Urgent Safety Advice today from the RAIB

[TheSignalEngineer]

25 minutes ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

Imagine a car crash on a country road in 1992, it could take 20 to 30 minutes to drive to the nearest occupied house, call the emergency services and try to describe the location of the crash. These days, people can call the emergency services the moment the crash happens, someone will have GPS on their phone to give the exact location of the crash and the emergency services can give immediate over the phone advice on treatment to administer.

On some of the rural roads in this area it was easier to find a working phone box in 1992 than it is to get a mobile signal now. Even the Emergency Services complain that they can't get calls through on their own system.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

45 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

On some of the rural roads in this area it was easier to find a working phone box in 1992 than it is to get a mobile signal now. Even the Emergency Services complain that they can't get calls through on their own system.

 

That may stand true for a very small number of places. Today, for emergency calls, the geographic coverage is around 90%; Unless you're in mid-Wales or the Highlands, you'll almost always get a signal for emergency calls, even if you can't get signal from your provider for a standard call. So for the overwhelming majority of accidents there will be phone signal.

 

Regards,

 

Jack

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

Mobile phones are a factor (not necessarily the cause) in about 35 car crash deaths a year. I don't know how many times they have stopped serious injuries from becoming fatal ones, but anecdotally they definitely offset the number of deaths they were a factor in causing with lives they have saved. Imagine a car crash on a country road in 1992, it could take 20 to 30 minutes to drive to the nearest occupied house, call the emergency services and try to describe the location of the crash. These days, people can call the emergency services the moment the crash happens, someone will have GPS on their phone to give the exact location of the crash and the emergency services can give immediate over the phone advice on treatment to administer. Mobile phones are fantastic tools in saving lives and I believe they more than offset the number of accidents they cause, not to mention the actual cause is the person improperly using the mobile phone, not the phone itself!

 

 

All I can say to that is that I don't regard myself as putting myself at unnecessary risk, or being irresponsible, by not having one, and far more often than not being on my own when out and about. Purely in regard to that example, not the incident that started this thread by the way.

[Edwin_m]

2 hours ago, RLBH said:

I think that any viable system to to protect against this kind of accident needs to be based around making the pedestrian aware that the vehicle is moving or is about to move.

 

One such system which several of my workplaces have used on forklifts is a projector which throws an arrow on to the ground a few metres ahead of the vehicle in the direction of travel. It's very effective in warehouses and the like as a way of warning people not to walk in front of a forklift. It's hard to see that working in a rail environment - the surface presumably isn't amenable to it.

 

An audible warning might work, but there again it might not. A low-level warning light might be more effective, or possibly both together. I don't know the rail environment well enough to say. Or for that matter, fencing in the 'safe walking routes' to make it more difficult to take shortcuts!

I wonder if there should be a change in the use of headlights, only illuminating them at the front of the train when it is about to move?  The marker lights could remain lit to allow drivers of other trains to locate it in the dark.  

[Rods_of_Revolution]

20 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

I wonder if there should be a change in the use of headlights, only illuminating them at the front of the train when it is about to move?  The marker lights could remain lit to allow drivers of other trains to locate it in the dark.  

That's just moving the problem. You'll create an environment where people will assume it's safe to cross between rail vehicles because there is no headlight on. Then one day someone forgets to turn the headlight on, or a defect means the headlight isn't on, so someone else, thinking it's safe, crosses inbetween and gets crushed.

 

[Rugd1022]

We're not supposed to have either of the headlights on when in yards and sidings anyway, until it's time to depart out onto a running line.

[Siberian Snooper]

Would it be possible to fit flashing lights at approximately the position of the buffers used to be that work for around 30 seconds or so, when a direction of travel button or lever is operated. I am assuming that, that sort of thing is fitted in the cab. The last few types of buses I drove had forwards, neutral and reverse buttons, plus the accelerator,  brake pedals and parking brake. Such a system may give enough warning that the vehicle(s) were about to move and not very expensive to source and fit.

 

 

[iands]

16 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Would it be possible to fit flashing lights at approximately the position of the buffers used to be that work for around 30 seconds or so, when a direction of travel button or lever is operated. I am assuming that, that sort of thing is fitted in the cab. The last few types of buses I drove had forwards, neutral and reverse buttons, plus the accelerator,  brake pedals and parking brake. Such a system may give enough warning that the vehicle(s) were about to move and not very expensive to source and fit.

 

 

I think it would be more expensive to fit than you think. At the very least it would need to get VAB approval (or today's equivalent of VAB if it no longer exists) for ALL types of vehicle (Locos, Units, Coaches, Wagons). As I said in a previous post, a better investment for money spent would be in proper training and documentation.

[CovDriver]

Well I've resisted until now as it's a subject very close to home as I knew the driver who sadly lost his life at Tyseley depot I know what happened and how it happened.

Although some of the comments I've read have made me angry as they have been way out order.

 

I'm not going to comment any further regarding the incident I hope the admin staff lock this off very soon as some people are living in cloud cuckoo land. 

[Dagworth]

It's very clear from reading this thread which contributors are or were professional railway staff and which think they know it all with no knowledge at all.

