Network Rail (Essex and Others Level Crossing Reduction) Order

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

Our Approach to Managing Level Crossing Safety Our Policy

Adjustment of the Night Time Quiet Period (NTQP) - Dec 2016

Thank you for your of 10th June 2018, in which you requested the following information:

Fatal Accidents Involving Roadway Workers-In-Charge and Lone Workers

Road Traffic Collision Data

Module T7. Safe systems of work when walking or working on or near the line. Withdrawn Document Uncontrolled When Printed. GE/RT T7 Rule Book

Up side crossing approach

MYTH-BUSTING IN MELBOURNE Left-turn Vehicle vs. Pedestrian Crashes At Signalised Intersections

WRITTEN PROOF OF EVIDENCE BY THE NFU FOR D and V ROBERTS, THORPE PARK FARM.

PRESSURE SYSTEMS POLICY

TRAFFIC STUDY GUIDELINES Clarksville Street Department

Traffic Calming Policy

Road Safety in Radyr and Morganstown: the Community Council's response to Cardiff Council's draft scheme layout for highway improvements

THE PROPOSED NETWORK RAIL (ESSEX AND OTHERS LEVEL CROSSING REDUCTION) ORDER DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT REFERENCE: TWA/17/APP/05

Triple Tine Mechanical Grapple

Cycle traffic and the Strategic Road Network. Sandra Brown, Team Leader, Safer Roads- Design

LEVEL CROSSING SIGHTING DISTANCES

THE WIVENHOE SOCIETY

Standards of Practice Personal Protective Equipment

The Corporation of the City of Sarnia. School Crossing Guard Warrant Policy

Work Health and Safety Risk Management Procedures

NMT SAFE STUDY APPROACH

Sharing practice: OEM prescribed maintenance. Peter Kohler / Andy Webb

A study on the relation between safety analysis process and system engineering process of train control system

Withdrawn Document Uncontrolled When Printed. Railway Group Standard : GO/RT3000 Title of Rule Book : Master SECTION D

Tonight is for you. Learn everything you can. Share all your ideas.

Control of Vibration at Work

ESSENTIAL SAFETY RESOURCES

THE PROPOSED NETWORK RAIL (ESSEX AND OTHERS LEVEL CROSSING REDUCTION) ORDER DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT REFERENCE: TWA/17/APP/05

Display Boards Including Five Refined Design Concepts

Section J. How to develop safety elements for project safety management system. How to develop safety elements for project SMS

A5.1 Permitted activities

DESIGN CODE. Enterprise West Harlow London Road North Design Code 21

National Standard for Cycle Training - NSI

Re The Network Rail (Cambridgeshire Level Crossing Reduction) Order. Opening Statement on Behalf of the Ramblers Association

4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.1 ROAD SAFETY

HUMAN FACTORS CHECKLIST

Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections

GM/GN2646. Guidance on Axle Bearing Maintenance. Issue One: March 2011 Rail Industry Guidance Note for GM/RT2004 Issue Four

LEA BRIDGE ROAD - A STREET FOR EVERYONE Public consultation document

Safe Work Method Statement

1. What is the top priority when working on Canadian Pacific (CP) property? 2. When working on CP property what must all Contractors comply with?

Recommendations for the Risk Assessment of Buffer Stops and End Impact Walls

QUARTERLY REPORT July - September Quarter SERIES NO. SDT:

THE PROPOSED NETWORK RAIL (ESSEX AND OTHERS LEVEL CROSSING REDUCTION) ORDER DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT REFERENCE: TWA/17/APP/05

TRAVEL PLAN: CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRAVEL PLAN. Central European University Campus Redevelopment Project.

To: The results of these surveys have been analysed and are summarised within this Technical Note.

