Private rail companies
Cutting corners – and risking lives – for profit
Tessa Van Gelderen, a former RMT activist at Paddington, comments on issues at the station
The changes that have now been made to the layout of the track at Paddington speak volumes. Making some lines one-directional, changing the signalling, and preventing trains crossing over in the Paddington area, are major alterations. This is a clear indication that the originally signalling and track layout brought in for the introduction of the Heathrow express was rushed, and was done without regard to normal safety standards required of a railway.
But that was par for the course for a railway system that was sold off cheap. Yet the cost of any improvements will be passed on to the passengers and taxpayer.
Railtrack last year made £442 million profit, but it did manage to find £1 million for Research and Development. Not enough research and development obviously to investigate all those signals passed at danger; just enough, probably, to work out that the cost of bringing in Automatic Train Protection (ATP), recommended from the Hidden Inquiry of the 1988 Clapham crash, would be too high a price to save human lives.
Privatisation of the railways brought in changes of uniform and corporate colours for the train companies, but loss of jobs and worsening conditions for the staff.
Longer hours, fewer breaks and targets that include trains arriving on time, all put pressure on traincrews. The Guardian on 7 October 1999 wrote: " Jonathan Bray (from Save Our Railways) underlined the increasing trend towards sub-contracting, which had led to mistakes in signal repair and other errors in tracked maintenance. And on an operational level, train companies were more likely to take short cuts because of the threat of hefty fines from Railtrack."
As a guard and a trade union and a safety rep for the RMT at Paddington in the lead up to privatisation, I was involved in a number of safety issues.
When the track was being re-laid, overhead lines were introduced for the first time. Simultaneously, Great Western started to run trains in and out of Waterloo that involved the third rail, which also was not present in the old Western region.
Management refused guards training "in situ" for the third rail because the mock-up at either Reading or Waterloo would have to be hired from another company. Instead we were shown a short video and had a quick multi-choice test afterwards.
Guards are responsible for the safety of passengers and other on-train staff, having to detrain them safely if necessary. In 1982, when I was trained at a guard, I spent 5 days at a school just dealing with electrics, and practised using the equipment that broke the electric current on the track itself. An hour’s lecture now suffices – and this had the approval of the HSE.
Many of the changes that have taken place on the rail network have safety implications: eliminating the second driver on high speed trains; getting rid of the guard on many suburban services; reducing station staff; longer hours and fewer breaks for drivers, and so on. It is no coincidence that these measures reduce staffing levels, the highest cost for train operating companies.
At the same time, much of the work carried out by Railtrack is contracted out, and many ex-BR track workers find themselves on short-term contracts, with all the implications that involves.
The unions should not shy away from the fact that loss of jobs is an issue. The dispute with the RMT guards was about safety; it is about keeping guards in their operational role on the train.
The union should have gone further and should campaign to put a guard back on every train – not to collect fares or pour the tea but to take responsibility for the train and the safety of the passengers.
Now that the three train operating companies have won their case in the courts by claiming that, while the dispute is over safety, the guards’ beef is with Railtrack, this will have wide-ranging consequences.
By law, guards cannot take industrial action against anyone other than their employer, so Railtrack (or whoever will be responsible for safety) can make the rules without fear of opposition.
Of course, if they had had any regard for safety, the train companies would have supported the role of guards, against the proposals of Railtrack, rather than taking the RMT to court. Their actions show how much they value human life in comparison to profits.