mtm design and technical review procedure · of a project or asset renewal and which is to be ......

MTM LXRP DESIGN AND TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCEDURE

L1-PRJ-PRO-009 Version: 1 Effective from: 15th April 2016

Approving Manager: Chief Engineer Approval Date: 15/04/2016 Next Review Date: 15/04/2019

PRINTOUT MAY NOT BE UP-TO-DATE; REFER TO METRO INTRANET FOR THE LATEST VERSION of 39

Approval

Amendment Record

Date of Issue Version Description

15/04/2016 1 Initial issue





Table of Contents

1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 3

2 Scope ................................................................................................................................... 3

3 Relationship to other standards ......................................................................................... 4

4 References ........................................................................................................................... 4

5 Terminology and Descriptors ............................................................................................. 5

6 Engineering Review Terms of Reference (ToR) ................................................................ 9

7 Approach and Methodology ............................................................................................. 10

8 Responsibilities ................................................................................................................. 11

8.1 MTM Projects and Planning .................................................................................................... 11

8.2 The Designer .......................................................................................................................... 12

8.3 MTM Engineering ................................................................................................................... 15

8.4 MTM Asset Management ........................................................................................................ 16

8.5 MTM Infrastructure Delivery ................................................................................................... 17

9 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 17

Appendix 1 – LXRP Design and Technical Review Flow Chart ........................................................... 17

Appendix 2 – Engineering Design Review Comments Sheet .............................................................. 18

Appendix 3 – Engineering Design Review Checklists .......................................................................... 19

Appendix 4 – Engineering Design Artefacts List .................................................................................. 20

Appendix 5 – Design and Engineering Management Plan - Typical List of Contents .......................... 29

Appendix 6 – Design Report - Typical List of Contents ........................................................................ 32

Appendix 7 – Proof Engineering Requirements ................................................................................... 36

Appendix 8 – Proof Engineering Certificate of Compliance ................................................................. 38





Purpose 1

Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM) is an Accredited Rail Transport Operator (ARTO) and under the Rail Safety Act (2006) must ensure the safe construction, operation and maintenance of all of the railway infrastructure and assets. In addition, as a franchisee, MTM must comply with the terms and conditions of the Projects Agreement – Train with the State Government of Victoria (the State). To achieve this, MTM has implemented a Safety Management System (SMS) and Engineering Management System (EMS) methodology. The EMS methodology describes the key concepts of the EMS and mandates management and technical reviews of engineering design as part of a project or asset renewal and which is to be incorporated into the operating railway.

The purpose of this procedure is to define the process and responsibilities required for MTM to undertake Stakeholder Requirements Assessment (SRA), Preliminary Requirements Review (PRR), Systems Requirements Review (SRR), Concept Design Review (CDR, optional), Formal Engineering Reviews (FER) and Acceptance Reviews (AR) of the Level Crossing Removal Program (LXRP) delivered under the Projects Agreement - Train, and Melbourne Metropolitan Rail Network (MMRN) configuration changes that require design input. The design reviews are intended to establish design control against agreed methodologies, standards, procedures, and defined functional and operational requirements, while also considering the impact on MTM maintenance practices.

Note: The SRA and FER described in this procedure do not constitute any design approval or engineering validation by MTM. All designs and specifications provided to MTM Engineering from Designers are to be independently verified and compliant to appropriate design standards. All responsibility for the design and specifications rests with the Designer.

Scope 2

This document applies to the design management and technical review of requirements (SRA), requirements and designs (FER) and As-built drawings (AR) prepared on behalf of MTM Projects or other stakeholders. This procedure also applies to the design review for the State, Franchise, Third Party and MTM Infrastructure Renewals works proposed on the MTM rail network covering all disciplines including:

Architectural

Building Services

Railway Track and Civil

Train Electrical Network

Signals

Telecommunications

Structural (inc. Stations)

Rolling Stock





Relationship to other standards 3

a) This procedure is a project specific application of EMS Methodology (L1-CHE-MAN-001) and is to be read in conjunction with that document. It replaces the Design and Technical Review Procedure (L1-NAM-PRO-002) within the LXRP however, the Signalling Design Technical Review Procedure (L1-NAM-PRO-001) remains applicable within the LXRP.

References 4

Item Number Title

1 L1-PRJ-PRO-007 As-Built Drawings – Managed by Projects

2 L2-ELN-PRO-01 Asset Acceptance Process Procedure

3 L0-HMR-MAN-001 Business Rules Manual for the Contracting Rail Safety Worker

4 L1-CHE-GDL-052 Chief Engineers Directive, Assignment Of Engineering Authority

5 L4-CHE-FOR-026 Critical Design Review (CDR) Checklist

6 L3-PRJ-PRO-005 Design Change Request (DCR) Form

7 L1-ASY-PRO-001 Engineering Change Control Procedure

8 L4-CHE-FOR-046 Engineering Design Review Comments Sheet

9 L1-CHE-POL-001 Engineering Drawings Management Policy (Design/IFC/As-Builts)

10 L1-CHE-MAN-001 Engineering Management Systems (EMS) Methodology

11 L0-SQE-PRO-031 Enterprise Risk Management Procedure

12 L4-PRJ-FOR-039 Final Impact Statement template

13 L4-PRJ-FOR-041 Final Operational Requirements template

14 L1-PRJ-PRO-002 Gate Procedure for Projects

15 L0-SQE-PRO-046 Human Factors Integration Procedure

16 L1-SQE-PRO-001 Management of Change Process

17 L4-CHE-GDL-002 Master Engineering 'As Built' DMS Register Process Map

18 L4-PRJ-FOR-045 Preliminary Impact Statement template

19 L4-PRJ-FOR-046 Preliminary Operational Requirements template

20 L1-AMS-MAN-005 RAMS Manual

21 L1-AMS-PRO-003 RAMS Procedure

22 L2-PRJ-GDL-008 Risk Management Process Guideline

23 L0-SQE-MAN-002 Safety Management System Manual

24 L1-NAM-PRO-001 Signalling Design Technical Review Procedure

25 L4-CHE-FOR-029 Stakeholder Requirements Assessment (SRA) Checklist

26 L1-CHE-PRO-001 Standard Waiver Procedure

27 L4-CHE-FOR-024 System Requirements Review (SRR) Checklist

28 L1-CHE-PRO-004 Type Approval Procedure

29 L1-NPD-PRO-002 Works Readiness Procedure





Terminology and Descriptors 5

Acceptance Review (AR)

The Acceptance Review reviews the completeness of all contractual activity to provide for formal acceptance/commissioning of the completed system. As part of this activity, MTM Engineering undertakes a review of the As-Built documentation to assess compliance with PTV Infrastructure Drawings Standards VRIOGS 007.2 or PTV Infrastructure Drafting Standards as applicable prior to submission to PTV for Authorisation.

Accredited Rail Transport Operator (ARTO)

Accredited Rail Transport Operator is a Rail Transport Operator accredited under the Rail Safety National Law to carry out rail operations. They have demonstrated to National Rail Safety Regulator that they have the competency and capacity to implement a Safety Management System (SMS) and to safely manage changes to their operations.

Concept Design Gate (CDG)

The need for a post-award CDG is determined at SRR. The Designer(s) present(s) the concept design (before approval to proceed to preliminary and detailed design) to confirm requirements clarity and acceptability/validity of proposed design approach and solution preceding development of specifications that will drive the design.

Concepts/Options

A number of options may be developed during the Project Development phase in response to the POR and included in the PIS. An Options Assessment is completed and submitted to the Project Steering Committee (PSC) for endorsement of the preferred option. The FOR is endorsed by the stakeholders and the preferred concept/option appended.

