1.0 Risk No.

1.01Risk Category: 1. Safety2. Assets3. Financial4. Environment5. Regulatory6. Reputation

1.1Hazard or scenario

or circumstance

1.2Caused by

2.0 Existing Control

2.01Control type

2.2Current

consequence

2.3Current

likelihood

2.4Current risk

level

5.0Has this workshop adequately addressed this risk?

5.2Comments / clarification

None

3.1 BENEFIT

3.2COST

3.3Decision

3.4Responsible

Party

3.5By when

Uncertain OR disputed (revisit this risk and attempt

to resolve)Concrete encasement of conduits (To provide physical barrier during excavation and mechanical protection to conduits)

Engineering/ Design

High Moderate Adopt RRLCMR 20-Nov-13

Relocate cable route Elimination High High Reject RRLCMR 20-Nov-13

Confirm that HV is at the base of cable routeEngineering/

DesignMinimal Minimal Adopt RRLCMR 20-Nov-13

Placement of marker tape along top of concrete encasement (To act as a visual indicator)

Engineering/ Design

Moderate Minimal Adopt RRLCMR 20-Nov-13

Placement of marker posts at pit locations (To identify route)

Engineering/ Design

Moderate Minimal Adopt RRLCMR 20-Nov-13

Track lifted to maximise cover (Reduces likeihood of encountering conduits)

Engineering/ Design

Moderate Minimal Adopt RRLCMR 20-Nov-13

Low speed (15km/hr) environment (Low dynamic loads)

Engineering/ Design

Moderate Minimal AdoptRRLCMR /

ARTC20-Nov-13

Excavation permits require service proving (Improves likelihood of identification of services prior to works)

Administrative Moderate Minimal Adopt ARTC 20-Nov-13

Production of as built drawings (Improves information on services for future works)

Administrative Moderate Minimal Adopt RRLCMR 20-Nov-13

1.0 Risk No.

1.01Risk Category: 1. Safety2. Assets3. Financial4. Environment5. Regulatory6. Reputation

1.1Hazard or scenario

or circumstance

1.2Caused by

2.0 Existing Control

2.01Control type

2.2Current

consequence

2.3Current

likelihood

2.4Current risk

level

5.0Has this workshop adequately addressed this risk?

5.2Comments / clarification

None

3.1 BENEFIT

3.2COST

3.3Decision

3.4Responsible

Party

3.5By when

Uncertain OR disputed (revisit this risk and attempt

to resolve)Concrete encasement of conduits to provide physical barrier during excavation and mechanical protection to conduits

Engineering/ Design

High Moderate Adopt RRLCMR 20-Nov-13

Relocate cable route Elimination High Moderate Reject RRLCMR 20-Nov-13Placement of marker tape along top of concrete encasement as visual indicator

Engineering/ Design

Moderate Minimal Adopt RRLCMR 20-Nov-13

Placement of marker posts at pit locations to identify route

Engineering/ Design

Moderate Minimal Adopt RRLCMR 20-Nov-13

Track lifted to maximise coverEngineering/

DesignModerate Minimal Adopt RRLCMR 20-Nov-13

Low speed (15km/hr) environment therefore low dynamic loads

Engineering/ Design

Moderate Minimal AdoptRRLCMR /

ARTC20-Nov-13

Excavation permits require service proving Administrative Moderate Minimal Adopt ARTC 20-Nov-13

Track operation and maintenance

Most Likely (Credible) Outcome

Worst Case (Credible) Outcome

4.2Revised risk level

Moderate Rare

1. RISK IDENTIFICATION 2. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 5. VALIDATION AND CLARIFICATION1.3

Leading to an Outcome

RRLCMR-2 Assets

Damage to signalling/comms cabling due to presence of cables conduits at less than the prescribed minimum values

SFAIRP TEST

Moderate Possible

Uncertain OR disputed (revisit this risk and attempt to resolve)

Refer to risk RRLCMR-1 for justification of rejected options.

