Principles for Implementation of NR/L2/OHS/019 - Safety of ... · Route Businesses: Principles for...

Route Businesses: Principles for Implementation of NR/L2/OHS/019 – Level 3 guidance

of 57

Level 3 Guidance:

Principles for Implementation of NR/L2/OHS/019 - Safety of people at work on or near the line

Route Businesses

Version Date Comments

1.0 09 June 2017 First issued document

1.1 12 June 2017 Updated deconflication diagram for scenario 3

Updated Contingent labour PiC FAQ response

Updated guidance on PiC SWP authorisation

New section advising where to find SSOWPS materials

Five corrections to the guidance on creating a SWP

1.2 14 June 2017 Clarification on the PiC verification & checking process of the SWP

Moved the Q&A to the end of each section of the document

SWP example presented in a clearer format


of 57

Contents

1 Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 4

Table 1 – Definitions ..................................................................................................... 4

Table 2 – Abbreviations ................................................................................................ 7

2 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 8

Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 8

Scope ........................................................................................................................... 8

3 The safe work pack .................................................................................................... 8

What is the Safe Work Pack? ....................................................................................... 8

Summary guidance on a good, acceptable and unacceptable SWP ........................... 11

When is a SWP required? .......................................................................................... 14

Roles or specific groups do not require a SWP ........................................................... 14

Incident response packs ............................................................................................. 14

4 Roles and responsibilities ....................................................................................... 16

The Responsible Manager.......................................................................................... 18

The Planner ................................................................................................................ 18

The Person in Charge ................................................................................................ 19

Person in Charge and incident response .................................................................... 22

Defining and understanding Person in Charge capability ............................................ 22

5 Work planning and risk assessment ....................................................................... 23

Task risk identification ................................................................................................ 25

Hierarchy of control for operational risks ..................................................................... 26

Crossing the line protection (CTLP) under special arrangements ............................... 28

De-conflicting sites of work ......................................................................................... 28

East Midlands deconfliction process ........................................................................... 30

SSOWPS guidance .................................................................................................... 31

6 Acceptance of the safe work pack(s) ...................................................................... 32

7 Delivering an effective brief ..................................................................................... 33

8 The safe system of work planning process in normal circumstances ................. 34

Planning line blockages .............................................................................................. 34

Availability of protection for work ................................................................................ 35

Green zone guide ....................................................................................................... 35

Possession planning ................................................................................................... 35

Publication of possessions & line blockages in weekly operating notices ................... 36

9 Clarification of roles and responsibilities ............................................................... 36

Possession Support Staff ........................................................................................... 36

Safe systems of work for possession management / support staff .............................. 36

Safe systems of work for isolations, earthing and strapping operations ...................... 37

10 Monitoring and assurance ....................................................................................... 37

11 Compliance and assurance ..................................................................................... 37


of 57

Compliance process ................................................................................................... 37

Document retention .................................................................................................... 38

Appendicies ....................................................................................................................... 38

Safe Work Pack (Form F01.1) .................................................................................... 38

Incident Response Pack form RT9909/IRP ................................................................ 50

Line blockage form NR3181 ....................................................................................... 54

Subsidiary document .................................................................................................. 55

Task risk document .................................................................................................... 57


of 57

1 GLOSSARY

Table 1 – Definitions

Term Definition

Acceptance The act of the on-site Person in Charge who will be on site, agreeing with and accepting the SWP once it has been authorised by the Responsible Manager.

Authorisation The act of a Responsible Manager checking with the Person in Charge that everything required for the SWP to be enacted is in place.

Creation The act of a Planner starting a plan. It will be initiated by a Responsible Manager identifying work, and requesting the Planner to create a SWP.

Capability To possess the right attitude and skills that enables the Person in Charge to assist in planning and manage implementation of the SWP.

Direct risk to the safe running of the operational railway

Direct risks include activities taking place adjacent to the operational railway which could cause unintentional obstruction of the running line or, unintentional contact with the OLE or 3rd/4th rail. Direct risk does not include signalling, telecoms or E&P activities carried out on the lineside or off lineside. These activities and risks to the safe running of the operational railway shall be managed using existing standards and procedures.

Lineside The area from 3m from the running rail to the railway boundary.

National hazard directory A database that identifies the hazards on Network Rail’s controlled infrastructure. It also contains access point information and information about other structures or buildings on the infrastructure.

Off lineside Outside of the railway boundary.

On or near the line You are deemed to be on or near the line if you are:

within 3 metres (10 feet) of a line and there is no permanent fence or structure between you and the line

on the line itself

You are not on or near the line if you are on a station platform unless you are carrying out engineering or technical work within 1.25 metres (4 feet) of the platform edge.

Person in Charge A person involved in the planning and who is on site where the work is being undertaken and has the overall accountability of supervising and overseeing works. This person will normally be the team leader (or equivalent) and hold COSS competence to make sure planned controls are put in place to keep persons safe from trains, activity and site risks.


of 57

Planner The role which creates the safe work pack.

Possession management / support staff

Staff that undertake duties associated with the management of the possession.

Protection Previously referred to as “Green Zone”. This refers to a site of work blocked to traffic, a site of work separated from running lines by fence and/or a site of work separated by demarcation (e.g. site warden), allowing staff to work protected from trains as defined in the rule book.

Runaway risk A site is deemed to be at risk from runaways if

the worksite is on a gradient in excess of 1 in 100 or has a gradient greater than 1 in 100 above the worksite and within 5 miles of it

the worksite is a static one within a possession

the work taking place within the worksite is on or near the line

It should be noted the requirements above have been developed from analysis of previous incidents over a number of years , no runaways have occurred at gradients less than 1 in 100 and no Runaway has travelled in excess of 5 miles Further information is contained at: https://safety.networkrail.co.uk/safety/managing-the-risk-of-runaways/

Responsible Manager The person accountable for the appointment of a competent and capable Person in Charge. The person responsible for the management of staff who will work on or near the line. Examples of Responsible Managers are Section Manager, Section Supervisor, Local Operations Manager, On Call Manager and Designate Line Manager. In most cases Responsible Managers will also perform the role of authorising the safe work pack.

Safe system of work A method of working that includes arrangements to so that those who are to walk or work on or near the line are not put in danger by:

passing trains or movements;

entry to and exit from railway infrastructure;

walking on or near the line;

walking to or from a site of work;

setting up and withdrawing protection or warning

arrangements; and

carrying out work.

Safe work leader The role of an employee of Network Rail, a principal contractor who holds a trackside principal contractor licence or a contractor who has gained a railway contractors certificate, who manages safe delivery of work. As a minimum they hold a valid COSS competence.

Safe work pack A pack of information used by a Person in Charge that provides the safety arrangements for all work to be undertaken on site.

Site of work The location of work detailed within the SWP.

Not to be confused with the term ‘Worksite’ that is in reference to Engineering Supervisor’s activities. An ES worksite may contain several sites of work detailed

https://safety.networkrail.co.uk/safety/managing-the-risk-of-runaways/



of 57

within several SWP’s.

Task risk control sheets Network Rail document based on infrastructure maintenance task(s) that describe the risks associated with the work, the controls for those risks and the person(s) responsible for implementing the controls in accordance with

‘NR/L3/MTC/RCS/0216 - Risk Control Manual’.

Verify A review of the SWP to confirm the details in it are accurate, appropriate and fit for purpose for the work to be undertaken.

Verification The verification of the SWP is done by a Person in Charge after receiving the plan and adding the task(s) risk controls. The SWP is then handed to the Responsible Manager.

Warning Previously referred to as “Red Zone”. This refers to a site of work where staff are not separated from train movements but are alerted in adequate time to the approach of a train to enable them to move to a place of safety. This warning can be delivered via human or automated track warning systems

Weekly Operating Notice (WON)

Referred to as the WON. The official notice referred to in rules and regulations for giving details of:

Temporary speed restrictions

Engineering arrangements

Signalling and permanent way alterations

Amendments to National Operational Publications (NOPs), Sectional Appendices and other notices

Worksite & Site of Work Worksite

A worksite is the portion of line within a possession under the jurisdiction of an Engineering Supervisor (ES).

The ES is also responsible for authorising every IWA or COSS to set up their safe system of work within their worksite. The ES will agree track access arrangements.

The requirements are detailed in: GE/RT/8000/HB9 &

GE/RT/8000/HB12.

Site of work

The site of work is the location where the work will take place. The requirements are detailed in: GE/RT/8000/HB9.


of 57

Table 2 – Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

ASPRO Asset Protection

COSS Controller Of Site Safety

ES Engineering Supervisor

GZAC Green Zone Access Co-ordinator

GZAM Green Zone Access Management

IWA Individual Working Alone

PC Protection Controller

PCL Principal Contractor Licence

PDSW Planning and Delivering Safe Work

PiC Person in Charge

PICOP Person In Charge Of Possession

PL Planner

PPS Possession Planning System

PSS Possession Support Staff

RCC Railway Contractors Certificate

RM Responsible Manager

RSD Route Services Director

SCM Single Controlling Mind

SSoW Safe System of Work

SSoWP Safe System of Work Pack

SWL Safe Work Leader

SWM Safe Work Manager

SWP Safe Work Pack

WON Weekly Operating Notice


of 57

2 INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on how the requirements of ‘NR/L2/OHS/019 – Safety of people at work on or near the line’ should be delivered within Network Rail Route Businesses.

This document is complementary to ‘NR/L2/OHS/019 – Safety of people at work on or near the line’ standard and can be used in conjunction with existing rule books, regulations, legislation, standards, processes and procedures.

Scope

This document defines the principles and processes for:

Applying the role of a “Person in Charge”

Provision of appropriate information to support the control of site risk, which is provided and accepted by the Person in Charge in advance of work.

Planning work to be implemented at any Network Rail site of work. Work is defined as construction, testing, inspection, maintenance, replacement, disposal or commissioning of Network Rail infrastructure or assets (including the delivery and use of materials, tools, equipment, plant and vehicles to facilitate such work)

Assessing and communicating the operational, location and task(s) risks for the work to be completed, and identifying appropriate controls

Allocating the responsibilities and accountabilities of personnel with respect to planning, on-site safety and the management and communication of operational, location and task(s) risk

Documenting lessons learned and performing assurance checks to encourage ongoing improvement of the planning and delivering of safe systems of work.

3 THE SAFE WORK PACK

What is the Safe Work Pack?

The existing Safe System of Work Pack (SSoWP) will be enhanced and will become a ‘Safe Work Pack’ (SWP). This provides information on how work shall be carried out safely and gives details on how to manage and control task(s) (activity), site and operational risks. The SWP enables the effective management and implementation of controls for the safety of people involved or may be affected by the work activities on or near the line, or which may affect the line.

The minimum contents of a SWP will be:

A cover sheet confirming adherence to this guidance note, including the name of the Person in Charge. Form F01.1fulfils this criteria

A part completed RT9909 (see the Rule Book GE/RT8000) or recognised equivalent

A part completed RT3181 form(s) (where blockage(s) of the line are part of the SSOW)


of 57

Information and controls that will allow safe access and egress, including walking to and from site

Relevant specific task(s) risk information and controls required (e.g. Task Risk Control Sheets, work package plans or task briefing sheets or relevant extracts) including location risk such as the management of runaway risk

Relevant permits, where applicable, such as permit to Dig, Lifting Plans, Electrical, Isolation, Hot Works, Confined Spaces, etc.

Details of the possession arrangements, including protection arrangements (where appropriate)

Extracts from the Sectional Appendix showing the relevant running lines, track layout and work location for the entire mileage for which the work group will be on or near the line

Extracts from the National Hazard Directory that are relevant to the work and location (these may be included on the RT9909 form)

Additional signalling or track diagrams (where appropriate)

Details of the welfare arrangements

Emergency and first aid arrangements

The information contained in the SWP should be concise, specific and relevant to the task(s) and location of where the work is being undertaken. The SWP should provide clear information that the Person in Charge can effectively use to control the risks to themselves, those working under their supervision and the operational railway.

The production of a SWP will include collaboration between the Responsible Manager, Planner, the Person in Charge and persons with any necessary technical expertise and familiarity with the task(s) and risks involved.

The Person in Charge will verify the suitability and fitness for purpose of the SWP a minimum of one shift in advance of when the work is to take place.

