Compatibility of Infrastructure and Rolling Stock

1
(No Transcript)
2
Compatibility of Infrastructure and Rolling Stock

• Jon Taylor
• Head of Delivery, INS RST
• RSSB
• Yellow Book Conference 2007

3
Introduction

• There are three key stages to bringing rolling
  stock or infrastructure into use
• Stage A the asset is demonstrated to conform to
  mandatory standards.
• Stage B the asset is demonstrated to be
  compatible with the rolling stock and / or
  infrastructure with which it is to be integrated.
• Stage C commercial arrangements are put in
  place in respect of track access, vehicle change
  and / or network change, as appropriate.

4
Introduction

• Stage A and Stage B are safety processes covered
  by the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations
  2006 and the Railways and Other Guided Transport
  Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006. Stage C is a
  commercial process described by the Railways
  Infrastructure (Access and Management)
  Regulations 2005.
• This presentation only covers Stage B of the
  process.

5
Why compatibility assessment?

• Assets on both sides of an interface must be
  compatible to be safe, reliable, ...
• (to meet the essential requirements)
• Therefore new and altered assets are to conform
  to corresponding requirements in an integrated
  suite of standards

6
Why compatibility assessment?

• Integrated suites of mandatory standards
• High Speed TSIs
• Conventional Rail TSIs
• Railway Group Standards
• For example, if track conforms to the HS INS TSI
  and wheelsets to the HS RST TSI, the wheel / rail
  interface will be compatible.

7
Why compatibility assessment?

• But
• Standards have evolved
• Assets have long lives, so dont necessarily
  conform to current standards
• Different suites of standards have different
  scopes
• So we must to check compatibility at interfaces
• Is there a good fit / safe clearance?

8
RIR 2006 and ROGS 2006

• In 2006, the there was a fundamental change in
  the way safety is regulated on the railway
• European Directives concerning interoperability
  and safety have been implemented in the UK by
• The Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2006
  RIR 2006
• The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems
  (Safety) Regulations 2006 ROGS 2006

9
RIR 2006 and ROGS 2006

• Each railway undertaking and infrastructure
  manager is responsible for the safety of their
  own part of the railway system.
• Neither party gives permission to or has
  authority over the other.
• Any authorisation required to place into service
  is given by the national safety authority - ORR.

10
RIR 2006 and ROGS 2006

• So how do we deal with compatibility assessment
  in the new regulatory environment?
• ROGS Regulation 22 Co-operation
• New Railway Group Standard
• GE/RT8270 Issue 2 Assessment of Compatibility of
  Rolling Stock and Infrastructure

11
ROGS Regulation 22

• Every person to whom this paragraph applies shall
  co-operate as far as is necessary with a
  transport operator to enable him to comply with
  the provisions of these Regulations.
• Every transport operator shall co-operate,
  insofar as is reasonable, with any other
  transport operator who operates on the same
  transport system where that other transport
  operator is taking action to achieve the safe
  operation of that transport system.

12
GE/RT8270 Issue 2

• Part 1 - Purpose and Introduction
• Part 2 - Process for Assessment of Compatibility
• Part 3 - Technical Requirements for Undertaking
  an Assessment of Compatibility
• Part 4 - Application of the document

13
Process - Proposing change

• Determine whether an assessment of compatibility
  is required. Yes if
• The proposed change is a material change (that
  is, a change that has the potential to affect a
  physical or operational interface)
• and
• The physical or operational interfaces affect
  assets that are the responsibility of another
  railway undertaking or infrastructure manager (an
  affected party).

14
Process - Proposing change

• Identify all affected parties.
• Decide on the method of engaging with affected
  parties. Options are
• in correspondence
• convene a compatibility review forum
• Inform affected parties of the proposed change
  and advise them of the chosen method of engaging
  with them

15
Process - Compatibility File

• The proposer assembles a Compatibility File
• Contains data that describes the new asset or the
  change to an asset, the methods used to assess
  compatibility, the decision criteria used to
  declare compatibility and how they have been
  derived
• Record any operational restrictions on which
  compatibility depends
• Eventually passed to the owner of the asset. In
  the case where a technical file exists, the
  Compatibility File forms part of the technical
  file.

16
Process - Statement of Compatibility

• The proposer produces a written notification of
  compatibility between assets, known as the
  Statement of Compatibility, stating
• The route, or sections of route, and elements of
  infrastructure or classes of rolling stock
  involved
• The configuration and type of rolling stock or
  infrastructure for which compatibility has been
  assessed
• Any limitations, restrictions or requirements on
  which the compatibility depends
• The date of issue
• Sent to affected parties and Network Rail (as
  publisher of operational instructions)

17
Process - Review of assessment

• The proposer forwards a draft copy of the
  Statement of Compatibility to all the affected
  parties for review.
• The affected parties review and provide comments
• Affected parties are permitted to request access
  relevant parts of the Compatibility File
• The proposer takes account of all comments
  received and advise how comments have been taken
  into account
• Where a compatibility review forum has been
  convened, the forum reviews the draft Statement
  of Compatibility
• The review process to be conducted with the
  objective of achieving a consensus

18
Process - Escalation

• May not always achieve consensus. To resolve
• If engagement was through correspondence, convene
  a compatibility review forum
• If engagement with affected parties has been
  through a compatibility review forum, the
  proposer is not to implement the proposed change
  for 14 days.
• During this period, both parties determine
  whether or not to escalate the issue using the
  railway industrys accepted processes.

19
Process - Escalation

• continued ...
• If either party chooses to escalate the issue,
  the change shall not be implemented until the
  issue is resolved.
• During the period in which the issue has been
  escalated, all parties have the opportunity to
  determine whether or not to escalate the proposal
  to the ORR

20
Process - Outputs from the process

• All documentation needed to define any
  limitations, restrictions or requirements on
  which the compatibility depends must be updated,
  eg
• the safety management systems of RUs and IMs
  concerned
• the Sectional Appendix
• signallers instructions
• drivers instructions
• maintenance plans
• Relevant data from the Compatibility File is used
  to update data that describes asset
  characteristics relevant to compatibility (eg
  Network Statement)

21
Process - Outputs from the process

• GE/RT8270 applies when making changes to assets
  that might affect their compatibility,
  irrespective of whether external verification is
  required.
• The use of, and output from, this process will
  normally be used as the evidence to satisfy the
  verification body that compatibility has been
  established
• In the case of Rolling Stock, a Certificate of
  Compatibility will be required when registering a
  vehicle on the Rolling Stock Library

22
Technical Requirements

• Identify all the physical and operational
  interfaces affected by the change
• Establish the criteria by which compatibility can
  be determined
• Request interface data, where not already
  available, from the relevant party to enable
  assessment of compatibility to be undertaken
• Evaluate the interface data and undertake an
  assessment of compatibility, taking into account
  degraded and foreseeable fault conditions

23
Technical Requirements

• Where both sides of an interface have been shown
  to conform to corresponding requirements in an
  integrated suite of standards, this is sufficient
  to demonstrate compatibility else
• Where RGS exist that define criteria by which
  compatibility can be determined (eg GE/RT8006),
  the criteria set out are to be used else
• Compatibility is to be determined using an
  appropriate risk assessment

24
Longer term ...

• Produce separate documents describing the process
  and the technical requirements for compatibility
  assessment
• Section on technical requirements in draft
  GE/RT8270 Issue 2 may become guidance
• Develop supporting technical standards dealing
  with particular interfaces, eg
• Gauging (Appendix C in current draft GE/RT8270)
• EMC (Appendix B in current draft GE/RT8270)
• Weight / strength of structures (GE/RT8006)

25
(No Transcript)