Are Heritage railways trying to have it both ways ?

Peter Kelford said:

I would add that courses would allow for seasoned railway photographers and enthusiasts to go and take photos safely. Essentially, both NR and heritage lines could offer a pass/permit for those who have taken a test and have repeatedly shown that they can behave safely around the railway.

Click to expand...

Peter Kelford said:

For NR, this is simply a permit to stand on the 'trackside' of any temporary cordons/barriers set up to impede trespass onto the track by the general public. I would not be suggesting that NR suddenly lets people wander in and out of Bounds Green or Old Oak common.

Click to expand...

this board at times.....................

( these are simply not rational suggestions)

pdeaves said:

For just one example, look up the bloke at Thurston who was so engrossed with filming the steam special he came within a gnat's whisker of having a 170 footstep take his head off.

Edit: here is one of many versions of the video, if anyone missed it:

Click to expand...

My attitude to that video would be that he was very lucky but if he had of gotten hit then it is what it is, its happened so move on. Several of the H&S safety obsessed people of this forum would demand that their is a barrier at every station with doors for access to trains.

Llanigraham said:

The SDR didn't end up with a death more by luck than the failed judgement of those that run that railway. Your comment suggests that you haven't either read the RAIB Report or if you have you have failed to understand it.


I might suggest that at 17 you don't yet understand what and why the H & S legislation is there and how it affects EVERY aspect of your daily life. It also confirms that you aren't a volunteer and I suspect don't actually fully understand what that involves. On the line I volunteer on hi-vis is rarely worn and don't think I have ever seen anyone wear a hard hat, but we do expect (nee demand) that other safety wear is required and will be worn.
I'm afraid that if you came with the attitude towards safety that you seem to relish and have so far shown, then you probably would get far beyond the mess room.
Perhaps you need to get away from the keyboard, join the real world and actually volunteer!

Click to expand...

I think you will find that I have joined the real world. In the real world of construction we get bombarded by H&S and everyone hates it and when the inspectors not there, we get on with work however on the days the inspector is there we all just sit in the vans all day so he cant have a fit over something. There is nothing wrong with my attitude towards health and safety. I know its important but when people say "i need a hi-viz to protect me", it shows just how naive they are. In my mind a hi - viz is pointless and does nothing. A dust masks protect you lungs, a hard hat your head and steel boots your feet. A high viz wont stop you from being hit by a train because the driver saw you and stopped. If you're working and you need your high viz to protect you then you're dead and that's that.

Many on here seem to think that H&S is a replacement for common sense. I look for dangers and decide if they're actually dangerous. Someone who follows H&S like the bible won't look for dangers and will have an accident and then wonder why it happened. Don't get complacent just because you have signed a form and are wearing a hat.

For those that are wondering, it still maintain my belief that accidents on heritage railways are rare. Just because someone is killed doesn't mean action needs to be taken. People are killed every day crossing the road, does this mean we need a foot bridge on every street in the country? No, we don't. When you cross the road you take a risk and one day you might die.

Llanigraham said:

You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that even non-running sheds have movements made, that these sheds may contain hazards at various levels, may contain equipment being used, and you don't seem to realise how long it takes to get an engine ready for the afternoon service; I can assure you it is a lot longer than 10 minutes!!
And the ONLY person who can give you permission to enter a BOX is the signaller, permit or not!


Do you actually understand the numerous restrictions even NR staff have onto the numerous restrictions and definitions of what you seem to simply describe as "trackside"?
Fine, but you will still have to pay for the training, the hi-vis clothing required, the regular up-dating of your training, the pre-certification health testing, including sight and hearing.
Sorry but what you ask is just not possible!

Click to expand...

DarloRich said:

this board at times.....................

( these are simply not rational suggestions)

Click to expand...

Trackside meaning on platforms/ next to boundary fences, access to which is often denied due to trespassing.

The preparation of a loco definitely takes a lot longer than 10 minutes, but some work can be done safely with visitors who do not climb into cabs/ stand next to inspection pits etc. Speaking about signal boxes, the permit would obviously be in conjunction with verbal permission from the box staff. On the subject of signal boxes, a visit to a NR one in Scotland yielded detailled interior photos while a heritage line in England did not...

Peter Kelford said:

Trackside meaning on platforms/ next to boundary fences, access to which is often denied due to trespassing.

Click to expand...

that isnt trackside - that is on a platform! You don't need any special training or a special trainspotter pass ( which in no way will give many invovled a sens e of massive self importance!) for that. You don't need any special training to stand on the real world side of the fence. My personal view: Regardless of how long you have been watching trains you aren't coming inside the boundary fence.

