Union Railway Minister Mallikarjun Kharge recently told a conference of general managers of all zonal railways and production units that safety of passengers would continue to be the topmost priority of the Indian Railways. Just days before his statement nine people were charred to death near Mumbai in a fire on the Bandra-Dehradun Express and three weeks previous to that 26 people were burnt to death in Andhra Pradesh in a fire on the Bangalore-Nanded Express. It was noted in both cases that just the presence of automatic fire alarm systems would have saved lives in both cases. And barely a week before the minister’s statement, in two separate incidents in the Mumbai suburban rail network, a 16-year-old passenger lost both her hands and a 31-year-old lost both his legs, after they slipped in the dangerous high gap between the station platform and the train footboard. Accidents on the railways invariably bring on a sense of déjà vu and a corroboration of the observation of the High Level Safety Review Committee (the Kakodkar Committee) appointed by the Ministry of Railways in 2012: “within the railway system everybody is supposed to look after safety but in reality…(it is) nobody’s baby.”
Successive Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports on the railways’ corporate safety plan (Phase I: 2003-2008) have painted a rather dismal picture. The reports noted a continuing use of overage locomotives, incomplete safety works at level crossings, lack of modernisation of signalling equipment, inadequate maintenance of assets and a failure to make recruitment to the crucial staff positions dealing with safety. More importantly, in 2012 the CAG said that the railways had been unable to produce a reliable safety system even though it had been carrying out field trials of the anti-collision devices (ACDs) since 2001 and had spent Rs 158 crore on them. The performance efficiency during the trial runs of the ACDs and the train protection and warning systems (TPWS) was below par.
Human failure has been found to account for 86% of train accidents in India, but as on 1 April 2012, there were as many as 1,49,271 vacancies in the safety category posts. The minister blandly said the process to fill them was on but the informal ban on recruitment means that little progress takes place in making the railways fully staffed in this important area. While the number of new trains has increased, recruitment has not kept pace either with the additional workload or the retirement of existing staff. In fact, a section of expert opinion says that instead of the “obsession” with ACDs, safety factors could be better ensured by hiring adequate operational personnel like guards, drivers, stationmasters, signalling staff and gangmen who are the eyes and ears of the system.
The lack of quick coordination of police and medical emergency services is an important reason for the high fatalities in accidents that take place at railway stations and in urban centres. Thus, there was not even a stretcher available at the busy and important railway station (Ghatkopar) on the Mumbai suburban network where the 16-year-old student lost her hands. Media reports frequently detail the inordinate delays that cost victims of rail accidents their limbs and lives due to lack of basic facilities such as stretchers, first-aid material and trained staff who can act quickly to rush them to the nearest medical facility.
The various committees appointed to look into rail safety have made recommendations across categories. These range from suggestions to replenish the capital and development funds, decentralise the hierarchical structure and functioning of the railways, modernise the recruitment process, introduce training, refresher and reskilling courses, post a member for safety on the Railway Board, and set up an independent authority for rail safety. The excuse for not following these suggestions invariably turns on a lack of funds. Railway finances are indeed in indifferent shape, but it is scandalous that poor safety can be attributed to a lack of resources. The blame then falls on “populism” that is said to keep passenger rates low. There is indeed a mismatch between passenger and freight tariffs, as there will always be in a developing economy. But the railways should be aware that they themselves have contributed to deteriorating finances because of their inability to prevent the loss of high-value long-distance freight traffic to roads. Halting the modal shift would require substantial outlays to ensure more reliable goods services. It is time the railways realise that improving the existing services and ensuring the safety of passengers are truly the most popular service they can undertake.
No comments:
Post a Comment