Appendix A
Meeting requirements of The Code
This section gives a summary of the overall status of the standards catalogue to demonstrate adherence to the requirements of the Railway Standards Code and Standards Manual and as an indicator of good stewardship.
‘The Code’ is set by the ORR. It defines the procedures by which an RGS is created, revised, or withdrawn, authorised, and published. It also defines the procedures by which the effectiveness of an RGS is monitored and reviewed and how to manage deviations. The Code is supported by a Standards Manual which describes how the requirements of The Code are to be delivered. This report meets a requirement of The Code. The Code and Manual have been revised and were published 1 January 2024 on RSSB’s website.
At the end of 2024 the standards catalogue had 288 live RSSB documents. Figure 2 shows the range of types of documents and Table 1 lists the detailed changes to the catalogue.
Note: Figure 2 excludes Rule Book forms, briefing leaflets, and changes to National Operations Publications.
Figure 3 shows the document types in the standards catalogue by year. This highlights that the range of document types has been relatively stable over the last few years. The number of technical notes in 2024 has grown since their reintroduction in 2023.
During the year five new standards were produced revisions were made to 33 existing standards rule book modules and handbooks and 16 point releases were issued. In some cases both a revision and a point release were issued to the same document during the year these are only counted once. Table 1 lists the documents that changed during the year.
RSSB produces technical notes to help with the application of standards guidance or legislation. They may relate to one specific standard multiple standards or pieces of legislation relating to a specific topic. They help provide a more flexible response to recurring queries by providing clarifications. They also help promote a common understanding by supplying information visible to everyone in rail. Technical notes are non-binding reference documents which do not change existing requirements so do not change the application of current standards or legislation. They are produced outside of the full standards governance of the Railway Group Standards Code and the Standards Manual. In 2024 eight technical notes were published as set out in Table 2. This includes the first technical note for the Traffic Operation and Management and Control, Command and Signalling disciplines.
In the following sections there are several indicators of performance.
Age profile (section A.5.2): The Code requires standards to be reviewed at least every five years. Since thereview is only due in the fifth year, we measure this over six years. The age profile of standards shows if any are overdue for review or revision.
Deviations (section A.5.3): The number of deviations against a standard can be an indicator of the standard’s fitness for purpose. This is most relevant for permanent deviations, because temporary deviations are often to facilitate trials and stageworks. Temporary deviations therefore are not generally an indicator of the suitability of the standard itself. A threshold of ten deviations per standard has historically been used as the measure. The total number of deviation applications is also a measure of suitability of standards more generally. Again, permanent deviations are more relevant for this measure. A breakdown of the deviations received, and their status, is provided.
Request for Help (section A.5.4): The main way for standards users to seek help and propose changes to standards is through the Request for Help process.
Railway Group Standards (RGS) with non-National Technical Rule requirements (section A.5.6): While all new and revised RGSs published over at least the last seven years have only contained requirements meeting the criteria of national technical rules (NTR), some older standards with non-conforming requirements remain. The requirements are still technically valid but are not required to be assessed as NTRs when used within the scope of the Railways Interoperability Regulations. If they are, it means that the scope of independent assessment is greater than it should be, which is technically harmless, but not economic. Previous standards strategies have sought to eliminate these, which is substantially complete, but a handful remain as they are low priority.
Progress of standards against plans (section A.5.7): This section summarises the progress being made on new and revised standards. It helps demonstrate how effectively RSSB is managing change to the standards catalogue.
The Code requires standards to be reviewed at least every five years. Since the review is only due in the fifth year, we measure this over six years. In the last six years we have regularly reviewed all the standards due for review, with four exceptions. Figure 4 shows each year with the number of standards that RSSB published. The colour indicates the number of years since the standards were last reviewed.
Overall, standards reviews are being done continually, to schedule, and earlier if the case merits it. The number overdue is maintaining its low position as with recent years. Two of the four overdue reviews (GKGN0554 issue two Guidance on Radio Electronic Token Block (RETB) and RIS-3436-TOM issue one Information for Safe Train Operation) were part of larger projects but these documents were removed from scope, so separate reviews are ongoing. The other two overdue reviews (GEGN8611 issue one Guidance on the Application of the Control Command and Signalling TSI and RIS-2702-RST issue two In-Service Examination and Reference Limits for Freight Wagons) were deferred as they are the subject of ongoing change projects. RIS-2702-RST issue three will publish in March 2025.
Standards with ten or more deviationsThe number of deviations against a standard can be an indicator of its fitness for purpose. However some standards encourage deviations to support trials and temporary works so the measure is not always appropriate. This report will list any live standards with ten or more deviations. In 2024 there were none.
Deviation applicationsFigure 5 and Figure 6 show the number of deviation applications RSSB receives each year and the number of applications that the standards committees approve in the same year. Some applications are either waiting for information from the applicant, or the committees have not yet taken a decision on the application. In any given year, the committees may also approve deviations received in previous years, as happens frequently at the beginning of a year. The difference between the quantity received and the quantity approved is mostly due to applicants withdrawing applications. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the number of applications that were withdrawn or that expired in each year.
