the rail safety summit - special edition

Rail SafetySpecialA Rail Media Special Edition to coincide with the Rail Safety Summit 2012.

19th April ~ Loughborough University

Rail-Safety-Mag-2012-Quark_Rail Safety Mag A4 21/03/2012 10:06

Safety eyewear that’s worth a second look

Swiss One and ASE Corporate Eyecare work together to

bring you the best in safety eyewear and eyecare. From

prescription eyewear to safety goggles and more. For

further information please call Peter Coleman on:

01572 747687

If you would like to see a range of our products and

services please visit our stand at the Rail Safety

Summit at the Loughborough University Campus at

Holywell Conference Park Loughborough on 19th April

2012.

Visit us at the Rail Safety Summit – 19th April 2012

Talk to us

for all your

eyecare needs

With a suite of workshops to suit your organisation, Atkins’ Safe by Choice courses are now available.

Tailored for all levels of staff ranging from managers to supervisors, site operatives to designers this essential award-winning SbC behavioural based safety programme will challenge your existing cultural approach to safety.

Our range of workshops are available nationwide, so get in contact for more information and to book a place:

Steve Wiskin+44 (0)845 609 9260 [email protected]/safetytrainingPlan Design Enable

Safe by Choice, not by chance>


The rail industry is beating the recession in terms

of rising passenger numbers and work being

carried out to improve and increase its

infrastructure. With a Governmental

commitment to High Speed 2 and Crossrail

underway, we are entering what may prove to be

the fastest expansion of our railways since they

were first built.

London Underground is arguably now working

more reliably than it has for some time, but

productivity improvements and project work

especially must be completed safely, as we get

closer to the Olympics.

Network Rail has been steered into a welcome

new direction since the appointment of David

Higgins as its Chief Executive. The new Route

Directors and Train Operating Companies have

been offered the opportunity to become directly

involved in locally organised maintenance

initiatives. They are set to work closely together

both making economies and improving

performance in terms of safety as well as

reliability.

Network Rail’s investment projects organisation

has arguably never been busier and its transition

into a competitive commercially run project

management organisation is only just beginning.

The concerns of the Office of Rail Regulation in a

number of areas are well known and reflect the

findings of the Rail Accident Investigation

Branch. Can significant safety improvements be

realised with the new devolved Route

Organisations?.

Leadership and safety cultures within the

industry have long been my chief concern. There

is now a new determination to tackle these

problems. Many look exclusively to the rail

infrastructure owners for leadership on this, but

we must all take responsibility.

The Rail Safety Summit, the Conference run by

Rail Media at Loughborough is your opportunity

to get up to date and have your say - don’t miss it!

Colin Wheeler BSc (Eng), CEng, FICE, FPWI

Rail Safety Summit Host

3www.railsafetysummit.com

We must all takeour share of theresponsibility.

Rail Safety Summit19th April 2012Loughborough University

www.railsafetysummit.com

08.30Registration and exhibition viewing

09.30Conference openingColin Wheeler

09.40Preparing for and dealing with emergency incidents Willie Baker, Emergency Incident Consultant

10.00FirstGroup’sapproachto influencingbehavioural safetySeamus Scallon, FirstGroup

10.20Q&A with Speakers

10.40Coffee / Exhibition

11.10 Where are we on the ‘Safety Awards rostrum’?Steve Diksa, Bridgeway Consulting

11.30 The road to ‘World Class’ Catherine Behan, Transport for London

11.50 A Perspective on SafetyGareth Llewellyn, Network Rail

12.15 Q&A with Speakers

12.30 Lunch / Exhibition

13.30 Leadership and zero-accident cultures in the workplace Jeff “Odie” Espenship, Target Leadership

13.55Better TogetherSteve Enright, Southern


14.35 Coffee / Exhibition

15.00 Safe use of road-rail vehicles Liesel Von Metz, HM Inspector of Railways

15.25 Improving Safety in Train Maintenance depots Christian Fletcher, Zonegreen


16.00 Conference Close

AGENDA


David Shirres reports

Britain’s railways are among the safest in

Europe, ranking second for passenger safety and

sixth for workforce safety out of 25 EU member

states. Anna Walker, non-executive Chairman of

the Office of Rail Regulation, recently

acknowledged this safety record during

November’s IOSH Railway Conference, but

warned there is no room for complacency.

In his presentation to the last Safety Summit in

May 2011, Paul Taylor, Director of Network

Rail’s Safety Leadership and Culture Change

Programme, also highlighted the dangers of

complacency. Paul explained that once rules,

procedures, tools, equipment and PPE had been

considered, the focus has to be the environment

in which people work and improving workforce

engagement. He stated: “Workforce engagement

requires trust and an improved safety culture at

all levels, and this is being addressed by Network

Rail’s Safety Leadership and Culture Change

(SLCC) Programme. Part of this extends into the

working environment, which requires improved

project and equipment design.”

To bring about such design improvements, the

SLCC programme now includes a “Safety by

Design” initiative. This reinforces the

requirements of the Construction (Design and

Management) Regulations, which have required

designers to “avoid foreseeable risks to the

health and safety of any person at work or any

person carrying out construction work” since

1995. The regulations require designers to

eliminate risks if it is reasonably practicable to

do so and, if not, to mitigate those risks. They

4 www.railsafetysummit.com

TheDesign SafetyComparative EU railway passenger and fatality rates

Change over Project Lifecycle


also require the designer to provide information

about risks that can’t be eliminated by design.

Safe design championsKeith Miller has worked on railway civil

engineering projects for 34 years, having

previously been the senior project manager for

the Forth Bridge repainting project. Although

head of construction for Network Rail’s Building

and Civils projects, he is currently seconded to

the SLCC Programme to manage Safety by

Design.

Keith’s belief in the need for this initiative is

clear as he has seen the results of designs which

have not adequately considered or

communicated workforce risk: “One example of

poor safety by design that springs to mind was a

chamfer on a bridge beam which made it

unstable when transported. This resulted in a

serious injury whilst it was unloaded. More

needs to be done to prevent such accidents and

that’s why I’m glad to be leading this initiative.”

One of Keith’s allies is Lee Parlett, Network Rail’s

Heath and Safety Manager for its Crossrail and

Reading Programme. Lee is also enthusiastic

about the concept of building safety into designs.

Indeed his belief in this concept is such that he

recently completed a 53-page dissertation

entitled “Consideration of construction safety

during the design phase of railway infrastructure

projects” as part of his MSc course on Health and

Safety Management.

Lee’s dissertation makes interesting reading. Its

literature review includes a 2004 HSE study

which concluded that designers could have taken

steps to prevent 43% of fatal construction

accidents and quotes similar statistics from other

literature. As part of the Crossrail Programme,

Lee is well placed to help implement this concept.

The design prizeIf done at the conceptual project stage, workforce

safety improvements can be introduced at

minimal cost, as shown by a graph of change

over a typical project lifecycle. Such design safety

improvements are also likely to offer

construction and maintenance cost savings from,

say, improved productivity and access, and can

be illustrated by the following examples:

• Providing structures with scaffolding fixture

points for future maintenance;

• Locating equipment cabinets greater than

three metres from the line with no requirement

to go “on or near the line”;

• Mitigating the risk of neck and shoulder injuries

whilst using a heavy drill to drill large numbers of

holes in a ceiling by the provision of an adjustable

lever attached to scaffolding to lift the drill;


CHALLENGE


• Access route for heavy materials within a

building identified at design stage to enable use

of mechanised plant;

• Use of lightweight TroTred troughing (as

described in The Rail Engineer issue 83,

September 2011) to provide a combined cable

route and safe cess.

