Health & Safety at exhibitions

[petethemole]

It should be possible for somebody trained in compling risk assessments to produce a generic assessment for a "typical" transportable and exhibitable layout. I can envisage it going to 2 sides of A4 rather than 1, but it should cover every reasonably potential risk (rather than theoretically possible but almost totally unlikely). You leave a few blank lines for anything that might be untypical but applicable to a particular layout, such as an indoor live steam layout. Perhaps somebody on here might oblige? Then it could be made freely available and hopefully exhibition managers would recognize/ accept it or even adopt it and circulate it to layout owners.

 

I have no axe to grind as my embryonic layout is loft-bound. However I am involved with RAs as our unit has generic ones for every type of archaeological project, community event or childrens' event. Any possible risks specific to a particular job that aren't covered in the generic RA have to be added.

 

Pete

[Penlan]

One of the downsides of doing your own RA without a pro-forma is you can't ask a question which your not aware of from your own experience, a sort of I didn't know I didn't know about xyz....

 

That's where the collective wisdom of an organisation's pro-forma is useful for a RA form.

[noiseboy72]

Would it be worth someone on this forum putting together a generic RA and guidance sheet for individuals to tailor it for their layout ?

 

I am thinking along the lines of a dozen or so headings - stability, eletrcial safety, flammability, trip hazards etc. Layout owners could simply download it and amend details to suit their layout.

 

Filling out an RA makes you think about safety, so it is worth doing from that perspective alone.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

So, objectively, what are the genuine risks that need to be assessed? What are the intrinsic dangers of a model railway layout?

 

Requiring individual layout owners to produce a written risk assessment is not safety, it is paranoia. It serves no useful purpose and a simple checklist of requirements sent out by the exhibition manager as a result of his own risk assessment is a far more sensible and realistic way to proceed. If anyone thinks otherwise then please tell me this: If you travelled to attend an exhibition as a paying customer and found out as you queued at the door that the exhibition had not required the exhibitors to carry out a risk assessment for their layouts, would you feel that you were putting yourself in unacceptable danger by entering the exhibition?

[Penlan]

I did do a minor risk assessment on Penlan in that I didn't like my power supply cable from the organisers outlet to the layout being either loose or held down with heavy tape, so I bought a Cable Protector Strip 2metres long as per this web site http://www.ebay.co.u...#ht_2403wt_1185

 

I also have the curtains fire proofed and 4" above the floor, stability seems ok, the biggest risk time is erecting and dismantling and as somebody mentioned earlier by their helpers/operators, people helping but probably unfamiliar with the nuances of your system/layout.

 

My boards are marked with their weight - circa 14kg's each, and the boards are two per travelling unit/boxed (28kg's).

[craigwelsh]

Most exhibitions require or perform PAT tests now which should cover most of the issues with electrical equipment on a layout which is probably the biggest danger. Largely its the biggest danger to the exhibitor himself though anyway and they probably wont have noted it for the reasons Natalie gave.

 

Ideally the generic assessment sent out (ideally anyway..) should have had a section saying 'all electrical equipment will include proprietary mains equipment or other system capable of meeting the requirements for a pat test, query the organisers if unsure and add details below'. Or something similar.

 

Fire risk hasnt been such an issue since people stopped smoking at these shows apart from the use of soldering irons on the viewing side say near drapes. Its difficult to really protect a layout against fire though when its mainly wood and possibly a lot of hair spray on the trees.

 

The lighting gantry is an interesting one to look at as ideally it should be above the viewers unless the barriers are quite far back to give the correct 'sun' angle. Mind you the amount of 100W light bulbs on one layout I operated ment one possible risk was heat stroke for the operator!

 

If no notes for guidance have been provided i'd agree with the others about pushing this back toward the organiser. The organiser will also need to deal with things such as not putting the bloke spraying trees with hair spray next to the guy demonstating soldering with a blow torch.

[Huw Griffiths]

So, objectively, what are the genuine risks that need to be assessed? What are the intrinsic dangers of a model railway layout?

One risk factor that often gets overlooked on layouts is the under board wiring - not the Volts and Amps, but the wires themselves.

 

I've seen a number of club / exhibition layouts with what look like tangled nests of loose wiring draped under the boards.

 

The problem with this is that people might need to get underneath the boards - to get to and from the operating area - to get at stuff stored under the boards (rolling stock, stored in boxes - stuff like that) - to carry out repairs. I've occasionally seen people get their arms caught up in this stuff - but, of course, it could be much worse.

