Footplate Experience

What do people make of this?

New "guidance" document from the HRA/ HMRI:

http://ukhrail.uel.ac.uk/hra/guidelines/HGR-P0036-Is01-FootplateExperienceCourses.pdf

 

Paragraph 9 aside, it doesn't actually seem to add a great deal to what railways I am/have been involved with already do. In fact, the principal difference is that this allows for other course participants and close friends to ride on the train, whereas these railways have traditionally run the train completely empty, save for the guard.

I do wonder about para 9 though - personal opinion, but as someone who makes a living from drafting documents the wording of 'on a branch line or on an extremity of line where no passenger trains are running' seems horrifically vague. Is this intended to mean on a single track section of line where the driver experience has the section token etc, and if so why not use some appropriate term, with a definitions section in the document?

'Branch line' is not an appropriate term to use in such a document, given the variety of different contexts in which it can be used.

 

Many railways already do allow other footplate course particpants to ride on the train, provided the train, whether passenger or goods, is fitted with continuous brake.

Your comments regarding the poor wording of paragraph 9 is however very pertinent. The wording seems to exclude the possibility of running training courses concurrently with service trains, in complete contrast to what many railways do currently. I do not see any need for imposing this restriction as long as the train is always in the charge of fully qualified and competent footplate staff.

One other minor point in the initial post. This is a HRA guidance document - nothing to do with HMRI which no longer exists.

 

That's how I interpreted it as well.

Regarding the document itself:

"This document has been developed with, and fully endorsed by HMRI, a directorate of the Office of Rail Regulation"

I wonder what the impetus to develop this document was?

 

Section 7 mentions a fatal accident - was that the necessary impetus? - though I don't recall one in the context of footplate experience.

 

No, it was a cleaner having a footplate ride. From memory, fireman driving, driver firing, and no one warned the cleaner, who was in the tender trimming coal on the move, that there was a bridge coming up.

I was more wondering, if it is a suggestion that a little more self - regulation might be in order?

 

That makes 3 of us. Poor document IMHO.

 

are you illuding to an accident on the MHR , Because after this going into the coal space on the move was banned it was a stupid act anyway, any one should have the common sence not to put yourself in harms way like that

 

The Mid-Hants Accident was many years ago, so won't have acted as any impetus to this document.

HMRI is indeed a directorate of the ORR now, having been transferred from the HSE.

I agree that paragraph 9 will be a problem for some railways, mainly larger ones, who do tend to run some courses when other services are running. Such lines tend to be fully signalled and you could make a very strong case that single line token working "isolates" the "activity" in the single line section in question, as long as the qualified driver/instructor takes is in charge for the departure from and arrival at token stations.

On smaller lines, the Footplate Experience tends to be on non-traffic days for a variety of reasons.

Steven

 

The MHR accident still has relevance, as it led to guidance as to what a driver could be expected to supervise. The cleaner may have done something daft, but can you expect someone new to the environment, to always behave in a correct & rational way?

All lines will have some form of token system, even if it is OEIS, else they would not be operating passenger trains, so I'm afraid I cannot agree with your argument Steven. I do not believe that these workings can just be treated as another train movement. Furthermore, if the instructor drives the loco into & out of the stations, the participant isn't going to have a whole lot to do!

Maybe the larger lines, with a daily service, will need to look at these packages as being an out of season revenue stream?

Whilst I'm inclined to agree with the general direction of the document, I fail to see why the relevant regulatory bodies couldn't simply have issued some formal guidelines. Then we would all know where we stood. If these suggestions get ignored, it will be interesting to see if some formal action follows in a few months time.

 

It looks to me like an updated version of the HMRI guidance that has existed for years, from memory of the old document I have, which admittedly I haven't studied lately, I can't see any significant changes apart from references to ROGs. Most of it's pretty much common sense really.

 

On the couple of occassions where we have run other trains at the same time as railway experiences we have issued special instructions that signalmen must bring the railway experience train to a complete stand under the protection of fixed signals before signalling the other train past. At the end of the day it's all about assessing risks properly to ensure the safety of everyone on the railway. Whatever your railway decides to do there must be properly documented risk assessments in place.

 

Exactly! It's all blindingly obvious if you're a railwayman. If however, your footplate experience is run by your railway's marketing department...