In this industry, we hear a lot about what regulations are applicable and the best approach to conforming to them, but here is another example not related to train operations that could bite us as well.

The historic Arva Flour mill near London, Ontario has been operating its lineshaft- driven machinery without incident for 113 years. They pride themselves in the authentic nature of their facility and never had any problem until April, when federal inspectors showed up without warning.

Instant panic ensued when they saw exposed belts and the miller sampling material from the mills.

Eventually, they permitted the owner to run the machinery, as long as nobody else was in the building. Which, incidentally, kind of rules out the buddy system, so this practice, too, could probably get the place shut down by provincial inspectors.

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/05/19/arva-flour-mill-shut-down-after-federal-safety-inspectors-said-it-didnt-meet-modern-day-standards

I'm posting this here as a heads-up to any operations that treasure their lineshaft- driven shop machinery or other machines which lack modern guarding, two hand start, and all those other things which keep people safe but don't promote a respect for the machinery.

Just think what these inspectors would do if they saw the East Broad Top's shop, various ancient machine tools that have been adapted to use electric motors, etc.

Let's be proactive and at least make some concessions to safety, making changes in the least obtrusive manner possible. This case affects all forms of historic preservation of industrial facilities and machines, so it bears watching closely as the nanny state grows.

The deciding factor is that it is a business with paid employees, and thus falls under their version of OSHA. In the US, if an operation is run by volunteers and nobody is under pay, then the "O" is OSHA does not exist and their regulations are not generally applicable.

Hi,



This is a Canadien incident. (Note the interesting trivia that CN box cars had Canadian on one side and Canadien on the other).

I do agree that in the US. I think the operation would have been grandfathered in - maybe.

It is strange how some people chase ofter small items such as one child in 100,000,00 dieing and yelling about any cost to save a repeat when they ignore that 2 per day per state automobile deaths.

In running my Live Steamer, I often was questioned about what made the loco run. The adults frequently would not believe that steam was powerful enough to pull three cars of passenger with a locomotive weighing in at about 200 pounds.

Strange.

Doug vV

I've been asked by a passenger how the engineer can steer so well and keep the train in a straight line when backing up. Apparently my explanation that the tracks steer the train, that trains don't have steering wheels, and that trains can't swerve out of the way at railroad crossings, was too far fetched to be believeable. The look of skepticism and distrust on her face was only matched by the look of disbelief on mine.

My college adviser was an engineering professor who had a hook or prosthetic arm. He lost his arm in a grist mill in Virginia as a teenager. It was probably a factor in his commitment to a career as an academic.

Just because your operation is accident free, does not mean accidents are not possible.

When I was earning my BS in Forestry, our logging instructor (who had managed a sawmill as well as logging operations) was fond of saying that if you did something unsafe you actually had an accident, even if nobody was hurt and no property was damaged.

The concept of what is safe and unsafe is a moving target. What is safe for some people to do is unsafe for others. For example, it is generally unsafe for a 90 year old to get off of moving equipment, but safe for a 25 year old railroader who does it every day. Safety also changes over time. The aforementioned getting off of moving equipment once was considered safe (and that PRR Limbo safety film says so), then the railroads said it was unsafe and now some are coming back around saying that it is safe again. So what changed?

Safety is personal, and varies from person to person based on their individual level of skill, training, physical attributes and state of mind. But large entities must be able to codify everything, so personal judgement has been replaced by rigid rules of conduct.

If someone does what others claim to be an unsafe act, and no injury results, is it really unsafe? Maybe he got lucky in that case? What if that person does that unsafe act every day for years and no injury occurs? Is it still unsafe? For that person, perhaps no. Relative to all other people? Perhaps yes. We are all different, with varying levels of skill, attentiveness, intelligence and motivation. Those traits and a one size fits all safety policy do not coexist naturally if there is a desire to actually get work done in a timely and efficient manner. A balance must be struck, and it is increasingly difficult to not only find that balance, but to convince people in positions of authority that such a balance must exist.

It's unfortunately not that sensible, Rick...... a lot is being outsourced to HR consultants who know nothing about the work being done but everything about avoiding potential liability and compliance with regulations which were written by people who know even less about the work being done, case in point being my supposed requirement to put on a 40 cal arc suit to switch on my desk lamp.

