Report On Publication and Availability of National Safety Rules

Final Report for the
Study of the Publication and Availability of National

Safety Rules in some EU Member States and Norway
(With the comments on Sections 5 and 6

made by the National Safety Authorities
of the countries in the scope of this study)
Colin Buchanan and Partners May 2008
1
1. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 4
1.1 This report 4
1.2 Scope 4
1.3 The structure of the rule-making process 4
1.4 Publication of the rules 4
1.5 Stakeholders view of the rules 5
1.6 Proposals 5
2. INTRODUCTION 6
2.1 This report 6
2.2 Structure of the report 6
2.3 The remit for the study 7
2.4 The notifications 9
2.5 Glossary of terms 9
2.6 The Consortium 9
2.7 Acknowledgements 11
3. THE BACKGROUND 12
3.1 Structure of the section 12
3.2 Transport policy background 12
3.3 The role of the European Railway Agency 13
3.4 National safety rules 13
3.5 The key issue 14
4. DELIVERY 15
4.2 Scope of the work 15
4.3 Methodology 15
4.4 Progress achieved 16
4.5 The responses 23
4.6 Analysis of the results 25
5. THE RESULTS 26
5.2 Belgium 26
5.3 Denmark 34
5.4 Estonia 4241
5.5 France 4948
5.6 Ireland 5553
5.7 Italy 6159
5.8 The Netherlands 6765
5.9 Norway 7371
5.10 Sweden 7977
6. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 8684
6.2 Summary 8684
6.3 Analysis: How national safety rules are established
in national legislation 8785
2
6.4 Comment: How national safety rules are
established in national legislation 9290
6.5 Analysis: The way in which rules are published 9492
6.6 Comment: The way in which rules are published 9794
6.7 Analysis: The way in which rules are made available9996
6.8 Comment: The way in which the rules
are made available 10299
6.9 Analysis: Ease of understanding the rules 104101
6.10 Comment: Ease of understanding the rules 111108
6.11 Analysis: Comprehensiveness of the content
of national safety rule notifications published and
made available in the selected countries: 112109
6.12 Comment: Comprehensiveness of the content of
notifications on national safety rules published
and made available in the selected countries 113110
6.13 Analysis: General issues 113110
6.14 Comment: General issues 114112
7. PROPOSALS 116113
7.2 Proposals 116113
Appendices – bound separately 122119
Appendix A Glossary of abbreviations
Appendix B Excerpts from the Safety Directive
Appendix C1 Structured interview questions - government

Appendix C2 Structured interview questions – national safety authorities
Appendix C3 Structured interview questions – infrastructure managers
Appendix C4 Structured interview questions – railway undertakings
Appendix C5 Structured interview questions - other
Appendix D List of bodies interviewed
Appendix E Information available to stakeholders

Appendix F Information supplied to interviewees before the interview
3
1. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
1.1 This report
1.1.1 This report is the Final Report for the ERA study procured under the
procurement procedure ERA/2007/SAF/OP/02 and entitled Study of the
publication and availability of national safety rules in some EU Member States
and Norway issued by the European Railway Agency (the Agency).
1.2 Scope
1.2.1 Ministries, national safety authorities and infrastructure managers in all nine
states were interviewed. In addition twenty-five separate railway undertakings,
some operating in several states and three “other” stakeholders were
interviewed using structured interviews.
1.3 The structure of the rule-making process
1.3.1 The legislative process for direct national safety rules tends to follow the same
pattern in all the states surveyed. Arrangements for consultation vary
considerably however and some stakeholders feel there is insufficient
consultation. Only Belgium, Denmark, France and Italy have indirect rules and
the actors involved and the processes for enacting the rules vary considerably.
It seems clear that this area is still in a state of flux. The arrangements for
review and amendment of the rules also differ, in some states there is a regular
formal process; in others the process is essentially reactive.
1.4 Publication of the rules
1.4.1 The responsibility for publication for statutory purposes varies between the
various states (particularly for indirect rules). In practice however, both the
competent bodies and the stakeholders in all the states regarded the Internet as
the medium in which the rules are made available. No respondent referred to
paper copies of the official journal as his source of the rules. Only in Norway
and Sweden are the rules in any language but a national language. In general,
the competent authorities also take the view that publication on the Internet
means there is no question of setting up special means to ensure availability.
4
1.5 Stakeholders view of the rules
1.5.1 With the general exception of the Netherlands, stakeholders find the rules easy
to access, clear and user-friendly. There was evidence that access and clarity
have become better in recent years (as safety authorities become more active).
Respondents said that written guidance is available in all the states surveyed
except Estonia (which provides other types of assistance) and the Netherlands
and there seems to be a commitment on the part of the national safety
authorities (in particular) to provide help tailored to applicants for safety
certificates.
1.6 Proposals
1.6.1 Proposals are made for improving the process of consultation on the rules and
for improving the accessibility of the rules.
5
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 This report
2.1.1 This report is the Final Report for the ERA study procured under the
procurement procedure ERA/2007/SAF/OP/02 and entitled Study of the
publication and availability of national safety rules in some EU Member States
and Norway issued by the European Railway Agency (the Agency). This Final
Report is intended to provide the following information:
1. a detailed description of the methodology;
2. a clear record of all the bodies interviewed, the form of structured

interview, and all other sources of information used in the work;
3. the detailed presentation of the results of the information collection

activities;
4. the catalogue of material available on the Internet;
5. an analysis of the results and the conclusions drawn with

reference to the objectives of the work, including in particular an
evaluation of the way safety rules are published and made
available in accordance with the Railway Safety Directive. This
will include a draft set of appropriate proposals to the Agency for
the publication of such rules in order to make the relevant
information more easily accessible.
2.2 Structure of the report
2.2.1 The report is structured into six sections as follows:
1. Management summary Summarises the report.
2. Introduction An introduction to the report.
3. The background The study context, including transport

policy background, safety rules, and the
key objective of the study.
4. Delivery The work done to achieve the objectives

of the project, including the scope of the
work, the methodology adopted, the
6
progress achieved by the study, and its
organisation.
5. The results State by state analysis of the results,

with a separate sub-section for each
state.
6. Analysis and conclusions A summary of the material from the

various states and conclusions.
7. Proposals The proposals resulting from the

analysis and conclusions.
The appendices, which are bound separately, include further information on

method and an analysis of the information available publicly.
2.3 The remit for the study
2.3.1 The remit for the study is contained in the document Specifications attached to
the Invitation to Tender No ERA/2007/SAF/OP/02.
2.3.2 The material section is section C2.2.2, which requires:
“The Contractor shall collect information on the following five aspects:
1. How national safety rules are established in the national legislation:
the collection of information from the competent ministry, the

national safety authority or other body will focus on the form of
the legislative process, the allocation of responsibilities and the
management of the rules system, including the monitoring
process by the national safety authority, in the Member State.
2. The way in which the rules are published:
collection of information from the competent ministry, the

national safety authority or other body about the publishing of
the rules will focus on identifying the body or bodies responsible
for publishing the rules, the means by which the rules are
published and the management of the publication process.
7
3. The way in which the rules are made available:

national safety authority or other body on the provision of
means to support access to the rules and the control
mechanisms in place to oversee the accessibility of the rules
to obtain the relevant stakeholders’ views on the availability of

the rules by recording subjective assessments of the ease of
access to the rules in general and the ease of finding specific
rules for a defined part of the infrastructure in each selected
country
to check the availability of the rules according to the means

described by the competent ministry, the national safety
authority or other body using the usual communication channels
open to stakeholders (telephone, Internet searches, published
documents etc.
4. Ease of understanding the rules:
collection of information on the available languages of the

national safety rules using the means of access identified
during the information collection activities on the availability of
the rules

national safety authority or other body on the provision of
support material such as guidelines, glossary of terms and
references to technical advice on the application of the rules
to obtain the stakeholders’ views on the ease of understanding

the rules for the purposes of applying for safety certificates by
railway undertakings and the applying for authorization by
infrastructure managers
8
5. Comprehensiveness of the content of the notifications in relation to
the national safety rules which are published and made available in the
selected countries:
by comparison between the national safety rules contained in

the notifications and the published rules
to obtain the opinions of the competent ministry, and the

national safety authority or other body on the fulfilment of Article
8(1) of the Railway Safety Directive in their respective country.”
2.4 The notifications
2.4.1 The study was based on notifications of binding national safety rules notified by:
Belgium dated 4 July 2006,

Denmark dated 26 April 2005,
Estonia dated 29 April 2005,
France dated 10 May 2005,
Ireland dated 8 July 2005,
Italy dated 13 June 2005,
The Netherlands dated 2 June 2005,
Norway dated 29 April 2005,
Sweden dated 15 June 2005.
2.5 Glossary of terms
2.5.1 A glossary of abbreviations has been included as Appendix A. It includes

abbreviations which are used more than once but does not include those terms
which are defined where they are used.
2.6 The Consortium
2.6.1 The Consortium is led by Colin Buchanan (UK) who are the contracting party for
legal purposes. The Consortium includes Pegasus Transconsult Ltd (UK),
Ecorys (The Netherlands), ELLE (Estonia), DITS (Italy) NESTEAR (France),
and NTU (Denmark). A brief description of the members of the Consortium
appears below.
9
2.6.2 Colin Buchanan is a British and Irish consultancy. The firm‟s work covers urban
and regional planning, roads, traffic engineering, public transport, economics,
market research and software development. Its staff includes traffic engineers,
public transport specialists, architects, development planners, urban designers,
landscape architects, economists, systems analysts and market researchers.
2.6.3 Pegasus Transconsult (PTC) provides a complete range of transportation

consultancy services, based on the skills and knowledge of some of Europe‟s
leading transport experts. It has a particular focus on European issues, having
a broad range of expertise extending from high level policy to detailed technical
issues.
2.6.4 DITS: Università di Roma “La Sapienza” - Dipartimento di Idraulica Trasporti e

Strade. DITS is the Department of Hydraulics, Transport, and Roads of the
Faculty of Engineering of the University of Rome “Sapienza”. Its teaching and
research are mainly in the field of planning and management of passenger and
freight transport systems.
2.6.5 ECORYS is a European consultancy and research organisation founded by the

Netherlands Economic Institute (NEI). ECORYS has an extensive record of
national and international projects in the rail sector.
2.6.6 ELLE, an acronym for Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment, is a Baltic
consultancy with an established record in working with the railway industry.
2.6.7 NESTEAR is an applied research organisation linked to INRETS (Institut

National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité (The French National
Institute for Transport and Safety Research).
2.6.8 NTU: Strategic Development & Consulting Ltd. NTU is a private Danish
consulting company, which has been working internationally with consulting and
development projects since its foundation in 1993. Rail studies represent one
of NTU‟s core competences.
10
2.7 Acknowledgements
2.7.1 The Consortium would like to acknowledge the help offered by the European
Railway Agency and of course the numerous respondents who gave freely of
their time and expertise to provide answers to our questions.
11
3. THE BACKGROUND
3.1 Structure of the section
3.1.1 This section of the report puts the study into context, with sub-sections on
transport policy background, the role of the Agency, safety rules, and the key
objective of the study.
3.2 Transport policy background
3.2.1 Article 8 of the Railway Safety Directive1 places a duty on Member States:
“Member States shall establish binding national safety rules and shall ensure
that they are published and made available to all infrastructure managers,
railway undertakings, applicants for a safety certificate and applicants for a
safety authorisation in clear language that can be understood by the parties
concerned”. This process is essential to give railway undertakings (in
particular) a clear understanding of the legal requirements in the states in which
they operate or propose to operate.
3.2.2 The duty placed on national safety authorities has a further aspect. Only if
regulations are clear, and assistance is provided to facilitate compliance can
wider participation in the provision of services by rail be guaranteed. The
continuing need to open up the market for rail services to new undertakings,
particularly those extending their geographic range, is therefore conditional on
safety rules being freely available, safety rules being unambiguous and help
being available to interpret and implement them. Whilst the opening of the
market has a particular relevance to railway undertakings, the market for the
provision of rolling stock and the provision (for example) of maintenance
services would also be invigorated by new entrants. Clarity and certainty in the
safety rules are an essential precondition to achieve this wider participation,
conversely failure to provide this clarity and certainty could frustrate operation of
the Single Market in the provision of rail services.
1
Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the
Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings
and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for
the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) published as a
corrigendum in OJ EU L220/16 of 21 June 2004.
12
3.3 The role of the European Railway Agency
3.3.1 Member States are required to notify the European Commission of all the
relevant national safety rules in force as set out in Annex II (to the Safety
Directive) and indicate their area of application. The notification shall further
provide information on the principal content of the rules with references to the
legal texts, on the form of legislation and on which body or organisation is
responsible for its publication. The Agency is required to evaluate the way in
which national safety rules are published and made available in accordance
with Article 8(1). It is also required to make appropriate recommendations to
the Commission for the publication of such rules in order to make the relevant
information more easily accessible.
3.4 National safety rules
3.4.1 National safety rules are described either directly in the national legislation or
indirectly, by requiring in the legislation that rules published by a third party
should be applied. Indirect safety rules may have their origin in the rules of the
former national railway or be requirements in standards or publications of
organisations such as the UIC. If the rule has no legal basis, it is not binding
and therefore, not a national safety rule. Seven types of national safety rules
are described in Annex II to the Safety Directive. (Annex II of the Safety
Directive is reproduced in Appendix B (Excerpts from the Safety Directive) of
this report).
3.4.2 A useful explanation of the safety rules is to be found in the ERA Guideline for
Member States on the Notification of National Safety Rules (ERA-20070731-
SAF).
3.4.3 In addition to these safety rules imposed by law, infrastructure managers may
have their own regulations which they impose on railway undertakings through
their access contracts. These safety regulations are not binding national safety
rules (because they are not imposed by law) but rather are a condition of a
contractual agreement between two parties - the railway undertaking and the
infrastructure manager.
13
3.5 The key issue
3.5.1 There are therefore two key issues, firstly to ensure the national safety rules are
available and secondly to ensure the national safety rules are easy to
understand. The consultants have therefore sought to check that:
there are binding national safety rules,
that they are published,
that they are available,
that they are in a clear language that can be understood by the

wider railway community.
14
4. DELIVERY
4.1.1 This section describes the work done to achieve the objectives of the project,
with sub-sections describing the scope of the work, the methodology adopted,
the progress achieved by the study, and its organisation.
4.2 Scope of the work
4.2.1 All the tasks and activities identified in the Agency‟s specification were
undertaken. The publication and availability of national safety rules in the
following EU Member and EFTA States were examined:
Belgium,
Denmark,
Estonia,
France,
Ireland,
Italy,
The Netherlands,
Norway and
Sweden.
4.3 Methodology
The structure of the work
4.3.1 In accordance with the specification, the work was divided into two work
packages: Work Package 1, and Work Package 2.
4.3.2 Work Package 1: Preparatory work reviewed and presented at the Intermediate
Review Meeting including the Interim Report. This comprised the following
activities:
developing the structured interviews including the means to collect

information and subjective assessments, as described in the
ERA‟s Tender Specification;
15
proposing suitable organisations to be interviewed in the selected
states to achieve an appropriate balance;
selecting other sources of information to fulfil the objectives in the

specification;
preparing the Interim Report;
presenting Work Package 1 at the Intermediate Review Meeting.
4.3.3 Work Package 2 (which followed the Intermediate Review Meeting): The
information collecting activities, presenting the results and delivery of the Final
Report. This comprised the following activities:
carrying out the structured interviews;
collecting the required information as described in the

specification;
analysing results and their assessment in relation to the objectives

of the work;
preparing the Final Report
presenting Work Package 2 at the final meeting.
4.4 Progress achieved
Initial tasks
4.4.1 When the Consortium considered the structure of the work it concluded that
presenting both the proposed list of interviewees and proposed interview dates
at the Intermediate Review Meeting would not be productive. Any change
would involve restarting. Accordingly, it was agreed during the kick-off meeting
to supply a list of the organisations to be interviewed, have those approved,
then the list of interviewees, have those approved and only then fix interviews.
Work Package 1
4.4.2 Two activities were carried out in parallel in Work Package 1. The first of these,
identification of stakeholder organisations and choice of appropriate
interviewees was carried out in parallel with the second, developing the
structured interviews and starting work on other data collection.
16
Choice of stakeholders
4.4.3 In preparing the list of stakeholders to be consulted for approval at the

intermediate review meeting, the Consortium took account of the need to admit
new entrants to the market on equitable terms. In addition to including the
incumbent (passenger and freight) railway undertaking in every case, the
Consortium included new open access railway undertakings as far as was
possible (Ireland was a notable exception) and a limited number of railway
undertakings from adjacent countries (to get “third party” opinion) in its initial list
of stakeholders. Applicants for safety certificates (and safety authorisations)
were also considered for inclusion in the list of stakeholders to be contacted.
4.4.4 The choice of new railway undertakings was made such that the issue of
operation across the frontiers into adjacent countries could be covered in a
single interview.
4.4.5 A limited number of other stakeholders were included in the list, such as wagon
keepers, representatives of employees, and traction hiring companies. Wagon
keepers and traction hirers with extensive European operations were chosen.
The inclusion of these groups and representatives of employees was not
intended to be comprehensive but merely to identify any issues that particularly
affect those groups.
4.4.6 Accordingly, the Consortium made an initial choice of fifty-nine bodies to

interview, these were composed of nine ministries, nine Safety Authorities, eight
infrastructure managers, one integrated railway, twenty-five railway
undertakings, three wagon keepers, two traction hirers, and two representatives
of employees. This initial list was designed to provide a balance between
passenger and freight and “new” and “old” railway undertakings. There were
three passenger/freight incumbent undertakings, five incumbent passenger
undertakings, five incumbent freight undertakings, six new passenger
undertakings and six new freight undertakings. Of these, one passenger
undertaking and three freight undertakings operate through international
services and other undertakings have certificates to allow them to do so. The
other parties were added to investigate if there were particular issues that only
affect those groups.
17
4.4.7 The Consortium supplied the agency with a draft list of the organisations to be
interviewed on 16 December 2007. The Agency accepted the list in an e-mail
of 21 December 2007 but asked for further railway undertakings such as Thalys
and Eurostar to be included. The Agency also asked for First-DSB to be
included, First-DSB is particularly significant in two ways, it will operate
international services and in that the company has not yet started its services
and will thus be going through a “learning curve”.
Identifying interviewees
4.4.8 Once the Agency had given its approval of the stakeholder organisations, the
Consortium started to identify appropriate initial contact points. This was
undertaken centrally, details for competent ministries and national safety
authorities were taken from ERA sources, for railway undertakings and
infrastructure managers from contacts nominated by the UIC and from existing
contacts from an earlier study on the certification of railway undertakings. Initial
contacts were supplied with a copy of the letter of introduction and a summary
of the objectives of the study, wherever appropriate. They were asked to
confirm that they were in fact the appropriate interviewee and where appropriate
(Belgium) they were asked for their preferred language.
4.4.9 Three issues affected the nomination of interviewees:
Firstly there was reluctance by some organisations to become

involved, e-mails were not answered and contacts were permanently
unavailable. A list of these organisations was supplied to the Agency
for help in resolution.
Secondly, in some states (principally Belgium and Italy) the roles of

legislator, national safety authority and infrastructure manager are
shared by more than one organisation and were therefore less
differentiated.
Lastly, the initial contact was not always the right interviewee. Some
organisations made it clear they expected to field more than one
interviewee and would make the final decision only when they had
seen the list of questions.
18
4.4.10 The draft list of interviewees was supplied to the Agency at the Intermediate
Review Meeting on 25 January 2008 although it still contained some gaps,
which were subsequently finalised.
4.4.11 In the process of arranging interviews, one railway undertaking said it no longer
wanted to be involved, and a second was taken over by a larger group. A
substitute was found for the first of these and the new company was interviewed
in the second case. A large incumbent railway undertaking said it no longer had
any responsibility for rules (presumably following changes in the organisational
arrangements in the country in question) and declined to answer further
questions. A railway undertaking operating high-speed international services
referred the team to its parent companies on the basis that the high-speed
company had no direct safety responsibilities. A wagon owner said that he had
no trackside activities and no longer wished to be interviewed, a traction
provider finally declined to make any contribution. The survey however did
interview other traction providers and wagon keepers. Against these negative
features, many of the Scandinavian railway undertakings had looked at the
rules in other states and so the final number of “railway undertaking/state” pairs
is higher than was originally envisaged.
19
4.4.12 The final list of organisations interviewed is shown in Appendix D (List of
interviewees). Table 4.1 below summarises them. Note that the table counts
double in the sense that if a railway undertaking (for example) provided
responses for more than one state, it is shown for all the states for which it
provided responses.
Table 4.1 – Table of Respondents

