Bull Profile
ofile
isk Pr lletin Risk ulletin
R
in
t
ulle rofile Bu Profile B
file B
Risk
k Pro etin Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin file
is
R
le
in
o
u
ll
t
r
fi
u
B
e
P
o
B
ll
r
k
le
u
P
fi
le
is
B
ofile Risk Profi Risk Pro lletin Risk Bulletin R Bulletin
r
P
k
Ris
tin
k
file
ofile
lletin rofile Bu
Bulle
le Bu
k Pro
in Ris
isk Pr
ulletin
file B isk Profile Risk Profi etin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin R file Bullet rofile
o
r
P
P
Risk
Bull Profile B k Profile
tin R Bulletin
k Pro tin Risk
Bulle
rofile
le
k
in Ris
is
ulletin
lle
ulletin
file B isk Profile Risk Profi etin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin R file Bullet Profile Bu Profile B Risk
o
r
P
R
o
k
k
B
ll
in
r
le
k
in
t
is
is
u
t
P
in
fi
e
le
is
t
R
R
B
e
o
ll
fi
k
e
ll
R
r
u
ulletin rofile Bull Profile B isk Profile in Risk Pro tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin file Bulletin Profile Bu k Profile
le
e
P
file B
k
R
is
B
t
k Pro etin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin ofile Bulle rofile Bull k Profile Risk Profi Risk Pro lletin Risk Bulletin R Bulletin
is
R
Ris
kP
k
ofile Risk Pr
ofile
etin le Bulletin rofile Bu k Profile
lletin rofile Bull Profile B
is
r
r
in
ll
u
t
P
R
P
u
B
e
k
k
B
ll
in
in Ris
t
Profile tin Risk P lletin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profi tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin Ris file Bullet rofile
k
is
R
B
P
r
R
k
B
u
lle
ro
ofi
lle
in
ulletin Profile Bu k Profile B isk Profile tin Risk Pr etin Risk P ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu isk Profile isk Profile tin Risk P lletin Risk ulleti
R
file B
u
R
B
e
k Pro lletin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bull k Profile Risk Profi in Risk Pro lletin Risk Bulletin R Bulletin rofile Bull Profile B k Profile B Ri
le
k
r
t
B
is
is
u
le
u
tin
P
file B isk Profile Risk Profi etin Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin R file Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile B isk Profile Risk Profi etin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin R file Bulle Profi
r
R
k
B
u
ll
ro
o
ll
in
R
P
k
le
r
is
u
t
le
in
B
P
u
t
in
fi
le
e
P
fi
k
R
is
B
t
B
e
in
k
o
ll
fi
le
o
e
t
R
k
is
ll
r
r
u
o
fi
ll
is
le
in
u
r
R
le
t
is
P
B
o
u
fi
R
file
B
Risk P
ulletin
Risk
Bulle
Bulle
lletin
file B
k Pro
etin R
isk Pr
Risk P
rofile
ofile
k Pro
lletin
sk Pr ulletin Ris Bulletin R le Bulletin rofile Bull Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Pro tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin le Bulletin Profile Bu k Profile B isk Profile tin R
in
fi
e
le
P
k
is
fi
t
R
R
B
e
B
o
ll
fi
k
le
e
o
ll
R
is
k
r
u
r
o
fi
ll
rofile Risk Pro in Risk P lletin Ris Bulletin R le Bulletin rofile Bu Profile B isk Profile Risk Pr tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin le Bulletin rofile Bu k Pr
P
u
t
in
fi
le
e
P
fi
ulletin ofile Bulle k Profile B isk Profile Risk Pro etin Risk ulletin Risk Bulletin R file Bullet rofile Bull k Profile B Risk Profi Risk Pro lletin Risk Bulletin Ris Bu
o
ll
r
in
R
P
is
u
le
in
r
t
is
B
u
t
P
in
fi
le
file
R
B
P
e
k
t
R
e
B
in
fi
o
ll
k
le
e
t
ll
k
is
r
o
u
le
in
ll
fi
r
t
P
R
tin
fi
u
B
o
Ris
Bu
file
Ris
k Pro lletin
ulle
Risk
Bulle
Bulle
k Pro
Risk P
isk Pr
k Pro
rofile
ulletin
rofile
ofile B
file B
lletin
in Ris
Profile Risk Pro tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin R file Bulletin Profile Bu k Profile B Risk Profiletin Risk Pr etin Risk P Bulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu isk P
B
e
k
o
ll
fi
le
o
e
tin
Bulle rofile Bull isk Profile Risk Profi in Risk Pr lletin Risk Bulletin Ris le Bulletin rofile Bull Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Pro tin Risk Pr ulletin Ris Bulletin R le B
u
t
in
fi
le
R
B
P
e
k
t
R
e
B
in
fi
o
ll
kP
le
e
t
ll
k
is
r
o
u
le
in
ll
fi
e
in
is
u
le
r
t
P
R
Profi
is
t
fi
u
B
o
ll
R
B
fi
e
P
e
r
u
n
Bull
k Pro etin Risk lletin Risk Bulle
k Pro tin Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin R le Bulletin rofile Bull k Profile B isk Profile
file B isk Profile
is
le
is
o
R
fi
r
R
o
P
r
in
kP
Risk ulletin R le Bulletin file Bulle rofile Bu k Profile Risk Profi in Risk P lletin Ris ulletin R le Bullet rofile Bull Profile Bu isk Profile Risk
t
is
P
B
o
lletin
u
kP
isk
lletin
tin R
Profi
le Bu k Profile B Risk Profi in Risk Pr etin Risk Bulletin R le Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile B k Profile
Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin R file Bulle Profile Bu Profile
t
ll
k
is
r
in
fi
e
in
is
u
le
t
P
R
is
t
o
ll
R
B
fi
e
e
r
R
o
k
u
B
ll
o
in
r
ll
P
le
k
r
t
B
is
is
u
le
in
u
P
fi
t
k
is
fi
tin
R k Bull
R
B
lle
Risk
Profile
k Pro
Risk P
Bulle
k Pro
ofile B
lletin
Profile
lletin
etin R
le Bu
rofile
tin Ris
isk Pr lletin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profi tin Risk P ulletin Risk Bulletin Ris le Bulletin rofile Bull Profile Bu isk Profile Ri
R
B
R
k
u
B
k
ofi
lle
Pr
etin
rofi
le
kP
tin
ofile B isk Profile tin Risk Pr lletin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profi tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin Ris file Bulletin rofile Bull Profi
R
B
fi
e
P
e
r
R
o
k
k
u
B
ll
o
in
r
ll
P
le
k
r
t
B
is
is
u
le
in
u
P
in
fi
t
e
le
P
k
is
fi
t
R
R
B
B
o
ll
fi
k
le
le
o
R
is
k
r
u
o
fi
lle
rofile
isk Pr
ulletin
in Ris
etin R
k Pro
le Bu k Profile B Risk Profiletin Risk Pr etin Risk P Bulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bulletin Profile Bu
Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin R file Bullet rofile Bull Profile B Risk Profi
ull
lle
isk
le
rofi Risk Pro
Ris
tin
B
u
fi
P
e
o
B
k
o
in
ll
P
r
le
k
t
r
B
is
u
le
in
P
fi
e
le
k
P
is
t
fi
ulletin
R
B
etin R
o
ll
fi
rofile Risk Pro etin Risk
tin Ris Bulletin rofile Bulle Profile Bu k Profile Risk Pro tin Risk Pr lletin Risk Bulletin R le Bulletin rofile Bull k Profile B k Pro
e
ll
u
ll
B
is
is
u
le
in
u
P
in
fi
t
e
le
P
k
is
fi
t
R
R
B
B
e
o
ll
fi
k
le
e
o
R
is
k
r
ll
u
r
o
fi
ll
in
is
le
in
R
P
le
r
u
is
t
t
B
P
o
fi
lletin
Risk
Bulle Profile Bu k Profile Risk Profi tin Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin R file Bulletin ofile Bulle k Profile
etin R
isk Pr
k Pro
e
k
is
r
n Ris Bulletin R le Bulletin rofile Bull Profile Bu isk Profile
u
o
ll
is
le
in
r
R
P
t
is
B
u
fi
R
P
e
R
k
o
B
in
ll
Pr
file
et
le
k
P
isk
tin
Ris
fi
ulleti
R
Bu
etin
Profile Risk Pro lletin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bull k Profile Risk Profi in Risk Pro lletin Risk Bulletin R Bulletin rofile Bull Profile B k P
le
k
r
t
B
is
is
u
le
in
u
P
in
fi
t
e
le
P
k
is
fi
t
R
R
B
Ris
Pro
Bull
ulle
file
Risk
Profi
etin
Bulle k Profile B isk Profile Risk Pro etin Risk
tin R
etin
ulletin rofile Bull k Profile B isk Profile Risk Pro etin Risk ulletin Risk Bulletin ofile Bulle rofile Bull k Profile
ll
R
in
is
B
u
t
R
B
e
in
le
t
ll
fi
ll
is
e
le
in
in
r
P
R
Bu
et
Ris
ull
kP
ofile isk Pro
tin R le Bullet rofile Bu Profile B isk Profi
Risk P tin Risk
Bulle
lletin
rofile
R
ulletin
in Ris
isk Pr
Bulle
ofile B
sk Pr etin Risk P Bulletin R le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu k Profile Risk Profi tin Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin R file Bulletin ofile Bulle k Profile B isk Profile Risk
e
o
R
is
k
r
ll
u
r
o
fi
e Bu isk Profile Risk Pro in Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin R le Bulletin rofile Bull Profile B isk Profile Risk Pr tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin le Bulletin Profi
fi
le
e
P
fi
k
R
B
tin
R
B
et
in
lletin file Bullet rofile Bull k Profile isk Profile Risk Pro lletin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin ofile Bulle rofile Bull k Profile Risk Profi in Risk Pro lletin Risk Bul
R
P
is
u
le
in
r
t
is
B
o
u
t
P
in
fi
r
R
B
P
e
k
t
R
e
B
in
o
ll
P
k
le
e
t
ll
k
is
r
u
le
in
Profile
Ris
kP
Bull
llet
ofile
in R
rofi
Risk lletin Ris le Bulletin file Bulle rofile Bu
Profi
le B
u
isk Pr etin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profi tin Risk P ulletin Risk ulletin Ris
file B Risk Profi in Risk Pro etin Risk P Bulletin R
B
o
ll
B
e
fi
r
R
k
B
u
ll
r
o
in
P
file B
et
ull
le
isk Pr etin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profile tin Risk P
Profile
tin
Bulle rofile Bull Profile B Risk Profi in Risk Pro etin Risk Bulletin R
ulle rofile B
Bull Profile B isk Profi Risk Pro tin Risk ulletin R Bulletin
B
P
k
le
t
ll
le
fi
e
in
is
u
k
le
t
fi
o
ll
R
B
fi
e
P
is
B
R
ro
ulle ofile Bu
Pro in Risk
file
tin
k Pr etin Risk
file
tin R Bulletin
Bull
Risk
r
Profile
etin R
Bulle
t
k Pro
Risk P
Bulle
ofile
k Pro
in Ris
ofile B
rofile in Risk Pr etin Risk P ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet rofile Bull k Profile isk Profile in Risk Pr lletin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin ofile Bulle rofile Bull isk P
r
R
P
t
is
P
t
B
o
ll
u
fi
R
fi
B
r
Bulle rofile Bu
k Pro etin Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin file
ofile
k Pro tin Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin R le Bulletin rofile Bulle k Profile B isk Profile
u
le
ll
fi
e
isk Pr
u
kP
le
ro
tin Ris
P
R
is
tin Ris
in Ris Bulletin R file Bulle rofile Bull k Profile B Risk Profi in Risk Pro etin Risk Bulletin R Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bu k Profile B Risk Profi tin Risk P etin
ll
P
ll
e
le
r
t
k
ro
is
in
Profile tin Risk P lletin Risk ulletin Ris file Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profi tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin R file Bullet rofile Bull Profile Bu Risk
P
B
R
k
u
o
B
k
o
in
lle
lle
Pr
le Bu k Profile B isk Profile tin Risk Pr etin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profile tin Risk Pr lletin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin rofil
R
B
fi
is
e
ro
k
ull
ulle
Profi
file B
etin
le Bu
isk P
tin R
etin R le Bulletin rofile Bull Profile B isk Profile in Risk Pro etin Risk P ulletin Ris
Bulle rofile Bull k Profile B Risk Profi Risk Pro lletin Risk Bulletin R Bullet
k
le
P
t
fi
ll
R
B
fi
e
is
k
o
u
o
ll
in
r
R
P
le
r
is
u
t
le
in
is
B
u
t
in
fi
le
e
P
fi
k
R
B
t
R
B
e
in
o
ll
fi
le
o
kP
e
t
k
is
ll
r
r
u
o
fi
ll
e
le
in
in
u
le
r
R
P
t
is
P
t
Bull
ulle
tin Ri
Profi
file B
etin
le Bu
k Pro
Profi
isk P
tin R
Risk
file B
Risk
Bulle
ofile B isk Profile Risk Pro lletin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin ofile Bulle rofile Bull k Profile Risk Profi in Risk Pro lletin Risk Bulletin R Bulletin rofile Bulle Pro
R
P
k
B
is
u
le
u
P
in
file
tin
et
le
Pr
ulletin ofile Bulle k Profile B isk Profile Risk Profi etin Risk ulletin Risk Bulletin R file Bullet rofile Bull k Profile B Risk Profi Risk Pro lletin Risk Bulletin Ris Bull
o
ll
in
isk Pr ulletin Ris Bulletin R le Bulletin Profile Bu k Profile B isk Profile in Risk Pr etin Risk P ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu isk Profile isk Profile tin
R
B
B
k
is
R
ro
k
lle
ull
file
ofi
llet
rofi
in R
Profile Risk Pro tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin R file Bulletin Profile Bu k Profile B isk Profile tin Risk Pr etin Risk P ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu isk P
R
B
B
e
o
ll
fi
k
le
tin
e
o
R
is
k
r
ll
u
r
o
fi
ll
e
is
le
in
R
P
le
r
u
is
t
B
P
o
ll
u
in
fi
R
fi
r
P
B
t
e
k
R
u
B
o
k
o
ll
tin
k
B
Bulle
Risk P
Profile
le Bu
rofile
isk Pr
ulletin
tin Ris
le Bu
isk Pr
Bulle
ulletin
tin Ris
in Ris
Profile
Risk Bulletin R le Bulletin file Bulle Profile B isk Profile Risk Profi etin Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin R file Bullet rofile Bulle k Profile B Risk Profile Risk Profi etin
o
k
ll
u
fi
o
ll
r
in
R
P
is
u
le
le
in
r
t
is
B
o
u
t
P
in
fi
fi
r
R
B
P
e
k
t
Pro
Risk
Bulle
file B
isk P
etin R
rofile
k Pro etin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin file Bulle rofile Bull k Profile Risk
ulletin
o
ll
etin R le Bulletin rofile Bull Profile B isk Profile in Risk Pro etin Risk P ulletin Ris
is
le
P
r
B
ll
u
in
fi
R
P
t
k
u
B
o
e
le
r
k
B
is
in
ll
fi
t
P
k
R
is
t
e
u
fi
ll
B
Profile
k Pro
Risk
Bulle
Risk P
Bulle
etin R
ofile
lletin
file B
le Bu
ofile
k Pro
etin R
tin Ris
n Ris le Bulletin ofile Bulle rofile Bull isk Profile Risk Profi in Risk Pr lletin Risk Bulletin Ris le Bulletin rofile Bull Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Pro tin Risk Pr ulle
u
t
P
in
fi
fi
r
R
B
P
e
k
t
R
e
B
in
o
o
ll
P
k
le
e
t
ll
k
is
r
r
Ris
kP
Bull
lletin
ofile
in R
rofile
Profi
sk P etin Risk lletin Ris le Bulletin file Bulle rofile Bu
le Bu
isk Pr etin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profi tin Risk P ulletin Ris
P
fi
ro
Bu
R
ull
k
o
P
B
r
is
le
in
k
P
t
fi
o
ll
R
B
e
le
fi
e
is
r
R
k
k
o
B
u
fi
o
ll
R
l
ull
tin
isk Pr
ulletin
le Bu
Risk P
tin Ris
isk Pr
Profile
tin Ris
Bulle Profile B isk Profile Risk Profi
ofile B
lletin
ulletin
etin R ofile Bulle Profile Bu k Profile B Risk Profi in Risk Pr etin Risk Bulletin R le Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile B k Profile
isk
ul
in R Bulletin
R
B
t
e
t
ll
k
is
r
r
le
in
ll
fi
e
in
is
u
k
le
t
P
P
R
is
t
fi
u
o
ll
R
B
fi
e
ro
ulle ofile Bu
Pro in R
k Pr etin Risk
file
tin R Bulletin
Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin
Bull
file B k Profile
Risk
Risk P
Bulle
k Pro
ofile B
Pr
ll
et
le
rofile
tin Ris
k Pro
ofile B isk Profile tin Risk Pr lletin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profi tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin Ris le Bulletin rofile Bull Pro
fi
fi
P
R
B
r
e
e
R
k
u
o
B
k
o
in
ll
ll
P
r
le
k
t
r
B
is
is
u
le
u
in
in
P
fi
e
le
k
t
P
is
t
R
fi
R
B
B
o
ll
le
fi
e
ll
Ris
Pr
isk
le
ro
tin
isk
Bu
ofi
ulle
tin
Pro
in R
file
isk Pr etin Risk Bulletin R le Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile B isk Profile Risk Profi etin Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin R file Bullet ofile Bulle k Profile B
k Pro
k
r
ll
u
n Ris Bulletin R
r
o
fi
ll
is
le
in
R
P
le
r
u
is
t
B
isk P
ulle
file
etin
tin R
Profi
k Pro
le Bu
Profi
Risk
isk P
tin R
ulletin
file B
Profile Risk Pro lletin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin R ofile Bulle Profile Bull k Profile B Risk Profi in Risk Pro lletin Risk Bulletin R Bulletin rofile Bulle Profile B k Pr
le
k
t
r
B
is
is
u
le
u
in
in
P
fi
e
le
k
t
P
is
t
R
fi
R
B
B
o
ll
le
fi
e
k
e
is
R
r
o
k
u
fi
ll
o
ll
r
in
R
P
is
le
le
in
r
B
u
t
P
fi
fi
ro
R
k
tin
Ris
Bu
llet
Risk
Bulle
Risk P
k Pro
k Pro
ulletin
Bulle
lletin
ofile B
in Ris
rofile
lletin
Risk P
Profile
le Bu
tin Ris Bulletin le Bulletin Profile Bu k Profile B isk Profile tin Risk Pr etin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profi tin Risk P ullet
R
B
e
is
ro
R
k
k
ofi
B
ull
lle
file
ofi
k Pro in Risk Pr ulletin Ris Bulletin R le Bulletin rofile Bull k Profile B isk Profile in Risk Pr etin Risk P ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bulletin Profile Bu k Profile isk
t
P
Bulle k Profile B isk Profile Risk Profi etin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin R file Bullet rofile Bull k Profile B Risk Profi Risk Pro etin Risk Bulletin Ris Bulletin R ofil
R
P
ro
tin
B
is
is
ull
le
ull
Pr
in
file
tin
etin R le Bulletin file Bulle k Profile B isk Profile Risk Profi etin Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin R file Bullet rofile Bulle k Profile B Risk Profile Risk Pro etin Risk ulle
o
u
fi
o
ll
r
R
P
r
is
le
in
is
B
o
u
t
in
P
r
etin
P
fi
k
R
Bull Profile B
t
R
B
e
ll
le
o
e
tin
k
is
ll
r
u
fi
ll
e
le
in
u
le
R
t
is
P
B
o
ll
u
fi
sk P tin Risk Bulletin
fi
B
r
e
R
u
o
B
k
Ris
Ris
Bull
k Pr
etin
isk P
Risk
rofile
ofile
k Pro
ulletin
file B
lle
ofile
le Bu isk Profile Risk Pro tin Risk Pr ulletin Ris Bulletin R le Bulletin Profile Bull k Profile B isk Profile in Risk Pr etin Risk P ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bulletin Pro
fi
t
R
R
B
in
B
e
o
ll
fi
k
le
t
e
o
is
k
r
ll
u
r
o
fi
ll
e
in
is
le
in
R
P
le
r
u
is
t
t
B
P
o
ll
u
fi
R
fi
r
P
e
B
e
k
R
u
B
tin
k
B
ro
is
ull
isk
ull
file
tin
Pro
kP
tin
Bulle
Profile
rofile
le Bu
etin R
Profile
file B
k Pro
Risk
Bulle
tin Ris
Risk P
Bulle
etin R
in Ris
Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin file Bullet rofile Bull k Profile Risk Profile Risk Pro lletin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bull isk Profile Risk Profi in R
le
le
in
r
is
u
B
o
u
t
P
in
fi
fi
r
R
P
e
k
t
R
B
ll t
Risk
Bulle
Risk
k Pro
k Pro
ulletin
Bulle
ofile
lletin
ofile B
in Ris
r
lletin
Risk P
Profile
le Bu
tin Ris Bulletin le Bulletin Profile Bu k Profile B isk Profile tin Risk Pr etin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profi tin Risk P
e
ll
u
B
Ris
Pro
isk
ulle rofile B
tin R file Bulle ofile Bull Profile B isk Profi
in R Bulletin
rofile Risk Profi tin Risk
k
R
B
t
e
in
P
e
t
is
ll
ll
e
le
in
k
u
R
t
ll
u
fi
is
P
B
r
e
B
tin
ro
Bu
isk
ulle
Pro in Risk
file
kP
tin
nR
tin R
file
Bull
Bulle
Risk
Profile
k Pro
t
Risk P
Bulle
etin R
Bulle
in Ris
ofile B
ofile
lletin
Profile
k Pro
rofile in Risk Pr etin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet rofile Bull k Profile Risk Profile in Risk Pr lletin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin rofile Bulle Profile Bu isk
is
t
t
B
P
o
ll
u
fi
R
fi
r
P
e
B
e
k
R
u
B
o
k
in
o
ll
P
ll
le
r
t
k
B
r
is
in
u
is
u
fi
le
in
e
t
P
k
le
P
R
is
t
fi
B
o
ll
R
B
e
le
fi
r
R
k
k
o
u
fi
o
lle
e
Ris
ull
tin
k Pro
isk Pr
ulletin
le Bu
Risk P
tin Ris
isk Pr
Profile
tin Ris
Bulle Profile B isk Profile
ofile B
lletin
ulletin
tin Ris Bulletin R ofile Bulle Profile Bu k Profile B Risk Profi tin Risk Pr lletin Risk Bulletin R le Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile B k Profile
k
R
is
k
is
r
r
ulleti
in R
lletin
fi
Profile etin Risk P lletin Risk ulletin Ris file Bulletin rofile Bulle Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Pro tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin R file Bullet Profile Bu Profile B Ris
B
e
k
R
u
B
o
k
in
o
ll
P
ll
le
r
t
k
B
r
is
in
u
file B isk Profile Risk Profileetin Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin Ris file Bulletinrofile Bulle Profile Bu isk Profile Risk Profi etin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin R file Bullet Profi
R
u
o
B
k
o
in
ll
ll
letin R le Bulletin Profile Bu k Profile B isk Profile in Risk Pr etin Risk P ulletin Ris le Bulletin file Bullet Profile Bu k Profile Risk Profile tin Risk Pr lletin Risk ulle
B
R
B
fi
is
et
ro
Ris
k
k
ull
Bu
ofi
lle
sk Pr ulletin Ris Bulletin R le Bulletin rofile Bull k Profile B isk Profile in Risk Pro etin Risk P ulletin Ris le Bulletin file BulletinProfile Bu k Profile isk Profile tin R
P
R
is
t
fi
B
o
ll
R
B
e
le
fi
e
is
r
R
k
k
o
u
ll
fi
o
ll
in
r
R
P
le
r
is
u
t
le
in
is
B
o
u
t
in
P
r
fi
e
P
fi
k
R
B
t
R
B
e
in
o
Risk P lletin Risk Bulletin file Bullet rofile Bull k Profile Risk Profile Risk Pro lletin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bull isk Profile Risk Pro
u
ulletin file Bwww.rssb.co.uk
kP
rofile Risk Pro
tin Ris Bulletin file Bulletin Profile Bu k Profile B Risk Profile tin Risk Pr etin Risk Bulletin R le Bulletin
o
r
tin Ris
P
Risk P
in
Bulle
Risk
lletin file Bullet rofile Bulle k Profile Risk Profile Risk Pro lletin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bull k Profile Risk Profi
u
B
Profile Risk Pro tin Risk P ulletin Ris Bulletin le Bulletin Profile Bu k Profile B isk Profile tin Risk Pr etin Risk ulletin Ris le Bulletin
fi
R
B
B
le
e
tin
k Pro lletin Risk ulletin Ris Bulletin ofile Bulle Profile Bull k Profile Risk Profi
Bulle rofile Bull k Profile Risk Profi
B
is
is
le
u
in
tin Ris
P
Pr
k
Safety Risk Model
Risk Profile Bulletin
Version 7
August 2011
A profile of safety risk on the GB mainline railway
FWI /
year
Fatalities / year
Major injuries /
year
RIDDORreportable minor
injuries / year
Non-RIDDORreportable minor
injuries / year
Class 1
shock/trauma /
year
Class 2
shock/trauma /
year
Total risk by accident category
Train accidents (excl. POS)
8.1
6.1
15.0
104.4
9.2
1.3
3.0
Movement accidents
(excl. POS and trespass)
21.4
11.2
56.8
346.0
1713.5
172.5
170.5
Non-movement accidents
(excl. POS and trespass)
54.2
5.8
317.3
1534.7
7610.2
12.0
1397.0
Inside possession (POS)
8.6
2.0
50.8
91.5
989.4
2.4
4.7
Trespass
48.6
45.7
27.0
20.0
10.4
28.6
0.4
Total
140.9
70.7
466.9
2096.6
10332.7
216.8
1575.6
Accident category
(POS = inside possession)
Total risk by person category
Major injuries /
year
Class 1
shock/trauma /
year
Class 2
shock/trauma /
year
FWI/year
% Change from
SRMv6.5 to
SRMv7
Passenger
52.0
10.4
286.1
1411.3
5245.9
1.7
600.0
50.5
+3%
Workforce
27.2
4.4
128.8
605.6
4906.5
214.8
942.4
29.6
-8%
MOP
61.7
55.9
52.0
79.8
180.2
0.2
33.2
60.6
+2%
Total
140.9
70.7
466.9
2096.6
10332.7
216.8
1575.6
140.6
+0.2%
RIDDORreportable
minor injuries /
year
Non-RIDDORreportable
minor injuries /
year
Person
category
Fatalities / year
SRMv6.5
FWI/year
SRMv7
Total risk to each person category from each accident category
SRMv7
Hazardous
event
SRMv6.5
Total
FWI/year
Passenger
FWI/year
Workforce
FWI/year
MOP
FWI/year
Total
FWI/year
% Change
from v6.5
to v7
HET
8.4
3.2
1.3
3.9
8.4
-0.3%
HEM
59.4
10.5
6.1
42.8
57.5
+3%
HEN
73.1
38.3
19.8
15.0
74.7
-2%
Total
140.9
52.0
27.2
61.7
140.6
+0.2%
Note 1: The direct risk from suicide and attempted suicide has been excluded, however all secondary risk
associated with suicide has been included.
Note 2: Some totals may not appear to add up correctly within the tables due to effects of rounding.
Safety Risk Model: Risk Profile Bulletin, version 7
This report is issued by RSSB.
If you would like to give feedback on any of the material contained in this report,
please contact:
George Bearfield
RSSB
Block 2, Angel Square
1 Torrens Street
London EC1V 1NY
020 3142 5464
risk@rssb.co.uk
© RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD LTD. 2011 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
This publication may be reproduced free of charge for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation.
This is subject to it being reproduced and referenced accurately and not being used in a misleading context. The material must
be acknowledged as the copyright of RSSB and the title of the publication specified accordingly. For any other use of the
material please apply to RSSB for permission. This publication can be accessed via the RSSB Rail Risk Portal at
www.safetyriskmodel.co.uk.
Printed August 2011
This page has been intentionally left blank
ii
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................xi 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................1 2 SRM Objectives and Overview ..................................................................................4 3 4 2.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Key assumptions and exclusions ............................................................................. 5 SRMv7 Update Strategy .............................................................................................6 3.1 Overview of the SRMv7 update ................................................................................. 6 3.2 Significant modelling and scope changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5 .................... 6 3.3 Significant changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7 ......................................................... 7 3.4 RSSB RIDDOR review ................................................................................................. 7 Total Risk on the Mainline Railway ..........................................................................9 4.1 Overall profile .............................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Risk by ASPR hazard categorisation ...................................................................... 13 4.2.1 5 Detailed Risk Profiles ..............................................................................................18 5.1 5.2 6 Discussion .................................................................................................... 14 Risk by accident type ............................................................................................... 18 5.1.1 Train accidents (HETs) ................................................................................ 18 5.1.2 Movement accidents (HEMs) ...................................................................... 20 5.1.3 Non-movement accidents (HENs) .............................................................. 22 5.1.4 Trespass accidents ...................................................................................... 24 Risk by person category .......................................................................................... 26 5.2.1 Passenger risk.............................................................................................. 26 5.2.2 Workforce risk .............................................................................................. 28 5.2.3 Public risk ..................................................................................................... 30 HLOS Safety Metrics ................................................................................................32 6.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 32 6.2 Changes to the baseline HLOS safety metrics ...................................................... 32 6.3 Progress against the HLOS safety metrics ............................................................ 33 7 Strategic Safety Plan Key Risk Areas ....................................................................36 8 Individual Risk ..........................................................................................................39 Version 7.1 — August 2011
iii
Contents
8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 39 8.2 Fatality risk ................................................................................................................ 40 8.3 Passengers ................................................................................................................ 41 8.4 Workforce .................................................................................................................. 42 8.5 9 10 8.4.1 Infrastructure workers ................................................................................. 44 8.4.2 Passenger train drivers ............................................................................... 44 8.4.3 Freight train drivers ..................................................................................... 44 8.4.4 Other passenger train crew members ....................................................... 46 8.4.5 Infrastructure workers ................................................................................. 46 Members of the public .............................................................................................. 46 Multiple Fatality Risk: The F-N Curve .....................................................................50 9.1 F-N results ................................................................................................................. 50 9.2 F-N modelling approach ........................................................................................... 52 Bringing Yards, Depots and Sidings Within Scope of the SRM ..........................54 10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 54 10.2 Project background .................................................................................................. 54 10.3 Project objectives ..................................................................................................... 55 10.4 Scope and definitions ............................................................................................... 55 10.5 Preliminary model development.............................................................................. 58 10.5.1 Preliminary model setup ............................................................................. 58 10.5.2 Site visits ...................................................................................................... 58 10.5.3 HAZOP workshop ........................................................................................ 58 10.5.4 Model structure ............................................................................................ 58 10.6 Data collection and analysis .................................................................................... 59 10.7 Project timeline and next steps ............................................................................... 60 11 Using Risk Information to Support Decisions .......................................................61 12 SRM Governance and SRM-RPB Updates .............................................................63 13 iv
12.1 SRM Practitioners Working Group .......................................................................... 63 12.2 Update history ........................................................................................................... 63 12.3 Updates to the SRM during CP4 .............................................................................. 64 RSSB Rail Risk Portal ..............................................................................................66 13.1 SRM Risk Profile Bulletin ......................................................................................... 66 13.2 Risk assessment guidance ...................................................................................... 66 13.3 SRM Risk Profile Tool ............................................................................................... 66 Version 7.1 — August 2011
Contents
13.4 Taking Safe Decisions Analysis Tool ..................................................................... 66 13.5 Fixed Lineside Telephony Analysis Tool ............................................................... 67 13.6 SPAD Risk Ranking Tool .......................................................................................... 67 13.7 Safety Risk Model ..................................................................................................... 67 13.8 Risk Management Forum ......................................................................................... 67 13.9 SRM definitions ......................................................................................................... 68 13.10 Assistance and training ........................................................................................... 68 14 Contributors .............................................................................................................69 15 Acronyms and Glossary ..........................................................................................70 16 15.1 Acronyms ................................................................................................................... 70 15.2 Glossary ..................................................................................................................... 72 References ................................................................................................................78 Appendix A. SRMv7 Risk Estimates by Hazardous Event..............................................79 A.1. Frequency, consequence and risk estimates by hazardous event ..................... 79 A.2. Changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5 ........................................................................ 107 A.3. Changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7 ........................................................................ 147 A.3.1. Passenger risk............................................................................................ 147 A.3.2. Workforce risk ............................................................................................ 148 A.3.3. Public risk ................................................................................................... 150 Appendix B. SRMv7 Risk Estimates by Precursor ........................................................154 Appendix C. Key Risk Areas and Selected Risk Groupings ........................................155 Appendix D. Individual Risk ............................................................................................159 Appendix E. Modelling Approach ...................................................................................162 E.1. Normaliser data ....................................................................................................... 162 E.2. Significant modelling changes for SRMv7 ........................................................... 165 E.2.1. Changes to existing HEs and new HEs ................................................... 165 E.2.2. RSSB RIDDOR review and its affect on the SRM ................................... 165 E.2.3. Inclusion of buses being struck by trains in the level crossing
models (HET-10 & HET-11)........................................................................ 166 E.2.4. Inclusion of frangible decking in the buffer stop model (HET-09) ........ 166 E.2.5. Modelling of higher-speed permissive working collisions (HET-06)
and assisting train collisions (HET-26) .................................................... 166 E.2.6. Modelling infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train (HEM-19) ..... 166 E.3. Analysing trends in consequences....................................................................... 166 Version 7.1 — August 2011
v
Contents
E.4. Risk inside possessions ........................................................................................ 167 E.4.1. Train accident risk inside possessions ................................................... 168 E.4.2. Movement accident risk inside possessions .......................................... 168 E.4.3. Non-movement accident risk inside possessions ................................. 168 E.4.4. Possession risk figures............................................................................. 169 Appendix F. Key Assumptions and Hazardous Event Definitions ..............................173 F.1. Key assumptions .................................................................................................... 173 F.2. Hazardous event definitions .................................................................................. 174 Appendix G. SRM Scope ..................................................................................................175 vi
G.1. Scope definition ...................................................................................................... 175 G.2. Railway lines in scope ............................................................................................ 176 Version 7.1 — August 2011
Contents
List of Tables
Table A1: List of risk, frequency and average consequences (HETs) ..................................81
Table A1: List of risk, frequency and average consequences (HEMs) .................................87
Table A1: List of risk, frequency and average consequences (HENs) .................................95
Table A2: Reasons for changes in reported frequency and risk between SRMv6 and
SRMv6.5.............................................................................................................107
Table A3: Reasons for changes in reported frequency and risk between SRMv6.5 and
SRMv7................................................................................................................125
Table C3: Selected risk groupings — summary of Table C2 ..............................................155
Table 1: System boundaries .................................................................................................5 Table 2: Total risk by accident category ...............................................................................9 Table 3: Total risk by person category ...............................................................................10 Table 4: Total risk to each person category from each accident category .........................11 Table 5: Total risk by person category (with RSSB RIDDOR review correction) ...............11 Table 6: ASPR hazardous event groupings .......................................................................13 Table 7: Summary of the revised estimates for the baseline HLOS safety metrics ...........33 Table 8: Summary of the progress against the HLOS safety metrics ................................34 Table 9: Grouped risk figures for SRMv7 ...........................................................................36 Table 10: Selected SRMv7 risk groupings ...........................................................................38 Table 11: Total passenger individual risk .............................................................................41 Table 12: Workforce individual risk ......................................................................................43 Table 13: Frequency of train-related incidents leading to multiple fatalities .........................50 Table 14: Return periods of train-related incidents leading to multiple fatalities ..................50 Table 15: SRM update history ..............................................................................................63 Table 16: Change in passenger risk...................................................................................147 Table 17: Change in workforce risk ....................................................................................148 Table 18: Change in public risk ..........................................................................................150 Table 19: Normaliser data used in SRMv7 .........................................................................162 Table 20: Possession risk for SRMv6 and v7 .....................................................................169 Table 21: Possession risk for all train accidents (HETs) in SRMv7 ...................................169 Table 22: Possession risk for all movement accidents (HEMs) in SRMv7 .........................170 Version 7.1 — August 2011
vii
Contents
Table 23: Possession risk for all non-movement accidents (HENs) in SRMv7 ..................171 Table 24: Key modelling assumptions in the SRM .............................................................173 Table 25: Scope of the railway infrastructure .....................................................................175 Table 26: Exceptions to the physical boundary of the SRM ...............................................175 Table 27: Railway lines in and out of scope of the SRM ....................................................176 viii
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Contents
List of Charts
Chart 1: Total risk profile for passengers, the workforce and MOP — % of total
FWI/year ...............................................................................................................12 Chart 2: Combined risk profile (FWI/year) — includes % change from SRMv6.5 ..............15 Chart 3: Combined risk profile (fatalities/year) — includes % change from SRMv6.5 .......17 Chart 4: Risk profiles for train accidents (FWI/year) — includes percentage change
from SRMv6.5 ......................................................................................................19 Chart 5: Risk profiles for movement accidents (FWI/year) — includes percentage
change from SRMv6.5 ..........................................................................................21 Chart 6: Risk profiles for non-movement accidents (FWI/year) — includes percentage
change from SRMv6.5 ..........................................................................................23 Chart 7: Risk profiles for trespass accidents (FWI/year) — includes percentage
change from SRMv6.5 ..........................................................................................25 Chart 8: Risk profiles for passengers (FWI/year) — includes percentage change from
SRMv6.5...............................................................................................................27 Chart 9: Risk profiles for the workforce (FWI/year) — includes percentage change
from SRMv6.5 ......................................................................................................29 Chart 10: Risk profiles for MOP, excluding trespass (FWI/year) — includes percentage
change from SRMv6.5 ..........................................................................................31 Chart 11: Breakdown of SRMv7 by risk area group (inner ring) and risk area (outer ring) ..37 Chart 12: HSE individual risk targets ...................................................................................39 Chart 13: Fatality risk for each person category ..................................................................40 Chart 14: Passenger individual risk by event type ...............................................................42 Chart 15: Fatality risk for the workforce ...............................................................................42 Chart 16: Infrastructure worker individual risk ......................................................................44 Chart 17: Passenger train driver individual risk ....................................................................45 Chart 18: Freight train driver individual risk ..........................................................................45 Chart 19: Other passenger train crew members individual risk ...........................................46 Chart 20: Other staff individual risk ......................................................................................47 Chart 21: Members of the public (non-trespasser) fatality risk .............................................47 Chart 22: Non-trespasser risk to members of the public ......................................................48 Chart 23: The F-N Curve......................................................................................................51 Chart 24: Estimated frequency of train accident-related fatality events ...............................52 Chart 25: Example 1 of a typical YD&S site .........................................................................56 Version 7.1 — August 2011
ix
Contents
Chart 26: Example 2 of a typical YD&S site .........................................................................56 Chart 27: Timeline for updates of the SRM and the SRM-RPB for CP4 ..............................64 Chart 28: Top 10 risk changes in passenger risk (FWI/year) between SRMv6.5 and
SRMv7................................................................................................................146 Chart 29: Top 10 risk changes in workforce risk (FWI/year) between SRMv6.5 and
SRMv7................................................................................................................149 Chart 30: Top 10 risk changes in public risk (FWI/year) between SRMv6.5 and SRMv7 ..151 Chart 31: Number of passenger slips, trips and falls down stairs ......................................167 x
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Executive Summary
The Safety Risk Model (SRM) consists of a series of fault tree and event tree models
representing 120 hazardous events (HEs) that collectively define the overall level of risk on
the mainline railway.
It provides a structured representation of the causes and
consequences of potential accidents arising from railway operations and maintenance. The
reported risk estimates relate to the network-wide risk and they indicate the current level of
residual risk (ie the level of risk remaining with the current risk control measures in place and
with their current degree of effectiveness).
The Department for Transport and the Office of Rail Regulation are using outputs from the
SRM as the primary means of measuring the performance of the industry against the High
Level Output Specification (HLOS) safety metrics. The risk estimates in version 6 of the
SRM (SRMv6) provided the initial baseline against which safety performance through
Control Period 4 (CP4, April 2009 to March 2014) will be compared. SRMv7 provides the
first comparison against the baseline HLOS safety metrics.
To enable this comparison to be meaningful, the update of the SRM to version 7 has been
split into two distinct stages. The first stage was to incorporate all changes and error
corrections into SRMv6 and produce a revised version: SRMv6.5. This interim version
represents the risk as it would have been calculated for SRMv6, had the modelling changes
in SRMv7 been implemented at that time. The second stage was then a refresh of all of the
HE models with data up to the 30 September 2010.
Headlines
Overall Risk
SRMv7 estimates that the overall level of risk (excluding the direct risk from suicide events)
for the railway is 140.9 [141.6]1 FWI/year. This represents an increase of 0.2% [0.3%] from
the figure of 140.6 [141.1] FWI/year estimated by SRMv6.5 (the revised SRMv6 overall risk).
Risk by Person Type
The overall figures for SRMv7 and SRMv6.5 can be broken down by each exposed group
and compared with their normalisers as follows (risk figures in FWI/year):
Passenger
Workforce
Public
v7 Risk
v6.5 Risk
v7 Normaliser
v6.5 Normaliser
52.0
27.2 [27.9]
61.7
50.5
29.6 [30.1]
60.6
53.2 billion pass. km
207 million hours
N/A
50.4 billion pass. km
210 million hours
N/A
1
In 2010 RSSB was commissioned by Network Rail to undertake an independent review of compliance with The
Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) by Network Rail staff
and its contractors. [Ref. 1] This followed initial concerns by the ORR about the number of lost time injuries
reported when compared to the total number of major injuries being reported. The review concluded that there
were events within the Safety Management Information System (and hence in the SRM data) that had been
allocated the wrong injury classification, and that there were further minor injury events that had not been
reported at all. The injury classification changes have all been incorporated into the version 6.5 and version 7
modelling and are accounted for in the risk estimates. However, the under-reported events have not. An
estimate of the likely extent of under-reporting has been made and a risk contribution has been added to the final
overall figures (indicated by numbers in square brackets [ ] after risk figures).
Version 7.1 — August 2011
xi
Executive Summary
Absolute passenger risk has increased by 3% since SRMv6.5. However, over the same
period passenger journeys have increased by 1% and passenger kilometres have increased
by 5% (from 50.4 billion passenger km in SRMv6.5 to 53.2 billion passenger km in
SRMv6.5). The main reason for the increase in passenger risk is that there has been a real
increase in the risk from HEN-14: Passenger slips, trips and falls. This is due to an increase
in the average consequences per event resulting from the increase in fatalities seen for this
HE in the last two years. However, it can be seen that if the passenger risk is normalised by
passenger kilometres, then it has actually decreased, as the absolute risk increase (3%) is
less than the increase in the normaliser (5%).
Workforce risk is now 27.2 FWI/year [27.9 FWI/year], representing an 8% [7%] reduction
since SRMv6.5. This reduction is largely considered to be a real change in the underlying
risk. It is due to a number of risk reductions across several HEs, but is mainly accounted for
by decreases in the following event types:

Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m.

Workforce struck by / contact with / trapped by object not at a station.

Workforce on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement & assaults).

Workforce physical assault.
Risk to the public has increased by 2% when compared with the SRMv6.5 figure. Given the
tolerances associated with the risk estimates, this is not considered to indicate any
significant change in the underlying risk.
Risk by Accident Type
Alternatively, the overall risk figure of 140.9 can be broken down by accident type as follows:

Train accidents (HETs)
8.4 FWI/year

Movement accidents (HEMs)
59.4 FWI/year

Non-movement accidents (HENs) 73.1 FWI/year
The risk from HETs has seen no significant change in the overall level of risk and remains
broadly the same as that reported in SRMv6.5. HEMs have seen an increase of 3% and
HENs have seen a reduction of 2%.
Risk Profile
All HEs in the SRM have been grouped into 22 accident types. These are consistent with
the groupings used in the Annual Safety Performance Report. Combining the HEs in this
manner allows identification of the types of accidents that contribute the greatest proportion
of risk to the overall figures. Chart i presents the risk profile in FWI/year and indicates the
percentage change in risk between SRMv6.5 and SRMv7 for each of the 22 HE categories.
The greatest overall risk contribution results from Trespass with 48.6 FWI/year, which is
dominated by fatality risk.
xii
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
6.6 (-2%)
5.8 (-13%)
5.7 (+11%)
Platform edge incidents (boarding/alighting)
Contact with object
Platform edge incidents (not boarding/alighting)
0.83 (-5%)
0.82 (+13%)
0.79 (+119%)
0.78 (+15%)
0.69 (-19%)
0.59 (-11%)
0.52 (+1%)
0.46 (+35%)
0.42 (+6%)
0.25 (-16%)
Other
Road traffic accident
Train accidents: collisions with objects
Workforce electric shock
Machinery/tool operation
Fires and explosions (not involving trains)
Contact with person
Lean or fall from train in running
Train accidents: other
0.96 (-75%)
Falls from height
Suicide
1.5 (-5%)
3.4 (-3%)
Manual handling/awkward movement
Train accidents: collisions with road vehicles at level crossings
3.9 (+1%)
7.2 (-5%)
Train accidents: collisions and derailments
11.5 (-5%)
8.8 (-18%)
On-board injuries
Struck/crushed by train
Assault and abuse
10
20
30
30.6 (+2%)
Public
Workforce
Passenger
40
48.6 (+13%)
50
Chart i:
Slips, trips, and falls
Trespass
0
Executive Summary
Combined risk profile (FWI/year) — includes % change from SRMv6.5
xiii
Executive Summary
HLOS Safety Metrics
The SRMv7 figures have been used to demonstrate progress against the HLOS safety
metrics. These have been calculated as follows:

SRMv7 passenger safety metric — 0.971 FWI per billion passenger kilometres.

SRMv7 workforce safety metric — 0.123 [0.126] FWI per million worker hours.
This represents a 1.8% decrease in the HLOS passenger safety metric and a 7.4% [6.5%]
decrease in the HLOS workforce safety metric. These should be compared against the
target of at least a 3% reduction in both of these safety metrics over CP4.
The risk results from SRMv7 are presented in this report as a measure of the absolute risk
on the mainline railway. As with any risk assessment, the results are estimates and should
only be considered as a guide to the overall risk and the relative risk contributions from each
of the 120 identified HEs. This should be borne in mind when the figures are used as an
input into any decision-making process.
xiv
Version 7.1 — August 2011
1
Introduction
RSSB works with its members to support the development of safety strategies, set standards
and monitor and report on the safety performance of the industry. An understanding of the
overall risk level and risk profile of the railway is a key foundation for this role. RSSB
supports its members — who comprise the railway industry — by providing risk information
to help them benchmark their performance. This in turn helps them formulate their own
safety policies, plans and measures. The Safety Risk Model (SRM) provides the networkwide risk profile and this information is communicated to the industry in a range of ways, the
primary one being this SRM Risk Profile Bulletin (SRM-RPB).
Version 7 of the SRM (SRMv7) consists of a series of fault tree and event tree models
representing 120 hazardous events (HEs), which collectively define the overall level of risk
on the mainline railway. It provides a structured representation of the causes and
consequences of potential accidents arising from railway operations and maintenance on
railway infrastructure as well as other areas where RSSB has a commitment to record and
report accidents.
The SRM has been designed to take account of both high-frequency, low-consequence
events (occurring routinely, and for which there is a significant quantity of recorded data) and
low-frequency, high-consequence events (occurring rarely, and for which there is little
recorded data). The results for each HE are presented in terms of the frequency of
occurrence (number of events per year) and the risk (number of fatalities and weighted
injuries (FWI) per year). The FWI weightings equate injuries of differing degree with a
fatality event, which allows all of the risk on the railway to be totalled and contrasted in
comparable units.
The risk estimates presented can be used to support particular risk assessments and for
judging how the risk relating to particular operations compares with and contributes to the
network-wide risk.
The information contained in this document relates to the network-wide risk on railway
infrastructure covering all running lines, rolling stock types and stations currently in use.
Risk associated with areas away from the operational railway, such as yards, depots, sidings
(YD&S), or station car parks, is not included. However, work to extend the scope to include
YD&S is underway and progress with this is reported in Section 10. The system boundaries
for SRMv7 are detailed in Section 2.2 and Appendix G. The risk estimates in SRMv7 are for
the current level of residual risk on the mainline railway, which is the level of risk remaining
with the current risk control measures in place and with their current degree of effectiveness.
The cut-off date for incident data used to inform SRMv7 was 30 September 2010.2
Because of the network-wide nature of the SRM, it is necessary to make average
assumptions that represent the general characteristics of the network. The model also
hinges on the definitions of the HEs and precursors by which risk estimates are reported.
These assumptions and definitions are provided in Appendix F, and a thorough
understanding of them is essential to the correct interpretation and use of the risk
information reported here. The SRM does not provide risk profiles for specific lines of route
2
There are four hazardous event models that are exceptions to this data cut-off: HEM-12, HEM-25, HEM-31 and
HEN-77. The nature of the incidents covered by these models means that to ensure there is confidence in the
data used to analyse them, an earlier cut-off date (30 September 2009) was used.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
1
Introduction
and train operating companies (TOCs). The information in this bulletin should not be
considered to be representative of the risk for any particular line of route or TOC, without
further localised analysis.
The SRM Practitioners Working Group (SRM-PWG) is the industry governance body for the
SRM. It was formed under the authority of the Safety Policy Group (SPG) to engage
stakeholders in the development and control of future versions of the SRM and its related
outputs. Section 12.1 contains more information regarding this group and its aims.
The modelling changes implemented as part of the update of the SRM to version 7 have
been endorsed by the SRM-PWG. The final, revised version 6 figures (SRMv6.5) and the
final SRMv7 figures were presented to the group and approved in March 2011.
The Department for Transport (DfT) is using the outputs from the SRM as the primary means
of measuring the performance of the industry against the High Level Output Specification
(HLOS) safety metrics, rather than using a measure of safety performance based solely on
accident statistics. The risk estimates in SRMv6 provided the initial baseline against which
to compare safety performance through Control Period 4 (CP4, April 2009 to March 2014).
This is achieved by comparing the risk metrics derived from SRMv7 and future versions
against the baseline safety metrics determined from SRMv6.
The main part of the SRM-RPB sets out:

The objectives of the SRM (Section 2.1)

System boundaries (Section 2.2)

Overview of the SRMv7 update (Section 3)

Total risk on the mainline railway (Section 4)

Detailed risk profiles (Section 5)

Details of progress against the HLOS safety metrics (Section 6)
Additional appendices for this document may be downloaded from the RSSB Rail Risk Portal
at http://www.safetyriskmodel.co.uk.
Appendix A contains frequency, consequence and risk estimates for each HE (Table A1),
and describes the changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5 (Table A2) and from SRMv6.5 to
SRMv7 (Table A3) in detail.
Appendix B contains frequency and risk contributions for all precursors leading to each HE
(Table B1: contained within a separate volume of the SRM-RPB).
Appendix C contains a breakdown of risk into the key risk areas (Table C1: available for
download) plus selected risk groupings (Table C2: available for download).
Appendix D contains a summary of the individual risk calculations for each person category
(Table D1).
Appendix E contains details of the modelling approach implemented for SRMv7.
Appendix F contains a list of all of the assumptions and definitions (Table F1: available for
download) related to the analysis and update of SRMv7.
Appendix G contains a detailed description of the SRM scope and provides clarification on
the scope of the model: what is included within it and what is excluded.
2
Version 7.1 — August 2011
This page has been intentionally left blank
Version 7.1 — August 2011
3
2
SRM Objectives and Overview
2.1
Objectives
The primary objectives of the SRM are:

To provide an understanding of the extent of the current risk on the mainline railway.