Concept (Tender) Design

If required, a Concept (Tender) Design may be prepared by the Designer is response to the FOR in order to describe the proposed physical/functional system architecture and satisfy the Functional Baseline formed at the successful completion of the SRR. The Concept (Tender) Design is presented for review at the Concept design Gate (CDG).

Critical Design Review (CDR)

The Critical Design Review confirms final design satisfies system requirements from SRR. At CDR, having addressed any open review comments from DDR, the Designer seeks agreement from MTM Engineering for the design to proceed to Issued for Construction (IFC) status.

Design Report (DR)

Design Report. This is a report prepared by the design consultant based on the ARTO’s Project Brief, agreed Standards and Final Operational Requirements which is prepared at a defined phase of design i.e. Concept (Tender), Preliminary, Detailed and Final Design phase. Refer Appendix 6 for typical contents.

Designer

Rail Safety Worker (RSW, as defined under Rail Safety National Law) engaged in the design of railway infrastructure and/or assets for a project or Engineering configuration change. MTM required competencies for RSW can be found at http://www.metrotrains.com.au/academy/

Design and Engineering Management Plan (DEMP)

A plan submitted by the Designer detailing how the design process will be managed and drawings submitted to EDR for review, comment and feedback. Refer Appendix 5 for typical contents.

Detailed Design Review (DDR)

The Detailed Design Review confirms detail design is essentially complete and satisfies system requirements from SRR. At DDR, the Designer will expose to MTM the overall design, development and qualification testing approach.





Drawing Management Plan (DwMP)

A plan submitted by the Designer detailing how the documents and drawings for each design stage will be managed and submitted for review, and incorporate DMS requirements. The DwMP is required to incorporate a schedule for the delivery of drawings and reports identifying timing for issue of design packages to the ARTO for review.

Drawing Management System (DMS)

Drawing Management System managed by the Department of Public Transport Victoria (PTV).

Engineering Authority (EA)

Engineering Authority (EA). The ARTO’s Chief Engineer (CE) is deemed to hold “Design Approval Authority” (DAA) and selected MTM project engineering personnel and/or Contractor’s designer(s), and those of any subcontracted designer(s), may be conferred with “Design Authority” (DA) once having been assessed and approved by the DAA, or delegate(s) (viz. Head(s) of Engineering, Engineering Manager – LXRA, Design Review Managers - LXRA). Assignment of EA includes a ‘Judgement of Significance’ (JoS).

Engineering Change (EC)

The procedure for initiating, developing, approving, implementing and auditing changes to the configuration, maintenance and technical standards of MTM Rolling Stock and Infrastructure.

Engineering Management System methodology (EMS)

Engineering Management System provides an engineering framework for project and infrastructure engineering activities managed by MTM. It adopts a systems engineering approach to governance, management and technical aspects of engineering work of particular relevance to projects that involve complex and/or service/safety critical engineering solutions.

Formal Engineering Reviews (FER)

An overall technical/engineering review undertaken to assess the compatibility of a functional specification or engineering drawing against the Final Operational Requirements (FOR) and technical standards by taking into consideration the existing infrastructure and infrastructure asset management and maintenance processes.

Final Impact Statement (FIS)

The Final Impact Statement uses the FOR as a basis and is an assessment of the anticipated impacts during execution and after completion of the project. It includes assessment of non-conformance to standards, project impacts, issues and costs, and disruption management and handover strategies.

Final Operational Requirement (FOR)

The Final Operational Requirements are the set of agreed requirements for the project. They are described in a report that’s details the purpose and objects of the project, the selected option, current operations and final operational requirements, and statement regarding ability of the concept/option to satisfy the Final Operational Requirements

Franchise The Franchise means the “Projects Agreement – Train” between the State of Victoria and Metro Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd

Issue For Review (IFR) Plans and documents issued by the Designer for review by MTM

Issue For Construction (IFC)

Plans and documents may proceed to Issue For Construction status once all review comments have been addressed to MTM’s satisfaction (Agreed Status = “Closed”).

Independent (Third Party) Reviewer (IR)

Rail Safety Worker (RSW) engaged to conduct an independent third party review. The reviewer must be independent, either from a different design house or from the same organisation but a separate office location and shall not be involved with the design of any other associated elements of that particular project.





Judgement of Significance (JoS)

JoS is an assessment of the technical risk introduced by the implementation of the design and must consider both the probability and consequence of partial performance or failure of the design.

Designs and technical activities are deemed to be either ‘Significant’ or ‘Non-Significant’.

Following the above definition, all designs or technical activities should be classed as either Significant or Non-Significant. Designs or technical activities judged as Significant will be deemed high risk, and should be subject to a more rigorous design review and approval processes.

Level Crossing Removal Program (LXRP)

LXRP refers to the Victorian Government program to remove 50 level crossings from metropolitan Melbourne. The Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) has been established to oversee the planning and delivery of the program.

Management of Change (MoC)

The process used to manage any Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM) Changes, (any modification/alteration/addition/removal of operations, asset infrastructure, rolling stock or process) that may affect the safety and/or operations of MTM railway operations.

MTM Metro Trains Melbourne.

MTM Asset Management (AM)

MTM Asset Management is responsible for the Asset Management of all infrastructure assets within Metro’s lease.

MTM Engineering MTM Engineering is a division within MTM consisting of Infrastructure Delivery, Rolling Stock, Asset Management and the Office of the Chief Engineer.

MTM Engineering Design Review Comments Sheet

A spreadsheet used by MTM Engineering to provide comments on the design to the Designer and for the Designer to respond. A single Comments Sheet is prepared for each Design Package and used to track the status of comments throughout the design lifecycle to IFC i.e. through Preliminary (PDR), Detailed (CDR) and Final (TTR) design stages.

MTM Infrastructure Rail Infrastructure Department responsible for the day to day maintenance of MTM operational infrastructure.

MTM Operations MTM Division responsible for the management and operation of the metropolitan train system.

M&R Program

The annual Maintenance and Renewal Program managed by MTM Infrastructure Delivery.

MTM Projects and Planning

MTM Division responsible for the planning, development and delivery of projects.

MTM SOP

MTM Strategic Operations Plan. An annual document prepared by MTM, and submitted to the State, that details:

MTM's vision for MTM's rail network

operational philosophies/imperatives proposed to transform the network

proposed 'Greenfields Timetable' changes to meet growth in demand and achieve the vision

a prioritised list of strategic projects/initiatives required to deliver the new timetables and improve system reliability.

Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

The PDR determines that the preliminary design meets systems requirements agreed at SRR with acceptable risk and within cost & schedule requirements /constraints and is sufficiently mature to proceed to detailed design. Refer EMS.





Preliminary Requirements Review (PRR)

Preliminary Requirements Review assesses whether the User requirements are sufficiently acceptable and mature, to proceed to SRR and subsequent engineering specification and design phases with acceptable risk, within cost and schedule requirements and constraints. Refer EMS.

Preliminary Impact Statement (PIS)

The Preliminary Impact Statement uses the POR as a basis and is an assessment of the anticipated impacts during execution and after completion of the project. It includes assessment of non-conformance to standards, project impacts, issues and costs, and disruption management and handover strategies.

Preliminary Operational Requirements (POR)

The Preliminary Operational Requirements are the set of agreed requirements for the project. They are described in a report that’s details the purpose and objects of the Project, the selected Option, current operations and final operational requirements, and statement regarding ability of the Concept to satisfy the Final Operational Requirements.

