Health and Safety? (Lymington sacking)

[Hydro]

Yes, the Telegraph article, which was quoted and sourced earlier in the thread.

 

[DarloRich]

I've just been sat perusing several sites that are running the story, and it appears that as you say O L Leigh, quite a few people do give a flying ### what the media thinks, and furthermore they treat everything they read in the Mail or Sun or whatever as gospel. Sad that nobody is prepared to cast a critical eye these days, but there we are.

In answer to your question - SWT should care because they've been made to/made themselves look stupid. The guy was in no danger, as most have correctly identified - and he solved the problem and is still here to tell the tale. A bollocking maybe, but sacking? Oh dear....

But he was in danger - it has a third rail. Even the guy in question said that the power wasn’t off! There is no way I would go anywhere near an open line, electrified or otherwise without proper training. AT the very least I would want someone with the appropriate qualifications to both supervise me and brief me on the dangers i may encounter. I am one of these terrible office wallahs who "worship" HSE - Why, because it stops my colleagues and others dying at work.

The rules are there for a reason, he should have known them, he breeched them. There was no need for him to go onto a live railway. He should have reported it and let the appropriate staff sort it out. Was it an emergency? was it a matter of life and death? No it wasn’t. Yes he was, no doubt, trying to be helpful and keep things running but how long would it have taken a MOM to come to site and sought it all out? Really?

So it is ok because he wasn’t hurt. What would the response be if the headline was "station master killed trying to remove a shopping trolley"? It is harsh to be sacked for this, unless there are other matters in the background which SW are right to keep confidential.

 

[pendolino]

Yes, the Telegraph article, which was quoted and sourced earlier in the thread.

Sorry Hydro, I could have left you to answer that question yourself.

I wonder if he tried to put down a short circuit bar after (apparently) requesting a current isolation, as required by the Rule Book (I think - I suppose it depends if this was classed as a temporary or emergency isolation). He'd have soon found out if the 3rd rail was still live if he had.

 

[Ferret]

....which shows a clear understanding had not been reached when he ventured onto the track.

It may show that the signaller was at fault! Just as a clarification - the dismissed member of staff appears to have only found out the juice wasn't off in his disciplinary hearing. Mind you, even if you're told the juice rail is off, the last thing you'd do is go anywhere close to touching it - treat it as live at all times!

Darlo Rich - come off it - for the reasons I've outlined above, this guy was not in danger. He'd been around for 27 years; do you honestly think he would put himself in dnager recklessly?!

 

[O L Leigh]

In answer to your question - SWT should care because they've been made to/made themselves look stupid. The guy was in no danger, as most have correctly identified - and he solved the problem and is still here to tell the tale. A bollocking maybe, but sacking? Oh dear....

Do we know this is a first offence...? Has this guy got a history of breaking the rules...? We don't know, so we don't know on what grounds he was sacked. All we have is the way that the media has reported it. If it had been a newbie on his first week I would expect a bollocking would have been appropriate, but this guy has been in the industry for 27 years and really should know better.

But to come back to SWT, I still maintain that they have no reason to feel any embarrassment provided they have followed procedure correctly. The media/public won't be interested in any back-story, especially if, as I suspect, there is a history of rule breaking in his efforts to "do the right thing". Their response will be "so what...?". There are so many rules that are there to ensure safety that appear to be daft or simply a matter of commonsense. But they exist and if you want to preserve your living you abide by them.

However, SWT have a duty to ensure compliance with the rules and to deal with any breaches and other staff performance issues, and there is no room in amongst all of it all to recognise that so-and-so did a good thing by helping to dig the service out of a deep hole. They don't need to justify that to the general public.

