.

[iands]

And what about platforms that unfenced 3'-0" drop is a huge hazard, members of the public could really hurt themselves falling off that.

 

Not on Crossrail, sorry, Elizabeth Line, well the central section at least.

 

Regards, Ian.

[jjb1970]

I'm lucky or unlucky enough depending on perspective to have been involved in a significant number of fatal accident or serious injury investigations and I'd offer three observations of recurrent themes :

 

1. The sort of injuries that result from these incidents tend to be very unpleasant.

2. In almost all of them if existing procedures and controls had been implemented they wouldn't have happened.

3. The people involved were trained and considered competent.

 

The lesson I took from it all was that common sense isn't as common as it should be and reliance on procedural controls is fraught with issues.

[black and decker boy]

Should we not sort out the motor car before worrying too much about the risks of DC conductor rails?

Good employers are doing this already with advanced driving courses and risk assessment of their personnel and their driving.

 

As I do between 25000 and 35000 business miles a year, I get trained & assessed on a regular basis. We are encouraged to reduce our driving and use rail or video where we can.

 

We also have stringent H&S systems for our daily operations, offices and so on. We do rail work but not sure if our safety case includes 3rd rail.

[Edwin_m]

I just had to do an online course on safe driving despite not having driven on business since 2014...

 

However, fatalities on UK roads have halved since 2000, so this large risk is being reduced quite significantly. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-road-fatalities

[melmerby]

 

However, fatalities on UK roads have halved since 2000, so this large risk is being reduced quite significantly. 

 

Is it more due to the greater survival prospects in modern vehicles rather than a step change in the quality of driving ability?

 

Keith

 

Edit I notice cyclists & motor cyclists didn't drop by anywhere near as much as car & pedestrian

Edited January 21, 2018 by melmerby

[Coppercap]

I just had to do an online course on safe driving despite not having driven on business since 2014...

This came up in my former employer (BT). My manager (loose term) insisted everyone on our team did an online safe driving course AND ensure our personal car insurance covered us for business use, and he wanted proof. As I had never used, nor intended to use my car on company business, and had never even driven a company vehicle, I told him where to go. Heck, half of my journey to work was on public transport! No way was I going to pay a higher insurance premium for something that wasn't going to happen. He even tried to get the non-drivers among us to do the online course too! Said 'Manager' later claimed he'd misinterpreted company's rules. He left soon after...

[frobisher]

Is it more due to the greater survival prospects in modern vehicles rather than a step change in the quality of driving ability?

Certainly at least in part, but the standards required for the modern driving test are quite a bit higher now than previously which has to be a factor as well.

[Titan]

Certainly at least in part, but the standards required for the modern driving test are quite a bit higher now than previously which has to be a factor as well.

 

Did something significant change in around 2006/2007? I ask because until that year the rate was fairly constant, and then it started dropping substantially. As this also applies to the motorcycle stats it suggests it may be something other than improved car design.

[frobisher]

Did something significant change in around 2006/2007? I ask because until that year the rate was fairly constant, and then it started dropping substantially. As this also applies to the motorcycle stats it suggests it may be something other than improved car design.

Dunno if there is a causal link, but the Hazard Perception Test was introduced in 2002 and in late 2007 the multiple choice theory test went from 30/35 in 40 minutes, to 43/50 in 57 minutes. When I passed in the early 90's the theory side of things was a couple of questions asked at the end.

 

There's a higher level of testing and it would be nice to think they are having a beneficial effect on our newer qualified drivers.

[Hesperus]

Either that or insurance cost started to price  80% of under 21's off the roads

[jjb1970]

Car crashworthiness and safety systems have improved massively over the last 20 years, both active and passive technologies. And I think there have been some significant changes in societal attitudes to road safety in that time, generally for the better. 

On pedestrians and cyclists, I think that returns us to the argument that we all have a responsibility for our own safety regardless of the responsibilities of others. I see some pedestrians crossing roads and cyclists that clearly assume it is the job of drivers to avoid them and seemingly make no effort to take responsibility for their own safety (and I say that as a cyclist and somebody that does a lot of walking around London).

[45156]

Just a couple of points from me here, of no real technical merit, as unlike many contributors, I do not work for the rail industry.  However, I do live in the North West - near Windermere in fact, and used to live well inside third rail territory.

 

Many years ago there was a fatality in the Croydon area on a line which is now part of the OHLE system of Tramlink. A child was killed by wandering onto the third rail track between trains.  This was, according to the child's mother, the fault of "the railway" as "we thought that the power was turned off between trains, and it should have been".  This is/was probably a pretty good public perception of CR electrification.

