The human side of the railway...

[talisman56]

Think this short film deserves to be in here.

 

http://player.bfi.org.uk/film/watch-shrub-hill-railway-station-1972/

 

BRUTEs being used for their intended purpose, not for providing resting places for Spotters behinds...

[phil-b259]

My view from the box last Sunday as Bluebell Railway S&T staff attend to a dodgy signal wire wheel on a gantry at Horsted Keynes.

 

(And - NR H&S managers take note, all done without hard hats, safety glasses or climbing harnesses, with no ill effects - the staff being quite capable of / being trusted to evaluate the risks themselves as opposed to some office bod mandating every single bit of H&S kit they can find in the stores catalogue for every job).

Edited June 16, 2016 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

Spot the problem with the signal on the right*

 

Out attending a fault on the mainline between the two sides of the Siemens depot at Three Bridges in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

 

*(OK so it doesn't have any people in shot - not everyone wants to be famous )

Edited June 16, 2016 by phil-b259

[talisman56]

Bulb out? (second yellow aspect)

[Michael Delamar]

British Rail tea is going up to 11p!

 

http://www.macearchive.org/Archive/Title/atv-today-21041970-vox-pop-price-of-british-rail-tea-increased/MediaEntry/14552.html

[phil-b259]

Bulb out? (second yellow aspect)

Close..... right failure mode, wrong aspect Edited June 16, 2016 by phil-b259

[96701]

My view from the box last Sunday as Bluebell Railway S&T staff attend to a dodgy signal wire wheel on a gantry at Horsted Keynes.

 

(And - NR H&S managers take note, all done without hard hats, safety glasses or climbing harnesses, with no ill effects - the staff being quite capable of / being trusted to evaluate the risks themselves as opposed to some office bod mandating every single bit of H&S kit they can find in the stores catalogue for every job).

So when of them falls off, his family will understand. Oh, and NR staff climb a lot more often than heritage rail staff do. Don't get sniffy about working at height regulations, it's the law.

[phil-b259]

So when of them falls off, his family will understand. Oh, and NR staff climb a lot more often than heritage rail staff do. Don't get sniffy about working at height regulations, it's the law.

 

I can get as 'sniffy' about the law as I want to thank you. Just because something happens to be the law doesn't make the law 'right'. Yes I have an obligation to obey such laws, and grudgingly do so because I have no choice - but don't expect me to pretend I agree with them....

 

In any case, if you actually bothered to examine the photo clearly you would note that the signal gantry handrails of such a structure etc are not designed to withstand the weight of somebody dangling from a safety harness like a conker - thus the decision not to use a safety harness is acceptable on this occasion. Its exactly the same when you use a stepladder, safety harnesses are not required use to the lack of something suitable to hook onto.

 

I happen to believe that if you want people to respect H&S rules then the rules require clear justification. For example, when working in a confined space where you may bash your head a hard hat is a perfectly reasonable H&S measure. Walking along the cess on a nice sunny day doing some paroling does manifestly does not expose me to anything like the same sort of risk and the inability of NR to actually recognise that and demanding blanket hard hat wearing in all situations simply brings the whole policy into disrepute as far as I am concerned. On the other hand I have no issues with the requirement to wear safety boots or 'all orange' when trackside because sufficient justification has been made for the move and many of the risks said PPE addresses are present at all times - which is not the case with regard to hard hats, safety glasses or safety harnesses.

[martin_wynne]

Walking along the cess on a nice sunny day doing some paroling does manifestly does not expose me to anything like the same sort of risk and the inability of NR to actually recognise that and demanding blanket hard hat wearing in all situations simply brings the whole policy into disrepute as far as I am concerned.

 

When you arrive at a situation which does require a hard hat, where do you get it from if it is not already on your head?

 

Martin.

[96701]

 

I can get as 'sniffy' about the law as I want to thank you. Just because something happens to be the law doesn't make the law 'right'. Yes I have an obligation to obey such laws, and grudgingly do so because I have no choice - but don't expect me to pretend I agree with them....

 

In any case, if you actually bothered to examine the photo clearly you would note that the signal gantry handrails of such a structure etc are not designed to withstand the weight of somebody dangling from a safety harness like a conker - thus the decision not to use a safety harness is acceptable on this occasion. Its exactly the same when you use a stepladder, safety harnesses are not required use to the lack of something suitable to hook onto.

