Discussion
Did anyone see this? Scandalous how once again a corporation puts shareholders interests before safety and walks away unscathed. Their only punishment? A fine from the government for running trains late :rage:
Apparently a financial risk assesment was performed and it was cheaper to let people die and pay compensation rather than introduce APS. Yes, your government did that.
It needs a settlement like Ford received on the Pinto fuel tank problems to sort this sort of thing out. It's only a glorified train set FFS, how dificult can it be to predict what will be where at what time :rolleyes:
Apparently a financial risk assesment was performed and it was cheaper to let people die and pay compensation rather than introduce APS. Yes, your government did that.
It needs a settlement like Ford received on the Pinto fuel tank problems to sort this sort of thing out. It's only a glorified train set FFS, how dificult can it be to predict what will be where at what time :rolleyes:
BliarOut said:
Apparently a financial risk assesment was performed and it was cheaper to let people die and pay compensation rather than introduce APS. Yes, your government did that.
We all do this every single day of our lives. We make decisions that sacrifice some level of safety, all in the name of saving expense.
Since the government is controlling yours and my money, I'm quite keen for them to continue assessing what is cheaper for the taxpayer.
Yes, watched it too, isn't cost benefit analysis a wonderful management tool!.......
At first I had doubts over whether such a programme should be shown, given the distress it might cause. But as it went on I began to see why it was made, the callous remarks, unbelieveable decisions and continuing management refusal to see the need for safety maintenance leading eventually to the Hartford disaster. And what did the top man get for all this?...............£800,000!
Unbelieveable!...
At first I had doubts over whether such a programme should be shown, given the distress it might cause. But as it went on I began to see why it was made, the callous remarks, unbelieveable decisions and continuing management refusal to see the need for safety maintenance leading eventually to the Hartford disaster. And what did the top man get for all this?...............£800,000!
Unbelieveable!...
tvradict said:
We all do this every single day of our lives. We make decisions that sacrifice some level of safety, all in the name of saving expense.
Thats true, but when we make the decisions, do the consequences put hundreds of lives at risk?
No, but then we aren't talking about the same amount of expense though. And it's quite possible the risk assessments showed that any similar accidents were highly unlikely and near impossible to put hundred of lives at risk. Tens perhaps, but not hundreds.
It's interesting to note though, as reguards the maintenance of rails, trains these days (although faster) do not weigh 160 tons like the old steamers.
On privatisation of the railways, a friend of mine was "incensed" at the lack of respect for safety lessons/issues learned the hard way from the Victorian era. I guess that "they" or maybe "someone else" had to re-learn it for them....
On privatisation of the railways, a friend of mine was "incensed" at the lack of respect for safety lessons/issues learned the hard way from the Victorian era. I guess that "they" or maybe "someone else" had to re-learn it for them....
BliarOut said:
Apparently a financial risk assesment was performed and it was cheaper to let people die and pay compensation rather than introduce APS. Yes, your government did that.
The same thing happens with any proposed safety modification. An interesting fact is that a life saved on the railways is worth far more than one on the roads, based on the cost benefit analysis used by the government.
It is OK saying that life should not have a price, but what is the limit, should we spend a £1bn saving just one life?
I met a guy a few years ago who was very knowledgeable about GPS stuff. He explained how cheap it would be to GPS-equip all trains to prevent head-on collisions. The same kind of idea could help air traffic control too.
The Railtrack lot were portrayed as callous bastards but, as posted earlier, they had to make difficult decisions. A most telling point was how they were being beaten up by the regulator for delays yet had to do maintenance that would CAUSE delays.
Ergo the regulator/government were actually adding costs to the cost/benefit proposition.
You could tell this was a BBC production - it largely set out to make the businessmen look bad, the token bit of 'balance' was that maintenance vs delays creates an untenable commercial situation.
It's - as usual - indicative of a 'privatised' industry where a regulator imposes controls that unwittingly shackle the industry and undermine the regulator's own goals.
The Railtrack lot were portrayed as callous bastards but, as posted earlier, they had to make difficult decisions. A most telling point was how they were being beaten up by the regulator for delays yet had to do maintenance that would CAUSE delays.
Ergo the regulator/government were actually adding costs to the cost/benefit proposition.
You could tell this was a BBC production - it largely set out to make the businessmen look bad, the token bit of 'balance' was that maintenance vs delays creates an untenable commercial situation.
It's - as usual - indicative of a 'privatised' industry where a regulator imposes controls that unwittingly shackle the industry and undermine the regulator's own goals.
Unpopular opinion follows:-
All the comments made above by others concerning corporate/government responsibility and abdication thereof accepted as valid on a whole number of issues.
However I have one problem.
If on my way to work every morning I came upon a traffic signal which due to positioning of signal, glare from sun etc it was impossible or difficult to see then there is no way I would continue on the basis that "well it's normally green."
Now I understand the issues relating to employer pressure and job threat over adherance to schedules etc etc. All these drivers afaik still have to be trained on the specific route before they take command of a train, ie they have to know the road in detail.
OK so the drivers knew there is little time to work out which is their signal, what is it set to and take action.
Eight incidents of SPAD at SN109! In my innocence I think I would have slowed right down, and I mean slowed right down to make sure safe to proceed.
:dons flame proof coat, body armour, tin lid, cricket box, shin pads, bovver boots:
waits for incoming...........
All the comments made above by others concerning corporate/government responsibility and abdication thereof accepted as valid on a whole number of issues.
However I have one problem.
If on my way to work every morning I came upon a traffic signal which due to positioning of signal, glare from sun etc it was impossible or difficult to see then there is no way I would continue on the basis that "well it's normally green."
