Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
chris42  
#1 Posted : 25 April 2017 11:59:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I turned over the TV and watched a few minutes of a program about London underground last night. The bit I watched was about servicing a train from the Piccadilly line. I noted that the inspection pit didn’t have any form of barrier around it. I always thought that if you have a workshop pit for car / truck / bus or train then it should have a barrier or cover for the exposed part. 

I just had a little look at lnch time on workshop pits and can’t find anything specifically in the HSE info stating you should have a barrier or cover. So I guess it is all down to the work at height regs, but I would have thought you should.

Is there some special reason why a pit for a train shouldn’t have such a barrier?

Anyone worked in this area or similar and know

Chris

stonecold  
#2 Posted : 25 April 2017 12:07:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg261.pdf

Page 50 onwards, talks about the need to cover if practical and barriers etc.

Edited by user 25 April 2017 12:09:30(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked stonecold for this useful post.
chris42 on 25/04/2017(UTC)
chris42  
#3 Posted : 25 April 2017 14:21:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Thanks, Stonecold for the link, and that is what I thought.

So how come London underground don’t feel it applies to them? There seemed to be plenty of people milling about before the train came in and covered the pit (not least a film crew).

Mind you, the presenter?  Who said he had a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, was given protective clothing, and half way through putting it all on, one of the train engineers had to point out that it was best for the high vis jacket to go on the outside of his overalls  :o)

Chris

RayRapp  
#4 Posted : 25 April 2017 15:47:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I have worked in the railway industry for over 30 years including in depots with pit roads. I can recall a major project I worked on some years back where we were refurbsihing a train depot and the client's h&s advisor refused us to work in two pit roads (painting and E&M work) because we had no edge protection. The operatives were working in the pits and gaining access via steps each end of the pit road. I pointed out to him that staff (train technicians, drivers, shunters, etc) were working all day long without any edge protection...alas, we had to procure about 1,600 ft of chapter 8 barrieres!!   

Talk about double standards.

Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 25 April 2017 19:43:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Railways have their own rule book(s) - dare I mention rigger boots?

Roundtuit  
#6 Posted : 25 April 2017 19:43:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Railways have their own rule book(s) - dare I mention rigger boots?

Martin Gray  
#7 Posted : 26 April 2017 08:41:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Martin Gray

Chris42,  I was H&S Manager for VOSA (now DVSA) when HSG261 was rewritten by the HSE and involved in the discussions re pits.  VOSA did not have covered pits but had control measures in place to prevent access to the test lanes and also control measures to prevent unauthorised access to the test lanes.  This was acceptable to the HSE and the lack of incidents involving falls into pits within the organisation made this acceptable.

I have also visited GWR Engine sheds and they strung nets across the pit when the pit was not being used.

Martin

Johnmann  
#8 Posted : 26 April 2017 10:53:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Johnmann

The railway ash pit must date back to the invention of railways. It's always been like that, just like the unguarded railway platform edge!

chris42  
#9 Posted : 26 April 2017 12:21:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Interesting points from all, thanks for the info.

Yes, I had fun with network rail and rigger boots also in the past, we managed to prove our people needed to be able to crouch to do some of their work. So DVLA don’t require it and in the past rail (and it seems to this day) doesn’t either. There have been very few prosecutions that I could find, a London bus workshop and more recently a car garage where the member of public fell in after supposedly being warned by owner. HSE’s comment suggested no excuse for not having cover or barrier.

In a previous employment, the workshop was split level with about 3 big steps (30m long) going down to a robot area. We had a number of people inadvertently step back while on upper level and fall down the steps. Ended up putting a barrier all along the top with a few access points. Far more serious to fall in a pit I would have thought.

As noted railways are used to having exposed edges on platforms.

It does seem at times we are all working to different standards. I read on another post about how deep an excavation has to be, to be a trench. The answer given was half a metre and then handrails.

Seems the only people on TV who do the right thing are the villains in the movies, as they always wear their PPE etc.

Martin Gray  
#10 Posted : 26 April 2017 18:37:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Martin Gray

Chris42  

The other arguement is also the time taken to cover the pit and remove the cover against the type of work being undertaken on the site.  With VOSA the cycle for vehicle inspection was continuous and the time spent covering and uncovering the pits would have reduced the throughput for inspections.

Also the cost of installation over 100 sites with on average 2 test lanes with some having more lanes would have been cost prohibitive against the lack of incidents.

Many of the 3rd party sites I visited did n ot have covers over the pits during their opening time but when the premises closed they covered any exposed areas of the pits.

Yes you are right there is a varied response to the HSE guidance but again it is guidance and not an ACOP.

