The human side of the railway...

[The Stationmaster]

15 minutes ago, david.hill64 said:

It was the 1974 Health and Safety at Work act that arguably spurred proper efforts.

Yes and no in amnay resecs.  Quite alot had been dne before then in a. effort to improve various areas of personal safety, particularly in what we nowadays call 'working procedues'.  and there had been increasing emlhasis on re tracjsde safety with the hi-vis mini-vests.

 

HASAWA provided a legal imperative but its main impact at first was in making su ure procedures were inplace to deal with all sorts f things and that people understood there own t responsibilities.  the introduction of Satt Safety Reps came a few years later but in many v cases all some of them did was hammer old chestnuts which weren't necessarily safety related although it dd bring greater attention to slipping and falling accidents and the hazards which caused them,  So there was gradually increased attention o very basic hazards and trying to get rid of them.  And we all had to produce area safety plans etc

 

For example BR didn't introduce specific lineside safety training and certofication following individual examinations until the late 1980s.  and tracksode briefing didn't vcome in until then either.

 

The real personal safety impacts have largely v come from later, more specific, legislation about particular areas such as Working At Height and the introduction of rosj k assessment procedures ans safe working procedures being laid down for numerus = a lot of which came a lot later than 1974.  And ROGS in this century has introduced a whole mass of new personal safety related stuff.

Edited July 5, 2023 by The Stationmaster

[david.hill64]

4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes and no in amnay resecs.  Quite alot had been dne before then in a. effort to improve various areas of personal safety, particularly in what we nowadays call 'working procedues'.  and there had been increasing emlhasis on re tracjsde safety with the hi-vis mini-vests.

 

Actually my comment was in reply to a general comment about workplace safety, not specifically for rail.

 

As you know, rail safety now is centred around a risk based approach: identify the hazards proactively, work out effective elimination or mitigation measures and validate that they are in place and effective. As Oldudders commented, this was led by Dupont identifying that a culture change was required away from a rules based approach that was effective at stopping you repeating old accidents but not so good for new ones (especially associated with the introduction of new technologies). The approach has been refined over the years.

[33C]

Makes me wonder what the H+SE would advise in the blitz. V1 rocket destroys 2 lines of railway, station building and entire signal-box. Whole lot up and running within 2 weeks. Takes longer to do a risk assessment now.

[Michael Hodgson]

When Health & Safety legislation started to be a thing, Safety Officer got added to my assorted responsibilities, though it didn't need a lot of my time.  This was in an company whose business was processing the back-office paperwork for Personal Equity Plans.  Risks were rather less significant than in transport - no need for Hi Vis, more ensuring they didn't block the fire exits with stationery, and the accident book contained a few reports of paper cuts.  Having been brought up with the idea of red for danger and walk don't run if you have to evacuate the building, I had to change all the traditional fire exit signs to the EU-standard picture of a running man on a green background.  The most significant incident I can remember was when a pregnant member of staff got stuck in the lift.  She was quite pleased about the whole thing because a few big strong firemen came to her rescue 😃  "Working at height" only arose when the girls balanced one table on top of another and chairs on top of that to put up Xmas decorations! 

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, 33C said:

Makes me wonder what the H+SE would advise in the blitz. V1 rocket destroys 2 lines of railway, station building and entire signal-box. Whole lot up and running within 2 weeks. Takes longer to do a risk assessment now.

As happenred after the Ladbroke Grove collision.  after the inital clearing up and ecovery of proprerty and any bodies etc the OOC crane supervisot and someone from Reading were discussing how they were going to do various lifts when an RAIB. (I think) Inspector overheard the conversation and joined in.

 

Said Inspector said that he hoped they had carried outa risk assessment and was told there had a generic RA for the crane and the would use that.   They were then told by the Inspector that they had to produce a specific RA for the job and that he would have to see it before they could start work (intended to be the next day).  They protested that it would take all nightg but the Inspector was adamant that he required a specific RA for the crane work and would not accept a generic RA - and off he went.

 

So next mrbibg he got exactly what he'd asked for - the only thing about it being that the heading of the generic RA had been alyterted to make it a specific RA fr the site and teh name of the site had been added.  The Inspector was quite happy with and let them start work; I wonder if he even bothered to read it?.

 

The Railway Employment Inspectors were even worse in my experience and demanded all sorts of things with no consideration of what they would cost or what difference the would actually make to staff safety - but it did mean a piece of paper existed.

[Southernman46]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Said Inspector said that he hoped they had carried outa risk assessment and was told there had a generic RA for the crane and the would use that.   They were then told by the Inspector that they had to produce a specific RA for the job and that he would have to see it before they could start work (intended to be the next day).  They protested that it would take all nightg but the Inspector was adamant that he required a specific RA for the crane work and would not accept a generic RA - and off he went.

Whatever happened to letting people get on with it because they know what they're doing .............. ?

 

I take traction current isolations for a living these days - if I have to do anything out of the ordinary - I get left to do it because I know what I'm doing - the day I get some "Spare part" leaning over my shoulder asking for a risk assessment is the day I leave !!

