In order to meet the ambitious goals set, the D-RAIL project has adapted an architecture, structured in 8 work packages which inform and feed into one another as demonstrated in the diagram below.
In this folder result all PU = Public deliverables is found.
All CO = Confidential deliverables can be found in the Members area in the UIC extranet
The objective of D-RAIL’s Work Package 1 was to provide a comprehensive review of recent freight derailments, to identify causes leading to these, and to understand the economic and social impact.
Tasks 1.1-1.4 gathered information on the number of derailments and their causes from countries in Europe and around the world, and associated costs where available. The objective was to identify the major causes of derailment as a starting point for the detailed analysis of derailment causes in WP3.
This review of project partner countries’ mainline freight train derailments focuses on the six-year period 2005-2010. The statistics collected here for this period show that the number of derailments occurring each year is in general declining. Derailment data were collected from safety databases in the USA, Russia, and several European countries, as well as UIC and ERADIS, and brought together into a single database. Derailment causes have been categorized using a variant of the system used in the recent study for ERA by DNV. Causes have been ranked according to the proportion of derailments occurring within each category, and this has provided the following ranking of derailment causes in Europe:
- Axle ruptures
- Excessive track width
- Wheel failure
- Skew loading
- Excessive track twist
- Track height/cant failure
- Rail failures
- Spring & suspension failure
It was found that infrastructure and rolling stock are responsible for most derailments on open line and in stations, while operations are the dominant cause in shunting yards. Countries differ in their infrastructure, rolling stock and operation parameters, which can create wide variation in the key derailment causes.
Although regulations covering reporting of accidents are now in place in the European Union, there is still significant variation in the quality of reporting across the Member States. Detailed information on derailments, their causes and costs, is often available only from private databases in each country. Costs, in particular, are very difficult to estimate, as different financial procedures are implemented in different countries, and the impact of derailments can often be over several years.
The initial findings of this work were also presented to ERRAC Evaluation Working Group (Milestone MS01) and they provided recommendations to be considered by the project as in continued (details in section 3.3 and Appendix 1 Recommendations from ERRAC Evaluation Working Group (EWG) - Feedback from D-RAIL project pre-evaluation. This was very useful and ensured the consideration of the implementation of the D-RAIL results.
A second provides details on the impact of freight derailments, including an assessment of the economic impact. Data sources were European databases EUROSTAT and ERADIS, information from project partners’ databases and information from previous reports, studies and papers.
From the analysis of derailment impact in this deliverable, a number of observations can be made for modelling derailment costs:
- There are 500 derailments per year, of which 7% (35 derailments) involve dangerous goods.
- There are, on average, 2 fatalities per year and 3 serious injuries per year, at costs of 1.5M€ per fatality and 0.2M€ per serious injury, so the human cost is 3.6M€ per year. This is equivalent to a human cost of 7200 € per derailment.
- Environmental clean-up costs are small except in the 7% of derailments involving dangerous goods. If the minimum cost per dangerous goods derailment (250000 €) is assumed here, this is equivalent to 17500 € per derailment.
Based on this, the human and environmental costs add a fixed cost of approximatively 25000 € per derailment, regardless of the type of derailment. However, this is an average value, and could be thought of as, for example, six severe derailments per year, each incurring costs of 2M€ (rather than 500 derailments per year, each incurring the cost of 25000 € per derailment).
In data collection, the costs were split into two major groups:
- Direct costs, meaning just the railway asset costs of infrastructure and rolling stock that are damaged during or after a derailment.
- Indirect costs, including e.g., disruption cost (delay minutes, etc.), fatalities and injuries costs, legal and litigation costs, third party damage, environmental (this could include post-accident clean-up operation, etc.), attendance of emergency services, public dangers (hazardous cargo), loss of cargo and freight. The data collected in D-RAIL indicates an 80%/20% split of direct costs between infrastructure and rolling stock.
For calculating the total impact in cases where only direct costs are known, the direct cost should be multiplied by a factor – ERA’s cost benefit analysis model gives a factor of 2.5. Data for the USA indicate this factor is known to be 1.8 - 2. Analysis of the data provided by infrastructure managers in the D-RAIL project suggests that this factor may be much lower (only 1.33) but it is likely that this varies considerably between countries.
D1.1 Summary report on database of derailments incidents - PU
D1.2 Report on derailment economic impact assessment - PU
This work package evaluated trends for the railway freight system of the future towards the freight target system of 2050. This has to embrace future European rail policy and strategy for freight and the likely impact on future operation and technologies. Future trends for the movement and loading of freight, logistics and sector economic aspects were assessed as part of the review to support future derailment scenarios based on the impact analysis from WP1, and to ensure that the approach embraces the future freight vision. Freight vehicles and fleet operation, including loading aspects, will also be examined for existing and future requirements. A future oriented analysis of costs and benefits of reducing, or even mitigating, derailments or reducing impacts is only possible if it is known how the future rail freight market (commodities, types of wagons, operational patterns, etc.) will develop; this is the context of this Work Package.
Three scenarios were developed: the Reference scenario, where no major policy change occurs in the future and two White Paper scenarios which assume that there will be a significant shift in freight demand from road to rail in the period to 2050. In terms of tones (lifted), total freight demand is expected to grow on average by 1.53% annually according to the Reference scenario. This average growth rate increases significantly in the White Paper High Scenario, strongly affecting the modal split and doubling rail freight demand. In the White Paper Low scenario, total demand is increased by almost 20% over the present position (that is compared to Reference scenario in 2050) while in the White Paper High scenario, the total demand is expected to almost double, favoring long-distance transport. The implications for the rail freight sector in terms of wagon fleet capacity and capability are therefore significant, as is availability of infrastructure (e.g. line capacity and train paths) to accommodate the much higher demands expected.
The study concludes that Open top wagons, Flat wagons (for containers), Covered wagons and Covered hopper wagons will feature most prominently in the rail freight rolling stock fleet in EU27 in 2050.
On the basis of the corridor (origin destination country pairs) analysis, the study concludes that Flat wagons or Covered wagons will be important for the NL-DE, DE-IT, DE-NL, BE-FR, and FR-BE corridors for the transport of Crude manufacturing, building materials; Open top wagon for PL-DE, CZ-DE, and CZ-DE corridors for transport of solid mineral fuels; Covered hopper wagons for DE-AT corridor for transport of agriculture products; and Covered hopper wagons for the SK-CZ corridor for the transport of Fertilisers.
The monetization of the derailment accidents and the evaluation of the intervention techniques are performed combining two approaches. The first approach assumes two scenarios: constant derailments scenario; where the annual number of derailments is assumed at 500 (unchanged); and decreasing (10% to 20%) derailments scenario throughout the analysis period. The second approach uses the Cost and Benefits Analysis (CBA), a quantitative tool used by decision makers to determine, in this case with a set of intervention techniques, a project’s cost appropriateness, efficiency and effectiveness. This approach, hence, produces the costs and benefits, up to 2050, based on eight sets of interventions which target the eight derailment causes.
All WP2 results were presented in detail within a validation workshop (Milestone MS02) organized at UIC in Paris. Experts from relevant UIC working groups and industry were invited, and the workshop was a successful event which provided the validation feedback, as well as the final input in WP2 deliverables.
D2.1 Rail freight forecast to 2050 - PU
D2.2 Future rolling stock breakdown to 2050 - PU
D2.3 Cost/benefit analysis for intervention to reduce freight derailment - CO
The focus of this work package was to identify and evaluate, through simulation and analysis, the key contributory factors associated with derailment including combined causal effects for the freight vehicle and track system. The study evaluates these factors to provide cost effective solutions to reduce or eliminate the propensity for derailment and provide improved levels of safety. Reductions in derailments have to be quantified in relation to current incidents and consequences and will seek to demonstrate a step change in prevention. Derailment scenarios will be assessed based upon existing benchmark analysis to determine the extent of causal effects to support future improvements. A number of derailment mechanisms and influencing factors will be evaluated, undertaken for both vehicle and track based, on an understanding of the ‘total’ integrated freight system.
The first report gives an overview of the findings of several workshops on the investigation of the major derailment causes identified and listed in the Deliverable D1.1. The results of the workshops were put into an overall structure to identify all mitigation measures for the given major derailment causes in a systematic way. Thereby well-known and already introduced measures are considered as well as prototypes and technologies currently under development. Finally, the potential for new measures is also indicated. These results provide an input for WP 4 to analyze the listed mitigation measures in more detail. The focus of all measures is primarily technology-oriented to gain advantages from automated inspection. The report already provides an approach to run a rough estimation for on-board and wayside monitoring systems.
The work in this task has also provided some practical recommendations, which cannot be structured in an overall manner, but seem to be important enough to be documented to ensure that they are considered during the project. One of these practical examples is the ability of track circuits (which are primarily used for checking the route occupation) to act also for detection of broken rail. During replacement of track circuit to axle counting systems, this functionality gets lost and has to be taken over by some other type of inspection.
The second report investigated the influencing factors that lead to derailment through numerical sensitivity analysis. Focus has been placed on Y25 bogie vehicles. Different derailment scenarios have been investigated:
- derailments in straight and curved tracks;
- derailments in switches and crossings (S&C) that are an extremely crucial and sensitive component in all railway systems;
- derailments due to sloshing that, according to track geometry and vehicle speed, may lead to critical wheel unloading;
- derailments due to wheel and rail failures.
A bottom-up approach was adopted, i.e. through numerical simulation, a detailed technical investigation encompassing a multitude of influencing parameters was carried out with the aim of defining the threshold operational conditions.
The influence of a broad variety of parameters, such as vehicle suspension, track geometry and condition etc., on the risk of derailment has been investigated, especially considering operational conditions known to be prone to derailment (e.g. asymmetrical loading, tank wagons, etc.).
For each derailment mechanism the following steps have been carried out:
- establishment of parametric influence (ranges and cross-influence) for both vehicle and track and magnitudes of influence of the different parameters;
- establishment of threshold parameter values or threshold parameter value combinations;
- comparison of derailment assessment standards;
- overview assessment of existing methodologies and devices for detecting “unacceptable” vehicle parameters.
The analysis tools developed have been employed for analysing how the findings relate to measured operational data. The identified parametric ranges will form a framework to establish detector alarm limits and maintenance/monitoring schemes that prevent limiting stages to be reached in operation.
The final report in this WP was aimed at the implementation of results from D3.2. It includes information for each derailment scenario studied in D3.2:
- Brief description of the studies carried out
- Brief summary of most important conclusions
- To support further development of maintenance/monitoring solutions, the guidelines provide indications regarding:
- What needs to be measured/monitored;
- Which measurement/monitoring accuracy is needed;
- Tentative limit magnitudes;
- How measured data should be employed in operational control and maintenance planning;
- Parameters/scenarios suitable for test investigations/validations;
- Input on key parameters in causing derailments, and parameters that should be measured.
D3.1 Derailment causes, impact and prevention assessment - PU
D3.2 Analysis and mitigation of derailment, assessment and commercial impact - PU
D3.3 Guidelines on derailment analysis and prevention - PU
This work package has provided a detailed review and critical assessment of current inspecting and monitoring techniques relating to derailment prevention and mitigation. Inspection and monitoring must be considered for both the freight vehicle and track aspects and the interaction, the ‘freight system’. The technology assessment will also include the existing technical solutions currently available for train ID capturing and consequent association to the inspecting/monitoring tasks. Based on the findings from previous work packages, relevant cost effective solutions to improve the existing inspection and monitoring systems will be developed including functional and operational requirements.
Task 4.1 is now finalized. The Task 4.1 has carried out a survey of the existing inspecting and monitoring systems, including vehicle identification. It was led by UNEW and has been achieved in month 12. The results of Task 4.1 are synthesized in the first part of D4.1.
Task 4.2 is now finalized. The Task 4.2 has dealt with an assessment of existing inspecting and monitoring systems, including vehicle identification. It is led by UIC.
Both tasks 4.1 and 4.2 are synthesized in the Deliverable D4.1 led by UIC.
The first deliverable in this WP aims to provide a detailed review (Task 4.1) and critical assessment (Task 4.2) of current (existing and emerging) inspection and monitoring techniques (including vehicle identification) related to derailment prevention and mitigation.
The study includes, along with a selection of case studies:
- track-based inspection and condition monitoring equipment,
- vehicle-based technologies and specific recording cars with on-board systems, and
- vehicle identification using video or Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).
Data and opinions have been provided for this survey and assessment by various partners involved in WP4: infrastructure managers (UIC, DB and TRAFIKVERKET), academic partners (VUT and UNEW) and suppliers (FAIVELEY, HARSCO, OLTIS and MERMEC). Work Package 4 has also taken input from WP1 (Derailment Impact) on the principal causes of derailment in the EU, and WP3 (Derailment Analysis and Prevention), on related critical parameters. The results of WP4 will feed into technology integration (WP5), field testing and evaluation (WP6) and operational assessment (WP7).
The deliverable presents an assessment of selected monitoring systems to determine their ability to capture key derailment parameters. The results are presented and some features, advantages and limits of the selected systems are listed. A set of evaluation parameters was generated and a rating scheme developed in order to quantitatively evaluate the systems.
Based on this assessment, the Task 4.3 will perform a gap analysis to determine what functions are missing and what technologies require development in order to improve derailment prevention. These results will be described in deliverable D4.2 (‘System enhancements, developments and functional system specifications’). Today D4.2 is delayed.
Task 4.1 has reviewed and analysed the inspection and monitoring techniques that are in the tasks’ contributing partners’ knowledge, or that are currently used in their country. This synthesis gives a survey on existing inspecting and monitoring techniques related to derailment prevention and mitigation. The description of systems based on those technologies has been made using Excel spread sheets that were completed by partners. These descriptions include features such as location, field of application, description, physical principle, unit price, time consumption, communication system, degree of automation. These features form a preliminary assessment of the selected monitoring technologies.
For the purpose of assessing the selected technologies within Task 4.2, an assessment matrix has been built and completed by expert partners according to some critical criteria such as: hardware ruggedness, technology platform, standards, cost, and operational limits, cross border interoperability, diagnostic alerts, measurement effectiveness and derailment prevention efficiency.