Barriers to successDesigning for workforce safety is a legal

requirement which offers potentially large safety

and cost benefits at minimal expense. However,

this concept is often not applied. Examples

include the installation of axle counters in the six

foot rather than the cess, new S&C being

installed without an access point, and lines

converted to bi-directional working without

additional track protection. Nevertheless, as

Keith says, “I’ve got a huge amount of respect for

Network Rail’s designers. They face the

challenging task of designing safe rail

infrastructure in accordance with the numerous

applicable standards.”

Perhaps this partly indicates the problem, as

hazard identification at the design stage is unlikely

to be effective if it is standard driven. Instead it

requires an understanding of the construction and

maintenance problems which may be unique to

individual projects. Hence the requirement, at an

early stage in the project, to bring designers

together with construction and maintenance

personnel. Design often has to be discipline

specific, whilst risk mitigation generally requires a

multi-functional approach. For example, the track

designers’ remit for replacement S&C may not

include either permanent or temporary access.

Lack of awareness is another reason why

construction safety is not adequately considered

at the design stage. Lee’s dissertation illustrates

this by a review of lessons learnt during the West

Coast project. Although the project teams had

identified 1080 lessons learnt which could benefit

other projects, no Safety by Design issues were

identified, indicating a lack of awareness that

inadequate design for safety could be a problem.

Accident reports almost invariably only consider

immediate and underlying causes during the

construction phase so, as a result, report

recommendations are unlikely to address design

activities that may have occurred a year

previously.

So far as the Construction, Design and

Management (CDM) Regulations are concerned,

the role of the designer is not limited to

technically qualified engineers. The HSE’s

Industry Guidance for Designers shows how

roles which are not normally thought of as

designers can take decisions that have an impact

on the health and safety of others. For example,

clients might unduly limit available land, insist

on a particular surface finish or limit

maintenance access by specifying soft

landscaping. As far as the CDM Regulations are

concerned, these are design decisions. However,

those who make such decisions are probably not

aware that they are adopting the CDM Designer’s

role.

Strategy for successNetwork Rail’s strategy for Safety by Design is

designed to overcome these issues, and Keith is

confident that it will deliver the required design

improvements: “The strategy is a two-stage

approach. The first stage is to build awareness

and develop tools to deliver the CDM designer’s

duties, while the second stage will make sure

these tools are embedded into the Network Rail

design process. This will also include a review of

all applicable standards.”

The first stage builds on much that has already

been done including CDM training, lessons

learnt intranet pages, risk assessment

workshops, improved information on drawings

and pilot schemes such as undertaken on

Crossrail. The CDM awareness training given to

all Network Rail’s project personnel includes a

video illustrating how decisions in offices can

affect site safety.

Keith is particularly pleased with the Lessons

Learned page on Network Rail’s internal intranet

system, Connect: “It’s an effective way of sharing

lessons learnt, as they used to get buried in

documents which were not easily accessible.

Another good example I’ve come across is a

similar initiative piloted by the Thameslink

project - warning triangles are provided on

construction drawings to highlight residual

safety risks that cannot be designed out.”

Work still in progress includes CDM training for

particular roles and defining best practice

Designer’s Risk Assessments which will form the

basis of a risk awareness training programme. The

standard designs already published on Connect

are being reviewed to eliminate, if possible,

residual risks and to confirm that remaining risks

are clearly identified by warning triangles on

drawings. Workshops with industry partners are


Bad Design: Axle Counter in the six foot rather than the cess


to be held to enable CDM Co-ordinators to

effectively participate in design reviews and for

Contractor’s Responsible Engineers to consider

design risk assessments. A further workshop will

specifically consider how infrastructure design can

reduce maintenance difficulties. Network Rail is

also sponsoring the development of products to

improve safety and seeks ideas through its

Innovation website (as described in The Rail

Engineer issue 84, October 2011).

Crossrail also pioneers safe designThe Crossrail Programme is being delivered by

various industry partners with Network Rail

being responsible for the works on the existing

rail network. This includes around £1 billion of

work between Paddington and Maidenhead,

connections to the new tunnel portal at

Paddington and a new flyover over the Great

Western mainline to Heathrow. The Crossrail

Project is the central work, mainly in tunnels,

which is delivered by Crossrail Limited with

Bechtel as CDM Co-ordinator.

Crossrail’s emphasis on design safety is reflected

in a Health and Safety award given to Capita

Symonds in April 2010, the first given to a

consultancy. This was granted for commitment to

health and safety issues in design, specifically for

tunnel portals at North Woolwich and Plumstead

which allowed for safe railway operation,

including emergency escape. Design safety is also

stressed in Crossrail’s overall Health Safety and

Environmental Standard which is supported by

their guide “Health by Design” which includes

toolkits to assist designers to identify and reduce

construction hazards. This is available from

www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/download/483.

Interestingly, this guide focuses on health risks

and provides possible design solutions for

particular hazards.

Although Crossrail’s guide is not mandated on

Network Rail, Lee has used it as support material

for “My Role with the Designer” workshops

which have been held for all Crossrail and

Reading programme staff with CDM

responsibilities. These workshops aim to raise

the profile of construction worker safety as a

design objective and to provide the tools to do

this. One such tool is CHAIR (Constructability

Hazard Assessment Implication Review), a

technique developed in Australia to reduce

construction, maintenance, repair and

demolition safety risks associated with design.

A CHAIR review was recently undertaken for an

embankment which forms part of Crossrail’s new

Heathrow flyover. This took 2 hours, involved 15

people and identified 30 risk reduction measures

to be incorporated into the design including

integrated reinforcing wall edge protection,

lifting lugs for pre-fabricated panels, emergency

egress and water run off mitigation. This

reinforced Lee’s belief in the Safety by Design

philosophy as it showed that, with relatively little

effort, it had really made a difference.

A lesson from the pastIn 1916, Richard Maunsell, Chief Mechanical

Engineer of the South Eastern and Chatham

Railway, gave his presidential address to the

Institution of Locomotive Engineers on the

subject of locomotive design and maintenance.

He concluded by saying that “The engineer

instinctively looks for the prominence of details

which he knows should be accessible and he

rightly regards as a monstrosity a machine which

is lacking in this respect.”

Although a long time ago, and referring to a

different type of railway engineering, this

statement applies equally to an axle counter

unnecessarily installed in the six foot. It’s good to

know Network Rail is taking action to avoid such

monstrosities in future.

Network Rail’s assistance in the preparation of

this article is gratefully acknowledged. Further

information on a CDM Designer’s duties is

available from the HSE website at:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/

construction/cdm/designers.htm


Network Rail’s Lessons Learned Intranet

Crossrail Design Hazards Example



WE ASKED WILLIE BAKER...1) Would a dramatic reduction in thenumber of rules, regulations and standardsbenefit both our safety culture andperformance?

Probably not! The advantage in having

procedures is that they can help to focus attention

on what is important, and let us not forget just

how inherently safe the railways are in the UK.

The disadvantage is that they can be sometimes

viewed as a ‘backside covering’ exercise and no

one benefits from this. The important point for

me is about having rules, regulations and

standards that are clear, relevant, concise and

understood by all, and to achieve this requires

frequent, high quality training delivered at an

appropriate level to the appropriate audience. As

an eminent professor once said “you can tell a

person of any age anything – as long as you pitch

it at the right level”!

2) Should line managers and supervisors berewarded for safety performance or doesthis lead to under-reporting?