Ministry
authority
National safety
Manager
Infrastructure
railway
Integrated
undertaking
railway
Incumbent
undertaking
“New” railway
Wagon keeper
Traction hirer
employees
Rep.
Total
Belgium 1 1 1 1 4 8
Denmark 1 1 1 2 4 9
Estonia 1 1 2 1 5
France 1 1 1 1 3 7
Ireland 1 1 1 1 4
Italy 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 8
Netherlands 1 1 1 2 3 8
Norway 1 1 1 3 2 8
Sweden 1 1 1 3 4 10
Total 9 9 7 3 13 23 1 1 1 67
Note: the table counts double in the sense that if a railway undertaking (for example)
provided responses for more than one state, it is shown for all the states for
which it provided responses
Incumbent railway undertakings are shown as “new” in states other than their
home state.
High-speed railway undertakings are shown as “new”.
Obtaining the information - the structured interviews
4.4.13 Developing the structured interviews for approval at the intermediate review
meeting took place concurrently with the identification of the potential
interviewees. A Microsoft Visio® diagram defining the structure of the
interviews and the issues to be investigated was prepared and sent to the
Agency on 16 January 2008 to allow appropriate consideration in advance of
the Intermediate Review Meeting. In addition to the structured interview plan,
20
notes for interviewers were prepared. These are both dealt with in greater
detail below.
Obtaining the information - the logic of the structured interviews
4.4.14 It was initially intended to have a single logic for the structured interviews to
sidestep the issue of differing tasks being allocated to different bodies (for
example, extreme decentralisation). This should have avoided the possibility of
issues being missed. However, this finally proved to be impractical. Structured
interviews were therefore prepared for the five distinct groups: ministries, safety
authorities, infrastructure managers, railway undertakings, and third parties
such as traction hirers.
4.4.15 The interview structure specifically provided for stakeholders to be asked about
their roles in the preparation and amendment of rules. It also specifically
allowed for both direct and indirect safety rules (see section 3.4 for a statement
of the distinction). Questions were also phrased so that the distinction between
responsibility for making rules and for publishing them was clearly made.
4.4.16 Any role that organisations subject to the rules structure (such as railway
undertakings) have in monitoring compliance (by internal procedures) has been
ignored. The monitoring role has been assumed to be that defined in Article
16 (f) of the Safety Directive.
4.4.17 The questioning followed a similar pattern in each case. Questions were
tailored to the bodies in question so that bodies without supervisory roles were
not asked supervisory questions, for example. Exceptionally, it was considered
that infrastructure managers have a legitimate interest in the safety rules
applicable in other states (to allow them to propose alignment of rules
structures, etc). Questions were designed to elicit information and where
possible yes/no questions were avoided. These structured questions are
shown in Appendices C1 to C5 (Structured interview questions)1. The
interviews were necessarily detailed.
1
The original Visio logic was designed to fit on A3 paper, unfortunately reproduction in an A4 document
makes the five appendices more difficult to read.
21
Obtaining the information - the interview brief
4.4.18 It was important that interviewers adopted a consistent approach, and that they
were properly briefed on the issues which needed to be investigated. An
interviewing brief was therefore prepared to brief interviewers on the objectives
of the task, point out some issues which may not be apparent and give full
instructions on how they should brief interviewees.
4.4.19 Likewise, interviewees were briefed, this typically took the form of a very short
explanation at the time of establishing contact with the correct contact, followed
up with an e-mail explaining the objective. This e-mail contained details of the
information required (a copy of paragraph C2.2.2 of the Technical
Specification), an explanation of what “rules” meant and a copy of the
notification deposited by their state, so that it was quite clear what the topic of
the interview was. Appendix F provides more detail.
Obtaining the information – other activities
4.4.20 Checking the availability of the rules using the means described by interviewees
does not lend itself to questions in a structured interview. Members of the
Consortium found that in practice stakeholders used the Internet to find the
rules and accordingly members of the Consortium checked the availability of the
rules on the Internet. A catalogue of material available on the Internet is
attached as Appendix E (Information available to stakeholders).
4.4.21 Making a comparison between the rules contained in the notifications and the
rules published does not lend itself to questions in a structured interview. The
comparison included the extent (whether the documents notified are all or only
partly available) and quality (whether they are up to date, complete with
annexes, glossaries, tables, translations) as appropriate.
4.4.22 In fact, in making this evaluation, members of the Consortium found that in
some cases rules which had been notified had themselves been overtaken by
later rules. Within the spirit of the study, the members of the Consortium
regarded that as satisfying the requirement to publish. Although members of
the Consortium are aware that some states are reconsidering the rules they
22
have notified, no check was made that “later” rules were in the process of being
notified.
Obtaining the information – preparation for the interviews
4.4.23 All members of the Consortium were consulted on the preparation of the
structured interviews to prevent national peculiarities being overlooked. It was
decided however not to translate them until the general approach and structure
was approved in the Intermediate Review Meeting.
The interview process
4.4.24 Danish staff conducted the interviews in Sweden and Norway. Belgium was
covered by the separate Dutch and French teams as appropriate. The Estonian
Consortium member was provided with the technical knowledge necessary to
fulfil the task.
4.5 The responses
Degree of response
4.5.1 In general railway, undertakings were prepared to co-operate with the study and
presumably expected to benefit from it. The only major exception was in
France for reasons discussed at the beginning of the French section. The
statutory authorities and infrastructure managers likewise cooperated. “Other”
groups were materially more reluctant to cooperate. Significantly, perhaps,
“other” stakeholders were not systematically involved in the rule-making
process.
4.5.2 The degree to which complete answers were provided to questions varied very
considerably but not consistently.
Quality of the responses
4.5.3 Inevitably some responses were of better quality than others. There was no
pattern to that, the quality of the responses from some governmental bodies, for
example, was not as good as might have been expected.
23
4.5.4 Many of the questions asked of railway undertakings were judgemental, of the
form “how easy did you find …?”, the consortium considered that stakeholder
satisfaction was the criterion in these cases and did not attempt to set
standards for degrees of satisfaction. Fortunately, stakeholders appeared to be
either “satisfied” or “dissatisfied” so degrees of satisfaction did not arise. In
many cases stakeholders qualified their comments by providing examples of
what was (or was not) particularly satisfactory. This provided reassurance as
well as material on which to base proposals.
4.5.5 Answers given by the respondents were not always consistent. This was to be
expected and was not as much of a problem as may be thought. Where the
inconsistent was at a judgemental level (“what did you think of?”) respondents
are encouraged to hold conflicting views. Where it was clear that respondents
were actually wrong on a question of fact, their reply was nevertheless
recorded. Omissions were more common but the fact that a number of parties
were asked the same question filled them (the example in paragraph 6.9.10 of
the authorities in Italy and the Netherlands not mentioning the help they had
provided to railway undertakings may be cited).
Status of the respondents
4.5.6 There were particular issues in Belgium and Italy in that the governmental
organisation having the department of state role and the governmental
organisation having the NSA role are very close organisationally. In both cases
the interviews with the ministry acting as a ministry and the ministry acting as an
NSA were held together at their specific request. The consortium extracted
appropriate comments from the joint interviews.
Level of confidence
4.5.7 Much of the information which the study revealed (such as the national
legislative framework) is factual and as such was checked by members of the
consortium. Other data, such as the arrangements for consulting stakeholders,
could only be obtained by asking the various actors. In fulfilling its remit the
consortium insisted on getting an answer from one body or another to every
question for every state. In this way a complete picture was possible. In the
vast majority of cases (and particular for stakeholder views) there was ample
24
corroborative material and the consortium is therefore confident that the results
of the study may be relied on.
4.6 Analysis of the results
4.6.1 Appendices C1 to C5 show the questions that were asked of each respondent
group together with the way the replies were grouped. The raw data from the
replies was then extracted to form the basis for the analysis for each state.
Likewise, when analysing the issues across all states (stakeholder views on
accessibility, for example), this process was repeated to create the tables in
section 6. This repetition formed a useful control on the state by state analysis.
25
5. THE RESULTS
5.1.1 This section contains the state by state analysis of the results, with a separate
sub-section for each state. The detailed responses of the interviewees are not
included in this report.
5.1.2 Appendix C shows the questions that were asked and how the replies to those
questions mapped across to the national summaries below.
5.2 Belgium
Belgian introduction
5.2.1 Belgium has only comparatively recently set up a separate infrastructure

organisation and some organisational issues are still being resolved. The
national safety authority DVIS/ SSICF (Dienst Veiligheid en Interoperabiliteit der
Spoorwegen/Service de Sécurité et d‛Interopérabilité des Chemins de fer) is
closely integrated with the ministry.
5.2.2 The national notification dated 4 July 2006 was taken as the basis for the work.
5.2.3 The direct national safety rules are on the ministry webpage3 and the indirect
ones on the Infabel “access” website4 in both cases in the two principal national
languages, Dutch and French.
How national safety rules are established in the national legislation:
5.2.4 Belgium has both direct and indirect national safety rules.
The form of the legislative process
5.2.5 Direct safety rules are made through the parliamentary legislative process. Rail
safety issues are covered by the railway law (loi/wet of 19 December 2006
(published in the Official Journal on 23 January 2007). Article 6 of this law sets
out the legislative framework and the arrangements for publication of national
3 Dutch: http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/nl/rail/railcode.htm
French: http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/fr/rail/railcode.htm
4
http://www.railaccess.be
26
safety rules. Paragraph 3 provides that in the absence of a TSI, rules made by
the infrastructure manager shall have legal force.
The allocation of responsibilities
5.2.6 The ministry legislator is responsible for formulation of direct national rail safety
rules. The infrastructure manager, Infrabel, advises the ministry on the content
of these direct rules.
5.2.7 The railway law empowers the infrastructure manager, Infrabel, to make indirect
rules for railway undertakings and construction companies. The law requires
the DVIS to approve these rules and in practice railway undertakings are also
consulted. Infrabel said that it believed that this allowed the stakeholders to
“buy in” to the rules. The principal indirect rules made by the infrastructure
manager are:
 VVESI/RSEIF (VeiligheidsVoorschriften betreffende de Exploitatie

van de Spoorwegstructuur/Règlement de Sécurité de l‟Exploitation
de l‟Infrastructure Ferroviaire);
 ARGSI/RGUIF: Algemeen Reglement voor het Gebruik van de

Spoorweg Infrastructuur/Règlement Général de l‟Utilisation de
l‟Infrastructure Ferroviaire;
 BVT/ LST: Boek van de Treindienst/Livre de Service de Train;
 ARM/RGM: Algemeen Reglement van het Materieel/Règlement

Général du Matériel;
 ARB/RGV: Algemeen Reglement van de Baan/Règlement Général

de la Voie;
 ARS/RGS: Algemeen Reglement van de Seininrichting/Règlement

Général de la Signalisation.
 Withdrawal of the former regulations (ARB, ARGSI, ARM, ARS).

They will be replaced by new regulations (new VVESI).
The management of the rules system Comment [ERA1]: The Belgian NSA
brought to ERA’s attention the important
objection that the consultation is not only at
the level of the safety platform, it’s
5.2.8 A “Safety Platform” has been set up as a forum to discuss safety issues (only necessary to make a distinction between
direct and indirect rules. See more details in
indirect rules). In this forum, railway undertakings, Infrabel, the ministry and the insertion below this paragraph.
27
DVIS are represented with a standing representation. The platform discusses
all amendments to legislation, presented by Infrabel (VVESI) or DVIS (EU or
national legislation). In addition, any problems encountered can be raised by
Infrabel itself or railway undertakings and the process of implementation
discussed. One railway undertaking said that Infrabel tries to involve all the
operators but the smaller railway undertakings found it difficult to contribute fully
because of time constraints. It also commented that although Infrabel is trying
to be autonomous, they are formally still part of the SNCB/NMBS Holding and
that could inadvertently lead to closer relationships with incumbents. Likewise,
one railway undertaking said it feels “disadvantaged on many operational and
formal activities”.
Direct rules:
The consultation is the competence of the Ministry/DVIS (NSA) on every change

in regulation.
There are two possibilities:
 transfer of EU rules into national rules or important amendments on

legislation is discussed with the rail sector in the consultation platform. In
this platform railway undertakings, Infrabel, the Ministry and DVIS (NSA)
are represented;
 other modifications are being shared with the rail sector through letters or
mailings.
Indirect rules:
The consultation is the competence of Infrabel (IM).
Infrabel (IM) develops the indirect rules and discusses its proposals with the RUs
in the safety platform where DVIS is represented. Comment [ERA2]: This insertion was
requested by the Belgian NSA and should
be considered as prevailing over other
5.2.85.2.9 The ministry explained that there are four types of rules: statements in this section, as follows from
the objection in the previous comment.
1. EU rules,
2, direct national safety rules,
28
3. indirect national safety rules imposed by the infrastructure manager
(Infrabel) and
4. internal company rules for Infrabel and railway undertakings

(outside the scope of this study)
5.2.95.2.10 Transposition of EU rules into national rules is being discussed with the rail
sector in the Safety Consultation Platform.
5.2.105.2.11 The seven types of rules are covered in the following way:
Type 1: Safety targets are formulated by the ministry, this is not

imposed by law. Common safety methods will be formulated
in EU legislation, no transfer to national rules exists. (New
Royal Decree in preparation.)
Type 2: The requirements of the safety management system of the

infrastructure manager (Infrabel) are defined by national
legislation. The national legislation specifies no norms for the
content of the safety management system. National rules
require railway undertakings to have safety management
systems.
Type 3: Requirements for rolling stock are dealt with in national rules
based on EU legislation. The interface between infrastructure
and rolling stock (which rolling stock is allowed to run on what
parts of the network) is dealt with by the NSA based on the
national rules. In Infrabel‟s view, not all specifications are
already specified in national rules. Therefore the former
SNCB/NMBS regulations on rolling stock are still used as
guidance. (New Regulation in preparation.)
Type 4: The operating rules are formulated in the VVESI, ARGSI,

BVT, ARM, ARB, and ARS, which are drawn up on basis of
national and European rules and define the operational
requirements for Infrabel and the working procedures for
railway undertakings. Withdrawal of the former regulations
(ARB, ARGSI, ARM, ARS). They will be replaced by new
regulations (new VVESI).
29
Type 5: Internal company rules for Infrabel and railway undertakings.
Infrabel has to approve the internal rules of the railway
undertakings (outside the scope of this study).
Type 6: The Minister is responsible.
Type 7: The Minister is responsible. DVIS is only responsible for the

follow-up of the measures to be taken to avoid another similar
accidenthas the remit to investigate incidents, the National
Investigation Body (part of the ministry) investigates structural
problems and major accidents. Infrabel also executes internal
research by incidentsinvestigates incidents.
5.2.115.2.12 Monitoring is the joint task of the ministry and the DVIS. Discussion of
amendments takes place in the Safety Consultation Platform and with help of
the documents sent to the railway undertakings and Infrabel. As a
consequence the railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager have the
opportunity to respond to amendments to regulations and to new regulations
with help of written documents and with feedback from the Safety Platform.
Ultimately the ministry/DVIS and Infrabel (VVESI amongst others) are
responsible for amending the rules, but in close coordination with the sector.
5.2.125.2.13 In addition, the national law is evaluated and (if necessary) amended twice
a year by the ministry/DVIS in close consultation with all rail stakeholders., the Comment [ERA3]: Belgian NSA
corrected that the six monthly review
periodicity depends on the necessity. If amendments on legislation are process is only an internal process
between the Ministry and DVIS (NSA).
necessary, that is the beginning of the consultation process.
5.2.135.2.14 Updating of the rules for new EU legislation and as necessary following
discussions on the effectiveness of the current rules in the Safety Platform
likewise takes place on a half-yearly cycle.
5.2.145.2.15 The close relationship between the ministry and the national safety
authority is a subject of some concern to some railway undertakings who
believe if might give rise to the risk of political control.
The way in which the rules are published
5.2.155.2.16 Whilst not having statutory effect, in practice the Internet has become the
prime means of publication.
30
The body responsible for publication
5.2.165.2.17 The ministry is responsible for publication in the national official journal
(Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge). Indirect national rules are published by
the infrastructure manager. The arrangements for publication are set down in
Belgian law.
The means of publication
5.2.175.2.18 Publication of direct rules is by the national official journal (Belgisch

Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge) which is also available on the Internet. National
rules are also published on the ministry/ NSA website5. Drafts are distributed
by e-mail to the infrastructure manager and railway undertakings and discussed
in the Safety Platform.
5.2.185.2.19 Indirect rules (such as the VVESI) for railway undertakings are published
on Infrabel's website6 and dealt with in the Access Agreement, General
Conditions and Network Statement Access Agreement which is published in
Dutch and French. The General Conditions and Network Statement are
available in Dutch, French and English.
The management of publication
5.2.195.2.20 The ministry said that internal quality control procedures are used to
maintain the quality of the publication.
The way in which the rules are made available:
5.2.205.2.21 The prime means of making material available is via the Internet (see
above).
Means to support access
5.2.215.2.22 As a matter of policy, ministry/DVIS insist on advising all changes to EU

Directives, Regulations and Decisions to the infrastructure manager and all
railway undertakings with operating licences by means of letters and mailings.
5
Dutch: http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/nl/rail/railcode.htm
French: http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/fr/rail/railcode.htm
6
https://www.railaccess.be/portal/page/portal/pgr_rail_e_internet
31
The ministry said that this is very much appreciated by the infrastructure
manager and railway undertakings. The ministry and DVIS said they take great
pains to draw the attention of stakeholders to the website and the information it
contains.
Control mechanisms to oversee access
5.2.225.2.23 The ministry/DVIS and Infrabel think that communication by means of the
Safety Platform and e-mail is good. There are no specific means of overseeing
access but the DVIS maintains a watching brief.
Stakeholders’ views on the ease of access
5.2.235.2.24 The ministry/DVIS and Infrabel‟s view that communication by means of the
Safety Platform and e-mail is good, appears to be echoed by railway
undertakings, DLC for example said publication is “organised and complete”.
Infrabel said stakeholders have the opportunity to express complaints. They
are informed by the ministry/DVIS of every change in the regulations and have
the opportunity to react by letter and make comments at meetings of the Safety
Platform.
Stakeholders’ views on access to specific rules
5.2.245.2.25 There are rules for particular types of line (such as single lines or
electrified lines) but there are none for defined specific lines. Stakeholders had
a positive view of access in general.
The availability of rules
5.2.255.2.26 The consultants looked at the Department of Transport and the Infrabel
(rail access) websites, their findings are shown in Appendix E. The consultants
concluded that the rules are all available on electronic data media. Hard copies
of the national safety rules shown in the notification are available from the
official journal office (for direct rules) and from the infrastructure manager,
Infrabel, for indirect rules.
32
Ease of understanding the rules
5.2.265.2.27 Stakeholders were generally very positive. DLC described the way the
rules are presented as “rather good”.
Languages
5.2.275.2.28 The official journal (and its website) is available in Dutch, German and
French. The Infrabel website is in Dutch and French. The special document
which has been prepared to explain the procedure for attaining a safety
certificate is available on the Internet in Dutch, English and French. The DVIS
is able to provide help in English, French, and Dutch.
Support material and technical advice
5.2.285.2.29 Every new railway undertaking may request assistance from the DVIS on
the procedures and regulations. In particular, technical advice is offered for
safety certificate applications. DVIS has a help desk. (Infrabel is also willing to
advise new railway undertakings on how to develop their internal regulations.)
Comprehensibility of the rules for applying for safety certificates and

authorisation
5.2.295.2.30 The ministry/DVIS website describes the procedure, timescale and costs
of acquiring a safety certificate. Also a special document has been prepared
explaining the procedure for attaining a safety certificate (this is available on the
Internet in Dutch, English and French) 7. Railway undertakings said that they
thought that the interface is user-friendly.
5.2.305.2.31 The implementation of the new EU law resulted in completely different

rules for railway companies. Some railway undertakings thought that several
changes are unclear, and it is not clear which new EU Directives have been
implemented and which have not.
7
For the English version see: (http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/rail/safcere.pdf)
33
Comprehensiveness of the content of the notifications in relation to the national
safety rules which are published and made available in the selected countries:
5.2.315.2.32 There are two issues here:
Are all the documents listed in the notification freely available?

