Are Heritage railways trying to have it both ways ?

[YorkshireBear]

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.

I think you miss the point here, this incident on the SDR is not a danger that should be involved? Do you think a child falling through the floor being crushed by a wheelset is a danger that should just be accepted when riding a heritage train? Yes there are dangers involved there always will be, but why should that stop us from trying to prevent those we can easily control!

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.

I don't think anyone suggested the SDR should have just closed after this incident. The Alton Towers incident is actually a perfect example of what should happen after an incident so thanks for bringing it up. The incident happened, the immediate aftermath was dealt with. The park was then shut for several weeks I believe with smiler and other similar coasters shut for longer. Smiler was shut for 9 months while improvements were made. There was a full and transparent investigation into the incident and measures were taken to ensure it did not happen again. All this despite nobody dying. This is the perfect example of a response to a preventable accident so again thank you for bringing it up. And while no one said it should close forever if Alton Towers had not been so proactive the HSE would have shut it down. No doubt about that.

Also I would be careful about naming your potential employers as having a relaxed approach to HSE on a public forum.... Not convinced they would see it the same way!

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.

I don't think the point of the post was to say that unforeseen events no longer occur. It was several bad examples. I think to suggest they were all too busy with dayglo jackets and hard hats is a gross over simplification. What was at work here was bodged approvals and testing, which I sense will now be added to the list of lessons learnt over the years. Boeing is an example where self-certification may potentially have gone too far. So actually two recent major disasters could potentially be categorized as foreseen but negligent!

 

[ian1944]

Just an aside on working practises which would be unthinkable now. When the coach station in Birmingham shared space with the Midland Red garage in Digbeth, I was on a service in the early 90s which had an hour's break in the middle of the night. No barrier existed between the two functions, and while stretching my legs indoors and looking at the buses I suddenly came on an open inspection pit in a dark corner. There were of course spillages of oil and diesel on the floor. My reaction was of gladness not to have fallen rather than indignation.

 

[whhistle]

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

Because people like to think they are right and hate being caught out as wrong.

Perhaps it's the "knowledge is power" thing.
Like people who say "I know, but can't say what's happening" <-- what a waste of everyones time! If you know, but can't say anything, why say you know? Because people won't believe whatever it is you can't say anyway.

People also take things personally here when they're not meant to be.
I get tired of trying to explain my point of view when someone clearly doesn't get it. It's not worth my time explaining any further.

 

[whhistle]

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

The problem is finding balance.

With your approach, all speed limits should be reduced by 20mph.
In fact, all cars should be fitted with automatic braking systems - and retro fitted to older cars.

You can assess hazards until thw cows come home and you'll still miss other eventualities that may happen.

There's plenty of examples of "health and safety gone mad" because people do not want to take responsibilty for their own actions these days. I was reading about a nurse who asked to go on a speed awareness course to "learn how to control the speed her vehicle is travelling" instead of being fined. Huh? Either they are simply dumb, or a liar... because it's one or the other.

Interestingly, I am watching Great Alaskan Railway Journeys at the moment.
I am seeing Train Managers hanging out the doors of the trains as they're coming in to the stations.
We don't do this in the UK.
Is this because we have assessed the risk is too much? Does that make us more safe than Alaskan railway workers?
Or are we too worried about preventing an accident? Because if the amount of accidents from Train Managers having out of the doors of the trains is very low, but the operational benefits are very high, that's what needs to be weighed up.

Clearly Alaskan Train Managers are aware of the low risk and are happy to hang outside.
In the UK, it appears we cannot make that same conclusion (with other low risk, but totally wild in todays world examples).

 

[whhistle]

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.

I would suggest it appears you didn't make an assessment of the area properly.
Had the ground fallen away suddenly due to poor maintenance, that would be the bus workshop responsibility.
Had you fallen in, that would be your responsibility.
Having signs saying there's a pit don't work. People can bearly read instructional signs these days.

It's not a blame game I'm getting at.
This is a perfect example of people (collectively) rushing and not looking properly before hand, so now we don't have open depot tours or whatever.
Had lawyers not started blaming this on companies, the UK would be a different place these days.


It's like those mini fairgrounds in city centres.
In the UK, there's fences and all sorts of stuff.
In Germany there are none.
Why do you need fences?
To stop people getting close when the ride is in motion?
Why are the people getting too close?
Because they haven't made an assessment of the area and decided what is safe and what isn't.
That shouldn't be the ride operators concern - that's personal responsibility.

 

[LowLevel]

The problem is finding balance.

