RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) Hi Phil Blue for important post. White for the others. I think I have it the right way round, if not I am sure someone will inform you of the correct class distinction. In the real world "blue hatters" are people who are deemed to be unused to the railway environment and need to be watched closely by the "white hatters". If I recal correctly it's only after having held a valid PTS (personal track safety) qualification for a year that you can go from blue to white. People who don't have PTS and who access the railway via a tempory permit are classed as blue hats although the level of supervision and restrictions on what they can do are far grater than a PTS qualified blue hat. It's interesting to reflect that when I joined a little over 10 years ago - even wearing a hat was optional and it didn't do me any harm as a "inexperienced" PTS holder (to go without a hat that is). Edited March 24, 2014 by phil-b259 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium TheQ Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 23, 2014 Interesting about the hats, in the oil industry its green for a newby. Until cleared for a white. You'd of thought there would be an all industry standard. the amount of spray from the impact of waves on a comparitvely calm day would definately put me off those houses I live almost half a mile inland And a good north easterly gives us some sea spray and sand off the dunes on the windows. Wouldn't buy a second car from there either!! The signalling and metal work will need serious protection from salt or regular replacement. The Q Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 23, 2014 Hi Phil Blue for important post. White for the others. I think I have it the right way round, if not I am sure someone will inform you of the correct class distinction. In the real world "blue hatters" are people who are deemed to be unused to the railway environment and need to be watched closely by the "white hatters". If I recal correctly it's only after having held a valid PTS (personal track safety) qualification for a year that you can go from blue to white. People who don't have PTS and who access the railway via a tempory permit are classed as blue hats although the level of supervision and restrictions on what they can do are far grater than a PTS qualified blue hat. It's interesting to reflect that when I joined a little over 10 years ago - even wearing a hat was optional and it didn't do me any harm as a "inexperienced" PTS holder. But Phil I saw him, you know our country's leader Mr Cameron on the telly saying what a disaster it had been, and he had a blue hat on. Surely I had it the right way round, cos him being our leader he knows what he is doing. Seriously....thank you for the information regarding what the colour hats mean. It is very useful to those who model recent times that they do not have a whole gang of track workers in blue hats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 23, 2014 Coombe Barton, on 22 Mar 2014 - 21:04, said:CK said that this was being treated as a construction site Its abit of a bone of contention with some folk, especially NR staff. I was involved in a discussion about this last week with a colleague whilst in Dawlish. He remarked that with the current 'set up' of this 'street construction environment' you have in essence untold numbers of non railway trained construction staff milling around all over the shop and no body knowing who where or when save perhaps for the signing in and out board at the entrance. On the other hand, if it was a railway construction environment, all staff would be signed in with their relevant COSS, and given a safety briefing by their COSS for that particular site of work and signing to say they understand it. All the COSS's would also be signed in with an Engineering supervisor (E.S) who is in charge of the whole worksite. A much more professional and safer method of working IMO. But there it is! At the end of the day, the job's still getting done anycase but the point was raised to point out the contradictions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 23, 2014 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Do not post a direct link to the webcam it only shows whats happening at the current time. Several times recently posts have been made totally meaningless by the picture not tying up with the comments! Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Its abit of a bone of contention with some folk, especially NR staff. I was involved in a discussion about this last week with a colleague whilst in Dawlish. He remarked that with the current 'set up' of this 'street construction environment' you have in essence untold numbers of non railway trained construction staff milling around all over the shop and no body knowing who where or when save perhaps for the signing in and out board at the entrance. On the other hand, if it was a railway construction environment, all staff would be signed in with their relevant COSS, and given a safety briefing by their COSS for that particular site of work and signing to say they understand it. All the COSS's would also be signed in with an Engineering supervisor (E.S) who is in charge of the whole worksite. A much more professional and safer method of working IMO. But there it is! At the end of the day, the job's still getting done anycase but the point was raised to point out the contradictions. Surely all those general safety arrangements could and should be in place even if it isn't a railway site? Declaring it as a railway would just introduce extra complication of needing PTS, COSS etc which are designed around setting up and following safe systems of work in a railway environment. The extra training and safety staff would be time and money wasted addressing a hazard that doesn't exist (trains) and more seriously probably just act as a distraction from the issues that are real hazards on this site (the sea, site plant, falls from height etc). Obviously at some point this changes as it becomes a railway engineering possession (as it probably is elsewhere on the section now) and eventually an operational railway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 23, 2014 Its abit of a bone of contention with some folk, especially NR staff. I was involved in a discussion about this last week with a colleague whilst in Dawlish. He remarked that with the current 'set up' of this 'street construction environment' you have in essence untold numbers of non railway trained construction staff milling around all over the shop and no body knowing who where or when save perhaps for the signing in and out board at the entrance. On the other hand, if it was a railway construction environment, all staff would be signed in with their relevant COSS, and given a safety briefing by their COSS for that particular site of work and signing to say they understand it. All the COSS's would also be signed in with an Engineering supervisor (E.S) who is in charge of the whole worksite. A much more professional and safer method of working IMO. But there it is! At the end of the day, the job's still getting done anycase but the point was raised to point out the contradictions. However the big advantage of treating it as a construction site is the exact opposite to all of that Gary - you don't need the paraphenalia of PTS training, Sentinel Cards, and COSS etc so it saves training time and costs if nothing else. However site safety briefing about the site safety plan, safe working procedures and sign-in etc are still a requirement on a construction site (assuming it is properly managed) so not too much is lost and it achieves it at reduced cost and admin/training time saved as well as having some useful legal implications and an affect on imposed (by outside bodies) inspection jurisdiction. My only concern would be that the worksite in this case is quite long and involves railborne movements of plant and material but when you think about it sich movements are far better contained than would be the case on most construction sites. All a matter of what we are used to perhaps although whatever system is in place there will still be the occasional idiots who are not prepared to understand it or who think that orange overalls with fluorescent strips will make trains bounce off them. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Question is - now the ballast's down, at what point does it go back to being a railway site? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Woo hoo! I can see track!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) Woo hoo! I can see track!!!! Yeah - definitely looks like Code 100 to me... Edited March 23, 2014 by Pete 75C 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 23, 2014 I wonder if it might be Peco Setrack as it seems to be growing by small increments? (and Beer isn't all that far away as the seagull flies) 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I thought Hornby was the track of choice for laying on full-size trackbeds in Devon... Webcam now showing... double track!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 23, 2014 Question is - now the ballast's down, at what point does it go back to being a railway site? When it ceases to be a construction site. It could be a double track railway with full signalling kit in place but it can still be a construction site provided it is designated as such. HMRI have already lost out on one prosecution where they attempted to prosecute a heritage type railway under ROGS provisions but the case was thrown out because the incident HMRI was trying to prosecute occurred on a (pre) designated construction site and the Railway had all the paperwork to prove it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 23, 2014 I wonder if it might be Peco Setrack as it seems to be growing by small increments? (and Beer isn't all that far away as the seagull flies) I believe these are some of the track panels now being laid in: As regards the 'High Street' environment, I understand both sides of the argument, but for the moment, I think you have to consider that this is far from being a conventional railway possession, both in terms of configuration and in terms of the circumstances behind it. Additional safeguards and procedures were put in place last week when the first 'proper' rail movements commenced (tamper and ballast train). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Re6/6 Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 23, 2014 Yeah - definitely looks like Code 100 to me... lamp004.jpg Looks like 'Exactoscale' FB FastTrack to me! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 23, 2014 Its abit of a bone of contention with some folk, especially NR staff. I was involved in a discussion about this last week with a colleague whilst in Dawlish. He remarked that with the current 'set up' of this 'street construction environment' you have in essence untold numbers of non railway trained construction staff milling around all over the shop and no body knowing who where or when save perhaps for the signing in and out board at the entrance. On the other hand, if it was a railway construction environment, all staff would be signed in with their relevant COSS, and given a safety briefing by their COSS for that particular site of work and signing to say they understand it. All the COSS's would also be signed in with an Engineering supervisor (E.S) who is in charge of the whole worksite. A much more professional and safer method of working IMO. But there it is! At the end of the day, the job's still getting done anycase but the point was raised to point out the contradictions. Hmmmm, mixed feelings about this one. The Railway way of doing things is fine until the COSS is also the ES and the PICOP. Not saying this would be the case at Dawlish, but it does happen elsewhere and the lads on the ground never know which "hat" the bloke in charge is wearing at amy given time ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Debs - is that one of your gauges they're using ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34010-34005 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Track laying on a Sunday... Sounds like a model railway hobby. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 23, 2014 Edwin_m, on 23 Mar 2014 - 10:55, said: Surely all those general safety arrangements could and should be in place even if it isn't a railway site? Declaring it as a railway would just introduce extra complication of needing PTS, COSS etc which are designed around setting up and following safe systems of work in a railway environment. The extra training and safety staff would be time and money wasted addressing a hazard that doesn't exist (trains) and more seriously probably just act as a distraction from the issues that are real hazards on this site (the sea, site plant, falls from height etc). Obviously at some point this changes as it becomes a railway engineering possession (as it probably is elsewhere on the section now) and eventually an operational railway. Indeed, couldn't agree more with that either! I can see both sides of the argument. I hasten to add, It was a point raised by some, not me specifically, I just listened! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium corneliuslundie Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 23, 2014 It that why the EM Gauge Society is out of stock of track gauges?!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 So how do you do it then as the different methods I have tried has failed. On a PC right click - save image as (or similar). Save to a unique name Then include that image in your posting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 23, 2014 You could also use the snipping tool within Windows Accessories I reckon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) To be finescale or not, on 23 Mar 2014 - 13:58, said: Go to Start, all programs, accessories, snipping tool. You can then drag your mouse cursor around the screen capturing what you want, rather like a screen grab. When finished, go 'file' and save as (call it something), job done. Then post it in the thread like would a normal picture. Anyway, I cant even find the dam page for the webcam. Seems there are loads of em apart from the one I want to find! Anyone got a link please? Edited March 23, 2014 by Gary H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I presume you mean this one: http://www.siteeyelive.com/monitor/bbcdawlish/camputerb86.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkie_pudd Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) latest screen shot mmm not sure it`s peco 100 as sleeper gaps seem to big Edited March 23, 2014 by yorkie_pudd 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now