Annual Safety Performance Report

Transcription

1 Annual Safety Performance Report 2013/14 Key facts and figures

2

3 Contents Introduction /14 Headline statistics...3 Background...4 Risk profile for the railway fatalities...4 Risk profile for the railway all injuries...5 Recent safety trends...6 Long-term safety trends...7 Rail safety in context: inter-modal comparisons...8 Rail safety in context: European comparisons...9 Risk from train accidents...10 Long-term trends...10 Potentially higher-risk train accidents...11 Train accident precursors...12 Signals passed at danger (SPADs)...13 Risk to passengers...14 Passenger fatalities...14 Major injuries to passengers...15 Passenger harm at the platform-train interface...16 Passenger and public assaults...17 Risk to the workforce...18 Workforce fatalities...18 Workforce major injuries...19 Workforce assaults...20 Rail safety in context: occupational risk...21 Risk to members of the public...22 Public fatalities...22 Trespass fatalities by cause...23 Motivation for trespass...24 Risk at the road-rail interface...25 Fatalities at level crossings...25 The Strategic Safety Plan...26 Trajectories of the SSP...26 Progress against other industry requirements...27 High Level Output Specification...27 Learning from Operational Experience...28 Key safety facts...31 Definitions and scope...38 Fatalities and weighted injuries...39 Further information

4 Introduction RSSB was established in April 2003 to support the railway industry in its management of cross-industry issues, including safety. Through its services, RSSB assists the industry in the challenge of maintaining and, where reasonably practicable, reducing the risk to passengers, railway employees, and members of the public. The analysis and presentation of safety performance information is a key part of this function. The 2013/14 Annual Safety Performance Report (ASPR) reviews the performance levels achieved during the year across a number of topic areas. RSSB reports on a financial year basis for consistency with Control Period 4 (CP4), its associated High Level Output Specification (HLOS), and the Railway Strategic Safety Plan (SSP), all of which covered the period April 2009 to March The ASPR s main purpose is to inform those in the industry who manage risk. However, it is also intended to inform other rail industry employees, passengers, the Government (and its agencies), and the public at large. Here, we present a pocket-sized version of some key points from the main report. The full report may be downloaded from our website at 2

5 2013/14 Headline statistics 1.59 billion passenger journeys, a 6% increase on 2012/13 0 passenger or workforce fatalities in train accidents for the seventh consecutive year 4 passenger fatalities in individual incidents, all at the platformtrain interface 3 workforce fatalities: Two infrastructure workers died in a road traffic accident while on duty An infrastructure worker working on the track was struck by a train 308 public fatalities: 279 were suicides or suspected suicides 21 were trespassers 8 occurred at level crossings 270 major injuries to passengers 126 major injuries to members of the workforce 3

6 Background Risk profile for the railway fatalities The industry uses the Safety Risk Model (SRM) to assess the underlying level of risk to passengers, staff and the public from the operation and maintenance of the mainline railway. The current version of the SRM is version 8.0, which was published in March Fatality risk profile excluding suicide (66.2 fatalities/year) FWI / year Train accidents, 23% Other accidents, 4% Struck on station LX, 6% Assault and abuse, 7% Slips, trips, and falls, 11% Train accidents, 13% Other accidents, 13% Fall from height, 5% Electric shock, 7% Road-traffic accidents, 21% Train accidents, 7% Other accidents, 3% Pedestrians at LX, 12% Trespass, 79% Platform-train interface, 48% Struck / crushed by train, 41% Source: SRMv8 Passenger Workforce Public Most of the fatality risk is to members of the public, with trespass accounting for 79% of their risk. Accidents to pedestrians at level crossings are the next largest source, accounting for 12% of fatality risk to members of the public. Passenger fatality risk arises from a number of sources; more than half is from individual accidents at stations, especially at the platformtrain interface (PTI), which accounts for 48% of their fatality risk. Train accidents account for just over one-fifth of passenger fatality risk. The largest proportion of workforce fatality risk arises from being struck or crushed by trains. This risk mainly affects infrastructure workers. 4

7 Background Risk profile for the railway all injuries The railway measures overall harm in terms of fatalities and weighted injuries (FWI) defined on page 39. FWI risk profile excluding suicide (143.4 FWI/year) FWI / year Train accidents, 5% On-board injuries, 7% Other accidents, 5% Assault and abuse, 16% Platform-train interface, 21% Slips, trips, and falls, 47% Train accidents, 4% Other accidents, 20% Manual handling, 5% Platform-train interface, 7% Assault and abuse, 7% Struck / crushed by train, 7% On-board injuries, 11% Contact with object, 15% Slips, trips, and falls, 26% Train accidents, 7% Other accidents, 6% Pedestrian accidents at LX, 11% Trespass, 76% Source: SRMv8 Passenger Workforce Public When fatal and non-fatal injuries are considered, the large number of lower consequence accidents such as slips, trips and falls results in the risk profile being split more evenly between passengers, the workforce and members of the public. Relatively few non-fatal public injuries are recorded. This is partly because the hazards that account for most of the risk (in particular, being struck by trains) are more likely to result in fatalities than injuries. The grouping other accidents to the workforce includes machinery operation, platform-train interface issues, and shock or trauma from witnessing suicides. 5

