Incident at Grosmont

[TheSignalEngineer]

The S&T Departments of the Big Four jointly published a booklet on safety in 1938.

 

The section on crossing the line said

 

"It is unsafe to pass between vehicles standing a short distance from each other, or to pass over or under the buffers or the vehicles themselves, without first satisfying yourself that none of the vehicles is about to be moved and that no shunting is going on upon the line or lines which you intend to cross"

 

As far as the 50' rule is concerned, that was taught to me by our Inspector when i joined in 1966. My grandfather's version of it was that when on track in stations or sidings, make sure that you have a full rail length clear between you and the nearest vehicles on the line you are on.

[avonside1563]

One of the railways I am involved with has been talking about updating the rule book for years but has never really had the funding to print it,

 

Roythebus - Unless the railway has a severely limited budget for print there should be a solution that delivers an affordable means of printing the rule book. I have a print company and can usually find the best way for people to achieve their needs at a cost that is acceptable. Perhaps you might like to pm me if you would like some advice on how they can produce such a crucial piece of literature.

 

Regular ammendments are all well and good, but there comes a time when a new issue is required to ensure that all updates are included and a suitable briefing undertaken to ensure clarity and understanding.

[roythebus]

Thanks for that offer Avonside; the railway concerned has now printed and published its latest Rule Book.

 

Rule 55 on LT as Mike says did include things like going to the signalbox etc. and most signals on LT were automatic, so "tripping past" was probably done more on there than would be done on BR under absolute block.

 

One other point going back to the original matter, shunters etc. should also be informed that a steam loco MAY need to move in the opposite direction after uncoupling, stopping etc. IF it has stopped with the valve gear on the wrong quarter. I was told this when I was learning the gates at a certain station where there is limited clearance between the back of the train and the gates. Leave 20' between back of train and gates in case it needs to move back a bit because of this.The same COULD apply to a shunt move.

[phil-b259]

In my view there should have been a much clearer reference to the apparent failure to keep their Rule Book up to date - clearly a longstanding situation because some some of the changes referred to in para 61 were made to the BR Rule Book between 28 and 30 years ago, i.e. they are hardly recent. Anyone involved in the management of railway Rule Books should be aware that they need regular revision and need to take into account what is reported to be happening in the wider world - the 1972 book is, for instance, inadequate when it comes to many areas of personal safety simply because it reflects the situation of 40 years ago and not that of today.

 

 

Just for reference, the Bluebell uses an even older version. Our rule book is the 1950s BR version with suiable deletions (eg. stuff relating to level crossings because we don't have any) and amendments where required. The thinking is given we opperate heritage equipment, a heritage rule book is more suited to our current enviroment rather than one writen in an era of no steam traction, MAS signaling, single manned locos, etc.

[Fay Singpoint]

Continuing just slightly

Rule 55, Clause g was exactly the same in the 1949 LT Rule Book as it was in the 1950 BR Rule Book in respect of passing certain types of signal at danger but there are one or two subsequent additions (which make no difference to what was explained by Roy - apart from tripping the Trainstop of course). However where Coachman was on the footplate I would be surprised if that clause would ever need to be applied as the type of signals to which it referred (automatic signals) weren't exactly common in that part of the world back then.

 

From the 1969 LT Rule Book. Rule G2 gives the signals at which "Stop and Proceed" can be applied and Rule G7 gives how "Stop and Proceed" is to be carried out.

 

On rules, LT used to say when applying Rule 55 (passing signals at danger) to pass the signal, reset the trip cock, and travel at such a speed at which you could count the sleepers. Whcih is what one driver on the Bakerloo did, and ran into the train in front because he was counting sleepers... the training was changed a bit after that.

 

All the accidents that occurred where Rule G7 was being carried out were caused by excess speed. To eliminate this overspeeding risk a system called SCAT (Speed Control After Tripping) was fitted to underground rolling stock during the 1980's with the exception of the 1967 Victoria Line Stock.

[The Stationmaster]

One other point going back to the original matter, shunters etc. should also be informed that a steam loco MAY need to move in the opposite direction after uncoupling, stopping etc. IF it has stopped with the valve gear on the wrong quarter. I was told this when I was learning the gates at a certain station where there is limited clearance between the back of the train and the gates. Leave 20' between back of train and gates in case it needs to move back a bit because of this.The same COULD apply to a shunt move.

This (and in some respects the point made by Phil regarding the 1950 Rule Book) is an important factor which is easily overlooked - the 1972 book was written for a non-steam railway, it had no need to take steam traction, and its particular ways, into account (for example it's one reason why I use 20 feet instead of the 2 metre figure used on the big railway). On the other hand, regrettably, the 1950 book is well out of favour with HMRI, and has been for a long time, because notwithstanding what I regard as its very good points such as easy to carry and refer to it is very lacking on the matter of personal safety and reference to such things as PPE and drugs & alcohol and other more recent legislation which does apply to or impact on all railways and which in my view should properly be included in the Rule Book. There are also one or two other differences - especially the use of whistle signals when shunting where the 1950 book is well out of step with current national practice (thus presenting a problem when people potentially work on both types of railway) which make much of it ill-fitted to use in the 21st century. But at least the 1950 book has the great advantage of simplicity in presentation.

