Assessment of measures

1. Assessment of measures Potential new measures, or extended scope of existing measures

2. Agenda 1. Background 2. Assessment Methodology 3. Measure Effectiveness

3. Measures Identification • Consultation with railway industry. • Network statements. • Internet research. • Additional input: • NSAs. • Suppliers.

4. Some Background and Novel Approaches • Consultation: • More than 60 measures in our database. • In addition, many 100s / 1000s of national rules, company standards etc. • Different approaches in Member States, ranging from reliance on organisational measures through to fully integrated wayside detectors and continuous monitoring. • Some extracts: • Balance on wagons to help identify loading errors. • Heat sensitive paints to help diagnose hot axle box conditions. • Registered loading inspectors / personnel. • Harmless infrastructure. • Important longer term considerations: • Data and information sharing. • Telematics / wagon identification. • Industry challenge is to find common ground for harmonisation amongst these different approaches.

5. Existing preventive measures to reduce Infrastructure caused derailments (1) • Improved inspection routines: • Timely maintenance follow-up of inspection results. • Upgrade weak infrastructure to match present axle loads: • Freight only lines are today used for loading conditions far exceeding their design standard. • Stricter and more harmonised track geometry requirements to account for international traffic. • Move signals which may show stop aspect away from track sections with geometry not suitable for low speed braking or acceleration, or adjust track geometry to train operating conditions. Examples: • Avoid signals that can show stop aspect behind small radius curves with high cant. • Alternatively redesign track geometry or install check rails.

6. Excessivetrack twist • Picture shows a train on a track in UK that caused derailment due to excessive track twist. • Track twist restriction area by draft TSI for Conventional Rail Infrastructure for curves with R< 420 m.

7. Existing preventive measures to reduce Infrastructure caused derailments (2) • Greasing of track curves. • Interlocking of points to avoid operation while occupied by rolling stock: • Mainly at stations and shunting yards. • Increased separation of freight and passenger traffic along different lines and adjustment of track geometry design to most frequent traffic type. • Apply ”maintenance free” superstructure design e.g. fixed track/slab track.

8. Existing preventive measures to reduce Rolling stock related derailments • Measures to avoid Hot Axle Box derailments: • Wheel load impact detectors to detect faulty wheels giving excessive vibration to bearing. • Improve bearing design by applying more vibration tolerant components in bearing. • Track installed detector installations to detect faulty bearings or hot axle boxes: • Hot axle box detectors. • Bearing acoustic diagnostic. • Measures to avoid axle shaft fatigue ruptures: • Improved design standards. • Appropriate material selection. • Fault free surface corrosion protection. • Improved in service inspection in order to detect incipient failures. • Appropriate greasing of bogie pivots and side supports. • Apply improved suspension design, e.g.. parabolic blade springs instead of trapezoidal blade springs.

9. Rolling stock measures towards wheels and axles • Exchange brass roller bearings with polyamide roller cages. • Evaluate use of composite wheels vs monoblock wheels. • European Visual Inspection Catalogue for Wheelsets

10. Existing preventive measures to reduce Operational related derailments • Training of operational staff of all types. • Proper inspection, testing and check of wagons, train prior to departure: • Improved tools to ensure quality of these activities, e.g. check lists. • Improved tools to detect overloading, skew loading and/or insufficient fastened load: • Weighing devices at terminal or along track. • Visual balances on wagons. • ATP-system to avoid SPADs and excessive speed across deviated points/turnouts.

11. Consequence Mitigation Measures

12. Agenda 1. Background 2. Assessment Methodology 3. Measure Effectiveness

13. Assessment Methodology • We have used qualitative basis for assessment if the following applies: • They generally offer only small benefit in comparison with other measures, and / or; • They form part of a suite or measures that can be integrated together (for example a number of measures identified associated with rolling stock maintenance can be integrated into a single measure), and / or; • There is insufficient data to enable a more detailed assessment and therefore there would be significant uncertainty in the results. • Otherwise, measures are assessed on a quantified basis. • Some measures are outside of the project scope and have not been considered. • Accident causes and preventive measures that are already being addressed by other projects, such as (such as the Euroaxles project addressing axle shaft fractures) are also not considered.

14. Measures Assessed using a Qualitative Approach

15. Measures Assessed using a Quantified Approach

16. Quantified Assessment Parameters Considering Sliding Wheel Detectors, we identified about 8 derailments (handbrakes left on, etc.) that may be detected by these devices. (Existing controls are manual inspection, local rules and solutions). Is the benefit (potentially 8 avoided derailments) a good use of finite resources? On the one hand we need to consider the benefit and on the other the resources to secure that benefit.

17. Quantifying these Benefits (avoided Derailments) • In addition, the cost model assigns monetised benefits associated with the value of preventing a fatality or injury (€1.5 million & €200 k respectively). • Environmental contamination costs about €1,000,000 per event. • Therefore, preventing an immediately severe DG derailment that leads to loss of containment and three lives has a cost (at today’s values) of: • (3 * €1,500,000) + 0.5 * (€427,746) + 7 * (€23,256) + 50 * (€16,040) + €1,000,000 = €6,678,665. Each derailment has an impact in terms of: Potential loss of life; Operational disruption; rack damage; Wagon damage; Environmental events (contamination).

18. Quantifying the Costs To our knowledge few Sliding Wheel Detectors installed installation (in Europe). Would require installation at major freight origin points – we estimated about 1,300 units would provide good coverage. Established the cost to purchase and maintain over measure lifetime. Is the investment worthwhile?

19. Some Data

20. Agenda 1. Background 2. Assessment Methodology 3. Measure Effectiveness

21. Our Assessment of Derailment Risk Reduction Potential • A more comprehensive list of measures and benefits assessment is provided in our B2 report. • Relates to damage reduction potential, not cost.

22. Discussion Assessment relates to the potential for improvement, given the existing status of measures deployed to prevent derailments. Biggest potential for improvement relates to addressing track geometry defects, improving hot axle box detection and wheel defects. Other areas we will consider on a qualitative basis are rolling stock maintenance. However measures that do not have such a large benefit can still be efficient if they are low cost.

23. End of Session - Any Questions

24. Safeguarding life, property and the environment www.dnv.com