Is it safe?

[52A]

Everyone should be forced to wear suits of armour, although knowing the Hysteria and Stupidity brigade I hope they don't read this, may give them ideas!

One of the strange things about the Edge Hill accident was that the train was only doing 15 MPH.

[Mickey]

Everyone should be forced to wear suits of armour, although knowing the Hysteria and Stupidity brigade I hope they don't read this, may give them ideas!

Good one 52D

Makes you wonder how railwaymen have managed since 1829 working without wearing ALL OVER BRIGHT ORANGE DAY GLO SPACE SUITS??.

Ok B.R. introduced the small 'yellow jacket' to be worn by track-worker's i.e.- p.way staff, S&T staff and any other such staff out and about on the railway which was fair enough but it's getting ridiculous nowadays honestly.

[60800]

Traffic wombles: A phrase to describe the men who close whole motorways to retrieve a bit of debris from one lane. Maybe there's a similar name for people who close entire railways to retrieve a bucket.......

[Mickey]

Traffic wombles: A phrase to describe the men who close whole motorways to retrieve a bit of debris from one lane. Maybe there's a similar name for people who close entire railways to retrieve a bucket.......

Yeah blackout a ruddy nuisance.

[strang steel]

Part of my job used to be liason with the police over certain events, and in conversation with them it became obvious that their policy of closing roads and motorways for long periods after an accident, was a result of legal pressures, not to annoy other motorists.

You have to understand that any vehicle accident becomes a potential crime scene, and because of this the procedure has to be identical to that for the result of any other serious crime.

[StevieG]

Similarly, the modern requirement for the lads to always be covered in h.v. clothing from head to toe can't make it very comfortable in hot weather to be on or about the line.

I've no idea if it's a fair comparison, or if any injuries have occurred because of this, but consider what can happen to some of our best-turned-out guardsmen on days like Trooping The Colour when it's continuously sunny.
When, in recent times, you've gone out in mandatory full kit (i.e, not in permitted 'summery' HV items, because it's cool/windy / dull) while traffic is running (this 'red zone' working is still permitted as the least safe of the SSOWs [safe systems of work] if certain conditions and protection requirements are met and better systems of protection are impracticable), but then out comes the sun and beats down continuously while you still have to be out there, I can tell you it is not funny, and I do wonder if we are putting some individuals at risk of collapsing from their in-clothing heat, and thus while in a position of safety, possibly fall/moving and sustaining injury that way or from becoming foul of the nearest line as a train approaches.

Surely if that protective clothing saves even one life in ten years it is worth it?

Thats the usual arguement that is always used. Where i work the guy who is 'contracted' to clean the station and empty the rubbish bins walks around in 100% ORANGE clothing & saftey boots (but no hard hat) at the moment?.

Thats an amusing story but it doesn't alter the fact that increasingly stringent H&SE measure, though irritating, do save lives where railways are concerned.

If the individual is required to wear all that kit but his/her duties are station-only and do not require them to go any nearer to trains or the line than the public, it could be questioned as to why all passengers/others on/in the same platform areas are not also required to wear all the HV gear?

[StevieG]

Ignore the fact that it this post is on a railway.
Think of it as a construction site now try and start work.
You would not be allowed through the gate without Hard hat, Hi Vis, Boots and anything else likely to be needed.
Look at the notices posted at the gate.
Why should railways be any different?

I suppose it could be said that if exceptions were made, 'where do you draw the line', but it really is hard to relate 'construction site' to 'working' near the line on a rural, non-electrified branch line, open to traffic (with correct protection from trains measures in place).

[StevieG]

Traffic wombles: A phrase to describe the men who close whole motorways to retrieve a bit of debris from one lane. Maybe there's a similar name for people who close entire railways to retrieve a bucket.......

Yeah blackout a ruddy nuisance.

Well I'm really not sure I agree about that.
When 'broken down' vehicles safely(?) stopped on the hard shoulder keep getting hit in the back by fast lorries whose drivers are drowsy / using mobile phones / checking delivery paperwork / trying to change the station on their radio or whatever, I don't think I'd like to be expected to be out in Lane 3 picking up bits of debris or parts of loads that have come off moving vehicles, while traffic is still moving in other lanes.

[PinzaC55]

It's just as easy to say "I can't see the reason for that rule" as it is to say, after an accident, "obviously there should be a rule about this".

