Wasp stripes on shunters

[rodent279]

Agree with all the above, esp. para.3 with regard to child seats and the general public needing to be protected from themselves.

When son was born, M-i-L was determined that we'd have their old traditional nanny pram. We refused, because we needed a car seat. "Oh you don't need that", she said, "we never had that when you were babies, and you were fine".

Yes that's right, and no child ever died did they?

Likewise, next door neighbour, having spent the thick end of £10K remodeling his back garden, refused to go halves with us on scaffolding, so that the painter could get up to paint the weatherboards in the gap between the two houses. The painter refused to do the job without scaffolding, and I don't blame him-he's self-employed and an accident could leave him unable to work.

"We never used to have scaffolding, painters used to use ladders, I don't see why I should pay £150 for scaffolding."

No, that's right, we didn't use to have scaffolding for things like that, and we killed people.

No, these things aren't fool proof, but I'm not blaming anyone for not using them.

[Reorte]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Agree with all the above, esp. para.3 with regard to child seats and the general public needing to be protected from themselves.

When son was born, M-i-L was determined that we'd have their old traditional nanny pram. We refused, because we needed a car seat. "Oh you don't need that", she said, "we never had that when you were babies, and you were fine".

Yes that's right, and no child ever died did they?

 

How many did?

 

***

 

Of course there's a need for some legislation but "you're all too stupid to look after yourselves and need protecting from yourselves" should be regarded as a necessary evil we sometimes have to resort to, not the norm for day to day life. And not every safety rule comes under the heading of "protecting people from themselves" - that does some of them a big disservice - acknowledging mistakes can happen, sometimes quite often, with even the most sensible people and putting mechanisms in place to stop them from having nasty consequences certainly isn't a case of "protecting people from themselves," with the dismissive towards people implications that phrase carries.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Reorte

[Nearholmer]

If you spend hours inside the ONS website, you can probably find the affect of child safety seats, but for a quick appreciation of the combined affects of multiple safety measures and better emergency medicine, the below should do.

 

If you can find a plot that shows “per vehicle km or mile travelled” the affect is even more pronounced ...... the late 1930s were truly, awesomely bad!

 

You didn't even have to pass a test to get a driving license until 1934/5.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Nearholmer

[brack]

Was ZM32 delivered like this? If so that'd be 57. Don't get much more wasp stripey than that.

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by brack

[Reorte]

13 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

If you spend hours inside the ONS website, you can probably find the affect of child safety seats, but for a quick appreciation of the combined affects of multiple safety measures and better emergency medicine, the below should do.

 

If you can find a plot that shows “per vehicle km or mile travelled” the affect is even more pronounced ...... the late 1930s were truly, awesomely bad!

 

I've heard the late 30s figures blamed on the wartime blackout.

 

With such figures I tend to ask not "how many?" but "what is the individual risk?" Of course measuring the former is clear and needs to be recorded, the latter depends upon a great many personal circumstances but I strongly believe that it's the important measure. Double the number of people and (everything else remaining constant for the sake of argument) and you double the number of incidents but the individual risk hasn't changed so I'd say "nothing's got worse." The important question is "should I be worried about being killed in a car crash" (or more specifically to the point brought up "should I be worried about my child being killed in a car crash." (or seriously injured)

[iands]

Apologies for straying off the "Wasp" topic, but staying on the general "safety" theme of number of recorded deaths etc. on the railway. I have a copy of a booklet entitled "Prevention of Accidents to Staff Engaged in Railway Operations." It is not dated but on the title page it says "Published by the Great Western, London and North Eastern, London Midland and Scottish, and Southern Railway Companies." So sometime after the 1923 grouping. The first two paragraphs of the introduction read thus:

 

"Every year between 200 and 300 railwaymen are KILLED, and in addition SEVERAL THOUSANDS meet with accidents which lay them aside for days, weeks, months, or for always."

 

"Investigation of the accidents occurring shows that a high proportion of them is attributable to thoughtlessness or lack of foresight and care, either on the part of the injured person or others."

 

It then goes on explain the "right way" and "wrong way" of doing things, supported by 30 or so "staged" photographs. In general the booklet seems to be aimed mostly at shunters and track workers.

 

Thankfully over the years the death and injury rates have fallen drastically. Interesting to note (my observation) that at the time the powers that be seem to be of the mind that most of the accidents are caused by "thoughtlessness or lack of foresight and care, either on the part of the injured person or others", implying (again my observation) they don't seem to acknowledge that they (the Companies) are in some part responsible for the deaths or injuries, well at least up to the point of the issue of this booklet which perhaps might be seen as the first steps in recognising there is a safety issue, accepting or acknowledging some responsibility, and initiating some sort of safety campaign and training (i.e. said booklet).