and,
Are there in fact safety rules which have not been made listed in
the notification?
On the first, the ministry/NSA were clear that all the rules were properly
published. A useful inventory of the rules is to be found on the Internet.8
Interestingly, railway undertakings in the Netherlands regarded Belgium as a
model for what should be done. On the second, the six monthlyperiodical
review process is designed to ensure all the material is up-to date and none of
the respondents were able to identify material which had not been properly
notified at the time of the notification.
5.2.325.2.33 The ministry/NSA said that all the national safety rules are published in
accordance with Article 8(1) of the Railway Safety Directive.
Belgium conclusions
5.2.335.2.34 Stakeholders held a very high opinion of the Belgian system. Belgium has
a thorough and systematic procedure for involving stakeholders at all stages
and systematically reviewing its rules. In particular, the six monthlyperiodical
review is very positive. (See proposal 7.2.10). Its arrangements for publication
are “organised and complete”.
5.3 Denmark
Denmark introduction
5.3.1 Denmark has the classic pattern of a quite separate ministry, national safety
authority, infrastructure manager and independent freight and passenger
railway undertakings.
8
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/rail/invraif.pdf
34
5.3.2 The national notification dated 26 April 2005 was taken as the basis for the
work.
5.3.3 The national safety rules are to be found from links on the national safety
authority website9 in Danish only.
How national safety rules are established in the national legislation
5.3.4 Denmark has both direct and indirect national safety rules.
5.3.5 Direct safety rules are made through the legislative process. There are four
phases to this process: initiation, preparation, decision, and implementation.
Although the Ministry of Transport and the National Rail Agency (the national
safety authority) are currently working on the implementation of the rules, the
process is not yet complete.In terms of secondary legislation on railway safety
the NRA prepares a proposal for new legislation which is sent out for
consultation to anyone whom may have an interest, i.e. the industry, unions,
local authorities, etc. As part of the consultation procedure proposals are further
more published on "hoeringsportalen.dk" on which all proposals for new
legislation are published. After the consultation the NRA undertakes any
relevant modifications to the draft legislation and publishes the final and binding
version on "retsinformation.dk" and on the NRA homepage.
5.3.6 The Minister of Transport has the overall responsibility for the national
legislation within this area. Certain of the Minister's powers have been
delegated to the NRA in accordance with § 24 a in "lov om jernbane" 10 . The
extent to which the Minister's powers have been delegated is set out in the
administrative order "Bekendtgørelse om Trafikstyrelsens opgaver og
beføjelser". It is provided that the Minister's powers in terms of implementation
and administration of EU rules on railway safety have been delegated to the
NRA in accordance with § 3, section 3 of the administrative order. In addition,
§ 3, section 1 sets down that the Minister's powers to provide secondary
legislation concerning safety and interoperability have been delegated to the
9 http://www.trafikstyrelsen.dk/sw148200.asp#
10 lovbekendtgørelse nr. 1171 af 2. december 2004 med senere ændringer
35
NRA. As a general rule it is thus the NRA rather than the Minister that
undertakes the implementation and administration of EU rules on railway safety.
5.3.7 Indirect rules are made by the infrastructure manager who comments “All rules
made by Rail Net Denmark (RND) should be accepted approved by the
National Rail Authority before they can go into practice. Some of the operational
rules have been included in law, others have not. Currently RND is taking part
in a group which purpose is to investigate the possibilities for having indirect
rules imposed by law. At present stage the SR "safety regulations" belong to
RND and are not legally binding”. Comment [ERA4]: NRA comment:
“The last part of the sentence is not
precise e.g. Authority order
The allocation of responsibilities implementing TSI operation (BJ 5-04
Bestemmelser om gennemførelse af
den tekniske specifikation for
interoperabilitet (TSI) for delsystemet
5.3.8 As mentioned above, Tthe Ministry of Transport, in consultation with the drift og trafikstyring i det
transeuropæiske jernbanesystem for
Ministry of Justice, is responsible for safety rules to the extent it has not konventionelle tog) and Authority order
regarding driving train for work in the
delegated its powers to provide secondary legislation to the National Rail tracks (Bekendtgørelse om
arbejdskørsel m.v. (BJ 5-08))”.
Authority (NRA).. Whilst the Ministry of Transport is responsible for setting the
Formatted: Not Strikethrough
direct rules, it devolves responsibility for their implementation onto the National
Rail Agency (NRA). When framing primary legislation, the ministry liaises with
the National Rail AgencyAuthority, which is responsible for managing the
consultation process with the rail industry. In all cases the Ministry of Transport
determines any delegation of responsibilities. The National Rail Agency
Authority is also responsible for approving indirect rules proposed by Rail Net
Denmark.
The management of the rules system
5.3.9 Consultation onPublication of rules follows the general procedures which apply
to publishing of Danish legislation. These are set out in "lovtidendeloven"11. In
accordance with this Act the NRA makes its draft legislation available on the
retsinformation12 website (see Appendix E) which is the official homepage for all
Danish legislation. As a service the NRA also publishes the legislation on its
homepage. As part of the consultation procedure proposals/draft legislation are
11 lov nr. 842 af 16 December 1991

12 http://www.retsinformation.dk
36
further more published on the hoeringsportalen13 website on which all proposals
for new legislation are published.
5.3.10 The National Rail Agency Authority considers that all interested parties are
involved in the rule-making process and that they are systematically contacted
by the NRA them. This is achieved by means of a mail shot.
5.3.11 An annual safety conference is held and the consultants understand that all the
rules are reviewed systematically as part of a process which the NRA described
as “on-going”.
5.3.12 Amendments to rules are initiated as a result of initiatives from the European
Union, the National Rail AgencyAuthority, requests from the trade organisation
representing the rail industry, and as a result of political will. The annual safety
and security conference hosted by the National Rail AuthorityAgency provides a
feedback mechanism to assist in developing the rules. In addition the National
Rail Authority‟sAgency‟s supervisory role in overseeing of the application of the
rules can also trigger the updating process for the rules where issues emerge.
A particular watch is kept for repetition of a dangerous practice or situation, this
is taken as an indication that the rules need review. The National Rail
AuthorityAgency has a particular responsibility to manage the transition
smoothly when new or revised rules are put in place.
5.3.13 Members of the National Rail Authority‟sAgency‟s staff have been allotted
responsibility to monitor changes in EU legislation and to initiate the process for
amending the national safety rules, if this is appropriate. Project groups are
established as required to facilitate this process. In the case of changes to
direct rulesa law which has to be passed in the Parliament the mechanism is via
the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Justice.
5.3.14 Whilst DSB acknowledged that it had participated in the consultation process
for drawing up or amending rules is considered the feedback process did not
work well, Railion Danmark echoed this saying it “often” considered that its
comments were not taken into consideration by either the Ministry of Transport
or by the National Rail AuthorityAgency. In this respect Railion considers that
Denmark lags behind the comparable experience in Norway and Sweden.
13
http://borger.dk/forside/lovgivning/hoeringsportalen
37
5.3.15 The National Rail Agency noted that some problems were experienced when
the Accident Investigation Board surrendered responsibility in some areas to
the National Rail Agency. The problem was identified after a “short period” and
management action was taken to delineate areas and extents of responsibility. Comment [ERA5]: NRA comment:
“The accident Investigation Board has
not surrendered responsibilities to the
The way in which the rules are published NRA. We do not understand this
sentence. That is why we suggest it is
deleted.”
5.3.16 As the direct rules are primary legislation; in principle therefore they are
contained in statute books. All the safety rules are published by the National
Rail Agency Authority in both paper form and on their website. The National
Rail Agency Authority is currently working on an improved search engine on its
website to make access to the rules easier. In addition rules are published on Comment [ERA6]: By the time of the
checking this report the work had been
14
the “retsinformation” website and the “Lovtidende” website, in addition Rail completed by the NRA.
Net Denmark provides links to the rules from their website.
5.3.17 The National Rail AuthorityAgency has an internal control body, one of the
tasks of which is to verify that updates to rules are published promptly.
5.3.18 SJ reported in contrast to the situation in Norway and Sweden that “Danish
legislation seems to be split into so many different pieces” that it is “quite
difficult to get an overview of”. It also reported that not all of the legislation
appears to have been published, at least not in a clear manner
5.3.19 The Ministry of Transport is responsible for publishing the rules in areas which
have not been delegated to the NRA. The NRA is responsible for the
publication of rules in areas which have been delegated to the NRA, but they
are also published by the National Rail Agency, which is responsible for the
publication of the infrastructure rules. In addition, the National Rail Agency has
been given responsibility for ensuring that the Infrastructure Manager and
railway undertakings are aware of the rules.
14 http://www.retsinfo.dk.
38
5.3.20 Direct rules are established in statute books and on the “retsinformation”
website. The national safety authority website has links to individual laws on
the “retsinformation” website.
5.3.21 The Ministry of Justice is responsible for determining what should be published
and how it should be published (direct rules).
5.3.22 Both the National Rail Agency Authority and Rail Net Denmark have a
responsibility to facilitate access to national safety rules.
5.3.23 The rules are sorted into topics, e.g. into legislation, authority tasks, etc.
5.3.24 The National Rail AuthorityAgency has nominated contact staff in place to field
questions on the meaning and content of the rules and to receive feedback on
them from users. The National Rail AuthorityAgency have undertaken an
internal review of this process and determined that they were under-resourced;
in consequence more staff were engaged. Every area/topic has a contact
person responsible for the area in question.
5.3.25 The support available from the National Rail AuthorityAgency includes technical
support and it is available free of charge. Views on the value of the technical
support vary, one freight railway undertaking considers that these arrangements
work well and that accurate information is available in a timely manner, both by
telephone and by e-mail, a passenger undertaking prefers to rely on its own
staff.
5.3.26 There is an independent review process to verify that access to the rules is
impartial. This is undertaken by AMWAB (Activity Measurement of a
Company‟s Administrative Burdens) a technique which is used to examine the
39
administration of public authorities. The AMWAB review has resulted in a
development plan by government to improve access.
5.3.27 DSB commented that access has improved in recent years. Railion Danmark
considered that the accessibility of the information is satisfactory, although
some rules are only available in paper form. It found that easiest way to obtain
the rules is to ring up the National Rail AuthorityAgency and ask for them.
Railion Danmark considers that access to the rules is only a user-friendly
experience if you can speak Danish, but notes that a command of the language
is essential in any event to operate safely on the national rail network.
5.3.28 Railion Danmark considers that the accessibility of the information is

satisfactory but both Railion Danmark and DSB said they found it difficult to get
information about local arrangements (these may be outside the scope of the
study). SJ consider that not all of the rules in Denmark are yet available. Two
railway undertakings mentioned the need for good personal contacts.
5.3.29 DSB, Railion Danmark, SJ and First DSB all considered that the clarity of the
information available in Denmark lags behind that of Norway and Sweden.
5.3.30 The NRA said that its website has a clear structure and that the information is
structured by topic.
5.3.31 The consultants looked at the Ministry of Transport, the National Rail Authority
and Rail Net Denmark websites, their findings are shown in Appendix E. The
consultants concluded that the rules are all available on electronic data media.
Hard copies of the national safety rules shown in the notification are available
from the official journal office.
Languages
5.3.32 The rules are only available in Danish; however, assistance on the rules is often
available in other languages, but this depends on the linguistic competence of
40
the National Rail AuthorityAgency staff member nominated as the contact point
for the area in question. The NRA said that “generally” information and
guidance can be provided in English.
5.3.33 The NRA said that its website contained a number of guidelines. It also shows
contact details for the NRA.

authorisation
5.3.34 DSB did not consider that the published requirements for obtaining a safety
certificate are always easy to understand and describes the authorities as
“always a step behind”. Railion Danmark considers that some of the phrasing
of the transposition of TSI requirements into Danish rules are ambiguous and
have the potential for misinterpretation. However, it found these issues were
easily resolved through telephone conversations with the National Rail
AuthorityAgency. DSB First wanted more clarity.
5.3.35 Railion Danmark considers that the rules are somewhat uneven in quality. A
particular problem is ambiguity in the way that the rules are written, in some
cases this is so serious as to amount to inaccuracy. Again however, it
considered that it is easy to resolve these issues with a telephone call to the
National Rail AuthorityAgency.

5.3.36 There are two issues here:

and,
the notification?
The National Rail AuthorityAgency considers that Article 8(1) of the Railway
Safety Directive is adhered to in Denmark, noting that the information required
is available on the “retsinformation” website. The Consultants examination of
41
the National Rail AuthorityAgency website appeared to bear this out. Secondly,
neither the respondents nor the consultants were able to identify material which
had not been properly notified at the time of the notification. It should be noted,
however, that the law implementing the Railway Safety Directive
(Bekendtgørelse om gennemførelse af jernbanesikkerhedsdirektivet) has been
passed since the date of the notification, and the consultants are not aware of a
new notification having yet been made. Comment [ERA7]: NRA commented
that it is unclear what was meant by this last
sentence.
5.3.37 The ministry/NSA said that all the national safety rules are published in
Denmark conclusions
5.3.38 Stakeholders were critical of the Danish arrangements, complaining of a lack of

clarity and perhaps of organisation. It seemed as it staffing levels might be an
issue. Nevertheless, the Danish practice of nominating an individual as the
contact for particular issues is good practice (see proposal 7.2.18). Likewise is
the Danish practice of putting draft legislation on a website for consultation (see
proposal 7.2.5).
5.4 Estonia
Estonia introduction
5.4.1 In many respects, Estonia is unique amongst the states in the study. The
railways of Estonia were re-gauged to the 1520mm gauge in the 1940‟s and the
operating traditions were replaced by those of Soviet Railways. Reponses to
the questionnaires indicate that this still has a significant influence. Technical
standards are still those of the 1520mm railways, indeed the comment was
made that a lot of the documentation was still Russian.
work.
5.4.3 The national safety rules are to be found on the ministry website15 in Estonian
only.
15
http://www.mkm.ee/index.php?id=3593 Field Code Changed
42
5.4.4 Estonia only has direct rules.
5.4.5 The more important safety rules pass through the Riigikogu (the Estonian
Parliament); the less important safety rules are made as regulations by the
Minister of Transport and Communications.
5.4.6 Both the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Technical Surveillance Authority
made it clear that it is the ministry which is responsible for the national safety
rules. The Railways Act 2003 (RT I 2003, 79, 530) which entered into force on
31 March 2004 is the prime legal instrument. Chapter 4 of the 2003 Railways
Act covers “Railway Traffic and Safety”. Whilst the Act was amended (to take
effect on 1 January 2008), the only amendment to Chapter 4 was to change the
name of the national safety authority from its former “Railway Inspectorate” to
“Technical Surveillance Authority”.
5.4.7 In Chapter 4, Article 34(2) states that “Technical requirements and operating
rules for railway infrastructure and rail vehicles, railway traffic rules and
requirements for railway maintenance, and requirements for rail transport shall
be provided for in the rules for technical use of railways established by the
Minister of Economic Affairs and Communications”. The ministry drafts
legislation; in some cases it delegates the drafting of some legal acts (those
that need more technical knowledge) to the national safety authority. Interested
parties are consulted; the principal interested parties are the Technical
Surveillance Authority (the national safety authority), AS Eesti Raudtee (the
main integrated railway), AS Edelaraudtee (the second integrated railway),
Eesti AS Põlevkivi Raudtee, and AS Elektriraudtee. These four are the most
significant railway companies in Estonia.
5.4.8 Article 34(2) therefore provides the legal basis for the “Rules for Technical Use
of Railways” (RTL 1999, 127, 1773), Regulation No 39 of the Minister of
Transport and Communications of 9 July 1999. This Regulation was in turn last
amended by Regulation No 15 of the Minister of Economic Affairs and
43
Communications on 13 February 2006. All seven types of national safety rules
are established in this regulation.
5.4.9 The safety authority‟s main tasks are surveillance and control. It participates in
monitoring, promoting and developing the rules. It monitors all aspects of the
railway sector, railway traffic, safety, infrastructure, etc.
5.4.10 Article 34(5) of the Railways Act requires infrastructure managers and vehicle
keepers to make an annual report to the NSA on compliance “with the
requirements”.
5.4.11 Article 34(6) of the 2003 Railways Act gives the national safety authority the
powers to audit stakeholders. The way this is to be done is not specified. The
national safety authority said the monitoring work is carried out in accordance
with the ministry‟s plan; the ministry was more specific and said that the
national safety authority reviews the operating rules once a year each April. In
addition to this formal review, the national safety authority said that it monitors
the rules through “everyday work”. Nevertheless both the Ministry of Economic
Affairs and the Technical Surveillance Authority said that it is the ministry which
is responsible for the national safety rules. However, the ministry did say that
most of the feedback comes via the national safety authority. For feedback
there are formal systems, for example, Eesti Raudtee gives feedback to the
safety authority (by „phone) and the safety authority passes this forward to the Comment [ERA8]: Estonian NSA
commented that railway undertakings or
ministry. infrastructure managers give the feedback
about safety rules through official proposals
(announcements by phone are less
common).
5.4.12 The safety authority said that events are the main trigger of updates: one
railway undertaking specifically mentioned reports of incidents as a feedback
mechanism. Updating national safety rules in national legislation is the
responsibility of the ministry. Updating is done “in accordance with the
ministry‟s working plan”.
5.4.13 Draft rules are sent out to different interested parties (including port authorities),
normally by e-mail, for comments, questions, opinions, etc, and for approval,
before they can be established as binding legislation. It is also possible for
anyone to comment on draft law since it is publicly available and accessible via
44
the e-Õigus electronic database16. Drafts are also sent to other institutions and
companies (railway companies and bigger clients, e.g. the union of port
operators, etc) for approval. On occasion, but not normally, working groups are
convened to consider proposals; otherwise each railway undertaking sends in
its individual comment. Consultees comment on, and make changes to the
legislative drafts.
5.4.14 AS Edelaraudtee said that it had the impression that very few comments are
taken into account. AS Edelaraudtee and Eesti Raudtee were not satisfied with
the pace of updating rules, they were particularly concerned about the slow
pace of revision of Soviet era rules, Elektriraudtee AS by contrast was satisfied
with the process.
5.4.15 The safety authority participated in the process of amending the Railways Act.
These amendments came into force on 1 January 2008 and have been notified.
The safety authority has now started the process of amending the “Rules for
Technical Use of Railways” regulation (which contains the seven types of rules),
which is no longer up-to-date. The procedure for this is described above. The
documentation is handled electronically.
5.4.16 The ministry said that there is a special regulation for transposing EU legislation
into Estonian legislation.
5.4.17 Whilst not having statutory effect, in practice the Internet has become the prime
means of publication (and see para 6.4.3).
5.4.18 Publication of legislation is the responsibility of the State Chancellery of the

Republic of Estonia17.
16
http://eoigus.just.ee/.
17
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/intr/index.html.
45
5.4.19 Legislation is published online in the State Gazette and legislation since 1997 is
shown on line. All national safety rules are shown on this database. Whilst
legislation is in the process of approval by the various institutions involved, it is
possible to see the drafts in an electronic database: e-Õigus. Once again this is
managed by the State Chancellery. State institutions (ministry, national safety
authority) put links to the State Gazette on their web sites. Statutes may be
freely downloaded without charge.
5.4.20 Legislation is published in Estonian only, and the responsibility for its accuracy
also rests with the Chancellery. The website suggests that a help function is
available by e-mail in English.
5.4.21 The national safety authority has no official role in publishing rules. However, it
informs undertakings about safety rules, when asked or when it is considered
necessary. Links to legislation (including safety rules) are listed on the
authority‟s homepage18. It is also working on guidelines for a regulation on the
safety management system, to make it easier for companies to implement the
system, given that the railway industry needs to know exactly what is required
to be documented.
The way in which the rules are made available
5.4.22 There is a presumption that access to the Internet is the normal and accepted
means of obtaining information on legislation (see paragraph 6.5.4).
5.4.23 There is no formal mechanism to support access to the rules, although the
national safety authority has organised seminars and training. The ministry has
not organised any such meetings. Railway undertakings, the infrastructure
manager, and the national safety authority are reported to work closely
together.
18
http://www.tja.ee/
46
5.4.24 In respect of company operating and transport rules (outside scope), the
Technical Surveillance Authority as the institution responsible for monitoring
has a responsibility to check if the rules have been made public and accessible
in accordance with the requirements of the Railway Act.
5.4.25 All the respondent railway undertakings said that access to the rules is easy.
5.4.26 There appear to be no infrastructure specific rules and stakeholders made no

comment on the ease of access to specific rules.
5.4.27 The consultants looked at the Estonian Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Communications and the Estonian Technical Surveillance Authority websites,
their findings are shown in Appendix E. There is no evidence of dissatisfaction
with the way the rules are published. The consultants concluded that the rules
are all available on electronic data media. Hard copies of the national safety
rules shown in the notification are available from the Riigi Teataja (Official
Journal) Office and on the Internet19.
5.4.28 Railway undertakings were satisfied with the access to published rules and
generally found the national safety authority “very helpful and co-operative”
although Eesti Raudtee said that it depended who you talk to.
5.4.29 Subject to the reservations expressed on linguistic issues below, stakeholders

found it easy to get information and believed the information to be up to date
and accurate. The rules were considered to be user friendly.
19
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/ert.jsp
47
Languages
5.4.30 Information published on the Internet is available in Estonian only. A number of

parties specifically referred to difficulties arising from the transition from using
Russian as part of Soviet Railways to using Estonian. Soviet era documents in
Russian have not been entirely supplanted; the Estonian language does not yet
have adequate terminology; and staff sometimes have a better grasp of
Russian than Estonian. The national safety authority said that in addition to
Estonian, support in Russian is also provided.
5.4.31 Smaller railway undertakings have a higher proportion of staff whose first
language is Russian, which can give rise to language problems. Elektriraudtee
therefore asked for all the documentation to be available in Russian.
5.4.32 Guidelines as such are not available. Whilst the ministry said that the state
does not offer special help to new applicants it said that it would help any
applicant if asked. The national safety authority said that there is a commitment
to provide any new applicant with all the help he requires from both the ministry
and the national safety authority. This assistance is provided free of charge,
and links to the contact details of staff members are provided on the homepage
of the Estonian Technical Surveillance Authority. The national safety authority
said that no dedicated helpdesk had been set up because the Estonian railway
industry is too small to support one. The Technical Surveillance Authority also
gives technical advice (also on safety rules) and also conducts seminars on
new legislation.

authorisation
5.4.33 Respondents said that it is easy to access the rules on the various websites but
stakeholders did express some concern about their clarity. The rules were
found to be relevant, accurate and up-to-date. Elektriraudtee said that the
national safety authority is working at making it more easily understandable.

