Re: Rail chief admits accidents rose when maintenance cut

[Bill <billguest@the.net.nz>]

Another one (Ogg, this time) admitting that not enough attention was paid
to safety! This is unreal.

By the way, the risk of accidents can be managed by cutting speeds as the
track standards fall with reductions in maintenance. In fact, it is
essential that the job of inspecting the track and setting speed
restrictions or line closures is kept separate from budgetary processes. If
they are not, then track staff are set opposing goals: the budget set in
dollars (that everyone sees and thinks they understand) and judgements
(that are partly subjective and harder to understand) about the safety of
the track. As there job security, and possibly pay and bonuses, are
dependent upon meeting dollar targets, it is not surprising that errors are
made.

I have no doubt that some aspects of track maintenance on State Rail were
appallingly inefficient. I saw some of that maintenance in the 1980s, and
it was at least as bad as we had in NZ at the time. However, the budget
trimming process has to be supported by investment in plant, and in staff
training, if the reduced budget is to result in good track standards
achieved by greater productivity rather than a reduction in track
standards.

Trouble is, when you go in for wholesale changes in staff and
organisations, there tends to be recruitment and retention of staff who say
"Of course I can cut costs by 50%" rather than recruitment and retention of
those who would take a more balanced approach. The difficult trick is to
get rid of the "we won't change" types without going wholly over to the
public relations/political types who simply tell the new bosses what they
want to hear.

Bill

David Bromage wrote:

> The risk of train accidents in NSW had increased over the past three
> years due in part to a $125million budget cut to trackside maintenance,
> the Glenbrook inquiry was told yesterday.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/0011/10/national/national3.html