NEWS
Industry safety objectives set for CP4 ‘were met’ – RSSB
The RSSB has published the safety statistics for 2013/14, confirming that the railway remains the safest form of land transport.
Nobody was killed in train
accidents, although there were 11 non-passenger train derailments.
There was a drop in ‘passenger harm per passenger journey’, but an increase in workforce harm per hour worked, and in the number and risk from Signals Passed at Danger (SPADs).
The total number of public deaths on the railway, including suicides, also rose.
© toastmaster
The figures, for the last year of CP4, mean the entire Control Period can
now be compared to CP3 (April 2004 to March 2009). The RSSB said: “When normalised, all the key risk areas under the direct control of the railway show a reduction in harm over CP4 when compared to CP3.”
Chris Fenton, chief executive of RSSB, said: “While it is encouraging that over CP4 improvements in safety have been recorded across the majority of measures, the industry is not complacent.
“The overall increase in the use of the railway means that that the possibility of accidents and harm to individuals remains and
we must support the industry in improving safety.”
Technical director Colin Dennis said specific actions and plans have
been developed to deal
with the safety factors where the trend is in the wrong direction, such as SPADs and “events at the platform-train interface”.
The UK industry is also learning from the “notable multiple-fatality train accidents on other railways abroad” during 2013, he said. The full Annual Safety Performance Report and the Learning from Operational Experience Annual Report can be found on the RSSB’s website.
DeltaRail and Network Rail – tensions remain despite high performance
DeltaRail says it has been Network Rail’s best-performing supplier for the past year – but that the owner and operator of Britain’s rail infrastructure finds DeltaRail’s performance and capabilities an “inconvenient truth”.
Derby-based DeltaRail remains angry that it was not given the chance to develop a prototype traffic management system for Network Rail, which instead chose Hitachi, Signalling Solutions and Thales. Thales recently won a contract to develop its solution at Cardiff and Romford (more on p68).
DeltaRail maintains that its
traffic management system can be implemented
now, saving
taxpayers over £1bn, but that Network Rail’s traffic management project “has been drawn out for three years and there will be at least another two years before the other suppliers’ equipment would be installed on the railway”.
That criticism has been rejected by Network Rail at the highest levels, but was deemed serious enough to be raised at the company’s main
8 | rail technology magazine Jun/Jul 14
board meeting in January. The Transport Select Committee has published the reasons supplied by Network Rail on why DeltaRail did not get through the pre- qualification stage back in June 2011, which noted: “DeltaRail has gained significant ‘air time’ with many NR employees (and others) including a number of senior leaders, in relation to the current tender process and their revised offering. This is significantly more than any unsuccessful supplier in a competitive tender process would normally be given.”
But now, for the fourth quarter running, DeltaRail has topped
the Network Rail PRISM Contractor Rating scheme across all disciplines and all supplier categories,
it says. DeltaRail
added that it scored the highest possible marks across all projects and criteria, including timeliness, behaviour, design and safety.
Last year, Network Rail stopped ranking its suppliers publicly
in
this way based on that PRISM data, following conversations with the industry.
It instead now groups them into bands, and does not normally comment on the achievements or failures of individual suppliers.
DeltaRail CEO Anna Matthews said: “We are delighted to have been Network Rail’s top- performing supplier for a whole year now.
“It is a shame that Network Rail were ‘unable to comment’ on our achievement; perhaps Network Rail senior managers find our performance and capabilities an inconvenient truth. We, other suppliers and Network Rail‘s own project managers take PRISM seriously, using it as a measure of engagement, collaboration and project deliverables. If Network Rail seniors did the same, their comments and views would be more objective.”
A Network Rail spokesperson said: “The PRISM performance improvement tool has been instrumental in driving up engagement and collaboration throughout our supply chain.
“We are transparent in publishing PRISM data so the performance of suppliers can be seen and rewarded,
however it would
be inappropriate to comment specifically on any one supplier.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148