Rail and road infrastructure: cross-modal safety risk evaluation and assessment principles

Abstract

We explore the similarities and differences between the governing Risk Evaluation and Assessment (REA) principles for rail and road infrastructure. We frame our analysis with infrastructure managers in mind. In England, Network Rail and National Highways are the key rail and road infrastructure managers, respectively. The intention is to demonstrate that seemingly unrelated rail and road infrastructure upgrade projects are not that different – at least from the REA point of view. By breaking the potential REA barriers between the two modes, a number of benefits can be realised across the project lifecycle and beyond. Safely allowing the space for future change and innovation is a key guiding principle. Our findings point towards ‘systems thinking’ where rail and road can be approached as a single system – at least from the REA activities point of view. At a project level, this means that there are potentially many unexplored synergies between the two sectors. This may not only be in terms of safety, but also in terms of managing capital expenditure and operational expenditure and efficiencies. Future work would concentrate on drawing parallels between rail and road REA approaches for operating companies (and vehicles) to support our ‘Systems Thinking’ vision.

Keywords:

• Common Safety Method
• risk evaluation and assessment
• systems thinking

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that helped to improve the contents of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The rail infrastructure in Great Britain (GB) is complex and comprises of several different bodies. Network Rail is the largest mainline infrastructure manager in Britain.

2 National Highways (as infrastructure manager and operator) are responsible for the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England, which comprises the motorway network and major trunk roads (A-roads). Local authorities manage the local road network which makes up the majority of the road network in England. Scotland and Wales have their own road authorities.

3 Level crossings are more relevant to local roads (as opposed to highways) which tend to follow safety management guidance from National Highways.

4 It is noted that the TVS is typically composed of both digital and physical systems.

5 The purpose of interoperability is to ensure technical compatibility of trains and infrastructure and establish common standards and assessment processes for new, upgraded or renewed rail vehicles, infrastructure and components such that they meet the essential requirements for interoperability. These essential requirements include safety, reliability, accessibility, and environmental protection (Office of Rail and Road, 2021).

6 The CSM-REA is formally known as Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 402/2013 the Regulation on a common safety method for risk evaluation and assessment and is part of a wide-ranging programme of work by the European Union Agency for railways (the Agency) and the European Commission (the Commission).

7 GD04/12 provided risk acceptance bands (see Figure 5 therein).

8 For mainline railway projects in the UK, the Network Rail guidance (NR/L2/RSE/100/08) requires a preliminary risk assessment to identify the core hazards (aka Preliminary Hazard Analysis) and risk control strategy to inform the next step: significance test.

9 The obligation to reduce risk SFAIRP is sometimes expressed as a requirement to reduce risk to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). Although SFAIRP and ALARP are different in law, they are used interchangeably in the GB rail industry and are regarded as representing the same health and safety legal test (Network Rail, 2021).

10 FWI is widely used across different sectors to compare fatal and nonfatal accidents, see also (RSSB, Changes to Injury Categorisations and Weightings, 2019) for more details on categorisations and weights and recent changes to these. FWI has historically been a more prominent safety indicator in the railway sector than in the highways but is becoming more widely used in road safety reporting within National Highways.

11 GG104 clause 2.19 applies specifically to road workers.

12 National Highways’ ambition is that zero people should be killed or seriously injured by 2040. The target for 2025 is a 50% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured compared to the 2005-09 average baseline. In addition, for road workers, risks must be managed to be ALARP in line with legal requirements.

13 Road safety assessments are known to be independently undertaken.

14 Cyber security in this context refers to cyber security incidents that can have a potential impact on system integrity or lead directly to the cause of a hazard.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Panagiotis Takis Kantartzis

Panagiotis Takis Kantartzis is an experienced Safety and Systems Engineering professional and is currently working on some of WSP’s national and international railway projects. Takis has previously served as an engineer and Engineering Safety Management (ESM) course facilitator for Transport for London (TfL) - and its various transport modes. Takis holds postgraduate qualifications in Information Engineering and has a BEng in Automation Engineering.

Alexander Kirby Bishop

Alexander Kirby Bishop is the Cyber Security Team Leader of WSP’s Intelligent Infrastructure business. He has an extensive background in safety critical railway systems and since the start of his career has taken a deep professional interest in the cyber security of such systems. He holds an MSc in Safety Critical Systems Engineering from the University of York.

Axel Kappeler

Axel Kappeler is a Technical Director in WSP’s Intelligent Infrastructure where he provides strategic advice on safety risk management, governance and assurance. Axel has more than 25 years’ experience in safety and risk management in the highway and railway sector and has been involved in the development of GG104 Requirements for safety risk assessment and its application on many of National Highways’ most innovative and high-profile projects. He has extensive knowledge of safety risk assessments, hazard logs and risk registers, writing and reviewing safety plans and safety cases, safety monitoring and audits, and safety risk governance and assurance.

Mkokeli Nkomo

Mkokeli Nkomo is an Associate for Systems Assurance within the System Engineering, Integration and Assurance group of WSP. Mkokeli specialises in safety risk management, railway assurance and certification. He has led a variety of projects to meet their responsibilities for Engineering Safety Management, Systems Assurance and standards compliance, including TSIs/NTSNs/NTRs either in the capacity of independent assessment, or in the production of safety documentation.