As to him having been in no danger, I'm not even convinced on that either. There has been some confusion over whether or not an isolation was even given, so it is very possible that he risked getting juiced. After all, it wasn't an emergency situation so perhaps the ECO made a judgement not to give the isolation. Now, whether the signaller at Brock actually gave assurance that the power was off or whether this chap just assumed that he had because he'd said he'd speak to the ECO to get an isolation, I can't say. Either way, he then went down onto the track and, irrespective of what passed between the signaller and ECO during that period, the next thing they would have heard from him was when he called the box back to give up the block. But if what was passing between the two was discussion about just who this chap was, what he wanted the isolation for and why hadn't he just asked for the MOM to go out, they would have probably had one hell of a fright once they realised that this chap had gone down onto the tracks without PTS to retrieve a large metal object off the line near a live 3rd rail.

It's just a theory, but it would explain the mix up over whether or not the power was off. However, I do wonder whether the signaller on duty at Brock has also had a little chat with his boss. Perhaps he wasn't aware of just what was being asked, but perhaps he should have been a bit more forceful and told him to stay put and wait for the MOM as per the rules. Again, I don't know.

Likewise I'm not familiar with the South Coast electrification. If it's anything like the OLE, taking an emergency isolation via the ECO will affect a far wider area than just the location where the emergency is occuring. Would an isolation of the power on the branch have also affected the mainline or other parts of the network? If so, I can see why an ECO might be reluctant to give one for something as trivial as this. After all, if the MOM had attended he at least would have been in a better position to decide whether or not an isolation was even necessary or if the obstruction could be removed safely without it.

Too many areas for speculation.

O L Leigh

 

[pendolino]

Likewise I'm not familiar with the South Coast electrification. If it's anything like the OLE, taking an emergency isolation via the ECO will affect a far wider area than just the location where the emergency is occuring. Would an isolation of the power on the branch have also affected the mainline or other parts of the network? If so, I can see why an ECO might be reluctant to give one for something as trivial as this. After all, if the MOM had attended he at least would have been in a better position to decide whether or not an isolation was even necessary or if the obstruction could be removed safely without it.

I visited Brighton ECO once, and, if I remember correctly, the chap there said that it was possible to isolate the current on as little track as between a substation and the next TP Hut, which in many parts of 3rd-rail-land is only really a couple of miles or so. More local isolations can be carried out using hook switches, but these tend to be in depots/sidings rather than on the running line as far as I'm aware.

I agree with your point (although it is, as you say, only speculation) that the ECO probably decided this was not an emergency situation so a current isolation was not required. Speculation again, but the Station Manager could well have assumed that because he'd asked for it (via the signaller, rather than direct to the ECO) the current had been turned off. But as Hydro pointed out, it certainly seems that a clear understanding was not reached.

 

[GB]

Was the trolly near the conductor rail? Why assume he was in mortal danger just becuase its 3rd rail and the power was on?

 

[O L Leigh]

Would it be equally fair to assume it wasn't? The point is we don't know.

But either way it makes little difference. He went outside of the rules and compromised his own safety. Had he assumed that the juice was off he might have made assumptions about safe methods of working that he might not have made had he known the rail was still live. But he should never have been down on the track in the first place.

O L Leigh

 

[DarloRich]

Was the trolly near the conductor rail? Why assume he was in mortal danger just becuase its 3rd rail and the power was on?

Perhaps not - but what if he fell or dropped the trolley on the live rail

What if there had been an engineering possession before the first train that he didn’t know about and machinery or equipment came along unexpectedly and ran him down?
What if NR decided to run an inspection train?

Just because he thought he knew the timetable and knew what he was doing doesn’t mean he go onto the track without he correct training and equipment.

 

[90019]

The man himself is quoted as saying:

"I was also told that the power hadn't actually been turned off either."

which shows a clear understanding had not been reached when he ventured onto the track.

Lets not take the quote out of context.

Once I was informed the power was off I went onto the track and removed the trolley and a few other small pieces, such as tin cans. I thought nothing of it.

Later that week I was told the area manager had seen me on CCTV venturing onto the track and that I had breached health and safety rules.

I was also told that the power hadn't actually been turned off either.