[4069]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

As happenred after the Ladbroke Grove collision.  after the inital clearing up and ecovery of proprerty and any bodies etc the OOC crane supervisot and someone from Reading were discussing how they were going to do various lifts when an RAIB. (I think) Inspector overheard the conversation and joined in.

As RAIB only came into existence five years after Ladbroke Grove it couldn't have been them, and in any case they do not have any Health & Safety enforcement role.

 

I know which HMRI inspector it was, I think, and he did have  a thankless task in the circumstances.

[The Stationmaster]

18 hours ago, 4069 said:

As RAIB only came into existence five years after Ladbroke Grove it couldn't have been them, and in any case they do not have any Health & Safety enforcement role.

 

I know which HMRI inspector it was, I think, and he did have  a thankless task in the circumstances.

Thanks for that.  But why ask for an RA anyway and then not accept the generic one?   Surely experienced breakdown gangs and senior engineers could be trusted to do the job they were trained to do and for which they had already developed an RA process ( and on a closed site as it was by then)?

 

 I don't argue with the RA process and I've carried out more than a few of them myself for various different tasks and written procedures devolving from them.  I can appreciate there's a lot of pressure on any Inspectorate involved  in a situation like Ladbroke Grove although many people within in. the industry, including me, knew within a very short time after the incident occurring what the immediate cause of it had been.  

 

OK lots of far wider things beyond that immediate cause and a distressing site to work at but that was just the same for the breakdown folk.  And it can happen at any major incident as those of us who have been involved in the aftermath of one know all too well from our own experience of such things, especially a serious fire in rolling stock which involved fatalities.

[The Johnster]

21 hours ago, Southernman46 said:

On 06/07/2023 at 13:48, The Stationmaster said:

 

Whatever happened to letting people get on with it because they know what they're doing .............. ?

 

I think what happened to letting people get on with it because they knew what they were doing was that not all of them did know what they were doing, you just hoped that they'd muddle through, and while experience with previous accidents is valuable, each accident produces it's own individual mess and there will always be people present who have never dealt with anything remotely resembling it before.  One of the Canton breakdown crew once mentioned in a pub conversation to me that they were lucky, and had never had to deal with a really bad smash involving injuries and fatalities on a large scale, and he hoped they never would, as he had no idea how he'd cope!  Things like Lewisham, where a heavy overbridge was precariously balanced on top of the wreckage while it still contained trapped and injured people, must have needed enormous care in dealing with, for example.  Get it wrong and the death toll gets even worse...

 

They dealt with minor derailment on a regular basis, though, and the experience developed in lifting, packing, and jacking, as well as wrecking, would have been invaluable in a really serious situation.  But the misgivings of the guy I was talking to show that 'risk assessment', in the form of stopping for a few minutes to discuss, plan, and organise a job rather than pile in enthusiastically, potentially worsening the situation, was already the standard practice for the breakdown supervisors, who tended to be phlegmatic and unflappable types who would resist being rushed, and that modern RA is really not much more than a formalisation of this procedure, and while it might be considered a PITA by those who know what they are doing, the rules have to encompass those who don't know what they are doing as well, and in that sense are A Good Thing!

 

My traditional railway background raises my eyebrows at the declaration at such incidents, even minor ones, of a crime scene, which can delay clearance work considerably; my instinct is to rescue the trapped and injured, retrieve those for whom nothing can be done, and clear the line as quickly as possible, but closures now last for days longer than they would have in the olden days and diversion are not used as much, as the disruption to stock and crew diagrams cannot be coped with on a comparitively (compared to my day) pared down and cost-efficient railway with little spare capacity and flexibility in this sense.  If stock's in the wrong place, or your driver is still on the way on a delayed service, the default is to cancel rather than attempt to run something.

[Rugd1022]

Well I said the other day that incidents do still happen didn't I - yesterday, whilst backing my train into Small Heath Yard an errant lorry driver decided that precise moment was the right time to take a short cut through the yard and he ended up driving into the train, catching the side of one our wagons, writing off his lorry in one fell swoop. Good 'ere, ain't it...!

[Rugd1022]

Down on the Glos & Warks today...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

Down on the KESR, 06.06.2023.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Dunsignalling
typo

[big jim]

55 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Down on the KESR, 06.06.1923.

that’s a good picture for 100 years old! 

[SED Freightman]

20 minutes ago, big jim said:

that’s a good picture for 100 years old! 

Colonel Stephens led the way with the intoduction of HV clothing perhaps !

[John Besley]

Why does the Bobby need hi viz clothing he's working in daylight, on a protected platform ....

 

It spoils the illusions of how a railway worked... 

 

Back in the 70's Barry Cogar always stuck out like a sore thumb on the PDSR as he insisted on wearing a hi viz warehouse coat when riding on the footplate, something he did on a regular basis then paticully if we had a through working off BR at Paignton of an excursion, he insisted in supervising the change over from the BR diesel to what then was pretty well always 7827 even taking into account that as footplate crews we didn't have hi viz vests then

[SED Freightman]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Down on the KESR, 06.06.1923.