ARTC to complete

5.1Do the decisions make

sense?

4. RESCORE TO REFLECT SFAIRP OUTCOMES4.0

Revised consequence

4.1Revised

likelihood

LOW - 3E

ARTC to complete

Signal failure and line closure

Loss of 2.2kV signalling to NME geographic area. Disruption to VicTrack fibre backbone

3. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RISK TREATMENT3.0

Proposed Additional Control3.01

Control type

Assumes installation of current AFC design, which did not identify the presence of existing conduits

Assumes installation of current AFC design, which did not identify the presence of existing conduits

Major Possible

1. RISK IDENTIFICATION 2. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 5. VALIDATION AND CLARIFICATION1.3

Leading to an Outcome2.1

Responsible Party / Comments

RRLCMR - Risk Assessment to Support Standard Waiver Application

5.1Do the decisions make

sense?

RRLCMR-1 Safety

Worker comes in contact with signalling/comms cabling due to presence of cables conduits at less than the prescribed minimum values

Track operation and maintenance

Most Likely (Credible) Outcome

Worst Case (Credible) Outcome

Mild electric shock from LV signalling cabling

SFAIRP TEST

HIGH - 4C

Localised relocation was rejected on the basis that no appropriate location could be found clear of existing services and trackside structures in the near vicinity of the existing route for relocation. ARTC to complete

4.1Revised

likelihood

4.2Revised risk level

Moderate Unlikely LOW - 3D

ARTC to complete

Electrocution leading to single fatality from HV signalling cabling

3. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RISK TREATMENT 4. RESCORE TO REFLECT SFAIRP OUTCOMES3.0

Proposed Additional Control3.01

Control type

4.0Revised

consequence

2.1Responsible Party / Comments

MED - 3C

WPA MCR along ARTC Freight Link Headshunt

Uncertain OR disputed (revisit this risk and attempt to resolve)

Pg. 1 of 1 Copy of ARTC RA Template.xls

01 01

A31:50

SSS_C0525

WPB-SKT-JAC-CRF-2-00-SSS-0525

RAILWAY TRACK & CIVILC PANNELL

SOUTHERN CROSS STATION

C DUCK

ARTC FREIGHT LINK HEADSHUNT

A

A

CONDUIT DETAILS

C.W.P.15/11/13 ISSUED FOR INFORMATION

4:1

2:0

1 P

M21/1

1/2

013

c:\pw_work\rrl_b\colin.duck\dms01482\WPB-SKT-JAC-CRF-2-00-SSS-0525.dgn

DescriptionDateIn Serv

Drawn By Designed By

Checked By

Approval Date

Drawing NumberIn Serv.

Scale Sheet Size

Sheet No.

Down LocationUp Location Datum

Approved

Ind. Review

Franchisee / Lessee

Consultant

East.

North.

ID#

East.

North.

ID#

Approv.Ind. Rev.Checked

File Name

Revised By Designed

Victrack's prior written consent.not be provided to, or used by, any other person withoutperson or organisation to whom Victrack provides it. It mayThis drawing is provided only for the information of the dimensions.All written dimensions take precedence over scaled drawing or the information contained in it.liability in relation to the use of, or any reliance on, thisVictrack from all and any loss, damage, cost, expense orcontained in this drawing. Each user of this drawing releasesthe completeness, accuracy or quality of any informationresponsibility for, and makes no representations in relation to,maximum extent permissible by law, Victrack takes noinformation provided by, persons other than Victrack. To theThis drawing has been prepared by, or compiled from

of

Certifie

d B

y:

(BL

OC

K L

ET

TE

RS)

(SIG

NA

TU

RE)

(DA

TE)

Project Title Project Drawing Number

DescriptionDateIn Serv Ver.

Drawn By Designed By

Checked By

Approval Date

Drawing NumberIn Serv.

Scale Sheet Size

Sheet No.

Down LocationUp Location Datum

Approved

Ind. Review

Version

Franchisee / Lessee

Consultant

East.

North.

ID#

East.

