Passengers 'help clear tree from line'

[tsr]

I could easily have moved the offending tent, it was maybe 100yds off the level crossing, in the 6ft. I don't know if the signaller could have asked if I could remove it safely (?) although I would imagine he wouldn't want to take the risk. I wasn't going to go onto the line at a point where there is limited warning of approaching trains, due to a curve in one direction and a bridge portal (under the ECML) obscuring sight of approaching trains, felt Network Rail could do their own thing, last thing I want is to be caught out on the line with a 1000t+ freight train bearing down on me!!!!!

Since you mentioned that the signaller diverted traffic away, that implies that the line was blocked anyway, but I'm not criticising you for not moving it if you weren't sure if the line was still in use by trains! I just wondered if it would have been possible for you to remove the obstruction - but it seems perfectly acceptable that you didn't if you deemed the area was too hazardous and the signaller didn't want you to. Your explanation of what happened is now much clearer - thanks for clarifying!

 

[wensley]

Since you mentioned that the signaller diverted traffic away, that implies that the line was blocked anyway, but I'm not criticising you for not moving it if you weren't sure if the line was still in use by trains! I just wondered if it would have been possible for you to remove the obstruction - but it seems perfectly acceptable that you didn't if you deemed the area was too hazardous and the signaller didn't want you to. Your explanation of what happened is now much clearer - thanks for clarifying!

Apologies for not being clearer in the first place!
The obstruction was definitely movable but not my place to do so, I informed the signaller the obstruction was specifically "in the six foot" so it was his decision to close both running lines as a precautionary measure, only part of it was in contact with one running rail of the up line.

 

[O L Leigh]

H&S isn't a pain in the ass. Regrettably there are some people out there in the population who really do need to be protected from themselves.

Mostly these are people who are attempting a task that they are not familiar with, for which they are untrained or poorly equipped, or in environments that are unfamiliar to them, as was demonstrated by the H&S men showing what can happen with an unsecured ladder. The people who need the protection, the people who show up at A&E are not professional roofers or carpenters, but Johnny Q Public who goes up a ladder every couple of years to clear the gutters or thinks he can knock up a bookcase all on his own.

Commonsense is a myth, as sense is anything but common. Most people aren't inclined to take a drug overdose, but we are still restricted on the number of painkillers we can buy in a single transaction. And that is but one of many many examples of H&S. No matter what your level of expertise in any given area, we are all governed by these rules.

As a train driver it is my responsibility to ensure YOUR safety. If practical to do so, I will get down and deal with a situation together with any other suitable members of staff on my train. What I will not take responsibility for is a workparty of passengers, who are an unknown quantity to me, going down the steps, walking along the ballast, using tools to clear a tree and then going back up the steps, all in a howling gale in a hazardous area where one tree has already fallen and others may follow. That simply isn't going to happen. The safest place for you to be is INSIDE the train. So let ME and my colleagues deal with the situation rather than getting all gung-ho and berating me for discharging my duties.

I don't care if you think that's madness, H&S Nazism or whatever else you choose to call it. I don't care if you vilify me or my colleagues online. Really and honestly, the hand-wringing isn't on this side of the fence. It's on YOUR side.

O L Leigh

 

[swt_passenger]

I went to the link that is on the first page and there is no mention whatsoever of anyone getting off a train to help remove a tree...

That's because the BBC continually edit and update stories over the course of a day. What you see now is an updated version, it was definitely about 'passengers helping' at the time it was first linked to.

 

[O L Leigh]

So is it possible that Auntie got her facts wrong the first time and has had to amend the article...? Is it feasible that the workparty that cleared this particular line comprised driver, guard and no-one else...? Could it be that the passengers sat quietly in the train and waited, as per the instructions given to them by the traincrew...?

*GASP*

O L Leigh

 

[tsr]

Bit of a fictitious story!
A lot of interesting points.
H&S is a pain in the ass, but it saves many injuries and deaths a year. That has to be a good thing.
If a train is held up for 3 hours because of an obstruction on the line, but more importantly everyone arrives at their destination safely, so be it!
Cutting trees can be dangerous, branches/ tree springing etc. Trees are always heavier than they look!
But I hope that in 'exceptional circumstances' the crew would react accordingly.
Eg the passengers were frightened, the train was in danger from more falling trees, water pouring down the bank (risk of landslide) etc.

