Health and Safety? (Lymington sacking)

[Bon Accord]

He was a sensible, cautious person and he had an accident. That changed my mind about many HSE things!

So you think all I've described is essential?
Let me ask you this: When you need to change the lightbulb in your living room, how do you do it?

I've spent more years than I care to remember working in the Merchant Navy, was a Royal Naval Reservist on active service and spent many years in the Oil/Gas industry - some of the most dangerous occupations that exist, yet I like to think I can separate the nonsense from the essential, as can most sensible people (not that many are allowed to think for themselves anymore).
Safety is most definitely not b*******, yet why do so, so many people think that b******* is safety?

 

[jon0844]

http://twitter.com/#!/christianwolmar

Going on Breakfast TV to discuss the SWT guy sacked for going on tracks.Not as simple as tabloids say. In 1949, 209 BR employees were killed

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes, rent-a-quote was at it again. Did anyone else hear him say on the program that the middle rail on LUL wasn't dangerous? And he claims to have a PTS?!

 

[Ferret]

What a dumbass comment to make on twitter! How many of those 209 employees were killed on a quiet branchline removing a shopping trolley? Just going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess at less than one....

 

[Smudger105e]

What a dumbass comment to make on twitter! How many of those 209 employees were killed on a quiet branchline removing a shopping trolley? Just going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess at less than one....

The fact is that it is safer to be on or near the track (now not called on or about the track apparently on my last PTS course) now than it was sixty years ago.



Let me give you a all scenario, and then you tell me what action you think should have been taken against the individuals. I will post tomorrow what action was actually taken.

A fitter moves a locomotive, forgetting to disconnect the fuel hose first. There was no spillage of fuel, but the fuel hose reel was pulled over. Four rawl bolts and a short length of hose damaged. He reported it to his Manager, who decided to keep the incident 'in house', and not report it to the Company Duty Manager.

What action do you think was have been taken against the fitter (who was authorised to move the locomotive)?
What action do you think was taken against the Manager?

 

[OxtedL]

What action do you think was have been taken against the fitter (who was authorised to move the locomotive)?
What action do you think was taken against the Manager?

I think that that just about summarises this, at least if the outcome is as you would expect, with the manager getting severely punished.

 

[DarloRich]

So you think all I've described is essential?
Let me ask you this: When you need to change the lightbulb in your living room, how do you do it?

I've spent more years than I care to remember working in the Merchant Navy, was a Royal Naval Reservist on active service and spent many years in the Oil/Gas industry - some of the most dangerous occupations that exist, yet I like to think I can separate the nonsense from the essential, as can most sensible people (not that many are allowed to think for themselves anymore).
Safety is most definitely not b*******, yet why do so, so many people think that b******* is safety?

i dont think all that you have said essential, far from it! I think SOME of it is. Everyone makes a risk asssesment on everything they do. Is that ladder safe or might a taller one do better? Should i ask some one to hold it or prop it against the wall? Etc
the difference in your own home is that you cant sue anyone if you are hurt and that is where the bullcrap comes from, the legal side. Lots of wht people class as hands gone mad is back covering legal protection. It is a symptom of the claims culture we now have in the uk. However if you want to keep your job you follow the rules. Plus there are people who need protection. You and i are sensible but is everyone?

 

[Bon Accord]

NOBODY needs protection. There are circumstances which invite risk and those that dont't and that's it.
Those who are too stupid to say alive die off - it should always be thus, and the world (and the gene pool) are better off without them.
What the UK, Europe and the US really need is for individuals to actually take personal responsibility for their actions, regardless of the supposed noble intentions. Every industry NEEDS risk, if nothing else as a benchmark as to worst case scenario.
The simple matter of fact is that if you treat people like children who can't think for themselves then they WILL act like children for evermore. We are seeing this alreadye with certain TOC's.

 

[BestWestern]

To refer back to the original situation, the fella has certainly done well on the press coverage front, I read the same story several times today flicking through the papers!

I'm alarmed by the line in his quote that he 'also removed a few tin cans and other pieces' while he was down there - so not only did he venture onto an operational electrified railway line to heave a trolley out of the way, but he also decided to do some impromptu litter picking! To be brutally honest, it sounds as though this chap had scant reagrd for the realities of what is and what isn't allowed on a modern railway, and seemed to think nothing of casually wandering onto the track to do whatever, because no trains were supposed to be due. With the Lymington branch being something of a sleepy little 'heritage' line, quaint old-school stations and such, perhaps his mindset just wasn't what it should have been, with an unfortunate ignorance of how the railway works now. The question of the traction current not having been isolated also rings alarm bells, as there is a set procedure for an isolation (the ECO will provide a 'code' to confirm the isolation - this should be the time that the current was switched off - and will only re-energise when the person who requested it confirms the line is now clear) which was clearly not followed, suggesting he may well have requested it, left it a minute of two, and then climbed down just assuming it was off.