D4.1 Existing inspection and monitoring survey and assessment - CO
D4.2 System enhancements, developments and functional system specifications - CO
This work package is to develop and integrate different wayside and onboard monitoring concepts (including vehicle identification), relating to derailment prevention and mitigation purposes, into railway operation. Monitoring concepts include a description of how to integrate various monitoring systems and techniques into the wider railway system. The monitoring concepts contain aspects such as interfaces, SIL definitions, protocols, data transfer, data base concepts, alerts and action plans etc. Suitable concepts are to be developed and selected on the basis of RAMS and LCC-analysis. This leads to information about normalized costs in connection with purchasing, operating and maintaining of monitoring devices in correlation with assessment of safety enhancement. On this basis, different business cases are developed in order to support information for wider industrial implementation.
The work started with the conceptual design of a data model for cross-border data exchange of monitoring systems. A state-of-the-art analysis of cross border data exchange of operational systems was initiated to assist progress towards the objective of integration of newly or existing monitoring systems. Furthermore, a data model concept for cross-border data exchange of monitoring data has been developed.
Another focus is on the definition of the current formats being used for the data exchange.
The work in WP5 is continuing as planned in Annex I and the deliverables are anticipated to experience some short delays, due to delayed inputs from other work packages.
D5.1 Integration and devlopment of monitoring concepts - CO
D5.2 Outline system requirements specification for pan European Freight monitoring - PU
This work package is to validate, through testing on selected test sites, that the proposed changes to the freight system reduce the propensity for derailment and improve safety. To validate the freight system improvements, suitable test location(s) will be utilized for both track and freight vehicle(s) and to support measurement of the combined interactions.
During the tests, both existing and new technologies including telemetry and monitoring outputs will be evaluated so as to determine the step changes in safety performance required for derailment prevention. The results of the test will, where relevant, provide feedback to the derailment analysis so as to validate the initial improvements and modelling. This will ensure that the forward recommendations have been effectively delivered.
D6.1 Analysis of vehicle and wayside monitoring technology field tests - CO
D6.2 Analysis of cross border freight operational testing - CO
D6.3 Field test evaluation results for RAMS/LCC and derailment indicators - CO
This work package is to provide a summary of the key derailment findings, and use RAMS analysis for best and worst case scenarios to identify the impact of vehicle monitoring on the reliability, availability and safety of the railway system.
Economical assessment of monitoring concepts, including migration with regard to LCC and social economic effects and risk assessment for relevant vehicle states and monitoring scenarios, will be undertaken. An estimation of derailment reduction and impact of the various monitoring concepts is to be provided. The work package will result in input guidelines for using future monitoring concepts for the detection of derailment risks and identify of maintenance needs.
WP7 is co-related to all the other work packages, but has direct interdependencies in particular with WP2, 3, 4 and 5. Therefore, the timing of the planned work is essential for achieving the objectives.
D7.1 Existing derailment RAMS and economic studies and D-Rail approach - CO
D7.2 RAMS analysis and recommendation (technical focus) - PU
D7.3 LCC analysis and recommendation (economic focus) - PU
D7.4 Industry guidelines/standard for the implementation of monitoring techniques - PU
D7.5 Existing derailment RAMS and economic studies and D-Rail approach - PU
This work package has to ensure that the findings of the research are widely disseminated to various stakeholders, and that new products and technologies are fully exploited by the industry.
This will be undertaken by the consortium members who already form a wide geographical, demographic and industrial spread across Europe. UIC are also part of the consortium and will be able to provide assistance in promoting and disseminating the findings of the research on a pan-European and International basis. Outreach and marketing of the research findings will occur throughout the project to a wide variety of stakeholders and engineers to ensure industry awareness.
In concluding the research findings, recommendation for improvements to existing European standards for freight operation will be assessed and provided. The research will also be reported in relation to the future freight target system for 2050, and how the findings of the research will benefit economic and technological developments in future freight operation.
D8.1 Set up of private and public website – PU Project
D8.2 Set up of dissemination platform for D-Rail - PU
D8.3 Dissemination and implementation of D-RAIL result PU
The main objectives of this work package are to implement and maintain the administrative management infrastructure of the project and to provide the financial and contractual management of the consortium, including the maintenance of the Consortium Agreement.
To date, all major activities have been completed and most of the deliverables submitted, albeit that some of them were overdue.
During the first six months of the project an effective and efficient project management system was established. This has resulted in:
- Good communication/dissemination links with the partners by email, fax and/or telephone, as well as through the members’ area (extranet) of the project website;
- Three highly productive general meetings (kick-off meeting and two general assemblies) that disseminated the project objectives, structure and first achievements;
- Internal and external workshops, part of the WPs workflow;
- Financial means provided by the EU have been transferred to the different partners
D9.1 Project management plan and quality assurance - PU