Tweet Check

Welcome to RAIL’s new fact-checking service, which aims to answer your questions, debunk the myths, and get to the unvarnished truth behind some of the most common claims and queries we spot on social media.

Branching out

RAIL’s verdict: The RMT union has long questioned the independence of industry bodies, including the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) and the RSSB (Rail Safety and Standards Board).

Although funded by a broad range of public and privately owned railway service providers, both the ORR and RSSB have routinely been accused by RMT of publishing reports that assist government to drive ‘an anti-union’ agenda.

It’s not clear from this Tweet why the Rail Accident Investigation Branch has now been tarred with the same brush, except for the presence of a government-registered domain name in its website URL.

A RAIB spokesman told RAIL that the organisation is independent of the industry, safety regulators and prosecution bodies. It forms part of the Department for Transport but is functionally independent with the Chief Inspector reporting directly to the Secretary of State for Transport.

He added: “Anyone who has still to be convinced of our independence need only to read our hard-hitting and evidence-based investigation reports. A credible government-funded body, with strong legal powers, is best able to deliver investigations that are independent of the railway industry.”

A matter of fact

RAIL’s verdict: The Woodland Trust has always been a vocal stakeholder in the HS2 project, due to the potential impact that Europe’s largest construction scheme will have on the natural environment.

Having recently given evidence to the High Speed Phase 2a Bill Select Committee on the planned route from Birmingham to Crewe, it is now taking part in HS2 Ltd’s consultation on a draft Environment Statement for Phase 2b of the route from Birmingham to Leeds and Crewe to Manchester.

According to WT, there are 29 ancient woodlands at risk of direct loss from Phases 2a and 2b, and a further 18 subject to indirect damage. Its online campaign objecting to the plans had attracted more than 10,000 registrations as this issue of RAIL went to press.

RAIL certainly agrees that the protection of ancient woodland must be an important consideration for HS2 Ltd. It is probably also important to note, however, that the 16.7 hectares of ancient woodland at risk of direct loss represents a little over 0.0003% of the total ancient woodland coverage (55,200 ha) in the UK.

This fact had not passed by regular RAIL contributor Paul Bigland either, who said on Twitter: “Devastating? It’s time you started telling the truth when your own figures show that HS2 will affect 0.0003% of ancient woodland.”

If you see anything on Twitter that you think we should fact-check, debunk or explain, please get in touch at rail@bauermedia.co.uk