To provide risk information and risk profiles relating to the mainline railway.
The SRM has been developed and published to support RSSB members. Its specific
purpose is to provide risk estimates for use in risk assessments, appraisals and decisions
throughout the railway industry. This includes:


To enable ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) assessments and cost-benefit
analyses (CBAs) to be carried out to support decisions taken about:

Which control measures should be applied on the railway?

Where current risk control measures can be relaxed or changed.

Technical modifications and upgrades such as new infrastructure investment.

Revision of the Railway Group Standards (RGS), in terms of their contribution
to risk mitigation (including development of impact assessments for proposed
changes to the RGS).
To provide risk information to support:

The development of priorities for the industry’s Strategic Safety Plan 2009–
2014 (SSP) [Ref. 2].

Prioritisation of areas for research on the railway.

Transport operator risk assessments, as required by The Railways and Other
Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006.

Identification and prioritisation of issues for audit.

To provide an understanding about the contribution of a particular item of equipment
or failure mode to the overall risk.

To provide risk estimates to be used as the basis of the HLOS safety metrics.
2.2
Overview
The SRM includes the safety risk from incidents which could occur during the operation and
maintenance of the mainline railway within the boundaries defined in Table 1. For SRMv7
there have been no changes to the system boundary scope, however some new HEs within
this scope have been identified and these are discussed further in Section 3. Appendix G
contains a more detailed discussion of the SRM scope and the system boundaries and gives
specific guidance as to what aspects of the operation and maintenance of the railway are
within scope of the SRM.
4
Version 7.1 — August 2011
SRM Overview
Table 1:
System boundaries
2.3
Key assumptions and exclusions
Table 24 (in Appendix F) lists key assumptions that are applicable to the SRM. Further
clarity on the definitions and assumptions applicable to individual HEs can be provided on
request.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
5
3
SRMv7 Update Strategy
3.1
Overview of the SRMv7 update
The SRM is being used by the DfT as the primary means of measuring the performance of
the industry against the HLOS safety metrics. As a result of this it is now necessary to be
able to distinguish between changes in risk arising from genuine changes in the underlying
data and changes due to refined modelling of HEs.
To enable this comparison to be meaningful, the update of the SRM to version 7 has been
split into two distinct stages. The first stage was to incorporate all changes and error
corrections into the model and produce a revised version of the previous model — SRMv6.5.
This interim version represents the risk as would have been calculated for SRMv6, had the
modelling changes implemented in version 7 been implemented at that time. The second
stage was then a data refresh of all of the HE models with data up to 30 September 2010.
The change in risk from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7 then represents the change in risk due to a
refresh of the data up to September 2010 (compared to September 2008 for version 6), and
hence represents the estimates of risk that can be used for comparative purposes. This is
the first time the SRM has been updated in this fashion. The aim is to be able to provide a
framework that is compatible with the requirements for monitoring the HLOS metrics and to
provide risk estimates that are calculated on a like-for-like basis.
3.2
Significant modelling and scope changes from SRMv6 to
SRMv6.5
The significant changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5 can be split into two main categories —
the first is changes to the scope of the SRM and the second is modelling changes. Changes
that fall under the first category include:

The creation of four new HEs in SRMv6.5 and SRMv7, namely: awkward movement
(HEN-82 and HEN-83) and witnessing a traumatic event (HEM-50 and HEN-70), see
Section E.2.1.

HEM-44 has been changed from a passenger event to a trespasser event to make it
consistent with the definitions of other HEs, see Section E.2.1.
In the second category a number of modelling changes were identified for the update from
SRMv6 to SRMv6.5. The main changes are:
6

Explicit inclusion of buses being struck by trains in the level crossing models (HET-10
and HET-11), see Section E.2.3.

Inclusion of frangible decking in the buffer stop collision model (HET-09), see
Section E.2.4.

Modelling of higher-speed permissive working collisions (HET-06) and high-speed
assisting train collisions (HET-26), see Section E.2.5.

A review of the expert judgement modelling of infrastructure worker struck/crushed
(HEM-19), see Section E.2.6.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
SRMv7 Update

The probabilities of collision used in the train collision models (HET-01, HET-02,
HET-03) have been updated in light of the fact that seven years of data is now
available after implementation of the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS).

A number of modelling changes have been made to the derailment models (HET-12,
HET-13), the main ones being the inclusion of structural collapse at a station as a
plausible accident scenario and a review of the slow, medium and fast escalation
factors.

The precursors for train fires (HET-17, HET-20) have been completely overhauled to
better reflect the possible precursors to train fires.

The passenger train crushed HE (HET-21) has been remodelled to include large
objects other than structures that could crush a train.

The consequences for a number of HEs have been re-examined in light of significant
trends in injuries that have become apparent in recent data. Previous versions of the
SRM have considered consequences per event based on using around seven years
of data and in doing so may have diminished the effect of any shorter term trends or
shifts in the injury profile. See Section E.3 for a more detailed explanation.
3.3
Significant changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
The update from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7 comprises a full update of all train accidents (HETs),
movement accidents (HEMs) and non-movement accidents (HENs) using data from
incidents occurring up to and including 30 September 2010.3
3.4
RSSB RIDDOR review
In 2010 RSSB was commissioned by Network Rail to undertake an independent review of
compliance with The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences
Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) by Network Rail staff and its contractors.4 This followed initial
concerns by the ORR about the number of lost time injuries reported when compared to the
total number of major injuries being reported. The review concluded that there were events
within the Safety Management Information System (and hence in the SRM data) that had
been allocated the wrong injury classification, and that there were further minor injury events
that had not been reported at all. The injury classification changes have all been
incorporated into the version 6.5 and version 7 modelling and are accounted for in the risk
estimates. However, the under-reported events have not. An estimate of the likely extent of
under-reporting has been made and a risk contribution has been added to the final overall
figures (indicated by numbers in square brackets [ ] after risk figures). It will never be
possible to explicitly include these under-reported minor injury events into the SRM as the
estimation of industry under-reporting cannot be broken down and allocated at the HE or
precursor level.
3
There are four hazardous event models that are exceptions to this data cut-off: HEM-12, HEM-25, HEM-31 and
HEN-77. The nature of the incidents covered by these models means that to ensure there is confidence in the
data used to analyse them, an earlier cut-off date was used (30 September 2009).
4
RIDDOR places a legal duty on employers to report work-related deaths, major injuries, minor injuries lasting
more than three days, work related diseases and dangerous occurrences (near-misses).
See http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/guidance.htm.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
7
SRMv7 Update
Based on the estimated level of under-reporting agreed with Network Rail, for SRMv6.5 an
additional contribution of 0.463 FWI per year has been added to the overall workforce risk to
account for the under-reported RIDDOR-reportable minor injury events. For SRMv7 an
additional contribution of 0.663 per year FWI has been added to the overall workforce risk to
account for the under-reported RIDDOR-reportable minor injury events.
8
Version 7.1 — August 2011
4
Total Risk on the Mainline Railway
4.1
Overall profile
This section presents the overall risk for the 120 HEs on the mainline railway which are
considered within the SRM. Risk is presented in terms of: injury severity by accident
category (see Table 2); injury severity by person category, with and without the RIDDOR
correction for under-reported workforce risk (see Table 3 and Table 5); and person injured
by accident category (see Table 4).
It should be noted that the totals presented exclude the direct risk due to suicide and
attempted suicide. However, all secondary risk (eg the shock/trauma that can arise when
drivers witness suicides) associated with these events has been included.
The total risk from the 120 HEs is assessed to be 140.9 FWI/year. This is made up of
approximately:

71 fatalities per year

467 major injuries per year

2097 RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries per year

10333 non-RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries per year

1792 shock/trauma events per year
This compares to 140.6 FWI/year as calculated in SRMv6.5 (reported in SRM-RPB version 6
as 141.3 FWI/year). These total risk estimates are broken down by accident category and
injury type in Table 2 below.
FWI /
year
Major injuries /
year
RIDDORReportable minor
injuries / year
Non-RIDDORreportable minor
injuries / year
Class 1
shock/trauma /
year
Class 2
shock/trauma /
year
Total risk by accident category
Fatalities / year
Table 2:
Train accidents (excl. POS)
8.1
6.1
15.0
104.4
9.2
1.3
3.0
Movement accidents
(excl. POS and trespass)
21.4
11.2
56.8
346.0
1713.5
172.5
170.5
Non-movement accidents
(excl. POS and trespass)
54.2
5.8
317.3
1534.7
7610.2
12.0
1397.0
Inside possession (POS)
8.6
2.0
50.8
91.5
989.4
2.4
4.7
Trespass
48.6
45.7
27.0
20.0
10.4
28.6
0.4
Total
140.9
70.7
466.9
2096.6
10332.7
216.8
1575.6
Accident category
(POS = inside possession)
Note 1: The direct risk from suicide and attempted suicide has been excluded, however all secondary risk
associated with suicide has been included.
Note 2: Some totals may not appear to add up correctly within the table due to the effects of rounding.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
9
Total Risk on the Mainline Railway
Table 3 shows the risk to each person category on the railway. Risk to MOP forms the
greatest proportion of the total risk, at 61.7 FWI/year (an increase of 2% from SRMv6.5).
This is mainly due to a large number of fatalities from trespassing events. Given the
tolerances associated with the risk estimates, this is not considered to indicate a significant
change in the underlying risk.
Absolute passenger risk has increased by 3% since SRMv6.5. However, over the same
period passenger journeys have increased by 1% and passenger kilometres have increased
by 5% (from 50.4 billion to 53.2 billion passenger km). The main reason for the increase in
passenger risk is from HEN-14: Passenger slips, trips and falls. This is due to an increase in
the average consequences per event resulting from the increase in fatalities observed for
this HE in the last two years. However, after the passenger risk is normalised by passenger
kilometres, it can be seen that risk has actually decreased, as the absolute risk increase
(3%) is less than the increase in the normaliser (5%).
The risk to the workforce is now 27.2 FWI/year which represents an 8% reduction from
SRMv6.5.
Table 3:
Total risk by person category
Person
category
Fatalities / year
Major injuries /
year
RIDDORReportable minor
injuries / year
Non-RIDDORreportable minor
injuries / year
Class 1
shock/trauma /
year
Class 2
shock/trauma /
year
FWI/year
% Change from
SRMv6.5 to
SRMv7
SRMv6.5
FWI/year
SRMv7
Passenger
52.0
10.4
286.1
1411.3
5245.9
1.7
600.0
50.5
+3%
Workforce
27.2
4.4
128.8
605.6
4906.5
214.8
942.4
29.6
-8%
MOP
61.7
55.9
52.0
79.8
180.2
0.2
33.2
60.6
+2%
Total
140.9
70.7
466.9
2096.6
10332.7
216.8
1575.6
140.6
+0.2%
Note: The direct risk from suicide and attempted suicide has been excluded, however all secondary risk
associated with suicide has been included.
Note 2: Some totals may not appear to add up correctly within the table due to effects of rounding.
Table 4 presents the risk broken down into person category and accident categories. The
table shows that overall risk due to train accidents (HETs) has remained relatively constant.
Movement accidents (HEMs) have seen a 3% increase in risk, whereas non-movement
accidents (HENs) have seen a reduction of 2%. Overall, the total increase in risk from
SRMv6.5 to SRMv7 is 0.2%.
Table 5 shows the effects of the corrections estimated to take account of the under-reporting
of RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries following the RSSB review described in Section 3.4.
The table shows an estimated under-reporting equivalent to 0.663 FWI/year, which
represents a 0.5% increase on the uncorrected total of 140.9 FWI/year.
10
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Total Risk on the Mainline Railway
Table 4:
Total risk to each person category from each accident category
SRMv7
Hazardous
event
SRMv6.5
Total
FWI/year
Passenger
FWI/year
Workforce
FWI/year
MOP
FWI/year
Total
FWI/year
% Change
from v6.5
to v7
HET
8.4
3.2
1.3
3.9
8.4
-0.3%
HEM
59.4
10.5
6.1
42.8
57.5
+3%
HEN
73.1
38.3
19.8
15.0
74.7
-2%
Total
140.9
52.0
27.2
61.7
140.6
+0.2%
Note: The direct risk from suicide and attempted suicide has been excluded, however all secondary risk
associated with suicide has been included.
Table 5:
Total risk by person category (with RSSB RIDDOR review correction)
Person
category
Fatalities / year
Major injuries /
year
RIDDORReportable minor
injuries / year
Non-RIDDORreportable minor
injuries / year
Class 1
shock/trauma /
year
Class 2
shock/trauma /
year
FWI/year
% Change from
SRMv6.5 to
SRMv7
SRMv6.5
FWI/year
SRMv7
Passenger
52.0
10.4
286.1
1411.3
5245.9
1.7
600.0
50.5
3%
Workforce
27.2
4.4
128.8
605.6
4906.5
214.8
942.4
29.6
-8%
Workforce
with
RIDDOR
correction
0.663
-
-
132.6
-
-
-
0.463
-
MOP
61.7
55.9
52.0
79.8
180.2
0.2
33.2
60.6
2%
Total
(without
correction)
140.9
70.7
466.9
2096.6
10332.7
216.8
1575.6
140.6
0.2%
Total (with
correction)
141.6
70.7
466.9
2229.2
10332.7
216.8
1575.6
141.1
0.3%
Version 7.1 — August 2011
11
12
Class 1 shock / trauma (3.9%)
Class 2 shock / trauma (3.5%)
Fatalities
(90.6%)
Passenger
(37%)
Fatalities (16.1%)
Major injuries
(55.1%)
Class 2 shock / trauma (1.2%)
Class 1 shock / trauma (0.02%)
Non-RIDDOR-reportabl e
minor injuries (10.1%)
RIDDOR-reportable minor
injuries (13.6%)
Total risk = 140.9 FWI/yr
Class 2 shock / trauma (0.1%)
Class 1 shock/ trauma (0.002%)
RIDDOR-reportable minor
injuries (11.1%)
Major injuries
(47.3%)
Workforce
(19%)
Non-RIDDOR-reportabl e
minor injuries (18.0%)
Members of
the public
(44%)
Fatalities
(20.1%)
Non-RIDDOR-reportabl e
minor injuries (0.3%)
Chart 1:
Major injuries (8.4%)
RIDDOR-reportable
minor injuries (0.6%)
Total Risk on the Mainline Railway
Total risk profile for passengers, the workforce and MOP — % of total FWI/year
Note: The direct risk from suicide and attempted suicide has been excluded, however all secondary risk
associated with suicide has been included.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Total Risk on the Mainline Railway
Chart 1 presents the total risk profile for passengers, the workforce and MOP. It shows that
the bulk of the risk is split between passengers and MOP, with 37% and 44% respectively —
the remaining proportion (19%) is attributed to workforce incidents. The profile of injury
across person categories has remained similar to SRMv6, with approximately 50% of the
risk to passengers and the workforce resulting from major injuries. Fatalities still dominate
the risk to the public, comprising 91%. This is due to public trespass events, contributing
45.5 fatalities per year.
4.2
Risk by ASPR hazard categorisation
In this section, the HEs have been grouped into 22 accident types,5 consistent with the
groupings used in the Annual Safety Performance Report (ASPR) [Ref. 3]. Combining the
HEs in this manner allows identification of the types of accidents that contribute the greatest
proportion of risk to the overall figure. The HEs have been grouped as shown in Table 6.
Table 6:
ASPR hazardous event groupings
Event type
Hazardous events
Assault and abuse
HEN-64, HEN-65, HEN-66
Contact with object
HEM-20, HEM-32, HEM-42, HEN-21, HEN-23, HEN-26,
HEN-44, HEN-55, HEN-56, HEN-59, HEN-76
Contact with person
HEN-55, HEN-56
Falls from height
HEN-15, HEN-25, HEN-45
Fires and explosions (not involving
trains)
HEN-01, HEN-02, HEN-03, HEN-04, HEN-05, HEN-48,
HEN-49
Lean or fall from train in running
HEM-03, HEM-07, HEM-15, HEM-17
Machinery/tool operation
HEN-22, HEN-27, HEN-56
Manual handling / awkward movement
HEN-73, HEN-74, HEN-82, HEN-83
On-board injuries
HEM-38, HEM-39, HEN-62, HEN-63
Platform edge incidents
(boarding/alighting)
HEM-05, HEM-06, HEM-09, HEM-16, HEM-21, HEM-22,
HEM-23, HEM-43
Platform edge incidents (not
boarding/alighting)
HEM-06, HEM-08, HEM-10, HEM-21, HEM-40, HEM-41,
HEN-09, HEN-10, HEN-13, HEN-52, HEN-67
Road traffic accident
HEN-35
Slips, trips and falls
HEN-14, HEN-16, HEN-24, HEN-25, HEN-46, HEN-68
Struck/crushed by train
HEM-11, HEM-14, HEM-19, HEM-27
Suicide
HEM-31, HEN-77
5
Some HEs have been split across two or more accident types.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
13
Total Risk on the Mainline Railway
Table 6:
ASPR hazardous event groupings (cntd)
Event type
Hazardous events
Train accidents: collisions and
derailments
HET-01, HET-02NP, HET-02P, HET-03, HET-06, HET-09,
HET-12, HET-13, HET-26
Train accidents: collisions with objects
HET-04
Train accidents: collisions with road
vehicles at level crossings
HET-10, HET-11
Train accidents: other
HET-17, HET-20, HET-21, HET-22, HET-23, HET-24,
HET-25
Trespass
HEM-12, HEM-25, HEM-30, HEM-44, HEN-36, HEN-37,
HEN-38, HEN-39, HEN-40, HEN-41, HEN-42, HEN-43,
HEN-71, HEN-72
Workforce electric shock
HEN-27, HEN-30, HEN-31, HEN-32
Other
HEM-01, HEM-50, HEN-07, HEN-08, HEN-11, HEN-27,
HEN-28, HEN-29, HEN-33, HEN-50, HEN-51, HEN-53,
HEN-54, HEN-57, HEN-58, HEN-60, HEN-61, HEN-70,
HEN-75
4.2.1
Discussion
Chart 2 presents the risk profile in FWI/year and indicates the percentage change in risk
between SRMv6.5 and SRMv7 for each of the 22 HE categories listed above. The greatest
overall risk contribution results from Trespass with 48.6 FWI/year, which is dominated by
fatality risk. The next-highest risk contribution results from Slips, trips and falls with
30.6 FWI/year, a slight increase of 2% compared with SRMv6.5.
The majority of risk from Slips, trips and falls occurs to passengers, contributing
23.4 FWI/year, which represents 45% of the overall risk to passengers. After Slips, trips and
falls, the category which contributes most to the overall risk to passengers is Assault and
abuse, representing 8.1 FWI/year, followed by Platform edge incidents (both
boarding/alighting and non-boarding/alighting). Considered together, these four categories
account for over 80% of the risk to passengers.
The greatest workforce risk also comes from the Slips, trips and falls category
(6.1 FWI/year), with the second-highest contribution coming from Contact with object
(4.6 FWI/year). Together these categories represent 39% of the risk to the workforce.
A large proportion of the risk to the public results from Trespass (48.6 FWI/year), followed by
Struck/crushed by train (not trespass) with 5.8 FWI/year. Together they represent 88% of
the risk to MOP.
14
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
6.6 (-2%)
5.8 (-13%)
5.7 (+11%)
Platform edge incidents (boarding/alighting)
Contact with object
Platform edge incidents (not boarding/alighting)
0.83 (-5%)
0.82 (+13%)
0.79 (+119%)
0.78 (+15%)
0.69 (-19%)
0.59 (-11%)
0.52 (+1%)
0.46 (+35%)
0.42 (+6%)
0.25 (-16%)
Other
Road traffic accident
Train accidents: collisions with objects
Workforce electric shock
Machinery/tool operation
Fires and explosions (not involving trains)
Contact with person
Lean or fall from train in running
Train accidents: other
0.96 (-75%)
Falls from height
Suicide
1.5 (-5%)
3.4 (-3%)
Manual handling/awkward movement
Train accidents: collisions with road vehicles at level crossings
3.9 (+1%)
7.2 (-5%)
Train accidents: collisions and derailments
11.5 (-5%)
8.8 (-18%)
On-board injuries
Struck/crushed by train
Assault and abuse
10
20
30
30.6 (+2%)
Public
Workforce
Passenger
40
48.6 (+13%)
50
Chart 2:
Slips, trips, and falls
Trespass
0
Total Risk on the Mainline Railway
Combined risk profile (FWI/year) — includes % change from SRMv6.5
15
Total Risk on the Mainline Railway
Chart 3 shows the combined risk by event type in fatalities per year (excluding the
contribution from injuries, shock and trauma). Fatality risk is dominated by Trespass
accidents, accounting for more than half, with 45.7 fatalities per year — up 14% on the
SRMv6.5 figure. The accident type contributing the second-highest number of fatalities is
Struck/crushed by train with 8.37 fatalities per year, suggesting a decrease of 19%
compared with SRMv6.5. Together, these two categories account for 76% of fatalities.
The highest contribution to passenger fatalities is Platform edge incidents (excluding
boarding/alighting), which accounts for 3.8 fatalities per year (representing 37% of
passenger fatality risk).
The most significant contributor to workforce fatalities is Struck/crushed by train, accounting
for 2.0 fatalities per year (46% of the workforce fatality risk total). The 45.7 fatalities per year
due to MOP Trespass represents 82% of public fatality risk.
16
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.33 (-22%)
Train accidents: collisions with objects
0
0
0
0
Manual handling/awkward movement
Machinery/tool operation
Contact with person
0.16 (-13%)
Train accidents: other
On-board injuries
0.22 (-28%)
Road traffic accident
0
0.27 (-53%)
Contact with object
Contact with person
0.30 (+68%)
Other
0.32 (-5%)
0.35 (+3%)
Lean or fall from train in running
Platform edge incidents (boarding/alighting)
0.40 (+2%)
0.44 (-84%)
Falls from height
Fires and explosions (not involving trains)
0.54 (-15%)
1.1 (-39%)
Workforce electric shock
Assault and abuse
Slips, trips, and falls
Train accidents: collisions and derailments
Train accidents: collisions with road vehicles at level crossings
Platform edge incidents (not boarding/alighting)
2
2.5 (+7%)
2.7 (+1%)
3.0 (-3%)
4
4.1 (+17%)
6
8.4 (-19%)
Public
Workforce
Passenger
8
45
45.7 (+14%)
47
Chart 3:
Struck/crushed by train
Trespass
0
Total Risk on the Mainline Railway
Combined risk profile (fatalities/year) — includes % change from SRMv6.5
17
5
5.1
Detailed Risk Profiles
Risk by accident type
Charts 4–7 present the risk profiles for train accidents, movement accidents, non-movement
accidents and trespass accidents respectively. It should be noted that the totals presented
exclude the direct risk from MOP suicide and attempted suicide. However, all secondary risk
(eg shock/trauma due to drivers witnessing suicides) associated with these events have
been included.
5.1.1
Train accidents (HETs)
Chart 4 shows the risk profile for train accidents in FWI/year and also as the percentage
change in risk from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7. Overall, the risk from train accidents has remained
relatively constant since SRMv6.5, showing a reduction of 0.3%. In fact, 11 of the 18 train
accident HEs have shown a decrease in FWI/year.
HET-10: Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing is the most significant
contributor to train accident risk at 2.97 FWI/year (the large majority of this risk relating to the
occupants of a road vehicle — approximately 2.6 FWI), showing a decrease of 2%
(0.06 FWI/year) on the SRMv6.5 figure. The change with respect to SRMv6.5 has been due
to a decrease in the number of observed events in this category. HET-11: Non-passenger
train collision with road vehicle on level crossing has shown a decrease of 9%
(0.05 FWI/year) for the same reasons as HET-10. However, it should be noted that the
majority of this risk relates to the public (the road vehicle occupants involved in the collision)
and is not on-board train risk.
After HET-10, the largest train accident risk comes from HET-12: Derailment of passenger
train, which indicates a risk of 1.95 FWI/year. HET-12 has shown an increase of 3%
(0.05 FWI/year) based on the SRMv6.5 figure. In comparison to previous analysis data, the
SRMv7 dataset shows that a greater proportion of passenger train derailments have
occurred at high speed, and analysis concluded that there is a slightly increased probability
of hitting a lineside structure for derailed passenger trains at fast speeds. This explains the
slight increase in FWI/year.
HET-17: Fire on passenger train, at 0.10 FWI/year, has seen a decrease of 31%
(0.04 FWI/year). The main contributor to HET-17 is fires caused by arson, and these have
seen a large decrease (50%) in frequency over the last two years. A small increase in the
contribution from the higher consequence diesel fires means that the estimated risk does not
decrease by as much as the estimated frequency.
See Appendix A.3 for a complete set of explanations of the changes in HE risk estimates
from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
18
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.0985 (-31%)
HET-17: Fire on passenger train
0.00792 (0%)
0.00491 (-2%)
HET-23: Explosion on passenger train
0.00798 (+1%)
HET-21: Train crushed by structural collapse or large object (not at station)
HET-25: Passenger train division (not leading to collision)
0.0106 (-30%)
0.023 (-7%)
0.0441 (-3%)
0.0528 (+26%)
HET-26: Collision between a f ailed train and an assisting train
HET-20: Fire on non-passenger train
HET-22: Train crushed by structural collapse at station
HET-06: Collision between two passenger trains in station (permissive working)
0.0686 (0%)
0.116 (-17%)
HET-09: Train collision with buf f er stops
HET-24: Explosion on f reight train
0.128 (+5%)
0.394 (-13%)
HET-01: Collision between two passenger trains
HET-03: Collision between two non-passenger trains
0.466 (-9%)
0.554 (-4%)
0.699 (+10%)
0.781 (+15%)
HET-11: Non-passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing
HET-13: Derailment of non-passenger train
HET-02: Collision between a passenger train and non-passenger train
HET-04: Collision of train with object (not resulting in derailment)
1
1.95 (+3%)
3
2.97 (-2%)
Shock/trauma
Minor non-RIDDOR-reportable
Minor RIDDOR-reportable
Major
Fatalities
2
Chart 4:
HET-12: Derailment of passenger train
HET-10: Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing
0
Detailed Risk Profiles
Risk profiles for train accidents (FWI/year) — includes percentage change from
SRMv6.5
Note: Of the 2.6 fatalities in HET-10, 2.3 (90%) relate to MOP not on-board the train.
19
Detailed Risk Profiles
5.1.2
Movement accidents (HEMs)
Chart 5 shows the risk profile for the top 20 movement accidents (excluding direct risk from
suicide and attempted suicide and trespass-related events) in FWI/year, and also the
change in risk from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
As in the previous version of the SRM the highest risk contribution for movement accidents
comes from HEM-27: MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian struck/crushed by train on level
crossing or footpath crossing. This has, in fact, seen a decrease of 20% (1.50 FWI/year)
from SRMv6.5, but is still by far the largest contributor and stands at 5.82 FWI/year. The
reduction in FWI/year is due to a reduction in the observed frequency of events.
Other movement accidents which have also seen significant decreases include:

HEM-19: Infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train in motion, indicating a 10%
decrease (0.21 FWI/year): there has been a reduction in the estimated frequency for
this HE as well as a slight reduction in average consequences per event. In addition,
there have been no multiple injury events since SRMv6 and therefore the likelihood
of this HE leading to a multiple injury has also decreased slightly.

HEM-11: Passenger struck/crushed by train while crossing the track at or near a
station on a crossing, indicating a 22% decrease (0.20 FWI/year): this HE has seen a
decrease in its estimated frequency based on data observed since SRMv6.5.

HEM-08: Passenger fall from platform and struck by train, indicating an 8% decrease
(0.18 FWI/year): a very slight downward trend in the frequency of observed incidents
accounts for the overall decrease in risk.
Movement accidents which have seen an increase in risk compared with SRMv6.5 include:

HEM-10: Passenger struck by/contact with moving train while on platform, indicating
a 19% increase (0.25 FWI/year): there were two fatality events in 2009 which have
contributed to an increased average consequence per event and hence an increase
in the estimated risk.

HEM-38: Passenger injury due to sudden train movement, indicating a 30% increase
in risk (0.15 FWI/year): there has been an increase in the estimated frequency due to
an increase in observed incidents, halting the prior downward trend. The average
consequences per event have also increased, as recent incidents show a greater
proportion of major injuries than had previously been observed. The net effect is an
overall increase in the estimated risk.
See Appendix A.3 for a complete set of explanations of the changes in HE risk estimates
from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
20
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.173 (-9%)
0.166 (+1%)
0.111 (+10%)
HEM-40: MOP (non-trespasser) struck by/contact with moving train due to being too
close to platform edge
HEM-23: Train door closes on workforce
HEM-50: Witnessing a traumatic event (movement)
0.106 (+9%)
0.185 (+4%)
0.201 (+10%)
HEM-03: Passenger struck while leaning out of train (train in running)
HEM-15: Workforce fall/alighting from moving train
0.351 (+1%)
HEM-14: Workforce (not infrastructure worker) struck/crushed by train
0.543 (+2%)
HEM-21: Workforce fall between stationary train and platform
0.659 (+30%)
HEM-38: Passenger injury due to sudden train movement
0.617 (+8%)
0.707 (-22%)
HEM-11: Passenger struck/crushed by train while crossing the track at or near a station
on a crossing
HEM-05: Train door closes on passenger
0.814 (-5%)
HEM-31: Suicide (or attempted suicide) involving rolling stock in motion
0.925 (-10%)
1.48 (-5%)
0.85 (+3%)
HEM-20: Workforce struck by flying object thrown up by passing train (includes objects
thrown up by OTM movements outside a possession)
1.92 (-10%)
2 (-8%)
1.57 (+19%)
HEM-16: Workforce injury while boarding/alighting train
HEM-39: Workforce injury due to sudden train movement
HEM-06: Passenger fall between stationary train and platform
HEM-10: Passenger struck by/contact with moving train while on platform
HEM-19: Infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train in motion
HEM-08: Passenger fall from platform and struck by train
2
5.82 (-20%)
6
Shock/trauma
Minor non-RIDDOR-reportable
Minor RIDDOR-reportable
Major
Fatalities
3.24 (-3%)
4
Chart 5:
HEM-09: Passenger injury while boarding/alighting a train (platform side)
HEM-27: MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on level
crossing or footpath crossing
0
Detailed Risk Profiles
Risk profiles for movement accidents (FWI/year) — includes percentage change
from SRMv6.5
21
Detailed Risk Profiles
5.1.3
Non-movement accidents (HENs)
Chart 6 presents the risk profile for the top 20 non-movement accidents (excluding direct risk
from suicide, attempted suicide and trespass-related events) in FWI/year and also the
change in risk from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
As in SRMv6.5 the non-movement risk profile is dominated by HEN-14: Passenger slip, trip,
or fall, with a risk figure of 23.4 FWI/year, which shows an increase of 4% (0.98 FWI/year)
compared with SRMv6.5.
Of the 23.4 FWI/year, major injuries represent 65%
(15.29 FWI/year), whereas fatalities represent 9% (2.21 FWI/year).
The average
consequences per event show an increase in the fatality component due to four recent
fatality events — three involving elderly people falling on escalators. This increase in
consequence has led to an overall increase in the estimated risk, despite a slight reduction
in frequency.
Other non-movement accidents which have also seen significant increases include:

HEN-10: Passenger electric shock at a station (conductor rail), indicating a 121%
increase (0.46 FWI/year): the estimated frequency has doubled due to an increase in
the number of observed events. This was particularly noticeable in 2009–2010 when
there were three fatalities and a major injury. This highlights the difficulties in
estimating the risk associated with rare, high consequence events.

HEN-35: Workforce involved in road traffic accident whilst on duty, indicating a 119%
increase (0.43 FWI/year): the observed number of events has shown a very high
year-on-year increase in event frequency over recent years. This is considered to be
as a result of better reporting of these types of events in recent years. The
suggested risk increase is therefore considered to be due to an increase in the
overall reporting of this type of event rather than a change in underlying risk.
Non-movement accidents which have seen a decrease in risk compared with SRMv6.5
include:

HEN-56: Workforce struck by / contact with / trapped in object not at a station,
indicating a 26% decrease (1.03 FWI/year): the reduction in risk is due to a reduction
in the number of observed events. The average consequence per event has also
decreased due to a reduction in the proportion of events resulting in major injuries
across most precursors.

HEN-65: Workforce assault, indicating a 27% decrease (0.84 FWI/year): the
reduction in the estimated risk is due to the decrease in the observed frequency of
events.

HEN-63: Workforce on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement & assaults),
indicating a 16% decrease (0.42 FWI/year): the estimated frequency has slightly
reduced due to a reduction in the number of observed events. The average
consequence per event has also decreased as a result of fewer events resulting in a
major injury.
See Appendix A.3 for a complete set of explanations of the changes in HE risk estimates
from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
22
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.423 (-17%)
0.392 (-20%)
0.372 (-13%)
0.369 (+12%)
HEN-30: Workforce electric shock (conductor rail)
HEN-46: MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on level
crossing or footpath crossing
HEN-82: Workforce awkward movement injury
0.644 (+13%)
HEN-25: Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m
HEN-21: Workforce struck/crushed by structural collapse or large object
0.703 (+13%)
0.706 (-4%)
HEN-68: MOP (non-trespasser) slip, trip or fall in station
HEN-13: Passenger fall from platform onto track (no electric shock nor struck by train)
0.795 (+119%)
0.956 (-14%)
HEN-74: Workforce manual handling
HEN-35: Workforce involved in road traffic accident whilst on duty
1.12 (+26%)
HEN-66: MOP (non-trespasser) assault
0.848 (+121%)
1.42 (+36%)
HEN-23: Workforce struck by/contact with/trapped in object at station
HEN-10: Passenger electric shock at station (conductor rail)
1.49 (+14%)
2.26 (-16%)
HEN-63: Workforce on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement & assaults)
HEN-55: Passenger struck by/contact with/trapped in object at station
2.29 (-27%)
2.88 (-26%)
HEN-56: Workforce struck by/contact with/ trapped in object not at station
HEN-65: Workforce assault
3.4 (+1%)
6.04 (-5%)
HEN-62: Passenger on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement & assaults)
HEN-24: Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m
8.11 (+0%)
10
23.4 (+4%)
Shock/trauma
Minor non-RIDDOR-reportable
Minor RIDDOR-reportable
Major
Fatalities
20
Chart 6:
HEN-64: Passenger assault
HEN-14: Passenger slip, trip or fall
0
Detailed Risk Profiles
Risk profiles for non-movement accidents (FWI/year) — includes percentage
change from SRMv6.5
23
Detailed Risk Profiles
5.1.4
Trespass accidents
Chart 7 shows the risk profile for the trespass accidents in FWI/year and also the change in
risk from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7. It is apparent that HEs related to trespass are likely to lead to
a fatality therefore the charts are dominated by risk from this type of injury.
The main contributor to the trespass risk profile is HEM-25: MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed
by train while on railway infrastructure not at a station, representing 23.9 FWI/year (an
increase of 18% or 3.58 FWI/year). The increase in the estimated risk is due in part to an
increase in the number of events occurring between 2007 and 2009. However, the main
increase is due to an increase in the average consequences per event, as a higher
proportion of events in the v7 data period resulted in a fatality. It should be noted that a low
number of trespass events have been recorded for 2010–2011 and therefore these numbers
are not yet representative of the longer term trend.
Other trespass accidents which have also seen significant increases include:

HEM-12: MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on tracks at a station,
indicating an 8% increase (0.98 FWI/year): the increase in the estimated risk is due
to a rise in the proportion of events resulting in fatal injuries. This has altered the
average consequences per event and has resulted in an increase in risk, despite a
reduction in the number of events.

HEN-71: MOP (adult trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure, indicating a
126% increase (1.78 FWI/year): there is a large change in the estimated risk due to
new guidance on the classification of trespass events. Injured MOP are now
assumed to be trespassers unless there is clear evidence that they were not
trespassing at the time they were injured. This has resulted in some recoding
between HEN-45, HEN-71 and HEN-72. There has in fact been a decrease of
1.1 FWI/year in the estimated risk across these three events with a decrease in the
estimated frequency of 3.7 events per year.
Trespass accidents which have seen a decrease in risk compared with SRMv6.5 include:

HEM-30: MOP (trespasser) fall while on train exterior, indicating a 75% decrease
(0.64 FWI/year): the decrease in the estimated risk is due mainly to a significant
change in the estimated frequency of events. The observed number of events has
dropped from an average of around five per year in 2001–2007 to just two events in
the period 2007–2010.

HEN-36: MOP (adult trespasser) slip, trip or fall while on railway infrastructure,
indicating a 19% decrease (0.18 FWI/year): the risk has decreased due to a
reduction in both the event frequency and consequence per event estimates.
See Appendix A.3 for a complete set of explanations of the changes in HE risk estimates
from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
24
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.653 (+8%)
0.402 (-21%)
0.246 (+1%)
0.214 (-75%)
0.173 (-38%)
HEN-37: MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (OHL)
HEN-42: MOP (child trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail)
HEN-41: MOP (child trespasser) electric shock (OHL)
HEM-30: MOP (trespasser) f all while on train exterior
HEM-44: MOP (trespasser) jump f rom train in service
0.0596 (-46%)
0.00774 (-8%)
0.00512 (-12%)
HEN-40: MOP (child trespasser) slip, trip or f all while on railway inf rastructure
HEN-43: MOP (child trespasser) electric shock (non-traction supply)
HEN-39: MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (non-traction supply)
0.154 (-8%)
0.77 (-19%)
HEN-72: MOP (child trespasser) f all/jump onto railway inf rastructure
6.21 (+2%)
3.2 (+126%)
HEN-36: MOP (adult trespasser) slip, trip or f all while on railway inf rastructure
HEN-71: MOP (adult trespasser) f all/jump onto railway inf rastructure
HEN-38: MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail)
10
23.9 (+18%)
Shock/trauma
Minor non-RIDDOR-reportable
Minor RIDDOR-reportable
Major
Fatalities
12.6 (+8%)
20
Chart 7:
HEM-12: MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on tracks at station
HEM-25: MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed while on the mainline railway not at
station
0
Detailed Risk Profiles
Risk profiles for trespass accidents (FWI/year) — includes percentage change
from SRMv6.5
25
Detailed Risk Profiles
5.2
Risk by person category
This section presents the risk profile to passengers, the workforce and MOP, broken down
by HE. In many cases the risk from an HE includes more than one person category.
However, in this section, only the injuries associated with a single person category are
included. For example HEM-11: Passenger struck while crossing track at a station on
crossing includes only the passenger injuries and not the workforce shock and trauma
injuries associated with witnessing the event. This accounts for small differences from the
risk values described in Section 5.1.
5.2.1
Passenger risk
The total passenger risk is estimated to be 52.0 FWI/year (of which 10.44 is fatality risk),
which is an increase of 3% from SRMv6.5. However, over the same period passenger
journeys have increased by 1% and passenger kilometres have increased by 4%. Chart 8
presents the current risk profile for the top 20 passenger HEs in FWI/year and the change in
risk from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
As in previous versions of the SRM, HEN-14: Passenger slip, trip, or fall is again by far the
most significant contributor to passenger risk with 23.4 FWI/year (of which 2.21 is fatality
risk), or 45% of the overall passenger risk profile. This represents an increase of 4% (0.98
FWI/year) compared with SRMv6.5.
Other non-movement HEs with significant passenger risk include:

HEN-64: Passenger assault: 8.07 FWI/year, remaining comparable to SRMv6.5.

HEN-62: Passenger on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement & assaults):
3.4 FWI/year, indicating a very slight increase of 1% (0.02 FWI/year) compared with
SRMv6.5.

HEN-10: Passenger electric shock at a station (conductor rail): a 121% increase
(0.46 FWI/year), due to an increase in the estimated frequency as a result of an
increase in the number of observed events.
Of the movement hazards concerning passenger risk, HEM-10: Passenger struck by /
contact with moving train while on platform has shown the biggest increase of 0.24 FWI/year
(19%). There were two fatality events in 2009 which contributed to an increased average
consequence per event and hence an increase in the estimated risk.
Other movement HEs with significant passenger risk include:

HEM-08: Passenger fall from platform and struck by train: 1.99 FWI/year, indicating a
decrease of 8% (0.18 FWI/year) due to a very slight downward trend in the frequency
of observed incidents.

HEM-09: Passenger injury while boarding/alighting a train (platform side):
3.24 FWI/year, indicating a decrease of 3% (0.11 FWI/year) due to a reduction in the
average consequences per event.
Notable train accidents resulting in passenger risk are:
26

HET-12: Derailment of passenger train: 1.59 FWI/year, which remains comparable
with SRMv6.5.

HET-02:
Collision
between
a
passenger
train
and
non-passenger
train:
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
HEN-05: Exposure to an explosion at a station
HEM-03: Passenger struck while leaning out of train (train in running)
0.12 (0%)
0.2 (+10%)
0.257 (-8%)
HET-13: Derailment of non-passenger train
0.306 (-14%)
HET-01: Collision between two passenger trains
0.263 (-8%)
0.408 (+4%)
HET-02: Collision between a passenger train and a non-passenger train
HET-10: Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing
0.617 (+8%)
0.659 (+30%)
HEM-38: Passenger injury due to sudden train movement
HEM-05: Train door closes on passenger
0.704 (-22%)
HEM-11: Passenger struck/crushed by train while crossing the track at or near a
station on a crossing
0.705 (-4%)
0.845 (+121%)
HEN-10: Passenger electric shock at station (conductor rail)
HEN-13: Passenger fall from platform onto track (no electric shock nor struck by train)
1.47 (-5%)
1.49 (+14%)
HEN-55: Passenger struck by/contact with/trapped in object at station
HEM-06: Passenger fall between stationary train and platform
1.54 (+19%)
1.59 (0%)
HEM-10: Passenger struck by/contact with moving train while on platform
HET-12: Derailment of passenger train
1.99 (-8%)
3.24 (-3%)
HEM-09: Passenger injury while boarding/alighting a train (platform side)
HEM-08: Passenger fall from platform and struck by train
3.4 (+1%)
HEN-62: Passenger on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement & assaults)
8.07 (+0%)
10
Shock/trauma
Minor non-RIDDOR-reportable
Minor RIDDOR-reportable
Major
Fatalities
23.4 (+4%)
25
Chart 8:
HEN-64: Passenger assault
HEN-14: Passenger slip, trip or fall
0
Detailed Risk Profiles
Risk profiles for passengers (FWI/year) — includes percentage change from
SRMv6.5
27
Detailed Risk Profiles
0.408 FWI/year, which indicates a slight increase of 4% (0.01 FWI/year).
See Appendix A.3 for a complete set of explanations of the changes in HE risk estimates
from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
5.2.2
Workforce risk
The total workforce risk is estimated to be 27.2 FWI/year (of which 4.39 is fatality risk), which
is a decrease of 8% from SRMv6.5. Chart 9 presents the current risk profile for the top 20
workforce HEs in FWI/year and the change in risk from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
The highest-ranked HE remains HEN-24: Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m, with 6.04 FWI/year,
a decrease of 5% (0.33 FWI/year) from SRMv6.5.
The next most significant HEs in terms of workforce risk are:

HEN-56: Workforce struck by / contact with / trapped in object not at a station:
2.88 FWI/year, indicating a decrease of 26% (1.03 FWI/year). The reduction in risk is
due to a reduction in the number of observed events and a reduction in consequence
per event due to a decrease in the proportion of events resulting in major injuries
across most precursors.

HEN-65: Workforce assault: 2.29 FWI/year, indicating a decrease of 27%
(0.84 FWI/year) due to a decrease in the number of observed events.

HEN-63: Workforce on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement & assaults):
2.26 FWI/year, indicating a decrease of 16% (0.42 FWI/year) due to a slight
reduction in the number of observed events and in the average consequences per
event as a result of fewer events resulting in a major injury.
Of the HEs that have seen an increase in risk the following are the most significant:

HEN-23: Workforce struck by / contact with / trapped in object at a station:
1.42 FWI/year, indicating an increase of 36% (0.37 FWI/year) due to both a change
in the estimated event frequency and the average consequences per event. The
most significant increases have been seen in Other workforce struck by object at a
station — where the trend of increasing events continues, and Infrastructure worker
struck by object at a station. The latter seems largely due to events reported at
stations undergoing major refurbishment projects. The average consequences per
event from being struck by an object have also increased as there are now more
incidents being reported that have resulted in a major injury.

