Rail Mass Risk Assessment October 2009

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Rail Mass Risk Assessment October 2009"

Walter Dennis
5 years ago
Views:

3 Rail Mass Risk Assessment October 2009 Page 1

4 Summary This risk assessment highlighted one risk and some subsequent investigative work to progress with. The group felt that the existing controls are suitable for the intended context of this assessment. This risk assessment supports the proposed waiver application. Page 2

5 Risk Assessment Context ImpressWare Entity: ARTC Date 26/10/2009 Name Responsible Person Objectives Stakeholders Communication and Consultation Relevant Information Risk Statement North East Line Rail Mass Speed Increase Risk Assessment Mike Green To provide supporting information to a Waiver regarding the ARTC COP section 1.1 Design and Rating for the North East Line to accommodate for passenger services operating at speeds of up to 130 km/hr on 47kg rail (class T2). To further validate the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the current controls ( eg additional rail floor detection runs, field testing of weld foot, defective rail retest program, defective rail removal program, ongoing rail maintenance plan for grinding and weld straightening). ARTC Downer EDI Works Above Rail Operators Downer EDI meetings and discussions Bureau Veritas (Ultrasonic testing organisation) Rogin Ultrasonics This risk assessment workshop. ARTC Track and Civil COP Draft PTSV audit report of 5th August 2009 Downer EDI V1 monthly report for September Statistical data for defects attached to this report To Identify and Assess the safety and operational risks to Stakeholders associated with continuing to operate passenger trains at a speed of up to 130 km/hr on 47kg rail (class T2 track classification) on the section of track nominated (Broadford to the Murray River). Definitions None required. Page 3

6 Assumptions The current track controls that are in place now have been designed for 130km/hr train speed conditions. There are differences in the track controls for different track train speeds (primarily in response times) Constraints Applicable Political PTSV who audit rail safety in Victoria. Economic Rerailing of the corridor is a constraint as is the ongoing and increased maintenance costs of any new or proposed controls. Legislative: Rail Safety Act Victoria Boundaries Exclusions Additional Clarifications From the 75 km point (Broadford) to the Murray River (306 km) only. All areas outside the boundaries. All other asset components e.g. signalling, level crossings, ballast, etc. All non passenger trains. Existing track maintenance standards that were in place prior to July 2008 are based on a track speed of 130km/hr for passenger trains. The new controls introduced from December 2008 are in addition to these. For this section of track over the past 18 months there have been higher than expected rail failure rates which are being monitored and new controls have been in place since December 2008 which appear to be effective. Post the implementation of the foot testing control, there was a period of 4.5 months without any rail failure. Nationally, passenger trains with speeds of up to 160km/hr have in the past operated on 47 kg rail. Page 4

7 Risk Assessment Session Report ImpressWare Entity: ARTC used Risk Assessment: North East Line Rail Mass Speed Increase Risk Assessment Session Description North East Line Rail Mass Speed Increase Risk Assessment Session Number 1 Date of Session 26/10/2009 Responsible Person Mike Green Stakeholder Attendees Mike Green (ARTC Wagga via teleconference) Darren Warner (ARTC Canberra) Joy Gleeson (ARTC Melbourne) Steve Fleck (ARTC Wagga via teleconference) Steve Smith ARTC Moss Vale via teleconference) Neil Sheedy (ARTC Wagga via teleconference) Kimani Gitau ARTC Melbourne) Nick Pettigrew (part time) (ARTC Adelaide via teleconference) Carlo Galeano Ingenia (Facilitator) What methods were used to identify risks: Brainstorming Experienced Personnel Industry Experts Other methods used to identify risks No other methods were Page 5

8 Representative Group Comments Yes this group was a suitable group to carry out this risk assessment. Concluding Comments: Darren: Joy: Kimani: Steve: Neil: Steve: Mike: No comments. Would like a copy of risk assessment. No additional comments. No comments. No comments No comments. No comments. Would like to have included in document that 47kg rail does and is carrying high speed light axle passenger services nationally up to speeds of 160km/h. Page 6

9 Risk Management Control Plan ImpressWare Entity: ARTC Risk Assessment: North East Line Rail Mass Speed Increase Risk Assessment All Sessions Risk Number Cont Nr Control Type Control Description Action Resp. Person Due Date Engineering Introduction of stress free testing. Adopt Mike Green 30/11/ Engineering Introduce an extra rail flaw detection car (three per year) Investigate Kimani Gitau 30/11/09 Page 7

10 Detailed Risk Summary Report ImpressWare Entity: ARTC Date Created 26/10/2009 Risk Assessment North East Line Rail Mass Speed Increase Risk Assessment Risk Number Risk Status Pended due to multiple reasons Responsible Person Mike Green Risk Scenario A single rail break occurs which is undetected. Caused By Various causes either individual or combinational Leading to an event Loss of continuity of rail Most likely consequence Delays to passenger services. Worst consequence Derailment Comments No Comments Page 8

11 Existing Controls No. Control Description Effectiveness 1 Engineering Ultrasonic testing Moderately Effective 2 Engineering Newly installed welds are required to be tested in accordance with the standards (within 14 days) Very Effective 3 Engineering Testing of second hand rails prior to installation according to standard. Very Effective 4 Engineering Retrospective testing of the foot of existing welds. Moderately Effective 5 Administrative Track patrols. Moderately Effective 6 Administrative Detailed walking (every two years for concrete track) Moderately Effective 7 Engineering The signalling system which relies on track continuity and fails safe Very Effective 10 Administrative Working instruction in regards to prioritisation of mud hole defects response. Moderately Effective 11 Engineering Program for removal of identified rail defects thereby reducing risk of broken rail. Very Effective 12 Engineering Rail husbandry program (incorporating rail grinding and weld straightening) Moderately Effective 13 Administrative Worker competency and re-training Moderately Effective Proposed Controls Risk Number Cont Nr Control Type Control Description Action Resp. Person Due Date Engineering Introduction of stress free testing. Adopt Mike Green 30/11/ Engineering Introduce an extra rail flaw detection car (three per year) Investigate Kimani Gitau 30/11/09 Needs to be investigated. The standard stipulates that testing frequency should maintain rail breaks at less than.02 per km/annum (ETE0103) Page 9

12 Rejected Controls No. Control Reason Nil Rejected Existing Likelihood Rare Revised Likelihood Rare Existing Consequence Not Significant Revised Consequence Not Significant Existing Risk Level Low Revised Risk Level Low Is Proportionate Yes Is Appropriate Yes Is Sensible Yes Related Links Nil Please specify why you did not consider 'Elimination, Substitution, Isolation' control(s) for this risk Mechanical constraints and not all rail breaks can be detected. Page 10

Performance Measures for Track and Civil Infrastructure

Performance Measures for Track and Civil Infrastructure Discipline: Engineering Category: Procedure Measures for Track and Civil ETP-00-02 Applicability ARTC Wide CRIA (NSW CRN) Document Status Version Date Reviewed Prepared by Reviewed by Endorsed Approved