Proceedings 2002/2003 - IRSE
Proceedings 2002/2003 - IRSE
Proceedings 2002/2003 - IRSE
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Proceedings</strong><br />
<strong>2002</strong> – <strong>2003</strong>
Kilometres flash by<br />
While she’s curled in a corner<br />
Hunting the horizon<br />
Laura, happy by rail.<br />
© - ALSTOM - <strong>2002</strong> - Bon Angle<br />
Tomorrow’s child will be on the move like never<br />
before. Thanks to advances in rail transportation now<br />
underway, travelling from one part of town to another,<br />
from city centre to suburb or from one<br />
region to another will be a mere hop, skip or jump for<br />
the 21st century’s mobile generation. ALSTOM<br />
engineers are contributing to this faster, environmentally<br />
clean rail travel, developing innovative solutions for<br />
every aspect of passenger and freight markets: rolling<br />
stock, signalling, infrastructure and maintenance.<br />
ALSTOM doesn’t stop there, the Company’s expertise<br />
extends even further in proposing financial solutions<br />
tailored to each customer. For those who will go far<br />
tomorrow, ALSTOM will be there.<br />
ALSTOM, the global specialist in energy and transport infrastructure<br />
TRANSPORT • 34 Dover Street • London W1S 4NG<br />
Tel: 020 7290 55 76 • Fax: 020 7290 5570<br />
www.transport.alstom.com
The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers<br />
INCORPORATED 1912<br />
FOR THE<br />
Advancement of the Science of<br />
Railway Signalling<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>2002</strong>/<strong>2003</strong><br />
(Copyright Reserved)<br />
PRICE TO NON-MEMBERS £50.00<br />
Printed by Fericon Press Ltd (Tel: 0118 945 6100)
Engineering<br />
and technology<br />
in harmony<br />
Think<br />
Rail Maintenance<br />
Track Renewals<br />
Plant<br />
Head Office: Floor 7 Buchanan House<br />
58 Port Dundas Road,<br />
Glasgow G4 0HG<br />
Tel: 0141-335 3005 Fax: 0141-335 3006<br />
www.firstengineering.co.uk<br />
Consultancy Power & Civils<br />
Signalling Technology & Facilities<br />
Head Office: Coltness House, Lark Way,<br />
Strathclyde Business Park Bellshill,<br />
North Lanarkshire ML4 3RB<br />
Tel: 01698 574200 Fax: 01698 746301<br />
www.first-projects.co.uk<br />
First Engineering and First Projects are part of Peterhouse Group plc www.peterhouse.co.uk
Contents<br />
Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3<br />
3<br />
Page<br />
Portrait of P W Stanley ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4<br />
History of President …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5<br />
The Council of the Institution <strong>2002</strong>/<strong>2003</strong> ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6<br />
Addresses of Officers ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8<br />
Institution Announcements ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9<br />
Institution Sales ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11<br />
Institution Awards …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13<br />
Obituaries…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14<br />
Annual Dinner and Dance ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17<br />
Fourth Members’ Luncheon …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17<br />
Presidential Address ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Wednesday 9th October <strong>2002</strong> “Eurobalise Transmission System, ………………24<br />
A Technical Overview” by Per Lundberg with a summary of the Discussion ………………………………………………………30<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Wednesday 6th November <strong>2002</strong> “EuroRadio and the RBC”…………………………31<br />
by John Harmer, Kevin Turner and C Riley with a summary of the Discussion …………………………………………………40<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Tuesday 10th December <strong>2002</strong> “Eurocab and the Driver MMI – an ……………42<br />
introduction to the technology” by Christian Frerichs with a summary of the Discussion ………………………………47<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Tuesday 15th January <strong>2003</strong> “Signalling Control Centres Today …………………49<br />
and Tomorrow” by I H Mitchell with a summary of the Discussion ………………………………………………………………………61<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Tuesday 12th February <strong>2003</strong> “Migration to ERTMS on Existing …………………63<br />
Lines” by Jacques Poré with a summary of the Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………71<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution, Tuesday 12th March <strong>2003</strong> “CTRL Signalling and Communications” …………72<br />
by Gilbert Moens and Richard Stokes with a summary of the Discussion …………………………………………………………82<br />
International Convention, 29th April – 3rd May <strong>2002</strong> “‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor and Test<br />
System – a ‘black box recorder’ for Railway Level Crossings” by Paul Szacsvay ……………………………………………84<br />
Ninetieth Annual Report ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………92<br />
Ninetieth Annual General Meeting ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………109<br />
39th Annual Dinner ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………111<br />
Sydney Hosts <strong>2002</strong> Convention ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………112<br />
Membership Manager Appointed ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………116<br />
Staff Organisation Chart ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………117<br />
Staff Boost ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………117<br />
Much Better Engineer …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………118<br />
Exam Study Group Facilitators …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………118<br />
<strong>2002</strong> Examination Results …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………120<br />
Australasian Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………123<br />
Hong Kong Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………127<br />
Midland & North-Western Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………128<br />
Plymouth Section …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………128<br />
Scottish Section……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………129<br />
Southern African Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………130<br />
Western Section……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………132<br />
York Section …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………135<br />
Younger Members’ Section ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………138<br />
Advertisers ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………139
4<br />
P W STANLEY<br />
PRESIDENT <strong>2002</strong>/<strong>2003</strong><br />
Photo: Colin Porter
5<br />
PETER STANLEY BSc CEng FIEE F<strong>IRSE</strong><br />
Peter was born in Stroud, Gloucestershire, in 1942 and took an early interest<br />
in music, studying the piano, trumpet and organ. At Marling Grammar School<br />
he was introduced to engineering and became so fascinated by trains and<br />
boats and planes that he decided to study engineering and chose an electrical<br />
engineering course at Manchester University that covered computer engineering<br />
and linear motors.<br />
After graduating in 1964 he entered a two-year engineering graduate training<br />
scheme with British Rail Western Region, followed by positions in the maintenance<br />
and new works design offices, working on the resignalling of the Bristol<br />
area.<br />
In 1968 Peter was appointed to his first management position at Manchester,<br />
dealing with electronic equipment in marshalling yards, remote control systems<br />
and jointless track circuits. After several years’ further experience as Assistant<br />
Divisional S&T Engineer Birmingham and Signal Maintenance Engineer for LM<br />
Region, he took a year out of engineering in 1980 to become Consultancy<br />
Services Manager, SR, dealing with cost reduction in the wider railway.<br />
In 1981 Peter returned to Reading as Signal Engineer, Western Region, then<br />
became heavily involved in the resignalling of the Exeter and Westbury areas.<br />
In 1987 he was seconded to BR HQ to lead a small team developing an IT<br />
strategy for the S&T function, then became Assistant Director Resources for the<br />
S&T function in charge of financial planning, engineering training and materials.<br />
In 1989 he was appointed as Assistant Director (Signalling) with responsibility<br />
for all BR signalling design, development, standards and equipment approval.<br />
When the rail privatisation process started in 1992, Peter was asked to take<br />
on a wider management role that, in addition to signalling projects and maintenance<br />
engineering covered much of the BR’s civil engineering manufacturing<br />
workshops and fabrication depots, traction and rolling stock technical services<br />
and vehicle assessment services, plus the position of MD of BR Telecommunications<br />
Ltd.<br />
From 1994 his responsibilities widened further as BR’s Managing Director<br />
Business & Engineering Services, with responsibilities that included setting up<br />
companies in preparation for the privatisation of research, computing, project<br />
management, signalling projects, signalling technical support, trains engineering<br />
and infrastructure testing and gauging services, whilst continuing to deliver<br />
contracted services to the newly organised UK rail network.<br />
At the end of 1996, with privatisation being almost complete, Peter left BR to<br />
work as a consultant, firstly in the role of Project Director with Eurosig, the<br />
consortium responsible for the specification and prototype trialling of the<br />
ERTMS/ETCS system, and then as an engineering advisor to Virgin Trains and<br />
LUL. He has also been a non-executive member of the Board of AEA<br />
Technology Rail since 1997.<br />
Peter Joined the <strong>IRSE</strong> as a student in 1964 and has served as chairman of<br />
the Midland & North Western Section and for ten years as a member of the<br />
Examination Committee. He was elected to Council in 1989 and has been a<br />
member of the Institution’s International Technical Committee since its formation<br />
in 1991.<br />
He divides his spare time between playing with the East Woodhay Silver Band<br />
in his home village, of which he has been a member for 24 years, occasional<br />
organ playing (mainly for weddings) and travelling to and from Dartmouth where<br />
he keeps a sailboat.<br />
Peter met his wife Carol in the Students’ Union at Manchester University; they<br />
were married in 1967 and have two children, James, who is an ambulance<br />
technician in Devon, and Helen, who is a musician based in Bristol.
6<br />
The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers<br />
INCORPORATED 1912<br />
SESSION <strong>2002</strong>/<strong>2003</strong><br />
OFFICERS AND COUNCIL<br />
PRESIDENT<br />
P W STANLEY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London<br />
VICE-PRESIDENTS<br />
C H PORTER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London<br />
J D CORRIE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Croydon<br />
COUNCIL<br />
CO-OPTED PAST PRESIDENTS<br />
C KESSELL ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Haywards Heath<br />
C A PORTER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London<br />
R E B BARNARD ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Borehamwood<br />
FELLOWS<br />
W J COENRAAD ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Utrecht<br />
A J FISHER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Plymouth<br />
P A JENKINS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London<br />
J M IRWIN ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London<br />
J D FRANCIS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Chippenham<br />
J PORÉ ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Paris<br />
J F WILSON……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London<br />
D N WEEDON ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Croydon<br />
F HOW ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London<br />
F HEIJNEN ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Chippenham<br />
MEMBERS<br />
D S ANGILL …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Chippenham<br />
R G HALSE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Chippenham<br />
P N LANE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London<br />
K L WALTER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London<br />
D W CRABTREE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London<br />
Mrs C PORTER………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
OFFICERS AND COUNCIL 7<br />
Photo: Colin Porter<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> Council & Officers<br />
Front Row (left to right):<br />
Helmut Uebel, Martin Govas, Ken Burrage, Peter Stanley, Colin Porter,<br />
John Corrie, Jacques Poré<br />
Back Row (left to right):<br />
Jim Irwin, Paul Jenkins, Mark Watson-Walker, Robert Halse, John Francis, Alan Fisher, Bill Scheerer,<br />
Peter Lane, Claire Porter, John Haile, Fraser Wilson, Clive Kessell, Derek Edney, Bob Barnard, Karen Gould
8<br />
Addresses of Officers<br />
Chief Executive<br />
K W BURRAGE<br />
3rd Floor, Savoy Hill House, Savoy Hill, London WC2R 0BS<br />
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7240 3290 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7240 3281 Email: hq@irse.org<br />
Treasurer<br />
M GOVAS<br />
2 The Droveway, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 1LL<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> Editor<br />
A PARKER<br />
2NW Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS<br />
Telephone: 020 7717 6569 Facsimile: 020 7240 3281 Email: mail_irse@yahoo.co.uk<br />
Australian Section<br />
Chairman: L BREARLEY Vice-Chairman: K WALKER<br />
Secretary: G WILMOTT Treasurer: G WILMOTT<br />
Benelux Section<br />
Chairman: W COENRAAD<br />
Central European Section<br />
Chairman: H UEBEL Secretary: <strong>IRSE</strong> Office, London<br />
Hong Kong Section<br />
Chairman: P GAFFNEY Vice-Chairmen: F FABBIAN & P K WAI<br />
Secretary: F HUI Treasurer: F HUI<br />
Midland & North Western Section<br />
Chairman: C WILLIAMS Vice-Chairman: I MITCHELL<br />
Secretary: B REDFERN Treasurer: T WALKER<br />
North America Section<br />
Chairman: W SCHEERER Vice-Chairman: W PETIT<br />
Secretary: C C TINKHAM Treasurer: C C TINKHAM<br />
Plymouth Section<br />
Chairman: D HELLIWELL Vice-Chairman: J STILES<br />
Secretary: D CAME Treasurer: D CAME<br />
Scottish Section<br />
Chairman: C HUMPHREYS<br />
Secretary: A KING Treasurer: A McWHIRTER<br />
South African Section<br />
Chairman: B STEIN Vice-Chairman: J C VAN DE POL<br />
Hon Secretary: V BOWLES Treasurer: J C VAN DE POL<br />
Western Section<br />
Chairmen: M GLOVER Vice-Chairman: P DUGGAN<br />
Secretary: D GILLANDERS Treasurer: M BROOKES<br />
York Section<br />
Chairman: D BOWLBY Vice-Chairman: D DYSON<br />
Secretary: J MAW Treasurer: R PRICE<br />
Younger Members’ Section<br />
Chairman: J HAILE<br />
Secretary: K GOODHAND Treasurer: C OYEKANMI
9<br />
Institution Announcements<br />
(The price and subscription rates and other<br />
information given in these announcements are<br />
current at the date of publication – August <strong>2003</strong>)<br />
CHANGE OF ADDRESS<br />
Considerable inconvenience is created by<br />
members failing to notify changes of address. Will<br />
members please inform the Institution office<br />
immediately of any such alteration and so ensure<br />
prompt delivery to themselves of notices, etc.<br />
TRANSFER TO HIGHER CLASS<br />
OF MEMBERSHIP<br />
Members sometimes remain in one class of<br />
membership when their professional standing has<br />
become such as to entitle them to transfer to a<br />
higher one. The Council invites any such person to<br />
make application for transfer, for which purpose a<br />
form can be obtained from the Institution office, and<br />
so take a position in the Institution consonant with<br />
his attainments and responsibilities.<br />
TECHNICAL PAPERS<br />
The Council invites members of all classes to<br />
submit papers for presentation at technical meetings<br />
in London or at local meetings in the United<br />
Kingdom or overseas.<br />
Papers should consist of between four thousand<br />
and six thousand words and while no limit is placed<br />
on the number of illustrations an author uses during<br />
his reading of the paper, the number printed as part<br />
of the advance copy and published in the Journal of<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> must not exceed twelve.<br />
The Institution office will be pleased to provide full<br />
particulars upon application.<br />
COPIES OF<br />
TECHNICAL PAPERS<br />
Copies of the technical papers read in London will<br />
be published in <strong>IRSE</strong> News and circulated to all<br />
members. The cost of this service is included in the<br />
Annual Subscription.<br />
SUBSCRIPTIONS AND REMITTANCES<br />
Members are reminded that in accordance with<br />
the Articles of Association subscriptions are payable<br />
on election or by the 1st July each year. The<br />
subscription rates applicable for <strong>2003</strong>/04 have been<br />
determined by Council. Members have been<br />
circulated with details.<br />
Members are reminded that prompt payment of<br />
subscriptions is required. The Institution is grateful<br />
to the vast majority of members who keep administration<br />
costs down by paying at the time requested.<br />
The Treasurer is obliged to send out notices of<br />
arrears to members who have not paid by that date.<br />
Subscriptions should be sent to the Institution<br />
office in London, unless you belong to either the<br />
Southern African or Australian Section. Local<br />
arrangements apply to members of these Sections.<br />
All cheques and money orders, especially those<br />
from overseas, should be crossed.<br />
The attention of members is directed to the<br />
clauses in the Articles of Association under which<br />
neither notices nor copies of <strong>Proceedings</strong> may be<br />
sent to those who are in arrears with their subscriptions<br />
beyond a certain time.<br />
Income Tax – the annual subscription to the<br />
Institution of Railway Signal Engineers is treated as<br />
an allowance expense under Section 16 of the<br />
Finance Act 1958 and should be included in your Tax<br />
Return in the section headed “Expenses in<br />
Employment – Fees or subscriptions to professional<br />
bodies”.<br />
Members of the Institution who have retired and<br />
have paid full subscriptions for at least ten years are<br />
entitled to continue membership of the Institution at<br />
half the full rate applicable to their class of membership.<br />
Similar arrangements are available to others in<br />
special need on application to the Treasurer.<br />
Members of 50 years standing are not required to<br />
pay subscriptions.<br />
LIBRARY<br />
The Institution Library is incorporated with the<br />
Library of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, by<br />
kindness of the Council of the latter body. It is<br />
situated at the Institution of Electrical Engineers’<br />
building at Savoy Place, Victoria Embankment,<br />
WC2. Members of the Institution of Railway Signal<br />
Engineers have been granted the same privileges<br />
with respect to it as those enjoyed by members of<br />
the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and the entire<br />
collection is open to them on equal terms.<br />
The Reference Library, which contains a Reading<br />
Room in which a great number of technical<br />
periodicals are always available, as well as a large<br />
general collection, is open as follows:<br />
Monday to Friday 9.00 am to 5.00 pm<br />
Any member of the Institution of Railway Signal<br />
Engineers entering the Library must sign his name in<br />
the book provided for that purpose.<br />
The use of the Lending Library, which is open<br />
during the same hours as the Reference Library and<br />
which contains the principal works relating to<br />
electrical engineering, its applications and allied<br />
subjects including, of course, railway signalling, is<br />
governed by the following rules, which must be<br />
strictly adhered to:<br />
When applying for a book by post a member of the<br />
Institution of Railway Signal Engineers must state<br />
their class of membership. All communications<br />
should be addressed to the Secretary, Institution of<br />
Electrical Engineers, at the address already given.
10<br />
INSTITUTION ANNOUNCEMENTS<br />
Anyone desirous of making a presentation to the<br />
collection should forward it to the same address,<br />
when its receipt will be suitably acknowledged.<br />
Similar facilities also exist at the Scottish<br />
Engineering Centre, The Teacher Building, 14 St<br />
Enoch Square, Glasgow G1 4DB.<br />
SCOTTISH LIBRARY FACILITIES<br />
The Scottish Engineering Centre Library in<br />
Glasgow provides extensive library and information<br />
services, including on-line databases and the<br />
Internet. <strong>IRSE</strong> material is now available, including<br />
the new <strong>IRSE</strong> Professional Examination Reading<br />
List.<br />
The <strong>IRSE</strong> library is situated in the information<br />
centre in The Teacher Building, 14-16 St Enoch<br />
Square, Glasgow G1 4DB, Tel: 0141 566 1871.<br />
Access is restricted so please check opening times<br />
and arrangements by telephoning before hand.<br />
SIGNAL AND TELEGRAPH<br />
TECHNICAL SOCIETIES<br />
The following S&T Technical Societies are<br />
affiliated to the Institution:<br />
The Signal & Electrical Engineers’ Society –<br />
General Secretary: M B Simmonds<br />
3 Gybbon Rise, Staplehurst, Kent TN12 0LT<br />
Email: mathew.simmonds@tubelines.com<br />
Tel: 020 7308 2517<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION<br />
REQUIREMENTS FOR CORPORATE<br />
MEMBERSHIP<br />
The aim of the examination is to establish the<br />
professional competence of educationally qualified<br />
electrical, electronic and communications engineers<br />
in railway signalling and communication engineering.<br />
It is intended to test the main concepts of the<br />
subject material without bias to any one railway<br />
practice and is designed to demonstrate that the<br />
student has reached the necessary professional<br />
educational standard required by a signalling or<br />
telecommunications engineer for Corporate<br />
Membership of the Institution.<br />
This standard is typified by the exercising of<br />
judgement in the preparation, assessment,<br />
amendment or application of specifications and<br />
procedures, and is applicable to personnel engaged<br />
in the following activities:<br />
• Signalling/telecommunications principles, practices,<br />
rules and regulations for the safe<br />
operation of railway traffic.<br />
• Design and development of signalling/telecommunications<br />
equipment and systems.<br />
• Preparation and understanding of equipment<br />
drawings and specifications and/or design.<br />
• Planning, site installation and testing of<br />
signalling/telecommunications equipment and<br />
systems.<br />
• Practices related to assembly, wiring and testing<br />
of signalling/telecommunications equipment<br />
and systems.<br />
• Maintenance and servicing of signalling/<br />
telecommunications equipment and systems.<br />
In order to meet the examination requirements for<br />
corporate membership, candidates must, within a<br />
period of five years, obtain a pass in Module 1, plus<br />
three of the remaining six optional modules.<br />
It is possible to obtain exemptions from individual<br />
modules where you can demonstrate that you have<br />
passed an examination by a recognised body, which<br />
has substantially covered the syllabus of a particular<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> examination module. Due to the specialised<br />
nature of the <strong>IRSE</strong> Examination, the scope for<br />
exemption is fairly limited.<br />
Claims for exemption must be made within five<br />
years of obtaining the particular qualification for<br />
which recognition is being claimed. The reason for<br />
this condition is that the exemption is based on<br />
information that may not be available where a<br />
qualification has been discontinued or changed.<br />
MODULE 1<br />
Safety of Railway Signalling and Communications<br />
– No exemptions will be given.<br />
MODULE 2<br />
Signalling the Layout – Please apply, no exemptions<br />
currently agreed.<br />
MODULE 3<br />
Signalling Principles – Please apply, no exemptions<br />
currently agreed.<br />
MODULE 4<br />
Communications Principles – This is the most<br />
commonly sought after exemption. Many of the<br />
applicants for exemption claim that telecommunications<br />
has been part of their Degree course and<br />
that, on this basis, exemption should be granted.<br />
Unfortunately it has been clear that the content of<br />
the telecommunications element within a typical<br />
university Engineering Degree is, at best, a basic<br />
overview. Occasionally, students study a telecommunications<br />
topic for their final year project, but<br />
these tend to be about a research topic<br />
narrowly specialising in a particular field and the<br />
Council is not convinced that such study justifies<br />
module exemption. As a basic guideline, therefore,<br />
please do not ask for exemption to this module<br />
unless: your university study has predominantly<br />
been in telecommunications; or your university study<br />
has included telecommunications and your present<br />
career is railway telecommunications engineering.<br />
Module 5<br />
Signalling & Control Equipment, Applications<br />
Engineering – Please apply, no exemptions currently<br />
agreed.<br />
Module 6<br />
Communications Equipment, Applications<br />
Engineering – Please apply, no exemptions currently<br />
agreed.<br />
Module 7<br />
Systems, Management & Engineering – Please<br />
apply, no exemptions currently agreed.<br />
The examination is generally held in October of<br />
each year and the regulations are available from the
INSTITUTION ANNOUNCEMENTS 11<br />
Head Office. The following support materials are<br />
also available to students:<br />
• Information for Students<br />
• Examination Syllabus<br />
• Reading List<br />
• Past Papers<br />
• Model Answers<br />
• Examiners Reports<br />
A new service will be introduced for the year 2000<br />
examination candidates, who are registering for the<br />
examination. For a small annual registration fee,<br />
candidates can be sure that they will automatically<br />
receive all updates of examination material, as it<br />
becomes available.<br />
THE THORROWGOOD<br />
SCHOLARSHIP AWARD<br />
The Thorrowgood Scholarship is awarded<br />
annually to a student member excelling in the<br />
Institution’s Professional Examination. The award<br />
consists of the Institution’s Thorrowgood Scholarship<br />
Medallion, and a cheque in the region of<br />
£1,000, that is presented at the Annual General<br />
Meeting of the Institution in the April following the<br />
examination.<br />
The terms of the Thorrowgood bequest require<br />
that it should be utilised to assist the development of<br />
young engineers employed in the railway signalling<br />
and telecommunications field. A requirement of the<br />
award is that it is used to finance a study tour of<br />
railway and/or signalling installations or manufacturing<br />
facilities, usually in a foreign administration, and<br />
that the award holder presents a report about the<br />
study tour to the Younger Members’ Section.<br />
To be eligible for the award students are usually<br />
expected to have sat the required four modules in<br />
the same year, and achieved outstanding results.<br />
Institution Sales<br />
All items are available from the Institution office and<br />
postage and packing is not included.<br />
INSTITUTION TIE<br />
An Institution tie bearing a single motif of the<br />
Institution crest in light blue on a navy background is<br />
available, price £10.00.
12<br />
INSTITUTION SALES<br />
Non-<br />
Members Members<br />
TEXT BOOKS<br />
Introduction to Signalling (+ p&p £8 UK and £15 overseas) £25.00 £60.00<br />
Railway Signalling £35.00 £60.00<br />
Railway Control Systems £35.00 £60.00<br />
European Railway Signalling £50.00 £65.00<br />
Fifty Years of Railway Signalling – O S Nock (reprint) £10.00 £11.95<br />
British Railway Signalling Practice – Mechanical (Green Books 1, 2, 3, 10) £9.00 £9.95<br />
British Railway Signalling Practice – Signalling Instruments (Green Books 4, 12, 13) £7.00 £7.95<br />
British Railway Signalling Practice – Electrical (Green Books 7, 9, 11) £8.00 £8.95<br />
TECHNICAL REPORTS<br />
No. 1 Safety System Validation – Cross Acceptance of Signalling Systems £12.00 £30.00<br />
No. 2 The Operational Availability of Railway Control Systems £12.00 £30.00<br />
No. 3 The Influence of Human Factors on the Performance of Railway Systems £12.00 £30.00<br />
No. 4 The Implications of Applying Transmission Based Signalling £12.00 £30.00<br />
No. 5 The Contribution of Signalling to the Future of Road Traffic Management £12.00 £30.00<br />
No. 6 Proposed Cross Acceptance Processes for Railway Signalling Systems<br />
& Equipment (includes CD-ROM) £20.00 £50.00<br />
Testing and Commissioning £12.00 £30.00<br />
Signalling Philosophy Review (April 2001) £12.00 £50.00<br />
CONFERENCE PAPERS<br />
Mathematically Formal Techniques in Signalling (April 1996 London) £10.00 £20.00<br />
Traction/Signalling Compatibility (April 1997 London) £10.00 £20.00<br />
New Techniques to Demonstrate Electromagnetic Compatibility between<br />
Rolling Stock and the Signalling Infrastructure (February 1998 London) £10.00 £20.00<br />
Improvements in the Delivery of Signalling Projects and Products (March 1998 Glasgow) £10.00 £20.00<br />
The Lifecycle of a Major Railway Project (Younger Members June 1998 London) £10.00 £20.00<br />
The Skill of the Tester (November 1998 London) £10.00 £20.00<br />
Life Long Learning (February 1999 London) £10.00 £20.00<br />
Keep It Safe, Keep It Legal (December 1999 London) £10.00 £20.00<br />
The Pitfalls of Commercial Contracting in the S&T Business (January 2000 Birmingham) £10.00 £20.00<br />
Competence Assurance in the S&T Business (May 2000 London) £10.00 £20.00<br />
The Railway as a System (Younger Members July 2000 Birmingham) £10.00 £20.00<br />
ERTMS and its Application (November 2000 London) £10.00 £20.00<br />
Future Trends in Signalling and Train Control (January 2001 London) £10.00 £20.00<br />
Train Detection (October 2001 Paris) CD-ROM format only £12.00 £24.00<br />
New Technology for Interlocking & Train Control (November 2001 London) CD-ROM format only £12.00 £24.00<br />
Bringing Innovation to the UK Railway (February <strong>2002</strong> London) CD-ROM format only £12.00 £24.00<br />
Proposed Cross-Acceptance Processes for Railway Signalling Systems &<br />
Equipment (Seminar 21st November <strong>2002</strong> London) CD-ROM format only £12.00 £24.00<br />
Technical Visit to the ETCS Level 2 Pilot Line – Olten, Lucerne (22nd-23rd November<br />
<strong>2002</strong> Switzerland) CD-ROM format only £12.00 £24.00<br />
GREEN BOOKLETS (Note that these are photocopy reprints of old publications unless otherwise stated)<br />
No. 5 Power Points £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 6 Signalling Relays £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 7 Signal Control Circuits (original version only – limited availability while stocks last) £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 8 Typical Selection Circuits £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 10 Mechanical Signalling (original version only – limited availability while stocks last) £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 14 Multiple Aspect Signalling £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 15 Circuits £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 16 Route Holding £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 17 Signalling for AC Electrified Areas £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 18 Principles of Relay Interlocking & Control Panels £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 19 LTE Route Control Systems £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 20 Route Relay Interlocking – Westinghouse System £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 21 Route Relay Interlocking – AEI AEI-GRS System £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 22 Route Relay Interlocking – SGE System £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 24 AWS/ATC (1964) £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 25 Level Crossings £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 26 Remote Control £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 27 Signalling the Layout (British Practice) £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 28 Route Control Systems (LT Practice) £5.00 £10.00<br />
No. 29 Solid State Interlocking £5.00 £10.00<br />
ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS – BACK NUMBERS<br />
1990/91 to day (inclusive) (please state years required) each £20.00 £50.00<br />
Send your orders, with cheque made payable to the <strong>IRSE</strong> to:<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> Administration<br />
3rd Floor, Savoy Hill House, Savoy Hill, London WC2R 0BS
13<br />
Institution Awards<br />
PRESIDENT’S AWARD<br />
The President’s Award is made only rarely as it<br />
recognises truly exceptional, meritorious service to<br />
the membership and work of the Institution or a<br />
major contribution to a significant achievement in<br />
the field of railway control and communications.<br />
The President’s Award has been conferred on Dr<br />
Peter Winter, of Swiss Federal Railways. The award<br />
is made in recognition of his significant personal<br />
commitment, leadership and efforts for more than<br />
ten years in encouraging and supporting the work of<br />
signal engineers of European railways and the<br />
supply industry in the development of the concept,<br />
specification, testing and implementation of the<br />
European Train Control System.<br />
During this time Dr Winter directed work on<br />
specification and simulation by the Union International<br />
de Chemin de Fer (UIC) and the European<br />
Rail Research Institute (ERRI), and supported the<br />
European Commission projects on development,<br />
test and pilot installation projects for both ETCS and<br />
Dr Peter Winter (left) receives the President’s Award from<br />
Peter Stanley at this year’s Annual General Meeting<br />
Photo: C H Porter<br />
GSM-R, its supporting communications infrastructure.<br />
As Infrastructure Director of Swiss Federal<br />
Railways he participated in the planning of a tenyear<br />
national implementation programme that<br />
produced the first resulting new line in passenger<br />
operation between Olten and Luzern in April <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
DELL AWARD<br />
Matt Shelley (right) receives the Dell Award, which includes<br />
an engraved plaque, from Peter Stanley at the Annual<br />
Dinner held at the Savoy Hotel in London Photo: K W Burrage<br />
The winner of the Dell Award this year is Matt<br />
Shelley of Metronet Rail BCV Ltd. Matt graduated<br />
from Exeter University with a MEng in Electronic<br />
Engineering in 1998. He joined London Underground<br />
in the same year as a Graduate Trainee. On completion<br />
of his training, he specialised in automatic<br />
train operation (ATO).<br />
Matt became an enthusiastic member of the team<br />
involved with the introduction of ATO on the Central<br />
Line and made a significant contribution to the<br />
successful commissioning of the system. In <strong>2002</strong> he<br />
was appointed to the role of Senior ATO Engineer<br />
taking over the leadership of the Automatic Train<br />
Control Team within his Infraco. Since then he and<br />
his team have played a major role in the successful<br />
completion of ATO so that it now operates reliably<br />
over the entire Central Line. Matt has contributed to<br />
past conferences of the <strong>IRSE</strong> Younger Members’<br />
Section.<br />
WING AWARD FOR SAFETY<br />
Mr Aidan Nelson, Director Policy & Standards at<br />
Railway Safety, was selected as the winner this year<br />
for the Wing Award. The selection was made in<br />
recognition of his substantial influence upon, and<br />
contribution to, improvements achieved in trackside<br />
safety behaviour in recent years and especially in the<br />
context of the present disaggregated nature of the<br />
mainline railway structure. The award was presented<br />
by the President at the Annual Track Safety Quiz and<br />
Awards held in Birmingham in April.<br />
The Wing Award for Safety was introduced in 1994<br />
to commemorate the life and work of the late Peter<br />
Wing, a Fellow of this Institution and an employee of<br />
British Rail, who, during his career, made a major<br />
contribution to the cause of lineside safety. Peter<br />
Wing, whose career in BR spanned 31 years, spent<br />
much of his working life dedicated to the safety of<br />
President Peter Stanley (left) with Aiden Nelson (centre) and<br />
John Armitt, following presentation of the Wing Award<br />
Photo: courtesy Network Rail<br />
his colleagues.<br />
It was his care and concern that became the<br />
driving force behind the national campaign in 1992/3
14<br />
INSTITUTION AWARDS<br />
that was entitled “Dead Serious About Safety” and<br />
which had such a major impact in reducing the<br />
numbers of lineside fatalities in subsequent years.<br />
The <strong>IRSE</strong> administers the award scheme on behalf<br />
of members of the Railway Group, the Railway<br />
Supply Industry and the Health & Safety Executive<br />
who, amongst others, supported the formation of<br />
the Wing Award for Safety.<br />
Previous winners of the Wing Award have been:<br />
1995 R Dickinson, BR<br />
1996 W Hill, Amec<br />
1997 I Keys, LUL<br />
1998 R Hickman, Centrac<br />
1999 A Ross, LUL<br />
2000 A Franklin, GTRM<br />
2001 P Graham, Railtrack<br />
<strong>2002</strong> A Swann, Safety Consultant<br />
The award takes the form of a certificate and an<br />
amount of £700 to be devoted to personal<br />
development and is presented to an individual<br />
who has made an outstanding personal contribution<br />
to railway track safety by, for example, coming<br />
forward with novel ideas for improvement, is a<br />
long-term champion of, or has made a significant<br />
contribution to the awareness of track safety in his<br />
business.<br />
THORROWGOOD SCHOLARSHIP<br />
Matthew Lupton accepts the Thorrowgood Scholarship<br />
prize from Peter Stanley during the Annual Dinner at the<br />
Savoy Hotel in London<br />
Photo: K W Burrage<br />
The Institution’s Thorrowgood Scholarship for the<br />
year <strong>2002</strong> has been awarded to Matthew Lupton, of<br />
Network Rail, in recognition of his outstanding<br />
achievement in the <strong>2002</strong> Signalling Examination in<br />
which he achieved a pass, credit and two distinctions<br />
across the four modules undertaken.<br />
The terms of the Thorrowgood Bequest require<br />
that it should be utilised to assist the development of<br />
young engineers employed in the railway signalling<br />
and telecommunications field and it is the wish of<br />
the Council that the amount granted should be used<br />
to finance a tour of railway and/or signalling installations<br />
or manufacturing facilities of the winner’s<br />
choice. This may be in the UK or elsewhere. The<br />
value of the Award is £700 and is accompanied<br />
by the Institution’s Thorrowgood Scholarship<br />
Medallion.<br />
Obituaries<br />
ARMAND CARDANI<br />
1921 – <strong>2002</strong><br />
Armand Cardani was born on 20th June 1921. He<br />
joined the S&T Department of the London & North<br />
Eastern Railway in 1938 and, following an apprenticeship,<br />
was appointed as an engineering graduate.<br />
During that time he gained Honours grade in the<br />
London University BSc (Special) Degree. His main<br />
area of work activity was in connection with the<br />
Great Eastern electrification and this continued until<br />
1947 when he joined the Great Western Railway.<br />
The GWR – God’s Wonderful Railway – was, I<br />
think, Armand’s true home. He was immensely<br />
proud of their achievements, both historic and<br />
current. His career blossomed there; he became<br />
Assistant Signal Engineer of the Western in 1957 and<br />
in 1959, at the age of 38, became the youngest Chief<br />
S&T Engineer of that Region. In 1953 or 54 he gave<br />
a lecture to the Gloucestershire Railway Society,<br />
followed a short while afterwards by a site visit to<br />
Ealing where he explained to a 14 year old schoolboy<br />
sufficient about signalling to set him on a<br />
lifelong career. That schoolboy was Tony Howker<br />
who went on to become President of the <strong>IRSE</strong>! Brian<br />
Heard (another Past President), in a message from<br />
the Philippines, also comments on the tremendous<br />
benefit he received from early training with Armand.<br />
This interest in bringing on the youngsters in the<br />
profession was a hallmark of Armand’s career.<br />
By 1968, when he transferred to the London<br />
Midland Region as Chief S&T Engineer, he had
OBITUARIES 15<br />
overseen the conversion of over 1,700 single-track<br />
km of the WR to multi-aspect signalling and the<br />
creation of one of the first co-axial trunk telecomms<br />
systems on the railway. On the LMR he had similar<br />
success with the major schemes at Trent, Derby and<br />
Saltley followed by the West Coast work controlled<br />
from Warrington, Preston and Carlisle.<br />
In 1975 he was appointed as the BR Director of<br />
S&T Engineering, a post in which he successfully<br />
steered the industry through many difficult technical<br />
and contractual changes until his retirement in 1981<br />
after 42 loyal years of service to the railway.<br />
Armand joined the <strong>IRSE</strong> as a Student in 1942,<br />
progressing to the Council by 1960 and giving many<br />
years of service to the Miniaturisation and<br />
Examination Committees. He became President in<br />
1970 and led us on the first Convention to Spain –<br />
and what a joy that was!<br />
In his Presidential address, as we all do, he made<br />
predictions. Most of them came to pass, but he<br />
doubted that computers would become involved in<br />
the safety side of signalling. When he joined the<br />
British Railways Board, and heard of the preliminary<br />
work in BR Research by Alan Cribbens’ team, he<br />
quickly, gracefully and with great good humour,<br />
accepted that things had changed. He then stuck his<br />
neck out to support the SSI development and played<br />
a major part in securing approval for the work to proceed.<br />
To do that, in the climate then existing showed<br />
true greatness.<br />
In 1982 he was elected an Honorary Fellow and<br />
continued to give regular support to the Institution at<br />
meetings and social events. It was a particular<br />
pleasure to see him at the Members Lunch in 2001,<br />
which coincided with his 80th birthday, and again in<br />
<strong>2002</strong> when he completed 60 years of membership.<br />
Throughout his working and Institution life he had<br />
wonderful support from his wife Joyce. Her death in<br />
1995 was a blow which left him devastated.<br />
Now, after a lifetime of service to our Industry,<br />
which will live on in the newly created Armand<br />
Cardani Memorial Fund, it is his turn to be mourned.<br />
We are grateful for all that he has done and we will<br />
miss his leadership, guidance, friendship and unfailing<br />
good humour.<br />
Whatever the grief we as colleagues feel at<br />
Armand’s passing it is as nothing compared to that<br />
of his family. Our prayers and condolences go out to<br />
all of them.<br />
J Waller<br />
Past President 1978 and 1991<br />
Guidance for Equivalents to the <strong>IRSE</strong> Examination<br />
as part of the new Bye Laws.<br />
Ron had served the industry since the 1960s and<br />
received a broad training in railway telecommunications<br />
that served him well in later years. His career<br />
started in 1967 as a Technical Assistant in the<br />
Nottingham Divisional Engineer's office. He rapidly<br />
acquired the skills to survive at the sharp end, which<br />
was fortunate because the two projects of Derby<br />
and Trent power boxes of 1969 had their last minute<br />
crises, with much of the telecom external wiring<br />
having to be redone in the four weeks prior to the<br />
first commissioning. Teams of office technical staff<br />
and local technicians carried this out and Ron was<br />
part of this mammoth effort where we all worked<br />
long hours for nigh on three months continually. A<br />
toolkit and van were the only essential requirements.<br />
On the due day, everything worked perfectly with the<br />
S&T management being unaware of what had gone<br />
before.<br />
The cut and thrust of local management had an<br />
attraction for Ron and, with his now considerable<br />
experience, he took on the role of District Telecom<br />
Engineer initially at Bedford and latterly at Euston.<br />
Those were the days when the Divisional set up was<br />
king and if the District Engineer said it can or can't<br />
be done, then that was it. Ron invariably said 'yes'<br />
and the spirit of motivation that he instilled in the<br />
local staff was a credit to everyone. At that time,<br />
Euston staff looked after the main offices of the LMR<br />
and also the BRB. Weekends were always fraught<br />
with the innumerable telecom moves and changes<br />
that had to be done to accommodate the constant<br />
alterations to the organisational structure. Many of<br />
these would be advised at the last minute and very<br />
often were devised on the hoof on the day.<br />
Complaints were few, but Ron and the team can be<br />
forgiven if the records were somewhat lacking.<br />
The promotion trail led Ron to a post with<br />
Transmark and he was despatched to various<br />
locations around the world where his experience of<br />
ground level improvisation was always welcome<br />
advice. After a short spell in Mozambique, he drew<br />
the supposedly short straw and was posted to<br />
Northern Ireland. This was during the 1980s when<br />
life in the Province was somewhat precarious. He set<br />
about upgrading the NIR telecom network and made<br />
a good many friends in the process.<br />
The ground level work continued to have the<br />
RON HALL<br />
1944 – <strong>2003</strong><br />
Ron Hall, a Fellow of the <strong>IRSE</strong>, died suddenly on<br />
24th March <strong>2003</strong> at the age of 58.<br />
Ron was one of a small band of Telecom members<br />
who strove to get a greater telecom following and<br />
membership within the Institution. He had been a<br />
member of Membership Committee for some years<br />
where he could always be relied upon to call us to<br />
order if, on occasions, we were tempted to stray outside<br />
the rules. His advice was always valued and he<br />
had been active recently in the team that drafted the
16<br />
OBITUARIES<br />
biggest pull and Ron became Telecom Field<br />
Engineer on the Western Region in 1987. This gave<br />
him responsibility for all the Region's technician staff<br />
and the old challenges of getting things done by<br />
whatever means was what Ron was best at.<br />
Although a 'Midland man', Ron was quickly<br />
accepted by the Western fraternity who respected<br />
both his knowledge and his people skills.<br />
A spell of enhanced technology in the Data Group<br />
at Paddington followed where his transmission<br />
knowledge was put to good use, and then came the<br />
migration to BRT and privatisation. This was an<br />
unsettling time for all of us, but Ron saw it as an<br />
opportunity for the railway to show to the outside<br />
world that its capability was as good as anything<br />
that existed in the private sector. Under Racal, he<br />
became General Manager, Projects and Works, back<br />
in the old Midland territory of Birmingham and<br />
succeeded in developing the business to be the<br />
natural choice for all types of telecom new works in<br />
the chaos of the newly fragmented railway. Various<br />
reorganisations and the subsequent sale of Racal to<br />
Thales were kind to Ron in that he could remain<br />
based at Birmingham and where his final post was to<br />
head up the Telecom Design resource for the whole<br />
company.<br />
Ron retired in July 2001 but it was inevitable that<br />
his considerable skills would be sought out, and<br />
latterly, he was developing the new telecom maintenance<br />
concepts for Network Rail.<br />
Ron and his wife, Gerry, were regular participants<br />
at <strong>IRSE</strong> Conventions and like so many of us, were<br />
able to see and experience different cultures from all<br />
over the globe, courtesy of the Institution. I had the<br />
privilege of knowing him for all his railway career and<br />
can vouch for his immense knowledge and caring<br />
personality. Ron would always get the best out of<br />
people and was never one to criticise others behind<br />
their back. He could be tough when needed but<br />
even then, it was done in a spirit of fairness. He had<br />
a great love of motorcars and built his own on two<br />
occasions. The first one, a Ginetta from around<br />
1970, was a real pride and joy; experiencing a ride in<br />
this was something you never forgot! Latterly he had<br />
just completed a JBA Falcon Tourer and a superb<br />
machine this is. It will now be for someone else to<br />
enjoy the thrill of a replica sports car on the open<br />
road.<br />
All his colleagues within industry and the<br />
Institution were much saddened by his untimely<br />
death and many will miss him. Clive Kessell<br />
Region Technical Society becoming responsible for<br />
preparing the drawings for the slides and proceedings,<br />
cutting the Roneo skins with a stylus in his<br />
artistic hand, for which he became known throughout<br />
his career. He was once asked to design a dial<br />
label for the Region’s telephones, the printers,<br />
however, just copied his handwritten original sketch,<br />
which was full size, but the letters around the<br />
circumference started large and then became<br />
narrower towards the end to get them all in. It did not<br />
seem to matter. The labels were in use for many<br />
years, so his handiwork was seen everywhere<br />
throughout the Region.<br />
He was a perfectionist; only the correct way was<br />
good enough. We trainee draughtsmen were put<br />
through our paces with practice sessions every day<br />
until we could be trusted to produce an acceptable<br />
result. To this day I print using the methods that Reg<br />
Hawkins instilled in me.<br />
In his early days with the railway Reg was a very<br />
keen cyclist and liked to go to see the professionals<br />
race at the Herne Hill Track. He was a very good<br />
swimmer and became involved with the SR<br />
Swimming Club for many years.<br />
I first met Reg in 1961 when he persuaded me to<br />
apply to be a draughtsman in the drawing office at<br />
Wimbledon. I worked for and with him for many<br />
years until I left the Region in 1976. When I first used<br />
to go on site with Reg everyone seemed to know<br />
him, we could not go anywhere without almost every<br />
person we met saying hello. I know now that this<br />
was a measure of the regard that everyone had for<br />
him.<br />
Following his retirement he continued to serve his<br />
fellows by organising the Retired Friends of the<br />
Former S&T Engineering Department of British<br />
Railways, Southern Region. This is an informal<br />
arrangement whereby old colleagues meet once a<br />
month in a pub for lunch, the pubs being located<br />
around the former Region to facilitate travel by the<br />
participants. The highlight of the year was the<br />
Christmas lunch, always meticulously organised<br />
with invitations, lists and place cards, all prepared by<br />
hand in that unmistakable script. We will all miss<br />
Reg.<br />
Reg is survived by his second wife, Doris and his<br />
three children Pam, Christopher and Sylvia.<br />
M Tyrrell<br />
REG HAWKINS<br />
1920 – <strong>2002</strong><br />
Reg Hawkins joined the Southern Railway when<br />
he was demobbed from the Army in 1947 having<br />
served in India and Burma. He told me once of the<br />
network of telephone lines the Army had which<br />
stretched across the width of the Indian continent.<br />
Reg joined the embryo Southern Region S&T<br />
Telecommunications Drawing office at Wimbledon,<br />
to help form the nucleus of the office he was<br />
eventually to lead until his retirement in 1985.<br />
He soon became very active in the S&T Southern
17<br />
Annual Dinner and Dance<br />
The Institution’s Annual Dinner Dance for <strong>2002</strong><br />
returned this year to a London location after an<br />
absence of four years and to a venue that the<br />
Institution had used many times in the past. The<br />
Copthorne Tara Hotel, Kensington, London, was the<br />
venue for the dinner dance this year, which was held<br />
on Friday 18th October. The venue is spacious and<br />
attractive and the hotel events management helpful<br />
and efficient which enabled the event to take place<br />
in a happy and relaxed atmosphere.<br />
The Institution is grateful for the financial support<br />
it receives from sponsors, which permitted the<br />
dinner dance to be arranged and accommodated in<br />
such an attractive setting and provided the<br />
surroundings conducive to the happy and friendly<br />
occasion in which members and their guests could<br />
relax.<br />
The reception this year was provided by the<br />
Institution. The sponsors were, Siemens<br />
Transportation Systems who sponsored the music<br />
for dancing and Westinghouse Rail Systems who<br />
contributed towards the table decorations.<br />
Members and their guests were greeted by the<br />
President, Mr Peter Stanley and his wife Carol at the<br />
opening reception.<br />
The principal guest on this occasion was Dr Peter<br />
Watson OBE, Chairman AEA Technology plc and<br />
formerly BRB board member for Engineering, who<br />
was accompanied by his wife. An excellent threecourse<br />
dinner was served followed by coffee and<br />
mints. After dinner, the President introduced his<br />
principal guest to the gathering and Dr Watson, who<br />
had been the principal guest at the dinner dance ten<br />
years earlier in 1992, referred back to the remarks he<br />
made in 1992 and spoke about the current state of<br />
the railway Industry and the contribution that can be<br />
made by S&T engineering. His comments were<br />
made in an encouraging and amusing manner that<br />
was thoroughly enjoyed by all present.<br />
Music for dancing following the dinner was<br />
provided by the East Woodhay Silver Band who<br />
played a selection of music in a variety to suit all<br />
musical tastes and dancing styles.<br />
Regrettably numbers were significantly down on<br />
previous years and a number of the major signalling<br />
suppliers were absent. However, the 114 members<br />
and their guests that did attend all enjoyed a<br />
pleasant and happy evening.<br />
Fourth Members’ Luncheon<br />
The fourth Members’ Luncheon was held on 19th<br />
June <strong>2002</strong> when 75 members of the Institution,<br />
including 12 Past Presidents and nine members<br />
with over 50 years membership, took luncheon at<br />
the Victory Services Club in Seymour Street,<br />
London.<br />
The 78th person to serve as President since the<br />
Institution’s formation in 1912, Mr Peter Stanley,<br />
addressed the members present with a brief speech<br />
and mentioned the forthcoming programme for his<br />
presidential year of office.<br />
The Chief Executive reported that the current<br />
membership of the Institution was 2,979 and<br />
continues to grow steadily. There are now 30<br />
members with over 50 years’ membership, nine of<br />
whom were able to accept the President’s invitation<br />
to be present at the luncheon as guests of the<br />
Institution.<br />
Another 12 members have over 60 years membership<br />
and two of these were also present – Peter<br />
Guyatt and, also the longest serving Past President,<br />
Armand Cardani, who was President 31 years ago in<br />
1970.<br />
There are also three members who have over 70<br />
years membership. The longest serving member is<br />
believed to be Mr S E W Stokes, who resides in<br />
Brazil, with 78 years membership of the Institution<br />
but it has not been possible to obtain a response<br />
from his last known address. However, letters of<br />
good wishes had been received from Douglas Kidd,<br />
a member for 72 years residing in Shaftesbury and<br />
aged 97, and also from Wilfred Hardman, a member<br />
for 73 years and living in New Zealand. Many other<br />
members who were unable to attend in person had<br />
sent letters of apology and good wishes.<br />
Regrettably, 17 members had died since the lunch<br />
last year including David Wittamore, who served the<br />
Institution as a member of Council and on the<br />
Recruitment Committee for many years; Frank<br />
Smith, a former Chief S&T Engineer of the LMR;<br />
more recently Roger Pope, another long-standing<br />
servant of the Institution, particularly on the<br />
Examination Committee; and also Reg Hawkins,<br />
who did so much in the last 20 years to arrange the<br />
regular reunions of ex-SR S&T staff. The members<br />
present expressed their grateful thanks for the<br />
service that all of these friends and colleagues<br />
performed for the Institution during their time with<br />
us.<br />
The activity of the Institution continues to increase<br />
and the Institution is asked to contribute more and<br />
more frequently its expertise to the development of<br />
the industry and the profession. The Strategic Rail<br />
Authority recently granted the Institution another<br />
£250,000 on top of the £100,000 grant last year to<br />
continue the work being done, with the co-operation<br />
of the signalling industry, to recreate the recruitment,<br />
training and career development frame work for<br />
signalling engineers to overcome the current skills<br />
shortage in the discipline that has occurred since<br />
privatisation.<br />
During the year a major task had been the introduction<br />
of a new membership database computer
18<br />
FOURTH MEMBERS’ LUNCHEON<br />
system in the office. This will help in keeping track of<br />
members and in managing Institution events. The<br />
opportunity has also been taken to update the<br />
membership list and to purge it of old and out of<br />
date information.<br />
Another major task in the last year had been the<br />
revision of the Articles to update the qualifications<br />
for membership, to include the grade of Associate<br />
Member within the class of Corporate Member and<br />
also, now that the activity of the Institution has<br />
expanded significantly, the introduction of Byelaws<br />
to assist Council in its management of Institution<br />
affairs.<br />
As a nominated body of the Engineering Council<br />
(UK) the Institution registers Incorporated Engineers<br />
and Engineering Technicians with the Engineering<br />
Council and 12 of our members were registered last<br />
year.<br />
The Chief Executive said that none of this<br />
substantial effort would be possible without the<br />
wholehearted support and hard work of the<br />
Institution team comprising Mark Watson-Walker,<br />
Linda Collins, Karen Gould and Linda Mogford and<br />
concluded by expressing his thanks on behalf of the<br />
membership to the staff of the Institution for their<br />
hard work and wholehearted support during the last<br />
year.<br />
The luncheon concluded in a most pleasant and<br />
happy atmosphere of friendship and camaraderie<br />
and was judged a great success, having been<br />
thoroughly enjoyed by all present.<br />
The fifth Members’ luncheon has been provisionally<br />
arranged to take place on Wednesday 18th<br />
June <strong>2003</strong> at the same venue.<br />
K W Burrage
19<br />
The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers<br />
(COPYRIGHT RESERVED)<br />
Presidential Address<br />
of<br />
P W STANLEY BSc CEng FIEE F<strong>IRSE</strong><br />
Making the Possible Happen<br />
I have no doubt that at the start of their<br />
presidential year, every one of my predecessors has<br />
looked with some amazement at the demands and<br />
current problems of the Industry and the number of<br />
things that need to be done, with just a slight<br />
concern as to how the President can make a<br />
meaningful contribution in the space of one short<br />
year. It is certainly the way that I feel at this moment.<br />
Like most incoming presidents I face an immediate<br />
difficulty. What can I say that has not been said<br />
before? What ideas can come to mind that have not<br />
been thought, debated and acted on many times<br />
before? What actions can be proposed that have not<br />
been tried before? I shall start by saying thank you<br />
to all my many colleagues who, during the 14 years<br />
that I have served on Council, have been a source of<br />
help and encouragement. Without such support, I<br />
could not be here today.<br />
This time last year Bob Barnard ended his address<br />
with a look forward to things that the Institution<br />
should do in future; I intend to start where he left off,<br />
and with time being short, the best place for me to<br />
start is with my conclusions.<br />
CONCLUSIONS<br />
Modern train control systems are dependent on<br />
communications as an integral part of the system to<br />
the extent that old divisions between ‘S’ and ‘T’ no<br />
longer apply. I believe that my comments apply to all<br />
railway S&T engineers, whatever their specialisation<br />
may be.<br />
Today we have the possibility of applying new<br />
technology to railways, capable of delivering<br />
systems that are safer, more reliable, more available,<br />
more adaptable and with greater functionality. If we<br />
do not also have the skilled people, workable<br />
procedures for gaining safety approvals and<br />
sufficient economic benefit to justify investment,<br />
then the possibility will remain just that; we must<br />
make the possible happen.<br />
I believe that our Institution can and should<br />
develop its services to members and its role within<br />
the industry by offering guidance, giving leadership<br />
and developing services in five important areas:<br />
• Meeting the demand for S&T engineers;<br />
• Introducing new technology;<br />
• Harmonising safety acceptance procedures;<br />
• Delivering additional functionality and economic<br />
benefit;<br />
• Making the benefits of membership of our<br />
Institution more widely available in developing<br />
countries.<br />
THE DEMAND FOR S&T ENGINEERS<br />
RECOGNISING PROBLEMS – AVAILABILITY OF<br />
EXPERTISE<br />
If I want to say anything even slightly revolutionary,<br />
I had better start with the wheel of progress, which<br />
as it turns, sooner or later brings up old railway<br />
problems in new guises.<br />
Even if recurring problems are recognised as such,<br />
essential details could be elusive, existing only in the<br />
memories of the original experts who might not be<br />
around to be consulted.<br />
Many organisations are now structured to deal<br />
with current tasks and have neither a company<br />
collective memory that could recognise old<br />
problems when they recreate-occur, nor easy<br />
access to records of solutions that were considered<br />
previously, nor knowledge of why one solution was<br />
selected and others rejected, nor the expertise to
20<br />
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS<br />
recognise the root cause nor the manpower to<br />
develop a timely solution.<br />
In some cases, problems are faced by managers<br />
with a limited railway background who may think<br />
that every problem is new, and that every existing<br />
practice is deficient and ripe for change.<br />
It is here that our Institution can play an important<br />
role. Records of papers, discussions, conferences<br />
and visits form a vital resource, allowing us to<br />
revisit our history and experience and use the<br />
collected wisdom of the past<br />
The key, unavoidable need is for people of<br />
appropriate training and experience able to search<br />
and interpret such information.<br />
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE INDUSTRY<br />
The recent changes in our industry, especially in<br />
the UK, are leading to the fragmentation of long<br />
established organisations, the privatisation of many<br />
areas of technical and operational specialisation and<br />
the creation of new and unfamiliar contractual<br />
boundaries more attuned to financial flows than<br />
service delivery<br />
The new organisations have tended to direct their<br />
resources towards the management of their contracts,<br />
eliminating in-company expertise and relying<br />
on the availability of expert service companies to<br />
which the solving of problems can be outsourced as<br />
and when they arise.<br />
Since technical problems often fall across the new<br />
contract boundaries and have commercial and legal<br />
significance, each party to the contract may need<br />
independent expert advice and support, placing<br />
additional demands on the limited supplies of<br />
technical specialists.<br />
Another effect has been the great reduction across<br />
the industry in the numbers of technical specialists<br />
in R&D, not currently required for the day to day<br />
operation of the railway, but needed almost<br />
immediately to investigate the causes of mishaps<br />
and to support accident inquiries, at which time they<br />
suddenly become a very scarce resource.<br />
In the UK, efforts are being made to recreateestablish<br />
co-operative funding of R&D programmes<br />
across the industry, but with a tendency to ignore<br />
the existing pool of knowledge.<br />
Again, the Institution can provide guidance on the<br />
existence of relevant studies and reports and<br />
on the location of appropriate knowledge and<br />
experience.<br />
SUPPLIER DIVERSITY<br />
Quite apart from the inevitable opening up of<br />
home markets as a result of EC competition legislation,<br />
in the UK mainline network there has been a<br />
policy of introduction of systems based on new<br />
technology from suppliers outside the traditional<br />
supplier base with little or no previous UK application<br />
experience.<br />
New suppliers have brought additional pressure<br />
on resources in the areas of safety approval,<br />
application and interface engineering, testing<br />
and commissioning and training of maintenance<br />
staff.<br />
SAFETY ASSURANCE<br />
In parallel with the organisational changes, we<br />
have seen the development of safety law, with new<br />
procedures for equipment safety approval and<br />
risk assessment, mitigation and management.<br />
Formalisation of process in the UK has led to a<br />
protracted and expensive system of assessment<br />
and approval based on committees, technical<br />
advisors and independent safety assessors, each<br />
requiring people who possess appropriate<br />
competence.<br />
MEETING THE DEMAND<br />
These factors lead to a heavy demand for scarce<br />
resources and a number of important questions<br />
come to mind:<br />
• How can the demand for railway signal and<br />
telecommunications specialists be met?<br />
• How will those now starting their careers in the<br />
industry gain the necessary range of knowledge<br />
and experience?<br />
• Given the specialisation of the employing<br />
companies and the increase in support services<br />
companies with interests beyond railways, is it<br />
more likely that career paths will lead outside<br />
the industry?<br />
SO WHAT MAKES AN S&T ENGINEER?<br />
THE RANGE OF EXPERTISE<br />
The life cycle of every new generation of technology<br />
and every different implementation of that<br />
technology must be supported by a wide range of<br />
expertise, leading it from development to application<br />
design, to implementation, maintenance, modification<br />
and eventually to recovery.<br />
Given the asset life demanded of railway assets,<br />
several generations of equipment will have to<br />
co-exist within any network, and not only in the<br />
maintenance and recovery phases; for it is the very<br />
nature of railways that changing traffic patterns<br />
and service demands will require infrastructure<br />
alterations. As a result, there will be a need for the<br />
creation of new interfaces to existing systems, so<br />
perpetuating the need for relevant expertise over<br />
several generations of engineers.<br />
If we look at the range of technologies that still<br />
exist, at various stages of their life cycle we might be<br />
somewhat surprised at the range of expertise that<br />
must be available somewhere.<br />
Clearly, at one end of the spectrum we have<br />
people with expertise in a particular technology but<br />
with no knowledge of its application; at the other<br />
end we have people who are expert in their understanding<br />
of the needs of operators, signallers and<br />
drivers, but have only a limited knowledge of the<br />
technology. The role of the S&T Engineer and of this<br />
Institution is to provide the essential bridge between<br />
these two extremes.<br />
RECRUITING S&T ENGINEERS<br />
Perhaps we should also ask why anyone would<br />
choose a career in railway control and command<br />
systems engineering. Probably not as a result of<br />
such an uninspiring role description, so I shall think
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 21<br />
in terms of S&T Engineering!<br />
Perhaps as a start I could relate my own experiences.<br />
Like most youngsters I had ideas about what<br />
I wanted to be when I left school, first a policeman,<br />
then a train driver then a boat builder then a<br />
musician, but at some stage reality intervened. After<br />
graduating in electrical engineering, I looked at a<br />
number of opportunities that seemed to involve<br />
being tucked away in the corner of a design office<br />
dealing with some small area of product design.<br />
In extreme contrast, British Rail offered accredited<br />
training with involvement in such a wide range of<br />
technology, in specification, design and test and<br />
what is nowadays called system integration<br />
engineering. A key decider was the level of activity in<br />
finding ways of applying the very latest technology;<br />
there was simply no contest, I became a railwayman.<br />
I count myself very fortunate to have made that<br />
decision, to have experienced a wide range of jobs<br />
and to have known and worked with so many fine<br />
engineers. In due course I was able to indulge some<br />
of those childhood interests as hobbies and now, I<br />
sometimes sit and contemplate why the job has<br />
been so enjoyable and why the grass never looked<br />
greener elsewhere.<br />
I think it was simply because I worked in an<br />
industry that provided a public service, with a visible<br />
technical and safety strategy and clear lines of<br />
responsibility, that provided opportunity and<br />
encouragement of personal development both<br />
technical and managerial, offered a great variety of<br />
job opportunities, supported Professional Institution<br />
activities and looked on membership of this<br />
Institution as an essential requirement. When<br />
problems arose, advice was at hand and when technical<br />
problems seemed insoluble, there was an R&D<br />
organisation to call on. In short, there was order and<br />
structure and a dedication to safety and technical<br />
progress.<br />
Today a new entrant to the Industry can still find<br />
companies that operate accredited training<br />
schemes. Afterwards the entrant might see a very<br />
different world in which company goals do not<br />
translate in the same way into technical strategies,<br />
where technical management tends to be multidisciplinary<br />
and significant responsibility is taken at<br />
an earlier age with limited access to expert advice.<br />
If the company role is restricted, for example to<br />
maintenance or projects, the opportunities for<br />
gaining a breadth of experience will also be<br />
restricted, so that career development and progression<br />
will often involve a change of employer,<br />
without the benefit of advice and assistance.<br />
In this situation it seems to me that our Institution<br />
must be able to offer support and guidance. There<br />
are a number of ways by which this can be done, for<br />
example by:<br />
• Taking the concept of mentoring beyond the<br />
training and initial development stage and into<br />
the role of a personal advisor, especially in the<br />
area of continuing professional development.<br />
• Maintaining and expanding the Licensing<br />
Scheme modules, by which competence can be<br />
demonstrated and independently verified.<br />
• Providing a comprehensive programme of<br />
Institution activities specifically aimed at informing<br />
and developing younger members.<br />
• Encouraging employers to support the<br />
Institution and encourage those employed in the<br />
industry to make use of its services.<br />
By doing so, we can expect to generate a positive<br />
view of a career in S&T engineering among new<br />
entrants during their training and to maintain that<br />
view subsequently as their career develops.<br />
But, whatever the Institution does to further the<br />
acceptability of a career, the result can be no more<br />
than a help to employers in recruitment and retention<br />
of staff. The shortfall in resources can only be<br />
addressed by recruitment and training programmes<br />
that require long term commitment and agreement<br />
between infrastructure operators and suppliers. The<br />
Institution is able to support such programmes, for<br />
example with advice on training and development<br />
objectives.<br />
INTRODUCING NEW TECHNOLOGY<br />
Throughout Europe at this moment, railway<br />
administrations and their suppliers are working to<br />
introduce ERTMS technology into pilot projects and<br />
then into full commercial service. It has taken ten<br />
years to achieve the present position, during which<br />
time the European Commission and the Industry<br />
have invested much money and many man-years of<br />
development and testing.<br />
A purpose-built test laboratory has been set up in<br />
Madrid, equipped to permit the ERTMS components<br />
to be tested together as a system.<br />
SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?<br />
In a nutshell, on the scale required for the planned<br />
programme of ERTMS implementation the<br />
necessary technical knowledge, application<br />
engineering experience and operational experience<br />
simply does not exist.<br />
At the basic technology level, the number of<br />
experts in the areas of the Eurobalise/Antenna/BTM<br />
sub-systems, Euroradio, RBC, GSM-R and Data<br />
over radio, is very small indeed and is largely<br />
confined to the six manufacturers. The available<br />
expertise in the simulation and test facility is<br />
similarly limited.<br />
If the Industry is to deliver a Europe wide roll-out<br />
of the technology, a positive programme of<br />
knowledge transfer must be set up, so that sufficient<br />
numbers of trained people are made available to<br />
carry out effective application engineering, operations<br />
planning and maintenance planning.<br />
Also, if safety approval is to be obtained, it will be<br />
necessary to ensure that those concerned with<br />
validation and verification, testing and commissioning<br />
are able to devise and apply appropriate<br />
procedures and tests.<br />
Such knowledge transfer will not happen by<br />
accident; it must be planned and delivered as an<br />
essential part of national implementation<br />
programmes. I believe that the Institution can help in<br />
this process.
