dv 29
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
“DV 29”

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 43

“DV 29” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 164 Views
  • Uploaded on

“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)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '“DV 29”' - catherine


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
dv 29

“DV 29”

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

on the authorisation for the placing in service of structural subsystems and vehicles under Directive 2008/57/EC

why dv29
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
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 it
2 stages
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
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
Some Consequences
  • Managing national railway systems as open systems
    • Opening 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
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
authorisation v operation
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
Separation of Authorisation from Operation

Autorisation to place in service

by Member State (NSA)

Design, construction and installallationAbility to operate and maintain

Exported Technical Characteristics

and operational/maintenance rules linked to the design

the red line

geographical scope of authorisation
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
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
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
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
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
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 1
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 2
Technical Compatibility (2)
  • 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.
technical compatibility 3
Technical Compatibility (3)

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.
old tools new tools1
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
technical compatibility 11
Technical Compatibility (1)

A – A’

B – B’

Interoperable interface

technical compatibility 21
Technical Compatibility (2)
  • 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

A – A’

B – B’

Interoperable interface

technical compatibility 31
Technical Compatibility (3)

A – A’

B

Interoperable interface

B’

safe integration 1
Safe Integration (1)
  • Technical solution
  • Design constraints
  • Maintainabily constraints

Need to demonstrate the safe integration before authorisation

A

B

Interoperable interface

Hazard identification

Risk analysis

Measures

safe integration 2
Safe Integration (2)
  • Technical solution
  • Design constraints
  • Maintainabily constraints

Has also demonstrated the safe integration before authorisation

A’

B’

BUT

Interoperable interface

Hazard identification

Risk analysis

Measures

safe integration 3
Safe Integration (3)

A

B’

Interoperable interface

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

safe integration 5
Safe Integration (5)

How to perform the safe integration  CSM on Risk Assessment

RISK ANALYSIS

HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

AND CLASSIFICATION

Explicit Risk Estimation

Codes of Practice

Similar Reference Systems

Not lead to requirements contradictory to TSIs or NTRs ones

When TSIs or NTRs exist, they are mandatory

safe integration 6
Safe Integration (6)

Important remark

Both 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
safe integration 61
Safe Integration (6)

Already some experiences

RISK ANALYSIS

HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

AND CLASSIFICATION

Explicit Risk Estimation

Codes of Practice

Similar Reference Systems

The interface will then be covered by rules

rules for vehicle network compatibility
Rules for Vehicle-Network Compatibility

Old National Laws

Usually “High Level”

“Be safe”

Implementing legislation

plus

National Rules including RU-IM Operational Rules and Rules specifying the network – vehicle compatibility

Rules of the National Railway Company including RU-IM operational rules and specifications for Vehicle – Network Compatibility

IM Company rules

RU Company rules

mutual recognition

Mutual Recognition

(incl “grandfather’s rights”)

mutual recognition1
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
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
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
register of infrastructure rinf network statement
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.
key principles of dv 29
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.
ad