With your approach, all speed limits should be reduced by 20mph.
In fact, all cars should be fitted with automatic braking systems - and retro fitted to older cars.

You can assess hazards until thw cows come home and you'll still miss other eventualities that may happen.

There's plenty of examples of "health and safety gone mad" because people do not want to take responsibilty for their own actions these days. I was reading about a nurse who asked to go on a speed awareness course to "learn how to control the speed her vehicle is travelling" instead of being fined. Huh? Either they are simply dumb, or a liar... because it's one or the other.

Interestingly, I am watching Great Alaskan Railway Journeys at the moment.
I am seeing Train Managers hanging out the doors of the trains as they're coming in to the stations.
We don't do this in the UK.
Is this because we have assessed the risk is too much? Does that make us more safe than Alaskan railway workers?
Or are we too worried about preventing an accident? Because if the amount of accidents from Train Managers having out of the doors of the trains is very low, but the operational benefits are very high, that's what needs to be weighed up.

Clearly Alaskan Train Managers are aware of the low risk and are happy to hang outside.
In the UK, it appears we cannot make that same conclusion (with other low risk, but totally wild in todays world examples).

It means we are different to Alaskan railways. They operate a low frequency service with high level coaching stock if I remember rightly. You have to climb up to the train or down to the platform.

In the UK guards used to hang out of train doors to watch trains in and out. Cab doors on 31x EMUs and some other units aren't interlocked and can be opened on the move.

Guards used to fall out from time to time and the concern is that people running late will try and throw themselves in causing injury to the staff or themselves. Whether that's founded or not I don't know but that's the reasoning.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I would suggest it appears you didn't make an assessment of the area properly.
Had the ground fallen away suddenly due to poor maintenance, that would be the bus workshop responsibility.
Had you fallen in, that would be your responsibility.
Having signs saying there's a pit don't work. People can bearly read instructional signs these days.

It's not a blame game I'm getting at.
This is a perfect example of people (collectively) rushing and not looking properly before hand, so now we don't have open depot tours or whatever.
Had lawyers not started blaming this on companies, the UK would be a different place these days.


It's like those mini fairgrounds in city centres.
In the UK, there's fences and all sorts of stuff.
In Germany there are none.
Why do you need fences?
To stop people getting close when the ride is in motion?
Why are the people getting too close?
Because they haven't made an assessment of the area and decided what is safe and what isn't.
That shouldn't be the ride operators concern - that's personal responsibility.

This is a really good point. And actually is the route behind many perceived H&S policies. The fear of the accident that is a massively negative PR and has legal/financial consequences.

 

[jmh59]

Just an aside on working practises which would be unthinkable now. When the coach station in Birmingham shared space with the Midland Red garage in Digbeth, I was on a service in the early 90s which had an hour's break in the middle of the night. No barrier existed between the two functions, and while stretching my legs indoors and looking at the buses I suddenly came on an open inspection pit in a dark corner. There were of course spillages of oil and diesel on the floor. My reaction was of gladness not to have fallen rather than indignation.

At work (when I used to work and not rail related) we made a big thing of reporting near misses as well as incidents. Very safety conscious place and it needed to be, but we did find it hard to get people to report concerns and near misses rather than only reporting incidents.

 

[vlad]

It's like those mini fairgrounds in city centres.
In the UK, there's fences and all sorts of stuff.
In Germany there are none.
Why do you need fences?

To stop people getting in who haven't paid.

 

[Peter Kelford]

To stop people getting in who haven't paid.

On a very similar note, UK law on railway fencing is the tightest in the world. In France and Germany, I have seen instances where people can freely walk along the track...

 

[underbank]

At work (when I used to work and not rail related) we made a big thing of reporting near misses as well as incidents. Very safety conscious place and it needed to be, but we did find it hard to get people to report concerns and near misses rather than only reporting incidents.

Depends on the organisation and management. In our local media, there's yet another "gagging order" scandal at our local NHS hospital where a "whistle blower" has been hounded out of their job.

 

[ArchieWoodbine]

On a very similar note, UK law on railway fencing is the tightest in the world. In France and Germany, I have seen instances where people can freely walk along the track...

I was amazed to see in Japan that a lot of rural railways just aren’t fenced. People’s arable allotments and farms go right up to the cess/ballast. Yet, they have virtually no trespass issues on such lines: people know the rules, where the boundary lines are and respect them. It would be far too big a cultural change to implement such a thing over here, but it shows what could be possible under different circumstances.