22<br />
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS<br />
HARMONISATION OF SAFETY APPROVAL<br />
PROCESSES<br />
In Europe, the UK is probably unique in not having<br />
legally prescribed standards for design, test and<br />
approval of signalling systems and equipment.<br />
UK law places legal duties on all parties to ensure<br />
that risk is controlled to a level as low as reasonably<br />
practicable.<br />
With the EC Interoperability Directive comes a<br />
conformity assessment process based on Notified<br />
Bodies that is more prescriptive and consistent with<br />
common European practice.<br />
This new harmonised procedure for ERTMS, forms<br />
a useful precedent on which we should build; it must<br />
be possible to make cross-acceptance of national<br />
safety approvals the norm for signalling equipment<br />
such as interlockings, axle counters, signals, safe<br />
data transmission systems and so on. In the German<br />
speaking countries, for example, EBA certification is<br />
already accepted.<br />
As an essential requirement for cross-acceptance<br />
it will be necessary for the terminology, test<br />
procedures and standards used in each country to<br />
be documented, so that at least the precise nature of<br />
a certification or the limitations of an approval for<br />
use can be understood in another country. Very<br />
often the apparent differences prove to be differences<br />
of terminology and presentation rather than<br />
differences of substance and therefore the barriers<br />
to cross acceptance may prove less significant than<br />
might be supposed.<br />
Our Institution is ideally placed to review and<br />
compare the existing practices and assist with the<br />
development of a harmonised approach so making a<br />
significant contribution towards more effective use<br />
of scarce expertise.<br />
FUNCTIONALITY AND ECONOMIC BENEFIT<br />
The application of technology to railway control<br />
and communications systems has been driven<br />
primarily by the opportunity to make cost savings in<br />
railway operation, usually savings of labour costs.<br />
Associated benefits in reliability and availability have<br />
been mainly at the sub-system level.<br />
In recent years we have seen a move towards<br />
systems engineered installations based throughout<br />
on modern technology with a common control level<br />
platform on which management and control<br />
functions are delivered by software rather than by<br />
discreet systems.<br />
Additional functions can be added to such<br />
platforms, drawing on the real-time train running<br />
data to give enhanced management control of<br />
operations and automatic control of the signalling<br />
system. Information can also be extracted and<br />
distributed to passenger information and train running<br />
information systems.<br />
Accurate real-time knowledge of train condition,<br />
position and performance can be the basis of new<br />
value-added services for the passenger and freight<br />
train operator, the train maintainer and the infrastructure<br />
maintainer.<br />
The application of ERTMS level 2 offers the<br />
potential of long-term net savings in infrastructure<br />
costs, but ERTMS, like ATP and TPWS, can be<br />
viewed negatively as an unjustified investment in<br />
enhanced safety in an area where the cost of<br />
reducing risk is disproportionately high.<br />
Such views take no account of the new opportunities<br />
now presented for communication of<br />
information to and from the train, both for train<br />
operating and commercial service applications. It is<br />
my belief that safety costs of ERTMS will prove to be<br />
very much lower than the commercial benefits<br />
available from exploitation of the facilities and real<br />
time information<br />
The Institution has already made a major contribution<br />
to this area through its International Technical<br />
Committee Report No 5, which should be essential<br />
reading for those who are tasked with planning the<br />
implementation programmes for ERTMS.<br />
Finally, the most important benefit to be derived<br />
from new train control systems will be gained by the<br />
development of new information systems for the<br />
train driver that predict junction path utilisation and<br />
give advisory speed information to the driver, aimed<br />
at achieving maximum junction throughput and<br />
hence improved network capacity.<br />
I believe that investment in such systems will be<br />
far more cost effective than the present day simplistic<br />
approach of improving theoretical capacity by<br />
layout alteration and hoping that actual train running<br />
performance yields the benefit hoped for.<br />
The Institution is well placed to give advice on<br />
these important issues and should promote debate<br />
and understanding of the benefits of additional<br />
functionality that can underpin new investment in<br />
control systems.<br />
WIDER AVAILABILITY OF THE BENEFITS OF<br />
MEMBERSHIP<br />
The Institution has developed rapidly over recent<br />
years, setting up a permanent office, a licensing<br />
scheme, gaining accreditation as an awarding body<br />
for UK registration of engineering technicians and<br />
incorporated engineers and assisting employing<br />
organisations with technician and engineer training<br />
and competence development. The cost of such<br />
activities, alongside the more traditional areas of<br />
professional examinations, technical meetings,<br />
seminars, visits and the publication of proceedings,<br />
moves ever higher. Even though membership<br />
numbers now reach over 3,000, and membership<br />
fees have been raised by only modest amounts, they<br />
are now at a level that is not affordable in many<br />
countries.<br />
So, in countries such as India and China apart<br />
from a small number of members at the most senior<br />
levels of the railway administrations, the Institution is<br />
not able to contribute to the professional activity in<br />
those countries.<br />
I believe that we might provide a service by:<br />
• Establishing a process for the formal recognition<br />
by the Institution of employers and technical<br />
training establishments.<br />
• Licensing such bodies to disseminate <strong>IRSE</strong>
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 23<br />
technical literature to students<br />
• Accrediting specific courses of practical and<br />
technical training offered by such bodies to a<br />
standard that can be recognised by the<br />
Institution in relation to its existing professional<br />
examination and NVQ accredited courses.<br />
• Seeking UK and European funding in cooperation<br />
with the Industry for training<br />
placements at appropriate European training<br />
establishments.<br />
Clearly we need to differentiate between such<br />
special measures and the concept of personal<br />
membership on which our Institution is based. We<br />
also need to consider carefully the relevance and<br />
size of our participation and level of commitment to<br />
the organisation of professional engineering bodies<br />
in the UK, given that the concepts on which the UK<br />
approach is based currently are not relevant to the<br />
European situation. The challenge for the future is to<br />
ensure that the benefits of membership can be seen<br />
to be worthwhile and value for money from all<br />
countries.<br />
SUMMARY<br />
So the task facing our Institution is large and clear,<br />
in summary, we must:<br />
• Make sure that comprehensive information on<br />
old technologies continues to be available as<br />
long as they are in use somewhere.<br />
• Participate in the development of cross-industry<br />
R&D programmes and help to make the best<br />
use of existing records and expertise.<br />
• Give guidance to employers, training providers<br />
and individuals on structured training and<br />
development, promote debate and co-operation<br />
throughout the industry and encourage<br />
personal responsibility for self-development.<br />
• Continue to provide a means by which the<br />
competence of people working in safety related<br />
roles might be demonstrated on a continuous<br />
basis.<br />
• Give a lead in promoting knowledge and<br />
experience of new technologies that aids<br />
application and introduction to service.<br />
• Promote the harmonisation of approval<br />
processes through cross acceptance.<br />
• Promote debate and understanding of possible<br />
benefits to be gained from additional functionality<br />
of control systems and of the real time<br />
capacity management.<br />
• Help to identify the true costs and benefits<br />
associated with command and control systems<br />
and ensure that safety and the cost of safety is<br />
not treated in isolation from commercial<br />
benefits.<br />
• Find ways by which our experience and<br />
knowledge can be made available in those<br />
developing nations of the world, where individuals<br />
cannot afford the membership fees of<br />
this or any other Institution.<br />
HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE THEM?<br />
Is already under way, sponsored by the SRA, in a<br />
project for the creation of a comprehensive database<br />
of records. Of course this is only part of the<br />
task; equally important will be the identification of<br />
the essential backing technical knowledge and<br />
where a reputable source of such knowledge may<br />
now be found.<br />
The Institution will participate with other parties in<br />
the development of Industry programmes for R&D.<br />
Is an on-going task, led by our Training &<br />
Development Manager, Karen Gould, to be taken<br />
further this year by a Careers Conference in London<br />
in June.<br />
Review and development of the Institution’s<br />
licensing scheme forms an important input to the<br />
work of the UK Industry Training Body, RITC,<br />
emphasising the national importance of the scheme.<br />
During the coming year we shall be concentrating<br />
on the technology and processes on which the<br />
ETCS system is based, with technical papers giving<br />
details of the design and operation of Eurobalise,<br />
Euroradio and RBC, Eurocab and driver MMI and<br />
Migration planning for ERTMS, also a technical visit<br />
is planned for November <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
Is to be the subject of a report being prepared by<br />
the <strong>IRSE</strong> International Technical Committee and a<br />
one day seminar to be held in November of this year.<br />
Will be the subject of a paper on control centre<br />
technology and applications for the future to be<br />
presented in January <strong>2003</strong> and a technical visit in<br />
March <strong>2003</strong>. Also covered in detail by the <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
International Technical Committee Report No 5,<br />
which should be used as a basic reference in this<br />
area and given renewed publicity.<br />
Will be the subject of a one-day seminar to be held<br />
in February <strong>2003</strong>.<br />
Will be discussed by Council during the next<br />
session, with the aim of drawing up proposals for the<br />
expansion of our activities into developing countries.<br />
Maybe this list is demanding and no doubt I shall<br />
hand over some tasks to my successors to<br />
complete. What is absolutely certain is that what we<br />
achieve will be achieved not by me, but by you, the<br />
members of this Institution.<br />
Our success will be visible, the value of our<br />
contribution to the industry will be immense.<br />
It’s possible – we just have to make it happen.<br />
I thank you for your attention tonight and also in<br />
anticipation of your help to me and your support of<br />
the important work of the Institution in the year<br />
ahead.
24<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution<br />
held at<br />
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2<br />
Wednesday 9th October <strong>2002</strong><br />
The President, Mr P W Stanley, in the chair.<br />
105 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr P Lane, seconded by Mr D McKeown and carried that<br />
the Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 13th March <strong>2002</strong> be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a<br />
correct record.<br />
Mr Roy Pemberton, Member, of Parsons Brinkerhoff, was present for the first time since his election to membership and was<br />
introduced to the meeting and welcomed amidst applause.<br />
The President then invited Mr P Lundberg, of Bombardier Transportation, Rail Control Solutions, to present his paper<br />
entitled “Eurobalise Transmission System”. Mr Lundberg illustrated his presentation with overhead projector slides.<br />
Following the presentation Messrs J Poré, Alstom; R Salawi, Alstom; K Moxsom, Thales; H Uebel, past president; W<br />
Coenraad, Holland Rail Consult; R Pemberton, Parsons Brinkerhoff; D Donelly, Praxis; C H Porter, Lloyds-MHA; I Haile, Alstom;<br />
D Waboso, EPT; D Woodland, Bechtel; J Corrie, Mott Macdonald; I Mitchell, AEA; and the President took part in the<br />
discussion.<br />
Mr Lundberg having dealt with the points raised, the President then proposed a vote of thanks to him and presented the<br />
speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.<br />
The President then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting by announcing that the next<br />
meeting in London would be held on the 6th November <strong>2002</strong> when Mr C Riley will present a paper on “EuroRadio and the RBC”.<br />
Eurobalise Transmission System, A Technical Overview<br />
Per Lundberg †<br />
1 INTRODUCTION<br />
The Eurobalise Transmission System is part of<br />
the overall system that constitutes the basis for<br />
the European Union Directive 96/48/EC on<br />
trans-European high-speed railway network<br />
interoperability, and is specified by the related<br />
Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI).<br />
The TSI defines the concept of “technical interoperability”<br />
that applies to the “interoperability<br />
constituents” 1 of the overall control-command<br />
sub-system. When European Directive<br />
2001/16/EC on the interoperability of the<br />
trans-European conventional rail system is<br />
implemented, the application of the Eurobalise<br />
Transmission System will be extended to<br />
cover practically the whole European rail<br />
network.<br />
The Eurobalise Transmission System is a vital,<br />
spot transmission-based system conveying<br />
safety-related information between the wayside<br />
infrastructure and the train.<br />
The Eurobalise Transmission System consists of<br />
the Eurobalise and the on-board transmission<br />
equipment. The latter is part of the ERTMS/ETCS<br />
on-board constituent. Eurobalises are either fixed<br />
type or controlled type. The on-board transmission<br />
equipment consists of the antenna unit and the BTM<br />
function. The wayside signalling equipment consists<br />
of the Lineside Electronic Unit (LEU) and other<br />
external equipment involved in the wayside<br />
signalling process. See Figure 1 below.<br />
The Eurobalise Transmission System is a spot<br />
transmission system in which transmission is<br />
implemented by Eurobalises. Information<br />
† Bombardier Transportation, Rail Control Solutions<br />
Figure 1 – Eurobalise Transmission System Overview<br />
transmitted from a Eurobalise to the on-board<br />
transmission equipment is fixed or variable<br />
depending upon the application.<br />
In spot transmission, a path exists between the<br />
wayside equipment and the on-board transmission<br />
equipment at discrete locations only. Information is<br />
sent to the train only when the antenna unit passes<br />
or stands over a Eurobalise. The length of track on<br />
which the information is passed is limited to<br />
approximately one metre per Eurobalise.<br />
The Eurobalise Transmission System is intended<br />
for use in all of the levels of applications defined<br />
within the ERTMS/ETCS (called Level 0, Level 1,<br />
Level 2, Level 3, and Level STM respectively).<br />
1 An interoperability constituent is the smallest item for which a<br />
declaration of conformity may be obtained.
EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW 25<br />
2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND<br />
In 1992, a number of signalling companies started<br />
to develop various proposals, based on an SSRS<br />
(Sub-system Requirement Specification) from ERRI<br />
A200, for the implementation of the transmission link<br />
between the infrastructure and the train. Draft<br />
specifications were written and prototypes were<br />
developed. In 1994, the various concepts were<br />
tested at the Vienna Arsenal. Additionally, field tests<br />
were performed in Switzerland and France together<br />
with the railways to evaluate the applicability further.<br />
Other specific tests were also performed in Zurich<br />
and Stockholm (eg cross-talk tests, availability tests,<br />
etc).<br />
The outcome of all this testing was the basis for<br />
the technology choice made at the end of 1994.<br />
ERRI A200 defined the criteria for the choice. The<br />
final choice was magnetic transponder technology,<br />
which was already a proven concept in several<br />
countries using similar train protection systems<br />
(KVB, Ebicab, and RSDD).<br />
Industry (the EUROSIG Consortium) developed a<br />
first set of specifications, in close co-operation with<br />
the railways, during 1995 and 1996. A first release<br />
was submitted by the end of 1996, and an approved<br />
update was released by February 1997. This set was<br />
composed of four different specifications defining<br />
the Eurobalise Transmission System. They were<br />
handed over to CENELEC in July 1998. The<br />
CENELEC process was halted in September 2000,<br />
but it did result in a consistent merge of the original<br />
specifications, even though there still were some<br />
topics that needed further technical elaboration.<br />
The UNISIG consortium started resolving the<br />
remaining unclear topics in parallel with the<br />
CENELEC process, and also started a harmonisation<br />
process with the overall System Requirement<br />
Specification (SRS), which did not exist in common<br />
harmonised form at earlier stages of the overall<br />
process. In April 2000, the so-called Class 1 specification<br />
(excluding test specification) was delivered<br />
and approved by the railways as part of the<br />
complete ERTMS/ETCS package. Thereafter,<br />
UNISIG continued developing the specifications<br />
(considering the CENELEC output as well). At this<br />
stage, the topic of RAMS was gone into thoroughly<br />
for the first time.<br />
In this final stage, a test specification harmonised<br />
with the other UNISIG specifications is also under<br />
final elaboration, based on EUROSIG output. At<br />
present (August <strong>2002</strong>) one ambiguity, related to<br />
magnetic flux measurements, is still to be resolved,<br />
but preliminary documents are delivered. The plan is<br />
to complete the entire process by October <strong>2002</strong>. The<br />
final result will be a Form Fit Function Interface<br />
Specification (FFFIS) and a Test Specification.<br />
Programmes of test were carried out at various<br />
stages of the process in order to check the validity<br />
of the specifications, in order to ensure correctness<br />
and interoperability. After the technology choice,<br />
tests were performed at the Vienna Arsenal (laboratory<br />
tests), at Velim (site tests for the Eurobalise<br />
Transmission System), and in Spain (EMSET laboratory<br />
tests and site tests that also included the entire<br />
ERTMS/ETCS system). Apart from the actual testing,<br />
the EMSET project also included development of<br />
test tools. In addition, the Eurobalise Transmission<br />
System has been included in several pilot lines for<br />
some years. One example is the Swiss pilot line,<br />
recently taken into commercial operation, where in<br />
addition all signal lamps have been removed (this is<br />
an ERTMS/ETCS Level 2 system). In order to resolve<br />
the remaining ambiguity of the test specification,<br />
some complementary tests are planned after the<br />
vacation period in <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
The overall process is illustrated in Figure 2 below.<br />
It should be observed that the timing illustrated in<br />
Figure 2 above focuses on the most important<br />
periods for the Eurobalise Transmission System only<br />
(eg EUROSIG did exist both before 1995 and after<br />
February 1997, EMSET existed before 1998, etc),<br />
and that some points of time are rough estimates.<br />
3 CURRENT STATUS<br />
The specifications are now in a consolidated<br />
status judged to be sufficient to ensure technical<br />
interoperability (including safety), except for one<br />
ambiguity that is planned to be resolved this<br />
autumn. The final outcome guarantees interoperability<br />
for systems which include wayside and<br />
on-board equipment from different manufacturers.<br />
Future revisions of the specifications (after<br />
consolidation of the remaining open item) will be<br />
handled through a joint change control process<br />
managed by AEIF. The test specification will be the<br />
input to future Notified Bodies responsible for<br />
certifying products from different manufacturers.<br />
Figure 2 – Overall Process
26<br />
EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW<br />
4 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION<br />
4.1 OVERALL EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION<br />
SYSTEM<br />
There are four top-level functions defined for the<br />
Balise Transmission System. These are as follows:<br />
• balise detection;<br />
• transmission of protected data from wayside<br />
devices to the intended train devices;<br />
• provision of data for train location;<br />
• determination of the direction of travel of the<br />
train.<br />
All these are detailed further for the Eurobalise and<br />
the on-board transmission equipment respectively.<br />
Where relevant, quantitative safety targets are<br />
allocated to the respective constituents.<br />
The Eurobalise Transmission System is capable of<br />
receiving information from the wayside signalling<br />
equipment, and passing this information to the<br />
ERTMS/ETCS kernel. A Eurobalise that is connected<br />
to an LEU transmits the data it receives over the<br />
air-gap in a transparent manner. Fixed balises<br />
transmit fixed, pre-programmed data as a train<br />
passes. There are two sizes of Eurobalises, Reduced<br />
Size and Standard Size.<br />
The BTM function makes all the received data<br />
available to the ERTMS/ETCS kernel, and associates<br />
it with the location information from the<br />
Eurobalise that was passed over. This is performed<br />
regardless of the direction of travel of the vehicle.<br />
The on-board transmission equipment provides a<br />
tele-powering signal for activating balises. The<br />
vehicle mounted antenna unit transmits this signal to<br />
the balise via the air-gap. For the basic system, the<br />
tele-powering signal is a continuous wave (CW)<br />
signal for activating Eurobalises only. There is also<br />
an optional function for achieving interoperability<br />
with existing KER systems (that is KVB, Ebicab, and<br />
RSDD systems). In this case, a 50 kHz AM signal<br />
modulates the tele-powering signal. This is referred<br />
to as “toggling modulation”, because the pulse<br />
length of the modulation differs between successive<br />
pulses (one is shorter and one is longer) – see Figure<br />
8 below. The Eurobalise responds equally when<br />
activated by either a 27 MHz CW signal or a 27 MHz<br />
signal with 50 kHz toggling modulation, but KER<br />
balises remain silent when subjected to CW telepowering.<br />
On activation the Eurobalise responds by transmitting<br />
a 4.2 MHz frequency-shift-keyed up-link<br />
signal (see example in Figure 4 below). The<br />
Eurobalise is passive until it is tele-powered by the<br />
on-board transmission equipment (ie there is no<br />
other power source to the Eurobalise).<br />
The Eurobalise Transmission System is specified<br />
to operate at speeds of up to 500 km/h.<br />
The concept allows two possible telegram<br />
lengths, a 341-bit telegram and a 1023-bit telegram.<br />
Data transmitted from track to train is considered<br />
safety critical. Protection of the data against air-gap<br />
noise effects and noise-induced hazards in the<br />
receiving and transmitting equipment is sufficient to<br />
ensure bit error detection to the extent that is<br />
demanded by the specified coding requirements.<br />
The coding features a process where the<br />
unprotected data (called user bits) are scrambled<br />
and shaped according to defined algorithms,<br />
forming a specific telegram format with excellent<br />
protection against eg random bit errors, burst errors,<br />
bit slips and bit insertions.<br />
The key features of the telegram format are as<br />
follows:<br />
• two compatible telegram lengths, 1023 and 341<br />
bits respectively;<br />
• a large number of unrestricted information bits,<br />
830 and 210 respectively;<br />
• safety against various types of transmission<br />
errors;<br />
• inversion of all bits of the telegram is always<br />
recognised by the decoder;<br />
• transmission need not start (or end) at the<br />
beginning of a telegram (the detection procedure<br />
is completely transparent with respect to<br />
cyclic shifts of a telegram);<br />
• support for compatibility with unknown future<br />
variations of the format.<br />
The telegram format allows for quantitative evaluation<br />
of the effect of random bit errors, burst errors,<br />
bit slips and bit insertions and all combinations<br />
thereof, with particular attention to the potential<br />
problems of telegram change and format misinterpretation<br />
(“long” as “short” or vice versa).<br />
Data transmission is performed without any<br />
handshaking across the air-gap.<br />
The BTM function provides data which enable the<br />
instant and/or the location when the antenna passed<br />
over the balise to be calculated, by analysing the<br />
received data and the properties of the received<br />
up-link signal.<br />
The Eurobalise Transmission System calculates<br />
the location of the Eurobalise from the available time<br />
and odometer information, and makes it available to<br />
the ERTMS/ETCS Kernel. The location accuracy for<br />
safety purposes is within 1m for every balise passed.<br />
Significantly better location accuracy is obtained<br />
normally, but not to a guaranteed vital level.<br />
The Eurobalise Transmission System does not<br />
allow a valid telegram to be passed through from a<br />
Eurobalise located in a cross-talk protected zone to<br />
the On-board ERTMS/ETCS Kernel.<br />
The Eurobalise Transmission System ensures<br />
protection against cross-talk based on signal levels<br />
provided all constraints regarding installation are<br />
observed. Additional cross-talk protection is<br />
achieved by performing the ERTMS/ETCS level<br />
functions defined in the SRS.<br />
Mixing of Eurobalises (Reduced Size, Standard<br />
Size, Fixed, Controlled, etc), and transmission of<br />
different telegram lengths, is possible on the same<br />
line.<br />
The Eurobalise is able to receive data from an LEU<br />
at a distance of at least 500m. Longer distances<br />
than 500m (for example 5km) can be individually<br />
achieved on a supplier specific basis.
EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW 27<br />
In general, the detailed specification of the balise<br />
is very rigid leaving a minimum of flexibility, whilst<br />
the specification of the on-board transmission<br />
equipment is fairly flexible in order to allow various<br />
alternatives for on-board optimisation.<br />
4.2 EUROBALISE<br />
A Eurobalise is interrogated and tele-powered by<br />
an inductively coupled tele-powering signal. The<br />
response of the Eurobalise is also an inductively<br />
coupled up-link signal. Source and sink of the<br />
tele-powering signal and the up-link signal respectively<br />
is the vehicle mounted antenna unit.<br />
Figure 3 – Eurobalise and its Main Interfaces<br />
The origin of the data carried by the up-link signal<br />
is a non-volatile memory in a fixed Eurobalise, or a<br />
serial data-link (the balise control interface) in a<br />
controlled Eurobalise. The data in the non-volatile<br />
memory is programmed on installation of the<br />
Eurobalise. If the Balise Controlling Interface is<br />
disturbed or interrupted, a controlled Eurobalise<br />
automatically switches over to transmitting the<br />
telegram in its internal non-volatile memory (which is<br />
also fitted in controlled Eurobalises).<br />
The Lineside Electronic Unit (LEU) receives<br />
messages from the wayside signalling or the interlocking.<br />
They are converted into Eurobalise<br />
telegrams (fulfilling the requirements of the telegram<br />
format), and are passed through the balise control<br />
interface to the Eurobalise, which transmits them to<br />
the on-board transmission equipment on passing<br />
trains.<br />
The Eurobalise generates a field that is picked up<br />
by the on-board antenna unit. Current flowing in the<br />
transmitting loop in the Eurobalise induces a voltage<br />
in the reception loop in the antenna unit.<br />
Two frequencies are used for frequency shift<br />
keying (FSK) of the up-link data, approximately 3.9<br />
MHz for a logical 0 and 4.5 MHz for a logical 1. In a<br />
shift between the two frequencies the carrier has a<br />
continuous phase (ie the modulation is continuousphase<br />
FSK). The centre frequency is approximately<br />
4.2 MHz and the frequency deviation is approximately<br />
282 kHz. The mean data rate is approximately<br />
565 kbit/s. Figure 4 below shows an<br />
example.<br />
Two sizes of Eurobalise are defined, Standard size<br />
and Reduced size. The Reduced size Eurobalise can<br />
be installed transversely (ie with its longer side at<br />
right angles to the track) or longitudinally as<br />
required.<br />
Standard and Reduced size Eurobalises have the<br />
following reference areas for defining the field<br />
strength from an antenna unit as well as their own<br />
output field strength:<br />
• Standard size Eurobalise – active reference area<br />
358mm by 488mm;<br />
• Reduced size Eurobalise – active reference area<br />
200mm by 390mm.<br />
The physical size of the actual Eurobalise is<br />
somewhat larger in each case because of the need<br />
for encapsulation, and the thickness is a few<br />
centimetres.<br />
Obviously, Eurobalises will be used in a large<br />
variety of environmental conditions. In particular<br />
they will be subjected to various kinds of débris (eg<br />
water, salt water, snow, ice, iron ore, etc). In order to<br />
provide some flexibility in this specific respect<br />
Eurobalises are subdivided into two classes, Class A<br />
and Class B. Class A Eurobalises are intended to be<br />
used in a more demanding environment than Class<br />
B Eurobalises.<br />
Eurobalises can be mounted within an overall<br />
range from 93mm to 210mm below the top of the<br />
rail. This applies to the entire family of Eurobalises.<br />
Each separate type (Standard size, Reduced size,<br />
Class A, Class B, etc) has limitations and does<br />
not necessarily cover the full range. In some cases<br />
the range is also limited if the balise is installed<br />
where certain defined types of metallic structures<br />
exist.<br />
Eurobalises are mounted in the middle of the track<br />
Figure 4 – FSK Up-link Signal from Eurobalise
28<br />
EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW<br />
with an equal distance to both rails (within a certain<br />
tolerance).<br />
In the track, there needs to be a certain minimum<br />
separation between Eurobalises. Minimum<br />
distances between successive Eurobalises are<br />
shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 below.<br />
4.3 ON-BOARD TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT<br />
The on-board transmission equipment is part of<br />
the ERTMS/ETCS On-board Constituent. Its main<br />
functions are to generate the tele-powering signal to<br />
the balise, to receive and process the up-link signal<br />
from the balise, to form the interface between the<br />
air-gap and the ERTMS/ETCS Kernel, and to provide<br />
appropriate test data to the test interfaces via an<br />
interface adapter.<br />
The on-board transmission equipment includes<br />
the antenna unit, and the functional block called the<br />
BTM function. See Figure 7 below.<br />
The on-board antenna unit provides power to<br />
wayside Eurobalises by generating a field. Current<br />
flowing in the transmitting loop of the antenna unit<br />
induces a voltage in the reception loop of the<br />
Eurobalise. The induced voltage in the Eurobalise is<br />
based mainly on the vertical component of the field<br />
intersecting the loop.<br />
The field distribution from the antenna unit is such<br />
that the Eurobalise receives sufficient power to be<br />
able to generate an adequate output signal to send<br />
back to the antenna unit. For interoperability<br />
reasons, the on-board transmission equipment is<br />
able to operate with all the defined types of<br />
Eurobalise under all defined conditions in a compliant<br />
manner.<br />
The field is produced at a frequency of 27.095<br />
MHz. The signal is normally CW but, for interoperable<br />
systems, the on-board transmission<br />
equipment is able to pulse width modulate the telepowering<br />
carrier signal with a 50 kHz synchronisation<br />
signal (toggling modulation). Examples of<br />
the signals are shown in Figure 8 below.<br />
The on-board transmission equipment checks<br />
continuously for the presence of balises, whenever<br />
the vehicle is in operating mode. The only exception<br />
Figure 5 – Minimum Distance between Reduced Size Eurobalises<br />
Figure 6 – Minimum Distance between Standard Size Eurobalises<br />
Figure 7 – On-board Transmission Equipment and its Main Interfaces
EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW<br />
29<br />
Figure 8 – Tele-powering Signal (CW and Toggling)<br />
is when there is full safety protection by other means<br />
at system level.<br />
There is a threshold function within the BTM<br />
function based on a voltage that represents the<br />
received field strength. The actual implementation is<br />
supplier dependent. However, the highest level of<br />
this threshold is such that balise detection is still<br />
guaranteed, and the lowest level is such that<br />
cross-talk protection is not jeopardised.<br />
The on-board transmission equipment also<br />
demodulates the up-link signal and performs<br />
decoding of the information (in accordance with the<br />
coding requirements).<br />
After passing over a Eurobalise, the data and the<br />
reference position are made available to the<br />
ERTMS/ETCS Kernel. Since balise detection is a<br />
vital function, the BTM function in general also<br />
reports balise detection to the ERTMS/ETCS Kernel<br />
when a Eurobalise is detected but no telegram is<br />
decoded. It is not safety critical to fail to decode the<br />
telegram, but it is safety critical to fail to detect a<br />
balise.<br />
5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS<br />
Acronym Explanation<br />
A200 ERRI specialist committee specifying the<br />
original ETCS<br />
AEIF European Association for Railway<br />
Interoperability<br />
AM Amplitude Modulation<br />
BTM Balise Transmission Module<br />
CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical<br />
Standardisation<br />
CW Continuous Wave<br />
Ebicab ATP system based on Magnetic<br />
Transponder Technology<br />
EMSET A consortium composed of eleven organisations<br />
working in the Railway signalling<br />
area<br />
ERRI European Rail Research Institute<br />
ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management<br />
System<br />
ETCS European Train Control System<br />
EUROSIG A consortium composed of nine<br />
European companies working in the<br />
Railway signalling area<br />
FFFIS Form Fit Function Interface Specification<br />
FSK Frequency Shift Keying<br />
KER KVB, Ebicab, RSDD<br />
KVB Contrôle de Vitesse par Balise (ATP<br />
system based on magnetic transponder<br />
technology)<br />
LEU Lineside Electronic Unit<br />
RAMS Reliability Availability Maintainability<br />
Safety<br />
RSDD Ripetizione Segnali Discontinua Digitale<br />
(ATP system based on magnetic<br />
transponder technology)<br />
SSRS Sub-system Requirements Specification<br />
SRS System Requirements Specification<br />
TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability<br />
UNISIG A consortium composed of six European<br />
companies working in the Railway<br />
signalling area
30<br />
EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW<br />
Discussion<br />
The discussion was opened by J Poré (Alstom)<br />
who asked whether the capacity of a line would be<br />
reduced by the use of balises, would this be dependent<br />
on the number of balises at a location, and<br />
what were the implications as far as maintenance<br />
was concerned?<br />
Mr Lundberg did not accept that there would be a<br />
reduction in capacity if an unfitted line were<br />
compared with a fitted one where the level of safety<br />
was the same, as balises would permit more trains<br />
to be run closer together.<br />
R Salawi (Alstom) raised the question of the time<br />
needed to acquire data by equipped trains as a<br />
cause of loss of capacity.<br />
The President ruled that this was not relevant to<br />
Eurobalise and asked the speaker to consider the<br />
value of multiple balises.<br />
Mr Lundberg doubted whether more than two<br />
balises would be needed at a location. As to maintenance,<br />
experience of present systems was good<br />
and was expected to be similar with the eurobalise.<br />
K Moxsom (Thales) asked what the result would<br />
be if a balise were removed by vandalism for<br />
example?<br />
The speaker said that this was dependent on how<br />
the main control system was designed.<br />
H Uebel (retired) asked how when powering up a<br />
locomotive it ascertained its location.<br />
The speaker replied that powering up in the<br />
“telepowering mode” would enable old or new<br />
balises to be detected and location established.<br />
D Donelly (Praxis) asked whether directional<br />
information could be encoded into the telegram,<br />
thus obviating the need for more than one balise at<br />
a location.<br />
Mr Lundberg said that the train itself must<br />
determine its direction hence directional information<br />
could not be included in the telegram of a single<br />
balise.<br />
C Porter (Lloyds MHA) asked why there were two<br />
sizes of balise, why what was probably the simplest<br />
part of the various systems seemed to be most<br />
difficult to finalise and could some of the design<br />
points and their problems be described.<br />
The author said that the two versions were the<br />
same functionally but the larger one would be used<br />
where debris on the track was a more severe<br />
problem. The speaker was not familiar with the<br />
history of earlier systems but the need to rigidly<br />
specify the new balise and to increase the data<br />
transmission rate had raised problems.<br />
A member (Balfour Beatty) asked about the effects<br />
of masses of metal in the proximity of the balise.<br />
The author said that this was covered in the<br />
installation specification for the balise.<br />
I Mitchell (AEA) asked whether when a train<br />
passed over a balise it had to be told to communicate<br />
with the LEU.<br />
Mr Lundberg replied that the LEU continuously<br />
transmitted its information to the balise but the<br />
balise ignored this until powered up by a train.<br />
The President thanked Mr Lundberg for his paper<br />
and his response to the discussion.
Company Announcement<br />
Bridgen Enterprises – S&T Division<br />
You may be aware of Bridgen's S&T Division because of our fast<br />
growing reputation in the UK for S&T work in maintenance,<br />
renewal and testing of signalling equipment. We specialise in<br />
management of SIN actions, production of method statements<br />
and risk assessments for all manner of signalling works.<br />
You may even know about Bridgen's Training Division because of our<br />
continuous delivery of high quality, Safety Critical Training at Harrow,<br />
Norwich and Worksop (previously Maltby).<br />
Summer <strong>2003</strong> sees the opening of our new Signalling Training School at<br />
our customised, indoor training facility in Stockport, which also provides<br />
Safety Critical Training.<br />
Over the next twelve months, a complete range of on-site, specialist S&T<br />
courses will include those listed on the table opposite, plus we can<br />
deliver ‘bespoke courses’ to match your specific S&T training<br />
requirements…<br />
Bridgen’s Stockport Office is within 1 mile of the M60 ring road and<br />
within easy reach of the M6, M56 and M62!<br />
If you are an <strong>IRSE</strong> member or active in Signalling Works<br />
within the UK, we would like to talk to you about your<br />
current and future S&T Training needs.<br />
For an informal discussion, please contact Ben or Alan in Stockport<br />
on 0161 430 3388<br />
TRAINING COURSES<br />
• Basic Signalling 1<br />
• Basic Signalling 2<br />
• SMTH Full course<br />
• SMTH Re-Cert<br />
• Basic Electrical Safety<br />
Awareness (BESA)<br />
• Safety Principles When<br />
Working With Electrical<br />
Equipment (SPWEE)<br />
• T.P.W.S (F.L.F.M)<br />
• Basic Electrical Installation<br />
• HW Point Machine Installation<br />
• HW Point Machine F.L.F.M.<br />
• Clamp Lock Installation<br />
• Clamp Lock F.L.F.M.<br />
• Style 63 Point Machine<br />
Installation<br />
• Style 63 Point Machine F.L.F.M<br />
• D.C T.C Courses<br />
• M.L.T.I T.C Courses (F.L.F.M)<br />
• H.V.I<br />
• Signal Works Testing Modules<br />
3A, 3BL, 3C, 3D, 4 and 5.<br />
• Axle Counters (F.L.F.M)<br />
• Bespoke S&T Courses!<br />
BEN DOWNING, S&T Works Manager<br />
Email: ben.downing@bridgen.com<br />
ALAN CREANE, S&T Training Manager<br />
Email: alan.creane@bridgen.com<br />
Bridgen Enterprises – S&T Division Gralan House, Green Lane, Romiley, Stockport SK6 3JG<br />
Tel: 0161 430 3388 Fax: 0161 430 3377 Email: stockport@bridgen.com<br />
w w w . b r i d g e n . c o m<br />
Bridgen Enterprises Ltd – S&T Division Gralan House,Green Lane,Romiley,Stockport SK6 3JG<br />
Tel: 0161 430 3388 Fax: 0161 430 3377 Email: stockport@bridgen.com
32<br />
1 OVERVIEW<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution<br />
ERTMS is the interoperable European Rail Traffic<br />
Management System and it has been under<br />
development for the past ten years or so.<br />
Undoubtedly the system will herald a new chapter of<br />
railway signalling history, but many are struggling<br />
with the concepts and jargon that such a new<br />
system brings. Perhaps the most difficult system<br />
concept is that of the EuroRadio communication<br />
system and its interaction with the Radio Block<br />
Centre (RBC). This paper, with its accompanying<br />
presentation, aims to walk through the concepts and<br />
ideas of EuroRadio and the RBC in an easily<br />
understood way, whilst avoiding as much<br />
communication system language and jargon as<br />
possible. It is assumed that the reader has a basic<br />
understanding of ERTMS / ETCS but if in doubt, an<br />
excellent primer is available on www.ertms.com.<br />
EuroRadio has been well specified over the years,<br />
but the operation of the RBC is less well-defined on<br />
account of its novelty, and its freedom of<br />
implementation in relation to the interlocking. The<br />
paper that follows is therefore a mix of generic<br />
EuroRadio information and proprietary RBC design<br />
information, from a Westinghouse Rail Systems<br />
perspective. The overall explanation should however<br />
be applicable to any system, with only minor details<br />
changing in some cases.<br />
2 INTRODUCTION TO THE RBC<br />
The ERTMS/ETCS Radio Block Centre is the main<br />
component of the trackside subsystem for the ETCS<br />
held at<br />
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2<br />
Wednesday 6th November <strong>2002</strong><br />
The President, Mr. P W Stanley, in the chair.<br />
106 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr D Edney, seconded by Mr J Corrie and carried that the<br />
Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 9th October <strong>2002</strong> be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct<br />
record.<br />
Mr Lashi Spandi, of Alstom, was present for the first time since his election to membership and was introduced to the<br />
meeting and welcomed amidst applause.<br />
The President then introduced Mr C Riley, of Westinghouse Rail Systems, and invited him to present his paper entitled<br />
“EuroRadio and the RBC”. Mr Riley illustrated his presentation with computer slides and explained the concepts of EuroRadio<br />
and the Radio Block Centre in an easily understood way whilst avoiding the use of as much of the communication system<br />
language and jargon as possible.<br />
Following the presentation Messrs J Corrie, Mott Macdonald; C Eaglen, Railtrack; K Ford, Thales; D Waboso, EPT; C H Porter,<br />
Lloyds MHA; the President; K Moxsom, Thales; J Poré, Alstom; F Hewlett, retired; D Jeffery, Railtrack; I Harman, Union Railways;<br />
E Goddard, LUL; J Mew, Thales; D Weedon, Amec; REB Barnard, Alstom; D Djezzar, MHA, and D McKeown, Independent<br />
Consultant, took part in the discussion.<br />
Mr Riley dealt with the questions assisted by his colleague Mr J Harmer. The President then proposed a vote of thanks and<br />
presented the speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.<br />
The President then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting by announcing that the next meeting<br />
in London would be held on the 10th December <strong>2002</strong> when Mr C Frerichs will present a paper on EuroCab and the Driver MMI.<br />
1 Communications Technical Authority<br />
2 RBC Technical Authority<br />
3 Technical Director<br />
Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd<br />
EuroRadio and the RBC<br />
John Harmer 1 , Kevin Turner 2 and C Riley 3<br />
Level 2. Depending on the geographic characteristics<br />
of the track and the operating characteristics<br />
of the railway one or more RBCs will be needed,<br />
each configured to monitor a specific area so that<br />
the whole Level 2 operating area is covered.<br />
The RBC communicates with the interlockings,<br />
which undertake the usual common signalling<br />
functions, ie establishment, locking and release of<br />
routes. The interlockings also control the aspects of<br />
signals, where provided. Each RBC is responsible<br />
for managing radio communications with the trains<br />
in its control area, and for sending each train a<br />
movement authority that allows it to move safely.<br />
However, the RBC can only monitor those trains with<br />
which it has set up radio communication. It will<br />
always be possible to find a series of trains which<br />
are not monitored by the RBC, including:<br />
• trains which do not have ETCS equipment and<br />
only operate with the existing national signalling;<br />
• trains which are ETCS-fitted but without radio<br />
communication facilities so that they can only<br />
operate in ETCS Level 1 or Level STM;<br />
• train which have ETCS equipment for Level 2,<br />
but with failures causing loss of communications<br />
with the RBC.<br />
Even though the RBC can only monitor those<br />
trains with which it has communication, it is still<br />
necessary to ensure safe movement of all these<br />
different types of train in the area it controls (socalled<br />
mixed traffic). Interaction between the RBC<br />
and the interlockings ensures that the RBC<br />
operation does not conflict with trains that are not<br />
under its control, so that safe movement of all trains<br />
is ensured. Each RBC also communicates with any<br />
adjacent RBCs, so that trains controlled by an RBC<br />
can pass seamlessly from one control area to
EURORADIO AND THE RBC 33<br />
another while maintaining their normal operation in<br />
ERTMS Level 2.<br />
To ensure safe communication between the<br />
trackside signalling system and the train whilst<br />
maintaining operational efficiency requires that the<br />
RBC is based on a high integrity architecture that<br />
can tolerate failures. When in normal operation, the<br />
RBC sends to each of the trains with which it<br />
communicates in its area of control movement<br />
authority information, together with route<br />
geographic information that the train must observe<br />
in calculating a safe speed. The train sends<br />
information about its location to the RBC to enable<br />
calculation of appropriate movement authority<br />
parameters by the RBC. Communication between<br />
the RBC and the train is therefore bi-directional via<br />
the mandated GSM-R communications network,<br />
using the protocol defined later in this paper.<br />
The regulation and traffic control system (CTC or<br />
Local Control) sends requests for route<br />
establishment to the interlockings. The interlockings<br />
set up and lock the routes requested by the<br />
CTC/Local Control, and send the information that<br />
the route is set up and locked to the RBC. When the<br />
RBC undertakes control of a train that requires to<br />
use a route, it checks that the interlocking has<br />
reserved that route for that train before sending the<br />
movement authority for the train to use it. Once the<br />
train has entered the route, or in the event that the<br />
train does not use the route, the RBC and the<br />
interlocking co-operate to release the route, so as to<br />
ensure the consistency of the information managed<br />
by the RBC and by the interlocking. The CTC/Local<br />
Control retains its current functions of requesting<br />
route establishment. The interlocking retains its<br />
current functions, together with the additional<br />
functions of proceed and approach locking release<br />
to the RBC.<br />
For the ERTMS Level 2 system, the train’s location<br />
is mainly determined by means of axle counters or<br />
track circuit occupancy. The interlocking detects<br />
track occupancy and sends this information to the<br />
RBC. The RBC uses this track occupancy information<br />
to determine the movement authority limit for<br />
the train (regardless of whether the train ahead is<br />
under its control). The location information sent by<br />
the train to the RBC is used for various functions,<br />
such as: association of track circuit occupancy with<br />
the train; determination of the point where the<br />
geographic information associated with the<br />
movement authority begins; and diverse checking of<br />
the train’s location once the routes are released.<br />
When a train is approaching the boundary between<br />
two RBCs, the RBCs start to communicate with<br />
each other so that the movement authority can be<br />
extended across the boundary. As the train is<br />
crossing the boundary, control passes from the<br />
“Handover RBC” to the “Accepting RBC”.<br />
3 INTRODUCTION TO EURORADIO<br />
The choice of GSM for the radio bearer network<br />
was made some years ago, and work progressed in<br />
the EIRENE project to specify the additional<br />
requirements for railways. The MORANE project was<br />
given responsibility for the detailed specifications<br />
and for demonstrating the suitability of GSM-R (ie<br />
GSM for Railways). However, because of the<br />
complexity of a modern digital radio system, it is<br />
impossible to guarantee safe transmission, or even,<br />
in general, that it cannot be hacked into. It was<br />
therefore necessary to define an additional module<br />
between the application and the bearer that would<br />
be responsible for the safe transmission of data<br />
across the radio network – this was EuroRadio.<br />
Specifications for EuroRadio have been available<br />
for about seven years, written by various groups and<br />
in various stages of release. The specifications have<br />
always assumed concept implementation on<br />
GSM-R, which is regarded as an Open Transmission<br />
System as defined by CENELEC prEN50159-2. It<br />
must be remembered that the specifications are only<br />
concerned with interoperability, not with defining a<br />
complete system, although they are limited to a<br />
circuit switched network. Even so, there is scope for<br />
a number of different implementations where<br />
interoperability is unaffected – this particularly<br />
affects functions that are local to one end of the link.<br />
In this paper, a typical implementation is described,<br />
but it is not necessarily the only one possible.<br />
The form and electronic etiquette of the<br />
communication, known as the Protocol Stack<br />
design, has been stable for several years (see Figure<br />
1). The reason for having layers within the protocol is<br />
to allocate particular functions to particular software<br />
modules, leading to a design where changes in one<br />
module do not have a knock-on effect on other<br />
modules. There is an important principle here, that a<br />
layer does not need to ‘look into’ the message that<br />
it is given from the layer above for any information it<br />
needs, which means a layer can (at least in theory)<br />
be changed without changing the layers above or<br />
below.<br />
7<br />
6<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
APPLICATION<br />
APPLICATION LAYER (EMPTY)<br />
PRESENTATION LAYER (EMPTY)<br />
SESSION LAYER (EMPTY)<br />
SAFETY LAYER<br />
TRANSPORT LAYER<br />
NETWORK LAYER<br />
DATA LINK LAYER<br />
PHYSICAL LAYER (GSM)<br />
Figure 1 – OSI Model
34<br />
EURORADIO AND THE RBC<br />
Note that an Application and an Application Layer<br />
are not the same thing! An application could be for<br />
word-processing or train-control; the application<br />
layer is responsible typically for the transfer, access<br />
and management of files, documents, or messages<br />
– that is, for common services for all applications.<br />
The other point to note is that, as in most common<br />
communication stacks, not all layers are<br />
implemented. In this case there are no Application,<br />
Presentation or Session layers, but, unlike most,<br />
there is an extra one – the Safety layer. For<br />
convenience, it is probably easiest to think of the<br />
Safety layer as a particular form of Session layer –<br />
the key used for the Message Authentication Code<br />
(MAC) is generated on a per-session basis. It also<br />
has the benefit of being easy to remember. So the<br />
EuroRadio protocol stack is as shown in Figure 2.<br />
(application)<br />
SAFETY LAYER<br />
TRANSPORT LAYER<br />
NETWORK LAYER<br />
DATA LINK LAYER<br />
(GSM-R)<br />
Figure 2 – EuroRadio Stack<br />
3.1 APPLICATION<br />
The application is responsible for initiating<br />
connection set-up from train to RBC, by requesting<br />
data to be sent. Note that, although EuroRadio is<br />
symmetric (that is, either side can initiate a<br />
connection), there is no requirement in the ETCS<br />
System Requirement Specification for the trackside<br />
application to connect to the train. It also<br />
implements the timestamp protection against delay.<br />
3.2 SAFETY LAYER<br />
The safety layer is responsible for authentication,<br />
that is confirming the identities of the two<br />
applications, and to a lesser extent for final errorchecking.<br />
It is the guarantee of most of the<br />
communications safety so, like the application, it is<br />
generally implemented at SIL4.<br />
3.3 TRANSPORT LAYER<br />
The transport layer contains a number of<br />
functions. It segments the message into 123-byte<br />
lengths and reassembles, if the message from the<br />
safety layer is too long for the network layer (but it<br />
does not recreate-sequence). It also provides flow<br />
control to restrict transmission in the lower layers.<br />
3.4 NETWORK LAYER<br />
The network layer co-ordinates the transport<br />
connections above it – there can be more than one<br />
transport, but only one network, connection – and<br />
sets up connections over GSM-R using the correct<br />
commands. Further segmentation down to 23 bytes<br />
and recreate-assembly occurs.<br />
3.5 DATA LINK LAYER<br />
The link layer based on HDLC is the lowest<br />
EuroRadio layer. It has a 16-bit cyclic redundancy<br />
code, acknowledgements and recreate-tries, so it<br />
can provide a reliable service over unreliable lower<br />
layers. This does not mean that the lower layers are<br />
unreliable in practice – just that they can be prone to<br />
data errors. So, if there is a problem, it is the data<br />
link layer that will recover the situation.<br />
3.6 PHYSICAL LAYER<br />
It always seems strange that the “physical” layer,<br />
which is usually a piece of wire or optical fibre, is the<br />
whole GSM-R radio network. However, as far as<br />
EuroRadio is concerned, it performs exactly the role<br />
of a physical connection, transferring data between<br />
link layers.<br />
4 THE LIFE OF A RBC-TRAIN<br />
CONNECTION<br />
4.1 CONNECTION – SET-UP<br />
When a train is switched on, very little happens for<br />
EuroRadio as all the action is initiated in the cab. The<br />
ETCS cab equipment enters stand-by, possibly with<br />
invalid or unknown data. It finds out the driver-ID,<br />
whether it is in a Level 2 area, and whether its stored<br />
position is valid. The driver will probably have to<br />
enter or confirm this data. When the GSM-R mobile<br />
powers up, it registers automatically with the GSM-<br />
R network.<br />
The next stage is for the train to open a session<br />
with the RBC. The application attempts to send the<br />
initiation message, and it does this by passing the<br />
message, the destination ETCS-ID, the destination<br />
network id if known, and the Quality of Service (QoS)<br />
parameters to the Safety Layer.<br />
The idea of Quality of Service is inherited from<br />
modern communications practice. Normally, it gives<br />
an application a way of specifying its requirements in<br />
terms of connection establishment delay, failure<br />
probability, throughput, transmission delay, residual<br />
error, security and priority. However, the QoS<br />
parameters for GSM-R are mainly set either in the<br />
specifications, or at network design time, and so in<br />
practice the only parameters to set are priority<br />
(preset to 1) and data rate (usually 4800, but 2400<br />
and 9600 are possible). It is not possible to recreatenegotiate<br />
QoS during the life of a connection.<br />
Note that the priority assigned by the application<br />
calling up a particular QoS parameter set is that of<br />
the connection relative to other connections, not<br />
that of the message. Messages can have normal or<br />
high priority, determined by which queue they are<br />
placed on by the application: high-priority messages<br />
effectively by-pass the safety and network layers,<br />
and are sent as data-link layer Unnumbered<br />
Information frames.<br />
So the on-board Safety Layer has received the<br />
initiation message and a destination ID, and possibly<br />
a network ID (incorrectly called phone number in<br />
the rest of the paper, as it is clearer for non-
EURORADIO AND THE RBC 35<br />
communications engineers!) – what happens next?<br />
Basically, the connection request ripples down the<br />
protocol stack, and then the layer connections ripple<br />
back up. So the Safety Layer passes the connection<br />
request to the Transport Layer, which cannot do<br />
anything until there is a Network Layer connection,<br />
then the Data Link Layer, then GSM-R.<br />
It is at this point there can be a problem. The onboard<br />
application knows all about application<br />
addresses – the ETCS-ID which when used with the<br />
ETCS-ID-TYPE is unique in the world, safely – but it<br />
knows and cares little about phone numbers (they<br />
could be different from last week to this). At the<br />
bottom of the stack, GSM-R knows all about phone<br />
numbers, but nothing about application IDs. How is<br />
the translation achieved?<br />
It is possible that the application received the<br />
number along with the ETCS-ID from a balise – the<br />
simplest solution. It may have received it from an<br />
RBC in an application message, but of course it<br />
needs a connection first to do that. Another<br />
possibility is that, as people do, it remembers<br />
associations, in a look-up table in the Transport<br />
layer. But if all else fails, it has the possibility of using<br />
a feature of the network – location-dependent<br />
addressing. As with a ‘999’ call in the UK, the<br />
network is aware of the location of the source of the<br />
call, and can route it to an appropriate local<br />
destination. Similarly, a GSM network is aware of the<br />
source’s cell, and can route the call to a pre-defined<br />
‘most-appropriate RBC’.<br />
So, the Safety layer requests a connection from the<br />
Transport layer, the Transport layer requests a<br />
connection from the Network layer and the Network<br />
layer requests a connection from the Data Link layer<br />
– except that the Data Link layer has no mechanism<br />
to cause GSM to connect. So in fact the Network<br />
layer sends the dial commands to GSM. Once GSM<br />
has connected, the Network layer can request a<br />
connection from the Data Link layer, ie the HDLC<br />
Data Link layer synchronises.<br />
Once the train’s Data Link layer receives an<br />
Unnumbered Acknowledge frame, it can confirm the<br />
connection to the Network layer, which sends<br />
confirmation to the Transport layer, which confirms<br />
the connection to the Safety layer.<br />
4.2 AUTHENTICATION<br />
It is only at this point that the Safety layer, on the<br />
train and in the RBC, can start to authenticate the<br />
end users – but why should it?<br />
It was assumed in the design of EuroRadio that the<br />
data may go over some form of ‘open’ network –<br />
that is, a network where the data is not only subject<br />
to random noise, but could also be the subject of a<br />
malicious human attack from outside or inside the<br />
Railway.<br />
Authentication uses two defences. One is random<br />
data generated at the time of connection set-up. The<br />
other is use of a ‘shared secret’ – the ‘key’ – that only<br />
the correct user will know. But how does the train<br />
know what key to use? Once again, we could use a<br />
look-up table, matching ETCS-ID against phone<br />
number and key. But now, the look-up table must be<br />
much, much larger. If a train does not know the<br />
ETCS-ID or phone number of the next RBC, it can be<br />
given this by the last RBC or a balise – but it cannot<br />
find out the key in the same way. And the same<br />
applies if an RBC does not know the key for a train<br />
arriving in its area.<br />
A process is defined in the Symmetric Key<br />
Management specification (Unisig document<br />
Subset064), but it should really come with a health<br />
warning! It should not be considered a real-time<br />
system, and is best used for a train in operation only<br />
in exceptional conditions, and preferably when the<br />
train is stationary – in fact it is likely to take so long<br />
that the train will be stationary.<br />
It requires the use of a home Key Management<br />
Centre (KMC), which could be a PC in a locked<br />
room. Trains only ever call their home KMC, so<br />
interoperability is not an issue here. Only KMCs talk<br />
directly to other KMCs. So, to take an example,<br />
assume an English train in France does not have the<br />
key for the French RBC:<br />
• the train tries to set up a connection as<br />
described above, only to find it does not have a<br />
working key;<br />
• it disconnects;<br />
• it sets up a connection to its own UK KMC and<br />
requests the key;<br />
• the UK KMC realises the key requested is within<br />
the control of the French KMC, and so sets up a<br />
connection to the French KMC;<br />
• the French KMC generates a key for use by the<br />
train and the RBC;<br />
• the French KMC then encrypts and distributes<br />
the new key to the French RBC;<br />
• when that is confirmed, the French KMC<br />
encrypts and sends the key to the UK KMC;<br />
• the UK KMC encrypts the key, and sends it to<br />
the English train;<br />
• the English train disconnects from the UK KMC,<br />
and sets up the connection to the French RBC<br />
and 20km down the line is the next French<br />
RBC…<br />
It is clear that with five connections being set up, this<br />
is a process best invoked at start-up and in<br />
emergencies. In practice, keys are likely to be<br />
created and downloaded for all RBCs likely to be<br />
encountered by a train.<br />
While on the subject of keys, of course different<br />
strategies are possible. The example above<br />
assumes the ‘normal’ situation where each pair of<br />
entities is allocated a unique key. But it would be<br />
quite possible, in a country or area, if the safety case<br />
allows it, to allocate:<br />
• the same key to all RBCs and trains;<br />
• a key for all trains of a particular type;<br />
• a key for all trains of a particular operator.<br />
This would overcome most of the problems. It really<br />
depends how careless you are – if you keep losing<br />
trains and RBCs, you need a key management<br />
policy that limits the damage to only the stolen<br />
equipment; if equipment is rarely if ever stolen, key
36<br />
EURORADIO AND THE RBC<br />
management can be very simple and relatively<br />
painless.<br />
4.3 MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODE<br />
To make it look easy, Figure 3 shows a generic<br />
encryption process.<br />
PLAINTEXT<br />
KEY<br />
ENCRYPTION<br />
ALGORITHM<br />
CIPHERTEXT<br />
Figure 3 – Encryption<br />
Apart from the terminology, an interesting point is<br />
that a single bit change in the plain text should, on<br />
average, change half the output ciphertext bits, if the<br />
encryption algorithm is a good one. In fact, if you<br />
change any or all the input bits, half the output bits<br />
should change. So you can find out nothing about<br />
the input bits from the output. Which is as it should<br />
be, though it does make error-correction a nonstarter.<br />
Now it is necessary to introduce the concept of<br />
Cipher-Block Chaining (CBC). If the plaintext and the<br />
key of Figure 1 are 8 bytes long, the ciphertext out is<br />
also 8 bytes. What happens if the message you want<br />
to send is longer than 8 bytes? The message can be<br />
divided into 8-byte blocks, and each encrypted<br />
individually, but input plaintext will always give the<br />
same ciphertext. One way of preventing this is to<br />
chain the enciphering blocks together, and this is<br />
shown in Figure 4.<br />
The first plaintext block is encrypted as before, but<br />
now the output is fed into the second block, so<br />
plaintext 2 is exclusive-OR’d with ciphertext 1 before<br />
being encrypted. So now ciphertext 2 depends on all<br />
the bits of plaintext 2, and all the bits of plaintext 1.<br />
And now it becomes a little clearer how a Message<br />
Authentication Code (MAC) works. For encryption,<br />
the ciphertext blocks 1 and 2 etc are the output –<br />
they are sent to the destination. But to create a MAC<br />
the ciphertexts are used only as input to the next<br />
PLAINTEXT 1<br />
8 bytes<br />
DES<br />
CIPHERTEXT 1<br />
8 bytes<br />
KEY<br />
PLAINTEXT 2<br />
8 bytes<br />
DES<br />
XOR<br />
CIPHERTEXT 2<br />
8 bytes<br />
KEY<br />
Figure 4 – Cipher Block Chain<br />
block; apart from which they can be thrown away.<br />
Because what you are left with at the end of this<br />
‘chain of enciphering blocks’ is 8 bytes that depend<br />
on every single bit of all the plaintexts 1, 2, etc. The<br />
same reasoning applies at the receiver, which<br />
performs exactly the same process. That is, the<br />
receiver takes the unencrypted plaintext coming in,<br />
and calculates a MAC from it and the shared key. If<br />
the received and calculated MACs match, then the<br />
message received is the same as at the place it was<br />
calculated, and the sender must have used the same<br />
key.<br />
There is one point about this that sometimes<br />
causes confusion. What has been described is<br />
‘single DES’. DES, or Data Encryption Standard,<br />
describes use of the Data Encryption Algorithm<br />
(DEA) which uses a 64 bit key, of which 56 bits are<br />
actual random key, and 8 are parity bits. An effective<br />
key of 56 bits is rather small considering the<br />
increases in processing power, and recently a<br />
successful attack has received publicity. However,<br />
the attack was a brute-force key search, so it is not<br />
true to say that DES has been ‘broken’ in the sense<br />
of finding a weakness that bypasses the brute-force<br />
approach – it simply demonstrates that any 56 bit<br />
key can be discovered in a reasonable time. This<br />
was predicted when EuroRadio was first specified,<br />
and the actual algorithm used is called ‘single DES<br />
with modified optional process’. This is a<br />
mechanism for giving the strength of triple-DES<br />
without incurring the extra time. What happens is<br />
shown in Figure 5.<br />
The single-DES approach is used to generate the<br />
MAC (B in Figure 5), but then the last block is<br />
decrypted with key 2 (C), then encrypted with key 3<br />
(D), ie the last block is triple encrypted. This has the<br />
benefit that, if key 2 is the same as key 3, there is<br />
compatibility with single DES, but that otherwise a<br />
brute-force attack must find all three keys, giving an<br />
unexpected effective key length of 112 bits (there<br />
are various shortcuts you can take in an attack that<br />
mean you do not have to try all three combinations<br />
of all keys, making the difficulty the same as that of<br />
attacking a single 112-bit key system).<br />
Now we have a strong authentication method, we<br />
can get on with setting up the connection. Well, not<br />
quite! We have a system where a hacker cannot<br />
produce false messages or create new ones,<br />
because he does not have the key. But what is to<br />
stop a hacker recording a message, waiting until the<br />
timestamp wraps round, then replaying it into the<br />
receiver? Or to stop the network storing the<br />
message unintentionally, and then delivering it at<br />
some future time? This ‘replay’ attack can be<br />
resisted either by having a very, very long timestamp<br />
or by using a ‘session key’, and it is this second<br />
approach that is specified for EuroRadio.<br />
In the authentication handshake messages,<br />
random numbers are exchanged. These are used in<br />
combination with the shared secret key to produce a<br />
shared session key, which is used only until the<br />
connection is ended. Next time a connection is<br />
needed, different random numbers are generated,<br />
producing a different session key.
EURORADIO AND THE RBC 37<br />
PLAINTEXT (N–1)<br />
PLAINTEXT (N)<br />
DES<br />
KEY<br />
1<br />
DES<br />
KEY<br />
1<br />
INVERSE<br />
DES<br />
KEY<br />
2<br />
DES<br />
KEY<br />
3<br />
A<br />
B<br />
C<br />
D<br />
CIPHERTEXT (N–1)<br />
8 bytes<br />
CIPHERTEXT (N)<br />
8 bytes<br />
MAC WITH SINGLE<br />
DES<br />
But we are still trying to set up a connection, so,<br />
assuming the right key is available, how is the<br />
connection authenticated? The answer is with a<br />
three-way handshake – and this is the second<br />
difficult part! Note that not all fields are discussed in<br />
detail, for example, the ‘direction flag’ which is<br />
included to resist a particular form of hacking attack.<br />
4.4 THE HANDSHAKE<br />
The train is trying to contact the RBC. It has the<br />
key, and all lower protocols have been set up. The<br />
first safety message, sent by the train, is catchily<br />
entitled the ‘first authentication safety protocol data<br />
unit’ (SaPDU), and contains the train’s ETCS-ID, the<br />
ID-type (for a train this is “engine”), a Safety Features<br />
field specifying DES (to allow for other options in the<br />
future), and an 8-byte random number.<br />
The RBC replies with – as expected – the ‘second<br />
authentication SaPDU’, which contains the RBC’s<br />
ETCS-ID, and ID-type (“RBC”), and another 8-byte<br />
random number, with a MAC.<br />
The train replies to the RBC with the ‘third<br />
authentication SaPDU’, which is basically just a<br />
MAC.<br />
Figure 5 – The Last Block<br />
CIPHERTEXT (N)<br />
8 bytes<br />
DECRYPTED WITH<br />
A SECOND KEY<br />
CIPHERTEXT (N)<br />
8 bytes<br />
ENCRYPTED WITH<br />
A THIRD KEY<br />
FINAL MAC<br />
So what’s going on, and why?<br />
The first message is easy – anyone could create it<br />
because it has no MAC. It has the train ID, but not<br />
the identity of the RBC, because it may be using the<br />
‘999’ method of connecting.<br />
The second message is harder. The RBC<br />
constructs the message of Figure 6(a), calculates the<br />
MAC, then sends the message of Figure 6(b). Note<br />
that the message length, the train’s address, the<br />
train’s random number and the padding bits are not<br />
transmitted – the train knows or can calculate them<br />
to insert into the received message before<br />
calculating the MAC and comparing it with the<br />
received MAC.<br />
The RBC is able to calculate the MAC of course<br />
because it knows the key and the two random<br />
numbers. The train cannot do this until this message<br />
arrives, because it needs the RBC’s random number.<br />
But once it receives it, the train is able to reply with<br />
the third authentication message, which plays the<br />
same trick – it calculates the MAC over the RBC’s<br />
address, the two random numbers, the Message<br />
Type Identifier and the Direction Flag, but only<br />
actually sends the MTI, the DF and the MAC.<br />
(a)<br />
LENGTH<br />
ID RBC TRAIN<br />
TRAIN<br />
RBC<br />
TYPE MTI DF<br />
SaF RAND RAND<br />
ADDRESS ADDR<br />
(engine) NUM NUM<br />
TRAIN<br />
ADDRESS<br />
PADDING<br />
BITS<br />
Calculates MAC<br />
sends:<br />
(b)<br />
ID<br />
TYPE<br />
MTI<br />
DF<br />
RBC<br />
ADDR<br />
RBC<br />
SaF RAND + MAC<br />
NUM<br />
MTI<br />
DF<br />
SaF<br />
= MESSAGE TYPE IDENTIFIER<br />
= DIRECTION FLAG<br />
= SAFETY FEATURES<br />
Figure 6 – Second Authentication Message from RBC to Train
38<br />
EURORADIO AND THE RBC<br />
Now we have made it to the end, almost! There is<br />
a fourth message confirming that the RBC accepts<br />
the connection – when the train application receives<br />
it, it knows a connection exists. We have an<br />
authenticated safety connection, over GSM-R, at<br />
last!<br />
Now, that initiation message from the train<br />
application can be delivered to the RBC, and the<br />
reply returned from the RBC to the train.<br />
4.5 SET-UP TIME<br />
It is clear that there is a lot of communication<br />
across the air interface that is nothing directly to do<br />
with the application message from the train to the<br />
RBC – and it all takes time. It is possible to estimate<br />
this, assuming that the transmission delay across<br />
GSM-R is about 400ms, as follows:<br />
– Train sets up GSM-R connection to<br />
RBC (ISDN) 5.0s<br />
– Data link layer set-up<br />
set async. balanced extended 0.4<br />
respond with UA 0.4<br />
– Network layer set-up – none 0<br />
– Transport layer set-up<br />
send CR TPDU 0.4<br />
receive CC TPDU 0.4<br />
– Safety layer set-up<br />
send first authentication message 0.4<br />
receive second authentication message 0.4<br />
send third authentication message 0.4<br />
receive fourth authentication message 0.4<br />
giving a total of 8.2s<br />
This is why such good radio coverage is required<br />
– unplanned disconnection and reconnection must<br />
be a rare event if the railway’s performance is not to<br />
be adversely affected. As always, good network<br />
planning by experienced experts is essential.<br />
And if you want a low-cost system, how might this<br />
be achieved? Omitting base stations is quite<br />
effective – deliberately making the system<br />
discontinuous where there is no data to be sent to<br />
the train or RBC. But this set-up time becomes a<br />
limiting parameter, as you must have coverage while<br />
all this is going on. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a<br />
packet system where the set-up could be retained<br />
whether or not the physical GSM-R layer was<br />
connected? Well there is one, called GPRS, but we<br />
come back to that later.<br />
4.6 CONNECTION<br />
So far, we have a connection, but we are doing<br />
little with it. Now we must start sending application<br />
messages end-to-end. And there are a few points to<br />
remember. The first is that buffer sizes are not<br />
infinite. For interoperability, it was necessary to<br />
define a maximum application message size – to<br />
avoid train equipment from one company sending a<br />
20kbyte message to another company’s RBC which<br />
only has a 10kbyte receive buffer.<br />
The size chosen is 1023 bytes. ‘Why?’ is not so<br />
important, though there are reasons. You can send<br />
messages bigger than this, but it will be up to the<br />
application to chop it into digestible 1023-byte<br />
mouthfuls.<br />
In addition, there is another port defined, although<br />
it is not necessarily implemented by all<br />
manufacturers (it is not required for European<br />
interoperability and so is not mandatory). This can<br />
be used to set up a non-safe transport connection<br />
for other applications. Of course, there is still only a<br />
GSM-R data channel at the bottom of all this,<br />
probably working at 4800bps, so care is needed in<br />
allocating channels – it is not quite the way to give<br />
passengers Internet access!<br />
During the course of a connection, there are two<br />
events that will occur with irritating regularity – both<br />
confusingly called ‘handover’. One is the Base<br />
Station handover, a function of GSM cellular<br />
networks, and the other is the RBC handover that is<br />
built in to ETCS.<br />
4.6.1 GSM-R Base Station Handover<br />
Every few kilometres, the train will move from the<br />
coverage of one Base Station to another. There is a<br />
complex handover process initiated by the mobile<br />
involving a change of frequency and time slot. The<br />
effect is to produce a break in communications of<br />
some 200-300ms, during which a receiver will<br />
receive severely corrupted messages. The HDLC<br />
Link layer will detect the errors and reject anything<br />
that looks anything like a frame, but there then<br />
needs to be an error-free period while recreatetransmission<br />
occurs. The effect seen by higher<br />
layers and the application will therefore be a delay,<br />
which gradually decreases to normal.<br />
4.6.2 RBC Handover<br />
The other handover is completely a function of the<br />
application. Eventually the train will reach the<br />
boundary of one area of control and need to pass<br />
control over to the next RBC. The use of two mobiles<br />
on the train is considered the best way to handle the<br />
problem of passing control of the train from one RBC<br />
to the next. The train has a connection with the ‘old’<br />
RBC over one radio. The train dials the next RBC,<br />
sets up a new connection, the RBCs hand over, and<br />
then the train disconnects from the old RBC. To do<br />
this means the new connection set-up must start a<br />
long way before it is needed, but that is OK – it can<br />
go through the same Base Station and network, just<br />
to a different destination.<br />
But what happens at a national border? There is<br />
likely to be an RBC handover at exactly the same<br />
place that the network changes. This really is very bad<br />
news, as it can take over 30s to subscribe to a new<br />
network and, even worse, the process must start long<br />
before a connection is needed, that is the train must<br />
connect to the new network when it is well within the<br />
coverage of the old network. Normally, a GSM mobile<br />
will look round for the network with the strongest<br />
signal strength (depending also on an internal list of<br />
preferred networks), so it will try to subscribe to the<br />
old network. So it is essential to have a way of forcing<br />
the mobile to subscribe to the new network, against<br />
its own natural inclinations. Of course, the new<br />
network must also be available, so it is likely that<br />
new-network base stations will have to be deployed<br />
into the old-network coverage area, requiring an<br />
outstanding level of co-operation between railways –<br />
and of course between licensing authorities
EURORADIO AND THE RBC 39<br />
4.7 DISCONNECTING<br />
After all this effort, it comes as a nice surprise that<br />
disconnection is quite painless – one of the<br />
applications decides to disconnect, the command<br />
ripples down the stack, and the protocol layers<br />
‘unpeel’ down to the physical, GSM-R, layer where<br />
one end hangs up.<br />
4.8 OTHER APPLICATIONS<br />
Well, fairly simple. What if you have made use of the<br />
excellent feature whereby a number of transport<br />
connections are provided over the single network<br />
connection? To avoid an impolite interruption to an<br />
ongoing connection, the network connection is not<br />
released until all the transport connections using it are<br />
released. Which, although a fine example of good<br />
manners, could cause a problem if the ETCS application<br />
would like to talk to a new RBC, and there is, say, a<br />
large, non-safety diagnostics dump still being sent to the<br />
last RBC. The solution of course is the same as in any<br />
polite conversation – keep your sentences short.<br />
4.9 NETWORK DISCONNECT<br />
It has also been known for the physical connection<br />
to break, ie for GSM to disconnect. How can this be<br />
handled? At present there is no option but to break<br />
down the other connected layers, and then start<br />
again. However, there are three solutions in the pipeline<br />
than can help shorten the time it takes to recover.<br />
The first is a network reconnection – this has the<br />
benefit of being relatively fast (say 5s to detect loss<br />
of connection, then another 5s to reconnect), as no<br />
reconstruction of the EuroRadio layers is needed.<br />
The second is a proposed modification to<br />
EuroRadio, called ‘fast reconnect’, where the safety<br />
layer is maintained while the lower layers are<br />
reconnected. This will save the three-way authentication<br />
handshake time, but not much else, and may<br />
not be worth developing to save some 1.2s.<br />
A third solution is GPRS, the General Packet Radio<br />
System, which has a completely different way of<br />
working from the normal GSM-R data call.<br />
5 GPRS – THE FUTURE<br />
There is an ongoing debate over GPRS as this<br />
paper is being written, so for completeness let’s look<br />
at some of the upsides/downsides of GPRS whilst<br />
the debate reaches a conclusion. But note, GPRS<br />
does not currently form part of the ERTMS – this is a<br />
look at the future.<br />
As we have seen, conventional GSM sets up a data<br />
call just like a voice call – an end-to-end connection.<br />
The other way of working is to set up a ‘virtual’<br />
connection that looks like a circuit to the upper layers,<br />
but at the lower layers consists of packets of<br />
information, fired off at intervals. Packets have to<br />
contain all the information necessary for the network to<br />
deliver them, but because they are only sent at<br />
intervals, there are gaps between them that allow other<br />
senders to transmit their information (see Figure 7).<br />
This is ideally suited to ‘bursty’ information, such<br />
as short occasional ATP messages, and gives the<br />
enormous benefit of allowing several trains to share<br />
the same channel – good news if you have a dense<br />
railway and are running out of channels.<br />
(application)<br />
SAFETY LAYER<br />
* TCP / UDP *<br />
* IP *<br />
(GSM-R)<br />
Figure 7 – GPRS changes<br />
There is a downside of course – the price you pay<br />
is an increase in transmission delay. How much<br />
depends on how much capacity you build into the<br />
system – the more you pay, the better the<br />
performance. Typically, it is expected to be about<br />
700ms instead of 400ms, but it will vary with load.<br />
However, there is another big plus – connection<br />
set up time effectively vanishes. When a GPRS<br />
mobile switches on, it ‘registers’ with the network –<br />
a time-consuming process similar to setting up a<br />
circuit connection. The difference is it only happens<br />
once, probably at the start of each day. Once<br />
registered, the mobile and the network are both<br />
aware of each other, and can initiate data<br />
transmission with only a very short delay to ensure<br />
no one else is transmitting. In between, the mobile<br />
and the network remember each other, for a<br />
configurable time up to hours. So as long as there is<br />
nothing to transmit, a train could go through a radio<br />
hole (accidental or deliberate) and not notice.<br />
This has many benefits, from base station<br />
maintenance through to a low-cost system with discontinuous<br />
radio coverage, but it will involve some<br />
major changes to the EuroRadio protocol stack, and<br />
should not be expected for maybe one to two years.<br />
However, by having the magic abbreviation ‘TCP/IP’<br />
cast over it, it will inevitably become the most<br />
popular protocol stack in use by the railways!<br />
6 CONCLUSION<br />
We have taken the opportunity in this paper of<br />
explaining a little more of the internal workings of<br />
EuroRadio and the RBC, with the emphasis on<br />
EuroRadio. While the concept of EuroRadio is simple<br />
to understand, there are some aspects of the way it<br />
works that anyone who uses it should be aware of.<br />
Similarly, the RBC is easy to understand on the<br />
surface, but this surface masks a level of complexity<br />
that is not visible from the specifications. Interoperability<br />
demands total compliance with a detailed<br />
internal and external specification for EuroRadio,<br />
whereas it is interface compliance, especially the<br />
train and interlocking interfaces, rather than internal<br />
functionality, that is essential for the RBC.<br />
7 REFERENCES<br />
Unisig document – Subset037 EuroRadio FIS.<br />
Unisig document – Subset064 Symmetric Key<br />
Management System Specification.
