Does walking throughout a moving train class as working on a moving platform?

Status
Not open for further replies.

[email protected]

New Member
Joined
2 Apr 2021
Messages
1
Location
Basingstoke
I am a guard working mainly Desiro 450's/444's, and 158/159 diesel tractions.

Walking through the trains when moving can often feel like a fairground fun house especially on the Desiros (I was warned about Desiro knee).

I see alot of guards especially those who have worked the role for many years hobbling rather than walking, which isn't surprising given a guards body is often moving up & down, side to side with the movement of the train especially over points, whilst trying to stay upright when patrolling the train/doing ticket checks.

Is this classed as working on a moving platform?

I can't find anything in relation to it, but I'm surprised I haven't read anything relating to this issue, it does not appear to be covered by health & saftey especially given the repeated impact on a guards/conductors/on board train crew's body, or if it is I haven't come across it.

Does anyone know if this has been assessed/advised on within the industry? I am asking as the TOC I work for is looking at safety footwear to reduce foot, and ankle injuries but I think the footwear is only part of the problem.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tiptoptaff

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2013
Messages
2,549
Not really sure what you think the answer is other than better footwear.

You can't stop trains so the guard can walk through. And even with the best suspension available, you'll always feel some sort of movement
 

PupCuff

Member
Joined
27 Feb 2020
Messages
293
Location
Nottingham
I am a guard working mainly Desiro 450's/444's, and 158/159 diesel tractions.

Walking through the trains when moving can often feel like a fairground fun house especially on the Desiros (I was warned about Desiro knee).

I see alot of guards especially those who have worked the role for many years hobbling rather than walking, which isn't surprising given a guards body is often moving up & down, side to side with the movement of the train especially over points, whilst trying to stay upright when patrolling the train/doing ticket checks.

Is this classed as working on a moving platform?

I can't find anything in relation to it, but I'm surprised I haven't read anything relating to this issue, it does not appear to be covered by health & saftey especially given the repeated impact on a guards/conductors/on board train crew's body, or if it is I haven't come across it.

Does anyone know if this has been assessed/advised on within the industry? I am asking as the TOC I work for is looking at safety footwear to reduce foot, and ankle injuries but I think the footwear is only part of the problem.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'it does not appear to be covered by health & safety' but I would expect to find some reference to this in your organisation's role-based risk assessment for your grade.

Footwear is indeed only part of the problem but it's one of the easier parts to do something about. Other things which have been done across the network in the past include reducing the permitted speed for certain types of train over certain sections of track where the specific combination of the two causes a 'harmonic' type effect, having an effective reporting system in place for TOC crews to report poor track quality to NR, better training to crews on how to support your body when walking through trains, using route knowledge to choose appropriate times to walk through trains etc. Realistically it's highly unlikely mitigations such as re-engineering the bogies or having the train stop so the conductor can walk through would be practicable.

I'm not aware of any study on this, but that said I've never really had any reason to look, RSSB's Spark site might hold some research? Failing that if it is a substantial problem then your organisation could undertake their own study into it.
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
4,063
In a case versus a certain rogue train firm, this was reported from an employment tribunal court:
The Claimant states that she suffered two separate accidents at the same spot of track known as the 'Batley Bump'. On the first of these she says she injured her pelvis, though the injury did not become apparent until an x-ray following the second accident: on attending hospital on 6 January, she was told she had broken her pelvis.
Whilst the case was partially lost by the claimant, they did notify the court that they paid a sum of money prior to the judgement. I do recall that under the previous franchise, drivers were given a permanent "company" speed restriction of 50 through Batley due to the sinking underpass, there was one hell of a bang when you went through at linespeed. When the new operator took over in 2004, this was pulled off the notice case and into the bin to reduce delay minutes, despite no remedial work taking place on the sinking track. As (DMU) Desiros came in at that company to replace 158s, the wobbling became far worse, especially in fast sections through West Yorks

Source: UKEAT/0570/10/ZT
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,274
In a case versus a certain rogue train firm, this was reported from an employment tribunal court:

Whilst the case was partially lost by the claimant, they did notify the court that they paid a sum of money prior to the judgement. I do recall that under the previous franchise, drivers were given a permanent "company" speed restriction of 50 through Batley due to the sinking underpass, there was one hell of a bang when you went through at linespeed. When the new operator took over in 2004, this was pulled off the notice case and into the bin to reduce delay minutes, despite no remedial work taking place on the sinking track. As (DMU) Desiros came in at that company to replace 158s, the wobbling became far worse, especially in fast sections through West Yorks

Source: UKEAT/0570/10/ZT
It doesn't really make much sense making a lawsuit against the TOC does it?

The TOC has a duty of care to report adverse rail conditions to network rail,who would presumably instruct the relevant TOC of permitted approach speed,or repair said defect.
It would be the responsibility/liability of the TOC if they fail to advise NR of any changes to the running pattern, which could be either down to line degradation ,or the introduction of alternative rolling stock.
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
4,063
It doesn't really make much sense making a lawsuit against the TOC does it?
Every case is different, and your broad assertion may only be true on some occasions. In the above case, a dismissal was related to allegations of unauthorised absence, despite (proof of) a broken pelvis - certainly a good reason to bring a lawsuit against a company openly saying "if it's not safe, don't do it!" ...in reality more concerned with the PPM bill than safety. Twas rather telling when the rail firm then reintroduced the company speed restriction weeks after the claimant's appeal failed. The track is now (finally) fixed.

I recall a 'geometry specialist' (or some bizarre job title) being hired to record vehicle movement over the Batley bump, paid for by the claimant.
 

Grumbler

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2015
Messages
418
The world is spinning on its axis, going round the sun and travelling through the galaxy. The galaxies are moving too...

So "working on a moving platform" applies to everyone!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top