And I'm sure with suitably designed fencing
You “hazard a guess”
Risk assessments are not based on guesses.
What is “suitably designed fencing”?
And I'm sure with suitably designed fencing
I'm not carrying out a risk assessment. You tell me what are the stats for trespasser deaths for Third Rail and OHL normalised by the route mile. How many have their been over say the last five years?You “hazard a guess”
Risk assessments are not based on guesses.
What is “suitably designed fencing”?
I'm not carrying out a risk assessment. You tell me what are the stats for trespasser deaths for Third Rail and OHL normalised by the route mile. How many have their been over say the last five years?
By suitable fencing I mean better than currently used in third rail areas which form what I can see varies a lot. That used on HS1 would be a starting point.
Have a look on the RSSB website, the third rail safety assessment is there.I'm not carrying out a risk assessment. You tell me what are the stats for trespasser deaths for Third Rail and OHL normalised by the route mile. How many have their been over say the last five years?
By suitable fencing I mean better than currently used in third rail areas which form what I can see varies a lot. That used on HS1 would be a starting point.
So we just ignore statistics then? What do you tell the family of the lad killed by OHL trespassing at Daventry? Sorry for your loss but OHL is safe?
Well yes, but that doesn't mean that the views of the deceased's family are necessarily correct when it comes to the broader picture.I have, and can assure you that any glib words about 'never mind that, what about the air quality?' would not have gone down well.
Tell that to the family of the guy who died whilst trespassing last week
How about we tell them this is what happens when you trespass onto a railway, because only professionals who know what they are doing are allowed near them for obvious reasons. If you trespass and then you died because of that, that's your responsibility. The signs are there to read.So we just ignore statistics then? What do you tell the family of the lad killed by OHL trespassing at Daventry? Sorry for your loss but OHL is safe?
As I exampled above, for an inquisitive nine-year-old following a staff shortcut there are NO signs. And a professional who 'knew what he was doing' got electrocuted right next me because he assumed that someone else had followed proper procedures.How about we tell them this is what happens when you trespass onto a railway, because only professionals who know what they are doing are allowed near them for obvious reasons. If you trespass and then you died because of that, that's your responsibility. The signs are there to read.
Well in that case the issue is the presence of the staff shortcut...As I exampled above, for an inquisitive nine-year-old following a staff shortcut there are NO signs.
If railways are properly fenced off then all well and good BUT at every level crossing or station there is easy access to the track-bed if the electricity is high up out of reach you cannot step on it. Even for staff when supposed to be on the track the juice is out of the way for more activities.Well in that case the issue is the presence of the staff shortcut...
1500VDC would have almost all of the civil costs of 25kV ac but higher initial costs because of more feeds needed and in service more power consumption because of higher cable losses. So there's no point in re-inventing another standard for probably no overall benefit.I do think some third rail is inevitable where is fills a gap.
I do dream of conversion to bottom or side contact as maybe safer but would also not allow rain-water/snow to stand on the third rail and freeze. maybe 1,500 DC overhead would be not be much more expensive but give better safety.
Well then the solution is more signs, and anyone who didn't do their job (in this case, turning off the power) should be fired. Put the responsibility on people, not the third rail, because railways themselves could deemed too dangerous if we aren't careful.As I exampled above, for an inquisitive nine-year-old following a staff shortcut there are NO signs. And a professional who 'knew what he was doing' got electrocuted right next me because he assumed that someone else had followed proper procedures.
Welcome to the sad consequences of real life.
'Don't get yourself hurt' is no longer an acceptable working practice in the eyes of the law where reasonable precautions could have been taken to minimise the risk regardless of Human nature.Well then the solution is more signs, and anyone who didn't do their job (in this case, turning off the power) should be fired. Put the responsibility on people, not the third rail, because railways themselves could deemed too dangerous if we aren't careful.
The law didnt change. They allowed lawyers to operate in a no win, no fee basis. So now people can make vexatious claims that companies and their insurers dont defend because paying the compo is cheaper than a court case.'Don't get yourself hurt' is no longer an acceptable working practice in the eyes of the law where reasonable precautions could have been taken to minimise the risk regardless of Human nature.
If you want the railway to start taking more risks, you need the law to change.
Were the level of potential dangers the same for OLE as it is for 3rd rail (both of which are lower CO2/pollutant solutions than the default diesel with its whole spectrum of environmental hazards), then there might be a case for a balanced deployment of informative and protective solutions. The simple fact is that 3rd rail is nowhere as safe as OLE (irrespective of the voltage on the wires) which the reported figures year after year demonstrate. That's allowing for a level of non-reporting of 3rd rail incidents that are by their nature close calls.Put the responsibility on people, not the third rail, because railways themselves could deemed too dangerous if we aren't careful.
But then how does that affect similar systems like the fourth rail on the London Underground? Unless that is somehow safer, how on earth could that system be changed without bankrupting the country?If deaths and injuries continue there will be increasing pressure to commit to a programme to remove the hazard, which if sensibly done will be integrated with renewal/refurbishment of civil infrastructure that would currently affect establishing sufficient clearances for OLE.
Well, "reasonable precautions" are a very slippery concept...'Don't get yourself hurt' is no longer an acceptable working practice in the eyes of the law where reasonable precautions could have been taken to minimise the risk regardless of Human nature.
Well LU's systm is considerably diffrent from National Rail 3rd rail:But then how does that affect similar systems like the fourth rail on the London Underground? Unless that is somehow safer, how on earth could that system be changed without bankrupting the country?