8 Background Recent safety trends Over the past 10 years, and against a background of generally increasing rail usage, industry initiatives have brought about improvements in the safety of passengers and workforce. Normalised passenger and workforce harm FWI per 100m journeys Passenger FWI rate Workforce FWI rate FWI per 10m workforce hours / / / / / / / / / /14 Source: SMIS The level of passenger harm in 2013/14 was 43.1 FWI, compared with 47.4 FWI in 2012/13. When normalised by passenger journeys, the rate of harm decreased by 14%. The level of workforce harm in 2013/14 was 25.2 FWI, compared with 22.8 FWI in 2012/13. When normalised by workforce hours, the rate of harm increased by 8%. Overall, the rates of passenger and workforce harm have shown a generally decreasing trend over the past ten years. 6

9 Background Long-term safety trends Railway safety has improved significantly over the last 50 years. Trends in fatalities over the past 50 years Passenger Workforce Public (mainline railway) Public (all railways) Fatalities / / / / / / / / / / / /14 Source: ORR data for mainline railway up to 1993/94, RSSB data from 1994/95 onwards. Public (all railways) ORR data, includes London Underground and other rail systems. The greatest reduction over the past 50 years has been in workforce fatalities. The annual number of workforce fatalities exceeded 100 in the mid-1960s and is now consistently lower than five. There has also been a long-term downward trend in the number of passenger fatalities. The spikes in numbers shown on the chart reflect the occurrence of major train accidents. There has been no comparable sustained reduction in public fatalities (which mainly comprise trespassers and suicides). 7

10 Background Rail safety in context: inter-modal comparisons Rail remains one of the safest modes of transport There have been substantial improvements in the safety of both road and rail transport over the past five decades. However, car travel is only now achieving levels of safety that the railway was achieving 30 years ago, on a per traveller kilometre basis. Traveller fatality risk for different transport modes (relative to rail) Fatality risk per traveller km as a multiple of rail Mainline railway Bus or coach Car Pedal cycle Pedestrian Motorcycle Source: SRMv8 for rail, Department for Transport (DfT) for other modes. On the basis of fatality risk per traveller km, rail travel is: Around 1,200 times safer than travelling by motorcycle. Roughly 400 times safer than cycling or walking. Around 20 times safer than using a car. Around five times safer than bus and coach travel. Public transport is generally safer than private transport. Although not shown on the chart, most existing estimates put air safety on a similar level to rail safety on a per traveller km basis. 8

11 Background Rail safety in context: European comparisons UK railways compare favourably with other EU countries The Railway Safety Directive states the requirement for Member States to ensure that safety is generally maintained and, where reasonable practicable, continuously improved. Passenger and workforce fatality rates on the largest EU railways Normalised workforce fatalities Normalised passenger fatalities Fatalities per billion train km EU-25 average (23.0) Poland Czech Republic Spain Hungary Italy France Germany Austria Netherlands United Kingdom Source: Eurostat data The chart shows the ten largest EU railways in terms of train km. Passenger and workforce fatality rates in the UK were well below the EU-25 average over the five-year period In general, countries in northern and western parts of Europe have safer railways than those further south and east. The UK ranks highly among the EU-25 countries across all National Reference Values set by the European Railway Agency. 9

12 Risk from train accidents Long-term trends No passengers or staff killed in train accidents in the past seven years The frequency of train accidents with passenger or workforce fatalities has dropped steadily over the past 50 years and is now at its lowest ever level. Train accidents currently account for around 5% of the overall FWI risk. Train accidents with passenger and workforce fatalities Fatal train accidents Trains & rolling stock 5 - SPAD 4 - Objects on the line 3 - Public behaviour at level crossings 2 - Irregular working 1 - Infrastructure failures Ten-year moving average 1965/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /14 Source: ORR for historical data; SMIS for recent statistics. The past seven years saw no train accidents with on-board fatalities. There has been a substantial reduction in the frequency of fatal train accidents caused by factors that are largely within the industry s control, particularly irregular working, SPADs, and train and rolling stock failures. The rate of train accidents with on-board fatalities is currently around one every five years based on a 10-year moving average. 10