 

I happen to believe that if you want people to respect H&S rules then the rules require clear justification. For example, when working in a confined space where you may bash your head a hard hat is a perfectly reasonable H&S measure. Walking along the cess on a nice sunny day doing some paroling does manifestly does not expose me to anything like the same sort of risk and the inability of NR to actually recognise that and demanding blanket hard hat wearing in all situations simply brings the whole policy into disrepute as far as I am concerned. On the other hand I have no issues with the requirement to wear safety boots or 'all orange' when trackside because sufficient justification has been made for the move and many of the risks said PPE addresses are present at all times - which is not the case with regard to hard hats, safety glasses or safety harnesses.

If I was working in a confined space, I would like an oxygen monitor too. By the way, Network Rail has to abide by the law as does everybody else. We have had people falling off pick up trucks and suffering life changing injuries. It doesn't mean to say that all people working on them have to wear safety harnesses, but the work activity risk assessments have to be documented, and some of NR's risk assessments do include the wearing of harnesses.

[Bon Accord]

 

I can get as 'sniffy' about the law as I want to thank you. Just because something happens to be the law doesn't make the law 'right'. Yes I have an obligation to obey such laws, and grudgingly do so because I have no choice - but don't expect me to pretend I agree with them....

 

In any case, if you actually bothered to examine the photo clearly you would note that the signal gantry handrails of such a structure etc are not designed to withstand the weight of somebody dangling from a safety harness like a conker - thus the decision not to use a safety harness is acceptable on this occasion. Its exactly the same when you use a stepladder, safety harnesses are not required use to the lack of something suitable to hook onto.

 

I happen to believe that if you want people to respect H&S rules then the rules require clear justification. For example, when working in a confined space where you may bash your head a hard hat is a perfectly reasonable H&S measure. Walking along the cess on a nice sunny day doing some paroling does manifestly does not expose me to anything like the same sort of risk and the inability of NR to actually recognise that and demanding blanket hard hat wearing in all situations simply brings the whole policy into disrepute as far as I am concerned. On the other hand I have no issues with the requirement to wear safety boots or 'all orange' when trackside because sufficient justification has been made for the move and many of the risks said PPE addresses are present at all times - which is not the case with regard to hard hats, safety glasses or safety harnesses.

 

No, the decision not to wear a safety harness is not acceptable on any occasion. If in doubt, send that photo and your query to the HSE and ask for their advice.

I think you'll find that WAH regulations and best practice state that if a suitable securing point for a harness is not available then one should be fitted, it should then be certified and tested annually by a competent authority with a stamp/serial number adjacent to the strong point in question to reference the certificate.

There should also be a clearly defined and documented rescue plan with nominated (and suitably trained) rescuers should a person at height get into difficulty. The WAH training courses tend to state that if an individual cannot be safely rescued by suitably trained and equipped individuals within 10 minutes then the task should be left to the emergency services.

Today, working at height means any point at which you leave the ground, there is no defined minimum height, or at least there shouldn't be in any SMS that reflects modern regulations and best practice.

In short, unless you have a suitable strongpoint+harness+standby man+other appropriate PPE+rescue plan then no working at height is permitted.

Doing it any other way these days leaves both companies and individuals wide open to criminal prosecution under H&S laws as well as litigation in the event of an accident, that's before we even touch on what individual safety management systems state as being company approved practice and the internal consequences of failing to follow them.

This is the way of the world in 2016 like it or not.

I say all of the above with the qualification of having (in the past) quite happily climbed ships masts of heights that are many multiples of that signal in all kinds of terrible weather, often lugging tools and with no PPE whatsoever and on the odd occasion with a drink in me. That may be how we did things then, but it isn't how it's done now - for good reason.

[Gary H]

This rather caught my eye and a little different from the norm. not my pic obviously.

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/580676

[phil-b259]

When you arrive at a situation which does require a hard hat, where do you get it from if it is not already on your head?

 

Martin.

 

Don't be ridiculous. If I set off down the track and I don't know where the hazards likely to need a hard hat are, or have not considered the tasks I will be doing and the PPE necessary to complete them, then I am clearly not acting in a responsible manor and shouldn't be on track in the first place.

 

Fact :- NR have invested lots of money training me up and now trust me day in day out to ensure vital signalling equipment is safe (to put that comment into perspective, if I get things wrong I could very easily cause a Clapham Junction style crash) - but the very same company won't train / trust trust me (or any of their staff) to make a pretty straightforward risk assessment over whether I am likely to bash my head and thus need head protection.

 

If a hard hat* is not necessary for the entire time (as defined by a proper analysis of the risks) then I could carry it in my hand, attach it to my backpack, or yes put it on my head - but if I wanted to but take it off when stopping to undertake tasks that do not require it I could do so. They key point being that I would not be forced to wear it - it would be worn when necessary as determined by a proper risk assessment.

