Cable theft, a false-clear track circuit and depot security
A three-road maintenance depot handles 14 train movements per night. Over 10 weeks, intruders entered twice through a 1.8 m boundary fence, stole 240 m of signalling cable, caused 11 track circuit failures, and triggered one near miss: a shunting movement passed a signal at danger at 03:10 after the track circuit showed clear. The depot is 230 m from a public footpath. CCTV covers the gate but not the fence line. Police response time is 45 minutes. The operator proposes to install 12 CCTV cameras and a 2.4 m fence at a cost of EUR 380,000, and to keep the existing detection. The regulator asks for a risk assessment under the CSM RA, including whether the near miss is reportable, and how to demonstrate that the security measures reduce risk to an acceptable level.
1. Is the near miss reportable, and what should the investigation establish?
Read the worked answer
The near miss should be recorded and, in most national regimes implementing the Railway Safety Directive, reported to the safety authority because it is a precursor with potential for a serious accident: a shunting movement passed a signal at danger after a track circuit falsely showed clear. Reportability is determined by national criteria, but the operator should not wait for a ruling; it should notify and investigate.
The investigation should establish why the track circuit showed clear after cable theft, whether the signalling design is fail-safe for loss of the cable, whether the theft was detected, and what the shunter could see. It should also check whether the event repeats the earlier theft and whether the risk assessment had identified cable theft as a hazard. The output should be a formal investigation report with actions, not just a maintenance repair.
2. Evaluate the proposed security measures and decide whether they demonstrate acceptable risk.
Read the worked answer
The proposed fence and CCTV address detection and delay, which is the right direction, but the package is not sufficient on its own. The CCTV as described covers the gate, not the fence line, so the 12 cameras must be positioned to cover the 230 m approach and the cable routes. A 2.4 m fence raises the delay time but intruders can still cut it; the design should include anti-climb topping, controlled vegetation and tamper detection on the signalling cable. The 45-minute police response cannot be treated as a mitigation; the alarm must trigger a local response or remote monitoring.
I would compare the package against the risk: 11 track circuit failures and a near miss in 10 weeks is a high frequency, so the residual risk must be shown to be acceptable using a documented risk assessment, with the measures tested and maintained. The EUR 380,000 cost is relevant to ALARP but not decisive.
3. How should the operator integrate security and safety risk assessment?
Read the worked answer
Security and safety should be assessed together because the threat becomes a safety hazard through the signalling failure. I would start with a threat and vulnerability assessment: who attacks the depot, how, with what tools, and what assets are reachable. Each credible threat is then carried into the safety risk assessment as an initiating cause, with the existing barriers (fence, CCTV, patrols, cable design) and their effectiveness.
The assessment must consider common-cause effects, for example a single cut cable disabling both the track circuit and the CCTV. Mitigations should be layered: prevent access, detect intrusion, delay the intruder, respond, and design the signalling so that loss of cable produces a restrictive aspect. The results should be recorded in the safety management system, with owners and review dates, and the security plan should be exercised, not just written.