Project Brief

The Project Brief is a document that defines the overall scope, costs, and program risk for the project, and contains the Functional Specifications, the Final Operational Requirements (FOR), the Final Impact Statement (FIS) and the Concept Design for the Project. It establishes the design basis to be adopted by the Project.

RAMS Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety – The parameters and performance targets that must be considered during the Engineering Review process.

SFAIRP Term used for risk assessment outcome – So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable as defined under the Rail Safety Act (2006).

SID Register The Safety In Design Register detailing the safety related items raised and considered during the design development and design review process.

Stakeholder Requirements Assessments 1 & 2

The Stakeholder Requirements Assessments are conducted during the pre-award ‘Development’ phase to ensure that System Requirements are assessed early, at a high level, against operational, technical, interface, quality, safety and maintenance requirements.

Systems Requirements Review (SRR)

Systems Requirements Review agrees & baselines established ‘system requirements’ (functional, performance and non-functional) pre design. SRR confirms MTM’s comprehension of the work scope and formally agree the initial version of the documents that will form the Functional Baseline. Refer EMS.

Test Readiness Review (TRR)

Test Readiness Review assessed the status of:

installation/testing;

open ECs, open Waivers, open test problem reports, open requirements and design issues; and

readiness to proceed to, and review planning for, remaining ‘system’ integration and testing and commissioning.

Waiver A departure from MTM endorsed Standard(s) and other source requirements applicable to maintain, upgrade, renew, build and commission MTM Rolling Stock and Infrastructure Operational Assets.





Works Readiness Procedure

The internal MTM governance process which enables the Chief Operating Officer to:

Have full confidence (and supporting documentation) that planned major work packages are in an appropriate state of readiness before works commence, and

Postpone the commencement of work packages if the planned works are not in an appropriate state of readiness.

Engineering Review Terms of Reference (ToR) 6

The ToR define the scope, objectives, participant roles and competences, review criteria, inputs, method, outputs and timeliness for a review, and are specific to the type of review being undertaken.

The EMS shall constitute the ToR for SRA and FER, and shall provide assurance that all the requirements of the Accredited Rail Transport Operator’s (ARTO’s) Safety Management System (SMS) (including operational and functional requirements, and appropriate standards) and terms and conditions of the “Projects Agreement – Train” with the State (including provision of comments on design documentation within 10 working days of receipt) have been met.

The following Stakeholders Requirements Assessment (SRA), Formal Engineering Reviews (FER) and Acceptance Review (AR) are defined in the EMS. They may be either internal or external to MTM and are held within MTM, or between MTM, Designer, Contractor and/or Client.

Development Phase:

Stakeholders Requirements Assessment (SRA, 1 & 2)

Delivery Phase:

Preliminary Requirements Review (PRR);

Systems Requirements Review (SRR);

Concept Design Gate (CDG);

Preliminary Design Review (PDR);

Detailed Design Review (DDR);

Critical Design Review (CDR);

Test Readiness Review (TRR); and

Acceptance Review (AR).

The Development Specialist (Development Phase, post nomination) or Project Manager (Delivery Phase, gate 3 through 6) is responsible for providing the inputs for each review.

A flow chart showing the SRA and FERs and relationship to the Gate Procedure for Projects (L1-PRJ-PRO-002) and the Works Readiness Procedure (L1-NPD-PRO-002) is included in Appendix 1.





Judgement of Significance (JoS)

MTM Engineering assesses the significance of design submitted for PDR. Design deemed to be Significant at this review, and therefore high risk, is subject to all of the reviews designed in the EMS and listed above. Design deemed to be Non-Significant at PDR, and therefore low risk, is not required to be submitted for further review by MTM Engineering.

Note: Where a design changes following PDR, its significant must be reassessed and may be upgraded or downgraded as appropriate. If a design changes from Significant to Non-Significant, a decision record must be created by appropriate Engineering Authority with a statement justifying that decision.

Approach and Methodology 7

The aim of the SRA, FER is to ensure requirements and design produced by the Designer will meet MTM’s obligations as an ARTO under the Rail Safety Act (RSA) 2006 (Vic) and franchisee under the Projects Agreement – Train with the State. The aim of the AR is to ensure that the As-built drawings conform to VRIOGS 007.2 or PTV Infrastructure Drafting Standards as applicable prior to submission to PTV for Authorisation.

The SRA and FER are conducted using the appropriate Review Checklist and outcome recorded on the MTM Engineering Design Review Comments Sheet (L4-CHE-FOR-046) or equivalent design review comments sheet provided by the Designer.

For each SRA and FER the following method is followed:

1. The Designer submits the documents to MTM Engineering for review;

2. MTM Engineering review the submitted documents in accordance with the EMS and Review Checklists;

3. MTM Engineering record comments from the review on the design review comments sheet;

4. MTM Engineering send the design review comments sheet to the Designer; and

5. The Designer enters responses to the comments made by MTM Engineering on the design review comments sheet indicating how they propose to address the comments in the next design phase (Concept and Preliminary Design phases, POR and PIS) or how they have addressed and closed out the review comment (Detailed and Final Design phases, FOR and FIS) and sends it back to MTM Engineering.

At the end of the Development stage and at Final design phase, MTM Engineering indicate that all review comments have been addressed to MTM’s satisfaction by setting the Agreed Status = “Closed” on the design review comments sheet prior to sending it to the Designer.

Checklists for the FERs described in the EMS and listed in section 6 above is included in Appendix 3 of this procedure.

The method for undertaking the AR is described in the Master Engineering 'As Built' DMS Register Process Map, L4-CHE-GDL-002.





Responsibilities 8

MTM has a primary responsibility as the ATRO under the Rail Safety Act (2006) for the safe construction, operation and maintenance of the railway infrastructure. This includes the engagement of a Designer to provide an engineering design for the delivery of a project or significant maintenance and renewal works to be incorporated as part of the operating railway.

MTM remain responsible for the safe conduct of their rail operations irrespective of whether or not activities are contracted to other parties. MTM cannot contract out responsibility for safety, and retains responsibility to the extent that they can exercise control irrespective of the details of the design contract entered into.

As the ARTO, MTM must take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that design provided is of an appropriate standard and specification to ensure the continued safety of the railway operations. Under the Rail Safety Act (2006) Designers are subject to the safety duty of the ARTO (MTM) for whom they undertake the work and must ensure that the work undertaken satisfies the SFAIRP principles and complies with MTM’s SMS to the extent that it applies to the design task undertaken.

MTM Projects and Planning 8.1

MTM Projects and Planning is responsible for the development and delivery of projects and will arrange and/or coordinate the necessary review of designs through MTM Engineering required to develop MTM’s requirements and deliver the project. The management of the SRA and FER of the requirements and designs by MTM Engineering will be undertaken in consultation with MTM Asset Management and Network Operations where appropriate.

The MTM Project and Planning responsibilities are defined as follows:

Develop and deliver MTM projects in accordance with the Projects Agreement with the State;

Undertake the role of Change Facilitator in the Management of Change and Engineering Change processes;

Provide Preliminary and Final Operational Requirements (POR and FOR), Preliminary and Final Impact Statement (PIS and FIS), and any Concepts/Options developed for review by the MTM Engineering;

Ensure the preparation of documentation that will facilitate the requirements assessment, design and construction process, in accordance with the MTM Standards, Operational Requirement, Functional Specification, Project Brief and Scope of Work documents;

Arrange and manage the requirements, designs and associated plans and technical documents prepared by the Designers at the requirements and design stages described in the EMS for SRA and FER by MTM Engineering;

Provide a design program and details of occupation schedules for proposed project works to enable MTM Engineering to plan the timing of documents to be submitted for review and ensure sufficient resources are available to complete “each stage of the review” within the agreed timeframes;

Liaise with MTM Engineering to ensure technical review of all documents relating to the project are undertake;

Facilitate the preparation of the DEMP, DwMP and IMP, and ensure they are submitted to MTM Engineering for review and endorsement;





Liaise with MTM Engineering to identify suitable consultant/s to assist in the review process;

Liaise with MTM Engineering to manage resources required to meet project response deadlines;

Ensure the relevant Testing and Commissioning Plans and relevant drawings, for each stage of the project works, are prepared and submitted for review by MTM Engineering and MTM Infrastructure;

Ensure the Project Handover responsibilities are achieved, incorporating the close out of contract issues, provision of As-built/As-in-Service drawings for incorporation into the PTV DMS; and

Other responsibilities as outlined in the MTM project management plan.

The Designer 8.2

The Designer is responsible for the preparation of ALL documentation required for submission to MTM Engineering for SRA and FER at each of the design stages nominated in the EMS and this procedure. Documents required to be submitted are described below.

a) Design and Engineering Management Plan

The Designer must provide a Design and Engineering Management Plan (DEMP) to MTM which addresses the items listed in the typical DEMP contents list in Appendix 5.

The plan shall define and communicate the processes and procedures to be employed during the design phase to cover all the design elements for the works including permanent, stage and temporary. The plan must cover all the disciplines for each design phase from preliminary design through to final design where drawings are to be issued for construction.

The DEMP must include a design schedule detailing the design packages to be submitted for review, how the designs will be submitted, the timing for the submissions linked to the overall master project schedule and the number of drawings for each discipline or work package. The Designer must advise MTM Engineering of any changes to the design schedule.

The plan must describe how Safety in Design (SiD) and Human Factors Integration (HFI) are implemented within each design stage, and include a SiD workshop schedule indicating when the Designer proposes to conduct each of the workshops and list of required participants.

The DEMP must include a comprehensive list of staff to be engaged for each phase of the design for the project detailing their experience, qualifications and competencies. The details must be based on the criteria specified in the MTM Competency Management System for the contracting of Rail Safety Workers. MTM required competencies are specified in the MTM Competency Matrices and Supporting Documentation (http://www.metrotrains.com.au/academy/).

The plan must describe the configuration and interface management process to be employed including Management of Change, Engineering Change, Type Approval, Waivers, interdisciplinary coordination, interfacing organisations undertaking design or review, internal and external stakeholders (inc. MTM divisions, other rail operators, road authorities, etc.)





The DEMP must include a section outlining design services during construction including the principles and processes that will be implemented to manage Requests for Information (RFIs) relating to design documentation, changes to IFC design documentation and design non-conformances.

Typically a DEMP would be issued to MTM by the Designer within 4 weeks of being appointed but in any case prior to the issue of any design drawings for review.

b) Drawing Management Plan

The design consultant must prepare a Drawing Management Plan (DwMP) detailing how new drawings created as part of the project design will be managed. The plan must also demonstrate how existing drawings held in the PTV DMS will be affected by the new design required to deliver the project.

DMS drawings must be requested for use via the DMS website. Any drawings borrowed must be updated to comply with PTV Infrastructure Drawing Standards (formerly VRIOG) standards before being returned to DMS.

The plan should incorporate all engineering disciplines and must:

List the drawings to be booked out and indicate if these are compliant/non compliant;

List all the new drawings prepared for each design discipline;

List all drawings that become redundant or are superseded by the new design/s; and

Detail the document handover process and ensure that at the completion of the project all As-built information and drawings are submitted to MTM Engineering Design Review Group via the Project team. The handover submissions should include:

- PTV Infrastructure Drawing Standards (formerly VRIOG) compliant drawings to be uploaded into DMS where appropriate;

- The booking in of all un-altered drawings into DMS;

- Photographs of new equipment (OH structures, bridges, civil structures, signals etc) and aerial photographs for inclusion into PASS Assets; and

- GPS coordinates of all new structures where not shown on the As-built drawings.

The Designer must submit all As-built information within 4 weeks of project handover, however, the staging of works within a project may require submission of as-built information within 4 weeks of the stage work being commissioned to facilitate the repair and maintenance of assets and the capturing of asset reporting information into the Ellipse asset management system. The upload of Asset data into Ellipse must be completed prior to commissioning, however the project team may be allowed sufficient time to ensure the updating of the Ellipse Asset Management Reporting system (identifying removed assets and the incorporation of new assets) and this must be completed within 8 weeks of project handover.

The handover process will involve management of changes to rail assets and the recording of changes into the Ellipse Data Management System. For details of this process refer to MTM Document No. L1-ASY-PRO-006, Change of Asset Data Procedure.





All documents uploaded into the Project Document Management System (e.g. Teambinder, Aconex, Incite) will be automatically archived at the completion of the Project. All hard copies of As-built drawings shall be stored by MTM Engineering for 5 years in accordance with the Projects Agreement – Train with the State.

c) Design Drawing Register

The Designer must prepare a Design Drawing Register (DDR) detailing a list by discipline and package of drawings to be prepared and supplied. The register should cover the drawings for all railway engineering disciplines and any other assets and services associated with the project.

The initial drawing register should be submitted within one month after the Designer has been appointed, usually in conjunction with the DEMP, and be updated on a regular basis as the design progresses.

The Designer must prepare design packages for each engineering discipline and include all the relevant drawings applicable to each discipline being developed. This should also be undertaken for designs associated with staged and temporary works (Where “hold clouds” are used on stage works design drawings a process for managing these is to be developed and a register maintained).

d) Design Submissions

The Designer must submit design packages for permanent, stage and temporary works for FER at each of the design development stages identified in the EMS (as listed in Section 6 above) and Appendix 1 LXRP Design and Technical Review Flowchart, in a manner that does not result in an unreasonable number of design documents being submitted in any given week. For each submission the Designer is to prepare a Design Report (DR), Design Drawings and calculations sheets and/or other data used in the preparation of the design. For stage works, the use of “hold clouds” on drawings is to be minimised. Separate stage works design packages shall be prepared in cases where excessive hold clouds would otherwise result. The DR must take into consideration the Project Brief, applicable standards and the FOR as specified by the ARTO. The DR must detail the design methodology, safety activities undertaken and provide confirmation that the design conforms to the FOR specified for works and applicable standards the design, and provide details of any non-conformances and proposed Waivers. The DR shall also list the Designers who have prepared the design detailing their experience, qualifications and competencies (in accordance with MTM Engineering and Design competency matrix (http://www.metrotrains.com.au/academy).

After the initial submission and review of a design, the Designer must prepare progressive design package submissions as the design progresses through the design stages described in the EMS (as listed in Section 6 above) and Appendix 1 LXRP Design and Technical Review Flowchart. The Designer must consider the comments and issues raised by MTM Engineering for each of these submissions and ensure that they are addressed the satisfaction of MTM’ Engineering, prior to proceeding to the next design stage (Note: this may include re-submission of a design package at the same design stage if the initial submission is deemed to be incomplete, insufficiently developed and/or contain a large number of errors).

The Designer must demonstrate how the comments and issues have been closed out and incorporated into the updated designs as part of the subsequent design submission stages.





Once all comments and issues have been addressed the satisfaction of MTM Engineering (Agreed Status = “Closed” on the Engineering Design Review Comments Sheet), a design package may proceed to IFC.

The artefacts to be provided by the Designer at each of the design stages are listed in Appendix 4.

The DR is to address the items listed in the typical DR contents list as indicated in Appendix 6.

e) Third Party Reviews

For signalling and other safety critical design a Third Party reviewer is required to achieve an independent design review to satisfy the MTM design control requirements. The IR must conduct the review of the designs and associated technical drawings and documents, prepared for the project, and ensure relevant aspects are considered during the technical review.

The independent review must be completed during the final stage of the design process. and be conducted by an independent Designer, either from a different design house or from the same company but a separate office location and shall not be involved with the design of any other associated elements of that particular project.

f) Proof Engineering

For structural and bridge designs MTM Engineering may request that the designs must be checked by a qualified and accredited Proof Engineer.

Proof engineering will be required for the following designs where directed:

Permanent Structural Works;

Permanent and Temporary Geotechnical Works; and

Temporary Structural Works.

Proof engineering shall include a full and independent assessment of all factors influencing the final integrity of the specified components of the work and shall be undertaken in order to assure compliance with the Principal’s Project Requirements.

The requirements for proof engineering are detailed in Appendix 7.

A copy of the Proof Engineering certificate of compliance to be completed by the Proof Engineer is detailed in Appendix 8.

MTM Engineering 8.3

MTM Engineering provides technical support to MTM Projects and Planning in the form of SRA, PRR, SRR and FER of designs for projects and significant maintenance and renewal works in accordance with the EMS.

MTM Engineering is responsible for:-

Checking that the POR/FOR and PIS/FIS contain a complete, unambiguous and non-conflicting definition of the functional (inc. interface), performance and non-functional requirements of the system;

Checking that the DEMP and DwMP meet the requirements of MTM Engineering including applicable standards and procedures;





Checking Engineering Change (EC) is submitted by Projects and Planning to cover the project. Coordinating, reviewing and authorising the implementation of the EC;

Reviewing the design reports and drawings for ALL disciplines for EACH stage of the design process and provide comments and feedback to the designer;

Checking comments submitted after the review have been considered and incorporated into the next stage of the design;

Checking the design meets the functional and operational requirements (as articulated in the FOR);

Checking the RAMS targets established for the project are met by the design including maintainability and constructability;

Checking the relevant SiD workshops are undertaken, and review the project SiD register;

Checking that Human Factors are considered in the design process;

Liaising with MTM Asset Management to review the relevant Testing and Commissioning Plans, provided by the Project, for each stage of the project works;

Assessment of design package status with respect to Works Readiness process gates;

Undertaking site surveillance (design compliance audits of significant design);

Checking that all new drawings associated with the project are DMS compliant and booking them back into the DMS; and

Preparing requirements and design baselines.

Refer to the attached flow chart in Appendix 1 detailing the Design Review process outlined above.

MTM Asset Management 8.4

MTM Asset Management is responsible for:

the review of EC notices prepared for project works

Providing input into life cycle costing

Supporting the preparation of the Schedule 4 claims to cover new or altered assets introduced into the MTM network by a new project or M&R works

Development of Technical maintenance plans

Liaise with MTM Engineering to review the relevant Testing and Commissioning Plans and relevant drawings, provided by MTM Projects, for each stage of the project works





MTM Infrastructure Delivery 8.5

MTM Infrastructure Delivery is responsible for:-

The delivery of the maintenance and renewals of the rail infrastructure assets on the MTM network

Acceptance of the asset after completion of works as part of the hand back/handover process

Preparation of EC notices for Infrastructure maintenance renewals as required

Appendices 9

Appendix 1 – LXRP Design and Technical Review Flow Chart

Refer to LXRP Design and Technical Review Flowchart, L4-CHE-GDL-008





Appendix 2 – Engineering Design Review Comments Sheet

Refer to Engineering Design Review Comments Sheet, L4-SQE-FOR-046





Appendix 3 – Engineering Design Review Checklists

Refer to:

- Stakeholder Requirements Assessment (SRA) Checklist, L4-CHE-FOR-029. Use for Stakeholder Requirements Review (SRA) 1 (review of POR & PIS) and 2 (review of FOR & FIS).

- System Requirements Review (SRR) Checklist, L4-CHE-FOR-024. Use also for Preliminary Requirements Review (PRR).

- Critical Design Review (CDR) Checklist, L4-CHE-FOR-026. Use also for Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Detailed Design Review (DDR).

- Test Readiness Review (TRR) Checklist, L4-CHE-FOR-022





Appendix 4 – Engineering Design Artefacts List

1 Track

Options and Concepts 1.1

At a minimum, the design packages provided at MTM Project Phase 2, the project Development phase, must include:

(a) Concept Track General Arrangement Plans;

(b) Typical Cross Sections; and

(c) Design Report.

Preliminary Design 1.2

At a minimum, the design packages provided at MTM Project Phase 5, Preliminary Design Stage, must include:

(a) Preliminary Track General Arrangement Plans;

(d) Preliminary Vertical Alignment Drawings;

(e) Preliminary Cross Sections;

(f) Preliminary Turnout Crossing Geometry;

(g) Preliminary Geometry Tables;

(h) Preliminary Track Speed and Gauge Schematic;

(i) Preliminary Drainage Scheme;

(j) Preliminary Clearance Diagrams;

(k) Preliminary Design Report (inc. A summary of any Waivers required for development of the Detailed Design stage); and

(l) Draft Asset List.

Detailed Design 1.3

At a minimum, the design packages provided at MTM Project Phase 5, Detailed Design Stage, must include:

(a) Detailed Track General Arrangement Plans;

(b) Detailed Vertical Alignment Drawings;

(c) Detailed Cross Sections;

(d) Detailed Turnout Crossing Geometry;

(e) Detailed Geometry Tables;

(f) Detailed Track Speed and Gauge Schematic;

(g) Detailed Clearance Diagrams;

(h) Detailed drainage design;

(i) Detailed Asset List; and

(j) Design Report.





Final Design 1.4

At a minimum, the design packages provided at MTM Project Phase 5, Final Design Stage, must include:

(a) Final Track General Arrangement Plans;

(b) Final Vertical Alignment Drawings;

(c) Final Turnout Crossing Geometry;

(d) Final Geometry Tables;

(e) Final Track Speed and Gauge Schematic;

(f) Final Clearance Diagrams;

(g) Final drainage design;

(h) Final Design Report (inc. All Waivers completed); and

(i) Final Asset List.

2 Structures


At a minimum, the design packages provided at MTM Project Phase 2, the project

Development phase, must include:

(a) Conceptual drawings including:

a. Overall site plan and layout

b. Plans, Elevations & Typical Sections of the civil structures (indicative sufficient to

illustrate overall concept.).

(b) Design Basis Report including key issues and options considered.


At a minimum, the design packages provided at MTM Project Phase 5, Preliminary Design Stage, must include:

(a) Overall site plan and layout;

(b) General Arrangement Plan;

(c) Elevations & Typical Sections of the civil structures showing clearances, walkways,

track structure, drainage, bearings etc for bridges;

(d) Preliminary foundation layout;

(e) Proposed primary framing & outline of secondary elements for building structures; and

(f) Design Report.





Detailed Design 2.3


(a) Detailed Structural General Arrangement Plans;

(b) Detailed plans, elevations and sections of the structural elements including reinforcement details;

(c) Detailed foundation layout and structural details;

(d) Detailed primary and secondary framing including structural connections;

(e) Construction sequence drawings incorporating construction methodology governing design (where appropriate);

(f) Design Report;

(g) Geotechnical Design Report; and

(h) Details of structural and material specifications including durability and construction requirements.

