The impact of EU membership on Britain’s railways

You’ve probably heard the expression “I want something that’s bog standard”. I had too, but it was years before I discovered that it referred to engineers and clients demanding items to British or German Standards as their use could be expected to deliver quality results.

Even before the UK joined the European Community, all those years ago, engineers were used to buying products to British (BS) or German (DIN) standards. Given that engineering is an applied science and the laws of physics apply throughout the world, it made sense for the EU, through CEN, CENELEC and ETSI (see lexicon for definitions), to harmonise standards gradually throughout Europe. Increasingly, there is also cooperation with the International Standards Organisation (ISO).

Railways have not been immune to this trend and the EU has been promoting and, increasingly, introducing legislation to deliver a level playing field for the rail industry. This led to new words and acronyms coming into daily use. Interoperability, ERA, TSIs, NNTRs, NOBOs, DEBOs and ASBOs come to mind. We all had to get used to new rules, procedures and processes.

One often hears of apparent ‘nonsenses’ inflicted on our railways in the name of the EU, although generally, when probed, the issue being addressed almost never proves to be a nonsense. The explanation is usually more mundane, such as something that is inconvenient because it wasn’t thought about properly or early enough. For some, it is the path to a lower cost future, for others it is the last straw!

With all this in mind and with the referendum coming up, The IMechE Railway Division recently held a debate on the subject. In planning the event, it was decided that the issue was far too sensitive (and too political for an apolitical charity) to have an IN or OUT debate. Instead, four topics were proposed and speakers invited to address some or all of them. The questions were:

• Examples of consequences of EU membership that have had a negative or sub-optimal impact on Britain’s railways (whether inspired directly by EU regulations or by the UK Government’s ’over-rigid interpretation’ of these regulations);
• Examples of consequences that might have been worse but for the UK’s generally pragmatic and common sense approach;
• Examples of positive outcomes that membership of the EU has had for the UK railways – and the railway industry supply chain;
• EU/EC Railway-related myths that need to be exposed as such.

With six speakers from the DfT, London Underground, RSSB and Birmingham University, as well as a former railway CEO and an outspoken contributor to a railway publication, we were in for an exciting evening of debate which took place in front of an audience of 75 people. Coincidentally, it was Europe Day, a day for celebrating peace and unity.

What’s it all about?

It’s always good to set the scene, and this was done by Robin Groth. Robin is deputy director international and safety at the Department for Transport and also a member of the administration board of the European Rail Agency.

Robin’s presentation reminded us of the aims of the EU. These are to open up markets for goods and services with clear and transparent rules which recognise, as far as possible, the different characteristics of the rail networks in member States, to formulate legislative packages that realise the potential of rail and to create opportunities for EU-based companies (including those in the UK).

For rail, this means that the EU has introduced a number of rules and requirements, such as interoperability (technical rules, authorisation, registers of vehicles), safety (safety management systems, safety authorisation), train driver licensing, a requirement that member states open their railways to competition and make fair charges for access. Moreover, it has created the European Railway Agency, which acts on the EU’s behalf to make these processes work openly and fairly.

The EU is also very active in promoting research, and this has resulted in large sums being made available for railway research.

Robin highlighted the UK’s contribution to the EU’s railway work. The UK is one of the ‘Big Three’, along with France and Germany. This leads to a general view that getting UK agreement is very important on rail matters and, as a result, the UK is often in the driving seat.

Possibly because of the way Britain’s railways do business, with no one body in overall charge and decisions taken by consensus, the UK often takes the role of ’trusted broker’ in negotiations, when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the Nordic, Latin and Germanic cultures. After all, British culture is a mix of all three. We are sometimes able to reconcile issues that arise due to the politics or history between France, Germany and Eastern Europe, and we also have special links with parts of the former Empire (USA, Middle East, India, Australia, parts of Africa).

A further benefit is that English is often the Lingua Franca – and Brits often draft the documents and minutes. However, being part of a ‘club’ means that ‘club rules’ must be developed and observed and this means that there will be compromise and constraints.

As a result of this intense participation, a high proportion of European senior positions are now held by UK Nationals including:

• The head of the Railway Unit in the European Commission;
• The head of the Transport Research Unit in the European Commission;
• 2 out of 6 heads of units in the European Railway Agency;
• The deputy chair of the European Railway Agency Board;
• The chair of the European Rail Research Advisory Council.