40<br />
EURORADIO AND THE RBC<br />
Discussion<br />
The discussion was opened by J Corrie (Mott<br />
MacDonald) who asked the speakers’ views on<br />
whether the necessity for the train to always initiate<br />
a call was an efficient way of using the network and<br />
asked if the train “learnt” the time from the RBC. He<br />
also questioned the use of 4.8 kBits for all communications<br />
and wondered if, despite the industry wide<br />
co-operation, how long the system would be<br />
supported before becoming obsolete.<br />
C Riley accepted that the requirement for the train<br />
to initiate calls would cause capacity problems.<br />
Although the trackside could initiate calls, this is not<br />
a requirement of the system.<br />
J Harmer explained that time, in this application, is<br />
simply a counter and not “real time”. He also stated<br />
that communication could be undertaken at 2.4, 4.8<br />
or 9.6 kBits dependent upon system design.<br />
C Riley commented that he believed that system<br />
architecture is critical to allow component upgrade<br />
and alleviate the future obsolescence problems.<br />
C Eaglen (Railtrack) wanted to know how the<br />
industry would integrate the various specialist technologies<br />
and deliver the project.<br />
C Riley stated that the only way was as an<br />
industry, drawing on the expertise in the specialist<br />
areas. He reiterated that progress so far was as a<br />
result of this collaborative approach.<br />
K Ford (Thales) observed that track to train<br />
messages, such as emergency stop, are allowed at<br />
present. He also questioned how the ETCS-IDs are<br />
set up and link into the radio numbering scheme<br />
such that the correct train can be sent the correct<br />
information at the correct time.<br />
J Harmer informed that all ETCS-IDs are defined<br />
at manufacture and once the link is established<br />
between the train and the RBC, bi-directional<br />
communication results. The problem exists with<br />
initially establishing the link, as the train does not<br />
necessarily know the “local” RBC network ID.<br />
D Waboso (EPT) stated that the technological<br />
solutions already exist; the real difficulties are not<br />
with the engineering but the cultural and organisational<br />
problems.<br />
C H Porter (Lloyds MHA) expressed his concerns<br />
about the ability of the system to maintain communications<br />
and questioned whether the system<br />
had been trialled to prove operation.<br />
J Harmer replied that the system does work and<br />
that the real issue is one of reliability.<br />
C Riley stated that safety is never compromised<br />
but reliability needs to be engineered by design.<br />
P Stanley (President) commented that an ERTMS<br />
European Conference is held annually detailing test<br />
results and progress but very few UK engineers<br />
attend. He also observed that the saving grace for<br />
the use of GSM in railway applications was the<br />
concentration of supply from specific suppliers.<br />
K Moxsom (Thales) commented that coverage is<br />
all-important together with provision of dual MSCs.<br />
He also questioned how quickly reconnect could be<br />
achieved.<br />
J Harmer answered that reconnect can be<br />
achieved in 15 to 20 seconds.<br />
J Poré (Alstom) questioned when the RBC will be<br />
up and running and asked what is displayed to the<br />
driver when initially setting-up the connection with<br />
the RBC.<br />
C Riley responded by informing the meeting that<br />
an RBC is currently in the process of being commissioned<br />
in Spain. He was unsure of what was<br />
displayed to the driver whilst setting-up.<br />
F Hewlett (retired) observed that there are similarities<br />
with air traffic control in that aircraft know<br />
where the control centres are but the control centres<br />
do not know the location of the aircraft until<br />
connections are established.<br />
D Jeffrey (Railtrack) was interested in knowing<br />
how key management and security would be maintained.<br />
J Harmer said that key management had not been<br />
considered.<br />
I Harman (Union Railways) questioned the nature<br />
of the relationship between CSR and EuroRadio and<br />
how the interfaces were to be managed.<br />
C Riley responded by stating that this was an<br />
issue that had yet to be decided.<br />
C Eaglen (Railtrack) commented that CSR is a<br />
tried and trusted system with Signallers knowing the<br />
position of trains and he believed this functionality<br />
should be incorporated within the RBC.<br />
C Riley agreed but considered it was not yet<br />
practical to consider operational aspects.<br />
An Alstom representative asked how secure the<br />
keys were.<br />
J Harmer explained that the specification requires<br />
that keys cannot be “physically” extracted but<br />
security is dependant on their distribution, which has<br />
yet to be decided.<br />
The Alstom representative questioned how far off<br />
this decision was.<br />
C Riley answered that this particular issue is some<br />
way from resolution.<br />
D Waboso (EPT) informed the meeting that the<br />
relevant technical experts are addressing all of these<br />
problems and a report into the solutions is due for<br />
publication in 2008. He reiterated that all of the<br />
technological problems can, and would be,<br />
resolved. He also commented that GSM-R would be<br />
the national replacement for CSR.<br />
E Goddard (LUL) was interested in the balance<br />
between safety, security and the application and<br />
also wondered if the inter-layer dependence would<br />
cause problems as technology advanced.<br />
C Riley responded by answering that the system is<br />
“bottom-up” engineered.<br />
J Harmer stated that the design philosophy has<br />
developed into separate communication hazards<br />
and application issues. He did not believe that there
EURORADIO AND THE RBC 41<br />
would be a problem as technology advanced; that<br />
was the philosophy behind the layered approach.<br />
J Mew (Thales) warned of the necessity for key<br />
management.<br />
J Harmer agreed with this stating that the object of<br />
encryption was to prevent communication.<br />
D Weedon (AMEC Rail) asked if there was a<br />
mathematical target level of security to protect<br />
against an unsafe event. He also suggested that if<br />
the comparable level of safety was as good as, or<br />
better than existing systems, no statistical analysis<br />
would be necessary.<br />
C Riley replied that although there is no specified<br />
target, it should be noted that the RBC could not<br />
override the interlocking. The potential for an<br />
incorrect movement authority to be given does exist<br />
and hence the need for encryption. He also agreed<br />
that it must be a widely held belief that there were<br />
safety benefits or development would not have got<br />
this far.<br />
J Harmer stated that a figure of one message<br />
falsely accepted in 40 years within Europe was<br />
generally quoted. Even with a determined hacker,<br />
the likelihood of acceptance of a false message was<br />
1 in 10,000 years.<br />
R E B Barnard (Alstom) referred to a recent report<br />
that concluded protection of communications<br />
systems required doubling each year to prevent<br />
malicious attacks and therefore GSM must be<br />
over-engineered to provide this level of security over<br />
the life of the system.<br />
D Djezzar commented that whilst efforts are made<br />
to provide system security by encryption, it is probably<br />
easier to affect system availability simply by<br />
bombarding the network with false information.<br />
J Harmer agreed that availability presents different<br />
hazards but loss of a base station to train link would<br />
bring the train to a stand; a fail-safe situation. He<br />
also challenged how often public networks fail<br />
because of malicious attacks.<br />
D McKeown (Independent Consultant) wanted<br />
some reassurance that there were real benefits to be<br />
gained.<br />
C Riley reiterated that the technology can<br />
overcome the difficulties and that there are real<br />
opportunities to not only make substantial cost<br />
savings but also provide network flexibility. The EPT<br />
team is working to deliver a rollout programme using<br />
the technology to the full.<br />
The President thanked Mr Riley and Mr Harmer for<br />
their paper and contribution to the subsequent<br />
discussion.<br />
Level Crossings/Signaling<br />
• Fishplates<br />
Universal Switch Clamps<br />
Track Gauges<br />
•<br />
Henry Williams are a Darlington based company who have been<br />
established in the Railway industry for over 120 years, and are<br />
internationally recognised for their quality products and services.<br />
SAGEM Treadle Switches/Train Stop Equipment<br />
Point Heater Control and Supply Cubicles<br />
Lighting Control and Distribution Cubicles<br />
• Domino® Entrance/Exit Panels<br />
Mechanical/Electrical Assembled Location Cases & REB’s<br />
Mild and Stainless Steel Location Cases<br />
Drop and Upset Railway Forgings<br />
Henry Williams Group<br />
DODSWORTH STREET, DARLINGTON, CO. DURHAM, ENGLAND DL1 2NJ<br />
Telephone: 01325 462722 Fax: 01325 245220 E-mail: sales@hwilliams.co.uk<br />
Website: www.hwilliams.co.uk
42<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution<br />
held at<br />
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2<br />
Tuesday 10th December <strong>2002</strong><br />
The President, Mr P W Stanley, in the chair.<br />
71 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr J Tilly, seconded by Mr D McKeown and carried that the<br />
Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 6th November <strong>2002</strong> be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct<br />
record. The President reported that Mr B Grose, who had for many years summarised the discussion at technical meetings for<br />
publication in the <strong>Proceedings</strong>, had resigned from the honorary office of Assistant Papers Editor and a replacement was being sought<br />
urgently. Any member wishing to volunteer to take up this important role for the Institution should kindly inform the office.<br />
Mr Jason Lo, of Alstom, was present for the first time since his election to membership and was introduced to the meeting and<br />
welcomed amidst applause.<br />
The President then introduced Mr C Frerichs, of Siemens Transportation Systems, and invited him to present his paper entitled<br />
“EuroCab and the Driver MMI”. Mr Frerichs illustrated his presentation with computer slides and explained the principles of EuroCab<br />
and the Driver MMI giving examples from the Siemens product range.<br />
Following the presentation Messrs C H Porter, <strong>IRSE</strong>; P Wiltshire Cenelec SC9XA Committee; P Bassett, AEA Technology; P Vandermark,<br />
Driver First GW; K Molt, Thales; D Woodland, Bechtel; I Mitchell, AEA Technology; and J Lo, Alstom, took part in the discussion.<br />
Mr Frerichs dealt with the questions in a comprehensive manner. The President then proposed a vote of thanks and presented the<br />
speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.<br />
The President then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting by announcing that the next meeting in<br />
London would be held on the 15th January <strong>2003</strong> when Mr I Mitchell will present a paper on “Signalling Control Centres”.<br />
Eurocab and the Driver MMI – an introduction to the technology<br />
Christian Frerichs 1<br />
ABSTRACT<br />
ERTMS/ETCS consists of two subsystems: the<br />
trackside subsystem and the on-board subsystem.<br />
The latter is dealt with in this paper. Legal and<br />
technical requirements relevant to the ERTMS/ETCS<br />
onboard subsystem and its system architecture are<br />
described. Requirements for integrating ERTMS/<br />
ETCS onboard subsystems into vehicles are highlighted,<br />
and typical architectural designs are<br />
presented. Within the ERTMS/ETCS architecture,<br />
special attention is drawn to the Driver’s MMI, which<br />
is the key component for system operation. The<br />
Siemens ERTMS/ETCS Onboard System, being one<br />
of the most progressive and state-of-the-art<br />
solutions, is presented and its benefits are<br />
highlighted.<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
With the ongoing introduction of ERTMS/ETCS<br />
(European Rail Traffic Management System/ European<br />
Train Control System), Europe is on its way to<br />
overcoming a long history of railways having their<br />
own, proprietary ATP/ATC systems, so preventing<br />
cross-border traffic and an open market. The system<br />
is being introduced both in law – by EC directive<br />
96/48 1 and the underlying TSI Control Order 2 – and in<br />
practice by utilising it in pilot sites like the German<br />
Berlin–Halle/Leipzig project and in commercial<br />
projects like the new Spanish Madrid–Barcelona line<br />
with its demanding 350 km/h service.<br />
ERTMS/ETCS is an ATC system consisting of<br />
trackside and onboard subsystems. The trackside<br />
subsystem, although clearly governed by the<br />
specifications referenced in the TSI, allows great<br />
1 Siemens Transportation Systems, Ackerstrasse 22, D-38023<br />
Braunschweig, Germany<br />
freedom in realisation, which is a tribute to the need<br />
to adapt to existing infrastructure (apart from the fact<br />
that trackside solutions for Level 1 and Level 2 are<br />
different). The onboard subsystem however is<br />
governed to a much greater extent by European (TSI<br />
referenced) specifications, with mandatory functionality<br />
and mandatory interface requirements.<br />
The purpose of this paper is to give an<br />
introductory presentation of the specifications and<br />
implementations of the ERTMS/ETCS onboard<br />
subsystem. The ERTMS/ETCS onboard subsystem<br />
is also known as Eurocab, an expression that is<br />
slightly outdated as it is no longer used in the current<br />
ERTMS/ETCS specifications. A core element of the<br />
onboard subsystem is the Driver-Machine Interface<br />
(Driver MMI or DMI), because it is the interface<br />
between the technical system and the train driver.<br />
LEGISLATION AND SPECIFICATIONS<br />
GOVERNING ERTMS/ETCS<br />
In 1996 the Council of the European Community<br />
issued Directive 96/48 1 . This contains guidelines for<br />
an interoperable trans-European high-speed rail<br />
network, in the form of standards in respect of<br />
technical facilities and railway operation. This<br />
directive has since been adopted into national law<br />
by the EU member states. Meanwhile it has been<br />
complemented by a directive which mandates<br />
interoperability on conventional lines as well 3 .<br />
Directive 96/48 1 is supplemented by the Technical<br />
Specifications for Interoperability (TSI), which<br />
describe requirements and features which are to apply<br />
to those technical systems affected by interoperability<br />
demands, eg the control, command and signalling<br />
system 2 . The latter references the actual technical<br />
specifications according to which the technical<br />
system has to be designed and implemented.
EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY 43<br />
Document Name Reference Version Normative/<br />
Number Number Informative<br />
ERTMS/ETCS Functional Requirements Specification (FRS) — 4.29 Normative<br />
ERTMS/ETCS System Requirements Specification (SRS) SUBSET-026 2.2.2 Normative<br />
FFFIS for Eurobalise SUBSET-036 2.0.0 Normative<br />
Euroradio FIS SUBSET-037 2.0.0 Normative<br />
Euroradio FFFIS Class 1 requirements SUBSET-052 2.0.0 Normative<br />
Specific Transmission Module FFFIS SUBSET-035 2.0.0 Normative<br />
Dimensioning and Engineering rules SUBSET-040 2.0.0 Normative<br />
Performance Requirements for Interoperability SUBSET-041 2.0.0 Normative<br />
FFFIS Juridical Recorder Downloading Tool SUBSET-027 2.0.0 Normative<br />
FIS for the Train Interface SUBSET-034 2.0.0 Normative<br />
FIS for the Man-Machine Interface SUBSET-033 2.0.0 Normative<br />
ERTMS Driver Machine Interface Part I Ergonomic V21.doc 12/04/2000 Informative<br />
arrangement of ERTMS/ETCS Information<br />
ERTMS Driver Machine Interface Part III Data entry Procedure V11.doc 12/04/2000 Informative<br />
ERTMS Driver Machine Interface Part IV Symbols V06.doc 12/01/2000 Informative<br />
ERTMS Driver Machine Interface Part V Audible information V08ns.doc 27/03/2000 Informative<br />
ERTMS Driver Machine Interface Part VI Specific Transmission V04.doc 27/03/2000 Informative<br />
Modules<br />
Table 1: Relevant Specifications for ERTMS/ETCS Onboard Subsystem<br />
For the ERTMS/ETCS system, which is the<br />
technical system required by the TSI in order to<br />
achieve interoperability, the technical specifications<br />
were issued by the UNISIG industry group at the<br />
beginning of 2000, and were adopted by the<br />
European railways and the European signalling<br />
industry in a ceremony on 25th April 2000 in Madrid.<br />
The core document of these specifications is the<br />
System Requirement Specification (SRS) 4 . The SRS<br />
has undergone a debugging process since then,<br />
leading to a revised version 2.2.2 5 which is now<br />
referenced in the TSI and which is, together with the<br />
other ERTMS/ETCS specification documents,<br />
mandatory for implementation of the system.<br />
Table 1 shows the main documents relevant to<br />
implementation of the ERTMS ETCS onboard<br />
subsystem. The Functional Requirement Specification<br />
(FRS), being a functional specification, does<br />
not specify any technical solutions and is therefore<br />
only marginally relevant when implementing a<br />
system, and the SRS is the key document for this. It<br />
describes the architecture and functionality of the<br />
system and the ETCS language, and it is the source<br />
for all other documentation. Although it is a<br />
specification for the whole system, it includes the<br />
onboard subsystem. The SRS is accompanied by a<br />
set of supplementary specifications, such as<br />
performance requirements etc, and by interface<br />
specifications. There are two kinds of these:<br />
Functional Interface Specifications (such as the FIS<br />
for the Man-Machine Interface) which specify only<br />
the logical interface, and Form-Fit-Functional<br />
Interface Specifications (such as the FFFIS for<br />
Eurobalise) which prescribe physical features of the<br />
interface as well. All the above specifications are<br />
mandatory, but this is not the case for the ergonomic<br />
layout of the DMI, which is specified in the ERTMS<br />
Driver Machine Interface Specifications (parts I-VI).<br />
It must be emphasised that the specifications<br />
govern only those features of the system that are<br />
relevant to interoperability. This means that features<br />
that do not affect interoperability (e.g. diagnosis) are<br />
not described, and are at the discretion of the<br />
manufacturer.<br />
ERTMS/ETCS ONBOARD<br />
ARCHITECTURE AND FUNCTIONALITY<br />
ERTMS/ETCS is an ATC system with an onboard<br />
and a trackside part, and there is a clear<br />
interoperability requirement between these even if<br />
they are supplied by different manufacturers.<br />
Therefore the interfaces between onboard and<br />
trackside subsystems, and also the partition of<br />
system functionality between onboard and<br />
trackside, must be specified very thoroughly. On the<br />
other hand the concept of interoperability includes<br />
specifying only to the extent that interoperability is<br />
affected. This leads to a system concept different<br />
from what was discussed at the start of the history<br />
of ETCS, when a concept of exchangeability of<br />
components was on the table. The actual<br />
ERTMS/ETCS specifications are based on a blackbox<br />
concept, with clearly defined functionality and<br />
interfaces but with maximum freedom to design<br />
onboard and trackside equipment.<br />
Figure 1 shows the ERTMS/ETCS system<br />
architecture. The onboard subsystem is depicted in<br />
the upper part. As mentioned above, the onboard<br />
subsystem is a black box with the following<br />
interfaces:<br />
• Train Interface (TIU) – eg to brakes, traction<br />
control, air conditioning, etc.<br />
• Driver MMI.
44<br />
EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY<br />
STM<br />
National<br />
System<br />
FFFIS<br />
Train<br />
FIS<br />
TIU<br />
EUROBALIKE EUROLOOP EURO-<br />
RADIO<br />
Radio<br />
infill unit<br />
FFFIS (FFFIS) (FIS)<br />
Interlocking<br />
and LEU<br />
Control Centre<br />
Kernel<br />
MMI<br />
BTM LTM EURORADIO<br />
FFFIS<br />
FFFIS<br />
Driver<br />
FIS<br />
Jur.<br />
ETCS Recording<br />
Onboard<br />
FIS<br />
FFFIS<br />
GSM-<br />
Mobile<br />
GSMfixed<br />
network<br />
EURORADIO<br />
RBC 1<br />
FIS<br />
Figure 1 – ERTMS/ETCS System Architecture<br />
• Juridical Recording Downloading Tool –<br />
interface for authorities to download stored<br />
information.<br />
• STM (Specific Transmission Module) – interface<br />
to modules of heritage systems.<br />
• Eurobalise (BTM – Balise Transmission System)<br />
air gap interface.<br />
• Euroloop (LTM – Loop Transmission Module) air<br />
gap interface.<br />
• Euroradio interface to the GSM-R mobile.<br />
The TIU and the DMI interface are only specified<br />
as functional interfaces, ie it is up to the<br />
manufacturer to design the physical interface as<br />
long as the logical requirements are met.<br />
As already mentioned, a set of informative<br />
documents exists for the DMI, specifying the<br />
ergonomic interface between the ERTMS/ETCS<br />
onboard subsystem and the driver (see Table 1).<br />
Although they are not prescribed in law, they are<br />
often seen as quasi-standards. Created by<br />
CENELEC Working Group WGA9D, these<br />
documents specify the ergonomic arrangement of<br />
the information on the DMI display, the symbols<br />
used, the audible information and the data entry<br />
procedure.<br />
FIS<br />
JRU<br />
Downloading<br />
Tool<br />
FFFIS<br />
Odometry<br />
FIS<br />
RBC 2<br />
ETCS Trackside<br />
FIS<br />
FIS<br />
Key<br />
Management<br />
Centre<br />
Besides specifying the system architecture, the<br />
SRS also describes the functionality of the system.<br />
The functionality, the details of which will not be<br />
described here, is roughly comparable to high-end<br />
ATC systems like the German system LZB 80. It is<br />
scalable from an overlay spot transmission system<br />
(ETCS Level 1), via a continuous transmission<br />
system (Level 2) to a sophisticated stand-alone<br />
system (Level 3). Compared to older systems, the<br />
onboard system includes more functionality, eg<br />
calculation of braking curves and other<br />
performance-demanding features.<br />
THE SIEMENS SOLUTION FOR AN ETCS<br />
SUBSYSTEM<br />
On the basis of the above-mentioned<br />
specifications Siemens has developed an ERTMS/<br />
ETCS onboard equipment. It consists of a European<br />
Vital Computer (EVC) which can be integrated in the<br />
most flexible way into a vehicle, and which can<br />
utilise peripherals such as wheel sensors, DMIs,<br />
radar sensors etc in a similarly flexible way. The goal<br />
was to develop an EVC with minimum space<br />
requirements integrating as much functionality as<br />
possible (eg Eurobalise BTM functionality, option to<br />
integrate Euroloop functionality and STM interface).<br />
The onboard equipment will be simply upgradeable<br />
to Level 2, and will be fully-compliant with the<br />
specifications mentioned above.<br />
Figure 2 shows a photograph of a Level 1 EVC. It<br />
consists of only one 19” rack measuring 438mm x<br />
135mm x 320mm. All cable connections are via the<br />
front side. The EVC itself is EMC shielded, so it can<br />
be mounted in a cabinet with a “dirty” environment.<br />
The power consumption is below 120W, so no<br />
ventilation is necessary normally. The equipment is<br />
designed to meet EN 50155 and SIL 4.<br />
The vital computer is based on hardware<br />
synchronised as a 2-out-of-2 computer. If<br />
redundancy is needed it will be realised in a 2 * 2v2<br />
architecture. The vital computer is based on the<br />
SIMIS architecture – well proven in several safe<br />
implementations including onboard applications.<br />
The equipment shown contains a power supply, the<br />
vital computer core, and several peripheral<br />
interfaces including direct safe I/Os, MVB and<br />
optional Profibus STM connections. Odometry,<br />
Figure 2 – Photograph of Siemens ERTMS/ETCS Level 1 equipment
EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY 45<br />
Eurobalise and Euroloop (optional) transmission<br />
module functionality is included. The DMI is<br />
connected via MVB.<br />
This system can be easily upgraded by a<br />
Euroradio module (via serial connection) in a second<br />
rack. Ample space is available in this to integrate<br />
peripheral modules such as GSM-R mobile or a<br />
juridical recorder, which is not available in the EVC.<br />
DRIVER MACHINE INTERFACES<br />
DMIs are displays mounted in the driver’s desk.<br />
They are available from several suppliers, such as<br />
Deuta and Pixy. For ERTMS/ETCS suppliers, these<br />
modules are normally peripheral units which will be<br />
connected to the EVC by the communications bus<br />
(MVB in the case of Siemens ERTMS/ETCS<br />
equipment).<br />
Figure 3 shows an example of an ETCS display,<br />
from Deuta. It includes an LCD display with a 10.4”<br />
display area. Input is either via softwareprogrammable<br />
keys at the edge of the display or via<br />
a touch-sensitive display. The mechanical design is<br />
rugged to allow operation on railway vehicles, and<br />
flat to allow integration in the driver’s desk. The<br />
display contains its own computer, normally a<br />
rugged industrial PC, to handle the graphics.<br />
Temperature management, to prevent the display<br />
from becoming defective as a result of exceeding its<br />
temperature limit, and brightness control are stateof-the-art.<br />
Displays are not vital components, and safety of<br />
operation must be established by proper<br />
procedures. For individual safety-relevant inputs and<br />
outputs, it may be necessary to provide separate<br />
direct safe switches and indications. The availability<br />
of displays is very important, and so it seems<br />
desirable to provide redundant MMIs. This is<br />
normally possible on modern railway vehicles, which<br />
have other displays for other, less important<br />
applications.<br />
Figure 3 – Example of a DMI (Deuta)<br />
INTEGRATING ERTMS/ETCS ONBOARD<br />
EQUIPMENT INTO VEHICLES<br />
As well as conforming with the ERTMS/ETCS<br />
specifications, onboard equipment must be<br />
integrated into a specific vehicle and must comply<br />
with the additional specific requirements of the train<br />
operator (which must not offend against the<br />
interoperability requirements). To illustrate what this<br />
means, two examples will be presented.<br />
The first example is the implementation of Siemens<br />
ERTMS/ETCS Level 1 equipment on a Class 1116<br />
locomotive of Austrian Railways (ÖBB). These are<br />
existing locomotives fitted with LZB/Indusi and the<br />
Hungarian EVM system. They have a Multifunction<br />
Vehicle Bus (MVB) which connects the ATC system<br />
to its peripherals (eg man machine interface, juridical<br />
recorder) and to other systems (eg ATO – automatic<br />
train operation). The ERTMS/ETCS equipment has to<br />
be integrated into this existing structure. Figure 4<br />
shows how this will be done.<br />
For the ERTMS/ETCS system, the EVC will be<br />
integrated into an existing cabinet. Fortunately, due<br />
to the minimal space requirements of the EVC, the<br />
space available allows this. New peripherals for<br />
ETCS are the Eurobalise antenna (to be mounted<br />
under the body of the locomotive), two radar sensors<br />
(to be mounted below the body, the second one<br />
being necessary in case of high slip and slide<br />
percentages) and two wheel sensors. As axle ends<br />
are limited, multi-channel wheel sensors are used,<br />
free channels feeding the EVM odometry as well.<br />
Optionally the ETCS Level 1 equipment can be<br />
upgraded to Level 2, in which case a Euroradio<br />
module and GSM-R onboard equipment have to be<br />
added.<br />
The ERTMS/ETCS is integrated into the MVB<br />
architecture. It connects the DMI (also used by LZB),<br />
the diagnosis MMI (which serves as a standby for<br />
the DMI), some separate switches which have to be<br />
connected in a safe manner, the juridical recorder<br />
(shared between the systems), and train-related<br />
systems. An additional safe indication of system<br />
working (LMÜ/ETCS) is a national requirement, and<br />
is realised as a direct output. Similarly the isolation<br />
switch is realised at the EVC, as a direct switch. The<br />
brake is connected directly (via a brake loop for the<br />
vigilance system Sifa) and redundantly via the MVB.<br />
The second example is the ATC solution for the<br />
AVE S102 trains (Talgo 350) to be manufactured by<br />
Talgo/Bombardier for operation at 350 km/h on the<br />
new Madrid–Lleida line in Spain. These new trains<br />
will be fitted with ERTMS/ETCS Level 2 (including<br />
GSM-R), LZB and ASFA. A Siemens-led consortium<br />
will integrate the systems. The system architecture is<br />
depicted in Figure 5.<br />
The most demanding issue for these trains is the<br />
outstanding availability requirement. For the<br />
ERTMS/ETCS system this leads to an architecture<br />
with complete redundancy. The onboard computer<br />
is realised as a 2 * 2v2 computer, and all peripherals<br />
(except for the juridical recorder) are implemented in<br />
a fully redundant way. As in the first example, the<br />
MVB serves as a communication backbone between<br />
EVC, DMI, diagnosis MMIs and train operating
46<br />
EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY<br />
Cab1<br />
ETCS<br />
Display<br />
Switches<br />
(via KLIP)<br />
Diagnostic<br />
Display<br />
Juridical<br />
Recorder<br />
Train Control<br />
ATO<br />
X<br />
X<br />
Cab2<br />
LM<br />
O/ETCS<br />
MVB<br />
Antenna Antenna<br />
LZB80<br />
Indusi<br />
ETCS<br />
L1<br />
/ /<br />
Klip<br />
Station<br />
X X X<br />
Isolation<br />
Switch<br />
Isolation<br />
Switch<br />
Euro<br />
Radio<br />
GSM-R<br />
Data<br />
EVM<br />
Ballse<br />
antenna<br />
Option: Upgrade to Level 2<br />
Emergency Brake<br />
(via Sifa loop)<br />
Isolation<br />
Switch<br />
Antennas<br />
& Sensors<br />
n<br />
n<br />
Brake<br />
Sifa<br />
n<br />
INDUSI<br />
LZB-Antennas<br />
Wheel<br />
sensors<br />
*2<br />
2’ Radar<br />
2 Wheel sensors<br />
Figure 4 – Onboard architecture of Class 1116 locomotive<br />
ETCS-DMI<br />
Diagnosis MMI<br />
Train Control<br />
ATO<br />
JR<br />
national<br />
Switches<br />
Profibus (FFFIS STM)<br />
train bus (MVB)<br />
KLIP<br />
LMÜ<br />
EVC<br />
L1/L2<br />
+<br />
nat.<br />
Add Ons<br />
4<br />
LZB-<br />
STM<br />
JR<br />
ETCS<br />
ASFA<br />
Antenna<br />
WSens<br />
Radar<br />
Antennae<br />
Antenna<br />
Bremse<br />
Train infrastructure LZB ETCS<br />
Figure 5 – ATC Architecture on AVE S 102 trains
EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY 47<br />
systems. The LZB system is realised as an STM in<br />
full compliance with the STM specifications (taking<br />
into account changes which are already in the<br />
change control process). ASFA is implemented as a<br />
separate system, only controlled by ETCS via a 4-<br />
wire digital connection. In this example too a need<br />
for direct safe switches and indications arises from<br />
national requirements.<br />
Concluding the two examples, it becomes clear<br />
that integration of ERTMS/ETCS equipment is by no<br />
means a simple issue. Space limitations, the nature<br />
of other infrastructure on the train or a locomotive<br />
(be it a new one or an existing one) and additional<br />
national requirements all have to be taken into<br />
consideration.<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
The ERTMS/ETCS standards are expected to be<br />
finalised at the beginning of next year, and<br />
ERTMS/ETCS onboard equipment is becoming<br />
available at the same time. During <strong>2003</strong> tests in<br />
various pilot projects will be finished, and the first<br />
commercial projects will be completed. Thus the<br />
equipment will be validated and certified, ready for<br />
utilisation in commercial projects.<br />
It has been shown that state-of-the-art onboard<br />
equipment is already now available – a Siemens<br />
EVC with minimum space requirements, scalable for<br />
all ERTMS/ETCS applications. Peripheral units such<br />
as radar sensors and DMIs are available that are fully<br />
compliant with ERTMS/ETCS requirements.<br />
However, it has also been shown that meeting<br />
national requirements and integrating ERTMS/ETCS<br />
onboard equipment into the environment of a<br />
locomotive or train are not simple tasks.<br />
REFERENCES<br />
1 Directive 96/48 EG of the European Council on the<br />
interoperability of the trans-European high-speed<br />
railway system. Official Journal of the European<br />
Community No. L235 of 17th September 1996, p.6<br />
et seq.<br />
2 <strong>2002</strong>/731/EC: Commission Decision of 30th May<br />
<strong>2002</strong> concerning the technical specification for<br />
interoperability relating to the control-command<br />
and signalling subsystem of the trans-European<br />
high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of<br />
Council Directive 96/48/EC. Official Journal L 245,<br />
12/09/<strong>2002</strong> p.0037-0142<br />
3 Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament<br />
and the Council of 19th March 2001 on the<br />
interoperability of the trans-European<br />
conventional rail system. Official Journal of the<br />
European Community No. L110 of 20.04.2001,<br />
p.1-27<br />
4 ERTMS ETCS SRS, version 2.0.0, 22nd December<br />
1999, UNISIG reference SUBSET-026<br />
5 ERTMS ETCS SRS, version 2.2.2, 1st February<br />
<strong>2002</strong>, UNISIG reference SUBSET-026.<br />
Discussion<br />
The discussion was opened by C H Porter (<strong>IRSE</strong>)<br />
who wanted to know why the MMI was given a SIL<br />
of zero. He also wondered how much of the MMI<br />
display was specified and questioned the requirement<br />
for STMs.<br />
C Frerichs explained that the MMI was based<br />
around an industrial PC that did not provide any<br />
system safety. Provision of a “safe” MMI would have<br />
resulted in an increase in price of this component.<br />
The information displayed on the MMI was based on<br />
a “quasi-standard” produced by the CENELEC<br />
Working Group WGA9D. He confirmed that no<br />
interest had been shown in developing STMs.<br />
P Wiltshire (CENELEC SC9XA Committee) stated<br />
that the “quasi-standard” referred to was only a<br />
working draft that will probably become a CENELEC<br />
Technical Specification.<br />
P Bassett (AEA Technology) commented that train<br />
drivers were regarded as having a SIL of 2! He also<br />
asked if the speaker was aware of the<br />
Harmonisation of European Operating Rules project.<br />
C Frerichs responded that he was unaware of<br />
the SIL for a train driver. He stated that the<br />
Harmonisation of European Operating Rules project<br />
had been superseded by the ERTMS Users Group<br />
that had produced draft operating rules to allow for<br />
ETCS implementation.<br />
P Bassett (AEA Technology) observed that with<br />
implementation of ETCS Level 2, it should be<br />
possible for a human to operate in a controlled basis<br />
in two languages and different planes of operation.<br />
C Frerichs agreed that this was a solution.<br />
P Vandermark (Driver First Great Western) wanted<br />
to know what information would be displayed on the<br />
MMI and if it would allow the train to be driven<br />
safely.<br />
C Frerichs stated that display information included<br />
speedometer, planning area, brake information and a<br />
text message area. This will allow a train driver to<br />
drive safely.<br />
P Bassett (AEA Technology) further explained that<br />
the biggest change for a UK train driver would<br />
be that the system regularises the information<br />
presented and the actions required.<br />
K Molt (Thales) noted that it was difficult to install<br />
equipment in legacy rolling stock and wondered if<br />
there were any plans to integrate the MMI with<br />
existing in-cab systems.<br />
C Frerichs replied that there were no plans to<br />
integrate existing systems within the MMI.<br />
D Woodland (Bechtel) asked how the dual 2v2<br />
computers are arranged.<br />
C Frerichs explained that both computers are<br />
running with one on-line, the second “shadow”<br />
running.
48<br />
EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI – AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY<br />
I Mitchell (AEA Technology) queried what function<br />
the ATO undertook and asked how it interacted with<br />
ETCS.<br />
C Frerichs informed that the ATO can drive the<br />
train at the optimum speed and when integrated with<br />
ETCS gets braking information and drives accordingly.<br />
He also cautioned that ATO was only a<br />
supporting system and under normal conditions, the<br />
driver drives the train.<br />
P Bassett commented that ATO is normally used<br />
as a form of refined “cruise control”.<br />
J Lo (Alstom) wanted to know how the system is<br />
configured.<br />
C Frerichs replied that the system is configured by<br />
the MVB via the Diagnostic Interface, information<br />
supplied by the driver on the MMI.<br />
The President thanked Herr Frerichs for his paper<br />
that provided an insight into this part of the ERTMS<br />
system.
49<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution<br />
held at<br />
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2<br />
Tuesday 15th January <strong>2003</strong><br />
The President, Mr P W Stanley, in the chair.<br />
141 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr D McKeown, seconded by Mr K Walter, and carried that the<br />
Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 10th December <strong>2002</strong> be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct<br />
record. The President welcomed Mr E O Goddard, Past President, who was present at a meeting for the first time since his election<br />
as an Honorary Fellow of the Institution and also Mr I Harrison, Atkins Rail, and P Matthews, Belmaster, who were present for the<br />
first time since their election to membership. These members were introduced to the meeting and welcomed amidst applause.<br />
The President then introduced Mr I Mitchell, of AEA Technology Rail, and invited him to present his paper entitled “Signalling<br />
Control Centres Today and Tomorrow”. Mr Mitchell, illustrating his presentation with the aid of computer slides, reviewed the<br />
development of the IECC by British Rail and outlined possible future development opportunities.<br />
Following the presentation Messrs A Fisher, Bombardier; I Harmon, Union Railways; T Taskin, EPT; M Savage, Savoir Ltd; P<br />
Vandermark, Driver First GW; K Ford, Thales; A C Howker, Past President; F Wilson, Network Rail; Y Hirao, RRI Japan; D Waboso,<br />
EPT; and D McKeown, Independent Consultant, took part in the discussion.<br />
Mr Mitchell dealt with the questions and the President then proposed a vote of thanks and presented the speaker with the<br />
commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.<br />
The President then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting by announcing that the next meeting in<br />
London would be held on the 12th February <strong>2003</strong> when Mr J Poré will present a paper on “ERTMS on Existing Lines”.<br />
Signalling Control Centres Today and Tomorrow<br />
I H Mitchell 1<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
It is now 14 years since commissioning of the first<br />
IECC (Integrated Electronic Control Centre) at<br />
Liverpool Street station in London ushered in a new<br />
era for signalling control on main line railways in<br />
Britain. IECC introduced VDU-based signaller’s<br />
workstations and intelligent automatic route setting<br />
(ARS), which together transformed the layout and<br />
working arrangements in signalling control centres.<br />
The first part of this paper will review the experience<br />
from this period, and describe how the IECC<br />
concept has evolved to improve performance,<br />
address component obsolescence issues, and<br />
adapt to new application requirements.<br />
The second part of the paper will look to the future<br />
and consider the impact of ERTMS. Despite the<br />
grand title “European rail traffic management<br />
system”, existing control centre functions fall outside<br />
the scope of the European standardisation<br />
activities, but these systems have a crucial role to<br />
play if continuous communication to the train is to<br />
be exploited to maximise network capacity.<br />
PART 1: IECC<br />
HISTORY<br />
The last time there was an <strong>IRSE</strong> technical meeting<br />
on the subject of IECC was Robin Nelson’s paper<br />
“Yoker Integrated Electronic Control Centre” in<br />
March 1987 1 . That paper described the IECC<br />
concept and its planned application to the recreatesignalling<br />
of suburban routes north of Glasgow.<br />
Yoker was intended to be the pilot scheme for the<br />
new technology but delays to that project resulted in<br />
it being overtaken by Liverpool Street and York,<br />
1 AEA Technology Rail, Derby, UK<br />
where signalling timescales were driven by the need<br />
to complete remodelling of these stations for<br />
property development and electrification schemes.<br />
By the end of 1989 all three of these new signalling<br />
control centres were operational using IECC<br />
technology as described in the 1987 paper.<br />
Between 1990 and 1994 a further seven new<br />
signalling control centres were commissioned using<br />
IECC technology, and a partial system was retrofitted<br />
to the Wimbledon signalling control centre to<br />
provide automatic route-setting with the conventional<br />
control/indication panel. Since 1994 there<br />
have been no new IECC control centres, but several<br />
of the existing ones have seen major extensions of<br />
their controlled areas. Several of the larger control<br />
centres have now outgrown the capacity of the basic<br />
IECC system (three signallers workstations and 12<br />
interlockings), and now have more than one system<br />
installed. For example, the Liverpool Street<br />
controlled area will soon have expanded from a<br />
single IECC controlling a few miles from the terminus<br />
to Bethnal Green, to four IECCs controlling a<br />
substantial part of East Anglia, as far as Southend,<br />
Marks Tey, Hertford East and Stansted Airport.<br />
Figure 1 is a full list of the IECCs operational on<br />
Railtrack in <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
The period since Robin Nelson’s paper to the <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
has been one of unprecedented change in the<br />
organisation of the railways in the UK. In the 1980s,<br />
BR had a substantial internal engineering resource,<br />
and signalling equipment came from two large and<br />
one smaller UK-based suppliers. In this environment,<br />
the move towards electronics in railway<br />
signalling was spearheaded by the collaboration<br />
between BR, GEC General Signal and Westinghouse<br />
Signals in the Solid State Interlocking project (SSI).<br />
This provided the route for a concept originating in
50<br />
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW<br />
Signalling Control IECC name or area No of No of First Trains/<br />
Centre name of control signallers interlockings commissioned day (iv)<br />
SSI Relay<br />
Ashford A – (Tonbridge) 3 10 1 (ii) May 1993 1327<br />
B – (Ashford) 2 9 November 1992 724<br />
Liverpool Street A – Liverpool Street 3 6 March 1989 1348<br />
B – Stratford 2 8 August 1996 1608<br />
C – Shenfield 2 12 April 1991 908<br />
D – West Anglia (i) 2 10 January <strong>2002</strong> 451<br />
Marylebone Chilterns 2 6 January 1991 347<br />
Sandhills Merseyrail 2 7 1 February 1994 752<br />
Slough New Paddington 2 12 March 1993 612<br />
Swindon B (Didcot) 1 4 February 1994 393<br />
Tyneside Central 2 7 January 1991 535<br />
Peripheral 2 8 1 May 1990 542<br />
Upminster A (LTS Main) 2 10 September 1994 637<br />
B (LTS Loop) 1 6 April 1996 463<br />
Wimbledon ARS only 5(iii) January 1990 1319<br />
Yoker (North Clydeside) 2 5 1 October 1989 419<br />
York 1 – York 2 5 4 May 1989 608<br />
2 – Leeds R&R 3 8 5 December 2000 1208<br />
3 – Leeds NW 2 5 2 March <strong>2002</strong> 882<br />
Figure 1: Signalling Centres using IECC<br />
Notes:<br />
(i) Liverpool Street D signaller and interlocking numbers are the planned final size on completion of WARM recreate-signalling.<br />
(ii) Relay interlocking interface for indications only, no route setting.<br />
(iii) IECC is ARS only, works with conventional Panel, uses special interface to relay interlockings.<br />
(iv) Weekday traffic levels in Summer <strong>2002</strong> timetable.<br />
BR Research to be translated into a fully developed<br />
and proven system available as compatible<br />
equipment from two suppliers, and capable of being<br />
applied and maintained by BR’s in-house S&T<br />
engineering design and maintenance departments.<br />
The approach to IECC development was slightly<br />
different, as BR perceived that the key skills that<br />
were needed were more likely to be obtained from a<br />
conventional procurement contract with a software<br />
company (CAP), rather than collaboration with the<br />
established signalling equipment suppliers. In<br />
practice, as with SSI, the system architecture and a<br />
significant part of the software were developed by<br />
BR Research. A prototype ARS had been in revenue<br />
service since 1983, and much of this software was<br />
recreate-used in the full IECC system. This resulted<br />
in the intellectual property rights (IPR) in the IECC<br />
system and its software being owned exclusively by<br />
BR, not shared as in the case of SSI.<br />
CAP (later Sema) supplied the hardware, software,<br />
geographic data and systems integration for all the<br />
early installations of IECC, but in the early 1990s BR<br />
used its ownership of the IPR to involve other<br />
suppliers and its in-house signalling design resource<br />
in data preparation and system integration for some<br />
of the later schemes. After 1992 BR was internally<br />
organised on a much more commercial basis, and<br />
this enabled BR Research to expand from their<br />
traditional role, and undertake complete supply of<br />
the IECC system for the Sandhills signalling control<br />
centre, as sub-contractors to GEC ALSTHOM who<br />
were the main signalling contractor for the<br />
Merseyrail recreate-signalling scheme.<br />
After the split-up and privatisation of British Rail,<br />
Railtrack are the owners of the IPR in the IECC<br />
system. AEA Technology Rail, as successors to BR<br />
Research, are contractors for Railtrack, undertaking<br />
software and hardware development/support. AEA<br />
Technology Rail also undertake application engineering,<br />
installation, testing and upgrades for new<br />
and existing systems. In some senses, the wheel has<br />
turned full circle, with the organisation in which the<br />
IECC concept originated (and many of the same<br />
people) now responsible for all aspects of its<br />
development, delivery and support.<br />
EVOLUTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY<br />
The basic design of IECC is now 15 years old.<br />
Figure 2 shows the system architecture, which has<br />
remained unchanged throughout. This period<br />
corresponds to several generations of computer<br />
technology, and inevitably means that many of the<br />
original components are no longer available.<br />
However the architecture and functionality have<br />
stood the test of time, and progressive upgrading of<br />
the hardware has been possible to ensure that<br />
existing and new systems can be supported into the<br />
future. This has required regular investment by<br />
Railtrack to upgrade software and documentation in<br />
line with new hardware, and to obtain safety<br />
approval and product acceptance for the changes.
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 51<br />
Signallers<br />
Train service database<br />
DIS<br />
DIS<br />
PSM<br />
TTP<br />
ARS<br />
Signalling<br />
network<br />
GWS<br />
ISM<br />
Information<br />
network<br />
RII<br />
SSI<br />
SSI<br />
Relay<br />
interlockings<br />
ECS<br />
Trackside signalling equipment<br />
External<br />
systems<br />
FBS<br />
DIS<br />
FBS<br />
ARS<br />
PSM<br />
TTP<br />
SSI<br />
RII<br />
ECS<br />
ISM<br />
GWS<br />
The Flexible Display Subsystem provides a PC-based operating interface between the IECC system (and<br />
hence the railway) and the signaller. There are a maximum of three per IECC. DIS replaces the original SDS<br />
(Signalling Display Subsystem) which used a special graphics card and monitors.<br />
The Fringe Box Subsystem provides a Train Describer map, interpose and cancel facilities for the fringe<br />
signaller, via a monitor and keyboard. There is a maximum of 16 per IECC.<br />
The Automatic Route-setting Subsystem determines the optimum routing of trains in the area based on the<br />
timetable, their current position, their importance and their destination. It automatically requests the<br />
required routes when they are available.<br />
The PC SPAD Monitor provides alarms to the signaller when a potential signal passed at danger incident<br />
has occurred. It also provides the data logging facility for the IECC.<br />
The Timetable Processor Subsystem processes the timetable information for the IECC and the surrounding<br />
areas. This information is used by ARS.<br />
Solid State Interlocking is a programmable electronic system that is used in place of relay interlockings on<br />
new installations. It provides the primary interlocking features necessary to ensure the safety of the railway.<br />
The Remote Interlocking Interface Subsystem enables a relay interlocking to be interfaced into an IECC<br />
system. This avoids the need to replace a relay interlocking with an SSI, usually for economic reasons.<br />
The External Communications Subsystem provides an interface between the information networks and<br />
systems that cannot use the IECC’s communications protocols or data notations.<br />
The IECC System Monitor Subsystem monitors the operation of all the subsystems in the IECC system<br />
and of the two networks, and reports the system status to maintenance staff. It also provides aids to the<br />
technician for fault finding and for reconfiguration of the IECC system.<br />
The Gateway Subsystem provides a link between the Signalling Network and the Information Network. It<br />
transfers information between the two networks when the source and destination are not on the same<br />
network. It also provides a buffer storage facility between the two networks.<br />
Figure 2: IECC System Architecture<br />
As well as retaining the capability to support existing<br />
systems and install new ones, these upgrades<br />
provide a platform for enhanced functionality to<br />
improve performance and satisfy changing operational<br />
requirements. By maintaining the same basic<br />
architecture, software and functionality, the whole<br />
system can be progressively renewed and<br />
enhanced.<br />
This means a significant change from the<br />
traditional view that a signalling system is installed,<br />
maintained on a like-for-like basis for 30 years, then<br />
replaced. With IECC signalling centres, we are<br />
seeing much earlier renewals in a piecemeal manner.<br />
In practice, component obsolescence is rarely the<br />
only reason for making an upgrade. In most cases,<br />
the financial justification for change is bound up in<br />
infrastructure re-modelling or extensions of the<br />
controlled area, or from the benefits offered by the<br />
functional improvements to the software.<br />
PROCESSORS AND NETWORKS<br />
The choice of processor technology for IECC was<br />
the Motorola 68000 series on VME plug-in cards.<br />
This has proved to be a wise choice, as the<br />
hardware has been extremely reliable, and although<br />
the original processors and cards are no longer<br />
available, the basic 32-bit architecture and instruction<br />
set of the Motorola 68000 remains available in<br />
much more powerful modern processors (the latest<br />
version is the 68060), on physically compatible VME<br />
cards. Nevertheless, software changes have been<br />
required as a result of changes to the input/output<br />
devices on the new cards. Obsolescence of operating<br />
system software has not been a problem, as
52<br />
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW<br />
IECC uses its own real time operating system BRX<br />
(British Rail real time executive) which is specifically<br />
designed to support the networking and duplication<br />
which delivers very high system availability.<br />
To achieve predictable performance and high<br />
availability, IECC was designed around two duplicated<br />
networks, one for real time signalling data and<br />
the other for less critical information exchange. With<br />
the available technology at the time, a “register<br />
insertion ring” network architecture running at 1.5<br />
Mbits/second was chosen, because this could<br />
achieve the required data throughput with a more<br />
predictable time response than networks based on<br />
“collision and recreate-try” strategies. Interfaces<br />
between sub-systems and network nodes are 9,600<br />
baud or 19,200 baud serial links. As with the processor<br />
hardware, the network equipment has been very<br />
reliable, and the same supplier of network nodes has<br />
been used throughout. The only change has been<br />
that the nodes are now rack mounted cards in place<br />
of the original “black boxes”. The technology is now<br />
obsolete, and it is envisaged that at some time in the<br />
future there will be a move to a more modern<br />
technology such as Ethernet, with predictable time<br />
response achieved by installing a high speed<br />
network used at a small fraction of its theoretical<br />
capacity.<br />
One of the most recent innovations has been to<br />
move from EPROMs to CD-ROM as the means of<br />
configuring IECC sub-systems with software and<br />
data 2 . This has been made possible by using the<br />
latest processor boards with Electrically Erasable<br />
ROM memory. For security and to avoid installing<br />
additional hardware, the CD-ROM is read using a<br />
laptop PC, which is plugged directly into an Ethernet<br />
interface on the VME processor board when an<br />
update is required. This allows updates to take place<br />
much more rapidly and without physical disturbance<br />
to the IECC equipment.<br />
SIGNALLER’S WORKSTATION<br />
The VDU-based signaller’s workstation is the<br />
critical human interface on the operating floor of the<br />
control centre. The original design (SDS – signalling<br />
display system) typically incorporated four colour<br />
monitors built into a purpose-designed workstation<br />
cabinet, with a trackerball and keyboard for operator<br />
input. Normally two monitors provide an “overview”<br />
which allows the signaller to see all main running<br />
signals, points, track circuits and train descriptions<br />
simultaneously. A third monitor allows selection of a<br />
“close-up” view providing a more detailed view of<br />
selected areas, including details such as shunting<br />
signals and ground frames, and a fourth “general<br />
purpose VDU” provides a number of text areas for<br />
fault reporting and signaller interaction with train<br />
describer and ARS. High availability was provided<br />
for throughout the design, with a facility to switch<br />
any view to another monitor if one should fail, all<br />
critical functions accessible via both keyboard and<br />
trackerball, and duplicated processors with hot<br />
standby. Some of the later schemes incorporated<br />
more monitors (up to six) to allow very large areas of<br />
control.<br />
The workstations were well-accepted by signallers<br />
from the start, and there were few problems in<br />
adapting from panel working to VDUs. However, the<br />
monitors themselves and the VME graphics cards<br />
which provide the interface to the processors were<br />
amongst the first IECC components to become<br />
unavailable. The chosen solution to the problem was<br />
to replace these components with an industrial<br />
quality PC and monitor, linked to the main VME<br />
processors via a dedicated Ethernet link. This new<br />
system (DIS – Flexible Display System) has allowed<br />
much more choice in the size and style of monitors,<br />
and for many new installations and upgrades the<br />
customers now choose flat-screen monitors on a<br />
desktop, instead of the original fully enclosed<br />
cabinet. The old and new styles of workstation are<br />
shown in Figure 3. The move to a PC does not<br />
totally eliminate the obsolescence problem, as the<br />
PC components change on an almost monthly<br />
basis. A fast-track acceptance process has been<br />
specified to enable minor changes to PC specification<br />
to be tolerated without invalidating Railtrack’s<br />
product acceptance of the system.<br />
The colour VDU terminal providing the interface to<br />
the IECC maintenance technician, the IECC System<br />
Monitor (ISM), is also no longer available. This has<br />
been replaced by a PC-based system, which<br />
provides an improved Windows-based interface with<br />
some additional facilities.<br />
AUTOMATIC ROUTE SETTING<br />
The sophistication of the automatic route-setting<br />
function (ARS) of IECC is the feature which sets it<br />
apart from similar signalling control systems in the<br />
UK and overseas. Whilst automatic setting of routes<br />
for trains running in normal timetable order is<br />
commonplace, IECC uses train regulation algorithms<br />
to maintain a full automatic route setting capability<br />
during periods of service disruption, and the<br />
signaller only needs to intervene in exceptional<br />
circumstances. This contrasts with the approach<br />
seen elsewhere, such as the network management<br />
centres in Germany, where the automated system<br />
provides warning of conflicts, but the decision to<br />
change the timetabled order of trains is taken by the<br />
human not the computer.<br />
The IECC approach to automatic route setting was<br />
based on fundamental research into route setting<br />
algorithms undertaken by British Rail Research. The<br />
ideas were validated first using a system which<br />
simply provided advice to the signaller (a system<br />
called JOT at Glasgow Central in the late 1970s),<br />
and then by a full trial of ARS which took place from<br />
1983 onwards at Three Bridges signalling control<br />
centre, controlling the Haywards Heath area of the<br />
London-Brighton line. The fully developed version of<br />
ARS was active from the first day of IECC commissioning<br />
at Liverpool Street in 1989, and immediately<br />
demonstrated its versatility in handling traffic into<br />
and out of this 18-platform terminus, despite major<br />
disruptions to service caused by initial unreliability of<br />
some of the SSI trackside equipment in a very<br />
severe EMC environment.<br />
The objectives of ARS were to reduce manning<br />
requirements in signalling control centres, and to<br />
improve punctuality by guaranteeing prompt route
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 53<br />
Figure 3: Original and new workstations at York IECC<br />
setting when trains are running freely and optimum<br />
regulation where conflicts occur. These objectives<br />
were achieved from the start and have enabled the<br />
expansion of control centres such as York and<br />
Liverpool Street to cover very large and complex<br />
areas of railway. The system is well liked by<br />
signallers, who appreciate the automation of routine<br />
activities whilst retaining the option to take manual<br />
control of route-setting for individual trains and<br />
complete areas of railway. There is also a useful<br />
facility which allows the signaller to interrogate ARS<br />
to find out the route-setting intentions for a specific<br />
train – this can be used when it is not obvious to the<br />
signaller why ARS has delayed setting a route which<br />
is apparently available.<br />
Efficient operation of ARS is crucially dependent<br />
on the information with which it is configured. Any<br />
deficiencies will reduce the proportion of trains<br />
which can be handled automatically and increase<br />
the workload of the signallers. As with other<br />
computer based signalling systems, there needs to<br />
be a data preparation process to gather the<br />
necessary information and translate this into a form<br />
which can be used by the real-time system. The<br />
process for ARS is particularly complex as it needs<br />
to take account of traffic patterns as well as the<br />
physical disposition of track and signalling. The<br />
flexibility of the ARS algorithms means that there are
54<br />
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW<br />
many options to choose from, and there is even a<br />
facility to embed “area specific code” to tailor the<br />
decision making to special requirements of each<br />
site. All this means that there is a significant risk of<br />
under-performance of ARS if there is insufficient<br />
understanding of the true operating requirements at<br />
the design stage. This did happen in practice,<br />
particularly in the early years, where ARS data<br />
preparation was being undertaken at a number of<br />
sites by relatively inexperienced staff. Lessons have<br />
been learned and the process is now much more<br />
robust due to:<br />
• dedicated staff undertaking all IECC data<br />
preparation work;<br />
• co-location of the data preparers with the<br />
software/system developers;<br />
• formal dialogue with operators using questionnaires<br />
and specifications;<br />
• system testing with simulated train movements<br />
to a real timetable.<br />
There is also now a much better understanding of<br />
what are the reasonable limits to flexible utilisation of<br />
the infrastructure. An example of this has been the<br />
approach to routing of trains over the 6-track<br />
bi-directional approach to Paddington station in<br />
London. As originally specified there were a large<br />
number of alternative routes available and no<br />
pre-determined rules for their selection. This was not<br />
a problem for ARS, which applied its regulation<br />
algorithms to determine the optimum choice of route<br />
for each train. However, this resulted in decisions<br />
which appeared unpredictable to signallers and<br />
drivers as ARS varied route setting decisions for the<br />
same train from day to day to achieve a few seconds<br />
of train delay savings. As part of the general review<br />
and simplification of signalling on the approaches to<br />
Paddington in the aftermath of the Ladbroke Grove<br />
accident, the timetable and ARS rules have been<br />
changed so that each train now has a preferred<br />
route and a small number of alternatives from which<br />
ARS can select. If future the application of ARS will<br />
be one of the factors to be considered when undertaking<br />
track layout risk assessments for new<br />
schemes.<br />
Another factor which has only slowly been<br />
recognised is that there is a case for more frequent<br />
updating of ARS than traditional signalling control<br />
centre systems. The traditional expectation is that an<br />
update occurs only when there are track layout<br />
changes or equipment replacement. In the case of<br />
ARS there are reasons why updates may be required<br />
more frequently:<br />
• the complexity and novelty of ARS means that<br />
there is a steady stream of ideas for minor<br />
improvements to the software;<br />
• there may be a need to make changes to deal<br />
with the evolution of traffic patterns and timetables.<br />
Funding of such changes has often been a<br />
problem, as budget allocations tend to go to<br />
projects which produce physical results, such as<br />
track remodelling, but there is a growing realisation<br />
that regular updates of a complex system such as<br />
ARS can be regarded as routine maintenance to<br />
keep the system performing at peak efficiency. This<br />
can often be justified in a business case by predicting<br />
the reduction in train delays which can be<br />
achieved – on the privatised UK railway today the<br />
conversion of train delays to money is precisely<br />
defined. Railtrack now recognises that ARS subsystems<br />
are likely to be updated more frequently<br />
that other parts of IECC, and intends to use the new<br />
CD-ROM facility to make these changes as<br />
efficiently as possible.<br />
TIMETABLE PROCESSOR<br />
As well as its fixed rules and real-time information,<br />
ARS requires timetable data including information on<br />
conditional and special workings on a daily basis.<br />
The Timetable Processor (TTP) is the IECC<br />
sub-system which provides the interface between<br />
the real-time ARS and the off-line train service<br />
database (TSDB), the Railtrack system used to<br />
create and update timetables. TTP uses the same<br />
processors as the real-time IECC sub-systems, but<br />
running the Unix operating system with a hard disc<br />
drive. The data flows between TTP, ARS and the<br />
signaller are shown in Figure 4.<br />
TTP provides a number of facilities to ensure that<br />
ARS gets a complete and correct timetable, both by<br />
checking the incoming information and making<br />
corrections and additions if necessary. Validation<br />
facilities include a check that the incoming data<br />
provides all the necessary information about each<br />
train required by ARS, and output of summary<br />
timetables showing arrivals, departures, platforming<br />
and next workings at major stations. Normally a new<br />
timetable is loaded into ARS twice a day, but there is<br />
a facility for “very short term” changes to be loaded<br />
as soon as they are entered. This allows changes<br />
such as swapping a defective train set for a healthy<br />
one at a terminus, or termination of a train short of<br />
its usual destination, to be entered into TTP and<br />
implemented via ARS without fallback on to manual<br />
route-setting.<br />
There is also a facility for a signaller to create a<br />
timetable for a train using a pre-defined “special<br />
timing pattern”. This allows the signaller to select a<br />
pre-defined route and stopping pattern for the train.<br />
TTP then calculates a complete timetable starting at<br />
the train's current location and sends it back to ARS.<br />
On one occasion when a strike was cancelled at the<br />
last minute and there was no timetable available, a<br />
complete day’s operations at one IECC were run<br />
using special timing patterns.<br />
Another facility available to the signaller is the<br />
option to invoke a contingency plan. This is a set of<br />
rules for modifications to the timetable to deal with a<br />
predefined change to the normal pattern of working.<br />
An example of this would be operating all traffic on<br />
a 4-track railway over two tracks only between<br />
selected crossovers during engineering work. The<br />
rules are pre-defined as part of the ARS data<br />
preparation process and, when a contingency plan<br />
is invoked, TTP calculates the changes to the<br />
timetable and sends them to ARS. Trains running to<br />
contingency plans or special timing patterns are<br />
distinguished on the signaller’s workstation screen
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 55<br />
NATIONAL TRAIN<br />
SERVICE DATABASE<br />
Full timetables<br />
Daily timetable update<br />
TTP USER<br />
Timetable<br />
Summary timetables<br />
Timetable validation<br />
reports<br />
Request contingency plan<br />
Request special timing pattern<br />
TTP<br />
Main timetable<br />
Amendment timetable<br />
ARS status query<br />
Request contingency plan<br />
Request special timing pattern<br />
ARS status query<br />
Request contingency plan<br />
Request special timing pattern<br />
Train describer steps<br />
SIGNALLER<br />
Alarms<br />
ARS status<br />
Signalling<br />
Workstation<br />
Alarms<br />
ARS status<br />
TD code insert<br />
ARS<br />
Route availability<br />
Train detection<br />
Route request<br />
Figure 4: ARS data flows<br />
INTERLOCKING<br />
with an alternative background colour in the train<br />
describer berths.<br />
In a similar manner to the real-time IECC<br />
sub-systems, the original hardware used for TTP is<br />
no longer available, but there has been a straightforward<br />
upgrade path. The software is largely<br />
unchanged, but there have been a number of<br />
improvements to match upgrades to ARS, and<br />
upgrading of the train service database connection<br />
to use more modern communications technology.<br />
INTERFACING TO EXISTING RELAY<br />
INTERLOCKINGS<br />
The IECC system was designed around the use of<br />
SSI as the interlocking. Each SSI central interlocking<br />
cubicle includes a pair of panel processor modules,<br />
duplicated for availability, and these are connected<br />
by a simple serial interface to nodes of the IECC<br />
network. The IECC sub-systems use the same “state<br />
of the railway” model as SSI, so the messages from<br />
interlocking to signaller’s workstation and ARS are<br />
simply reports of updates to the states. In the<br />
opposite direction, the IECC sub-systems generate<br />
“panel requests” which are processed in the SSI to<br />
initiate route setting and other interlocking functions.<br />
All the IECC applications have been as part of<br />
major recreate-signalling projects, where most of the<br />
existing signalling has been totally replaced by new<br />
equipment including SSI. However, in some cases,<br />
there has been a desire to retain existing relay interlockings<br />
within the IECC controlled area. This need<br />
is satisfied by the Remote Interlocking Interface (RII)<br />
sub-system which allows a relay interlocking to be<br />
interfaced to IECC via a conventional time division<br />
multiplex (TDM) remote control system. To provide a<br />
cost-effective solution it is important to avoid any<br />
costly modifications to the existing relay interlocking,<br />
so the role of the RII is to appear as an SSI<br />
from the viewpoint of the other IECC sub-systems,<br />
and to appear as a conventional control/indication<br />
panel from the viewpoint of the relay interlocking.<br />
This implies that RII must implement:<br />
• a protocol translation (between the IECC network<br />
protocol based on a polling arrangement<br />
and a TDM protocol based on cyclic scans);<br />
• a functional translation to convert panel indication<br />
states into SSI-like states, and to convert<br />
SSI panel requests into switch and button<br />
sequences;<br />
• logic required to support IECC functionality<br />
which is usually provided in SSI but is not<br />
already provided in the relay interlocking (eg<br />
signallers’ reminders, ARS sub-areas, train<br />
operated route release).<br />
This functionality has been achieved by translating<br />
the SSI interlocking functional program into a high<br />
level language which allows it to run on the same<br />
Motorola 68000/VME hardware as other IECC<br />
sub-systems. The required functional translation and<br />
additional logic can then be implemented using<br />
standard SSI geographic data, which is well understood<br />
by designers and testers, and supported by<br />
the SSI Design Workstation tools. For instance<br />
indications reported from the interlocking over the<br />
TDM link are treated like input telegrams on the SSI<br />
trackside data link, and input telegram data is used<br />
to map these into the standard SSI “state of the
56<br />
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW<br />
Signalling Centre Remote Interlocking Type of Relay Interlocking<br />
Ashford Maidstone (indications only)<br />
Sandhills Rock Ferry route relay free wired interlocking with electronic route setting<br />
equipment (ERSE) entrance-exit panel<br />
Tyneside Pelaw route relay free wired interlocking with entrance-exit panel<br />
Yoker Craigendoran Scottish Region geographical relay interlocking with entranceexit<br />
panel<br />
York Church Fenton non-route-setting relay interlocking with individual function<br />
switch panel<br />
Colton Junction route relay free wired interlocking with entrance-exit panel<br />
Hambleton<br />
route relay free wired interlocking with entrance-exit panel<br />
Marsh Lane<br />
non-route-setting relay interlocking with individual function<br />
switch panel<br />
Neville Hill<br />
non-route-setting relay interlocking with individual function<br />
switch panel<br />
Peckfield<br />
route relay interlocking with a turn-push panel<br />
South Kirkby<br />
non-route-setting relay interlocking with individual function<br />
switch panel<br />
Stourton<br />
route relay free wired interlocking with entrance-exit panel<br />
Temple Hirst<br />
route relay free wired interlocking with entrance-exit panel<br />
Wakefield Westgate non-route-setting relay interlocking with individual function<br />
switch panel<br />
York North<br />
relay controlled automatic signals on plain line<br />
Figure 5: IECCs interfaced to relay interlockings<br />
railway” memory for onward reporting to other IECC<br />
sub-systems.<br />
This approach has been very successful and has<br />
allowed standard hardware and software to be used<br />
to interface to several types of relay interlocking by<br />
adapting the SSI geographic data to suit (see Figure<br />
5). The early applications of RII were on a small scale<br />
with typically one modest sized modern relay interlocking<br />
incorporated in an otherwise all-SSI area.<br />
The recent Leeds First project has used RII on a<br />
much larger scale, and incorporates some quite<br />
elderly non-route-setting interlockings as well as<br />
more recent designs. Where necessary functions are<br />
missing from the existing relay interlockings, a<br />
careful safety analysis is required to decide whether<br />
it is acceptable to provide these by additional logic<br />
in the RII. It would be possible to implement a<br />
complete interlocking in RII, but this would not be<br />
acceptable as the hardware and software are not<br />
designed and validated to SIL 4 safety integrity level.<br />
An example of this was at the Neville Hill interlocking<br />
outside Leeds, where it was necessary to provide<br />
train operated route release and additional opposing<br />
route locking before ARS could be used in this area.<br />
The safety analysis concluded that implementation<br />
of train operated route release in the RII was acceptable,<br />
but the additional opposing route locking<br />
required a modification to the relay interlocking<br />
circuits.<br />
SPAD MONITOR<br />
IECC has always provided a comprehensive track<br />
circuit monitoring function which warns the signaller<br />
of unusual sequences of track circuit operation,<br />
such as may be caused by track circuit faults, trains<br />
dividing or SPADs. This monitoring function is very<br />
effective in operation and can easily be configured<br />
using data to handle even the most complex cases.<br />
However, all alarms were reported as either<br />
unexpected occupations or unexpected clearances<br />
of track circuits, with no indication of the likely<br />
cause. An additional opportunity for improvement,<br />
which was highlighted in Lord Cullen’s report into<br />
the Ladbroke Grove accident, is the provision of a<br />
specific distinctive alarm to the signaller if a SPAD<br />
occurs. This will ensure that actions to prevent an<br />
accident, or at least to minimise its severity, are<br />
performed without delay.<br />
To implement the accident enquiry recommendation<br />
as rapidly as possible, a stand-alone<br />
PC-based SPAD Monitor sub-system (PSM) was<br />
developed and rolled out to all the IECC sites. The<br />
PSM is interfaced to the existing IECC via the<br />
existing data link provided to connect ARS to a tape<br />
logger. This gives access to all changes of signalling<br />
state from both SSI and relay interlockings, plus train<br />
describer steps and various IECC status reports.<br />
The PSM logs this information on its hard disc,<br />
allowing the obsolete tape logger to be removed,<br />
and analyses sequences of track circuit and signal<br />
state changes to identify any train movement which<br />
should be classified as a SPAD. By combining this<br />
with the train describer information, the system can<br />
report the location of a suspected SPAD and the<br />
headcode of the train concerned. To avoid any<br />
changes to the IECC screens, this information is<br />
displayed to the signaller on an additional small LED<br />
matrix screen mounted at a suitable location on the<br />
existing workstation (Figure 6). A distinctive audible<br />
alarm is provided, together with an alarm cancellation<br />
button and an override facility to avoid repeated<br />
alarms during engineering work 3 .<br />
The stand-alone PSM is only intended as a<br />
temporary solution, and an enhanced SPAD alarm<br />
function it is now being integrated into the signaller's
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 57<br />
workstation as part of a forthcoming upgrade to<br />
IECC. Development of this upgrade, known as IECC<br />
Upgrade 003, is scheduled for completion in <strong>2003</strong>.<br />
This will allow removal of the additional LED matrix<br />
displays, but the PC will be retained as the<br />
permanent logging facility for the IECC.<br />
THE FUTURE FOR IECC<br />
Fourteen years experience of IECC in service on<br />
the British main line railway network during a period<br />
of exceptional organisational change have validated<br />
the original concept evolved by British Rail in the<br />
1980s and demonstrated its continued applicability<br />
to the privatised railway of the 21st century.<br />
Experience has shown that, with appropriate investment,<br />
problems of equipment obsolescence can be<br />
solved and progressive upgrading of facilities can<br />
benefit both existing and new installations. In the<br />
future we are likely to see some more substantial<br />
changes in the underlying processors and network<br />
hardware, but it is the application software for<br />
Figure 6: PC SPAD Monitor Display<br />
functions such as the signaller’s workstation and<br />
automatic route setting which is the true heart of the<br />
system, and this will evolve much more slowly.<br />
One theme for future developments will be the<br />
integration of higher-level traffic management<br />
activities into signalling control centres. The staff<br />
responsible for these activities in Railtrack are<br />
Region/Zone controllers. They now have access to a<br />
modern information system known as CCF (Control<br />
Centre of the Future), supplied by AEA Technology<br />
Rail, which provides up to date train running<br />
information for the whole network. At signalling<br />
centres such as York, the controllers occupy the<br />
same room as the signallers 4 , and the logical next<br />
step will be to integrate these systems so that<br />
decisions taken by controllers can be recorded in<br />
updated timetables for use by IECC.<br />
Another factor influencing the future development<br />
of IECC will be changes to the technology of<br />
signalling. One change which can be foreseen is the<br />
need to interface to a wider range of electronic<br />
interlocking types. Railtrack is undertaking trials with<br />
a number of alternatives to the established SSI<br />
system with which IECC was designed to work, and<br />
future projects are likely to require one or more of<br />
these to be interfaced to IECC. In developing such<br />
an interface, the real time exchange of information<br />
between the systems is likely to be quite straightforward;<br />
the greater challenge will be to integrate the<br />
data preparation processes of the interlocking and<br />
control centre suppliers. One possible way ahead<br />
here may be the concept of a standard Interlocking<br />
Data File Format being developed by the UIC EURO-<br />
INTERLOCKING project. This is intended as means<br />
for European railways to specify geographical<br />
information for interlockings to suppliers in a<br />
standard manner, but the same information is<br />
needed to configure the signalling control system.<br />
The final factor influencing future development will<br />
be the move towards signalling systems incorporating<br />
ERTMS/ETCS. This is the most significant<br />
technical development in European signalling at<br />
present, and so the second part of this paper will<br />
consider its impact on signalling control centres.<br />
PART 2: A CONTROL CENTRE FOR<br />
ERTMS<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
The terms ERTMS and ETCS are often used<br />
interchangeably, but in reality ETCS is only the train<br />
control element of a complete railway traffic<br />
management system. The term ETML (European<br />
Traffic Management Layer) has been coined to<br />
describe the possible advanced control centre<br />
systems, but there has been no concerted effort at<br />
defining what this might be, with the exception of the<br />
EU funded project OPTIRAILS which relates to<br />
co-operative real time planning of long distance<br />
international traffic. From a European standardisation<br />
perspective, this is quite understandable.<br />
Each railway has an existing signalling control centre<br />
system, which has evolved to meet national<br />
requirements, and there are no direct interoperable<br />
interfaces between these systems and trains.<br />
This implies that there is no existing basis of<br />
European standards to guide the development of<br />
signalling control centres as we move towards an<br />
ERTMS/ETCS railway. I would like to consider the<br />
implications in two parts:<br />
• what needs to be done to adapt existing<br />
modern signalling control centre systems to<br />
work with the various levels of ETCS?<br />
• what more could be done in signalling control<br />
centres to exploit the opportunities which<br />
ERTMS/ETCS will create?<br />
MINIMUM CONTROL CENTRE REQUIREMENTS<br />
FOR ERTMS/ETCS<br />
ETCS Level 1 is a track based system using<br />
switchable balises, overlaid over conventional lineside<br />
signalling in a similar manner to existing ATP<br />
systems which use intermittent (location-specific)<br />
communications to the train. The interface to the<br />
signalling is via a Lineside Equipment Unit (LEU)<br />
connected to the existing relay circuits or electronic<br />
interlocking object controller in parallel with the lineside<br />
signals. From the viewpoint of the control<br />
centre there is no change – routes are set from<br />
signal to signal in the usual way, and the signaller’s<br />
workstation still needs to show information about<br />
the signal aspect displayed to the driver. There is no<br />
provision for feedback of information from the train<br />
or the balise, so the only possible additional<br />
information which could be displayed would be<br />
warning of LEU faults.<br />
ETCS Level 2 with lineside signals is another<br />
overlaid system, but in this case the interface with<br />
conventional signalling is from the interlocking to a
58<br />
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW<br />
Radio Block Centre (RBC). In the simplest option this<br />
can be a one-way link, with the interlocking providing<br />
signal aspect information to the RBC, which then<br />
translates this into movement authorities which are<br />
sent to the trains using GSM-R radio. Again there is<br />
no change from the viewpoint of the control centre.<br />
The RBC will have a facility for entering information<br />
about temporary speed restrictions, but there is no<br />
fundamental need for this to be integrated into the<br />
signalling control centre system.<br />
ETCS Level 2 without lineside signals (conventional<br />
block lengths) is a more fundamental<br />
change to the signalling system. However, route<br />
locking and movement authorities are still based on<br />
fixed block lengths equivalent to conventional signal<br />
spacing, using track based train detection systems<br />
(track circuits or axle counters). There will also<br />
inevitably be uniquely numbered lineside marker<br />
boards at each block section boundary, to give the<br />
driver a precise target for stopping the train in<br />
normal operation, and to allow unambiguous verbal<br />
instructions to be given by the signaller when train<br />
movements have to take place during signalling<br />
failures. These marker boards will replace signals as<br />
the route entrances and exits, and so it will be<br />
logical to show them on the signaller's workstation<br />
screens instead of signals. By treating the marker<br />
boards as “virtual signals” and showing them as<br />
signals on the workstation screen, it would be<br />
possible to implement this level of ETCS with no<br />
changes to control centre software or working<br />
practices. In practice some small changes on the<br />
screens may be desirable to differentiate clearly<br />
between “real” and “virtual” signals.<br />
ETCS Level 2 without lineside signals (short<br />
block lengths) is the next step to be considered. As<br />
with the previous option, lineside marker boards<br />
delineating the block sections can be treated as<br />
“virtual signals”, with route setting between marker<br />
boards. On the signaller’s workstation screens, each<br />
short block section will require a “virtual signal”<br />
symbol and a train describer berth, and this will<br />
mean that the physical length of railway displayed<br />
on a workstation screen will be reduced. There may<br />
also be an increase in signaller workload when<br />
manual route-setting is in use. These problems can<br />
be mitigated in various ways, eg showing only<br />
selected marker boards on overview displays, and<br />
allowing the signaller to select entrance and exit<br />
points more than one block section apart – this is<br />
already available as a “long route” option in IECC. In<br />
practice, of course, automatic route setting would<br />
play a large part in exploiting the additional capacity<br />
made available by this version of ETCS.<br />
ETCS Level 3 is currently regarded as being a<br />
long way into the future, but when Level 2 without<br />
signals is well established and a high level of train<br />
fitment is achieved, the financial and reliability<br />
benefits of eliminating track based train detection<br />
will become very attractive. Level 3 is usually<br />
associated with moving block signalling, but there is<br />
no reason why train location information should not<br />
be converted back into fixed block occupation<br />
states, to provide a system which is functionally<br />
equivalent to Level 2. This might seem a retrograde<br />
step, but it would give the cost savings of Level 3<br />
with the minimum amount of change to existing<br />
operating rules and systems. Level 3 with true<br />
moving block is another matter altogether, and<br />
would require a much more fundamental recreatethink<br />
of how the systems (and people) in control<br />
centres interact with the signalling.<br />
ENHANCED CONTROL CENTRE<br />
FUNCTIONALITY FOR ERTMS/ETCS LEVEL 2<br />
AND ABOVE<br />
In the preceding section, the theme has been that<br />
even the “highest” levels of ETCS could be implemented<br />
with minimal impact on signalling control<br />
centre systems. However, to restrict our ambitions in<br />
this way will be to ignore some exciting new<br />
possibilities of adding value by exploiting the new<br />
facility of dependable two-way communication with<br />
the train by:<br />
• using information from the train in the control<br />
centre;<br />
• integrating additional facilities provided as a part<br />
of ETCS;<br />
• adding extra facilities beyond those provided by<br />
ETCS.<br />
Figure 7 illustrates how this will lead to a “triangular”<br />
relationship between the control centre, the<br />
interlocking and the RBC.<br />
USING INFORMATION FROM THE TRAIN IN THE<br />
CONTROL CENTRE<br />
Signalling control systems are used to monitor and<br />
control train movements, but in traditional signalling<br />
they actually only deal with lineside equipment. The<br />
part of the system which works in terms of trains is<br />
the Train Describer, and this has to work by<br />
deducing information about train movements from<br />
the lineside equipment states. With ETCS Level 2<br />
and above, the signalling system now includes the<br />
RBC which is receiving regular updates of information<br />
from every train. This is much more accurate<br />
and comprehensive information which could be<br />
used by the signaller and automatic route setting<br />
systems. It includes:<br />
• train position, length and speed (already known<br />
from train detection information, but with very<br />
limited precision);<br />
• train identity and performance characteristics<br />
(currently assumed from timetable information<br />
without any means of checking validity);<br />
• ETCS modes of operation (entirely unknown to<br />
conventional signalling).<br />
The more precise information about train<br />
characteristics, position and speed could allow<br />
automatic route setting systems to make much more<br />
accurate predictions of future train movements, and<br />
enable further optimisation of route setting<br />
strategies to minimise train delays. This and the<br />
other information would in some circumstances also<br />
be very useful to the signaller, but the interesting<br />
question is – how to present it? The usual representation<br />
of each train on the signaller’s workstation is<br />
the train’s headcode in a train describer berth,<br />
together with one or more occupied track circuits.
