Proceedings 2002/2003 - IRSE

Proceedings
2002 – 2003

Kilometres flash by
While she’s curled in a corner
Hunting the horizon
Laura, happy by rail.
© - ALSTOM - 2002 - Bon Angle
Tomorrow’s child will be on the move like never
before. Thanks to advances in rail transportation now
underway, travelling from one part of town to another,
from city centre to suburb or from one
region to another will be a mere hop, skip or jump for
the 21st century’s mobile generation. ALSTOM
engineers are contributing to this faster, environmentally
clean rail travel, developing innovative solutions for
every aspect of passenger and freight markets: rolling
stock, signalling, infrastructure and maintenance.
ALSTOM doesn’t stop there, the Company’s expertise
extends even further in proposing financial solutions
tailored to each customer. For those who will go far
tomorrow, ALSTOM will be there.
ALSTOM, the global specialist in energy and transport infrastructure
TRANSPORT • 34 Dover Street • London W1S 4NG
Tel: 020 7290 55 76 • Fax: 020 7290 5570
www.transport.alstom.com

The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers
INCORPORATED 1912
FOR THE
Advancement of the Science of
Railway Signalling
Proceedings 2002/2003
(Copyright Reserved)
PRICE TO NON-MEMBERS £50.00
Printed by Fericon Press Ltd (Tel: 0118 945 6100)

Engineering
and technology
in harmony
Think
Rail Maintenance
Track Renewals
Plant
Head Office: Floor 7 Buchanan House
58 Port Dundas Road,
Glasgow G4 0HG
Tel: 0141-335 3005 Fax: 0141-335 3006
www.firstengineering.co.uk
Consultancy Power & Civils
Signalling Technology & Facilities
Head Office: Coltness House, Lark Way,
Strathclyde Business Park Bellshill,
North Lanarkshire ML4 3RB
Tel: 01698 574200 Fax: 01698 746301
www.first-projects.co.uk
First Engineering and First Projects are part of Peterhouse Group plc www.peterhouse.co.uk

Contents
Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
3
Page
Portrait of P W Stanley ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
History of President …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5
The Council of the Institution 2002/2003 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
Addresses of Officers ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
Institution Announcements ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9
Institution Sales ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11
Institution Awards …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13
Obituaries…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14
Annual Dinner and Dance ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
Fourth Members’ Luncheon …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
Presidential Address ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Wednesday 9th October 2002 “Eurobalise Transmission System, ………………24
A Technical Overview” by Per Lundberg with a summary of the Discussion ………………………………………………………30
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Wednesday 6th November 2002 “EuroRadio and the RBC”…………………………31
by John Harmer, Kevin Turner and C Riley with a summary of the Discussion …………………………………………………40
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Tuesday 10th December 2002 “Eurocab and the Driver MMI – an ……………42
introduction to the technology” by Christian Frerichs with a summary of the Discussion ………………………………47
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Tuesday 15th January 2003 “Signalling Control Centres Today …………………49
and Tomorrow” by I H Mitchell with a summary of the Discussion ………………………………………………………………………61
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Tuesday 12th February 2003 “Migration to ERTMS on Existing …………………63
Lines” by Jacques Poré with a summary of the Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………71
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Tuesday 12th March 2003 “CTRL Signalling and Communications” …………72
by Gilbert Moens and Richard Stokes with a summary of the Discussion …………………………………………………………82
International Convention, 29th April – 3rd May 2002 “‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor and Test
System – a ‘black box recorder’ for Railway Level Crossings” by Paul Szacsvay ……………………………………………84
Ninetieth Annual Report ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………92
Ninetieth Annual General Meeting ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………109
39th Annual Dinner ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………111
Sydney Hosts 2002 Convention ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………112
Membership Manager Appointed ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………116
Staff Organisation Chart ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………117
Staff Boost ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………117
Much Better Engineer …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………118
Exam Study Group Facilitators …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………118
2002 Examination Results …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………120
Australasian Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………123
Hong Kong Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………127
Midland & North-Western Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………128
Plymouth Section …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………128
Scottish Section……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………129
Southern African Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………130
Western Section……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………132
York Section …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………135
Younger Members’ Section ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………138
Advertisers ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………139

4
P W STANLEY
PRESIDENT 2002/2003
Photo: Colin Porter

5
PETER STANLEY BSc CEng FIEE FIRSE
Peter was born in Stroud, Gloucestershire, in 1942 and took an early interest
in music, studying the piano, trumpet and organ. At Marling Grammar School
he was introduced to engineering and became so fascinated by trains and
boats and planes that he decided to study engineering and chose an electrical
engineering course at Manchester University that covered computer engineering
and linear motors.
After graduating in 1964 he entered a two-year engineering graduate training
scheme with British Rail Western Region, followed by positions in the maintenance
and new works design offices, working on the resignalling of the Bristol
area.
In 1968 Peter was appointed to his first management position at Manchester,
dealing with electronic equipment in marshalling yards, remote control systems
and jointless track circuits. After several years’ further experience as Assistant
Divisional S&T Engineer Birmingham and Signal Maintenance Engineer for LM
Region, he took a year out of engineering in 1980 to become Consultancy
Services Manager, SR, dealing with cost reduction in the wider railway.
In 1981 Peter returned to Reading as Signal Engineer, Western Region, then
became heavily involved in the resignalling of the Exeter and Westbury areas.
In 1987 he was seconded to BR HQ to lead a small team developing an IT
strategy for the S&T function, then became Assistant Director Resources for the
S&T function in charge of financial planning, engineering training and materials.
In 1989 he was appointed as Assistant Director (Signalling) with responsibility
for all BR signalling design, development, standards and equipment approval.
When the rail privatisation process started in 1992, Peter was asked to take
on a wider management role that, in addition to signalling projects and maintenance
engineering covered much of the BR’s civil engineering manufacturing
workshops and fabrication depots, traction and rolling stock technical services
and vehicle assessment services, plus the position of MD of BR Telecommunications
Ltd.
From 1994 his responsibilities widened further as BR’s Managing Director
Business & Engineering Services, with responsibilities that included setting up
companies in preparation for the privatisation of research, computing, project
management, signalling projects, signalling technical support, trains engineering
and infrastructure testing and gauging services, whilst continuing to deliver
contracted services to the newly organised UK rail network.
At the end of 1996, with privatisation being almost complete, Peter left BR to
work as a consultant, firstly in the role of Project Director with Eurosig, the
consortium responsible for the specification and prototype trialling of the
ERTMS/ETCS system, and then as an engineering advisor to Virgin Trains and
LUL. He has also been a non-executive member of the Board of AEA
Technology Rail since 1997.
Peter Joined the IRSE as a student in 1964 and has served as chairman of
the Midland & North Western Section and for ten years as a member of the
Examination Committee. He was elected to Council in 1989 and has been a
member of the Institution’s International Technical Committee since its formation
in 1991.
He divides his spare time between playing with the East Woodhay Silver Band
in his home village, of which he has been a member for 24 years, occasional
organ playing (mainly for weddings) and travelling to and from Dartmouth where
he keeps a sailboat.
Peter met his wife Carol in the Students’ Union at Manchester University; they
were married in 1967 and have two children, James, who is an ambulance
technician in Devon, and Helen, who is a musician based in Bristol.

6
The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers
INCORPORATED 1912
SESSION 2002/2003
OFFICERS AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT
P W STANLEY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
VICE-PRESIDENTS
C H PORTER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
J D CORRIE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Croydon
COUNCIL
CO-OPTED PAST PRESIDENTS
C KESSELL ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Haywards Heath
C A PORTER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
R E B BARNARD ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Borehamwood
FELLOWS
W J COENRAAD ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Utrecht
A J FISHER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Plymouth
P A JENKINS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
J M IRWIN ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
J D FRANCIS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Chippenham
J PORÉ ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Paris
J F WILSON……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
D N WEEDON ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Croydon
F HOW ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
F HEIJNEN ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Chippenham
MEMBERS
D S ANGILL …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Chippenham
R G HALSE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Chippenham
P N LANE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
K L WALTER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
D W CRABTREE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
Mrs C PORTER………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London

OFFICERS AND COUNCIL 7
Photo: Colin Porter
IRSE Council & Officers
Front Row (left to right):
Helmut Uebel, Martin Govas, Ken Burrage, Peter Stanley, Colin Porter,
John Corrie, Jacques Poré
Back Row (left to right):
Jim Irwin, Paul Jenkins, Mark Watson-Walker, Robert Halse, John Francis, Alan Fisher, Bill Scheerer,
Peter Lane, Claire Porter, John Haile, Fraser Wilson, Clive Kessell, Derek Edney, Bob Barnard, Karen Gould

8
Addresses of Officers
Chief Executive
K W BURRAGE
3rd Floor, Savoy Hill House, Savoy Hill, London WC2R 0BS
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7240 3290 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7240 3281 Email: hq@irse.org
Treasurer
M GOVAS
2 The Droveway, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 1LL
Proceedings Editor
A PARKER
2NW Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS
Telephone: 020 7717 6569 Facsimile: 020 7240 3281 Email: mail_irse@yahoo.co.uk
Australian Section
Chairman: L BREARLEY Vice-Chairman: K WALKER
Secretary: G WILMOTT Treasurer: G WILMOTT
Benelux Section
Chairman: W COENRAAD
Central European Section
Chairman: H UEBEL Secretary: IRSE Office, London
Hong Kong Section
Chairman: P GAFFNEY Vice-Chairmen: F FABBIAN & P K WAI
Secretary: F HUI Treasurer: F HUI
Midland & North Western Section
Chairman: C WILLIAMS Vice-Chairman: I MITCHELL
Secretary: B REDFERN Treasurer: T WALKER
North America Section
Chairman: W SCHEERER Vice-Chairman: W PETIT
Secretary: C C TINKHAM Treasurer: C C TINKHAM
Plymouth Section
Chairman: D HELLIWELL Vice-Chairman: J STILES
Secretary: D CAME Treasurer: D CAME
Scottish Section
Chairman: C HUMPHREYS
Secretary: A KING Treasurer: A McWHIRTER
South African Section
Chairman: B STEIN Vice-Chairman: J C VAN DE POL
Hon Secretary: V BOWLES Treasurer: J C VAN DE POL
Western Section
Chairmen: M GLOVER Vice-Chairman: P DUGGAN
Secretary: D GILLANDERS Treasurer: M BROOKES
York Section
Chairman: D BOWLBY Vice-Chairman: D DYSON
Secretary: J MAW Treasurer: R PRICE
Younger Members’ Section
Chairman: J HAILE
Secretary: K GOODHAND Treasurer: C OYEKANMI

9
Institution Announcements
(The price and subscription rates and other
information given in these announcements are
current at the date of publication – August 2003)
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Considerable inconvenience is created by
members failing to notify changes of address. Will
members please inform the Institution office
immediately of any such alteration and so ensure
prompt delivery to themselves of notices, etc.
TRANSFER TO HIGHER CLASS
OF MEMBERSHIP
Members sometimes remain in one class of
membership when their professional standing has
become such as to entitle them to transfer to a
higher one. The Council invites any such person to
make application for transfer, for which purpose a
form can be obtained from the Institution office, and
so take a position in the Institution consonant with
his attainments and responsibilities.
TECHNICAL PAPERS
The Council invites members of all classes to
submit papers for presentation at technical meetings
in London or at local meetings in the United
Kingdom or overseas.
Papers should consist of between four thousand
and six thousand words and while no limit is placed
on the number of illustrations an author uses during
his reading of the paper, the number printed as part
of the advance copy and published in the Journal of
Proceedings must not exceed twelve.
The Institution office will be pleased to provide full
particulars upon application.
COPIES OF
TECHNICAL PAPERS
Copies of the technical papers read in London will
be published in IRSE News and circulated to all
members. The cost of this service is included in the
Annual Subscription.
SUBSCRIPTIONS AND REMITTANCES
Members are reminded that in accordance with
the Articles of Association subscriptions are payable
on election or by the 1st July each year. The
subscription rates applicable for 2003/04 have been
determined by Council. Members have been
circulated with details.
Members are reminded that prompt payment of
subscriptions is required. The Institution is grateful
to the vast majority of members who keep administration
costs down by paying at the time requested.
The Treasurer is obliged to send out notices of
arrears to members who have not paid by that date.
Subscriptions should be sent to the Institution
office in London, unless you belong to either the
Southern African or Australian Section. Local
arrangements apply to members of these Sections.
All cheques and money orders, especially those
from overseas, should be crossed.
The attention of members is directed to the
clauses in the Articles of Association under which
neither notices nor copies of Proceedings may be
sent to those who are in arrears with their subscriptions
beyond a certain time.
Income Tax – the annual subscription to the
Institution of Railway Signal Engineers is treated as
an allowance expense under Section 16 of the
Finance Act 1958 and should be included in your Tax
Return in the section headed “Expenses in
Employment – Fees or subscriptions to professional
bodies”.
Members of the Institution who have retired and
have paid full subscriptions for at least ten years are
entitled to continue membership of the Institution at
half the full rate applicable to their class of membership.
Similar arrangements are available to others in
special need on application to the Treasurer.
Members of 50 years standing are not required to
pay subscriptions.
LIBRARY
The Institution Library is incorporated with the
Library of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, by
kindness of the Council of the latter body. It is
situated at the Institution of Electrical Engineers’
building at Savoy Place, Victoria Embankment,
WC2. Members of the Institution of Railway Signal
Engineers have been granted the same privileges
with respect to it as those enjoyed by members of
the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and the entire
collection is open to them on equal terms.
The Reference Library, which contains a Reading
Room in which a great number of technical
periodicals are always available, as well as a large
general collection, is open as follows:
Monday to Friday 9.00 am to 5.00 pm
Any member of the Institution of Railway Signal
Engineers entering the Library must sign his name in
the book provided for that purpose.
The use of the Lending Library, which is open
during the same hours as the Reference Library and
which contains the principal works relating to
electrical engineering, its applications and allied
subjects including, of course, railway signalling, is
governed by the following rules, which must be
strictly adhered to:
When applying for a book by post a member of the
Institution of Railway Signal Engineers must state
their class of membership. All communications
should be addressed to the Secretary, Institution of
Electrical Engineers, at the address already given.

10
INSTITUTION ANNOUNCEMENTS
Anyone desirous of making a presentation to the
collection should forward it to the same address,
when its receipt will be suitably acknowledged.
Similar facilities also exist at the Scottish
Engineering Centre, The Teacher Building, 14 St
Enoch Square, Glasgow G1 4DB.
SCOTTISH LIBRARY FACILITIES
The Scottish Engineering Centre Library in
Glasgow provides extensive library and information
services, including on-line databases and the
Internet. IRSE material is now available, including
the new IRSE Professional Examination Reading
List.
The IRSE library is situated in the information
centre in The Teacher Building, 14-16 St Enoch
Square, Glasgow G1 4DB, Tel: 0141 566 1871.
Access is restricted so please check opening times
and arrangements by telephoning before hand.
SIGNAL AND TELEGRAPH
TECHNICAL SOCIETIES
The following S&T Technical Societies are
affiliated to the Institution:
The Signal & Electrical Engineers’ Society –
General Secretary: M B Simmonds
3 Gybbon Rise, Staplehurst, Kent TN12 0LT
Email: mathew.simmonds@tubelines.com
Tel: 020 7308 2517
IRSE PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR CORPORATE
MEMBERSHIP
The aim of the examination is to establish the
professional competence of educationally qualified
electrical, electronic and communications engineers
in railway signalling and communication engineering.
It is intended to test the main concepts of the
subject material without bias to any one railway
practice and is designed to demonstrate that the
student has reached the necessary professional
educational standard required by a signalling or
telecommunications engineer for Corporate
Membership of the Institution.
This standard is typified by the exercising of
judgement in the preparation, assessment,
amendment or application of specifications and
procedures, and is applicable to personnel engaged
in the following activities:
• Signalling/telecommunications principles, practices,
rules and regulations for the safe
operation of railway traffic.
• Design and development of signalling/telecommunications
equipment and systems.
• Preparation and understanding of equipment
drawings and specifications and/or design.
• Planning, site installation and testing of
signalling/telecommunications equipment and
systems.
• Practices related to assembly, wiring and testing
of signalling/telecommunications equipment
and systems.
• Maintenance and servicing of signalling/
telecommunications equipment and systems.
In order to meet the examination requirements for
corporate membership, candidates must, within a
period of five years, obtain a pass in Module 1, plus
three of the remaining six optional modules.
It is possible to obtain exemptions from individual
modules where you can demonstrate that you have
passed an examination by a recognised body, which
has substantially covered the syllabus of a particular
IRSE examination module. Due to the specialised
nature of the IRSE Examination, the scope for
exemption is fairly limited.
Claims for exemption must be made within five
years of obtaining the particular qualification for
which recognition is being claimed. The reason for
this condition is that the exemption is based on
information that may not be available where a
qualification has been discontinued or changed.
MODULE 1
Safety of Railway Signalling and Communications
– No exemptions will be given.
MODULE 2
Signalling the Layout – Please apply, no exemptions
currently agreed.
MODULE 3
Signalling Principles – Please apply, no exemptions
currently agreed.
MODULE 4
Communications Principles – This is the most
commonly sought after exemption. Many of the
applicants for exemption claim that telecommunications
has been part of their Degree course and
that, on this basis, exemption should be granted.
Unfortunately it has been clear that the content of
the telecommunications element within a typical
university Engineering Degree is, at best, a basic
overview. Occasionally, students study a telecommunications
topic for their final year project, but
these tend to be about a research topic
narrowly specialising in a particular field and the
Council is not convinced that such study justifies
module exemption. As a basic guideline, therefore,
please do not ask for exemption to this module
unless: your university study has predominantly
been in telecommunications; or your university study
has included telecommunications and your present
career is railway telecommunications engineering.
Module 5
Signalling & Control Equipment, Applications
Engineering – Please apply, no exemptions currently
agreed.
Module 6
Communications Equipment, Applications
Engineering – Please apply, no exemptions currently
agreed.
Module 7
Systems, Management & Engineering – Please
apply, no exemptions currently agreed.
The examination is generally held in October of
each year and the regulations are available from the

INSTITUTION ANNOUNCEMENTS 11
Head Office. The following support materials are
also available to students:
• Information for Students
• Examination Syllabus
• Reading List
• Past Papers
• Model Answers
• Examiners Reports
A new service will be introduced for the year 2000
examination candidates, who are registering for the
examination. For a small annual registration fee,
candidates can be sure that they will automatically
receive all updates of examination material, as it
becomes available.
THE THORROWGOOD
SCHOLARSHIP AWARD
The Thorrowgood Scholarship is awarded
annually to a student member excelling in the
Institution’s Professional Examination. The award
consists of the Institution’s Thorrowgood Scholarship
Medallion, and a cheque in the region of
£1,000, that is presented at the Annual General
Meeting of the Institution in the April following the
examination.
The terms of the Thorrowgood bequest require
that it should be utilised to assist the development of
young engineers employed in the railway signalling
and telecommunications field. A requirement of the
award is that it is used to finance a study tour of
railway and/or signalling installations or manufacturing
facilities, usually in a foreign administration, and
that the award holder presents a report about the
study tour to the Younger Members’ Section.
To be eligible for the award students are usually
expected to have sat the required four modules in
the same year, and achieved outstanding results.
Institution Sales
All items are available from the Institution office and
postage and packing is not included.
INSTITUTION TIE
An Institution tie bearing a single motif of the
Institution crest in light blue on a navy background is
available, price £10.00.

12
INSTITUTION SALES
Non-
Members Members
TEXT BOOKS
Introduction to Signalling (+ p&p £8 UK and £15 overseas) £25.00 £60.00
Railway Signalling £35.00 £60.00
Railway Control Systems £35.00 £60.00
European Railway Signalling £50.00 £65.00
Fifty Years of Railway Signalling – O S Nock (reprint) £10.00 £11.95
British Railway Signalling Practice – Mechanical (Green Books 1, 2, 3, 10) £9.00 £9.95
British Railway Signalling Practice – Signalling Instruments (Green Books 4, 12, 13) £7.00 £7.95
British Railway Signalling Practice – Electrical (Green Books 7, 9, 11) £8.00 £8.95
TECHNICAL REPORTS
No. 1 Safety System Validation – Cross Acceptance of Signalling Systems £12.00 £30.00
No. 2 The Operational Availability of Railway Control Systems £12.00 £30.00
No. 3 The Influence of Human Factors on the Performance of Railway Systems £12.00 £30.00
No. 4 The Implications of Applying Transmission Based Signalling £12.00 £30.00
No. 5 The Contribution of Signalling to the Future of Road Traffic Management £12.00 £30.00
No. 6 Proposed Cross Acceptance Processes for Railway Signalling Systems
& Equipment (includes CD-ROM) £20.00 £50.00
Testing and Commissioning £12.00 £30.00
Signalling Philosophy Review (April 2001) £12.00 £50.00
CONFERENCE PAPERS
Mathematically Formal Techniques in Signalling (April 1996 London) £10.00 £20.00
Traction/Signalling Compatibility (April 1997 London) £10.00 £20.00
New Techniques to Demonstrate Electromagnetic Compatibility between
Rolling Stock and the Signalling Infrastructure (February 1998 London) £10.00 £20.00
Improvements in the Delivery of Signalling Projects and Products (March 1998 Glasgow) £10.00 £20.00
The Lifecycle of a Major Railway Project (Younger Members June 1998 London) £10.00 £20.00
The Skill of the Tester (November 1998 London) £10.00 £20.00
Life Long Learning (February 1999 London) £10.00 £20.00
Keep It Safe, Keep It Legal (December 1999 London) £10.00 £20.00
The Pitfalls of Commercial Contracting in the S&T Business (January 2000 Birmingham) £10.00 £20.00
Competence Assurance in the S&T Business (May 2000 London) £10.00 £20.00
The Railway as a System (Younger Members July 2000 Birmingham) £10.00 £20.00
ERTMS and its Application (November 2000 London) £10.00 £20.00
Future Trends in Signalling and Train Control (January 2001 London) £10.00 £20.00
Train Detection (October 2001 Paris) CD-ROM format only £12.00 £24.00
New Technology for Interlocking & Train Control (November 2001 London) CD-ROM format only £12.00 £24.00
Bringing Innovation to the UK Railway (February 2002 London) CD-ROM format only £12.00 £24.00
Proposed Cross-Acceptance Processes for Railway Signalling Systems &
Equipment (Seminar 21st November 2002 London) CD-ROM format only £12.00 £24.00
Technical Visit to the ETCS Level 2 Pilot Line – Olten, Lucerne (22nd-23rd November
2002 Switzerland) CD-ROM format only £12.00 £24.00
GREEN BOOKLETS (Note that these are photocopy reprints of old publications unless otherwise stated)
No. 5 Power Points £5.00 £10.00
No. 6 Signalling Relays £5.00 £10.00
No. 7 Signal Control Circuits (original version only – limited availability while stocks last) £5.00 £10.00
No. 8 Typical Selection Circuits £5.00 £10.00
No. 10 Mechanical Signalling (original version only – limited availability while stocks last) £5.00 £10.00
No. 14 Multiple Aspect Signalling £5.00 £10.00
No. 15 Circuits £5.00 £10.00
No. 16 Route Holding £5.00 £10.00
No. 17 Signalling for AC Electrified Areas £5.00 £10.00
No. 18 Principles of Relay Interlocking & Control Panels £5.00 £10.00
No. 19 LTE Route Control Systems £5.00 £10.00
No. 20 Route Relay Interlocking – Westinghouse System £5.00 £10.00
No. 21 Route Relay Interlocking – AEI AEI-GRS System £5.00 £10.00
No. 22 Route Relay Interlocking – SGE System £5.00 £10.00
No. 24 AWS/ATC (1964) £5.00 £10.00
No. 25 Level Crossings £5.00 £10.00
No. 26 Remote Control £5.00 £10.00
No. 27 Signalling the Layout (British Practice) £5.00 £10.00
No. 28 Route Control Systems (LT Practice) £5.00 £10.00
No. 29 Solid State Interlocking £5.00 £10.00
ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS – BACK NUMBERS
1990/91 to day (inclusive) (please state years required) each £20.00 £50.00
Send your orders, with cheque made payable to the IRSE to:
IRSE Administration
3rd Floor, Savoy Hill House, Savoy Hill, London WC2R 0BS

13
Institution Awards
PRESIDENT’S AWARD
The President’s Award is made only rarely as it
recognises truly exceptional, meritorious service to
the membership and work of the Institution or a
major contribution to a significant achievement in
the field of railway control and communications.
The President’s Award has been conferred on Dr
Peter Winter, of Swiss Federal Railways. The award
is made in recognition of his significant personal
commitment, leadership and efforts for more than
ten years in encouraging and supporting the work of
signal engineers of European railways and the
supply industry in the development of the concept,
specification, testing and implementation of the
European Train Control System.
During this time Dr Winter directed work on
specification and simulation by the Union International
de Chemin de Fer (UIC) and the European
Rail Research Institute (ERRI), and supported the
European Commission projects on development,
test and pilot installation projects for both ETCS and
Dr Peter Winter (left) receives the President’s Award from
Peter Stanley at this year’s Annual General Meeting
Photo: C H Porter
GSM-R, its supporting communications infrastructure.
As Infrastructure Director of Swiss Federal
Railways he participated in the planning of a tenyear
national implementation programme that
produced the first resulting new line in passenger
operation between Olten and Luzern in April 2002.
DELL AWARD
Matt Shelley (right) receives the Dell Award, which includes
an engraved plaque, from Peter Stanley at the Annual
Dinner held at the Savoy Hotel in London Photo: K W Burrage
The winner of the Dell Award this year is Matt
Shelley of Metronet Rail BCV Ltd. Matt graduated
from Exeter University with a MEng in Electronic
Engineering in 1998. He joined London Underground
in the same year as a Graduate Trainee. On completion
of his training, he specialised in automatic
train operation (ATO).
Matt became an enthusiastic member of the team
involved with the introduction of ATO on the Central
Line and made a significant contribution to the
successful commissioning of the system. In 2002 he
was appointed to the role of Senior ATO Engineer
taking over the leadership of the Automatic Train
Control Team within his Infraco. Since then he and
his team have played a major role in the successful
completion of ATO so that it now operates reliably
over the entire Central Line. Matt has contributed to
past conferences of the IRSE Younger Members’
Section.
WING AWARD FOR SAFETY
Mr Aidan Nelson, Director Policy & Standards at
Railway Safety, was selected as the winner this year
for the Wing Award. The selection was made in
recognition of his substantial influence upon, and
contribution to, improvements achieved in trackside
safety behaviour in recent years and especially in the
context of the present disaggregated nature of the
mainline railway structure. The award was presented
by the President at the Annual Track Safety Quiz and
Awards held in Birmingham in April.
The Wing Award for Safety was introduced in 1994
to commemorate the life and work of the late Peter
Wing, a Fellow of this Institution and an employee of
British Rail, who, during his career, made a major
contribution to the cause of lineside safety. Peter
Wing, whose career in BR spanned 31 years, spent
much of his working life dedicated to the safety of
President Peter Stanley (left) with Aiden Nelson (centre) and
John Armitt, following presentation of the Wing Award
Photo: courtesy Network Rail
his colleagues.
It was his care and concern that became the
driving force behind the national campaign in 1992/3

14
INSTITUTION AWARDS
that was entitled “Dead Serious About Safety” and
which had such a major impact in reducing the
numbers of lineside fatalities in subsequent years.
The IRSE administers the award scheme on behalf
of members of the Railway Group, the Railway
Supply Industry and the Health & Safety Executive
who, amongst others, supported the formation of
the Wing Award for Safety.
Previous winners of the Wing Award have been:
1995 R Dickinson, BR
1996 W Hill, Amec
1997 I Keys, LUL
1998 R Hickman, Centrac
1999 A Ross, LUL
2000 A Franklin, GTRM
2001 P Graham, Railtrack
2002 A Swann, Safety Consultant
The award takes the form of a certificate and an
amount of £700 to be devoted to personal
development and is presented to an individual
who has made an outstanding personal contribution
to railway track safety by, for example, coming
forward with novel ideas for improvement, is a
long-term champion of, or has made a significant
contribution to the awareness of track safety in his
business.
THORROWGOOD SCHOLARSHIP
Matthew Lupton accepts the Thorrowgood Scholarship
prize from Peter Stanley during the Annual Dinner at the
Savoy Hotel in London
Photo: K W Burrage
The Institution’s Thorrowgood Scholarship for the
year 2002 has been awarded to Matthew Lupton, of
Network Rail, in recognition of his outstanding
achievement in the 2002 Signalling Examination in
which he achieved a pass, credit and two distinctions
across the four modules undertaken.
The terms of the Thorrowgood Bequest require
that it should be utilised to assist the development of
young engineers employed in the railway signalling
and telecommunications field and it is the wish of
the Council that the amount granted should be used
to finance a tour of railway and/or signalling installations
or manufacturing facilities of the winner’s
choice. This may be in the UK or elsewhere. The
value of the Award is £700 and is accompanied
by the Institution’s Thorrowgood Scholarship
Medallion.
Obituaries
ARMAND CARDANI
1921 – 2002
Armand Cardani was born on 20th June 1921. He
joined the S&T Department of the London & North
Eastern Railway in 1938 and, following an apprenticeship,
was appointed as an engineering graduate.
During that time he gained Honours grade in the
London University BSc (Special) Degree. His main
area of work activity was in connection with the
Great Eastern electrification and this continued until
1947 when he joined the Great Western Railway.
The GWR – God’s Wonderful Railway – was, I
think, Armand’s true home. He was immensely
proud of their achievements, both historic and
current. His career blossomed there; he became
Assistant Signal Engineer of the Western in 1957 and
in 1959, at the age of 38, became the youngest Chief
S&T Engineer of that Region. In 1953 or 54 he gave
a lecture to the Gloucestershire Railway Society,
followed a short while afterwards by a site visit to
Ealing where he explained to a 14 year old schoolboy
sufficient about signalling to set him on a
lifelong career. That schoolboy was Tony Howker
who went on to become President of the IRSE! Brian
Heard (another Past President), in a message from
the Philippines, also comments on the tremendous
benefit he received from early training with Armand.
This interest in bringing on the youngsters in the
profession was a hallmark of Armand’s career.
By 1968, when he transferred to the London
Midland Region as Chief S&T Engineer, he had

OBITUARIES 15
overseen the conversion of over 1,700 single-track
km of the WR to multi-aspect signalling and the
creation of one of the first co-axial trunk telecomms
systems on the railway. On the LMR he had similar
success with the major schemes at Trent, Derby and
Saltley followed by the West Coast work controlled
from Warrington, Preston and Carlisle.
In 1975 he was appointed as the BR Director of
S&T Engineering, a post in which he successfully
steered the industry through many difficult technical
and contractual changes until his retirement in 1981
after 42 loyal years of service to the railway.
Armand joined the IRSE as a Student in 1942,
progressing to the Council by 1960 and giving many
years of service to the Miniaturisation and
Examination Committees. He became President in
1970 and led us on the first Convention to Spain –
and what a joy that was!
In his Presidential address, as we all do, he made
predictions. Most of them came to pass, but he
doubted that computers would become involved in
the safety side of signalling. When he joined the
British Railways Board, and heard of the preliminary
work in BR Research by Alan Cribbens’ team, he
quickly, gracefully and with great good humour,
accepted that things had changed. He then stuck his
neck out to support the SSI development and played
a major part in securing approval for the work to proceed.
To do that, in the climate then existing showed
true greatness.
In 1982 he was elected an Honorary Fellow and
continued to give regular support to the Institution at
meetings and social events. It was a particular
pleasure to see him at the Members Lunch in 2001,
which coincided with his 80th birthday, and again in
2002 when he completed 60 years of membership.
Throughout his working and Institution life he had
wonderful support from his wife Joyce. Her death in
1995 was a blow which left him devastated.
Now, after a lifetime of service to our Industry,
which will live on in the newly created Armand
Cardani Memorial Fund, it is his turn to be mourned.
We are grateful for all that he has done and we will
miss his leadership, guidance, friendship and unfailing
good humour.
Whatever the grief we as colleagues feel at
Armand’s passing it is as nothing compared to that
of his family. Our prayers and condolences go out to
all of them.
J Waller
Past President 1978 and 1991
Guidance for Equivalents to the IRSE Examination
as part of the new Bye Laws.
Ron had served the industry since the 1960s and
received a broad training in railway telecommunications
that served him well in later years. His career
started in 1967 as a Technical Assistant in the
Nottingham Divisional Engineer's office. He rapidly
acquired the skills to survive at the sharp end, which
was fortunate because the two projects of Derby
and Trent power boxes of 1969 had their last minute
crises, with much of the telecom external wiring
having to be redone in the four weeks prior to the
first commissioning. Teams of office technical staff
and local technicians carried this out and Ron was
part of this mammoth effort where we all worked
long hours for nigh on three months continually. A
toolkit and van were the only essential requirements.
On the due day, everything worked perfectly with the
S&T management being unaware of what had gone
before.
The cut and thrust of local management had an
attraction for Ron and, with his now considerable
experience, he took on the role of District Telecom
Engineer initially at Bedford and latterly at Euston.
Those were the days when the Divisional set up was
king and if the District Engineer said it can or can't
be done, then that was it. Ron invariably said 'yes'
and the spirit of motivation that he instilled in the
local staff was a credit to everyone. At that time,
Euston staff looked after the main offices of the LMR
and also the BRB. Weekends were always fraught
with the innumerable telecom moves and changes
that had to be done to accommodate the constant
alterations to the organisational structure. Many of
these would be advised at the last minute and very
often were devised on the hoof on the day.
Complaints were few, but Ron and the team can be
forgiven if the records were somewhat lacking.
The promotion trail led Ron to a post with
Transmark and he was despatched to various
locations around the world where his experience of
ground level improvisation was always welcome
advice. After a short spell in Mozambique, he drew
the supposedly short straw and was posted to
Northern Ireland. This was during the 1980s when
life in the Province was somewhat precarious. He set
about upgrading the NIR telecom network and made
a good many friends in the process.
The ground level work continued to have the
RON HALL
1944 – 2003
Ron Hall, a Fellow of the IRSE, died suddenly on
24th March 2003 at the age of 58.
Ron was one of a small band of Telecom members
who strove to get a greater telecom following and
membership within the Institution. He had been a
member of Membership Committee for some years
where he could always be relied upon to call us to
order if, on occasions, we were tempted to stray outside
the rules. His advice was always valued and he
had been active recently in the team that drafted the

16
OBITUARIES
biggest pull and Ron became Telecom Field
Engineer on the Western Region in 1987. This gave
him responsibility for all the Region's technician staff
and the old challenges of getting things done by
whatever means was what Ron was best at.
Although a 'Midland man', Ron was quickly
accepted by the Western fraternity who respected
both his knowledge and his people skills.
A spell of enhanced technology in the Data Group
at Paddington followed where his transmission
knowledge was put to good use, and then came the
migration to BRT and privatisation. This was an
unsettling time for all of us, but Ron saw it as an
opportunity for the railway to show to the outside
world that its capability was as good as anything
that existed in the private sector. Under Racal, he
became General Manager, Projects and Works, back
in the old Midland territory of Birmingham and
succeeded in developing the business to be the
natural choice for all types of telecom new works in
the chaos of the newly fragmented railway. Various
reorganisations and the subsequent sale of Racal to
Thales were kind to Ron in that he could remain
based at Birmingham and where his final post was to
head up the Telecom Design resource for the whole
company.
Ron retired in July 2001 but it was inevitable that
his considerable skills would be sought out, and
latterly, he was developing the new telecom maintenance
concepts for Network Rail.
Ron and his wife, Gerry, were regular participants
at IRSE Conventions and like so many of us, were
able to see and experience different cultures from all
over the globe, courtesy of the Institution. I had the
privilege of knowing him for all his railway career and
can vouch for his immense knowledge and caring
personality. Ron would always get the best out of
people and was never one to criticise others behind
their back. He could be tough when needed but
even then, it was done in a spirit of fairness. He had
a great love of motorcars and built his own on two
occasions. The first one, a Ginetta from around
1970, was a real pride and joy; experiencing a ride in
this was something you never forgot! Latterly he had
just completed a JBA Falcon Tourer and a superb
machine this is. It will now be for someone else to
enjoy the thrill of a replica sports car on the open
road.
All his colleagues within industry and the
Institution were much saddened by his untimely
death and many will miss him. Clive Kessell
Region Technical Society becoming responsible for
preparing the drawings for the slides and proceedings,
cutting the Roneo skins with a stylus in his
artistic hand, for which he became known throughout
his career. He was once asked to design a dial
label for the Region’s telephones, the printers,
however, just copied his handwritten original sketch,
which was full size, but the letters around the
circumference started large and then became
narrower towards the end to get them all in. It did not
seem to matter. The labels were in use for many
years, so his handiwork was seen everywhere
throughout the Region.
He was a perfectionist; only the correct way was
good enough. We trainee draughtsmen were put
through our paces with practice sessions every day
until we could be trusted to produce an acceptable
result. To this day I print using the methods that Reg
Hawkins instilled in me.
In his early days with the railway Reg was a very
keen cyclist and liked to go to see the professionals
race at the Herne Hill Track. He was a very good
swimmer and became involved with the SR
Swimming Club for many years.
I first met Reg in 1961 when he persuaded me to
apply to be a draughtsman in the drawing office at
Wimbledon. I worked for and with him for many
years until I left the Region in 1976. When I first used
to go on site with Reg everyone seemed to know
him, we could not go anywhere without almost every
person we met saying hello. I know now that this
was a measure of the regard that everyone had for
him.
Following his retirement he continued to serve his
fellows by organising the Retired Friends of the
Former S&T Engineering Department of British
Railways, Southern Region. This is an informal
arrangement whereby old colleagues meet once a
month in a pub for lunch, the pubs being located
around the former Region to facilitate travel by the
participants. The highlight of the year was the
Christmas lunch, always meticulously organised
with invitations, lists and place cards, all prepared by
hand in that unmistakable script. We will all miss
Reg.
Reg is survived by his second wife, Doris and his
three children Pam, Christopher and Sylvia.
M Tyrrell
REG HAWKINS
1920 – 2002
Reg Hawkins joined the Southern Railway when
he was demobbed from the Army in 1947 having
served in India and Burma. He told me once of the
network of telephone lines the Army had which
stretched across the width of the Indian continent.
Reg joined the embryo Southern Region S&T
Telecommunications Drawing office at Wimbledon,
to help form the nucleus of the office he was
eventually to lead until his retirement in 1985.
He soon became very active in the S&T Southern

17
Annual Dinner and Dance
The Institution’s Annual Dinner Dance for 2002
returned this year to a London location after an
absence of four years and to a venue that the
Institution had used many times in the past. The
Copthorne Tara Hotel, Kensington, London, was the
venue for the dinner dance this year, which was held
on Friday 18th October. The venue is spacious and
attractive and the hotel events management helpful
and efficient which enabled the event to take place
in a happy and relaxed atmosphere.
The Institution is grateful for the financial support
it receives from sponsors, which permitted the
dinner dance to be arranged and accommodated in
such an attractive setting and provided the
surroundings conducive to the happy and friendly
occasion in which members and their guests could
relax.
The reception this year was provided by the
Institution. The sponsors were, Siemens
Transportation Systems who sponsored the music
for dancing and Westinghouse Rail Systems who
contributed towards the table decorations.
Members and their guests were greeted by the
President, Mr Peter Stanley and his wife Carol at the
opening reception.
The principal guest on this occasion was Dr Peter
Watson OBE, Chairman AEA Technology plc and
formerly BRB board member for Engineering, who
was accompanied by his wife. An excellent threecourse
dinner was served followed by coffee and
mints. After dinner, the President introduced his
principal guest to the gathering and Dr Watson, who
had been the principal guest at the dinner dance ten
years earlier in 1992, referred back to the remarks he
made in 1992 and spoke about the current state of
the railway Industry and the contribution that can be
made by S&T engineering. His comments were
made in an encouraging and amusing manner that
was thoroughly enjoyed by all present.
Music for dancing following the dinner was
provided by the East Woodhay Silver Band who
played a selection of music in a variety to suit all
musical tastes and dancing styles.
Regrettably numbers were significantly down on
previous years and a number of the major signalling
suppliers were absent. However, the 114 members
and their guests that did attend all enjoyed a
pleasant and happy evening.
Fourth Members’ Luncheon
The fourth Members’ Luncheon was held on 19th
June 2002 when 75 members of the Institution,
including 12 Past Presidents and nine members
with over 50 years membership, took luncheon at
the Victory Services Club in Seymour Street,
London.
The 78th person to serve as President since the
Institution’s formation in 1912, Mr Peter Stanley,
addressed the members present with a brief speech
and mentioned the forthcoming programme for his
presidential year of office.
The Chief Executive reported that the current
membership of the Institution was 2,979 and
continues to grow steadily. There are now 30
members with over 50 years’ membership, nine of
whom were able to accept the President’s invitation
to be present at the luncheon as guests of the
Institution.
Another 12 members have over 60 years membership
and two of these were also present – Peter
Guyatt and, also the longest serving Past President,
Armand Cardani, who was President 31 years ago in
1970.
There are also three members who have over 70
years membership. The longest serving member is
believed to be Mr S E W Stokes, who resides in
Brazil, with 78 years membership of the Institution
but it has not been possible to obtain a response
from his last known address. However, letters of
good wishes had been received from Douglas Kidd,
a member for 72 years residing in Shaftesbury and
aged 97, and also from Wilfred Hardman, a member
for 73 years and living in New Zealand. Many other
members who were unable to attend in person had
sent letters of apology and good wishes.
Regrettably, 17 members had died since the lunch
last year including David Wittamore, who served the
Institution as a member of Council and on the
Recruitment Committee for many years; Frank
Smith, a former Chief S&T Engineer of the LMR;
more recently Roger Pope, another long-standing
servant of the Institution, particularly on the
Examination Committee; and also Reg Hawkins,
who did so much in the last 20 years to arrange the
regular reunions of ex-SR S&T staff. The members
present expressed their grateful thanks for the
service that all of these friends and colleagues
performed for the Institution during their time with
us.
The activity of the Institution continues to increase
and the Institution is asked to contribute more and
more frequently its expertise to the development of
the industry and the profession. The Strategic Rail
Authority recently granted the Institution another
£250,000 on top of the £100,000 grant last year to
continue the work being done, with the co-operation
of the signalling industry, to recreate the recruitment,
training and career development frame work for
signalling engineers to overcome the current skills
shortage in the discipline that has occurred since
privatisation.
During the year a major task had been the introduction
of a new membership database computer

18
FOURTH MEMBERS’ LUNCHEON
system in the office. This will help in keeping track of
members and in managing Institution events. The
opportunity has also been taken to update the
membership list and to purge it of old and out of
date information.
Another major task in the last year had been the
revision of the Articles to update the qualifications
for membership, to include the grade of Associate
Member within the class of Corporate Member and
also, now that the activity of the Institution has
expanded significantly, the introduction of Byelaws
to assist Council in its management of Institution
affairs.
As a nominated body of the Engineering Council
(UK) the Institution registers Incorporated Engineers
and Engineering Technicians with the Engineering
Council and 12 of our members were registered last
year.
The Chief Executive said that none of this
substantial effort would be possible without the
wholehearted support and hard work of the
Institution team comprising Mark Watson-Walker,
Linda Collins, Karen Gould and Linda Mogford and
concluded by expressing his thanks on behalf of the
membership to the staff of the Institution for their
hard work and wholehearted support during the last
year.
The luncheon concluded in a most pleasant and
happy atmosphere of friendship and camaraderie
and was judged a great success, having been
thoroughly enjoyed by all present.
The fifth Members’ luncheon has been provisionally
arranged to take place on Wednesday 18th
June 2003 at the same venue.
K W Burrage

19
The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers
(COPYRIGHT RESERVED)
Presidential Address
of
P W STANLEY BSc CEng FIEE FIRSE
Making the Possible Happen
I have no doubt that at the start of their
presidential year, every one of my predecessors has
looked with some amazement at the demands and
current problems of the Industry and the number of
things that need to be done, with just a slight
concern as to how the President can make a
meaningful contribution in the space of one short
year. It is certainly the way that I feel at this moment.
Like most incoming presidents I face an immediate
difficulty. What can I say that has not been said
before? What ideas can come to mind that have not
been thought, debated and acted on many times
before? What actions can be proposed that have not
been tried before? I shall start by saying thank you
to all my many colleagues who, during the 14 years
that I have served on Council, have been a source of
help and encouragement. Without such support, I
could not be here today.
This time last year Bob Barnard ended his address
with a look forward to things that the Institution
should do in future; I intend to start where he left off,
and with time being short, the best place for me to
start is with my conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS
Modern train control systems are dependent on
communications as an integral part of the system to
the extent that old divisions between ‘S’ and ‘T’ no
longer apply. I believe that my comments apply to all
railway S&T engineers, whatever their specialisation
may be.
Today we have the possibility of applying new
technology to railways, capable of delivering
systems that are safer, more reliable, more available,
more adaptable and with greater functionality. If we
do not also have the skilled people, workable
procedures for gaining safety approvals and
sufficient economic benefit to justify investment,
then the possibility will remain just that; we must
make the possible happen.
I believe that our Institution can and should
develop its services to members and its role within
the industry by offering guidance, giving leadership
and developing services in five important areas:
• Meeting the demand for S&T engineers;
• Introducing new technology;
• Harmonising safety acceptance procedures;
• Delivering additional functionality and economic
benefit;
• Making the benefits of membership of our
Institution more widely available in developing
countries.
THE DEMAND FOR S&T ENGINEERS
RECOGNISING PROBLEMS – AVAILABILITY OF
EXPERTISE
If I want to say anything even slightly revolutionary,
I had better start with the wheel of progress, which
as it turns, sooner or later brings up old railway
problems in new guises.
Even if recurring problems are recognised as such,
essential details could be elusive, existing only in the
memories of the original experts who might not be
around to be consulted.
Many organisations are now structured to deal
with current tasks and have neither a company
collective memory that could recognise old
problems when they recreate-occur, nor easy
access to records of solutions that were considered
previously, nor knowledge of why one solution was
selected and others rejected, nor the expertise to

20
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
recognise the root cause nor the manpower to
develop a timely solution.
In some cases, problems are faced by managers
with a limited railway background who may think
that every problem is new, and that every existing
practice is deficient and ripe for change.
It is here that our Institution can play an important
role. Records of papers, discussions, conferences
and visits form a vital resource, allowing us to
revisit our history and experience and use the
collected wisdom of the past
The key, unavoidable need is for people of
appropriate training and experience able to search
and interpret such information.
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE INDUSTRY
The recent changes in our industry, especially in
the UK, are leading to the fragmentation of long
established organisations, the privatisation of many
areas of technical and operational specialisation and
the creation of new and unfamiliar contractual
boundaries more attuned to financial flows than
service delivery
The new organisations have tended to direct their
resources towards the management of their contracts,
eliminating in-company expertise and relying
on the availability of expert service companies to
which the solving of problems can be outsourced as
and when they arise.
Since technical problems often fall across the new
contract boundaries and have commercial and legal
significance, each party to the contract may need
independent expert advice and support, placing
additional demands on the limited supplies of
technical specialists.
Another effect has been the great reduction across
the industry in the numbers of technical specialists
in R&D, not currently required for the day to day
operation of the railway, but needed almost
immediately to investigate the causes of mishaps
and to support accident inquiries, at which time they
suddenly become a very scarce resource.
In the UK, efforts are being made to recreateestablish
co-operative funding of R&D programmes
across the industry, but with a tendency to ignore
the existing pool of knowledge.
Again, the Institution can provide guidance on the
existence of relevant studies and reports and
on the location of appropriate knowledge and
experience.
SUPPLIER DIVERSITY
Quite apart from the inevitable opening up of
home markets as a result of EC competition legislation,
in the UK mainline network there has been a
policy of introduction of systems based on new
technology from suppliers outside the traditional
supplier base with little or no previous UK application
experience.
New suppliers have brought additional pressure
on resources in the areas of safety approval,
application and interface engineering, testing
and commissioning and training of maintenance
staff.
SAFETY ASSURANCE
In parallel with the organisational changes, we
have seen the development of safety law, with new
procedures for equipment safety approval and
risk assessment, mitigation and management.
Formalisation of process in the UK has led to a
protracted and expensive system of assessment
and approval based on committees, technical
advisors and independent safety assessors, each
requiring people who possess appropriate
competence.
MEETING THE DEMAND
These factors lead to a heavy demand for scarce
resources and a number of important questions
come to mind:
• How can the demand for railway signal and
telecommunications specialists be met?
• How will those now starting their careers in the
industry gain the necessary range of knowledge
and experience?
• Given the specialisation of the employing
companies and the increase in support services
companies with interests beyond railways, is it
more likely that career paths will lead outside
the industry?
SO WHAT MAKES AN S&T ENGINEER?
THE RANGE OF EXPERTISE
The life cycle of every new generation of technology
and every different implementation of that
technology must be supported by a wide range of
expertise, leading it from development to application
design, to implementation, maintenance, modification
and eventually to recovery.
Given the asset life demanded of railway assets,
several generations of equipment will have to
co-exist within any network, and not only in the
maintenance and recovery phases; for it is the very
nature of railways that changing traffic patterns
and service demands will require infrastructure
alterations. As a result, there will be a need for the
creation of new interfaces to existing systems, so
perpetuating the need for relevant expertise over
several generations of engineers.
If we look at the range of technologies that still
exist, at various stages of their life cycle we might be
somewhat surprised at the range of expertise that
must be available somewhere.
Clearly, at one end of the spectrum we have
people with expertise in a particular technology but
with no knowledge of its application; at the other
end we have people who are expert in their understanding
of the needs of operators, signallers and
drivers, but have only a limited knowledge of the
technology. The role of the S&T Engineer and of this
Institution is to provide the essential bridge between
these two extremes.
RECRUITING S&T ENGINEERS
Perhaps we should also ask why anyone would
choose a career in railway control and command
systems engineering. Probably not as a result of
such an uninspiring role description, so I shall think

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 21
in terms of S&T Engineering!
Perhaps as a start I could relate my own experiences.
Like most youngsters I had ideas about what
I wanted to be when I left school, first a policeman,
then a train driver then a boat builder then a
musician, but at some stage reality intervened. After
graduating in electrical engineering, I looked at a
number of opportunities that seemed to involve
being tucked away in the corner of a design office
dealing with some small area of product design.
In extreme contrast, British Rail offered accredited
training with involvement in such a wide range of
technology, in specification, design and test and
what is nowadays called system integration
engineering. A key decider was the level of activity in
finding ways of applying the very latest technology;
there was simply no contest, I became a railwayman.
I count myself very fortunate to have made that
decision, to have experienced a wide range of jobs
and to have known and worked with so many fine
engineers. In due course I was able to indulge some
of those childhood interests as hobbies and now, I
sometimes sit and contemplate why the job has
been so enjoyable and why the grass never looked
greener elsewhere.
I think it was simply because I worked in an
industry that provided a public service, with a visible
technical and safety strategy and clear lines of
responsibility, that provided opportunity and
encouragement of personal development both
technical and managerial, offered a great variety of
job opportunities, supported Professional Institution
activities and looked on membership of this
Institution as an essential requirement. When
problems arose, advice was at hand and when technical
problems seemed insoluble, there was an R&D
organisation to call on. In short, there was order and
structure and a dedication to safety and technical
progress.
Today a new entrant to the Industry can still find
companies that operate accredited training
schemes. Afterwards the entrant might see a very
different world in which company goals do not
translate in the same way into technical strategies,
where technical management tends to be multidisciplinary
and significant responsibility is taken at
an earlier age with limited access to expert advice.
If the company role is restricted, for example to
maintenance or projects, the opportunities for
gaining a breadth of experience will also be
restricted, so that career development and progression
will often involve a change of employer,
without the benefit of advice and assistance.
In this situation it seems to me that our Institution
must be able to offer support and guidance. There
are a number of ways by which this can be done, for
example by:
• Taking the concept of mentoring beyond the
training and initial development stage and into
the role of a personal advisor, especially in the
area of continuing professional development.
• Maintaining and expanding the Licensing
Scheme modules, by which competence can be
demonstrated and independently verified.
• Providing a comprehensive programme of
Institution activities specifically aimed at informing
and developing younger members.
• Encouraging employers to support the
Institution and encourage those employed in the
industry to make use of its services.
By doing so, we can expect to generate a positive
view of a career in S&T engineering among new
entrants during their training and to maintain that
view subsequently as their career develops.
But, whatever the Institution does to further the
acceptability of a career, the result can be no more
than a help to employers in recruitment and retention
of staff. The shortfall in resources can only be
addressed by recruitment and training programmes
that require long term commitment and agreement
between infrastructure operators and suppliers. The
Institution is able to support such programmes, for
example with advice on training and development
objectives.
INTRODUCING NEW TECHNOLOGY
Throughout Europe at this moment, railway
administrations and their suppliers are working to
introduce ERTMS technology into pilot projects and
then into full commercial service. It has taken ten
years to achieve the present position, during which
time the European Commission and the Industry
have invested much money and many man-years of
development and testing.
A purpose-built test laboratory has been set up in
Madrid, equipped to permit the ERTMS components
to be tested together as a system.
SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
In a nutshell, on the scale required for the planned
programme of ERTMS implementation the
necessary technical knowledge, application
engineering experience and operational experience
simply does not exist.
At the basic technology level, the number of
experts in the areas of the Eurobalise/Antenna/BTM
sub-systems, Euroradio, RBC, GSM-R and Data
over radio, is very small indeed and is largely
confined to the six manufacturers. The available
expertise in the simulation and test facility is
similarly limited.
If the Industry is to deliver a Europe wide roll-out
of the technology, a positive programme of
knowledge transfer must be set up, so that sufficient
numbers of trained people are made available to
carry out effective application engineering, operations
planning and maintenance planning.
Also, if safety approval is to be obtained, it will be
necessary to ensure that those concerned with
validation and verification, testing and commissioning
are able to devise and apply appropriate
procedures and tests.
Such knowledge transfer will not happen by
accident; it must be planned and delivered as an
essential part of national implementation
programmes. I believe that the Institution can help in
this process.

