Turning a blind eye to safety

A CONTRACTOR was seriously injured earlier this year when he was forced to jump from a moving road rail vehicle (RRV) trailer during weekend engineering works near Hayle Station in Cornwall. A Rail Safety and Standards Board inquiry revealed long hours of work, a failure to disseminate the lessons from a previous accident, poor aftercare and a widespread habit by the industry of turning a blind eye to the dangerous practice of riding on vehicles not equipped for that purpose. The underlying cause of the accident began when the plant access point was moved some four miles from the work site without making provision for transporting staff between the two locations. Two road rail vehicles with flat bed trailers attached were used to take equipment back to the plant compound adjoining the access point. While each vehicle had a machine operator and a machine controller in accord with the rules, neither RRV had a second seat. On arrival at the access point the equipment was offloaded into the compound. A ballast brush was then loaded onto one trailer still attached to the remaining RRV, as it was known that this piece of equipment was going to be required later in the work plan. It was loaded unsecured across the width of the trailer, which meant that the spindles protruding from the sides overhung the trailer. All three staff then positioned themselves on the remaining trailer alongside the ballast brush for the journey back to the worksite. It was estimated that the RRV, which was now pushing the trailer, covered most of the journey at a speed of between 10 and 15 mph, even though the trailer is restricted to a maximum speed of 5 mph. However, as there is no speedometer on these RRVs, the operator has to rely on his own judgement. On entering Hayle station the overhanging ballast brush struck the platform ramp and began to lift and slew. The three men riding on the trailer leapt onto the track, but as the machine controller from the second RRV was about to jump, he stumbled and fell. He was hit by the front road wheels and run over by the rear road wheels as the RRV passed over him. It was immediately clear that he was seriously injured and was taken to hospital by air ambulance. Long hours The inquiry discovered that the RRV machine operator involved in the accident had left his home near Portsmouth at 23:00 hours on Saturday night and drove to Hayle overnight. He arrived at about 03:00 hours and then slept in his van before reporting to the signing on point at 05:45 hours. Following the accident, he was required to remain on the site in order to ultimately remove the RRV as he was at the time the only machine operator available. He finally left the site at around 19:00 hours, and while he was offered a lift, he chose to drive himself home, arriving at about midnight. The other machine operator, who was one of those standing on the trailer, was rostered to work from 06:00 hours until 18:00 hours on the Saturday, but in the event worked until 22:30 hours to complete the work. He was then called out next morning to work from 06:15 as only one machine operator had reported for duty. After the accident, he chose to drive himself to hospital to have ten stitches in a cut hand which he sustained when he leapt LAST February four RMT members were killed when a runaway trailer from a poorly maintained road-rail vehicle, owned by a private contractor, ploughed into a gang of infrastructure workers at Tebay in Cumbria. Despite numerous safety recommendations, two road- rail vehicles (RRVs) were involved in potentially lethal run- away incidents at the same Stockport site in the space of two weeks last month. The site is part of the West Coast Mainline renewal project, involving a number of contrac- tors and sub-contractors. There was also a similar run- away at Sheidmuir near Motherwell in May. As a result, RMT has urged Network Rail to bring track renewals back in-house for safety’s sake. The company recently triumphantly released figures showing that delays have delays in some areas fell by as much as 50 per cent in Wessex and the East Midlands where mainte- nance was first taken in-house. NR Deputy Chief Executive Iain Coucher said: “Network Rail delays fell by almost 30 per cent in July, making it ten straight months of sustained improvement. It’s the pas- senger and freight users who benefit from this improve- ment but there is still much more to be done”. RMT general secretary Bob Crow agreed and said that it was shocking to learn so soon after the deaths of four RMT members at Tebay that there had been two more runaway incidents this month under renewal contracts which are still being handled by private contractors. “What is even more disturbing is that the incidents, two weeks apart, appear to have happened in similar circum- stances on the same site and could so easily have claimed more lives. “After the Tebay tragedy we called for an inquiry into safety standards in the fragmented, privatised rail indus- try. So far we have had no inquiry, but the runaway inci- dents have kept on happening. It seems that safety is still taking second place to profit,” he said. Bring track renewals back in-house RMT has written to Network Rail expressing deep con- cern and asking why the first of the two Stockport inci- dents was not even mentioned at a recent meeting of the Safety Council. The exact causes of these two incidents will be estab- lished by a formal inquiry into them, but it is clear that Network Rail needs to take urgent action to control the risk of runaways by improving site management and ensuring the competency of machine operators. “The most efficient way for Network Rail to gain proper control over the assets and skills needed for the renewal of the infrastructure is to follow its own lead and bring track renewals back in-house, as it has already done with maintenance,” Bob Crow said. 14 Remember Tebay? – it’s still happening ‘Management turned a blind eye to a practice they knew was prevalent in order for the workload to be achieved’ from the trailer. He was at the hospital for some three hours, after which he drove himself home, arriving at about 21:30 hours. He told the inquiry that his employer had assessed him for working the extra shift on Sunday, but it was common for excess hours to be worked, especially by machine operators. A blind eye However, the Inquiry seemed satisfied that the employer had appropriate policies and procedures to control excessive hours. They seemed unconcerned that these policies and procedures permitted him to work over 16 hours on the Saturday followed by a short rest period of less than eight hours before resuming another 12-hour duty. Neither did they make any comment about the fact that having been involved in a serious accident, he was then allowed to drive himself to hospital with an injured hand, and from there to his home over 200 miles away, where he arrived some 15 hours after commencing work. The inquiry identified the unauthorised riding on RRVs and trailers. It is well known amongst staff that it was not permitted but, as one of the machine operators stated, it is common practice especially when there are long distances involved as no other mode of transport was available. Management also often turned a blind eye to a practice they knew was prevalent but should not be condoned in order for the workload to be achieved. The inquiry recommended that during the possession planning process, every effort should be made to minimise the length of work sites, and in particular define plant access points that are as close as practical to the actual work site. Where long distances exist between the two points, arrangements should include provision for the safe conveyance of staff. An examination of the signing on/off sheets for the work also revealed a poor level of compliance. The inquiry felt it was difficult to see how some individuals could have received any site access or safety briefings from the site access controller. Also, even where the staff did sign on, very few signed off. This meant that it would have been difficult to ascertain who was accounted for if there had been a more widespread incident. 15 Turning a blind eye - a case in point ‘A Rail Safety and Standards Board inquiry revealed long hours of work and a failure to disseminate the lessons from a previous accident’ A BLIND EYE: Staff inspect the point where an unsecured ballot brush, being transported by the Road Rail Vehicle, hit the platform at Hayle station and caused serious injuries