Return to Archive -by date - by topic - 2000
There is no pleasing some people. Ever since Southall, and even more so since Ladbroke Grove, the railway in general and Railtrack in particular has been under fire for not taking safety seriously enough. Whether coming from the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate, the Rail Regulator, the accident victim groups and their egregious lawyers or press radio and television, the message has been the same, ‘safety must be paramount'.
Only last month, in this very magazine, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Railways Vic Coleman accused the industry of containing too many people, whose first reaction to a proposal is to say “let's study it for a couple of years”, or “that's a good idea but it's not really effective”. ‘What we need to say is “this is a good idea, it needs to be done let's get on and do it”', Coleman urged.
So when, early on, it emerged that the Hatfield derailment was probably caused by a broken rail that might have been initiated by gauge corner cracking, Railtrack decided that safety must be paramount and ordered immediate speed restrictions followed by urgent examination for such cracking. Naturally, services fell apart, notable when the West Coast Main Line was closed at two hours notice.
Still, at least it showed that safety was being taken seriously as never before. And did the safety lobbyists stand up and cheer as the number of sites examined topped 2000 and the TSRs 500? Did they heck.
Broadcasters who had been wringing their hands over Hatfield, suddenly turned through 180deg and started pointing out that transport can't be totally safe, so what was Railtrack playing at inconveniencing the travelling public. ‘About time too', thought those of us in the railway press have been saying that for a long time and received short shrift from the lay press and the Health ‘n' Safety hysterics.
Initially, there may indeed have been a degree of showboating by Railtrack. But then the inspection programme revealed gauge corner cracking of epidemic proportions.
The extent of the problem ought not to have come as a surprise to Railtrack, its zones and its contractors since they had been successfully managing the problem, with the HSE's apparent consent. And the fact that the rail that broke at Hatfield had remained under intensive use at 115mile/h and maximum cant deficiency for six months after it's condition in April reportedly merited an immediate 20mile/h TSR, suggests that the management process was robust. This suggests that the subsequent TSRs, not to mention the HSE's tightening of inspection criteria were indeed over-reactions.
Easy for us to say, of course. The suggestion by the Home Secretary that the forthcoming corporate manslaughter legislation may have to be stiffened up because of the lack of prosecutions to date highlighted the harsh reality behind the speed restrictions and inspections.
For, after Hatfield, and Jack Straw's sabre rattling, an error of judgement in measuring a crack or reading an ultrasonic test display, or an unlucky combination of circumstances could see you charged with manslaughter. What do you do?
Quite. You stop exercising judgment. You stop giving small cracks the benefit of the doubt while you monitor their condition before calling in the rail grinder. If there is a crack, you cover yourself and your employer by declaring it unsafe. And if you are Railtrack you go along with this because you don't know whether you can trust your contractors.
Quite simply there is no one with the same authority of the chief civil engineers of old who would have taken responsibility for the safe condition of the track secure in the knowledge that his regional civil engineers and their area civil engineers and their track gangs were doing the job properly. And had this subsequently turned out not to be the case he would have carried the can.
That was the old railway. Today the climate has changed totally. That Railtrack is now getting flak from those who previously accused it of putting profits before safety is water off a duck's back. The public has got the safety approach it demanded. Truly its is a case of who shall achieve his desire and having achieved it, desire it.
That it may have set back the development of the railway by railway months or more probably years is another matter.