22
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
HARMONISATION OF SAFETY APPROVAL
PROCESSES
In Europe, the UK is probably unique in not having
legally prescribed standards for design, test and
approval of signalling systems and equipment.
UK law places legal duties on all parties to ensure
that risk is controlled to a level as low as reasonably
practicable.
With the EC Interoperability Directive comes a
conformity assessment process based on Notified
Bodies that is more prescriptive and consistent with
common European practice.
This new harmonised procedure for ERTMS, forms
a useful precedent on which we should build; it must
be possible to make cross-acceptance of national
safety approvals the norm for signalling equipment
such as interlockings, axle counters, signals, safe
data transmission systems and so on. In the German
speaking countries, for example, EBA certification is
already accepted.
As an essential requirement for cross-acceptance
it will be necessary for the terminology, test
procedures and standards used in each country to
be documented, so that at least the precise nature of
a certification or the limitations of an approval for
use can be understood in another country. Very
often the apparent differences prove to be differences
of terminology and presentation rather than
differences of substance and therefore the barriers
to cross acceptance may prove less significant than
might be supposed.
Our Institution is ideally placed to review and
compare the existing practices and assist with the
development of a harmonised approach so making a
significant contribution towards more effective use
of scarce expertise.
FUNCTIONALITY AND ECONOMIC BENEFIT
The application of technology to railway control
and communications systems has been driven
primarily by the opportunity to make cost savings in
railway operation, usually savings of labour costs.
Associated benefits in reliability and availability have
been mainly at the sub-system level.
In recent years we have seen a move towards
systems engineered installations based throughout
on modern technology with a common control level
platform on which management and control
functions are delivered by software rather than by
discreet systems.
Additional functions can be added to such
platforms, drawing on the real-time train running
data to give enhanced management control of
operations and automatic control of the signalling
system. Information can also be extracted and
distributed to passenger information and train running
information systems.
Accurate real-time knowledge of train condition,
position and performance can be the basis of new
value-added services for the passenger and freight
train operator, the train maintainer and the infrastructure
maintainer.
The application of ERTMS level 2 offers the
potential of long-term net savings in infrastructure
costs, but ERTMS, like ATP and TPWS, can be
viewed negatively as an unjustified investment in
enhanced safety in an area where the cost of
reducing risk is disproportionately high.
Such views take no account of the new opportunities
now presented for communication of
information to and from the train, both for train
operating and commercial service applications. It is
my belief that safety costs of ERTMS will prove to be
very much lower than the commercial benefits
available from exploitation of the facilities and real
time information
The Institution has already made a major contribution
to this area through its International Technical
Committee Report No 5, which should be essential
reading for those who are tasked with planning the
implementation programmes for ERTMS.
Finally, the most important benefit to be derived
from new train control systems will be gained by the
development of new information systems for the
train driver that predict junction path utilisation and
give advisory speed information to the driver, aimed
at achieving maximum junction throughput and
hence improved network capacity.
I believe that investment in such systems will be
far more cost effective than the present day simplistic
approach of improving theoretical capacity by
layout alteration and hoping that actual train running
performance yields the benefit hoped for.
The Institution is well placed to give advice on
these important issues and should promote debate
and understanding of the benefits of additional
functionality that can underpin new investment in
control systems.
WIDER AVAILABILITY OF THE BENEFITS OF
MEMBERSHIP
The Institution has developed rapidly over recent
years, setting up a permanent office, a licensing
scheme, gaining accreditation as an awarding body
for UK registration of engineering technicians and
incorporated engineers and assisting employing
organisations with technician and engineer training
and competence development. The cost of such
activities, alongside the more traditional areas of
professional examinations, technical meetings,
seminars, visits and the publication of proceedings,
moves ever higher. Even though membership
numbers now reach over 3,000, and membership
fees have been raised by only modest amounts, they
are now at a level that is not affordable in many
countries.
So, in countries such as India and China apart
from a small number of members at the most senior
levels of the railway administrations, the Institution is
not able to contribute to the professional activity in
those countries.
I believe that we might provide a service by:
• Establishing a process for the formal recognition
by the Institution of employers and technical
training establishments.
• Licensing such bodies to disseminate IRSE

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 23
technical literature to students
• Accrediting specific courses of practical and
technical training offered by such bodies to a
standard that can be recognised by the
Institution in relation to its existing professional
examination and NVQ accredited courses.
• Seeking UK and European funding in cooperation
with the Industry for training
placements at appropriate European training
establishments.
Clearly we need to differentiate between such
special measures and the concept of personal
membership on which our Institution is based. We
also need to consider carefully the relevance and
size of our participation and level of commitment to
the organisation of professional engineering bodies
in the UK, given that the concepts on which the UK
approach is based currently are not relevant to the
European situation. The challenge for the future is to
ensure that the benefits of membership can be seen
to be worthwhile and value for money from all
countries.
SUMMARY
So the task facing our Institution is large and clear,
in summary, we must:
• Make sure that comprehensive information on
old technologies continues to be available as
long as they are in use somewhere.
• Participate in the development of cross-industry
R&D programmes and help to make the best
use of existing records and expertise.
• Give guidance to employers, training providers
and individuals on structured training and
development, promote debate and co-operation
throughout the industry and encourage
personal responsibility for self-development.
• Continue to provide a means by which the
competence of people working in safety related
roles might be demonstrated on a continuous
basis.
• Give a lead in promoting knowledge and
experience of new technologies that aids
application and introduction to service.
• Promote the harmonisation of approval
processes through cross acceptance.
• Promote debate and understanding of possible
benefits to be gained from additional functionality
of control systems and of the real time
capacity management.
• Help to identify the true costs and benefits
associated with command and control systems
and ensure that safety and the cost of safety is
not treated in isolation from commercial
benefits.
• Find ways by which our experience and
knowledge can be made available in those
developing nations of the world, where individuals
cannot afford the membership fees of
this or any other Institution.
HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE THEM?
Is already under way, sponsored by the SRA, in a
project for the creation of a comprehensive database
of records. Of course this is only part of the
task; equally important will be the identification of
the essential backing technical knowledge and
where a reputable source of such knowledge may
now be found.
The Institution will participate with other parties in
the development of Industry programmes for R&D.
Is an on-going task, led by our Training &
Development Manager, Karen Gould, to be taken
further this year by a Careers Conference in London
in June.
Review and development of the Institution’s
licensing scheme forms an important input to the
work of the UK Industry Training Body, RITC,
emphasising the national importance of the scheme.
During the coming year we shall be concentrating
on the technology and processes on which the
ETCS system is based, with technical papers giving
details of the design and operation of Eurobalise,
Euroradio and RBC, Eurocab and driver MMI and
Migration planning for ERTMS, also a technical visit
is planned for November 2002.
Is to be the subject of a report being prepared by
the IRSE International Technical Committee and a
one day seminar to be held in November of this year.
Will be the subject of a paper on control centre
technology and applications for the future to be
presented in January 2003 and a technical visit in
March 2003. Also covered in detail by the IRSE
International Technical Committee Report No 5,
which should be used as a basic reference in this
area and given renewed publicity.
Will be the subject of a one-day seminar to be held
in February 2003.
Will be discussed by Council during the next
session, with the aim of drawing up proposals for the
expansion of our activities into developing countries.
Maybe this list is demanding and no doubt I shall
hand over some tasks to my successors to
complete. What is absolutely certain is that what we
achieve will be achieved not by me, but by you, the
members of this Institution.
Our success will be visible, the value of our
contribution to the industry will be immense.
It’s possible – we just have to make it happen.
I thank you for your attention tonight and also in
anticipation of your help to me and your support of
the important work of the Institution in the year
ahead.

24
Technical Meeting of the Institution
held at
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2
Wednesday 9th October 2002
The President, Mr P W Stanley, in the chair.
105 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr P Lane, seconded by Mr D McKeown and carried that
the Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 13th March 2002 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a
correct record.
Mr Roy Pemberton, Member, of Parsons Brinkerhoff, was present for the first time since his election to membership and was
introduced to the meeting and welcomed amidst applause.
The President then invited Mr P Lundberg, of Bombardier Transportation, Rail Control Solutions, to present his paper
entitled “Eurobalise Transmission System”. Mr Lundberg illustrated his presentation with overhead projector slides.
Following the presentation Messrs J Poré, Alstom; R Salawi, Alstom; K Moxsom, Thales; H Uebel, past president; W
Coenraad, Holland Rail Consult; R Pemberton, Parsons Brinkerhoff; D Donelly, Praxis; C H Porter, Lloyds-MHA; I Haile, Alstom;
D Waboso, EPT; D Woodland, Bechtel; J Corrie, Mott Macdonald; I Mitchell, AEA; and the President took part in the
discussion.
Mr Lundberg having dealt with the points raised, the President then proposed a vote of thanks to him and presented the
speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.
The President then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting by announcing that the next
meeting in London would be held on the 6th November 2002 when Mr C Riley will present a paper on “EuroRadio and the RBC”.
Eurobalise Transmission System, A Technical Overview
Per Lundberg †
1 INTRODUCTION
The Eurobalise Transmission System is part of
the overall system that constitutes the basis for
the European Union Directive 96/48/EC on
trans-European high-speed railway network
interoperability, and is specified by the related
Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI).
The TSI defines the concept of “technical interoperability”
that applies to the “interoperability
constituents” 1 of the overall control-command
sub-system. When European Directive
2001/16/EC on the interoperability of the
trans-European conventional rail system is
implemented, the application of the Eurobalise
Transmission System will be extended to
cover practically the whole European rail
network.
The Eurobalise Transmission System is a vital,
spot transmission-based system conveying
safety-related information between the wayside
infrastructure and the train.
The Eurobalise Transmission System consists of
the Eurobalise and the on-board transmission
equipment. The latter is part of the ERTMS/ETCS
on-board constituent. Eurobalises are either fixed
type or controlled type. The on-board transmission
equipment consists of the antenna unit and the BTM
function. The wayside signalling equipment consists
of the Lineside Electronic Unit (LEU) and other
external equipment involved in the wayside
signalling process. See Figure 1 below.
The Eurobalise Transmission System is a spot
transmission system in which transmission is
implemented by Eurobalises. Information
† Bombardier Transportation, Rail Control Solutions
Figure 1 – Eurobalise Transmission System Overview
transmitted from a Eurobalise to the on-board
transmission equipment is fixed or variable
depending upon the application.
In spot transmission, a path exists between the
wayside equipment and the on-board transmission
equipment at discrete locations only. Information is
sent to the train only when the antenna unit passes
or stands over a Eurobalise. The length of track on
which the information is passed is limited to
approximately one metre per Eurobalise.
The Eurobalise Transmission System is intended
for use in all of the levels of applications defined
within the ERTMS/ETCS (called Level 0, Level 1,
Level 2, Level 3, and Level STM respectively).
1 An interoperability constituent is the smallest item for which a
declaration of conformity may be obtained.

EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW 25
2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
In 1992, a number of signalling companies started
to develop various proposals, based on an SSRS
(Sub-system Requirement Specification) from ERRI
A200, for the implementation of the transmission link
between the infrastructure and the train. Draft
specifications were written and prototypes were
developed. In 1994, the various concepts were
tested at the Vienna Arsenal. Additionally, field tests
were performed in Switzerland and France together
with the railways to evaluate the applicability further.
Other specific tests were also performed in Zurich
and Stockholm (eg cross-talk tests, availability tests,
etc).
The outcome of all this testing was the basis for
the technology choice made at the end of 1994.
ERRI A200 defined the criteria for the choice. The
final choice was magnetic transponder technology,
which was already a proven concept in several
countries using similar train protection systems
(KVB, Ebicab, and RSDD).
Industry (the EUROSIG Consortium) developed a
first set of specifications, in close co-operation with
the railways, during 1995 and 1996. A first release
was submitted by the end of 1996, and an approved
update was released by February 1997. This set was
composed of four different specifications defining
the Eurobalise Transmission System. They were
handed over to CENELEC in July 1998. The
CENELEC process was halted in September 2000,
but it did result in a consistent merge of the original
specifications, even though there still were some
topics that needed further technical elaboration.
The UNISIG consortium started resolving the
remaining unclear topics in parallel with the
CENELEC process, and also started a harmonisation
process with the overall System Requirement
Specification (SRS), which did not exist in common
harmonised form at earlier stages of the overall
process. In April 2000, the so-called Class 1 specification
(excluding test specification) was delivered
and approved by the railways as part of the
complete ERTMS/ETCS package. Thereafter,
UNISIG continued developing the specifications
(considering the CENELEC output as well). At this
stage, the topic of RAMS was gone into thoroughly
for the first time.
In this final stage, a test specification harmonised
with the other UNISIG specifications is also under
final elaboration, based on EUROSIG output. At
present (August 2002) one ambiguity, related to
magnetic flux measurements, is still to be resolved,
but preliminary documents are delivered. The plan is
to complete the entire process by October 2002. The
final result will be a Form Fit Function Interface
Specification (FFFIS) and a Test Specification.
Programmes of test were carried out at various
stages of the process in order to check the validity
of the specifications, in order to ensure correctness
and interoperability. After the technology choice,
tests were performed at the Vienna Arsenal (laboratory
tests), at Velim (site tests for the Eurobalise
Transmission System), and in Spain (EMSET laboratory
tests and site tests that also included the entire
ERTMS/ETCS system). Apart from the actual testing,
the EMSET project also included development of
test tools. In addition, the Eurobalise Transmission
System has been included in several pilot lines for
some years. One example is the Swiss pilot line,
recently taken into commercial operation, where in
addition all signal lamps have been removed (this is
an ERTMS/ETCS Level 2 system). In order to resolve
the remaining ambiguity of the test specification,
some complementary tests are planned after the
vacation period in 2002.
The overall process is illustrated in Figure 2 below.
It should be observed that the timing illustrated in
Figure 2 above focuses on the most important
periods for the Eurobalise Transmission System only
(eg EUROSIG did exist both before 1995 and after
February 1997, EMSET existed before 1998, etc),
and that some points of time are rough estimates.
3 CURRENT STATUS
The specifications are now in a consolidated
status judged to be sufficient to ensure technical
interoperability (including safety), except for one
ambiguity that is planned to be resolved this
autumn. The final outcome guarantees interoperability
for systems which include wayside and
on-board equipment from different manufacturers.
Future revisions of the specifications (after
consolidation of the remaining open item) will be
handled through a joint change control process
managed by AEIF. The test specification will be the
input to future Notified Bodies responsible for
certifying products from different manufacturers.
Figure 2 – Overall Process

26
EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW
4 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
4.1 OVERALL EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION
SYSTEM
There are four top-level functions defined for the
Balise Transmission System. These are as follows:
• balise detection;
• transmission of protected data from wayside
devices to the intended train devices;
• provision of data for train location;
• determination of the direction of travel of the
train.
All these are detailed further for the Eurobalise and
the on-board transmission equipment respectively.
Where relevant, quantitative safety targets are
allocated to the respective constituents.
The Eurobalise Transmission System is capable of
receiving information from the wayside signalling
equipment, and passing this information to the
ERTMS/ETCS kernel. A Eurobalise that is connected
to an LEU transmits the data it receives over the
air-gap in a transparent manner. Fixed balises
transmit fixed, pre-programmed data as a train
passes. There are two sizes of Eurobalises, Reduced
Size and Standard Size.
The BTM function makes all the received data
available to the ERTMS/ETCS kernel, and associates
it with the location information from the
Eurobalise that was passed over. This is performed
regardless of the direction of travel of the vehicle.
The on-board transmission equipment provides a
tele-powering signal for activating balises. The
vehicle mounted antenna unit transmits this signal to
the balise via the air-gap. For the basic system, the
tele-powering signal is a continuous wave (CW)
signal for activating Eurobalises only. There is also
an optional function for achieving interoperability
with existing KER systems (that is KVB, Ebicab, and
RSDD systems). In this case, a 50 kHz AM signal
modulates the tele-powering signal. This is referred
to as “toggling modulation”, because the pulse
length of the modulation differs between successive
pulses (one is shorter and one is longer) – see Figure
8 below. The Eurobalise responds equally when
activated by either a 27 MHz CW signal or a 27 MHz
signal with 50 kHz toggling modulation, but KER
balises remain silent when subjected to CW telepowering.
On activation the Eurobalise responds by transmitting
a 4.2 MHz frequency-shift-keyed up-link
signal (see example in Figure 4 below). The
Eurobalise is passive until it is tele-powered by the
on-board transmission equipment (ie there is no
other power source to the Eurobalise).
The Eurobalise Transmission System is specified
to operate at speeds of up to 500 km/h.
The concept allows two possible telegram
lengths, a 341-bit telegram and a 1023-bit telegram.
Data transmitted from track to train is considered
safety critical. Protection of the data against air-gap
noise effects and noise-induced hazards in the
receiving and transmitting equipment is sufficient to
ensure bit error detection to the extent that is
demanded by the specified coding requirements.
The coding features a process where the
unprotected data (called user bits) are scrambled
and shaped according to defined algorithms,
forming a specific telegram format with excellent
protection against eg random bit errors, burst errors,
bit slips and bit insertions.
The key features of the telegram format are as
follows:
• two compatible telegram lengths, 1023 and 341
bits respectively;
• a large number of unrestricted information bits,
830 and 210 respectively;
• safety against various types of transmission
errors;
• inversion of all bits of the telegram is always
recognised by the decoder;
• transmission need not start (or end) at the
beginning of a telegram (the detection procedure
is completely transparent with respect to
cyclic shifts of a telegram);
• support for compatibility with unknown future
variations of the format.
The telegram format allows for quantitative evaluation
of the effect of random bit errors, burst errors,
bit slips and bit insertions and all combinations
thereof, with particular attention to the potential
problems of telegram change and format misinterpretation
(“long” as “short” or vice versa).
Data transmission is performed without any
handshaking across the air-gap.
The BTM function provides data which enable the
instant and/or the location when the antenna passed
over the balise to be calculated, by analysing the
received data and the properties of the received
up-link signal.
The Eurobalise Transmission System calculates
the location of the Eurobalise from the available time
and odometer information, and makes it available to
the ERTMS/ETCS Kernel. The location accuracy for
safety purposes is within 1m for every balise passed.
Significantly better location accuracy is obtained
normally, but not to a guaranteed vital level.
The Eurobalise Transmission System does not
allow a valid telegram to be passed through from a
Eurobalise located in a cross-talk protected zone to
the On-board ERTMS/ETCS Kernel.
The Eurobalise Transmission System ensures
protection against cross-talk based on signal levels
provided all constraints regarding installation are
observed. Additional cross-talk protection is
achieved by performing the ERTMS/ETCS level
functions defined in the SRS.
Mixing of Eurobalises (Reduced Size, Standard
Size, Fixed, Controlled, etc), and transmission of
different telegram lengths, is possible on the same
line.
The Eurobalise is able to receive data from an LEU
at a distance of at least 500m. Longer distances
than 500m (for example 5km) can be individually
achieved on a supplier specific basis.

EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW 27
In general, the detailed specification of the balise
is very rigid leaving a minimum of flexibility, whilst
the specification of the on-board transmission
equipment is fairly flexible in order to allow various
alternatives for on-board optimisation.
4.2 EUROBALISE
A Eurobalise is interrogated and tele-powered by
an inductively coupled tele-powering signal. The
response of the Eurobalise is also an inductively
coupled up-link signal. Source and sink of the
tele-powering signal and the up-link signal respectively
is the vehicle mounted antenna unit.
Figure 3 – Eurobalise and its Main Interfaces
The origin of the data carried by the up-link signal
is a non-volatile memory in a fixed Eurobalise, or a
serial data-link (the balise control interface) in a
controlled Eurobalise. The data in the non-volatile
memory is programmed on installation of the
Eurobalise. If the Balise Controlling Interface is
disturbed or interrupted, a controlled Eurobalise
automatically switches over to transmitting the
telegram in its internal non-volatile memory (which is
also fitted in controlled Eurobalises).
The Lineside Electronic Unit (LEU) receives
messages from the wayside signalling or the interlocking.
They are converted into Eurobalise
telegrams (fulfilling the requirements of the telegram
format), and are passed through the balise control
interface to the Eurobalise, which transmits them to
the on-board transmission equipment on passing
trains.
The Eurobalise generates a field that is picked up
by the on-board antenna unit. Current flowing in the
transmitting loop in the Eurobalise induces a voltage
in the reception loop in the antenna unit.
Two frequencies are used for frequency shift
keying (FSK) of the up-link data, approximately 3.9
MHz for a logical 0 and 4.5 MHz for a logical 1. In a
shift between the two frequencies the carrier has a
continuous phase (ie the modulation is continuousphase
FSK). The centre frequency is approximately
4.2 MHz and the frequency deviation is approximately
282 kHz. The mean data rate is approximately
565 kbit/s. Figure 4 below shows an
example.
Two sizes of Eurobalise are defined, Standard size
and Reduced size. The Reduced size Eurobalise can
be installed transversely (ie with its longer side at
right angles to the track) or longitudinally as
required.
Standard and Reduced size Eurobalises have the
following reference areas for defining the field
strength from an antenna unit as well as their own
output field strength:
• Standard size Eurobalise – active reference area
358mm by 488mm;
• Reduced size Eurobalise – active reference area
200mm by 390mm.
The physical size of the actual Eurobalise is
somewhat larger in each case because of the need
for encapsulation, and the thickness is a few
centimetres.
Obviously, Eurobalises will be used in a large
variety of environmental conditions. In particular
they will be subjected to various kinds of débris (eg
water, salt water, snow, ice, iron ore, etc). In order to
provide some flexibility in this specific respect
Eurobalises are subdivided into two classes, Class A
and Class B. Class A Eurobalises are intended to be
used in a more demanding environment than Class
B Eurobalises.
Eurobalises can be mounted within an overall
range from 93mm to 210mm below the top of the
rail. This applies to the entire family of Eurobalises.
Each separate type (Standard size, Reduced size,
Class A, Class B, etc) has limitations and does
not necessarily cover the full range. In some cases
the range is also limited if the balise is installed
where certain defined types of metallic structures
exist.
Eurobalises are mounted in the middle of the track
Figure 4 – FSK Up-link Signal from Eurobalise

28
EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW
with an equal distance to both rails (within a certain
tolerance).
In the track, there needs to be a certain minimum
separation between Eurobalises. Minimum
distances between successive Eurobalises are
shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 below.
4.3 ON-BOARD TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT
The on-board transmission equipment is part of
the ERTMS/ETCS On-board Constituent. Its main
functions are to generate the tele-powering signal to
the balise, to receive and process the up-link signal
from the balise, to form the interface between the
air-gap and the ERTMS/ETCS Kernel, and to provide
appropriate test data to the test interfaces via an
interface adapter.
The on-board transmission equipment includes
the antenna unit, and the functional block called the
BTM function. See Figure 7 below.
The on-board antenna unit provides power to
wayside Eurobalises by generating a field. Current
flowing in the transmitting loop of the antenna unit
induces a voltage in the reception loop of the
Eurobalise. The induced voltage in the Eurobalise is
based mainly on the vertical component of the field
intersecting the loop.
The field distribution from the antenna unit is such
that the Eurobalise receives sufficient power to be
able to generate an adequate output signal to send
back to the antenna unit. For interoperability
reasons, the on-board transmission equipment is
able to operate with all the defined types of
Eurobalise under all defined conditions in a compliant
manner.
The field is produced at a frequency of 27.095
MHz. The signal is normally CW but, for interoperable
systems, the on-board transmission
equipment is able to pulse width modulate the telepowering
carrier signal with a 50 kHz synchronisation
signal (toggling modulation). Examples of
the signals are shown in Figure 8 below.
The on-board transmission equipment checks
continuously for the presence of balises, whenever
the vehicle is in operating mode. The only exception
Figure 5 – Minimum Distance between Reduced Size Eurobalises
Figure 6 – Minimum Distance between Standard Size Eurobalises
Figure 7 – On-board Transmission Equipment and its Main Interfaces

EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW
29
Figure 8 – Tele-powering Signal (CW and Toggling)
is when there is full safety protection by other means
at system level.
There is a threshold function within the BTM
function based on a voltage that represents the
received field strength. The actual implementation is
supplier dependent. However, the highest level of
this threshold is such that balise detection is still
guaranteed, and the lowest level is such that
cross-talk protection is not jeopardised.
The on-board transmission equipment also
demodulates the up-link signal and performs
decoding of the information (in accordance with the
coding requirements).
After passing over a Eurobalise, the data and the
reference position are made available to the
ERTMS/ETCS Kernel. Since balise detection is a
vital function, the BTM function in general also
reports balise detection to the ERTMS/ETCS Kernel
when a Eurobalise is detected but no telegram is
decoded. It is not safety critical to fail to decode the
telegram, but it is safety critical to fail to detect a
balise.
5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Explanation
A200 ERRI specialist committee specifying the
original ETCS
AEIF European Association for Railway
Interoperability
AM Amplitude Modulation
BTM Balise Transmission Module
CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical
Standardisation
CW Continuous Wave
Ebicab ATP system based on Magnetic
Transponder Technology
EMSET A consortium composed of eleven organisations
working in the Railway signalling
area
ERRI European Rail Research Institute
ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management
System
ETCS European Train Control System
EUROSIG A consortium composed of nine
European companies working in the
Railway signalling area
FFFIS Form Fit Function Interface Specification
FSK Frequency Shift Keying
KER KVB, Ebicab, RSDD
KVB Contrôle de Vitesse par Balise (ATP
system based on magnetic transponder
technology)
LEU Lineside Electronic Unit
RAMS Reliability Availability Maintainability
Safety
RSDD Ripetizione Segnali Discontinua Digitale
(ATP system based on magnetic
transponder technology)
SSRS Sub-system Requirements Specification
SRS System Requirements Specification
TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability
UNISIG A consortium composed of six European
companies working in the Railway
signalling area

30
EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW
Discussion
The discussion was opened by J Poré (Alstom)
who asked whether the capacity of a line would be
reduced by the use of balises, would this be dependent
on the number of balises at a location, and
what were the implications as far as maintenance
was concerned?
Mr Lundberg did not accept that there would be a
reduction in capacity if an unfitted line were
compared with a fitted one where the level of safety
was the same, as balises would permit more trains
to be run closer together.
R Salawi (Alstom) raised the question of the time
needed to acquire data by equipped trains as a
cause of loss of capacity.
The President ruled that this was not relevant to
Eurobalise and asked the speaker to consider the
value of multiple balises.
Mr Lundberg doubted whether more than two
balises would be needed at a location. As to maintenance,
experience of present systems was good
and was expected to be similar with the eurobalise.
K Moxsom (Thales) asked what the result would
be if a balise were removed by vandalism for
example?
The speaker said that this was dependent on how
the main control system was designed.
H Uebel (retired) asked how when powering up a
locomotive it ascertained its location.
The speaker replied that powering up in the
“telepowering mode” would enable old or new
balises to be detected and location established.
D Donelly (Praxis) asked whether directional
information could be encoded into the telegram,
thus obviating the need for more than one balise at
a location.
Mr Lundberg said that the train itself must
determine its direction hence directional information
could not be included in the telegram of a single
balise.
C Porter (Lloyds MHA) asked why there were two
sizes of balise, why what was probably the simplest
part of the various systems seemed to be most
difficult to finalise and could some of the design
points and their problems be described.
The author said that the two versions were the
same functionally but the larger one would be used
where debris on the track was a more severe
problem. The speaker was not familiar with the
history of earlier systems but the need to rigidly
specify the new balise and to increase the data
transmission rate had raised problems.
A member (Balfour Beatty) asked about the effects
of masses of metal in the proximity of the balise.
The author said that this was covered in the
installation specification for the balise.
I Mitchell (AEA) asked whether when a train
passed over a balise it had to be told to communicate
with the LEU.
Mr Lundberg replied that the LEU continuously
transmitted its information to the balise but the
balise ignored this until powered up by a train.
The President thanked Mr Lundberg for his paper
and his response to the discussion.

Company Announcement
Bridgen Enterprises – S&T Division
You may be aware of Bridgen's S&T Division because of our fast
growing reputation in the UK for S&T work in maintenance,
renewal and testing of signalling equipment. We specialise in
management of SIN actions, production of method statements
and risk assessments for all manner of signalling works.
You may even know about Bridgen's Training Division because of our
continuous delivery of high quality, Safety Critical Training at Harrow,
Norwich and Worksop (previously Maltby).
Summer 2003 sees the opening of our new Signalling Training School at
our customised, indoor training facility in Stockport, which also provides
Safety Critical Training.
Over the next twelve months, a complete range of on-site, specialist S&T
courses will include those listed on the table opposite, plus we can
deliver ‘bespoke courses’ to match your specific S&T training
requirements…
Bridgen’s Stockport Office is within 1 mile of the M60 ring road and
within easy reach of the M6, M56 and M62!
If you are an IRSE member or active in Signalling Works
within the UK, we would like to talk to you about your
current and future S&T Training needs.
For an informal discussion, please contact Ben or Alan in Stockport
on 0161 430 3388
TRAINING COURSES
• Basic Signalling 1
• Basic Signalling 2
• SMTH Full course
• SMTH Re-Cert
• Basic Electrical Safety
Awareness (BESA)
• Safety Principles When
Working With Electrical
Equipment (SPWEE)
• T.P.W.S (F.L.F.M)
• Basic Electrical Installation
• HW Point Machine Installation
• HW Point Machine F.L.F.M.
• Clamp Lock Installation
• Clamp Lock F.L.F.M.
• Style 63 Point Machine
Installation
• Style 63 Point Machine F.L.F.M
• D.C T.C Courses
• M.L.T.I T.C Courses (F.L.F.M)
• H.V.I
• Signal Works Testing Modules
3A, 3BL, 3C, 3D, 4 and 5.
• Axle Counters (F.L.F.M)
• Bespoke S&T Courses!
BEN DOWNING, S&T Works Manager
Email: ben.downing@bridgen.com
ALAN CREANE, S&T Training Manager
Email: alan.creane@bridgen.com
Bridgen Enterprises – S&T Division Gralan House, Green Lane, Romiley, Stockport SK6 3JG
Tel: 0161 430 3388 Fax: 0161 430 3377 Email: stockport@bridgen.com
w w w . b r i d g e n . c o m
Bridgen Enterprises Ltd – S&T Division Gralan House,Green Lane,Romiley,Stockport SK6 3JG
Tel: 0161 430 3388 Fax: 0161 430 3377 Email: stockport@bridgen.com

32
1 OVERVIEW
Technical Meeting of the Institution
ERTMS is the interoperable European Rail Traffic
Management System and it has been under
development for the past ten years or so.
Undoubtedly the system will herald a new chapter of
railway signalling history, but many are struggling
with the concepts and jargon that such a new
system brings. Perhaps the most difficult system
concept is that of the EuroRadio communication
system and its interaction with the Radio Block
Centre (RBC). This paper, with its accompanying
presentation, aims to walk through the concepts and
ideas of EuroRadio and the RBC in an easily
understood way, whilst avoiding as much
communication system language and jargon as
possible. It is assumed that the reader has a basic
understanding of ERTMS / ETCS but if in doubt, an
excellent primer is available on www.ertms.com.
EuroRadio has been well specified over the years,
but the operation of the RBC is less well-defined on
account of its novelty, and its freedom of
implementation in relation to the interlocking. The
paper that follows is therefore a mix of generic
EuroRadio information and proprietary RBC design
information, from a Westinghouse Rail Systems
perspective. The overall explanation should however
be applicable to any system, with only minor details
changing in some cases.
2 INTRODUCTION TO THE RBC
The ERTMS/ETCS Radio Block Centre is the main
component of the trackside subsystem for the ETCS
held at
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2
Wednesday 6th November 2002
The President, Mr. P W Stanley, in the chair.
106 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr D Edney, seconded by Mr J Corrie and carried that the
Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 9th October 2002 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct
record.
Mr Lashi Spandi, of Alstom, was present for the first time since his election to membership and was introduced to the
meeting and welcomed amidst applause.
The President then introduced Mr C Riley, of Westinghouse Rail Systems, and invited him to present his paper entitled
“EuroRadio and the RBC”. Mr Riley illustrated his presentation with computer slides and explained the concepts of EuroRadio
and the Radio Block Centre in an easily understood way whilst avoiding the use of as much of the communication system
language and jargon as possible.
Following the presentation Messrs J Corrie, Mott Macdonald; C Eaglen, Railtrack; K Ford, Thales; D Waboso, EPT; C H Porter,
Lloyds MHA; the President; K Moxsom, Thales; J Poré, Alstom; F Hewlett, retired; D Jeffery, Railtrack; I Harman, Union Railways;
E Goddard, LUL; J Mew, Thales; D Weedon, Amec; REB Barnard, Alstom; D Djezzar, MHA, and D McKeown, Independent
Consultant, took part in the discussion.
Mr Riley dealt with the questions assisted by his colleague Mr J Harmer. The President then proposed a vote of thanks and
presented the speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.
The President then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting by announcing that the next meeting
in London would be held on the 10th December 2002 when Mr C Frerichs will present a paper on EuroCab and the Driver MMI.
1 Communications Technical Authority
2 RBC Technical Authority
3 Technical Director
Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd
EuroRadio and the RBC
John Harmer 1 , Kevin Turner 2 and C Riley 3
Level 2. Depending on the geographic characteristics
of the track and the operating characteristics
of the railway one or more RBCs will be needed,
each configured to monitor a specific area so that
the whole Level 2 operating area is covered.
The RBC communicates with the interlockings,
which undertake the usual common signalling
functions, ie establishment, locking and release of
routes. The interlockings also control the aspects of
signals, where provided. Each RBC is responsible
for managing radio communications with the trains
in its control area, and for sending each train a
movement authority that allows it to move safely.
However, the RBC can only monitor those trains with
which it has set up radio communication. It will
always be possible to find a series of trains which
are not monitored by the RBC, including:
• trains which do not have ETCS equipment and
only operate with the existing national signalling;
• trains which are ETCS-fitted but without radio
communication facilities so that they can only
operate in ETCS Level 1 or Level STM;
• train which have ETCS equipment for Level 2,
but with failures causing loss of communications
with the RBC.
Even though the RBC can only monitor those
trains with which it has communication, it is still
necessary to ensure safe movement of all these
different types of train in the area it controls (socalled
mixed traffic). Interaction between the RBC
and the interlockings ensures that the RBC
operation does not conflict with trains that are not
under its control, so that safe movement of all trains
is ensured. Each RBC also communicates with any
adjacent RBCs, so that trains controlled by an RBC
can pass seamlessly from one control area to

EURORADIO AND THE RBC 33
another while maintaining their normal operation in
ERTMS Level 2.
To ensure safe communication between the
trackside signalling system and the train whilst
maintaining operational efficiency requires that the
RBC is based on a high integrity architecture that
can tolerate failures. When in normal operation, the
RBC sends to each of the trains with which it
communicates in its area of control movement
authority information, together with route
geographic information that the train must observe
in calculating a safe speed. The train sends
information about its location to the RBC to enable
calculation of appropriate movement authority
parameters by the RBC. Communication between
the RBC and the train is therefore bi-directional via
the mandated GSM-R communications network,
using the protocol defined later in this paper.
The regulation and traffic control system (CTC or
Local Control) sends requests for route
establishment to the interlockings. The interlockings
set up and lock the routes requested by the
CTC/Local Control, and send the information that
the route is set up and locked to the RBC. When the
RBC undertakes control of a train that requires to
use a route, it checks that the interlocking has
reserved that route for that train before sending the
movement authority for the train to use it. Once the
train has entered the route, or in the event that the
train does not use the route, the RBC and the
interlocking co-operate to release the route, so as to
ensure the consistency of the information managed
by the RBC and by the interlocking. The CTC/Local
Control retains its current functions of requesting
route establishment. The interlocking retains its
current functions, together with the additional
functions of proceed and approach locking release
to the RBC.
For the ERTMS Level 2 system, the train’s location
is mainly determined by means of axle counters or
track circuit occupancy. The interlocking detects
track occupancy and sends this information to the
RBC. The RBC uses this track occupancy information
to determine the movement authority limit for
the train (regardless of whether the train ahead is
under its control). The location information sent by
the train to the RBC is used for various functions,
such as: association of track circuit occupancy with
the train; determination of the point where the
geographic information associated with the
movement authority begins; and diverse checking of
the train’s location once the routes are released.
When a train is approaching the boundary between
two RBCs, the RBCs start to communicate with
each other so that the movement authority can be
extended across the boundary. As the train is
crossing the boundary, control passes from the
“Handover RBC” to the “Accepting RBC”.
3 INTRODUCTION TO EURORADIO
The choice of GSM for the radio bearer network
was made some years ago, and work progressed in
the EIRENE project to specify the additional
requirements for railways. The MORANE project was
given responsibility for the detailed specifications
and for demonstrating the suitability of GSM-R (ie
GSM for Railways). However, because of the
complexity of a modern digital radio system, it is
impossible to guarantee safe transmission, or even,
in general, that it cannot be hacked into. It was
therefore necessary to define an additional module
between the application and the bearer that would
be responsible for the safe transmission of data
across the radio network – this was EuroRadio.
Specifications for EuroRadio have been available
for about seven years, written by various groups and
in various stages of release. The specifications have
always assumed concept implementation on
GSM-R, which is regarded as an Open Transmission
System as defined by CENELEC prEN50159-2. It
must be remembered that the specifications are only
concerned with interoperability, not with defining a
complete system, although they are limited to a
circuit switched network. Even so, there is scope for
a number of different implementations where
interoperability is unaffected – this particularly
affects functions that are local to one end of the link.
In this paper, a typical implementation is described,
but it is not necessarily the only one possible.
The form and electronic etiquette of the
communication, known as the Protocol Stack
design, has been stable for several years (see Figure
1). The reason for having layers within the protocol is
to allocate particular functions to particular software
modules, leading to a design where changes in one
module do not have a knock-on effect on other
modules. There is an important principle here, that a
layer does not need to ‘look into’ the message that
it is given from the layer above for any information it
needs, which means a layer can (at least in theory)
be changed without changing the layers above or
below.
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
APPLICATION
APPLICATION LAYER (EMPTY)
PRESENTATION LAYER (EMPTY)
SESSION LAYER (EMPTY)
SAFETY LAYER
TRANSPORT LAYER
NETWORK LAYER
DATA LINK LAYER
PHYSICAL LAYER (GSM)
Figure 1 – OSI Model

34
EURORADIO AND THE RBC
Note that an Application and an Application Layer
are not the same thing! An application could be for
word-processing or train-control; the application
layer is responsible typically for the transfer, access
and management of files, documents, or messages
– that is, for common services for all applications.
The other point to note is that, as in most common
communication stacks, not all layers are
implemented. In this case there are no Application,
Presentation or Session layers, but, unlike most,
there is an extra one – the Safety layer. For
convenience, it is probably easiest to think of the
Safety layer as a particular form of Session layer –
the key used for the Message Authentication Code
(MAC) is generated on a per-session basis. It also
has the benefit of being easy to remember. So the
EuroRadio protocol stack is as shown in Figure 2.
(application)
SAFETY LAYER
TRANSPORT LAYER
NETWORK LAYER
DATA LINK LAYER
(GSM-R)
Figure 2 – EuroRadio Stack
3.1 APPLICATION
The application is responsible for initiating
connection set-up from train to RBC, by requesting
data to be sent. Note that, although EuroRadio is
symmetric (that is, either side can initiate a
connection), there is no requirement in the ETCS
System Requirement Specification for the trackside
application to connect to the train. It also
implements the timestamp protection against delay.
3.2 SAFETY LAYER
The safety layer is responsible for authentication,
that is confirming the identities of the two
applications, and to a lesser extent for final errorchecking.
It is the guarantee of most of the
communications safety so, like the application, it is
generally implemented at SIL4.
3.3 TRANSPORT LAYER
The transport layer contains a number of
functions. It segments the message into 123-byte
lengths and reassembles, if the message from the
safety layer is too long for the network layer (but it
does not recreate-sequence). It also provides flow
control to restrict transmission in the lower layers.
3.4 NETWORK LAYER
The network layer co-ordinates the transport
connections above it – there can be more than one
transport, but only one network, connection – and
sets up connections over GSM-R using the correct
commands. Further segmentation down to 23 bytes
and recreate-assembly occurs.
3.5 DATA LINK LAYER
The link layer based on HDLC is the lowest
EuroRadio layer. It has a 16-bit cyclic redundancy
code, acknowledgements and recreate-tries, so it
can provide a reliable service over unreliable lower
layers. This does not mean that the lower layers are
unreliable in practice – just that they can be prone to
data errors. So, if there is a problem, it is the data
link layer that will recover the situation.
3.6 PHYSICAL LAYER
It always seems strange that the “physical” layer,
which is usually a piece of wire or optical fibre, is the
whole GSM-R radio network. However, as far as
EuroRadio is concerned, it performs exactly the role
of a physical connection, transferring data between
link layers.
4 THE LIFE OF A RBC-TRAIN
CONNECTION
4.1 CONNECTION – SET-UP
When a train is switched on, very little happens for
EuroRadio as all the action is initiated in the cab. The
ETCS cab equipment enters stand-by, possibly with
invalid or unknown data. It finds out the driver-ID,
whether it is in a Level 2 area, and whether its stored
position is valid. The driver will probably have to
enter or confirm this data. When the GSM-R mobile
powers up, it registers automatically with the GSM-
R network.
The next stage is for the train to open a session
with the RBC. The application attempts to send the
initiation message, and it does this by passing the
message, the destination ETCS-ID, the destination
network id if known, and the Quality of Service (QoS)
parameters to the Safety Layer.
The idea of Quality of Service is inherited from
modern communications practice. Normally, it gives
an application a way of specifying its requirements in
terms of connection establishment delay, failure
probability, throughput, transmission delay, residual
error, security and priority. However, the QoS
parameters for GSM-R are mainly set either in the
specifications, or at network design time, and so in
practice the only parameters to set are priority
(preset to 1) and data rate (usually 4800, but 2400
and 9600 are possible). It is not possible to recreatenegotiate
QoS during the life of a connection.
Note that the priority assigned by the application
calling up a particular QoS parameter set is that of
the connection relative to other connections, not
that of the message. Messages can have normal or
high priority, determined by which queue they are
placed on by the application: high-priority messages
effectively by-pass the safety and network layers,
and are sent as data-link layer Unnumbered
Information frames.
So the on-board Safety Layer has received the
initiation message and a destination ID, and possibly
a network ID (incorrectly called phone number in
the rest of the paper, as it is clearer for non-

EURORADIO AND THE RBC 35
communications engineers!) – what happens next?
Basically, the connection request ripples down the
protocol stack, and then the layer connections ripple
back up. So the Safety Layer passes the connection
request to the Transport Layer, which cannot do
anything until there is a Network Layer connection,
then the Data Link Layer, then GSM-R.
It is at this point there can be a problem. The onboard
application knows all about application
addresses – the ETCS-ID which when used with the
ETCS-ID-TYPE is unique in the world, safely – but it
knows and cares little about phone numbers (they
could be different from last week to this). At the
bottom of the stack, GSM-R knows all about phone
numbers, but nothing about application IDs. How is
the translation achieved?
It is possible that the application received the
number along with the ETCS-ID from a balise – the
simplest solution. It may have received it from an
RBC in an application message, but of course it
needs a connection first to do that. Another
possibility is that, as people do, it remembers
associations, in a look-up table in the Transport
layer. But if all else fails, it has the possibility of using
a feature of the network – location-dependent
addressing. As with a ‘999’ call in the UK, the
network is aware of the location of the source of the
call, and can route it to an appropriate local
destination. Similarly, a GSM network is aware of the
source’s cell, and can route the call to a pre-defined
‘most-appropriate RBC’.
So, the Safety layer requests a connection from the
Transport layer, the Transport layer requests a
connection from the Network layer and the Network
layer requests a connection from the Data Link layer
– except that the Data Link layer has no mechanism
to cause GSM to connect. So in fact the Network
layer sends the dial commands to GSM. Once GSM
has connected, the Network layer can request a
connection from the Data Link layer, ie the HDLC
Data Link layer synchronises.
Once the train’s Data Link layer receives an
Unnumbered Acknowledge frame, it can confirm the
connection to the Network layer, which sends
confirmation to the Transport layer, which confirms
the connection to the Safety layer.
4.2 AUTHENTICATION
It is only at this point that the Safety layer, on the
train and in the RBC, can start to authenticate the
end users – but why should it?
It was assumed in the design of EuroRadio that the
data may go over some form of ‘open’ network –
that is, a network where the data is not only subject
to random noise, but could also be the subject of a
malicious human attack from outside or inside the
Railway.
Authentication uses two defences. One is random
data generated at the time of connection set-up. The
other is use of a ‘shared secret’ – the ‘key’ – that only
the correct user will know. But how does the train
know what key to use? Once again, we could use a
look-up table, matching ETCS-ID against phone
number and key. But now, the look-up table must be
much, much larger. If a train does not know the
ETCS-ID or phone number of the next RBC, it can be
given this by the last RBC or a balise – but it cannot
find out the key in the same way. And the same
applies if an RBC does not know the key for a train
arriving in its area.
A process is defined in the Symmetric Key
Management specification (Unisig document
Subset064), but it should really come with a health
warning! It should not be considered a real-time
system, and is best used for a train in operation only
in exceptional conditions, and preferably when the
train is stationary – in fact it is likely to take so long
that the train will be stationary.
It requires the use of a home Key Management
Centre (KMC), which could be a PC in a locked
room. Trains only ever call their home KMC, so
interoperability is not an issue here. Only KMCs talk
directly to other KMCs. So, to take an example,
assume an English train in France does not have the
key for the French RBC:
• the train tries to set up a connection as
described above, only to find it does not have a
working key;
• it disconnects;
• it sets up a connection to its own UK KMC and
requests the key;
• the UK KMC realises the key requested is within
the control of the French KMC, and so sets up a
connection to the French KMC;
• the French KMC generates a key for use by the
train and the RBC;
• the French KMC then encrypts and distributes
the new key to the French RBC;
• when that is confirmed, the French KMC
encrypts and sends the key to the UK KMC;
• the UK KMC encrypts the key, and sends it to
the English train;
• the English train disconnects from the UK KMC,
and sets up the connection to the French RBC
and 20km down the line is the next French
RBC…
It is clear that with five connections being set up, this
is a process best invoked at start-up and in
emergencies. In practice, keys are likely to be
created and downloaded for all RBCs likely to be
encountered by a train.
While on the subject of keys, of course different
strategies are possible. The example above
assumes the ‘normal’ situation where each pair of
entities is allocated a unique key. But it would be
quite possible, in a country or area, if the safety case
allows it, to allocate:
• the same key to all RBCs and trains;
• a key for all trains of a particular type;
• a key for all trains of a particular operator.
This would overcome most of the problems. It really
depends how careless you are – if you keep losing
trains and RBCs, you need a key management
policy that limits the damage to only the stolen
equipment; if equipment is rarely if ever stolen, key

36
EURORADIO AND THE RBC
management can be very simple and relatively
painless.
4.3 MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODE
To make it look easy, Figure 3 shows a generic
encryption process.
PLAINTEXT
KEY
ENCRYPTION
ALGORITHM
CIPHERTEXT
Figure 3 – Encryption
Apart from the terminology, an interesting point is
that a single bit change in the plain text should, on
average, change half the output ciphertext bits, if the
encryption algorithm is a good one. In fact, if you
change any or all the input bits, half the output bits
should change. So you can find out nothing about
the input bits from the output. Which is as it should
be, though it does make error-correction a nonstarter.
Now it is necessary to introduce the concept of
Cipher-Block Chaining (CBC). If the plaintext and the
key of Figure 1 are 8 bytes long, the ciphertext out is
also 8 bytes. What happens if the message you want
to send is longer than 8 bytes? The message can be
divided into 8-byte blocks, and each encrypted
individually, but input plaintext will always give the
same ciphertext. One way of preventing this is to
chain the enciphering blocks together, and this is
shown in Figure 4.
The first plaintext block is encrypted as before, but
now the output is fed into the second block, so
plaintext 2 is exclusive-OR’d with ciphertext 1 before
being encrypted. So now ciphertext 2 depends on all
the bits of plaintext 2, and all the bits of plaintext 1.
And now it becomes a little clearer how a Message
Authentication Code (MAC) works. For encryption,
the ciphertext blocks 1 and 2 etc are the output –
they are sent to the destination. But to create a MAC
the ciphertexts are used only as input to the next
PLAINTEXT 1
8 bytes
DES
CIPHERTEXT 1
8 bytes
KEY
PLAINTEXT 2
8 bytes
DES
XOR
CIPHERTEXT 2
8 bytes
KEY
Figure 4 – Cipher Block Chain
block; apart from which they can be thrown away.
Because what you are left with at the end of this
‘chain of enciphering blocks’ is 8 bytes that depend
on every single bit of all the plaintexts 1, 2, etc. The
same reasoning applies at the receiver, which
performs exactly the same process. That is, the
receiver takes the unencrypted plaintext coming in,
and calculates a MAC from it and the shared key. If
the received and calculated MACs match, then the
message received is the same as at the place it was
calculated, and the sender must have used the same
key.
There is one point about this that sometimes
causes confusion. What has been described is
‘single DES’. DES, or Data Encryption Standard,
describes use of the Data Encryption Algorithm
(DEA) which uses a 64 bit key, of which 56 bits are
actual random key, and 8 are parity bits. An effective
key of 56 bits is rather small considering the
increases in processing power, and recently a
successful attack has received publicity. However,
the attack was a brute-force key search, so it is not
true to say that DES has been ‘broken’ in the sense
of finding a weakness that bypasses the brute-force
approach – it simply demonstrates that any 56 bit
key can be discovered in a reasonable time. This
was predicted when EuroRadio was first specified,
and the actual algorithm used is called ‘single DES
with modified optional process’. This is a
mechanism for giving the strength of triple-DES
without incurring the extra time. What happens is
shown in Figure 5.
The single-DES approach is used to generate the
MAC (B in Figure 5), but then the last block is
decrypted with key 2 (C), then encrypted with key 3
(D), ie the last block is triple encrypted. This has the
benefit that, if key 2 is the same as key 3, there is
compatibility with single DES, but that otherwise a
brute-force attack must find all three keys, giving an
unexpected effective key length of 112 bits (there
are various shortcuts you can take in an attack that
mean you do not have to try all three combinations
of all keys, making the difficulty the same as that of
attacking a single 112-bit key system).
Now we have a strong authentication method, we
can get on with setting up the connection. Well, not
quite! We have a system where a hacker cannot
produce false messages or create new ones,
because he does not have the key. But what is to
stop a hacker recording a message, waiting until the
timestamp wraps round, then replaying it into the
receiver? Or to stop the network storing the
message unintentionally, and then delivering it at
some future time? This ‘replay’ attack can be
resisted either by having a very, very long timestamp
or by using a ‘session key’, and it is this second
approach that is specified for EuroRadio.
In the authentication handshake messages,
random numbers are exchanged. These are used in
combination with the shared secret key to produce a
shared session key, which is used only until the
connection is ended. Next time a connection is
needed, different random numbers are generated,
producing a different session key.

EURORADIO AND THE RBC 37
PLAINTEXT (N–1)
PLAINTEXT (N)
DES
KEY
1
DES
KEY
1
INVERSE
DES
KEY
2
DES
KEY
3
A
B
C
D
CIPHERTEXT (N–1)
8 bytes
CIPHERTEXT (N)
8 bytes
MAC WITH SINGLE
DES
But we are still trying to set up a connection, so,
assuming the right key is available, how is the
connection authenticated? The answer is with a
three-way handshake – and this is the second
difficult part! Note that not all fields are discussed in
detail, for example, the ‘direction flag’ which is
included to resist a particular form of hacking attack.
4.4 THE HANDSHAKE
The train is trying to contact the RBC. It has the
key, and all lower protocols have been set up. The
first safety message, sent by the train, is catchily
entitled the ‘first authentication safety protocol data
unit’ (SaPDU), and contains the train’s ETCS-ID, the
ID-type (for a train this is “engine”), a Safety Features
field specifying DES (to allow for other options in the
future), and an 8-byte random number.
The RBC replies with – as expected – the ‘second
authentication SaPDU’, which contains the RBC’s
ETCS-ID, and ID-type (“RBC”), and another 8-byte
random number, with a MAC.
The train replies to the RBC with the ‘third
authentication SaPDU’, which is basically just a
MAC.
Figure 5 – The Last Block
CIPHERTEXT (N)
8 bytes
DECRYPTED WITH
A SECOND KEY
CIPHERTEXT (N)
8 bytes
ENCRYPTED WITH
A THIRD KEY
FINAL MAC
So what’s going on, and why?
The first message is easy – anyone could create it
because it has no MAC. It has the train ID, but not
the identity of the RBC, because it may be using the
‘999’ method of connecting.
The second message is harder. The RBC
constructs the message of Figure 6(a), calculates the
MAC, then sends the message of Figure 6(b). Note
that the message length, the train’s address, the
train’s random number and the padding bits are not
transmitted – the train knows or can calculate them
to insert into the received message before
calculating the MAC and comparing it with the
received MAC.
The RBC is able to calculate the MAC of course
because it knows the key and the two random
numbers. The train cannot do this until this message
arrives, because it needs the RBC’s random number.
But once it receives it, the train is able to reply with
the third authentication message, which plays the
same trick – it calculates the MAC over the RBC’s
address, the two random numbers, the Message
Type Identifier and the Direction Flag, but only
actually sends the MTI, the DF and the MAC.
(a)
LENGTH
ID RBC TRAIN
TRAIN
RBC
TYPE MTI DF
SaF RAND RAND
ADDRESS ADDR
(engine) NUM NUM
TRAIN
ADDRESS
PADDING
BITS
Calculates MAC
sends:
(b)
ID
TYPE
MTI
DF
RBC
ADDR
RBC
SaF RAND + MAC
NUM
MTI
DF
SaF
= MESSAGE TYPE IDENTIFIER
= DIRECTION FLAG
= SAFETY FEATURES
Figure 6 – Second Authentication Message from RBC to Train

38
EURORADIO AND THE RBC
Now we have made it to the end, almost! There is
a fourth message confirming that the RBC accepts
the connection – when the train application receives
it, it knows a connection exists. We have an
authenticated safety connection, over GSM-R, at
last!
Now, that initiation message from the train
application can be delivered to the RBC, and the
reply returned from the RBC to the train.
4.5 SET-UP TIME
It is clear that there is a lot of communication
across the air interface that is nothing directly to do
with the application message from the train to the
RBC – and it all takes time. It is possible to estimate
this, assuming that the transmission delay across
GSM-R is about 400ms, as follows:
– Train sets up GSM-R connection to
RBC (ISDN) 5.0s
– Data link layer set-up
set async. balanced extended 0.4
respond with UA 0.4
– Network layer set-up – none 0
– Transport layer set-up
send CR TPDU 0.4
receive CC TPDU 0.4
– Safety layer set-up
send first authentication message 0.4
receive second authentication message 0.4
send third authentication message 0.4
receive fourth authentication message 0.4
giving a total of 8.2s
This is why such good radio coverage is required
– unplanned disconnection and reconnection must
be a rare event if the railway’s performance is not to
be adversely affected. As always, good network
planning by experienced experts is essential.
And if you want a low-cost system, how might this
be achieved? Omitting base stations is quite
effective – deliberately making the system
discontinuous where there is no data to be sent to
the train or RBC. But this set-up time becomes a
limiting parameter, as you must have coverage while
all this is going on. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a
packet system where the set-up could be retained
whether or not the physical GSM-R layer was
connected? Well there is one, called GPRS, but we
come back to that later.
4.6 CONNECTION
So far, we have a connection, but we are doing
little with it. Now we must start sending application
messages end-to-end. And there are a few points to
remember. The first is that buffer sizes are not
infinite. For interoperability, it was necessary to
define a maximum application message size – to
avoid train equipment from one company sending a
20kbyte message to another company’s RBC which
only has a 10kbyte receive buffer.
The size chosen is 1023 bytes. ‘Why?’ is not so
important, though there are reasons. You can send
messages bigger than this, but it will be up to the
application to chop it into digestible 1023-byte
mouthfuls.
In addition, there is another port defined, although
it is not necessarily implemented by all
manufacturers (it is not required for European
interoperability and so is not mandatory). This can
be used to set up a non-safe transport connection
for other applications. Of course, there is still only a
GSM-R data channel at the bottom of all this,
probably working at 4800bps, so care is needed in
allocating channels – it is not quite the way to give
passengers Internet access!
During the course of a connection, there are two
events that will occur with irritating regularity – both
confusingly called ‘handover’. One is the Base
Station handover, a function of GSM cellular
networks, and the other is the RBC handover that is
built in to ETCS.
4.6.1 GSM-R Base Station Handover
Every few kilometres, the train will move from the
coverage of one Base Station to another. There is a
complex handover process initiated by the mobile
involving a change of frequency and time slot. The
effect is to produce a break in communications of
some 200-300ms, during which a receiver will
receive severely corrupted messages. The HDLC
Link layer will detect the errors and reject anything
that looks anything like a frame, but there then
needs to be an error-free period while recreatetransmission
occurs. The effect seen by higher
layers and the application will therefore be a delay,
which gradually decreases to normal.
4.6.2 RBC Handover
The other handover is completely a function of the
application. Eventually the train will reach the
boundary of one area of control and need to pass
control over to the next RBC. The use of two mobiles
on the train is considered the best way to handle the
problem of passing control of the train from one RBC
to the next. The train has a connection with the ‘old’
RBC over one radio. The train dials the next RBC,
sets up a new connection, the RBCs hand over, and
then the train disconnects from the old RBC. To do
this means the new connection set-up must start a
long way before it is needed, but that is OK – it can
go through the same Base Station and network, just
to a different destination.
But what happens at a national border? There is
likely to be an RBC handover at exactly the same
place that the network changes. This really is very bad
news, as it can take over 30s to subscribe to a new
network and, even worse, the process must start long
before a connection is needed, that is the train must
connect to the new network when it is well within the
coverage of the old network. Normally, a GSM mobile
will look round for the network with the strongest
signal strength (depending also on an internal list of
preferred networks), so it will try to subscribe to the
old network. So it is essential to have a way of forcing
the mobile to subscribe to the new network, against
its own natural inclinations. Of course, the new
network must also be available, so it is likely that
new-network base stations will have to be deployed
into the old-network coverage area, requiring an
outstanding level of co-operation between railways –
and of course between licensing authorities

EURORADIO AND THE RBC 39
4.7 DISCONNECTING
After all this effort, it comes as a nice surprise that
disconnection is quite painless – one of the
applications decides to disconnect, the command
ripples down the stack, and the protocol layers
‘unpeel’ down to the physical, GSM-R, layer where
one end hangs up.
4.8 OTHER APPLICATIONS
Well, fairly simple. What if you have made use of the
excellent feature whereby a number of transport
connections are provided over the single network
connection? To avoid an impolite interruption to an
ongoing connection, the network connection is not
released until all the transport connections using it are
released. Which, although a fine example of good
manners, could cause a problem if the ETCS application
would like to talk to a new RBC, and there is, say, a
large, non-safety diagnostics dump still being sent to the
last RBC. The solution of course is the same as in any
polite conversation – keep your sentences short.
4.9 NETWORK DISCONNECT
It has also been known for the physical connection
to break, ie for GSM to disconnect. How can this be
handled? At present there is no option but to break
down the other connected layers, and then start
again. However, there are three solutions in the pipeline
than can help shorten the time it takes to recover.
The first is a network reconnection – this has the
benefit of being relatively fast (say 5s to detect loss
of connection, then another 5s to reconnect), as no
reconstruction of the EuroRadio layers is needed.
The second is a proposed modification to
EuroRadio, called ‘fast reconnect’, where the safety
layer is maintained while the lower layers are
reconnected. This will save the three-way authentication
handshake time, but not much else, and may
not be worth developing to save some 1.2s.
A third solution is GPRS, the General Packet Radio
System, which has a completely different way of
working from the normal GSM-R data call.
5 GPRS – THE FUTURE
There is an ongoing debate over GPRS as this
paper is being written, so for completeness let’s look
at some of the upsides/downsides of GPRS whilst
the debate reaches a conclusion. But note, GPRS
does not currently form part of the ERTMS – this is a
look at the future.
As we have seen, conventional GSM sets up a data
call just like a voice call – an end-to-end connection.
The other way of working is to set up a ‘virtual’
connection that looks like a circuit to the upper layers,
but at the lower layers consists of packets of
information, fired off at intervals. Packets have to
contain all the information necessary for the network to
deliver them, but because they are only sent at
intervals, there are gaps between them that allow other
senders to transmit their information (see Figure 7).
This is ideally suited to ‘bursty’ information, such
as short occasional ATP messages, and gives the
enormous benefit of allowing several trains to share
the same channel – good news if you have a dense
railway and are running out of channels.
(application)
SAFETY LAYER
* TCP / UDP *
* IP *
(GSM-R)
Figure 7 – GPRS changes
There is a downside of course – the price you pay
is an increase in transmission delay. How much
depends on how much capacity you build into the
system – the more you pay, the better the
performance. Typically, it is expected to be about
700ms instead of 400ms, but it will vary with load.
However, there is another big plus – connection
set up time effectively vanishes. When a GPRS
mobile switches on, it ‘registers’ with the network –
a time-consuming process similar to setting up a
circuit connection. The difference is it only happens
once, probably at the start of each day. Once
registered, the mobile and the network are both
aware of each other, and can initiate data
transmission with only a very short delay to ensure
no one else is transmitting. In between, the mobile
and the network remember each other, for a
configurable time up to hours. So as long as there is
nothing to transmit, a train could go through a radio
hole (accidental or deliberate) and not notice.
This has many benefits, from base station
maintenance through to a low-cost system with discontinuous
radio coverage, but it will involve some
major changes to the EuroRadio protocol stack, and
should not be expected for maybe one to two years.
However, by having the magic abbreviation ‘TCP/IP’
cast over it, it will inevitably become the most
popular protocol stack in use by the railways!
6 CONCLUSION
We have taken the opportunity in this paper of
explaining a little more of the internal workings of
EuroRadio and the RBC, with the emphasis on
EuroRadio. While the concept of EuroRadio is simple
to understand, there are some aspects of the way it
works that anyone who uses it should be aware of.
Similarly, the RBC is easy to understand on the
surface, but this surface masks a level of complexity
that is not visible from the specifications. Interoperability
demands total compliance with a detailed
internal and external specification for EuroRadio,
whereas it is interface compliance, especially the
train and interlocking interfaces, rather than internal
functionality, that is essential for the RBC.
7 REFERENCES
Unisig document – Subset037 EuroRadio FIS.
Unisig document – Subset064 Symmetric Key
Management System Specification.

40
EURORADIO AND THE RBC
Discussion
The discussion was opened by J Corrie (Mott
MacDonald) who asked the speakers’ views on
whether the necessity for the train to always initiate
a call was an efficient way of using the network and
asked if the train “learnt” the time from the RBC. He
also questioned the use of 4.8 kBits for all communications
and wondered if, despite the industry wide
co-operation, how long the system would be
supported before becoming obsolete.
C Riley accepted that the requirement for the train
to initiate calls would cause capacity problems.
Although the trackside could initiate calls, this is not
a requirement of the system.
J Harmer explained that time, in this application, is
simply a counter and not “real time”. He also stated
that communication could be undertaken at 2.4, 4.8
or 9.6 kBits dependent upon system design.
C Riley commented that he believed that system
architecture is critical to allow component upgrade
and alleviate the future obsolescence problems.
C Eaglen (Railtrack) wanted to know how the
industry would integrate the various specialist technologies
and deliver the project.
C Riley stated that the only way was as an
industry, drawing on the expertise in the specialist
areas. He reiterated that progress so far was as a
result of this collaborative approach.
K Ford (Thales) observed that track to train
messages, such as emergency stop, are allowed at
present. He also questioned how the ETCS-IDs are
set up and link into the radio numbering scheme
such that the correct train can be sent the correct
information at the correct time.
J Harmer informed that all ETCS-IDs are defined
at manufacture and once the link is established
between the train and the RBC, bi-directional
communication results. The problem exists with
initially establishing the link, as the train does not
necessarily know the “local” RBC network ID.
D Waboso (EPT) stated that the technological
solutions already exist; the real difficulties are not
with the engineering but the cultural and organisational
problems.
C H Porter (Lloyds MHA) expressed his concerns
about the ability of the system to maintain communications
and questioned whether the system
had been trialled to prove operation.
J Harmer replied that the system does work and
that the real issue is one of reliability.
C Riley stated that safety is never compromised
but reliability needs to be engineered by design.
P Stanley (President) commented that an ERTMS
European Conference is held annually detailing test
results and progress but very few UK engineers
attend. He also observed that the saving grace for
the use of GSM in railway applications was the
concentration of supply from specific suppliers.
K Moxsom (Thales) commented that coverage is
all-important together with provision of dual MSCs.
He also questioned how quickly reconnect could be
achieved.
J Harmer answered that reconnect can be
achieved in 15 to 20 seconds.
J Poré (Alstom) questioned when the RBC will be
up and running and asked what is displayed to the
driver when initially setting-up the connection with
the RBC.
C Riley responded by informing the meeting that
an RBC is currently in the process of being commissioned
in Spain. He was unsure of what was
displayed to the driver whilst setting-up.
F Hewlett (retired) observed that there are similarities
with air traffic control in that aircraft know
where the control centres are but the control centres
do not know the location of the aircraft until
connections are established.
D Jeffrey (Railtrack) was interested in knowing
how key management and security would be maintained.
J Harmer said that key management had not been
considered.
I Harman (Union Railways) questioned the nature
of the relationship between CSR and EuroRadio and
how the interfaces were to be managed.
C Riley responded by stating that this was an
issue that had yet to be decided.
C Eaglen (Railtrack) commented that CSR is a
tried and trusted system with Signallers knowing the
position of trains and he believed this functionality
should be incorporated within the RBC.
C Riley agreed but considered it was not yet
practical to consider operational aspects.
An Alstom representative asked how secure the
keys were.
J Harmer explained that the specification requires
that keys cannot be “physically” extracted but
security is dependant on their distribution, which has
yet to be decided.
The Alstom representative questioned how far off
this decision was.
C Riley answered that this particular issue is some
way from resolution.
D Waboso (EPT) informed the meeting that the
relevant technical experts are addressing all of these
problems and a report into the solutions is due for
publication in 2008. He reiterated that all of the
technological problems can, and would be,
resolved. He also commented that GSM-R would be
the national replacement for CSR.
E Goddard (LUL) was interested in the balance
between safety, security and the application and
also wondered if the inter-layer dependence would
cause problems as technology advanced.
C Riley responded by answering that the system is
“bottom-up” engineered.
J Harmer stated that the design philosophy has
developed into separate communication hazards
and application issues. He did not believe that there

EURORADIO AND THE RBC 41
would be a problem as technology advanced; that
was the philosophy behind the layered approach.
J Mew (Thales) warned of the necessity for key
management.
J Harmer agreed with this stating that the object of
encryption was to prevent communication.
D Weedon (AMEC Rail) asked if there was a
mathematical target level of security to protect
against an unsafe event. He also suggested that if
the comparable level of safety was as good as, or
better than existing systems, no statistical analysis
would be necessary.
C Riley replied that although there is no specified
target, it should be noted that the RBC could not
override the interlocking. The potential for an
incorrect movement authority to be given does exist
and hence the need for encryption. He also agreed
that it must be a widely held belief that there were
safety benefits or development would not have got
this far.
J Harmer stated that a figure of one message
falsely accepted in 40 years within Europe was
generally quoted. Even with a determined hacker,
the likelihood of acceptance of a false message was
1 in 10,000 years.
R E B Barnard (Alstom) referred to a recent report
that concluded protection of communications
systems required doubling each year to prevent
malicious attacks and therefore GSM must be
over-engineered to provide this level of security over
the life of the system.
D Djezzar commented that whilst efforts are made
to provide system security by encryption, it is probably
easier to affect system availability simply by
bombarding the network with false information.
J Harmer agreed that availability presents different
hazards but loss of a base station to train link would
bring the train to a stand; a fail-safe situation. He
also challenged how often public networks fail
because of malicious attacks.
D McKeown (Independent Consultant) wanted
some reassurance that there were real benefits to be
gained.
C Riley reiterated that the technology can
overcome the difficulties and that there are real
opportunities to not only make substantial cost
savings but also provide network flexibility. The EPT
team is working to deliver a rollout programme using
the technology to the full.
The President thanked Mr Riley and Mr Harmer for
their paper and contribution to the subsequent
discussion.
Level Crossings/Signaling
• Fishplates
Universal Switch Clamps
Track Gauges
•
Henry Williams are a Darlington based company who have been
established in the Railway industry for over 120 years, and are
internationally recognised for their quality products and services.
SAGEM Treadle Switches/Train Stop Equipment
Point Heater Control and Supply Cubicles
Lighting Control and Distribution Cubicles
• Domino® Entrance/Exit Panels
Mechanical/Electrical Assembled Location Cases & REB’s
Mild and Stainless Steel Location Cases
Drop and Upset Railway Forgings
Henry Williams Group
DODSWORTH STREET, DARLINGTON, CO. DURHAM, ENGLAND DL1 2NJ
Telephone: 01325 462722 Fax: 01325 245220 E-mail: sales@hwilliams.co.uk
Website: www.hwilliams.co.uk

42
Technical Meeting of the Institution
held at
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2
Tuesday 10th December 2002
The President, Mr P W Stanley, in the chair.
71 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr J Tilly, seconded by Mr D McKeown and carried that the
Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 6th November 2002 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct
record. The President reported that Mr B Grose, who had for many years summarised the discussion at technical meetings for
publication in the Proceedings, had resigned from the honorary office of Assistant Papers Editor and a replacement was being sought
urgently. Any member wishing to volunteer to take up this important role for the Institution should kindly inform the office.
Mr Jason Lo, of Alstom, was present for the first time since his election to membership and was introduced to the meeting and
welcomed amidst applause.
The President then introduced Mr C Frerichs, of Siemens Transportation Systems, and invited him to present his paper entitled
“EuroCab and the Driver MMI”. Mr Frerichs illustrated his presentation with computer slides and explained the principles of EuroCab
and the Driver MMI giving examples from the Siemens product range.
Following the presentation Messrs C H Porter, IRSE; P Wiltshire Cenelec SC9XA Committee; P Bassett, AEA Technology; P Vandermark,
Driver First GW; K Molt, Thales; D Woodland, Bechtel; I Mitchell, AEA Technology; and J Lo, Alstom, took part in the discussion.
Mr Frerichs dealt with the questions in a comprehensive manner. The President then proposed a vote of thanks and presented the
speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.
The President then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting by announcing that the next meeting in
London would be held on the 15th January 2003 when Mr I Mitchell will present a paper on “Signalling Control Centres”.
Eurocab and the Driver MMI – an introduction to the technology
Christian Frerichs 1
ABSTRACT
ERTMS/ETCS consists of two subsystems: the
trackside subsystem and the on-board subsystem.
The latter is dealt with in this paper. Legal and
technical requirements relevant to the ERTMS/ETCS
onboard subsystem and its system architecture are
described. Requirements for integrating ERTMS/
ETCS onboard subsystems into vehicles are highlighted,
and typical architectural designs are
presented. Within the ERTMS/ETCS architecture,
special attention is drawn to the Driver’s MMI, which
is the key component for system operation. The
Siemens ERTMS/ETCS Onboard System, being one
of the most progressive and state-of-the-art
solutions, is presented and its benefits are
highlighted.
INTRODUCTION
With the ongoing introduction of ERTMS/ETCS
(European Rail Traffic Management System/ European
Train Control System), Europe is on its way to
overcoming a long history of railways having their
own, proprietary ATP/ATC systems, so preventing
cross-border traffic and an open market. The system
is being introduced both in law – by EC directive
96/48 1 and the underlying TSI Control Order 2 – and in
practice by utilising it in pilot sites like the German
Berlin–Halle/Leipzig project and in commercial
projects like the new Spanish Madrid–Barcelona line
with its demanding 350 km/h service.
ERTMS/ETCS is an ATC system consisting of
trackside and onboard subsystems. The trackside
subsystem, although clearly governed by the
specifications referenced in the TSI, allows great
1 Siemens Transportation Systems, Ackerstrasse 22, D-38023
Braunschweig, Germany
freedom in realisation, which is a tribute to the need
to adapt to existing infrastructure (apart from the fact
that trackside solutions for Level 1 and Level 2 are
different). The onboard subsystem however is
governed to a much greater extent by European (TSI
referenced) specifications, with mandatory functionality
and mandatory interface requirements.
The purpose of this paper is to give an
introductory presentation of the specifications and
implementations of the ERTMS/ETCS onboard
subsystem. The ERTMS/ETCS onboard subsystem
is also known as Eurocab, an expression that is
slightly outdated as it is no longer used in the current
ERTMS/ETCS specifications. A core element of the
onboard subsystem is the Driver-Machine Interface
(Driver MMI or DMI), because it is the interface
between the technical system and the train driver.
LEGISLATION AND SPECIFICATIONS
GOVERNING ERTMS/ETCS
In 1996 the Council of the European Community
issued Directive 96/48 1 . This contains guidelines for
an interoperable trans-European high-speed rail
network, in the form of standards in respect of
technical facilities and railway operation. This
directive has since been adopted into national law
by the EU member states. Meanwhile it has been
complemented by a directive which mandates
interoperability on conventional lines as well 3 .
Directive 96/48 1 is supplemented by the Technical
Specifications for Interoperability (TSI), which
describe requirements and features which are to apply
to those technical systems affected by interoperability
demands, eg the control, command and signalling
system 2 . The latter references the actual technical
specifications according to which the technical
system has to be designed and implemented.

EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY 43
Document Name Reference Version Normative/
Number Number Informative
ERTMS/ETCS Functional Requirements Specification (FRS) — 4.29 Normative
ERTMS/ETCS System Requirements Specification (SRS) SUBSET-026 2.2.2 Normative
FFFIS for Eurobalise SUBSET-036 2.0.0 Normative
Euroradio FIS SUBSET-037 2.0.0 Normative
Euroradio FFFIS Class 1 requirements SUBSET-052 2.0.0 Normative
Specific Transmission Module FFFIS SUBSET-035 2.0.0 Normative
Dimensioning and Engineering rules SUBSET-040 2.0.0 Normative
Performance Requirements for Interoperability SUBSET-041 2.0.0 Normative
FFFIS Juridical Recorder Downloading Tool SUBSET-027 2.0.0 Normative
FIS for the Train Interface SUBSET-034 2.0.0 Normative
FIS for the Man-Machine Interface SUBSET-033 2.0.0 Normative
ERTMS Driver Machine Interface Part I Ergonomic V21.doc 12/04/2000 Informative
arrangement of ERTMS/ETCS Information
ERTMS Driver Machine Interface Part III Data entry Procedure V11.doc 12/04/2000 Informative
ERTMS Driver Machine Interface Part IV Symbols V06.doc 12/01/2000 Informative
ERTMS Driver Machine Interface Part V Audible information V08ns.doc 27/03/2000 Informative
ERTMS Driver Machine Interface Part VI Specific Transmission V04.doc 27/03/2000 Informative
Modules
Table 1: Relevant Specifications for ERTMS/ETCS Onboard Subsystem
For the ERTMS/ETCS system, which is the
technical system required by the TSI in order to
achieve interoperability, the technical specifications
were issued by the UNISIG industry group at the
beginning of 2000, and were adopted by the
European railways and the European signalling
industry in a ceremony on 25th April 2000 in Madrid.
The core document of these specifications is the
System Requirement Specification (SRS) 4 . The SRS
has undergone a debugging process since then,
leading to a revised version 2.2.2 5 which is now
referenced in the TSI and which is, together with the
other ERTMS/ETCS specification documents,
mandatory for implementation of the system.
Table 1 shows the main documents relevant to
implementation of the ERTMS ETCS onboard
subsystem. The Functional Requirement Specification
(FRS), being a functional specification, does
not specify any technical solutions and is therefore
only marginally relevant when implementing a
system, and the SRS is the key document for this. It
describes the architecture and functionality of the
system and the ETCS language, and it is the source
for all other documentation. Although it is a
specification for the whole system, it includes the
onboard subsystem. The SRS is accompanied by a
set of supplementary specifications, such as
performance requirements etc, and by interface
specifications. There are two kinds of these:
Functional Interface Specifications (such as the FIS
for the Man-Machine Interface) which specify only
the logical interface, and Form-Fit-Functional
Interface Specifications (such as the FFFIS for
Eurobalise) which prescribe physical features of the
interface as well. All the above specifications are
mandatory, but this is not the case for the ergonomic
layout of the DMI, which is specified in the ERTMS
Driver Machine Interface Specifications (parts I-VI).
It must be emphasised that the specifications
govern only those features of the system that are
relevant to interoperability. This means that features
that do not affect interoperability (e.g. diagnosis) are
not described, and are at the discretion of the
manufacturer.
ERTMS/ETCS ONBOARD
ARCHITECTURE AND FUNCTIONALITY
ERTMS/ETCS is an ATC system with an onboard
and a trackside part, and there is a clear
interoperability requirement between these even if
they are supplied by different manufacturers.
Therefore the interfaces between onboard and
trackside subsystems, and also the partition of
system functionality between onboard and
trackside, must be specified very thoroughly. On the
other hand the concept of interoperability includes
specifying only to the extent that interoperability is
affected. This leads to a system concept different
from what was discussed at the start of the history
of ETCS, when a concept of exchangeability of
components was on the table. The actual
ERTMS/ETCS specifications are based on a blackbox
concept, with clearly defined functionality and
interfaces but with maximum freedom to design
onboard and trackside equipment.
Figure 1 shows the ERTMS/ETCS system
architecture. The onboard subsystem is depicted in
the upper part. As mentioned above, the onboard
subsystem is a black box with the following
interfaces:
• Train Interface (TIU) – eg to brakes, traction
control, air conditioning, etc.
• Driver MMI.

44
EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY
STM
National
System
FFFIS
Train
FIS
TIU
EUROBALIKE EUROLOOP EURO-
RADIO
Radio
infill unit
FFFIS (FFFIS) (FIS)
Interlocking
and LEU
Control Centre
Kernel
MMI
BTM LTM EURORADIO
FFFIS
FFFIS
Driver
FIS
Jur.
ETCS Recording
Onboard
FIS
FFFIS
GSM-
Mobile
GSMfixed
network
EURORADIO
RBC 1
FIS
Figure 1 – ERTMS/ETCS System Architecture
• Juridical Recording Downloading Tool –
interface for authorities to download stored
information.
• STM (Specific Transmission Module) – interface
to modules of heritage systems.
• Eurobalise (BTM – Balise Transmission System)
air gap interface.
• Euroloop (LTM – Loop Transmission Module) air
gap interface.
• Euroradio interface to the GSM-R mobile.
The TIU and the DMI interface are only specified
as functional interfaces, ie it is up to the
manufacturer to design the physical interface as
long as the logical requirements are met.
As already mentioned, a set of informative
documents exists for the DMI, specifying the
ergonomic interface between the ERTMS/ETCS
onboard subsystem and the driver (see Table 1).
Although they are not prescribed in law, they are
often seen as quasi-standards. Created by
CENELEC Working Group WGA9D, these
documents specify the ergonomic arrangement of
the information on the DMI display, the symbols
used, the audible information and the data entry
procedure.
FIS
JRU
Downloading
Tool
FFFIS
Odometry
FIS
RBC 2
ETCS Trackside
FIS
FIS
Key
Management
Centre
Besides specifying the system architecture, the
SRS also describes the functionality of the system.
The functionality, the details of which will not be
described here, is roughly comparable to high-end
ATC systems like the German system LZB 80. It is
scalable from an overlay spot transmission system
(ETCS Level 1), via a continuous transmission
system (Level 2) to a sophisticated stand-alone
system (Level 3). Compared to older systems, the
onboard system includes more functionality, eg
calculation of braking curves and other
performance-demanding features.
THE SIEMENS SOLUTION FOR AN ETCS
SUBSYSTEM
On the basis of the above-mentioned
specifications Siemens has developed an ERTMS/
ETCS onboard equipment. It consists of a European
Vital Computer (EVC) which can be integrated in the
most flexible way into a vehicle, and which can
utilise peripherals such as wheel sensors, DMIs,
radar sensors etc in a similarly flexible way. The goal
was to develop an EVC with minimum space
requirements integrating as much functionality as
possible (eg Eurobalise BTM functionality, option to
integrate Euroloop functionality and STM interface).
The onboard equipment will be simply upgradeable
to Level 2, and will be fully-compliant with the
specifications mentioned above.
Figure 2 shows a photograph of a Level 1 EVC. It
consists of only one 19” rack measuring 438mm x
135mm x 320mm. All cable connections are via the
front side. The EVC itself is EMC shielded, so it can
be mounted in a cabinet with a “dirty” environment.
The power consumption is below 120W, so no
ventilation is necessary normally. The equipment is
designed to meet EN 50155 and SIL 4.
The vital computer is based on hardware
synchronised as a 2-out-of-2 computer. If
redundancy is needed it will be realised in a 2 * 2v2
architecture. The vital computer is based on the
SIMIS architecture – well proven in several safe
implementations including onboard applications.
The equipment shown contains a power supply, the
vital computer core, and several peripheral
interfaces including direct safe I/Os, MVB and
optional Profibus STM connections. Odometry,
Figure 2 – Photograph of Siemens ERTMS/ETCS Level 1 equipment

EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY 45
Eurobalise and Euroloop (optional) transmission
module functionality is included. The DMI is
connected via MVB.
This system can be easily upgraded by a
Euroradio module (via serial connection) in a second
rack. Ample space is available in this to integrate
peripheral modules such as GSM-R mobile or a
juridical recorder, which is not available in the EVC.
DRIVER MACHINE INTERFACES
DMIs are displays mounted in the driver’s desk.
They are available from several suppliers, such as
Deuta and Pixy. For ERTMS/ETCS suppliers, these
modules are normally peripheral units which will be
connected to the EVC by the communications bus
(MVB in the case of Siemens ERTMS/ETCS
equipment).
Figure 3 shows an example of an ETCS display,
from Deuta. It includes an LCD display with a 10.4”
display area. Input is either via softwareprogrammable
keys at the edge of the display or via
a touch-sensitive display. The mechanical design is
rugged to allow operation on railway vehicles, and
flat to allow integration in the driver’s desk. The
display contains its own computer, normally a
rugged industrial PC, to handle the graphics.
Temperature management, to prevent the display
from becoming defective as a result of exceeding its
temperature limit, and brightness control are stateof-the-art.
Displays are not vital components, and safety of
operation must be established by proper
procedures. For individual safety-relevant inputs and
outputs, it may be necessary to provide separate
direct safe switches and indications. The availability
of displays is very important, and so it seems
desirable to provide redundant MMIs. This is
normally possible on modern railway vehicles, which
have other displays for other, less important
applications.
Figure 3 – Example of a DMI (Deuta)
INTEGRATING ERTMS/ETCS ONBOARD
EQUIPMENT INTO VEHICLES
As well as conforming with the ERTMS/ETCS
specifications, onboard equipment must be
integrated into a specific vehicle and must comply
with the additional specific requirements of the train
operator (which must not offend against the
interoperability requirements). To illustrate what this
means, two examples will be presented.
The first example is the implementation of Siemens
ERTMS/ETCS Level 1 equipment on a Class 1116
locomotive of Austrian Railways (ÖBB). These are
existing locomotives fitted with LZB/Indusi and the
Hungarian EVM system. They have a Multifunction
Vehicle Bus (MVB) which connects the ATC system
to its peripherals (eg man machine interface, juridical
recorder) and to other systems (eg ATO – automatic
train operation). The ERTMS/ETCS equipment has to
be integrated into this existing structure. Figure 4
shows how this will be done.
For the ERTMS/ETCS system, the EVC will be
integrated into an existing cabinet. Fortunately, due
to the minimal space requirements of the EVC, the
space available allows this. New peripherals for
ETCS are the Eurobalise antenna (to be mounted
under the body of the locomotive), two radar sensors
(to be mounted below the body, the second one
being necessary in case of high slip and slide
percentages) and two wheel sensors. As axle ends
are limited, multi-channel wheel sensors are used,
free channels feeding the EVM odometry as well.
Optionally the ETCS Level 1 equipment can be
upgraded to Level 2, in which case a Euroradio
module and GSM-R onboard equipment have to be
added.
The ERTMS/ETCS is integrated into the MVB
architecture. It connects the DMI (also used by LZB),
the diagnosis MMI (which serves as a standby for
the DMI), some separate switches which have to be
connected in a safe manner, the juridical recorder
(shared between the systems), and train-related
systems. An additional safe indication of system
working (LMÜ/ETCS) is a national requirement, and
is realised as a direct output. Similarly the isolation
switch is realised at the EVC, as a direct switch. The
brake is connected directly (via a brake loop for the
vigilance system Sifa) and redundantly via the MVB.
The second example is the ATC solution for the
AVE S102 trains (Talgo 350) to be manufactured by
Talgo/Bombardier for operation at 350 km/h on the
new Madrid–Lleida line in Spain. These new trains
will be fitted with ERTMS/ETCS Level 2 (including
GSM-R), LZB and ASFA. A Siemens-led consortium
will integrate the systems. The system architecture is
depicted in Figure 5.
The most demanding issue for these trains is the
outstanding availability requirement. For the
ERTMS/ETCS system this leads to an architecture
with complete redundancy. The onboard computer
is realised as a 2 * 2v2 computer, and all peripherals
(except for the juridical recorder) are implemented in
a fully redundant way. As in the first example, the
MVB serves as a communication backbone between
EVC, DMI, diagnosis MMIs and train operating

46
EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY
Cab1
ETCS
Display
Switches
(via KLIP)
Diagnostic
Display
Juridical
Recorder
Train Control
ATO
X
X
Cab2
LM
O/ETCS
MVB
Antenna Antenna
LZB80
Indusi
ETCS
L1
/ /
Klip
Station
X X X
Isolation
Switch
Isolation
Switch
Euro
Radio
GSM-R
Data
EVM
Ballse
antenna
Option: Upgrade to Level 2
Emergency Brake
(via Sifa loop)
Isolation
Switch
Antennas
& Sensors
n
n
Brake
Sifa
n
INDUSI
LZB-Antennas
Wheel
sensors
*2
2’ Radar
2 Wheel sensors
Figure 4 – Onboard architecture of Class 1116 locomotive
ETCS-DMI
Diagnosis MMI
Train Control
ATO
JR
national
Switches
Profibus (FFFIS STM)
train bus (MVB)
KLIP
LMÜ
EVC
L1/L2
+
nat.
Add Ons
4
LZB-
STM
JR
ETCS
ASFA
Antenna
WSens
Radar
Antennae
Antenna
Bremse
Train infrastructure LZB ETCS
Figure 5 – ATC Architecture on AVE S 102 trains

EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY 47
systems. The LZB system is realised as an STM in
full compliance with the STM specifications (taking
into account changes which are already in the
change control process). ASFA is implemented as a
separate system, only controlled by ETCS via a 4-
wire digital connection. In this example too a need
for direct safe switches and indications arises from
national requirements.
Concluding the two examples, it becomes clear
that integration of ERTMS/ETCS equipment is by no
means a simple issue. Space limitations, the nature
of other infrastructure on the train or a locomotive
(be it a new one or an existing one) and additional
national requirements all have to be taken into
consideration.
CONCLUSION
The ERTMS/ETCS standards are expected to be
finalised at the beginning of next year, and
ERTMS/ETCS onboard equipment is becoming
available at the same time. During 2003 tests in
various pilot projects will be finished, and the first
commercial projects will be completed. Thus the
equipment will be validated and certified, ready for
utilisation in commercial projects.
It has been shown that state-of-the-art onboard
equipment is already now available – a Siemens
EVC with minimum space requirements, scalable for
all ERTMS/ETCS applications. Peripheral units such
as radar sensors and DMIs are available that are fully
compliant with ERTMS/ETCS requirements.
However, it has also been shown that meeting
national requirements and integrating ERTMS/ETCS
onboard equipment into the environment of a
locomotive or train are not simple tasks.
REFERENCES
1 Directive 96/48 EG of the European Council on the
interoperability of the trans-European high-speed
railway system. Official Journal of the European
Community No. L235 of 17th September 1996, p.6
et seq.
2 2002/731/EC: Commission Decision of 30th May
2002 concerning the technical specification for
interoperability relating to the control-command
and signalling subsystem of the trans-European
high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of
Council Directive 96/48/EC. Official Journal L 245,
12/09/2002 p.0037-0142
3 Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament
and the Council of 19th March 2001 on the
interoperability of the trans-European
conventional rail system. Official Journal of the
European Community No. L110 of 20.04.2001,
p.1-27
4 ERTMS ETCS SRS, version 2.0.0, 22nd December
1999, UNISIG reference SUBSET-026
5 ERTMS ETCS SRS, version 2.2.2, 1st February
2002, UNISIG reference SUBSET-026.
Discussion
The discussion was opened by C H Porter (IRSE)
who wanted to know why the MMI was given a SIL
of zero. He also wondered how much of the MMI
display was specified and questioned the requirement
for STMs.
C Frerichs explained that the MMI was based
around an industrial PC that did not provide any
system safety. Provision of a “safe” MMI would have
resulted in an increase in price of this component.
The information displayed on the MMI was based on
a “quasi-standard” produced by the CENELEC
Working Group WGA9D. He confirmed that no
interest had been shown in developing STMs.
P Wiltshire (CENELEC SC9XA Committee) stated
that the “quasi-standard” referred to was only a
working draft that will probably become a CENELEC
Technical Specification.
P Bassett (AEA Technology) commented that train
drivers were regarded as having a SIL of 2! He also
asked if the speaker was aware of the
Harmonisation of European Operating Rules project.
C Frerichs responded that he was unaware of
the SIL for a train driver. He stated that the
Harmonisation of European Operating Rules project
had been superseded by the ERTMS Users Group
that had produced draft operating rules to allow for
ETCS implementation.
P Bassett (AEA Technology) observed that with
implementation of ETCS Level 2, it should be
possible for a human to operate in a controlled basis
in two languages and different planes of operation.
C Frerichs agreed that this was a solution.
P Vandermark (Driver First Great Western) wanted
to know what information would be displayed on the
MMI and if it would allow the train to be driven
safely.
C Frerichs stated that display information included
speedometer, planning area, brake information and a
text message area. This will allow a train driver to
drive safely.
P Bassett (AEA Technology) further explained that
the biggest change for a UK train driver would
be that the system regularises the information
presented and the actions required.
K Molt (Thales) noted that it was difficult to install
equipment in legacy rolling stock and wondered if
there were any plans to integrate the MMI with
existing in-cab systems.
C Frerichs replied that there were no plans to
integrate existing systems within the MMI.
D Woodland (Bechtel) asked how the dual 2v2
computers are arranged.
C Frerichs explained that both computers are
running with one on-line, the second “shadow”
running.

48
EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY
I Mitchell (AEA Technology) queried what function
the ATO undertook and asked how it interacted with
ETCS.
C Frerichs informed that the ATO can drive the
train at the optimum speed and when integrated with
ETCS gets braking information and drives accordingly.
He also cautioned that ATO was only a
supporting system and under normal conditions, the
driver drives the train.
P Bassett commented that ATO is normally used
as a form of refined “cruise control”.
J Lo (Alstom) wanted to know how the system is
configured.
C Frerichs replied that the system is configured by
the MVB via the Diagnostic Interface, information
supplied by the driver on the MMI.
The President thanked Herr Frerichs for his paper
that provided an insight into this part of the ERTMS
system.

49
Technical Meeting of the Institution
held at
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2
Tuesday 15th January 2003
The President, Mr P W Stanley, in the chair.
141 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr D McKeown, seconded by Mr K Walter, and carried that the
Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 10th December 2002 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct
record. The President welcomed Mr E O Goddard, Past President, who was present at a meeting for the first time since his election
as an Honorary Fellow of the Institution and also Mr I Harrison, Atkins Rail, and P Matthews, Belmaster, who were present for the
first time since their election to membership. These members were introduced to the meeting and welcomed amidst applause.
The President then introduced Mr I Mitchell, of AEA Technology Rail, and invited him to present his paper entitled “Signalling
Control Centres Today and Tomorrow”. Mr Mitchell, illustrating his presentation with the aid of computer slides, reviewed the
development of the IECC by British Rail and outlined possible future development opportunities.
Following the presentation Messrs A Fisher, Bombardier; I Harmon, Union Railways; T Taskin, EPT; M Savage, Savoir Ltd; P
Vandermark, Driver First GW; K Ford, Thales; A C Howker, Past President; F Wilson, Network Rail; Y Hirao, RRI Japan; D Waboso,
EPT; and D McKeown, Independent Consultant, took part in the discussion.
Mr Mitchell dealt with the questions and the President then proposed a vote of thanks and presented the speaker with the
commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.
The President then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting by announcing that the next meeting in
London would be held on the 12th February 2003 when Mr J Poré will present a paper on “ERTMS on Existing Lines”.
Signalling Control Centres Today and Tomorrow
I H Mitchell 1
INTRODUCTION
It is now 14 years since commissioning of the first
IECC (Integrated Electronic Control Centre) at
Liverpool Street station in London ushered in a new
era for signalling control on main line railways in
Britain. IECC introduced VDU-based signaller’s
workstations and intelligent automatic route setting
(ARS), which together transformed the layout and
working arrangements in signalling control centres.
The first part of this paper will review the experience
from this period, and describe how the IECC
concept has evolved to improve performance,
address component obsolescence issues, and
adapt to new application requirements.
The second part of the paper will look to the future
and consider the impact of ERTMS. Despite the
grand title “European rail traffic management
system”, existing control centre functions fall outside
the scope of the European standardisation
activities, but these systems have a crucial role to
play if continuous communication to the train is to
be exploited to maximise network capacity.
PART 1: IECC
HISTORY
The last time there was an IRSE technical meeting
on the subject of IECC was Robin Nelson’s paper
“Yoker Integrated Electronic Control Centre” in
March 1987 1 . That paper described the IECC
concept and its planned application to the recreatesignalling
of suburban routes north of Glasgow.
Yoker was intended to be the pilot scheme for the
new technology but delays to that project resulted in
it being overtaken by Liverpool Street and York,
1 AEA Technology Rail, Derby, UK
where signalling timescales were driven by the need
to complete remodelling of these stations for
property development and electrification schemes.
By the end of 1989 all three of these new signalling
control centres were operational using IECC
technology as described in the 1987 paper.
Between 1990 and 1994 a further seven new
signalling control centres were commissioned using
IECC technology, and a partial system was retrofitted
to the Wimbledon signalling control centre to
provide automatic route-setting with the conventional
control/indication panel. Since 1994 there
have been no new IECC control centres, but several
of the existing ones have seen major extensions of
their controlled areas. Several of the larger control
centres have now outgrown the capacity of the basic
IECC system (three signallers workstations and 12
interlockings), and now have more than one system
installed. For example, the Liverpool Street
controlled area will soon have expanded from a
single IECC controlling a few miles from the terminus
to Bethnal Green, to four IECCs controlling a
substantial part of East Anglia, as far as Southend,
Marks Tey, Hertford East and Stansted Airport.
Figure 1 is a full list of the IECCs operational on
Railtrack in 2002.
The period since Robin Nelson’s paper to the IRSE
has been one of unprecedented change in the
organisation of the railways in the UK. In the 1980s,
BR had a substantial internal engineering resource,
and signalling equipment came from two large and
one smaller UK-based suppliers. In this environment,
the move towards electronics in railway
signalling was spearheaded by the collaboration
between BR, GEC General Signal and Westinghouse
Signals in the Solid State Interlocking project (SSI).
This provided the route for a concept originating in

50
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW
Signalling Control IECC name or area No of No of First Trains/
Centre name of control signallers interlockings commissioned day (iv)
SSI Relay
Ashford A – (Tonbridge) 3 10 1 (ii) May 1993 1327
B – (Ashford) 2 9 November 1992 724
Liverpool Street A – Liverpool Street 3 6 March 1989 1348
B – Stratford 2 8 August 1996 1608
C – Shenfield 2 12 April 1991 908
D – West Anglia (i) 2 10 January 2002 451
Marylebone Chilterns 2 6 January 1991 347
Sandhills Merseyrail 2 7 1 February 1994 752
Slough New Paddington 2 12 March 1993 612
Swindon B (Didcot) 1 4 February 1994 393
Tyneside Central 2 7 January 1991 535
Peripheral 2 8 1 May 1990 542
Upminster A (LTS Main) 2 10 September 1994 637
B (LTS Loop) 1 6 April 1996 463
Wimbledon ARS only 5(iii) January 1990 1319
Yoker (North Clydeside) 2 5 1 October 1989 419
York 1 – York 2 5 4 May 1989 608
2 – Leeds R&R 3 8 5 December 2000 1208
3 – Leeds NW 2 5 2 March 2002 882
Figure 1: Signalling Centres using IECC
Notes:
(i) Liverpool Street D signaller and interlocking numbers are the planned final size on completion of WARM recreate-signalling.
(ii) Relay interlocking interface for indications only, no route setting.
(iii) IECC is ARS only, works with conventional Panel, uses special interface to relay interlockings.
(iv) Weekday traffic levels in Summer 2002 timetable.
BR Research to be translated into a fully developed
and proven system available as compatible
equipment from two suppliers, and capable of being
applied and maintained by BR’s in-house S&T
engineering design and maintenance departments.
The approach to IECC development was slightly
different, as BR perceived that the key skills that
were needed were more likely to be obtained from a
conventional procurement contract with a software
company (CAP), rather than collaboration with the
established signalling equipment suppliers. In
practice, as with SSI, the system architecture and a
significant part of the software were developed by
BR Research. A prototype ARS had been in revenue
service since 1983, and much of this software was
recreate-used in the full IECC system. This resulted
in the intellectual property rights (IPR) in the IECC
system and its software being owned exclusively by
BR, not shared as in the case of SSI.
CAP (later Sema) supplied the hardware, software,
geographic data and systems integration for all the
early installations of IECC, but in the early 1990s BR
used its ownership of the IPR to involve other
suppliers and its in-house signalling design resource
in data preparation and system integration for some
of the later schemes. After 1992 BR was internally
organised on a much more commercial basis, and
this enabled BR Research to expand from their
traditional role, and undertake complete supply of
the IECC system for the Sandhills signalling control
centre, as sub-contractors to GEC ALSTHOM who
were the main signalling contractor for the
Merseyrail recreate-signalling scheme.
After the split-up and privatisation of British Rail,
Railtrack are the owners of the IPR in the IECC
system. AEA Technology Rail, as successors to BR
Research, are contractors for Railtrack, undertaking
software and hardware development/support. AEA
Technology Rail also undertake application engineering,
installation, testing and upgrades for new
and existing systems. In some senses, the wheel has
turned full circle, with the organisation in which the
IECC concept originated (and many of the same
people) now responsible for all aspects of its
development, delivery and support.
EVOLUTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
The basic design of IECC is now 15 years old.
Figure 2 shows the system architecture, which has
remained unchanged throughout. This period
corresponds to several generations of computer
technology, and inevitably means that many of the
original components are no longer available.
However the architecture and functionality have
stood the test of time, and progressive upgrading of
the hardware has been possible to ensure that
existing and new systems can be supported into the
future. This has required regular investment by
Railtrack to upgrade software and documentation in
line with new hardware, and to obtain safety
approval and product acceptance for the changes.

SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 51
Signallers
Train service database
DIS
DIS
PSM
TTP
ARS
Signalling
network
GWS
ISM
Information
network
RII
SSI
SSI
Relay
interlockings
ECS
Trackside signalling equipment
External
systems
FBS
DIS
FBS
ARS
PSM
TTP
SSI
RII
ECS
ISM
GWS
The Flexible Display Subsystem provides a PC-based operating interface between the IECC system (and
hence the railway) and the signaller. There are a maximum of three per IECC. DIS replaces the original SDS
(Signalling Display Subsystem) which used a special graphics card and monitors.
The Fringe Box Subsystem provides a Train Describer map, interpose and cancel facilities for the fringe
signaller, via a monitor and keyboard. There is a maximum of 16 per IECC.
The Automatic Route-setting Subsystem determines the optimum routing of trains in the area based on the
timetable, their current position, their importance and their destination. It automatically requests the
required routes when they are available.
The PC SPAD Monitor provides alarms to the signaller when a potential signal passed at danger incident
has occurred. It also provides the data logging facility for the IECC.
The Timetable Processor Subsystem processes the timetable information for the IECC and the surrounding
areas. This information is used by ARS.
Solid State Interlocking is a programmable electronic system that is used in place of relay interlockings on
new installations. It provides the primary interlocking features necessary to ensure the safety of the railway.
The Remote Interlocking Interface Subsystem enables a relay interlocking to be interfaced into an IECC
system. This avoids the need to replace a relay interlocking with an SSI, usually for economic reasons.
The External Communications Subsystem provides an interface between the information networks and
systems that cannot use the IECC’s communications protocols or data notations.
The IECC System Monitor Subsystem monitors the operation of all the subsystems in the IECC system
and of the two networks, and reports the system status to maintenance staff. It also provides aids to the
technician for fault finding and for reconfiguration of the IECC system.
The Gateway Subsystem provides a link between the Signalling Network and the Information Network. It
transfers information between the two networks when the source and destination are not on the same
network. It also provides a buffer storage facility between the two networks.
Figure 2: IECC System Architecture
As well as retaining the capability to support existing
systems and install new ones, these upgrades
provide a platform for enhanced functionality to
improve performance and satisfy changing operational
requirements. By maintaining the same basic
architecture, software and functionality, the whole
system can be progressively renewed and
enhanced.
This means a significant change from the
traditional view that a signalling system is installed,
maintained on a like-for-like basis for 30 years, then
replaced. With IECC signalling centres, we are
seeing much earlier renewals in a piecemeal manner.
In practice, component obsolescence is rarely the
only reason for making an upgrade. In most cases,
the financial justification for change is bound up in
infrastructure re-modelling or extensions of the
controlled area, or from the benefits offered by the
functional improvements to the software.
PROCESSORS AND NETWORKS
The choice of processor technology for IECC was
the Motorola 68000 series on VME plug-in cards.
This has proved to be a wise choice, as the
hardware has been extremely reliable, and although
the original processors and cards are no longer
available, the basic 32-bit architecture and instruction
set of the Motorola 68000 remains available in
much more powerful modern processors (the latest
version is the 68060), on physically compatible VME
cards. Nevertheless, software changes have been
required as a result of changes to the input/output
devices on the new cards. Obsolescence of operating
system software has not been a problem, as

52
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW
IECC uses its own real time operating system BRX
(British Rail real time executive) which is specifically
designed to support the networking and duplication
which delivers very high system availability.
To achieve predictable performance and high
availability, IECC was designed around two duplicated
networks, one for real time signalling data and
the other for less critical information exchange. With
the available technology at the time, a “register
insertion ring” network architecture running at 1.5
Mbits/second was chosen, because this could
achieve the required data throughput with a more
predictable time response than networks based on
“collision and recreate-try” strategies. Interfaces
between sub-systems and network nodes are 9,600
baud or 19,200 baud serial links. As with the processor
hardware, the network equipment has been very
reliable, and the same supplier of network nodes has
been used throughout. The only change has been
that the nodes are now rack mounted cards in place
of the original “black boxes”. The technology is now
obsolete, and it is envisaged that at some time in the
future there will be a move to a more modern
technology such as Ethernet, with predictable time
response achieved by installing a high speed
network used at a small fraction of its theoretical
capacity.
One of the most recent innovations has been to
move from EPROMs to CD-ROM as the means of
configuring IECC sub-systems with software and
data 2 . This has been made possible by using the
latest processor boards with Electrically Erasable
ROM memory. For security and to avoid installing
additional hardware, the CD-ROM is read using a
laptop PC, which is plugged directly into an Ethernet
interface on the VME processor board when an
update is required. This allows updates to take place
much more rapidly and without physical disturbance
to the IECC equipment.
SIGNALLER’S WORKSTATION
The VDU-based signaller’s workstation is the
critical human interface on the operating floor of the
control centre. The original design (SDS – signalling
display system) typically incorporated four colour
monitors built into a purpose-designed workstation
cabinet, with a trackerball and keyboard for operator
input. Normally two monitors provide an “overview”
which allows the signaller to see all main running
signals, points, track circuits and train descriptions
simultaneously. A third monitor allows selection of a
“close-up” view providing a more detailed view of
selected areas, including details such as shunting
signals and ground frames, and a fourth “general
purpose VDU” provides a number of text areas for
fault reporting and signaller interaction with train
describer and ARS. High availability was provided
for throughout the design, with a facility to switch
any view to another monitor if one should fail, all
critical functions accessible via both keyboard and
trackerball, and duplicated processors with hot
standby. Some of the later schemes incorporated
more monitors (up to six) to allow very large areas of
control.
The workstations were well-accepted by signallers
from the start, and there were few problems in
adapting from panel working to VDUs. However, the
monitors themselves and the VME graphics cards
which provide the interface to the processors were
amongst the first IECC components to become
unavailable. The chosen solution to the problem was
to replace these components with an industrial
quality PC and monitor, linked to the main VME
processors via a dedicated Ethernet link. This new
system (DIS – Flexible Display System) has allowed
much more choice in the size and style of monitors,
and for many new installations and upgrades the
customers now choose flat-screen monitors on a
desktop, instead of the original fully enclosed
cabinet. The old and new styles of workstation are
shown in Figure 3. The move to a PC does not
totally eliminate the obsolescence problem, as the
PC components change on an almost monthly
basis. A fast-track acceptance process has been
specified to enable minor changes to PC specification
to be tolerated without invalidating Railtrack’s
product acceptance of the system.
The colour VDU terminal providing the interface to
the IECC maintenance technician, the IECC System
Monitor (ISM), is also no longer available. This has
been replaced by a PC-based system, which
provides an improved Windows-based interface with
some additional facilities.
AUTOMATIC ROUTE SETTING
The sophistication of the automatic route-setting
function (ARS) of IECC is the feature which sets it
apart from similar signalling control systems in the
UK and overseas. Whilst automatic setting of routes
for trains running in normal timetable order is
commonplace, IECC uses train regulation algorithms
to maintain a full automatic route setting capability
during periods of service disruption, and the
signaller only needs to intervene in exceptional
circumstances. This contrasts with the approach
seen elsewhere, such as the network management
centres in Germany, where the automated system
provides warning of conflicts, but the decision to
change the timetabled order of trains is taken by the
human not the computer.
The IECC approach to automatic route setting was
based on fundamental research into route setting
algorithms undertaken by British Rail Research. The
ideas were validated first using a system which
simply provided advice to the signaller (a system
called JOT at Glasgow Central in the late 1970s),
and then by a full trial of ARS which took place from
1983 onwards at Three Bridges signalling control
centre, controlling the Haywards Heath area of the
London-Brighton line. The fully developed version of
ARS was active from the first day of IECC commissioning
at Liverpool Street in 1989, and immediately
demonstrated its versatility in handling traffic into
and out of this 18-platform terminus, despite major
disruptions to service caused by initial unreliability of
some of the SSI trackside equipment in a very
severe EMC environment.
The objectives of ARS were to reduce manning
requirements in signalling control centres, and to
improve punctuality by guaranteeing prompt route

SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 53
Figure 3: Original and new workstations at York IECC
setting when trains are running freely and optimum
regulation where conflicts occur. These objectives
were achieved from the start and have enabled the
expansion of control centres such as York and
Liverpool Street to cover very large and complex
areas of railway. The system is well liked by
signallers, who appreciate the automation of routine
activities whilst retaining the option to take manual
control of route-setting for individual trains and
complete areas of railway. There is also a useful
facility which allows the signaller to interrogate ARS
to find out the route-setting intentions for a specific
train – this can be used when it is not obvious to the
signaller why ARS has delayed setting a route which
is apparently available.
Efficient operation of ARS is crucially dependent
on the information with which it is configured. Any
deficiencies will reduce the proportion of trains
which can be handled automatically and increase
the workload of the signallers. As with other
computer based signalling systems, there needs to
be a data preparation process to gather the
necessary information and translate this into a form
which can be used by the real-time system. The
process for ARS is particularly complex as it needs
to take account of traffic patterns as well as the
physical disposition of track and signalling. The
flexibility of the ARS algorithms means that there are

54
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW
many options to choose from, and there is even a
facility to embed “area specific code” to tailor the
decision making to special requirements of each
site. All this means that there is a significant risk of
under-performance of ARS if there is insufficient
understanding of the true operating requirements at
the design stage. This did happen in practice,
particularly in the early years, where ARS data
preparation was being undertaken at a number of
sites by relatively inexperienced staff. Lessons have
been learned and the process is now much more
robust due to:
• dedicated staff undertaking all IECC data
preparation work;
• co-location of the data preparers with the
software/system developers;
• formal dialogue with operators using questionnaires
and specifications;
• system testing with simulated train movements
to a real timetable.
There is also now a much better understanding of
what are the reasonable limits to flexible utilisation of
the infrastructure. An example of this has been the
approach to routing of trains over the 6-track
bi-directional approach to Paddington station in
London. As originally specified there were a large
number of alternative routes available and no
pre-determined rules for their selection. This was not
a problem for ARS, which applied its regulation
algorithms to determine the optimum choice of route
for each train. However, this resulted in decisions
which appeared unpredictable to signallers and
drivers as ARS varied route setting decisions for the
same train from day to day to achieve a few seconds
of train delay savings. As part of the general review
and simplification of signalling on the approaches to
Paddington in the aftermath of the Ladbroke Grove
accident, the timetable and ARS rules have been
changed so that each train now has a preferred
route and a small number of alternatives from which
ARS can select. If future the application of ARS will
be one of the factors to be considered when undertaking
track layout risk assessments for new
schemes.
Another factor which has only slowly been
recognised is that there is a case for more frequent
updating of ARS than traditional signalling control
centre systems. The traditional expectation is that an
update occurs only when there are track layout
changes or equipment replacement. In the case of
ARS there are reasons why updates may be required
more frequently:
• the complexity and novelty of ARS means that
there is a steady stream of ideas for minor
improvements to the software;
• there may be a need to make changes to deal
with the evolution of traffic patterns and timetables.
Funding of such changes has often been a
problem, as budget allocations tend to go to
projects which produce physical results, such as
track remodelling, but there is a growing realisation
that regular updates of a complex system such as
ARS can be regarded as routine maintenance to
keep the system performing at peak efficiency. This
can often be justified in a business case by predicting
the reduction in train delays which can be
achieved – on the privatised UK railway today the
conversion of train delays to money is precisely
defined. Railtrack now recognises that ARS subsystems
are likely to be updated more frequently
that other parts of IECC, and intends to use the new
CD-ROM facility to make these changes as
efficiently as possible.
TIMETABLE PROCESSOR
As well as its fixed rules and real-time information,
ARS requires timetable data including information on
conditional and special workings on a daily basis.
The Timetable Processor (TTP) is the IECC
sub-system which provides the interface between
the real-time ARS and the off-line train service
database (TSDB), the Railtrack system used to
create and update timetables. TTP uses the same
processors as the real-time IECC sub-systems, but
running the Unix operating system with a hard disc
drive. The data flows between TTP, ARS and the
signaller are shown in Figure 4.
TTP provides a number of facilities to ensure that
ARS gets a complete and correct timetable, both by
checking the incoming information and making
corrections and additions if necessary. Validation
facilities include a check that the incoming data
provides all the necessary information about each
train required by ARS, and output of summary
timetables showing arrivals, departures, platforming
and next workings at major stations. Normally a new
timetable is loaded into ARS twice a day, but there is
a facility for “very short term” changes to be loaded
as soon as they are entered. This allows changes
such as swapping a defective train set for a healthy
one at a terminus, or termination of a train short of
its usual destination, to be entered into TTP and
implemented via ARS without fallback on to manual
route-setting.
There is also a facility for a signaller to create a
timetable for a train using a pre-defined “special
timing pattern”. This allows the signaller to select a
pre-defined route and stopping pattern for the train.
TTP then calculates a complete timetable starting at
the train's current location and sends it back to ARS.
On one occasion when a strike was cancelled at the
last minute and there was no timetable available, a
complete day’s operations at one IECC were run
using special timing patterns.
Another facility available to the signaller is the
option to invoke a contingency plan. This is a set of
rules for modifications to the timetable to deal with a
predefined change to the normal pattern of working.
An example of this would be operating all traffic on
a 4-track railway over two tracks only between
selected crossovers during engineering work. The
rules are pre-defined as part of the ARS data
preparation process and, when a contingency plan
is invoked, TTP calculates the changes to the
timetable and sends them to ARS. Trains running to
contingency plans or special timing patterns are
distinguished on the signaller’s workstation screen

SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 55
NATIONAL TRAIN
SERVICE DATABASE
Full timetables
Daily timetable update
TTP USER
Timetable
Summary timetables
Timetable validation
reports
Request contingency plan
Request special timing pattern
TTP
Main timetable
Amendment timetable
ARS status query
Request contingency plan
Request special timing pattern
ARS status query
Request contingency plan
Request special timing pattern
Train describer steps
SIGNALLER
Alarms
ARS status
Signalling
Workstation
Alarms
ARS status
TD code insert
ARS
Route availability
Train detection
Route request
Figure 4: ARS data flows
INTERLOCKING
with an alternative background colour in the train
describer berths.
In a similar manner to the real-time IECC
sub-systems, the original hardware used for TTP is
no longer available, but there has been a straightforward
upgrade path. The software is largely
unchanged, but there have been a number of
improvements to match upgrades to ARS, and
upgrading of the train service database connection
to use more modern communications technology.
INTERFACING TO EXISTING RELAY
INTERLOCKINGS
The IECC system was designed around the use of
SSI as the interlocking. Each SSI central interlocking
cubicle includes a pair of panel processor modules,
duplicated for availability, and these are connected
by a simple serial interface to nodes of the IECC
network. The IECC sub-systems use the same “state
of the railway” model as SSI, so the messages from
interlocking to signaller’s workstation and ARS are
simply reports of updates to the states. In the
opposite direction, the IECC sub-systems generate
“panel requests” which are processed in the SSI to
initiate route setting and other interlocking functions.
All the IECC applications have been as part of
major recreate-signalling projects, where most of the
existing signalling has been totally replaced by new
equipment including SSI. However, in some cases,
there has been a desire to retain existing relay interlockings
within the IECC controlled area. This need
is satisfied by the Remote Interlocking Interface (RII)
sub-system which allows a relay interlocking to be
interfaced to IECC via a conventional time division
multiplex (TDM) remote control system. To provide a
cost-effective solution it is important to avoid any
costly modifications to the existing relay interlocking,
so the role of the RII is to appear as an SSI
from the viewpoint of the other IECC sub-systems,
and to appear as a conventional control/indication
panel from the viewpoint of the relay interlocking.
This implies that RII must implement:
• a protocol translation (between the IECC network
protocol based on a polling arrangement
and a TDM protocol based on cyclic scans);
• a functional translation to convert panel indication
states into SSI-like states, and to convert
SSI panel requests into switch and button
sequences;
• logic required to support IECC functionality
which is usually provided in SSI but is not
already provided in the relay interlocking (eg
signallers’ reminders, ARS sub-areas, train
operated route release).
This functionality has been achieved by translating
the SSI interlocking functional program into a high
level language which allows it to run on the same
Motorola 68000/VME hardware as other IECC
sub-systems. The required functional translation and
additional logic can then be implemented using
standard SSI geographic data, which is well understood
by designers and testers, and supported by
the SSI Design Workstation tools. For instance
indications reported from the interlocking over the
TDM link are treated like input telegrams on the SSI
trackside data link, and input telegram data is used
to map these into the standard SSI “state of the