13 Risk from train accidents Potentially higher-risk train accidents PHRTA numbers remain at a below average level The types of train accident most likely to result in harm, such as collisions and derailments, are known as potentially higher-risk train accidents (PHRTAs). Potentially higher-risk train accidents Accidents Trains struck by large falling objects Buffer stop collisions Collisions with road vehicles not at level crossings (without derailment) Collisions with road vehicles at level crossings (without derailment) Collisions with road vehicles at level crossings (with derailment) Derailments (excluding collisions with road vehicles on level crossings) Collisions between trains (excluding roll backs) / / / / / / / / / /14 Source: SMIS The number of PHRTAs in 2013/14 was three fewer than the previous year, representing the second lowest total on record. Eleven of the PHRTAs in 2013/14 involved collisions with road vehicles, ten of which occurred on level crossings. Collisions with road vehicles at level crossings have accounted for 29% of PHRTAs since 2004/05. There were no passenger train derailments in 2013/14. This is the first such year on record. Derailments (excluding collisions with road vehicles on level crossings) have accounted for 44% of PHRTAs over the last ten years. 11

14 Risk from train accidents Train accident precursors PIM trend remains stable Serious train accidents are rare, and the industry monitors trends in the risk from PHRTAs using the Precursor Indicator Model (PIM). Trends in train accident risk Infrastructure Operational incidents Public Behaviour Environmental SPAD Trains and rolling stock Public Workforce 16 FWI per year Mar 04 Sep 04 Mar 05 Sep 05 Mar 06 Sep 06 Historical PIM trend Previous version of modelling and grouping Mar 07 Sep 07 Mar 08 Source: SMIS and the Precursor Indicator Model Sep 08 Mar 09 Sep 09 Mar 10 Current PIM trend New version of modelling and grouping Sep 10 Mar 11 Sep 11 Mar 12 Sep 12 Mar 13 Sep 13 Mar 14 In 2013/14, the output from the PIM was changed to be an estimate of the underlying level of the risk from PHRTAs, given in FWI per year. In addition, new data sources have allowed improved modelling back to April For this reason, the PIM ten-year trend contains a discontinuity at April 2010 and, although the trend in the total value is unaffected, the trends in the PIM subgroups cannot be compared across the discontinuity. The greatest share of the risk to passengers is from the infrastructure grouping, followed by operational incidents and SPADs. The passenger proportion of the PIM remained essentially level; at March 2014, it stood at 3.32 FWI, compared with 3.28 FWI at the end of the previous year. 12

15 Risk from train accidents Signals passed at danger (SPADs) SPAD risk at 73% of September 2006 baseline The accident at Ladbroke Grove (1999) was caused by a SPAD, and resulted in the death of 31 people. Since then, the industry has focused on reducing the risk from SPADs through a range of initiatives, including the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS). Trend in SPAD risk 200% 400 Risk (percentage of risk at September 2006) 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% September 2006 baseline = 100% Underlying risk (annual moving average) Number of SPADs (annual moving total) % SPADs Sep 06 Feb 07 Jul 07 Dec 07 May 08 Oct 08 Mar 09 Aug 09 Jan 10 Jun 10 Nov 10 Apr 11 Sep 11 Feb 12 Jul 12 Dec 12 May 13 Oct 13 Mar 14 Source: SMIS and the rail industry s SPAD risk ranking tool There were 293 SPADs in 2013/14 compared with 250 in 2012/13. The estimated level of SPAD risk increased during the year. Nevertheless, at the end of March 2014 it was still 27% lower than the September 2006 baseline level. RSSB and the wider industry are continuing to focus on SPAD risk to understand both the underlying causes behind it, and how to model it more effectively. 13

16 Risk to passengers Passenger fatalities Four passengers were fatally injured in 2013/14 The main source of passenger fatality risk is accidents at the platform-train interface. Passenger fatalities by accident type Fatalities Other passenger injury Assault and abuse Slips, trips, and falls Platform-train interface Struck by train on station crossing Train accidents / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /14 Source: SMIS Train accidents Other causes There were four passenger fatalities in 2013/14. This equates to a rate of around one fatality per 400 million passenger journeys. The fatalities all occurred in separate incidents at the platform-traininterface (PTI). Intoxication was recorded as a potential contributory factor in three of the incidents. The PTI has seen the largest proportion of passenger fatalities over the past decade, accounting for nearly 50% since 2004/05. 14

17 Risk to passengers Major injuries to passengers Major injury rate falls below the ten-year average Most passenger major injuries are the result of slips, trips and falls in stations. Passenger major injuries by accident type Major injuries Other passenger injury Assault and abuse Contact with object or person Slips, trips, and falls On-board injuries Platform-train interface Struck by train on station crossing Train accidents Normalised rate Major injuries per 100m journeys / / / / / / / / / /14 Source: SMIS The number of passenger major injuries dropped in 2013/14 after continuously increasing since 2007/08. When normalised by passenger journeys, the major injury rate has remained relatively static since 2007/08, with the exception of a peak in 2012/13. Slips, trips and falls have accounted for 64% of passenger major injuries since 2004/05. Injuries at the PTI have accounted for 18% over the same period. 15

