Traction current indicators (Picc line)

I believe it says FAIL.

They are on test on a number of Tubelines sites.

There is another thread on here about them Jim. They are known as (Permanent) P-CRIDs

Just looked at the EWSA and they have been commissioned at a number of sites, but LUL Operational staff are not allowed to use them!

I understand confirm the third indication is "FAULT", at least if you can believe the Tubelines publications.

There was a post on here with one. It's around somewhere!

They are not replacing Rail Gap Indicators (which are different).

They are an alternative to the Current Rail Indicator Devices (boxes) which Tubelines currently issue.
I reckon it is probably cheaper than checking and certifying all the CRIDs, plus of course staff don't have to be on the track to check see if current is alive.

Whilsy no doubt cost savings are up there, I also feel the Electricity at Work Act is playing a part here somewhere - as a CRID must be laid on live rails.

You may well be right here but what is wrong with the world today? As I see it so much legislation is not about protecting the workforce or indeed the general public but more about company defence in the ridiculous blame culture that has been allowed to grow over the last decade or more.

Accidents happen and will always happen and proper training should ensure competence but unfortunately the railway is a place where in recent years anyone and everyone has been allowed into areas that were once the domain of experts and specialists.

The Electricity-at-Work Act is a good example of legislation that would not have been necessary had only qualified and properly licensed individuals been allowed into electrically hazardous areas though I have no doubt that some tightening of the existing legislation at the time would have been proper with the aim of improving the H&S of such qualified and licensed individuals.

I was part of the team doing EAW compliance work back in the early 1990s and in my opinion we were doing unnecessary work to resolve a problem that didn't exist in properly managed environments. This trend has been firmly established to such an extent that it becomes increasingly difficult to perform any task without many incumberances. Quite honestly too many rules and too much legislation is as bad if not worse than not enough because it will encourage many, for various reasons, to cut corners.

London Underground is so weighed down now with rules, regulations, procedures, political correctness, anti-harassment and health and safety that it is possible for almost any member of staff to do next to nothing workwise simply by being compliant and properly following set procedures. Yet such a level of compliance would quickly earn such a member a disciplinary for failing to carry out duties!

H&S has become self serving, growing an industry from nothing and yet in reality doing far more to satisfy the bean counters and ambulance chasers than to protect the individuals that it was supposedly founded to protect.

I'm afraid you are right, railtechnician. We have descended into a fearful culture which has replaced the culture of "keeping the service going". With OTDR, CCTV, Trackernet, recorded conversations, etc watching staff's every move, the service culture has been overtaken by a culture of fear. Of course the service has deteriorated. No one wants to do anything which might break the thousands of rules so it takes hours to get things going - getting the juice off to scotch and clip points is a good case in point.

I think, with the right training, people could be allowed to do a lot more without all the rules we now have. It could be done. The quality of staff has generally improved in recent years.

Yes indeed, the railway is and always has been a dangerous environment and there is a practical limit to how much anyone can be protected against him/herself although that is sometimes hard to believe these days.
When I started at LT it was an organisation of professionals who knew their trades, in many cases a family outfit with sons and brothers following fathers and uncles into the job. People knew their environment and knew the rules and moreover knew how to keep the service running in a safe and effective manner.
Back in those days everyone knew his/her place and got on with the job. The working environment was not ideal but we all knew what was required of us. The run up to devolution of the railway and privatisation of engineering saw 100s of years of collective knowledge and experience cast adrift and literally thrown away. Almost 20 years on, LUL has begun to regain its composure but in the intervening years it has sufferred from having to make up for the loss of knowledge and experience with additional rules, regulations and procedures in a world where the PC and H&S brigades have thrived.
I agree that staff have improved over the last ten years, if the truth be known the whole exercise to date has cost £billions and in my opinion unnecessarily so by converting a public service into a business and solely for political reasons.

There's nothing wrong with the aim of proper practice in a safe environment but somewhere along the line common sense was taken out of the equation and replaced by 'what if'. There is nothing wrong with speculation but so much seems to hang on untested speculation spun from the inexperienced heads of managers who have never got their hands dirtied in the real world. I'm sure the intentions are laudable but some of the solutions are ridiculous.

If the H&S brigade have their way trackside signal failures will only be investigated with traction off so line controllers would rather have a slow service all day with trains tripping by sticks. AFAIK this happens on the Jube with track failures. It has been mooted that H&S would like the signal 100volts switched off while signal staff are investigating signal failures but any lineman will tell you the easiest way to locate a failure is with the power on.

The right way to proceed is to allow experienced and knowledgable staff to do what they were trained to do and allow them to decide within certain limits the way to tackle any given task as they are more qualified than anyone else to determine what is safe and what is not.

Incompetence is a fact of life and no amount of licensing or training will make an incompetent competent, similarly lack of training or licensing will not make a competent incompetent. Most people are competent when properly trained and supported. Fortunately total incompetents are rare though I'm sure we have all met one or two. Unfortunately they often get promoted, not always on merit, but it's often the most expedient way to protect them against themselves and to protect everyone else! Of course it then creates a bigger headache somewhere down the line (excuse the pun).