Simon Says

[Mark Saunders]

I wonder how many people have been maimed or killed because someone just ignored an inconvenient safety regulation? I've seen it, even been injured by an idiot who thought they new better than 'health and safety'.

 

"there is no such thing as Fool Proof" just look at the ingenuity of a fool and how they get around it!

 

Not forgetting the annual "Darwin Awards"

 

Mark Saunders

[cctransuk]

Simon talks about the lack of a return of the APT being because health and safety would not allow the molds to be moved. AS an ex pat living abroad, I don't understand the power of the 'health and safety' men in the UK.. Just tell them to sod off, what are they going to do about it, report you to whom? who is their boss?  There is not a policeman in the world who will respond to a call out about a man lifting a cardboard box that weighs a kilo more than is should. You can even use their own logic on them and tell them that they can't restrain you physically as they might come to harm if they do!

 

Whilst I sympathise with your views re H&S, they do have teeth.

 

There is such a body as the H&S Executive and there are a raft of H&S Regulations.

 

Many, many, individuals and companies have been prosecuted and fined, even imprisoned, for failure to comply with H&S regulations. The police do take H&S enforcement seriously.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

We may disagree with the H&S culture, or feel that it is too petty / heavy-handed, but we "Just tell them to sod off ..." at our peril!

[The Stationmaster]

Health & Safety is used as an excuse for everything, these days. Often, no H&S person has been anywhere near or made any assessment. If you don't fancy doing something and you can't think of a reason, just blame health & safety. It's not H&S that's gone mad it's the usual British approach of finding a way NOT to do something.

Absolutely true.  The H&S Act, albeit with subsequent changes - almost entirely to minor detail but some to scope - has been with us for 40 years but it seems to be thrown about as an excuse more and more in the past decade.  This isn't because it has changed a bit, nor is it because people have taken it more seriously but it is almost entirely because more & more litigious minded members of the legal trade (not the safety trade) are shouting off about it and misusing it in court cases and giving managers and company accountants worries about being sued.

 

According to a 'net link the Hornby APT appeared in 1981 (not sure if that is correct) so it and the tools etc used to make it came into being 7 years after H&S Law came into effect.  So if it isn't safe to handle them now for H&S reasons it can't have been safe to do so then, so technically it might actually have been the case that Hornby broke the law in order to manufacture their APT.  And having made that suggestion I would immediately dismiss it as near nonsense because what company would set out to do that, it is ridiculous.  Which suggests to me the opposite side of the coin is no different - if it was legally safe to handle the moulds then it is no different now.

 

If they no longer have experienced staff at Margate to handle moulds/tools they could - as Legend has already suggested - get in experts.  If they haven't got a suitable risk assessment they could write one - a morning's work (including several long tea breaks) for an experienced practitioner.  And they surely must have someone who is experienced otherwise they wouldn't know the tools could not be handled in a compliant manner.  If a safety practitioner is good enough to know something isn't safe he should also be more than capable of producing a safe procedure for the task, that's what H&S is really about.  H&S isn't withcraft, it isn't rocket science, and (of itself) it isn't obstructive; it is simply about doing a job in the safest manner.

 

However as Dibber has said - if you don't want to do something 'H&S' is a darned good excuse (and most people don't know how easy it is to challenge that excuse).

[40F]

The other question is  DO the moulds/tools exist ? Health and Safety has nothing to with it 

[tomparryharry]

If the tooling is steel based, it will rust, just like all steel. To prevent this, you need to strip the tool on a regular basis, clean where required, re-grease, and re-assemble. I doubt if such staff exist at Margate, or even if Hornby can 'cost' for the exercise.

 

After about 2 years, the quality can fall off to the extent that the tool is considered scrap. The carrier adaptors & plattens are usually 'off', as they've gone to another tool set, and the tool itself might be stripped for spares, such as ejector pins, etc. Putting a tool back into commission can be an expensive consideration. Sometimes it's cheaper & faster to go new.

 

Finally, you might need to find a machine that can still handle the tooling....

