Something in the air… and it’s not good for rail staff
The issue of pollution endangering health at railway stations is fast climbing the political agenda and could soon become a matter of huge concern, argues CHRISTIAN WOLMAR
WHEN I was campaigning to be the Labour candidate for London Mayor a couple of years ago, one issue kept being raised at meetings where I was speaking. That was pollution and, in particular, clean air.
It is an issue that is leaping up the political agenda, with more and more people concerned about it. I was particularly critical of the air quality in Oxford Street, Britain’s premier shopping street, and I welcome that Mayor Sadiq Khan is addressing that by planning to close the street and implement a series of other measures across the capital.
The railways seem to be the good guys in this respect, as road traffic is seen as the main culprit. The railways can certainly lay claim to being the best means of travelling for those concerned with the environment, and it is something often mentioned by the industry and its supporters. By and large that is true. Of course, emissions of CO and other greenhouse gases are far lower per kilometre travelled in a densely packed train than in a car with a single passenger. Even when Alastair Darling used to complain, when he was Transport Secretary, that there were too many trains shuttling round the network carrying fresh air, the overall figures for the industry were very healthy.
However, there is one aspect of the problem that has not been properly addressed in the industry and which even the unions have tended to ignore, although that may be about to change. That is the air that passengers, and particularly staff, breathe in stations.
A particular case in point is Birmingham New Street. Despite the complete renovation of the station - or rather the area above the station - the platforms remain a dingy subterranean canyon, little changed by the refurbishment.
A Dispatches documentary on Channel 4 highlighted this problem as far back as February 2016, but little seems to have changed. When I passed through the other day, the air down there was as bad as when walking alongside a busy city dual carriageway. It is exacerbated by the slow pace of the trains, the tunnel at one end, and the fact that some trains stay for several minutes idling. In short, passengers, and particularly the staff working down there, are breathing air that clearly breaches environmental standards.
Network Rail promises that action will be taken. A spokesman told me: “We are just finalising a very detailed air quality report being carried out in partnership with Birmingham University. This will be presented to the local authorities and the industry local authority at the end of the year, with recommendations and actions as a result.”
He noted that idling diesel trains are an issue, and that consequently “we will need the cooperation of train operators and support from the Department for Transport to improve air quality at platform level”.
However, this is an issue that extends way beyond Birmingham. You only have to look at the blackening of the roof at Paddington station, which was renovated only a few years ago, to realise that the air we all breathe in stations is not doing us any good. Indeed, a five-day survey in 2015 of air quality in Paddington found that NO levels were significantly higher than in nearby streets, and regularly broke EU thresholds.
Data was compared with the nearby Marylebone roadside air quality site (1.5km away), which has the reputation of being one of the worst sites in London for air quality. The comparisons indicated that railway station air quality was more polluted than the nearby roadside.
This example came from a wider academic study, and I am indebted to my friend Chris Randall, formerly of this parish, who spotted the article Air Quality in Enclosed Railway Stations, published by the University of Birmingham last year.
The report, by a team of authors led by John Edward Thomas, warns that the fact that diesel fumes have since 2012 been recognised by the World Health Organisation as carcinogenic puts the emphasis on railway providers to act to reduce what WHO calls “ambient diesel fumes”. They point out that while local
“You only have to look at the blackening of the roof at Paddington station, which was renovated only a few years ago, to realise that the air we all breathe in stations is not doing us any good.”
authorities together with Network Rail are responsible for monitoring air quality at stations, “currently no station air quality data is made available to the public, and this issue must be addressed”.
The authors suggest that current occupational health standards are not adequate in relation to this problem, and need to be rewritten. That may have enormous implications for the rail industry.
As an aside, the authors note that electric trains are by no means environmentally pure. While obviously they reduce emissions within stations, they produce ultra-fine metal particles which can cause cancer and emphysema, although the authors stress that the risks from diesel fumes are far greater.
This does not, however, give the Government another excuse to slow down the electrification programme. Indeed, air quality is another reason why the move towards bi-mode rather than full electrification is so short-sighted. Of course, in most big stations these trains will be operating in electric mode, but there will be exceptions - Swansea and numerous stations on the Midland Main Line, for example. The whole sorry saga demonstrates that clean air is still not sufficiently high up politicians’ agenda, because otherwise the decision would never have been taken.
While passengers are clearly affected, any evidence of impact would be difficult to prove since they are likely to spend only a small proportion of their time in railway stations. However, the health of railway staff may well be damaged by prolonged exposure to poor air quality, and this issue could become the new asbestosis scandal.
The Guardian reported last month that legal cases about toxic diesel emissions are being launched in several industries. It cited a case in which Parcelforce is being sued by an employee who was exposed to polluted air for eight hours a day in a depot, which resulted in him contracting asthma. Similarly, Christchurch Borough Council is facing a claim by a tractor driver who for two years drove a vehicle which had holes in the floor, through which fumes would enter the cab.
This is clearly a Pandora’s Box. It is only a matter of time before a railway worker, supported by a union, takes up a similar case. If they were successful, the consequent liability for the railways could threaten to bankrupt the industry and Government would have to intervene. It is time to start acting now - not just in Birmingham but across the network, even though it may already be too late.