Rail Safety and Compliance Excellence
Manage ORR requirements, safety management systems, and competency compliance with digital tools designed for the rail industry.
The Challenge
Rail operates under intense ORR scrutiny where safety failures can result in prosecution and public inquiry. Personal Track Safety certifications, signal competencies, and safety critical training require continuous management across dispersed workforces. RAIB investigations demand complete historical records within hours of an incident. Paper-based systems cannot track the dozens of competencies each rail worker needs, and gaps discovered after incidents expose systemic failures in safety management systems that regulators and the public find unacceptable.
How Assistant Manager Solves Rail Compliance
Each module is designed to address the specific challenges rail businesses face every day.
Checklist Management
Rail infrastructure inspection requires asset-specific checklists with different frequencies - track sections, signals, level crossings, and equipment all have distinct requirements that generic systems cannot manage
The Problems
Why This Matters for Rail
- Track safety inspections are documented on paper forms that get lost, damaged, or illegible before reaching the central record system
ORR inspections find gaps in infrastructure safety documentation, and RAIB investigations cannot determine whether required inspections actually occurred
- Signal equipment safety checks are completed inconsistently, with different signallers applying different standards
Equipment failures occur that could have been identified by consistent checking, and investigation reveals variable compliance with safety procedures
- Level crossing inspections are due at different frequencies for different crossing types, with no automated tracking of what is due when
Crossings miss inspection windows, ORR enforcement action follows, and public safety is compromised by inadequate oversight
The Solution
How Checklist Management Helps
Digital inspection checklists with asset-specific requirements, GPS location verification, photo evidence capture, and automatic scheduling based on inspection frequencies
Every track section, signal, and level crossing has verifiable inspection records, inspection frequencies are automatically managed, and ORR auditors see complete documented compliance
Use Cases:
- • Track section inspection with defect photography
- • Signal equipment pre-shift verification
- • Level crossing inspection by type and frequency
- • Station platform safety checks
- • Depot and yard inspection rounds
- • Possession site safety inspections
- • Rolling stock daily checks by train crew
Feature Screenshot
Checklist Management
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Track safety inspections are documented on paper forms that get lost, damaged, or illegible before reaching the central record system
Real Scenario
"Following a track defect incident, RAIB requests inspection records for the affected section. Paper forms for three inspection dates cannot be located. The inspector says they 'definitely did the checks' but there is no evidence. The investigation notes inadequate record keeping."
Example 2: Signal equipment safety checks are completed inconsistently, with different signallers applying different standards
Real Scenario
"A signal failure contributes to a near-miss incident. Investigation reveals the pre-shift equipment check was marked complete but key verification steps were skipped. Different signallers had been using abbreviated versions of the checklist without management awareness."
Example 3: Level crossing inspections are due at different frequencies for different crossing types, with no automated tracking of what is due when
Real Scenario
"An ORR audit reveals a user-worked crossing missed its quarterly inspection for two consecutive quarters. The manual spreadsheet tracking inspection due dates had not been updated when the inspection frequency changed. Nobody noticed until the audit."
Employee Scheduling
Rail safety critical roles require multiple competencies - route knowledge, traction knowledge, rule book, PTS - that must all be current for specific assignments. Generic scheduling systems cannot verify this complexity.
The Problems
Why This Matters for Rail
- Staff are scheduled for safety critical roles without verification that their competencies are current
Incidents involve staff working with expired competencies, creating immediate regulatory consequences and potential prosecution
- Fatigue risk is managed through policy rather than systematic scheduling controls, and shifts that create fatigue risk are routinely planned
Fatigue contributes to errors and incidents, investigation reveals known fatigue risks were not controlled, and ORR questions the safety management system
The Solution
How Employee Scheduling Helps
Competency-integrated scheduling that blocks assignments when required qualifications are expired, with fatigue risk scoring and automatic flagging of high-risk roster patterns
Only competent staff are scheduled for safety critical roles, fatigue risks are identified before rosters are published, and compliance is built into scheduling rather than checked afterwards
Use Cases:
- • Driver rostering with route and traction competency verification
- • Signaller scheduling with area competency checking
- • Track worker assignment with PTS and sentinel verification
- • Fatigue risk scoring for proposed rosters
- • Night shift rotation pattern management
- • Multi-depot staff sharing with competency visibility
- • Agency and contractor staff scheduling with verification
Feature Screenshot
Employee Scheduling
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Staff are scheduled for safety critical roles without verification that their competencies are current
Real Scenario
"A signaller is rostered for duty. Their route knowledge competency for that area expired last month. A SPAD occurs on their shift. Investigation reveals the expired competency and questions how they were scheduled. The operator faces ORR enforcement action."
