Stakeholder survey for the second post-implementation review of The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006

We sought views from anyone who has a duty under, or is affected by, the provisions established in ROGS as part of the post-implementation review (PIR) that ORR  carried out on behalf of the of the Secretary of State for Transport. 

To provide a sound evidence base for assessing the effectiveness of ROGS and to determine where changes are required, we gathered information through a survey sent to stakeholders. 

Whilst the  post-implementation focused  on how well the Regulations were  working, the survey also sought views on how ROGS could be improved. 

The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 (ROGS) (S.I. 2006/599) (as amended) provide the regulatory regime for rail safety in Great Britain, including the mainline railway, metros (including London Underground), tramways, light rail and heritage railways. 

ROGS require most railway operators (known as transport operators) to maintain a safety management system (SMS) and hold a safety certificate or authorisation indicating the SMS has been accepted by the ORR. 

ROGS also give duties to those responsible for the safe maintenance of a vehicle and who are registered as an ‘entity in charge of maintenance’ (ECM). 

Regulation 34A of the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 [S.I. 2006/599]  (as amended) (ROGS) requires that by 26 August 2016 (and every five years thereafter) the Secretary of State. 

• carries out a post implementation review (PIR) of ROGS; 
• sets out the conclusions of the review in a report; and 
• publishes the report. 

The Department for Transport (DfT) commissioned the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) to undertake a survey which was used by DfT to draw conclusions and recommendations about ROGS. ORR previously carried out a PIR on behalf on of the Secretary of State in 2016. 

The purpose of the PIR was to analyse whether ROGS provide an appropriate level of regulation and to check that any regulatory burdens or costs on business remained proportionate to the objectives noted. The PIR process was an opportunity for stakeholders to express their views and experience of ROGS. The PIR addressed: 

• the extent to which the Regulations were achieving their intended effects; 
• whether there had been any unintended effects; 
• how well they were working and the reasons why; and 
• any areas that could be improved

We produced a survey to collect evidence to establish whether, and to what extent, ROGS: 

• had achieved their original objectives; 
• had objectives which were still valid;  
• were still required and remained the best option for achieving those objectives; and  
• could be improved to reduce the burden on business.  

Stakeholders’ views were critical in providing a sound evidence base to assess the effectiveness (or otherwise) of ROGS since they took effect in 2006. Evidence from the survey was used in the review to support decisions about ROGS.  

The ultimate objective of ROGS is to maintain national standards of rail safety and to strive for continuous improvement. Arising from this are the following subsidiary objectives for ROGS (which were determined by the requirement to implement the provisions of the Railway Safety Directive (Directive 2004/49) and the consolidation of the pre-existing national regulatory framework: 

The objectives from 2006 are as follows:

Objective 1: (a) transfer the mainline (including non-mainline railways operating over 25kph) railway industry from a system of railway safety cases to a system of safety certification and authorisation; and (b) ensuring the UK can respond to common safety targets in future; 

Objective 2: (a) reduce the number of railway operators that have to seek formal permission to work on the railway; (b) producing a minimum set of requirements for a SMS so that safety certification is more streamlined and better targeted, less bureaucratic and quicker for duty holders; and (c) redirecting inspection towards checking on the ground that operators are controlling their operational risks; 

Objective 3: (a) transport operators and infrastructure managers work together to ensure system safety; and (b) operators identify appropriate forms of cooperation that complement the measures they are taking to comply with their own safety duties; 

Objective 4: (a) removal of the requirement on the non-mainline railway for formal approval by ORR before introducing new or altered works, plant or equipment; and (b) replacing this requirement so that duty holders obtain safety verification from an independent competent person; 

Objective 5: (a) change the definition of ‘safety critical work’ from broad job titles to the actual tasks that are safety critical to the safety of the railway; (b) requiring  that safety critical tasks are carried out by a person assessed as being competent and fit for work; (c) remove the requirement for safety critical workers to carry a formal means of identification; and (d) require a change in approach from simply controlling the number of hours for preventing fatigue to one of requiring arrangements to be implemented that control risks such as the pattern of working hours and roster design; 

The objectives following amendments to ROGS in 2011 are as follows;

Objective 6: establish an entity in charge of maintenance (ECM) regime applicable to the UK, which complies with the Railway Safety Directive (as amended) and is consistent with ROGS; 

Objective 7: clarify in Part 4 of ROGS that “work” includes voluntary workers; 

Objective 8: establish a method of collecting accident data which complies with the Railway Safety Directive and is consistent with ROGS;   
The objectives following amendments to ROGS in 2013 are as follows;

Objective 9: establish an ECM certification regime applicable to the UK, which complies with the Railway Safety Directive and is consistent with ROGS by giving effect to European Commission Regulation (EU) 445/2011 on a system of certification of ECMs for freight wagons; 

Objective 10: provide clarification that those rail systems listed in Article 2(2) of the Railway Safety Directive are properly excluded from the mainline railway; 

Objective 11: remove the requirement for safety verification for mainline railway transport operators; 

Objective 12: remove the requirement for non-mainline transport operators to send annual safety reports to ORR; 

Objective 13: clarify that the monitoring arrangements of the controller of safety-critical work have to be suitable and sufficient; and  

Objective 14: make the 28-day consultation with an ‘affected party’ run concurrently with the four-month application assessment period for safety certificates and safety authorisations.