Passengers 'help clear tree from line'

[S19]

I do hope the people who are questioning the drivers' views on this matter never work with me in my lifetime.

It's these attitudes that can cause accidents!

Stay where you belong, on the train, and let the professionals worry about it.

(I don't work in the railway industry)

 

[Flamingo]

I do hope the people who are questioning the drivers' views on this matter never work with me in my lifetime.

It's these attitudes that can cause accidents!

Stay where you belong, on the train, and let the professionals worry about it.

(I don't work in the railway industry)

Thank you

 

[S19]

A little poem for you all.

It's not really related to passengers, but just have a think about it...

Health and Safety is there for a reason.

I could have saved a life today
but chose to look the other way.

It wasn’t that I didn’t care.
I had the time, and I was there
but I didn’t want to seem a fool
and argue over safety rules.

I knew he’d done the job before.
if I called it wrong, he might get sore.
The chances didn’t seem that bad.
(I’ve done the same. He knew I had.)

So I shook my head and walked on by.
He knew the risks as well as I.
He took the chance, I closed my eye
and with that act I let him die.

I could have saved a life that day
but chose to look the other way.

Now every time I see his wife
I know I should have saved his life.
I see his kids and feel so sad.
They cry at night. They’ve lost their Dad.

That guilt is something I must bear
but isn’t something you need share.
If you see a risk that others take,
that puts their health or life at stake ..

... The question asked, or things you say
could help them live another day.
If YOU see a risk and walk away,
then hope YOU never have to say

I could have saved a life today
but chose to look the other way.

 

[Old Timer]

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?

As good as this may sound, the H&S set up in this Country does not allow for such things, and any Company and indeed person that allowed such a thing to occur would be almost certainly Prosecuted for Offences under the H&SAW Act.

Any work on the Railway Infrastructure is subject to far more stringent processes and Procedures than is the case in other Industries, and the system does not allow Companies staff to work outside their authorised operations. Therefore TOC staff cannot by Law become involved in any work on the Railway Infrastructure, in the same way that any Infrastructure engineer could not become involved in work on rolling stock for example.

By way of example, even welding has specific standards over and above those nationally, and welders need to be trained and certificated as Competent to carry out welding operations on Railway rolling stock, equipment, and the Infrastructure. All work is also subject to pre-planning requirements and approvals which are required by Network Rail to be completed at least 14 days in advance under their own internal Procedures.

Getting out of vehicles on a road to remove obstructions is a far, far different situation as the public highway and work on it, are subject to far different and less onerous arrangements and legal requirements and duties.

 

[Marvin]

As good as this may sound, the H&S set up in this Country does not allow for such things

But if it did? If the H&SAW Act were repealed or amended?

I'm trying to get at whether the objections are purely because of the law as currently framed, or because of anything else.

 

[tsr]

But if it did? If the H&SAW Act were repealed or amended?

I'm trying to get at whether the objections are purely because of the law as currently framed, or because of anything else.

The H&SAW Act is one of the results of many years of research, plus learning from incidents. The knowledge that has gone into the Act will not permit it to simply be repealed, and any amendments will probably be to add precautions that were overlooked for any reason by previous versions and amendments. Aside from it conflicting with trespass laws, any amendment permitting untrained people without experience, training or the correct equipment to be on or near the track would be infinitely unlikely.

You may be thinking of the potential for "good Samaritan" situations - these are often not covered by law, and I think they are few and far between in a railway environment (except for on railway station platforms and concourses, where, in any case, you are not considered to be on or near the track, according to the Rule Book, unless "you are carrying out engineering or technical work within 1.25 metres (4 feet) of the platform edge").

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Where does the HASAW Act conflict with trespass laws?


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[steamybrian]

These days railway staff are frightened in case they got sued.
Perhaps "tsr" will look harder at the rule book and he will find the words ...except in an emergency.. . If the line is blocked and it becames a green zone then PTS is not required.
In BR days passengers have volunteered to help ..."in an an emergency..".
Nowadays with privatisation there is no common sense . If you want to do something then consult the rule book, consult the lawyers, consult the Health & Safety and everyone else. In the meantime you sitting in the train while the train is delayed for hours.

