Application of an improved bowtie method in a CMS-compliant risk assessment of a change introduced in the EU railway system

• Autorzy: Smoczyński Piotr , Gill Adrian , Kadziński Adam , Laur Martin , Õun Tambet

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.20858/tp.2022.17.2.11

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The issue of managing the risk associated with introducing changes to the railway system is very important from the point of view of safety management, as any change can significantly reduce the level of safety of a railway system. For this reason, such changes are regulated at the European Union (EU) level through a dedicated legal act known as the Common Safety Method for risk assessment (CSM). The example presented in this paper is a portion of the analysis carried out for an Estonian freight carrier with a bowtie method, which we improved so that it fully complies with the CSM requirements. This analysis concerns a change consisting of allowing the possibility of a freight train being driven by one person (with no assistant driver). The case study presented in the paper, although limited due to confidentially issues, allows a full description of how to use the proposed method in real-world applications.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

signal; danger; train driver; bowtie method; common safety method

PL

sygnał; niebezpieczeństwo; maszynista; metoda bowtie; wspólna metoda bezpieczeństwa

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Transport Problems
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: T. 17, z. 2
• Strony: 127--136
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 28 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Smoczyński Piotr

• Poznan University of Technology; pl. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie 5, Poznań, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3824-3764

autor

Gill Adrian

• Poznan University of Technology; pl. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie 5, Poznań, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2655-4584

autor

Kadziński Adam

• Poznan University of Technology; pl. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie 5, Poznań, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7401-2045

autor

Laur Martin

• AS OPERAIL; Metalli 3, 10615 Tallinn, Estonia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4911-4247

autor

Õun Tambet

• AS OPERAIL; Metalli 3, 10615 Tallinn, Estonia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3914-6926

Bibliografia

• 1. Takeda, K. & Saito, H. & Shiamad, Y. & Kitajima, T. & Fuchino, T. & Naka, Y. Overview for Management of Change based on Business Process Model of Plant Lifecycle. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. 2013. Vol.32. P. 607-612. Elsevier B.V. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63234-0.50102-0.
• 2. Levovnik, D. & Gerbec, M. Operational readiness for the integrated management of changes in the bindustrial organizations – Assessment approach and results. Safety Science. 2018. Vol. 107. P. 119-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.04.006.
• 3. European Commission. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU). No 402/2013 of 30 April 2013 on the common safety method for risk evaluation and assessment and repealing Regulation (EC). No 352/2009. European Commission. 2013.
• 4. Belgian National Safety Authority. Annual report on railway safety 2016. Brussels. 2017.
• 5. German National Safety Authority. Annual Report of the Federal Railway Authority. 2017.
• 6. Danish National Safety Authority. Safety report for the railways. 2017.
• 7. Helak, M. & Smoczyński, P. & Kadziński, A. Implementation of the common safety method in the European Union railway transportation. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport. 2019. Vol. 102. P. 65-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2015.89.2.
• 8. Almklov, P.G. & Rosness, R. & Størkersen, K. When safety science meets the practitioners: Does safety science contribute to marginalization of practical knowledge? Safety Science. 2014. Vol. 67. P. 25-36. Elsevier Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.08.025.
• 9. Jacinto, C. & Silva, C. A semi-quantitative assessment of occupational risks using bow-tie representation. Safety Science. 2010. Vol. 48. No. 8. P. 973-979. Elsevier Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2009.08.008.
• 10. Lu, L. & Liang, W. & Zhang, L. & Zhang, H. & Lu, Z. & Shan, J. A comprehensive risk evaluation method for natural gas pipelines by combining a risk matrix with a bow-tie model. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering. 2015. Vol. 25. P. 124-133. Elsevier B.V. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.04.029.
• 11. Hughes, P. & Shipp, D. & Figueres-Esteban, M. & van Gulijk, C. From free-text to structured safety management: Introduction of a semi-automated classification method of railway hazard reports to elements on a bow-tie diagram. Safety Science. 2018. Vol. 110. No. June 2017. P. 11-19. Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.03.011.
• 12. de Ruijter, A. & Guldenmund, F. The bowtie method: A review. Safety Science. 2015. Vol. 88. P. 211-218. Elsevier Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.03.001.
• 13. Markowski, A.S. & Kotynia, A. “Bow-tie” model in layer of protection analysis. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2011. Vol. 89. No. 4. P. 205-213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2011.04.005.
• 14. Badreddine, A. & Romdhane, T. Ben & HajKacem, M.A. Ben & Amor, N. Ben. A new multiobjective approach to implement preventive and protective barriers in bow tie diagram. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2014. Vol. 32. P. 238-253. Elsevier Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2014.09.012.
• 15. Badreddine, A. & Amor, N. Ben. A Bayesian approach to construct bow tie diagrams for risk evaluation. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Institution of Chemical Engineers. 2013. Vol. 91. No. 3. P. 159-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.03.005.
• 16. Targoutzidis, A. Incorporating human factors into a simplified “bow-tie” approach for workplace risk assessment. Safety Science. 2010. Vol. 48. No. 2. P. 145-156. Elsevier Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2009.07.005.
• 17. CCPS (Center for Chemical Process Safety). Bow Ties in Risk Management: A Concept Book for Process Safety. 2018.
• 18. Aven, T. Risk Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2015.
• 19. van Duijne, F.H. & van Aken, D. & Schouten, E.G. Considerations in developing complete and quantified methods for risk assessment. Safety Science. 2008. Vol. 46. No. 2. P. 245-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.05.003.
• 20. Smoczyński, P. & Gill, A. & Kadziński, A. Qualitative bowtie method for change-related risk assessment in the European Union railway system. Proceedings of 24th Scientific Conference Rail Vehicles.
• 21. Naweed, A. & Balakrishnan, G. & Dorrian, J. Going solo: Hierarchical task analysis of the second driver in “two-up” (multi-person) freight rail operations. Applied Ergonomics. 2018. Vol. 70. P. 202-231. Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.01.002.
• 22. Naweed, A. & Every, D. & Balakrishnan, G. & Dorrian, J. One is the loneliest number : Exploring the role of the second driver in Australian rail operations. Ergonomics Australia. 2014. Vol. 1. No. 2.
• 23. Heath, C. & Hindmarsh, J. & Luff, P. Interaction in Isolation: The Dislocated World of the London Underground Train Driver. Sociology. 1999. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 555-575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038599000358.
• 24. Rashidy, R.A.H.E.L. & Hughes, P. & Figueres-Esteban, M. & Harrison, C. & Van Gulijk, C. A big data modeling approach with graph databases for SPAD risk. Safety Science. 2017. Vol. 110. No. November. P. 0-1. Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.019.
• 25. Hamilton, W.I. & Clarke, T. Driver performance modelling and its practical application to railway safety. Applied Ergonomics. 2005. Vol. 36. No. 6. Spec. iss. P. 661-670. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.07.005.
• 26. Republic of Estonia – Minister of the Interior. Requirements and procedure for a continuity risk assessment and plan of a vital service, for the preparation thereof and the implementation of a plan. 2017.
• 27. Gill, A. & Kadziński, A. Hazard identification model. Proceedings of 20th International Scientific Conference Transport Means. 5-7 October 2016, Juodkrante, Lithuania. Kaunas University of Technology. 2016. P. 885-890.
• 28. Aven, T. Implications of black swans to the foundations and practice of risk assessment and management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2015. Vol. 134. P. 83-91. Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.10.004.

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).