To verify the SWP, the Person in Charge shall conduct a thorough check of the information that is contained within it, making sure that it contains the necessary information detailed above and also does not contradict the best practice.

When checking the SWP, the Person in Charge should consider and confirm that the SWP;

Effectively identifies the task(s), site and operational risks associated with the work and how they will be managed;

Contains the correct information for operational safety arrangements, e.g. correct protection limits/signal numbers, isolation limits, possession information.

Is not unnecessarily long or contains information that is not relevant to the work.

Where COSS duties have been delegated, the Person in Charge will provide the COSS with an opportunity to check the operational safety element of the pack during verification and make sure that the COSS completes a review of the pack, confirming the details are correct and can be implemented. If the COSS is satisfied with the operational safety management information they will endorse the F01.1 form in the relevant section.

If the COSS is not satisfied with the operational safety element of the SWP, they will return it to the Person in Charge, informing them of the errors and changes required. The Person in Charge will make arrangements for the pack to be amended, after which they again provide the COSS with an opportunity to conduct their check.


of 57

Where the COSS duties are delegated the Person in Charge shall only complete the verification of the SWP once the COSS has endorsed the F01 form. Without the COSS endorsement, the verification process cannot be completed.

Where the Person in Charge is not satisfied with any element of the SWP they must return it to the Planner. When returning the pack to the Planner an explanation of required amendments will be provided to enable the Planner to make appropriate changes to the SWP. Where a SWP is reissued with amendments, the verification and authorisation process will be applied again.

Once the Person in Charge is happy with the contents of the SWP and has necessary endorsements, they shall complete the verification section of the F01.1 form and return the SWP to the Responsible Manager for authorisation.

At least one shift before the work is due to be undertaken the Responsible Manager will undertake a review of the SWP and check that the Person in Charge has completed their verification. As a minimum this should check that the F01 form has been correctly completed. The Responsible Manager can also speak with the Person in Charge directly to confirm their understanding of the SWP contents and how it will be implemented.

When the Responsible Manager is satisfied with the SWP and verification they will authorise it for use by completing the relevant section of the F01 form, after which they shall return it to the Person in Charge.

Before implementing the SWP on site, the Person in Charge will carry out a final check, comparing the details within the SWP against the site conditions.

Question: “At what point does a delegated COSS need to validate the SWP?”

Response: The delegated COSS should work with the person in charge to check the operational safety element of the SWP. This should be undertaken during the planning stage of the work and not at the time the work is being undertaken.

The delegated COSS should endorse the SWP during person in charge verification and should do this in collaboration with the person in charge.

The delegated COSS should interact primarily with the person in charge as it is the person in charge who needs to verify the SWP to assure themselves that the arrangements are suitable and sufficient.

Where a person in charge has decided to delegate COSS responsibilities, this needs to be done during the planning of the SWP to enable COSS endorsement during the verification at least one shift in advance.

Question: “What information is required for ‘welfare’ in the new SWP?”

Response: The welfare standard has not changed. Your welfare arrangements should be compliant with the NR ‘The Provision of Welfare Facilities’ standard NR/L3/INI/CP0036

In SSOWPS you can now identify what the welfare provision will be for the task. This provision should be based on the CP36 Welfare standard. A link to the welfare standard and a useful matrix is provided within SSOWPS. The person in charge will help the Planner to choose appropriate welfare facilities if required.

Each of the routes is working on a plan to improve welfare facilities, so provision for welfare is expected to improve over time.

Question: “What information is required for ‘first aid’ in the new SWP?”

Response: Your first aid and emergency arrangements should be compliant with the NR ‘First Aid at Work’ standard NR/L2/OHS/00110 and should include the name and location of the nearest hospital, the name of a first aider, and any special arrangements.


of 57

The Person in Charge may support you with details of what’s most appropriate for the work. You don’t have to identify a fully trained first aider. It’s great if a member of the team is, but you can also have a first aid appointed person who will take control in an emergency, they will call the emergency services, and assist the injured person.

Question: Do you need to have the same PiC (i.e. the same individual) to verify the SWP and deliver PiC duties on a worksite or can this be two different people (i.e. a PiC)?

Response: It is difficult to answer this question purely using the terms “The” and “A” as people use the terms interchangeably for the same meaning, sometimes referring to the person who verifies the SWP, and sometimes referring to the person who leads the work on site.

During the production phase of the SWP, “The/A” PiC will be involved by collaboratively working with the Planner and the Responsible Manager. This same PiC will VERIFY the SWP at least once shift in advance.

It is good practice that the PiC who verified the SWP is also the same PiC that accepts the SWP at the time of the work, i.e. the person involved in the planning is the same Person in Charge of the workgroup on the shift. However, we recognise that under certain circumstances, such as short term illness. It may be necessary for a different PiC to the original to accept the SWP, once it has been verified.

This is acceptable providing this new PiC has had the necessary time to satisfy themselves that the SWP is suitable for the tasks in hand, the site conditions and geography and operational considerations. One of the measures of the revised standard will be to identify on how many occasions the same Person in Charge who verified the pack, also accepted it at the site of work.

In summary:

The PiC verifying has to have been involved in the production of the SWP and verify

at least one shift in advance.

The PiC accepting and leading the work on site has to have had time to satisfy

themselves that the SWP is suitable before work begins.

Summary guidance on a good, acceptable and unacceptable SWP

The table below details what is a good, acceptable and unacceptable safe work pack. Full guidance on what should be contained within a Safe Work Pack is contained in the appendix.


of 57

Good Acceptable Unacceptable

Work Information

References the relevant plan number and indicates on the F01 whether it is a cyclic, repeat or non-cyclic SWP. Contains specific details about the access point, mileages and worksite details

Contains errors, or has a duplicate pack number or uses generic information.

Description A specific description of the activity, including the discipline/asset involved and the task(s), suggesting the competences needed, e.g. "Plain line Basic Visual Inspection of track".

Conveys an understanding of the discipline/asset involved and gives an idea of the generic activity, e.g. "Track Patrolling".

Uses generic terms that don't specify discipline/asset or specific task(s) involved e.g. "Inspection".

Roles The Planner, Responsible Manager and Person in Charge are all different people. The Person in Charge who is the verifier is the same person as the one on site delivering the work. The Planner and the Responsible can be the same person.

The Planner and Responsible Manager are being the same person (as long as the Responsible Manager holds core planning skills). The on-site Person in Charge is different from the verifier. The on-site Person in Charge must always be the acceptor

One person doing all elements, or the elements being done out of order. Under no circumstances can one person be the verifier and authoriser.

Planning the SSOW

Whatever SSOW that is adequate for the location and task(s). This is what happens now. The SSOW planning process always tries to implement protection arrangement with additional protection.

The safe system of work is adequate for the location and task(s). The SSOW planning process relies on warning system more than protection systems or the protection system does not use additional protection.

The SSOW is not appropriate for the work and/or location. For example carrying out work that affects the safety of the line.

Planner and Person in Charge relationship

The Planner and the Person in Charge sit alongside each other and create the plan together.

The interaction of the Planner and Person in Charge is done via a phone-call, an email with pdf attachment, or SWP is left in pigeon hole. This must be done with enough time for the SWP to be reviewed and accepted to prior to authorisation. Need to make sure that expectations on feedback is clear to provide improvement to the process

A Person in Charge is not appointed or involved in the planning, and the verify section is signed on the shift that the work is planned for.

Task(s) Risk Considerations

The first consideration should be to eliminate risk. This could be using a machine if feasible. If the risk has been eliminated, controls do not need to be put in place. Remember though, there may be a consequence of eliminating the risk, for example, if using a machine instead of carrying out a task manually, AN exclusion zone may be required.

Task(s) Risk Controls

Follow principles of eliminate, reduce, isolate & control Task(s) Risk control sheets and any permits included, e.g. lift plans. Good practice is having controls (such as Task(s)

SWPs should not be full of paper just for the sake of it, but if in doubt, it is always better to have the paperwork included in the SWP than left out, but do not include things in the pack that are

Inadequate controls with inappropriate delegated owners. It would be very unusual for an adequate SWP to have no specific risk control measures.


of 57

Risk Control Sheets) for all risks that are specific and relevant to the planned work. E.g. HAVS, noise and ballast dust.

not specific and relevant to the task(s) or site. It is best to seek advice from someone experienced in the discipline and task(s) in this instance.

Working alongside others - Engineering Worksites

The Person in Charge works with the Planner and reviews all task(s) risk controls submitted by other work owners. Any work groups that have planned activity with risks that have the potential to conflict are contacted, and a solution is determined by all parties (de-confliction) and records are made of the outcomes. This might involve different staging (timing) of the works, or cancellation. De-confliction is to take place at T-5 weeks.

The Planner works with a Responsible Manager to plan the de-confliction. It is possible that a manager would manage all the de-confliction before appointing an ES. Lockdown is at T-10 days.

Potential conflicts identified and not addressed OR the other work owners do not submit task(s) risk information for inclusion or not reviewed. Non-emergency work is planned inside T-10 days, and has to be managed through late change process, thus disrupting all planned work.

Working on one activity with more than one function (1 job with different functions)

The work owner contacts the different functions to get the task(s) risks for inclusion and delegated risk owners/controller are identified. These are provided by the different functions in writing with all risks and controls detailed on it. This is supplied to work owner for inclusion in the SWP before T-5 weeks for any potential de-confliction considerations.

The function could have a templated task(s) risk sheet for each activity, for example, changing a plain line rail for the welding department. Each time it is needed, the SWP reference and date/time of planned work is added, along with the delegated risk owner/controller, then submitted to work owner.

No task(s) risk information is submitted to work owner or only generic site risks such as "slips, trips and falls", and does not reference any risks and control measures associated with their work element. Inadequate controls with inappropriate delegated owners.

Welfare Arrangements

Welfare arrangements (such as fixed facilities, portable facilities) are identified, along with the location. Additional facilities, such as messing facilities, first aid arrangements and other emergency arrangements are clearly identified and linked to the task(s) risks.

Welfare arrangements are provided, but consist of breaks planned every 2 hours with no more than 20 minutes travel to the facility.

The SWP does not consider welfare or make provision for the workforce. It is not acceptable to state 'Go behind a tree', or rely on the use of the nearest public conveniences.

Runaway Risk Mitigation to prevent runaway or replanning of work to eliminate risk including use of facing points to mitigate risk.

Secondary warning deployed.

Have not considered runaway risk and/or no mitigation applied.

If SWP falls in this column, tick "No" and return the

SWP


of 57

When is a SWP required?

On Network Rail infrastructure or assets within scope of this document (clause 2.2), no work

shall be undertaken by any individual or group without a valid SWP when work is being

undertaken either:

‘On or near the line’,

Has the potential to disrupt or import a direct risk to the safe running of the operational railway (e.g. adjacent to the operational railway which could cause unintentional obstruction of the running line or, unintentional contact with the OLE or 3rd/4th rail), or

Imports a direct risk to the safe running of the operational railway. This can also involve works that are being undertaken ‘on the lineside’ or ‘off lineside’

All staff who are at work and walking to a place of work to undertake work which needs a SWP need to consider the safe access and egress arrangements and any relevant controls required. These should be contained within the SWP for the work.

In all circumstances if additional controls are required to walk on the infrastructure (e.g. line blockage or other protection or warning methods) then a SWP is required.

Roles or specific groups do not require a SWP

The following do not need a SWP:

A Signaller who can work under their own protection; and

Designated Persons (DP) continue to work to existing operational standards.

The following emergency services, responding to an emergency do not require a SWP:

Fire;

Police;

Ambulance;

Coast guard; and

Bomb disposal

Question: “Is a SWP needed for walking on or near the line?” Response: No. You are not required to have a SWP if you are walking on or near the line in order to join a team already at work. It is good practice to have a copy of the SWP for that team and be familiar with the work being performed and therefore the risks associated with your journey to that worksite (including worksites you may be travelling through).

The revised 019 standard does not change the rulebook requirements, walking is still permitted.

Incident response packs

Where the Person in Charge is directed to respond to an incident, they may plan their own SWP in accordance with the procedure specified in NR/L2/OHS/019/mod01. A SWP produced in this way is known as an Incident Response Pack (IRP).


of 57

The incident response pack (IRP) will be completed on site by the Person in Charge and should include the information normally found in a SWP as well as including the incident number provide by Route/fault control.

