SVR General Discussion

I think we are in danger of not finding some middle ground here… I don’t think anyone’s suggesting any Red Adair type heroics, when half of Eardington bank’s on fire but I also can understand if your trackside and you might have to happen to find a cinder slightly smouldering and you can just quite literally stamp it out with your heel whilst you happen to come across it.

Anyhow we get back to lineside clearance and how unglamorous but necessary it is?

 

All the railways that do allow lineside permits insist on attending a PTS course and they are costly so only they very keen ones would apply. There’s are no exemptions, even for people like me who have done the NR course to work as mainline support crew.
I’m afraid your post is an illustration of how totally out of control H&S has become in this country. A train passes, I see a few flames in the grass and stamp it out. What training do you consider I need for that? Should I just leave it to spread and maybe take out acres of farmland? The way things are going life will be so safe and restricted it won’t be worth living.

 

By the same token, your post has highlighted that you are someone who I wouldn't want anywhere near any safety critical work.

Just because you have your main line PTS does should not give free pass to go wherever you want.

Do you realise how entitled you sound?

Why should any railway give you permission to be in a potentially high risk environment for *no practical use* to them?

"It's all Health and Safety's fault" how many times do I hear this or similar.

No, it's not.

Nobody is saying you couldn't choose to do that, however- if you had been asked to, by the railway they would be taking a level of responsibility for your actions, and therefore if you got it wrong, caused damage, injured yourself etc etc. *potentially* they could be exposed.

Health as safety done right should be seen as a help, not a hindrance to make us critical of how we work to *find the safest practicable way*.

However, there has to be risk benefit analysis beyond;

"Well I have always done it so I should still be able to."

Things move on.

Chris

 

I did say or infer any of that but next time I see a lineside fire I’ll walk on and let it spread.

 

I apologise if I have taken your posts not in the tone intended however-

There is a difference between you, taking it upon yourself to act.

And an act, endorsed by a body in control as you suggested in an earlier post.

Nobody is saying don't squash out some cinders

What I am saying is that if you were instructed to do so as you suggested earlier in the thread there is a level of responsibility accepted by whoever has instructed you to act- therefore they have a level of responsibility for your safety and *should* make sure you are instructed accordingly.

If a railway was to ask people to be line side and keep en eye out for fires I would expect them to give you some training- it could be as simple as;

- they might provide you with fire beaters and a basic "how to" of how to use one effectively.

- Guideline or threshold at which point it must be escalated to the signaller(s) or Responsible officer.

- Guidelines on what stage it must be escalated to the emergency services.

That way they have done their bit to provide for you as far as is reasonably practicable to be safe.

Chris

 

I'm definitely not in the "it's all Health and Safety gone mad" crowd, and am generally receptive to the fact that times move on. I'd be the first to point out the survivor bias in comments such as "we walked wherever we wanted 40 years ago and never came to any harm" for example.

However - I do think that it is possible to manage the risks of line side photography adequately.

Firstly, I'd dispute the statement "Why should any railway give you permission to be in a potentially high risk environment for *no practical use* to them?" There's a practical use of allowing line side photography (the harassed newsletter editor writes...) which is the constant supply of good quality photographs that can be used for publicity purposes. Now, there is no contract that says that a line side photographer must send their photos to a railway's publicity department; and nor is there an expectation that every photographer is a genius at light and composition. But enough are good, and enough do send their photos through, to make it worthwhile - and I have yet to find a lineside photographer refuse a reasonable request to use a particular photo.

As far as risk goes, that has to be managed. That isn't a question about getting every photographer to absorb the railway's operational rule book, which necessarily has all sorts of rules and special instructions that are basically irrelevant. (I don't suppose many photographers need to know how to implement pilot man working in the event of a signalling equipment failure, but drivers, firemen and signalmen need to). The core rules are about maintaining a safe distance from the line; maintaining a steady stance (no precarious perches to obtain that "perfect" angle); responding promptly to whistles; wearing appropriate clothing and respecting any "out of bounds" areas.

From a footplate point of view, it is normal that there are p/way and S&T staff working on the line at any time. So you are on the alert for people line side anyway; it hardly matters if they are photographers or p/way provided they react appropriately when you whistle. I'd suggest - in my experience at least - that the bigger risk is pedestrians on foot crossings: because they are just using a footpath to cross the line, there is no requirement that they have undergone any form of training, nor that they wear high visibility clothing, and there is always the temptation for one to stand the wrong side of the access gate to get their nice snap. Seeing a family group standing by a foot crossing always worries me that one of them may make an unexpected move far more than seeing someone dressed in orange behind a camera.