North.

ID#

Approv.Ind. Rev.Checked

File Name

Revised By Designed

Victrack's prior written consent.not be provided to, or used by, any other person withoutperson or organisation to whom Victrack provides it. It mayThis drawing is provided only for the information of the dimensions.All written dimensions take precedence over scaled drawing or the information contained in it.liability in relation to the use of, or any reliance on, thisVictrack from all and any loss, damage, cost, expense orcontained in this drawing. Each user of this drawing releasesthe completeness, accuracy or quality of any informationresponsibility for, and makes no representations in relation to,maximum extent permissible by law, Victrack takes noinformation provided by, persons other than Victrack. To theThis drawing has been prepared by, or compiled from

of

Ver.

Version

CL

1:60

CL

1:60

STRUCTURAL FILL

STRUCTURAL FILL

TRENCH ARRANGEMENT

REFER DETAIL A FOR

TRENCH ARRANGEMENT

REFER DETAIL B FOR

CL

1:60

STRUCTURAL FILL

2300 MIN

ARRANGEMENT

FOR TRENCH

ROUTE REFER DETAIL C

AS-CONSTRUCTED CABLE

STRUCTURAL FILL500 HAND COMPACTED

SHORTLY AFTER EXCAVATION

BACKFILL TO BE COMPLETED

850 MAX400 400

400 400150MIN

200

200

OPTIC TRACE WIRE

VICTRACK FIBRE

OPTIC TRACE WIRE

VICTRACK FIBRE

230 TYP 460 TYP

300

MIN 6

50

MARKER TAPE

150 CAPPING LAYER

(AS CONSTRUCTED BY WP-A)

CLASS 3 CRUSHED ROCK

(AS CONSTRUCTED BY WP-A)

SIGNALLING CONDUITS

EXTENDS 50 EITHER SIDE OF

VINIDEX PROTECTION STRIP

(AS CONSTRUCTED BY WP-A)

SIGNALLING CONDUITS

EXTENDS 50 EITHER SIDE OF

VINIDEX PROTECTION STRIP

FOR FULL WIDTH OF CONCRETE SLAB

TOP OF CONCRETE. MARKER TAPE TOI OVERLAP AND PROVIDE

150mm WIDE MARKER TAPE INSTALLED LONGITUDINALLY ALONG

FROM TOP, BOTTOM LAYER 150mm FROM TOP

WITH 2 LAYERS SL81 MESH CENTRAL, TOP LAYER 40mm

CONTINUOUS CONCRETE SLAB VR400/40 CONCRETE

WIDTH OF CONCRETE SLAB

OF CONCRETE. MARKER TAPE TOI OVERLAP AND PROVIDE FOR FULL

150mm WIDE MARKER TAPE INSTALLED LONGITUDINALLY ALONG TOP

TOP, BOTTOM LAYER 150mm FROM TOP

2 LAYERS SL81 MESH CENTRAL, TOP LAYER 40mm FROM

CONTINUOUS CONCRETE SLAB VR400/40 CONCRETE WITH

DETAIL

-

BSCALE 1:25

DETAIL

-

ASCALE 1:25

DETAIL

-

CSCALE 1:25

FREIGHT LINK HEADSHUNT

DUAL GAUGE

FREIGHT LINK HEADSHUNT

DUAL GAUGE

SCALE 1:50

(AT PIT LOCATIONS)

