"Do not go on the track" : is this all going too far.......

[Philip Phlopp]

I have to say I find many of the posts on this thread to be utterly depressing. Like many people I think the health & Safety culture has gone way way too far. Everything we do has risk, to try and eliminate all risk is totally impossible, and, on the way to trying to do that, costs an absolute fortune, both in terms of money but also inconvenience to people and the fact they never get to do something that might change their lives. The story about York Depot in the 1970s (on my signature) just about sums the latter up for me.
The concept of reasonable has just gone out of the window. People think, don`t go on the track under any circumstances (even, apparently, staff) is a correct judgment even though they cannot give any figures as to how dangerous that would be.

The railway is a dangerous place unfortunately, things have changed enormously since York in the 1970s - the new generations of electric stock can genuinely approach someone without them hearing, unthinkable with steam and early diesel stock.

Traffic patterns and more bi directional lines mean there are more trains and there's no now certainty what direction they'll approach from.

Electrification has added an additional risk and masts/portals remove sight lines and add in shadows which can further hide or reduce visibility, and with so much more stock moving around on depots, you just have to be more careful.

The H&S police work is showing excellent results - no railway worker killed on the track this year, and we've not killed a passenger on a train in 8 years. That's good going considering we killed a passenger on the first day of the first proper railway service, way back in 1830.

 

[Phil.]

Which his why we have tightened up the legislation to ensure this does not happen without the signallers consent.

Because.............

 

[Harbornite]

Meaning what exactly ?

What is there not to get? You clearly don't know what you are on about and you'd rather spend your time bashing the "H&S nazis" rather than doing any research.

Just think about it for a second: why would railway staff not want uninformed members of the general public venturing onto the tracks?

 

[richieb1971]

I believe rules are needed, but some common sense needs to come into play as well.

I'll give you some examples -

Its not safe to jump down on the track to get your phone where the average speed of a train is 10mph, but down the line where there is a foot crossing its ok to cross the lines where the trains are doing 100+ mph. (yes there are plenty there are two in Offord on the ECML, one in Souldrop on the MML).

Just like cars. Some winding roads in the countryside are 60mph and in some places you'd be suicidal to go round those corners at 60mph, but its legal. Yet in the inner suburbs of towns you have straight dual carriageways with a speed limit of 40mph.



If you bought a £200 ticket for a train and it blew away in the wind onto the tracks and nobody would get it for you, would you buy another £200 ticket? I think not.

 

[Llanigraham]

Meaning what exactly ?

You know very little about safety on the railway!
Obviously don't work on the railway.
Have a bee in your bonnet about things you know little or nothing about and are in the past.

 

[Trog]

Twenty years ago, the death toll of railway track workers was rather higher. Let's not put on the rose tinted specs just yet. It's odd that you accused me in another thread of not valuing the lives of staff just because I see the logic in changing the regs for yellow panels on train fronts, and yet you hark back to an unsafer time for workers. I don't see the the logic.

Twenty years ago if you walked down the track you would have found a gang of blokes doing maintenance every couple of miles, now you would be lucky to see them every couple of months. The biggest factor in the reduction in accidents to track staff is probably that there are only 20% or so of them left, and half their time is spent sitting in an office doing safety paperwork, while their arteries clog up because they are not getting enough exercise.

Network Rail are currently having a big purge on van driving, as they see it as a danger to staff safety. They are of course concentrating on the staff, don't speed, put your seat belt on, etc etc all very worthy but with more than a hint of Nanny knows best. Strangely however there is no mention of them not asking people to drive vast distances, or avoiding having people driving miles at night to do work in blocks that could be done just as easily and probably safer Red Zone in day light.

 

[Harbornite]

Like the old lady at Harlech who... got hit by a tamper?

You can NEVER presume there are no trains running!!

Indeed, but to be pedantic, it was a class 97/3.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Twenty years ago if you walked down the track you would have found a gang of blokes doing maintenance every couple of miles, now you would be lucky to see them every couple of months. The biggest factor in the reduction in accidents to track staff is probably that there are only 20% or so of them left, and half their time is spent sitting in an office doing safety paperwork, while their arteries clog up because they are not getting enough exercise.