Edit to add: I'm coming at this from a footplate point of view - I have no knowledge about the business impact (i.e. does it change insurance premiums) nor about how much paid management time is spent managing a line side photographic scheme. But from a purely operational point of view, it doesn't strike me as especially problematic provided appropriate controls are taken.

Tom

 

I don’t think the railway needs to instruct linsiders about fire beating, it’s a natural instinct to do what is right in the circumstances at the time. A few sparks can spread very quickly, if you’ve ever seen a field fire in standing crops you will know it spreads faster than anyone can outrun it. My priority would be to stop it getting that far and the fact I was trespassing by jumping the railway fence wouldn’t be a consideration. A more extreme case would be seeing a track worker trip and fall unconscious in the four foot, I wouldn’t need any H&S protocol to react to that, get him to a place of safety dial 999 and render first aid as necessary, I did attend a first aid course run by the mainline loco society I’m a member of and I would recommend that anyone working in safety critical work on a railway does the same, no operation undertaken can be entirely risk free.

 

In my area of work we have actually removed fire extinguishers from public communal areas - on fire service advice. Their stance is that they do not want to encourage people to fight fires as they could put themselves at harm. They would prefer people get themselves to safety as quickly as possible & call the experts.
Also, in providing a fire extinguisher you should always provide a level of training in its use, i.e correct extinguisher for the correct fire. In a business setting this maybe fire marshalls, but far trickier in public settings. Unfortunately in today's world we could be liable if someone came to harm in using an extinguisher we provided, but had not provided the correct training for - obviously in a public setting it is impossible to provide training for everyone who may use that space.
In the real world, anybody would likely take quick action to extinguish a small fire to prevent it getting worse, but at statutory level organisations have to be very careful as to what they permit and allow.

 

But you would and you do even without realising. Otherwise you would run into the 4 foot to save the chap regardless of there being a train bearing down on him. You know whether or not it is safe to put yourself in that area to retrieve him. You've done a risk assessment on the fly. That is basic H&S protocol.

I'm not sure if you're intentionally missing the point now but no one is suggesting it would not be anyone's natural instinct to stamp out a spark. They are responsible for assessing the risk to themselves for doing so. The point is if you instruct people to do it you are inviting them to put themselves at risk. If you ask someone to perform a task but then do not provide the proper training or equipment to do so you are putting yourself in a very risky position liability wise. You know when you should back off from the fire that has spread out from that spark, what about the guy with their back turned to it while he's beating another bit with his jacket, or the one who rolled his ankle trying to scramble down an embankment?

You said it yourself, if the fire can spread faster than you can outrun it, what possible good reason can there be for instructing unprepared photographers to run towards it?

 

I wouldn’t ask photographers to put out fires, that’s the whole point. I wasn’t asked when I did a heritage railway PTS course. You do it because it’s the right thing to do.

 

And when the heritage railway builds that into it's justification for allowing photographers' PTS?

There are benefits, and I personally think that there is excessive caution around photographers' PTS, but the argument has to be either that PTS is sustainable in it's own right, OR that PTS confers additional safety benefits on the railway for which PTS holders are trained and equipped. That a PTS holder might do first aid/stamp out a cinder/deter vandalism can be measured after the event, but not factored into the pre-approval assessment.

You rightly object to people trying to have it both ways; please don't fall into that trap yourself.

 

I dint see why they need to
Incorporate any of that, you are unnecessarily complicating things

 

Then don't argue that these benefits are part of the case for PTS.

 

Any ideas as to what’s happening at Highley? Some sort of shunt going on at the Engine House? Bit odd seeing Lady A on the webcam

 

Lady A "temporarily" left the Engine House in June 2021 in order to create space for a 'Staycation' event. I guess her extended holiday at Kidderminster is over. I'm probably at the SVR tomorrow and I'll pop in and have a look if I get the chance. Just seen the gronk on the webcam taking the Jinty and the Standard Tank back.

 

Does anyone know if Lady A has a future as an operational locomotive or just static display?

 

Following up on my previous post, the Jinty has left the Engine House (presumably to the Carriage Shed) and Lady A has returned, although unfortunately adorned with a 'Thomas' face.

The Warwickshire Industrial Locomotive Preservation Trust who own Lady A also own Manning Wardle 2047 Warwickshire which is currently under restoration at Bewdley. I imagine nothing will happen with Lady A until Warwickshire is finished. The Trust had a web page which is kept regularly up to date with news on both locomotives.

https://wilt.jimdo.com/

 

According to Matt Robinson on the SVR diesels group on Facebook, 4930 has failed and will be replaced on S2 tomorrow by 20142.

 

https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2024/05/severn-valley-railway-starts-new-funding-appeal.html

Is this another appeal or a re-hash of the £1.5m "save the railway" appeal?