Rother Valley Railway

- including all the Civil Engineering design, some of which might be done by paid consultants in an office; but I’m sure many elements by (appropriately qualified) volunteers at home.

 

For a recent update on the Engine Shed site click here.

 

RVR have just posted a further update on the Engine Shed preperation here. It forecasts that the infill will be completed by the end of this month.

 

Thats a huge difference from last month! It's just the very western extremity which needs bringing up a few final feet, now. Fine effort.

 

Just viewed the latest video and was concerned to see total lack of PPE on the workers despite the machinery in use and lack of any banksman for the reversing tipper truck. If this video is used as evidence by the HSE the site could be closed down and the RVR & contractor prosecuted, so if anyone here can contact the blogger he should be asked to remove this video & the RVR team reminded to ensure their contractors comply with the mandatory safety regulations.

PS it really great to see the progress and am looking forward to traveling on the completed line.

 

The only issue I think I could spot is when the roller driver stepped off of the vehicle as the tipper was backing in, while he was acting as banksman for it (judging by the hand signals he was giving) he should have had high visibility clothing on. Unless I've missed something I think he's the only worker on the ground during the duration of the video, other than the person recording the events of course. The only PPE I think you would spot on the drivers from the perspective of the shots is a high-viz and there are no requirements to wear such PPE when in the cab as it is reasonable to expect that the vehicle is probably more noticeable than what the person driving it is wearing.

It's not impossible, but I would say it would be very heavy handed for the HSE to shut down an entire site for one person not wearing a high-viz on one occasion. He should be reminded but ultimately if the construction site is operating as a CDM site, the regulation and implementation of the rules would be the ultimate responsibility of the principal contractor. It is effectively their site while they are working on it, the RVR 'staff' are just visitors for the duration.

 

The minimum requirements on building sites that I ran was HiVis, safety shoes and hard hats. Since drivers may need to get out of the cab at any time (eg roller operator/banksman) Hi Vis has to be worn and having checked the video - the truck driver is wearing HiVis when he arrives but there is no sign of any HiVis on the other operators plant. Hard hats are needed since things could fall off the tipper truck or excavator.

The main issue is that the video and photos are publicly available & the HSE could use this as evidence if they pick it up, hence my comment.

Finally I concur that the contractor is responsible for the site, but the client - in this case RVR - is also responsible if the contractor is not following safe working procedures.

 

Maybe you meant your original post with the best intentions but to me, with no involvement in this particular railway, it does come across as very much lets criticise because I know best where H & S is concerned.
I have no idea what should be done on building sites but I do know that when we had work done on the house that was a building site, deep foundations pile drivers, concrete pumps etc I never wore a hard hat or a HV jacket (other than a couple of times to annoy the neighbours next door whose objection to the build was not upheld.
Perhaps I should have been prosecuted then!

 

I recall insurances being an issue, where an organisation I am involved with discovered quite late in the day that the client had ultimate responsibility. As this involved masons working at (considerable) height, it concentrated minds.

 

That means that it has to be available, it doesn't mean it has to be worn inside the cab. The HSE rules are not there to make people do anything that doesn't make sense. Wearing a hard hat inside an excavator with a roof isn't offering you any extra protection. The HSE's rule is that hard hats must be worn where there is risk of injury to the head. It is possible to mitigate the risk of falling objects by not working in the same space. The likelihood of an object falling off the truck while it's driving is small, we don't see the truck tipping it's load in the video. We see the excavator stop work when the banksman approaches. The excavator and the roller never work in the same space.

On a busy site it is easier to employ a blanket rule of anyone out of a vehicle must wear a hard hat. On a large site with 2/3 three machines, and 2/3 operators. It would be feasible to enforce a rule to say that anyone within X meters of machine Y must wear this additional protection. PPE is quite far down the hierarchy of controls in terms of managing the risk. With a small workforce on a large site, it is still valid to say you must not go within this space while this machine is active (providing you actually have those controls in place and everyone is aware of them). Separation is still a better control than protection. I'm not saying it is the course of action I would take, but it is a course of action. He should still have a high-viz, he would save himself a lot of paper work and hassle (assuming the paper work has been done) if he wore a hard hat.

