Delay costs more important than passenger safety?

[roythebus]

Having read a recently-released RAIB on a serious incident, one thing that strikes me is that loco crews mentioned they'd taken certain actions to certain safety features to minimise delays. Now, is that because they have a genuine concern about minimising delays to other services for passenger benefits or is it because the train operator is more concerned about the financial implications of said delays to other services?

 

I realise this thread may get locked which is why I've been careful not to mention the case, but needed to get this off my chest.

[St. Simon]

Having read a recently-released RAIB on a serious incident, one thing that strikes me is that loco crews mentioned they'd taken certain actions to certain safety features to minimise delays. Now, is that because they have a genuine concern about minimising delays to other services for passenger benefits or is it because the train operator is more concerned about the financial implications of said delays to other services?

 

I realise this thread may get locked which is why I've been careful not to mention the case, but needed to get this off my chest.

 

No delay is more important than passenger (or anybody on the railways) safety. 

 

Actions are taken by Traincrew and signallers to minimise the response time etc to reduce delays, but never at the expense of peoples safety. The report which I think you are referring to only considers that companies traincrew, and is not a view held by others in the industry. The best way of reducing delay is for the safety system not to intervene by operating the railway safely and as per the rule book.

 

Simon

[beast66606]

After the event a gung ho action, which results in an investigation because it goes wrong, needs to be explained and "I didn't want to cause delays" could be seen to sound better than (exaggerating perhaps) "I was so sure of my ability I overrode the safety devices "

[Wheatley]

Having read (I expect) the same report as you, I get the distinct impression that passenger benefits had nothing to do with it and  the crew did what they did because they decided they knew better and didn't see the need to comply with all the tedious elf n safety nonsense. That's not what the report says, but that's the distinct impression I get between the lines. Nothing I have seen in twenty years of dealing first hand with that particular operator gives me any comfort that that attitude doesn't go right to the top.

 

Fortunately most TOCs have proper supervision, management and governance systems in place, are accountable to grown-ups, and are not the wholly-owned 305mm:ft playthings of the kid with the only ball.

[The Stationmaster]

Having read a recently-released RAIB on a serious incident, one thing that strikes me is that loco crews mentioned they'd taken certain actions to certain safety features to minimise delays. Now, is that because they have a genuine concern about minimising delays to other services for passenger benefits or is it because the train operator is more concerned about the financial implications of said delays to other services?

 

I realise this thread may get locked which is why I've been careful not to mention the case, but needed to get this off my chest.

 

To be very blunt about it I wasn't particularly impressed by those comments - especially as there is a cap on the amount steam train etc operators are expected to pay as compensation.  I think - as it seems do others above - that they used those words simply to justify action they were taking for their own convenience rather than anything else.

 

I think it's just a modern version to add to every other 'explanation' I heard over the years in relation to the sort of incident which resulted.

[Edwin_m]

It's an explanation/excuse (delete according to point of view) that appears many times in historic accident reports. 

[Talltim]

Of course (taking a wider view) you could argue that rail delays can decrease safety. If a train service has consistent poor timekeeping, the potential passengers are more likely to use an alternative form of transport, which in most cases is more dangerous and causes more pollution.

[jjb1970]

This is all redolent of the old adage (ascribed to just about everybody who has ever worked in 'elf n'safety') that if you think health and safety is expensive then try having an accident.

[royaloak]

I assume the cryptic opening post is about the Wootton Bassett SPAD by WCRC on 07 March 2015.

 

This was a steam hauled railtour and not a 'normal' passenger train!

[EddieB]

This was a steam hauled railtour and not a 'normal' passenger train!

Why not?  The sooner everyone concerned realise that they are subject to the same regulations as every thing else that moves on the railway, the better.

[Rivercider]

I would not say that delay costs are more important than passenger safety.

But it did seem to me that under privatisation there was a move towards self contained company control offices

where not necessarily all information pertaining to train running was shared, and possible delay causes were hushed up.

My personal view seemed to be vindicated by the delay savings claimed to be made by the new 'integrated' control offices

jointly staffed by network rail and the train operating companies where information is shared,

this seemed to be a blindingly obvious solution to me,

 

cheers

[The Stationmaster]

I would not say that delay costs are more important than passenger safety.

But it did seem to me that under privatisation there was a move towards self contained company control offices

where not necessarily all information pertaining to train running was shared, and possible delay causes were hushed up.

My personal view seemed to be vindicated by the delay savings claimed to be made by the new 'integrated' control offices

jointly staffed by network rail and the train operating companies where information is shared,

this seemed to be a blindingly obvious solution to me,

 

cheers

 

Which was of course exactly what some of us did under the 1992 sectorisation - I made very sure that my two freight controls (Swindon and 'Waterloo') were co-located in the principal route owning sector's Control Office.  Alas that practice ceased when he privatisation reorganisation took place - which was probably to the new freight companies overall disadvantage when things were going adrift and infrastructure capacity was suffering for whatever reason.

 

(Although that didn't worry me because having written a fair chunk of the organisation for one of the new freight companies I duly bailed-out before vesting day and went back to the passenger railway - saved on the Income Tax apart from other benefits )

[Wheatley]

One of the problems with Control after privatisation was that there simply wasn't room for everybody to sit in the same room until some much larger rooms were built. York Control was one room (the old Y&NMR board room), once it had been split into Railtrack, RRNE and ICEC and all the delay attribution people added it was the whole of that corridor in West Offices and it took a couple of minutes to walk from one end to the other. It went back into one room (next to the IECC) as soon as the IECC could be extended, and now it sits in the ROC. And they're still complaining about the air con.

 

But this has got nothing to do with Control, it's about front line supervision and man-management, and Control does neither of those. This is about knowing that if you deliberately flout the rules your Driver Manager / Traction Inspector etc will first of all exist, then understand what you've done, then have your hide.  

[roythebus]

To be very blunt about it I wasn't particularly impressed by those comments - especially as there is a cap on the amount steam train etc operators are expected to pay as compensation.  I think - as it seems do others above - that they used those words simply to justify action they were taking for their own convenience rather than anything else.

 

I think it's just a modern version to add to every other 'explanation' I heard over the years in relation to the sort of incident which resulted.

 

One of those things that struck me Mike! What I was trying to get across without thread-locking (hence the cryptic reference) was "did the worry about delay penalties come from the top of the TOC's board/management and get filtered down to those on the track in that mindset, or was it those on the track bending or disobeying the rules either through ignorance or some other reason? 

 

I'm not aware of the niceties of the cap on delay payments for certain types of traction, though it's the sort of thing my sone tends to get involved in at times with his position on the Big Railway. Maybe the generalisation from the top was something like "cut the delays, cut corners, and it keeps our profit up"? It 's what seems to permeate from the said report.

[Reorte]

Why not?  The sooner everyone concerned realise that they are subject to the same regulations as every thing else that moves on the railway, the better.

I guess the point of it is that it's not as if the delays even cost them as much, so even less motivation to try something dangerous to avoid them.

[The Stationmaster]

One of those things that struck me Mike! What I was trying to get across without thread-locking (hence the cryptic reference) was "did the worry about delay penalties come from the top of the TOC's board/management and get filtered down to those on the track in that mindset, or was it those on the track bending or disobeying the rules either through ignorance or some other reason? 

 

I'm not aware of the niceties of the cap on delay payments for certain types of traction, though it's the sort of thing my sone tends to get involved in at times with his position on the Big Railway. Maybe the generalisation from the top was something like "cut the delays, cut corners, and it keeps our profit up"? It 's what seems to permeate from the said report.

