Personal Track Safety (PTS) Question

[First class]

Hi all,

Just a quick question that one of our guards asked me earlier:

On the Merseyrail underground network, there is a grade called 'Station Assistant'. Their duties range from checking tickets to cleaning unthinkable deposits of the platforms.

Now, these staff are NOT Personal Track Safety trained.

The guard I was speaking to was concerned because two of these staff were using a machine called a Taski at Moorfields station, during operational hours, on the platforms. He also says that staff regularly use another machine, (which I belive to be called a 'Tandem').

See this link for picture: http://www.johnsondiversey.com/NR/rdonlyres/D6712CD9-25CE-48D2-90D9-B62888C15047/0/swingo1250Epc.jpg


My question is, for these staff to be operating machinery on the platforms, should they be compotent in PTS?

The rulebook says:

"Definition of On or near the line"

If you are on a station platform, you are not on or near the line unless you are within 1.25m of the platform edge (they are literally on the platform edge sometimes) AND you are carrying out engineering or technical work on the platform within that distance.

Then basically says to go on or near the line you need a Hi-Viz and PTS unless under supervison of a COSS, (which these staff arent).

So 'technical or engineering' - anybody want to comment on whether these staff are required to be trained in Personal Track Safety?


(On a side note Merseyrail only train Guards, Shunters, Drivers, some fitters and Operations Inspectors in PTS).

 

[O L Leigh]

I somehow don't think that operating a cleaning machine counts as a "technical or engineering" activity, so PTS is not required. Admittedly I can't find any source to back this up, but equally there are plenty of people with official responsibilities who are not PTS qualified.

Then again, maybe Miseryrail have specific instructions relating to the use of these machines during operating hours. I know that these machines can be seen beetling around Liv St during the middle of the day.

O L Leigh

 

[Mojo]

I don't know, I know of many other jobs where staff stand near the edge of the platform but don't have a PTS.

 

[EM2]

I doubt very much that they need PTS. You see the contract cleaners with machinery like that on the platforms at St Pancras all the time.

 

[thelem]

As a passenger I stand on the platform, not necessarily watching approaching trains and sometimes waking the wrong side of the yellow line, so I don't see why cleaning staff need to be track-trained.

 

[First class]

The thing that confuses me is that Merseyrail's contract cleaners, (Lorne Stuart), who simply clean the poster frames, clean parts of the station away from the platforms etc, are all required to possess PTS!

The Rule Book should define 'Technical' better. Some cleaners have their job title as 'Environmental Maintenance Technician' so in essence a litter picker etc...

As I say, the guard was concerned that the machine, (which is a very heavy and difficult to control machine), was being used within cm of a train, and I would imagine having platforms covered in soapy water with passengers and trains about is not a good idea...

 

[O L Leigh]

They don't leave the platform wet or soapy as there is effectively a giant squeegy at the back of the machine that dries the platform as it goes.

Not so long back we had P1 at Liv St taken out of action and a unit blocked-in because someone drove the electric tractor towing two wheelie bins off the edge of the platform. I don't think he was PTS.

It is a bit of an anomally and no mistake. If "sparks" carrying out maintenance on the platform lighting are required to be PTS competent then why not platform cleaners? One is certainly a "technical" activity, but in terms of ensuring the safety of staff, both types of work pose similar risks in terms of potential distraction and being unaware of potentially hazardous train movements.

I guess it comes down to something other than the Rule Book. Perhaps Nitwit Rail have some other document governing the levels of competence required for certain jobs on their stations. Either way, there must be some reason why almost all platform and despatch staff are permitted to work safely without being PTS competent.

O L Leigh

 

[curly42]

Money - that's the main reason that companies have cut back on PTS training.
It would make a lot of sense for all rail staff to be trained,especially platform staff.for emergencies.I can remember the old days when,to retrieve something from the track you just jumped down,got whatever it was and then climbed back up.One day at Temple Meads it was a child who slipped down between the train and the platform - Oh,hang on a moment,I'll just contact the signalman to stop all trains,then I'll go find someone who can climb down to rescue her.
Common sense - wherefore art thou now ???

 

[GB]

It would make a lot of sense for all rail staff to be trained,especially platform staff.for emergencies

In an emergency any railway employee can go on or near the line without having to have PTS certification.

As I say, the guard was concerned that the machine, (which is a very heavy and difficult to control machine), was being used within cm of a train

,

I dont see how having a PTS would make any difference?

 

[curly42]

The problem then becomes "who decides what is an emergency and what isn't".I could quote incident after incident where what was an emergency in one persons view was deemed not to be at a later inquiry.
Certain management types love to find easy solutions by blaming the lowest ranked worker that they can - and the various structures of the private industry have played right into their hands.
Welcome to blame culture U.K. - one mans emergency is anothers everyday occurance.

