Rail worker should have been on site, court hears
An expert in the railway industry has told Nottingham Crown Court that a Controller of Site Safety from Network Rail should have been on site while colleagues carried out work on the tracks.
He was speaking on the fourth day of the trial of Mr David Millward, who was Controller of Site Safety in a three-man team on January 22, 2014.
Mr John Wright, who was lookout on the day, and colleague Mr Duncan Slade, an ultrasonic engineer, were working just outside Newark Northgate Station, when Mr Wright was struck by a train. He died from his injuries nine days later.
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) is prosecuting rail worker Mr Millward, 56, of St Wilfrid's Road in Doncaster.
He has pleaded not guilty to failure to discharge a duty contrary to sections 33 of health and safety act 1974.
Expert Mr Peter Goodwin, who has had 37 years’ experience in the railway industry, was called to explain to the jury the roles of the COSS and when briefings should be given.
Mr Goodwin, who was called as an independent witness, now works as a trainer and assessor for TQ Catalis.
Mr Goodwin said discipline when carrying out tasks on the tracks was “paramount” and if one section was incorrectly completed it could have an impact on the rest of the work.
Mr Slade said earlier in the trial that Mr Millward had given a briefing to the team at their previous job at Claypole about both the Claypole and Newark Northgate Station jobs.
He told the court that another short briefing was given in the van as they drove to the Newark Northgate job.
Mr Goodwin said: “First of all, the location was not ideal to brief people who are going into such a dangerous area.
“They are going on lines where there are hazards. Briefing along the road is not the right place to do it.
"The best location to brief is at the location. The site is the background, so they can see it.”
Mr Goodwin said he had always recommended that the briefing is done on site irrespective of how frequently a team visits that specific location to carry out the same work because things could change.
Work at Newark Northgate Station was ‘cyclical’, which meant it was carried out routinely.
Mr Goodwin said the COSS should always take advantage of conducting the briefing at the location because the team would be physically on site and they would be in the right mindset.
He added: "If you are sitting in a van, the mindset is not there, all you would see is the inside of the van.
"The start of the brief focuses people's mind and allows them to ask questions at the end of the brief.
"It is part of COSS’ role to deliver the safety brief. They (workers) need to understand what they will be doing.”
The jury were shown an employee handbook which does not specifically state where the briefing must be carried out but Mr Goodwin said it was appropriate to do it on site and that is what trainers recommended to people training for the railway industry.
Mr Goodwin told Mr Neil FitzGibbon, defending, that it was “unacceptable” and “not appropriate” to do the briefing elsewhere. He added that the handbook was “open to interpretations”.
When questioned by Mr FitzGibbon why he told people that the briefing should be conducted on site, he said things could have changed at the location which could have an impact on the work carried out.
Mr Goodwin said he had visited Newark Northgate Station on two occasions and on one of them he had noticed a lot of vegetation that had grown since his previous visit and this could have an effect on the distance workers could see.
The handbook also states that the COSS is responsible for checking his teams’ qualifications and if the person is competent to carry out the tasks.
Mr Goodwin added: “The COSS is a professional person, they will have the qualification and will have major responsibility and they will brief the group and keep them safe. It is a professional role."
Mr Goodwin said the idea of the COSS being on site was so that workers know their 'designated safety positions'.
The team visited two different sites on that particular day (January 22) and Mr Goodwin said briefings should have been given at both as they were different sites.
Mr Goodwin said: "It is the responsibility of the COSS to be with the group when they are walking to the site of work as well as staying at the site of work when they start work.
"It is critical that the COSS, when they have briefed, goes with the group to the site to ensure the safety of the group at the site and the safety of the group once they start work. The COSS should have been in both places.”
Mr Goodwin said if the COSS wasn’t at the site it would “set a precedent”, causing issues with discipline.
He added: “By the COSS not being there, things go wrong or they can go wrong.”
He said the COSS should have been on site to observe and monitor Mr Wright and Mr Slade.
Mr Goodwin said: “The COSS should have been looking at the look out to see if he (Mr Wright) was looking out properly.”
When Mr FitzGibbon asked Mr Goodwin if the two workers should have gone on site without the COSS, Mr Goodwin replied no.
Mr Goodwin said: “If the COSS is not there to monitor the group that could lead to people not doing things safely.
“If the COSS is not there, they could cut corners potentially and if they did the COSS can challenge it.”
Mr Goodwin said workers’ experience was irrelevant and that they should always go with the COSS to the site of work.
The trial continues.