To address the comments about HSE overkill and this chap not being in any 'real' danger, he very clearly WAS in danger as he mistakenly believed that a 750v DC live rail had been isolated, when it was still lethal. That's about as much danger as I would ever want to be in! All in all, I can appreciate why SWT did not see things from his point of view, I would imagine they were having kittens at the thought of one of their suposedly responsible frontline staff nearly frying himself! Still always a shame when a dedicated railway worker has to leave the business though, whatever did or didn't happen.

 

[CNX]

The fact that Mr. Faletto lost his job and pension for such a trivial matter fills me with hatred, and I mean hatred, for those in SWT who even considered sacking him, never mind actually doing it. A 'don't do it again' letter would have been more than adequate. Yes, the punishment should fit the crime, and if he'd had his hand in the till or had punched a passenger, then it would have been totally different. But it wasn't.

I am a great fan of Richard Littlejohn, an avid reader of his column, and it was only a matter of time before he picked this whole sorry tale up. This from todays edition.

‘Today we read in the Daily Mail that Ian Faletto, stationmaster at Lymington, gets sacked for removing a trolley from the line and preventing an incident. You really couldn’t make it up!’

No, you couldn't make it up. Its elf'n'safety gone totally bonkers. R.I.P common sense.

Its also totally wrong to compare the year when 209 rail staff were killed on duty with today. In those days the network was way bigger, and employed far more staff, as most PW work was done manually. Also there were no basic safety items as high visibility vests, long welded rail that gave those working on the line an audible warning of train movement, and steam loco's didn't have bright yellow ends either.

Anyway, its time to make a cup of tea, but not before I've carried out a full risk assessment into the dangers and potentially lethal hazards of such a simple operation.

Incidentally, do SWT ever make the news for the right reasons? They seem to be the Ryanair of the rails. But maybe they wallow in bad publicity. Ryanair certainly does.

 

[313103]

Just one question to all those that think this man done nothing wrong and think its health and safety gone mad ' What would have happened if he was killed or seriously injured either by a train or the 750dc which isnt very pleasent if you get knocked by that?

No doubt all those ambulance chasing law firms would have a field day! National accident helpline underdog.

Rules are there to be obeyed not broken.

 

[Bon Accord]

Just one question to all those that think this man done nothing wrong and think its health and safety gone mad ' What would have happened if he was killed or seriously injured either by a train or the 750dc which isnt very pleasent if you get knocked by that?

Then it would have been his own fault and only his, as it was himself who placed himself in 'voluntary' danger, end of.

Rules are there to be obeyed not broken.

As a rather astute gentleman once said: Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

 

[jopsuk]

I am a great fan of Richard Littlejohn, an avid reader of his column, and it was only a matter of time before he picked this whole sorry tale up. This from todays edition.

Richard Littlejohn is an overpaid, lazy hack. He frequently engages in outright lies. He often covers things that have been comprehensively debunked earlier that week. He's a tax exile living in a gated mansion in Florida (yes, that's right, he's an immigrant who refuses to integrate into the local community!)

Trust not the Littlejohn.

 

[pendolino]

NOBODY needs protection. There are circumstances which invite risk and those that dont't and that's it.
Those who are too stupid to say alive die off - it should always be thus, and the world (and the gene pool) are better off without them.

So like a passive version of eugenics then?

 

[DarloRich]

NOBODY needs protection. There are circumstances which invite risk and those that dont't and that's it.
Those who are too stupid to say alive die off - it should always be thus, and the world (and the gene pool) are better off without them.
What the UK, Europe and the US really need is for individuals to actually take personal responsibility for their actions, regardless of the supposed noble intentions. Every industry NEEDS risk, if nothing else as a benchmark as to worst case scenario.
The simple matter of fact is that if you treat people like children who can't think for themselves then they WILL act like children for evermore. We are seeing this alreadye with certain TOC's.

I agree - but the world doesnt work like that. Perhaps it should, but it doesnt. As an aside there is a risk in everything you do, it is about managing that risk in a sensible fashion.