Bit late to the party but here goes. I am sympathetic towards the OP's POV but if we went back just 19 years, we'd be in the age of rails shattering when a train passes over them because of poor/no maintenance. James May has a point when he say's everything is better nowadays.

The two replies to my earlier posting, at #182 and 183 above, show exactly why there is a need for control of so-called rail enthusiasts, especially the first paragraph from Mr Smythe.
The more this "I know best" attitude is shown the more control will be imposed because quite obviously they don't.

DarloRich said:

that isnt trackside - that is on a platform! You don't need any special training or a special trainspotter pass ( which in no way will give many invovled a sens e of massive self importance!) for that. You don't need any special training to stand on the real world side of the fence. My personal view: Regardless of how long you have been watching trains you aren't coming inside the boundary fence.

Click to expand...

Trackside being a play on the term 'airside', used to denote the 'working' side of security at an airport.

Peter Kelford said:

Trackside being a play on the term 'airside', used to denote the 'working' side of security at an airport.

Click to expand...

So the various sides in this debate aren't even using words to mean the same thing?

Well that's encouraging to help maintain safety...

Peter Kelford said:

Trackside being a play on the term 'airside', used to denote the 'working' side of security at an airport.

Click to expand...

Just for info; the term 'trackside' has a specific meaning (and different to your 'play') to those who work on the 'big railway'.

Charlie Smythe said:

That comment went down well. It seems to me as though I am the only one who has my views.

Click to expand...

You certainly seem to be in a tiny minority here, although I think many realise that there are a sizable number of train spotters out there who believe they know it all.

Charlie Smythe said:

Why is it poor? Is it because you disagree with it?
My opinion is based on the fact that i find health and safety very frustrating and limiting and the fact that at least at my local (South Devon, Paignton and Dartmouth and West somerset) incident are very rare. They are not based on "ignorance and youth".

Click to expand...

it is poor because it shows no knowledge of reality. You said you were 17 in another post on this thread. That is fairly young compared to an old gadgie like me. So young, infact, you are still legally a child. I suspect that once you get a bit more exposure to life your views might change. They would if you worked for me!

Also not sure your wonderful SDR is a good example of process adherence and worker training! To reiterate a point: PLEASE read and try to understand the accident report linked above.

Charlie Smythe said:

People often seems to think that because forms are signed and Hi-Viz jackets are worn that they are safe. If you're in a position one a railway where you need you Hi-Viz to save you its to late.
There also seems to be a lot of people on here who are the type that worry about safety so much that they never do anything.

Click to expand...

That completely misunderstands the point of this discussion and is adolescent in the extreme.

Peter Kelford said:

Trackside being a play on the term 'airside', used to denote the 'working' side of security at an airport.

Click to expand...

it is nothing of the sort. Please stop using phrases you don't understand. The phrase " trackside" has a specific meaning in the railway world. That is why my response may appear blunt. I am talking about what we know as track side. You are talking about watching trains from a platform!

Trackside should mean 'adjacent to the P-way'. I could not think of a more suitable word other than 'the railway side of any anti-trespass temporary structures' which is a very long phrase for a simple thing.

Charlie Smythe said:

There is nothing wrong with my attitude towards health and safety. I know its important but when people say "i need a hi-viz to protect me", it shows just how naive they are. In my mind a hi - viz is pointless and does nothing. A dust masks protect you lungs, a hard hat your head and steel boots your feet. A high viz wont stop you from being hit by a train because the driver saw you and stopped. If you're working and you need your high viz to protect you then you're dead and that's that.

Click to expand...

You're right that a train can't stop if the driver sees someone in a hi-viz on the track, unless it's going very slowly. But it will save a life on the railway if it means the driver sees somebody that much sooner, and blows the horn giving that person enough time to get off the line. It may also save your life on a building site if it means a vehicle driver sees you when they wouldn't otherwise. If you work in construction and don't understand this then you need to get some site safety training urgently.

Charlie Smythe said:

My attitude to that video would be that he was very lucky but if he had of gotten hit then it is what it is, its happened so move on. Several of the H&S safety obsessed people of this forum would demand that their is a barrier at every station with doors for access to trains.

Click to expand...

sigh. no one would demand that for goodness sake.

Charlie Smythe said:

I think you will find that I have joined the real world. In the real world of construction we get bombarded by H&S and everyone hates it and when the inspectors not there, we get on with work however on the days the inspector is there we all just sit in the vans all day so he cant have a fit over something. There is nothing wrong with my attitude towards health and safety. I know its important but when people say "i need a hi-viz to protect me", it shows just how naive they are. In my mind a hi - viz is pointless and does nothing. A dust masks protect you lungs, a hard hat your head and steel boots your feet. A high viz wont stop you from being hit by a train because the driver saw you and stopped. If you're working and you need your high viz to protect you then you're dead and that's that.

