We interviewed the Leading Safety Experts – here’s what they had to say…

Listen to this article

Ahead of the upcoming Safety Conference, we wondered what our speakers had to say about the state of safety in the UK Rail Industry.

Here’s what they had to say:


QUESTION 1:
The RSSB’s RIDDOR Review identified a ‘Culture of Fear’ within the industry; what should be our priorities in putting this right?


Steve Diksa
Assurance Services Director, Bridgeway Consulting

1. Relevant stakeholder engagement throughout the industry (Network Rail, Principal Contractors, Trade Unions, Labour Suppliers and most importantly the frontline staff.)
2. Re-Establish the culture of sharing information and good practice.
3. Making safety a part of everybody’s job but ensuring that Managers and Supervisors are ‘safety competent’ so that they understand the relevant legislation and their own (and others) responsibilities. We need to develop the competence of Supervisors and Line managers in terms of briefings associated with safety awareness and planning.

On a personal note, I welcome and support the forthcoming ‘Close Call’ project but am mindful that its objective, purpose and use needs to be clearly communicated out to all concerned.

David Shirres
Chartered Engineer and writer, the rail engineer

It must start at the top with firm leadership and visible commitment by Network Rail’s new Chief Executive, who should make it clear that the unacceptable behaviours of senior personnel identified in RSSB’s report, will not be tolerated. This is not just about safety culture. It concerns all aspects of Network Rail’s dealing with its employees and contractors.
A “fair blame” culture is needed in which genuine errors are not penalised with instances of arbitrary and unfair treatment addressed, for example: reports identifying individuals as solely responsible rather than identifying underlying causes; crude application of performance ranking with managers instructed to rank one of their team as a poor performer and removal of Sentinel cards pending investigations. Real cultural change will take time and needs a sustained effort.

Steve Holmes
Safety, Health & Environment Director, Balfour Beatty Rail

Engaging with our people at all levels. Setting the right examples at the highest levels and acting appropriately when expectations are not met or rules are broken.

Dr. Ian Gaskin
General Manager, SQE, London Underground

I think we need to be very clear from the outset that the report focussed on Network Rail and not London Underground (LU). LU has a record to be proud of in his area. Indeed, the report draws comparison between LU and Network Rail in this respect. Our own experience in LU is that if targets are set, and they can be helpful, then there needs to be a collaborative and open culture: accidents seen as an opportunity to learn and improve, not as a cause for blame.
This culture comes from the top in LU. I would also add that using targets as a means of “driving” the right behaviours to reduce accidents is unlikely to succeed on its own. Root cause analysis needs to be done to identify causes of accidents and then a structured, rigorous and integrated programme introduced to address these causes. This is the way we develop and refresh our safety improvement programme at LU.

Paul J. Taylor
Managing Director, Alkoomi Cultural Change Consultants

From a leadership perspective there are two things to create in the culture of the organisation:
Everyone in the organisation including subcontractors of subcontractors etc believes that the reason the management want them to be safe is because they care about everyone personally and that they deserve to go home safely because they are human beings who have that right.
Secondly – make it safe to be safe – i.e. even if the individual is a non English speaking employee of a subcontractor of a subcontractor etc they know they can speak up about any concern they have and also know that even if their fears are unfounded they will be thanked for speaking up and have no fear of any kind of ridicule or retribution.

Anson Jack
Director, Policy, Research and Risk, RSSB

As the author, not appropriate for me to comment, beyond what is said in the report.

Paul Taylor
Safety Culture and Leadership Change Programme Director, Network Rail

This starts with leadership, although we will only make an impact on this when we start having the right conversations at the right levels. We need engagement at all levels and this starts with trust. Our current culture is governed with how much we trust each other, at all levels, which is restricting the types of conversations we are having.


QUESTION 2:
At the present time would you like to see the accident frequency rate on Network Rail sites rising or falling and why?


Steve Diksa
Assurance Services Director, Bridgeway Consulting

I would like to see accident rates falling. There is a tremendous amount of intelligence and statistics within the rail industry that is collated and reviewed but only sometimes put to good use.

Given that we have this intelligence, there needs to be collaboration between all stakeholders to ensure that it is used more effectively. There are many lessons to be learnt from the historical information and I believe that these can potentially reduce accidents.

