|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Europe
: Britain
London rail disasterinterim report fuels rail safety
controversy
By Mike Ingram
9 October 1999
Use
this version to print
Britain's worst rail disaster in decades appears to have been
caused by a local commuter train passing through a red danger
signal, according to an official report from the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) released Friday afternoon.
In its interim report on Tuesday morning's crash, the HSE says
that the service operated by Thames Trains passed signal 109 when
it was set to red outside Paddington Station in London. The train
subsequently collided with the front carriage of an inbound express
service run by Great Western.
The total number of dead still remains uncertain. Anguished
relatives await the identification of remains. So far 30 bodies
have been recovered, but only a few of these have been identified.
Among the first to be named were the drivers of the two trains
and an aide to Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam.
Brian Cooper, a 52-year-old father of two from Hayes, West
London, was the driver of the Great Western express. He was identified
Thursday from his clothing and documents he was carrying. The
driver of the Thames Train had already been named as Michael Hodder,
also a father of two. Anthony Beeton, 47, also killed in the crash,
was a senior government official who had helped in the drafting
of the Good Friday Agreement and had been the architect of a new
human rights and equality commission in Northern Ireland.
"Analysis of data tapes suggests that the signalling equipment
is unlikely to be at fault", the HSE report says. It adds,
"The reasons why the train passed the red light are likely
to be complex." Early evidence suggests that the accident
"would have been prevented by the installation and correct
operation of a Train Protection Warning System (TPWS)", said
Chief Inspector of Railways Vic Coleman.
The HSE has served Railtrack with three Improvement Notices
relating to signalling. It has also written to Great Western about
continuing to use Automatic Train Protection fitted on some of
its trains, and has told all train operating companies to re-brief
drivers on signals passed at danger.
The instruction to Great Western lends a revealing insight
into the attitude of the company towards rail safety. The company
was fined £1.5 million in July for not activating Automatic
Train Protection (ATP) on a train that crashed at Southall two
years ago with the loss of seven lives. The HSE report has confirmed
that despite this, ATP was not being operated on the Great Western
express at the time of the Paddington crash.
Though said to have no direct bearing on this specific case,
given that the Great Western train had been given a green light,
it does reveal the contempt with which the company holds directives
from the HSE, even when accompanied by a £1.5 million fine.
Railtrack, the company that gained control of the tracks and
signalling when British Rail was privatised, fares no better,
as the more fundamental causes of the crash become known. The
company had received complaints on several occasions that the
now infamous Signal 109 was hidden from the view of drivers. It
had planned to change the signal later this month. This is six
months after an independent report recommended the siting of low-level
signals on the 109 gantry as an extra help for drivers. It has
taken six meetings since April for the change to be approved.
Railtrack had previously claimed that to change the signal would
confuse drivers.
The industry has already been heavily criticised by the Railway
Inspectorate for an increase in Signal Passed at Danger (SPAD)
incidents. These were up 8 percent last year, to 643. In an unpublished
report on SPADs, the Inspectorate blames Railtrack and the train
operating companies for the increasing number of incidents. It
says remedial action has been inadequate, but has taken no action
to punish those accountable.
Great Western has said that due to the introduction of the
Heathrow Express between Paddington and Heathrow airport it had
asked for its high-speed trains to be moved to another track on
approaches to London. Crash investigators are now examining whether
changes to the track and the erection of new signal gantries could
have contributed to both this and the Southall crash.
Given the fact that over 100 people remain missing, a central
question thrown up by the crash is why carriage H of the Great
Western train suffered such severe damage. The company has said
that it ran the trains on industrial diesel with additives, which
are highly inflammable, to prevent it from freezing in winter.
Diesel spilled from fuel tanks ruptured in the crash and was ignited,
producing an inferno of over 1,200 degrees. This fire and heat
reduced the bodies trapped in the carriage to virtually unidentifiable
ashes.
Four days after the accident, only 30 out of a possible 127
bodies had been recovered from the crash. Rescue workers have
been hampered by the instability of the wreckage and have been
working to construct a 100-ton crane to enable them to move the
Thames train from on top of the front carriage of the Great Western
express, where the majority of victims are believed to have perished.
It has now been reported that at least part of the reason for
this is that the front carriage of the Thames train was made from
aluminium rather than steel. This reduces fuel consumption and
thus increases the profits of the company, but at a deadly cost
to rail passengers, as the Paddington tragedy illustrates.
Britain's rail safety record is one of the worst in Europe,
and it invests just 0.9 percent of GDP on transport infrastructure.
Figures for 1986-90 produced by the international union of railways
show that 36 passengers died for every 10 million passenger-kilometres
travelled in Britain, compared to 27 in France. The French government
is planning to invest a further £5 billion in the state-owned
rail service by the end of this year.
The Paddington disaster has produced a political crisis in
Britain that goes far beyond the issue of funding. The crash and
others before it have led many to place the blame on the impact
of privatisation, initiated by the Tories but enthusiastically
pursued by Labour.
Further indication of the crisis facing the Labour administration
was given in Friday's Financial Times. After reporting
that the government has been put under pressure to order investment
of around £1 billion for the introduction of ATP, the paper
said that Deputy Prime Minister Prescott had expressed doubts
about its effectiveness. "From what I have seen of ATP, I
am not convinced about its effectiveness or that it is fully proven",
Prescott said.
Significantly, the paper cites Prescott as saying that he will
implement the recommendations of Sir David Davies of the Royal
Academy of Engineering, not those of Lord Cullen's independent
inquiry as he had said previously. This tends to confirm the suspicions
raised by the World Socialist Web Site that the Davies
investigation into safety is designed as a counterweight to anything
Cullen may propose.
Furthermore, Prescott has qualified his earlier promise that
"money is no object", stating that whatever system is
introduced, there was no commitment from pubic funds. "The
obligation is on the industry to provide it", he said. This
has placed Prescott at odds with Railtrack, who argue that his
estimate of £1 billion is only half the real cost of ATP
implementation. Even at £2 billion, however, this is still
peanuts to a company that makes £1.2 million in profits
a day.
Moreover, the Railway Development Society user group pointed
out that the fall in Railtrack's share price since the crash had
"lost the company more money than ATP would have cost".
Campaigns director Alix Stredwick said, "Railtrack has a
huge public relations budget.... Perhaps it should transfer some
of the money to infrastructure investment on safety and capacity."
See Also:
70 confirmed dead and 100 still unaccounted
for in London train crash
[8 October 1999]
Death toll could be as high as 100 in
London rail crash
[7 October 1999]
Inadequate safety measures
behind rail disasters in India
[16 August 1999]
The New South Wales rail systema
disaster waiting to happen
[14 August 1999]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |