Are Heritage railways trying to have it both ways ?

2392 · 22 Mar 2019

Unfortunately true Worf, these days........... Though in the past there have been Inspectorate training course, where the trainee Inspectors as part of their training have visited the NYMR to have a closer look at Heritage operations.

RailUK Forums

LowLevel · 22 Mar 2019

Major Olver was a great friend and advisor to the preserved railway movement and his like are sadly missed.

HaggisBotherer · 22 Mar 2019

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.

Semantics, dear boy. To slightly misquote a well-known saying, if it looks like a trainspotter, walks like a trainspotter and talks like a trainspotter, etc...

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.

Has it even crossed your mind that 'move on' might not be quite so easy for the victim's family, the train driver and the people who have the task of picking up all the bits of human meat and bone spread along a few hundred yards of track? This isn't Game of Thrones or some dodgy video game - people really do get hurt. I suspect that if you were put in that situation yourself, you might have a different attitude. To slightly misquite another saying, 'the ignorance of youth'...

2392 · 22 Mar 2019

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.

Unfortunately, there are several drivers [and other staff], who had to "move on" as they couldn't face driving a train or even a shunter in the yard, after they'd hit someone. Whilst I'm not sure if they were successful A.S.L.E.F. the drivers union tried to have a health compensation scheme [similar to the scheme set for miners who'd retired as a result of suffering with miners lung]. They interviewed a driver who'd been on the sick for a couple of months because he'd hit someone, only to have another person jump in front of his train, on his first day back, as can be imagined his nerves were well shot........

Journeyman · 22 Mar 2019

2392 said:
Unfortunately, there are several drivers [and other staff], who had to "move on" as they couldn't face driving a train or even a shunter in the yard, after they'd hit someone. Whilst I'm not sure if they were successful A.S.L.E.F. the drivers union tried to have a health compensation scheme [similar to the scheme set for miners who'd retired as a result of suffering with miners lung]. They interviewed a driver who'd been on the sick for a couple of months because he'd hit someone, only to have another person jump in front of his train, on his first day back, as can be imagined his nerves were well shot........

Yup, drivers hitting people have had their lives ripped to pieces by the experience, and many of them never recover, either their incomes or their sanity. To make flippant remarks about it is distasteful in the extreme.

The closest I've got to the results of a particularly gruesome "one under" is seeing photos of the scene, and that was enough to make me almost lose my lunch and have nightmares. God knows how I'd cope if I'd actually seen it happen.

2392 · 22 Mar 2019

Journeyman said:
Yup, drivers hitting people have had their lives ripped to pieces by the experience, and many of them never recover, either their incomes or their sanity. To make flippant remarks about it is distasteful in the extreme.

The closest I've got to the results of a particularly gruesome "one under" is seeing photos of the scene, and that was enough to make me almost lose my lunch and have nightmares. God knows how I'd cope if I'd actually seen it happen.

And if you bother to read Charlie Smythe's remark. Rather than just diving in my remark is in no way flippant. So as to make things clear I've edited my post to include the said remark.....

yoyothehobo · 22 Mar 2019

I think it is fair to say one of the things that is impressed upon you when doing your PTS is the results of being hit by a train and how the training is to prevent you being a result of that.

It is in no way a pleasant listen.

Charlie Smythe · 22 Mar 2019

Well my comment seems to of been massively misinterpreted by many on here. When I said "move on" i don't mean the drivers and other staff. Obviously its terrible for them. What i meant by "move on" was that incidents could of been tragic but it wasn't and there is no point in worrying about it as you cannot prevent . How are you going to prevent something like that from occurring? It happened on a platform and cant really stop people from going to near the edge. If he had of been hit then investigating would of done nothing to prevent it happening again as you cant stop people going to close to the edge of platforms.

ArchieWoodbine · 22 Mar 2019

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.

Out of interest, where do you personally draw the line? I.e. if someone gets killed doing the same thing more than once, does that merrit any change? Who's the arbiter of whether a death is worth change or is just one-of-those-things?

Charlie Smythe said:
When you cross the road you take a risk and one day you might die.

Yes, and parents with small children generally don't expect the immediate risk of dismemberment when walking their child to the toilet cubicle.

Charlie Smythe · 22 Mar 2019

ArchieWoodbine said:
Out of interest, where do you personally draw the line? I.e. if someone gets killed doing the same thing more than once, does that merrit any change? Who's the arbiter of whether a death is worth change or is just one-of-those-things?