56
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW
Signalling Centre Remote Interlocking Type of Relay Interlocking
Ashford Maidstone (indications only)
Sandhills Rock Ferry route relay free wired interlocking with electronic route setting
equipment (ERSE) entrance-exit panel
Tyneside Pelaw route relay free wired interlocking with entrance-exit panel
Yoker Craigendoran Scottish Region geographical relay interlocking with entranceexit
panel
York Church Fenton non-route-setting relay interlocking with individual function
switch panel
Colton Junction route relay free wired interlocking with entrance-exit panel
Hambleton
route relay free wired interlocking with entrance-exit panel
Marsh Lane
non-route-setting relay interlocking with individual function
switch panel
Neville Hill
non-route-setting relay interlocking with individual function
switch panel
Peckfield
route relay interlocking with a turn-push panel
South Kirkby
non-route-setting relay interlocking with individual function
switch panel
Stourton
route relay free wired interlocking with entrance-exit panel
Temple Hirst
route relay free wired interlocking with entrance-exit panel
Wakefield Westgate non-route-setting relay interlocking with individual function
switch panel
York North
relay controlled automatic signals on plain line
Figure 5: IECCs interfaced to relay interlockings
railway” memory for onward reporting to other IECC
sub-systems.
This approach has been very successful and has
allowed standard hardware and software to be used
to interface to several types of relay interlocking by
adapting the SSI geographic data to suit (see Figure
5). The early applications of RII were on a small scale
with typically one modest sized modern relay interlocking
incorporated in an otherwise all-SSI area.
The recent Leeds First project has used RII on a
much larger scale, and incorporates some quite
elderly non-route-setting interlockings as well as
more recent designs. Where necessary functions are
missing from the existing relay interlockings, a
careful safety analysis is required to decide whether
it is acceptable to provide these by additional logic
in the RII. It would be possible to implement a
complete interlocking in RII, but this would not be
acceptable as the hardware and software are not
designed and validated to SIL 4 safety integrity level.
An example of this was at the Neville Hill interlocking
outside Leeds, where it was necessary to provide
train operated route release and additional opposing
route locking before ARS could be used in this area.
The safety analysis concluded that implementation
of train operated route release in the RII was acceptable,
but the additional opposing route locking
required a modification to the relay interlocking
circuits.
SPAD MONITOR
IECC has always provided a comprehensive track
circuit monitoring function which warns the signaller
of unusual sequences of track circuit operation,
such as may be caused by track circuit faults, trains
dividing or SPADs. This monitoring function is very
effective in operation and can easily be configured
using data to handle even the most complex cases.
However, all alarms were reported as either
unexpected occupations or unexpected clearances
of track circuits, with no indication of the likely
cause. An additional opportunity for improvement,
which was highlighted in Lord Cullen’s report into
the Ladbroke Grove accident, is the provision of a
specific distinctive alarm to the signaller if a SPAD
occurs. This will ensure that actions to prevent an
accident, or at least to minimise its severity, are
performed without delay.
To implement the accident enquiry recommendation
as rapidly as possible, a stand-alone
PC-based SPAD Monitor sub-system (PSM) was
developed and rolled out to all the IECC sites. The
PSM is interfaced to the existing IECC via the
existing data link provided to connect ARS to a tape
logger. This gives access to all changes of signalling
state from both SSI and relay interlockings, plus train
describer steps and various IECC status reports.
The PSM logs this information on its hard disc,
allowing the obsolete tape logger to be removed,
and analyses sequences of track circuit and signal
state changes to identify any train movement which
should be classified as a SPAD. By combining this
with the train describer information, the system can
report the location of a suspected SPAD and the
headcode of the train concerned. To avoid any
changes to the IECC screens, this information is
displayed to the signaller on an additional small LED
matrix screen mounted at a suitable location on the
existing workstation (Figure 6). A distinctive audible
alarm is provided, together with an alarm cancellation
button and an override facility to avoid repeated
alarms during engineering work 3 .
The stand-alone PSM is only intended as a
temporary solution, and an enhanced SPAD alarm
function it is now being integrated into the signaller's

SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 57
workstation as part of a forthcoming upgrade to
IECC. Development of this upgrade, known as IECC
Upgrade 003, is scheduled for completion in 2003.
This will allow removal of the additional LED matrix
displays, but the PC will be retained as the
permanent logging facility for the IECC.
THE FUTURE FOR IECC
Fourteen years experience of IECC in service on
the British main line railway network during a period
of exceptional organisational change have validated
the original concept evolved by British Rail in the
1980s and demonstrated its continued applicability
to the privatised railway of the 21st century.
Experience has shown that, with appropriate investment,
problems of equipment obsolescence can be
solved and progressive upgrading of facilities can
benefit both existing and new installations. In the
future we are likely to see some more substantial
changes in the underlying processors and network
hardware, but it is the application software for
Figure 6: PC SPAD Monitor Display
functions such as the signaller’s workstation and
automatic route setting which is the true heart of the
system, and this will evolve much more slowly.
One theme for future developments will be the
integration of higher-level traffic management
activities into signalling control centres. The staff
responsible for these activities in Railtrack are
Region/Zone controllers. They now have access to a
modern information system known as CCF (Control
Centre of the Future), supplied by AEA Technology
Rail, which provides up to date train running
information for the whole network. At signalling
centres such as York, the controllers occupy the
same room as the signallers 4 , and the logical next
step will be to integrate these systems so that
decisions taken by controllers can be recorded in
updated timetables for use by IECC.
Another factor influencing the future development
of IECC will be changes to the technology of
signalling. One change which can be foreseen is the
need to interface to a wider range of electronic
interlocking types. Railtrack is undertaking trials with
a number of alternatives to the established SSI
system with which IECC was designed to work, and
future projects are likely to require one or more of
these to be interfaced to IECC. In developing such
an interface, the real time exchange of information
between the systems is likely to be quite straightforward;
the greater challenge will be to integrate the
data preparation processes of the interlocking and
control centre suppliers. One possible way ahead
here may be the concept of a standard Interlocking
Data File Format being developed by the UIC EURO-
INTERLOCKING project. This is intended as means
for European railways to specify geographical
information for interlockings to suppliers in a
standard manner, but the same information is
needed to configure the signalling control system.
The final factor influencing future development will
be the move towards signalling systems incorporating
ERTMS/ETCS. This is the most significant
technical development in European signalling at
present, and so the second part of this paper will
consider its impact on signalling control centres.
PART 2: A CONTROL CENTRE FOR
ERTMS
BACKGROUND
The terms ERTMS and ETCS are often used
interchangeably, but in reality ETCS is only the train
control element of a complete railway traffic
management system. The term ETML (European
Traffic Management Layer) has been coined to
describe the possible advanced control centre
systems, but there has been no concerted effort at
defining what this might be, with the exception of the
EU funded project OPTIRAILS which relates to
co-operative real time planning of long distance
international traffic. From a European standardisation
perspective, this is quite understandable.
Each railway has an existing signalling control centre
system, which has evolved to meet national
requirements, and there are no direct interoperable
interfaces between these systems and trains.
This implies that there is no existing basis of
European standards to guide the development of
signalling control centres as we move towards an
ERTMS/ETCS railway. I would like to consider the
implications in two parts:
• what needs to be done to adapt existing
modern signalling control centre systems to
work with the various levels of ETCS?
• what more could be done in signalling control
centres to exploit the opportunities which
ERTMS/ETCS will create?
MINIMUM CONTROL CENTRE REQUIREMENTS
FOR ERTMS/ETCS
ETCS Level 1 is a track based system using
switchable balises, overlaid over conventional lineside
signalling in a similar manner to existing ATP
systems which use intermittent (location-specific)
communications to the train. The interface to the
signalling is via a Lineside Equipment Unit (LEU)
connected to the existing relay circuits or electronic
interlocking object controller in parallel with the lineside
signals. From the viewpoint of the control
centre there is no change – routes are set from
signal to signal in the usual way, and the signaller’s
workstation still needs to show information about
the signal aspect displayed to the driver. There is no
provision for feedback of information from the train
or the balise, so the only possible additional
information which could be displayed would be
warning of LEU faults.
ETCS Level 2 with lineside signals is another
overlaid system, but in this case the interface with
conventional signalling is from the interlocking to a

58
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW
Radio Block Centre (RBC). In the simplest option this
can be a one-way link, with the interlocking providing
signal aspect information to the RBC, which then
translates this into movement authorities which are
sent to the trains using GSM-R radio. Again there is
no change from the viewpoint of the control centre.
The RBC will have a facility for entering information
about temporary speed restrictions, but there is no
fundamental need for this to be integrated into the
signalling control centre system.
ETCS Level 2 without lineside signals (conventional
block lengths) is a more fundamental
change to the signalling system. However, route
locking and movement authorities are still based on
fixed block lengths equivalent to conventional signal
spacing, using track based train detection systems
(track circuits or axle counters). There will also
inevitably be uniquely numbered lineside marker
boards at each block section boundary, to give the
driver a precise target for stopping the train in
normal operation, and to allow unambiguous verbal
instructions to be given by the signaller when train
movements have to take place during signalling
failures. These marker boards will replace signals as
the route entrances and exits, and so it will be
logical to show them on the signaller's workstation
screens instead of signals. By treating the marker
boards as “virtual signals” and showing them as
signals on the workstation screen, it would be
possible to implement this level of ETCS with no
changes to control centre software or working
practices. In practice some small changes on the
screens may be desirable to differentiate clearly
between “real” and “virtual” signals.
ETCS Level 2 without lineside signals (short
block lengths) is the next step to be considered. As
with the previous option, lineside marker boards
delineating the block sections can be treated as
“virtual signals”, with route setting between marker
boards. On the signaller’s workstation screens, each
short block section will require a “virtual signal”
symbol and a train describer berth, and this will
mean that the physical length of railway displayed
on a workstation screen will be reduced. There may
also be an increase in signaller workload when
manual route-setting is in use. These problems can
be mitigated in various ways, eg showing only
selected marker boards on overview displays, and
allowing the signaller to select entrance and exit
points more than one block section apart – this is
already available as a “long route” option in IECC. In
practice, of course, automatic route setting would
play a large part in exploiting the additional capacity
made available by this version of ETCS.
ETCS Level 3 is currently regarded as being a
long way into the future, but when Level 2 without
signals is well established and a high level of train
fitment is achieved, the financial and reliability
benefits of eliminating track based train detection
will become very attractive. Level 3 is usually
associated with moving block signalling, but there is
no reason why train location information should not
be converted back into fixed block occupation
states, to provide a system which is functionally
equivalent to Level 2. This might seem a retrograde
step, but it would give the cost savings of Level 3
with the minimum amount of change to existing
operating rules and systems. Level 3 with true
moving block is another matter altogether, and
would require a much more fundamental recreatethink
of how the systems (and people) in control
centres interact with the signalling.
ENHANCED CONTROL CENTRE
FUNCTIONALITY FOR ERTMS/ETCS LEVEL 2
AND ABOVE
In the preceding section, the theme has been that
even the “highest” levels of ETCS could be implemented
with minimal impact on signalling control
centre systems. However, to restrict our ambitions in
this way will be to ignore some exciting new
possibilities of adding value by exploiting the new
facility of dependable two-way communication with
the train by:
• using information from the train in the control
centre;
• integrating additional facilities provided as a part
of ETCS;
• adding extra facilities beyond those provided by
ETCS.
Figure 7 illustrates how this will lead to a “triangular”
relationship between the control centre, the
interlocking and the RBC.
USING INFORMATION FROM THE TRAIN IN THE
CONTROL CENTRE
Signalling control systems are used to monitor and
control train movements, but in traditional signalling
they actually only deal with lineside equipment. The
part of the system which works in terms of trains is
the Train Describer, and this has to work by
deducing information about train movements from
the lineside equipment states. With ETCS Level 2
and above, the signalling system now includes the
RBC which is receiving regular updates of information
from every train. This is much more accurate
and comprehensive information which could be
used by the signaller and automatic route setting
systems. It includes:
• train position, length and speed (already known
from train detection information, but with very
limited precision);
• train identity and performance characteristics
(currently assumed from timetable information
without any means of checking validity);
• ETCS modes of operation (entirely unknown to
conventional signalling).
The more precise information about train
characteristics, position and speed could allow
automatic route setting systems to make much more
accurate predictions of future train movements, and
enable further optimisation of route setting
strategies to minimise train delays. This and the
other information would in some circumstances also
be very useful to the signaller, but the interesting
question is – how to present it? The usual representation
of each train on the signaller’s workstation is
the train’s headcode in a train describer berth,
together with one or more occupied track circuits.

SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 59
Signalling
Control
System
Interlocking
Trackside
signalling
Minimum ETCS data flows
Additional ETCS data flows
Radio
Block
Centre
Trains
Figure 7: Interfaces – Interlocking, RBC and
Control Centre
ETCS simulator demonstrations typically show the
reported train position and length on a scale plan of
the track layout, but signaller’s workstation screens
do not attempt to show the railway to scale. A better
idea would be to associate the additional information
with the train describer berth in which the train’s
headcode appears. A small amount of additional
information could be provided continuously (eg
colour coding to show ETCS mode of the train), but
more detailed information would need to be shown
only when selected to avoid cluttering the workstation
screens.
INTEGRATING ADDITIONAL FACILITIES
PROVIDED AS PART OF ETCS
Most of the variable information required by the
RBC in an ETCS Level 2/3 system comes from the
interlocking or the trains, but there are functions
provided for in the existing ETCS specifications
which imply that there is a means of entering
additional information into the RBC. Of course, the
standards only specify the interoperable interface
with the train, so the source of this information is
undefined. For the ETCS trials being undertaken
around Europe, the RBC supplier generally provides
a terminal on which data can be entered. On the
Swiss Level 2 Pilot line, the signaller has access to
such a terminal. This shares a desk with his standard
workstation monitors, but there is no interface
between the systems.
It might seem obvious that the longer term
solution will be to integrate the additional RBC interface
into the signalling control system, but some
careful thought is needed to identify who is the user
of the facilities. For instance an important facility is
the entry of temporary speed limit information, but in
the UK at least this is not part of the signaller’s
duties. We need to first decide the rules and
responsibilities, and then engineer a system which
provides the people responsible with the facilities
they need. There have been a number of railway
projects where ambitious plans for fully integrated
control centres have not been delivered, and the
operators have found that separate systems for
clearly defined functions are indeed more workable.
Nevertheless it is likely that there will be facilities
which are best integrated – an example of this would
be the ETCS facility to send an emergency stop
message to an individual train. A non-integrated
system will provide facilities to stop a train by
replacing an individual signal or group of signals (or
“virtual signals”) to the stop state, but a facility for
the signaller to select this function directly for an
individual train would be a more intuitive response in
an emergency. This would also give a more rapid
system response as the command goes direct to the
RBC, instead of via the interlocking.
ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
Signalling has traditionally provided the train driver
with the absolute minimum of information needed to
control the train safely. When approaching a point of
conflict where the train is going to have to be
delayed to allow priority to another train, the driver
only finds out when he sees the first caution signal.
At line speed, this is of course at the point where he
needs to start braking immediately. Up to that point
he may have been driving at the maximum permitted
speed to try to make up time, all to no avail as a
decision has already been taken in the control
centre to give priority to another train. If it was
possible to provide the driver with better advance
warning of train regulation decisions which will affect
the train, this could have a number of benefits:
• energy saving and reduced brake wear by
coasting or reduced speed running;
• fewer challenges to the train protection system,
as the driver is pre-warned that there is going to
be a requirement to stop;
• optimised route capacity at junctions and
bottlenecks, by avoiding stopping and starting
trains in the critical area;
• reduction in driver stress;
• improved passenger satisfaction, through better
provision of information about delays.
Traditional lineside signalling is not suitable for this
task, and whilst cab radio is now commonplace,
there is a policy (in the UK at least) that this should
not be used to communicate to a moving train
except in an emergency, to avoid distracting the
driver. It is interesting to note that in places where an
“open channel” radio system is in use, such as the
RETB radio signalling system, drivers appreciate the
access to information about other train movements.
ETCS Level 2 and above provides a communications
facility between the control centre and the
driver, via GSM-R radio and the Driver-Machine
Interface cab display (DMI). The information
displayed on the DMI is a big improvement on lineside
signals, as it includes all the speed limits as well
as the distance the train is authorised to proceed,
but it still fails to tell the driver anything about what
is happening beyond the current limit of movement
authority. However, there is no reason why the DMI
should be limited in this way, and the DMI concept
which has evolved with ETCS includes fields for

60
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW
display of text messages, advisory speed limits, and
updated timetables, and these are defined in a draft
CENELEC standard. However, with the exception of
text messages, these additional features are not
supported in the UNISIG Class 1 standards which
are the current baseline for ETCS specification. The
paring down of features in the Class 1 specifications
is a deliberate policy to limit the scope to those
functions which are essential for safety and interoperability.
This has undoubtedly been a good move
to curtail the debate on specifications and move
ETCS from concept to reality, but it would be
unfortunate if “value added” features can never be
added to the basic system.
In fact, although these messages would appear on
the ETCS DMI, they do not actually need to be part
of the ETCS SIL4 safety critical system, ie the RBC
at the control centre and the EVC (European Vital
Computer) on the train. The DMI in the cab is similar
in many respects to the signaller’s workstation in the
control centre. It is a lower-integrity system
(typically SIL2) which provides the human interface
to the safety system and implements some
additional less critical functions. One of the fundamental
principles of safety critical systems design is
to partition the design to minimise the complexity of
the high-SIL components, so we should be thinking
of architectures which allow the signalling control
centre systems to talk to the DMI as a SIL2-SIL2
interface without adding complexity to the SIL4
ETCS components (see Figure 8). There are a
number of ways in which this could be implemented.
1 Define additional messages at the ETCS
“air-gap” interface, and implement software in
RBC and EVC to pass these through to control
centre and DMI.
2 Use the existing text message facility by defining
special messages which are recognised as an
instruction to update the DMI instead of a genuine
text message direct to the driver – no change
required to RBC and EVC.
3 Establish a direct link between the DMI and the
GSM-R radio on the train, bypassing the EVC, and
a similar link at the signalling control centre
bypassing the RBC – again no change required to
RBC and EVC.
CONCLUSION
The recent report of the UK ERTMS National
Programme Team 5 identified improvements in
network capacity as a possible foundation for a
business case for the investment that will be
required in ETCS. The report showed that to achieve
this requires the adoption of ETCS Level 2 without
lineside signals. This type of signalling system could
Signalling
Control
System
ETCS
trackside
(RBC)
Communication via ETCS SIL4 systems
Communication independently of SIL4
systems
GSM-R communications
Driver
machine
interface
ETCS
trainborne
(EVC)
Figure 8: Architectures for control centre
communications to driver
be controlled from existing signalling control centre
systems with minimal change, but greatest benefits
are likely to come if we establish a traffic management
layer of communications between the control
centre and the cab to complement the safety layer
provided by ETCS. Defining the requirements for
such systems and implementing them in a manner
which achieves interoperability will be a significant
challenge for signalling control systems engineers
and operators.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank AEA Technology Rail for
permission to publish this paper, and my colleagues
in AEA Technology Rail and Railtrack who have
supplied information and comments.
REFERENCES
1 Yoker Integrated Electronic Control Centre, R C
Nelson, IRSE Proceedings 1986/7
2 IECC Development, K.Thomas, IRSE News Issue
69, November 2000.
3 IECC Upgrades and SPAD Alarm, T Weston, IRSE
News Issue 78, May 2002.
4 Human Factors and York Signalling Centre, J
Wood, IRSE News Issue 72, May 2001.
5 The ERTMS Programme Team Final Report Issue
to HSC – April 2002, D Waboso, Railway Safety.

SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 61
Discussion
The discussion was opened by A Fisher
(Bombardier) who asked the speaker’s views on
several issues. The first was questioning whether,
having generated a SPAD Alarm to the operator,
could automation be applied in response to this
alarm. The second point raised concerned the use of
the operational information that is readily available
and could developments use this data more
effectively. Thirdly, he questioned if a “Eurographics
Working Group” would be looking at standardisation
issues and finally asked if it would be possible to
replicate the Operator's display within the Driver’s
cab?
I Mitchell initially responded by saying that he
believed further investment in development of the
SPAD Alarm, which would add additional complexity
to the system, could not be justified for the
rare occasions it would be required; the optimum
solution was not to have SPADs in the first place! He
agreed that the operational information available is
under-utilised although Heathrow Express does use
a limited amount of information from Slough IECC
for operational purposes. More generally though,
“higher level” operational management systems
perform this role. The speaker advised that not only
is there no “Eurographics Working Group” but also
that each country has its own standards; the
Operator Interface being the least interoperable
feature of tomorrow’s Signalling Centres! Finally, he
considered that it would be possible to replicate the
Operator’s display in the Driver's cab but he
cautioned against the potential distraction this could
present.
I Harman (Union Railways) commented that CTRL
had overcome the problem of presentation of
graphics on its Operator’s display by utilising a set of
“Franglais” standards and that there was no need to
reinvent the wheel. Additionally, he also pointed out
that it is not always necessary to display every
signal on the Operator’s display, it being sufficient to
only show those where some action on the
Operator’s part was required. He also reiterated
caution when deciding what information to provide
to the Driver and felt that a simple target speed,
possibly with an indication of whether running before
or behind time, would be sufficient.
I Mitchell agreed that the issues were being
tackled in various places but needed bringing
together.
T Taskin (EPT) enquired regarding the technology
refreshment strategy for IECC.
I Mitchell said that the strategy has been one of
small steps, maintaining the overall architecture with
progressive upgrading of hardware and software,
much of which will still be available for some time.
M Savage (Savoir Ltd) asked if the original
concept of ARS, ie minimal Signaller intervention,
had been achieved and whether there were any
plans to develop ARS and its area of control.
I Mitchell responded that he had no specific
figures for Signaller intervention but believed usage
of ARS at Liverpool Street was high. The speaker
indicated that the Waterloo ARS was being
upgraded but was unaware of any plans to either
develop or integrate the controlling areas of ARS
further.
P Vandermark (Driver First Great Western) wanted
to know if there were any plans to link the trainborne
wheel-slip protection systems with Signalling
Centres to warn of possible SPADs and also if
GSM-R would be able to handle the communication
requirements of an emergency situation.
I Mitchell replied that whilst he was aware of some
existing train-borne wheel-slip protection systems
that did inform Control Centres of low adhesion
conditions, they were not integrated into the
signalling system. He acknowledged that adhesion
is critical for ETCS, especially where braking calculations
are based upon certain assumptions about
adhesion. He was uncertain if these train-borne
systems had been included within the relevant
specifications and considered that they probably do
not conform to the interoperability requirements.
With GSM-R, the speaker explained that there is a
strict “pecking order” with emergency communications
taking priority over any other messages.
K Ford (Thales) commented that with GSM-R, all
parties hear emergency calls.
A C Howker (Past President) commented that
some Metro Systems do utilise wheel-slip systems
to alter headway calculations. He also observed that
the use of ARS in heavily trafficked areas was
problematical and certainly did not function reliably
in Ashford IECC.
I Harman (Union Railways) believed that due
weight was not given to the complex task of
converting the Operator’s requirements into the
algorithms needed for ARS and this was the reason
for the poor performance of IECCs on the Southern
Region.
A C Howker (Past President) was interested to
know how the author believed the Control Centre of
the future would keep infrastructure information
updated and display Level 3 signalling?
I Mitchell responded that the process of managing
and transferring the infrastructure information into a
SIL4 system had not really been considered but
questioned how this is achieved with any confidence
in existing installations. However, he felt that
complete system management together with off-line
checking should allow this to be accomplished. The
displaying of Level 3 signalling information has not
yet been considered.
An unidentified member of the audience commented
that moving block is depicted on the
Operator's displays of the Docklands Light Railway.
J F Wilson (Network Rail) referred to a recent
catastrophic failure of the IECC at Slough and
expressed some disappointment that no diagnostics
have been developed for use during such occasions.
I Mitchell agreed that the diagnostics do require
development, no work having been undertaken in
developing them since the introduction of IECC.

62
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW
Y Hirao (RRI Japan) wanted to know what
strategies were incorporated within IECC and ETCS
to cater for abnormal situations, traffic disturbances
and degraded modes of operation.
I Mitchell replied that ARS has a number of
pre-planned strategies that allow the system to deal
with foreseen situations without manual intervention.
These include pre-defined plans for engineering
works, unavailability of all running lines, running of
additional trains and terminating traffic at intermediate
locations. Degraded operation was not
catered for in UK signalling at present although
consideration is actively being given to this at
present. Nothing specific has yet been decided for
ETCS but it is clear that operational rules will have to
be identified to alleviate against equipment failure.
D Waboso (EPT) observed that although ERTMS
is being developed as “standalone” elements, consideration
must be given to looking at the “system”
implications once all of the components are integrated
together. Overall resilience of the system
should be looked at from the viewpoint of the
whole-life cost rather than first-life cost, particularly
with respect to potential downtime costs.
D McKeown (Independent Consultant) commented
that we focus on the infrastructure rather
than controlling routes and wondered if any lessons
could be learnt from Air Traffic Control management
systems where specific “slots” are allocated for each
movement. He also questioned if timetable paths
contained "width" to allow ARS to be more resilient
in the decisions that it makes and finally he asked
the speaker what might have been done differently
with the experience of hindsight.
I Mitchell suggested that perhaps there should be
an European Standard to decide the approach to
Traffic Control but agreed that there may be benefits
in considering a different approach to scheduling
trains to reduce conflicts, especially from a
passenger’s perspective. He confirmed that ARS
timetable paths do have "width" to cater for conflict
resolution but declined to comment on his hindsight
instead stating that IECC has evolved to the system
with which we are now familiar.
D McKeown (Independent Consultant) finally
asked Mr Mitchell if “the system” has learnt from day
to day operation or relies on human experience.
I Mitchell agreed that this was an excellent idea
and a real possibility for the future as operational
experience has not been considered during the
development process.
The President commented that the paper served
as a reminder of what has been achieved and
demonstrated the possibilities for the future. He also
hoped it would assist in illustrating the benefits of
investing in Signalling and Control Centres. Finally
he thanked Mr Mitchell for his paper and for his
contribution to the night’s proceedings.

63
Migration to ERTMS on Existing Lines
Most people involved in railways have now heard of
ERTMS/ETCS, the European Rail Traffic Management
System and the part of it that is devoted to
train control (also called “contrôle-commande”),
namely the European Train Control System (ETCS)
Historically, railway lineside signalling has been
different in every country, and basically incompatible
across borders. Most of the main European
countries have for decades had their own ways, their
own rules and their own national suppliers (see
Figure 1). This includes eight main countries – in
alphabetical order, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy,
the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the
United Kingdom. Most other countries have used,
and usually still do use, signalling practices and
products from one or more of these countries. For
example, Spain uses products and systems
originating in France, Germany, Sweden and the UK.
This made crossing borders difficult technically and,
for that or other reasons, rare in fact, even if there
were a few exceptions.
1 ALSTOM Transport Information Solutions
Technical Meeting of the Institution
held at
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2
Tuesday 12th February 2003
The President, Mr P W Stanley, in the chair.
126 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr K Walter, seconded by Mr D Fenner, and carried that the
Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 15th January 2003 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct record.
The President welcomed Mr P Wiltshire, Past President, who was present at a meeting for the first time since his election as an
Honorary Fellow of the Institution amidst applause.
The President reminded members of the need to register to attend the Convention in Birmingham in May next year and in particular
to register quickly if they wished to attend the Conference on Train Control Systems that is to take place at the IEE on 19th February.
He then introduced Mr J Poré, of ALSTOM Transport Information Systems, and invited him to present his paper entitled “Migration
of ERTMS on Existing Lines”. Mr Poré, illustrating his presentation with the aid of a most comprehensive set of computer slides,
reviewed the present installed base of ATP systems, he then set out the advantages and disadvantages of adopting various
ERTMS/ETCS solutions and concluded with his vision of the future.
Following the presentation Messrs F Heijnen, Invensys; P Bassett, AEA; P Vandermark, Driver First GW; R Maton, Operator SVR: I
Harman, Union Railways; C Harrison, LRMHA; C Kessell, Centuria Comrail; the President; C Eaglen, affiliation not stated; and R
Barnard, Alstom, took part in the discussion.
Mr Poré dealt with the questions comprehensively and the President then proposed a vote of thanks and presented the speaker with
the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.
The President closed the meeting by announcing that the next meeting in London would be held on the 12th March 2003 when
Messrs Moens and Stokes will present a paper on “Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Signalling and Communications”.
Figure 1 – Existing Signalling Technologies
in Major European Countries
Jacques Poré 1
In fact, spoken language is also a major obstacle
to crossing European borders. No less than 11
national languages are spoken in the European
Community (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 – Language Barriers in Europe
Railway signalling suppliers traditionally worked in
close relationship with their customers and
developed very specific rules and products for them.
This is how our railways operate today.
The same philosophy applied to Automatic Train
Protection (ATP) systems. There are no less than 15
different ATP systems (including train stops) in
operation in Europe at the present time (see Figure
3). France, for instance, has three systems – the
“crocodile” train stop, KVB on the conventional
network and TVM on the high-speed lines. As a
result cross-border trains such as Eurostar and the
“Four Capitals” Thalys units are fitted with six and
eight different sets of on-board ATP equipment
respectively, which means a lot of equipment,
especially in the driver’s cab.
The concept of ERTMS/ETCS is that in future it will

64
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES
Figure 3 – At Least 15 Different ATP Systems
in use in Europe in 2000
replace all these systems. During the 1990s the
European Union started to introduce rules which
include, among quite a batch of rules and specifications:
• Directive 96/48 on interoperability on the highspeed
lines network;
• Directive 2001/16 on application to conventional
lines.
Their aim is to break the monopolies described
above and to bring the benefits of multi-sourcing to
the railways.
An official organisation, UNISIG, has been set up
to produce the specifications for ERTMS/ETCS. At
the present time it consists of the six main European
railway signalling suppliers, which are, in alphabetical
order, Alcatel, ALSTOM, Ansaldo-CSEE,
Bombardier, Invensys-Westinghouse and Siemens.
In parallel with the development of signalling
specifications, CENELEC, the body responsible for
European standards for railways including signalling,
has, since 1990, been developing standards, and
the principal ones are now in force. In order to check
the validity of the specifications and to confirm the
interoperability of products from different suppliers,
a number of test tracks have been set up. Class 1
specifications for ERTMS/ETCS were signed in April
2000 and adopted in December 2001, opening the
path to true commercial projects of which a number
are now in operation or at various stages of design
and implementation.
WHERE ARE WE COMING FROM? THE
INSTALLED ATP BASE
In order to analyse the introduction of
ERTMS/ETCS and give an efficient presentation of
the migration paths from existing signalling to
ERTMS/ETCS on existing lines (and also on highspeed
lines), it is first necessary to look at the
existing situation, especially as far as ATP is
concerned.
Focusing on the railways of western and central
Europe, we see systems of several quite different
sizes, with very dissimilar passenger and freight
traffic and very different shares between them (see
Table 1). Not surprisingly the highest traffic levels are
to be found in France and Germany, with combined
totals of 1.2 x 10 11 passenger-km and 1.44 x 10 11
tonne-km per annum, while countries such as
Denmark, Norway and Portugal have levels over 15
times smaller. The problems faced by the different
railways vary accordingly, on account not only of
present and planned traffic levels, revenues and
expectations but also of the political will concerning
rail transport in their countries.
The level of ATP protection provided today also
varies widely between the countries of Europe. A
very high level of protection is found in Denmark,
France and the Netherlands, but in the UK for
instance there is almost none at all (in terms of
passenger-km and tonne-km of traffic protected by
trackside and trainborne ATP at the present time).
The impact of a change to ERTMS/ETCS will be
different for integrated railways, for infrastructure
owners and for pure railway operators. When large
investments have been made in recent years a
railway will naturally want to keep them, and such a
railway will view migration differently from one
having only a few trackside locations and a small
amount of ATP-fitted rolling stock. Factors to be
considered when assessing a move from existing
signalling to ERTMS/ETCS include: migration
requirements; compatibility with existing systems;
technical issues with the present signalling equipment;
funding issues; and political will. This is
especially important for conventional lines.
Nevertheless, ERTMS/ETCS is now a system that
has been successfully demonstrated on several test
tracks and pilot lines as well as on certain
commercial lines, and it is here to stay. If implementation
has made a slow start (it all began in 1990,
and essential research took off from 1997),
ERTMS/ETCS is now being implemented in quite a
few medium- and large-sized projects.
THE “FORS” OF ERTMS/ETCS
Given all the foregoing, if I were a railway operator,
why should I move to ERTMS/ETCS (apart, of
course, from legal reasons arising from EU rules)?
The “Fors” of ERTMS/ETCS fall under two headings:
• ERTMS/ETCS goals: we shall remind ourselves
of these, and of the choices that lie behind
them, noting how priorities can vary between
countries and between railways;
• Paths to return on investment (RoI) with
ERTMS/ETCS, where we shall have some
suggestions to make.
GOALS OF ERTMS/ETCS
We used to say that there are seven main goals for
ERTMS/ETCS. These goals and their presentation
have now been discussed and approved by UNISIG
and UNIFE, ie by the representatives of the supply
industry at the signalling level and more widely. They
are as follows:
Interoperability
Interoperability concerns both high-speed lines
and the conventional network. It is the principal
raison d’être of ERTMS/ETCS, the main feature that
will enable rail to compete more efficiently with air
and road transport.

MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES 65
Table 1: ATP in Europe Today
Infrastructure
Country
owner(s)
Central
Passenger Tonne- Total traffic = Total % network % central
% traffic ATP
Passenger Multiple units = ATP system
Operator(s) -km km passenger-km network with ATP
Wagons Locos
units with
protected by protection
carriages
units Locos +
today
x 10 9 x 10 9 + tonne-km km today
ATP today ATP level
2xMUs
Austria ÖBB ÖBB 8.0 14.7 23 5600 50 Medium
France RFF SNCF 30500 >60 5000 2200 9400 >85 KVB >90 High
(conventional)
67.0 53.4 120 15700 48000
France RFF SNCF 1500 100 – 400 800 100 TVM 100 High
(high speed lines)
Germany DB Netz DB AG 72.5 71.5 144 37500 90 EVM (*) >90 High
Italy FS FS 41.0 21.5 63 16100 40 11900 67700 3100 1500 6100 80 BACC/SCMT 90 High
Norway JBV NSB 2.7 2.5 5 4200 30 800 2500 180 140 460 30 Ebicab 30 Medium
Poland PKP PKP 21.0 55.0 76 22900 – 10000 96000 4140 1270 6680 – – –
Portugal REFER CP 4.3 2.2 7 2800 10 1400 4000 280 340 960 30 Convel 60 3800 18400 980 100 1180 ~100 ASFA (*) >90 High
Sweden BV SJ 7.4 14.4 22 10000 >60 1500 11200 600 320 1240 >90 Ebicab >90 High
Switzerland BLS BLS 0.5 0.4 1 240 – 250 160 110 40 190 – – – Low or nil
Switzerland SBB-CFF-FFS SBB-CFF-FFS 12.6 9.6 22 2900 15 3400 13000 1340 250 1840 >50 ZUB >40 Medium
United Kingdom Railtrack >20 38.0 17.9 56 17800

66 MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES
Interoperability does not only mean that a train
should be able to be operated across borders and to
read signalling in different countries in fact.
There is also “operator interoperability” – different
train operators may run trains on the same infrastructure
even within a single country (as happens in
the UK).
And there is “supplier interoperability” – different
rolling stock may be fitted with products from
different suppliers. For example, vehicles equipped
by supplier “A” and vehicles equipped by supplier
“B” must be able to run efficiently on infrastructure
implemented by supplier “C”.
ERTMS/ETCS will bring interoperability much
more efficiently than any other solution could.
Safety
ERTMS/ETCS brings an improvement in safety,
especially in countries such as the UK where ATP
does not really exist at present.
For applications on conventional lines, from
secondary lines to complex stations and dense
areas, it will improve safety by providing ATP and,
later, cab signalling.
Capacity
There are three levels of ERTMS/ETCS equipment.
Whereas Level 1, which simply superimposes ATP
on to existing lineside signalling, does not improve
line capacity, Levels 2 onward will improve both
capacity and the global throughput of the network.
Figures from +10% to +30% in comparison with
present capacity have been either quoted or
demonstrated.
ERTMS/ETCS will improve capacity especially in
busy areas by providing smoother operation. Drivers
have a permanent reminder of the state of the
signalling and indications ahead, and can choose
when to slow down, either at the last moment or
earlier if the line ahead has not cleared. ERTMS/
ETCS also provides a much better ergonomy of
driving, especially in bad weather conditions such as
rain, snow and fog.
Level 1 does not offer any increase in line
capacity from provision of infill information in denser
areas or the approaches to them. However, in this
situation infill data can be transmitted by other
means, such as radio.
Availability
Standardisation on ERTMS/ETCS means much
less equipment than with past installations such as
Eurostar and Thalys where different ATPs were
juxtaposed for international traffic.
Less equipment and hence fewer interfaces, fewer
power supplies and other devices prone to
unreliability, fewer cables and connections all mean
dramatically improved reliability and availability, for
the signalling itself and hence for rail transport
generally.
ERTMS/ETCS also provides a range of maintenance
aids, supporting preventive maintenance
and remote diagnostics.
Cost-effectiveness
ERTMS/ETCS is more cost-effective than existing
conventional signalling solutions because it is
product-based, the same products being used by
different operators. Fewer products in the catalogue
means greater quantities to be manufactured,
lowering the costs. Fewer items to be kept for
maintenance purposes will ease everyday operation
and maintenance procedures and so reduce costs
there as well.
Less On-board Equipment
ERTMS/ETCS will, in the short or medium term,
mean that there will only be one on-board computer.
Similarly there will be only a single Driver's Man-
Machine Interface (DMI or MMI), making possible a
much simpler and more ergonomic driver’s desk
design by comparison with the six ATP systems in
Eurostar cabs and the eight in Thalys.
Less on-board equipment does not only mean
lower costs, a simpler driver’s desk and less MMIs,
but also less volume required for installing trainborne
signalling equipment – a point sure to be
much appreciated by our rolling stock colleagues.
Open Market
This was a major requirement of the European
Community from the outset The main reason for
opening the market was to reduce national influence
and privileges. Another concept was to allow any
railway to purchase from suppliers anywhere in
Europe, not only from national suppliers, and also for
any supplier to be able to bid anywhere in Europe.
To complete the main goals of ERTMS/ETCS, it
must be said that ERTMS/ETCS is in general terms
a better solution to the needs of modern railways
than any other kind of ATP. It is better adapted to
mixed traffic (ie to both freight and passenger traffic,
or to both low-density lines and the busiest stations
and junctions). It is compatible with all existing
signalling products and systems. It is independent of
any presently installed or future trackside products;
it does not for instance require use of any specific
type of track circuit. And it requires installation of
much less trackside equipment than any other type
of ATP, which results in lower installation, operation
and maintenance costs.
So ERTMS/ETCS can doubtless be said to be a
key player, if not THE key player, in improving rail
transport.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) WITH
ERTMS/ETCS
Although the main reasons for regarding
ERTMS/ETCS as the future of European railway
signalling are interoperability for international traffic
and increased safety through provision of ATP and
cab signalling, as is often said, “Safety does not
pay”. Put another way, safety alone cannot justify
ERTMS/ETCS. So we must look elsewhere.
In seeking ways of obtaining a RoI for ERTMS/
ETCS, three potential areas have been identified:
• “standard” sources, by improving rail operation;
• areas new for signalling systems;

MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES 67
• more unusual, advanced, “aggressive” areas
that would bring a RoI with ERTMS/ETCS.
See also Figure 4.
Figure 4 – Paths to a Return on Investment (RoI)
“Standard” sources of RoI include the three
following basic areas:
• ERTMS/ETCS will increase the safety of rail
transport. By providing ATP and cab signalling,
ERTMS/ETCS removes the risk of "Signals
passed at danger" (SPAD). It also removes the
risk of a wrong action by the driver after a
warning signal or after a permanent or
temporary speed restriction.
• Management of level crossings will be greatly
improved with ERTMS/ETCS, and with the
incidental benefits of the presence of GSM-R
radio. Among several possibilities being actively
pursued real-time management of level crossings,
where the crossing area is monitored
continuously and the situation reported to the
local control centre and/or the drivers of
approaching trains, will permit the number of
accidents and fatalities at level crossings to be
diminished dramatically.
• ERTMS/ETCS will create new possibilities for
enhancing signalling equipment maintenance.
These include new ways of providing preventive
maintenance and monitoring trackside equipment.
This applies to all kinds of equipment,
from train detection and point equipment to
trackside and trainborne ATP. Trainborne equipment
is much more easily maintained because it
comes into the workshop, whereas outdoor
equipment can be far from any maintenance
location.
ERTMS/ETCS has a very significant impact on all
these three “standard” sources of RoI. There are
other sources of RoI that are new to signalling,
including the following:
• Increased productivity of rolling stock – motive
power, carriages and wagons. Since ERTMS/
ETCS will increase line capacity and train
speeds, the same rolling stock will arrive at its
destination sooner. Hence more trips will be
possible with the same amount of rolling stock,
a feature that will be greatly appreciated by
private operators and local and regional
authorities. So ERTMS/ETCS will provide more
value for the same money.
• Through real-time operation and increased
possibilities for cab signalling and central
management, ERTMS/ETCS will provide routes
to significant energy savings. This will perhaps
not be achieved so easily in electric traction
areas, but much more with diesel traction. It will
mean fuel savings that can be estimated at
10-15% of the present consumption – and this
is probably a conservative figure.
• As a complement to increased rolling stock
productivity, ERTMS/ETCS will naturally provide
maintenance savings of the rolling stock. These
will come from the possibility of centralising
maintenance data on the train, radio communication
between train and depot permitting
maintenance actions to be carried out earlier, or
on a preventive basis.
These three “new” areas of RoI do not arise from
ERTMS/ETCS alone. Other actions and means must
be provided to obtain the optimum benefits, but the
concept and new possibilities of ERTMS/ETCS are
still key elements in achieving better, more efficient
rail transport. It must not be forgotten that our competitors
– air and road – already make very efficient
use of processes similar to those described here.
More unusual paths to RoI include the following:
• ERTMS/ETCS will bring savings on track works
by allowing staff protection to be optimised and
implemented on a ”just in time” basis, leading to
enhanced productivity.
• ERTMS/ETCS will lead to increased freight
traffic, especially international traffic, by shortening
transit times at borders, an area where we
have to admit that road transport is far more
efficient today.
• ERTMS/ETCS will also lead to increased
passenger traffic, from high-speed trains and
densely-trafficked areas through to local lines,
and from light rail to low-density single track
lines.
To summarise, ERTMS/ETCS will bring savings
and returns on investment from many sources, and
provide a number of ways of demonstrating its
ability to improve rail transport.
THE “AGAINSTS” OF ERTMS/ETCS
So most people will be able to think of ways of
justifying ERTMS/ETCS. But it is perhaps less easy
to think about negative features. There are several
reasons for this. Before making any choice, let us
analyse them a bit further – still ignoring the legal
aspects of EU rules.
Points "against" ERTMS/ETCS include the
following:
• Why should I buy ERTMS/ETCS?
• Won't I have a problem with equipment
volume – isn’t ERTMS/ETCS "just one more
trainborne ATP system”?
• What are the cost issues?
The question, “Why should I buy ERTMS/ETCS?”
looks different from the points of view of an
infrastructure owner and a railway operator. For an
integrated railway both will, of course, apply.
An infrastructure owner would have different

68
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES
reasons for fitting ERTMS/ETCS on a high-speed
line as against a conventional line, or on a new line
as against an existing one undergoing refurbishment.
He will have to consider opening his network
to other operators and then possibly collecting
revenue from new sources. He will also have to look
at possible extra train paths, because ERTMS/ETCS
brings extra line capacity. ERTMS/ETCS will be a
very interesting “alternative to concrete” (being
much cheaper).
A railway operator has various requirements:
• he may want to run faster trains;
• he may want a simpler, more reliable and available
ATP than the juxtaposition that was the only
way before ERTMS/ETCS;
• he may want to reduce ATP costs, space
requirements, etc.
As operators tend to have different requirements
depending on their background and on the lines and
infrastructure they plan to operate, they will
consider Specific Transmission Modules (STMs).
The “pure” STM concept as defined by the
ERTMS/ETCS specifications will not necessarily be
the optimum solution for a given operator. Other
possibilities exist, and must be analysed and priced
to enable an adequate decision to be taken (see
Figure 5). They include, for example, use of a
gateway device between an existing national ATP
architecture and the on-board ERTMS/ETCS.
Another solution planned in a number of cases is the
“bi-mode” (or “bi-standard”) EVC concept. This
saves hardware and software, especially for the
main computer, as well as improving technical
issues such as management of reaction times and
design convenience.
money for it, the space to fit the equipment and
whatever else may be involved, with the risk of
having to do a major refurbishment not otherwise
required, especially in the driver’s cab.
• Operation costs, including signalling costs
transferred from ground to train. There are also
responsibility issues when infrastructure and
operator are separate, such as who is responsible
and who has to pay when trains are
delayed.
• Maintenance and training relating to ERTMS/
ETCS system and its new technologies, such
as radio, will also involve new costs not
encountered before.
There may be other points against ERTMS/ETCS
that should be discussed. These questions should
certainly be asked, and they must be weighed with
the points for the system in order to arrive at a
correct decision.
WHERE ARE WE GOING?
Following the phases of specification development
and extensive testing, work on ERTMS/ETCS
is now very active. Many commercial projects have
already been commissioned or are being designed
and implemented, and many more are in the
pipeline.
Figure 6 – Current Commercial Projects
with ERTMS/ETCS
Figure 5 – Volume of Trainborne Equipment –
Decision Square
As to whether ERTMS/ETCS is not simply "one more
trainborne ATP system", the problem is, of course,
concentrated on board the train, so that it affects
train operators and integrated railways.
Nevertheless infrastructure owners have a similar
concern because they also face problems of
installation of dual equipment and compatibility
issues.
There are a number of cost issues, as follows:
• Installation costs: for ERTMS/ETCS, being a
new system, there is the issue of finding the
There are, however, a number of different trends,
arising from railways' different priorities and reasons
for choosing ERTMS/ETCS.
Countries in the centre of Europe, and smaller
countries generally, tend to emphasise interoperability
because they have a lot of international traffic,
with many trains in transit or at least starting or
finishing their journeys outside the borders.
In other countries where there is currently no ATP,
or where the local system is becoming obsolete, the
main requirement to go to ERTMS/ETCS arises from
safety.
In places where rail faces strong air or road
competition, or where time-keeping is considered to
be of paramount importance, the main requirements
are for availability and reliability. This is especially the
case in Switzerland, as most people might imagine,
but it is also true in Spain, where the rule on the
high-speed line network is that the passenger will

MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES 69
have 100% of his ticket reimbursed on the spot if his
train arrives more than five minutes late.
There are other railways where the reason for
going to ERTMS/ETCS would be to simplify the onboard
layout, to get a simpler architecture, to use
less space or to reduce costs by having less
equipment than the previous solution of juxtaposing
several national kinds of equipment in order to be
able to cross borders. Freight operators, and all
operators of cross-border trains, will be in this
situation in the near future and for some it has
already started.
There are already commercial projects in more
than ten countries. Further projects are expected
shortly in most of these countries, and in half a
dozen others besides.
In central and eastern Europe and Luxembourg,
the choice is mostly for ERTMS/ETCS Level 1 at
present (see Figure 7). In most cases, projects affect
existing lines that are being refurbished. Countries
involved include Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Greece, Luxembourg, Slovakia and
Slovenia. The main reason for going to ERTMS/
ETCS is to increase safety. The presence of a large
amount of European finance in many of the projects
Figure 7 – Countries With Level 1
also means that ERTMS/ETCS is the only real
choice.
In France and Germany, the principal countries in
Europe in terms of rail traffic and network size, the
railways do not yet have clear plans for migration to
ERTMS/ETCS. Both countries now have separate
infrastructure owners and railway operators, with
differing requirements. Both countries also have
large installed bases, and the existence of this
investment has to be taken into account in the
migration strategy.
In Italy the infrastructure owner (RFI) and train
operator (Trenitalia) have committed themselves to
ERTMS/ETCS Level 2 for all new high-speed lines,
starting with the second high-speed line in Italy,
Rome to Naples, which will be commissioned at the
end of 2004 (see Figure 8). The next three lines –
Bologna to Florence, Milan to Bologna and Turin to
Milan – are already well advanced at various stages,
and there are several others in the pipeline. For
existing conventional lines, RFI and Trenitalia are
actively deploying the local intermittent system
(SCMT) at the present time; this gives compatibility
Figure 8 – ERTMS/ETCS in Italy
with ERTMS/ETCS.
In Finland and Sweden there are large installed
bases of national ATP systems, both trackside and
trainborne. The main needs at present are to tackle
obsolescence and to obtain the additional functions
and flexibility that a new system would offer – hence
ERTMS/ETCS. For the migration path though the
most urgent need is for Specific Transmission
Modules (STMs), to retain the ability to run on lines
equipped only with the existing system. The vast
investments that have been made recently will then
be kept for a time, the railways equipping the rolling
stock first and then modernising the trackside step
by step as requirements arise.
In Spain, as in Italy but probably on an even larger
scale, there are plans for a high-speed network with
ERTMS/ETCS Level 2 as the core of the signalling
and communications system. The western part of
the Madrid to Barcelona high-speed line, from
Madrid to Lleida, will be in operation in 2003 (see
Figure 9). It will have Level 2 as the main system,
with Level 1 and some conventional lineside signals
and the associated national ATP system as backups.
A branch from this high-speed line, from
Zaragoza northwards to Huesca (and later to
Canfranc on the border with France), will be
equipped with Level 1 and will also be commissioned
in 2003.
Figure 9 – ERTMS/ETCS in Spain

70
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES
Figure 10 – Future ERTMS/ETCS Projects in Spain
Spain has many further projects, with a total of
7,000 km of high-speed lines to be in service by
2020 (see Figure 10). There are other projects too for
modernisation of existing conventional lines, with
ERTMS/ETCS Level 1 or Level 2 to be fitted depending
on traffic density.
In Switzerland the clockwork is running and SBB-
CFF, the national, integrated railway, has precise
plans for commissioning lines and on-board
equipment year on year until the whole country is
covered in 2017. The plan is to equip lines having
denser traffic with Level 2 (about 40% of route-km.)
and all other lines with Level 1 with “limited
supervision”, ie a version adapted from the
European specifications in which only dangerous
locations (in stations and junctions) would be fitted
rather than the whole line. SBB-CFF have demonstrated
that this approach would save nearly
two-thirds of the cost for these lines. Most rolling
stock will, of course, be equipped with Level 2 so
that it can operate anywhere on the network.
In the UK the West Coast Main Line project is
continuing, and there are now new plans under the
management of the ERTMS Programme Team (EPT)
to introduce ERTMS/ETCS at national level in the
future. The main ideas are the recommendations of
the EPT:
• Level 2 will be adopted throughout the UK for
main lines, allowing lineside signals to be
removed in the longer term, in order to increase
line capacity and to reduce operation and
maintenance costs;
• fitting of trains will be prioritised.
Other UK aspects of ERTMS/ETCS are:
• Early Deployment Sites (EDS) will be implemented
to prove the system by 2008;
• fitting of high-speed lines should be completed
by 2015;
• the remainder of the infrastructure should be
fitted when existing lineside signalling is
renewed (and so will probably go on beyond
2015);
• regional lines will also be tackled, but probably
independently of ERTMS/ETCS.
More could be said in Europe about migration
from existing signalling to ERTMS/ETCS, especially
on existing lines, for no two countries are really alike
in this respect.
Outside Europe, several countries are already
seriously considering ERTMS/ETCS, also for
different reasons.
In Australia, there are potential needs for long
distance traffic and also on suburban lines.
In China, vast requirements exist and ERTMS/
ETCS could bring solutions to many of them,
ranging from high-speed lines to places where an
increase of line capacity is needed, requirements for
more efficient operation, and management of singletrack
lines.
In India, various needs exist, ranging from
requirements for safety improvements and higher
availability of the railway to introduction of additional
functions that current local signalling solutions
seem unable to provide. A requirement has been
expressed for instance for level crossing management
and supervision to be included in any future
signalling system for Indian railways.
And it is certain that many other railways in the
world will adopt ERTMS/ETCS.
CONCLUSION – A VISION OF THE
FUTURE WITH ERTMS/ETCS
From this overview of the present situation about
ERTMS/ETCS in Europe and in the world, we can
conclude that:
• Fact No.1: ERTMS/ETCS is now present or soon
to come into service in many places. Once it
arrives railways, starting with the drivers, will
have no desire to go back to the former system.
• Fact No.2: Railways will have diverse goals in
introducing ERTMS/ETCS. Each railway has its
own priorities, for reasons that tend to be tied
up with history and local politics.
• Fact No. 3: ERTMS/ETCS will be important in
helping rail to compete with air and road
transport, in ways that in some cases may not
be so evident, and may even be rather innovative
– an opportunity which should not be
missed.
So the final vision is that by about 2020, all highspeed
lines and most other conventional lines in
Europe will be operated using ERTMS/ETCS, as
will a number of lines outside Europe.

MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES 71
Discussion
The discussion was opened by F Heijnen
(Invensys) who asked the speaker how the balance
of interoperability between operating rules and
implementation of ERTMS was to be achieved.
J Poré agreed that the issues of operating rules,
(how the signallers and train drivers operate different
suppliers equipment), and the principles of operation
do need to be balanced. A great deal of work has
already been undertaken on standardisation of the
principles and making the equipment interoperable
but not so the operating rules.
P Bassett (AEA Technology) commented that
interoperability between drivers and procedures
should not be a problem; the technology needs to be
streamlined and the Signal Engineer and the
Operator must work closely together.
J Poré noted that most of the problems arise from
human factors such as misinterpretation. He also
stated that his description of interoperability was the
travelling of long distances through different
countries and at present this tends to be where
language and signalling principles are not dissimilar.
P Vandermark (Driver First Great Western)
related a recent incident in Belgium where two
Signallers had been unable to communicate
because of language differences that resulted in an
accident.
R Maton (Operator Severn Valley Railway)
remarked that in Air Traffic Controls throughout the
world, English is the accepted language for all
communications.
J Poré agreed that all of these issues are connected
with Operating Rules and not the technology.
I Harman (Union Railways) wondered why there
should be any requirement to change the rules to
allow for ETCS introduction; why not fit the signalling
into the environment it is to be used in?
J Poré stated that the Swiss have adopted a
pragmatic philosophy that the rules shouldn’t have
to change with the introduction of new technology
but if they have to, why not? Adaptation to new
technology is a factor that has to be considered and
migration is a balance between old and new and the
costs involved. He also commented that introduction
of ERTMS brings considerable benefits
enabling train drivers to “see” ahead and reminding
them and Signallers of previous instructions given.
C Harrison (Lloyds MHA) wanted to know how
capacity could be improved if ETCS Level 2 added
20 seconds to processing and transmission times.
J Poré replied that he was unaware of any processing
and transmission time delays but reiterated
that it had been proven that ETCS improved line
capacity on the new Berne to Olten line by 30% over
any other type of (ATP) signalling.
C Kessell (Centuria Comrail) wondered if the both
the commercial aspects and potential commissioning
problems would deter railway companies from
investing in ERTMS and, if this were to happen, how
would this affect the equipment supply industries?
He was also interested to know the speakers views
on what ERTMS will look like in 2020.
J Poré responded by arguing that as existing
signalling installations become due for renewal, as
well as the requirements of EC legislation, the
supply industry will only be interested in providing
ERTMS equipment. This situation will, however, vary
from country to country but 2020 may be optimistic.
P Stanley (President) commented that the benefits
required by railway operators to both improve
commercial services and compete against road and
air competition could only be provided by ETCS.
C Eaglen (Railtrack) asked about the co-operation
between rolling stock and signalling engineers to
ensure optimum use is made of modern technological
developments both in terms of physical
positioning of train-borne equipment and issues
such as electro-magnetic interference. He also
wondered if this would speed up migration.
J Poré informed that certainly within Alstom, the
rolling stock and signalling engineers do communicate
with one another. Additionally, in Europe a
seminar is regularly held between suppliers and
railway companies. Other problems are also being
tackled and it is hoped migration of ERTMS into the
driver’s cab will provide just a single MMI, incorporating
existing systems where necessary.
R E B Barnard (Alstom) noted that Operators view
ERTMS as ATP and in Eastern Europe ERTMS Level
1 is being fitted, possibly because EC money is
available! He considered that whilst fitting Level 1
not only improves safety and can be overlaid on
existing signalling, it is also interoperable. The real
return on investment, however, is the fitting of Level
2 and in-cab signalling. The important issue is timing
the resignalling and fitting the rolling stock whilst
allaying Operators’ concerns about the introduction
of radical changes. Widespread fitment giving
experience of use will assist in making the decision
to move to in-cab signalling when renewing infrastructure
but this will take time.
J Poré agreed that financial support has been a
key to introducing Level 1 in Eastern Europe; however,
he reiterated that suppliers would only be
providing ERTMS equipment in the future. He also
pointed out that Level 2 ERTMS does not just give a
return on investment but provides distinct advantages
over other systems, ie LZM requires cabling,
TVM requires track circuits and therefore ERTMS
was the only solution for the future.
The President thanked M Poré for a fascinating
evening and his contribution to the subsequent
discussion.

72
Technical Meeting of the Institution
held at
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2
Tuesday 12th March 2003
The President, Mr P W Stanley, in the chair.
116 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr F Heijnen, seconded by Mr P Bassett, and carried that the
Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 12th February 2003 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct record.
The President welcomed Mr D Singh, WRSL, who was present at a meeting for the first time since his election to membership of the
Institution amidst applause.
The President introduced Mr G Moens, of Rail Link Engineering, and Mr R Stokes, of Union Railways, and invited them to present their
paper entitled “CTRL Signalling and Communications”. In making the presentation, which Messrs Stokes and Moens did jointly, they
briefly explained the history of the development of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and then described the new signalling and communication
facilities to be provided, as a foretaste of what members should see as part of the 2003 Convention programme later this year.
Following the presentation Messrs P Bassett, AEAT; C Harrison, LRMHA; D McKeown, Independent Consultant; I Harman, Union
Railways; P Duggan, WSRL; J Poré, Alstom; and J Lester, Eurostar, took part in the discussion.
The presenters dealt with the questions comprehensively and Mr C H Porter then proposed a vote of thanks. The President
presented the speakers with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.
He then reminded members of the need to register to attend the Convention in Birmingham in May and in particular to register
quickly if they wished to attend the technical visit to AEA Technology Derby on 28th/29th March.
The President closed the meeting by announcing that the next meeting in London would be the Annual General Meeting to be held on
the 25th April 2003 when the incoming President will deliver his Presidential Address and this will be followed by the Members’ Dinner
at the Savoy Hotel.
CTRL Signalling and Communications
Gilbert Moens (Fellow) 1 and Richard Stokes (Fellow) 2
INTRODUCTION
This paper takes forward the story of the CTRL
signalling from the description presented to the
Institution in December 1999, and describes the key
features of the installation and the technical features
of the signalling.
Section One of the route, between the boundary
with the Eurotunnel Railway and the existing
Chatham main line at Fawkham Junction, is
scheduled to open in the autumn of this year and the
second section, to London St Pancras, in 2007.
The route forms part of the European TEN network
and it is worth reflecting that when it and the other
high-speed line projects either recently completed or
in progress are finished a new high-speed railway
will have been built from London to Marseilles,
Frankfurt and Amsterdam as well as to Paris and
Brussels.
THE ROUTE ITSELF
The CTRL is a double track line designed, unlike
the French LGV network, to handle not only highspeed
passenger trains but also high-speed
commuter operations (the Reserved Domestic
Operator), and also to be capable of carrying freight
trains (see Figure 1). Line speeds are 230 km/h from
St Pancras to the junction with the Waterloo
connection at Southfleet, and thence 300 km/h to
the connection with Eurotunnel. Connections are to
be provided at Ebbsfleet to the existing North Kent
lines, and to and from the “classic” line at Ashford to
serve Ashford International station.
The route is electrified on the 25-0-25kV system
with auto-transformers provided at approximately
1 Rail Link Engineering
2 Union Railways
5 km intervals to limit the effects of electrical interference
from the traction system on adjacent
railways and statutory undertakings such as British
Telecom and the Highways Agency.
The control centre for the route, covering both
signalling and the traction power supply, is located
in the existing Ashford signalling centre that controls
the classic line network in Kent and also the North
Kent area replacing the former power signal box at
Dartford.
SIGNALLING PRINCIPLES
This section is a brief summary of the arrangements
installed. A more detailed description was
given to the Institution in the December 1999 paper.
The system used on the CTRL is a fixed block
continuous transmission system (TVM 430) which
meets the functionality of the ETCS level two specification.
The system is already in use and proven on
the high-speed lines in France and Belgium, and
also on the Eurotunnel railway.
Operationally, the same basic rules are applied as
on the high-speed lines on the Continent. Some
minor changes have been put in place to meet the
needs of a mixed traffic line. However, the key
approach is that train crews should not have to
reflect on which part of the TEN network they are
operating, particularly in an emergency situation.
The use of stop-and-proceed rules at block
section markers which are not either route origin
markers or those protecting tunnels, viaducts neutral
sections etc, is also applied, and such movements
are made under continuous ATP supervision.
Shunt markers have also been provided at
specific locations where there is a need for
turn-back movements of engineering trains.

CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 73
Figure 1
In addition to the TVM speed code transmitted to
the train, “train stop” data loops are provided at
route origin absolute stop markers and shunt
markers.
Intermittent transmission loops are also provided
for specific functions such as arming and disarming
cab signalling, opening circuit breaker (automatic
process) for neutral sections, etc.
One section of the rulebook has been written to
cover the possible need for operation of “non fitted”
traction and on-track machines on the CTRL but
under rigorous conditions. “Non fitted” in this case
means, "Not fitted with TVM," and does not have the
same meaning as prevailed for many years on the
UK Railway. Such movements are required to obey
the auxiliary signals provided at absolute stop
markers. For these to be opened, a specific action is
required by the signaller. The French terms “open"
and "closed” are used on the CTRL to reflect the use
of block section markers, rather than the traditional
terms “On" and "Off”.
There is a very small number of lineside signals on
the CTRL, at interface areas with other signalling
control centre areas, and these are of the standard
UK multiple aspect type. Where appropriate, TPWS
track equipment has been fitted working in conjunction
with these signals.
COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
As well as the usual voice and data system, the
CTRL is equipped both with the UK cab secure radio
system and with GSM-R. The cab secure system is
being provided as a short-term interim measure, as
the trains using the route are not yet equipped with
GSM-R radios. The changeover will be managed as
part of the overall migration policy when the existing
systems are withdrawn from use over the next few
years. The management of the change from the
existing CSR systems used on Railtrack and ET and
the UIC 751 system used in France and Belgium is
in itself a complex project, and has implications for
many types of rolling stock other than the class 373
Eurostar trains. Section Two of the CTRL will be
equipped with GSM-R from the outset. The use of
stop-and-proceed instructions has required alterations
to the operation of the CSR system, as the
train describer operates with the use of ripple berths
in the intervals between interlockings instead of the
usual UK practice of an individual train describer
berth for each signal.
INTERLOCKING SYSTEMS
The CTRL itself uses the ITCS system which is
described later in this paper. It is required to interface
with other interlocking systems:
• SSI controlled from Victoria signalling centre on
the Waterloo connection;
• SSI controlled from Ashford in the Dollands
Moor area;
• PRCI controlled from the Eurotunnel RCC in the
Dollands Moor area.
In the Dollands Moor area the interfaces are
extremely complex. The interface is in effect a
three-way one, with all lines in the area being bidirectional
and, in the case of the Continental main
line connecting to the existing London to Dover
route, a transition from lineside to cab signalling.
Section Two will require interfaces also to the
North Kent area SSI at Ebbsfleet, to Upminster SSI
and to the King’s Cross and Camden Road installations
in the St Pancras area.
There are also electric control room interfaces for
traction power supply control with Eurotunnel
and Paddock Wood and, when Section Two is
completed, with York and Rugby electric control
rooms. These are managed from the Engineering
Maintenance Management System (“EMMIS”)
workstation located in the Ashford signalling centre.
ADDITIONAL FEATURES FOR SECTION
TWO
Much of the route of Section Two is in tunnels, and
additional supervisory equipment will be provided to
manage possible incidents in tunnels, including
control of lighting, ventilation etc. The lessons learnt
from the fire in the Channel Tunnel have been
included in the design for these tunnels, and detailed
design is now in progress. The operation of a
high-intensity suburban service in addition to the
high-speed international services has implications
for the design of the systems to be used, and the
requirements for these services are being reviewed
and developed with the Strategic Rail Authority.
It is not practicable to provide TVM signalling to
the buffer stops at St Pancras, and therefore the first
section of the route, from the station to the portal of
the first London tunnel, will be equipped with
lineside signalling in general to UK standards. ETCS
Level 1 functionality will be provided for the ATP
system associated with these signals. This will be

74 CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS
the KVB system currently applied to lineside signals
in France.
SAFETY ASSURANCE IN DESIGN AND
APPROVALS
All railway systems have been specified and
developed in accordance with the relevant requirements
of the recent European norms on reliability,
availability, maintainability and safety, ie EN50126
(general requirements) EN50128 (software assurance)
and EN50129 (signalling). Contractors have
therefore demonstrated safety in design installation
and commissioning by means of a structured
safety case. In the case of signalling this safety
case has evolved through the stages defined in
EN50129.
GENERIC PRODUCT SAFETY CASE
The safety justification of the products to be
adopted (using the principle of “Cross Acceptance”
where applicable).
GENERIC APPLICATION SAFETY CASE
The safety justification of the design of the
product as modified to comply with CTRL requirements.
APPLICATION-SPECIFIC SAFETY CASE
The safety case for the system as installed.
APPLICATION SPECIFIC SAFETY CASE: POST-
COMMISSIONING ADDENDUM
The safety case updated to take account of test
results and any subsequent modifications.
These safety cases are reviewed and accepted by
an independent panel (the CTRL System Review
Panel). This panel comprises a range of railway
experts who ensure that each safety case is
subjected to a rigorous and thorough review. The
design, installation and testing of the systems is also
subject to review by the Contracting Entity’s Notified
Body as part of the Conformity Verification process
mandated by the EU Directive on Interoperability
and the TSIs.
Prior to the Railways (Interoperability)(High-Speed)
Regulations 2002 coming into force, the emerging
designs were presented to HMRI as part of the
process of consultation under the Railways and
other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant &
Equipment) Regulations 1994.
THE SIGNALLING SYSTEM ON CTRL
On CTRL the signalling system is based on the
Interlocking and Train Control System (ITCS), a
computer-based system able to perform all the
signalling functions on a new high-speed line.
BACKGROUND HISTORY
In 1993, SNCF commissioned the TVM430 system
(Track-to-Train Transmission) on the North Europe
High Speed Line. This system, developed with CSEE
Transport, has since been installed on the Paris
Bypass and Lyon Bypass high-speed lines, as well
as in the Channel Tunnel and in Belgium. It is
currently being installed In Korea.
The TVM430 system provides cab-signalling
functions on all these lines. Depending on the trackside
signalling status, the system determines the
running instructions to be given to the train (speed
indication and data for the on-board ATP system).
The experience gained has shown that the use of
such computerised systems:
• allows easier implementation;
• makes the testing phase easier, both before
commissioning and for managing modifications;
• allows connection of computerised maintenance
aid equipment.
SNCF with CSEE Transport have therefore
integrated the interlocking and cab-signalling
functions (TVM430) within the same system, to
develop a computerised system able to manage all
the signalling functions of a High Speed Line. This
system, called SEI (Système d’Enclenchement
Intégré), has been implemented on the new
Mediterranean High Speed Line.
For CTRL, the same system has been chosen but
with the name ITCS.
FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION
The ITCS is responsible for the following
functions:
• receiving controls from the Rail Control Centre
(RCC);
• sending monitoring data to the RCC;
• train detection;
• calculation of interlocking functions (route
setting, point controls, route proving…);
• acquisition of data having an impact on the
signalling, such as electrical sub-sections for
automatic overhead line equipment (OHLE)
protection and hot axle box detection;
• calculation of the TVM 430 type message to be
transmitted to the train;
• data transmission to and from an adjacent ITCS.
In addition to the system itself, the following tools,
necessary throughout its life cycle, have been
developed:
• a production line to configure an ITCS for a
particular area depending on operational
requirements and signalling principles, and to
modify it later;
• a test tool to validate the data capture for the
first implementation as well as for each modification;
• maintenance aid equipment.
Track circuits and the track-to-train transmission
limit the spacing of ITCS to a maximum distance of
15km, as for the TVM 430 system. This is due to the
fact that track circuit transmitters and receivers are
concentrated within the ITCS to allow them to be
oriented in accordance with the direction of running.
The maximum length over which a track circuit can
be fed is 7.5 km, so if the distance between two
adjacent interlocking areas is greater than 15 km, an
intermediate signalling room is required.

CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 75
TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
ITCS Architecture
The ITCS is designed in such a way that the
system can be used on different sites as well as on
lines for which the signalling principles are different.
Three layers have therefore been implemented:
• A generic layer including all necessary hardware
and software and in particular the generic software
ensuring the required safety. This layer is
the same whatever the signalling principles
applied or the sites.
• An application-specific layer corresponding to
the signalling principles applicable to a network
or a line.
• A data layer specific to each site (geographical
data). This layer can be modified with no need to
change the other layers.
Generic Layer
The generic equipment is modular in order to be
adaptable to each site whatever the amount of
equipment to be controlled. The generic layer
includes:
• a processor unit ensuring all the functional
process;
• interfaces with the adjacent interlockings;
• interfaces with the track.
Processing Unit
The safety critical processes are performed by
three computers with a two-out-of-three architecture.
These computers are checked by coded
mono-processors of which there are two to ensure
system availability. This unit handles the links with
the Route Control Centre and the local control unit (if
any), the adjacent ITCS, the input/output interfaces
and local maintenance equipment.
Input/Output Interfaces
This equipment is managed by the processing
unit. The number depends on the site configuration.
Based on a coded mono-processor, they include
input and output racks for the interfaces with the
other equipment within the signalling room or the
trackside equipment, and manage the links with the
track interfaces cubicles.
The safety of inputs is ensured by “SACEM” type
coding using a coded mono-processor. The safety of
the output is ensured by recreate-reading and comparison
with the control by the coded mono-processor.
Track Interfaces
These interfaces concern the necessary equipment
for the functioning of:
• track circuits;
• intermittent transmission loops.
Track Circuit Equipment
This equipment includes the transmitter, the
receiver, cable compensation and orientation
devices. The transmitter receives the TVM information
to be sent to the train through the input/output
interface cubicle, and forms the message to be put
into the track. This transmitter consists of two
distinct elements, a digital one to form the signal and
an analogue one to amplify it. Cable compensation
reduces the level of the signal for a track circuit close
to the signalling room, so that the tuning depends
only on the track circuit itself and not on the distance
between the track circuit and the signalling room.
There is compensation both for the transmitter and
for the receiver. The orientation device allows the
exchange of the transmitter and receiver depending
on the direction of travel, to ensure that the transmitter
always feeds in front of the train.
The receiver provides the function of track circuit
reception, giving the inputs/outputs interface coded
mono-processor the signal characteristics allowing
it to determine if the track circuit is free or occupied.
In addition it ensures the rereading of the TVM code,
transmitting it to the input/output interface coded
mono-processor which compares it with the control
and inhibits the transmitter in case of discrepancy.
Intermittent Transmission Loop Transmitters
The transmitter receives the message number to
be transmitted via the inputs/outputs interface
cubicle. This is calculated by the processing unit and
forms the signal to be put into the loop. These transmitters
also check the status of the loops, and give
this status to the processing unit.
Application Specific Layer
The Application Specific Layer is formed of ele-

76
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS
Adjacent ITCS
Points control
and monitoring
Other signalling
trackside equipment
ITCS
Inputs/Outputs Rack
Route Control
Centre
Processing
unit
Track Interface Rack
Central
Maintenance
Equipment
Local
Maintenance
Equipment
Track Circuit
Intermittent
Transmission
Loop
Track
mentary functions shown within signalling principles
diagrams in GRAPHCET format. These functions are
mainly used for management of routes and to
control and lock points. Translated into computer
language, they form a library of basic functions from
which the data for a site is built. As it is designed,
this architecture allows the modification of one or
several functions without the need to alter the
generic layer already validated. This property is used
when signalling principles specific to a network have
to be implemented.
Data Layer
This layer is completely independent from the two
others. It allows the equipment to be configured for
a specific site (consistency, track layout, functional
specification…). This site-specific information is
given in the scheme plan, control tables and data
preparation documents.
ASSOCIATED TOOLS
The level of safety needed by this computerised
signalling system requires data preparation and
testing tools to manage the design process and to
achieve the necessary quality level.
DATA PREPARATION TOOL
The data preparation tool is divided into two main
functions:
• data preparation tool for signalling principles;
• data preparation tool for site information.
DATA PREPARATION TOOL FOR SIGNALLING
PRINCIPLES
The objective of this tool is to enter the signalling
principles diagrams in order to create a set of
system parameters, usable for a whole line, within
the Application Specific Layer. This tool uses the
Signalling Principles Diagrams (GRAPHCET format),
independently checked, as input data to create the
Signalling Principles database. In addition, a printed
file allows the checking of the principles entered in
the system: System Parameters Verification Files
(SVF). When the checking is done, the final version
can be issued as well: System Parameters Files (SF).
As configuration management is incorporated in
the tool, differences between two versions can be
highlighted: DeltaSVF or DeltaSF. When issued for
checking or for application, the current version of
principles is “locked”. If a modification is required, a
new configuration with a new version identifier must
be created.
Not OK
Signalling Principles
Diagrams
Signalling Principles
Data Capture
Issue of SVF and
DeltaSVF
(Configuring and
locking)
Checking
OK
Issue of SVF and
DeltaSVF
(Configuring and
locking)
DATA PREPARATION TOOL FOR SITE
INFORMATION
The objective of this tool is to enter specific site
data in order to create a set of site parameters,
usable for one ITCS cubicle, within the Data Layer.
This tool uses technical documents such as scheme
plans, control tables, independently checked, as
input data to create the site parameters database. A
locked version of the Principles must be used.
In addition, a printed file allows checking of the
parameters entered in the system: Parameters
Verification Files (PVF). When the checking is done,
the final version can be issued as well: Parameters
Configuration Files (COF). As configuration management
is incorporated in the tool, differences between

CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 77
Route
Control
Centre
two versions can be highlighted: DeltaPVF or
DeltaCOF.
When issued for checking or for application, the
current version of site parameters is “locked”. If a
modification is required, a new configuration with a
new version identifier must be created.
The production line permits generation of the software
package configured for each site as well as:
• the associated documentation (Configuration
file) comparable to ITCS wiring design;
• a CD-ROM with the software package required
for the site, for the ITCS itself and for the Local
Maintenance Equipment (LME).
This production line is able to give data files for the
Route Control Centre data preparation and for the
simulator used by the testing tool.
TEST TOOL
The test tool is the system on which all the data for
one ITCS are tested exhaustively. After this phase,
only the connections with the external signalling
Adjacent ITCS
Processing
unit
Local
maintenance
equipment
Technical Documents
Paper Version
Site Parameters
Data Capture
Issue of PVF and
DeltaPVF
(Configuring and
locking)
Checking
Point control
and monitoring
Simulator
Other trackside
signalling equipment
Inputs/outputs rack
Track interface rack
Track
circuit
Issue of COF and
DeltaCOF
(Configuring and
locking)
ITCS
Intermittent
transmission
loop
Track
equipment remain to be tested on site.
The test tool is able to simulate the equipment
surrounding an ITCS (points, track circuits…) in
order to test the same software as that to be
installed on site. Depending on the testing phase, it
is also possible to simulate the Remote Control
Centre, Local Maintenance Equipment and adjacent
ITCSs.
Using the signalling principles diagrams as input,
the testers write typical test scenarios. In parallel, a
test booklet is issued in the usual manner. Each test
is then associated with a typical test scenario and
data captured as an implemented scenario. The
expected result is given to the system for each
implemented scenario. The scenario is then translated
into a language comprehensible to the test
tool, which activates the input of the processing unit
and records the outputs. These outputs are
compared with the expected result.
When a new set of data is issued, for whatever
reason (generic software upgraded, change of
Signalling
Principles
Diagrams
Scheme Plan
Control
Test
Booklet
Typical
Test
Implemented
Scenarios
signalling principles or site data modification), all the
tests are rerun in order to be sure that the process of
creating a new storage medium has not altered any
elements which have not been upgraded (ie
regression testing). New scenarios are created to
test the modified parts, and the scenarios for the
unmodified parts are reused.
MAINTENANCE AID EQUIPMENT
The Maintenance Aid Equipment includes the
Local Maintenance Equipment (LME) and the Central
Maintenance Equipment (CME).
Local Maintenance Equipment (LME)
Each ITCS Processing Unit is linked to a LME. This
tool records all input data as well as the internal data
defined in the signalling principles diagrams, allowing
maintenance staff to recreate ITCS functions in
case of failure. There is also a functional check for
each item of equipment. This check and the status
of the indicators installed on the fronts of the cards
allow a failed card to be identified.
From the LME it is possible to disable routes,
signals/markers and points, as from an SSI
Technician's Terminal.
Central Maintenance Equipment (CME)
All the LMEs are linked to a data concentrator
called the CME. In addition to a logging facility, this
CME allows browsing of each LME of the line.

78
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS
APPLICATION FOR CTRL SECTION 1
ARCHITECTURE
Since the distance between two interlocking areas
is about 10 km on CTRL, there is no need for an
intermediate signalling room. The figure above
shows the architecture of the signalling for CTRL
Section 1.
CAB SIGNALLING
Block Sectioning Study
On a line fitted with TVM430, the location of the
markers defining block section boundaries must be
designed:
• to implement a safe buffer section before any
protected point (eg track circuit, points end or
fouling point);
• to allow a driver to deal with all speed restriction
indication given by the cab signalling system,
using the normal service braking,
• headway assessment;
• document generation;
following the process below:
NO
NO
NO
Data acquisition
Block sectioning
Safety validation
YES
Ergonomics
validation
YES
Headway
assessment
YES
Document
generation
• to implement each possible intervention curve
within each block section;
• to provide the best possible headway.
For this design phase the CSEE computerised tool
named DESI (DÉcoupage et SImulation) has been
used.
The block sectioning design includes the following
phases:
• data acquisition;
• block sectioning;
• safety validation;
• ergonomics validation;
Data Acquisition
During this phase, all the necessary data are
captured in the tool, including:
• train characteristics (in particular traction and
braking effort graphs and rolling resistance);
• track layout (in particular gradients, locations of
points and fouling points, line speeds and the
speed to be guaranteed by the ATP system);
• signalling data (in particular the response time of
the trackside and on-board TVM system);
• cab signalling sequence data, with all the
stopping and speed restriction sequences to be
implemented.
Block Sectioning
The purpose of this phase is to calculate the
optimum length for each block section. As the CTRL
line is similar to the French high speed lines, the
block section length is, on average, equal to 1,500m.
on the level. The minimum length for each block
section is calculated taking into account:

CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 79
• the cab signalling sequence applying to this
block section;
• the normal service braking of the trains;
• gradients.
During this phase the system checks that the
length of the proposed block section is sufficient to
permit all the control curves to be implemented.
Safety Validation
The purpose of this phase is to check that the
block sectioning is compatible with signalling
constraints, taking into account degraded situations.
For every cab signalling sequence implemented and
type of train concerned, the system determines the
worst-case stopping point following triggering of the
emergency braking, and checks that this stopping
point is not beyond the protected point. The braking
rate used in this calculation is “guaranteed emergency
braking,” which takes into account:
• the maximum number of brakes isolated allowing
the train to run at its maximum speed;
• the overload of the train;
• poor adhesion between the wheels and the rails;
• dispersion rating.
All critical situations that can generate the worst
braking distances are analysed by the system:
• lack of transmission message at the entrance to
the block section;
• overspeed in the block section;
• fault at the end of the block section.
If the result is not satisfactory, the block sectioning
has to be modified.
Ergonomics Validation
The purpose of this phase is to check that all the
required speed restrictions can be achieved by the
driver for each block section and each type of train.
The block sectioning has been performed for the
type of train requiring the best performance. At this
stage, the requirement is to ensure that all trains can
be correctly driven. The braking rate used is the
normal service braking rate for each train, and the
driver response time (time to apply the brakes after
an warning cab signalling indication has been
displayed) is taken into account. If the result is not
satisfactory, the block sectioning has to be modified.
Headway Assessment
The purpose of this stage is to ensure that the
required headways have been provided. The calculation
gives the minimum theoretical headway (the
signalling headway) between two trains on plain line
or at a junction (either facing or trailing). On CTRL, in
order to improve the signalling headway the TVM
430 data allows the display of a flashing green
indication (on which the headway calculation is
based) within a block section and not only at a
marker. If the result is not satisfactory, the block
sectioning has to be modified.
Document Generation
At the end of this process, three documents are
issued:
• Block Sectioning File, containing all the input
data taken into account and the location of each
marker with the cab signalling sequences
applied (this document is used in designing the
scheme plan and control tables);
• Block Sectioning Safety Validation File, containing
the results of safety validation showing that
for each marker and each cab signalling
sequence (stopping sequence or speed restriction
sequence), the buffer section implemented
is at least equal to the worst overrun distance
(this document is used in designing the control
tables and also during data preparation);
• Headway Validation File, containing the results
of the headway assessment.
TVM 430 DATA DESIGN
In the TVM 430 system, continuous track-to-train
transmission provides all the information the
on-board system needs to determine the speed
band to be displayed and to calculate the intervention
curve for the ATP system. The following data
are transmitted:
• network code;
• block section length;
• average gradient within this block section;
• generic speed code in relation to the cab
signalling display and its associated ATP.
Network Code
This code defines the network on which the train
is running. It uses 3 bits of the message, so has 8
possible values. For the time being, Eurostars recognise
just two networks: LGV (the French and
Belgium high speed lines), and Eurotunnel. Class 92
locomotives only recognise the Eurotunnel network.
A new network will be created for CTRL Section 1
and a further new one for Section 2.
Block Section Length
This is the distance from the entrance to the end
of a block section. The on-board system needs it to
determine the final point of the speed intervention
curve. It uses 6 bits of the message, so has 64
possible values. This requires the use of a predetermined
distance table specific for each network.
Average Gradient
This is the gradient to be taken into account by the
on-board system for the intervention curve. It uses 4
bits of the message, so has 16 possible values. This
requires the use of a pre-determined gradient table
specific for each network.
Generic Speed Code
This information allows the on-board system to
determine the speed band to be displayed and the
speed parameters to be taken into account for the
calculated intervention curve. It uses 8 bits of the
message, giving 256 possible values. The code is
calculated by the ground-based cab signalling
equipment, using a predetermined table specific for
each network and depending on:
• the nominal speed at the entrance in the block
section;
• the speed to be obeyed within the block section;

80
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS
• the speed to be obeyed at least at the end of the
next block section.
The on-board system interprets this code using
another table, which is specific for each network and
each type of train. This gives the indication to be
displayed in the driver’s cab and the intervention
speeds at the entrance and the exit of the block
section for the intervention curve.
For the Eurotunnel application, there are the
following on-board tables:
• one speed code table for Eurostar;
• one speed code table for Eurotunnel Shuttles;
• several speed code tables for Class 92:
– MA100 (freight train 750m long);
– ME120 (freight train 750m long);
– ME140 (freight train 500m long);
– V140 (passenger train)
– (etc).
In fact, for each information, the on-board system
chooses the tables to be applied (distance, gradient
and generic speed codes) depending on the network
code and, in the case of freight trains, the train type
which the driver must enter using his keyboard.
For CTRL Section 1, five on-board tables will be
required:
• a distance table (which may be the same as for
the LGV);
• a gradient table (which may be the same as for
the LGV);
• a speed code table for Eurostars on CTRL
Section 1;
• a speed code table for Class 92s (only ME140,
freight train 500m long on CTRL Section 1);
• a speed code table for the Reserved Domestic
Operator (RDO) on CTRL Section 1.
As the block section lengths on CTRL should be
similar to the French LGV, it seems possible to use
the LGV distance table (to be confirmed during the
basic design). This table does not exist for Class 92
and will have to be created.
As gradients on CTRL should be similar to the
French LGV, it seems possible to use the LGV
gradient table (to be confirmed during the basic
design). This table does not exist for Class 92 and
will have to be created.
It is impossible to use the LGV code table for
Eurostar. There will be speed bands on CTRL that do
not exist on LGV (100 km/h for example). Moreover,
providing for freight trains requires additional codes.
For example, a speed of 170 for Eurostar could
translate to 100 or Green Flashing for Class 92
depending on the signalling sequence, so that there
will be two different codes for 170. The new speed
code tables will be implemented on Eurostars and
Class 92.
As new tables are required, the distance table and
gradients have been optimised for CTRL Section 1
specifically. See tables on next page.
CTRL SIGNALLING PRINCIPLES
As explained earlier in this paper, the interlocking
and cab signalling principles applied on CTRL are
specific, and different from the Mediterranean high
speed line. Hence a new set of principles has been
implemented within the application layer, without
modifying the generic layer and its SIL 4 software.
Same as the one implemented
on LGV Med and
Generic Layer
potential other SEI/ITCS
Application Specific Layer
Site Data Layer
ITCS Architecture
CTRL Signalling
Principles implementation
in any CTRL
Section 1 ITCS
Geographical data
OVERVIEW OF SECTION 2
The same ITCS system will be implemented on
Section 2. The signalling architecture should be the
following:
The ITCS at London Portal will deal only with cab
signalling functions, and will be linked to the St

CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 81
Track to train message
Network N Distance Gradient g Speed Code
ON-board system
➩
IIS = initial intervention speed
FIS = final intervention speed
Distance Table
Gradient Table
Speed Code Table
Code
Target
distance
Code
Gradient
Code
Display
Colour Speed
Speed intervention
IIS FIS
Network N1
LGV
0
d
50
xxxx
0
g
40
xx
1
c
Rouge
xxxx
-----
xxx
35
xxx
35
xxx
Distance Table
Gradient Table
Speed Code Table
Code
Target
distance
Code
Gradient
Code
Display
Colour Speed
Speed intervention
IIS FIS
Network N2
ET
0
d
50
xxxx
0
g
12
xx
1
c
Rouge
xxxx
-----
xxx
35
xxx
35
xxx
New System parameters for CTRL section
Distance Table
Gradient Table
Speed Code Table
Code
Target
distance
Code
Gradient
Code
Display
Colour Speed
Speed intervention
IIS FIS
Network Nn
CTRL 1
0
d
d0
xxxx
0
g
g0
xx
1
c
c0
xxxx
s0
xxx
IIS 0
xxx
FIS
xxx
Table 1: Transmission to a Eurostar Train
Network N Distance Gradient Speed Code
ON-board system
➩
IIS = initial intervention speed
FIS = final intervention speed
Distance Table
Gradient Table
Speed Code Table
Network N2
ET
MA100*
Code
0
d
Target
distance
50
xxxx
Code
0
g
Gradient
12
xx
Code
1
c
Display
Colour Speed
Rouge -----
xxxx xxx
Speed intervention
IIS FIS
35 35
xxx xxx
Distance Table
Gradient Table
Speed Code Table
Code
Target
distance
Code
Gradient
Code
Display
Colour Speed
Speed intervention
IIS
FIS
MA120*
0
d
50
xxxx
0
g
12
xx
1
c
Rouge
xxxx
-----
xxx
35
xxx
35
xxx
Distance Table
Gradient Table
Speed Code Table
Code
Target
distance
Code
Gradient
Code
Display
Colour Speed
Speed intervention
IIS
FIS
ME140*
0
d
50
xxxx
0
g
12
xx
1
c
Rouge
xxxx
-----
xxx
35
xxx
35
xxx
V140*
New System parameters for CTRL section
Another set of tables
Distance Table
Gradient Table
Speed Code Table
Network Nn
CTRL 1
ME140*
Code
0
d
Target
distance
d0
xxxx
Code
0
g
Gradient
g0
xx
Code
1
c
Display
Colour Speed
c0 s0
yyyy yyy
Speed intervention
IIS FIS
IIS 0 FIS
yyy yyy
Table 2: Transmission to a Class 92 Locomotive

82
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS
Pancras interlocking. Most of the interlocking
principles applied on Section 1 will be recreate-used
on Section 2, but some specific arrangements will
be applied for the two stations at Stratford and
Ebbsfleet.
For the cab signalling part, a completely new
system will have to be designed. Due to the line
speed of 230 km/h, the block section length will be
on average 950m on the level, in order to give the
best possible headway. New cab signalling
sequences will also be used, taking into account the
existing speed bands in the Eurostar cab. Hence a
completely new TVM network will have to be
created.
CONCLUSION
This paper has tried to describe the potential as
well as the difficulties of applying a French signalling
system on a high speed line in the UK, with a
mixture of UK and French signalling principles. The
main purpose was to keep the same driving
ergonomics and operational principles on both sides
of the Channel Tunnel.
It also reflects the need for an approach that will
allow the CTRL to form part of the emerging
European High Speed rail network.
It is not the first British/French experience; cooperation
between British and French engineers was
needed for the implementation of SSI technology in
France, as well as for the use of Tyers block
instruments by railways such as the PLM.
We hope that this co-operation will continue in the
future with the same success.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank:
• Union Railways and Rail Link Engineering for
permission to present this paper and their
colleagues within the various participating
organisations for their advice and assistance;
• CSEE for their technical support;
• SNCF for their permission to use an article
written by P LEBOUAR, “Le système informatique
d’enclenchements intégrés SEI,” issued in
Revue Générale des Chemins de Fer, February
2002.
Discussion
The discussion was opened by P Bassett (AEA
Technology) who wondered why the Waterloo
connection from Singlewell to Fawkham Junction
was not signalled for bi-directional working and the
factors that were taken into account when making
this decision. He was also interested in the lessons
that had been learnt following the commissioning of
the first TVM/directional based signalling interface at
Dollands Moor and finally asked if different braking
techniques would be required because of the
differing Block Section lengths.
R Stokes explained that the Waterloo connection
was uni-directionally signalled to prevent the
necessity of providing bi-directional signalling to at
least Swanley on the Chatham main line, which
would have significantly increased cost. The
connection will also lose its importance once the
CTRL route is fully open to St Pancras. He believed
that the lessons from the Dollands Moor interface
had been learnt; a Standard Signalling Principle
existing for the lineside to cab-signalling interface.
Finally he confirmed that different braking techniques
would not be required, the speed band
displayed to the driver overcoming this situation.
C Harrison (Lloyds MHA) enquired how a 3-minute
headway was achieved with a mixed speed of 230
km/h and 300 km/h.
R Stokes informed that the 3-minute headway was
designed on following 300 km/h trains.
N Ivanov (WBS) wanted to know if there was a
direct link between the KVB and ITCS at St Pancras
and what the response time of the interlocking was.
R Stokes stated that no detailed design had yet
been produced for St Pancras and also that he was
not in a position to quote interlocking response
times.
D McKeown (Independent Consultant) asked
about the testing philosophy and processes,
particularly with respect to competence issues.
R Stokes explained that the signalling would be
fully tested, a Tester-in-Charge having been
appointed to produce the necessary Test Plans.
Testing processes are described in the paper whilst
utilisation of a test train provides final verification.
The methodology of testing is subject to review by
all interested parties.
I Harman (Union Railways) further expanded on
the fundamental differences between testing
philosophy in the UK and France; in the UK the
tester looks for responses from the systems whereas
in France testing tools are effectively used as a
routine to test predetermined scenarios.
P Duggan (WBS) questioned if the accepted
safety cases for the signalling system included the
interface between the SSI, ITCS and PRCI and how
they are tested.
I Harman (Union Railways) commented that the
relevant bodies have co-operated to approve the
interface testing. He informed that the SSI/ITCS
interface could not be simulated and on-site
preparatory testing would be the only method of
verifying the design philosophy.
N Ivanov (WBS) asked how other interfaces were
to be tested.
I Harman (Union Railways) replied that similar
testing principles were to be applied.
J Poré (Alstom) enquired what plans there were for

CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 83
regular testing of the signalling once commissioned.
He also noted that, as the line was not built to
conventional UK loading gauge, whether non-
Eurostar (passenger) trains would use the line and
asked what the axle weight limit for freight trains
was. Finally he questioned if the access charges
might deter some train operating companies from
using the line.
R Stokes responded that utilisation of a test train
for routine cyclical testing was planned and that the
line was designed for a freight axle loading of 22 1 /2
tonnes at 140 km/h. He also stated that Union
Railways would allow access to any train operator
provided their rolling stock was compatible with the
traction supply and signalling arrangements. He
believed that the limiting factor would actually be the
strict conditions applied for rolling stock passing
through the Channel Tunnel.
G Moens additionally advised that mis-routing
arrangements were to be applied at Singlewell to
prevent out of gauge trains from being directed
towards Fawkham Junction.
J Lester (Eurostar) commented that use of KVB is
very restrictive, slowing down operations on the
railway and wondered if this factor had been
considered in the design.
G Moens stated that there was a balance between
safety and performance and any ATP systems will
affect performance.
P Bassett (AEA Technology) observed that
numerous signals and their corresponding KVB
loops were being installed at St Pancras in the name
of headway improvements. He wondered if this
would not perpetuate the philosophy of running on
“double yellows”, but with new technology, and
questioned if too much was trying to be squeezed
into too short a section of railway.
R Stokes responded by stating that a great deal of
work had been done to rationalise the signalling at
St Pancras but it was not an ideal layout. The design
had not yet been finalised but a minimum of ETCS
Level 1 had to be installed. He also advised that
there would not be as many signals as exists at
Glasgow Central!
C Porter (IRSE Vice-President) thanked M. G
Moens and Mr R Stokes for their paper and
expressed the view that it would be good to finally
see in-cab signalling in use in the UK.

84
International Convention
held in
Sydney, Australia
29th April – 3rd May 2002
‘Cerberus’
Level Crossing Monitor and Test System –
a ‘black box recorder’ for Railway Level Crossings
Paul Szacsvay 1
SUMMARY
Monitoring and logging the performance of critical
systems is a practice which is well known in the
airline industry, and has long been commonplace in
locomotives in the rail industry. In the past two
decades advances in digital technology has made
the technology cost effective for adoption in other
industries, railway signalling among them.
From its conception in 1988, the Rail Infrastructure
Corporation has developed its ‘Cerberus’ level
crossing monitoring and test system into a mature,
safety-validated and fully featured monitoring
system for level crossing protection equipment,
complete with real-time reporting of fault conditions
and facilities to complete the daily crossing test
traditionally carried out in New South Wales by
individual contractors.
While it is based on a standard RIC data acquisition
module, the monitor incorporates novel
purpose-designed interface hardware and software.
INTRODUCTION
Since their introduction 50 years ago in the airline
industry, ‘black box’ recorders have become a
familiar concept in everyday language. There can be
few who are not aware of the importance attached to
finding the flight recorders after a crash, to deter-
1 Rail Infrastructure Corporation of NSW
mine the sequence of events that led up to it.
In railway operations, too, there has been a longstanding
need for accurate information on what was
happening at the time of a reported incident. In New
South Wales, accidents between road vehicles and
trains at level crossings are one of the major causes
of railway related death and injury. Correspondingly,
level crossing incidents are a major source of
investigations, inquests, and occasional damages
claims involving the railway operator.
Developed in-house by the Rail Infrastructure
Corporation, the ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor
system, is a state of the art 'black box recorder' for
railway level crossings. Besides logging level crossing
events, it monitors level crossing operation,
remotely tests the level crossing battery, and reports
level crossing status to a central location.
BACKGROUND
On the RIC network in New South Wales, there are
over 320 level crossings equipped with active
protection in the form of flashing lights, and in some
cases boom gates. The protection is designed and
arranged in accordance with the requirements of
Australian Standard AS1742, Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, Part 7, Railway Crossings.
These level crossing protection devices are
essentially non-failsafe in their operation, unlike the
equipment which controls them. They depend on the
illumination of normally dark signal lamps to provide
a warning indication, and on the road users'
response to the signal, to halt safely clear of the rail
crossing. The safe operation of the level crossing
protection therefore depends completely on the
reliable functioning of the level crossing lamps,
batteries and battery charger.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 85
RIC level crossings are constructed and maintained
to provide the maximum possible reliability
and safety. Nevertheless, reports of failure to
operate correctly are received quite frequently. Any
such report needs to be investigated exhaustively, to
determine what the cause of the reported failure
might be, and to provide urgent repair of any fault
revealed by the inspection. If, as often occurs, no
fault is found, the question remains unresolved
whether the failure report was prompted by an
intermittent fault, or an error of observation by the
person making the report.
Likewise, any accident or incident on a level
crossing calls into question the safety of the system.
Indeed, it is in the interests of a party claiming
damages from the railway, or defending a charge of
failing to obey a signal, to throw as much doubt as
possible on whether the crossing signals were working
correctly at the time of the incident in question.
The subsequent inquiry can benefit greatly from the
availability of a detailed record of the operation of
the crossing equipment at the time of the incident.
There is a clear need for a method of data recording
that will enable the recent operational history of
a level crossing to be ‘read', after the report of that
the level crossing equipment failed to operate
properly. The level crossing monitor must monitor
the status of a level crossing, log events, and report
warning or failure conditions to a central location. On
systems which require a daily test of the crossing,
there is also a need to provide the facility for remotely
testing the level crossing battery supply and the
monitor itself.
From the inception of the ‘Cerberus’ system it was
considered inevitable that, once crossing loggers
were installed, they would eventually be required to
provide data acceptable as legal evidence, for
instance in the event of an inquiry following a level
crossing fatality. For that reason the software design
and testing was based on a stringent process of
specification, documentation and independent
validation, to produce a record that could be
presented unchallenged as legal evidence.
In 1988, the Signals Development Section of what
was then State Rail first began developing a monitoring
and logging system for railway level crossings,
taking advantage of the growing availability of more
powerful and less expensive data acquisition
hardware.
Today, State Rail's 'Cerberus' monitor is a leading
'black box recorder' for railway level crossings. It
logs level crossing events, monitors level crossing
operation, remotely tests the level crossing battery,
and reports level crossing status.
At the time of writing, ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing
Monitor system is installed on most level crossings
across New South Wales, with more than 100 fully
commissioned with communication links to Control
Centres in Sydney, Orange, Wagga Wagga and
Broadmeadow.
THE ‘CERBERUS’ SYSTEM – MONITOR,
CONTROL CENTRE and SOFTWARE
The ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor and
Remote Test System consists of two major components,
the Level Crossing Monitor and the Central
Monitoring and Control Workstation, and a collection
of associated software.
The ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor is the
‘black box’ recorder. It can operate as a standalone
unit, independent of any communications with the
world beyond the level crossing, or be linked by
telephone to a Control Centre.
The monitor is based on a standard RIC 64-way
digital/analogue data acquisition board, installed in a
custom-built 19” housing with internal power supply.
The board is fitted with a lithium battery-powered
non-volatile memory, real-time clock and an
8-channel analogue to digital converter. It connects

86
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
Interior of ‘Cereberus’ monitor – data acquisition
board at left, power supply and surge filters on right
to crossing control equipment by means of a variety
of purpose-designed interface modules.
Communication with the Control Centre is by
PSTN dial-up telephone line or, in some areas not
served by landline, by GSM cellular phone connections.
The unit monitors the status of the crossing
equipment, logs events, reports warning or failure
conditions to the central location, and provides the
facility for remotely testing the level crossing battery
supply and the monitor itself.
The Central Monitoring and Control Workstation is
the other half of the ‘Cerberus’ system, linked to a
network of up to 100 level crossings. The workstation
is a standard desktop computer, with two
dial-up modem connections on separate Telstra
phone lines, one each for incoming and outgoing
calls. Located at an operations control centre that is
manned 24 hours a day, the workstation receives
incoming status and alarm calls from its network of
‘Cerberus’ monitors, displays the status of all crossings
on the network and carries out a remote test of
every crossing in each 24-hour cycle. It communicates
with every crossing at least once every 12
hours to check the communications line. All tests,
status reports and alarm messages are logged to
hard disk.
Integral to the ‘Cerberus’ system are the customdesigned
‘Cerberus’ software products – the
monitor firmware, the central office software, and the
engineer's software package. The communications,
logging, test and operator interface software is a
Windows application developed in-house, using ‘C’
Cerberus Control Centre Workstation
and Visual Basic.
FEATURES OF THE ‘CERBERUS’
SYSTEM
The ‘Cerberus’ monitor unit monitors the status of
the crossing equipment, logs events, reports
warning or failure conditions to the central location,
and provides the facility for remotely testing the level
crossing battery supply and the monitor itself. It is
designed to minimise the risk of it providing
incorrect information in a manner that is not
obviously incorrect, or of reducing the integrity of the
level crossing protection. It is equipped with two
serial data ports, one for interrogation at site by
means of a portable personal computer, and the
second port for a dial-up modem for communication
over a Telecom line, to the central control system.
The Level Crossing monitor continually examines
the status and relationship of the various inputs and
outputs. The monitor detects changes in its
analogue inputs, digital inputs and its own digital
outputs.
EVENT LOGGING CAPACITY
Details of these changes are stored with their date
and time of occurrence (to one-tenth of second). At
least the last 9,000 changes are stored, with the
oldest event is automatically replaced by the next
new event when the event log is full.
The log is maintained in a non-volatile RAM that
has an integral lithium battery with a life of 10 years.
The memory devices have been successfully
recovered after an accident in which the crossing
equipment hut was destroyed, and the monitor unit

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 87
case severely damaged.
MONITORING CROSSING OPERATION AND
HEALTH
During the passage of every train, the ‘Cerberus’
monitor records the time of operation of train
detection, control relays, the number of lamps
operating, and critical operating voltages.
In addition to recording changes in inputs, the
Level Crossing monitor checks for predetermined
logic, sequence and timing relationship between the
digital inputs, analogue inputs, and the digital outputs.
The relationships are defined in the form of
Boolean expressions with timer facilities. Incorrect
logic, sequences or timing are interpreted as
signifying either warning or alarm conditions, which
are logged and reported to the ‘Cerberus’ Control
Central.
Extract of log file showing failure of lamp flasher
unit at 12:53:09.7 on Monday 29th June 1998
If any functional relationship is not as specified
then the local status indication is updated and a
warning or alarm call is placed to the control centre.
The most important monitoring function is the
lamp checking function. During each operation of
the crossing equipment, the monitor determines the
number of lamps operating on each lamp circuit. It
checks the number of lamps operating, against the
number that should be operating. It generates a
warning message when the number of lamps
detected is one less than the expected, and an
alarm message when the number of lamps detected
is two or more fewer, or any number more than the
expected number.
MONITOR SOFTWARE
In common with other railway signalling digital
systems, each monitor is loaded with two forms of
software. The first is the standard operating
firmware, common to all monitor units, and not
accessible to users.
The second is the site-specific data, the
‘expressions’ for the crossing. Because every level
crossing installation is unique to some extent, each
is loaded with site-specific data, which location
identification data, Control centre contact telephone
numbers, input variable names, and significant
aspects of the crossing protection logic.
REMOTE TESTING REPLACES DAILY MANUAL
TEST
The daily battery test replaces the previous daily
manual test of the crossing by a contractor.
In the manual test, the contractor operates the
crossing Test Switch, which switches off the battery
charger and sets the crossing protection operating.
The contractor walks around to check that all lights
and bells are working, then cancels the Test Switch
after at least two minutes of operation. He then
observes an indicator light in the test switch box,
which indicates if the battery condition is acceptable.
With the change to remote testing, it was
concluded that to simply automate this procedure
would be unsafe, as locals could become
accustomed to the crossing operating every day
without any train being present. On the basis that the
monitor checks condition of the lights every time the
crossing operates, it was decided that the test
should be reconfigured to be a direct test of battery
condition, without operation of the crossing signals.
The remote test sequence is initiated by the
Control Centre making a call to a level crossing and
requesting a test. The crossing monitor performs a
self-test, then acknowledges the test request and
hangs up. The battery test is performed and then the
level crossing monitor rings the Control Centre to
report the results of the test. If the Control Centre
does not receive a response from any particular
crossing within a predefined time (normally five
minutes), then the test is assumed to have failed,
and an alarm is generated.
In addition to the battery test, the control centre
calls the crossing monitors at regular intervals to
check their status. The interval is configurable for
each crossing, but is typically set for 12 hours after
the scheduled battery test time.
Individual monitors may also be programmed to
call the Control Centre every time a train passes
through the crossing.
ENGINEER’S SOFTWARE TO PROGRAMME AND
INTERROGATE SYSTEM
The ‘Cerberus’ system includes provision for an
engineers’ terminal, which is used independently of
the Control Centre.
The engineer’s terminal provides a comprehensive
set of features including facilities for preparation of
location-specific data files, uploading data files to
the crossing monitor, resetting system variables,
remote or local interrogation of logged data, and
also the ability to clear logged data.
DATA SECURITY
Because of its importance in the event of any
accident or fault report, the data logged by the
‘Cerberus’ monitor is treated with a high degree of
security.
Remote and local access to the monitor are
protected by individual PIN codes. Events such as
stopping or starting the logger, or clearing the log

88
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
‘Cerberus’ Control Centre – main screen
memory, are themselves logged. The log data is
protected to make undetected alterations to the log
file impossible.
A DECADE OF DEVELOPMENT
The ‘Cerberus’ system is the result of a decade
of development, from concept through design,
prototyping, field trials, and large-scale implementation.
In 1988 the State Rail Authority’s Manager,
Signalling, posed the question whether there existed
any small, inexpensive means for monitoring and
recording the operation of each of the State’s 300
sets of level crossing protection equipment. He saw
that there was a need to be able to look back at the
operation of the protection equipment, especially
after an accident or a reported malfunctioning of the
equipment.
The response was that a suitable system did not
exist as an off-the-shelf product, but could be developed,
based on currently available data
acquisition hardware. Major tasks would be to
develop specialised sensing interfaces, and custom
software.
In the following few years only part-time work was
carried out. This was directed at developing a
reliable method of checking that level crossing lights
were operating, considered to be a critical function
for any level crossing monitor.
The project developed into a full-time commitment
in mid-1990. The development team recognised that
the full economic potential of monitoring level crossing
operation lay in being able to alert maintainers
immediately any failure was detected, and in being
able to carry out the customary daily test of each
level crossing by remote control (this would do away
with the need for the hundreds of contract testers
who now perform that function). The original
requirements specification was extended to include
provision to carry out full remote testing of the crossing
equipment, with direct communication from each
installation to a central control system.
FIRST PRODUCTION PROTOTYPE INSTALLED
AT BATHURST
The first prototype unit was demonstrated at a
state signal engineers’ conference in August 1993. A
small number of pre-production prototypes were
built, with the first complete monitor installed at
Lloyd’s Road Level Crossing, at Bathurst, in 1994.
LARGE-SCALE INSTALLATION AND DEVELOP-
MENT PROGRAMME
Based on the success of the Lloyd’s Road
installation, the Western Region maintenance group
committed to the installation of monitors at all crossings
in the region, covering over 70 locations in total.
With the full co-operation of the region, this project
was planned and run as a large-scale prototyping
exercise, similar to the familiar ‘beta-testing’ of
commercial software products. The large number of
installations exposed the system to most possible
variations in crossing design and operation, and in
return the region was given a high level of support
with the installation and commissioning of the
system. The result of this exercise was a very flexible
and robust monitoring system.
The final step in the development process took
place in 1997 when, after revising and signing-off on

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 89
the system and development documentation, Signal
Engineering submitted the ‘Cerberus’ system for
third-party validation. This was undertaken by the
Victorian firm of R2A Risk & Reliability Associates Pty
Ltd. The result of the validation exercise was the
conclusion that the system offered a significant
improvement in the level of safety currently provided
by RAC’s level crossing protection equipment.
Today, ‘Cerberus’ monitors are installed throughout
New South Wales. Following resolution of issues
with location and operation of the Control Centre
workstations, a final implementation phase is now
under way to bring all monitors reporting on-line to
Control Centres at Orange, Broadmeadow, Junee
and at the Network Management Centre in Sydney.
INDEPENDENT SAFETY VALIDATION
From the initial feasibility report, it was considered
inevitable that the would eventually be required to
provide data acceptable as legal evidence, in
inquiries following a level crossing accident or
fatality. For that reason the software design and
testing has needed to be augmented by a more
stringent process of specification, documentation
and independent validation, to produce a record that
can be presented unchallenged as legal evidence.
R2A Risk & Reliability Associates Pty Ltd were
selected to undertake the Independent Safety
Review of the 'Cerberus' level crossing monitoring
system. This review covered:
• Assessment of the existing RIC level crossing
testing procedures and supervision process.
• Assessment of the ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing
Monitor System to determine the level of likelihood
(from rare to almost certain) that a
‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor would indicate
that a level crossing is operating correctly
after the passage of a train when either the level
crossing equipment and/or the monitor unit
were functioning incorrectly.
• Assessment of the ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing
Monitor System to determine the level of likelihood
(from rare to almost certain) that the officer
responsible for the Control Centre is not
informed of a problem with a monitored level
crossing, within 25 hours of the problem having
occurred.
• Assessment of the of ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing
Monitor System in regard to:
i) compliance with the Level Crossing Monitor
Requirements Specification and the Level
Crossing Monitor Control Centre
Requirements Specification.
ii) the adequacy of the Preliminary Hazard
Analysis documents.
iii)the adequacy of the system (including
procedures) in its mitigation of the hazards
identified in the PHA.
• Comparison of the two methods of level crossing
testing and supervision to determine their
relative performance in providing safe and
reliable operation of level crossings.
The work involved input from all of the designers
and from field engineers who were installing and
using the ‘Cerberus’ level crossing monitoring
system.
The final report recommended a number of minor
enhancements, all of which have been implemented.
The independent review concluded that replacing
the present procedures for daily visiting and testing
of level crossings with remote level crossing
monitors tested by and reporting through monitor
control centres to responsible maintainers would
result in improved safety of the level crossing
protection.
INNOVATIONS
The ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor System
was developed to fulfil a need for a product which
was not available in the marketplace. For that very
reason, the developing team had to find innovative
solutions for a number of design ‘problems’, adapting
technologies from other engineering disciplines
where available, or developing the solution from first
principles.
LAMP CURRENT MEASUREMENT
The first and most important step in developing
the ‘Cerberus’ system was the development of an
accurate and reliable method of monitoring the
integrity of the crossing signal lamps. The requirement
that the monitor had to be easy to retrofit to
existing level crossings eliminated the option of
installing individual sensors in the signal lamp units.
The chosen solution was to measure the lamp
currents at source, in the control hut, and from that
calculate the number of lamps operating at any time.
The task of developing the prototype lamp current
sensor and supporting software was undertaken by
one of our cadet engineers as his final year
University project.
Subsequent refinements to the design overcame
the problem of high peak currents drawn by cold
lamp filaments, and developed a ‘learning mode’
used in setting up the monitor at a crossing. This
mode is used to teach the monitor the numbers of
lamps operating and the corresponding current
levels at that particular crossing.
Current sensors are also used to monitor the
battery test current during the remote test of the
crossing.
As a by-product of the ‘Cerberus’ programme, the
lamp current sensor is produced as a universal
AC/DC current sensor. This can be used for safe
isolated measurement of analogue current levels in
circuits, DC or at AC frequencies up to 3kHz.
SPECIALISED INTERFACE DEVICES
As the ‘Cerberus’ system was being developed,
and to support its introduction this and other
monitoring and logging systems, Rail Services
Australia has developed its armoury of interface
devices, able to safely and continuously monitor any
aspect of the operation of the signalling system.
Items completed and available for general use,
and their applications, include:

90
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
Typical ‘Cerberus’ installation – modem, monitor
and interface devices – (l to r) input optoisolator,
output optoisolator and current sensors
VITAL INPUT OPTOISOLATOR (VIO)
The integrity of railway signalling circuits is
ensured, in part, by maintaining a high degree of
isolation from earth and between circuits.
The VIO provides a safe means of detecting ‘on’
and ‘off’ logic states in vital relay circuits. It gives at
least 10,000 volts isolation between input (signalling
circuits) and output (monitor). The input circuitry is
also designed to protect the signalling circuits from
unreliable operation due to single component faults
in the interface.
8-CHANNEL A-TO-D CONVERTER
As the development proceeded, it became evident
that there was only one ‘of-the-shelf’ analogue to
digital (A-to-D) converter board available to suit the
data acquisition board which formed the basis of the
monitor. Since this A-to-D board was prohibitively
expensive, the team elected to custom-design a
device for ‘Cerberus’.
Mounted piggy-back on the main data acquisition
board, the unit selects from one of eight analogue
inputs, and converts it to an equivalent 10-bit digital
value for logging or processing by the monitor.
The 10 bit digitisation provides measurements of a
20-volt input signal accurate to the nearest 20
millivolts.
MARKET COMPARISON
Throughout the development period of the
‘Cerberus’ system, other level crossing monitoring
systems have been available. Apart from one system
from Sweden, most of these have come from level
crossing equipment manufacturers in the USA. More
recently, a monitoring system has been
developed for Westrail by Motherwell Automation.
Some of these were evaluated for use in New South
Wales, but were found to fall short of local
requirements.
COMPETING SYSTEMS NOT ADEQUATE FOR
REQUIREMENTS
Most competing systems function as simple event
recorders. Few systems provide on-site evaluation
of crossing operation with immediate notification of
fault conditions to a central office. Most either
retained data for interrogation at site, or transmitted
all event data to the central office for logging and
evaluation. At the time of its introduction, the
‘Cerberus’ system was unique in its use of
algorithms to check the correct logic and timing of
crossing protection operation.
The lack of central reporting severely reduces the
ability of the monitor to improve the overall safety of
the crossing protection system, while 100 percent
reporting involves heavy overheads in communication
time and costs.
Lamp checking functions are generally analogue
electronic, and of limited effectiveness. The
‘Harmon’ system from USA has a lamp current
monitor based on similar Hall-effect sensors to
those in the ‘Cerberus’ system, but this is a discrete
unit with a simple ‘OK/Not OK’ input to the data
recorder.
Logger memory capacity is generally limited,
which limits the range of parameters which can be
logged. In addition, the recorded data is frequently
not presented in an easily readable format, making
interpretation difficult.
None of the other systems seen have offered
remote testing of the crossing. In New South Wales,
this feature alone is sufficient to provide economic
justification for installing the system. It must be
noted however, that many other railway administrations
do not apply the same regime of daily
testing that has long been standard in New South
Wales. We have noted also, with some surprise, that
some railways have ordered crossing monitor
systems which included no lamp checking functions!
OUTCOMES & BENEFITS
The ‘Cerberus’ systems delivers a wide range of
benefits to the railway operator.
INCREASED LEVEL CROSSING SAFETY
First and foremost, the ‘Cerberus’ level crossing
monitor delivers an immediate improvement in the
safety of the level crossing protection.
In common with the design of other safety critical
systems, level crossing protection is designed so
that it takes a number of concurrent failures to result
in a loss of warning to road traffic. In an unmonitored
level crossing, an initial fault will not be detected
until, at best, the first daily test after it occurs. In
many cases, the fault will be undetected until the
next monthly visit by maintenance staff. Further,
intermittent faults, unless they are evident at the time
the crossing is being tested or maintained, may go
undetected for a very long time.
Where the ‘Cerberus’ monitor is in operation, and
depending on the precise nature of the fault, it will be
identified immediately, or during the passage of the
first train. This applies equally for intermittent and
persistent faults.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 91
Connected to the ‘Cerberus’ Control Centre, the
‘Cerberus’ system provides immediate notification
of a fault. This allows corrective action to be carried
out before an unsafe situation can develop. In this
way, the ‘Cerberus’ system actually improves the
level of safety provided by RAC’s level crossing
protection.
RAPID COST RECOVERY
The installation of the ‘Cerberus’ system has been
justified on the basis of the cost savings to be
achieved by being able to eliminate the daily
manual test. On the average contract cost per day of
manual testing, the monitor cost can be recovered in
about 18 months. This alone provides a very
satisfactory return on investment, even before taking
into account further potential savings in reduced
periodic maintenance, and the difficult-to-cost
benefits in greatly improved safety for road and rail
travellers using the crossings.
REDUCED EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION RISK
Unfortunately, railway level crossings continue to
be the scene of accidents between rail and road
vehicles. Every such incident becomes the result of
a detailed investigation by railway staff, police and, if
the incident results in a fatality, then the coroner
also. Afterwards, traditionally, the railway has found
itself defending cases where the road vehicle users
have sought to apportion financial responsibility for
the accident onto the railway, seeking to blame the
accident on a malfunction (however fleeting) of the
crossing protection equipment. At the very least, this
can impose a heavy cost on the railway, for legal
representation and court costs.
The ‘Cerberus’ system provides a detailed, exact
and objective record of the operation of the level
crossing protection at the time of the accident.
Where an accident has occurred, copies of the
monitor log have been handed over to authorities
immediately after the accident. The existence of this
data has simplified the course of the subsequent
investigations, and appears to have averted
unsubstantiated claims for damages.
FUTURE PLANS
MIGRATION TO NEW HARDWARE PLATFORM
In common with many other digital systems, the
‘Cerberus’ monitor is facing the challenge of technological
change. In this instance, the fact that the
hardware design is almost 15 years old is evident, as
a number of the critical components become
increasingly difficult to source. The options available
include developing a new data acquisition board, or
else porting the monitor software to an existing
commercially available hardware platform. It is
almost certain that the latter option will be chosen.
Over the years since the ‘Cerberus’ project began,
the power and functionality of industrial PLCs
(programmable logic controllers) have developed
dramatically. Today, the required features of digital
I/O, multi-channel analogue inputs, event logging
and serial communications are standard features of
quality industrial PLCs. Work has already begun on
investigating a number of locally produced units to
evaluate their suitability for adoption as the new
generation of ‘Cerberus’.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the permission
of the Chief Executive Officer of Rail
Infrastructure Corporation, Mr John Cowling, to
prepare and present this paper.
REFERENCES
J Fuller, G.Hockings, P McGregor, J Rasborsek
and P Szacsvay ‘Inventing Big Brother – Monitoring
the Railway Environment’. Paper delivered to the
Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (Aust)
Technical Meeting, Sydney, 15th July 1993.
P Szacsvay, ‘Event Logging and Condition
Monitoring in Railway Signalling’. Paper delivered to
the Institution of Engineers (Aust) Conference on Rail
Engineering, Sydney, July 1996.
G Hockings, P McGregor, and P Szacsvay,
‘Cerberus Level Crossing Monitor System’.
Submission document for the Australian Transport
Industry Award 1998.

92
The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers
(Incorporated 1912)
Ninetieth Annual Report
1st January to 31st December 2002
INTRODUCTION
As an incoming President of the Institution I
quickly became aware of two things; firstly that most
things that came to fruition during the year were
initiated by my predecessors, secondly that whatever
contribution I could make to the development
of the Institution is only possible through the
assistance and support of the members, the railway
administrations, industry and the Institution’s
London office. I must start by recording my
personal thanks to Ken Burrage and his team who
make the role of President one that can be enjoyed
without concern for the Institution’s administration.
I am particularly pleased to acknowledge the help
given by three former Presidents, in chairing
committees and offering me their guidance and
support during the year. Bob Barnard, my immediate
predecessor, has chaired the Finance Committee
and brings considerable technical weight to our
discussions on position papers and Government
consultation requests, Clive Kessell is a member of
the International Technical Committee and chairs the
Membership Committee and Alastair Wilson has
chaired the Training & Development Committee.
The year has been an eventful one from many
different points of view. For example:
For the IRSE – changes to the Articles of
Association giving corporate member status to
Associate Members and the establishment of a new
grade of Accredited Technician, further work for the
SRA on the industry body of knowledge and other
projects.
In the UK – consultation on proposals for a Rail
Safety Authority and a Rail Accident Investigation
Board, publication of a report on a programme for
ERTMS, the postponement of Phase 2 of the West
Coast Main Line improvement project followed by
the dropping of 140 mph running, the Potters Bar
accident, Network Rail established and taking over
from Railtrack, the Strategic Rail Authority taking
primacy for major projects, Network Rail announcing
their intention to take some maintenance work
in-house, LUL privatisation proceeding.
In Europe – continued work on the revision of
ERTMS specifications and the production of Test
Specifications, development of the Conventional
Lines Directive, proposals for a Railway Safety
Directive.
These were just a few of the many changes that
concern our members, many of whom find themselves
in positions of heavy technical and safety
responsibility but with limited access to professional
advice and guidance and limited influence in the
formation of policy and strategy.
All this underlines the importance of the
Institution’s role in the fragmented and ever changing
railway industry as an organiser of the exchange
of ideas and technical knowledge, provider of
professional standards, contributor to opinion
forming in industry and government, and as an
accreditation authority of education, training and
competence certification agencies in the field of
train control systems and telecommunications.
Our role has no national boundaries and the
challenge for the Institution, mentioned in my
Presidential Address and previously by Bob Barnard,
is to find ways of discharging the role in countries
where individual membership of the Institution is not
affordable.
Following changes to the American Association of
Railroads in 2001, our USA members decided that a
North American Section of the IRSE was necessary
to which proposal Council agreed. The inaugural
meeting of the North American Section was held in
May under the chairmanship of Bill Scheerer. As the
IRSE membership in North America is dispersed
over three time zones the Section plans to continue
to hold its Annual Meeting in conjunction with the
RSSI Exhibit, the major Communications and
Signals Exhibition in North America. The Section has
begun to actively market the benefits of IRSE
membership and provide assistance with applications,
which has resulted in some new members and
a number of expressions of interest. The next Annual
Meeting in July 2003, immediately following the
Chicago RSSI Exhibit, will include a visit to a
signalling installation. The local committee members
listed on the North American Section web page will
welcome contact from any member travelling to the
USA.
My theme for the technical programme for the
year was based on the need to make information on
ERTMS more widely available and better understood.
At present most of the detailed technical
knowledge resides in the development departments
of the signalling suppliers. An understanding of
capabilities, limitations and safety principles is
essential if system and application engineers are to
make the best possible use of the technology and
make appropriate arrangements for maintenance,
recognising that with the migration of functions from
the trackside on to the train the necessary maintenance
arrangements will not fit easily with the
present day division of maintenance between infrastructure
and trains.
The technical visit to the UK Asfordby test track,
arranged by my predecessor, enabled members to

NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 93
see the first application of ERTMS technology in the
UK – albeit used not for signalling but for the speed
and tilt supervision of the Virgin Class 390 Pendolino
trains. At our Annual Members Dinner in April our
guest speaker, Peter Winter, spoke of the ERTMS
project and the progress made in Switzerland
towards the first Level 2 installation on the Luzern –
Olten line. One week later the technical and safety
approvals were completed and the first passenger
operation by a Level 2 ERTMS system began. By the
time of our technical visit to Switzerland in
November system reliability growth had progressed
to a point where the exacting system operational
requirements of Swiss Federal Railways were close
to being met.
The autumn technical meetings covered the basic
building blocks of ERTMS and were given by
technical experts who have been working on ERTMS
development. The visits and papers were very well
supported with interesting discussions that resulted
in many misconceptions being laid to rest. Prior to
completion of the International Technical Committee
report on Proposals for Cross Acceptance of
Signalling Systems, a seminar was held in
November to expose the Committee’s considerations
to a wider audience. This consultative event
was successful and enabled the ITC to complete the
report for publication in April 2003.
The programme was completed with a one-day
seminar in February 2003 on the Justification of
Investment in Railway Control Systems and by a
technical visit to AEA Technology Rail at Derby in
March where members were able to see capacity
planning, simulation and management systems
relevant to ERTMS and developments in infrastructure
and control centre technology.
The 2002 Annual Convention was held in Sydney
at the invitation of the Australasian Section. The
second day of the convention was arranged as a
one-day conference, which over 400 people
attended and in which some familiar privatisation
problems were covered. My thanks and congratulations
go to the Australasian Committee who
organised an informative and enjoyable convention
that seemed to go without a hitch. I also thank our
UK organiser and referee, Ray Weedon. for his usual
largely unseen major contribution to the event.
Whilst in Australia I was able to attend the AGM of
the Australasian Section, the first of many section
visits that I have made during the year. In all of them
I have been impressed by the interesting topics
covered in their programmes and by the down-toearth
nature of the debates, questions and answers
that followed. The great value of these meetings is
due to the open and constructive approach of
speakers in a less formal atmosphere as compared
to the London meetings.
My last visit will be to the Hong Kong Section in
April 2003 where there is a keen interest in ERTMS
technology, especially among the younger members
there.
Wherever I have been, the cordial welcome I have
received and the level of concern and interest of our
members in the affairs and future development of
the Institution have impressed me.
The Licensing Scheme has continued to develop,
with much work being done on the links to national
standards and the attainment of high standards of
audit and compliance of our procedures and those
of the registered employers and assessing agents.
Towards the end of the year a significant number of
licences became due for renewal, introducing a peak
workload that was anticipated and covered.
Network Rail and LUL now require the possession of
a relevant IRSE licence as the means of demonstrating
competence for staff working on safety
critical activities on their railway signalling and
telecommunications infrastructure. The members of
the Licensing Committee are working hard to
respond to the need for new and revised licence categories
and I thank John Corrie, the Licensing
Committee Chairman, the Committee members and
their employers, for the support they have given to
this important activity.
Of the London social events, only the Annual
Members’ Dinner continues to be very strongly
supported and growing in numbers year on year. A
distinct fall in attendance was experienced at the
Members’ Lunch in June and at the Annual Dinner
Dance in October so much so that it has been
reluctantly decided not to hold the Dinner Dance in
2003.
MEMBERSHIP
The table below gives the numbers in each class
of membership at the end of the year.
The total membership at the start of the year was
3,064 and the trend of recent years of a gradual
increase in membership numbers has been
continued with a slight increase of 24 members
during the year to a total membership of 3,088 at
31st December 2002. The revision to the Articles
approved at the Annual General Meeting held on
19th April 2002 abolished the former classes of
membership of Engineering Technician and
Technician and members in these classes have been
transferred to the class of Associate Member or
Associate as appropriate. A further significant alteration
to the Articles allowed for the class of
Associate Member to be corporate members of the
Change
Class UK Overseas Total on
2001
Corporate Members
Honorary Fellows 11 0
Fellows 431 0
Members 1,143 +66
Associate Members 793 +73
Total Corporate 2,378 +859
Non-Corporate Members
Honorary Fellows 4 0–01
Companions 20 0–03
Associates 444 +53
Engineering Technicians 0 0–51
Students 214 –14
Technicians 0 –116
Accredited Technicians 28 +17
Total Non-Corporate 710 –835
Total Membership 2,039 1,049 3,088 +24

94
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT
Institution and these changes account for the
significant year on year differences recorded in the
table above.
With the expanding workload in dealing with
membership and EC (UK) registration matters and in
preparation for the membership recruiting campaign
reported in the last annual report it has been
necessary to recruit a Membership Manager. Mr
Derek Edney commenced in this role with effect from
1st July 2002 and, working with the Recruitment &
Publicity Committee, is preparing plans for a future
membership recruitment campaign.
Membership Committee met ten times throughout
the year and processed 270 applications or transfers
of membership. In addition, a small working group of
the Committee prepared guidelines for “Equivalents
to the IRSE Examination or Licence” as required by
the revised membership requirements contained
within the Byelaws. These guidelines have been
approved by Council and subsequently published in
the Information Pack obtainable from either the IRSE
office or the website.
The Council is grateful to the Recruitment &
Publicity Committee and others concerned, both in
the UK and overseas, for the work they do in recruiting
new members and publicising the Institution and
its activities and also for the work of the Membership
Committee in their consideration and recommendations
to Council of applications for membership and/
or registration.
Obituary
It is with regret that the Council records the
decease of the following 13 members during the
year: A A Cardani (Honorary Fellow); R Pope, F W G
Smith (Fellows); K Hosobuchi, L J Kruger, M J
Mullen, M B Sadler (Members); D Wilding (Associate
Member); R C Hawkins, P Bandu De Silva
(Associates); S Rudland-Wood (Technician); D
Grimshaw (Accredited Technician); and A S Langer
(Student).
Council was saddened by the loss of all these
members, a number of whom were strong
supporters of the Institution for a considerable
number of years and in their various ways
contributed significantly to the Institution’s work. In
particular, the contribution made by Armand
Cardani, a member for over 60 years and President
in 1970, who was instrumental in revising and raising
the standard of the Institution’s qualifying examination
and also Roger Pope who served for many years
on the Examination Committee. Both will be greatly
missed. A memorial collection made in remembrance
of the life and work of Armand Cardani has
been donated to the Institution’s Scholarship Fund
to further the education and training of young signal
engineers, a cause that Armand would have heartily
approved.
LONDON HQ OFFICE
The workload of the Institution continues to
increase. Membership numbers continue to grow,
albeit slowly; T&D activity is expanding at an
exponential rate; and the Licensing Scheme has
seen significant growth over the last year and much
more is anticipated shortly.
The Institution staff continue to occupy modest
office accommodation on the third floor in Savoy Hill
House. The accommodation comprises four small
offices and a small storeroom is also available to
store the Institution’s publications, stationery,
publicity stand, archives etc. The office is staffed
continuously Monday to Friday, 0900 to 1800 (UK
time) and outside these hours messages can be left
on an answer machine. Communication via e-mail or
fax is possible at all times and the telephone system
is connected to the UK railway telecommunications
network thus enabling calls to be made on this
system as well as via the national telecommunications
operators.
Linda Mogford, the Office Administrator, is the
initial point of contact for requests and queries from
members and non-members alike. The workload on
the training and development front continues to
grow apace and Karen Gould, the Training &
Development Manager, has had another very busy
year expanding the work that the Institution
undertakes to facilitate the training and professional
development of signal engineers. Two temporary
project staff, funded by the Strategic Rail Authority,
were recruited this year to assist Karen with the
training and development workload. Mark Watson-
Walker, the Licensing Registrar, and Linda Collins,
the Licensing Administrative Assistant, continue to
be responsible for the operation of the Institution’s
UKAS accredited Licensing Scheme. Because of the
heavy and expanding workload in licensing, a further
permanent staff member, Gordon Thorne, funded by
the Licensing Scheme, was recruited as Licensing
Assistant. Derek Edney, commenced work part-time
as Membership Manager on 1st July 2002 to deal
with all membership and registration matters and to
manage a membership recruitment campaign. Ken
Burrage, as the Chief Executive Officer of the
Institution, is responsible for managing the London
office, for implementing the decisions of Council,
providing the focal point of contact for other institutions
and external organisations, liaising with the
Engineering Council (UK), Government departments
and chief executive officers of other professional
bodies to make certain that the IRSE viewpoint is
heard and also for ensuring that the legal requirements
of the Institution’s Articles of Association, the
Registrar of Companies and the Charities
Commission are met.
The Institution’s IT system has been successfully
updated and a new database system was
introduced during 2002 to manage the Institution
membership and licensing databases and to make it
easier to keep track of members’ change of address
details etc. The new IT system will also be used to
manage subscriptions, invoices and also the
administration of conferences, seminars, technical
visits and the Institution examination.
FINANCE
The finances overall remained in a sound position
against a difficult year for the economy generally in
the United Kingdom. A surplus of income over
expenditure of £25,574 is shown in the Main

NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 95
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’
MAIN BALANCE SHEET AT 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Accumulated Fund
As at 1st January 2002 201,052 152,080
Plus excess of Income over
Expenditure 25,574 226,626 48,972 201,052
Current Liabilities & Provisions
Subscriptions in Advance 82,029 78,544
Sundry Creditors and
Accrued Charges 107,814 189,843 66,028 144,572
Textbook Fund
Balance at 1st January 2002 4,457 9,866
Less expenditure 4,457 5,409 4,457
New provision 10,000 10,000 –
Provision for future Conferences 10,000 10,000
Provision for future Conventions 15,000 15,000
Development Fund
Balance at 1st January 2002 90,000
New provision 10,000 100,000 90,000
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Fixed Assets
Computers & Office Equipment 56,166 44,836
Less Depreciation 50,325 5,841 42,565 2,271
Investments in Equity Portfolio
at Cost 60,000 60,000
Note: Mid-Market Value
2002 £71,902
2001 £96,879
Investments in Government
Securities at Cost 2,940 2,940
Note: Mid-Market Value
2002 £4,100
2001 £3,966
Current Assets
Sundry Stocks at Cost:
Technical Publications 11,778 6,661
IRSE Ties 950 1,017
Presidents’ Badges 1,072 1,191
Presentation Plaques 323 419
Thorrowgood Scholarship
Medals 230 14,353 263 9,551
Sundry Debtors & Payments
in advance 63,601 55,306
Cash at Bank:
Current Accounts 8,312 32,780
Deposit Accounts 271,724 182,183
National Savings Investment
Accounts 124,342 120,021
Cash in Hand 356 404,734 29 335,013
551,469 465,081
551,469 465,081
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’
THORROWGOOD SCHOLARSHIP BEQUEST FUND
BALANCE SHEET AT 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Capital Fund
Balance as at 1st Jan 2002 4,123 3,831
Add surplus for year 185 4,308 292 4,123
Current Account with IRSE (100) (26)
4,208 4,097
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Quoted Investments at Cost 1,060 1,060
Note:
Mid-Market Value
2002 £1,624
2001 £1,571
National Savings Investment A/c 3,148 3,037
4,208 4,097
President: P W STANLEY Vice-President: C H PORTER Treasurer: M H GOVAS
REPORT OF THE AUDITORS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS
We have examined the accounts of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers set out on pages 94-97, together with the annual accounts of the
Institution prepared in accordance with the Charities Act 1960 and the Companies Act 1985 for the year ended 31st December 2002.
As auditors of the Institution we reported to the members on 12th March 2003 on the accounts of the Institution for the year ended 31st December
2002 prepared under the Charities Act 1960 and the Companies Act 1985 and issued an unqualified audit report thereon.
In our opinion the accounts set out on pages 95-98, which have been prepared from the full annual accounts, correctly reflect the state of affairs of
the Institution as at 31st December 2002 and the results of the Institution’s transactions for the year then ended.
Ian Katté & Co
Chartered Accountants
Registered Auditor
Pyrford 12th March 2003

96
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’
MAIN INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Proceedings & Technical Papers
Publication of Proceedings 18,857 26,143
Printing Papers & Blocks 6,544 7,150
Editing 1,200 1,200
Prizes 134 26,735 108 34,601
Technical Publications
Stock 1st January 2002 6,661 8,468
Printing 10,995 2,642
17,656 11,110
Less Stock 31st Dec 2002 11,778 5,878 6,661 4,449
Thorrowgood Medal 33 33
IRSE Ties & Cufflinks
Stock 1st January 2002 1,017 506
Purchases – 1,176
Less Stock 31st Dec 2002 950 67 1,017 665
Expenses of Meetings
Accommodation 7,266 5,284
Refreshments 1,650 8,916 1,278 6,562
Office Expenses
Secretarial & Accommodation 105,065 113,047
Treasurers’ Fees 6,000 6,000
Postage & Misc Expenses 49,190 45,854
Committee Meeting
Accommodation 5,016 165,271 2,359 167,260
New IT System 25,267 –
Printing & Stationery 7,645 5,445
Past President’s Badge 119 119
Auditors’ Remuneration 3,095 2,453
Grants to Local Sections 1,000 520
Newsletter 29,450 23,300
Depreciation of Fixed Assets 7,758 2,770
Computer Maintenance 2,635 290
Secretarial Expenses –
Australia/South Africa 3,269 3,603
Institution Entertaining/Presidential
Expenses 14,853 925
Textbook
Production (net) 2,411
Provision 10,000 12,411 –
Development Fund Provision 10,000 –
Donation to Scholardship Fund – 5,000
Balance being excess of Income
over Expenditure 25,574 48,972
349,976 306,967
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Subscriptions Received
Arrears in respect of earlier
years 18,698 10,796
For the current year 162,994 181,692 142,115 152,911
Donations 484 1,179
Entrance Fees 2,675 2,390
Income from Proceedings
Sales – including papers/
adverts (net) 50,634 78,571
Advance Copy Registration
Fees 690 678
Sundry Sales
Booklets & Text Books 16,155 13,043
IRSE Ties & Badges 430 16,585 346 13,389
Interest on Investments – Gross 10,334 13,289
Examination Fees (net) 3,041 4,500
Functions
Surplus on Conventions 10,530 14,343
Surplus on Dinners &
Dinner Dance 8,572 9,863
Surplus on Technical
Visits and Seminars 11,974 10,131
Other Activities 42,487 –
Exceptional Item – VAT claim (net) 10,278 5,723
349,976 306,967
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’
THORROWGOOD SCHOLARSHIP BEQUEST FUND INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Scholarship Prizes – Current Year – 100
Surplus Transferred to Capital
Fund 185 292
185 392
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Interest on Investments 185 392
185 392

NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 97
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’
LICENSING SCHEME BALANCE SHEET
AT 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Accumulated Fund
As at 1st Jan 2002 31,392 4,823
Surplus (deficit for year) 14,195 45,587 26,569 31,392
Current Liabilities
Sundry Creditors 24,392 24,401
Licence Fees Received in
Advance of Issue 85,110 109,502 39,729 64,130
Licence Fees – Years 2-5 Fund 303,224 165,117
Development Fund 20,000 –
478,313 260,639
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Fixed Assets
Computer & Office Equipment
At Cost 18,607 18,607
Less Depreciation 17,734 873 16,117 2,490
Current Assets
Stocks – logbooks 3,135 1,007
Sundry Debtors 165,229 137,993
Cash at Bank
Current A/c 4,338 5,635
Deposit A/c 304,956 114,116
Cash in Hand (218) 477,440 (602) 258,149
478,313 260,639
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’
SCHOLARSHIP FUND BALANCE SHEET
AT 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Capital Fund
Balance as at 1st Jan 2002 23,563 18,268
Add surplus for year 1,352 24,915 5,295 23,563
24,915 23,563
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Quoted Investments at Cost 13,765 13,765
Note:
Mid-Market Value
2002 £6,227
2001 £6,037
National Savings Investment A/c 21,027 15,580
Current Account with IRSE 11,123 14,218
24,915 23,563
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’
ROBERT DELL BEQUEST FUND BALANCE SHEET
AT 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Capital Fund
Balance as at 1st Jan 2002 10,771 10,676
Add surplus for year 10,293 10,095
10,864 10,771
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Quoted Investments at Cost 10,000 10,000
Note:
Mid-Market Value
2002 £17,232
2001 £16,505
Current Account with IRSE 10,864 11,771
10,864 10,771
THE WING AWARD FOR SAFETY FUND
BALANCE SHEET
AT 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Capital Fund
Balance as at 1st Jan 2002 11,386 11,557
Add (deficit)surplus for year 1,0(121) 11,1(171)
11,265 11,386
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Quoted Investments at Cost 10,850 10,850
Note:
Mid-Market Value
2002 £9,569
2001 £13,723
Current Account with IRSE 12,415 12,536
11,265 11,386

98
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’
LICENSING SCHEME INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Licensing Registrar’s Services
& Office 111,158 89,052
Appraisal Engineer’s Fees 18,474 25,744
Engineer’s Fees 4,674 –
Logbook – Printing Costs 9,992 6,911
Printing & Stationery 2,824 4,160
Postage & Telephone 2,748 3,595
Audit Fees 500 1,410
Miscellaneous Expenses 1,726 2,014
Depreciation of Computer &
Office Equipment 1,617 1,435
Accreditation 9,417 8,421
Insurance 5,175 3,839
Testing Review Costs 1,000 34,932
Development Fund Provision 20,000 –
Surplus(Deficit) 14,195 26,569
203,500 208,082
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Licence Fees Received from
Years 2-5 Fund 57,738 67,146
Licence Fees Received – Year 1 48,961 21,147
Appraisal Fees Received 31,870 21,677
Bank Interest Received 3,840 4,346
Registered Employers’ Fee 21,570 27,509
Additional Copies of Employers’
Regulations 3,991 1,814
Sale of Logbooks 35,138 25,660
Donations 143 13
Testing Review Income – 35,000
Other Income 249 3,770
203,500 208,082
Note: Licence Fees are taken into the income account equally over the five years a licence is valid
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’
SCHOLARSHIP FUND INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Scholarship Prizes – Current Year 15,22– 13,600
Surplus transferred to Capital Fund 11,352 15,295
11,352 15,895
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Interest on Investments 5,888 1,895
Donation transferred from Main Fund 5,464 5,000
1,352 5,895
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’
ROBERT DELL BEQUEST FUND INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Scholarship Prizes – Current Year 308 300
Surplus transferred to Capital
Fund 193 395
401 395
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Interest on Investments 401 395
401 395
THE WING AWARD FOR SAFETY FUND
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER 2002
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Award and other costs 500 507
Surplus(deficit) transferred to/from
Capital Fund (121) (171)
379 336
31st Dec 2002 31st Dec 2001
£ £
Income from Investments 379 336
379 336

NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 99
Accounts and of £14,195 for Licensing activities.
The surplus for the Main Accounts was achieved
despite the comparatively low income from advertising,
down nearly £28,000 compared with 2001,
and poor level of income from investments. This was
countered by income from subscriptions and
contracts with the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) in
the United Kingdom for training and development
services. The former was well above the 2.5%
general increase in subscription rates and arose
from the increasing membership together with a
general tightening up of the administrative
procedures. A second refund of VAT of £10,544 was
received and this completes the claim made for
earlier years.
Major expenditure was incurred on the introduction
of a new computer system. The implementation
and training costs amounted to £25,267 whilst the
increase in assets of £11,330 shown in the balance
sheet arose from the purchase of the capital equipment
for the system. At the same time the internet
and telephone arrangements were optimised. The
new computer system enables integration of the
Institution’s administrative and financial procedures.
During 2002 the new membership database and
subscription management systems were commissioned.
In addition, common office facilities such
as e-mail were added to the office network. The full
finance system will be introduced at the beginning of
2003. General administration costs were slightly
lower than 2001 as some resource was diverted to
the SRA project mentioned above. £10,000 was
placed in the Development Fund and £10,000 has
been put into the Textbook Fund. The latter was
exhausted during the year by the completion of a
book on Metro Signalling. A textbook on Railway
Telecommunications is now in preparation. The
stock of existing publications was replenished with a
reprint of the Introduction to Signalling textbook.
The Licensing Scheme surplus was achieved after
placing £20,000 in a newly created Development
Fund. Indications are that there will be a major
expansion of the scheme over the coming two to
three years. The Fund will help pay for the administrative
changes needed. A considerable number of
licences were paid for in advance of issue and this
explains the sum of £85,110 shown in the
balance sheet. The high level of Sundry Debtors is
being addressed but many of these have arisen late
in the financial year.
No financial award was made from the
Thorrowgood or Scholarship Funds during 2002. A
donation to the Scholarship Fund was received from
the family of A A Cardani, Past President, for whom
a memorial fund was created during the year. All
funds were affected by relatively low income from
investments.
As required by the Charity Commissioners, a
review of the risks to which the Institution is exposed
was conducted and Council agreed certain changes
in November. A formal policy on reserves now
complements the risk assessment. Although the
capital value of shares is well down on earlier years,
the majority of the reserves are held as cash on
deposit and so the Institution remains in a good
position financially.
Changes in 2003 likely to affect the finances of the
Institution are a membership recruitment campaign,
the relaunch of IRSE News, further work for the SRA
and the ASPECT2003 Conference. As a result of the
satisfactory financial position no increase in
subscriptions is currently planned.
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
The year 2002 has once again seen a further
expansion of the role the Institution plays within the
industry’s training and development arena under the
chairmanship of Alastair Wilson. We have continued
to work with industry partners (SRA, RITC, HMRI)
and the T&D Manager Karen Gould has maintained
regular contact with the Sections and the industry
throughout the year to ensure that our work
maintains its relevance to the needs of the industry.
Every edition of IRSE News has carried at least one
article updating the membership on T&D activities.
LOCAL SECTION T&D REPRESENTATIVES
Our thanks go to our local section T&D representatives
for their help and continuing support over the
last year as follows: Gary Hall – Midlands & North
Western Section, John Dickson – Scottish Section,
Andy Moore – Plymouth Section, Stella Morris –
Western Section, Peter Symons – Australasian
Section.
The following highlights the main T&D activities of
the year:
SRA-Funded Projects – Open Learning Initiative
2001 – Body of Knowledge
Last year we were granted £100k by the SRA for
the production of the IRSE’s ‘Body of Knowledge’.
Several working groups have been very busy over
the last year drafting this document, which combines
and builds on the earlier work of the Training
& Development, Examination and Licensing
Committees to form a comprehensive reference
document for the professional development of the
railway signalling engineer. The document includes a
complete catalogue of all known IRSE technical
papers (UK) including IRSE Proceedings, IRSE News,
Aspect International Conferences and other IRSE
conferences and seminars. The catalogue is now
available on the website. The document has undergone
extensive review and revision by senior
members of the IRSE and is targeted for completion
in the spring of 2003. The Body of Knowledge will be
made available in CD ROM format.
SRA-Funded Projects for 2002
Perhaps of greatest significance this year was the
granting of a further £250K by the SRA for Phase 2 of
its Open Learning Initiative. The projects were
derived from the outputs of last year’s IRSE Modern
Apprenticeship Workshops where participants from
across the industry identified a need for:
• a concerted effort to recruit people into the
industry;
• a common, portable training scheme across the
industry with generic training objectives;

100
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT
• an Employers Training Manual and a Trainee
Workbook that would enable the collection of
evidence towards National Occupational
Standards, IRSE Licences and Engineering
Council Registration;
• a training association where employers could
support each others training schemes by
offering training placements on a reciprocal
basis to cover aspects of training outside of an
individual organisation's scope.
As a result, Richard Hobby was recruited on a
year’s contract, and Penny Pringle on a temporary
basis, to support the following projects that have
been jointly funded by the SRA and industry this
year:
• Career Route Map and ‘Getting Started’
Leaflet
Both these documents are now complete and in
wide circulation. The Career Route Map has been
well accepted and has been promoted throughout
the industry and through several academic institutions.
Over 80 participants at the IRSE Careers
Conference received copies in their delegate
packs. Copies of both of the above may be
obtained from the IRSE website. A colour poster of
the Career Route Map is also available from the
IRSE Head Office Training & Development team.
• Careers Conference June 2002
Over a hundred people attended the 2002
Training & Development Conference that was
aimed at promoting Careers in Railway Signalling
and Telecommunications. Andrew McNaughton,
Chief Engineer of Railtrack, and Keith Beattie,
Chief Engineer of LUL, jointly chaired the conference.
Invitations were sent out to colleges,
careers services and learning and skills councils as
well as industry and IRSE members and a good
mixture of delegates participated.
The Council’s thanks go to all those who helped
to make this conference such a success, and to
the sponsors of the conference, the SRA, Railtrack,
LUL and Amey Rail.
• Technician Training Scheme
Participants at the Modern Apprenticeship
Workshop last year agreed that a common training
scheme that fulfilled the requirements of industry
for basic level designers and testers as well as
advanced installers and maintainers should be
produced. After much discussion it became
apparent that the academic requirements for
EngTech registration are above those currently
required for many of the Modern Apprenticeship
Schemes in operation, either at Foundation or
Advanced Level. What was needed was an intermediate
training scheme that lay somewhere in
between the Advanced Modern Apprenticeship
and a graduate training scheme. A working party
has been formed with representation from a wide
range of railway S&T employers. The output will
take the form of an employer’s manual and an
employee’s logbook, both on CD-ROM, which it is
planned to have available for use by the
September 2003 intake of trainees. It is expected
that the IRSE’s Training & Development
Department will provide ongoing support for
implementation.
• BTEC Railway Signalling Units
The two BTEC units completed last year (Unit 26
Introduction to Railway Signalling and Unit 27
Railway Signalling Applications) are now part of the
new BTEC National Certificate in Operations and
Maintenance Engineering. Full details of the units
can be found on the EdExcel website. The units
may also be imported for use with a BTEC National
Certificate in Electrical/Electronic Engineering,
Manufacturing Engineering or other relevant BTEC
course. A working party comprising of key players
within the signalling industry and lecturers from
academic institutions already offering these
modules to students has been established and a
project is underway to provide a resource pack for
those teaching these units. The resource pack will
take the form of a CD-ROM and will comprise
detailed information that supports the syllabus and
suggested assignments for the students to
undertake. The product is scheduled for release in
early August 2003 and thus will be available in time
for the start of the new academic year. It is hoped
that suitably qualified members will used the
resource pack as an opportunity to show their
commitment to the IRSE Continuing Professional
Development policy by supporting the learning
and development of others at their local colleges
by offering to lecture on a part-time or visiting
basis.
• Accreditation Service
The IRSE is applying to the Engineering Council
(UK) for a licence to accredit or approve both
academic courses and Initial Professional
Development schemes. Many of the policies and
procedures stipulated as a requirement by the
Engineering Council are being put into place and
by mid-2003 we hope to see the first batch of IRSE
accredited courses. This work has been received
well by the SRA and IRSE accreditation is now
expected as the industry standard for S&T.
• IRSE Examination Student Resource Pack
This year has also seen the start up of a project
to enhance the student support materials that are
available for the IRSE Professional Examinations.
With the ever-increasing numbers of students
taking the exams it has become apparent that
there are a limited number of educational
resources that students taking the examinations
can refer to for learning and revision purposes.
Again a working party has been formed with
representation from many key people within the
industry to ensure that the product will meet
students’ needs. The product, which is due to take
the form of a CD-ROM, is expected to be available
for the 2004 study groups.
Future further external funding for IRSE training
and development activities is likely to be dependent
upon the formation of the National Rail Academy and
a Rail Sector Skills Council, to which we have offered
our full support.

NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 101
Administration and Facilitation of the IRSE
Examinations
There were a record number of over 120
candidates applying to sit the IRSE exam this year in
four countries, which presented a challenging
administrative exercise. It was the first time we had
set up a centre in Thailand, as well as Hong Kong
and Australia. A number of the more ‘traditional’ UK
exam centres did not operate this year due to various
difficulties with venues. In order to provide adequate
coverage and accommodate all candidates a
number of new centres were set up in the UK:
Huddersfield to cover York and Manchester, Bristol
to cover the West, Birmingham and Watford to cover
north London. Croydon continued to cover south
London and the South-East and Glasgow our
Scottish candidates. Inevitably there were lessons to
be learned from organising an event on such a huge
scale with a 40% increase on anything that we have
seen before, but the examination generally ran very
smoothly again this year.
Support for IRSE Exam Self-Help Study Groups
The number of self-help study groups has
remained fairly constant, although the distribution
changes. As usual, many successful groups folded
when all the members passed their examinations,
and new ones formed where there was a concentration
of like-minded individuals. The T&D Department
has continued to actively support existing groups
and to facilitate the start-up of new groups where
they are needed.
Continuing Professional Development
Our policy has now been in operation for sometime
and has been built on the Engineering Council’s
requirements and the record-keeping approach
adopted by the Professional Development
Partnership (IEE, IMechE, IIE etc). The IRSE has also
continued its membership of the Engineering
Council’s Professional Development Forum.
Both CPD and the IRSE’s Professional
Development Record and Licensing Scheme Log
Books have continued to be promoted to both
organisations and individuals. Railtrack (now
Network Rail) has since included monitored CPD in
their Engineering Education Policy, which we
understand is also being taken up by the London
Underground group of companies.
The prime responsibility for CPD rests with each
member – however, the Institution recognises that
effective CPD relies on a partnership between
individuals, employers, the Institution and training
providers. Members are encouraged to take ownership
of their careers and focus and record their
professional development to:
• be better be able to recognise opportunity;
• be more aware of the trends and directions in
engineering and society;
• become increasingly effective in the workplace;
• be able to help, influence and lead others by
example;
• be confident of future employability;
• have a fulfilling and rewarding career;
• be more aware of own capabilities.
Indications are that both members and employers
are positively taking up the system and that it is seen
to be useful to the industry as a whole. Those that
have championed the system have an extensive
and useful portfolio of evidence to which they can
refer time and time again and these have been
successfully used for competence based assessments
for Engineering Council registration purposes
and for nationally recognised occupational qualifications.
Engineering Council
The T&D Manager, Karen Gould, has continued to
be actively involved with supporting our Engineering
Council Nominated Body Status. Further training
events were held during the IRSE Convention this
year in Sydney and before the members’ lunch in
June for those involved with assessing candidates
for Engineering Council registration.
AWARDS
Thorrowgood Scholarship
The Thorrowgood Scholarship is awarded
annually under a bequest of the late W J Thorrowgood
(Past President) to assist the development of a
young engineer employed in the signalling and
telecommunications field of engineering and takes
the form of an engraved medallion and a cheque for
a sum to be used to finance a study tour of railway
signalling installations or signalling manufacturing
facilities. The award is made to the Institution young
member attaining at least a pass with credit in four
modules in the Institution’s examination.
The Thorrowgood Scholar for 2001 was Mr P
Shepley, Signal Engineer at Watford with GTRM, and
he was presented with his award at the Annual
General Meeting in April 2002.
Dell Award
Under a bequest made by the late Robert Dell
(Past President) this award is made to an employee
of London Underground Ltd for achievement of a
high standard of skill in the science and application
of railway signalling. The winner of the 2002 Dell
Award was Mr G Neacy, Deputy Signal Asset
Engineer for JNP Infraco.
Wing Award for Safety
The 2002 Wing Award for Safety, commemorating
the life and work of the late Peter Wing (Fellow), was
presented to Railtrack’s nominee, Mr A Swann, at
the National Railway Engineering Safety Awards
held in Birmingham on 11th April 2002 for his
substantial contribution for over ten years to track
safety by creating memorable communications to
improve trackside safety discipline.
LICENSING
The year 2002 has been a very busy for the IRSE
Licensing Scheme. There has been a significant
increase in the number of licence applications
received, which has stretched the Scheme’s
resources. One thousand three hundred and fiftyone
new and renewed licences have been issued
and 1,423 licences have expired giving a total of

102
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT
3,595 valid licences at the end of the year. Sales of
the revised Professional Development Folder and
Licensing Scheme Logbook have continued at a
high level, with over 1,600 sold in 2002.
John Corrie has been Chairman of the Scheme for
the past year. Paul Mann has replaced Laurie Page
as the Network Rail representative, and David
Harford is due to replace Mike Moore as the
Telecommunications sector representative. Colin
Porter has relinquished the Chairmanship of the
Committee, but continues as the Licensing Scheme
Treasurer. The Scheme has recruited a new member
of staff, Gordon Thorne, whose responsibilities
include the checking of licence applications, and the
implementation of the Assessing Agent Surveillance
Visit plan. In January 2002 the ‘Scale of Charges’ for
the Scheme were increased in line with inflation.
The UKAS recreate-accreditation visit took place
in September 2002 and recreate-accreditation was
achieved although there was an increase in the number
of non-conformance reports raised against the
operation of the scheme. This was due to the high
level of applications being processed and the
consequent lack of resources to prepare for the visit,
rather than a fundamental defect in the operation of
the scheme. Remedial actions to clear the NCRs are
continuing, with regular progress reports to the
Licensing Committee.
The Scheme now has 25 assessing agents.
Twenty-four surveillance visits were completed
during the year, and two new companies, Union
Switch & Signal, Brisbane, and LTE Network
Communications have been approved as assessing
agents. Four assessing agents received unsatisfactory
reports. Two of these companies have since
completed the required remedial actions, and have
been reinstated. The other two companies are an
existing assessing agent that is suspended pending
a surveillance visit to review the implementation of
effective remedial actions, and a new applicant that
will be required to complete a further initial appraisal
visit. The continuing increase in the number of
assessing agents and the need to complete the
outstanding interviews of competence assessors by
the end of 2003 will significantly increase the
number of visits to assessing agents during the
coming year.
The Scheme continues to implement its decision
to base its new and revised competence standards
on the national standards produced by ‘The
Occupational Standards Council for Engineering’
(OSCEng). The competence assessor assessorqualifications
have also been upgraded from “being
trained to a standard exemplified by the NVQ
D32/33 standards” to “being certificated to the NVQ
A1 standard”, so that assessments for IRSE
Licences can be accepted as evidence for railway
industry NVQs. The imminent restatement of the
Network Rail and London Underground Ltd
requirements for signalling and telecommunications
engineers to be IRSE-licensed is expected to
significantly increase the assessment resources
required within the industry. Additional assessing
agents and appraisal team members are being
sought.
There has been significant development activity
on licence categories, although this has still to bear
fruit in the form of new and revised competence
standards. Not only are the new and revised
standards based on OSC Eng standards, but their
format has been redeveloped to provide the
workplace and competence assessors with more
guidance when undertaking assessments. The major
testing categories have been piloted, and the
rework, which was significant in the case of the
Tester-in-Charge category, is nearing completion.
The review of the Engineering Manager categories
has been started and the pace of this work will
increase, as the resources allocated to other categories
are reassigned. Work is also in hand on the
preparation of a ‘generic’ team leader category to
replace the Installation and Maintenance Team
Leader categories. The lower level competence
standards for the Installation and Maintenance categories
have been developed in association with the
RITC. The next amendment to the Licensing
Scheme documentation should include ten new or
revised competence standards.
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
The 89th Annual General Meeting was held at the
Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, on Friday
19th April 2002 when the composition of the new
Council was announced, as follows:
President: P W Stanley
Vice-Presidents: C H Porter
J D Corrie
Members of Council from Class of Fellow:
W J Coenraad A J Fisher
J D Francis F Heijnen
P A Jenkins F How
J M Irwin J Poré
D Weedon J F Wilson
Members of Council from Class of Member:
D S Angill D W Crabtree
R G Halse Mrs C Porter
P N Lane K L Walter
The formal proceedings included the adoption of
the revised Articles of Association that had been
circulated with the notice calling the AGM and this
was followed by the inauguration of the new
President, Mr P W Stanley, who gave his Presidential
Address. A transcript of this will appear in the
Proceedings.
COUNCIL MEETINGS
Eight meetings of the Council were held during the
year when the business of the Institution was
conducted. Much of the business, although routine,
is vital to the ongoing management of day-to-day
Institution affairs. The remainder of the business was
concerned with the strategic development of the
Institution and further extension of the Institution’s
activities in support of the training and professional
development of its members. Council is always
delighted to receive visits from colleagues around
the world and distinguished visitors to Council
meetings this year included Mr P Symons, Country

NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 103
Vice-President for Australasia, and Mr R Woodhead,
former Secretary and Committee member of the
Southern African Section.
ANNUAL DINNER
The Savoy Hotel, London, was the venue for the
38th Annual Dinner held following the Annual
General Meeting on 19th April 2002. About 470
members and their guests were present. Dr Peter
Winter, UIC Project Director ERTMS and Technical
Director ERRI, was the principal guest on this
occasion. During his address he explained how the
European railways were planning to implement
ERTMS on their systems. This was a most successful
and enjoyable evening with a near maximum
attendance at the event.
MEMBERS’ LUNCHEON
The fourth Members’ Luncheon was held on 19th
June 2002 when 75 members of the Institution,
including 12 Past Presidents and nine members with
over 50 years membership, took luncheon at the
Victory Services Club in Seymour Street London. An
enjoyable 3-course luncheon with wine was
consumed with pleasure.
The 78th person to serve as President since the
Institution’s formation in 1912, Mr Peter Stanley,
addressed the members present with a brief speech
and mentioned the forthcoming programme for his
presidential year of office.
Mr K W Burrage, IRSE Chief Executive, reported
on the current membership numbers of the
Institution and said that 30 members had over 50
years membership, nine of whom were able to
accept the President’s invitation to be present at the
luncheon as guests of the Institution. Twelve
members had over 60 years membership and two of
those were also present, Mr Peter Guyatt and also
the longest serving Past President, Mr Armand
Cardani, who was President 32 years ago in 1970.
Three members had over 70 years membership,
the longest serving member was believed to be Mr S
E W Stokes, who resides in Brazil, with 78 years
membership of the Institution but it had not been
possible to obtain a response from his last known
address. However, letters of good wishes had been
received from Douglas Kidd, a member for 72 years
residing in Shaftesbury and aged 97, and also from
Wilfred Hardman, a member for 73 years and living
in New Zealand. Many other members who were
unable to attend in person had sent letters of
apology and good wishes.
The luncheon concluded in a most pleasant and
happy atmosphere of friendship and camaraderie
and was judged a great success and had been
thoroughly enjoyed by all present.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
The International Convention was held in Sydney,
Australia, between 29th April and 3rd May 2002.
Over 350 members and guests representing 18
countries were present at the event. Following the
welcome speeches members enjoyed a number of
technical presentations and viewed a wide variety of
interesting technical installations and visits. Whilst
the members were engaged on technical activity a
number of interesting and enjoyable tourist visits
were arranged for the guests and members and
guests together enjoyed a number of excellent social
events.
A full report on the Convention has already been
published in IRSE News and will also appear in the
Institution’s Proceedings. The Council is appreciative
of the arrangements made by the Australian
Convention organising committee and the officials
and staff of the railways in Sydney, and also for the
generous support of the Convention’s sponsors that
made the occasion such a memorable and enjoyable
one. Particular mention should also be made of hard
work and dedication of the Convention Organiser,
Mr Ray Weedon, to whose organisational skill and
expertise Council is again indebted for ensuring
another successful International Convention.
ANNUAL DINNER AND DANCE
The Copthorne Tara Hotel, Kensington, London,
was the venue for the dinner dance this year, which
was held on Friday 18th October.
Members and their guests were greeted by the
President, Mr Peter Stanley and his wife Carol at the
opening reception.
The principal guest on this occasion was Dr Peter
Watson OBE, Chairman AEA Technology plc and
formerly BRB board member for Engineering, who
was accompanied by his wife. An excellent threecourse
dinner was served followed by coffee and
mints. After dinner, the President introduced his
principal guest to the gathering and Dr Watson, who
had been the principal guest at the Dinner Dance ten
years earlier in 1992, referred back to the remarks he
made in 1992 and spoke about the current state of
the railway Industry and the contribution that can be
made by S&T engineering. His comments were
made in an encouraging and amusing manner that
was thoroughly enjoyed by all present.
Music for dancing following the dinner was
provided by the East Woodhay Silver Band who
played a selection of music in a variety to suit all
musical tastes and dancing styles.
The Institution is grateful for the financial support
it receives from its sponsors, which permitted the
dinner dance to be arranged and accommodated in
such an attractive setting and provided the
surroundings conducive to the happy and friendly
occasion in which members and their guests could
relax. Regrettably numbers were significantly down
on previous years and a number of the major
signalling suppliers were also absent. However, the
114 members and their guests that did attend all
enjoyed a pleasant and happy evening.
LONDON TECHNICAL MEETINGS
The level of attendance at the six technical
meetings held in London easily maintained the levels
of recent years at over 100 plus at each meeting and
those who were present enjoyed good topical
papers and interesting lively discussions. The
Council is grateful to those who find the time from

104
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT
their increasingly busy schedules to prepare and
present papers at these meetings. Thanks are
especially due to Mr B Grose, Papers Assistant
Editor, for the invaluable service he has provided
over many years in the transcription and editing of
the tapes of the discussion following the London
papers for publication later in the Proceedings. Mr
Grose has unfortunately had to retire and Mr Peter
Grant has now taken over this role. Thanks are also
due to Mr Colin Bailey, the Papers Editor, for proofreading
and preparing the papers for publication. Mr
Bailey also retired this year and Mr David Stratton
has filled this position.
CONFERENCES AND TECHNICAL VISITS
The Institution programme again contained a
variety of opportunities for attendance at technical
conferences and technical visits.
This year conferences were held on 21st
November in London on Safety Approval of Train
Control Systems and on 19th February in London on
Justifying Investment in Train Control Systems.
Technical visits were held on 22nd/23rd November
to Olten, Switzerland, to see the Swiss ERTMS
installation, and to AEA Technology in Derby on
28/29th March.
All these events received a reasonable level of
support and Council is appreciative of the hard work
and effort contributed by those concerned with the
organisation and administration of the events and
especially to Keith Walter for his help with the
technical visits.
The planning work for the next International
Aspect Conference scheduled for the autumn of
2003 continues under the Chairmanship of Council
member Mr A Fisher.
PUBLICATIONS AND PUBLICITY
IRSE News
As the primary vehicle for communication with
members, IRSE News continued to be published on
a bi-monthly basis with six full colour editions. The
first of these comprised 16 pages whilst the other
five were of 20 pages each, establishing a new
benchmark this year of 116 pages but one that we
hope to improve upon still further in the future.
Content included an excellent range of IRSE
activity reports together with technical and general
interest articles submitted by members, along with a
proportion of advertising, the income from which
was able to offset production costs. There was also
a good flow of letters received on a range of topics.
Thanks are expressed by the editors to contributors
and advertisers alike and for the continued cooperation
of Communiqué Print Services and
Macmillan Scott.
Members are encouraged to submit articles for
publication along with photographs of signalling or
related subjects in order that IRSE News continues
to be informative, educational and topical.
The Council is grateful to the Honorary Editor,
Mr J D Francis, and to the Honorary Assistant Editor,
Mr A J R Rowbotham, for the work they undertake
in producing this very important means of communication
with and between members of the
Institution.
Publications
There continues to be good demand for the
textbooks and other printed material produced by
the Institution. The basic signalling textbook has
been reprinted in standard textbook format, recreate-titled
Introduction to Railway Signalling and is
selling well. Additions to the publications list this
year have included the proceedings of the conferences
and seminars run by the Institution (and these
are now usually available in CD format) and a further
reprint by Mr P Kay of the Institution’s “green” booklets
in combined volume format. The latest reprint
covers Signalling Instruments and is comprised of
“green” booklets Nos. 4, 12 and 13. Work is almost
complete on the new Metro Railway Signalling textbook
and this will be available for sale at Aspect
2003. Work has just started on a new textbook on
Railway Telecommunications.
Stocks of the Institution’s primary textbooks,
Railway Signalling and Railway Control Systems,
became exhausted during the year. Regrettably the
original publishing plates had been destroyed
without the Institution being informed and both
books were therefore out of print. Steps were taken
for the IRSE to acquire the publishing rights to both
these books and it is pleasing to report that Railway
Signalling is now available again and arrangements
are in hand to reprint Railway Control Systems. The
future policy of the Institution will be to retain the
publishing rights and the original publishing plates of
its textbooks so that it always remains in control of
any necessary reprinting.
Proceedings
The Institution’s Proceedings for 2001/2002 were
published as usual in October, within six months of
the close of the session, and the Council is grateful
to Mr J Tilly, Honorary Editor, for his work leading to
such prompt publication. It was decided to continue
with the facility for the Proceedings to carry colour
advertising and this enabled the Institution to
provide a colour cover to the Proceedings again. Mr
Tilly has indicated his wish to retire as Proceedings
editor and Ms Andrea Parker will succeed him.
Website
The Institution’s website has seen a number of
improvements throughout the last year and many
favourable comments have been received from
website visitors as to its format and ease of use.
It is intended that the website receives a complete
facelift every September. The timing of this is allimportant
as it allows the opportunity to provide a
listing of all the Institution activities for the forthcoming
session and this minimises the work
involved in the updating process.
Technical meetings and events held at the London
centre are listed as well as those held at provincial
centres in the UK and by the Younger Members’
Section. Whenever possible, hyperlinks are provided
to other items of information, for example where
further details exist of conferences or dinners.

NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 105
There are also links to the Australasian, Central
European, Hong Kong and Southern African
Sections, with an additional link to the Dutch
language site operated for members in the Benelux
countries.
The new North American Section, formed during
2002, also has its own web page on the IRSE
website. The capability of downloading the North
American Section’s application form directly from
the web page has been supplemented with ‘US
Letter’ size IRSE membership forms and information
packs. These can also be downloaded without the
need for reformatting page sizes, thus proving to be
an invaluable aid to the North American Section in
recruiting new members.
The IRSE website is helping the Institution
maintain strict change control over many important
documents, for example the IRSE Membership Form
and the Information Pack. As each document
undergoes any change, the ‘source document’
(master copy) is put onto the website, thus ensuring
that the latest version is always available. Categories
of licences, scopes etc for the IRSE Licensing
Scheme are similarly controlled via the website.
A number of items of information are now on the
website as reference documents to members, such
as the Articles of Association and the Byelaws. The
list of publications available for sale is also usefully
stored on the website and can be downloaded
directly. A trial is underway to determine whether
members would wish to have copies of the
Institution’s newsletter, IRSE News, available
electronically on the website.
Late in 2002, a new feature was added to the
website that, although not for members’ general use,
has proved beneficial to the IRSE Council and
officials. A “Restricted Area” of the website, with
strict access controlled by encrypted usernames
and passwords, allows authorised users the
opportunity to view information that would otherwise
only be available by being sent copies by
post.
The Website Manager is David Crabtree, who is
also the Institution’s Publicity Officer and a Council
member. David continually strives to improve the
website and is always keen to point out that
constructive feedback is welcome, providing a
useful way of gauging visitors’ needs for the
website.
Recruitment Activity
The Recruitment & Publicity Committee has met
four times throughout the year and is grateful to the
companies who have sponsored these meetings by
the provision of the venue and hospitality. Work continues
in the active promotion of the Institution’s
activities throughout the profession.
The recruitment CD-ROM “Introduction to the
IRSE” has proved very popular and has been
updated and revised to reflect current requirements.
To further aid the recruitment process a simplified
version, capable of e-mail transmission, is also
available. Council is grateful to Stuart Angill for
production of this CD-ROM.
A new format recruitment poster, in two complementary
versions, has been produced in A3 format
and copies are available from the IRSE London
office.
In association with the revised Articles of
Association and Byelaws, approved at the Annual
General Meeting in April, the application form has
been completely revised and is available to download
from the website. The information pack has
similarly been extensively revised to incorporate the
grade structure changes and includes guidance
notes on completion of the application form.
The Institution’s publicity stand is deployed at
appropriate exhibitions and conferences to advertise
the Institution, to inform visitors of what the
Institution has to offer, to provide information packs
and to take orders for Institution publications. The
publicity stand was deployed at the Railtex 2002
Exhibition held in November 2002 at the Birmingham
National Exhibition Centre. Thanks are expressed to
the volunteers who manned the stand throughout
the three days of the exhibition.
Council is appreciative of the efforts of Derek
Edney and the members of the Recruitment &
Publicity Committee for all the work they do to
promote the activities of the Institution and to
encourage people to become members.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER BODIES
Engineering Council
The Institution is a fully nominated body of the
Engineering Council, licensed to register Incorporated
Engineers and Engineering Technicians.
During the year the Institution registered five
Incorporated Engineers and two Engineering
Technicians.
Necessary revisions to the Institution’s Articles of
Association to take account of the Institution’s
nominated body status and the introduction of new
byelaws to assist the administration of the
Institution’s affairs were adopted by special
resolution at the Annual General Meeting held on
19th April 2002.
Institution of Incorporated Engineers
The collaborative arrangements with the
Institution of Incorporated Engineers that permits
joint membership of both Institutions at reduced
subscription levels has been continued.
The Council is grateful to the IIE for its ready help
and co-operation in providing accommodation and
services at Savoy Hill House for IRSE use.
Institution of Railway Operators
The Institution continues to liaise with operating
colleagues in the development of their new
Institution of Railway Operators that was formally
launched in May 2000.
Hazards Forum
The Institution continued its membership of the
Hazards Forum, a multi-institution organisation set
up to bring together a variety of engineering and
scientific disciplines, to discuss issues arising from
man made and natural disasters and to improve

106
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT
knowledge of a wide variety of hazards and the
ability to prepare for them. However, the Institution
has reviewed the value of continued membership of
this body and decided not to renew the subscription
for 2003.
Railway Engineers’ Forum
Together with the Institutions of Civil, Electrical
and Mechanical Engineers, the Institution continued
as a member of the Railway Engineers’ Forum that
arranges technical meetings on railway engineering
topics of multi-disciplinary interest. The IRSE is due
to take over the chairmanship of this body for two
years with effect from 2003.
INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL
COMMITTEE
The International Technical Committee continues
with its work and completed preparation of its sixth
report, which is concerned with the subject of
“Safety Approval of Train Control Systems”. The
report was presented to a seminar in London in
November and will be published in April 2003.
COMMITTEES
The following were appointed to serve on the
standing committees shown and the Council
extends its thanks to them for the valuable work they
undertake on behalf of the Institution:
Management Committee: Messrs C H Porter
(Chairman), R E B Barnard, J D Corrie, J D Francis,
M Govas, R G Halse, C Kessell, J Poré, P W Stanley,
H Uebel, A D Wilson and K W Burrage (Secretary).
Membership Committee: Messrs C Kessell
(Chairman), D S Angill, R E B Barnard, R Blakey, J D
Corrie, D A Edney, P Grant, A P Gunner (EC (UK)
rep), R Hall, R Harding, C H Porter, P W Stanley, J
Tilly (Secretary), F Wilson and K W Burrage.
Finance Committee: Messrs R E B Barnard
(Chairman), W Coenraad, J D Corrie, M H Govas
(Treasurer/Secretary), C Kessell, C H Porter, P W
Stanley and K W Burrage.
Training & Development Committee: Messrs A D
Wilson (Chairman), A Fisher, O King, A Kornas, P
Mann, M Moore, R Moore, R Nelson, M Poole, P
Richardson, J Sadler, A P Smith, C R White, and Ms
K Gould (Secretary). Advisors: K W Burrage (IRSE
Chief Executive), P Wason (IIE Chief Executive) and
Ms J Chappell (RITC).
Examination Committee: Messrs C R White
(Chairman), I Brown, K Donnelly, K Harrison, D A
Hotchkiss, C Lovelock, D Jones, A Kornas, T Lee,
S Rodgers (Secretary). R C Short, N T Smith, C I
Weightman and D N Woodland.
International Technical Committee: W J
Coenraad, Chairman (Netherlands), B Costa (Italy), U
Dolder (Switzerland), A Exer, (Switzerland), I Gal
(Hungary), E O Goddard (UK), G Hagelin (Sweden), Y
Hirao (Japan), S Hiraguri (Japan), C Kessell (UK), J
Kiefer (Switzerland), F Kollmannsberger (Germany),
L Matikainen (Finland), F Montes (Spain), J
Noffsinger (UK), D Pascoe (USA), J Poré, Secretary
(France), C Sevestre (France), P W Stanley (UK), K
Stolte (Netherlands), J Stutzbach (Germany), K
Suwe (Germany), H Uebel (Germany) and A Zierl
(Austria).
Licensing Committee: Messrs J D Corrie
(Chairman), J W A Colvin, F How, D Dykstra, P
Mann, M D Moore, M Watson-Walker (Secretary) and
D N Weedon. Advisors: K W Burrage (IRSE), J Tillin,
and P F Wason (IIE),
Recruitment & Publicity Committee: Messrs D A
Edney (Chairman), D S Angill, D W Crabtree, J Duffy,
A Fisher, J D Francis, M Hewitt, T J Janes, I Mitchell,
R H Price, A J R Rowbotham, D H Stratton (Hon
Secretary), S Turner, G F Wire and D Woodland.
Younger Members’ Section Committee: Messrs
J Haile (Chairman), K Goodhand (Secretary), M J
Holder, R G Halse, A Khaleel, C Oykenami, D
Woodland and K Gould.
Internal Auditors: C Kessell, A Fisher and D
McKeown.
OVERSEAS, UK LOCAL AND YOUNGER
MEMBERS’ SECTIONS
The overseas sections of the Institution in
Australasia, Hong Kong and Southern Africa, and
the Midland & North Western, Plymouth, Scottish,
Western and York Sections in the United Kingdom all
continue to operate successfully. Each section
arranged its own programme of meetings and other
events during the year, details of which will appear in
the Proceedings.
Local meetings of members in Central Europe
have continued to be held and our members in the
Benelux countries meet locally in Holland. Thanks
are due to Mr H Uebel and Mr W Coenraad for their
initiative in arranging these local meetings and to the
railway and contracting organisations in Europe who
have provided accommodation and hospitality for
the meetings.
The inaugural meeting of the new North American
Section took place in May 2002 in Louisville,
Kentucky, USA. Council wishes Mr W Scheerer and
this new venture every success for the future.
The Younger Members’ Section continues to
arrange meetings at a number of locations during
the year for the younger members of the Institution.
This year’s programme included the usual meeting
for the IRSE Examination review as well as a number
of seminar events.
The Council wishes to record its thanks to the
Officers, Committee members and all others in the
Sections, both overseas and in the UK for the
excellent work they undertake in organising the
meetings and other events. Their dedication, hard
work and enthusiasm, when under increasingly
heavy day-to-day work pressures, is a major
contribution to the success of the Institution.
The Officers of the Sections were:
Australasian Section: Chairman Mr L Brearley;
Country Vice-President, Mr P R Symons; Vice-
Chairman, Mr K I Walker; Hon Secretary & Treasurer,
Mr G Willmott.
Hong Kong Section: Chairman & Country Vice-
President, Mr P Gaffney; Vice-Chairmen, Mr F

NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 107
Fabbian and Mr P K Wai; Hon Secretary, Mr F L Hui.
Southern African Section: Chairman, Mr B
Steyn; Country Vice-President, Mr A le Roux; Vice-
Chairman & Hon Treasurer, Mr J C van de Pol; Hon
Secretary, Mr V Bowles.
North American Section: Chairman, Mr W
Scheerer; Vice-Chairman, W Petit; Secretary, C
Tinkham.
Central European Members: Convenor, Mr H
Uebel.
Benelux Members: Convenor, Mr W Coenraad.
UK
Midland & North-Western Section: Chairman,
Mr C Williams; Vice-Chairman, Mr I Mitchell; Hon
Secretary, Mr W Redfern; Hon Treasurer, Mr A
Walker.
Plymouth Section: Chairman, Mr D Helliwell;
Vice-Chairman, Mr J Stiles; Hon Secretary &
Treasurer, Mr D Came.
Scottish Section: Chairman, Mr P Humphreys;
Hon Secretary, Mr A King; Hon Treasurer, Mr A
McWhirter.
Western Section: Chairman, Mr M Glover; Hon
Secretary, Mr D Gillanders, Hon Treasurer, Mr M
Brookes.
York Section: Chairman, Mr D Bowlby; Hon
Secretary, Mr J Maw; Hon Treasurer, Mr R Price.
Younger Members’ Section: Chairman, Mr J
Haile; Hon Secretary, K Goodhand.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Institution functions effectively as a result of
the efforts of our team of staff and volunteers, whose
achievements have resulted in a gradual expansion
of the scope of our activities whilst retaining the
personal contacts that maintain the sense of
community within our relatively small Institution.
I am most grateful for the able support given me
by Ken Burrage our Chief Executive, our two
Vice-Presidents, Colin Porter and John Corrie, and
our Treasurer Martin Govas, particularly during a
period when my availability was reduced due to
family circumstances. Throughout the year I have
been fortunate to have the support and advice of
many former Presidents several of who continue to
give active support to our activities.
The choice of Australia as a convention venue was
not difficult, given the invitation and programme put
together by the Australasian Section. The resulting
convention was very successful and a tribute to the
efforts of the Australasian Section chaired by
Richard Bell and then Les Brearley and their
organising committee. I was very grateful to Trevor
Moore for answering all my queries and to Peter
Symons, Country Vice-President, who assured me
that all I need do was turn up and smile. They
delivered the programme as promised to the
satisfaction and enjoyment of all concerned; I count
myself very fortunate to have been in that position.
Once again Keith Walter continued to take on the
planning and organising of our European and UK
technical visits, for which I thank him along with
Peter Winter, Urs Dolder and the team of Swiss
engineers who delivered a remarkably detailed
introduction to the Luzern – Olten ERTMS Level 2
line, also to Richard Waterman, Dave Delaney and
colleagues from AEA Technology Rail who laid on a
glimpse of the latest developments in technology for
train planning and control.
My thanks for their considerable efforts also go to
David Crabtree who continues to develop and maintain
the IRSE website, coping with frequent changes
and ensuring its continuous availability, Quentin
Macdonald who once again organised the Annual
Dinner, a veritable master of getting quarts into pint
pots – or so it seems, and John Haile who has
worked hard to promote activities for our younger
members which will be enhanced by a conference
attached to Aspect 2003.
My heartfelt thanks also go to those who agreed to
present papers and make presentations at seminars,
and on visits. It is their efforts, with those of many
volunteers who serve on committees and take on
other Institution responsibilities, which make our
programmes of events a success.
I must also record my appreciation of the support
and work of my wife Carol, who has accompanied
me on several visits and looked after my office
admin and shown great forbearance of the demands
on time and travel that the Presidential year entails.
Finally I offer to my successor, Colin Porter, my
very best wishes for a successful year. I do not know
if the Institution has ever before had a President who
has served as Treasurer for many years and who
knows so much of its detailed workings. Certainly
Colin has been a most prodigious worker on our
behalf and I know that the Institution could not have
a President more committed to its future development
and to its continued success.
P W STANLEY
President
Savoy Hill House
Savoy Hill
London WC2R 0BS March 2003
A company limited by guarantee registered in England No. 125685
Registered Charity No. 1046999

108
Ninetieth Annual General Meeting
Minutes of the Ninetieth Annual General Meeting
held at the Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2
on Friday 25th April 2003
The Retiring President, Mr P W Stanley, in the Chair
PREVIOUS MINUTES AND AUDITOR’S
REPORT
It was proposed by Mr P Lane (Member) and
seconded by Mrs C Porter (Member) and carried
that the minutes of the 89th Annual General Meeting
held on 19th April 2002 be taken as read and they
were signed by the President.
The President then asked the Secretary to read
the Report of the Auditor, which he did.
ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS
2002
The President commented upon the main features
of the Annual Report for 2002, in particular he said
that there were many changes taking place in the
signalling industry and a highlight of the year had
been the formation of the new North American
Section and he was pleased that its Chairman, Mr W
Scheerer (Hon Fellow), was able to be present this
evening. At the request of the President, the
Institution's Treasurer, Mr M H Govas, reviewed the
Statements of Account and Balance Sheets for the
year. Mr Govas said a satisfactory financial result
had been achieved by the Institution in 2002 and
that the Licensing Scheme had also achieved a
surplus. The President then asked whether anyone
present wished to discuss any point in the Annual
Report and Accounts. Mr F Hewlett (Associate)
asked for clarification of the membership statistics
table shown on page 2 of the Annual Report and, in
particular, wished to know why the detailed numbers
by grade etc as shown in previous years no longer
appeared. The Chief Executive explained that with
the recent introduction of the new database to
record membership numbers it had not been
possible to reconcile the figures to those shown in
previous reports. However, he could confirm that
about 200 members had been lost during the year
and about 250 new members had been gained so
that overall the Institution’s membership increased
and that this continued the trend of recent years. He
also invited Mr Hewlett to visit the Institution HQ
office if he wished, where the staff would be pleased
to demonstrate the new IT system and to answer
any further queries he might have on the membership
numbers.
There being no further questions raised, it was
proposed by the President, seconded by Mr J Corrie
(Fellow) and carried that the Annual Report and
Accounts for the year 2002 as presented be
adopted.
COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL 2003-2004
The President announced that as a result of the
ballot that had been held the Institution's Council for
the year 2003-2004 would be composed as under:
President:
C H Porter
Vice-Presidents: J D Corrie
J Poré
Members of Council from Class of Fellow:
W J Coenraad J M Irwin
A J Fisher
P A Jenkins
J D Francis
I Mitchell
F Heijnen
D Weedon
F How
J F Wilson
Members of Council from Class of Member:
D S Angill
D N Woodland
D W Crabtee
N C Wright
Mrs C Porter
K L Walter
Members of Council from Class of Associate
Member:
J Haile
C Lake
The President proposed a vote of thanks to the
following members of Council who were retiring for
their service to the Institution:
• A Wilson, Fellow, Council member for 14 years
and President in 1997/1998;
• H Uebel, Fellow, Council member for nine years
and President in 2000/2001;
• R Halse, Member, Council member for 12
years; and
• P Lane, Member, Council member for ten years.
The meeting showed its appreciation and thanks
with applause.
AUDITOR
The President announced that the Institution's
Auditors, I Katte & Co, of 8 Wexfenne Gardens,
Pyrford, Woking, Surrey, had indicated their willingness
to continue in this capacity for a further year
and it was the recommendation of the Council that
they should do so. It was proposed by Mr M Hamlyn
(Fellow), seconded by Mr C Hale (Fellow) and carried
that I Katte & Co be appointed Auditors to the
Institution for the year 2003.
OTHER BUSINESS
AWARDS
The President’s Award
The President said that the President’s Award is
made only rarely and is given to recognise exceptionally
meritorious service to the profession.
It therefore gave him much pleasure to be able to
present the award this year to Dr Peter Winter of

NINETIETH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 109
Swiss Federal Railways in recognition of his leadership,
personal commitment and efforts over a period
of more than ten years in encouraging and
supporting the many engineers in the railways and
the supply industry who were concerned in the
development of the European Train Control System.
Mr Stanley presented Dr Winter with the
President’s Award Medallion suitably engraved and
a certificate of the award citation amidst applause.
NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TAKES
THE CHAIR
The retiring President, Mr P W Stanley, then
invited the newly elected President, Mr C H Porter, to
take the Chair, which he did amidst applause, and
Mr Stanley invested him with the Presidential Chain
of Office.
VOTE OF THANKS TO MR P W
STANLEY
Having taken the Chair, Mr Porter invested Mr
Stanley with his Past President's Medallion and
proposed a hearty vote of thanks to him for the
excellent way in which he had carried out the
Presidential duties during the past year. Mr Porter’s
proposal was carried with enthusiastic applause.
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
The President, Mr C H Porter, then delivered his
Inaugural Address.
A vote of thanks to him for his Address was
proposed by Mr C Kessell and carried with
applause.
The meeting then terminated.
POST-MEETING NOTES FOR THE RECORD
The Wing Award for Safety
The “Wing Award for Safety” was introduced in
1994 to commemorate the life and work of the late
Peter Wing, a Fellow of the Institution and employee
of British Rail, who during his career made a major
contribution to the cause of line side safety. The
award takes the form of a certificate and an amount
of £500 to be devoted to personal development and
is made to an individual who it is considered has
made an outstanding contribution to railway track
safety by, for example, coming forward with a novel
idea for improving safety, is a long term champion of
improving track safety standards or has made a
significant contribution to the awareness of track
safety in his business.
The Wing Award for Safety this year had been
made to Mr Aidan Nelson, nominated by Railway
Safety, for his substantial leadership at national level
in a disaggregated industry and influence in obtaining
trackside safety improvements in recent years.
The President, Mr P W Stanley, had presented him
with the Award at the National Railway Engineering
Safety Awards held at the International Conference
Centre in Birmingham on 10th April
The Dell Award
The Dell Award is made annually under a bequest
of the late Robert Dell OBE (Past President). It is
awarded to a member of the Institution employed by
London Underground Ltd (or its successor bodies)
for achievement of a high standard of skill in the
science and application of railway signalling. The
award takes the form of a plaque with a uniquely
designed shield being added each year with the
recipient’s name engraved on it and a cheque for
£300 to spend as the recipient wishes.
The winner of this year’s Dell award is Mr Matt
Shelley, of Metronet Rail BCV Ltd.
Mr Stanley presented Mr Shelley with the Dell
award at the annual dinner that followed the AGM.
Thorrowgood Scholarship
The Thorrowgood Scholarship is awarded
annually under a bequest of the late W J
Thorrowgood (Past President) to assist the development
of a young engineer employed in the signalling
and telecommunications field of engineering and
takes the form of an engraved medallion and a
cheque to be used to finance a study tour of railway
signalling installations or signalling manufacturing
facilities. The award is made, subject to satisfactory
interview, to the Institution young member attaining
at least a pass with credit in four modules in the
Institution’s examination.
The Thorrowgood Scholar for 2002 is Mr Matthew
Lupton, a Signal Engineer at Manchester with
Network Rail.
Mr Stanley presented Mr Lupton with the
Thorrowgood scholarship medallion and a cheque
for £1000 at the annual dinner that followed the
AGM.

110
39th Annual Dinner
The Savoy Hotel, London, was the venue for the
39th Annual Dinner held following the Annual
General Meeting on 25th April 2003. Approximately
480 members and their guests were present.
Mr John Armitt OBE, Chief Executive Network Rail
Infrastructure Ltd, was the principal guest on this
occasion.
Prior to the meal commencing an innovation in the
arrangements for this year saw the immediate Past
President Mr Peter Stanley present the Dell award to
Matt Shelley and the Thorrowgood Scholarship
award to Matthew Lupton. They received their
awards amidst enthusiastic applause.
Another innovation this year was for the speech of
the principal guest to be delivered before the meal
was taken. The newly installed President Mr Colin
Porter introduced his principal guest and Mr Armitt
spoke of the current high costs of signalling
schemes and the complicated process and expense
of introducing new technologies and said that IRSE
members have a key role to play in tackling these
issues.
Following the speeches an excellent 4-course
meal was efficiently served to the large gathering by
the staff of the Savoy.
This was another most successful and enjoyable
evening with a near maximum attendance at the
event.
K W Burrage

112
Sydney Hosts 2002 Convention
For the first time in the Institution’s history Sydney
and the Australasian Section welcomed the
President, Peter Stanley, and his wife Carol together
with members and guests to the International
Convention held between 29th April – 3rd May 2002.
Prior to the Convention opening the Australasian
Section held its AGM on the Monday afternoon and
their normal technical conference was combined
with the first full day of the Convention.
MONDAY 29th APRIL 2002
Following registration in the Conference Centre at
the Menzies Hotel, the 350+ members and guests,
from 18 countries, left by coach for the Welcome
Reception held at the Power House Museum,
situated in the Darling Harbour area of Sydney.
At the Museum the President opened the
convention and commented on “the considerable
amount of planning, time and effort that had been
necessary to ensure that the Convention would be a
success. Indeed, it was as long ago as 1994 that a
Convention to Australia had been first proposed and
now, following two years detailed preparation by the
local organising committee, this was a reality”. He
went on to thank the New South Wales State Rail
Authority (SRA), the Rail Infrastructure Corporation
The proceedings were launched on the Monday evening at
the Power House Museum amongst the transport exhibits
Photo: L Brearley
(RIC) and the many sponsors for their generous cooperation
and support in making the Convention
possible.
As is now IRSE practice, the technical papers and
literature were made available in CD format – this to
allow easier storage but, more importantly, to reduce
the weight in members’ luggage returning home
than the more traditional paper format.
The President then handed over to Les Brearley,
Chairman of the Australasian Section, who welcomed
everyone to Australia and the exciting city of
Sydney. This was followed by a short presentation
from the reception’s sponsor on the conclusion of
which the rest of the evening was free to view the
varied exhibits in the Transport Gallery, members
and guests afterwards making their own way back to
their hotels by various routes through the city.
TUESDAY 30th APRIL 2002
Technical Conference
The Technical Conference and associated
exhibition was held at the Menzies Hotel Conference
Centre. The President opened the Conference by
first commenting on the change in format by having
a full day technical papers session as per
Australasian Section practice. Turning to the theme
of the Convention – “Engineering the Technology for
Railway Operations” – he commented that it was
“important to understand and explore the Key
Drivers and Key Issues in the host country and how
technology for the future can meet the issues”.
These being:
• Privatisation – understanding how new legal
barriers and contractual issues affect the chain
of command; and
• Life expired technology and the introduction of
new, understanding how to deal with the
transfer of knowledge from the supplier to the
application and maintenance contractors.
To open the Conference, Les Brearley gave a short
recreate-cap of Peter Symons’ paper “Australasian
Signalling” (originally presented in London on 13th
March 2002). This outlined the differences in the Rail
Network as the vast distances involved have given
rise to the evolution of differing signalling practices
in each of the Australian states. These are based on
a mix of predominately British and North American
signalling and working practice and these, together
with the various track gauges, form interesting
diversity and provide compatibility problems for
interstate operations.
Following
these introductions
the Keynote
Address was
given by Howard
Lacy, Chief
Executive Officer
for the State Rail
Authority of New
South Wales
(NSW). Howard
gave an insight
into the
challenges and
issues facing the
Howard Lacy, Chief Executive of the rail network in
SRA, gave the keynote address on NSW and his fundamental
points
the first day of the Convention
Photo: C H Porter
included:
• change in organisational structure – resulting
from the privatisation process;
• customer focus – movement away from an
engineering based culture to one of customer
service;
• clearly defined principles of safety, reliability and
maintainability;
• the complexity of the industry and the challenge
of focusing on business needs;

SYDNEY HOSTS 2002 CONVENTION 113
• the key issue of knowledge dilution and transfer
of information arising from the fragmentation
caused by the privatisation process from
supplier to maintainer;
• how to encourage young engineers to join and
gain knowledge in the railway signalling and
telecommunications industry; and
• how industry must operate as a team in delivering
integrated solutions for the operators.
Howard hoped that the IRSE, the Conference and
Convention would address some of these issues
and concluded by outlining some of the rail projects
in which NSW were currently investing:
• new signalling systems;
• new train control systems;
• new rolling stock (eg the “Millennium” EMU
train);
• new train location systems;
• building the new Parramatta to Chatswood rail
link.
These initiatives will expand network capacity and
reliability of the system as well as increasing the
reach of rail services to Sydney and its surrounding
areas.
The Technical Conference then commenced with
the morning session titled “Control Systems” with
the following papers being presented:
• Train Information Systems for Operators/
Passengers;
• Queensland Rail’s Universal Traffic Control
(UTC) and Direct Traffic Control (DTC);
• Rail Control System (Integrated Supervisory
Control System for Metro Railway Operations);
• Passenger CCTV Security System for the New
South Wales State Rail Authority.
After the conclusion of these papers a lively
“Question and Answer” (Q&A) panel session was
held with the presenters.
Following lunch at the Hotel, the Conference
continued with the afternoon session titled
“Engineering the Technology” and this included:
• A presentation by the NSW Rail Infrastructure
Corporation (RIC);
• ERTMS/ETCS benefits for railways worldwide;
• GEO Logic application at Mount Barker
Junction;
• Migration from existing signalling to ERTMS;
• Melbourne’s privatisation – how can technology
meet the needs of the new regime and its
operators;
• Meeting the challenge to provide technology
that meets the operator needs;
• A presentation by the NSW Co-ordinator
General of Rail;
• Development of system authorities on UK
mainline railways and their application to the
deployment of ERTMS.
At the conclusion and following the customary
Q&A session, Peter Symons summed up the days
activities and passed a vote of thanks to all the
presenters.
The guests’ programme for the day consisted of a
coach tour to various sites within the Sydney
environs. These included the famous Bondi Beach
where a stop was made for morning tea and, following
lunch at the Featherdale Wildlife Park, there was
time to see native Australian fauna in the park. A
brief visit was made to the Olympic Park before
returning to the hotel.
Many of the Convention attendees opted to brave the
heights by participating in the Harbour Bridge climb.
Enjoying the breathtaking view are three such intrepid
conventioneers: (l to r) Simon Wood, Steve Brown and
Ross Gammon
In the evening members and guests embarked on
a starlit cruise around Sydney Harbour on the
paddle wheel steamer “Sydney Showboat II” during
which dinner was served. Afterwards presentations
of plaques were made to all the Technical
Conference presenters and live music completed the
cruise.
WEDNESDAY 1st MAY 2002
Inspection of Signalling in the Sydney Area
Members travelled by train and bus to inspect the
facilities at Blacktown. Here the signalling control
centre utilises VDU operation for command and
control of the local SSI interlocking with remote
control operation of RRIs.
The CCTV station security system was inspected
with its sophisticated record and playback capabilities.
A presentation was given on the Level Crossing
(LX) Monitoring System which can:
During the evening cruise on Sydney Harbour, Lyle Jackson
welcomed delegates and guests before handing each of
the technical presenters a plaque Photo: L

114
SYDNEY HOSTS 2002 CONVENTION
• log LX events and operation;
• remotely test the LX battery status;
• report the LX status to a remote control centre
or maintainers office.
During the visit to Blacktown station concourse
opportunity was taken to view the new passenger
information system that was currently under test.
Lunch was taken at the Colebee Centre located in
the Nurragingy Reserve after which the members
departed by bus to inspect facilities at Olympic Park
Station. At the station control room the method of
crowd control for loading trains following a major
event at the Olympic stadia was explained using the
four platform faces for the two track layout.
The members then proceeded to the RIC control
systems development facility at Flemington. Here
the development and testing of VDU control
systems, station passenger information systems and
dark territory monitoring systems were viewed and
presentations given on them. Members then
returned to the hotel by bus.
The guests’ programme consisted of a visit to the
Blue Mountains where, at Echo Point, views of the
rock formations known as the “Three Sisters” were
seen. Following lunch at Katoomba they descended
to the rainforest valley floor via the Scenic Railway –
once used by coal miners. From there they walked
through the forest to the Scenicsender cable car to
convey them back to the top of the valley. During the
return journey back to Sydney there was a short
stop at Leura for shopping.
THURSDAY 2nd MAY 2002
The Hunter Valley
Members travelled by double-deck train to
Broadmeadow, some 163 kilometres north of
Sydney, and thence by bus to view the Ship Yard at
Carrington. Here a Huon class mine-hunter vessel
was noted in the final stages of fitting out the
integrated control systems before undergoing sea
trials. Presentations and demonstrations were given
at the ship yard on:
• the Train Protection Warning System (TPWS);
• computer-based Locomotive Scheduling
Programme.
Members then went on to the Rail Workshops at
nearby Cardiff where a tour of the production line for
the new 4GT (“Millennium”) double-deck EMU trains
for NSW was made. It was noted that the train sets
were constructed from stainless steel and would be
delivered to the customer without any additional
external paint finish.
Following lunch at the Returned Services League
Club in Cardiff, the members then proceeded to view
the Kooragang Island coal and bulk loading terminal
and then the Broadmeadow Control Centre. Situated
at this centre was the Centralised Train Control for
the day to day operations of train movements in the
northern area of NSW. The main functions of the
centre were:
• train control;
• train control support;
Northern New South Wales is controlled from
Broadmeadow Control Centre near Newcastle, 163km from
Sydney. This route setting desk looks after the local
Broadmeadow area Photo: H
• signalling and communications;
• incident management; and
• administration.
At the end of the visits members left by bus for the
Wyndham Estate Winery, where they joined the
guests for dinner.
Today the guests had enjoyed a coach tour of the
central coast and, at Nelson’s Bay, boarded a boat
for lunch and a cruise in Port Stephen’s Bay. The
highlight of the cruise was the opportunity to watch
at close quarters dolphins swimming alongside the
boat. They then travelled by coach to the Winery
where they joined the members for dinner.
Prior to dinner and following a wine tasting an
Aboriginal dance group gave a display of traditional
music and dance.
FRIDAY 3rd MAY 2002
Sydney Control Centres
No planned activities were arranged for the guests
until the evening so there was time for shopping,
sightseeing or just relaxation. Members, however,
had a full morning programme of visits.
After a short train ride the electrical control room
for the 1500v dc overhead electrification system was
viewed together with both the existing and new
replacement SCADA remote control systems. These
SCADA systems were used for the remote control of
The North Coast Railway from Newcastle through to the
Queensland border, a distance of some 700km with 50
remote interlockings, is controlled from this CTC desk at
Broadmeadow Photo: H

SYDNEY HOSTS 2002 CONVENTION 115
circuit breakers at other sub-stations and feeder
points.
Members then walked a short distance to the New
South Wales SRA building where the Rail Coordination
Centre (originally set up for the Sydney
Olympics) was inspected and the operation
explained. Additionally, a presentation was given on
“Condition Assessment System and Train Control
Reporting as Applied to Signalling and Communications
Infrastructure”. This system has been
developed to assist Asset Managers understand the
condition of their infrastructure and hence be able to
forecast more accurately the need for future
renewals and upgrades.
Rejoining the buses, members then travelled to
the NSW Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) Transport
Management Centre at Redfern. Here, by means of
numerous CCTV cameras, the road network is
monitored 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week
throughout the year. Detector loops are provided
within the roadways to determine the traffic flows
and the data is used in conjunction with the traffic
light management system to optimise traffic flows
and incident management. Public information
services were highly important with real time broadcasts
provided to the bus radio network, local radio
stations, police and the RTA website.
On the conclusion of the visit to the RTA centre,
members continued by bus to Sydenham to inspect
the new signal control room. On arrival a presentation
was given on the “Botany Line Resignalling
Project”. This utilises computer-based interlocking,
LED signals/indicators with control and command
from the control room. The new control room at
Sydenham was provided with overview screens
constructed using back projection LCD technology
with operator workstations utilising VDU and
keyboard.
The Convention Reception and Dinner was held as
usual during the evening and, following an excellent
meal, the President rose to give his closing address.
He commented on the week’s activities from the
Tuesday technical conference which gave rise to
“Food for Thought” for everyone, through Thursday
with the first ever visit to a rolling stock manufacturer
during an Annual Convention, to Friday with a
visit to the Road Traffic Management Centre. None
of this would have been possible without the
considerable support and sponsorship from the UK,
European and Australian companies. He went on to
thank the Australian Organising Committee for all
their hard work in making the Convention superb. He
then invited his wife Carol to sum up the guests’ programme,
which included thanks to the guides, and,
in conclusion, asked Colin Porter (Senior Vice-
President) to give a flavour of the programme for the
2003 Convention to be held in the UK centred on
Birmingham.
Colin then outlined the proposed programme
which included the West Coast Route Modernisation,
the new high-speed Channel Tunnel Rail Link
and a day in York.
With everyone having sampled rail travel in and
around Sydney, Howard Lacy prevailed upon the
assembled group of “railway experts” to complete a
survey questionnaire on the services of the SRA,
each questionnaire being entered into a prize draw.
Two lucky winners received a magnum of wine each.
This concluded the formal part of the evening so
as the band played and the dancing began,
members and guests bade farewell to friendships
old and new made during the week.
In summary, yet again an excellent Convention
had been enjoyed by everyone and one which
allowed participants to sample the differing
technologies employed in solving the increased
expansion of rail services within NSW. The worldwide
problems of continuing training, development
and knowledge transfer were again highlighted in the
ongoing privatisation and fragmentation of the rail
Industry. It is through the IRSE Convention, conferences,
discussion and networking opportunities
that these problems will be addressed, hopefully, on
a global basis to the benefit of the industry and the
profession.
I hope you will be encouraged to participate in
future conventions so I will leave you with a thought:
Put the date of the 2003 Convention in your diary
NOW: Birmingham 26th–30th May 2003.
See you there!
D A Edney
The RTA Transport Management Centre is fitted with an
impressive video wall viewed here from the visitors’ gallery
Photo: H
Adrian Exer tries out one of the workstations at the new
Sydenham Control Centre. Part of the video wall overview
can be seen in the background. Photo: H

116
SYDNEY HOSTS 2002 CONVENTION
Conventions are made possible through generous sponsorship
by companies which support the aims of the Institution
Photo: C H Porter
The President, Peter Stanley, and his wife Carol gave a
closing address to the delegates and guests at the final
dinner
Photo: K W Burrage
Membership Manager Appointed
Following his recent retirement from the railway
industry, Derek Edney has commenced working for
the Institution with effect from 1st July on a part-time
basis as its Membership Manager.
Derek is well known in railway S&T and IRSE
circles. He worked for many years in the S&T design
office of the Southern Region of British Rail and
more recently for Signalling Control UK and, following
privatisation, for Westinghouse Rail Systems.
Derek joined the Institution as a Student in 1968 and,
after gaining his qualifications, transferred to
Member in 1977 and to Fellow in 1995. Derek is
registered as an Incorporated Engineer and has
served the Institution as a Council Member, as
Membership Committee Secretary and, most
recently, as Chairman of the Recruitment & Publicity
Committee.
The workload in dealing with membership and
registration has already grown to the point where it
is necessary to obtain additional administration
support in the office. It is pleasing that Institution
numbers continue to grow steadily and later this
year it is proposed to mount a membership recruiting
campaign, so hopefully the numbers will
increase further.
Derek is well qualified to help the Institution
manage what we hope will be a period of substantial
growth and as its Membership Manager he will be
responsible for managing the processes of
Institution membership and Engineering Council
registration and for progressing individual applications
for IRSE membership and Engineering Council
registration.
We are very pleased to welcome Derek to the
Institution HQ staff at Savoy Place.
K W Burrage

117
Staff Organisation Chart
Chief Executive &
Secretary
Ken Burrage
Office Administrator
Linda Mogford
Training &
Development Manager
Karen Gould
Treasurer
Martin Govas
Licensing Registrar
Mark Watson-Walker
Membership Manager
Derek Edney
Assistant Treasurer
Colin Porter
SRA Project Manager
Richard Hobby
SRA Project Manager
Penny Pringle
Licensing Assistant
Gordon Thorne
Administration
Assistant
Linda Collins
Staff Boost
The workload associated with running the Institution
and its related activities has grown significantly in
recent times, especially with respect to Licensing and
Training & Development. In the September edition of
IRSE NEWS we welcomed Derek Edney as our new
part-time Membership Manager.
Three other new staff have joined the organisation
to undertake specific roles. Gordon Thorne, who has
a mechanical engineering background, is working as
a Licensing Assistant, reporting to the Licensing
Registrar, Mark Watson-Walker. The role is helping
with the running of the scheme which has seen an
increase in the number of technicians and engineers
seeking licences. This is due to the growing emphasis
placed on competence demonstration and also
due to the renewals
now taking place of
original licences
issued five years ago.
Linda Mogford, the IRSE Office
Administrator Photo: K W Burrage
Reporting to Karen
Gould, Training &
Development
Manager, is Richard
Hobby. Richard has
been appointed under
a one-year contract
as Project Manager
Accreditation
Services. Also under a
The Licensing Team (l to r): Gordon Thorne, Mark Watson-
Walker and Linda Collins
Photo: K W Burrage
one-year contract and reporting to Karen is Penny
Pringle who takes up the post of Project Manager
IRSE Exams and Technician
Training Scheme. Both of
these positions are fully
funded by grants from the
Strategic Rail Authority
(SRA), provided to put in
place the supporting framework
for the training and
development of S&T staff.
Penny has already been
working in a temporary
capacity in the T&D section
funded by a previous SRA
grant.
The entrance to the
IRSE office at Savoy Hill
House, which is to the
rear of the IEE building
at Savoy Place
Photo: K W Burrage

118
Much Better Engineer
Signal Engineer and IRSE member Dennis Howells
was awarded an MBE (Member of the British Empire)
in the Queen’s Birthday Honours on 15th June this
year for “Services to the Railway Industry”. In
addition to being a life-long railwayman, Dennis has
been a leading figure in the railway preservation
scene, being the proud owner of his own GWR
steam locomotive – a Hawksworth Pannier Tank No.
9466.
Dennis, who now works for Railtrack, is the holder
of a Senior Engineer’s Licence and is the fourth
current member of the IRSE to be honoured with an
MBE. Other recipients are Roy Bell, Dr Alan
Cribbens and Charles Hudson. Don Heath and
Victor Smith bear the honour of OBE.
Starting as an apprentice S&T engineer (probationer)
in 1955 with the London Midland Region
of British Railways, Dennis joined the CS&TE
modernisation depot at Levenshulme in Manchester
following his training. Here he worked on the
immunisation of Heaton Norris and Stockport Nos. 1
and 2 signalboxes for the electrification to
Manchester and on stagework at Manchester
Piccadilly.
Stagework became a specialism for Dennis in
subsequent roles, at Trent during the introduction of
the new Power Box in 1968 and then back in London
from 1969 as Special Duties Sub-Inspector and later
District Inspector at Kentish Town. This was followed
by Works Supervisor on the Willesden and Bedford
Divisions, a highlight of this period being the time
spent working with Jim Hitchen on the Bedpan
(Bedford – St Pancras) resignalling stagework.
Promotion continued through Works Supervisor
and Maintenance Engineer positions on the LMR
before he took up the post of S&T Engineer (General)
for Network South East South Central in 1992. Upon
privatisation Dennis moved into Railtrack, firstly as
Testing & Commissioning Manager for Southern
Zone, then as Lead D&C Engineer East Anglia. He is
now Asset Signal Engineer West Coast Main Line
South.
Exam Study Group Facilitators
More Study Groups than ever are in operation this
year to assist members in mutual study towards
undertaking the IRSE Examination. If you wish to join
one of these groups please contact the facilitators
listed below:
AUSTRALASIA: Queensland
Peter Stringer, Union Switch & Signal Pty Ltd,
PO Box 1168, 39 Harvey Street, Eagle Farm,
Queensland 4009 Australia
Tel: +61 7 3868 9333 Fax: +61 7 3268 2136
Email: stringerp@switch.aust.com
Open to all IRSE members
HONG KONG
Steven Cho, MTRC, MTR Tower, Telford Plaza,
Kowloon Bay Hong Kong
Tel: +852 2993 2111 Email: stcho@mtr.com.hk
Open to all IRSE members
THAILAND
Eddie Murphy, Bombardier Transportation,
33541619, 6th Floor, Manorom Building,
Rama 4 Road, Klongton, Klongtoey, Bangkok 10110
Tel:+66 2 672 8290 Ext 373 Fax: +66 2 671 7597
Email: eddie.murphy@th.transport.bombardier.com
Open to all IRSE members
LONDON: Canary Wharf
Peter Clifford, LUL, 4th Floor,
30 The South Colonnade, Canary Wharf,
London E14 5EU
Tel: 020 7308 2963 (0678 62963)
Fax: 020 7308 2630 (0678 62630)
Email: Peter.Clifford@ibcv.co.uk
Open to all IRSE members
LONDON: Croydon
Jim Bull, Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd,
PO Box 407, Floor 10, Southern House,
Wellesley Grove, Croydon CR9 1XN
Tel: 020 8760 9355 Fax: 020 8760 9456
Email: jim.bull@invensys.com
Open to all IRSE members
NORTH WEST: Manchester
Matthew Lupton, Railtrack North West,
Rail House, Store Street, Manchester M60 7RT
Tel: 0161 228 8066 Fax: 0161 228 8001
Email: luptonm.railtrack@ems.rail.co.uk
Open to all IRSE members
PLYMOUTH
Andy Moore, Bombardier Transportation,
Estover Close, Estover, Plymouth PL6 7PU

EXAM STUDY GROUP FACILITATORS 119
Tel: 01752 725403 (062 2403)
Fax: 01752 725001 (062 2001)
Email: andy.moore@uk.transport.bombardier.com
Open to all IRSE members
SCOTLAND
Tom Gallacher, First Engineering, Room 22,
North Block, Waverley Station, Edinburgh EH1 1BB
Tel: 0131 550 2372 (04 62372)
Fax: 0131 550 2622 (04 62622)
Email: TGallacher@firstengineering.co.uk
Open to all IRSE members
SURREY
Peter Harding, c/o Rebecca Lock,
Parsons Brinckerhoff Infrastructure Ltd
1st Floor, Westbrook Mills, Godalming,
Surrey GU7 2ZA
Tel: 020 7830 5852 Fax: 020 7830 5971
Email: HardingP@pbworld.com
PB employees only
WATFORD
David Nicholson, ALSTOM Signalling Ltd,
Claremont House, Croxley Business Park,
Hatters Lane, Watford WD18 8TR
Tel: 01923 659427 Fax: 01923 659250
Email: david.nicholson@wcml-tcs.co.uk
ALSTOM employees only
MIDLANDS: Northampton
Frances Peacock, 15 Windmill Glade, Brixworth,
Northampton NN6 9LP
Tel: 01604 882443
Email: francismariapeacock@lineone.net
Open to all IRSE members
WESTERN: Bristol
Stella Norris, Amey Rail Ltd, One Redcliffe Street,
Bristol BS1 6QZ
Tel: 0117 934 8063 (07 42063)
Fax: 0117 934 8459 (07 42459)
Email: stella.norris@amey.co.uk
& Dexter Stewart
Tel: 07747 627256
Email: dexter.stewart@amey.co.uk
Open to all IRSE members
YORK
Andrew Smith, Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd,
A006, Hudson House, Toft Green, York YO1 6HP
Tel: 01904 733433 Fax: 01904 733368
Email: andrew.p.smith@invensys.com
Open to all IRSE members
MIDLANDS: Birmingham
Gary Hall, Owen Williams Railways, Meridian Office,
85 Smallbrook Queensway, Birmingham B5 4HY
Tel: 0121 654 7340
Email: garyhall@owenwilliams.co.uk
Open to all IRSE members

120
2002 Examination Results
Another substantial increase was recorded in the
number of candidates applying to sit the exam in
2002. A total of 236 modules were actually taken.
The tables below list the actual pass results and also
compare this year with previous years.
The results for modules 1 and 3 were the lowest
for four years, candidates apparently undertaking
insufficient preparation. Pass rates for the other
Candidate M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Awan, Tanwee-ul-haq
P
Benatiro, Bayani
P
Biggs, Leslie
P
Birch, Stuart C C
Bonella, Richard P C P
Bui, Vu P P
Carney, James C P
Choi, Ka Pui P P P
Choi, Nam Hing P P P
Choy, Pui Hung P P
Cromwell, Matthew P C P P
Denton, Paul P P
Elmes, Matthew P C
Fraser, Cameron
P
French, Shaun P P
Goodhand, Kevin P P
Gorry, Peter
P
Harding, Peter C C C
Harrison, Ian P P C
Higgs, Kevin P C
Holmes, Ian P C C C
Hooper, Jeremy P P
Joyce, Mark P C
Karrasch, Kenneth C C
Karrasch, Sandra C C
Lau, Sze Ping P P
Lau, Man Fung P P P
Lauer, Reinhold
C
Law, Lit Wing
P
Law, Mandy P P
Lee, Chi Yin Michael P P
Lee, Eric
P
Lo, Shek Man
P
Love, Robert P P C P
Lu, Tin Vinh P C P
Lupton, Matthew P C D D
Mazloomi, Masood
P
McGrory, James
P
Mickleburgh, David P P P C
Mlalazi, Gift P C
Murphy, Eddie
C
Ngai, Man Fat P P
Nietes Jr, Arnulfo D
P
modules were similar to previous years, the overall
rate being 55% For those candidates who narrowly
failed a module a new feedback process to assist
them has been introduced.
Special thanks are extended to the Examination
Committee members, T&D staff and the volunteer
invigilators at the exam centres.
Candidate M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Palmer, Anthony
P
Paul, Michael P P
Pengmeesri, Chatchai
P
Poon, Yat Man
P
Powley, Philip P P
Prabhu, Ganesh P P P
Rattanakijkamol, Kamphon P
Roberts, Catherine C P
Sappakijtipakorn, Weena C
Savopoulos, Alex P C
Scarff, Richard
P
Shortridge, John
C
Simpson, Claire P C
Sloan, Robert P C P
Storer, Richard P P C C
Teasdel, David
P
Thevathasan, Nadarajah P P
Tsang, Wai Shan
P
Tsang, Wai Tat Ivan
P
Tse, Kwok Hung P P
Viswanath, Kalsapura
P
Wan, Kam Ming
P
Wu, Pui Chung
P
Yeung, Sau Fai Sammy
P
Zlaoui, Rashid
P
P = Pass, C = Credit, D = Distinction
M1 = Safety of railway signalling and communication
M2 = Signalling the layout
M3 = Signalling principles
M4 = Communication principles
M5 = Signalling applications
M6 = Communication applications
M7 = System management and engineering
Exam Reminder
Applications to sit the Institution Examination this
year in October should be lodged with the IRSE
office before 30th June. You must be a member to
apply and your subscription must be fully paid up at
the time.
Karen Gould, IRSE Training & Development Manager
3rd Floor, Savoy Hill House
Savoy Hill, London WC2R 0BS, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7240 4935
Fax: +44 (0)20 7240 3281 Railnet: 00 38424
Email: training@irse.org

2002 EXAMINATION RESULTS 121
Summary of Results – Year 2002
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 Totals
Distinction 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
Credit 2 11 7 1 6 1 6 34
Pass 25 27 11 0 16 1 13 93
Near Miss 1 6 4 0 3 0 2 16
Fail 29 23 21 0 14 1 3 91
Total Candidates 57 67 44 1 40 3 24 236
2002 Pass Rate 47% 57% 43% 100% 58% 67% 79% 55%
2001 Pass Rate 70% 46% 56% – 52% – 62% 58%
2000 Pass Rate 51% 67% 60% 50% 43% – 83% 57%
1999 Pass Rate 50% 73% 55% – 59% 100% 59% –
1998 Pass Rate 63% 56% 43% 100% 36% 100% 61% –

THIS SPACE COULD BE
WORKING FOR YOU
-----
TO ADVERTISE YOUR PRODUCTS
WITHIN THE
ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS
PLEASE CONTACT THE
ADVERTISING AGENCY
Paul Hollidge
Macmillan Scott
10 Savoy Street
London WC2E 7HR
Tel: +44 (0)20 7878 2339
Fax: +44 (0)20 7379 7155
Web: paul@mcmslondon.co.uk

123
Section Reports
Australasian Section
Fifty-Fourth Annual Report – Year Ending 31st December 2002
OFFICE BEARERS
Vice-President
Mr P R Symons (F) NSW
Chairman
Mr L F Brearley (F) Qld
Vice-Chairman
Mr K I Walker (F) Qld
Committee
Messrs P A Huth (AM)
Qld
H J Revell (M) Qld, W K Wells (F) NSW
T G Moore (F) NSW, R A Stepniewski (F) NSW
A F Vaz (F) NSW, S W Boshier (M) Vic
M R Donald (M) Vic, D J Ness (M) Vic
H B Luber (M) Vic, I Wortington (F) Vic
I N Roulstone (M) SA, L D Tran (M) SA
P L Gobetz (F) WA, I G Costa (F) WA
A E Neilson (F) NZ
Secretary/Treasurer
Mr G Willmott (A) SA
Public Officer
Mr R A Bell (F)
Vic
Auditor
Mr A G Cumming (A) Vic
Messrs A F Vaz, T G Moore, M R Donald, I
Worthington, J Revell, L D Tran A E Neilson remained
in office for 2002.
Mr I G Costa was elected by the Committee as
replacement for Mr K I Walker.
Mr L Brearley was elected as Chairman for a
second term, consequently there was not the normal
handover of gavel and Badge of Office by the outgoing
chairman.
He then addressed the meeting telling how he
appreciated the privilege of continuing for another
year, thanked the outgoing Committee and welcomed
the incoming. Told the members of the hard
work by the NSW Committee for the organisation of
the forthcoming International Convention.
Further to the training of young engineers in the
rail industry, Rail Co-operative Research Centre held
a forum in Brisbane, August 2001, to obtain topics
for research seen as priorities by the rail industry.
The initial project addressed signal and telecommunications
engineering. The first project to obtain
Rail CRC approval was Project 60, Continuing
Professional Development for railway signalling and
telecommunications engineers and technologists.
A steering committee was set up to guide the
signalling programme: M Duffy (QR), P Szacsvay
(RIC), S Barker (WSA), L Brearley (US&S), K Kwong
(CQU).
There is a big age difference between the younger
and older members, certainly local meetings make
the IRSE more accessible to the younger persons. At
the present time, we do have awards for the under
35, but is it enough?
The past Australasian papers together with Noel
Reed’s history were scanned by Bob Taaffe, with the
CD ready for sale at the Convention.
Les also addressed the changed process of the
Committee nominating the next year’s Chairman and
Vice-Chairman, members were clearly to understand
that this did not preclude any other eligible nomination
for these positions.
During the year, meetings of the Australasian
Section were held as follows:
1 Annual General Meeting, Sydney, NSW, 29th
April 2002 at the unusual time of 3.00 pm
The AGM was convened prior to the start of the
International Convention programmed to run 29th
April – 3rd May.
Mr Brearley opened the meeting, welcoming
President Mr P Stanley and IRSE Chief Executive Mr
K Burrage, overseas visitors and 98 members.
The Annual Report & Balance Sheet, which had
been previously distributed for examination, was
moved for acceptance and passed on show of
hands.
The Chairman then presented the Byles & Calcutt
plaque to Mr Alexander Samoyoa for the year 2001,
the event was photographed and published in the
IRSE News.
The amendments of Rules of the Association,
Australasian Section, which had been proposed and
circulated to all members, were accepted and
passed.
The Australasian Section closed at this point, with
the official opening of the Convention to take place
that evening at the Powerhouse Museum.
The Convention opening, presentations, keynote
address, technical papers, social and guests’
programmes are detailed in an extensive illustrated
report by Derek Edney in the September 2002 IRSE
News, Issue 80.
2 Technical Meeting, Brisbane, QLD, 2nd-3rd
August 2002
Friday 2nd
Seventy-six members and visitors met at registration
Hilton Hotel, Brisbane.
Mr L Brearley opened the meeting at 0900 hrs with
a welcome to all, he then introduced: Mr Ken
Devencorn, GM Airtrain.
Mr Devencorn reiterated the good points in the
building of the Airport Service, followed by the “The
Airtrain, Twelve Months On”.
Weakness in safety is seen as an issue by the
public.
The passengers from the airport can be tired,
disoriented, have language difficulties and possible
air rage.
They have been seen taking photos and movies in

124
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
dangerous situations, swinging surfboards and fishing
rods around, I have seen golfers swinging clubs
on the platforms where there are overhead power
wires.
Customer care has to be an issue in a marketing
effort.
Mr M Duffy moved a vote of appreciation to Mr
Devencorn.
Technical papers were presented by:
Mr Victor Abbott MIRSE, Project Manager,
Foxboro Transportation, Invensys Rail Systems.
“Safety in the Middle”.
SCADA systems are rarely relied on to provide
against high risk hazards, but are frequently used to
contribute to the management of hazardous situations.
The system vendor must take into account the
environment in which the system is to be deployed,
consider the availability of other hazard defence
mechanisms, and engineer a cost effective solution.
Mr Alex Borodin AMIRSE, Queensland Rail.
“Management of SPADS in QR – The Challenge of
Building on Success”.
SPAD Management in QR is one component of a
radical suite of risk-based Safety Management
Policies and Standards that have changed the face
of safety management.
QR introduced its SPAD Reduction Strategy
during the 1996/97 financial year. Since that time,
significant reductions have been achieved to QR’s
risk profile with only small infrastructure investments
being required.
Passenger train infringements were reduced from
7.74 SPADS per million train kilometres in 1995/96 to
3.53 in 2001/02, a reduction 54% in six years.
Mr Geoff Meers, Queensland Transport. “Road
Safety Management in Queensland”.
There are over 1,700 road fatalities each year
across Australia, with 323 in Queensland last year.
Other transport industries only have around 40
fatalities per year.
In spite of continuing large increases in the
number of vehicles and licensed drivers, road tolls
have decreased steadily since the 1970s.
These improvements are due to a range of initiatives
in the three Es: engineering, enforcement and
education.
There were ongoing improvements in road safety
through the 70s and 80s, but the 1992-2001
National Road Safety Strategy provided a national
framework for the introduction of number of road
safety initiatives, with Qld developing its first action
plan in 1996.
Mr Scott Riedel, Manager Trackside Systems,
Regional and Systems Support, QR. “QR
Maintenance: A New Direction”.
In response to customer expectations of reduced
costs and increased safety, set against a backdrop
of an increasingly litigious society, Trackside
Systems has established a framework for maintenance
which it hopes can meet or exceed customer
requirements, while detailing a process which
demonstrates a duty of care.
The framework QR has adopted is one of competency
based training and assessment combined
with a maintenance regime consisting of a comprehensive
suite of defined maintenance tasks and
ongoing asset condition and performance review.
Mrs Sandra Karrasch AMIRSE, Signal Engineer,
QR. “The Challenge of Organising an IRSE Exam
Study Group”.
This paper explores the requirements for signalling
engineers to gain the knowledge to pass an IRSE
exam.
Ranging from what should be studied, when
lessons should be held, what worked and what did
not.
To the benefits gained by prospective candidates
and their value to QR with the increase of signalling
knowledge gained from senior presenters.
The lessons learnt from the first two years will benefit
those who decide to continue next year. There
will always be improvements to the processes and
presentations but that is part of the learning experience.
Mr Les Brearley FIRSE, Manager, Systems Safety
and Quality, Union Switch & Signal Pty Ltd.
“Developing a Railway Signalling Course for
Australia – Update on CRC Progress”.
The need for a locally based course, particularly
for signal engineering was recognised by the
Australasian Section of the IRSE and proposals were
sought during 2001 from local universities to provide
such a programme.
In parallel the Co-operative Research Centre for
Engineering & Technologies (Rail CRC) was also
established.
Following an industry forum in August 2001, it was
clear the Rail CRC was gaining momentum and the
IRSE decided to join with them in establishing a
signalling course for Australia rather than initiating a
separate course.
The first project to gain approval in Theme Six was
Project 60 – Continuing Professional Development
modules for railway signalling and telecommunications
engineers and technologists.
The vision for Rail CRC is to provide nationally
accepted professional development courses for
railway engineering.
Panel Session: Chaired by Mr Les Brearley.
Does a Safety Management System manage
safety or liability?
What is the role of signalling in a safety management
system?
Panel: Messrs Warwich Allison, Signal Design
Manager, RIC; Dale Coleman, Group Managing
Director, TMG International; Graeme Silvester,
Manager Workplace Health and Safety, QR.
Mike Duffy spoke in appreciation of all speakers.
Saturday 3rd August
The morning site inspection was to Invensys Rail

AUSTRALASIAN SECTION 125
Systems facility where their Hong Kong KCRC rail
extension installation was being designed, built and
tested.
After morning refreshments, provided by Invensys,
the group split up, with half going to Queensland
Manufacturing Institute – Reality Centre, just around
the corner, the remaining half then inspecting the
Hong Kong job at Invensys, including a display by
Wayne McDonald of a typical crossing protection
installation for the Alice – Darwin track.
The Virtual Reality Centre did prove a little too real
for some members with the simulated soaring
platform used to inspect a proposed highway
construction, from users and residents viewpoint.
After the changeover of the groups was completed,
we adjourned over the road to a very
pleasant outside restaurant for lunch.
On the return to the city, we deviated to inspect
the impressive redevelopment of Lang Park
Stadium, it was interesting to see that a small
historical church had been retained in the stadium
perimeter.
3 Technical Meeting Melbourne, Victoria, 8th-
9th November 2002
Members staying at The Dorset Gardens complex
were transported to the Siemens Conference Facility
located on Mountain Highway Bayswater, where
registration of 82 members and visitors was
completed.
Acting Chairman Mr Keith Walker opened the
meeting at 1012 hrs, with Mr Brian Luber welcoming
all to Siemens Conference Centre.
Mr Walker then introduced:
Mr John Hengelmolen, Regional Fast Rail Project
Manager, who gave an overview of the project.
It will be a high quality service to four significant
Victorian corridors.
The three key elements being addressed are new
trains, upgrade of infrastructure, new service plan.
TPWS installation will mitigate signal sighting and
braking errors, provide speed detection and
enforcement of signals where track speed exceeds
130 km/h.
Mr Hengelmolen was thanked by Mr Walker and
presented with a plaque of appreciation.
Mr D E Carden AMIRSE, New Railway Projects
Division, Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation,
Hong Kong, China. “Manless Operation, A Holistic
Technical, Operational and Commercial Evaluation”.
Today the majority of trains are still driven and
controlled by human beings. The advent of train
control systems based on continuous track to train
and train to track communications, together with
automatic train protection is however changing this
situation. Train control systems have taken the level
of operating safety to a level previously unknown.
These systems when optimised to their ultimate
extent, support the concept of manless operation.
This paper reviews the trends in the application of
manless systems worldwide, discusses the various
support systems employed in conjunction with the
implementation of manless systems, to maintain a
smooth and safe operating environment, as a direct
result of the removal of the driver.
It explores the advantages and disadvantages of
the introduction of manless operation, and also the
perceived problems, in accepting manless trains by
the public at large.
Mr Brett Baker MIRSE, Project Manager, Connex
New Rolling Stock Project. “Connex New Rolling
Stock Procurement Experience, The X’TRAPO-
LIS”.
This paper describes the procurement of NRS as
defined in the franchise bid document.
During the franchise bid process, Connex and
Alstom worked jointly which resulted in a NRS
submission to the State of Victoria being an Alstom
“standard” train product line.
The project initially involved the design and early
manufacture of the units at Alstom’s La Roche
facility in France, with a major portion of the work
shifting to Alstom’s Ballarat facility by the second
half of 2002.
8th April 2002 saw the delivery of Melbourne’s
newest train the X’TRAPOLIS.
The first unit comprising three cars were transferred
from a low-loader on to the tracks at
Bayswater maintenance facility for testing.
Mainline testing commenced in June, with formal
Acceptance Tests with the Department of
Infrastructure in November and regular revenue
service by 31st December
A total of 58 new units will be progressively
delivered and enter revenue service between
January 2003 and December 2004.
Mr M Jovetic, Signal Maintenance Engineer.
Alstom Melbourne Transport Limited.
Mr N Grady Comp IRSE, Operations Manager,
Alstom Melbourne Transport Limited.
“The Alstom Train Delivery Experience”.
Alstom Melbourne Transport Limited (AMTL) has
both an infrastructure and rolling stock management
contract with Connex Trains Franchise in Melbourne.
Asset management has responsibilities for determining
engineering and maintenance policies and
takes part of the risk for asset performance; thus it
has approval roles in the introduction of the new
rolling stock and the management/mitigation of the
associated risks.
The significant risks to be addressed for the
introduction of the new train included the obvious
ones: dimensions, weight, power requirements and,
of course, interference with existing signalling
systems. The latter was one of the most challenging
risks to prove mitigated.
“Everyone” knows that electronically controlled
trains introduce new hazards to the signalling
system.
Standards such as EN 50121 “Railway
Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility” and
UMTA – MA-06-01534-85-6 “Conductive Interference
in Rapid Transit Signalling Systems” give, what

