RMWI 4 – Risk Assessment Templates · RMWI 4 – Risk Assessment Templates RMWI 4 V1.0 150 mm ballast depth approaching fixed points – extend existing waiver to cover Broken Hill

RMWI 4 – Risk Assessment Templates

RMWI 4 V1.0

150 mm ballast depth approaching fixed points – extend existing waiver to cover Broken Hill to Parkes Resleepering project.

Establish the context

Background

Where appropriate controls were complied with, it was found that on the N-S concrete resleepering project, ballast depth approaching fixed points like - major level crossings, transom decked bridges, turnouts, etc were satisfactory with 150 mm of ballast

Risk Statement

Review existing Waiver 600/TR/150607/102 (TR/102) in use for concrete resleepering on the North/South against new SFAIRP risk assessment principles. If necessary add /modify controls.

Risk Assessment Objectives

Review the effectiveness for the controls in previous Waiver TR/102. Consider any need for improvements or revisions.

Critical Success Factors of the activity/proposal being assessed

Ability on site to provide adequate drainage at these locations. Good rail surface condition. Free draining capability of ballast.

Scope (inclusions and exclusions)

• Extension of waiver to Parkes to Broken Hill resleeper project only.

• Only for specific fixed locations and up to 20m either side of them.

• Not applicable to plain open track. • Excludes minor Cocky’s crossings, hirail takeoffs, etc. • Special consideration to be given to any fixed points near

overpasses where clearance may be an issue Stakeholders

ARTC, Transfield Services (TS) Projects, TS Maintainers, Operators,

Stakeholder consultation

ARTC and TS (P) and TS (M) consulted. Other parties to be advised.

Assumptions

Previous waiver generally worked quite well – see attached feedback from M Barrett, N Sheedy and B Taylor. Heavy duty concrete sleepers generally at 600 mm centres

Constraints

Limited knowledge of some of this track and particularly ballast and formation depth and condition. Some sites may not allow for adequate drainage? i.e. very flat so no cross fall available.

Boundaries

Parkes to Broken Hill. Fixed points e.g. Major level crossings, transom decked bridges, turnouts, etc and 20m beyond only?

Qualifications/conditions

As per waiver TR/102 – 5 in number

Reference documentation and standards

Waiver TR/102. TCS02. ARTC CoP

Other clarifying commentary How much will existing turnouts be lifted? How far out should waiver apply and how do we “taper in”?


RMWI 4 V1.0

RISK CONTROL PLAN AND SCHEDULE Nominated Risk Manager: Matthew Hart Compiled by: Matthew Hart Date: 19 November 2010 Title of Risk Assessment: 150 mm ballast depth approaching fixed points – extend existing waiver to cover Broken Hill to Parkes Resleepering project. Reviewed by: Tim Calver Date: _____________

Risk issue (in priority order from highest risk score to lowest) Proposed controls

Will controls be adopted – Y/N?

Reasons for discounting rejected options

Risk level after proposed controls

Person responsible for implementation

Expected date of implementation or review

How will this risk and the control options be monitored?

Differential settlement between

rigid fixed point and adjoining

ballasted track leads to track fault

Worst case – derailment

Most likely – additional repairs

Ensure controls of waiver

implemented – especially effective

drainage.

Drainage works in advance of

resleepering to complement

Refer RM01 Risk Assessment undertaken on 7th December 2010

Ballast depth is not sufficient to

support new axle loads leading to

increased maintenance and TSR’s


implemented

Allowances within maintenance

works program to continue to

monitor and address these sites;


Track subsides rapidly over weak

spot at fixed point leading to

TSR’s or train derailment (worst

case)


implemented

AK Car 4 monthly and weekly

inspections by hirail;

Train Control Reports from

drivers;



RMWI 4 V1.0








Following rain, mudholes form in

fouled ballast where there are

existing dipped welds and track

geometry deteriorates leading to

TSR’s and additional maintenance

work


implemented, especially good

drainage

Weld correction program planned

under project;

Significant shoulder ballast

cleaning planned under project;

Additional maintenance work and

tamping required – allowance

made within maintenance budget

to cover hotspots.


Many sections of weak track

(formation) result in too much

follow up work for maintenance

crews to handle leading to large

TSR delays, expensive reactive

tamping


implemented

Project methodology is result of

continuous improvement

throughout past few years;

Project scope to allow a third tamp

following SBC where required.

Monitoring of track condition post-

project and early action addressing

emerging issues.