There becomes a problem when there are frequent accidents and not rare events like the SDR incident. Although saying that just become something kills a lot of people, it doesn't mean it should be stopped. For example, motorcycling is one of those things where every time you get on the bike you are taking a huge risk and there is actually a fairly high chance you maybe injured or worse. That risk doesn't make it worth a total ban as if you use that approach then you might as well ban everything.

I regularly do Jet Skiing with my mates and we all know the dangers involved with it and because of this we all have various safety devices e.g. life jacket, dead man cord, light/torch for night riding, we always have at least 3 mobile phones in our group and never ride alone. We all know that we may die but we all enjoy it so well all feel its worth the risk.

I say that i draw the line when something regularly causing issues. If there is something that is causing issues then measures should be taken to prevent there being any more of those issues such as helmets and leathers on motorbikes. If you want to bring the number of incidents per year for a given activity down to 0 then the only way to do this is to ban it out right. Or you can do what it think people should do and deal with the fact that there are dangers involved and there is always a risk of an accident.

Take the 2015 Alton Towers incident, does that accident mean that the park should close forever, or does it mean we can all accept the danger and then decide if you still with to participate.

43096 · 22 Mar 2019

Charlie Smythe said:
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.

Wrong again. What was necessary was for that vehicle not to be in service. How anyone could think that putting a coach into service without part of its floor, regardless of how sealed off it is, is shocking.

Second, if your attitude to safety is as described in this thread, then you are an utter liability as an employee. You are a danger to yourself and (more importantly) others.

Peter Kelford · 23 Mar 2019

43096 said:
Wrong again. What was necessary was for that vehicle not to be in service. How anyone could think that putting a coach into service without part of its floor, regardless of how sealed off it is, is shocking.

Second, if your attitude to safety is as described in this thread, then you are an utter liability as an employee. You are a danger to yourself and (more importantly) others.

The carriage should not have been in service, but if it really was that necessary to use the coach, it should have been far more secure.

gswindale · 23 Mar 2019

Charlie Smythe said:
There becomes a problem when there are frequent accidents and not rare events like the SDR incident. Although saying that just become something kills a lot of people, it doesn't mean it should be stopped. For example, motorcycling is one of those things where every time you get on the bike you are taking a huge risk and there is actually a fairly high chance you maybe injured or worse. That risk doesn't make it worth a total ban as if you use that approach then you might as well ban everything.

I regularly do Jet Skiing with my mates and we all know the dangers involved with it and because of this we all have various safety devices e.g. life jacket, dead man cord, light/torch for night riding, we always have at least 3 mobile phones in our group and never ride alone. We all know that we may die but we all enjoy it so well all feel its worth the risk.

I say that i draw the line when something regularly causing issues. If there is something that is causing issues then measures should be taken to prevent there being any more of those issues such as helmets and leathers on motorbikes. If you want to bring the number of incidents per year for a given activity down to 0 then the only way to do this is to ban it out right. Or you can do what it think people should do and deal with the fact that there are dangers involved and there is always a risk of an accident.

Take the 2015 Alton Towers incident, does that accident mean that the park should close forever, or does it mean we can all accept the danger and then decide if you still with to participate.

What we do, is look at why things happened, is there anything that can be done to make things safer. Motorcycling (and driving in general) have become a lot safer over the last 40 years because we haven't "moved on" as you appear to suggest.

Using your motorcycle example, early deaths were rare as few people rode bikes. As they increased in popularity, accident rates rose - causing safety improvements to take place.

Any serious incident, no matter how rare, should be investigated fully so that lessons can be learnt to improve safety.

DanDaDriver · 23 Mar 2019

Charlie Smythe said:
I regularly do Jet Skiing with my mates and we all know the dangers involved with it and because of this we all have various safety devices e.g. life jacket, dead man cord, light/torch for night riding, we always have at least 3 mobile phones in our group and never ride alone. We all know that we may die but we all enjoy it so well all feel its worth the risk.

And yet you don’t want to have to wear a hard hat on a building site?

Go home kid, you’re drunk.