Network Rail are currently having a big purge on van driving, as they see it as a danger to staff safety. They are of course concentrating on the staff, don't speed, put your seat belt on, etc etc all very worthy but with more than a hint of Nanny knows best. Strangely however there is no mention of them not asking people to drive vast distances, or avoiding having people driving miles at night to do work in blocks that could be done just as easily and probably safer Red Zone in day light.

It was interesting to note that the majority of recent trackworker deaths were actually caused by road vehicles, but not at railway worksites. I don't see any faults with NR trying to reduce staff deaths by reminding workers of safety procedures, alnd there are probably operational reasons to justify road journeys being done at night.

Either way, trackworkers have PTS qualifications and should have knowledge of train movements, unlike any old joe public twot who drops his phone on the tracks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I believe rules are needed, but some common sense needs to come into play as well.

I'll give you some examples -

Its not safe to jump down on the track to get your phone where the average speed of a train is 10mph, but down the line where there is a foot crossing its ok to cross the lines where the trains are doing 100+ mph. (yes there are plenty there are two in Offord on the ECML, one in Souldrop on the MML).

But level crossings are designed to be crossed by pedestrians in relative safety (and Network rail are trying to remove these, may I remind you), whereas platforms aren't designed for the public to access the railway tracks

Just like cars. Some winding roads in the countryside are 60mph and in some places you'd be suicidal to go round those corners at 60mph, but its legal. Yet in the inner suburbs of towns you have straight dual carriageways with a speed limit of 40mph.

Completely irrelevant.

If you bought a £200 ticket for a train and it blew away in the wind onto the tracks and nobody would get it for you, would you buy another £200 ticket? I think not.

In that case, you would tell the staff that you lost your ticket, but don't expect to find it again without being ****ted by a train, that's if you are able to find it.

No ticket is worth dying for. Treat it as a lesson in not being an idiot.

 

[Trog]

Yellow?

The orange BR era safety tabards were always referred to as yellow jackets.
Which was perhaps a bit strange as they tended to fade to white via a pinkish colour, except if the gang had been fishplate oiling in which case they would be high visibility matt black.

Really puzzled one of the girls from IT who came in one day wearing a bright orange blazer/jacket, when people kept saying "Nice yellow jacket."

 

[pdeaves]

All were retrieved after blocking the line (and adjacent line) via the controlling signaller. All were 'easily' retrieved with grabbers, certainly not going on the track.

Minorly amusing story. About a year ago, I got off a train at my home station and a youngish man accosted me pretty much as soon as both feet were on the platform, slightly flustered, explaining that 'they' (his family, it turned out) had dropped baby onto the track. Immediately I start the mental process of 'taking stock', who to contact, etc. He must then have seen my expression and then explained that it was his daughter's favourite doll. Phew! After letting the train go, a member of station staff got clearance from the signaller and retrieved it with litter pickers.

 

[james60059]

I was at Tamworth about 10 years ago and some enthusiast dropped his dictaphone on the track (on the top level). He then asked ME to keep a look out so he get down on the track and retrieve it.

I refused and walked off after stating he should see a staff member, he jumped down and picked it up, just as a 66/6 was approaching on 6E54 Kingsbury - Humber. The idiot had got back on the platform before the driver seen him

 

[Darandio]

Is this sort of abuse really in keeping with group guidelines?

You're hilarious.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm surprised you are not more concerned about setting a bad example for your kid than making a scene

Unless i've missed it, i'm also concerned that the OP hasn't addressed this.

 

[N228PF]

As a kid, I was terrified when my brother would get near the platform edge on the Tube. If my Dad would've ever done something like OP intended, I would have been screaming and hollering.

Safety can never be overstated. Even though staff are there who have been safety trained, why is it worth risking their well-being for a mobile phone by just "jumping down". Imagine the staff member's family being told that they were deceased from attempting to retrieve a mobile phone. Imagine the guilt you'd live with. Imagine the other staff members who have to recover the body and deal with the situation with an emotional connection to the victim.

I live in a city in the US where our commuter line has so many grade crossings, even to cross the tracks from platform 1 to 2. It seems H&S isn't thought about as much.

 

[Juniper Driver]

As a kid, I was terrified when my brother would get near the platform edge on the Tube. If my Dad would've ever done something like OP intended, I would have been screaming and hollering.

