The Bristol Railway Archive

Well they finally did it - railings installed beside the track throughout Sydney Gardens in Bath ruining the classic view. According to Network Rail this is labelled a 'Temporary Fence' to 'mitigate the safety risk at this known high risk location' (as identified by the ORR) - but with no indication as to when it is to be removed... and with electrification planned the high risk will become even higher!
So check out the view now (and weep....)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/desdemoane ... 0751419114

Health and Safety gone mad once again!!!!!!!!!!

Is it April Fool's day? I was expecting to see 8 foot high security fencing. Even I in my decrepit state would be able to step over it.
Temporary? Well maybe the people who live in tents a bit further along towards Bathampton will use it for firewood in the winter months.

That's got to be the most rustic security fence I've ever seen!

I can draw parallels with the USA - here, hardly any railway is fenced. If you know what's good for you, you just stay clear.

Seems H&S in the UK assumes everyone is a complete idiot unable to look after their own safety in any way. So while a few such people do undoubtedly exist, I suppose they have to be protected from themselves. But more importantly, the need is also to protect train crews who are at risk of having to deal with the results of some individuals' stupidity.

A shame it has to affect everybody else though.

jules wrote: That's got to be the most rustic security fence I've ever seen!

I can draw parallels with the USA - here, hardly any railway is fenced. If you know what's good for you, you just stay clear.

Exactly! In the days of my mis-spent youth when a group of us kids sometimes flattened pennies on the railway line under Teewell Hill bridge, even the thickest of us were perfectly aware of what we would happen if we were on the line at the time that a train went past.

jules wrote: So while a few such people do undoubtedly exist, I suppose they have to be protected from themselves.

......

A shame it has to affect everybody else though.

Hmmm.... How long have you got?

One of the basic problems with H&S is not the legislation, its the interpretation of that legislation by idiots. And of course the "compensation culture" also comes into the equation, where organisations are looking over their shoulders all the time to see where the next compensation claim is coming from.

One upon a time, if Joe public went base over apex over a raised paving stone, he cursed himself for failing to see it coming. Now he's more likely to think "who can I sue" before he's got up and dusted himself down.

The problem with all this is that it is not victimless - we are all paying for it. Lets get back on topic.

Somebody at Network Rail in their infinite wisdom has decided that there is a "potential" safety issue at Sydney Gardens, despite the fact that the line has now been there for 170 years and I don't recall hearing of anybody topping themselves at that location, either accidentally or on purpose.

That's not to say that it hasn't happened ever, but stories about it are not in the paper every week, every month or, come to that, every decade. Ergo, the risk itself is infinitesimally small. But never mind that, there's a risk so "we must do something about it"

So who pays for it? You do, I do, the bloke next door does, the bloke on the Clapham omnibus does. It represents an increase in Network Rail's costs, and those costs have to be recouped which, in the final analysis, comes from either the travelling public in increased fares, or from general taxation in the event that it is funded by subsidy.

If more people thought this matter through, and if there were less ambulance-chasing lawyers making a fortune out of compensation claims, and there were more people with guts to defend against the more spurious claims when they do come in, then we could leave "natural selection" to clear out idiots from the gene pool and we'd all be a lot better off.

As I often point out, we have people who drink and drive but we don't ban either cars or alcohol. Should we not do so to "save people from themselves?"

People have definitely topped themselves at this location. The problem these days is that it is just not front page news anymore. Just like murder which frequently gets reported as a short paragraph buried deep inside the papers. I know of one train driver who had two separate fatalities within a month, although this is extremely rare. Chatting with an ex colleague the other day, the conversation included a comment that "driver X had his first fatality this week". Putting it like that implies that every driver is likely to experience one in due course.

the green mile wrote:People have definitely topped themselves at this location. The problem these days is that it is just not front page news anymore. Just like murder which frequently gets reported as a short paragraph buried deep inside the papers. I know of one train driver who had two separate fatalities within a month, although this is extremely rare. Chatting with an ex colleague the other day, the conversation included a comment that "driver X had his first fatality this week". Putting it like that implies that every driver is likely to experience one in due course.

I am not saying that there is emotional trauma involved for the driver when his train hits somebody - indeed, I knew of a few cases when I was at Bath Road.

