National lineside permits

so what do you think is the line between protecting the lives and property of people and the nanny state?
does compulsory seat belts and crash helmets cross the line? how about the testing of Drugs and chemicals? or closer to home high vis jackets by the line side I mean it does not mater if the loco driver can see you he can not steer round you. and any way trains are big noisy brutes so they should be ever so easy to see coming unless of cause you are looking down the viewfinder of your camera in the other direction.
so what you may consider to be the nanny state can be somebody else's safety net.

colin

 

Lineside Permits? PTS? Pffftttt who needs it. Buy a drone.

 

Then become subject to the Civil Aviation Authority to buy the operating licence, obtain information about off-limits areas, the use around power lines (including OHLE), regulations concerning use around airports especially operating heights. Not only is the CAA more draconian but their penalties for breaches are more harsh - especially on the financial penalties that it can - and will - impose.

But then linesiding is so hidebound by red tape that nothing can be as bad - can it ??

 

Whilst I understand the "mainline" PTS requirements (having held one in the past) I feel that Heritage Lines don't need such stringent regulation hence my query that the HRA take on the responsibility of negotiating a standard form of Heritage Line PTS where the requirements can (a) be eased because of the lower operating speeds (b) be easily included within the Heritage Lines SMS and (c) can be granted on a less formal basis. I accept that individual lines have neither time nor contacts to influence the ORR but I feel that the HRA - with its claim to represent the heritage movement - should prove its claim and become involved in negotiating a less stringent Heritage Line PTS system.

 

Just to clarify, many Heritage railways refuse to accept a PTS issued by Network Rail (or similar) precisely because that would go against what the ROGS legislation demands and land them open to prosecution / invalidate insurances in the admittedly unlikely event that something should go wrong.

The ORR make it very clear, an individual railways SMS (which is what a PTS certificate / pass falls under) MUST reflect that specific railway in its entirety and cannot simply be a copy of someone elses.

Network Rails PTS is geared around the Hazards on their railway, while the Bluebell PTS is geared round the Hazards on theirs. Yes they might both be railways, but things like maximum line speeds possible mean that there are significant differences between the two and as such the Bluebell takes the view that it cannot have a SMS which allows the acceptance of NR PTS on its infrastructure without contravening ROGS legislation.

As such the a Network Rail PTS holder also has to obtain a Bluebell PTS if they wish to go lineside at the latter.

 

Cloud cuckoo land, the HRA has far greater things to bother about than this, let it go.

 

I understand where you are coming from - but you don't seem to understand where the power to do anything about the situation lies.

(1) A "Heritage Line PTS System" flies completely in the face of the current ROGS legislation - specifically the absolute requirement for every single railway infrastructure provider covered by the act to have a SMS that covers ALL risks that pertain to their unique railway setup. Generalisations, omissions or leaving things up to 'common sense' are non negotiable - they are illegal and any infrastructure found to have any of these in their SMS will be subject to fines or being shut down as per the legislation.

(2) ROGS legislation is just that - primary legislation that can only be altered by the Westminster Parliament. Lobbying the ORR is useless as they can only advise on what the legislation says - not alter its requirements.

The ORR do what they do because of the legislation they are required to enforce. The ORR have no power to alter any part of ROGS - however much the HRA or others lobby them too. If you wish to alter the way ROGS legislation is interpreted then you need to be lobbying MPs to get them to amend the legislation which the ORR are duty bound to enforce.

Before ROGS became law, the HRA did lobby ministers and members of both houses to try and get alterations made and exempt Heritage Railways from as much as was possible. While the HRA did have some success in moderating the requirements as relating to Heritage Railways and did obtain an extension to the deadline by which time all railways had to be compliant with ROGS legislation, there was much they could not influence. In particular there were big concerns from various Government bodies about staff safety particularly the quality of training, testing and certification of staff as being competent to undertake various duties which compared very unfavourably with what had long been regarded as 'best practice' in the wider railway industry. As such ROGS were deliberately worded so as to make it virtually impossible for a railway to devolve stuff like PTS to 3rd parties without compromising the fundamental SMS requirement that it must fully reflect what goes on at the specific railway to which it applies.

Ironically possibly the most frustrating thing about ROGS legislation is that in itself it actually makes very few demands and contains relatively few absolutes, however those requirements it does lay out are right stinkers as it were. For example its easy to write down a few words saying that "every railway must have a unique SMS that defines all that goes on in that organisation and how all the risks therefore arising are managed" - but much, much harder for said organisation to actually put that idea into reality.