The ‘Request for Help’ process is the principal way in which standards users can initially engage with RSSB. This opportunity is available to anybody, a simple form helps to identify the user, define the problem, and explain what good would look like.
RSSB reviews each request in detail to determine how best to support the applicant. It is the primary means to request a change to a standard, or the user may just need support in understanding a standard and how to apply it. In other cases, the applicant might need a deviation to the standard, or sometimes it might be more appropriate to publish an amendment to the standard.
The simple Request for Help process enables standards users to explain their challenges and the benefits they are seeking, and to engage effectively with RSSB, without the user needing to have a comprehensive understanding of the standards framework.
The Request for Help process is an indicator of the suitability of standards, especially if the outcome is a change to standards. RSSB received 89 requests in 2024, slightly higher than in 2023 when 79 were received. Those that are likely to result in a change to standards are listed below, by standards committee.
Request for Help applications resulting in changes to rolling stock standards
In 2024 RSSB received ten requests in respect of rolling stock standards, six have resulted in changes being made, or planned to be made.
Request for Help applications resulting in changes to traffic operations and management standards
In 2024 RSSB received 52 requests in respect of traffic operation and management standards, 34 requests have resulted in changes being made, or planned to be made.
Request for Help applications resulting in changes to command, control and signalling standards
In 2024 RSSB received 16 requests in respect of control, command and signalling standards, 11 requests have resulted in changes being made, or planned to be made.
Request for Help applications resulting in changes to infrastructure standards
In 2024 RSSB received three requests in respect of infrastructure standards, two requests have resulted in changes being made, or planned to be made.
Request for Help applications resulting in changes to plant standards
In 2024 RSSB received five requests in respect of plant standards, five requests have resulted in changes being made, or planned to be made.
Request for Help applications resulting in changes to energy standards
In 2024 RSSB received no request in respect of energy standards.
Request for Help applications resulting in changes to data systems and telematic standards
In 2024 RSSB received one request in respect of data systems and telematic standards, one request has resulted in changes being made, or planned to be made.
Figure 9 shows the number of requests per organisation during 2024. This shows that a substantial proportion of requests were made by infrastructure managers/owners. Furthermore, when combined with requests from RSSB, these two groups account for more than half the total requests in 2024.
Figure 10 displays the outcomes of requests in 2024, showing that a significant share of requests in 2024 were incorporated into existing projects. Additionally, some requests resulted in the creation of new projects, and many only required clarifications.
In November 2022 RSSB received a formal Request for Help from Network Rail. The applicant’s desired outcome was revision of six RSSB published standards:
GERT8000 SP issue seven Speeds
GERT8000 TW7 issue 10 Wrong-direction movements
RS521 issue seven Signals, Handsignals, Indicators and Signs Handbook
RIS-0734-CCS issue 2.1 Signing of Permissible Speeds
RIS-0735-CCS issue 1.1 Signing of Temporary and Emergency Speed Restrictions
RIS-0733-CCS issue 1.1 Lineside Operational Signs.
The request highlighted the inconsistency in the rules governing train speeds. The GB mainline railway already uses the principle of ‘front of train’ permissible speeds, most notably GERT8000-TW7 states this for trains making wrong direction moves over level crossings. Therefore, using this principle, two deviations were in place to trial the specific scenarios selected by Network Rail.
The first deviation allowed for the trialling of acceleration indicator boards at certain types of level crossings under temporary speed restrictions where adequate sight lines for users were lacking.
The second deviation focused on a permanent speed restriction at Bristol Temple Meads, controlling the speeds of trains approaching platform starting signals.
The anticipated benefits to passengers would reduce journey times, because the proposals are a train performance benefit. This is delivered directly by enabling drivers to accelerate to permissible and temporary speed restrictions that are proportionate to the risks.
RSSB’s Request for Help team, made up from professional heads from standards, research, sustainability, risk, and human factors, met and discussed the options to implement this change. A project was started to look at making the desired change to the standard.
Project 22-024 aimed to revise existing standards and introduce new temporary speed signage specifically for user-worked level crossings. The goal was to enable train drivers to accelerate once the front of the train reaches the beginning of a higher permissible speed, now marked by an A-board. This change is particularly important for speeds that mitigate the risk of collision with other trains or level crossing users, without affecting the safety concerning train derailments.
Project 22-024 was a recent project that presented an excellent opportunity to apply insights gained from the successful trials. By integrating the findings and referencing the acceleration indicator board into relevant Rail Industry Standards, stakeholders aim to establish clearer, more consistent rules that enhance operational safety while promoting efficient train movement.
The introduction of new signage aimed at facilitating this change is expected to decrease journey times. While journey durations may still vary depending on the number of crossings or non-track-defect speed areas, as well as train length, operators of shorter two-car trains have already reported minor performance improvements. Feedback from Network Rail's trial indicated that these trains gained valuable seconds in their journeys.