But there is emotional trauma inflicted whenever somebody is in charge of something that kills somebody else - be it a car or lorry driver, or perhaps a crane driver letting something slip.

Cars and lorries kill people every day - but we don't fence off the roads

Well, we have plenty of ambulance chasing lawyers in the US Robin, but I'm afraid if you got hit by a train over here, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on (excuse pun) if you were a. still alive and b. dumb enough to try take your case to court. Unless, of course, there were very extenuating circumstances that could "prove" liability by the railroad company. Maybe at a grade (level) crossing with defective equipment perhaps or similar, but whilst trespassing on a plain bit of line or in a yard - not b***y likely!

Some of the lines here actually go down the middle of residential streets, on the basis of "we were here first", which stands up very well in the US. But if you get your car tangled up in a train, more likely the railroad company will be suing you for the delays you cause and damage to their equipment!

Cars and lorries kill people every day - but we don't fence off the roads

I think the possible thinking here is that "trains are faster than cars and you can't hear them coming". Plus roads are per se, a shared resource, whereas the railway is a pretty foreign environment to your average Joe Public, even if he/she *thinks* they know something of the risks involved on or about the line. As you and I know, it's not just trains that present dangers.

BTW, Digby Street has come up in conversation again on flickr. Do you recall an Anthony Newman per chance?

Slightly off topic but another example of Health and Safety madness. <BJ>

http://www.wessexfm.com/news/dorset-new ... n-weymouh/

Give that place a miss then! Am I the only one who is fed up with the Olympics already?

The thing about trespass on the railway is that it is generally possible to hear a train approaching. Even electric trains are far from silent and if a driver spots someone 'on or near the line' or 'on the lineside', they will sound their horn. If someone deliberately puts themself in danger to self-harm, there's precious little we can do about that.

I have a lot of respect for drivers who give up their time to go into schools and talk to youngsters about the dangers of trespass. It's generally done from their own personal experience.

A glimmer of good news, the Sydney Gardens fencing issue has been taken up by the Bath Chronical newspaper and several leading railway mags. Watch this space as they say. <BJ>

jules wrote:Well, we have plenty of ambulance chasing lawyers in the US Robin, but I'm afraid if you got hit by a train over here, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on

You make a very interesting point which I'd never thought of before (and yes much of this is mainly off topic but its been very quiet around here just lately! )

We tend to think that the compensation culture has been imported from the USA, but perhaps its more the British attitude that is the problem? So many people not owning up to their own responsibilities, and always trying to find somebody else to blame? But mainly, the view so prevalent in the UK that, after something unpleasant has happened, "something needs to be done" whether or not that something will actually do any good.

There are plenty of apocryphal stories around, such as the drunk driver "losing it" on a bend, so the Council put in a speed camera, but here is one that is based in fact. A few years ago a kid ran out into the road outside Sheldon School in Chippenham and was killed. There were all the usual outcries about speed cameras and drunk drivers, but it came out in the wash that the driver was neither speeding nor drunk - the child was entirely at fault and had paid the ultimate penalty. Nevertheless, the Council had to "be seen to be doing something" - so they widened the pavement ...

The good Council Tax payers of Wiltshire stumped up for that. OK, it gives idiot children a couple of extra yards to run before they get onto the carriageway and get killed, but how many lives will it really save? There's not even a guarantee that if it had been done before this incident took place the kid would still be alive - he might just have run two more strides before the car hit him...

I am reminded of a radio interview I heard a couple of years ago where in order to try to reduce the number of young adults being involved in car crashes, ways were being explored of reducing fatalities, such as restricting the engine size of cars for young drivers, and the fitting of speed limiters. The protagonists in the discussion fell into the usual camps - somebody from a motoring magazine versus a woman who's son had been killed in a car crash. As each option was discussed, the motoring magazine man clearly explained why it wouldn't work. After a couple of minutes of this the woman piped up along the lines of:

"It doesn't matter if speed limiters or engine size restrictions won't work in all cases - if we can save just one life it will be worth it." To me, that said it all. What she was really saying was: "we need to do something. Anything, It doesn't matter if it doesn't work - just do something"

But back on topic - if somebody really wants to top themselves in front of a train in Sydney Gardens they will continue to find a way to do so, in exactly the same way that people still jump off the Clifton Suspension Bridge despite all the technology that has been put in place up there to stop them doing it. All that has really been done here is that an eyesore of a fence has been erected that Network Rail's customers (direct or indirect) will pay for.