48

and,
the notification?
The ministry and the national safety authority were clear in their opinion that
Article 8(1) had been fulfilled in Estonia. A further notification was sent in
January 2008. The consultants are satisfied that, all the documents listed in the
notification are freely available. Neither the consultants nor any of the
respondents were able to identify material which had not been properly notified
at the time of the notification.
Estonia conclusions
5.4.36 Estonia has first class electronic publication of national law and the comment on
the official journal website (see paragraph 6.4.3) that the Internet is presumed
to be the principal means of making law available, is significant. Stakeholders
however, were concerned about more fundamental issues such as appropriate
terminology. It can be expected that this will be resolved in due course.
5.5 France
France introduction
5.5.1 France has set up all the bodies required by European legislation but the
processes are still in a state of flux. French railway undertakings did not
provide comprehensive replies, three reasons were evident: SNCF distanced
themselves from any involvement with safety regulation, Thalys declared it had
no safety certificate and was not a proper railway undertaking and Euro Cargo
Rail was too busy to answer anything but a few questions.
5.5.2 The national notification dated 10 May 2005 was taken as the basis for the
work.
49
5.5.3 The national safety rules are to be found from links to the statutes on the
national safety authority website20 in French only.
5.5.4 France has direct and indirect national safety rules. The direct rules go through
the normal legislative process. Under Article 10 of Decree 2006 1279 of 19
October 2006, RFF (the French infrastructure manager) also has powers to
make rules which apply to the “national rail network”. The indirect rules are
made by the infrastructure manager under powers given by the law of 19
October 2006 (see below).
5.5.5 In France, statutes (lois) are enacted by Parliament. The executive power
however has the right to enact regulations (règlements) which are called
“décrets” (for Prime Minister and President of the Republic) and “arrêtés” (for
the rest of the executive branch). The ministry prepares the draft regulations.
The text of rules is prepared by the DTFC (Direction des Transport ferroviaires
et collectifs) within the ministry, SNCF and EPSF (the national safety authority)
are consulted, and in due course it is signed by the President. SNCF‟s role in
this (current) process is that of “delegated infrastructure manager”. SNCF
contracts with RFF to provide technical services and to run the infrastructure on
behalf of RFF. This process is changing as explained below.
5.5.6 The ministry is responsible for preparing and publishing safety regulations
concerning the maintenance of infrastructure and rolling stock, staff
qualifications and operating requirements. It checks that the way EPSF
functions and allows it to guarantee safety. The ministry also defines the
strategy for European studies of safety (and interoperability). The EPSF
prepare the safety rules at the request of the ministry. This split of tasks is in
accordance with the decree of 19 October 200621 which transposes several EU
Directives. Article 10 of the law decree of 19 October 2006 sets down “RFF
20
http://www.securite-ferroviaire.fr/fr/BaseDocumentaire.asp?Select=0&Niv=3&ID=325&SousSous
Rubrique=0&SousRubrique=-1&Theme=1&Rubrique=2
50
(the national infrastructure manager) is to approve and publish the operating
documentation for the network which is drawn up by SNCF and which specifies
the technical conditions for traffic movement and the local operating instructions
which railway undertakings holders of a (safety) certificate must meet”. These
rules are not subject to approval by the EPSF but only apply to RFF
infrastructure but EPSF may demand amendments to or the withdrawal of
technical conditions, local operating instructions or special operating rules.
Articles 28 & 29 apply to other infrastructure (in practice very limited). RFF said
that the ministry made the (binding) rules to which all the others had to relate,
RFF made operating rules for its network and EPSF made audits and
inspections, some of which are topic based (for example, operation of single
lines).
5.5.7 The existing rules were originally prepared, monitored and updated by SNCF
which was considered to have the technical knowledge necessary, but
subsequently this task was taken over by the ministry and EPSF. RFF is also in
the process of bringing back the rules for the use of its own infrastructure “in
house” from SNCF (acting as delegated infrastructure manager). [Railway
undertakings can ask for the creation of text to be incorporated in an EPSF
“referentiel” [EPSF reference text]. This request must be proposed in a DDR
(Dossier de Définition Référentiel) [reference text specification].
5.5.8 Railway undertakings are required to produce an annual safety report every
year, these are used together with the annual report on safety prepared by
EPSF and the results of audits (the national safety authority mentioned eight
audits) and inspections to indicate a possible need to amend the rules. The
ministry participates in defining European studies on safety issues (and
interoperability) and the results of these studies might also indicate a need for
amendment to safety rules.
5.5.9 In addition to the need to amend and update national rules to take account of
Directives and TSIs, the ministry mentioned discussions in international
organisations such as the UIC, inquiries after accidents, the comments of
21
décret n° 2006-1279 du 19 octobre 2006 relatif à la sécurité des circulations ferroviaires et à
51
research institutes specialised in safety matters (such as INRETS) as all
providing input for review of the rules.
5.5.10 All statutes and decrees, and the most important arrêtés, are formally published
in the official gazette "Journal officiel de la République française, édition lois et
décrets". In practice, stakeholders can get direct access to the web pages
showing the national rules (as pages from the official journal) via the EPSF
(national safety authority) website. The EPSF website also provides the indirect
rules imposed by the infrastructure manager (see process above).
5.5.11 The DTFC (Direction des Transport ferroviaires et collectifs), a directorate of the
ministry is responsible for publication of the rules at national level. EPSF
issues recommendations and rulebooks, technical documents and state-of-art
documents.
5.5.12 EPSF publishes all the necessary documents (including RFF rules) on its
website and RFF (the French infrastructure manager) provides information to
those undertakings which want to operate on the French rail network, but this
information is not published on the RFF website.
5.5.13 Responsibility for publication lies with the ministry but publication itself lies with
Direction des journaux officiels in the Prime Minister‟s office.
5.5.14 Whilst the ministry and EPSF took great pains to explain that publication takes
formal effect through the official journal, in practice the rules are made available
on the Internet.
l‟interopérabilité du système ferroviaire.
52
5.5.15 Neither the ministry nor the EPSF saw a need for special means to support
access to the rules bearing in mind that the rules are made available in
accordance with French law.
5.5.16 Neither the ministry nor the EPSF saw a need for special means to oversee
access to the rules bearing in mind that the rules are made available in
accordance with French law.
5.5.17 French stakeholders failed to provide adequate responses to allow their

comments to be used. The consultants however found the information easy to
find (a web search on sécurité ferroviaire [railway safety] led straight to it).
5.5.18 There are no rules on specific infrastructure; arrêtés on specific issues (such as
rolling stock) are included in the same source as all other national rules on the
EPSF website. The EPSF website is arranged by topic, this makes access
relatively easy.
5.5.19 The Consultants looked at the following websites: Ministère de l‟Ecologie, du

Développement et de l‟ Aménagement Durable (the competent ministry)22; the
Etablissement public de sécurité ferroviaire (the national safety authority) 23; the
official journal site24; and the French legal portal Legifrance25. The national
safety rules are in fact all shown on the EPSF website; further remarks are
contained in Appendix E. Hard copies of the national safety rules shown in the
notification are available from the official journal office.
22
http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/.
23
http://www.securite-ferroviaire.fr/index.asp.
24
http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/.
25
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/.
53
Languages
5.5.20 All the legal documents are in French. The national safety authority however
has introductory material on its website in English.
5.5.21 The ministry said that the EPSF has published a referentiel [a reference text]
which is intended to describe systems and tools necessary for the operation of
rail services and give technical information on materials and infrastructures.

authorisation
5.5.22 EPSF said that it had put a guide for applicants on its website to help
infrastructure managers and railways undertakings to prepare their applications.
5.5.23 French stakeholders failed to provide adequate responses to allow their

comments to be used. The consultants however found the information well
presented, clear and comprehensible.

safety rules which are published and made available in the selected countries

and,
the notification?
On the first issue, it was clear that all the rules currently applicable are in fact
available to interested parties on the EPSF website. It should be noted,
however, that some national safety rules have been reissued since the date of
the notification. The consultants are not aware of a new notification having yet
been made. On the second issue, the consultants found a regulation on level
crossings (Arrêté du 18 mars 1991 relatif à la règlementation des passages à
niveau) which they could not find in the notification.
54
5.5.25 The ministry/NSA said however that all the national safety rules are published in
accordance with Article 8(1) of the Railway Safety Directive. An e-mail asking
about the regulation on level crossings remains unanswered at the end of April
2008.
France conclusions
5.5.26 French electronic publication is a model of clarity and accessibility. The more
fundamental question of the pivotal role of SNCF is being addressed by RFF
bringing the preparation of its rules for the use of infrastructure back in house.
5.6 Ireland
Irish introduction
5.6.1 In many respects, Ireland is unique amongst the states in the study. The
railways of the island of Ireland (i.e. the Republic and Northern Ireland) are both
integrated state owned railways. There have been no applications for open
access, which might be for three possible reasons:
the unique track gauge;
the limited market for freight services;
the physical separation from the remainder of the European

network and limited scope for synergy.
The consultants understand from the Chief Executive of Irish Rail, however, that
a number of railway organisations have investigated the potential before
deciding not to pursue applications.
5.6.2 The two state railways run an integrated international service and share a
common rule book. Ireland is a small state with the consequence that all the
current stakeholders are known to each other. Informal networks therefore
provide the normal channel for liaison between existing stakeholders.
5.6.3 The national notification dated 8 July 2005 was taken as the basis for the work.
55
5.6.4 The national safety rules are to be found on the statute book website26 and, for
pre-1922 rules, as hard copy from the Department in both cases in English only.
5.6.5 All Irish national safety rules come from primary legislation, no safety rules are
derived from other sources.
5.6.6 Ireland has a bicameral parliamentary system and legislation passed by both
houses is signed into law by the President.
5.6.7 The Department of Transport has primary responsibility for preparing legislation
but regards the Railway Safety Commission, the national safety authority, as its
technical adviser.
5.6.8 Responsibility for legislation is held by the Department of Transport, a civil

service department of the Irish Government. In preparing legislation, the
Railway Safety Commission, a body set up under the Railway Safety Act 2005
acts as an expert adviser. The Department has also involved parties that it
believed to be affected in the preparation process. These systematically
include Irish Rail, the national integrated railway and heritage railways. Other
parties, such as employees and Northern Ireland Railways (via the Northern
Ireland Executive) have been involved where it has been considered
appropriate. It should be noted that there are no manufacturers and
maintenance providers in Ireland. The consultation process has not been a
formal process in the sense there have been rules of procedure but it should be
borne in mind that that the number of parties with an interest is limited, the
number of individuals small and the lines of communication short.
5.6.9 Once draft legislation is available, Irish government rules require a regulatory
impact assessment to be made for all new legislation and this formal process
enables the views of all parties are taken into account. There is a standing
obligation in Ireland for a regulatory impact assessment before any legislation is
26
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/home.html
56
passed, and this stage in the legislative process is normally the vehicle for
taking account of stakeholder views. There has been no standing list of
consultees: the list of consultees has instead been prepared on an ad-hoc basis
for each issue on the basis of known interest in the topic in question. This
selection has included “railway undertakings” (which in Ireland are defined as
Irish Rail, the integrated national company, heritage railways and other
operators (e.g. Northern Ireland Railways)) and representatives of employees.
The exclusion of the other categories in Article 17 of the Safety Directive
(manufacturers and maintenance contractors) was said to be because there are
none based in Ireland (a substantial proportion of Irish rolling stock has been
imported from the Far East, although some has been sourced from within the
EU). The consultative process is not passive, it provides for groups that
government considers to have a clear interest who have not replied to be
reminded and encouraged to reply.
5.6.10 There is no formal process for monitoring the national rules, but as part of
custom and practice, Irish Rail‟s Chief Safety and Security Officer meets the
RSC Chief Inspector monthly and such issues are discussed at those meetings.
All the parties mentioned ongoing discussions arising from a perceived
ambiguity in the rules for drug and alcohol testing as evidence that the rules are
reviewed. The Railway Safety Commission has also reviewed the current rules
and came to the conclusion that further rules should be added. This process is
on-going at the time of the report.
5.6.11 In addition, safety rules require to be aligned to EU Directives, Regulations and

TSIs and in this context, the Department explained that the Irish Railway Safety
Act required minor amendment to be properly aligned with the Safety Directive
(the definition of railway undertaking was out of line, for example). Following a
Comment [ERA9]: Irish NSA explained
review, regulations were imposed on 8 March 2008 (European Communities the following: “Primary legislation means
Acts passed by the Oireachtas and earlier
(Railway Safety) Regulations 2008). Parliaments. Secondary legislation means
legislation for which responsibility has been
delegated by the Oireachtas to some other
The way in which the rules are published party. In practice, it is usually Government
Ministers to whom responsibility has been
delegated and secondary legislation usually
takes the form of Statutory Instruments. Of
5.6.12 All Irish national rules are primary and secondary legislation; in principle course, much of our national regulation is
derived from our membership of the
therefore they are contained in statute books. As a matter of Irish Government European Union, through EU Directives
and regulations.”
57
policy, Irish legislation enacted since independence is published on the Irish
Statute Book website27.
5.6.13 The responsibility for publication and updating therefore rests with the Irish
Attorney General (as for all legislation).
5.6.14 Irish legislation is published on the Irish Government website. Statutes may be
freely downloaded without charge. The site has a search facility and a search
on “railway” produces 138 hits. Legislation inherited from British rule of Ireland
is not, however, available on this website. In its notification of the national
rules, the RSC pointed out that copies of the legislation not on the Internet can
be obtained from the Department of Transport. Only safety rules dating from
before 1900 1922 are not on the Internet. Irish Rail considers that this
nineteenth century legislation (on such issues as the need for continuous
brakes) was now so out of date that it is hardly relevant whether or not it is
available.
5.6.15 The responsibility for publication and updating the website containing Irish
legislation rests with the Irish Attorney General (as for all legislation). The
consultants understand that this responsibility is taken seriously.
5.6.16 The rules are made available on the Irish Statute Book website. Legislation
before 1922, however, is not available on the website, for this hard copy has to
be obtained from the Department of Transport.
5.6.17 There is, as such, no formal means to support access to the rules but the RSC
said that it was prepared to provide help to interested parties. There is currently
27
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/.
58
no mechanism for charging for providing help, accordingly the help is free of
charge.
5.6.18 The Department and RSC consider that making information available on the
Internet is a practical and effective way of ensuring the legislation is available to
any party with an interest. It is well known that legislation is to be found on the
Internet and so in principle potential enquirers know where to go. Neither the
Department nor the RSC have control mechanisms in place to oversee the
accessibility of the rules.
5.6.19 Irish Rail said that it was sufficiently familiar with the statutory framework for
questions of ease of access to the national rules not to arise. This familiarity
arose from having grown up with the legislation which predated the Safety
Directive, and having been involved in the preparation of legislation since the
Directive.
5.6.20 There are no infrastructure-specific rules, none of the “modern” national safety
rules are topic based.
5.6.21 The consultants looked at the Department of Transport and Railway Safety
Commission websites, their findings are shown in Appendix E. The consultants
concluded that the rules are available on electronic data media (with the
exception of Nineteenth Centurypre 1922 rules). However, neither of these
websites lists all the safety rules which apply, whilst they have all been
published in some form, there is no single list of them. Hard copies of the
statutes shown in the notification are available from the Department (or the
official journal office) (and the RSC demonstrated that they too had a full set).
59
Languages
5.6.22 The national safety rules are available in English (and Irish in so far as
legislation was enacted after 1922). Irish Rail said it would expect that English
(rather than Irish) would in fact be used for all safety-related issues. No other
languages are supported, and there appears to be no evidence that there is any
demand for wider linguistic support.
5.6.23 The Railway Safety Commission refers to guidelines on its website; guidelines
on three four aspects of the Railway Safety Act are listed (preparing a safety
case, design of railway infrastructure and rolling stock, safety assessment of
new infrastructure and rolling stock, and guidelines for third parties). Further
guidelines on accessibility for the disabled, and on design of infrastructure and
rolling stock are listed. In most cases these can be directly downloaded, in one
case the guideline is still being prepared. Irish Rail states that in their opinion
the guidelines are clear and helpful.

authorisation
5.6.24 Irish Rail holds an integrated railway safety case approval. Irish Rail said that it
is sufficiently familiar with the statutory framework for questions of
understanding of national rules not to arise. This familiarity arises from having
grown up with the legislation which predated the Safety Directive and having
been involved in the preparation of legislation since the directive. On the
question of potential access by further railway undertakings, the Department
said that so far there had been no interest (it attributes this to the freight
potential being too small) but that there might be interest once there is an
opportunity to provide passenger services. The Department is aware that that
this might require it to review its practices.
60

