Are Heritage railways trying to have it both ways ?

[Justin Smith]

a very good post. I doubt the OP is minded to consider a viewpoint beyond his own!

Isn`t that a personal comment ?
Best to avoid personal comments I think....

 

[DarloRich]

Isn`t that a personal comment ?
Best to avoid personal comments I think....

why? It is clear form your posts and responses to some very sensible points you aren't prepared to move in your view. That post in particular is from a professional engineer outlining why compliance is important to him as he personally carries the responsibility for safe operation.

 

[Journeyman]

It might not just be down to that.....

Agreed, but having just read your ill-informed rant in your first link, you'll excuse me for saying you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[pdeaves]

Agreed, but having just read your ill-informed rant in your first link, you'll excuse me for saying you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

The nature of the OP's grievance seems (to me) to change subtly through successive posts. I wonder if the stated issues is in fact not the real issue. For example, has the OP been told off for doing something unsafe that he considers OK or within his rights or something like that?

 

[Journeyman]

The nature of the OP's grievance seems (to me) to change subtly through successive posts. I wonder if the stated issues is in fact not the real issue. For example, has the OP been told off for doing something unsafe that he considers OK or within his rights or something like that?

Quite possibly. I think there's several factors involved, one of which could be the gruesome politics within heritage railways that can cause members to come to blows over incredibly trivial things. I keep well away from that.

I read the first link on the OP's signature as well, which was a very ill-informed rant that could come straight out of the Daily Mail. I sense an angry old man who is aggrieved about things he no longer has any power over.

He clearly came on here hoping to be backed up, but I'm glad he hasn't been.

There's things I can no longer do due to stricter rules, and while it might be a shame, I can completely understand why those things have changed, and the improvement in safety we've seen just about everywhere in the last couple of decades speaks for itself.

 

[Justin Smith]

why? It is clear form your posts and responses to some very sensible points you aren't prepared to move in your view. That post in particular is from a professional engineer outlining why compliance is important to him as he personally carries the responsibility for safe operation.

You have a different opinion to me, of that there`s no doubt.

Here`s a non personal comment :

People who think H&S these days can be overkill are, in my opinion, ill informed.

Here`s personal comment (i.e. about a specific person on this thread) :

The OP doesn`t know what he`s talking about.

See the difference ?

 

[Darandio]

I read the first link on the OP's signature as well, which was a very ill-informed rant that could come straight out of the Daily Mail. I sense an angry old man who is aggrieved about things he no longer has any power over.

It's enthusiast waffle. Got me thinking about an aerial upgrade though.

 

[Journeyman]

It's enthusiast waffle. Got me thinking about an aerial upgrade though.

Haha. Thing is, I'm as much of an enthusiast as the next man, but I also work in the industry, and it's given me a broad perspective on things. I'm quite glad that both my employment and leisure pursuits are somewhat less fatal than they once were.

 

[Journeyman]

The OP doesn`t know what he`s talking about.

It's an accurate assessment, though.

 

[Justin Smith]

Quite possibly. I think there's several factors involved, one of which could be the gruesome politics within heritage railways that can cause members to come to blows over incredibly trivial things. I keep well away from that.

I read the first link on the OP's signature as well, which was a very ill-informed rant that could come straight out of the Daily Mail. I sense an angry old man who is aggrieved about things he no longer has any power over.

He clearly came on here hoping to be backed up, but I'm glad he hasn't been.

There's things I can no longer do due to stricter rules, and while it might be a shame, I can completely understand why those things have changed, and the improvement in safety we've seen just about everywhere in the last couple of decades speaks for itself.

Yet more personal comments, why are so many people on forums so personal ?

There are plenty of people who agree with me, particularly about the withdrawal of photographers passes, as you very well know.

Don`t link me with the Daily Mail please, and I`m not old, I started spotting the mid/late70s, is that old ?

You are correct that things I cannot control (but which affect me) annoy me, show me a human being who isn`t ?

 

[Journeyman]

Yet more personal comments, why are so many people on forums so personal ?

I think you asked for it, to be honest. If you can't take the heat, get out the kitchen.

What we're saying is that you clearly don't understand what you're complaining about. I do. Quite a few others here do as well.

It looks like you install TV aerials for a living, or something like that. I know nothing about the issues involved in that, so I won't pretend I do.

 

[Justin Smith]

It's enthusiast waffle. Got me thinking about an aerial upgrade though.

It`s more than that, TBH, and not just for that reason, I wish I was bringing my son up in the 70s rather than now, other than the advancement in medicine obviously. I`d have loved him to experience what I experienced in York that time, why would you begrudge him that ?

