NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Railway Guidance Document
RGD-2008-04
ROGS: further guidance on unusual and complex issues
Date of issue/
last review
Date of next review
December 2011
RGD postholder/owner
June 2012
Trevor Kent
RGD cleared by
Caroline Wake, Deputy Director
(Railway Operators)
RGD type
Policy_____________________
Information________________
Procedure_________________
Target audience
RSD_____________________
Policy____________________
RPP_____________________
Inspectors________________
Admin___________________
Keywords
Safety certificate, safety authorisation, operator, infrastructure manager, shunting,
engineering possession, functionally separate, safety verification, competent person
Summary
This RGD provides further guidance to inspectors on issues arising from the interpretation
and application of ROGS (certification, authorisation and safety verification only) in complex
and unusual situations.
Original
consultation
RSD Operations, Legislative Development & Policy Section, Interoperability and Standards
Section, Rail companies team, Legal Team
Subsequent
consultation
(reviews
only)
Page 1 of 6 Doc # 347397.05
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Detail
INTRODUCTION
1. There now exists a substantial body of guidance for the various aspects of ROGS
(see paragraph 3). However since the introduction of the regulations, a range of more
unusual and/or complex issues have arisen in relation to Parts 2 and 3, particularly
concerning interpretation matters. This RGD aims to document the advice given on
these in one place for future convenient reference. It is primarily aimed at Railway
Safety Directorate staff but can be used by other parties in ORR and can also be
provided to outside stakeholders.
2. Because the ROGS regulations implement a European Directive, where there is an
ambiguity they are interpreted so as to give effect to the purpose of the Directive.
Otherwise the normal rules of legislative interpretation apply. If words are defined in
ROGS, HSWA or in the Safety Directive then that is the meaning that they have. If
they are not defined in legislation, then words have their natural meaning. This
guidance is based on those principles.
ROGS GUIDANCE AND MANUALS
3. The main ROGS guidance and manuals can be found at ROGS: Office of Rail
Regulation. Also see:

Guidance on functionally separate

Guidance on sidings

Guide to the application of safety verification: inspector guidance

RGD-2007-04: Railways & Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety)
Regulations 2006 (ROGS): Transfer of Deemed
Certificates/Authorisations