and,
the notification?
On the first, it was clear that all the rules listed in the current notification were in
fact available to interested parties. On the second, the Railway Safety
Commission was in process of reviewing Irish law and had identified further
bodies of law which should be notified. This process was explained to the
consultants and it was clear that it was thorough. The process has not yet been
completed.
5.6.26 The ministryDepartment/NSA said that all the national safety rules are
published in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Railway Safety Directive.
Ireland conclusions
5.6.27 Ireland is unique in many ways. In practice, with just one integrated railway
(with a good knowledge of the rules) and no apparent interest in access, the
present system works well. In particular, stakeholders are involved in (rather
than merely consulted on) the rules making process. This would seem to be a
principle which could have wider application.
5.7 Italy
Italy introduction
5.7.1 The distinguishing feature of Italy is that the infrastructure manager RFI (Rete
Ferroviaria Italiana) shares the role of the national safety authority with the
ministry. A separate national safety authority is in process of being set up Comment [ERA10]: This statement
became invalid due to creation of Italian
under the terms of Decreto Legislativo 162/2007. Otherwise the normal pattern National Safety Authority.
of the ministry being responsible for policy and legislation applies. Given that Comment [ERA11]: Ditto
Italian national rules prescribe a great deal of detail, the issue of dissemination
to staff on the ground and updating takes on a larger role than in other states.
61
5.7.2 The national notification dated 13 June 2005 was taken as the basis for the
work. Comment [ERA12]: For its comments
Italian NSA also considered further
information on national safety rules as
5.7.3 All the national safety rules are to be found on the infrastructure manager‟s made available to ERA in autumn 2008.
website28. In some (rare) cases however, the website only contains the name Comment [ERA13]: Italian National
Safety Authority informed ERA that its
of the rule and the full, printed version is necessary to obtain the detail website provides a direct link to the
infrastructure manager’s website.
ultimately required by users, in both cases in Italian only.
5.7.4 In Italy there are both direct national rules and indirect rules.
5.7.5 Direct safety rules go through a statutory process. However, RFI, makes the
indirect rules itself, making use of delegated powers to make them (Article 7 of
Decreto 138T/2000 and Article 4 of Decreto Dirigenziale 247/VIG3/2000 issued
by the Transport Department). In respect of indirect safety rules, RFI submits a
proposal to the ministry and the ministry issues the rules. The legislation Comment [ERA14]: Italian National
Safety Authority (NSA) announced that
requires that rules published by RFI shall be applied, but they only apply to RFI with its creation a new version of Decreto
Dirigenziale 247/VIG3/2000 will be issued;
infrastructure. This applies to all seven types of safety rule, except Type 5 it will deeply clarify the separated
responsibilities between RFI and NSA in
rules. terms of safety rules (including different
process to submit proposals and issue the
rules).
The allocation of responsibilities Comment [ERA15]: Italian NSA
informed that in the next future it will
review all the national safety rules. This
5.7.6 Direct safety rules are the responsibility of the ministry. However, RFI‟s process will produce rules to cover all the
infrastructures (not only RFI infrastructure).
Direzione Tecnica is responsible for preparing proposals for the ministry and
the ministry then issues the rules (Decreto Dirigenziale 247/VIG3 issued by
Transport Department, Decreto Legislativo 188/2003). RFI, acting as the
national safety authority, makes the indirect rules itself (see above). Comment [ERA16]: Italian NSA
announced that with its creation a new
version of Decreto Dirigenziale
5.7.7 RFI said that it consults railway undertakings informally on the content of 247/VIG3/2000 will be issued; it will
deeply clarify the separated responsibilities
between RFI and NSA in terms of safety
indirect safety rules, proposals are presented for comments and observation. rules (including different process to submit
proposals and issue the rules).
This consultation is organised through CESIFER (the department of RFI
responsible for safety certification). Trenitalia said that whilst it was consulted, it Comment [ERA17]: With the creation
of the NSA safety certification task has
understood there was no right to be consulted on indirect rules; other operators migrated up to the NSA.
said they were not consulted.
62
5.7.8 Other standard gauge infrastructure is managed by the Ferrovie del Sud-Est in
the Otranto peninsula and by the Gruppo Ferrovie Nord Milano in the Milanese
suburbs. It is not known if these are operated as local lines within the scope of
Article 2(2b) of the Safety Directive but they fulfil the criteria for so being.
5.7.9 Railway undertakings have their own rules which they apply to suppliers and
customers.
5.7.10 In addition to collecting data on incidents, audit and monitoring produce data for
feedback and monitoring purposes. New technologies and new international
safety standards likewise trigger a review of the rules. This is carried out by a
group of specialists from Direzione Tecnica who recommend whether it is
necessary to update existing rules or issue a new rule. Stakeholders are
consulted as necessary. Railway undertakings commentated that the process
was not well defined and they were only consulted if an issue was directly
relevant. If considered appropriate, a rule may be “tested” by being applied on Comment [ERA18]: This process will
be placed up to the NSA.
a limited part of the network and amended if there are problems before the rule Decreto Legislativo 162/2007 specifies that
“NSA defines national safety rules, taking
is confirmed. Issue by the ministry then follows the process above. into account possible IMs/RUs proposals so
as to issue technical rules and safety
standards”
5.7.11 The ministry said that there is an annual process to absorb new EU legislation.
The ministry point out that for standards and safety rules the ministry's
representatives participate in EU workshops and meetings, including the
steering committee.
5.7.12 Whilst not having statutory effect, in practice the Internet has become the prime
means of publication.
5.7.13 Some direct rules however are published by RFI (e.g. signal regulation, train
operations regulation, etc). Other direct rules are published by central
government. Railway undertakings said they had no part in publishing rules.
28
http://www.rfi.it/quadronormativo/Quadro%20Normativo.htm
63
5.7.14 Direct rules are published in the Italian Official Journal.
5.7.15 Indirect rules however are directly issued and published by RFI. Publication of
indirect rules in the Italian Official Journal has been discontinued. Instead, all
rules are issued as hard copy (paper) and sent to the safety managers on all
licensed organisations as formal notification. In addition rules are published on
the Internet. Generally the text is complete but in some rare cases involving
highly detailed technical issues only headings are published on the Internet.
5.7.16 The ministry said that for the direct rules, the official journal is checked daily.
Indirect rules are checked as part of RFI internal processes and there is
provision for stakeholders to report errors.
5.7.17 In the Italian situation where rules are quite detailed and impinge directly on the
operating railway it is doubly important for rules to be made available reliably.
There is an issue in that the Internet is regarded as the primary means of
dissemination but that the full text of every rule is not available on it.
5.7.18 The ministry and RFI considered that the Internet provided an excellent support
for publishing the rules. When a rule is uploaded on to the RFI website the
system notifies registered stakeholders by e-mail. A delivery receipt is
requested.
5.7.19 The ministry pointed out that access to the website is free of charge and by its
nature impartial.
5.7.20 RFI said that only positive comments have been received on the way the rules
have been published although there have been requests for clarification.
64
Railway undertakings said that it is easy to access the rules on the RFI website,
everything is clear and well cross referenced. RFI said the information on the
RFI website organised by level, Community rules, national rules, safety
standards, and ministry regulations, then infrastructure manager regulations
and other standards. In addition, regulations are also arranged by topic (high
speed, GSM-R, etc).
5.7.21 Information is organised by technical discipline and there are no “geographical”

rules. All the railway undertakings consulted said they found access easy.
5.7.22 The principal means of accessing the information is via the Internet. Railway
undertakings also receive a paper copy of the rules issued.
5.7.23 The consultants looked at the RFI website29; their findings are shown in
Appendix E. The consultants concluded that the rules are available on
electronic data media (with the exception of some detail – see text). Hard
copies of the national safety rules shown in the notification are available from
the official journal office (for direct rules) and from the infrastructure manager,
RFI (for indirect rules).
5.7.24 All the railway undertakings found the rules easy to find, easy to understand
and clear. Railion Italia and Nord Cargo said that the cross references are
unclear however.
Languages
5.7.25 The national safety rules are only available in Italian.
5.7.26 The RFI web site contains a short guide together with other tools (e.g. links to
associations or standards bodies, last update, and other services: address,
29
http://www.rfi.it/pagine/rfi_04/rfi_04,03.asp. http://www.rfi.it/rfi.html
65
contact, thematic network). Railway undertakings said that help is provided but
that the relationship between the ministry and RFI is confused and they had the
impression there were too few staff. Assistance is provided free of charge.
Stakeholders said however they did not in fact require guidance as specialists
in the field.

authorisation
5.7.27 The information was described as being “clear” and easy to find. Other
comments were “exhaustive”, “detailed” and “carefully” prepared. Information
was however criticised for not being up to date. In addition, all the parties
commented on difficulties with cross referencing, with the ministry saying “the
rules are too fragmented and the normative framework is too complex with
several cross references. It's necessary to reorganise”.


and,
the notification?
On the first, there was no evidence that rules were not available (subject to the
comment on promptness). On the second, none of the respondents nor the
consultants were able to identify material which had not been properly notified
at the time of the notification.
5.7.29 The ministry and RFI said that all the national safety rules are published in
Italy conclusion
5.7.30 The Italian arrangements are in a state of flux as the NSA is set uphas been
recently setting up. Its creation is likely to help Italy to remedy the criticisms on
66
late publication, confusing cross references, etc. and bring Italy up to the Comment [ERA19]: NSA has different
opinion that the rules are issued and
highest levels of good practice. published on time to give to the railway
undertakings the needed time to assist and
give training to their staff to acknowledge
the new rule.
5.8 The Netherlands
Netherlands introduction
5.8.1 The Netherlands is more advanced in terms of liberalisation than many other
states and it might therefore be expected that safety procedures would be
closely aligned with the law and spirit of European Directives. The new Safety
Directive has an impact on the administrative costs of railway undertakings in
particular because risk analyses need to be reported differently compared to the
present situation. It is believed that this has a larger impact on smaller
operators. The national safety rules are relatively limited in scope; only the
most important elements are covered. In addition, the informal coordination
platform (OVS) in which the national rules are discussed operates in a
straightforward manner. The interviewees had mixed views on the assistance
from the NSA and the ministry. In general it is felt the quality and
comprehensiveness of the public information on websites of the ministry, NSA
and Infrastructure Manager is lacking behind. Belgium is seen as a good
model.
5.8.2 The national notification dated 2 June 2005 was taken as the basis for the work.
5.8.3 The national safety rules are shown on the safety authority‟s website30 in Dutch
only.
5.8.4 In the Netherlands there are only direct national rules.
5.8.5 The ministry is responsible for formulation of the direct national rail safety rules.
Rail safety issues are dealt with under the Dutch railway law (Spoorwegwet
2005).
30
http://www.ivw.nl/onderwerpen/rail/wetenregelgeving/spoorwegwet/)
67
5.8.6 The Dutch national safety authority, NSA (Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat,
IVW) and ProRail, the Dutch infrastructure manager, act as advisers to the
ministry and take part in various safety platforms, the Coordination Meeting for
Railway Agency issues (Coordinatie Overleg Safety) (COS) and the Railway
Safety Council (Overleg Veiligheid Spoor) (OVS) to explain, discuss and
provide input for updating the national safety rules. IVW however only has
formal responsibility for implementation of the rules. The ministry has an
agreement concerning the management of the railways with ProRail until 1
January 2015. This agreement defines the duties of ProRail as follows:
1. responsibility for the quality, reliability and availability of the main

railway infrastructure;
2. allocation of capacity on the national railway network in a fair and

non-discriminatory manner; and
3. traffic management of the national railway network.
5.8.7 All national rules are formulated by the ministry, the rail sector is consulted as a
part of this process
5.8.8 National rules are discussed in the Railway Safety Council. In the council,
railway undertakings, ProRail (the infrastructure manager), the ministry and
NSA (IVW) are represented. All railway undertakings are invited. Problems
encountered can be raised and amendments to the national rules can be put
forward. In the formal legislative process for national rules a consultation
process is in force facilitated through the Railway Safety Council.
5.8.9 The NSA (IVW) has the mandate to do incidents research, the Dutch Safety
Board (OVV - Onderzoeksraad voor veiligheid) investigates structural problems
and major accidents.
5.8.10 Monitoring the rules is a joint task of the ministry and the NSA. The IVW
monitors application of the rules, and reports back to the ministry quarterly.
Feedback on the effectiveness of rules is also provided via the Coordination
68
Meeting for Railway Agency Issues (COS) and Railway Safety Council (OVS).
The amendment process follows the same format as that for new rules: via the
Safety Co-ordination Council (COS) and Railway Safety Council (OVS)
platforms. Ultimately, the ministry and ProRail amend the rules, but in close
coordination with the railway sector. The national railway act (Spoorwegwet
2005) is currently being evaluated in conjunction with all rail stakeholders. The
stakeholders consulted considered the frequency to be appropriate.
5.8.11 The ministry said that alignment of Dutch national safety rules with developing
EU Directives, Regulations and TSIs is primarily done via the COS and OVS
machinery.
5.8.12 The consultation machinery in the Railway Safety Council (OVS) and Safety
Co-ordination Council (COS) only includes the DGP (Directoraat Generaal
Personenvervoer), the “passenger” part of the ministry. One freight railway
undertaking wanted to see more involvement by the “freight” part of the
ministry, the DGTL (Directoraat Generaal Transport & Luchtvaart). (It is
understood that there has subsequently been a reorganisation in the ministry).
Arriva Trein (which operates local passenger services under simplified
conditions) said that consultation with and via the infrastructure manager was
not appropriate when the operating framework was not that of a main-line
railway.
5.8.13 Official publication is determined by Dutch law.
5.8.14 The Ministry of Transport is responsible for publication in the Dutch Official
Journal (Staatscourant) and on the Official Journal website31. Full railway law is
available from the Dutch government website32.
5.8.15 In practice, the principal means of publication is publication on the Internet.
31
http://www.staatscourant.nl/staatscourant/.
32
http://www.overheid.nl.
69
5.8.16 For the ministry, internal quality control procedures verify that the information is
complete and up-to-date. National rules are also published on the ministry and
NSA website. They are only available in Dutch.
5.8.17 Arriva Trein said changes in rules to meet EU requirements are not adequately
advised. There is no attempt to inform railway undertakings and in
consequence railway undertakings only find out about the change by chance.
The infrastructure manager said that the NSA has systems in place to ensure
changes are properly advised.
5.8.18 As in other states, the Internet is the principal means by which the rules are
made available.
5.8.19 The ministry said there were no specific procedures in place to support access.
5.8.20 The ministry said there were no specific control mechanisms to oversee access.
5.8.21 Stakeholders unanimously regarded access to the information as “weak”. The

balance of view was that information was not presented in a user-friendly way
and its quality and comprehensiveness was described as low (although no
examples of material missing were offered). Stakeholders held varying views
on whether the information was clearly stated. Respondents also varied in their
opinions on whether the supply of information was well organised.
5.8.22 There are no national safety rules applying to specific infrastructure in the
Netherlands. Stakeholders did not therefore answer this question.
70
5.8.23 ProRail said that, in practice, stakeholders‟ interface with the rule structure is by
means of access agreements and through the network statement. Information
to support this is available on the ProRail website; it was noted that the site is
regularly updated.
5.8.24 ProRail makes the point that most information exchange is through the OVS
forum. ProRail offers training on the certification of rail staff.
5.8.25 The consultants looked at the IVW and ProRail websites, their findings are
shown in Appendix E. The consultants concluded that the rules are all available
on electronic data media. Hard copies of the national safety rules shown in the
notification are available from the official journal office.
5.8.26 Respondents were not wholly complimentary about the information publicly
available describing it as “weak” and “not user-friendly”.
Languages
5.8.27 The national safety rules are only available in Dutch. The NSA only offers help
in Dutch.
5.8.28 There appear to be no supporting material, guidelines, glossaries, or references Comment [ERA20]: Dutch NSA drew
attention to an important fact that it has
to technical advice on the application of rules available. The NSA does provide recently written an "Admission guide"
for railway undertakings, which
a helpdesk (although the term is not used) and does offer technical advice describes in detail the formalities of the
process of putting into service of rolling
which is free. Views varied on whether the NSA was helpful. stock. This guide, together with the
relevant legal measures, was discussed
with a broad representation of the
sector (the relevant meeting in the end
Comprehensibility of the rules for applying for safety certificates and of June 2008 as attended by about 80
participants).
authorisation
5.8.29 ProRail offers advice to new applicants, packaging it as necessary.
5.8.30 The balance of view was that information on the various websites is not
presented in a user-friendly way and its quality and comprehensiveness was
described as low (although no examples of material missing were offered).
71
Stakeholders held varying views on whether the information is clearly stated.
Respondents also varied in their opinions on whether the supply of information
is well organised. The Dutch Government said it had received no major
complaints on the way the rules have been published or their clarity.
Respondents did say however that the Safety Directive had brought uniformity
and that that was an advantage.


and,
the notification?
5.8.32 On the first issue, there was no evidence that rules were not available and the
Dutch Ministry of Transport said it was confident that Article 8(1) of the Safety
Directive is fully fulfilled. The NSA referred to the ministry‟s answer. On the
second issue, neither the consultants nor any of the respondents were able to
identify material which had not been properly notified at the time of the
notification.
5.8.33 The ministry said that all the national safety rules are published in accordance
with Article 8(1) of the Railway Safety Directive.
Netherlands conclusion
Comment [ERA21]: Dutch NSA
5.8.34 Stakeholders were scathing about Dutch arrangements. Only the process of commented that the results match with
signals received from other studies in
consultation using a safety platform got favourable comment. A formal the Netherlands. These studies are the
Evaluation of the Railway Law (more
structure for discussing safety rules in a “safety platform” is a valuable policy oriented) and the so called Better
Regulation Commission, which did a
review of the railway legislation more
contribution to the process of developing, reviewing and amending rules and from a efficient-administration
perspective. Both studies included
deserves copying elsewhere. (See proposal 7.2.3). consultation of stakeholders. In reaction
to the Better Regulation study few
improvement measures for the
Netherlands have been formulated, like
the set-up of a clearly recognisable
front desk. Another measure is the
"wiping out" of the national rules for
which are TSI provisions in place.
These measures are now being
implemented.
72
5.9 Norway
Norway introduction
5.9.1 Norway has a quite separate ministry, national safety authority, infrastructure
manager and railway undertakings. NSB, the incumbent passenger railway
undertaking, has a majority share in CargoNet, the incumbent freight operator
of intermodal services. Green Cargo, from Sweden, is the incumbent general
freight railway undertaking.
work. Comment [ERA22]: Norwegian NSA
underlined that its comments on this report
were based on the notification of 24 April
5.9.3 The national safety rules are to be found on www.lovdata.no. Links to this 2005, and that Norway has notified
amendments and new safety rules on 1
website are to be found on the ministry website33 in Norwegian (Bokmål) October 2007.
version with a partial unofficial translation into English and Swedish.
5.9.4 Norway only has direct national safety rules.
5.9.5 Direct safety rules are made through the legislative process. There are no
indirect rules. There is a formal requirement to consult interested parties in the
course of the legislative process. Once the results of the consultation have
been received they are evaluated and their implications determined, this can
then lead to a second round of consultation. The legislation is then enacted.
5.9.6 Other safety rules applying to the national rail network are not national safety
rules but are set by the infrastructure manager Jernbaneverket, these include
all operating rules except train operation regulation and signalling regulation
which are operating rules set by the Norwegian Railway Inspectorate.
5.9.7 The Royal Ministry of Transport and Communications is responsible for the
legislative process and thus for establishing the rules in law, this includes both
33
http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/sd/dok/lover_regler.html?id=312120#Jernbane
73
administration and amendment to the rules. The Norwegian Railway
Inspectorate (NRI) is then responsible for the enforcement of the rules. The
Ministry of Transport and Communications determines any delegation of
responsibilities.
5.9.8 The most important driving force behind the rules and for amendments to them
is EU legislation which is monitored both by the NRI on behalf of the Ministry of
Transport and Communications and the NRI. The NRI informsformal process is
that the ministry informs the NRI when there is a need for legislative action.
The ministry sets up working parties in response to new Directives and
Regulations, the output from the working parties is then taken forward into
legislation by the ministry. Where the ministry has delegated the responsibililty,
as for the TSIs, the NRI is responsible for implementing the regulation into
Norwegian law.
5.9.9 Both, tThe Ministry of Transport and Communication and the NRI leads a
regular process to review and update the rules. In the NRI Tthree teams:
safety, legal and revision are responsible for this activity. There are formal
guidelines in place from the ministry for this purpose, in addition the NRI has
internal guidelines for its regular review of the rules. The ministry receives
reports and results from the NRI, which it evaluates. Once or twice a year
management meetings are held with major railway undertakings and the
infrastructure manager to evaluate the rules. In addition the NRI hosts
evaluation seminars, contact meetings and other management meetings.
These feed directly into the regular rule and regulation update process. Other
triggers for updating the rules include issues that arise in the supervision and
monitoring process for railway undertakings, and issues raised by users
themselves. Where rule changes are proposed the NRI examines the knock-on
implications for other rules.
5.9.10 The NRI states that the infrastructure manager and railway undertakings are
involved in the rule setting process, Jernbaneverket, NSB, and Cargonet being
specifically mentioned. Operators are involved through reference groups and
working parties. NSB confirmed that they are involved in the process and noted
74
that the process is becoming faster as more experience is gained. It also noted
that there is no trade organisation representing the interests of railway
undertakings in Norway in this process, attempts to form one having foundered
to date, NSB thought that this was due a lack of perceived need for one.
5.9.11 The NRI said that consultants were engaged to evaluate the management of
the rules system. NRI said that the consultants found that there is a potential
conflict of interest between the ministry, the NRI, and others, in the event of
complaints or appeals. It is not clear to what extent this has been resolved.
5.9.12 The NRI stated that there was a protracted debate at the start of the legislative
process about the delineation between the rules that should be enshrined in
legislation and the operating rules set by the infrastructure manager, when
dividing up the former national railway‟s internal rules. Ultimately, it is
understood that it was found necessary to promote more of the former internal
rules into national legislation than was originally thought necessary.
contained in statute books, they are also published on the Government‟s
legislative website34 and in the Norwegian Official Journal. Government is
responsible for this process. Links are to be found on the ministry and the NRIs
website The NRI is charged with informing the infrastructure manager and
railway undertakings of any changes in the rules, NSB confirming that updates
to rules are received by e-mail.
5.9.14 The Ministry of Transport and Communications has devolved responsibility for
publishing the rules onto the NRI, which is also responsible for supplying
information to “all interested parties”.
5.9.15 The rules are established in statute books and are published in “Norsk
Lovtidende” and on the Government‟s legislative website. However, tThe
75
primary responsibility for publication lies with the ministry and the NRI where
responsibility is delegatedand. tThe rules are published on its the websites.
The NRI also sends “important information” direct to the infrastructure manager
and to railway undertakings where they are responsible.
5.9.16 The Ministry of Transport and Communication decides how national safety rules
will be published.
5.9.17 The NRI has a duty to facilitate access to the rules. There is a working group
from the Ministry of Transport and Communications and NRI which considers
how access to national safety rules can be facilitated.
5.9.18 The rules are sorted into topics, in a manner which the NRI considers to be
clear; none of the other consultees expressed any reservations over the clarity
with which the rules are sorted. The only reservations expressed on clarity
related to the clarity of some of the rules themselves rather than the way that
they are organised.
5.9.19 The NRI holds meetings with railway undertakings and the infrastructure
manager to disseminate information on safety rule, and considers that it
maintains a “very high” degree of contact with “interested parties”. In addition
guidelines are published, including a set targeted at foreign railway
undertakings.
5.9.20 The NRI provides personal advisors to assists railway undertakings, upon
request, although there is no help desk as such. The assistance provided is
free of charge and covers both provision of information and assistance on the
substance of the safety rules. The NRI states that its website is under “constant
improvement” in line with comments received to improve the information
provided on national safety rules.
34
www.lovdata.no.
76
5.9.21 The NRI also considers that the opportunity to participate in working groups
provides an opportunity for railway undertakings to gain technical support.
5.9.22 All of the railway undertakings consulted were happy with the technical support
offered by the NRI and found it was clear and expeditious.
5.9.23 No control mechanisms to oversee the accessibility of the rules were identified.
5.9.24 All of the railway undertakings consulted consider that it is easy to gain access
to the rules in Norway; however, Green Cargo noted that the position has
improved markedly over the past five to six years, and that it experienced
considerable difficulty in obtaining safety certification in 2003, due to uncertainty
on the part of the NRI on the procedures applicable to foreign railway
undertakings. Interestingly, domestic railway undertaking NSB also reported
that it had experienced considerable difficulty with the safety certification
process in 2003 but that the situation has now much improved. It therefore
appears that this difficulty was a general problem rather than one uniquely
afflicting foreign railway undertakings and that it has now been resolved.
5.9.25 NSB noted that there have been problems in the transition from paper to
electronic information formats.
5.9.26 Railion Danmark considered that as far as the availability of safety rules is
concerned, Norway is ahead of both Denmark and Sweden. Cargonet
considered that access to the rules is “very fine”; SJ said access was “best in
Norway and Sweden”.
5.9.27 None of the railway undertakings consulted reported any difficulty in obtaining
access to rules on specific issues or in specific geographical areas. NSB
reported that information is available in a timely manner, although was admitted
by NSB that they benefit from the employment of old colleagues at authority
level and can gain information through these personal contacts. Nevertheless
none of the other railway undertakings consulted reported problems in this area,
77
nor did they consider that they were disadvantaged in comparison to any other
railway undertaking.
5.9.28 The consultants looked at the Ministry of Transport and Communications,