 

*In any case, many of the tasks I am involved in would only require a 'bump cap' rather than a full helmet.

 

What about you?  do you constantly carry around an umbrella with you whenever you go out doors? if you adopted your thinking then it would be necessary to carry one with you at all times "just in case" you encountered a rain shower - even if you had checked the weather forecast. in fact I could take it further and suggest you should have it open at all times - it could prevent you from being hit by bird poo (just as a hard hat might) or conkers falling from trees in the autumn.

 

A responsible H&S policy is not one where management say "everybody must to this"  rather it is where front line staff are given the training, PPE and the ability to make decisions for themselves based on the work they will be doing - not be forced to comply with requirements that are designed around other departments or which are either an inability to undertake proper risk assessments or which are basically cooperate arse covering.

Edited June 23, 2016 by phil-b259

[martin_wynne]

What about you?  do you constantly carry around an umbrella with you whenever you go out doors?

 

No, but statistics for serious injury caused by falling rain are very low.

 

Martin.

[petethemole]

"if you adopted your thinking then it would be necessary to carry one with you at all times "just in case" you encountered a rail shower -" 

 

I don't think a hard hat or umbrella would help.

[96701]

Don't be ridiculous. If I set off down the track and I don't know where the hazards likely to need a hard hat are, or have not considered the tasks I will be doing and the PPE necessary to complete them, then I am clearly not acting in a responsible manor and shouldn't be on track in the first place.

 

Fact :- NR have invested lots of money training me up and now trust me day in day out to ensure vital signalling equipment is safe (to put that comment into perspective, if I get things wrong I could very easily cause a Clapham Junction style crash) - but the very same company won't train / trust trust me (or any of their staff) to make a pretty straightforward risk assessment over whether I am likely to bash my head and thus need head protection.

 

If a hard hat* is not necessary for the entire time (as defined by a proper analysis of the risks) then I could carry it in my hand, attach it to my backpack, or yes put it on my head - but if I wanted to but take it off when stopping to undertake tasks that do not require it. They key point being that I would not be forced to wear it - it would be worn when necessary as determined by a proper risk assessment.

 

*In any case, many of the tasks I am involved in would only require a 'bump cap' rather than a full helmet.

 

What about you?  do you constantly carry around an umbrella with you whenever you go out doors? if you adopted your thinking then it would be necessary to carry one with you at all times "just in case" you encountered a rain shower - even if you had checked the weather forecast. in fact I could take it further and suggest you should have it open at all times - it could prevent you from being hit by bird poo (just as a hard hat might) or conkers falling from trees in the autumn.

 

A responsible H&S policy is not one where management say "everybody must to this"  rather it is where front line staff are given the training, PPE and the ability to make decisions for themselves based on the work they will be doing - not be forced to comply with requirements that are designed around other departments or which are either an inability to undertake proper risk assessments or which are basically cooperate arse covering.

Wow, you really do have a problem with simple rules. If you don't want to abide by them, don't work for Network Rail?

[phil-b259]

Wow, you really do have a problem with simple rules. If you don't want to abide by them, don't work for Network Rail?:-

 

 

'Abiding by' does not mean the same thing as 'agree with' in any dictionary I know of.' do

 

I have already said I abide by the rules in spite of my own views because because:-

 

(1) I have to (not because I want to - which is how it should be with H&S rules*)

(2) I do actually enjoy my job.

 

*Give me the risk assessments that show I am at serious risk of having a head impact while out patrolling and I might change my mind.

Edited June 22, 2016 by phil-b259

[russ p]

The whole railway is full of a lot of stupid rules that have been created by idiots who have created rules just because they can, but there is nothing the likes of Phil and myself can do about it. That we have to conform to hem doesn't mean that we hate it jobs you just have to do it. My pet hates are unnecessary hard hat and eye protection wearing and reverse parking being enforced

[Bon Accord]

'Abiding by' does not mean the same thing as 'agree with' in any dictionary I know of.' do

 

I have already said I abide by the rules in spite of my own views because because:-

 

(1) I have to (not because I want to - which is how it should be with H&S rules*)

(2) I do actually enjoy my job.

 

*Give me the risk assessments that show I am at serious risk of having a head impact while out patrolling and I might change my mind.

 

Simply thus: you're walking along, trip, then fall and strike your unprotected head on a solid object (e.g. cable trunk, rail etc) and you're out cold, or worse.

Of course for that to be an effective safeguard you should be wearing your multi-point chinstrap with your hard hat/helmet at all times. This is standard practice with many employers in many different industries where there is a possibility of a trip hazard.

[russ p]

What about smashing your face in, maybe it would be safer to wear a full face helmet with visor?