Employers have a duty to protect thier staff, contractors, visitors and others from the risk of harm. So taking your example to an extreme, those working with pouring say molten steel, should dress themselves in shorts and flip flops if they so wish. That clealry in madness. You need rules to ensure everyone has the correct protective equipment and operating procedures to do thier jobs as safely as they can. Sure, you may still have an accident but the company has done all it can to avoid that accident happening. That is why we have rules.

Yes many of these rules seem to most of us to be stupid but they are there for a reason, and that reason is mostly to save the company any litigation. If you want to keep your job you have to abide by them.

To get it back on topic it seems to me that this chap has been dismissed for more than just this incident. Perhaps there is a history of rule breaking or non compliance. Perhaps he was already on a final warning for some rerason and this incident was the last straw.

 

[pendolino]

The fact that Mr. Faletto lost his job and pension for such a trivial matter fills me with hatred, and I mean hatred, for those in SWT who even considered sacking him, never mind actually doing it......

.....I am a great fan of Richard Littlejohn

I would never have guessed.

an avid reader of his column, and it was only a matter of time before he picked this whole sorry tale up. This from todays edition.

‘Today we read in the Daily Mail that Ian Faletto, stationmaster at Lymington, gets sacked for removing a trolley from the line and preventing an incident. You really couldn’t make it up!’

Except the only incident here was caused by Mr Faletto.

Its also totally wrong to compare the year when 209 rail staff were killed on duty with today. In those days the network was way bigger, and employed far more staff, as most PW work was done manually. Also there were no basic safety items as high visibility vests, long welded rail that gave those working on the line an audible warning of train movement, and steam loco's didn't have bright yellow ends either.

All these high visibility vests and yellow train ends! It's elf'n'safety gone mad!!

 

[Ferret]

This idea of him being in danger from the 3rd rail strikes me as a bit daft. We were always trained that even if the ECO says it's isolated, there may be some residual current so be careful when on or about the line. Sage advice which anyone with a healthy interest in self-preservation would follow.

 

[Supersaint]

Not to sure on the Hero bit , maybe "Ian used Common Sense" but I did join.


http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ian-Faletto-is-a-hero/118859521528740?sk=wall&filter=2

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9025177.MP_joins_fight_for_sacked_station_master/

 

[BestWestern]

This idea of him being in danger from the 3rd rail strikes me as a bit daft. We were always trained that even if the ECO says it's isolated, there may be some residual current so be careful when on or about the line. Sage advice which anyone with a healthy interest in self-preservation would follow.

Indeed, but this guy wasn't PTS and may well have assumed wrongly that 'off' meant off!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The issue is not whether it is dangerous to go on the track of the CRE is live, it's the fact he thought it was off when it wasn't. That IS dangerous, as it may cause someone to be a bit more lax. We must also remember that this guy wasn't PTS trained.

 

[passmore]

The issue is not whether it is dangerous to go on the track of the CRE is live, it's the fact he thought it was off when it wasn't. That IS dangerous, as it may cause someone to be a bit more lax. We must also remember that this guy wasn't PTS trained.

But it's been established that he didn't NEED A PTS as he was classed as a non-operational member of staff. Back in the old days, you wouldn't need such a thing as it happened regularly.

The clear unwillingness of SWT to train their non-operational staff has what's ultimately led to this. Training non-operational staff in thes matters would help to avoid these in future.

 

[BestWestern]

But it's been established that he didn't NEED A PTS as he was classed as a non-operational member of staff. Back in the old days, you wouldn't need such a thing as it happened regularly.

The clear unwillingness of SWT to train their non-operational staff has what's ultimately led to this. Training non-operational staff in thes matters would help to avoid these in future.

He certainly DID need a PTS! And as he DIDN'T have one, he should not have taken it upon himself to go on the line, hence his current predicament. Yes, it would be beneficial to train station staff in PTS, but that wasn't the 'cause' of this incident, the cause was a memeber of staff acting outside of their authority.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

But it's been established that he didn't NEED A PTS as he was classed as a non-operational member of staff. Back in the old days, you wouldn't need such a thing as it happened regularly.

The clear unwillingness of SWT to train their non-operational staff has what's ultimately led to this. Training non-operational staff in thes matters would help to avoid these in future.

No, we established that he did. The only exception relevant to station staff is if it is a life or death emergency. This was not a life or death emergency.

 

[Bomber]

I've scanned through most of this thread but have not seen any mention of the procedure that he should have taken, ie informed a superior of the problem etc etc.
How long would it then have taken for the wheels to grind into action and get a suitable qualofied person to come and remove said trolly.
And in this time how many trains would have been delayed with the inevitable knock on effect and delay costs involved???

