Europe South Asia Asia Pacific Americas Middle East Africa BBC Homepage World Service Education
BBC Homepagelow graphics version | feedback | help
BBC News Online
 You are in: Talking Point
Front Page 
UK Politics 
Talking Point 
In Depth 

Monday, 25 June, 2001, 07:24 GMT 08:24 UK
After Paddington: Is enough being done?

Railtrack has been accused of a "lamentable failure" which was partly to blame for the Ladbroke Grove crash, in which 31 people died.

The government-sponsored report by Lord Cullen confirmed that the primary cause of the crash was the failure of the Thames Trains driver to stop at a red signal as he left London.

He also levelled criticism at train company officials and signal workers, and pointed to failures in driver training at Thames Trains.

Lord Cullen says he's made 89 safety recommendations to prevent a repeat of the tragedy at Paddington two years ago.

But is enough being done to improve rail safety? Do you feel safe on Britain's railways?

This Talking Point debate is now closed. Read your comments below.

There are doubtless many causes underlying the state of UK railways and no doubt the incidents have gone some way to accelerate the process of renewal and change. All I can say is that as a one time commuter and someone who would have been in the Paddington crash had I not been abroad that week, its psychological effect on me was to lead to (early) retirement in a land where, however astronomic the bill to taxpayers, the trains are safe, run on time and yes, are the pride of the nation.
Ben Lenthall, France

As a disabled person it is impossible to travel by car, coach or plane. Yes, work does need to be done on the rail network but it is so run down now that re-nationalising it is not the answer, by doing that the government could not afford the repairs. I think we need to make the best of a bad job here with a public/private partnership.
Ange R, UK

I have lost faith in the railways in the UK

Jim Walker, UK
Nearly every privatised railway company is subsidised so why bother privatising it when the extra money can be spent on repairs and improving the service instead? I have lost faith in the railways in the UK - even flying is cheaper on certain routes! It is cheaper to fly to Amsterdam or many places on the continent than to use Eurotunnel either, I am an environmentalist and an unhappy one too as it can no longer be said that taking the train is cheaper.
Jim Walker, UK

Britain's railways are attempting to recover from problems caused by years of neglect and underfunding pre-privatisation. Ideally the entire systems should be replaced by new track, points, etc. That is not simply feasible. The railways are slowly improving but as usual Britain's train users want it all done yesterday, with no disruption and at no cost. The issue of safety is vastly important and Railtrack successfully addressed that by performing minor miracles before, during and after the Christmas period to replace and upgrade parts of the system. Well done to them. What punishes them is the ludicrous penalties that they are forced to pay to lazy, corporate train operating companies who are more interested in profit than passenger. When the operating companies start to help Railtrack rather than hinder them progress will be more marked. That said, Mr. Corbett's payoff is outrageous.
James, UK

When I lived in England from 1988-1990 I owned a car (there were no trains to take me to work and back). I had the honour of undergoing an MOT inspection which my poor little mini failed with flying colours. The car was declared unroadworthy. Perhaps the rail lines should undergo a type of MOT. No trains running until the problems were fixed might get some managers attention. The problem is that no trains running would cause all the money to start running, running away from investment in the rail lines. I was raised in California, and will tell you that travel by rail beats travel by car hands down.
Mark, Denmark (US ex-pat)

Anyone in the lower ranks of management within industry would have been dismissed for gross misconduct

P. Boorman, UK
It is apparent that Railtrack and their ex-chief executive Gerald Corbett are abject failures. As per usual the so-called "fat cats" at the very top are immune from prosecution. A further insult to all the victims of Railtrack's incompetence is the huge payout that Gerald Corbett received when he resigned. If the man had any conscience he would have declined the payment but it should never have been offered in the first place, as anyone in the lower ranks of management within industry would have been dismissed for gross misconduct.
P. Boorman, UK

Partly in response to Di Stewart, one of the more regrettable results of having rail accident enquiries chaired by lawyers instead of engineers (as was the tradition in the past) is that whole lists of recommendations (89 in this case) are produced rather than just four or five important ones. Stanley Hall, a respected rail safety writer, notes this in his book "Hidden Dangers", (highly recommended reading for all those with a concern for rail safety). He also notes that enquiries into SPAD-derived accidents such as this ought to produce just one recommendation: Do something to stop drivers passing signals at danger!
Dr. Dominic Jackson, UK

In reply to those believing investing more into highways as a solution to your railway ills: Houston, is only serviced by superhighways and buslines (soon ONE metrorail line to boot). Commuter rail sure does seem more reasonable when you're stuck motionless in one of twelve lanes on the expressway.
Justin W, Texas, USA

Because the industry is privatised politicians are not responsible

Ralph Benker, UK, ex Germany
The first thing a German friend has asked me after the Paddington crash was if our transport minister had yet resigned. I replied that because the industry is privatised politicians are not responsible. He couldn't believe it. Watching the news channels after the Cullen report there was no minister of the government available for interviews. Do I need to say more?
Ralph Benker, UK, ex Germany

If the British legal system is not capable of delivering justice to the people who caused the deaths of 31 human beings, then something is dangerously wrong. This culture of impunity for corporate criminals sets a dangerous precedent.
Rich, UK

As a former daily commuter to London, I would like to think that passenger safety has always been of paramount importance. What astonishes me is the fact that Lord Cullen found a whopping 89 areas of concern. What gives - are the railway chiefs too busy counting their profits to actually assess and implement safety needs in order to protect passengers?
Di Stewart, USA

The day passengers were called "customers", was the day things began to go badly wrong.
Nap, UK

Maybe the problem comes about from government pressure on companies to provide more timely rail services

M Pearson, England
Maybe the problem comes about from government pressure on companies to provide more timely rail services. This in turn places pressure on drivers to "push it" and hence increases the possibility of red lights being overrun. The answer - one possibility is more common sense in timetabling to take into account the capacity of the railway network.
M Pearson, England

If the train had only just been invented, anyone who advocated setting up a network would be a laughing stock. Travel on a vehicle that weighs hundreds of tons, takes miles to stop, runs on fixed metal rails giving it no ability to manoeuvre and forcing it regularly across the path of oncoming traffic. Driven by people who thanks to a strong union take no responsibility for their own actions and appear to need high technology to force them to do their own job properly! The entire train network should be scrapped and replaced with roads!
Will, Norwich,UK

As a regular user of the railways I never even consider safety when I set out on my journey. My real concern is will the trains actually turn up and get me to my destination reasonably close to time. Last night we waited for over two hours for a train home from work (they should run three an hour through this station) because one line had had points failure and the other had had two trains cancelled. We ended up calling a taxi and with four sharing the journey was cheaper than the single train fare.
Gill, UK

Why on earth are Railtrack still in charge?

Graham, UK
Why on earth are Railtrack still in charge? Put it out to tender to companies that know how to do this sort of thing rather than, for the sake of current political thought, leaving it with a motley collection of accountants and shareholders. A decent company will then charge what it has to charge, without any political arguments for us all to wade through.

Whether the government then wants to help out the commuter financially is another matter, though I don't personally see why the London commuter should receive financial assistance while living in a house that none of the rest of us can afford, precisely because the government is subsidising the gravitation of work towards London above other cities, which creates all the inherent transport problems in the first place. The government should step back, and merely demand safety. The commuters will decide the rest.
Graham, UK

I know I am off topic here. But we really do have our priorities wrong. Of course it is tragic that 31 people died nearly 2 years ago, and 4 nearly a year ago. And of course lessons should be learnt. But the British public seem to think that, at the same time, it is fine that 10 people die on our roads every day, fine that the most common form of death of UK children aged 5-14 is road accident. This is where we should be concentrating our anger and resources. I wonder how many people who vent their anger at the Railtrack themselves put others at danger by driving over the speed limit?
Andrew J. Chisholm, UK

Profit and safety are not good partners in any industry

Raymond Rapp, UK
As a train driver myself, I am sick of the constant enquiries which highlight the same inadequacies in the railway system. In the past it was usually the driver who was blamed - dead men don't answer back. Railtrack should have its safety controller tag taken from them and given to an independent authority and the Train Operating Companies need to be accountable for poor training of drivers. Profit and safety are not good partners in any industry, let alone the under-funded, fragmented and disorganised railway industry.
Raymond Rapp, UK

