Network Rail to ban Flying Scotsman?

[mikejames]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

The Flying Scotsman should be cut up and the bits sold to rail enthusiasts and collectors of tat, the funds to then be used by the NRM to support preserving our railway heritage. 

 

The A1trust could then build a replacement and everyone would be happy?

[Nearholmer]

JJB

 

Perhaps a variation on your idea might be to saw it up into millions of tiny pieces, and give, rather than sell, a piece to each person in the country, given that we all paid for the work so, in a sense, each own a bit of it already.

 

K

[Hroth]

20 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Perhaps a variation on your idea might be to saw it up into millions of tiny pieces, and give, rather than sell, a piece to each person in the country, given that we all paid for the work so, in a sense, each own a bit of it already.

 

The Royal Mint hasn't produced any £2 and 20p coins for the last year, so they might have the capacity to churn out 67 million  FS 20p coins and put them into general circulation....

 

(Definitely a )

[Dunsignalling]

Easy answer is to only run the ruddy thing under cover of darkness.

[APOLLO]

Taken by my dad (then a local press photographer) many years ago. Wigan North Western (don't know the date)

 

 

Note the local boss in the trilby, and local plod on the job - also note the southbound trains in the adjacent platforms.

 

Flying Scotsman always has attracted such attention. nothing new.

 

Brit15

[pete_mcfarlane]

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Not a new form of weirdness, though ........ I remember the almost disturbing-to-watch emotions and behaviour that some of the many Western finale railtours elicited in the 1970s.

As a kid I went to see FS run through Grantham one freezing cold morning in 1983. It did 3 Sundays in a row, and according to the local paper they ended up closing the station to non-travellers on the later runs, because people were wandering on to the track directly off the platforms. Now that is a bit special. 

 

I reckon that a good chunk of the people who are doing this are enthusiasts who a) regularly trackside on preserved lines, b) never photograph, or take any interest in the mainline network, or use it as a traveller. So they assume they can stand by the track in the same way as usual on the odd occasion that FS comes through their neck of the woods.

 

There's probably also a dash of the 'health 'n' safety has gone mad!' and 'nobody got hurt before' attitudes in them.  

[Reorte]

13 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

There's probably also a dash of the 'health 'n' safety has gone mad!' and 'nobody got hurt before' attitudes in them.  

 

Would be nice if some of these people realised that it's their behaviour driving the current health and safety attitude. It wouldn't have developed in quite the same way if some people didn't seem so determined to prove that about as capable in public as you average toddler.

[Zomboid]

Yes, there would be fewer H&S rules if people hadn't proven time and again that they need to be protected against their own stupidity.

[PaulRhB]

15 hours ago, brack said:

If you ran FS around more, and faster, there may be a solution through natural selection?

I know that's intended as flippant but for a bit of perspective think of the footplate crew in this situation even if they clip someone.

[jim.snowdon]

38 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Yes, there would be fewer H&S rules if people hadn't proven time and again that they need to be protected against their own stupidity.

There are more than a few H&S "rules" that are created by employers primarily for their protection, largely on the principle that if they tick all the boxes for PPE, etc., they can't be accused of not having thought of something. It's simpler to them than doing a proper quantified risk assessment, but all it does is encourage lax safety practices because people end up having to work with requirements for which there is no obvious purpose. The supposed risks do not arise and complacency sets in. Complacency is a far bigger hazard than most actual hazards. So is "safety by wrote", because people stop thinking. Ditto the idea that PPE is there to make you safe - in many cases it isn't, it has more use in protecting you when you fail to take the proper protective action in the first place. And it does, how many people stop and think what they did wrong that required the PPE to save them, they regard the PPE as their protection without realising what they did wrong in the first place.

 

Jim

[spikey]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Yes, there would be fewer H&S rules if people hadn't proven time and again that they need to be protected against their own stupidity.

