No. Please have some respect for the efforts people have made to reduce the terrible toll of the nineteenth century railway. There were over 500 staff killed on the railways in 1900. A hundred years later, just five were killed in 1999/2000. In some recent years, none at all. Modern safety requirements have not, as far as I know, made any railway proposal untenable, whether main line or heritage. They have just made sure it was done properly.
Stuart J
There are those who would argue that there can never be an accident/ incident/event/happening/occurence without negligence of some sort.
Cheers Richard
And in 1899 and 1901?
What does 1999/2000 mean? Actually, 31 died in one accident alone in
1999.
Accidents have been declining constantly since about 1900 when decent statistics started to be compiled (there were blips in 1914-18 and
1939-45, for obvious reasons).It is not uncommon for there to be no passengers killed in train accidents in a given year, and IIRC there have been years with no staff fatalities.
The figures are spread between various agencies, but ORR gives
Passenger fatalities in train incidents
2007 1 (Greyrigg) 2006 0 2005 0 2004 5 (Ufton)Staff fatalities no. per 100k employees
2007 2 2 2006 4 3 2005 6 5 2004 10 8 (includes Ufton driver) 2003 5 4The biggest risk across Europe is misuse of level crossings.
Because the numbers are (thankfully) very small, the statistics are very sensitive to things like Ufton and Great Heck. Looking beyond fatalities, it makes quite a difference whether or not you include assaults or scum lobbing stones at trains as being "railway" incidents, and what proof you require to declare a trespasser as a suicide rather than an unintentional or unknown death.
It has been said that more than half of reportable incidents in the UK are down to vandalism.
A problem comes if there is a group travelling - does everyone get a free taxi, or does the disabled person have to travel alone and meet his friends at the other end? I heard of a case of young twin brothers: one was disabled and so got a taxi provided to school each day instead of having to use two buses each way, the other had to get the buses, even though the taxi was running from his doorstep anyway, to take his brother. How about if a rich banker has a ski-ing accident, rather than is permanently disabled? It is difficult...
About the same. Your point is?
April 99 - March 00. Thankfully, ORR has now reverted to calendar years for statistics.
Actually, 31 died in one accident alone in
And two of those were staff.
Stuart J
Sorry John but you're wrong, can I repeat what I said in another message in case it didn't get propagated;
It's still an accident, unless there is proof that the collision was caused deliberately - the 'Selby' high-speed derailment was still an accident even though the cause was negligence, OTOH, Ufton Nervet collision was a deliberate act caused by Brian Drysdale committing suicide and had he survived his injuries (and stood trail he would have been charged with murder I suspect).
Negligence doesn't equal a deliberate act.
They can 'argue' all they like but it doesn't make them correct!
What, UK *railway staff*, perhaps you would care to name the incident?...
If you concede that you do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion then it goes that you also don't discriminate on the basis of disability or age, regardless of the cost. Otherwise it is discrimination pure and simple. Given the amount of money being invested in the railways and underground, for well over 10 years now, the progress on disability discrimination is a disgrace.
Kevin
Hmm and how does one establish the 'as required' basis, would all disabled passengers have to pre-book so that the required access can be provided, and if so how long in advance would the booking need to be made, or should access only be provided after the requirement has been found to be needed and if so how should the need be found - when the first luckless disabled passenger to that station has been left stranded on a platform for how ever long - having alighted from a train onto a staff-less station?!
"Zen83237" wrote
I don't concede that at all; it is pretty much normal human nature to discriminate, and the fact that various governments have legislated to the contrary doesn't change anything other than to force discrimination underground. You only need to mention 'Islam' in many pubs in the part of the world and proof of what I suggest becomes endemic.
Personally I don't wish to discriminate against anyone, but do believe that the requirements of recent legislation insisting on universal disabled provision appears to result in a dumbing down of facilities for everyone - in other words nothing happens. Railways and stations don't re-open because the costs are pushed out of affordability. The net result is that everyone is discriminated againt, although because it happens to everyong, it is not classed as discrimination. Doh!
John.
"Jerry" wrote
I'd suggest that a telephone provision at all 'none-disabled friendly' stations activated by a 'disabled access card' would provide contact with a local taxi firm which (for the price of a standard rail ticket - if such a thing exists) would take the person to the nearest convenient station which has disabled access.
Accompanying friends or carers would also be eligible to use the facility and would pay the same standard rail fare.
John.
"StuartJ" wrote
About the same. Your point is?
How about quoting the annual figures for the period 1890 to 1910?
John.
ote:
That it looks like you are trying to cherry pick parrticular years to prove your point.
Sorry, missed the bit about staff figures.
MBQ
That's because you 'cherry-pick' what to read...
Very true - AKA lowest common denomonator - everyone gets a crap service be it hospitals, schools etc. We are still talking about the last 10 years of government I assume ?
CHeers, Simon
I thought we were talking about the last 30 odd years, and comparing it to the previous 30 odd...
You are joking the railways have never been funded properly since they were nationalised, why pick on one government. The previous one to that was worst. What can be said is that the stability that the government gave to BR allowed to improve the railways without constant interference from the government. Just look at the Pendolino lengthing debacle that has cost us millions more because of interference by a Labour government.
That's what disappointed me that Labour did not fix it after all they said when in opposition and we are still in a mess.
Chris
And some of 'em were built on the cheap...
"Jerry" wrote
For sure we carried far more people and freight in the mid-50s than today, and on more and longer trains.
The basic problem today, as I see it, is we've gone down the route of infrastructure contraction (including shoter platforms and longer signalling sections) and shorter but more frequent passenger trains. The net result is a substantial contraction in capacity.
To accomodate substantially more passengers there has to be a reversal of these short-sighted policies. Stations need to be rebuilt with lengthened platforms and provided with tons of free car-parking space (exclusive to rail users), although I suspect the costs these days of this (particularly with the need to provide universal disabled access) would be prohibitive. We need to get away from the concept (on all but the quietest routes) that a train consists of two, three four (or if you're really lucky) five cars in the form of a dmu.
The alternative? Continued and increasing use of the motor car.
John.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required