Safety can never be overstated. Even though staff are there who have been safety trained, why is it worth risking their well-being for a mobile phone by just "jumping down". Imagine the staff member's family being told that they were deceased from attempting to retrieve a mobile phone. Imagine the guilt you'd live with. Imagine the other staff members who have to recover the body and deal with the situation with an emotional connection to the victim.

I live in a city in the US where our commuter line has so many grade crossings, even to cross the tracks from platform 1 to 2. It seems H&S isn't thought about as much.

I agree and I felt the same when I traveled on the tube at a very early age.I never stood near the edge and I still refuse to.(anywhere)

 

[Justin Smith]

I believe rules are needed, but some common sense needs to come into play as well.

I'll give you some examples -

Its not safe to jump down on the track to get your phone where the average speed of a train is 10mph, but down the line where there is a foot crossing its ok to cross the lines where the trains are doing 100+ mph. (yes there are plenty there are two in Offord on the ECML, one in Souldrop on the MML).

Just like cars. Some winding roads in the countryside are 60mph and in some places you'd be suicidal to go round those corners at 60mph, but its legal. Yet in the inner suburbs of towns you have straight dual carriageways with a speed limit of 40mph.


If you bought a £200 ticket for a train and it blew away in the wind onto the tracks and nobody would get it for you, would you buy another £200 ticket? I think not.

I agree with this completely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When you say a position of safety, that raises a very interesting point, a point put forward when they were thinking of building the Supertram in Sheffield. The proposers of the tram never at any point suggested that pedestrians shouldn`t cross the tram tracks, and, in fact, said it was actually safer to cross tram tracks than a road because the course of the tram is totally predictable, unlike a road vehicle. That is to say you merely have to step to the side by 5ft one way or the other and you`re perfectly safe. I`m sure anyone who thinks about it will agree with the latter, but also find it difficult to escape the conclusion there is a lot of inconsistencies in the relative positions of those running the trams networks and Network rail.

Is anyone going to answer this ? Or is the inconsistency unarguable and therefore the response is filed as "too difficult", let`s just ignore it.

 

[GB]

Is anyone going to answer this ? Or is the inconsistency unarguable and therefore the response is filed as "too difficult", let`s just ignore it.

What is there to address. You can't "step" 5ft one way as you have a platform in front of you and stepping the other way could put you in danger on another line.

How about you address the issue of you injuring yourself or having some medical emergency and laying on the track where its very hard to see you or as previously pointed out, the example you are setting for your child.

 

[3141]

Let’s imagine that something valuable falls onto the track at Overton, my local station. It’s unstaffed, except for a few hours Monday – Friday mornings when there’s a booking clerk.

There are two trains per hour each way. There are occasional extra trains.

Looking westwards you have a clear view along about a mile of straight track. The likelihood is that a person on the platform who drops something will be waiting for the train that’s going to stop there.

If you drop something, look westwards and see no train in sight, know that the next one isn’t due for five minutes, and that you’re fit enough to climb back onto the platform, I can see how you might decide to retrieve your item, and you wouldn’t be putting yourself into real danger.

I doubt that I’d do it, being aged 76 and not so sure about climbing back up again. On the other hand, I know that two thirds of the platform length is concrete slabs resting on trestles, so a person could get under there and out of the way if necessary. And along the one third that’s solid brick it’s not very far to walk to the ramp at the end and get back that way.

I think there are other issues arising from what the OP posted, and at a station like Doncaster the obvious first step should be to ask staff to retrieve the phone. The first lesson is surely not to let your 3-year-old hold your phone and teach him not to throw things. I know that accidents can happen as a result of something that seems OK at the start. But I do also understand that people will do things they know they should not – haven’t we all? – and how they might do it after making the sort of “risk assessment” I described in the fourth paragraph above.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is anyone going to answer this ? Or is the inconsistency unarguable and therefore the response is filed as "too difficult", let`s just ignore it.

I dunno Justin, but I note you haven't responded to:

People think, don`t go on the track under any circumstances (even, apparently, staff) is a correct judgment even though they cannot give any figures as to how dangerous that would be.

Nor can you. Um.

 

[highdyke]

I believe rules are needed, but some common sense needs to come into play as well.

The best way I can put it is this. The railway runs on rules, some are based on risk, some of previous experience, some are there because that's the way things are done.

You can read some of the rules here:

http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/rulebooks/GERM8000-master-module Iss 1.pdf

P88 onwards is especially relevant here but there are other bits.

Is common sense allowed? No. Because everything has to be risk assessed, evaluated etc. In fact the rule book is a work in progress, much like the law of the land.

The railway makes a point to employ people that:

- Will obey the rules, pretty much to the letter.

- Will enforce those rules.

- And seek to er on the side of safety.

- Rules apply to the job done and not seniority of the person. (This is quite hard for people to understand that come from many other industries, where someone senior may overrule someone junior)

Hence some of the responses here.

You don't join the railway if you want to exercise your own creative ideas on safety, this is one of the ideas of the psychometric tests. It's much like the forces really, which is why they make good railwaymen.

Now outside the railway bubble, yes you are correct. You probably *could* weigh things up yourself and make a risk assessment and we all do, everyday to some extent. Having said that the railway is an extremely dangerous place, and you would be foolish to do so without real insight. Even then, it's not a good idea.

The point is, if you had a free for all, you would have constant debates about what is and what isn't safe- Although that doesn't mean people don't have concerns - look at DOO etc. Self-evaluation doesn't work well especially if something goes wrong on a real time railway, in practice there are some grey areas. But this is why things things must be laid down and followed. Let the lawyers worry about these things later.

 

[Deepgreen]

What is there to address. You can't "step" 5ft one way as you have a platform in front of you and stepping the other way could put you in danger on another line.

How about you address the issue of you injuring yourself or having some medical emergency and laying on the track where its very hard to see you or as previously pointed out, the example you are setting for your child.

Quite. Trams are designed specifically to be run on roads where they share space with pedestrians and road vehicles. For emergencies, they have track brakes that can stop them amazingly quickly, which trains do not. They also usually run at the same level as pedestrians who can unfailingly know what route they will take along the road (i.e. on the rails). It is, above all, not illegal to cross tram tracks. There is no comparison.

 

[Jamesb1974]

I can't be bothered reading all seven pages of this, but OP, stay off the track. You don't know what you're meddling with.

Red Bonds.
Bi-Di working.
STP workings that are not in the 'normal', working time table.
Early or late paths.
Moving switch blades or other point components.

Any of the above could catch you out, causing serious injury or death.

And that's before I've even mentioned third rail. Just stay off our work place and put your valuables out of child's reach.

 

[Agent_c]

THe only thing "gone mad" here is clearly the "health and safety has gone mad crowd" has clearly gone mad.

Next week.... Why do parachutists need a backup chute? Surely thats health and safety gone mad....

 

[Jamesb1974]

THe only thing "gone mad" here is clearly the "health and safety has gone mad crowd" has clearly gone mad.

Next week.... Why do parachutists need a backup chute? Surely thats health and safety gone mad....

Thumbs up for that.

 

[Harbornite]

I agree with this completely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Is anyone going to answer this ? Or is the inconsistency unarguable and therefore the response is filed as "too difficult", let`s just ignore it.

No, it was a stupid as the rest of the crap you have posted. You can't justify retrieving a phone from railway tracks with the argument that tram tracks are safer to cross. Just don't bother, only you, Antman and RichieB seem to think you are right for acting like a tool. Tram tracks that aren't at stations do not have platforms restricting movement.

 

[Llanigraham]

Is anyone going to answer this ? Or is the inconsistency unarguable and therefore the response is filed as "too difficult", let`s just ignore it.

Yes.
It is irrelevant. Trams in streets are not comparable with railway stations.

Keep digging the hole you're in!

 

[Justin Smith]

Quite. Trams are designed specifically to be run on roads where they share space with pedestrians and road vehicles. For emergencies, they have track brakes that can stop them amazingly quickly, which trains do not. They also usually run at the same level as pedestrians who can unfailingly know what route they will take along the road (i.e. on the rails). It is, above all, not illegal to cross tram tracks. There is no comparison.