Now I understand the issues relating to employer pressure and job threat over adherance to schedules etc etc. All these drivers afaik still have to be trained on the specific route before they take command of a train, ie they have to know the road in detail.
OK so the drivers knew there is little time to work out which is their signal, what is it set to and take action.
Eight incidents of SPAD at SN109! In my innocence I think I would have slowed right down, and I mean slowed right down to make sure safe to proceed.
:dons flame proof coat, body armour, tin lid, cricket box, shin pads, bovver boots:
waits for incoming...........
Incoming I just wanted to reply so I could do that
Railtrack were well aware of the problem with SN109, but I believe the driver was relatively inexperienced and may not have been as aware. From what I understand the signal was very easy to confuse and the driver MAY have thought he had a green. One thing was that a driver with forty years managed to miss it, so something was obviously wrong.
It's a system, the system had failed eight times and an engineering solution should have been undertaken. Railtrack ignored their engineers advice after the crash and didn't replace track, it took Hatfield to finally convince them to put safety on the agenda.
Government pressure to achieve "targets" has a bearing on this. The signal man had an "all signals to red" panic device, but didn't use it. Why? Because they are taught not to actually use it as it will cause chaos when they try to get the trains running again.
It seems to me they should get safety experts in from the aviation industry to examine the systemic problems and follow their recommendations!
I wanted to reply so I could do that...
Bliarout, I don't disagree with a word you say, I really don't.
I'm not a train driver, therefore it is difficult to comment about controlling a transportation device where, as a matter of routine, you drive it way in excess of the speed you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear. That is why trams are so slow.
Just to ask a question what happened longer term about train protection systems? I seem to recall that there is still compromise and fudging / cost cutting?
The programme asked some very hard questions about various institutions, HM Govt, Railtrack, Train operators, the press (spit), even Lord Cullen himself was put on the spot re the immunity.
Never was the driver, his colleagues or Aslef put on the spot. The bad guys were all the corporates etc. I think that showed some bias, but it wouldn't make such a good programme with total objectivity.
I understand the point about a relatively inexperienced driver, but my understanding is that drivers have to be taught the road. In this they learn every inch of the way, signals, dodgy sections etc etc. If this was a known problem to Railtrack etc, it must have been known to the drivers. Why was this nt communicated under training, or maybe like most other things this has gone west.
On a parallel issue I remember when Stagecoach took over our local bus company. Drivers were sent out on routes they didn't know. When they asked what the policy was on route training they were told, here is your route, here is your ticket machine, there is your bus. Don't like it? There is the door.
Result was passengers had to navigate drivers round the routes for a few weeks. Not quite the same as trains I know but......
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 21st September 11:14
ATPS was promised by the government, but after a cost benefit analysis, I believe they've fudged their way around it. It would have prevented that particular crash. Other options looked at were automatically setting the points to divert trains off the main line should a SPAD occur. There was knowledge that this crash could happen, but the warnings were ignored.
To me this was an avoidable accident, as the warnings signs had been seen, people had recognised the solution, but it wasn't carried out due to the politics involved. Those sort of accidents shouldn't be happening.
There will always be genuinely unforseen events, and to iron those out would be prohibitively expsnsive, but personally I would pay a few extra quid to know I was going to be delivered to my destination in the same condition as when I started.
Afternoon all
Long time lucker here....
I was on the FGW train that crashed, and I watched Derailed last night. I thought is was OK, and kept close to the facts.
One point they should have covered was how many of Lord Cullen's recommendations have been implimented by the recommended dates. It makes a mockery of John Precotts pledge that 'money is no object' to improving rail safety.
Why did the driver of the Thames Train go through the red light? No one knows.
When the train did go through SN109, it actually accelerated which made me think that the driver thought the signal was green. Why weren't the points set, so that if SPAD happened, they wouldn't put the Thames Train on the main 'up line', and into the path of the FGW?
Long time lucker here....
I was on the FGW train that crashed, and I watched Derailed last night. I thought is was OK, and kept close to the facts.
One point they should have covered was how many of Lord Cullen's recommendations have been implimented by the recommended dates. It makes a mockery of John Precotts pledge that 'money is no object' to improving rail safety.
Why did the driver of the Thames Train go through the red light? No one knows.
When the train did go through SN109, it actually accelerated which made me think that the driver thought the signal was green. Why weren't the points set, so that if SPAD happened, they wouldn't put the Thames Train on the main 'up line', and into the path of the FGW?
Hi there, glad the discussion prompted you to put your head above the parapet. Hope you weren't badly hurt. It's an interesting point about what has actually been carried out, although I suspect we already know the answer to that one. Coming to that, has SN109 been rectified I wonder?
The cost/benefit risk analysis will always dictate that it's cheaper to take the financial 'hit' of a situation like Paddington / Hatfield than to implement safety features to prevent such situations.
Spend £1-2bn on preventing another Paddington / Hatfield or spend the £1-2bn on the NHS / education? What will the voters prefer? Which is the better 'soundbite'?
As it was said in the program, the travelling public / government want trains on time and be frequent, but repairing the inferstructure / installing safety features will result in delays / temporary line closures. Look at the West Coast Main Line project.
Spend £1-2bn on preventing another Paddington / Hatfield or spend the £1-2bn on the NHS / education? What will the voters prefer? Which is the better 'soundbite'?
As it was said in the program, the travelling public / government want trains on time and be frequent, but repairing the inferstructure / installing safety features will result in delays / temporary line closures. Look at the West Coast Main Line project.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff