A return to the days of rail crashes

The maintenance of Britain's railway track was nationalised after a number of serious incidents where the fragmentation of responsibility for track maintenance along with poor communication between disparate providers was cited in various enquiries as significant factors in the accidents, including those at Paddington and Hatfield. As a result, the private company Railtrack was relieved of its responsibilities and those were given to Network Rail, after which the accidents stopped happening.

Now the Tories want to re-privatise rail track maintenance. What could go wrong? Well, we know what could go wrong. What a terrible decision.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/02/exclusive-network-rail-stripped-control-britains-train-tracks/

Aah, Failtrack, probably the worst disaster that privatisation ever bestowed on the country. . . literally.

For how many years did they expect to receive £billions in taxpayer handouts while killing hundreds of passengers every year?

It says,

"It means that rail companies such as Virgin and Southern would become responsible for repairs and maintenance for the first time, ending Network Rail's monopoly"

Thats a really odd statement, from my quick read through the story, there is no mention why Network Rail was given the contract in the first place, its just an excuse to line more of their mates pockets....

history always repeats itself..

Are you suggesting that since it's inception in 2002 there hasn't been any train crashes attributed to Network Rail?

A few corrupt men get richer even at the cost of peoples lives.

We all know how this is going to end, why even bother attempting it?

Are you suggesting that since it's inception in 2002 there hasn't been any train crashes attributed to Network Rail?

I'm not aware of any resulting in significant loss of life. Most since then that have resulted in deaths have been related to vehicles on level crossings or faulty trains.

I'm not aware of any resulting in significant loss of life. Most since then that have resulted in deaths have been related to vehicles on level crossings or faulty trains.

Grayrigg was down to a set of faulty points and Network Rail was held responsible. That's a big one to miss.

Grayrigg was down to a set of faulty points and Network Rail was held responsible. That's a big one to miss.

But Grayrigg is the only very significant incident in which Network Rail were implicated. Compare that to the record under Railtrack and factor in that it is 9 years since Grayrigg and that the safety record since then has been good, and it's clear which is the safer.

But Grayrigg is the only very significant incident in which Network Rail were implicated. Compare that to the record under Railtrack and factor in that it is 9 years since Grayrigg and that the safety record since then has been good, and it's clear which is the safer.

I can see what your argument is; that you believe public ownership increases safety, but unless you can prove to me that the last 10 years of British Rail were safer than Railtrack, I'm going to stick with my existing thought, that advances in technology, design and working practices have made the railways safer, not who foots the bill.

I can see what your argument is; that you believe public ownership increases safety, but unless you can prove to me that the last 10 years of British Rail were safer than Railtrack, I'm going to stick with my existing thought, that advances in technology, design and working practices have made the railways safer, not who foots the bill.

That wouldn't be a direct comparison though; British Rail were responsible for everything including the rolling stock and the drivers, not just the track, and many accidents pre-privatisation were attributed to driver or signalman error (some even involving alcohol, which would be pretty inconceivable nowadays). The only direct comparison we have on infrastructure maintenance is between Railtrack and Network Rail.

The direct comparison could be achieved by looking at the fault of accidents. Clapham for example boiled down to wrongly wired signals, the infrastructure. I'm not about to start wading through data like that though, nor have you done so, so neither of us know.

The direct comparison could be achieved by looking at the fault of accidents. Clapham for example boiled down to wrongly wired signals, the infrastructure. I'm not about to start wading through data like that though, nor have you done so, so neither of us know.

Clapham does stand out, definitely. You can view details of all UK rail accidents here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom#1948.E2.80.931994:_British_Railways.2FRail

In the 10 years before privatisation there was Clapham and a minor accident at Motherwell attributed to infrastructure. Post-privatisation we had Hatfield and Potters Bar in close succession, plus Paddington which although was due to signal passed at danger (SPAD) was also an infrastructure fault as the signal should have been relocated. It was also noted that the driver training programme had been watered down from the British Rail days and that a newly-qualified driver had been allowed to drive into/out of Paddington when previously a driver would have needed 2 years experience to do this.

The graph on the Wikipedia page is pretty instructive I think. We also have to remember that private companies with shareholders have a duty to those shareholders to maximise value, which I and many people think inevitably puts them into conflict with the safest practices.