Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum [home] and [about]
November lockdown advice
Forum in and beyond Coronavirus
DfT Covid Travel Advice
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 08/12/20 - Tuesday Club - ONLINE
09/12/20 - Community Rail Network Awards
13/01/21 - Melksham RUG - ONLINE
Random Image
Train Running Polls Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
December 05, 2020, 05:20:51 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[129] A place in the country - Advent quiz, 5th December 2020
[99] A novel way of returning home from work
[52] Bristol Clean Air Zone proposals
[45] WECA Rail Plan
[41] Request stops - new technology to stop just in case slow downs...
[33] Could you give up flying? Meet the no-plane pioneers
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
  Print  
Author Topic: Two rail workers killed in collision with train, near Port Talbot - Wed 3 July 2019  (Read 16040 times)
didcotdean
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1252


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: November 12, 2020, 11:42:15 am »

The RAIB published its report on this today here.

"The accident occurred because the three track workers were working on a line that was open to traffic, without the presence of formally appointed lookouts to warn them of approaching trains. They were carrying out a maintenance activity which they did not know to be unnecessary. All three workers were almost certainly wearing ear defenders, because one of them was using a noisy power tool, and all had become focused on the task they were undertaking. None of them was aware that the train was approaching until it was too late for them to move to a position of safety. Subsequent acoustic measurements have shown that they would not have been able to hear the train?s warning horn.

"The system of work that the controller of site safety had proposed to implement before the work began was not adopted, and the alternative arrangements became progressively less safe as the work proceeded that morning and created conditions that made an accident much more likely."
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3730


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: November 12, 2020, 11:04:55 pm »

A quote from the recommendations of the report with potentially far reaching consequences:

Quote
10 The intent of this recommendation is to explore ways of reducing the risk
to staff who work on or near the track by creating more opportunity for
safe access to the track when trains are not running.
Network Rail, in consultation with the Department for Transport, relevant
transport authorities, ORR and other railway stakeholders, should
investigate ways of optimising the balance between the need to operate
train services and the need to enable safe access to the track for routine
maintenance tasks. Options for consideration should include:
a) the provision of gaps in the train service, during daylight off-peak
hours, to enable timely and safe access for maintenance staff
b) greater use of alternative routes or bidirectional lines to achieve the
above
c) increased availability and utilisation of weekend and night time
possessions for cyclical maintenance tasks.
Any reasonably practicable measures that are identified should then be
implemented in accordance with a timebound plan (paragraph 359b).
Logged
MVR S&T
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 277


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: November 12, 2020, 11:26:11 pm »

Should and must have different meanings in this context. there are no musts in this quote, so only a sugestion to change anything.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3730


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: November 12, 2020, 11:38:41 pm »

Should and must have different meanings in this context. there are no musts in this quote, so only a sugestion to change anything.
Hence potentially
Logged
Electric train
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3399


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: November 13, 2020, 06:32:23 pm »

A quote from the recommendations of the report with potentially far reaching consequences:

Quote
10 The intent of this recommendation is to explore ways of reducing the risk
to staff who work on or near the track by creating more opportunity for
safe access to the track when trains are not running.
Network Rail, in consultation with the Department for Transport, relevant
transport authorities, ORR and other railway stakeholders, should
investigate ways of optimising the balance between the need to operate
train services and the need to enable safe access to the track for routine
maintenance tasks. Options for consideration should include:
a) the provision of gaps in the train service, during daylight off-peak
hours, to enable timely and safe access for maintenance staff
b) greater use of alternative routes or bidirectional lines to achieve the
above
c) increased availability and utilisation of weekend and night time
possessions for cyclical maintenance tasks.
Any reasonably practicable measures that are identified should then be
implemented in accordance with a timebound plan (paragraph 359b).

There is a big drive to do more work on nights, however there are knock on effects, some are.

There has been an increase in slip, trip, fall injuries to staff due to night work (apparently is dark at night ....... who knew!! )
Less staff available during to day to react to faults and failures 
Increased complaints from lineside neighbours due to noise and light pollution from the work lights

Passengers may see a reduction in late night services
Logged

Neither a wise man nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him.     
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page