Train chiefs 'put shareholders before lives'

The Paddington crash killed 31 people

Thames Trains paid shareholders nearly £7.5m in dividends - but refused to spend £5.26m on a life-saving train protection system, the Paddington rail crash inquiry has heard.

The system, called Automatic Train Protection, would have prevented the tragedy which killed 31 people, the hearing was told.

Repeated indecision on the part of middle-management made an accident of this scale virtually inevitable

Solicitor Desmond Collins

And the company could still have given away more than £2m in dividends.

Survivors of the crash and bereaved relatives heard their representative John Hendy QC give the figures on the second day of the inquiry.

He said a "multitude of failings" combined to cause the accident.

Documents before the inquiry were "strewn with examples of safety measures proposed but thrown out because they would cost too much", said Mr Hendy.

Survivors and relatives of the dead gathered at the inquriy

It seemed "incomprehensible", he said, that Thames directors refused to spend the money on ATP.

The crash happened last October when a Thames Train went through a red light and collided with a London-bound Great Western train at Ladbroke Grove, west London.

Mr Hendy said that after refusing to spend out on ATP in 1998 - following the Southall crash which killed seven people - Thames paid its shareholders £4.23m, followed by £3.25m a year later.

But the cost of the protection system from Paddington Station to Didcot in Oxfordshire - which would have prevented the Thames Train passing a red signal - would have been spread over 20 years.

Mr Hendy said that in November 1999 further dividends of £500,000 had been paid to Thames directors, together with a further £230,000 in April 2000.

These payments were on top of their combined salaries of £339,000.

'Insult'

Mr Hendy described the accident not as "an act of God" but "a man-made event".

He said his clients were outraged at the decision not to prosecute anyone.

Our clients will not easily forgive those who ... put profit before safety

John Hendy QC

"Our clients do not mince their words - they consider that the announcement of this decision at the outset of the inquiry is an insult to the inquiry and an insult to them," he said.

Mr Hendy went on: "It must be said that our clients will not easily forgive those who, to coin a phrase, put profit before safety."

Terry Worrall, managing director of Thames Trains, said after emerging from the hearing: "We will provide answers during the course of the inquiry. We will answer the questions that have been raised today."

Asked about the allegations of putting profit before safety, Mr Worrall replied that he would not say anything at present.

'String of errors'

On the opening day of the inquiry, crash survivors said they were horrified at the catalogue of management errors.

The hearing was told Railtrack did not adopt signal changes which could have prevented the crash because of "financial implications".

Solicitor Desmond Collins, acting for more than 70 survivors, said the scale of management failures defied belief.

"Repeated indecision on the part of middle-management made an accident of this scale virtually inevitable," he said.

Railtrack's case

Stephen Powles, counsel for Railtrack, admitted in an opening address that there "appeared to have been lost opportunities in not following up recommendations arising from other accidents and incidents".

He said Railtrack accepted there should have been formal rather than informal risk assessment of signal 109 following two previous incidents of signals passed at danger (SPADs).

Railtrack had put a number of initiatives in hand, including:

• more work on SPADs

• looking at complex signalling layouts

• and accelerating installation of the Train Protection and Warning System which minimises the effects of trains passing through danger signals.

Railtrack chief executive Gerald Corbett said: "If we are all to move forward from this accident, this process must necessarily tell us things which may be uncomfortable to hear."

The inquiry was adjourned on Thursday and will resume on Monday when the first evidence will be heard.