That's less clear. If a client spots something they know to be risky they have a duty to point it out, as does everyone. It cannot be assumed that the client has sufficient knowledge to make that call, that's one of the tasks you're hiring a contractor with professional knowledge for and why the CDM area comes under the contractor's control for the duration. That's why the responsibility for creating the SMS and the RAs remains with the contractor, the client has (among others) a duty to make sure that the contractors have sufficient skills and training to carry out the task and manage it safely. The client is accountable for the impact their decisions has on health and safety. We have no reason to assume that the RVR's project manager is knowledgeable in the H&S requirements of a construction site and as long as they are providing the contractor with what they need to safely manage the site they don't need to be. You wouldn't expect a florist to go and get their City and Guilds to have an electrician in, but they do need to let them know where the fuse box is.

Ultimately you are someone with experience of such sites, I hope that you have passed your concerns on to the RVR so they are able to take it up with the contractor.

 

Ricky,

My original post was my attempt to get in touch with the blogger who posted the images as there is no way of contacting them through the blog, but I have taken your suggestion and emailed the RVR directly about my concerns.

Bu way of background, I have spent much of past 20 years working on construction sites in countries where Health & Safety + PPE are luxury items and know that it doesn't automatically mean that there will be an accident. However if an inspector from the UK HSE came across the blog post the great work that is rapidly moving forward could come to a stop.

Finally I would like to comment on a couple of particular points (1) According to the blog "Within the project team we have more than one civil engineer. Even the chairman of the Trust is a civil engineer which in his provenance includes several bridges on the M5. Also, we have railway engineers both in terms of civil works as well as track at several levels. The works are regularly checked by a retired engineer who's CV included a senior position in London Underground." Clearly the RVR as a client is very knowledgeable. (2) I fully agree that most PPE does not require to be worn inside the cab of a vehicle (ear defenders might be an exception), but I couldn't see it inside their vehicles.

Cheers

Howard

 

Contacting the RVR is the best solution - The blog is part of the RVRs website [www.rvr.org.uk]

 

Hi Howard,

Fair points and well made. My apologies, I never intended to get that confrontational. It's one of the reasons when I have work on I try to limit pictures and videos to what it looked like before and what it looks like when the work is done. I've got nothing to hide, but a quick picture or video here or there can raise more questions than it answers and you can't always be in the right place to explain or defend the scenario. In this case the issues are obvious, but we still have no-one from the contractors or the RVR to explain what happened or say that it has been put right. Like you say, the best action would be to remove the video, make all the parties aware and plan for it to not happen again.

Many thanks,
Ricky

 

Probably a good job no one has drawn further attention to it by posting in a public forum then. Oh! Hang on.

 

Hi Ricky,

Thanks for the reply & also my apologies if my phraseology led to a misunderstanding.

Some years ago a company who I worked with and who were very safety orientated asked the HSE to inspect their flagship site. To their shock and horror the inspector wanted to close the site down....

Cheers

Howard

 

Some news about progress with the re-instatement here - and about the HRA visit to Tenterden here. Looks like a real start will be made on building in the late spring 2024. It's good that there has been sufficient progress behind the scenes to enable this news to be released.

 

There is a report of the visit to Tenterden on the Rother DC website here.

 

That's interesting. "...an intense two year contractor and volunteer resourced construction programme" starting next spring. So does that really mean they expect the link to be completed in 2026? I was guessing around five years at least!

 

Physically complete? Possibly. The RVR don't hang around. On the extension to Junction Road, I think it was something like 200 yards of track laid in one day. Actually ready for services? That might take a bit longer. There will be a lot of work to do besides just laying the track, and then there is all the crew training to do, too.

 

It is a Colonel Stephens light railway ! So I guess historically quick should be the answer for building it.