Moreover, many of Britain’s railway staff are involved in the drafting of the Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs), Euro Norms (ENs) and other standards. The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) and RSSB co-ordinate the UK inputs to drafting committees and the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) and Network Rail also input through the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Infrastructure Managers (EIM). As an example of the UK’s influence, the TSI for Persons of Reduced Mobility (PRM) largely reflects UK domestic standards.

Concluding, Robin mentioned current and future activities of the EU:

• Implementation of the fourth railway package- including a new role for ERA in authorising vehicles for use;
• Shift2Rail – a research programme pushing thetechnology to make rail more competitive;
• Rules, processes and standards:

»  ERA is working with partners (Japan, USA, Gulf states, OTIF) to share and evolve best practice and develop future ‘global standards’, such as those for next- generation signalling;

»  ISO/IEC standards taking over from ENs.

• International Strategy:

»  Market opening agreements with partners around the world;

»  Mutual recognition (cross acceptance) of existing rules;

»  Mutual recognition of conformity certification and authorisation processes;

»  Migration to common rules and standards for the next generation technology.

Rules and standards

Tom Lee, who is RSSB’s deputy director of research and standards and also professional head of command, control and signalling, spoke next about the practical implications for people embarking on change, in particular the burden that standards are perceived to place on those delivering projects. Tom made it clear that the key issue is to make the right decisions from the beginning. Of course some requirements are not optional; the Railway Interoperability Regulations 2011 (RIR 2011), which mandate the TSIs and the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems Regulations (ROGS 2006) are the law and must be complied with. Although deviations from TSIs can be sought, it is a far from trivial process.

However, there are other standards that projects will identify following decisions about why a change is being made. These standards are, in general, written with the knowledge that they are a ‘best fit’ solution, and that there will sometimes be circumstances where they are not appropriate. It is possible to seek to deviate from the standards. In later questioning, in response to concerns that obtaining deviations is an uncertain process, Tom said that over 300 deviations were submitted last year and all of them were approved. Deviations are evaluated by RSSB, but decisions are made by committees of industry representatives.

Tom expanded on Robin’s remarks about the impact and influence of the UK on standards setting in Europe. He illustrated an apparently very complex structure for decision-making, but where the UK’s record of participation has led to some excellent results for the UK.

In terms of legislation, the EU issues Directives and Regulations. Directives have to be transposed into legislation by the member state, but Regulations apply immediately. The Interoperability Directive and the Regulations mandating the Common Safety Method for Risk Assessment and Evaluation are examples. Tom identified that, in developing ROGS from the previous legislation, the opportunity was taken to simplify the process of safety certification for the bodies forming the railway industry, including the TOCs, and Network Rail. No longer was a safety case required but instead a Safety Certificate and a Safety Management System, a process that
is more flexible and scalable for different sized companies and levels of risk.

Tom concluded by talking about positives and challenges (with some observations):

Positives:

• A move towards a single EU rail system allows products and services to be traded across borders without re-testing and reassessment (we are not there yet!);
• A reduction in the amount of state imposed rules which means a single set of requirements and greater choice in certain areas (but a clean- up is needed and this is not easy);
• A chance to influence the EU so good UK practice can be adopted and embedded in EU standards.
• Challenges:
  EU standards often require interpretation and so are not easy to just use (it’s English, Jim, but not as we know it!);
• A significant engagement is required to ensure EU standards work for the UK and we don’t always get our way as it is as much a political process as a technical one;
• Deviation from EU standards is harder and more time consuming;
• Harmonisation to a common EU target system might have long term benefits but with potentially short term cost and effort. Can we manage transition well?

Metro perspective

John Downes, head of engineering governance and services, London Underground, presented the position for metros which also generally includes light rail and trams. He said that the framework for liberating the ‘main line’ railways in the EU was inappropriate for local networks not possessing the same characteristics and not needing to interoperate. There is, after all, no prospect of the Bakerloo line being extended to its nearest neighbour any time soon, and there is little in common between, say Glasgow Underground and rubber-tyred Paris Metro trains (in terms of vehicle/tunnel size and bogie technology at least).