18 Risk to passengers Passenger harm at the platform-train interface The platform-train interface remains an important source of risk The severity of the injury incurred by a passenger accident at the platformtrain interface (PTI) generally increases if it involves a moving train. The following analysis is based on all passenger injuries occurring at the PTI in the last 10 years and, for those involving trains, highlights the type of train movement involved. Platform-train interface harm 2004/05 to 2013/14 Injuries per year: (1,245.6) 4% 1% Harm per year: (9.9 FWI) 16% 6% 8% 14% Fatalities per year: (3.2) 23% 13% 20% 95% 56% 44% Arriving trains Departing trains Through trains Stationary trains No train involved Source: SMIS Around 96% of PTI injuries involve passengers coming into contact with trains in the station: in 95% of cases the train is stationary, and in around 1% the train is moving. The remaining 4% of PTI injuries occur when no train is present. On average, accidents involving moving trains represent nearly 30% of all passenger harm at the PTI and almost 75% of fatalities. Passengers struck by through trains represent most of the PTI harm from moving trains and an even higher proportion of fatalities. Passengers struck by departing trains accounted for 8% of all PTI harm and 20% of fatalities. Passengers struck by arriving trains represent 6% of all PTI harm and 13% of fatalities. Intoxication was implicated in 66% of fatalities at the PTI. 16

19 Risk to passengers Passenger and public assaults British Transport Police data shows a continuing reduction in the rate of assault BTP data also includes assaults involving non-travelling members of the public on railway premises. Assaults on passengers and the public Assaults Harassment Common assaults Other violence Actual bodily harm GBH and more serious cases of violence Assaults per million passenger journeys Assaults per million passenger journeys Source: BTP 2005/ / / / / / / / /14 The number of assaults recorded by BTP in 2013/14 was slightly higher than that recorded in 2012/13. However, when normalised by passenger journeys, the rate decreased by 3%. Year-on-year, the normalised assault rate has decreased and is currently around one in every 450,000 journeys. Possible contributing factors to this improvement include targeted policing and detection technology. The most serious crimes, such as grievous bodily harm (GBH), occur infrequently, with a rate of 1 in every 13.3 million journeys. 17

20 Risk to the workforce Workforce fatalities Three staff members fatally injured On 19 June 2013, two infrastructure workers were fatally injured in a road traffic accident, whilst on duty. On 22 January 2014, an infrastructure worker was fatally injured when struck by a passenger train. Workforce fatalities by type of worker Other workforce Revenue protection staff Station staff Other on-board train crew Train drivers Infrastructure workers / / / /08 Fatalities 2008/ / / / / /14 Source: SMIS Since April 2004, 25 members of the workforce have died in accidents while on duty; 20 were infrastructure workers. Most workforce fatalities were the result of being struck by a train. Of the three train driver fatalities occurring in the last 10 years, one was the result of a train accident (at Ufton, in November 2004). The other two fatalities occurred at the trackside: one was struck by a train while changing ends, and one was electrocuted while investigating a problem with his train. 18

21 Risk to the workforce Workforce major injuries Workforce major injuries remain at a below average level The most common causes of infrastructure worker major injuries are slips, trips and falls and accidents associated with construction-type hazards. For train drivers, the most common cause is boarding/alighting, for train crew it is on-board injuries, and for station staff it is slips, trips and falls. Workforce major injuries by type of worker Major injuries Other workforce Revenue protection staff Station staff Other on-board train crew Train drivers Infrastructure workers Source: SMIS 2004/ / / / / / / / / /14 There were 126 workforce major injuries in 2013/14, an increase of 12 from the previous year. The level remains 8% below the average level of harm over the period shown. Infrastructure workers have experienced more than half of all major injuries during each of the years shown. Injuries in yards, depots and sidings are not included in the chart, but the scope of SMIS reporting was extended (on a non-mandatory basis) to cover these locations in April RSSB plans to extend its reporting scope to include yards, depots and sidings in the near future. 19

22 Risk to the workforce Workforce assaults Harm from assaults shows a generally reducing trend The harm is fairly evenly split between major injuries, minor injuries and shock/trauma. Harm from workforce assaults Shock & trauma Minor injuries Major injuries / / / /08 Weighted injuries 2008/ / / / / /14 Source: SMIS The overall harm from assaults on members of the workforce remains at its lowest level in the past ten years. Around 58% of staff assaults that lead to harm happen in stations. The majority of these occur to station staff and revenue protection personnel. Around 42% occur on trains, the majority occurring to customer-facing train crew. Other locations make up less than 1% of workforce assaults. Ticket disputes are identified as the primary cause in around 41% of reported assaults on staff, with alcohol/drugs the primary factor in 17%. 20

