Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
End of through trains
Bristol to Waterloo?

 
Please sign our petition
(more information)
 
Campaign links here
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 17:55 27 Nov 2021
- Covid: South Africa 'punished' for detecting new Omicron variant
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 03/12/21 - TWSW AGM - online
09/12/21 - Award Event - CRN
19/01/22 - MTUG - regular meeting
08/03/22 - WWRUG AGM - B-o-A
Random Image
Train RunningCancelled
17:15 Penzance to Plymouth
17:34 Gunnislake to Plymouth
17:48 Falmouth Docks to Truro
17:58 Exeter St Davids to Plymouth
18:26 Plymouth to Gunnislake
19:18 Gunnislake to Plymouth
19:27 Plymouth to Penzance
19:42 Truro to Falmouth Docks
20:08 Falmouth Docks to Truro
20:45 Truro to Falmouth Docks
21:20 Falmouth Docks to Truro
Short Run
14:20 Penzance to London Paddington
14:56 Paignton to London Paddington
20:32 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
Delayed
14:04 London Paddington to Penzance
14:50 Penzance to Plymouth
15:15 Penzance to Plymouth
15:48 London Paddington to Swansea
15:50 Penzance to Bristol Temple Meads
16:02 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
16:20 Penzance to London Paddington
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
November 27, 2021, 06:09:52 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[171] Day one - cruising in the time of Covid
[153] XC short notice alterations due to driver unavailability.
[69] For a change, a smile from SWR
[58] 2020-21 station usage
[53] Threats to bus and tube services in London.
[36] Bike spaces on IETs
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 23579 times)
didcotdean
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1314


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

The RAIB (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) 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: 4050


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» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) 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
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 377


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: 4050


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
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3641


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» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) 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
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4479



View Profile
« Reply #65 on: February 13, 2021, 11:49:04 am »

On electrified routes, it should be possible to provide night time work lighting affixed to the OHLE gantries. A permanent installation but only turned on when needed. This would greatly reduce the risk of trips and falls.
In extreme weather it might be worth turning on the lights in order that the infrastructure and surroundings may be kept under close observation.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3641


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


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: February 13, 2021, 05:23:10 pm »

On electrified routes, it should be possible to provide night time work lighting affixed to the OHLE gantries. A permanent installation but only turned on when needed. This would greatly reduce the risk of trips and falls.
In extreme weather it might be worth turning on the lights in order that the infrastructure and surroundings may be kept under close observation.

Whilst it sounds like a good idea there are a number of issues.

OLE (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") structures on the GW (Great Western) am 100 metres apart, therefore quite powerful lighting would be required, this could be hazardous to train drivers on adjacent open lines.
The OLE structures are not high enough with the 100 metre spacing and would cause shadows in the middle area which would increase the slips trips and fall hazards
Where fixed light has been installed at junctions, even with correct direction of the light fittings and shielding complaints from lineside neighbours due to the light pollution almost renders them useless.
The maintenance of the lights is problematical.

The reason I am sceptical .................. it has already been tried on the West Coast Mainline at a number of junctions and was remove quite quickly because of the issues above and few more.

With battery and LED technology we have today site lighting is easier to deal with.

Most staff slip trips and falls are actually getting in and out of the van or off loading the vans and walking down access stairs and paths to the line side
 
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
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1137



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: February 13, 2021, 06:52:08 pm »

From my experience as a passenger passing works for nearly two decades - aren't the works at night usually lit by temporary site lighting at a low level that seems to illuminate track works quite well?
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4050


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: February 13, 2021, 10:18:49 pm »

On electrified routes, it should be possible to provide night time work lighting affixed to the OHLE gantries. A permanent installation but only turned on when needed. This would greatly reduce the risk of trips and falls.
In extreme weather it might be worth turning on the lights in order that the infrastructure and surroundings may be kept under close observation.

Lighting will need a voltage significantly below 50/25kV. This will require a step down power supply which essentially means an additional low voltage power supply in parallel with the traction power.  This would be an additional cost with the only offset being that it could presumably be supported on the OLE (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") infrastructure. The cost would therefore be significant.  Far better to take power from the 650V signalling power supply where that is present. 
Logged
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3641


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


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: February 14, 2021, 07:44:16 am »

From my experience as a passenger passing works for nearly two decades - aren't the works at night usually lit by temporary site lighting at a low level that seems to illuminate track works quite well?

The portable / mobile lighting provides both task lighting (200 Lux plus) and general illumination 10 / 20 Lux).  The one thing that fixed lighting on columns cannot provide easily in task lighting portable / mobile is able to provide the task lighting.

On electrified routes, it should be possible to provide night time work lighting affixed to the OHLE gantries. A permanent installation but only turned on when needed. This would greatly reduce the risk of trips and falls.
In extreme weather it might be worth turning on the lights in order that the infrastructure and surroundings may be kept under close observation.

Lighting will need a voltage significantly below 50/25kV. This will require a step down power supply which essentially means an additional low voltage power supply in parallel with the traction power.  This would be an additional cost with the only offset being that it could presumably be supported on the OLE (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") infrastructure. The cost would therefore be significant.  Far better to take power from the 650V signalling power supply where that is present. 

The 650V signalling supplies generally do not have the capacity to provide site lighting loads.  Signalling Power Supplies are also a safety critical system using them for general supplies would pose a risk to the safety critical system.  Also the transitory nature of track works means the cost of modifying the 650V system against the times it would be used probably would not have the cost saving benefit.

NR» (Network Rail - home page) are trialling portable tower lighting with LED lights that are battery powered that have sola / wind generation which means at night they run on battery during the day when not in use the sola and wind charge the batteries, they also have a small generator to charge the batteries.  The great thing about these is they are silent at night, the generator only runs is need during the day
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