David Shirres
Chartered Engineer and writer, the rail engineer

It should rise as there is still a large amount of under reporting. In the last three periods Investment and Asset Management Projects had 9 major and 16 other RIDDOR accidents, a 1:1.8 ratio whereas a 1:10 ratio would be expected from the work of Heinrich and Byrd. This 1:10 ratio is also supported by West Coast project in Scotland having 17 RIDDOR accidents of which 2 were Major for the statistically significant amount of 5 million hours work involving all railway disciplines.

On this basis around 600 RIDDOR accidents per year have been under reported rather than the 120 per year estimated by RSSB. This is similar to the ORR’s Ian Prosser’s estimate of 500 RIDDOR accidents reported recently. Although not a precise figure, a 1:10 ratio of Major to All RIDDORS would provide a reasonable sense check of the reported AFR.

Steve Holmes
Safety, Health & Environment Director, Balfour Beatty Rail

The obvious answer is falling; however the AFR is a misleading indicator of safety performance. It fails to provide the granularity needed to truly understand what is driving safety performance and also provides too much ‘opportunity’ to get it wrong – as the RIDDOR review concluded.

Dr. Ian Gaskin
General Manager, SQE, London Underground

Falling of course, but based on the approach I outlined in the first answer, to the extent that that is not already in place.

Paul J. Taylor
Managing Director, Alkoomi Cultural Change Consultants

I have no real view of this.

Anson Jack
Director, Policy, Research and Risk, RSSB

Neither – I would like to see people using the available data to understand what is going on to the best of their ability.

Paul Taylor
Safety Culture and Leadership Change Programme Director, Network Rail

We need to look at much smarter ways of reassuring safety performance. Whether the AFR graph is rising or falling, more importantly is understanding the safety leadership, culture and commitment across the industry. In the short term a measure of close calls should be increasing as we move focus to learning from them.


QUESTION 3:
Should there be a link between accident statistics and the assessment of management performance?


Steve Diksa
Assurance Services Director, Bridgeway Consulting

My view is that there should be no linkage to accident statistics and the assessment of management performance. With reference to the recent debate in relation to the under reporting of RIDDORs, many believe that previous linkages have been a contributory factor.

It’s encouraging to see that recent tenders from Network Rail and Principal Contractors have safety high on the agenda and is a key component in relation to submissions and contract awards.

David Shirres
Chartered Engineer and writer, the rail engineer

Generally no. Managers should be judged on proactive indicators, not reactive ones. However if there is a statistically significant deficiency in safety performance at a particular location it may be appropriate to hold the manager accountable.

Steve Holmes
Safety, Health & Environment Director, Balfour Beatty Rail

I am not a fan of linking accident performance with management performance (often manifested in bonuses). Safety performance is a clear priority for managers and more emphasis should be placed upon leading indicators.

Dr. Ian Gaskin
General Manager, SQE, London Underground

In my view no, not directly in the way implied by the question. Again I draw on London Underground where I think we have a very sound methodology. The LU safety improvement programme (along with all other programmes) are developed based on root cause analysis. The safety programme is led by the Director of Safety in collaboration with other directors.

There are strict governance and reporting arrangements – to ensure that the programme delivers the benefits required. Part of this system is ensuring that those who are accountable for parts of the programme have actions cascaded into their personal objectives. Safety strategy is thus linked securely to individual actions and objectives – which are of course subject to normal performance appraisal.

Paul J. Taylor
Managing Director, Alkoomi Cultural Change Consultants

The statistics can not be used to drive performance otherwise safety just shows up as a management issue based on fear of poor performance. The elimination of worker injury can only come about through profound culture change based on making safety personal for people at all levels in the organisation. However what ever you do it sure as hell better show up in the statistics.

Anson Jack
Director, Policy, Research and Risk, RSSB

There can be in a mature culture, but all the emphasis on collecting accident information should be focussed on encouraging accurate reporting, and reporting leading to learning. Learning is neither a stick or carrot but an output from mature consideration of accident data.

Paul Taylor
Safety Culture and Leadership Change Programme Director, Network Rail

I don’t believe there should be given our current safety maturity and available metrics. As we mature and find smarter metrics, looking at measuring what influences safety rather than just the record on safety then it may be appropriate.