Norwegian Railway Inspectorate and Norwegian National Rail Administration
websites, their findings are shown in Appendix E. The consultants concluded
that the rules are all available on electronic data media. Hard copies of the
national safety rules shown in the notification are available from the official
journal office.
Languages
5.9.29 All rules are published in Norwegian (Bokmål), but some have also been
translated into English and Swedish. The NRI noted that some complaints have
been received that more of the rules should be translated into these two
languages; in particular requests that all rules are translated into English and
that some more rules require Swedish translations. It was noted by NSB that
the availability of support from the NRI is determined by the linguistic
competence of the member of staff assigned.
5.9.30 See above. Both Green Cargo and SJ reported that that the support available
from the NRI is good.

authorisation
5.9.31 NSB reported that the wording of some of the rules and regulations is
ambiguous and can cause confusion over the precise actions required. In the
opinion of NSB this problem is getting worse. None of the other consultees
expressed this view of the safety rules however, indeed the other railway
undertakings consulted tended to compare the clarity and appropriateness of
the rules in Norway favourably to those in Denmark and Sweden.
78
safety rules which are published and made available in the selected countries

and,
the notification?
On the first issue, there is no evidence that rules were not available and both
the Ministry of Transport and Communications and the NRI consider that Article
8(1) of the Railway Safety Directive is adhered to in Norway. On the second
issue, neither the consultants nor any of the respondents were able to identify
material which had not been properly notified at the time of the notification.
Norway conclusions
5.9.34 The arrangements in Norway were well received by stakeholders who

particularly appreciated the approach adopted by the national safety authority.
It is perhaps to be noted that stakeholders have not always been satisfied with
the national safety authority; the key to the improvement appears to be the
process of continuous improvement adopted by the authority. It is clear that
this deserves to be copied elsewhere. (See proposal 7.2.21).
5.10 Sweden
Sweden introduction
5.10.1 Sweden has a quite separate ministry, national safety authority, infrastructure
manager and railway undertakings. Both SJ and Green Cargo, the Swedish
incumbent railway undertakings are entirely state owned. CargoNet the
incumbent container railway undertaking is also state owned, but by Norway.
5.10.2 The national notification dated 15 June 2005 was taken as the basis for the
work.
79
5.10.3 The national safety rules are to be found on the national safety authority‟s
website35 in Swedish and English for acts and ordinances, Swedish for
regulations, with an overview in English.
5.10.4 Sweden has only direct national safety rules.
5.10.5 Direct safety rules are made through the legislative process by Government.
There is a mandatory consultation process involving the SRA, the railway
inspector, Jernvegstyrelsen, and railway undertakings through various trade
organisations. The Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications also
states that it consults university professors on proposed legislative changes.
The "Lagrådet" (Law Council) is charged with ensuring that new rules and
regulations are not in conflict with existing ones.
5.10.6 A distinction is made between acts (made by the Swedish Parliament),

ordinances (made by the Swedish Government) and regulations (made by the
Swedish Rail Agency). The regulations are set by the SRA in consultation with
the ministry and for the most part these are operational rules. SRA issues
regulations after authorization from the ministry.
5.10.7 The Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications is responsible for the
legislative process. Legislation goes through parliament in the usually way.
Ordinances and regulations are made by the ministry and the Swedish Rail
Agency (SRA) respectively. The SRA is responsible for regulations, publishing
rules and for monitoring compliance, having taken over most of the
responsibilities in the area of safety from Banverket, SJ stated that the process
will be completed in 2009, although neither the ministry nor the SRA mentioned
that the process is incomplete. The ministry is the final arbiter of what form Comment [ERA23]: Swedish NSA
underlined the following: “NSA (SRA) is
rules will take. In all cases the ministry determines any delegation of since 2004 responsible for all
legislative processes, market
responsibilities. monitoring and safety supervisions in
the area of safety. NSA does not
understand what SJ means with their
statement that “the process will be
completed in 2009” or what the two last
35
http://www.jvs.se/sv/Ga-direkt-till/Lagar-och-regler.aspx sentences refers to.”
80
5.10.8 The ministry noted that some problems were experienced in interpreting the
Safety Directive when trying to allocate responsibilities between itself and the
SRA.
5.10.9 As noted above there is a consultation phase of the rules making process,
organised by the SRA, both Green Cargo and SJ confirmed that they participate
in this through the organisation of train operators. The SRA mentioned
consultation of academics and railway trade associations, as well as other
authorities concerned. It is understood that the main focus of these discussions
is on detailed technical issues. It is further understood that there are also
initiatives to align the internal rules of railway undertakings. SJ complained that
they are often contacted “very late” in the process, and certainly far later than
they would expect, although none of the other railway undertakings contacted
made the same complaint.
5.10.10 The Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications said that if it is

proposed to promote former internal rules of the national railway to regulations
(direct national rules), the SRA approaches the ministry with a proposal to
promote particular rules to legal status. The ministry and the SRA then sit down
to determine whether or not this is justified, and if it is then the necessary
legislative change is made.
5.10.11 The ministry states that there are several procedures in place to revise and
update rules as required. These arise from the SRA which is responsible for
monitoring the rules, internal government reviews, contact from trade
associations, and decisions made in the law courts. The SRA confirmed that
they have department dedicated to the rule monitoring process. There is no
formal review timetable: the process is essentially and ad hoc one and that
updates occur as and when issues requiring attention are identified.
5.10.12 In transposing changes in EU legislation into Swedish law the SRA has a
“control function” that monitors changes that need to be transposed into law.
The ministry states that it relies on being contacted by the relevant European
agency when European legislation, rules or regulations change, and also notes
that the SRA is contacted as well.
81
5.10.13 There is no formal feedback into the rule making process from users, but both
the ministry and the SRA stated that railway trade associations approach them
with feedback on the rules, the SRA stating that there is “good communication”
between the parties. The ministry noted that feedback was received from both
domestic and international railway undertakings and that this is sometimes
channelled through the infrastructure manager Banverket. Green Cargo
confirmed that rules are updated in the light of events “quite often”.
5.10.14 The ministry noted that there were some minor problems establishing a safety
system under the new legislative framework, but that these have been easily
resolved.
contained in statute books, they are also published on the Government‟s
legislative website36 and in the Swedish Official Journal. Government is
responsible for this process. The SRA is responsible for the publication of the
regulations.
5.10.16 Regulations are arranged into topics in their published form to assist users
pinpoint particular topics.
5.10.17 The SRA is responsible for publishing the regulations, no other body is
involved. Banverket used to have a limited mandate to publish rules and
regulations. This mandate is further limited since the new
"Järnvägslagstiftningen” Railway Law and Järnvägsforordningen was enacted in
July 2004. What previously, with regard to publication and dissemination, was
under Banverket and the former Jernvägsinspektionen “Railway Inspectorate”
are now part of SRA‟s responsibility area.
36
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/1470
82
5.10.18 Legislation and thus direct rules are established in statute books, and are
required under the Swedish Constitution to be available both in paper form and
on the Government website.
5.10.19 The regulations (direct rules) are published in a handbook by the SRA and on
its website. Regulations are published in one section of the handbook and
ordinances in another. The Swedish handbook provides information targeted at
applicants for safety certificates and came in for favourable comment from
Railion Danmark, which described it as “very useful”.
5.10.20 Both the Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications and the SRA state
that they have internal check processes in place that ensure the accuracy of
published information.
5.10.21 See above.
5.10.22 The SRA is responsible for providing access to national safety rules. It runs a
helpdesk to assist applicants, the railway undertakings consulted confirmed the Comment [ERA24]: SRA commented
that it does not have an organized helpdesk-
SRA‟s statement that this is available free of charge by telephone and by e- but its staff is available daytime from
Monday to Friday to assist for example
mail. It offers help on application requirements, and general help on safety applicants by telephone or by e-mail.
rules “in most areas”, meetings can also be arranged to deal with “critical
issues”. The SRA also issues a monthly periodical newsletter (4-6 times a year,
depending on the information) coving safety rule issues.
5.10.23 The SRA suggested that that an overarching European database where
notifications for all states are published would be “a good idea”, which would act
as a tool to assist mutual learning.
5.10.24 No control mechanisms to oversee the accessibility of the rules were identified.
83
5.10.25 All the railway undertakings consulted considered that the national safety rules
are easily accessible in Sweden. SJ consider that the availability of information
is on a par with that in Norway and better than it is in Denmark.
5.10.26 All the railway undertakings consulted considered that the access to specific
rules and information on specific geographic areas is fairly easily accessible in
Sweden, although Green Cargo noted that the more detailed the technical
information that is required, the longer the lead time for getting hold of the
information is.
5.10.27 The consultants looked at the Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and

Communications, Swedish Rail Agency and Swedish Rail Administration
websites, their findings are shown in Appendix E. The consultants concluded
that the rules are all available on electronic data media. Hard copies of the
national safety rules shown in the notification are available from the official
journal office (acts and ordinances) and from the Swedish Rail Agency (for
regulations).
Languages
5.10.28 Acts and ordinances are published in both Swedish and English. Regulations
are published in Swedish, but in addition there is an overview in English. It was
noted by SRA that the availability of its support to applicants who do not speak
Swedish is determined by the linguistic competence of the member of staff
assigned. Support in English is of course always available.
5.10.29 See above.
84
authorisation
5.10.30 All the railway undertakings consulted found that the information received is
easy to understand and accurate. First DSB thought the information in Sweden
might be a little too detailed.


and,
the notification?
5.10.32 On the first issue, there is no evidence that rules were not available and both
the Ministry of Transport and Communications and the SRA consider that
Article 8(1) of the Railway Safety Directive is adhered to in Sweden. See
5.10.33. On the second issue, none of the respondents nor the consultants
were able to identify material which had not been properly notified at the time of
the notification.
Sweden conclusions
5.10.34 In comparisons made by stakeholders, Sweden was favourably regarded.

Stakeholders regarded the clarity and rigour of the Swedish approach
positively. Whilst Sweden was not the only state that provides a handbook for
the benefit of applicants for safety certificates, the Swedish handbook came in
for special mention. Careful preparation of the handbook for applicants for
safety certificates is clearly good practice.
85
6. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1.1 This section summarises the material from the various states, analyses it and
arrives at conclusions. Sub-sections cover analysis of the information collected
and comments and conclusions based on the analysis.
6.2 Summary
6.2.1 The impetus for the study comes from Article 8(3) of the Safety Directive, which
requires an evaluation to be made on the way in which national safety rules are
published and made available.
Establishment of the rules
6.2.2 A distinction needs to be made between stakeholders: the incumbent railway

undertakings by and large found the process to be effective. They had the
advantage of having ‟been brought up with the rules‟ and knew where to find
them. A similar distinction can be made for amendments to the rules, larger
stakeholders with the resources to become involved in the process of
amendment are familiar with the changes being made, smaller stakeholders
could find changes being made without their knowledge.
6.2.3 The system to establish, to amend and to publish national rules is largely
effective - with the exception of consultation. The existing stakeholder
community are by and large satisfied with the process. Stakeholders are less
happy with the process of consultation. In Denmark, Estonia and Italy it failed
to meet stakeholders‟ reasonable expectations. Comment [ERA25]: NRA comment:
“There seems to be an inconsistency
between the point made in the last
Publication sentence in 6.2.3. and the conclusion in
the last sentence 5.3.38.”
6.2.4 Whilst formal publication remains a paper based process in all states, in
practice states expect stakeholders to access to access rules on electronic
media (and see the formal statement made by the publishers of the Estonian
Official Journal in paragraph 6.5.4).
86
Availability
6.2.5 The full national rules were on the Internet in all but two states (Italy and
Ireland). In those states, the material not on the Internet is marginal by
common consent and available as hard copy from other sources. As a general
rule (see below for details), stakeholders found the rules easy to access. Only
in the Netherlands did there seem to be significant difficulties.
Ease of understanding
6.2.6 Stakeholders, as a general rule, found the rules easy to understand. There
were exceptions, (for details see below) but it was clear that the formal safety
bodies had a commitment to clarify written material, provide further guidelines
and provide help on demand.
Comprehensiveness
6.2.7 The assessment of comprehensiveness was complicated by the fact that rule
making is moving faster than notification. The consultants found only one
suspected case of a rule made but not communicated at the time the
notification was made. All the formal bodies declared they had made compliant
notifications.
Confidence
6.2.8 Section 4.5 above explains the basis for the consultants being confident that the
basis for their conclusions is reliable.
6.3 Analysis: How national safety rules are established in national legislation
6.3.1 All the states considered are parliamentary democracies with well established
processes for law making.
6.3.2 Table 6.1 below shows how responsibilities are allocated within the states
considered. It will be noted that the formulation of direct safety rules in the
states studied is the task of the ministry in every case; where there are indirect
87
rules, responsibility for them is with the infrastructure manager. Responses
indicated that the allocation of responsibility for indirect rules is a product of the
reallocation of the responsibilities from the former state railways. The creation
of an independent national safety authority in Italy might change the
responsibility for national safety rules. In Belgium ministerial NSA approval is Comment [ERA26]: Italian NSA
commented that this is already achieved.
necessary before indirect rules can take effect. In Denmark indirect rules must
also be approved by the NRA.
6.3.3 The input to rule making also varied, clearly only a ministry can initiate policy,
and normally only in the national safety authority does detailed expertise on rail
safety topics exist. Between these, however, the balance of tasks varied
between states. The extremes might be set by Ireland where almost all
functions are in practice delegated to the national safety authority and the
ministry relies heavily on input from the NSA to prepare legislation and Estonia
where the ministry is deeply involved with the detail, only leaving the most
technical issues to the NSA. In Italy the national safety authority is being set
uphas been recently setting up and in the interim the tasks are shared between
the ministry and the infrastructure manager. Sweden is further down this path, Comment [ERA27]: Italian NSA
informed it has already taken over the task.
the national safety authority has almost completed take over of the rule setting
task. In France, the infrastructure manager is taking over the work of setting Comment [ERA28]: NRA comment:
“Similar point could be made about
indirect rules from SNCF, the incumbent railway undertaking, which has set Denmark given that a majority of the
regulation is delegated from the ministry
rules as delegated infrastructure manager. There would seem to be a trend to the NRA.”
towards the logical model of the ministry setting overall policy and the NSA
being its expert adviser.
6.3.4 A Dutch railway undertaking (which operates a local passenger service under
simplified conditions) pointed out that the framework for making and
communicating rules had to accommodate that type of structure. Funnelling the
machinery through a main-line infrastructure manager might not be appropriate.
(See proposal in paragraph 7.2.4).
88
6.3.5 Table 6.1 below shows how responsibilities are allocated within the states
considered.
Table 6.1 – Allocation of responsibilities for rule making
Formulation of direct Formulation of indirect

rules rules
Belgium Ministry IM (approval by NSA)

Denmark Ministry and NRA IM
Estonia Ministry Not applicable
France Ministry IM
Ireland Ministry Not applicable
Italy Ministry IM
Netherlands Ministry Not applicable
Norway Ministry and NSA Not applicable
Sweden Ministry and NSA Not applicable
Key: Ministry = Ministry of Transport, Statute = statute book, NSA = national safety
authority, IM = infrastructure manager.
Consultation
6.3.6 The methods which states use to consult on draft rules vary considerably.
Likewise the stage at which stakeholders become involved varies. In some
countries (such as Ireland), stakeholders were continuous involved (although
informally) and therefore had an input even before draft legislation was drawn
up. The most frequent means of consultation, however, was by circulating draft
legislation in writing and asking for comments. Briefing and discussion
meetings were less common, only Belgium, Estonia and Italy, mentioned them.
6.3.7 Stakeholders were not always happy with the consultation, in Denmark, Railion
Danmark said its views were “often” ignored and DSB said the feedback
process does not work well. No further details of the reasons for stakeholder
dissatisfaction were provided. Edelaraudtee in Estonia said its views were
rarely taken into account. In Italy Railion and Nord Cargo said they had not
been consulted at all. By contrast, an example of the NSA reversing its position
in Norway after representations by stakeholders was given. (See proposal in
paragraph 7.2.6).
89
6.3.8 The process of development and amendment of the national rules however
came in for considerable criticism in Denmark and Italy. Respondents identified
Sweden and Belgium as having good consultative machinery.
6.3.9 Respondents did not distinguish marked differences in the way the various
types of rule (Annex II) were treated in any of these processes.
Auditing the application of the rules
6.3.10 All national safety authorities mentioned an audit or inspection role (in Italy the
NSA audit and monitoring role is undertaken by RFI‟s Direzione Technica, in Comment [ERA29]: Italian NSA
informed that now this role is up to the new
France, the infrastructure manager audits compliance with its own rules). Not NSA.
all safety authorities said that their audits and reviews of annual reports on
safety fed into reviews of the safety rules but it can be presumed that these do
in fact form an input into in every case. National safety authorities in fact
appear to rely on audits, annual reports and reports on incidents as providing
evidence of whether the rules are being properly applied.
90
Monitoring the rules
6.3.11 Table 6.2 below shows the arrangements for monitoring the rules, these vary
between a formal review at regular intervals and a reactive approach driven by
experience and events. It will be noted that the majority of states only
mentioned events as triggering a review of rules. Belgium was a welcome
exception with a six-monthly review.
Table 6.2 – Monitoring of the rules
How the rules are monitored
Belgium Jointly ministry & NSA, every six monthsperiodically

