ANNEX A
RAILWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
A Report by Michael Rawson
Considerable public concern has been expressed
following two recent railway accidents, namely those at Southall
and at Watford. The HM Railway Inspectorate report into the Watford
Accident highlights a number of safety concerns. The report into
the Southall Accident is awaited owing to the impending prosecution
of the driver of the Bristol to Paddington Inter City express
and no reference to that accident will be made in this report.
It is a fact of life that in any activity human
behaviour has a bearing on safety, in some occupations that behaviour
can, and sadly does, have serious consequences for others and
this is especially so in the public transport industry where the
lives and wellbeing of many hundreds of people are entrusted to
fellow human beings. Over recent years many high tec safety systems
have been developed, ATP (Automatic Train Protection), inter-locking
signal safety devices etc., but there will always remain the need
for human involvement in any mass transit system and it is with
this in mind that the following suggestion is submitted for consideration.
The main priority is to seek to influence behaviour and remove,
as far is as practicable, the human error that can lead to serious
consequences.
Before detailing the suggestion I would acknowledge
that a number of safety features already exist to address the
problems of "train driver behaviour" but reference to
the Railway Inspectorate's Report into the Watford accident will
illustrate some shortcomings in those systems and the following
paragraphs will address the concerns of HM Railway Inspectorate,
concerns such as Driver Monitoring, SPAD (Signal Passed At danger)
incidents the number of Category A and B drivers on the "Incident
Prone Register" and the failure of the Hasler "On Board
Train Data Recorder" and management supervision of drivers
(the lack of use of the data recording equipment to monitor driver
behaviour).
It will be seen from the forgoing paragraphs
that considerable reference is made to the Watford Accident Report
but that is simply because it is the most recent report and there
is little reason to think that the problems highlighted are restricted
to the one train operator involved in the accident. It is not
suggested, either, that there is widespread disregard of safety
rules and regulations in the industry but it must be acknowledged
that ONE RAILWAY ACCIDENT is one too many and that the safety
of the travelling public is paramount if confidence in the industry
is not to be shaken.
It is suggested that to record each journey
a video camera be installed in the cabs of passenger trains operating
in the United Kingdom. The cameras, specially designed for such
use, would be similar to those fitted to some police traffic patrol
cars and installed inside the cabs front window to record entire
journeys. Wired from the locos traction system the video tape
would show the date, time, speed and train identification. Designed
to be fully automatic the only human requirement, prior to any
journey, would be to ensure the video tapes are fitted to the
recording equipment.
The advantages to such a system are numerous
but by far the most important is the effect the camera would have
upon driver behaviour. The fact that the camera can be seen
in the cab and the knowledge that it records all actions
taken by the driver represents a high profile safety feature.
Because the system is simple and user friendly
it allows for easy monitoring of driver behaviour by management
and supervisors. Random selection of the tapes and the ease with
which the pictures can be checked must lead to a greater involvement
in driver monitoring. The present system, downloading of data
from the Hasler recording system is both technical and time consuming
and it is not surprising that little use of the data is made to
monitor driver behaviour. Such a system requires expert technical
knowledge to convert the information into easily understandable
information for management and supervision.
A video system has many advantages not least,
given that legislation was in place, the ability of the Health
and Safety Executive and the British Transport Police to make
regular checks. This is similar to the police and the Ministry
(Dtp) making random checks on tacographs fitted to HGVs and coaches
that operate on the roads of this country.
It is not suggested that the video camera replaces
the data recording equipment fitted to trains but that it is seen
as an additional device for recording essential information.
From an accident investigator's point of view
it is not difficult to appreciate the value of video tape evidence
recovered from the cab of a train involved in an accident. Such
evidence would ensure that justice would be seen to be done if
any person was found to be criminally negligent. (During my time
as a traffic patrol supervisor with responsibility for investigating
police vehicle accidents I found video tape from the police car
invaluable in determining the cause of an accident, in gathering
evidence for a prosecution and, in some instances, clearing the
officer from malicious allegations.) It is important to remember
that video evidence can assist a driver as well as providing evidence
to convict if his behaviour falls below the accepted standard.
In my experience video tape evidence is often
so conclusive that a defendant, having viewed the tape, almost
always pleads guilty saving a great deal of time and money in
a long and costly trial.
The advantages in recording train journeys is
not restricted to positively influencing driver behaviour, aiding
an investigation into an accident or incident and as a management
tool to monitor driving techniques. Information gained from viewing
tapes that leads to disciplinary action can be stored for future
use and will aid the assessment process in relation to the "incident
prone register".
The presence of the camera in the cab recording
the entire journey would assist in incidents involving suicide
by persons throwing or placing themselves in the path of trains.
Such incidents are very distressing to drivers and it may be possible
to avoid the driver having to give evidence at a coroners court
which requires the driver to relive the incident and leads to
further distress.
It is possible that the camera would record
persons who criminally throw or place objects onto the track intent
on derailing trains with catastrophic consequences. Helping to
identify and convict such people would be very beneficial. Knowledge
that trains are fitted with video cameras may just act
as a deterent to such people and any reduction in such incidents
would be welcome.
It is possible with todays technology to implement
a system where the pictures provided by the on-board cameras could
be downloaded and transmitted to the central control room allowing
controllers to monitor the progress of trains, check speeds and
view incidents that require trains to make unplanned stops i.e.,
objects/animals on the line, trackside fires etc. It is not suggested
that such a system be considered at such an early stage of these
proposals.
Finally, I think it most important to deal with
the public perception of safety as this cannot be underestimated.
Train accidents, although few and far between, naturally attract
the medias attention and highlight any problems in the system.
The fitting of video cameras to the cabs of trains would no doubt
go a long way to convincing the travelling public that rail
safety is a major consideration and that all possible
steps are being taken to make safety an absolute priority.
The system proposed in the foregoing paragraphs
is both practical and realistic. The technology exists and developing
a suitable system for the Rail Industry is possible within a short
time. I would ask that HM Railway Inspectorate give serious consideration
to the proposals and discuss with Railtrack and the Train Operating
Companies the possibility of trialing such a system.
Michael Rawson
3 July 1998
| 
