London Banter - View Single Post - HMRI publishes final report into Chancery Lane Derailment

Richard J. · March 18th 06, 09:59 PM posted to uk.transport.london

wrote:
Richard,

I'd suggest the very fact that each was a separate "team" (how I
despise the terminology - as if it's some sort of sporting
competition) with different (and meaningless) names - clearly as a
precursor to privatisation - proves my point.

Does it? Consider these organisational functions and reporting lines:

- Operation of Central Line, reporting to Operating Manager (Railways)
- Maintenance of trains, reporting to Chief Mechanical Engineer
(Railways)
- Maintenance of lifts and escalators, reporting to Chief Mechanical
Engineer (Railways)
- Maintenance of tracks, reporting to Chief Civil Engineer
- Signalling, reporting to Chief Signalling Engineer
- Electrical power, reporting to Chief Electrical Engineer

This was the London Transport structure in 1966. The Operating Manager
(Railways) and all the Chief Engineers reported to the Chairman of LT
who was responsible for the buses as well as the tubes.

All these people worked for LT in the same way as all the people
involved in the Chancery Lane derailment worked for LUL. Looking at the
organisation chart as a family tree, the man responsible for Central
Line operation in 1966 was the "second cousin once removed" of the line
engineer responsible for maintenance of the Central Line rolling stock.
This is not exactly the integrated Utopia that you seem to be in favour
of.

Yet it worked, because of superb teamwork and common motivation. That's
down to quality of management. Obviously, once the departments are in
different *companies*, then the situation is different and indeed more
difficult, especially with the imposition of PPP contracts. But that
wasn't in place at the time of the Chancery Lane derailment.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)