HEN-35: Workforce involved in road traffic accident whilst on duty: 0.79 FWI/year,
indicating an increase of 119% (0.43 FWI/year) due to a very high year-on-year
increase in event frequency over recent years. This is assumed to be as a result of
better reporting of these types of events in the last four years. The risk increase is
therefore considered to be due to an increase in the overall reporting of this type of
event rather than a change in underlying risk.
See Appendix A.3 for a complete set of explanations of the changes in HE risk estimates
from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
28
Version 7.1 — August 2011
2.26 (-16%)
HEN-63: Workforce on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement & assaults)
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.369 (+12%)
HEN-82: Workforce awkward movement injury
0.247 (-24%)
0.245 (+1%)
HET-12: Derailment of passenger train
0.258 (-9%)
HEN-26: Workforce struck/crushed by non-train vehicle
HEN-31: Workforce electric shock (OHL)
0.351 (+1%)
0.392 (-20%)
HEN-30: Workforce electric shock (conductor rail)
HEM-14: Workforce (not infrastructure worker) struck/crushed by train
0.423 (-17%)
HEN-21: Workforce struck/crushed by structural collapse or large object
0.543 (+2%)
0.644 (+13%)
HEN-25: Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m
HEM-21: Workforce fall between stationary train and platform
0.774 (-10%)
0.795 (+119%)
HEM-31: Suicide (or attempted suicide) involving rolling stock in motion
HEN-35: Workforce involved in road traffic accident whilst on duty
0.85 (+3%)
0.925 (-10%)
HEM-39: Workforce injury due to sudden train movement
HEM-16: Workforce injury while boarding/alighting train
0.956 (-14%)
1.42 (+36%)
HEN-74: Workforce manual handling
HEN-23: Workforce struck by/contact with/trapped in object at station
1.92 (-10%)
2.29 (-27%)
HEM-19: Infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train in motion
4
6
6.04 (-5%)
Shock/trauma
Minor non-RIDDOR-reportable
Minor RIDDOR-reportable
Major
Fatalities
2.88 (-26%)
HEN-65: Workforce assault
2
Chart 9:
HEN-56: Workforce struck by/contact with/ trapped in object not at station
HEN-24: Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m
0
Detailed Risk Profiles
Risk profiles for the workforce (FWI/year) — includes percentage change from
SRMv6.5
29
Detailed Risk Profiles
5.2.3
Public risk
The total public risk is estimated to be 61.7 FWI/year excluding suicide. As trespass has
been discussed in detail in Section 5.1.4, this section considers the remaining public risk
which is estimated to be 13.26 FWI/year, excluding suicide and trespass. Chart 10 presents
the current risk profile for the top 20 public HEs (excluding suicide and trespass) in FWI/year
and the change in risk from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
The largest contributor to public risk remains by far HEM-27: MOP (non-trespasser)
pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on level crossing or footpath crossing, at
5.79 FWI/year. This has shown a decrease of 20% (1.49 FWI/year) compared with
SRMv6.5. The estimated frequency has reduced due to fewer observed events in recent
years. However, there is no obvious trend in the data to suggest whether or not this may be
a permanent reduction in event frequency, or simply year-on-year variation.
The second largest contributor to public risk, and highest-ranked train accident HE, is
HET-10: Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing. The risk from this HE
has remained relatively constant compared with SRMv6.5, at 2.6 FWI/year.
The highest-ranked non-movement HE — and the HE indicating the largest increase to
public risk — is HEN-66: MOP (non-trespasser) assault, at 1.12 FWI/year. This suggests an
increase of 26% (0.23 FWI/year) compared with SRMv6.5. A more extensive analysis was
carried out for SRMv7 using a wider data period. As a result, there has been an increase to
the average consequence per event, and a change to the physical/non-physical injury
proportion, meaning physical events are considered more likely to occur than in SRMv6.5.
The net result is an increase in the estimated risk.
The largest decrease to public risk has been seen in HEN-45: MOP (non-trespasser) fall
onto railway infrastructure, at 0.34 FWI/year.
This suggests a reduction of 89%
(2.87 FWI/year) compared with SRMv6.5. This large change in the estimated risk is due to
new guidance on the classification of trespass events. Injured MOP are now assumed to be
trespassers unless there is clear evidence that they were not trespassing at the time they
were injured. This has resulted in some recoding between HEN-45, HEN-71 and HEN-72.
Overall across these three HEs there has been a decrease of 1.1 FWI/year in the estimated
risk with a decrease in the estimated frequency to 3.7 events per year.
See Appendix A.3 for a complete set of explanations of the changes in HE risk estimates
from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7.
30
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.337 (-89%)
HEN-45: MOP (non-trespasser) fall onto railway infrastructure
HEN-59: MOP (non-trespasser) struck by/contact with/trapped in object at station
HEN-51: MOP (non-trespasser) electric shock (OHL)
HET-24: Explosion on freight train
HET-03: Collision between two non-passenger trains
HEN-52: MOP (non-trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail)
HET-13: Derailment of non-passenger train
0.0471 (-37%)
0.0479 (+752%)
0.0579 (0%)
0.0644 (+12%)
0.0679 (+165%)
0.0764 (-14%)
0.101 (+1%)
0.123 (+26%)
HET-02: Collision between a passenger train and a non-passenger train
HEN-54: MOP (non-trespasser) exposure to hazardous substances on the mainline
railway
0.124 (+73%)
HET-12: Derailment of passenger train
0.144 (-55%)
0.171 (-10%)
0.3 (0%)
0.372 (-13%)
HEN-46: MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on level
crossing or footpath crossing
HEN-49: MOP (non-trespasser) exposure to explosion on the mainline railway
0.388 (-18%)
HET-04: Collision of train with object (not resulting in derailment)
0.703 (+13%)
0.449 (-9%)
HEM-40: MOP (non-trespasser) struck by/contact with moving train due to being too
close to platform edge
HEN-44: MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck / trapped by
level crossing equipment
2
1.12 (+26%)
HET-11: Non-passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing
HEN-68: MOP (non-trespasser) slip, trip or fall in station
HEN-66: MOP (non-trespasser) assault
HET-10: Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing
HEM-27: MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on level
crossing or footpath crossing
0
2.6 (-1%)
5.79 (-20%)
6
Shock/trauma
Minor non-RIDDOR-reportable
Minor RIDDOR-reportable
Major
Fatalities
4
Detailed Risk Profiles
Chart 10: Risk profiles for MOP, excluding trespass (FWI/year) — includes percentage
change from SRMv6.5
31
6
6.1
HLOS Safety Metrics
Background
The government’s white paper Delivering a Sustainable Railway [Ref. 4] sets out the HLOS.
This describes the improvements in safety, reliability and capacity that the industry is
committed to deliver during CP4 (April 2009 to March 2014) and the Statement of Funds
Available to secure these improvements.
The improvements in safety are quoted in terms of a reduction in two safety metrics. These
state that there should be a 3% reduction in the national level of risk for both passengers
and the workforce over CP4. The passenger risk is expressed as FWI per billion passenger
kilometres, whilst the workforce risk is expressed as FWI per million employee hours.
The DfT is using the SRM as the primary means of measuring the performance of the
industry against these safety metrics, rather than using a measure of safety performance
based on accident statistics. This is because, for rare high-consequence events, the rate of
occurrence of accidents over any given period does not provide a good measure of
underlying safety performance. The risk estimates from SRMv6 were used in order to
calculate the baseline risk from which the 3% reduction will be measured.
6.2
Changes to the baseline HLOS safety metrics
As discussed in Section 3, for the purposes of calculating progress against the HLOS safety
metrics, the update for SRMv7 has been split into two separate and distinct stages. The first
stage was to incorporate all changes and error corrections into the model and produce a
revised version of the previous model — SRMv6.5. This interim version represents the risk
as would have been calculated for SRMv6, had the modelling changes implemented in
version 7 been implemented at that time. This creates a revised and more accurate baseline
for HLOS monitoring. The second stage was then a data refresh of all of the HE models with
data up to 30 September 2010.
The changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7 represent the latest estimate of risk changes since
the beginning of CP4.
In 2010 RSSB was commissioned by Network Rail to undertake an independent review of
compliance with The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences
Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) by Network Rail staff and its contractors.6 This followed initial
concerns by the ORR about the number of lost time injuries reported when compared to the
total number of major injuries being reported. The review concluded that there were events
within the Safety Management Information System (and hence in the SRM data) that had
been allocated the wrong injury classification, and that there were further minor injury events
that had not been reported at all. The injury classification changes have all been
incorporated into the version 6.5 and version 7 modelling and are accounted for in the risk
estimates. However, the under-reported events have not. An estimate of the likely extent of
under-reporting has been made and a risk contribution has been added to the final overall
6
RIDDOR places a legal duty on employers to report work-related deaths, major injuries, minor injuries lasting
more than three days, work related diseases and dangerous occurrences (near-misses).
See: http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/guidance.htm.
32
Version 7.1 — August 2011
HLOS Safety Metrics
figures (indicated by numbers in square brackets [ ] after risk figures). It will never be
possible to explicitly include these under-reported minor injury events into the SRM as the
estimation of industry under-reporting cannot be broken down and allocated at the HE or
precursor level.
Based on the estimated level of under-reporting agreed with Network Rail, for SRMv6.5 an
additional contribution of 0.463 FWI per year has been added to the overall workforce risk to
account for the under-reported RIDDOR-reportable minor injury events. For SRMv7 an
additional contribution of 0.663 per year FWI has been added to the overall workforce risk to
account for the under-reported RIDDOR-reportable minor injury events.
It should be noted that the baseline HLOS safety metric figures are subject to change as
modelling refinements are identified which necessitate a recalculation of the SRM figures.
There are therefore likely to be further changes to these numbers in the future when SRMv8
is completed in 2014.
Table 7 presents the revised baseline HLOS safety metrics and compares them with the
previously calculated values from SRMv6. Note that there are two workforce figures: one
which includes the under-reported RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries and one which does
not. These revised safety metrics also incorporate revised normaliser figures for the
baseline period.
Table 7:
Summary of the revised estimates for the baseline HLOS safety metrics
Workforce FWI / million workforce hours
Passenger
FWI / billion
passenger km
Excluding underreported minor injuries
Including underreported minor injuries
v6 HLOS safety metric
1.070
0.134
0.134
v6.5 HLOS safety metric
0.988
0.133
0.135
% change
-7.6%
-0.9%
+0.8%
6.3
Progress against the HLOS safety metrics
The passenger and workforce risk figures have been used along with the relevant
normalisation data to calculate the progress HLOS safety metrics and a comparison is then
made against the baseline figures to determine progress against the HLOS target7.
As agreed with the DfT and the ORR, the metrics exclude SRM risk estimates for nonphysical assaults. In addition, the workforce risk estimate does not include the risk from
HEN-35A: Workforce involved in road traffic accident whilst on duty as this is not considered
to be within the scope of the SRM safety monitoring in relation to the operation and
maintenance of the railway. There is also an issue with the consistent reporting of these
events which means their use in a comparative risk measure may not be representative of
any real changes in risk. The risk associated with witnessing a traumatic event (HEM-50
7
The risk figures and normalisation data used to calculate the metrics exclude the contributions from HS1 which
are outside the scope of the HLOS safety metrics but are inside the scope of the SRM.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
33
HLOS Safety Metrics
and HEN-70) has also been excluded due to issues surrounding reliable and consistent
reporting of such events for comparison in the HLOS safety metrics.
The passenger km normalisation figure has been taken from the ORR’s National Rail Trends
(Oct 2009 to Sep 2010) [Ref. 5]. This figure aligns with the data cut-off for SRMv7 (30
September 2010). The total number of passenger km for this period is 53.15 billion8, which
is an increase of 5% from the passenger km figure used for SRMv6.5 (50.4 billion).
The workforce hours estimate has been based on industry information requested by RSSB,
to support European reporting requirements. The 2010 numbers are currently in production
and therefore the 2009 figures have been used for this evaluation. The total number of
workforce hours in the relevant period is 206.8 million, which is a decrease of 1% from the
workforce hours estimate used for SRMv6.5 (209.6 million).
Table 8 summarises the progress HLOS safety metrics and the comparison of them with the
baseline safety metrics.
Table 8:
Summary of the progress against the HLOS safety metrics
Workforce FWI / million workforce hours
Passenger
FWI / billion
passenger km
Excluding underreported minor injuries
Including underreported minor injuries
v6.5 HLOS safety metric
0.988
0.133
0.135
v7 HLOS safety metric
0.971
0.123
0.126
% change
-1.8%
-7.4%
-6.5%
From Table 8 it can be seen that there has been a decrease in the passenger safety metric
of around 1.8% and a decrease of around 6.5% in the workforce metric. The passenger
metric is showing a decrease despite the increase in absolute risk due to the number of
passenger km increasing by a greater percentage than the absolute risk increase. The
workforce safety metric shows a decrease in line with the observed decrease in absolute
workforce risk.
8
Note that these are different to the passenger km figure quoted in Appendix E. This is due to the HLOS
passenger km figure being calculated from data available in March 2011 as opposed to the SRM passenger km
figure, which was calculated on data available in autumn 2010.
34
Version 7.1 — August 2011
This page has been intentionally left blank
Version 7.1 — August 2011
35
7
Strategic Safety Plan Key Risk Areas
Effective safety planning requires a detailed understanding of risk areas — the activities or
circumstances where the safety risk profile for passengers, the workforce and the public is
the greatest. This allows resources and effort to be concentrated where they will have the
greatest impact.
The SSP [Ref. 2] considers nine key risk areas (KRAs) that have been selected from the
original breakdown of the SRM figures into 15 risk areas. These nine KRAs represent the
top 98% of the overall SRM risk (it was the top 95% in SRMv6) and are thus considered to
be the ‘key’ to understanding the causes of risk in the rail industry. A complete breakdown
of the SRMv7 figures into the 15 risk areas is shown in Table 9 and diagrammatically in
Chart 11 (the KRAs are indicated in both).
Table 9:
Grouped risk figures for SRMv7
Risk area
group
Engineering
Environment
Passenger
behaviour
Public
behaviour
Workforce
behaviour
Total
Risk
(FWI /
yr)
% of
SRMv7
risk
SRMv6
Risk
(FWI /
yr)
Change
from
SRMv6
to
SRMv7
Infrastructure
3.10
2.20%
3.41
-9%
Level Crossing
0.23
0.16%
0.28
-18%
Rolling stock
2.20
1.56%
1.95
+13%
Adjacent property/land
0.04
0.03%
0.03
+24%
(0.2%)
Weather
0.20
0.14%
0.19
+4%
24.73
In stations
21.8
15.4%
22.78
-5%
On trains
2.98
2.11%
3.13
-5%
Crime
61.3
43.5%
53.95
+14%
General
1.20
0.85%
4.05
-70%
Pedestrian user
6.72
4.77%
8.52
-21%
Road vehicle user
3.61
2.57%
3.05
+18%
Shunter
0.05
0.04%
0.06
-9%
Signaller
0.82
0.58%
0.80
+3%
Station staff
15.6
11.1%
16.12
-3%
Infrastructure worker
13.5
9.59%
14.99
-10%
Train crew
7.55
5.36%
7.96
-5%
Risk in
FWI/yr
Risk area*
(% of
SRMv7)
5.53
(3.9%)
0.23
(17.6%)
72.88
(51.7%)
37.52
(26.6%)
140.9
Level
Crossings
140.9
141.3
* The nine KRAs reported in the SSP are highlighted in bold. The remaining risk areas sum to give the “other
sources of risk” reported in the SSP.
36
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Key Risk Areas
Chart 11: Breakdown of SRMv7 by risk area group (inner ring) and risk area (outer ring)
Infrastructure* Level crossing
0.2%
2.2%
Total Risk = 140.9 FWI/year
Rolling stock*
1.6%
Adjacent property/land
0.03%
Weather
0.14%
Train crew*
5.3%
Infrastructure
worker*
9.6%
In stations*
15.4%
Passengers
17.3%
Workforce
26.6%
Engineering
3.9%
Station staff*
11.1%
On trains*
2.1%
Environment
0.2%
Signaller
0.6%
RV user
2.6%
Shunter
0.04%
Level Crossing*
RV user + Pedestrian user
7.4%
Pedestrian user
4.8%
General
0.9%
Public behaviour
51.7%
Crime*
43.5%
* Indicates that the risk area is one of the nine KRAs reported in the SSP 2009–2014. The remaining risk areas
add together to give the “other sources of risk” reported in the SSP.
The 15 risk areas relate to the sources of risk. For example, the Infrastructure worker risk
area relates to the risk that arises from infrastructure workers carrying out their activities and
their behaviours in doing so, rather than the risk to infrastructure workers in their role. This
means that the risk areas relate to the causes of the SRM precursors.
In some cases, where a precursor has more than one cause, it has been necessary to
assign proportions of the precursor risk between two or more risk areas. Appendix C gives
full details of how the figures in Table 9 have been derived — it lists all of the precursors
making up each of the risk areas and gives the proportions that have been applied for any
precursors split between two or more risk areas.
The 15 risk areas can be further grouped into five higher level risk area groups — namely
engineering, environment, passenger behaviour, public behaviour and workforce behaviour.
These groupings can also be seen in Table 9.
Table 9 provides information to the industry regarding the significant causes of HEs.
Precursors, by definition, are the main contributors to the HEs that ultimately lead to harm.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
37
Key Risk Areas
Targeting the precursors through effective management actions will lead to a reduction in
risk for all the associated HEs.
It is also useful to group the HE and precursor risk into high level groups that relate to
specific causes or areas of risk on the railway. Significant risk groupings include risk from
track faults, rolling stock, signals passed at danger (SPADs) and level crossings. Table 10
provides a summary of the top level figures for a variety of groupings concerning these four
broad categories. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive and the
same precursor risk contribution may be counted in more than one group.
Table 10: Selected SRMv7 risk groupings
Passenger
train risk
(FWI/year)
Nonpassenger
train risk
(FWI/year)
Total risk
(FWI/year)
-
-
2.23
Track faults
2.10
0.16
2.26
Rolling stock
3.66
0.50
4.16
Category A SPADs resulting in collision
0.39
0.32
0.71
Category A SPADs resulting in derailment or level
crossing collision
0.09
0.04
0.14
Category D SPADs / runaways
0.02
0.37
0.39
-
-
10.51
2.97
0.45
3.42
Footpath crossings
-
-
3.01
Level crossings
-
-
7.49
Group description
Track faults — grouped for both passenger and
non-passenger trains
Level crossings
Level crossings (vehicle only)
Appendix C provides a complete breakdown of the figures in Table 10 and shows how they
have been derived.
38
Version 7.1 — August 2011
8
8.1
Individual Risk
Introduction
Individual risk is defined as the probability of a fatality to which a category of individual is
exposed. Fatality risk is distinct from FWI risk, because it excludes the component of risk
relating to injuries and shock/trauma.
The Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) decision-taking process document Reducing
Risks, Protecting People (R2P2) [Ref. 6] defines cross-industry levels for individual risk for
passengers, employees and MOP. These levels of tolerability, shown in Chart 12, provide a
benchmark against which to compare the individual risk estimates calculated in SRMv7, also
shown in Chart 12.
Chart 12: HSE individual risk targets
Unacceptable
(All)
National profile
1 in 1,000
Tolerable
(All)
Increasing individual risk
1 in 10,000
Prob. of
f atality
per year
Number of
exposed
population
Fatalities
per
year
Infr Workers 1 in 10,847
30,500
2.81
FT Drivers
1 in 18,410
2,516
0.14
PT Drivers
1 in 23,670
12,541
0.53
Group
Unacceptable (Passengers and
MOP)
Tolerable (Employees)
Other staff
1 in 23,170
15,214
0.66
PT Crew
1 in 42,818
10,746
0.25
2,798,667
10.44
Passengers 1 in 268,169
1 in 1,000,000
Broadly acceptable
(All)
Note: Passenger individual risk is given for the most exposed commuter group of passengers who are assumed
to make two journeys per day, five days per week, for 45 weeks of the year (450 total journeys). Passenger
exposed population is thus total passenger journeys divided by 450.
R2P2 points out that these tolerability levels are rarely tested since they were originally
derived for activities for which individual risk is the most difficult to control. The limits also
reflect agreements reached at an international level, whereas most industries in the UK
achieve much better levels of safety. These assertions are corroborated by SRMv7, which
calculates individual risk at levels well within the appropriate tolerability limits. However, an
understanding of which employees are most exposed to risk may help to identify where to
look for additional possible ALARP controls.
The industry document Taking Safe Decisions [Ref. 7] and guidance from the ORR [Ref. 8]
clarify that collective risk (rather than individual risk) is used in the formulation of ALARP
Version 7.1 — August 2011
39
Individual Risk
arguments and the need to meet risk tolerability levels is distinct from the ALARP/SFAIRP9
duty of transport operators.
Please note that the comparisons made in the following sections are with the figures
reported in the SRM-RPB version 6 (based on SRMv6). This means that any change may
be due to modelling changes and/or the refresh of all models with data to September 2010
(see Section 3.1).
8.2
Fatality risk
The predicted individual fatality risk from SRMv7 was analysed for each of the person
categories listed below (see Appendix D for more details):

Passengers

Workforce


Infrastructure workers

Passenger train (PT) drivers

Freight train drivers

Other train crew

Other workforce
Public
Fatalities on the railway are dominated by suicide and trespass, together amounting to 65%
of the total fatality risk. Excluding these types of HEs (defined in Section 4.2), Chart 13
shows the fatality risk for each person category.
Chart 13: Fatality risk for each person category
Freight train drivers
Public
10.4 fat/yr
Other PT crew members
Workforce
4.4 fat/yr
Passenger train drivers
Other staff
Passengers
10.4 fat/yr
Infrastructure workers
In the following sections, the individual risk to each person category is discussed and
compared with its equivalent value in SRMv6.
9
as low as reasonably practicable and so far as is reasonably practicable.
40
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Individual Risk
8.3
Passengers
Of the population of train passengers, regular commuters have the greatest exposure to risk
from the railway environment. The individual risk to a commuter is therefore assumed to be
indicative of the worst-case for the whole population of train passengers.
It is assumed that, on average, each commuter makes 450 journeys per year (two journeys
per day, five days per week for 45 weeks per year). Further assumptions are shown in
Table 11.
Table 11: Total passenger individual risk
SRMv7
SRMv6
% change v6 to v7
10.44
11.28
-7.50%
1,259,400,000
1,256,000,000
Population size*
2,798,667
2,791,111
Individual risk
(probability of a fatality per year)
3.73E-06
4.04E-06
1 in 268,169
1 in 247,398
Total passenger fatality risk per year
Number of passenger journeys
+0.27%
-7.75%
2.34E-05
Other PT crew members**
-
-
-
-
1 in 42,818
4.32E-05
Other staff (including OTP drivers)**
1 in 23,170
* Estimated maximum commuter journeys per year = number of passenger journeys / 450.
** Other PT crew and Other staff are new categories in SRMv7.
SRMv7 predicts a probability of fatality of 1 in 268,169 per year for regular commuters. As
shown in Table 11, a lower overall fatality risk (spread over a larger population) resulted in a
reduction of 7.75% in individual passenger risk since SRMv6. The most significant
contributions to this reduction are from HEN-64: Passenger Assault, HEM-09: Passenger
injury while boarding/alighting a train (platform side) and HEM-44: MOP (trespasser) jump
from train in service, which has been completely removed due to the reclassification of this
HE from a passenger event to a public trespasser event (see section E.2.1. for more details).
Version 7.1 — August 2011
41
Individual Risk
Chart 14 shows the individual risk for a passenger, broken down by the event types defined
in Section 4.2.
Chart 14: Passenger individual risk by event type
Struck on / f all f rom
train in running
1%
Boarding / alighting
incidents
3%
Other less-signif icant
Contributors
2%
Probability of fatality to a
regular commuter =
1 in 268,169 per year
Electric shock
8%
Assault
8%
Falls at station
39%
Level crossing
incidents
8%
Struck by train
while on
platf orm
Train collision /
12%
derailment
19%
Note: The Falls at station category includes: slips, trips and falls; falls onto the track; and falls from overbridges.
8.4
Workforce
The total workforce fatality risk calculated in SRMv7 was distributed into specific workforce
types in order to estimate their individual risk. During this process, a number of assumptions
were made (detailed in Appendix D). Based on these assumptions, the fatality risk for the
workforce was calculated, as shown in Chart 15.
Chart 15: Fatality risk for the workforce
Infrastructure workers
2.81
Other staff
0.66
Passenger train drivers
Other PT crew members
0.53
0.25
All values are in fatalities per year
Freight train drivers
42
0.14
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Individual Risk
Figures in Chart 15 show that the exposure to fatality risk for infrastructure workers and train
drivers represents 79% of the total workforce fatality risk. Population numbers for each of
these workforce types, estimated from Network Rail’s timesheet database and RSSB
surveys of each TOC, are presented in Table 12 along with their individual risk.
Table 12: Workforce individual risk
Person
category
Population in
SRMv7
Infrastructure
workers
30,500
Passenger train
drivers
12,541
Freight train
2,516
Individual risk (probability of a fatality per year)
SRMv7
SRMv6
9.22E-05
1.00E-04
1 in 10,847
1 in 9,986
4.22E-05
4.88E-05
1 in 23,670
1 in 20,513
5.43E-05
6.11E-05
1 in 18,410
1 in 16,361
% change v6 to v7
-8%
-13%
-11%
A comparison of Table 11 with Table 12 shows that individual risk to the workforce is an
order of magnitude greater than for passengers. This is in line with the workforce’s
increased exposure to the railway environment and the hazardous nature of the work carried
out in the rail industry.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
43
Individual Risk
8.4.1
Infrastructure workers
SRMv7 predicts a probability of fatality of 1 in 10,847 per year for the average infrastructure
worker, which is a reduction of 8% compared with the corresponding risk in SRMv6. Chart
16 shows the individual risk to an infrastructure worker, broken down by the event types
defined in Section 4.2.
Chart 16: Infrastructure worker individual risk
Train collision and/or
derailment
2%
Fall f rom train in
running
or struck by f lying
object
3%
Struck / crushed by
large object or
machinery Other less signif icant
3%
contributors
2%
RTA (not at level
crossing)
4%
Slip, trip or f all
8%
Electric shock
16%
8.4.2
Probability of fatality to
an average
infrastructure worker =
1 in 10,847 per year
Struck / crushed
by train or
other vehicle
62%
Passenger train drivers
SRMv7 predicts a probability of fatality of 1 in 23,670 per year for the average passenger
train driver, which is a decrease of 13% from the corresponding risk in SRMv6. Chart 17
shows the individual risk to passenger train drivers, broken down into the event types
defined in Section 4.2.
8.4.3
Freight train drivers
SRMv7 predicts a probability of fatality of 1 in every 18,410 per year for an average freight
train driver, which is a reduction of 11% from the corresponding risk in SRMv6. Chart 18
shows the individual risk to freight train drivers, broken down into the event types defined in
Section 4.2.
44
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Individual Risk
Chart 17: Passenger train driver individual risk
Other less signif icant
contributors
8%
Probability of fatality to
an average PT driver =
1 in 23,700 per year
RTA (not at level
crossing)
6%
Level crossing
incidents
9%
Train collision and/or
derailment
42%
Electric shock
10%
Struck / crushed by
train
25%
Chart 18: Freight train driver individual risk
Probability of fatality to an
average FT driver =
1 in 18,410 per year
Fire or explosion
8%
Struck/crushed
by train
9%
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Other less
signif icant
contributors
13%
Train collision and/or
derailment
70%
45
Individual Risk
8.4.4
Other passenger train crew members
SRMv7 predicts a probability of fatality of 1 in every 42,800 per year for an average other
passenger train crew member. Chart 19 shows the individual risk to other passenger train
crew members, broken down into the event types defined in Section 4.2.
Chart 19: Other passenger train crew members individual risk
RTA (not at level
crossing)
Other Less Signif icant
3%
Contributors
1%
Other
3%
Level crossing
incidents
5%
Fall at station (incl.
while boarding /
alighting, wrongside,
f rom platf orm or train,
f rom height and STF)
7%
Probability of fatality to an
average PT non driver
crew = 1 in 42,800 per
year
Fall f rom train in
running or struck
by f lying object
35%
Assault
12%
Struck / crushed by
train or other vehicle
13%
8.4.5
Train collision and/or
derailment
21%
Infrastructure workers
SRMv7 predicts a probability of fatality of 1 in every 23,170 per year for an average other
staff (including OTM drives). Chart 20 shows the individual risk to other staff, broken down
into the event types defined in Section 4.2.
8.5
Members of the public
In hazardous industries where all operations occur within a discrete, clearly-defined,
geographical location, the numbers of exposed members of the public, and therefore
individual risk to the public, can be determined. For the GB railway, however, it is only
possible to discuss fatality risk to the public population as a whole. Chart 21 shows the
fatality risk to members of the public (non-trespasser), broken down into the event types
defined in Section 4.2.
In this context, the dominant fatality risk to the public (non-trespasser) occurs at level
crossings, equivalent to 8.5 fatalities per year. This represents 82% of all public (nontrespasser) fatality risk.
46
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Individual Risk
Chart 20: Other staff individual risk
Train collision and/or
derailment
5%
Struck / crushed by
large object,
structure or
machinery
3%
Level crossing
incidents
Assault
0.1%
5%
Fall f rom train in
running or struck by
f lying object
6%
Probability of fatality to
other staff
= 1 in 23,170 per year
Struck/crushed
by train or
other vehicle
30%
Electric shock
6%
Fire or explosion
8%
Fumes/Smoke/
Asphyxiation/
Drowning
10%
Fall at station
17%
RTA
10%
Note 1: RTA incidents do not include those at level crossings.
Note 2: Fall at station includes falls: while alighting wrongside from a train; falls from height; and STF.
Chart 21: Members of the public (non-trespasser) fatality risk
Assault
2%
Fall at station
2%
Struck / crushed
by train or other
vehicle
1%
Other Less
Signif icant
Contributors
3%
Fire or explosion
3%
Train collision
and/or
derailment
7%
Level crossing
incidents
82%
Version 7.1 — August 2011
47
Individual Risk
Chart 22 shows the injury breakdown of non-trespasser risk to members of the public,
indicating the proportion of the risk made up from fatality risk.
Chart 22: Non-trespasser risk to members of the public
RIDDORreportable
minor injuries
(2%)
Non-RIDDORreportable
minor injuries
(1%)
Shock/ trauma
(0.3%)
Major injuries
(19%)
Fatalities (77%)
48
Version 7.1 — August 2011
This page has been intentionally left blank
Version 7.1 — August 2011
49
9
9.1
Multiple Fatality Risk: The F-N Curve
F-N results
While there are currently no specific criteria associated with the acceptability of the
frequency of train accidents that could potentially lead to multiple fatalities, it is important to
understand the vulnerability of the railway to such accidents. Using the event tree structures
within SRMv7, for all the train accident HEs with the potential to lead to multiple fatalities, an
overall F-N curve (frequency versus number of fatalities) for train accidents can be
produced. This curve is shown in Chart 23.
The curve shows that as the number of potential fatalities associated with an event
increases, the frequency of occurrence of the event reduces rapidly. Key points on the
curve are given in Table 13 and Table 14 below.
Table 13: Frequency of train-related incidents leading to multiple fatalities
Incidents (events/year) affecting passengers, staff and MOP
SRMv 2
(Jul-01)
SRMv3
(Feb-03)
SRMv4
(Jan-05)
SRMv5
(Aug-06)
SRMv6
(Jun-09)
SRMv7
(Jun-11)
>=5 fatalities
0.700
0.416
0.265
0.189
0.186
0.173
>=10 fatalities
0.320
0.180
0.127
0.110
0.065
0.055
>=25 fatalities
[not included]
[not included]
[not included]
0.021
0.020
0.016
Table 14: Return periods of train-related incidents leading to multiple fatalities
Years between incidents affecting passengers, staff and MOP
SRMv2
(Jul-01)
SRMv3
(Feb-03)
SRMv4
(Jan-05)
SRMv5
(Aug-06)
SRMv6
(Jun-09)
SRMv7
(Jun-11)
>=5 fatalities
1.4
2.4
3.8
5.3
5.4
5.8
>=10 fatalities
3.1
5.6
7.9
9.1
15.3
18.3
>=25 fatalities
[not included]
[not included]
[not included]
48
50
62
50
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1
10
100
Number of passenger, staff and member of public fatalities
1,000
F-N Curve
Chart 23: The F-N Curve
51
Cumulative frequency (events/year)
F-N Curve
The latest figures for SRMv7 can be compared with results from previous versions
(note: SRMv2 to SRMv4 are incomplete). The figures in Table 13 are represented
graphically in Chart 24.
Chart 24: Estimated frequency of train accident-related fatality events
0.8
0.7
v2, Jul-01
>=5 fatalities
>=10 fatalities
Frequency (events/year)
0.6
0.5
v3, Feb-03
0.4
0.3
v4, Jan-05
v6, June-09
v5, Aug-06
0.2
v7, June-11
0.1
0.0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
The continued increase in time between train-related incidents that lead to multiple fatalities
can be seen from SRMv2 to SRMv7. The more recent reductions are due to a generally
improving safety performance trend, as reflected in the SRMv7 train accident model results,
along with changes and enhancements to the train accident models. The reasons for these
reductions include many steps that the industry has taken to reduce the likelihood of
accidents occurring (eg the introduction of TPWS) and to reduce the consequences if
accidents do happen (eg the overall improvement in train vehicle crash-worthiness due to
the removal of Mark 1 slam-door rolling stock). [Ref. 9]
9.2
F-N modelling approach
As in SRMv6, only the train accident models have been considered in the F-N curve
calculation as these are the main contributors to multiple fatality events. Previous F-N
figures have included all HEs, however the contribution of the non-train accident portion to
these figures is minimal.
SRMv3 F-N results were presented in two versions — with and without the effects of TPWS.
For comparison in this section the without TPWS figures have been used, as SRMv3 was
produced during the transition period before TPWS had been fully implemented.
52
Version 7.1 — August 2011
F-N Curve
As in previous SRM versions, the basic F-N analysis suggests that the frequency of
accidents leading to 25 fatalities has reduced. However, even though the event trees
within the SRM break down the HEs into a large number of different potential outcomes,
each consequence estimate still only represents a single average consequence for that
outcome. In reality a greater spread of consequences might actually be possible. This is the
case, for example, with public fatalities in models involving the spillage of hazardous goods,
where the possibility for very high consequence events exists, albeit with a very low
frequency.
Consequently, while the average risk associated with such outcomes is accurately modelled
within the SRM, the full range of higher and lower consequence outcomes that make up this
average is not always explicitly modelled. The F-N analysis has been adjusted for highfatality public events. The adjusted results have been calculated by redistributing the highfatality portion of public fatality events whilst maintaining the overall level of risk. As a result
of the correction, the frequencies of higher fatality events are now considered to be more
realistically represented on the F-N curve in SRMv6 and SRMv7.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
53
10
Bringing Yards, Depots and Sidings Within Scope of
the SRM
10.1
Introduction
RSSB has been developing an extension to the SRM to cover Yards, Depots and Sidings
(YD&S). The project has, to date, achieved:

The creation of a non-mandatory appendix to GE/RT8047 to cover data collection in
SMIS.

A preliminary model structure based on the current SRM framework, supplemented
by additional HEs identified from industry HAZOP workshops.

The collation of over one year’s worth of data into SMIS from Network Rail (NR) and
passenger TOCs.

An initial assessment of the data giving an indication of the risk in YD&S.
The following sections give some background and detail as to how this has been achieved.
Preliminary risk results are presented at the end.
10.2
Project background
In order to support the GB rail industry in carrying out risk assessments, RSSB created and
continues to develop the SRM. The scope of the SRM was originally based on the
provisions of The Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 199410 and covered the operation and
maintenance of the mainline railway. In particular, it related to the exposed populations of
passengers, the workforce and MOP.
Previous and current legislation requires railway operating companies to carry out risk
assessments on areas away from the operational railway, such as YD&S. However, there
has been no requirement to report any injuries or incidents occurring there into the industrywide reporting system, SMIS. Obtaining and analysing this data and gathering safety risk
information in these areas would give a better indication of a railway operator’s overall risk
profile.
The YD&S project involves extending the scope of the SRM, and subsequently SMIS, to
incorporate incidents and injuries in areas away from the operational railway. This means
that data on events throughout the rail industry will be available for companies to use as they
see fit in order to improve their ability to provide risk assessments and improve safety within
the industry.
The model extension would also allow companies to assess the risk across their whole
operation in a consistent way via the SRM Risk Profile Tool (SRM-RPT, see Section 13.3).
This tool allows individual companies to create a company-specific quantified risk
assessment based on the national risk profile.
The RSSB Board decided to make the collection of data to support the initiative a nonmandatory requirement, so that those parties who were interested in participating would be
10
These regulations have been superseded by The Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000 and The Railways
(Safety Case) (Amendment) Regulations 2003.
54
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Yards, Depots and Sidings
able to formally commit themselves to the provision of YD&S data, but others would be able
to opt out if they chose to. Initially, NR and all of the passenger TOCs signed up to
start/continue this from 01 April 2010.
The requirement has been included as a non-mandatory appendix to the SMIS standard
GE/RT8047 [Ref. 10], and the contents of that appendix are presently being drafted. Minor
changes to SMIS, in particular the names of the YD&S sites and more detailed workforce
types and activity descriptions, are underway. However, in general, SMIS is able to accept
entries from YD&S sites and has been doing so for some time.
10.3
Project objectives
The original objectives of this work were to:

Develop a set of requirements for the reporting of safety information relating to the
risk occurring on YD&S sites. This needed to operate on the basis that companies
wishing to participate were required to provide a formal commitment to RSSB to
enter the data into SMIS.

Develop a proposed structure for modelling the risk from YD&S sites in the SRM,
including a clear understanding of the nature and scope of activities and
responsibilities, and clear definitions of HEs and precursors.

Develop a set of detailed data requirements for incorporation within SMIS.
The work to meet these objectives has been undertaken concurrently, as the objectives are
inter-related, and a high degree of stakeholder input and engagement was needed to make
satisfactory progress.
10.4
Scope and definitions
The existing SRM includes the safety risk from incidents which could occur during the
operation and maintenance of the mainline railway. There have been various adjustments to
the SRM scope over the years (see Appendix G). The YD&S extension to the SRM model is
defined as follows:

All on-train incidents within YD&S sites.

All injuries to the railway workforce involved in operations and maintenance work on
YD&S sites, or travelling to and from related sites.

All injuries to authorised visitors, trespassers, or over-carried passengers within
YD&S sites.

All areas within the physical boundaries of the YD&S site (not including mess rooms,
offices, toilets, retail sites, etc).
In order to be consistent with the scope of the existing SRM, events that occur in (or partly
in) YD&S that affect the operational railway will remain within the SRM model (and out of
scope of the YD&S model).
The YD&S model intends to remain consistent with the structure of the SRM and the same
HEs (where applicable) will be used and supplemented by new HEs only relevant to YD&S
where necessary.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
55
Yards, Depots and Sidings
Chart 25: Example 1 of a typical YD&S site
Chart 26: Example 2 of a typical YD&S site
56
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Yards, Depots and Sidings
The boundaries of a typical YD&S site are shown in Chart 25 and Chart 26. This involves
determining the boundary between the YD&S site and the operational railway and other
surrounding properties and road access entrances.
The following definition has been established for a YD&S site:
“Any location that is connected to but away from the running lines (comprising
NRMI), where train maintenance, stabling, marshalling and/or servicing (including
refuelling) takes place under the management/control of another infrastructure
manager (IM).” [Ref. 10]
Locations such as power stations, mine loading sites and docks are excluded, except for the
reporting of accidents or injuries that occur to trains or train/freight operating company
(TOC/FOC) staff while operating at those sites.
The workforce types proposed for the new model are detailed below:

Driver/Shunter — This includes drivers of trains undertaking shunting manoeuvres
(and entering/exiting the site) on YD&S sites, and the shunters that assist in those
manoeuvres on the ground.

Engineering staff — This includes all workers who are undertaking engineering and
maintenance work (including maintenance during train servicing) on trains and trainrelated components on a YD&S site. This also includes fitters and machine
operators, loading workers (freight) and other workers on the site involved in rail
operations activities that do not fit into other categories.

Cleaner / Administrative staff — This includes all those workers who are not
engineering and maintenance staff, and who are not involved in shunting (driving)
activities. It is specifically directed at those engaged in cleaning and train servicing
activities that do not actually involve any physical maintenance work, plus those
supervisors and administration staff who are occasionally on the shop floor or in the
yard.

Infrastructure worker — These are treated the same as in the SRM.

Passenger — The only passengers that will be present in a YD&S site will be those
passengers who remain in a carriage after a train is taken out of service and moves
onto the YD&S site for stabling and/or maintenance. These are described as overcarried passengers and it is possible for them to be injured.

MOP — These are treated the same as in the SRM. Any authorised visitors to the
site, except those who work for, or are under contract to, the company who manages
the site, will be considered to be MOP.

Trespassers — These are also treated the same as in the SRM. Anyone who enters
the site without permission, either through the gates or over the boundary fence, is
considered to be a trespasser. In addition, if a visitor who has been given access to
the site decides to venture onto an area where they are not allowed, eg climbs onto
the roof of a train, then they will be considered a trespasser.
The definitions listed above are preliminary and may change as the model configuration is
finalised and the scope integrated with that of the SRM.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
57
Yards, Depots and Sidings
10.5
Preliminary model development
10.5.1
Preliminary model setup
In essence, the majority of the types of injuries and events that can occur on YD&S sites are
the same as those that can occur on the operational railway (which includes stations and
areas in possession). However, various differences are apparent: there are no stations in
YD&S sites (but platform-like structures do exist); there are usually no passengers and very
few members of the public on YD&S sites; and the majority of activities are based around
shunting movements and train maintenance rather than passenger and freight carriage.
As a result, the preliminary model was set up in parallel to the SRM, with the same structure
and based on similar HEs and precursors.
10.5.2
Site visits
Six YD&S site visits were undertaken to become familiar with the configuration of these sites
and to witness the activities that go on under normal operation, including stabling, shunting
movements, light and heavy maintenance, freight operations, plant, cleaning and refuelling.
These site visits were also used to make a preliminary assessment of the types of HEs that
exist on these sites, and the types of accidents that often do, or could, occur.
10.5.3
HAZOP workshop
A Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) workshop was set up to capture all of the potential
HEs that exist during normal working on a YD&S site. This HAZOP focussed on those
activities undertaken by TOCs on the YD&S sites (and many activities undertaken on freight
sites) under their management or control. The HAZOP covered as many of the basic
activities that occur on these sites as possible.
The outcome of this workshop was a list of HEs, precursors and other deviations from
normal behaviour based on the procedures assessed. These were then compared to the
existing HE list from the SRM to determine new HEs for the YD&S model.
Future consideration will be given to activities not covered by this workshop, ie those that are
specifically related to freight working. These primarily consist of train marshalling and
loading/unloading. This may be best addressed with interviews and discussions rather than
a further full HAZOP workshop.
10.5.4
Model structure
The extension to the SRM model that represents YD&S sites will be set up in a similar way
to the existing SRM, and will include the three different types of HEs: train accidents (HETs);
movement accidents (HEMs); and non-movement accidents (HENs).
Due to the simplified nature of potential train accidents on YD&S sites, and the low speed of
all train movements (except runaways), no detailed event trees are needed to adequately
describe these events. The risk from YD&S HETs, like that from HEMs and HENs, will be
estimated using spreadsheet analysis of their frequency and consequences.
58
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Yards, Depots and Sidings
A new list of HEs, and the related precursors, has been set up to represent all of the
potential events that can occur within the YD&S sites, based on the outcomes of the HAZOP
workshop and the various site visits.
The first stage of the model will be based on activities on TOC sites, using the data that is
available from all of their operations. Once the data from the companies that contract to the
TOCs is added, this will provide a full picture of the risk profile of the TOC activities. At the
same time, RSSB will attempt to gather data from FOCs and the companies that contract to
them and work towards a risk profile of freight activities on their sites.
10.6
Data collection and analysis
Data collection to support the quantification of the new model scope began on 01 April 2010.
While many companies already used SMIS to enter their YD&S-based data, from this date
there now exists a complete dataset covering all TOC workers on TOC managed YD&S sites
as well as NR YD&S sites. As of April 2011, RSSB has amassed a dataset covering one
year of NR and TOC-related injury and accident data.
It should be mentioned that this initial dataset only covers NR and TOC sites, and does not
include the workforce for the train maintenance companies who are contracted out to TOCs
on the sites that they manage. It also does not include any freight data. Plans are in place
in 2011/2012 for collecting data from train maintenance companies and freight operating
companies in order to obtain a more complete risk profile.
The first year of data collected has now been coded to the new YD&S precursor codes. This
amounts to around 1,500 recorded injuries, along with around 90 train accidents that
generally do not result in associated injuries. Of these 1,500 injuries, approximately 12%
have been reported by Network Rail, occurring on both depot sites and engineering sidings.
Initial assessment of the injury data shows that the current risk for the TOC operated sites is
6.0 FWI/year and there were no fatalities in the following categories:

Struck by / contact with / trapped in object (44%)

Injury from slip, trip and fall (30%)

Manual handling injury (11%)

Exposure to hazardous substances (4%)
Other events that have occurred include burn injuries, electric shocks, injuries while
boarding/alighting to or from the track, awkward movement injuries and on-train injuries. In
terms of train accidents, a small number of injuries (four) occurred as a result of trains either
derailing or hitting objects on the line.
Initial assessment of the train accident data shows that 64% of the recorded events were
derailments. These derailments were fairly equally divided between passenger train (ECS
and parcel train) and non-passenger train (freight including OTM and OTP) derailments.
Other common events include:

Train striking (or being struck by) object (16%)

Train collisions while shunting (7%)

Buffer stop collisions (6%)
Version 7.1 — August 2011
59
Yards, Depots and Sidings
It is important to note that this is a preliminary assessment of the first year of YD&S data and
should only be regarded as an indication of the risk profile in YD&S.
10.7
Project timeline and next steps
Extension of the SRM model to include YD&S sites is one of the RSSB company objectives
for 2011/2012. The initial analysis will include 21 months of data since the project was
initiated.
The next steps planned in the YD&S project are:

Produce a draft YD&S report.

Set up the detailed YD&S model structure.

Determine a fair and agreed data collection procedure for the train maintenance and
freight companies.

Collate the 21 months of data, and perform a preliminary analysis on the data, similar
to that done for the SRM-RPB (with a cut-off date of December 2011).

Create a risk profiling tool for YD&S, equivalent to the SRM-RPT, to enable
stakeholders to assess their own risk profile.

Produce a final report containing details of the project and the model development,
and the final analysis of the dataset, similar to the SRM-RPB.
Publication of the final report is currently planned for Spring 2012.
The YD&S risk model will be incorporated into the scope and structure of the SRM in time for
SRMv8 (due at the end of CP4, in March 2014).
60
Version 7.1 — August 2011
11
Using Risk Information to Support Decisions
The principles that are applied to taking decisions in the GB railway industry are described in
the industry publication Taking Safe Decisions [Ref. 7]. The document describes how risk
information is used to support judgements about whether or not particular measures are
necessary in order to reduce risk to a level that is ALARP.
There are various ways in which this judgement can be reached. If there is established good
practice, and it is valid and appropriate in the particular circumstances envisaged, then this
suggests that the practice is “reasonably practicable”. Where no established good practice
exists, then the judgement must be based on an estimation of costs and benefits. Risk
estimates and information are used to help decision takers apply the test of reasonable
practicability as outlined in case law:
“…a computation must be made…in which the quantum of risk is placed on one
scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk
(whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other.” [Ref. 11]
In practice, the “sacrifice” is taken to be the cost of a potential measure and the “quantum of
risk” is the safety benefit associated with that measure — a collective risk estimate quantified
in FWI. The value of preventing a fatality (VPF) is used to translate the safety benefit to a
financial value. The VPF was calculated by RSSB, based on DfT guidance published in
January 2010, to be £1,674,000. The VPF is re-calculated annually and is available on the
RSSB website [Ref. 12].
The balancing of cost and safety benefit can be undertaken qualitatively or quantitatively. In
some cases, simple inexpensive controls can be adopted on the basis of qualitative analysis,
using professional judgement. However, a more quantitative approach, using formal CBA,
may be used to support a judgement where issues are more complex.
Decisions often involve investment in measures where costs and benefits will accrue over a
number of years. Therefore all relevant future costs and benefits must be calculated in
present-value terms. A discount rate is chosen to do this, and the net present value is
calculated. Further guidance on how to do this may be found in Taking Safe Decisions.
Ultimately the output of a CBA provides an indication of the relative scale of costs and
benefits and is only an input to assist in the taking of decisions. Judgement must be applied
to each individual case. Further guidance about how to take safety-related decisions and
how to use the results of a CBA to inform decision making are provided in Taking Safe
Decisions. RSSB has also developed a Microsoft Excel-based tool that supports those
calculations (see Section 13.4).
The SRM provides network-wide risk information that duty holders might use as an input to
their risk assessment and analysis activities, and hence CBA. However, in the final analysis
transport operators must satisfy themselves that any risk estimates they use to support their
decisions are valid given their particular circumstances.
The SRM-RPT (see Section 13.3) can be obtained from RSSB to support a more localised
analysis of risk. These templates can be used to estimate risk from portions of the network.
For example they can be used to estimate the risk profile of a given train operator. RSSB is
continuing to undertake research in how to deliver risk information that is targeted at the
needs of the industry’s decision takers.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
61
Taking Safe Decisions
For details of how to obtain more information about the support we can provide, please see
Section 13.
62
Version 7.1 — August 2011
12
SRM Governance and SRM-RPB Updates
12.1
SRM Practitioners Working Group
The SRM-PWG is the industry governance body of the SRM. It was set up to facilitate a
structured process for eliciting the industry’s views on the development and use of the SRM.
The fundamental purpose of the SRM-PWG is to provide governance for changes to the
SRM.
The SRM-PWG was formed under the authority of the SPG to engage stakeholders in the
development and control of future versions of the SRM and its related outputs which include
the SRM-RPB, SRM-RPT and documents such as Guidance on the Preparation and Use of
Company Risk Assessment Profiles for Transport Operators (see Section 13.2). It
comprises a range of industry representatives including Network Rail, train operators, rolling
stock manufacturers, infrastructure maintenance companies and the ORR. The aims of the
group are:

To ensure that the SRM and its outputs meet the needs of the industry.

To provide stakeholders with a formal opportunity to contribute to, oversee and
recommend developments to the SRM, and to provide transparency for any
development activities carried out by RSSB.

To create a forum for the industry to inform RSSB of changes to the network that
should be reflected in the SRM, thus ensuring that the SRM provides the best
possible representation of the underlying level of risk on the railway.

To enhance the channels through which RSSB delivers, promotes and supports SRM
risk information.
The modelling changes implemented as part of the update of the SRM to version 7 have
been endorsed by SRM-PWG. The final, revised version 6 figures (SRMv6.5) and the final
SRMv7 figures were presented to the group and approved in March 2011.
12.2
Update history
Since version 1 in 2001, the SRM-RPB has been updated regularly so that the risk profile
remains as current as possible. Since version 2, the SRM-RPB has been issued
approximately every 18–24 months. Version 7 of the SRM-RPB is actually the eighth
release and covers SRMv6.5 and SRMv7. The update history up to and including this
version is shown in Table 15 below.
Table 15: SRM update history
Version
Issue Date
Major Change (from previous version)
1
January 2001
First version
2
July 2001
Re-release of SRMv1
3
February 2003
Full data update and model enhancements
Inclusion of TPWS
Version 7.1 — August 2011
63
SRM Governance
Table 15: SRM update history (cntd)
Version
Issue Date
Major Change (from previous version)
4
January 2005
Full data update and model enhancements
5
August 2006
Full data update and model enhancements
Removal of Mk1 slam-door rolling stock from models
Inclusion of OTP risk model
5.5
May 2008
Interim partial data update
Change in FWI weightings
6
June 2009
Full data update and model enhancements
CP4 HLOS benchmark version
6.5
January 2011
Model enhancements
7
June 2011
Full data update
12.3
Updates to the SRM during CP4
After this current version, SRMv7, a further, full update of the SRM will be produced in March
2014 so that the change in risk over CP4 can be measured and compared with the
benchmark SRMv6 figures. Chart 27 illustrates the timeline for updates of the SRM during
CP4.
Chart 27: Timeline for updates of the SRM and the SRM-RPB for CP4
64
Version 7.1 — August 2011
SRM Governance
As part of any future updates it may be necessary to incorporate some modelling changes
into the update process and this may be due to a number of reasons, namely:

New analyses or analysis methods are incorporated into the SRM or the SRM is
extended to cover new HEs beyond the current scope.

A significant change in the risk profile becomes apparent due to the introduction of a
new control measure or a significant deterioration in the application of one or more
existing control measures is identified.
As was necessary in order to produce the HLOS progress metrics associated with this
update, any update to the modelling approach applied to the SRM during the remainder of
CP4 will require SRMv6.5 to be recalculated to allow the risk profile over CP4 to be
calculated consistently and on a like-for-like basis.
The next full update of the SRM will be version 8 in 2014. As this is three years from
SRMv7, a partial update (SRMv7.1) may be undertaken and updated risk figures released in
September 2012 to reflect any significant changes in the risk profile.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
65
13
RSSB Rail Risk Portal
The SRM-RPB is one of the outputs from the SRM, which has been developed as a
resource for the railway industry. RSSB is committed to providing the maximum assistance
to our members, and have produced a range of products and services, all derived from the
SRM.
All products are available on the RSSB Rail Risk Portal at www.safetyriskmodel.co.uk.
13.1
SRM Risk Profile Bulletin
The outputs from the SRM are presented in the SRM-RPB, along with analyses of important
risk profiles and discussion of these in the wider context of the rail industry.
To assist the industry in conducting risk assessments, the SRM-RPB provides national risk
estimates for the mainline railway in GB. These are provided in tabular form in the SRMRPB (see Appendices A and B) and can be freely downloaded from the RSSB Rail Risk
Portal at www.safetyriskmodel.co.uk.
13.2
Risk assessment guidance
RSSB has produced Guidance on the Preparation and Use of Company Risk Assessment
Profiles for Transport Operators [Ref. 13], which provides guidance to transport operators on
how to prepare and maintain risk assessments covering their operations.
The principles in this document are designed to facilitate a consistent and robust approach
to risk assessment throughout the rail industry. The document also suggests how to make
the best use of the tools provided by the RSSB, such as the SRM-RPB and the SRM-RPT
(see Section 13.3).
13.3
SRM Risk Profile Tool
The SRM-RPT, formerly known as the SRM Templates Tool, can be used to estimate the
risk contribution from a portion of the GB network, for example, the risk profile of a given
transport operator.
The SRM is used as a starting point, representing the total risk to the whole GB network.
The user enters data into the SRM-RPT in order to scale the national average risk, to make
it more representative of the risk profile of their own operation.
13.4
Taking Safe Decisions Analysis Tool
The law in the UK requires the railway to reduce safety risk to a level that is ALARP. A
judgement about whether or not safety risk has been reduced to a level that is ALARP is
based on the consideration of the costs and safety benefits of the different options; this can
involve both subjective judgement and objective analysis. In its most detailed form, for a
subset of complex decisions, the ALARP judgement can be supported by a quantified CBA.
Taking Safe Decisions (see Section 11) contains a framework that describes how to put
these principles into practice. The Taking Safe Decisions – Analysis Tool, in turn, supports
66
Version 7.1 — August 2011
RSSB Rail Risk Portal
safety decision taking by facilitating the construction of a CBA that is compatible with Taking
Safe Decisions.
13.5
Fixed Lineside Telephony Analysis Tool
In the wake of the rollout of GSM-R across GB, RSSB have produced guidance note
GO/GN3677 Guidance on Operational Criteria for the Provision of Lineside Telephony
Following GSM-R Introduction [Ref. 14], which recommends a risk-based appraisal process.
The Fixed Lineside Telephony Analysis Tool (FLAT) has been produced to support this
process.
FLAT is intended to assist users in deciding whether to provide, renew, retain or remove
lineside telephony at a specific location. It uses risk estimates from the SRM to perform a
CBA which is consistent with the Taking Safe Decisions guidelines.
13.6
SPAD Risk Ranking Tool
Following publication of the Railway Group Safety Plan 2001/0211, the existing SPAD
ranking methodology at the time was considered inadequate to measure the change in
safety risk associated with SPADs over time. The SPAD Risk Ranking Tool was therefore
developed to:

Estimate the probability of the SPAD escalating to an accident and the potential
accident severity.

Estimate changes to overall potential risk from SPADs.

Identify those SPADs that are potentially significant.

Inform the SPAD investigation process.
13.7
Safety Risk Model
The SRM consists of a series of fault and event tree models representing 120 HEs which,
collectively, define the overall level of risk on the mainline railway (see Appendix G for the
boundaries of this system).
It provides a structured representation of the causes and consequences of potential
accidents arising from railway operations and maintenance. The reported risk estimates
relate to the network-wide risk, and they indicate the current level of residual risk.
The SRM itself is not usually available in electronic format to users outside of RSSB.
13.8
Risk Management Forum
The annual Risk Management Forum (RMF) exists to promote, develop and steer good
practice in risk management for Britain’s railways. RSSB has been hosting the RMF on
behalf of the industry for a number of years.
RMF presentations are available on www.safetyriskmodel.co.uk.
11
This document has been superseded by the Railway Strategic Safety Plan 2009-2014 [Ref. 2].
Version 7.1 — August 2011
67
RSSB Rail Risk Portal
13.9
SRM definitions
Please see Appendix F.2 for further information about SRM definitions.
13.10
Assistance and training
RSSB provides training on risk assessment tools and techniques for groups or individuals.
We also offer a hot desk at our offices where we can work closely with you on any risk
problem.
For more information, please contact us on 020 3142 5464 or risk@rssb.co.uk.
68
Version 7.1 — August 2011
14
Contributors
Details of the preparation and approval of the SRM-RPB are given below:
Prepared by:
Stuart Archbold
George Bearfield
Will Clayton
Ben Gilmartin
David Griffin
Chris Harrison
Jay Heavisides
Anna Holloway
Oliver Kneale
Ricardo Minson
Wayne Murphy
Tracey Tan
Kevin Thompson
Reviewed by:
George Bearfield
Colin Dennis
Anson Jack
SRMv7 scope and update changes from previous versions were endorsed by:
SRM Practitioners Working Group on behalf of Safety Policy Group
Approved by:
Colin Dennis
Release date:
June 2011
Correspondence may be sent to:
RSSB
Block 2, Angel Square
1 Torrens St
London EC1V 1NY
UK
or:
risk@rssb.co.uk
Version 7.1 — August 2011
69
15
Acronyms and Glossary
15.1
Acronyms
ABCL
Automatic Barrier Level Crossing, Locally-monitored
AHB
Automatic Half-Barrier (level crossing)
ALARP
As Low As Reasonably Practicable
ALCRM
All Level Crossing Risk Model
AOCL
Automatic Open Level Crossing, Locally-monitored
CBA
Cost-Benefit Analysis
CCTV
Closed-Circuit Television
CP4
Control Period 4
DEMU
Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit
DfT
Department for Transport
DLOCO
Locomotive for a Diesel train
DMU
Diesel Multiple Unit
ECS
Empty Coaching Stock
ELOCO
Locomotive for an Electric train
EMU
Electric Multiple Unit
FAT
Fatalities
FLAT
Fixed Lineside Telephony Analysis Tool
FOC
Freight Operating Company
FOL
Freight-Only Lines
FP
Footpath level crossing
FT
Freight Train
FTE
Full-Time Equivalent
FWI
Fatalities and Weighted Injuries
GB
Great Britain
HAZOP
Hazard and Operability Study
HE
Hazardous Event
HLOS
High-Level Output Specification
HSE
Health and Safety Executive
HST
High-Speed Train
70
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Acronyms & Glossary
IECC
Integrated Electronic Control Centre
IM
Infrastructure Manager
KRA
Key Risk Area
LC
Level Crossing
LUL
London Underground Ltd
MA
Major injuries
MCB
Manually-Controlled Barrier Level Crossing
MCG
Manually-Controlled Gate Level Crossing
MN
Non-RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries
MOP
Members of the Public
MR
RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries
MWL
Miniature Warning Lights
NPT
Non-Passenger Train
NR
Network Rail
OC
Open Level Crossing
ORR
The Office of Rail Regulation
OTM
On-Track Machinery
OTP
On-Track Plant
PL
Passenger Lines
POS
inside Possession
PT
Passenger Train
R2P2
Reducing risks, protecting people: HSE’s decision-making process [Ref. 6]
RGS
Railway Group Standards
RIDDOR
The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations
1995
RMF
Risk Management Forum
RMMM
Rail-Mounted Maintenance Machine
RRV
Road-Rail Vehicle
RSSB
Rail Safety and Standards Board
RU
Railway Undertaking
S/T
Shock/Trauma
SCC
Signalling Control Centre
SFAIRP
So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable
Version 7.1 — August 2011
71
Acronyms & Glossary
SMIS
Safety Management Information System
SMS
Safety Management System
SPAD
Signal Passed At Danger
SPG
Safety Policy Group
SRM
Safety Risk Model
SRM-PWG
Safety Risk Model Practitioners Working Group
SRM-RPB
Safety Risk Model: Risk Profile Bulletin
SRM-RPT
Safety Risk Model: Risk Profile Tool
SRMv6
Safety Risk Model, version 6
SRMv7
Safety Risk Model, version 7
SSP
Strategic Safety Plan
ST1
Class 1 shock/trauma injuries
ST2
Class 2 shock/trauma injuries
TABS
Track Access Billing System
TfL
Transport for London
TOC
Train Operating Company
TPWS
Train Protection and Warning System
UWC
User-Worked Level Crossing
UWC+T
User-Worked Level Crossing + Telephone
VPF
Value of Preventing a Fatality
YD&S
Yards, Depots and Sidings
15.2
Glossary
The following list describes terms as they are used in the SRM.
ACTRAFF
A database for recording actual traffic movement across the network.
ALARP/SFAIRP
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places a duty on
employers to ensure safety “so far as is reasonably practicable”. When
these duties are considered in relation to risk management, the duty is
sometimes described as a requirement to reduce risk to a level that is
“as low as reasonably practicable”. These terms therefore express the
same concept in different contexts and should be considered to be
synonymous.
awkward
movement
An injury caused by an unusual body movement, eg twisting or
stretching, which is received in the course of carrying out normal
everyday activities. It excludes any injuries received from lifting or
72
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Acronyms & Glossary
carrying objects which are classified under manual handling.
child
A person aged 15 years or below.
collective risk
The aggregate risk, possibly for a range of different groups, associated
with their exposure to a particular scenario or hazardous event. The
SRM calculates collective risk as the average number of fatalities, or
FWI/year that would be expected to occur from a hazardous event, or
group of hazardous events. When undertaking an assessment of
whether or not a measure is necessary to reduce risk to a level that is
ALARP, the change in risk associated with the measure is a collective
risk estimate.
consequence
The amount of safety harm directly caused by a hazardous event.
This is quantified in terms of fatalities, injuries and occurrences of
shock and trauma.
control measure
Any means to reduce the frequency of a hazardous event and/or
minimise the consequence following its occurrence.
Control measures may be physical devices, procedures, or a system of
both.
escalation
factor
Any failure which significantly increases, or ‘escalates’, the
consequence of a hazardous event. For instance, a train derailment
(the hazardous event) could escalate into a bridge collapse onto the
train, a fire or release of hazardous goods.
An escalation factor may be a system failure, sub-system failure,
component failure, human error, physical effect or operational condition.
It may occur individually, or in combination with other escalation factors.
fatalities and
weighted
injuries (FWI)
The aggregate amount of safety harm. One FWI is equivalent to:

one fatality, or

10 major injuries, or

200 RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries, or

200 Class 1 shock/trauma events, or

1,000 non-RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries, or

1,000 Class 2 shock/trauma events.
fatality
Death occurs within one year of the accident.
frequency
The rate of occurrence (eg the number of events per year).
hazardous
event (HE)
An incident that has the potential to be the direct cause of safety harm.
individual risk
The probability of fatality per year to which an individual is exposed
from the operation of the railway. Individual risk is a useful notion when
organisations are seeking to benchmark their risk profile and to prioritise
safety management effort. The ORR categorises individual risk as
“unacceptable”, “tolerable” and “broadly acceptable” for the purposes of
Version 7.1 — August 2011
73
Acronyms & Glossary
prioritising its enforcement activity.
infrastructure
worker
A member of the workforce whose responsibilities include engineering
or technical activities on or about the track. This includes track
maintenance, civil structure inspection, S&T renewal/upgrade,
engineering supervision, acting as a controller of site safety, hand
signaller or lookout and machine operation.
level crossing
A junction between the road and the railway, where both are at groundlevel.
For additional definitions of the types of LC used in the SRM, please see
the RSSB Rail Risk Portal at www.safetyriskmodel.co.uk.
major injury
Injuries to passengers, staff or MOP as defined in Schedule 1 of
RIDDOR. This includes losing consciousness, most fractures, major
dislocations, loss of sight (temporary or permanent) and other injuries
that resulted in hospital attendance for more than 24 hours.
1 FWI is equivalent to 10 major injuries.
minor injury
A physical injury to a passenger, staff or MOP that is neither a fatality
nor a major injury.
Minor injuries to the workforce are RIDDOR-reportable if the injured
person is incapacitated for more than three consecutive days. Minor
injuries to passengers and MOP, are RIDDOR-reportable if the injured
person was taken directly from the from the accident site to hospital.
All other minor injuries are not reportable under RIDDOR, but must still
be reported in SMIS for compliance with GE/RT8047 [Ref. 10].
1 FWI is equivalent to 200 RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries, or 1000
non-RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries.
movement
accident (HEM)
An accident causing injury to people, involving trains (in motion or
stationary) but excluding injuries sustained in train accidents, which
occurs within the scope of the SRM (see Appendix G).
non-movement
accident (HEN)
An accident causing injury to people, unconnected with the movement of
trains, which occurs within the scope of the SRM (see Appendix G).
operational
railway
All railway lines for which the IM has been granted a safety
authorisation, and the RU has been granted a safety certificate by the
ORR (under European Safety Directive 2004/49/EC [Ref. 15]). This
provides evidence that there is a suitable SMS in place, and that
operations are being conducted in accordance with that SMS.
Ovenstone
criteria
An explicit set of criteria, adapted for the railway, which provides an
objective assessment of suicide if a coroner’s verdict is not available.
The criteria are based on the findings of a 1970 research project into rail
suicides and cover aspects such as the presence (or not) of a suicide
note, the clear intent to commit suicide, behavioural patterns, previous
suicide attempts, prolonged bouts of depression and instability levels
[Ref. 16].
74
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Acronyms & Glossary
outcomes
The range of scenarios that could arise following the occurrence of a
hazardous event.
passenger
A person on railway infrastructure, who either intends to travel on a
train, is travelling on a train or has travelled on a train. This does not
include passengers who are trespassing or who commit suicide —
they are included in the SRM as MOP.
possession
(POS)
The complete stoppage of all normal train movements on a running
line or siding for engineering purposes. This includes protection as
defined by the Rule Book (GE/RT8000).
precursor
A system failure, sub-system failure, component failure, human error or
operational condition which could, individually or in combination with
other precursors, result in the occurrence of a hazardous event.
probability
The likelihood of an event occurring on demand.
public,
members of
(MOP)
Persons other than passengers or workforce members. This includes
passengers who are trespassing (eg when crossing tracks between
platforms), or attempting to commit suicide.
railway
infrastructure
All structures within the boundaries of Network Rail’s operational
railway, including the permanent way, land within the lineside fence and
plant used for signalling or exclusively for supplying electricity for railway
operations. It does not include stations or YD&S that are owned by, or
leased to, other parties. It does, however, include the permanent way at
stations and plant within these locations.
residual risk
The level of risk remaining with the current risk control measures in
place and with their current degree of effectiveness.
RIDDOR
The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences
Regulations 1995 is a set of health and safety regulations that require
any major injuries, illnesses or accidents occurring in the workplace to
be formally reported to the enforcing authority. It defines major injuries
and lists notifiable diseases — many of which can be occupational in
origin. It also defines notifiable dangerous occurrences, such as
collisions and derailments.
running line
A line that is ordinarily used for the passage of trains, as shown in Table
‘A’ of the sectional appendices.
Safety
Management
Information
System (SMIS)
A national database used by RUs and IMs to record any safety-related
events that occur on the railway. SMIS data is accessible to all of the
companies who use the system, so that it may be used to analyse risk,
predict trends and focus action on major areas of safety concern.
Safety Risk
Model (SRM)
A quantitative representation of the safety risk that can result from the
operation and maintenance of the GB rail network. It comprises 120
individual models, each representing a type of hazardous event.
shock/trauma
Class 1 shock or trauma results from being involved in, or witnessing,
events that have serious potential of a fatal outcome, eg train
Version 7.1 — August 2011
75
Acronyms & Glossary
accidents such as collisions and derailments, or personal accidents
such as being struck by a train.
Class 2 shock or trauma results from other causes, such as verbal
abuse, near misses, or personal accidents of a typically non-fatal
outcome.
1 FWI is equivalent to 200 Class 1 S/T injuries, or 1000 Class 2 S/T
injuries.
signal passed at
danger (SPAD)
An incident when any part of a train has passed a stop signal at danger
without authority or where an in-cab signalled movement authority has
been exceeded without authority.
Category A SPADs occur when the stop aspect, end of in-cab signalled
movement authority or indication (and any associated preceding
cautionary indications) was displayed correctly, in sufficient time for the
train to stop safely.
Category D SPADs occur when the train is unattended (eg runaways),
or the traction unit is unattached or malfunctioning.
Full definitions are available from GO/RT3119 [Ref. 17].
suicide and
suspected
suicide
A fatality is classified as a suicide according to a coroner’s verdict. It is
classified as a suspected suicide where the coroner has yet to return a
verdict or returns an open verdict, but where objective evidence of
suicide exists based on the application of the Ovenstone criteria.
trackside
A collective term referring to the running line, Network Rail-managed
sidings and depots.
train
Any self-powered vehicle, or vehicles hauled by a self-powered vehicle,
with flanged wheels on guided rails.
train accident
(HET)
Reportable train accidents as defined in RIDDOR. The main criterion is
that the accident must be on or affect the running line. There are
additional criteria for different types of accident, and these may depend
on whether the accident involves a passenger train.
Train Protection
and Warning
System (TPWS)
A safety system that automatically applies the brakes on a train which
either passes a signal at danger, or exceeds a given speed when
approaching a signal at danger, a permissible speed reduction or the
buffer stops in a terminal platform.
A TPWS intervention is when the system applies the train’s brakes
without this action having been taken by the driver first.
A TPWS activation is when the system applies the train’s brakes after
the driver has already initiated braking.
A TPWS reset and continue incident occurs when the driver has reset
the TPWS after an activation (or intervention) and continued forward
without the signaller’s authority.
trespass
76
An occurrence of a person entering a location where they are never
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Acronyms & Glossary
authorised to be. This is distinct from a person behaving inappropriately
at a place where they are allowed to be under certain conditions
(eg level crossing violations/errors).
workforce
Persons working for the industry on railway operations, either as direct
employees or under contract.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
77
16
References
[Ref. 1]
RSSB (2011) Independent Review of RIDDOR Reporting by Network Rail and its
Contractors. http://www.rssb.co.uk/Pages/RIDDORReview.aspx
[Ref. 2]
RSSB (2009) The Railway Strategic Safety Plan 2009–2014.
http://www.rssb.co.uk/safety/Pages/default.aspx
[Ref. 3]
RSSB (2011) Annual Safety Performance Report 2010/11.
http://www.rssb.co.uk/SPR/REPORTS/Pages/default.aspx
[Ref. 4]
Department for Transport (2007) Delivering a Sustainable Railway, CM-7176.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/whitepapercm7176/
[Ref. 5]
The Office of Rail Regulation (2010) National Rail Trends.
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1863
[Ref. 6]
The Health and Safety Executive (2001) Reducing risks, protecting people.
HSE’s decision-making process. http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/expert.htm
[Ref. 7]
RSSB (2008) Taking Safe Decisions — How Britain’s railways take decisions that
affect safety. http://www.safetyriskmodel.co.uk
[Ref. 8]
The Office of Rail Regulation (2009) Rail Guidance Document RGD-2009-05:
Assessing whether risks on Britain’s railways have been reduced SFAIRP.
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1118
[Ref. 9]
RSSB (2009) Report on improvements in the safety of passengers and staff
involved in train accidents.
http://www.rssb.co.uk/SPR/REPORTS/Pages/default.aspx
[Ref. 10]
RSSB (2011) Railway Group Standard GE/RT8047: Reporting of Safety Related
Information. Issue 5. http://www.rgsonline.co.uk
[Ref. 11]
Edwards v National Coal Board (1949) All England Law Reports, Volume 1,
pp. 743–749.
[Ref. 12]
RSSB (2010) Value of Preventing a Fatality.
http://www.rssb.co.uk/safety/Pages/default.aspx
[Ref. 13]
RSSB (2009) Guidance on the Preparation and Use of Company Risk
Assessment Profiles for Transport Operators. http://www.safetyriskmodel.co.uk
[Ref. 14]
RSSB (2010) Rail Industry Guidance Note GO/GN3677: Guidance on
Operational Criteria for the Provision of Lineside Telephony Following GSM-R
Introduction. http://www.rgsonline.co.uk
[Ref. 15]
European Railway Safety Directive 2004/49/EC.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/Safety/ersd
[Ref. 16]
Ovenstone, I.M. (1973) A psychiatric approach to the diagnosis on suicide.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 123 (572), pp15–21.
[Ref. 17]
RSSB (2010) Railway Group Standard GO/RT3119: Accident and Incident
Investigation. Issue 2. http://www.rgsonline.co.uk
78
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Appendix A. SRMv7 Risk Estimates by Hazardous Event
A.1.
Frequency, consequence and risk estimates by hazardous
event
The tables in this appendix present the 120 HEs on the mainline railway, separated into
HETs, HEMs and HENs. For each HE, the risk, frequency and average consequences per
event are given, together with its potential to result in multiple fatality consequences. The
frequencies calculated for all HETs relate to the frequencies of all incidents per year,
whether or not they lead to an injury.
However, for HEMs and HENs, the predicted HE frequencies relate only to the incidents that
lead directly to injury. Due to the lack of data for these HEs, it has not been possible to
quantify the frequency of all incidents and determine the probability of an injury occurring.
The types of frequency estimate applicable to each HE is identified on each of the tables.
The number of fatalities, major injuries and minor injuries (RIDDOR-reportable and nonRIDDOR-reportable) per HE are presented in Table A1. Reasons for variation in reported
risk between SRMv6 and SRMv6.5 are contained in Table A2, and that between SRMv6.5
and SRMv7 are reported in Table A3.
In order to understand the way in which Table A1 is constructed, the derivation of the total
risk is as follows (the numbers in brackets relate to the column numbers in Table A1):
Total
= Freq. x [ FAT + { 0.1 x MA } + { 0.005 x ( MR + ST1 ) } + { 0.001 x ( MN + ST2) } ]
Risk
(5)
(3)
FWI/
year
Events/
year
(6)
+
(11)
+
(16)
no./
event
(7)
+
(12)
+
(17)
no./
event
(8)
+
(13)
+
(18)
(10)
+
(15)
+
(20)
no./ no./
event event
(9)
+
(14)
+
(19)
(10)
+
(15)
+
(20)
no./
eventt
no./
event
Note: FAT, MA, MR and MN refer to fatalities, major injuries, RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries and nonRIDDOR-reportable minor injuries respectively. ST1 and ST2 refer to class 1 and class 2 shock/trauma injuries
respectively.
The notes contained in column (21) of Table A1 are defined as follows:

MF/SF — HEs with the potential for multiple or single fatalities.

ST1/2 — The injuries from shock/trauma are specifically class 1 or 2.