That is the most correct point you make. But the preceeding one [pedestrians who can unfailingly know what route they will take along the road (i.e. on the rails)] I also agree with. In fact, isn`t that what I said ?

On the subject of the brakes, I agree that trams have more efficient brakes than trains, but it was stated earlier that the danger (at Doncaster where the trains on that platform rarely do more than 10mph) would not be the person retrieving the phone but the passengers on board being thrown around when the train did an emergency brake. So, if it`s unsafe (for the passengers) for a train to brake relatively slowly, how come it`s deemed safe enough for a tram to brake at twice the rate ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, it was a stupid as the rest of the crap you have posted. You can't justify retrieving a phone from railway tracks with the argument that tram tracks are safer to cross. Just don't bother, only you, Antman and RichieB seem to think you are right for acting like a tool. Tram tracks that aren't at stations do not have platforms restricting movement.

I generally try not to be personal and insulting on forums, I find those who do so are showing an unpleasant side to their characters, and also losing the argument.
And you`re wrong, tram stops do have platforms, though I accept they`re lower.

 

[Harbornite]

That is the most correct point you make. But the preceeding one [pedestrians who can unfailingly know what route they will take along the road (i.e. on the rails)] I also agree with. In fact, isn`t that what I said ?

On the subject of the brakes, I agree that trams have more efficient brakes than trains, but it was stated earlier that the danger (at Doncaster where the trains on that platform rarely do more than 10mph) would not be the person retrieving the phone but the passengers on board being thrown around when the train did an emergency brake. So, if it`s unsafe (for the passengers) for a train to brake relatively slowly, how come it`s deemed safe enough for a tram to brake at twice the rate ?

What about trains doing more than 10mph?

 

[Llanigraham]

On the subject of the brakes, I agree that trams have more efficient brakes than trains, but it was stated earlier that the danger (at Doncaster where the trains on that platform rarely do more than 10mph) would not be the person retrieving the phone but the passengers on board being thrown around when the train did an emergency brake. So, if it`s unsafe (for the passengers) for a train to brake relatively slowly, how come it`s deemed safe enough for a tram to brake at twice the rate ?

And what happens when it isn't one of those?

As I said, keeping digging your hole, because it is getting deeper and deeper.

 

[Antman]

If I'd dropped my 'expensive phone' on a railway track—and the staff were unable to retrieve it—I'd curse at myself for being clumsy, then accept it was my goddamn fault and I'd have to do with a cheap second-hand phone from now on.



No they don't, because there is no argument to be had. It is categorically not safe to trespass on the railway.

Well that's the rule and rightly so and there are no exceptions, because if there were exceptions how could they possibly be worded?

Reality is though there are foot crossings in many rural locations and crossing them is much safer than crossing a busy road and as we all know graffiti merchants wander down the track with a total disregard for any such rules and rarely come to any harm, not that I'm condoning such idiotic actions of course.

Lets say I'm getting off a train at Uckfield for example (it could be any similar location) and I dropped my phone onto the track. If I waited for the train to go I could jump down and retrieve it without any problem couldn't I? The tracks aren't electrified and there is no way another train is going to come anytime soon.

 

[Justin Smith]

Yes.
It is irrelevant. Trams in streets are not comparable with railway stations.

Keep digging the hole you're in!

I don`t think it is irrelevant at all :

When you say a position of safety, that raises a very interesting point, a point put forward when they were thinking of building the Supertram in Sheffield. The proposers of the tram never at any point suggested that pedestrians shouldn`t cross the tram tracks, and, in fact, said it was actually safer to cross tram tracks than a road because the course of the tram is totally predictable, unlike a road vehicle. That is to say you merely have to step to the side by 5ft one way or the other and you`re perfectly safe. I`m sure anyone who thinks about it will agree with the latter, but also find it difficult to escape the conclusion there is a lot of inconsistencies in the relative positions of those running the trams networks and Network rail.

 

[EM2]

... it was stated earlier that part of the danger (at Doncaster where the trains on that platform could be doing well above 10mph) would not be the person retrieving the phone but the passengers on board being thrown around when the train did an emergency brake. So, if it`s unsafe (for the passengers) for a train to brake very sharply, how come it`s deemed safe enough for a tram to brake at twice the rate ?

Fixed that for you.