Final Design 2.4


(a) Final Structural General Arrangement Plans;

(b) Final plans, elevations and cross sections of the structural elements including

reinforcement details

(c) Final foundation layout and structural details

(d) Final primary and secondary framing including structural connections

(e) Details of the temporary works

(f) Final Design Report

(g) Final details of structural and material specifications including durability and

construction requirements

3 Signalling and Communications

Note: Signalling Design Technical Review Procedure (L1-NAM-PRO-001) describes the design artefacts required to be submitted to MTM Engineering for review. This section is intended to provide a guide to the artefacts described Signalling Design Technical Review Procedure. In addition, a list of design artefacts is provided for the Main Cable Containment/Combined Services Route (CSR) and Local Cable Containment.






At a minimum, the design packages provided at MTM Project Phase 2, the project Development phase, must include:

(a) Combined Services Plan showing:

Note: The combined services plan may be overlaid on aerial photography.

i) Track and civil plan;

ii) Existing Signalling Arrangement Plan (SAP) and trackside signalling equipment

including asset numbers and descriptions;

iii) Major monuments (eg Railway Stations, Side Roads, over bridges, etc);

(b) Concept Signalling Arrangement Plan (SAP)

(c) System Architecture (drawings & block diagrams);

(d) Concept for Main Cable Containment/Combined Services Route (CSR):

i) Proposed location of the CSR (Up/Down track side) and ULX; and

ii) Identification of signalling assets requiring connection via a Local Cable Containment Route.

(e) Design Report.


At a minimum, the design packages provided at MTM Project Phase 5, Preliminary Design Stage includes:

(a) Combined Services Plan showing:

Note: The combined services plan may be overlaid on aerial photography.

i) Track and civil plan (including drainage);

ii) Existing Signalling Arrangement Plan (SAP) and trackside signalling equipment

including asset numbers and descriptions;

iii) Major monuments (eg Railway Stations, Side Roads, over bridges, etc);

iv) Existing railway services;

v) Existing Utility Services and detailed design of Utility Services to be relocated;

vi) OHW mast locations, switched air gaps, etc,;

vii) Existing Main Cable Route/CSR; and

viii) Existing railway corridor access points.

(b) Preliminary Design for Signalling:

i) Signalling Design Management Plan (if not included as part of project DEMP);

ii) Signalling Drawing Management Plan (if not included as part of project DwMP);

iii) Overlapping Design Agreement;





iv) CBI Application Data Logic Structure Manual;

v) Signalling Arrangement Plan (SAP);

vi) Tables of Routes;

vii) Track Circuits, Bonding Plan and Signalling Apparatus Plan;

viii) Axle Counter System Overview;

ix) Cable Running Plan;

x) Aspect Sequence Chart;

xi) Datalink Architecture (Smartlock and Westlock) or Network Plan (Westrace and

Westlock);

xii) System Architecture (Westrace and VHLC);

xiii) Power Calculation;

xiv) Power Distribution Plan;

xv) Trackside Functional Module (TFM) Allocation Plan;

xvi) Design Report;

(c) Preliminary Design for Cable Containment:

i) Preliminary Design for Main Cable Containment/Combined Services Route (CSR):

a. Proposed location of the CSR;

b. Containment Type: Conduit, Ground Level Trough, Galvanised Steel Trunking;

c. Number of conduits and location of pits

d. Clash review identifying potential clashes of the CSR with other services including drainage infrastructure.

ii) Preliminary Local Cable Containment Route, including:

a. identification of signalling assets requiring connection via a Local Cable Containment Route,

b. preliminary location of trackside signalling equipment,

c. preliminary location of under track crossings;

d. location of pits.

iii) Design Report.





Detailed Design 3.3


(a) Detailed Design for Signalling:

i) Final revisions of all design submitted at Preliminary Design Stage;

ii) Location Detailed Design;

iii) Signal Equipment Room (SER) Detailed Design;

iv) Signalling Diagram (Litho);

v) Communication Architecture;

vi) Communications Design;

vii) Communications Design;

viii) Signal Sighting Forms;

ix) Stagework designs;

x) Testing & Commissioning Plan; and

xi) Design Report.

(b) Combined Services Plan:

i) Updated revision of plan submitted at Preliminary Design Stage plus details of signalling and communications assets to be decommissioned and/or recovered.

(c) Detailed Design for cable Containment:

i) Main Cable Containment/Combined Services Route (CSR) including:

a. Location of the CSR (Up/Down track side), Under Track Crossings and ULX;

b. CSR detailing sections of Conduit, Ground Level Trough, Galvanised Steel Trunking;

c. Typical trench, Ground Level Trough, Galvanised Steel Trunking cross sections;

d. Number of conduits where the CSR consists of a pit and conduit system;

e. Detailed construction methodology for conduits (open trench, directional bore, etc);

f. Detailed arrangement across creeks, waterways, bridges, embankments, cuttings, subways, station platforms and tunnels;

g. Closed out clash review of all previously identified clashes; and

h. Clash review updated to include all clashes of the CSR with other services including drainage infrastructure.





ii) Local Cable Containment Route including:

a. Detailed location (typically within 10-25 m of the final position) of trackside signalling equipment;

b. Location of Local Cable Containment Route ULX;

c. Construction methodology of each ULX crossings;

d. Local Cable Route connections to trackside signalling equipment;

e. Arrangement of Local Cable Containment on gantries, across creeks, waterways, bridges, embankments, cuttings, subways, station platforms and tunnels;

f. Clash review identifying potential clashes of the Local Cable Containment with other services including drainage infrastructure;

iii) Details of cable pits;

iv) Pits detailed on Drawings:

Primary cable / ULX pit;

Secondary cable / ULX pit;

Location Case Pits;

Under Road Crossing pit;

Local cable break out pit;

Fibre optic joint pits; and

Fibre optic make-off loop pit.

v) Pit Schedule for all pits on CSR;

vi) Detailed design of all pits to be used;

vii) Proposed details of cable containment (pit and conduit, Ground Level Trough, Galvanised Steel Trunking) pit entry details;

Final Design 3.4


i) Final Signalling Design:

Final revisions of all design submitted at Detailed Design Stage;

ii) Combined Services Plan:

Final revision of plan submitted at Detailed Design Stage;

iii) Final Design for Cable Containment:

Final revisions of all design submitted at Detailed Design Stage;





4 Overhead Wiring (OHW)


At a minimum, the design packages provided at the MTM Project Phase 2, the project Development phase, must include:

(a) Detailed Site Survey Drawings containing:

i) Major monuments (e.g. Railway Stations, Side Roads, over bridges, etc.);

ii) Existing railway services;

iii) Existing Utility Services;

iv) Existing track and civil plan;

v) Existing OHW infrastructure; and

vi) Existing railway corridor access points.

(b) Concept layout plans for OHW;

(c) Confirmation of existing Sectioning Diagram and any proposed modifications; and

(d) Design Report.


At a minimum, the design packages provided at MTM Project Phase 5, Preliminary Design Stage must include:

(a) Layout plans starting and ending at existing unmodified structures;

(e) Typical cross-sections for each different type of structure and arrangement;

(f) Bridge profiles (Scale – Horizontal 1:500, Vertical 1:50);

(g) Bill of Materials;

(h) List of Waivers; and

(i) Design Report.

