Bluebell Railway General Discussion

That’s the end of steam then …chance of burns ,scolds ,too many hot surfaces ,chance of running someone over at a crossing ….crew falling from a running board ….and that nasty hot fire too close to the cab ….

 

The joys of survivorship bias.

It's all fun and games until someone loses a bollock.

Perhaps you could go and comfort my late grandad who saw his friend crushed to death in a shunting accident...

By the way, I'm a Manx Grand Prix marshal, so don't think I'm risk-averse, but we reduce the risk in every sane way we can.

Remember, at one stage the continuous brake on passenger stock was considered a needless expense.

 

It's GWR tanks that are the biggest problem. The top lamp bracket is recessed and there's no real place to put your feet while putting the lamp up there. If you look at other locos there are flanges around the bottom of the bunker or steps for your feet. Even in BR days some drivers didn't bother putting the lamp up on the top bracket, not worth the risk. Ergonomics was a word that completely bypassed the GWR!

 

Honestly I almost didn't post that comment as I was expecting a load of "in my day" responses rather than trying to engage. Seems people would rather have a whinge than a discussion.

 

They didn’t even think it was worth the effort to fit cab doors to tender engines. I don’t like climbing up onto the back of a Stanier tender using those inadequate steps and a couple of handrails that never seem to be in the right place, at least Bulleid Pacific tenders have proper ladders. The blower valve on LMS is located over the firehole door so in the event of a blowback the only alternative to putting your hand in the flames is to whack it with the shovel, not ideal. As you say the science of ergonomics wasn’t that well developed in the 30s

 

The key word is “sane”. @andrewtoplis outlines something well intentioned but which too easily throws out baby with bathwater because of how it’s framed. With very slight adjustment, it becomes something we should all welcome.

As for top lamps, I both agree with those who suggest it’s appropriate to derisk, and those who fear the thin end of the wedge. In both cases, the question of “why are we doing this” is central, and the justification of “preservation” dangerously open to challenge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The top bracket on an A4 is pretty hard to get at too. That's why headboards are usually placed on the lower middle bracket rather than up top.

Peter

 

No it is the premise that the first question is "do we need to do it, not "how can we make it safer". On a macro level the answer to do we need to do it i.e. have a heritage railway in the first place is no. Because whilst it brings extreme pleasure to many both volunteers and public, it is a leisure industry and therefore not essential.

 

Not really.... Swindon started a seemingly low priority program in the mid 30s of moving the top lamp iron from the top of the smokebox to one welded to the upper part of the smokebox door itself - for precisely this reason. It was never universally applied but is a useful point when trying to date photos.

They did think of such things - just not something that was considered important. It was a different time...

 

I agree, I mentioned climbing up onto the top of a Stanier tender, in practice I don’t think it’s done now using the steps unless there is no other way. The problem is applying modern H&S to old technology

 

The risk of falling when putting a lamp on a top bracket can be avoided entirely by not using that bracket. Whether that is the right solution may be a matter of opinion. The risk of falling while manhandling the hose(?) of a water crane into the hole in a tender is probably somewhat greater, but cannot be avoided entirely, so how is it minimised?

 

You could minimise that risk - low level water fillers with fire hose attachments; and do the watering from a high pressure hose supply away from a platform. (Many main line locos are set up that way since - in the absence of water cranes - it is a way to get water from a fire truck, particualrly if you at times need to take water under overhead wires). You'd lose a lot of the theatre that makes a heritage railway more than just a train ride. A former loco director wanted to go along that route for tender locos.

Tom

 

This is reducing the whole world to necessary or unnecessary. Should we stop cooking food as we could all eat cold? No, it's daft. The approach I outlined above is how you facilitate activities with risk being carried out safely, which begins with the very fair question "should we do it at all"? The answer may well be yes, in which case you would say " how can we do it as little as absolutely necessary"? and work that through. From there you might say "what could we do to give any additional protection?", which might give you some options like a safety harness if you were working at height. If that doesn't fix it, or isn't practical, you would look at things like training for the staff and PPE. By the time you get to the end point you will have reduced the risk to As Low As Reasonably Practicable which is what the law requires of safety risk. The activity can, therefore, carry on in a much better manner than without this process.

Back to the headcode example, what this achieves is reducing the frequency of working at height, it doesn't ban it if you wanted that particular code for a charter or some occasion when it was important. Assessment of risk is about Likelihood and Severity, if you reduce the frequency of a task being carried out you reduce the likelihood of injury.

Ultimately this is all about allowing things to continue, not getting rid of them.

Andy (27 years on heritage steam and looking forward to another 27).