RMWI 4 V1.0








Contaminated ballast results in

mudhole formation leading to

increased maintenance and TSR’s

Use SBC to allow ballast to drain.


implemented

Monitoring of track condition post-

project and early action addressing

emerging issues;

New ballast that is added and

blended with old meets

specification and is on the larger

side.


Risk Assessment held at ARTC/Transfield Productivity Works Office, BowdenPresent: Matthew Hart, Katrina Li, Tim Calver (ARTC), David Temby, Don Ristevski, David Harding (Transfield Services)Context: Initial context setting and risk brainstorming held on 19th November 2010 (refer separate Context Setting document)

1.0 Risk No.

1.01Element or Category

(column may be "hidden"

1.1Hazard or scenario or

circumstance

1.2Caused by

2.0 Existing Control

2.01Control type

2.2Current

consequence

2.3Current

likelihood

2.4Current risk

level

5.0Has this workshop adequately addressed this risk?

5.2Comments / clarification

Ensure controls of waiver implemented - especially effective drainage

Engineering/ Design Yes

Drainage works with the resleepering to complement the works Engineering/ Design

Existing track inspection regime & driver reports through TCRs may pick up faults early

Administrative

Speed restriction Administrative

3.1 BENEFIT

3.2COST

3.3Decision

3.4Responsible

Party

3.5By when

1.0 Risk No.

1.01Element or Category



circumstance

1.2Caused by


2.01Control type

2.2Current

consequence

2.3Current

likelihood

2.4Current risk

level



Ensure controls of waiver implemented Engineering/ Design Yes

Allowances within maintenance works program to continue to monitor and address these sites

Engineering/ Design

Existing track inspection regime & driver reports through TCRs may pick up faults early

Administrative

3.1 BENEFIT

3.2COST

3.3Decision

3.4Responsible

Party

3.5By when

Investigate the use of Geogrids with drainage work Engineering/ Design Minimal Moderate Investigate Transfield/ARTC

During the works

Investigate the tightening of sleeper spacing Engineering/ Design Minimal Minimal Investigate ARTC Prior to works

2. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 5. VALIDATION AND CLARIFICATION1.0

Risk No.1.01

Element or Category



circumstance

1.2Caused by

1.3Leading to an Outcome


2.01Control type

2.1Responsible

Party / Comments

2.2Current

consequence

2.3Current

likelihood

2.4Current risk

level



Ensure controls of waiver implemented Engineering/ DesignYes

AK Car 4 monthly and weekly inspections by hirail Engineering/ Design

Train Control Reports from drivers Administrative

3.1 BENEFIT

3.2COST

3.3Decision

3.4Responsible

Party

3.5By when


Risk No.1.01

Element or Category



circumstance

1.2Caused by



2.01Control type

2.1Responsible

Party / Comments

2.2Current

consequence

2.3Current

likelihood

2.4Current risk

level



Weld correction program planned under project and was undertaken 4 years ago

Engineering/ DesignYes

Significant shoulder ballast cleaning planned under project Engineering/ Design

Additional maintenance work and tamping required - allowance made within maintenance budget to cover hotspots

Engineering/ Design

Drainage work conducted in the project Engineering/ Design

3.1 BENEFIT

3.2COST

3.3Decision

3.4Responsible

Party

3.5By when

3.01Control type

SFAIRP TEST 4.0Revised

consequence

ARTC/Transfield

3. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RISK TREATMENT 5.1Do the decisions make sense?

3.0 Proposed Additional Control

4. RESCORE TO REFLECT SFAIRP OUTCOMES

ARTC to review AK car corrugation report & define worst sections

Minor Unlikely L

Resleepering Methodology

4 Track Deterioration of track geometry at fixed points

Poor rail weld geometry i.e. dipped/peaked welds

4.1Revised

likelihood

4.2Revised risk

levelIncreased maintenance/TSR's

Most Likely (Credible) Outcome

Worst Case (Credible) Outcome

1. RISK IDENTIFICATION

TSR's Derailment

3. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RISK TREATMENT


3.01Control type


consequence

Group determined this risk is the same as risk 1

4.1Revised

likelihood

5.1Do the decisions make sense?4. RESCORE TO REFLECT SFAIRP OUTCOMES

#REF!