Data from the Wales route during the 2021-22 period shows the financial implications of speed restrictions. Trains lost 4,696,116 minutes due to temporary speed restrictions (TSRs), resulting in an overall cost of £234,805,800. Although pinpointing the exact delays attributed to level crossings with TSRs is challenging, we assumed that five percent of these delays are related to crossings. Five percent of that figure represents the time saved through improved acceleration. We estimated a significant potential saving of £587,014. Over a five-year span, this translates to a total savings of £2,935,072 for the Wales route alone.
Extending this assumption to the other thirteen routes across the network, the projected national benefit could reach an impressive £41,091,015 over five years.
'Project 22-024 was a relatively easy project to implement due to the amount of work Network Rail had input into their deviations and trials prior to making a request for help to RSSB. The wealth of information they supplied gave both me and the CCS technical specialist a particularly good direction to head in with our changes. As this work was completed beforehand, our risk and human factors specialists had then to confirm the findings. Consultation also gave ideas for the future, but industry received and accepted this project from the start. This project really showed how prior planning and research gave the results industry wanted, and showed excellent collaboration between Network Rail, TOCs, FOCs, as well as internal teamwork within RSSB.'
Railway Group Standards (RGSs) can only contain requirements that meet the criteria of national technical rules (NTR) or national safety rules (NSRs). Historically, the criteria for requirements in RGSs was different, and so some older standards contain requirements that are not NTRs. Currently, there are no NSRs as safety requirements are addressed by other means.
The definitive list of NTRs is on the Department for Transport’s website. There are four remaining older RGSs where not all of the requirements meet the criteria of being NTRs.
GERT8018 Issue 2 – Mechanical Trainstop System Interface September 2012 Lead SC: CCS To date there has been little benefit in allocating resource to revise this standard, however it is currently being reviewed. It contains some requirements that do not meet the NTR criteria, but this only impacts on the process of authorisation of a new CCS subsystem using mechanical train stop technology. Such applications are expected to be infrequent. The review will determine the way forward for this standard.
GMRT2131 Issue 1 – Audibility and Visibility of Trains December 2015 Lead SC: RST A project is underway to revise this standard. Requirements that do not meet the NTR criteria will be withdrawn. Requirements deemed to be valid will be transferred to new RISs (RIS2717-RST, issue one Audibility of Rail Vehicles, and RIS-2718-RST, issue one Visibility of Rail Vehicles). The new standards will also incorporate content from technical note TN2301 Train front-end visibility requirements and safe integration. Industry consultation is planned for February 2025 and publication is scheduled for September 2025.
GMRT2132 Issue 1 – On-board Energy Metering for Billing Purposes September 2010 Lead SC: RST There is currently no activity against this standard pending a policy decision from the DfT on energy metering. The standard cannot be applied, because the transition period that permitted its use in the LOC&PAS NTSN has expired. Therefore, any new rolling stock needs to be NTSN compliant and compatible with what is set out in the standard, but vehicles do not need to be assessed against the standard, as they would if it is an NTR.
GOOTS303 - Issue 1 – Secondary Door Locking – Operational Requirements January 1993 Lead SC: RST This project has been on hold for a while as it has been a lower priority. However, in October 2024 the Rolling Stock Standards Committee approved a project to withdraw the standard and transfer any relevant requirements to other standards. This is now being planned.
Most changes to standards are managed as a project. For minor point releases it is not proportionate to manage these as a project, so simpler arrangements apply. Some are significant multi-year projects, others are much smaller in the order of a few months. The number of projects and the number of standards documents produced are crude indicators of the scale of activity and provide a measure of volume from one year to the next.
Table 3 shows various statistics for 2024 and the four preceding years for comparison. During 2024 there were 100 active projects, each one changing at least one standard or related documents, and often several. Sometimes some projects go on hold and come off hold, which means they will be delivered but are not actively being worked on. Usually this is because the technical resource is being deployed on higher priority work or because the project is awaiting input from the industry. The number on hold is comparable to 2023, but these are not necessarily the same projects. In 2024, some came off hold, but others have gone on hold.
Significantly, for another successive year, for each of the last five years, all projects have been produced on time, or early, against their baselined schedule. This doesn’t always mean that they have met their original schedule, but it does mean that all changes to schedule have been effectively managed and with the supportof relevant stakeholders, as appropriate.
The number of projects expected to be delivered in 2025 is comparable to 2024.
Table 3 Project statistics 2020 – 2023
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Active projects at start of year
52
74
88
90
Projects active during year
85
98
97
118
100
Projects on hold at end of year
24
14
23
20
Projects underway at end of year
76
89
65
Projects scheduled to be delivered in the next year
12
18
27
26
Projects delivered during the year
17
15
Projects delivered during the year on time or early
Number of standards documents issued, revised, or withdrawn
58
44
