report on publication and availability of national safety rules

8/9/2019 Report on Publication and Availability of National Safety Rules

1/123

1

Final Report for the

Study of the Publication and Availability of NationalSafety Rules in some EU Member States and Norway

(With the comments on Sections 5 and 6

made by the National Safety Authoritiesof the countries in the scope of this study)

Colin Buchanan and Partners May 2008


2/123

2

1. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 41.1 This report 41.2 Scope 41.3 The structure of the rule-making process 41.4 Publication of the rules 41.5 Stakeholders view of the rules 51.6 Proposals 52. INTRODUCTION 62.1 This report 62.2 Structure of the report 62.3 The remit for the study 72.4 The notifications 92.5 Glossary of terms 92.6 The Consortium 92.7 Acknowledgements 113. THE BACKGROUND 123.1 Structure of the section 123.2 Transport policy background 123.3 The role of the European Railway Agency 133.4 National safety rules 133.5 The key issue 144. DELIVERY 154.1 Structure of the section 154.2

Scope of the work 15

4.3 Methodology 154.4 Progress achieved 164.5 The responses 234.6 Analysis of the results 255. THE RESULTS 265.1 Structure of the section 265.2 Belgium 265.3 Denmark 345.4 Estonia 42415.5 France 49485.6 Ireland 55535.7 Italy 61595.8 The Netherlands 67655.9 Norway 73715.10 Sweden 79776. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 86846.1 Structure of the section 86846.2 Summary 86846.3 Analysis: How national safety rules are established

in national legislation 8785


3/123

3

6.4 Comment: How national safety rules areestablished in national legislation 9290

6.5 Analysis: The way in which rules are published 94926.6 Comment: The way in which rules are published 97946.7 Analysis: The way in which rules are made available99966.8 Comment: The way in which the rules

are made available 102996.9 Analysis: Ease of understanding the rules 1041016.10 Comment: Ease of understanding the rules 1111086.11 Analysis: Comprehensiveness of the content

of national safety rule notifications published andmade available in the selected countries: 112109

6.12

Comment: Comprehensiveness of the content ofnotifications on national safety rules publishedand made available in the selected countries 113110

6.13 Analysis: General issues 1131106.14 Comment: General issues 1141127. PROPOSALS 1161137.1 Structure of the section 1161137.2 Proposals 116113Appendices bound separately 122119Appendix 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


4/123

4

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 andthe 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 topaper 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.


5/123

5

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.


6/123


7/123

7

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 ofthe 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.


8/123

8

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 identifiedduring 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 stakeholdersviews 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


9/123

9

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 forlegal 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.


10/123

10

2.6.2 Colin Buchanan is a British and Irish consultancy. The firms 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: Universit 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 Scurit (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 oneof NTUs core competences.


11/123

11

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.

.


12/123

12

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. Thecontinuing 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.

1Directive 2004/49/ECof 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 undertakingsand Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges forthe use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) published as acorrigendum in OJ EU L220/16 of 21 June 2004.


13/123

13

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 rulesare 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 safetyrules (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.


14/123

14

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 thewider railway community.


15/123

15

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 Agencys 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

ERAs Tender Specification;


16/123

16

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.


17/123

17

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 particularlyaffect 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.


18/123

18

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.


19/123

19

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.


20/123

20

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

Nationals

afety

authority

Infrastruc

ture

Manager

Integrated

railway

Incumben

t

railway

undertaki

ng

Newrailway

undertaki

ng

Wagonke

eper

Tractionh

irer

Rep.

employee

s

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 10Total 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 forwhich it provided responses

Incumbent railway undertakings are shown as new in states other than theirhome 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,


21/123

21

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. Theinterviews were necessarily detailed.

1 The original Visio logic was designed to fit on A3 paper, unfortunately reproduction in an A4 documentmakes the five appendices more difficult to read.


22/123


23/123

23

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.


24/123

24

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 theconsortium. 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


25/123

25

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.


26/123

26

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 Scurit et dInteroprabilit 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.htmFrench: http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/fr/rail/railcode.htm

4 http://www.railaccess.be
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/nl/rail/railcode.htmhttp://www.mobilit.fgov.be/fr/rail/railcode.htmhttp://www.railaccess.be/http://www.railaccess.be/http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/fr/rail/railcode.htmhttp://www.mobilit.fgov.be/nl/rail/railcode.htm


27/123

27

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 requiresthe 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/Rglement de Scurit de lExploitation

de lInfrastructure Ferroviaire);

ARGSI/RGUIF: Algemeen Reglement voor het Gebruik van de

Spoorweg Infrastructuur/Rglement Gnral de lUtilisation de

lInfrastructure Ferroviaire;

BVT/ LST: Boek van de Treindienst/Livre de Service de Train;

ARM/RGM: Algemeen Reglement van het Materieel/Rglement

Gnral du Matriel;

ARB/RGV: Algemeen Reglement van de Baan/Rglement Gnral

de la Voie;

ARS/RGS: Algemeen Reglement van de Seininrichting/Rglement

Gnral 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

5.2.8 A Safety Platform has been set up as a forum to discuss safety issues (only

indirect rules). In this forum, railway undertakings, Infrabel, the ministry and

Comment [ERA1]: The Belgian NSAbrought to ERAs attention the important

objection that the consultation is not only a

the level of the safety plat form, itsnecessary to make a distinction between

direct and indirect rules. See more details ithe insertion below this paragraph.