So then one has to ask why has it been done? If it won't stop people determined to find out first hand whether there's life after death, what will it achieve? The answer is probably that it enables Network Rail and/ or their insurers to "tick a box"

And perhaps the worst thing is, both Network Rail and their insurers know this as well, but they'll have been "seen to have done something" when little Johnny goes over the wall at that point and his parents go to an ambulance chaser to see what they can get. Their backsides will be covered...

jules wrote: BTW, Digby Street has come up in conversation again on flickr. Do you recall an Anthony Newman per chance?

Name doesn't ring a bell, I'm afraid

Robin Summerhill wrote: You make a very interesting point which I'd never thought of before (and yes much of this is mainly off topic but its been very quiet around here just lately! )

We tend to think that the compensation culture has been imported from the USA, but perhaps its more the British attitude that is the problem? So many people not owning up to their own responsibilities, and always trying to find somebody else to blame? But mainly, the view so prevalent in the UK that, after something unpleasant has happened, "something needs to be done" whether or not that something will actually do any good.

There are plenty of apocryphal stories around, such as the drunk driver "losing it" on a bend, so the Council put in a speed camera, but here is one that is based in fact. A few years ago a kid ran out into the road outside Sheldon School in Chippenham and was killed. There were all the usual outcries about speed cameras and drunk drivers, but it came out in the wash that the driver was neither speeding nor drunk - the child was entirely at fault and had paid the ultimate penalty. Nevertheless, the Council had to "be seen to be doing something" - so they widened the pavement ...

The good Council Tax payers of Wiltshire stumped up for that. OK, it gives idiot children a couple of extra yards to run before they get onto the carriageway and get killed, but how many lives will it really save? There's not even a guarantee that if it had been done before this incident took place the kid would still be alive - he might just have run two more strides before the car hit him...

I am reminded of a radio interview I heard a couple of years ago where in order to try to reduce the number of young adults being involved in car crashes, ways were being explored of reducing fatalities, such as restricting the engine size of cars for young drivers, and the fitting of speed limiters. The protagonists in the discussion fell into the usual camps - somebody from a motoring magazine versus a woman who's son had been killed in a car crash. As each option was discussed, the motoring magazine man clearly explained why it wouldn't work. After a couple of minutes of this the woman piped up along the lines of:

"It doesn't matter if speed limiters or engine size restrictions won't work in all cases - if we can save just one life it will be worth it." To me, that said it all. What she was really saying was: "we need to do something. Anything, It doesn't matter if it doesn't work - just do something"

But back on topic - if somebody really wants to top themselves in front of a train in Sydney Gardens they will continue to find a way to do so, in exactly the same way that people still jump off the Clifton Suspension Bridge despite all the technology that has been put in place up there to stop them doing it. All that has really been done here is that an eyesore of a fence has been erected that Network Rail's customers (direct or indirect) will pay for.

So then one has to ask why has it been done? If it won't stop people determined to find out first hand whether there's life after death, what will it achieve? The answer is probably that it enables Network Rail and/ or their insurers to "tick a box"

And perhaps the worst thing is, both Network Rail and their insurers know this as well, but they'll have been "seen to have done something" when little Johnny goes over the wall at that point and his parents go to an ambulance chaser to see what they can get. Their backsides will be covered...

Very good post. Thanks for that. <BJ>

The track level at this spot has been raised a couple of feet or so over the years. With electrification around the corner, I wonder if the track will be lowered again.

A few years ago, I read a report of a young boy being killed by electrocution from a 25KV overheard line. The railway was in a cutting and so the overhead line was at the same height as a wall on which he was sitting and was unfortunately wet because it had recently rained. Look how low the bridges are at this location, and how close to the railway viewers can get.

I think this spot is a particular problem for electrification, and changes to the viewing potential will unfortunately change considerably. Perhaps the engineers are starting early.

Fence is in place for track lowering as explained in my pic.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mao_zhou/7652092866/

Remember every structure through here is listed and part of two world heritage sites. Bath itself and the GWR railway. They cannot touch a thing except the track.