 

[tsr]

Where does the HASAW Act conflict with trespass laws?

It doesn't at the moment, as far as I can see. But surely passengers wandering around the track to pick things up could be trespass, even if the H&SAW by some strange occurrence permitted it. In such a situation, it might conflict.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

These days railway staff are frightened in case they got sued.

In my opinion, that is a bit of a generalisation. No doubt some staff are. Others simply don't want to do something criminal, or, more importantly, end up doing something that results in death or injury, even if they don't get sued in the end. I do agree that the "compensation culture" has gone way too far, though.

Perhaps "tsr" will look harder at the rule book and he will find the words ...except in an emergency.. . If the line is blocked and it becames a green zone then PTS is not required.

The H&SAW Act is not going to be amended on that basis, I am sure. Initially, only staff will know when a line is properly blocked (or NOT!) and whether or not an emergency has been declared. Passengers will not know if this has happened, so they cannot be expected to (and will likely not in any case) make an assessment of when it is safe to be on or near the line, and should not be able to do anything as a result, unless it is an emergency evacuation situation. The Rule Book, as anyone can see, contains definite, specific protocol for evacuations.

Perhaps more importantly, most passengers are not aware of the specific hazards in a railway environment. In anything other than a situation where they are in an imminent position of risk, it would be foolish to let them encounter these hazards. Let alone the hazards - which I know from experience and I'm sure others do - of a collapsed tree of sufficient size to block a line...

In BR days passengers have volunteered to help ..."in an an emergency..".

This does not mean it was or is a good idea for them to help. I have absolutely no idea which emergency or emergencies you are referring to. That said, in the event of a major accident, I would expect the uninjured to assist, once the electrical system was isolated (if necessary) and trains were prevented from running on the relevant lines.

Nowadays with privatisation there is no common sense . If you want to do something then consult the rule book, consult the lawyers, consult the Health & Safety and everyone else.

See the rest of this reply.

In the meantime you sitting in the train while the train is delayed for hours.

I couldn't care less, if it means the passengers and crew are safer. A fatality or injury will just add to the delays. Sorry.

 

[steamybrian]

. Initially, only staff will know when a line is properly blocked (or NOT!) and whether or not an emergency has been declared.
...once the electrical system was isolated (if necessary) and trains were prevented from running on the relevant lines.

I couldn't care less, if it means the passengers and crew are safer. A fatality or injury will just add to the delays. Sorry.

..You have answered your own arguement.. Once a line is declared blocked the current has been isolated it is protected and prevented from trains running on relevant lines.

...quote from above.....""I couldn't care less....." :roll:

 

[tsr]

..You have answered your own arguement.. Once a line is declared blocked the current has been isolated it is protected and prevented from trains running on relevant lines.

Yes, but you still have hazards which are not suitable for passengers to encounter, and should only be encountered by them if an evacuation is deemed necessary. That is my "argument".

...quote from above.....""I couldn't care less....."

What I mean is that a delay is insignificant compared to people's safety. I'm sorry if my choice of language doesn't make this clear. If an incident of this nature is taking place, it would be better for people to wait it out on the train. The delay is not the point in this conversation, nor from a safety point of view. We have already discussed what would happen in a situation where someone actually needed to leave the train if they were too ill to remain onboard. Unfortunately, sometimes people do get stuck for a couple of hours... but there is nothing anyone can do to replace life and limb. People do get injured and killed while trying to do seemingly innocent things on the track.

 

[Hydro]

. Initially, only staff will know when a line is properly blocked (or NOT!) and whether or not an emergency has been declared.
...once the electrical system was isolated (if necessary) and trains were prevented from running on the relevant lines.

I couldn't care less, if it means the passengers and crew are safer. A fatality or injury will just add to the delays. Sorry.

..You have answered your own arguement.. Once a line is declared blocked the current has been isolated it is protected and prevented from trains running on relevant lines.

...quote from above.....""I couldn't care less....." :roll:

If a line is declared blocked that does NOT mean the current has been discharged.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The safest place to be is on the train. So stay on the train. Simples!

 

[tsr]

If a line is declared blocked that does NOT mean the current has been discharged.

Exactly. And how would a customer know all about that?

The safest place to be is on the train. So stay on the train. Simples!

That is exactly my point (unless the train staff are evacuating you). Now stop arguing, folks!

 

[Flamingo]

This thread is going the same way as all the threads over the summer about passengers de-training themselves and walking along the cess because the couldn't be bothered to wait for line to re-open.

The same rugged individualists who think that the rules couldn't possibly apply to them because they are special.

There is no point trying to talk to people like that.

 

[michael769]

It doesn't at the moment, as far as I can see. But surely passengers wandering around the track to pick things up could be trespass, even if the H&SAW by some strange occurrence permitted it. In such a situation, it might conflict.

Laws are usually (there are exceptions) prohibitory in nature in that they say what you cannot do - rather than what you can do. The principle is that adults can do anything they want unless the law says they cannot.

The fact that H&SAW did not prohibit passengers from picking up debris from the railway would not suddenly make it legal if Railway Law separately prohibits entry without permission.

 

[Marvin]

The safest place to be is on the train.

That's not in doubt. But in many other walks of life people are free to choose the less-safe option if they judge the benefits to be worth the extra risk, so - in principle - why not in this one?

 

[Clip]

I'm really glad that so many untrained people are willing to step up and offer to help. I'm even more pleased that so many untrained people are willing to tell me how to do my job.

If anybody wishes to know what potentially happens when untrained people step in to help, and take over, read this thread here:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=56738

With the best will in the world, and from the best motives, they can end up with serious consequences.

Anyway, as has been said, nobody seems to know if the "passengers" on the train were railway staff or not. I would assume they were.

Come along now Flamingo - you know as well as me that rail enthusiasts who dont work in the rail industry(why?) know far more about working on the railway then we do.

I mean its not their job that is on the line(ahem) should you break policies and procedures, I mean come on we're all just 'Jobsworths' arent we who are 'elf and safety gone mad people.

But the rail enthusiast knows better then us so lets heed what they say because they pay our wages.


Though Im always at a loss as to why lots of rail enthusiasts who seem to know better dont actually work in the rail industry and put their mega theoretical route plans and thier safe systems of working(threads like this show they have none) into practice?

 

[Old Timer]

...The fact that H&SAW did not prohibit passengers from picking up debris from the railway would not suddenly make it legal if Railway Law separately prohibits entry without permission.

Railways are private property and work on them is subject to a variety of additional Regulations than is the case elsewhere.

Work (of any kind) may only be undertaken legally by an Organisation who has been subject to prior approval and who has been sepcifically Licensed to undertake this work.

All employees working on the Railway Infrastructure must be specifically competent and authorised to undertake the work they are doing.

The prevailing attitude that people can simply bale out of a train and go and work on clearing the line is a fallacy. Access to the track is restricted to people who are so authorised and suitably trained and competent to be there. Anyone who is on the Railway Infrastructure in other circumstances is legally trespassing.

This whole topic is getting akin to the notion that just because someone can fly an aircraft on Flight Simulator that they could walk into a major airline and pilot a plane.

 

[tsr]

Railways are private property and work on them is subject to a variety of additional Regulations than is the case elsewhere.

Work (of any kind) may only be undertaken legally by an Organisation who has been subject to prior approval and who has been sepcifically Licensed to undertake this work.

All employees working on the Railway Infrastructure must be specifically competent and authorised to undertake the work they are doing.

The prevailing attitude that people can simply bale out of a train and go and work on clearing the line is a fallacy. Access to the track is restricted to people who are so authorised and suitably trained and competent to be there. Anyone who is on the Railway Infrastructure in other circumstances is legally trespassing.

This whole topic is getting akin to the notion that just because someone can fly an aircraft on Flight Simulator that they could walk into a major airline and pilot a plane.

Agreed.

(However, the flight sim analogy is not necessarily completely valid because I am sure that most passengers on a plane would be less competent than anyone who has flown a flight simulator for a good number of hours when it comes to landing the real-life plane in a major emergency (although, having said that, complete novices have landed planes with instructions from SATCOs). On the other hand, even in an emergency, I doubt any train passenger without formal and comprehensive theory and practical training could reasonably be expected to undertake the tasks of a member of staff. Also, a train that isn't going anywhere due to an incident will be much safer than an out of control aircraft.

I feel it is important to add that I have flown flight simulators for many years, but I do know their limitations for training purposes.)

 

[O L Leigh]

That's not in doubt. But in many other walks of life people are free to choose the less-safe option if they judge the benefits to be worth the extra risk, so - in principle - why not in this one?

Two words. Legal responsibility.

Please, can we finally put this one to bed...?

O L Leigh

 

[ralphchadkirk]

That's not in doubt. But in many other walks of life people are free to choose the less-safe option if they judge the benefits to be worth the extra risk, so - in principle - why not in this one?

Look, you're not allowed off the train unless authorised. No member of railway staff will authorise you to do that as they will become legally responsible for you. I can't really see that anymore discussion is needed.

 

[LCC106]

I agree - this thread's turning in to another of those ones where each side of the argument just keeps getting batted back.

 

[Clip]

I agree - this thread's turning in to another of those ones where each side of the argument just keeps getting batted back.

Indeed. And goes back to my point up above about those that know, know and understand. Those that dont seem to be quite confused as to why not, even though as enthusiasts they really should know.

 

[Marvin]

Two words. Legal responsibility.

Please, can we finally put this one to bed...?

Pretty much every post since my first one has been aimed at finding out if there's any overriding principle, reasoning or rationale other than "because the rules (or laws) say so" behind the position rail staff are taking.

I guess there isn't.

Fair enough.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Pretty much every post since my first one has been aimed at finding out if there's any overriding principle, reasoning or rationale other than "because the rules (or laws) say so" behind the position rail staff are taking.

I guess there isn't.

Fair enough.

As people have said many times, the rail staff would become legally responsible for you. If they allowed you on the track they would have created a duty of care towards you. They will not want or need that responsibility.

 

[Flamingo]

Pretty much every post since my first one has been aimed at finding out if there's any overriding principle, reasoning or rationale other than "because the rules (or laws) say so" behind the position rail staff are taking.

I guess there isn't.

Fair enough.

Right, every post everybody has made has had the same basic point but I'll repeat it for you as simply as I can:

THE RAILWAY IS A DANGEROUS PLACE AND THERE ARE TOO MANY WAYS UNTRAINED PEOPLE CAN GET INJURED.

Tell me what bit of that you have trouble understanding.

(Before anybody says, I know capitals are the internet equivalent of shouting - that's why I used them).

 

[Marvin]

As people have said many times, the rail staff would become legally responsible for you.

Yes, it's because of the law. I get that.

But who said the law is are always right? What if it could be changed, so that rail staff wouldn't become legally responsible for us? Is there any reason other than the legal responsibility why you're all refusing to countenance the idea?

And if not, then why just kowtow to the law? Why not get it changed?

 

[ainsworth74]

Is there any reason other than the legal responsibility why you're all refusing to countenance the idea?

THE RAILWAY IS A DANGEROUS PLACE AND THERE ARE TOO MANY WAYS UNTRAINED PEOPLE CAN GET INJURED.

See the above.

 

[Marvin]

You're right - this IS going round in circles.

You say: it's a dangerous place, and you'll get hurt.

I say: but there are lots of other dangerous places where we're allowed to exercise our own judgement.

You say: ah, but we're not legally responsible for you there.

I say: ah, but if you weren't legally responsible for us on the railway, what then?

You say: it's a dangerous place, and you'll get hurt.

So fine, I'm done here. See you on another thread