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 59<br />
Signalling<br />
Control<br />
System<br />
Interlocking<br />
Trackside<br />
signalling<br />
Minimum ETCS data flows<br />
Additional ETCS data flows<br />
Radio<br />
Block<br />
Centre<br />
Trains<br />
Figure 7: Interfaces – Interlocking, RBC and<br />
Control Centre<br />
ETCS simulator demonstrations typically show the<br />
reported train position and length on a scale plan of<br />
the track layout, but signaller’s workstation screens<br />
do not attempt to show the railway to scale. A better<br />
idea would be to associate the additional information<br />
with the train describer berth in which the train’s<br />
headcode appears. A small amount of additional<br />
information could be provided continuously (eg<br />
colour coding to show ETCS mode of the train), but<br />
more detailed information would need to be shown<br />
only when selected to avoid cluttering the workstation<br />
screens.<br />
INTEGRATING ADDITIONAL FACILITIES<br />
PROVIDED AS PART OF ETCS<br />
Most of the variable information required by the<br />
RBC in an ETCS Level 2/3 system comes from the<br />
interlocking or the trains, but there are functions<br />
provided for in the existing ETCS specifications<br />
which imply that there is a means of entering<br />
additional information into the RBC. Of course, the<br />
standards only specify the interoperable interface<br />
with the train, so the source of this information is<br />
undefined. For the ETCS trials being undertaken<br />
around Europe, the RBC supplier generally provides<br />
a terminal on which data can be entered. On the<br />
Swiss Level 2 Pilot line, the signaller has access to<br />
such a terminal. This shares a desk with his standard<br />
workstation monitors, but there is no interface<br />
between the systems.<br />
It might seem obvious that the longer term<br />
solution will be to integrate the additional RBC interface<br />
into the signalling control system, but some<br />
careful thought is needed to identify who is the user<br />
of the facilities. For instance an important facility is<br />
the entry of temporary speed limit information, but in<br />
the UK at least this is not part of the signaller’s<br />
duties. We need to first decide the rules and<br />
responsibilities, and then engineer a system which<br />
provides the people responsible with the facilities<br />
they need. There have been a number of railway<br />
projects where ambitious plans for fully integrated<br />
control centres have not been delivered, and the<br />
operators have found that separate systems for<br />
clearly defined functions are indeed more workable.<br />
Nevertheless it is likely that there will be facilities<br />
which are best integrated – an example of this would<br />
be the ETCS facility to send an emergency stop<br />
message to an individual train. A non-integrated<br />
system will provide facilities to stop a train by<br />
replacing an individual signal or group of signals (or<br />
“virtual signals”) to the stop state, but a facility for<br />
the signaller to select this function directly for an<br />
individual train would be a more intuitive response in<br />
an emergency. This would also give a more rapid<br />
system response as the command goes direct to the<br />
RBC, instead of via the interlocking.<br />
ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FACILITIES<br />
Signalling has traditionally provided the train driver<br />
with the absolute minimum of information needed to<br />
control the train safely. When approaching a point of<br />
conflict where the train is going to have to be<br />
delayed to allow priority to another train, the driver<br />
only finds out when he sees the first caution signal.<br />
At line speed, this is of course at the point where he<br />
needs to start braking immediately. Up to that point<br />
he may have been driving at the maximum permitted<br />
speed to try to make up time, all to no avail as a<br />
decision has already been taken in the control<br />
centre to give priority to another train. If it was<br />
possible to provide the driver with better advance<br />
warning of train regulation decisions which will affect<br />
the train, this could have a number of benefits:<br />
• energy saving and reduced brake wear by<br />
coasting or reduced speed running;<br />
• fewer challenges to the train protection system,<br />
as the driver is pre-warned that there is going to<br />
be a requirement to stop;<br />
• optimised route capacity at junctions and<br />
bottlenecks, by avoiding stopping and starting<br />
trains in the critical area;<br />
• reduction in driver stress;<br />
• improved passenger satisfaction, through better<br />
provision of information about delays.<br />
Traditional lineside signalling is not suitable for this<br />
task, and whilst cab radio is now commonplace,<br />
there is a policy (in the UK at least) that this should<br />
not be used to communicate to a moving train<br />
except in an emergency, to avoid distracting the<br />
driver. It is interesting to note that in places where an<br />
“open channel” radio system is in use, such as the<br />
RETB radio signalling system, drivers appreciate the<br />
access to information about other train movements.<br />
ETCS Level 2 and above provides a communications<br />
facility between the control centre and the<br />
driver, via GSM-R radio and the Driver-Machine<br />
Interface cab display (DMI). The information<br />
displayed on the DMI is a big improvement on lineside<br />
signals, as it includes all the speed limits as well<br />
as the distance the train is authorised to proceed,<br />
but it still fails to tell the driver anything about what<br />
is happening beyond the current limit of movement<br />
authority. However, there is no reason why the DMI<br />
should be limited in this way, and the DMI concept<br />
which has evolved with ETCS includes fields for
60<br />
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW<br />
display of text messages, advisory speed limits, and<br />
updated timetables, and these are defined in a draft<br />
CENELEC standard. However, with the exception of<br />
text messages, these additional features are not<br />
supported in the UNISIG Class 1 standards which<br />
are the current baseline for ETCS specification. The<br />
paring down of features in the Class 1 specifications<br />
is a deliberate policy to limit the scope to those<br />
functions which are essential for safety and interoperability.<br />
This has undoubtedly been a good move<br />
to curtail the debate on specifications and move<br />
ETCS from concept to reality, but it would be<br />
unfortunate if “value added” features can never be<br />
added to the basic system.<br />
In fact, although these messages would appear on<br />
the ETCS DMI, they do not actually need to be part<br />
of the ETCS SIL4 safety critical system, ie the RBC<br />
at the control centre and the EVC (European Vital<br />
Computer) on the train. The DMI in the cab is similar<br />
in many respects to the signaller’s workstation in the<br />
control centre. It is a lower-integrity system<br />
(typically SIL2) which provides the human interface<br />
to the safety system and implements some<br />
additional less critical functions. One of the fundamental<br />
principles of safety critical systems design is<br />
to partition the design to minimise the complexity of<br />
the high-SIL components, so we should be thinking<br />
of architectures which allow the signalling control<br />
centre systems to talk to the DMI as a SIL2-SIL2<br />
interface without adding complexity to the SIL4<br />
ETCS components (see Figure 8). There are a<br />
number of ways in which this could be implemented.<br />
1 Define additional messages at the ETCS<br />
“air-gap” interface, and implement software in<br />
RBC and EVC to pass these through to control<br />
centre and DMI.<br />
2 Use the existing text message facility by defining<br />
special messages which are recognised as an<br />
instruction to update the DMI instead of a genuine<br />
text message direct to the driver – no change<br />
required to RBC and EVC.<br />
3 Establish a direct link between the DMI and the<br />
GSM-R radio on the train, bypassing the EVC, and<br />
a similar link at the signalling control centre<br />
bypassing the RBC – again no change required to<br />
RBC and EVC.<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
The recent report of the UK ERTMS National<br />
Programme Team 5 identified improvements in<br />
network capacity as a possible foundation for a<br />
business case for the investment that will be<br />
required in ETCS. The report showed that to achieve<br />
this requires the adoption of ETCS Level 2 without<br />
lineside signals. This type of signalling system could<br />
Signalling<br />
Control<br />
System<br />
ETCS<br />
trackside<br />
(RBC)<br />
Communication via ETCS SIL4 systems<br />
Communication independently of SIL4<br />
systems<br />
GSM-R communications<br />
Driver<br />
machine<br />
interface<br />
ETCS<br />
trainborne<br />
(EVC)<br />
Figure 8: Architectures for control centre<br />
communications to driver<br />
be controlled from existing signalling control centre<br />
systems with minimal change, but greatest benefits<br />
are likely to come if we establish a traffic management<br />
layer of communications between the control<br />
centre and the cab to complement the safety layer<br />
provided by ETCS. Defining the requirements for<br />
such systems and implementing them in a manner<br />
which achieves interoperability will be a significant<br />
challenge for signalling control systems engineers<br />
and operators.<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT<br />
I would like to thank AEA Technology Rail for<br />
permission to publish this paper, and my colleagues<br />
in AEA Technology Rail and Railtrack who have<br />
supplied information and comments.<br />
REFERENCES<br />
1 Yoker Integrated Electronic Control Centre, R C<br />
Nelson, <strong>IRSE</strong> <strong>Proceedings</strong> 1986/7<br />
2 IECC Development, K.Thomas, <strong>IRSE</strong> News Issue<br />
69, November 2000.<br />
3 IECC Upgrades and SPAD Alarm, T Weston, <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
News Issue 78, May <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
4 Human Factors and York Signalling Centre, J<br />
Wood, <strong>IRSE</strong> News Issue 72, May 2001.<br />
5 The ERTMS Programme Team Final Report Issue<br />
to HSC – April <strong>2002</strong>, D Waboso, Railway Safety.
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 61<br />
Discussion<br />
The discussion was opened by A Fisher<br />
(Bombardier) who asked the speaker’s views on<br />
several issues. The first was questioning whether,<br />
having generated a SPAD Alarm to the operator,<br />
could automation be applied in response to this<br />
alarm. The second point raised concerned the use of<br />
the operational information that is readily available<br />
and could developments use this data more<br />
effectively. Thirdly, he questioned if a “Eurographics<br />
Working Group” would be looking at standardisation<br />
issues and finally asked if it would be possible to<br />
replicate the Operator's display within the Driver’s<br />
cab?<br />
I Mitchell initially responded by saying that he<br />
believed further investment in development of the<br />
SPAD Alarm, which would add additional complexity<br />
to the system, could not be justified for the<br />
rare occasions it would be required; the optimum<br />
solution was not to have SPADs in the first place! He<br />
agreed that the operational information available is<br />
under-utilised although Heathrow Express does use<br />
a limited amount of information from Slough IECC<br />
for operational purposes. More generally though,<br />
“higher level” operational management systems<br />
perform this role. The speaker advised that not only<br />
is there no “Eurographics Working Group” but also<br />
that each country has its own standards; the<br />
Operator Interface being the least interoperable<br />
feature of tomorrow’s Signalling Centres! Finally, he<br />
considered that it would be possible to replicate the<br />
Operator’s display in the Driver's cab but he<br />
cautioned against the potential distraction this could<br />
present.<br />
I Harman (Union Railways) commented that CTRL<br />
had overcome the problem of presentation of<br />
graphics on its Operator’s display by utilising a set of<br />
“Franglais” standards and that there was no need to<br />
reinvent the wheel. Additionally, he also pointed out<br />
that it is not always necessary to display every<br />
signal on the Operator’s display, it being sufficient to<br />
only show those where some action on the<br />
Operator’s part was required. He also reiterated<br />
caution when deciding what information to provide<br />
to the Driver and felt that a simple target speed,<br />
possibly with an indication of whether running before<br />
or behind time, would be sufficient.<br />
I Mitchell agreed that the issues were being<br />
tackled in various places but needed bringing<br />
together.<br />
T Taskin (EPT) enquired regarding the technology<br />
refreshment strategy for IECC.<br />
I Mitchell said that the strategy has been one of<br />
small steps, maintaining the overall architecture with<br />
progressive upgrading of hardware and software,<br />
much of which will still be available for some time.<br />
M Savage (Savoir Ltd) asked if the original<br />
concept of ARS, ie minimal Signaller intervention,<br />
had been achieved and whether there were any<br />
plans to develop ARS and its area of control.<br />
I Mitchell responded that he had no specific<br />
figures for Signaller intervention but believed usage<br />
of ARS at Liverpool Street was high. The speaker<br />
indicated that the Waterloo ARS was being<br />
upgraded but was unaware of any plans to either<br />
develop or integrate the controlling areas of ARS<br />
further.<br />
P Vandermark (Driver First Great Western) wanted<br />
to know if there were any plans to link the trainborne<br />
wheel-slip protection systems with Signalling<br />
Centres to warn of possible SPADs and also if<br />
GSM-R would be able to handle the communication<br />
requirements of an emergency situation.<br />
I Mitchell replied that whilst he was aware of some<br />
existing train-borne wheel-slip protection systems<br />
that did inform Control Centres of low adhesion<br />
conditions, they were not integrated into the<br />
signalling system. He acknowledged that adhesion<br />
is critical for ETCS, especially where braking calculations<br />
are based upon certain assumptions about<br />
adhesion. He was uncertain if these train-borne<br />
systems had been included within the relevant<br />
specifications and considered that they probably do<br />
not conform to the interoperability requirements.<br />
With GSM-R, the speaker explained that there is a<br />
strict “pecking order” with emergency communications<br />
taking priority over any other messages.<br />
K Ford (Thales) commented that with GSM-R, all<br />
parties hear emergency calls.<br />
A C Howker (Past President) commented that<br />
some Metro Systems do utilise wheel-slip systems<br />
to alter headway calculations. He also observed that<br />
the use of ARS in heavily trafficked areas was<br />
problematical and certainly did not function reliably<br />
in Ashford IECC.<br />
I Harman (Union Railways) believed that due<br />
weight was not given to the complex task of<br />
converting the Operator’s requirements into the<br />
algorithms needed for ARS and this was the reason<br />
for the poor performance of IECCs on the Southern<br />
Region.<br />
A C Howker (Past President) was interested to<br />
know how the author believed the Control Centre of<br />
the future would keep infrastructure information<br />
updated and display Level 3 signalling?<br />
I Mitchell responded that the process of managing<br />
and transferring the infrastructure information into a<br />
SIL4 system had not really been considered but<br />
questioned how this is achieved with any confidence<br />
in existing installations. However, he felt that<br />
complete system management together with off-line<br />
checking should allow this to be accomplished. The<br />
displaying of Level 3 signalling information has not<br />
yet been considered.<br />
An unidentified member of the audience commented<br />
that moving block is depicted on the<br />
Operator's displays of the Docklands Light Railway.<br />
J F Wilson (Network Rail) referred to a recent<br />
catastrophic failure of the IECC at Slough and<br />
expressed some disappointment that no diagnostics<br />
have been developed for use during such occasions.<br />
I Mitchell agreed that the diagnostics do require<br />
development, no work having been undertaken in<br />
developing them since the introduction of IECC.
62<br />
SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW<br />
Y Hirao (RRI Japan) wanted to know what<br />
strategies were incorporated within IECC and ETCS<br />
to cater for abnormal situations, traffic disturbances<br />
and degraded modes of operation.<br />
I Mitchell replied that ARS has a number of<br />
pre-planned strategies that allow the system to deal<br />
with foreseen situations without manual intervention.<br />
These include pre-defined plans for engineering<br />
works, unavailability of all running lines, running of<br />
additional trains and terminating traffic at intermediate<br />
locations. Degraded operation was not<br />
catered for in UK signalling at present although<br />
consideration is actively being given to this at<br />
present. Nothing specific has yet been decided for<br />
ETCS but it is clear that operational rules will have to<br />
be identified to alleviate against equipment failure.<br />
D Waboso (EPT) observed that although ERTMS<br />
is being developed as “standalone” elements, consideration<br />
must be given to looking at the “system”<br />
implications once all of the components are integrated<br />
together. Overall resilience of the system<br />
should be looked at from the viewpoint of the<br />
whole-life cost rather than first-life cost, particularly<br />
with respect to potential downtime costs.<br />
D McKeown (Independent Consultant) commented<br />
that we focus on the infrastructure rather<br />
than controlling routes and wondered if any lessons<br />
could be learnt from Air Traffic Control management<br />
systems where specific “slots” are allocated for each<br />
movement. He also questioned if timetable paths<br />
contained "width" to allow ARS to be more resilient<br />
in the decisions that it makes and finally he asked<br />
the speaker what might have been done differently<br />
with the experience of hindsight.<br />
I Mitchell suggested that perhaps there should be<br />
an European Standard to decide the approach to<br />
Traffic Control but agreed that there may be benefits<br />
in considering a different approach to scheduling<br />
trains to reduce conflicts, especially from a<br />
passenger’s perspective. He confirmed that ARS<br />
timetable paths do have "width" to cater for conflict<br />
resolution but declined to comment on his hindsight<br />
instead stating that IECC has evolved to the system<br />
with which we are now familiar.<br />
D McKeown (Independent Consultant) finally<br />
asked Mr Mitchell if “the system” has learnt from day<br />
to day operation or relies on human experience.<br />
I Mitchell agreed that this was an excellent idea<br />
and a real possibility for the future as operational<br />
experience has not been considered during the<br />
development process.<br />
The President commented that the paper served<br />
as a reminder of what has been achieved and<br />
demonstrated the possibilities for the future. He also<br />
hoped it would assist in illustrating the benefits of<br />
investing in Signalling and Control Centres. Finally<br />
he thanked Mr Mitchell for his paper and for his<br />
contribution to the night’s proceedings.
63<br />
Migration to ERTMS on Existing Lines<br />
Most people involved in railways have now heard of<br />
ERTMS/ETCS, the European Rail Traffic Management<br />
System and the part of it that is devoted to<br />
train control (also called “contrôle-commande”),<br />
namely the European Train Control System (ETCS)<br />
Historically, railway lineside signalling has been<br />
different in every country, and basically incompatible<br />
across borders. Most of the main European<br />
countries have for decades had their own ways, their<br />
own rules and their own national suppliers (see<br />
Figure 1). This includes eight main countries – in<br />
alphabetical order, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy,<br />
the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the<br />
United Kingdom. Most other countries have used,<br />
and usually still do use, signalling practices and<br />
products from one or more of these countries. For<br />
example, Spain uses products and systems<br />
originating in France, Germany, Sweden and the UK.<br />
This made crossing borders difficult technically and,<br />
for that or other reasons, rare in fact, even if there<br />
were a few exceptions.<br />
1 ALSTOM Transport Information Solutions<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution<br />
held at<br />
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2<br />
Tuesday 12th February <strong>2003</strong><br />
The President, Mr P W Stanley, in the chair.<br />
126 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr K Walter, seconded by Mr D Fenner, and carried that the<br />
Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 15th January <strong>2003</strong> be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct record.<br />
The President welcomed Mr P Wiltshire, Past President, who was present at a meeting for the first time since his election as an<br />
Honorary Fellow of the Institution amidst applause.<br />
The President reminded members of the need to register to attend the Convention in Birmingham in May next year and in particular<br />
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.<br />
He then introduced Mr J Poré, of ALSTOM Transport Information Systems, and invited him to present his paper entitled “Migration<br />
of ERTMS on Existing Lines”. Mr Poré, illustrating his presentation with the aid of a most comprehensive set of computer slides,<br />
reviewed the present installed base of ATP systems, he then set out the advantages and disadvantages of adopting various<br />
ERTMS/ETCS solutions and concluded with his vision of the future.<br />
Following the presentation Messrs F Heijnen, Invensys; P Bassett, AEA; P Vandermark, Driver First GW; R Maton, Operator SVR: I<br />
Harman, Union Railways; C Harrison, LRMHA; C Kessell, Centuria Comrail; the President; C Eaglen, affiliation not stated; and R<br />
Barnard, Alstom, took part in the discussion.<br />
Mr Poré dealt with the questions comprehensively and the President then proposed a vote of thanks and presented the speaker with<br />
the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.<br />
The President closed the meeting by announcing that the next meeting in London would be held on the 12th March <strong>2003</strong> when<br />
Messrs Moens and Stokes will present a paper on “Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Signalling and Communications”.<br />
Figure 1 – Existing Signalling Technologies<br />
in Major European Countries<br />
Jacques Poré 1<br />
In fact, spoken language is also a major obstacle<br />
to crossing European borders. No less than 11<br />
national languages are spoken in the European<br />
Community (see Figure 2).<br />
Figure 2 – Language Barriers in Europe<br />
Railway signalling suppliers traditionally worked in<br />
close relationship with their customers and<br />
developed very specific rules and products for them.<br />
This is how our railways operate today.<br />
The same philosophy applied to Automatic Train<br />
Protection (ATP) systems. There are no less than 15<br />
different ATP systems (including train stops) in<br />
operation in Europe at the present time (see Figure<br />
3). France, for instance, has three systems – the<br />
“crocodile” train stop, KVB on the conventional<br />
network and TVM on the high-speed lines. As a<br />
result cross-border trains such as Eurostar and the<br />
“Four Capitals” Thalys units are fitted with six and<br />
eight different sets of on-board ATP equipment<br />
respectively, which means a lot of equipment,<br />
especially in the driver’s cab.<br />
The concept of ERTMS/ETCS is that in future it will
64<br />
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES<br />
Figure 3 – At Least 15 Different ATP Systems<br />
in use in Europe in 2000<br />
replace all these systems. During the 1990s the<br />
European Union started to introduce rules which<br />
include, among quite a batch of rules and specifications:<br />
• Directive 96/48 on interoperability on the highspeed<br />
lines network;<br />
• Directive 2001/16 on application to conventional<br />
lines.<br />
Their aim is to break the monopolies described<br />
above and to bring the benefits of multi-sourcing to<br />
the railways.<br />
An official organisation, UNISIG, has been set up<br />
to produce the specifications for ERTMS/ETCS. At<br />
the present time it consists of the six main European<br />
railway signalling suppliers, which are, in alphabetical<br />
order, Alcatel, ALSTOM, Ansaldo-CSEE,<br />
Bombardier, Invensys-Westinghouse and Siemens.<br />
In parallel with the development of signalling<br />
specifications, CENELEC, the body responsible for<br />
European standards for railways including signalling,<br />
has, since 1990, been developing standards, and<br />
the principal ones are now in force. In order to check<br />
the validity of the specifications and to confirm the<br />
interoperability of products from different suppliers,<br />
a number of test tracks have been set up. Class 1<br />
specifications for ERTMS/ETCS were signed in April<br />
2000 and adopted in December 2001, opening the<br />
path to true commercial projects of which a number<br />
are now in operation or at various stages of design<br />
and implementation.<br />
WHERE ARE WE COMING FROM? THE<br />
INSTALLED ATP BASE<br />
In order to analyse the introduction of<br />
ERTMS/ETCS and give an efficient presentation of<br />
the migration paths from existing signalling to<br />
ERTMS/ETCS on existing lines (and also on highspeed<br />
lines), it is first necessary to look at the<br />
existing situation, especially as far as ATP is<br />
concerned.<br />
Focusing on the railways of western and central<br />
Europe, we see systems of several quite different<br />
sizes, with very dissimilar passenger and freight<br />
traffic and very different shares between them (see<br />
Table 1). Not surprisingly the highest traffic levels are<br />
to be found in France and Germany, with combined<br />
totals of 1.2 x 10 11 passenger-km and 1.44 x 10 11<br />
tonne-km per annum, while countries such as<br />
Denmark, Norway and Portugal have levels over 15<br />
times smaller. The problems faced by the different<br />
railways vary accordingly, on account not only of<br />
present and planned traffic levels, revenues and<br />
expectations but also of the political will concerning<br />
rail transport in their countries.<br />
The level of ATP protection provided today also<br />
varies widely between the countries of Europe. A<br />
very high level of protection is found in Denmark,<br />
France and the Netherlands, but in the UK for<br />
instance there is almost none at all (in terms of<br />
passenger-km and tonne-km of traffic protected by<br />
trackside and trainborne ATP at the present time).<br />
The impact of a change to ERTMS/ETCS will be<br />
different for integrated railways, for infrastructure<br />
owners and for pure railway operators. When large<br />
investments have been made in recent years a<br />
railway will naturally want to keep them, and such a<br />
railway will view migration differently from one<br />
having only a few trackside locations and a small<br />
amount of ATP-fitted rolling stock. Factors to be<br />
considered when assessing a move from existing<br />
signalling to ERTMS/ETCS include: migration<br />
requirements; compatibility with existing systems;<br />
technical issues with the present signalling equipment;<br />
funding issues; and political will. This is<br />
especially important for conventional lines.<br />
Nevertheless, ERTMS/ETCS is now a system that<br />
has been successfully demonstrated on several test<br />
tracks and pilot lines as well as on certain<br />
commercial lines, and it is here to stay. If implementation<br />
has made a slow start (it all began in 1990,<br />
and essential research took off from 1997),<br />
ERTMS/ETCS is now being implemented in quite a<br />
few medium- and large-sized projects.<br />
THE “FORS” OF ERTMS/ETCS<br />
Given all the foregoing, if I were a railway operator,<br />
why should I move to ERTMS/ETCS (apart, of<br />
course, from legal reasons arising from EU rules)?<br />
The “Fors” of ERTMS/ETCS fall under two headings:<br />
• ERTMS/ETCS goals: we shall remind ourselves<br />
of these, and of the choices that lie behind<br />
them, noting how priorities can vary between<br />
countries and between railways;<br />
• Paths to return on investment (RoI) with<br />
ERTMS/ETCS, where we shall have some<br />
suggestions to make.<br />
GOALS OF ERTMS/ETCS<br />
We used to say that there are seven main goals for<br />
ERTMS/ETCS. These goals and their presentation<br />
have now been discussed and approved by UNISIG<br />
and UNIFE, ie by the representatives of the supply<br />
industry at the signalling level and more widely. They<br />
are as follows:<br />
Interoperability<br />
Interoperability concerns both high-speed lines<br />
and the conventional network. It is the principal<br />
raison d’être of ERTMS/ETCS, the main feature that<br />
will enable rail to compete more efficiently with air<br />
and road transport.
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES 65<br />
Table 1: ATP in Europe Today<br />
Infrastructure<br />
Country<br />
owner(s)<br />
Central<br />
Passenger Tonne- Total traffic = Total % network % central<br />
% traffic ATP<br />
Passenger Multiple units = ATP system<br />
Operator(s) -km km passenger-km network with ATP<br />
Wagons Locos<br />
units with<br />
protected by protection<br />
carriages<br />
units Locos +<br />
today<br />
x 10 9 x 10 9 + tonne-km km today<br />
ATP today ATP level<br />
2xMUs<br />
Austria ÖBB ÖBB 8.0 14.7 23 5600 50 Medium<br />
France RFF SNCF 30500 >60 5000 2200 9400 >85 KVB >90 High<br />
(conventional)<br />
67.0 53.4 120 15700 48000<br />
France RFF SNCF 1500 100 – 400 800 100 TVM 100 High<br />
(high speed lines)<br />
Germany DB Netz DB AG 72.5 71.5 144 37500 90 EVM (*) >90 High<br />
Italy FS FS 41.0 21.5 63 16100 40 11900 67700 3100 1500 6100 80 BACC/SCMT 90 High<br />
Norway JBV NSB 2.7 2.5 5 4200 30 800 2500 180 140 460 30 Ebicab 30 Medium<br />
Poland PKP PKP 21.0 55.0 76 22900 – 10000 96000 4140 1270 6680 – – –<br />
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<br />
Sweden BV SJ 7.4 14.4 22 10000 >60 1500 11200 600 320 1240 >90 Ebicab >90 High<br />
Switzerland BLS BLS 0.5 0.4 1 240 – 250 160 110 40 190 – – – Low or nil<br />
Switzerland SBB-CFF-FFS SBB-CFF-FFS 12.6 9.6 22 2900 15 3400 13000 1340 250 1840 >50 ZUB >40 Medium<br />
United Kingdom Railtrack >20 38.0 17.9 56 17800
66 MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES<br />
Interoperability does not only mean that a train<br />
should be able to be operated across borders and to<br />
read signalling in different countries in fact.<br />
There is also “operator interoperability” – different<br />
train operators may run trains on the same infrastructure<br />
even within a single country (as happens in<br />
the UK).<br />
And there is “supplier interoperability” – different<br />
rolling stock may be fitted with products from<br />
different suppliers. For example, vehicles equipped<br />
by supplier “A” and vehicles equipped by supplier<br />
“B” must be able to run efficiently on infrastructure<br />
implemented by supplier “C”.<br />
ERTMS/ETCS will bring interoperability much<br />
more efficiently than any other solution could.<br />
Safety<br />
ERTMS/ETCS brings an improvement in safety,<br />
especially in countries such as the UK where ATP<br />
does not really exist at present.<br />
For applications on conventional lines, from<br />
secondary lines to complex stations and dense<br />
areas, it will improve safety by providing ATP and,<br />
later, cab signalling.<br />
Capacity<br />
There are three levels of ERTMS/ETCS equipment.<br />
Whereas Level 1, which simply superimposes ATP<br />
on to existing lineside signalling, does not improve<br />
line capacity, Levels 2 onward will improve both<br />
capacity and the global throughput of the network.<br />
Figures from +10% to +30% in comparison with<br />
present capacity have been either quoted or<br />
demonstrated.<br />
ERTMS/ETCS will improve capacity especially in<br />
busy areas by providing smoother operation. Drivers<br />
have a permanent reminder of the state of the<br />
signalling and indications ahead, and can choose<br />
when to slow down, either at the last moment or<br />
earlier if the line ahead has not cleared. ERTMS/<br />
ETCS also provides a much better ergonomy of<br />
driving, especially in bad weather conditions such as<br />
rain, snow and fog.<br />
Level 1 does not offer any increase in line<br />
capacity from provision of infill information in denser<br />
areas or the approaches to them. However, in this<br />
situation infill data can be transmitted by other<br />
means, such as radio.<br />
Availability<br />
Standardisation on ERTMS/ETCS means much<br />
less equipment than with past installations such as<br />
Eurostar and Thalys where different ATPs were<br />
juxtaposed for international traffic.<br />
Less equipment and hence fewer interfaces, fewer<br />
power supplies and other devices prone to<br />
unreliability, fewer cables and connections all mean<br />
dramatically improved reliability and availability, for<br />
the signalling itself and hence for rail transport<br />
generally.<br />
ERTMS/ETCS also provides a range of maintenance<br />
aids, supporting preventive maintenance<br />
and remote diagnostics.<br />
Cost-effectiveness<br />
ERTMS/ETCS is more cost-effective than existing<br />
conventional signalling solutions because it is<br />
product-based, the same products being used by<br />
different operators. Fewer products in the catalogue<br />
means greater quantities to be manufactured,<br />
lowering the costs. Fewer items to be kept for<br />
maintenance purposes will ease everyday operation<br />
and maintenance procedures and so reduce costs<br />
there as well.<br />
Less On-board Equipment<br />
ERTMS/ETCS will, in the short or medium term,<br />
mean that there will only be one on-board computer.<br />
Similarly there will be only a single Driver's Man-<br />
Machine Interface (DMI or MMI), making possible a<br />
much simpler and more ergonomic driver’s desk<br />
design by comparison with the six ATP systems in<br />
Eurostar cabs and the eight in Thalys.<br />
Less on-board equipment does not only mean<br />
lower costs, a simpler driver’s desk and less MMIs,<br />
but also less volume required for installing trainborne<br />
signalling equipment – a point sure to be<br />
much appreciated by our rolling stock colleagues.<br />
Open Market<br />
This was a major requirement of the European<br />
Community from the outset The main reason for<br />
opening the market was to reduce national influence<br />
and privileges. Another concept was to allow any<br />
railway to purchase from suppliers anywhere in<br />
Europe, not only from national suppliers, and also for<br />
any supplier to be able to bid anywhere in Europe.<br />
To complete the main goals of ERTMS/ETCS, it<br />
must be said that ERTMS/ETCS is in general terms<br />
a better solution to the needs of modern railways<br />
than any other kind of ATP. It is better adapted to<br />
mixed traffic (ie to both freight and passenger traffic,<br />
or to both low-density lines and the busiest stations<br />
and junctions). It is compatible with all existing<br />
signalling products and systems. It is independent of<br />
any presently installed or future trackside products;<br />
it does not for instance require use of any specific<br />
type of track circuit. And it requires installation of<br />
much less trackside equipment than any other type<br />
of ATP, which results in lower installation, operation<br />
and maintenance costs.<br />
So ERTMS/ETCS can doubtless be said to be a<br />
key player, if not THE key player, in improving rail<br />
transport.<br />
RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) WITH<br />
ERTMS/ETCS<br />
Although the main reasons for regarding<br />
ERTMS/ETCS as the future of European railway<br />
signalling are interoperability for international traffic<br />
and increased safety through provision of ATP and<br />
cab signalling, as is often said, “Safety does not<br />
pay”. Put another way, safety alone cannot justify<br />
ERTMS/ETCS. So we must look elsewhere.<br />
In seeking ways of obtaining a RoI for ERTMS/<br />
ETCS, three potential areas have been identified:<br />
• “standard” sources, by improving rail operation;<br />
• areas new for signalling systems;
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES 67<br />
• more unusual, advanced, “aggressive” areas<br />
that would bring a RoI with ERTMS/ETCS.<br />
See also Figure 4.<br />
Figure 4 – Paths to a Return on Investment (RoI)<br />
“Standard” sources of RoI include the three<br />
following basic areas:<br />
• ERTMS/ETCS will increase the safety of rail<br />
transport. By providing ATP and cab signalling,<br />
ERTMS/ETCS removes the risk of "Signals<br />
passed at danger" (SPAD). It also removes the<br />
risk of a wrong action by the driver after a<br />
warning signal or after a permanent or<br />
temporary speed restriction.<br />
• Management of level crossings will be greatly<br />
improved with ERTMS/ETCS, and with the<br />
incidental benefits of the presence of GSM-R<br />
radio. Among several possibilities being actively<br />
pursued real-time management of level crossings,<br />
where the crossing area is monitored<br />
continuously and the situation reported to the<br />
local control centre and/or the drivers of<br />
approaching trains, will permit the number of<br />
accidents and fatalities at level crossings to be<br />
diminished dramatically.<br />
• ERTMS/ETCS will create new possibilities for<br />
enhancing signalling equipment maintenance.<br />
These include new ways of providing preventive<br />
maintenance and monitoring trackside equipment.<br />
This applies to all kinds of equipment,<br />
from train detection and point equipment to<br />
trackside and trainborne ATP. Trainborne equipment<br />
is much more easily maintained because it<br />
comes into the workshop, whereas outdoor<br />
equipment can be far from any maintenance<br />
location.<br />
ERTMS/ETCS has a very significant impact on all<br />
these three “standard” sources of RoI. There are<br />
other sources of RoI that are new to signalling,<br />
including the following:<br />
• Increased productivity of rolling stock – motive<br />
power, carriages and wagons. Since ERTMS/<br />
ETCS will increase line capacity and train<br />
speeds, the same rolling stock will arrive at its<br />
destination sooner. Hence more trips will be<br />
possible with the same amount of rolling stock,<br />
a feature that will be greatly appreciated by<br />
private operators and local and regional<br />
authorities. So ERTMS/ETCS will provide more<br />
value for the same money.<br />
• Through real-time operation and increased<br />
possibilities for cab signalling and central<br />
management, ERTMS/ETCS will provide routes<br />
to significant energy savings. This will perhaps<br />
not be achieved so easily in electric traction<br />
areas, but much more with diesel traction. It will<br />
mean fuel savings that can be estimated at<br />
10-15% of the present consumption – and this<br />
is probably a conservative figure.<br />
• As a complement to increased rolling stock<br />
productivity, ERTMS/ETCS will naturally provide<br />
maintenance savings of the rolling stock. These<br />
will come from the possibility of centralising<br />
maintenance data on the train, radio communication<br />
between train and depot permitting<br />
maintenance actions to be carried out earlier, or<br />
on a preventive basis.<br />
These three “new” areas of RoI do not arise from<br />
ERTMS/ETCS alone. Other actions and means must<br />
be provided to obtain the optimum benefits, but the<br />
concept and new possibilities of ERTMS/ETCS are<br />
still key elements in achieving better, more efficient<br />
rail transport. It must not be forgotten that our competitors<br />
– air and road – already make very efficient<br />
use of processes similar to those described here.<br />
More unusual paths to RoI include the following:<br />
• ERTMS/ETCS will bring savings on track works<br />
by allowing staff protection to be optimised and<br />
implemented on a ”just in time” basis, leading to<br />
enhanced productivity.<br />
• ERTMS/ETCS will lead to increased freight<br />
traffic, especially international traffic, by shortening<br />
transit times at borders, an area where we<br />
have to admit that road transport is far more<br />
efficient today.<br />
• ERTMS/ETCS will also lead to increased<br />
passenger traffic, from high-speed trains and<br />
densely-trafficked areas through to local lines,<br />
and from light rail to low-density single track<br />
lines.<br />
To summarise, ERTMS/ETCS will bring savings<br />
and returns on investment from many sources, and<br />
provide a number of ways of demonstrating its<br />
ability to improve rail transport.<br />
THE “AGAINSTS” OF ERTMS/ETCS<br />
So most people will be able to think of ways of<br />
justifying ERTMS/ETCS. But it is perhaps less easy<br />
to think about negative features. There are several<br />
reasons for this. Before making any choice, let us<br />
analyse them a bit further – still ignoring the legal<br />
aspects of EU rules.<br />
Points "against" ERTMS/ETCS include the<br />
following:<br />
• Why should I buy ERTMS/ETCS?<br />
• Won't I have a problem with equipment<br />
volume – isn’t ERTMS/ETCS "just one more<br />
trainborne ATP system”?<br />
• What are the cost issues?<br />
The question, “Why should I buy ERTMS/ETCS?”<br />
looks different from the points of view of an<br />
infrastructure owner and a railway operator. For an<br />
integrated railway both will, of course, apply.<br />
An infrastructure owner would have different
68<br />
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES<br />
reasons for fitting ERTMS/ETCS on a high-speed<br />
line as against a conventional line, or on a new line<br />
as against an existing one undergoing refurbishment.<br />
He will have to consider opening his network<br />
to other operators and then possibly collecting<br />
revenue from new sources. He will also have to look<br />
at possible extra train paths, because ERTMS/ETCS<br />
brings extra line capacity. ERTMS/ETCS will be a<br />
very interesting “alternative to concrete” (being<br />
much cheaper).<br />
A railway operator has various requirements:<br />
• he may want to run faster trains;<br />
• he may want a simpler, more reliable and available<br />
ATP than the juxtaposition that was the only<br />
way before ERTMS/ETCS;<br />
• he may want to reduce ATP costs, space<br />
requirements, etc.<br />
As operators tend to have different requirements<br />
depending on their background and on the lines and<br />
infrastructure they plan to operate, they will<br />
consider Specific Transmission Modules (STMs).<br />
The “pure” STM concept as defined by the<br />
ERTMS/ETCS specifications will not necessarily be<br />
the optimum solution for a given operator. Other<br />
possibilities exist, and must be analysed and priced<br />
to enable an adequate decision to be taken (see<br />
Figure 5). They include, for example, use of a<br />
gateway device between an existing national ATP<br />
architecture and the on-board ERTMS/ETCS.<br />
Another solution planned in a number of cases is the<br />
“bi-mode” (or “bi-standard”) EVC concept. This<br />
saves hardware and software, especially for the<br />
main computer, as well as improving technical<br />
issues such as management of reaction times and<br />
design convenience.<br />
money for it, the space to fit the equipment and<br />
whatever else may be involved, with the risk of<br />
having to do a major refurbishment not otherwise<br />
required, especially in the driver’s cab.<br />
• Operation costs, including signalling costs<br />
transferred from ground to train. There are also<br />
responsibility issues when infrastructure and<br />
operator are separate, such as who is responsible<br />
and who has to pay when trains are<br />
delayed.<br />
• Maintenance and training relating to ERTMS/<br />
ETCS system and its new technologies, such<br />
as radio, will also involve new costs not<br />
encountered before.<br />
There may be other points against ERTMS/ETCS<br />
that should be discussed. These questions should<br />
certainly be asked, and they must be weighed with<br />
the points for the system in order to arrive at a<br />
correct decision.<br />
WHERE ARE WE GOING?<br />
Following the phases of specification development<br />
and extensive testing, work on ERTMS/ETCS<br />
is now very active. Many commercial projects have<br />
already been commissioned or are being designed<br />
and implemented, and many more are in the<br />
pipeline.<br />
Figure 6 – Current Commercial Projects<br />
with ERTMS/ETCS<br />
Figure 5 – Volume of Trainborne Equipment –<br />
Decision Square<br />
As to whether ERTMS/ETCS is not simply "one more<br />
trainborne ATP system", the problem is, of course,<br />
concentrated on board the train, so that it affects<br />
train operators and integrated railways.<br />
Nevertheless infrastructure owners have a similar<br />
concern because they also face problems of<br />
installation of dual equipment and compatibility<br />
issues.<br />
There are a number of cost issues, as follows:<br />
• Installation costs: for ERTMS/ETCS, being a<br />
new system, there is the issue of finding the<br />
There are, however, a number of different trends,<br />
arising from railways' different priorities and reasons<br />
for choosing ERTMS/ETCS.<br />
Countries in the centre of Europe, and smaller<br />
countries generally, tend to emphasise interoperability<br />
because they have a lot of international traffic,<br />
with many trains in transit or at least starting or<br />
finishing their journeys outside the borders.<br />
In other countries where there is currently no ATP,<br />
or where the local system is becoming obsolete, the<br />
main requirement to go to ERTMS/ETCS arises from<br />
safety.<br />
In places where rail faces strong air or road<br />
competition, or where time-keeping is considered to<br />
be of paramount importance, the main requirements<br />
are for availability and reliability. This is especially the<br />
case in Switzerland, as most people might imagine,<br />
but it is also true in Spain, where the rule on the<br />
high-speed line network is that the passenger will
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES 69<br />
have 100% of his ticket reimbursed on the spot if his<br />
train arrives more than five minutes late.<br />
There are other railways where the reason for<br />
going to ERTMS/ETCS would be to simplify the onboard<br />
layout, to get a simpler architecture, to use<br />
less space or to reduce costs by having less<br />
equipment than the previous solution of juxtaposing<br />
several national kinds of equipment in order to be<br />
able to cross borders. Freight operators, and all<br />
operators of cross-border trains, will be in this<br />
situation in the near future and for some it has<br />
already started.<br />
There are already commercial projects in more<br />
than ten countries. Further projects are expected<br />
shortly in most of these countries, and in half a<br />
dozen others besides.<br />
In central and eastern Europe and Luxembourg,<br />
the choice is mostly for ERTMS/ETCS Level 1 at<br />
present (see Figure 7). In most cases, projects affect<br />
existing lines that are being refurbished. Countries<br />
involved include Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech<br />
Republic, Greece, Luxembourg, Slovakia and<br />
Slovenia. The main reason for going to ERTMS/<br />
ETCS is to increase safety. The presence of a large<br />
amount of European finance in many of the projects<br />
Figure 7 – Countries With Level 1<br />
also means that ERTMS/ETCS is the only real<br />
choice.<br />
In France and Germany, the principal countries in<br />
Europe in terms of rail traffic and network size, the<br />
railways do not yet have clear plans for migration to<br />
ERTMS/ETCS. Both countries now have separate<br />
infrastructure owners and railway operators, with<br />
differing requirements. Both countries also have<br />
large installed bases, and the existence of this<br />
investment has to be taken into account in the<br />
migration strategy.<br />
In Italy the infrastructure owner (RFI) and train<br />
operator (Trenitalia) have committed themselves to<br />
ERTMS/ETCS Level 2 for all new high-speed lines,<br />
starting with the second high-speed line in Italy,<br />
Rome to Naples, which will be commissioned at the<br />
end of 2004 (see Figure 8). The next three lines –<br />
Bologna to Florence, Milan to Bologna and Turin to<br />
Milan – are already well advanced at various stages,<br />
and there are several others in the pipeline. For<br />
existing conventional lines, RFI and Trenitalia are<br />
actively deploying the local intermittent system<br />
(SCMT) at the present time; this gives compatibility<br />
Figure 8 – ERTMS/ETCS in Italy<br />
with ERTMS/ETCS.<br />
In Finland and Sweden there are large installed<br />
bases of national ATP systems, both trackside and<br />
trainborne. The main needs at present are to tackle<br />
obsolescence and to obtain the additional functions<br />
and flexibility that a new system would offer – hence<br />
ERTMS/ETCS. For the migration path though the<br />
most urgent need is for Specific Transmission<br />
Modules (STMs), to retain the ability to run on lines<br />
equipped only with the existing system. The vast<br />
investments that have been made recently will then<br />
be kept for a time, the railways equipping the rolling<br />
stock first and then modernising the trackside step<br />
by step as requirements arise.<br />
In Spain, as in Italy but probably on an even larger<br />
scale, there are plans for a high-speed network with<br />
ERTMS/ETCS Level 2 as the core of the signalling<br />
and communications system. The western part of<br />
the Madrid to Barcelona high-speed line, from<br />
Madrid to Lleida, will be in operation in <strong>2003</strong> (see<br />
Figure 9). It will have Level 2 as the main system,<br />
with Level 1 and some conventional lineside signals<br />
and the associated national ATP system as backups.<br />
A branch from this high-speed line, from<br />
Zaragoza northwards to Huesca (and later to<br />
Canfranc on the border with France), will be<br />
equipped with Level 1 and will also be commissioned<br />
in <strong>2003</strong>.<br />
Figure 9 – ERTMS/ETCS in Spain
70<br />
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES<br />
Figure 10 – Future ERTMS/ETCS Projects in Spain<br />
Spain has many further projects, with a total of<br />
7,000 km of high-speed lines to be in service by<br />
2020 (see Figure 10). There are other projects too for<br />
modernisation of existing conventional lines, with<br />
ERTMS/ETCS Level 1 or Level 2 to be fitted depending<br />
on traffic density.<br />
In Switzerland the clockwork is running and SBB-<br />
CFF, the national, integrated railway, has precise<br />
plans for commissioning lines and on-board<br />
equipment year on year until the whole country is<br />
covered in 2017. The plan is to equip lines having<br />
denser traffic with Level 2 (about 40% of route-km.)<br />
and all other lines with Level 1 with “limited<br />
supervision”, ie a version adapted from the<br />
European specifications in which only dangerous<br />
locations (in stations and junctions) would be fitted<br />
rather than the whole line. SBB-CFF have demonstrated<br />
that this approach would save nearly<br />
two-thirds of the cost for these lines. Most rolling<br />
stock will, of course, be equipped with Level 2 so<br />
that it can operate anywhere on the network.<br />
In the UK the West Coast Main Line project is<br />
continuing, and there are now new plans under the<br />
management of the ERTMS Programme Team (EPT)<br />
to introduce ERTMS/ETCS at national level in the<br />
future. The main ideas are the recommendations of<br />
the EPT:<br />
• Level 2 will be adopted throughout the UK for<br />
main lines, allowing lineside signals to be<br />
removed in the longer term, in order to increase<br />
line capacity and to reduce operation and<br />
maintenance costs;<br />
• fitting of trains will be prioritised.<br />
Other UK aspects of ERTMS/ETCS are:<br />
• Early Deployment Sites (EDS) will be implemented<br />
to prove the system by 2008;<br />
• fitting of high-speed lines should be completed<br />
by 2015;<br />
• the remainder of the infrastructure should be<br />
fitted when existing lineside signalling is<br />
renewed (and so will probably go on beyond<br />
2015);<br />
• regional lines will also be tackled, but probably<br />
independently of ERTMS/ETCS.<br />
More could be said in Europe about migration<br />
from existing signalling to ERTMS/ETCS, especially<br />
on existing lines, for no two countries are really alike<br />
in this respect.<br />
Outside Europe, several countries are already<br />
seriously considering ERTMS/ETCS, also for<br />
different reasons.<br />
In Australia, there are potential needs for long<br />
distance traffic and also on suburban lines.<br />
In China, vast requirements exist and ERTMS/<br />
ETCS could bring solutions to many of them,<br />
ranging from high-speed lines to places where an<br />
increase of line capacity is needed, requirements for<br />
more efficient operation, and management of singletrack<br />
lines.<br />
In India, various needs exist, ranging from<br />
requirements for safety improvements and higher<br />
availability of the railway to introduction of additional<br />
functions that current local signalling solutions<br />
seem unable to provide. A requirement has been<br />
expressed for instance for level crossing management<br />
and supervision to be included in any future<br />
signalling system for Indian railways.<br />
And it is certain that many other railways in the<br />
world will adopt ERTMS/ETCS.<br />
CONCLUSION – A VISION OF THE<br />
FUTURE WITH ERTMS/ETCS<br />
From this overview of the present situation about<br />
ERTMS/ETCS in Europe and in the world, we can<br />
conclude that:<br />
• Fact No.1: ERTMS/ETCS is now present or soon<br />
to come into service in many places. Once it<br />
arrives railways, starting with the drivers, will<br />
have no desire to go back to the former system.<br />
• Fact No.2: Railways will have diverse goals in<br />
introducing ERTMS/ETCS. Each railway has its<br />
own priorities, for reasons that tend to be tied<br />
up with history and local politics.<br />
• Fact No. 3: ERTMS/ETCS will be important in<br />
helping rail to compete with air and road<br />
transport, in ways that in some cases may not<br />
be so evident, and may even be rather innovative<br />
– an opportunity which should not be<br />
missed.<br />
So the final vision is that by about 2020, all highspeed<br />
lines and most other conventional lines in<br />
Europe will be operated using ERTMS/ETCS, as<br />
will a number of lines outside Europe.
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES 71<br />
Discussion<br />
The discussion was opened by F Heijnen<br />
(Invensys) who asked the speaker how the balance<br />
of interoperability between operating rules and<br />
implementation of ERTMS was to be achieved.<br />
J Poré agreed that the issues of operating rules,<br />
(how the signallers and train drivers operate different<br />
suppliers equipment), and the principles of operation<br />
do need to be balanced. A great deal of work has<br />
already been undertaken on standardisation of the<br />
principles and making the equipment interoperable<br />
but not so the operating rules.<br />
P Bassett (AEA Technology) commented that<br />
interoperability between drivers and procedures<br />
should not be a problem; the technology needs to be<br />
streamlined and the Signal Engineer and the<br />
Operator must work closely together.<br />
J Poré noted that most of the problems arise from<br />
human factors such as misinterpretation. He also<br />
stated that his description of interoperability was the<br />
travelling of long distances through different<br />
countries and at present this tends to be where<br />
language and signalling principles are not dissimilar.<br />
P Vandermark (Driver First Great Western)<br />
related a recent incident in Belgium where two<br />
Signallers had been unable to communicate<br />
because of language differences that resulted in an<br />
accident.<br />
R Maton (Operator Severn Valley Railway)<br />
remarked that in Air Traffic Controls throughout the<br />
world, English is the accepted language for all<br />
communications.<br />
J Poré agreed that all of these issues are connected<br />
with Operating Rules and not the technology.<br />
I Harman (Union Railways) wondered why there<br />
should be any requirement to change the rules to<br />
allow for ETCS introduction; why not fit the signalling<br />
into the environment it is to be used in?<br />
J Poré stated that the Swiss have adopted a<br />
pragmatic philosophy that the rules shouldn’t have<br />
to change with the introduction of new technology<br />
but if they have to, why not? Adaptation to new<br />
technology is a factor that has to be considered and<br />
migration is a balance between old and new and the<br />
costs involved. He also commented that introduction<br />
of ERTMS brings considerable benefits<br />
enabling train drivers to “see” ahead and reminding<br />
them and Signallers of previous instructions given.<br />
C Harrison (Lloyds MHA) wanted to know how<br />
capacity could be improved if ETCS Level 2 added<br />
20 seconds to processing and transmission times.<br />
J Poré replied that he was unaware of any processing<br />
and transmission time delays but reiterated<br />
that it had been proven that ETCS improved line<br />
capacity on the new Berne to Olten line by 30% over<br />
any other type of (ATP) signalling.<br />
C Kessell (Centuria Comrail) wondered if the both<br />
the commercial aspects and potential commissioning<br />
problems would deter railway companies from<br />
investing in ERTMS and, if this were to happen, how<br />
would this affect the equipment supply industries?<br />
He was also interested to know the speakers views<br />
on what ERTMS will look like in 2020.<br />
J Poré responded by arguing that as existing<br />
signalling installations become due for renewal, as<br />
well as the requirements of EC legislation, the<br />
supply industry will only be interested in providing<br />
ERTMS equipment. This situation will, however, vary<br />
from country to country but 2020 may be optimistic.<br />
P Stanley (President) commented that the benefits<br />
required by railway operators to both improve<br />
commercial services and compete against road and<br />
air competition could only be provided by ETCS.<br />
C Eaglen (Railtrack) asked about the co-operation<br />
between rolling stock and signalling engineers to<br />
ensure optimum use is made of modern technological<br />
developments both in terms of physical<br />
positioning of train-borne equipment and issues<br />
such as electro-magnetic interference. He also<br />
wondered if this would speed up migration.<br />
J Poré informed that certainly within Alstom, the<br />
rolling stock and signalling engineers do communicate<br />
with one another. Additionally, in Europe a<br />
seminar is regularly held between suppliers and<br />
railway companies. Other problems are also being<br />
tackled and it is hoped migration of ERTMS into the<br />
driver’s cab will provide just a single MMI, incorporating<br />
existing systems where necessary.<br />
R E B Barnard (Alstom) noted that Operators view<br />
ERTMS as ATP and in Eastern Europe ERTMS Level<br />
1 is being fitted, possibly because EC money is<br />
available! He considered that whilst fitting Level 1<br />
not only improves safety and can be overlaid on<br />
existing signalling, it is also interoperable. The real<br />
return on investment, however, is the fitting of Level<br />
2 and in-cab signalling. The important issue is timing<br />
the resignalling and fitting the rolling stock whilst<br />
allaying Operators’ concerns about the introduction<br />
of radical changes. Widespread fitment giving<br />
experience of use will assist in making the decision<br />
to move to in-cab signalling when renewing infrastructure<br />
but this will take time.<br />
J Poré agreed that financial support has been a<br />
key to introducing Level 1 in Eastern Europe; however,<br />
he reiterated that suppliers would only be<br />
providing ERTMS equipment in the future. He also<br />
pointed out that Level 2 ERTMS does not just give a<br />
return on investment but provides distinct advantages<br />
over other systems, ie LZM requires cabling,<br />
TVM requires track circuits and therefore ERTMS<br />
was the only solution for the future.<br />
The President thanked M Poré for a fascinating<br />
evening and his contribution to the subsequent<br />
discussion.
72<br />
Technical Meeting of the Institution<br />
held at<br />
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2<br />
Tuesday 12th March <strong>2003</strong><br />
The President, Mr P W Stanley, in the chair.<br />
116 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr F Heijnen, seconded by Mr P Bassett, and carried that the<br />
Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 12th February <strong>2003</strong> be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct record.<br />
The President welcomed Mr D Singh, WRSL, who was present at a meeting for the first time since his election to membership of the<br />
Institution amidst applause.<br />
The President introduced Mr G Moens, of Rail Link Engineering, and Mr R Stokes, of Union Railways, and invited them to present their<br />
paper entitled “CTRL Signalling and Communications”. In making the presentation, which Messrs Stokes and Moens did jointly, they<br />
briefly explained the history of the development of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and then described the new signalling and communication<br />
facilities to be provided, as a foretaste of what members should see as part of the <strong>2003</strong> Convention programme later this year.<br />
Following the presentation Messrs P Bassett, AEAT; C Harrison, LRMHA; D McKeown, Independent Consultant; I Harman, Union<br />
Railways; P Duggan, WSRL; J Poré, Alstom; and J Lester, Eurostar, took part in the discussion.<br />
The presenters dealt with the questions comprehensively and Mr C H Porter then proposed a vote of thanks. The President<br />
presented the speakers with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper.<br />
He then reminded members of the need to register to attend the Convention in Birmingham in May and in particular to register<br />
quickly if they wished to attend the technical visit to AEA Technology Derby on 28th/29th March.<br />
The President closed the meeting by announcing that the next meeting in London would be the Annual General Meeting to be held on<br />
the 25th April <strong>2003</strong> when the incoming President will deliver his Presidential Address and this will be followed by the Members’ Dinner<br />
at the Savoy Hotel.<br />
CTRL Signalling and Communications<br />
Gilbert Moens (Fellow) 1 and Richard Stokes (Fellow) 2<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
This paper takes forward the story of the CTRL<br />
signalling from the description presented to the<br />
Institution in December 1999, and describes the key<br />
features of the installation and the technical features<br />
of the signalling.<br />
Section One of the route, between the boundary<br />
with the Eurotunnel Railway and the existing<br />
Chatham main line at Fawkham Junction, is<br />
scheduled to open in the autumn of this year and the<br />
second section, to London St Pancras, in 2007.<br />
The route forms part of the European TEN network<br />
and it is worth reflecting that when it and the other<br />
high-speed line projects either recently completed or<br />
in progress are finished a new high-speed railway<br />
will have been built from London to Marseilles,<br />
Frankfurt and Amsterdam as well as to Paris and<br />
Brussels.<br />
THE ROUTE ITSELF<br />
The CTRL is a double track line designed, unlike<br />
the French LGV network, to handle not only highspeed<br />
passenger trains but also high-speed<br />
commuter operations (the Reserved Domestic<br />
Operator), and also to be capable of carrying freight<br />
trains (see Figure 1). Line speeds are 230 km/h from<br />
St Pancras to the junction with the Waterloo<br />
connection at Southfleet, and thence 300 km/h to<br />
the connection with Eurotunnel. Connections are to<br />
be provided at Ebbsfleet to the existing North Kent<br />
lines, and to and from the “classic” line at Ashford to<br />
serve Ashford International station.<br />
The route is electrified on the 25-0-25kV system<br />
with auto-transformers provided at approximately<br />
1 Rail Link Engineering<br />
2 Union Railways<br />
5 km intervals to limit the effects of electrical interference<br />
from the traction system on adjacent<br />
railways and statutory undertakings such as British<br />
Telecom and the Highways Agency.<br />
The control centre for the route, covering both<br />
signalling and the traction power supply, is located<br />
in the existing Ashford signalling centre that controls<br />
the classic line network in Kent and also the North<br />
Kent area replacing the former power signal box at<br />
Dartford.<br />
SIGNALLING PRINCIPLES<br />
This section is a brief summary of the arrangements<br />
installed. A more detailed description was<br />
given to the Institution in the December 1999 paper.<br />
The system used on the CTRL is a fixed block<br />
continuous transmission system (TVM 430) which<br />
meets the functionality of the ETCS level two specification.<br />
The system is already in use and proven on<br />
the high-speed lines in France and Belgium, and<br />
also on the Eurotunnel railway.<br />
Operationally, the same basic rules are applied as<br />
on the high-speed lines on the Continent. Some<br />
minor changes have been put in place to meet the<br />
needs of a mixed traffic line. However, the key<br />
approach is that train crews should not have to<br />
reflect on which part of the TEN network they are<br />
operating, particularly in an emergency situation.<br />
The use of stop-and-proceed rules at block<br />
section markers which are not either route origin<br />
markers or those protecting tunnels, viaducts neutral<br />
sections etc, is also applied, and such movements<br />
are made under continuous ATP supervision.<br />
Shunt markers have also been provided at<br />
specific locations where there is a need for<br />
turn-back movements of engineering trains.