23 Risk to the workforce Rail safety in context: occupational risk Railway workforce risk varies by occupation Different activities expose workers to different levels of risk. Industry risk comparison Train drivers Bus and coach drivers HGV drivers Station staff Sales and retail assistants Elementary security operations Infrastructure workers Road construction operatives Labourers Other on-board train crew Fatalities Weighted major injuries Weighted RIDDOR-reportable minor injuries FWI per 100,000 workers per year (RIDDOR-reportable only) Source: RSSB for railway occupations, HSE for other industries. The data covers the year 2012/13 only. Infrastructure workers appear to be exposed to a lower level of risk than road construction operatives and a similar level to labourers; they are exposed to the highest risk of the rail occupations shown. Train drivers are subject to a somewhat higher level of risk than bus and coach drivers, but a notably lower level than HGV drivers. Other on-board train crew have a higher level of risk compared with station staff. The risk mostly arises from high-frequency, but typically low-consequence, accidents. Physical assault and verbal abuse have accounted for nearly one-fifth of the harm over the last ten years. Station staff have a somewhat lower level of risk to other customer-facing jobs such as sales and retail assistants. 21

24 Risk to members of the public Public fatalities Increasing trend in public fatalities due to trespass and suicide Most injuries to members of the public arise from causes that are not within the direct control of the railway. Trends in total public fatalities from trespass and suicide Confirmed trespass Open/narrative/unreturned verdict Confirmed suicide Fatalities Source: SMIS Over the past decade, there has been an increasing trend in the number of public fatalities due to trespass or suicide, with 2013/14 being the highest recorded for the period. Where available, coroners verdicts are used as the basis for categorising relevant public fatalities as suicide or accidental trespass. Where a coroner s verdict is returned as open or narrative, or where it is not yet returned, the industry applies the Ovenstone criteria (see the ASPR for more details) to determine the most probable circumstances, ie either trespass or suicide. The chart above shows the open/narrative/ unreturned cases as one group, before application of the Ovenstone criteria; the proportion is greater towards the end of the decade reflecting the fewer returned verdicts that have occurred. 22

25 Risk to members of the public Trespass fatalities by cause Trespass fatalities below average for the past ten years The cause of most trespass fatalities is being struck by a train. Fatalities Trespass fatalities by cause Electric shock Fall (including from height) Fall or jump from train Struck by train Improved classification of trespass fatalities / / / / / / / / / /14 Source: SMIS The industry categorises public fatalities with open, narrative, or unreturned coroners verdicts into those mostly likely to be accidental and those not, using the Ovenstone criteria. From 2009/10, the classification has been based on an improved data set; the trends in trespass (or suicide) before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable (see the ASPR for more details). Since 2009/10, being struck by trains has accounted for 70% of trespasser fatalities, and electric shock has accounted for a further 18%. The remaining proportion involve people who were train surfing or deliberately exiting trains in running, or who were climbing on railway property eg bridges/viaducts. Accidents and near misses with people on the line often result in shock or trauma for train drivers and other train crew, and such events can have a lasting psychological effect. 23

26 Risk to members of the public Motivation for trespass People commit trespass for a variety of reasons It is useful to understand the reasons why people trespass so that the most appropriate risk management measures can be applied. For some, trespass may be a convenience taking a short cut along the tracks, or walking the dog. For others, it may be a spur of the moment decision for example if something has been mistakenly dropped from the platform edge. Trespass injuries by motivation Other 7% Theft/damage 7% Retrieving item 9% Shortcut 42% 60% 40% Reason identified Evading third party 17% Source: SMIS Reason not identified Horseplay/thrill seeking 18% In more than half of incidents, the reason for the trespass is not known or not identified. In those events where the motivation for the trespass is identifiable, the most common reason is for the purposes of taking a shortcut. Other reasons where the trespass is incidental to the main motivation of the person include retrieving an item, evading a third party, or committing criminal theft/damage. For those engaged in horseplay or thrill-seeking behaviour, the trespass itself may be part of the motivation. 24

27 Risk at the road-rail interface Fatalities at level crossings UK level crossing safety is among the best in Europe There are over 6,000 level crossings in use on the mainline railway, comprising many different types. Fatalities at level crossings by crossing type Passive Active - automatic protection Active - manual protection LX Collisions Fatalities LX collisions / / / / / / / / / /2014 Pedestrian Road vehicle occupant Source: SMIS. The chart excludes suicides and suspected suicides. There were six pedestrian fatalities and two road vehicle fatalities at level crossings in 2013/14. At ten, the number of collisions between trains and road vehicles was below the 10-year average of 12 per year. Most level crossing fatalities occur on passive crossings where the user plays a greater role in ensuring that it is safe to cross. 25

28 The Strategic Safety Plan Trajectories of the SSP The Strategic Safety Plan (SSP) defines a number of trajectories, each related to a particular aspect of system risk. Trajectories are a way of illustrating expected changes in the level of risk as a result of the initiatives being undertaken or planned by the industry. Risk profile by SSP trajectories Passenger slips, trips and falls in stations Passenger accidents at the PTI Passenger on-board injuries Passenger assault Infrastructure worker injuries Train crew on-board injuries Train crew assault Station staff assault Station staff slips, trips and falls Trespass Public behaviour at LX SPADs, rolling stock, infrastructure & vandalism Not covered by an SSP trajectory Fatalities Weighted injuries Risk (modelled FWI per year) Source: SRM v8. Fifteen trajectories have been defined in the SSP, they cover 89% of the total FWI risk, and 94% of the fatality risk. Those related to train accident risk (SPADs, rolling stock, infrastructure and vandalism) have been grouped in a single bar in this chart. The SSP trajectories cover 95% of risk to passengers, 66% of risk to the workforce and 93% of risk to members of the public. At the end of CP4, risk satisfied, or was better than, the trajectory range for all 15 trajectories set out in the SSP. 26

29 Progress against other industry requirements High Level Output Specification In the High Level Output Specification (HLOS), the Department for Transport established safety metrics for both passenger risk and workforce risk, and specified a requirement for a 3% reduction in both categories over Control Period 4 (1 April 2009 to 31 March 2014). The HLOS targets for both risk categories are shown as an index starting at 100% at the beginning of CP4, with a target of 97% for March Progress against HLOS target for passenger and workforce risk Percentage of benchmark 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Source: SRM Other passenger injuries Train accidents Struck by train on station crossing Slips, trips and falls On-board injuries Assault Platform edge incidents Contact with object or person HLOS benchmark HLOS target 6.5% 4.7% 44.2% 45.1% 7.6% 6.7% 16.0% 15.9% 20.0% 20.2% SRM v6.7 SRM v8 Passengers Workforce injuries from accidents to others Train accidents Other workforce Other on-board train crew Train driver Infrastructure worker HLOS benchmark HLOS target 4.5% 20.8% 3.4% 17.3% 21.3% 7.7% 15.8% 6.1% 41.5% 34.2% SRM v6.7 SRM v8 Workforce The SRM has been used as the primary means of measuring the performance of the industry against the HLOS over CP4. SRMv6.7 was used for the beginning of CP4, and SRMv8 has been used at the end of CP4 (March 2014). It can be seen that both passenger and workforce risk have met the requirements of the HLOS targets. 27

30 Learning from Operational Experience Introduction The Learning from Operational Experience Annual Report (LOEAR) is a sister publication to the ASPR, and captures some of the lessons the GB rail industry has learnt during 2013/14. The report looks at learning in areas of general cooperative activity across the industry, and identifies specific learning points in areas affecting rail users and employees. Industry co-operative activities The industry continues to co-operate via a wide range of learning-related activities and resources, including: Right Track magazine, CIRAS, research projects, and the Close Call System. CIRAS received 978 contacts on a diverse range of topics in 2013/14, of which 216 (22%) became reports after the screening process. Positive results included (inter alia) amendments to a non-compliant coach-lifting procedure, a review of shunting operations in a large depot, and improvements to station dispatch arrangements. Investigations and recommendations During 2013/14, RAIB published 26 reports, 22 of which involved incidents on the mainline railway. These 22 incidents led to 88 recommendations; the area of infrastructure asset management received most focus. The Incident Factor Classification System shows communications to be the dominant factor in incidents involving signalling, featuring in 40% of reports classified. 28

31 Learning from Operational Experience Accident and incident investigations, statistics and other sources of information are analysed to help focus effort where it is most needed. This approach enables learning to occur across the following four areas: Train accidents July 2013 saw four major train accidents occur across the world: in Canada (6th, 47 fatalities), France (12th, 6 fatalities), Spain (25th, 79 fatalities) and Switzerland (29th, 1 fatality). Each reminded the GB rail industry of the significant reputational and business risk associated with such accidents. Photo: Network Rail RSSB produced a paper on each of these incidents and measured them against GB practices and regulations. A fatal collision between a push-pull train and a cow in Germany led to a cross-industry discussion of the risks from strikes with animals in Great Britain. RSSB reviewed the lessons learned after a similar accident at Polmont in Analysis indicates that the risk from animal strike incidents is generally low. However, such incidents carry the potential for harm, and do impact on the commercial aspect of the railway in terms of delays, cleaning and line clearance. Passengers Passenger risk at the platform-train interface (PTI) continues to be an area of particular industry focus. A number of recent PTI events have highlighted areas for learning, including the dispatch procedure itself, the role of the driver, the behaviour of passengers, and door design/ maintenance. The industry has focused on passenger risk at the PTI over the last two years, via a dedicated task force. 29

32 Learning from Operational Experience Workforce The deaths of two rail employees in a road traffic accident in 2013/14 highlight the continuing need for focus on this area. A number of RAIB reports published during the year raised issues for those managing and working on infrastructure projects. Incidents like the infrastructure worker fatality at Saxilby (4 December 2012) have raised questions about (inter-alia) worksite length, the planning of safe systems of work, location knowledge and the competence of agency staff. Members of the public Members of the public have a duty to ensure that they use level crossings in the prescribed manner; the industry has a duty to ensure both that the prescribed manner is fit for purpose and that its operations allow the prescribed manner to be followed. Beyond the railway The industry is mindful of the need to look beyond its own operations for insights or initiatives. It is also mindful that the key to success is not only about sharing lessons, but also best practice and ideas. The report therefore presents a number of case studies where this has been achieved, and highlights RSSB s summaries of some of the major non-rail accident public inquiries, which can also offer suggestions for how your own learning procedures might be improved. 30

33 Key safety facts Safety overview Overview 2009/ / / / /14 Fatalities Passenger Workforce Public Total Major injuries Passenger Workforce Public Total Minor injuries Passenger Workforce Public Total Shock/trauma Passenger Workforce Public Total Fatalities and weighted injuries Passenger Workforce Public Total Suicide and attempted suicide Suicides FWI

34 Key safety facts Train accidents Train accidents 2009/ / / / /14 Fatalities (excluding suicides) Passengers Workforce Members of the public Weighted injuries (excluding suicides) Passengers Workforce Members of the public Total train accidents PHRTAs Involving passenger trains Collisions between trains Derailments Collisions with road vehicles not at LC Collisions with road vehicles at LC (not derailed) Collisions with road vehicles at LC (derailed) Striking buffer stops Struck by large falling object Not involving passenger trains Collisions between trains Derailments Collisions with road vehicles not at LC Collisions with road vehicles at LC (not derailed) Collisions with road vehicles at LC (derailed) Striking buffer stops Struck by large falling object Non-PHRTA train accidents Involving passenger trains Open door collisions Roll back collisions Striking animals Struck by missiles Train fires Striking level crossing gates/barriers Striking other objects Not involving passenger trains Open door collisions Roll back collisions Striking animals Struck by missiles Train fires Striking level crossing gates/barriers Striking other objects PIM risk estimate (FWI per year) Public behaviour SPAD Trains and rolling stock Operational incidents Environmental Infrastructure The category collisions with road vehicles (not at LC) excludes accidents that result in a derailment; these incidents are included in the derailments category. Similarly the derailments category excludes derailments resulting from collisions between trains, collisions with road vehicles at level crossings and trains struck by large falling objects. 32

35 Key safety facts PIM precursors PIM precursors 2010/ / / /14 Public behaviour Bridge strikes Non Rail vehicles on the line Non-Passenger trains striking objects due to vandalism Passenger trains striking objects due to vandalism Public behaviour (Active automatic level crossings) Public behaviour (Active manual level crossings) Public behaviour (Passive level crossings) SPADs SPADs Trains and rolling stock Non-Passenger defects (other than brake/control) Passenger defects (other than brake/control) Brake/control defects Operational incidents Displaced or insecure loads Objects foul of the line Other issues Routing Signaller errors other than routing Track issues Affecting level crossings Runaway trains Train Speeding (approaching bufferstops) Train Speeding (non-passenger) Train Speeding (passenger) Environmental Adhesion LC incidents due to weather (Active automatic) LC incidents due to weather (Active manual) LC incidents due to weather (Passive) Non-Passenger trains running into other obstructions Non-Passenger trains running into trees Passenger trains running into other obstructions Passenger trains running into trees Infrastructure Animals on the line Broken fishplates Broken rails Buckled rails Culvert failures Cutting failures Embankment failures Flooding Gauge faults LC failures (Active automatic) LC failures (Passive) Overline bridge failures Rail bridge failures Retaining wall failures S&C faults Tunnel failures Twist and geometry faults Wrongside signalling failures

36 Key safety facts Passengers Passengers 2009/ / / / /14 Fatalities Train accidents Slips, trips, and falls Platform-train interface Assault and abuse On-board injuries Contact with object or person Struck by train on station crossing Other type of passenger injury Major injuries Train accidents Slips, trips, and falls Platform-train interface Assault and abuse On-board injuries Contact with object or person Struck by train on station crossing Other type of passenger injury Minor injuries Class Class Incidents of shock Class Class Fatalities and weighted injuries Train accidents Slips, trips, and falls Platform-train interface Assault and abuse On-board injuries Contact with object or person Struck by train on station crossing Other type of passenger injury Passenger kms (billions) Passenger journeys (millions) Incidents of passenger trespass, suspected and attempted suicide are analysed under public risk and counted in the key safety fact sheet for members of the public. 34