 

[mackenzie_blu]

In an emergency any railway employee can go on or near the line without having to have PTS certification.

Thing is tho if you do something wrong your not insured.

PTS is only if you actually go over the platform edge. I work on the platforms and my duties require me to use all the platform right upto the edge. I do not need PTS to use equipment on the platform. Note however the equipment used must have be checked and there will be a set of rule how the equipment HAS to be used and members of staff need to be trained in how to use it correctly.

Hope that helps.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem then becomes "who decides what is an emergency and what isn't".I could quote incident after incident where what was an emergency in one persons view was deemed not to be at a later inquiry.
Certain management types love to find easy solutions by blaming the lowest ranked worker that they can - and the various structures of the private industry have played right into their hands.
Welcome to blame culture U.K. - one mans emergency is anothers everyday occurance.

Basically its up the worker to decide if he/she goes on the track. In all case you'd ring the signaller before hand and likely Control before you step foot on the track. thats common sense.

Blame culture lives on the safelt culture sadly.

 

[O L Leigh]

The person who decides whether or not it is an emergency is the staff member themselves. The criteria should be obvious, covering anything that could cause an immediate danger of death or injury or damage to trains and infrastructure.

However in the example you quote of a person under a train in a station, I would personally want to make sure that the train isn't moved before making any rescue attempt. This means alerting either the platform staff, guard, driver or signaller, whichever is the quickest. It's not going to be much good delving under the train only for it to move off while I'm still under there. Once you've made sure that the train won't be moved it becomes less of an emergency as there is no longer an immediate danger.

O L Leigh

 

[GB]

The person who decides whether or not it is an emergency is the staff member themselves. The criteria should be obvious, covering anything that could cause an immediate danger of death or injury or damage to trains and infrastructure

Exactly, thats what it says in the good book so providing you follow that then there is no issue.

I would personally want to make sure that the train isn't moved before making any rescue attempt.

Correct again, in situations like you describe personal safety is priority. Getting your self killed or injured isnt at all going to help the initial victim.

 

[curly42]

I really hope your beliefs carry you through your choices.

 

[GB]

I really hope your beliefs carry you through your choices.

???

 

[HSTfan!!!]

Platform staff don't seem to get PTS trained these days, there are a number of occasions where I've been allowed on to the tracks though for various reasons. The good book says that even if you are not qualified in PTS you are permitted onto the line in order to prevent death or injury. Also on advice from the signaller I would imagine there would be exceptions.
Quite personally I would be alot more confident in doing my job if I had had some form of PTS training but don't see that changing unless I get promoted to a job where I would more likely need it more frequently as part of my job.

 

[TrainBrain185]

Platform staff don't seem to get PTS trained these days, there are a number of occasions where I've been allowed on to the tracks though for various reasons. The good book says that even if you are not qualified in PTS you are permitted onto the line in order to prevent death or injury. Also on advice from the signaller I would imagine there would be exceptions.
Quite personally I would be alot more confident in doing my job if I had had some form of PTS training but don't see that changing unless I get promoted to a job where I would more likely need it more frequently as part of my job.

My belief is that "anyone" who is expected to walk on the track for whatever reason "must" be PTS trained. I'm sorry to say I am horrified to learn of any member of staff go on tracks not being PTS competant.
Maybe making the matter reportable to CIRAS to investigate will determine if PTS is required for walking on the trackside.
Regards:

 

[O L Leigh]

I thought the matter was clear, so why bring up Ciras?

If you job requires you to go lineside (e.g. driver, PWay, shunter, etc) then you are required to be PTS competent. However, staff not competent in PTS are permitted to go lineside in an emergency in order to prevent death or injury. Where is the ambiguity in that?

O L Leigh

 

[Expression357]

Interesting, this.

I agree entirely that the provisions within the Rule Book; (which for any interested viewers can be delved through at www.rgsonline.co.uk); state that anyone member of the railway community can go on to the track to prevent imminent injury or death.

I have very little need to go to on or near the line; however, to get a Cab Pass (which I had a need for), I had to get my AC Endorsed PTS.

It acts as an aside from my dispatch license, for which I have no requirement to have PTS competance; however the over-riding principle exists; that even with out my PTS, I could dive onto the track to prevent injury or death.

I can only assume that the example from Merseyrail is only 'acceptable' as the machine on the platform is not within the parameters for being near the OHLE. Not that this is right; if you're regularly running on or near the line (despite having nil intention of ever ending up actually 'on' the line) then perhaps you should be PTS competant.

Many TOCs have their own internal Operations Standards (and equiv) teams, and this is how I was trained in my PTS; if the TOC deems that it's contractors, carrying out a task that requires PTS, then there is little excuse for not getting them competent.