SEPARATE CONDUIT ROUTE DETAIL

FREIGHT LINK HEADSHUNT

FREIGHT LINK HEADSHUNT

DUAL GAUGE

SCALE 1:50

CONDUITS >1500 FROM NEAREST RAIL

CONDUIT ROUTE DETAIL WHERE

FREIGHT LINK HEADSHUNT

SCALE 1:50

COMBINED CONDUIT ROUTE DETAIL

FREIGHT LINK HEADSHUNT

150 MIN BALLAST

150 CAPPING

150 MIN BALLAST

150 CAPPING

CONCRETE SLAB

150 MIN CAPPING ABOVE

CONCRETE SLAB

150 MIN CAPPING ABOVE

150 MIN BALLAST

150 CAPPING

REVISION

IN PROGRESS

CHECK PRINTINITIAL DATE

DISCIPLINE

READY FOR ISSUE

DISCIPLINE

DISCIPLINE

DISCIPLINE

BACKDRAFTED/CORRECTED

CONFIRMED

1

Jessie Ellis

From: Patrick Gray <PGray@ARTC.com.au>

Sent: Wednesday, 20 November 2013 9:50 PM

To: Jessie Ellis; Chris Pannell

Cc: Barry Toniolo; barry.toniolo@aecom.com; Doug Hayhoe; Ross Deacon; Phil Meehan;

rrlcmr.office

Subject: RE: ARTC Headshunt (DCR765)

Jessie,

Thank you for this summary.

Another appropriate Standard containing appropriate illustrations of cable location, depth and mechanical

protection is AS 4799, “Installation of underground utility services and pipelines within railway boundaries”.

There is some non compliance with the existing cable route depths under track and distances from track centre that

will be addressed by the proposed waiver. The depths below ground level established from service proving are

significantly greater than earlier sketches indicated.

There is some ambiguity between the minimum cable depth listed on Figure 6.2 of AS 4799 and Section 6..4.2.2. In

this case it is reasonable to adopt the value from Figure 6.2 which is consistent with the value from ESC-11-01. It is

noted that CMR have adopted the more conservative value from VRIOGS 12.2.1.

The WPA design with included mechanical protection can be considered to meet ARTC Standards for depth and

mechanical protection but not for distance from track centreline. The under track section of cable run did not meet

acceptable ARTC Standards but with proposed mitigation of reinforced concrete cover and concrete surround I am

hopeful that the proposed waiver has a good chance of being approved. Please submit the waiver documentation at

your early convenience.

Regards

Patrick Gray

ARTC RRL Interface Support M – 0417 820 676 Email – pgray@artc.com.au

Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd. Postal Address: Locked Bag 20013 Melbourne, Vic. 3001 Street Address: Level 1, 371 Spencer Street, West Melbourne, Vic 3003

From: Jessie Ellis [mailto:Jessie.Ellis@rrlcmr.com.au]

Sent: Wednesday, 20 November 2013 7:03 PM

To: Patrick Gray; Chris Pannell Cc: Barry Toniolo; barry.toniolo@aecom.com; Doug Hayhoe; Ross Deacon; Phil Meehan; rrlcmr.office

Subject: RE: ARTC Headshunt (DCR765)

Good evening Pat,

We have completed a review of ESC-11-01 (ARTC), AS3000 and VRIOGS 012.2.1, in conjunction with the relevant

WPA and WPB drawings.

2

Firstly, to the establish context for the review, we provide an extract from our Scope and Technical Requirements

that provides a hierarchy for the design standards applicable the RRLCMR Alliance.

• Project Alliance Agreement

• Standards of Rail Infrastructure Managers

• VRIOG Standards

• VicTrack communications standards (where applicable)

• The Department’s Systems & Information Services Division standards

• VicRoads and Local Government standards

• Australian Standards

From this, the standards of the Infrastructure Manager and VRIOG standards take precedence over that of the

Australian Standards – the exception to this being when they make direct reference to an Australian Standard.

In response to your request of a review of the requirements of AS3000, we note that Section 3.11 of this standard

provides three categories of cable protection for buried routes, as follows:

• Category A – All cable types installed in heavy duty conduit or fully concrete encased trenches

• Category B – A shortlist of cable types in medium duty conduit or direct buried sheathed cables

• Category C – An underground wiring system laid in a channel chased in rock

Additional protection measures for each category are as follows:

• Category A – 50mm bedding sand top and bottom only, assumed to apply to traditionally backfilled

trenches. Minimum cover 500mm (outdoors applications).