Example 2: Fatigue risk is managed through policy rather than systematic scheduling controls, and shifts that create fatigue risk are routinely planned
Real Scenario
"A driver passes a signal at danger after working seven consecutive early shifts. Investigation reveals the roster was known to create fatigue risk but was approved because it was 'compliant with the rules'. ORR notes the SMS failed to manage foreseeable fatigue risk."
Time Clock & Attendance
Rail fatigue management requires monitoring actual working patterns against fatigue risk models - planned rosters are insufficient because overtime, shift overruns, and rest day changes affect actual fatigue levels
The Problems
Why This Matters for Rail
- Actual hours worked differ from rostered hours, and fatigue calculations are based on planned rather than actual patterns
Staff work more than planned without fatigue assessment updates, and incident investigation reveals actual hours exceeded safe limits
- Rest day and annual leave patterns are not systematically monitored for their impact on fatigue accumulation
Staff accumulate fatigue over time without triggering review, and incidents occur after patterns that should have been identified as risky
The Solution
How Time Clock & Attendance Helps
Actual hours tracking with real-time fatigue risk calculation, rest day monitoring, and automatic alerts when working patterns exceed risk thresholds
Fatigue risk is calculated from actual hours worked, not planned hours, pattern risks are identified before they create incidents, and compliance with ORR fatigue guidance is demonstrable
Use Cases:
- • Actual hours versus rostered hours tracking
- • Real-time fatigue risk calculation dashboard
- • Rest day and annual leave pattern monitoring
- • Shift overrun recording and fatigue reassessment
- • Consecutive early/late shift pattern alerts
- • Cross-employer working pattern aggregation
- • Fatigue risk reporting for safety reviews
Feature Screenshot
Time Clock & Attendance
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Actual hours worked differ from rostered hours, and fatigue calculations are based on planned rather than actual patterns
Real Scenario
"A driver is involved in a SPAD after working a shift that overran by two hours. The previous three shifts also overran. Fatigue assessment was based on planned hours showing acceptable risk. Actual hours showed high fatigue risk that nobody calculated."
Example 2: Rest day and annual leave patterns are not systematically monitored for their impact on fatigue accumulation
Real Scenario
"A signaller makes a critical error on day 12 of a 14-day stretch without rest days (covering for holidays). Their fatigue was never reassessed when the working pattern changed. Investigation identifies failure to manage cumulative fatigue."
Training & Development
Rail competency management is uniquely complex - drivers need route and traction knowledge for specific lines, signallers need area knowledge, track workers need PTS levels and sentinel registration - requiring specialised tracking systems
The Problems
Why This Matters for Rail
- Rail workers hold dozens of competencies with different validity periods, renewal requirements, and assessment methods - tracking them manually is impossible
Competencies expire without timely renewal, staff work with gaps in required qualifications, and ORR finds systematic competency management failures
- Personal Track Safety (PTS) certification and sentinel card management is handled separately from other competencies with no integration
Staff are assigned to track work without valid PTS or sentinel registration, creating immediate safety risks and compliance failures
The Solution
How Training & Development Helps
Comprehensive competency management with rule book, route knowledge, traction knowledge, PTS, and sentinel integration, automatic expiry alerts, and scheduling system integration to prevent unqualified assignments
Every competency for every rail worker is tracked with renewal dates, expiries trigger automatic alerts and scheduling blocks, and ORR auditors see complete competency management
Use Cases:
- • Rule book competency tracking with version management
- • Route knowledge certification by line section
- • Traction knowledge by train type and class
- • Personal Track Safety level certification
- • Sentinel card registration and renewal
- • Signal competency by panel or control area
- • Safety critical communications competency
Feature Screenshot
Training & Development
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Rail workers hold dozens of competencies with different validity periods, renewal requirements, and assessment methods - tracking them manually is impossible
Real Scenario
"An ORR audit requests competency records for 50 randomly selected staff. Analysis reveals 23 instances of expired competencies across the sample, some expired for over a year. The operator had no system to identify these gaps proactively."