I am not sure I can ever recall an occasion when a

person being recognised for doing something that

has improved safety on the railways has

prompted others not to report things! I can think

of occasions when people have reported what

they ‘think’ was a safety issue that turned out not

to be, and subsequently felt miffed when they

were ignored. In March this year the Chartered

Management Institute published a report

highlighting their research that nearly 50% of line

managers in the UK were considered ineffective

by their staff. Maybe some managers simply need

to be better and more effective communicators up

and down the organisation when it comes to

managing matters of safety or perceived matters

of safety?

3) Do we need separate categories for nearmisses and close calls?

What I believe is required are effective and

efficient systems and processes that are well

managed and audited so that issues are quickly

recognised, accurately categorised and promptly

remedied. All this should be done in a

transparent and accountable way. The whole

arena of systems and process is a significant

element of the Post Graduate Certificate in the

Management of Passenger Transport Emergency

Incidents, and has already attracted a lot of

attention. Systems often do not require any

alteration at all, but the staff to whom they apply

often need better training!

4) Has the profile and hence effectivenessof the Railway Inspectorate been reducedby being subsumed into the Office of RailRegulation?

There is probably a debate to be had about the

individual and aligned roles and responsibilities

of these organisations, along with the RSSB and

the RAIB.

5) How could the devolution of Network Railinto route responsible managementimprove both safety culture andperformance?

I am a firm believer in healthy competition, and a

measure of ‘being healthy’ necessitates others to

recognise and accept improvements in a mature

way putting aside individual ego’s and petty

disagreements. I also believe that one of the arts

of good management is to get out of the way of

your staff! Newly appointed Route Directors now

have an enormous opportunity to view their

organisation and shape it into what it needs to

look like, with the right people in the right place,

correctly trained and appropriately resourced. I

am old enough to remember Area Managers of

the 1960’s 70’s and 80’s, many of whom were

skilled, talented people, devoted to their industry

and I see the recent devolution as an exciting

opportunity to build on many of the best bits of

the past, as well as shape the industry for the

future.

6) To improve safety performance do wenow need new forms of contract in the railindustry?

I’m not convinced that contracts inspire and

motivate people to give of their best! Having good

people who know their role and responsibility

and are therefore accountable is probably more

important that tinkering with contracts. In lesson

8 of his 13 rules of leadership Gen. Colin Powell

said; “Organisation doesn’t really accomplish

anything. Plans don’t accomplish anything either.

Theories of management don’t much matter.

Endeavour’s succeed or fail because of the people

involved. Only by attracting the best people will

you accomplish great deeds.”

7) Do we value and trust competent railworkers to the extent that they deserve?

Not always, and when we do it is not always

consistent, but before people start beating

themselves up let us remember that the rail

industry is not alone in this important aspect of

employee recognition, and it sure is a lot better

than it used to be, so let’s keep on getting better

and better. Organisations that have the happiest

work force are also the most profitable. Fact!

8) Many train-crew, contractors and agencystaff still travel large distances to work.Does this increase the risk of accidents andwhat could be done to reduce thetravelling?

It is right for managers to be aware of the time

and distance some people spend commuting to

work but it need not necessarily be a bad thing or

something that poses a risk. I was not alone when

I spent many years commuting large distances on

a daily basis, but I managed my time so as to

make the commute to work part of my working

day, and part of my daily relaxation on the way

home. By all means talk this through with staff,

and ensure their wellbeing but don’t be surprised

if they are more on top of their emails, and have

read more books or enjoyed more music than

you!






















Preparing for and dealing withemergencyincidents

Willie BakerEmergency Incident Consultant

The Hidden Report into the Clapham train crash

of 1988 unearthed a failure to carry “sincere

intentions” from “thought into deed” and

recommended that exercises simulating

emergency incidents should be carried out on a

regular basis.

Is the planning, preparation and training started

by Hidden over twenty years ago still happening

the way it should?

Willie spent 33 years in the British Transport

Police and had involvement in all the major

incidents that took place in the recent past,

including the London bombings. He was the first

‘silver’ at Paddington, wrote the Prime Minister’s

briefing after Gt. Heck and spent four days in

‘Gold’ command at Ufton Nervet.

Since retirement in 2008 his work has included

taking the lead on the writing of emergency plans

and procedures together with all associated

training for the two most recently opened

passenger railways in the world; The Dubai

Metro and the Saudi Arabian metro for the Hajj

pilgrims.

AGENDA



WE ASKED SEAMUS SCALLON...1) Would a dramatic reduction in thenumber of rules, regulations and standardsbenefit both our safety culture andperformance?

Certainly there is scope for simplification and

removal of some actions which don’t actually

control risks. However, for generations the

Industry has relied on Rules, Regulations and

latterly Standards for controlling of risk.

Changing from a dependant to an independent or

interdependent safety culture is a massive step

that needs to be supported by a gradual transition

plan, which ensures a collective understanding of

risk and a full commitment to safety both from an

individual and team perspective.


There is always a possibility of performance

rewards driving behaviour that could lead to

under reporting, but I would consider the risk can

be managed by agreeing reasonable targets,

suitable audit, verification and quality control

checks within safety reporting processes. I would

have a view that good safety performance should

not be excluded from a reward structure, as

leadership and accountability are important

drivers to enhance safety.


I agree that we should have separate definitions

as the data is of vital importance as lead

indicators.


I would not agree that the profile or effectiveness

of the Inspectorate has reduced since the change.

In my opinion they are making effective use of

both their powers and resource, though there is a

perception that the general public see ORR as the

financial regulator, rather than safety regulator

and believe the HSE are safety regulators.

In terms of the Inspectorate itself, they actually

have more power as they can see the finance

behind franchises more easily, and can therefore

look more closely at CBA output and attempt

to“influence” franchise change. They have

perhaps lost the close interfaces with HSE experts

in non-railway fields which is a problem as they

do not all have a broad enough skill set to cover

the whole area of regulation which they have to

cover, eg COSHH, construction etc.

I'm not personally convinced that the HSE

support to them fully appreciates or understands

the rail industry as well as it used to, and at times

this can lead to some misunderstanding.


The changes accompanying devolution will

provide an excellent opportunity for both a

bespoke and innovative approach to managing

route risk and improving safety culture. This

should also ensure greater local knowledge and

improved understanding of particular

performance issues. Currently JSIP/ JPIPs go

some way to helping, but they are only just

beginning to manage the interfaces between

TOCs and NR.


The tendering process probably needs to be more

explicit in terms of corporate values and

workforce safety culture expectations. This

approach would likely require reinforcement as

an integral part of the contract management

regime.


Trust and integrity is a critical factor in defining

positive relationships with the workforce and it

its something that can often feature heavily in the

findings of safety climate surveys. The answer to

this question will be dependent on the

organisation’s approach to this value, but in my

opinion the development of trust is the most

critical component in creating a robust safety

culture.


Fatigue is obviously a factor here and the main

controls currently are applied through

recruitment, proactive management and

monitoring. However, given the current

economic position, people will seek work

wherever they can.

Controlling the risk through a restriction in travel

times to book-on points may also lead to loss of

the best staff, therefore adversely affecting

performance in other ways. Where practicable

flexible working and remote signing on may be

ways to reduce travelling, although in other

scenarios perhaps some solutions could arise

through a partnership approach with the Trade

Unions.






















FirstGroup’sapproach toinfluencingbehavioural safety

Seamus ScallonSafety Director, UK Rail, FirstGroup

In 2006, FirstGroup introduced Injury

Prevention as an innovative approach to tackling

unsafe behaviour. The objective was to

encourage people to talk about safety, share

concerns and work together to take action and to

put safety at the top of the agenda. At the very

heart of Injury Prevention is the belief that “If

you cannot do it safely, don’t do it”.