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 73<br />
Figure 1<br />
In addition to the TVM speed code transmitted to<br />
the train, “train stop” data loops are provided at<br />
route origin absolute stop markers and shunt<br />
markers.<br />
Intermittent transmission loops are also provided<br />
for specific functions such as arming and disarming<br />
cab signalling, opening circuit breaker (automatic<br />
process) for neutral sections, etc.<br />
One section of the rulebook has been written to<br />
cover the possible need for operation of “non fitted”<br />
traction and on-track machines on the CTRL but<br />
under rigorous conditions. “Non fitted” in this case<br />
means, "Not fitted with TVM," and does not have the<br />
same meaning as prevailed for many years on the<br />
UK Railway. Such movements are required to obey<br />
the auxiliary signals provided at absolute stop<br />
markers. For these to be opened, a specific action is<br />
required by the signaller. The French terms “open"<br />
and "closed” are used on the CTRL to reflect the use<br />
of block section markers, rather than the traditional<br />
terms “On" and "Off”.<br />
There is a very small number of lineside signals on<br />
the CTRL, at interface areas with other signalling<br />
control centre areas, and these are of the standard<br />
UK multiple aspect type. Where appropriate, TPWS<br />
track equipment has been fitted working in conjunction<br />
with these signals.<br />
COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT<br />
As well as the usual voice and data system, the<br />
CTRL is equipped both with the UK cab secure radio<br />
system and with GSM-R. The cab secure system is<br />
being provided as a short-term interim measure, as<br />
the trains using the route are not yet equipped with<br />
GSM-R radios. The changeover will be managed as<br />
part of the overall migration policy when the existing<br />
systems are withdrawn from use over the next few<br />
years. The management of the change from the<br />
existing CSR systems used on Railtrack and ET and<br />
the UIC 751 system used in France and Belgium is<br />
in itself a complex project, and has implications for<br />
many types of rolling stock other than the class 373<br />
Eurostar trains. Section Two of the CTRL will be<br />
equipped with GSM-R from the outset. The use of<br />
stop-and-proceed instructions has required alterations<br />
to the operation of the CSR system, as the<br />
train describer operates with the use of ripple berths<br />
in the intervals between interlockings instead of the<br />
usual UK practice of an individual train describer<br />
berth for each signal.<br />
INTERLOCKING SYSTEMS<br />
The CTRL itself uses the ITCS system which is<br />
described later in this paper. It is required to interface<br />
with other interlocking systems:<br />
• SSI controlled from Victoria signalling centre on<br />
the Waterloo connection;<br />
• SSI controlled from Ashford in the Dollands<br />
Moor area;<br />
• PRCI controlled from the Eurotunnel RCC in the<br />
Dollands Moor area.<br />
In the Dollands Moor area the interfaces are<br />
extremely complex. The interface is in effect a<br />
three-way one, with all lines in the area being bidirectional<br />
and, in the case of the Continental main<br />
line connecting to the existing London to Dover<br />
route, a transition from lineside to cab signalling.<br />
Section Two will require interfaces also to the<br />
North Kent area SSI at Ebbsfleet, to Upminster SSI<br />
and to the King’s Cross and Camden Road installations<br />
in the St Pancras area.<br />
There are also electric control room interfaces for<br />
traction power supply control with Eurotunnel<br />
and Paddock Wood and, when Section Two is<br />
completed, with York and Rugby electric control<br />
rooms. These are managed from the Engineering<br />
Maintenance Management System (“EMMIS”)<br />
workstation located in the Ashford signalling centre.<br />
ADDITIONAL FEATURES FOR SECTION<br />
TWO<br />
Much of the route of Section Two is in tunnels, and<br />
additional supervisory equipment will be provided to<br />
manage possible incidents in tunnels, including<br />
control of lighting, ventilation etc. The lessons learnt<br />
from the fire in the Channel Tunnel have been<br />
included in the design for these tunnels, and detailed<br />
design is now in progress. The operation of a<br />
high-intensity suburban service in addition to the<br />
high-speed international services has implications<br />
for the design of the systems to be used, and the<br />
requirements for these services are being reviewed<br />
and developed with the Strategic Rail Authority.<br />
It is not practicable to provide TVM signalling to<br />
the buffer stops at St Pancras, and therefore the first<br />
section of the route, from the station to the portal of<br />
the first London tunnel, will be equipped with<br />
lineside signalling in general to UK standards. ETCS<br />
Level 1 functionality will be provided for the ATP<br />
system associated with these signals. This will be
74 CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS<br />
the KVB system currently applied to lineside signals<br />
in France.<br />
SAFETY ASSURANCE IN DESIGN AND<br />
APPROVALS<br />
All railway systems have been specified and<br />
developed in accordance with the relevant requirements<br />
of the recent European norms on reliability,<br />
availability, maintainability and safety, ie EN50126<br />
(general requirements) EN50128 (software assurance)<br />
and EN50129 (signalling). Contractors have<br />
therefore demonstrated safety in design installation<br />
and commissioning by means of a structured<br />
safety case. In the case of signalling this safety<br />
case has evolved through the stages defined in<br />
EN50129.<br />
GENERIC PRODUCT SAFETY CASE<br />
The safety justification of the products to be<br />
adopted (using the principle of “Cross Acceptance”<br />
where applicable).<br />
GENERIC APPLICATION SAFETY CASE<br />
The safety justification of the design of the<br />
product as modified to comply with CTRL requirements.<br />
APPLICATION-SPECIFIC SAFETY CASE<br />
The safety case for the system as installed.<br />
APPLICATION SPECIFIC SAFETY CASE: POST-<br />
COMMISSIONING ADDENDUM<br />
The safety case updated to take account of test<br />
results and any subsequent modifications.<br />
These safety cases are reviewed and accepted by<br />
an independent panel (the CTRL System Review<br />
Panel). This panel comprises a range of railway<br />
experts who ensure that each safety case is<br />
subjected to a rigorous and thorough review. The<br />
design, installation and testing of the systems is also<br />
subject to review by the Contracting Entity’s Notified<br />
Body as part of the Conformity Verification process<br />
mandated by the EU Directive on Interoperability<br />
and the TSIs.<br />
Prior to the Railways (Interoperability)(High-Speed)<br />
Regulations <strong>2002</strong> coming into force, the emerging<br />
designs were presented to HMRI as part of the<br />
process of consultation under the Railways and<br />
other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant &<br />
Equipment) Regulations 1994.<br />
THE SIGNALLING SYSTEM ON CTRL<br />
On CTRL the signalling system is based on the<br />
Interlocking and Train Control System (ITCS), a<br />
computer-based system able to perform all the<br />
signalling functions on a new high-speed line.<br />
BACKGROUND HISTORY<br />
In 1993, SNCF commissioned the TVM430 system<br />
(Track-to-Train Transmission) on the North Europe<br />
High Speed Line. This system, developed with CSEE<br />
Transport, has since been installed on the Paris<br />
Bypass and Lyon Bypass high-speed lines, as well<br />
as in the Channel Tunnel and in Belgium. It is<br />
currently being installed In Korea.<br />
The TVM430 system provides cab-signalling<br />
functions on all these lines. Depending on the trackside<br />
signalling status, the system determines the<br />
running instructions to be given to the train (speed<br />
indication and data for the on-board ATP system).<br />
The experience gained has shown that the use of<br />
such computerised systems:<br />
• allows easier implementation;<br />
• makes the testing phase easier, both before<br />
commissioning and for managing modifications;<br />
• allows connection of computerised maintenance<br />
aid equipment.<br />
SNCF with CSEE Transport have therefore<br />
integrated the interlocking and cab-signalling<br />
functions (TVM430) within the same system, to<br />
develop a computerised system able to manage all<br />
the signalling functions of a High Speed Line. This<br />
system, called SEI (Système d’Enclenchement<br />
Intégré), has been implemented on the new<br />
Mediterranean High Speed Line.<br />
For CTRL, the same system has been chosen but<br />
with the name ITCS.<br />
FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION<br />
The ITCS is responsible for the following<br />
functions:<br />
• receiving controls from the Rail Control Centre<br />
(RCC);<br />
• sending monitoring data to the RCC;<br />
• train detection;<br />
• calculation of interlocking functions (route<br />
setting, point controls, route proving…);<br />
• acquisition of data having an impact on the<br />
signalling, such as electrical sub-sections for<br />
automatic overhead line equipment (OHLE)<br />
protection and hot axle box detection;<br />
• calculation of the TVM 430 type message to be<br />
transmitted to the train;<br />
• data transmission to and from an adjacent ITCS.<br />
In addition to the system itself, the following tools,<br />
necessary throughout its life cycle, have been<br />
developed:<br />
• a production line to configure an ITCS for a<br />
particular area depending on operational<br />
requirements and signalling principles, and to<br />
modify it later;<br />
• a test tool to validate the data capture for the<br />
first implementation as well as for each modification;<br />
• maintenance aid equipment.<br />
Track circuits and the track-to-train transmission<br />
limit the spacing of ITCS to a maximum distance of<br />
15km, as for the TVM 430 system. This is due to the<br />
fact that track circuit transmitters and receivers are<br />
concentrated within the ITCS to allow them to be<br />
oriented in accordance with the direction of running.<br />
The maximum length over which a track circuit can<br />
be fed is 7.5 km, so if the distance between two<br />
adjacent interlocking areas is greater than 15 km, an<br />
intermediate signalling room is required.
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 75<br />
TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION<br />
ITCS Architecture<br />
The ITCS is designed in such a way that the<br />
system can be used on different sites as well as on<br />
lines for which the signalling principles are different.<br />
Three layers have therefore been implemented:<br />
• A generic layer including all necessary hardware<br />
and software and in particular the generic software<br />
ensuring the required safety. This layer is<br />
the same whatever the signalling principles<br />
applied or the sites.<br />
• An application-specific layer corresponding to<br />
the signalling principles applicable to a network<br />
or a line.<br />
• A data layer specific to each site (geographical<br />
data). This layer can be modified with no need to<br />
change the other layers.<br />
Generic Layer<br />
The generic equipment is modular in order to be<br />
adaptable to each site whatever the amount of<br />
equipment to be controlled. The generic layer<br />
includes:<br />
• a processor unit ensuring all the functional<br />
process;<br />
• interfaces with the adjacent interlockings;<br />
• interfaces with the track.<br />
Processing Unit<br />
The safety critical processes are performed by<br />
three computers with a two-out-of-three architecture.<br />
These computers are checked by coded<br />
mono-processors of which there are two to ensure<br />
system availability. This unit handles the links with<br />
the Route Control Centre and the local control unit (if<br />
any), the adjacent ITCS, the input/output interfaces<br />
and local maintenance equipment.<br />
Input/Output Interfaces<br />
This equipment is managed by the processing<br />
unit. The number depends on the site configuration.<br />
Based on a coded mono-processor, they include<br />
input and output racks for the interfaces with the<br />
other equipment within the signalling room or the<br />
trackside equipment, and manage the links with the<br />
track interfaces cubicles.<br />
The safety of inputs is ensured by “SACEM” type<br />
coding using a coded mono-processor. The safety of<br />
the output is ensured by recreate-reading and comparison<br />
with the control by the coded mono-processor.<br />
Track Interfaces<br />
These interfaces concern the necessary equipment<br />
for the functioning of:<br />
• track circuits;<br />
• intermittent transmission loops.<br />
Track Circuit Equipment<br />
This equipment includes the transmitter, the<br />
receiver, cable compensation and orientation<br />
devices. The transmitter receives the TVM information<br />
to be sent to the train through the input/output<br />
interface cubicle, and forms the message to be put<br />
into the track. This transmitter consists of two<br />
distinct elements, a digital one to form the signal and<br />
an analogue one to amplify it. Cable compensation<br />
reduces the level of the signal for a track circuit close<br />
to the signalling room, so that the tuning depends<br />
only on the track circuit itself and not on the distance<br />
between the track circuit and the signalling room.<br />
There is compensation both for the transmitter and<br />
for the receiver. The orientation device allows the<br />
exchange of the transmitter and receiver depending<br />
on the direction of travel, to ensure that the transmitter<br />
always feeds in front of the train.<br />
The receiver provides the function of track circuit<br />
reception, giving the inputs/outputs interface coded<br />
mono-processor the signal characteristics allowing<br />
it to determine if the track circuit is free or occupied.<br />
In addition it ensures the rereading of the TVM code,<br />
transmitting it to the input/output interface coded<br />
mono-processor which compares it with the control<br />
and inhibits the transmitter in case of discrepancy.<br />
Intermittent Transmission Loop Transmitters<br />
The transmitter receives the message number to<br />
be transmitted via the inputs/outputs interface<br />
cubicle. This is calculated by the processing unit and<br />
forms the signal to be put into the loop. These transmitters<br />
also check the status of the loops, and give<br />
this status to the processing unit.<br />
Application Specific Layer<br />
The Application Specific Layer is formed of ele-
76<br />
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS<br />
Adjacent ITCS<br />
Points control<br />
and monitoring<br />
Other signalling<br />
trackside equipment<br />
ITCS<br />
Inputs/Outputs Rack<br />
Route Control<br />
Centre<br />
Processing<br />
unit<br />
Track Interface Rack<br />
Central<br />
Maintenance<br />
Equipment<br />
Local<br />
Maintenance<br />
Equipment<br />
Track Circuit<br />
Intermittent<br />
Transmission<br />
Loop<br />
Track<br />
mentary functions shown within signalling principles<br />
diagrams in GRAPHCET format. These functions are<br />
mainly used for management of routes and to<br />
control and lock points. Translated into computer<br />
language, they form a library of basic functions from<br />
which the data for a site is built. As it is designed,<br />
this architecture allows the modification of one or<br />
several functions without the need to alter the<br />
generic layer already validated. This property is used<br />
when signalling principles specific to a network have<br />
to be implemented.<br />
Data Layer<br />
This layer is completely independent from the two<br />
others. It allows the equipment to be configured for<br />
a specific site (consistency, track layout, functional<br />
specification…). This site-specific information is<br />
given in the scheme plan, control tables and data<br />
preparation documents.<br />
ASSOCIATED TOOLS<br />
The level of safety needed by this computerised<br />
signalling system requires data preparation and<br />
testing tools to manage the design process and to<br />
achieve the necessary quality level.<br />
DATA PREPARATION TOOL<br />
The data preparation tool is divided into two main<br />
functions:<br />
• data preparation tool for signalling principles;<br />
• data preparation tool for site information.<br />
DATA PREPARATION TOOL FOR SIGNALLING<br />
PRINCIPLES<br />
The objective of this tool is to enter the signalling<br />
principles diagrams in order to create a set of<br />
system parameters, usable for a whole line, within<br />
the Application Specific Layer. This tool uses the<br />
Signalling Principles Diagrams (GRAPHCET format),<br />
independently checked, as input data to create the<br />
Signalling Principles database. In addition, a printed<br />
file allows the checking of the principles entered in<br />
the system: System Parameters Verification Files<br />
(SVF). When the checking is done, the final version<br />
can be issued as well: System Parameters Files (SF).<br />
As configuration management is incorporated in<br />
the tool, differences between two versions can be<br />
highlighted: DeltaSVF or DeltaSF. When issued for<br />
checking or for application, the current version of<br />
principles is “locked”. If a modification is required, a<br />
new configuration with a new version identifier must<br />
be created.<br />
Not OK<br />
Signalling Principles<br />
Diagrams<br />
Signalling Principles<br />
Data Capture<br />
Issue of SVF and<br />
DeltaSVF<br />
(Configuring and<br />
locking)<br />
Checking<br />
OK<br />
Issue of SVF and<br />
DeltaSVF<br />
(Configuring and<br />
locking)<br />
DATA PREPARATION TOOL FOR SITE<br />
INFORMATION<br />
The objective of this tool is to enter specific site<br />
data in order to create a set of site parameters,<br />
usable for one ITCS cubicle, within the Data Layer.<br />
This tool uses technical documents such as scheme<br />
plans, control tables, independently checked, as<br />
input data to create the site parameters database. A<br />
locked version of the Principles must be used.<br />
In addition, a printed file allows checking of the<br />
parameters entered in the system: Parameters<br />
Verification Files (PVF). When the checking is done,<br />
the final version can be issued as well: Parameters<br />
Configuration Files (COF). As configuration management<br />
is incorporated in the tool, differences between
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 77<br />
Route<br />
Control<br />
Centre<br />
two versions can be highlighted: DeltaPVF or<br />
DeltaCOF.<br />
When issued for checking or for application, the<br />
current version of site parameters is “locked”. If a<br />
modification is required, a new configuration with a<br />
new version identifier must be created.<br />
The production line permits generation of the software<br />
package configured for each site as well as:<br />
• the associated documentation (Configuration<br />
file) comparable to ITCS wiring design;<br />
• a CD-ROM with the software package required<br />
for the site, for the ITCS itself and for the Local<br />
Maintenance Equipment (LME).<br />
This production line is able to give data files for the<br />
Route Control Centre data preparation and for the<br />
simulator used by the testing tool.<br />
TEST TOOL<br />
The test tool is the system on which all the data for<br />
one ITCS are tested exhaustively. After this phase,<br />
only the connections with the external signalling<br />
Adjacent ITCS<br />
Processing<br />
unit<br />
Local<br />
maintenance<br />
equipment<br />
Technical Documents<br />
Paper Version<br />
Site Parameters<br />
Data Capture<br />
Issue of PVF and<br />
DeltaPVF<br />
(Configuring and<br />
locking)<br />
Checking<br />
Point control<br />
and monitoring<br />
Simulator<br />
Other trackside<br />
signalling equipment<br />
Inputs/outputs rack<br />
Track interface rack<br />
Track<br />
circuit<br />
Issue of COF and<br />
DeltaCOF<br />
(Configuring and<br />
locking)<br />
ITCS<br />
Intermittent<br />
transmission<br />
loop<br />
Track<br />
equipment remain to be tested on site.<br />
The test tool is able to simulate the equipment<br />
surrounding an ITCS (points, track circuits…) in<br />
order to test the same software as that to be<br />
installed on site. Depending on the testing phase, it<br />
is also possible to simulate the Remote Control<br />
Centre, Local Maintenance Equipment and adjacent<br />
ITCSs.<br />
Using the signalling principles diagrams as input,<br />
the testers write typical test scenarios. In parallel, a<br />
test booklet is issued in the usual manner. Each test<br />
is then associated with a typical test scenario and<br />
data captured as an implemented scenario. The<br />
expected result is given to the system for each<br />
implemented scenario. The scenario is then translated<br />
into a language comprehensible to the test<br />
tool, which activates the input of the processing unit<br />
and records the outputs. These outputs are<br />
compared with the expected result.<br />
When a new set of data is issued, for whatever<br />
reason (generic software upgraded, change of<br />
Signalling<br />
Principles<br />
Diagrams<br />
Scheme Plan<br />
Control<br />
Test<br />
Booklet<br />
Typical<br />
Test<br />
Implemented<br />
Scenarios<br />
signalling principles or site data modification), all the<br />
tests are rerun in order to be sure that the process of<br />
creating a new storage medium has not altered any<br />
elements which have not been upgraded (ie<br />
regression testing). New scenarios are created to<br />
test the modified parts, and the scenarios for the<br />
unmodified parts are reused.<br />
MAINTENANCE AID EQUIPMENT<br />
The Maintenance Aid Equipment includes the<br />
Local Maintenance Equipment (LME) and the Central<br />
Maintenance Equipment (CME).<br />
Local Maintenance Equipment (LME)<br />
Each ITCS Processing Unit is linked to a LME. This<br />
tool records all input data as well as the internal data<br />
defined in the signalling principles diagrams, allowing<br />
maintenance staff to recreate ITCS functions in<br />
case of failure. There is also a functional check for<br />
each item of equipment. This check and the status<br />
of the indicators installed on the fronts of the cards<br />
allow a failed card to be identified.<br />
From the LME it is possible to disable routes,<br />
signals/markers and points, as from an SSI<br />
Technician's Terminal.<br />
Central Maintenance Equipment (CME)<br />
All the LMEs are linked to a data concentrator<br />
called the CME. In addition to a logging facility, this<br />
CME allows browsing of each LME of the line.
78<br />
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS<br />
APPLICATION FOR CTRL SECTION 1<br />
ARCHITECTURE<br />
Since the distance between two interlocking areas<br />
is about 10 km on CTRL, there is no need for an<br />
intermediate signalling room. The figure above<br />
shows the architecture of the signalling for CTRL<br />
Section 1.<br />
CAB SIGNALLING<br />
Block Sectioning Study<br />
On a line fitted with TVM430, the location of the<br />
markers defining block section boundaries must be<br />
designed:<br />
• to implement a safe buffer section before any<br />
protected point (eg track circuit, points end or<br />
fouling point);<br />
• to allow a driver to deal with all speed restriction<br />
indication given by the cab signalling system,<br />
using the normal service braking,<br />
• headway assessment;<br />
• document generation;<br />
following the process below:<br />
NO<br />
NO<br />
NO<br />
Data acquisition<br />
Block sectioning<br />
Safety validation<br />
YES<br />
Ergonomics<br />
validation<br />
YES<br />
Headway<br />
assessment<br />
YES<br />
Document<br />
generation<br />
• to implement each possible intervention curve<br />
within each block section;<br />
• to provide the best possible headway.<br />
For this design phase the CSEE computerised tool<br />
named DESI (DÉcoupage et SImulation) has been<br />
used.<br />
The block sectioning design includes the following<br />
phases:<br />
• data acquisition;<br />
• block sectioning;<br />
• safety validation;<br />
• ergonomics validation;<br />
Data Acquisition<br />
During this phase, all the necessary data are<br />
captured in the tool, including:<br />
• train characteristics (in particular traction and<br />
braking effort graphs and rolling resistance);<br />
• track layout (in particular gradients, locations of<br />
points and fouling points, line speeds and the<br />
speed to be guaranteed by the ATP system);<br />
• signalling data (in particular the response time of<br />
the trackside and on-board TVM system);<br />
• cab signalling sequence data, with all the<br />
stopping and speed restriction sequences to be<br />
implemented.<br />
Block Sectioning<br />
The purpose of this phase is to calculate the<br />
optimum length for each block section. As the CTRL<br />
line is similar to the French high speed lines, the<br />
block section length is, on average, equal to 1,500m.<br />
on the level. The minimum length for each block<br />
section is calculated taking into account:
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 79<br />
• the cab signalling sequence applying to this<br />
block section;<br />
• the normal service braking of the trains;<br />
• gradients.<br />
During this phase the system checks that the<br />
length of the proposed block section is sufficient to<br />
permit all the control curves to be implemented.<br />
Safety Validation<br />
The purpose of this phase is to check that the<br />
block sectioning is compatible with signalling<br />
constraints, taking into account degraded situations.<br />
For every cab signalling sequence implemented and<br />
type of train concerned, the system determines the<br />
worst-case stopping point following triggering of the<br />
emergency braking, and checks that this stopping<br />
point is not beyond the protected point. The braking<br />
rate used in this calculation is “guaranteed emergency<br />
braking,” which takes into account:<br />
• the maximum number of brakes isolated allowing<br />
the train to run at its maximum speed;<br />
• the overload of the train;<br />
• poor adhesion between the wheels and the rails;<br />
• dispersion rating.<br />
All critical situations that can generate the worst<br />
braking distances are analysed by the system:<br />
• lack of transmission message at the entrance to<br />
the block section;<br />
• overspeed in the block section;<br />
• fault at the end of the block section.<br />
If the result is not satisfactory, the block sectioning<br />
has to be modified.<br />
Ergonomics Validation<br />
The purpose of this phase is to check that all the<br />
required speed restrictions can be achieved by the<br />
driver for each block section and each type of train.<br />
The block sectioning has been performed for the<br />
type of train requiring the best performance. At this<br />
stage, the requirement is to ensure that all trains can<br />
be correctly driven. The braking rate used is the<br />
normal service braking rate for each train, and the<br />
driver response time (time to apply the brakes after<br />
an warning cab signalling indication has been<br />
displayed) is taken into account. If the result is not<br />
satisfactory, the block sectioning has to be modified.<br />
Headway Assessment<br />
The purpose of this stage is to ensure that the<br />
required headways have been provided. The calculation<br />
gives the minimum theoretical headway (the<br />
signalling headway) between two trains on plain line<br />
or at a junction (either facing or trailing). On CTRL, in<br />
order to improve the signalling headway the TVM<br />
430 data allows the display of a flashing green<br />
indication (on which the headway calculation is<br />
based) within a block section and not only at a<br />
marker. If the result is not satisfactory, the block<br />
sectioning has to be modified.<br />
Document Generation<br />
At the end of this process, three documents are<br />
issued:<br />
• Block Sectioning File, containing all the input<br />
data taken into account and the location of each<br />
marker with the cab signalling sequences<br />
applied (this document is used in designing the<br />
scheme plan and control tables);<br />
• Block Sectioning Safety Validation File, containing<br />
the results of safety validation showing that<br />
for each marker and each cab signalling<br />
sequence (stopping sequence or speed restriction<br />
sequence), the buffer section implemented<br />
is at least equal to the worst overrun distance<br />
(this document is used in designing the control<br />
tables and also during data preparation);<br />
• Headway Validation File, containing the results<br />
of the headway assessment.<br />
TVM 430 DATA DESIGN<br />
In the TVM 430 system, continuous track-to-train<br />
transmission provides all the information the<br />
on-board system needs to determine the speed<br />
band to be displayed and to calculate the intervention<br />
curve for the ATP system. The following data<br />
are transmitted:<br />
• network code;<br />
• block section length;<br />
• average gradient within this block section;<br />
• generic speed code in relation to the cab<br />
signalling display and its associated ATP.<br />
Network Code<br />
This code defines the network on which the train<br />
is running. It uses 3 bits of the message, so has 8<br />
possible values. For the time being, Eurostars recognise<br />
just two networks: LGV (the French and<br />
Belgium high speed lines), and Eurotunnel. Class 92<br />
locomotives only recognise the Eurotunnel network.<br />
A new network will be created for CTRL Section 1<br />
and a further new one for Section 2.<br />
Block Section Length<br />
This is the distance from the entrance to the end<br />
of a block section. The on-board system needs it to<br />
determine the final point of the speed intervention<br />
curve. It uses 6 bits of the message, so has 64<br />
possible values. This requires the use of a predetermined<br />
distance table specific for each network.<br />
Average Gradient<br />
This is the gradient to be taken into account by the<br />
on-board system for the intervention curve. It uses 4<br />
bits of the message, so has 16 possible values. This<br />
requires the use of a pre-determined gradient table<br />
specific for each network.<br />
Generic Speed Code<br />
This information allows the on-board system to<br />
determine the speed band to be displayed and the<br />
speed parameters to be taken into account for the<br />
calculated intervention curve. It uses 8 bits of the<br />
message, giving 256 possible values. The code is<br />
calculated by the ground-based cab signalling<br />
equipment, using a predetermined table specific for<br />
each network and depending on:<br />
• the nominal speed at the entrance in the block<br />
section;<br />
• the speed to be obeyed within the block section;
80<br />
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS<br />
• the speed to be obeyed at least at the end of the<br />
next block section.<br />
The on-board system interprets this code using<br />
another table, which is specific for each network and<br />
each type of train. This gives the indication to be<br />
displayed in the driver’s cab and the intervention<br />
speeds at the entrance and the exit of the block<br />
section for the intervention curve.<br />
For the Eurotunnel application, there are the<br />
following on-board tables:<br />
• one speed code table for Eurostar;<br />
• one speed code table for Eurotunnel Shuttles;<br />
• several speed code tables for Class 92:<br />
– MA100 (freight train 750m long);<br />
– ME120 (freight train 750m long);<br />
– ME140 (freight train 500m long);<br />
– V140 (passenger train)<br />
– (etc).<br />
In fact, for each information, the on-board system<br />
chooses the tables to be applied (distance, gradient<br />
and generic speed codes) depending on the network<br />
code and, in the case of freight trains, the train type<br />
which the driver must enter using his keyboard.<br />
For CTRL Section 1, five on-board tables will be<br />
required:<br />
• a distance table (which may be the same as for<br />
the LGV);<br />
• a gradient table (which may be the same as for<br />
the LGV);<br />
• a speed code table for Eurostars on CTRL<br />
Section 1;<br />
• a speed code table for Class 92s (only ME140,<br />
freight train 500m long on CTRL Section 1);<br />
• a speed code table for the Reserved Domestic<br />
Operator (RDO) on CTRL Section 1.<br />
As the block section lengths on CTRL should be<br />
similar to the French LGV, it seems possible to use<br />
the LGV distance table (to be confirmed during the<br />
basic design). This table does not exist for Class 92<br />
and will have to be created.<br />
As gradients on CTRL should be similar to the<br />
French LGV, it seems possible to use the LGV<br />
gradient table (to be confirmed during the basic<br />
design). This table does not exist for Class 92 and<br />
will have to be created.<br />
It is impossible to use the LGV code table for<br />
Eurostar. There will be speed bands on CTRL that do<br />
not exist on LGV (100 km/h for example). Moreover,<br />
providing for freight trains requires additional codes.<br />
For example, a speed of 170 for Eurostar could<br />
translate to 100 or Green Flashing for Class 92<br />
depending on the signalling sequence, so that there<br />
will be two different codes for 170. The new speed<br />
code tables will be implemented on Eurostars and<br />
Class 92.<br />
As new tables are required, the distance table and<br />
gradients have been optimised for CTRL Section 1<br />
specifically. See tables on next page.<br />
CTRL SIGNALLING PRINCIPLES<br />
As explained earlier in this paper, the interlocking<br />
and cab signalling principles applied on CTRL are<br />
specific, and different from the Mediterranean high<br />
speed line. Hence a new set of principles has been<br />
implemented within the application layer, without<br />
modifying the generic layer and its SIL 4 software.<br />
Same as the one implemented<br />
on LGV Med and<br />
Generic Layer<br />
potential other SEI/ITCS<br />
Application Specific Layer<br />
Site Data Layer<br />
ITCS Architecture<br />
CTRL Signalling<br />
Principles implementation<br />
in any CTRL<br />
Section 1 ITCS<br />
Geographical data<br />
OVERVIEW OF SECTION 2<br />
The same ITCS system will be implemented on<br />
Section 2. The signalling architecture should be the<br />
following:<br />
The ITCS at London Portal will deal only with cab<br />
signalling functions, and will be linked to the St
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 81<br />
Track to train message<br />
Network N Distance Gradient g Speed Code<br />
ON-board system<br />
➩<br />
IIS = initial intervention speed<br />
FIS = final intervention speed<br />
Distance Table<br />
Gradient Table<br />
Speed Code Table<br />
Code<br />
Target<br />
distance<br />
Code<br />
Gradient<br />
Code<br />
Display<br />
Colour Speed<br />
Speed intervention<br />
IIS FIS<br />
Network N1<br />
LGV<br />
0<br />
d<br />
50<br />
xxxx<br />
0<br />
g<br />
40<br />
xx<br />
1<br />
c<br />
Rouge<br />
xxxx<br />
-----<br />
xxx<br />
35<br />
xxx<br />
35<br />
xxx<br />
Distance Table<br />
Gradient Table<br />
Speed Code Table<br />
Code<br />
Target<br />
distance<br />
Code<br />
Gradient<br />
Code<br />
Display<br />
Colour Speed<br />
Speed intervention<br />
IIS FIS<br />
Network N2<br />
ET<br />
0<br />
d<br />
50<br />
xxxx<br />
0<br />
g<br />
12<br />
xx<br />
1<br />
c<br />
Rouge<br />
xxxx<br />
-----<br />
xxx<br />
35<br />
xxx<br />
35<br />
xxx<br />
New System parameters for CTRL section<br />
Distance Table<br />
Gradient Table<br />
Speed Code Table<br />
Code<br />
Target<br />
distance<br />
Code<br />
Gradient<br />
Code<br />
Display<br />
Colour Speed<br />
Speed intervention<br />
IIS FIS<br />
Network Nn<br />
CTRL 1<br />
0<br />
d<br />
d0<br />
xxxx<br />
0<br />
g<br />
g0<br />
xx<br />
1<br />
c<br />
c0<br />
xxxx<br />
s0<br />
xxx<br />
IIS 0<br />
xxx<br />
FIS<br />
xxx<br />
Table 1: Transmission to a Eurostar Train<br />
Network N Distance Gradient Speed Code<br />
ON-board system<br />
➩<br />
IIS = initial intervention speed<br />
FIS = final intervention speed<br />
Distance Table<br />
Gradient Table<br />
Speed Code Table<br />
Network N2<br />
ET<br />
MA100*<br />
Code<br />
0<br />
d<br />
Target<br />
distance<br />
50<br />
xxxx<br />
Code<br />
0<br />
g<br />
Gradient<br />
12<br />
xx<br />
Code<br />
1<br />
c<br />
Display<br />
Colour Speed<br />
Rouge -----<br />
xxxx xxx<br />
Speed intervention<br />
IIS FIS<br />
35 35<br />
xxx xxx<br />
Distance Table<br />
Gradient Table<br />
Speed Code Table<br />
Code<br />
Target<br />
distance<br />
Code<br />
Gradient<br />
Code<br />
Display<br />
Colour Speed<br />
Speed intervention<br />
IIS<br />
FIS<br />
MA120*<br />
0<br />
d<br />
50<br />
xxxx<br />
0<br />
g<br />
12<br />
xx<br />
1<br />
c<br />
Rouge<br />
xxxx<br />
-----<br />
xxx<br />
35<br />
xxx<br />
35<br />
xxx<br />
Distance Table<br />
Gradient Table<br />
Speed Code Table<br />
Code<br />
Target<br />
distance<br />
Code<br />
Gradient<br />
Code<br />
Display<br />
Colour Speed<br />
Speed intervention<br />
IIS<br />
FIS<br />
ME140*<br />
0<br />
d<br />
50<br />
xxxx<br />
0<br />
g<br />
12<br />
xx<br />
1<br />
c<br />
Rouge<br />
xxxx<br />
-----<br />
xxx<br />
35<br />
xxx<br />
35<br />
xxx<br />
V140*<br />
New System parameters for CTRL section<br />
Another set of tables<br />
Distance Table<br />
Gradient Table<br />
Speed Code Table<br />
Network Nn<br />
CTRL 1<br />
ME140*<br />
Code<br />
0<br />
d<br />
Target<br />
distance<br />
d0<br />
xxxx<br />
Code<br />
0<br />
g<br />
Gradient<br />
g0<br />
xx<br />
Code<br />
1<br />
c<br />
Display<br />
Colour Speed<br />
c0 s0<br />
yyyy yyy<br />
Speed intervention<br />
IIS FIS<br />
IIS 0 FIS<br />
yyy yyy<br />
Table 2: Transmission to a Class 92 Locomotive
82<br />
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS<br />
Pancras interlocking. Most of the interlocking<br />
principles applied on Section 1 will be recreate-used<br />
on Section 2, but some specific arrangements will<br />
be applied for the two stations at Stratford and<br />
Ebbsfleet.<br />
For the cab signalling part, a completely new<br />
system will have to be designed. Due to the line<br />
speed of 230 km/h, the block section length will be<br />
on average 950m on the level, in order to give the<br />
best possible headway. New cab signalling<br />
sequences will also be used, taking into account the<br />
existing speed bands in the Eurostar cab. Hence a<br />
completely new TVM network will have to be<br />
created.<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
This paper has tried to describe the potential as<br />
well as the difficulties of applying a French signalling<br />
system on a high speed line in the UK, with a<br />
mixture of UK and French signalling principles. The<br />
main purpose was to keep the same driving<br />
ergonomics and operational principles on both sides<br />
of the Channel Tunnel.<br />
It also reflects the need for an approach that will<br />
allow the CTRL to form part of the emerging<br />
European High Speed rail network.<br />
It is not the first British/French experience; cooperation<br />
between British and French engineers was<br />
needed for the implementation of SSI technology in<br />
France, as well as for the use of Tyers block<br />
instruments by railways such as the PLM.<br />
We hope that this co-operation will continue in the<br />
future with the same success.<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
The authors would like to thank:<br />
• Union Railways and Rail Link Engineering for<br />
permission to present this paper and their<br />
colleagues within the various participating<br />
organisations for their advice and assistance;<br />
• CSEE for their technical support;<br />
• SNCF for their permission to use an article<br />
written by P LEBOUAR, “Le système informatique<br />
d’enclenchements intégrés SEI,” issued in<br />
Revue Générale des Chemins de Fer, February<br />
<strong>2002</strong>.<br />
Discussion<br />
The discussion was opened by P Bassett (AEA<br />
Technology) who wondered why the Waterloo<br />
connection from Singlewell to Fawkham Junction<br />
was not signalled for bi-directional working and the<br />
factors that were taken into account when making<br />
this decision. He was also interested in the lessons<br />
that had been learnt following the commissioning of<br />
the first TVM/directional based signalling interface at<br />
Dollands Moor and finally asked if different braking<br />
techniques would be required because of the<br />
differing Block Section lengths.<br />
R Stokes explained that the Waterloo connection<br />
was uni-directionally signalled to prevent the<br />
necessity of providing bi-directional signalling to at<br />
least Swanley on the Chatham main line, which<br />
would have significantly increased cost. The<br />
connection will also lose its importance once the<br />
CTRL route is fully open to St Pancras. He believed<br />
that the lessons from the Dollands Moor interface<br />
had been learnt; a Standard Signalling Principle<br />
existing for the lineside to cab-signalling interface.<br />
Finally he confirmed that different braking techniques<br />
would not be required, the speed band<br />
displayed to the driver overcoming this situation.<br />
C Harrison (Lloyds MHA) enquired how a 3-minute<br />
headway was achieved with a mixed speed of 230<br />
km/h and 300 km/h.<br />
R Stokes informed that the 3-minute headway was<br />
designed on following 300 km/h trains.<br />
N Ivanov (WBS) wanted to know if there was a<br />
direct link between the KVB and ITCS at St Pancras<br />
and what the response time of the interlocking was.<br />
R Stokes stated that no detailed design had yet<br />
been produced for St Pancras and also that he was<br />
not in a position to quote interlocking response<br />
times.<br />
D McKeown (Independent Consultant) asked<br />
about the testing philosophy and processes,<br />
particularly with respect to competence issues.<br />
R Stokes explained that the signalling would be<br />
fully tested, a Tester-in-Charge having been<br />
appointed to produce the necessary Test Plans.<br />
Testing processes are described in the paper whilst<br />
utilisation of a test train provides final verification.<br />
The methodology of testing is subject to review by<br />
all interested parties.<br />
I Harman (Union Railways) further expanded on<br />
the fundamental differences between testing<br />
philosophy in the UK and France; in the UK the<br />
tester looks for responses from the systems whereas<br />
in France testing tools are effectively used as a<br />
routine to test predetermined scenarios.<br />
P Duggan (WBS) questioned if the accepted<br />
safety cases for the signalling system included the<br />
interface between the SSI, ITCS and PRCI and how<br />
they are tested.<br />
I Harman (Union Railways) commented that the<br />
relevant bodies have co-operated to approve the<br />
interface testing. He informed that the SSI/ITCS<br />
interface could not be simulated and on-site<br />
preparatory testing would be the only method of<br />
verifying the design philosophy.<br />
N Ivanov (WBS) asked how other interfaces were<br />
to be tested.<br />
I Harman (Union Railways) replied that similar<br />
testing principles were to be applied.<br />
J Poré (Alstom) enquired what plans there were for
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS 83<br />
regular testing of the signalling once commissioned.<br />
He also noted that, as the line was not built to<br />
conventional UK loading gauge, whether non-<br />
Eurostar (passenger) trains would use the line and<br />
asked what the axle weight limit for freight trains<br />
was. Finally he questioned if the access charges<br />
might deter some train operating companies from<br />
using the line.<br />
R Stokes responded that utilisation of a test train<br />
for routine cyclical testing was planned and that the<br />
line was designed for a freight axle loading of 22 1 /2<br />
tonnes at 140 km/h. He also stated that Union<br />
Railways would allow access to any train operator<br />
provided their rolling stock was compatible with the<br />
traction supply and signalling arrangements. He<br />
believed that the limiting factor would actually be the<br />
strict conditions applied for rolling stock passing<br />
through the Channel Tunnel.<br />
G Moens additionally advised that mis-routing<br />
arrangements were to be applied at Singlewell to<br />
prevent out of gauge trains from being directed<br />
towards Fawkham Junction.<br />
J Lester (Eurostar) commented that use of KVB is<br />
very restrictive, slowing down operations on the<br />
railway and wondered if this factor had been<br />
considered in the design.<br />
G Moens stated that there was a balance between<br />
safety and performance and any ATP systems will<br />
affect performance.<br />
P Bassett (AEA Technology) observed that<br />
numerous signals and their corresponding KVB<br />
loops were being installed at St Pancras in the name<br />
of headway improvements. He wondered if this<br />
would not perpetuate the philosophy of running on<br />
“double yellows”, but with new technology, and<br />
questioned if too much was trying to be squeezed<br />
into too short a section of railway.<br />
R Stokes responded by stating that a great deal of<br />
work had been done to rationalise the signalling at<br />
St Pancras but it was not an ideal layout. The design<br />
had not yet been finalised but a minimum of ETCS<br />
Level 1 had to be installed. He also advised that<br />
there would not be as many signals as exists at<br />
Glasgow Central!<br />
C Porter (<strong>IRSE</strong> Vice-President) thanked M. G<br />
Moens and Mr R Stokes for their paper and<br />
expressed the view that it would be good to finally<br />
see in-cab signalling in use in the UK.
84<br />
International Convention<br />
held in<br />
Sydney, Australia<br />
29th April – 3rd May <strong>2002</strong><br />
‘Cerberus’<br />
Level Crossing Monitor and Test System –<br />
a ‘black box recorder’ for Railway Level Crossings<br />
Paul Szacsvay 1<br />
SUMMARY<br />
Monitoring and logging the performance of critical<br />
systems is a practice which is well known in the<br />
airline industry, and has long been commonplace in<br />
locomotives in the rail industry. In the past two<br />
decades advances in digital technology has made<br />
the technology cost effective for adoption in other<br />
industries, railway signalling among them.<br />
From its conception in 1988, the Rail Infrastructure<br />
Corporation has developed its ‘Cerberus’ level<br />
crossing monitoring and test system into a mature,<br />
safety-validated and fully featured monitoring<br />
system for level crossing protection equipment,<br />
complete with real-time reporting of fault conditions<br />
and facilities to complete the daily crossing test<br />
traditionally carried out in New South Wales by<br />
individual contractors.<br />
While it is based on a standard RIC data acquisition<br />
module, the monitor incorporates novel<br />
purpose-designed interface hardware and software.<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
Since their introduction 50 years ago in the airline<br />
industry, ‘black box’ recorders have become a<br />
familiar concept in everyday language. There can be<br />
few who are not aware of the importance attached to<br />
finding the flight recorders after a crash, to deter-<br />
1 Rail Infrastructure Corporation of NSW<br />
mine the sequence of events that led up to it.<br />
In railway operations, too, there has been a longstanding<br />
need for accurate information on what was<br />
happening at the time of a reported incident. In New<br />
South Wales, accidents between road vehicles and<br />
trains at level crossings are one of the major causes<br />
of railway related death and injury. Correspondingly,<br />
level crossing incidents are a major source of<br />
investigations, inquests, and occasional damages<br />
claims involving the railway operator.<br />
Developed in-house by the Rail Infrastructure<br />
Corporation, the ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor<br />
system, is a state of the art 'black box recorder' for<br />
railway level crossings. Besides logging level crossing<br />
events, it monitors level crossing operation,<br />
remotely tests the level crossing battery, and reports<br />
level crossing status to a central location.<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
On the RIC network in New South Wales, there are<br />
over 320 level crossings equipped with active<br />
protection in the form of flashing lights, and in some<br />
cases boom gates. The protection is designed and<br />
arranged in accordance with the requirements of<br />
Australian Standard AS1742, Manual of Uniform<br />
Traffic Control Devices, Part 7, Railway Crossings.<br />
These level crossing protection devices are<br />
essentially non-failsafe in their operation, unlike the<br />
equipment which controls them. They depend on the<br />
illumination of normally dark signal lamps to provide<br />
a warning indication, and on the road users'<br />
response to the signal, to halt safely clear of the rail<br />
crossing. The safe operation of the level crossing<br />
protection therefore depends completely on the<br />
reliable functioning of the level crossing lamps,<br />
batteries and battery charger.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 85<br />
RIC level crossings are constructed and maintained<br />
to provide the maximum possible reliability<br />
and safety. Nevertheless, reports of failure to<br />
operate correctly are received quite frequently. Any<br />
such report needs to be investigated exhaustively, to<br />
determine what the cause of the reported failure<br />
might be, and to provide urgent repair of any fault<br />
revealed by the inspection. If, as often occurs, no<br />
fault is found, the question remains unresolved<br />
whether the failure report was prompted by an<br />
intermittent fault, or an error of observation by the<br />
person making the report.<br />
Likewise, any accident or incident on a level<br />
crossing calls into question the safety of the system.<br />
Indeed, it is in the interests of a party claiming<br />
damages from the railway, or defending a charge of<br />
failing to obey a signal, to throw as much doubt as<br />
possible on whether the crossing signals were working<br />
correctly at the time of the incident in question.<br />
The subsequent inquiry can benefit greatly from the<br />
availability of a detailed record of the operation of<br />
the crossing equipment at the time of the incident.<br />
There is a clear need for a method of data recording<br />
that will enable the recent operational history of<br />
a level crossing to be ‘read', after the report of that<br />
the level crossing equipment failed to operate<br />
properly. The level crossing monitor must monitor<br />
the status of a level crossing, log events, and report<br />
warning or failure conditions to a central location. On<br />
systems which require a daily test of the crossing,<br />
there is also a need to provide the facility for remotely<br />
testing the level crossing battery supply and the<br />
monitor itself.<br />
From the inception of the ‘Cerberus’ system it was<br />
considered inevitable that, once crossing loggers<br />
were installed, they would eventually be required to<br />
provide data acceptable as legal evidence, for<br />
instance in the event of an inquiry following a level<br />
crossing fatality. For that reason the software design<br />
and testing was based on a stringent process of<br />
specification, documentation and independent<br />
validation, to produce a record that could be<br />
presented unchallenged as legal evidence.<br />
In 1988, the Signals Development Section of what<br />
was then State Rail first began developing a monitoring<br />
and logging system for railway level crossings,<br />
taking advantage of the growing availability of more<br />
powerful and less expensive data acquisition<br />
hardware.<br />
Today, State Rail's 'Cerberus' monitor is a leading<br />
'black box recorder' for railway level crossings. It<br />
logs level crossing events, monitors level crossing<br />
operation, remotely tests the level crossing battery,<br />
and reports level crossing status.<br />
At the time of writing, ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing<br />
Monitor system is installed on most level crossings<br />
across New South Wales, with more than 100 fully<br />
commissioned with communication links to Control<br />
Centres in Sydney, Orange, Wagga Wagga and<br />
Broadmeadow.<br />
THE ‘CERBERUS’ SYSTEM – MONITOR,<br />
CONTROL CENTRE and SOFTWARE<br />
The ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor and<br />
Remote Test System consists of two major components,<br />
the Level Crossing Monitor and the Central<br />
Monitoring and Control Workstation, and a collection<br />
of associated software.<br />
The ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor is the<br />
‘black box’ recorder. It can operate as a standalone<br />
unit, independent of any communications with the<br />
world beyond the level crossing, or be linked by<br />
telephone to a Control Centre.<br />
The monitor is based on a standard RIC 64-way<br />
digital/analogue data acquisition board, installed in a<br />
custom-built 19” housing with internal power supply.<br />
The board is fitted with a lithium battery-powered<br />
non-volatile memory, real-time clock and an<br />
8-channel analogue to digital converter. It connects
86<br />
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION<br />
Interior of ‘Cereberus’ monitor – data acquisition<br />
board at left, power supply and surge filters on right<br />
to crossing control equipment by means of a variety<br />
of purpose-designed interface modules.<br />
Communication with the Control Centre is by<br />
PSTN dial-up telephone line or, in some areas not<br />
served by landline, by GSM cellular phone connections.<br />
The unit monitors the status of the crossing<br />
equipment, logs events, reports warning or failure<br />
conditions to the central location, and provides the<br />
facility for remotely testing the level crossing battery<br />
supply and the monitor itself.<br />
The Central Monitoring and Control Workstation is<br />
the other half of the ‘Cerberus’ system, linked to a<br />
network of up to 100 level crossings. The workstation<br />
is a standard desktop computer, with two<br />
dial-up modem connections on separate Telstra<br />
phone lines, one each for incoming and outgoing<br />
calls. Located at an operations control centre that is<br />
manned 24 hours a day, the workstation receives<br />
incoming status and alarm calls from its network of<br />
‘Cerberus’ monitors, displays the status of all crossings<br />
on the network and carries out a remote test of<br />
every crossing in each 24-hour cycle. It communicates<br />
with every crossing at least once every 12<br />
hours to check the communications line. All tests,<br />
status reports and alarm messages are logged to<br />
hard disk.<br />
Integral to the ‘Cerberus’ system are the customdesigned<br />
‘Cerberus’ software products – the<br />
monitor firmware, the central office software, and the<br />
engineer's software package. The communications,<br />
logging, test and operator interface software is a<br />
Windows application developed in-house, using ‘C’<br />
Cerberus Control Centre Workstation<br />
and Visual Basic.<br />
FEATURES OF THE ‘CERBERUS’<br />
SYSTEM<br />
The ‘Cerberus’ monitor unit monitors the status of<br />
the crossing equipment, logs events, reports<br />
warning or failure conditions to the central location,<br />
and provides the facility for remotely testing the level<br />
crossing battery supply and the monitor itself. It is<br />
designed to minimise the risk of it providing<br />
incorrect information in a manner that is not<br />
obviously incorrect, or of reducing the integrity of the<br />
level crossing protection. It is equipped with two<br />
serial data ports, one for interrogation at site by<br />
means of a portable personal computer, and the<br />
second port for a dial-up modem for communication<br />
over a Telecom line, to the central control system.<br />
The Level Crossing monitor continually examines<br />
the status and relationship of the various inputs and<br />
outputs. The monitor detects changes in its<br />
analogue inputs, digital inputs and its own digital<br />
outputs.<br />
EVENT LOGGING CAPACITY<br />
Details of these changes are stored with their date<br />
and time of occurrence (to one-tenth of second). At<br />
least the last 9,000 changes are stored, with the<br />
oldest event is automatically replaced by the next<br />
new event when the event log is full.<br />
The log is maintained in a non-volatile RAM that<br />
has an integral lithium battery with a life of 10 years.<br />
The memory devices have been successfully<br />
recovered after an accident in which the crossing<br />
equipment hut was destroyed, and the monitor unit
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 87<br />
case severely damaged.<br />
MONITORING CROSSING OPERATION AND<br />
HEALTH<br />
During the passage of every train, the ‘Cerberus’<br />
monitor records the time of operation of train<br />
detection, control relays, the number of lamps<br />
operating, and critical operating voltages.<br />
In addition to recording changes in inputs, the<br />
Level Crossing monitor checks for predetermined<br />
logic, sequence and timing relationship between the<br />
digital inputs, analogue inputs, and the digital outputs.<br />
The relationships are defined in the form of<br />
Boolean expressions with timer facilities. Incorrect<br />
logic, sequences or timing are interpreted as<br />
signifying either warning or alarm conditions, which<br />
are logged and reported to the ‘Cerberus’ Control<br />
Central.<br />
Extract of log file showing failure of lamp flasher<br />
unit at 12:53:09.7 on Monday 29th June 1998<br />
If any functional relationship is not as specified<br />
then the local status indication is updated and a<br />
warning or alarm call is placed to the control centre.<br />
The most important monitoring function is the<br />
lamp checking function. During each operation of<br />
the crossing equipment, the monitor determines the<br />
number of lamps operating on each lamp circuit. It<br />
checks the number of lamps operating, against the<br />
number that should be operating. It generates a<br />
warning message when the number of lamps<br />
detected is one less than the expected, and an<br />
alarm message when the number of lamps detected<br />
is two or more fewer, or any number more than the<br />
expected number.<br />
MONITOR SOFTWARE<br />
In common with other railway signalling digital<br />
systems, each monitor is loaded with two forms of<br />
software. The first is the standard operating<br />
firmware, common to all monitor units, and not<br />
accessible to users.<br />
The second is the site-specific data, the<br />
‘expressions’ for the crossing. Because every level<br />
crossing installation is unique to some extent, each<br />
is loaded with site-specific data, which location<br />
identification data, Control centre contact telephone<br />
numbers, input variable names, and significant<br />
aspects of the crossing protection logic.<br />
REMOTE TESTING REPLACES DAILY MANUAL<br />
TEST<br />
The daily battery test replaces the previous daily<br />
manual test of the crossing by a contractor.<br />
In the manual test, the contractor operates the<br />
crossing Test Switch, which switches off the battery<br />
charger and sets the crossing protection operating.<br />
The contractor walks around to check that all lights<br />
and bells are working, then cancels the Test Switch<br />
after at least two minutes of operation. He then<br />
observes an indicator light in the test switch box,<br />
which indicates if the battery condition is acceptable.<br />
With the change to remote testing, it was<br />
concluded that to simply automate this procedure<br />
would be unsafe, as locals could become<br />
accustomed to the crossing operating every day<br />
without any train being present. On the basis that the<br />
monitor checks condition of the lights every time the<br />
crossing operates, it was decided that the test<br />
should be reconfigured to be a direct test of battery<br />
condition, without operation of the crossing signals.<br />
The remote test sequence is initiated by the<br />
Control Centre making a call to a level crossing and<br />
requesting a test. The crossing monitor performs a<br />
self-test, then acknowledges the test request and<br />
hangs up. The battery test is performed and then the<br />
level crossing monitor rings the Control Centre to<br />
report the results of the test. If the Control Centre<br />
does not receive a response from any particular<br />
crossing within a predefined time (normally five<br />
minutes), then the test is assumed to have failed,<br />
and an alarm is generated.<br />
In addition to the battery test, the control centre<br />
calls the crossing monitors at regular intervals to<br />
check their status. The interval is configurable for<br />
each crossing, but is typically set for 12 hours after<br />
the scheduled battery test time.<br />
Individual monitors may also be programmed to<br />
call the Control Centre every time a train passes<br />
through the crossing.<br />
ENGINEER’S SOFTWARE TO PROGRAMME AND<br />
INTERROGATE SYSTEM<br />
The ‘Cerberus’ system includes provision for an<br />
engineers’ terminal, which is used independently of<br />
the Control Centre.<br />
The engineer’s terminal provides a comprehensive<br />
set of features including facilities for preparation of<br />
location-specific data files, uploading data files to<br />
the crossing monitor, resetting system variables,<br />
remote or local interrogation of logged data, and<br />
also the ability to clear logged data.<br />
DATA SECURITY<br />
Because of its importance in the event of any<br />
accident or fault report, the data logged by the<br />
‘Cerberus’ monitor is treated with a high degree of<br />
security.<br />
Remote and local access to the monitor are<br />
protected by individual PIN codes. Events such as<br />
stopping or starting the logger, or clearing the log
88<br />
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION<br />
‘Cerberus’ Control Centre – main screen<br />
memory, are themselves logged. The log data is<br />
protected to make undetected alterations to the log<br />
file impossible.<br />
A DECADE OF DEVELOPMENT<br />
The ‘Cerberus’ system is the result of a decade<br />
of development, from concept through design,<br />
prototyping, field trials, and large-scale implementation.<br />
In 1988 the State Rail Authority’s Manager,<br />
Signalling, posed the question whether there existed<br />
any small, inexpensive means for monitoring and<br />
recording the operation of each of the State’s 300<br />
sets of level crossing protection equipment. He saw<br />
that there was a need to be able to look back at the<br />
operation of the protection equipment, especially<br />
after an accident or a reported malfunctioning of the<br />
equipment.<br />
The response was that a suitable system did not<br />
exist as an off-the-shelf product, but could be developed,<br />
based on currently available data<br />
acquisition hardware. Major tasks would be to<br />
develop specialised sensing interfaces, and custom<br />
software.<br />
In the following few years only part-time work was<br />
carried out. This was directed at developing a<br />
reliable method of checking that level crossing lights<br />
were operating, considered to be a critical function<br />
for any level crossing monitor.<br />
The project developed into a full-time commitment<br />
in mid-1990. The development team recognised that<br />
the full economic potential of monitoring level crossing<br />
operation lay in being able to alert maintainers<br />
immediately any failure was detected, and in being<br />
able to carry out the customary daily test of each<br />
level crossing by remote control (this would do away<br />
with the need for the hundreds of contract testers<br />
who now perform that function). The original<br />
requirements specification was extended to include<br />
provision to carry out full remote testing of the crossing<br />
equipment, with direct communication from each<br />
installation to a central control system.<br />
FIRST PRODUCTION PROTOTYPE INSTALLED<br />
AT BATHURST<br />
The first prototype unit was demonstrated at a<br />
state signal engineers’ conference in August 1993. A<br />
small number of pre-production prototypes were<br />
built, with the first complete monitor installed at<br />
Lloyd’s Road Level Crossing, at Bathurst, in 1994.<br />
LARGE-SCALE INSTALLATION AND DEVELOP-<br />
MENT PROGRAMME<br />
Based on the success of the Lloyd’s Road<br />
installation, the Western Region maintenance group<br />
committed to the installation of monitors at all crossings<br />
in the region, covering over 70 locations in total.<br />
With the full co-operation of the region, this project<br />
was planned and run as a large-scale prototyping<br />
exercise, similar to the familiar ‘beta-testing’ of<br />
commercial software products. The large number of<br />
installations exposed the system to most possible<br />
variations in crossing design and operation, and in<br />
return the region was given a high level of support<br />
with the installation and commissioning of the<br />
system. The result of this exercise was a very flexible<br />
and robust monitoring system.<br />
The final step in the development process took<br />
place in 1997 when, after revising and signing-off on
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 89<br />
the system and development documentation, Signal<br />
Engineering submitted the ‘Cerberus’ system for<br />
third-party validation. This was undertaken by the<br />
Victorian firm of R2A Risk & Reliability Associates Pty<br />
Ltd. The result of the validation exercise was the<br />
conclusion that the system offered a significant<br />
improvement in the level of safety currently provided<br />
by RAC’s level crossing protection equipment.<br />
Today, ‘Cerberus’ monitors are installed throughout<br />
New South Wales. Following resolution of issues<br />
with location and operation of the Control Centre<br />
workstations, a final implementation phase is now<br />
under way to bring all monitors reporting on-line to<br />
Control Centres at Orange, Broadmeadow, Junee<br />
and at the Network Management Centre in Sydney.<br />
INDEPENDENT SAFETY VALIDATION<br />
From the initial feasibility report, it was considered<br />
inevitable that the would eventually be required to<br />
provide data acceptable as legal evidence, in<br />
inquiries following a level crossing accident or<br />
fatality. For that reason the software design and<br />
testing has needed to be augmented by a more<br />
stringent process of specification, documentation<br />
and independent validation, to produce a record that<br />
can be presented unchallenged as legal evidence.<br />
R2A Risk & Reliability Associates Pty Ltd were<br />
selected to undertake the Independent Safety<br />
Review of the 'Cerberus' level crossing monitoring<br />
system. This review covered:<br />
• Assessment of the existing RIC level crossing<br />
testing procedures and supervision process.<br />
• Assessment of the ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing<br />
Monitor System to determine the level of likelihood<br />
(from rare to almost certain) that a<br />
‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor would indicate<br />
that a level crossing is operating correctly<br />
after the passage of a train when either the level<br />
crossing equipment and/or the monitor unit<br />
were functioning incorrectly.<br />
• Assessment of the ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing<br />
Monitor System to determine the level of likelihood<br />
(from rare to almost certain) that the officer<br />
responsible for the Control Centre is not<br />
informed of a problem with a monitored level<br />
crossing, within 25 hours of the problem having<br />
occurred.<br />
• Assessment of the of ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing<br />
Monitor System in regard to:<br />
i) compliance with the Level Crossing Monitor<br />
Requirements Specification and the Level<br />
Crossing Monitor Control Centre<br />
Requirements Specification.<br />
ii) the adequacy of the Preliminary Hazard<br />
Analysis documents.<br />
iii)the adequacy of the system (including<br />
procedures) in its mitigation of the hazards<br />
identified in the PHA.<br />
• Comparison of the two methods of level crossing<br />
testing and supervision to determine their<br />
relative performance in providing safe and<br />
reliable operation of level crossings.<br />
The work involved input from all of the designers<br />
and from field engineers who were installing and<br />
using the ‘Cerberus’ level crossing monitoring<br />
system.<br />
The final report recommended a number of minor<br />
enhancements, all of which have been implemented.<br />
The independent review concluded that replacing<br />
the present procedures for daily visiting and testing<br />
of level crossings with remote level crossing<br />
monitors tested by and reporting through monitor<br />
control centres to responsible maintainers would<br />
result in improved safety of the level crossing<br />
protection.<br />
INNOVATIONS<br />
The ‘Cerberus’ Level Crossing Monitor System<br />
was developed to fulfil a need for a product which<br />
was not available in the marketplace. For that very<br />
reason, the developing team had to find innovative<br />
solutions for a number of design ‘problems’, adapting<br />
technologies from other engineering disciplines<br />
where available, or developing the solution from first<br />
principles.<br />
LAMP CURRENT MEASUREMENT<br />
The first and most important step in developing<br />
the ‘Cerberus’ system was the development of an<br />
accurate and reliable method of monitoring the<br />
integrity of the crossing signal lamps. The requirement<br />
that the monitor had to be easy to retrofit to<br />
existing level crossings eliminated the option of<br />
installing individual sensors in the signal lamp units.<br />
The chosen solution was to measure the lamp<br />
currents at source, in the control hut, and from that<br />
calculate the number of lamps operating at any time.<br />
The task of developing the prototype lamp current<br />
sensor and supporting software was undertaken by<br />
one of our cadet engineers as his final year<br />
University project.<br />
Subsequent refinements to the design overcame<br />
the problem of high peak currents drawn by cold<br />
lamp filaments, and developed a ‘learning mode’<br />
used in setting up the monitor at a crossing. This<br />
mode is used to teach the monitor the numbers of<br />
lamps operating and the corresponding current<br />
levels at that particular crossing.<br />
Current sensors are also used to monitor the<br />
battery test current during the remote test of the<br />
crossing.<br />
As a by-product of the ‘Cerberus’ programme, the<br />
lamp current sensor is produced as a universal<br />
AC/DC current sensor. This can be used for safe<br />
isolated measurement of analogue current levels in<br />
circuits, DC or at AC frequencies up to 3kHz.<br />
SPECIALISED INTERFACE DEVICES<br />
As the ‘Cerberus’ system was being developed,<br />
and to support its introduction this and other<br />
monitoring and logging systems, Rail Services<br />
Australia has developed its armoury of interface<br />
devices, able to safely and continuously monitor any<br />
aspect of the operation of the signalling system.<br />
Items completed and available for general use,<br />
and their applications, include:
90<br />
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION<br />
Typical ‘Cerberus’ installation – modem, monitor<br />
and interface devices – (l to r) input optoisolator,<br />
output optoisolator and current sensors<br />
VITAL INPUT OPTOISOLATOR (VIO)<br />
The integrity of railway signalling circuits is<br />
ensured, in part, by maintaining a high degree of<br />
isolation from earth and between circuits.<br />
The VIO provides a safe means of detecting ‘on’<br />
and ‘off’ logic states in vital relay circuits. It gives at<br />
least 10,000 volts isolation between input (signalling<br />
circuits) and output (monitor). The input circuitry is<br />
also designed to protect the signalling circuits from<br />
unreliable operation due to single component faults<br />
in the interface.<br />
8-CHANNEL A-TO-D CONVERTER<br />
As the development proceeded, it became evident<br />
that there was only one ‘of-the-shelf’ analogue to<br />
digital (A-to-D) converter board available to suit the<br />
data acquisition board which formed the basis of the<br />
monitor. Since this A-to-D board was prohibitively<br />
expensive, the team elected to custom-design a<br />
device for ‘Cerberus’.<br />
Mounted piggy-back on the main data acquisition<br />
board, the unit selects from one of eight analogue<br />
inputs, and converts it to an equivalent 10-bit digital<br />
value for logging or processing by the monitor.<br />
The 10 bit digitisation provides measurements of a<br />
20-volt input signal accurate to the nearest 20<br />
millivolts.<br />
MARKET COMPARISON<br />
Throughout the development period of the<br />
‘Cerberus’ system, other level crossing monitoring<br />
systems have been available. Apart from one system<br />
from Sweden, most of these have come from level<br />
crossing equipment manufacturers in the USA. More<br />
recently, a monitoring system has been<br />
developed for Westrail by Motherwell Automation.<br />
Some of these were evaluated for use in New South<br />
Wales, but were found to fall short of local<br />
requirements.<br />
COMPETING SYSTEMS NOT ADEQUATE FOR<br />
REQUIREMENTS<br />
Most competing systems function as simple event<br />
recorders. Few systems provide on-site evaluation<br />
of crossing operation with immediate notification of<br />
fault conditions to a central office. Most either<br />
retained data for interrogation at site, or transmitted<br />
all event data to the central office for logging and<br />
evaluation. At the time of its introduction, the<br />
‘Cerberus’ system was unique in its use of<br />
algorithms to check the correct logic and timing of<br />
crossing protection operation.<br />
The lack of central reporting severely reduces the<br />
ability of the monitor to improve the overall safety of<br />
the crossing protection system, while 100 percent<br />
reporting involves heavy overheads in communication<br />
time and costs.<br />
Lamp checking functions are generally analogue<br />
electronic, and of limited effectiveness. The<br />
‘Harmon’ system from USA has a lamp current<br />
monitor based on similar Hall-effect sensors to<br />
those in the ‘Cerberus’ system, but this is a discrete<br />
unit with a simple ‘OK/Not OK’ input to the data<br />
recorder.<br />
Logger memory capacity is generally limited,<br />
which limits the range of parameters which can be<br />
logged. In addition, the recorded data is frequently<br />
not presented in an easily readable format, making<br />
interpretation difficult.<br />
None of the other systems seen have offered<br />
remote testing of the crossing. In New South Wales,<br />
this feature alone is sufficient to provide economic<br />
justification for installing the system. It must be<br />
noted however, that many other railway administrations<br />
do not apply the same regime of daily<br />
testing that has long been standard in New South<br />
Wales. We have noted also, with some surprise, that<br />
some railways have ordered crossing monitor<br />
systems which included no lamp checking functions!<br />
OUTCOMES & BENEFITS<br />
The ‘Cerberus’ systems delivers a wide range of<br />
benefits to the railway operator.<br />
INCREASED LEVEL CROSSING SAFETY<br />
First and foremost, the ‘Cerberus’ level crossing<br />
monitor delivers an immediate improvement in the<br />
safety of the level crossing protection.<br />
In common with the design of other safety critical<br />
systems, level crossing protection is designed so<br />
that it takes a number of concurrent failures to result<br />
in a loss of warning to road traffic. In an unmonitored<br />
level crossing, an initial fault will not be detected<br />
until, at best, the first daily test after it occurs. In<br />
many cases, the fault will be undetected until the<br />
next monthly visit by maintenance staff. Further,<br />
intermittent faults, unless they are evident at the time<br />
the crossing is being tested or maintained, may go<br />
undetected for a very long time.<br />
Where the ‘Cerberus’ monitor is in operation, and<br />
depending on the precise nature of the fault, it will be<br />
identified immediately, or during the passage of the<br />
first train. This applies equally for intermittent and<br />
persistent faults.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 91<br />
Connected to the ‘Cerberus’ Control Centre, the<br />
‘Cerberus’ system provides immediate notification<br />
of a fault. This allows corrective action to be carried<br />
out before an unsafe situation can develop. In this<br />
way, the ‘Cerberus’ system actually improves the<br />
level of safety provided by RAC’s level crossing<br />
protection.<br />
RAPID COST RECOVERY<br />
The installation of the ‘Cerberus’ system has been<br />
justified on the basis of the cost savings to be<br />
achieved by being able to eliminate the daily<br />
manual test. On the average contract cost per day of<br />
manual testing, the monitor cost can be recovered in<br />
about 18 months. This alone provides a very<br />
satisfactory return on investment, even before taking<br />
into account further potential savings in reduced<br />
periodic maintenance, and the difficult-to-cost<br />
benefits in greatly improved safety for road and rail<br />
travellers using the crossings.<br />
REDUCED EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION RISK<br />
Unfortunately, railway level crossings continue to<br />
be the scene of accidents between rail and road<br />
vehicles. Every such incident becomes the result of<br />
a detailed investigation by railway staff, police and, if<br />
the incident results in a fatality, then the coroner<br />
also. Afterwards, traditionally, the railway has found<br />
itself defending cases where the road vehicle users<br />
have sought to apportion financial responsibility for<br />
the accident onto the railway, seeking to blame the<br />
accident on a malfunction (however fleeting) of the<br />
crossing protection equipment. At the very least, this<br />
can impose a heavy cost on the railway, for legal<br />
representation and court costs.<br />
The ‘Cerberus’ system provides a detailed, exact<br />
and objective record of the operation of the level<br />
crossing protection at the time of the accident.<br />
Where an accident has occurred, copies of the<br />
monitor log have been handed over to authorities<br />
immediately after the accident. The existence of this<br />
data has simplified the course of the subsequent<br />
investigations, and appears to have averted<br />
unsubstantiated claims for damages.<br />
FUTURE PLANS<br />
MIGRATION TO NEW HARDWARE PLATFORM<br />
In common with many other digital systems, the<br />
‘Cerberus’ monitor is facing the challenge of technological<br />
change. In this instance, the fact that the<br />
hardware design is almost 15 years old is evident, as<br />
a number of the critical components become<br />
increasingly difficult to source. The options available<br />
include developing a new data acquisition board, or<br />
else porting the monitor software to an existing<br />
commercially available hardware platform. It is<br />
almost certain that the latter option will be chosen.<br />
Over the years since the ‘Cerberus’ project began,<br />
the power and functionality of industrial PLCs<br />
(programmable logic controllers) have developed<br />
dramatically. Today, the required features of digital<br />
I/O, multi-channel analogue inputs, event logging<br />
and serial communications are standard features of<br />
quality industrial PLCs. Work has already begun on<br />
investigating a number of locally produced units to<br />
evaluate their suitability for adoption as the new<br />
generation of ‘Cerberus’.<br />
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<br />
The author gratefully acknowledges the permission<br />
of the Chief Executive Officer of Rail<br />
Infrastructure Corporation, Mr John Cowling, to<br />
prepare and present this paper.<br />
REFERENCES<br />
J Fuller, G.Hockings, P McGregor, J Rasborsek<br />
and P Szacsvay ‘Inventing Big Brother – Monitoring<br />
the Railway Environment’. Paper delivered to the<br />
Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (Aust)<br />
Technical Meeting, Sydney, 15th July 1993.<br />
P Szacsvay, ‘Event Logging and Condition<br />
Monitoring in Railway Signalling’. Paper delivered to<br />
the Institution of Engineers (Aust) Conference on Rail<br />
Engineering, Sydney, July 1996.<br />
G Hockings, P McGregor, and P Szacsvay,<br />
‘Cerberus Level Crossing Monitor System’.<br />
Submission document for the Australian Transport<br />
Industry Award 1998.