37 Key safety facts Workforce Workforce 2009/ / / / /14 Fatalities Infrastructure worker Train driver Other on-board train crew Station staff Revenue protection Other workforce Major injuries Infrastructure worker Train driver Other on-board train crew Station staff Revenue protection Other workforce Minor injuries Class Class Incidents of shock Class Class Total FWI Infrastructure worker Train driver Other on-board train crew Station staff Revenue protection Other workforce

38 Key safety facts Public Public 2009/ / / / /14 Trespass Fatalities Major injuries Minor injuries Shock/trauma Total trespass FWI Level crossings Fatalities Major injuries Minor injuries Shock/trauma Total level crossings FWI Non-trespass non-lx Fatalities Major injuries Minor injuries Shock/trauma Total non-trespass non-lx FWI Total public accidental FWI Fatalities Major injuries Minor injuries Shock/trauma Total accidental FWI Suicide Fatalities Major injuries Minor injuries Shock/trauma Total suicide FWI

39 Key safety facts Road-rail interface Road-rail interface 2009/ / / / /14 Fatalities at LC (level crossings) Pedestrians Passenger on station crossing Member of public Road vehicle occupants Train occupants Passenger on train Workforce on train Weighted injuries at LC Pedestrians Road vehicle occupants Train occupants Suicide and attempted suicide Suicide Attempted suicide Collisions with road vehicles at LC Resulting in derailment Collisions with gates or barriers at LC Gates Barriers Reported near misses With pedestrians With road vehicles Reported incidents of crossing events With pedestrians With road vehicles Vehicle incursions Via fences Via bridges Via level crossings Via access points Number foul of the track Number struck by trains Train struck by falling vehicle

40 Definitions and scope Scope. The report relates to the mainline railway in Great Britain. The analysis covers events that take place on trains, in mainline stations and on Network Rail managed infrastructure (such as the track and the area around it). Workforce fatalities in depots, yards and sidings are included, but other incidents in these locations are not. Suicides, suspected suicides and attempted suicides are generally excluded from the statistics presented in the charts in this booklet unless otherwise stated. Person type. A person working for a company in the rail industry, either as a contractor or a direct employee, is classed as a member of the workforce while they are on duty. Someone on a train or in a station in connection with a journey they have just made, or are about to undertake, is a passenger. Anyone else is a member of the public. Injury degree. Injuries that involve serious harm, such as a loss of consciousness or a broken limb, are classed as major injuries, as is any injury that requires attendance at hospital for over 24 hours. Other physical injuries are classed as minor injuries. The railway measures overall harm in terms of fatalities and weighted injuries (FWI). See page 39 for more information. Data sources. Most of the statistics presented in this report are derived from the rail industry s Safety Management Information System (SMIS), and usually cover the ten-year period from 2004/05 to 2013/14. The charts showing the risk profile are based on the industry s Safety Risk Model (SRM). Data sources are referenced in the relevant charts. 38

41 Fatalities and weighted injuries The table shows the number of each injury type that is deemed to be statistically equivalent to one fatality. The weightings direct safety expenditure towards those incidents and accidents that lead to the highest levels of risk without ignoring the types of incident that typically have less severe outcomes. Injury degrees and weightings Injury degree Definition Ratio Fatality Death occurs within one year of the accident. 1 Major injury Injuries to passengers, staff or members of the public as defined in schedule 1 to RIDDOR 1995 amended April This includes losing consciousness, most fractures, major dislocations, 10 loss of sight (temporary or permanent) and other injuries that resulted in hospital attendance for more than 24 hours. Class 1 minor injury Injuries to passengers, staff or members of the public, which are neither fatalities nor major injuries, and: - for passengers or public, result in the injured person being taken to hospital from the scene of the accident (as defined as reportable in RIDDOR amended April 2012) - for workforce, result in the injured person being incapacitated for their normal duties for more than three consecutive calendar days, not including the day of the injury. Class 2 minor injury All other physical injuries Class 1 shock / trauma Class 2 shock / trauma Shock or trauma resulting from being involved in, or witnessing, events that have serious potential for a fatal outcome, eg train accidents such as 200 collisions and derailments, or a person being struck by train. Shock or trauma resulting from other causes, such as verbal abuse and near misses, or personal accidents of a typically non-fatal outcome RIDDOR refers to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, a set of health and safety regulations that mandate the reporting of, inter alia, work-related accidents. These regulations were first published in 1985, and have been amended and updated several times. In 2012, there was an amendment to the RIDDOR 1995 criteria for RIDDOR-reportable workforce minor injuries from three days to seven days. For the purposes of the industry s safety performance analysis, the more-than-three-days criterion has been maintained, as well as the category termed Class 1 minor injury. In the latest version of RIDDOR, published 2013, the term major injury was dropped; the regulation now uses the term specified injuries to refer to a slightly different scope of injuries than those that were classed as major. Again, for consistency in industry safety performance analysis, the term major injury has been maintained, along with the associated definition from RIDDOR