I am against rail safety regulation because:

• I am against safety regulation in general.
• The rail safety regulation that we have at the moment is the cause of all sorts of problems.

What sort of problems does it cause?

• The huge costs associated with public enquries
• Delays to getting new trains in service
• Delays to getting track back into service after a crash
• Minor niggles such as making it no longer cost-effective to fix a leaking roof

But don’t we need public enquiries in order to find out what happened?

There are probably all sorts of advantages to having some kind of independent public enquiry after a train crash but that doesn’t mean it has to have a government one.  A train company would have all sorts of good reasons for arranging its own.

Oh, why’s that?

I’ll come back to this sometime.

So, what’s the story with new trains?

In the late 1990s there were a lot of new trains waiting to get onto the network but they couldn’t because they couldn’t get safety clearance.  Although I am by no means an expert on the subject I understand that the safety regulations were ludicrously complicated and long-winded.

And delays in getting track back into service?

As I understand it, the worst example of this was after the Hatfield crash when (much to the consternation of the rail industry) it took three weeks to get trains running again.  This was entirely due to delays caused by the Health and Safety Executive.

But if we didn’t have safety regulations wouldn’t we have lots more crashes?

Well, perhaps (although I doubt this) we ought to have lots more crashes.  The question is how safe should rail travel be?  Or more to the point, how important is safety to me?

Presumably, very.

Yes, but it is not absolute.  Every time I board a train I am accepting that very small risk that something dreadful might happen.  Sure, I might prefer it if it were safer but am I really prepared to pay the extra cost?  Probably not.  Ultimately, safety, like everything else, is relative.  Given how safe rail travel already is, I might prefer a more dangerous service if it meant lower fares.

But you don’t think we would have lots more crashes?

No, crashes are expensive.  You lose the train, you lose passenger revenue through delays and cancellations and you probably have to rebuild the track.  As a rail executive once said: “Even a minor derailment or a collision can cost a fortune. I mean millions.”

Yes, but aren’t they insured?

Probably, but insurance companies are not charities.  If they feel that a rail company is operating their railway in a dangerous way they will simply put up the premiums.

Permalink • Rail • Safety • Last Updated: 01 October 2006

Nothing yet but you never know...

Post a Comment

Name:

Email:

URL:

Add a Smiley

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Submit the word you see below:

The trackback URL for this entry is: