Sir
It is refreshing to see that Ministers will think about railway safety in the context of other transport modes (October 2003) and the overall industry target is to halve the accident rate over 10 years. Railway Safety developed the current Safety Plan, which was formally agreed by Railway Group (that is Network Rail and the train operators). The Railway Safety and Standards Board has now taken over Railway Safety’s role.
This target should have been, but perhaps never was, compared with the overall government target to reduce deaths by one fifth and serious injury by one tenth overall. So, why should Railway Group take on a target two to five times more demanding than the overall government targets? Not because rail travel is more dangerous than the private car - as the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) says, it is six times safer. Not because rail travel is more dangerous than bus and coach - the Department of Transport says it isn’t. Not because the UK rail industry is more dangerous than other European railways - HSE says the safety levels are much the same. Not because rail safety improvements can be delivered more cheaply than road safety improvements - quite the reverse. And not because the public gives an unduly high priority to improving the safety levels - the top issues are cost of tickets, punctuality/reliability and frequency.
None of these reasons justifies taking on such a challenging overall target when the industry faces so many other challenges. Railway Group, however, has one sub-target that merits greater attention. HSE says the rail industry is among the poor performers on the safety of its employees, so the rational focus for safety improvement should be clear. If the industry leaders give staff safety the priority it deserves, they should also be rewarded with a return in staff goodwill and motivation.
Tony Crackett
PA Consulting Group
London