All joking aside bearing in mind the comments on risk assessments etc. assuming the Signaller is of average height and looking at the way his legs are bent, is the upper handrail a bit low thereby creating a risk of him falling overboard ?

[John Besley]

I must admit I was somewhat shocked the other day when riding on the Swanage line to see how far we have gone since the early 70's when the genral public had a pretty good how a railway operated as most would be acquainted with the steam era from the 60's, to where we are today...

 

Waited ages for everyone to stop standing in front of me whole I was trying to get a decent photo, some of their comments as to what the crew was doing .... it did make me wonder what will happen in the next 25 years or so ... what will our railways look like then are we at a plateau...

 

[Dunsignalling]

3 hours ago, big jim said:

that’s a good picture for 100 years old! 

 

 

Whoops. I think that suffered from autocompletion! Duly corrected.

 

I wouldn't have attempted that shot with a plate camera!

Edited July 7, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, John Besley said:

Why does the Bobby need hi viz clothing he's working in daylight, on a protected platform ....

 

It spoils the illusions of how a railway worked... 

 

Back in the 70's Barry Cogar always stuck out like a sore thumb on the PDSR as he insisted on wearing a hi viz warehouse coat when riding on the footplate, something he did on a regular basis then paticully if we had a through working off BR at Paignton of an excursion, he insisted in supervising the change over from the BR diesel to what then was pretty well always 7827 even taking into account that as footplate crews we didn't have hi viz vests then

 

After "putting it through the machine", his next task would have been to hand the token to the driver of the DMu seen in the background, which would involve going down on the trackside.

 

Best method if offended by hi-viz is to shoot in black and white (or even sepia), both of which my camera will do, with or without a "period" ageing effect! Because the brain won't be expecting hi-viz, the eye won't "see" it.

 

John

Edited July 7, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, SED Freightman said:

All joking aside bearing in mind the comments on risk assessments etc. assuming the Signaller is of average height and looking at the way his legs are bent, is the upper handrail a bit low thereby creating a risk of him falling overboard ?

 

So on the next shift, the signaller is 2m. tall - adjustable height handrail?

 

Let's go the whole hog - eliminate all possible risk - ban preserved railways!

 

Being born is risky - how are you going to legislate against that?

 

What is wrong with society today?

 

CJI.

[Dunsignalling]

I always like to take some shots with staff and volunteers included. After all, without them there'd be nothing in action for me to photograph. 

 

Here's a couple from the same week. Note that Hythe's "bobby" doubles up as shunter and engine turner, so his HV waistcoat is correct attire. 

 

I wouldn't go trackside without one and I wouldn't ask anyone else to do so. If they want to, as I noted one of his colleagues doing on another day, that's their choice.

 

John

Edited July 7, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[woodenhead]

3 hours ago, SED Freightman said:

All joking aside bearing in mind the comments on risk assessments etc. assuming the Signaller is of average height and looking at the way his legs are bent, is the upper handrail a bit low thereby creating a risk of him falling overboard ?

He has very heavy boots on, he is rooted to the ground like those rocking clowns we had as children, or Weebles even if you are a little (just a little younger).

[phil-b259]

On 06/07/2023 at 13:48, The Stationmaster said:

 

The Railway Employment Inspectors were even worse in my experience and demanded all sorts of things with no consideration of what they would cost or what difference the would actually make to staff safety - but it did mean a piece of paper existed.

 

Which means a paper trail exists and should the worst happen said paper trail can be used as evidence in a court of law.

 

And that in turns means someone can be shown as accountable for the actions undertaken

 

Plus it also means that hopefully anything that does go wrong won't be repeated as folk will know what not to do.

[phil-b259]

On 06/07/2023 at 01:36, 33C said:

Makes me wonder what the H+SE would advise in the blitz. V1 rocket destroys 2 lines of railway, station building and entire signal-box. Whole lot up and running within 2 weeks. Takes longer to do a risk assessment now.

 

They (HSE) would unlikely to be as much of a hinderance as you and many others think - living under wartime bombardment is a very different situation from peacetime and different rules apply when living under such a threat and with everything running a 110%....

 

We got a taste of this with Covid in the sense that there where many things were rushed through without proper scrutiny - and undoubtedly people died as a result but the circumstances were such that rapid action was essential.

 

Thats why H&S is important - it quite literally saves lives and in ordinary circumstances a full assessment of risks and undertaking any recovery activity in a controlled, documented manor is essential.

 

 

[Steadfast]

17 hours ago, Rugd1022 said:

Well I said the other day that incidents do still happen didn't I - yesterday, whilst backing my train into Small Heath Yard an errant lorry driver decided that precise moment was the right time to take a short cut through the yard and he ended up driving into the train, catching the side of one our wagons, writing off his lorry in one fell swoop. Good 'ere, ain't it...!

I nearly had similar a few years back I was a shunter. Dopey lorry driver reversed across the crossing in the VQ, no NR staff to see him back or anything. Lucky for him I was on the adjacent road that is crossed in a different place. You do wonder sometimes...

 

Jo