Peer review: Len Porter
Former Chief Executive, RSSB
I would like to quote Ian Prosser, then step back a little and look more deeply at those statements and the underlying issues they expose.
- “ORR, like Network Rail, has to achieve more with less.”
- “Concentrating on the biggest areas of risk reduction.”
- “It’s an obvious area where improvements can be made in both safety and efficiency.”
- “Other companies focus on getting safety built into the design of everything new.”
- “It needs to build for maintainability.”
- “We need a better understanding of risk at multi-SPAD locations.”
- “The next highest level of risk is at level crossings.”
The article is written in 2014, but some of the quotes would not have been out of place in 2003. It could be argued, for example, that among other things the Hatfield accident in 2000 was caused by a poor understanding of the concept of risk and, therefore, a risk-based approach to inspection and maintenance.
To really understand risk, it is important to collect the correct data and develop the management systems to convert that data into information. Such information can then be used to populate the risk and reliability models that in turn provide the knowledge for risk and evidence-based decision-making.
In the early 2000s, it was said that there was a lot of data available concerning lock nuts detached from stretcher bar bolts appearing on the ballast. Since the data was not collected and fed into information management systems, there was nothing to alert the management that there was a growing risk of a Potters Bar incident - which eventually happened in 2002.
Perhaps a risk-based inspection approach would have led to the points that caused the Grayrigg accident in 2007 being inspected as a matter of priority, instead of being left because of time constraints.
Over the years, the primary safety-critical industries have learned that safety and efficiency go hand-in-hand. Safety risk is but a part of overall business risk, and safety performance a part of business performance.
If infrastructure and other assets are designed, fabricated and constructed interdependently with ease of installation, commissioning and maintenance in mind, it usually results in a better overall system performance, cost and risk balance.
This is, of course, easier said than done. But such an approach was captured in the first BSI PAS 55 document published in 2004 (updated in 2008), the Institute of Asset Management document Asset Management - An Anatomy published in
December 2011 (version 2 published July 2014), and in the ISO 55000 standard series published earlier this year and which was such an ongoing success for the Institute of Asset Management.
The recently updated and excellent RSSB document Taking Safe Decisions outlines similar principles, and is worthy of an article in its own right in a subsequent version of this publication, since it is so important for the European rail industry regarding risk assessment and evaluation.
Taking a systems-based approach hasn’t been easy, when the nature of franchises and particularly their lengths is considered alongside the Network Rail five-year Control Periods. It has been difficult to achieve efficient working arrangements, common objectives and aligned incentives, and to embrace the true spirit of partnership to include Network Rail, train operators and their joint supply community. Unfortunately an
adversarial approach has often prevailed, with poor contacts and procurement practices making it difficult to deliver whole-of-life value as a result.
Fundamental to a modern asset management approach is achieving a line of sight from industry or company strategy and corporate objectives, through to operational planning.
I believe that the industry has been hampered by poor government intervention and regulatory capability. In an industry with a long-life asset base that needs clear long-term thinking, it is not so long ago (in these terms) that, for example, high-speed rail and electrification were out and then back in again a year or so later.
Unfortunately, the ORR spent a lot of time and effort trying to regulate cost out of Network Rail without regulating good practice in. The Value for Money review contributed little, and probably took the industry backwards rather than forwards.
The good news, however, is that I believe both government and the ORR have substantially shifted their thinking in recent years. The ORR’s CP5 determination was really very good, but it was for CP5 and not CP3 - it asks for the right things from an asset management point of view, but perhaps up to ten years too late.
The DfT has significantly raised its game, reflected in the much improved approach to franchising with (I believe) even better things to come. It is no surprise, therefore, that the industry has relatively recently gained from informed direction and regulatory guidance.
It was heartening to read the August edition of Assets (the Institute of Asset Management magazine). An article entitled The 10-point plan describes the journey and approach to how Network Rail has implemented a significant improvement programme, to transform the way it manages its structures assets. The article is excellent, and should give Ian Prosser and the ORR added confidence that Network Rail is taking a lead going forward and has improved performance at reduced cost and with risk in mind.
During my time at RSSB from 2003 to March 2014, there is no doubt that the GB rail industry improved its safety position significantly for a range of good reasons. But, as illustrated by the PIM, there is underlying risk that has flat-lined and in some cases (for example, risk associated with SPADs and civil assets) recently increased.
Much of the PIM improvement has been the result of engineering intervention and investment in asset renewal - rolling stock, track, TPWS. The next step change, in my view, will come from the use of new data, information and overall asset management systems and associated competencies. These will improve overall performance at reduced cost and risk.
So safety will improve as we get better at managing the asset base and overall system. In the meantime, I have sympathy with Ian’s position, and I especially agree that such a change in culture and approach will take at least five years. I just wish we could have started the journey earlier - the tools and building blocks were there, but not the strategy, direction or informed regulatory guidance to push the industry along.
