'THE GOVERNMENT'S ABSOLUTELY AWARE ... - Rail Professional

COMMENT
MAKING A STAND
FOR SAFETY
Ian Hammond wonders why passengers are still
allowed to stand on trains,when car and air
passengers not only must sit,but also have to be
strapped in for their own safety
It’s official: being unable to get a seat on a train is perfectly acceptable.
In the last few weeks Go-Ahead chief executive Keith Ludeman and
National Express’s Richard Bowker have both said that passengers
should expect to stand at peak times. They argue that it would be too
expensive to provide seats for all at the busiest times, leaving the extra
seats empty for the rest of the day.
They are in good company. Mike Mitchell, director general for rail at
the Department of Transport, told the Commons Public Accounts
Committee a few weeks ago that ‘Commuters should not expect to get a
seat when travelling at peak times… If you are travelling a relatively short
distance, I do not think it is unacceptable to expect to stand in the peak…
the cost of providing sufficient capacity to enable everyone to get a seat
would expand the railway budget to anything beyond what we have here.’
Transport minister Tom Harris backed him up.
Would the travelling public be astounded if the Government suddenly
announced that seat belt law was to be repealed and that people would
henceforth be allowed to ride in a completely unrestrained manner in
cars, coaches and taxis, where seatbelts are mandatory? Would they be
equally astounded to find on their next holiday or business journey by
BA or EasyJet that they not only need not bother with seatbelts, but that
the airlines were allowing some standing passengers in the aisles? All
persons of sound mind would be filled with fear at the thought of what
would happen in the event of an accident, where their unrestrained body
masses would be projected as a human missile inside their choice mode
of transport, not to mention their much degraded chances of safe exit in
the event of fire or other emergencies.
What major scientific or other fact differentiates between ‘local travel
standing passengers’ who are killed in a rail accident within five miles of
home as opposed to those on intercity journeys of 100 miles? Are they
much better off in a collision or accident? I think not. DfT advertisements
for car safety and the wearing of seat belts publicise the fact that the
majority of fatal accidents happen within the casualty’s local area. The
reality is that even local journey railway trains move at speeds of up to
60mph – where the laws of physics can ensure that loose bodies inside
the train can be propelled forwards with huge force in a sudden stop or
collision.
In the Lambrigg accident, one person was killed and 22 injured, five
of them seriously. Whilst it is unlikely that passengers were standing,
apart from those moving between seat and refreshment car or toilets, we
must now ask why they were injured given the proven integrity of the
passenger compartments. Could it be that unrestrained bodies were
thrown about inside the intact passenger compartments causing these
injuries – and what would have been the casualty rate if seat belts had
been worn? Rail capacity is, of course, a problem. But should this be
addressed by exposure of the customers to avoidable and manifestly
serious risk of death or serious injury? And there is always a cost to
providing safety wherever it is made to increase protection in the event
of an accident – but do we wish our rail system to adopt third world
standards of safety with passengers packed into trains?
Whether or not the DfT, the Rail Safety and Standards Board, and Atoc
find the laws of physics a trifle inconvenient or costly in this respect is
immaterial. It is a proven scientific fact that as soon as any vehicle –
whether it is road, rail or aircraft – decelerates or comes to a sudden
complete standstill, the human contents continue forward in the direction
of motion, unless suitably and efficiently restrained. In the last few years,
we have increasingly seen appalling levels of overcrowding on trains, with
the total acceptance of standing passengers. Quite apart from the chance
of being a human missile in the event of an accident, the standing
multitudes also would substantially impede swift evacuation in the event
of fire or other emergency – I wonder why we are required to maintain
gangways and aisles and fire escape routes in factories and places of work
and yet not on trains. One has only to see how long it takes to empty a
carriage at a station when there are no standing passengers.
One of the peripheral issues of passenger carriage safety used to be
the overhead stowage of baggage – again, a well proven method of killing
other passengers in an accident scenario – even a modest weight bag
becomes a potentially fatal missile at a deceleration of 2G.
The UK has an unfortunate track record in producing legislation too
late, following a disaster and usually with quite a time lag, after an elaborate
inquiry has been commissioned. Why, in the case of rail passenger safety,
do we have to get even more proof of known scientific fact by waiting to
have another high speed train accident where the train in full of standing
passengers?
Most of these events are entirely predictable – it’s not whether, it’s when.
Industries of most varieties shapes and sizes, given a reasonably risk-
The Government will only legislate where it
appears to be politically pressurised into a
requirement to ‘do something’, where
overwhelming evidence or the recent
aftermath of a disaster requires them to do so
40 RAIL PROFESSIONAL : APRIL 2007