About 4 years ago a council worker was riding a large, heavy, petrol lawn mower to cut the grass round the York City walls. In places the embankment is near 45 degrees but he had alaways cut that grass and....you can guess what came next. It toppled over and killed him. At the inquest it was found that the safety procedures were woefully lacking and the Council were taken to task. It may seem obvious to us but it wasn't to that poor guy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mower.html

[Bryan]

I am out trackside on the NYMR in the morning and will be highly visible in full orange even if no trains are running.

[Autocar Publicity]

Just because there's not supposed to be anything moving doesn't mean there won't be. It is not unknown for trains to be run at short notice, so best to take elementary precautions. I remember a time I went out to retrieve somebody wandering trackside at Embsay station on a non-operating day, he was full of derision and accused me of being a petty jobsworth, saying nothing's running, don't be such a [prat/killjoy]. I suggested he turn round and when he saw the diesel bearing down on him (from downwind on a breezy day) he said [Oh!] with some surprise and started to see things from my point of view!

As far as the level of safety gear's concerned, I suggest the acid test is "Are you comfortable?" If you can do your job properly without distractions, you are more likely to be safe. If you are uncomfortable and thinking more about how the sweat or rain trickling down your back, or you're desperate for a drink or the toilet than concentrating on your work, that's when accidents are likely to happen.

The problem is like a lot of things these days, we have got ourselves lumbered with a system which doesn't allow for individual judgement and common sense and inflicts artificial standards and numbers on everything, as that is the only way the bean-counters can quantify matters. So we end up with a system which caters for the lowest common denominator. Or, to put it another way, as someone once said, "Build a system which even a fool can use and only a fool will ever use it".

[PinzaC55]

The point is we live in a litigious society where Injury Lawyers 4U are never far away and train companies have to protect themselves.
However a few years ago I was working a train from York to Leeds and my Conductor Manager was on the train assessing me. He looked down at my shoes and said "Can I just point out you are not wearing safety footwear?"
I replied "Thats true, but then again YOU are not wearing safety footwear and you are supposed to be able to work the train if I am unfit or incapacitated?"
He made no reply.

[StevieG]

I suppose it could be that those charged with striking the right balance between rules that are practicable and over-prescriptive, are in a sort of 'rock vs. hard place' position.
In the end, should protective gear be just good enough to not inhibit any work requirements, possibly leaving some practical protective measures not taken, or should the kit be appropriate enough to give maximum reasonably practicable protection, causing some difficulty in a few circumstances (when 'worksafe' measures can always theoretically be invoked by anyone not happy with a situation), but ensuring that more workers avoid being put at risk (and are thus still able to complain about their HV gear!).

[StevieG]

" .... Makes you wonder how railwaymen have managed since 1829 working without wearing ALL OVER BRIGHT ORANGE DAY GLO SPACE SUITS??.

Ok B.R. introduced the small 'yellow jacket' to be worn by track-worker's i.e.- p.way staff, S&T staff and any other such staff out and about on the railway which was fair enough but it's getting ridiculous nowadays honestly.

I think we first got issued with the initial orange mini-vest (with orange rubber buttons) in about early 1970.
Before that it was just 'issue' overalls (if you had a right to any: If not workshirt and jeans was one answer), and any boots/shoes and coats that were issued and/or suitable for the actual work to be done. (PLUS, good, reliable lookouts!)

[Mickey]

" .... Makes you wonder how railwaymen have managed since 1829 working without wearing ALL OVER BRIGHT ORANGE DAY GLO SPACE SUITS??.

Ok B.R. introduced the small 'yellow jacket' to be worn by track-worker's i.e.- p.way staff, S&T staff and any other such staff out and about on the railway which was fair enough but it's getting ridiculous nowadays honestly.

I think we first got issued with the initial orange mini-vest (with orange rubber buttons) in about early 1970.
Before that it was just 'issue' overalls (if you had a right to any: If not workshirt and jeans was one answer), and any boots/shoes and coats that were issued and/or suitable for the actual work to be done. (PLUS, good, reliable lookouts!)

Dunno Stevie i've seen pictures & film footage of B.R. p.way staff out working on the track with 'small yellow jackets' around the mid-1960s just in the last couple of years of the end of steam in 1968.