“DV 29” COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION on the authorisation for the placing in service of structural...

“DV 29”

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION on the authorisation for the placing in service of

structural subsystems and vehicles under Directive 2008/57/EC

Why DV29?

Agency Study on Authorisation + Sector Complaints• Costs, delays, uncertainty (increasing especially for CCS)• Different authorisation process in every country• Different interpretations of the directives in each country• Confusion over roles and responsibilities• Old processes continue

Duplicate checks, “surprises”, overlaps between checks.• Conflicts between directive and historical roles and

responsibilities eg IM acting as regulator (setting rules, authorising) ISAs carrying out “approvals”

• Technical incompatibility between projects (eg ETCS & GSMR)

How DV29 is to be used

It does not have the same legal status as the Directive

BUT

• If an entity complains that a MS or NSA is not acting according to the Directive then the adjudicating authority will refer to DV29

• The Commission will use DV29 to check conformity of MS implementation of 2008/57

• All Member States agreed to it3

Managing shared systems

2 Stages

• Stage 1 – National systems as open, shared systems - NOW• Separation of infrastructure and train

operations• Transparent rules, roles, and responsibilities

• Stage 2 – Migration to a single European (target) shared system-IN FUTURE• One set of system specifications• Conformity to these specifications

All Change-NOW!

•Before •25 National Railways

•Each a single legal entity responsible for all parts of the system and its “V” cycle

•Railway Companies part of government -”light touch” or no regulatory supervision.•“closed” systems•“closed” markets•Discrimination mandatory

•Now•Each national system now a “shared” system•Many legal entities responsible each for their own part

•RUs train operations•IMs infrastructure operation•Ministries – rules

•Regulation of railway organisational and technical interfaces essential•“open” system•“open” market•Discrimination prohibited

Some Consequences

Managing national railway systems as open systemsOpening of markets means making requirements

for authorisation transparent repeatable (same result for the same input every time) certain (not changing over time or according to different

individual’s judgement) Verifiable by an independent 3rd party (NoBo, DeBo,CSMAB)

decision making must ensure “same as the other guy” “same as before”

Old Tools->New Tools

Interop and Safety Directives overtake EN50126/8/9 (“V”) as a tool for authorisation CSM covers risk assessment TSIs and national rules cover availability, reliability and safety Technical compatibility must also be assured (not part of EN50126)

Dangers of using the “old tools” Many ETCS systems / projects are all safe but incompatible with each

other (sometimes even in the same country!) - A step in the wrong direction -towards diversity, away from interoperability

Confusion over roles and responsibilities Multiple rechecks by different checkers Assessing the same risk many, many times (i.e. assessing the same

risks again and again for each and every project)

NB - Confusion leads to high cost + safety risk

Scope of Authorisation

Authorisation v Operation

• Authorisation of Vehicle (= an Initial “Snapshot”)• Vehicle design operating state “meets the essential requirements when

integrated into the system”• Conforms to rules defining how to meet the ERs (TSI/NNTR). In particular:-

• Subsystems safely integrated• Technically Compatible with the network (TSI+NNTR)

• Authorisation is not related to any particular RU or IM

• Operation of trains (= an ongoing process using vehs)• RU’s Safety Management System• Maintenance assures ongoing conformity with essential requirements• Relies upon ability of each route to support the train (route compatibility)

and maintenance by IM of that ability.

Separation of Authorisation from Operation

the red line

Safe integration including technical compatibility

Provision and process of the safety certificate/authorisation and/or ECM

certificate

Risks covered by relevant TSIChecked by NoBoOpen points, specific cases in TSI and derogationsChecked by Designated body

Risks coveredBy NNTR

Checked by Designated body

Risks covered neither by TSI

nor NNTR

Checked by CSM assessment body

Exported Technical Characteristicsand operational/maintenance rules linked to the design

Autorisation to place in service by Member State (NSA)

Design, construction and installallation Ability to operate and maintain

Geographical Scope of Authorisation

“Each Member State shall authorise placing in service of those structural subsystems constituting the rail system which are located or operated in its territory (Art 15) “

Conclusion: Authorisation is required for all parts of the rail system

“Before being used on a network, a vehicle shall be authorised to be placed in service by the national safety authority which is competent for this network, unless otherwise provided for in this Chapter (Art 21.1)”

Observations: • Authorisation may be obtained by a manufacturer. (independant of RU)• No new authorisation if vehicle used on different routes

Conclusion: Vehicle Authorisation is for a network according to the rules for that network

What is a Network?

