Brexit Bonus - should Network Rail drop EU regulations to cut costs?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From the Sunday Express

Brexit BOOST for Network Rail as expensive EU^» (European Union - about) regulations set to be DROPPED

CASH-STARVED Network Rail will use Brexit as a chance to ditch EU regulations and cut costs in a manner which has been harshly criticised by a national safety expert.

[Electric train]

From the Sunday Express

Brexit BOOST for Network Rail as expensive EU^» (European Union - about) regulations set to be DROPPED

CASH-STARVED Network Rail will use Brexit as a chance to ditch EU regulations and cut costs in a manner which has been harshly criticised by a national safety expert.

That is the Express giving its readers in part some fake news.   The Interrogability Regulations, TSI, have been adopted into UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Law and any in the pipeline will be adopted as part of the Great Repeal Act.


Untill the UK Government post 29th March, or what ever agreement the UK has with the EU after that date, can pass legislation then the TSI's will remain; what the Secutary of State may be able to grant to the RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) and ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) greater leeway on the application on derigations made by NR^» (Network Rail - home page), LUL^▸ (London Underground Ltd) TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) etc.


The Express is lining its guns up ready for the rail fare price hike in Jan 2019, Grayling has already said its the railways fault!the price have to go up yet its his depertment that set the policy, but he knows that not not increasing the fares mens he has to beg and grovel to Hammond.

[ellendune]

It really is not that simple. 

In the short term some things might save costs, but ultimately (when all the bugs are ironed out), for example standardising signalling kit will save money. At that time it will not be cost effective to buy anything other than ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) equipment because it will be the standard kit in so many countries and anything else would be a one off so expensive.   

We are in Europe - geographically and our manufacturers (if we still have any) will be manufacturing for that market and our other main suppliers are European so in practice we will continue to be bound by many of the EU^» (European Union - about) standards whether we like it or not. 

In other sectors we learn that ultimately when a European Standard has been developed other manufacturers also want it adopted as an international standard to make it easier for them to export to both European and non- European countries alike. 

[devonexpress]

It really is not that simple. 

In the short term some things might save costs, but ultimately (when all the bugs are ironed out), for example standardising signalling kit will save money. At that time it will not be cost effective to buy anything other than ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) equipment because it will be the standard kit in so many countries and anything else would be a one off so expensive.   

We are in Europe - geographically and our manufacturers (if we still have any) will be manufacturing for that market and our other main suppliers are European so in practice we will continue to be bound by many of the EU^» (European Union - about) standards whether we like it or not. 

In other sectors we learn that ultimately when a European Standard has been developed other manufacturers also want it adopted as an international standard to make it easier for them to export to both European and non- European countries alike. 

Completely agree, the problem with the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) rail network is nothing is standardised which should of happened in the BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) era. The closest we have got to that is when most lines took HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s. The only EU rule I Don't agree with is why new trains can't have leather seats, yet aircraft can it seems utterly stupid, but then again Im not sure if its actually Hitachi being possessive over its new trains.

[SandTEngineer]

...eh?  There are currently over 6000 Railway Group and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) standards that cover the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) network.  They are mostly quite prescriptive 

[ellendune]

Completely agree, the problem with the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) rail network is nothing is standardised which should of happened in the BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) era. The closest we have got to that is when most lines took HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s. The only EU^» (European Union - about) rule I Don't agree with is why new trains can't have leather seats, yet aircraft can it seems utterly stupid, but then again Im not sure if its actually Hitachi being possessive over its new trains.

Are you sure it's an EU rule?  The UK Government is very good at gold plating extra restrictions!

[Timmer]

New trains not allowed leather seats??? Not heard that one. Reasons given for this rule?

[Bmblbzzz]

ISTR^▸ (I seem to recall/remember) having heard it was something to do with fire regulations. But they seem to be still allowed in planes, cars and indeed houses – and in any case does leather burn faster or with nastier fumes than cloth? I'd have thought the other way round – so maybe I imagined hearing this.

[Electric train]

...eh?  There are currently over 6000 Railway Group and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) standards that cover the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) network.  They are mostly quite prescriptive 

Quite agree, if anything they are more onerous than the BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) "standards"

Completely agree, the problem with the UK rail network is nothing is standardised which should of happened in the BR era. The closest we have got to that is when most lines took HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s. The only EU^» (European Union - about) rule I Don't agree with is why new trains can't have leather seats, yet aircraft can it seems utterly stupid, but then again Im not sure if its actually Hitachi being possessive over its new trains.

Are you sure it's an EU rule?  The UK Government is very good at gold plating extra restrictions!

Basically yes, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) insisted that NR complied with TSI's, yet the EU interoperability directive allows each administration to waver requirements, however UK HMG have been hard task masters in regards TSI.  In part why electrification between Chippenham and BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) started to be come expensive was the requirement for 3 metres electrical clearance and not the UK norm of 2.75 metres

[didcotdean]

ISTR^▸ (I seem to recall/remember) having heard it was something to do with fire regulations. But they seem to be still allowed in planes, cars and indeed houses – and in any case does leather burn faster or with nastier fumes than cloth? I'd have thought the other way round – so maybe I imagined hearing this.

The issue related not to 'proper' 100% leather but to the fire properties of certain composite materials made out of leather off-cuts and vinyl.

Composites are now available that comply.

[stuving]

The relevant standard for fire safety of seats was EN 45545-2: 2013, "Railway applications — Fire protection on railway vehicles" Part 2 being "Requirements for fire behaviour of materials and components". I found an RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) report (T843, on Spark) about this standard dated January 2014, which says, about the materials standards:

Tests to the British and European standards were performed and the results compared. On the whole the results were comparable, in fact the results of the project gave UK^▸ (United Kingdom) experts much more confidence in the European Norm.

However, it also had this observation about test methods for whole seats:

A difference between test methods of one classification level might be expected especially when it is considered that both test regimes have only three classes, however, the two test regimes produce totally contradictory results for almost all the seats tested. This is true to such a degree that a non-compliant seat to the British system (one that cannot be used on any train assessed using BS 6853) could be installed on an underground train (HL3, the most onerous requirement) if EN 45545 is used to test and classify the product.

Now, those might not correspond with what you expected. My guess is that, when the group called to work on the standard assembled, there were no experts on those test methods present. This is always a risk with standards - participation is voluntary and generally unpaid, for individuals and/or their employers, and it can be hard to persuade the people you really need to bother. This standard was prepared by CEN under an EC mandate, presumably issued via the ERA. In this field there is an older body, the UIC, that is in a sense a rival of the ERA and feels threatened by it - which doesn't help.

RSSB, and no doubt others around Europe, proposed changes as part of an amendment planned for 2015 (the initial version had some known incomplete areas). An amendment did appear, so the standard is now EN 45545-2:2013 +A1:2015, though I've not yet found out whether it addressed this issue.

[Bmblbzzz]

ISTR^▸ (I seem to recall/remember) having heard it was something to do with fire regulations. But they seem to be still allowed in planes, cars and indeed houses – and in any case does leather burn faster or with nastier fumes than cloth? I'd have thought the other way round – so maybe I imagined hearing this.

The issue related not to 'proper' 100% leather but to the fire properties of certain composite materials made out of leather off-cuts and vinyl.

Composites are now available that comply.

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks.