4555 Damage at South Devon?

If I were a passenger affected by the impact on services, I might be asking why something that stops the job for a non-incident is acceptable. I would also be asking why, if the consequences of even a minor touch, are the job stop, mitigations aren't considered appropriate for the event, rather than just the consequences of that event. Putting a risk management hat on, I would also be curious as to why it was deemed acceptable to increase the probability of an incident, however minor, while spending significantly to mitigate the impact of that incident.

We are veering well off topic, but there is a Twitter account called "ratemybuffers". Judging by the ratings it gives, it seems to be very keen on measures that consume large amounts of space (friction arresters with clear space behind) rather than managing a less perfect engineering option that permits use of limited space for actually running trains. The installation at Whitby triggers similar thoughts in me.

 

Ratemybuffers, wasn't a Tory mps forced to resign after looking at that in the house of commons?

 

In steam days there was no formal training on different types of locos, a driver was expected to take on whatever he was allocated. With enthusiast specials using ‘foreign’ motive power the loco was often worked by a crew familiar with it from the home region and a local conductor driver. Even that could lead to problems, Bert Hooker told the story of when he took a Merchant Navy over Shap. He was getting a bit worried about water but was assured that they could fill up at Dillicar, as they entered the Lune Gorge the fireman was instructed to get ready to drop the scoop. A bit difficult on a Southern engine, there isn’t one!

 

I'm not sure its over dramatised at all, a near miss/hit or incident with no damage or injury should be used as an opportunity to reflect and review procedures- its how we learn and how Health and Safety in the workplace evolves.

I'm not arguing that it's not suitable, however it is a mitigation for an incident occurring, not a control measure to prevent the incident occurring in the first place.

The fact that an investigation has occurred is good- because hopefully it will either reinforce the case that yes, the set up is suitable or no, we need to look at lessons to be learned.

Chris

 

So what do you propose? Not getting out of bed in the morning? Replacing drivers by robots? Every allowance was made for human error in this instance and it worked just fine. We are not talking about a train crashing into the buffers at speed. This was a very low speed shunting error and I fail to see what other control measures would be relevant here.

Peter

 

With a friction arrestor, unless you can be certain it has sprung back to it’s original position (and they don’t always), you have potentially compromised it’s effectiveness for the next thing which hits it. So reporting and getting it checked out is definitely the way to go.

The advantage of them of course is that they minimise damage to trains (and people) in low speed bumps. Which probably covers the majority of terminal platform incidents.

Can’t comment on the specifics at Whitby, never been there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Read my earlier post.

Someone not on the footplate to be the eyes for the driver if they are not in a position to have good vision- I'm struggling to see how using a procedure used in shunting elsewhere is seen as a big problem.

Fixed visual markers displayed to give distances.

They are both controls, both would be easy to implement, cost virtually nothing and potentially improve the safety of the process.

Once again, it MAY be that following an incident and an investigation it could be decided that no further action is required.

With regard your question about proposing not getting out of bed- thats the kind of nonsense and attitude I have to deal with EVERY day.

Health and Safety is about keeping people safe, and part of that process in analysing and critiquing near misses.

I am very pragmatic about safety, I have to be- otherwise I wouldn't be able to do my job- I work in high risk environments all day every day.

I also deliver training and advise on high risk activities.

Chris

 

If you read my posts I have never suggested otherwise. Human error does occur and people can misjudge distance. All I'm saying is that you need to have adequate safeguards in place should this happen - in this instance those safeguards were in place and proved to be effective. What more do you want? Those of us who operate in the heritage railway sector know only too well that we operate in a high risk environment every time we sign on duty. It is sometimes reassuring to know that devises that are in place to keep us all safe actually work when put to the test.

Peter

 

The worst aspect of the Whitby event seems to have been that the train was impounded, delaying the passengers, while the extremely minor actual incident was investigated – rather than a quick "No harm done: let's keep the trains running" and then the investigation.

The latter happens every (operating) day on preserved railways, it happens with railtours on the main line, it happens with EMUs on the ex-Southern network and it happens occasionally with other passenger trains on the main line. The only difference is that everyone involved expects the very gentle impact of the buffers or the centre coupling, whereas at Whitby the expectation was that the loco would stop some distance short of the buffer.

I have noticed that trains full of passengers stop well short of the buffers at many termini, even when the buffers are the energy-absorbing kind, thus forcing every passenger to walk several extra yards. Customer service?

 

Full disclosure, I have no experience in a railway environment more on construction sites, however the idea of shifting a 100 odd ton piece of machinery round a corner without the operator having line of sight without at least a banksman in place flabbergasts me, our SSOW wouldn't let you do that with a transit van.

 

When teaching sailing I regularly point out that if you stop a foot too far away from a jetty all that happens is embarrassment, whereas...

 

But, a transit van isn't on rails...

 

The driving standards for my own TOC are that you are to stop 6ft/2m off buffer ends or stabled unit. Making contact with a buffer stop is an operational incident/collision, as is making contact with another unit which you are not booked to tie on to. The caveat with the latter is, even if booked to tie on, you cannot couple up until you have stopped your own train and begun coupling preparations by inspecting couplers, ensuring the other unit is secure with doors closed etc.

Edit : I should also add further caveats to the above. This covers our EMU and DMU fleet on a generic level. There are some terminus platforms where you are advised to stop with an increased distance than 6ft from the buffers due to platform dispatched hardware locations, signal sighting on other end of platform or due to other unique anomalies. The HST operating instructions I believe are also different, stating a larger distance than 6ft but that fleet isn't on my ticket so my knowledge is limited there.

 

All that is needed is for the fireman, or the ground frame operator, to see the driver to the blocks. Beats me why some seem to missing the simplest solution.
Pat

 

Quite!

 

Dangerously radical there, Pat!

 

Sounds rather different to the approach that used to appear to be taken by TPE when coupling two 185 units which was to drive them together with ever increasing velocity until the coupling worked!

 

Ever driven a reasonable sized superheated steam loco? So you're the driver of a Black 5 with a Deeley brake, not the best of things to finesse. You stop slightly short of the the mark (yes, there is one.) and you give it a whiff of steam to get there. It doesn't move so you give it a bit more; it moves rather quickly and you go for the brake. Too late. One reason why stopping 6 feet before coupling up as per the rules is one of the worst things you can do with a large steam loco.

 

Absolutely this. I've seen comments before about stopping short then buffering up. Totally the wrong way to drive a steam engine.