Look-outs

[fergusjbend]

I noticed a gang of NR men carrying out some trackside work on the Dungeness branch today (Sunday), near Lydd. I was a little bemused to see that they had a look-out posted, despite the fact that the branch was totally devoid of traffic, and presumably will remain so for several days before the next nuclear flask train. Is this a H&S requirement for all track work, no matter how unnecessary?

 

[LAX54]

I noticed a gang of NR men carrying out some trackside work on the Dungeness branch today (Sunday), near Lydd. I was a little bemused to see that they had a look-out posted, despite the fact that the branch was totally devoid of traffic, and presumably will remain so for several days before the next nuclear flask train. Is this a H&S requirement for all track work, no matter how unnecessary?

Just because a 'scheduled' train is not booked to run, does not mean there will be nothing at all, could be a loco, OTM, Track Recorder, even an Officer's Special, the line is always 'open'

 

[carriageline]

Correct. The track staff don't know the timetable. Even during the white period at night, line blocks are still required.

 

[Tin Rocket]

1 Work would have been planned red zone with lookout or could have been responding to a fault at short notice and this was deemed most suitable method of protection
2 maintenance staff do not take train timetables or scheduling into consideration
3 never presume there is no traffic about,could be the last thing you or your work group do god forbid

 

[headshot119]

I noticed a gang of NR men carrying out some trackside work on the Dungeness branch today (Sunday), near Lydd. I was a little bemused to see that they had a look-out posted, despite the fact that the branch was totally devoid of traffic, and presumably will remain so for several days before the next nuclear flask train. Is this a H&S requirement for all track work, no matter how unnecessary?

Safety of the staff about the line is ALWAYS necessary.

Track staff don't know the timetable, and unless they have taken an absolute possession they must consider the line open and act accordingly.

 

[fergusjbend]

Safety of the staff about the line is ALWAYS necessary.

Track staff don't know the timetable, and unless they have taken an absolute possession they must consider the line open and act accordingly.

Thanks for all the replies. I quite understand about the need to place safety above all other considerations, but in this case it seems to have run a little mad. The Dungeness branch sees only one flask train a week, and sometimes not even that. It never, ever runs on a Sunday. Surely NR could have taken possession of the line and eliminated the need for a look-out. After all, they are under great pressure from the ORR to reduce costs....

 

[SPADTrap]

Thanks for all the replies. I quite understand about the need to place safety above all other considerations, but in this case it seems to have run a little mad. The Dungeness branch sees only one flask train a week, and sometimes not even that. It never, ever runs on a Sunday. Surely NR could have taken possession of the line and eliminated the need for a look-out. After all, they are under great pressure from the ORR to reduce costs....

Did you read what anyone posted?! They've told you why 'it never ever runs' can't be assumed and how they wouldn't know what runs when and given that the line is open anything could run. Reduce costs and you think take a T3 over having a lookout?

You seemingly don't quite understand the safety requirements. Would you work in the conditions you described using your enthusiast knowledge of nothing running on a Sunday? That's why people die, those girls thought the last train had gone and decided to sit on a crossing, one paid with her life.

 

[muz379]

Thanks for all the replies. I quite understand about the need to place safety above all other considerations, but in this case it seems to have run a little mad. The Dungeness branch sees only one flask train a week, and sometimes not even that. It never, ever runs on a Sunday. Surely NR could have taken possession of the line and eliminated the need for a look-out. After all, they are under great pressure from the ORR to reduce costs....

It might come as some surprise but the process of taking a possession might actually cost more than providing a lookout for a few hours depending on the nature of work carried out and if the men where out all day together working at various different sites . And as someone earlier mentioned it might have been emergency works being carried out meaning taking a possession is not always possible .

 

[LAX54]

Thanks for all the replies. I quite understand about the need to place safety above all other considerations, but in this case it seems to have run a little mad. The Dungeness branch sees only one flask train a week, and sometimes not even that. It never, ever runs on a Sunday. Surely NR could have taken possession of the line and eliminated the need for a look-out. After all, they are under great pressure from the ORR to reduce costs....

DOH !

 

[Antman]

Thanks for all the replies. I quite understand about the need to place safety above all other considerations, but in this case it seems to have run a little mad. The Dungeness branch sees only one flask train a week, and sometimes not even that. It never, ever runs on a Sunday. Surely NR could have taken possession of the line and eliminated the need for a look-out. After all, they are under great pressure from the ORR to reduce costs....

I would imagine it must be difficult for a look out to keep their concentration levels up when they know there is very little chance of a train appearing?

 

[trac]

What does a man waving a black and white chequered flag mean? I saw this at Maidenhead last week, the network rail man was waving the flag at an approaching HST.

 

[Llama]

Blue and white chequered flag. That will be a lookout. That flag means nothing in itself to the driver of an approaching train.

 

[DarloRich]

Thanks for all the replies. I quite understand about the need to place safety above all other considerations, but in this case it seems to have run a little mad. The Dungeness branch sees only one flask train a week, and sometimes not even that. It never, ever runs on a Sunday. Surely NR could have taken possession of the line and eliminated the need for a look-out. After all, they are under great pressure from the ORR to reduce costs....

It might well cost more to take a full possession.

I am not sure you quite grasp the concept though. Just because you *know* (based on spotter skills) that no trains are running doesn’t mean that no train movements will take place! *Knowing* things ( when you don’t really know anything of the sort) is what gets people killed.

You must treat the line as open at all times and energised if electrified. Do you want to risk your safety and that of your colleagues based on what you think you know? There could be something that isn’t in the available timetable, like a tamper movement or a road railer or other piece of OTP running about, that would catch you out and squish you really quite quickly without the look out to warn you of the approaching vehicle.

 

[wensley]

What does a man waving a black and white chequered flag mean? I saw this at Maidenhead last week, the network rail man was waving the flag at an approaching HST.

The blue and white flags are used for advance lookouts (eg. at a site where visibility is such that a single lookout could not provide sufficient warning for an approaching train). Held steady indicates that it is safe to work, waved in a figure of eight at head high is the signal for an approaching train and to move to a position of safety. It is possible for there to be a number of distance/intermediate lookouts who will repeat the signal down the line to the site lookout who will advice the workers on the track to move clear of the line / re-commence work as appropriate.

 

[Tomnick]

There's no doubt whatsoever that a full possession would be considerably more expensive - and over the top - than red zone working with a lookout! At least one member of the gang would almost certainly hold lookout competency - it's quite common - whereas a possession would require at least a person holding PICOP competency and either detonator protection or possession of the token (so would probably need to travel to a different location in a different vehicle), an ES (is that still necessary with just a single worksite?), possession planning and a need to publish the arrangements in advance. Not at all simple!

As others have said, no-one should ever rely on the published timetable or their own knowledge of train movements for their protection. We have a branch line that normally sees only a single train each way, Monday to Friday only and never ever at weekends - apart from last Saturday when there was a problem on Friday and they left the train (or at least part of it) there overnight. I came very close, on another occasion, to putting a train onto another branch, which hasn't seen any regular traffic in years, just to get it off the main line during disruption to allow other traffic to pass. This link, to a description of the Staplehurst accident in 1865 is also a good illustration of where that sort of assumption can end up!

 

[edwin_m]

There's no doubt whatsoever that a full possession would be considerably more expensive - and over the top - than red zone working with a lookout! At least one member of the gang would almost certainly hold lookout competency - it's quite common - whereas a possession would require at least a person holding PICOP competency and either detonator protection or possession of the token (so would probably need to travel to a different location in a different vehicle), an ES (is that still necessary with just a single worksite?), possession planning and a need to publish the arrangements in advance. Not at all simple!

As others have said, no-one should ever rely on the published timetable or their own knowledge of train movements for their protection. We have a branch line that normally sees only a single train each way, Monday to Friday only and never ever at weekends - apart from last Saturday when there was a problem on Friday and they left the train (or at least part of it) there overnight. I came very close, on another occasion, to putting a train onto another branch, which hasn't seen any regular traffic in years, just to get it off the main line during disruption to allow other traffic to pass. This link, to a description of the Staplehurst accident in 1865 is also a good illustration of where that sort of assumption can end up!

With rules like that you can see why RAIB reports so often that the risk hierarchy of protection methods (whereby all other options should be considered before going red zone) often doesn't happen. If it's that complicated to organise a possession on a section where there would be zero chance of affecting any services then imagine how difficult on a section where there is a risk of actual trains!

 

[Yabbadabba]

You must treat the line as open at all times and energised if electrified. Do you want to risk your safety and that of your colleagues based on what you think you know? There could be something that isn’t in the available timetable, like a tamper movement or a road railer or other piece of OTP running about, that would catch you out and squish you really quite quickly without the look out to warn you of the approaching vehicle.

You won't get OTP (road rail machines) running on the open railway, but on the other hand OTM (tampers etc etc) do.

 

[matchmaker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staplehurst_rail_crash

The Board of Trade report, published on 21 June 1865, found that for the previous eight to ten weeks a team of eight men and a foreman had been renewing the timbers under the track on viaducts between Headcorn and Staplehurst railway stations. The track would be removed when no train was due; however, on 9 June the foreman had misread his timetable as to the schedule that day of the tidal boat train.[4] Regulations required a man with a red flag to be 1,000 yards (910 m) away, but the labourer was only 554 yards (507 m) away, having counted telegraph poles that were unusually close together,[5] and the train had insufficient time to stop. There had also been no notification to the driver about the track repairs in the area.

 

[Tomnick]

With rules like that you can see why RAIB reports so often that the risk hierarchy of protection methods (whereby all other options should be considered before going red zone) often doesn't happen. If it's that complicated to organise a possession on a section where there would be zero chance of affecting any services then imagine how difficult on a section where there is a risk of actual trains!

A possession isn't really appropriate or necessary for that sort of work though! The planning process is necessarily thorough because of the complications associated with handing over portions - often many miles, or complex layouts - of the railway over to the engineering function, normally with at least one train and numerous items of plant moving around. It had to be published, generally, so that the train planning functions can arrange for trains to be diverted if becesary, or at least (in the case of "no booked services", as here) be aware that a line that should normally be open will be blocked to traffic - so they know that they can't put an STP schedule in for something to run over there for whatever reason.

A line blockage would be more appropriate in this case, and could either be booked and shown in the WON as having no capacity for STP/VSTP services, or could (as most are) be planned to be given up for trains to pass if necessary. Although working green zone would appear preferable, though, I'd have to ask whether anyone's considered the risk of an increased risk resulting from significantly increasing the signalman's workload? It's no use planning everything to be done under a line blockage if the signalman's then too busy to grant them all safely!

 

[edwin_m]

A possession isn't really appropriate or necessary for that sort of work though! The planning process is necessarily thorough because of the complications associated with handing over portions - often many miles, or complex layouts - of the railway over to the engineering function, normally with at least one train and numerous items of plant moving around. It had to be published, generally, so that the train planning functions can arrange for trains to be diverted if becesary, or at least (in the case of "no booked services", as here) be aware that a line that should normally be open will be blocked to traffic - so they know that they can't put an STP schedule in for something to run over there for whatever reason.

A line blockage would be more appropriate in this case, and could either be booked and shown in the WON as having no capacity for STP/VSTP services, or could (as most are) be planned to be given up for trains to pass if necessary. Although working green zone would appear preferable, though, I'd have to ask whether anyone's considered the risk of an increased risk resulting from significantly increasing the signalman's workload? It's no use planning everything to be done under a line blockage if the signalman's then too busy to grant them all safely!

Yes I had that distinction in the back of my mind somewhere - from what I remember a line blockage for green zone is OK as long as nothing is being done that might endanger the safety of trains. So possession is irrelevant to this discussion and it's a case of lookout versus line blockage.

 

[Tomnick]

Yes I had that distinction in the back of my mind somewhere - from what I remember a line blockage for green zone is OK as long as nothing is being done that might endanger the safety of trains. So possession is irrelevant to this discussion and it's a case of lookout versus line blockage.

