Certification Case: Locomotives for Corridor A (and more)

Transcription

1 Certification Case: Locomotives for Corridor A (and more) Dr.ir. L. (Lieuwe) Zigterman MIRSE Inhoud Lieuwe Zigterman DoorZigt B.V. Casus: certificering ES64F4: Gebaseerd op ervaringen opgedaan bij KEMA Rail Transport Certification IRSE, 15 september Lieuwe Zigterman Lieuwe Zigterman 1952 Roodeschool 1970 HBS-B Warffum TH Delft: 1978 Elektrotechniek 1984 doctoraat Technische Wetenschappen: A new approach to specification and design of a railway interlocking: the 'route' approach 2002: DoorZigt B.V. 2000: Strategisch Adviseur Holland Railconsult (HR) : managementfuncties HR: Hoofd Planvorming ( 100 p) Manager Infrastudies ( 40 p) Hoofd Ontwikkeling (IB) (20 p) 1990: Senior Adviseur bij IB Ontwikkeling IB = NS Ingenieursbureau 3 4 Overheden Voorbeelden: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat: Veiligheid op de rails Provinciaal, regionaal, gemeentelijk: Nieuwe haltes Stedendriehoek Programma Hoogfrequent Spoorvervoer: consequenties voor de Regio Heavy Rail ERTMS/ETCS: NoBo certificering (KEMA Rail Transport Certification) ISA (divers) Cross Impact Analysis Corridor A (ERTMS Users Group) Voor Railned / Railinfrabeheer / ProRail: beter benutten / spoorwegcapaciteit

2 Metro RET: vervanging spoorbeveiliging (Mott MacDonald): FPvE / Aanbestedingsdossier Selectie leverancier Meer info AMSYS (Gemeente Amsterdam): Project Signalling & Control Accent op: Control Momenteel: selectie leverancier 7 8 Contents Rolling Stock Acceptance Case description Role of KEMA Rail Transport Certification Findings Met dank aan: Frank Walenberg & Jihane Nasseh & KEMA Rail Transport Certification ES64F4 / BR189 Creation of ATB Safety Case Independent Safety Assesment of ATB and ETCS EC Certification of ETCS NL Acceptance 9 10 Case description Corridor A = Rotterdam Genova: Italy (I) Switzerland (CH) Germany (D) The Netherlands (NL) and, later added: Belgium (B)

3 Case description Case description Locomotive: Also outside corridor A: Austria (A) Poland (PL) Hungary, Croatia Locomotive: Electrical: 25 kv ~ 15 kv ~ V = V = Case description Locomotive: ATP for corridor A: ETCS (for the corridor!) SCMT (I) Signum, ZUB (CH) LZB/PZB (D) ATB (NL) TBL (B) And outside the corridor: Contents Case description Role of KEMA Rail Transport Certification Findings Owner: lease company flexibility Operator not known (yet) Locomotive manufacturer supplier ATP

4 (CH, NL) actual Many variants of ATP-combinations Common building blocks d Baseline 3 ETCS inhibition sometimes required ETCS on-board assembly Class B: Specific STM solution (no Profibus) Real STM (more will come) Separate from ETCS (will decrease) Interaction between Class B systems Transitions: Many! One example: next slide

5 MMI s: Locomotive ETCS ATB PZB Therefore: INTEGRATION Contents Role of KEMA RTC Case description Role of KEMA Rail Transport Certification ISA (CENELEC) for CCS NoBo () for CCS NaBo (RKS) for ATB Findings Not (NoBo) / NaBo for Rolling Stock Role of KEMA RTC Contents Two clients: ATP manufacturer Locomotive manufacturer Only sometimes contact with: Owner Operator Case description Role of KEMA Rail Transport Certification Findings IVW / ProRail

6 Step 1: Conformity Assesment Step 2: Putting into Service Operational Conditions Regulatory Technical Conditions Findings Integration and CENELEC Testing Braking curves Transitions DMI Subsystems and System Integration OPE CCS On Board Assembly (National, Open Points) Track Side Assembly CCS Integration ENE RST INS Non Parts System Integration Putting into Service Subsystems and System Integration Subsystems and System Integration Certification of subsystems: s Integration of system: Directive: Responsibility of Member State Who is: Member State? Infrastructure Managers? NSA s? Example: ProRail took responsibility for Track-Train-Integration Now: leave it to the market (RLN00295) Source: ERA, Angelo Chiappini and CENELEC CENELEC EN : Generic Product Safety Case (GPSC) Generic Application Safety Case (GASC) Specific Application Safety Case (SASC)

7 and CENELEC and CENELEC European legislation Interoperability Constituent Assembly: on-board / track side Subsystem Control, Command & Signalling Railway System Mapping and CENELEC: IC matches with GPSC Assembly does not really match with: (GPSC or GASC or) SASC Subsystem CCS??? and our case and our case The on-board assembly as such (outside the locomotive) The on-board assembly built into the locomotive does not distinguish But CENELEC does for SASC: Application design Safety Case Physical implementation Safety Case Related to manufacturer s responsibilities and our case CCS & contract What in our case is needed: Application implementation Safety Case The boxes / the equipment Physical integration Safety Case The installed equipment 2.2.2, , 2.3.0, 2.3.0d: Date of contract is determining! In all cases: Annex G: open points (national!)

8 CCS: Annex G CCS, RST, OPE Some of the open points: Braking safety margins Reliability / Availability Safety Requirements (index 47) Pre-fitting (track / on-board) Interface with service brake CCS refers to other s: Rolling Stock (RST) Operations (OPE): Operational rules for ERTMS No certification required by NoBo Refers to ERTMS/ETCS Braking curves Braking curves Tension between: Capacity Safety How to find the (?) balance? Who decides? Safety: long curves (many margins) Capacity: short curves Braking curve Braking curves Guidance from: Regulations (EU) Specifications (SUBSET s) National requirements Problem: Not complete Not mandatory Solution: Baseline 3 NO! (not yet)

9 Braking curves Parameters different per loco Statement: All loco s can have (almost) the same curves, if pneumatic system is UICcompatible! Braking curves Safety margins are nationally defined differ between MS Are national accepted in country X, rejected in country Y Testing : assembly: under full operational conditions CENELEC: system: Safety Qualification Tests Not clear in how to do test! Transitions Article Railway Gazette, March 2009: Tackling the challenges to standard train control Pages Walenberg, Te Pas, Zigterman Transitions STM s managed by ETCS every border needs transition balises This should be very first step in implementing ERTMS Is missing in 2009/561/EC Transitions STM STM not foreseen in SUBSET- 026, neither in 2.2.2, 2.3.0, 2.3.0d nor in

10 DMI (Driver / Machine Interface) No Interoperability Constituent Related specifications are not mandatory (in B-indexes) Mandatory in (draft) Baseline DMI (Driver / Machine Interface) Concluding First step: Integrated in EVC = IC#1+IC#2 Included in Group of IC#1+IC#2 As such: certified Second step: Integrated in locomotive DMI How to certify? ISOC (Interim Statement of Conformity) We just started! Class B should not be a blind spot Match and CENELEC (ongoing) Address actual market (CCS vs. RST manufacturer) Testing to be addressed (ERA) Concluding Vragen? Is Baseline 3 the solution? LZ@DoorZigt.NL In any case: Better! of: Lieuwe.Zigterman@kema-rail.nl