28/123

28

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 andformal 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.

5.2.85.2.9 The ministry explained that there are four types of rules:

1. EU rules,

2, direct national safety rules,

Comment [ERA2]: This insertion wasrequested by the Belgian NSA and should

be considered as prevailing over otherstatements in this section, as follows from

the objection in the previous comment.


29/123

29

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 notimposed 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 Infrabels 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 ofnational 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).


30/123

30

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

periodicity depends on the necessity. If amendments on legislation are

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 whobelieve 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.

Comment [ERA3]: Belgian NSAcorrected that the six monthly reviewprocess is only an internal processbetween the Ministry and DVIS (NSA).


31/123


32/123

32

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 Infrabels 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 theofficial journal office (for direct rules) and from the infrastructure manager,

Infrabel, for indirect rules.


33/123

33

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 DVISis 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)


34/123

34

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


35/123

35

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 anyrelevant 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 "Bekendtgrelse om Trafikstyrelsens opgaver og

befjelser". It is provided that the Minister's powers in terms of implementation

and administration of EU rules on railway safety have been delegated to theNRA 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 lovbekendtgrelse nr. 1171 af 2. december 2004 med senere ndringer


36/123

36

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.


5.3.8 As mentioned above, Tthe Ministry of Transport, in consultation with the

Ministry of Justice, is responsible for safety rules to the extent it has not

delegated its powers to provide secondary legislation to the National Rail

Authority (NRA).. Whilst the Ministry of Transport is responsible for setting the

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 Transportdetermines any delegation of responsibilities. The National Rail Agency

Authority is also responsible for approving indirect rules proposed by Rail Net

Denmark.


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 itshomepage. As part of the consultation procedure proposals/draft legislation are

11 lov nr. 842 af 16 December 199112 http://www.retsinformation.dk

Formatted: Not Strikethrough

Comment [ERA4]: NRA comment:The last part of the sentence is notprecise e.g. Authority orderimplementing TSI operation (BJ 5-04Bestemmelser om gennemfrelse afden tekniske specifikation forinteroperabilitet (TSI) for delsystemetdrift og trafikstyring i dettranseuropiske jernbanesystem forkonventionelle tog) and Authority orderregarding driving train for work in thetracks (Bekendtgrelse omarbejdskrsel m.v. (BJ 5-08)).
https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=116648https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=116648https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=116648https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=116648https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=116648


37/123

37

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 AuthoritysAgencys 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 transitionsmoothly when new or revised rules are put in place.

5.3.13 Members of the National Rail AuthoritysAgencys 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 notwork 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.

13http://borger.dk/forside/lovgivning/hoeringsportalen


38/123

38

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.

The way in which the rules are published

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

the retsinformation website14 and the Lovtidende website, in addition Rail

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

The body responsible for publication

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.

Comment [ERA5]: NRA comment:The accident Investigation Board hasnot surrendered responsibilities to theNRA. We do not understand thissentence. That is why we suggest it isdeleted.

Comment [ERA6]: By the time of thechecking this report the work had beencompleted by the NRA.


39/123

39

The means of publication

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.

The management of publication

5.3.21 The Ministry of Justice is responsible for determining what should be published

and how it should be published (direct rules).

The way in which the rules are made available:

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.

Means to support access

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 aninternal 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

Companys Administrative Burdens) a technique which is used to examine the


40/123

40

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 theinformation 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 availablefrom 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


41/123

41

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 somecases 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,Are there in fact safety rules which have not been made listed in

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


42/123

42

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

(Bekendtgrelse om gennemfrelse 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.

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 1940s 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.

5.4.2 The national notification dated 29 April 2005 was taken as the basis for the

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

Comment [ERA7]: NRA commentedthat it is unclear what was meant by this la

sentence.

Field Code Changed
http://147.29.40.90/DELFIN/html/b2006/0003805.htmhttp://www.mkm.ee/index.php?id=3593http://www.mkm.ee/index.php?id=3593http://147.29.40.90/DELFIN/html/b2006/0003805.htmhttp://147.29.40.90/DELFIN/html/b2006/0003805.htm


43/123

43


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 operatingrules 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 Plevkivi Raudtee, and AS Elektriraudtee. These four are the mostsignificant 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


44/123

44

Communications on 13 February 2006. All seven types of national safety rules

are established in this regulation.

5.4.9 The safety authoritys 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 therequirements.

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 ministrys 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

ministry.

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

ministrys 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

Comment [ERA8]: Estonian NSAcommented that railway undertakings or

infrastructure managers give the feedbackabout safety rules through official proposal

(announcements by phone are less

common).


45/123


46/123

46

The means of publication

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-igus. 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.

The management of publication

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

authoritys 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).

Means to support access

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 hasnot organised any such meetings. Railway undertakings, the infrastructure

manager, and the national safety authority are reported to work closely

together.

18http://www.tja.ee/
http://www.tja.ee/http://www.tja.ee/http://www.tja.ee/http://www.tja.ee/


47/123

47


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.

Ease of understanding the rules

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


48/123

48

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 butstakeholders 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.




49/123

49

5.4.34 There are two issues here:


and,

Are there in fact safety rules which have not been made listed in

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 therespondents were able to identify material which had not been properly notified

at the time of the notification.

5.4.35 The ministry/NSA said that all the national safety rules are published in


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. Stakeholdershowever, 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 hadno 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.


50/123

50

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 infras

report on publication and availability of national safety rules

Documents