XX%
— The percentage of the risk that is inside possession (HENs only).
In some cases, an HE has been broken down into sub-HE categories (eg HEM-10 is split
into HEM-10A, HEM-10B and HEM-10 POS). In general, this is because the consequences
of each sub-HEs are significantly different from each other.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
79
This page has been intentionally left blank
80
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Table A1
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
Passengers
Workforce
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
rep.
Shock /
Fatalities
rep.
injuries
minor
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
Notes
HE description
National average
risk
HE
code
National average
cnsq.
List of risk, frequency and average consequences (HETs)
National average
frequency
Table A1:
(21)
HET-01
Collision between two passenger trains resulting from a: passenger
train Cat A SPAD; runaway train; misrouted train; or WSF
0.2369
1.661
0.3936
0.2277
0.6615
2.395
0
0
0.0550
0.3055
0.4239
0
0
4.43E-05 8.87E-05 1.77E-04
0
0
HET-01A
Collision between two passenger trains resulting from a: passenger train Cat
A SPAD; misrouted train; or WSF
0.1961
1.932
0.3789
0.2242
0.6280
2.223
0
0
0.0543
0.2467
0.3426
0
0
3.97E-05 7.94E-05 1.59E-04
0
0
ST1
HET-01B
Collision between two passenger trains resulting from a passenger train
runaway
0.0408
0.3594
0.0147
0.0035
0.0336
0.1724
0
0
6.73E-04
0.0588
0.0813
0
0
4.63E-06 9.26E-06 1.85E-05
0
0
ST1
HET-02P
Collision between a passenger train and non-passenger train resulting
from a: passenger train Cat A SPAD; runaway train; misrouted train; or
WSF
0.0295
2.529
0.0747
0.0459
0.1129
0.1556
0
0
0.0072
0.0361
0.0247
0
0
0.0047
0.0094
0.0187
0
0
HET-02PA
Collision between a passenger train and non-passenger train resulting from a:
passenger train Cat A SPAD; misrouted train; or WSF
0.0244
2.914
0.0712
0.0449
0.1098
0.1441
0
0
0.0070
0.0289
0.0197
0
0
0.0038
0.0077
0.0154
0
0
ST1
HET-02PB
Collision between a passenger train and non-passenger train resulting from a
passenger train runaway
0.0051
0.6768
0.0034
0.0011
0.0030
0.0115
0
0
2.36E-04
0.0072
0.0050
0
0
8.34E-04
0.0017
0.0033
0
0
ST1
HET-02NP
Collision between a non-passenger train and passenger train resulting
from a: non-passenger train Cat A SPAD; runaway train; misrouted train;
or WSF
0.6287
0.9937
0.6247
0.2715
0.7035
1.649
0
0
0.0642
0.9028
0.5569
0
0
0.0962
0.1925
0.3850
0
0
HET-02NPA Collision between a non-passenger train and passenger train resulting from a:
non-passenger train Cat A SPAD; misrouted train; or WSF
0.1669
1.800
0.3003
0.1685
0.4140
0.6699
0
0
0.0308
0.2250
0.1491
0
0
0.0270
0.0540
0.1080
0
0
ST1
HET-02NPB Collision between a non-passenger train and passenger train resulting from a
non-passenger train runaway
0.4118
0.6761
0.2784
0.0859
0.2370
0.8983
0
0
0.0191
0.5870
0.4079
0
0
0.0692
0.1385
0.2769
0
0
ST1
HET-02NP
POS
Collision between OTP and passenger train resulting from OTP incorrectly
outside possession
0.0500
0.9202
0.0460
0.0171
0.0525
0.0808
0
0
0.0142
0.0908
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HET-03
Collision between two non-passenger trains resulting from a: nonpassenger train Cat A SPAD; runaway train; misrouted train; or WSF
5.829
0.0220
0.1283
0.0014
0.0030
0.0082
0
0
0.0298
0.2602
1.240
0
0
0.0528
0.1057
0.2113
0
0
HET-03A
Collision between two non-passenger trains resulting from a: non-passenger
train Cat A SPAD; misrouted train; or WSF
0.0457
0.6999
0.0320
2.16E-04 3.62E-04
0.0014
0
0
0.0080
0.0565
2.46E-04
0
0
0.0148
0.0296
0.0593
0
0
ST1
HET-03B
Collision between two non-passenger trains resulting from a non-passenger
train runaway
0.1128
0.5904
0.0666
3.49E-04 5.80E-04
0.0023
0
0
0.0038
0.1599
4.33E-04
0
0
0.0380
0.0760
0.1520
0
0
ST1
ST1
HET-03 POS Collisions between trains inside possession (including OTP)
5.670
0.0052
0.0297
8.78E-04
0.0020
0.0045
0
0
0.0180
0.0438
1.239
0
0
HET-04
Collision of train with object (not resulting in derailment)
3696.8
2.11E-04
0.7811
0
0.2003
14.20
3.003
1.000
0
1.610
25.36
3.212
2.324
HET-04A
Collision of train with object outside possession (not resulting in derailment)
3671.8
1.10E-04
0.4040
0
0.2000
14.20
3.000
1.000
0
1.600
25.20
3.000
1.000
0
HET-04B
Collision of train with RV outside possession (not resulting in derailment)
3.640
0.1017
0.3703
0
2.78E-04
0.0045
0.0028
0
0
0.0011
0.0122
0.1916
1.300
0.3296
HET-04 POS Collision of train with object inside possession (not resulting in derailment)
21.39
3.20E-04
0.0068
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0093
0.1467
0.0201
0.0238
0.0046
HET-06
Collision between two passenger trains in station (permissive working)
5.804
0.0091
0.0528
0.0019
0.1563
4.419
0
0
0
0.0872
0.8785
0
0
0
HET-06A
Collision between two passenger trains in station (permissive working):
rollbacks
2.726
0.0016
0.0045
0
0
0.8047
0
0
0
0
0.0909
0
0
HET-06B
Collision between two passenger trains in station (permissive working): no
potential for high-speed impact
1.643
0.0017
0.0028
0
0
0.4849
0
0
0
0
0.0821
0
HET-06C
Collision between two passenger trains in station (permissive working):
potential for high-speed impact
1.435
0.0317
0.0455
0.0019
0.1563
3.129
0
0
0
0.0872
0.7055
0
HET-09
Train collision with buffer stops
7.129
0.0163
0.1159
0.0168
0.3067
9.297
0
0
0.0071
0.0758
1.446
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HET-09A
Train collision with buffer stops: rollbacks
2.419
0.0016
0.0040
0
0
0.7141
0
0
0
0
0.0806
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HET-09B
Train collision with buffer stops: no potential for high-speed impact
1.813
0.0017
0.0031
0
0
0.5352
0
0
0
0
0.0907
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
Version 7.1 — August 2011
1.77E-05 3.54E-05 7.08E-05
0
0
3.185
3.017
1.00581
0
3.000
3.000
1
ST2
0.3296
0.1648
0
0
ST1
0.0046
0.0197
0.0174
0.00581
ST2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
0.3342
0.3342
81
Table A1
Table A1:
List of risk, frequency and average consequences (HETs)
HE
code
HE description
(1)
(2)
National National
average average
frequency
cnsq.
National
average
risk
(3)
(4)
(5)
(events/
year)
(FWI/
event)
(FWI/
year)
HET-01
Collision between two passenger trains resulting from a: passenger
train Cat A SPAD; runaway train; misrouted train; or WSF
0.2369
1.661
0.3936
HET-01A
Collision between two passenger trains resulting from a: passenger train
Cat A SPAD; misrouted train; or WSF
0.1961
1.932
0.3789
HET-01B
Collision between two passenger trains resulting from a passenger train
runaway
0.0408
0.3594
0.0147
HET-02P
Collision between a passenger train and non-passenger train resulting
from a: passenger train Cat A SPAD; runaway train; misrouted train; or
WSF
0.0295
2.529
0.0747
HET-02PA
Collision between a passenger train and non-passenger train resulting from
a: passenger train Cat A SPAD; misrouted train; or WSF
0.0244
2.914
0.0712
HET-02PB
Collision between a passenger train and non-passenger train resulting from
a passenger train runaway
0.0051
0.6768
0.0034
HET-02NP
Collision between a non-passenger train and passenger train resulting
from a: non-passenger train Cat A SPAD; runaway train; misrouted
train; or WSF
0.6287
0.9937
0.6247
HET-02NPA Collision between a non-passenger train and passenger train resulting from
a: non-passenger train Cat A SPAD; misrouted train; or WSF
0.1669
1.800
0.3003
HET-02NPB Collision between a non-passenger train and passenger train resulting from
a non-passenger train runaway
0.4118
0.6761
0.2784
HET-02NP
POS
Collision between OTP and passenger train resulting from OTP incorrectly
outside possession
0.0500
0.9202
0.0460
HET-03
Collision between two non-passenger trains resulting from a: nonpassenger train Cat A SPAD; runaway train; misrouted train; or WSF
5.829
0.0220
0.1283
HET-03A
Collision between two non-passenger trains resulting from a: nonpassenger train Cat A SPAD; misrouted train; or WSF
0.0457
0.6999
0.0320
HET-03B
Collision between two non-passenger trains resulting from a non-passenger
train runaway
0.1128
0.5904
0.0666
5.670
0.0052
0.0297
HET-03 POS Collisions between trains inside possession (including OTP)
HET-04
Collision of train with object (not resulting in derailment)
3696.8
2.11E-04
0.7811
HET-04A
Collision of train with object outside possession (not resulting in derailment)
3671.8
1.10E-04
0.4040
HET-04B
Collision of train with RV outside possession (not resulting in derailment)
3.640
0.1017
0.3703
HET-04 POS Collision of train with object inside possession (not resulting in derailment)
21.39
3.20E-04
0.0068
HET-06
Collision between two passenger trains in station (permissive
working)
5.804
0.0091
0.0528
HET-06A
Collision between two passenger trains in station (permissive working):
rollbacks
2.726
0.0016
0.0045
HET-06B
Collision between two passenger trains in station (permissive working): no
potential for high-speed impact
1.643
0.0017
0.0028
HET-06C
Collision between two passenger trains in station (permissive working):
potential for high-speed impact
1.435
0.0317
0.0455
HET-09
Train collision with buffer stops
7.129
0.0163
0.1159
HET-09A
Train collision with buffer stops: rollbacks
2.419
0.0016
0.0040
HET-09B
Train collision with buffer stops: no potential for high-speed impact
1.813
0.0017
0.0031
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
HET-09C
Train collision with buffer stops: potential for high-speed impact
HET-09 POS Train collision with buffer stops: OTP inside possession
Passengers
Workforce
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1
(21)
2.764
0.0392
0.1083
0.0168
0.3067
8.047
0
0
0.0071
0.0731
1.218
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
0.1333
0.0041
5.52E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0027
0.0571
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HET-10
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing
12.35
0.2404
2.969
0.1870
0.5975
3.168
0
0
0.0601
0.1133
7.771
0
0
2.338
2.396
3.725
0
0
HET-10A
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCB + CCTV
0.1761
0.3454
0.0608
0.0029
0.0092
0.0540
0
0
6.51E-04
0.0019
0.1215
0
0
0.0511
0.0403
0.0417
0
0
ST1
HET-10B
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCB
0.2978
0.3463
0.1031
0.0051
0.0160
0.0910
0
0
0.0011
0.0033
0.2054
0
0
0.0864
0.0682
0.0704
0
0
ST1
HET-10C
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCG
0.1054
0.3398
0.0358
0.0013
0.0044
0.0310
0
0
3.41E-04
0.0011
0.0728
0
0
0.0306
0.0241
0.0249
0
0
ST1
HET-10D
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: ABCL
0.4195
0.1371
0.0575
0.0013
0.0060
0.0366
0
0
8.31E-04 5.12E-04
0.2797
0
0
0.0429
0.0906
0.2276
0
0
ST1
HET-10E
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: AHB
3.371
0.2731
0.9206
0.0552
0.1753
0.8984
0
0
0.0114
1.849
0
0
0.7567
0.5975
0.6172
0
0
ST1
0.0315
HET-10F
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: AOCL
2.870
0.1380
0.3962
0.0071
0.0327
0.2285
0
0
0.0054
0.0031
1.943
0
0
0.2983
0.6300
1.582
0
0
ST1
HET-10G
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC + MWL
0.8075
0.3055
0.2467
0.0180
0.0571
0.3155
0
0
0.0071
0.0125
0.5731
0
0
0.1925
0.1686
0.1841
0
0
ST1
HET-10H
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC + T
2.218
0.3197
0.7090
0.0714
0.2152
0.9311
0
0
0.0220
0.0389
1.571
0
0
0.5288
0.4633
0.5058
0
0
ST1
HET-10I
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC
1.350
0.2986
0.4029
0.0235
0.0776
0.5050
0
0
0.0110
0.0196
0.9589
0
0
0.3217
0.2817
0.3076
0
0
ST1
HET-10J
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: OC
0.6553
0.0153
0.0100
0.0540
0
0
8.66E-06 1.52E-05
0.1427
0
0
0.0068
0.0144
0.1452
0
0
ST1
HET-10K
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: FP (includes FP
MWL)
0.0802
0.3233
0.0259
0
0
2.30E-04 8.29E-04
0.0546
0
0
0.0219
0.0172
0.0177
0
0
ST1
HET-11
Non-passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing
2.169
0.2150
0.4663
0
0
1.332
0
0
0.4038
0.4203
0.6598
0
0
HET-11A
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCB +
CCTV
0.0292
0.3208
0.0094
2.21E-05 4.40E-05 9.51E-05
0
0
5.04E-05 2.44E-04
0.0185
0
0
0.0085
0.0067
0.0069
0
0
ST1
HET-11B
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCB
0.0494
0.3208
0.0159
3.71E-05 7.40E-05 1.60E-04
0
0
8.51E-05 4.12E-04
0.0313
0
0
0.0143
0.0113
0.0117
0
0
ST1
HET-11C
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCG
0.0175
0.3203
0.0056
8.91E-06 2.00E-05 4.45E-05
0
0
2.90E-05 1.44E-04
0.0111
0
0
0.0051
0.0040
0.0041
0
0
ST1
HET-11D
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: ABCL
0.0696
0.1320
0.0092
2.41E-05 4.80E-05 1.04E-04
0
0
1.13E-04 6.43E-05
0.0445
0
0
0.0071
0.0151
0.0378
0
0
ST1
HET-11E
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: AHB
0.5593
0.2487
0.1391
4.23E-04 8.44E-04
0
0
7.73E-04
0.2756
0
0
0.1256
0.0994
0.1027
0
0
ST1
HET-11F
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: AOCL
0.4762
0.1341
0.0639
1.62E-04 3.22E-04 6.95E-04
0
0
7.82E-04 4.21E-04
0.3090
0
0
0.0495
0.1046
0.2626
0
0
ST1
HET-11G
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC +
MWL
0.1340
0.2724
0.0365
1.39E-04 2.77E-04 5.98E-04
0
0
8.27E-04
0.0848
0
0
0.0320
0.0280
0.0306
0
0
ST1
HET-11H
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC + T
0.3680
0.2725
0.1003
3.80E-04 7.59E-04
HET-11I
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC
0.2239
0.2724
0.0610
2.31E-04 4.61E-04 9.97E-04
HET-11J
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: OC
0.1087
0.0150
0.0016
3.59E-06 7.12E-06 1.54E-05
0
0
1.78E-05 8.85E-06
0.0234
0
0
0.0011
0.0024
0.0240
0
0
ST1
HET-11K
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: FP
(includes FP MWL)
0.0133
0.3258
0.0043
7.38E-06 1.47E-05 3.18E-05
0
0
2.87E-04 1.02E-04
0.0083
0
0
0.0037
0.0028
0.0029
0
0
ST1
HET-11 POS OTP collision with road vehicle on level crossing inside possession
0.1198
0.1633
0.0196
0
0
0
5.99E-04
0.0019
0.1508
0
0
0.0156
0.0220
0.0410
0
0
ST1
HET-12
Derailment of passenger train
7.086
0.2759
1.955
1.171
3.640
10.07
0
0
0.1780
0.3184
7.116
0
0
0.1140
0.0937
0.0899
0
0
ST1
HET-13
Derailment of non-passenger train
58.45
0.0095
0.5536
0.2103
0.4241
0.9184
0
0
0.1212
0.6724
6.284
0
0
0.0586
0.1694
0.1714
0
0
5.68E-05 1.30E-04
0.0012
0.0038
0.0225
0.0014
0.0029
0.0062
0
0
0.0018
0.0016
0.0072
0.0158
0.0037
0.0016
0
0
0.0023
0.0044
0.2330
0
0
0.0878
0.0771
0.0841
0
0
ST1
0
0
0.0014
0.0027
0.1417
0
0
0.0534
0.0469
0.0512
0
0
ST1
HET-13 FTP Derailment of freight train on passenger line outside possession
10.12
0.0275
0.2786
0.1419
0.2737
0.5859
0
0
0.0382
0.1405
0.9453
0
0
0.0382
0.1064
0.1136
0
0
ST1
HET-13 FTF Derailment of freight train on freight only line outside possession
4.954
0.0119
0.0591
0.0180
0.0356
0.0769
0
0
0.0100
0.0632
0.3981
0
0
0.0137
0.0489
0.0521
0
0
ST1
HET-13 EP
0.0064
0.0135
0.0045
0
0
ST1
0.0013
0
0
ST1
0
0
0
Derailment of ECS or parcels train on passenger line
3.563
0.0130
0.0464
0.0225
0.0505
0.1136
0
0
0.0070
0.0187
0.3210
0
0
HET-13 POS Derailment of train inside possession (including OTP)
39.81
0.0043
0.1695
0.0279
0.0643
0.1419
0
0
0.0660
0.4500
4.620
0
0
HET-17
82.51
0.0012
0.0985
0.0371
0.2066
1.516
0
0
0.0048
0.2167
1.323
0
0
Fire on passenger train
3.20E-04 6.40E-04
0
0
HET-17i
Fire on passenger train interior
38.76
9.56E-04
0.0371
0.0183
0.1165
0.5720
0
0
4.61E-04
0.0012
0.7278
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HET-17e
Fire on passenger train exterior
43.75
0.0014
0.0614
0.0188
0.0900
0.9438
0
0
0.0044
0.2155
0.5952
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
Version 7.1 — August 2011
83
Table A1
HE
code
HE description
(1)
(2)
HET-09C
Train collision with buffer stops: potential for high-speed impact
HET-09 POS Train collision with buffer stops: OTP inside possession
National National
average average
frequency cnsq.
National
average
risk
(3)
(4)
(5)
(events/
year)
(FWI/
event)
(FWI/
year)
2.764
0.0392
0.1083
0.1333
0.0041
5.52E-04
HET-10
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing
12.35
0.2404
2.969
HET-10A
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCB + CCTV
0.1761
0.3454
0.0608
HET-10B
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCB
0.2978
0.3463
0.1031
HET-10C
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCG
0.1054
0.3398
0.0358
HET-10D
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: ABCL
0.4195
0.1371
0.0575
HET-10E
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: AHB
3.371
0.2731
0.9206
HET-10F
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: AOCL
2.870
0.1380
0.3962
HET-10G
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC + MWL
0.8075
0.3055
0.2467
HET-10H
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC + T
2.218
0.3197
0.7090
HET-10I
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC
1.350
0.2986
0.4029
HET-10J
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: OC
0.6553
0.0153
0.0100
HET-10K
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: FP (includes
FP MWL)
0.0802
0.3233
0.0259
HET-11
Non-passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing
2.169
0.2150
0.4663
HET-11A
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCB +
CCTV
0.0292
0.3208
0.0094
HET-11B
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCB
0.0494
0.3208
0.0159
HET-11C
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: MCG
0.0175
0.3203
0.0056
HET-11D
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: ABCL
0.0696
0.1320
0.0092
HET-11E
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: AHB
0.5593
0.2487
0.1391
HET-11F
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: AOCL
0.4762
0.1341
0.0639
HET-11G
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC +
MWL
0.1340
0.2724
0.0365
HET-11H
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC + T
0.3680
0.2725
0.1003
HET-11I
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: UWC
0.2239
0.2724
0.0610
HET-11J
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: OC
0.1087
0.0150
0.0016
HET-11K
Non passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing: FP
(includes FP MWL)
0.0133
0.3258
0.0043
HET-11 POS OTP collision with road vehicle on level crossing inside possession
0.1198
0.1633
0.0196
HET-12
Derailment of passenger train
7.086
0.2759
1.955
HET-13
Derailment of non-passenger train
58.45
0.0095
0.5536
HET-13 FTP Derailment of freight train on passenger line outside possession
10.12
0.0275
0.2786
HET-13 FTF Derailment of freight train on freight only line outside possession
4.954
0.0119
0.0591
HET-13 EP
Derailment of ECS or parcels train on passenger line
3.563
0.0130
0.0464
HET-13 POS Derailment of train inside possession (including OTP)
39.81
0.0043
0.1695
HET-17
Fire on passenger train
82.51
0.0012
0.0985
HET-17i
Fire on passenger train interior
38.76
9.56E-04
0.0371
HET-17e
Fire on passenger train exterior
43.75
0.0014
0.0614
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
Passengers
Workforce
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1
(21)
HET-20
Fire on non-passenger train
9.201
0.0025
0.0230
0
0
0
0
0
0.0051
0.0260
0.1256
0
0
0.0120
0.0239
0.0478
0
0
HET-20A
Fire on non-passenger train outside possession
6.868
0.0023
0.0157
0
0
0
0
0
4.78E-04
0.0027
0.0794
0
0
0.0120
0.0239
0.0478
0
0
ST1
2.333
0.0031
0.0072
0
0
0
0
0
0.0047
0.0233
0.0462
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HET-20 POS Fire on OTP inside possession
HET-21
Train crushed by structural collapse or large object (not at a station)
6.00E-04
13.31
0.0080
0.0069
0.0069
0.0080
0
0
3.02E-04 4.03E-04 4.21E-04
0
0
2.10E-05 4.20E-05 8.40E-05
0
0
HET-21A
Train crushed by structural collapse or large object outside possession (not at
a station)
5.91E-04
13.49
0.0080
0.0069
0.0069
0.0080
0
0
2.98E-04 3.97E-04 4.14E-04
0
0
2.10E-05 4.20E-05 8.40E-05
0
0
ST1
HET-21 POS OTP crushed by structural collapse or large object inside possession (not at a
station)
8.40E-06
0.5740
4.82E-06
0
0
0
0
0
4.20E-06 5.88E-06 6.72E-06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HET-22
Train crushed by structural collapse or large object (at a station)
0.0100
4.410
0.0441
0.0295
0.1181
0.1550
0
0
0
0.0200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HET-23
Explosion on passenger train
0.0200
0.2456
0.0049
0.0015
0.0133
0.0207
0
0
0
0.0200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HET-24
Explosion on freight train
0.0156
4.386
0.0686
0
0
0.0100
0.0056
0
0
0
0.0475
0.0950
0.1900
0
0
ST1
HET-25
Passenger train division (not leading to collision)
12.20
6.49E-04
0.0079
0.0048
0.0027
0
0
0
0.0028
6.85E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HET-25A
Passenger train division (not leading to collision): in station
7.600
4.96E-04
0.0038
0.0027
0.0027
0
0
0
6.85E-04 6.85E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HET-25B
Passenger train division (not leading to collision): in running
4.600
9.02E-04
0.0041
0.0021
0
0
0
0
0.0021
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HET-26
Collision between a failed train and an assisting train
0.4167
0.0255
0.0106
6.56E-05
0.0019
0.0576
0
0
0
0.0857
0.3037
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HET-26A
Collision between a failed passenger train and an assisting train
0.0833
0.0307
0.0026
6.56E-05
0.0019
0.0576
0
0
0
0.0171
0.0607
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HET-26B
Collision between a failed non-passenger train and an assisting train
0.3333
0.0242
0.0081
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0685
0.2430
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
Version 7.1 — August 2011
1.03E-04 9.33E-05 1.63E-04
85
Table A1
HE
code
HE description
National
average
frequency
National
average
cnsq.
National
average
risk
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(events/
year)
(FWI/
event)
(FWI/
year)
HET-20
Fire on non-passenger train
9.201
0.0025
0.0230
HET-20A
Fire on non-passenger train outside possession
6.868
0.0023
0.0157
HET-20 POS Fire on OTP inside possession
2.333
0.0031
0.0072
HET-21
Train crushed by structural collapse or large object (not at a station)
6.00E-04
13.31
0.0080
HET-21A
Train crushed by structural collapse or large object outside possession
(not at a station)
5.91E-04
13.49
0.0080
8.40E-06
0.5740
4.82E-06
HET-21 POS OTP crushed by structural collapse or large object inside possession (not
at a station)
HET-22
Train crushed by structural collapse or large object (at a station)
0.0100
4.410
0.0441
HET-23
Explosion on passenger train
0.0200
0.2456
0.0049
HET-24
Explosion on freight train
0.0156
4.386
0.0686
HET-25
Passenger train division (not leading to collision)
12.20
6.49E-04
0.0079
HET-25A
Passenger train division (not leading to collision): in station
7.600
4.96E-04
0.0038
HET-25B
Passenger train division (not leading to collision): in running
4.600
9.02E-04
0.0041
HET-26
Collision between a failed train and an assisting train
0.4167
0.0255
0.0106
HET-26A
Collision between a failed passenger train and an assisting train
0.0833
0.0307
0.0026
HET-26B
Collision between a failed non-passenger train and an assisting train
0.3333
0.0242
0.0081
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
Table A1
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
Passengers
Workforce
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1: List of risk, frequency and average consequences (HEMs)
(21)
HEM-01
Passenger injury during evacuation following stopped train (not at a
platform)
2.216
0.0075
0.0165
0.0033
0.0942
0.2825
2.401
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-01A
Passenger injury during evacuation following stopped train (controlled
evacuation)
2.057
0.0060
0.0123
0
0.0875
0.2626
2.232
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-01B
Passenger injury during evacuation following stopped train (uncontrolled
evacuation)
0.1593
0.0267
0.0042
0.0033
0.0066
0.0199
0.1692
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-03
Passenger struck while leaning out of train (train in running)
1.283
0.1569
0.2014
0.1711
0.2566
0.5133
0.3422
0
0
0
0
0
0.3422
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-05
Train door closes on passenger
351.7
0.0018
0.6172
0
2.007
15.89
314.5
22.49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-05A
Train door closes on passenger (slam-door)
16.25
0.0033
0.0536
0
0.2019
4.341
11.61
0.1009
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-05B
Train door closes on passenger (non-slam door)
335.4
0.0017
0.5636
0
1.805
11.55
302.9
22.38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-06
Passenger fall between stationary train and platform
286.7
0.0052
1.479
0.2965
6.570
60.18
205.9
14.21
0
0
0.4387
0.2239
2.007
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-07
Passenger fall from train in service onto track (no electric shock nor
struck by train)
0.4394
0.0429
0.0189
0.0098
0.0781
0.2343
0.1172
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-08
Passenger fall from platform and struck by train
5.560
0.3605
2.004
1.687
3.032
0.8418
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.023
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-09
Passenger injury while boarding/alighting a train (platform side)
592.2
0.0055
3.243
0.0592
20.57
137.5
421.8
16.46
0
0
0
0.6856
0
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-09A
Passenger injury while alighting from a train (platform side)
313.3
0.0069
2.173
0.0313
14.74
91.19
199.2
11.66
0
0
0
0.6856
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-09B
Passenger injury while boarding a train (platform side)
278.9
0.0038
1.070
0.0279
5.831
46.31
222.6
4.802
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-10
Passenger struck by / contact with moving train while on platform
9.841
0.1593
1.568
1.242
2.810
2.584
2.274
0.3104
0
0
0
0
5.589
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-10A
Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to
platform edge
9.624
0.1626
1.565
1.242
2.794
2.484
2.173
0.3104
0
0
0
0
5.588
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-10B
Passenger injury due to being hit by train door or out of gauge item while on
platform
0.2139
0.0093
0.0020
0
0.0140
0.0999
0.0999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-10
POS
Passenger on platform struck by / contact with train - inside possession
0.0039
0.0769
2.97E-04
1.02E-04
0.0018
0
0
0
0
0
0.0014
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-11
Passenger struck/crushed by train while crossing the track at or near a
station on a crossing
0.8734
0.8100
0.7074
0.6884
0.1541
0.0411
0.0308
0.0103
0
0
0
0.0103
0.6576
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-11A
Passenger struck/crushed by train on MCB + CCTV level crossing adjacent to
station
0.1561
0.8100
0.1264
0.1230
0.0275
0.0073
0.0055
0.0018
0
0
0
0.0018
0.1175
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-11B
Passenger struck/crushed by train on MCB level crossing adjacent to station
0.1024
0.8100
0.0829
0.0807
0.0181
0.0048
0.0036
0.0012
0
0
0
0.0012
0.0771
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
9.16E-04 6.11E-04
HEM-11C
Passenger struck/crushed by train on MCG level crossing adjacent to station
0.0214
0.8100
0.0173
0.0169
0.0038
0.0010
HEM-11D
Passenger struck/crushed by train on ABCL level crossing adjacent to station
0.0606
0.8100
0.0491
0.0478
0.0107
0.0029
0.0021
7.13E-04
HEM-11E
Passenger struck/crushed by train on AHB level crossing adjacent to station
0.0665
0.8100
0.0538
0.0524
0.0117
0.0031
0.0023
7.82E-04
0
0
0
7.82E-04
0.0500
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-11F
Passenger struck/crushed by train on AOCL level crossing adjacent to station
0.0062
0.8100
0.0050
0.0049
0.0011
2.91E-04 2.19E-04 7.29E-05
0
0
0
7.29E-05
0.0047
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-11H
Passenger struck/crushed by train on UWC + T level crossing adjacent to
station
0.0241
0.8100
0.0195
0.0190
0.0043
8.51E-04 2.84E-04
0
0
0
2.84E-04
0.0182
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-11I
Passenger struck/crushed by train on UWC level crossing adjacent to station
3.43E-05
0.8100
2.78E-05
2.70E-05 6.05E-06 1.61E-06 1.21E-06 4.03E-07
0
0
0
4.03E-07 2.58E-05
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-11K
Passenger struck/crushed by train on FP + MWL crossing adjacent to station
0.0238
0.8100
0.0193
0.0187
0.0042
0.0011
0
0
0
2.80E-04
0.0179
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-11L
Passenger struck/crushed by train on FP crossing adjacent to station
0.0528
0.8100
0.0428
0.0417
0.0093
0.0025
0.0019
6.22E-04
0
0
0
6.22E-04
0.0398
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-11M
Passenger struck/crushed by train on station pedestrian crossing with MWL
0.1174
0.8100
0.0951
0.0926
0.0207
0.0055
0.0041
0.0014
0
0
0
0.0014
0.0884
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.0011
7.56E-04 2.52E-04
8.39E-04 2.80E-04
0
0
0
2.52E-04
0.0161
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
0
0
0
7.13E-04
0.0457
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
87
Table A1
Table A1: List of risk, frequency and average consequences (HEMs)
HE
code
HE description
(1)
(2)
National National
average average
frequency cnsq.
National
average
risk
(3)
(4)
(5)
(events/
year)
(FWI/
event)
(FWI/
year)
HEM-01
Passenger injury during evacuation following stopped train (not at a
platform)
2.216
0.0075
0.0165
HEM-01A
Passenger injury during evacuation following stopped train (controlled
evacuation)
2.057
0.0060
0.0123
HEM-01B
Passenger injury during evacuation following stopped train (uncontrolled
evacuation)
0.1593
0.0267
0.0042
HEM-03
Passenger struck while leaning out of train (train in running)
1.283
0.1569
0.2014
HEM-05
Train door closes on passenger
351.7
0.0018
0.6172
HEM-05A
Train door closes on passenger (slam-door)
16.25
0.0033
0.0536
HEM-05B
Train door closes on passenger (non-slam door)
335.4
0.0017
0.5636
HEM-06
Passenger fall between stationary train and platform
286.7
0.0052
1.479
HEM-07
Passenger fall from train in service onto track (no electric shock nor
struck by train)
0.4394
0.0429
0.0189
HEM-08
Passenger fall from platform and struck by train
5.560
0.3605
2.004
HEM-09
Passenger injury while boarding/alighting a train (platform side)
592.2
0.0055
3.243
HEM-09A
Passenger injury while alighting from a train (platform side)
313.3
0.0069
2.173
HEM-09B
Passenger injury while boarding a train (platform side)
278.9
0.0038
1.070
HEM-10
Passenger struck by / contact with moving train while on platform
9.841
0.1593
1.568
HEM-10A
Passenger struck by / contact with moving train due to being too close to
platform edge
9.624
0.1626
1.565
HEM-10B
Passenger injury due to being hit by train door or out of gauge item while on
platform
0.2139
0.0093
0.0020
HEM-10
POS
Passenger on platform struck by / contact with train - inside possession
0.0039
0.0769
2.97E-04
HEM-11
Passenger struck/crushed by train while crossing the track at or near
a station on a crossing
0.8734
0.8100
0.7074
HEM-11A
Passenger struck/crushed by train on MCB + CCTV level crossing adjacent
to station
0.1561
0.8100
0.1264
HEM-11B
Passenger struck/crushed by train on MCB level crossing adjacent to
station
0.1024
0.8100
0.0829
HEM-11C
Passenger struck/crushed by train on MCG level crossing adjacent to
station
0.0214
0.8100
0.0173
HEM-11D
Passenger struck/crushed by train on ABCL level crossing adjacent to
station
0.0606
0.8100
0.0491
HEM-11E
Passenger struck/crushed by train on AHB level crossing adjacent to station
0.0665
0.8100
0.0538
HEM-11F
Passenger struck/crushed by train on AOCL level crossing adjacent to
station
0.0062
0.8100
0.0050
HEM-11H
Passenger struck/crushed by train on UWC + T level crossing adjacent to
station
0.0241
0.8100
0.0195
HEM-11I
Passenger struck/crushed by train on UWC level crossing adjacent to
station
3.43E-05
0.8100
2.78E-05
HEM-11K
Passenger struck/crushed by train on FP + MWL crossing adjacent to
station
0.0238
0.8100
0.0193
HEM-11L
Passenger struck/crushed by train on FP crossing adjacent to station
0.0528
0.8100
0.0428
HEM-11M
Passenger struck/crushed by train on station pedestrian crossing with MWL
0.1174
0.8100
0.0951
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
0.0295
0.0079
0.0059
0.0020
0
0
0
0.0020
0.1259
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
0
0
0
5.67E-05
0.0036
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
0.0522
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
Passengers
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
HEM-11N
Passenger struck/crushed by train on station pedestrian crossing (no lights)
0.1673
0.8100
0.1355
0.1318
HEM-11O
Passenger struck/crushed by train on station barrow crossing with lights
0.0048
0.8100
0.0039
0.0038
HEM-11P
Passenger struck/crushed by train on station barrow crossing (no lights)
HEM-11
POS
Passenger struck/crushed by train while crossing the track at or near a station
on a crossing inside possession
HEM-12
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on tracks at a station
Workforce
0.0546
8.50E-04 2.27E-04 1.70E-04 5.67E-05
0.0693
0.8100
0.0561
5.98E-04
0.8100
4.84E-04
0.0122
0.0033
0.0024
17.11
0.7395
12.65
0
0
0
0
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
8.16E-04
0
0
0
8.16E-04
4.71E-04 1.06E-04 2.81E-05 2.11E-05 7.03E-06
0
0
0
7.03E-06 4.50E-04
0
0
0
0
0
8.964
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1
(21)
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
12.20
3.977
0.7244
0.5224
0
0.7241
0.5222
HEM-12A
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on tracks at a station
17.10
0.7395
12.64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.961
12.20
3.976
HEM-12
POS
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on track at a station inside
possession
0.0067
0.7395
0.0049
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0035
0.0047
0.0015
HEM-14
Workforce (not infrastructure worker) struck/crushed by train
0.5584
0.6281
0.3507
0
0
0
0
0
0.3260
0.2305
0.0018
0
0.3260
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-14A
Workforce (not infrastructure worker) struck/crushed by train outside
possession
0.4278
0.6430
0.2751
0
0
0
0
0
0.2567
0.1711
0
0
0.2567
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-14B
Workforce (not infrastructure worker) struck/crushed by train outside
possession (error during coupling)
0.0667
0.5506
0.0367
0
0
0
0
0
0.0333
0.0320
0.0013
0
0.0333
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-14
POS
Workforce (not infrastructure worker) struck/crushed by train inside
possession
0.0639
0.6096
0.0389
0
0
0
0
0
0.0360
0.0274
4.62E-04
0
0.0360
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-15
Workforce fall/alighting from moving train
0.5714
0.3241
0.1852
0
0
0
0
0
0.1667
0.1667
0.3333
0.1905
0
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-15A
Train crew fall from moving train
0.1429
0.1853
0.0265
0
0
0
0
0
0.0238
0.0238
0.0476
0.0476
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-15
POS
Workforce fall from moving train inside possession
0.4286
0.3703
0.1587
0
0
0
0
0
0.1429
0.1429
0.2857
0.1429
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-16
Workforce injury while boarding/alighting train
214.9
0.0040
0.8497
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.853
38.58
171.2
0.3327
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-16A
Workforce injury while alighting train to platform
116.8
0.0040
0.4654
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.661
21.29
92.48
0.3327
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-16B
Workforce injury while alighting train to track
23.67
0.0068
0.1616
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.169
5.551
16.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-16C
Workforce injury while boarding train from platform
58.05
0.0027
0.1575
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6672
8.340
49.04
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-16D
Workforce injury while boarding train from track
10.87
0.0033
0.0361
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1672
2.173
8.526
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-16
POS
Workforce injury while boarding/alighting train - inside possession
5.600
0.0052
0.0291
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1881
1.224
4.188
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-17
Workforce struck while leaning out of train (train in running)
2.612
0.0073
0.0191
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1537
0.3073
2.151
0
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-17A
Train crew struck while leaning out of train outside possession
2.467
0.0073
0.0180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1451
0.2902
2.031
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-17
POS
Workforce struck while leaning out of train inside possession
0.1455
0.0073
0.0011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0086
0.0171
0.1199
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-19
Infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train in motion
4.333
0.4421
1.916
0
0
0
0
0
1.685
2.180
0.2290
0.7600
2.232
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-19A
Infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train in motion outside possession
2.364
0.4344
1.027
0
0
0
0
0
0.9011
1.185
0.1203
0.4159
1.218
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-19
POS
Infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train in motion inside possession
1.970
0.4513
0.8889
0
0
0
0
0
0.7835
0.9947
0.1088
0.3441
1.015
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-20
Workforce struck by flying object thrown up by passing train (includes
objects thrown up by OTM movements outside a possession)
11.19
0.0095
0.1059
0
0
0
0
0
0.0609
0.3286
0.3286
10.47
0
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-20A
Workforce (non-infrastructure worker) struck by flying object disturbed by or
thrown up from passing train outside possession (includes objects thrown up
by OTM movements outside a possession)
3.611
0.0038
0.0137
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0977
0.0977
3.416
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-20B
Infrastructure worker struck by flying object disturbed by or thrown up from
passing train outside possession (includes objects thrown up by OTM
movements outside a possession)
5.200
0.0122
0.0634
0
0
0
0
0
0.0419
0.1585
0.1585
4.841
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
Version 7.1 — August 2011
2.82E-04 2.03E-04
0
ST1
0
ST1
ST2
89
Table A1
HE
code
HE description
(1)
(2)
National National
average average
frequency cnsq.
National
average
risk
(3)
(4)
(5)
(events/
year)
(FWI/
event)
(FWI/
year)
HEM-11N
Passenger struck/crushed by train on station pedestrian crossing (no
lights)
0.1673
0.8100
0.1355
HEM-11O
Passenger struck/crushed by train on station barrow crossing with lights
0.0048
0.8100
0.0039
HEM-11P
Passenger struck/crushed by train on station barrow crossing (no lights)
0.0693
0.8100
0.0561
HEM-11 POS
Passenger struck/crushed by train while crossing the track at or near a
station on a crossing inside possession
5.98E-04
0.8100
4.84E-04
HEM-12
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on tracks at a station
17.11
0.7395
12.65
HEM-12A
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on tracks at a station
17.10
0.7395
12.64
HEM-12 POS
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on track at a station inside
possession
0.0067
0.7395
0.0049
HEM-14
Workforce (not infrastructure worker) struck/crushed by train
0.5584
0.6281
0.3507
HEM-14A
Workforce (not infrastructure worker) struck/crushed by train outside
possession
0.4278
0.6430
0.2751
HEM-14B
Workforce (not infrastructure worker) struck/crushed by train outside
possession (error during coupling)
0.0667
0.5506
0.0367
HEM-14 POS
Workforce (not infrastructure worker) struck/crushed by train inside
possession
0.0639
0.6096
0.0389
HEM-15
Workforce fall/alighting from moving train
0.5714
0.3241
0.1852
HEM-15A
Train crew fall from moving train
0.1429
0.1853
0.0265
HEM-15 POS
Workforce fall from moving train inside possession
0.4286
0.3703
0.1587
HEM-16
Workforce injury while boarding/alighting train
214.9
0.0040
0.8497
HEM-16A
Workforce injury while alighting train to platform
116.8
0.0040
0.4654
HEM-16B
Workforce injury while alighting train to track
23.67
0.0068
0.1616
HEM-16C
Workforce injury while boarding train from platform
58.05
0.0027
0.1575
HEM-16D
Workforce injury while boarding train from track
10.87
0.0033
0.0361
HEM-16 POS
Workforce injury while boarding/alighting train - inside possession
5.600
0.0052
0.0291
HEM-17
Workforce struck while leaning out of train (train in running)
2.612
0.0073
0.0191
HEM-17A
Train crew struck while leaning out of train outside possession
2.467
0.0073
0.0180
HEM-17 POS
Workforce struck while leaning out of train inside possession
0.1455
0.0073
0.0011
HEM-19
Infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train in motion
4.333
0.4421
1.916
HEM-19A
Infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train in motion outside possession
2.364
0.4344
1.027
HEM-19 POS
Infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train in motion inside possession
1.970
0.4513
0.8889
HEM-20
Workforce struck by flying object thrown up by passing train
(includes objects thrown up by OTM movements outside a
possession)
11.19
0.0095
0.1059
HEM-20A
Workforce (non-infrastructure worker) struck by flying object disturbed by
or thrown up from passing train outside possession (includes objects
thrown up by OTM movements outside a possession)
3.611
0.0038
0.0137
HEM-20B
Infrastructure worker struck by flying object disturbed by or thrown up
from passing train outside possession (includes objects thrown up by
OTM movements outside a possession)
5.200
0.0122
0.0634
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
0.0288
0
0
0
0
0
0.0190
0.0723
0.0723
2.210
0
0
0
0
0
0
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
2.374
0.0121
Passengers
Workforce
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1
(21)
HEM-20
POS
Workforce inside possession struck by flying object disturbed by or thrown up
from passing train
ST2
HEM-21
Workforce fall between stationary train and platform
108.0
0.0050
0.5435
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.501
22.13
82.21
0.6011
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-21A
Workforce fall between stationary train and platform whilst alighting
50.12
0.0072
0.3598
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.676
11.15
36.32
0.1424
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-21B
Workforce fall between stationary train and platform whilst boarding
35.34
0.0022
0.0779
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1766
6.222
28.80
0.3049
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-21C
Workforce fall between stationary train and platform - other
22.38
0.0047
0.1052
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6437
4.734
17.00
0.1533
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-21
POS
Workforce fall between stationary train and platform inside possession
0.1206
0.0051
6.16E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0040
0.0248
0.0917
6.61E-04
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-22
Workforce fall out of train onto track at a station (no electric shock nor
struck by train)
0.1429
0.0429
0.0061
0
0
0
0
0
0.0032
0.0254
0.0762
0.0381
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-23
Train door closes on workforce
77.37
0.0021
0.1658
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6137
6.860
69.90
0.2137
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-23A
Train door closes on workforce
76.12
0.0021
0.1620
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5942
6.712
68.82
0.2127
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-23
POS
Train door closes on workforce inside possession
1.250
0.0030
0.0038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0195
0.1478
1.083
9.58E-04
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-25
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on railway infrastructure
not at a station
31.81
0.7502
23.87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6916
14.52
23.16
6.229
1.383
0.6916
0
HEM-25A
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on railway infrastructure
outside possession not at a station
31.80
0.7504
23.86
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6913
14.52
23.16
6.222
1.383
0.6913
0
ST1
HEM-25
POS
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on railway infrastructure inside
possession not at a station
0.0124
0.4227
0.0052
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.69E-04
0.0057
0.0045
0.0069
0
ST1
HEM-27
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on
level crossing or footpath crossing
7.188
0.8101
5.823
0
0
0
0.0846
0.0846
0
0
0
0.0846
5.581
5.666
1.269
0.3383
0.1691
0
HEM-27A
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on MCB +
CCTV level crossing
0.7318
0.8101
0.5929
0
0
0
0.0086
0.0086
0
0
0
0.0086
0.5682
0.5768
0.1291
0.0344
0.0172
0
ST1
HEM-27B
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on MCB
level crossing
0.1075
0.8101
0.0871
0
0
0
0.0013
0.0013
0
0
0
0.0013
0.0835
0.0848
0.0190
0.0051
0.0025
0
ST1
HEM-27C
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on MCG
level crossing
0.0213
0.8101
0.0172
0
0
0
2.51E-04 2.51E-04
0
0
0
2.51E-04
0.0165
0.0168
0.0038
0.0010
5.01E-04
0
ST1
HEM-27D
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on ABCL
level crossing
0.0592
0.8101
0.0479
0
0
0
6.96E-04 6.96E-04
0
0
0
6.96E-04
0.0459
0.0466
0.0104
0.0028
0.0014
0
ST1
HEM-27E
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on AHB
level crossing
1.004
0.8101
0.8131
0
0
0
0.0118
0.0118
0
0
0
0.0118
0.7794
0.7912
0.1771
0.0472
0.0236
0
ST1
HEM-27F
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on AOCL
level crossing
0.0891
0.8101
0.0722
0
0
0
0.0010
0.0010
0
0
0
0.0010
0.0692
0.0703
0.0157
0.0042
0.0021
0
ST1
HEM-27G
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on UWC +
MWL level crossing
0.1952
0.8101
0.1581
0
0
0
0.0023
0.0023
0
0
0
0.0023
0.1516
0.1539
0.0344
0.0092
0.0046
0
ST1
HEM-27H
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on UWC +
T level crossing
0.7491
0.8101
0.6069
0
0
0
0.0088
0.0088
0
0
0
0.0088
0.5817
0.5905
0.1322
0.0353
0.0176
0
ST1
HEM-27I
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on UWC
level crossing
0.5575
0.8101
0.4517
0
0
0
0.0066
0.0066
0
0
0
0.0066
0.4329
0.4395
0.0984
0.0262
0.0131
0
ST1
HEM-27J
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on OC
level crossing
0.0039
0.8101
0.0031
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.54E-05
0.0030
0.0030
0
ST1
HEM-27K
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on FP +
MWL level crossing
0.2785
0.8101
0.2256
0
0
0
0.0033
0.0033
0
0
0
0.0033
0.2162
0.2195
0.0491
0.0131
0.0066
0
ST1
HEM-27L
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on FP (no
lights) level crossing
3.389
0.8101
2.745
0
0
0
0.0399
0.0399
0
0
0
0.0399
2.631
2.671
0.5980
0.1595
0.0797
0
ST1
Version 7.1 — August 2011
4.54E-05 4.54E-05
5.38E-04 2.69E-04
6.81E-04 1.82E-04 9.08E-05
91
Table A1
HE
code
HE description
(1)
(2)
National National
average average
frequency cnsq.
National
average
risk
(3)
(4)
(5)
(events/
year)
(FWI/
event)
(FWI/
year)
HEM-20 POS
Workforce inside possession struck by flying object disturbed by or thrown
up from passing train
2.374
0.0121
0.0288
HEM-21
Workforce fall between stationary train and platform
108.0
0.0050
0.5435
HEM-21A
Workforce fall between stationary train and platform whilst alighting
50.12
0.0072
0.3598
HEM-21B
Workforce fall between stationary train and platform whilst boarding
35.34
0.0022
0.0779
HEM-21C
Workforce fall between stationary train and platform - other
22.38
0.0047
0.1052
HEM-21 POS
Workforce fall between stationary train and platform inside possession
0.1206
0.0051
6.16E-04
HEM-22
Workforce fall out of train onto track at a station (no electric shock
nor struck by train)
0.1429
0.0429
0.0061
HEM-23
Train door closes on workforce
77.37
0.0021
0.1658
HEM-23A
Train door closes on workforce
76.12
0.0021
0.1620
HEM-23 POS
Train door closes on workforce inside possession
1.250
0.0030
0.0038
HEM-25
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on railway
infrastructure not at a station
31.81
0.7502
23.87
HEM-25A
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on railway infrastructure
outside possession not at a station
31.80
0.7504
23.86
HEM-25 POS
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by train while on railway infrastructure
inside possession not at a station
0.0124
0.4227
0.0052
HEM-27
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train
on level crossing or footpath crossing
7.188
0.8101
5.823
HEM-27A
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on
MCB + CCTV level crossing
0.7318
0.8101
0.5929
HEM-27B
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on
MCB level crossing
0.1075
0.8101
0.0871
HEM-27C
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on
MCG level crossing
0.0213
0.8101
0.0172
HEM-27D
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on
ABCL level crossing
0.0592
0.8101
0.0479
HEM-27E
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on
AHB level crossing
1.004
0.8101
0.8131
HEM-27F
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on
AOCL level crossing
0.0891
0.8101
0.0722
HEM-27G
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on
UWC + MWL level crossing
0.1952
0.8101
0.1581
HEM-27H
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on
UWC + T level crossing
0.7491
0.8101
0.6069
HEM-27I
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on
UWC level crossing
0.5575
0.8101
0.4517
HEM-27J
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on OC
level crossing
0.0039
0.8101
0.0031
HEM-27K
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on FP
+ MWL level crossing
0.2785
0.8101
0.2256
HEM-27L
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on FP
(no lights) level crossing
3.389
0.8101
2.745
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
0.0022
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.22E-05
0.0021
0.0022
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
0.0027
0.8101
Passengers
Workforce
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
3.22E-05 3.22E-05
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
4.82E-04 1.29E-04 6.43E-05
(21)
HEM-27
POS
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on level
crossing inside possession
HEM-30
MOP (trespasser) fall while on train exterior
0.9528
0.2245
0.2139
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1429
0.1667
0.4525
0.2144
0.0953
0
HEM-30A
MOP (trespasser) fall while on exterior of train
0.9524
0.2245
0.2138
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1429
0.1667
0.4524
0.2143
0.0952
0
ST1
HEM-30
POS
MOP (trespasser) fall while on exterior of train inside possession
3.71E-04
0.1990
7.38E-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.63E-05
0
ST1
HEM-31
Suicide (or attempted suicide) involving rolling stock in motion
242.0
0.8570
207.4
0
0
0
0
1.333
0.0769
0
0
0.9997
154.6
204.3
22.33
8.333
1.333
0.33333
HEM-31A
Attempted suicide involving rolling stock in motion
37.83
0.0634
2.399
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3333
24.17
0
22.33
8.333
1.333
0.33333
ST1
HEM-31B
Suicide involving rolling stock in motion
204.2
1.004
205.0
0
0
0
0
1.333
0.0769
0
0
0.6664
130.5
204.3
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEM-32
MOP (non-trespasser) outside railway infrastructure struck by object
from operations on railway infrastructure
1.200
0.0121
0.0145
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1200
0.3601
0.6002
0.12005
HEM-32A
MOP (non-trespasser) outside railway infrastructure struck by objects thrown
from operations on railway infrastructure
1.200
0.0121
0.0145
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1200
0.3600
0.6000
0.12
ST2
HEM-32
POS
MOP (non-trespasser) outside railway infrastructure struck by objects thrown
from operations on railway infrastructure inside possession
4.67E-04
0.0121
5.65E-06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.7E-05
ST2
HEM-38
Passenger injury due to sudden train movement
103.4
0.0064
0.6588
0
5.191
10.13
86.51
2.528
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HEM-38A
Passenger injury due to sudden changes in train speed
25.42
0.0074
0.1882
0
1.537
2.595
20.78
0.7196
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-38B
Passenger injury due to lurching
77.93
0.0060
0.4706
0
3.654
7.536
65.73
1.808
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-39
Workforce injury due to sudden train movement
392.0
0.0024
0.9248
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.412
48.45
340.6
0.7887
0
0
0
0
0
5.79E-05 1.51E-04 1.04E-04 4.63E-05
4.67E-05 1.40E-04 2.34E-04
0
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1
ST1
HEM-39A
Workforce injury due to sudden changes in train speed
42.67
0.0031
0.1306
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6514
5.863
36.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-39B
Workforce injury due to lurching
349.3
0.0023
0.7939
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.759
42.57
304.3
0.7884
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-39
POS
Workforce injury due to sudden train movement inside possession
0.1111
0.0023
2.53E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.78E-04
0.0135
0.0968
2.51E-04
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-40
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with moving train due to being
too close to platform edge
1.000
0.1730
0.1730
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4155
0.1385
0.3078
0.2770
0.1847
0.01539
HEM-40A
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with moving train due to being too
close to platform edge
1.000
0.1730
0.1730
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4154
0.1385
0.3077
0.2769
0.1846
0.01538
ST1
HEM-40
POS
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with moving train due to being too
close to platform edge inside possession
3.89E-04
0.1730
6.73E-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.62E-04
6E-06
ST1
6.17E-04 3.09E-04
5.39E-05 1.20E-04 1.08E-04 7.19E-05
HEM-41
MOP (non-trespasser) fall between stationary train and platform
0.4000
0.0052
0.0021
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0028
4.12E-04
0.0092
0.0840
0.2873
0.01975
ST2
HEM-42
Passenger struck by flying object thrown up by passing train while at a
station
6.531
0.0016
0.0105
0
0
0.8519
6.247
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEM-43
Train door closes on MOP (non-trespasser)
0.9305
0.0021
0.0019
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0067
0.0868
0.7960
0.04787
HEM-43A
Train door (slam door) closes on MOP (non-trespasser)
0.2352
0.0033
7.76E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0029
0.0628
0.1680
0.00146
ST2
HEM-43B
Train door (non-slam door) closes on MOP (non-trespasser)
0.6954
0.0017
0.0012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0037
0.0240
0.6280
0.04641
ST2
HEM-44
MOP (trespasser) jump from train in service
0.6850
0.2520
0.1726
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1898
0.1351
0.3602
0.0949
0.0949
0
HEM-44A
MOP (trespasser) jump from slam door train in service
0.4277
0.3440
0.1471
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0611
0.1222
0.2444
0.0306
0.0306
0
HEM-44B
MOP (trespasser) jump from power door train in service
0.2573
0.0990
0.0255
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1287
0.0129
0.1158
0.0643
0.0643
0
ST1
HEM-50
Witnessing a traumatic event (movement)
107.7
0.0010
0.1107
0
0
0
0
0.6687
0
0
0
0
110.0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
Version 7.1 — August 2011
ST1
93
Table A1
HE
code
HE description
(1)
(2)
National National
average average
frequency cnsq.
National
average
risk
(3)
(4)
(5)
(events/
year)
(FWI/
event)
(FWI/
year)
HEM-27 POS
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on
level crossing inside possession
0.0027
0.8101
0.0022
HEM-30
MOP (trespasser) fall while on train exterior
0.9528
0.2245
0.2139
HEM-30A
MOP (trespasser) fall while on exterior of train
HEM-30 POS
MOP (trespasser) fall while on exterior of train inside possession
HEM-31
Suicide (or attempted suicide) involving rolling stock in motion
242.0
0.8570
207.4
HEM-31A
Attempted suicide involving rolling stock in motion
37.83
0.0634
2.399
HEM-31B
Suicide involving rolling stock in motion
204.2
1.004
205.0
HEM-32
MOP (non-trespasser) outside railway infrastructure struck by object
from operations on railway infrastructure
1.200
0.0121
0.0145
HEM-32A
MOP (non-trespasser) outside railway infrastructure struck by objects
thrown from operations on railway infrastructure
1.200
0.0121
0.0145
HEM-32 POS
MOP (non-trespasser) outside railway infrastructure struck by objects
thrown from operations on railway infrastructure inside possession
4.67E-04
0.0121
5.65E-06
HEM-38
Passenger injury due to sudden train movement
103.4
0.0064
0.6588
HEM-38A
Passenger injury due to sudden changes in train speed
25.42
0.0074
0.1882
HEM-38B
Passenger injury due to lurching
77.93
0.0060
0.4706
HEM-39
Workforce injury due to sudden train movement
392.0
0.0024
0.9248
HEM-39A
Workforce injury due to sudden changes in train speed
42.67
0.0031
0.1306
HEM-39B
Workforce injury due to lurching
349.3
0.0023
0.7939
HEM-39 POS
Workforce injury due to sudden train movement inside possession
0.1111
0.0023
2.53E-04
HEM-40
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with moving train due to
being too close to platform edge
1.000
0.1730
0.1730
HEM-40A
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with moving train due to being
too close to platform edge
1.000
0.1730
0.1730
HEM-40 POS
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with moving train due to being
too close to platform edge inside possession
3.89E-04
0.1730
6.73E-05
HEM-41
MOP (non-trespasser) fall between stationary train and platform
0.4000
0.0052
0.0021
HEM-42
Passenger struck by flying object thrown up by passing train while
at a station
6.531
0.0016
0.0105
HEM-43
Train door closes on MOP (non-trespasser)
0.9305
0.0021
0.0019
HEM-43A
Train door (slam door) closes on MOP (non-trespasser)
0.2352
0.0033
7.76E-04
HEM-43B
Train door (non-slam door) closes on MOP (non-trespasser)
0.6954
0.0017
0.0012
HEM-44
MOP (trespasser) jump from train in service
0.6850
0.2520
0.1726
HEM-44A
MOP (trespasser) jump from slam door train in service
0.4277
0.3440
0.1471
HEM-44B
MOP (trespasser) jump from power door train in service
0.2573
0.0990
0.0255
HEM-50
Witnessing a traumatic event (movement)
107.7
0.0010
0.1107
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.9524
0.2245
0.2138
3.71E-04
0.1990
7.38E-05
Open for full breakdown
Table A1
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
Passengers
Workforce
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1: List of risk, frequency and average consequences (HENs)
(21)
HEN-01
Exposure to a fire on railway infrastructure not at a station
2.521
0.0066
0.0167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1146
0.5731
2.292
0.1146
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-02
Exposure to fire on railway infrastructure at a station
0.4444
0.0101
0.0045
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0342
0.1368
0.3590
0.0171
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-03
Exposure to fire in a station not on railway infrastructure
0.4000
0.0254
0.0102
0.0020
0.0180
0.0200
0
0
8.00E-04
0.0500
0
0.4500
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-04
Exposure to explosion on railway infrastructure
1.000
0.0421
0.0421
0
0
0
0
0
0.0200
0.2000
0.2229
1.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-05
Exposure to an explosion at a station
0.0500
3.000
0.1500
0.1000
0.2000
0
0
0
0.0250
0.0500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-07
Passenger exposure to hazardous substances
5.395
0.0032
0.0175
0
0.0866
0.8694
4.385
0.1409
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-08
Passenger observes electrical arcing at a station
0.2351
0.0188
0.0044
0
0.0392
0.0784
0.0784
0.0392
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-09
Passenger electric shock at a station (OHLE)
0.0667
0.1118
0.0075
0.0067
0.0067
0.0133
0.0533
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-10
Passenger electric shock at a station (conductor rail)
1.711
0.4955
0.8477
0.7984
0.4562
0.2281
0.2281
0
0
0
0
0
0.4562
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-11
Passenger electric shock at a station (non-traction supplies)
1.274
0.0036
0.0046
0
0.0319
0.0319
1.195
0.0159
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-13
Passenger fall from platform onto track (no electric shock nor struck by
train)
50.84
0.0139
0.7056
0.0696
4.869
25.73
18.08
2.087
0
0
0
0
0.3478
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-14
Passenger slip, trip or fall
2900.6
0.0081
23.42
2.214
152.9
784.5
1937.6
55.40
0
0
0
0
0.1508
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-14A
Passenger slip, trip or fall (platform)
844.8
0.0076
6.455
0.2025
46.99
188.8
595.6
14.18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-14B
Passenger slip, trip or fall (stairs)
986.1
0.0093
9.193
0.8576
60.68
334.7
583.4
10.29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-14C
Passenger slip, trip or fall (escalator)
487.5
0.0069
3.383
1.020
13.52
127.8
350.5
20.92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-14D
Passenger slip, trip or fall (station concourse)
477.7
0.0076
3.651
0.1145
26.57
106.8
336.9
8.018
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-14E
Passenger slip, trip or fall while legitimately crossing line on station crossing
3.771
0.0060
0.0226
0
0.1508
0.9050
2.715
0.1508
0
0
0
0
0.1508
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-14F
Passenger slip, trip or fall (chair, bench, wheelchair)
20.59
0.0049
0.1004
0
0.4960
7.689
11.90
0.4960
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-14G
Passenger slip, trip or fall (ramps)
80.18
0.0076
0.6127
0.0192
4.460
17.92
56.54
1.346
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-15
Passenger fall from overbridge at a station
0.2139
0.2905
0.0621
0.0595
0.0220
0.0661
0.0661
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-16
Passenger fall during an evacuation at a station
0.0500
0.0531
0.0027
0
0.0250
0.0203
0.0522
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-21
Workforce struck/crushed by structural collapse or large object
12.67
0.0334
0.4227
0
0
0
0
0
0.1014
3.029
1.725
8.116
1.616
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-22
Workforce trapped in machinery
6.000
0.0104
0.0622
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5230
1.115
4.362
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-23
Workforce struck by / contact with / trapped in object at a station
588.0
0.0024
1.418
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.535
20.63
559.2
1.690
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m
1000.9
0.0060
6.044
0
0
0
0
0
0.1012
45.76
102.9
850.1
2.355
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-24A
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (platform)
187.0
0.0047
0.8756
0
0
0
0
0
0.0189
5.913
21.09
159.5
0.4394
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24B
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (stairs)
162.7
0.0052
0.8380
0
0
0
0
0
0.0164
5.713
23.24
133.7
0.3183
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24C
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (escalator)
7.450
0.0052
0.0384
0
0
0
0
0
7.53E-04
0.2617
1.064
6.123
0.0146
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24D
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (station concourse)
68.60
0.0047
0.3213
0
0
0
0
0
0.0069
2.170
7.739
58.52
0.1612
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24E
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (walkway)
21.12
0.0063
0.1324
0
0
0
0
0
0.0021
1.034
1.690
18.33
0.0638
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24F
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (ramp)
39.60
0.0091
0.3610
0
0
0
0
0
0.0040
2.991
5.324
31.28
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24G
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (bridge)
7.248
0.0047
0.0339
0
0
0
0
0
7.33E-04
0.2292
0.8176
6.183
0.0170
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24H
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (on or about track)
410.9
0.0063
2.576
0
0
0
0
0
0.0416
20.12
32.87
356.7
1.241
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24I
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (signal box)
27.08
0.0047
0.1268
0
0
0
0
0
0.0027
0.8564
3.055
23.10
0.0636
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24J
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (ladder)
8.414
0.0105
0.0885
0
0
0
0
0
8.51E-04
0.8005
0
7.613
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24K
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (from platform not struck by train)
6.695
0.0124
0.0827
0
0
0
0
0
6.77E-04
0.7041
1.410
4.581
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24L
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (level crossing)
12.07
0.0063
0.0756
0
0
0
0
0
0.0012
0.5907
0.9653
10.47
0.0364
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
Version 7.1 — August 2011
95
Table A1
Table A1: List of risk, frequency and average consequences (HENs)
HE
code
HE description
National
average
frequency
National
average
cnsq.
National
average
risk
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(events/
year)
(FWI/
event)
(FWI/
year)
HEN-01
Exposure to a fire on railway infrastructure not at a station
2.521
0.0066
0.0167
HEN-02
Exposure to fire on railway infrastructure at a station
0.4444
0.0101
0.0045
HEN-03
Exposure to fire in a station not on railway infrastructure
0.4000
0.0254
0.0102
HEN-04
Exposure to explosion on railway infrastructure
1.000
0.0421
0.0421
HEN-05
Exposure to an explosion at a station
0.0500
3.000
0.1500
HEN-07
Passenger exposure to hazardous substances
5.395
0.0032
0.0175
HEN-08
Passenger observes electrical arcing at a station
0.2351
0.0188
0.0044
HEN-09
Passenger electric shock at a station (OHLE)
0.0667
0.1118
0.0075
HEN-10
Passenger electric shock at a station (conductor rail)
1.711
0.4955
0.8477
HEN-11
Passenger electric shock at a station (non-traction supplies)
1.274
0.0036
0.0046
HEN-13
Passenger fall from platform onto track (no electric shock nor struck
by train)
50.84
0.0139
0.7056
HEN-14
Passenger slip, trip or fall
2900.6
0.0081
23.42
HEN-14A
Passenger slip, trip or fall (platform)
844.8
0.0076
6.455
HEN-14B
Passenger slip, trip or fall (stairs)
986.1
0.0093
9.193
HEN-14C
Passenger slip, trip or fall (escalator)
487.5
0.0069
3.383
HEN-14D
Passenger slip, trip or fall (station concourse)
477.7
0.0076
3.651
HEN-14E
Passenger slip, trip or fall while legitimately crossing line on station
crossing
3.771
0.0060
0.0226
HEN-14F
Passenger slip, trip or fall (chair, bench, wheelchair)
20.59
0.0049
0.1004
HEN-14G
Passenger slip, trip or fall (ramps)
80.18
0.0076
0.6127
HEN-15
Passenger fall from overbridge at a station
0.2139
0.2905
0.0621
HEN-16
Passenger fall during an evacuation at a station
0.0500
0.0531
0.0027
HEN-21
Workforce struck/crushed by structural collapse or large object
12.67
0.0334
0.4227
HEN-22
Workforce trapped in machinery
6.000
0.0104
0.0622
HEN-23
Workforce struck by / contact with / trapped in object at a station
588.0
0.0024
1.418
HEN-24
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m
1000.9
0.0060
6.044
HEN-24A
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (platform)
187.0
0.0047
0.8756
HEN-24B
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (stairs)
162.7
0.0052
0.8380
HEN-24C
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (escalator)
7.450
0.0052
0.0384
HEN-24D
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (station concourse)
68.60
0.0047
0.3213
HEN-24E
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (walkway)
21.12
0.0063
0.1324
HEN-24F
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (ramp)
39.60
0.0091
0.3610
HEN-24G
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (bridge)
7.248
0.0047
0.0339
HEN-24H
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (on or about track)
410.9
0.0063
2.576
HEN-24I
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (signal box)
27.08
0.0047
0.1268
HEN-24J
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (ladder)
8.414
0.0105
0.0885
HEN-24K
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (from platform not struck by train)
6.695
0.0124
0.0827
HEN-24L
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (level crossing)
12.07
0.0063
0.0756
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
Passengers
Workforce
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1
(21)
HEN-24M
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (vehicle)
26.83
0.0101
0.2711
0
0
0
0
0
0.0027
2.330
2.722
21.77
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-24N
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (other)
15.23
0.0146
0.2231
0
0
0
0
0
0.0015
2.048
0.8786
12.30
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m
16.32
0.0394
0.6437
0
0
0
0
0
0.2711
3.519
1.894
10.95
0.2834
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-25A
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (hole/pit)
3.476
0.0258
0.0899
0
0
0
0
0
0.0436
0.4106
0.5132
2.566
0.0436
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25B
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (embankment/wall/hill/cliff/sloping surface)
3.514
0.0258
0.0908
0
0
0
0
0
0.0441
0.4151
0.5188
2.594
0.0441
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25C
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (stairs/steps)
1.600
0.0519
0.0830
0
0
0
0
0
0.0325
0.4877
0.1393
0.9753
0.0348
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25D
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (scaffold/temporary structure)
2.029
0.0519
0.1052
0
0
0
0
0
0.0412
0.6183
0.1767
1.237
0.0442
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25E
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (ladder)
2.486
0.0519
0.1289
0
0
0
0
0
0.0505
0.7576
0.2165
1.515
0.0541
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25F
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (road vehicle)
0.7111
0.0519
0.0369
0
0
0
0
0
0.0144
0.2167
0.0619
0.4335
0.0155
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25G
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (rail vehicle)
0.2857
0.0519
0.0148
0
0
0
0
0
0.0058
0.0871
0.0249
0.1742
0.0062
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25H
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (bridge)
0.4000
0.0258
0.0103
0
0
0
0
0
0.0050
0.0472
0.0591
0.2953
0.0050
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25I
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (crane)
0.4107
0.0258
0.0106
0
0
0
0
0
0.0052
0.0485
0.0606
0.3032
0.0052
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25J
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (roof/permanent structure)
0.4762
0.0519
0.0247
0
0
0
0
0
0.0097
0.1451
0.0415
0.2903
0.0104
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25K
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (trees/shrubbery)
0.6857
0.0519
0.0356
0
0
0
0
0
0.0139
0.2090
0.0597
0.4180
0.0149
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25L
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (other)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25M
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (escalator)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-25N
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (structure/vehicle/hydraulic failure)
0.2500
0.0519
0.0130
0
0
0
0
0
0.0051
0.0762
0.0218
0.1524
0.0054
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-26
Workforce struck/crushed by non-train vehicle
12.10
0.0204
0.2472
0
0
0
0
0
0.1088
1.220
1.262
9.841
0.2308
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-27
Workforce scalds or burns due to contact with hot object (not on train)
33.81
0.0020
0.0669
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2486
2.113
31.32
0.1243
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-27A
Workforce burn due to electrical equipment failure (not on train)
0.5333
0.0020
0.0011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0039
0.0333
0.4941
0.0020
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-27B
Workforce burn due to welding, flame/disc cutting or angle grinding
14.05
0.0020
0.0278
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1033
0.8780
13.01
0.0516
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-27C
Workforce burn due to other causes (not on train)
19.23
0.0020
0.0380
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1414
1.202
17.81
0.0707
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-28
Workforce observes electrical arcing
4.690
0.0218
0.1022
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.9621
0.3608
3.969
0.2405
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-28A
Workforce observes electrical arcing (conductor rail)
2.422
0.0218
0.0528
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4967
0.1863
2.049
0.1242
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-28B
Workforce observes electrical arcing (OHLE)
1.086
0.0218
0.0237
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2227
0.0835
0.9187
0.0557
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
ST2
HEN-28C
Workforce observes electrical arcing (other)
1.183
0.0218
0.0258
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2427
0.0910
1.001
0.0607
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-29
Workforce exposure to hazardous substances (including stings, bites
and needle injuries)
77.12
0.0020
0.1506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6266
2.146
77.09
0.1222
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-29A
Workforce exposure to animal/insect bites
27.80
0.0018
0.0507
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1866
1.119
26.49
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-29B
Workforce exposure to needle stick injuries
7.087
0.0012
0.0086
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3666
6.598
0.1222
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-29C
Workforce exposure to other hazardous substances (excluding asphyxiation)
42.24
0.0022
0.0913
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4400
0.6600
44.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-30
Workforce electric shock (conductor rail)
3.794
0.1034
0.3922
0
0
0
0
0
0.3159
0.6930
0.6058
2.731
0.2555
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-30A
Workforce electric shock (conductor rail) due to fall
0.4554
0.2015
0.0918
0
0
0
0
0
0.0854
0.0569
0
0.3985
0.0569
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-30B
Workforce electric shock (conductor rail) via item/object
2.288
0.0389
0.0889
0
0
0
0
0
0.0337
0.5048
0.6058
1.413
0.0673
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-30C
Workforce (other than OTP workforce) electric shock (conductor rail) due to
incorrect isolation
1.050
0.2015
0.2115
0
0
0
0
0
0.1968
0.1312
0
0.9186
0.1312
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-31
Workforce electric shock (OHLE)
1.442
0.1791
0.2582
0
0
0
0
0
0.2219
0.3446
0.1983
0.8752
0
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-31A
Workforce electric shock (OHLE) (direct contact)
0.4500
0.3275
0.1474
0
0
0
0
0
0.1227
0.2455
0
0.0818
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-31B
Workforce electric shock (OHLE) (indirect contact)
0.9917
0.1118
0.1109
0
0
0
0
0
0.0992
0.0992
0.1983
0.7933
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-32
Workforce electric shock (non-traction supply)
9.819
0.0037
0.0360
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2518
0.2518
9.441
0.1259
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
Version 7.1 — August 2011
ST1
97
Table A1
HE
code
HE description
(1)
(2)
National National
average average
frequency cnsq.
National
average
risk
(3)
(4)
(5)
(events/
year)
(FWI/
event)
(FWI/
year)
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (vehicle)
26.83
0.0101
0.2711
HEN-24N
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m (other)
15.23
0.0146
0.2231
HEN-25
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m
16.32
0.0394
0.6437
HEN-25A
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (hole/pit)
3.476
0.0258
0.0899
HEN-25B
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (embankment/wall/hill/cliff/sloping surface)
3.514
0.0258
0.0908
HEN-25C
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (stairs/steps)
1.600
0.0519
0.0830
HEN-25D
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (scaffold/temporary structure)
2.029
0.0519
0.1052
HEN-24M
HEN-25E
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (ladder)
2.486
0.0519
0.1289
HEN-25F
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (road vehicle)
0.7111
0.0519
0.0369
HEN-25G
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (rail vehicle)
0.2857
0.0519
0.0148
HEN-25H
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (bridge)
0.4000
0.0258
0.0103
HEN-25I
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (crane)
0.4107
0.0258
0.0106
HEN-25J
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (roof/permanent structure)
0.4762
0.0519
0.0247
HEN-25K
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (trees/shrubbery)
0.6857
0.0519
0.0356
HEN-25L
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (other)
0
0
0
HEN-25M
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (escalator)
0
0
0
HEN-25N
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m (structure/vehicle/hydraulic failure)
0.2500
0.0519
0.0130
HEN-26
Workforce struck/crushed by non-train vehicle
12.10
0.0204
0.2472
HEN-27
Workforce scalds or burns due to contact with hot object (not on train)
33.81
0.0020
0.0669
HEN-27A
Workforce burn due to electrical equipment failure (not on train)
0.5333
0.0020
0.0011
HEN-27B
Workforce burn due to welding, flame/disc cutting or angle grinding
14.05
0.0020
0.0278
HEN-27C
Workforce burn due to other causes (not on train)
19.23
0.0020
0.0380
HEN-28
Workforce observes electrical arcing
4.690
0.0218
0.1022
HEN-28A
Workforce observes electrical arcing (conductor rail)
2.422
0.0218
0.0528
HEN-28B
Workforce observes electrical arcing (OHLE)
1.086
0.0218
0.0237
HEN-28C
Workforce observes electrical arcing (other)
1.183
0.0218
0.0258
HEN-29
Workforce exposure to hazardous substances (including stings, bites
and needle injuries)
77.12
0.0020
0.1506
HEN-29A
Workforce exposure to animal/insect bites
27.80
0.0018
0.0507
HEN-29B
Workforce exposure to needle stick injuries
7.087
0.0012
0.0086
HEN-29C
Workforce exposure to other hazardous substances (excluding asphyxiation)
42.24
0.0022
0.0913
HEN-30
Workforce electric shock (conductor rail)
3.794
0.1034
0.3922
HEN-30A
Workforce electric shock (conductor rail) due to fall
0.4554
0.2015
0.0918
HEN-30B
Workforce electric shock (conductor rail) via item/object
2.288
0.0389
0.0889
HEN-30C
Workforce (other than OTP workforce) electric shock (conductor rail) due to
incorrect isolation
1.050
0.2015
0.2115
HEN-31
Workforce electric shock (OHLE)
1.442
0.1791
0.2582
HEN-31A
Workforce electric shock (OHLE) (direct contact)
0.4500
0.3275
0.1474
HEN-31B
Workforce electric shock (OHLE) (indirect contact)
0.9917
0.1118
0.1109
HEN-32
Workforce electric shock (non-traction supply)
9.819
0.0037
0.0360
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
Passengers
Workforce
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
HEN-33
Workforce affected by fumes/smoke/asphyxiation/drowning
2.996
0.0521
0.1561
0
0
0
0
0
0.1372
0.1372
0.3402
3.515
0
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-33A
Workforce affected by fumes/smoke/asphyxiation not at a station
1.000
0.0441
0.0441
0
0
0
0
0
0.0385
0.0385
0.1154
1.192
0
0
0
0
0
0
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1
(21)
ST1
HEN-33B
Workforce affected by fumes/smoke/asphyxiation at a station
1.948
0.0441
0.0859
0
0
0
0
0
0.0749
0.0749
0.2248
2.323
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-33C
Workforce asphyxiation (drowning)
0.0476
0.5500
0.0262
0
0
0
0
0
0.0238
0.0238
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-35
Workforce involved in road traffic accident whilst on duty
62.67
0.0127
0.7950
0
0
0
0
0
0.2222
3.778
18.07
54.59
10.000
0
0
0
0
0
HEN-35A
Workforce (other than OTP workforce) involved in road traffic accident while
on duty
62.00
0.0128
0.7940
0
0
0
0
0
0.2222
3.778
18.00
54.00
10.000
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-35B
Signaller struck by road vehicle
0.6667
0.0014
9.63E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0741
0.5926
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-36
MOP (adult trespasser) slip, trip or fall while on railway infrastructure
18.60
0.0414
0.7705
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3577
0.3577
3.577
10.02
4.650
0
ST2
HEN-37
MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (OHLE)
1.600
0.4083
0.6533
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5333
1.200
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-38
MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail)
9.000
0.6900
6.210
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.287
6.085
1.003
1.469
0.5596
0
HEN-38A
MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail) at a station
6.200
0.7503
4.652
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.937
4.568
0.6526
0.6526
0.3263
0
ST1
HEN-38B
MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail) not at a station
2.800
0.5563
1.558
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3500
1.517
0.3500
0.8167
0.2333
0
ST1
HEN-39
MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (non-traction supply)
0.1212
0.0422
0.0051
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0485
0.0485
0.0242
0
ST2
HEN-40
MOP (child trespasser) slip, trip or fall while on railway infrastructure
1.333
0.0447
0.0596
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0252
0.3082
0.6667
0.3333
0
ST2
HEN-41
MOP (child trespasser) electric shock (OHLE)
1.543
0.1596
0.2462
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1286
0.1286
1.157
0.2571
0
0
ST1
HEN-42
MOP (child trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail)
1.000
0.4024
0.4024
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3846
0.1538
0.4615
0.0769
0
ST1
HEN-43
MOP (child trespasser) electric shock (non-traction supply)
0.1833
0.0422
0.0077
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0733
0.0733
0.0367
0
ST2
HEN-44
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped
by level crossing equipment
12.02
0.0120
0.1439
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.224
2.670
8.011
0.11127
HEN-44A
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on MCB + CCTV
7.533
0.0120
0.0902
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.7673
1.674
5.022
0.06975
ST2
HEN-44B
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on MCB
1.743
0.0120
0.0209
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1775
0.3873
1.162
0.01614
ST2
HEN-44C
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on MCG
0.9976
0.0120
0.0119
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1016
0.2217
0.6651
0.00924
ST2
HEN-44D
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on ABCL
0.1086
0.0120
0.0013
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0111
0.0241
0.0724
0.00101
ST2
HEN-44E
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on AHB
0.4470
0.0120
0.0054
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0455
0.0993
0.2980
0.00414
ST2
HEN-44F
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on AOCL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-44G
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on UWC + MWL
0.0779
0.0120
9.33E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0079
0.0173
0.0519
0.00072
ST2
HEN-44H
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on UWC + T
0.1936
0.0120
0.0023
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0197
0.0430
0.1291
0.00179
ST2
HEN-44I
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on UWC
0.2104
0.0120
0.0025
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0214
0.0468
0.1403
0.00195
ST2
HEN-44K
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/trapped by level crossing
equipment on FP + MWL
0.0383
0.0120
4.59E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0039
0.0085
0.0255
0.00035
ST2
HEN-44L
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/trapped by level crossing
equipment on FP
0.6675
0.0120
0.0080
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0680
0.1483
0.4450
0.00618
ST2
HEN-45
MOP (non-trespasser) fall onto railway infrastructure
3.444
0.0977
0.3366
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1456
1.837
1.230
0.3015
0.15076
Version 7.1 — August 2011
99
Table A1
HE
code
HE description
(1)
(2)
National National
average average
frequency cnsq.
National
average
risk
(3)
(4)
(5)
(events/
year)
(FWI/
event)
(FWI/
year)
HEN-33
Workforce affected by fumes/smoke/asphyxiation/drowning
2.996
0.0521
0.1561
HEN-33A
Workforce affected by fumes/smoke/asphyxiation not at a station
1.000
0.0441
0.0441
HEN-33B
Workforce affected by fumes/smoke/asphyxiation at a station
1.948
0.0441
0.0859
HEN-33C
Workforce asphyxiation (drowning)
0.0476
0.5500
0.0262
HEN-35
Workforce involved in road traffic accident whilst on duty
62.67
0.0127
0.7950
HEN-35A
Workforce (other than OTP workforce) involved in road traffic accident while
on duty
62.00
0.0128
0.7940
HEN-35B
Signaller struck by road vehicle
0.6667
0.0014
9.63E-04
HEN-36
MOP (adult trespasser) slip, trip or fall while on railway infrastructure
18.60
0.0414
0.7705
HEN-37
MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (OHLE)
1.600
0.4083
0.6533
HEN-38
MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail)
9.000
0.6900
6.210
HEN-38A
MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail) at a station
6.200
0.7503
4.652
HEN-38B
MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail) not at a station
2.800
0.5563
1.558
HEN-39
MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (non-traction supply)
0.1212
0.0422
0.0051
HEN-40
MOP (child trespasser) slip, trip or fall while on railway infrastructure
1.333
0.0447
0.0596
HEN-41
MOP (child trespasser) electric shock (OHLE)
1.543
0.1596
0.2462
HEN-42
MOP (child trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail)
1.000
0.4024
0.4024
HEN-43
MOP (child trespasser) electric shock (non-traction supply)
0.1833
0.0422
0.0077
HEN-44
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped
by level crossing equipment
12.02
0.0120
0.1439
HEN-44A
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on MCB + CCTV
7.533
0.0120
0.0902
HEN-44B
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on MCB
1.743
0.0120
0.0209
HEN-44C
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on MCG
0.9976
0.0120
0.0119
HEN-44D
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on ABCL
0.1086
0.0120
0.0013
HEN-44E
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on AHB
0.4470
0.0120
0.0054
HEN-44F
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on AOCL
0
0
0
HEN-44G
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on UWC + MWL
0.0779
0.0120
9.33E-04
HEN-44H
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on UWC + T
0.1936
0.0120
0.0023
HEN-44I
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/trapped by
level crossing equipment on UWC
0.2104
0.0120
0.0025
HEN-44K
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/trapped by level crossing
equipment on FP + MWL
0.0383
0.0120
4.59E-04
HEN-44L
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/trapped by level crossing
equipment on FP
0.6675
0.0120
0.0080
HEN-45
MOP (non-trespasser) fall onto railway infrastructure
3.444
0.0977
0.3366
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
Passengers
Workforce
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
Shock /
rep.
rep.
Fatalities
minor
injuries
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1
(21)
HEN-45A
MOP (non-trespasser) fall onto railway infrastructure from bridge (incl. RTA)
1.600
0.1019
0.1631
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0615
0.9846
0.6154
0
0
ST1
HEN-45B
MOP (non-trespasser) fall onto railway infrastructure from wall, bank, roof,
fence (incl. RTA)
1.400
0.0928
0.1299
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0667
0.6000
0.4667
0.2667
0.13333
ST1
HEN-45C
MOP (non-trespasser) fall onto railway infrastructure from other — eg viaduct
(incl. RTA)
0.4444
0.0980
0.0436
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0174
0.2527
0.1481
0.0349
0.01743
ST1
HEN-46
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall
on level crossing or footpath crossing
15.14
0.0246
0.3724
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2260
0.1130
2.260
5.084
7.457
0.33894
HEN-46A
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
MCB + CCTV
6.361
0.0246
0.1565
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0949
0.0475
0.9494
2.136
3.133
0.14241
ST2
HEN-46B
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
MCB
3.551
0.0246
0.0873
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0530
0.0265
0.5300
1.192
1.749
0.07949
ST2
HEN-46C
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
MCG
0.6693
0.0246
0.0165
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0100
0.0050
0.0999
0.2248
0.3297
0.01498
ST2
HEN-46D
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
ABCL
0.2597
0.0246
0.0064
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0039
0.0019
0.0388
0.0872
0.1279
0.00582
ST2
HEN-46E
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
AHB
0.7189
0.0246
0.0177
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0107
0.0054
0.1073
0.2414
0.3541
0.0161
ST2
HEN-46F
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
AOCL
0.3505
0.0246
0.0086
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0052
0.0026
0.0523
0.1177
0.1726
0.00785
ST2
HEN-46G
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
UWC + MWL
0.2584
0.0246
0.0064
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0039
0.0019
0.0386
0.0868
0.1273
0.00579
ST2
HEN-46H
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
UWC + T
0.6420
0.0246
0.0158
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0096
0.0048
0.0958
0.2156
0.3162
0.01437
ST2
HEN-46I
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
UWC
0.6974
0.0246
0.0172
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0104
0.0052
0.1041
0.2342
0.3435
0.01561
ST2
HEN-46J
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on OC
0.0230
0.0246
5.65E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.43E-04
1.72E-04
0.0034
0.0077
0.0113
0.00051
ST2
HEN-46K
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist slip, trip, or fall on FP + MWL
crossing
0.0862
0.0246
0.0021
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0013
6.44E-04
0.0129
0.0290
0.0425
0.00193
ST2
HEN-46L
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist slip, trip, or fall on FP crossing
1.522
0.0246
0.0374
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0227
0.0114
0.2272
0.5112
0.7498
0.03408
ST2
HEN-48
MOP (non-trespasser) exposure to fire on railway infrastructure
0.0500
0.0290
0.0015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0125
0.0375
0.0125
0
ST2
HEN-49
MOP (non-trespasser) exposure to explosion on railway infrastructure
0.0500
6.000
0.3000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2500
0.5000
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-50
MOP (non-trespasser) observes electrical arcing
0.2000
0.0188
0.0038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0333
0.0667
0.0667
0.03333
ST2
HEN-51
MOP (non-trespasser) electric shock (OHLE)
0.4286
0.1118
0.0479
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0429
0.0429
0.0857
0.3429
0
ST1
HEN-52
MOP (non-trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail)
0.1077
0.6321
0.0681
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0431
0.0646
0.0323
0
0.0108
0
ST1
HEN-53
MOP (non-trespasser) electric shock (non-traction supplies)
0.2000
0.0037
7.33E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0051
0.0051
0.1923
0.00256
ST2
HEN-54
MOP (non-trespasser) exposure to hazardous substances on railway
infrastructure
0.2000
0.5037
0.1007
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1000
0.0050
0.0339
0.0661
0
ST1
HEN-55
Passenger struck by / contact with / trapped in object at a station
496.4
0.0030
1.492
0
7.581
60.97
413.3
15.63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-56
Workforce struck by / contact with / trapped in object not at a station
578.9
0.0050
2.883
0
0
0
0
0
0
22.37
22.30
535.1
0.0926
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-57
Passenger scalds or burns due to contact with hot object (not on train)
6.630
0.0017
0.0116
0
0
1.233
5.242
0.1542
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-58
MOP (non-trespasser) injury from objects/structures (eg bridges, steps,
subways) other than in stations whilst on railway infrastructure
1.000
0.0069
0.0069
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0476
0.2857
0.6667
0
ST2
HEN-59
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with / trapped in object at a
station
14.33
0.0033
0.0473
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2172
0
0
0.2172
2.823
11.08
0.21717
ST2
Version 7.1 — August 2011
101
Table A1
HE
code
HE description
(1)
(2)
National National
average average
frequency cnsq.
National
average
risk
(3)
(4)
(5)
(events/
year)
(FWI/
event)
(FWI/
year)
HEN-45A
MOP (non-trespasser) fall onto railway infrastructure from bridge (incl. RTA)
1.600
0.1019
0.1631
HEN-45B
MOP (non-trespasser) fall onto railway infrastructure from wall, bank, roof,
fence (incl. RTA)
1.400
0.0928
0.1299
HEN-45C
MOP (non-trespasser) fall onto railway infrastructure from other — eg viaduct
(incl. RTA)
0.4444
0.0980
0.0436
HEN-46
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall
on level crossing or footpath crossing
15.14
0.0246
0.3724
HEN-46A
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
MCB + CCTV
6.361
0.0246
0.1565
HEN-46B
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
MCB
3.551
0.0246
0.0873
HEN-46C
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
MCG
0.6693
0.0246
0.0165
HEN-46D
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
ABCL
0.2597
0.0246
0.0064
HEN-46E
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
AHB
0.7189
0.0246
0.0177
HEN-46F
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
AOCL
0.3505
0.0246
0.0086
HEN-46G
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
UWC + MWL
0.2584
0.0246
0.0064
HEN-46H
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
UWC + T
0.6420
0.0246
0.0158
HEN-46I
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on
UWC
0.6974
0.0246
0.0172
HEN-46J
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or fall on OC
0.0230
0.0246
5.65E-04
HEN-46K
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist slip, trip, or fall on FP + MWL
crossing
0.0862
0.0246
0.0021
HEN-46L
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist slip, trip, or fall on FP crossing
1.522
0.0246
0.0374
HEN-48
MOP (non-trespasser) exposure to fire on railway infrastructure
0.0500
0.0290
0.0015
HEN-49
MOP (non-trespasser) exposure to explosion on railway infrastructure
0.0500
6.000
0.3000
HEN-50
MOP (non-trespasser) observes electrical arcing
0.2000
0.0188
0.0038
HEN-51
MOP (non-trespasser) electric shock (OHLE)
0.4286
0.1118
0.0479
HEN-52
MOP (non-trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail)
0.1077
0.6321
0.0681
HEN-53
MOP (non-trespasser) electric shock (non-traction supplies)
0.2000
0.0037
7.33E-04
HEN-54
MOP (non-trespasser) exposure to hazardous substances on railway
infrastructure
0.2000
0.5037
0.1007
HEN-55
Passenger struck by / contact with / trapped in object at a station
496.4
0.0030
1.492
HEN-56
Workforce struck by / contact with / trapped in object not at a station
578.9
0.0050
2.883
HEN-57
Passenger scalds or burns due to contact with hot object (not on train)
6.630
0.0017
0.0116
HEN-58
MOP (non-trespasser) injury from objects/structures (eg bridges, steps,
subways) other than in stations whilst on railway infrastructure
1.000
0.0069
0.0069
HEN-59
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by / contact with / trapped in object at a
station
14.33
0.0033
0.0473
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
Passengers
Workforce
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
rep.
Shock /
Fatalities
rep.
injuries
minor
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
rep.
Shock /
Fatalities
rep.
injuries
minor
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
rep.
Shock /
Fatalities
rep.
injuries
minor
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1
(21)
HEN-60
Workforce exposure to noise (not on train)
2.790
0.0012
0.0033
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1073
2.683
0.1073
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-61
Passenger exposure to noise (not on train)
0.3860
0.0010
3.86E-04
0
0
0
0.3860
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-62
Passenger on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement &
assaults)
813.3
0.0042
3.401
0
22.68
84.01
696.4
16.21
0
0
0
0
0.3361
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-63
Workforce on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement &
assaults)
1200.1
0.0019
2.262
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.499
102.7
1093.4
5.118
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-64
Passenger assault
1690.6
0.0048
8.109
0.8134
48.10
174.9
1120.3
452.1
0
0
0
0
39.13
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-65
Workforce assault
1289.6
0.0018
2.294
0
0
0
0
0
0.0659
6.404
60.38
522.6
763.3
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-66
MOP (non-trespasser) assault
116.1
0.0097
1.121
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.9589
0.1881
7.671
12.25
75.12
28.8265
ST2
HEN-67
MOP (non-trespasser) fall from platform onto track (no electric shock
nor struck by train)
3.200
0.0147
0.0471
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0209
0.0042
0.3358
1.605
1.130
0.12555
ST2
HEN-68
MOP (non-trespasser) slip, trip or fall in station
88.67
0.0079
0.7030
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0587
4.671
23.13
59.95
1.68491
ST2
HEN-70
Witnessing a traumatic event (non-movement)
11.20
0.0011
0.0118
0
0
0
0
0.8400
0
0
0
0
10.36
0
0
0
0
0.56
ST2
HEN-71
MOP (adult trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure
17.33
0.1844
3.196
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.259
2.360
8.046
4.404
2.523
0
HEN-71A
MOP (adult trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure from bridge
12.33
0.1981
2.443
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.203
1.805
6.167
2.858
1.504
0
ST1
HEN-71B
MOP (adult trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure from wall, bank,
roof or fence
4.200
0.1447
0.6077
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4500
1.500
1.350
0.9000
0
ST2
HEN-71C
MOP (adult trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure from other eg
viaduct
0.8000
0.1807
0.1445
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0561
0.1053
0.3789
0.1965
0.1193
0
ST1
HEN-72
MOP (child trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure
0.8362
0.1840
0.1539
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0602
0.1137
0.3871
0.2132
0.1223
0
HEN-72A
MOP (child trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure from bridge
0.6000
0.1981
0.1189
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0585
0.0878
0.3000
0.1390
0.0732
0
ST1
HEN-72B
MOP (child trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure from wall, bank,
roof or fence
0.2126
0.1447
0.0308
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0228
0.0759
0.0683
0.0456
0
ST2
HEN-72C
MOP (child trespasser) fall/jump from outside onto railway infrastructure from
other — eg viaduct
0.0236
0.1807
0.0043
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0017
0.0031
0.0112
0.0058
0.0035
0
ST1
HEN-73
Passenger manual handling
3.400
0.0186
0.0631
0
0.5667
0.9067
1.927
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-74
Workforce manual handling
424.2
0.0023
0.9565
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.483
71.57
350.0
0
0
0
0
0.2989
0
ST2
HEN-75
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a
road vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident at a level crossing
1.199
0.0292
0.0350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0153
0.1633
0.5102
0.5102
0.07521
HEN-75A
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on MCB + CCTV
0.4305
0.0293
0.0126
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0055
0.0588
0.1831
0.1831
0.02732
ST1
HEN-75B
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on MCB
0.3136
0.0291
0.0091
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0040
0.0425
0.1336
0.1336
0.01921
ST1
HEN-75C
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on MCG
0.0751
0.0289
0.0022
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.46E-04
0.0101
0.0320
0.0320
0.00448
ST1
HEN-75D
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on ABCL
0.0521
0.0287
0.0015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.51E-04
0.0070
0.0223
0.0223
0.00297
ST1
HEN-75E
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on AHB
0.2425
0.0286
0.0069
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0030
0.0323
0.1036
0.1036
0.01349
ST1
HEN-75F
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on AOCL
0.0136
0.0441
5.99E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.72E-04
0.0028
0.0053
0.0053
0.00313
ST1
HEN-75G
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on UWC + MWL
0.0098
0.0296
2.90E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.27E-04
0.0014
0.0042
0.0042
0.00066
ST1
Version 7.1 — August 2011
103
Table A1
HE
code
HE description
(1)
(2)
National National National
average average average
freq.
cnsq.
risk
(3)
(4)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
(5)
(FWI/
year)
HEN-60
Workforce exposure to noise (not on train)
2.790
0.0012
0.0033
HEN-61
Passenger exposure to noise (not on train)
0.3860
0.0010
3.86E-04
HEN-62
Passenger on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement &
assaults)
813.3
0.0042
3.401
HEN-63
Workforce on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement &
assaults)
1200.1
0.0019
2.262
HEN-64
Passenger assault
1690.6
0.0048
8.109
HEN-65
Workforce assault
1289.6
0.0018
2.294
HEN-66
MOP (non-trespasser) assault
116.1
0.0097
1.121
HEN-67
MOP (non-trespasser) fall from platform onto track (no electric shock nor
struck by train)
3.200
0.0147
0.0471
HEN-68
MOP (non-trespasser) slip, trip or fall in station
88.67
0.0079
0.7030
HEN-70
Witnessing a traumatic event (non-movement)
11.20
0.0011
0.0118
HEN-71
MOP (adult trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure
17.33
0.1844
3.196
HEN-71A
MOP (adult trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure from bridge
12.33
0.1981
2.443
HEN-71B
MOP (adult trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure from wall, bank,
roof or fence
4.200
0.1447
0.6077
HEN-71C
MOP (adult trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure from other eg
viaduct
0.8000
0.1807
0.1445
HEN-72
MOP (child trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure
0.8362
0.1840
0.1539
HEN-72A
MOP (child trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure from bridge
0.6000
0.1981
0.1189
HEN-72B
MOP (child trespasser) fall/jump onto railway infrastructure from wall, bank,
roof or fence
0.2126
0.1447
0.0308
HEN-72C
MOP (child trespasser) fall/jump from outside onto railway infrastructure from
other — eg viaduct
0.0236
0.1807
0.0043
HEN-73
Passenger manual handling
3.400
0.0186
0.0631
HEN-74
Workforce manual handling
424.2
0.0023
0.9565
HEN-75
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident at a level crossing
1.199
0.0292
0.0350
HEN-75A
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on MCB + CCTV
0.4305
0.0293
0.0126
HEN-75B
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on MCB
0.3136
0.0291
0.0091
HEN-75C
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on MCG
0.0751
0.0289
0.0022
HEN-75D
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on ABCL
0.0521
0.0287
0.0015
HEN-75E
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on AHB
0.2425
0.0286
0.0069
HEN-75F
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on AOCL
0.0136
0.0441
5.99E-04
HEN-75G
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on UWC + MWL
0.0098
0.0296
2.90E-04
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(FWI/
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(no./
year)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
Passengers
Workforce
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
rep.
Shock /
Fatalities
rep.
injuries
minor
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
MOP
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
rep.
Shock /
Fatalities
rep.
injuries
minor
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
NonRIDDORRIDDORMajor
rep.
Shock /
Fatalities
rep.
injuries
minor
Trauma
minor
injuries
injuries
Notes
(1)
National average
risk
HE description
National average
cnsq.
HE
code
National average
frequency
Table A1
(21)
HEN-75H
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on UWC + T
0.0216
0.0300
6.48E-04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.83E-04
0.0030
0.0091
0.0091
0.00155
ST1
HEN-75I
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on UWC
0.0394
0.0287
0.0011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.91E-04
0.0053
0.0168
0.0168
0.00223
ST1
HEN-75J
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on OC
7.30E-04
0.0441
3.22E-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.46E-05 1.50E-04 2.82E-04 2.82E-04 0.00017
ST1
HEN-76
MOP (non-trespasser) struck/crushed by structural collapse or large
object as a result of operations on railway infrastructure
0.4000
0.0254
0.0102
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0016
HEN-77
Suicide (or attempted suicide) not involving rolling stock in motion
20.60
0.5051
10.41
0.2000
0
0.2000
0
0
0
0
0
0.4000
2.400
9.400
7.800
2.400
0
0
HEN-77A
Attempted suicide not involving rolling stock in motion
11.00
0.0727
0.8002
0
0
0.2000
0
0
0
0
0
0.2000
1.400
0
7.800
2.400
0
0
ST1
HEN-77B
Suicide not involving rolling stock in motion
9.600
1.001
9.605
0.2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2000
1.000
9.400
0
0
0
0
ST1
HEN-82
Workforce awkward movement injury
112.2
0.0039
0.3688
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.699
22.09
88.37
0
0
0
0
0
0
ST2
HEN-83
Passenger awkward movement injury
4.667
0.0150
0.0702
0
0.6364
0.6364
3.394
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.0784
0.0800
0.2400
0.08
ST2
105
Table A1
HE
code
HE description
(1)
(2)
National National National
average average average
freq.
cnsq.
risk
(3)
(4)
(events/ (FWI/
year)
event)
(5)
(FWI/
year)
HEN-75H
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on UWC + T
0.0216
0.0300
6.48E-04
HEN-75I
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on UWC
0.0394
0.0287
0.0011
HEN-75J
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist/motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic accident on OC
7.30E-04
0.0441
3.22E-05
HEN-76
MOP (non-trespasser) struck/crushed by structural collapse or large
object as a result of operations on railway infrastructure
0.4000
0.0254
0.0102
HEN-77
Suicide (or attempted suicide) not involving rolling stock in motion
20.60
0.5051
10.41
HEN-77A
Attempted suicide not involving rolling stock in motion
11.00
0.0727
0.8002
HEN-77B
Suicide not involving rolling stock in motion
9.600
1.001
9.605
HEN-82
Workforce awkward movement injury
112.2
0.0039
0.3688
HEN-83
Passenger awkward movement injury
4.667
0.0150
0.0702
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Open for full breakdown
A.2.
Changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
SRMv6.5
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A2: Reasons for changes in reported frequency and risk between SRMv6 and SRMv6.5
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
Train accidents
HET-01
Collision between two passenger
trains resulting from a: passenger
train Cat A SPAD; runaway train;
misrouted train; or WSF
6
0.2535
0.4339
0.2466
0.4507
0.0167
3.9%
HET-02P
Collision between a passenger
train and non-passenger train
resulting from a: passenger train
Cat A SPAD; runaway train;
misrouted train; or WSF
6
0.0398
0.1045
0.0387
0.1074
0.0030
2.8%
HET-02NP Collision between a nonpassenger train and passenger
train resulting from a: nonpassenger train Cat A SPAD;
runaway train; misrouted train; or
WSF
6
0.4421
0.4792
0.4384
0.4813
0.0021
0.4%
HET-03
6
0.1412
0.0898
0.1400
0.0889
-0.0009
-1.0%
Collision between two nonpassenger trains resulting from a:
non-passenger train Cat A SPAD;
runaway train; misrouted train; or
WSF
Version 7.1 — August 2011
The reduction in frequency is due to the correction of an error in previous
versions of the SRM and reallocation of events to different precursors.
The probabilities of collision have been reviewed and updated in light of the
fact that we now have seven years of post-TPWS implementation data. These
probabilities also take into account several collisions that have occurred since
the model was last updated and they are considered to be a more reflective
representation than the numbers used in the v6 model. The probabilities
calculated were similar to SRMv6 for junction collisions, however they saw an
increase for plain line collisions.
The escalation factor updates from the derailment model, particularly the
structural collapse ones, also affect the collision models and this has also led
to an increase in risk.
The remodelling changes have led to an overall increase in risk for collisions
(HET-01,02,03) of around 0.05 FWI/year.
For HET-02NP and HET-03, the non-passenger SPADs leading to train
collision have a smaller change in risk when compared to the passenger train
SPAD collisions, as a lot of the risk comes from CAT D SPADs which remains
unchanged.
107
SRMv6
SRMv6.5
% change
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A2
HET-02NP Collision between OTP and
POS
passenger train resulting from
OTP incorrectly outside
possession
6
0.0500
0.0460
-
-
-
-
No change
HET-03
POS
Collisions between trains inside
possession (including OTP)
6
6.738
0.0336
-
-
-
-
No change
HET-04
Collision of train with object (not
resulting in derailment)
6
2845.5
0.6673
-
-
-
-
No change
HET-04
POS
Collision of train with object inside
possession (not resulting in
derailment)
6
14.82
0.0114
-
-
-
-
No change
HET-06
Collision between two passenger
trains in station (permissive
working)
6
7.572
0.0488
7.572
0.0418
-0.0070
-14.3%
The consequences for permissive movement events with the potential for high
speed have now been modelled using the consequences from low speed train
collisions rather than buffer stop collisions. This has resulted in a slight
reduction in risk to HET-06.
HET-09
Train collision with buffer stops
6
6.521
0.1354
6.654
0.1383
0.0029
2.1%
In early 2009, a risk project (RISK090101) was undertaken to update the buffer
stop risk assessment methodology contained with GI/GN7616. The aim of this
project was to incorporate the assessment of risk from passengers being
present on frangible decking into the existing methodology. This project
involved assessing how the consequences from a buffer stop collision would
change and re-modelling HET-09 to take account of this. The introduction of
frangible decking to the HET-09 model has altered the average consequences
to passengers in the station. However, the fitment of frangible decking in
stations on the network is low, hence there is not a significant increase in risk.
HET-09
POS
Train collision with buffer stops:
OTP inside possession
6
0.1333
5.52E-04
-
-
-
-
HE code
HE description
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
No change
108
SRMv6.5
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A2
HET-10
Passenger train collision with road
vehicle on level crossing
6
12.40
2.397
12.59
3.027
0.6300
26.3%
HET-11
Non-passenger train collision with
road vehicle on level crossing
6
2.217
0.384
2.230
0.493
0.1088
28.4%
HET-11
POS
OTP collision with road vehicle on
level crossing inside possession
6
0.1361
0.0223
-
-
-
-
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
Most of the increase in risk is due to the introduction of buses (i.e. including the
consideration of collisions with RVs carrying many MOP), and the associated
change in probability of collision with all RV types.
In developing v6 of the model some attempt was made to represent the
possibility of a multiple fatality incident occurring as a result of a train colliding
with, for example, a bus on an ABCL crossing. However on looking at this
again the assessment is perhaps a bit on the optimistic side. So to ensure due
consideration has been given to such an event the assumption that the
frequency of an accident leading to 10 fatalities is once in 50 years across all
620 automatic level crossings (ABCL, AOCL and AHB crossings) has been
made. These types of crossings have been in operation since the early 1960s
and to date such an accident has not occurred, however there has been at
least 1 case were a bus was struck but no one was injured as passengers
were able to leave the bus before the train arrived.
In the absence of recorded events over a defined period, an estimate of the
2
2
frequency can be established based on the chi distribution. The chi estimate
given zero recorded events is 0.69 events and 2.3 events at the 50% and 90%
confidence levels respectively ie. if the same period and conditions were to
occur repeatedly, we would expect to record no more than 0.69 events 50% of
the time and no more than 2.3 events 90% of the time. Taking 1 event in the
50 year period is therefore considered to be a reasonable estimate for this
analysis.
There was an error identified in the modelling of SRMv6 and the overall level
crossing collision risk (HET-10,11) should have been reported as 2.62
FWI/year rather than 2.78 FWI/year as indicated. This means that the true
increase in risk due to the modelling of train collision with a bus on level
crossings is 0.2 FWI.
No change
109
SRMv6.5
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A2
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
HET-12
Derailment of passenger train
6
7.004
1.977
7.314
1.904
-0.0730
-3.7%
HET-13
FTP
Derailment of freight train on
passenger line outside possession
6
11.72
0.3123
12.34
0.3333
0.0210
6.7%
HET-13
FTF
Derailment of freight train on
freight only line outside
possession
6
5.454
0.0668
6.713
0.081
0.0138
20.6%
HET-13 EP Derailment of ECS or parcels train
on passenger line
6
2.599
0.0385
4.10
0.0505
0.0121
31.3%
HET-13
POS
Derailment of train inside
possession (including OTP)
6
40.94
0.1304
40.94
0.1115
-0.0189
-14.5%
In light of the v6.5 modelling changes, an escalation factor has changed and
therefore HET-13 POS has been updated. The change in risk is due to this
revised value and relates to the new values created for the medium derailment
event trees.
HET-17
Fire on passenger train
6
126.5
0.1462
122.7
0.1423
-0.0038
-2.6%
There is a slight decrease in risk. This is as a result of the change in frequency
as the consequences per event remain unchanged from version 6 and only
one escalation factor was updated with minor results. The reduction in
frequency is the result of a change in methodology. There has been slight
restructuring of the model, merging certain similar causes where there have
been very few observed events and creating new precursors where credible
risks were missing for certain rolling stock. This made the selection of data
periods far easier and Empirical Bayes has now been used to share the
2
observed data as opposed to chi , which would have previously added
frequency to the HE. Slight changes in data period selected for certain
precursors will also have changed the frequency.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
The change in frequency is due to revisiting the expert judgement used to
evaluate some precursors where data is not currently available.
The overall change in risk is due to updating some of the escalation factors
used and improving consistency between the different consequences for the
slow, medium and fast event trees. Previously ,escalation factors for medium
speed derailments used largely the same factors as fast speed derailments. A
complete set of medium speed factors have now been derived. Another
reason for the increase in risk is the inclusion of new accident sequences that
account for a structural collapse due to a derailment at a station.
As part of v7 — further modelling refinements were identified. Updates to the
escalation factors and precursors have resulted in the risk decreasing for HET12 but increasing for HET-13. The increase is due to refinement of the SPAD
precursors and how TPWS affects the frequency of them which has resulted in
an increase in frequency and hence an increase in risk. The revision of the
escalation factors, particular the fast ones relating to structural collapse are the
main cause of this decrease.
110
SRMv6.5
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A2
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
HET-20
Fire on non-passenger train
6
22.66
0.0310
7.597
0.0208
-0.0102
-32.8%
There was a large amount of restructuring made to the model. In order to get a
more consistent modelling of fire risk, certain types of rolling stock were
merged together as were similar low frequency causes. New precursors were
also created for rolling stock where credible risk was not previously modelled.
The extensive modelling change resulted in a different approach being taken to
calculate the frequency. For causes where there was ample data, a 10 year
data set was taken. For causes where there were zero precursors for certain
rolling stock, Empirical Bayes was used to share the observed data, over a 10
year period, across the similar causal precursors. Where it was not possible to
do so, chi2 was used to estimate the rate of occurrence. This was used for
only a handful of precursors. As a result, all precursors were estimated at the
rate over the last 10 years. However, high level trending shows that there has
been a large decrease in occurrence of fires over this time period. Therefore, a
reducing factor to match this decrease was applied to each precursor so that
the overall frequency for the HET matched that observed rate over the last
three years. This was not previously carried out in v6 of the SRM and has
resulted in a large decrease in the overall frequency for HET-20. The
consequences per event have remained unchanged between v6 and v6.5.
Therefore the decrease in risk is a result of the reduction in frequency.
HET-20
POS
Fire on OTP inside possession
6
1.600
0.0050
1.250
0.0039
-0.0011
-21.9%
In version 6 there was not enough data in the HET to make a good estimate of
frequencies and therefore historic data was used. As a result of recoding within
HET-20 itself, there is now sufficient data to look at the last 5 years of data.
This resulted in a 22% decrease in frequency. The consequences per event
remain unchanged and there is therefore a 20% reduction in risk.
HET-21
Train crushed by structural
collapse or large object (not at a
station)
6
4.66E-04 6.30E-03 5.81E-04 7.86E-03
0.0016
24.8%
Change in frequency is due to the HE now including collapse of large objects,
eg trees/mudslides and structures outside railway infrastructure, within the
analysis
HET-21
POS
OTP crushed by structural
collapse or large object inside
possession (not at a station)
6
4.74E-06 2.72E-06 7.56E-06 4.34E-06
0.0000
59.6%
HET-22
Train crushed by structural
collapse or large object (at a
station)
6
0.0069
17.7%
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.0100
0.0387
0.0100
0.0456
The average consequences per event have been reassessed and this results
in an increase in estimated risk.
111
SRMv6
SRMv6.5
% change
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A2
HET-23
Explosion on passenger train
6
0.0200
0.0050
-
-
-
-
No change
HET-24
Explosion on freight train
6
0.0172
0.0688
-
-
-
-
No change
HET-25
Passenger train division (not
leading to collision)
6
11.67
0.0079
-
-
-
-
No change
HET-26
Collision between a failed train
and an assisting train
6
0.1870
0.0058
0.6000
0.0152
0.0094
160.2%
1.877
0.0194
-
-
-
-
No change
-
-
-
-
Now part of HEM-07.
HE code
HE description
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
There has been a 5 fold increase in frequency for precursors where a non
passenger train has failed. This change in frequency is due to an error in the
calculations of the frequency for v6.
The consequences per event for high speed collisions have also been updated
as these are based on the HET-06 consequences per event which have been
updated for v6.5.
These changes have resulted in an overall increase in risk for HET-26 of
approximately 0.01 FWI/year.
Movement Accidents
HEM-01
Passenger injury during
evacuation following stopped train
(not at a platform)
6
HEM-02
Passenger fall from train in
running
6
HEM-03
Passenger struck while leaning
out of train (train in running)
6.5
0.5421
0.0938
0.8942
0.1823
0.0885
94.4%
The risk has increased because of the rise in the events per year and average
consequence estimates. Even though there has been a reduction in events
from the re-coding of incidents, a larger data period was selected due to the
previous low event count of recent years. The number of fatal and major
injuries has remained the same despite this drop in events, leading to an
increased injury estimate per event.
HEM-05
Train door closes on passenger
6
284.7
0.7115
286.3
0.5710
-0.1405
-19.7%
The average consequences per event have been changed to completely
exclude Mark1 slam door rolling stock as this stock has now been completely
removed from the network.
HEM-06
Passenger fall between stationary
train and platform
6
252.3
1.770
250.1
1.554
-0.2154
-12.2%
The change in FWI/year follows a review and redistribution of all precursor
events which were previously described as "other/unknown". One recent
fatality event was removed from the scope of SRM.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
112
SRMv6
SRMv6.5
% change
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A2
HEM-07
Passenger fall from train in service
onto track (no electric shock nor
struck by train)
6
0.7035
0.0302
-
-
-
-
No change
HEM-08
Passenger fall from platform and
struck by train
6
5.980
2.189
-
-
-
-
No change
HEM-09
Passenger injury while
boarding/alighting a train (platform
side)
6
507.6
3.870
509.3
3.355
-0.5151
-13.3%
HEM-10
Passenger struck by / contact with
moving train while on platform
6
9.504
1.316
-
-
-
-
No change
HEM-11
Passenger struck/crushed by train
while crossing the track at or near
a station on a crossing
6
1.114
0.9101
-
-
-
-
No change
HEM-12
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed
by train while on tracks at a station
6
5.129
3.497
17.298
11.672
8.1746
233.7%
HEM-13
Train crowding leading to
passenger injury
6
8.794
0.0623
-
-
-
-
HEM-14
Workforce (not infrastructure
worker) struck/crushed by train
6
0.5507
0.4326
0.5508
0.3473
-0.0854
-19.7%
HE code
HE description
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
The change in FWI/year was due in part to re-categorisation of a small number
of HEM-09 events, but the reduction is primarily due to review of the modelling
assumptions regarding passenger fatality rates due to HEM-09. The last
fatality occurred approx 13 years ago and so the assumed fatality rate has
been modified to reflect this.
This HE has been redefined for version 7. It now covers all events of MOP
(trespasser) struck while on the track at a station, whether they are crossing
the track or not. Hence it now includes the at a station part of what was
covered in the version 6 model of HEM-25. This explains the change in risk
which is due to a modelling change.
Recoded to other HEs, mostly on-board train incidents (HEN-62).
Two new precursors were added to this HEM to account for inattention while
walking about the track for all types of workforce. Recoding since version 6
also meant that previous statistical analysis methods for the zero precursors
were no longer the most appropriate. Empirical Bayes method was used.
These factors led to a slight change in frequency.
One fatality in possession has been recoded to another HE and a major injury
has been recoded to this HE. This has resulted in a reduction in consequence
per event. This has changed from 0.828 FWI/event to 0.643 FWI/event, a
decrease of 21.9%. This has resulted in a general decrease in the risk of
19.7%.
113
SRMv6.5
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A2
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
HEM-15
Workforce fall/alighting from
moving train
6
2.086
0.2358
1.000
0.1781
-0.0577
-24.5%
Six events have been recoded since v6 (moved to HET-04, HET-14, HEN-25 &
HEM-14). This has resulted in a decrease in the estimated frequency and the
estimated risk.
HEM-16
Workforce injury while
boarding/alighting train
6
198.7
0.8090
203.6
0.8260
0.0170
2.1%
The minor change in FWI/year is due to the re-categorisation of a small
number of HEM-16 events since v6, mostly due to the removal of HEM-13 and
reallocation of events to other HEs.
HEM-17
Workforce struck while leaning out
of train (train in running)
6
2.143
0.0113
-
-
-
-
HEM-19
Infrastructure worker
struck/crushed by train in motion
6
4.500
2.048
4.500
2.127
0.0787
3.8%
There is a slight increase in risk. The total frequency has remained the same
however the allocation of this frequency to each of the precursors has been
recalculated based upon updated expert judgement. Reallocation of this risk to
precursors which can lead to multiple injuries will have resulted in a change in
the risk. The multi-fatality consequences per event group has also been
updated to include multiple major injuries and multiple minor injuries, resulting
in an increase in the FWI.
HEM-20
Workforce struck by flying object
thrown up by passing train
(includes objects thrown up by
OTM movements outside a
possession)
6
34.51
0.1237
12.68
0.0971
-0.0266
-21.5%
The change in FWI is due to recoded events. All on-board train incidents have
been recoded to HEN-63. This has resulted in a reduction in frequency of
events. However, the consequences per event are higher now, as the recoded
events were of low consequence. This has resulted in a higher consequence
per event. However, due to the large reduction in frequency, there is still an
overall reduction in risk.
HEM-21
Workforce fall between stationary
train and platform
6
107.6
0.5353
108.2
0.5342
-0.0011
-0.2%
The minor change in FWI/year follows a review and redistribution of all
precursor events which were previously described as "other/unknown".
HEM-22
Workforce fall out of train onto
track at a station (no electric
shock nor struck by train)
6
0.1000
0.0043
-
-
-
-
Version 7.1 — August 2011
No change
No change
114
SRMv6.5
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A2
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
HEM-23
Train door closes on workforce
6
72.36
0.2114
73.30
0.1645
-0.0469
-22.2%
The average consequences per event have been changed to completely
exclude Mark1 slam door rolling stock as this stock has now been completely
removed from the network.
HEM-25
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed
by train while on railway
infrastructure not at a station
6
35.26
23.9694
30.21
20.2888
-3.6806
-15.4%
This HE has been redefined for version 7 (see HEM-12 explanation for more
detail). This explains the change in risk which is due to a modelling change.
HEM-26
MOP (child trespasser)
struck/crushed while on railway
infrastructure not at a station
6
2.004
1.853
-
-
-
-
No change
HEM-27
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian
or cyclist struck/crushed by train
on level crossing or footpath
crossing
6
8.954
7.319
-
-
-
-
No change
HEM-29
MOP (non-trespasser)
struck/crushed by structural
collapse or large object as a result
of operations on railway
infrastructure
6
0.0200
0.0024
-
-
-
-
This HE has been renamed as HEN-76 to recognise the fact that it concerns
non-movement risk. The risk has not changed.
HEM-30
MOP (trespasser) fall while on
train exterior
6
4.241
0.8557
-
-
-
-
No change
HEM-31
Suicide (or attempted suicide)
involving rolling stock in motion
6
268.0
225.3
241.9
211.3
-14.065
-6.2%
The decrease in risk is due to the introduction of HEN-77 which covers
suicides not involving the movement of a train. These were previously coded
under HEM-31 and hence the decrease in risk is due to the recoding of these
events.
HEM-32
MOP (non-trespasser) outside
railway infrastructure struck by
object from operations on railway
infrastructure
6
2.000
0.0052
1.251
0.0156
0.010
198.9%
The change in both the frequency and risk estimates is due to the recoding of
the observed data for this HE.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
115
SRMv6.5
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A2
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
HEM-38
Passenger injury due to sudden
train movement
6
91.37
0.5409
90.73
0.5053
-0.0357
-6.6%
HEM-39
Workforce injury due to sudden
train movement
6
391.8
1.033
-
-
-
-
No change
HEM-40
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by /
contact with moving train due to
being too close to platform edge
6
1.001
0.1903
-
-
-
-
No change
HEM-41
MOP (non-trespasser) fall
between stationary train and
platform
6
0.4286
0.1270
0.3333
0.0021
-0.1249
-98.3%
HEM-42
Passenger struck by flying object
thrown up by passing train while at
a station
6
3.166
0.0048
-
-
-
-
HEM-43
Train door closes on MOP (nontrespasser)
6
1.050
0.0031
0.950
0.0021
-0.0010
-31.0%
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Eleven events have been recoded from other HEs to HEM-38, and two events
recoded out of HEM-38 (over the last 9 years). Many of these (7) were recoded
from HEM-13: Passenger injury due to overcrowding, which has now been
deleted.
This created a slight increase in event frequency — about 2.5%. However, the
assessment method of two of the more prevalent precursors was changed —
the effect of the early years of data on the trend lines was noticed and the
periods used were shortened, and in one case the 3-yr average was used
instead. This created a slight overall reduction in frequency (0.7%).
This recoding made a slight difference to the consequences per event for two
of the precursor groups (both based on 7-yr periods). In particular, the two
events that were coded out of HEM-38 were major injuries (both marked as
out-of-scope for various reasons) — these came out one of the consequence
per event precursor groups which is connected to the majority of the events.
This change caused the consequences for that group to reduce (by about 5%)
and thus caused an overall reduction in risk of 7%.
This HE has been redefined to MOP (non-trespasser) fall between stationary
train and platform, and has been recalculated in accordance with this, hence
the change in frequency and risk estimates. The changes relate predominantly
to the change in average consequences per event which are based on HEM06.
No change
The change in risk is due to the exclusion of Mark1 slam door rolling stock
from the data. The average consequences per event from HEM-05 (equivalent
HE for passengers) have been used and hence the decrease in risk is due to
the same decrease in average consequences per event observed in HEM-05.
116
MOP (trespasser) jump from train
in service
HEM-50
Witnessing a traumatic event
(movement)
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
6
1.439
0.3861
1.042
0.2771
-0.1090
-28.2%
The frequency and risk estimates have been recalculated due to the recoding
of the observed event data and to exclude all Mark1 slam door rolling stock
events as this class of stock has been completely removed from the network.
-
97.000
0.1007
0.1007
-
This is a new HE based on shock/trauma to workforce as a result of a nearmiss (involving a train movement). These were previously excluded from the
SRM as there was no physical injury however reassessment of the SRM scope
means that these are now included.
Slight increase in frequency and consequences due to scope of HEN-01 being
expanded to include two new precursors — train crew (other) and other
workforce exposure to fire,
New
HEM-44
SRMv6.5
% change
HE description
SRMv6
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A2
-
HEN-01
Exposure to a fire on railway
infrastructure not at a station
6
2.571
0.0203
3.067
0.0221
0.0018
8.8%
HEN-02
Exposure to fire on railway
infrastructure at a station
6
0.5714
0.0067
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-03
Exposure to fire in a station not on
railway infrastructure
6
0.6667
0.0169
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-04
Exposure to explosion on railway
infrastructure
6
0.5714
0.0241
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-05
Exposure to an explosion at a
station
6
0.0500
0.1500
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-07
Passenger exposure to hazardous
substances
6
5.441
0.0173
5.793
0.0177
0.0004
2.4%
HEN-08
Passenger observes electrical
arcing at a station
6
0.3299
0.0074
0.274
0.0061
-0.0012
-16.9%
HEN-09
Passenger electric shock at a
station (OHLE)
6
0.0667
0.0134
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-10
Passenger electric shock at a
station (conductor rail)
6
0.8870
0.3842
-
-
-
-
No change
Non-movement accidents
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Some minor recoding and one additional event included in the data set has
caused the slight increase in risk.
Some minor recoding has resulted in a decrease in risk. Due to a revision of
the definition of this HE, it now only includes injuries due to observing electrical
flashes/charges. Any other incidents have been coded as electric shock, eg
incidents involving static charges.
117
SRMv6
SRMv6.5
% change
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A2
HEN-11
Passenger electric shock at a
station (non-traction supplies)
6
0.5421
0.0036
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-13
Passenger fall from platform onto
track (no electric shock nor struck
by train)
6
42.59
0.7324
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-14
Passenger slip, trip or fall
6
2914.7
25.28
2906.4
22.44
-2.8432
-11.2%
HEN-15
Passenger fall from overbridge at
a station
6
0.3520
0.0943
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-16
Passenger fall during an
evacuation at a station
6
0.0500
0.0027
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-17
Passenger crushing caused by
overcrowding at a station
6
1.407
0.0379
HEN-21
Workforce struck/crushed by
structural collapse or large object
6
113.7
1.804
16.0
0.511
-1.2923
-71.7%
In version 6, this HEN included workers being hit by rails and sleepers. It was
decided to move these events to HEN-56, causing a reduction in frequency for
this HEN. (The risk increase associated with these precursors from HEN56 is
1.439 FWI based on an estimated frequency of 99 events per year).
HEN-22
Workforce trapped in machinery
6
7.480
0.1972
6.387
0.0834
-0.1138
-57.7%
The reduction in the estimated frequency and the estimated risk is due to the
recoding of the observed events.
HEN-23
Workforce struck by / contact
with / trapped in object at a station
6
566.7
1.139
568.2
1.043
-0.0963
-8.5%
There has been a slight change in the estimated frequency due to the recoding
of observed events. In addition, a decrease in the average consequences per
event (due to lesser injuries in recent years, with a 3-year rather than a 7-year
period used) results in a decrease in the overall estimated risk.
HEN-24
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m
6
1051.3
6.743
1062.7
6.371
-0.3725
-5.5%
A report outlining differences between the results of the ASPR and the SRM
gave suggestions on the re-calculation of the SRM estimates to take account
of a trend in consequences. Its analysis showed that a more recent data set to
model the consequences would be more accurate — the results indicated a
genuine decrease in consequence, and therefore risk, in recent years.
HE code
HE description
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
A report outlining differences between the results of the ASPR and the SRM
gave suggestions on the re-calculation of the SRM estimates to take account
of a trend in consequences. Its analysis showed that a more recent data set to
model the consequences would be more accurate — the results indicated a
genuine decrease in the average consequence per event in recent years,
which explains the drop in risk.
Recoded to other HEs
118
SRMv6.5
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A2
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
HEN-25
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m
6
18.18
0.5968
18.81
0.5692
-0.0276
-4.6%
HEN-26
Workforce struck/crushed by nontrain vehicle
6
13.93
0.3259
-
-
-
-
HEN-27
Workforce scalds or burns due to
contact with hot object (not on
train)
6
35.32
0.0678
35.80
0.0678
0.0000
0.1%
Some minor recoding has been undertaken, but this has had a negligible
impact upon the risk.
HEN-28
Workforce observes electrical
arcing
6
7.095
0.0982
6.43
0.1203
0.0221
22.5%
A number of events have been removed from this HE and recoded as they do
not meet the new definition for observing arcing. The events have moved to
the relevant electric shock HE.
HEN-29
Workforce exposure to hazardous
substances (including stings, bites
and needle injuries)
6
76.52
0.1765
73.48
0.1680
-0.0086
-4.8%
Previously these incidents were only coded by workforce type, they have now
be broken down into: animal/insect bites; needlestick injuries; and other
hazardous substances. As a result of this there has a been alight reduction in
the overall estimated frequency due to these new groupings and hence a
reduction in the estimated risk.
HEN-30
Workforce electric shock
(conductor rail)
6
4.600
0.5676
4.45
0.4929
-0.0747
-13.2%
Some events previously coded as workforce exposed to arcing (HEN-28) have
been added to this event as workforce exposed to arcing has been changed to
workforce observing arcing. Some events that involve a burn due to electrical
sparks have been recoded to HEN-28. These coding changes explain the
decrease in estimated risk.
HEN-31
Workforce electric shock (OHLE)
6
1.718
0.1258
1.58
0.2849
0.1591
126.5%
Increased risk due to including fatality component being considered in the
consequences , which was previously overlooked. This HE has two subevents; electric shock from direct contact and from indirect contact. A fatality
component has been observed and included from the data for direct contact,
but was not observed in the data for indirect contact but is considered credible.
The analysis has assumed that there will be 1 fatality in every 15 events or 1
fatality for every 21 injuries (some events having more than one injury) for
indirect contact events.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
A report outlining differences between the results of the ASPR and the SRM
gave suggestions on the re-calculation of the SRM estimates to take account
of a trend in consequences. Its analysis showed that a more recent data set to
model the consequences would be more accurate — the results indicated a
genuine decrease in the average consequence per event in recent years,
which explains the decrease in risk.
No change
119
SRMv6
SRMv6.5
% change
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A2
HEN-32
Workforce electric shock (nontraction supply)
6
10.15
0.0675
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-33
Workforce affected by fumes/
smoke/asphyxiation/drowning
6
0.1855
0.0650
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-35
Workforce involved in road traffic
accident whilst on duty
6
28.11
0.3647
28.86
0.3628
-0.0020
-0.5%
HEN-36
MOP (adult trespasser) slip, trip or
fall while on railway infrastructure
6
19.00
0.9496
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-37
MOP (adult trespasser) electric
shock (OHLE)
6
1.743
0.6037
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-38
MOP (adult trespasser) electric
shock (conductor rail)
6
8.600
6.071
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-39
MOP (adult trespasser) electric
shock (non-traction supply)
6
0.1379
0.0058
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-40
MOP (child trespasser) slip, trip or
fall while on railway infrastructure
6
2.200
0.1100
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-41
MOP (child trespasser) electric
shock (OHLE)
6
1.867
0.2434
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-42
MOP (child trespasser) electric
shock (conductor rail)
6
1.214
0.5119
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-43
MOP (child trespasser) electric
shock (non-traction supply)
6
0.2000
0.0084
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-44
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian
or cyclist/motorcyclist struck/
trapped by level crossing
equipment
6
14.47
0.3222
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-45
MOP (non-trespasser) fall onto
railway infrastructure
6
14.26
3.202
-
-
-
-
No change
HE code
HE description
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
Small decrease in risk due to recoding of event data.
120
SRMv6
SRMv6.5
% change
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A2
HEN-46
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian
or cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or
fall on level crossing or footpath
crossing
6
15.34
0.4267
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-48
MOP (non-trespasser) exposure
to fire on railway infrastructure
6
0.0500
0.0015
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-49
MOP (non-trespasser) exposure
to explosion on railway
infrastructure
6
0.0500
0.3000
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-50
MOP (non-trespasser) observes
electrical arcing
6
0.2000
0.0045
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-51
MOP (non-trespasser) electric
shock (OHLE)
6
0.2000
0.0056
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-52
MOP (non-trespasser) electric
shock (conductor rail)
6
0.0595
0.0257
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-53
MOP (non-trespasser) electric
shock (non-traction supplies)
6
0.2500
0.0017
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-54
MOP (non-trespasser) exposure
to hazardous substances on
railway infrastructure
6
0.0100
0.1000
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-55
Passenger struck by / contact
with / trapped in object at a station
6
370.4
1.303
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-56
Workforce struck by / contact
with / trapped in object not at a
station
6
565.7
2.411
695.9
3.916
1.5050
62.4%
HEN-57
Passenger scalds or burns due to
contact with hot object (not on
train)
6
6.332
0.0109
-
-
-
-
HE code
HE description
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
This HE now incorporates precursors related to being struck by rails and
sleepers that were previously included under HEN-21. These are high risk
events compared to the rest of the precursors in HEN-56. If they were removed
from the risk estimates for V6.5 this would give a lower frequency and risk
which shows that the increase in risk is due to an increase in the estimated
annual frequency of events.
No change
121
SRMv6.5
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A2
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
HEN-58
MOP (non-trespasser) injury from
objects/structures (eg bridges,
steps, subways) other than in
stations whilst on railway
infrastructure
6
2.200
0.0316
1.000
0.0075
-0.0242
-76.4%
HEN-59
MOP (non-trespasser) struck by /
contact with / trapped in object at
a station
6
10.33
0.0755
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-60
Workforce exposure to noise (not
on train)
6
3.086
0.0038
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-61
Passenger exposure to noise (not
on train)
6
0.4394
4.39E-04
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-62
Passenger on-train incident
(excluding sudden train movement
& assaults)
6
846.9
3.184
850.4
3.377
0.1936
6.1%
Two new precursors were added relating to electric shocks and hazardous
substances, to match the structure of HEN-63. There is a slight increase in
overall risk (6%) mainly due to changes in recoding (internal, within HEN-62,
and from HEM-03: PS struck while leaning out of train) — in particular moving
several events into the fainting precursor, which contains a high proportion of
major injuries and contributes significantly to the risk.
HEN-63
Workforce on-train incident
(excluding sudden train movement
& assaults)
6
1276.0
2.666
1281.2
2.680
0.0134
0.5%
slight increase (0.5%) in risk due to coding changes, plus new precursors were
created to cover object thrown up from outside the train. These events were
recoded from other HEN-63 precursors and from HEM-20: WF struck by flying
object.
HEN-64
Passenger physical assault
6
1691.7
7.794
-
-
-
-
No change
Passenger non-physical assault
6
282.4
0.2824
-
-
-
-
No change
Workforce physical assault
6
997.8
2.443
955.9
2.320
-0.1232
-5.0%
Workforce non-physical assault
6
759.5
0.8146
-
-
-
-
HEN-65
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Recalculated due to a major injury being reclassified to a non-reportable minor
and this decreases the average consequences per event. The frequency has
also been recalculated as a result of changes to the coding of the underlying
data. The net effect is a decrease in the estimated risk.
There is a small decrease in risk to the physical assault precursors due to
threat events now being separated from physical. Any threat events that were
previously coded as physical assaults are now coded to the threat precursor.
There is now a smaller number of physical events for which the risk has been
recalculated and has resulted in the decrease in risk to physical assaults.
No change
122
SRMv6
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
% change
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
MOP (non-trespasser) physical
assault
6
148.9
0.86794
-
-
-
-
No change
MOP (non-trespasser) nonphysical assault
6
21.15
0.02115
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-67
MOP (non-trespasser) fall from
platform onto track (no electric
shock nor struck by train)
6
2.857
0.0494
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-68
MOP (non-trespasser) slip, trip or
fall in station
6
85.33
0.7160
81.60
0.6203
-0.0956
-13.4%
HEN-70
Witnessing a traumatic event
(non-movement)
New
Last updated
Table A2
-
-
11.40
0.0133
0.0133
HEN-71
MOP (adult trespasser) fall/jump
onto railway infrastructure
6
9.943
1.413
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-72
MOP (child trespasser) fall/jump
onto railway infrastructure
6
1.119
0.1665
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-73
Passenger manual handling
6
5.323
0.0637
-
-
-
-
No change
HEN-74
Workforce manual handling
6
471.0
1.085
470.7
1.106
0.0218
2.0%
HEN-75
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian
or cyclist/motorcyclist hit by a road
vehicle or involved in a road traffic
accident at a level crossing
6
1.258
0.0385
-
-
-
-
HE code
HEN-66
HE description
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
The average consequences per event for this HE are based on those
estimated for HEN-14. Hence the decrease in the estimated average
consequences per event are due to the decreases in HEN-14. The estimated
frequency has also reduced slightly as a result of changes in the coding of the
underlying data. The net effect is a decrease in the overall estimated risk.
This is a new HE based on shock/trauma to workforce as a result of a nearmiss (not involving a train movement). These were previously excluded from
the SRM as there was no physical injury however reassessment of the SRM
scope means that these are now included.
Recalculated due to changes in the coding of the underlying data. This results
in a small increase in estimated risk.
No change
123
HEN-77
Suicide (or attempted suicide) not
involving rolling stock in motion
HEN-82
Workforce awkward movement
injury
HEN-83
Passenger awkward movement
injury
Version 7.1 — August 2011
% change
(FWI / yr)
Reasons for changes from SRMv6 to SRMv6.5
New
MOP (non-trespasser) struck/
crushed by structural collapse or
large object as a result of
operations on railway
infrastructure
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
-
-
0.375
0.0118
0.0118
-
This HE previously existed as HEM-29 and has been converted to HEN-76 to
recognise the fact that it concerns non-movement risk. The HE has also been
redefined to include small as well as large objects, hence the risk increase is
due to a change in scope and the modelling change to account for this.
New
HEN-76
SRMv6.5
-
-
21.667
12.4543
12.4543
-
This is a new HE for v7 and this risk was previously included under HEM-31. It
has been split out for version 7 as it relates to suicides that do not involve the
movement of a train.
New
HE description
SRMv6
-
-
145.400
0.3289
0.3289
-
This is a new HE based on an injury to workforce as a result of awkward
movement (in contrast to manual handling injuries). These were previously
excluded from the SRM however reassessment of the SRM scope means that
these are now included.
New
HE code
Last updated
Table A2
-
-
2.000
0.0320
0.0320
-
This is a new HE based on an injury to workforce as a result of awkward
movement (in contrast to manual handling injuries). These were previously
excluded from the SRM however reassessment of the SRM scope means that
these are now included.
124
Table A3
SRMv7
National
National National
National
average
average average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events / (FWI /
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3: Reasons for changes in reported frequency and risk between SRMv6.5 and SRMv7
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
Train accidents
HET-01
Collision between two
passenger trains resulting
from a: passenger train Cat A
SPAD; runaway train;
misrouted train; or WSF
6.5
0.2466
0.4507
0.2369
0.3936
-0.0571
-12.7%
The decrease in the frequency and risk is mainly due to changes in the observed
SPAD data. This results in a reduction of frequency and risk in both the Junction
and plain line models. The consequences in the model have remained unchanged.
The CatD models have seen a large increase in risk due to there being two more
CatD incidents occurring in the last two years. This gives 4 in 7 years compared to
2 in 5 years in version 6.5.
HET-02P
Collision between a
passenger train and nonpassenger train resulting from
a: passenger train Cat A
SPAD; runaway train;
misrouted train; or WSF
6.5
0.0387
0.1074
0.0295
0.0747
-0.0328
-30.5%
The decrease in the frequency and risk is mainly due to changes in the observed
SPAD data. This results in a reduction of frequency and risk in both the Junction
and plain line models. The consequences in the model have remained unchanged.
The CatD models have seen a large increase in risk due to there being two more
CatD incidents occurring in the last two years. This gives 4 in 7 years compared to
2 in 5 years in version 6.5.
HET-02NP Collision between a nonpassenger train and
passenger train resulting from
a: non-passenger train Cat A
SPAD; runaway train;
misrouted train; or WSF
6.5
0.4384
0.4813
0.5787
0.5787
0.0974
20.2%
The increase in frequency and risk is due to the data update and a increase in the
proportion of collision trains being a passenger train, compared to non-passenger
trains. The consequences in the model have remained unchanged.
The CatD models have also seen a large increase in risk due to there being two
more CatD incidents occurring in the last two years. This gives 4 in 7 years
compared to 2 in 5 years in version 6.5.
HET-03
6.5
0.1400
0.0889
0.1585
0.0986
0.0097
10.9%
The increase in frequency and risk is due to the data update. The consequences in
the model have remained unchanged.
The CatD models have also seen a large increase in risk due to there being two
more CatD incidents occurring in the last two years. This gives 4 in 7 years
compared to 2 in 5 years in version 6.5.
6
0.0500
0.0460
0.0500
0.0460
0.0000
0%
Collision between two nonpassenger trains resulting
from a: non-passenger train
Cat A SPAD; runaway train;
misrouted train; or WSF
HET-02NP Collision between OTP and
POS
passenger train resulting from
OTP incorrectly outside
possession
Version 7.1 — August 2011
No change in estimated frequency or average consequences per event as the
same method of expert judgement used for the previous version of the SRM has
been used for SRMv7.
125
SRMv7
National
National
National
National
average
average
average
average
freq.
freq.
risk
risk
(events /
(events /
(FWI / yr)
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
HET-03
POS
Collisions between trains
inside possession (including
OTP)
6
6.738
0.0336
5.670
0.0297
-0.0039
-11.7%
HET-04
Collision of train with object
(not resulting in derailment)
6
2845.5
0.6673
3675.4
0.7743
0.1070
16.0%
HET-04
POS
Collision of train with object
inside possession (not
resulting in derailment)
6
14.82
0.0114
21.39
0.0068
-0.0046
-40.0% The estimated frequency has increased due to an increase in the number of
observed events. The average consequences per event have decreased as they
are based on the average consequences per event of the main HET-04 model
which also show a decrease. The overall net effect is a decrease in the overall
estimated risk.
HET-06
Collision between two
passenger trains in station
(permissive working)
6.5
7.572
0.0418
5.804
0.0528
0.0110
26.3%
HET-09
Train collision with buffer
stops
6.5
6.654
0.1383
6.996
0.1154
-0.0229
-16.6% Compared to v6.5 the frequency has risen slightly, but this is mainly due to more
events involving roll back buffer stop collisions that have occurred recently. The
frequency of higher severity events, such as high speed buffer stop collisions has
actually decreased and this has had a knock-on effect to some of the other
accident scenarios in the model which use these. The overall net effect is a
decrease in the estimated risk.
HET-09
POS
Train collision with buffer
stops: OTP inside possession
6.5
0.1333
5.52E-04
0.1333
5.52E-04
0.0000
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0%
Frequency decrease due to reduction in the number of reported events in the last
two years which accounts for the decrease in risk.
HET-04 consists of several precursors and for consistency these are now based
on similar data samples. As a result of this, the frequency for the train struck by
missile precursor has increased due to the inclusion of non-RIDDOR reportable
events. This brings it into line with the other parts of the HET-04 model and the
increase in the number of observed events per year (750 of a 830 additional
events per year) is mostly due to this. The other effect of this is that the absolute
average consequences per event have decreased for train struck by missiles as
the injuries are spread over more events. The estimated risk increase is due to the
increase in the number of events, but as these are not all RIDDOR reportable, the
risk has increased by 16%.
The overall HET-06 frequency has decreased due to the data update. The
frequency of the precursors relating to the ‘potential for high speed collisions’
element of the model have increased and the frequency of low speed and rollback
collisions has decreased. The overall net effect is an increase in risk as the high
speed precursors have considerable higher consequences attached to them.
No change in estimated frequency or average consequences per event as the
same method of expert judgement used for the previous version of the SRM has
been used for SRMv7.
126
SRMv6.5
SRMv7
% change
National National National
National
average average average
average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events /
(FWI / yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A3
HET-10
Passenger train collision with
road vehicle on level crossing
6.5
12.59
3.027
12.35
2.969
-0.0587
-1.9%
HET-11
Non-passenger train collision
with road vehicle on level
crossing
6.5
2.2301
0.4925
2.049
0.4467
-0.0458
-9.3%
HET-11
POS
OTP collision with road
vehicle on level crossing
inside possession
6
0.1361
0.0223
0.1198
0.01956
-0.0028
-12.4% Change in risk is due to changes in the estimated frequency in light of recent data.
Risk has decreased marginally overall since no additional incidents have been
observed since SRMv6.
HE code
HE description
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
The estimated frequency has decreased due to a decrease in the number of
observed. Changes in the methods used to calculate the various groups of
precursors have been made based on changes in the observed number of events.
This results in a decrease in the overall estimated frequency which varies across
the different level crossing types. The average consequences per event are
similar to those used before and hence the risk has decreased for both HET-10
and HET-11.
HET-12
Derailment of passenger train
6.5
7.3144
1.904
7.086
1.9549
0.0508
HET-13
FTP
Derailment of freight train on
passenger line outside
possession
6.5
12.34
0.3333
10.12
0.2786
-0.0547
HET-13
FTF
Derailment of freight train on
freight only line outside
possession
6.5
6.7126
0.0806
4.954
0.0591
-0.0215
6.5
4.1047
0.0505
3.563
0.0464
-0.0042
-8.2%
6
40.94
0.1115
39.81
0.1695
0.0580
52.1%
6.5
123.0
0.1423
82.5
0.0985
-0.0439
-30.8% There is around a 32% decrease in frequency for this HE. The main contributor is
arson fires and these have seen a large decrease (50%) in occurrence over the
last 2 years. The rest of the decrease comes from most other precursors across
the whole HET. The consequences have remained unchanged from version 6 of
the SRM so this has not contributed to the change in risk. A small increase in the
contribution from the higher consequence diesel fires (compared with the
consequences from electric fires) means that the estimated risk does not decrease
by exactly the same amount as the estimated frequency.
HET-13 EP Derailment of ECS or parcels
train on passenger line
HET-13
POS
Derailment of train inside
possession (including OTP)
HET-17
Fire on passenger train
Version 7.1 — August 2011
2.7%
The frequency of derailments has in general decreased across the types of rolling
stock and running lines. However, the data shows that for passenger trains, a
greater proportion have occurred at high speed, whereas for ECS and freight train
a greater proportion have occurred at slow speeds. In addition, the data suggests
a slightly increased probability of hitting a lineside structure for derailed passenger
-26.7% trains at fast speeds. Hence a net increase in risk to passenger trains. The
reduction in risk from freight train derailments is due to a reduction in the estimated
frequency as a result of a decrease in the number of observed events.
-16.4%
Large increase in risk due to changes in average consequences per event (it is
now recognised that a major injury can result from slow speed derailments within
possessions). Further increases in risk result from changes in the estimation of the
time of day train loading splits (more events are now recognised to occur during
peak time and hence the consequences from any secondary collisions are
significantly higher than they previously were).
127
SRMv7
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
HET-20
Fire on non-passenger train
6.5
7.597
0.0208
6.87
0.0157
-0.0051
-24.4% There is around a 10% reduction in frequency for this HET, contributing to a
reduction in risk. This is due to the data update. The consequences have remained
unchanged for the different types of fires. However, the majority of ECS fires are
now on electric stock. These have smaller consequences than the diesel fires
which contributes to a further reduction in risk. In addition to this, freight train fires,
which have the higher consequences, now have a smaller proportion of the total
frequency for HET-20A. Again this contributes to a further reduction in risk.
HET-20
POS
Fire on OTP inside
possession
6.5
1.250
0.0039
2.333
0.0072
0.0034
86.7%
There have been no changes made to the consequences for train fires in
possession. However, in recent years we have seen far more data for this event (it
is not clear why the increase has occurred — is it an actual increase or is it better
reporting). Therefore there has been an increase in frequency, contributing to the
same percentage increase in risk.
HET-21
Train crushed by structural
collapse or large object (not at
a station)
6.5
5.81E-04 7.86E-03 5.91E-04 7.97E-03 1.13E-04
1.4%
Small increase in frequency due to increase in passenger train km which
increases the frequency of this HE proportionately.
HET-21
POS
OTP crushed by structural
collapse or large object inside
possession (not at a station)
6.5
7.56E-06 4.34E-06 8.83E-06 5.07E-06
7.3E-07
16.8%
There are no new data points for this HE. The reduction in risk is a result of the
number of OTP hours being reduced from v6.5 and which decreases the frequency
of this HE proportionately.
HET-22
Train crushed by structural
collapse or large object (at a
station)
6.5
0.0100
0.0456
0.0100
0.0441
-0.0015
-3.2%
There are no new data points for this HE. The frequency is still based on expert
judgement which is still considered valid. The change in risk is due to a change in
the proportion of trains that are classed as peak/off-peak/night. This decreases the
average consequences per event, hence the overall risk decreases.
HET-23
Explosion on passenger train
6.5
0.0200
0.0050
0.0200
0.0049
-0.0001
-2.0%
There are no new data points for this HE. The frequency is still based on expert
judgement which is still considered valid. The change in risk is due to a change in
the proportion of trains that are classed as peak/off-peak/night. This decreases the
average consequences per event, hence the overall risk decreases.
HET-24
Explosion on freight train
6.5
0.0172
0.0688
0.0156
0.0686
-0.0001
-0.205% Reduction in risk due to the reduction in the total number of freight kilometres
travelled per year which reduced the frequency of this HE proportionately.
HET-25
Passenger train division (not
leading to collision)
6.5
11.67
0.0079
12.20
0.0079
3.9E-07
0.005% Although there has been a slight increase in the frequency from the new data, the
reduction in the number of trains with a gangway in operation where somebody
could potentially fall down onto the track in the event of a train division has caused
the risk to fall. The average consequences per event have not changed from
SRMv6 hence the overall risk broadly similar.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
128
HET-26
Collision between a failed
train and an assisting train
SRMv7
Change in risk
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
6.5
0.6000
0.0152
0.4167
0.0106
-0.0046
-30.1% There is a reduction in the frequency of events due to no events occurring since
the previous SRM update. The average consequences per event have not
changed so the reduction in risk is due to the decrease in frequency.
-14.8% An increase in frequency of events was observed in the data, but as more recent
events have been minor, this has resulted in a reduction in the estimated risk.
Passenger injuries due to uncontrolled evacuation were previously entirely
estimated by expert judgement, whereas for SRMv7 the consequences for
controlled evacuation have been adopted and a small fatality component added.
Movement accidents
HEM-01
Passenger injury during
evacuation following
stopped train (not at a
platform)
6
1.877
0.0194
2.216
0.0165
-0.0029
HEM-02
Passenger fall from train
in running
6.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
HEM-03
Passenger struck while
leaning out of train (train
in running)
6.5
0.8942
0.1823
1.2832
0.2014
0.0190
10.4%
The increase in the estimated frequency estimate stems from more events
occurring in recent years. The average consequences per event have decreased
and the net effect is an increase in estimated risk.
HEM-05
Train door closes on
passenger
6.5
286.3
0.5710
351.7
0.6172
0.0462
8.1%
The observed number of events of this HE has increased resulting in an increase
in the estimated frequency. There has been a decrease in the proportion of events
resulting in major injuries, resulting in a decrease in the average consequences per
event.
HEM-06
Passenger fall between
stationary train and
platform
6.5
250.1
1.554
286.7
1.479
-0.0754
-4.8%
The number of observed events has increased resulting in an increase in the
estimated frequency, however the average consequences per event have
decreased. This change is due to an increase in the proportion of minor injuries
observed in recent data and hence an overall reduction in estimated risk despite
the increase in the estimated frequency.
HEM-07
Passenger fall from train
in service onto track (no
electric shock nor struck
by train)
6
0.7035
0.0302
0.4394
0.0189
-0.0113
-37.5% Since the removal of slam door stock in 2005 there have only been two incidents of
this type and so the model is based on limited data. As such it is sensitive to small
changes in the observed frequency of events. SRMv7 has taken the frequency
average over a five-year period (all post slam-door stock) to include the two
events, whereas SRMv6 used a three-year period, which was the most complete
post slam-door stock period available at the time. Hence the risk has reduced due
to the continued reduction in the number of observed events.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Now part of HEM-07.
129
SRMv6.5
SRMv7
Change in risk
% change
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A3
6
5.980
2.189
5.560
2.004
-0.1842
-8.4%
A very slight downward trend in the frequency of observed incidents accounts for
the overall decrease in risk. However, the most recent year shows an atypical
peak, although on its own is not enough to suggest a trend.
Passenger injury while
boarding/alighting a train
(platform side)
6.5
509.3
3.355
592.2
3.243
-0.1120
-3.3%
There has been a slight increase in the reported number of events resulting in an
increase in estimated frequency for this HE. However, the overall risk has
decreased due to a reduction in the average consequences per event.
HEM-10
Passenger struck by /
contact with moving train
while on platform
6
9.504
1.316
9.841
1.568
0.2519
19.2%
The number of observed events has been reasonably consistent between
SRMv6.5 and SRMv7, although slightly higher than previous years, not enough to
suggest a significant upward trend. However, there were two fatality events in
2009 which have contributed to an increased average consequence per event and
hence an increase in estimated risk.
HEM-11
Passenger
struck/crushed by train
while crossing the track
at or near a station on a
crossing
6
1.114
0.9101
0.873
0.7074
-0.2027
-22.3% The estimated frequency of this HE has reduced due to no new data being
observed recently. The average consequences per event are estimated from both
passenger (HEM-11) and MOP (HEM-27) incidents and overall are similar to those
estimated in SRMv6.5. The estimated risk has reduced in line with the decrease in
estimated frequency as the average consequences per event have not changed
significantly.
HEM-12
MOP (trespasser)
struck/crushed by train
while on tracks at a
station
6.5
17.298
11.672
17.107
12.650
0.9780
8.4%
HEM-13
Train crowding leading to
passenger injury
6.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
HEM-14
Workforce (not
infrastructure worker)
struck/crushed by train
6.5
0.5508
0.3473
0.5584
0.3507
0.0035
1.00%
No change
HEM-15
Workforce fall/alighting
from moving train
6.5
1.0000
0.1781
0.571
0.1852
0.0071
4.0%
The number of observed events has been very low in the last few years and this
has resulted in a decrease in the estimated frequency. However, the average
consequences per event have increased and the net effect is a slight increase in
the estimated risk.
HEM-16
Workforce injury while
boarding/alighting train
6.5
203.6
0.8260
214.9
0.8497
0.0236
2.9%
A slight increase in estimated risk from a slight change in the estimated frequency
due to more events being observed for this HE.
HE code
HE description
HEM-08
Passenger fall from
platform and struck by
train
HEM-09
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
The increase in estimated risk is due to a rise in the proportion of events resulting
in fatal injuries. This has altered the average consequences per event and has
resulted in an increase in risk, despite a reduction in the number of events.
Recoded to other HEs, mostly on-board train incidents (HEN-62).
130
SRMv6.5
SRMv7
% change
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A3
HEM-17
Workforce struck while
leaning out of train (train
in running)
6
2.143
0.0113
2.612
0.0191
0.0078
68.7%
There have been slightly higher frequency and average consequences per event
estimates for SRMv7, and these have both significantly increased the overall
estimated risk since SRMv6. The revised average consequences per event have
increased due to a higher major injury contribution than before, which is the main
reason for the increase in the estimated risk from this HE.
HEM-19
Infrastructure worker
struck/crushed by train in
motion
6.5
4.500
2.127
4.333
1.916
-0.2109
-9.9%
There is a 4% reduction in estimated frequency for this HE contributing to a similar
reduction in the estimated risk. The single injury average consequences per event
have decreased slightly due to a number of events resulting in major and minor
injuries rather than fatalities. In addition to this, there have been no multiple injury
events since the data period used for SRMv6 and therefore the likelihood of this
HE leading to a multiple injury has also decreased slightly. Both of these changes
in the average consequences per event contribute to a further 5.9% decrease in
estimated risk.
HEM-20
Workforce struck by flying
object thrown up by
passing train (includes
objects thrown up by
OTM movements outside
a possession)
6.5
12.68
0.0971
11.19
0.1059
0.0088
9.1%
There is a general decrease in the number of observed events. This has resulted
in a 12% decrease in the estimated frequency. However, the percentage of these
events being minor reportable has decreased while the percentage of major
injuries has increased, resulting in an increase in the average consequences per
event. This results in an overall increase in the estimated risk.
HEM-21
Workforce fall between
stationary train and
platform
6.5
108.2
0.5342
108.0
0.5435
0.0093
1.7%
The slight increase in estimated risk is due to a slight increase in the number of
more serious injuries being reported. This has resulted in slightly higher average
consequences per event and hence an increase in estimated risk.
HEM-22
Workforce fall out of train
onto track at a station (no
electric shock nor struck
by train)
6
0.1000
0.0043
0.1429
0.0061
0.0018
42.9%
The event is based on very little data over a long data period and so is sensitive to
small changes in the number of events observed. The observed number of events
has increased and hence the overall estimated risk has increased proportionately.
HEM-23
Train door closes on
workforce
6.5
73.30
0.1645
77.37
0.1658
0.0012
0.8%
The slight increase in estimated risk is due to a slight increase in the estimated
frequency. The average consequences per event have decreased due to
proportionately fewer major injuries occurring and this lessens the overall increase
in estimated risk.
HE code
HE description
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
131
SRMv6.5
SRMv7
Change in risk
% change
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A3
6.5
30.21
20.29
31.81
23.87
3.5782
17.6%
MOP (child trespasser)
struck/crushed while on
railway infrastructure not
at a station
6
2.004
1.853
-
-
-
-
HEM-27
MOP (non-trespasser)
pedestrian or cyclist
struck/crushed by train on
level crossing or footpath
crossing
6
8.954
7.319
7.188
5.823
-1.4955
HEM-29
MOP (non-trespasser)
struck/crushed by
structural collapse or
large object as a result of
operations on railway
infrastructure
6.5
-
-
-
-
-
HEM-30
MOP (trespasser) fall
while on train exterior
6
4.241
0.8557
0.953
0.2139
-0.6418
-75.0% The decrease in estimated risk is mainly due to a significant change in the
estimated frequency. The observed number of events has dropped from an
average of around five per year from 2001–2007 to just 2 events in the period
2007–2010. This appears to be a genuine reduction in estimated risk and is due to
the estimated frequency of this HE reducing.
HEM-31
Suicide (or attempted
suicide) involving rolling
stock in motion
6.5
241.9
211.3
242.0
207.4
-3.8839
-1.8%
HE code
HE description
HEM-25
MOP (trespasser)
struck/crushed by train
while on railway
infrastructure not at a
station
HEM-26
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
The increase in estimated risk is due in part to the observed increase in the
number of events in between 2007 to 2009. However, the main increase is due to
an increase in the average consequences per event from a higher proportion of
events resulting in a fatality. This has caused the estimated risk to increase.
This HE has been merged with HEM-25 to make the structure consistent with
HEM-12.
-20.4% The estimated frequency has reduced due to less observed data in recent years.
There is no obvious trend in the data to suggest whether or not this may be a
permanent reduction in frequency or year-on-year variation. The average
consequences per event have not changed significantly and hence the reduction in
estimated risk is due to the reduction in estimated frequency.
-
This HE has been renamed as HEN-76 to recognise the fact that it concerns nonmovement risk.
The slight reduction in risk is due to a change in the average consequences per
event. Recent data shows that proportionately less suicide attempts result in a
fatality (approximately 3.5 fewer fatalities are occurring per year). This results in
an overall reduction in the estimated risk.
132
SRMv6.5
SRMv7
% change
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A3
HEM-32
MOP (non-trespasser)
outside railway
infrastructure struck by
object from operations on
railway infrastructure
6.5
1.251
0.0156
1.200
0.0145
-0.0011
-7.1%
The number of observed events has decreased and this has resulted in a slight
reduction in the estimated frequency. The average consequences per event have
also decreased and this has resulted in a decrease in estimated risk.
HEM-38
Passenger injury due to
sudden train movement
6.5
90.73
0.5053
103.35
0.6588
0.1535
30.4%
There has been an increase in the estimated frequency due to more observed data
halting the downtrend trend previously seen. The average consequences per
event have increased for one of the injury consequence groupings, as the recent
injuries show a greater proportion of major injuries occurring than that previously
observed. The net effect is an overall increase in estimated risk.
HEM-39
Workforce injury due to
sudden train movement
6
391.8
1.033
392.0
0.925
-0.1081
-10.5% Recent data suggests that the average consequences per event have decreased
for this event and this has resulted in a decrease in the estimated risk as the
frequency estimate has not changed appreciably.
HEM-40
MOP (non-trespasser)
struck by / contact with
moving train due to being
too close to platform
edge
6
1.001
0.1903
1.000
0.1730
-0.0173
-9.1%
This HE is based on very low number of observed events and thus is sensitive to
small changes in the number of incidents recorded. The proportion of events
resulting in major injuries has decreased in recent years and hence the average
consequences per event have decreased. This results in a decrease in estimated
risk.
HEM-41
MOP (non-trespasser) fall
between stationary train
and platform
6.5
0.3333
0.0021
0.4000
0.0021
0.0000
-2.0%
There has been a slight increase in the number of reported events and this has
resulted in an increase in the estimated frequency. The average consequences
per event have decreased and the net effect is a decrease in the estimated risk.
HEM-42
Passenger struck by
flying object thrown up by
passing train while at a
station
6
3.166
0.0048
6.531
0.0105
0.0057
HEM-43
Train door closes on
MOP (non-trespasser)
6.5
0.950
0.0021
0.931
0.0019
-0.0002
-9.1%
HEM-44
MOP (trespasser) jump
from train in service
6.5
1.042
0.2771
0.685
0.1726
-0.1045
-37.7% There has been a decrease in the estimated frequency due to no further events
being observed in the last two years. The average consequences per event have
not changed and so the risk decrease is due to the decrease in estimated
frequency.
HE code
HE description
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
118.9% The estimated frequency has more than doubled due to a large increase in number
of observed events recorded recently. The average consequences per event have
not changed appreciably and hence the estimated risk has increased in line with
the estimated frequency increase.
There has been a slight decrease in the estimated frequency due to continued
reduction in the number of observed events. The average consequences per
event are based on those used in HEM-05 which have reduced and hence overall
there has been a decrease in the estimated risk.
133
HEM-50
Witnessing a traumatic event
(movement)
SRMv7
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
6.5
97.000
0.1007
107.667
0.1107
0.0100
9.9%
There has been a an increase in the number of reported events in 2009–2010
which may be due to more consistent and better reporting of these injuries. The
average consequences per event have decreased slightly in line with this
frequency increase however the net effect is an increase in estimated risk.
6.5
3.067
0.0221
2.521
0.017
-0.0053
-24.2% The estimated frequency has decreased due to there being no more observed
events since the previous version of the SRM. The proportion of events resulting
in a minor injury has increased resulting in a decrease in the average consequence
per event. The overall net effect is a decrease in estimated risk.
Non-movement accidents
HEN-01
Exposure to a fire on railway
infrastructure not at a station
HEN-02
Exposure to fire on railway
infrastructure at a station
6
0.5714
0.0067
0.4444
0.0045
-0.0022
-33.2% The estimated frequency has decreased as no new events have been observed.
The average consequences per event have also reduced as the data shows that
there are a greater proportion of minor non-reportable injuries. The overall net
effect is a decrease in estimated risk.
HEN-03
Exposure to fire in a station
not on railway infrastructure
6
0.6667
0.0169
0.4000
0.0102
-0.0067
-39.9% The event is based on very little data and so is sensitive to small changes in the
number of events observed. The observed number of events has decreased and
hence the overall estimated risk has also decreased.
HEN-04
Exposure to explosion on
railway infrastructure
6
0.5714
0.0241
1.0000
0.0421
0.0180
74.4%
HEN-05
Exposure to an explosion at a
station
6
0.0500
0.1500
0.0500
0.1500
0.0000
0%
No change in estimated frequency or average consequences per event as the
same method of expert judgement used for the previous version of the SRM has
been used for SRMv7.
HEN-07
Passenger exposure to
hazardous substances
6.5
5.793
0.0177
5.395
0.0175
-0.0002
-1.1%
A slight reduction in risk which is due to a reduction in the estimated frequency in
line with the reduction in the number of events observed per year.
HEN-08
Passenger observes electrical
arcing at a station
6.5
0.274
0.0061
0.235
0.0044
-0.0017
-27.9% No new events have been observed since 2004, hence the estimated frequency
has continued to decrease. A shock/trauma incident has been accounted for in the
estimate of the average consequences per event (as observed for HEN-50), which
reduces the average consequences per event and hence the estimated risk.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
There has been an increase in the observed number of events resulting in an
increase in estimated frequency. The average consequences per event have
remained broadly the same, so the increase in estimated risk is due to the increase
in estimated frequency.
134
SRMv7
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
HEN-09
Passenger electric shock at a
station (OHLE)
6
0.067
0.0134
0.067
0.0075
-0.0059
-44.2% There is no change in the estimated frequency. The average consequences per
event for SRMv6 were taken from the workforce HE for direct contact (HEN-31B)
with an electrical source. For SRMv7 this has been changed so as the
consequences are taken from the indirect contact with an electrical source HE, as
passengers are unlikely to make direct contact with an OHL.
HEN-10
Passenger electric shock at a
station (conductor rail)
6
0.887
0.3842
1.711
0.8477
0.4635
120.6% This HE includes passengers falling from the platform and coming into contact with
the third rail. The estimated frequency has doubled compared with v6 due to an
increase in the number of observed events. This is particularly noticeable in 2009–
2010 when there were 3 fatalities and a major injury. This results in a increase in
estimated risk.
HEN-11
Passenger electric shock at a
station (non-traction supplies)
6
0.542
0.0036
1.2742
0.0046
0.0010
26.5%
An increase in the number of observed events has resulted in the estimated
frequency increasing. However, these events have resulted in minor injuries,
hence the average consequences per event have decreased. The net result is an
increase in estimated risk.
HEN-13
Passenger fall from platform
onto track (no electric shock
nor struck by train)
6
42.59
0.7324
50.84
0.7056
-0.0268
-3.7%
The estimated frequency has increased due to an observed increasing trend in the
number of events occurring per year. For SRMv6 there was a statistically
significant downward trend; for SRMv7 this trend has reversed and is now showing
a statistically significant increase. The average consequences per event have
decreased due to an increase in the proportion of minor non-reportable injuries
occurring. The net effect is a slight reduction in estimated risk.
HEN-14
Passenger slip, trip or fall
6.5
2906.4
22.44
2900.6
23.42
0.9756
4.3%
The estimated frequency of slips, trips and falls has decreased very slightly. This
is despite an increase in the observed number of events of slips, trip and falls due
to snow and ice. The average consequences per event (based on data from
2007–2010) show an increase in the fatality component and this is due to four
recent fatality events — three involving elderly people falling on escalators. This
increase in the average consequences per event has led to the observed increase
in estimated risk.
HEN-15
Passenger fall from
overbridge at a station
6
0.3520
0.0943
0.2139
0.0621
-0.0322
HEN-16
Passenger fall during an
evacuation at a station
6
0.0500
0.0027
0.0500
0.0027
0.0000
Version 7.1 — August 2011
-34.1% No new events observed hence the estimated frequency has decreased. Despite a
different approach to the expert judgement there is a similar consequence estimate
when compared with SRMv6, so this results in a decrease in the estimated risk.
0%
No change in estimated frequency or average consequences per event as the
same method of expert judgement used for the previous version of the SRM has
been used for SRMv7.
135
SRMv7
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
HEN-17
Passenger crushing caused
by overcrowding at a station
6.5
HEN-21
Workforce struck/crushed by
structural collapse or large
object
6.5
16.0
0.511
12.7
0.423
-0.0886
-17.3% The estimated frequency has decreased due to a decrease in the number of
observed events. However, the data shows that there is now a slightly higher
proportion of major injuries to minor injuries occurring than before and hence the
average consequences per event have increased slightly. The net effect is that the
estimated risk has decreased.
HEN-22
Workforce trapped in
machinery
6.5
6.387
0.083
6.000
0.0622
-0.0212
-25.4% The observed number of events has decreased slightly resulting in a reduction in
the estimated frequency. The average consequences per event have also
decreased and this accounts for most of the reduction seen in the estimated risk.
HEN-23
Workforce struck by / contact
with / trapped in object at a
station
6.5
568.2
1.043
588.0
1.418
0.3748
35.9%
The increase in risk is driven by both a change in estimated frequency and the
average consequences per event. The frequency of most of the precursors that
make up this HE show a decrease except: a) other workforce struck by object at a
station — where the trend for increasing events (from SRMv6 and SRM6.5)
continues and b) infrastructure worker struck by object at a station — this has seen
a significant increase in the number of observed events during 2009–2010. The
latter seems largely due to events reported at stations undergoing major
refurbishment projects. The average consequences per event from being struck
by an object have also increased as there are now more incidents being reported
that have resulted in a major injury. The average consequences per event for
foreign bodies in the eye have reduced with only minor non-reportable injuries
being reported recently. The overall net effect is an increase in the estimated risk.
HEN-24
Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m
6.5
1062.7
6.371
1000.9
6.044
-0.3266
-5.1%
The estimated frequency has decreased due to a reduction in the observed
number of events. There is a slight increase in the average consequences per
event and the overall net effect is decrease in the estimated risk.
HEN-25
Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m
6.5
18.81
0.5692
16.32
0.6437
0.0745
13.1%
The estimated frequency has decreased due to a decrease in the number of
events observed. The estimated risk has increased, mainly as a result of an
increase in the average consequences per event as a result of 2 fatalities that
occurred in 2009–2010, however these are considered atypical and their effect has
been included in such a way that they don't alter the average consequences per
event significantly. The net effect however is still an increase in the overall
estimated risk.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Recoded to other HEs
136
SRMv7
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
HEN-26
Workforce struck/crushed by
non-train vehicle
6
13.93
0.3259
12.10
0.2472
-0.0787
-24.2% The estimated frequency has decreased due to a reduction in the observed
number of events. There is decrease in the average consequences per event due
to a reduction in the number of events resulting in a major injury and the overall net
effect is decrease in the estimated risk.
HEN-27
Workforce scalds or burns
due to contact with hot object
(not on train)
6.5
35.80
0.0678
33.81
0.0669
-0.0009
-1.4%
HEN-28
Workforce observes electrical
arcing
6.5
6.429
0.1203
4.69
0.1022
-0.0180
-15.0% There has been a reduction in the number of observed events which results in a
decrease in the estimated frequency and the estimated risk.
HEN-29
Workforce exposure to
hazardous substances
(including stings, bites and
needle injuries)
6.5
73.48
0.1680
77.12
0.1506
-0.0174
-10.3% The estimated frequency has increased slightly due to an increase in the number
of observed events. The average consequences per event have reduced and the
net effect is a decrease in the estimated risk.
HEN-30
Workforce electric shock
(conductor rail)
6.5
4.451
0.4929
3.79
0.3922
-0.1007
-20.4% The decrease in the estimated frequency is due to a decrease in the observed
number of events. This results in a decrease in the estimated risk.
HEN-31
Workforce electric shock
(OHLE)
6.5
1.585
0.2849
1.44
0.2582
-0.0267
-9.4%
HEN-32
Workforce electric shock (nontraction supply)
6
10.15
0.0675
9.82
0.0360
-0.0315
-46.7% There has been a reduction in the major injury and reportable minor injury
components of the estimates of the average consequences per event (5 major to
94 minor injuries for SRMv6 compared with 2 major to 80 minor injuries for
SRMv7).
HEN-33
Workforce affected by fumes/
smoke/asphyxiation/drowning
6
0.1855
0.0650
3.00
0.1561
0.0912
140.4% There has been a significant increase in the estimated frequency and estimated
risk associated with this HE. This is due to the event now including incidents of
workforce being affected by inhalation of fumes and smoke (not involving a fire),
the majority of which would previously been reported in HEN-29.
HEN-35
Workforce involved in road
traffic accident whilst on duty
6.5
28.86
0.3628
62.67
0.7950
0.4322
119.1% The observed number of events has shown a very high year-on-year increase in
frequency over recent years. This is assumed to be as a result of better reporting
of these type of events in the last four years. The estimated frequency is based on
the number of events observed in the year 2009–2010 and is assumed to
representative of the true underlying rate of events of this nature. The risk
increase is therefore considered to be due to an increase in the overall reporting of
this type of event rather than a change in underlying risk.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
The observed number of events has decreased slightly resulting in a reduction in
the estimated frequency. The average consequences per event have also
decreased and this results in a reduction in the estimated risk.
The decrease in the estimated frequency is due to a decrease in the observed
number of events. This results in a decrease in the estimated risk.
137
SRMv7
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
HEN-36
MOP (adult trespasser) slip,
trip or fall while on railway
infrastructure
6
19.00
0.9496
18.60
0.7705
-0.1791
HEN-37
MOP (adult trespasser)
electric shock (OHLE)
6
1.743
0.6037
1.600
0.6533
0.0497
8.2%
The estimated frequency has increased slightly due to an increase in the number
of observed events. However, the average consequences per event have
increased and the net effect is a increase in the estimated risk.
HEN-38
MOP (adult trespasser)
electric shock (conductor rail)
6
8.600
6.071
9.000
6.210
0.1384
2.3%
The estimated frequency has increased due to an increase in the number of
observed events. This has led to an increase in the estimated risk.
HEN-39
MOP (adult trespasser)
electric shock (non-traction
supply)
6
0.1379
0.0058
0.121
0.005
-0.0007
-12.1% The estimated frequency has decreased due to an decrease in the number of
observed events. This has led to an decrease in the estimated risk.
HEN-40
MOP (child trespasser) slip,
trip or fall while on railway
infrastructure
6
2.200
0.1100
1.333
0.0596
-0.0503
-45.8% The estimated frequency has decreased due to a decrease in the number of
observed events, accounting for the decrease in estimated risk.
HEN-41
MOP (child trespasser)
electric shock (OHLE)
6
1.867
0.2434
1.543
0.2462
0.0028
HEN-42
MOP (child trespasser)
electric shock (conductor rail)
6
1.214
0.5119
1.000
0.4024
-0.1096
-21.4% A reduction in the number of reported events has resulted in a drop in the
estimated frequency and estimated risk. This HE is susceptible to change as the
frequency is based on a low number of observed events that will show variability
year-on-year.
HEN-43
MOP (child trespasser)
electric shock (non-traction
supply)
6
0.2000
0.0084
1.000
0.0077
-0.0007
-8.3%
HEN-44
MOP (non-trespasser)
pedestrian or
cyclist/motorcyclist
struck/trapped by level
crossing equipment
6
14.47
0.3222
12.02
0.1439
-0.1783
-55.3% The estimated frequency has reduced due to a decrease in the number of
observed events. The average consequences per event have also reduced since
SRMv6, due to the reclassification of the only fatal injury in the dataset to a major
injury; the injured party did die in hospital later but of unrelated causes and not
from the injuries sustained from this HE. It is considered unlikely that a fatality
would be caused by being stuck by level crossing equipment, and as such, the
average consequences per event have been reduced to reflect this.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
-18.9% The risk has decreased due to a lower frequency and consequence estimate. A
similar approach to estimating the frequency was used, but because of the drop in
recent events, the frequency has decreased. A more recent 3 year data set was
also used for the consequences, which has lowered the injury estimate.
1.1%
The estimated frequency has decreased due to a decrease in the number of
reported events. However, the estimated risk does not show a similar decrease
because the average consequences per event have increased.
The frequency has reduced slightly due a reduction in reported trespass events.
138
SRMv7
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
HEN-45
MOP (non-trespasser) fall
onto railway infrastructure
6
14.26
3.202
3.44
0.337
-2.8659
-89.5% There is a large change in estimated risk due to new guidance on the classification
of trespass events. Injured MOP are now assumed to be trespassers unless there
is clear evidence that they were not trespassing at the time they were injured. This
has meant some recoding between HEN-45, HEN-71 and HEN-72. There has
been a -1.1 FWI change in estimated risk across these three events with -3.7
events per year change in estimated frequency.
HEN-46
MOP (non-trespasser)
pedestrian or
cyclist/motorcyclist slip, trip, or
fall on level crossing or
footpath crossing
6
15.34
0.4267
15.14
0.3724
-0.0543
-12.7% There has been no real change in the estimated frequency due to the number of
observed events per year remaining similar to before. There has been a slight
reduction in the average consequences per event due to a trend of less severe
injuries occurring in recent events. The net overall effect is a slight reduction in
estimated risk.
HEN-48
MOP (non-trespasser)
exposure to fire on railway
infrastructure
6
0.0500
0.0015
0.0500
0.0015
0.0000
0%
No change in estimated frequency or average consequences per event as the
same method of expert judgement used for the previous version of the SRM has
been used for SRMv7.
HEN-49
MOP (non-trespasser)
exposure to explosion on
railway infrastructure
6
0.0500
0.3000
0.0500
0.3000
0.0000
0%
No change in estimated frequency or average consequences per event as the
same method of expert judgement used for the previous version of the SRM has
been used for SRMv7.
HEN-50
MOP (non-trespasser)
observes electrical arcing
6
0.2000
0.0045
0.20
0.004
-0.0007
-15.9% There has been a slight reduction in estimated risk due to the inclusion of a
shock/trauma component to the estimate of the average consequences per event.
HEN-51
MOP (non-trespasser) electric
shock (OHLE)
6
0.2000
0.0056
0.43
0.048
0.0423
751.8% The estimated frequency has increased due to an increase in the number of
observed events. The average consequences per event have increased due to the
inclusion of a fatality component which was previously not included. This was
previously not modelled as a possible outcome and hence the large percentage
change in estimated risk is due to this change.
HEN-52
MOP (non-trespasser) electric
shock (conductor rail)
6
0.0595
0.0257
0.11
0.068
0.0424
165.4% The frequency has been derived using expert judgement and reflects an the similar
increase in frequency observed for passenger electric shock at 3rd rail (HEN-10)
and also due to an increase in the fatality component observed for passengers..
HEN-53
MOP (non-trespasser) electric
shock (non-traction supplies)
6
0.2500
0.0017
0.2000
0.0007
-0.0009
-55.9% The estimated frequency has decreased due to no additional events being
observed. The average consequences per event have decreased slightly due to a
greater proportion of major injuries occurring in the observed events that these are
based on (events in HEN-32 as this is a relatively low frequency event).
Version 7.1 — August 2011
139
SRMv6.5
SRMv7
% change
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A3
HEN-54
MOP (non-trespasser)
exposure to hazardous
substances on railway
infrastructure
6
0.0100
0.1000
0.2000
0.1007
0.0007
0.7%
This event has been redefined to include more events and the result is a decrease
in the average consequences event per event. However, the estimated frequency
increases and the net effect is that the estimated risk shows little change.
HEN-55
Passenger struck by / contact
with / trapped in object at a
station
6
370.4
1.303
496.4
1.492
0.1888
14.5%
The large increase in estimated frequency is due to an increase in the number of
passengers injuring themselves in ticket gates. This is probably due to a large
increase in the number of ticket gates being installed on the network in recent
years. This has resulted in an increase in estimated risk.
In particular, many events are now occurring at ticketed barriers at: Leeds,
Waterloo, Blackpool, Salisbury, Birmingham Snow Hill and Norwich (as well as
many smaller stations) in the last three years where none had previously occurred.
HEN-56
Workforce struck by / contact
with / trapped in object not at
a station
6.5
695.9
3.916
578.9
2.883
-1.0328
-26.4% Large reduction in estimated frequency is due to a reduction in the number of
observed events. There have been on average 580 events per year for the last
two years (2009–2010) compared with an average of 650 per year for the 2
preceding years (2007–2008). The average consequences per event has
decreased due to the a reduction in the proportion of events resulting in major
injuries across most precursors. The net effect is a decrease in estimated risk.
HEN-57
Passenger scalds or burns
due to contact with hot object
(not on train)
6
6.332
0.0109
6.630
0.0116
0.0007
6.3%
The estimated frequency has increased due to an increasing trend in the number
of observed events. This results in an increase in the estimated risk.
HEN-58
MOP (non-trespasser) injury
from objects/structures (eg
bridges, steps, subways)
other than in stations whilst on
railway infrastructure
6.5
1.000
0.0075
1.000
0.0069
-0.0006
-8.2%
No change in the estimated frequency, however the average consequences per
event have decreased. The proportion of events resulting in minor non-reportable
injuries rather than major injuries has increased and this has reduced the
estimated risk.
HEN-59
MOP (non-trespasser) struck
by / contact with / trapped in
object at a station
6
10.33
0.0755
14.33
0.0473
-0.0281
-37.3% There is around a 38% increase in the observed number of events per year for this
HE. However, there is a decrease in the average consequences per event. When
this is considered in conjunction with the increased number of incidents, this
suggests that the reporting of these types of incidents has increased, with less
severe incidents now being consistently reported compared with before. The
proportion of major injuries has decreased and as a result there is an overall
reduction in estimated risk.
HE code
HE description
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
140
SRMv7
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
HEN-60
Workforce exposure to noise
(not on train)
6
3.086
0.0038
2.790
0.0033
-0.0005
-12.9% The estimated frequency has decreased due to a reduction in the number of
observed events. The estimated risk decreases as a result of this.
HEN-61
Passenger exposure to noise
(not on train)
6
0.4394
4.39E-04
0.3860
3.86E-04
-0.0001
-12.1% Only three events have ever been observed for this HEs and no further ones since
SRMv6. This has led to a decrease in the estimated frequency and the estimated
risk.
HEN-62
Passenger on-train incident
(excluding sudden train
movement & assaults)
6.5
850.4
3.377
813.3
3.401
0.0239
HEN-63
Workforce on-train incident
(excluding sudden train
movement & assaults)
6.5
1281.2
2.680
1200.1
2.262
-0.4175
HEN-64
Passenger physical assault
6
1691.7
7.794
1624.0
8.049
0.2553
Passenger non-physical
assault
6
282.4
0.2824
66.6
0.0595
-0.2229
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.7%
A slight reduction in the estimated frequency and an increase in the average
consequences per event (particularly in relation to major injuries associated with
fainting). The net effect is a slight increase in estimated risk.
-15.6% The estimated frequency has slightly reduced due to a reduction in the number of
observed events. The average consequences per event have also decreased as a
result of less events resulting in a major injury. The net effect of these is a
decrease in estimated risk.
3.3%
The average consequences per event have changed due to using a larger data
period. For SRMv6 only three months of data was used due to the complex and
time consuming matching process of SMIS data with BTP data. For SRMv7 more
time was available and so it was possible to match twelve months of data. This
has resulted in a increase to the average consequences per event. It has also
changed the physical injury to non-physical injury proportion, altering it significantly
towards physical events being more likely to occur. The net result is an increase in
estimated risk.
-78.9% The estimated frequency has decreased due to a significant reduction in the
number of observed events. The average consequences per event have changed
due to using a larger data period. For SRMv6 only three months of data was used
due to the complex and time consuming matching process of SMIS data with BTP
data. For SRMv7 more time was available and so it was possible to match twelve
months of data. This has resulted in a increase to the average consequences per
event. It has also changed the physical injury to non-physical injury proportion,
altering it significantly towards physical events being more likely to occur. The net
result is a decrease in estimated risk.
141
HEN-65
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
6.5
955.9
2.320
829.4
1.798
-0.5219
-22.5% The estimated frequency has reduced due to a decrease in the number of
observed events. The average consequences per event have not changed and
hence the reduction in estimated risk is due to the decrease in estimated
frequency.
Workforce non-physical
assault
6
759.5
0.8146
460.2
0.496
-0.3186
-39.1% The estimated frequency has reduced due to a decrease in the number of
observed events. The average consequences per event have not changed and
hence the reduction in estimated risk is due to the decrease in estimated
frequency.
MOP (non-trespasser)
physical assault
6
148.9
0.86794
112.0
1.1176
0.2497
28.8%
MOP (non-trespasser) nonphysical assault
6
21.15
0.02115
4.15
0.0037
-0.0175
-82.6% The estimated frequency has decreased due to a significant reduction in the
number of observed events. The average consequences per event have changed
due to using a larger data period. For SRMv6 only three months of data was used
due to the complex and time consuming matching process of SMIS data with BTP
data. For SRMv7 more time was available and so it was possible to match twelve
months of data. This has resulted in a increase to the average consequences per
event. It has also changed the physical injury to non-physical injury proportion,
altering it significantly towards physical events being more likely to occur. The net
result is a decrease in estimated risk.
HEN-67
MOP (non-trespasser) fall
from platform onto track (no
electric shock nor struck by
train)
6
2.857
0.0494
3.200
0.0471
-0.0024
-4.8%
The estimated frequency has increased due to an increase in the number of
observed events. The average consequences per event have decreased due to
an increase in the proportion of minor non-reportable injuries occurring in HEN-13
(from which the consequences are taken due to little observed data for HEN-67).
The net effect is a slight reduction in estimated risk.
HEN-68
MOP (non-trespasser) slip,
trip or fall in station
6.5
81.60
0.6203
88.667
0.7030
0.0827
13.3%
The increase in estimated risk is due in part to an increase in the average
consequences per event (taken from HEN-14) and due to a continued upward
trend in the number of reported events resulting in an increase in estimated
frequency.
HEN-66
Workforce physical assault
SRMv7
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Version 7.1 — August 2011
The average consequences per event have changed due to using a larger data
period. For SRMv6 only three months of data was used due to the complex and
time consuming matching process of SMIS data with BTP data. For SRMv7 more
time was available and so it was possible to match twelve months of data. This
has resulted in a increase to the average consequences per event. It has also
changed the physical injury to non-physical injury proportion, altering it significantly
towards physical events being more likely to occur. The net result is an increase in
estimated risk.
142
HEN-70
Witnessing a traumatic event
(non-movement)
HEN-71
SRMv7
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
% change
HE description
SRMv6.5
(FWI / yr)
HE code
Last updated
Table A3
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
6.5
11.40
0.0133
11.20
0.0118
-0.0015
-11.6% The average consequences per event have decreased due to less multi-injury
events being reported. This has resulted in a decrease in the estimated risk.
MOP (adult trespasser)
fall/jump onto railway
infrastructure
6
9.943
1.413
17.333
3.196
1.7825
126.2% There is a large change in estimated risk due to new guidance on the classification
of trespass events. Injured MOP are now assumed to be trespassers unless there
is clear evidence that they were not trespassing at the time they were injured. This
has meant some recoding between HEN-45, HEN-71 and HEN-72. There has
been a -1.1 FWI change in estimated risk across these three events with -3.7
events per year change in estimated frequency.
HEN-72
MOP (child trespasser)
fall/jump onto railway
infrastructure
6
1.119
0.1665
0.836
0.1539
-0.0126
-7.5%
There is a change in estimated risk due to new guidance on the classification of
trespass events. Injured MOP are now assumed to be trespassers unless there is
clear evidence that they were not trespassing at the time they were injured. This
has meant some recoding between HEN-45, HEN-71 and HEN-72. There has
been a -1.1 FWI change in estimated risk across these three events with -3.7
events per year change in estimated frequency.
HEN-73
Passenger manual handling
6
5.323
0.0637
3.400
0.0631
-0.0006
-0.9%
The estimated frequency has reduced due to a reduction in the number of reported
events. The average consequences per event have increased and overall there is
no net change in estimated risk.
HEN-74
Workforce manual handling
6.5
470.7
1.106
424.2
0.9565
-0.1499
-13.6% The estimated frequency has decreased due to a decrease in the number of
reported events, accounting for the decrease in estimated risk.
HEN-75
MOP (non-trespasser)
pedestrian or cyclist/
motorcyclist struck by a road
vehicle or involved in a road
traffic accident at a level
crossing
6
1.258
0.0385
1.199
0.0350
-0.0035
-9.0%
HEN-76
MOP (non-trespasser)
struck/crushed by structural
collapse or large object as a
result of operations on railway
infrastructure
6.5
0.375
0.0118
0.400
0.0102
-0.0017
-14.0% The estimated risk has decreased due to an additional minor injury occurring.
This has increased the estimated frequency but has decreased the average
consequences per event as the proportion of minor non-reportable injuries has
increased.
HEN-77
Suicide (or attempted suicide)
not involving rolling stock in
motion
6.5
21.667
12.454
20.600
10.405
-2.0489
-16.5% The decrease in estimated frequency is due to a reduction in the number of
observed events in recent years. The average consequences per event have also
decreased and hence the net effect on the estimated risk is an overall decrease.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
The estimated frequency has decreased due to a decrease in the number of
reported events. The decrease in estimated risk is due to the decrease in
estimated frequency.
143
SRMv6.5
SRMv7
% change
National National National National
average average average average
freq.
risk
freq.
risk
(events / (FWI / (events / (FWI /
yr)
yr)
yr)
yr)
Change in risk
(FWI / yr)
Last updated
Table A3
HEN-82
Workforce awkward
movement injury
6.5
145.400
0.3289
112.167
0.3688
0.0399
12.1%
HEN-83
Passenger awkward
movement injury
6.5
2.000
0.0320
4.667
0.0702
0.0382
119.4% An increase in the number of reported events in the last two years results in a large
percentage increase in estimated risk. The average consequences per event have
reduced so the overall percentage increase in estimated risk is lower than the
percentage increase in estimated frequency.
HE code
HE description
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Reasons for changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
The estimated frequency has decreased in line with the reduction in the number of
observed events. The average consequences per event have also been
increasing over time due to a greater proportion of events now resulting in a major
injury. The net effect is an increase in the estimated risk.
144
Table A3
This page has been intentionally left blank
Version 7.1 — August 2011
145
146
Collision of train with object (not resulting in derailment)
Passenger f all between stationary train and platf orm
Passenger injury while boarding/alighting a train (platf orm side)
Passenger injury due to sudden train movement
Passenger f all f rom platf orm and struck by train
Passenger struck by/contact with/trapped in object at station
Passenger struck/crushed by train while crossing the track at or near a station
on a crossing
Passenger struck by/contact with moving train while on platf orm
Passenger electric shock at station (conductor rail)
Passenger slip, trip or f all
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Risk (FWI/year)
0.8
Change in shock/trauma
Change in minor nonRIDDOR-reportable
Change in minor
RIDDOR-reportable
Change in majors
Change in f atalities
Change in risk
0.6
1
Changes from v6.5 to v7
Chart 28: Top 10 risk changes in passenger risk (FWI/year) between SRMv6.5 and SRMv7
Version 7.1 — August 2011
HET-04 HEM-06 HEM-09 HEM-38 HEM-08 HEN-55 HEM-11 HEM-10 HEN-10 HEN-14
Changes from v6.5 to v7
A.3.
Changes from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7
This section describes the main changes in the risk profile from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7,
focussing on passenger, workforce and public risk.
A.3.1.
Passenger risk
Chart 28 shows the top 10 changes in the passenger risk profile in FWI/year, each broken
down by injury degree. It can be seen that, in general, the risk to passengers has increased
from SRMv6.5 to SRMv7. This can be partly attributed to increase in passenger numbers
and a change in the consequence profile explained in Section E.3. Reasons for the changes
to the individual HEs are presented in Table 16 below.
Table 16: Change in passenger risk
Hazardous event
Change
in risk
(FWI/yr)
Reason for change in risk
HEN-14: Passenger
slip, trip or fall
0.98
The average consequences per event show an increase in the
fatality component, this is due to four recent fatality events. There
has also been an increase in the major injury component. This
has resulted in an increase in the average consequences per
event and has led to an increase in estimated risk of 0.98
FWI/year.
HEN-10: Passenger
electric shock at a
station (conductor
rail)
0.46
The estimated frequency has doubled compared with v6 due to an
increase in the number of observed events. This is particularly
noticeable in 2009–2010 when there were three fatalities and a
major injury. This results in an increase in estimated risk.
HEM-10: Passenger
struck by / contact
with moving train
while on platform
0.24
There were two fatality events in 2009 which have contributed to
an increased average consequence per event and hence an
increase in estimated risk of 0.24 FWI/year
HEM-11: Passenger
struck/crushed by
train while crossing
the track at or near a
station on a crossing
-0.20
The estimated risk has reduced in line with the decrease in
estimated frequency as the average consequences per event
have not changed significantly.
HEN-55: Passenger
struck by / contact
with / trapped in
object at a station
0.19
There has been a large increase in estimated frequency due to an
increase in the number of passengers injuring themselves in ticket
gates. This is probably due to a large increase in the number of
ticket gates being installed on the network in recent years. This
has resulted in an increase in the estimated risk.
HEM-08: Passenger
fall from platform
and struck by train
-0.18
A very slight downward trend in the frequency of observed
incidents accounts for the overall decrease in risk. However, the
most recent year shows an atypical peak, although on its own this
is not enough to suggest a trend.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
147
Changes from v6.5 to v7
Table 16: Change in passenger risk (cntd)
Hazardous event
Change
in risk
(FWI/yr)
Reason for change in risk
HEM-38: Passenger
injury due to sudden
train movement
0.15
There has been an increase in the estimated frequency due to
more observed data. The average consequences per event have
increased, as the recent injuries show a greater proportion of
major injuries occurring than that previously observed. The net
effect is an overall increase in estimated risk.
HEM-09: Passenger
injury while
boarding/alighting a
train (platform side)
-0.11
There has been a slight increase in the reported number of events
resulting in an increase in estimated frequency for this HE.
However, the overall risk has decreased due to a reduction in the
average consequences per event.
HEM-06: Passenger
fall between
stationary train and
platform
-0.08
There has been an increase in the estimated frequency, however
the average consequences per event have decreased. This
change is due to an increase in the proportion of minor injuries
observed in recent data and hence an overall reduction in
estimated risk despite the increase in the estimated frequency.
HET-04: Collision of
train with object (not
resulting in
derailment)
0.06
The average consequences per event have decreased for train
struck by missiles as the injuries are spread over more events.
However, other parts of the model have seen an increase in the
average consequences per event and this has caused the overall
estimated risk to increase.
A.3.2.
Workforce risk
Chart 29 shows the top 10 changes in the workforce risk profile in FWI/year from SRMv6.5
to SRMv7, broken down into injury degrees. Most of the risk from these HEs is decreasing;
the main reasons for the changes can be seen in Table 17 below.
Table 17: Change in workforce risk
Hazardous event
Change
in risk
(FWI/yr)
Reason for change in risk
HEN-56: Workforce
struck by / contact with /
trapped in object not at a
station
-1.03
There has been a large reduction in estimated frequency.
The average consequences per event has decreased due to
a reduction in the proportion of events resulting in major
injuries across most precursors. The net effect is a decrease
in estimated risk.
HEN-65: Workforce
assault
-0.84
The estimated frequency has reduced due to a decrease in
the number of observed events. The average consequences
per event have not changed.
HEN-35: Workforce
involved in road traffic
accident whilst on duty
0.43
The observed number of events has shown a very high yearon-year increase in frequency over recent years. The risk
increase is therefore considered to be due to an increase in
the overall reporting of this type of event rather than a change
in underlying risk.
148
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Workf orce injury due to sudden train movement
Collision of train with object (not resulting in derailment)
Workf orce manual handling
Inf rastructure worker struck/crushed by train in motion
Workf orce slip, trip or f all <2m
Workf orce struck by/contact with/trapped in object at station
Workf orce on-train incident (excluding sudden train movement & assaults)
Workf orce involved in road traf f ic accident whilst on duty
Workf orce assault
Workf orce struck by/contact with/ trapped in object not at station
-1.2
-0.8
-0.6
Change in
shock/trauma
Change in minor nonRIDDOR-reportable
Change in minor
RIDDOR-reportable
Change in majors
Change in f atalities
Change in risk
-1
-0.4
-0.2
Risk (FWI/year)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Changes from v6.5 to v7
Chart 29: Top 10 risk changes in workforce risk (FWI/year) between SRMv6.5 and SRMv7
149
HEM-39 HET-04 HEN-74 HEM-19 HEN-24 HEN-23 HEN-63 HEN-35 HEN-65 HEN-56
Changes from v6.5 to v7
Table 17: Change in workforce risk (cntd)
Hazardous event
Change
in risk
(FWI/yr)
Reason for change in risk
HEN-63: Workforce ontrain incident (excluding
sudden train movement &
assaults)
-0.42
The estimated frequency has slightly reduced due to a
reduction in the number of observed events. The average
consequences per event have also decreased as a result of
less events resulting in a major injury. The net effect of these
is a decrease in estimated risk.
HEN-23: Workforce
struck by / contact with /
trapped in object at a
station
0.37
The increase in risk is driven by both a change in estimated
frequency and the average consequences per event.
HEN-24: Workforce slip,
trip or fall <2m
-0.33
The estimated frequency has decreased due to a reduction in
the observed number of events. There is a slight increase in
the average consequences per event and the overall net
effect is decrease in the estimated risk.
HEM-19: Infrastructure
worker struck/crushed by
train in motion
-0.21
There is a reduction in estimated frequency for this HE
contributing to a similar reduction in the estimated risk. The
consequences have also seen a reduction resulting in an
overall risk reduction.
HEN-74: Workforce
manual handling
-0.15
The estimated frequency has decreased due to a decrease in
the number of reported events.
HET-04: Collision of train
with object (not resulting
in derailment)
0.12
The average consequences per event have increased and
this has caused the overall estimated risk to increase.
HEM-39: Workforce injury
due to sudden train
movement
-0.11
Recent data suggests that the average consequences per
event have decreased for this event and this has resulted in a
decrease in the estimated risk as the frequency estimate has
not changed appreciably.
A.3.3.
Public risk
Chart 30 shows the top 10 changes in the public risk profile in FWI/year from SRMv6.5 to
SRMv7, broken down into injury degrees. The main reasons for the changes can be seen in
Table 18 below.
Table 18: Change in public risk
Hazardous event
HEM-25: MOP
(trespasser)
struck/crushed by train
while on railway
infrastructure not at a
station
150
Change
in risk
(FWI/yr)
3.58
Reason for change in risk
The increase in estimated risk is due in part to the observed
increase in the number of events in between 2007 and 2009.
However, the main increase is due to an increase in the
average consequences per event from a higher proportion of
events resulting in a fatality. This has caused the estimated
risk to increase.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Version 7.1 — August 2011
MOP (adult trespasser) electric shock (conductor rail)
MOP pedestrian (or cyclist) struck / trapped by level crossing equipment
MOP (adult trespasser) slip, trip or f all while on NRMI
MOP assault
MOP (trespasser) f all while riding on train exterior
Adult/child trespasser struck/crushed by train while on tracks at station
MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or cyclist struck/crushed by train on level
crossing or f ootpath crossing
MOP (adult trespasser) f all/jump onto NRMI
MOP (non-trespasser) f all onto NRMI
MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed while on the mainline railway not at station
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Risk (FWI/year)
3
Change in
shock/trauma
Change in minor nonRIDDOR-reportable
Change in minor
RIDDOR-reportable
Change in majors
Change in f atalities
Change in risk
2
4
Changes from v6.5 to v7
Chart 30: Top 10 risk changes in public risk (FWI/year) between SRMv6.5 and SRMv7
151
HEN-38 HEN-44 HEN-36 HEN-66 HEM-30 HEM-12 HEM-27 HEN-71 HEN-45 HEM-25
Changes from v6.5 to v7
Table 18: Change in public risk (cntd)
Hazardous event
Change
in risk
(FWI/yr)
Reason for change in risk
HEN-45: MOP (nontrespasser) fall onto
railway infrastructure
-2.86
There is a large change in estimated risk due to new
guidance on the classification of trespass events. Injured
MOP are now assumed to be trespassers unless there is
clear evidence that they were not trespassing at the time they
were injured. This has meant some recoding between HEN45, HEN-71 and HEN-72.
HEN-71: MOP (adult
trespasser) fall/jump onto
railway infrastructure
1.78
There is a large change in estimated risk due to new
guidance on the classification of trespass events. Injured
MOP are now assumed to be trespassers unless there is
clear evidence that they were not trespassing at the time they
were injured. This has meant some recoding between HEN45, HEN-71 and HEN-72.
The increase is therefore due to the revised modelling
approach and is not indicative of a real change in underlying
risk.
HEM-27: MOP (nontrespasser) pedestrian or
cyclist struck/crushed by
train on level crossing or
footpath crossing
-1.49
The estimated frequency has reduced due to less observed
data in recent years. There is no obvious trend in the data to
suggest whether or not this may be a permanent reduction in
frequency or year-on-year variation.
HEM-12: MOP
(trespasser)
struck/crushed by train
while on tracks at a
station
0.98
The increase in estimated risk is due to a rise in
proportion of events resulting in fatal injuries. This
altered the average consequences per event and
resulted in an increase in risk, despite a reduction in
number of events.
HEM-30: MOP
(trespasser) fall while on
train exterior
-0.64
The decrease in estimated risk is mainly due to a significant
change in the estimated frequency. The observed number of
events has dropped from an average of around five per year
from 2001–2007 to just two events in the period 2007–2010.
HEN-66: MOP (nontrespasser) assault
0.23
The average consequences per event have changed due to
using a larger data period. It has also changed the physical
injury to non-physical injury proportion, altering it significantly
towards physical events being more likely to occur. The net
result is an increase in estimated risk.
HEN-36: MOP (adult
trespasser) slip, trip or fall
while on railway
infrastructure
-0.18
The risk has decreased due to a lower frequency and
consequence estimate.
HEN-44: MOP (nontrespasser) pedestrian or
cyclist/motorcyclist
struck/trapped by level
crossing equipment
-0.18
The estimated frequency has reduced due to a decrease in
the number of observed events. The average consequences
per event have also reduced.
This is due to the
reclassification of the only fatal injury in the dataset to a major
injury, the average consequences per event have been
reduced to reflect this.
152
the
has
has
the
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Changes from v6.5 to v7
Table 18: Change in public risk (cntd)
Hazardous event
Change
in risk
(FWI/yr)
HEN-38: MOP (adult
trespasser) electric shock
(conductor rail)
Version 7.1 — August 2011
0.13
Reason for change in risk
The estimated frequency has increased due to an increase in
the number of observed events. This has led to an increase
in the estimated risk.
153
Appendix B. SRMv7 Risk Estimates by Precursor
Table B1 presents the risk contribution of each precursor to its associated HE, as well as its
contribution to overall risk in FWI/year.
Table B1 can be found a separate document entitled Risk Profile Bulletin version 7:
Appendix B, which is freely downloadable from the RSSB Rail Risk Portal at
www.safetyriskmodel.co.uk.
The Microsoft Excel version of Table B1 contains further information about the risk
contribution for each precursor (in FWI/year, fatalities per year, major injuries per year and
minor injuries per year), as well as the precursor percentage risk contribution.
154
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Appendix C. Key Risk Areas and Selected Risk Groupings
Table C1 contains the full breakdown of the SRM at precursor level into the Key Risk Areas,
as summarised by TABLE 8 in section 7. Table C2 contains the breakdown of the SRM by
key risk groupings that are summarised in TABLE 9 in section 7. Table C3 below provides a
simplified view of Table C2.
Tables C1 and C2 have not been included in this report, and are available through the RSSB
website.
Table C3: Selected risk groupings — expansion of Table 9
Description
Track
faults —
grouped
for both
passenger
and nonpassenger
trains
Track
faults
Train
rolling
stock
Cat A
SPADs
resulting in
collision
(continued
overleaf)
PT
NPT
(FWI/yr) (FWI/yr)
Total risk
(FWI / yr)
Abnormal dynamic forces — only considered
for PT
-
-
1.265
Subsidence/landslip
-
-
0.308
Defective S&C
-
-
0.214
Track maintenance staff errors
-
-
0.094
Misc track faults — only considered for FT
-
-
0.034
Buckled rail
-
-
0.094
Broken rail
-
-
0.028
Track twist
-
-
0.047
Broken fishplate
-
-
0.029
Broken rail in tunnel
-
-
0.016
Gauge spread
-
-
0.049
Movement of points under train
-
-
0.029
Miscellaneous/unknown causes on S&C
-
-
0.020
Cyclic top — only applicable to FT
-
-
0.003
Track faults
2.095
0.164
2.260
2.260
Rolling stock door incidents (includes door
faults)
2.071
0.500
4.164
4.164
Rolling stock — other
1.593
Driver fails to react to cautionary aspect
0.063
0.018
0.081
Driver fails to check signal aspect
0.077
0.059
0.136
Driver fails to locate signal
0.032
0.038
0.070
Other environmental
0.030
0.005
0.035
Driver misreads by viewing wrong signal
0.021
0.042
0.063
Version 7.1 — August 2011
2.229
0.709
155
Table C3
Description
PT
NPT
(FWI/yr) (FWI/yr)
Total risk
(FWI/yr)
Driver misjudges train behaviour
0.026
0.020
0.045
Driver anticipates signal clearance
0.016
0.006
0.021
Signaller communication errors
0.024
0.019
0.043
Driver misjudges environmental conditions
0.016
0.005
0.020
Correct information given but misunderstood
by driver/signaller
0.010
0.010
0.020
Driver views correct signal but misreads
aspect
0.016
0.018
0.035
Ambiguous or incomplete information given by
driver/signaller
0.007
0.012
0.020
Driver violation of rules/instructions
0.009
0.019
0.029
Driver misreads previous signal
0.012
0.006
0.019
Wrong information given by driver/signaller
0.004
0.011
0.015
Rolling stock
0.004
0.009
0.013
Driver ignorance of rules/instructions
0.004
0.007
0.010
Information not given by driver/signaller
0.003
0.005
0.009
Signaller operating errors
0.006
0.007
0.013
Uncategorised driver error
0.006
0.005
0.010
Unknown driver misjudgement
0.001
0.001
0.002
Cat A
SPAD
resulting in
derailment
or level
crossing
collision
Cat A SPAD resulting in derailment or level
crossing collision
0.095
0.043
0.138
0.138
Cat D
SPADs /
runaways
Cat D SPADs / runaways
0.019
0.368
0.387
0.387
Misuse Error
-
-
6.469
Violation
-
-
2.980
Proper Use
-
-
1.063
(continued)
Cat A
SPADs
resulting in
collision
Level
crossings
— highlevel cause
Level
crossings
(vehicle
only) — by
type
Automatic Half Barrier Crossing
0.921
0.139
1.060
User Worked Crossing Protected with
Telephone
0.709
0.100
0.809
User Worked Crossing
0.403
0.061
0.464
(continued
overleaf)
Automatic Open Crossings Locally Monitored
0.396
0.064
0.460
156
10.51
3.415
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Table C3
Description
(continued)
Level
crossings
(vehicle
only) — by
type
Footpath
crossings
— by
cause
Level
crossings by cause
PT
NPT
(FWI/yr) (FWI/yr)
Total risk
(FWI/yr)
User Worked Crossing Protected by Miniature
Warning Lights
0.247
0.036
0.283
Manual Controlled Barrier
0.103
0.016
0.119
Manual Controlled Barrier with CCTV
0.061
0.009
0.070
Manual Controlled Gate
0.036
0.006
0.041
Automatic Barrier Crossings Locally
Monitored
0.058
0.009
0.067
Footpath Crossing
0.026
0.004
0.030
Open Crossing
0.010
0.002
0.012
MOP pedestrian struck/crushed by train on
footpath crossing
-
-
2.972
MOP slip, trip or fall on footpath crossing
-
-
0.040
MOP pedestrian struck/crushed by train on
level crossing
-
-
2.851
Passenger train collision with road vehicle on
level crossing
-
-
2.969
Passenger struck/crushed by train on station
crossing
-
-
0.707
Non-passenger train collision with road
vehicle on level crossing
-
-
0.447
MOP slip, trip or fall on level crossing
-
-
0.333
MOP struck/trapped by level crossing
equipment
-
-
0.179
Version 7.1 — August 2011
3.011
7.486
157
This page has been intentionally left blank
158
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Appendix D. Individual Risk
Table D1:Individual risk data for SRMv7
Individual risk (fatalities per year)
HE
code
HE description
Passenger
Passenger
Freight
Infrastructrain driver train driver ture worker
6.02E-06
1.37E-06
7.99E-07
1.95E-07
HET-06 Collision between two passenger trains in station (permissive
working)
6.97E-10
HET-09 Train collision with buffer stops
6.02E-09
4.49E-07
1.40E-07
HET-10 Passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing
6.68E-08
3.78E-06
1.18E-06
HET-11 Non-passenger train collision with road vehicle on level crossing
5.14E-10
1.72E-07
HET-12 Derailment of passenger train
4.19E-07
1.12E-05
HET-13 Derailment of non-passenger train
7.51E-08
1.81E-07
HET-17 Fire on passenger train
1.33E-08
3.04E-07
HET-21 Train crushed by structural collapse or large object (not at a
station)
2.46E-09
HET-22 Train crushed by structural collapse or large object (at a station)
1.05E-08
HET-23 Explosion on passenger train
5.28E-10
HET-24 Explosion on freight train
3.69E-11
HET-25 Passenger train division (not leading to collision)
1.72E-09
Version 7.1 — August 2011
1.75E-08
3.86E-07
Other staff
HETCollision between two trains resulting from a: passenger train
01/02/03 Cat A SPAD; runaway train; misrouted train; or WSF
HET-20 Fire on non-passenger train
1.67E-05
Other PT
crew
1.78E-06
3.88E-08
3.49E-06
2.15E-05
1.42E-06
1.42E-06
9.46E-08
1.90E-07
3.83E-08
7.95E-09
3.44E-11
2.30E-07
5.44E-09
2.07E-10
3.98E-06
1.62E-07
7.36E-08
5.04E-08
159
Table D1
Individual risk (fatalities per year)
HE
code
HE description
Passenger
HET-26 Collision between a failed train and an assisting train
2.35E-11
HEM-01 Passenger injury during evacuation following stopped train (not
at a platform)
1.18E-09
HEM-03 Passenger struck while leaning out of train (train in running)
6.11E-08
HEM-06 Passenger fall between stationary train and platform
1.06E-07
HEM-07 Passenger fall from train in service onto track (no electric shock
nor struck by train)
3.49E-09
HEM-08 Passenger fall from platform and struck by train
6.03E-07
HEM-09 Passenger injury while boarding/alighting a train (platform side)
2.12E-08
HEM-10 Passenger struck by / contact with moving train while on platform
4.44E-07
HEM-11 Passenger struck/crushed by train while crossing the track at or
near a station on a crossing
2.46E-07
Passenger
Freight
Infrastructrain driver train driver ture worker
HEM-14 Workforce (not infrastructure worker) struck/crushed by train
1.06E-05
5.06E-06
HEM-15 Workforce fall/alighting from moving train
5.80E-07
9.73E-07
HEM-19 Infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train in motion
1.17E-06
3.78E-08
1.84E-06
HEM-22 Workforce fall out of train onto track at a station (no electric
shock nor struck by train)
2.64E-08
1.30E-08
Version 7.0 – June 2011
Other staff
3.03E-06
9.71E-06
8.12E-06
2.23E-06
5.52E-05
HEM-20 Workforce struck by flying object thrown up by passing train
(includes objects thrown up by OTM movements outside a
possession)
HEN-03 Exposure to fire in a station not on railway infrastructure
Other PT
crew
7.15E-10
3.06E-07
1.48E-07
2.61E-08
2.62E-08
160
Table D1
Individual risk (fatalities per year)
HE
code
HE description
Passenger
HEN-05 Exposure to an explosion at a station
3.57E-08
HEN-09 Passenger electric shock at a station (OHLE)
2.38E-09
HEN-10 Passenger electric shock at a station (conductor rail)
2.85E-07
HEN-13 Passenger fall from platform onto track (no electric shock nor
struck by train)
2.49E-08
HEN-14 Passenger slip, trip or fall
7.91E-07
HEN-15 Passenger fall from overbridge at a station
2.13E-08
Passenger
Freight
Infrastructrain driver train driver ture worker
Other PT
crew
Other staff
1.64E-06
HEN-21 Workforce struck/crushed by structural collapse or large object
1.57E-07
7.13E-08
2.63E-06
4.88E-08
1.23E-06
HEN-24 Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m
6.45E-07
2.93E-07
1.50E-06
1.11E-06
2.28E-06
HEN-25 Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m
3.93E-07
1.79E-07
6.02E-06
3.78E-07
5.12E-06
HEN-26 Workforce struck/crushed by non-train vehicle
1.91E-06
3.32E-06
HEN-30 Workforce electric shock (conductor rail)
2.11E-06
9.60E-07
8.87E-06
1.09E-06
HEN-31 Workforce electric shock (OHLE)
1.91E-06
8.68E-07
5.76E-06
1.31E-06
HEN-33 Workforce affected by fumes/smoke/asphyxiation/drowning
7.03E-07
3.19E-07
1.72E-06
7.95E-07
4.38E-06
HEN-35 Workforce involved in road traffic accident whilst on duty
2.62E-06
1.19E-06
3.64E-06
6.67E-07
4.48E-06
1.78E-07
8.08E-08
1.06E-08
2.72E-06
2.23E-06
HEN-64 Passenger assault
HEN-65 Workforce assault
Version 7.1 — August 2011
2.91E-07
161
Appendix E. Modelling Approach
E.1.
Normaliser data
The values shown in Table 19 have been used to normalise data in SRMv7.
Table 19: Normaliser data used in SRMv7
Normaliser
SRMv6 value
SRMv7 value
Comments
Total
533,908,519
557,159,839
Source: NR’s Track Access Billing System
(TABS) database (2010).
Passenger
trains
452,901,284
488,217,472
SRMv7 figure uses the 2010 figure.
Nonpassenger
trains
81,007,235
68,942,367
Freight trains
55,873,430
Source: TABS database (2010).
Includes freight, ECS and parcels trains.
45,839,064
Source: TABS database (2010).
Excludes parcels trains.
ECS
Train kilometres per year
Parcels
trains
24,809,522
22,379,008
Source: TABS database (2010).
324,283
724,295
Source: TABS database (2010).
DB Schenker took over the contract in June
2010. It has been assumed that they also
took over the Class 325s previously used by
EWS and this is why there has been an
increase in this figure.
Freight trains
on freight
only lines
3,618,898
Freight trains
on
passenger
lines
52,254,533
EMU
209,296,893
223,086,636
HST/DEMU
26,021,377
66,569,261
ELOCO
17,791,123
18,479,946
DMU
198,739,348
177,303,723
1,052,543
2,777,905
DLOCO
2,968,976
Source: TABS database (2010) and
ACTRAFF (2003).
6.48% of freight train km assumed to be on
freight only lines.
42,870,087
Source: TABS database (2010) and
ACTRAFF (2003).
93.52% of freight train km assumed to be on
passenger lines.
Source: TABS database (2010).
The proportions of rolling stock from the first
16 weeks from April 2010 were used to
estimate the total over the whole of 2010.
The large change in HST/DEMU km is due
to a change in assumptions. Modern diesel
HST were previously classified as DMUs
(Class 220, 221 and 222), but are now
considered to be HSTs. In addition, Grand
Central now run Class 43s, which are
classed as HST.
The increase in DLOCO km is due to the
services run by Wrexham Shropshire
&Marylebone Railway, who are using Class
67s.
162
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Modelling approach
Level crossings
Track metres and stations
Train
passengers
Table 19: Normaliser data used in SRMv7 (cntd)
Normaliser
SRMv6 value
SRMv7 value
Passenger
journeys
per year
1,207,029,185
1,236,846,514
Passenger
km per year
48,383,283,048
50,438,955,405
31,151,000
31,073,000
Source: Network Rail's Annual Return
2010.
2,541
2,531
Cross checks were made between the
stations that NR listed in September
2010 and those that were present for
SRMv6.
Track
metres
Number of
stations
Comments
Source: ORR, National Rail Trends
Yearbook 2009/10 [Ref. 5]. The
SRMv7 number is that for the 2009
calendar year.
Overall there is a reduction. This is
mainly due to the closure of stations in
the Manchester area in preparation for
the new lines. These stations are due
to re-open in 2012.
MCG
191
183
MCB
234
234
MCB+CCT
V
380
391
AHB
452
452
ABCL
48
52
2,395
2,384
88
78
1,624
1,667
UWC+MWL
88
96
UWC
980
883
OC
51
55
AOCL
119
117
AOCR
1
0
FP
FP+MWL
UWC+T
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Source: NR’s level crossing census
(2009).
The major change to the UWCs is due
to the removal of inactive crossings
from the statistics which is believed to
be as a result of surveys conducted to
populate the All Level Crossing Risk
Model (ALCRM).
163
Modelling approach
Table 19: Normaliser data used in SRMv7 (cntd)
Infrastructure workers
Normaliser
SRMv6 value
SRMv7 value
Number of
full-time
equivalent
staff
30,500
30,500
Hours
worked per
year
54,900,000
Comments
Source: NR's timesheet database
(c. 2005).
There is an ongoing initiative
between RSSB and NR to improve
this estimate.
54,900,000
Based on the number of full-time
equivalent infrastructure workers
above.
The working year is assumed to be
40 hours per week for 45 weeks per
year. This estimate has not changed
since SRMv5.
OTP hours
per year
2,261,376
2,129,400
Source: On-track Plant (2009).
Hours/wk per machine is estimated
as 18 hours for 52 weeks/year for
RRVs and RMMMs.
Maintenance
Consideration was also given to
OTMs operating inside possessions.



