As the third crash in as many years, Hatfield looked like it was to become
yet another statistic, a monument to the lack of funding and consequential
decline in rail safety over recent years.
In the aftermath of the Paddington Inquiry, it appeared that nothing had been
learnt through the death of 31 passengers then, nor similar fatalities at
Southall and Watford earlier.
Amid demands for better rail safety, the introduction of Automatic
Train Protection ( ATP ) systems, better training and more investment, the
government has been unwilling to fund the huge expenditure required and have
looked to Railtrack and the train operators to sort the problems out
themselves.
Within a highly fragmented rail industry, with over 100 companies, organisations
and bodies involved, passengers have long complained that they have been
side-lined and ignored, as profit is seen to be more important to these recently
privatised companies than safety or passenger comfort.
As clients, passengers feel they are little more than raw material for
train companies to shunt about, in order to boost their coffers and enthuse
their shareholders.
For far too long, passengers have suffered delays, unreliability, poor service
and low quality. They have resigned themselves to a life of misery and having
no choice but to put their trust in companies who appear to have no regard for
their customers and little concern for safety.
With so many people involved in the industry, it has been easy for the blame to
be passed from one group to the next, with the result than no one takes any
responsibility for the mess passenger services have become.
Operating companies blame delays and cancellations on the lack of drivers, lack
of income and on Railtrack, the provider and controller of lines over which
their trains run.
Railtrack complain that they are under pressure from the operating companies
competing against each other to keep as many trains running as possible and
fighting to get as many trains on the lines as possible. Trying to balance the
demands of safety, and temporary line closures to effect repairs, against the
penalties incurred for disrupting operator's services is difficult and has been
ineffective.
The government, with the wadge of cash from privatisation safely stashed away in
the treasury, has, near as damn it, washed its hands of the whole issue.
The railways have been in chaos for years, privatisation has not improved the
situation, although it would not be fair to say that it has made it worse in
all areas, and no one expects anything to get better while so many are
involved with so many conflicting agendas.
None of the tragic deaths over recent years have had any major impact and
recommendations from Public Inquiries have been ignored on grounds of cost or
have slipped into obscurity for political reasons.
No one expected the Hatfield crash to have any lasting effect. The consequences
have, however, made a striking contrast to previous incidents.
Firstly, despite rumours of terrorist activity or vandalism, which most
observers put straight down to rivals in the industry, once again, trying to
cover their own backs, Railtrack came clean, put up its hands, and admitted
that the crash was due to a faulty track which had broken as the train passed
over it.
Whilst their admission wasn't immediate, initially only saying that the line
was, "not good", they didn't hide behind the cloak of, "waiting to see what
a full investigation and enquiry reveals", and, "we can't say anything more at
this time".
Secondly, Railtrack's Chief Executive, Gerald Corbett, tendered his resignation
whilst apologising for the disaster, with a sincerity not often seen from a
man who looks likely to have to shoulder most of the blame for such an incident,
and admitting they could have done an awful lot better.
These forthright admissions may have been because there were no other trains
involved in the incident, so it couldn't be immediately put down to 'driver
error', but there was plenty of opportunity to allege that the driver was not
paying attention, was drunk, was driving too fast or the train itself
was defective. Although all these causes were suggested, it was Railtrack which
had the decency to dismiss them as quickly as possible.
Given that Railtrack have clearly stated it was track failure which caused
the accident, they have also been respected for not trying to place the blame
on the contractors, Balfour Beatty, who maintain the track and had inspected
the section of line not a week earlier.
Such honest admissions of failure and responsibility have not been heard for a
long time in any industry or in politics. It does not make the derailment any
less tragic or important but has created an environment of open discussion
rather than the usual closed shop of blame and rebuttal. And, importantly, it
has given Railtrack much needed credibility, and support of the public who
are prepared to listen to what Railtrack now have to say.
As Corbett spoke to the press, having tendered his resignation, he looked like
a truly shocked and saddened man. He talked openly and honestly about his
feelings, Railtrack's responsibilities on safety, its shortcomings and its
problems. Without him saying it directly, it was obvious, he was prepared
to be held responsible for the Railtrack operations he oversaw as Chief
Executive.