QLDC Council 29 October Report for Agenda Item: 3

CIRCULAR NO. O-13. Recommended Practices for Manual Protection of Highway/Railway Grade Crossings

Marchmont Cricket Club. Health and Safety Policy Statement

Development of Arlington County s Marked Crosswalk Guidelines. Jon Lawler, P.E. Design Engineer Arlington County, VA

A127/A130 Fairglen Interchange Improvement Schemes. Information Leaflet February 2017

Cranes and Hoists. Elevating Work Platforms ASSESSMENT

Safe Work Method Statement

Vessel Code of Practice

Safety Assessment Grade Crossing. Executive Summary ENCLOSURE 1

A vision-led long-term strategy to improve safety at level crossings on Great Britain s railways

LIVERPOOL TRANSPORTATION MODELING TECHNICAL MEMO MAY 2009

Status Date Prepared Reviewed Endorsed Approved

Deviation from a Railway Group Standard

The Rower Traffic Management Scheme

RISK ASSESSMENT: Education Directorate - basic guidance

PHASE 1 WIND STUDIES REPORT

HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT POLICY Harmer Street Gravesend Kent DA12 2AX

Swimming Competition Events

Table of Contents. I. Introduction 1. II. Elements of the School Crossing Program 1

TUDOR PARK EDUCATION TRUST. Working at Heights and Risk Assessment

PRO Lifting Operations

5. RUNNINGWAY GUIDELINES

Standards of Practice Emergency Shower/Eyewash Installation, Use, Testing & Maintenance

ATOC Guidance Note- Investigation of Station Stopping Incidents

OKLAHOMA SCHOOL BUS DRIVER MANUAL TRAINING MANUAL FOR OKLAHOMA SCHOOL BUS DRIVER CERTIFICATION

Vision Zero High Injury Network Methodology

RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSING CHECKLIST Road Safety Review of Railway Crossings

ROSEE RSA/RSI Introduction courses ROSEE Speed Management courses

WEST AVENUE AND NEW ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY PART III WEST AVENUE CLOSURE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Eastern Pennsylvania Soccer Association National Cup Policies and Guidelines

Accident Precursor Monitoring in Metro Railways

Transportation Consultants. Construction Consultants PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON LAND AT WILBURTON ROAD, HADDENHAM TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

Safety, Health and Environment Angler Safety

Reduction of Speed Limit at Approaches to Railway Level Crossings in WA. Main Roads WA. Presenter - Brian Kidd

Collision Site Investigation - Bodenham By-Pass Background

Essential Standard No. 16. Streetworks - Short duration static works carried out from a vehicle

TYPES OF CYCLING. Figure 1: Types of Cycling by Gender (Actual) Figure 2: Types of Cycling by Gender (%) 65% Chi-squared significance test results 65%

Operating Manual for the Evance Iskra R9000 Wind Turbine

Guidance on Provision, Risk. Assessment and Review of Level. Crossings. Withdrawn Document Uncontrolled When Printed

ACTIVITY RISK ASSESSMENT

Infrastructure Requirements for Personal Safety in Respect of Clearances and Access

Design Considerations for Complete Streets. The Kiewit Center for Infrastructure and Transportation

PERSONALISED TRAVEL PLANNING IN MIDLETON, COUNTY CORK

INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY State Route 57 / Seville Road

CIRCULAR NO. O-6. Passenger Train Handling Safety and Emergency Procedures

Vessel Code of Practice as ratified at the Annual General Meeting held 15 th September 2016 Manx Registered Charity No. 325

Grizedale Zip Trekking Adventure Risk Assessment

RISK ASSESSMENT AND HAZARD CONTROL

WYDOT DESIGN GUIDES. Guide for. Non-NHS State Highways

MODEL AERONAUTICAL ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

1 VicRoads Access Management Policies May 2006 Ver VicRoads Access Management Policies May 2006 Version 1.02

PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT PPR850. Optimisation of water flow depth for SCRIM. S Brittain, P Sanders and H Viner

Transcription:

TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992 TRANPORT AND WORKS (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) RULES 2004 THE NETWORK RAIL (ESSEX AND OTHERS LEVEL CROSSING REDUCTION) ORDER SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE -OF- DANIEL FISK Document Reference NR/31/3 1