Detailed Design 4.3

At a minimum, the design packages provided at MTM Project Phase 5, Detailed Design Stage must include:

(a) Index sheets;

(b) Detailed layout plans starting and ending at existing unmodified structures;

(c) Detailed cross-sections for each structure location;

(d) Detailed switching arrangement drawings;

(e) Bridge Profile drawings (Scale – Horizontal 1:500, Vertical 1:50);

(f) Detailed Special cross-sections e.g. Basic design drawings, new arrangements;

(g) Detailed Structural and foundation details;

(h) Marked up Sectioning Diagram for discussion with MTM;

(i) Dropper tables;

(j) Detailed Bill of Materials; and

(k) Design Report.





Final Design 4.4

At a minimum, the design packages provided at MTM Project Phase 5, Final Design Stage must include:

(a) Index sheets;

(b) Final layout plans starting and ending at existing unmodified structures;

(c) Final cross-sections for each structure location;

(d) Final switching arrangement drawings;

(e) Final Bridge Profile drawings (Scale – Horizontal 1:500, Vertical 1:50);

(f) Special cross-sections e.g. Basic design drawings, new arrangements;

(g) Final structural and foundation details;

(h) Marked up Sectioning Diagram for discussion with MTM;

(i) Dropper tables;

(j) Detailed Bill of Quantities;

(k) Design Report.





Appendix 5 – Design and Engineering Management Plan - Typical List of Contents

1 Introduction

Provides an overview of the project and the element of the design to which the DEMP applies. Includes such items as:

Project overview (inc. background, project scope, location and limits of work)

Interfaces with other works and projects

Contractors and consultants for the project

Definitions and Abbreviations

Key program dates

2 Organisation and Responsibilites

Provides details of the project and design team/s relationship, roles and responsibilities, and resource and competence management including:

Design Organisations

Design Team Structure

Engineering and Design Management Roles and Responsibilities

Engineering and Design Personnel, Authority & Roles, Responsibility & Lines of Communication (inc. Design Manage/SR and Discipline Leads, Designers, Reviewers, Approvers and Document Controller)

Engineering and Design Competencies and Resource Management

Remote design coordination and external design services

3 Design Planning and Program Management

Details of the design program and deliverables schedule:

Design scope for design and construction phase

Design package register (inc. design reports drawings and other deliverables) and drawing list

Design resource requirement

Early Works and Temporary Works Packages

Design program including timing of design submissions for ARTO review

4 Risk and Opportunity Management

Details of how the risks and opportunities to the design development will be managed including:

The risk management process

Risk and opportunity assessment and mitigation

Risk and opportunity database

Risk and opportunity communication and reporting





5 Design Management Process

Detailed of how the development of the design will be managed including:

Design Inputs

Applicable Standards

Requirements Management (inc. Requirements Analysis and Traceability)

Design Interfaces (inc. with existing infrastructure, as part of an overall project/program and/or other projects)

Thirst Party (inc. ARTO) Design Review and Approvals, Signal Sighting

Design Development Process inc.

o Constructability Temporary and Stage Design and Occupational Planning (including Works Readiness Procedure)

o Quality in Design (design checks, reviews, verification, assurance)

o Proof Engineering

o Interdisciplinary Design Check (IDC)

o Safety in Design (SiD)

o Value Engineering

o RAMS and Human Factors Integration

o Sustainability in Design

Construction Phase Services (inc. Requests For Information, Design Change Requests and Non Conformance Reports)

Construction verification (inc. verification and approval of Inspection and Test Plans, construction phase audits).

6 Configuration Management

Description of the configuration management process to be used during development of the design including:

Management of Change

Type Approval

Engineering Change

Waivers

Management of Design Baselines

Design Change Control Process (including post IFC changes)





7 Interface Management

Details of how organisational interfaces between the teams and individuals used in the development of the design will be managed including:

Interfacing organisations to be used to undertake independent reviews

Interfacing organisations to be used to undertake design of discrete packages

Interfacing organisations to be used to provide specialist advice or support to the design

How interfaces to the various stakeholder groups will be managed (for example, regular progress meetings, workshopping, formal RFI/TQ processes, Works Readiness, optimisation of occupations)

8 Communication and Reporting

Details of how the status and progress of the design will be reported including:

Planning and coordination of Management of Change and Engineering Change process

Design package status and progress including with respect to Works Readiness gates

Status of Type Approval and Waivers

RFI status

9 Design Outputs

Details of how the design out puts will be managed including:

Details of how the design documents will be controlled

Document handover

As-builts/As In Service and DMS requirements

PASS Assets requirements

Operation and Maintenance Manuals, training, tools and spares

Information archiving





Appendix 6 – Design Report - Typical List of Contents

1 Introduction

Provides an overview of the project and the element of the design to which the design report applies.

Includes such items as:

Background of the development undertaken to date (how we arrived at this element of the design)

Scope (including geographic and technical boundaries)

Deliverables forming the design package

Existing Conditions

Changes to the design since the previous revision (if applicable)

Definitions and Abbreviations 1.1

Definitions and abbreviations used in the design report

2 Design Criteria

This section forms the criteria around which the design has been developed.

Design personnel and competency 2.1

Details the personnel used in the production of the design package and their supporting competencies.

Design Standards 2.2

Details all standards referenced in the development and production of the design.

Functional Requirements 2.3

Provides traceability of the design to the core functional requirements. Generally includes a listing of the requirements applicable to the design together with a description of how the design has met the requirement. Where the design includes deviations from a requirement this is stated together with justification and stakeholder agreement for the design change.

May be summarised with further explanation and justification provided in later sections of the design report.

Operational Requirements 2.4

Provides traceability of the design to the core operational requirements. Generally includes a listing of the requirements applicable to the design together with a description of how the design has met the requirement. Where the design includes deviations from a requirement this is stated together with justification and stakeholder agreement for the design change.

May be summarised with further explanation and justification provided in later sections of the design report.





Project Inputs 2.5

Details all input documentation used, whether provided to the designer or referenced by the designer in the development of the design.

Such documentation may include:

Project scoping documentation

Requirements specifications

Manufacturer data sheets and manuals

Other, equivalent designs (including typical or standard drawings)

Related procedures or processes that may have an impact on the function or operation of the design

Client instructions (including technical queries and RFI’s)

Assumptions 2.6

Details any assumptions that have been made during the development of the design.

Major Constraints 2.7

Details any constraints which have affected the design or may affect the implementation of the design. Particular issues that may have resulted in a design compromise or prevented another course to be taken should be highlighted.

Operational Impacts 2.8

Will the design result in any impact on the operation of the railway either during or following the implementation of the changes. This may include:

The control of the movement of rail services

Changes to the procedures and processes

Reliability, Availability and Maintenance 2.9

Will the design result in any impact on the reliability or maintainability of the railway either during or following the implementation of the changes. This may include:

The ability to safely maintain the infrastructure

Any identified reduction in the availability or reliability of a piece of infrastructure, system or subsystem

Any special instructions or methods that may need to be adopted

3 Description of Design

Details the changes that need to be made to implement the design. This includes:

Details of any new infrastructure

Details of all infrastructure that may be removed and/or changed

Any functional or operational changes (for example, special monitoring or resetting procedures)





Design Methodology 3.1

This section provides the main justification for the design development process and is effectively a storyboard of the design production describing the development of the design package.

This will include any optioneering that may have been undertaken during the production of the design and also details the process used to reach agreement for the solution adopted (including stakeholder engagement) together with evidence to support the design decisions made.

Where any special, non-standard or novel design has been used this should be mentioned here. This section also provides further support to the design where any supplied input documentation or requirement was unclear or required further development and agreement.

