Cost of the accident

[Stefan Andrzejewski]

I heard on 702 this morning that Transnet is holding Rovos liable for the damage caused to the rail system. This must run into millions. Is there insurance that Rovos would have had? How would that impact on FOTR or Reef Steamers if an accident damaging rail infrastructure would occur. Do FOTR have suitable insurance? Also I wonder how this will impact Transnet decision to allow private operated trains on their lines. I know that they a sticky about the Locomotives used. Just some thoughts running through my mind I thought I would share.

[Luca Lategan]

If transnet wasn't so sticky about the locomotives they allow on their lines and the train was hauled by Rovos's own units, this may have never happened.

[Steve Appleton]

Stefan, you pose an interesting question, the answer to which will possibly, maybe almost certainly, be fought out by the parties (TFR, Rovos, Metrorail, passengers, employees) involved and their insurance companies in court, making quite a few lawyers happy. This also affects what the parties are saying, or not saying -- or denying. They cannot prejudice any possible legal actions. Nor can they prejudice their insurers. And, they would not want to possibly perjure themselves either by giving conflicting statements in and out of court.

You are correct in that TFR does theoretically hold the private operators accountable for any infrastructure damage in terms of their Access Agreements. But of course that would be if the private operators were found negligent or responsible. And of course there are degrees of negligence. In this instance, according to reports, the RSR's interim statements have made allegation that the TFR crew was at fault for not securing the train (they say applying the handbrakes on at least 5 coaches and applying wheel scotches) according to the rules before uncoupling. However, the RSR has also claimed that Rovos is partly negligent because their crew allegedly did not check the train after hand-over. In fact the whole hand-over protocol is clearly ill-defined and a point of issue.

As you can imagine, the final report of the RSR will probably form the basis on which this financial and legal battle is drawn. There is big money involved here, not only for the infrastructure damage, but also for Rovos' own rolling stock losses, claims for medical expenses, mental trauma, loss of earnings and so on for those injured and for the loss of revenue by Rovos and the other rail operators (mainly Metrorail) who are now not able to use that track. All parties will want to sue the pants off each other and will doubtless rely heavily on the RSR report and other expert opinion.

Already I read that Metrorail are denying that the apparent signal problems contributed to the cause by delaying the changeover as Rovos alleges. Their claim is that the signals were not needed to 'connect' the locomotive to the train! Anyone who knows Centurion station knows that is patently untrue, unless the train and locos were stabled in the old disused goods sidings off to the western side away from the through main and platform lines... if those sidings still exist... and their track-work is safe and they have working overhead power - they didn't last I recall.

As to whether FOTR has such insurance, the answer is yes, we do. This is not an official FOTR answer, but we are required to hold that insurance as one condition of our Access Agreements with TFR, Metrorail and as also mandated by the RSR. Whether we have enough to cover a disaster of this magnitude is questionable. If this had happened to FOTR, I seriously think we would find it financially almost impossible to carry on. It would likely bankrupt us - whether our fault or not. As I said, this is my personal opinion, not that of the FOTR Association or board.

[Stefan Andrzejewski]

Stick to procedures and 99% of operations will happen correctly. When I was in the SAAF I worked in the Flight Safety department, investigating all SAAF accidents and incidents. 80% of these were due to human error not following procedures.

[Steve Appleton]

I came across a report in yesterday's Saturday Star. Because we need a laugh to lighten the mood, I just have to quote this part of it:

Rovos Rail owner, Rohan Vos said earlier tha signal faults had lead to a 45 minute delay in a process that was meant to take 10 minutes.
Metrorail spokeswoman Nana Zenani said: "The process of coupling does not involve signalling. During this process, all the carriages have to be stationary. The only movement would be from the leading coach or locomotive moving into a coupling position. Because a locomotive is not in the train traffic, it would not need signals to guide it for the coupling process."

"... coach or locomotive moving into a coupling position." Sounds like a passage out of the Kama Sutra. Not needing signals? Needless to say, it is reported that Zenani declined to answer whether correct safety procedures had been followed because she did not want to pre-empt the investigation.