Most incidents involving falls in pits are not from the top but slips and trips when accessing the pit due to grease and oil build up on the steps or the design of the access steps.

Martin

RayRapp  
#11 Posted : 27 April 2017 08:02:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I think this thread highlights the issue of doing what is 'Resonably Practicable' very well and explains to some degree the different standards adopted throughout different industries. For example, railway platforms are a risk from falling from height, but short of major infrastructure work there is little else which can be done to reduce the risk - the cost would be prohibitive. Whereas new railway lines are now built with platform doors which only open once the train is fully berthed in the platform e.g. Jubilee Line extension.

As for pit roads in either train depots of vehicle repairs, staff are fully aware of the location and short of not looking where they are going, tripping or collapsing, there should not be a significant risk. Slightly different where members of the public may be able to access the area because they may not be so aware of the danger.

chris42  
#12 Posted : 27 April 2017 08:38:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Good points both. Yes, if you have one vehicle directly after another then a pit will not be exposed for very long. I’m not sure what I saw on the TV at the train workshop reflected that, but hard to tell from the snippet I watched.

Yes, it does show different standards adopted, and it may be that the logic of open edged platforms has been extended to their workshop. However, when I googled it I only came up with a few instances, but one of those is as below. Where in both instances with the same company it was employees who knew, the pit was there, that suffered. This was a few years ago before the fines increased, I suspect there would be more zeros now.

Bus company fined £60,000 after worker suffers spinal injuries in new cross garage incident

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has warned garage owners to ensure that workers are safe when working in or near vehicle inspection pits, following the HSE prosecution of the London Central Bus Company Limited. The prosecution followed an incident in which an employee fell into a pit and suffered spinal injuries, just over a year after another employee died in similar circumstances. 

London Central Bus Company Limited was fined £60,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,347 at The Central Criminal Courts (the Old Bailey), after the company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974. HSE Inspector Loraine Charles said: "This is an example of a company putting its employees in unnecessary danger by failing to control risks and take appropriate measures to create a safe working environment."

"On paper, London Central Bus Company had a reasonable system for controlling risks to their employees but they failed to properly implement it. They failed to focus on areas of danger and missed what the Judge, in this case, described as ‘blindingly obvious risks’. The company were aware, following the previous fatal incident, that risks arising from work around vehicle pits were significant and potentially fatal but failed to ensure that they had identified and addressed all tasks where such risks arose" 

On 21 October 2005, Omar Maouche, a bus chassis cleaner at New Cross Bus Garage, New Cross, London, fell into a vehicle inspection pit as he attempted to use a partial pit cover as a bridge to cross from one side of the pit to the other. He suffered compression of the spine, which has severely affected his working life since.

London Central Bus Company was found to have failed on many levels to ensure the safety of its employees. It had failed to carry out and implement the findings of a risk assessment which identified the hazards in Mr Maouche’s work, nor did it provide a system of work for this job that was safe and without risks to health. It had also failed to take effective measures to prevent falls in the workplace. In addition, the company did not provide employees with information about risks and their prevention, nor give the necessary training and supervision to ensure employees’ health and safety.

The failings in this case were compounded by the fact that another of the company’s employees died after falling into a vehicle pit at the same garage in July 2004. Concerns about the adequacy of the company’s risk assessments, the covering or fencing of vehicle pits when not in use and their general system for the management of health and safety had been raised during the HSE’s investigation into the earlier accident, but London Central had failed to adequately address those concerns in the intervening 15 months.

firesafety101  
#13 Posted : 27 April 2017 14:53:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

As Chris42 has written he only saw a snippet of the programme therefore we don't have the full story therefore should not judge.

I have worked for a bus company and we did not have barriers around the pits with good reason, risk assessment.

I was in fire service and we had our pits covered with boards until the pit was required.

Different scenarios with different procedures.

WAH regs. are to be followed but the risk assessment dictates the action.

chris42  
#14 Posted : 27 April 2017 16:14:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Thanks Firesafety101, Yes it was only about 10 minutes worth I watched before the train came in, but no barriers or covers in sight (background), so made me wonder.

Interested in the good reason in your risk assessment for not having barriers, as some of the pics on the internet show bus workshops with them. Note half the pics seemed to have a cover or barrier and half didn't.

Just curious

Chris

peter gotch  
#15 Posted : 28 April 2017 12:14:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Of course we don't know what would have happened if the bus company had elected for trial.

Arguments about what was reasonably practicable v probably higher fine if found guilty + discounted fine for early guilty plea.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
chris42 on 28/04/2017(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.