Development, implementation and use of the All Level Crossing Risk Model (ALCRM) Alan Symons Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Great Britain

Transcription

1 Development, implementation and use of the All Level Crossing Risk Model (ALCRM) Alan Symons Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Great Britain 1

2 Level Crossing Facts (Great Britain) Over 7000 in active use Around 1500 on public roads Four main types of vehicular crossing on public roads: full barrier half barrier open crossing with lights open crossing without lights Majority on private land e.g. farms footpaths bridleways user-worked crossings Over 60 different types Each one is unique! 2

3 Physically Prevented From Crossing Locked gate can only be unlocked by station staff Barriers lowered by Signaller prevent vehicles crossing 3

4 Users Advised Not To Cross Lights advise users when not to cross Barriers prevent vehicles crossing but pedestrians need to observe lights and warning sound 4

5 Users Request Permission To Cross Crossing user telephones Signaller to request permission to cross 5

6 Users Decides When It Is Safe To Cross User looks and listens for trains then chooses when to cross 6

7 Level Crossing Risk Facts Designed to be safe if used correctly If NOT used correctly they can be dangerous Over 90% of accidents/incidents caused by user misuse in the form of: Error Violations/abuse 7

8 Level Crossing Risk Figures Average of 2 to 3 vehicle occupant fatalities per year Average of 7 pedestrian fatalities per year High consequence events are rare BUT the potential exists! 8

9 But which of the 7000 present the greatest risk? 9

10 Introducing the All Level Crossing Model 10

11 Risk Assessment before the ALCRM Spreadsheet-based but only modelled automatic level crossings Remainder were risk assessed using simple scoring system or qualitatively Records held locally, no national picture Not able to identify practicable risk reduction measures easily 11

12 What does the ALCRM do? (1) Launched on 12 January 2007 Provides a single means of understanding the relative risk presented by each crossing on the network Provides a standard means for collecting, storing and recalling data on individual level crossing features Data held at a national level Permits the consideration of different risk reduction solutions such that the most appropriate can be selected 12

13 What does the ALCRM do? (2) The model is used to determine the predictive level of Collective risk Individual risk Therefore, helps evaluate risk reduction options against the legal requirement to reduce risk so far as is reasonably practicable 13

14 In Context The model is part of Network Rail s broader risk management of level crossings Like any risk assessment, the model should be used to support and inform not make - decisions regarding suitability of risk, and selection of risk mitigation measures The results of the model must be used alongside sound engineering judgment and local knowledge 14

15 How Does The ALCRM Work? ALCRM Site Survey Survey Details Portal Access Risk Reports Risk Too High? Oracle Database 15

16 Risk Assessment Periodicity Every three years Annual census for public road crossings Other triggers for more frequent assessment: significant timetable change substantial (10%) increase in road traffic following instance of misuse, near miss or accident at the evaluation stage for new level crossings, proposed renewal or alteration to protection type planning proposals consultations that indicate substantial change in traffic volumes, patterns or speeds significant change in environment on approach to crossing following formal expression of concern by Network Rail, Train Operator or highway authority 16

17 Data Inputs Around 200 items of data are collected from a site visit, principle ones include: crossing name/type/geographic location frequency/speed/type/length of trains frequency/type/familiarity of crossing users physical aspects relating to the crossing particularly those that can affect its safety such as sighting distances, type of surface, number of lines or direction in relation to the sun physical features in proximity to the crossing that could affect the consequences of train derailment e.g. tunnel, viaduct, station, points factors that indicate a higher likelihood of misuse or violation (e.g. known problems, recent accident) 17

18 ALCRM Outputs (1) For each crossing the ALCRM is able to calculate: the Collective Risk to the exposed populations (i.e. the user and anyone else involved as a result of any accident such as passengers/staff on trains) this is expressed in Fatalities & Weighted Injuries (FWI) per annum (where 1 fatality = 10 major injuries = 200 minor injuries) the Individual Risk to the user this expressed as a probability of a fatality per year based on an average user traversing the crossing 500 times in one year (e.g. 1 in 240,000) the apportionment of both Collective and Individual Risk across the types of users and also the risk to passengers and staff on the train 18

19 ALCRM Outputs (2) The ALCRM output also includes: a list of the key factors that influence the risk score, known as key risk drivers (e.g. poor sighting time, large number of users, use by Heavy Goods Vehicles) a risk categorisation to simplify understanding based on a scale of: 1 (high) to 13 (low) for Collective Risk A (high) to M (low) for Individual Risk e.g. a crossing with a risk score of B2 is a higher risk crossing whilst a crossing with a risk score of L11 is a lower risk crossing 19

20 Using the Results ( Optioneering ) All crossings will ultimately undergo an optioneering exercise to identify potential risk migration options Initially effort is being concentrated towards those crossings that present greater risk i.e. Collective Risk ranking of 1, 2 or 3 When complete focus will move onto those with a Collective Risk ranking of 4 or 5 or an Individual Risk ranking of A, B or C 20

21 Using the Results ( Optioneering ) Site visit to determine potential mitigation options There is a web-based Level Crossing Risk Management Toolkit to assist Use ALCRM to determine safety benefit from option Cost Benefit Analysis to determine whether there is a business case for each option 21

22 Progress With Population 22

23 What are we learning? 23

24 Case Study Quay Ward No2:- User Worked Crossing Collective Risk ranking of 4 (medium risk) equating to FWI per annum. ALCRM used to model options at crossing 1. Move Gates 2. Move Gates and additional signage 3. Close ALCRM demonstrated it would be cost effective to select mitigation option 2 as it would provide a 33,000 safety benefit compared to the cost of 12,400 of moving the gates and providing additional signage Safety benefit : cost ratio of 2.66 : 1 24

25 Example of Other Benefits Map produced using data extracted from the ALCRM, and geospatial mapping software showing the location of crossings that are abused and their risk ranking Map will inform team who manage the Don t Run The Risk level crossing public safety campaign where best to target investment in television, radio and newspaper features/adverts 25

26 Looking Forward Continuing to monitor population and optioneering to confirm compliance Initial calibration of model to align closer with the Industry Safety Risk Model (SRM) Enhancement proposals being evaluated/progressed by ALCRM Change Control Panel meets 4 weekly Handheld PC data collection (Summer 09) 26

27 Thank you for listening 27