The Person in Charge shall return the IRP at the earliest opportunity, no later than 1 week following the completion of the work, to either the:

a) designated Planner; or

b) Responsible Manager where there is no designated Planner.


of 57

4 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The ‘NR/L2/OHS/019 – Safety of people at work on or near the line’ Network Rail sets out requirements for how work should be safely planned.

Everyone who carries out work on NR infrastructure or assets has responsibilities and duties under this standard. It is important that each person is adequately trained and knows exactly what those responsibilities and duties are.

The table below provides a summary outlining the role description and the supporting competence required.

Role Role Description Supporting Competence

Planner Person creating the SWP Safe System of Work Planner

Verifier A Person in Charge who verifies the contents of the SWP in advance of authorisation.

COSS (or IWA when working alone)

Authoriser Responsible Manager authorising the SWP and accountable for its content.

Is job post specific; Examples of Responsible Managers are Section Manager, Section Supervisor, Local Operations Manager, Operations Delivery Manager, On Call Manager and Designate Line Manager

Acceptor Person accepting the SWP and responsible for working to the agreed arrangements on site. This will be “the” on site Person in Charge.


Returner Person responsible for returning the SWP and highlighting errors in the SWP or lessons learned. This will be the on-site Person in Charge at the end of the shift.



of 57


of 57

The Responsible Manager

The Responsible Manager (RM) is accountable for the preparation of the SWP and this will be delegated to the person identified to undertake the Planner role in the process. The RM decides how work is prioritised, planned and delivered. The RM shall provide the Planner with the necessary tools, documents, and guidance to enable them to perform their role.

The RM will nominate a Person in Charge to:

Support the Planner in creating the SWP with the inclusion of adequate operational, task(s) and location risk assessments; and

Verify the safe system of work (SSOW) information and to add the appropriate task(s) risk and control information to the SWP.

The RM shall:

Nominate a capable Person in Charge to undertake the work;

Shall assure themselves that the Person in Charge nominated is familiar with the location, type of work and protection/warning arrangements;

Make the necessary resources (including equipment, people and time) available to the Person in Charge to allow them to carry out the work safely and in line with the SWP;

Monitor the standard of SWP planning and investigate any issues raised by Planners or persons in charge.

A RM may authorise a request by the Person in Charge to implement an SWP at a lower level in the hierarchy of SSOW than planned provided they have sufficient understanding of the relevant rules, standards and the arrangements for the work to make an informed decision. A record of this authorisation will be kept on the returned SWP.

For cyclical/repeat task(s)s, the RM shall verify the accuracy and appropriateness of each SWP in consultation with a Person in Charge who is familiar with the area and the task(s). Once satisfied with the SWP the RM may authorise it to be implemented repeatedly without further verification by a Person in Charge or authorisation by the RM for either a;

6 month period where the SWP may contain an element of working with warning; or

12 month period where the SWP is prepared for working under protection only.

The Planner

The person nominated to act as Planner in this process is responsible for planning the work in accordance with the priorities set by the RM. The Planner shall create a proposed SSOW applying the principles of the Hierarchy of Safe Systems of Work.

The Planner shall be: be assessed and certified as competent as a:

Safe System of Work Planner; or

Planning and Delivering of Safe Work Planner; or where they do not hold the Safe System of Work Planner competence, they shall work under the authority of a Responsible Manager. In this case the Responsible Manager shall hold the Safe System of Work Planner competence.

To assist them in creating the SSOW elements of the SWP, Planners shall have access to, and extract information from, documents such as:

The Sectional Appendix;

The National Hazard Directory;


of 57

Signalling diagrams & track diagrams.

The Planner shall check all completed and implemented SWPs returned for recorded lessons learnt: errors and changes. Any lessons learnt shall be noted for correction in all future planning, and all incorrect plans shall be withdrawn.

Where the standard requires the Planner to apply for a worksite through the Possession Planning System, this application can be done through the Access Coordinator on the Planner’s behalf.

The Planner will be supported by the

Responsible Manager: in creating the SWP with the inclusion of adequate operational, task(s) and location risk assessments.

Person in Charge: in confirming the Hierarchy of SSOW is appropriate for the delivering the task(s) safely in the operational environment; and providing the task(s) risk assessment and identification of appropriate controls for inclusion in the SWP.

Access Co-ordinator: in obtaining the required disruptive track access through Route Services on behalf of the Infrastructure Maintenance organisation, liaising with the Planner until the access has been secured.

Green Zone Access Co-ordinator: in arranging the required track access using the Green Zone Access Management system (GZAM) for work taking place in less than 8 weeks from the request date or for work which is not required to be published in the Weekly Operating Notice (WON). They shall respond to the Planner (requester) within a reasonable time period with regards to what track access has been secured.

Route Planning Specialist: in arranging the required track access using the Possession Planning System (PPS) for work which is required to be published in the WON or takes place in over 8 weeks from the request date. They shall respond to Planner (requester) within a reasonable time period.

Question: “Are any changes being made to interface between SSOWPS and GZAM?”

Response: No. There are no changes in the way SSOWPS interfaces with GZAM in V2.5 of the SSOWPS software.

The Person in Charge

The Person in Charge is accountable for all activities within a site of work as defined within the SWP. The PiC may delegate task(s) risk controls, and in certain circumstances may delegate COSS responsibilities. In both instances, they will retain accountability. Delegation of COSS duties will only occur with prior agreement of the Responsible Manager. A person in Charge:

Will be involved in the planning of the work, and will be responsible for verifying the SWP

Must hold COSS (or IWA if working alone) as a minimum, and be designated capable to act in the role by the line manager

Is accountable for protecting their own safety and the safety of persons in the work group from the risk of being struck by trains (Operational Risk) and the risks associated with undertaking the task(s), including any site risks

Shall be experienced in leading a team while working on an open line, in a line blockage, on the lineside or off lineside. To support this requirement the Person in Charge will hold either a valid;

COSS certification; or

IWA certification where they are required to go on or near the line alone.


of 57

Under no circumstances shall the Person in Charge allow any work to commence, or continue, where they are not competent to undertake the duties or where adequate safety arrangements cannot be established or maintained.

The Person in Charge shall also have an understanding of the work activity and knowledge of the site/location where the work is to take place. This is to enable them to effectively support the planning and implementation of the SWP.

A Person in Charge shall support the Planner in:

confirming the Hierarchy of SSOW is appropriate for the delivering the task(s) safely in the operational environment

providing the task(s) risk assessment and identification of appropriate controls for inclusion in the SWP

Once the Person in Charge has assured themselves of the sufficiency of its contents, they shall verify the SWP, and record this on the SWP Validation form - NR/L2/OHS/019/F01.

The onsite Person in Charge (the person who accepts the SWP and undertakes the work) may delegate the responsibility of COSS duties to a suitably qualified person. However, this delegation is planned in advance and requires prior agreement and authorisation from a Responsible Manager. Where the role of COSS is delegated and planned not to be undertaken by the Person in Charge, the verification of the SWP will still be undertaken by the Person in Charge but that verification will include endorsement by the nominated COSS on the SWP validation form. However, the Person in Charge will retain accountability for safety from operational and task risks at all times.

The Person in Charge shall return all completed and implemented SWPs and/or IRPs to the Planner, highlighting the safety arrangements implemented and any lessons learned or changes that were required.

The Person in Charge will also return all unused SWPs to the Planner, with a comment detailing the reason it was not used in section 5 of the SWP Validation form - NR/L2/OHS/019/F01.

Question: “Do Individuals Working Alone (IWA) need a COSS competence to become a Person in Charge?”

Response: No. The standard is clear that an IWA acts as a PiC when they are an IWA. An IWA cannot be a PiC for a team of people, in such case the PiC must hold COSS/SWL.

Question: Why is SWL only being used in IP and not in Route Businesses?

Response: The new 019 standard requires all parts of the industry to operate to a consistent framework for the first time and therefore both IP and Route Businesses are required to undertake work using a Person in Charge (PiC).

IP have consulted with their suppliers and workforce and as a result of this have decided that they would use the Safe Work Leader (SWL) competence as the requirement for the role being performed by the PiC.

Please note: Should Works Delivery operate as principal contractor they will utilise their staff as Persons in Charge underpinned by team leader as COSS. I.e. Works Delivery staff do not require Safe Work Leader competence.

Question: “Will Network Rail supply chain partners need to use both a PiC with SWL or COSS when undertaking work for IP and Route Businesses on separate jobs?”

Response: Yes. All work being undertaken on or near the line requires a PiC to be in place.

For work being undertaken for across the majority of Network Rail activity, the Person in Charge will hold the COSS competence. The exception to this is for work being undertaken for IP the supply chain who will exercise this through the use of a SWL.


of 57

It is recommended that the supply chain schedule staff in a way that they would be consistent in working for either a Route or Infrastructure Projects. We do not recommend that staff change from working in Route Businesses under a PiC and then in Infrastructure Projects with a SWL.

Question: “Can a member of the contingent labour workforce undertaking work in Route Businesses (i.e. maintenance work on a route) perform the role of a Person in Charge?”

Response: Yes. A member of the contingent labour can perform the role of PiC providing the following

criteria are met:

They have been allocated to be the person in charge by the Primary Sponsor’s Responsible Manager for that work (i.e. NR / PC or RCC organisation)

They have been involved in the planning of the work

They have the appropriate local knowledge

They deliver the work on the night i.e. it must be the same PiC who plans and delivers the work

Question: “What information will the Person in Charge have available to brief task risk?”

Response: The new version of SSOWPS (v2.5) contains a list of all task risk controls that may be applicable for the work being planned. The PiC should work with the Planner to identify those that are most relevant to the work being planned to control the significant risks on site. The identified task risks will be listed in the SWP and it is the responsibility of the PiC to ensure an relevant task risk briefing is conducted at site.

SSOWPS v2.5 provides hyperlinks to the task risk control sheets to enable the PiC to print them out in advance if required.

Question: “Can changes be made to a SWP on site?”

Response: Yes. Changes can be made to the SWP at site, but this should be the exception rather than the normal. Adding additional task risk controls or going up the hierarchy can be done by the Person in Charge without approval but must be recorded on the SWP.

Any changes that weaken the SWP i.e. going down the hierarchy, removing task controls or delegating COSS responsibilities needs to be approved in advance by the Responsible Manager or on call Manager and will require and authority number.

Question: “What duties is an individual unable to perform whilst being a Person in Charge?”

Response: Rulebook requirements relating to duties have not changed and in all circumstances a Person in Charge cannot and must NOT be a lookout / site warden.

The critical part is for the Responsible Manager and the Person in Charge to have planned the work to be able to be delivered by the staff undertaking the work. During planning this enables the Person in Charge to make sure the right people with the right competencies are provided to enable the arrangements documented in the SWP to be implemented as planned.. If the Person in Charge feels they cannot effectively implement the SWP then this should discussed during the planning of the work.

If an individual is unhappy with the duties assigned they should reject the SWP during the verification process and where a suitable resolution is not forthcoming invoke the Work Safe Procedure.

Question: “When individuals are signing a SWP briefing, what are they agreeing to?”

Response: On signing the SWP, individuals are indicating that they have received a briefing on the work being undertaken, the risks and mitigating controls and they are happy to undertake the work being proposed. The new SWP explicitly includes a section on the proposed controls to mitigate the risk of injury from conducting the task i.e. the risk from working at height.

Question: “Will the Person in Charge be identified by wearing an armband or helmet when on site?”


of 57

Response: There is no requirement for the Person in Charge on site to wear a form of identification. Because the Person in Charge will make sure everyone on site has been briefed they will be known to everyone who has signed into the safe system of work as documented in the SWP.

The COSS armband will remain in place in IP when using a SWL competence, the SWL armband will be utilised.

IP track are currently trialling the use of a black helmet to identify supervisors. This is additional to the use of armbands to identify SWLs. As part of a post implementation review the programme will consider using different colour helmets for the Person in Charge.

Person in Charge and incident response

When directing staff to an incident, the Route/Fault Control deploy the appropriate resources to attend. The first competent person to arrive will undertake the role of Person in Charge. However, as the incident progresses it may be appropriate to change the Person in Charge if a more appropriate person arrives on site.