A Network – some factors to consider • A geographically connected set of routes• Supervised by one Safety Authority• Managed by a single Infrastructure Manager• With one set of Technical Specifications / Rules

How many networks in a country? “Steps should be taken to avoid a situation where Member

States adopt new national rules or undertake projects that increase the diversity of the present system”

Maintaining the Essential Requirements (incl Technical Compatibility)

The conformity with the TSIs and NNTR (demonstrated at authorisation) must be maintained

• for a network by the IMs (variable track guage or loading gauge infrastructure is not allowed)

• for a vehicle by the RU (variable track or kinematic gauge vehicles not allowed)

An RU/IM must, via its SMS, ensure that it does not operate any vehicle/network whose conformity with the essential requirements (as described in the TSI and NNTR) has not been maintained • operation of vehicles/networks with unknown maintenance

limits is not allowed because it compromises compatibility

Operations TSI

Comes into play when it is necessary to have common procedures of operation and traffic management• Not relevant (no checks) for authorisation (right

rand side of the dotted red line)• Functionalities for operation (eg visibility, horns

braking requirements) are covered by structural TSIs

Some Comparisons - Aviation

Aircraft certification • Independent of which airline will use the plane

Not related to the ability of any airline to maintain the plane Not related to the ability of any airline’s pilots to fly the

plane

Independent from particular routes or airports Airport operators make public the nature of their

infrastructure (runway length etc) Airlines make sure they fly to airports that are compatible

with their planes

Some Comparisons- Road System

Vehicles• are certified independantly from drivers or haulage companies• are certified independent of which routes they use

Common Technical Rules, Roles and Responsibilities apply• New highways are built and maintained to “standard dimensions” (eg

bridge height)• Road signs are standardised nationally /at EU level (not project by

project)• Highway authorities make public the nature of their non standard

infrastructure (eg low bridges) and maintain them to published limits• Management systems of bus companies and freight hauliers ensure

that their drivers only drive vehicles on routes that are compatible with their busses/lorries

Technical Compatibility, Safe Integration

Technical Compatibility (1)

One of the essential requirements (Annex III)

“The technical characteristics of the infrastructure and fixed installations must be compatible with each other and with those of the trains to be used on the rail system”

“Steps should be taken to avoid a situation where Member States adopt new national rules or undertake projects that increase the diversity of the present system”.


• Technical Compatibility is an essential element in market opening and interoperability

• The Member State must ensure technical compatibility at the vehicle-network interface is maintained.


TSIs (and national rules where not covered by TSIs) specify how the essential requirement of Technical Compatibility is to be implemented

Conclusions:– To preserve technical compatibility and prevent diversity

national rules need to cover the vehicle-network interface to the same scope and level of detail as TSIs

– The MS must make transparent the rules that specify any requirements that exist (in addition to those in TSIs) that are necessary (“exported” to vehicles) to implement technical compatibility between TSI conform vehicles and non-TSI conform parts of their network.

Managing Shared Systems

Supplier AOBU

Supplier BOBU

Supplier C OBU

Supplier D OBU

Project A

Project B

Project C

Project D

Project E

Project F

Project G

Project H

Conformityto Reference

TSI + national rule

Integration intoLocal inf









Network

Integration Into veh typa A

Integration intoVeh Type C


Integration intoVeh Type B








For each infrastructure project 1 compatibility check (TSI )plus local integrationFor each OBU design one IC check to TSI and MS national rulesFor each loco type / OBU combination check integration veh to OBU

Vehicles

Veh authorisationSubsystem authorisationTechnical

Compatibility

Subsystem authorisation

Conformityto Reference

TSI + national rule

Old Tools->New Tools

Interop and Safety Directives overtake EN50126/8/9 (“V”) as a tool for authorisation CSM covers risk assessment TSIs and national rules cover availability, reliability and safety Technical compatibility must also be assured (not part of EN50126)

Dangers of using the “old tools” Many ETCS systems / projects are all safe but incompatible with each

other (sometimes even in the same country!) - A step in the wrong direction -towards diversity, away from interoperability

Confusion over roles and responsibilities Multiple rechecks by different checkers Assessing the same risk many, many times (i.e. assessing the same

risks again and again for each and every project)

NB Confusion leads to high cost + safety risk


A – A’

B – B’

Interoperable interface


A – A’

B – B’


