ARTC distribution of safety information by train notice was sub-optimal. There was scope to improve reliability of safety information distribution and to consider opportunities for operators in Victoria (and SA and WA) to receive direct distribution of train notices for their operations on the ARTC network.
For the establishment of train working arrangements that deviated from ARTC network rules, ActivateRail did not implement processes to ensure its contributions were consistent with the risk management procedures of the accredited rail infrastructure manager (ARTC) and Australian risk management standards.
For the establishment of train working arrangements that deviated from ARTC network rules, ARTC stakeholder engagement did not support its management of the safety risks to network users and the development of agreed risk controls.
For the establishment of train working arrangements that deviated from ARTC network rules, ARTC risk management and oversight processes resulted in a risk management plan that was limited in context, scope and risk identification and risk controls that had significant weaknesses.
For the routing of trains through Wallan Loop on 20 February, ARTC processes did not result in its effective engagement with network users that would be affected by this change.
NSW Trains did not have systems in place to achieve outcomes in emergency response training consistent with its competency framework for passenger services crew.
ARTC could not reliably determine the risk of flooding along the Telarah to Acacia Ridge corridor or the risks associated with inadequate capacity cross drainage systems.
Although ARTC had procedures in place for monitoring and responding to extreme weather events, the process had significant limitations including:
The weather alerts issued by the EWN did not reliably reflect the data and frequency of ARTC’s extreme weather monitoring procedure or the service agreement. This and the services ARTC believed were included in the service agreement likely impacted the expectations of ARTC users who relied on these warnings to inform their response.
ARTC had not undertaken formal assessments to determine the need for or the locations of remote weather monitoring stations to detect extreme weather events that could affect the integrity of its rail infrastructure.
Neither ARTC or PN provided guidance for train crew to respond to extreme wet weather events or floodwater in the rail corridor. There was no guidance for when trains should stop or report if there was water on the track formation, covering the ballast, sleepers or the rail.
Response by Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC)
The Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board did not provide design and/or performance standards on modular cabin resilience and retention for locomotive crashworthiness.
The design of the modular cabin mount was not resilient to frontal impact forces in the event of a collision. This increased the risk of their failure and separation of the cabin, removing the effectiveness of protection afforded by the collision posts.
The procedure for predeparture testing, as part of the coupling procedure, required two competent staff. There was no procedure in the operations manual to ensure that a competent and qualified person was present to assist the driver.
The eTAP system, used at Track Occupancy Authority (TOA) fulfilment, did not include a key safeworking requirement contained in the ARTC Network Rule ANGE 204 for confirming and repeating back safety critical information.
ARTC will undertake a review of the relevant Rules and Procedures applicable to TOA Fulfilment being ANWT 304 and ANPR 701, including ANGE 204.
The eTAP roll out did not include an effective training regime, as the briefing was not targeted to the appropriate level of competence of the trainees. The Protection Officer involved was not trained or competent in the rules and procedures for Track Occupancy Authority (TOA) at the time of the eTAP briefing. There was no competence assessment for the use of the application for the Protection Officer involved.
Sydney Trains Signaller refresher training, to keep signallers’ skills and knowledge up to date, has not been in place since 2009.
Sydney Trains assurance and audit processes for signal box management did not routinely detect non-conformances with NTR 432.