This decision will be discussed by both the initial Person in Charge and the person nominated to take over the responsibility. Where it is agreed that the Person in Charge is to be changed, Route/Fault Control shall be updated by the initial Person in Charge and shall be informed of;

The name of the new Person in Charge;

The company that the new Person in Charge is employed by;

Their department; and

Contact details (phone number minimum) that they can be reached on

This information will be confirmed through use of safety critical communications protocols to confirm the change of arrangements on site.

Question: “How should the return of the IRP paperwork be managed?”

Response: The Person in Charge is responsible for returning the IRP at the earliest opportunity; this should be no later than 1 week after the incident. Completed paperwork should be returned to the designated Planner or Responsible Manager. The Responsible Manager is accountable for the storage of IRP in accordance with ‘NR/L3/INF/02226 - corporate records retention schedule’.

Defining and understanding Person in Charge capability

Capability when referred to in this document is determined by three factors:

Competent:

This often refers to certificated competence. In the case of the Planner and person-in-charge, it refers to successful completion and mentoring of the Safe System of Work Planner or COSS/IWA courses and subsequent successful retention of competence through the company’s Skills Assessment Scheme. Competence also refers to being aware of any updates to a process, for example, being briefed on issue 9 of NR/L2/OHS/019.

Experienced:

Once someone is newly competent in a task, they will need to gain experience in the activity. Formal mentorship is a requirement for several competencies, but experience is important for all activities as it allows a person to understand their own limitations. Many elements of work can change within standard tasks on the railway depending what the differing conditions are. So there is a lot to consider when assessing if someone is experienced in a situation or not, i.e., it is not only the task, but also things like resource available, weather conditions and familiarity with team or location that affect someone’s experience. The best judge of an individual’s experience is often their line manager, and this is why continual communication and the annual capability conversation (ACC) are important.


of 57

Equipped:

On face value, this refers to tools, apparatus and clothing that someone has to do their job. Whilst this is obviously true, it also means how prepared someone is to deliver the task. A major influence on this assessment is what other concurrent duties does the individual need to carry out at the same time. If there is a physical or mental distraction from the individual’s core job, they are not fully equipped. For example, carrying out Site Warden or Lookout duties requires total dedication to one activity for 100% of the time, so should not be done by a person-in-charge. Similarly, it is not appropriate for a person-in-charge to carry out all parallel roles on a complex site. Mental and physical capacity will vary from person to person. Any exception to this guidance should be risk assessed in consultation with the Rule Book by a senior manager, e.g., IMDM.

The Responsible Manager should take these capability factors into account when conducting their Annual Capability Conversation with staff who they are likely to nominate as Person in Charge The diagram below summarises the key considerations when determining if a COSS should be a PiC.

Question: “How should a DU determine which COSS certified individuals should be a Person in Charge?” Response: Person in Charge is a capability and not a competence. The Responsible Manager should determine which individuals are appropriate to fulfil this capability through a variety of means including reference to performance during planned general safety inspections and the output from the Annual Capability Conversations. The work should also be considered and whether the nominated Person in Charge has the necessary competence, experience and attitude to be an effective Person in Charge.

5 WORK PLANNING AND RISK ASSESSMENT

The Person in Charge who is onsite and who understands the risks associated with the task(s)(s) will normally be part of the planning process, the exceptions being where;

Cyclical/repetitive work is planned to be undertaken;

Illness has resulted in a change of the Person in Charge;

Where the Person in Charge is responding to an incident.

The Responsible Manager authorising the SWP shall have an understanding of the associated task(s) risks, site/location risks and the capability and competence of the people who will be undertaking the task(s).

Those involved in the planning process will need to consider hazards, risks and controls, e.g.:


of 57

What could go wrong?

What is the likelihood of it going wrong?

What would be the consequence if it happened?

What controls can be put into place to prevent it from going wrong?

Will the controls be effective and, if not:

What additional control measures can be identified, or can the way that the task(s) is delivered be changed to reduce or control the risk(s)?

Can the local environment/SWP be changed to reduce or control the risk(s)?

During the planning of the work, the nature of the work is determined and relevant task(s) risks and appropriate controls must be determined and details included within the SWP.

Additional pertinent/required information (e.g., permit to dig) shall be attached to the SWP.

The SWP shall be produced by a Planner who has been assessed and certified as competent in Safe System of Work Planner.

Planners are empowered to decide at what level within the Hierarchy of control for operational risks (see NR/L2/OHS/019 – Table 2) a particular task(s) is to be carried out, whilst following any instructions provided by the RM, which may limit how far down the Hierarchy the work may be planned.

The Planner shall take into account all relevant factors which may include;

The nature, location and urgency of the task(s);

Any specific requirement for the task(s), bearing in mind some task(s)s may need to be undertaken in daylight (e.g. inspection or examination or infrastructure);

The hierarchy of control for operational risks;

Any necessary requirements for obtaining blockages of running lines or sidings;

Availability of line blockage opportunities;

Any working prohibitions that affect working with warning safe systems of work (e.g. limited/inadequate positions of safety), as specified in the Rule Book, this document and the Hazard Directory;

The number of people involved;

The length of the site of work and duration it is required;

Whether any work will be done in darkness or poor visibility;

Arrangements for site access/egress;

Tools and equipment to be used;

The welfare provision required and how it will be provided;

Presence of junctions/crossovers, bi-directional line or single line working on any lines(s) at or adjacent to the worksite;

Number of trains on any lines(s) at or adjacent to the worksite;

Amount of time between trains on any line(s) at or adjacent to the worksite;

Length of warning time required for the work (when working with warning arrangements);

Whether one or more lines will be open to traffic between the worksite and the position of safety;


of 57

Whether the worksite is static or moving. Where the work is moving particular care shall be taken that the SWP will remain adequate at all times throughout the work. Any limited clearances, changes in sighting distances, noisy areas etc. shall be taken into account;

Movement of on-track machines or trains within a possession or on any open lines close to a possession;

Number of Lookouts required where working using warning arrangements is planned and the arrangements to protect their movements whilst on or near the line;

Whether approved warning equipment (e.g. SATWS, LEWIS, ATWS, LOWS) is available;

Whether there will be high noise levels either generated by the work or in the background;

The best reasonable means of doing the work; and

The needs of the train service, so that delays to trains are avoided and this creates other risks around the network.

Key environmental impacts can also be included in the SWP, such as existence of protected or harmful flora/fauna within area of the site of work.

The potential for runaway risk, either from OTP/OTM/trolley(s) on the site of work or those in adjacent sites of work.

Task risk identification

To assist Planners in identifying the task risks that are most pertinent to the work they are planning a table has been created that details which task risk modules would typically apply to which discipline.

For example a piece of telecoms work would typically task risk modules in the following areas:

A. General activity / hazard

B. Small plant

C. Mobile plant

D. Live working

H. Telecoms


of 57

Question: “What will a Person in Charge brief their team on regarding Task Risk Control?” Response: The task Risk Control sheets are an aid for the Person in Charge to remind themselves and their teams of the controls to be applied on site. Staff should have all been trained to undertake the tasks they will perform and the Task Risk Control Sheets remind all involved, of the risks associated with the work and the controls that need to be applied to manage those risks.

Question: “What information is required for ‘runaway’ in the new SWP?” Response: Runaway is essentially about mitigating the risk caused by having steel wheels on rail. Planning for runaway in SSOWPS is essentially 2 things: 1. Working with the PiC you will need to determine if the work is on a gradient of greater than 1 in 100.

Information to do this is contained in SSOWPS and supplements existing 5 mile line diagrams and the sectional appendix.

2. Identify if adjoining work could be a risk to you. You can use the Possession Planning System (PPS) to identify adjoining possessions that will be in place at the time of your work – then speak to the person coordinating the possession to see if they are using anything that could create a runaway risk to you. This information may be covered in the possession planning meeting. Where run away risk has been identified, putting in place mitigating actions, for example, you could change the date when the work takes place, have points set to prevent a runaway reaching you or deploy a secondary warning system such as the Vortok rear guard.

Further information is contained at: https://safety.networkrail.co.uk/safety/managing-the-risk-of-runaways/

Hierarchy of control for operational risks

The highest achievable SSOW consistent with the nature, location and duration of the work shall be selected in accordance with the criteria set out below. Starting at the top, each SSOW in the hierarchy shall be considered in turn and the highest appropriate system selected.

Work that has been planned using these SSOWs shall be considered to meet the planning requirements of both this standard and the Rule Book:




of 57

Safeguarded Site of Work – where every line at the site of work has been blocked to normal train movements;

Fenced Site of Work – where there is a suitable barrier between the site of work and any line open to the normal movement of trains or moving vehicles;

Site Warden in a Separated Site of Work – where there is a distance of at least two metres (6 feet, 6 inches) between the nearest running rail of an open line and the site of work, and a site warden is appointed. There shall be an identifiable limit to the site of work;

Warning Systems; Permanent Automatically Activated Equipment – where there is permanently installed equipment which will provide a warning, to give sufficient time to allow everyone involved to reach a position of safety at least ten seconds before any train arrives at the site of work;

Warning Systems; Portable Automatically Activated Equipment – where portable equipment can be installed which will provide a warning, to give sufficient time to allow everyone involved to reach a position of safety at least ten seconds before any train arrives at the site of work;

Warning Systems; Human Activated Equipment – where portable equipment can be deployed and activated by a lookout in order to provide a warning, to give sufficient time to allow everyone involved to reach a position of safety at least ten seconds before any train arrives at the site of work;

Lookout Warning – where one or more lookouts are positioned to provide enough warning to allow everyone involved to reach a position of safety at least ten seconds before any train or vehicle arrives at the site of work.

For work being undertaken on or near electricity, the following safe systems of work are available for use with contact systems and are applicable to overhead line and conductor rail areas:

Planned Isolation – an isolation for work programmed to take place or which is required at short notice. Pre-planned isolations are published in the Weekly Operating Notice. Details of the line(s) concerned, electrical sections/subsections that are to be blocked to electric trains are shown, along with the planned times of the blockage(s), making reference to the ‘General Remarks’ column.

Temporary Isolation – an isolation requested for short-term local activities, as defined in Network Rail standard NR/WI/ELP/3091. Temporary isolations are devised to enable unplanned local activities to be undertaken on or near the conductor rail/overhead electrified lines, in order to contain an incident and/or make the railway safe for operation. Temporary isolations shall only be taken by persons competent to do so.

Local Isolation – an isolation allowed at specified locations, as specified in the Sectional Appendix. For overhead electrified lines, this type of isolation is performed locally by a person having local control over train movements and hence not requiring a Form

Local Instruction – on certain lines as specified in the Sectional Appendix, a local isolation instruction exists, whereby the conductor rail/overhead electrified lines may be isolated by the appropriate isolating switch(es) without adopting the procedure defined in Network Rail standard NR/WI/ELP/3091. This isolation will only be undertaken by an authorised person competent to carry out the isolation procedure for the line concerned, although they may instruct a competent person on their behalf to operate the isolating switch(es), test the conductor rail/overhead electrified lines, and apply ‘short circuiting’ straps.

When work other than inspection is to be carried out on high voltage and traction distribution equipment, the appropriate work/manufacturer’s instructions shall be followed. If the work/manufacturer’s instructions deem it necessary, a Permit to Work for High Voltage (i.e., 21067/P, 21060/C) shall be issued and included in the SWP.


of 57

When work is to be carried out on low voltage equipment, local isolation procedures shall be followed as defined within the work/manufacturer’s instructions.

Crossing the line protection (CTLP) under special arrangements

The CTLP procedure can only be used where;

prior authorisation has been granted by Network Operations at predetermined and agreed locations;

only nominated staff are authorised to use it and they have been briefed on the procedure; and

where the necessary documentation has been produced to support the procedure.

Where the CTLP procedure has been identified as part of the safe system of work, this shall be documented in the SWP.

De-conflicting sites of work

There are three levels of de-confliction that may need to be considered when planning work within an engineering possession.

