Are Heritage railways trying to have it both ways ?

[Malcmal]

Absolutely so. Sadly I am not absolutely certain these things have all been addressed. Apart from "the bog with no floor" there have been a succession of incidents involving runaways, fortunately not resulting in death or injury.

Also the numerous cover-ups that have likely happened over the years. I know of at least one or two myself that I saw being swept under the rug before the authorities got hold of them.

I actually do understand and sympathise with the original poster. Many of the preserved lines would not exist without the "early years" filled with risk and "seat of the pants" operating and now he feels betrayed that these very same lines appear to have turned their backs on the very people who they owe their existence to. However in this modern blame / claim filled world there is no alternative and the aforementioned "bog with no floor" was the final straw.

 

[Llanigraham]

I would have thought the signalman was the least likely to get injured (as opposed to blamed or prosecuted.) If that is your opinion, do you want to be out on the track in any capacity protected by one?

I suggest you re-read the post I replied to. Whilst I may not be injured, as a signal man i am responsible for the all the other lives of people in the line or on any trains under my control, and having seen some of the ways some heritage lines "control" their trains I would not be willing to be part of that.
It does not mean I will not volunteer but I ensure that the jobs I do are well away from the daily operational side of things.

 

[Journeyman]

There is risk everywhere, statistically speaking walking down the stairs is a risky activity, and I`m not joking here. TBH crossing the road opposite my houses is probably more dangerous than walking round the average Heritage Railway shed, and I

I know there's risk everywhere, and yes, crossing the road is dangerous. Yes, walking down your stairs is dangerous. But in saying that, I think you're completely missing the point, and being deliberately obtuse. Both you and others have a responsibility for safety, whatever you're doing. This argument is saying "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, because other things are also dangerous", which is utterly fecking stupid, if you'll excuse the language. You generally need to cross roads to live your everyday life. You don't need to walk around functioning railway depots to do so.

In case you haven't noticed, a huge amount of effort has gone into making cars safer, and the UK now has some of the safest roads in the world, partly because the UK driving test is notoriously difficult compared to a lot of others.

Safety is not some passive thing, it has to be very thoroughly designed in everywhere. That's why the last fatality in a train crash in the UK was nearly twelve years ago, the longest period without one in the industry's entire history. That's not just luck, it's decades of hard work by dedicated people who are absolutely determined to make sure that no-one dies on their watch. As someone who has been involved in that, I find your trivialising and rubbishing of health and safety quite insulting, immature and selfish.

Your reasoning for why this somehow shouldn't apply to the heritage sector makes no sense at all. I pay my dues to a heritage railway, and besides a couple of free tickets each year, I get nothing directly back, certainly not any of the rights you seem to think that should come with it. Why do I contribute? Because I support what they're doing, and want to ensure it survives for others to see and enjoy, as I have.

I'm not going to apologise for spoiling your fun here.

In my mid-teens, I went through a phase of shed-bunking, which seemed like a huge amount of fun at the time, especially when me and a bunch of other kids got up-close-and-personal to 91001 in Bounds Green depot just after it was delivered. Yes, it was fun, but looking back now, I realise I had exposed myself to horrific danger crossing live tracks, and I could have ended up in tiny pieces. It's no surprise depot access is so much more strictly controlled these days, and if my kids did the same thing, I'd (metaphorically) thrash them to within an inch of their lives for being so bloody stupid.

Heritage railways are just as dangerous as "real" ones, and if you're not properly trained with a specific job to do, the working areas should be off-limits.

 

[Llanigraham]

There is risk everywhere, statistically speaking walking down the stairs is a risky activity (particularly if doing so whilst carrying something) and I`m not joking. TBH crossing the road opposite my houses is probably more dangerous than walking round the average Heritage Railway shed, and I`d have thought a statistical analysis would probably prove it. How far do you want to take this risk averse culture in Heritage railways ? Why not, for instance, insist on central door locking ? I`d have thought the absence of which is probably more likely to seriously injure someone than walking round a shed. I wish to stress here that I`m not recommending central door locking, just using it as an example of inconsistency of attitude.

A one person tripping over a piece of metal on the floor, falling and breaking their wrist can nowadays easily result in a damaged claim in the tens of thousands pounds. Whilst all lines will have Public Liability insurance watch the premiums shoot up after even one small claim, and that is before the Health and Safety Executive decide to do a Safety Audit.