QUESTION 4:
Many large contractors have their own safety systems; is this a disadvantage when their subcontractors already need to work with differing owners’ systems?


Steve Diksa
Assurance Services Director, Bridgeway Consulting

There are many national safety systems that are mandated throughout the rail industry and it is 100% clear that we ALL have to implement, manage, work to and monitor these (Safe Systems of Work, Sentinel etc). As previously stated in Questions 1 and 2 I believe that further stakeholder engagement and collaboration to share good practice is essential going forward.

I can understand the potential confusion that the variety of safety schemes (that frontline workers work to on different days) may cause. I do not believe that ‘over prescription’ is a good thing and it encouraging to see that many contractors have been proactive in raising the bar in relation to how safety is viewed and managed in their business. The key thing is that we share our ideas if they work and have had a positive impact.

David Shirres
Chartered Engineer and writer, the rail engineer

In principal this should not be much of an issue as most safety requirements are common to the rail industry. It may be a problem if contractors use significantly different paperwork to do the same thing but I have no experience of this.

Steve Holmes
Safety, Health & Environment Director, Balfour Beatty Rail

I am mindful of the many systems out there and the need for the supply chain community to be compliant with them, however I remain sceptical about the impact this has. I see lots of different systems, but the core purpose and objectives are largely the same.

Dr. Ian Gaskin
General Manager, SQE, London Underground

I cannot of course speak for the mainline, but let me explain how it works well in London Underground. For those activities where no variation in methodology can be tolerated (access to the track for example), requirements are mandated through standard contract conditions down the supply chain (and indeed in rules for internal staff). For areas where this level of prescription is not helpful, then requirements are framed more permissively. Yes, that can lead to some variations, but the differences observed have not been great and have not led to any issues. Over the past 2 years a supplier forum has helped share good practice. The approach in LU is to work flexibly with the system that suppliers have. Our safety record speaks for itself – we have had one fatality to a contractor, for causes which as yet no-one has been able to identify, in 11 years. The last fatality on the track was 17 years ago.

Paul J. Taylor
Managing Director, Alkoomi Cultural Change Consultants

Yes it is – and contractors and companies need to stop being so protective and precious about their own system. Safety is not a market competition issue nor is it about how to “look good”.

Anson Jack
Director, Policy, Research and Risk, RSSB

I have heard that it is a disadvantage, but with mature systems there should be some sort of compatibility. Rigid prescriptive regimes are less likely to be comfortable neighbours.

Paul Taylor
Safety Culture and Leadership Change Programme Director, Network Rail

The variance of systems across the industry is of lesser importance than the way we collectively behave around the systems, the way they are used and what we do with the information. If we are really committed to learning rather than blaming or escaping blame sharing that learning and taking the right action in the right way, variances in systems are incidental unless they are in opposition to the culture we need to create.


QUESTION 5:
Have we got the balance right between worker empowerment and supervision for those working on our railway? Do supervisors and managers listen enough?


Steve Diksa
Assurance Services Director, Bridgeway Consulting

Further improvements can me made on both accounts here and we need to be mindful that the current roles that may be defined as ‘site supervision’ may have been inherited from British Rail. It needs to be made absolutely clear within the hierarchy of controls in worksites and in possessions; who is responsible for what and where. At the moment there are a number of supervisory roles and I believe that further work can be carried out in order to simply things.

Selecting the right people with the right behaviours and attributes is also key if we are to further empower the workforce. Management and supervisory values and behaviours need to be agreed, defined and implemented across the industry. In doing so we will create the right management framework and behaviours necessary to sustain high levels of safety performance.

David Shirres
Chartered Engineer and writer, the rail engineer

This will vary between projects and contractors. I’ve always been impressed by front line supervisors and managers and would expect that most would listen to problems and suggestions raised by their personnel. Pressure of work, prescriptive standards and poor culture can limit empowerment.

Steve Holmes
Safety, Health & Environment Director, Balfour Beatty Rail

I suspect the message often gets lost (diluted). Many organisations talk about empowerment, in particular the right to stop work if it’s unsafe, however the extreme pressure on schedule often dilutes this message to the point it becomes patronising and ineffective. Just one single inappropriate action from a supervisor can effectively crush attempts to redress this.

Dr. Ian Gaskin
General Manager, SQE, London Underground

Again I’ll talk from an LU perspective. And yes we do have the balance right. We have not had the issues that have been observed elsewhere. But the key point is not about worker empowerment and supervision, but clarity on roles.

A good few years ago, we conducted an investigation into an incident where equipment on an engineer’s train collided with a platform nosing. No-one was injured, but the potential was high. The investigation showed that over time we had developed a system of overlapping accountabilities between the roles of those on site: engineers, possession masters, engineer train supervisors, etc etc. Complexity was the root cause. It is removal of complexity that LU has been progressively, and successfully, focussing on removing.

Paul J. Taylor
Managing Director, Alkoomi Cultural Change Consultants

No and no – most of the processes for engagement over a short period become about the process and less about the feedback and empowerment. Most of what I see creates more management when what is needed is leadership and engagement.

Anson Jack
Director, Policy, Research and Risk, RSSB

The route to the right balance goes through matching competences with tasks. I am sure there are many examples of good and less good practice.

Paul Taylor
Safety Culture and Leadership Change Programme Director, Network Rail

No, and neither have we got management empowerment right. Clarity of accountability (autonomy with clear boundaries) links to a commitment at all levels of listening, engaging and linking the right action consistently are the first steps to building the required levels of trust. Without trust there can be no real empowerment.


QUESTION 6:
Are there too many rules and regulations governing the way we work on the railway?


Steve Diksa
Assurance Services Director, Bridgeway Consulting

The rules and regulations are there for a reason and we should not forget why we have them and the reasons they were developed in the first place. RSSB have made positive moves recently with the recent (and future) modular rule book revisions in order to simplify the rules and the personal handbooks which have been positively received by Bridgeway’s frontline workers. However, keeping staff updated on constant revisions is a challenge.

David Shirres
Chartered Engineer and writer, the rail engineer

Generally, the issue is not the number of rules and regulations but their content and structure. An organisation with an effective Quality Policy would produce procedures that can be readily understood and involve the workforce to ensure that they are workable.

It would not produce a 299 page standard on working on or about 25kv AC Electrified Lines or split the instructions for one task between a Rule Book and company standards. For this reason Network Rail should commit itself to achieving the ISO90001 Quality Standard. Apart from business benefits, this would help improve culture.

Steve Holmes
Safety, Health & Environment Director, Balfour Beatty Rail

Yes.

Dr. Ian Gaskin
General Manager, SQE, London Underground

Again I cannot comment on the mainline, but in London Underground we have had great success in simplifying “rules and regulations”. And this is in part the reason for our ever improving safety record. If we look at major incidents only (derailments etc) there has been a 13 fold improvement over the past 10 years (6 fold for less serious incidents). Four years ago LU had a 14 volume document called the Working Reference Manual: the rules for operating the railway. It contained many thousands of rules developed over time in response to incidents and perceived opportunities to cover any conceivable situation. All this was reduced by 90% in volume when we introduced the Rule Book: clear simple instructions supported by linked training and a competence management system. We lost nothing and gained clarity. The same approach has now been taken at management level.

Paul J. Taylor
Managing Director, Alkoomi Cultural Change Consultants

I am not qualified to say. I would say however that the rules and procedures to date have done a fantastic job in bringing down incident rates over the years and we need to treat them with a deep respect as most of them have been developed at a very high “price” often some one’s blood and misery.

Anson Jack
Director, Policy, Research and Risk, RSSB

This is a seductively simple question, designed to get the answer ‘yes’ but the real answer is that it depends on how we choose to work and the sort of competencies we expect. If there is the right balance between tasks, work procedures and competencies, then by definition, the rules and regulations will be about right.

Paul Taylor
Safety Culture and Leadership Change Programme Director, Network Rail

Not necessarily too many. The two key issues are whether we have found the right balance between the perscriptiveness of this and the capability of the people working within them; and how we behave as leaders and staff around them.


Meet with the speakers and discus these issues at the Rail Safety Summit.
18th May, Loughborough University.


LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Rail News

ORR review leads to 50% reduction in maximum fees for ticket refunds

New rules will mean that from 2 April the maximum fee that train operators and ticket retailers can charge...

More like this...