Assessment of measures
Potential new measures, or extended scope of existing measures
Terje Andersen / Gavin Astin
29 September 2011
Agenda
1. Background
2. Assessment
Methodology
3. Measure
Effectiveness
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
2
Measures Identification
 Consultation with railway industry.
 Network statements.
Country
RUs / Wagon
Owner
IMs
Country
RUs / Wagon
Owner
 Internet research.
Austria
Yes
Yes
Luxembourg
Yes
Yes
Macedonia
 Additional input:
Bulgaria
Yes
CER
Yes
- NSAs.
- Suppliers.
Belgium
Netherlands
IMs
Yes
Yes
Norway
Croatia
Yes
Poland
Yes
Czech Republic
Yes
Portugal
Yes
Yes
Romania
Denmark
Yes
Estonia
Finland
Yes
France
Germany
Slovakia
Yes
Yes
Slovenia
Yes
Yes
Spain
Yes
Sweden
Yes
Switzerland
Yes
Yes
Greece
Hungary
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Turkey
Ireland
UIP
Yes
Italy
UNIFE
Yes
Yes
Japan
United Kingdom
Yes
Yes
United States
Yes
Yes
Latvia
Yes
Yes
Lithuania
Yes
Yes
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
3
Some Background and Novel Approaches
 Consultation:
- More than 60 measures in our database.
- In addition, many 100s / 1000s of national rules, company standards etc.
- Different approaches in Member States, ranging from reliance on organisational measures
through to fully integrated wayside detectors and continuous monitoring.
 Some extracts:
-
Balance on wagons to help identify loading errors.
Heat sensitive paints to help diagnose hot axle box conditions.
Registered loading inspectors / personnel.
Harmless infrastructure.
 Important longer term considerations:
- Data and information sharing.
- Telematics / wagon identification.
 Industry challenge is to find common ground for harmonisation amongst these different
approaches.
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
4
Existing preventive measures to reduce Infrastructure caused
derailments (1)
 Improved inspection routines:
- Timely maintenance follow-up of inspection results.
 Upgrade weak infrastructure to match present axle loads:
- Freight only lines are today used for loading conditions far exceeding their design standard.
 Stricter and more harmonised track geometry requirements to account for
international traffic.
 Move signals which may show stop aspect away from track sections with geometry
not suitable for low speed braking or acceleration, or adjust track geometry to train
operating conditions. Examples:
- Avoid signals that can show stop aspect behind small radius curves with high cant.
- Alternatively redesign track geometry or install check rails.
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
5
Excessive track twist
 Picture shows a train on a track in UK that
caused derailment due to excessive track
twist.
 Track twist restriction area by draft TSI for
Conventional Rail Infrastructure for curves
with R< 420 m.
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
6
Existing preventive measures to reduce Infrastructure caused
derailments (2)
 Greasing of track curves.
 Interlocking of points to avoid operation while occupied by rolling stock:
- Mainly at stations and shunting yards.
 Increased separation of freight and passenger traffic along different lines and
adjustment of track geometry design to most frequent traffic type.
 Apply ”maintenance free” superstructure design e.g. fixed track/slab track.
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
7
Existing preventive measures to reduce Rolling stock related
derailments
 Measures to avoid Hot Axle Box derailments:
- Wheel load impact detectors to detect faulty wheels giving excessive vibration to bearing.
- Improve bearing design by applying more vibration tolerant components in bearing.
- Track installed detector installations to detect faulty bearings or hot axle boxes:
- Hot axle box detectors.
- Bearing acoustic diagnostic.
 Measures to avoid axle shaft fatigue ruptures:
-
Improved design standards.
Appropriate material selection.
Fault free surface corrosion protection.
Improved in service inspection in order to detect incipient failures.
 Appropriate greasing of bogie pivots and side supports.
 Apply improved suspension design, e.g.. parabolic blade springs instead of
trapezoidal blade springs.
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
8
Rolling stock measures towards wheels and axles
 Exchange brass roller bearings with polyamide roller
cages.
 Evaluate use of composite wheels vs monoblock wheels.
 European Visual Inspection Catalogue for Wheelsets
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
9
Existing preventive measures to reduce Operational related derailments
 Training of operational staff of all types.
 Proper inspection, testing and check of wagons, train prior to departure:
- Improved tools to ensure quality of these activities, e.g. check lists.
 Improved tools to detect overloading, skew loading and/or insufficient fastened load:
- Weighing devices at terminal or along track.
- Visual balances on wagons.
 ATP-system to avoid SPADs and excessive speed across deviated points/turnouts.
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
10
Consequence Mitigation Measures
Category:
M#
Measures and motivation:
Rolling stock
M-1
Derailment detection detectors (valves) to avoid derailed wagons from being
dragged along for long distances.
Equip tank wagons with impact shield to protect tank against penetration (USrequirement also used in Sweden).
Install emergency warning lights on locomotive to warn train on neighbouring track
going in opposite direction.
Attach mechanical guides at the bogie structure or on wagon support at appropriate
position to ensure that a derailed wagon most likely is kept along the track and does
not overturn or become hit by other wagons.
Existing requirement for safety rails (guard rails) at bridges and in tunnels.
Battering rams in front of safety critical pillar supports of roof structures and
overbridges in order to prevent derailed rolling stock damaging such safety critical
structures.
Installation of dragging object and derailment detectors. The detector will detect
both dragging objects and derailments.
Installation of deviation points leading to a safe derailment place in strongly
descending tracks from marshalling yards and train formation stations.
Radio or cell phone communication installations like GSM-R in order to transfer
emergency stop orders to trains.
Separate passenger and freight traffic to separate lines to a larger degree (which is
also EU-policy).
Restrictions on freight traffic in general or hazardous materials transport in special
through certain busy passenger terminals and/or underground stations to restrict
traffic and limit the consequences of a derailment.
Develop and apply a checklist for dangerous goods transport as the Swiss checklist
for dangerous goods transport by freight trains.
Requirement for activating of warning lights in driving end of train.
M-2
M-3
M-4
Infrastructure
M-5
M-6
M-7
M-8
M-9
Operational
M-10
M-11
M-12
M-13
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
11
Agenda
1. Background
2. Assessment
Methodology
3. Measure
Effectiveness
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
12
Assessment Methodology
 We have used qualitative basis for assessment if the following applies:
- They generally offer only small benefit in comparison with other measures, and / or;
- They form part of a suite or measures that can be integrated together (for example a number
of measures identified associated with rolling stock maintenance can be integrated into a
single measure), and / or;
- There is insufficient data to enable a more detailed assessment and therefore there would be
significant uncertainty in the results.
 Otherwise, measures are assessed on a quantified basis.
 Some measures are outside of the project scope and have not been considered.
 Accident causes and preventive measures that are already being addressed by
other projects, such as (such as the Euroaxles project addressing axle shaft
fractures) are also not considered.
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
13
Measures Assessed using a Qualitative Approach
Measure
Number
Description
Time Category
P-9
Interlocking of points operation while track is occupied.
Medium
P-20
Ultrasonic Rail Inspection
Short
P-22
EU-wide intervention/action limits for track twist
Medium
P-23
EU-wide intervention/action limits for track gauge variations
Medium
P-24
EU-wide intervention/action limits for cant variations
Medium
P-25
EU-wide intervention/action limits for height variations and cyclic tops
Medium
P-34
Secure brake gear under frame
Medium
P-35
Regular greasing and checks of rolling stock buffers.
Short
P-36
Wheel set integrity inspection (ultrasonic) programs.
Short
P-39
Double check and signing of safety-classified maintenance operations
Short
P-40
Qualified and registered person responsible for loading
Medium
P-41
Locomotive and first wagons of long freight trains in brake position G
Short
P-42
Limitations on use of brake action in difficult track geometry
Short
P-43
Dynamic brake test on the route
Medium
P-46
Not allowing traffic controllers and drivers to override detector alarms
Short
P-47
Wagons equipped with a balance to detect overload in visual inspection.
Medium
F-2
Awareness program and improved maintenance for Rolling Stock
Short
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
14
Measures Assessed using a Quantified Approach
Measure
Number
Description
Time Category
P-1
Check rail in sharp curves
Medium
P-2
Track lubrication
Medium
P-10
Hot axle box (hot bearing) detectors
Medium
P-12
Hot wheel and hot brake detectors
P-11
Acoustic bearing monitoring equipment
Medium
P-13
Wheel load and wheel impact load detectors / weighing
Medium
P-15
Bogie performance monitoring / Bogie lateral instability detection (bogie hunting)
Medium
P-16
Wheel profile measurement system / Wheel profile monitoring unit
Medium
P-18
Sufficient availability of maintenance resources (for Infrastructure maintenance)
Short
P-21
Track geometry measurement of all tracks
P-19
Clearance of obstructions from flange groove (particularly at level crossings)
Short
P-28
Replace metal roller cages in axle bearings by polyamide roller cages.
Medium
F-6
Anti-lock devices
Medium
F-7
Sliding wheel detectors
Medium
M-1
Derailment Detection applied to; All freight trains; DG wagons; RID proposed
scope
Medium
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
15
Quantified Assessment Parameters
 Considering Sliding Wheel Detectors, we identified about 8 derailments (handbrakes
left on, etc.) that may be detected by these devices. (Existing controls are manual
inspection, local rules and solutions).
 Is the benefit (potentially 8 avoided derailments) a good use of finite resources?
 On the one hand we need to consider the benefit and on the other the resources to
secure that benefit.
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
16
Quantifying these Benefits (avoided Derailments)
 Each derailment has an impact in terms of: Potential loss of life; Operational
disruption; rack damage; Wagon damage; Environmental events (contamination).
Scenario
Immediate severe, DG involvement
Not immediate severe, DG involvement
Immediate severe, no DG involvement
Not immediate severe, no DG involvement
Not severe derailment, safe stop
Track Damage
Wagon Damage
Disruption Costs
Average Km Cost (E/km) # wagons Cost/wagon (E/wagon) Hours disruption Cost/hour (E/hour)
0.5
427746
7
23526
50
16040
5
160405
7
23526
50
16040
0.5
427746
7
12832
50
16040
5
160405
7
12832
50
16040
0.5
32081
2
5347
12
8020
 In addition, the cost model assigns monetised benefits associated with the value of
preventing a fatality or injury (€1.5 million & €200 k respectively).
 Environmental contamination costs about €1,000,000 per event.
 Therefore, preventing an immediately severe DG derailment that leads to loss of
containment and three lives has a cost (at today’s values) of:
- (3 * €1,500,000) + 0.5 * (€427,746) + 7 * (€23,256) + 50 * (€16,040) + €1,000,000 =
€6,678,665.
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
17
Quantifying the Costs
 To our knowledge few Sliding Wheel Detectors installed installation (in Europe).
 Would require installation at major freight origin points – we estimated about 1,300
units would provide good coverage.
 Established the cost to purchase and maintain over measure lifetime.
 Is the investment worthwhile?
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
18
Some Data
Measure
Purchase / Installation
Costs
Annual Maintenance
Cost
Max Potential
Benefit
Measure Effectiveness /
Other Considerations
Net benefit
P-1: Check
Rail
€500 / metre.
Additional maintenance cost of
€5 / metre.
25 avoided
derailments
Assumed 90% effective where
fitted.
23 avoided derailments (6 HSD, 17 LSD)
25 avoided
derailments
Assumed 50% effective
13 avoided derailments (10 LSD, 3 HSD)
60 avoided
derailments
60 * 90% * 99% (99% being
the availability figures for
devices of this type)
53 avoided derailments (12 LSD, 41 HSD)
P-2: Track
Lubrication
P-10 & P-12:
HABD/HWD
Total installation cost for
1,615 km = €807.5 million
€3250 / installation.
Total installation cost for
14,450 units = €47 million
€250k / installation
Total installation cost for
3,530 €882.5 million
Annual additional
maintenance cost €8 million
€3000 / installation (lubricant
top-up)
Annual additional
maintenance cost €43
million
Approx. 30 hours per year
(supplier info)
Annual additional
maintenance cost €5.3
million
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
19
Agenda
1. Background
2. Assessment
Methodology
3. Measure
Effectiveness
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
20
Our Assessment of Derailment Risk Reduction Potential
Measure
P1-Check Rail
P2-Track Lubrication
P10&12-HABD/HWD
P11-BAM
P13-WLID/WIM
P15-Bogie Hunting Detector
P16-Wheel Profile
P18-Track Geometry
P19-Clearance Flange Groove
P28-Roller Cages
F6-Anti Lock Device
F7-Sliding Wheel Detector
M1a-Derail Det All Freight
M1a-Derail Det All DG
M1a-Derail Det RID
Avoided
Avoided Track
Fatalities
Damage (km)
0.16
35
0.09
20
0.47
70
0.41
63
0.59
104
0.29
63
0.14
30
0.36
85
0.04
6
0.29
44
0.17
28
0.06
10
0.96
0.85
0.12
Annual Benefits
Avoided
Avoided
Avoided Wagon
Operation
Environmental
Damage (number) Disruption (hrs)
Events
109
751
3
61
422
2
270
1889
8
240
1673
7
366
2542
10
199
1377
5
95
657
2
280
1941
7
23
164
1
169
1180
6
99
693
3
35
241
1
341
45
9
379
50
10
2881
380
76
17
4
1
Derails
prevented
23
13
53
47
74
42
20
58
4.5
33
20
7
Severe
derailments
saved
76
10
2
 A more comprehensive list of measures and benefits assessment is provided in our
B2 report.
 Relates to damage reduction potential, not cost.
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
21
Discussion
 Assessment relates to the potential for improvement, given the existing status of
measures deployed to prevent derailments.
 Biggest potential for improvement relates to addressing track geometry defects,
improving hot axle box detection and wheel defects.
 Other areas we will consider on a qualitative basis are rolling stock maintenance.
 However measures that do not have such a large benefit can still be efficient if they
are low cost.
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
22
End of Session - Any Questions
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
23
Safeguarding life, property
and the environment
www.dnv.com
Freight train derailment risk model
29 September 2011
24