In these times when money is tight, what comes first the safety of the line or revenue from visitors?
In these times when money is tight, what comes first the safety of the line or revenue from visitors?
In these times when money is tight, what comes first the safety of the line or revenue from visitors?
In these times when money is tight, what comes first the safety of the line or revenue from visitors?
In these times when money is tight, what comes first the safety of the line or revenue from visitors?
Safety - no SMS means no trains and no trains = £0!!
This has to be the most staggering question posed in recent times on this forum.
Nobody in their right mind would state they would sacrifice safety as an economy, nor would they consider such a ridiculous premise.
Yes, cut back on investment that does not provide a clear payback, cut back non revenue-generating activities and look closely at staffing levels in non-essential areas, but safety is always paramount.
A question for 9K43: in what way would you suggest economies could be made by cutting back safety? I would be fascinated to learn...
Neil
(Somebody who reads every RAIB report and says a silent prayer to the angels of safe operation)
Oh how naive to be so critical of the question. In the REAL world and behind the public face profit comes first, but in conjunction with lots of huffing and puffing (no pun intended) and wringing of hands declaring how in fact safety comes first. You only have to read the reports about cost saving that has led to maintenence cuts, compromises in quality of equipment, poor training, lazy practices, an atititude of 'it's not my problem' or I can't be bothered I'm not paid enough' be it rail or airline that has led to fatalities. Lots of Hi Vis vests, signage, endless memorandums and press releases is so much cheaper.
Sorry but I have NO confidence in the safety of trains or a planes, I just pray a lot.
Oh how naive to be so critical of the question. In the REAL world and behind the public face profit comes first, but in conjunction with lots of huffing and puffing (no pun intended) and wringing of hands declaring how in fact safety comes first. You only have to read the reports about cost saving that has led to maintenence cuts, compromises in quality of equipment, poor training, lazy practices, an atititude of 'it's not my problem' or I can't be bothered I'm not paid enough' be it rail or airline that has led to fatalities. Lots of Hi Vis vests, signage, endless memorandums and press releases is so much cheaper.
Sorry but I have NO confidence in the safety of trains or a planes, I just pray a lot.
There's also of course the personal aspect, as a volunteer I don't want to put myself, my colleagues or passengers into a dangerous situation. If I was asked to perform a task I did not feel safe doing I would simply refuse to do it.
As jimmyowl1992 says if anything many preservation groups are now oversafe.
Oh how naive to be so critical of the question. In the REAL world and behind the public face profit comes first, but in conjunction with lots of huffing and puffing (no pun intended) and wringing of hands declaring how in fact safety comes first. You only have to read the reports about cost saving that has led to maintenence cuts, compromises in quality of equipment, poor training, lazy practices, an atititude of 'it's not my problem' or I can't be bothered I'm not paid enough' be it rail or airline that has led to fatalities. Lots of Hi Vis vests, signage, endless memorandums and press releases is so much cheaper.
Sorry but I have NO confidence in the safety of trains or a planes, I just pray a lot.
As a member of the civil department at KWVR i assure you our department do not take anything above safety what so ever! If anything we are oversafe. Im sure a lot of members on here will be interested to here that you have no confidence in the work they do and are very proud of.
PuffingBilly, I have a question for you. Do you occupy a managerial or safety critical role in a railway company?
If 'Yes', then you are part of the problem, presiding over what must be a lax organisation. In that case, it is up to you to sort yourself out and address the problem either directly or by speaking to the relevent safety authorities.
If 'No', then I doubt you are in a position to comment unless you have witnessed something that is unsafe, in which case by commenting in the manner you have to this forum, then you are still part of the problem.
Starting a post "Oh how naive to be so critical of the question." doesn't automatically bestow some sage-like qualities to your postings, it just exposes you as a time-waster.
I'm thinking BR not heritage railways, which in all fairness the original question does relate to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As already replied elswhere my comments about no confidence in safety as a priority refers to BR. My observation of the manner in which heritage railways prioritise safety in fact leaves me less anxious.
I'm thinking BR not heritage railways, which in all fairness the original question does relate to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As already replied elswhere my comments about no confidence in safety as a priority refers to BR. My observation of the manner in which heritage railways prioritise safety in fact leaves me less anxious.
It is dangerous to think that heritage railways are perfectly safe and nothing unsafe happens ever, because you'll be lulled into a false sense of security. The fact is, like the mainline, occasionally things will happen that we'd rather didn't. The purpose is to minimse those occurrences.