 

[HaggisBotherer]

Japan is a very different culture, not just in a few ways, but in almost every way. I work with Japanese a lot and they are generally delightful people, but you cannot do business with them on a handshake and trust - everything has to be in writing to the last detail, rubber stamped, checked multiple times and you absolutely have to stick to the letter. Divert even slightly by using a bit of initiative or informality and it puts them all wrong.

I once committed a huge social faux pas when meeting someone I had been dealing with for years (but had never met before) by shaking their hand and giving them an affectionate hug, as I would with any of my UK or European colleagues. They were mortified... as was I, as soon as I realised how embarrassed they were

 

[6Gman]

The problem is finding balance.

With your approach, all speed limits should be reduced by 20mph.

What is "my approach"?

 

[Cowley]

What is "my approach"?

Pretty slow at that speed...

 

[Bevan Price]

Japan is a very different culture, not just in a few ways, but in almost every way. I work with Japanese a lot and they are generally delightful people, but you cannot do business with them on a handshake and trust - everything has to be in writing to the last detail, rubber stamped, checked multiple times and you absolutely have to stick to the letter. Divert even slightly by using a bit of initiative or informality and it puts them all wrong.

I once committed a huge social faux pas when meeting someone I had been dealing with for years (but had never met before) by shaking their hand and giving them an affectionate hug, as I would with any of my UK or European colleagues. They were mortified... as was I, as soon as I realised how embarrassed they were

It would embarrass me if I was hugged by someone who wasn't a close relative, or a close female friend.

 

[aar0]

light/torch for night riding, we always have at least 3 mobile phones in our group

I'm not much older than Charlie, but have held several roles of responsibility, both paid and voluntary. I'm also quite qualified to instruct in a variety of dangerous activities, and those I'm instructing are normally under 18. I do dangerous things in potentially dangerous places with people who are scientifically shown to have a lower ability to understand risk than those over 21. I've never had a serious injury.

Your jet ski example doesn't demonstrate exceptional H&S - are you lights in accordance with COLREGS? Indeed are you aware of your obligations under COLREGS? Is your phone waterproof and able to contact channel 16? What sort of life jacket? In date, serviced, suitable for the activity and user?

 

[Journeyman]

I'm not much older than Charlie, but have held several roles of responsibility, both paid and voluntary. I'm also quite qualified to instruct in a variety of dangerous activities, and those I'm instructing are normally under 18. I do dangerous things in potentially dangerous places with people who are scientifically shown to have a lower ability to understand risk than those over 21. I've never had a serious injury.

Your jet ski example doesn't demonstrate exceptional H&S - are you lights in accordance with COLREGS? Indeed are you aware of your obligations under COLREGS? Is your phone waterproof and able to contact channel 16? What sort of life jacket? In date, serviced, suitable for the activity and user?

Agreed, you don't win any medals just for doing things that are sensible. If any of the things you're relying on fail, you're in trouble.

I've recently done some solo hiking in very remote areas, and whilst it's not been anything particularly dangerous (I'm not a climber), it's made me realise just how much trouble I'd be in if something went wrong. My phone would be useless due to lack of signal, there's a possibility no-one would find me for days, and there's a whole heap of other factors, like changing weather etc., that mean I have to look at various scenarios and work out how to mitigate against them. This involves having GPS, map, compass, whistle, torch, sleeping bag, spare food, and a plan in my head on what to do if I were to have an accident. I hope I'd never need to use any of that stuff, but when you're alone in an area that can only easily be reached by helicopter, without any of the usual technological aids we take for granted, you have to know how to cope in an emergency.

Just having a phone on you isn't enough!

 

[HaggisBotherer]

It would embarrass me if I was hugged by someone who wasn't a close relative, or a close female friend.

I work in an industry where a huge amount of (very lucrative) business is done informally, over the meal table and with big hearty handshakes and 'man hugs' a fairly common greeting. I suspect we work in different industries Would you have a fundamental problem being given a friendly hug by someone of the same sex?

 

[duffield]

I work in an industry where a huge amount of (very lucrative) business is done informally, over the meal table and with big hearty handshakes and 'man hugs' a fairly common greeting. I suspect we work in different industries Would you have a fundamental problem being given a friendly hug by someone of the same sex?

Personally I would find a hug from anyone (of any sex) weird and inappropriate unless they were a close friend or relative, and I think that people should respect the fact that other people might feel that way. Maybe it's just me - but it's not like I reject hugs altogether, I'm fine with (e.g.) my brother-in-law doing it because I know him well and like him.