92<br />
The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers<br />
(Incorporated 1912)<br />
Ninetieth Annual Report<br />
1st January to 31st December <strong>2002</strong><br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
As an incoming President of the Institution I<br />
quickly became aware of two things; firstly that most<br />
things that came to fruition during the year were<br />
initiated by my predecessors, secondly that whatever<br />
contribution I could make to the development<br />
of the Institution is only possible through the<br />
assistance and support of the members, the railway<br />
administrations, industry and the Institution’s<br />
London office. I must start by recording my<br />
personal thanks to Ken Burrage and his team who<br />
make the role of President one that can be enjoyed<br />
without concern for the Institution’s administration.<br />
I am particularly pleased to acknowledge the help<br />
given by three former Presidents, in chairing<br />
committees and offering me their guidance and<br />
support during the year. Bob Barnard, my immediate<br />
predecessor, has chaired the Finance Committee<br />
and brings considerable technical weight to our<br />
discussions on position papers and Government<br />
consultation requests, Clive Kessell is a member of<br />
the International Technical Committee and chairs the<br />
Membership Committee and Alastair Wilson has<br />
chaired the Training & Development Committee.<br />
The year has been an eventful one from many<br />
different points of view. For example:<br />
For the <strong>IRSE</strong> – changes to the Articles of<br />
Association giving corporate member status to<br />
Associate Members and the establishment of a new<br />
grade of Accredited Technician, further work for the<br />
SRA on the industry body of knowledge and other<br />
projects.<br />
In the UK – consultation on proposals for a Rail<br />
Safety Authority and a Rail Accident Investigation<br />
Board, publication of a report on a programme for<br />
ERTMS, the postponement of Phase 2 of the West<br />
Coast Main Line improvement project followed by<br />
the dropping of 140 mph running, the Potters Bar<br />
accident, Network Rail established and taking over<br />
from Railtrack, the Strategic Rail Authority taking<br />
primacy for major projects, Network Rail announcing<br />
their intention to take some maintenance work<br />
in-house, LUL privatisation proceeding.<br />
In Europe – continued work on the revision of<br />
ERTMS specifications and the production of Test<br />
Specifications, development of the Conventional<br />
Lines Directive, proposals for a Railway Safety<br />
Directive.<br />
These were just a few of the many changes that<br />
concern our members, many of whom find themselves<br />
in positions of heavy technical and safety<br />
responsibility but with limited access to professional<br />
advice and guidance and limited influence in the<br />
formation of policy and strategy.<br />
All this underlines the importance of the<br />
Institution’s role in the fragmented and ever changing<br />
railway industry as an organiser of the exchange<br />
of ideas and technical knowledge, provider of<br />
professional standards, contributor to opinion<br />
forming in industry and government, and as an<br />
accreditation authority of education, training and<br />
competence certification agencies in the field of<br />
train control systems and telecommunications.<br />
Our role has no national boundaries and the<br />
challenge for the Institution, mentioned in my<br />
Presidential Address and previously by Bob Barnard,<br />
is to find ways of discharging the role in countries<br />
where individual membership of the Institution is not<br />
affordable.<br />
Following changes to the American Association of<br />
Railroads in 2001, our USA members decided that a<br />
North American Section of the <strong>IRSE</strong> was necessary<br />
to which proposal Council agreed. The inaugural<br />
meeting of the North American Section was held in<br />
May under the chairmanship of Bill Scheerer. As the<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> membership in North America is dispersed<br />
over three time zones the Section plans to continue<br />
to hold its Annual Meeting in conjunction with the<br />
RSSI Exhibit, the major Communications and<br />
Signals Exhibition in North America. The Section has<br />
begun to actively market the benefits of <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
membership and provide assistance with applications,<br />
which has resulted in some new members and<br />
a number of expressions of interest. The next Annual<br />
Meeting in July <strong>2003</strong>, immediately following the<br />
Chicago RSSI Exhibit, will include a visit to a<br />
signalling installation. The local committee members<br />
listed on the North American Section web page will<br />
welcome contact from any member travelling to the<br />
USA.<br />
My theme for the technical programme for the<br />
year was based on the need to make information on<br />
ERTMS more widely available and better understood.<br />
At present most of the detailed technical<br />
knowledge resides in the development departments<br />
of the signalling suppliers. An understanding of<br />
capabilities, limitations and safety principles is<br />
essential if system and application engineers are to<br />
make the best possible use of the technology and<br />
make appropriate arrangements for maintenance,<br />
recognising that with the migration of functions from<br />
the trackside on to the train the necessary maintenance<br />
arrangements will not fit easily with the<br />
present day division of maintenance between infrastructure<br />
and trains.<br />
The technical visit to the UK Asfordby test track,<br />
arranged by my predecessor, enabled members to
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 93<br />
see the first application of ERTMS technology in the<br />
UK – albeit used not for signalling but for the speed<br />
and tilt supervision of the Virgin Class 390 Pendolino<br />
trains. At our Annual Members Dinner in April our<br />
guest speaker, Peter Winter, spoke of the ERTMS<br />
project and the progress made in Switzerland<br />
towards the first Level 2 installation on the Luzern –<br />
Olten line. One week later the technical and safety<br />
approvals were completed and the first passenger<br />
operation by a Level 2 ERTMS system began. By the<br />
time of our technical visit to Switzerland in<br />
November system reliability growth had progressed<br />
to a point where the exacting system operational<br />
requirements of Swiss Federal Railways were close<br />
to being met.<br />
The autumn technical meetings covered the basic<br />
building blocks of ERTMS and were given by<br />
technical experts who have been working on ERTMS<br />
development. The visits and papers were very well<br />
supported with interesting discussions that resulted<br />
in many misconceptions being laid to rest. Prior to<br />
completion of the International Technical Committee<br />
report on Proposals for Cross Acceptance of<br />
Signalling Systems, a seminar was held in<br />
November to expose the Committee’s considerations<br />
to a wider audience. This consultative event<br />
was successful and enabled the ITC to complete the<br />
report for publication in April <strong>2003</strong>.<br />
The programme was completed with a one-day<br />
seminar in February <strong>2003</strong> on the Justification of<br />
Investment in Railway Control Systems and by a<br />
technical visit to AEA Technology Rail at Derby in<br />
March where members were able to see capacity<br />
planning, simulation and management systems<br />
relevant to ERTMS and developments in infrastructure<br />
and control centre technology.<br />
The <strong>2002</strong> Annual Convention was held in Sydney<br />
at the invitation of the Australasian Section. The<br />
second day of the convention was arranged as a<br />
one-day conference, which over 400 people<br />
attended and in which some familiar privatisation<br />
problems were covered. My thanks and congratulations<br />
go to the Australasian Committee who<br />
organised an informative and enjoyable convention<br />
that seemed to go without a hitch. I also thank our<br />
UK organiser and referee, Ray Weedon. for his usual<br />
largely unseen major contribution to the event.<br />
Whilst in Australia I was able to attend the AGM of<br />
the Australasian Section, the first of many section<br />
visits that I have made during the year. In all of them<br />
I have been impressed by the interesting topics<br />
covered in their programmes and by the down-toearth<br />
nature of the debates, questions and answers<br />
that followed. The great value of these meetings is<br />
due to the open and constructive approach of<br />
speakers in a less formal atmosphere as compared<br />
to the London meetings.<br />
My last visit will be to the Hong Kong Section in<br />
April <strong>2003</strong> where there is a keen interest in ERTMS<br />
technology, especially among the younger members<br />
there.<br />
Wherever I have been, the cordial welcome I have<br />
received and the level of concern and interest of our<br />
members in the affairs and future development of<br />
the Institution have impressed me.<br />
The Licensing Scheme has continued to develop,<br />
with much work being done on the links to national<br />
standards and the attainment of high standards of<br />
audit and compliance of our procedures and those<br />
of the registered employers and assessing agents.<br />
Towards the end of the year a significant number of<br />
licences became due for renewal, introducing a peak<br />
workload that was anticipated and covered.<br />
Network Rail and LUL now require the possession of<br />
a relevant <strong>IRSE</strong> licence as the means of demonstrating<br />
competence for staff working on safety<br />
critical activities on their railway signalling and<br />
telecommunications infrastructure. The members of<br />
the Licensing Committee are working hard to<br />
respond to the need for new and revised licence categories<br />
and I thank John Corrie, the Licensing<br />
Committee Chairman, the Committee members and<br />
their employers, for the support they have given to<br />
this important activity.<br />
Of the London social events, only the Annual<br />
Members’ Dinner continues to be very strongly<br />
supported and growing in numbers year on year. A<br />
distinct fall in attendance was experienced at the<br />
Members’ Lunch in June and at the Annual Dinner<br />
Dance in October so much so that it has been<br />
reluctantly decided not to hold the Dinner Dance in<br />
<strong>2003</strong>.<br />
MEMBERSHIP<br />
The table below gives the numbers in each class<br />
of membership at the end of the year.<br />
The total membership at the start of the year was<br />
3,064 and the trend of recent years of a gradual<br />
increase in membership numbers has been<br />
continued with a slight increase of 24 members<br />
during the year to a total membership of 3,088 at<br />
31st December <strong>2002</strong>. The revision to the Articles<br />
approved at the Annual General Meeting held on<br />
19th April <strong>2002</strong> abolished the former classes of<br />
membership of Engineering Technician and<br />
Technician and members in these classes have been<br />
transferred to the class of Associate Member or<br />
Associate as appropriate. A further significant alteration<br />
to the Articles allowed for the class of<br />
Associate Member to be corporate members of the<br />
Change<br />
Class UK Overseas Total on<br />
2001<br />
Corporate Members<br />
Honorary Fellows 11 0<br />
Fellows 431 0<br />
Members 1,143 +66<br />
Associate Members 793 +73<br />
Total Corporate 2,378 +859<br />
Non-Corporate Members<br />
Honorary Fellows 4 0–01<br />
Companions 20 0–03<br />
Associates 444 +53<br />
Engineering Technicians 0 0–51<br />
Students 214 –14<br />
Technicians 0 –116<br />
Accredited Technicians 28 +17<br />
Total Non-Corporate 710 –835<br />
Total Membership 2,039 1,049 3,088 +24
94<br />
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT<br />
Institution and these changes account for the<br />
significant year on year differences recorded in the<br />
table above.<br />
With the expanding workload in dealing with<br />
membership and EC (UK) registration matters and in<br />
preparation for the membership recruiting campaign<br />
reported in the last annual report it has been<br />
necessary to recruit a Membership Manager. Mr<br />
Derek Edney commenced in this role with effect from<br />
1st July <strong>2002</strong> and, working with the Recruitment &<br />
Publicity Committee, is preparing plans for a future<br />
membership recruitment campaign.<br />
Membership Committee met ten times throughout<br />
the year and processed 270 applications or transfers<br />
of membership. In addition, a small working group of<br />
the Committee prepared guidelines for “Equivalents<br />
to the <strong>IRSE</strong> Examination or Licence” as required by<br />
the revised membership requirements contained<br />
within the Byelaws. These guidelines have been<br />
approved by Council and subsequently published in<br />
the Information Pack obtainable from either the <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
office or the website.<br />
The Council is grateful to the Recruitment &<br />
Publicity Committee and others concerned, both in<br />
the UK and overseas, for the work they do in recruiting<br />
new members and publicising the Institution and<br />
its activities and also for the work of the Membership<br />
Committee in their consideration and recommendations<br />
to Council of applications for membership and/<br />
or registration.<br />
Obituary<br />
It is with regret that the Council records the<br />
decease of the following 13 members during the<br />
year: A A Cardani (Honorary Fellow); R Pope, F W G<br />
Smith (Fellows); K Hosobuchi, L J Kruger, M J<br />
Mullen, M B Sadler (Members); D Wilding (Associate<br />
Member); R C Hawkins, P Bandu De Silva<br />
(Associates); S Rudland-Wood (Technician); D<br />
Grimshaw (Accredited Technician); and A S Langer<br />
(Student).<br />
Council was saddened by the loss of all these<br />
members, a number of whom were strong<br />
supporters of the Institution for a considerable<br />
number of years and in their various ways<br />
contributed significantly to the Institution’s work. In<br />
particular, the contribution made by Armand<br />
Cardani, a member for over 60 years and President<br />
in 1970, who was instrumental in revising and raising<br />
the standard of the Institution’s qualifying examination<br />
and also Roger Pope who served for many years<br />
on the Examination Committee. Both will be greatly<br />
missed. A memorial collection made in remembrance<br />
of the life and work of Armand Cardani has<br />
been donated to the Institution’s Scholarship Fund<br />
to further the education and training of young signal<br />
engineers, a cause that Armand would have heartily<br />
approved.<br />
LONDON HQ OFFICE<br />
The workload of the Institution continues to<br />
increase. Membership numbers continue to grow,<br />
albeit slowly; T&D activity is expanding at an<br />
exponential rate; and the Licensing Scheme has<br />
seen significant growth over the last year and much<br />
more is anticipated shortly.<br />
The Institution staff continue to occupy modest<br />
office accommodation on the third floor in Savoy Hill<br />
House. The accommodation comprises four small<br />
offices and a small storeroom is also available to<br />
store the Institution’s publications, stationery,<br />
publicity stand, archives etc. The office is staffed<br />
continuously Monday to Friday, 0900 to 1800 (UK<br />
time) and outside these hours messages can be left<br />
on an answer machine. Communication via e-mail or<br />
fax is possible at all times and the telephone system<br />
is connected to the UK railway telecommunications<br />
network thus enabling calls to be made on this<br />
system as well as via the national telecommunications<br />
operators.<br />
Linda Mogford, the Office Administrator, is the<br />
initial point of contact for requests and queries from<br />
members and non-members alike. The workload on<br />
the training and development front continues to<br />
grow apace and Karen Gould, the Training &<br />
Development Manager, has had another very busy<br />
year expanding the work that the Institution<br />
undertakes to facilitate the training and professional<br />
development of signal engineers. Two temporary<br />
project staff, funded by the Strategic Rail Authority,<br />
were recruited this year to assist Karen with the<br />
training and development workload. Mark Watson-<br />
Walker, the Licensing Registrar, and Linda Collins,<br />
the Licensing Administrative Assistant, continue to<br />
be responsible for the operation of the Institution’s<br />
UKAS accredited Licensing Scheme. Because of the<br />
heavy and expanding workload in licensing, a further<br />
permanent staff member, Gordon Thorne, funded by<br />
the Licensing Scheme, was recruited as Licensing<br />
Assistant. Derek Edney, commenced work part-time<br />
as Membership Manager on 1st July <strong>2002</strong> to deal<br />
with all membership and registration matters and to<br />
manage a membership recruitment campaign. Ken<br />
Burrage, as the Chief Executive Officer of the<br />
Institution, is responsible for managing the London<br />
office, for implementing the decisions of Council,<br />
providing the focal point of contact for other institutions<br />
and external organisations, liaising with the<br />
Engineering Council (UK), Government departments<br />
and chief executive officers of other professional<br />
bodies to make certain that the <strong>IRSE</strong> viewpoint is<br />
heard and also for ensuring that the legal requirements<br />
of the Institution’s Articles of Association, the<br />
Registrar of Companies and the Charities<br />
Commission are met.<br />
The Institution’s IT system has been successfully<br />
updated and a new database system was<br />
introduced during <strong>2002</strong> to manage the Institution<br />
membership and licensing databases and to make it<br />
easier to keep track of members’ change of address<br />
details etc. The new IT system will also be used to<br />
manage subscriptions, invoices and also the<br />
administration of conferences, seminars, technical<br />
visits and the Institution examination.<br />
FINANCE<br />
The finances overall remained in a sound position<br />
against a difficult year for the economy generally in<br />
the United Kingdom. A surplus of income over<br />
expenditure of £25,574 is shown in the Main
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 95<br />
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’<br />
MAIN BALANCE SHEET AT 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Accumulated Fund<br />
As at 1st January <strong>2002</strong> 201,052 152,080<br />
Plus excess of Income over<br />
Expenditure 25,574 226,626 48,972 201,052<br />
Current Liabilities & Provisions<br />
Subscriptions in Advance 82,029 78,544<br />
Sundry Creditors and<br />
Accrued Charges 107,814 189,843 66,028 144,572<br />
Textbook Fund<br />
Balance at 1st January <strong>2002</strong> 4,457 9,866<br />
Less expenditure 4,457 5,409 4,457<br />
New provision 10,000 10,000 –<br />
Provision for future Conferences 10,000 10,000<br />
Provision for future Conventions 15,000 15,000<br />
Development Fund<br />
Balance at 1st January <strong>2002</strong> 90,000<br />
New provision 10,000 100,000 90,000<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Fixed Assets<br />
Computers & Office Equipment 56,166 44,836<br />
Less Depreciation 50,325 5,841 42,565 2,271<br />
Investments in Equity Portfolio<br />
at Cost 60,000 60,000<br />
Note: Mid-Market Value<br />
<strong>2002</strong> £71,902<br />
2001 £96,879<br />
Investments in Government<br />
Securities at Cost 2,940 2,940<br />
Note: Mid-Market Value<br />
<strong>2002</strong> £4,100<br />
2001 £3,966<br />
Current Assets<br />
Sundry Stocks at Cost:<br />
Technical Publications 11,778 6,661<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> Ties 950 1,017<br />
Presidents’ Badges 1,072 1,191<br />
Presentation Plaques 323 419<br />
Thorrowgood Scholarship<br />
Medals 230 14,353 263 9,551<br />
Sundry Debtors & Payments<br />
in advance 63,601 55,306<br />
Cash at Bank:<br />
Current Accounts 8,312 32,780<br />
Deposit Accounts 271,724 182,183<br />
National Savings Investment<br />
Accounts 124,342 120,021<br />
Cash in Hand 356 404,734 29 335,013<br />
551,469 465,081<br />
551,469 465,081<br />
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’<br />
THORROWGOOD SCHOLARSHIP BEQUEST FUND<br />
BALANCE SHEET AT 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Capital Fund<br />
Balance as at 1st Jan <strong>2002</strong> 4,123 3,831<br />
Add surplus for year 185 4,308 292 4,123<br />
Current Account with <strong>IRSE</strong> (100) (26)<br />
4,208 4,097<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Quoted Investments at Cost 1,060 1,060<br />
Note:<br />
Mid-Market Value<br />
<strong>2002</strong> £1,624<br />
2001 £1,571<br />
National Savings Investment A/c 3,148 3,037<br />
4,208 4,097<br />
President: P W STANLEY Vice-President: C H PORTER Treasurer: M H GOVAS<br />
REPORT OF THE AUDITORS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS<br />
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<br />
Institution prepared in accordance with the Charities Act 1960 and the Companies Act 1985 for the year ended 31st December <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
As auditors of the Institution we reported to the members on 12th March <strong>2003</strong> on the accounts of the Institution for the year ended 31st December<br />
<strong>2002</strong> prepared under the Charities Act 1960 and the Companies Act 1985 and issued an unqualified audit report thereon.<br />
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<br />
the Institution as at 31st December <strong>2002</strong> and the results of the Institution’s transactions for the year then ended.<br />
Ian Katté & Co<br />
Chartered Accountants<br />
Registered Auditor<br />
Pyrford 12th March <strong>2003</strong>
96<br />
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT<br />
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’<br />
MAIN INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT<br />
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> & Technical Papers<br />
Publication of <strong>Proceedings</strong> 18,857 26,143<br />
Printing Papers & Blocks 6,544 7,150<br />
Editing 1,200 1,200<br />
Prizes 134 26,735 108 34,601<br />
Technical Publications<br />
Stock 1st January <strong>2002</strong> 6,661 8,468<br />
Printing 10,995 2,642<br />
17,656 11,110<br />
Less Stock 31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 11,778 5,878 6,661 4,449<br />
Thorrowgood Medal 33 33<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> Ties & Cufflinks<br />
Stock 1st January <strong>2002</strong> 1,017 506<br />
Purchases – 1,176<br />
Less Stock 31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 950 67 1,017 665<br />
Expenses of Meetings<br />
Accommodation 7,266 5,284<br />
Refreshments 1,650 8,916 1,278 6,562<br />
Office Expenses<br />
Secretarial & Accommodation 105,065 113,047<br />
Treasurers’ Fees 6,000 6,000<br />
Postage & Misc Expenses 49,190 45,854<br />
Committee Meeting<br />
Accommodation 5,016 165,271 2,359 167,260<br />
New IT System 25,267 –<br />
Printing & Stationery 7,645 5,445<br />
Past President’s Badge 119 119<br />
Auditors’ Remuneration 3,095 2,453<br />
Grants to Local Sections 1,000 520<br />
Newsletter 29,450 23,300<br />
Depreciation of Fixed Assets 7,758 2,770<br />
Computer Maintenance 2,635 290<br />
Secretarial Expenses –<br />
Australia/South Africa 3,269 3,603<br />
Institution Entertaining/Presidential<br />
Expenses 14,853 925<br />
Textbook<br />
Production (net) 2,411<br />
Provision 10,000 12,411 –<br />
Development Fund Provision 10,000 –<br />
Donation to Scholardship Fund – 5,000<br />
Balance being excess of Income<br />
over Expenditure 25,574 48,972<br />
349,976 306,967<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Subscriptions Received<br />
Arrears in respect of earlier<br />
years 18,698 10,796<br />
For the current year 162,994 181,692 142,115 152,911<br />
Donations 484 1,179<br />
Entrance Fees 2,675 2,390<br />
Income from <strong>Proceedings</strong><br />
Sales – including papers/<br />
adverts (net) 50,634 78,571<br />
Advance Copy Registration<br />
Fees 690 678<br />
Sundry Sales<br />
Booklets & Text Books 16,155 13,043<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> Ties & Badges 430 16,585 346 13,389<br />
Interest on Investments – Gross 10,334 13,289<br />
Examination Fees (net) 3,041 4,500<br />
Functions<br />
Surplus on Conventions 10,530 14,343<br />
Surplus on Dinners &<br />
Dinner Dance 8,572 9,863<br />
Surplus on Technical<br />
Visits and Seminars 11,974 10,131<br />
Other Activities 42,487 –<br />
Exceptional Item – VAT claim (net) 10,278 5,723<br />
349,976 306,967<br />
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’<br />
THORROWGOOD SCHOLARSHIP BEQUEST FUND INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT<br />
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Scholarship Prizes – Current Year – 100<br />
Surplus Transferred to Capital<br />
Fund 185 292<br />
185 392<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Interest on Investments 185 392<br />
185 392
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 97<br />
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’<br />
LICENSING SCHEME BALANCE SHEET<br />
AT 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Accumulated Fund<br />
As at 1st Jan <strong>2002</strong> 31,392 4,823<br />
Surplus (deficit for year) 14,195 45,587 26,569 31,392<br />
Current Liabilities<br />
Sundry Creditors 24,392 24,401<br />
Licence Fees Received in<br />
Advance of Issue 85,110 109,502 39,729 64,130<br />
Licence Fees – Years 2-5 Fund 303,224 165,117<br />
Development Fund 20,000 –<br />
478,313 260,639<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Fixed Assets<br />
Computer & Office Equipment<br />
At Cost 18,607 18,607<br />
Less Depreciation 17,734 873 16,117 2,490<br />
Current Assets<br />
Stocks – logbooks 3,135 1,007<br />
Sundry Debtors 165,229 137,993<br />
Cash at Bank<br />
Current A/c 4,338 5,635<br />
Deposit A/c 304,956 114,116<br />
Cash in Hand (218) 477,440 (602) 258,149<br />
478,313 260,639<br />
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’<br />
SCHOLARSHIP FUND BALANCE SHEET<br />
AT 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Capital Fund<br />
Balance as at 1st Jan <strong>2002</strong> 23,563 18,268<br />
Add surplus for year 1,352 24,915 5,295 23,563<br />
24,915 23,563<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Quoted Investments at Cost 13,765 13,765<br />
Note:<br />
Mid-Market Value<br />
<strong>2002</strong> £6,227<br />
2001 £6,037<br />
National Savings Investment A/c 21,027 15,580<br />
Current Account with <strong>IRSE</strong> 11,123 14,218<br />
24,915 23,563<br />
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’<br />
ROBERT DELL BEQUEST FUND BALANCE SHEET<br />
AT 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Capital Fund<br />
Balance as at 1st Jan <strong>2002</strong> 10,771 10,676<br />
Add surplus for year 10,293 10,095<br />
10,864 10,771<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Quoted Investments at Cost 10,000 10,000<br />
Note:<br />
Mid-Market Value<br />
<strong>2002</strong> £17,232<br />
2001 £16,505<br />
Current Account with <strong>IRSE</strong> 10,864 11,771<br />
10,864 10,771<br />
THE WING AWARD FOR SAFETY FUND<br />
BALANCE SHEET<br />
AT 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Capital Fund<br />
Balance as at 1st Jan <strong>2002</strong> 11,386 11,557<br />
Add (deficit)surplus for year 1,0(121) 11,1(171)<br />
11,265 11,386<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Quoted Investments at Cost 10,850 10,850<br />
Note:<br />
Mid-Market Value<br />
<strong>2002</strong> £9,569<br />
2001 £13,723<br />
Current Account with <strong>IRSE</strong> 12,415 12,536<br />
11,265 11,386
98<br />
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT<br />
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’<br />
LICENSING SCHEME INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT<br />
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Licensing Registrar’s Services<br />
& Office 111,158 89,052<br />
Appraisal Engineer’s Fees 18,474 25,744<br />
Engineer’s Fees 4,674 –<br />
Logbook – Printing Costs 9,992 6,911<br />
Printing & Stationery 2,824 4,160<br />
Postage & Telephone 2,748 3,595<br />
Audit Fees 500 1,410<br />
Miscellaneous Expenses 1,726 2,014<br />
Depreciation of Computer &<br />
Office Equipment 1,617 1,435<br />
Accreditation 9,417 8,421<br />
Insurance 5,175 3,839<br />
Testing Review Costs 1,000 34,932<br />
Development Fund Provision 20,000 –<br />
Surplus(Deficit) 14,195 26,569<br />
203,500 208,082<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Licence Fees Received from<br />
Years 2-5 Fund 57,738 67,146<br />
Licence Fees Received – Year 1 48,961 21,147<br />
Appraisal Fees Received 31,870 21,677<br />
Bank Interest Received 3,840 4,346<br />
Registered Employers’ Fee 21,570 27,509<br />
Additional Copies of Employers’<br />
Regulations 3,991 1,814<br />
Sale of Logbooks 35,138 25,660<br />
Donations 143 13<br />
Testing Review Income – 35,000<br />
Other Income 249 3,770<br />
203,500 208,082<br />
Note: Licence Fees are taken into the income account equally over the five years a licence is valid<br />
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’<br />
SCHOLARSHIP FUND INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT<br />
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Scholarship Prizes – Current Year 15,22– 13,600<br />
Surplus transferred to Capital Fund 11,352 15,295<br />
11,352 15,895<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Interest on Investments 5,888 1,895<br />
Donation transferred from Main Fund 5,464 5,000<br />
1,352 5,895<br />
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS’<br />
ROBERT DELL BEQUEST FUND INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT<br />
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Scholarship Prizes – Current Year 308 300<br />
Surplus transferred to Capital<br />
Fund 193 395<br />
401 395<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Interest on Investments 401 395<br />
401 395<br />
THE WING AWARD FOR SAFETY FUND<br />
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT<br />
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER <strong>2002</strong><br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Award and other costs 500 507<br />
Surplus(deficit) transferred to/from<br />
Capital Fund (121) (171)<br />
379 336<br />
31st Dec <strong>2002</strong> 31st Dec 2001<br />
£ £<br />
Income from Investments 379 336<br />
379 336
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 99<br />
Accounts and of £14,195 for Licensing activities.<br />
The surplus for the Main Accounts was achieved<br />
despite the comparatively low income from advertising,<br />
down nearly £28,000 compared with 2001,<br />
and poor level of income from investments. This was<br />
countered by income from subscriptions and<br />
contracts with the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) in<br />
the United Kingdom for training and development<br />
services. The former was well above the 2.5%<br />
general increase in subscription rates and arose<br />
from the increasing membership together with a<br />
general tightening up of the administrative<br />
procedures. A second refund of VAT of £10,544 was<br />
received and this completes the claim made for<br />
earlier years.<br />
Major expenditure was incurred on the introduction<br />
of a new computer system. The implementation<br />
and training costs amounted to £25,267 whilst the<br />
increase in assets of £11,330 shown in the balance<br />
sheet arose from the purchase of the capital equipment<br />
for the system. At the same time the internet<br />
and telephone arrangements were optimised. The<br />
new computer system enables integration of the<br />
Institution’s administrative and financial procedures.<br />
During <strong>2002</strong> the new membership database and<br />
subscription management systems were commissioned.<br />
In addition, common office facilities such<br />
as e-mail were added to the office network. The full<br />
finance system will be introduced at the beginning of<br />
<strong>2003</strong>. General administration costs were slightly<br />
lower than 2001 as some resource was diverted to<br />
the SRA project mentioned above. £10,000 was<br />
placed in the Development Fund and £10,000 has<br />
been put into the Textbook Fund. The latter was<br />
exhausted during the year by the completion of a<br />
book on Metro Signalling. A textbook on Railway<br />
Telecommunications is now in preparation. The<br />
stock of existing publications was replenished with a<br />
reprint of the Introduction to Signalling textbook.<br />
The Licensing Scheme surplus was achieved after<br />
placing £20,000 in a newly created Development<br />
Fund. Indications are that there will be a major<br />
expansion of the scheme over the coming two to<br />
three years. The Fund will help pay for the administrative<br />
changes needed. A considerable number of<br />
licences were paid for in advance of issue and this<br />
explains the sum of £85,110 shown in the<br />
balance sheet. The high level of Sundry Debtors is<br />
being addressed but many of these have arisen late<br />
in the financial year.<br />
No financial award was made from the<br />
Thorrowgood or Scholarship Funds during <strong>2002</strong>. A<br />
donation to the Scholarship Fund was received from<br />
the family of A A Cardani, Past President, for whom<br />
a memorial fund was created during the year. All<br />
funds were affected by relatively low income from<br />
investments.<br />
As required by the Charity Commissioners, a<br />
review of the risks to which the Institution is exposed<br />
was conducted and Council agreed certain changes<br />
in November. A formal policy on reserves now<br />
complements the risk assessment. Although the<br />
capital value of shares is well down on earlier years,<br />
the majority of the reserves are held as cash on<br />
deposit and so the Institution remains in a good<br />
position financially.<br />
Changes in <strong>2003</strong> likely to affect the finances of the<br />
Institution are a membership recruitment campaign,<br />
the relaunch of <strong>IRSE</strong> News, further work for the SRA<br />
and the ASPECT<strong>2003</strong> Conference. As a result of the<br />
satisfactory financial position no increase in<br />
subscriptions is currently planned.<br />
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT<br />
The year <strong>2002</strong> has once again seen a further<br />
expansion of the role the Institution plays within the<br />
industry’s training and development arena under the<br />
chairmanship of Alastair Wilson. We have continued<br />
to work with industry partners (SRA, RITC, HMRI)<br />
and the T&D Manager Karen Gould has maintained<br />
regular contact with the Sections and the industry<br />
throughout the year to ensure that our work<br />
maintains its relevance to the needs of the industry.<br />
Every edition of <strong>IRSE</strong> News has carried at least one<br />
article updating the membership on T&D activities.<br />
LOCAL SECTION T&D REPRESENTATIVES<br />
Our thanks go to our local section T&D representatives<br />
for their help and continuing support over the<br />
last year as follows: Gary Hall – Midlands & North<br />
Western Section, John Dickson – Scottish Section,<br />
Andy Moore – Plymouth Section, Stella Morris –<br />
Western Section, Peter Symons – Australasian<br />
Section.<br />
The following highlights the main T&D activities of<br />
the year:<br />
SRA-Funded Projects – Open Learning Initiative<br />
2001 – Body of Knowledge<br />
Last year we were granted £100k by the SRA for<br />
the production of the <strong>IRSE</strong>’s ‘Body of Knowledge’.<br />
Several working groups have been very busy over<br />
the last year drafting this document, which combines<br />
and builds on the earlier work of the Training<br />
& Development, Examination and Licensing<br />
Committees to form a comprehensive reference<br />
document for the professional development of the<br />
railway signalling engineer. The document includes a<br />
complete catalogue of all known <strong>IRSE</strong> technical<br />
papers (UK) including <strong>IRSE</strong> <strong>Proceedings</strong>, <strong>IRSE</strong> News,<br />
Aspect International Conferences and other <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
conferences and seminars. The catalogue is now<br />
available on the website. The document has undergone<br />
extensive review and revision by senior<br />
members of the <strong>IRSE</strong> and is targeted for completion<br />
in the spring of <strong>2003</strong>. The Body of Knowledge will be<br />
made available in CD ROM format.<br />
SRA-Funded Projects for <strong>2002</strong><br />
Perhaps of greatest significance this year was the<br />
granting of a further £250K by the SRA for Phase 2 of<br />
its Open Learning Initiative. The projects were<br />
derived from the outputs of last year’s <strong>IRSE</strong> Modern<br />
Apprenticeship Workshops where participants from<br />
across the industry identified a need for:<br />
• a concerted effort to recruit people into the<br />
industry;<br />
• a common, portable training scheme across the<br />
industry with generic training objectives;
100<br />
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT<br />
• an Employers Training Manual and a Trainee<br />
Workbook that would enable the collection of<br />
evidence towards National Occupational<br />
Standards, <strong>IRSE</strong> Licences and Engineering<br />
Council Registration;<br />
• a training association where employers could<br />
support each others training schemes by<br />
offering training placements on a reciprocal<br />
basis to cover aspects of training outside of an<br />
individual organisation's scope.<br />
As a result, Richard Hobby was recruited on a<br />
year’s contract, and Penny Pringle on a temporary<br />
basis, to support the following projects that have<br />
been jointly funded by the SRA and industry this<br />
year:<br />
• Career Route Map and ‘Getting Started’<br />
Leaflet<br />
Both these documents are now complete and in<br />
wide circulation. The Career Route Map has been<br />
well accepted and has been promoted throughout<br />
the industry and through several academic institutions.<br />
Over 80 participants at the <strong>IRSE</strong> Careers<br />
Conference received copies in their delegate<br />
packs. Copies of both of the above may be<br />
obtained from the <strong>IRSE</strong> website. A colour poster of<br />
the Career Route Map is also available from the<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> Head Office Training & Development team.<br />
• Careers Conference June <strong>2002</strong><br />
Over a hundred people attended the <strong>2002</strong><br />
Training & Development Conference that was<br />
aimed at promoting Careers in Railway Signalling<br />
and Telecommunications. Andrew McNaughton,<br />
Chief Engineer of Railtrack, and Keith Beattie,<br />
Chief Engineer of LUL, jointly chaired the conference.<br />
Invitations were sent out to colleges,<br />
careers services and learning and skills councils as<br />
well as industry and <strong>IRSE</strong> members and a good<br />
mixture of delegates participated.<br />
The Council’s thanks go to all those who helped<br />
to make this conference such a success, and to<br />
the sponsors of the conference, the SRA, Railtrack,<br />
LUL and Amey Rail.<br />
• Technician Training Scheme<br />
Participants at the Modern Apprenticeship<br />
Workshop last year agreed that a common training<br />
scheme that fulfilled the requirements of industry<br />
for basic level designers and testers as well as<br />
advanced installers and maintainers should be<br />
produced. After much discussion it became<br />
apparent that the academic requirements for<br />
EngTech registration are above those currently<br />
required for many of the Modern Apprenticeship<br />
Schemes in operation, either at Foundation or<br />
Advanced Level. What was needed was an intermediate<br />
training scheme that lay somewhere in<br />
between the Advanced Modern Apprenticeship<br />
and a graduate training scheme. A working party<br />
has been formed with representation from a wide<br />
range of railway S&T employers. The output will<br />
take the form of an employer’s manual and an<br />
employee’s logbook, both on CD-ROM, which it is<br />
planned to have available for use by the<br />
September <strong>2003</strong> intake of trainees. It is expected<br />
that the <strong>IRSE</strong>’s Training & Development<br />
Department will provide ongoing support for<br />
implementation.<br />
• BTEC Railway Signalling Units<br />
The two BTEC units completed last year (Unit 26<br />
Introduction to Railway Signalling and Unit 27<br />
Railway Signalling Applications) are now part of the<br />
new BTEC National Certificate in Operations and<br />
Maintenance Engineering. Full details of the units<br />
can be found on the EdExcel website. The units<br />
may also be imported for use with a BTEC National<br />
Certificate in Electrical/Electronic Engineering,<br />
Manufacturing Engineering or other relevant BTEC<br />
course. A working party comprising of key players<br />
within the signalling industry and lecturers from<br />
academic institutions already offering these<br />
modules to students has been established and a<br />
project is underway to provide a resource pack for<br />
those teaching these units. The resource pack will<br />
take the form of a CD-ROM and will comprise<br />
detailed information that supports the syllabus and<br />
suggested assignments for the students to<br />
undertake. The product is scheduled for release in<br />
early August <strong>2003</strong> and thus will be available in time<br />
for the start of the new academic year. It is hoped<br />
that suitably qualified members will used the<br />
resource pack as an opportunity to show their<br />
commitment to the <strong>IRSE</strong> Continuing Professional<br />
Development policy by supporting the learning<br />
and development of others at their local colleges<br />
by offering to lecture on a part-time or visiting<br />
basis.<br />
• Accreditation Service<br />
The <strong>IRSE</strong> is applying to the Engineering Council<br />
(UK) for a licence to accredit or approve both<br />
academic courses and Initial Professional<br />
Development schemes. Many of the policies and<br />
procedures stipulated as a requirement by the<br />
Engineering Council are being put into place and<br />
by mid-<strong>2003</strong> we hope to see the first batch of <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
accredited courses. This work has been received<br />
well by the SRA and <strong>IRSE</strong> accreditation is now<br />
expected as the industry standard for S&T.<br />
• <strong>IRSE</strong> Examination Student Resource Pack<br />
This year has also seen the start up of a project<br />
to enhance the student support materials that are<br />
available for the <strong>IRSE</strong> Professional Examinations.<br />
With the ever-increasing numbers of students<br />
taking the exams it has become apparent that<br />
there are a limited number of educational<br />
resources that students taking the examinations<br />
can refer to for learning and revision purposes.<br />
Again a working party has been formed with<br />
representation from many key people within the<br />
industry to ensure that the product will meet<br />
students’ needs. The product, which is due to take<br />
the form of a CD-ROM, is expected to be available<br />
for the 2004 study groups.<br />
Future further external funding for <strong>IRSE</strong> training<br />
and development activities is likely to be dependent<br />
upon the formation of the National Rail Academy and<br />
a Rail Sector Skills Council, to which we have offered<br />
our full support.
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 101<br />
Administration and Facilitation of the <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
Examinations<br />
There were a record number of over 120<br />
candidates applying to sit the <strong>IRSE</strong> exam this year in<br />
four countries, which presented a challenging<br />
administrative exercise. It was the first time we had<br />
set up a centre in Thailand, as well as Hong Kong<br />
and Australia. A number of the more ‘traditional’ UK<br />
exam centres did not operate this year due to various<br />
difficulties with venues. In order to provide adequate<br />
coverage and accommodate all candidates a<br />
number of new centres were set up in the UK:<br />
Huddersfield to cover York and Manchester, Bristol<br />
to cover the West, Birmingham and Watford to cover<br />
north London. Croydon continued to cover south<br />
London and the South-East and Glasgow our<br />
Scottish candidates. Inevitably there were lessons to<br />
be learned from organising an event on such a huge<br />
scale with a 40% increase on anything that we have<br />
seen before, but the examination generally ran very<br />
smoothly again this year.<br />
Support for <strong>IRSE</strong> Exam Self-Help Study Groups<br />
The number of self-help study groups has<br />
remained fairly constant, although the distribution<br />
changes. As usual, many successful groups folded<br />
when all the members passed their examinations,<br />
and new ones formed where there was a concentration<br />
of like-minded individuals. The T&D Department<br />
has continued to actively support existing groups<br />
and to facilitate the start-up of new groups where<br />
they are needed.<br />
Continuing Professional Development<br />
Our policy has now been in operation for sometime<br />
and has been built on the Engineering Council’s<br />
requirements and the record-keeping approach<br />
adopted by the Professional Development<br />
Partnership (IEE, IMechE, IIE etc). The <strong>IRSE</strong> has also<br />
continued its membership of the Engineering<br />
Council’s Professional Development Forum.<br />
Both CPD and the <strong>IRSE</strong>’s Professional<br />
Development Record and Licensing Scheme Log<br />
Books have continued to be promoted to both<br />
organisations and individuals. Railtrack (now<br />
Network Rail) has since included monitored CPD in<br />
their Engineering Education Policy, which we<br />
understand is also being taken up by the London<br />
Underground group of companies.<br />
The prime responsibility for CPD rests with each<br />
member – however, the Institution recognises that<br />
effective CPD relies on a partnership between<br />
individuals, employers, the Institution and training<br />
providers. Members are encouraged to take ownership<br />
of their careers and focus and record their<br />
professional development to:<br />
• be better be able to recognise opportunity;<br />
• be more aware of the trends and directions in<br />
engineering and society;<br />
• become increasingly effective in the workplace;<br />
• be able to help, influence and lead others by<br />
example;<br />
• be confident of future employability;<br />
• have a fulfilling and rewarding career;<br />
• be more aware of own capabilities.<br />
Indications are that both members and employers<br />
are positively taking up the system and that it is seen<br />
to be useful to the industry as a whole. Those that<br />
have championed the system have an extensive<br />
and useful portfolio of evidence to which they can<br />
refer time and time again and these have been<br />
successfully used for competence based assessments<br />
for Engineering Council registration purposes<br />
and for nationally recognised occupational qualifications.<br />
Engineering Council<br />
The T&D Manager, Karen Gould, has continued to<br />
be actively involved with supporting our Engineering<br />
Council Nominated Body Status. Further training<br />
events were held during the <strong>IRSE</strong> Convention this<br />
year in Sydney and before the members’ lunch in<br />
June for those involved with assessing candidates<br />
for Engineering Council registration.<br />
AWARDS<br />
Thorrowgood Scholarship<br />
The Thorrowgood Scholarship is awarded<br />
annually under a bequest of the late W J Thorrowgood<br />
(Past President) to assist the development of a<br />
young engineer employed in the signalling and<br />
telecommunications field of engineering and takes<br />
the form of an engraved medallion and a cheque for<br />
a sum to be used to finance a study tour of railway<br />
signalling installations or signalling manufacturing<br />
facilities. The award is made to the Institution young<br />
member attaining at least a pass with credit in four<br />
modules in the Institution’s examination.<br />
The Thorrowgood Scholar for 2001 was Mr P<br />
Shepley, Signal Engineer at Watford with GTRM, and<br />
he was presented with his award at the Annual<br />
General Meeting in April <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
Dell Award<br />
Under a bequest made by the late Robert Dell<br />
(Past President) this award is made to an employee<br />
of London Underground Ltd for achievement of a<br />
high standard of skill in the science and application<br />
of railway signalling. The winner of the <strong>2002</strong> Dell<br />
Award was Mr G Neacy, Deputy Signal Asset<br />
Engineer for JNP Infraco.<br />
Wing Award for Safety<br />
The <strong>2002</strong> Wing Award for Safety, commemorating<br />
the life and work of the late Peter Wing (Fellow), was<br />
presented to Railtrack’s nominee, Mr A Swann, at<br />
the National Railway Engineering Safety Awards<br />
held in Birmingham on 11th April <strong>2002</strong> for his<br />
substantial contribution for over ten years to track<br />
safety by creating memorable communications to<br />
improve trackside safety discipline.<br />
LICENSING<br />
The year <strong>2002</strong> has been a very busy for the <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
Licensing Scheme. There has been a significant<br />
increase in the number of licence applications<br />
received, which has stretched the Scheme’s<br />
resources. One thousand three hundred and fiftyone<br />
new and renewed licences have been issued<br />
and 1,423 licences have expired giving a total of
102<br />
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT<br />
3,595 valid licences at the end of the year. Sales of<br />
the revised Professional Development Folder and<br />
Licensing Scheme Logbook have continued at a<br />
high level, with over 1,600 sold in <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
John Corrie has been Chairman of the Scheme for<br />
the past year. Paul Mann has replaced Laurie Page<br />
as the Network Rail representative, and David<br />
Harford is due to replace Mike Moore as the<br />
Telecommunications sector representative. Colin<br />
Porter has relinquished the Chairmanship of the<br />
Committee, but continues as the Licensing Scheme<br />
Treasurer. The Scheme has recruited a new member<br />
of staff, Gordon Thorne, whose responsibilities<br />
include the checking of licence applications, and the<br />
implementation of the Assessing Agent Surveillance<br />
Visit plan. In January <strong>2002</strong> the ‘Scale of Charges’ for<br />
the Scheme were increased in line with inflation.<br />
The UKAS recreate-accreditation visit took place<br />
in September <strong>2002</strong> and recreate-accreditation was<br />
achieved although there was an increase in the number<br />
of non-conformance reports raised against the<br />
operation of the scheme. This was due to the high<br />
level of applications being processed and the<br />
consequent lack of resources to prepare for the visit,<br />
rather than a fundamental defect in the operation of<br />
the scheme. Remedial actions to clear the NCRs are<br />
continuing, with regular progress reports to the<br />
Licensing Committee.<br />
The Scheme now has 25 assessing agents.<br />
Twenty-four surveillance visits were completed<br />
during the year, and two new companies, Union<br />
Switch & Signal, Brisbane, and LTE Network<br />
Communications have been approved as assessing<br />
agents. Four assessing agents received unsatisfactory<br />
reports. Two of these companies have since<br />
completed the required remedial actions, and have<br />
been reinstated. The other two companies are an<br />
existing assessing agent that is suspended pending<br />
a surveillance visit to review the implementation of<br />
effective remedial actions, and a new applicant that<br />
will be required to complete a further initial appraisal<br />
visit. The continuing increase in the number of<br />
assessing agents and the need to complete the<br />
outstanding interviews of competence assessors by<br />
the end of <strong>2003</strong> will significantly increase the<br />
number of visits to assessing agents during the<br />
coming year.<br />
The Scheme continues to implement its decision<br />
to base its new and revised competence standards<br />
on the national standards produced by ‘The<br />
Occupational Standards Council for Engineering’<br />
(OSCEng). The competence assessor assessorqualifications<br />
have also been upgraded from “being<br />
trained to a standard exemplified by the NVQ<br />
D32/33 standards” to “being certificated to the NVQ<br />
A1 standard”, so that assessments for <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
Licences can be accepted as evidence for railway<br />
industry NVQs. The imminent restatement of the<br />
Network Rail and London Underground Ltd<br />
requirements for signalling and telecommunications<br />
engineers to be <strong>IRSE</strong>-licensed is expected to<br />
significantly increase the assessment resources<br />
required within the industry. Additional assessing<br />
agents and appraisal team members are being<br />
sought.<br />
There has been significant development activity<br />
on licence categories, although this has still to bear<br />
fruit in the form of new and revised competence<br />
standards. Not only are the new and revised<br />
standards based on OSC Eng standards, but their<br />
format has been redeveloped to provide the<br />
workplace and competence assessors with more<br />
guidance when undertaking assessments. The major<br />
testing categories have been piloted, and the<br />
rework, which was significant in the case of the<br />
Tester-in-Charge category, is nearing completion.<br />
The review of the Engineering Manager categories<br />
has been started and the pace of this work will<br />
increase, as the resources allocated to other categories<br />
are reassigned. Work is also in hand on the<br />
preparation of a ‘generic’ team leader category to<br />
replace the Installation and Maintenance Team<br />
Leader categories. The lower level competence<br />
standards for the Installation and Maintenance categories<br />
have been developed in association with the<br />
RITC. The next amendment to the Licensing<br />
Scheme documentation should include ten new or<br />
revised competence standards.<br />
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING<br />
The 89th Annual General Meeting was held at the<br />
Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, on Friday<br />
19th April <strong>2002</strong> when the composition of the new<br />
Council was announced, as follows:<br />
President: P W Stanley<br />
Vice-Presidents: C H Porter<br />
J D Corrie<br />
Members of Council from Class of Fellow:<br />
W J Coenraad A J Fisher<br />
J D Francis F Heijnen<br />
P A Jenkins F How<br />
J M Irwin J Poré<br />
D Weedon J F Wilson<br />
Members of Council from Class of Member:<br />
D S Angill D W Crabtree<br />
R G Halse Mrs C Porter<br />
P N Lane K L Walter<br />
The formal proceedings included the adoption of<br />
the revised Articles of Association that had been<br />
circulated with the notice calling the AGM and this<br />
was followed by the inauguration of the new<br />
President, Mr P W Stanley, who gave his Presidential<br />
Address. A transcript of this will appear in the<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong>.<br />
COUNCIL MEETINGS<br />
Eight meetings of the Council were held during the<br />
year when the business of the Institution was<br />
conducted. Much of the business, although routine,<br />
is vital to the ongoing management of day-to-day<br />
Institution affairs. The remainder of the business was<br />
concerned with the strategic development of the<br />
Institution and further extension of the Institution’s<br />
activities in support of the training and professional<br />
development of its members. Council is always<br />
delighted to receive visits from colleagues around<br />
the world and distinguished visitors to Council<br />
meetings this year included Mr P Symons, Country
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 103<br />
Vice-President for Australasia, and Mr R Woodhead,<br />
former Secretary and Committee member of the<br />
Southern African Section.<br />
ANNUAL DINNER<br />
The Savoy Hotel, London, was the venue for the<br />
38th Annual Dinner held following the Annual<br />
General Meeting on 19th April <strong>2002</strong>. About 470<br />
members and their guests were present. Dr Peter<br />
Winter, UIC Project Director ERTMS and Technical<br />
Director ERRI, was the principal guest on this<br />
occasion. During his address he explained how the<br />
European railways were planning to implement<br />
ERTMS on their systems. This was a most successful<br />
and enjoyable evening with a near maximum<br />
attendance at the event.<br />
MEMBERS’ LUNCHEON<br />
The fourth Members’ Luncheon was held on 19th<br />
June <strong>2002</strong> when 75 members of the Institution,<br />
including 12 Past Presidents and nine members with<br />
over 50 years membership, took luncheon at the<br />
Victory Services Club in Seymour Street London. An<br />
enjoyable 3-course luncheon with wine was<br />
consumed with pleasure.<br />
The 78th person to serve as President since the<br />
Institution’s formation in 1912, Mr Peter Stanley,<br />
addressed the members present with a brief speech<br />
and mentioned the forthcoming programme for his<br />
presidential year of office.<br />
Mr K W Burrage, <strong>IRSE</strong> Chief Executive, reported<br />
on the current membership numbers of the<br />
Institution and said that 30 members had over 50<br />
years membership, nine of whom were able to<br />
accept the President’s invitation to be present at the<br />
luncheon as guests of the Institution. Twelve<br />
members had over 60 years membership and two of<br />
those were also present, Mr Peter Guyatt and also<br />
the longest serving Past President, Mr Armand<br />
Cardani, who was President 32 years ago in 1970.<br />
Three members had over 70 years membership,<br />
the longest serving member was believed to be Mr S<br />
E W Stokes, who resides in Brazil, with 78 years<br />
membership of the Institution but it had not been<br />
possible to obtain a response from his last known<br />
address. However, letters of good wishes had been<br />
received from Douglas Kidd, a member for 72 years<br />
residing in Shaftesbury and aged 97, and also from<br />
Wilfred Hardman, a member for 73 years and living<br />
in New Zealand. Many other members who were<br />
unable to attend in person had sent letters of<br />
apology and good wishes.<br />
The luncheon concluded in a most pleasant and<br />
happy atmosphere of friendship and camaraderie<br />
and was judged a great success and had been<br />
thoroughly enjoyed by all present.<br />
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION<br />
The International Convention was held in Sydney,<br />
Australia, between 29th April and 3rd May <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
Over 350 members and guests representing 18<br />
countries were present at the event. Following the<br />
welcome speeches members enjoyed a number of<br />
technical presentations and viewed a wide variety of<br />
interesting technical installations and visits. Whilst<br />
the members were engaged on technical activity a<br />
number of interesting and enjoyable tourist visits<br />
were arranged for the guests and members and<br />
guests together enjoyed a number of excellent social<br />
events.<br />
A full report on the Convention has already been<br />
published in <strong>IRSE</strong> News and will also appear in the<br />
Institution’s <strong>Proceedings</strong>. The Council is appreciative<br />
of the arrangements made by the Australian<br />
Convention organising committee and the officials<br />
and staff of the railways in Sydney, and also for the<br />
generous support of the Convention’s sponsors that<br />
made the occasion such a memorable and enjoyable<br />
one. Particular mention should also be made of hard<br />
work and dedication of the Convention Organiser,<br />
Mr Ray Weedon, to whose organisational skill and<br />
expertise Council is again indebted for ensuring<br />
another successful International Convention.<br />
ANNUAL DINNER AND DANCE<br />
The Copthorne Tara Hotel, Kensington, London,<br />
was the venue for the dinner dance this year, which<br />
was held on Friday 18th October.<br />
Members and their guests were greeted by the<br />
President, Mr Peter Stanley and his wife Carol at the<br />
opening reception.<br />
The principal guest on this occasion was Dr Peter<br />
Watson OBE, Chairman AEA Technology plc and<br />
formerly BRB board member for Engineering, who<br />
was accompanied by his wife. An excellent threecourse<br />
dinner was served followed by coffee and<br />
mints. After dinner, the President introduced his<br />
principal guest to the gathering and Dr Watson, who<br />
had been the principal guest at the Dinner Dance ten<br />
years earlier in 1992, referred back to the remarks he<br />
made in 1992 and spoke about the current state of<br />
the railway Industry and the contribution that can be<br />
made by S&T engineering. His comments were<br />
made in an encouraging and amusing manner that<br />
was thoroughly enjoyed by all present.<br />
Music for dancing following the dinner was<br />
provided by the East Woodhay Silver Band who<br />
played a selection of music in a variety to suit all<br />
musical tastes and dancing styles.<br />
The Institution is grateful for the financial support<br />
it receives from its sponsors, which permitted the<br />
dinner dance to be arranged and accommodated in<br />
such an attractive setting and provided the<br />
surroundings conducive to the happy and friendly<br />
occasion in which members and their guests could<br />
relax. Regrettably numbers were significantly down<br />
on previous years and a number of the major<br />
signalling suppliers were also absent. However, the<br />
114 members and their guests that did attend all<br />
enjoyed a pleasant and happy evening.<br />
LONDON TECHNICAL MEETINGS<br />
The level of attendance at the six technical<br />
meetings held in London easily maintained the levels<br />
of recent years at over 100 plus at each meeting and<br />
those who were present enjoyed good topical<br />
papers and interesting lively discussions. The<br />
Council is grateful to those who find the time from
104<br />
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT<br />
their increasingly busy schedules to prepare and<br />
present papers at these meetings. Thanks are<br />
especially due to Mr B Grose, Papers Assistant<br />
Editor, for the invaluable service he has provided<br />
over many years in the transcription and editing of<br />
the tapes of the discussion following the London<br />
papers for publication later in the <strong>Proceedings</strong>. Mr<br />
Grose has unfortunately had to retire and Mr Peter<br />
Grant has now taken over this role. Thanks are also<br />
due to Mr Colin Bailey, the Papers Editor, for proofreading<br />
and preparing the papers for publication. Mr<br />
Bailey also retired this year and Mr David Stratton<br />
has filled this position.<br />
CONFERENCES AND TECHNICAL VISITS<br />
The Institution programme again contained a<br />
variety of opportunities for attendance at technical<br />
conferences and technical visits.<br />
This year conferences were held on 21st<br />
November in London on Safety Approval of Train<br />
Control Systems and on 19th February in London on<br />
Justifying Investment in Train Control Systems.<br />
Technical visits were held on 22nd/23rd November<br />
to Olten, Switzerland, to see the Swiss ERTMS<br />
installation, and to AEA Technology in Derby on<br />
28/29th March.<br />
All these events received a reasonable level of<br />
support and Council is appreciative of the hard work<br />
and effort contributed by those concerned with the<br />
organisation and administration of the events and<br />
especially to Keith Walter for his help with the<br />
technical visits.<br />
The planning work for the next International<br />
Aspect Conference scheduled for the autumn of<br />
<strong>2003</strong> continues under the Chairmanship of Council<br />
member Mr A Fisher.<br />
PUBLICATIONS AND PUBLICITY<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> News<br />
As the primary vehicle for communication with<br />
members, <strong>IRSE</strong> News continued to be published on<br />
a bi-monthly basis with six full colour editions. The<br />
first of these comprised 16 pages whilst the other<br />
five were of 20 pages each, establishing a new<br />
benchmark this year of 116 pages but one that we<br />
hope to improve upon still further in the future.<br />
Content included an excellent range of <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
activity reports together with technical and general<br />
interest articles submitted by members, along with a<br />
proportion of advertising, the income from which<br />
was able to offset production costs. There was also<br />
a good flow of letters received on a range of topics.<br />
Thanks are expressed by the editors to contributors<br />
and advertisers alike and for the continued cooperation<br />
of Communiqué Print Services and<br />
Macmillan Scott.<br />
Members are encouraged to submit articles for<br />
publication along with photographs of signalling or<br />
related subjects in order that <strong>IRSE</strong> News continues<br />
to be informative, educational and topical.<br />
The Council is grateful to the Honorary Editor,<br />
Mr J D Francis, and to the Honorary Assistant Editor,<br />
Mr A J R Rowbotham, for the work they undertake<br />
in producing this very important means of communication<br />
with and between members of the<br />
Institution.<br />
Publications<br />
There continues to be good demand for the<br />
textbooks and other printed material produced by<br />
the Institution. The basic signalling textbook has<br />
been reprinted in standard textbook format, recreate-titled<br />
Introduction to Railway Signalling and is<br />
selling well. Additions to the publications list this<br />
year have included the proceedings of the conferences<br />
and seminars run by the Institution (and these<br />
are now usually available in CD format) and a further<br />
reprint by Mr P Kay of the Institution’s “green” booklets<br />
in combined volume format. The latest reprint<br />
covers Signalling Instruments and is comprised of<br />
“green” booklets Nos. 4, 12 and 13. Work is almost<br />
complete on the new Metro Railway Signalling textbook<br />
and this will be available for sale at Aspect<br />
<strong>2003</strong>. Work has just started on a new textbook on<br />
Railway Telecommunications.<br />
Stocks of the Institution’s primary textbooks,<br />
Railway Signalling and Railway Control Systems,<br />
became exhausted during the year. Regrettably the<br />
original publishing plates had been destroyed<br />
without the Institution being informed and both<br />
books were therefore out of print. Steps were taken<br />
for the <strong>IRSE</strong> to acquire the publishing rights to both<br />
these books and it is pleasing to report that Railway<br />
Signalling is now available again and arrangements<br />
are in hand to reprint Railway Control Systems. The<br />
future policy of the Institution will be to retain the<br />
publishing rights and the original publishing plates of<br />
its textbooks so that it always remains in control of<br />
any necessary reprinting.<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong><br />
The Institution’s <strong>Proceedings</strong> for 2001/<strong>2002</strong> were<br />
published as usual in October, within six months of<br />
the close of the session, and the Council is grateful<br />
to Mr J Tilly, Honorary Editor, for his work leading to<br />
such prompt publication. It was decided to continue<br />
with the facility for the <strong>Proceedings</strong> to carry colour<br />
advertising and this enabled the Institution to<br />
provide a colour cover to the <strong>Proceedings</strong> again. Mr<br />
Tilly has indicated his wish to retire as <strong>Proceedings</strong><br />
editor and Ms Andrea Parker will succeed him.<br />
Website<br />
The Institution’s website has seen a number of<br />
improvements throughout the last year and many<br />
favourable comments have been received from<br />
website visitors as to its format and ease of use.<br />
It is intended that the website receives a complete<br />
facelift every September. The timing of this is allimportant<br />
as it allows the opportunity to provide a<br />
listing of all the Institution activities for the forthcoming<br />
session and this minimises the work<br />
involved in the updating process.<br />
Technical meetings and events held at the London<br />
centre are listed as well as those held at provincial<br />
centres in the UK and by the Younger Members’<br />
Section. Whenever possible, hyperlinks are provided<br />
to other items of information, for example where<br />
further details exist of conferences or dinners.
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 105<br />
There are also links to the Australasian, Central<br />
European, Hong Kong and Southern African<br />
Sections, with an additional link to the Dutch<br />
language site operated for members in the Benelux<br />
countries.<br />
The new North American Section, formed during<br />
<strong>2002</strong>, also has its own web page on the <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
website. The capability of downloading the North<br />
American Section’s application form directly from<br />
the web page has been supplemented with ‘US<br />
Letter’ size <strong>IRSE</strong> membership forms and information<br />
packs. These can also be downloaded without the<br />
need for reformatting page sizes, thus proving to be<br />
an invaluable aid to the North American Section in<br />
recruiting new members.<br />
The <strong>IRSE</strong> website is helping the Institution<br />
maintain strict change control over many important<br />
documents, for example the <strong>IRSE</strong> Membership Form<br />
and the Information Pack. As each document<br />
undergoes any change, the ‘source document’<br />
(master copy) is put onto the website, thus ensuring<br />
that the latest version is always available. Categories<br />
of licences, scopes etc for the <strong>IRSE</strong> Licensing<br />
Scheme are similarly controlled via the website.<br />
A number of items of information are now on the<br />
website as reference documents to members, such<br />
as the Articles of Association and the Byelaws. The<br />
list of publications available for sale is also usefully<br />
stored on the website and can be downloaded<br />
directly. A trial is underway to determine whether<br />
members would wish to have copies of the<br />
Institution’s newsletter, <strong>IRSE</strong> News, available<br />
electronically on the website.<br />
Late in <strong>2002</strong>, a new feature was added to the<br />
website that, although not for members’ general use,<br />
has proved beneficial to the <strong>IRSE</strong> Council and<br />
officials. A “Restricted Area” of the website, with<br />
strict access controlled by encrypted usernames<br />
and passwords, allows authorised users the<br />
opportunity to view information that would otherwise<br />
only be available by being sent copies by<br />
post.<br />
The Website Manager is David Crabtree, who is<br />
also the Institution’s Publicity Officer and a Council<br />
member. David continually strives to improve the<br />
website and is always keen to point out that<br />
constructive feedback is welcome, providing a<br />
useful way of gauging visitors’ needs for the<br />
website.<br />
Recruitment Activity<br />
The Recruitment & Publicity Committee has met<br />
four times throughout the year and is grateful to the<br />
companies who have sponsored these meetings by<br />
the provision of the venue and hospitality. Work continues<br />
in the active promotion of the Institution’s<br />
activities throughout the profession.<br />
The recruitment CD-ROM “Introduction to the<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong>” has proved very popular and has been<br />
updated and revised to reflect current requirements.<br />
To further aid the recruitment process a simplified<br />
version, capable of e-mail transmission, is also<br />
available. Council is grateful to Stuart Angill for<br />
production of this CD-ROM.<br />
A new format recruitment poster, in two complementary<br />
versions, has been produced in A3 format<br />
and copies are available from the <strong>IRSE</strong> London<br />
office.<br />
In association with the revised Articles of<br />
Association and Byelaws, approved at the Annual<br />
General Meeting in April, the application form has<br />
been completely revised and is available to download<br />
from the website. The information pack has<br />
similarly been extensively revised to incorporate the<br />
grade structure changes and includes guidance<br />
notes on completion of the application form.<br />
The Institution’s publicity stand is deployed at<br />
appropriate exhibitions and conferences to advertise<br />
the Institution, to inform visitors of what the<br />
Institution has to offer, to provide information packs<br />
and to take orders for Institution publications. The<br />
publicity stand was deployed at the Railtex <strong>2002</strong><br />
Exhibition held in November <strong>2002</strong> at the Birmingham<br />
National Exhibition Centre. Thanks are expressed to<br />
the volunteers who manned the stand throughout<br />
the three days of the exhibition.<br />
Council is appreciative of the efforts of Derek<br />
Edney and the members of the Recruitment &<br />
Publicity Committee for all the work they do to<br />
promote the activities of the Institution and to<br />
encourage people to become members.<br />
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER BODIES<br />
Engineering Council<br />
The Institution is a fully nominated body of the<br />
Engineering Council, licensed to register Incorporated<br />
Engineers and Engineering Technicians.<br />
During the year the Institution registered five<br />
Incorporated Engineers and two Engineering<br />
Technicians.<br />
Necessary revisions to the Institution’s Articles of<br />
Association to take account of the Institution’s<br />
nominated body status and the introduction of new<br />
byelaws to assist the administration of the<br />
Institution’s affairs were adopted by special<br />
resolution at the Annual General Meeting held on<br />
19th April <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
Institution of Incorporated Engineers<br />
The collaborative arrangements with the<br />
Institution of Incorporated Engineers that permits<br />
joint membership of both Institutions at reduced<br />
subscription levels has been continued.<br />
The Council is grateful to the IIE for its ready help<br />
and co-operation in providing accommodation and<br />
services at Savoy Hill House for <strong>IRSE</strong> use.<br />
Institution of Railway Operators<br />
The Institution continues to liaise with operating<br />
colleagues in the development of their new<br />
Institution of Railway Operators that was formally<br />
launched in May 2000.<br />
Hazards Forum<br />
The Institution continued its membership of the<br />
Hazards Forum, a multi-institution organisation set<br />
up to bring together a variety of engineering and<br />
scientific disciplines, to discuss issues arising from<br />
man made and natural disasters and to improve
106<br />
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT<br />
knowledge of a wide variety of hazards and the<br />
ability to prepare for them. However, the Institution<br />
has reviewed the value of continued membership of<br />
this body and decided not to renew the subscription<br />
for <strong>2003</strong>.<br />
Railway Engineers’ Forum<br />
Together with the Institutions of Civil, Electrical<br />
and Mechanical Engineers, the Institution continued<br />
as a member of the Railway Engineers’ Forum that<br />
arranges technical meetings on railway engineering<br />
topics of multi-disciplinary interest. The <strong>IRSE</strong> is due<br />
to take over the chairmanship of this body for two<br />
years with effect from <strong>2003</strong>.<br />
INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL<br />
COMMITTEE<br />
The International Technical Committee continues<br />
with its work and completed preparation of its sixth<br />
report, which is concerned with the subject of<br />
“Safety Approval of Train Control Systems”. The<br />
report was presented to a seminar in London in<br />
November and will be published in April <strong>2003</strong>.<br />
COMMITTEES<br />
The following were appointed to serve on the<br />
standing committees shown and the Council<br />
extends its thanks to them for the valuable work they<br />
undertake on behalf of the Institution:<br />
Management Committee: Messrs C H Porter<br />
(Chairman), R E B Barnard, J D Corrie, J D Francis,<br />
M Govas, R G Halse, C Kessell, J Poré, P W Stanley,<br />
H Uebel, A D Wilson and K W Burrage (Secretary).<br />
Membership Committee: Messrs C Kessell<br />
(Chairman), D S Angill, R E B Barnard, R Blakey, J D<br />
Corrie, D A Edney, P Grant, A P Gunner (EC (UK)<br />
rep), R Hall, R Harding, C H Porter, P W Stanley, J<br />
Tilly (Secretary), F Wilson and K W Burrage.<br />
Finance Committee: Messrs R E B Barnard<br />
(Chairman), W Coenraad, J D Corrie, M H Govas<br />
(Treasurer/Secretary), C Kessell, C H Porter, P W<br />
Stanley and K W Burrage.<br />
Training & Development Committee: Messrs A D<br />
Wilson (Chairman), A Fisher, O King, A Kornas, P<br />
Mann, M Moore, R Moore, R Nelson, M Poole, P<br />
Richardson, J Sadler, A P Smith, C R White, and Ms<br />
K Gould (Secretary). Advisors: K W Burrage (<strong>IRSE</strong><br />
Chief Executive), P Wason (IIE Chief Executive) and<br />
Ms J Chappell (RITC).<br />
Examination Committee: Messrs C R White<br />
(Chairman), I Brown, K Donnelly, K Harrison, D A<br />
Hotchkiss, C Lovelock, D Jones, A Kornas, T Lee,<br />
S Rodgers (Secretary). R C Short, N T Smith, C I<br />
Weightman and D N Woodland.<br />
International Technical Committee: W J<br />
Coenraad, Chairman (Netherlands), B Costa (Italy), U<br />
Dolder (Switzerland), A Exer, (Switzerland), I Gal<br />
(Hungary), E O Goddard (UK), G Hagelin (Sweden), Y<br />
Hirao (Japan), S Hiraguri (Japan), C Kessell (UK), J<br />
Kiefer (Switzerland), F Kollmannsberger (Germany),<br />
L Matikainen (Finland), F Montes (Spain), J<br />
Noffsinger (UK), D Pascoe (USA), J Poré, Secretary<br />
(France), C Sevestre (France), P W Stanley (UK), K<br />
Stolte (Netherlands), J Stutzbach (Germany), K<br />
Suwe (Germany), H Uebel (Germany) and A Zierl<br />
(Austria).<br />
Licensing Committee: Messrs J D Corrie<br />
(Chairman), J W A Colvin, F How, D Dykstra, P<br />
Mann, M D Moore, M Watson-Walker (Secretary) and<br />
D N Weedon. Advisors: K W Burrage (<strong>IRSE</strong>), J Tillin,<br />
and P F Wason (IIE),<br />
Recruitment & Publicity Committee: Messrs D A<br />
Edney (Chairman), D S Angill, D W Crabtree, J Duffy,<br />
A Fisher, J D Francis, M Hewitt, T J Janes, I Mitchell,<br />
R H Price, A J R Rowbotham, D H Stratton (Hon<br />
Secretary), S Turner, G F Wire and D Woodland.<br />
Younger Members’ Section Committee: Messrs<br />
J Haile (Chairman), K Goodhand (Secretary), M J<br />
Holder, R G Halse, A Khaleel, C Oykenami, D<br />
Woodland and K Gould.<br />
Internal Auditors: C Kessell, A Fisher and D<br />
McKeown.<br />
OVERSEAS, UK LOCAL AND YOUNGER<br />
MEMBERS’ SECTIONS<br />
The overseas sections of the Institution in<br />
Australasia, Hong Kong and Southern Africa, and<br />
the Midland & North Western, Plymouth, Scottish,<br />
Western and York Sections in the United Kingdom all<br />
continue to operate successfully. Each section<br />
arranged its own programme of meetings and other<br />
events during the year, details of which will appear in<br />
the <strong>Proceedings</strong>.<br />
Local meetings of members in Central Europe<br />
have continued to be held and our members in the<br />
Benelux countries meet locally in Holland. Thanks<br />
are due to Mr H Uebel and Mr W Coenraad for their<br />
initiative in arranging these local meetings and to the<br />
railway and contracting organisations in Europe who<br />
have provided accommodation and hospitality for<br />
the meetings.<br />
The inaugural meeting of the new North American<br />
Section took place in May <strong>2002</strong> in Louisville,<br />
Kentucky, USA. Council wishes Mr W Scheerer and<br />
this new venture every success for the future.<br />
The Younger Members’ Section continues to<br />
arrange meetings at a number of locations during<br />
the year for the younger members of the Institution.<br />
This year’s programme included the usual meeting<br />
for the <strong>IRSE</strong> Examination review as well as a number<br />
of seminar events.<br />
The Council wishes to record its thanks to the<br />
Officers, Committee members and all others in the<br />
Sections, both overseas and in the UK for the<br />
excellent work they undertake in organising the<br />
meetings and other events. Their dedication, hard<br />
work and enthusiasm, when under increasingly<br />
heavy day-to-day work pressures, is a major<br />
contribution to the success of the Institution.<br />
The Officers of the Sections were:<br />
Australasian Section: Chairman Mr L Brearley;<br />
Country Vice-President, Mr P R Symons; Vice-<br />
Chairman, Mr K I Walker; Hon Secretary & Treasurer,<br />
Mr G Willmott.<br />
Hong Kong Section: Chairman & Country Vice-<br />
President, Mr P Gaffney; Vice-Chairmen, Mr F
NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 107<br />
Fabbian and Mr P K Wai; Hon Secretary, Mr F L Hui.<br />
Southern African Section: Chairman, Mr B<br />
Steyn; Country Vice-President, Mr A le Roux; Vice-<br />
Chairman & Hon Treasurer, Mr J C van de Pol; Hon<br />
Secretary, Mr V Bowles.<br />
North American Section: Chairman, Mr W<br />
Scheerer; Vice-Chairman, W Petit; Secretary, C<br />
Tinkham.<br />
Central European Members: Convenor, Mr H<br />
Uebel.<br />
Benelux Members: Convenor, Mr W Coenraad.<br />
UK<br />
Midland & North-Western Section: Chairman,<br />
Mr C Williams; Vice-Chairman, Mr I Mitchell; Hon<br />
Secretary, Mr W Redfern; Hon Treasurer, Mr A<br />
Walker.<br />
Plymouth Section: Chairman, Mr D Helliwell;<br />
Vice-Chairman, Mr J Stiles; Hon Secretary &<br />
Treasurer, Mr D Came.<br />
Scottish Section: Chairman, Mr P Humphreys;<br />
Hon Secretary, Mr A King; Hon Treasurer, Mr A<br />
McWhirter.<br />
Western Section: Chairman, Mr M Glover; Hon<br />
Secretary, Mr D Gillanders, Hon Treasurer, Mr M<br />
Brookes.<br />
York Section: Chairman, Mr D Bowlby; Hon<br />
Secretary, Mr J Maw; Hon Treasurer, Mr R Price.<br />
Younger Members’ Section: Chairman, Mr J<br />
Haile; Hon Secretary, K Goodhand.<br />
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<br />
The Institution functions effectively as a result of<br />
the efforts of our team of staff and volunteers, whose<br />
achievements have resulted in a gradual expansion<br />
of the scope of our activities whilst retaining the<br />
personal contacts that maintain the sense of<br />
community within our relatively small Institution.<br />
I am most grateful for the able support given me<br />
by Ken Burrage our Chief Executive, our two<br />
Vice-Presidents, Colin Porter and John Corrie, and<br />
our Treasurer Martin Govas, particularly during a<br />
period when my availability was reduced due to<br />
family circumstances. Throughout the year I have<br />
been fortunate to have the support and advice of<br />
many former Presidents several of who continue to<br />
give active support to our activities.<br />
The choice of Australia as a convention venue was<br />
not difficult, given the invitation and programme put<br />
together by the Australasian Section. The resulting<br />
convention was very successful and a tribute to the<br />
efforts of the Australasian Section chaired by<br />
Richard Bell and then Les Brearley and their<br />
organising committee. I was very grateful to Trevor<br />
Moore for answering all my queries and to Peter<br />
Symons, Country Vice-President, who assured me<br />
that all I need do was turn up and smile. They<br />
delivered the programme as promised to the<br />
satisfaction and enjoyment of all concerned; I count<br />
myself very fortunate to have been in that position.<br />
Once again Keith Walter continued to take on the<br />
planning and organising of our European and UK<br />
technical visits, for which I thank him along with<br />
Peter Winter, Urs Dolder and the team of Swiss<br />
engineers who delivered a remarkably detailed<br />
introduction to the Luzern – Olten ERTMS Level 2<br />
line, also to Richard Waterman, Dave Delaney and<br />
colleagues from AEA Technology Rail who laid on a<br />
glimpse of the latest developments in technology for<br />
train planning and control.<br />
My thanks for their considerable efforts also go to<br />
David Crabtree who continues to develop and maintain<br />
the <strong>IRSE</strong> website, coping with frequent changes<br />
and ensuring its continuous availability, Quentin<br />
Macdonald who once again organised the Annual<br />
Dinner, a veritable master of getting quarts into pint<br />
pots – or so it seems, and John Haile who has<br />
worked hard to promote activities for our younger<br />
members which will be enhanced by a conference<br />
attached to Aspect <strong>2003</strong>.<br />
My heartfelt thanks also go to those who agreed to<br />
present papers and make presentations at seminars,<br />
and on visits. It is their efforts, with those of many<br />
volunteers who serve on committees and take on<br />
other Institution responsibilities, which make our<br />
programmes of events a success.<br />
I must also record my appreciation of the support<br />
and work of my wife Carol, who has accompanied<br />
me on several visits and looked after my office<br />
admin and shown great forbearance of the demands<br />
on time and travel that the Presidential year entails.<br />
Finally I offer to my successor, Colin Porter, my<br />
very best wishes for a successful year. I do not know<br />
if the Institution has ever before had a President who<br />
has served as Treasurer for many years and who<br />
knows so much of its detailed workings. Certainly<br />
Colin has been a most prodigious worker on our<br />
behalf and I know that the Institution could not have<br />
a President more committed to its future development<br />
and to its continued success.<br />
P W STANLEY<br />
President<br />
Savoy Hill House<br />
Savoy Hill<br />
London WC2R 0BS March <strong>2003</strong><br />
A company limited by guarantee registered in England No. 125685<br />
Registered Charity No. 1046999
108<br />
Ninetieth Annual General Meeting<br />
Minutes of the Ninetieth Annual General Meeting<br />
held at the Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2<br />
on Friday 25th April <strong>2003</strong><br />
The Retiring President, Mr P W Stanley, in the Chair<br />
PREVIOUS MINUTES AND AUDITOR’S<br />
REPORT<br />
It was proposed by Mr P Lane (Member) and<br />
seconded by Mrs C Porter (Member) and carried<br />
that the minutes of the 89th Annual General Meeting<br />
held on 19th April <strong>2002</strong> be taken as read and they<br />
were signed by the President.<br />
The President then asked the Secretary to read<br />
the Report of the Auditor, which he did.<br />
ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS<br />
<strong>2002</strong><br />
The President commented upon the main features<br />
of the Annual Report for <strong>2002</strong>, in particular he said<br />
that there were many changes taking place in the<br />
signalling industry and a highlight of the year had<br />
been the formation of the new North American<br />
Section and he was pleased that its Chairman, Mr W<br />
Scheerer (Hon Fellow), was able to be present this<br />
evening. At the request of the President, the<br />
Institution's Treasurer, Mr M H Govas, reviewed the<br />
Statements of Account and Balance Sheets for the<br />
year. Mr Govas said a satisfactory financial result<br />
had been achieved by the Institution in <strong>2002</strong> and<br />
that the Licensing Scheme had also achieved a<br />
surplus. The President then asked whether anyone<br />
present wished to discuss any point in the Annual<br />
Report and Accounts. Mr F Hewlett (Associate)<br />
asked for clarification of the membership statistics<br />
table shown on page 2 of the Annual Report and, in<br />
particular, wished to know why the detailed numbers<br />
by grade etc as shown in previous years no longer<br />
appeared. The Chief Executive explained that with<br />
the recent introduction of the new database to<br />
record membership numbers it had not been<br />
possible to reconcile the figures to those shown in<br />
previous reports. However, he could confirm that<br />
about 200 members had been lost during the year<br />
and about 250 new members had been gained so<br />
that overall the Institution’s membership increased<br />
and that this continued the trend of recent years. He<br />
also invited Mr Hewlett to visit the Institution HQ<br />
office if he wished, where the staff would be pleased<br />
to demonstrate the new IT system and to answer<br />
any further queries he might have on the membership<br />
numbers.<br />
There being no further questions raised, it was<br />
proposed by the President, seconded by Mr J Corrie<br />
(Fellow) and carried that the Annual Report and<br />
Accounts for the year <strong>2002</strong> as presented be<br />
adopted.<br />
COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL <strong>2003</strong>-2004<br />
The President announced that as a result of the<br />
ballot that had been held the Institution's Council for<br />
the year <strong>2003</strong>-2004 would be composed as under:<br />
President:<br />
C H Porter<br />
Vice-Presidents: J D Corrie<br />
J Poré<br />
Members of Council from Class of Fellow:<br />
W J Coenraad J M Irwin<br />
A J Fisher<br />
P A Jenkins<br />
J D Francis<br />
I Mitchell<br />
F Heijnen<br />
D Weedon<br />
F How<br />
J F Wilson<br />
Members of Council from Class of Member:<br />
D S Angill<br />
D N Woodland<br />
D W Crabtee<br />
N C Wright<br />
Mrs C Porter<br />
K L Walter<br />
Members of Council from Class of Associate<br />
Member:<br />
J Haile<br />
C Lake<br />
The President proposed a vote of thanks to the<br />
following members of Council who were retiring for<br />
their service to the Institution:<br />
• A Wilson, Fellow, Council member for 14 years<br />
and President in 1997/1998;<br />
• H Uebel, Fellow, Council member for nine years<br />
and President in 2000/2001;<br />
• R Halse, Member, Council member for 12<br />
years; and<br />
• P Lane, Member, Council member for ten years.<br />
The meeting showed its appreciation and thanks<br />
with applause.<br />
AUDITOR<br />
The President announced that the Institution's<br />
Auditors, I Katte & Co, of 8 Wexfenne Gardens,<br />
Pyrford, Woking, Surrey, had indicated their willingness<br />
to continue in this capacity for a further year<br />
and it was the recommendation of the Council that<br />
they should do so. It was proposed by Mr M Hamlyn<br />
(Fellow), seconded by Mr C Hale (Fellow) and carried<br />
that I Katte & Co be appointed Auditors to the<br />
Institution for the year <strong>2003</strong>.<br />
OTHER BUSINESS<br />
AWARDS<br />
The President’s Award<br />
The President said that the President’s Award is<br />
made only rarely and is given to recognise exceptionally<br />
meritorious service to the profession.<br />
It therefore gave him much pleasure to be able to<br />
present the award this year to Dr Peter Winter of
NINETIETH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 109<br />
Swiss Federal Railways in recognition of his leadership,<br />
personal commitment and efforts over a period<br />
of more than ten years in encouraging and<br />
supporting the many engineers in the railways and<br />
the supply industry who were concerned in the<br />
development of the European Train Control System.<br />
Mr Stanley presented Dr Winter with the<br />
President’s Award Medallion suitably engraved and<br />
a certificate of the award citation amidst applause.<br />
NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TAKES<br />
THE CHAIR<br />
The retiring President, Mr P W Stanley, then<br />
invited the newly elected President, Mr C H Porter, to<br />
take the Chair, which he did amidst applause, and<br />
Mr Stanley invested him with the Presidential Chain<br />
of Office.<br />
VOTE OF THANKS TO MR P W<br />
STANLEY<br />
Having taken the Chair, Mr Porter invested Mr<br />
Stanley with his Past President's Medallion and<br />
proposed a hearty vote of thanks to him for the<br />
excellent way in which he had carried out the<br />
Presidential duties during the past year. Mr Porter’s<br />
proposal was carried with enthusiastic applause.<br />
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS<br />
The President, Mr C H Porter, then delivered his<br />
Inaugural Address.<br />
A vote of thanks to him for his Address was<br />
proposed by Mr C Kessell and carried with<br />
applause.<br />
The meeting then terminated.<br />
POST-MEETING NOTES FOR THE RECORD<br />
The Wing Award for Safety<br />
The “Wing Award for Safety” was introduced in<br />
1994 to commemorate the life and work of the late<br />
Peter Wing, a Fellow of the Institution and employee<br />
of British Rail, who during his career made a major<br />
contribution to the cause of line side safety. The<br />
award takes the form of a certificate and an amount<br />
of £500 to be devoted to personal development and<br />
is made to an individual who it is considered has<br />
made an outstanding contribution to railway track<br />
safety by, for example, coming forward with a novel<br />
idea for improving safety, is a long term champion of<br />
improving track safety standards or has made a<br />
significant contribution to the awareness of track<br />
safety in his business.<br />
The Wing Award for Safety this year had been<br />
made to Mr Aidan Nelson, nominated by Railway<br />
Safety, for his substantial leadership at national level<br />
in a disaggregated industry and influence in obtaining<br />
trackside safety improvements in recent years.<br />
The President, Mr P W Stanley, had presented him<br />
with the Award at the National Railway Engineering<br />
Safety Awards held at the International Conference<br />
Centre in Birmingham on 10th April<br />
The Dell Award<br />
The Dell Award is made annually under a bequest<br />
of the late Robert Dell OBE (Past President). It is<br />
awarded to a member of the Institution employed by<br />
London Underground Ltd (or its successor bodies)<br />
for achievement of a high standard of skill in the<br />
science and application of railway signalling. The<br />
award takes the form of a plaque with a uniquely<br />
designed shield being added each year with the<br />
recipient’s name engraved on it and a cheque for<br />
£300 to spend as the recipient wishes.<br />
The winner of this year’s Dell award is Mr Matt<br />
Shelley, of Metronet Rail BCV Ltd.<br />
Mr Stanley presented Mr Shelley with the Dell<br />
award at the annual dinner that followed the AGM.<br />
Thorrowgood Scholarship<br />
The Thorrowgood Scholarship is awarded<br />
annually under a bequest of the late W J<br />
Thorrowgood (Past President) to assist the development<br />
of a young engineer employed in the signalling<br />
and telecommunications field of engineering and<br />
takes the form of an engraved medallion and a<br />
cheque to be used to finance a study tour of railway<br />
signalling installations or signalling manufacturing<br />
facilities. The award is made, subject to satisfactory<br />
interview, to the Institution young member attaining<br />
at least a pass with credit in four modules in the<br />
Institution’s examination.<br />
The Thorrowgood Scholar for <strong>2002</strong> is Mr Matthew<br />
Lupton, a Signal Engineer at Manchester with<br />
Network Rail.<br />
Mr Stanley presented Mr Lupton with the<br />
Thorrowgood scholarship medallion and a cheque<br />
for £1000 at the annual dinner that followed the<br />
AGM.
110<br />
39th Annual Dinner<br />
The Savoy Hotel, London, was the venue for the<br />
39th Annual Dinner held following the Annual<br />
General Meeting on 25th April <strong>2003</strong>. Approximately<br />
480 members and their guests were present.<br />
Mr John Armitt OBE, Chief Executive Network Rail<br />
Infrastructure Ltd, was the principal guest on this<br />
occasion.<br />
Prior to the meal commencing an innovation in the<br />
arrangements for this year saw the immediate Past<br />
President Mr Peter Stanley present the Dell award to<br />
Matt Shelley and the Thorrowgood Scholarship<br />
award to Matthew Lupton. They received their<br />
awards amidst enthusiastic applause.<br />
Another innovation this year was for the speech of<br />
the principal guest to be delivered before the meal<br />
was taken. The newly installed President Mr Colin<br />
Porter introduced his principal guest and Mr Armitt<br />
spoke of the current high costs of signalling<br />
schemes and the complicated process and expense<br />
of introducing new technologies and said that <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
members have a key role to play in tackling these<br />
issues.<br />
Following the speeches an excellent 4-course<br />
meal was efficiently served to the large gathering by<br />
the staff of the Savoy.<br />
This was another most successful and enjoyable<br />
evening with a near maximum attendance at the<br />
event.<br />
K W Burrage
112<br />
Sydney Hosts <strong>2002</strong> Convention<br />
For the first time in the Institution’s history Sydney<br />
and the Australasian Section welcomed the<br />
President, Peter Stanley, and his wife Carol together<br />
with members and guests to the International<br />
Convention held between 29th April – 3rd May <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
Prior to the Convention opening the Australasian<br />
Section held its AGM on the Monday afternoon and<br />
their normal technical conference was combined<br />
with the first full day of the Convention.<br />
MONDAY 29th APRIL <strong>2002</strong><br />
Following registration in the Conference Centre at<br />
the Menzies Hotel, the 350+ members and guests,<br />
from 18 countries, left by coach for the Welcome<br />
Reception held at the Power House Museum,<br />
situated in the Darling Harbour area of Sydney.<br />
At the Museum the President opened the<br />
convention and commented on “the considerable<br />
amount of planning, time and effort that had been<br />
necessary to ensure that the Convention would be a<br />
success. Indeed, it was as long ago as 1994 that a<br />
Convention to Australia had been first proposed and<br />
now, following two years detailed preparation by the<br />
local organising committee, this was a reality”. He<br />
went on to thank the New South Wales State Rail<br />
Authority (SRA), the Rail Infrastructure Corporation<br />
The proceedings were launched on the Monday evening at<br />
the Power House Museum amongst the transport exhibits<br />
Photo: L Brearley<br />
(RIC) and the many sponsors for their generous cooperation<br />
and support in making the Convention<br />
possible.<br />
As is now <strong>IRSE</strong> practice, the technical papers and<br />
literature were made available in CD format – this to<br />
allow easier storage but, more importantly, to reduce<br />
the weight in members’ luggage returning home<br />
than the more traditional paper format.<br />
The President then handed over to Les Brearley,<br />
Chairman of the Australasian Section, who welcomed<br />
everyone to Australia and the exciting city of<br />
Sydney. This was followed by a short presentation<br />
from the reception’s sponsor on the conclusion of<br />
which the rest of the evening was free to view the<br />
varied exhibits in the Transport Gallery, members<br />
and guests afterwards making their own way back to<br />
their hotels by various routes through the city.<br />
TUESDAY 30th APRIL <strong>2002</strong><br />
Technical Conference<br />
The Technical Conference and associated<br />
exhibition was held at the Menzies Hotel Conference<br />
Centre. The President opened the Conference by<br />
first commenting on the change in format by having<br />
a full day technical papers session as per<br />
Australasian Section practice. Turning to the theme<br />
of the Convention – “Engineering the Technology for<br />
Railway Operations” – he commented that it was<br />
“important to understand and explore the Key<br />
Drivers and Key Issues in the host country and how<br />
technology for the future can meet the issues”.<br />
These being:<br />
• Privatisation – understanding how new legal<br />
barriers and contractual issues affect the chain<br />
of command; and<br />
• Life expired technology and the introduction of<br />
new, understanding how to deal with the<br />
transfer of knowledge from the supplier to the<br />
application and maintenance contractors.<br />
To open the Conference, Les Brearley gave a short<br />
recreate-cap of Peter Symons’ paper “Australasian<br />
Signalling” (originally presented in London on 13th<br />
March <strong>2002</strong>). This outlined the differences in the Rail<br />
Network as the vast distances involved have given<br />
rise to the evolution of differing signalling practices<br />
in each of the Australian states. These are based on<br />
a mix of predominately British and North American<br />
signalling and working practice and these, together<br />
with the various track gauges, form interesting<br />
diversity and provide compatibility problems for<br />
interstate operations.<br />
Following<br />
these introductions<br />
the Keynote<br />
Address was<br />
given by Howard<br />
Lacy, Chief<br />
Executive Officer<br />
for the State Rail<br />
Authority of New<br />
South Wales<br />
(NSW). Howard<br />
gave an insight<br />
into the<br />
challenges and<br />
issues facing the<br />
Howard Lacy, Chief Executive of the rail network in<br />
SRA, gave the keynote address on NSW and his fundamental<br />
points<br />
the first day of the Convention<br />
Photo: C H Porter<br />
included:<br />
• change in organisational structure – resulting<br />
from the privatisation process;<br />
• customer focus – movement away from an<br />
engineering based culture to one of customer<br />
service;<br />
• clearly defined principles of safety, reliability and<br />
maintainability;<br />
• the complexity of the industry and the challenge<br />
of focusing on business needs;
SYDNEY HOSTS <strong>2002</strong> CONVENTION 113<br />
• the key issue of knowledge dilution and transfer<br />
of information arising from the fragmentation<br />
caused by the privatisation process from<br />
supplier to maintainer;<br />
• how to encourage young engineers to join and<br />
gain knowledge in the railway signalling and<br />
telecommunications industry; and<br />
• how industry must operate as a team in delivering<br />
integrated solutions for the operators.<br />
Howard hoped that the <strong>IRSE</strong>, the Conference and<br />
Convention would address some of these issues<br />
and concluded by outlining some of the rail projects<br />
in which NSW were currently investing:<br />
• new signalling systems;<br />
• new train control systems;<br />
• new rolling stock (eg the “Millennium” EMU<br />
train);<br />
• new train location systems;<br />
• building the new Parramatta to Chatswood rail<br />
link.<br />
These initiatives will expand network capacity and<br />
reliability of the system as well as increasing the<br />
reach of rail services to Sydney and its surrounding<br />
areas.<br />
The Technical Conference then commenced with<br />
the morning session titled “Control Systems” with<br />
the following papers being presented:<br />
• Train Information Systems for Operators/<br />
Passengers;<br />
• Queensland Rail’s Universal Traffic Control<br />
(UTC) and Direct Traffic Control (DTC);<br />
• Rail Control System (Integrated Supervisory<br />
Control System for Metro Railway Operations);<br />
• Passenger CCTV Security System for the New<br />
South Wales State Rail Authority.<br />
After the conclusion of these papers a lively<br />
“Question and Answer” (Q&A) panel session was<br />
held with the presenters.<br />
Following lunch at the Hotel, the Conference<br />
continued with the afternoon session titled<br />
“Engineering the Technology” and this included:<br />
• A presentation by the NSW Rail Infrastructure<br />
Corporation (RIC);<br />
• ERTMS/ETCS benefits for railways worldwide;<br />
• GEO Logic application at Mount Barker<br />
Junction;<br />
• Migration from existing signalling to ERTMS;<br />
• Melbourne’s privatisation – how can technology<br />
meet the needs of the new regime and its<br />
operators;<br />
• Meeting the challenge to provide technology<br />
that meets the operator needs;<br />
• A presentation by the NSW Co-ordinator<br />
General of Rail;<br />
• Development of system authorities on UK<br />
mainline railways and their application to the<br />
deployment of ERTMS.<br />
At the conclusion and following the customary<br />
Q&A session, Peter Symons summed up the days<br />
activities and passed a vote of thanks to all the<br />
presenters.<br />
The guests’ programme for the day consisted of a<br />
coach tour to various sites within the Sydney<br />
environs. These included the famous Bondi Beach<br />
where a stop was made for morning tea and, following<br />
lunch at the Featherdale Wildlife Park, there was<br />
time to see native Australian fauna in the park. A<br />
brief visit was made to the Olympic Park before<br />
returning to the hotel.<br />
Many of the Convention attendees opted to brave the<br />
heights by participating in the Harbour Bridge climb.<br />
Enjoying the breathtaking view are three such intrepid<br />
conventioneers: (l to r) Simon Wood, Steve Brown and<br />
Ross Gammon<br />
In the evening members and guests embarked on<br />
a starlit cruise around Sydney Harbour on the<br />
paddle wheel steamer “Sydney Showboat II” during<br />
which dinner was served. Afterwards presentations<br />
of plaques were made to all the Technical<br />
Conference presenters and live music completed the<br />
cruise.<br />
WEDNESDAY 1st MAY <strong>2002</strong><br />
Inspection of Signalling in the Sydney Area<br />
Members travelled by train and bus to inspect the<br />
facilities at Blacktown. Here the signalling control<br />
centre utilises VDU operation for command and<br />
control of the local SSI interlocking with remote<br />
control operation of RRIs.<br />
The CCTV station security system was inspected<br />
with its sophisticated record and playback capabilities.<br />
A presentation was given on the Level Crossing<br />
(LX) Monitoring System which can:<br />
During the evening cruise on Sydney Harbour, Lyle Jackson<br />
welcomed delegates and guests before handing each of<br />
the technical presenters a plaque Photo: L
114<br />
SYDNEY HOSTS <strong>2002</strong> CONVENTION<br />
• log LX events and operation;<br />
• remotely test the LX battery status;<br />
• report the LX status to a remote control centre<br />
or maintainers office.<br />
During the visit to Blacktown station concourse<br />
opportunity was taken to view the new passenger<br />
information system that was currently under test.<br />
Lunch was taken at the Colebee Centre located in<br />
the Nurragingy Reserve after which the members<br />
departed by bus to inspect facilities at Olympic Park<br />
Station. At the station control room the method of<br />
crowd control for loading trains following a major<br />
event at the Olympic stadia was explained using the<br />
four platform faces for the two track layout.<br />
The members then proceeded to the RIC control<br />
systems development facility at Flemington. Here<br />
the development and testing of VDU control<br />
systems, station passenger information systems and<br />
dark territory monitoring systems were viewed and<br />
presentations given on them. Members then<br />
returned to the hotel by bus.<br />
The guests’ programme consisted of a visit to the<br />
Blue Mountains where, at Echo Point, views of the<br />
rock formations known as the “Three Sisters” were<br />
seen. Following lunch at Katoomba they descended<br />
to the rainforest valley floor via the Scenic Railway –<br />
once used by coal miners. From there they walked<br />
through the forest to the Scenicsender cable car to<br />
convey them back to the top of the valley. During the<br />
return journey back to Sydney there was a short<br />
stop at Leura for shopping.<br />
THURSDAY 2nd MAY <strong>2002</strong><br />
The Hunter Valley<br />
Members travelled by double-deck train to<br />
Broadmeadow, some 163 kilometres north of<br />
Sydney, and thence by bus to view the Ship Yard at<br />
Carrington. Here a Huon class mine-hunter vessel<br />
was noted in the final stages of fitting out the<br />
integrated control systems before undergoing sea<br />
trials. Presentations and demonstrations were given<br />
at the ship yard on:<br />
• the Train Protection Warning System (TPWS);<br />
• computer-based Locomotive Scheduling<br />
Programme.<br />
Members then went on to the Rail Workshops at<br />
nearby Cardiff where a tour of the production line for<br />
the new 4GT (“Millennium”) double-deck EMU trains<br />
for NSW was made. It was noted that the train sets<br />
were constructed from stainless steel and would be<br />
delivered to the customer without any additional<br />
external paint finish.<br />
Following lunch at the Returned Services League<br />
Club in Cardiff, the members then proceeded to view<br />
the Kooragang Island coal and bulk loading terminal<br />
and then the Broadmeadow Control Centre. Situated<br />
at this centre was the Centralised Train Control for<br />
the day to day operations of train movements in the<br />
northern area of NSW. The main functions of the<br />
centre were:<br />
• train control;<br />
• train control support;<br />
Northern New South Wales is controlled from<br />
Broadmeadow Control Centre near Newcastle, 163km from<br />
Sydney. This route setting desk looks after the local<br />
Broadmeadow area Photo: H<br />
• signalling and communications;<br />
• incident management; and<br />
• administration.<br />
At the end of the visits members left by bus for the<br />
Wyndham Estate Winery, where they joined the<br />
guests for dinner.<br />
Today the guests had enjoyed a coach tour of the<br />
central coast and, at Nelson’s Bay, boarded a boat<br />
for lunch and a cruise in Port Stephen’s Bay. The<br />
highlight of the cruise was the opportunity to watch<br />
at close quarters dolphins swimming alongside the<br />
boat. They then travelled by coach to the Winery<br />
where they joined the members for dinner.<br />
Prior to dinner and following a wine tasting an<br />
Aboriginal dance group gave a display of traditional<br />
music and dance.<br />
FRIDAY 3rd MAY <strong>2002</strong><br />
Sydney Control Centres<br />
No planned activities were arranged for the guests<br />
until the evening so there was time for shopping,<br />
sightseeing or just relaxation. Members, however,<br />
had a full morning programme of visits.<br />
After a short train ride the electrical control room<br />
for the 1500v dc overhead electrification system was<br />
viewed together with both the existing and new<br />
replacement SCADA remote control systems. These<br />
SCADA systems were used for the remote control of<br />
The North Coast Railway from Newcastle through to the<br />
Queensland border, a distance of some 700km with 50<br />
remote interlockings, is controlled from this CTC desk at<br />
Broadmeadow Photo: H
SYDNEY HOSTS <strong>2002</strong> CONVENTION 115<br />
circuit breakers at other sub-stations and feeder<br />
points.<br />
Members then walked a short distance to the New<br />
South Wales SRA building where the Rail Coordination<br />
Centre (originally set up for the Sydney<br />
Olympics) was inspected and the operation<br />
explained. Additionally, a presentation was given on<br />
“Condition Assessment System and Train Control<br />
Reporting as Applied to Signalling and Communications<br />
Infrastructure”. This system has been<br />
developed to assist Asset Managers understand the<br />
condition of their infrastructure and hence be able to<br />
forecast more accurately the need for future<br />
renewals and upgrades.<br />
Rejoining the buses, members then travelled to<br />
the NSW Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) Transport<br />
Management Centre at Redfern. Here, by means of<br />
numerous CCTV cameras, the road network is<br />
monitored 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week<br />
throughout the year. Detector loops are provided<br />
within the roadways to determine the traffic flows<br />
and the data is used in conjunction with the traffic<br />
light management system to optimise traffic flows<br />
and incident management. Public information<br />
services were highly important with real time broadcasts<br />
provided to the bus radio network, local radio<br />
stations, police and the RTA website.<br />
On the conclusion of the visit to the RTA centre,<br />
members continued by bus to Sydenham to inspect<br />
the new signal control room. On arrival a presentation<br />
was given on the “Botany Line Resignalling<br />
Project”. This utilises computer-based interlocking,<br />
LED signals/indicators with control and command<br />
from the control room. The new control room at<br />
Sydenham was provided with overview screens<br />
constructed using back projection LCD technology<br />
with operator workstations utilising VDU and<br />
keyboard.<br />
The Convention Reception and Dinner was held as<br />
usual during the evening and, following an excellent<br />
meal, the President rose to give his closing address.<br />
He commented on the week’s activities from the<br />
Tuesday technical conference which gave rise to<br />
“Food for Thought” for everyone, through Thursday<br />
with the first ever visit to a rolling stock manufacturer<br />
during an Annual Convention, to Friday with a<br />
visit to the Road Traffic Management Centre. None<br />
of this would have been possible without the<br />
considerable support and sponsorship from the UK,<br />
European and Australian companies. He went on to<br />
thank the Australian Organising Committee for all<br />
their hard work in making the Convention superb. He<br />
then invited his wife Carol to sum up the guests’ programme,<br />
which included thanks to the guides, and,<br />
in conclusion, asked Colin Porter (Senior Vice-<br />
President) to give a flavour of the programme for the<br />
<strong>2003</strong> Convention to be held in the UK centred on<br />
Birmingham.<br />
Colin then outlined the proposed programme<br />
which included the West Coast Route Modernisation,<br />
the new high-speed Channel Tunnel Rail Link<br />
and a day in York.<br />
With everyone having sampled rail travel in and<br />
around Sydney, Howard Lacy prevailed upon the<br />
assembled group of “railway experts” to complete a<br />
survey questionnaire on the services of the SRA,<br />
each questionnaire being entered into a prize draw.<br />
Two lucky winners received a magnum of wine each.<br />
This concluded the formal part of the evening so<br />
as the band played and the dancing began,<br />
members and guests bade farewell to friendships<br />
old and new made during the week.<br />
In summary, yet again an excellent Convention<br />
had been enjoyed by everyone and one which<br />
allowed participants to sample the differing<br />
technologies employed in solving the increased<br />
expansion of rail services within NSW. The worldwide<br />
problems of continuing training, development<br />
and knowledge transfer were again highlighted in the<br />
ongoing privatisation and fragmentation of the rail<br />
Industry. It is through the <strong>IRSE</strong> Convention, conferences,<br />
discussion and networking opportunities<br />
that these problems will be addressed, hopefully, on<br />
a global basis to the benefit of the industry and the<br />
profession.<br />
I hope you will be encouraged to participate in<br />
future conventions so I will leave you with a thought:<br />
Put the date of the <strong>2003</strong> Convention in your diary<br />
NOW: Birmingham 26th–30th May <strong>2003</strong>.<br />
See you there!<br />
D A Edney<br />
The RTA Transport Management Centre is fitted with an<br />
impressive video wall viewed here from the visitors’ gallery<br />
Photo: H<br />
Adrian Exer tries out one of the workstations at the new<br />
Sydenham Control Centre. Part of the video wall overview<br />
can be seen in the background. Photo: H
116<br />
SYDNEY HOSTS <strong>2002</strong> CONVENTION<br />
Conventions are made possible through generous sponsorship<br />
by companies which support the aims of the Institution<br />
Photo: C H Porter<br />
The President, Peter Stanley, and his wife Carol gave a<br />
closing address to the delegates and guests at the final<br />
dinner<br />
Photo: K W Burrage<br />
Membership Manager Appointed<br />
Following his recent retirement from the railway<br />
industry, Derek Edney has commenced working for<br />
the Institution with effect from 1st July on a part-time<br />
basis as its Membership Manager.<br />
Derek is well known in railway S&T and <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
circles. He worked for many years in the S&T design<br />
office of the Southern Region of British Rail and<br />
more recently for Signalling Control UK and, following<br />
privatisation, for Westinghouse Rail Systems.<br />
Derek joined the Institution as a Student in 1968 and,<br />
after gaining his qualifications, transferred to<br />
Member in 1977 and to Fellow in 1995. Derek is<br />
registered as an Incorporated Engineer and has<br />
served the Institution as a Council Member, as<br />
Membership Committee Secretary and, most<br />
recently, as Chairman of the Recruitment & Publicity<br />
Committee.<br />
The workload in dealing with membership and<br />
registration has already grown to the point where it<br />
is necessary to obtain additional administration<br />
support in the office. It is pleasing that Institution<br />
numbers continue to grow steadily and later this<br />
year it is proposed to mount a membership recruiting<br />
campaign, so hopefully the numbers will<br />
increase further.<br />
Derek is well qualified to help the Institution<br />
manage what we hope will be a period of substantial<br />
growth and as its Membership Manager he will be<br />
responsible for managing the processes of<br />
Institution membership and Engineering Council<br />
registration and for progressing individual applications<br />
for <strong>IRSE</strong> membership and Engineering Council<br />
registration.<br />
We are very pleased to welcome Derek to the<br />
Institution HQ staff at Savoy Place.<br />
K W Burrage
117<br />
Staff Organisation Chart<br />
Chief Executive &<br />
Secretary<br />
Ken Burrage<br />
Office Administrator<br />
Linda Mogford<br />
Training &<br />
Development Manager<br />
Karen Gould<br />
Treasurer<br />
Martin Govas<br />
Licensing Registrar<br />
Mark Watson-Walker<br />
Membership Manager<br />
Derek Edney<br />
Assistant Treasurer<br />
Colin Porter<br />
SRA Project Manager<br />
Richard Hobby<br />
SRA Project Manager<br />
Penny Pringle<br />
Licensing Assistant<br />
Gordon Thorne<br />
Administration<br />
Assistant<br />
Linda Collins<br />
Staff Boost<br />
The workload associated with running the Institution<br />
and its related activities has grown significantly in<br />
recent times, especially with respect to Licensing and<br />
Training & Development. In the September edition of<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> NEWS we welcomed Derek Edney as our new<br />
part-time Membership Manager.<br />
Three other new staff have joined the organisation<br />
to undertake specific roles. Gordon Thorne, who has<br />
a mechanical engineering background, is working as<br />
a Licensing Assistant, reporting to the Licensing<br />
Registrar, Mark Watson-Walker. The role is helping<br />
with the running of the scheme which has seen an<br />
increase in the number of technicians and engineers<br />
seeking licences. This is due to the growing emphasis<br />
placed on competence demonstration and also<br />
due to the renewals<br />
now taking place of<br />
original licences<br />
issued five years ago.<br />
Linda Mogford, the <strong>IRSE</strong> Office<br />
Administrator Photo: K W Burrage<br />
Reporting to Karen<br />
Gould, Training &<br />
Development<br />
Manager, is Richard<br />
Hobby. Richard has<br />
been appointed under<br />
a one-year contract<br />
as Project Manager<br />
Accreditation<br />
Services. Also under a<br />
The Licensing Team (l to r): Gordon Thorne, Mark Watson-<br />
Walker and Linda Collins<br />
Photo: K W Burrage<br />
one-year contract and reporting to Karen is Penny<br />
Pringle who takes up the post of Project Manager<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> Exams and Technician<br />
Training Scheme. Both of<br />
these positions are fully<br />
funded by grants from the<br />
Strategic Rail Authority<br />
(SRA), provided to put in<br />
place the supporting framework<br />
for the training and<br />
development of S&T staff.<br />
Penny has already been<br />
working in a temporary<br />
capacity in the T&D section<br />
funded by a previous SRA<br />
grant.<br />
The entrance to the<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> office at Savoy Hill<br />
House, which is to the<br />
rear of the IEE building<br />
at Savoy Place<br />
Photo: K W Burrage
118<br />
Much Better Engineer<br />
Signal Engineer and <strong>IRSE</strong> member Dennis Howells<br />
was awarded an MBE (Member of the British Empire)<br />
in the Queen’s Birthday Honours on 15th June this<br />
year for “Services to the Railway Industry”. In<br />
addition to being a life-long railwayman, Dennis has<br />
been a leading figure in the railway preservation<br />
scene, being the proud owner of his own GWR<br />
steam locomotive – a Hawksworth Pannier Tank No.<br />
9466.<br />
Dennis, who now works for Railtrack, is the holder<br />
of a Senior Engineer’s Licence and is the fourth<br />
current member of the <strong>IRSE</strong> to be honoured with an<br />
MBE. Other recipients are Roy Bell, Dr Alan<br />
Cribbens and Charles Hudson. Don Heath and<br />
Victor Smith bear the honour of OBE.<br />
Starting as an apprentice S&T engineer (probationer)<br />
in 1955 with the London Midland Region<br />
of British Railways, Dennis joined the CS&TE<br />
modernisation depot at Levenshulme in Manchester<br />
following his training. Here he worked on the<br />
immunisation of Heaton Norris and Stockport Nos. 1<br />
and 2 signalboxes for the electrification to<br />
Manchester and on stagework at Manchester<br />
Piccadilly.<br />
Stagework became a specialism for Dennis in<br />
subsequent roles, at Trent during the introduction of<br />
the new Power Box in 1968 and then back in London<br />
from 1969 as Special Duties Sub-Inspector and later<br />
District Inspector at Kentish Town. This was followed<br />
by Works Supervisor on the Willesden and Bedford<br />
Divisions, a highlight of this period being the time<br />
spent working with Jim Hitchen on the Bedpan<br />
(Bedford – St Pancras) resignalling stagework.<br />
Promotion continued through Works Supervisor<br />
and Maintenance Engineer positions on the LMR<br />
before he took up the post of S&T Engineer (General)<br />
for Network South East South Central in 1992. Upon<br />
privatisation Dennis moved into Railtrack, firstly as<br />
Testing & Commissioning Manager for Southern<br />
Zone, then as Lead D&C Engineer East Anglia. He is<br />
now Asset Signal Engineer West Coast Main Line<br />
South.<br />
Exam Study Group Facilitators<br />
More Study Groups than ever are in operation this<br />
year to assist members in mutual study towards<br />
undertaking the <strong>IRSE</strong> Examination. If you wish to join<br />
one of these groups please contact the facilitators<br />
listed below:<br />
AUSTRALASIA: Queensland<br />
Peter Stringer, Union Switch & Signal Pty Ltd,<br />
PO Box 1168, 39 Harvey Street, Eagle Farm,<br />
Queensland 4009 Australia<br />
Tel: +61 7 3868 9333 Fax: +61 7 3268 2136<br />
Email: stringerp@switch.aust.com<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members<br />
HONG KONG<br />
Steven Cho, MTRC, MTR Tower, Telford Plaza,<br />
Kowloon Bay Hong Kong<br />
Tel: +852 2993 2111 Email: stcho@mtr.com.hk<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members<br />
THAILAND<br />
Eddie Murphy, Bombardier Transportation,<br />
33541619, 6th Floor, Manorom Building,<br />
Rama 4 Road, Klongton, Klongtoey, Bangkok 10110<br />
Tel:+66 2 672 8290 Ext 373 Fax: +66 2 671 7597<br />
Email: eddie.murphy@th.transport.bombardier.com<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members<br />
LONDON: Canary Wharf<br />
Peter Clifford, LUL, 4th Floor,<br />
30 The South Colonnade, Canary Wharf,<br />
London E14 5EU<br />
Tel: 020 7308 2963 (0678 62963)<br />
Fax: 020 7308 2630 (0678 62630)<br />
Email: Peter.Clifford@ibcv.co.uk<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members<br />
LONDON: Croydon<br />
Jim Bull, Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd,<br />
PO Box 407, Floor 10, Southern House,<br />
Wellesley Grove, Croydon CR9 1XN<br />
Tel: 020 8760 9355 Fax: 020 8760 9456<br />
Email: jim.bull@invensys.com<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members<br />
NORTH WEST: Manchester<br />
Matthew Lupton, Railtrack North West,<br />
Rail House, Store Street, Manchester M60 7RT<br />
Tel: 0161 228 8066 Fax: 0161 228 8001<br />
Email: luptonm.railtrack@ems.rail.co.uk<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members<br />
PLYMOUTH<br />
Andy Moore, Bombardier Transportation,<br />
Estover Close, Estover, Plymouth PL6 7PU
EXAM STUDY GROUP FACILITATORS 119<br />
Tel: 01752 725403 (062 2403)<br />
Fax: 01752 725001 (062 2001)<br />
Email: andy.moore@uk.transport.bombardier.com<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members<br />
SCOTLAND<br />
Tom Gallacher, First Engineering, Room 22,<br />
North Block, Waverley Station, Edinburgh EH1 1BB<br />
Tel: 0131 550 2372 (04 62372)<br />
Fax: 0131 550 2622 (04 62622)<br />
Email: TGallacher@firstengineering.co.uk<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members<br />
SURREY<br />
Peter Harding, c/o Rebecca Lock,<br />
Parsons Brinckerhoff Infrastructure Ltd<br />
1st Floor, Westbrook Mills, Godalming,<br />
Surrey GU7 2ZA<br />
Tel: 020 7830 5852 Fax: 020 7830 5971<br />
Email: HardingP@pbworld.com<br />
PB employees only<br />
WATFORD<br />
David Nicholson, ALSTOM Signalling Ltd,<br />
Claremont House, Croxley Business Park,<br />
Hatters Lane, Watford WD18 8TR<br />
Tel: 01923 659427 Fax: 01923 659250<br />
Email: david.nicholson@wcml-tcs.co.uk<br />
ALSTOM employees only<br />
MIDLANDS: Northampton<br />
Frances Peacock, 15 Windmill Glade, Brixworth,<br />
Northampton NN6 9LP<br />
Tel: 01604 882443<br />
Email: francismariapeacock@lineone.net<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members<br />
WESTERN: Bristol<br />
Stella Norris, Amey Rail Ltd, One Redcliffe Street,<br />
Bristol BS1 6QZ<br />
Tel: 0117 934 8063 (07 42063)<br />
Fax: 0117 934 8459 (07 42459)<br />
Email: stella.norris@amey.co.uk<br />
& Dexter Stewart<br />
Tel: 07747 627256<br />
Email: dexter.stewart@amey.co.uk<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members<br />
YORK<br />
Andrew Smith, Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd,<br />
A006, Hudson House, Toft Green, York YO1 6HP<br />
Tel: 01904 733433 Fax: 01904 733368<br />
Email: andrew.p.smith@invensys.com<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members<br />
MIDLANDS: Birmingham<br />
Gary Hall, Owen Williams Railways, Meridian Office,<br />
85 Smallbrook Queensway, Birmingham B5 4HY<br />
Tel: 0121 654 7340<br />
Email: garyhall@owenwilliams.co.uk<br />
Open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members
120<br />
<strong>2002</strong> Examination Results<br />
Another substantial increase was recorded in the<br />
number of candidates applying to sit the exam in<br />
<strong>2002</strong>. A total of 236 modules were actually taken.<br />
The tables below list the actual pass results and also<br />
compare this year with previous years.<br />
The results for modules 1 and 3 were the lowest<br />
for four years, candidates apparently undertaking<br />
insufficient preparation. Pass rates for the other<br />
Candidate M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7<br />
Awan, Tanwee-ul-haq<br />
P<br />
Benatiro, Bayani<br />
P<br />
Biggs, Leslie<br />
P<br />
Birch, Stuart C C<br />
Bonella, Richard P C P<br />
Bui, Vu P P<br />
Carney, James C P<br />
Choi, Ka Pui P P P<br />
Choi, Nam Hing P P P<br />
Choy, Pui Hung P P<br />
Cromwell, Matthew P C P P<br />
Denton, Paul P P<br />
Elmes, Matthew P C<br />
Fraser, Cameron<br />
P<br />
French, Shaun P P<br />
Goodhand, Kevin P P<br />
Gorry, Peter<br />
P<br />
Harding, Peter C C C<br />
Harrison, Ian P P C<br />
Higgs, Kevin P C<br />
Holmes, Ian P C C C<br />
Hooper, Jeremy P P<br />
Joyce, Mark P C<br />
Karrasch, Kenneth C C<br />
Karrasch, Sandra C C<br />
Lau, Sze Ping P P<br />
Lau, Man Fung P P P<br />
Lauer, Reinhold<br />
C<br />
Law, Lit Wing<br />
P<br />
Law, Mandy P P<br />
Lee, Chi Yin Michael P P<br />
Lee, Eric<br />
P<br />
Lo, Shek Man<br />
P<br />
Love, Robert P P C P<br />
Lu, Tin Vinh P C P<br />
Lupton, Matthew P C D D<br />
Mazloomi, Masood<br />
P<br />
McGrory, James<br />
P<br />
Mickleburgh, David P P P C<br />
Mlalazi, Gift P C<br />
Murphy, Eddie<br />
C<br />
Ngai, Man Fat P P<br />
Nietes Jr, Arnulfo D<br />
P<br />
modules were similar to previous years, the overall<br />
rate being 55% For those candidates who narrowly<br />
failed a module a new feedback process to assist<br />
them has been introduced.<br />
Special thanks are extended to the Examination<br />
Committee members, T&D staff and the volunteer<br />
invigilators at the exam centres.<br />
Candidate M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7<br />
Palmer, Anthony<br />
P<br />
Paul, Michael P P<br />
Pengmeesri, Chatchai<br />
P<br />
Poon, Yat Man<br />
P<br />
Powley, Philip P P<br />
Prabhu, Ganesh P P P<br />
Rattanakijkamol, Kamphon P<br />
Roberts, Catherine C P<br />
Sappakijtipakorn, Weena C<br />
Savopoulos, Alex P C<br />
Scarff, Richard<br />
P<br />
Shortridge, John<br />
C<br />
Simpson, Claire P C<br />
Sloan, Robert P C P<br />
Storer, Richard P P C C<br />
Teasdel, David<br />
P<br />
Thevathasan, Nadarajah P P<br />
Tsang, Wai Shan<br />
P<br />
Tsang, Wai Tat Ivan<br />
P<br />
Tse, Kwok Hung P P<br />
Viswanath, Kalsapura<br />
P<br />
Wan, Kam Ming<br />
P<br />
Wu, Pui Chung<br />
P<br />
Yeung, Sau Fai Sammy<br />
P<br />
Zlaoui, Rashid<br />
P<br />
P = Pass, C = Credit, D = Distinction<br />
M1 = Safety of railway signalling and communication<br />
M2 = Signalling the layout<br />
M3 = Signalling principles<br />
M4 = Communication principles<br />
M5 = Signalling applications<br />
M6 = Communication applications<br />
M7 = System management and engineering<br />
Exam Reminder<br />
Applications to sit the Institution Examination this<br />
year in October should be lodged with the <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
office before 30th June. You must be a member to<br />
apply and your subscription must be fully paid up at<br />
the time.<br />
Karen Gould, <strong>IRSE</strong> Training & Development Manager<br />
3rd Floor, Savoy Hill House<br />
Savoy Hill, London WC2R 0BS, UK<br />
Tel: +44 (0)20 7240 4935<br />
Fax: +44 (0)20 7240 3281 Railnet: 00 38424<br />
Email: training@irse.org
<strong>2002</strong> EXAMINATION RESULTS 121<br />
Summary of Results – Year <strong>2002</strong><br />
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 Totals<br />
Distinction 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2<br />
Credit 2 11 7 1 6 1 6 34<br />
Pass 25 27 11 0 16 1 13 93<br />
Near Miss 1 6 4 0 3 0 2 16<br />
Fail 29 23 21 0 14 1 3 91<br />
Total Candidates 57 67 44 1 40 3 24 236<br />
<strong>2002</strong> Pass Rate 47% 57% 43% 100% 58% 67% 79% 55%<br />
2001 Pass Rate 70% 46% 56% – 52% – 62% 58%<br />
2000 Pass Rate 51% 67% 60% 50% 43% – 83% 57%<br />
1999 Pass Rate 50% 73% 55% – 59% 100% 59% –<br />
1998 Pass Rate 63% 56% 43% 100% 36% 100% 61% –
THIS SPACE COULD BE<br />
WORKING FOR YOU<br />
-----<br />
TO ADVERTISE YOUR PRODUCTS<br />
WITHIN THE<br />
ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS<br />
PLEASE CONTACT THE<br />
ADVERTISING AGENCY<br />
Paul Hollidge<br />
Macmillan Scott<br />
10 Savoy Street<br />
London WC2E 7HR<br />
Tel: +44 (0)20 7878 2339<br />
Fax: +44 (0)20 7379 7155<br />
Web: paul@mcmslondon.co.uk
123<br />
Section Reports<br />
Australasian Section<br />
Fifty-Fourth Annual Report – Year Ending 31st December <strong>2002</strong><br />
OFFICE BEARERS<br />
Vice-President<br />
Mr P R Symons (F) NSW<br />
Chairman<br />
Mr L F Brearley (F) Qld<br />
Vice-Chairman<br />
Mr K I Walker (F) Qld<br />
Committee<br />
Messrs P A Huth (AM)<br />
Qld<br />
H J Revell (M) Qld, W K Wells (F) NSW<br />
T G Moore (F) NSW, R A Stepniewski (F) NSW<br />
A F Vaz (F) NSW, S W Boshier (M) Vic<br />
M R Donald (M) Vic, D J Ness (M) Vic<br />
H B Luber (M) Vic, I Wortington (F) Vic<br />
I N Roulstone (M) SA, L D Tran (M) SA<br />
P L Gobetz (F) WA, I G Costa (F) WA<br />
A E Neilson (F) NZ<br />
Secretary/Treasurer<br />
Mr G Willmott (A) SA<br />
Public Officer<br />
Mr R A Bell (F)<br />
Vic<br />
Auditor<br />
Mr A G Cumming (A) Vic<br />
Messrs A F Vaz, T G Moore, M R Donald, I<br />
Worthington, J Revell, L D Tran A E Neilson remained<br />
in office for <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
Mr I G Costa was elected by the Committee as<br />
replacement for Mr K I Walker.<br />
Mr L Brearley was elected as Chairman for a<br />
second term, consequently there was not the normal<br />
handover of gavel and Badge of Office by the outgoing<br />
chairman.<br />
He then addressed the meeting telling how he<br />
appreciated the privilege of continuing for another<br />
year, thanked the outgoing Committee and welcomed<br />
the incoming. Told the members of the hard<br />
work by the NSW Committee for the organisation of<br />
the forthcoming International Convention.<br />
Further to the training of young engineers in the<br />
rail industry, Rail Co-operative Research Centre held<br />
a forum in Brisbane, August 2001, to obtain topics<br />
for research seen as priorities by the rail industry.<br />
The initial project addressed signal and telecommunications<br />
engineering. The first project to obtain<br />
Rail CRC approval was Project 60, Continuing<br />
Professional Development for railway signalling and<br />
telecommunications engineers and technologists.<br />
A steering committee was set up to guide the<br />
signalling programme: M Duffy (QR), P Szacsvay<br />
(RIC), S Barker (WSA), L Brearley (US&S), K Kwong<br />
(CQU).<br />
There is a big age difference between the younger<br />
and older members, certainly local meetings make<br />
the <strong>IRSE</strong> more accessible to the younger persons. At<br />
the present time, we do have awards for the under<br />
35, but is it enough?<br />
The past Australasian papers together with Noel<br />
Reed’s history were scanned by Bob Taaffe, with the<br />
CD ready for sale at the Convention.<br />
Les also addressed the changed process of the<br />
Committee nominating the next year’s Chairman and<br />
Vice-Chairman, members were clearly to understand<br />
that this did not preclude any other eligible nomination<br />
for these positions.<br />
During the year, meetings of the Australasian<br />
Section were held as follows:<br />
1 Annual General Meeting, Sydney, NSW, 29th<br />
April <strong>2002</strong> at the unusual time of 3.00 pm<br />
The AGM was convened prior to the start of the<br />
International Convention programmed to run 29th<br />
April – 3rd May.<br />
Mr Brearley opened the meeting, welcoming<br />
President Mr P Stanley and <strong>IRSE</strong> Chief Executive Mr<br />
K Burrage, overseas visitors and 98 members.<br />
The Annual Report & Balance Sheet, which had<br />
been previously distributed for examination, was<br />
moved for acceptance and passed on show of<br />
hands.<br />
The Chairman then presented the Byles & Calcutt<br />
plaque to Mr Alexander Samoyoa for the year 2001,<br />
the event was photographed and published in the<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> News.<br />
The amendments of Rules of the Association,<br />
Australasian Section, which had been proposed and<br />
circulated to all members, were accepted and<br />
passed.<br />
The Australasian Section closed at this point, with<br />
the official opening of the Convention to take place<br />
that evening at the Powerhouse Museum.<br />
The Convention opening, presentations, keynote<br />
address, technical papers, social and guests’<br />
programmes are detailed in an extensive illustrated<br />
report by Derek Edney in the September <strong>2002</strong> <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
News, Issue 80.<br />
2 Technical Meeting, Brisbane, QLD, 2nd-3rd<br />
August <strong>2002</strong><br />
Friday 2nd<br />
Seventy-six members and visitors met at registration<br />
Hilton Hotel, Brisbane.<br />
Mr L Brearley opened the meeting at 0900 hrs with<br />
a welcome to all, he then introduced: Mr Ken<br />
Devencorn, GM Airtrain.<br />
Mr Devencorn reiterated the good points in the<br />
building of the Airport Service, followed by the “The<br />
Airtrain, Twelve Months On”.<br />
Weakness in safety is seen as an issue by the<br />
public.<br />
The passengers from the airport can be tired,<br />
disoriented, have language difficulties and possible<br />
air rage.<br />
They have been seen taking photos and movies in
124<br />
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION<br />
dangerous situations, swinging surfboards and fishing<br />
rods around, I have seen golfers swinging clubs<br />
on the platforms where there are overhead power<br />
wires.<br />
Customer care has to be an issue in a marketing<br />
effort.<br />
Mr M Duffy moved a vote of appreciation to Mr<br />
Devencorn.<br />
Technical papers were presented by:<br />
Mr Victor Abbott M<strong>IRSE</strong>, Project Manager,<br />
Foxboro Transportation, Invensys Rail Systems.<br />
“Safety in the Middle”.<br />
SCADA systems are rarely relied on to provide<br />
against high risk hazards, but are frequently used to<br />
contribute to the management of hazardous situations.<br />
The system vendor must take into account the<br />
environment in which the system is to be deployed,<br />
consider the availability of other hazard defence<br />
mechanisms, and engineer a cost effective solution.<br />
Mr Alex Borodin AM<strong>IRSE</strong>, Queensland Rail.<br />
“Management of SPADS in QR – The Challenge of<br />
Building on Success”.<br />
SPAD Management in QR is one component of a<br />
radical suite of risk-based Safety Management<br />
Policies and Standards that have changed the face<br />
of safety management.<br />
QR introduced its SPAD Reduction Strategy<br />
during the 1996/97 financial year. Since that time,<br />
significant reductions have been achieved to QR’s<br />
risk profile with only small infrastructure investments<br />
being required.<br />
Passenger train infringements were reduced from<br />
7.74 SPADS per million train kilometres in 1995/96 to<br />
3.53 in 2001/02, a reduction 54% in six years.<br />
Mr Geoff Meers, Queensland Transport. “Road<br />
Safety Management in Queensland”.<br />
There are over 1,700 road fatalities each year<br />
across Australia, with 323 in Queensland last year.<br />
Other transport industries only have around 40<br />
fatalities per year.<br />
In spite of continuing large increases in the<br />
number of vehicles and licensed drivers, road tolls<br />
have decreased steadily since the 1970s.<br />
These improvements are due to a range of initiatives<br />
in the three Es: engineering, enforcement and<br />
education.<br />
There were ongoing improvements in road safety<br />
through the 70s and 80s, but the 1992-2001<br />
National Road Safety Strategy provided a national<br />
framework for the introduction of number of road<br />
safety initiatives, with Qld developing its first action<br />
plan in 1996.<br />
Mr Scott Riedel, Manager Trackside Systems,<br />
Regional and Systems Support, QR. “QR<br />
Maintenance: A New Direction”.<br />
In response to customer expectations of reduced<br />
costs and increased safety, set against a backdrop<br />
of an increasingly litigious society, Trackside<br />
Systems has established a framework for maintenance<br />
which it hopes can meet or exceed customer<br />
requirements, while detailing a process which<br />
demonstrates a duty of care.<br />
The framework QR has adopted is one of competency<br />
based training and assessment combined<br />
with a maintenance regime consisting of a comprehensive<br />
suite of defined maintenance tasks and<br />
ongoing asset condition and performance review.<br />
Mrs Sandra Karrasch AM<strong>IRSE</strong>, Signal Engineer,<br />
QR. “The Challenge of Organising an <strong>IRSE</strong> Exam<br />
Study Group”.<br />
This paper explores the requirements for signalling<br />
engineers to gain the knowledge to pass an <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
exam.<br />
Ranging from what should be studied, when<br />
lessons should be held, what worked and what did<br />
not.<br />
To the benefits gained by prospective candidates<br />
and their value to QR with the increase of signalling<br />
knowledge gained from senior presenters.<br />
The lessons learnt from the first two years will benefit<br />
those who decide to continue next year. There<br />
will always be improvements to the processes and<br />
presentations but that is part of the learning experience.<br />
Mr Les Brearley F<strong>IRSE</strong>, Manager, Systems Safety<br />
and Quality, Union Switch & Signal Pty Ltd.<br />
“Developing a Railway Signalling Course for<br />
Australia – Update on CRC Progress”.<br />
The need for a locally based course, particularly<br />
for signal engineering was recognised by the<br />
Australasian Section of the <strong>IRSE</strong> and proposals were<br />
sought during 2001 from local universities to provide<br />
such a programme.<br />
In parallel the Co-operative Research Centre for<br />
Engineering & Technologies (Rail CRC) was also<br />
established.<br />
Following an industry forum in August 2001, it was<br />
clear the Rail CRC was gaining momentum and the<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> decided to join with them in establishing a<br />
signalling course for Australia rather than initiating a<br />
separate course.<br />
The first project to gain approval in Theme Six was<br />
Project 60 – Continuing Professional Development<br />
modules for railway signalling and telecommunications<br />
engineers and technologists.<br />
The vision for Rail CRC is to provide nationally<br />
accepted professional development courses for<br />
railway engineering.<br />
Panel Session: Chaired by Mr Les Brearley.<br />
Does a Safety Management System manage<br />
safety or liability?<br />
What is the role of signalling in a safety management<br />
system?<br />
Panel: Messrs Warwich Allison, Signal Design<br />
Manager, RIC; Dale Coleman, Group Managing<br />
Director, TMG International; Graeme Silvester,<br />
Manager Workplace Health and Safety, QR.<br />
Mike Duffy spoke in appreciation of all speakers.<br />
Saturday 3rd August<br />
The morning site inspection was to Invensys Rail
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION 125<br />
Systems facility where their Hong Kong KCRC rail<br />
extension installation was being designed, built and<br />
tested.<br />
After morning refreshments, provided by Invensys,<br />
the group split up, with half going to Queensland<br />
Manufacturing Institute – Reality Centre, just around<br />
the corner, the remaining half then inspecting the<br />
Hong Kong job at Invensys, including a display by<br />
Wayne McDonald of a typical crossing protection<br />
installation for the Alice – Darwin track.<br />
The Virtual Reality Centre did prove a little too real<br />
for some members with the simulated soaring<br />
platform used to inspect a proposed highway<br />
construction, from users and residents viewpoint.<br />
After the changeover of the groups was completed,<br />
we adjourned over the road to a very<br />
pleasant outside restaurant for lunch.<br />
On the return to the city, we deviated to inspect<br />
the impressive redevelopment of Lang Park<br />
Stadium, it was interesting to see that a small<br />
historical church had been retained in the stadium<br />
perimeter.<br />
3 Technical Meeting Melbourne, Victoria, 8th-<br />
9th November <strong>2002</strong><br />
Members staying at The Dorset Gardens complex<br />
were transported to the Siemens Conference Facility<br />
located on Mountain Highway Bayswater, where<br />
registration of 82 members and visitors was<br />
completed.<br />
Acting Chairman Mr Keith Walker opened the<br />
meeting at 1012 hrs, with Mr Brian Luber welcoming<br />
all to Siemens Conference Centre.<br />
Mr Walker then introduced:<br />
Mr John Hengelmolen, Regional Fast Rail Project<br />
Manager, who gave an overview of the project.<br />
It will be a high quality service to four significant<br />
Victorian corridors.<br />
The three key elements being addressed are new<br />
trains, upgrade of infrastructure, new service plan.<br />
TPWS installation will mitigate signal sighting and<br />
braking errors, provide speed detection and<br />
enforcement of signals where track speed exceeds<br />
130 km/h.<br />
Mr Hengelmolen was thanked by Mr Walker and<br />
presented with a plaque of appreciation.<br />
Mr D E Carden AM<strong>IRSE</strong>, New Railway Projects<br />
Division, Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation,<br />
Hong Kong, China. “Manless Operation, A Holistic<br />
Technical, Operational and Commercial Evaluation”.<br />
Today the majority of trains are still driven and<br />
controlled by human beings. The advent of train<br />
control systems based on continuous track to train<br />
and train to track communications, together with<br />
automatic train protection is however changing this<br />
situation. Train control systems have taken the level<br />
of operating safety to a level previously unknown.<br />
These systems when optimised to their ultimate<br />
extent, support the concept of manless operation.<br />
This paper reviews the trends in the application of<br />
manless systems worldwide, discusses the various<br />
support systems employed in conjunction with the<br />
implementation of manless systems, to maintain a<br />
smooth and safe operating environment, as a direct<br />
result of the removal of the driver.<br />
It explores the advantages and disadvantages of<br />
the introduction of manless operation, and also the<br />
perceived problems, in accepting manless trains by<br />
the public at large.<br />
Mr Brett Baker M<strong>IRSE</strong>, Project Manager, Connex<br />
New Rolling Stock Project. “Connex New Rolling<br />
Stock Procurement Experience, The X’TRAPO-<br />
LIS”.<br />
This paper describes the procurement of NRS as<br />
defined in the franchise bid document.<br />
During the franchise bid process, Connex and<br />
Alstom worked jointly which resulted in a NRS<br />
submission to the State of Victoria being an Alstom<br />
“standard” train product line.<br />
The project initially involved the design and early<br />
manufacture of the units at Alstom’s La Roche<br />
facility in France, with a major portion of the work<br />
shifting to Alstom’s Ballarat facility by the second<br />
half of <strong>2002</strong>.<br />
8th April <strong>2002</strong> saw the delivery of Melbourne’s<br />
newest train the X’TRAPOLIS.<br />
The first unit comprising three cars were transferred<br />
from a low-loader on to the tracks at<br />
Bayswater maintenance facility for testing.<br />
Mainline testing commenced in June, with formal<br />
Acceptance Tests with the Department of<br />
Infrastructure in November and regular revenue<br />
service by 31st December<br />
A total of 58 new units will be progressively<br />
delivered and enter revenue service between<br />
January <strong>2003</strong> and December 2004.<br />
Mr M Jovetic, Signal Maintenance Engineer.<br />
Alstom Melbourne Transport Limited.<br />
Mr N Grady Comp <strong>IRSE</strong>, Operations Manager,<br />
Alstom Melbourne Transport Limited.<br />
“The Alstom Train Delivery Experience”.<br />
Alstom Melbourne Transport Limited (AMTL) has<br />
both an infrastructure and rolling stock management<br />
contract with Connex Trains Franchise in Melbourne.<br />
Asset management has responsibilities for determining<br />
engineering and maintenance policies and<br />
takes part of the risk for asset performance; thus it<br />
has approval roles in the introduction of the new<br />
rolling stock and the management/mitigation of the<br />
associated risks.<br />
The significant risks to be addressed for the<br />
introduction of the new train included the obvious<br />
ones: dimensions, weight, power requirements and,<br />
of course, interference with existing signalling<br />
systems. The latter was one of the most challenging<br />
risks to prove mitigated.<br />
“Everyone” knows that electronically controlled<br />
trains introduce new hazards to the signalling<br />
system.<br />
Standards such as EN 50121 “Railway<br />
Applications – Electromagnetic Compatibility” and<br />
UMTA – MA-06-01534-85-6 “Conductive Interference<br />
in Rapid Transit Signalling Systems” give, what
126<br />
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION<br />
to address and how to test, but lack the vital<br />
information – the acceptable limits of interference.<br />
MTE (Connex) had to convince the Department of<br />
Infrastructure’s Safety Regulator that the new train is<br />
not importing additional risk to the system. AMTL in<br />
its Engineering Authority role became the expert<br />
adviser to MTE.<br />
Mr Petra Brueggemann-Ratzlaff, Siemens – “The<br />
Train Delivery Experience”.<br />
Siemens was awarded a contract for the delivery<br />
of 62 three-car Metro units for Bayside Trains (now<br />
M>Train) in March 2000.<br />
Additional orders were awarded to them for the<br />
delivery of 59 trams and the maintenance of these<br />
trams and the new three-car train units for 15 years.<br />
The trains are mostly built in Vienna with the<br />
assembly completed in Melbourne with components<br />
supplied by Australian sub-suppliers.<br />
The final commissioning and delivery will start in<br />
February <strong>2003</strong>, ending in February 2005.<br />
The Melbourne project was a quite different<br />
experience for Siemens, in that rolling stock was<br />
usually built to customers’ engineering specification,<br />
whereas National Express Group Australia (NEGA)<br />
was an operator and they were mainly concerned in<br />
the functionality of the cars for passengers and<br />
driver.<br />
National Express set the functionality target<br />
requirements for the contract specification and the<br />
detailed engineering of how to fulfil these was very<br />
much left to Siemens.<br />
A further interesting aspect was National Express<br />
introduced a very rigorous process, essentially<br />
allowing the drivers to design their own workplace.<br />
This is where the most time/effort was spent in the<br />
direct Siemens/client design interface.<br />
Panel Session: Chaired by Mr Keith Walker. “The<br />
Commercial Railway – Which is the best model?”<br />
Panel: Mr D Carden, Mr P Huth, Mr N Grady.<br />
Mr Gary Josh spoke in appreciation of all speakers<br />
who contributed to the meeting.<br />
Saturday 9th November<br />
The technical inspections were visits to view both<br />
new trainsets for the Melbourne metropolitan<br />
service.<br />
The first was to Bayswater, where an Alstom train,<br />
appearing to be virtually completed, was stabled in<br />
the in the yard.<br />
The Siemens type was located in the old Victorian<br />
Railway Newport Workshop.<br />
The members examined both trains with enthusiasm<br />
and discussed the different visible aspects of<br />
each.<br />
We adjourned to the Victorian Motor Yacht Club<br />
for lunch, which completed the Melbourne meeting.<br />
Thank you is extended to the following for their<br />
assistance in providing advertisements for the<br />
technical papers through the year:<br />
Alstom Australia Ltd<br />
Connell Wagner<br />
QR, Queensland Rail Consulting Services<br />
Siemens Ltd<br />
TMG International<br />
Union Switch & Signal Pty Ltd<br />
Westinghouse Signals Australia<br />
Local meetings were held as follows:<br />
NSW:<br />
20th June, joint meeting with RTSA, Railtable –<br />
Alex Wardrop.<br />
23rd July, NSW Dark Territory Indications – Kevin<br />
Julian/Richard Stepniewski.<br />
29th August, joint meeting RTSA/PWI, PWI (1)<br />
Paper – Mark Harris; (2) Signalling Under the Alliance<br />
at Blacktown – Chris Miller.<br />
17th September, Australian Signalling – Peter<br />
Symons.<br />
21st November, speaker, Chief Engineer, New York<br />
Transit, Mysore Nagaraja.<br />
5th December, Paper on Communications, followed<br />
by a light supper and social.<br />
QLD:<br />
6th March, speaker (1) George Nikandros – Risky<br />
Business, speaker (2) Ken Karrasch – A Candidate’s<br />
Retrospective of Sitting the <strong>IRSE</strong> Exam.<br />
MEMBERSHIP<br />
The Australasian Section membership as of 31st<br />
December <strong>2002</strong> was 393.<br />
FINANCE<br />
The audited balance sheet for the year ending 31st<br />
December <strong>2002</strong> shows that the financial position of<br />
the Section has been maintained.<br />
The Committee wishes to thank members for their<br />
support of the Australasian Section during the year<br />
and looks forward to the continuing attendance at all
127<br />
Hong Kong Section<br />
1 THE COMMITTEE OF THE HONG<br />
KONG SECTION<br />
CHAIRMAN<br />
Mr Phil Gaffney, Mass Transit Railway Corporation<br />
Ltd.<br />
VICE-PRESIDENTS<br />
Mr Franco Fabbian, Mass Transit Railway<br />
Corporation Ltd. Mr Pang Kwok Wai, Kowloon<br />
Canton Railway Corporation.<br />
SECRETARY<br />
Hui Fook Lun, Francis, Control & Communications<br />
Consultants Co Ltd.<br />
COMMITTEE MEMBERS<br />
Mr Sung Yuen Fat, Kowloon Canton Railway<br />
Corporation. Mr Law Wai Hung (Michael), Kowloon<br />
Canton Railway Corporation. Mr Cheung Nin Sang<br />
(Henry), Kowloon Canton Railway Corporation. Mr<br />
Lam Lai Yan, Mass Transit Railway Corporation Ltd.<br />
Mr Kong Yam, Hyder Consulting Ltd. Mr Luk Kam<br />
Ming, KML Engineering Co Ltd.<br />
MEMBERSHIP SUB-COMMITTEE<br />
Mr Sung Yeun Fat, Kowloon Canton Railway<br />
Corporation. Mr Li Kin Man, Mass Transit Railway<br />
Corporation Ltd.<br />
LICENCE SUB-COMMITTEE<br />
Mr Simon Lee, Mass Transit Railway Corporation<br />
Ltd. Mr Tsang Kwok Leung, Kowloon Canton<br />
Railway Corporation. Mr Hui Fook Lun (Francis),<br />
Control & Communications Consultants Co Ltd.<br />
LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT SUB-COMMITTEE<br />
Mr Alfred Lui, Whartoner Business Management<br />
Ltd. Mr Philip Lee, Mass Transit Railway Corporation<br />
Ltd. Mr Chan Wing Tin (Terry), Mass Transit Railway<br />
Corporation Ltd. Mr Wong Wai Ming (Philip), Kowloon<br />
Canton Railway Corporation. Mr Law Wai Hung<br />
(Michael), Kowloon Canton Railway Corporation.<br />
CHINA AFFAIR<br />
Mr Sung Yeun Fat, Kowloon Canton Railway<br />
Corporation.<br />
OVERSEAS AFFAIR<br />
Mr Franco Fabbian, Mass Transit Railway<br />
Corporation Ltd<br />
2 <strong>IRSE</strong> CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL<br />
DEVELOPMENT<br />
Degree Course of Transportation Management: 27<br />
students completed their final examinations and the<br />
graduation was held on 18th February <strong>2003</strong> in<br />
Northern Jiaotong University, Beijing.<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> Examination Study Group was ongoing with<br />
the assistance of the Training Centre of MTRCL.<br />
Another Study Group was established in KCRC<br />
this year, which was open to all <strong>IRSE</strong> members.<br />
3 MBA PROGRAMME<br />
The MBA programme has been held in Shenzhen<br />
University since October 2001, jointly organised with<br />
the Overseas International Education Centre,<br />
Warnborough University UK and Shenzhen<br />
University Economy College.<br />
A total of 58 candidates completed their theses<br />
and passed the examinations; the graduation<br />
ceremony was held in early <strong>2003</strong>.<br />
4 <strong>IRSE</strong> LICENSING AGENT<br />
UK <strong>IRSE</strong> agreed in principle that if the Hong Kong<br />
Section wished to become a licensing agent then<br />
the Hong Kong Section should ensure that there<br />
should be no liability linkage with the UK office.<br />
5 COMMUNICATION WITH CHINA<br />
RAILWAY ASSOCIATION AND<br />
RAILWAY INSTITUTION<br />
Liaison with Guang Dong Railway Association was<br />
undertaken through colleagues from KCRC to enhance<br />
information sharing and future co-operation.<br />
The relationship with the China Hong Kong<br />
Permanent Way Society was well maintained<br />
through inviting their Committee members to attend<br />
our meetings. It was seen as the most effective<br />
approach to bringing two institutions together in<br />
Hong Kong.<br />
6 <strong>2002</strong> <strong>IRSE</strong> (HK) ACTIVITIES<br />
March – Annual Dinner<br />
The response was satisfactory in that over 80 participated,<br />
and it was an impressive occasion with<br />
almost all members there.<br />
May – Visit West Rail of KCR<br />
20 members visited West Rail, which was under<br />
construction, so the visit concentrated on visiting<br />
their stations on the overhead section, signalling<br />
equipment room and the depot.<br />
Technical Forum meetings were jointly organised<br />
with Mass Transit Railway Corporation, Train<br />
Services Engineering Group in August <strong>2002</strong><br />
The new environmental protection concepts for air<br />
conditioning for railway signalling equipment rooms<br />
by KCRC were presented.<br />
September – CLP Black Point Power Plant Visit<br />
20 members visited CLP Black Point Power Plant<br />
on 7th September, including their plant control room.<br />
7 NEWSLETTER AND <strong>IRSE</strong> (HK)<br />
WEBSITE<br />
A Website Working Group had been formed with<br />
the volunteers from MTRCL. A completely new website<br />
had been designed with a bilingual display.<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> (HK) NEWSLETTER<br />
Excellent work from the Editorial Group. We wish<br />
to seek a new editor as the result of Ian’s leaving.<br />
8 FINANCIAL REPORT<br />
Current Account Balance<br />
Saving Account Balance<br />
Total Cash Flow<br />
HK$233.80<br />
HK$64,784.67<br />
HK$65,018.47<br />
F L Hui, Secretary
128<br />
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT<br />
Midland & North-Western Section<br />
When taking the chair of the Midland & North-<br />
Western Section my main aim was to simply<br />
consolidate on the good work of the last few years<br />
in providing a varied programme of events, both in<br />
terms of content and location.<br />
I feel satisfied that this was achieved with again<br />
the Section visiting four centres in the region –<br />
Birmingham, Crewe, Derby and Manchester – and<br />
attendance levels being maintained.<br />
The speakers whose services we managed to<br />
secure provided, I hope, points of interest for most if<br />
not all attendees. The topics ranged from the blue<br />
sky developments for “Satellite Signalling”. The<br />
proving and implementation of modern technologies<br />
with the talks on TASS and ERTMS proving<br />
particularly popular. Finally some topics from the<br />
sharp end with improvements in Maintenance<br />
techniques and procedures plus use of Data logging<br />
methods and analysis. A diversion from the purely<br />
technical was introduced at our second Derby<br />
meeting where we heard one man’s views, sometimes<br />
frank, sometimes deliberately controversial, on<br />
where our industry may be heading.<br />
I thank all of our speakers for giving up their<br />
valuable time and also to our many sponsors who<br />
have contributed to all our events. Sponsorship has<br />
meant that the Section has been able to operate<br />
with the minimum of financial support from HQ.<br />
On the visits front, as you know, we lost Dave<br />
Wittamore during the 2001/<strong>2002</strong> season, a hard act<br />
to follow, but we have been lucky enough in having<br />
Ian Allison take up the reins. Ian is developing an<br />
ambitious set of visits that kicked off with a highly<br />
successful two-part visit to Powernetics and Great<br />
Central Railways at Loughborough. Other visits<br />
included the Virgin Train Driver simulation at Crewe,<br />
an ongoing event. No doubt you will hear more from<br />
Ian in the future session.<br />
Other developments for the Section include:<br />
• The movement towards maximising the use of<br />
email facilities for efficiency of communications.<br />
The use of email not only provides speedy<br />
communications but is also cost-effective for<br />
the Institute. Traditional mailing methods will be<br />
maintained where these are identified as<br />
desirable.<br />
• The development of Midlands and North-West<br />
based study groups under the guidance of our<br />
joint T&D representatives Buddadev Dutta<br />
Chowdhury (BDC) and advisor David Stratton is<br />
progressing. Look out for more news in the next<br />
season.<br />
Finally I would like to thank all the Committee<br />
members for their valuable support during the past<br />
year and trust that you will all support our new<br />
Chairman Ian Mitchell in the same manner.<br />
Ian has arranged a full and varied programme for<br />
the <strong>2003</strong>-2004 season and I hope to see some, if not<br />
all of you again in the future.<br />
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE<br />
The Committee for the <strong>2002</strong>-<strong>2003</strong> session was:<br />
Chairman<br />
Clive Williams<br />
Vice-Chairman<br />
Ian Mitchell<br />
Secretary<br />
Bill Redfern<br />
Treasurer<br />
Tony Walker<br />
Past Chairman<br />
Doug Nottingham<br />
Visits Secretary<br />
Ian Allison<br />
Training & Development<br />
Gary Hall<br />
Buddadev Dutta Chowdhury<br />
David Stratton<br />
Younger Members’ Rep<br />
Kamini Edgley<br />
Committee<br />
Ian Bridges, Peter Halliwell<br />
Ian Johnson, Tony Knowles, Melvyn Nash<br />
Clive Williams<br />
Plymouth Section<br />
The Plymouth Section of the <strong>IRSE</strong> held three<br />
technical meetings during the <strong>2002</strong>-<strong>2003</strong> session.<br />
Although apparently diverse in subject matter, there<br />
was nevertheless a common theme that related all<br />
three, namely automatic train protection (ATP).<br />
The first paper was presented by Alan Cooksey,<br />
formerly of HMRI and later HSE, who presented his<br />
paper, “Implications for Signalling of the Ladbroke<br />
Grove Enquiry”. Alan had formerly presented this<br />
paper to the main body in London, but now being<br />
retired was in a position to introduce some personal<br />
views. A total of 23 members and visitors attended<br />
this meeting, all of whom benefited from an excellent<br />
presentation with thought provoking comments and<br />
questions.<br />
It had been difficult to reduce the enormous<br />
amount of available data on the subject to a level<br />
suitable for a short paper, and even more so to<br />
attempt to summarise it in this report. Suffice to say<br />
that even a summary of the background, actual<br />
circumstances of the accident, personalities, train<br />
company policy, development of signalling, special<br />
circumstances surrounding Paddington, enquiry<br />
details, ATP versus TPWS in this case, SPAD<br />
statistics and many other less topical but nevertheless<br />
important considerations made for a very<br />
interesting evening.<br />
The second paper for the session was a presentation<br />
explaining the fitting of Automatic Train<br />
Operation (ATO) and ATP to the Bucharest Metro<br />
Line 2 in Romania, but with a twist being entitled<br />
“What the Manuals Do Not Tell You About Fitting<br />
ATP to an Existing Metro”. This paper was given by<br />
John Senior, Project Engineer, watched closely by<br />
the writer of this article as Project Manager, ready to
PLYMOUTH SECTION<br />
129<br />
ask the awkward questions. Nineteen members and<br />
guests attended the meeting.<br />
The main thrust of the presentation surprised<br />
attendees, steering away from the expected summary<br />
of the project and instead concentrating on the<br />
unusual problems encountered along the way, not<br />
least of which being the lack of crucial data<br />
concerning distances and gradients necessary for<br />
system design. Another very interesting topic was<br />
the effect of the tolerances applicable to each<br />
parameter involved in ATO and ATP operation,<br />
especially when compounded into design considerations<br />
in attempting to stop a train automatically<br />
within a plus/minus one metre tolerance.<br />
The third and final paper of the session was<br />
entitled “ERTMS in the UK”, read by Patrick<br />
Clipperton. The 20 members and guests at this<br />
meeting included Peter Stanley, President of the<br />
Institution. Post-presentation discussion was substantially<br />
enhanced by the involvement of the<br />
President as a result of his knowledge of the subject.<br />
Pat’s presentation took the form of an across-theboard<br />
picture of ERTMS in the UK, including a<br />
summary of the current project and report status,<br />
statistics of signal, driver and rolling stock numbers,<br />
financial considerations, GSM-R radio, the three<br />
ERTMS level benefits or limitations, reports from<br />
installed systems abroad both valid and propaganda<br />
and media reporting.<br />
All papers presented during this session culminated<br />
in lively questions and answers on all three<br />
occasions with the Chairman having to call a halt to<br />
proceedings.<br />
Following earlier postponements as a result of<br />
work commitments, the Annual General Meeting of<br />
the Section was held on 24th June. Under local<br />
rules, one member of the standing Committee had<br />
to retire, and the Section was delighted to welcome<br />
Past President Alastair Wilson on to the Committee<br />
following a unanimous vote. The Committee for the<br />
coming session will be:<br />
Julian Stiles (Chair)<br />
Dave Biss<br />
Mick South<br />
Geoff Ledger<br />
Andy Marsh<br />
Alastair Wilson<br />
Dave Came was confirmed as Secretary/Treasurer<br />
with Alan Peters as Auditor.<br />
There was discussion on the licensing of staff and<br />
the need to understand that this was now a requirement<br />
expanding beyond safety signalling design and<br />
test, to include in the future all disciplines involved in<br />
work in the railway environment. It was agreed that<br />
locally there is a need to assist and encourage<br />
younger members to attain the required licences,<br />
irrespective of job function.<br />
In view of the successful numbers attending<br />
technical meetings, it was agreed to continue with<br />
the same policy in terms of number, time of start and<br />
venue of meetings.<br />
A special mention was made concerning longstanding<br />
member and previous Section secretary<br />
Stan Buttery, who is seriously ill. The thoughts of the<br />
members are with him. D Came, Secretary<br />
Scottish Section<br />
Chairman:<br />
Secretary:<br />
Treasurer:<br />
Committee:<br />
Paul Humphreys<br />
Alan King<br />
Alistair McWhirter<br />
Peter Allan, Peter Rowell<br />
Ian Hill, Tommy Gallacher<br />
This session the Scottish Section has held most<br />
meetings at the premises of Caledonian University.<br />
Following a very successful 2001 experience, the<br />
Marriott Hotel, Glasgow, proved again to be a very<br />
suitable venue for the annual dinner in November<br />
<strong>2002</strong>. (The Section AGM was held prior to the last<br />
meeting of the session on Thursday 21st March<br />
<strong>2002</strong>.)<br />
The <strong>2002</strong>/<strong>2003</strong> session commenced in October<br />
with a presentation from Peter Ramsay, First<br />
Engineering, on “Development of Track Warning<br />
Systems in the UK”. This lecture was held jointly with<br />
the Permanent Way Institution. The presenter very<br />
capably steered the content of the presentation to<br />
hold rapt attention from attendees representing each<br />
discipline. Those attending left this meeting with a<br />
comprehensive insight into the background, and<br />
development so far, of this important subject area.<br />
Pros and cons of the operation of various systems<br />
available were discussed, and for the signal<br />
engineers in the audience, the means of interfacing<br />
to the surrounding signalling system was also<br />
covered. This event was sponsored by First<br />
Engineering. (Attendees 42)<br />
November’s meeting followed the established<br />
format of a lecture followed by the Scottish Section<br />
Annual Dinner. This year, Harry Archibald, Jarvis Rail<br />
Projects, presented “The Alternative <strong>IRSE</strong> Exam”.<br />
This eye-catching title must no doubt have raised a<br />
few eyebrows at Savoy Hill House when compiling<br />
the programme card! The lecture proved to be an<br />
interesting study into how past and present<br />
practices match up to modern day signalling<br />
principles! Harry picked several ‘rules’ set out in<br />
railway group standards and used a wide range of<br />
photographic illustrations, past and present, UK and<br />
overseas, to show how the various principles were /<br />
are applied. As expected. the talk was thought<br />
provoking and led to some interesting debate afterwards.<br />
This event was sponsored by Jarvis Rail<br />
Projects. (Attendees 58)<br />
In January <strong>2003</strong>, Frank Hyland, Head of<br />
Operations, HMRI, described the evolution of<br />
processes that have been applied to the investigation<br />
of UK railway accidents in the last few years.