 

This is why I'd strongly suggest taking steps to ensure wires can't drape in this way - preferably by running them all in rectangular trunking - at a minimum, I'd go for fixing the wires firmly in place at regular intervals.

 

While dealing with this, I'd also suggest clearly labelling wires (and having a clear, labelled, wiring diagram), to reduce the amount of time you need to spend under the boards doing maintenance.

 

 

Another potential issue could be the risk of back problems, if the boards are too big.

 

A lot of exhibition layouts are built on relatively large boards, with wooden framing - which could be heavy / awkward to carry.

 

They could also be awkward to build / modify / maintain, for much the same reason - which is why there might be some merit in splitting the layout into a number of small "trays", which can be easily removed and worked on. If they can be flipped upside down, this could also eliminate some of the problems which can be caused by trying to solder wires above you. (I had to do some of this stuff on test rigs in one job - and it isn't nice - changing things to eliminate this was one of the best Health & Safety improvements I made when I was there.)

 

So much for my thoughts ... .

[pete_mcfarlane]

I'd say the biggest safety issue at certain shows is their tendency to cram too many layouts and sales stands in to the available space, leaving very narrow gangways and not much room to move. This leads to overcrowding, people jostling against each other (and the layouts) and would make evacuating the building more difficult if there was a fire.

 

Oh, and if anyone really is worried about their tall and thin eye level layout toppling over, you could always get hold of a couple of stage weights and use them to hold the layout down (for example by having a suitable cross member at the bottom of the folding legs to rest the weight on).

 

Example on Flint's website but best bought in person from your local Theatrical suppliers as I'd imagine the postage is a bit steep:

 

http://www.flints.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh000001.pl?REFPAGE=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eflints%2eco%2euk%2fcgi-bin%2fss000001%2epl%3fpage%3dsearch%26PR%3d-1%26TB%3dA%26SS%3dweight%26ACTION%3dquick%20search&WD=stage%20weight&PN=Stage_Weights%2ehtml%23aFHS023#aFHS023

[Guest Natalie Graham]

 

we all assume that no-one would be stupid enough to wire a layout in such a way,

 

But if they are, relying on that same person to carry out a risk assessment would surely amount to stupidity on an even greater level. That is the point, if you have someone with a layout like that then it is far better for the exhibition organisers to send them a list of requirements regarding how the layout is to be wired than relying on their judgement to assess possible risks.

[The Stationmaster]

So, objectively, what are the genuine risks that need to be assessed? What are the intrinsic dangers of a model railway layout?

Basically I think they were summarised in Newsboy 72's post immediately above yours plus carrying/erecting/dismantling the layout and the presence of duck-unders as others have referred to. An RA should ideally include potential/frequency of the risk and potential consequences although generics often reduce it a much simpler identification of the risk and the mitigation. The whole idea is to make people alert to potential risks and think about the way they should behave to avoid them - the process of completing even a simplistic generic form does exactly that (in fact in many cases it probably does it more effectively than some of the large scale jobs with masses of mathematical analysis).

[DaveF]

As an ex science teacher I remember spending time completing risk assessments for all sorts of activities. Sometimes they did make me stop and think which was a good thing, but none of them were really able to cover "wilful stupidity" by pupils.

 

I suspect that RAs done by inexperienced people will not cover some risks, such as children climbing barriers and falling onto the layout - but that could be held to be the organiser's problem.

 

Where an exhibition requires an RA I would be inclined to ask the organiser what they are expecting, is it just for the public time or for all the time that their insurance is covering your layout, which may be from the time you load it into your van/car.

 

I sometimes wonder what happened to common sense which is what I used when compiling my RAs (eg . reminding pupils that if they break a test tube don't pick up the sharp pieces of glass, don't put a hand in a bunsen flame), plus specific dangers from my scientific knowledge.

 

David

[t-b-g]

Once again, thanks for the (mainly) sensible comments (that's for you Derek although you are right!) and interesting debate.

 

There still hasn't been a definitive answer to my specific questions re why some venues do and some don't ask for a RA, when they are all governed by the same rules, whether a standard format RA is legal and acceptable and what happens in terms of responsibility if an unqualified untrained person completes a RA and misses a risk which subsequently causes an injury.

 

Another thought occurs to me that although it might be my layout and I might have filled in a RA, if a friend or other operator comes behind the stand and forms part of the exhibit, do they have to have seen it. I often invite members of the public in if they want to have a look at a fiddle yard or a control panel but once they are behind the barriers do they become part of the H & S question?

