Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
MR ANSON
JACK
10 NOVEMBER 2004
Q200 Mrs Ellman: Which do you think would
be the better way to go in terms of community rail lines—derogations
or a new standard?
Mr Jack: I think to an extent
that is a bit of a downstream question in that the key thing is
to work out what the community railways strategy wants to deliver
and how to define that railway in the future and then to test
whether the existing standards are fit for it or not. If they
are not fit, then it may be appropriate to have a new suite of
standards; it may be appropriate to go in and make some changes
to the existing ones. That is almost an administrative issue.
The real practical issue is about what is going to change; where
are real costs and efficiencies going to be driven out so that
community railways have a good viable future.
Q201 Mrs Ellman: Who would be taking
that decision about the better way to go? Would it be you?
Mr Jack: No, we would see ourselves
as technical advisers to that process. As the industry standards
body, we can help, we can facilitate, but, in terms of defining
what is an efficient way to configure the railway, that is very
much one for the industry and the Strategic Rail Authority as
part of developing the community railway strategy.
Q202 Mrs Ellman: You would not have a
say in that, even in terms of safety?
Mr Jack: We would advise on what
the implications are, but I think the key point is that standards
should not be seen to be standing in the way of defining a new
way of doing things. They should be seen as something that may
need to be adjusted when people have decided what they do want
to do. As long as what they want to do is efficient, safe, appropriately
risk-assessed, then the standards will not be a problem.
Q203 Mrs Ellman: Who would make the judgment
on whether it was safe and whether the change in standards was
relevant or jeopardised safety?
Mr Jack: The people who are defining
that overall solution would make the fundamental judgment. If
they needed to make a change in a standard, then one of these
subject committees I referred to would be the body that actually
made the decision whether that was acceptable or not.
Q204 Ian Lucas: Is it possible to have
a community rail group standard, a separate standard?
Mr Jack: There are many ways of
skinning the cat here. It may be that the existing suite of standards
allows whatever changes are designed to be implemented. It is
just about looking at whether there is flexibility within the
standards. It may be that it is appropriate to draw a line between
the existing network and the community rail route, so that there
is a dedicated rail route with its own set of standards. In that
case, a very particular standard might be appropriate. It may
be that the suite of interoperability standards that is being
developed in Europe will provide an efficient solution. It is
possible to have those things. As I said before, standards need
not be seen as standing in the way of this. What does stand in
the way is if anyone wants to do something that is profoundly
unsafe or inefficient.
Q205 Miss McIntosh: Could you elaborate
on why you think the interoperable standards that the EU directive
is insisting on would be particularly appropriate for community
railways?
Mr Jack: I stand to be corrected
but I do not think I said that they would be particularly appropriate.
I said it may be that there would be some appropriate elements
within those technical specifications for interoperability. I
think that is a long shot. It is going to be some years before
those specifications are well enough developed and perhaps with
enough differentiation to offer solutions in the community rail
environment. I think it would be much more productive to develop
the solutions around the communities themselves, and then to test
what the standards' needs are.
Q206 Miss McIntosh: Can you confirm,
for the benefit of the travelling public as well as for this committee,
that there will be the highest possible standards of safety for
community railways and other rural railways?
Mr Jack: I think the important
thing about that is that the responsibilities the industry has
in relation to the Health and Safety at Work Act to its customers,
the travelling public, are about having appropriate standards.
When I say "appropriate", I mean managing risks as low
as reasonably practicable. There may be situations where it is
appropriate to have what might typically be called lower cost
solutions. Some people may say that that may involve more risk.
If that is in an environment in which the choice is between having
a community railway that taxpayers and local passengers are happy
to pay for and not having one because the costs are so high that
it is uneconomic, then I believe that the lower end of the standard
may be appropriate, as long as it has been properly risk-assessed
and people are not taking unreasonable risks.
Q207 Miss McIntosh: The undertaking to
which you referred, which lies at the heart of the EU directive,
tended to relate more to the large train operating companies presumably,
not the likes of the Wensleydale line and some of the other lines
which offer an excellent rural community service but are not offering
a national service. Would you agree?
Mr Jack: I am not quite sure what
you meant by "undertaking". When I said railway undertaking,
I was typically referring to the passenger train operators and
freight train operators and not the heritage lines.
Q208 Miss McIntosh: In your view, could
the meaning of undertaking stretch to these rural undertakings?
Mr Jack: I think it would only
stretch that far if it was the Government's wish that it did
stretch that far. That goes back to the point that if interoperability
specifications have something to offer, then it may be desirable.
If they do not have something to offer and they would, if you
like, impose too much cost in relation to the activity, then I
believe the Government would be able not to extent interoperability
to those railways.
Q209 Miss McIntosh: Could you give an
example of a standard which would qualify for a derogation from
the group of standards?
