Proceedings 2002/2003 - IRSE

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