Those are good examples of exceptional circumstances, none of which do appear to have been the case here, but we probably don't know the full story. Health and safety considerations are very important - we all apply them to our lives, just in different proportions, some of which is called common sense; hopefully people will come to see that rules are in place to govern those proportions so that the majority of people do not get injured, killed or in some sort of other difficulty.

Your point about the dangers of cutting trees is absolutely correct - having done a lot of garden/grounds clearance (including on steep banks and slopes) and spent two years at college in a woodworking workshop, I can testify to the amount of PPE and general caution that you often need to demolish even the smallest of obstacles or safely cut wood! If I had not been wearing protective gloves and goggles, for example, I would have lost quite a few fingers and both eyes, through no carelessness of my own. Timber is very sharp and very springy in some circumstances. Most natural materials are hazardous in the wrong circumstances. You cannot have untrained passengers wandering around lifting and cutting tree branches on a railway track - that is just asking for trouble. If someone asked to help, and they had no experience of dealing with tools or vegetation, nor the appropriate PPE, the answer would be "no", and I would not continue working until they were in a place of safety, and I had inspected the relevant pieces of my equipment to ensure it had not been tampered with. I don't do a risk assessment for no reason.

 

[wensley]

Those are good examples of exceptional circumstances, none of which do appear to have been the case here, but we probably don't know the full story. Health and safety considerations are very important - we all apply them to our lives, just in different proportions, some of which is called common sense; hopefully people will come to see that rules are in place to govern those proportions so that the majority of people do not get injured, killed or in some sort of other difficulty.

Your point about the dangers of cutting trees is absolutely correct - having done a lot of garden/grounds clearance (including on steep banks and slopes) and spent two years at college in a woodworking workshop, I can testify to the amount of PPE and general caution that you often need to demolish even the smallest of obstacles or safely cut wood! If I had not been wearing protective gloves and goggles, for example, I would have lost quite a few fingers and both eyes, through no carelessness of my own. Timber is very sharp and very springy in some circumstances. Most natural materials are hazardous in the wrong circumstances. You cannot have untrained passengers wandering around lifting and cutting tree branches on a railway track - that is just asking for trouble.

Not to mention the added risks of being on or about the line, railheads are a trip hazard, uneven walking surfaces, slippery sleepers etc etc. That's why you need a PTS card to carry out such duties - a pretty good indicator that joe public shouldn't be on the lineside and leave it to those who are suitably qualified. I completely agree with O'Leigh, passengers may get heated in such situations, but one lapse and wrong decision could cost the traincrew their jobs and place passengers at risk.

 

[Yew]

Not to mention the added risks of being on or about the line, railheads are a trip hazard, uneven walking surfaces, slippery sleepers etc etc. That's why you need a PTS card to carry out such duties - a pretty good indicator that joe public shouldn't be on the lineside and leave it to those who are suitably qualified. I completely agree with O'Leigh, passengers may get heated in such situations, but one lapse and wrong decision could cost the traincrew their jobs and place passengers at risk.

But if you go on some public footpaths in derbyshire (or similar) they have all these hazards and more. Look at one of the ascents to scarfel pike for example, scrambling up rocks a few meters awa from a large drop (with a pretty waterfall)

 

[wensley]

But if you go on some public footpaths in derbyshire (or similar) they have all these hazards and more. Look at one of the ascents to scarfel pike for example, scrambling up rocks a few meters awa from a large drop (with a pretty waterfall)

In such areas you are on public land and responsible for you own safety. On the railway, private land, there would be all sorts of issues regarding compensation etc etc.

 

[tsr]

But if you go on some public footpaths in derbyshire (or similar) they have all these hazards and more. Look at one of the ascents to scarfel pike for example, scrambling up rocks a few meters awa from a large drop (with a pretty waterfall)

I don't think you have the added risks of electrocution (maybe not in this case), thousands of tons' worth of trains, etc.

