A Very Cold But Picturesque Water Orton

[Pete Harvey]

Why Wear a Hard Hat if you look at the left hand side of all of this series of pictures taken yesterday you will see a foam drinks cup appear and be sucked along along with the wagons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It may be a foam cup but the point I'm trying to make is it could just as well be a loose piece of Ballast part of a wagon or and engine and if it hit you you may stand a chance of living with a Hard Hat on.

 

Pete

[TheSignalEngineer]

One of the worst risks that staff face from freight trains is the abysmal aerodynamics. It is quite possible to be blown over by the turbulence from a freightliner, or even as I was some years ago at Watford Junction, a train carrying Transit vans pointing backwards. It is quite likely that your hard hat will be blown into the next man unless it is of the chinstrap variety and securely fastened, I've seen that happen as well.

[Talltim]

So a hard hat can potentially cause as many injuries as it prevents?

[TheSignalEngineer]

So a hard hat can potentially cause as many injuries as it prevents?

If not used correctly, yes.

[The Stationmaster]

Perhaps they think it would make that '66' bounce off.

The Hard Hat rule is one of the best examples of 'One Size Fits Nobody' in Health and Safety.

Rules should be sensibly made for each situation, to fit the risks involved. Blanket rules lead to apathy and are then ignored by staff for the very situations where they are actually of benefit.

 

I quite agree, in fact in some circumstances they can be positively dangerous because of the 'unsensed' (by your brain) height they add to your head. Very sensible thing to wear where there is a risk of objects falling and causing head injury and bump caps have their place too but some of the NR stuff seems to have gone from the sublime to the ludicrous. What other company could finish up approving a rucksack that has an outlet for an MP3 player to be worn in places where you are supposed to be on listening alert for hazards such as approaching trains. And the apparent detachment from reality of RSSB does little to encourage me either with over complex Rules in a book littered with dangerous ambiguities.

 

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

I quite agree, in fact in some circumstances they can be positively dangerous because of the 'unsensed' (by your brain) height they add to your head. Very sensible thing to wear where there is a risk of objects falling and causing head injury and bump caps have their place too but some of the NR stuff seems to have gone from the sublime to the ludicrous. What other company could finish up approving a rucksack that has an outlet for an MP3 player to be worn in places where you are supposed to be on listening alert for hazards such as approaching trains. And the apparent detachment from reality of RSSB does little to encourage me either with over complex Rules in a book littered with dangerous ambiguities.

 

 

Regarding the Water Orton pictures, in my day you weren't allowed anything that covered the ears when on-track except ear defenders when on noisy jobs. Then you had a touch lookout.

I think the current wording in the Rule Book and other publications is "Do not wear anything that makes you less able to see or hear approaching trains"

 

[60026to]

I too noticed the hard hat issue but really is it an issue ?

 

Yes I'm sure it is to the H&S bod but in real life working conditions you just get on with it and do the job and if it all goes t1ts up as long as the injured/workman has signed that relevant piece of A4 then he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

 

Nice pics of Water Orton Pete.

[James]

I too noticed the hard hat issue but really is it an issue ?

If that's the rule, then it is.

 

If one rule is broken, then that may just be the start.

 

How about wearing trainers instead of boots? Trainers are more comfortable and really is it an issue?

 

Yes I'm sure it is to the H&S bod but in real life working conditions you just get on with it and do the job and if it all goes t1ts up as long as the injured/workman has signed that relevant piece of A4 then he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

But it's not just the injured party - the COSS will be in trouble too for not ensuring that his group are working safely. And surely it's better to make sure people go home in one piece?

[beast66606]

If that's the rule, then it is.

 

If one rule is broken, then that may just be the start.

 

How about wearing trainers instead of boots? Trainers are more comfortable and really is it an issue?

 

 

But it's not just the injured party - the COSS will be in trouble too for not ensuring that his group are working safely. And surely it's better to make sure people go home in one piece?

 

James - I think you are being overly critical of a situation based on a few photos taken by Pete, none of them show the whole story and yet you are able to condemn those pictured. Remember that old saying "rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools"

 

TBH - I'm not comfortable having a discussion which condemns people based on one or two photographs

[phil-b259]

Not impressed with site safety and discipline with the lookout separated from the party and them walking on the sleeper end as in photo 3.

 

To my mind the lookout is actually in the ideal place as the whole idea of a lookout is to lookout for approching trains. To give an example if the maximium linespeed of trains is 90mph, and the time taken to move to a place of safety is 20 seconds (including the satutory 10 seconds of being in said place of safety before train passes you), the total distance the lookout must be able to see is 850 metres. I very much doubt this can be obtained if the lookout is on the inside of the curve. Now it is true that if the distance between the lookout and the group becomes to great then both a site and advance lookout will be needed but judging from the photos thats not the case here as once the lookout has seen a train he should turn towards the group making sure they are all responding to the inital warning and be prepared to give repeated blasts (urgent warning) if people don't start to move.

 

Also it should be noted that the person in charge of setting up a safe system of work is called the COSS (Controller Of Site Saftey) and it is their job to apoint and position the lookout. This role is completley seperate to that of being the person in charge of the job being undertaken i.e. the boss of the gang. The boss can of course take on COSS duties providing he/she holds the required certification but the actual roles are still two completley different things and should not be confused.

