There was no formal risk assessment process in use at the operator’s Horn Island base.
The operator’s winching procedure did not include the requirement to confirm adequate hover reference existed overhead an intended winch area prior to deploying personnel on the winch.
At the time of the last tyre change, crack initiation at the bearing bore shoulder radius was an emerging issue with no requirement for mandatory inspection of this area during a tyre change.
The post-2005 main landing gear wheel design had shown a susceptibility to fatigue cracking at the inner hub bearing bore shoulder radius.
Where a design involves complex signalling arrangements, it may be beneficial to involve the designing engineer during the final onsite field testing phase as they have the best understanding of the interlocking principles. This places them in a strong position to identify any design omissions or deficiencies that may not have been evident during earlier phases of a project.
Although the Australian Rail Track Corporation was not resourced to actively participate in the design or commissioning phases of the Cootamundra re-signalling project, greater involvement by the Australian Rail Track Corporation (local knowledge of site geography and layout) during these phases may have assisted the South Improvement Alliance engineers in detecting the design error.
A design based on using a clearance point at the interface of CA74C and CA74D should not have been implemented until it was established that the clearance between the Up Main line and No.1 Platform Road at the interface of CA74C and CA74D tracks was adequate.
The South Improvement Alliance engineers did not effectively identify and record that the interface between CA74C and CA74D was the fouling point between the Up Main line and No.1 Platform Road and thus did not recognise that the rear of a train sitting on the Up Main line at this location would foul No.1 Platform Road. The design deficiency was caused by a long standing practice of not explicitly recording the clearance point on the Signal Arrangement Plan, Track Insulation Plan or in the Control Tables.
As the re-signalling of Cootamundra neared completion it became necessary to undertake control table and software development concurrently to meet the targeted commissioning date. Normally control table and software development is done sequentially to ensure that all the control table logic is fully reflected in the final software and associated validation/testing processes.
The documentation and quality control processes used by the South Improvement Alliance for the Cootamundra re-signalling project were not sufficiently robust, in particular, the closing out of identified design issues was inadequate.
Where a signalling design has implicit safety requirements that need to be validated onsite, field testers should be provided with comprehensive check notes and/or clearly annotated information that ensures specific testing requirements are not omitted.
A record of the welds carried out at the 8.351 km point at Tottenham on the 30 January 2009 was not documented in accordance with the requirements of Civil Engineering Circular 3/87.
Regular monitoring and accurate measurement of rail creep was not carried out at the east end of the curve where train 6MB2 derailed in accordance with Civil Engineering Circular 3/87 - 70.2 and 70.3. Creep monuments were not installed on the east end of the curve following the work to convert the passing loop track to mainline operation in July 2008.