Click to expand...

I have run and worked on building sites. That kind of attitude will get you thrown off and not invited back. You clearly have little or no understanding of the concepts involved. A high viz is to make you visible to others, especially those in charge of moving machinery. It isnt a direct protection against anything. No one is suggesting it is!

Personally, i think it is clear from your posts you lack the maturity to understand the concepts involved here. You think you are experienced because of your limited work on a building site. I am quite happy to say that at 17 you are not. You are welcome to offer your opinion. I do not agree with it.

Charlie Smythe said:

Many on here seem to think that H&S is a replacement for common sense. I look for dangers and decide if they're actually dangerous. Someone who follows H&S like the bible won't look for dangers and will have an accident and then wonder why it happened. Don't get complacent just because you have signed a form and are wearing a hat.

Click to expand...

About the only bit of any of your posts you HAVE got right is the last sentence above! The first bit is just wibble.

Charlie Smythe said:

For those that are wondering, it still maintain my belief that accidents on heritage railways are rare. Just because someone is killed doesn't mean action needs to be taken. People are killed every day crossing the road, does this mean we need a foot bridge on every street in the country? No, we don't. When you cross the road you take a risk and one day you might die.

Click to expand...

Please read the linked accident report above. A small child could very easily have been killed through shoddy practice and you reckon, because he didn't, that everything is OK? Yet another case of looking but not seeing.

Peter Kelford said:

Trackside should mean 'adjacent to the P-way'. I could not think of a more suitable word other than 'the railway side of any anti-trespass temporary structures' which is a very long phrase for a simple thing.

Click to expand...

You shouldn't be the railway side of anything. Ever.

DarloRich seems to be doing a good job of replying here but I'd say Charlie Smyth your attitude would have you out of network rail fairly quickly.

And if you turned up to volunteer on the heritage railway I volunteer in first hint of that attitude I would escort you from site and invite you never to return.

How you can show complacency at 17 I don't know.

HaggisBotherer said:

So the various sides in this debate aren't even using words to mean the same thing?

Well that's encouraging to help maintain safety...

Click to expand...

I would suggest that the people who actually do work on the railway, be that heritage and especially the national railway are using the correct terms, but the so-called "enthusiasts" are the ones who have got it wrong (again).

HaggisBotherer said:

You certainly seem to be in a tiny minority here, although I think many realise that there are a sizable number of train spotters out there who believe they know it all.

Click to expand...

Just to clear one thing up, I am not a trainspotter. Being a trainspotter in my demographic is not good and is the word "trainspotter" is used to describe anyone even slightly out of the ordinary. Therefor even if you are my age and you are a trainspotter, you just say that you have an interest in trains and nothing else.

DarloRich said:

PLEASE read and try to understand the accident report linked above.

Click to expand...

I have read the report and from what i can gather the time line goes like this;

In April of 2017 the SDR had carried out work on the carriage which was the put back into service. On the 22nd of June 2017 a child left their seat with its mother to go to the toilet in question. The child began to open the door and then stepped forward and began to fall when his mother grabbed him. He sustained minor injuries which was reported to RAIB on the 25th of the same month.

This tells me that the person who permanently fastened the door to put it out of use should be 100% personally liable for this. You don't need to be a engineer to stop a door from opening. Timber, screws and a big sign is what was necessary.

RAID report "The RAIB found that the method of securing the door was inadequate, so that over time the door became less secure to the extent it was possible for the child to open it."

For the door to work loose over a few months it must of been a poor job to begin with.

This obviously a health a safety issue that needs to be addressed at the SDR but many on here seem to be painting every heritage railway with the same brush. Unfortunately i missed the days where heritage railways were big train sets for enthusiasts to play trains (what a wonderful time that would of been). This a isolated incident and does not represent the Dartmouth Steam Railway, the West Somerset railway, the national mainline managed by Network Rail nor any other railway in the country.

DarloRich said:

wonderful SDR

Click to expand...

It is not my "wonderful SDR". In actually fact i don't like this heritage railway at all. There are other local to me that are far Superior with nicer staff, better locos and a nicer route.

DarloRich said:

That kind of attitude will get you thrown off and not invited back

Click to expand...

That's funny because in the 19 months i have been working on this site i haven't once been asked to leave, in fact i am one of the safer ones. The H&S is one of the reasons why i stay away from commercial sites such as the IKEA that was built near me last year. I would much rather work on Perimmon, Barrat and Bovis sites where they a far more relaxed. I have friends that worked on the IKEA site and they left as they never managed to get anything done as the whole day was taken up with risk assessments.