 

[Llanigraham]

A few points spring to mind.

Health & Safety is about reasonable risk, it is not about eliminating all risk as that is impossible. Relatively speaking being a builder, or driving on the roads, is far far more dangerous than walking round a Heritage railway shed, but the H&S Executive don`t ban those activities, see "How Risky Is It ?". The fact is nobody has ever been injured walking round the shed of the Heritage railway I was a member of, certainly they`ve never been sued, they are facts, which are more objective that "projections".

Whoopie, no-one has been injured walking around your shed therefore no-one ever will so we can ignore H & S and let them have free and unfettered access. And then someone trips over something, and because they have Injury Insurance their insurer decided to hit you with a nice big bill.
And just because it hasn't happened at YOUR railway doesn't mean it hasn't happened somewhere else.
What is "reasonable risk" to you as a volunteer is not the same as that to a 25 year old Mum and her toddler.

The chances of being sued by a member are vanishingly small, but, as it happens, it wouldn`t be difficult to get them to sign a disclaimer which I`m sure most would do, though they`d also probably feel insulted at the implication they might sue the very railway they`re so keen on assisting.

See the insurance situation mentioned above.
I can tell you that big claims have been made using just that example in other fields by volunteers. When your house and health might be at risk it doesn't matter where the accident occurred, especially if an insurance company is involved.
And I suggest you look up the legalities of so-called "disclaimers" to see how useless they are.

If modern Heritage railways are just dependent on income from passengers, why do they regularly have appeals for this that and the other ? How far would the GCR have got with its Bridge or Loughborough Canopy if it weren`t for "hobbyists" ?
And why do they depend to a large extent on volunteers ?
What other business has those advantages ?
Answer ?
NONE.

No-one has said they are "just dependent on income from passengers". What has been said is that passengers provide the largest cash injection to heritage railways. I suggest you look at the finance trail for the GCR bridge because it certainly doesn't look like "hobbyists" have provided the majority of the money to build their bridge.
Certainly from the heritage railways (and other places) that I know the volunteers generally provide the "muscle" for their building, maintenance and day to day running.

I`ve been a member of a few Heritage railways / societies but no longer am. I have also contributed to a number of appeals but no longer will. Why should I ? I`m treated just the same as every other passenger (sorry customer) and, in any case, as has been said on here, modern Heritage railways are businesses who depend on the passenger for their income not "hobbyists".

And I not sure that you will be missed.
I'm a member of a couple of heritage lines and even though I am entitled to free travel on them as a member I always buy a ticket and don't expect to be treated any differently to any "normal" member of the public, because that is all I am, a PASSENGER!

 

[Journeyman]

It`s more than that, TBH, and not just for that reason, I wish I was bringing my son up in the 70s rather than now, other than the advancement in medicine obviously. I`d have loved him to experience what I experienced in York that time, why would you begrudge him that ?

Because it's more luck than judgement that we didn't kill people doing it.

I have very little respect for people who think modern health and safety legislation is a joke, or something deserving of contempt. You think killing people is funny? You think life-changing injuries aren't important? They've all happened on heritage railways.

So, you have a child. You must have heard about the SDR toilet floor incident. It was a miracle that kid wasn't literally reduced to mince in front of its mother. Would you like to have been in that position?

No, didn't think so.

 

[Justin Smith]

I think you asked for it, to be honest. If you can't take the heat, get out the kitchen.

What we're saying is that you clearly don't understand what you're complaining about. I do. Quite a few others here do as well.

It looks like you install TV aerials for a living, or something like that. I know nothing about the issues involved in that, so I won't pretend I do.

As a matter of course I try not to be personal on forums, even if someone is directly unpleasant or something I strongly disagreed with. Your implication that anyone who goes onto a forum should be comfortable with personal comments is a sad indictment.

But, as it happens, I am not "wrong", I think Heritage railways are trying to have it both ways. That`s a subjective opinion and therefore cannot be wrong. That said, nobody on here has squared the circle, if they`re businesses like any other why do they need to to tap up their members and others for donations ?

 

[Justin Smith]

Because it's more luck than judgement that we didn't kill people doing it.

I have very little respect for people who think modern health and safety legislation is a joke, or something deserving of contempt. You think killing people is funny? You think life-changing injuries aren't important? They've all happened on heritage railways.

So, you have a child. You must have heard about the SDR toilet floor incident. It was a miracle that kid wasn't literally reduced to mince in front of its mother. Would you like to have been in that position?