 

The other thing which has to be taken into account in modern Rule Book practice, especially for the independent railways is how the Rule Book relates to their SMS (Safety Management System) of which it is, of necessity, a part and how the practices and methods it allows or mandates are compatbible with other procedures on the railway concerned and the existence of risk assessments to support those ways of carrying out particular tasks. This again is possibly one of the reasons why direct use of the older BR produced Rule Books is not to the liking of the Inspectorate although in practice some Rules can be taken, verbatim, out of the 1950 book (although I normally write something more akin to the 1972 book for possessions, and use my own methods based on current standards for work near the line - tailored to any railway I am writing the book for).

[Colin_McLeod]

Just for reference, the Bluebell uses an even older version. Our rule book is the 1950s BR version with suiable deletions (eg. stuff relating to level crossings because we don't have any) and amendments where required. The thinking is given we opperate heritage equipment, a heritage rule book is more suited to our current enviroment rather than one writen in an era of no steam traction, MAS signaling, single manned locos, etc.

 

No harm in keeping the heritage tradition, so long as the operation of the railway complies wth current lesgislation regarding safety. The courts use up to date law books.

[Bon Accord]

No harm in keeping the heritage tradition, so long as the operation of the railway complies wth current lesgislation regarding safety. The courts use up to date law books.

 

Unfortunately sooner or later that'll probably preclude the operation of such heritage traction.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been much noise made about any dangers to loco crews etc from inhalation of coal dust, ash particles, smoke etc. Only a matter of time no doubt, even if there are plenty of individuals willing to sign a disclaimer saying they will not pursue any liability, such is the way of the modern world.

[PhilH]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been much noise made about any dangers to loco crews etc from inhalation of coal dust, ash particles, smoke etc

 

If the footplate environment is managed correctly there shouldn't be any of that.

[coachmann]

How about inhilation of steam & smoke? Some of us need a fix now and again..... "You cannot do that"..... "But I want to do that"..... "Well okay, so long as you don't enjoy it..".

[The Stationmaster]

How about inhilation of steam & smoke? Some of us need a fix now and again..... "You cannot do that"..... "But I want to do that"..... "Well okay, so long as you don't enjoy it..".

Interestingly the pharmacist suggested just such a thing recently for a slight hearing problem I had (tinnitus). I did wonder if I could get into Didcot using my NHS free prescription card?

[Oldddudders]

If the footplate environment is managed correctly there shouldn't be any of that.

Presumably less easy to manage on railways with tunnels?

[Bon Accord]

If the footplate environment is managed correctly there shouldn't be any of that.

 

True, but the notion of "there's little risk as long as everyone concerned does their job" isn't an acceptable excuse/response to the question of risk/hazard in the 'real' world, sad to say.

I've no doubt that the big railway is similar to other workplace concerns in that the founding base of their HSE culture/liability dodging is that everyone is an idiot, thereby they mitigate accordingly.

[The Stationmaster]

True, but the notion of "there's little risk as long as everyone concerned does their job" isn't an acceptable excuse/response to the question of risk/hazard in the 'real' world, sad to say.

I've no doubt that the big railway is similar to other workplace concerns in that the founding base of their HSE culture/liability dodging is that everyone is an idiot, thereby they mitigate accordingly.

And then some!!! But the law effectively requires that the 'little' railways do they same as ROGS requires them to have an SMS in place and clearly that SMS must be such that it mitigates risk rather than potentially increasing it. The Rule Book is unavoidably part of the SMs so it too must mitigate areas of risk in so far as it can and it must provide a complimentary series of Rules which will do that in such a way that at the very worst only a multiple failure by several people is likely to create risk potential where no physical means of mitigation exists. (cor, that sounds like management speak on speed but I thing folk will see what I'm getting at - if one person gets it wrong no one should get hurt, if two get it wrong there should still be a minimal risk of someone getting hurt).

[roythebus]

No harm in keeping the heritage tradition, so long as the operation of the railway complies wth current lesgislation regarding safety. The courts use up to date law books.

The solicitors also charge up-to date rates, and the damages are in keeping with the 21st century when things go dramatically wrong, or even slightly wrong.

 

What amazes me is that the little railway I work on in Belgium doesn't even seem to HAVE a rule book!

[The Stationmaster]

The solicitors also charge up-to date rates, and the damages are in keeping with the 21st century when things go dramatically wrong, or even slightly wrong.

 

As one railway which was recently prosecuted by HMRI found to its cost. It lost its case in the county court but would inevitably have won if it had been able to afford a barrister who would have been able to get the case thrown out because said railway was being prosecuted under the wrong legislation. The railway concerned simply did not have sufficient funds nor could it raise them in time for the court case notwithstanding a big effort to do so.

[The White Rabbit]

Surely some solicitors & barristers must be sympathetic to preservation? Could the HRA create a register of those who are and willing/able to act either pro bono or at 'mates rates'?

[The Stationmaster]

Surely some solicitors & barristers must be sympathetic to preservation? Could the HRA create a register of those who are and willing/able to act either pro bono or at 'mates rates'?

There are some solicitors and barristers involved in the preservation scene and some Railways or organisations benefit (probably) as a result - but that does not seem to mean that all are able to take advantage (and there is, regrettably, a lot of 'politics' in the preservation world ... at which point I will bite my tongue and typing finger).