Mr Jack: We find ourselves derogating,
for instance, if a piece of rolling stock does not quite fit around
the infrastructure but the general standard for rolling stock
says that you should use such and such a shape. If this rolling
stock can fit around the infrastructure in a particular route,
then there can be derogation. It is a permanent permit not to
comply with the standard.
Q210 Miss McIntosh: It is purely on a
technical specification. It is not that it is going to bounce
off the track. It is purely a relaxing of a technical specification?
Mr Jack: A derogation would never
be to go from a position that is safe to a position that is unsafe.
Q211 Miss McIntosh: So we do not need
to have alarm bells ringing. It is not that the carriage is going
to fall off the track; it is just that it does not meet a certain
technical specification for crossing on to a main line.
Mr Jack: If I could explain a
little bit more about the balance between usage and cost of maintenance,
existing standards of track provide that the level of maintenance,
and indeed the materials that are used for the track, vary with
both the speed and the weight of the trains that pass over them.
If there is an intensively used, high speed line, it has a higher
specification. A lightly used, lower speed line can have a much
lower specification. That is already the case. Many of the standards
have got that flexibility in them.
Q212 Miss McIntosh: The track will be
inspected by Network Rail on a rural or a community line in exactly
the same way as the main line would be? I do not think we took
evidence from Network Rail.
Mr Jack: That is a very particular
question. I would guess that the decision would relate to who
was responsible for owning and maintaining the track. The frequency
with which it is done is very typically a good example of the
sort of thing that can be done on a risk basis approach. If it
is lightly used, it is not necessary to examine as frequently.
If it is very heavily used, it may be appropriate to use different
technology.
Q213 Miss McIntosh: Is it fair to say
that we have as many or more rural branch lines or community railways
in this country than in other European countries?
Mr Jack: I am not familiar with
the minutiae of the statistics, but the impression I get from
the dealings I have had with other countries is that it is a very
similar structure. There is a tendency to judge countries by the
high profile, high speed lines but in fact most countries have
significant amounts of rural branch lines.
Q214 Clive Efford: I was intending to
ask the question about an example of where a derogation might
be applied. Is there not a danger that once you begin the process
of starting to cut corners, you start to do it more regularly
than would otherwise be the case, unless you have a flat set of
standards below which you could not have any derogation?
Mr Jack: It would not be my personal
opinion that that it is a danger. It is always the case that it
is appropriate to have maintenance standards, specifications,
that are appropriate to use and if one finds lightly used things,
it is appropriate to have generally lower specifications than
with highly used lines. That is about good management, properly
assessing risks and responsibly taking them forward.
Q215 Clive Efford: I can understand that
in relation to a railway or rolling stock that is more lightly
used than another requiring less frequent inspections. One of
the examples you gave was the actual bogeys on a carriage that
might not fit in the way that the rail has been designed. Did
I understand that correctly?
Mr Jack: No, I was talking about
the shape, what we call the gauge, whether it goes underneath
bridges or through tunnels.
Q216 Clive Efford: I stand corrected.
My concern would be that you would actually need to increase the
level of safety in those circumstances, but you are saying it
is the degree of clearance?
Mr Jack: If I could just pick
up on the flavour of what you were talking about, if you think
about the rural railway as an overall system, it is both track,
train, bogeys, passenger accommodation, drivers' accommodation
and a signalling system. The important thing is to have a system
that works together so that when you have a bogey with a particular
specification and track with a particular specification, they
do not give rise to unsafe conditions. That goes back to what
I was saying earlier about the way forward for community railways
is to define the overall system and, when you have defined the
overall system in a safe and efficient way, hopefully one that
is affordable for taxpayer and user, then you can define or make
changes to any standards that you need to make. If the overall
system hangs together, then there should be no problem with any
adjustments in particular standards.
Q217 Clive Efford: Your organisation
is wholly owned by the stakeholders in the railway?
Mr Jack: That is correct.
Q218 Clive Efford: It is a not-for-profit
organisation. Are there any examples of where your organisation
has been approached for derogation and it has not been given?
Mr Jack: Yes. I could not name
any specific examples today but, yes, they get turned down. The
point I made earlier is that the decisions in relation to derogations
are made by subject committees, which consist of the industry
itself. We facilitate that. We would have an obligation to intervene
if the subject committees were making inappropriate decisions,
but that has never been needed.
Q219 Chairman: Before I let you go, Mr
Jack, I just want to make sure I have it absolutely right. You
are saying, in effect, that political decisions would be taken
in the normal way by elected members. Beneath them there would
be the Rail Safety Board operating with subject committees on
which our rural community is represented. That subject committee
would deal with technical specifications. You would ensure that
as long as there was no obvious imbalance between what they have
decided and what the law requires you to ensure is in place, that
would then go ahead. Have I got that right?
Mr Jack: Yes.
| 