As usual, people are quite able to remember a golden age of rail travel that actually never happened. Rail travel on the old nationalised British Rail was dangerous and uncomfortable, and trains were routinely filthy and late. But never mind. Your readers can go on imagining that only Britain today has trouble with its trains, and every other country and every other time was perfect.
Jon Livesey, USA

As a Connex South Central victim, sorry, "consumer", I feel annoyed that we are packed in like cattle on trains that are constantly late, yet such corporations still claim surpluses and pay out to shareholders (overwhelmingly other corporations not small shareholders), and still ask for us to subsidise their little scheme with our taxes. "Public Bad, Private Good" seems to be the conservative dogma that New Labour is obsessed with.
David, UK

All people who have to travel by train will know that our filthy, decaying, overcrowded and expensive rail transport system is a clear indication that not enough is being done. Since privatisation the trains have considerably deteriorated and anyone who whines that I am only expressing this view because I'm being political and what about improving our roads, clearly does not travel by train but sticks to their cars and who can blame them. I also resent the fact that executives are making huge profits out of my misery of travel.

The state of the railways in the UK is a national disgrace. Compared to rail services in northern Europe, they're a scandalous rip-off. The Tories privatised the industry and made a handful of directors very rich indeed. In my opinion, the hands of the old Tory administration and those few 'lucky' fat-cat rail directors (who walked away with more than 50m each) are still covered in the blood of those poor unfortunate tax-paying passengers who died at Paddington and Hatfield. Will they ever be held to account for their actions? Probably not. Shame on them all.
Joe, Holland

Anthony from England has it right when he says that the number of people killed in the Ladbroke Grove train crash is the same number of people killed each day in car crashes. The train is a much safer method of travel than the car. The blame can not be laid entirely at Railtrack's door. Britain has the world's oldest railway system and because it is so old, it requires a LOT of upkeep and the level of upkeep needed is so great that it would involve frequent shutdowns of major rail lines, such as the East Coast Main Line, so improvements can not be made overnight.
Jeff, USA

As I have said before in these pages on this topic, let us try and keep a sense of perspective. It is still much, much safer to travel by rail than by road. Any initiative that deters people from travelling by rail will presumably add further congestion, danger and accidents to the road "system". Please let us not have another hysterical reaction such as followed the Hatfield train crash last year. If it really is necessary to lay blame somewhere then blame those politicians that have, over the past twenty or thirty years, been closely involved in deliberately under-funding British Rail for purely political ideological reasons.
Tony Hague, England

Yes I'm a shareholder in Railtrack, and also a shareholder in The Watercress Steam Line, Eurotunnel and part owner of 3 ex British Rail Steam engines. Most private Railtrack shareholders are serving or retired railwaymen or railway enthusiasts. The others are big institutions which look after everyone's pensions and mortgage endowment policies. Any accident makes our share value fall, so we have a vested interest in safety surely. What the railways need is investment, lots of it, but I doubt if any government can raise enough by taxation. There were 233,729 road accidents involving personal injury (320,283 victims) last year in the UK, with 35,607 involving death or serious injury. But no one seems to care.
Anthony, England

Other countries manage to run large networks without the horrific death toll seen in the UK

John Atkins, England
Other countries manage to run large networks without the horrific death toll seen in the UK. They also are far cheaper for the traveller. There is little or no relationship between the safety of the railways and the cost of tickets, so with the revenue the railways get from us, we should be able to travel in luxury as well as safety!
John Atkins, England

If the technology exists to make it impossible for a train to pass a red signal, why is it not installed on our trains?
Nick, UK

Compared to trains in Russia or the former Soviet Union, the UK trains are safer and better. But what do I know - I'm from the third world.
Viktor, Russian living in UK

The Chinese authorities have executed company officials in recent years for lesser incompetence. As an hourly-paid IT contractor, the rail companies cost me so much lost working time and money, not forgetting stress and lost home life, that the thought of ultimate sanction against these people became rather attractive. It makes me angry to read reports about rail franchise companies planning to recoup lost profits from Railtrack when ordinary commuters, and their employers have no such redress.
John Bennett, England

It's appalling that shareholders can make a profit out of a government-subsidised industry

Richard , UK
It's appalling that shareholders can make a profit out of a government-subsidised industry. The idea of using private industry incentives in this manner to improve the efficiency of a public transport system is stupendously flawed. The problems are not due to poor efficiency - they're due to poor investment. We've spent years avoiding paying for their upkeep, and now we've got to pay it all at once.
Richard , UK

The issue of the UK railways is nothing short of a national outrage. Clearly the days of Steam Locomotives, changing at Ringwood or crossing the magnificent Waverley line are behind us. (If you are concerned as I am please read the "Great Railway Conspiracy" by Michael Henshaw). We only need to peep across the Channel to see how it should be done and I am not talking just about the French system which is heavily in debt. The Swiss system could be ours if the will is there. The Beeching report at the time seemed liked a nightmare and has proved to be fatally flawed. Will we ever learn? And no I am not some frustrated spotter.

To be quite frank, I've been utterly dismayed by some of the things said today. Grounding the railways until they can be proved safe? What kind of lunacy is that? We decide to push people into the inherently safe area of road transport. The amount of money being spent on extra safety systems might only save 31 lives once in a blue moon. Just think how many lives could be saved on the roads with that much. That's not to say that money should not be spent on rail safety - lets just get things into perspective though, and that could begin with a far more balanced opinion on the dangers of road travel by the media, the BBC included.
James, UK

I'm sure they don't take the train

Miles Barnwell, UK
Yet another case of lives being lost, in Paddington and Hatfield, by Conservative, shareholder-friendly policies... What's the point of making budget savings if they're going to kill people? I don't mind paying taxes for safe, efficient railways - What I don't like is paying inflated ticket costs for dirty, crowded, unsafe, unreliable trains so that shareholders and executives can get their bonuses. I'm sure they don't take the train.
Miles Barnwell, UK

This "public sector good private sector bad" is ridiculously naive. It has almost become a dogma, that public ownership is the great all-embracing panacea to the rail network's ills. To suggest that politicians can be trusted to make the necessary investment when the concept of higher taxation has become almost taboo in the current political process. Where do all these champions of public sector ownership think the money is going to come from? There is an awfully long queue at the door of the Treasury, and I don't think many ministers will be keen to relinquish their place in it.
Jonathan, Wales

We have the railway system that we have asked for at the ballot box. If we want a modern, efficient, safe system, then we have to pay for it, either directly (much higher fares, commuters complain) or indirectly (higher taxes, we all complain).

Until we get more adult about how we want our society to be (high tax, high spend social democracy or low tax, low spend like the US) we will continue to have these debates. As an aside, does anyone out there know how safe our railways really are, compared to either the "good old days" of nationalised BR, or compared to other European countries?
John, UK

Predictably, we're getting the cry of the politically-motivated who, for some reason, believe that a publicly-owned body can, somehow, do no wrong. What they fail to realise is that the incompetent (a word used both by Lord Cullen this week and Tom Windsor last week) management from the old British Rail remain in control. To answer the question above: yes, enough is now being done, but it's started too late. To take issue on one earlier contribution: trap points are provided only on goods lines or sidings, and this practice continues. If they had been provided beyond SN109 as suggested, the Thames train would have been derailed - almost certainly into the path of the approaching HST, and the accident still would have occurred. This is why they are not normally provided on passenger lines.
Robin Wickenden (railway signal engineer), England

Little sympathy as I have with Railtrack, it is not the company but the system that is at fault. Most of the railway companies will never be able to make a profit without government subsidies, so how can they ever deliver the kinds of returns their shareholders want? British Rail suffered from under-funding and poor management - but at least they couldn't pass the buck, and at least they weren't under constant pressure to cut corners on safety in order to hike share prices. And I'm sure most employees felt they were helping deliver a service to the nation, rather than a profit to their fat cat bosses. It is a shame the Tories can no longer be brought to task for their cynical and sub-incompetent privatisation of the railways.
Francis, UK

While the shareholders of Railtrack continue to receive dividends and its managing directors are paid massive salaries then the answer is no. Every single penny Railtrack makes should be spent on investment of its infrastructure. Until that happens Railtrack can't claim to be increasing safety.
David Heffron, Scotland

