ASSET & RISK MANAGEMENT


not following the appropriate risk management steps?


“The ORR is always monitoring the rail industry. It is our job to gain assurance that all railway employers are delivering health and safety compliance and the results they aspire to achieve in terms of safety.


“All railway operators – Network Rail included – require either a certificate or authorisation to operate in terms of health and safety competence. To do this they issue us with a summary of their management arrangements.


“Our job is to test those arrangements so we can reassure the public these companies are capable of delivering the things they have promised to do.


“Inevitably in organisations that have not yet reached a really excellent level of management maturity, you will always find areas that were not as you would wish. From our website you will see that from time to time we do enforce against the industry in areas where we believe they have not yet achieved the right standard of management.


“At the moment I think we have some evidence of very good performance in some aspects but we also have evidence of poor performance where we have felt the need to take formal action. Our emphasis in our corporate strategy is very much focused on improving the culture of organisations – we have a very strong belief that the culture of an organisation is vital in setting the level of performance.


“In terms of driving


improvements in health and safety risk management, we believe there needs to be leadership and a genuine desire to deliver excellent health and safety risk management. This is crucial to achieving other long- term goals.”


Knowledge (of assets) is power


As funds become tighter, getting the most out of the rail industry’s assets will become even more important, says Lord Tony Berkeley, Rail Freight Group Chairman


T


he British rail network is huge, with thousands of assets the length and breadth of the country. Keeping track of those assets can be a complicated task.


“It is important to define what we mean when we talk about assets because they comprise a lot of things,” says Rail Freight Group chairman Lord Tony Berkeley.


“The issues rail freight has been experiencing around infrastructure have reduced over the last few years, thanks largely to pressure being put on Network Rail from the regulator and our side of the industry, mainly because we were frustrated with a number of issues.


“The problems began in around 2001 and centred around the asset register, which wasn’t very accurate and full of anomalies. The trouble really came when we started to look at some of the branch lines, as we wanted to run heavier freight on them and the lines had not had freight on them for a number of years.


“This in turn raised issues around route availability - which is concerned with the axle weight and speed the train is moving - because the asset register did not accurately reflect the actual RA of some of the tracks. This meant that, in one example, a track had been designated as R8, which is quite a heavy axle load but not the heaviest, but it had been allowed to degrade down to R5.


“This meant that if a company wanted to use that particular line to move goods, Network Rail said they would have to pay to have the track brought back


gauge changed. We were having big fights about this and it turned out the register was so complicated, the arguments seemed almost endless.


Lord Tony Berkeley


“The problems began in around 2001 and centred around the asset register, which wasn’t very accurate and full of anomalies. The trouble really came when we started to look at some of the branch lines...”


up to R8. This then led to an argument, which ended when the rail regulator said Network Rail would have to pay for the line to be brought back up to standard, because essentially that was its core function. This meant it would be forced to pay for tracks to be brought back up to standard if it had let them degrade.


“Ironically, this particular project never went ahead because the management at the company who wanted to use the track got sacked for fiddling the books. That’s the way it goes sometimes, I suppose.


“However, this kind of thing has happened in a few places, with the same principles applying to gauge, in that Network Rail’s asset register was giving incorrect gauge measures and again they said the operators would have to pay to have the


“So finally after eight years of being chastised by the regulator, Network Rail finally turned the asset register into an electronic version, available on their website. They still have the obligation to reinstate any assets to their original state if they have let them degrade.


“I must say this electronic register does provide a better resource of information to anyone thinking of running a new service, in terms of how big and how high they can run their services. Of course, a new operator would also have to ask Network Rail to double-check the register – sometimes they do this for free and sometimes not, so it can be an expensive business trying to set up new services.


“An example of this is the efforts being made to get a higher gauge train down to the south west, which would be using a W8 wagon. Now, whilst Network Rail has said this should be fine in theory, they then say six bridges need further investigation and this more in-depth study is going to cost around five figures, which means the operator would have to find that money. Whilst this study might be funded by the local regional development agency - before it is abolished - it is still a very unsatisfactory way of running the system.


“Having to pay Network Rail to let you know how big their asset is – it’s not right – they should know this already.”


rail technology magazine Dec/Jan 11 | 51


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92