Trackside is a very good way of describing a place where you shouldnt be without PTS.

And Charlie Smyth, some advice for life, the HSE dont have to come on your site with notice or even be on your site to shut it down and if you were on my site with that attitude to PPE and general safety you would be off the site before you could think about it. I have seen enough near misses with vehicles on site in my time that if they werent wearing something easily visible they would have been dead. Its all well and good having a care free attitude until you have an accident and you end up injured or worse and your site manager ends up in Jail, the company gets a massive fine, site gets closed etc...

You might not like wearing PPE, but grow up before you are made to prematurely.

yoyothehobo said:

And Charlie Smyth, some advice for life, the HSE dont have to come on your site with notice or even be on your site to shut it down and if you were on my site with that attitude to PPE and general safety you would be off the site before you could think about it. I have seen enough near misses with vehicles on site in my time that if they werent wearing something easily visible they would have been dead. Its all well and good having a care free attitude until you have an accident and you end up injured or worse and your site manager ends up in Jail, the company gets a massive fine, site gets closed etc...

Click to expand...

Agreed. It is the attitude I find most worrying. The PPE wont save you but a decent attitude and approach to site safety might.

YorkshireBear said:

your attitude would have you out of network rail fairly quickly.

Click to expand...

it wouldn't have you through the door!

YorkshireBear said:

DarloRich seems to be doing a good job of replying here but I'd say Charlie Smyth your attitude would have you out of network rail fairly quickly.

Click to expand...

And if Charlie Smythe happens to be your real name, and you fancy applying for a safety-critical post on the railway, I wouldn't fancy your chances if a recruiter chose to do some Googling and ended up here.

High-vis jackets also serve an additional role in that, should there be an incident, anyone can immediately see the number of people in the area even while this person is observing from afar and thus cannot see clearly (e.g. a driver/secondman on a loco at up to 125mph). Furthermore, a manager/health and safety officer/fire marshal etc. can easily separate staff/trained people from the visitors when there is a mix of the two. (Many places give staff one colour clothing while other people get a different colour). Charlies Smythe is observing the physical 'barrier' or 'cushioning' impact of high-vis items, but the benefits are primarily in visibility and noticeability.

Peter Kelford said:

Charlies Smythe is observing the physical 'barrier' or 'cushioning' impact of high-vis items, but the benefits are primarily in visibility and noticeability.

Click to expand...

Yes; an orange top does not make you invincible to the effects of being hit, an orange top does not make the driver stop sooner, an orange top lets the driver warn you to get out of the way sooner. The onus on the actual 'not being hit' bit is on the wearer but an orange top helps others to help the wearer.

pdeaves said:

Yes; an orange top does not make you invincible to the effects of being hit, an orange top does not make the driver stop sooner, an orange top lets the driver warn you to get out of the way sooner. The onus on the actual 'not being hit' bit is on the wearer but an orange top helps others to help the wearer.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I will no longer make any comments about high-vis jackets and their use unless in a dedicated thread, as I feel that this thread has been hijacked enough.

Getting away from my views of health and safety as that debate could go on and on and isn't really that important to this thread.

Why is there even discussion about what the term "trackside" means. In my view it means being on the same of side of a structure as the track. E.g if someone jumps the barriers at a level crossing then they are track side, are they not? Or if an enthusiast jumps a fence to get onto the line to get a better shot he is trackside.

Charlie Smythe said:

Just to clear one thing up, I am not a trainspotter. Being a trainspotter in my demographic is not good and is the word "trainspotter" is used to describe anyone even slightly out of the ordinary. Therefor even if you are my age and you are a trainspotter, you just say that you have an interest in trains and nothing else.



I have read the report and from what i can gather the time line goes like this;

In April of 2017 the SDR had carried out work on the carriage which was the put back into service. On the 22nd of June 2017 a child left their seat with its mother to go to the toilet in question. The child began to open the door and then stepped forward and began to fall when his mother grabbed him. He sustained minor injuries which was reported to RAIB on the 25th of the same month.

This tells me that the person who permanently fastened the door to put it out of use should be 100% personally liable for this. You don't need to be a engineer to stop a door from opening. Timber, screws and a big sign is what was necessary.

RAID report "The RAIB found that the method of securing the door was inadequate, so that over time the door became less secure to the extent it was possible for the child to open it."

For the door to work loose over a few months it must of been a poor job to begin with.

This obviously a health a safety issue that needs to be addressed at the SDR but many on here seem to be painting every heritage railway with the same brush. Unfortunately i missed the days where heritage railways were big train sets for enthusiasts to play trains (what a wonderful time that would of been). This a isolated incident and does not represent the Dartmouth Steam Railway, the West Somerset railway, the national mainline managed by Network Rail nor any other railway in the country.



It is not my "wonderful SDR". In actually fact i don't like this heritage railway at all. There are other local to me that are far Superior with nicer staff, better locos and a nicer route.



That's funny because in the 19 months i have been working on this site i haven't once been asked to leave, in fact i am one of the safer ones. The H&S is one of the reasons why i stay away from commercial sites such as the IKEA that was built near me last year. I would much rather work on Perimmon, Barrat and Bovis sites where they a far more relaxed. I have friends that worked on the IKEA site and they left as they never managed to get anything done as the whole day was taken up with risk assessments.

Click to expand...

You have completely missed the point of the report and instead have focused on the least important part. It suggests you haven't really read the report at all and have merely glanced at the headlines.

I wont comment on your attitude towards health and safety further other than to say it is simplistic and childish at best. I suspect you are copying attitudes and approaches taken by the bigger and cooler boys. It is clear you simply dont get it.

DarloRich said:

You have completely missed the point of the report and instead have focused on the least important part. It suggests you haven't really read the report at all and have merely glanced at the headlines.

I wont comment on your attitude towards health and safety further other than to say it is simplistic and childish at best. I suspect you are copying attitudes and approaches taken by the bigger and cooler boys. It is clear you simply dont get it.

Click to expand...

I do think there’s a little too much emphasis given to the SDR incident. Sure it shouldn’t have happened, and the railway collectively as well as presumably a number of individuals personally were extremely lucky the incident wasn’t a lot worse.

However it doesn’t follow that one incident on one railway means *every* railway is badly deficient. Indeed there’s examples on this thread of volunteers who seem to take safety extremely seriously, as one would expect.

The sector as a whole needs to up its game, however I can’t say I feel nervous travelling on preserved railways. Indeed a good proportion of the staff probably know a heck of a lot more and take a more conscientious approach than some staff on parts of the “real” railway! Most of the time they generally give the impression of well-oiled operations that know what they’re doing.

bramling said:

I do think there’s a little too much emphasis given to the SDR incident. Sure it shouldn’t have happened, and the railway collectively as well as presumably a number of individuals personally were extremely lucky the incident wasn’t a lot worse.

Click to expand...

I agree it shouldn't have happened. However the fact it did was shown to be because of systematic failures in policy, procedure, monitoring and operation. It was luck a small child wasn't killed. We cant rely on luck.

I do not agree that we can simply shrug this off and say most people are ok and it was a one off. it needs looking into and fixing across the heritage sector.

bramling said:

However it doesn’t follow that one incident on one railway means *every* railway is badly deficient. Indeed there’s examples on this thread of volunteers who seem to take safety extremely seriously, as one would expect.

The sector as a whole needs to up its game.

Click to expand...

I agree. However the game needs to be upped quickly as the SDR incident and others (such as the West Somerset Railway issues) have set the inspectors antennae twitching. Muddling through wont be adequate anymore.

Indeed reading some of the latest remarks. Remember the BBC series "Challenge Anika," back in the late eighties? In particular the episode where Anika Rice helped the Kent & East Sussex Railway build an extension and at the end of the episode the K.E.S.R. ran a passenger train on it. Not long afterwards there was an A.R.P.S. [Association of Railway Preservation Societies, as was] meeting where the Late Major Peter Olver of the Railway Inspectorate attended, as a guest/consultant. On the one hand he congratulated the K.E.S.R. for their achievement building the extension, but then went onto B*****k them for not involving the Railway Inspectorate in the process. Warning everyone else He/the Inspectorate would fall on them like a ton of bricks if they repeated the escapade, with out the Inspectorate being involved........

Having said that Major Olver at the least and by default the Inspectorate were/are open to consultation/advise. On the bases of if your open with them, they'll be open with you.......

Unfortunately, Olver (and Pointz who replaced him) were virtually the last of a dying breed. Most inspectors then were brought up on railways via Royal Engineers, so really knew what they were talking about. Current inspectors by and large have "tick box" mentality and are usually "career" civil servants who switch from department to department and just do not have the experience or knowledge that they used to. Boiler inspectors also went through a phase of being totally useless (our one, on his first visit, admitted that all he had dealt with in the past was sterilising "boilers" used by dentists!) for giving you advice, until they started sending them on training courses to the SVR,
Sorry for straying OT!