30-07-2010, 08:49 AM
Fundementally, there is an accepted figure of what the expected financial loss is per life which can be used as an initial reference point to "justify" value in applying a solution to a problem. The figure has slipped upwards of recent times and it should be remembered that it is an averaged cost per casualty and not everyone dies.
However, politics and social pressure can alter what value is given to a cost for a life. Technically, the ALARP arguement for TPWS is not valid but following the two Paddington crashes (and to divert attention away from ATP one might suggest), TPWS was successfully deployed network wide at a very significant cost. It has reduced the SPAD count and the possible concequences for those SPADs that have occured. Therefore, Joe Public's mind has been greatly appeased but the appeasement has mostly been via a lack of media understanding and 'something' having been done to 'solve' the 'problem'!
Would the funds have been better employed on ATP? Possibly but there are also problems with ATP as employed on NR (but that is another story/thread).
Jerry
However, politics and social pressure can alter what value is given to a cost for a life. Technically, the ALARP arguement for TPWS is not valid but following the two Paddington crashes (and to divert attention away from ATP one might suggest), TPWS was successfully deployed network wide at a very significant cost. It has reduced the SPAD count and the possible concequences for those SPADs that have occured. Therefore, Joe Public's mind has been greatly appeased but the appeasement has mostly been via a lack of media understanding and 'something' having been done to 'solve' the 'problem'!
Would the funds have been better employed on ATP? Possibly but there are also problems with ATP as employed on NR (but that is another story/thread).
Jerry
Le coureur