 

This is the crux of the matter. Some people think the organisers should do the RA, some say the exhibitor, some say that I should complete the and some say I shouldn't. Is there anybody out there who can actually say which is right or is the H & S legislation so vague that there is no right answer? I have my own opinions about the whole subject but they are largely irrelevant to the matter in hand, which is whether I should complete the form as an untrained person and if I do am I potentially making myself personally liable in any way. These questions should really have simple "yes" or "no" answers, particularly for somebody who has a reasonable knowledge of H & S legislation.

[spamcan61]

 

There still hasn't been a definitive answer to my specific questions re why some venues do and some don't ask for a RA, when they are all governed by the same rules, whether a standard format RA is legal and acceptable and what happens in terms of responsibility if an unqualified untrained person completes a RA and misses a risk which subsequently causes an injury.

 

 

Presumably different venues use different insurance companies which have slightly different requirements and attitudes to risk, as in most cases these days any relevant legislation is not prescriptive, so will always be open to interpretation.

[The Stationmaster]

This is the crux of the matter. Some people think the organisers should do the RA, some say the exhibitor, some say that I should complete the and some say I shouldn't. Is there anybody out there who can actually say which is right or is the H & S legislation so vague that there is no right answer? I have my own opinions about the whole subject but they are largely irrelevant to the matter in hand, which is whether I should complete the form as an untrained person and if I do am I potentially making myself personally liable in any way. These questions should really have simple "yes" or "no" answers, particularly for somebody who has a reasonable knowledge of H & S legislation.

Without a lead from the organiser it is difficult to answer some of those questions - so the logical thing to do is, I think, to ask the organiser who as they have asked for the RA should be able to give you the simple answers you seek (you can form your own conclusions if they can't do that). As far as the legal situation is concerned my understanding in a situation such as this is that the most anyone could expect of you is to have taken reasonable care to mitigate any risks to others and should anyone question that you would be able to turn round and say 'I produced the RA requested of me in the form requested and made sure that any risks identified therein were mitigated to the maximum possible extent.'

 

It is dangerous to quote examples but in a case in the north east a scaffolding on a demolition site collapsed injuring a worker - his employer was able to produce a copy of the RA plus written confirmation that the employee in question had seen it and had been properly instructed on the method of erecting and working on scaffolding of that sort. The employer walked away from court with not so much as a warning while the employee's compensation was drastically reduced. In the same week another employer on a building site was not able to produce similar documentation after one his employees was injured and was fined £20,000 - for a less serious incident but in his case he had not taken and recorded action to identify, mitigate, and brief to staff, the risks, note the 'and recorded' bit.

[Geoff Endacott]

One thing you can do to minimise the risk to the public posed by your exhibit is to insist on a barrier. I am surprised at the number of shows which do not have barriers of any sort. This means that the public can (and do) come into direct contact with the layouts. At a recent exhibition I asked why other layouts had barriers but ours did not. The reply was that we hadn't asked for one!

 

If your layout is clearly separated from the viewing public, most of the risks are down to the exhibition organisers. Others have mentioned the problems caused by poorly laid-out exhibition halls. Blocked, or partly obstructed, fire exits are all to common. This should never happen. And how many shows have exhibitors' vehicles parked immediately outside the fire exits?

 

Gangways should be wide enough to allow a line of people looking at the exhibit on either side with room for a single row of people to pass in each direction. I allow a minimum (and I stress minimum) of seven feet.

 

Another bugbear of mine concerns early opening. Before the show opens the organisers must check that all public areas are clear. Too often this is ignored. I have even witnessed one show which opened the doors early - because it was raining - when many people were still assembling their stalls with items obstructing the gangway. If you do open early (I have done this at Trainwest) check that everyone is ready and that the gangways are clear. Do not let anyone in until they are.

 

The same applies to packing up. I hate it when people start to dismantle their layouts before the show has closed and my blacklist is growing. One group incurred my wrath at Calne a few years ago by dismantling the safety barrier 30 minutes before then end of the show. I soon had it erected again and told them why in no uncertain terms.

 

As you can see from the above, my years of experience have shown me that it is not the layouts themselves which present the greatest danger but the layout of the hall - and rucksacks. Anything which can injure members of the public should not be allowed. I banned rucksacks at Trainwest two years ago - they must be carried by hand or left at reception. I wish other shows would follow suit.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Neil]

 

This is the crux of the matter. Some people think the organisers should do the RA, some say the exhibitor, some say that I should complete the and some say I shouldn't. Is there anybody out there who can actually say which is right or is the H & S legislation so vague that there is no right answer? I have my own opinions about the whole subject but they are largely irrelevant to the matter in hand, which is whether I should complete the form as an untrained person and if I do am I potentially making myself personally liable in any way.