No, didn't think so.

Can you quote where I said that ? You`re misquoting me and this thread is dissolving into more and more personal insults, and not from me I`d add.

The incident with the toilet is nothing whatsoever to do with what I`m talking about as you well know. As far as I understand it that was poor maintenance.

 

[Journeyman]

That said, nobody on here has squared the circle, if they`re businesses like any other why do they need to to tap up their members and others for donations ?

In most cases, railways can make enough through the farebox to cover the cost of their everyday operations, but require donations to cover the cost of significant expansions or major restorations.

I still don't get the point you're making, though. Whether they're "proper businesses" or not, they still have to follow the law, and ensure the safety of those that visit their sites. That's got nothing to do with money. Sounds to me you're just angry that you can't do what you used to do, when there's plenty of good reasons why you can't.

 

[Worf]

That said, nobody on here has squared the circle, if they`re businesses like any other why do they need to to tap up their members and others for donations ?

Try reading my previous post. (or am I being too "personal")

 

[Journeyman]

The incident with the toilet is nothing whatsoever to do with what I`m talking about as you well know. As far as I understand it that was poor maintenance.

It's got everything to do with what you're talking about. It was poor maintenance because of a lack of proper health and safety processes and record-keeping. It's tightening up on those things that has resulted in access to sheds being restricted, and changes to things like lineside access. It all comes as part of a package. The RAIB was absolutely scathing about the toilet floor incident. I suggest you read their report.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

It`s more than that, TBH, and not just for that reason, I wish I was bringing my son up in the 70s rather than now, other than the advancement in medicine obviously. I`d have loved him to experience what I experienced in York that time, why would you begrudge him that ?

Because to enable your son to experience the 70s in all their glory you would need to include all sides of the story.

I worked in the industry in the 80s and saw colleagues, both drivers and shunters, lose their lives because of poor working practices.

How can you possibly justify that just to allow your son to have an ‘experience’ ?

 

[Journeyman]

Because to enable your son to experience the 70s in all their glory you would need to include all sides of the story.

I worked in the industry in the 80s and saw colleagues, both drivers and shunters, lose their lives because of poor working practices.

How can you possibly justify that just to allow your son to have an ‘experience’ ?

Thank you - absolutely spot-on. I'd far rather raise my kids now, in an environment where they can't be killed by a bunch of people taking stupid risks on the basis that they have "common sense", whatever that is.

 

[Worf]

Whilst it is true that we do tend to "brass plate" regulations in this country, can you really blame heritage railways for erring on the side of caution when we are in a "compensation culture" society. I used to run a heritage railway, and although I was paid, my directors were not. When I informed them that, despite not being paid, they were jointly and severally responsible for ensuring the safe running of the railway it gave them the shivers. Can you really blame them for tightening up?

 

[Journeyman]

Whilst it is true that we do tend to "brass plate" regulations in this country, can you really blame heritage railways for erring on the side of caution when we are in a "compensation culture" society. I used to run a heritage railway, and although I was paid, my directors were not. When I informed them that, despite not being paid, they were jointly and severally responsible for ensuring the safe running of the railway it gave them the shivers. Dan you really blame them for tightening up?

Of course - it doesn't matter whether you're on the payroll or not. If a decision, mistake or omission with serious consequences has your name on it, you'll hang for the offence, and quite rightly so.

I think it's far more luck than judgement that the heritage railway sector has generally had a good safety record. I know plenty of the old school who think they should be left alone to play trains, but that absolutely won't wash now, and I don't think it ever should have done.

I've been involved in writing safety cases for TOCs, and given that a heritage train is just as capable of killing someone as a main-line one is, I don't see why the heritage sector should be allowed to wing it and let people trespass everywhere with gay abandon.

 

[pdeaves]

if they`re businesses like any other why do they need to to tap up their members and others for donations ?

Businesses tap others for donations, too. They usually use terms like 'grants' and 'funding'. As but one example look at all the 'donations' that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) make.