 

Andi 

[jim.snowdon]

Whilst the RAIB has identified a gap in staff training, even if not passing between vehicles without an adequate gap should be a matter of common sense, you do have to question why anyone should pass between two trains that were, according to the report, only 540mm (less than two feet) apart. As someone whose railway career started 45 years ago, passing between two vehicles that close together was always something you just never did.

 

Jim

[Covkid]

3 hours ago, CovDriver said:

Well I've resisted until now as it's a subject very close to home as I knew the driver who sadly lost his life at Tyseley depot I know what happened and how it happened.

Although some of the comments I've read have made me angry as they have been way out order.

 

I'm not going to comment any further regarding the incident I hope the admin staff lock this off very soon as some people are living in cloud cuckoo land. 

 

 

Totally understand where you are coming from. I think Jim realistically sums it up in his post, and it is the case that taking short cuts in the workplace can occasionally bring horrific results. 

RIP to the driver who lost his life and let's hope it has taught a great number of railway staff a valuable lesson in track safety.  

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Whilst the RAIB has identified a gap in staff training, even if not passing between vehicles without an adequate gap should be a matter of common sense, you do have to question why anyone should pass between two trains that were, according to the report, only 540mm (less than two feet) apart. As someone whose railway career started 45 years ago, passing between two vehicles that close together was always something you just never did.

 

Jim

Indeed so Jim.  But although we grew up on an old fashioned railway where, by today's standards far many more risks existed. even those who lacked common sense would be guided by those they worked with (ok not always well guided) but there was a transfer of railway lore and experience.  Today many newcomers to the industry undoubtedly find themselves at times in relatively unfamiliar surroundings (railwaywise) where there are few, if any, others about to guide them and pass on 'lore' and experience.

 

Drivers, for example, are to a large extent recruited 'off the street' and are then trained up to driving particular types of trains over set routes with little or no other/wider railway experience apart from that given to them by their trainers and people they gradually come into contact with workwise - many of whom might also have not had too long in the railway industry.  The big advantage of this is that generally 'bad practices' don't get passed on but it places a critical load on trainers and examiners to ensure that people are properly trained and assessed before being allowed out on their own.  It is a very long time since I started examining people for PTS certificates and I did both BR (generally office/managerial) staff plus outsiders because I was also an officially BR accredited examiner for SLOA members involved in mainline working parties etc.  But the principle was always the same - as an examiner I was effectively taking on responsibility for the fact that they were considered to have the knowledge to safely conduct themselves on or about the line including in yards and sidings.  When you examine anybody for those situations you don't just want 'tame parrot'  Rule Book or safety briefing document answers - you have to ensure that the examinee understands what it all means and that they know how to recognise potential hazards and risks and safely avoid them.  I suspect you might only be able to do that if you have the right breadth experience to enable you to do so.    And it also places a very safety critical load on those who draw up and publish the information, such as the Rule Book, used as part of the training and if they don't have the background of the practical aspects to go with the theory there is a risk that things can be missed - which on the face of it could have helped set the trap this particular Driver walked into (there might be, and probably are other factors we aren't aware of).  

 

I learnt a long time ago not to go between if there was a gap of 20 feet or less between vehicles or between vehicles and stop blocks etc and gradually over the years I amended this to 'a rail length' so looking for at least 30 feet, or preferably more, and making sure that there was nothing around likely to move the vehicles.  If MUs were involved I wouldn't go through a gap at all unless it was a really big one because you can't even guess if one of them is likely to move.  

 

 

[NorthEndCab]

Isn’t all this talk of audible warnings basically describing a “warbler,”? We have a few dusty ones, although I’ve never seen one used in anger!

 

At our main depot we couple units and remartial HST sets. While the RSSB rulebook is obviously the main authority, each depot has its own working instructions which you are examined on before signing the depot..

 

The relevant one to this discussion is that for any coupling movement you take a shunter with you who gives you the nod and supervises the movement. (He gets his permission from the yard supervisor in turn) This prevents anyone wandering between the vehicles during the movement. 

We already have flashing lights for movements off fuelling roads and into sheds etc where there will be people close to trains. 
 

With regards to cameras and radar etc, if you’ve only been past a depot in the day then they look quite lonely and barren places. At night that all changes. You can have 3/4 movements occurring at once, drivers, shutters, fitters, cleaners, security all milling around the place. It’s noisy, it’s cold, people are tired at 04:00 on a winters morning, there’s oil and trip hazards all over, it’s organised chaos basically. 
 

There’s a LOT going on. As a driver you can’t see what’s going on immediately In front of you, but you need to make sure the road is set correctly for your movement (hopefully the shunter has done his job) that there’s no units foul, the fitters haven’t left a set of steps in the four foot, there’s no fuel pipes trailing over the rails etc etc.

 

You need to look forward, not at various cameras etc in the cab.  
 

The simplest and best thing is to keep people to the authorised walking routes. That way there’s limited places they can be and you know where they’re going to be and can react accordingly. (I appreciate a lot of freight work doesn’t necessarily have this luxury.)
 

Certainly a case of, “He without sin...,” (which I am not without in this instance) but during every rules exam we get given the PTS exam paper again. It ends with the same question, “Who is responsible for your safety?” Answer “I am.”