 

Ian

[Fat Controller]

The other question is  DO the moulds/tools exist ? Health and Safety has nothing to with it 

They're behind a locked door in the basement with 'Beware of the Leopard' written on it...

[tomparryharry]

Only as a very pricey air rifle target.

 

Given the amount of rectifying, the choice of colour is of little importance......

[Ian J.]

If the tooling is steel based, it will rust, just like all steel. To prevent this, you need to strip the tool on a regular basis, clean where required, re-grease, and re-assemble. I doubt if such staff exist at Margate, or even if Hornby can 'cost' for the exercise.

 

After about 2 years, the quality can fall off to the extent that the tool is considered scrap. The carrier adaptors & plattens are usually 'off', as they've gone to another tool set, and the tool itself might be stripped for spares, such as ejector pins, etc. Putting a tool back into commission can be an expensive consideration. Sometimes it's cheaper & faster to go new.

 

Finally, you might need to find a machine that can still handle the tooling....

 

Ian

 

I feel fairly confident in guessing that those who have worked with bare steel (toolings included) would know that for storage the steel can't be left open to air so the tools would/should have been prepared, probably by putting a coating of oil on them to stop oxygen touching the metal surfaces?

[Smiffy2]

"there is no such thing as Fool Proof" just look at the ingenuity of a fool and how they get around it!

 

Not forgetting the annual "Darwin Awards"

 

Mark Saunders

In my case it was someone believing that a couple of tons of sheet mild steel could be safely transported on a forklift without being tied. It couldn't. But that isn't the point. Just because people ignore rules is no reason not to have them, surely?

[jjb1970]

H&S gets a bad press in the UK, in my experience the silly stories are all caused by people who either do not understand H&S regulations or lack the competence to apply them in a way which does allow work to continue. I travel internationally quite a bit and it is very easy to become complacent about the robust safety culture we enjoy in the UK. I have worked in high hazard industries and H&S never stopped any task being completed provided people were working in accordance with the safe system of work. My experience was that there was no reason to ignore this safe system of work but that from time to time people would take a short cut as they perceived it'd make their life easier to take such short cuts. I say perceived as invariably the real cause was poor planning and preparation meaning they hadn't organised the job as they should have, if jobs were planned then they could be done just as quickly in compliance with the safe system of work. In electricity generation I used to take a hard line with any people trying to short cut these systems, its the old story that if people know the rules are taken seriously then they'll follow them but if you give a wink and a nudge to just get the job done then you have lost any and all credibility to take people to task for breaking them. Unfortunately there are too many people who do give H&S a bad name by making silly decisions and then hiding behind H&S however the problem is not with the H&SW Act, the problem is with people who have either not been trained  or not been trained to a satisfactory standard. 

[Free At Last]

From Simon's blog

It was just not logical but the H&E would not budge! I was dumb struck; there was just no arguing with the man. He was emphatic. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry, I just simply turned around and walked away!

Our copy of H&E would not budge when the teacher put his size ten on it in the school playground, there was no arguing with him either.

[Smiffy2]

H&S gets a bad press in the UK, in my experience the silly stories are all caused by people who either do not understand H&S regulations or lack the competence to apply them in a way which does allow work to continue...  Unfortunately there are too many people who do give H&S a bad name by making silly decisions and then hiding behind H&S however the problem is not with the H&SW Act, the problem is with people who have either not been trained  or not been trained to a satisfactory standard. 

Exactly. I did some work for a scaffolding company turning safety regulations into instructions for employees. It came down to things like "tape off the area under where you're working to prevent public access, in case you drop tools or other heavy objects".

 

Some of the guys in the firm thought that taping below a workspace was a waste of time...  They had to be trained, and we made a rule that every worker had the instructions read to them before every job. Apart from anything else the criminal charges and compensation following a death or serious injury caused by that sort of attitude could finish a medium sized company.

 

We had a kid die at school because he climbed over a boundary fence to retrieve a football and fell through a greenhouse. At the inquest the coroner wanted to know if we had ever instructed kids not to climb the fence - we had - not because if we hadn't we would automatically be liable but to remove the possibility that a claim that we had been negligent could be made. In Workplace Safety all is not always as it is reported.

