Public Dialogue on Train Protection Systems
Background
This project was commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE’s) Railways Directorate to support the development of policy on the reduction of risk and the protection of people working or travelling on the railways. This project supported the directorate’s specific aim of making “preparations for the implementation of the Cullen and Joint Inquiry Reports”
“The Joint Inquiry into Train Protection Systems” (Uff & Cullen), which resulted from the Southall and Ladbroke Grove accidents in 1997 and 1999 respectively, recommended that HSE should draw up regulations for the fitment of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) within three years and that HSE should establish a programme of consultation to inform the drafting of regulations. The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) will provide advice to Ministers early in 2003.
As part of the process of developing advice for Ministers the HSC asked the HSE to undertake a review of the report outlining the industry’s preferred options for implementation of ERTMS. The HSC wished to ensure that consultation reached a wide range of groups and a particular objective was to reach those not normally consulted.
Methodology
The project was designed to create opportunities for members of the public to deliberate on railway safety issues. There were opportunities for people to receive and exchange information, to question and reflect on evidence and to explore the costs and benefits of different courses of action. The consultation was structured around four activities: an “experts’” forum; workshops with the public, (specifically: London and Birmingham commuters; Scottish commuters; non-users; occasional leisure users; and occasional business users; reconvened discussions with these groups; and a deliberative conference where workshop representatives met the “experts”.
Main Findings
Railway Safety
It was assumed by those who took part in this exercise that the railways are a safe means of transport. Spontaneously mentioned safety concerns were usually linked to personal security and the effects of vandalism and anti-social behaviour. This does not mean that people are not concerned about this aspect of safety, rather, they expect the service to be safe.
Structural Issues
Participants felt that structural issues inhibit the effective development of safety strategies, whether ongoing activities such as maintenance or major investments such as train protection. These structural issues were perceived to be related to the fragmented nature of the railway industry and the lack of clear leadership, strategy and national standards. The HSE was seen as having an important role to play in providing leadership in relation to safety issues.
Train Protection
Train protection was not something with which participants were familiar but many were aware that signals passed at danger had been a cause of major accidents. When signalling practices and other driver support were outlined, some participants surprised at the low level of technology, others had not known what to expect. The relatively simple systems on the railways were contrasted with the high degree of automation in air travel.
There were mixed views on whether or not train protection was an investment priority. For some, historical data showing the high proportion of fatal accidents that were preventable by Automatic Train Protection (ATP) provided compelling reasons for investment in ATP. For others, the perceived decline in investment in the railways in recent years led to the conclusion that investing in the basics, particularly maintenance, was the priority, especially given the low overall level of fatalities.
Timing and legislation
Timing featured heavily in the debates on the implementation of train protection systems. Not only was there at the long timescales proposed for implementing ERTMS but some felt that this was a delaying tactic to avoid the capital outlay.
The HSE’s parallel independent technical and economic reviews of the industry report were welcomed.
In general, participants thought that the industry could not be relied upon to devise and adhere to an implementation plan without a regulatory framework providing an element of compulsion. The workshop representatives at the deliberative conference confirmed this view, albeit with some softening of attitudes following direct interaction with industry representatives. The conference attendees recommended that legislation should be introduced and that milestones should be established against which progress could be measured.
The full report (ISBN number 0717626059) is available from HSE books http://www.hsebooks.com