126
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
to address and how to test, but lack the vital
information – the acceptable limits of interference.
MTE (Connex) had to convince the Department of
Infrastructure’s Safety Regulator that the new train is
not importing additional risk to the system. AMTL in
its Engineering Authority role became the expert
adviser to MTE.
Mr Petra Brueggemann-Ratzlaff, Siemens – “The
Train Delivery Experience”.
Siemens was awarded a contract for the delivery
of 62 three-car Metro units for Bayside Trains (now
M>Train) in March 2000.
Additional orders were awarded to them for the
delivery of 59 trams and the maintenance of these
trams and the new three-car train units for 15 years.
The trains are mostly built in Vienna with the
assembly completed in Melbourne with components
supplied by Australian sub-suppliers.
The final commissioning and delivery will start in
February 2003, ending in February 2005.
The Melbourne project was a quite different
experience for Siemens, in that rolling stock was
usually built to customers’ engineering specification,
whereas National Express Group Australia (NEGA)
was an operator and they were mainly concerned in
the functionality of the cars for passengers and
driver.
National Express set the functionality target
requirements for the contract specification and the
detailed engineering of how to fulfil these was very
much left to Siemens.
A further interesting aspect was National Express
introduced a very rigorous process, essentially
allowing the drivers to design their own workplace.
This is where the most time/effort was spent in the
direct Siemens/client design interface.
Panel Session: Chaired by Mr Keith Walker. “The
Commercial Railway – Which is the best model?”
Panel: Mr D Carden, Mr P Huth, Mr N Grady.
Mr Gary Josh spoke in appreciation of all speakers
who contributed to the meeting.
Saturday 9th November
The technical inspections were visits to view both
new trainsets for the Melbourne metropolitan
service.
The first was to Bayswater, where an Alstom train,
appearing to be virtually completed, was stabled in
the in the yard.
The Siemens type was located in the old Victorian
Railway Newport Workshop.
The members examined both trains with enthusiasm
and discussed the different visible aspects of
each.
We adjourned to the Victorian Motor Yacht Club
for lunch, which completed the Melbourne meeting.
Thank you is extended to the following for their
assistance in providing advertisements for the
technical papers through the year:
Alstom Australia Ltd
Connell Wagner
QR, Queensland Rail Consulting Services
Siemens Ltd
TMG International
Union Switch & Signal Pty Ltd
Westinghouse Signals Australia
Local meetings were held as follows:
NSW:
20th June, joint meeting with RTSA, Railtable –
Alex Wardrop.
23rd July, NSW Dark Territory Indications – Kevin
Julian/Richard Stepniewski.
29th August, joint meeting RTSA/PWI, PWI (1)
Paper – Mark Harris; (2) Signalling Under the Alliance
at Blacktown – Chris Miller.
17th September, Australian Signalling – Peter
Symons.
21st November, speaker, Chief Engineer, New York
Transit, Mysore Nagaraja.
5th December, Paper on Communications, followed
by a light supper and social.
QLD:
6th March, speaker (1) George Nikandros – Risky
Business, speaker (2) Ken Karrasch – A Candidate’s
Retrospective of Sitting the IRSE Exam.
MEMBERSHIP
The Australasian Section membership as of 31st
December 2002 was 393.
FINANCE
The audited balance sheet for the year ending 31st
December 2002 shows that the financial position of
the Section has been maintained.
The Committee wishes to thank members for their
support of the Australasian Section during the year
and looks forward to the continuing attendance at all

127
Hong Kong Section
1 THE COMMITTEE OF THE HONG
KONG SECTION
CHAIRMAN
Mr Phil Gaffney, Mass Transit Railway Corporation
Ltd.
VICE-PRESIDENTS
Mr Franco Fabbian, Mass Transit Railway
Corporation Ltd. Mr Pang Kwok Wai, Kowloon
Canton Railway Corporation.
SECRETARY
Hui Fook Lun, Francis, Control & Communications
Consultants Co Ltd.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Mr Sung Yuen Fat, Kowloon Canton Railway
Corporation. Mr Law Wai Hung (Michael), Kowloon
Canton Railway Corporation. Mr Cheung Nin Sang
(Henry), Kowloon Canton Railway Corporation. Mr
Lam Lai Yan, Mass Transit Railway Corporation Ltd.
Mr Kong Yam, Hyder Consulting Ltd. Mr Luk Kam
Ming, KML Engineering Co Ltd.
MEMBERSHIP SUB-COMMITTEE
Mr Sung Yeun Fat, Kowloon Canton Railway
Corporation. Mr Li Kin Man, Mass Transit Railway
Corporation Ltd.
LICENCE SUB-COMMITTEE
Mr Simon Lee, Mass Transit Railway Corporation
Ltd. Mr Tsang Kwok Leung, Kowloon Canton
Railway Corporation. Mr Hui Fook Lun (Francis),
Control & Communications Consultants Co Ltd.
LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT SUB-COMMITTEE
Mr Alfred Lui, Whartoner Business Management
Ltd. Mr Philip Lee, Mass Transit Railway Corporation
Ltd. Mr Chan Wing Tin (Terry), Mass Transit Railway
Corporation Ltd. Mr Wong Wai Ming (Philip), Kowloon
Canton Railway Corporation. Mr Law Wai Hung
(Michael), Kowloon Canton Railway Corporation.
CHINA AFFAIR
Mr Sung Yeun Fat, Kowloon Canton Railway
Corporation.
OVERSEAS AFFAIR
Mr Franco Fabbian, Mass Transit Railway
Corporation Ltd
2 IRSE CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Degree Course of Transportation Management: 27
students completed their final examinations and the
graduation was held on 18th February 2003 in
Northern Jiaotong University, Beijing.
IRSE Examination Study Group was ongoing with
the assistance of the Training Centre of MTRCL.
Another Study Group was established in KCRC
this year, which was open to all IRSE members.
3 MBA PROGRAMME
The MBA programme has been held in Shenzhen
University since October 2001, jointly organised with
the Overseas International Education Centre,
Warnborough University UK and Shenzhen
University Economy College.
A total of 58 candidates completed their theses
and passed the examinations; the graduation
ceremony was held in early 2003.
4 IRSE LICENSING AGENT
UK IRSE agreed in principle that if the Hong Kong
Section wished to become a licensing agent then
the Hong Kong Section should ensure that there
should be no liability linkage with the UK office.
5 COMMUNICATION WITH CHINA
RAILWAY ASSOCIATION AND
RAILWAY INSTITUTION
Liaison with Guang Dong Railway Association was
undertaken through colleagues from KCRC to enhance
information sharing and future co-operation.
The relationship with the China Hong Kong
Permanent Way Society was well maintained
through inviting their Committee members to attend
our meetings. It was seen as the most effective
approach to bringing two institutions together in
Hong Kong.
6 2002 IRSE (HK) ACTIVITIES
March – Annual Dinner
The response was satisfactory in that over 80 participated,
and it was an impressive occasion with
almost all members there.
May – Visit West Rail of KCR
20 members visited West Rail, which was under
construction, so the visit concentrated on visiting
their stations on the overhead section, signalling
equipment room and the depot.
Technical Forum meetings were jointly organised
with Mass Transit Railway Corporation, Train
Services Engineering Group in August 2002
The new environmental protection concepts for air
conditioning for railway signalling equipment rooms
by KCRC were presented.
September – CLP Black Point Power Plant Visit
20 members visited CLP Black Point Power Plant
on 7th September, including their plant control room.
7 NEWSLETTER AND IRSE (HK)
WEBSITE
A Website Working Group had been formed with
the volunteers from MTRCL. A completely new website
had been designed with a bilingual display.
IRSE (HK) NEWSLETTER
Excellent work from the Editorial Group. We wish
to seek a new editor as the result of Ian’s leaving.
8 FINANCIAL REPORT
Current Account Balance
Saving Account Balance
Total Cash Flow
HK$233.80
HK$64,784.67
HK$65,018.47
F L Hui, Secretary

128
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Midland & North-Western Section
When taking the chair of the Midland & North-
Western Section my main aim was to simply
consolidate on the good work of the last few years
in providing a varied programme of events, both in
terms of content and location.
I feel satisfied that this was achieved with again
the Section visiting four centres in the region –
Birmingham, Crewe, Derby and Manchester – and
attendance levels being maintained.
The speakers whose services we managed to
secure provided, I hope, points of interest for most if
not all attendees. The topics ranged from the blue
sky developments for “Satellite Signalling”. The
proving and implementation of modern technologies
with the talks on TASS and ERTMS proving
particularly popular. Finally some topics from the
sharp end with improvements in Maintenance
techniques and procedures plus use of Data logging
methods and analysis. A diversion from the purely
technical was introduced at our second Derby
meeting where we heard one man’s views, sometimes
frank, sometimes deliberately controversial, on
where our industry may be heading.
I thank all of our speakers for giving up their
valuable time and also to our many sponsors who
have contributed to all our events. Sponsorship has
meant that the Section has been able to operate
with the minimum of financial support from HQ.
On the visits front, as you know, we lost Dave
Wittamore during the 2001/2002 season, a hard act
to follow, but we have been lucky enough in having
Ian Allison take up the reins. Ian is developing an
ambitious set of visits that kicked off with a highly
successful two-part visit to Powernetics and Great
Central Railways at Loughborough. Other visits
included the Virgin Train Driver simulation at Crewe,
an ongoing event. No doubt you will hear more from
Ian in the future session.
Other developments for the Section include:
• The movement towards maximising the use of
email facilities for efficiency of communications.
The use of email not only provides speedy
communications but is also cost-effective for
the Institute. Traditional mailing methods will be
maintained where these are identified as
desirable.
• The development of Midlands and North-West
based study groups under the guidance of our
joint T&D representatives Buddadev Dutta
Chowdhury (BDC) and advisor David Stratton is
progressing. Look out for more news in the next
season.
Finally I would like to thank all the Committee
members for their valuable support during the past
year and trust that you will all support our new
Chairman Ian Mitchell in the same manner.
Ian has arranged a full and varied programme for
the 2003-2004 season and I hope to see some, if not
all of you again in the future.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE
The Committee for the 2002-2003 session was:
Chairman
Clive Williams
Vice-Chairman
Ian Mitchell
Secretary
Bill Redfern
Treasurer
Tony Walker
Past Chairman
Doug Nottingham
Visits Secretary
Ian Allison
Training & Development
Gary Hall
Buddadev Dutta Chowdhury
David Stratton
Younger Members’ Rep
Kamini Edgley
Committee
Ian Bridges, Peter Halliwell
Ian Johnson, Tony Knowles, Melvyn Nash
Clive Williams
Plymouth Section
The Plymouth Section of the IRSE held three
technical meetings during the 2002-2003 session.
Although apparently diverse in subject matter, there
was nevertheless a common theme that related all
three, namely automatic train protection (ATP).
The first paper was presented by Alan Cooksey,
formerly of HMRI and later HSE, who presented his
paper, “Implications for Signalling of the Ladbroke
Grove Enquiry”. Alan had formerly presented this
paper to the main body in London, but now being
retired was in a position to introduce some personal
views. A total of 23 members and visitors attended
this meeting, all of whom benefited from an excellent
presentation with thought provoking comments and
questions.
It had been difficult to reduce the enormous
amount of available data on the subject to a level
suitable for a short paper, and even more so to
attempt to summarise it in this report. Suffice to say
that even a summary of the background, actual
circumstances of the accident, personalities, train
company policy, development of signalling, special
circumstances surrounding Paddington, enquiry
details, ATP versus TPWS in this case, SPAD
statistics and many other less topical but nevertheless
important considerations made for a very
interesting evening.
The second paper for the session was a presentation
explaining the fitting of Automatic Train
Operation (ATO) and ATP to the Bucharest Metro
Line 2 in Romania, but with a twist being entitled
“What the Manuals Do Not Tell You About Fitting
ATP to an Existing Metro”. This paper was given by
John Senior, Project Engineer, watched closely by
the writer of this article as Project Manager, ready to

PLYMOUTH SECTION
129
ask the awkward questions. Nineteen members and
guests attended the meeting.
The main thrust of the presentation surprised
attendees, steering away from the expected summary
of the project and instead concentrating on the
unusual problems encountered along the way, not
least of which being the lack of crucial data
concerning distances and gradients necessary for
system design. Another very interesting topic was
the effect of the tolerances applicable to each
parameter involved in ATO and ATP operation,
especially when compounded into design considerations
in attempting to stop a train automatically
within a plus/minus one metre tolerance.
The third and final paper of the session was
entitled “ERTMS in the UK”, read by Patrick
Clipperton. The 20 members and guests at this
meeting included Peter Stanley, President of the
Institution. Post-presentation discussion was substantially
enhanced by the involvement of the
President as a result of his knowledge of the subject.
Pat’s presentation took the form of an across-theboard
picture of ERTMS in the UK, including a
summary of the current project and report status,
statistics of signal, driver and rolling stock numbers,
financial considerations, GSM-R radio, the three
ERTMS level benefits or limitations, reports from
installed systems abroad both valid and propaganda
and media reporting.
All papers presented during this session culminated
in lively questions and answers on all three
occasions with the Chairman having to call a halt to
proceedings.
Following earlier postponements as a result of
work commitments, the Annual General Meeting of
the Section was held on 24th June. Under local
rules, one member of the standing Committee had
to retire, and the Section was delighted to welcome
Past President Alastair Wilson on to the Committee
following a unanimous vote. The Committee for the
coming session will be:
Julian Stiles (Chair)
Dave Biss
Mick South
Geoff Ledger
Andy Marsh
Alastair Wilson
Dave Came was confirmed as Secretary/Treasurer
with Alan Peters as Auditor.
There was discussion on the licensing of staff and
the need to understand that this was now a requirement
expanding beyond safety signalling design and
test, to include in the future all disciplines involved in
work in the railway environment. It was agreed that
locally there is a need to assist and encourage
younger members to attain the required licences,
irrespective of job function.
In view of the successful numbers attending
technical meetings, it was agreed to continue with
the same policy in terms of number, time of start and
venue of meetings.
A special mention was made concerning longstanding
member and previous Section secretary
Stan Buttery, who is seriously ill. The thoughts of the
members are with him. D Came, Secretary
Scottish Section
Chairman:
Secretary:
Treasurer:
Committee:
Paul Humphreys
Alan King
Alistair McWhirter
Peter Allan, Peter Rowell
Ian Hill, Tommy Gallacher
This session the Scottish Section has held most
meetings at the premises of Caledonian University.
Following a very successful 2001 experience, the
Marriott Hotel, Glasgow, proved again to be a very
suitable venue for the annual dinner in November
2002. (The Section AGM was held prior to the last
meeting of the session on Thursday 21st March
2002.)
The 2002/2003 session commenced in October
with a presentation from Peter Ramsay, First
Engineering, on “Development of Track Warning
Systems in the UK”. This lecture was held jointly with
the Permanent Way Institution. The presenter very
capably steered the content of the presentation to
hold rapt attention from attendees representing each
discipline. Those attending left this meeting with a
comprehensive insight into the background, and
development so far, of this important subject area.
Pros and cons of the operation of various systems
available were discussed, and for the signal
engineers in the audience, the means of interfacing
to the surrounding signalling system was also
covered. This event was sponsored by First
Engineering. (Attendees 42)
November’s meeting followed the established
format of a lecture followed by the Scottish Section
Annual Dinner. This year, Harry Archibald, Jarvis Rail
Projects, presented “The Alternative IRSE Exam”.
This eye-catching title must no doubt have raised a
few eyebrows at Savoy Hill House when compiling
the programme card! The lecture proved to be an
interesting study into how past and present
practices match up to modern day signalling
principles! Harry picked several ‘rules’ set out in
railway group standards and used a wide range of
photographic illustrations, past and present, UK and
overseas, to show how the various principles were /
are applied. As expected. the talk was thought
provoking and led to some interesting debate afterwards.
This event was sponsored by Jarvis Rail
Projects. (Attendees 58)
In January 2003, Frank Hyland, Head of
Operations, HMRI, described the evolution of
processes that have been applied to the investigation
of UK railway accidents in the last few years.

130
SCOTTISH SECTION
He drew comparisons from his experience of Health
& Safety management in other industry sectors,
which gave background to some of the changes in
the approach. He explained how improvements had
been made in liaison and protocol between the
HMRI, Police, Train Operating Companies,
Infrastructure Controller and other affected
organisations after accidents occur. (Attendees 30)
Two lectures were held in February. Firstly, Liam
Regan, of Thales, presented “Delivering Telecomms
for the London Underground Connect Project”. In
this lecture Liam outlined the communications
strategy for this project and went on to describe the
transmission and copper cable installation methods
used to interconnect the various major operational
centres on the Underground. He also described the
Private Finance Initiative strategy and the minimum
service levels specified for this telecomms infrastructure.
(Attendees 13)
Our other February lecture was held jointly with
the IMechE (Railway Division) at Caledonian
University. Mike Corbett, TPWS (Trainborne) Project
Director, Joint ROSCO Working Group, presented
the trainborne aspects of TPWS installation. This
was of particular interest to all who have been
involved in the provision of TPWS. Mike very helpfully
introduced the topic by explaining the history
up to the implementation of TPWS and went on to
describe the activities of the Joint ROSCO Working
Group. He also explained details of the trainborne
equipment, the implementation strategy, various
‘interface’ issues (and some teething problems)
along with some lessons learned.
In March John Bryant, of Bentley Systems,
presented “The Unified Railway Model”. This lecture
incorporated a presentation on the use of virtual
reality within the railway environment. A desktop
signal sighting exercise was simulated where signals
could be ‘placed’ at various possible locations to
assess visibility. The software also has the capability
to calculate the distance/time that the signal is
visible to the driver. Attendees were impressed by
the realism of the 3D images and the powerful
impact this facility could have on assessing
proposed alterations to infrastructure before
construction. (Attendees 10)
In a departure form normal tradition, our AGM was
held in April and for the first time, combined with a
quiz night in less formal (and licensed) surroundings.
Some of us discovered just how wide the gaps in our
knowledge were during the signal engineering round
of questions! However, the evening was a great
success and enjoyed by all. For the session 2003/
2004, the Section intends to continue using the
premises of Glasgow Caledonian University for most
meetings.
Alan King
Secretary
Southern African Section
MEMBERSHIP
At the end of the 2002 session, the membership of
the Southern African Section stood at 51. This was
made up as follows:
Companion 1
Fellow 9
Member 27
Associate Member 5
Accredited Technician 9
The membership per country within the Southern
African Section is:
South Africa 47
Zimbabwe 4
OFFICERS FOR THE 2001 SESSION
Chairman
Dr Bennie Steyn
Vice-Chairman
Rod Kohler
Secretary
Vic Bowles
Treasurer
Johan van de Pol
Committee Members
Derrick Marais
Graham Paverd, Phil Meyer,
Craig Mathys
Co-opted Member
Bob Woodhead
FUNCTIONS
On 14th February 2002 the Chairman led a
discussion addressing “Communication Based
Signalling”. As background to this discussion it was
recognised that ETCS has received a lot of attention
in Europe and an enormous amount of money is
being spent on the development of the requirements
for different levels. The testing and evaluation of the
concepts are well on the way and implementation is
expected soon. In the UK, a huge amount of money
is being spent on CBS for the West Coast Mainline
and the installation of TPWS. In the USA, on the
other hand, the most notable effort is that of the
NYCT with the development of the so-called
Communication Based Control system. The above
developments are earmarked for lines with extensive
passenger traffic. The major freight railways are
looking at the implementation of add-on systems
such as warning systems (EPWS) and Positive Train
Separation systems (PTS), which would improve the
safety of existing, line side systems.
In South Africa we have pioneered very cost
effective lineside signalling systems including hybrid
interlocking, points and remote control systems, to
name a few. In the midst of these developments
throughout the world, we in South Africa are
implementing, or about to implement various forms
of communication based signalling systems such as
RTO, Track Warrant and CBA.
The discussion concluded that the conditions in
South Africa dictate that communication based
signalling is destined to become the preferred
technology of the future, but the currently
constrained capital resource will contain the rate of
implementation.

SOUTHERN AFRICAN SECTION 131
On 14th March 2002 Dr Angus Hay and Frank
Nunneley, from Transtel, presented a paper entitled
“The Journey to being a Second Network Operator”.
The paper expounded on the concept that choice is
a new buzzword in the world of technology. In South
Africa, we are on the road to being able to choose
between telecommunication providers. The
government has started the process to legalise a
telecommunications competitor to the current single
incumbent, Telkom.
On 18th April 2002 Manie Bernard, from Inteltrack,
presented a paper entitled “Rural Train Signalling
with GPS”. The paper highlighted that the accuracy
of GPS has improved from 100-150 metres
previously to 5-15 metres during the past year. The
paper then postulated that together with low-cost
multi-channel GPS receivers, trains could now be
tracked within the tolerances required for rural train
signalling. An onboard kilometre driven menu could
now replace all the static driver information and
markers next to the track like speed limits, warning
boards, gradients, curves and station names.
Basically all the information the train driver needs
could be displayed on board. By issuing digital track
warrants to the trains and monitoring the position of
trains continuously, safety could be maximised.
Understanding the application of GPS technology in
the signalling environment is critical if we would like
to improve safety and reduce costs in future. With
the advancement of GPS technology, train tracking
software and GPS based track clearance methods,
this becomes a very attractive alternative for low
cost reliable rural train signalling.
A joint symposium involving the Permanent Way
Institution (PWI), the South African Institution for
Civil Engineers (SAICE), the South African Society
for Railway Engineers (SASRE) and the IRSE was
held on 13th June 2002. The symposium addressed
the positioning of the institutions and societies in the
future railway environment, with specific emphasis
on the pending establishment of the Rail Safety
Regulator in South Africa. Mr Mervan Panzera presented
a structure introduction to the Rail Safety
Legislation, the Rail Safety Regulator and the role of
the Rail Safety Authority. Each learned society then
presented a short paper on their understanding of
the way forward. An open debate followed.
On 15th August 2002 Andreas Matthee presented
a paper entitled “Research into Technologies Which
Can Be Employed for the Detection of Skid Marks on
Rails”. Skid marks cause a lot of damage to both the
infrastructure and the rolling stock. Annually much is
spent repairing these and therefore the recording of
the detail of skid marks will go a long way to improving
maintenance planning and actions. A number of
technologies and analysis techniques can be
employed to detect and classify the skid marks. The
paper focused on research performed to determine
the feasibility of employing current technologies for
this purpose. A skid mark is in effect a ‘pothole’ for
a train wheel. By using advanced techniques to
analyse the signals obtained from both accelerometers
and acoustic transducers attached to the
wheel set of a measurement car running over a
section of railway line, it was possible to detect with
sufficient reliability the position, depth and length of
these potholes (skid marks). The accelerometer
alternative also proved to be more effective. The
success of this initial research requires that the
approach be further refined and perfected.
The annual technical visit took place on 6th-8th
September 2002. The visit comprised a group of
members, spouses and some children spending a
weekend in the Northern Drakensberg. The highlight
of the weekend was a tour to the Drakensberg Pump
Storage Scheme. The Pump Storage Scheme
consumes electrical energy from the national
distribution grid during times of low demand to
pump large volumes of water from the Tugela River
complex, up a vertical height of 150 metres, to an
elevated storage dam that is integral to the
Sterkfontein dam complex. Conversely, during times
of high electricity demand, the same hydroelectric
units use water flow from the elevated storage dam
to generate electrical energy that is and feed to the
national grid. This facility can produce of the order of
8% of the total national consumption. Furthermore,
the Sterkfontein dam complex is able to feed water
to the north-eastern highlands of South Africa,
which houses the South African industrial heartland
of the greater Johannesburg, Pretoria, Vereeniging
area, as well as large tracts of agricultural land.
Accordingly, the same facility can be used to pump
water from the abundant Tugela complex to the less
abundant highlands. The tour of the pump station
included a restricted viewing of the control centre of
the complex. Typical remote control systems are
used to centrally control and monitor the installation.
The turbine-generator sets are mounted vertically
and stand of the order of ten stories high. All of the
party had a thoroughly enjoyable outing.
Traditionally, the annual technical visit of the
Southern African Section is planned to coincide with
the visit of the IRSE President to South Africa.
Unfortunately, this visit did not take place at short
notice due to ill-health in the family of the President.
The related technical meeting at which the President
normally addresses the Section was also cancelled.
On 31st October 2002 Rudi Barnard presented a
paper entitled “Harare – Mutare CTC Renewal and
Telephone Carrier Project”. The paper detailed the
scope, the methodology, the key challenges and the
successes of the project, which Siemens had
recently completed. The systems installed include a
PC based SCADA system, microwave backbone,
UHF train radio system, PLC interfacing to the
existing interlockings, power equipment and axle
counters. The paper did not only give an overview of
the project scope of works, installation and commissioning
issues, but also looked at some of the
challenges relating to contracting in a neighbouring
country.
The Annual Dinner for the 2002 session was postponed
from the original date of 11th October 2002
and was in the end held on 20th January 2003 at the
Old Edwardians Club. The attendance was well
above average and all had a jolly good time. The
guest speaker, Shulami Qalinga (a female and
recently appointed Senior Manager, Rail Operations

132 SOUTHERN AFRICAN SECTION
at Spoornet) enlightened the guests as to the current
role of women in rail in South Africa and related this
to a highly successful locomotive preparation
project. A female colleague of Shulami managed the
project. Shulami also had a significant involvement
in the project. The award for the best paper in the
2001 session was announced at the dinner, with the
winner being Ernst Swanepoel of the SARCC for his
paper entitled “Management of Rail Assets – Art or
Science”.
A strategic session was held during the year to
review the role and focus of the Southern African
Section and to decide on the positioning of the
Section with regard to the proposed formation of a
Rail Safety Regulator in South Africa. The conclusion
of the session was that the Southern African Section
is doing most of the things it should and that it
should continue to:
• Ensure a presence in the environment
• Define a training strategy
• Actively market the services it can provide to
possible members.
The Southern African Section still labours under a
decrease in the number of members arising from a
number of retired members suspending their
membership during this session and the ongoing
overseas recruitment that continues to attract
signalling expertise from Southern Africa.
Vic Bowles
General Secretary
Western Section
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Hon Secretary
Hon Treasurer
Members
Mark Glover
Peter Duggan
Doug Gillanders
Mark Brookes
Chris Napper, Ed Gerrard
Peter Martell
TECHNICAL MEETINGS
It was disappointing start to the session when it
was necessary to rearrange at relatively short notice
the first paper of the session because the original
planned event had no response whatsoever. The
original event was to have been a short papers
evening where the prize for the best was to have
been a Section-sponsored place on the IRSE
Convention in Birmingham. No papers at all were
submitted.
We again had a varied range of papers which, by
the attendance figures, suggests that the choice is
generally of the correct interest level but could be
improved.
As no April/May visit could be arranged, as we
were either declined or received no response, the
AGM is to be convened before the first paper of the
next session.
The first paper of the session which took place in
Amey Rail’s offices in Bristol, was presented by
Simon Chadwick of Westinghouse Rail Systems and
was entitled “Westlock – The Next Generation
Interlocking”. Simon introduced his topic by giving
an overview of what he was going to present and
stressed the recurring theme would be evolution not
revolution with a system based on the tried and
trusted SSI.
SSI is very good but had reached its limits. More
was required of SSI and there were issues of
obsolescence. The object was to recreate-use the
concepts and the technology and make use of the
extensive experience of staff within the rail industry.
The plan is to build on the data structures and recreate-use
the TFMs and datalink modules where
appropriate. The new interlocking will connect to an
existing SSI one, but as it is around four times the
size of an SSI, the designer can determine the optimum
position of the boundary.
He then moved on to explain the system architecture.
There were three safety critical bits – the CIP
(Control Interlocking Processor), the TIF (Trackside
Interface) and the SII (SSI Interface). In future instead
of the TIFs together with the TFMs, the method of
control may change to OBs (Object controllers). The
OB may also replace the Radio Block Control
systems. Currently SSI uses LDTs (Long Distance
Terminals) where in future these would be replaced
and have remote TIFs. The Westlock interlocking
can be so configured to either have local TIFs,
replacing the MPMs of SSI, feeding out to LDTs
changing only the “centre” or it can be configured to
have remote TIFs doing away with LDTs and
changing the lineside configurations.
The data preparation and testing tools are being
designed to make it easier to do both activities. The
data structure is similar to SSIs but will be able to be
compiled in a PC environment rather than a
workstation. The process from design to commission
remains identical as is now used. Data is
generated for the new interlocking using the PC
environment or it is converted from SSI data to
Westlock data for an existing interlocking. The interlocking
can then be fully tested off-line using either
actual equipment or a fully simulated set up. This will
have the effect that stageworks will be tested more
efficiently. However, at some point, when the actual
control and indications have to be tested, more of
the working railway will have to be turned off!
The way forward now is pick a trial site for some
parallel running. The most suitable in terms of SSI
interfaces is the Euston/Willesden project but the
scheme is too big for one Westlock interlocking.
Consequently, a section of the Willesden area has
been chosen where the Westlock can be connected
to all the different possible interfaces. The section
chosen will use 199 TFMs, 126 signals, 140 points,
254 track circuits and have 431 routes.

WESTERN SECTION 133
The future development needs to have a support
system to allow for the safety approvals to be
addressed. It also needs another site where the
track layout and the outside signalling doesn't
change. This will then allow the interlocking to be
fully tested using “Over and Back” methodology.
The best way forward is to build on past experience.
(Attendance 20 members, 8 visitors)
The second meeting took place in the usual venue
of WRSL’s offices in Chippenham, where we were
privileged to be joined by our President Mr Peter
Stanley, who gave us a short talk on the perspective
from the Centre. Mr John Martin and George Dewar,
of Atkins, then presented their paper entitled “North
Staffs Resignalling”. John introduced himself and
George before stating that he would outline the
North Staffs project, then George would introduce
the axle counters which were used and say something
about the safety approval, finishing off with
some of the hurdles they had to jump.
The main reason for renewal was the asset
condition. It had passed beyond its service life. The
project was the centralisation of control on Stoke on
Trent with the resultant closure of seven old signalboxes.
The new signalling covered 120 colour light
signals, 40 ground position light signals, six level
crossings (five CCTV and one AHB), 50 point
machines, seven SSIs 21 axle counters covering 220
sections, 78 locations, 21 REBs 40 miles of cable
route using 435km of cable. The capital cost of using
axle counters in place of track circuits was an
increase of 10%. However, the whole life costs were
considerably less. There are no track circuits anywhere
on the project. The provision of TPWS was
designed into the scheme as an integral part and not
a “bolt on”. There was also an integral condition
monitoring scheme.
North Staffs was commissioned on the 27th May
this year using a 24-day blockade. There were no
stage works at all.
At this point George took over. The axle counters
used were the Alcatel AzLM using digital technology
and the multi-headed system. They were used at
North Staffs because they were at the right point in
their development. This imported additional risk to
the project but the conceptual design and the
safety case used in the North Staffs application was
based on the core system in use on DB and using
the cross acceptance approach to the safety case
approval. Risk assessments of interfaces and the
use of a trial site at Stone in July 2000 using 16 sections
proved to be very useful. To get the necessary
approval, a conceptual safety case, GETS control
system safety case, AzLM reset and restore risk
analysis (for the conditional reset) and the applications
manual were all required. The conditional reset
system was used as only one signalbox – Stoke –
was involved. If the last count was “in”, the system
would not reset, if the last count was “out” it will.
There is also the availability of the "sweeping train"
reset but this was causing a lot if delay to the first
train of the day. Consequently a dedicated “sweeping
train” is now being used.
George then returned to the benefits of using axle
counters – namely reduced delays, fewer SPADs (cat
B), rail contamination is no longer an issue and
reduced EMC problems. The concerns were
addressed by “expert groups” especially convened
to look at the problems which mainly were the reset
and restore requirement and the detection of the rail
integrity. (Attendance 19 members, 6 visitors)
The Christmas paper held in Amey’s office in
Bristol, was the sequel to last year’s paper and was
entitled “Checking the Chieftain”. This again was
presented by John Francis of WRSL. Again the
audience gave rapt attention to John for over two
hours. No divulgence of mis-spent youth in the West
Country this year as the paper was set during John’s
time in central Scotland.
John introduced himself by saying that this
covered the period around 1990 when he was a
signaller in central Scotland at Greenloaning and
Carmuirs signalboxes. He started by way of a few
“props” explaining there particular use during that
period. They were a Stop Order – which allowed the
signaller to get home – and the On Company Service
(OCS) sticker which allowed selected goods to be
conveyed to other parts of the country without
charge!
The paper was delivered with the aid of slides to
which the anecdotal commentary was added.
Greenloaning was one of the first boxes to be
worked by John when he went up there after
returning from Australia.There were various views of
the box in both summer and winter. During the
winter months, ie from November through to March,
the outside toilet – which was “plumbed in” to the
culvert – was of no use as it was frozen up.
From there after a short spell in other boxes
nearby allowing him to work up the signalman class
system, he spent a period south of Edinburgh as a
crossing attendant during the electrification of the
East Coast and the joining up with the West Coast
electrification.
John the returned to central Scotland to the
Carmuirs East and West boxes and Larbert Junction
which together formed a triangle serving Perth,
Edinburgh and the Forth Bridge. There were various
techniques explained which ensured that the
“Chieftain” was stopped at signals whilst the local
“Orange peril” trundled on past right in front of the
“Chieftain” at around 15mph. Nearby was also a golf
course which provided both a short cut home and
entertainment at the expense of the golfers on the
course. The signal layout was explained and how, on
occasions, it was necessary to send trains around
two sides of the triangle to keep them moving when
a problem had occurred.
One o’clock on a Saturday afternoon was a
notable time as the whole area became very quiet as
in the bus station behind Larbert signalbox, all the
machinery was switched off. It was only then that
you realised the high level of background noise that
was present all the other times.
Finally, John showed a few traditional slides from
a slide projector, covering some views of the
different trains and seasons up in that part of

134 WESTERN SECTION
Scotland. (Attendance 14 members, 4 visitors)
For the fourth paper of the session, took place in
Hyder’s offices in Bristol and the paper was entitled
“TPWS Experience” by Andy Scarisbrick of Amey
Rail.
Andy started by outlining the reasons for train
control and demonstrated this by detailing a list of
SPAD accidents. He followed this through with a
detailed explanation of the Great Western automatic
train control (ATC) system the British Rail (automatic
warning system (AWS) and the Great Western Main
Line automatic train protection (ATP) system.
The Railway Safety Regulations of 1999 mandates
a train protection system to be in place by 1st June
2004 which prevents SPADs by the use of a train
stop at a stop signal, over speed sensing on
approach to a stop signal and overspeed sensing on
approach to a permanent speed restriction or a
buffer stop. The driver cannot override the system or
cancel the system whilst the train is in motion.
Andy then went on to the descriptions of the
equipment using system architecture diagrams and
photographs of both the train borne equipment and
the track mounted equipment. The frequencies used
are between 64 and 66kHz, the actual frequency
being dependant on the direction and whether being
used as a train stop sensor (TSS) or an overspeed
sensor (OSS). The distance between the loops and
the distance to loops is critical and are shown on the
track plan for any relaying work.
Using line diagrams the fitment principles were
explained with the following emphasis. Emergency
crossovers – Ground Frames – do not require fitment
but ground frames for traffic purposes do require
fitment. The safe operating distances range from
125m at 21mph to 550m at 70mph with an OSS
always being required at speeds over 70mph.
Pictures were shown of the failure indication unit
used in the mechanical signalboxes which demonstrated
how the TPWS was monitored in mechanical
areas. Failure modes which give an indication are
power failure, incorrect frequency being generated
and absence of the loop. On NSKT lines the TPWS
was driven by the token machine. A special indicator
was provided for the driver to show that
suppression of the TPWS had been achieved. A
special UPS had been designed and built for most
guaranteed supply areas.
Some figures showing the activation of the TPWS
were shown. In August 2002 there were ten activations,
in September six activations, in October 20
activations and in November 2002 there were 12
activations. (Attendance 17 members, 10 visitors)
The February paper was again held in WRSL’s
offices in Chippenham, was entitled “High Speed
Trains for the West Coast Mainline” and was
presented by Mr John Evans of Alstom. This was a
joint meeting with the local IEE Section.
Mr Evans started by saying that his paper would
be looking at the 1980s locomotives, the 1990s
locomotives and those currently being built and
tested for Virgin – the Pendolino.
The type introduced in the 80s made use of a
thyristor controlled DC motor and was powered in
one of two ways – a low voltage 750V or 1500V DC
high current supply or a 25kV AC low current supply.
The former was used on metro and suburban trains
and the latter on long distance high speed trains
such as the class 91 loco used on the ECML.
The next generation introduced in the 90s made
use of the gate turn off (GTO) thyristor which was
initially used on DC chopper circuits such as those
on the class 319 units. These were more powerful
devices than those of the 80s and led to propulsion
inverters being both affordable and practical. The
advantages of the GTO is that control is always
maintained, it has a high transient current, it works
up to 500Hz and fails into a known state – short
circuit. The use of a propulsion inverter led to
variable voltage variable frequency being fed to AC
motors. The application was the Eurostar train that
has input capability of 750V DC, 3kV DC and 25kV
AC, has a top speed of 300kph and was powered by
12 synchronous motors in the two power cars and
first trailer cars. All the systems were duplicated.
The current generation makes use of insulated
gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) technology which is a
large power switching device. The advantages of
IGBT are simple equipment design, high reliability,
fast switching, voltage controlled simple gate
device, a simple mechanical construction and is
available up to 1800A and 6kV. The application is is
in the 1700V 800A Juniper units, the Virgin Cross
Country Voyager units and for high frequency
operation the Pendolino Britannico.
The Pendolino has a high level of customer
specification, improved journey times, improved
reliability and improved customer ambience. The tilt
technology is from Fiat who have used it extensively
in Europe where it was adapted from the 70s
APT tilting technology. The traction drives are the
same as the Juniper equipment and thus can carry
over the safety case. The power equipment is distributed
with a feeder system along the roof. The
maximum speed is 140mph and it entered service in
July 2002. It has twelve body mounted traction
motors driving through a 10-foot Cardin shaft The
use of tilt allows faster speeds through corners
without the customer noticing. Fiat had 12 fleets of
tilting technology in service when the Pendolino
order was placed. The tilt mechanism is electrical
not hydraulic (only Fiat’s second) and because it is
mounted on the bogie/body interface, the traction
motors have to be body mounted. The tilt mechanism
allows a 35% increase in speed.
The vehicles are built and completed in Fiat’s
workshops but fitted out in Alstom’s workshops in
Birmingham. Each has 363 seats, is 23m long, is
pressure sealed and has a noise of less than 65dBA.
The reliability will be six times better than now and
as Alstom have to maintain them for 12 years, there
is an incentive to get them reliable. In 2004 there will
be 11 Pendolino Britannico leaving Euston per hour.
(Attendance 17 members, 17 visitors)
The final paper of the session was as usual a joint
paper held with the South Wales PWI in Newport.
This was entitled “Trams – Light and Heavy Rail” and

WESTERN SECTION 135
was presented by Mr Alan Wilkins. It was chaired by
the PWI chairman, Mr R Hughes.
This paper took the form of a slide show demonstrating
the evolution of the tram both in the UK and
in Europe. The developments ranged from those like
Blackpool which had continued to operate from the
early part of the 20th century through those that had
been ripped up and years later reinstated, to those
that were new systems completely.
Developments in Germany were contrasted with
those in France where the French seemed to have
more flair for producing a well-used system. The
development continued with the twin axle heavy rail
car, eg the class 142 units and then into the current
type – that of the “tram-train” where light and heavy
rail run intermixed. There have also been experiments
with “jockey wheel” type trams with mixed
success. Guided busways have also been trialled,
again with mixed success
The modern tram has a low floor for easy access
and egress but some still have conventional height
flooring so that engines can be underslung. A typical
tram length is around 34m and on the continent
there are regular movements of a double consist
making it around 75m long. This was something
Bristol did not want to go on general circulation
following a presentation which Alan made to them
for the proposed Bristol tram/rapid transit system,
as a 75m “obstruction” would be good ammunition
for those project objectors.
The number of European manufacturers of trams
had dwindled to three because of various closures
and mergers that took place in the 90s. These three
are Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens, with Hitachi
of Japan trying to enter the market. The number of
units required in all of Europe is no more than 100
per year which does not merit the expensive tooling
required for individual tram designs. Consequently,
the manufacturers have gone for modular design
where the client can pick from a selection of already
proven designs – traction type, low/high floor etc
and this then keeps the costs down. The client can
still have a tailored front end as this is not too
expensive.
Alan’s view is that we will see more of the tram or
tram-train as more cities are looking to reduce
congestion by their introduction – notably Leeds,
Manchester extension, Bristol, Hampshire
(Southampton/Eastleigh area) and in the near future
– Nottingham. A city with a tram system stands out
from its competitors.
(Attendance 10 members 8 visitors)
The Annual General Meeting has been postponed
to the start of the 2003/2004 session.
The Committee would like to record their
appreciation for the continued support by, and for
the use of the facilities for the meetings at Amey
Rail, Westinghouse Rail Systems and Hyder
Consulting and for the provision of excellent buffets
which preceded the meetings at their premises.
D Gillanders
York Section
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE
The Committee for 2002/2003 consists of:
Chairman
D R Bowlby
Vice-Chairman
D
Dyson
Treasurer
R H Price
Visits Secretary
A S Kornas
Recruitment Secretary
R H Price
Membership Secretary
A P Smith
Secretary
J Maw
Committee
R A Pinkstone, C I Weightman
CHAIRMAN’S ANNUAL REPORT
It was an honour to once again be the Chairman of
the York Section, having previously been so in the
1971/1972 session.
The Committee had put together, as usual, a
varied programme for the year. Attendance, on
average, of the technical meetings was slightly down
on the previous year. Last year’s average was 36
whilst this year was 35. The most popular papers
were the paper by Bruce MacDougall and Charles
Weightman on Manchester South Resignalling, and
Telecommunications for Railway Operations by Clive
Kessel. The President, Peter Stanley, attended and
took the Chair at the November meeting.
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend any of the
visits this year due to prior commitments.
This year has seen an improvement and expansion
in the rail industry locally. Unfortunately the year was
marred by the Potters Bar incident on the 10th May
2002, being very close to our hearts in that a point
machine/fittings were involved.
We continued to meet in the National Railway
Museum Gibb Theatre, the Museum being a superb
venue for a railway-based Institution.
During the year I attended the Council meeting in
London on four occasions and also attended four of
the London lectures.
I would particularly like to thank the Committee for
their hard work and support during the year; Rod
Price as Treasurer, for keeping the books in good
order and also for his stalwart efforts for the Dinner
Dance – another very successful one with 200 in
attendance, to Dennis Dyson for the tombola, to
Tony Kornas for organising the visits, and to John
Maw for the most important job of Secretary: with
his meticulous minutes always produced in good
time.
Denis R Bowlby
Chairman
TECHNICAL MEETINGS

136
YORK SECTION
The October meeting, sponsored by Corus Rail
Consultancy, was by Ivor Ellis of Pirelli Cables plc,
on “The Vale of York 400kV Underground Cable
Project”. This paper was close to the hearts of many
of the York membership as it dealt with the tricky
problem of how to strengthen the power supply to
the York area and still maintain the beauty of the
Yorkshire countryside. His talk detailed how the
underground ducts were installed and subsequently
how the oil filled cable was installed and jointed. Ivor
also explained the monitoring system that was
implemented to check for oil leaks and cable overheating.
Corus Rail Consultancy sponsored this
meeting. (17 members and 3 visitors attended)
The November meeting was kindly chaired by
Peter Stanley, the President of the Institution, when
a paper by Brian Smith on the subject of “The Kuala
Lumpur Sentral Resignalling Project” was presented.
Brian detailed how the project had been
subject to many delays and problems from its
inception in 1996 to final commissioning at the end
of 2001. The signalling contract was let in November
2000 to a Swiss Company who built the new interlockings
and tested them off line and then installed
and commissioned them using 5-hour possessions.
This involved switching between the existing interlockings,
the new interlockings and the outside
equipment. At the end of each period of testing the
interlockings would be switched back to the original.
This meeting was sponsored by the Halcrow Group
Ltd. (32 members and one visitor attended)
The December meeting was a paper by John
Boyes of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway on
“How I Resignalled a Railway”. It is traditional that
the December paper at York is always on a slightly
lighter topic than normal and John gave a very
interesting and informative paper on the rebuilding
of the railway between Pickering and Grosmont
following its closure by British Rail in 1967. John’s
paper was lavishly illustrated with slides showing the
various stages in renewing signals, rebuilding signalboxes
as well as the considerable track work that
was involved. On this occasion Jarvis Rail were our
sponsors. (30 members and 4 visitors attended)
January saw a paper by Clive Kessell on
Telecommunications for Railway Operations. Clive
took the members through the role of telecommunications
on the railway. The various telecomms
systems for railways were described together with a
vision as to how these might evolve in the future. The
inter-relationship with public networks was
considered as well as the use of telecomms to
support signalling. Finally, Clive looked at the future
of both railway signalling and telecomms as they
become more dependant on radio systems. Thales
Telecom Services sponsored this meeting.
(33 members and 13 visitors attended)
The February paper saw a change to our original
intentions but nevertheless David Crabtree gave a
very interesting and informative talk entitled “Click
Here – The IRSE Website Uncovered”. David used
an electronic presentation to look at the contents of
the IRSE website. He described how the website is
made up by looking at the “site map” to see how it
is structured. He also described how websites in
general are created and maintained with examples
on how work on the IRSE site is undertaken. Finally
he looked at how the IRSE website is developing
and posed the question, what do the members
WANT and NEED from the website. Westinghouse
Rail Systems were our sponsors for this meeting.
(21 members and 2 visitors attended)
The final paper in March saw that well known
double act Bruce MacDougall and Charles
Weightman present their paper on “Manchester
South Resignalling”. After earlier difficulties, the
Manchester South Capacity Improvement Project
was relaunched about 18 months ago. It is the first
project in Britain to use the Italian Ansaldo signalling
system based on their ACC interlocking. Charles
described the location and existing signalling of the
Manchester South area. He explained the reworking
of the scheme plan and its associated controls in the
light of emerging practices for overrun mitigation
and for the provision of collision proof signalling,
many of which were developed concurrently. Bruce
MacDougall took over to describe the Ansaldo
system and the process for its safety acceptance
based on cross-acceptance of the system as
applied at Roma Termini. The Ansaldo system
philosophy was explained and some notable
equipment and application details for Stage A of the
project were described along with their advantages
and disadvantages. The later applications of more
advanced features and some possible changes for
the future were discussed. Atkins Rail sponsored
this meeting.
(43 members and 14 visitors attended)
This gave an average attendance per meeting of
35, which is a very creditable number.
Once again we are indebted to our sponsors who
willingly support our meetings both financially and
physically. Without them we would be unable to use
the excellent facilities that the National Railway
Museum offers.
OUTDOOR VISITS
2002 brought with it a total of three visits. One
trend to note is that it is that it becomes more
difficult, year on year, to visit operational railways
and industrial sites due to the implementation of
revised health and safety requirements.
The first visit was held on Sunday 29th September
when ten members visited the Keighley and Worth
Valley Railway to view the work that is taking place
to keep this heritage railway operating as one of the
country's premiere working museums. Visits were
made to the signalboxes at Keighley, Damems and
Haworth as well as the locomotive shed at Haworth.
Transport along the line was provided by a heritage
Diesel Multiple Unit.
Wednesday 2nd October provided a visit for 22
members on the Tyne & Wear Metro system. The
Metro has operated a rapid transit system on North
and South Tyneside for over 20 years and, in 2002,
services were extended to Sunderland. This entailed
“light weight” Metro cars traversing the same tracks
as “heavy rail” passenger and freight traffic, which is

YORK SECTION 137
a first for the UK, mainline network (for regular
services). Of the technical visits to various installations,
of particular interest were the special signal
regulation controls applied to level crossings to
distinguish between heavy rail non-stopping trains
and the light rail stopping trains.
Cableform Ltd of Sowerby Bridge were visited on
Wednesday 9th October who are well known
manufacturers of railway signalling transformers and
rectifiers. The ten members were guided round the
factory where a great variety of manufacturing
processes were taking place. These included
production of electrical contactors, windings,
stamps, counters, heating elements and light
fittings. The company philosophy is to produce as
much as possible in-house which means that plastic
pellets, copper plate and cardboard come in through
one door and a fully tested and working light fitting
in a customer specified box goes out through the
other!
The IRSE wishes to thank all those individuals and
organisations whose efforts went into making the
visits such a success.
Tony Kornas
Visits Secretary
TREASURER’S REPORT
To enable easy access to our bank account and
banking facilities we opened a Treasurer’s type
account with the HSBC Bank with the proposal to
eventually close our Yorkshire Bank account.
We started 2002 with what appeared to be an
extremely healthy bank balance, unfortunately
however, over £3,600 had been paid into our
account in error. Therefore, in early January that
money was transferred to the Main Body. This left
your Committee with cash-flow worries mainly due
to the delays within our sponsors accounting
systems. Our fears were greatly eased when a
£1,000 grant application from the Main Body was
approved. Eventually we received all the 2001/2002
sponsorship money plus, due to changes in our
invoicing system, we also received all but one of the
sponsorship money for the 2002/2003 winter
session.
Regarding our expenditure, the cost of room hire,
the entertainment following each lecture and our
grant to support the joint IMechE meeting all
increased. A small saving was made, however, in our
stationery and postage costs. This is, of course, due
to the number of members who we can email the
details of our forthcoming events/meetings.
As you can see, due to the increase in numbers
attending, we made a healthy profit on our Dinner
Dance. It appears to get more popular each year.
I am extremely grateful to all our sponsors
because without their help we would not be able to
hold our meetings in the excellent venue at the
National Railway Museum. I would like to point out,
however, that it is the same sponsors that are
coming up trumps each year, namely Jarvis,
Westinghouse, Motts, Corus and Halcrow along with
either WS Atkins, Thales or Jacobs, so many thanks
to each of them but it is a pity that there appears to
be a reluctance by the other S&T contractors to
come forward and offer their help and assistance.
My thanks also go to the other members of the
York Section Committee for their patience and
understanding and lastly to Ernie Thomson who yet
again audited our accounts and thankfully this year
found zero errors in my adding up. Rod Price
Treasurer
2003 DINNER DANCE
The 2003 Dinner Dance was again held in the
Viking Moat House Hotel in York. 200 members, their
partners and guests attended the event. The
numbers this year were limited due to space in the
Regatta Suite and the desire to return to round
tables. The guests of honour were the Senior Vice-
President, Colin Porter and his wife, Claire.
Following the publication of a certain part of Colin’s
anatomy in the March 2003 IRSE News, he treated
the members and guests present to another
showing whilst he outlined the IRSE programme for
the coming year and proposing a toast to the York
Section. Not wishing to be outdone the Chairman,
Denis Bowlby, responded by doing likewise, much to
the amusement and possibly puzzlement of those
present. Fortunately these events took place after
the meal so no one was put off their food and
luckily chicken legs were not on the menu. The
Committee again provided pre-dinner drinks, in the
Ridings Suite, as this was popular last year. The
tombola again proved very popular with every ticket
being sold, and consequently all prizes handed out
(with the exception of one returned prize which was
deemed by the recipient to be surplus to requirements).
The disco this year played a varied selection
of music, with Jimmy Shand’s Scottish dance tunes
going down very well. Our thanks go to Rod Price for
successfully organising the event.
John Maw FIRSE

138
Younger Members’ Section
The Younger Members have been continuing to
organise events for the benefit of those less familiar
with the signalling and telecommunications industry,
while also considering how best to provide for the
needs of the Institution’s younger members in the
future.
In September the latest in the series of half-day
equipment seminars was organised at Canary
Wharf, London, on the subject of Railway Control
Systems. The event started by comparing the functionality,
interfaces and architecture of a typical
metro control system to those of UK mainline control
systems. From these presentations the delegates
could conclude that metro and mainline systems are
fundamentally similar, although both have evolved to
meet the requirements of the different environments.
The next stage of evolution for mainline control
systems was summarised as a movement towards
greater integration – a development that has been
led by metro systems. It was remarked that technically
almost anything is possible to implement in
software. The real challenges relate to the operational
procedures for integrated systems and larger
geographical areas, incident management and
failure/fallback strategies, and the development and
safety assurance of these complex systems. A
presentation on human factors followed, providing
an opportunity to remind the delegates of how the
decisions made by system designers affect the end
users – the operators. It was noted that often
overlooked considerations such as the positioning of
control centre windows and the control of room
temperature should not be forgotten in the design
and development phase as such issues affect the
ability of the operators to carry out their duties. The
event concluded with presentations providing an
overview of two current projects – the London
Underground train identification and management
information systems (TIMIS) project and the renewal
of the control system at Glasgow Central. Both
presentations looked at how additional functionality
can be added to existing railways to improve the
management of the service.
The Younger Members continue to organise worth
while events. A day entitled “ASPECT Survival Kit”
will precede the ASPECT international conference to
help explain the key concepts to be covered in the
conference and help delegates to note them in their
professional development record.
The Younger Members’ Committee held a brainstorming
afternoon this year to generate ideas of
how to ensure that the Institution’s younger
members continue to be offered events to help them
develop their understanding of signalling and
telecommunications. It was recognised that the
current organisation of the Committee is challenged
both geographically and by the effort each member
is able to contribute. A proposal is being worked up
to better incorporate the Younger Members’ events
with the activities of the Institution as a whole.
Council has welcomed this initiative. Contact has
been made with chairmen of all Institution committees,
regional sections and international sections
to introduce this proposal and seek younger
member representatives from each committee or
section to help plan consistent, quality events that
will be accessible to all the Institution’s younger
members.
In addition, the Younger Members have
maintained their association with the Young
Engineers’ Forum – a meeting of Younger Member
representatives from throughout the engineering
institutions. This year the Institute Mining, Minerals
and Materials hosted the forum for the purpose of
sharing ideas of how to organise younger members’
activities. The IRSE Younger Members contributed
by giving a presentation on its activities, the
challenges encountered and solutions proposed.
In summary, the Younger Members are pleased
with what their efforts have achieved this year and
remain hopeful for the future.
K Goodhand
Secretary

139
Advertisers
Page
ALSTOM Transport Information Solutions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ifc
First Engineering ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2
Bridgen Enterprises ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………31
Henry Williams Group ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41
GM Rail Services Ltd …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………111
IRSE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………122
Halcrow Group Ltd ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ibc
Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………bc

140
The Editor would like to thank Basil Grose, Peter Grant, John Francis, Ken Burrage,
all the UK and Overseas Section secretaries and the staff of Fericon Press,
Reading, for their assistance and co-operation in the production of the
Proceedings. The Institution is also most grateful to our colleagues within
the signalling industry who have kindly supported the Proceedings
by placing an advertisement.

ConsultingPropertyTransportationWater
It’s not just about engineering,
it’s about people.
Birmingham
Derby
Glasgow
London
York
1840
Link-up
©
Railway engineering
It takes more than engineering to deliver a
world-class railway. It’s not just about investment
either – solutions are generated by people.
At Halcrow we have those people – people to
create the innovative and cost-effective solutions
needed to satisfy integrated transport and railway
development needs. Halcrow’s successes are
regularly recognised and we have received a
number of awards. But that’s hardly surprising
when you consider the depth and breadth of
our expertise.
■ Transport planning and economics
■ Railway management, commercialisation,
privatisation and restructuring
■ Change management
■ Railway operations and railway planning
■ Rail safety and accident investigation
■ Mechanical and electrical engineering
■ Rolling stock specification, procurement
and maintenance
■ Rail civil engineering
■ Permanent way
■ Information technology and management
information systems
■ Personnel development and training
Signalling and telecommunications expertise
Our specialist signalling team carries out signalling
design, scheme development, layout risk
assessment and testing and commissioning for
clients worldwide.
The people who carry out the work are supported
by over 2,000 professionals in the Halcrow Group.
From specialist rail offices in Birmingham, Derby,
Glasgow, London and York, our capabilities include:
■ Scheme development from inception
to implementation
■ Project and contract management
■ Feasibility studies, condition assessment
■ Safety cases and risk assessment
■ Detailed and conceptual design
■ Independent checking
■ Technical investigations
■ Systems specifications
■ Testing and commissioning
■ EMI/EMC analysis
■ Railway telecommunications
You can see what Halcrow has to offer. To discuss
what Halcrow can do for your project or career, visit
our website or contact:
Malcolm Cope
Halcrow Group Limited
Vineyard House, 44 Brook Green
Hammersmith, London W6 7BY
tel: +44 020 7602 7282
email: halcrow@halcrow.com
For more information and to learn
about other opportunities visit:
halcrow.com
Committed to equal opportunities

Railway Signalling…
A Science or an Art?
At Westinghouse Rail Systems it’s both
Westinghouse Rail Systems Limited,
PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD, England
Tel: 01249 441441 email: wrsl.marketing@invensys.com
www.westinghouserail.co.uk