Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 24 Feb 1998

Vol. 487 No. 6

Priority Questions. - Railway Accidents.

Ivan Yates

Ceist:

26 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she has received the report of the board of inquiry concerning the rail accident on 8 November 1997 at Knockcroghery, County Roscommon; and if she has satisfied herself that there are adequate mobile and patrol supervisions of this Mayo line both in relation to this accident and on an ongoing basis; if she will outline the level of heavy maintenance carried out on this line over the past ten years, specifically relating to the tamping machine process; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4598/98]

The report of the board of inquiry conducted by Iarnród Éireann following the incident at Knockcroghery was presented to my Department on 5 February. As is normal practice, my railway inspecting officer is considering the detailed findings and recommendations of the report and will follow them up with Iarnród Éireann.

Day-to-day responsibility for all matters relating to rail safety such as the frequency of track inspections and maintenance, including mechanical tamping, is a matter for Iarnród Éireann. I have been assured that rail safety is the company's main priority. Implementation of any necessary safety-related measures, whether at Knockcroghery or elsewhere on the rail network, is a matter for the company to undertake. However, in the course of discussions with the company I have emphasised the paramount importance of safety in all aspects of the company's operations.

In so far as the specific accident at Knockcroghery is concerned, Iarnród Éireann's board of inquiry concluded that the derailment was caused by the failure of a track joint on the line. It also concluded that the design and construction of the carriages had played a significant role in minimising the consequences of the derailment. The failure of the track joint was caused by a weakening of the track bed beneath the joint which led to the breakage of the two plates — called fishplates — under the action of passing trains. The board of inquiry was satisfied that one of the fishplates was broken for a number of days prior to the derailment. A routine inspection of this part of the track the day before the derailment failed to detect this breakage.

I welcome the number of recent initiatives the company has taken to further improve operational safety on the railway. In addition to the normal routine inspections, a special detailed examination of all jointed track throughout the country was made in response to the accident. Additional resources will be made available to implement the recommendations arising from these additional inspections. The track inspection process for jointed track has again been reviewed and strengthened in both frequency and quality. The training needs of all staff involved in track inspection or maintenance have again been reviewed and will be further strengthened. Train operating speeds have been reviewed and some additional speed restrictions have been introduced.

On the safety review, proposals from prospective consultants were received on 3 February and a number of candidates who submitted proposals were interviewed by officials from my Department on 18 February. I expect the successful applicant will be appointed this week.

On this specific accident, the Minister referred to the supervision of the track where the fishplate broke. She spoke about the review and about improving the quality of these inspections. Is it the case that the preceding supervision was carried out on a wet day and the supervisors did not go out and spot that this fishplate was broken? Will the Minister confirm whether this happened?

I referred to the heavy maintenance, that is the tamping machine process, because I understand the under track conditions were the main problem here. Will the Minister give a commitment, given that there could have been fatalities in this case, that this heavy maintenance procedure of tamping the under soil to put in place the rocks, grit and equivalent of mortar, will be implemented so that we will not be dependent on the day to day inspections? If it is a wet day and somebody just does not notice that a fishplate is broken, there could be fatalities. That is not acceptable. What heavy maintenance programme will the Minister put in place arising from this incident? Can she confirm there was a breakdown in the supervisory inspection process which led to this accident?

The Deputy asked if the day in question was wet. I do not have any detail of the weather. I am not trying to be facetious.

Is it in the report?

The weather was not noted in the report I received. The board of inquiry was quite clear that in the inspection on the previous day this was not noted.

The Deputy referred to mechanical tamping. I am informed that the last time the stretch of line was manually tamped before the accident was in July 1997. However, I agree with the Deputy that there needs to be a greater emphasis on tamping. The routine inspections have been strengthened both in frequency and quality. Iarnród Éireann tells me the engineering staff are maintaining a close watch on all of that.

If a mobile gang went out to supervise a line of track the day before an accident took place and the fishplate was broken, how did they not spot it? Is that not something which the Minister would ask the Secretary General of the Department, the board of inquiry or the Chairman of Iarnród Éireann? Will she specifically undertake now to look into what is meant by "to improve the quality of these inspections"? According to some of the material I saw on this report, she will find there was a breakdown in the supervision process. Is the Minister prepared to give a commitment to this House that an investment programme will be put in place to provide this heavy maintenance? It is essential. Will she clarify why this inspection system failed on this occasion?

It is not my job to speak directly to that team. I have a great deal of local knowledge — I live nearby. I am assured by Iarnród Éireann that it has conducted very detailed investigations with the team in question. Matters such as that or personnel matters are matters for Iarnród Éireann, not for me.

The Deputy wants me to give a commitment to investment today but that would not be open to me at Question Time. Iarnród Éireann is committed as resources permit to invest in the railways. The international safety report, which we have instigated, will clearly point out what needs to be done on the track.

As the time for Priority Questions has expired, Questions Nos. 27 and 28 may be taken in Ordinary Time.

Barr
Roinn