 

PS - not sure if my above ramblings are best placed here or perhaps on the thread concerning the tragic Margam incident. If anyone has objections to it being here let me know and I'll move it (or get it moved).

 

[Fat Controller]

4 hours ago, Reorte said:

I've heard the late 30s figures blamed on the wartime blackout.

 

With such figures I tend to ask not "how many?" but "what is the individual risk?" Of course measuring the former is clear and needs to be recorded, the latter depends upon a great many personal circumstances but I strongly believe that it's the important measure. Double the number of people and (everything else remaining constant for the sake of argument) and you double the number of incidents but the individual risk hasn't changed so I'd say "nothing's got worse." The important question is "should I be worried about being killed in a car crash" (or more specifically to the point brought up "should I be worried about my child being killed in a car crash." (or seriously injured)

The black-out wasn't imposed until the 1st September, 1939, two days before the Declaration of hostilities, so I doubt it had that much effect. However, as Britain prepared itself for the inevitable, there would have been a lot of extra rail traffic to build new military installations, and then to stock them.

[rodent279]

11 hours ago, brack said:

Was ZM32 delivered like this? If so that'd be 57. Don't get much more wasp stripey than that.

 

Is that Horwich?

[brack]

30 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Is that Horwich?

Yes

[Nearholmer]

Iands,

 

the booklet you have may include suspiciously ancient looking photos, because the Big Four perpetuated a booklet which had been produced pre-grouping, I think initially by the GWR, but which was issued by more than one company. Yours may, however, be a later edition.

 

The pre-WW2 culture was very much one where personal safety at work was seen as the business of the individual, and there were cases that nowadays would be seen as blatant failures of the management to make safe practices possible, let alone compulsory, which were put on the shoulders of the victims.

 

But, it wasn't "all one way", in that common law duty of care did bear on the employers, even if only very feebly. and there was a whole ragbag of legislation dealing with the health and safety implications of particular aspects of work and/or particular processes, the earliest going back I think to the 1830s, although I don't know of any that applied specifically to activity "on or about the track" on railways. 

 

And, Trades Unions were very active in "gingering up" managements to improve safety for workers.

 

And, and, railways, at least some railways at some times, were actually quite progressive (paternalistic) employers by the standards of the day, partly because it made good business sense, and partly because some were informed by Quaker principles.

 

K

Edited July 25, 2019 by Nearholmer

[daveyb]

On 24/07/2019 at 07:22, Nearholmer said:

 

 

Out of interest, I checked the history of motorcycle helmet law, which finally got enacted in 1973, and found this: "On 31st May 1956, a motion was introduced into the House of Commons “(Helmets to be worn by Drivers and Riders of Motorcycles). After a lengthy debate, this motion was withdrawn.", the fact that army despatch riders had to wear helmets  from some point during WW2, and that concerns really began in 1935, when Lawrence of Arabia died, so these things are a long time in the coming.

 

 

 

 

Do you remember the Sikh turban v helmet debate of the early to mid 70s? They argued for an exception to the law at its introduction and got it... Well that arguement is just being had now in Canada as the Sikh community have managed to gain an exemption from a long written helmet law. Canada, being very accepting and liberal (in comparison to Britain), decided they had omitted to consider the needs of religious based headwear.

 

Of course now all the beach short wearing leather clad Harley and similar riders are up in arms because they still need to wear one.

 

(I still wear Kevlar or leather and a helmet however hot it gets, but I've grown quite attached to my skin and averse to pain...)

 

When I briefly worked at Cricklewood and St Pancreas in 84 the orange vest was a very definite 'wear it or else' garment but there were lots of different designs. By then the donkey jackets had the orange sewn on. They were often filthy to the point of pointless!

 

When and why did they start painting coupling rods red or yellow?

Edited July 26, 2019 by daveyb
Clip and spelling

[Wickham Green]

Coupling rods were red from new on MOST green diesel shunters - but not, initially, on all classes ( the mechanicals often started with unpainted rods and red flycranks ) ............ I'd guess yellow rods were proscribed for everything painted blue. 

[The Johnster]

As to when, I can't help; red coupling rods seem to have been a long standing feature of industrial locos carried over from steam to diesel.  Presumably the why is visibility to staff working near moving parts of moving locomotives.  The flycranks on class 14s were never painted, well, not in BR service anyway.

 

ISTR the justification for turbans being allowed as motorcycle headgear was that they are very tightly wound linen and atually offer protection comparable to a BS helmet.  

[ElectroSoldier]

I followed this thread a while back with interest then while looking up information about Edge hill station I came across this picture of flickr, Im sure the owner wont mind my sharing it here

 

 

A class 502 EMU train with car M28354M passing through Bank Hall station.

Edited November 1, 2019 by ElectroSoldier

[keefer]

Was that not a departmental Sandite unit after withdrawal from revenue service?