 

I suppose logically if you had a management which was keen to save every penny they might say 'don't lose time in running it will cost us' whereas in actual fact what a turned-on management should be saying is 'if you lose time in running make sure you know why and the delay attribution clerk is given that information'.  I won't say anything about the organisation involved in the incident which sparked your question but let's look at a regular passenger operator and take Virgin West Coast as an example where the bearded one is forever hammering NR for causing delays - which suggests they have a  good information gathering system and they're doing very nicely out of penalty payments (from NR to them).  Or look at Southern which appears to have frequent difficulty in actually running its trains in the first place (for various reasons) where I suspect the main cause of their delays is down to cancellations which aren't probably very much to do with traincrew (I suppose you could say they're down to traincrew shortages but that's a different thing of course).

 

So coming back to your original question I really do put this one down as new one making Number 27B in the 'In  A Friendly Guide to Drivers On How To Compile A Report Explaining Why the SPAD/collision/derailment etc Wasn't Your Fault'.  And don't forget - if you've read the whole report - that this one was also accompanied by Number 1 in that book - 'Tell 'em the signal in rear was green'.  Like all things on the railway I think the best thing is to come out with a straight answer - I only summarily suspended folk on very few occasions in my railway career but one thing which always meant a shortened turn for them as far as I was concerned was someone spinning a yarn or trying to swing responsibility elsewhere after a serious incident.   Genuine misunderstandings are one thing - and they did happen of course - but trying various get-outs (they're all in that book) before coming clean is another game entirely.

[Nearholmer]

It would take a very dim management-chain to put avoidance of delay-costs ahead of safety, because (leaving aside the morality of the matter) there is pikestaff-plain evidence that organisations which persistently fail at the level of basic safety don't just loose a bit of money, they completely loose the ability to conduct business at all. If they are in the private sector, they are likely to disappear altogether; if in the public sector, to be reorganised out of existence, or be subject to a complete change of the Board over a fairly short timespan.

 

And, it would take a very dim management-chain not to get that message across to frontline staff.

 

Kevin

[roythebus]

Having had some private correspondence with someone recently, his view of what happened and what caused it to happen tends to line up with my view of what happened, speaking as a former BR driver. It's not something that could be discussed in a public forum at the moment.

[PaulRhB]

There's little I can say without commenting on the case which is why this one has ended up in court rather than an internal company procedure.

That should tell you this went outside normal boundaries.

[BoD]

Having had some private correspondence with someone recently, his view of what happened and what caused it to happen tends to line up with my view of what happened, speaking as a former BR driver. It's not something that could be discussed in a public forum at the moment.

 

Then why post?

[Titan]

Then why post?

 

I know the answer to that but can't say.

[roythebus]

Because the private correspondence came as a result of this post. simples.

 

Being a former BR driver, I had my suspicions as to what may really have been the cause(s), or what else may have been a cause from higher up. I know several people on other fora who know the individual(s) concerned personally as they have a similar seniority date to me.

[enz]

It would take a very dim management-chain to put avoidance of delay-costs ahead of safety, because (leaving aside the morality of the matter) there is pikestaff-plain evidence that organisations which persistently fail at the level of basic safety don't just loose a bit of money, they completely loose the ability to conduct business at all. If they are in the private sector, they are likely to disappear altogether; if in the public sector, to be reorganised out of existence, or be subject to a complete change of the Board over a fairly short timespan.

 

And, it would take a very dim management-chain not to get that message across to frontline staff.

 

Kevin

Not necessarily a very dim-witted management, but a risk-taking and/or overly focused on measurable results management culture.

 

A risk-taker may eventually turn "it hasn't happened to me" to "it won't happen to me" and then the consequences don't really matter, because you'll never have them. A measurable results focus results in dealing with the issue in front of management (eg a bill for delaying traffic) rather than dealing with the issue that isn't in front of it (the smash that didn't happen because you delayed traffic). Also, many businesses don't have large margins so too many bills or expenses blamed on following regulations (H&S and otherwise) can jeopardise the business. Lastly, corporate pride can get involved in management culture - if the slogan is "we leave on time every time"  then failing to do so is seen as a failure, and "failing is not an option". All of these can result in a culture that will take risks with low occurrence/high consequence (eg a smash) to avoid or reduce high occurrence/low(er) consequence.