No. RRVs:
1745
No. RMMMs: 298
No. OTMs: 464
The number of RRVs has declined.
OTM km per
year
164
3,647,733
2,169,120
Source: TABS database (2010),
using non-passenger km operated by
all the maintenance companies.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Modelling approach
E.2.
Significant modelling changes for SRMv7
E.2.1.
Changes to existing HEs and new HEs
There are three main changes to the HEs that have been implemented in SRMv7
Reclassifying HEM-44 as a trespasser event
HEM-44: MOP (trespasser) jump from train in service was previously classified as a
passenger event, however to be consistent with the rest of the SRM it was decided that
these types of incidents be recoded as trespasser events.
Awkward movement events
HEN-82: Workforce awkward movement injury and HEN-83: Passenger awkward movement
injury have been created to account for the risk from awkward movement12 to passengers
and the workforce on the rail network. While this type of risk is primarily related to
occupational health and safety, it does however concern injuries that are inflicted in the use
and operation of the rail network.
Witnessing a traumatic event incidents
HEM-50: Witnessing a traumatic event (movement) and HEN-70: Witnessing a traumatic
event (non-movement) have been created to account for the risk from witnessing a traumatic
event that occurs on the rail network. Some examples are: driver suffering shock from
experiencing a SPAD; and workforce suffering shock due to witnessing a near miss.
E.2.2.
RSSB RIDDOR review and its affect on the SRM
In 2010 RSSB was commissioned by Network Rail to undertake an independent review of
compliance with The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences
Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) by Network Rail staff and its contractors. This followed initial
concerns by the ORR about the number of lost time injuries reported when compared to the
total number of major injuries being reported. The review concluded that there were events
within the Safety Management Information System (and hence in the SRM data) that had
been allocated the wrong injury classification, and that there were further minor injury events
that had not been reported at all. The injury classification changes have all been
incorporated into the version 6.5 and version 7 modelling and are accounted for in the risk
estimates. However, the under-reported events have not. An estimate of the likely extent of
under-reporting has been made and a risk contribution has been added to the final overall
figures (indicated by numbers in square brackets [ ] after risk figures). It will never be
possible to explicitly include these under-reported minor injury events into the SRM as the
estimation of industry under-reporting cannot be broken down and allocated at the HE or
precursor level.
Based on the estimated level of under-reporting agreed with Network Rail, for SRMv6.5 an
additional contribution of 0.463 FWI per year has been added to the overall workforce risk to
account for the under-reported RIDDOR-reportable minor injury events. For SRMv7 an
12
Awkward movement is defined as an injury caused by a body movement, eg twisting or stretching, which is
received in the course of carrying out normal everyday activities. It excludes any injuries received from lifting or
carrying objects or other injuries received where a direct cause external to the injured party can be attributed.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
165
Modelling approach
additional contribution of 0.663 per year FWI has been added to the overall workforce risk to
account for the under-reported RIDDOR-reportable minor injury events.
E.2.3.
Inclusion of buses being struck by trains in the level crossing models
(HET-10 & HET-11)
The level crossing models now explicitly include the consequences from a train hitting a bus.
This outcome was previously not explicitly modelled, but recognised as a plausible accident
scenario. The entire set of consequences across the level crossing collision models have
now been reassessed to take this into account.
E.2.4.
Inclusion of frangible decking in the buffer stop model (HET-09)
The buffer stop collision models have been updated to include the risk from frangible
decking that has recently been installed on the network at some terminal stations. This
allows passengers to be present in locations that were previously inaccessible behind the
buffer stops. This has resulted in a slight increase in the overall risk associated with buffer
stops.
E.2.5.
Modelling of higher-speed permissive working collisions (HET-06)
and assisting train collisions (HET-26)
The consequences from permissive working collisions and assisting train collisions have
been refined so as be consistent with the consequences from the train collision models.
Previously the consequences from these models were linked to the consequences from
HET-09 (buffer stop collisions).
E.2.6.
Modelling infrastructure worker struck/crushed by train (HEM-19)
A workshop was held to update the frequency estimations and expert judgment used in the
HEM-19 model. This resulted in a more credible list of precursors and proportioning factors
for frequency estimation than was used in SRMv6. The consequences of a multiple-fatality
event were also re-evaluated to take account of the fact that there may be other injuries than
fatalities in such events and the SRM now considers this.
E.3.
Analysing trends in consequences
As part of the update to SRMv7, the methodology used to assess the consequences in the
HEM and HEN models was reviewed. The SRM has now been in existence for over ten
years and the associated SMIS data used to populate the model now represents a
significant amount of information on which to conduct statistical analyses.
It has recently been noted that some HEs are displaying increasing/decreasing trends in
their average consequences per observed event per year. In order to account for these
trends in the SRM consequence analysis, care must be taken to ensure that a representative
data period is selected. For example, if there is a decreasing trend over the most recent
three-year period, and a seven-year data period is chosen to calculate the average
consequence, then it is likely that the result will be an over-estimate of the actual
consequence per event.
166
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Modelling approach
For SRMv7 (and the updated analysis done on SRMv6 to produce SRMv6.5) consideration
has been given to ensure that such trends are identified and incorporated into the analysis.
This generally affects HEs for which there is a substantial amount of data (eg the slips, trips
and falls HEs, HEN-14 and HEN-24) as these are the HEs where it is possible to observe
significant trends (if they are present) due to the amount of data available. Chart 31 shows
the number of injuries broken down by injury degree for passenger slip, trip and falls down
stairs. While numbers of major incidents have remained relatively static over time, there has
been an increase in minor incidents (both RIDDOR-reportable and non-RIDDOR-reportable).
This increase is not thought to be a genuine increase in the number of minor incidents
occurring, but a result of better reporting. This means that taking a longer data period when
looking at the consequences would over-predict the risk, due to the presence of a larger
proportion of major injuries in the data set.
Chart 31: Number of passenger slips, trips and falls down stairs
1000
900
800
Number of injuries
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2001-02
Fatal
E.4.
2002-03
Major
2003-04
2004-05
Minor RIDDOR-rep.
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
Minor non-RIDDOR-rep.
2008-09
2009-10
Shock/trauma
Risk inside possessions
In SRMv6, the scope of HEs which had risk inside possession was widened. This broader
scope has remained the same in SRMv7. The risk inside possessions is a small percentage
of the overall risk on the railway. As with SRMv6, the number of precursors that describes
the inside possession risk have been minimised so that the level of detail for these events is
commensurate with the amount of risk.
Current definitions:

Possession: Includes both possession and protection as defined by the Rule Book
(GE/RT8000).

Train inside possession: A train inside a possession is any self-powered machine
that runs on rails.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
167
Modelling approach

E.4.1.
Inside possession risk: The risk that originates within a possession and therefore
includes events where an action inside the possession affects an adjacent line that is
open to normal traffic.
Train accident risk inside possessions
The original layout of OTP train accident sub-HEs inside possessions, as well as the number
of precursors, has remained the same in SRMv7. The changes that were described in
version 6 of the SRM-RPB have been retained in SRMv7 with no significant alterations to
any other model for train accident precursors.
E.4.2.
Movement accident risk inside possessions
A thorough review has been undertaken of all the movement HEs to identify those HEs that
could occur within a possession and, where relevant, sub-HEs have been added to the main
movement HEs to identify the inside possession risk. Where the risk is to members of the
workforce working within the possession the precursors identify which member of the
workforce is affected:

Train crew (driver): The person driving the vehicle.

Train crew (other): Any other person who has a task on board the train, eg the train
guard.

Infrastructure worker: any member of the workforce whose role is primarily based
outside on the track rather than the vehicle, eg track maintenance personnel.
E.4.3.
Non-movement accident risk inside possessions
Like with SRMv6, there are no specific sub-HEs which describe the non-movement accident
risk inside possessions and all non-movement precursors have been tagged in Appendix B
to identify what proportion of the risk occurs inside possessions.
The method for determining the HEN possession splits was based on an assessment of
what proportion of the incident data in each HE precursor, and each workforce type, is in a
possession. The default figure for infrastructure workers is 80%, based on several previous
assessments of the proportion of time a infrastructure worker spends inside a possession
during their normal working day. For train crew, none were considered to be in possession,
unless the data indicated otherwise. For train drivers, depending on the precursor location,
a default 1% figure was applied using a calculation of OTM kilometres over total train
kilometres. For other workforce, assessments were undertaken for each precursor
separately.
168
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Modelling approach
E.4.4.
Possession risk figures
Table 20 presents the comparison of the breakdown in possession risk between SRMv6 and
SRMv7.
Table 20: Possession risk for SRMv6 and v7
Hazardous event group
National average POS
frequency (events/year)
National average POS risk
(FWI/year)
SRMv6
SRMv7
SRMv6
SRMv7
Train accidents (HETs)
64
69.5
0.25
0.279
Movement accidents (HEMs)
13
12.1
1.24
1.16
Non-movement accidents (HENs)
1299
1110
8.41
7.13
Total
1376
1192
9.9
8.57
The full detailed list of possession risk separated for each relevant HE in SRMv7 is shown in
Table 21, Table 22 and Table 23 below.
Table 21: Possession risk for all train accidents (HETs) in SRMv7
Sub-hazardous event
National frequency
(events/yr)
Risk contribution
(FWI/year)
v6
v7
v6
v7
HET-02NP POS: Collision between OTP and
passenger train resulting from OTP incorrectly
outside possession
0.05
0.05
0.046
0.046
HET-03 POS: Collisions between trains inside
possession (including OTP)
6.74
5.67
0.0336
0.030
HET-04 POS: Collision of train with object inside
possession (not resulting in derailment)
14.82
21.40
0.0114
0.0069
HET-09 POS: Train collision with buffer stops:
OTP inside possession
0.133
0.133
0.00055
0.00055
HET-11 POS: OTP collision with road vehicle on
level crossing inside possession
0.136
0.120
0.022
0.020
HET-13 POS: Derailment of train inside
possession (including OTP)
40.94
39.81
0.130
0.170
HET-20 POS:Fire on OTP inside possession
1.60
2.33
0.0050
0.0072
HET-21 POS: OTP crushed by structural collapse
or large object inside possession (not at a station)
0.000005
0.000008
0.000003
0.000005
HET subtotal
64.4
69.5
0.249
0.279
Version 7.1 — August 2011
169
Modelling approach
Table 22: Possession risk for all movement accidents (HEMs) in SRMv7
Sub-hazardous event
National frequency
(events/yr)
Risk contribution
(FWI/year)
v6
v7
v6
v7
HEM-10 POS: Passenger on platform struck by /
contact with train inside possession
0.0062
0.0039
0.00048
0.00030
HEM-11 POS: Passenger struck/crushed by train
while crossing the track at or near a station on a
crossing inside possession
0.00076
0.00060
0.00062
0.00048
HEM-12 POS: MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by
train while on track at a station inside possession
0.0035
0.0067
0.0024
0.0049
HEM-14 POS: Workforce (not infrastructure worker)
struck/crushed by train inside possession
0.173
0.0639
0.134
0.0389
HEM-15 POS: Workforce fall from moving train
inside possession
1.80
0.429
0.212
0.159
HEM-16 POS: Workforce injury while
boarding/alighting train inside possession
5.095
5.600
0.025
0.029
HEM-17 POS: Workforce struck while leaning out of
train inside possession
0.143
0.146
0.00075
0.0011
HEM-19 POS: Infrastructure worker struck/crushed
by train in motion inside possession
1.88
1.97
0.815
0.889
HEM-20 POS: Workforce inside possession struck
by flying object disturbed by or thrown up from
passing train
1.44
2.37
0.0107
0.029
HEM-21 POS: Workforce fall between stationary
train and platform inside possession
0.165
0.121
0.0008
0.0006
HEM-23 POS: Train door closes on workforce inside
possession
1.70
1.25
0.0050
0.004
HEM-25 POS: MOP (trespasser) struck/crushed by
train while on railway infrastructure inside
possession not at a station
0.064
0.012
0.0250
0.0052
HEM-27 POS: MOP (non-trespasser) pedestrian or
cyclist/motorcyclist struck/crushed by train on level
crossing inside possession
0.0061
0.0027
0.0050
0.0022
HEM-30 POS: MOP (trespasser) fall while on
exterior of train inside possession
0.0029
0.00037
0.00054
0.000074
HEM-32 POS: MOP (non-trespasser) outside railway
infrastructure struck by objects thrown from
operations on railway infrastructure inside
possession
0.400
0.00047
0.0010
0.000006
HEM-39 POS: Workforce injury due to sudden train
movement inside possession
0.143
0.111
0.00038
0.00025
170
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Modelling approach
Table 22: Possession risk for all movement accidents (HEMs) in SRMv7 (cntd)
Sub-hazardous event
HEM-40 POS: MOP (non-trespasser) struck by /
contact with moving train due to being too close to
platform edge inside possession
HEM subtotal
National frequency
(events/yr)
Risk contribution
(FWI/year)
v6
v7
v6
v7
0.00069
0.00039
0.00013
0.00007
13.02
12.09
1.24
1.16
The percentage splits determined for the HENs are shown together with the actual POS risk
values in Table 23. The split percentage is the proportion of the overall risk for that HEN that
has been ascribed to POS risk. The subsequent frequency and risk values are the
proportioned values. HEN-82 is a new precursor created for SRMv7 and so was not
included in the analysis (of OTP risk) in SRMv6 and these fields appear blank in the SRMv6
columns.
Table 23: Possession risk for all non-movement accidents (HENs) in SRMv7
Sub-hazardous event
Frequency
percentage
National
frequency
(events/yr)
Risk
contribution
(FWI/year)
v6
v7
v6
v7
v6
v7
HEN-01 POS: Exposure to a fire on railway
infrastructure not at a station
75%
68%
1.93
1.73
0.015
0.01
HEN-04 POS: Exposure to explosion on railway
infrastructure
80%
80%
0.46
0.80
0.02
0.03
HEN-21 POS: Workforce struck/crushed by
structural collapse or large object
79%
72%
90.0
9.17
1.43
0.31
HEN-22 POS: Workforce trapped in machinery
90%
88%
6.70
5.53
0.18
0.05
HEN-23 POS: Workforce struck by / contact with /
trapped in object at a station
7%
7%
38.2
41.6
0.077
0.10
HEN-24 POS: Workforce slip, trip or fall <2m
46%
43%
483
385
3.1
2.58
HEN-25 POS: Workforce slip, trip or fall >2m
65%
62%
11.7
10.54
0.385
0.40
HEN-26 POS: Workforce struck/crushed by nontrain vehicle
56%
50%
7.85
4.98
0.18
0.12
HEN-27 POS: Workforce scalds or burns due to
contact with hot object (not on train)
56%
60%
19.7
20.37
0.038
0.04
HEN-28 POS: Workforce observes electrical arcing
71%
54%
5.05
2.52
0.07
0.05
HEN-29 POS: Workforce exposure to hazardous
substances (including stings, bites and needle
injuries)
41%
45%
31.7
34.08
0.07
0.07
Version 7.0 — June 2011
171
Modelling Approach
Table 23: Possession risk for all non-movement accidents (HENs) in SRMv7 (cntd)
Frequency
percentage
National
frequency
(events/yr)
v6
v7
v6
v7
v6
v7
HEN-30 POS: Workforce electric shock (conductor
rail)
71%
79%
3.28
3.02
0.41
0.31
HEN-31 POS: Workforce electric shock (OHLE)
93%
85%
1.59
1.1
0.12
0.22
HEN-32 POS: Workforce electric shock (nontraction supply)
28%
29%
2.84
2.85
0.019
0.01
HEN-33 POS: Workforce affected by fumes /
smoke asphyxiation / drowning
86%
42%
0.16
1.04
0.056
0.07
HEN-35 POS: Workforce involved in road traffic
accident whilst on duty
13%
12%
3.65
7.22
0.047
0.09
HEN-56 POS: Workforce struck by / contact with /
trapped in object not at a station
76%
80%
429
442
1.83
2.32
HEN-60 POS: Workforce exposure to noise (not on
train)
28%
22%
0.87
0.63
0.001 0.0007
HEN-63 POS: Workforce on-train incident
(excluding sudden train movement & assaults)
0.8%
0.7%
9.89
8.02
0.021
0.015
HEN-65 POS: Workforce assault
0%
0.4%
7.64
3.97
0.014
0.008
HEN-74 POS: Workforce manual handling
31%
26%
145
103.7
0.33
0.25
-
18%
-
20.53
-
0.07
11%
10%
1299
1110
8.41
7.13
Sub-hazardous event
HEN-82 POS: Workforce awkward movement
injury*
HEN subtotal
Risk
contribution
(FWI/year)
* HEN-82 POS was not calculated in SRMv6 as it is a new HE in SRMv7.
172
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Appendix F. Key Assumptions and Hazardous Event
Definitions
F.1.
Key assumptions
Table 24 describes the assumptions used in the analysis for SRMv7. Normalisation data for
SRMv7 can be found in Appendix E.1.
Table 24: Key modelling assumptions in the SRM
Assumptions
1. Train accident (HET) event frequencies are calculated based on all recorded incidents,
irrespective of injury, whereas movement and non-movement (HEM and HEN) event
frequencies are only based on incidents that resulted in an injury to a person.
2. An average day has been divided into:



Night:
0000–0600 hrs.
Peak:
0700–1000 and 1600–1900 hrs.
Off-peak: 0600–0700, 1000–1600 and 1900–0000 hrs.
25% of peak trains are assumed to be crush loaded.
3. Average train distributions:



Night:
0.6 PTs and 0.4 NPTs per hour.
Peak:
5 PTs and 0.05 NPTs per hour.
Off-peak: 2 PTs and 0.38 NPTs per hour.
4. Average passenger loadings per train:




Night-loaded train:
2 passengers per carriage.
Peak-loaded train:
50 passengers per carriage.
Off-peak-loaded train: 10 passengers per carriage.
Crush-loaded train: 90 passengers per carriage.
Consequences are based on a five car train with 350 passengers when fully-loaded.
5. Average passenger train loadings are calculated using assumptions 2 and 3, as well as an
assumed proportion of passenger loadings at each time of day:




11% of all PTs are night loaded.
63% of all PTs are off-peak loaded.
19.5% of all PTs are peak loaded.
6.5% of all PTs are crush loaded.
6. Average train crew:




Passenger trains:
Freight, ECS & parcels trains:
OTMs/RRVs:
Small Plant Vehicles:
a driver and a guard.
a driver.
two operators.
four operators.
7. The frequency of train accidents at stations and in tunnels is based upon their respective
proportions of overall length compared with total track kilometres. The length of each platform is
assumed to be 200m.
8. Average infrastructure worker hours are 80% inside possessions and 20% outside.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
173
Key Assumptions
F.2.
Hazardous event definitions
Full descriptions of all HEs and precursors used in the SRM will be made available from
RSSB via the RSSB Rail Risk Portal www.safetyriskmodel.co.uk.
These definitions are currently in production and will be made available in a suitable format
once complete, anticipated to be sometime in late 2011.
174
Version 7.1 — August 2011
Appendix G. SRM Scope
G.1.
Scope definition
The SRM includes the safety risk from incidents which could occur during the operation and
maintenance of the mainline railway. These incidents are listed in Table A of GE/RT8047
Reporting of Safety Related Information [Ref. 10].
The extent of the railway infrastructure in question is defined below in Table 25.
Table 25: Scope of the railway infrastructure
Includes
Excludes
The sections of the
operational
railway13 which are
managed or
operated by
Network Rail.

Any assets,
structures, stations
and YD&S
associated with the
above.









Station car parks.
Offices (except areas normally accessible by MOP).
Mess rooms.
Training centres.
IECCs/SCCs.
Outside of the entrance to stations.
Station toilets.
Retail units and concessions in stations.
Construction sites which are completely segregated from the public areas.
Track sections closed for long term construction, maintenance, renewal or
upgrade.
This defines the physical boundary of the SRM. Any incidents which occur inside this
boundary, and are listed in GE/RT8047, are included in the SRM. Conversely, any incidents
outside this boundary are excluded from the SRM.
The exceptions to this rule are listed below in Table 26.
Table 26: Exceptions to the physical boundary of the SRM
Inclusions Outside the SRM Boundary


Injuries to people which are directly caused by
operations or maintenance inside the boundary.
Injuries to railway staff who are on duty and travelling
between sites, except if their destination is one of the
excluded areas in Table 25 (eg an office).14
Exclusions Inside the SRM Boundary


Long-term occupational health issues.
Terrorist activity.
13
The operational railway includes all lines for which the IM & RU have been granted a safety authorisation &
certificate respectively by the ORR (under European Safety Directive 2004/49/EC [Ref. 15]). This provides
evidence that there is a suitable SMS in place, and that operations are being conducted in accordance with that
SMS.
14
For instance, this would include delivery of goods to a trackside location, but exclude travel to a training
centre.
Version 7.1 — August 2011
175
SRM Scope
G.2.
Railway lines in scope
The SRM only includes railway lines which are managed and/or operated by Network Rail.
Table 27 contains examples of some commonly-queried lines (and sections of lines), along
with the reason for their inclusion or exclusion.
Table 27: Railway lines in and out of scope of the SRM
Notes
NR operates
the signalling?
Line / Section
Managed by
NR?
Criteria
In /
Out of
Scope
High Speed 1
The entire line, including St Pancras,
is managed, operated and
maintained by NR.


In
Heathrow Express:
Paddington to Heathrow Central
NR-owned infrastructure.


In
Heathrow Express:
Heathrow Central to Terminals 4
and 5
Owned by BAA but maintained on
their behalf by NR.


In
Nexus — Tyne and Wear Metro:
Fellgate to South Hylton
Owned and managed by NR.


In
Nexus — Tyne and Wear Metro:
All sections apart from Fellgate to
South Hylton
Neither managed by NR, nor is the
signalling controlled by NR.


Out
LUL Metropolitan Line:
Chiltern services between Harrowon-the-Hill and Amersham
This section is owned and operated
by LUL and its subsidiaries /
operators.


Out
LUL District Line:
Gunnersbury to Richmond
This section was a joint operation
with Silverlink Metro, for which NR is
now responsible.


In
LUL District Line:
East Putney to Southfields
LUL owns the infrastructure. NR
owns the signals, but the signalling is
operated by LUL.


Out
LUL Bakerloo Line:
Services north of Queens Park
Track managed by NR, who also
operates the signalling.


In
Island Line on the Isle of Wight
The service is wholly operated and
managed under a franchise to South
West Trains.


Out
East London Line
TfL owns and maintains the track, but
NR operates the signalling.


In
176
Version 7.1 — August 2011