3 Track Track FaultTrack subsides rapidly over weak spot at fixed point



4.2Revised risk

level

Significant increase of maintenance/TSR's

3. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RISK TREATMENT 5.1Do the decisions make sense?4. RESCORE TO REFLECT SFAIRP OUTCOMES


3.01Control type


consequence

4.1Revised

likelihood

ARTC/Transfield

Early detection & remediation will minimize impact

Minor Likely M

The group has assessed this risk as being SFAIRP, the medium risk level is

accepted due to prohibitive cost of lifting fixed points (to allow full ballast depth). Operational and safety risks

have been evaluated as being low, with the consequence rating due to

Financial considerations.

4.2Revised risk

level

Not rescoring as investigating only


2.1Responsible Party / Comments

2 Track Track FaultBallast depth not sufficient to support new axle loads




Small increase of maintenance/TSR's

1. RISK IDENTIFICATION 2. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 5. VALIDATION AND CLARIFICATION

1 Track Track Fault


consequence

4.1Revised

likelihood

4.2Revised risk

level

Unlikely L

Based on the derailment consequence will be moderate


3. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RISK TREATMENT 5.1Do the decisions make sense?


Moderate

Differential settlement between rigid fixed point and adjoining ballasted track where less than standard ballast depth is installed.



Additional Repairs Derailment



3.01Control type

5. VALIDATION AND CLARIFICATION1.3

Leading to an Outcome2.1

Responsible Party / Comments

SFAIRP Risk Assessment 7/12/210 - Ballast Depth At Fixed Points

1. RISK IDENTIFICATION 2. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

Pg 1 of 2 Risk Assessment - Engineering Waivers


Risk No.1.01

Element or Category



circumstance

1.2Caused by



2.01Control type

2.1Responsible

Party / Comments

2.2Current

consequence

2.3Current

likelihood

2.4Current risk

level



Ensure controls of waiver implemented Engineering/ DesignYes

Project methodology is a result of continuous improvement throughout the past few years

Engineering/ Design

Project scope to allow a third tamp following Shoulder Ballast Clean where required

Engineering/ Design

Monitoring of track condition post-project and early action addressing emerging issues

Engineering/ Design

3.1 BENEFIT

3.2COST

3.3Decision

3.4Responsible

Party

3.5By when


Risk No.1.01

Element or Category



circumstance

1.2Caused by



2.01Control type

2.1Responsible

Party / Comments

2.2Current

consequence

2.3Current

likelihood

2.4Current risk

level



Use SBC to allow ballast to drain Engineering/ DesignYes

Ensure controls of waiver implemented Engineering/ Design

Monitoring of track condition post-project and early action addressing emerging issues

Engineering/ Design

New ballast that is added and blended with existing meets specification and is on the larger side

Engineering/ Design

3.1 BENEFIT

3.2COST

3.3Decision

3.4Responsible

Party

3.5By when


Risk No.1.01

Element or Category



circumstance

1.2Caused by



2.01Control type

2.1Responsible

Party / Comments

2.2Current

consequence

2.3Current

likelihood

2.4Current risk

level



Yes

3.1 BENEFIT

3.2COST

3.3Decision

3.4Responsible

Party

3.5By when

5.1Do the decisions make sense?4. RESCORE TO REFLECT SFAIRP OUTCOMES


7

4.0Revised

consequence

4.1Revised

likelihood

SFAIRP TEST

#REF!

4.2Revised risk

level





3.01Control type

Controls of waiver require removal of contaminated ballast

ARTC/Transfield

ARTC3. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RISK TREATMENT 5.1

Do the decisions make sense?

4.2Revised risk

level



Note that SBC may not be fully effective around fixed points

Minor Possible L

4.0Revised

consequence

4.1Revised

likelihood

3.01Control type

SFAIRP TEST

6 Track Mudhole Formation at fixed points Contaminated ballast



Increased Maintenance/TSR's


Expensive reactive tamping

Large TSR Delays



3.01Control type

SFAIRP TEST

Group determined this risk is the same as risk 25.1

Do the decisions make sense?4. RESCORE TO REFLECT SFAIRP OUTCOMES

4.2Revised risk

level


5 Track Track Fault

Weak track (formation) at fixed points resulting in too much follow up work for maintenance

4.0Revised

consequence

4.1Revised

likelihood

#REF!Most Likely (Credible) Outcome


Pg 2 of 2 Risk Assessment - Engineering Waivers

Documents

RMWI 4 – Risk Assessment Templates · RMWI 4 – Risk Assessment Templates RMWI 4 V1.0 150 mm ballast depth approaching fixed points – extend existing waiver to cover Broken Hill