Pardon me, ladies and gents, but may we discuss proper railroading attire?
Specifically, December 2010 Trains “Map of the Month” (p. 53) is about safety. So then I have a couple questions about safety equipment (goggles, hardhats, clothes, etc.) that I see in photos in the magazine:
Page 31 (and other places): Why the short sleeves on snow equipment? All the plow operators seem to have the proper hardhats and goggles, but the short sleeve thing is what inspired me to write this post in the first place. Does less clothing mean they dry out quicker if snow falls on them?
Page 73: No goggles.
Back cover: Whoa! That looks kind of dangerous to me. Apparently, overalls are proper on steam locomotives?
Why not? If the inside of the plow is warm enough, what the heck? I’m sure that the crew members have proper attire with them. Note the picture on page 28.
Airflow will be into the firebox - not a lot of danger of anything but heat coming back.
The worker has three points of contact - pretty much the rule for working on RR equipment. I’m guessing he stopped over there from the walkway on the engineer’s side of the loco.
Overalls? See page 59 and 73. They’re great for helping keep your shirt cleaner, and provide better frontal coverage than jeans and a t-shirt.
I believe it was in Ed Blysard’s recounting of his first day on the job as a switchman-trainee - which appeared in a very recent issue of Trains in the “Railroad Reading” section - that the ‘old-head’ foreman/ trainer criticized either Ed or the other trainee for wearing overalls. If I recall correctly, he said that they were prone to catching on the equipment - projections like grab irons, tie-downs, etc. - and recommended jeans and a shirt instead. So - big surprise here - the proper attire likely depends on the assignment/ task at hand.
Current practice on all major railroads and a lot of industries is to require safety glasses of some type for almost all outdoor work - even that which doesn’t involve power tools, such as cutting or grinding - to guard against wind-blown debris from or on a moving train, loading/ unloading operations, other passing vehicles, etc. - here, perhaps coal dust swirling around from the tender. The safety glasses don’t have to be impact-resistant safety goggles - just a simple plastic shield to deflect the particles - most plants have a box of cheap ‘give-aways’ for anyone who needs them and doesn’t have any. Anyone who’s ever gotten a cinder -hot or cold - in their eye around a steam locomotive would not need much encouragement to put that precaution into effect.
Well not having seen the issue and the photos in question, I can’t comment to the OPs comments directly. However, I can speak to general PPE procedures. Also note that PPE requirements vary from property to property and change over time.
Currently, anytime you are “on or about the tracks” you must were safety glasses with side shields, long pants, proper boots, Hi-Viz apparel, and hearing protection when within 100 feet of a locomotive running higher then idle.
There was a time however, when safety glasses and hearing protection where discouraged, because it was believed they interfered with the passing and reading of signals.
Of course personal preference does enter into it. Some people like overalls, they do provide protection for your “street” clothes, have lots of pockets for paperwork, radio, keys, etc. Personally, I like cargo pants over overalls. I also prefer a long sleeve, collared shirt. Long sleeves for protection, and the collar provided a handy place to clip my radio mike.
Regarding hardhats. I’m in Transportation, so I don’t need one, unless working near equipment with moving booms. However, the Track and Mechanical people are required to wear one when ever working.
“…The safety glasses don’t have to be impact-resistant safety goggles - just a simple plastic shield to deflect the particles - most plants have a box of cheap ‘give-aways’ for anyone who needs them and doesn’t have any. Anyone who’s ever gotten a cinder -hot or cold - in their eye around a steam locomotive would not need much encouragement to put that precaution into effect…”
I tend to agree with the generality of the above statement. The Problem becomes the entrance of a regulated establishment [railroad, industry,etc] by a regulatory entity such as OSHA. The entrance of OSHA in any manner [aStateOSHA, or FederalOSHA] requires a strict compliance with their designated definitions. That means that ‘safety glasses’ are only ‘safe’ (ty) glasses to the the individual, to the enforcement regulator they must hue to a strict technical/FEDERAL definition in order to be used on a job. Failure to have compliant safety appliances on the will get an employer a fine (can be potentially a heafty one!)
In my work career, at one point, I was an optical tech, and made eye glasses, as such, at times I conducted tests as perscribed, on employer provided safety glasses, and recorded a record of their performance in the prescribed tests.
For the curious, this link will providea peek inside of some of the hoops that must be transited to be OSHA compliant with safety glasses:
I remember when conductors, brakemen, and switchmen always wore choppers, and never wore gloves. The theory was that if you got a finger into a pinch situation, you might get it out in time to avoid being crushed with it being in a chopper as opposed to being in a glove.
samfp1943 provides a link to a good description of safety glasses. The simple fact is that most Rx glasses or sunglasses aren’t designed to protect the eye. All the tests mentioned in the link are necessary - they’re done by the manufacturer so the user only has to make sure to get something that’s ANSI Z87.1 compliant (or CSA certified in Canada, “CE” marked in Europe). Even the “cheap give-aways” described in Paul North’s post (sometimes called “visitor specs” and designed to fit over regular glasses as well) are made and tested to Z87 if they’re safety glasses. I’m not sure that OSHA compliance is particularly burdensome in this instance. Good safety glasses are not expensive, and they’re a lot cheaper than losing or damaging an eye.