Central to the strategy is the Injury Prevention

Handbook, which symbolises the empowerment

to all FirstGroup’s 130,000 employees to talk

openly about safety and to take action to prevent

injuries. In the presentation opportunity will be

taken to cover the successes, challenges and

future aspirations for the Group.

Seamus has over 30 years operational and safety

management experience at a senior level within

the rail industry. He has expertise in developing

and enhancing safety management systems, and

also brings together the wide range of expertise

available within FirstGroup’s Rail Division to

achieve the relentless pursuit of safety excellence

in all areas.

AGENDA



www.rss-rail.com

The Innovative Magnetic Safety Barrier.

The RSS Railway Safety System consists of only two components.

Compliant with EN13374

No loose components

No tools needed

No danger of damaging underground signalling cables

Tamping and Ballast cleaning can continue in-situ

Very fast build time - major savings in working and

possession costs

Safe, simple and light

Fast assembly / disassembly with no requirement to

remove or replace ballast

Innovative Railway Safety Ltd

Ty Penmynydd, Llangennith,

Swansea, SA3 1DT

Tel: 07974 065798

Email: [email protected]

www.inrailsafe.co.uk

By any measure, Rail Safety Systems BV of the

Netherlands have had a spectacular year. The

company won the prestigious European

Innovation Award at the Rail-Tech Europe trade

fair in Amersfoort, Holland; and after exhaustive

testing and trials, the magnetic barrier has

received product acceptance approval from both

the TUV in Germany and Network Rail in the UK.

In one trial it proved over 20 times quicker to erect

and dismantle than conventional barriers, reduced

the physical effort of the operatives and the ballast

was not disturbed. Installed correctly, it does not

affect AZLM 30h axle counters or DC track circuit

signals.

The jury at Rail-Tech Europe found it the most

innovative product based on inventiveness,

sustainability and praised the system’s simple and

rapid assembly and dismantling. “All together, the

crucial significance of safety for employees

performing maintenance work on the track was

reason enough for the jury to send Rail Safety

Systems home with the 2011 European

Innovation Award”, said jury chairman Professor

Riessberger.

The Magnetic Safety Barrierwhen working on the trackWith increasing speeds, cost constraints and

increasing pressure to do more with less resource,

the fundamental principle remains that employees

that perform engineering work on the track must

be able to work in total safety. A physical barrier

needs to screen the area being worked from the

track on which trains are still running; and the

RSS magnetically attached barrier fulfills this

function in all respects:

• The RSS Railway Safety System has been tested

by HHC/DRS Inspecties B.V. and certified to EN

13374 (Class A), the industry directive RLN0077-

V004 July 2010 and the Health & Safety

regulation 3.16 of The Netherlands Ministry of

Social Affairs & Employment.

• The magnet is very strong (tensile force up to

600 Kg/N) and cannot be pulled off.

• Easy dismantling with one arm movement, using

the patented head attachment.

• Stanchions made of high-quality galvanized steel.

Rail Safety Systems have appointed Innovative

Railway Safety Ltd as the exclusive agent for GB

and Ireland and they foresee an exciting future for

the product in the rail infrastructure, enabling

companies to work more efficiently, and safely

whilst reducing possession times and

associated costs.

The most innovative product



WE ASKED STEVE DIKSA...1) Would a dramatic reduction in thenumber of rules, regulations and standardsbenefit both our safety culture andperformance?

A significant effort has gone into Rule Book

simplification since I received my first issue of my

first red Rule Book in 1978. The Railway Safety

and Standards Board (RSSB) have recently made

positive progress with the latest tranches of the

rule book modules and these have been well

received by frontline operational staff. I’m sure

that there is more to be done to ensure that staff

know and adhere to the rules and I’m aware that

London Underground have achieved much success

with the simplification of their rule book – perhaps

this is an ideal situation for collaborative working

between Underground / Overground in order to

share lessons learnt and good practice. It’s

important that our staff can understand why the

rules are being simplified and how they will carry

out their duties and what the content of their

training will be. Complex as they may be they are

a life line that the staff will not want to let go of

until they have another line to grasp and trust.

The recent RAG (Red, Amber, Green) grading of

Network Rail Standards have also been viewed in a

positive way and the combination of

NR/L2/EBM/STP/001 and NR/L3/STP/002 is

also a welcome move in providing a single ‘User

Manual’ for the end user. So to summarise, I

believe the UK rail industry is moving in the right

direction but let’s keep listening to the feedback

from the end users and really understand what

they want and let’s not assume that we think we

know what they want.


Less incidents and accidents should be just

rewards for all that work in the rail industry. I

believe that more time should be spent with

Managers and Supervisors to help them fully

understand, embrace and demonstrate the right

safety behaviours. Recent reports have also

indicated that there is a risk of under reporting if

safety performance is seen as a target for reward.

Adopting a challenging culture (without recourse),

listening and an open door policy will encourage

staff to report accidents, near misses and close

calls – as long as action is taken to follow them

up….with action being the key word.


There is some confusion over near misses and

close calls and I believe that over the next few

months with further, clearer communications that

the terms will be understood by those that need to

understand the difference. Contractors, Trade

Unions and Agencies also need to play a positive,

active part in the education of the workforce and

not leave it all up to Network Rail and RSSB. The

most important thing is that the near misses and

close calls are being constantly reported; the

trends analysed and acted upon whenever

necessary. Whatever data collected and collated –

it is no good if we do little or nothing with it.


No I do not believe it has. In my view, the move

has been a positive one with the Field Inspectors

now being more visible and being acknowledged

as adding value and making a difference. Overall

the collaboration and working partnership of the

ORR and Network Rail has also been viewed in a

positive way by the Supply Chain.


By making strategic route based decisions and

developing close relationships with its "local”

supply chain clients and other stakeholders, I

believe that safety culture and performance could

improve. Devolution will be a challenge but also a

great opportunity. The routes should better

understand the local safety challenges and how

best to mitigate the risks. The challenges include

each doing their own thing, not fully embracing

the sharing of good practice culture. We also need

to be mindful that many of the Supply Chain

Providers will work in a number of the routes and

different safety initiative and messages could

potentially lead to confusion.


Yes, more ‘value for money service’ based delivery

contracts - with longevity, rather than short term

contract ‘agency type’ lowest rate wins. Recent

tenders have seen a marked difference in the

ratio of scoring, with safety now being more

prevalent in the scoring mechanism.


Competence levels are far too variable across the

industry so the professional, high calibre staff often

get tarred with the same brush as the poor quality

staff. Unfortunately, I still think that the ‘them and

us’ culture still exists in many parts of the industry

– with neither side trusting the other at times.

Positive working relationships and outputs can be

achieved if we ALL once again learn to trust each

other; ultimately the Workforce, Network Rail, The

ORR, Contractors, Trade Unions and Agencies.


Devolution is an opportunity here, with the routes

being able to engage local suppliers, who live

locally and that know the area.

The identification of skills gaps (specific

competences and geographical areas) has further

compounded the travelling time issue, with staff

with key skills being utilised on key projects that

may mean them travelling long distances.

Longevity of contracts would encourage >






















Where are we onthe ‘Safety AwardsRostrum’?

Steve Diksa Assurance Services Director, Bridgeway Consulting

With the 2012 Olympics currently being the hot

topic of conversation, Steve Diksa, Assurance

Services Director of Bridgeway Consulting poses

the question on how well we are doing with our

safety performance within the rail industry?

Are we Gold, Silver or Bronze medallists’?

Are our safety strategies a sprint or a marathon?

Will we continue to progress individually or will

it be a team effort?

Are we willing to understand and embrace what

others do better… or are we stuck in our

‘railway ways’?

