On This Day: 5 October 1999

At least eight people are confirmed dead and 160 injured after two trains collided near Paddington Station in west London at the height of the morning rush hour.

Thirty-nine people are seriously injured, with three critically ill and 11 in intensive care.

There are thought to be some 200 with minor injuries.

Many more passengers could still be trapped in the wreckage, said Chief Inspector Brian Gosden of British Transport Police.

Hospitals across the capital are taking in casualties. St Mary’s Hospital has cancelled all out-patient appointments to treat most of the wounded.

The walking wounded are being treated at a local school and Sainsbury’s supermarket.

A Thames Trains 0806 BST from Paddington to Bedwyn in Wiltshire collided with the incoming 0603 BST Great Western 125 express train from Cheltenham at 0811 BST.

Carriages came off the track and one train burst into flames. A massive column of smoke could be seen across west London.

Up to 30 ambulances, 12 fire engines and 70 firefighters rushed to the scene.

Mark Rogers, a passenger on the 0806, said: “There was an almighty crash and the train rolled over and over, first onto its roof and then onto its side.

“One woman I saw thrown out of the window and she was trapped beneath the train. She was at least very severely injured.

“It is absolute pandemonium. ”

Mr Rogers said the carriage behind the driver had been “ripped apart like a sardine can” and was lying over the top of the 125 Great Western train.

“It is chaos. There are doors and broken glass lying everywhere.”

Prime Minister Tony Blair said: “I am absolutely appalled by what is a truly dreadful tragedy.”

Transport Secretary John Prescott has promised a public inquiry into the crash and praised the “swift efforts of all the emergency services”.

Conservative Transport spokesman John Redwood said: “We need a proper inquiry and we need some answers for the future.”

The trains collided on the same stretch of line as the Southall rail crash in 1997, in which seven people died and 150 were injured.

Health and Safety Executive inspectors are at the scene.

 

What’s Happened Since The Crash Occurred

Investigations revealed how 31 people died and dozens were injured because of a head-on collision when one of the trains passed a red signal.

Public inquiries were headed by Scottish judge Lord Cullen. He made dozens of safety recommendations and concluded Railtrack, the company then in charge of rail infrastructure and its investment, had failed to respond to earlier warnings about signalling problems.

He also criticised the Health and Safety Executive’s Rail Inspectorate and recommended an independent Rail Industry Safety Body.

Another inquiry comparing the Ladbroke Grove disaster with the 1997 Southall crash recommended implementing sophisticated safety technology.

Thames Trains was fined a record £2m in April 2004 for breaking health and safety laws. The court was told the train driver had not been warned about problems with the signal at Ladbroke Grove and had not received adequate training.

In December 2004 the Paddington Survivors’ Group complained that many of the safety recommendations made after the crash in 1999 had still not been implemented.

A year later, in December 2005, the Crown Prosecution Service said no individuals would face criminal charges over the crash as there was “insufficient evidence” to provide a realistic prospect of conviction”.

In October 2006, Network Rail admitted health and safety breaches concerning the siting of the signal. It received a record fine of £4 million for its part in the crash on 30 March 2007.

The McNulty Report – Good News or Bad News?

The long-awaited McNulty value for money study of the rail industry has in my opinion fundamentally failed to put passengers’ needs at its centre.

Although the headlines for rail users appear to be fairness and tackling the complex fare structure, there are a lot of caveats buried in the detail of the report which could lead to a lower-quality, more expensive railway for passengers.

There is some good news, such as proposals for three-day season tickets that will provide benefits for part-time workers and also greater local control of the railways. The overall theme of the report is towards cutting the government’s subsidy and granting more flexibility to Train Operating Companies, while passengers’ needs – and a wider understanding of the social and environmental benefits of the railway are at serious risk of being sidelined.

Transport Minister Philip Hammond maintains that passengers will benefit eventually. But in reality, these rewards will happen beyond the life of the current government, and only if the rail industry as a whole rises to the challenge.  Meanwhile rail users are struggling with fare increases that far outstrip pay rises within the rail industry.

Media coverage seems to have focused on what will happen to off-peak fares.  Current fares are resulting in serious overcrowding just at the end of the rush hour period, when, unsurprisingly, regular rail users will wait to travel on a more affordable ticket. The McNulty report is proposing to change the current structure around the peak/off fares to make services less crowded by adjusting times and fares according to areas of heavy usage.  There are also fears being voiced that off-peak fares will be eroded by Train Operating Companies looking to make the most revenue from their services to cut subsidies from the Government.

Essentially, the majority of proposals regarding ticket prices boil down to avoiding costs associated with providing extra capacity, rather than making the option of rail more attractive to potential and existing users. There are also suggestions within the report that ticket prices could increase in areas where rail competes with other transport modes, which can only been seen as a backward step in encouraging more people to use rail as a greener mode of transport.

The other obvious concerns of the report include possible reduction of services on regional lines, the potential for frontline staff cuts meaning more unstaffed stations and the proposals to provide larger car parks which could create larger traffic problems around stations and risk turning passengers away, rather than encouraging more passengers and thus increasing revenue.people away from the train rather than increasing revenue.

Overall, the report leaves unanswered questions.  Namely, what are the railways for? Is the railway a public service, run for the benefit of passengers, Or are we moving towards a more commercial railway that suits the convenience of Train Operating Companies?

There is some good news as a result of the report.  Transport Minister Philip Hammond has committed to a fundamental review of fare structure. This needs to be structured to provide an easy to understand system that removes a lot of complex fares and is also fair to both commuters and occasional travellers alike.  The current fare structure is complicated to the point that even railway staff members cannot understand it and therefore cannot advise passengers properly.  The other opportunity of the fares review is that it gives the Government  a chance to ensure that the views, needs and importance of passengers are heard loud and clear.

To view Sir Roy McNulty’s report in full, you can download a copy from the DfT website.