 

[Ferret]

Perhaps not - but what if he fell or dropped the trolley on the live rail

What if there had been an engineering possession before the first train that he didn’t know about and machinery or equipment came along unexpectedly and ran him down?
What if NR decided to run an inspection train?

Just because he thought he knew the timetable and knew what he was doing doesn’t mean he go onto the track without he correct training and equipment.

What if this, what if that! Aaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh! The 3rd rail is live when a driver goes to the depot to bring the train off at the start of the day. The 3rd rail is live when the train gets stopped at a red and the driver has to get on the telephone to the box. What if he fell then?!

 

[Firestarter]

What if there had been an engineering possession before the first train that he didn’t know about and machinery or equipment came along unexpectedly and ran him down?
What if NR decided to run an inspection train?

Maybe he had access to P2.:-?

 

[O L Leigh]

But the driver is permitted under the rules to be on or near the line.

O L Leigh

 

[DarloRich]

What if this, what if that! Aaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh! The 3rd rail is live when a driver goes to the depot to bring the train off at the start of the day. The 3rd rail is live when the train gets stopped at a red and the driver has to get on the telephone to the box. What if he fell then?!

but he is trained to be there - that is the point. He knows what to do and perhaps more importnantly what NOT to do. he knows the risks and how to avoid them. This chap may not have had this training.

Mitigation of risk is the whole point of any HSE legislation. That is what the training is for

Simbo - touche!

 

[Ferret]

But the driver is permitted under the rules to be on or near the line.

O L Leigh

I'm sure that will be of great comfort to his nearest and dearest as Abide With Me is being played at his funeral...

O L Leigh - you know as well as I do that safety of the line is covered in safety briefings which are given to all staff whether safety critical or not. I very much doubt this guy was in any danger whatsoever. DarloRich - that's the thing with H&S - you spend that long trying to mitigate against every conceivable risk that nothing ever gets done!

 

[swt_passenger]

So what else do you call the person in charge of a railway station?

Dunno, but this bloke wasn't it. In this area 'station managers' are the people responsible for a whole load of stations. Minor places like Lymington have one person present, who is basically there to man the ticket office, but AIUI with no operational responsibilities - hence as others have said no requirement for PTS training.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm sure that will be of great comfort to his nearest and dearest as Abide With Me is being played at his funeral...

O L Leigh - you know as well as I do that safety of the line is covered in safety briefings which are given to all staff whether safety critical or not. I very much doubt this guy was in any danger whatsoever. DarloRich - that's the thing with H&S - you spend that long trying to mitigate against every conceivable risk that nothing ever gets done!

thats not true at all. he should have made the report, called up the MOM and let him sort it out. It would have taken 30 mins tops for him to drive from Eastliegh or Brockenhurst and deal with it.

Risk reduced and a bloke still in his job. I am no fan of HSE per se but it is there for a reason.

 

[Yew]

I would say that if he had called control (or whatever) and told them the situation, then they put a stop on the section, isolate the tracks. And it would be reasonably safe to go down the line. Well I suppose there would be issues with points. But no trains running + no electricity seems safe. And dont all staff get a little into on how to walk on tracks? I think they do on the London Underground?

 

[Ferret]

Yew - yes they do. Basic training for everyone, and it's always in safety briefs too.

 

[Bon Accord]

Seriously, anyone who carries out a risk assessment and concludes that a MEWP is required to change a lightbulb 8 feet off the floor instead of a decent, fit-for-purpose stepladder needs to be retrained in how to carry out a risk assessment.

Perhaps, but such a regulation is common enough, especially with private companies and to a lesser extent with the state.
I used to work for BP and the nonsense they came up with on a weekly basis was beyond belief. Here's one example - changing a fluorescent light in the office.
Me and you would just get a stepladder and change it, all the while with your feet maybe 1m of the floor.
Not BP - risk assessment, method statement, Permit to Work, area cordoned off and person changing bulb required to have certification to work at heights, wearing full PPE (including harness!) whilst a second person had to be there as a 'watchman', just to ensure nothing untoward happened.
What would normally be a 2 minute job took a day and a half, because all site work/permits have to be signed off at the morning meeting, ergo nothing could happen until the next meeting the following morning.
This is the kind b******t we have to deal with these days.