 

The Windermere branch should be regarded as a part of the network proper, and not as some sort of added extra.  If it were electrified with OHLE, it would be future proofed, and would not need any form of hybrid technology to operate it, and would then offer a lot more scope for through running to destinations other than Manchester and Liverpool, but even with a reversal from the North.  OK, that's speculative, bit why not.  It's the only railhead in one of the UK's top tourist destinations and it used to have through trains from all sorts of destinations including London with the front portion of the Lakes Express which split at Oxenholme.

 

Finally on motoring for business, I too worked for Telecom, and made two trips using a private car for business, once to visit an at risk customer who was out of service and I was deputed to deliver a company mobile to her using my own car.  Many online forms just to achieve that.  Then to visit a colleague in Sunderland to learn a new job which he already did using a hire car.  I was plagued then for 20 years thereafter, with demands for online driver safety courses, even though my next roles I was never going to drive for them again.

[Fat Controller]

Car crashworthiness and safety systems have improved massively over the last 20 years, both active and passive technologies. And I think there have been some significant changes in societal attitudes to road safety in that time, generally for the better. 

On pedestrians and cyclists, I think that returns us to the argument that we all have a responsibility for our own safety regardless of the responsibilities of others. I see some pedestrians crossing roads and cyclists that clearly assume it is the job of drivers to avoid them and seemingly make no effort to take responsibility for their own safety (and I say that as a cyclist and somebody that does a lot of walking around London).

Also, the enhanced role of paramedics, and the use of air-ambulances in many cases, mean the patient has a better chance of survival following the sort of accident that would have been fatal only a few years ago.

[Reorte]

Many years ago there was a fatality in the Croydon area on a line which is now part of the OHLE system of Tramlink. A child was killed by wandering onto the third rail track between trains.  This was, according to the child's mother, the fault of "the railway" as "we thought that the power was turned off between trains, and it should have been".  This is/was probably a pretty good public perception of CR electrification.

Pretty good example of the type of person who'll get themselves hurt - or someone else hurt tragically, as in that example, unless you wrap everything in cotton wool. How much cotton wool wrapping is too much?

[Reorte]

The Windermere branch should be regarded as a part of the network proper, and not as some sort of added extra.  If it were electrified with OHLE, it would be future proofed, and would not need any form of hybrid technology to operate it

Aside from the debate over the merits of hydrids, the problem with future proofing is that it can sometimes turn in to a white elephant. I'm sure some thought that Woodhead was futureproofed with 1500V DC overhead. Seeing as 25 kV AC is very well established I can't see that being much more of an issue than worrying about standard gauge changing, but you never know (20 years ago who'd have thought electric cars would start looking viable?). Spending money in case it's needed in the future is a risky game - probably justified as part of an existing project but rarely as an exercise in its own right. So, for a general example, new bridges get built with sufficient clearance for electrification on non-electrified lines but existing ones don't get touched until needed. The case needs to be made for it to be worth doing now, not that it might be eventually.

[The Stationmaster]

Aside from the debate over the merits of hydrids, the problem with future proofing is that it can sometimes turn in to a white elephant. I'm sure some thought that Woodhead was futureproofed with 1500V DC overhead. Seeing as 25 kV AC is very well established I can't see that being much more of an issue than worrying about standard gauge changing, but you never know (20 years ago who'd have thought electric cars would start looking viable?). Spending money in case it's needed in the future is a risky game - probably justified as part of an existing project but rarely as an exercise in its own right. So, for a general example, new bridges get built with sufficient clearance for electrification on non-electrified lines but existing ones don't get touched until needed. The case needs to be made for it to be worth doing now, not that it might be eventually.

 

I can give you a small but telling example of that.  When I put together the Avonmouth - Didcot imported coal infrastructure scheme in the early 1990s myself and another manager in WR operationsinsisted that all new signal structures should be designed and built with 25kv ohle clearances - and they were.   This of course has saved a lot of money for the GWML electrification project but one (fortunately only one) of the structures erected to meet our specification was demolished last year in order to allow for a slight platform lengthening at Didcot.

 

Reason?  When we spec'd the signal structures GWML electrification was a faint possibility but the thoughts about HST replacement with trains with longer vehicles to the IET/Class 800 spec weren't even pipe dreams.  Future proofing is dead easy if you have the right crystal ball but it can be very difficult if the ball hasn't even been invented.

[Zomboid]

But all your other signal structures would have saved the electrification project a worthwhile sum and probably a measurable amount of time.

I'd say that the lesson from that is that future proofing is worth the effort, even if a small amount of it turns out to be abortive.