Pass Train Struck Rail during NR Relaying 0 RAIB Report

[Old Timer]

RAIB Report.

Further comment is superfluous.:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[bluenoxid]

Woops, the report was published in Jan 2011

 

[Eng274]

9 The site staff working on the track relaying site did not report the accident despite
the machine operator and crane controller being aware of it.

57 l the speed of traffic on the open line must be no more than 20 mph if no fence is
used (there was no fence at Washwood Heath);

Very interesting reading. It seems a combination of circumstances led to this; the first being the delayed possession, then technical problems with the RRV meant the work plan needed to be changed to avoid costly maintenance over-runs. Tough call to make for the ATSM1.

Its fortunate nothing worse happened. While I'm not personally adept with the exact guidelines for using RRVs immediately adjacent to open lines, common sense would suggest a TSR ought to be implemented, especially if there are objects being suspended under a crane (and susceptible to being caught by winds etc)

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Unsafe procedures by management, staff under pressure to work unsafely, staff pressurised not to report the incident... Hmm....

 

[Railsigns]

Unsafe procedures by management, staff under pressure to work unsafely, staff pressurised not to report the incident... Hmm....

Welcome to the harsh reality of the privatised railway, which was brought to you courtesy of John Major's Conservative government. This is the same privatised railway which is costing the British taxpayer four times as much to run as British Rail did.

 

[Old Timer]

Just a shame that your post has a major flaw in that once again the accident has involved staff employed by a public company rather than a Privatised company.

Just to really spoil your day and rant, if you bother to speak with any of the Network Rail Infrastructure staff and asked them, they will tell you that safety is far higher in the Major Infrastructure Contractors organisations.

A recent observation by one concerned the fact that whilst they felt perfectly safe in a work site operated by any of the Major Infrastructure Contractors organisations, that was not the case in a Network Rail operated site.

You may wish to spend a little time going through the RAIB Inquiry Reports to compare those involving staff from the Major Infrastructure Contractors organisations.

And of course Network Rail is still under investigation over the under-reporting of accidents is it not ?

 

[Railsigns]

Just a shame that your post has a major flaw in that once again the accident has involved staff employed by a public company rather than a Privatised company.

Fact: Network Rail is a private company.

 

[boing_uk]

It may well be costing far more, however is this not down to the customersn (NR) over-zealous requirements rather than anything else?

From what I gather from the tones of the far more learned members here, such as OT, trog et al, is that NR really dont know what they want. They have inexperienced people as "engineers" and "managers" in title only. The privatised companies have snapped up former BR personnel, while NR have wiped out all that experience - sounds like the public sector all over really.

I dont doubt that BR had its good points - indeed if it had been given a chance I doubt we would be having todays problems. However, safety for passengers has improved. Look at the pre-privatisation v post privatisation deaths. Drastically reduced.

However, I also have a sneaky suspicsion that NR are playing fast and loose with that safety, with an "it'll be alright Jack" attitude to both infrastructure maintenance and of course its own staff. Again, something which I see every day.

It is unfortunate that it WILL take for a passenger(s) to be killed by the overseeing organisation (after all the media doesnt really care about the number of trackworkers injured, but by god if a passenger gets it...) - i.e Network Rail - for any fundamental organisational changes to be made to the railway as it stands.

It's a sad fact of life that organisations, such as NR, like many in my own industry, get complacent and forget the lessons of history, because it is not in the here and now and the people responsible will, they hope, have moved on and the problems will be someone elses to solve.

 

[Old Timer]

Fact: Network Rail is a private company.

FACT Network Rail is NOT a private Company

It has no shareholders and is completely controlled by HMG.

 

[GB]

um, Network Rail is a private company, a quick search would have told you that.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

It may well be costing far more, however is this not down to the customersn (NR) over-zealous requirements rather than anything else?

From what I gather from the tones of the far more learned members here, such as OT, trog et al, is that NR really dont know what they want. They have inexperienced people as "engineers" and "managers" in title only. The privatised companies have snapped up former BR personnel, while NR have wiped out all that experience - sounds like the public sector all over really.

I dont doubt that BR had its good points - indeed if it had been given a chance I doubt we would be having todays problems. However, safety for passengers has improved. Look at the pre-privatisation v post privatisation deaths. Drastically reduced.However, I also have a sneaky suspicsion that NR are playing fast and loose with that safety, with an "it'll be alright Jack" attitude to both infrastructure maintenance and of course its own staff. Again, something which I see every day.

It is unfortunate that it WILL take for a passenger(s) to be killed by the overseeing organisation (after all the media doesnt really care about the number of trackworkers injured, but by god if a passenger gets it...) - i.e Network Rail - for any fundamental organisational changes to be made to the railway as it stands.

It's a sad fact of life that organisations, such as NR, like many in my own industry, get complacent and forget the lessons of history, because it is not in the here and now and the people responsible will, they hope, have moved on and the problems will be someone elses to solve.

Are you asure about that?

 

[OxtedL]

BLURRY LINE: Network Rail is somewhere on the divide.

Whole different thread...

 

[dviner]

Looking at the RAIB report, this case seems to mostly be down to one person - who had over 20 years of experience on the railway at the time of the incident.

 

[TDK]

Welcome to the harsh reality of the privatised railway, which was brought to you courtesy of John Major's Conservative government. This is the same privatised railway which is costing the British taxpayer four times as much to run as British Rail did.

And there were no incidents like this under BR? Why blast political on a rail forum, I thought that sort of thing was not your forte! Four time in real ternm including inflation and per person travelling? Source of the figures please!

Also Labour were in term long enough to renationalise it, why didn't they and save us all a whole load of money? Of course they were trying their utmost to bankrupt the country instead.

 

[Old Timer]

um, Network Rail is a private company, a quick search would have told you that.

OK so who owns it, and who do I approach if I want to buy it ?

Who gets to sell the assets.

A private company will have assets and there will be owners or shareholders who receive the profits. If the ownes so wanted they could sell shares, issue shares or simply shut down or sell off the business and / or its assets. No-one within Network Rail can do that.

What other private company is controlled by a Minister, and which private company is guaranteed by HMG Treasury.

Which other private company could have its chairman and key staff removed by a Ministerial telephone call ?

Network Rail was set up in the same way (almost) as British Rail was with the exception that it was set up to "operate" as a private company for the simple reason that in doing so it allowed Labour to keep Network Rail's liabilities off the public accounts.

Be under no illusion that operating like a private company does not autmatically confer that it IS a private company. Absolutely no-one can sell of Network Rail assets because they belong to the Government aka the Taxpayer. On that basis alone it is NOT a private company, it is a company that is owned by the Government. There is a legal saying that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it must be a duck.

A further test is the fact that the Trade Unions wanted Railtrack brought under public ownership and control, and that is precisely what they have gotten.

You will find that they no longer harp on about the alleged employment conditions of the private sector Infrastructure Contractors, because at all levels and on all comparisons the employees of those companies are paid better, have far superior terms and conditions, have far better Pension provision, have a better degree of job security, and the TUs are not constantly threatening strikes and complaining about unsafe working practices.

The reason they keep very quiet about the way that Network Rail employees are treated is because of their complicity in setting Network Rail up, and then finding themselves unable to criticise when it goes down the route of employee relations that it has because they were responsible for the model developed.

Had a private Infrastructure Contractor been involved in such an incident (and there are proepr management systems and controls to prevent such abuse) I am quite sure the TUs would have been screaming to the high heavens about it. Because it is Network Rail however, there seems to be this continuing union silence as their members are killed, seriously injured, and sacked.

 

[OxtedL]

Right, thanks OT.

That just about winds this up everyone.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The wording in the report suggests to me that the driver literally fling himself across the cab. Must have hurt.

 

[GB]

These sources seem to disagree with OT's view on whether NR is a private company or not....

Each one states its a private company or a private company limited by guarantee

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=20

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/rail/rail-industry-in-scotland/network-rail

http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/100012/107535/105442/105138/network_rail/

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.118

Even on NR's own website they state they are a Private Company.

 

[Railsigns]

And there were no incidents like this under BR? Why blast political on a rail forum, I thought that sort of thing was not your forte! Four time in real ternm including inflation and per person travelling? Source of the figures please!

Also Labour were in term long enough to renationalise it, why didn't they and save us all a whole load of money? Of course they were trying their utmost to bankrupt the country instead.

You appear to be mistaking me for a Labour Party supporter. I am not, and it is indeed regrettable that they did almost nothing (apart from putting Railtrack out of its misery) to reverse the damage caused to the rail industry by Major's lame and incompetent Tory government.

 

[Yew]

BLURRY LINE: Network Rail is somewhere on the divide.

Whole different thread...

So network rail is like the channel islands? Pasrt of britain in some ways, but not in others?

For The channel islands, I would say a British Protectorate would be apropriate as a name

Maybe network rail is a givernment owned private company?

 

[Railsigns]

OK so who owns it, and who do I approach if I want to buy it ?

Who gets to sell the assets.

A private company will have assets and there will be owners or shareholders who receive the profits. If the ownes so wanted they could sell shares, issue shares or simply shut down or sell off the business and / or its assets. No-one within Network Rail can do that.

What other private company is controlled by a Minister, and which private company is guaranteed by HMG Treasury.

Which other private company could have its chairman and key staff removed by a Ministerial telephone call ?

Network Rail was set up in the same way (almost) as British Rail was with the exception that it was set up to "operate" as a private company for the simple reason that in doing so it allowed Labour to keep Network Rail's liabilities off the public accounts.

Be under no illusion that operating like a private company does not autmatically confer that it IS a private company. Absolutely no-one can sell of Network Rail assets because they belong to the Government aka the Taxpayer. On that basis alone it is NOT a private company, it is a company that is owned by the Government. There is a legal saying that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it must be a duck.

A further test is the fact that the Trade Unions wanted Railtrack brought under public ownership and control, and that is precisely what they have gotten.

You will find that they no longer harp on about the alleged employment conditions of the private sector Infrastructure Contractors, because at all levels and on all comparisons the employees of those companies are paid better, have far superior terms and conditions, have far better Pension provision, have a better degree of job security, and the TUs are not constantly threatening strikes and complaining about unsafe working practices.

The reason they keep very quiet about the way that Network Rail employees are treated is because of their complicity in setting Network Rail up, and then finding themselves unable to criticise when it goes down the route of employee relations that it has because they were responsible for the model developed.

Had a private Infrastructure Contractor been involved in such an incident (and there are proepr management systems and controls to prevent such abuse) I am quite sure the TUs would have been screaming to the high heavens about it. Because it is Network Rail however, there seems to be this continuing union silence as their members are killed, seriously injured, and sacked.

Wriggle, wriggle!

You know what, you could have saved yourself a whole lot of time and just admitted that you were wrong. However, if you're Hell-bent on arguing that Network Rail is a public company, then might I suggest that you do so directly with Network Rail, rather than here?

This is what Network Rail say on their own website:

"As a company limited by guarantee, we are a private company operating as a commercial business."

See for yourself:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/713.aspx

That didn't take long to find, by the way.

Far from spoiling my day, it has been a real joy to see your credibility take a palpable hit, particularly while you were rubbishing NR's safety culture in the mistaken belief that they're a public company. I can only hope that your arrogance declines in sympathy. :roll:

 

[OxtedL]

This could go on and on...

Network Rail is definitely a private company legally and officially. Nonetheless we can all see that OT is saying that in reality it isn't, and he has a point.

This is incredibly subjective and can only go round in circles as has happened before, so lets leave it alone.

Anyone got anything to add about the report above (yes, the thing in the first post - had you forgotten )

 

[Old Timer]

Wriggle, wriggle!

You know what, you could have saved yourself a whole lot of time and just admitted that you were wrong. However, if you're Hell-bent on arguing that Network Rail is a public company, then might I suggest that you do so directly with Network Rail, rather than here?

This is what Network Rail say on their own website:

"As a company limited by guarantee, we are a private company operating as a commercial business."

See for yourself:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/713.aspx

That didn't take long to find, by the way.

Far from spoiling my day, it has been a real joy to see your credibility take a palpable hit, particularly while you were rubbishing NR's safety culture in the mistaken belief that they're a public company. I can only hope that your arrogance declines in sympathy. :roll:

I see you did not address any of the items that define a "true" private company.

OK so Balfour Beatty is currently going round buying up Companies. Can you tell me whom they should approach to buy Network Rail ? Just one individual will do.

See when I know this individual I can make a fortune in the form of a finder fee because everyone on here actually thinks the Government owns it - which is of course true but your blindness stops you from seeing that it is. As you appear not to comprehend what I said, any company can be operated (note the emphasis) as a private company which means much can be hidden from public scrutiny. You might want to reflect on that.

Please tell me who owns Network Rail ?

Moving back to the original points, please tell me why you are not critical of Network Rail's obvious safety failings, you know the ones we read time and time again in the RAIB reports, and the various complaints made by NR staff on here.

If the incident had been caused by say Jarvis Rail, I know for a fact that you would have been in your element.

 

[tempests1]

Just to really spoil your day and rant, if you bother to speak with any of the Network Rail Infrastructure staff and asked them, they will tell you that safety is far higher in the Major Infrastructure Contractors organisations.

A recent observation by one concerned the fact that whilst they felt perfectly safe in a work site operated by any of the Major Infrastructure Contractors organisations, that was not the case in a Network Rail operated site.

You may wish to spend a little time going through the RAIB Inquiry Reports to compare those involving staff from the Major Infrastructure Contractors organisations.
[/QUOTE]

OT your post is on the money, I could give a a lot of examples of how there is one rule from them and another for Contractors.

 

[Old Timer]

OT your post is on the money, I could give a a lot of examples of how there is one rule from them and another for Contractors.

Thanks, chap.

I knew someone with experience would pop up sooner or later to confirm what I have said is true. Unfortunately the truth does not matter to those who do not work in the Industry or who view Network Rail behind the rose tinted spectacles of the enthusiast or the political dogmatist.

Still don't worry too much longer. I am told by those who know that HMRI is shortly to come under some really searching scrutiny with regards to their failure to take effective leadership, and to explain their reluctance to take firm action against various parties.

One would have thought that the clinical dismemberment of Coucher's empire would have sent a subliminal message but obviously not, so it will be a case of learning the hard way I suspect.

 

[Railsigns]

I see you did not address any of the items that define a "true" private company.

OK so Balfour Beatty is currently going round buying up Companies. Can you tell me whom they should approach to buy Network Rail ? Just one individual will do.

See when I know this individual I can make a fortune in the form of a finder fee because everyone on here actually thinks the Government owns it - which is of course true but your blindness stops you from seeing that it is. As you appear not to comprehend what I said, any company can be operated (note the emphasis) as a private company which means much can be hidden from public scrutiny. You might want to reflect on that.

Please tell me who owns Network Rail ?

I have no intention of addressing any of those questions which you have lobbed into the discussion to divert attention away from the real question, which is whether Network Rail actually is a public or a private company. I told you it's a private company. You replied that I was incorrect. You were then presented with indisputable evidence (not just by me) that it is a private company.

Moving back to the original points, please tell me why you are not critical of Network Rail's obvious safety failings, you know the ones we read time and time again in the RAIB reports, and the various complaints made by NR staff on here.

I am under no obligation to comment on Network Rail's safety record, nor is it expected of me. I will decide what I want to pass comment on.

While you were being critical of NR's safety record earlier in this thread, you thought you were criticising a public company, thus fitting nicely with your capitalist mantra (private=good, public=bad). The fact of the matter is that you were criticising a private company and now you can't bring yourself to admit your error.

If the incident had been caused by say Jarvis Rail, I know for a fact that you would have been in your element.

You know nothing of the sort. Choosing to bad-mouth a company on the basis of which side of the public/private divide it sits on is your style (as demonstrated above), not mine.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Still don't worry too much longer. I am told by those who know that HMRI is shortly to come under some really searching scrutiny with regards to their failure to take effective leadership, and to explain their reluctance to take firm action against various parties.

How can these people claim to be "in the know" when they, like you, are ignorant of the fact that HMRI ceased to exist two years ago?

 

[w1bbl3]

Actually OT is correct to some extent on ownership. When Network Rail was formed PwC and ONS could not agree on if the company was state owned or privately owned, for that matter NAO can't agree either.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/rail_accounting062002.pdf
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/network1002.pdf

I'm not going to offer my opinion if Network is public or privately owned, as TBH it is both depending on conditions prevailing.

However DfT does have the right to appoint a board director, the DfT appointed director can not be removed by other directors, DfT have the right in the event of "fundamental financial failure" to remove all other directors and to dismiss the chair and chief executive.

 

[Old Timer]

Actually OT is correct to some extent on ownership. When Network Rail was formed PwC and ONS could not agree on if the company was state owned or privately owned, for that matter NAO can't agree either.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/rail_accounting062002.pdf
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/network1002.pdf

I'm not going to offer my opinion if Network is public or privately owned, as TBH it is both depending on conditions prevailing.

However DfT does have the right to appoint a board director, the DfT appointed director can not be removed by other directors, DfT have the right in the event of "fundamental financial failure" to remove all other directors and to dismiss the chair and chief executive.

Thank you chap.

Sorry you had to read all the dribble above, unfortunately abuse is the next stage when certain people are unable to move forward in a debate.

How can these people claim to be "in the know" when they, like you, are ignorant of the fact that HMRI ceased to exist two years ago?
?

I suggest you do a little research into the status of the Inspectors. Altrhough HMRI as an organisation has now ended, the Inspectors are still known as HMRI.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing especially when being used by you.

Here is the contact details for the ORR - just in case you would like to check up on that.
Office of Rail Regulation
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4AN

Tel: 020 7282 2000

As you have contributed nothing but bile to the topic I suggest (as the OP) that you toddle off and leave the topic to those who have something constructive to say.

Oh and for the umpteenth time of telling you, not that you appear to be intellectually capable of understanding this little point, anyone who does not hold Socialist views is not necessarily a Tory. I know that most on here understand that little distinction you clearly do not.

As a means of being personally vindictive and insulting it rather falls short of the mark. As was once remarked of Geoffrey Howe, its a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep.

Oh and as you do not work in the Industry I suggest you act in that manner.

 

[OxtedL]

Phew, well i'm glad that's over.

Interesting about the HMRI...who do they work for (sorry), was it the ORR now :??

 

[Old Timer]

Phew, well i'm glad that's over.

Interesting about the HMRI...who do they work for (sorry), was it the ORR now :??

ORR took over responsibility for safety regulation from the HSE.

Prior to the HSE, HMRI reported to the Dept of Transport.

Although the HMRI has disappeared as an organisation as such, the Inspectors are still known as Her Majesty's Railway Inspectors, and there unit although named differently is still colloqually known as HMRI. Everyone (sensible) knows what is meant by that term.

There is a view in the Government that the ORR (we'll use that generic term for the pedants) has not been concentrating on the right issues. All they do is chase up paperwork and review TOC documents. They have lost the day to day "feel" for whats going on out there, and their collective failure to secure a "good" Prosecution for the continuing deaths is not viewed kindly, neither is the fact that RAIB has several times reported on the same management and system failures. In one recent report one could read the RAIB frustration between the lines at the fact that Recommendations made several times over have been ignored or fobbed off by Network Rail.

I know at least two major Infrastructure Contractors have been in discussion with certain people in Government about concerns they have with the way that Network Rail plays fast and loose with not only its own internal Standards, but also with the Rules, which it is not authorised to modify. Senior Managers in the Infrastructure Contractors have their own meeting forum and this continues to discuss issues where Network Rail staff have put pressure onto junior staff or threatened them with removal from the Contract for applying safety above production.

The Infrastructure Contractors are very hot on safety (this is nothing to do with political dogma simply a matter of fact from someone who has worked for them rather than sitting outside the Industry and knowing bugger all about it), indeed Jarvis had a declared policy of diciplining staff for not reporting. No action was ever taken against staff who reported an incident or near miss, and I know that to be a fact having reported incidents myself.

 

[GB]

Sorry you had to read all the dribble above

If your sorry about it then why continue to post it?

I don't care how the company is perceived to be operated or if said company has characteristics akin to a public company. The fact is the powers that be (for what ever reason) class it as a private company, therefore legally and factually speaking it is a private company as proved by the links that both me and RS posted....the same links that you appear to ignore.

It it true that when the company was first set up there were debates about it being public or private, but here and now is different.