[martin_wynne]

This is what can happen if you walk along the cess without a helmet.

 

linked from: http://www.herefordtimes.com/resources/images/2061627

 

[The Stationmaster]

The whole railway is full of a lot of stupid rules that have been created by idiots who have created rules just because they can, but there is nothing the likes of Phil and myself can do about it. That we have to conform to hem doesn't mean that we hate it jobs you just have to do it. My pet hates are unnecessary hard hat and eye protection wearing and reverse parking being enforced

 

Interesting subject this and one which I pay a lot of attention to as I have regular conversations with a pal in the industrial safety trade and advise him on railway safety matters plus preparing/checking safety stuff for  various rail related activities.  So a few truths/bits of information from those who know or have had to think things through.

 

1. The working At Height Regulations apply to every organisation with staff 'working at height' (and the arms on most semaphore signals plus all bracket/gantry signal platforms fall into that category.  BUT there is then a need to apply commonsense and not go overboard, for example 'clipping-on' is often far safer than having a  multitude of handrails and working platforms which can present as much, or more, of a hazard than the one they are meant to avoid.  And secondly far more people have suffered some sort of incident - including injury and death - when climbing ladders surreoiunded by 'safety framing' than have suffered from falling off tected ladders - at lower heights (e.g. railway signals) there is increasing concern that these safety frameworks are a menace.

 

2. In a number of instances (e.g. passenger vehicle shunting and attaching/detaching we have advised strongly against the use of hard hats - they create mobility problems when in-between and area nuisance; bump caps area much more appropriate form of head protection in such circumstances.  I also take the view that enforcing wearing of hard hats when there is no reason to do so is poor safety discipline as it does not relate the PPE to the risks to which the wearer is being exposed and that can cause ill-feeling and a create a disconnect from safety procedures.  I also take very strong exception to any sort of headgear, including hoods on jackets which affect hearing or peripheral vision - such things area  menace.

3.  Having over the years ruined several pairs of shoes walking on the lineside or, where unavoidable, ballast I wholly agree with the wearing of boots - proper version with not just steel toecaps but also with protected soles.

 

4.  Safety specs is an awkward one with both pros and cons - one thing in their favour is being on a power station next to half a million tons of coal during a dry and windy spell.  The biggest con is that the can distort vision and remove peripheral sight and as testing the latter used to e a requisite for a 'on & about the line' medical i do find it a bit strange.  But there are some tasks where it is essential to wear them and they are no doubt handy on routes where the trains do not have toilet retention tanks.

 

5.  As it happens I have mixed views about full tango orange hv clothing but if it's provided then wear it and don't ruin your own clothes.   But quite honestly in many situations at least half of the outfit will provide more than enough warning for Drivers, as long as it's clean and in good nick.

[Ian Smeeton]

A friend of mine was pointng the gable end of his house as part of a programme of work including building a rear extension.

 

Scaffolding had been erected the full height of the gable end.

 

The first 'lift' was 12 inches or so above ground level, and my mate was working on it.

 

Buildng control inspector from the council turned up to do a check/sign something off, saw my mate on the scaffolding without a safety harness/clipped on and immediately ordered him off site through not complying with Working at Height regs.

 

His own house!

 

Case rested.

 

Regards

 

Ian

[ajwffc]

 

5.  As it happens I have mixed views about full tango orange hv clothing but if it's provided then wear it and don't ruin your own clothes.   But quite honestly in many situations at least half of the outfit will provide more than enough warning for Drivers, as long as it's clean and in good nick.

I think the need for full hv clothing came about after a couple of near misses caused by track staff working bent over and not been fully visible to passing trains. 

[The Stationmaster]

A friend of mine was pointng the gable end of his house as part of a programme of work including building a rear extension.

 

Scaffolding had been erected the full height of the gable end.

 

The first 'lift' was 12 inches or so above ground level, and my mate was working on it.

 

Buildng control inspector from the council turned up to do a check/sign something off, saw my mate on the scaffolding without a safety harness/clipped on and immediately ordered him off site through not complying with Working at Height regs.

 

His own house!

 

Case rested.

 

Regards

 

Ian

 

I'd have told the BC Inspector to get lost and go back to the office and study the relevant legislation - he can, as an individual, draw attention if somebody is not complying with H&S law or Regulations but he has no statutory enforcement powers and certainly can't order someone off.  It is also debatable whether the regulations actually cover a scaffold lift 12 inches above ground level - conceivably someone could twist their ankle (i.e. 'an injury') if they fell off the scaffold from that height but a risk assessment could readily be produced showing there is no need for handrails at that height therefore there might be nothing to which the worker could safely 'clip-on'.