INTRODUCTION 1.1 My name is Daniel Fisk. I am a Route level crossing manager (RLCM) within the Anglia Route by profession with 32 months experience. My current responsibility, so far as relevant to this inquiry, is the day to day management of eight Level Crossing Managers (LCMs) on the Great Eastern and Thames Side sections of the Anglia Route. 1.2 The Anglia route is split into 13 geographical areas, with each LCM having responsibility for risk assessment and asset inspections, liaison with local authorities, internal and external stakeholders and other duties relating to the management of level crossing operation and maintenance. 1.4 I supervise and am accountable for the activities carried out by the LCMs along the Great Eastern section of the Anglia Route and ensuring the risk at level crossings is kept as low as reasonably practicable. There is another RLCM responsible for the West Anglia section of the Anglia Route; I have worked closely with the RLCM for West Anglia in producing my evidence. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 2.1 In my evidence, I explain how the LCMs conduct the risk assessment in respect of an individual crossing, and their general maintenance responsibilities. I then discuss each crossing contained in the Order, including its particular characteristics or features, risk score, and history of incidents. RISK ASSESSMENT 3.1 The are three aspects to the risk assessment carried out in respect of each level crossing: (i) ALCRM (ii) Qualitative Risk Assessment ( QRA ); (iii) Narrative Risk Assessment ( NRA ) 3.2 LCMs undertake all of those risk assessments, which ultimately lead to an optioneering exercise to consider how risk at an individual crossing can be eliminated, mitigated or managed. 3.3 The LCM will carry out a risk assessment once a year at the highest risk crossings, every two years at the medium risk crossings, and every three years at the lower risk crossings. 3.4 When there are either three reports of poor user behaviour within 12 months, one occasion requiring a train driver to apply an emergency brake, or an accidental fatality, a triggered risk assessment is undertaken within 6 weeks of the event. 2

3.5 There is also a requirement, to carry out a new risk assessment if there is a planned increase to the train timetable or a requirement to run longer trains. Additionally, any changes to the layout of the crossing or usage over the crossing would require a new assessment to be completed. 3.6 To calculate the level of risk for each level crossing, ALCRM requires specific information about each level crossing asset to be inputted in order for the risk score to be calculated. 3.7 LCMs are responsible for collecting and consolidating information required, and inviting relevant stakeholders to participate in the assessment. 3.8 Information on the crossing is first gathered from existing records held by Network Rail; most importantly from historic risk assessments, incident data, and stakeholder engagement. 3.9 An important aspect of the information gathering exercise is the site visit completed by the LCM to gather the following information for input into ALCRM: i. The type of crossing surface or deck and its configuration. ii. The distance from the decision point to the nearest rail and the distance from the decision point to 2 meters beyond the furthest rail. These measurements are vitally important to calculating the traverse time and thus the required sighting distance. (A decision point is the last point of safety, where an individual would stand and make an informed decision whether or not it is safe to cross). iii. Whether the signs are positioned so that they are clearly visible to a crossing user as they approach the crossing. iv. Sighting distances measured in all directions from both sides of the track. v. Any obstructions that make it difficult to see an approaching train vi. Any adjacent sources of light or noise which could affect the user s ability to see or hear an approaching train vii. Whether a second train passes the crossings within 20 seconds of the first and if the second train would be visible to a crossing user. viii. The orientation and layout of the crossing is used to assess sun glare risk. ix. Anything that can be done to improve sighting x. Whether there are whistle boards providing additional warning at the crossing xi. If there are any new or planned developments in the area. 3.10 Anything else the LCM believed relevant would be noted on his data collection form and included on the NRA. 3

3.13 The time available to a user of the crossing to see an approaching train and to cross safely is dependent on the speed of the train and variation in train speeds. 3.14 The required sighting distance is calculated by multiplying the time taken to cross the railway safely by the line speed for the section of line at issue. 3.15 The first step is to calculate the required time to traverse the crossing safely. This is done by dividing traverse distance by the average walking pace (1.18 m/s). The traverse distance is the distance measured from the decision point to a point 2m from the line on the opposite side of the railway. 3.16 The traverse time is then multiplied by the maximum line speed (converted from mph to m/s) to give the required sighting distance. 3.17 When vulnerable persons are known to use the crossing, an additional 50% is added to the traverse time. Where no crossing deck exists, a walking speed of 0.914 m/s is used, rather than 1.18. Where steps are within the decision point or the crossing is skewed to the tracks the LCM can adjust the traverse time as they see fit. 3.18 Weather conditions can affect visibility especially if areas are known to be foggy / misty in the winter months. The LCM would include this information in there NRA. Even if the sighting exceeds that required for compliance with industry standards, this does not necessarily mean there is sufficient sighting throughout the year. 3.18 As part of the risk assessment process, the LCM will place a covert camera at the crossing for a minimum of 9 days. This provides the LCM with an understanding of when and by whom the crossing is used. The census also highlights potential vulnerable users. 3.19 The LCM will also assess the surrounding environment for potential seasonal variation to the sightlines or usage. If necessary, the LCM would undertake a second census at the appropriate time to record seasonal variations. 3.20 A defined set of observable crossing features are then input into ALCRM to obtain the rating score. 3.21 The risk assessment process, and decision making which follows the same, does not stop with the ALCRM score. 3.22 The NRA is vitally important to the management of level crossings; it gives the LCM the opportunity to describe any concerns they have with each particular crossing under their control and also allows them to differentiate between similar types of crossing with a similar risk score. The LCM will use the NRA to support and justify their decision making and thought process. 3.23 Following completion of the risk assessments, the LCM will carry out an optioneering exercise, to consider options for eliminating, reducing, mitigating or managing the risk at an individual crossing. 4