 

[pendolino]

I would say that if he had called control (or whatever) and told them the situation, then they put a stop on the section, isolate the tracks. And it would be reasonably safe to go down the line.

That seems to be the issue though, whether the signaller had placed a block on the line and whether the ECO had isolated the current. Based on the media reports, it doesn't seem clear cut that either had happened. And if there was any uncertainty, he should not have been on or near the line (particularly if didn't hold a PTS card) in what seems to be a non-emergency situation.

 

[DarloRich]

I would say that if he had called control (or whatever) and told them the situation, then they put a stop on the section, isolate the tracks. And it would be reasonably safe to go down the line. Well I suppose there would be issues with points. But no trains running + no electricity seems safe. And dont all staff get a little into on how to walk on tracks? I think they do on the London Underground?

No we don’t - I have no training on going anywhere near a railway line. I work in an office why do I need it? (perhaps I SHOULD have it, but that is a different argument) How do you know the third rail is off? Are you trained to check? Would you want to rely on someone at the end of the phone - that is the point. It doesn’t look like he was trained to be there. Leave it to those who are.

Report the problem, guard the site, ensure the signal man is aware of the obstruction and await trained staff UNLESS it is matter of life and death. You can’t go messing around on the railway line

 

[pendolino]

Perhaps, but such a regulation is common enough, especially with private companies and to a lesser extent with the state.
I used to work for BP and the nonsense they came up with on a weekly basis was beyond belief. Here's one example - changing a fluorescent light in the office.
Me and you would just get a stepladder and change it, all the while with your feet maybe 1m of the floor.
Not BP - risk assessment, method statement, Permit to Work, area cordoned off and person changing bulb required to have certification to work at heights, wearing full PPE (including harness!) whilst a second person had to be there as a 'watchman', just to ensure nothing untoward happened.
What would normally be a 2 minute job took a day and a half, because all site work/permits have to be signed off at the morning meeting, ergo nothing could happen until the next meeting the following morning.
This is the kind b******t we have to deal with these days.

Then, as I said, the person carrying out that risk assessment needs retraining, because that goes way beyond what is 'reasonably practicable' in controlling the risk.

(I have worked for central government in the past and we were instructed not to change lightbulbs etc., ostensibly on H&S grounds, but it was more to do with there being a Facilities Management contractor who could charge a small fortune for carrying out such jobs)

 

[DarloRich]

Perhaps, but such a regulation is common enough, especially with private companies and to a lesser extent with the state.
I used to work for BP and the nonsense they came up with on a weekly basis was beyond belief. Here's one example - changing a fluorescent light in the office.
Me and you would just get a stepladder and change it, all the while with your feet maybe 1m of the floor.
Not BP - risk assessment, method statement, Permit to Work, area cordoned off and person changing bulb required to have certification to work at heights, wearing full PPE (including harness!) whilst a second person had to be there as a 'watchman', just to ensure nothing untoward happened.
What would normally be a 2 minute job took a day and a half, because all site work/permits have to be signed off at the morning meeting, ergo nothing could happen until the next meeting the following morning.
This is the kind b******t we have to deal with these days.

but that is to protect you from an accident and the company from being sued by you or your estate for NOT procviding adequate training and protection.

Yes it is stupid but that is the world we live in. A fall of 1m can kill you or cause you serious injury. I have seen that happen to someone working in an office. He fell from a ladder changing a light bulb, he hit the desk, broke his arm, fractured his skullc when it hit the edge of the desk and was in hospital for many weeks and of work for months. It was not nice. He is ok now but doesnt change bulbs anymore!

He was a sensible, cautious person and he had an accident. That changed my mind about many HSE things!