 

At the expense of winding up some of the parties to this argument there hasn't been a passenger fatality on a UK Railway (Not Tramway) for 10 years and the number of non suicide fatalities and serious injuries have roughly halved since about 2000.

So there are quite a few people around who would not he here had we not improved H&S around the railways.

 

You seem incredibly keen on inventing schemes that (1) are administratively burdensome and (2) don't meet the requirements of ROGs. Hard to see such schemes flying in those circumstances.

The bottom line is that ROGs exists, whether you like it or not, and the onus in ROGs is for lines to assess and manage their own individual risks. So any potential solution has to take into account local management, and not also become an unsupportable administrative cost on what are generally non-wealthy organisations. (Bear in mind railways have admin costs in running line side schemes, both in maintaining secure, DPA-compliant records; and in providing a suitable trainer / assessor). In the circumstances, locally administered line side permits with the requirement to obtain each individual line's own flavour of PTS is probably as good as it is going to get.

Tom

 

Some railways don't like drones. The Mid-Hants has this on its website:
"Drones must not be operated on or within 50m of Mid Hants Railway property."
I suspect others may have similar restrictions.

 

There have always been good railway photographers and we owe much to them for the true historical records we have. But in the main thy were keen photographers, it was another of their hobbies, so they were more aware of their surroundings and activities.
Today is quite different: a large section of the population have mobile 'phones and many seem to take 'photos with them as by habit. I suggest it is this that has caused the present situation.

 

Sorry to disagree, I've never seen a mobile phone user by the lineside, most of us have been doing it for years and know all the hazards well. There was a time when we could even semi officially go trackside on the national network ( shock horror) but the big railway was not the high speed system it is now. The world was also a lot more tolerant

 

Not quite IMHO. The main area of interest was the national network but - as the network operated more and faster trains and especially after privatisation - the imposition of health and safety rules has made the network less accessible hence many photographers have turned their attention to the heritage lines. Whilst these tend to reflect an earlier age and operate trains both less frequently and at much lower speed they are still hidebound by regulation which is often not visible to the visiting public.

You may note from discussion in this thread that many still do not fully understand the structure of such legislation - including me - and I am grateful to phil-d259 for his exposition that clearly shows that what heritage lines may like to do differs greatly from what the regulations allow them to do. As such photographers need to accept the restrictions and be grateful for the privileges that are granted until the ROGS regulations are amended by Parliament.

 

That's the sort of patronising nonsense we get from the safety industry. Crash helmets, seat belts and drug testing are a different thing. A high vis jacket is of no use at all you never see them anywhere else and you are just as dead if a train hits you high vis or not and you don't take photographs standing in the four foot. The only heritage line where you can be mown down by a train coming the other way is the GC but we all know the rules about facing the direction of traffic.

 

Oh dear. And which is the direction of travel on a single line? When by a line on any railway, surely all linesiders know a train can come from either direction at any time.

Steve

 

And that's what PTS training is all about. If you have passed your PTS exam and abide by the rules, it matters not one jot if you're armed with a camera or a plate layer's hammer.

 

Absolutely. We can get mown down by any train regardless of its direction of travel. Even on a siding. Assume nothing...

Steve

 

Well, being 'mown down by a train' when taking photographs is Zero. However deaths mowing the lawn are considerable. The figures below are from the US no doubt UK figures are similarly proportionate.
LAWNMOWER DEATHS AND CATASTROPHIC INJURIES IN NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA
It’s strange that most people consider mowing the lawn to be a perfectly safe and routine summer chore. In some sense, perhaps it the commonality of the task that makes it seem safe. That is, each year millions of Americans mow their lawns millions of times and no incidents occur. However, mowing the lawn is one of the most dangerous household tasks one can do. The mower’s spinning blades can cut you, the other moving parts that my crush body parts or pull loose clothing into the machine, and the weight of the machine can crush a careless operator. All in all, according to statistics compiled by the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) in 2009, nearly 20,000 people were killed by lawnmowers and nearly 300,000 suffered an injury of some type. 2011 data shows that more than 17,000 children or teens required medical attention in that year due to lawnmower injuries. Our Philadelphia wrongful death lawyers explain further below:

Maybe our safety zealots could expend their energy in areas that would really make a difference.

 

As on the WSR PTS course the punch line was ''Always expect the unexpected'' ie you could study all the engine/train movement for the day, but a unscheduled light engine movement might have to take place to rescue a broken down engine and its train, and catch you out when you are not in a safe place to get out of the way safely in time.

 

I remain concerned if WSR linesiders assume the GCR is the only heritage railway they can only get "mown down by a train coming the other way" (not my phrase) as in post #74. If that makes me a "safety zealot" then so be it

Steve