Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Let me be clear: when I was a union representative, it was drummed into me that, in most cases, I would know more about the Health and Safety at Work Act than the average employer. It has been a few years since I was active in this area, so some things will have changed since then.

I think the following may help

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA), employers have duties to protect everyone affected by their work, including volunteers, meaning organisations with paid staff must provide similar safety standards for volunteers as for employees, including risk assessments. While HSWA criminal law primarily targets employers, volunteers aren't subject to its direct enforcement but are protected under civil law's common law duty of care, allowing claims for negligence, so best practice dictates treating volunteers the same as paid staff. For volunteer-only groups without employees, HSWA doesn't typically apply, but they still have a common law duty of care and can face civil action if negligent, requiring them to take reasonable steps to prevent harm.

For organisations with employees (Employer's Duties)

• HSWA Applies: The Act applies to you, covering volunteers under its provisions for non-employees.
• Duty of Care: You must protect volunteers from risks, just like employees, through risk assessments and control measures.
• Equal Protection: Provide the same level of safety for volunteers in similar roles and risks as paid staff.
• Enforcement: HSE or local authorities can enforce these duties.

For volunteer-only organisations (No Employees)

• HSWA Does Not Apply (Generally): Criminal H&S law usually doesn't apply as there's no employer, unless managing non-domestic premises or construction.
• Civil Law Applies: You still owe a common law duty of care and can be sued for damages if negligent (e.g., for injury).
• Best Practice: Treat volunteers with the same care as employees; it's legally safer and morally right.

Key takeaway

• Employees: Protected by HSWA (criminal law) and civil law.
• Volunteers: Protected by civil law (duty of care) and HSWA (via employer's duty to others), but not directly by HSWA criminal law if no employees exist; best practice is equal treatment.

I do welcome this discussion since it should be paramount that everyone should be looking after everyone else while enjoying our hobby

 

You may wish to consider the ORR position on volunteers.....

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-07/wholly-volunteer-run-railways-and-the-law.pdf

 

Hi Peter, I don't disagree with you. After all, the last time I had anything to do with any of this was 1998, so 27 years have passed, and I suspect that H&S has evolved since then. That said, I do feel that Common Sense still has a part to play in today's working environment

 

Noted, but....
...as the actual railway is effectively run by the CIC, who surely do have at least one paid employee (the GM), then presumably the L&BR is not a WVRR anyway. And do not forget that it is the CIC which owns Chelfham, so therefore presumably is the H&S for that site.

 

Let us hope that the railway's SMS fully documents that and clearly identifies the relevant duty holders. Hiding behind obscuration is not a wise tactic when dealing with ORR.

 

I don't think there is a distinction between an "occasional' or "frequent" volunteer. If you volunteer, for example, to tend the station platform flower beds and only visit once or twice a year, there is still a responsibility on the railway to ensure that while you are working you do so in a safe manner and are adequately trained. In that specific example that is quite likely to include being trained in working at height, given the proximity of a platform edge. The frequency with which you carry out the role doesn't come into it - the responsibility is there whether you volunteer one day or 100 days in a year.

I suspect that in reality there is probably rather more pragmatism in place at most railways over the provision of PPE than is laid out precisely in the law. For example, I'm sure that most volunteer footplate staff would provide their own overalls and boots if for no other reasons than comfort, cleanliness and convenience; but if you were asked to go into a dusty environment such as a firebox, it would be a reasonable expectation that the company would provide suitable face masks and eye protection etc.

Tom

 

It always bemused me on one heritage railway where I was a volunteer that, because I worked 'on a station' I had to have PTS track-side training and competency, even tho' my volunteer activities were conducted entirely indoors and well away from any running lines - yet passengers were able to stand at platform edges within inches of passing trains to take photographs!

 

Did anyone else see the More on 4 railway programme the other night with the L&BR on it, and what did you think of it?

 

I recorded it and watched it yesterday, primarily for the L&BR section. To be blunt, blink and you would have missed the coverage compared with the other locations. Much of it seemed to repeat what has been covered in previous similar series. After 5 minutes the 'gushing' presenters 'grated' on me so much that I turned the sound off and fast-forwarded and speed-read the subtitles. After that I went back to reading the latest issue of Railway Modeller....
Of course, others may enthuse about it.....

 

From an enthusiast's viewpoint, it could have been so much better, but in the end, if it gets our name out there, and brings even a few more visitors to Woody Bay to see Henry and spend their money, then it's all good - 'there is no such thing as bad publicity'.

 

The latest from Woody Bay: https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/news/view/carriage-shelter-construction-is-complete

 

I must confess that clearly I had not studied the Carriage Shelter plans carefully enough to realise that it was only going to be boarded on one side. Still, at least any visitors will be able to get a good view of any stock in the shelter from the car-park side. A nice, tidy-looking job. Let's hope it survives the next 'named storm' !

 

Same here. I was very surprised that the eastern side was left open. Likewise, RW, I can't be very good at interpretation of plans. Still, at least it's the "lee" side.
I left a question on the L&B Facebook site asking the same question, but it was taken down. Make of that what you will. At least there is covered accommodation, now.

 

A similar question was answered on another Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/friendsoflandb/permalink/1477957647274425/ including a response from the GM.

Full details of the planning application are available online: https://planning.agileapplications.co.uk/exmoor/application-details/24964

 

One the L&B's works diesels - HEDDON HALL - is returned to service, resplendent in a new livery:
https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/news/view/new-look-for-heddon-hall

 

A very nice job done on HH, but can someone remind me please why that plain grey livery was chosen? The website calls it 'stunning' - personally I find it very boring, it reminds me of 'battleship grey'. OK, so the former L&BR livery would not be historically accurate, but surely something a bit more adventurous/colourful could have been chosen?

Awaits chorus of disapproval......

 

I think that the grey livery is quite appropriate for a works locomotive: it looks quite attractive in my opinion. It was chosen, I suspect, with some forethought by the people who were responsible for painting it. Marks 10/10.

 

But it is boring and unattractive to the public, and a bit of a wasted opportunity I think.