 

I doubt that you'll get a definitive answer here, though some will believe that they're in a position to do so. Opinions will be freely given by the barrack room lawyers, those that think it's just a matter of common sense and those who think their opinions are infallible. However all they will ever be are opinions.

 

Even those with a good working knowledge of H&S legislation and risk assessments may have differing opinions over who should take responsibility and when it is wise to bow out. My own credentials (ha!) are that I was a senior union official till four years ago with training in and working knowledge of risk assessments and H&S procedures. Again until four years ago I was part of the organising team (floor manager) for the York Model Railway Show. The best workplace advice that I got was that individuals shouldn't carry out risk assessments on stuff they did; that they should be completed by a person one step removed from the process, their manager or supervisor for instance. However it was only the best, not the only advice I received. If there was such a difference of opinion working for a large city council, and with all the back up that one of the largest traders unions could muster then what hope of a definitive answer for something as inconsequential as toy trains?

 

All I can say is that in my opinion any exhibition manager who relies on collecting individual layout risk assessments to cover them for the whole show is both lazy and stupid; and any that can't work out what risks may present from the layouts they've invited and what questions they may need to ask of their owners shouldn't be in charge of anything more demanding than the pass out stamp. However this is just my opinion.

[Kenton]

Gangways should be wide enough to allow a line of people looking at the exhibit on either side with room for a single row of people to pass in each direction. I allow a minimum (and I stress minimum) of seven feet.

 

Not enough really I think there is an increasing number of wheelchairs at shows. These can be a significant hazard for others - yes I have been run over and had my leg scrapped to the point of bleeding (In both cases the wheel chair owners were very apologetic and I had some sympathy as they were crowded in and attempting to negotiate their way through uncaring groups of individuals holding a reunion session mid gangway.

 

No I am not suggesting banning wheelchairs! Just that I do wish people in general should be more considerate of others - that includes rucksacks with bits poking out, wheelchairs, those footstools being carried round, and even the pushing and shoving experienced recently at Scale4um.

[Geoff Endacott]

I said it was a minimum and is probably adequate for smaller shows. Whether or not people can step aside and let wheelchairs pass depends upon how busy the show is. At Trainwest, I mark out nine feet gangways.

 

Geoff Endacott

[t-b-g]

I haven't really got a straight answer here yet, so I have had a look around t'internet and found this!

 

http://www.harrogateinternationalcentre.co.uk/Images/GuidetoManagingHealth-SafetyatExhibitionsandEvents.aspx

 

It is issued by Harrogate Centre specifically but a quick scan through the 107 pages threw up some interesting items.

 

So I now know of the existence of PEST (Post Exhibition Stress Trauma), as well as the fact that it is the responsibility of the exhibitor, especially if they are setting up their own stand, to carry out a RA.

 

Also that the exhibitor should make themselves familiar with contents of the HASAWA 1974 (Health & safety at work act 1974) befor they do so and that if the organisers are happy that an exhibit presents no significant risks, they can issue a declaration to be signed. As we have various chemicals and electrical items, I reckon that rules us out.

 

It does state that if ANY potentially dangerous chemicals are to be brought to the exhibition, the organisers should be advised at least 3 months in advance and that a "Chemical store" should be set up for them. It doesn't say that a few drops of plastic solvent is exempt, it specifically states ANY!

 

So where does that leave me? According to Harrogate Centre's rules, I am legally responsible for the health and safety aspects of my stand and I should ensure that I have suitable knowledge to carry out an adequate RA and report on mitigating risks.

 

So either Harrogate's policy is a bit OTT and doesn't truly represent current H & S legislation or I need to book myself on an H & S training course!

[noiseboy72]

OK, an offer then, I write simple RAs at work for events. Give me the list of potential hazards FOR THE LAYOUT not the show, including driving to the venue and unloading the van, erecting the layout, operating, dissasembly etc and I will pull it together on a suitable form with a risk matrix and instructions for use.

 

Don't forget, this is for the layout, so kids climbing over barrier and narrow walkways are not included.

 

BTW, the reason for some vennues requiring RAs and some not will be down to their local H&S manager's opinion of residual risk. At the end of the day, the venue is ultimatley responsible for safety.

[spamcan61]

Would it be worth someone on this forum putting together a generic RA and guidance sheet for individuals to tailor it for their layout ?

 

 

That's already been done by the The Wessex Association of Model Railway clubs; seems to have got lost in the edits:-

 

http://www.wamrc-rai...0Assessment.pdf

[Neil]

I haven't really got a straight answer here yet, so I have had a look around t'internet and found this!