 

[Tom B]

Also there were no basic safety items as high visibility vests, long welded rail that gave those working on the line an audible warning of train movement, and steam loco's didn't have bright yellow ends either.

...and no basic safety items such as "training for those staff who need to work on the line".

Anyway, its time to make a cup of tea, but not before I've carried out a full risk assessment into the dangers and potentially lethal hazards of such a simple operation.

Of course. People conduct risk assessments on a daily basis. If you walk into the kitchen and the kettle wire is frayed or the internals are exposed, you wouldn't use it. There, you've just conducted a risk assessment!

 

[O L Leigh]

As a rather astute gentleman once said: Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

Regrettably a lot of these "wise old sayings" are hokum and only persist because they are catchy, and this is one of them. It certainly doesn't give licence to do as you please, especially on the railway.

A rather astute modern railwayman once observed: "Rules are for the observance of those that wish to keep their jobs."

The issue is not whether it is dangerous to go on the track of the CRE is live, it's the fact he thought it was off when it wasn't. That IS dangerous, as it may cause someone to be a bit more lax. We must also remember that this guy wasn't PTS trained.

I feel that I'm going to repeat myself because I've already said all of this before. However, you're only half right.

The issue is not to do with whether or not there had been an isolation but that he should not have been down on the track in the first place, even if there were no electrification. He is not PTS competent and is not required to go on or near the line in the course of his duties, therefore he is not permitted to step down off his platform.

The issue is that he did not apply the correct rule for the situation he discovered when he turned up for work that morning, and then went on to breach a number of other rules.

But it's been established that he didn't NEED A PTS as he was classed as a non-operational member of staff. Back in the old days, you wouldn't need such a thing as it happened regularly.

Yes he does. Anyone who goes down onto the tracks has to either be authorised and accompanied by a COSS or be PTS competent irrespective of his grade or role. What happened in the old days does not apply to today.

The clear unwillingness of SWT to train their non-operational staff has what's ultimately led to this. Training non-operational staff in thes matters would help to avoid these in future.

I believe I said right back in my first post in this topic that I felt that station supervisors at least should be passed PTS competent.

However, even then I'm not sure he would have applied the correct rule by just wandering off and fetching back the trolley. If it had been me in that situation I think it's something I'd have posed to the signaller as question to see if he was happy for me to go fetch it back or wait for the MOM. Then it's down to him to decide.

O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've scanned through most of this thread but have not seen any mention of the procedure that he should have taken, ie informed a superior of the problem etc etc.

The rules that cover this situation, and those that this chap should have implemented, are Module G1 Rule 3 - Stopping a train in an emergency. Basically, having identified the obstruction to the line, he should have informed the signaller immediately and then it would have been down to the signaller to get the situation sorted. It may or may not have required an isolation depending on the proximity of the trolley to the juice rail, but that really isn't for him to decide. It may have required a MOM to come out and remove it or, if there was train imminent, the driver may have been asked.

O L Leigh

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Going by your statement, passmire, a litter collector (non operating) employed by SWT could go wandering on the track without a PTS, but the local signalman (operational) can't.

 

[BestWestern]

I've scanned through most of this thread but have not seen any mention of the procedure that he should have taken, ie informed a superior of the problem etc etc.
How long would it then have taken for the wheels to grind into action and get a suitable qualofied person to come and remove said trolly.
And in this time how many trains would have been delayed with the inevitable knock on effect and delay costs involved???

Briefly, he should have informed the controlling signaller that the line was obstructed. The signaller would then have ensured that any affected train movements were stopped, and made arrangements for the appropriate person, more than likely an MOM from Network Rail, to come down and get the obstruction removed. Yes, it is a little long-winded, and yes it may have delayed trains if the MOM were some time away. But, as there was nobody else - our 'station master' included - who was qualified to do it, that would have been how it was done. This is a fairly standard procedure which takes place up and down the network on a regular basis when some herbert decides to dump something on the track.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

O L Leigh - I omitted the PTS stuff in my post because I thought we had gone over that issue enough, and or was established. Evidently not though!

 

[passmore]

Going by your statement, passmire, a litter collector (non operating) employed by SWT could go wandering on the track without a PTS, but the local signalman (operational) can't.

No, I said non-operational staff are not currently trained in PTS and I believe they should be, just as local signalman and other operational members are.

Where did you get the idea that if TOCs started to train their non-operational members, this would impact on operational members to the point where they couldn't go onto the line anymore?