Peter Kelford · 23 Mar 2019

I think that members have started to gang up on Mr Smythe for his extremely relaxed attitude towards safety. As a post hinted, he is certainly a relatively young gentleman, a generation which is well-known in general society for having what more conservative people would call 'reckless' opinions. The trouble with the generation is a combination of the fact that they grew/grow up in an era that is, as far as infrastructure and hardware is concerned, the safest ever, with the fact that younger people tend to have more adventurous inclinations. Ironically, social issues (e.g. knife crime) and the risk/danger coming from these social issues is at an all time high.

Younger people such as Mr Smythe see health and safety as 'excessive' and 'ever increasing' without seeing the real-terms improvements in safety. For instance, there came a time where derailments were commonplace and accidents were seen as part of the daily routine. In his book, Gerald Fiennes remembers teaching a stationmaster how to 're-rail a wagon without sending for the crane', something no doubt unthinkable these days. I would encourage Mr Smythe to delve into the history of our railways, even if he chooses not to become a full-time scholar or enthusiast of Britain's railway heritage.

Whilst I share and echo the views that safety on the railway is critical and that high-vis jackets, hard hats, PPE etc. is vital, I implore the other members on this forum to refrain from insulting Mr Smythe, which is probably where this thread is going. Instead, I would encourage members to, if they so wished, provide constructive arguments which disprove Mr Smythe's opinons and which will permit him to learn the reasoned opinions of others.

Shenandoah · 23 Mar 2019

Peter Kelford said:
I think that members have started to gang up on Mr Smythe for his extremely relaxed attitude towards safety. As a post hinted, he is certainly a relatively young gentleman, a generation which is well-known in general society for having what more conservative people would call 'reckless' opinions. The trouble with the generation is a combination of the fact that they grew/grow up in an era that is, as far as infrastructure and hardware is concerned, the safest ever, with the fact that younger people tend to have more adventurous inclinations. Ironically, social issues (e.g. knife crime) and the risk/danger coming from these social issues is at an all time high.

Younger people such as Mr Smythe see health and safety as 'excessive' and 'ever increasing' without seeing the real-terms improvements in safety. For instance, there came a time where derailments were commonplace and accidents were seen as part of the daily routine. In his book, Gerald Fiennes remembers teaching a stationmaster how to 're-rail a wagon without sending for the crane', something no doubt unthinkable these days. I would encourage Mr Smythe to delve into the history of our railways, even if he chooses not to become a full-time scholar or enthusiast of Britain's railway heritage.

Whilst I share and echo the views that safety on the railway is critical and that high-vis jackets, hard hats, PPE etc. is vital, I implore the other members on this forum to refrain from insulting Mr Smythe, which is probably where this thread is going. Instead, I would encourage members to, if they so wished, provide constructive arguments which disprove Mr Smythe's opinons and which will permit him to learn the reasoned opinions of others.

A sensible viewpoint and one of tolerance. Sadly tolerance is not a high point in the 21st. century.

edwin_m · 23 Mar 2019

Peter Kelford said:
Instead, I would encourage members to, if they so wished, provide constructive arguments which disprove Mr Smythe's opinons and which will permit him to learn the reasoned opinions of others.

I have done this in several posts, as well as raising concern for Mr Smythe's personal safety given some of his views and his apparent employment on construction sites. None of this appears to have had any effect.

This is my last post on this topic.

6Gman · 23 Mar 2019

Justin Smith said:
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".

And nobody in Bradford had ever died in a stadium fire.
And no ship had ever left port with its bow doors open.
And no North Sea oil rig had gone up in flames.

Until it happened.

And people realised that health and safety is not just about things that have happened - it's about assessing potential hazards.

6Gman · 23 Mar 2019

LowLevel said:
It's the same with the maintenance depots. Guided tours are available but wandering around open pits etc on your own as a visitor is no longer allowed. People have fallen in to them in the past.

It was a bus workshop rather than railway. Inverness. 40 years ago now.

I went to the office window; asked permission to look around.

Permission was granted.

"Thank you," I said, smiling as I stepped back from the window.

And then realised there was an open inspection pit inches from the heels of my shoes ...

One more step back and I'd have fallen.

6Gman · 23 Mar 2019

Charlie Smythe said:
That's why in public where money and image matters, you keep your views quiet and work on them yourself. I am just saying that not wearing and hi viz and hat would be wonderful at any job whether it be on a building site, railway or recycling centre or any other place where PPE is rammed down your neck.

If the PPE is "rammed down your neck" you're wearing it incorrectly.