Example 2: Personal Track Safety (PTS) certification and sentinel card management is handled separately from other competencies with no integration
Real Scenario
"A track worker is injured on site. Investigation reveals their sentinel card expired two months ago and they should not have been allowed access to the infrastructure. The access control system was not integrated with competency records."
HR Management
Rail safety critical workers must meet medical fitness standards, undergo drug and alcohol testing, and maintain competencies - fragmented systems create gaps that regulators identify
The Problems
Why This Matters for Rail
- Safety critical worker records are incomplete, with medical fitness, drug and alcohol testing, and competency records scattered across systems
ORR audits find inadequate records management, incident investigations cannot determine complete worker status, and regulatory action follows
- Drug and alcohol testing programmes are managed separately from other compliance, with no integration into fitness-for-duty verification
Testing compliance gaps appear, post-incident testing is not systematic, and ORR questions the effectiveness of the programme
The Solution
How HR Management Helps
Unified safety critical worker records with medical fitness, drug and alcohol testing integration, competency status, and fitness-for-duty verification before each shift
Every safety critical worker has complete verified records in one system, fitness-for-duty can be confirmed before work, and ORR auditors see comprehensive workforce management
Use Cases:
- • Safety critical worker file management
- • Medical fitness certificate tracking and renewal
- • Drug and alcohol test scheduling and results
- • For-cause testing trigger and documentation
- • Fitness-for-duty verification workflow
- • Sentinel card registration management
- • Cross-employer worker history visibility
Feature Screenshot
HR Management
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Safety critical worker records are incomplete, with medical fitness, drug and alcohol testing, and competency records scattered across systems
Real Scenario
"Following an incident, ORR requests the complete file for the driver involved. Medical fitness is in one system, competencies in another, drug testing in a third, and training records on paper. Compiling a complete record takes days. ORR notes 'fragmented records management' as a contributing factor."
Example 2: Drug and alcohol testing programmes are managed separately from other compliance, with no integration into fitness-for-duty verification
Real Scenario
"An ORR audit of drug and alcohol testing reveals random testing fell below the required percentage for three consecutive months. The standalone testing system generated reports but nobody was monitoring completion rates. The operator faces enforcement action."
Risk Assessment
Rail risk assessment must be site-specific - every location has unique hazards from sighting distances, line speeds, crossing movements, and infrastructure layout that generic assessments cannot address
The Problems
Why This Matters for Rail
- Possession and engineering work risk assessments are completed generically without site-specific hazard identification
Incidents occur due to hazards that site-specific assessment should have identified, and RAIB finds inadequate risk assessment was a contributing factor
- Risk assessments for operational changes are not systematically required, and changes are implemented without formal assessment
Operational changes introduce risks that weren't identified, incidents occur, and investigation reveals inadequate change management
The Solution
How Risk Assessment Helps
Site-specific risk assessment with location hazard databases, operational change assessment workflow, and integration with incident data to improve assessments based on actual events
Every work site and operational change has specific risk assessment, location-specific hazards are documented and addressed, and incidents trigger assessment review and improvement
Use Cases:
- • Possession and safe work pack risk assessments
- • Site-specific hazard identification with photo documentation
- • Timetable and operational change risk assessment
- • Station platform safety assessments
- • Level crossing specific risk assessments
- • Depot and yard movement risk assessments
- • Temporary speed restriction risk assessments
Feature Screenshot
Risk Assessment
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Possession and engineering work risk assessments are completed generically without site-specific hazard identification
Real Scenario
"A track worker is struck by a train during possession handback. Investigation reveals the risk assessment did not identify the specific sighting distance constraint at that location. A generic 'engineering possession' assessment was used without site adaptation."
Example 2: Risk assessments for operational changes are not systematically required, and changes are implemented without formal assessment
Real Scenario
"A timetable change introduces new crossing movements at a junction. Six months later, a near-miss occurs. Investigation reveals no risk assessment was conducted when the timetable changed. The new risk from conflicting movements was not identified."
