Health and safety on the railways - House of Commons - 15 December 2004

Speech delivered on Wed 15th Dec 2004

Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD):

The crash at Ufton Nervet took place just to the south of my constituency—about 100 yd to the south of the border between my constituency and the constituency of Wokingham. The train that was involved in the crash was due to stop—it would have been its next stop—at Newbury, in the heart of my constituency. As soon as I heard about the crash, I realised that it was almost inevitable that a number of people who were on that train and potentially among the injured or dead would be among my constituents and, indeed, that I would probably know quite a number of them personally. That has turned out to be the case. Sadly, one of those who died was indeed known to me, as was her daughter, and I also knew quite a number of the injured. Many of my constituents have been greatly saddened by the accident and are keen to see that any lessons that can be learned from it are duly learned.

I pay tribute to those in the emergency services, who did a wonderful job. I was with some of them on that night seeing the work that they were doing—I was, of course, not at the site itself, where I thought that it would be entirely inappropriate for me to be, because I could do nothing there. The emergency services did a fantastic job in getting people out as quickly as they could and in saving those who were injured from any further injury.

I should like also to pay tribute to many of the local residents who, when they heard what had happened, voluntarily went down to the site and did a good job in helping those who were involved in the crash. I pay tribute also to the landlord and the employees of the "Winning Hand" pub, to which many of the walking wounded were able to go and be given help, succour, warmth and some sort of hope for the future, having been involved in such a traumatic accident. Many of the

15 Dec 2004 : Column 304WH

passengers showed a deal of heroism at the site. Having got out fairly quickly and without much injury, many went back in to help those who were left behind. That shows a terrific heroic spirit, to which it is well worth paying tribute. I send my condolences to the victims and the relatives of those who were so tragically killed on that night.

There are a number of lessons to be learned from the incident, some of which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend, who also brought up the subject of hammers. About two days after the crash, I received a call from someone who was not one of my constituent—I suppose because he had heard me on the radio or seen me on the television—who told me about his experience. He had been in one of the carriages that toppled over in the accident, after which he found that the doors at the end of the carriage seemed to be blocked, as one might expect in such a horrific accident. It was fortuitous that he later ascertained that he could unblock them and get out through them because, having found them apparently blocked, and having read the emergency instructions, which all too few of us do, he remembered where the emergency hammers were, and took out a hammer at one end of the carriage and hit the window correctly in the corner at its weakest spot, only to find that the hammer snapped at the end of the shaft, and the window did not break. Assuming that that was just bad luck and that the hammer was faulty, he used the emergency hammer at the other end of the carriage, but precisely the same thing happened there. It was only then that he made greater efforts to open the doors and found that he could get himself and his fellow passengers out through them.

Richard Younger-Ross : Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem with hammers was highlighted by Lord Cullen in his report on the Ladbroke Grove accident?

Mr. Rendel : I was not aware of that. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised that point, because it shows that the incident may not have been a one-off and that there are serious faults in the manufacture of the hammers, which make them pretty useless. The hammers are there to give people hope that they may be able to get out in an emergency. For people then to find that they cannot get out because the equipment is not up to its job is worse than anything. The knowledge that this issue has been raised before makes it even more important that railway services do something about hammers, and ensure that they are tested again and again to ensure that they can be used for their proper purpose.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of emergency lighting. As I said, it is fortunate that the passenger of whom I spoke had read the emergency instructions beforehand. All too many of us do not read emergency instructions or update ourselves on them. If, in the event of a crash, we have not bothered to do so and there is no proper emergency lighting, we cannot possibly see what we are supposed to do, especially if one is lying on one's side. So, the importance of good emergency lighting is the second lesson to be learned from that accident. If

15 Dec 2004 : Column 305WH

there is none, we really are in trouble if we do not know all the things that we are supposed to do in such situations.

Richard Younger-Ross : Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear that the Cullen report on Ladbroke Grove also raised the issue of emergency lighting failure?

Mr. Rendel : That surprises me rather less. I have been aware for a long time that emergency lighting on trains is not very good, so it does not surprise me that the issue has been brought up before. I had not realised that hammers had broken before, but many of us have been aware of the lack of emergency lighting for some time.

However, the train did have some light-sticks, which some people managed to use to give some light, but light-sticks would probably not give sufficient light for a person to read. They may give a vague glow to enable one to see a little of the carriage and where other people and objects are, but they certainly would not be sufficient to give one a chance to read the emergency instructions.

The third lesson that needs to be learned comes from the interesting point that in train crashes of the sort that happened at Ufton Nervet, in which a train runs into a vehicle on a level crossing, there are often no significant injuries or deaths among train passengers. I understand that it was the first time in 18 years that a train passenger has been killed in an accident of that sort.

The reason why much greater damage was done to the passengers in the Ufton Nervet case was that the train continued for a long time along the top of the sleepers in an upright position after being derailed on the level crossing. Indeed, I understand that in a crash last year a train that was derailed after hitting something travelled upright for two miles. In the case in question, however, the train hit a set of points at a freight siding only about 200 yd beyond the point at which it was derailed, before it was toppled by the rail going off from the main rail.

Damage was done to the passengers inside the train because the carriages fell on their sides and because some buckled. When the carriages fell over some of the windows on the underside broke and, sadly, some people were either thrown out or injured by being dragged along as the train ran along the ground.

That shows that the rail services and Network Rail should look into all level crossings that are close to a set of points, where exactly those circumstances might arise again. That is particularly so where there is a half-barrier crossing and therefore a greater likelihood—although not much greater—of an accident with a car derailing the train in the first instance.

Half-barriers on high-speed lines should certainly be looked at again. There is not much chance of stopping a train travelling at even 100 mph—about the maximum speed across a half-barrier crossing—if a vehicle is on the crossing. It is relatively easy to get a vehicle on to the crossing, particularly if somebody is trying to commit suicide, as seemed to be the case.

My fourth point, which has not been raised yet, but which the passenger who spoke to me mentioned, is that there seems to be no procedure for the emergency services to collect the names of those involved in such incidents after the event. In the case in question, the train company concerned received great credit for giving

15 Dec 2004 : Column 306WH

those who were uninjured every opportunity to reach their destinations, by coaches or other means, as quickly as possible after getting off the train. That is all very well for the passengers concerned, who want to go home and be with their loved ones after such a traumatic incident. However, if they are all taken away by the rail company quickly, before their details are taken, it is difficult to get back in touch with them, to inform them of any available counselling services to enable them to get over the trauma, for instance, except through general announcements on the radio or in the press.

Another important reason why it might be important to get back in touch with passengers is because facts might come to light after the event that indicate that something was wrong with the train. It might be important then to get back in touch with the people who were sitting in a particular carriage, to ask whether they noticed anything—whether the brakes were squealing, whether the windows were cracked before the train left the station, and so on. It might be necessary to ask the passengers about many things to establish what was really wrong with the train and how the damage and injury to passengers could have been avoided. There ought to be a system that is known to all the emergency services for collecting the names and details of the passengers involved in such incidents before they leave the site and can no longer be properly traced.

I want to reiterate that, in general terms, travel by rail is much safer than travel by road. I would hate anyone to think that the accident in question should prevent or deter people from travelling by rail. It is important that we should continue our rail services and encourage people to travel by rail. However, people will be encouraged more if they can be sure that the rail system is as safe as it can be. I therefore hope that some of the points raised in this debate will be properly considered by the Minister and by the rail services, to ensure that every rail passenger can be sure that they will arrive at their destination safe and sound.