Denmark As a result of monitoring, annual conference
Estonia Monitoring through everyday work
France IM & NSA, NSA audits and inspections, incident
database
Ireland NSA initiative – close contact with neighbouring state
Italy Safety indicators, incidents, no structured process
Netherlands NSA quarterly report on incidents
Norway NSA Rreports on incidents and accidents (about 6000 a
year), reviews and meetings with IM, RU and the
Ministry about twice a year
Sweden Specific department dedicated to managing rules
NSA supervises safety and monitors the market to
ensure it is competition-neutral and non-discriminatory
Alignment of the national rules with EU Directives and TSI
6.3.12 All the states specifically mentioned the need to align national rules with EU
Directives and Technical Specifications for Interoperability. Denmark
suggested that it is most frequent reason for amendment. The process for
amendment in these cases followed the normal practice for national safety rules
in the state in question.
Reviews and updates to rules
6.3.13 Respondents were pragmatic about updates. Competent bodies said that in
practice it was incidents and events that precipitated updates. Italy mentioned
91
technical progress (in signalling or vehicle dynamics, for example) triggering
reviews but none mentioned research into human factors causing a review of
rules. (See proposal in paragraph 7.2.9).
Stakeholder involvement
6.3.14 The Netherlands mentioned the contribution of national expert bodies. France
mentioned discussions in UIC bodies and the contribution of national safety
bodies. Italy mentioned consulting trades unions, Sweden mentioned involving
academics. In Belgium, the Safety Consultation Platform has a considerable
role in consultation on the rules; in Ireland, the Irish Rail Chief Safety and
Security Officer is part of the process.
6.4 Comment: How national safety rules are established in national legislation
Division of responsibilities
6.4.1 In Italy and in France rules made by the infrastructure manager only applied to
his infrastructure. In practice, in France all public infrastructure belongs to RFF
and in Italy the non-RFI infrastructure is very limited however, if there is a need
to make rules legally enforceable, then surely those rules should then apply to
all infrastructure. Clearly the rules would need to be structured so that there are
appropriate rules for particular types of infrastructure.
6.4.2 Where there are no indirect national safety rules, the infrastructure manager
tends enforce his own safety standards through access conditions in his
network statement and access contracts.
Development of the national safety rules
6.4.3 A distinction needs to be made between consultation on major policy initiatives

or substantial pieces of legislation and amendments (perhaps as the result of
feedback). Stakeholders were much less satisfied with the consultation on
amendments.
6.4.4 Consultation of parties outside the state in question was effectively non-
existent. This is of most significance for railway undertakings with the potential
to operate services across frontiers and likewise for equipment manufacturers
and maintenance contractors. (See proposal in paragraph 7.2.7).
92
6.4.5 It would seem desirable that the process of consultation is as transparent as
possible, this implies having a public policy and that all parties having an
interest should be able to take part. (See proposals in paragraphs 7.2.1 and
7.2.2).
6.4.6 It seems likewise desirable (following the practices of the Nordic states) that the
consultation document is itself a public document, made available on the
Internet. (See proposal in paragraph 7.2.5).
6.4.7 Consultation should reflect the circumstances of the stakeholders, it is desirable

that special provisions are made for smaller undertakings. (See proposal in
paragraph 7.2.5).
93
6.5 Analysis: The way in which rules are published
6.5.1 National constitution practices clearly dictate the arrangements for publication,
the means and the body responsible. Responsibility for publication, however, is
sometimes with a constitutional body, for example, the state‟s chief legal officer
but sometimes it stays with the sponsoring ministry.
6.5.2 Table 6.3 below shows the body responsible for publishing the rules.
Table 6.3 – Responsibility for publication
Responsibility for Responsibility for

publishing direct rules publishing indirect rules
Belgium Ministry IM
Denmark Ministry and NRA NSA
Estonia CB Not applicable
France CB IM
Ireland CB Not applicable
Italy Ministry IM
Netherlands Ministry Not applicable
Norway Ministry and NSA Not applicable
Sweden NSA and Ministries Not applicable
Key: Ministry = Ministry of Transport, CB = constitutional body, for details see

section 5, NSA = national safety authority, IM = infrastructure manager.
6.5.3 In all cases direct safety national safety rules are formally published in the
official journal as the formal, legal, record. In every case they are in all the
national language(s) except that in Norway they are only in Bokmål and in
Belgium they are not in German.
6.5.4 It is clear however that national governments and safety authorities expect
publication on the Internet to be the prime means of access to the rules. The
comment of the Estonian official journal office is symptomatic “As of January 1,
2007, the eRT will become the primary official publication, with only five copies
94
printed on paper. Since the creation of the eRT the number of subscriptions of
the printed version of Riigi Teataja has decreased by an average of 20% per
annum, while the number of sessions the eRT has been accessed has
increased 2 to 3 times.”
6.5.5 In every state the national safety rules are published on the Internet (with two
exceptions: see below). In other states, hard copy is still published (as statutes)
and still represents the formal, official source of law but in practical terms it has
been supplanted. The two exceptions, Ireland and Italy, did not have old laws
on their websites. Ireland‟s website only contains legislation since
independence in 1922, the national safety rules enacted before 1922 (and
almost all in fact are Nineteenth Century) are not therefore available on an
electronic medium nor is their existence mentioned. Furthermore, whilst the
legislation is published as hard copy, stakeholders have to be aware it exists to
be able to ask for it. Stakeholders believed however that safety rules that are
more than eighty years old have lost any practical relevance. In Italy‟s case,
some law before 1998 is not on the website; however, the fact that there is
relevant law is indicated by the title and date of the law being given on the RFI
website.
6.5.6 Table 6.4 below shows the means of publishing the rules.
Table 6.4 – Means of publication
Website for direct rules Website for indirect rules
Belgium Ministry IM
Denmark NSA link to CB NSA
Estonia Ministry link to CB Not applicable
France NSA link to CB NSA
Ireland CB Not applicable
Italy IM IM
Netherlands NSA Not applicable
Norway Ministry and NSA link to Not applicable
CB
Sweden NSA Not applicable
Key: Ministry = Ministry of Transport, CB = constitutional body, for details see
section 5, NSA = national safety authority, IM = infrastructure manager.
95
6.5.7 In every case the safety rules were shown as “law” or “legislation” or
“regulations”. They were not shown under the heading “safety rules”.
96
6.5.8 Table 6.5 below shows how and where the rules are to be found.
Table 6.5 – How and where the rules are to be found
How the rules are shown
Belgium On the ministry site under “law”

Denmark On the NSA site under “law”
Estonia On the ministry site under “law”
France On the NSA site under “law”
Ireland On the Statutes site
Italy On the IM site under “regulations”
Netherlands On the NSA site under “law”
Norway On the ministry and the NSA site under
“law” with links to www.lovdata.no
Sweden On the NSA site under “law”
6.5.9 In so far as publication is by a constitutional department of state, management

of the publication process is out of the hands of bodies with a responsibility for
railway safety. Once the legislation is passed, only in Belgium, the
Netherlands, Norway and Sweden do the sponsoring ministries have a role in
preparing the text for the official journal. Appropriate procedures are adopted to
check the text for accuracy.
6.5.10 Arriva Trein in the Netherlands and Edelaraudtee in Estonia said that rule
changes could come as a surprise, they only found out about them after
implementation. This is clearly unacceptable. (See proposal in paragraph
7.2.15).
6.6 Comment: The way in which rules are published
6.6.1 Different constitutional arrangements make it unavoidable that law and quasi-
legal material is published in different places in different states. Clearly it would
be inappropriate to call arrangements for the publication of national law into
question. Nevertheless, it might be thought desirable to have uniform
97
arrangements for a place to start, particularly to assist new entrants. The
website of the national safety authority is the most logical place for new entrants
to look for safety rules. It might be appropriate therefore for the all the websites
of the national safety authorities to have links or cross references to the
locations where the national rules are to be found (this is already the case in the
majority of states surveyed). The consultants are under no illusions about the
difficulty of keeping links up to date and, for this reason, a text reference in
generic terms would be a perfectly adequate substitute for a link as such. (See
proposal in paragraph 7.2.14).
Criteria for effective publication
6.6.2 It might be thought that there are criteria for presentation and publication, these
might include, promptness, accuracy, appropriate packaging or targeting,
internally consistent formats (admitting that the format is likely to be fixed by
national constitutional standards) consistent terminology and perhaps being
free of charge. We propose that guidelines for the presentation and publication
of national rules are prepared by the European Railway Agency for bodies
involved with their publication. Appreciating that publication may be a function
of local constitutional arrangements, it may be that in some cases the guideline
can only apply to presentation. (See proposal in paragraph 7.2.11).
Publication by electronic means
6.6.3 A number of countries publish legislation (normally all legislation) on the

Internet, where it is available for download by those with an interest. The
responsibility for putting legislation on the Internet is the responsibility of a
constitutional arm of government and it does not therefore fall to transport
ministries (or national safety authorities). Likewise the constitutional
department is responsible for the accuracy of the website and for keeping it up
to date. States adopting this procedure, however, appeared to have well-oiled
procedures and the consultants noted that legislation in Ireland, for example,
was effectively being put on the Internet currently.
98
The way that material is shown
6.6.4 In the case of Internet access, it makes a great deal of sense to categorise
material and allow access through menu choices (rather than, for example,
show laws in chronological order). The seven part structure adopted in Annex II
of the Railway Safety Directive would provide an excellent framework. This
may of course be more difficult if legislators have added a provision on safety to
the end of a bill that is only tangentially related (a not-unknown practice). (See
Consolidated documents
6.6.5 Consolidated documents are documents which are continuously updated so

that a ready-to-use document is always available. It means that the task of
making amendments to texts is centralised (in Ministries and NSA). Electronic
documentation allows for consolidated documents to be produced and
distributed easily. Only one respondent in fact mentioned the production of
consolidated documentation but it is clear that documentation including both the
rules themselves and any guidelines and explanatory material should be
consolidated where possible. This of course imposes a discipline on regulatory
bodies to update material and reference it appropriately so that users can be
clear on its status. (See proposal in paragraph 7.2.12).
6.7 Analysis: The way in which rules are made available
6.7.1 The Danish, Estonian and Italian Ministries of Transport and the French NSA
said to the consultants that they regarded publication by electronic means as
fully satisfying the criteria of Article 8(1) of the Safety Directive for publication.
They made the point that in the countries concerned, the fact that legislation
was on the Internet was well-known to stakeholders and that by definition the
information was available to all, free of charge, and without discrimination.
They said there is no need in these circumstances to mount surveys of
effectiveness or to advertise the material. The question of whether the
legislation is up to date, clear, user-friendly and targeted is, of course, quite
different.
99
6.7.2 Only Denmark mentioned a system to monitor access. Sweden however Comment [ERA30]: NRA comment:
Participation in “Best på nettet”.
mentioned monitoring the use made of the website.
6.7.3 In this and subsequent sections, tables of stakeholder comments are provided.
For reasons of space, only a sample of the comments is included. The
comments are not intended to be exhaustive (and do not include infrastructure
manager opinion, for example). They are, however, intended to be
representative.
6.7.4 Table 6.6 below shows a set of quotes on stakeholders‟ views on ease of
access. The comments suggest that with the exception of the Netherlands,
there are no problems with access to the safety rules in the eyes of railway
undertakings. The timescale for access (access via the Internet) was also
judged to be satisfactory.
6.7.5 Respondents thought the information on websites was up to date with the
exception of an Italian railway undertaking which said rules appear up to twenty
days after they have become valid. In their examination of websites, however, Comment [ERA31]: Italian NSA
commented that it seems to be impossible,
the consultants noted that in Estonia some of the links on the ministry website considering that the rules are issued and
published on time to give to the railway
pointed to out of date legislation. It is an unfortunate fact that whilst the Internet undertakings the time to assist and give
training to their staff to acknowledge the
is a first class way of disseminating information, it is also very difficult to ensure new rule.
all links function perfectly.
6.7.6 The absence of a search engine on the RFI (Italian infrastructure manager)
website was mentioned by one stakeholder. Other bodies without a search
function include the Danish and French NSAs. Comment [ERA32]: NRA comment:
“The Danish NRA now has a search
engine on its website for law see
5.3.16.”
100
6.7.7 Table 6.6 below shows a set of quotes on stakeholders‟ views on ease of
access.
Table 6.6 – Railway undertakings’ comments on ease of access
Railway undertakings’ comments on ease of access
Belgium In Belgium the publication is organised

The accessibility to the information is satisfactory; In
Denmark
general very easy; in 2000 it was difficult
It was easy to access the national safety rules; Easy
Estonia
100% access; Very easy
France Very logical*
Ireland Not relevant – familiar from every day work
Italy It is very easy to access; Very easy; Easy
In NL the quality and comprehensiveness of the
Netherlands information is low; Publicly available information is weak
(x4);
Norway Unproblematic
Sweden Easy access; Easy access
Key: * Consultant’s view.
6.7.8 With the exception of Italy and France (where the indirect rules only apply to
state infrastructure), the Consultants did not identify any rules which applied
only to specific infrastructure, although of course, large numbers of rules
applied to particular topics, including particular types of infrastructure
(electrified, single lines, etc). Likewise rules applied to particular types of
signalling and communications systems, rolling stock, etc. All or these were
judged by stakeholders to be easy to access (with the exception of one state).
6.7.9 Appendix E shows details of the information on the various national websites.
In all but two states (Ireland and Italy – see paragraph 6.4.3), all the national
safety rules were to be found, on the Internet, in most cases quite easily. Hard
copy national safety rules are also available in all cases, in most cases from the
101
national official journal office. Indirect rules however were provided by the
infrastructure manager in Belgium and Italy.
6.7.10 Publication by electronic means offers the opportunity of electronic systems for
electronic dissemination and automatic systems to advise stakeholders of
proposed and actual changes. Respondents in Belgium spoke highly of the
system of e-mailing stakeholders to give them an opportunity to comment and
then prior notice of implementation. Otherwise little use was made of electronic
techniques to consult and update.
6.7.11 Railway undertakings in Estonia and the Netherlands said that new and
amended rules were not adequately notified, new and amended rules could
simply appear.
6.7.12 Prorail (the Dutch infrastructure manager) made the comment that in fact the
most likely interface that railway undertakings and other stakeholders would
have with the rule structure would be through the infrastructure manager. It
was unlikely (in Prorail‟s view) that stakeholders would look for national safety
rules on governmental or NSA websites directly, rather stakeholders would ask
the infrastructure manager.
6.8 Comment: The way in which the rules are made available
Meeting the criterion to make the rules available
6.8.1 Stakeholders judged Denmark and the Netherlands not to make their national
safety rules easily available whilst others such as France, were models of
accessibility and clarity.
New entrants
6.8.2 Article 10 of the Safety Directive sets down the requirements for a railway
undertaking to be awarded a safety certificate. A precondition is having a
safety management system and documentation on how the national safety rules
are respected. It is clear therefore that new entrants require a full
understanding of national safety rules before being even able to apply for
certification. Smaller and new operators in the study had specialist safety
managers (in some cases consultants) and it appeared that engaging specialist
102
skills was not a limitation on their operations. Nevertheless, smaller
undertakings very often found it difficult to play a full part in the consultative
process because of limited resources to comment. Since the problem is one of
size, a solution may come from trade association representation although there
are few states in which the number of new entrants is large enough to justify a
trade association. An appropriate way to address this issue may be by
requiring ministries and national safety authorities to make special
arrangements for the characteristics of smaller organisations.
Established railway undertakings
6.8.3 Established railway undertakings had less need of the support structure to get
access to the rules. This is both because they have higher staffing levels and
can afford their own specialists. In the particular case of the incumbents, the
national rules in many cases were previously company rules and the staff can
be expected to be familiar with them.
Other stakeholders
6.8.4 Other stakeholders (such as manufacturers and lessors of equipment together

with maintenance contractors) need knowledge of the national rules and the
opportunity to comment on new and amended rules. Only the French ministry
specifically stated that these third parties are consulted. It is clear they should
be.
Representatives of employees
6.8.5 Very few ministries, national safety authorities or infrastructure managers

specifically stated that representatives of employees are consulted (Ireland and
Italy were the exceptions). It may be that given the importance of industrial
relations, representatives of employees are consulted but the process does not
appear to be formalised. It is clear that it should be.
Response criteria
6.8.6 Democratic accountability requires public bodies to respect standards for

service in terms of response time or response quality. No ministry or NSA
mentioned public service targets as such (although there was mention of the
103
requirement for equitable treatment in public life). There is perhaps a tendency
for national safety authorities and governments to hide behind the fact that rules
are available on the Internet and that stakeholders can ask if they want help.
Although railway undertakings were largely happy with the help provided, it
does seem desirable that providers of advice and help do satisfy standards.
Only Denmark and Sweden mention further surveys of stakeholder activity. It is
clear that something more is desirable (see proposal in paragraph 7.2.16).
6.8.7 This feeds logically into the process by which the regulatory bodies themselves
improve the whole safety rule process. A formal process of continuous
improvement is clearly desirable (See proposal in paragraph 7.2.21).
6.9 Analysis: Ease of understanding the rules
Languages
6.9.1 Table 6.7 below shows the languages in which the national safety rules are
published. In every case they are in the national language(s) except that in
Norway they are only in Bokmål and in Belgium they are not in German. The
language combinations are the same for the printed and Internet versions.
Norway provides a partial and unofficial translation into English and Swedish.
104
6.9.2 Table 6.7 below shows the languages in which the national safety rules are
published.
Table 6.7 – Languages in which the rules are available
Languages in which the rules are available
Belgium Dutch, French

Denmark Danish
Estonia Estonian
France French
Ireland English
Italy Italian
Netherlands Dutch
Norway Norwegian (Bokmål) partial unofficial translation into
English and Swedish
Sweden Swedish, English for acts and ordinances, Swedish
for regulations, with overview in English
6.9.3 The Belgian NSA provides support in English and the Estonian NSA provides
support in Russian; these were the only NSAs to provide support in any
language but the national language(s). The Danish NSA said it could
“generally” provide support in English.
6.9.4 Table 6.8 below shows the support material which the national safety
authorities said that they made available. Guidelines are available from almost
all states (see below for stakeholders‟ comments on their quality). Denmark
even offered to provide a translation if required (but it was not clear if it would
be free of charge). Six national safety authorities (see table 6.8) also said they
provided technical advice, meetings, etc. Only Italy said that no technical
advice is provided (but see paragraph 6.9.10 below).
6.9.5 Table 6.8 below shows the support material which the national safety
authorities say that they made available.
105
Table 6.8 – Supporting material which NSAs say they make available
Guidelines Other support and nature
Belgium Yes, for safety certificate Help desk, technical advice

Denmark Yes, translation possible Technical advice (oral
advice in English)
Estonia Yes, for safety Seminars, technical advice
management system
France Guide for applicants
Ireland Guidelines on safety cases, Technical advice
rolling stock, etc
Italy Short guideline (see para. 6.9.10)
Netherlands (see para. 6.9.10)
Norway Guidelines Working groups, meetings
Sweden Guide for applicants, Meetings
handbook

authorisation
6.9.6 The consensus of stakeholder views of on how helpful the national rules are in
supporting applications for safety certification is perhaps the key issue of the
study.
6.9.7 Users themselves are best able to define “user-friendly”. Table 6.9 below
indicates railway undertakings‟ views on how user-friendly they found the rules.
With the exception of the Netherlands, where the majority of railway
undertakings found the information unfriendly, the views were positive. The
inability of a railway undertaking to find the French rules is slightly surprising,
the consultants found them quite easy to find.
106
6.9.8 Table 6.9 below shows railway undertakings‟ views on how user-friendly they
found the rules.
Table 6.9 – Railway undertakings’ comments on user-friendliness
Railway undertakings’ comments
Belgium User friendly;

The declarations are of fluctuating quality; OK; it was
Denmark
easily accessible; not difficult
The system is user friendly; It is easy to find the
Estonia
necessary rules; It is user-friendly
France No document is available on the website
No problems - in part because they have become
Ireland
custom and practice
Italy Good; Very user-friendly; User-friendly for expert
Netherlands Reasonable; Not user-friendly at all (x4)
Norway Okay, user friendly
Sweden Fine; Okay; very good
107
6.9.9 Table 6.10 below covers railway undertakings comments on the ease of
understanding for the purpose of applying for safety certificates, again, overall
the image is positive:
Table 6.10 – Railway undertakings comments on ease of understanding
Stakeholders comments
Belgium Rather good;

Nothing wrong with the language but sometimes the
Denmark sentences could be understood in multiple ways;
information on too high a level
Sometimes some terms are not easy to understand;
Estonia
Clear enough, Easy to understand
France Well presented, clear and comprehensible*
No problems - in part because they have become
Ireland
custom and practice
Italy Easy to understand.; Very clear; Clear
Rather good; Rather good; Not easy to understand;
Netherlands
Rather good
Some ups and downs, not always easy to understand
Norway
the specific requirements in detail
Sweden Easily understandable, fine; insight into implementation
Key: * Consultant’s view.
6.9.10 As indicated above, seven national safety authorities say they provide guides
for potential applicants for safety certificates. It is interesting that railway
undertakings acknowledged technical advice in the Netherlands and training
courses in Italy, neither of which was mentioned by the national safety authority.
It is significant too that the larger railway undertakings have not always wanted
technical advice, having those skills in-house. Railway undertakings in the
Netherlands and Denmark (and not just the smaller undertakings) mentioned
the use of consultants. All in all, however, the picture is one of advice being
made available. Whether it is also helpful is the subject of the next section.
108
6.9.11 Table 6.11 below covers railway undertakings comments on the provision of
advice, support and training.
Table 6.11 – Railway undertakings’ comments on provision of advice,

support and training
Belgium Technical advice from NSA

Personal advice was available from the National Rail
Denmark
Authority; None
The Technical Surveillance Authority has undertaken
training and seminars on new issues in legislation
(safety management system, etc). This training could
Estonia
have been more thorough in terms of content; Provide
all kinds of help needed; The national safety authority
does offer technical advice and organise training.
France No valid responses
Guidelines set down on the RSC website which are
Ireland clear and helpful. Support tends to be the product of
discussion. No training provided.
For the most important rules training courses are
Italy carried out; Not needed, with the exception of a
simulator.
Netherlands Technical advice from NSA (x4)
Assistance from Norwegian Railway Inspectorate; A
contact person has been made available in Norway,
Norway
No technical advice. We have our own technical
advisors.
Sweden Assistance from Swedish Rail Agency
109
6.9.12 Advice needs to be helpful as well as merely available. This area is possibly
the one where there is more difference of opinion than anywhere else in the
study. This may arise from the nature of the various problems of course.
6.9.13 Table 6.11 below shows railway undertakings comments on the help received
from the NSA.
Table 6.12 – Railway undertakings’ comments on help received from NSA
Belgium Reasonable. In Dutch, French, English (no problem)