130<br />
SCOTTISH SECTION<br />
He drew comparisons from his experience of Health<br />
& Safety management in other industry sectors,<br />
which gave background to some of the changes in<br />
the approach. He explained how improvements had<br />
been made in liaison and protocol between the<br />
HMRI, Police, Train Operating Companies,<br />
Infrastructure Controller and other affected<br />
organisations after accidents occur. (Attendees 30)<br />
Two lectures were held in February. Firstly, Liam<br />
Regan, of Thales, presented “Delivering Telecomms<br />
for the London Underground Connect Project”. In<br />
this lecture Liam outlined the communications<br />
strategy for this project and went on to describe the<br />
transmission and copper cable installation methods<br />
used to interconnect the various major operational<br />
centres on the Underground. He also described the<br />
Private Finance Initiative strategy and the minimum<br />
service levels specified for this telecomms infrastructure.<br />
(Attendees 13)<br />
Our other February lecture was held jointly with<br />
the IMechE (Railway Division) at Caledonian<br />
University. Mike Corbett, TPWS (Trainborne) Project<br />
Director, Joint ROSCO Working Group, presented<br />
the trainborne aspects of TPWS installation. This<br />
was of particular interest to all who have been<br />
involved in the provision of TPWS. Mike very helpfully<br />
introduced the topic by explaining the history<br />
up to the implementation of TPWS and went on to<br />
describe the activities of the Joint ROSCO Working<br />
Group. He also explained details of the trainborne<br />
equipment, the implementation strategy, various<br />
‘interface’ issues (and some teething problems)<br />
along with some lessons learned.<br />
In March John Bryant, of Bentley Systems,<br />
presented “The Unified Railway Model”. This lecture<br />
incorporated a presentation on the use of virtual<br />
reality within the railway environment. A desktop<br />
signal sighting exercise was simulated where signals<br />
could be ‘placed’ at various possible locations to<br />
assess visibility. The software also has the capability<br />
to calculate the distance/time that the signal is<br />
visible to the driver. Attendees were impressed by<br />
the realism of the 3D images and the powerful<br />
impact this facility could have on assessing<br />
proposed alterations to infrastructure before<br />
construction. (Attendees 10)<br />
In a departure form normal tradition, our AGM was<br />
held in April and for the first time, combined with a<br />
quiz night in less formal (and licensed) surroundings.<br />
Some of us discovered just how wide the gaps in our<br />
knowledge were during the signal engineering round<br />
of questions! However, the evening was a great<br />
success and enjoyed by all. For the session <strong>2003</strong>/<br />
2004, the Section intends to continue using the<br />
premises of Glasgow Caledonian University for most<br />
meetings.<br />
Alan King<br />
Secretary<br />
Southern African Section<br />
MEMBERSHIP<br />
At the end of the <strong>2002</strong> session, the membership of<br />
the Southern African Section stood at 51. This was<br />
made up as follows:<br />
Companion 1<br />
Fellow 9<br />
Member 27<br />
Associate Member 5<br />
Accredited Technician 9<br />
The membership per country within the Southern<br />
African Section is:<br />
South Africa 47<br />
Zimbabwe 4<br />
OFFICERS FOR THE 2001 SESSION<br />
Chairman<br />
Dr Bennie Steyn<br />
Vice-Chairman<br />
Rod Kohler<br />
Secretary<br />
Vic Bowles<br />
Treasurer<br />
Johan van de Pol<br />
Committee Members<br />
Derrick Marais<br />
Graham Paverd, Phil Meyer,<br />
Craig Mathys<br />
Co-opted Member<br />
Bob Woodhead<br />
FUNCTIONS<br />
On 14th February <strong>2002</strong> the Chairman led a<br />
discussion addressing “Communication Based<br />
Signalling”. As background to this discussion it was<br />
recognised that ETCS has received a lot of attention<br />
in Europe and an enormous amount of money is<br />
being spent on the development of the requirements<br />
for different levels. The testing and evaluation of the<br />
concepts are well on the way and implementation is<br />
expected soon. In the UK, a huge amount of money<br />
is being spent on CBS for the West Coast Mainline<br />
and the installation of TPWS. In the USA, on the<br />
other hand, the most notable effort is that of the<br />
NYCT with the development of the so-called<br />
Communication Based Control system. The above<br />
developments are earmarked for lines with extensive<br />
passenger traffic. The major freight railways are<br />
looking at the implementation of add-on systems<br />
such as warning systems (EPWS) and Positive Train<br />
Separation systems (PTS), which would improve the<br />
safety of existing, line side systems.<br />
In South Africa we have pioneered very cost<br />
effective lineside signalling systems including hybrid<br />
interlocking, points and remote control systems, to<br />
name a few. In the midst of these developments<br />
throughout the world, we in South Africa are<br />
implementing, or about to implement various forms<br />
of communication based signalling systems such as<br />
RTO, Track Warrant and CBA.<br />
The discussion concluded that the conditions in<br />
South Africa dictate that communication based<br />
signalling is destined to become the preferred<br />
technology of the future, but the currently<br />
constrained capital resource will contain the rate of<br />
implementation.
SOUTHERN AFRICAN SECTION 131<br />
On 14th March <strong>2002</strong> Dr Angus Hay and Frank<br />
Nunneley, from Transtel, presented a paper entitled<br />
“The Journey to being a Second Network Operator”.<br />
The paper expounded on the concept that choice is<br />
a new buzzword in the world of technology. In South<br />
Africa, we are on the road to being able to choose<br />
between telecommunication providers. The<br />
government has started the process to legalise a<br />
telecommunications competitor to the current single<br />
incumbent, Telkom.<br />
On 18th April <strong>2002</strong> Manie Bernard, from Inteltrack,<br />
presented a paper entitled “Rural Train Signalling<br />
with GPS”. The paper highlighted that the accuracy<br />
of GPS has improved from 100-150 metres<br />
previously to 5-15 metres during the past year. The<br />
paper then postulated that together with low-cost<br />
multi-channel GPS receivers, trains could now be<br />
tracked within the tolerances required for rural train<br />
signalling. An onboard kilometre driven menu could<br />
now replace all the static driver information and<br />
markers next to the track like speed limits, warning<br />
boards, gradients, curves and station names.<br />
Basically all the information the train driver needs<br />
could be displayed on board. By issuing digital track<br />
warrants to the trains and monitoring the position of<br />
trains continuously, safety could be maximised.<br />
Understanding the application of GPS technology in<br />
the signalling environment is critical if we would like<br />
to improve safety and reduce costs in future. With<br />
the advancement of GPS technology, train tracking<br />
software and GPS based track clearance methods,<br />
this becomes a very attractive alternative for low<br />
cost reliable rural train signalling.<br />
A joint symposium involving the Permanent Way<br />
Institution (PWI), the South African Institution for<br />
Civil Engineers (SAICE), the South African Society<br />
for Railway Engineers (SASRE) and the <strong>IRSE</strong> was<br />
held on 13th June <strong>2002</strong>. The symposium addressed<br />
the positioning of the institutions and societies in the<br />
future railway environment, with specific emphasis<br />
on the pending establishment of the Rail Safety<br />
Regulator in South Africa. Mr Mervan Panzera presented<br />
a structure introduction to the Rail Safety<br />
Legislation, the Rail Safety Regulator and the role of<br />
the Rail Safety Authority. Each learned society then<br />
presented a short paper on their understanding of<br />
the way forward. An open debate followed.<br />
On 15th August <strong>2002</strong> Andreas Matthee presented<br />
a paper entitled “Research into Technologies Which<br />
Can Be Employed for the Detection of Skid Marks on<br />
Rails”. Skid marks cause a lot of damage to both the<br />
infrastructure and the rolling stock. Annually much is<br />
spent repairing these and therefore the recording of<br />
the detail of skid marks will go a long way to improving<br />
maintenance planning and actions. A number of<br />
technologies and analysis techniques can be<br />
employed to detect and classify the skid marks. The<br />
paper focused on research performed to determine<br />
the feasibility of employing current technologies for<br />
this purpose. A skid mark is in effect a ‘pothole’ for<br />
a train wheel. By using advanced techniques to<br />
analyse the signals obtained from both accelerometers<br />
and acoustic transducers attached to the<br />
wheel set of a measurement car running over a<br />
section of railway line, it was possible to detect with<br />
sufficient reliability the position, depth and length of<br />
these potholes (skid marks). The accelerometer<br />
alternative also proved to be more effective. The<br />
success of this initial research requires that the<br />
approach be further refined and perfected.<br />
The annual technical visit took place on 6th-8th<br />
September <strong>2002</strong>. The visit comprised a group of<br />
members, spouses and some children spending a<br />
weekend in the Northern Drakensberg. The highlight<br />
of the weekend was a tour to the Drakensberg Pump<br />
Storage Scheme. The Pump Storage Scheme<br />
consumes electrical energy from the national<br />
distribution grid during times of low demand to<br />
pump large volumes of water from the Tugela River<br />
complex, up a vertical height of 150 metres, to an<br />
elevated storage dam that is integral to the<br />
Sterkfontein dam complex. Conversely, during times<br />
of high electricity demand, the same hydroelectric<br />
units use water flow from the elevated storage dam<br />
to generate electrical energy that is and feed to the<br />
national grid. This facility can produce of the order of<br />
8% of the total national consumption. Furthermore,<br />
the Sterkfontein dam complex is able to feed water<br />
to the north-eastern highlands of South Africa,<br />
which houses the South African industrial heartland<br />
of the greater Johannesburg, Pretoria, Vereeniging<br />
area, as well as large tracts of agricultural land.<br />
Accordingly, the same facility can be used to pump<br />
water from the abundant Tugela complex to the less<br />
abundant highlands. The tour of the pump station<br />
included a restricted viewing of the control centre of<br />
the complex. Typical remote control systems are<br />
used to centrally control and monitor the installation.<br />
The turbine-generator sets are mounted vertically<br />
and stand of the order of ten stories high. All of the<br />
party had a thoroughly enjoyable outing.<br />
Traditionally, the annual technical visit of the<br />
Southern African Section is planned to coincide with<br />
the visit of the <strong>IRSE</strong> President to South Africa.<br />
Unfortunately, this visit did not take place at short<br />
notice due to ill-health in the family of the President.<br />
The related technical meeting at which the President<br />
normally addresses the Section was also cancelled.<br />
On 31st October <strong>2002</strong> Rudi Barnard presented a<br />
paper entitled “Harare – Mutare CTC Renewal and<br />
Telephone Carrier Project”. The paper detailed the<br />
scope, the methodology, the key challenges and the<br />
successes of the project, which Siemens had<br />
recently completed. The systems installed include a<br />
PC based SCADA system, microwave backbone,<br />
UHF train radio system, PLC interfacing to the<br />
existing interlockings, power equipment and axle<br />
counters. The paper did not only give an overview of<br />
the project scope of works, installation and commissioning<br />
issues, but also looked at some of the<br />
challenges relating to contracting in a neighbouring<br />
country.<br />
The Annual Dinner for the <strong>2002</strong> session was postponed<br />
from the original date of 11th October <strong>2002</strong><br />
and was in the end held on 20th January <strong>2003</strong> at the<br />
Old Edwardians Club. The attendance was well<br />
above average and all had a jolly good time. The<br />
guest speaker, Shulami Qalinga (a female and<br />
recently appointed Senior Manager, Rail Operations
132 SOUTHERN AFRICAN SECTION<br />
at Spoornet) enlightened the guests as to the current<br />
role of women in rail in South Africa and related this<br />
to a highly successful locomotive preparation<br />
project. A female colleague of Shulami managed the<br />
project. Shulami also had a significant involvement<br />
in the project. The award for the best paper in the<br />
2001 session was announced at the dinner, with the<br />
winner being Ernst Swanepoel of the SARCC for his<br />
paper entitled “Management of Rail Assets – Art or<br />
Science”.<br />
A strategic session was held during the year to<br />
review the role and focus of the Southern African<br />
Section and to decide on the positioning of the<br />
Section with regard to the proposed formation of a<br />
Rail Safety Regulator in South Africa. The conclusion<br />
of the session was that the Southern African Section<br />
is doing most of the things it should and that it<br />
should continue to:<br />
• Ensure a presence in the environment<br />
• Define a training strategy<br />
• Actively market the services it can provide to<br />
possible members.<br />
The Southern African Section still labours under a<br />
decrease in the number of members arising from a<br />
number of retired members suspending their<br />
membership during this session and the ongoing<br />
overseas recruitment that continues to attract<br />
signalling expertise from Southern Africa.<br />
Vic Bowles<br />
General Secretary<br />
Western Section<br />
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE<br />
Chairman<br />
Vice-Chairman<br />
Hon Secretary<br />
Hon Treasurer<br />
Members<br />
Mark Glover<br />
Peter Duggan<br />
Doug Gillanders<br />
Mark Brookes<br />
Chris Napper, Ed Gerrard<br />
Peter Martell<br />
TECHNICAL MEETINGS<br />
It was disappointing start to the session when it<br />
was necessary to rearrange at relatively short notice<br />
the first paper of the session because the original<br />
planned event had no response whatsoever. The<br />
original event was to have been a short papers<br />
evening where the prize for the best was to have<br />
been a Section-sponsored place on the <strong>IRSE</strong><br />
Convention in Birmingham. No papers at all were<br />
submitted.<br />
We again had a varied range of papers which, by<br />
the attendance figures, suggests that the choice is<br />
generally of the correct interest level but could be<br />
improved.<br />
As no April/May visit could be arranged, as we<br />
were either declined or received no response, the<br />
AGM is to be convened before the first paper of the<br />
next session.<br />
The first paper of the session which took place in<br />
Amey Rail’s offices in Bristol, was presented by<br />
Simon Chadwick of Westinghouse Rail Systems and<br />
was entitled “Westlock – The Next Generation<br />
Interlocking”. Simon introduced his topic by giving<br />
an overview of what he was going to present and<br />
stressed the recurring theme would be evolution not<br />
revolution with a system based on the tried and<br />
trusted SSI.<br />
SSI is very good but had reached its limits. More<br />
was required of SSI and there were issues of<br />
obsolescence. The object was to recreate-use the<br />
concepts and the technology and make use of the<br />
extensive experience of staff within the rail industry.<br />
The plan is to build on the data structures and recreate-use<br />
the TFMs and datalink modules where<br />
appropriate. The new interlocking will connect to an<br />
existing SSI one, but as it is around four times the<br />
size of an SSI, the designer can determine the optimum<br />
position of the boundary.<br />
He then moved on to explain the system architecture.<br />
There were three safety critical bits – the CIP<br />
(Control Interlocking Processor), the TIF (Trackside<br />
Interface) and the SII (SSI Interface). In future instead<br />
of the TIFs together with the TFMs, the method of<br />
control may change to OBs (Object controllers). The<br />
OB may also replace the Radio Block Control<br />
systems. Currently SSI uses LDTs (Long Distance<br />
Terminals) where in future these would be replaced<br />
and have remote TIFs. The Westlock interlocking<br />
can be so configured to either have local TIFs,<br />
replacing the MPMs of SSI, feeding out to LDTs<br />
changing only the “centre” or it can be configured to<br />
have remote TIFs doing away with LDTs and<br />
changing the lineside configurations.<br />
The data preparation and testing tools are being<br />
designed to make it easier to do both activities. The<br />
data structure is similar to SSIs but will be able to be<br />
compiled in a PC environment rather than a<br />
workstation. The process from design to commission<br />
remains identical as is now used. Data is<br />
generated for the new interlocking using the PC<br />
environment or it is converted from SSI data to<br />
Westlock data for an existing interlocking. The interlocking<br />
can then be fully tested off-line using either<br />
actual equipment or a fully simulated set up. This will<br />
have the effect that stageworks will be tested more<br />
efficiently. However, at some point, when the actual<br />
control and indications have to be tested, more of<br />
the working railway will have to be turned off!<br />
The way forward now is pick a trial site for some<br />
parallel running. The most suitable in terms of SSI<br />
interfaces is the Euston/Willesden project but the<br />
scheme is too big for one Westlock interlocking.<br />
Consequently, a section of the Willesden area has<br />
been chosen where the Westlock can be connected<br />
to all the different possible interfaces. The section<br />
chosen will use 199 TFMs, 126 signals, 140 points,<br />
254 track circuits and have 431 routes.
WESTERN SECTION 133<br />
The future development needs to have a support<br />
system to allow for the safety approvals to be<br />
addressed. It also needs another site where the<br />
track layout and the outside signalling doesn't<br />
change. This will then allow the interlocking to be<br />
fully tested using “Over and Back” methodology.<br />
The best way forward is to build on past experience.<br />
(Attendance 20 members, 8 visitors)<br />
The second meeting took place in the usual venue<br />
of WRSL’s offices in Chippenham, where we were<br />
privileged to be joined by our President Mr Peter<br />
Stanley, who gave us a short talk on the perspective<br />
from the Centre. Mr John Martin and George Dewar,<br />
of Atkins, then presented their paper entitled “North<br />
Staffs Resignalling”. John introduced himself and<br />
George before stating that he would outline the<br />
North Staffs project, then George would introduce<br />
the axle counters which were used and say something<br />
about the safety approval, finishing off with<br />
some of the hurdles they had to jump.<br />
The main reason for renewal was the asset<br />
condition. It had passed beyond its service life. The<br />
project was the centralisation of control on Stoke on<br />
Trent with the resultant closure of seven old signalboxes.<br />
The new signalling covered 120 colour light<br />
signals, 40 ground position light signals, six level<br />
crossings (five CCTV and one AHB), 50 point<br />
machines, seven SSIs 21 axle counters covering 220<br />
sections, 78 locations, 21 REBs 40 miles of cable<br />
route using 435km of cable. The capital cost of using<br />
axle counters in place of track circuits was an<br />
increase of 10%. However, the whole life costs were<br />
considerably less. There are no track circuits anywhere<br />
on the project. The provision of TPWS was<br />
designed into the scheme as an integral part and not<br />
a “bolt on”. There was also an integral condition<br />
monitoring scheme.<br />
North Staffs was commissioned on the 27th May<br />
this year using a 24-day blockade. There were no<br />
stage works at all.<br />
At this point George took over. The axle counters<br />
used were the Alcatel AzLM using digital technology<br />
and the multi-headed system. They were used at<br />
North Staffs because they were at the right point in<br />
their development. This imported additional risk to<br />
the project but the conceptual design and the<br />
safety case used in the North Staffs application was<br />
based on the core system in use on DB and using<br />
the cross acceptance approach to the safety case<br />
approval. Risk assessments of interfaces and the<br />
use of a trial site at Stone in July 2000 using 16 sections<br />
proved to be very useful. To get the necessary<br />
approval, a conceptual safety case, GETS control<br />
system safety case, AzLM reset and restore risk<br />
analysis (for the conditional reset) and the applications<br />
manual were all required. The conditional reset<br />
system was used as only one signalbox – Stoke –<br />
was involved. If the last count was “in”, the system<br />
would not reset, if the last count was “out” it will.<br />
There is also the availability of the "sweeping train"<br />
reset but this was causing a lot if delay to the first<br />
train of the day. Consequently a dedicated “sweeping<br />
train” is now being used.<br />
George then returned to the benefits of using axle<br />
counters – namely reduced delays, fewer SPADs (cat<br />
B), rail contamination is no longer an issue and<br />
reduced EMC problems. The concerns were<br />
addressed by “expert groups” especially convened<br />
to look at the problems which mainly were the reset<br />
and restore requirement and the detection of the rail<br />
integrity. (Attendance 19 members, 6 visitors)<br />
The Christmas paper held in Amey’s office in<br />
Bristol, was the sequel to last year’s paper and was<br />
entitled “Checking the Chieftain”. This again was<br />
presented by John Francis of WRSL. Again the<br />
audience gave rapt attention to John for over two<br />
hours. No divulgence of mis-spent youth in the West<br />
Country this year as the paper was set during John’s<br />
time in central Scotland.<br />
John introduced himself by saying that this<br />
covered the period around 1990 when he was a<br />
signaller in central Scotland at Greenloaning and<br />
Carmuirs signalboxes. He started by way of a few<br />
“props” explaining there particular use during that<br />
period. They were a Stop Order – which allowed the<br />
signaller to get home – and the On Company Service<br />
(OCS) sticker which allowed selected goods to be<br />
conveyed to other parts of the country without<br />
charge!<br />
The paper was delivered with the aid of slides to<br />
which the anecdotal commentary was added.<br />
Greenloaning was one of the first boxes to be<br />
worked by John when he went up there after<br />
returning from Australia.There were various views of<br />
the box in both summer and winter. During the<br />
winter months, ie from November through to March,<br />
the outside toilet – which was “plumbed in” to the<br />
culvert – was of no use as it was frozen up.<br />
From there after a short spell in other boxes<br />
nearby allowing him to work up the signalman class<br />
system, he spent a period south of Edinburgh as a<br />
crossing attendant during the electrification of the<br />
East Coast and the joining up with the West Coast<br />
electrification.<br />
John the returned to central Scotland to the<br />
Carmuirs East and West boxes and Larbert Junction<br />
which together formed a triangle serving Perth,<br />
Edinburgh and the Forth Bridge. There were various<br />
techniques explained which ensured that the<br />
“Chieftain” was stopped at signals whilst the local<br />
“Orange peril” trundled on past right in front of the<br />
“Chieftain” at around 15mph. Nearby was also a golf<br />
course which provided both a short cut home and<br />
entertainment at the expense of the golfers on the<br />
course. The signal layout was explained and how, on<br />
occasions, it was necessary to send trains around<br />
two sides of the triangle to keep them moving when<br />
a problem had occurred.<br />
One o’clock on a Saturday afternoon was a<br />
notable time as the whole area became very quiet as<br />
in the bus station behind Larbert signalbox, all the<br />
machinery was switched off. It was only then that<br />
you realised the high level of background noise that<br />
was present all the other times.<br />
Finally, John showed a few traditional slides from<br />
a slide projector, covering some views of the<br />
different trains and seasons up in that part of
134 WESTERN SECTION<br />
Scotland. (Attendance 14 members, 4 visitors)<br />
For the fourth paper of the session, took place in<br />
Hyder’s offices in Bristol and the paper was entitled<br />
“TPWS Experience” by Andy Scarisbrick of Amey<br />
Rail.<br />
Andy started by outlining the reasons for train<br />
control and demonstrated this by detailing a list of<br />
SPAD accidents. He followed this through with a<br />
detailed explanation of the Great Western automatic<br />
train control (ATC) system the British Rail (automatic<br />
warning system (AWS) and the Great Western Main<br />
Line automatic train protection (ATP) system.<br />
The Railway Safety Regulations of 1999 mandates<br />
a train protection system to be in place by 1st June<br />
2004 which prevents SPADs by the use of a train<br />
stop at a stop signal, over speed sensing on<br />
approach to a stop signal and overspeed sensing on<br />
approach to a permanent speed restriction or a<br />
buffer stop. The driver cannot override the system or<br />
cancel the system whilst the train is in motion.<br />
Andy then went on to the descriptions of the<br />
equipment using system architecture diagrams and<br />
photographs of both the train borne equipment and<br />
the track mounted equipment. The frequencies used<br />
are between 64 and 66kHz, the actual frequency<br />
being dependant on the direction and whether being<br />
used as a train stop sensor (TSS) or an overspeed<br />
sensor (OSS). The distance between the loops and<br />
the distance to loops is critical and are shown on the<br />
track plan for any relaying work.<br />
Using line diagrams the fitment principles were<br />
explained with the following emphasis. Emergency<br />
crossovers – Ground Frames – do not require fitment<br />
but ground frames for traffic purposes do require<br />
fitment. The safe operating distances range from<br />
125m at 21mph to 550m at 70mph with an OSS<br />
always being required at speeds over 70mph.<br />
Pictures were shown of the failure indication unit<br />
used in the mechanical signalboxes which demonstrated<br />
how the TPWS was monitored in mechanical<br />
areas. Failure modes which give an indication are<br />
power failure, incorrect frequency being generated<br />
and absence of the loop. On NSKT lines the TPWS<br />
was driven by the token machine. A special indicator<br />
was provided for the driver to show that<br />
suppression of the TPWS had been achieved. A<br />
special UPS had been designed and built for most<br />
guaranteed supply areas.<br />
Some figures showing the activation of the TPWS<br />
were shown. In August <strong>2002</strong> there were ten activations,<br />
in September six activations, in October 20<br />
activations and in November <strong>2002</strong> there were 12<br />
activations. (Attendance 17 members, 10 visitors)<br />
The February paper was again held in WRSL’s<br />
offices in Chippenham, was entitled “High Speed<br />
Trains for the West Coast Mainline” and was<br />
presented by Mr John Evans of Alstom. This was a<br />
joint meeting with the local IEE Section.<br />
Mr Evans started by saying that his paper would<br />
be looking at the 1980s locomotives, the 1990s<br />
locomotives and those currently being built and<br />
tested for Virgin – the Pendolino.<br />
The type introduced in the 80s made use of a<br />
thyristor controlled DC motor and was powered in<br />
one of two ways – a low voltage 750V or 1500V DC<br />
high current supply or a 25kV AC low current supply.<br />
The former was used on metro and suburban trains<br />
and the latter on long distance high speed trains<br />
such as the class 91 loco used on the ECML.<br />
The next generation introduced in the 90s made<br />
use of the gate turn off (GTO) thyristor which was<br />
initially used on DC chopper circuits such as those<br />
on the class 319 units. These were more powerful<br />
devices than those of the 80s and led to propulsion<br />
inverters being both affordable and practical. The<br />
advantages of the GTO is that control is always<br />
maintained, it has a high transient current, it works<br />
up to 500Hz and fails into a known state – short<br />
circuit. The use of a propulsion inverter led to<br />
variable voltage variable frequency being fed to AC<br />
motors. The application was the Eurostar train that<br />
has input capability of 750V DC, 3kV DC and 25kV<br />
AC, has a top speed of 300kph and was powered by<br />
12 synchronous motors in the two power cars and<br />
first trailer cars. All the systems were duplicated.<br />
The current generation makes use of insulated<br />
gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) technology which is a<br />
large power switching device. The advantages of<br />
IGBT are simple equipment design, high reliability,<br />
fast switching, voltage controlled simple gate<br />
device, a simple mechanical construction and is<br />
available up to 1800A and 6kV. The application is is<br />
in the 1700V 800A Juniper units, the Virgin Cross<br />
Country Voyager units and for high frequency<br />
operation the Pendolino Britannico.<br />
The Pendolino has a high level of customer<br />
specification, improved journey times, improved<br />
reliability and improved customer ambience. The tilt<br />
technology is from Fiat who have used it extensively<br />
in Europe where it was adapted from the 70s<br />
APT tilting technology. The traction drives are the<br />
same as the Juniper equipment and thus can carry<br />
over the safety case. The power equipment is distributed<br />
with a feeder system along the roof. The<br />
maximum speed is 140mph and it entered service in<br />
July <strong>2002</strong>. It has twelve body mounted traction<br />
motors driving through a 10-foot Cardin shaft The<br />
use of tilt allows faster speeds through corners<br />
without the customer noticing. Fiat had 12 fleets of<br />
tilting technology in service when the Pendolino<br />
order was placed. The tilt mechanism is electrical<br />
not hydraulic (only Fiat’s second) and because it is<br />
mounted on the bogie/body interface, the traction<br />
motors have to be body mounted. The tilt mechanism<br />
allows a 35% increase in speed.<br />
The vehicles are built and completed in Fiat’s<br />
workshops but fitted out in Alstom’s workshops in<br />
Birmingham. Each has 363 seats, is 23m long, is<br />
pressure sealed and has a noise of less than 65dBA.<br />
The reliability will be six times better than now and<br />
as Alstom have to maintain them for 12 years, there<br />
is an incentive to get them reliable. In 2004 there will<br />
be 11 Pendolino Britannico leaving Euston per hour.<br />
(Attendance 17 members, 17 visitors)<br />
The final paper of the session was as usual a joint<br />
paper held with the South Wales PWI in Newport.<br />
This was entitled “Trams – Light and Heavy Rail” and
WESTERN SECTION 135<br />
was presented by Mr Alan Wilkins. It was chaired by<br />
the PWI chairman, Mr R Hughes.<br />
This paper took the form of a slide show demonstrating<br />
the evolution of the tram both in the UK and<br />
in Europe. The developments ranged from those like<br />
Blackpool which had continued to operate from the<br />
early part of the 20th century through those that had<br />
been ripped up and years later reinstated, to those<br />
that were new systems completely.<br />
Developments in Germany were contrasted with<br />
those in France where the French seemed to have<br />
more flair for producing a well-used system. The<br />
development continued with the twin axle heavy rail<br />
car, eg the class 142 units and then into the current<br />
type – that of the “tram-train” where light and heavy<br />
rail run intermixed. There have also been experiments<br />
with “jockey wheel” type trams with mixed<br />
success. Guided busways have also been trialled,<br />
again with mixed success<br />
The modern tram has a low floor for easy access<br />
and egress but some still have conventional height<br />
flooring so that engines can be underslung. A typical<br />
tram length is around 34m and on the continent<br />
there are regular movements of a double consist<br />
making it around 75m long. This was something<br />
Bristol did not want to go on general circulation<br />
following a presentation which Alan made to them<br />
for the proposed Bristol tram/rapid transit system,<br />
as a 75m “obstruction” would be good ammunition<br />
for those project objectors.<br />
The number of European manufacturers of trams<br />
had dwindled to three because of various closures<br />
and mergers that took place in the 90s. These three<br />
are Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens, with Hitachi<br />
of Japan trying to enter the market. The number of<br />
units required in all of Europe is no more than 100<br />
per year which does not merit the expensive tooling<br />
required for individual tram designs. Consequently,<br />
the manufacturers have gone for modular design<br />
where the client can pick from a selection of already<br />
proven designs – traction type, low/high floor etc<br />
and this then keeps the costs down. The client can<br />
still have a tailored front end as this is not too<br />
expensive.<br />
Alan’s view is that we will see more of the tram or<br />
tram-train as more cities are looking to reduce<br />
congestion by their introduction – notably Leeds,<br />
Manchester extension, Bristol, Hampshire<br />
(Southampton/Eastleigh area) and in the near future<br />
– Nottingham. A city with a tram system stands out<br />
from its competitors.<br />
(Attendance 10 members 8 visitors)<br />
The Annual General Meeting has been postponed<br />
to the start of the <strong>2003</strong>/2004 session.<br />
The Committee would like to record their<br />
appreciation for the continued support by, and for<br />
the use of the facilities for the meetings at Amey<br />
Rail, Westinghouse Rail Systems and Hyder<br />
Consulting and for the provision of excellent buffets<br />
which preceded the meetings at their premises.<br />
D Gillanders<br />
York Section<br />
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE<br />
The Committee for <strong>2002</strong>/<strong>2003</strong> consists of:<br />
Chairman<br />
D R Bowlby<br />
Vice-Chairman<br />
D<br />
Dyson<br />
Treasurer<br />
R H Price<br />
Visits Secretary<br />
A S Kornas<br />
Recruitment Secretary<br />
R H Price<br />
Membership Secretary<br />
A P Smith<br />
Secretary<br />
J Maw<br />
Committee<br />
R A Pinkstone, C I Weightman<br />
CHAIRMAN’S ANNUAL REPORT<br />
It was an honour to once again be the Chairman of<br />
the York Section, having previously been so in the<br />
1971/1972 session.<br />
The Committee had put together, as usual, a<br />
varied programme for the year. Attendance, on<br />
average, of the technical meetings was slightly down<br />
on the previous year. Last year’s average was 36<br />
whilst this year was 35. The most popular papers<br />
were the paper by Bruce MacDougall and Charles<br />
Weightman on Manchester South Resignalling, and<br />
Telecommunications for Railway Operations by Clive<br />
Kessel. The President, Peter Stanley, attended and<br />
took the Chair at the November meeting.<br />
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend any of the<br />
visits this year due to prior commitments.<br />
This year has seen an improvement and expansion<br />
in the rail industry locally. Unfortunately the year was<br />
marred by the Potters Bar incident on the 10th May<br />
<strong>2002</strong>, being very close to our hearts in that a point<br />
machine/fittings were involved.<br />
We continued to meet in the National Railway<br />
Museum Gibb Theatre, the Museum being a superb<br />
venue for a railway-based Institution.<br />
During the year I attended the Council meeting in<br />
London on four occasions and also attended four of<br />
the London lectures.<br />
I would particularly like to thank the Committee for<br />
their hard work and support during the year; Rod<br />
Price as Treasurer, for keeping the books in good<br />
order and also for his stalwart efforts for the Dinner<br />
Dance – another very successful one with 200 in<br />
attendance, to Dennis Dyson for the tombola, to<br />
Tony Kornas for organising the visits, and to John<br />
Maw for the most important job of Secretary: with<br />
his meticulous minutes always produced in good<br />
time.<br />
Denis R Bowlby<br />
Chairman<br />
TECHNICAL MEETINGS
136<br />
YORK SECTION<br />
The October meeting, sponsored by Corus Rail<br />
Consultancy, was by Ivor Ellis of Pirelli Cables plc,<br />
on “The Vale of York 400kV Underground Cable<br />
Project”. This paper was close to the hearts of many<br />
of the York membership as it dealt with the tricky<br />
problem of how to strengthen the power supply to<br />
the York area and still maintain the beauty of the<br />
Yorkshire countryside. His talk detailed how the<br />
underground ducts were installed and subsequently<br />
how the oil filled cable was installed and jointed. Ivor<br />
also explained the monitoring system that was<br />
implemented to check for oil leaks and cable overheating.<br />
Corus Rail Consultancy sponsored this<br />
meeting. (17 members and 3 visitors attended)<br />
The November meeting was kindly chaired by<br />
Peter Stanley, the President of the Institution, when<br />
a paper by Brian Smith on the subject of “The Kuala<br />
Lumpur Sentral Resignalling Project” was presented.<br />
Brian detailed how the project had been<br />
subject to many delays and problems from its<br />
inception in 1996 to final commissioning at the end<br />
of 2001. The signalling contract was let in November<br />
2000 to a Swiss Company who built the new interlockings<br />
and tested them off line and then installed<br />
and commissioned them using 5-hour possessions.<br />
This involved switching between the existing interlockings,<br />
the new interlockings and the outside<br />
equipment. At the end of each period of testing the<br />
interlockings would be switched back to the original.<br />
This meeting was sponsored by the Halcrow Group<br />
Ltd. (32 members and one visitor attended)<br />
The December meeting was a paper by John<br />
Boyes of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway on<br />
“How I Resignalled a Railway”. It is traditional that<br />
the December paper at York is always on a slightly<br />
lighter topic than normal and John gave a very<br />
interesting and informative paper on the rebuilding<br />
of the railway between Pickering and Grosmont<br />
following its closure by British Rail in 1967. John’s<br />
paper was lavishly illustrated with slides showing the<br />
various stages in renewing signals, rebuilding signalboxes<br />
as well as the considerable track work that<br />
was involved. On this occasion Jarvis Rail were our<br />
sponsors. (30 members and 4 visitors attended)<br />
January saw a paper by Clive Kessell on<br />
Telecommunications for Railway Operations. Clive<br />
took the members through the role of telecommunications<br />
on the railway. The various telecomms<br />
systems for railways were described together with a<br />
vision as to how these might evolve in the future. The<br />
inter-relationship with public networks was<br />
considered as well as the use of telecomms to<br />
support signalling. Finally, Clive looked at the future<br />
of both railway signalling and telecomms as they<br />
become more dependant on radio systems. Thales<br />
Telecom Services sponsored this meeting.<br />
(33 members and 13 visitors attended)<br />
The February paper saw a change to our original<br />
intentions but nevertheless David Crabtree gave a<br />
very interesting and informative talk entitled “Click<br />
Here – The <strong>IRSE</strong> Website Uncovered”. David used<br />
an electronic presentation to look at the contents of<br />
the <strong>IRSE</strong> website. He described how the website is<br />
made up by looking at the “site map” to see how it<br />
is structured. He also described how websites in<br />
general are created and maintained with examples<br />
on how work on the <strong>IRSE</strong> site is undertaken. Finally<br />
he looked at how the <strong>IRSE</strong> website is developing<br />
and posed the question, what do the members<br />
WANT and NEED from the website. Westinghouse<br />
Rail Systems were our sponsors for this meeting.<br />
(21 members and 2 visitors attended)<br />
The final paper in March saw that well known<br />
double act Bruce MacDougall and Charles<br />
Weightman present their paper on “Manchester<br />
South Resignalling”. After earlier difficulties, the<br />
Manchester South Capacity Improvement Project<br />
was relaunched about 18 months ago. It is the first<br />
project in Britain to use the Italian Ansaldo signalling<br />
system based on their ACC interlocking. Charles<br />
described the location and existing signalling of the<br />
Manchester South area. He explained the reworking<br />
of the scheme plan and its associated controls in the<br />
light of emerging practices for overrun mitigation<br />
and for the provision of collision proof signalling,<br />
many of which were developed concurrently. Bruce<br />
MacDougall took over to describe the Ansaldo<br />
system and the process for its safety acceptance<br />
based on cross-acceptance of the system as<br />
applied at Roma Termini. The Ansaldo system<br />
philosophy was explained and some notable<br />
equipment and application details for Stage A of the<br />
project were described along with their advantages<br />
and disadvantages. The later applications of more<br />
advanced features and some possible changes for<br />
the future were discussed. Atkins Rail sponsored<br />
this meeting.<br />
(43 members and 14 visitors attended)<br />
This gave an average attendance per meeting of<br />
35, which is a very creditable number.<br />
Once again we are indebted to our sponsors who<br />
willingly support our meetings both financially and<br />
physically. Without them we would be unable to use<br />
the excellent facilities that the National Railway<br />
Museum offers.<br />
OUTDOOR VISITS<br />
<strong>2002</strong> brought with it a total of three visits. One<br />
trend to note is that it is that it becomes more<br />
difficult, year on year, to visit operational railways<br />
and industrial sites due to the implementation of<br />
revised health and safety requirements.<br />
The first visit was held on Sunday 29th September<br />
when ten members visited the Keighley and Worth<br />
Valley Railway to view the work that is taking place<br />
to keep this heritage railway operating as one of the<br />
country's premiere working museums. Visits were<br />
made to the signalboxes at Keighley, Damems and<br />
Haworth as well as the locomotive shed at Haworth.<br />
Transport along the line was provided by a heritage<br />
Diesel Multiple Unit.<br />
Wednesday 2nd October provided a visit for 22<br />
members on the Tyne & Wear Metro system. The<br />
Metro has operated a rapid transit system on North<br />
and South Tyneside for over 20 years and, in <strong>2002</strong>,<br />
services were extended to Sunderland. This entailed<br />
“light weight” Metro cars traversing the same tracks<br />
as “heavy rail” passenger and freight traffic, which is
YORK SECTION 137<br />
a first for the UK, mainline network (for regular<br />
services). Of the technical visits to various installations,<br />
of particular interest were the special signal<br />
regulation controls applied to level crossings to<br />
distinguish between heavy rail non-stopping trains<br />
and the light rail stopping trains.<br />
Cableform Ltd of Sowerby Bridge were visited on<br />
Wednesday 9th October who are well known<br />
manufacturers of railway signalling transformers and<br />
rectifiers. The ten members were guided round the<br />
factory where a great variety of manufacturing<br />
processes were taking place. These included<br />
production of electrical contactors, windings,<br />
stamps, counters, heating elements and light<br />
fittings. The company philosophy is to produce as<br />
much as possible in-house which means that plastic<br />
pellets, copper plate and cardboard come in through<br />
one door and a fully tested and working light fitting<br />
in a customer specified box goes out through the<br />
other!<br />
The <strong>IRSE</strong> wishes to thank all those individuals and<br />
organisations whose efforts went into making the<br />
visits such a success.<br />
Tony Kornas<br />
Visits Secretary<br />
TREASURER’S REPORT<br />
To enable easy access to our bank account and<br />
banking facilities we opened a Treasurer’s type<br />
account with the HSBC Bank with the proposal to<br />
eventually close our Yorkshire Bank account.<br />
We started <strong>2002</strong> with what appeared to be an<br />
extremely healthy bank balance, unfortunately<br />
however, over £3,600 had been paid into our<br />
account in error. Therefore, in early January that<br />
money was transferred to the Main Body. This left<br />
your Committee with cash-flow worries mainly due<br />
to the delays within our sponsors accounting<br />
systems. Our fears were greatly eased when a<br />
£1,000 grant application from the Main Body was<br />
approved. Eventually we received all the 2001/<strong>2002</strong><br />
sponsorship money plus, due to changes in our<br />
invoicing system, we also received all but one of the<br />
sponsorship money for the <strong>2002</strong>/<strong>2003</strong> winter<br />
session.<br />
Regarding our expenditure, the cost of room hire,<br />
the entertainment following each lecture and our<br />
grant to support the joint IMechE meeting all<br />
increased. A small saving was made, however, in our<br />
stationery and postage costs. This is, of course, due<br />
to the number of members who we can email the<br />
details of our forthcoming events/meetings.<br />
As you can see, due to the increase in numbers<br />
attending, we made a healthy profit on our Dinner<br />
Dance. It appears to get more popular each year.<br />
I am extremely grateful to all our sponsors<br />
because without their help we would not be able to<br />
hold our meetings in the excellent venue at the<br />
National Railway Museum. I would like to point out,<br />
however, that it is the same sponsors that are<br />
coming up trumps each year, namely Jarvis,<br />
Westinghouse, Motts, Corus and Halcrow along with<br />
either WS Atkins, Thales or Jacobs, so many thanks<br />
to each of them but it is a pity that there appears to<br />
be a reluctance by the other S&T contractors to<br />
come forward and offer their help and assistance.<br />
My thanks also go to the other members of the<br />
York Section Committee for their patience and<br />
understanding and lastly to Ernie Thomson who yet<br />
again audited our accounts and thankfully this year<br />
found zero errors in my adding up. Rod Price<br />
Treasurer<br />
<strong>2003</strong> DINNER DANCE<br />
The <strong>2003</strong> Dinner Dance was again held in the<br />
Viking Moat House Hotel in York. 200 members, their<br />
partners and guests attended the event. The<br />
numbers this year were limited due to space in the<br />
Regatta Suite and the desire to return to round<br />
tables. The guests of honour were the Senior Vice-<br />
President, Colin Porter and his wife, Claire.<br />
Following the publication of a certain part of Colin’s<br />
anatomy in the March <strong>2003</strong> <strong>IRSE</strong> News, he treated<br />
the members and guests present to another<br />
showing whilst he outlined the <strong>IRSE</strong> programme for<br />
the coming year and proposing a toast to the York<br />
Section. Not wishing to be outdone the Chairman,<br />
Denis Bowlby, responded by doing likewise, much to<br />
the amusement and possibly puzzlement of those<br />
present. Fortunately these events took place after<br />
the meal so no one was put off their food and<br />
luckily chicken legs were not on the menu. The<br />
Committee again provided pre-dinner drinks, in the<br />
Ridings Suite, as this was popular last year. The<br />
tombola again proved very popular with every ticket<br />
being sold, and consequently all prizes handed out<br />
(with the exception of one returned prize which was<br />
deemed by the recipient to be surplus to requirements).<br />
The disco this year played a varied selection<br />
of music, with Jimmy Shand’s Scottish dance tunes<br />
going down very well. Our thanks go to Rod Price for<br />
successfully organising the event.<br />
John Maw F<strong>IRSE</strong>
138<br />
Younger Members’ Section<br />
The Younger Members have been continuing to<br />
organise events for the benefit of those less familiar<br />
with the signalling and telecommunications industry,<br />
while also considering how best to provide for the<br />
needs of the Institution’s younger members in the<br />
future.<br />
In September the latest in the series of half-day<br />
equipment seminars was organised at Canary<br />
Wharf, London, on the subject of Railway Control<br />
Systems. The event started by comparing the functionality,<br />
interfaces and architecture of a typical<br />
metro control system to those of UK mainline control<br />
systems. From these presentations the delegates<br />
could conclude that metro and mainline systems are<br />
fundamentally similar, although both have evolved to<br />
meet the requirements of the different environments.<br />
The next stage of evolution for mainline control<br />
systems was summarised as a movement towards<br />
greater integration – a development that has been<br />
led by metro systems. It was remarked that technically<br />
almost anything is possible to implement in<br />
software. The real challenges relate to the operational<br />
procedures for integrated systems and larger<br />
geographical areas, incident management and<br />
failure/fallback strategies, and the development and<br />
safety assurance of these complex systems. A<br />
presentation on human factors followed, providing<br />
an opportunity to remind the delegates of how the<br />
decisions made by system designers affect the end<br />
users – the operators. It was noted that often<br />
overlooked considerations such as the positioning of<br />
control centre windows and the control of room<br />
temperature should not be forgotten in the design<br />
and development phase as such issues affect the<br />
ability of the operators to carry out their duties. The<br />
event concluded with presentations providing an<br />
overview of two current projects – the London<br />
Underground train identification and management<br />
information systems (TIMIS) project and the renewal<br />
of the control system at Glasgow Central. Both<br />
presentations looked at how additional functionality<br />
can be added to existing railways to improve the<br />
management of the service.<br />
The Younger Members continue to organise worth<br />
while events. A day entitled “ASPECT Survival Kit”<br />
will precede the ASPECT international conference to<br />
help explain the key concepts to be covered in the<br />
conference and help delegates to note them in their<br />
professional development record.<br />
The Younger Members’ Committee held a brainstorming<br />
afternoon this year to generate ideas of<br />
how to ensure that the Institution’s younger<br />
members continue to be offered events to help them<br />
develop their understanding of signalling and<br />
telecommunications. It was recognised that the<br />
current organisation of the Committee is challenged<br />
both geographically and by the effort each member<br />
is able to contribute. A proposal is being worked up<br />
to better incorporate the Younger Members’ events<br />
with the activities of the Institution as a whole.<br />
Council has welcomed this initiative. Contact has<br />
been made with chairmen of all Institution committees,<br />
regional sections and international sections<br />
to introduce this proposal and seek younger<br />
member representatives from each committee or<br />
section to help plan consistent, quality events that<br />
will be accessible to all the Institution’s younger<br />
members.<br />
In addition, the Younger Members have<br />
maintained their association with the Young<br />
Engineers’ Forum – a meeting of Younger Member<br />
representatives from throughout the engineering<br />
institutions. This year the Institute Mining, Minerals<br />
and Materials hosted the forum for the purpose of<br />
sharing ideas of how to organise younger members’<br />
activities. The <strong>IRSE</strong> Younger Members contributed<br />
by giving a presentation on its activities, the<br />
challenges encountered and solutions proposed.<br />
In summary, the Younger Members are pleased<br />
with what their efforts have achieved this year and<br />
remain hopeful for the future.<br />
K Goodhand<br />
Secretary
139<br />
Advertisers<br />
Page<br />
ALSTOM Transport Information Solutions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ifc<br />
First Engineering ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2<br />
Bridgen Enterprises ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………31<br />
Henry Williams Group ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41<br />
GM Rail Services Ltd …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………111<br />
<strong>IRSE</strong> ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………122<br />
Halcrow Group Ltd ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ibc<br />
Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………bc
140<br />
The Editor would like to thank Basil Grose, Peter Grant, John Francis, Ken Burrage,<br />
all the UK and Overseas Section secretaries and the staff of Fericon Press,<br />
Reading, for their assistance and co-operation in the production of the<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong>. The Institution is also most grateful to our colleagues within<br />
the signalling industry who have kindly supported the <strong>Proceedings</strong><br />
by placing an advertisement.
ConsultingPropertyTransportationWater<br />
It’s not just about engineering,<br />
it’s about people.<br />
Birmingham<br />
Derby<br />
Glasgow<br />
London<br />
York<br />
1840<br />
Link-up<br />
©<br />
Railway engineering<br />
It takes more than engineering to deliver a<br />
world-class railway. It’s not just about investment<br />
either – solutions are generated by people.<br />
At Halcrow we have those people – people to<br />
create the innovative and cost-effective solutions<br />
needed to satisfy integrated transport and railway<br />
development needs. Halcrow’s successes are<br />
regularly recognised and we have received a<br />
number of awards. But that’s hardly surprising<br />
when you consider the depth and breadth of<br />
our expertise.<br />
■ Transport planning and economics<br />
■ Railway management, commercialisation,<br />
privatisation and restructuring<br />
■ Change management<br />
■ Railway operations and railway planning<br />
■ Rail safety and accident investigation<br />
■ Mechanical and electrical engineering<br />
■ Rolling stock specification, procurement<br />
and maintenance<br />
■ Rail civil engineering<br />
■ Permanent way<br />
■ Information technology and management<br />
information systems<br />
■ Personnel development and training<br />
Signalling and telecommunications expertise<br />
Our specialist signalling team carries out signalling<br />
design, scheme development, layout risk<br />
assessment and testing and commissioning for<br />
clients worldwide.<br />
The people who carry out the work are supported<br />
by over 2,000 professionals in the Halcrow Group.<br />
From specialist rail offices in Birmingham, Derby,<br />
Glasgow, London and York, our capabilities include:<br />
■ Scheme development from inception<br />
to implementation<br />
■ Project and contract management<br />
■ Feasibility studies, condition assessment<br />
■ Safety cases and risk assessment<br />
■ Detailed and conceptual design<br />
■ Independent checking<br />
■ Technical investigations<br />
■ Systems specifications<br />
■ Testing and commissioning<br />
■ EMI/EMC analysis<br />
■ Railway telecommunications<br />
You can see what Halcrow has to offer. To discuss<br />
what Halcrow can do for your project or career, visit<br />
our website or contact:<br />
Malcolm Cope<br />
Halcrow Group Limited<br />
Vineyard House, 44 Brook Green<br />
Hammersmith, London W6 7BY<br />
tel: +44 020 7602 7282<br />
email: halcrow@halcrow.com<br />
For more information and to learn<br />
about other opportunities visit:<br />
halcrow.com<br />
Committed to equal opportunities
Railway Signalling…<br />
A Science or an Art?<br />
At Westinghouse Rail Systems it’s both<br />
Westinghouse Rail Systems Limited,<br />
PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD, England<br />
Tel: 01249 441441 email: wrsl.marketing@invensys.com<br />
www.westinghouserail.co.uk