Were the level of potential dangers the same for OLE as it is for 3rd rail (both of which are lower CO2/pollutant solutions than the default diesel with its whole spectrum of environmental hazards), then there might be a case for a balanced deployment of informative and protective solutions. The simple fact is that 3rd rail is nowhere as safe as OLE (irrespective of the voltage on the wires) which the reported figures year after year demonstrate. That's allowing for a level of non-reporting of 3rd rail incidents that are by their nature close calls.
So the position on any significant extension of 3rd rail is still a no-go and the the grandfather rights are a legal fudge that effectively allows existing practices to continue because of the impracticality of changing the whole 3rd rail network in a very short time. I doubt there will be any broadening of the scope of grandfather rights.
If deaths and injuries continue there will be increasing pressure to commit to a programme to remove the hazard, which if sensibly done will be integrated with renewal/refurbishment of civil infrastructure that would currently affect establishing sufficient clearances for OLE.
Perhaps someone who is going to be on the track later in the day will be using the road, as a pedestrian or in/on a vehicle. Anyone got numbers which is more unsafe. The time using the road or the time on the track. Obvs, a trained track worked is less likely to get hurt on the track than a trespasser.That's a bit of a nonsense position though.
Just because third rail might not be "as safe" as OLE, that doesn't mean it is unsafe. Infact a third rail electrified route will be safer than many other forms of transport.
To a certain extent the law has changed, inasmuch as things like the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and all manner of subsequent acts affecting business and landowners (that annoyinglu slip my mind at the moment) have increased the duty of care that these parties have to pay not just to employees but all persons present on their premises.The law didnt change. They allowed lawyers to operate in a no win, no fee basis. So now people can make vexatious claims that companies and their insurers dont defend because paying the compo is cheaper than a court case.
So now many people do stupid things (like trespass on a railway) and expect compo for getting hurt.
In India you are expected to look out for your own safety and if you get it wrong, its not the railways fault, but yours. Accidents involving people on a live railway are not even considered railway accidents.
The present regulatory environment doesn't permit comparisons across modes, as you well know.That's a bit of a nonsense position though.
Just because third rail might not be "as safe" as OLE, that doesn't mean it is unsafe. Infact a third rail electrified route will be safer than many other forms of transport.
For better and for worse, the railway has a responsibility for mitigating hazards as far as is reasonably possible. "Trespass" is no longer a valid defence.How about we tell them this is what happens when you trespass onto a railway, because only professionals who know what they are doing are allowed near them for obvious reasons. If you trespass and then you died because of that, that's your responsibility. The signs are there to read.
Which is why safety engineering exists.Well, "reasonable precautions" are a very slippery concept...
The present regulatory environment doesn't permit comparisons across modes, as you well know.
Frankly politicians currently have much bigger fish to fry....Well, that's precisely the problem that needs to be changed.
No, that's really just citing a safety shortfall in one area to excuse a slightly less serious failing in another. Safety cases must stand in their own right as a loss of life etc., arising by a failure of a duty of care cannot be mitigated by comparing it to losses of life elsewhere.Well, that's precisely the problem that needs to be changed.
Well it did for the risk assessment to withdraw the Chiltern ATP system did. It specifically compared the increased risk of accidents from no ATP to the risk of passengers traveling by road if service was reduced due to ATP faults neding stock to be withdrawn.The present regulatory environment doesn't permit comparisons across modes, as you well know.
See Chiltern ATPNo, that's really just citing a safety shortfall in one area to excuse a slightly less serious failing in another. Safety cases must stand in their own right as a loss of life etc., arising by a failure of a duty of care cannot be mitigated by comparing it to losses of life elsewhere.
It was considered that, with a worst case of ATP systems failing irreparably on 20 per cent of units per year, the safety risk from Option B would exceed the risk from Option A, taking into account the potential for intermodal transfer to car or bus if trains were withdrawn from service. This strongly indicated the safer option would be Option A, and for trains to continue to operate using TPWS and AWS if their ATP systems could not be repaired.
That's a strawman argument. The subject in hand here is the fundamental safety of 3rd rail to staff, passengers and anybody else who is present on railway property for whatever reason. A critical factor is that the danger is permanently present, even if the train service is not in operation.Well it did for the risk assessment to withdraw the Chiltern ATP system did. It specifically compared the increased risk of accidents from no ATP to the risk of passengers traveling by road if service was reduced due to ATP faults neding stock to be withdrawn.
See Chiltern ATP
Presumably the benefit would be that by converting one form of DC electrification to another, there wouldn't be the same electrical complications where third-rail sections adjoined overhead sections, and it would be easier to convert the network piecemeal.1500VDC would have almost all of the civil costs of 25kV ac but higher initial costs because of more feeds needed and in service more power consumption because of higher cable losses. So there's no point in re-inventing another standard for probably no overall benefit.
Well that's not strictly true given the existance of modern SCADA.That's a strawman argument. The subject in hand here is the fundamental safety of 3rd rail to staff, passengers and anybody else who is present on railway property for whatever reason. A critical factor is that the danger is permanently present, even if the train service is not in operation.
Perhaps someone who is going to be on the track later in the day will be using the road, as a pedestrian or in/on a vehicle. Anyone got numbers which is more unsafe. The time using the road or the time on the track. Obvs, a trained track worked is less likely to get hurt on the track than a trespasser.
I am thinking of the oft quoted statistic that says the most dangerous part of flying is the journey to and from the airport