 

[Malcmal]

Personally I would find a hug from anyone (of any sex) weird and inappropriate unless they were a close friend or relative, and I think that people should respect the fact that other people might feel that way. Maybe it's just me - but it's not like I reject hugs altogether, I'm fine with (e.g.) my brother-in-law doing it because I know him well and like him.

My advice to you is don't visit Italy or Spain

 

[reddragon]

My advice to you is don't visit Italy or Spain

Or Portugal, France, Greece, Belgium, well almost anywhere away from the UK!

 

[duffield]

My advice to you is don't visit Italy or Spain

When in Rome...

If I were to go abroad I would do my best to fit in with local expectations.

UK residents, while in the UK, should know enough to know that physical 'over familiarity' is not always welcome, and be cautious.

 

[Malcmal]

When in Rome...

If I were to go abroad I would do my best to fit in with local expectations.

UK residents, while in the UK, should know enough to know that physical 'over familiarity' is not always welcome, and be cautious.

Though to be fair, I doubt many Europeans want to hug British people at the moment. More like kick them in the shins - or WORSE

 

[underbank]

Personally I would find a hug from anyone (of any sex) weird and inappropriate unless they were a close friend or relative, and I think that people should respect the fact that other people might feel that way. Maybe it's just me - but it's not like I reject hugs altogether, I'm fine with (e.g.) my brother-in-law doing it because I know him well and like him.

I'm the same. Not even too happy with hugs from close family. I can just about tolerate handshakes though.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Wow this is off topic! I am impressed at how far actually. Genuine achievement.

 

[HaggisBotherer]

Though to be fair, I doubt many Europeans want to hug British people at the moment. More like kick them in the shins - or WORSE

Your assumption is 100% incorrect, my friend.

I was in Germany last week for several days in meetings with Germans, Italians, French, Dutch, Spanish, Croatians and other nationalities from mainland Europe. The universal opinion was that they were profoundly sad that the UK has let itself get into this situation and that our poiliticians are making us look so foolish in the eyes of the world.

Many firm handshakes, fist bumps, hugs and re-affirmations of professional and personal friendship were had. Nobody minded

(Some things are more important than trains, YorskshireBear )

 

[YorkshireBear]

Your assumption is 100% incorrect, my friend.

I was in Germany last week for several days in meetings with Germans, Italians, French, Dutch, Spanish, Croatians and other nationalities from mainland Europe. The universal opinion was that they were profoundly sad that the UK has let itself get into this situation and that our poiliticians are making us look so foolish in the eyes of the world.

Many firm handshakes, fist bumps, hugs and re-affirmations of professional and personal friendship were had. Nobody minded

(Some things are more important than trains, YorskshireBear )

I completely agree there are, I was simply stating how impressed I was.

 

[Malcmal]

Your assumption is 100% incorrect, my friend.

I was in Germany last week for several days in meetings with Germans, Italians, French, Dutch, Spanish, Croatians and other nationalities from mainland Europe. The universal opinion was that they were profoundly sad that the UK has let itself get into this situation and that our poiliticians are making us look so foolish in the eyes of the world.

Many firm handshakes, fist bumps, hugs and re-affirmations of professional and personal friendship were had. Nobody minded

(Some things are more important than trains, YorskshireBear )

One of those moments where I am very happy to be wrong!

 

[Justin Smith]

Heritage railways absolutely ARE a business and to suggest they are some special case protected from commercial reality is bizarre! They have to rely on normals paying the bills. Enthusiasts tend to have deep pockets and short arms. It is about running something that attracts normal people not offering silly spotters a chance to play trains.

Do you think the bank manager cares one iota that hobbyists saved a railway in 1967 when his loan is at risk? Honestly? it is great that they did but that means nothing today.

The fact is they are a pure business and it is illustrative that you are unable to recognise this is illustrative.

Quote in this month`s Railway Magazine, from Jonathan Jones-Pratt (WSR chairman) :

"No Heritage railway in the country can make enough profit to preserve and enhance its infrastructure, there has to be a supporting charity, or even more than one"

I`m assuming the above is in addition to the fact most staff on Heritage railways are in fact unpaid volunteers.

So "the days of Heritage railways not being for hobbyists" * aren`t quite here then ?

* As in they`re not just for those with no particular interest in railways. Obviously the latter are required for a Heritage line to succeed, but one things for absolutely certain, it won`t succeed without "Hobbyists", as defined by those who give their time and money directly, and those who are railway fans who like to travel on Heritage trains.