...or: What do you want a magnetic drill for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB9ShEH7Nes

Also shows an interesting hot-riveting technique which might be useful at model sizes, and some very no-nonsense G-Cramps

Edited By JasonB on 07/01/2023 19:53:43

I've seen pictures of a 4" traction engine being rivited like that. Probably 3/16 and 1/4" rivits on that.

I hope that when the truck is finished they don't have to use this starting method

Whole new meaning to starter battery

Edited By JasonB on 07/01/2023 20:29:02

Hi, Be interesting to see what the forum safety police say about these two videos, after the diesel heater thread.

Maurice

I hope they don't have to do the watering too often (it does seem a very small cistern that they're filling up, relative to the hassle of getting the pump started, but needs must I suppose).

By the way, Jason, when I try your link I get this message:

This site can’t provide a secure connection

web.archive.org sent an invalid response.

All the techniques they used to make the truck chassis are the same that are used making and repairing vintage car chassis's.

I expect that a few people will soon start posting their concerns for the safety of these workers and the working conditions........

Jim

Hi Jim, well there certainly are quite a few things to be concerned about. I for one wouldn't what to be gas cutting with just sandals on my feet, it's bad enough when a spark seems to find it's way into good quality industrial boots.

Regards Nick.

You want to see the foundry videos! No PPE at all.

This is one of the reasons that imports have mostly finished our once great manufacturing ability. Nothing is as cheap as human life......

Jim

Edited By jimmy b on 08/01/2023 08:43:13

We should do like some charities do with collecting used spectacles to send to developing countries, only with model engineers' used safety boots.

Their method for pushing that drill through the steel with a simple length of timber and a chain is brilliant in its simplicity. Wish I had been smart enough to think of that when working on various construction sites over the years.

this is how to start a truck, india style. just make sure you leave go of the rope

Edited By Justin Thyme on 08/01/2023 09:26:55

Edited By Justin Thyme on 08/01/2023 09:27:11

Hi Hopper,

used that method of drilling steel on the coal face 50 years ago to repair damaged machinery.but we had hydraulic borers instead of electric drills.

We had to improvise a lot then.

Maurice

Edited By Maurice Taylor on 08/01/2023 10:10:25

The belief that H&S finished 'our once great manufacturing ability' is misplaced for two reasons:

First, British industry is doing as well as it ever did, financially. What it does though, has changed! In the past, indusry was highly visible: slag heaps, shipyards, steel works, factory chimneys, railways, and huge numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs (low pay). As time marched on, industry moved to more profitable work like electrical, electronics, and aero-space. Now it's far less obvious because it doesn't make the goods mentioned in John Masefield's poem 'Cargos':

Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack,
Butting through the channel in the mad March days,
With a cargo of Tyne coal,
Road-rails, pig-lead,
Firewood, iron-ware, and cheap tin trays.

Secondly, old-style manufacturing found itself competing with a rapidly growing service sector, where banking, insurance, design, consultancy, software, project management etc all offered clean better-paid jobs, with career prospects, bonuses, good pensions and social hours.

Many bettered themselves by leaving manufacturing. During the 50s,60s, and 70s, staff shortages forced pay up in old industries using low-productivity methods. Higher pay created an illusion of well-being in the workforce, but it was illusory. Firms struggled with competitors abroad using cheap labour and with anyone modernised in the developed world. It became uneconomic in the UK to make low-tech low-profit goods, and industry shifted to high-profit goods, which are mostly high-tech. Painful!

In comparison, the negative effect of H&S is tiny. But H&S has been highly visible, and was often blamed for shutting down failing companies. H&S never stopped a profitable industry!

H&S exists because industry has long had a poor safety record. It didn't matter to employers when injured staff were simply sent home and taken off the payroll. However the injustice offended liberal opinion, and government were moved to legislate. An early example was forcing employers to insure boilers, so that neighbours and employees would be compensated for injury and property damage. Immediately reduced the number of boiler accidents, because no-one would insure an ancient much patched boiler maintained by a cheap ninny.

With the advent of the NHS, government became directly concerned about H&S because the taxpayer was found to be picking up massive bills. And when accidents were investigated, causes were rarely found to be accidental! Instead: corner cutting; bad planning; thoughtless habits; poor training; inadequate supervision; inappropriate equipment; failure to mitigate risks and other avoidable human factors. Governments legislated repeatedly so the taxpayer wasn't subsidising industry by paying for their incompetence.

