Informa Australia is part of the Informa Connect Division of Informa PLC
This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 3099067.
23 Apr 2025, by Amy Sarcevic
Independent, holistic assessments of rail systems, beyond that required by rail safety legislation, could be the key to unlocking safety improvements across the sector, according to Brett King of Downer.
Speaking ahead of the RISSB Rail Safety Conference, Mr King said the tendency to overlook or shy away from external validation represents a “lost opportunity” for operators, many of whom could benefit from benchmarking their safety protocols.
He said that while the assurance of activities around requirements traceability was widespread, other forms of external review were less common, in spite of the safety benefits they bring.
“When it comes to rail safety, there is a tendency to look solely at legislative requirements and say ‘we are doing what the standard says, so we must be doing it right’.
“Or, you might be striving to do more than what the standard says. But if you’re not getting someone else to look at your systems through a different lens, then you’re losing valuable insight.”
Restricted to major projects
At present, many rail projects use guidelines provided by the regulator and RISSB, unless classified as a major project, they have no obligation to engage an independent safety assessor. Because of this, many forego the opportunity.
“Looking at the industry if more organisations said, ‘this is 50 percent of our market share, so let’s get it looked at independently, beyond a commercial review to assure the board, and make sure our money to manage safety is in the right place’.”
Engaging in this process could ensure optimal outcomes for private and public government-funded projects, Brett said.
“Say you’re delivering a passenger network, system, facilities, or car sets – it takes a lot of money to deliver this. If the regulator hadn’t confirmed it as a major project, it wouldn’t have the mandatory overlay of independent people benchmarking it against industry best practice.”
Needed for interoperability
As the sector increases its focus on interoperability, Mr King says a rethink of existing assurance protocols is key.
“Interoperability is an example of where you would get value from an independent assessment, because interoperability is about finding the best outcome for multiple organisations that might be aligned in delivering something.
“Often in this situation, organisations will stick to their own individual requirements. But if they held them up against one another and said, hey, there is 80 percent overlap here – are we going to dig our heels in over the 20 percent, or can we move at 10 percent each and align?
“That way it is cheaper, easier and more robust, because there’s one thing or one requirement working in that space rather than people trying to align to continuously going along a path of delivery.”
Mr King said organisations should consider an external review for any activity in the interoperability piece – from change event and system requirements to full project reviews.
“There needs to be certainty that, if I’m driving a train from Arcadia Ridge to reach Perth, I can use the same communication systems throughout; that I’ll encounter the same signalling requirements and network rules.
“For this we need to have aligned requirements at every segment. And that is where independent assessment can really help. To bridge the intersections and make sure the system is functioning optimally as a whole.”
Not just for engineering
Mr King said broadening views around what might warrant an independent assessment is also necessary.
“A lot of people think safety assurance is just for engineering, whereas RISSB Standards looks at it from a more holistic point of view. It talks about the assurance of operations – the safety management system, the procurement system, the integrated management system.
“As an operator, you might look at your safety management system and say, I’ve got parts that work really well, but my procurement leg is a bit lacking. Or, my HR system is not quite fit for purpose, because it’s overly punitive and punishes people for minor mistakes and human errors reducing safety reporting, for example.
“That’s a much broader and more useful way to conceptualise assurance.”
Mr King says, for many, seeking external validation on these areas may involve a change of mindset and a leap of confidence.
“You might need to step outside of your comfort zone a little. But it’s definitely worth the effort,” he said.
Downer is now supporting rail operators with safety consulting and assurance services. If you’re interested in learning more, feel free to reach out to Brett King for a conversation.
Further insight
For more thoughts on assurance and rail safety, Brett from Downer will be attending the upcoming RISSB Rail Safety Conference, hosted by Informa Connect.
Downer is proud to return as the event’s Platinum Sponsor.
This year’s event will be held 13-14 May at the Swissotel Sydney.
Learn more and register your tickets here.
About Brett King
Brett King is General Manager of Governance, Risk and Assurance, where he manages systems for Corporate and Operational Risk, Regulatory Interface and independently monitors System Safety, Product Assurance. He is responsible for ensuring compliance with all Engineering Standards, Authorised Engineering Certification, Rail Safety/WHS (OHS) legislation.
Informa Connect Australia is the nation's leading event organiser. Our events comprise of large scale exhibitions, industry conferences and highly specialised corporate training.
