Transcript Towards a National Management Strategy

Safety and/or
Reliability?
___________________________
AUSRAIL Conference
Wednesday 10 November 2004
Vince Graham
Chief Executive Officer, RailCorp
CONTENT:
• CityRail’s Safety and Reliability
Environment
• Progress on Random Drug & Alcohol
Testing
• Reflections on Level Crossing Safety
• What About Road?
Aviation & Railways
Much in Common
• Both very safe systems
• Reliability large component of
service package
• High consequence of safety failure
• Any safety failure is “organisational”
rarely “individual”
CityRail’s Post Waterfall
Reliability Experience
100
94.8
12 months Pre Waterfall
Last 12 months
88.9
80
73.7
Reliability %
60
45.9
40
20
0
AM Peak
PM Peak
What changed after Waterfall
• Data loggers introduced - continuous speed cameras
• Special Commission of Inquiry report identifying
Tangara deadman pedal was not fail-safe
• New national medical standards introduced
• Random Drug & Alcohol Testing
• Tighter Fatigue Limits on Drivers’ Rosters
• Driver shortage
• Station dwell times increased for passenger safety
• Stronger focus on fleet mechanical condition
• A SAFER BUT SLOWER RAILWAY
Current Status
• Vigilance control on all RailCorp passenger
trains by December 2004
• New medicals - priority group (300 drivers) complete
• FAID scores of drivers master rosters 100
down to 90
• Now 330 drivers in training - 240 graduate
next year
• New timetable under development to deliver
reliability and safety
RailCorp Random Drug and
Alcohol Results
Start Date
Number
Tested
Positive
Ratio
ALCOHOL
20 October
2003
28,033
33
1 in 850
DRUGS
26 February
2004
928
13
1 in 70
Level Crossing Incidents
in NSW (1990 – 2004)
40
Collisions Per Year
Fatalities Per Year
35
30
No. of incidents
25
20
15
10
5
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Current Level Crossing
Assessment
• Focus is on risk of a collision
• Considers multiple factors
– sighting distances road/rail
– track speeds
– road / track configuration
***Assessment is about avoiding collisions
Energy to be dissipated in a
derailment
30,000
78% increase
Energy (Units)
25,000
20,000
15,000
33% increase
10,000
5,000
-
40
60
80
10
0
Speed (kph)
12
0
14
0
16
0
Based on kinetic energy of moving train
Consequences of a Level
Crossing Derailment of a
Passenger Train influenced by:
•
•
•
•
Mass of motor vehicles
DMU or Loco hauled
Track and embankment configuration
Crash worthiness of train
So where is the ALARP trade
off?
• Improve level crossing protection - $’s
• Slower trains reduces market
competitiveness
NSW has
• As an interim measure reduced maximum
speed for CountryLink Services from 160 kph to
120 kph pending review
Energy to be dissipated in a
derailment
30,000
78% increase
Energy (Units)
25,000
20,000
15,000
33% increase
10,000
5,000
-
40
60
80
10
0
Speed (kph)
12
0
14
0
16
0
Based on kinetic energy of moving train
But what about Road?
• FAID scores for interstate truck drivers
up to 140 - unacceptable
• Mass limits increasing
• Energy to be dissipated in a collision
increasing
• No random drug testing
IS THIS ALARP?
CONCLUSIONS
SAFETY / RELIABILITY
PENDULUMS