There's always problem with legislation though! Even well-written and thought through, as opposed to a politically motivated knee-jerk, it's a blunt instrument. It also empowers folk who want to do everything 'by the book', no matter how costly or pointless. Over confidence in 'the book', is almost as bad in my opinion as over-confidence is oneself! A*se-covering is a common motive; avoiding responsibility by hiding behind rules and regulations, even if it damages the company.

Done properly, risk management avoids both problems. Anything is possible provided a risk assessment is done showing the risks and constraints have been identified, and what needs to be done to mitigate them has been identified. However, the system upsets chaps who despise paperwork, i.e. most of us! Nonetheless, the purpose is to get people to think through what they're doing and to identify what's done if the process goes wrong. It protects employees who follow the resulting guidance, and it protects the employer against employees who ignore it.

Lifting is a common example - it's easy to do your back in! The risk is mitigated by limiting the weight an employee is allowed to move on his own and by lift technique training. Then if Mr Brawn hurts his back showing-off the employer is not liable for their nice but dim employees stupidity. He ignored the rules, and the employer is not responsible for the consequences.

Like all legislation and enforcement H&S is imperfect, but, although it finished thousands of wobbly businesses, it's not the main reason British industry changed tack. Successful businesses follow the money.

We all see H&S as a bad thing when a man with a clipboard tells us we can't take a sensible shortcut; it happens! But remember it also stops the next door neighbour who decides to get rich quick by manufacturing tons of Hydrogen Fluoride in his back-garden. He's not free to set up a home-made chemical plant and give our grandchildren sweeties to operate it.

H&S is all about balance, and balance is difficult. The temptation is to crash on regardless, hoping the gamble will always pay off. My advice is to support rather than blame H&S because it does a much better job than the alternatives!

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 08/01/2023 11:01:03

Sentinel locos, and lorries were hot riveted together.

The Buffer Beams were fixed to the frames by (as you might expect ) long rivets with about 1" diameter shanks.

They were heated to red or white hot in a sort of spot welder, and then flung along the floor to the erecting line. They were picked up in tongs and placed, before a hug air operated riveter, hanging from a crane squeezed them..

That was the highlight of showing visitors around the erecting shop!

Today, H & S would be apoplectic! But we just stood well to one side!

Howard

According to the 1901 census my grandfather started his working life as a rivet boy in the shipyards. If I understood correctly his role was to transport the red hot rivets from the furnace to the riveters!

Dave - you said "It also empowers folk who want to do everything 'by the book', no matter how costly or pointless." I once heard ISO9001 described as a mechanism to ensure that you could make the same rubbish consistently!

Edited By Peter Cook 6 on 08/01/2023 11:57:05

Hi, I suppose it depends on one's view of "by the book" however, as far as health & safety goes, any good company in this country will have written procedures for every job, often known as a method statement, along with risk assessments, and any job that arises that isn't already covered, should have a risk assessment done along with a procedure before the job is started. Anyone not complying with the procedures written down, even it they think it is a silly one, can risk prosecution, which may be more likely if there is serious injury of death to anyone caused by not following what they think is a silly or costly procedure, and this can be everyone from the person that didn't follow the procedure, right up the the big boss. During my risk assessment training in my old job years ago, one of the supervisors at the time questioned the fact that it was up to him to make sure everyone below him was complying at all times during our work, as being on a big site, it could take 20 minuets for him to pause his job and get to others at the other end of the site. He was simply told that being a supervisor, it is up to him to make sure everyone is working safely, and this should be made clear to any chargehands etc. under his supervision. It was not easy during my times of being a relief supervisor, as I didn't have any official chargehands to delegate too, but of course you can pick the smaller and easier jobs for yourself.

In my last job, I once had to go to a site where we were working under a main contractor, and our method statement and risk assessment had to be approved by the head safety officer. The first problem that arose was some welding operations that were to be done on the job, but there wasn't enough time left in the day to do any welding to monitor that there was no danger of a fire arising after everyone was off site. I said that we were not intending to do any welding that day, and his answer was that it shouldn't have been on the method statement, but after a few times of reassuring him that we really were not going to be doing any welding or any other hot work, he did sign it off, but held it up in the air saying that it was the worst method statement that he had ever seen and I could only agree as I knew the guy that wrote it had not done any risk assessment training in his life and he didn't even go to the site to get the correct information needed. As it happens, we didn't get anything done anyway, as the other contractors had to finish some other work before we could install ours and that wouldn't have been for another week or so. No time by our risk assessor was allocated for us the have the site owners safety induction before we could go to our work area, either.

Regards Nick.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 08/01/2023 14:30:08