On a serious note, the clue is in the name. It's there for your personal protection, but also for others. I suspect drivers much prefer lineside staff they can see from 200 yards rather than the old days when they were in grease-stained dark blue bib and brace!

6Gman · 23 Mar 2019

2392 said:
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.

Unfortunately, there are several drivers [and other staff], who had to "move on" as they couldn't face driving a train or even a shunter in the yard, after they'd hit someone. Whilst I'm not sure if they were successful A.S.L.E.F. the drivers union tried to have a health compensation scheme [similar to the scheme set for miners who'd retired as a result of suffering with miners lung]. They interviewed a driver who'd been on the sick for a couple of months because he'd hit someone, only to have another person jump in front of his train, on his first day back, as can be imagined his nerves were well shot........

Don't know if it was the same case, but I actually met someone who'd been through that. Hit somebody, gradually rebuilt his confidence, returned to driving with a Traction Inspector (who I knew well) accompanying him, then - on his first day back driving on his own - a youth walked across in front of him.

To the best of my knowledge he never drove again.

"Move on" Mr Smythe ?

6Gman · 23 Mar 2019

Charlie Smythe said:
Well my comment seems to of been massively misinterpreted by many on here. When I said "move on" i don't mean the drivers and other staff. Obviously its terrible for them. What i meant by "move on" was that incidents could of been tragic but it wasn't and there is no point in worrying about it as you cannot prevent . How are you going to prevent something like that from occurring? It happened on a platform and cant really stop people from going to near the edge. If he had of been hit then investigating would of done nothing to prevent it happening again as you cant stop people going to close to the edge of platforms.

But you can bring in procedures (you could call it, oh I don't know ... perhaps Health and Safety) to minimise the risk. For example yellow lines on platforms to give an indication of the safe distance. You could give station staff little microphones so they can tell people to stand back (they have them at my local station).

The Snap · 24 Mar 2019

Charlie Smythe said:
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.

I’ve worked on rails construction projects at a senior level for the last 10 years and have seen this kind of attitude time and time again. Unfortunately for you, it’s those risks assessments that, if you don’t follow them and you or a colleague gets injured or worse, will put you in prison. That’s not a joke or a scare-mongering tactic, it’s a fact. Your employers are bound by law to provide you with a risk assessment, so it’s going no where.

The legislation that controls this stuff is the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, I suggest you have a flick through it. It might just give you the wake up call you need - it spells out quite clearly what YOUR responsibilities are under the Act, and the consequences for not following them...ie: prison!

Also, for the record, hi-viz will most likely be the difference between an excavator bucket smacking you round the head tomorrow morning because the driver didn’t see you in time, and him seeing you in time...

Charlie Smythe · 24 Mar 2019

6Gman said:
But you can bring in procedures (you could call it, oh I don't know ... perhaps Health and Safety) to minimise the risk. For example yellow lines on platforms to give an indication of the safe distance. You could give station staff little microphones so they can tell people to stand back (they have them at my local station).

From my experience at stations the yellow line doesn’t work, people go past it, get told to get back and then go over it again.

Charlie Smythe · 24 Mar 2019

6Gman said:
And nobody in Bradford had ever died in a stadium fire.
And no ship had ever left port with its bow doors open.
And no North Sea oil rig had gone up in flames.

Until it happened.

And people realised that health and safety is not just about things that have happened - it's about assessing potential hazards.

There are hazards with everything and you won’t stop the dangerous activity’s being dangerous. Assessing potential hazards for everything will just lead to you doing nothing apart from sitting at home. The way I look at it. If I want to go do parachuting (which I will at some point), bungee jumping or riding a motorcycle I will just do it as it will be fun. If I die doing it then it is what it is.

And know one on here seems to accept that i always have and always will think that health and safety is way over the top. I hope it doesn’t get any worse.

Peter Kelford · 24 Mar 2019

edwin_m said:
I have done this in several posts, as well as raising concern for Mr Smythe's personal safety given some of his views and his apparent employment on construction sites. None of this appears to have had any effect.

This is my last post on this topic.

I was referring to a particular member, not you. I must commend you on your patience with Mr Smythe...

philthetube · 25 Mar 2019

Charlie Smythe said:
There becomes a problem when there are frequent accidents and not rare events like the SDR incident. Although saying that just become something kills a lot of people, it doesn't mean it should be stopped. For example, motorcycling is one of those things where every time you get on the bike you are taking a huge risk and there is actually a fairly high chance you maybe injured or worse. That risk doesn't make it worth a total ban as if you use that approach then you might as well ban everything.