Yes, I have been on many of the dangerous footpaths in Derbyshire and the surrounding counties. One of my favourite spots in the area is the Manifold Valley, where you could be killed by a 300+ foot drop if you step off the path at Thor's Cave, to take one example. There is a difference in paths like this: you are actually allowed to go on them, and you also do so at your own risk, in the understanding that it is dangerous. Pax, for the most part, are not aware of the scale and number of the safety issues on a railway. Remember that most of them think there are two metal rails on some gravel (do they know it's called ballast?), and that's it. Of course, that really isn't it.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Not to mention the added risks of being on or about the line, railheads are a trip hazard, uneven walking surfaces, slippery sleepers etc etc. That's why you need a PTS card to carry out such duties - a pretty good indicator that joe public shouldn't be on the lineside and leave it to those who are suitably qualified. I completely agree with O'Leigh, passengers may get heated in such situations, but one lapse and wrong decision could cost the traincrew their jobs and place passengers at risk.

Could cost a lot more than their jobs ..If breaking the rules resulted in someone losing their life etc, they would be charged with manslaughter etc.

 

[wensley]

Could cost a lot more than their jobs ..If breaking the rules resulted in someone losing their life etc, they would be charged with manslaughter etc.

Yep, of course there is the possibility should the worse happen, even if it didn't there would be almost certain disciplinary action, which is what I was alluding to!

 

[AlexS]

I think the final word on the matter is that the rulebook does not say precisely what to do in every eventuality (I hope, I've signed for quite a lot of modules, ha). The point I suppose I'm trying to make is that in every career or walk of life there's an element of discretion required. And if you're being truly sensible you reserve it for the extremely important situations where your actions are a deciding factor. I believe they call it 'informed decision making'. If it's not at that level of seriousness then you can't really fault someone for erring on the side of caution if they have to carry the can afterwards. And that's both in my day job as a public servant (on occasion with decision making responsibilities) and in my leisure time as a heritage railway guard and signalman (where luckily the 3 worst incidents thus far I've had to deal with were a bathtub on the line (!), an extremely large lineside fire, and a child having a fairly serious head injury).

Personally when things have gone up the spout on the 'big railway' I've always made myself known to the person in charge and I don't think I've ever had my offer to assist turned down (ranging from assisting a police officer in physically removing an abusive passenger to opening and slamming closed doors on a 175 unit in the platform at Birmingham New Street to try and resolve a door interlock fault to try and avoid the train being cancelled).

Accepting the 'decision maker's' decision in each circumstance is key and I don't think you could ever say it's never right for a passenger to assist.

That said I've always been accountable for my actions (today attempting to get a steam heat pipe connection that was being a **** to mate properly I ended up being ****ted with a coal pick and split my finger wide open, nobody's fault but my own) and some people are not necessarily always that straight up with the fully story afterwards.

 

[TUC]

So what would happen if a gung ho middle aged or elderly passenger suffered a fatal stroke or heart attack while helping to move said tree.
Passengers should not involve themselves in any way in such a situation.

Please stop treating passengers as children who are incapable of making their own decisions.

 

[NSEFAN]

Please stop treating passengers as children who are incapable of making their own decisions.

You, I and many others on this forum probably have a good understanding of the risks of a working railway, and could probably easily help out in a situation like this. The problem is without some kind of proof of lineside training (eg a PTS certificate), the staff on the train can't be sure that you'll act responsibly and safely (even if you personally know you're competent).

Ultimately yes this means that passengers are effectively treated like children, but it's the easiest way to ensure their safety. As O L Leigh has said, common sense is useless if you don't actually know what the risks are. This is why people need to be properly trained on trackside safety before they are allowed on the track.

Back to this hypothetical gun ho middle aged man; I'm sure he's only acting in good faith, but if he stays put on the train then it's one less thing to go wrong. The train is already delayed, but it would be much worse to end up with a fatality.

 

[Flamingo]

There are several individuals I know of personally who make a deal out of impersonating rail staff - some of them have been mentioned on this forum. Some of them are very convincing - I was discussing one particular prat (who used to buy tickets on-train with cheques that bounced) with a colleague the other day, who said "I thought he was a senior manager when I met him first".

In an emergency situation, I can just imagine one of these Walter Mitty types coming up to an unsuspecting member of Railway staff and offering to help with something technical, and I shudder to think of the possible consequences.

The railway is a dangerous place, there is lots of risks for the unwary. The rule-book is in place for a reason - it represents learning by nearly 200 years of other peoples mistakes. Any railway worker who ignores it does so at risk to their job. Anybody who thinks they can do things on the railway without bothering to learn the rules governing that activity, and being assessed on them, is putting themselves and worse, potentially several trains full of people, at risk.

A question for all the non-railway people out there who are saying "All it needs is common sense". Why do you think that every rail professional on this and any other site is saying you are wrong?

And a follow up question - if it was that easy, why do TOC's spend so much money training and assessing staff if it is unnecessary?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Please stop treating passengers as children who are incapable of making their own decisions.

No, children will, by and large, do as they are told. There is always some smart-ass passenger who thinks they know better :roll:

 

[Old Timer]

Under Railway Rules, train crew are not authorised to "work" on the Infrastructure. They are authorised only to go onto the track in connection with their duties, and these do not include removing obstructions from the track.

The undertaking of work on the Infrastructure now has to fall within the full guise of the HASAW Act 1974 and its various Regulations, which require that there must be risk assessments, work plans, formal staff protection arrangements, and competencies allocated for all the various tasks.

These can only be held by personnel who are authorised to undertake such work.

In addition there is a legal requirement that the track must be examined as fit to run over in such circumstances, and again this precludes anyone simply jumping out of a train and with the help of half a dozen of so "Big Men" dragging bits of tree or whatever to one side.

The Compensation culture which has driven much of this H&S over-reaction in the Railway Industry also plays a large part and if anything and anyone is to blame, it is the avariciousness of the general public at large who will use any excuse to gain a few pounds for nothing - or so they think.

There are no free lunches and the old chestnut of the whiplash injury is what has brought such a substantial leap in motoring insurance.

 

[a good off]

So what would happen if a gung ho middle aged or elderly passenger suffered a fatal stroke or heart attack while helping to move said tree.
Passengers should not involve themselves in any way in such a situation.
Perhaps doubters should watch footage of Tommy Cooper's almost instantaneous demise after collapsing on stage with a heart attack

Do you work for the Health & Safety department of the government or local council by any chance? If everyone was to apply that logic to every situation then the country would be at a standstill!! :roll:

 

[Flamingo]

The Compensation culture which has driven much of this H&S over-reaction in the Railway Industry also plays a large part and if anything and anyone is to blame, it is the avariciousness of the general public at large who will use any excuse to gain a few pounds for nothing - or so they think.

And any posters who think that the compensation culture does not apply to the railway should look at the thread where a poster is wondering how to claim compensation for having standard class passengers sitting beside him in First Class (and the number of posters who think he is entitled to do so). If people claim compensation for something as trivial as this, what do you think would be the response to someone spraining a wrist on a tree branch or ankle on loose ballast?

 

[ainsworth74]

And any posters who think that the compensation culture does not apply to the railway should look at the thread where a poster is wondering how to claim compensation for having standard class passengers sitting beside him in First Class (and the number of posters who think he is entitled to do so).

Wait there is thread on that? Where?

Also we're all doomed.

 

[MikeWh]

Yes the story has changed significantly from it's original state, but this paragraph:

Earlier, the line between Stratford-upon-Avon and Birmingham Snow Hill was closed for 40 minutes after a driver reported a tree on the line at Wood End station, between Stratford-upon-Avon and Shirley.

suggests that it did happen. I mean, only closed for 40 minutes means that assistance must have been pretty close by. Also, if the train was at a station then the passengers could have detrained quite safely, and if the obstruction was only a few branches then the driver may have had difficulty stopping some good samaritans from moving it.

 

[Flamingo]

Wait there is thread on that? Where?

Also we're all doomed.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57748

 

[wensley]

Some passengers simply don't understand the risks - but I bet they wouldn't be too keen on a random person leaping into their shoes at work without any training, it's not going to end well in any industry, never mind the railway where the stakes are so high and the risks are so great. The fact is accidents will happen and every move possible must be taken to prevent them, especially where members of travelling public are concerned.

Possibly that's the problem, the majority of passengers lack understanding of railway protocol, trackside safety etc etc which leads them to make statements that generally appeal for a 'good' dose of so-called "common sense"?! That's my theory anyway!

 

[Old Timer]

Some passengers simply don't understand the risks - but I bet they wouldn't be too keen on a random person leaping into their shoes at work without any training, it's not going to end well in any industry, never mind the railway where the stakes are so high and the risks are so great. The fact is accidents will happen and every move possible must be taken to prevent them, especially where members of travelling public are concerned.

