A very recent report by the UCL Constitution Unit shows that the United Kingdom’s uncodified constitution must be safeguarded if it is to protect the integrity of our democracy and produced 28 recommendations dealing with loopholes that could be exploited by unscrupulous governments as well as raising wider concerns. Then the House of Lords Constitution Committee announced yesterday that it would be holding an inquiry along the same lines. Hopeful? This shows that at least these issues are coming into public awareness.
Something that quite soon might stir up dust could be the recent rail collision at Elstow near Bedford, when one train ran into the rear of a stopped preceding set. The main question from the side of those with at least some knowledge of present day British train protection systems is, why no train protection system intervened and stopped the offending train from colliding. Which occurred with a speed of about 120km/h while braking, meaning that the train ran substantially faster before, despite running under two single yellow signal aspects and passing a red aspect at speed. All three signals would normally trigger warnings with the obsolete Automatic Warning System that had to be cancelled, unless that system had been switched out. So what about TPWS, the Train Protection Warning System, all fitted and working from 2003 as a result from the inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove crash? Well, that system was fitted only at signals covering danger locations such as junctions. And at Elstow there was no junction or any other type of risk ahead. Except a stopped train with its obsolete as well as defective Automatic Warning System.
I would say, pay attention to what Network Rail, train operator Midland Rail and our spiffing new government are going to say about this.
I'm interested in how this will bite. Will officials who knowingly mislead the public actually be in real jeopardy? Or will they get a public slap on the wrist and a quiet promotion? Will the senior officials responsible for the policy framework in which decisions are made be in jeopardy, or will usual practice continue - they will use it as a pretext to get rid of an awkward (often inconveniently ethical) employee by making them a scapegoat?
A very recent report by the UCL Constitution Unit shows that the United Kingdom’s uncodified constitution must be safeguarded if it is to protect the integrity of our democracy and produced 28 recommendations dealing with loopholes that could be exploited by unscrupulous governments as well as raising wider concerns. Then the House of Lords Constitution Committee announced yesterday that it would be holding an inquiry along the same lines. Hopeful? This shows that at least these issues are coming into public awareness.
So far so good, but a long way to go.
Something that quite soon might stir up dust could be the recent rail collision at Elstow near Bedford, when one train ran into the rear of a stopped preceding set. The main question from the side of those with at least some knowledge of present day British train protection systems is, why no train protection system intervened and stopped the offending train from colliding. Which occurred with a speed of about 120km/h while braking, meaning that the train ran substantially faster before, despite running under two single yellow signal aspects and passing a red aspect at speed. All three signals would normally trigger warnings with the obsolete Automatic Warning System that had to be cancelled, unless that system had been switched out. So what about TPWS, the Train Protection Warning System, all fitted and working from 2003 as a result from the inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove crash? Well, that system was fitted only at signals covering danger locations such as junctions. And at Elstow there was no junction or any other type of risk ahead. Except a stopped train with its obsolete as well as defective Automatic Warning System.
I would say, pay attention to what Network Rail, train operator Midland Rail and our spiffing new government are going to say about this.
I'm interested in how this will bite. Will officials who knowingly mislead the public actually be in real jeopardy? Or will they get a public slap on the wrist and a quiet promotion? Will the senior officials responsible for the policy framework in which decisions are made be in jeopardy, or will usual practice continue - they will use it as a pretext to get rid of an awkward (often inconveniently ethical) employee by making them a scapegoat?
Great article.