Assurance Services Director for Bridgeway

Consulting, Steve is responsible for the Business

Development, HSQE and Training Departments.

Bridgeway Consulting is a Principal Contractor

to Network Rail and deliver multiple discipline

solutions nationwide and abroad to clients,

which are cost and time effective.

AGENDAcompanies to invest in the recruitment and

training/development of local staff. There are a

number of big projects planned over the next 10

years and it is important that we identify and fill

the skills gaps. There needs an industry

understanding that travelling to and from work

can and does have an impact on operational and

safety performance. There is also the potential

increase of road traffic accidents which may be a

result of staff travelling long distances to get to and

from work. We also have to recognise that the

Global Financial Crisis (GFC) means that

potentially there is less work available and people

will travel where the work is.



WE ASKED CATHERINE BEHAN...1) Would a dramatic reduction in thenumber of rules, regulations and standardsbenefit both our safety culture andperformance?

Yes; the underlying principles of many rules,

regulations and standards are the same, so I’m

sure there is opportunity for rationalisation. This

approach would reinforce those key principles as

a general mantra and addresses the cries that

there’s just too much for companies to comply

with.

Documents such as ACOPs or industry specific

materials can then be used to provide a steer on

the application of the principles to specific

circumstances which I feel would be viewed more

positively. This in turn should result in a more

positive attitude to health and safety and

ultimately the culture and performance required

to keep people safe.


We certainly have evidence that suggests rewards

based on number of accidents don’t deliver the

right outcome. If we are to reward safety

performance we need to think long and hard

about the measures we use to ensure that they

drive the right behavior and outcomes.

We need to reward the extent to which line

managers are putting the right things in place

and behaving in the right way, so we should

consider “safety performance” in the context of

these “inputs” in the first instance, rather than

the reactive “outputs” such as injury rates.


No. I feel that it just adds a level of complication.

The important thing is that anything that we

don’t want or plan to happen gets reported,

investigated and corrective action is put in place

to prevent recurrence. Categorisation has a

tendency to lead to pre-determining the nature of

the investigation and without the application of

thought, could result in high potential incidents

receiving less attention than they should.


No. I believe that it’s a positive move in terms of

ensuring that the ALARP principle is consistently

applied by our regulators.


If it improves ownership of health and safety then

it should drive improvements. However, for this

to be the Network-wide success that we all desire,

it will be essential to ensure that effective

mechanisms and willingness exist for sharing

good practice and learning between routes.

Without this the result could just be

inconsistency, which makes movement of

employees and suppliers between the routes

more challenging than it needs to be and is

unlikely to deliver improvement.


I don’t think that it’s contracts that are the

challenge, it’s our behaviour within them that

makes the difference. I guess that sounds a bit

like the Lofstedt statement about the issues being

less about the legislation and more about the way

in which we elect to apply it!


No; particularly when they are external suppliers.

As an industry our default position seems to be to

take a heavy policing role. Taking a risk-based

approach to our monitoring activity incentivises

others to perform and supports value for money

delivery as we are not doing something that we’ve

already paid someone else to do.


It has the potential to, if fatigue arises. However,

distance isn’t necessarily the whole story – the

nature of the journey is important too in

determining the impact that it will have. Some

organisations place limits on travel time, though

this is difficult to police.

Reviewing rosters and policies to ensure that they

reduce rather than increase the potential for

fatigue is an action that employers can take.

There are other factors that may impact on

fatigue and we should take a holistic view; for

example, although travelling further, does the

more affordable housing / a settled family life

reduce stress levels and promote wellbeing,

potentially reducing the number of accidents.

Ultimately staff have a personal responsibility to

present themselves as fit for duty and where we

are not assured we need to work with them to

resolve the issue to maintain their safety and that

of others.






















The road to ‘World Class’

Catherine Behan Head of HS&E Capital Programmes, Transport for London

London Underground faces the challenge of

safely delivering one of Europe’s largest

Investment Programmes, valued at £1.3 billion

p.a while it continues to reliably and safely keep

4 million passengers a day moving.

To meet this challenge, safety has to be at the top

of our agenda for project delivery and we are

committed to establishing and enforcing the

management and contractual arrangements

necessary to prevent injury. This presentation

will outline our strategy to drive World Class

health, safety and environmental performance in

this challenging environment.

Cathy joined London Underground (LU) from

Local Government in 1998 as Environment

Manager, from where she broadened her career

to encompass health and safety.

Having been responsible for the rewrite of LU’s

Health, Safety and Environmental Management

System and Safety Case, she then expanded her

responsibilities to include the development and

maintenance of the LU Quantified Risk

Assessment (Safety Risk Model), before taking

up her current role leading the HS&E support to

LU’s extensive Capital Programme.

AGENDA


Gareth Llewellyn became Network Rail’s

Director Safety and Sustainable Development

last September. He has memories of his

railwayman father studying the old railway Rule

Book at home at night before job promotion

interviews. At the time he was impressed, now he

believes that Network Rail has far too many

rules, standards and processes that don’t

improve either productivity or safer working.

When he worked with Shell, they had a dozen

“life-saving rules”. Working within these rules,

individuals used their own trained competences

and took responsibility for working safely. As

Group Corporate Responsibility Director for the

National Grid, he led the way through a complete

DuPont Safety Programme. He claims he still has

the scars to prove it! DuPont Safety Programmes

focus on board-level safety leadership and the

growing of a safety culture throughout an

organisation. When, decades ago, British

Railways Board embarked upon a DuPont safety

initiative, a post of Director Safety was created

with a seat on the Board itself. As the

programme progressed attitudes and culture

changed. The general acceptance of accidents as

inevitable and around 30 track-worker fatalities

each year changed, and eventually the industry

went for over 18 months without a single person

being killed at work.

Back in those days there was only one employer,

and British Rail enjoyed having a close knit

workforce with a culture of working together for

the good of the railway. (Even the job application

forms asked if applicants already had relatives

employed on the railway.) Now we have rail

infrastructure owners, train operating

companies, consultants, contractors, rail labour

providers etc. Soon, under the latest initiatives

from Network Rail, we may expect individual

approaches from ten Route Managing Directors,

some or all of whom may be involving train

operating companies in managing work.

Rail project work management by Network Rail

is set to become competitively sourced for major

works and will be carried out by organisations

who are faced with a myriad of differing rules,

standards and working practices, depending on

whether the work is for London Underground,


at the end of every dayGoing home safe

Gareth Llewellyn discusses his Aspirational Vision with Colin Wheeler

Colin Wheeler reports


19

Network Rail, Metros or a tram system.

Equally unacceptable, from both a safety and

commercial viewpoint, is our national

reluctance to accept the validity of European

certification of train sets and equipment for use

in the UK. We still seem to cling to the

misapprehension that the laws of physics

change half way through the Channel Tunnel!

With the building of Crossrail, and the overdue

political commitment to High Speed Rail 2, now

is the time for our thinking to change.

Perhaps we should start by getting London

Underground and Network Rail to agree on a

single medical examination for those who are to

drive trains or work on their rail infrastructure?

With Network Rail’s devolution into ten Routes

individually managed by accountable Managing

Directors, Gareth Llewellyn has been involved in

the selection of a Route Safety Improvement

Manager for each one. Half of them have been

brought in from other industries. Allan Spence

(Deputy Chief Inspector of Railways at the Office

of Rail Regulation) has been seconded into the

organisation for six months to assist. Gareth’s

aim is to launch an “Aspirational Vision” in April

to begin the process of changing the entire safety

culture within the heavy rail industry.

He aims to create a few simple life-saving safety

rules, endorsed and shared by competent railway

people working throughout the industry,

whoever their employers may be.





