I regularly do Jet Skiing with my mates and we all know the dangers involved with it and because of this we all have various safety devices e.g. life jacket, dead man cord, light/torch for night riding, we always have at least 3 mobile phones in our group and never ride alone. We all know that we may die but we all enjoy it so well all feel its worth the risk.

I say that i draw the line when something regularly causing issues. If there is something that is causing issues then measures should be taken to prevent there being any more of those issues such as helmets and leathers on motorbikes. If you want to bring the number of incidents per year for a given activity down to 0 then the only way to do this is to ban it out right. Or you can do what it think people should do and deal with the fact that there are dangers involved and there is always a risk of an accident.

Take the 2015 Alton Towers incident, does that accident mean that the park should close forever, or does it mean we can all accept the danger and then decide if you still with to participate.

Jet skiing is a choice you make which affects your safety only, not some innocent who think they are in a safe place

No Alton towers should not close for ever, but the reasons behind the incident should be investigated and it should be ensured that the same thing cannot happen again.

underbank · 25 Mar 2019

6Gman said:
And nobody in Bradford had ever died in a stadium fire.
And no ship had ever left port with its bow doors open.
And no North Sea oil rig had gone up in flames.

Until it happened.

And people realised that health and safety is not just about things that have happened - it's about assessing potential hazards.

And yet, Grenfell Tower still happened years after your other examples. Countless people were involved in the renovation but seemingly no-one noticed the blatantly obvious risk - perhaps they were all too busy preening themselves in their dayglo jackets and hard hats? The fire service didn't know how to deal with something they didn't expect. So, in fact, those examples have actually taught us nothing as people are still concentrating on hazards/events that are history and still not looking towards how to avoid and deal with the next "unforseen" event.

AM9 · 25 Mar 2019

underbank said:
And yet, Grenfell Tower still happened years after your other examples. Countless people were involved in the renovation but seemingly no-one noticed the blatantly obvious risk - perhaps they were all too busy preening themselves in their dayglo jackets and hard hats? The fire service didn't know how to deal with something they didn't expect. So, in fact, those examples have actually taught us nothing as people are still concentrating on hazards/events that are history and still not looking towards how to avoid and deal with the next "unforseen" event.

No, Grenfell happened because the cladding and the method of fixing it to the building was an in-built fire risk. That happened because the method of assessing its suitability (or not) was at best inadequate, - at worst,criminally negligent. The enquiry and/or any subsequent court action will determine the exact nature of culpability by those who made the decisions. The availability of mandatory PPE for construction workers has nothing to do with whether the building was made unsafe. My personal suspicions about the choice of cladding system had more to do with the local authority's budget for general social housing vs converting ex social housing for sale as luxury apartments.
However, back on topic, paying due attention to somebody's misguided idea of 'real safety issues' does not remove the need to maintain the use of correct PPE which has been mandated based on wide experiences elsewhere.

ArchieWoodbine · 26 Mar 2019

Charlie Smythe said:
There becomes a problem when there are frequent accidents and not rare events like the SDR incident. Although saying that just become something kills a lot of people, it doesn't mean it should be stopped. For example, motorcycling is one of those things where every time you get on the bike you are taking a huge risk and there is actually a fairly high chance you maybe injured or worse. That risk doesn't make it worth a total ban as if you use that approach then you might as well ban everything.

I regularly do Jet Skiing with my mates and we all know the dangers involved with it and because of this we all have various safety devices e.g. life jacket, dead man cord, light/torch for night riding, we always have at least 3 mobile phones in our group and never ride alone. We all know that we may die but we all enjoy it so well all feel its worth the risk.

I say that i draw the line when something regularly causing issues. If there is something that is causing issues then measures should be taken to prevent there being any more of those issues such as helmets and leathers on motorbikes. If you want to bring the number of incidents per year for a given activity down to 0 then the only way to do this is to ban it out right. Or you can do what it think people should do and deal with the fact that there are dangers involved and there is always a risk of an accident.

Take the 2015 Alton Towers incident, does that accident mean that the park should close forever, or does it mean we can all accept the danger and then decide if you still with to participate.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I can't say I agree with your position, but it's good to hear different thoughts on the topic.

Are Heritage railways trying to have it both ways ?

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member