 

[HST Power]

Give over. It's a small speed, and a shopping trolley is hardly going to derail or kill anyone. Remember grayrigg? 125mph derailment? Only 1 person died.

But it's still a safety risk. It could still potentially damage some of the train. If Health and Safety had been in the station at the time they'd probably have a fit.

 

[GB]

but he is trained to be there - that is the point. He knows what to do and perhaps more importnantly what NOT to do. he knows the risks and how to avoid them. This chap may not have had this training.

Mitigation of risk is the whole point of any HSE legislation. That is what the training is for

Simbo - touche!

So how do you know this station chap didn't know what to do? Just becuase he didn't have a current PTS certification? I'm not disputing he broke the rules, but I don't agree he automatically put himself in anymore danger just because he didn't have a valid PTS certificate.

 

[moonrakerz]

Seriously, anyone who carries out a risk assessment and concludes that a MEWP is required to change a lightbulb 8 feet off the floor instead of a decent, fit-for-purpose stepladder needs to be retrained in how to carry out a risk assessment.

As I said earlier - THIS is the problem with H & S, people are appointed to the post of H & S "advisor" and they DO believe that step ladders are banned !

 

[DarloRich]

So how do you know this station chap didn't know what to do? Just becuase he didn't have a current PTS certification? I'm not disputing he broke the rules, but I don't agree he automatically put himself in anymore danger just because he didn't have a valid PTS certificate.

No, perhaps not, but then why bother with a safety system?

 

[Bon Accord]

Then, as I said, the person carrying out that risk assessment needs retraining, because that goes way beyond what is 'reasonably practicable' in controlling the risk.

The individual doesn't need retraining, because such actions are actually enshrined in company policy and are therefore official!
Of course, anyone who questions such policies is seen by the office establishment as a leperous, heretic, thought criminal, who ought to be sacked and thence burnt at the stake forthwith for their own and everyone elses protection.
Yes, the HSE does not make such petty rules as its the fault of the individual companies/organisations concerned, but the 1974 HSE Act started the b******* snowball and all it's done in those 37 years is gather momentum and grow ever larger.
I appreciate I do use the 'B' often, but I feel it's quite an accurate noun all the same.

 

[O L Leigh]

I would say that if he had called control (or whatever) and told them the situation, then they put a stop on the section, isolate the tracks. And it would be reasonably safe to go down the line. Well I suppose there would be issues with points. But no trains running + no electricity seems safe. And dont all staff get a little into on how to walk on tracks? I think they do on the London Underground?

Because, simply, that is not the way things work. If you spot an obstruction or some other danger to trains and it is not an emergency where there is a risk of injury or death, you report it to the controlling signaller and he gets the MOM out to deal with it. That is the way that the rules are written.

I do agree that station supervisors should be PTS competent for just such eventualities, but they aren't.

I'm sure that will be of great comfort to his nearest and dearest as Abide With Me is being played at his funeral...

Eh...?

O L Leigh - you know as well as I do that safety of the line is covered in safety briefings which are given to all staff whether safety critical or not. I very much doubt this guy was in any danger whatsoever.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I would argue that he was in danger if the traction current was still on when he had been told/assumed that it was off. All he had to do was poke his litter picker between the juice rail and running rail to get at a bit of litter and BANG...!!

So how do you know this station chap didn't know what to do? Just becuase he didn't have a current PTS certification? I'm not disputing he broke the rules, but I don't agree he automatically put himself in anymore danger just because he didn't have a valid PTS certificate.

Quite.

But this is the point. Whether he was in more or less danger as a consequence of his actions and whether or not he had a good idea what he was doing, he was doing something OUTSIDE of the rules. As I have said before, he may have believed that he was following a procedure, but he was following the WRONG procedure. I said right back in my very first post in this thread that all he needed to do was tell the controlling signaller and then wait for the MOM.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what this whole situation is about.

O L Leigh