Gareth Llewellyn Director for Safety and Sustainable Development, Network Rail

Gareth was previously responsible for leading

Anglo American’s strategy on safety, health and

environmental issues, together with matters of

sustainable development including human

rights. He was also a non-executive director of

the Government’s Renewable Fuels Agency and

the Chair of Trustees at the not-for-profit body

CLAIRE which works with government and

industry to bring back contaminated land into

economic use.

AGENDA

An aspiration with which surely no-one will disagree,but how is it to be achieved on our railways?



WE ASKED JEFF ESPENSHIP...1) Would a dramatic reduction in thenumber of rules, regulations and standardsbenefit both our safety culture andperformance?

Reviewing current policy and regulations is a

matter of good housekeeping. In order for safety

“rules, regulations and standards” to be effective,

they must be perceived as having “integrity” by

those who are required to adhere and follow

them. If the integrity of a safety system is bogged

down by the sheer weight or volume of “rules,

regulations and standards” then YES, a

methodical and systematic reduction is not only

advised, it is required.

When there are so many rules and regulations on

the books that it becomes impossible to follow all

of them, then the system is broken and needs to

be repaired. It is critical that employees perceive

that the system works.

2) Should line managers and supervisorsbe rewarded for safety performance ordoes this lead to under-reporting?

Research has clearly shown that the top

motivator for employees is recognition. Being

recognized is different than being rewarded.

Employees should be recognized for quality,

productive, and safe behavior. “BandAid

Brigades” and under-reporting thrives where

employee rewards are the norm rather than

employee recognition.

When leading indicators and near misses are

under-reported, an accident eventually happens.

When it does, the phrase heard most often

among employees is “I knew it.”

The problem with “rewards” is that they begin to

become an expectation. Animosity can build

against an employee who cost the entire group

their expected reward due to a reported injury.

Conversely, employee recognition builds pride

and morale. Safety becomes more a value and

not a tangible reward for safety performance.


The real test to this question is to ask yourself:

1) “Can I personally define the difference

between a near miss and a close call?”

2) “Does everyone else share the same definition

I have, or is it personally subjective?”

It is important to keep reporting processes and

programs simple and straight forward for

everyone. Most employees do not know the

difference between a near miss and a close call.

Even Wikipedia defines the terms

interchangeably:

A near miss is an unplanned event that did not

result in injury, illness, or damage – but had the

potential to do so. Only a fortunate break in the

chain of events prevented an injury, fatality or

damage; in other words, a miss that was

nonetheless very near. Although the label of

'human error' is commonly applied to an

initiating event, a faulty process or system

invariably permits or compounds the harm, and

should be the focus of improvement. Other

familiar terms for these events is a "close call", or

in the case of moving objects, "near collision".

The bottom line is if you feel adding another

category will increase the integrity of your safety

system, then it is worth creating a second

category. Know that sufficient training to define

and standardize the difference between a close

call and a near miss will be required.


N/A

5) How could the devolution of NetworkRail into route responsible managementimprove both safety culture andperformance?

N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A






















Leadership andzero-accidentcultures in theworkplace

Jeff “Odie” Espenship President, Target Leadership

Odie uses his background in both commercial

and military aviation to encourage and inspire

leaders at all levels to embrace the leadership

safety systems of their company. Having lost his

brother in an aviation accident, this keynote

touches us emotionally to rethink, refocus, and

revitalise our work behaviours to pay attention to

“the little things.”

This interactive yet entertaining message is one

of the most sought after safety-leadership

presentations in the United States, as Odie uses

personal stories, anecdotes, and humour media

to engage attendees to laugh, cry, listen, and

learn. Among the topics discussed: Set

Expectations, Monitor Performance, Reflect

Inward, Overcome Complacency -“The Silent

Killer”, Logic vs Emotions, Job Culture –“the

way we do it around here.”

Odie is a former United States Air Force A-10

fighter pilot, an international airline pilot, and

founder of Target Leadership. After years of

experience working in and studying safety issues

in the aviation field, Odie turned his attention to

creating safety conscious environments for

companies of all kinds worldwide.

Odie is a published author and renowned

inspirational speaker who works with Fortune

500 companies worldwide such as Balfour

Beatty, ExxonMobil, Shell, General Electric,

Chevron, John Deere, and Michelin.

AGENDA


22

Trackside railway workers could be kept safer

while they work thanks to the launch of a new

product this month that brings protective clothing

into the 21st century.

Fhoss Technology® Ltd of Somerset has designed,

created and patented a new illuminated clothing

system that helps drivers and equipment operators

see workers in the dark.

Andy Kimitri, Executive Chairman of Fhoss

Technology, who also invented the product, said:

“We have developed a revolutionary new

protective clothing system that allows workers to

be seen if there is no other light around and also

ensures they can see where they are walking too.

“This is the next generation of personal protection

equipment and several steps on from the high

visibility jackets, trousers and vests workers wear

that have been around for more than 50 years and

have hardly changed. This isn’t just reflective

clothing. It is one step ahead, or even a giant leap

forward.

“We have produced a light emitting reflective tape,

which has been designed for use in professional

environments where wearing a high visibility

garment, such as a vest, is often mandatory due to

ever growing health and safety regulations.”

Traditional high visibility reflective tapes work on

the principle that they actively collect light and

then reflect it back towards the light source.

Andy added: “Fhoss Technology has combined the

traditional reflective tape with an

electroluminescent core that sits behind the semi-

transparent tape and actively emits light.

Therefore when light is not available the tape

emits light as if it were reflecting it.”

In order for the tape to work it needs to be

powered by a specially developed, mini

New inventionto help savetracksideworkers’ lives

New illuminated clothing uses light emitting

reflective tape that helps workers see in the dark.




rechargeable powercell, which is designed to allow

12 hours of constant usage and can be located

discreetly in a small pocket on the garment.

The Fhoss Technology product has been carefully

manufactured and is approved and certified to the

internationally

recognised EN471

standard by

independent test

agencies.

It is robust and designed

for use by professional

users in the work place.

Andy continued: “Fhoss

Technology is committed to

adding additional

safety products into a

variety of market sectors

to help improve safety

through visibility and

technology.

“Always at the forefront of

our field, our business ethos

is to design a new range of

products that will help

improve safety.”

Andy Kimitri, Inventor and Executive Chairman of Fhoss Technology:

“When light is not available the tape emits light as if it were reflecting it.”



WE ASKED STEVE ENRIGHT...1) Would a dramatic reduction in thenumber of rules, regulations and standardsbenefit both our safety culture andperformance?

Simplification is generally a good thing as this

helps with understanding which in turn can

change behaviour. Care must be taken to ensure

that key safety standards are not diluted so a

DRAMATIC reduction in number may not be an

effective route. Consultation on and involvement

in any process would be necessary to support the

cultural support for this.


In my view no they should not be directly

rewarded for safety performance. Good

management and support of all employees would

recognise good behaviours and activity that

supports a positive safety culture and rewarding

this as part of an overall achievement is a more

effective approach in my view. There is a risk of

under reporting if it is seen as a target for

reward.


Simplification helps understanding so my view

would be that these separate categories may not

be necessary.


As a new guy to the Industry I cannot give a view

on this.


Speaking again as a new entrant to the Industry

it appears to be providing a real boost to the

momentum and I detect positive attitudes and

practical solutions coming to the fore. One of the

main benefits that we are seeing is that we are

more accessible to our ‘mirrors’ in Network Rail

and they to us and this is leading to better

working together and understanding of issues.

This openness and availability is helping people

work better together which changes behaviour

for the better and improves the culture.


My knowledge here does not allow me to give a

meaningful answer.


