[yorkie]

Originally Posted by RMT

BRITAIN’S BIGGEST rail union RMT is demanding Network Rail re-instate lookout patrols in the Lancashire and Cumbria region following another runaway incident near Tebay where four RMT members died in a similar incident in 2004.

In the latest incident on Tuesday morning at around 2am a DB Schenker freight train rolled backwards from Shap Fell, the highest point in Britain’s rail network, towards Tebay for over a mile.

Only quick-thinking signalling staff in Carlisle prevented another tragedy.
RMT general secretary Bob Crow said that it unbelievably reckless to remove lookouts in an area where four RMT members were killed at Tebay in 2004 and there was a terrible derailment at Grayrigg.

“This is just the latest runaway rail vehicles from London Underground and in Scotland yet Network Rail is playing fast and loose with safety in the name of cutting costs.

“We have also been calling for secondary protection for track workers during track possessions since the tragic events of Tebay.

“RMT is advising members to not work if they believe it is not safe,” he said.

After the publication of the report on the investigation into Grayrigg, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch report appendices made reference to the four men killed at Tebay and that it also noted the Working Arrangements particular to that area – that a lookout was considered normal practice (see below).

Network Rail’s own staff survey, which is alluded to in the RAIB’s October 2009 Runaways of Road Rail Vehicles report, states that 40 per cent of staff feel time-pressured and 20 per cent feel peer-pressured into unsafe working practices. Some of RAIB’s recommendations from the investigation were to look at requirements of personnel and warning systems.
“Even Network Rail must find it difficult to imagine that the recommendations mean a reduction of lookouts,” said Bob Crow.

ENDS

Note to editors

Paragraph 14 on p.223 of the final version of the RAIB report on Grayrigg states:

“However, in the infrastructure maintenance manager Lancashire and Cumbria’s area, it was considered necessary to provide lookouts even under these circumstances, in case such an item of equipment ran away out of the worksite. As a consequence it was normal practice to plan that all patrols would require lookouts resulting in between fifteen and twenty two staff being needed for patrolling and related lookout duties each week that movements were planned in a worksite or in the possession.”

BTW, I spotted a mistake there, Shap Fell is not the highest point on Britain's rail network. I thought the RMT didn't like mistakes

Here's the BBC article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11043428

Train 'rolled backwards on track' in Cumbria

There has been another incident involving a runaway train in an area in Cumbria where four men were killed six years ago, it has emerged.

The Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) said a freight train rolled backwards for a mile from Shap Fell towards Tebay on Tuesday morning.

Four workers died when they were hit by a runaway trailer at Tebay in 2004.

Network Rail said it was happy to talk to the RMT about any "legitimate" concerns the union had.

The RMT is calling for better protection for workers but Network Rail said it would not compromise safety.

Union officials said only quick action by signalling staff in Carlisle prevented an accident.

A Network Rail spokesman said: "The Rail Accident Investigation Branch is looking into an incident in the early hours of Tuesday 17 August involving a freight train operated by DB Schenker.

"There were no people working on that section of railway and there were no passenger trains in the vicinity either."

Secondary protection The union called for all rail lookout patrols to be reinstated.

General secretary Bob Crow said: "This is just the latest runaway rail vehicle, following incidents on London Underground and in Scotland, yet Network Rail is playing fast and loose with safety in the name of cutting costs.

"We have been calling for secondary protection for track workers during track possessions since Tebay."

The Network Rail spokesman said: "Network Rail will not compromise the safety of its people."

He said lookouts were still used in some areas and workers were protected in other areas.

"Nonetheless, we are happy to talk to the RMT about any legitimate concerns it may have," he said.

[DaveNewcastle]

Originally Posted by yorkie

BTW, I spotted a mistake there, Shap Fell is not the highest point on Britain's rail network. I thought the RMT didn't like mistakes

Well, I wouldn't normally be bothered by such an error, its not as if its relevant to the incident, but wait . . . .
In which region are the Unions' members most likely to have spotted that mistake, and as a result, feel slightly unrecognised?
And
In which region is the Union seeking full support from Members for its campaign against DOO?

Oooops.

I won't comment on the incident until we hear more, though I am looking forward to hearing how the roles of the additional lookouts would have dealt with this and how they would have been occupied during all other posessions and how they would have coped with those conditions.

[Old Timer]

The RMT has lost an awful lot of credibility by making various stupid comments, such as this.

This latest one is a perfect example of a genuine issue which has been over-dramatised with inaccuracies of fact simply as a means of gaining a quick headline.