1. Multiple disciplines within one worksite

2. Multiple sites of work independently led within a worksite

3. Multiple worksites within the engineering possession or protection arrangement such as Protection Controller

The 019 standard provides a framework for how to plan work. It is the Responsible Manager’s role to organise the plan that is most efficient and effective for the task to be performed, this includes the complexity of the task, experience of the team performing it and number of disciplines involved etc. A PiC should always be able to see and communicate with their work team. For every stand-alone activity (i.e. replacing a set of switches, felling a tree, taking an isolation or location inspection), there should be ONE Person in Charge and ONE Safe Work Pack. On long sites such as CWR re-railing. If the PiC cannot maintain reasonable communication with all activities a separate PiC(s) (with their own SWPs) should be appointed. This may result in the following being adopted:

One PiC who leads the planning for multiple discipline with supporting disciplines providing inputs, or

Each discipline within the possession provides a PiC + SWP that includes how they interact with the other PiC (if relevant)

The following three scenarios explain how deconfliction should work in practice:

Scenario 1. Small worksite with several disciplines on site, i.e. Renewing a 1/2 set of switches on a set of points

The p/way is the lead organisation as it their work driving the worksite complexity.

The p/way will develop the Safe Work Pack with the PiC for the job, the supporting sections, welders and S&T will complete the supporting form to enable the safe work pack to contain all the main risks from all departments.

As the p/way PiC may not have extensive knowledge of all the risks, they will delegate risk controls to others to brief the group.


of 57

Scenario 2. A large site of work, re-railing 1 mile of track Typically this would be how IP or Works Delivery are more likely to operate

There will be multiple PiCs undertaking elements of that work within the overall worksite

This will be led by an experienced team leader who has been involved in the planning of the entire work and involving the other PiCs as required.

During planning of the work it may be necessary to review the conflicts that may occur within the worksite

Scenario 3. Multiple sites of work within the engineering possession or protection arrangement such as Protection Controller The following work is being undertaken in the same worksite within a possession

IP are the lead worksite undertaking a piece of track renewal work

Offtrack will be removing some trees


of 57

S&T will be undertaking point maintenance

In order to undertake this work the relevant parties will need to undertake a deconflication meeting to ensure the work is compatible. The ‘subsidiary deconflication form’ contained in the appendix will help each team to understand the risks that they are ‘giving away’ and those that they are ‘receiving’.

East Midlands deconfliction process

The PDSW programme was originally devised to deliver a change in the safe work standard and to implement a new permitting technology solution. The programme has deployed into LNE East Midlands IP and Route Businesses as a pilot site. During this period the team in LNE East Midlands developed a process for deconflicting IP and Route Businesses worksites. The process followed by LNE East Midlands has been detailed below to enable other Route Businesses to adopt it if deemed appropriate / required. Context: A compliance meeting has been established following discussions with all interested parties on East Midlands who work under SWL (PiC and SWL in the current PDSW programme). The purpose of this meeting is:

Final check at T-10 days out to ensure worksites have the required SWPs in place

Remove the need for late change and cancelation of worksites

Ensure deconflcition has occurred and final chance to resolve any conflicts

Final opportunity for SWL’s / Planners to collaborate if they have been unable to do so

To improve the planning rigour and timescales all parties agreed to.

Non-attendance by a relevant party or no information being provided results in an escalation to the IP RDD and Network Operations Director to decide on how to move forward. Meeting details:

Frequency: Held every Tuesday at 9am in Trent House Derby

Lead party: Infrastructure Projects


of 57

Format of the review meeting: This meeting was requested by parties involved in the SWL process and in particular the SWL’s and Planners. It provides them an opportunity for face to face discussions on issues affecting their worksites and on integrating. The meeting provides IP the assurance that worksites have been correctly de-conflicted and all permits / paperwork is in place. The main focus is to work through LN3201 and LN3601 routes only on the East Midlands route for T-10 days using the route planning teams T-10 day document for that relevant week. The meeting lead will for each possession, facilitate a two way exchange of information by way of;

Check that worksites do not overlap just in case it’s been missed by route planning team.

Ensure that permit numbers from each worksite owner have been raised and obtain confirmation the lead worksite has spoken to other worksites that they have signing in with them or if they are the ‘child’ permit holder that they have spoken with the ‘lead’ worksite.

Ensure worksites have knowledge of potential ‘XX’ work that could be walking through theirs and obtain confirmation that these have permits raised and conversations held.

Facilitate contact names and numbers of key Planner contacts within relevant organisations including Net Ops if required.

If for some reason worksites / organisations are not able to attend. The relevant organisations Planner will provide by email details of their relevant works, worksite number, key contact details and permit number. If this is not provided this will be escalated up to the IP RDD / Net Ops Director. Meeting notes will be recorded from this meeting and distributed to the meeting invitees on the distribution list for reference. A variance report on (i) Key issues, (ii) No attendance and (iii) no worksite information, will be sent to the SWL Programme Manager (IPEM) and RDD (IPEM) for review and actioned where necessary. Question: “How should Planners de-conflict a worksite and what documentation and processes should we use to manage multi-discipline worksites and maintenance going into an IP possession and vice versa?” Response: Where more than one work activity is planned within a possession or line blockage, a confliction assessment should be carried out. This may be different work activity within a worksite (worksite de-confliction), or different activity within a possession (possession de-confliction).

This requires the planner to contact other work owners to establish if work is complementary, or if it conflicts. If it conflicts, the work should be adjusted / prioritised / re-planned as appropriate, to ensure safety is not compromised.

Following discussion between work owners, there is a final check at the T-10 meeting (this may vary by route) to ensure de-confliction has occurred and a final chance for work owners to speak to each other if not been able to.

SSOWPS guidance

In route businesses the SSOWPS tool is used to plan and authorise work. The revised 019 standard has introduced new processes and data requirements for SSOWPS. A full breakdown of the new changes can be found in two SSOWPS products:

SSOWPS briefing slides:


of 57

The briefing slides comprises of five modules to provide you with all the information you need to know to start using the upgraded SSOWPS v2.5 application.

1. Quick start – highlights

2. SSOWPS v2.5 features

3. Creating a plan & SWP

4. Transition process

5. Value adding features

https://safety.networkrail.co.uk/safety/planning-and-delivering-safe-work/revised-019-standard/ssowps-2-5-briefing-presentation/

SSOWPS briefing video:

A video stepping through how to create a SWP in SSOWPS v2.5 can be found at the following site:

https://safety.networkrail.co.uk/safety/planning-and-delivering-safe-work/revised-019-standard/ssowps-2-5-video-briefing/

6 ACCEPTANCE OF THE SAFE WORK PACK(S)

Before going to on site, the PiC is required to do the following:

1. Review and verify the completed SWP provided to them by the Planner, before sending it to the Responsible Manager for authorisation. This needs to be done at least a shift before the planned work.

2. Once the responsible manager has authorised it, the person in charge who will be on site needs to “Accept” the pack, to agree that its contents are appropriate for the planned work. This is done before going to site.

At site, the person in charge should check the SWP against the site conditions to determine if it can be implemented as planned. The Person in Charge will check:

The detail in the SWP is consistent with the location and the work to be undertaken;

All specified controls are suitable and can be applied;

The necessary resource (including staff and materials) are available;

That site conditions are such that the planned risk and operational controls remain valid. The final on-site check is in line with ensuring the SWP remains appropriate if there are any changing conditions (such as weather that affects sighting distance, or a change in personnel on site). If this check identifies any inconsistency with the SWP, arrangements must be reviewed and the affected work not permitted to start until this review is completed and any necessary amendments made.

Where the check identifies that an amendment is required, the following guidance on escalation to the Responsible Manager applies.

Escalation by the Person in Charge is required where:

The protection from trains arrangements are required to move down the SSOW hierarchy;

Worksite limits need extending to cover additional work;

Significant change to work content and/or risk controls;






of 57

Changes to planned detail is not supported by information in Safe Work Pack;

As additionally specified by the Responsible Manager; or

Where any doubt exists of the appropriateness / effectiveness of the Safe Work Pack.

Where escalation is required to change a SWP the Responsible Manager will issue an authority number to the Person in Charge. This authority number will be recorded by;

The Person in Charge will record the changes made to the SWP, the authority number issued and the issuing Responsible Manager’s name; and

The Responsible Manager will record the details of who has requested authority to change the SWP, a brief explanation of the changes authorised and the authority number issued.

Escalation by the Person in Charge is not required where:

Protection from trains is moved up the SSOW hierarchy;

Any identified additional task(s) risk control required is within the competence of the team and can be applied;

Amendment to access / egress arrangements are covered by the information within the Safe Work Pack;

Worksite limits are shortened, so long as work content can still be accommodated safely;

Emergency response – other than normal escalation of incidents and response.

7 DELIVERING AN EFFECTIVE BRIEF

In order to deliver an effective brief the following key activities should be undertaken:

Prior to the brief:

Re-familiarise yourself with the task being delivered and assess any additional on-site risks that may not be included in the SWP. Has anything changed since you accepted the SWP? If so, you may need to speak to a responsible manager.

Check you have the necessary documentation and it is correct, this will include: o Safe Work Pack o Task Risk Control sheets, if required, this should be a set of bullet points containing the

significant risk controls, keep it concise. o Details of any on-Track Machines or Plant

Choose a suitable location to deliver the brief – factors to consider are lighting and noise levels, weather conditions or possible distractions

Delivering the brief:

Introduce yourself and each member of the work group, explain their roles making sure the team

know who their Person in charge and COSS is (the COSS will often be the same individual as the

Person in Charge) for the duration of the shift

Remind the team of the work safe procedure act and that they should advise the PiC, before

recording any unsafe acts or conditions via the ‘Close Call’ system. Ideally removing the hazard

and stop the unsafe act. In both instances this should be first raised with the PiC

Remind the team that if the conditions change they should stop, reassess and re-brief if required

Introduce the work activity by explaining the task and associated risks and controls to be

implemented and which person on site will be managing each risk.

Provide the team with information on: o Access and Egress arrangements and specific location information


of 57

o Location of nearest hospital and access points for emergency services and where that

information will be held on site.

o Line speeds and train directions and any limited clearances

o Underfoot conditions and any environmental factors to consider

o The track safety arrangements in place.

o Electrification arrangements, if applicable.

o Details of the work activity; who will be doing what and the ways in which to work safely

Acknowledge any inexperienced staff and determine their level of experience, and buddy them

up with a more experienced worker.

Confirm with the team that they have sufficient food and liquids to keep them nourished and

hydrated - Having the correct nutrition and liquids will help maintain your energy levels

Check that where required the work group has sun-block in hot weather and warm clothing in

cold weather etc.

Check that the work group are not showing any obvious signs of fatigue as this will increase the

risk of accidents and injuries

Remind the team of the welfare facilities.

Explain the primary form of Emergency Communications

Ask workers to switch off personal phones unless it is agreed with the Person in charge

Confirm work group understanding of the brief by asking questions about the brief so everyone is

clear on the task ahead and explain how safety is everyone’s responsibility

Remind the work group of the lifesaving rules and the Network Rail vision of Everyone Home

Safe Every Day

Ensure work group sign the paperwork (i.e. the SWP) to confirm they have received and

understood the brief

Sign workers on site using their Sentinel Cards and sign the SWP Please remember that it might be necessary to carry out several briefings on staged / larger pieces of work.

8 THE SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK PLANNING PROCESS IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES

If planned protection is required the Planner shall apply to Route Planning (Delivery) team for this using PPS or GZAM (depending on the timescales and potential for the work to affect safety of the line) via the Access Coordinator.

The Route Planning (Delivery) team shall consider all requests for track access, optimise the requests to provide the required protection and either approve or decline the requests within a reasonable time period.

Should the protection be changed or declined by the Route Planning (Delivery) team, the Planner shall reconsider the work and the protection offered or available.

Once appropriate protection has been decided and arranged by Route Planning team (where applicable), the Planner shall plan the SSOW and record this on the SWP.

Planning line blockages

If the planned SSOW requires any line or lines to be blocked or a possession of the line to be taken in accordance with the Rule Book, then the blockage or possession shall be requested in accordance with Network Rail’s planning requirements as follows:

line blockages and possessions which are required to be published in the WON shall be requested using the Possession Planning System (PPS);


of 57

line blockages which do not need to be published in the WON shall be requested via Network Rail’s Green Zone Access Co-ordinator (usually the Route Planning Assistant (Delivery)) or arranged through formalised local agreements;

Availability of protection for work

Working under protection is the preferred method working safely for all personnel on or near the line. Therefore each Network Rail Route shall look to maximise the opportunities for working under protection to take place by:

working with contractors and Network Rail Planners to programme work;

taking account of maintenance requirements within timetable planning processes, in particular giving consideration to:

o the impact of any proposed changes to the timing or density of traffic on the availability of line blockage(s); and

o reducing or rescheduling services where access for maintenance is inadequate

Establishment of protection working opportunities by blocking lines between normal train services should be considered by Routes as part of the timetable planning processes.

