Repair of track evaluation equipment used by the operator to conduct track inspections

I have liaised with our director of engineering and chief engineer who confirm the following:

1. In relation to the statement:

‘The reporter advised that the [main track evaluation equipment] has not been usable for over a month, which means that the track has not been inspected in this time and consequently cannot be certified as being safe for train use.’

We advise that:

• The [track evaluation equipment]:
  • went out of service on 30 March 2016 for repairs;
  • was tested on 4 May 2016; and
  • is scheduled to inspect the [location] line on [date].
• Our technical maintenance plan and track inspection frequencies, as related to track inspections, include but are not limited to:
  • The [main track evaluation equipment] inspections which are to be completed four times yearly. We are compliant with this, and can confirm that all track has been inspected by the [main track evaluation equipment] within the past three months.
  • The Inspection Trolley/Vehicle as a contingency for the [main track evaluation equipment], and is included within our maintenance plan.
• We can confirm that the track is certified as being safe for train use.

2. In relation to the statement:

‘[Operator] have been using another device for testing mainline, which is an 86 kg, towable track recording device. However, this equipment cannot accurately measure the following parameters:

• Gauge/top/twist as no dynamic loading is applied
• Axle load of a normal loco or inspection train is 10-14 tonne.’

We can advise that:

• Recording trolleys (including the secondary testing equipment) are accepted by us and overseas operators as an appropriate tool to complete track geometry inspections.
• Tests within [operator] and overseas operators have confirmed the accuracy of this equipment when measuring gauge, line, twist, and top.
• The deflection of rail due to the dynamic effect of the heavier axle load was found to be negligible due to the location of the recording device in relation to the loaded axle.
• Track recording vehicles, such as the [main track evaluation equipment], are generally the preferred method to assess track geometry as they provide the ability to record at higher speeds than recording trolleys.
• It is best practice to have a back-up system for measuring track geometry when a track recording vehicle is not available.

3. In relation to the statement:

‘The reporter is worried that [operator] are self-regulating and that many sections of track are not being adequately inspected as per the company’s technical maintenance plan.’

We advise that:

• We are accredited and regulated by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR) in accordance with the Rail Safety National Law.
• We maintain a safety management system in accordance to the requirements of the Rail Safety National Law, and this includes a management of change process.
• Any change to our maintenance plan or track inspection frequencies are subject to our management of change and approval processes, which has a primary focus on ensuring safety risks are understood and addressed through any change.
• As stated in our response in paragraph 1 above, we are inspecting the track in accordance with our maintenance plan and track inspection frequencies.

4. In relation to the statement:

‘The reporter is also concerned that the secondary equipment is being operated by unqualified staff.’

We advises that:

• Operators of the secondary equipment have been trained and certified competent by a certified trainer and assessor.
• As stated above, the use of the secondary equipment is compliant to the maintenance plan, and is fit for purpose in the contexts being used.
• Compliance to the maintenance plan helps assure that safety risks are managed so far as is reasonably practicable (including derailment and loss of life risks).

With all that said, what this definitely highlights, is that the communication around the effectiveness and robustness of alternative methods to achieve our maintenance plan compliance (such as which equipment is used) can be improved. Traditionally, compliance to the maintenance plan has always been via the [main track evaluation equipment], and the increased use of the secondary equipment should have been communicated as to what it can (and cannot) do, along with the expectations of its use. We will seek to inform employees about the secondary equipment, and also be more mindful of communicating changes to normal practice moving forward.