Here at Southern I believe that we work very

hard to do just that.


Yes it does increase risk, generally because of the

time taken and the mode of travel that may be

used, but the circumstances may be specific to

each individual. Travel time / distance is

something for considering when recruiting new

employees and managing this during their career

may assist in reducing travel time.






















Better Together

Steve EnrightHead of Safety and Operational Standards, Southern

There is always a question around safety

management which asks ‘who is this for’? Whilst

the Moral, Regulatory and economic

requirements for safety management are well

understood are we convinced that we always

consider who we may be affecting with our

measures and how?

An example from past experience may help

illustrate the concern: National and

International regulatory bodies had not aligned

their requirements in an industry that spanned

national borders. Trade bodies had created

working practices and standards that were not

universally recognised. Regulators applied

different standards to different parts of the same

Industry who met at the operational coal face.

Operators did the best they could to provide

safe services.

In a varied career working within safety Steve

has experience of maritime, aviation and more

recently rail safety.

Having spent 12 years in the Merchant Navy,

followed by safety related roles for a number of

years in the ports of Liverpool and Belfast, Steve

then spent 18 years working at airports around

the world introducing safety standards and

practices.

AGENDA



WE ASKED DR LIESEL VON METZ...1) Would a dramatic reduction in thenumber of rules, regulations and standardsbenefit both our safety culture andperformance?

There’s no doubt that we could benefit from

streamlining rules and standards. We’ve inherited a

rule-based safety culture, and a proscriptive

Standards regime. Although it is important in a

safety-critical industry to set a minimum baseline

through core standards, Rules and Standards do not

of themselves create the maturity and ownership

that is necessary to achieve high performance whilst

sustaining and improving safety. There are

promising signs that the industry has recognised the

need for such a mature culture where controls are

practical, proportionate and based on a proper

assessment of risk; but the pace of this change does

need to quicken. ORR is supporting and

encouraging the industry to move in this direction

through development of the RM3 model and

through collaborative working in key areas.


Although in principle safety performance always

should form part of a balanced assessment of the

performance of managers and supervisors, it’s

important that this takes place in a culture where

there is honesty and openness. A culture where

reporting of poor performance is suppressed, be this

in safety or finance, does not benefit any

organisation - as the lessons of Enron and Texaco

City show. But the challenge we face in the Rail

industry is great. There’s a lot of labour-only

subcontractors being used, and I’ve talked to men

on the ground who have a real fear of “NRB” (Not

Required Back) if they report an injury; maybe

that’s why the ratios of minor injuries to major

injuries do not quite match academic theory.

Perhaps if the incentives in the contracts were less

focused on delay minutes and took a wider view of

delivering quality and safety right first time, a “Zero

Defects” approach, we’d get a more realistic view -

along with an increase in performance.


Not really - they both reflect a serious incident that

nearly happened - a “near-hit.” The really important

thing is to support comprehensive reporting of such

“near-hits” and then acting on the results of those

reports. If calling them something which is more

meaningful on the front-line helps this reporting and

action, I don’t think we should get too hung up over

the terminology. Although it might sound perverse,

an increase in reports of such “near-hits” is actually a

positive thing - especially if they reflect the full range

of risks on site. It’s when all staff feel confident in

reporting “near-hits” you know your safety culture is

heading in the right direction.


No, quite the opposite. It’s been recognised for a

long time that “good management” and “good safety

management” go hand in hand. The highest

performing organisations are those where there is

good management of the whole of the business -

which delivers safety and sustainability (reflecting

financial, social and environmental factors). There is

no long-term substantive conflict between safety

and economic regulation. When the Economic and

Safety Regulators work together, we can drive those

wider benefits of good management. We can make

sure that the 5-year funding cycle considers safety

and longer-term improvements, and we can better

challenge high costs of safety improvements, for

example at level crossings.


Devolution offers a huge opportunity. To work

effectively in this industry, it’s important that we

talk to each other and work together; especially as

many of the challenges and risks we face are at the

interfaces between different organisations. These

relationships often work better on a more local level,

in a devolved structure there’s more opportunity to

do this. But to make this work, we need a level of

maturity in all of the organisations in the devolved

structure, and a real willingness to work together to

solve problems. Devolution also comes with a risk

from the transfer of responsibility. A lack of

willingness to listen to each other and work

constructively might compromise safety, and

perhaps some Routes might be tempted to “Go it

alone” without fully understanding and managing

the risks arising from doing things differently. The

strengthening and refocusing of Network Rail’s

central assurance function will be an important part

of ensuring the success of Devolution, and of course

ORR’s inspectors will also be out there to verify that

the Devolved Routes are properly managing safety.


It’s not really about contracts - it’s about the

importance of what lies behind those contracts - it’s

about leadership and management. Where you have

good leadership and mature management, you can

build collaborative working relationships. Where

you have those relationships, you have fair contracts

that all parties benefit from. If you get the

foundations of leadership, mature management and

culture right, you get the safety and high

performance. That’s why ORR is assessing the

industry against the RM3 model which looks at

these underlying critical factors.


Not always. Everyone in the industry has a part to

play in delivering safety and performance, and it’s

important that as a regulator, ORR works to ensure

the industry supports and empowers all rail workers

within a positive safety culture. With the move away

from an overly-proscriptive standards regime to one

that is based on competent people making sensible

risk-based decisions, in future it will be even more

vital to make sure we fully value competent people.

Of course, the question of what constitutes

competence, and how we recognise it, is a whole

issue in itself. >






















Safe use of road rail vehicles

Dr Liesel Von MetzHM Inspector of Railways

In recent years there have been concerns from

both ORR and Network Rail about the number of

serious incidents involving RRVs.

This presentation explains the key work being

done by both ORR and Network Rail to address

these areas of concern, in particular: keeping

RRVs and the workforce apart, lifting operations

with RRVs, braking performance of RRVs and

working under live OLE with RRVs.

Liesel is a front-line railway health and safety

Inspector based in the Wales, Western & Wessex

Team in ORR’s Railway Safety Directorate. As well

as being the lead Inspector for Network Rail’s

Wales Route, Liesel is lead for the Wales, Western

& Wessex team on Track-worker Safety and

Railway Construction Safety.

With a particular interest in the use of RRVs for

lifting, Adjacent Line Open working and

Engineering Worksite management, Liesel is

currently on secondment to Network Rail, working

on their RRV Safety Improvement Programme.

AGENDA8) Many train-crew, contractors and agencystaff still travel large distances to work.Does this increase the risk of accidents andwhat could be done to reduce thetravelling?

Fatigue arising from travelling long distances needs

to be managed. ORR has recently revised its

guidance on managing rail staff fatigue and this now

includes suggestions on good practice for managing

staff travel time. You can find the guidance at

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload

/pdf/managing_rail_fatigue.pdf



WE ASKED CHRISTIAN FLETCHER...1) Would a dramatic reduction in thenumber of rules, regulations and standardsbenefit both our safety culture andperformance?

One of the problems we have is that there are so

many rules and regulations that there is no one

set rule book for safety in depots. Depending on

who is designing the depot, depends on the

safety and which rule book they are working

from. For example the 1992 Code of Practice is

what some people work from but it doesn’t mean

it’s right for depots in 2012 which are going to

maintain trains for the next 25 years.


In my experience depot staff don’t wish to be

financially rewarded for raising safety issues. The

reward is them bringing a problem to their boss

and the company doing something about it.

Employees feel far more valued if the company

listens and acts on their ideas and suggestions.