Green zone guide

Network Rail and Infrastructure Contractors shall co-operate, as far as is reasonably possible, so that work is planned into sites under protection. Routes should consider the following guidelines:

When it is likely to be possible to block one or more lines without disrupting train services;

Arrangements for 'booking' blockages of line(s);

Circumstances when requests to block lines will not be granted.

Possession planning

When planning work in possessions the risks from train movements shall be taken into account. Consideration of these risks should include;

The potential for train movements on open lines adjacent or close to the possession; and

movements of engineer’s trains, on track machines (OTM) and on track plant (OTP) within the possession,

Where there are open lines adjacent to the possession, the Planner shall document the safe system of work in relation to these lines in the SWP.

This should take into account the distance between the blocked and open lines and the potential for this distance could vary through the length of the possession.

The requirements of the Rule Book and the Hierarchy of Safe Systems of Work shall be applied in respect of open lines adjacent to the possession.

All movements of engineer’s trains, OTM and OTP present a risk to staff working within a possession, so wherever possible movements shall either be avoided entirely or kept separate from staff.

If it is not possible to restrict movements (e.g. all OTP/OTM movements at extreme caution) on the line under possession to, an open line SSOW shall be planned.

When there are no movements within the possession, but an adjacent line is open to traffic and neither fences nor Site Wardens are provided, an open line SSOW shall be planned.


of 57

Only when the criteria for working under protection are met in respect of both the open and blocked lines may a protection system of work be planned.

Alternative means of achieving work on the railway infrastructure (e.g. using plant or machinery) should always be considered before requiring people to go on or near the line.

Publication of possessions & line blockages in weekly operating notices

Details of any possession shall be published in the WON or Engineering Notice unless the possession is taken in an emergency. The Planner shall make sure line blockages need to be published in the WON where this is required.

Items that are required to be published in the WON shall be entered into PPS according to the requirements laid out in NR/L2/NDS/202, Principles, Timescales and Functional Responsibilities for Engineering Work, Access and Heavy Resource Planning) and NR/L3/NDS/303 Engineering Possession of the Line for Engineering Work Delivery Requirements.

9 CLARIFICATION OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Possession Support Staff

Possession support staff (PSS) will be SWP users within the SWP process.

A competent and suitably experienced Person in Charge and RM shall be appointed during the planning process.

The Person in Charge shall support the Planner in constructing and verifying the SWP, reflecting the work, risks and controls associated with the possession support work.

The RM shall authorise the SWP when they have checked and confirmed the validity of its content.

The PSS shall be provided with and briefed on the contents of the SWP by the PICOP.

The PICOP shall confirm that the PSS understand the content and are capable of enacting the contents of the SWP.

The PSS shall always be in possession of the SWP.

The PSS shall enact the contents of the SWP.

The PSS shall notify the PICOP of any changes to conditions which require different controls to be established in order to establish or maintain the SWP.

The PSS shall as a minimum be either IWA competent or, where more than one individual, be competent as, or accompanied by, a competent COSS.

Question: “Will possession support staff require a SWP?” Response: Yes. Under standard NR/L2/OHS/019, Possession support staff are currently required to have a SSOWP. The revised 019 standard requires possession support staff to work under a SWP with an on-site PiC named in it. However, this could be them working as an Individual Working Alone (IWA). It should be noted that SSOWPs v2.5 has a bespoke section to assist in making streamlined SSOWPs for possession support staff.

Safe systems of work for possession management / support staff

A line blockage is not required if possession management/support staff are going on or near the line in order to place or remove possession protection equipment within the agreed protecting signals for the possession.


of 57

Possession management/support staff shall not go on or near the line until they have received permission from the PICOP, and if keying a signal the Signaller, but in both cases always after receiving confirmation that the protecting signal(s) are at danger in accordance with the Rule Book.

The hierarchy of control of operational risks shall be applied as normal where there is a requirement to go on or near the line:

• outside of the protecting signals;

• cross an open line to place or remove protection;

• or key a signal.

Safe systems of work for isolations, earthing and strapping operations

A protection arrangement is not required if those providing the isolation:

a) are not required to go on or near the line to take the isolation; or

b) are working within the protecting signals for a possession as specified by the PICOP.

Those providing the isolation shall not go on or near the line until they have received permission in accordance with the Rule Book, GE/RT8000 and have received confirmation that the protecting signal(s) are at danger.

Possession protection arrangements must be in place before allowing any person to go on or near the line to carry out earthing or strapping within the protecting signals for a possession, as specified by the PICOP.

Apply the hierarchy of control for operational risk (in Table 2 of NR/L2/OHS/019) where there is a requirement to go on or near the line to carry out earthing or strapping outside of the possession.

Question: “When splitting a 4 person team to perform an isolation, 2 staff will need to leave to carry out the isolation. Must they have an appointed SWP and PiC?” Response: Yes. The isolation activity should have its own PiC and SWP. If any work entails going beyond sight or communication of the original site of work then an additional SWP is required.

10 MONITORING AND ASSURANCE

Senior Responsible Managers within Network Rail and Infrastructure Contracting Organisations shall have processes in place to monitor the level of work carried out under protection and open line conditions against defined targets.

Network Rail’s Area/Route General Managers shall also have processes in place to monitor the workload of signallers and their performance in granting and/or refusing line blockages to create protection.

Note: Sources of relevant information to monitor compliance and workload may include the SWP, SSOWPS, Ellipse, completed Record of Arrangements and Briefing Forms (RT9909) and Train Register/Occurrence Book entries.

11 COMPLIANCE AND ASSURANCE

Compliance process

Responsible Managers shall monitor compliance to the SWP planning process by:

1. Review all SWPs that have been returned with highlighted errors/amendments; and


of 57

2. Reviewing at least 10% of the completed and implemented SWPs, up to a maximum of 50 packs per period; checking for planning and implementation errors and unsafe practices. In doing so consideration should be given to whether:

the SSOW plan produced by the Planner was accurate and appropriate (mileage, lines at site, SSOW, etc.);

the SSOW plan was implemented as planned (including cross checking information with signal box records, where applicable) and any changes made were authorised;

the SSOW Pack was verified and that this was done to the required timescales; and

all relevant fields were completed accurately (including signatures, method of warning, lookout details etc. and that the correct warning time and sighting distance were calculated).

Based on the findings of this review the Responsible Manager shall discuss the errors found with the individuals responsible for those errors and record any actions taken to prevent re-occurrence.

The Responsible Manager also needs to assure themselves that all instances of SWPs being verified on the same shift as the work are recorded along with the reason why same day verification has occurred.

Document retention

SWP and IRP documents should be retained in line with Network Rail corporate document retention standards - NR/L3/INF/02226 Corporate records retention schedule. Currently this is three years for both documents.

APPENDICIES 1.1.1 Safe Work Pack (Form F01.1)

1.1.2 Incident Response Pack (Form RT9909/IRP)

1.1.3 Line Blockage Form (Form NR3181)

1.1.4 Subsidiary Form

1.1.5 Supporting Work Form

Safe Work Pack (Form F01.1)


of 57

Version: v2.5.0.0 1 of 1

Y N

Y N

Y N

SWP Validation Form

These top boxes describe the overall status and actions of the Plan

Ref: NR/L2/OHS/019/F01.1

Issue: 1

Date: 04 March 2017

Compliance date: 03 July 2017

Rejected (for administration/monitoring purposes)

Errors / Changes(for administration/monitoring purposes)

YES NO

YES NO

Cyclical YES Repeated Non-Cyclic

SWP Ref. 7995641-series SWP expiry date Date 6 or 12 months after

authorisation of cyclic/repeated pack Date & Time of Work 29 May 2017 08:00

Brief Description of Work Plan with everything and 2 components

Description of the work content when the plan is created and planner inputs Nature of Work details

CREATED by: Planner

I confirm this SWP has been checked and is compliant with NR/L2/OHS/019:

Planner name: Signature: Date: Name of the planner (populated from SSWOPS)

Colin Lonie

VERIFIED by: Person in charge

Planner signs the plan they have created Relevant date of creating the plan

I confirm the following are appropriate for the task and are included in the SWP.

Circle Yes or No for each question, and sign the declaration below

Protection / Warning arrangements (hierarchy of control) suitable for the work.

(The person who will be wearing the COSS COSS Signature and endorsement. Armband.............

Task / Site Risk and controls

Any necessary permit to work arrangements identified

The Person In Charge (e.g Team Leader who will also act as COSS will sign here unless another person is delegated as COSS. That COSS would sign here instead. This is done Y N before the Person in charge can Verify the pack during planning stage.)

Confirm that the necessary risk controls have been included in the pack

Confirm that the necessary permits require have been identified in the in the pack and included if required.

If any of the above statements are answered NO, reject the SWP and return it to the planner.

The welfare facilities have been identified and are appropriate

Confirm welfare is appropriate or not. The SWP should not be rejected on the basis of any welfare deficiency Y N

Comments if SWP rejected: The Person in charge details why they the plan has not been verified by them

Name of Person in charge: Signature: Date: the PIC signs here

Your PIC people (as input in SSOWPS)

AUTHORISED by: Responsible Manager

Complete as part of review/discussion with person in charge. Circle Yes or No for each question, and sign the declaration below.

Work content is understood by the person in charge

Necessary competence within team to undertake task

Risk controls are suitable and sufficient

The Responsible Manager is confirming the PiC understands Y N

The Responsible Manager is confirms the team has the necessary Y N Competence resource

The Responsible Manager is confirming the risks controls selected are Y N Adequate

The appropriate hierarchy of Safe System of Work has been selected The Responsible Manager is confirms the most suitable level Y N of the hierarchy has been selected

Any additional specific controls identified The Responsible Manager is confirming if other risks that need addressing have been identified and control included

Responsible Manager's authorisation and confirmation this SWP is complete, and includes any specific additional information required to manage risk on site (cannot be the same person as the verifier). If any of the above statements are answered NO, reject the SWP.

The welfare facilities have been identified and are appropriate Y N

Print Name:

Your Manager

The Responsible Manager's name as input in SSOWPs appears here

Signature and/or Authority Number: Date:

The responsible manager signs here

Note: Authority number is required when timescales have not been met, or major changes have been required


of 57

ELR NEC2 FROM 8 m 30 ch TO 9 m 20 ch

Position of safety (workgroup)

Warning Time

Available sighting distance

Distance from nearest open line (FENCED or SEPARATED warning)

Distance of at least 2m 6 ft 6 inches (COSS + 2 or more + site wardens)

Resource Lookout requirements

Site lookout / IWA 0

Touch Lookout 0

Intermediate/Distant 0

Site Warden 2

Equipment/Staff Resources

Lines for each lookout to observe and lookout position(s) for safety

WORK INFORMATION

Plan ref no. 7995641-001 Function P Way Number of Safe Systems 2

Name of COSS/IWA Sentinel card no.

