To be seen or not to be seen

[rab]

Can someone tell me what the ruling is regarding wearing of hi-vis vests on preserved lines please?

I was at a 'forties weekend' at a preserved railway recently.

They had gone to great lengths to create the right atmosphere even down to people dressed in appropriate suits dresses etc.

What spoiled it for me was a shunting demo where the guy doing the coupling/uncoupling etc was wearing a hi-vest.

I know that there are times when they have to be worn but engine crews were walking around without them..

What is the 'official' requirement?

[Bomag]

There is no 'official' requirement just a legal requiremet to have a safe method working identified as part of the relavent safety case.

 

Given the number of KSI during shunting it is a bit of simple logic that if somebody (a shunter) needs to be seen during an engine movemenet they need to be conspicuous. If the enging crew are on the track then in most cases the engine won't be going to move and therefore they don't needs to be as conspicuous.

 

However, conterary to some beliefs, a hi-vis vest does not make you invulnrable.

[Colin_McLeod]

My personal view is "safety first."

 

So anyone out on the track including locomotive crewe should wear HV clothing.

 

However I don't see the need to wear such if you are on board the locomotive or walking around the platform

 

Regarding Bomag's point, any driver walking on the track without HV would need to be 100% sure his locomotive is the only one that will move, and also that that no one else would move it.

[The Stationmaster]

Technically it probably should be risk assessed although it's something most organisations take as read be it one way or another.  Heritage etc railways do not have a safety case nowadays but they must have a Safety Management System (SMS) and their Rule Book will fall within that and the wearing of protective/hi-vis clothing should normally be either a Rule Book item or subject to a separate Instruction - in my view its best included in the Rule Book.

 

Otherwise I go along with what others have said - Shunters need to be seen and its probably best for them to wear an hvv to assist in that BUT if they do wear HVV it must be of a type which is safe for shunting work which basically means velcro fastening including velcro fastening across the shoulders.  If an hvv worn for shunting hasn't got the latter it becomes far more of a potential death trap than not wearing one at all.

 

In some cases it is advisable to wear them on platforms e as it enables platform staff to be more easily distinguished from passengers but a uniform with a hat is often just as good for that.

[DaveF]

I understand it all depends on the railway's safety system and their rulebook.

 

HV clothing does not by itself make anything safer.

 

It can help make people more visible, but other volunteers/workers still have to be observant.  Too often accidents happen to those wearing Hi Visibilty gear because either they did something careless or someone else did.

 

Sadly you you cannot eliminate human fallibility.

 

David

[Colin_McLeod]

Increasing one's visibility does make you slightly safer or are you saying that there is no point at all in wearing HV clothing?

 

I agree it is not a suit of armour, but it is a line of defence.  Being seen may prompt the driver of a train you had not noticed to sound the horn/whistle, and this in turn will awaken you to the approaching train in time to get out of the way.

[DaveF]

Increasing one's visibility does make you slightly safer or are you saying that there is no point at all in wearing HV clothing?

 

I agree it is not a suit of armour, but it is a line of defence.  Being seen may prompt the driver of a train you had not noticed to sound the horn/whistle, and this in turn will awaken you to the approaching train in time to get out of the way.

 

I was saying that Hi Vis does not make anything safer by itself.  It will make you more visible, if the other person is paying attention to what they are doing.

 

However, from speaking to friends who wear Hi Vis in other fields they speak of of instances where they have been endangered because another person has simply not seen them.  It does appear that one can become habituated to Hi Vis and simply cease to notice it. 

 

My own view is that I would prefer to wear it (and I do if requested/required to do so).  I also make sure I keep my ears and eyes open unlike some people who wear it.

 

David

[PhilH]

If you become accustomed to looking out for hi vis then you become unaccustomed to looking out for people.

 

(In my opinion...)

[The Stationmaster]

If you become accustomed to looking out for hi vis then you become unaccustomed to looking out for people.

 

(In my opinion...)

There is some truth in that although I think the real problem is that even if you are looking you can't see them if they're not wearing hv clothing.  It really is noticeable just how much difference it makes in, particularly, long distance sighting of people on and about the railway and that can be critical when a train is covering sighting distance in less than 30 seconds - even if all it does is give the Driver more time to sound a warning.

 

And that really, in a railway context, is basically all it is about - it doesn't relieve anybody of taking care of their own safety by keeping a good lookout or standing clear of approaching trains.   As I always used to say when carrying out lineside safety training - 'this (an hvv) is a train proof vest, if you wear one of these all the trains which come along will bounce off it without you doing a thing; remember that and you will finish up in a black plastic sack'

[PhilH]

There is some truth in that although I think the real problem is that even if you are looking you can't see them if they're not wearing hv clothing.  It really is noticeable just how much difference it makes in, particularly, long distance sighting of people on and about the railway and that can be critical when a train is covering sighting distance in less than 30 seconds - even if all it does is give the Driver more time to sound a warning.

 

And that really, in a railway context, is basically all it is about - it doesn't relieve anybody of taking care of their own safety by keeping a good lookout or standing clear of approaching trains.   As I always used to say when carrying out lineside safety training - 'this (an hvv) is a train proof vest, if you wear one of these all the trains which come along will bounce off it without you doing a thing; remember that and you will finish up in a black plastic sack'

 

 

Mike, my comment was in the context of the OP, ie hi vis on preserved lines and associated line speeds..

 

Absolutely, totally, 100% agree with you in the context of the modern 'real' raiiway.

[byron]

A heritage train can kill you just as dead as a high speed modern train. Always found it odd that as the railway gets smaller, folks take bigger risks. See and be seen, and keep to public areas unless your job takes you trackside (sorry for the americanism).

 

Mike

[PhilH]

A heritage train can kill you just as dead as a high speed modern train. Always found it odd that as the railway gets smaller, folks take bigger risks. See and be seen, and keep to public areas unless your job takes you trackside (sorry for the americanism).

 

Mike

 

Actually matey, as a driver on a preserved line my job there does take me on and around the line, where we don't take bigger risks than the 'real' railway. As I alluded to in my earlier post, I look for people, usually idiot punters trespassing, as well as people working on or about our line who do wear hi vis if necessary.

 

They, you, anybody,people with no nominal involvement in the running of a preserved railway are the real menace on preserved lines, the cameramen/ women who stroll along the track for their best shot, who don't acknowledge when given audible warnings by us, the train crews, those who decide to pop out from behind a tree and run across the line to get a better position, or even, as has happened to me on one occasion, the numpty who stood in the four foot to get a head on shot as I bore down on him.

 

This the reason I look out for more than just hi vis - idiots on or about the line.

[Pete 75C]

Hmmm. Have to agree with Mike (byron) above. I'm sorry that the shunter wearing a HV spoiled the period atmosphere by stepping out of character. However, had he got squished because the driver didn't see him, his day might have been a bit spoilt too. Be safe, be seen.

[Pete 75C]

Phil, why is it that punters are allowed to crawl all over a preserved railway to take photos when that would not be tolerated on the network? I think we're all agreed that a steam engine can kill you just as surely as a HST. Without railway training, a photographer wandering about on the lineside is surely a danger to himself and others. Just curious... are lineside passes sold? If that's the case, I don't think lives should be put at risk for the sake of milking a cash cow.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Perhaps the solution to the original issue is for preserved railways to add a disclaimer on their website and advertising nicely pointing out that their Victorian/Edwardian/WWII themed event is still subject to modern safety requirements, and staff will be wearing Hi-Viz clothing as appropriate. 

[PhilH]

Phil, why is it that punters are allowed to crawl all over a preserved railway to take photos when that would not be tolerated on the network? I think we're all agreed that a steam engine can kill you just as surely as a HST. Without railway training, a photographer wandering about on the lineside is surely a danger to himself and others. Just curious... are lineside passes sold? If that's the case, I don't think lives should be put at risk for the sake of milking a cash cow.

 

You're dead right...people should not be crawling all over a preserved line, it's trespassing just as much as it is on the network. 

 

Because of a few incidents some years back we, on the Mid Hants, do not issue lineside photography passes, which has been the subject of much bitterness and criticism over the years from people outside of the railway. Generally, as footplate crew in particular, we welcome it as the less people on or about the line the safer we all are. In theory the only people who should be taking photos inside our lineside boundary on the MHR are people in possession of a valid Mid Hants PTS card and a Mid Hants photo identity card who have received appropriate training, or punters who have paid for a photo charter train and have received a safety briefing and are supervised for the duration of the charter.

 

Other railways do issue lineside permits, however I would hope that along with these comes at least a safety briefing and instruction as to which locations are off limits.

 

One last point...I am fortunate enough to be involved with main line steam operation, and can attest to the fact that this trespass is not confined to preserved lines. It has to be said that we do attract some basket cases to the real railway, some of the trespass we have observed here and there has to be seen to be believed. There are those who either do think they are immortal or simply do not understand the dangers of being on or about any railway line.

[Pete 75C]

I've just checked and my local preserved line (the NNR) do sell lineside passes. It's unclear whether a safety briefing is provided but one would hope so. Whilst not wishing to upset those enthusiasts who just want to get a great photo (safely), I share Phil's contempt for trespassers. In my career as a driver, I sent 3 people to meet their maker and each one kinda ruined my day a bit.

[The Stationmaster]

Phil, why is it that punters are allowed to crawl all over a preserved railway to take photos when that would not be tolerated on the network? I think we're all agreed that a steam engine can kill you just as surely as a HST. Without railway training, a photographer wandering about on the lineside is surely a danger to himself and others. Just curious... are lineside passes sold? If that's the case, I don't think lives should be put at risk for the sake of milking a cash cow.

I think that might be part of the problem although I can't comment on the MHR situation of course, but I know that some Railways will sell 'Lineside Photographic Passes' on a more or less first come first served basis.  In my view they are an invitation to idiots who seem to think that the pass guarantees invulnerability - which it obviously doesn't.  Any realistic risk assessment would immediately rule them out - if the Railway has, as it should, strict Rules about who it will let lineside and the safety training/qualification they require then it is clearly technically impossible for them to issue lineside permits which allow people (other than their own qualified personnel) onto the lineside unescorted.

 

If however someone living in their own little 'commercial' cocoon makes such a decision it is a managerial problem, which needs to be resolved.

 

Trespassers are a different matter and ideally the Railway should have a procedure for dealing with them.  Interestingly if the Railway has byelaws they can probably prosecute trespassers but most don't which leaves it as a civil matter I believe.  But whatever the Rules etc it can be very difficult to police and to catch miscreants let alone take subsequent action against them.

[Colin_McLeod]

To be 100% authentic would involve recreating the dangers of the past. That is obviously not wanted so there have to be compromises such as hvvs to keep things safe.

[25901]

Well I've watched this for a bit and will now put my hat into the ring

 

"SAFETY FIRST"

 

I've worked in preservation, big railway (sub, con), health n safety and more importantly, I've bust 8 ribs while shunting.

While working on the railway you are doing a job, a job as safely as you can and within the rules of the railway. You are not acting up to the public as this is when accidents happen.

 

Most of the general public with a camera are well behaved and act correctly but some want the pic at any costs, even becoming quite rude.

I remember one time when a photographer walked down the platform and asked for me bluntly to remove myself and my gear from the side of 25262, I said sorry and that I was busy doing a required job. 

He then walked off the platform onto the track and said if it wasn't for people like him taking photos of locos for magazines we wouldn't raise funds to buy them. Very calmly I said "I paid cash so don't need funds" and then ask a member of station staff to remove him, if he had ask nicely I would have moved myself and my gear.

 

The debate about hi vis will go on but people must learn that health and safety must always come first on any railway

 

Robin

[Southernman46]

Well I've watched this for a bit and will now put my hat into the ring

 

"SAFETY FIRST"

 

safety must always come first on any railway[/font][/color]

 

Robin

 

Agreed 'cos in the "forties" there were a shedload of staff killed on the railway and that's definitely something not to be recreated............

 

In fact (and I can't quote the stat's) the two single biggest factors contributing to the reduction in UK track worker fatalities were the introduction of HVV's (followed by a brief small upswing as complacency set in - an orange vest will not actually prevent a train hitting you) and the painting of yellow fronts on trains.

[JaymzHatstand]

I have a colleague who goes photting on the 'big railway' and has told me in the past that he's stood inside the barriers of a level crossing to get the shot he wanted, but it was ok because he had a HV on and was still out of the way as the crossing in question was angled and he was behind an old lap hut. Hmmmm, he wasn't impressed when I told him it was illegal and if he'd been caught, he wouldn't have been favourably looked upon! I don't think he's done it since though!

 

Cheers

 

J

[TheSignalEngineer]

To be 100% authentic would involve recreating the dangers of the past. 

A live firing exercise for the lads playing the troops? That might get rid of a few trespassers.

[big jim]

in an ideal world when shunting the driver and shunter (and possibly signaller) will have reached a clear understanding of what is to be done and the method of work before any moves take, the driver shouldn't move unless he is instructed by the shunter and should stop immediatley if he loses sight or contact with the shunter when moving

 

ok, the above is obvious basic stuff to those who deal with it every day be it a preserved line or network rail metal but i wouldnt go on the network without hi-viz as thats the national rules however the way i see it is on a preserved line IF the above shunting 'rule 101' is adheared to then there SHOULD be no need to wear hi-viz (subject to local instruction) as an agreed safe method of work is in place.

 

problems occur when people not involved in shunting movements turn up to meddle (ie take photos/get numbers etc) and you may be unaware they are there, if they put themselves in a position of danger UNKNOWN TO THOSE SHUNTING no amount of hi-viz will save them from being squashed, like most things though no matter how robust and water tight the safe method of work is on paper once you add the human factor there is always a possibility of error, note the 'if's' and 'should's' in the above paragraph!!

 

there is of course the other side to the argument that TOO MUCH hi-viz can make people blazė to it, and every tom dick and harry rolling up in a hv vest can cause confusion/problems etc to those trying to do their job safely, almost as bad as no hi hiz at all?

[PatB]

I certainly understand the general reasons for the use of hi-viz, but I have a couple of observations, not really for or against, but points to ponder.

 

Whilst hi-viz makes sense for routine operations, I can also see the possibility that, for demonstrations/special events it may be possible to develop methods of working and to maintain human vigilance to an extent which, for the short period and limited number of operations involved, compensates for the additional risk resulting from non-use. Of course, that 'may' also implies the contrary possibility of 'may not', particularly to the satisfaction of the participants, the insurers or, if the worst did happen, the Coroner.

 

On a related note, I've spent a significant proportion of my professional life on mine and construction sites where hi-viz is the norm, as are flashing beacons and warning beepers on mechanical equipment are the norm. A few years ago, I was working on a particularly constricted and busy indoor site (indoor as in large factory unit) where, wherever you were on the site,  there was always something nearby flashing and/or beeping. Usually several somethings, any one of which could kill you. A couple of the other engineers and I agreed that the situation was quite hazardous as it was almost inevitable that anyone working there simply came to accept that they were working in an environment which beeped and flashed. Complacency is a normal human condition and can be very hard to combat.