 

[Shenandoah]

One thing that seems to be dawning - it already has on the more forward thinking lines - is that the ''good old days' of preservation are over.
Legislation in recent decades and the shadow of litigation has caused a big re-thing by many heritage line managers and those who supervise it such as the ORR.
A low profile and usually a small infrastructure, was usually sufficient to maintain the 'Titfield' charisma. Expansion plans - with subsequent achievements - moved many lines into another arena. More infrastructure meant more income, maintenance and volunteers. However dedicated a volunteer maybe it is not his means of support and is unlikely to be sacked. He/she may need to be moved to a less responsible task plus age considerations should be a fundamental part of the appraisal for the work they do. (Before I am accused of ageism I mention I am an octogenarian).
I do voluntary work most morning (not heritage railway), have done for 25 years, but I am aware that my concentration is still needed even though it is not an action that puts others at risk.
Whilst the national system has it fair share of RAIB work, the Heritage sector also has much as well, given Heritage lines are far less intensive and much lower speeds. Recent times have seen runaways, the lamentable SDR event and while the WSR was not closed by the ORR, the new management did see the need to make a period of closure decision themselves. It seems that insolvency for the WSR was pretty close: one wonders how many other lines are sailing close to the wind in that respect.
The future, I believe, for heritage railways is one of (forced?) change. Many accepted present practices could well be curtailed.
Anyway, enjoy what we have, while it is still around.

 

[YorkshireBear]

There is a subtlety within the H&S legislation though - which is that it should be followed where practical - so it's not usually imposed on Heritage railways to the same standard as it is for the National network. The problem sometimes is poor understanding of risk and risk management which leads to things being done to a far higher standard or at far greater cost than is necessary. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Heritage railways should disregard H&S legislation, but they should be looking at it making it practical for their particular circumstances and understanding the risks and ensuring appropriate risk mitigation is in place.

Absolutely and I agree. Hence my comment about people who don't actually read the legislation.

 

[DarloRich]

The incident with the toilet is nothing whatsoever to do with what I`m talking about as you well know. As far as I understand it that was poor maintenance.

here is a link to the report. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...gh-a-missing-toilet-floor-south-devon-railway

Please read it and try to understand the content and implications. A 3 year old boy fell through the floor of a moving train and had to be caught by his mother. You seem to think the behaviours that led to this situation are not only acceptable but are to be encouraged in the name of common sense or some such nonsense.

The SDR were fined £40k at court after pleading guilty to serious HSE breaches and the ORR Chief inspector said that it was only by luck that this little boy didn't die. It also found that the company, which continued using the carriage for three days after the incident, had an inadequate Safety Management System in place which was approximately 10 years out of date and not fit for purpose. It also took the SDR 3 days to report this incident to the ORR.

The RAIB found that the method of securing the door was inadequate. The risk associated with the absence of the toilet floor was not sufficiently appreciated nor adequately managed after the carriage was allowed to enter service. The RAIB also found that the South Devon Railway had no formal competence management assessment for staff involved in carriage maintenance. Both of these factors led to no-one detecting that the door had become unsecure. The RAIB observed during the investigation that the South Devon Railway’s maintenance regime did not identify the extent of the deteriorating condition of the carriage structure, and the railway’s fitness to run process was not being correctly applied.

So yeah, only bad maintenance. Nothing to see here. Move on.

This incident was caused by exactly the kind of shoddy bumbling amateur approach you seem to support. Surely you can see that? Surely you can see why the OOR are so animated? Surely you can see exactly why this kind of approach cannot be allowed to go on?

 

[Journeyman]

This incident was caused by exactly the kind of shoddy bumbling amateur approach you seem to support. Surely you can see that? Surely you can see why the OOR are so animated? Surely you can see exactly why this kind of approach cannot be allowed to go on?

Very well summarised. This is just an incident we know about - I suspect there's been plenty more that have been hushed up in the past.

Standing by for "but common sense, when I were a lad blah blah blah..." incoming.

 

[reddragon]

My railway was told absolutely clearly by the ORR and insurers that photographic permits had to stop and unsupervised public in working areas (depots) was not allowed.

When asked if there was another way to get around it, the answer was yes, stop running trains and become a static museum!

Some appalling behaviours by lineside photographers on another railway ended the option permanently!

A depot / shed is now considered a live operating railway or workshop with slips & trips. Moving locos, welding, cutting, hot work, electrical works, - no place for Jo public. For us to allow visitors in, all activities such as train movements or maintenance must be stopped, the site made safe and the public allowed in under supervision. That is why viewing areas are now put in place where possible.

 

[YorkshireBear]

While the SDR toilet incident is different to what the OP talked about with regards to a member of the public in sheds. The point is never before had a child fell through the floor on a toilet in a mk1 and nearly died. But they did.

Never has a member of the public been injured wandering around a shed (at least majorly enough for it become common knowledge and newsworthy), no but the risks are there; train movements, welding, metalwork, untidy walkways, pits etc. so why wait for it to happen or nearly happen before stopping it. NYMR have a great viewing area and I know many other railways are planning for something similar.