Design Interfaces 3.2

Details organisational interfaces between the teams and individuals used in the development of the design. This may include:

Interfacing organisations used to undertake independent reviews

Interfacing organisations used to undertake design of discrete packages

Interfacing organisations used to provide specialist advice or support to the design

How interfaces to the various stakeholder groups have been conducted (for example, regular progress meetings, workshopping, formal RFI/TQ processes)

Management of Change 3.3

A part of the configuration management process this section includes the following:

Revision control used to control the design, together with the revision status applicable to the design package (e.g. preliminary, detailed, final, issued for construction)

Changes to the design scope or requirements, including the evidence used by the designer to provide justification for the change (include traceability and evidence of stakeholder agreement)

This section details both the process used together with specific information related to the change.

Safety in Design and Human Factors 3.4

This section will include details of stakeholder and interdisciplinary engagement through the design process together with any recommendations made as part of:

The stakeholder engagement process.

Dedicated safety in design workshopping

Human Factors Integration

Any other workshops or meetings which may have been held to discuss specific risks related to the design, its implementation and whole-of-life use (operation, maintenance, end-of-life decommissioning)





Verification 3.5

Details the verification undertaken, including justification for the levels of review carried out (for example, a design may have been reviewed internally but not subject to external peer or proof review). The design verification process used for the design must be mapped to the appropriate section of the Rail Safety Act and MTM requirements and supported by project or company processes.

Full names of the personnel undertaking the verification must also be included.

A complete listing of all error logs and verification reports should also be included.

4 Outstanding Issues

Details any areas of the design, including input documentation, that are still subject to clarification or agreement. All areas of the design covered by ‘hold clouds’ should also be mentioned here.

Non-compliance to Standards 4.1

Where the design includes aspects that are not compliant or include deviations to standards, these shall be described here together with details for how the non-conformance has been addressed.

Waivers 4.2

Includes details of any dispensations or waivers that have been submitted, together with the status of the application (approved, not approved).

Type Approval 4.3

List of equipment requiring type approval in accordance with MTM Type Approval Procedure (L1-CHE-PRO-004) and status.

Annexure A - Design Calculations

Design calculations and considerations associated with the design

Annexure B - Equipment List

List of equipment to be used as part of the design including type approval number or pending status as applicable

Annexure C - Design Review Comments List

Copy of Design Review Comments List (L4-CHE-FOR-046), or equivalent design review comments sheet provided by the Designer, with status of design comments, review responses and agreed status.





Appendix 7 – Proof Engineering Requirements

In addition to the requirements for design verification, the Contractor shall arrange proof engineering of the following designs where directed:

Permanent Structural Works;

Permanent and Temporary Geotechnical Works; and

Temporary Structural Works.

Proof engineering shall include a full and independent assessment of all factors influencing the final integrity of the specified components of the work and shall be undertaken in order to assure compliance with the Principal’s Project Requirements.

This includes a review of the functional requirements of the permanent works, the detailed design and documentation of the permanent works and associated temporary works, and the construction method.

Proof engineering shall be based on the design consultant’s construction drawings and specifications and without reference to the design consultant’s computations.

Proof engineering shall be undertaken by a proof engineer who is pre-qualified under the Vic Roads Consultant Pre-qualification Scheme.

The proof engineer shall be independent of any other commitment or obligation to the Contractor or the Consultant carrying out the design for the Contract.

All advice and comment including calculations provided to the Contractor by the proof engineer shall be in writing.

A proof engineering report shall be provided for each design package in accordance with the specifications for Proof Engineering Reports.

Proof Engineering Certificates of Compliance shall be forwarded to the Principal’s Representative not less than five working days prior to the commencement of construction, fabrication or erection of that part of the Works. The Certificates of Compliance shall be in a form to the satisfaction of the Principal’s Representative.

The proof engineer shall stamp and sign all relevant drawing(s) as evidence of the proof engineer’s detailed check and acceptance prior to the issue of the drawing(s) for construction.

Any amendment to the design after the issue of the Proof Engineering Certificate of Compliance shall be referred to the proof engineer for review and written confirmation that the Certificate remains valid. Evidence of this confirmation shall be provided to the Principal’s Representative not less than 24 hours prior to commencement of the relevant works.

Any amendments agreed to by the Principal’s Representative, the design consultant and the proof engineer shall be incorporated into the final construction drawings and specifications.





Proof Engineering Reports

A Proof Engineering Report shall be submitted in respect of each Design Package. The Proof Engineering Report shall be an independent review report.

The Proof Engineering Reports must be structured in the following format (as a minimum):

a) Introduction;

b) key design inputs provided by the Designer;

c) design assumptions and criteria adopted for proof engineering;

d) key standards used in proof engineering;

e) analytical methodology used in proof engineering;

f) any non-conformances with standards and design brief;

g) Attachment A - Proof Engineering Certificates;

h) Attachment B – Certified Drawings;

i) Attachment C – Relevant Correspondence; and

j) Attachment D – Other Related Information.





Appendix 8 – Proof Engineering Certificate of Compliance

(Form to be used by the Proof Engineer at intermediate stages and final completion of design and construction)

I .................................................................................................................... certify that I have:

(1) undertaken an independent engineering review in relation to the design represented by the drawings and specifications provided by the Contractor as listed in the attached schedule;

(2) carried out a detailed check of individual structural elements and the structure as a whole including the specified material properties;

##(strikethrough (3), (4) and/or (5) below if these aspects are not included in the specified scope of proof engineering):

##:(3) reviewed the Site Conditions Information Report in accordance with AS5100 – Bridge Design, the appropriate foundation investigation, the recommended design values, material properties and possible failure mechanisms:

##:(4) reviewed the hydrologic and hydraulic design parameters including design flood discharges and levels, stream velocities and afflux as well as evaluation of potential for and protection against scour and bank erosion;

##:(5) reviewed the proposed construction procedure and the aspects of temporary works critical for structural integrity and safety.

In performing the function of Proof Engineer I have used due skill, care and diligence and from my review and in my opinion as a professional engineer I consider that:

A. all relevant design actions and design criteria are covered by the design and that these actions and criteria and overall concept meet the requirements of the Principal’s Project Requirements;

B. the strength, stability and serviceability and other Limit State requirements as defined in the Principal’s Project Requirements are met; and

C. the construction drawings and specifications accurately describe the following matters critical to the structural integrity –

##(strikethrough (c) below if these aspects are not included in the specified scope of proof engineering)

(a) the detailing and dimensions,

(b) the required material properties, and

(c) the construction procedure and temporary works.

Signed

Name (please print)

On behalf of (Company)

Date





Appendix 8 Cont’d

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE – TEMPORARY WORKS INSPECTION

CONTRACTOR’S ENGINEER

I ............................................................................................................................. , the undersigned

am responsible for supervising the construction of temporary works detailed on the following listed final drawings and specifications certified by the Proof Engineer. Using due skill, care and diligence, I have reviewed the relevant geometric surveys and test reports and made inspections during the construction of the temporary works and certify that the completed temporary works complies with the certified drawings and specifications.

Signed ...................................................................................................................

On behalf of (Company) ...................................................................................................................

Date ....................................................................

DESIGN ENGINEER

I ............................................................................................................................. , the undersigned

am responsible for the design of temporary works detailed on the following listed drawings and specifications certified by the Proof Engineer. Using due skill, care and diligence, I have made an inspection of the completed temporary works and certify that it complies with the certified drawings and specifications.

Signed ...................................................................................................................

On behalf of (Company) ...................................................................................................................

Date ....................................................................

Contractor to schedule all Drawings and Specifications of temporary works certified by the Proof Engineer, applicable to this joint Certificate of Compliance.