3.24 The decision on whether any particular option should be taken forward (save the limited options I refer to in para 3.41 of my Proof) do not rest with the LCM. The decision on whether an option should be taken forward is for Head of Maintenance and Head of Operations for the Anglia route. MAINTENANCE 4.1 The LCM is responsible for carrying out a maintenance asset inspection of each crossing. An inspection is carried out at least once every 6 months at an unprotected footpath or user worked crossing. If the crossing has an automatic warning system installed, it inspection frequency is increased to at least every 7 weeks. 4.2 During this inspection the LCM carry out a visual tactile inspection on the crossing, if there is a minor defect the LCM can safely rectify, they will do it there and then. Anything they cannot complete will be reported to the relevant department for action. 4.3 These inspections, and any resulting works are in addition to Maintenance Scheduled Tasks (MSTs) which are in place to maintain the sighting lines of each footpath and user worked crossing, and for maintenance of the walking route across the crossing. A MST is estimated to cost 3792 per crossing visit, and there are in, general, at least 2 visits a year. 4.4 These figures to give an indication of the general maintenance costs associated with each level crossing on an annual basis, but do not take into account any costs which would be incurred in the event of an incident or a defect identified by an LCM on a site visit which he was not able to safely rectify himself. THE CROSSINGS 5.1 I discuss each of the crossings included in the Order in the following sections of my Proof: Code Name Section E01 Old Lane 6 E02 Camps FPS 7 E04 Parndons Mill 8 5

E05 Fullers End 9 E06 Elsenham Emergency Hut 10 E07 Ugley Lane 11 E08 Henham 12 E09 Elephant 13 E10 Dixies 14 E11 Windmills 15 E12 Wallaces 16 E13 Littlebury Gate House 17 E15 Margaretting 18 E16 Maldon Road 19 E17 Boreham 20 E18 Noakes 21 E19 Potters 22 E20 Snivellers 23 E21 Hill House 1 24 E22 Great Domsey 25 E23 Long Green 26 E25 Church 2 27 E26 Barbara Close 28 E28 Whipps Farmers 29 E29 Brown & Tawse 30 6

E30 Ferry 31 E31 Brickyard Farm 32 E32 Woodgrange Close 33 E33 Motorbike 34 E35 Cranes No. 1 35 E36 Cranes No. 2 36 E37 Essex Way 37 E38 Battlesbridge 38 E41 Padget 39 E43 High Elm 40 E45 Great Bentley Station Foot Crossing 41 E46 Lords No.1 42 E47 Bluehouse 43 E48 Wheatsheaf 44 E49 Maria Street 45 E51 Thornfield Wood 46 E52 Golden Square 47 E54 Bures 48 E56 Wivenhoe Park 49 E57 Abbotts 50 H01 Trinity Lane 51 H02 Cadmore Lane 52 7

H03 Slipe Lane 53 H04 Tednambury 54 H05 Pattens 55 H06 Gilston 56 H08 Johnsons 57 H09 Fowlers 58 HA01 Butts Lane 59 HA02 Woodhall Crescent 60 HA03 Manor Farm 61 HA04 Eve's 62 T01 No Name Number 131 63 T04 Jefferies 64 T05 Howells Farm 65 8