Near Misses and Close Calls lead to incidents

and what we do at Zonegreen is to work with the

companies to prevent the incident happening in

the first place. We understand the pressures

depot and maintenance staff are under to have

the maximum number of rolling stock out on the

network but different depots and different Train

Operating Companies operate differently. New

build depots tend to have safety built into them

whereas the older depots are sometimes working

around depots that were built for steam rather

than diesel trains.


N/A


Closer working relationships with the Train

Operating Company can only be a good thing but

it is still the Train Operating Company or

Manufacturer who is responsible for maintaining

the Rolling Stock. It may be that Network Rail

will have limited responsibility for the

operational safety of maintenance depots in the

future.


Absolutely, the design and build type contracts

are a typical example. A construction company

may look at the contract and think we can save

some money here and snip a bit there. The

problem with this is the builder is buying a safety

system that 9 times out of 10 is bought on price

and not designed with safety in mind.

The Train Operating Companies maintenance /

safety team should get involved at an earlier

stage and we find that when the product is

specified from the start you have a safer depot. I

have seen contracts where the large part of the

weighting is on the cheapest price, not the safest

solution.


The people working in the depot every day such

as the shunters and the maintenance teams are

often best placed to report back on safety issues.

By giving them the environment to report

incidents, near misses or close calls and then

acting on that and doing something, you create a

safe working environment.


This is more relevant to track workers. I don’t

think you have many Depot personnel travelling

large distance over the country to work a 12 hour

shift, then drive 2/3 hours home.






















Improving safety inTrain Maintenancedepots

Christian FletcherDirector, Zonegreen

Christian’s presentation will look at the major

hazards encountered in Train Maintenance

Depots today such as Train Movements, Slips,

Trips and Falls, Third Rail & Electrification from

(OHLE).

Using 4 different case studies and accident

reports and statistics he will then go on to

explain how by using Innovation, Technology

and introducing safer working procedures, over

30 of the UK’s train depots are seeing a

reduction in accidents.

Christian has been involved with the design of

the Zonegreen’s depot protection and safety

systems for over thirteen years. In co-operation

with Loughborough University, he was

responsible for the development of the original

SMART DPPS™ system dedicated to the

protection of personnel.

His day-to-day activities involve supporting

Zonegreen safety consultancy and technical staff

and ensuring the company products meet the

standards required for safety and reliability.

AGENDA



t: 08456 773002 e: [email protected]

i

Promoting Safety On Our RailwaysAt Healthcare Connec� ons, we pride ourselves in providing fully integrated occupa� onal health services, keeping your health & safety fi rmly at the heart of our business

As rail specialists, our medical centres are conveniently situated in major and strategic loca� ons throughout the UK and our medical professional teams off er services on site to you and via mobile units

Medical Screening•

Drug & Alcohol Tes� ng•

Medica� on Checking•

Absence Management•

Health Surveillance•

Employee Medica� on•

Hazard Vaccina� on•

Educa� on & Support•

Visit us at The Rail Safety Summit, 19 April 2012or contact us for more informa� on

www.healthcare-connections.com

Visit us on Stand K35

1-3 May 2012NEC Birmingham

In the rail industry, even seemingly trivial side

effects of medications such as drowsiness,

dizziness or visual disturbance could have a

catastrophic outcome for employees and the

general public if workers and employers are

unaware of the dangers.

Under Railway Group Standard GE/RT8070 and

support document GE/GN8570, rail organisations

are required to ensure that employees report the

use of prescribed and over-the-counter (OTC)

medications to their supervisor or line-manager,

and to have a provision for staff to access a

competent medical authority to advise on their

ability to carry out safety critical tasks whilst

taking medication.

It is well known that any medication, whether

prescribed by a doctor, bought over-the-counter or

via the internet, can cause a range of side effects.

Less well known is the fact that combinations of

medicines can have even greater side effects when

combined than individually. Even if an employee

is stable on medication for a long term condition,

the addition of a new (even short term) treatment

has the potential to destabilise the existing

treatment or cause new side effects through a ‘drug

interaction’.

Healthcare Connections provides an innovative

expert solution to medication queries via Chemist

on Call, a unique medication checking service. A

professional team of experienced rail specialist

pharmacists are available 24/7 to provide accurate

and timely medication advice and information for

safety critical staff. This service seamlessly links

through to Healthcare Connections’ occupational

health specialists for efficient referrals for effective

health management and promotion of employee

wellbeing.

Key Features:• ‘Pay As You Check’ - no binding contract or

retainer fee – just pay for checks as you make them

• 24/7, 365 days access via telephone or website,

both PIN protected for confidentiality

• Simple & interactive – clear recommendation

reports provided for audit

• Fast response times – instant online and

telephone checks, with responses within the hour

for more complex medications)

• Trend Analysis - discover the trends of

medication taking within your business.

Adopting this holistic approach ensures that the

overall health & safety of the railway is soundly

upheld.

Keeping the Railways Safe

Healthcare Connections are exhibiting at theRail Safety Summit and Infrarail (1-3 May,Stand K35, NEC Birmingham) where you can learn more about their full range ofoccupational health solutions.



Bridgeway Consulting Ltd has an exemplarysafety record and have a successful recordof delivering quality services through extensiveexperience.

Our “one stop shop” offering enables us to deliver results that add real value to your project.

Our specialist services include:

!"##$%&'()!*!+,-./0&'()!+,'#$/1&'(2! !3&0/4&2!5,##)##0,'!*!6#,/&10,'!5/&''0'7! !8&9)12!+%010(&/!81&99!5%,:0#0,'!! !;%&(<!8&9)12!;%&0'0'7!*!"##)##-)'1# !8$%:)20'7!*!=&$70'7!>?@!8$%:)2#A !801)!*!=%,$'B!6':)#107&10,' !81%$(1$%&/!CD&-0'&10,'# !5)%-&')'1!E&2!C'70'))%0'7 !3&0/4&2!8)($%012 !@0:0'7!

Contact us today to discuss your rail or civil project needs:

0115 919 1111 [email protected] idgeway-consul t ing.co.uk

B

s

o

e

O

r

O

!

! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! !!

!

! ! ! !

!

! ! ! !

!

! ! !

!

!

Engineering the future...



The Rail Safety Summit19th April 2012, Loughborough University

08.30 Registration and exhibition viewing09.30 Conference opening: Colin Wheeler09.40 Preparing for and dealing with emergency incidents

Willie Baker, Emergency Incident Consultant10.00 FirstGroup’s approach to influencing behavioural safety

Seamus Scallon, FirstGroup10.20 Q&A with Speakers10.40 Coffee / Exhibition 11.10 Where are we on the ‘Safety Awards rostrum’?

Steve Diksa, Bridgeway Consulting11.30 The road to ‘World Class’

Catherine Behan, Transport for London11.50 A Perspective on Safety

Gareth Llewellyn, Network Rail12.15 Q&A with Speakers 12.30 Lunch / Exhibition13.30 Leadership and zero-accident cultures in the workplace

Jeff “Odie” Espenship, Target Leadership13.55 Better Together

Steve Enright, Southern14.20 Q&A with Speakers14.35 Coffee / Exhibition15.00 Safe use of road-rail vehicles

Liesel Von Metz, HM Inspector of Railways15.25 Improving Safety in Train Maintenance depots

Christian Fletcher, Zonegreen15.50 Q&A with Speakers16.00 Conference Close

With four speakers representing TrainOperators and four representingInfrastructure - and one of the mostsought-after leadership presenters in the US- this is the a Conference not to be missed.

Tickets are £199.

For further information please contactGemma [email protected] Pat [email protected]. 01530 56 00 26


the rail safety summit - special edition

Documents

terms of safety

safety cultures

safety goggles

rail safety mag a4

safety eyewear thats

rail safetysummit

rail industry

office of rail regulation