 

[J-Rod]

Also the numerous cover-ups that have likely happened over the years. I know of at least one or two myself that I saw being swept under the rug before the authorities got hold of them.

I actually do understand and sympathise with the original poster. Many of the preserved lines would not exist without the "early years" filled with risk and "seat of the pants" operating and now he feels betrayed that these very same lines appear to have turned their backs on the very people who they owe their existence to.

I don't think anyone's disputing that. However, rather than see it as a negative - it should be considered a positive that heritage lines are afforded the same respect as The Big Railway. Yes, that means conforming with The Rules but if that's a price of continued success, so be it. Like I said earlier, I'd much rather take my lad to a properly run commercial enterprise than to see some old grumpy dudes in boiler suits who love a 9F and hate everyone, especially the kids who just love Thomas*





*massive generalisation

 

[Journeyman]

I don't think anyone's disputing that. However, rather than see it as a negative - it should be considered a positive that heritage lines are afforded the same respect as The Big Railway. Yes, that means conforming with The Rules but if that's a price of continued success, so be it. Like I said earlier, I'd much rather take my lad to a properly run commercial enterprise than to see some old grumpy dudes in boiler suits who love a 9F and hate everyone, especially the kids who just love Thomas*





*massive generalisation

Completely agree. If I'm taking my kids to a heritage railway, I want to be confident that it's professionally and properly run, and that if something goes wrong, they'll deal with it quickly and correctly, without exposing people to risk and danger.

If I knew that a particular railway had a contemptuous attitude to health and safety, and was operating coaches in poor condition, like the SDR - let's not forget the supposedly secure door was opened unaided by a three-year-old - there's no way I'd travel on it.

 

[J-Rod]

If I knew that a particular railway had a contemptuous attitude to health and safety, and was operating coaches in poor condition...there's no way I'd travel on it.

Also, following on from this (tangent warning) presentation is a by-product of care and attention/H&S. One thing that constantly irritates me is the long line of what looks like scrap rolling stock at some lines, much of which is in full view of the customers. One wonders just how many knackered Mk1s need to be kept on display.

 

[pdeaves]

If a heritage line wants to be 'the big railway' it needs to work the way 'the big railway' works, not just own some equipment once used by 'the big railway'. The rules and procedures are as much a part of 'the big railway' as the engines, coaches, uniforms, etc.

 

[reddragon]

There is risk everywhere, statistically speaking walking down the stairs is a risky activity (particularly if doing so whilst carrying something) and I`m not joking. TBH crossing the road opposite my houses is probably more dangerous than walking round the average Heritage Railway shed, and I`d have thought a statistical analysis would probably prove it. How far do you want to take this risk averse culture in Heritage railways ? Why not, for instance, insist on central door locking ? I`d have thought the absence of which is probably more likely to seriously injure someone than walking round a shed. I wish to stress here that I`m not recommending central door locking, just using it as an example of inconsistency of attitude.

I work in an office full of office types who do not do railway stuff or even construction. Their perception of danger is so different from mine.

They make a big fuss over trailing cables under desks, bags on the floor etc. In the real world they often miss traffic dangers, concentrating on reverse parking policies instead and with dangers in the home they look at small things rather than the bigger low likelihood dangers.

If you fall over an office cable you might die, but you'd probably just fall over (arguing the risks with office workers was painful).
If you have a car accident or an accident at home, you will probably get injured, maybe badly.
Railway accidents tend to be not only fatal, but leave little for the family to to identify. I've been there.

To help my office team understand railway risks I did a PTS style H&S presentation. Not everyone was able to remain in the room. Hit or miss is a hard video to watch.

Track-side, constructions sites and working environments (sheds) are scary dangerous places if you know the risks or fun places to be if you don't.

 

[Journeyman]

Track-side, constructions sites and working environments (sheds) are scary dangerous places if you know the risks or fun places to be if you don't.

Very good point. If you think you have a right to be in these places for your own personal enjoyment, I'd suggest you have no idea of just how much danger you're putting yourself in.

 

[Journeyman]

Also, following on from this (tangent warning) presentation is a by-product of care and attention/H&S. One thing that constantly irritates me is the long line of what looks like scrap rolling stock at some lines, much of which is in full view of the customers. One wonders just how many knackered Mk1s need to be kept on display.