 

True.  The inherent problem is the same as with making any system foolproof i.e. every time you think you've got it covered, along comes an even bigger fool ...

[Reorte]

5 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

There are more than a few H&S "rules" that are created by employers primarily for their protection, largely on the principle that if they tick all the boxes for PPE, etc., they can't be accused of not having thought of something. It's simpler to them than doing a proper quantified risk assessment, but all it does is encourage lax safety practices because people end up having to work with requirements for which there is no obvious purpose. The supposed risks do not arise and complacency sets in. Complacency is a far bigger hazard than most actual hazards. So is "safety by wrote", because people stop thinking. Ditto the idea that PPE is there to make you safe - in many cases it isn't, it has more use in protecting you when you fail to take the proper protective action in the first place. And it does, how many people stop and think what they did wrong that required the PPE to save them, they regard the PPE as their protection without realising what they did wrong in the first place.

 

Yes but... How did we get to that position? Ultimately driven by the stupidity of certain people. We might not have reacted to their stupidity in the most ideal way but they're still the underlying cause. And even with the complacency, stupidity, and obsessiveness towards just following the rules rather than understanding them the net result is still fewer people getting hurt than there used to be, which understandably lends justification towards the current approach, as frustrating as it might be.

[avonside1563]

It's not just the UK that has this problem...

 

[dvdlcs]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

Ditto the idea that PPE is there to make you safe - in many cases it isn't, it has more use in protecting you when you fail to take the proper protective action in the first place. And it does, how many people stop and think what they did wrong that required the PPE to save them, they regard the PPE as their protection without realising what they did wrong in the first place.

 

Jim

 

Where I work (Rail industry, Australia) PPE is considered the last line of defence against hazards, not the first. But, as has been said, many people seem to think that if they're dressed up like the Michelin man then everything will bounce off them.

 

First rule of hazard reduction - eliminate the hazard (where possible).

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

 

Yes but... How did we get to that position? Ultimately driven by the stupidity of certain people. We might not have reacted to their stupidity in the most ideal way but they're still the underlying cause. And even with the complacency, stupidity, and obsessiveness towards just following the rules rather than understanding them the net result is still fewer people getting hurt than there used to be, which understandably lends justification towards the current approach, as frustrating as it might be.

Usually, the stupidity of management, not the person at the bottom end of the chain.

 

Jim

[Bomag]

20 minutes ago, dvdlcs said:

 

Where I work (Rail industry, Australia) PPE is considered the last line of defence against hazards, not the first. But, as has been said, many people seem to think that if they're dressed up like the Michelin man then everything will bounce off them.

 

First rule of hazard reduction - eliminate the hazard (where possible).

 

To be more precice eliminate any hazard not related to the functional requirement and mitigate anything remaining. You can eliminate all risks on the networks by closing and digging up all lines, but this rather impacts on the premise of having a railway.

 

Totally agree with the observation that many PPE wearers think it make them invulnerable.

[Reorte]

1 minute ago, Bomag said:

 

To be more precice eliminate any hazard not related to the functional requirement and mitigate anything remaining. You can eliminate all risks on the networks by closing and digging up all lines, but this rather impacts on the premise of having a railway.

 

Totally agree with the observation that many PPE wearers think it make them invulnerable.

 

Never be near anyone who isn't a bit nervous where they should be nervous.

[jim.snowdon]

26 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Never be near anyone who isn't a bit nervous where they should be nervous.

From my experience, that can include a fair few railway staff, particularly those in the depots who are routinely out on track. Staff complacency, aided by apparently unnecessary rules, is one of the greater hazards.

 

Jim

[laurenceb]

The well known fact that if you are wearing hi-vis the train/bus wont hit you

[pete_mcfarlane]

23 hours ago, rab said:

I may have shared before, i was at Wellington when City of Truro did the centenary run. I was with  a number of enthusiasts in a field next to the bank. After she had passed an idiot, who it was obvious was not an enthusiast, emerged from the trees beside the line, shouting to his mates that he'd been that close that the water from the injector had sprayed him. 