 

http://www.harrogate...sandEvents.aspx

 

It is issued by Harrogate Centre specifically but a quick scan through the 107 pages threw up some interesting items.

 

So I now know of the existence of PEST (Post Exhibition Stress Trauma), as well as the fact that it is the responsibility of the exhibitor, especially if they are setting up their own stand, to carry out a RA.

 

Also that the exhibitor should make themselves familiar with contents of the HASAWA 1974 (Health & safety at work act 1974) befor they do so and that if the organisers are happy that an exhibit presents no significant risks, they can issue a declaration to be signed. As we have various chemicals and electrical items, I reckon that rules us out.

 

It does state that if ANY potentially dangerous chemicals are to be brought to the exhibition, the organisers should be advised at least 3 months in advance and that a "Chemical store" should be set up for them. It doesn't say that a few drops of plastic solvent is exempt, it specifically states ANY!

 

So where does that leave me? According to Harrogate Centre's rules, I am legally responsible for the health and safety aspects of my stand and I should ensure that I have suitable knowledge to carry out an adequate RA and report on mitigating risks.

 

So either Harrogate's policy is a bit OTT and doesn't truly represent current H & S legislation or I need to book myself on an H & S training course!

 

 

At a very brief glance, it seems clear that the requirement for exhibitors to have their own individual risk assessments is aimed more at trade shows where a disparate collection of interests are present. In the case of the model railway exhibition where there's one organising body I believe that the term 'exhibitor' in the Harrogate policy means this organising group, rather than individual layout owners.

[t-b-g]

 

 

At a very brief glance, it seems clear that the requirement for exhibitors to have their own individual risk assessments is aimed more at trade shows where a disparate collection of interests are present. In the case of the model railway exhibition where there's one organising body I believe that the term 'exhibitor' in the Harrogate policy means this organising group, rather than individual layout owners.

 

I read it that somebody on each individual stand has to be named as being responsible for the RA and for ensuring that everybody else on the stand is instructed in the correct working methods to avoid risks. I don't see where the difference lies between the sort of exhibition the Harrogate document is talking about and a normal model railway show. Perhaps traders should also be asked to complete a RA before attending shows, especially those selling paints/solvents/tools etc. Those tool stands that have sharp objects within easy reach of children have to be a bigger risk than mine, tucked away in a toolbox under the layout.

 

The document does break down the different responsibilities of the venue, the organisers and the exhibitors in some detail, which ties in with the usual model railway show heirachy.

 

There is a chance I have missed something so I wonder if you can you point me at the part of the document, which indicates otherwise, as it is, after all, 107 pages and I haven't digested every detail!

 

I appreciate the offer of having a RA written for my layout (or layouts - I have several) but the point is that although I can easily apply some common sense to drawing up a list of possible risks, I have no idea how much I need to put on it because I have had no instruction or training, formal or otherwise.

 

Does trapping a finger putting down the back seat of the car count? Or driving along unknown roads in possibly poor weather conditions in the dark? Or getting a splinter off a baseboard where the wood has split slightly? Or putting my hand in the wrong compartment of the toolbox by accident and cutting myself on something sharp? Or the possibility of having to move a heavy layout that has been set up because the hall is wrongly marked out (that has happened more than once)? How about the possibility of getting up too soon and banging your head on the underside of the layout? Should I have yellow & black tape underneath, along the edges, or a warning notice?

 

If I really listed all the potential risks it would probably scare me off going out of the house at all.

 

As for how to manage such things, the mind boggles but it can all be summed up with "Behave sensibly and take care especially where sharp objects, chemicals, moving objects, heat and electricity are concerned." If I did put that as my answer as to how the risks could be managed, is that acceptable?

[Mike Bellamy]

 

That's already been done by the The Wessex Association of Model Railway clubs; seems to have got lost in the edits:-

 

http://www.wamrc-rai...0Assessment.pdf

 

Thanks for posting that

 

I thought I must have used invisible ink when I posted the same link in post #2 only half an hour after the original question - now we are onto page three and looking at some of the comments it is obvious that some have not read the topic from the start - several have said that there should be guidance out there for others and that is just what is in that link.

 

Mike

[Donw]

I have a near neighbour who prepares and rights up safty policies for the building industry. One thing is that the act of considering safty often highlights stupid things that have never been thought about. This could well be true for layouts operators knowing to 'be careful of that cable' rather than attending to it.

The other is dealing with idiots who lay down stupid rules. The best was a site where a 'no shorts' rule was applied one group of workmen turned up in skirts.

Don