 

People (and management is composed of people) aren't very good at assessing all relative risks, and so can do strange things sometimes.

 

Regards - E

[Nearholmer]

Enz

 

"Not necessarily a very dim-witted management, but a risk-taking and/or overly focused on measurable results management culture."

 

My perspective is that "[excessive] risk-taking and/or overly focused on measurable results" are symptoms of dimness, rather than being something else.

 

Smart people/organisations don't behave like that, because they can see the potential consequences; dim people/organisations sometimes do, because they can't.

 

"People aren't ....... very good at assessing relative risks, ....... do strange things ......."

 

Totally agree. And, smart people/organisations recognise that fact, and try their damnedest to counter the problem. No solution is perfect, but there are a host of simple/cheap things that a smart outfit will do in this direction, and a dim one probably won't.

 

Thinking about this yesterday, it struck me that the best-known case of safety being sacrificed in the interests of time is probably the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster, which, on its own is probably more warning than anyone needs.

 

Kevin

[jjb1970]

I tend to be very sceptical of anecdotal stories which claim to provide the real story of what happened in a safety incident. Opinions are like certain parts of the anatomy, everybody has them and in most cases these stories are just derived from opinions. Many years ago I was unlucky enough to be on-board a ship which suffered a particularly gruesome fatal incident in which an electrician was killed in a lift shaft. Wherever I went in the fleet after that there was invariably somebody on-board who knew the real story, the story the company didn’t want anybody to know and invariably it was utter nonsense. For a few years part of my job was to provide technical support to a range of government agencies in quite a few countries investigating marine accidents. Invariably these incidents were surrounded by all sorts of stories claiming to know what really happened (not helped by the media it must be said) and I have to say that having had full access to the applicable documentary evidence, read through witness statements, evaluate equipment failure mechanisms, look at pictures of mangled bodies and sometimes go on-board the stores tended to be very wide of the mark.

 

In terms of corporate cultures, I agree with Kevin on this. Safety is not an option, to be blunt about it my honest opinion is that if a business cannot operate safely then it should not be operating, end of, no buts. There is no reason why a company cannot operate both safely and efficiently and in general the same corporate cultures that promote good safety also tend to promote technical and operational excellence and success. I found in electricity generation in particular that whenever anybody blamed elf n’safety for slowing work, adding unreasonable cost or making life difficult it was actually poor planning and poor control of work that was making their life awkward. However it is easier to blame something else rather than admit you haven’t done your own job very well.

 

Risk perception is a fascinating subject. With very, very few exceptions where a member of staff has mental health issues and is suicidal (such as the dreadful Germanwings crash) nobody goes to work with the intention of injuring either themselves or others, neither do corporations set out to create accidents. The problem is not that people deliberately induce unsafe conditions but rather that their sensitivity to risk allows them to accept risks which would be considered unacceptable by others. Sometimes poor behaviours are the result of individual choices (even the best run corporations with excellent cultures can be affected by the poor choice of an individual) but often they are the result of corporate cultures. Safety incidents are invariably caused by a chain of events and failure of a number of safety barriers, as illustrated by the Swiss cheese model (and if somebody is injured or died because a single barrier fails then that in itself tells you the system was not fit for purpose IMO). Whilst often asset failure is a key part of such chains it tends to be human element factors which predominate. Even when looking at technical failures, it is noticeable that many of these can be traced to cost cutting and poor product assurance which takes us back to the human element.

 

Do I have an answer? No. And if anything I hold two seemingly contradictory positions which are the bedrock of everything I advocate with respect to risk management. The first is that like I’ve already said I genuinely believe that if a company can’t operate safely then it shouldn’t operate and tend to support a hard line approach. I also believe that a positive safety culture requires an indulgent attitude to failure so as to promote transparent and honest communication and learning. Reconciling these two positions is one of those areas where it comes down to the judgement and subjectivity of those responsible for investigating incidents and enforcing regulations.