Feb 27 2007
Response on rail safety
Of course the railway industry needs to improve its performance in mending and maintaining track. It would also help if more level crossings were replaced by bridges and underpasses, to reduce possible conflict between trains and other vehicles.
It is sitll, however, likely that from time to time trains will derail. If passengers at Ufton Nervet had had seat belts, and if luggage had been properly restrained, there would have been far fewer serious casualties. Derailment is likely because the running speeds of trains are so high - in this case there should have been a severe speed limit imposed as the points had a stretcher missing.
Why do you think trains are so different to cars and planes, where luggage is restrained and seat belts are mandatory?
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
John,
Sorry but “in this case there should have been a severe speed limit imposed as the points had a stretcher missing” is quite frankly wrong - the track should not have been used as a stretcher was missing - and should only have been returned to service once the track was correctly installed. Derailment was not due to the speed - even at low speeds the train would have derailed due to the effective gauge reduction.
In Ufton Nervet the situation was not helped by half-barriers although even full barriers would not stop anyone intent on suicide.
Given the number of people that stand on a train how do you restrain them - or do you limit the capacity of the train?
Not against seatbelts or properly stowed luggage but it could severly restrict the walk-on nature of the railways if people had to ‘belt up’.
[Reply]