[James]

James - I think you are being overly critical of a situation based on a few photos taken by Pete, none of them show the whole story and yet you are able to condemn those pictured.

I was commenting on 60026to's comment about safety and his remark about people having signed a piece of "A4".

 

You're right about it not showing the whole story but there's enough there for questions to be asked - my old safety director had people summoned to his office in similar circumstances.

 

I think everyone can agree it's not an example of best practice.

[beast66606]

I was commenting on 60026to's comment about safety and his remark about people having signed a piece of "A4".

 

You're right about it not showing the whole story but there's enough there for questions to be asked - my old safety director had people summoned to his office in similar circumstances.

 

I think everyone can agree it's not an example of best practice.

 

Not being on site at the time, not being party to any instructions regarding method of working etc and not seeing any of the paperwork associated with this I cannot possibly comment - I suspect this also applies to everyone else on here.

[The Stationmaster]

I was commenting on 60026to's comment about safety and his remark about people having signed a piece of "A4".

 

You're right about it not showing the whole story but there's enough there for questions to be asked - my old safety director had people summoned to his office in similar circumstances.

 

I think everyone can agree it's not an example of best practice.

 

 

It certainly doesn't seem to be best practice - I still can't find the @@*!!* Lookout Man, the only one I can find is the Distant Lookout Man - not that he's all that distant but he is certainly using a Distant Lookout's flag.

As for the other items James is right, certain members of the gang are not correctly dressed according to the present standards so technically they are non-compliant (a fancy term for 'breaking the Rules'). Whether or not those standards are correct, or OTT, or 'falling short of what is nowadays expected in workplace safety', is a different issue but I know where my views lie and I know what standards I apply to such issues and I know what HMRI will or won't accept (as opposed to what Network Rail will or won't accept or what RSSB conjures up). But all of that is hardly relevant here.

Mind you having had 'the relevant bit of paper signed' has definitely saved more than a few companies piggy banks when the HSE has taken them to court for alleged breaches - but I know of none in the railway industry although I do know of at least one instance where a contractor finished up in very deep trouble because he had staff working who hadn't signed the appropriate bits of paper.

[James]

Not being on site at the time, not being party to any instructions regarding method of working etc and not seeing any of the paperwork associated with this I cannot possibly comment - I suspect this also applies to everyone else on here.

What our Safety Director said was that how you appeared to others was important. So two people without helmets would, if it was one of his sites, be questioned. There may be of course be reasons for two workers to remove their helmets and if these could be explained no problem.

 

I can see what you mean, but I'm commenting on what I see and I believe that's quite valid.

[beast66606]

What our Safety Director said was that how you appeared to others was important. So two people without helmets would, if it was one of his sites, be questioned. There may be of course be reasons for two workers to remove their helmets and if these could be explained no problem.

 

I can see what you mean, but I'm commenting on what I see and I believe that's quite valid.

 

 

But to my knowledge none of the people who we are criticising are on here to defend their actions, and they are being condemned left, right and centre - and this MAY have serious consequences, I don't believe this is appropriate when we don't have all the facts and they don't have right of reply.

[James]

It certainly doesn't seem to be best practice - I still can't find the @@*!!* Lookout Man, the only one I can find is the Distant Lookout Man - not that he's all that distant but he is certainly using a Distant Lookout's flag.

I would be interested to see the RIMINI paperwork for the work.

 

Mind you having had 'the relevant bit of paper signed' has definitely saved more than a few companies piggy banks when the HSE has taken them to court for alleged breaches - but I know of none in the railway industry although I do know of at least one instance where a contractor finished up in very deep trouble because he had staff working who hadn't signed the appropriate bits of paper.

One of the first things I was told was it doesn't matter how many pieces of paper you've signed, you must act safely as a COSS briefing won't stop a train hitting you if you're not in a position of safety - likewise PPE save you in these circumstances. Though some people do seem to act like an orange jacket is like some kind of force field!

 

Paperwork can get silly though - one sub-contractor we used had such paranoia (sp?) about it we had one occasion where we had to sign seven different sheets as well as the COSS briefing before we could get on site. With a group of eight it took a long time and seemed excessive. But it was to cover themselves.

 

But to my knowledge none of the people who we are criticising are on here to defend their actions, and they are being condemned left, right and centre - and this MAY have serious consequences, I don't believe this is appropriate when we don't have all the facts and they don't have right of reply.

They probably not here to defend themselves it seems but images do raise a lot of questions - a lot of valid questions too.

 

It may be time for the thread to locked.

[Mod2]

 

It may be time for the thread to locked.

 

If that's your view James, then a report would have been appreciated, together with your refraining from escalating the debate.

 

A final word from the OP:

 

Guys

I understand what you are all saying myself having worked in Manufacturing Engineering I know the need and requirement for Health and Safety, I took these pictures so that someone may use the to add a cameo to a model and only that.

 

We are modellers and not The Spanish Inquisition and should not pass judgement on how others do their jobs if they carry on with breaking H&S Regulations they will get found out.

 

Pete