scope:

A significant change arising from The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations (amended by the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 and the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2013) (ROGS) was removal of regulator responsibility for approval of new or altered infrastructure or vehicles.

The introduction of safety verification under ROGS provides a flexible process to ensure that works or projects with the potential to increase risk are demonstrably safe. This is achieved by application of two tests to the works or project to determine whether enhanced safety verification is required. If so this is achieved by appointing an independent competent person from inside or outside the organisation to undertake a safety verification assessment. ROGS defines this enhanced process as Safety Verification (SV).

ROGS defines two distinct tests. The text from the ORR Guide to ROGS is quoted below. The terminology in the regulatory guidance is then used through the remainder of this note:

Safety verification is needed if:

• The operation is non-mainline;

• The risk arising from the project is new, or is new to the transport system (the 'difference test'); and

• There will be a new significant safety risk or a significant increase in risk (the 'risk test').

If a project passes all three tests, safety verification is needed and you must:

• prepare a written safety verification scheme that meets the requirements set out in ROGS;

• appoint an independent competent person to do the verification assessment; and

• make sure the independent competent person carries out the assessment.

Specific terminology in ROGS is that works or projects are considered to 'pass' a difference or risk test where they DO present a difference or risk (rather than where 'passing' a risk test indicates a level of risk below a specified threshold). This terminology is retained through the guidance note and electronic template to be consistent with ROGS.

Historically LU station capacity and Infrastructure projects do not generally make a change that is both novel and introduce significant risk in terms of the ROGS tests and hence safety verification has not generally been undertaken on these projects (this is not necessarily the general case for other 'safety critical' assets such as signalling, communications or rolling stock). However LU Profession Heads, who are independent of delivery, routinely undertake safety verification activities on a risk basis to gain assurance regarding compliance with requirements from engineering standards etc. across all projects.

Historically the difference and risk tests have been applied based on engineering judgement. For the majority of projects engineering judgement will provide the best and most appropriate basis for the tests; however the business acknowledges the need for a structured and systematic template for recording difference and risk tests. This note outlines the structure and rationale of the template; and gives guidance on how to apply and record engineering judgement in responding to the various sections.

Note that the difference and risk tests are limited to consideration of safety risk.

Note: The template is evolving as application to different projects, disciplines and environments proceeds. Definition of the project and works (Section 3.3 below) requires selection of a category (at present limited to 'Engineering' or 'Operational'). This selection determines list choices in the difference and risk tests which are phrased to match the category being assessed. Failure to assign either the 'Engineering' or 'Operational' assessment to the test will result in subsequent forms not being fully functional.