• Category B – Additional mechanical protection in the form of a min 40mm thick precast concrete slab,

polymeric cable cover strip complying with AS4702, etc. 150mm width and 75mm above cable. Minimum

cover 500mm (outdoors applications).

• Category C – Concrete surround. Minimum cover 50mm (outdoors applications).

VRIOGS 012.2.1 Section 7.12 explicitly refers to AS3000 for mechanical protection requirements. EST-11-01 Section

6.4, while it doesn’t explicitly refer to AS3000, words the additional mechanical protection requirements for cables

similar to those for Category B installations. It is inferred that this relates to direct buried cables only, based upon all

references in this section referring to cables, not conduits, and the associated standard drawings in Appendix C only

applying the cover strip over direct buried cables, not buried cable in conduit (refer SC 09 01-04 vs SC 09 01/05

extracted and attached).

The design undertaken by WPA has adopted a Category B trenching configuration, as it does not specify heavy duty

conduit, but specifies the use of a “Vindex Protection Strip”. Vindex cable protection strips are manufactured to be

compliant with AS4702 – Polymeric Cable Protection Covers. Visual observation of sections of the WPA cable route

exposed by RRLCMR along the ARTC Headshunt have verified the presence of the protective strip in these areas.

The design undertaken by RRLCMR elsewhere has adopted a trenching configuration consistent with a Category A

installation, and which also complies with the requirements of ARTC standard drawing SC 09 01-05.

Additional service proving of as constructed conduit depths was undertaken by RRLCMR yesterday. This information

was unavailable at the time of our meeting yesterday afternoon. We have since reviewed the service proving

information which confirms that, where the cable route is beyond 1.5m from the nearest rail it achieves a cover of

650mm. Note ESC-11-01 requires 600mm cover, greater than the 500mm in AS3000, while VRIOGS 12.2.1 requires

650mm. We have adopted the greater of the three for the purpose of this review.

3

On the basis of the new service proving information, we believe only one that no intermediate protection type is

required. That is, there is no portion of the route outside the track loading zone of 1.5m from nearest rail that has

reduced cover. As such, RRLCMR proposed to provide full concrete encasement of the route where within the

agreed track loading zone, and undertake no modification to the existing protection measures outside this.

We note that VicTrack have undertaken some minor slewing of their own conduits to minimise the length along

which the conduits are under sleeper.

Regards,

Jessie Ellis – Construction Phase Services Lead Regional Rail Link: City - Maribyrnong River

171 Laurens Street, North Melbourne, VIC 3051 T. (03) 8327 7587 M. 0413 395 882 E. jessie.ellis@rrlcmr.com.au

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Patrick Gray [mailto:PGray@ARTC.com.au]

Sent: Tuesday, 19 November 2013 7:04 PM

To: Chris Pannell Cc: Barry Toniolo; barry.toniolo@aecom.com; Jessie Ellis; Doug Hayhoe; Ross Deacon; Phil Meehan

Subject: RE: ARTC Headshunt (DCR765)

Hi Chris,

I have been considering the requirements for these signal and high voltage cables.

ARTC diagrams differentiate between marker tape and cable cover slabs. These later are defined in Standard AS/NZ

3000 and can be provided in a number of different types including precast concrete, cast in situ concrete, plastic

strips, fibre cement strips etc.

There are no specific ARTC guidelines for conditions outside of the ARTC Standards. Therefore rather than

recommending a treatment for the cables outside of the encased concrete area (provided where conduits are closer

than 1500mm to nearest rail) ARTC requires the CMR designers to propose an arrangement compliant with AS/NZ

3000 Australian New Zealand Wiring Rules. The solution must consider the depth of conduits relative to finished

ground level including side drains.

This proposal was mentioned to Doug in a phone conversation this evening.

I look forward to receipt of your proposal for consideration in due course. Upon acceptance CMR will need to

complete and submit the ARTC Engineering Waiver Approval form.

Regards

Patrick Gray

ARTC RRL Interface Support M – 0417 820 676 Email – pgray@artc.com.au