Technical Compatibilty (TC) : one of the essential requirements (Annex III)TSIs specify how the essential requirements are to be implemented – Verification of TC by reference to TSIs



B

A – A’

B’

Safe Integration (1)

Technical solutionDesign constraintsMaintainabily constraints

Need to demonstrate the safe integration before authorisationA B


Hazard identificationRisk analysis

Measures


A’ B’


Has also demonstrated the safe integration before authorisation

Hazard identificationRisk analysis

Measures

Technical solutionDesign constraintsMaintainabily constraints

BUT


A B’


Safe integration could jeopardise interoperability Interface need to be covered by rules

When no TSI, national rules apply and need to be notified

Part of the next revision of the TSI


How to perform the safe integration CSM on Risk Assessment

Codes of Practice

Similar Reference Systems

Explicit Risk Estimation

RISK ANALYSIS

HAZARD IDENTIFICATIONAND CLASSIFICATION

Not lead to requirements contradictory to TSIs or NTRs onesWhen TSIs or NTRs exist, they are mandatory


Important remarkBoth directive 2008/57/EC and 2004/49/EC must be complied with Safe Integration must be delivered in a way that is Technically

Compatible If additional requirements (from the one of the TSIs) are

necessary to maintain the existing safety level then:- Requirements on network or operation (as long as they do

not contradict the TSI) If not possible, should be included in the vehicle related TSI

as duly justified specific case


Already some experiences

Codes of Practice

Similar Reference Systems

Explicit Risk Estimation

RISK ANALYSISHAZARD IDENTIFICATION

AND CLASSIFICATION

The interface will then be covered by rules

Evolution of Rules forTechnically Compatible Safe Integration

Network-Vehicle

Rules for Vehicle-Network Compatibility

34

Old National LawsUsually “High Level”

“Be safe”

Rules of the National Railway Company including RU-IM

operational rules and specifications for

Vehicle – Network Compatibility

Implementing legislation

plus

National Rules including RU-IM Operational Rules and Rules specifying the

network – vehicle compatibility

RU Company rules

IM Company rules

Mutual Recognition

(incl “grandfather’s rights”)

Mutual Recognition

• Member States may choose to require Additional authorisation for vehicles already authorised in another MS

• On additional authorisation Member States may only check against Specific cases Rules relating to compatibility with the network

(but only if they are B and C rules in the Ref Doc)

• For non TSI conform vehicles the NSA must not call into question the checks of first authorisation unless they can demonstrate a substantial safety risk to the applicant• (And even then not if related to an A rule in the Ref Doc)

Grandfather’s Rights (1)

• Art 23 and 25 (Additional authorisation) require that • For TSI conform vehs only technical

compatibility with the network and specific cases may be checked

• For Non TSI-Conform the NSA may not call into question checks carried out as part of the first authorisation save (i.e. except) where the NSA is able to demonstrate a significant safety risk

Grandfather’s Rights (2)

• This means that• Grandfathers rights apply to additional authorisations in

respect of parameters not relating to network-vehicle compatibility or specific cases Because it would be discriminatory to allow a 20 years old

national vehicle to run on grandfathers rights but to insist that an identical vehicle applying for additional authorisation must conform to today’s rules for new vehicles.

• Except where to do so would create a significant safety risk (e.g. if the safety level of the old foreign vehicle is much lower than would be allowed for same age national vehicles) Because to do so would discriminate in the opposite direction and

would lower the overall level of safety

Registers

Register of infrastructure (RINF)/ Network Statement

Application of 2001/14/EC and 2008/57/EC

Purpose – The tool for the RU to establish route compatiblity

Scope: whole network (incl. existing lines) Description of the “nature of infrastructure” as far as

compatibility with the train is concerned Should allow IMs to inform RUs in a harmonised way about the

nature of the infrastructure Contains route specific non-conformities with TSI/national

rules.

To Conclude

Key principles of DV 29

• Separation of authorisation from operation (use)

• Vehicle Authorisation is for a Network• and is given by the NSA (and only the NSA)

• Technical Compatibility Network-Vehicles is assured by conformity with TSIs and national rules. Route exceptions described in the network

statement/infrastructure register Maintenance must maintain this compatibility Don’t let projects create new system diversity!

• At additional authorisation, checks may concern only conformity to notified national rules related to technical compatibility with the Network unless a significant safety

risk can be demonstrated.

Thank you for your attention

Questions?

43

Date post:	16-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aliyah-reek
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

“DV 29” COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION on the authorisation for the placing in service of structural...

Documents