Part 2: An Actual Example of the Issues With Fractured Responsiblities in Norwegian Railroad
July 5, 2025•372 words
An Actual Example: Level Crossing Safety
Let me illustrate how fractured responsibilities play out in the real world with a situation that’s all too familiar in the Norwegian rail sector: level crossing safety.
The Safety Dilemma
Imagine you’re responsible for the railway infrastructure. Your job is to keep things safe, nothing more, nothing less. In some areas, there are hazardous level crossings. The simplest way to maintain safety? Lower the speed limit for trains passing through these spots. It’s a straightforward fix: slower trains mean fewer accidents, and you’ve fulfilled your safety mandate.
But here’s where the trouble starts. Slower speeds mean that trains have to brake and accelerate more frequently. This isn’t just a minor inconvenience, it causes more wear and tear on the trains themselves. And who has to deal with those extra maintenance costs? Not the infrastructure owner, but the train operators.
Competing Interests
Naturally, the train companies aren’t thrilled. From their perspective, the ideal solution would be to upgrade the level crossings, install better barriers, improve signaling, or, best of all, eliminate crossings entirely. That way, trains could maintain higher speeds and reduce both delays and mechanical stress.
But here’s the catch: the infrastructure owner doesn’t have much incentive to make those upgrades. As far as their responsibility goes, safety is already being maintained by reducing speed. Why spend extra money from their own budget to solve a problem that technically isn’t theirs?
On the flip side, should the train companies pay for the upgrades themselves? They’d rather not. Their business is running trains, not building infrastructure.
The Result: Stalemate
So what happens?
- The infrastructure owner sticks with speed reductions, since it’s the cheapest way to meet their safety obligations.
- The train operators grumble about increased costs and inefficiency, but have no real leverage to change the situation.
- Passengers end up with slower, less reliable service, and the system as a whole suffers.
No one is responsible for the big picture. Each actor is doing exactly what they’re supposed to do, according to their own narrow mandate. But the end result is a railway system that’s less efficient, less reliable, and ultimately less useful for everyone.
Written with AI assistance