If the RMT senior officials spent more time looking after their members than getting involved in overseas Political campaigns, and looked at exactly what is going on, and then reporting this accurately, their influence would be so much greater.

That is a sad reflection on the RMT, when on any day something else slips out that says all is not well.

[DaveNewcastle]

Originally Posted by Old Timer

The RMT has lost an awful lot of credibility by making various stupid comments, such as this.

They have, and of course, not just as a consequence of "stupid comments".
Its very revealling to listen to the views of many of the "new" intake of railway staff on the RMT (particularly customer facing on-board and station crews).

[313103]

Originally Posted by DaveNewcastle

Its very revealling to listen to the views of many of the "new" intake of railway staff on the RMT (particularly customer facing on-board and station crews).

Well would you care to enlighten us what they are?

As an aside it would appear that not many on here like the RMT and prefer a forward thinking union like ASLEf, but im guessing that is because the RMT always have something to say and ASLEF tend to say nothing!

[O L Leigh]

Can we all stick to the topic, please...?

O L Leigh

[DaveNewcastle]

I meant what I said: "its revealling to listen".
By that, I mean learning from having a proper discussion with newer rail personnel about the RMT. Not expecting me, or anyone else on an internet forum, to have a log of quotes, whether in-context or out.
But I'm sure you knew what "its revealling to listen" means.

Returning to the OP. I understood that the freight had come to an unscheduled standstill prior to the incident and it was not related to a posession.

[313103]

Originally Posted by DaveNewcastle

I meant what I said: "its revealling to listen".
By that, I mean learning from having a proper discussion with newer rail personnel about the RMT. Not expecting me, or anyone else on an internet forum, to have a log of quotes, whether in-context or out.
But I'm sure you knew what "its revealling to listen" means.

Returning to the OP. I understood that the freight had come to an unscheduled standstill prior to the incident and it was not related to a posession.

I suppose what you mean by "its revealing to listen" means. You will have staff saying things like i wish i never joined this RMT bunch, this union doesnt represent me, i hate being part of Bob Crows outfit, all this union does is worry about Cuba and other issues outside this country, the rmt don't care about there members, my locval rep is crap and is up managements (as a family group i will be polite) rear end and selling us out and they always get rubbish pay deals.

I wouldnt worry i have heard and had worse thrown at me these are just some of the comments about the RMt that a lot of people like to hear because then it proves to them what they belive is true.

What you rarely here is the RMT saved my job so i am thankful to them for that, the RMT got me a higher then expected pay rise, the RMT are trying to save my job, my local reps have helped me on more then occasion.

Going back on topic i suppose the RMt should have kept quiet and not reported this 'NOTHING' incident, i suppose they should have kept quiet about Tebay when four of the unions members were killed, i suppose some cynics on here would said all the RMT is doing is making political gain on the lives of 4 innocent railway employees.

[CarterUSM]

Originally Posted by 313103

I suppose what you mean by "its revealing to listen" means. You will have staff saying things like i wish i never joined this RMT bunch, this union doesnt represent me, i hate being part of Bob Crows outfit, all this union does is worry about Cuba and other issues outside this country, the rmt don't care about there members, my locval rep is crap and is up managements (as a family group i will be polite) rear end and selling us out and they always get rubbish pay deals.

I wouldnt worry i have heard and had worse thrown at me these are just some of the comments about the RMt that a lot of people like to hear because then it proves to them what they belive is true.

What you rarely here is the RMT saved my job so i am thankful to them for that, the RMT got me a higher then expected pay rise, the RMT are trying to save my job, my local reps have helped me on more then occasion.

Going back on topic i suppose the RMt should have kept quiet and not reported this 'NOTHING' incident, i suppose they should have kept quiet about Tebay when four of the unions members were killed, i suppose some cynics on here would said all the RMT is doing is making political gain on the lives of 4 innocent railway employees.

Well said. It is easy to forget the good work that is done by the RMT, and they're not in managements pocket either.

[Old Timer]

Originally Posted by CarterUSM

Well said. It is easy to forget the good work that is done by the RMT, and they're not in managements pocket either.

The Network Rail Infrastructure maintenance staff that I know, and those who come on here may not hold the same opinion bearing in mind what has been happening to their pay and conditions, and the loss of jobs that have been taking place.

[CarterUSM]

Originally Posted by Old Timer

The Network Rail Infrastructure maintenance staff that I know, and those who come on here may not hold the same opinion bearing in mind what has been happening to their pay and conditions, and the loss of jobs that have been taking place.

