I had a quick skim back thorugh the Cahir Viaduct Collapse Report - yes I know it is a very different structure, but it is interesting to compare the recommendations in this against the Malahide report.
There are some recommendation that appear to have been completely implemented (for example one regarding communciation with the signalman), some which only apply to the type of viaduct and wagons at Cahir, but there are a couple relating to asset management that appear to have been implemented but not done properly.
See
Recommendation 8
Quote:
IÉ should review, and amend as necessary, its asset management systems to ensure that data is pertinent, comprehensive, concise and accessible and
provides evidence that all outstanding issues are appropriately actioned and closed out.
(Review 3 months, Amendment programme completed 12 months ).
|
Recommendation 9
Quote:
IÉ should ensure that, pending full implementation and validation of new data management systems including those currently in course of development, comprehensive and up-to-date records of infrastructure asset inspection and maintenance are maintained and that relevant data is effectively promulgated to inspectors, maintainers and managers.
(Review and implementation 3 months)
|
One of the other recommendations had the staggering implication that to inspect a structure one must be able to actually see all of it and that measures should be taken to make that happen.
So it would seem to me that several recommendations of an accident report that doesn't go back to the dawn of time haven't actually been implemented. This raises the point that if you are going to have expensive investigations and reports and then ignore the results, why bother having them in the first place.
I don't think particularly that heads need to roll particularly given the fact that loss of corporate memory was pointed out as a contributory factor in the Malahide collapse, but there needs to be some visible evidence of some action being taken.