The Rail Agency is very helpful when contacts are
taken to them, so are there any problems a telephone
Denmark
call can normally settle this; Good and helpful
personnel; not very much help in Denmark
It depends on who you talk to at the Technical
Surveillance Authority; national safety authority – very
Estonia helpful and cooperative. They provide help in the
official language – in Estonian; They do work together
with the national safety authority.
France No valid responses
Close professional relationship with the RSC, initiatives
Ireland
taken as necessary.
Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Manager
performs the NSA functions and in some case relation
was particularly difficult. Italian languages; Some
Italy
problem when extension certificate are asked; NSA
staff is not enough for all activities. Official languages Comment [ERA33]: Italian NSA
is Italian highlighted this information as not exact.
Reasonable. Only in Dutch (no problem); Reasonable;

Netherlands
NSA has not been very helpful; Reasonable
Norway We receive the help we need
Good and helpful personnel; Swedes much better than
Sweden
Denmark
6.9.14 Respondents did not distinguish marked differences between the various types
of rule (Annex II) in their appraisal of the usefulness of the published rules.
6.9.15 Infrastructure managers all found access to the rules easy and found them clear
and comprehensible. Existing infrastructure managers will of course have
grown up with the national rules and the question of familiarity with them should
not arise.
110
6.9.16 Infrastructure managers also have a legitimate interest in the national safety
rules of adjoining states for the purpose of harmonising and rationalising rules
(particularly for cross frontier sections). It might reasonably be assumed that
their experiences in attempting to access the rules of other states will be similar
to those of railway undertakings. Only the Danish infrastructure manager
however mentioned having an interest in the rules of another state (on the
Øresund route).
6.10 Comment: Ease of understanding the rules
Languages
6.10.1 It was not common to find either direct or indirect safety rules published in
languages other that that/those of the state in question. Only Belgium, Norway
and Sweden published material in an external language (English in every case).
No respondent saw that as a problem in providing access to the market.
Respondents took the view that to be a credible stakeholder, linguistic
competence was essential. Paradoxically, the exception to this was in Estonia
(which already has many standards in Russian) and where railway undertakings
wanted further material in Russian for the benefit of Russian speaking staff.
This was compounded by the perceived lack of satisfactory terminology in
Estonian. It might be surmised that this is only a transitional issue, as
terminology becomes available and as staff skills are developed, this issue will
be resolved. (See proposal in paragraph 7.2.17).
Support from the national safety authority
6.10.2 In Italy, perhaps significantly undergoing reorganisation, one stakeholder

expressed concern over staffing levels. It is clear that safety levels are to be
maintained and if new entrants are to be encouraged, appropriate support must
be offered. In Denmark NSA staffing levels were revised to take account of the
workload. In these two cases it might be to premature to suggest that the long
term staffing levels are inadequate; however, this is an issue that will need to be
kept under review.
111
Availability of assistance
6.10.3 There was clearly a willingness of the part of the national safety authorities to
provide help and it was likewise clear that help would be tailored to the problem.
In this way, new entrants to the market will get appropriate levels of help. (See
Charges made for assistance
6.10.4 National safety authorities are the principal bodies to whom stakeholders look
for assistance. No national safety authority actually charged for assistance
(although the RSC in Ireland said that it was about to get powers to do so).
Many railway undertakings pointed out, however, that there was a charge for
the safety certification process and it was only reasonable to expect some help.
It is outside the scope of this study to propose whether it is appropriate to
charge and even more to suggest charging models.
6.11 Analysis: Comprehensiveness of the content of national safety rule

notifications published and made available in the selected countries:
6.11.1 All the competent ministries and Safety Bodies said that the national safety
rules had been published in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Railway Safety
Directive in their respective country. Checks made by the Consultants
confirmed that the rules were published in all cases on paper and in the vast
majority of cases also on websites. The national rules as published are largely
up to date (see paragraph 6.7.5 for exceptions). Indeed during the course of
the study new legislation was published promptly (in Ireland). Where
appropriate, the rules had annexes, glossaries, and tables. The comparison of
notification to publication on the websites was limited to those national rules in
the notifications listed in paragraph 2.4.
6.11.2 In Denmark, Estonia and France the process of updating the law has moved on
and the law in the state in question has been amended. Some states (amongst
them Ireland, and Estonia and Norway) are known to have updated their
notifications or be in the process of so doing. This may be true of other states.
112
6.11.3 Only one case of a rule seeming to be in force at the time of a notification but
not nevertheless being notified could be discovered: a French rule on level
crossings.
6.12 Comment: Comprehensiveness of the content of notifications on national

safety rules published and made available in the selected countries
6.12.1 The rules are available (with a few exceptions) on the Internet.
6.12.2 The publication process however, keeps well ahead of the notification process
and so a number of national safety rules (for example, in Denmark and France)
have not been notified a year after enactment). The delay in notifying laws
passed in 2006 (Denmark and France) does seem considerable. As an
indication of potential volatility, of the eighteen rules shown on the Belgian
ministry website, no less than fifteen are dated after the last notification.
6.13 Analysis: General issues
International services
6.13.1 International operations are starting to become more significant and it would be
valuable to study how international railway undertakings address national safety
rules. There are two models, the one largely adopted by unions of incumbent
railways and the model of smaller undertakings projecting services across
frontiers.
6.13.2 The larger international operations, such as Eurostar or Thalys, in practice are
not international organisations but a commercial and operational grouping of
national organisations linked by contract to provide international services.
Operations are carried out under the safety certification of the national partner
in each state. Thus, a train crew employed by the Belgian partner operates
through France and into the United Kingdom under the safety authorisations
held by their French and British partners. The operating instructions and
technical arrangements (conditioned by the national rules) are issued by the
partner in question. The international organisation, Eurostar, Thalys (and,
presumably Lyria, Elipsos, etc) has no responsibility it self for railway safety,
that responsibility and all the issues that go with it are in the hands of the
parent.
113
6.13.3 Eurostar is slightly different in that it has no British parent and so safety issues
in Great Britain are under the direct control of Eurostar (UK) Ltd. Eurostar
explained that under their “Dijon Agreement”, each partner was responsible for
safety issues in its own state. In this way, the British, French and Belgian
safety manager each liaised with his own national safety authorities and
prepared a set of operating principles for application in his own state. As
appropriate, technical managers likewise prepared technical standards for their
own states. These national regulations are then circulated to the other partners
for translation and implementation. Translations are checked to ensure that
nothing is overlooked. However, the only interface between the competent
authorities and the railway undertaking on national rules is between the
appropriate national representative and the competent authorities of his state.
6.13.4 Eurostar said this system worked well although it is crucially dependent on
individuals being able to act on behalf of all three states (albeit for a highly
standardised operation).
6.13.5 By contrast, smaller companies actually organise their operations in an

international manner. A single manager is responsible for safety in all the
states in which the company operates and as such has to be familiar with the
national rules. DSB First, in exactly this situation, said the safety authorities
(Denmark and Sweden) do not harmonise the rules sufficiently across borders.
6.13.6 Where a need was perceived to consult railways in adjoining states on rules
issues (this was only mentioned in the case of Ireland), the consultation went
via the national governments rather than direct. Comment [ERA34]: Irish NSA advised
ERA that this should be checked with
Department of Transport: there is close
6.14 Comment: General issues liaison between Department of Regional
Development (Northern Ireland) and Irish
Department of Transport.
Personal relationships
6.14.1 The logic of the EU railway safety initiatives is to create transparent systems,
inevitably involving formal processes. Nevertheless some respondents
mentioned the systems as not relying on formality but instead working well
because of good personal relationships. Given that expertise in railway safety
is limited, it is perhaps inevitable that those involved in the process will set up
114
personal relationships but there is a clear risk that a lack of formality could also
mean a lack of rigour and a risk of discrimination.
115
7. PROPOSALS
7.1.1 This section lists the proposals, both general and specific.
7.2 Proposals
How the rules are established
7.2.1 The process of the consultation of the stakeholders by the competent bodies on
the establishment and amendment of rules was frequently less formal than
might be expected. For example, some ministries and national safety
authorities had no standing list of consultees. We propose that states should
have a standard list of consultees and that it should be a public document. We
also propose that stakeholders should have a right to ask to be included on the
list. Where infrastructure managers make indirect rules, then clearly this
proposal would also apply to them. This right of inclusion would also and
particularly apply to potential consultees from other states.
7.2.2 Consultation is not just a formal process required to comply with Article 17 of
the Safety Directive, it is also essential to ensure rules are as effective as
possible, are in fact applicable and not least to get “buy-in” from stakeholders.
With this in mind, the process of consultation needs to be reviewed to ensure
stakeholders can and do contribute. At the very least, Member States should
produce and publish a consultation policy. We propose that national safety
authorities (as agents of ministries and on their own behalf) should draw up and
publish a policy on consultation of stakeholders. As appropriate, these policies
might be discussed at an international level and “best practice” agreed.
7.2.3 Where the railway community is diverse with an infrastructure manager and a
number of railway undertakings, the process of consultation needs to be more
considered. Amongst the measures to improve consultation are more use of
seminars and meetings to explain issues and the background, explore potential
solutions, and to get a measure of agreement on the way forward. This is
preferable to a mere e-mail asking for comments. We therefore propose that
bodies charged with the development of national rules hold seminars to discuss
the development of the rules. We propose that states set up a “safety forum”,
116
to include all stakeholders for this purpose. In holding meetings a balance must
be struck between involvement and use of time, as appropriate, the safety
forum can be “virtual” for some issues.
7.2.4 In the particular case of railway undertakings operating under non-standard

operating conditions, the role of the infrastructure manager as an agent for
consulting on, establishing and publishing national safety rules needs to be
carefully considered. We propose therefore that national ministries of transport
be required to consider the machinery for national safety rules for non-standard
operations, such as light and industrial railways. We propose ministries are
required to report on how the requirements of the Safety Directive are met for
railway operations other than using the infrastructure of the principal national
infrastructure manager.
7.2.5 We propose that ministries and national safety authorities should take account
of the particular problems faced by smaller railway undertakings in finding the
resources to make a full contribution. To help smaller undertakings, ministries
and national safety authorities might do more to “pre-digest” consultation, for
example by providing analyses of the implications of various options and
providing simplified means of expressing preferences. In particular, making
draft rules available on a web site for comment can be considered as good
practice. We propose that draft rules are made available for consultation on
the Internet.
7.2.6 Some railway undertakings, consulted on draft legislation, felt that their input
was not treated seriously. Consideration should therefore be given to involving
railway undertakings and infrastructure managers at an earlier stage in the
preparation of rules. It might be desirable to hold meetings to discuss
proposals before they became draft legislation. No only would that allow fuller
participation, it would also get “buy-in” from stakeholders, they would be more
committed to the success of the rules. We propose that consultation on the
development of rules takes place as early as possible and preferably before
rules become draft legislation.
7.2.7 Article 17(1) of the Safety Directive requires the safety authority to “consult all
persons involved and interested parties, including infrastructure managers,
railway undertakings, manufacturers and maintenance providers, users and
117
staff representatives”. “All persons involved” is a wide definition and would
appear to include railway undertakings from other states with potential
operations in the state in question, wagon keeers, maintenance contractors with
potential operations in the state in question and manufacturers with potential
sales in the state in question. No state in fact included any of those groups, but
rather only those with actual activities in the state. A line clearly needs to be
drawn between including new entrants with the realistic prospect and potential
for revitalising domestic rail activities and making the process unmanageable.
We propose therefore that in creating their standard list of consultees (see
above) safety authorities write to the railway undertakings, maintenance
providers and relevant manufacturers in adjoining states, or those with a history
of involvement (e.g. as suppliers), as well as representative manufacturers
trade associations, and ask them if they wish to be included. This does not
imply changing or extending the language(s) of consultation.
7.2.8 Article 17(1) of the Safety Directive requires the safety authority to consult
manufacturers in developing the national regulatory framework. There was no
evidence of this happening in any state. The logic of this consultation is to
ensure manufacturers can provide constructive input on the impact of proposed
rules on equipment and particularly rolling stock. There is something of a
problem in just consulting traditional manufacturers or manufacturers in the
state in question. We propose therefore that safety authorities involve an
appropriate manufacturers‟ trade association in discharging this obligation.
7.2.9 We propose that systems be set up to require national safety rules to be

reviewed to take account of technical progress, research and new
developments in particular in signalling and train control, communications,
vehicle dynamics, human psychology, and similar fields. Given that these
developments affect all the states in the Community, it might be appropriate for
the ERA to take the lead in providing input to national safety authorities to help
them do that.
How the rules are monitored
7.2.10 Whilst it seems that the principal reason for the national safety rules to require
amendment is to accommodate EU legislation, nevertheless amendments at a
national level are still required. We propose that ministries and national safety
118
authorities be required to set up a regime for monitoring and reviewing their
national rules, perhaps at an annual frequency.
7.2.11 Further criteria for presentation and publication might include: promptness,
accuracy, appropriate packaging or targeting, internally consistent formats
(admitting that the format is likely to be fixed by national constitutional
standards) consistent terminology and perhaps being free of charge. We
propose that guidelines for the presentation and publication of national rules
are prepared by the European Railway Agency for bodies involved with their
publication. Appreciating that publication may be a function of local
constitutional arrangements, it may be that in some cases these guidelines can
only apply to presentation.
7.2.12 Bodies charged with the publication of rules already make full use of electronic
publication. It is not however the case that they also make full use of the
possibilities that electronic publication allows. We propose therefore that the
national safety authority sets up systems for the automatic advice of
consultation, amendments to the rules, production of consolidated documents,
etc. to registered users. The consultants appreciate that the national safety
authorities are not always the bodies formally charged with publication of rules.
7.2.13 We propose that where material is published on the Internet, steps be taken to
order the material and make it available in a logical structure to facilitate the
task of enquirers. The framework of Annex II to the Railway Safety Directive
might provide a sensible basis.
7.2.14 The website of the national safety authority is the most logical place for new
entrants to look for safety rules. We propose therefore that every national
safety authority has a list of the national safety rules on its website. We
propose that this list has links or cross references to the locations where the
national rules are to be found. The consultants are under no illusions about the
difficulty of keeping links up to date and for this reason, a text reference in
generic terms would be a perfectly adequate substitute for a link as such.
119
7.2.15 There was criticism of changes to rules being unannounced. We propose
therefore that the “owners” of the national rule in question are obliged to give
specific notice of its coming into operation, perhaps by requiring a month‟s
notice to be given to the stakeholders on the list of stakeholders. Presuming
that stakeholders read official journals is not enough. This should not, of
course, preclude the introduction of a new rule at short notice for imperative
safety reasons.
7.2.16 We propose that providers of assistance (whether national safety authorities or

infrastructure managers) be required to mount customer satisfaction surveys of
the advice they provide, dealing with such issues as promptness of resolution,
relevance, usefulness and completeness of the reply and overall satisfaction. A
number of independent providers offer this type of survey. Depending on its
intensity, it need not be expensive. Clearly any such action must fit within
national systems for public service standards.
7.2.17 There was little support for rules to be published in languages other than those
actually used on the railway system in question (i.e. including multiple
languages in the states with more than one official language, and Russian in
the case of Estonia), only in the case of Norway was any pressure for further
translation into other languages reported. We cannot therefore propose any
general adoption of the principle of translation of the detailed rules into an
“international” language (i.e. English). At the same time, to the extent that
indirect rules make use of pre-existing international documents (such as
documents produced by standards bodies and the UIC), some indirect rules
may already be available in other languages. It would be good practice to “flag-
up” the availability of parts of indirect rules in other languages; we propose
therefore that the availability of documents in other languages is shown on the
website by a formula such as “this document may also be available in other
languages, for full details contact the publisher”.
7.2.18 Only a few organisations had a help desk actually distinguished as such.
Bodies with a responsibility for rules all in fact did provide help but the initial
contact point was not always clear. We propose therefore that all the bodies
with a responsibility for rules (ministries, national safety authorities and, where
120
appropriate, infrastructure managers), identify a point to access help and show
its detail in printed matter and on the Internet. This proposal does not require
staffing, merely designation of how to go about getting help. As appropriate,
the help point might be in another organisation (for example the national safety
authority). Likewise, the practice of making a nominated individual responsible
for a particular area is good practice and we propose that national safety
authorities identify who to contact on specific issues.
7.2.19 Guidelines and similar supporting information should be made widely available.
Given that guidance and support by its nature is technical, we propose that
such guidance is concentrated on the NSA website.
7.2.20 The NSA of the state which was best regarded by stakeholders adopted a
process of “continuous improvement”, we propose that all regulatory bodies
follow this principle formally.
121
Appendices – bound separately
Appendix A Glossary of abbreviations
Appendix B Excerpts from the Safety Directive
Appendix C1 Structured interview questions - government
Appendix C2 Structured interview questions – national safety authorities
Appendix C3 Structured interview questions – infrastructure managers
Appendix C4 Structured interview questions – railway undertakings
Appendix C5 Structured interview questions - other
Appendix D List of bodies interviewed
Appendix E Information available to stakeholders

Report On Publication and Availability of National Safety Rules

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Report On Publication and Availability of National Safety Rules

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Final Report for the

Study of the Publication and Availability of National

(With the comments on Sections 5 and 6

Colin Buchanan and Partners May 2008

Appendix A Glossary of abbreviations

Appendix B Excerpts from the Safety Directive

Appendix C1 Structured interview questions - government

Appendix D List of bodies interviewed

Appendix E Information available to stakeholders

1.1 This report

1.3 The structure of the rule-making process

1.4 Publication of the rules

2.1 This report

1. a detailed description of the methodology;

2. a clear record of all the bodies interviewed, the form of structured

3. the detailed presentation of the results of the information collection

4. the catalogue of material available on the Internet;

5. an analysis of the results and the conclusions drawn with

2.2 Structure of the report

2.2.1 The report is structured into six sections as follows:

1. Management summary Summarises the report.

2. Introduction An introduction to the report.

3. The background The study context, including transport

4. Delivery The work done to achieve the objectives

5. The results State by state analysis of the results,

6. Analysis and conclusions A summary of the material from the

7. Proposals The proposals resulting from the

The appendices, which are bound separately, include further information on

2.3 The remit for the study

2.3.2 The material section is section C2.2.2, which requires:

“The Contractor shall collect information on the following five aspects:

1. How national safety rules are established in the national legislation:

the collection of information from the competent ministry, the

2. The way in which the rules are published:

collection of information from the competent ministry, the

collection of information from the competent ministry, the

to obtain the relevant stakeholders’ views on the availability of

to check the availability of the rules according to the means

4. Ease of understanding the rules:

collection of information on the available languages of the

collection of information from the competent ministry, the

to obtain the stakeholders’ views on the ease of understanding

by comparison between the national safety rules contained in

to obtain the opinions of the competent ministry, and the

2.4 The notifications

Belgium dated 4 July 2006,

2.5 Glossary of terms

2.5.1 A glossary of abbreviations has been included as Appendix A. It includes

2.6 The Consortium

2.6.3 Pegasus Transconsult (PTC) provides a complete range of transportation

2.6.4 DITS: Università di Roma “La Sapienza” - Dipartimento di Idraulica Trasporti e

2.6.5 ECORYS is a European consultancy and research organisation founded by the

2.6.7 NESTEAR is an applied research organisation linked to INRETS (Institut

3.1 Structure of the section

3.2 Transport policy background

3.4 National safety rules

there are binding national safety rules,

that they are published,

that they are available,

that they are in a clear language that can be understood by the

4.1 Structure of the section

4.2 Scope of the work

The structure of the work