Of course, i'm hardly 100% chuffed with them myself, but those who shout the loudest i would hope attend their btanch meetings at the very least. Sadly this is generally not the case, at least not where i am.

[jimrbrobinson]

Please forgive my ignorance here but I don't understand this about lookouts. Aren't the two Tebay incidents completely different in that in the tragic circumstances of 2004 there were actual track workers on the line, who didn't have enough warning of the unexpectedly approaching runaway trailer to get out of its way to safety, whereas in this incident no workers were actually on the line? Whilst still an obviously serious incident (a whole train running away backwards sounds highly dangerous to me), in this latest case there were no track workers on the line, so therefore no lookouts posted to warn workers of unexpected traffic on the line?? Sorry if this makes me sound unbelievably thick, but as I am still at present an outsider to the industry (albeit still with hopes of entering a career in the industry) I can only go off what I've seen and read, and fail to see where lookouts would come into play in this recent incident if no maintenance workers were working on the line in the area.

[Old Timer]

The positioning of lookouts in the circumstances the RMT want is basically not a sensible proposition for a whole range of reasons which hardly anyone on here will be particularly interested in.

There are more feasible solutions but in both these cases there has been a clear disregard of rules, and in the first there was a series of criminally culpable acts. The Infrastructure Contractor involved should, in my opinion, also have been Prosecuted to the fullest degree.

Part of the solution is for very firm criminal prosecution to be taken against inviduals at senior level within Railway organisations. By that I mean at my level and above, because it is US who are responsible for ensuring the safety of staff and operations.

I have seen and read too many cases involving certain Companies where lip-service and hang-wringing is what is paid to safety at senior level.

In true Greek tragedy style, Network Rail by deliberately failing to pay substantial monies owed to Jarvis Rail and thus bringing them to bankruptcy, have actually removed the ONE Contractor whose approach to safety was at the top.

Sadly I see little pressure for change amongst certain of my contemporaries until they see the inside of a prison cell. I became fed up of pricing my jobs with all safety considerations, to find that others were not applying the same level of committment, and winning as we were becoming too expensive for Network Rail whose only interest is in the cheapest price.

It is in this area amongst others that the RMT should be concentrating its efforts instead of trying to blame all ills on Privatisation. I live in a forlorn hope though because the RMT was one of those principally responsible for bringing this horrendous organisation into existence, and then for turning a continuing blind eye to the various practices it was undertaking, simply on the basis of supporting a failed Political dogma.

[DaveNewcastle]

Originally Posted by jimrbrobinson

Aren't the two Tebay incidents completely different
. . .
in this latest case there were no track workers on the line, so therefore no lookouts posted to warn workers of unexpected traffic on the line?

You are absolutely right.

I'm afraid I tried to make a similar point by sarcasm, following the Union's inclusion of those details of the former incident in their comment on the recent one (my asking how, if the RMT's recommendation of lookouts had been adopted, that policy might have affected the outcome of this latest incident. Its not their policy I was having a dig at, it was the lack of any relevant link between the two incidents, which I think was YOUR point!).

Originally Posted by 313103

I suppose what you mean by "its revealing to listen" means. You will have staff saying things like i wish i never joined this RMT bunch, this union doesnt represent me, i hate being part of Bob Crows outfit, all this union does is worry about Cuba and other issues outside this country, the rmt don't care about there members, my locval rep is crap and is up managements (as a family group i will be polite) rear end and selling us out and they always get rubbish pay deals.

Well, not quite.

What I did say, in the context of the actual wording of the RMT statement following the August incident, which involved no track workers) was that its "revealling to listen to new" rail staff when they talk of the RMT. These are not all youngsters who wouldn't remember the history, but also folks with silvering hairs who've come from other sectors. They don't hear the RMT's voice as their voice.
There's no point in blaming new staff for not recognising what the RMT has done for them any more than there is in blaming the Union for the list you've provided. The fault is simply that there is a distance between the Membership and the Union, real or imagined. The interesting question is how to re-unite a workforce with their representatives. "Them and Us" divisions are the responsibility of everyone concerned. And when one "side" or another isues a press release, then it better be taking some of that responsibility for re-uniting with the other. jimrbrobinson's post suggests that the RMT's press release (quoted by Yorkie to start this thread) failed to do that. I agree. That statement hindered any work in bringing the Union closer to new workers on the railway.

Some of this division may have been engineered, some may be unintentional consequences. New comers won't care. But the responsibility for forging a relationship between staff and union is everybody's. That was the point that I'd hoped would be taken from my initial statment on the matter. I'm sorry if I hadn't been clearer. I think it matters.