When planning track disturbing work, Aurizon’s normal practice was to use its Hazard Location Register as a record of past occurrences at a specific location. Aurizon did not use the Hazard Location Register as a resource to consider the situational characteristics of a location that may increase risk, such as continuous welded rail, track gradient and proximity to fixed points such as turnouts or level crossings.
Queensland Rail’s track monitoring and inspection processes were not effective in identifying significant deterioration in the condition of level crossing ID 2309 and its approach roads to ensure the safe operating limits of the level crossing throughout its lifecycle.
The GATX 840P1 axle was susceptible to fatigue cracking due to relatively minor damage that was not reliably detected prior to failure.
Anomalies in the magnetic particle inspection procedures likely led to the crack not being detected.
Errors remained within the ALCAM database due to the type of equipment used to measure road and rail bearings during ALCAM surveys in 2009.
V/Line’s level crossing assessment processes did not result in deployment of available risk controls at many passively protected acute-angle level crossings.
More than 100 level crossings in the V/Line regional rail network (including 35 at the intersection of passenger lines and public roads) were non-compliant with the left-side viewing angle requirements of AS 1742.7:2016. These crossings had an acute road-to-rail angle that affected the ability of drivers to sight trains approaching from their left.
The interaction between V/Line and the Colac Otway Shire Council was ineffective at addressing identified sighting issues at the Phalps Road level crossing.
Available risk controls to manage the risk posed by known sighting deficiencies at the Phalps Road level crossing were not deployed by V/Line or the Colac Otway Shire Council.
STM did not require the application of all available and reasonably practicable risk controls when parking trams with respect to their location and handbrake application.
STM did not comply with its risk control in ensuring that trams were attended when parked.
STM did not follow its change management process for adopting the new hardwood chock type. Subsequently, the hardwood chock could not be applied reliably under the ‘J’ class wheel and could not restrict its movement.
A more stringent maintenance response than that for an isolated track geometry defect was not considered or implemented in accordance with ARTC’s COP. A more stringent maintenance response should have been considered given the degraded formation and the track’s rapid deterioration between 12-14 January 2016, two days prior to the derailment
The shear key was not installed in accordance with the geotechnical engineer’s specification with respect to the following:
a) It did not include a cross-drain.
b) Its width was less than the specified width.
The location did not have adequate surface drainage which likely contributed to formation degradation over time.
ARTC allowed identified track twist defects to remain in track contrary to network track geometry requirements.
Queensland Rail’s administration of the Maintenance of Competency assessment process provided limited assurance that its Citytrain rail traffic drivers meet relevant competency requirements.
The train was loaded by approximately 10 per cent more than that recorded on the consist, it is probable that the additional mass placed an extra load on the braking system and affected the handling characteristics of the train.
The general condition of the rail on the west track, in the vicinity of the rail fracture, contributed to relatively frequent failures in that area.
The presence of the earlier design of yoke on wagon NGKF 35898X was not detected during preventative maintenance activities.
