Return to Archive -by date - by topic - Archive 2002.
That's Emotional Correctness, not DG7 of the EEC
In another galaxy, far, far away, I was a press officer. And nothing got up my nose more than people who said they would come to press conferences and then didn't turn up.
So I was highly embarrassed early in November when I became a ‘no show' for a long standing invitation to a press briefing on the replacement of the bridge span damaged in the Potters Bar fatal derailment and associated trackwork reinstatement. It was all Mr Bowker's fault, of course, since the announcement of his new Service Delivery Unit policy the day before demanded some serious word processor action for this issues.
As you will recall, points 2182A, whose failure caused the derailment, were cut out and taken away by the BTP and HSE as evidence. Reinstatement was part of the work planned over two weekend blockades.
To make up for missing the briefing I popped over to Potters Bar on the Sunday to see how the contractors were getting on. There was lots of activity on the bridge, but no sign of anyone working on the track – or reinstated points.
So first thing Monday morning I started asking around and discovered that the weekend's track installation work had been pulled at 22.20 on the Friday evening. Odd, I thought, and did some more asking.
And the ever helpful Railtrack press office explained that the cancellation had not been due to some technical problem but for fear of offending those bereaved and injured in the accident.
Railtrack has worked very hard at on-going support for the victims of major rail accidents. In line with this policy, Railtrack Chief Executive John Armitt had a meeting with the Potters Bar bereaved families on 30 October.
According to a Railtrack spokesman, the decision to cancel the reinstatement of 2182A was taken because the bereaved and injured had not been informed of the work, in line with a commitment given to them by Chief Executive John Armitt at the 30 October meeting. While they had been told about the bridge span replacement at the meeting, Armitt's briefing note did not refer to the pointwork.
When I challenged this potentially damaging surrender of renewal policy to emotional correctness, the spokesman commented, ‘The company has to get better at recognising sensitivities surrounding certain parts of the network'.
But something wasn't right. I've known John Armitt for a fair time and if he is one thing, it is careful and painstaking. I find it out of character that he would not have known about all the work planned at Potters Bar.
According to Informed Sources, the 30 October briefing meeting did indeed focus on the bridge reinstatement. The families were due to be notified about the points reinstatement separately, but for some reason the transmission of the information was delayed.
As a result, rather than pass on the information by phone in a rush, running the risk of being condemned as insensitive in the press, it was decided to abandon a precious 54hour blockade on the East Coast Main Line.
Really? Given that the decision was not taken until late on the Friday night I suspect external, ie political, pressure.
First of all, no one knows how 2182A came to be in the state in which it caused the derailment. What we do know is that it was not normal vibration or wear and tear which moved the nuts.
But the HMRI started a wild hare running when it suggested that there might be a basic design fault in this type of UIC 64 points which could have contributed to the accident. Railtrack was recommended to undertake a more in-depth review of the design and safety analysis of points with adjustable tie bars, ‘including consideration of replacing them with a points system that is more inherently safe by design. Any changes should then be implemented ‘as required to further rail safety'.
This review is being carried out by consultants Scott Wilson and is due to be presented shortly. And here we come to the politics.
Consider this scenario. Since the HMRI considered the points might be inherently unsafe (‘only when dismantled' growled Railtrack's Chief Engineer to me some time back), for an identical set of points to be reinstated before the Scott Wilson report was completed would be an affront to the HSE's Potters Bar Investigation Board.
Given the recent climb down over cup and cone, reported here, you might expect the HSE to be touchy on another perceived challenge to its judgement. Railtrack had offered to leave the points clipped until after the Scott Wilson report had been digested. But simply replacing a pair of UIC 64 points, clipped or not, was tantamount to telling the Inquiry Board – ‘your wrong'.
And if this was the case, there are various ways in which political pressure could be brought to bear. After all, I'm sure your minister could do without the embarrassment of more railway safety in the Sundays.
Certainly, during the following week, a driver was heard telling platform staff, that DfT had said crossover can't be restored until the Inquiry report is published, and the Down Fast must remain plain-lined until then. Drivers usually know which was up is.
Whatever, Railtrack gave in, setting a dangerous precedent for the industry. I thought better of John Armitt and his new ramrod Iain Coucher.
Yes, of course, it's easy to criticise. But I believe the sensitivity issue is grossly overstated.
For the bereaved who have suffered overwhelming grief, putting back a set of points, or resignalling Paddington cannot register. I still get a momentary mental twitch when I read about some celebrity diagnosed with bowel cancer, but you'd need log paper to compare that with the intensity of a brush with the real thing on the same graph.
Certainly, such ‘sensitivity' is not displayed in other forms of transport. We get the poignant bouquets at the roadside at fatal accident sites, but the aftermath is cleared up instantly, scorched tarmac re-laid, twisted crash barriers replaced. Did someone write to the families of those who died in the Concorde crash telling them that it was going back into service? I doubt it.
For some reason, railway accidents have come to be regarded as uniquely tragic while bereaved road safety campaigners, such as Road Peace, havew no such ‘outrage factor'. Railtrack, having given in, has put railways at an even greater disadvantage.