Dealing with fallen trees can be very hadardous indeed, as there is no precise way of establishing where the CoG is or what the tree will do when it is disturbed or cut. A short viewing of the fly on the wall series about lumberjacks on one of the sky channels will demonstrate that.

From personal experience, one of my neighbour's brothers is a tree surgeon, and last summer appeared at my front door all red-faced and very apologetic. A tree he had been cutting down had not fallen as expected but had dropped the opposite way onto my garden demolishing the fence on its fall. Fortunately nothing else was damaged, (apart from some professional pride) and the garden was empty but it does illustrate that even the experts can get caught out.

 

[Marvin]

A question for all the non-railway people out there who are saying "All it needs is common sense". Why do you think that every rail professional on this and any other site is saying you are wrong?

Because that's what the rulebook says.

I realise that "I can't allow you to do that or I'll lose my job" is a valid argument. But what if the rules could be changed so that allowing passengers to help out in situations like this wasn't a sackable offence? Would any of you support such a move if it were possible?

 

[driver9000]

Because that's what the rulebook says.

I realise that "I can't allow you to do that or I'll lose my job" is a valid argument. But what if the rules could be changed so that allowing passengers to help out in situations like this wasn't a sackable offence? Would any of you support such a move if it were possible?

Who would take responsibilty when one of them gets injured? Personally I don't want my passengers wandering about the railway with or without my permission. Staff are trained in being on railway infrastructure and our personal safety, traincrew are not trained in managing groups of people who are untrained on the railway (that requires COSS). The rules will not be changed to allow passengers to climb out of trains except to allow for evacuation. The risk is too great and I doubt any TOC would take the chance in proposing a change. "health and safety gone mad" I hear the cries call out, but I see my and my passengers safety as the top of the list, so onboard they stay.

 

[Marvin]

Who would take responsibilty when one of them gets injured?

People can take responsibility for themselves, just as they do on those dangerous paths that were referred to earlier in this thread.

The risk is too great and I doubt any TOC would take the chance in proposing a change.

The risk of what, exactly? Someone being hurt, or them getting sued? If the new rules had a specific provision absolving rail companies and staff from any and all legal responsibility for passengers who deliberately leave the train would that change things?

 

[driver9000]

People can take responsibility for themselves, just as they do on those dangerous paths that were referred to earlier in this thread.

Those paths are also public places where as an operational railway is private property. I don't think it is the place to have untrained passengers wandering around the infrastructure helping to clear obstructions. If I can't go on the railway without having had training and been taught the dangers that can be present on the railway then I can't see how we can allow passengers to climb out of trains without the same. The responsibility will ultimately fall at the door of the railway and potentially the member of staff who said they could climb out.

The risk of what, exactly? Someone being hurt, or them getting sued? If the new rules had a specific provision absolving rail companies and staff from any and all legal responsibility for passengers who deliberately leave the train would that change things?

Yes, exactly the risk of someone being injured. If passengers were allowed to climb out of trains then this would be an accident waiting to happen and then, given the litigious nature of society we live in today I can see a lawsuit following on soon after. There will never be a change to the rules to allow untrained passengers to climb out of trains to go clearing obstructions. I'm certainly no legal expert but I'm pretty certain that if the railway was to allow this then there would be legal responsibilities attached to it with regard to the safety of a passenger doing so. I know its a bind having to sit on a train that has had its way blocked but the safest place for you is on the train allowing the trained staff to deal with the situation. I'd rather get you there late than have you carted off in an ambulance or at worst in a bodybag. If this makes me seem like a jobsworth or an officious little so and so then so be it. Safety must come first. The last thing I want in a situation like this is to have the added worry of wondering what my passengers are doing since they climbed out.

 

[Flamingo]

Because that's what the rulebook says.

No, because we work on the railways for a living, and know what dangerous places they can be.

 

[wensley]

And it should also be remembered that evacuations don't just 'happen', carefully planned and unless in exceptional circumstances I believe I am right in saying a MOM would be in attendance and staff would be supervised and guided to the nearest safe exit from railway structure...not just a case of hopping off the train and wandering down the line, which is obviously very dangerous as previous incidents (ie the case where a DOO train was without power for an extended period) have proven, passengers not properly supervised on the line are a big 'no-no', shouldn't happen, won't happen, will never happen. Too many legal and safety implications