[Bernard Lamb]

 

 

Finally, you might need to find a machine that can still handle the tooling....

 

Ian

Probably hit the nail on the head there.

With the B17, a much later venture, there was a delay due to having to remake certain tools as the new factory could not use the old ones.

I very much doubt if any tooling from the period that we are talking about is still fit to be used. Or at least not without a very large amount of costly work, which will render the exercise out of the question as regards to viability.

Bernard

[Foulounoux]

Not convinced by the health and safety issue

 

A lot of injection moulders don't have the facilities to renew tooling so send them to a toolmaker so never been an issue moving tooling.

 

We do it with metal tooling so not sure what is preventing Hornby

 

And whilst Margate may not have any moulding machines a quick scan of yellow pages will provide many options

 

Colin

[Andy Hayter]

 

 

According to a 'net link the Hornby APT appeared in 1981 (not sure if that is correct) so it and the tools etc used to make it came into being 7 years after H&S Law came into effect.  So if it isn't safe to handle them now for H&S reasons it can't have been safe to do so then, so technically it might actually have been the case that Hornby broke the law in order to manufacture their APT.  And having made that suggestion I would immediately dismiss it as near nonsense because what company would set out to do that, it is ridiculous.  Which suggests to me the opposite side of the coin is no different - if it was legally safe to handle the moulds then it is no different now.

 

 

 

In principle I agree, but do consider that a mould put onto a wooden pallet 30 years ago and sat into a storage racking system, may not now be sat as stably as it was when put into the storage rack.  Indeed I have seen pallets virtually disintegrate in half that time.  I guess however that we will never know.

[Andy Hayter]

Actually thinking about it, though the legislation has not been significantly amended, the guidance notes from the HSE are constantly being updated, so something perceived as safe in the mid 80s could well be taboo in todays environment.

 

Reading between the lines, if the story as reported is true, there was clearly an issue with the storage of the  moulds and handling them.  I cannot imagine that a warehouseman was asked to get the pallet and just at that instant the  H&S manager came round the corner and shouted out, "Nay lad nay, thou canst do that, it's not safe th'ken."   (Note I have made him a Northerner so that everyone in Margate can hate him.!!)  :-)

[tomparryharry]

I feel fairly confident in guessing that those who have worked with bare steel (toolings included) would know that for storage the steel can't be left open to air so the tools would/should have been prepared, probably by putting a coating of oil on them to stop oxygen touching the metal surfaces?

 

I see what you mean, but it doesn't always work like that. Tools get stripped out, when bits are needed. Ejector pins, or the plattens that operate them, get taken off. Inserts get removed. After all, the tool is now 'obsolete', as far as the injection company (not Triang-Hornby) are concerned. The tool goes to the rear of the tool store, probably sitting on a pallet with other 'obsolete', but highly desirable items

 

The first aluminium wheels for the Fiat Stilo were made in an imperial sized set of die blocks. Only the front face, and corresponding rear face, were metric sized. The tool was a proper Frankenstein lash-up, with 20mm steel ejector pins turned down to 3/4". BSW bolts where you would normally expect metric ISO sizes. The Rover 200 & 400 were just the same; As the cars themselves went through the facelifts to Rover 25 & 45, so the Aluminium wheels style was changed, and we had about 9 dies, that were stripped down, to enable the newer tools to go to production. The tools went down hill very quickly, when they are not used with any frequency. 

[phil-b259]

However as Dibber has said - if you don't want to do something 'H&S' is a darned good excuse (and most people don't know how easy it is to challenge that excuse).

You can challenge all you like but ultimately if the people holding the purse strings / major shareholders have been got at by the legal brigade - however phoney the claims they make actually are, it won't make the blindest bit of difference because legal opinion seems to trump everything in this country - possibly because of the over dominance of legal and finance professions in top positions in UK companies / politics / public bodies

 

For example just look at e-cigarettes - most companies are running scared and telling all their employes that the must be considered as exactly the same as normal cigarettes and thereby banning them from being used other than in outside "smoking areas" From what I can tell this is not because anyone in the scientific community is actually suggesting their is serious concern as to the effects to others in close proximity to the user, rather some legal types have been going round saying that in 20 years we may find they are dangerous after all and any company deemed to allow their use could find themselves hit by massive fines in the courts in a similar manor to what has happened in the US over passive smoking.