 

He might want to recall what happened to the designer of 'City of Truro' when he got really close to the track to get a better look........

Edited May 13, 2019 by pete_mcfarlane

[SM42]

6 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

From my experience, that can include a fair few railway staff, particularly those in the depots who are routinely out on track. Staff complacency, aided by apparently unnecessary rules, is one of the greater hazards.

 

Jim

 

I was always (nervous isn't the word) but on my guard, no matter how much I thought I had done to protect myself by using the laid down procedures. (Some of which do seem to be OTT, but there is a sound reasoning behind them even if you can't see it. )

 

20 years after last working lineside, I still look left and right before crossing the track. Even at a level crossing when the lights aren't showing or a 40ft piece of track not connected to anything. You just never know when one of your fellow human beings has slipped into an inexplicable moment of stupidity.  Perhaps someone is testing a lawnmower engined, rail mounted sofa on that handy bit of isolated track. Just for laffs like.

 

I'm quite protecive of my body. I don't want to lose bits of it unnecessarily.

 

On the subject of PPE, I have lost count of the number of people who bumped into me in the street and claimed that they didn't see a 17 stone, 6' 1" man clad from head to toe, (including the hat) in brilliant orange with retro reflective strips.

 

Andy

[The Stationmaster]

An interesting thread in this topic is reference to  H&S/Health and Safety as if it is some new and devilish invention intended more not to protect people from themselves (or anybody else) but to protect their employer from legal retribution.

 

Well in one respect I would agree because although the term 'on or near the lne' appeared in the 1950 edition of the Rule Book what it actually meant in terms of distance from the line was not defined in the Rule Book until an amendment issued in 1990.   The two 'place of safety' definitions (in terms of distance from a running line) were defined some years before that and the only distinction then, as now, was in respect of high speed lines (i.e. linespeed 100 mph or greater) which seems to date from some time in the 1970s - alas I can't date it any more accurately than that.  All of what currently exists in the Rule Book regarding being on or near running lines has now been there for almost 29 years - so yes it does post date H&S legislation but in respect of distances it was no more than a long sought intention to make clear what certain terms meant in terms of distance from running lines.

 

The big difference between the past - however might one define it but basically a railway with staff at numerous locations  - is the simple fact that there are no longer anything like as many staff  about and those that do exist are concentrated into locations which quite often aren't immediately adjacent to the line anyway.  Thus those who were once there and could deal with trespassers etc and guide them to at least a safe place if not out beyond the fence (and the Rule Book in fact required the latter a very long time ago) and incursions onto the railway have a lot more difficult to quickly detect and deal with.

 

So in reality very little change because of H&S.

[pete_mcfarlane]

20 hours ago, SM42 said:

Perhaps someone is testing a lawnmower engined, rail mounted sofa on that handy bit of isolated track. Just for laffs like.

 

That will be Buster Keaton...... 

 

 

 

[eastglosmog]

I know H & S gets a bad press, but in the quarry industry 30-40 years ago there were 20 fatalities per 100,000 of the workforce every year.  After an intensive and vigorous H & S campaign, that figure is down to 6 per 100,000 per year and several years  we manage to go without killing anybody.  There are some 200 people out there who are still alive because of H & S and some 5,400 who still have all their arms and legs.  That is what H & S is all about. 

Regarding being fearful, there is an old saying among Aran Island fishermen: "He who does not fear the sea will invariably be drowned, as he will go out when he should not; those who do fear the sea will only be drowned now and then".

[87023Velocity]

 

This still gives me the shivers, this gentleman was very very lucky, another inch or so and that video clip would have had a completely different outcome, one which would not be welcomed on Youtube or any social platform. What he needed was a lookout, but seriously, this is what happens when getting 'caught in the moment' happens and you switch off from everything else.