It's a difficult one because a lot of railways are short of covered storage space, but yeah, far too many railways are full of stuff that's just left to crumble away in front of the public, and it isn't good.

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

It's a difficult one because a lot of railways are short of covered storage space, but yeah, far too many railways are full of stuff that's just left to crumble away in front of the public, and it isn't good.

Indeed so. I have called these things "linear scrapyards".

 

[DarloRich]

There is risk everywhere, statistically speaking walking down the stairs is a risky activity (particularly if doing so whilst carrying something) and I`m not joking. TBH crossing the road opposite my houses is probably more dangerous than walking round the average Heritage Railway shed, and I`d have thought a statistical analysis would probably prove it. How far do you want to take this risk averse culture in Heritage railways ? Why not, for instance, insist on central door locking ? I`d have thought the absence of which is probably more likely to seriously injure someone than walking round a shed. I wish to stress here that I`m not recommending central door locking, just using it as an example of inconsistency of attitude.

oh dear. you clearly do not understand this matter.

I know there's risk everywhere, and yes, crossing the road is dangerous. Yes, walking down your stairs is dangerous. But in saying that, I think you're completely missing the point, and being deliberately obtuse. Both you and others have a responsibility for safety, whatever you're doing. This argument is saying "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, because other things are also dangerous", which is utterly fecking stupid, if you'll excuse the language. You generally need to cross roads to live your everyday life. You don't need to walk around functioning railway depots to do so.

In case you haven't noticed, a huge amount of effort has gone into making cars safer, and the UK now has some of the safest roads in the world, partly because the UK driving test is notoriously difficult compared to a lot of others.

Safety is not some passive thing, it has to be very thoroughly designed in everywhere. That's why the last fatality in a train crash in the UK was nearly twelve years ago, the longest period without one in the industry's entire history. That's not just luck, it's decades of hard work by dedicated people who are absolutely determined to make sure that no-one dies on their watch. As someone who has been involved in that, I find your trivialising and rubbishing of health and safety quite insulting, immature and selfish.

Your reasoning for why this somehow shouldn't apply to the heritage sector makes no sense at all. I pay my dues to a heritage railway, and besides a couple of free tickets each year, I get nothing directly back, certainly not any of the rights you seem to think that should come with it. Why do I contribute? Because I support what they're doing, and want to ensure it survives for others to see and enjoy, as I have.

I'm not going to apologise for spoiling your fun here.

In my mid-teens, I went through a phase of shed-bunking, which seemed like a huge amount of fun at the time, especially when me and a bunch of other kids got up-close-and-personal to 91001 in Bounds Green depot just after it was delivered. Yes, it was fun, but looking back now, I realise I had exposed myself to horrific danger crossing live tracks, and I could have ended up in tiny pieces. It's no surprise depot access is so much more strictly controlled these days, and if my kids did the same thing, I'd (metaphorically) thrash them to within an inch of their lives for being so bloody stupid.

Heritage railways are just as dangerous as "real" ones, and if you're not properly trained with a specific job to do, the working areas should be off-limits.

Another good post. I wonder how many enthusiasts have been to a modern TOC or FOC depot other than during a controlled open day. I have to visit them ( and other overhaul facilities) from time to time for work and the difference in attitude to safety between the heritage sector and the real railway is stark. I have never gone onto a heritage depot and seen a notice encouraging me to report safety concerns or a stand down policy I could activate if I felt work was being done unsafely or even been asked to wear appropriate clothing and footwear. Turn up to a big railway site without boots and you ain't getting on.

The big railway culture is one of reporting and challenging safety issues. Can anyone honestly say the same applies to all Heritage lines?

If a heritage line wants to be 'the big railway' it needs to work the way 'the big railway' works, not just own some equipment once used by 'the big railway'. The rules and procedures are as much a part of 'the big railway' as the engines, coaches, uniforms, etc.

I often wonder how they discharge things like entity in charge of maintenance requirements.

I work in an office full of office types who do not do railway stuff or even construction. Their perception of danger is so different from mine.

They make a big fuss over trailing cables under desks, bags on the floor etc. In the real world they often miss traffic dangers, concentrating on reverse parking policies instead and with dangers in the home they look at small things rather than the bigger low likelihood dangers.