Local Name Plan with everything and 2 components

Nature of work Plan with everything and 2 components

Worksite Mileages ELR NEC2 Start 8 m 30 ch End 10 m 50 ch

Start date and time of work 29/05/2017 08:00 End date and time of work 29/05/2017 11:45

Name of authorised access point Wylam NE41 8HR Mileage 8 m 33 ch

Post code NE41 8HR OS Grid Ref GPS Co-ord

Narrative Text (Arrangement to walk to site description)

Plan with everything and 2 components ACCESS

SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK - Working Start 29/05/2017 08:00 Duration 120 mins Safe System 1

WON

Protection (BL = Blocked Lines) Warning (BL = Blocked Lines)

Safeguarded

Fenced

Separated

Permanent Warning System

TOWS Human Activated

(e.g. LOWS)

Portable Warning System

Lookouts

Planned YES + BL Actual

Name Direction Status Speed Blocked From Blocked to Electrification SLW Wylam 1 Uni Blocked 55 WM12 WM16 Ac Wylam 2 Uni Open 55 Ac

Method of warning

Line Speed

Required sighting distance

Type of fence (fenced only)


of 57

Position of safety (workgroup)

Warning Time

Available sighting distance

Distance from nearest open line (FENCED or SEPARATED warning)

SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK - Working Start 29/05/2017 10:00 Duration 105 mins Safe System 2

ELR NEC2 FROM 9 m 20 ch TO 10 m 50 ch WON

Protection Warning

Safeguarded

Fenced

Separated

Permanent Warning System

TOWS Human Activated

(e.g. LOWS)

Portable Warning System

Lookouts

Planned YES Actual

Name Direction Status Speed Blocked From Blocked to Electrification SLW Wylam 1 Uni Open 75 Ac Wylam 2 Uni Open 75 Ac

Method of warning

Line Speed

Required sighting distance


Name of authorised egress point Prudhoe Signal Box Mileage 10 m 48 ch

Post code OS Grid Ref GPS Co-ord

Narrative Text (Arrangement to walk from site description)

Plan with everything and 2 components EXIT

NOMINATED PEOPLE Site Wardens, ATWS Operator or Lookouts (TOWS, LOWS, distant, intermediate, site, machine or touch)

Name (print) Role Competence expiry date for role preformed

Risks Identified and Controls to be applied by person in charge

Specific Risk Requiring Control Control to be applied

DP01 - Working on high voltage equipment Refer to Risk CS DP02 - Working on SCADA and Protection Testing Refer to Risk CS Plan with everything and 2 components FREE TEXT TASK RISK PIC to Brief SIG01 - Working on Signals (Semaphore & Coloured Light), Includes working on Signal Post, and Gantry

Refer to Risk CS

SIG05 - Working on Electrical Apparatus (Relay Rooms, REBs & IECCs Location Cases)

Refer to Risk CS

SITE RISK FREE TEXT Plan with everything and 2 components PIC to Brief

This is to advise the COSS of the risk controls the person in charge needs to put in place for the activity to be safely carried out. The COSS needs to Implement the planned protection or warning arrangement of this RT9909 to keep the group safe from train movements in accordance with the rule book duties. If not acting as person in charge the COSS are informed of the all the risks controls but they won't necessarily be responsible for those unless they have been appointed as person in charge of the works.


of 57

Permits

AL6 - Adam Test Permit 6 A DEMO PERMIT USING FREE TEXT These reference all the permits that are applicable for the SWP. Will include permits that a COSS will require Different Permit in Component 02 such as an isolation permit or may be permit relating to their the implementation of their protection

Arrangements - e.g. permit to spike for a Netlon fence.


CP36 Category Location Other Relevant Information

B: Transient - Welfare Facilities Different WELFARE in Component 02 Lists the welfare provision planned for the works

B: Transient - Welfare Facilities WELFARE Plan with everything and 2 components

Emergency Arrangements

Emergency Arrangement First Aider

EMERGENCY arrangement Component 02 FIRST AID Plan with everything and 2 components EMERGENCY Plan with everything and 2 components FIRST AID Plan with everything and 2 components

References emergency arrangements such as hospital details and first aiders appointed (this may include other document that may form part

of the SWP e.g. special evacuation procedures near oil refineries/chemical plants that track workers may need to know)


of 57

SIGHTING DISTANCE CHART in Miles ,Yards and Metres

LOOKOUTS AND IWA Calculating required Warning Time and Sighting Distance

Site Lookout(s) Maximum speed of trains Time needed to stop work and down tools Time needed to reach the position of safety Add 5 secs if site lookout is looking out in both directions OR using LOWS Add 5 secs if you are working alone (without Lookout) Add 10 secs (minimum time to be in a position of safety) Original required warning time

Req. sighting distance to achieve Original req. warning time

Available sighting distance with only site Lookout(s)

If the available sighting distance is less than the required sighting distance, you must appoint a distant lookout(s)

ADD DISTANT LOOKOUT(s) Original required warning time (use from above) Add 5 secs for an distant lookout(s) New required warning time

Required sighting distance to achieve New required warning time

Available sighting distance with distant Lookout(s)

If the available sighting distance is less than the required sighting distance, you must appoint an intermediate lookout(s)

ADD INTERMEDIATE LOOKOUT(s) New warning time required (use from above) Add 5 secs for an intermediate lookout(s) Final required warning time

Req. sighting distance to achieve Final req. warning time

Available sighting distance with distant Lookout(s)

if the available sighting distance is less than the req. sighting distance, you can't work with Lookout(s) or IWA


of 57

SITE SPECIFIC HAZARDS

Red Zone Prohibitions including Start and End mileage

Wylam to Hagg Farm NEC2 COSS or IWA may not work alone HWP 8 m 35 ch 9 m 10 ch Improvement notice review Prudhoe Station NEC2 Red Zone Working Prohibited HWR 10 m 44 ch 10 m 47 ch Working between platforms. Prudhoe to Bellais Burn NEC2 COSS or IWA may not work alone HWP 10 m 50 ch 12 m 25 ch Improvement notice review

Specified hazards from Hazard Directory (e.g. Restricted Sighting)

Wylam Station NEC2 Restricted Sighting HCF 8 m 40 ch 8 m 60 ch Prudhoe Station NEC2 Restricted Clearance HCC 10 m 48 ch 10 m 48 ch Working between Platforms Additional Information or Instructions at Planning stage

Additional Site Specific hazards identified by COSS

Is an Isolation permit required for this work in AC/DC areas Yes / No If No, treat all lines as LIVE

DECLARATION

By signing this form you are confirming that you have received a full brief and that you understand it If you have any questions or think the SSOW is or becomes unsafe, tell the COSS immediately

Name (print) Signature Sentinel card no.

COSS signature Filled In by COSS Date

Change of COSS (if required)

Relief COSS name

Sentinel card no.


of 57

Signature / Authority No. Date

CHANGE FROM PLANNED SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK

Details of change

These detail changes to the planned hierarchy of protection/ warning arrangements. Any changes to a lower level will need to be authorised by the Responsible Manager. i.e. Person in charge / COSS to agree changes which need to be authorised by the Responsible Manager.

Authorised by (name) Responsible Managers name

Role

Time

EMERGENCY CONTACT DETAILS

Signal box / Panel / Workstation Telephone

Alphatest 07866 268572

Electrical Control Room Telephone

York (North) 01904 525622/0845 6020 173 - 03 75622

COSS/IWA FEEDBACK ON SAFE SYSTEM OF WORK PLANNING

(e.g. changes in hazards, wrong access point etc.)

SITE ACCESS POINTS

Access Points including Start and End mileage

Wylam NE41 8HR NEC2 Authorised Access Point - Vehicle. MIMS-S//kb/ - Access Point. Signal Box/LC. North to South Wylam. On Station Road.

MAV 8 m 33 ch 8 m 33 ch

Wylam NE41 8HR NEC2 Authorised Access Point - Pedestrian. MIMS- O///PH - Record automatically added from OMNICOM

MAP 8 m 34 ch 8 m 34 ch

Wylam Station & Level Crossing NE41 8HR NEC2 Authorised Access Point - Vehicle. Wylam Village. MAV 8 m 35 ch 8 m 35 ch Wylam Signal Box NEC2 Authorised Walking Route. Along the up platform

and up steps to signalbox. HA 8 m 35 ch 8 m 35 ch

Wylam NE41 8HR NEC2 Authorised Access Point - Pedestrian. MIMS- O///PH - Record automatically added from OMNICOM

MAP 8 m 36 ch 8 m 36 ch

Hagg Bank, Bridge 44 NE41 8JS NEC2 Authorised Access Point - Pedestrian. Opposite Railway Cotts, off Wylam Wood Road. Single gate, 859 lock.

MAP 9 m 8 ch 9 m 8 ch

Prudhoe Station & Signal Box NE42 6NR NEC2 Authorised Access Point - Vehicle. Off A695 for Ovingham.

MAV 10 m 47 ch 10 m 47 ch

Prudhoe Station & Signal Box NE42 6NR NEC2 Authorised Access Point - Pedestrian. MIMS- S//KB/ - Access Point. Level Crossing. RT Document: ALARMS. Access on foot only. No vehicular access or parking. 2100\1100

MAP 10 m 48 ch 10 m 48 ch

Prudhoe NE42 6NR NEC2 Authorised Access Point - Pedestrian. MIMS- O///PH - Record automatically added from OMNICOM

MAP 10 m 48 ch 10 m 48 ch

Prudhoe Signal Box NEC2 Authorised Walking Route. Access from car park on upside, through the gate to the signal box entrance.

HA 10 m 48 ch 10 m 48 ch

Prudhoe NE42 6NR NEC2 Authorised Access Point - Vehicle. MIMS-S//DE/ - Access Point. Level Crossing. RT Document: ALARMS.

MAV 10 m 48 ch 10 m 48 ch


of 57

Section

1 General arrangements

WON/GZAC No. (if applicable)

5330565

Circle your role

IWA

COSS

PC

Name of IWA/COSS/PC

The name of COSS/IWA/PC . (Note:The person in

Signaller

Phone Number

charge if acting as COSS will identify themselves

as COSS in all communications with the Signaller Signal Box Alphatest Panel/Workstation

07866 268572

Employer

Network Rail

Time needed for activity

hrs

mins

Will the work affect the safety of the line?

Yes / No

Circle the type of additional protection

T-COD

Token Signalling Disconnect

Detonator Protection

ERTMS Signal Barring

L.O.D

EPR

Not Required

YES

Section

2 Blocking the line

Line to be blocked Between (signal/points) and (signal/points) Protecting Signal(s)

Wylam 1 WM12 WM16

Go to page 2 and complete-

Appendix A

If the bloockage includes any level crossings

Appendix B

If additional protection is required Appendix

C If sharing protection Appendix

D If there is a change of COSS / PC

Tick box when agreed details are correct

Section

3 Granting authority

Blockage Number

Authority Number

Blockage taken at

Call back time

Blockage given up at

Time Date Time Date

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

IWA/COSS prompt - ask Signaller "Have you placed the required Reminder Devices for the blockage?"


of 57

the

Level crossing Supervising signal box

Method

A Q E N

A Q E N

A Q E N

A Q E N

A Level crossing arrangements

Level crossing Supervising signal box

Method

A Q E N

A Q E N

A Q E N

A Q E N

In the method column circle-

A If attendant is required throughout blockage (at AHBC, CCTV or RC crossings) Q

If an attendant is required some of the time(at AHBC, CCTV or RC crossings) E If the signals/siren/belts are switched

off (at ABCL, or AOCL crossings) N If there is normal working at the crossing

Appendix

B Additional protection

Detonator protection Signalling disconnection Train stabling

Detonators placed beyond signal point

Name of signalling technician

Protection placed on trains stabled on these platforms

Disconnected signalling equipment

Token

T-COD

Time token issued These track circuits are occupied by T-CODS

Time token issued

Appendix

C Permission to share blockage

Authority given at Work completed at Name of

IWA/COSS

Phone Number

Signature (sign in)

Time

Date

Time

Date

Signature (sign out)

Appendix

D Change of COSS / PC

Name of new IWA/COSS Phone Number Employer Time Date


of 57

Version: v2.5.0.0 1 of 3

Ref: NR/L2/OHS/019/F01.2

Issue: 1 Date: 04 March 2017

Compliance date: 03 July 2017

SWP Ref: 7995641-series Date & Time of Work: 29 May 2017 08:00

Brief Description of work: Plan with everything and 2 components

Description of the work content when the plan is created and planner inputs Nature of Work details

Risks Identified and controls to be applied

Specific Risk Requiring Control Control to be applied Person in charge of risks (if

different from PIC)

Signature of Person

Controlling Risks

Confirm Risks Briefed

(signature)

Safe System 1 Working NEC2 8 m 30 ch to 9 m 20 ch

Operational Risks (Train, OTM or OTP movements) Refer to RT9909/COSS The person in cha rge will make sure th at all the risk

DP01 - Working on high voltage equipment Refer to Risk CS controls that apply have been put in place that have been referenced, such as those in Task risk control

sheets. They will need to brief the team appropriately

so that all the team understand the controls that must

apply. If other persons, are fulfilling specific duties they

will need sign this form. e.g. The person in charge may

an Asbestos specialist might be required to clear some

Asbestos before the team can under the rest of the wo

For that work they would be the competent person for

that part of the works and put the necessary controls in

place

DP02 - Working on SCADA and Protection Testing Refer to Risk CS

Plan with everything and 2 components FREE TEXT TASK RISK

PIC to Brief

SITE RISK FREE TEXT Plan with everything and 2 components

PIC to Brief


Operational Risks (Train, OTM or OTP movements) Refer to RT9909/COSS

SIG05 - Working on Electrical Apparatus (Relay Rooms, REBs & IECCs Location Cases)

Refer to Risk CS

SIG01 - Working on Signals (Semaphore & Coloured Light), Includes working on Signal Post, and Gantry

Refer to Risk CS

Risk Control Briefing and PIC Acceptance Documents referenced need to be present and available on site if not attached and incorporated

into the SWP i.e. TCRS references in the SWP below do not need to be printed out individually

in every SWP if the person in charge has then in a controlled manual on site with them.

rk.