ROGS - Guidance on Safety Critical Work Terms

RGD-2007-09: Railways & Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety)
Regulations 2006 (ROGS): Part 4 Safety Critical Work
CERTIFICATION/AUTHORISATIONWho is the operator?
4. In most situations this will be straightforward. It will be the company which owns
and runs the service. However in some circumstances, contractual arrangements may
split responsibilities between different parties and make this more difficult to
determine. Regulations 3 and 4 require that ‘no person shall operate a train/vehicle in
relation to any infrastructure on a mainline railway/transport system’ without a SC/A.
The question of who is the operator is therefore a factual question: who, on the facts
of the particular case, comes within the meaning of “operator”?
5. Although the actual day to day operation of a train may be undertaken by one
„person‟, it is possible that another person may have responsibilities for the operation
as a whole which may impact on that day to day operation. All the relevant facts need
to be taken into account in determining which of the two is „the operator‟. A key issue
will be to determine under whose overall SMS the operation takes place.
6. In situations where Company A contracts out the operation of the service or part of
the service to Company B, and if it is carried out under Company B‟s SMS then it will
be Company B which needs to have a certificate even if the wider strategic (nonsafety) aspects of the operation (e.g. type of service, routes, timetabling etc.) are
determined by Company A. If, however, Company A contracts in trains or vehicles for
a specific purpose within its wider operations to operate under its own SMS, then it is
Company A which should hold the certificate. The examples given in paras 8 and 9
help illustrate this.
Page 2 of 6
Doc # 347397.05
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
7. However some situations can involve very complex contractual relationships,
especially where franchising responsibilities for a particular service have been
awarded to more than one party, and it may be difficult to determine where overall
safety management responsibility lies. Where such a situation occurs, the account
holder should refer it to the Legislative Development Team, who will consider it with
ORR Legal section, and as appropriate, ORR Licensing & Network Regulation team
and DfT, before coming to a conclusion.
8. Example 1: a quarry operator (Company A) moves stone by rail from its quarry
down a privately owned branch line to a junction with the mainline where another
operator (Company B) is contracted to transport it via the mainline network to various
destinations. ROGS does not apply to railways within quarries, while the ROGS status
of the branch line will depend on a number of factors which may vary from case to
case. However, for the mainline part of the operation it will be Company B which
needs to hold the mainline certificate.
9. Example 2: a mainline operator (Company A) contracts in shunting locomotives
and drivers from Company B to shunt its trains, including shunting movements on the
mainline. The shunting activity as a whole is managed under Company A‟s SMS, but
the actual movements are undertaken by Company B. Company A should therefore
hold the certificate which covers this activity.
Who is the infrastructure manager (IM)?
10. Again this is usually straightforward but contractual relationships can obscure
matters. In terms of „infrastructure other than a station‟, the IM is the person who is
responsible for „developing and maintaining‟ that infrastructure. The term „developing‟
implies something more than the day-to-day running of the infrastructure and that a
strategic responsibility is held for the whole infrastructure. The body or organisation
with this role should therefore hold the authorisation, even if it does not manage dayto-day running.
11. The following example illustrates this: a light railway company independent of the
mainline railway operates with one main contractor (franchisee) which operates trains,
manages and operates stations and carries out routine and major maintenance on
large parts of the infrastructure. Other smaller contractors (concessionaires) design,
construct and maintain designated parts of the infrastructure. One overarching
company is responsible for managing the franchises/concessions across the whole
operation, commissioning new projects and making overall decisions with regards to
management and maintenance. It is this company which has the legal role of the
infrastructure manager.
Mainline/non-mainline
12. ROGS provides a definition of mainline railway in regulation 2
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20060599.htm). However, that definition relies on
the meaning of phrases such as “local use” and “functionally separate” which do not
necessarily have a clear application in every case. In this context, it should be
understood that the railway system in Britain as a whole is very complex, where
demarcations between different networks or sub-networks are not always absolutely
clear, particularly in relation to suburban, urban and metro networks.
13. Therefore, in addressing specific instances of what is mainline or not, if it is not
clear how the reg.2 definition applies, you should then consult the guidance on
functionally separate and local use (see below). If this still does not provide a clear
answer, you should contact the Legislative Development Team, which will consult with
others in ORR as is necessary.
Functionally separate
Page 3 of 6
Doc # 347397.05
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
14. Guidance on functionally separate is given at ROGS Regulations 2006 : Office of
Rail Regulation. However, the question has been raised on whether a part of an
infrastructure can be regarded as functionally separate in terms of time, that is, if
mainline traffic normally runs on that part of the infrastructure but does not do so for a
significant period of time (e.g. at night.) ORR‟s view is that it cannot, as this goes
beyond the intention of both ROGS and the Directive.
Local use
15. Guidance is given in the ROGS assessment manual (ROGS Regulations 2006 :
Office of Rail Regulation).
Part B certificates – which network?
16. The question has arisen over what the „network‟ may comprise for a Part B
application. ROGS does not provide any indication here. Article 10 (1) of the Railway
Safety Directive states that „The safety certificate may cover the whole railway
network of a Member State or only a defined part thereof ‟ but makes no distinction
here between the scope of Part As and Part Bs. If, therefore, a company wishes to
make a Part B application which includes the whole national network then it is allowed
to do so, so long as the Part A covers an equivalent operation in terms of type and
extent and the application provides evidence demonstrating compliance with all
standards and relevant requirements which may apply to different parts of the
network.
17. The stated „network‟ however cannot extend beyond the boundaries of Great
Britain either into another EU member state, Northern Ireland or beyond the Channel
Tunnel boundary. In each case a separate part B application must be submitted to the
relevant authority.
18. If, on the other hand, an operator wishes to apply for separate Part Bs for different
parts of the national network, it can.
Shunting
19. Any shunting only operation will require its own certificate if operations are carried
out anywhere on the infrastructure outside depots or sidings. If an operator already
has a certificate for its wider operations, it will not need an additional certificate for its
shunting activities so long as these are adequately covered by its SMS arrangements,
which are described in its application. Additionally, if an operator makes an
arrangement with an existing certificate holder to carry out shunting movements on its
behalf, then it will not need its own certificate so long as shunting is described in the
holder‟s application.
20. For clarification, shunting is defined in the Rule Book (module GE/RT8000/SS) as:
„any movement of a train or vehicle other than a train passing normally along a
running line.‟
Engineering possessions
21. Operators of trains/vehicles within an engineering possession are exempt from the
need to have either a certificate or a ROGS SMS. However ROGS requires that the
SMS of an IM should ensure the control of all categories of risk associated with the
operation in question. This includes risks which arise from activities within engineering
possessions, whether these are risks to the wider transport system or to the workforce
employed within the possessions, and whether or not the activities are contracted out
to another party or parties.
22. ROGS defines an engineering possession as a ‘section of track which is closed to
normal traffic and where the closure is for the purpose of carrying out maintenance
which shall include any repair, alteration, reconditioning, examination or testing of
Page 4 of 6
Doc # 347397.05
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
infrastructure...‟. Both conditions must apply which means that a section of track which
is closed to normal traffic for reasons other than described above, cannot be regarded
as being an engineering possession.
Substantial changes and testing
23. If there is to be a substantial change preceded by a testing phase involving vehicle
movements on the infrastructure, is the amended SC/A required before or after the
testing takes place?
24. In general the amended SC/A should be issued before any such testing takes
place. The only time that testing can take place before an amended SC/A has been
issued is if it takes place within an engineering possession (see para. 22 for
definition), but that can only be on the infrastructure alone not on any vehicle. If the
testing is for the purpose of testing both the infrastructure and the vehicle, as well as
the interaction between them, then this does not meet this condition.
25. This can be confused with the situation with regard to testing and safety
verification. Regulation 5(4) requires that as part of its SMS arrangements a transport
operator should have safety verification arrangements (but see also paras. 28-29), for
the „placing into service‟ of new/altered vehicles or infrastructure which meets the
conditions of regulation 5(1)(d)(iii), but regulation 5(6) states that the actual „placing
into service‟ does not include any testing. In other words, the duty holder will need to
have the amended certificate/authorisation for its substantial change before any
testing takes place, but any safety verification which is required as part of the
substantial change does not need to have been shown to have been completed until
after any necessary testing. The situation with regard to new infrastructure and rolling
stock and compliance with the Interoperability regulations mirrors this.
26. The relationship between substantial changes and safety verification can appear
very complex, so in cases where there is doubt or confusion, you should refer these to
the Legislative Development Team for further advice.
SAFETY VERIFICATION
27. See also the Guide to the application of safety verification - inspector guidance
(ROGS Regulations 2006 : Office of Rail Regulation.)
Safety verification (SV) and the SMS
28. Does every SMS under ROGS need to include arrangements for carrying out SV?
29. Strictly speaking, if a duty holder claims that it does not intend to introduce new
equipment likely to attract the requirement to have a SV scheme over the lifetime of
the certificate, then it would not need to include arrangements for setting one up. Its
SMS would however still need to include change management arrangements which
should be capable of recognising if there were any change to this situation. If there
were any subsequent introduction of a project which met the conditions for SV, the
holder should then notify ORR under regulation 13 of its proposed SV arrangements
as a major change to its means of meeting SMS requirements. Whether it would need
to apply for an amended certificate or not, would depend on whether the project itself
introduced a substantial change to the operation.
How are interface issues dealt with?
30. The Independent Competent Person (ICP) will need to help the duty holder ensure
that interface issues (e.g. between rolling stock and infrastructure) that have
implications for the safe introduction of the equipment being verified have been
adequately addressed. The responsibility for managing safety risks including interface
risks lies with the duty holder introducing the change. The ICP only provides advice to
Page 5 of 6
Doc # 347397.05
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
help the duty holder ensure that the risks arising from the introduction of new
equipment will be adequately controlled.
On track machines (OTMs) and the application of SV
31. As OTMs do not operate a passenger or freight service it has been questioned
whether SV applies to them, as they do not provide a „transport service‟. (ROGS
Regs. 5(6) and 6(5): In this regulation placing in service shall mean first placed in
service for the provision of a transport service…..)
32. OTMs operating outside possessions come within the scope by virtue of
regulations 3 (Use of infrastructure on the mainline) and 4 (Use of infrastructure on
other transport systems) and as a result those operating them must comply with all
SMS requirements including SV. It is not regulations 5 & 6 which bring them within
scope, whatever interpretation is placed on „transport service‟.
Infrastructure Manager (IM) role in SV of vehicles
33. Unless an IM places vehicles into service and operates them itself, it has no direct
responsibility for the SV process applied to vehicles although it will need to make
some input to ensure compatibility with the infrastructure. The duty to comply with
regulation 3(1) and 4(1) of ROGS (and the concomitant duty to apply SV) falls on the
person who is the "operator of a train in relation to any infrastructure on the mainline
railway/other transport system", not on the IM. Therefore, if an IM owns a rail vehicle
but places it into service via someone else‟s operation, it would not be required to be
certificated as the operator of a train. However, if the IM chose to operate the vehicles
itself, it would need to be certificated and apply the SV process as appropriate.
CONTACTS
34. Any questions or queries on this guidance should be addressed to:

Certification/authorisation.
Trevor Kent, Permissioning & Divisional Support Team Manager,
Tel ext. 3772;
[email protected].
or
 Safety verification.
Paul Hooper, Interoperability and Standards Manager;
Tel ext. 2191;
e-mail: [email protected]
Action
(optional)
No action required.
Page 6 of 6
Doc # 347397.05