Even better than that - a line blockage is ok even for work that affects the safety of the line, but it requires additional protection and can't be done within 200yds of the protecting signal unless the signal in rear is also held at danger. In broad terms, you can do anything under a line blockage unless it involves train movements! On that basis, it's certainly more applicable to this discussion than an absolute possession - but still, with my earlier comments in mind, I'd certainly advocate a sensible approach to line blockages where red zone working is clearly adequate, rather than merely shifting the responsibility onto a potentially already busy signalman. Incidentally, red zone working doesn't necessarily require a lookout (unless there's been a recent change) - only where the sighting distance is insufficient for the gang to safely look out for trains whilst working, taking into account the nature of the task.

 

[edwin_m]

Even better than that - a line blockage is ok even for work that affects the safety of the line, but it requires additional protection and can't be done within 200yds of the protecting signal unless the signal in rear is also held at danger. In broad terms, you can do anything under a line blockage unless it involves train movements!

That certainly makes sense. The hazard of workers being hit by unexpected trains is significant enough that it needs a pretty foolproof way of preventing those trains, just as it would if there was a risk of the trains themselves being derailed by missing track components or similar.

Incidentally, red zone working doesn't necessarily require a lookout (unless there's been a recent change) - only where the sighting distance is insufficient for the gang to safely look out for trains whilst working, taking into account the nature of the task.

Never heard of that except for patrollers and others "working" alone, so there is no risk of distraction and the work itself involves no more than inspection and tightening the occasional bolt. But my knowledge of this is some years out of date, though I seem to recall reading somewhere that the useful terms "red zone" and "green zone" have now been abandoned.

 

[Tomnick]

I'm possibly mistaken on the latter, thinking about it - maybe it is just individuals working alone. I can't keep up with all the changes on that side (and don't need to!) either. I've heard a rumbling about those two terms being dropped, but again it's something that doesn't concern us directly (though we still deal with the GZAC - the chap who coordinates the green zone access!). Change for the sake of change?

 

[fergusjbend]

Blimey, I never expected the Spanish Inquisition! My original posting was innocent enough, I naïvely thought..... I was struck by the apparent absurdity of a look-out being posted on a branch line that sees less than one train a week, is covered in half an inch of rust and has permanent speed restrictions of 5 to 15mph. The look-out would have had to stand there for in excess of four days and four nights before he cold expect to see the next train hurtling down on him at walking pace. I imagine his concentration might have started to lapse before then.

I would be interested to know under what circumstances a look-out becomes mandatory. Does it, for instance, apply to heritage or narrow-gauge railways? I believe the Dungeness branch is now classified as a siding. Does this make a difference?

I am grateful for the information which has been posted, and I am not advocating any relaxation of safety regulations as some rather discourteous respondents seem to be suggesting.

 

[carriageline]

Any work taking place needs a safe system of work. To reiterate the point you understand, having no train booked there doesn't constitute as a safe system of work. The pway guys no nothing of the timetable. As far as they are concerned, the one hour they spend on it a week is their quiet period, and the rest of the time it's bustling.

Sidings are exactly the same.

Plus, the chances are they are checking other lines on the same day as part of s schedule. Therefore the lookout will be required for them, as they are a team.

Essentially. I can see what your saying, but there is no safe alternative. Plus, what's stopping them from saying "there no trains between 1am and 4am", they need no protection

 

[ge-gn]

I noticed a gang of NR men carrying out some trackside work on the Dungeness branch today (Sunday), near Lydd. I was a little bemused to see that they had a look-out posted, despite the fact that the branch was totally devoid of traffic, and presumably will remain so for several days before the next nuclear flask train. Is this a H&S requirement for all track work, no matter how unnecessary?

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-31486188

This is one reason why we don't assume that trains are not running on any line not blocked or under possession.

 

[221129]

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-31486188

This is one reason why we don't assume that trains are not running on any line not blocked or under possession.

Web page not available?

 

[ge-gn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-31486188

Sorry. See if that's any better.

 

[221129]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-31486188

Sorry. See if that's any better.

That one works fine, Thanks!

 

[edwin_m]

Web page not available?

They closed it for maintenance, because they didn't expect any traffic at that time?