Permits


AL6 - Adam Test Permit 6

A DEMO PERMIT USING FREE TEXT


Different Permit in Component 02

These reference all the permits that are applicable for the SWP. This might be a permit to dig for exactions, confined space permit that the

person in charge needs to make sure are in place before an activity commences. Will also include permits that the COSS will require

e.g. a conductor rail permit or may be permit relating to their the implementation of their protection arrangements - e.g permit to spike for a Netlon fence.


of 57

Runaway Risks


Risk of Runaway Control Measures Plan with everything and 2 components RUNAWAY RISK

Secondary Warning System must be deployed


Risk of Runaway Control Measures Neighbours had a runaway risk for Component 02

Secondary Warning System must be deployed


CP36 Category Location Other Relevant Information


B: Transient - Welfare Facilities WELFARE Plan with everything and 2 components


B: Transient - Welfare Facilities Different WELFARE in Component 02

Emergency Arrangements

Arrangement Details First Aid Arrangements


EMERGENCY Plan with everything and 2 components FIRST AID Plan with everything and 2 components


EMERGENCY arrangement Component 02 FIRST AID Plan with everything and 2 components

Emergency Contact Details

Signal box / Panel / Workstation Telephone

Alphatest 07866 268572

Electrical Control Room Telephone

York (North) 01904 525622/0845 6020 173 - 03 75622


of 57

ACCEPTED by: Person in charge on site

Person in charge of delivering the work, shall complete this section.

I Accept / Reject this SWP (Please circle) The person in charge will make a final check that all controls can be implemented as planned

If rejected, detail briefly change(s) needed:

If it is not possible to implement the planned controls and the person in charge has consulted with the Responsible Manager that there are

changes or significant risk that cannot be addressed the SWP should be rejected and details recorded here. e.g. crucial equipment does not

work or has not been delivered and there are no safe alternative solutions that can be considered and authorised.

General comments: person in charge can add any comments that would aid the production of future SWPs and information they feel should be communicated

such as changes made to the SWP on site.

Person in charge (Name): Name of person in charge Signature: signature of person in charge here

Date: Location:

Change of PIC (if required)

Relief PIC Name Signature Date Time

By signing this form, you are confirming that you have received a full brief on the operational, task, and site risks for this work and the controls that are to be used. If you have any questions, think that the controls are not being applied, or it is unsafe then tell the PIC Name (print) Signature Sentinel card no.

The person in charge will brief staff on the detail

ls of the SWP and controls that need to be in pla

ce to undertake the work activity safely at

the location as ask all member of the team to si gn their. The members of the team sign to confir m they understand the control measure to be put

place for the activity. They will sign this form as well as the RT9909 COSS form which confirms that each member of the group understands

the protection or warning arrangements the CO SS has put in place.

Completion of Work Sign Off by PIC

I confirm the above SWP contents were appropriate for the task. Circle Yes or No for each question, and sign the declaration below.

Protection / Warning arrangements (hierarchy of control) were suitable for the workindicate if the arrangements were suitable Y N

Task Risk & Site Risk controls were suitable indicate if the risk controls were suitable for the activity at that site Y N

Appropriate permits to work were included indicate if the necessary permits to work were suitable

Y N

Welfare facilities were appropriate indicate if the welfare arrangements were suitable

Y N

The work at site is completed and clear for the safe passage of trains final check that the line clear and safe for trains Y N

State any changes or additions that should be made to improve this SWP for future use. If not applicable, state "None".

person in charge to add any comments that would improve future planning or changes that they have had to make to the SWP on site

Person in charge (Name):

Name of person in charge

Signature:

signature of person in charge

Incident Response Pack form RT9909/IRP

Incident Response Pack – RT9909/IRP


of 57

Name of Person in Charge:

N Carter Sentinel Card No:

456386

Name of COSS (If different from person in charge):

R Blight

Sentinel Card No:

417947

Date:

8.6.2017

Time work started:

05:50

Time work finished:

07:45

Fault No:

FMS 139953

Equipment to be worked on:

Up Slow cess rail

Nature of work:

Lift and kango pack of a dip in

track

Name of authorised access point(s) used:

Harpenden Station (platform 1)

Controlling Signal Box/Panel and contact number:

West Hampstead Panel 3

(020) 7644 8578

Location and lines affected

North of Harpenden Station, US line Lines at the site DF UF DS US

Direction (any SLW etc?) Down Up Down up

Open or blocked? Open Open Open Blocked

Speed (line or T/ESR) 115 120 85 85

Access and egress arrangements to & from working area Turn right off platform 1 and walk along 4’ of Up

Slow under line blockage. Egress by same route.

Limits of the working area and how these are defined including Position of Safety & Warning Method

Remain within Up Slow 4’

24m 1210y – 24m 1430y

P.o.S. is US 4’ which is under line blockage

Location and Task Risk Consideration

Location Risks: Risk Control Confirm Applied?

1: Scrap in cess Spray rail ends with white paint. Stay in

4’ at all times able to.

Y

2: Platform ramp; Slips trips falls Put tools on platform edge and lift them

down once on track, rather than carrying

them down the ramp.

Y

3:

Task Risks: Risk Control

1: HAVS Limit “trigger” time on kango hammer

(no more then 61 minutes per person).

Warm gloves to be worn.

Y

2: Trapping fingers under rail Appoint person to call lift and lower

exclusion zones

Wear protective gloves PPE

Y


of 57

Operational Risk Consideration

Safe System of Work Selected Circle

PLEASE TICK APPROPRIATE BOX

Working with Protection *Safeguarded / Fenced / Separated

ROUTE TO SITE

HAZARDS CHECKED

AT SITE

HAZARDS CHECKED


Distance from line (fenced only) Separation distance (separated only)

1.25 metres

Working with Warning ROUTE TO SITE HAZARDS CHECKED

AT SITE HAZARDS CHECKED

Method of Warning (e.g. LOWS, ATWS, Unassisted Lookout)

Details of any SEPARATED GREEN ZONE Site Wardens, RED ZONE ATWS Operator or RED ZONE Lookouts (TOWS, LOWS, Pee Wee, distant, intermediate, site, machine or touch)

Name

Sentinel Card No.

Location Role

D.J. O’Frisi 462889 Up Slow 4’ Site Warden

Working with Warning - Warning Time Calculation Line Name:

Line Name: Line Name: Line Name:

Maximum speed (from the Sectional Appendix or TSR or ESR)

Time needed to stop work and down tools

Time needed for everyone to reach a position of safety

Add 5 seconds for each additional direction the site lookout is looking

Add 5 seconds for each distant lookout

Add 5 seconds if working alone

Add 5 seconds for each intermediate lookout

Add 10 seconds (minimum time to be in a position of safety)

Total warning time needed (Must be no more than 45 secs)

Sighting distance needed

Sighting distance available

3: Manual handling (Strains & sprains) Skate to be used on cess rail to transport

kit to site

Staff taking kangos to site are not to be

the first ones that operate them.

Y

4: Flying ballast when kangos in

operation

Wear goggles (not glasses)

Don’t encroach on work area unless

necessary.

Y


of 57

Declaration (Each member of the group to sign to confirm they have been briefed)

Signature Sentinel Card No. Signature Sentinel Card No.

R Hill 214206 D Luger 476911

K Sorrell 432612 D Flatman 473901

T Horan 476213 D O’Frisi 462889

K Chesney 237405

COSS DECLARATION. I have made the above arrangements and am satisfied that all members of the work group understand the safe system of work. Signature

R Blight

PERSON IN CHARGE DECLARATION. I confirm the above arrangements and am satisfied that all members of the work group understand the safe system of work. Signature

N Carter


of 57

Line blockage form NR3181

Section

Section

Section

RT3181 December 2014 (Side 1 of 2)

1 General arrangements

WON/GZAC No. (if applicable)

N/A

Circle your role IWA COSS PC SWL

Your name R Blight

Name of signaller Les Goodley

Phone number 07717 812283

Signal box West

Hampstead

Panel/workstation

Panel 3

Employer Network Rail Time needed for the

activity

2 hrs

0 mins

Will the work affect the safety

of the line? Yes/No

Circle the type of additional protection

T-COD

Token Signalling

disconnection

EPR Detonator

protection

Not required

2 Blocking the line

Line to be blocked Between (signal/points) and (signal/points) Protecting signal(s)

Up Slow WH286 WH284 WH286

Go to page 2 and complete -

Appendix

A if the line blockage includes

any level crossings Appendix

B if additional protection

is required Appendix

C

if sharing protection Appendix

D if there is a change of

COSS/PC/SWL

Tick the box when agreed that details are correct

3 Granting authority

Blockage

number

Authority number Blockage taken at

Call back time Blockage given up at

Time Date Time Date

1 987 05:53 8.6.17 07:40 07:50 8.6.17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


of 57

Subsidiary document

Task Risk Sheet for work adjacent to others

This sheet must be completed for each independent work activity by the subsidiary work organisation to allow discussions regarding interface risks and controls between work areas. It is to be completed by the relevant organisation and supplied to the lead worksite owner to enable

deconfliction to occur. Lead Work Organisation

Engineering Supervisor

or Protection Controller

Subsidiary Work Organisation

Your organisation

PPS Ref Start Date & Time of Work

Location End Date & Time of Work

ELR Mileage to and from

Lines affected

Brief Description of work

What are you intending to do

A Risks my work imposes on others and controls: (eg exclusion zones etc).

B Electrical risks: (eg AC isolation required)

Wheels free testing zone

Exclusion zone for RRV

No trains to pass as rail is removed between xx and xx.

Trees being felled between 10:00 and 16:00 affecting

the up line, exclusion zone between 1m00ch and 1m 40ch.

Any isolation details

Or signals blank for power cable tests

C Operational: (eg adjacent line open, TSR etc) D Environmental risks: (eg Asbestos)

No RRV moves as points are being tested and moved with

authority from the ES.

Notes to subsidiary work owner from deconfliction meeting: Risks imposed by others on my work group or other important information

Any Risks from the planning meeting that impact on your works, ie train movements, restricted times or exclusions zones

that your team have to comply with and need adding to the risks in your safe work pack.

Name of subsidiary work organisation contact: Contact details:


of 57

The information on this form is to be considered by the subsidiary work owner prior to verification to ensure all task and site risks are identified and appropriately managed.


of 57

Task risk document

Task Risk Sheet for work supporting other functions

This sheet must be completed by each organisation who are undertaking support activities to another organisation (For example: Welding and S&T teams to complete for work supporting Track in replacing a rail in CWR)

Form to be completed by the supporting organisation at the request of the lead work owner

Lead organisation (eg, Cricklewood Track)

Chelmsford Track Supporting organisation (eg, West Hampstead S&T)

S&T

Date & time of work

3/7/17 Location of work Chelmsford

Brief description of work

Replace ½ set of switches on 2352 points

Specific Task Risk Requiring Control

Control to be contained in the Safe Work Pack

Rail Drill Exclusion zone to protect other peoples hearing and eye sight

Moving Points

Do not put anything between switch and stock rail without ensuring the

points are on manual and secured.

Manual Handling Apply correct lifting techniques

Name of supporting organisation contact: Signature:

Date & time sent to lead organisation Planner: Location :

The information on this form is to be transferred into the lead organisations SWP to ensure all task and

site risks for

Principles for Implementation of NR/L2/OHS/019 - Safety of ... · Route Businesses: Principles for...

Documents

Transcript of Principles for Implementation of NR/L2/OHS/019 - Safety of ... · Route Businesses: Principles for...