Cost Vs Safety

[ComUtoR]

Morning,

I was reminded this morning that safety comes at a cost. I was about to post a reply on a thread but realised as I was typing that my answer would be pointless :/

There are various incidents on the railway but some appear to be totally avoidable if technology was implemented or infrastructure redesigned all obviously, at a cost.

The company I work for sent an internal communication recently stating targets for incidents. One of which was '1 death' Surely all targets for safety incidents should be ZERO. The railways leans towards reduction and mitigation and various safety concerns only appear to be implemented once its very public and usually after people have sadly list their lives.

The simple answer to the following question is MONEY but is there any other reasons why elimination of incidents isn't the target. Without being specific or starting debates about removal of X/Y/Z are there incidents etc. that can be totally eliminated albeit at a significant cost ?

Slam door stock is almost non existent (I'm sure some is still out there) and although passengers can still open the doors whilst the train is moving (egress') Slam door related incidents are surely a thing of the past. (yes there is now probably other door related incidents)

Is it that one incident is replaced with another ?

With ticket prices spiralling out of control and NR debt being insane. Have we been throwing money at problems but never actually resolving them ?

TL/DR : Safety good, Paying for it bad ?

 

[jopsuk]

There's still considerable slam fleets (HST and loco hauled mark 3 carriages, mainly) with Greater Anglia, East Coast, East Midlands Trains, Cross Country and (especially) First Great Western), but these are all fitted with central door locking.

What areas do you think the TOCs and Network Rail should be spending money on in order to reduce deaths and serious injuries?

 

[dysonsphere]

there is no such thing as "zero risk" and the people who think there is are stilfing all forms of activity in this country. I used to work in the TV industry and we had to wait till H&S went for lunch before doing some work.

 

[Tomnick]

there is no such thing as "zero risk" and the people who think there is are stilfing all forms of activity in this country. I used to work in the TV industry and we had to wait till H&S went for lunch before doing some work.

Exactly correct - nothing is absolutely safe, so 'zero accidents' is an unachievable target in the longer term. It's surely far better to work towards a target that you might reach! It's probably better sold as "aiming to reduce the number of deaths from y to x" than "aiming to kill x people this year" though...!

Yes, you can make things safer and safer by spending more and more money on it - but would that money be better spent elsewhere to save a greater number of lives (even indirectly, perhaps by encouraging a shift from road to rail, decreasing the number of road deaths as a result). The current obsession with level crossing closures is a good example of where this can go wrong, if the various suggestions that closures (immediately improving safety as far as Network Rail is concerned) are pushing vulnerable users onto unsuitable alternative routes (thus potentially increasing the overall risk) are to be believed.

 

[ComUtoR]

There's still considerable slam fleets (HST and loco hauled mark 3 carriages, mainly) with Greater Anglia, East Coast, East Midlands Trains, Cross Country and (especially) First Great Western), but these are all fitted with central door locking.

What areas do you think the TOCs and Network Rail should be spending money on in order to reduce deaths and serious injuries?

Everywhere tbvfh.

But trying to be more mindful and in the interest of debate.

'Stopping Short'
Why aren't trains fitted with gps and technology to prevent door openings when short of the stopping point ?
What about other tech ?
Why cant all trains stop at a single point ?

'Level Crossings'
Remove them all and use bridges, tunnels, viaducts etc.

SPAD's
Can trains be stopped BEFORE the signal instead of within the overlap ?
Is ERTMS the solution ?
Whats the best train/signal protection (TPWS/ATP/ATO etc ?)

I emboldened the Central Door locking because its a system that's been put in place to prevent the casual door opening of the past. Rolling stock has made advances in train safety. Its still moving at a snails pace though with rolling stock being passed around the country rather than shiny new super safe and comfortable trains with all the bells and whistles...

 

[Fincra5]

Trains used to stop at an 'S' car mark in a lot of places. But as there are such a variety of Lengths of trains, and to save the poor passengers legs for walking (COULD YOU IMAGINE), there are car markers at various points. Drivers do say there are far too many!

 

[ComUtoR]

Exactly correct - nothing is absolutely safe

Yes, you can make things safer and safer by spending more and more money on it - but would that money be better spent elsewhere to save a greater number of lives (even indirectly, perhaps by encouraging a shift from road to rail, decreasing the number of road deaths as a result). The current obsession with level crossing closures is a good example of where this can go wrong, if the various suggestions that closures (immediately improving safety as far as Network Rail is concerned) are pushing vulnerable users onto unsuitable alternative routes (thus potentially increasing the overall risk) are to be believed.

This is along the lines of how I'm thinking. Does the elimination of one thing lead to the cause of another. Removing every level crossing stops railway incidents. However; whilst I can agree to some extent about pushing problems to the road. Road issues are separate and also need to be addressed. Building an alternative route or a bridge over the railway should be safely built and provide those safer alternatives.

I can't see how a footbridge in place of foot crossings is less safe and is more about cost than anything else.

As to nothing being safe. The human factor is impossible to eliminate. I see people walking across level crossing rather than over the footbridge. :/

I saw that russian level crossing video posted a few days ago and whilst raised bollards aren't the best solution (they can cause harm) The current design of crossings clearly do not work. I would certainly support a redesign IF the design could eliminate the problem better than removal.

 

[ac6000cw]

there is no such thing as "zero risk" and the people who think there is are stilfing all forms of activity in this country.

Even though I'm generally very 'safety concious' I have to agree.

On the railway side of things, they are already very, very safe - you are (statistically) far more likely to be killed or injured walking/cycling/driving to the station than on the train (approx. 1700 people per year are killed on the roads in the UK - that's about 4 per day), but society has come to regard that as acceptable in exchange for the personal transport freedom it provides).

Railway safety 'systems' are a bit unbalanced in the UK - we've spent (over the last 150 years or so) a fortune on providing ever more complex equipment to prevent signallers creating potentially dangerous situations, but until the advent of TPWS we didn't provide even a basic automatic train stop system to catch drivers' mistakes on the mainline system - the attitude of 'Drivers are paid to obey signals' lasted far too long as an excuse. (AWS has been around since the 1920's in the form of GWR 'ATC' originally, but because it is designed to be 'cancel-able' by the driver it has an inbuilt human error problem - much better than nothing, but not a substitute for cab-signalling etc.).

If you are interested in the evolution of railway safety, read the 'Red for Danger' and 'Hidden Dangers' books (in that order, preferably). 'Red for Danger' is one of the best railway books there is, IMHO.

 

[455driver]

Everywhere tbvfh.

But trying to be more mindful and in the interest of debate.

How much are you willing to pay and where is the money coming from?

'Stopping Short'
Why aren't trains fitted with gps and technology to prevent door openings when short of the stopping point ?
What about other tech ?
Why cant all trains stop at a single point ?

Money,
Such as?
Because then the passengers would have to walk to the far end at platforms where the entrance is at the rear of the train, they tried that on the up at New Malden by making the 8 car board an S board and removing the 4 car board (which was under the canopy) with the result that everyone waited under the canopy but the train went past them (to stop at the S) and then the train had to wait while the pax made their way down the train and boarded the rear door after some of them verbally abusing the guard.

'Level Crossings'
Remove them all and use bridges, tunnels, viaducts etc.

What about LCs in town centres where there is no room for a bridge or tunnel?
Close the road or close the railway?
What about where the Council wont let NR build a bridge because it would be visible from a couple of houses and spoil their view? Cough Ufton Nervert cough?
Easier said than done.

SPAD's
Can trains be stopped BEFORE the signal instead of within the overlap ?
Is ERTMS the solution ?
Whats the best train/signal protection (TPWS/ATP/ATO etc ?)

Trains stop at 1000s of signals a day without issue!
How much are you willing to spend on the few signals that are passed?

I emboldened the Central Door locking because its a system that's been put in place to prevent the casual door opening of the past. Rolling stock has made advances in train safety. Its still moving at a snails pace though with rolling stock being passed around the country rather than shiny new super safe and comfortable trains with all the bells and whistles...

Super safe and comfortable trains (I prefer a mark 3 over any of the fancy new stuff personally and I prefer to 'drive' a train rather than ask a computer to do it for me) costs about £1.5 million a coach, how many new coaches do you need to replace all the 'unsafe' ones?
As the 444s and 450s no longer pass the new 'standard' shall we replace those as well?
I mean they are not as safe as they could be!
Where do you draw the line?

Aside-
As car technology and safety are improving all the time (how many people die in car accidents a year?) do you change your car every time a new/improved one comes out so you can be as safe as possible or do you accept the minute risk from having an 'older' car?

 

[ComUtoR]

How much are you willing to pay and where is the money coming from?

That's the crux of it isn't it. How much and who pays. What about all those people who have lost their lives or children's lives because the attitude was cost. How much is wasted on repairs, incremental upgrades and basic incompetence. When the decision is made to choose one system over another that needs to be justified. How much is spent years later because it wasn't suitable or is out of date ?

I have to take the attitude that if I want a safe railway and I'm travelling on a train then I am willing to pay for it. My son is at an age where he will be travelling on a train by himself. I want that train safe at whatever the cost. Fortunately I don't live near many level crossings or have the requirement to cross them. Those that I use I use safely and certainly use the footbridge. I want those costs justified though. If my council tax was gonna go up because my local crossing was going to get a footbridge then I would not batter an eye and I would fully support it. (my nearest is stone crossing near Bluewater)

There is also a reduction in costs because no crossing = no crossing guard no associated signal etc. There are plenty of bridges across the railway near me.

Money,
Such as?
Because then the passengers would have to walk to the far end at platforms where the entrance is at the rear of the train, they tried that on the up at New Malden by making the 8 car board an S board and removing the 4 car board (which was under the canopy) with the result that everyone waited under the canopy but the train went past them (to stop at the S) and then the train had to wait while the pax made their way down the train and boarded the rear door after some of them verbally abusing the guard.

As was Bromley South. It was reverted to car marks. Safety was compromised for commuters. Frankly that's disgusting. I am unaware if any trains have since stopped short after its been moved back. Again its an attitude thing and sheer pigheadedness on the part of the commuter. However; commuters could have been educated better and the safety issues pointed out. After a time it would have been second nature to board properly. As a passenger I/we have a duty to ourselves and must respect the staff and the reasons for change. To compromise safety for people moaning was shocking. There was little to no cost other than movement of the stop mark and stop short incidents were effectively eliminated.

What about LCs in town centres where there is no room for a bridge or tunnel?
Close the road or close the railway?
What about where the Council wont let NR build a bridge because it would be visible from a couple of houses and spoil their view? Cough Ufton Nervert cough?
Easier said than done.

Mixed points but highlights where safety is compromised for what appears to be spurious reasons. I think I am at a point nowadays where if the Council refuse a bridge being built then it needs to be highlighted in no uncertain terms that should anyone die or have an unfortunate accident then blame needs to be apportioned. Again; it shouldn't take someone to die before safety is the priority.

Trains stop at 1000s of signals a day without issue!
How much are you willing to spend on the few signals that are passed?

That's exactly the arguments I hear. X number of signals are passed without error so why spend the money. Firstly its the number of RED's that are stopped at safely not signals passed and secondly we are again making a compromise and trying to justify it. Then when the brown stuff hits the fan those decisions are hard to swallow. What I would like is that root cause is identified and addressed. I would like to see better train protection systems and better infrastructure rather than always the cheapest option.

The major major factors aside. It is that same attitude when dealing with every incident. If the problem wasn't an issue then why are Drivers hammered so much when 'stopping short' Surely as a Driver you would want the technology or procedure and infrastructure changes that you aren't placed in a position to have an incident ? When does the TOC or NR finally have to take some of the blame ? When do diagrams and planners have to accept that stock changes, breaks, shift patterns, may cause an incident.

On the ORR website there is a plethora of information about the root cause to incidents yet the TOC's never seem to address the cause and the Driver takes the blame.

Super safe and comfortable trains (I prefer a mark 3 over any of the fancy new stuff personally and I prefer to 'drive' a train rather than ask a computer to do it for me) costs about £1.5 million a coach, how many new coaches do you need to replace all the 'unsafe' ones?
As the 444s and 450s no longer pass the new 'standard' shall we replace those as well?
I mean they are not as safe as they could be!

Its a good point but you also see threads about new rolling stock and the benefits to the economy. Stock also has a failure rate and that is a cost that could be reduced with new rolling stock or upgrades. There has to be a limit where stock just isn't suitable and becomes life expired. I'm not asking about full rolling stock replacement but more of new stock being the best and safest we can get and older stock being fit for purpose.

Where do you draw the line?

At what point do you move forward ? At what point do you upgrade. Before or after it all breaks ? Do you simply sit and accept that safety will always be compromised for one reason or another and those that lose their lives or jobs are simply an acceptable statistic ?

Is a Drivers safety of the line record based on % or signals/station stops ?

 

[ac6000cw]

I agree that level-crossings are probably the worst safety problem on the railway (largely because users abuse them) but there are/were some particularly hazardous examples - the accident at Elsenham in 2005 when two pedestrians were killed was definitely in the 'waiting to happen' category, and a wake-up call to the industry to examine the safety of older crossings (that one was old wooden gates, with completely unlocked pedestrian side gates). I think most crossings are fine though, in safety terms (and adding low-cost video recording equipment to them to help catch offenders, like the two AHB crossings in my village, is a good idea).

At least we generally use crossings safely - I've never seen a vehicle deliberately weave between half-barriers here, but I've witnessed it in the US (it was obviously 'good sport' on a Friday evening for the two pick-up trucks that weaved through the barriers just in front of a freight train I was watching, but I know my sympathies would have been for the train crew, not the idiots behind the wheel if they hadn't made it through....)

 

[Simon11]

Surely more people die from committing suicide than level crosses each year on the railway?

 

[yorkie]

Why cant all trains stop at a single point ?

Well, of course they can. But you wouldn't be saying that if you used a 4-car service on a 12-car platform, with the exit at the rear of an uncovered platform
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely more people die from committing suicide than level crosses each year on the railway?

Undoubtedly!

 

[Llanigraham]

Simple answer to the OP, yes all those safety needs can be done, but the only people who are going to pay for them are going to be the passengers. The Government can't and won't fund them, Network Rail can't fund them so that only results in one group left.

Is that what you want?

It strikes me you have a very simplistic view of the railway, it's needs and it's capabilities. It is the second safest bulk passenger transport system there is, the first being air travel.

 

[Clip]

I have to take the attitude that if I want a safe railway and I'm travelling on a train then I am willing to pay for it.?

You have got a safe railway though and the only reason I can see for you making this thread is because of the one about a train stopping short.

As an aside to this, are you qualified to carry out detailed risk assessments? The railway has those very people and what you may percieve as a high risk is actually not that high in practice.

 

[ac6000cw]

Do you simply sit and accept that safety will always be compromised for one reason or another and those that lose their lives or jobs are simply an acceptable statistic ?

In effect, yes.

There is no such thing as 'absolute safety' (us humans see to that), so the safety versus cost assessment (and you have to put a cost on a life, serious injury, etc. so the calculations can be done) is used to decide how to spend the available money on possible improvements.

 

[Tomnick]

Just to pick up on a couple of points above, starting with level crossings - yes, potentially one of the most significant risks to the railway, but not a risk that's spread equally across all level crossings. Some are far safer than others (for example, full barrier crossings have less risk attached to their use, the risk rating at an AHB on a very quiet rural road will probably be lower than the equivalent on a busy A-road, and so on), and the risk assessment process should ensure (notwithstanding the failings that have recently come to light in that process) that appropriate measures - possibly including closure - are taken at crossings where the risk exceeds an acceptable level. Why go further than that, especially at full barrier crossings with minimal risk, when the money could be more effectively spent elsewhere?

SPADs - any train passing a signal at danger, but stopping within the overlap, isn't in danger - that's exactly why the overlap exists! Again, what - in safety terms - would be achieved by providing complicated systems just to avoid anything even entering the overlap?

 

[ac6000cw]

Just to pick up on a couple of points above, starting with level crossings - yes, potentially one of the most significant risks to the railway, but not a risk that's spread equally across all level crossings. Some are far safer than others (for example, full barrier crossings have less risk attached to their use, the risk rating at an AHB on a very quiet rural road will probably be lower than the equivalent on a busy A-road, and so on), and the risk assessment process should ensure (notwithstanding the failings that have recently come to light in that process) that appropriate measures - possibly including closure - are taken at crossings where the risk exceeds an acceptable level. Why go further than that, especially at full barrier crossings with minimal risk, when the money could be more effectively spent elsewhere?

SPADs - any train passing a signal at danger, but stopping within the overlap, isn't in danger - that's exactly why the overlap exists! Again, what - in safety terms - would be achieved by providing complicated systems just to avoid anything even entering the overlap?

Exactly, I agree.

 

[GB]

J

SPADs - any train passing a signal at danger, but stopping within the overlap, isn't in danger.

It could be if there happens to be a level crossing within the overlap that was open to road traffic. Unlikely scenario but a possible one.

 

[47802]

In all industries including Transport industries, Air, Rail, Road etc it comes down to a balance between Risk and cost and frequently what is politically acceptable.


You could put speed limiters in cars, but the politicians know that wouldn't be popular with the majority of motorists or the car manufacturers at the moment, but no doubt one day it will happen, along with probably limiters that adjust to the speed limit, and eventually driverless cars and buses etc.

As 'ac6000cw' says, 'Absolute Safety' can frequently be unachievable or be so expensive as to be unviable. If somebody produced an Aircraft that was 100 times more survivable in a crash than the current generation but the cheapest fare was £50000 its not going to be viable,

 

[Tomnick]

It could be if there happens to be a level crossing within the overlap that was open to road traffic. Unlikely scenario but a possible one.

An excellent example of risk mitigation, if so. They shouldn't be within a certain distance of the protecting signal on new-ish installations though, with overrun controls to start the sequence (straight to flashing reds) if a train passes the protecting signal at danger, and further controls (such as Stowmarket Control - a recent invention??) if necessary.

 

[GB]

What is Stowmarket Control if you don't mind me asking?

 

[BestWestern]

J

SPADs - any train passing a signal at danger, but stopping within the overlap, isn't in danger.

It could be if there happens to be a level crossing within the overlap that was open to road traffic. Unlikely scenario but a possible one.

Precisely...'unlikely'. If there is a genuine risk of something happening, a reasonable chance, then moves will or should be made to minimise that risk. If however the risk is minimal, then the money will go elsewhere - and rightly too. There is only so much cash available, and the industry already swallows vast, vast amounts of it. It has to be spent wisely, not thrown at everything with gay abandon.

We could insist that every single public road have fences erected along the entire length to separate the pavement, with designated crossing points every half mile. But we don't because it is excessively expensive and not sufficiently beneficial. The same applies all over. Those who are unduly risk-averse are better off staying indoors! :-/

 

[BestWestern]

J

SPADs - any train passing a signal at danger, but stopping within the overlap, isn't in danger.

It could be if there happens to be a level crossing within the overlap that was open to road traffic. Unlikely scenario but a possible one.

Precisely...'unlikely'. If there is a genuine risk of something happening, a reasonable chance, then moves will or should be made to minimise that risk. If however the risk is minimal, then the money will go elsewhere - and rightly too. There is only so much cash available, and the industry already swallows vast, vast amounts of it. It has to be spent wisely, not thrown at everything with gay abandon.

We could insist that every single public road have fences erected along the entire length to separate the pavement, with designated crossing points every half mile. But we don't because it is excessively expensive and not sufficiently beneficial. The same applies all over. Those who are unduly risk-averse are better off staying indoors! :-/

 

[Tomnick]

What is Stowmarket Control if you don't mind me asking?

Recently installed at one of our boxes when the crossing equipment was renewed, where the home signal is right on top of the crossing. There's a treadle 100yds or so in rear of the home signal, which starts the normal sequence (steady amber followed by flashing reds, as opposed to the overrun controls which go straight to reds) accompanied by a horrendously (and unnecessarily) loud alarm in the box, if a train passes over it with the barriers up. The instructions state that the sequence can then be completed normally using the 'lower' button, or cancelled using the 'raise' button once the train's at a stand, all seemingly to mitigate against a SPAD where there's insufficient distance for the overrun controls to have any effect. I've only had it activated on one occasion myself (by a light engine to Stowmarket, funnily enough), with the lowering sequence already underway - it left me completely unable to pull off...!

 

[GB]

Thanks.

 

[rebmcr]

SPAD's
Can trains be stopped BEFORE the signal instead of within the overlap ?
Is ERTMS the solution ?
Whats the best train/signal protection (TPWS/ATP/ATO etc ?)

ATO (Automatic Train Operation) is not a safety system, it is a means of letting a computer control a train's motors — usually by pressing a button when stopped in a platform, that causes the train to drive to the next platform and stop. It is only used on certain tube lines, and is unsuitable for national deployment.

The "best protection" is currently ATP (Automatic Train Protection), which uses a computer to continuously check that a train is being driven safely, which would allow it to be stopped prior to a SPAD. This was developed after the Southall and Ladbroke Grove crashes on the GWML in the late '90s. It was originally planned to be deployed nationwide but was cut back on cost grounds — but is currently used on the GWML and the Chiltern line.
There is a list of accidents that ATP would have prevented here.

TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System) is a cut-down solution deployed on most main routes. It checks a train's speed at certain locations before junctions and signals, and hits the brakes if it thinks the train is going too fast, with the aim of stopping before a SPAD or just preventing speeding.

AWS (Automatic Warning System) is the oldest and most widespread system. It uses a magnet on the tracks in front of signals, which sends a basic "green" or "not green" reminder to the cab (some speed limits also have a magnet which is permanently set to "not green"). The driver must press a button to acknowledge a "not green" reminder within a few seconds, which will also display a "sunflower" dial in the cab as until a "green" reminder is later received.
This system is only a reminder plus an acknowledgement check, though. If a driver acknowledges a "not green" reminder in front of a red signal (perhaps out of habit from acknowledging reminders for yellow signals), nothing prevents the train from running though it.
Additionally, if a "not green" is left unacknowledged, the train will probably not stop in time to prevent a SPAD.

ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) uses signalling called ETCS (European Train Control System). This uses radio transmissions to centrally monitor all trains at all times, and is equal or superior in terms of safety to ATP, so finally, to answer your initial question, yes it is "the solution".

 

[Marklund]

Everywhere tbvfh.

 

[HSTEd]

If we were building a railway from scratch then most of these risks would not exist - platforms could be entirely covered (removing problems from forcing commuters to wait in the rain) and there would be no level crossings because they would have been designed out.

Unfortunately we have a railway, we aren't building one from scratch.
This is one of the reasons I favour Shinkansen in all directions - we get the best we can build now rather than having to expensively correct faults from earlier eras built for entirely different sets of circumstances.

 

[edwin_m]

As a consultant with safety background my view is that it is not difficult, especially with hindsight, to suggest a measure that would have prevented a particular accident or reduces a perceived hazard that might result in an accident in the future. It is much more difficult to set aside emotion and to decide if the propose measure is proportionate to the risk, or to consider whether it might create/increase some other hazard and therefore make the situation worse. The assumption that "accidents should never happen" and "something must be done" is at the root of the health and safety culture we have today - alongside of course the increased tendency to litigation and probably also the attitude of much of our media. I also get very annoyed when people play the safety card when the real issue seems to be preservation of existing working practices - this just has the effect of reinforcing the public perception that the railways are unsafe - if you have a safety concern then produce some hard evidence!

Victims or relatives of a particular accident will call for preventative measures largely on emotional grounds. But what is needed is a level-headed approach to examine each case on its merits and prioritise spending where it would make most difference. The railway does actually have a target figure for how much it is worth spending to prevent one fatality, which is based on surveys of the public to establish how much of their own money they would spend to save the life of someone they don't know.

As someone stated above, every pound of spending on the railways has to come either from the farepayer or from the taxpayer. If it is public money then it might otherwise have been spent on things like better health services or improved safety on the road - would this have been more in the public interest? If fares are increased then will more people stop using trains and make their journeys by other and less safe modes?