Ageing workforce?

“Likely to cause” …

…a difference of opinion?

Howard Watson

Stating the obvious?

History

• 1994 Railtrack Safety & Standards Directorate• 2001 Hatfield accident – RSSB formed• RSSB controlled by railway stakeholders• Many Railway Group Standards• Strategy for standards management– Devolve– Concentrate on “interfaces”

BR Medical Standards

Drivers

Train Working

Signallers

Personal Track Safety

Current medical standard

Train Movement

Code of practice & Guidance

Signallers & PTS devolved to Network Rail

General health requirement

• Unchanged• No medical condition “likely to cause…”• Non-prescriptive• Future-proof• Allow evolution of guidance• Problems– Fragmented OH– Risk averse culture

Acceptable risk for the railway?

• CAA 1%• DVLA – Group 1 20%– Group 2 2%

• RSSB research project T663– “Managing the risk associated with incapacity in

safety critical occupations”

T663

• Consultations• UK data• International and intermodal comparisons• Event tree analysis

Event tree

• Onset of unavoidable impairment• Engaged in safety critical task• Engineering controls unable to prevent • Hazardous event• Fatality/weighted injury

• Current rate of FWI

Assumptions

• Fatality / weighted injury (FWI)– Tolerated = tolerable?

• RSSB risk model: 125 types of hazardous event– Not all have human precursor– Probability of FWI estimated

• Human Error v medial impairment– 2% due to medical impairment

Results

• Driver – 43%• Signaller 16%• Track worker 15%• Crossing keeper 4%• PICOP 0.4%

• Acceptable risk to system safety only

Implications for train driving

• “F1: FIT NORMAL DUTIES”

• 43% annual risk of incapacity?– 68% chance of an event in 2 years– 94% chance of an event within 5 years?

• Would a TOC be happy?

Train driver:additional considerations for employer• Safety of the driver - lone worker• Service interruption– Safety of passengers and other staff– Compensation to customers– Reputational damage to TOC

• Network disruption– Delay penalties– Reputational damage to Rail

Inquiry begins into train ordeal

Train company GNER has launched an inquiry into how hundreds of passengers became stranded for hours in stifling heat due to a power failure.Some travellers broke carriage windows to escape temperatures of over 37C on its 1555 BST Newcastle to London Kings Cross service on Thursday evening.

Acceptable risk to TOC?

• Likelihood of event in 5 years– “unlikely” (<50%)?– 5% (CAA)?– In between?

• TOC view?• “UK rail” view?– Mutual interest?

Australian Standards

New draft 2011Category 1 SCW

5 yr risk >25% – unfit<5% - fit5-24% risk assessment (split at 10%)

“Fit subject to review”

UK DVLA5 year risks:Group I – 66%Group II – 9%

Suggestion

Fails group I – unfit.

Meets group II – fit’

In between = risk assessment• OH: risk of relevant impairment; suggested controls• Operator: ?safe system of work • Fit with limitations

ANY CASES?

Case

• Freight Train Driver, 4 months post MI– Well– Inferior infarct – 2 vessels stented – Moderate LV impairment – No ETT– Diabetic type 2– Probably still smoking

Relevant requirements

DVLA II– 6/52 post-MI– Exercise test– Repeat 3 yearly

Australia– 4/52 post-MI– Exercise test– Repeat 2 yearly

Consensus?

• Fitness category?• Further information?• Drive meantime?• Future management?– Review frequency?

Discussion and other cases?