 

However To get back on topic I really fail to see what genuine H&S reason there could possibly be with regard to handling old tooling. Mind you I'm sure given enough time a lawyer would come up with something.

[Ian J.]

Completely OT, but I was recently on jury service and while waiting to go into one court I noticed a somewhat over abundance (must have been about twenty or so) of 'No Smoking' and 'No e-cigarette' signs in the waiting area (that was partially outside). Just goes to show that the judicial system is taking no chances whatsoever.

[phil-b259]

Completely OT, but I was recently on jury service and while waiting to go into one court I noticed a somewhat over abundance (must have been about twenty or so) of 'No Smoking' and 'No e-cigarette' signs in the waiting area (that was partially outside). Just goes to show that the judicial system is taking no chances whatsoever.

Exactly - I know that both NR and at least one heritage line have had "legal advice" and apply the same rule. Thing is while "advice" is just that - if your cooperate insurance provider insist that to remain covered said "advice" must be followed you don't have a lot of options. In theory organisations like NR (being a Government backed company) should be less immune to such threats but in practice the treasury will demand they are just as if not even more cautious than those operating in the commercial field

[railroadbill]

There is an issue with e-cigarettes in  medical premises. They do contain nicotine and the vapour given off therefore also contains this. They are after all a cigarette substitute, which is why people buy them. The world health organisation  has recently flagged up possible long term health issues with them.  A patient with COPD is hardly going to be helped by someone wandering around a hospital ward with an e-cigarette claiming that they can legally do so. And people will  do this (and have! ). So a line needs to be taken - and strictly imposed.

[S.A.C Martin]

Probably hit the nail on the head there.

With the B17, a much later venture, there was a delay due to having to remake certain tools as the new factory could not use the old ones.

I very much doubt if any tooling from the period that we are talking about is still fit to be used. Or at least not without a very large amount of costly work, which will render the exercise out of the question as regards to viability.

Bernard

 

Yet the Dean Single, Caledonian Spinner, the four 4-4-0 locos on the same shared wheelbase, and a number of other locomotives from that period have all be resurrected in various limited editions and Railroad range items.

 

Simon Kohler's blog actually states the APT-P tooling could potentially have been used, were it not for the H&S reason given by higher management. The tone of this piece is one of flabbergasted resignation, so I suspect Simon doesn't believe it any more than we potentially should.

 

I would have welcomed the APT-P as a model and probably would have bought one, having a fondness for multiple units and prototypes. 

 

I also thought his tribute to Graham Hubbard to be very fitting and well said too.

[toboldlygo]

Big companies seem to go mad with H & S, mine is no exception. Here are a couple:

 

Shoes with toe protection in case you had a tray or plastic cup fall on your feet (yes I'm being serious) this one got abandoned, when they realised the crap shoes they supplied us with gave a third of the section (300 people) tendonitis (Policeman's Foot) at some point.

 

Suddenly being told we cannot operate a barrier system (that we had been for years), because none of us had been properly trained to press a button!!!

[The Stationmaster]

Exactly - I know that both NR and at least one heritage line have had "legal advice" and apply the same rule. Thing is while "advice" is just that - if your cooperate insurance provider insist that to remain covered said "advice" must be followed you don't have a lot of options. In theory organisations like NR (being a Government backed company) should be less immune to such threats but in practice the treasury will demand they are just as if not even more cautious than those operating in the commercial field

Maybe Phil but then it is little to do with H&S and a lot to do with 'the conditions of our insurance' - the two are very different things and should never be confused especially when introducing any sort of safety systems and procedures.

[Gerald Henriksen]

One of the people involved in the APT project is disputing Simon's version of events regarding the real thing:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87114-the-official-rapido-apt-e-thread/?p=1530501