Accident & Incident Records
Rail must report specific incidents to ORR and RAIB within strict timeframes, while building a just culture that encourages near-miss reporting - unified systems ensure both compliance and cultural objectives
The Problems
Why This Matters for Rail
- Incidents are reported through multiple channels - safety teams, operational control, and frontline reports - with no unified view
RAIB investigations find incomplete incident records, patterns across reporting channels aren't identified, and mandatory reports to ORR are delayed or missed
- Near-miss reporting is discouraged by blame culture, and frontline staff don't report events that could prevent future incidents
Hazards that staff know about go unreported, incidents occur that could have been prevented, and ORR finds inadequate safety reporting culture
The Solution
How Accident & Incident Records Helps
Unified incident reporting with automatic RIDDOR and ORR notification determination, confidential near-miss reporting option, and trend analysis across all incident types and locations
Every incident is captured in a single system, mandatory reports are automatically triggered, near-misses are reported without fear, and patterns are identified before serious incidents occur
Use Cases:
- • SPAD reporting with automatic ORR notification
- • Collision and derailment incident documentation
- • Near-miss confidential reporting
- • Track defect discovery reporting
- • Signal failure incident recording
- • Trespass and fatality reporting to BTP
- • RIDDOR determination for railway incidents
Feature Screenshot
Accident & Incident Records
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Incidents are reported through multiple channels - safety teams, operational control, and frontline reports - with no unified view
Real Scenario
"A SPAD occurs. The driver reports to control, the signaller logs a separate report, and the safety team creates another record from their investigation. RAIB receives three inconsistent accounts. Nobody had consolidated the reports into a single incident record."
Example 2: Near-miss reporting is discouraged by blame culture, and frontline staff don't report events that could prevent future incidents
Real Scenario
"A collision occurs at a location where drivers had informally complained about poor sighting. None had formally reported it because 'nothing will happen and we might get blamed'. Investigation reveals a known hazard that wasn't in the risk register."
COSHH Assessments
Rail maintenance uses specialised chemicals in remote track locations where office-based COSHH systems are useless - assessments must be accessible on site through mobile devices
The Problems
Why This Matters for Rail
- Track maintenance chemicals - rail lubricants, weedkillers, and cleaning products - are used by staff who have not seen the relevant COSHH assessments
Chemical exposure incidents occur because staff don't know the hazards or PPE requirements, and HSE finds inadequate COSHH communication
- Possession work involves contractors who bring their own chemicals without assessment or coordination with the infrastructure manager
Unknown chemicals are used on the railway without assessment, and incidents cannot be properly investigated because substances are unidentified
The Solution
How COSHH Assessments Helps
COSHH assessments accessible on mobile devices at work sites, contractor chemical approval workflow, and site-specific chemical inventories for emergency response
Every chemical used on the railway has accessible COSHH documentation at point of use, contractor chemicals are approved before work, and emergency responders know what substances are present
Use Cases:
- • Rail lubricant and track treatment assessments
- • Vegetation management herbicide documentation
- • Train cleaning chemical assessments
- • Depot maintenance product assessments
- • Contractor chemical approval and documentation
- • Emergency response chemical information
- • PPE requirements by product and task
Feature Screenshot
COSHH Assessments
Real-World Examples
Example 1: Track maintenance chemicals - rail lubricants, weedkillers, and cleaning products - are used by staff who have not seen the relevant COSHH assessments
Real Scenario
"A track worker develops skin irritation from rail lubricant exposure. They didn't know gloves were required because they never saw the COSHH assessment. The assessment existed in the depot office - not on site where the product was used."
Example 2: Possession work involves contractors who bring their own chemicals without assessment or coordination with the infrastructure manager
Real Scenario
"A contractor uses a specialist cleaning product during overnight possession work. A worker has an adverse reaction. Nobody on site knows what the product is or has COSHH information. The contractor's documentation is at their office. Emergency response is compromised."
Results Rail Businesses Achieve
Other Transport Solutions
Stay on Track with Compliance
Join rail operators using Assistant Manager to maintain the highest standards of railway safety.