Corbet spoke openly and frankly, his points that safety had generally improved
over recent years were counterbalanced by his admissions that, even so, it was
still not acceptable, safety had to become a priority and something
had to change.
Admitting that safety has not, perhaps, been the most important issue to the
industry has for once put Railtrack and the public on the same wavelength.
His pragmatic statements about the impossibility of maintaining tracks,
without causing disruption to operating companies and passengers, and
explaining how Railtrack are under constant pressures of being fined if they
are to do so, has provoked a more public debate about how the situation can
be resolved.
The issue of rail safety is now firmly in the public domain with Railtrack and
the public agreeing that something must be done, and both are talking in
rational and practical ways.
This openess has brought the train operators and other parties to the table
and it finally looks like there are going to be serious discussions on the
issue with concrete results.
While the government is lending tacit support to resolving the problems, with
Lord Macdonald describing the Hatfield crash as a, "sombre reminder", and
promising to, "redouble efforts to ensure safety is our number one priority",
nothing has been heard from Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, responsible
for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, nor from
Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Although Railtrack have stepped out into the light of public scrutiny and
accountability, it appears that the government is still happier to hide behind
vague promises of commitment without action. The opposition equally so, again
attempting to make capitol of an issue whilst conveniently forgetting that they
too must take some of the blame for the disaster themselves.
It is ironic that while the rail industry admits its failings and decides what
it must do to increase safety and restore public confidence, the government
are unwilling to commit to anything at this time. Once again, it would appear
that government is out of step with what the people it represents want and
need.
How the rail industry must change is an interesting matter which will no doubt
be debated upon long and hard, but all involved acknowledge that
something must be done sooner rather than later and agree that what needs to be
done cannot be done without investment, increased costs and disruption to
the rail network, at least in the short term.
The railway can never be made 100% safe, but what can be done is to make
accidents, such as at Hatfield, Paddington, Southall, Watford and the 90 or so
other derailments which occurred in 1999 survivable. Just two days after
Hatfield, another train derailed at Northampton and numerous other incidents
still occur each month.
The Paddington enquiry brought into sharp focus the problems of signals
passed at danger, Hatfield highlights that there is more than one thing which
must be done to improve safety. The introduction of ATP must be considered, as
perhaps should the fitting of seatbelts, the re-orienting of seating so
passengers are not thrown into one another or tables and the issue of having
tens, if not hundreds, of people standing on crowded trains must also come under
scrutiny.
Any improvement is going to cost money, and where that money is to come from is
a matter in its own right. Estimates in the region of one billion GBP seem not
to be unrealistic for bringing the services up to scratch, but would that be
money well spent, given that rail travel is still considered to be the safest
form of transport ?
Should we spend a billion pounds to save the lives of a handful of people each
year on the rail network when the same money applied to preventing road deaths
at known blackspots may save a magnitude or two more ?
Is it actually possible to make rail travel any safer, or should we just accept
that there will be disasters and tragedies ? Despite millions of pounds spent
on speed cameras, drink driving campaigns and speed reductions, the number of
fatalities on the roads remains stubbornly constant.
The public must decide what their priority is; be it safety or punctuality and
comfort. The debate has been opened, and the issue can be resolved. Unlike
previous crashes, which have done little to change anything, Hatfield looks
like it will be remembered not just as the disaster it was, but as the event
which brought railways back under public control.
Corbett has clearly expressed his view that the way privatisation of the
railways was implemented was not satisfactory ( something which most people, in
hindsight, agree with ) but realises that re-nationalisation is unlikely and
probably unnecessary. He also acknowledge that the public have an important
part to play in the decision making process on matters of rail travel.
Accountability is one thing the public has demanded and it appears that this has
now been regained. The rail industry has now indicated its willingness to
listen and change; we must take this as an opportunity which must not be lost,
and ensure that where change is needed, it is forthcoming.
The future of the railways is, once again, in our hands.