You only have to cross the channel to see the benefit of enlightened government

R. Gaze, UK
Successive UK governments have managed to destroy in a few decades a public transport infrastructure that took centuries to develop. The whole situation transcends narrow political agendas and must be addressed as a national priority. Only then will the railways take their rightful place in an integrated transport infrastructure. Other countries in Europe have avoided our situation by continuing to invest in railways and public transport in general. You only have to cross the channel to see the benefit of enlightened government.
R. Gaze, UK

Just one more "pass the buck" report. Another judge giving yet another fat cat profiteering organisation a "telling off". We need the people who make the decisions to be made responsible for their actions; you'd soon see a change in attitudes to safety if company directors were held responsible for injuries to their passengers......
D. Dawson, UK

I'm sure we never had as many rail disasters under British Rail. I know we used to slag it off terribly but I think that re-nationalisation is the only solution for rail in the UK. I just hope those greedy Railtrack shareholders can sleep easily at night knowing that the money in their bank accounts doesn't really have to be spent on improving safety!
Leon, UK

Get the accountants and the vacuous politicians out of the picture

Jeff Ling, USA (expat)
Today there is more concern with petty rules, regulations, and political correctness than with running a railway, operated by motivated and experienced railwaymen. Get the accountants and the vacuous politicians out of the picture and run a railway properly, safely and to the advantage of the passengers and freight users.
Jeff Ling, USA (expat)

Why isn't anyone questioning how the drivers can mistake a red light for a green one? It's pretty simple. Will we now see an improvement in the standards of 'workers' in what is actually a simple job?
Steve, Newcastle

The idea that the railways, or indeed any other transport system, can be 100% safe is patently absurd. Already the expenditure on this minority form of transport is way out of line with any sensible analysis of the cost/ benefit of additional expenditure on safety. There are thousands of people being injured on our nation's roads EVERY year but there are no siren voices for fantastic sums of money to be spent on major safety improvements to this principal mode of transport in our country.
Jeremy, Scotland

Privatisation has caused damage that will take years of rebuilding

Mark B, UK
I am in full agreement with G. Simpson. Unfortunately, like most policies of the Thatcher/ Major administration, privatisation has caused damage that will take years of rebuilding. Would Labour blow Gordon Brown's budget surplus on a 'socialist' project? I doubt it. It is easier to sponsor reports which are never acted upon and to keep quiet until the furore has died down, then come up with some rubbish about 'public-private initiatives'!
Mark B, UK

The principal safeguard missing at Paddington was the trap points traditionally provided at such a point to deflect a train overrunning a signal into the path of another train. While this may not have entirely prevented an accident, it would surely have reduced the severity. This safeguard has been a standard requirement of HMRI for 100 years or more. Railtrack has been systematically omitting these points from remodelled track layouts on the grounds of cost. The new Euston layout is similar. Until Railtrack is compelled to implement such basic and obvious safety requirements what trust can there be in the proposed 'hi-tech' solutions? One cannot have safety at any cost, but surely we should proceed on the basis of the doctor's watchword - 'do no further harm'.
Peter J. Tabord, Wales

The rail industry including government and parliamentary bodies has seriously let the nation down. This unholy alliance has to be continually pushed to make the smallest of changes. There is no government or industrial leadership. This is not about political dogma but about providing the UK with a credible rail system. We will now get the usual platitudes of regret from those charged with sorting the mess out BUT nothing fundamental will change. It hasn't before so why should it now.
Gary, UK

This is about safety NOT politics

Bob, England
This is about safety NOT politics - public ownership does not always mean safer or better service! If the same amount of time effort and money was put into improving road safety many more lives would be saved!
Bob, England

When it comes to the railways, it's a case of profit before people. How the Conservatives can ever criticise this Government for their transport policy is beyond me. Putting the railways into private hands was despicable. And yet no one will ever say it was a mistake because no one can ever say that the free market was wrong. With the price of Railtrack shares now, the Government should buy it back. If they do not then there should be no subsidy to Railtrack. You can just imagine the shareholders running their hands together in delight!
G. Simpson, England

I would have to rephrase the question and ask, "Is anything being done?". Commuter trains are still packed like cattle trucks so even a minor mishap has the potential to turn into a full-scale disaster.
John B, UK

Search BBC News Online

Advanced search options
Launch console
See also:

Internet links:

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

Links to more Talking Point stories