If you fall over an office cable you might die, but you'd probably just fall over (arguing the risks with office workers was painful).
If you have a car accident or an accident at home, you will probably get injured, maybe badly.
Railway accidents tend to be not only fatal, but leave little for the family to to identify. I've been there.

To help my office team understand railway risks I did a PTS style H&S presentation. Not everyone was able to remain in the room. Hit or miss is a hard video to watch.

Track-side, constructions sites and working environments (sheds) are scary dangerous places if you know the risks or fun places to be if you don't.

It is difficult to get people in the office environment to look at safety in the way people on the track would as they are not exposed to it, however notifying concerns about badly arranged wires is a valid safety matter and one that in an office environment could easily lead to a lost time accident. It is about minimising risk in your environment and connecting experiences outside of that environment in such a way as they land with people from a different area. After all slips, trips and falls are the leading cause of avoidable absence in the workplace.

 

[reddragon]

Why not, for instance, insist on central door locking ? I`d have thought the absence of which is probably more likely to seriously injure someone than walking round a shed. I wish to stress here that I`m not recommending central door locking, just using it as an example of inconsistency of attitude.

Central locking & retention toilets are only a matter of time. All it takes is someone to get off and have unexpected relations with a signal post or bridge abutment which even at 25mph would be messy or for the EA to pick up on pollution incidents relating to a mark 1 coach!

A common HR injury is fingers shut in a slam door!

 

[Journeyman]

Central locking & retention toilets are only a matter of time. All it takes is someone to get off and have unexpected relations with a signal post or bridge abutment which even at 25mph would be messy or for the EA to pick up on pollution incidents relating to a mark 1 coach!

A common HR injury is fingers shut in a slam door!

A lot of people are now very unfamiliar with slam doors, even regular rail travellers, so it wouldn't surprise me if incidents involving them become more common as time goes on. ScotRail had to mount a publicity campaign about HST doors before the unrefurbished sets entered service.

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

A lot of people are now very unfamiliar with slam doors, even regular rail travellers, so it wouldn't surprise me if incidents involving them become more common as time goes on. ScotRail had to mount a publicity campaign about HST doors before the unrefurbished sets entered service.

Another reason, apart from courtesy, to have train/platform staff to open/shut doors. One railway, which shall be nameless, has annoyed me for years by burbled loudspeaker requests for passengers to shut doors behind themselves when there are platform staff standing around doing nothing.

 

[Shenandoah]

I suggest you re-read the post I replied to. Whilst I may not be injured, as a signal man i am responsible for the all the other lives of people in the line or on any trains under my control, and having seen some of the ways some heritage lines "control" their trains I would not be willing to be part of that.
It does not mean I will not volunteer but I ensure that the jobs I do are well away from the daily operational side of things.

I can understand this, as the poster is familiar with the 'sharp end' of signalling. Volunteering on a heritage line is a different game to being a paid member of staff and often a more light hearted attitude often appears to be present on heritage lines. Many will remember the so called joke last years of the sleeping signalman of the West Somerset line. Claimed to be fun, with no safety issues being breached ** it did, non the less, put the West Somerset and it servants in a very poor light. Presumably not the way the Company wanted publicity. The photo was pulled from another Forum but it was still to be seen elsewhere I understand.
** A matter of debate of course.

 

[Journeyman]

I can understand this, as the poster is familiar with the 'sharp end' of signalling. Volunteering on a heritage line is a different game to being a paid member of staff and often a more light hearted attitude often appears to be present on heritage lines. Many will remember the so called joke last years of the sleeping signalman of the West Somerset line. Claimed to be fun, with no safety issues being breached ** it did, non the less, put the West Somerset and it servants in a very poor light. Presumably not the way the Company wanted publicity. The photo was pulled from another Forum but it was still to be seen elsewhere I understand.
** A matter of debate of course.

There is a very, very different dynamic to volunteers, who have an entirely different motivation to paid staff and are, in many cases, difficult to sack if they're not up to scratch. You're right, many volunteers do it for love rather than duty, money etc., but that's certainly no excuse for having inadequately trained, inadequately competent and inadequately healthy staff supervising operations.

 

[Worf]

There is risk everywhere, statistically speaking walking down the stairs is a risky activity (particularly if doing so whilst carrying something) and I`m not joking.

