2 ms·

He said that in the context of the reporter complaining that drivers have to slow down on tracks immediately next to where line workers are working. That's alre

by makomk 9y ago

He said that in the context of the reporter complaining that drivers have to slow down on tracks immediately next to where line workers are working. That's already a compromise that endangers worker safety in order to keep the trains running. The London Underground, whose much better safety record the NYT points to in the article, doesn't seem to allow any track work unless the entire line is shut down (with the exception of above-ground tracks).

tialaramex 9y ago
The Tube isn't 24/7 and so much of it is only undergoing double track (one track going one easy, the other the opposite). To do any work on such a line you have to shut it. The whole system closes four (five?) nights a week, and lines often shut or have limited service at weekends for maintenance. Nevertheless "red zone" working (on an otherwise open line with no mechanical barrier or technological controls keeping you safe) is in widespread use in the UK's mainline railway and sure enough it's dangerous. Although I'll agree that "safety" is the go to explanation for industrial disputes in these sectors, it is striking how often a dispute over "safety" is resolved through better pay or conditions of employment (which in principle you'd naïvely expect to never happen). From actual workers we see the usual human trend for convenience over safety. Red zone is easy to plan, easy to execute, paste in a generic execuse where the plan says to explain why you couldn't use a safer method and you're done. Until a team member dies or is badly injured and investigators read your paperwork. I seem to recall a nasty London accident where a track worker was struck by a train after walking up a convenient slope to the track where they were working, thus bypassing all the signs on the official route telling them it was closed. They knew they weren't supposed to go that way, they just didn't expect the penalty for non-compliance to be death. People never do.

by makomk 9y ago

tialaramex 9y ago

The Tube isn't 24/7 and so much of it is only undergoing double track (one track going one easy, the other the opposite). To do any work on such a line you have to shut it. The whole system closes four (five?) nights a week, and lines often shut or have limited service at weekends for maintenance. Nevertheless "red zone" working (on an otherwise open line with no mechanical barrier or technological controls keeping you safe) is in widespread use in the UK's mainline railway and sure enough it's dangerous. Although I'll agree that "safety" is the go to explanation for industrial disputes in these sectors, it is striking how often a dispute over "safety" is resolved through better pay or conditions of employment (which in principle you'd naïvely expect to never happen). From actual workers we see the usual human trend for convenience over safety. Red zone is easy to plan, easy to execute, paste in a generic execuse where the plan says to explain why you couldn't use a safer method and you're done. Until a team member dies or is badly injured and investigators read your paperwork. I seem to recall a nasty London accident where a track worker was struck by a train after walking up a convenient slope to the track where they were working, thus bypassing all the signs on the official route telling them it was closed. They knew they weren't supposed to go that way, they just didn't expect the penalty for non-compliance to be death. People never do.