In the Good Old Days when people were responsible for not being stupid themselves, one way to deal with management / labor issues was to slow down the work by adhering to all the safety rules. Productivity plummeted, nut nobody could be held responsible for doing that the rule books required.

Life is risk. Let's be rational and not try to regulate stupidity out of the workplace, since idiots are cleverer than regulators and will always find a way to get themselves into trouble.

Hi,

Two incidents from my PRR family's heritage.

My grandfather was riding a freight car over the Enola hump (box car I think) when the brakes failed. This was in the 1920s. He jumped from the runaway car and earned the nickname "Froggie". I suspect it was during the winter months and the brakes froze.

His brother was working the same yard and was taking a car over the hump. The same thing happened. He lost two toes and part of his foot. He took diability severence from PRR instead of a lifetime desk job and ended up with a good living during the 1930s buying new cars and supporting my grandfather some of the time..

They both took the same chance in similar situations.

As stated - safety is a slippery item to define.

Doug vV

I don't think any tourist railroad would be proposing demonstrations of poling cars or actual, full-size uses of link-and-pin couplings in this day and age. In my time on a class one, they went from teaching the use of riding "static drops" to prohibiting the practice. Same for "running switches" were banned a couple or more decades ago, as was the practice of riding the front step of a locomotive, both things I got to do nearly 40 years ago as someone in their teens and early 20's. Glad for the experience, but understand why it was later banned.

Not a tourist railroad, but I would like to see such practices demonstrated at museum operations if it is an appropriate part of their mission programming.

I am aware of at least two museums that routinely use link and pin draw-bars (noting that a coupler is an automatic device, a draw-bar is not), The Society for the Preservation of Carter Railroad Resources (SPCRR) at Ardenwood farm, and the Nevada State Railroad Museum at Carson City.

Both museums are very insular, without connection to the outside world. Both have a collections dominated by 19th century rolling stock.

In my experience with the SPCRR, link and pin draw-bars are reasonably safe in a museum setting, with short trains, in operations without a sense of urgency, where you practice safe practices, like using a stick to hold up the link, and in extreme cases blue flagging the train to install the pin. We never let crew go between cars in a train that might move, ever...

Randy

You simply need a Bishop's coupling knife... Ducking for cover...

The original post had me a bit confused as workplace safety is normally a Provincial responsibility in Canada, not a federal one. At least thats how it is out here in BC. Exceptions to this would be federally regulated industries, such as Inter-Provincial railways, Airlines, etc... I wonder is this flour mill considered a part of the food industry, which would put it under extra scrutiny from a food safety perspective? Here on Vancouver Island there is a steam operated sawmill (McLean Mill National Historic Site) which has permission to operate with employees wearing period appropriate safety gear (no orange plastic stuff), the mill also has extensive flat belt equipment operating which is visible but not accessible to the public.

Pat

Don't laugh. It's the same as it ever was.

I disagree vociferously with the idea that a museum 'should' demonstrate historically-unsafe practices as "part of its mission." A very significant part of 'history' with respect to link-and-pin couplers was the mindset of many contemporary railroaders that is was a 'sissy' thing to use a coupling knife or other aid. Would you replicate that as part of the 'historically accurate demonstration'? Would you also think it historically valuable to have the staff show the missing fingers and talk about how that's a sign of status for 'real' career railroaders?

You can get everything you need for a poling demonstration out of a good video presentation. Same for the right and wrong ways to couple link-and-pin couplings, and to show the various ways that wasting and breakage could occur with them (as an introduction, for example, to why knuckle couplers became increasingly valuable in the ways they did, or were 'preferred' even when they showed no distinctive advantage at the time). If you are describing the mechanism of boiler explosion, you don't demonstrate it with an Old Faithful scheduled crownsheet overheat every day at a convenient time, or even just at a few strategically-chosen days a year. Pictures and movies tell that tale quite well enough, without the lash of the fragments or the feel and smell of the blood and offal.

I think there is a place even for 'overdone' loss mitigation practice when there is actual safety, or the reasonable avoidance of a likelihood of meaningful injury (which is a different thing), especially when there is a meaningful reduction in insurance cost, or indeed the provision of insurance at any reasonable rate. It's an overemphasis on namby-pamby use of PPE and rote procedures that detract from actual common sense and vigilance that ought to be proper objects of our scorn.