You are possibly correct, but in that case you would only have yourself to sue.

 

[geoffk]

I've read what's been written above and would just add that on my most recent visits to heritage railways on the continent a much more relaxed attitude prevails, with few restrictions on access to the lineside and sheds. Admittedly this was usually, but not always, as part of a pre-arranged group visit and we always made sure we asked permission. Lines visited in the last 7 or 8 years were in France, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Romania - all EU members except Norway. In Sweden a group of children helped turn a loco on the turntable!

I'm a Worth Valley member and have a lineside permit (only available to members). I'm not aware of an intention to discontinue permits but if this happened there's every likelihood that I would not renew my membership. Others may do likewise and the railway would lose around £50 a year from each person, maybe not a significant amount in relation to the total turnover. And yes I used to bunk steam sheds in the 50s and 60s, aged 11 to 21. I remember falling over at Royston but nothing worse than that.

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

I've read what's been written above and would just add that on my most recent visits to heritage railways on the continent a much more relaxed attitude prevails, with few restrictions on access to the lineside and sheds. Admittedly this was usually, but not always, as part of a pre-arranged group visit and we always made sure we asked permission. Lines visited in the last 7 or 8 years were in France, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Romania - all EU members except Norway. In Sweden a group of children helped turn a loco on the turntable!

I'm a Worth Valley member and have a lineside permit (only available to members). I'm not aware of an intention to discontinue permits but if this happened there's every likelihood that I would not renew my membership. Others may do likewise and the railway would lose around £50 a year from each person, maybe not a significant amount in relation to the total turnover. And yes I used to bunk steam sheds in the 50s and 60s, aged 11 to 21. I remember falling over at Royston but nothing worse than that.

Presumably these countries have not got the equivalent of the dreaded British gricer! I recall the trespass onto the East Coast main line during one of Flying Scotsman's early trips after her overhaul.

 

[trebor79]

I volunteered on a preserved railway just over 20 years ago, in my late teens.
I was given no health and safety training at all, but learned from the old hands.
Unfortunately, they weren't very health and safety conscious.

I needle gunned the inside of a tank with nothing more than overalls, an ill-fitting dust mask and the occasional shout to check I was ok.
I sealed a small leak in a saddle tank with bitumastic paint. "Hold your breath and be as quick as you can".
We (illegally) removed a lot of asbestos from a boiler before someone saw sense. I recall being sent underneath it to vacuum up Tufts of it - again just an ordinary dust mask for "protection".
I was nearly killed going underneath a rake of coaches to turn a hose on when there was a shunting accident (wrong road set) which resulted in them being propelled 30 feet through a roller shutter door.
I ended up firing and driving. We broke the speed limits, weren't too concerned about the one engine in steam and staff an ticket system. Training for these tasks was on the job and the graduation for firing and driving the steam locos informal. For some reason driving the diesel shunter required an approximation of a formal test with an old BR hand. I managed to ram the back of a stalled train very hard indeed during my test (providing banking assistance on very slippery rails, I approached far to fast and the lcoo just slid when I applied the brakes). I passed.

Don't get me wrong, I had great fun and loved it, but I'd be horrified if my son were exposed to such risks. I still worry to this day that mesothelioma will result from the asbestos exposure, but there's no way of knowing so I try not to dwell on it.

Just as I was leaving for university some H&S and formal training started to be introduced. FFS! was the general attitude (including me) but by gum was it needed.

The South Devon missing toilet floor horrified me. The photos make it clear how exceptionally lucky that little boy and his family were...
Wasn't someone killed.on the North Yorkshire in a shunting accident a few years ago?
Sure people volunteer to have fun and escape the rigours of everyday life, but this stuff doesn't take prisoners.

My hobby these days is flying aeroplanes. It's highly regulated, with lots of formal training. I don't enjoy it any less than I enjoyed messing about with trains in my youth.

 

[Cowley]

I volunteered on a preserved railway just over 20 years ago, in my late teens.
I was given no health and safety training at all, but learned from the old hands.
Unfortunately, they weren't very health and safety conscious.

I needle gunned the inside of a tank with nothing more than overalls, an ill-fitting dust mask and the occasional shout to check I was ok.
I sealed a small leak in a saddle tank with bitumastic paint. "Hold your breath and be as quick as you can".
We (illegally) removed a lot of asbestos from a boiler before someone saw sense. I recall being sent underneath it to vacuum up Tufts of it - again just an ordinary dust mask for "protection".
I was nearly killed going underneath a rake of coaches to turn a hose on when there was a shunting accident (wrong road set) which resulted in them being propelled 30 feet through a roller shutter door.
I ended up firing and driving. We broke the speed limits, weren't too concerned about the one engine in steam and staff an ticket system. Training for these tasks was on the job and the graduation for firing and driving the steam locos informal. For some reason driving the diesel shunter required an approximation of a formal test with an old BR hand. I managed to ram the back of a stalled train very hard indeed during my test (providing banking assistance on very slippery rails, I approached far to fast and the lcoo just slid when I applied the brakes). I passed.

Don't get me wrong, I had great fun and loved it, but I'd be horrified if my son were exposed to such risks. I still worry to this day that mesothelioma will result from the asbestos exposure, but there's no way of knowing so I try not to dwell on it.

Just as I was leaving for university some H&S and formal training started to be introduced. FFS! was the general attitude (including me) but by gum was it needed.

The South Devon missing toilet floor horrified me. The photos make it clear how exceptionally lucky that little boy and his family were...
Wasn't someone killed.on the North Yorkshire in a shunting accident a few years ago?
Sure people volunteer to have fun and escape the rigours of everyday life, but this stuff doesn't take prisoners.

My hobby these days is flying aeroplanes. It's highly regulated, with lots of formal training. I don't enjoy it any less than I enjoyed messing about with trains in my youth.

That's exactly what it used to be like Trebor. And regarding the sentiments about your son I couldn't agree more.

 

[Belperpete]

I've read what's been written above and would just add that on my most recent visits to heritage railways on the continent a much more relaxed attitude prevails, with few restrictions on access to the lineside and sheds. Admittedly this was usually, but not always, as part of a pre-arranged group visit and we always made sure we asked permission. Lines visited in the last 7 or 8 years were in France, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Romania - all EU members except Norway. In Sweden a group of children helped turn a loco on the turntable!

I have worked in Sweden, and their attitude to H&S generally is a lot more relaxed than ours. The walking route to our office involved crossing a busy dual carriageway (no pedestrian crossing), an unfenced railway line, and walking through a building site (where they would stop the digger so that we could walk under it). From my office window, I watched as people skated around the coastline - when I asked wasn't it dangerous, the response was "yeh, a few people die each year" with a "so what" shrug of the shoulders. If an accident had happened to any of those children you saw helping turn a loco, I suspect the Swedish authorities would be wanting to know why their parents allowed them to do it. In the UK, the authorities would be wanting to know why the railway allowed them to do it.

The days when people could just turn up and do a task without any formal training, members just wandering around unescorted wherever and whenever they want, of hurriedly patched-up stock running through track with more turf than ballast, are long gone. The ORR have been making noises for a number of years that the number of accidents and incidents on heritage railways is proportionately significantly higher than on the mainline railways, and that this situation cannot continue. Preserved railways are now required to have proper procedures in place, and to follow them. Those that don't are on very thin ice.

The problem with allowing members and people with photo passes to wander around trackside is that other people follow their example. Unless the railway does something about it, the railway is seen as tacitly accepting the situation.

There was something satisfying about the early days of preservation: the sense of camaraderie, the make-do-and-mend attitude, the sense of achievement of getting something done on your own initiative with makeshift tools and materials. They were the attitudes that saw the country through the Second World War. But we are in a totally different world now, with different attitudes, and our heritage railways have to live in this new world. The argument that something is safe enough because there hasn't been an accident so far just doesn't hold water today.

 

[Journeyman]

That's exactly what it used to be like Trebor. And regarding the sentiments about your son I couldn't agree more.

Agreed. Arguing that we should still be allowed to do all that stuff is insane.

 

[trebor79]

As for being allowed to wander around sheds. I recall about 25 years ago on a visit to the Tanfield, wandering around the shed and yard.
No one there to supervise, totally free access with oil, grease and crap all over the uneven floor. The attached workshop was not in operation but clearly used - all driven by unguarded flat belts.
Pinned up on a notice board was an letter from the HSE basically telling them to stop letting people wander round the shed and yard, and to sort out the death trap of a machine shop.
So it wasn't acceptable even 25 years ago. I don't recall much ever changing, I think they eventually stopped letting people in the shed, but were quite happy for people to wander round the yard.

 

[HaggisBotherer]

But we are in a totally different world now, with different attitudes, and our heritage railways have to live in this new world.

This is a point that I made in the very first reply to this thread and has been repeatedly made by others since, but one I suspect that the OP will never fully accept. Unfortunately within the enthusiast fraternity (as there is, in fairness, with many other places in society), there is a misplaced sense of entitlement, of "I pay my membership fees, so I have the right to do whatever I want".

Allied with the middle-aged mantra of "We've always done it this way, so why should we change?" and the familar "I'm an enthusiast and I know everything about the railway" attitude highlighted by Journeyman, you end up with people like the OP who are implacably resistant to change and cry foul when, because they refuse to change, the rules have to change to ensure that they do.

To me, the fact that the OP has evidently chucked his toys out of his pram by not renewing his membership to a heritage railway, in some sort of pointless protest at not getting what HE wanted (how selfish), and another poster on this forum expressed the opinion that support for these (necessary) 'rule changes' is somehow 'offensive to enthusiasts' only serves to highlight how necessary they are.

The 'enthusiast who knows everything' may be determined to exercise their (non-existent) 'right' to wander wherever they want but, exactly as you've said Belperpete, that misplaced sense of entitlement kicks in with somebody else who doesn't have the first clue about railway safety. "That guy's on the track / in the shed / clambering on that loco, so why shouldn't I?"

And bang...

 

[Journeyman]

I've never been a great fan of the "why can't we carry on doing it, because we used to do it in the past?" reasoning.

Until the last couple of generations, my family were dirt-poor and didn't have any educational qualifications. At least a few of my ancestors died in workhouses, most of them long before they got to 60. If I'd been born 150 years before I was, I suspect I'd have spent most of my childhood in a mine, factory or chimney, and I'd probably be dead by now (I'm 44).

Personally, I'm quite glad things have changed.

 

[Llanigraham]

Personally, I'm quite glad things have changed.

Likewise!

It is interesting to look at other fields where there have been changes where volunteers are involved.

I act as a Stage Rally Safety Officer. 10 years ago we allowed spectators free range in the forests to stand where they liked, then following several major incidents, including fatalities, we now have to construct pens for spectators, man all Rights of Way crossings and specify the EXACT numbers of marshals needed at a specific point, but still we get the "I've been spectating for 30 years, I know what I'm doing!!" as they sit in the run-off area of a right angle bend at the end of a long straight! Personally I have been assaulted for insisting that someone move form that sort of position.

Look at the differences between the kit and the training undertaken by St John Ambulance volunteers in the last 20 years. When I first joined we still had little white satchels and shirts and ties. Now we wear overalls, carry medical gases, defibs, and have to do many hours of training to qualify to drive an Ambulance. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to those old ways, and all those changes have been brought about by changing legislation and increased public perception of what is required.

Visitors to the railway I volunteer on do not get a tour of the engine shed, but they are allowed into a small seated viewing area in the front doors to have a talk and to see what we do. They do get a supervised walk through the Carriage Shed, but because that also has an area that is used for construction work we volunteers have to ensure that when we are working there we have to keep the walkway totally clear, and if we are working when they are brought through that we generally stop work, especially if using things like saws or drills. Compare that to the railways "over the hill" and there the only view you get of the "works" is as you pass through on the train.

And as for track photographic passes, having been trained by NR to have PTS, frankly I think that we should insist that anyone who wants one MUST undertake a full Track Access training course, should be a member of that Railway and should pay for the privilege. From my own experience they are invariably not well trained and treat what training there is as a necessary evil and therefore don't pay much attention.

 

[YorkshireBear]

And as for track photographic passes, having been trained by NR to have PTS, frankly I think that we should insist that anyone who wants one MUST undertake a full Track Access training course, should be a member of that Railway and should pay for the privilege. From my own experience they are invariably not well trained and treat what training there is as a necessary evil and therefore don't pay much attention.

Absolutely agree on this point, and in fact I think it might be the only way to ensure that it doesn't get stopped completely.