Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for TSIs applicable from 2015
Updated: March 2016
Guidance on
completing each
column:
For type of issue, select from:
TSI reference should
include both the name of
the TSI and its OJEU
reference. Refer to the
Scope should indicate
which parts of the UK
railway system are
affected by the issue (eg,
is the issue one which
only affects the GB
mainline railway, or does
it also affect HS1?)
Conflict with other rule
Economic achievability
Technical error in TSI
list of TSIs
Typographical error in TSI
Conformity with TSI
Compatibility with existing
system
Ambiguity in TSI requirement
Lead industry contact will
where necessary, further
normally be someone at DfT information should be set
or RSSB
out in a short document
available from a hyperlink
within this issues log file.
The hyperlink should be
included in this column.
Describe progress made in resolving
the issue
Is the issue open,
closed or is it a
potential issue for
the future?
Once there is a formally agreed solution to the issue, this will
normally be included as a hyperlink to an ERA Technical
Opinion, a derogation statement or other document on the
DfT website
Lack of detail in TSI
Issue ref.
number
TAIL2015-001
Date added
TSI reference
TSI clause
Type of issue
Key words
Scope
02/12/2014 ENE TSI
Chapter 6,
Commission
Interoperability
Regulation (EU) No constituents
1301/2014 of
18/11/2014
Conflict with other
rule
Interoperability
constituents
GB mainline
Explanation
Organisations involved
/ affected
It is not possible to certify an interoperability constituent that requires the use of specific Contracting Entity, NoBo,
case. The problem applies to at least the following "overhead contact line", "Pantograph", ORR, NR
"wheelset" and possibly other elements.
Proposed resolution
Industry lead
contact
Supporting
document?
The resolution will require the ERA to change the rules applicable to RSSB, David Knights
interoperability constituent that requires the use of specific case.
Adobe Acrobat
Document
Robin Groth
(LOC&PAS TSI and
possibly others)
Adobe Acrobat
Document
ERA Technical
Opinion
Adobe Acrobat
Document
Progress to date
Issue status
Agreed solution to issue
The problem was
identified by at least two
NoBos, and has been
raised with the ORR. RSSB
hosted a meeting to bring
all parties together. The
ORR, DfT, affected
manufacturers, NoBos
discussed the issues this
raised. ORR confirmed
that there is a genuine
issue and undertook to
raise it with DfT (as
Member State) and ERA.
Meeting held between
ORR and ERA. NoBo Forum
raised the issue at RISC.
Closed
To address the concerns that the
interoperability framework did not contain a
clear methodology for ICs that need to
comply with UK specific cases, a National
Procedure was recommended and has been
published by the Rail Executive on
24 June 2015. The process removes the
need to repeat tests each time the same
component is used in subsequent projects.
The corrigendum to the
ENE TSI (Reg.1301/2014)
has been published in the
Official Journal.
Closed
Corrigendum to ENE TSI
Appendix D — Specification of the
pantograph gauge, point D.1.1.3 —Symbols
and abbreviations, table, last row:
for: ‘Sj Sum of the (horizontal) safety margins
covering some random phenomena (j = 1, 2
or 3) for the pantograph gauge m’
read: ‘Σj Sum of the (horizontal) safety
margins covering some random phenomena
(j = 1, 2 or 3) for the pantograph gauge m’
Appendix D — Specification of the
pantograph gauge, point D.1.2.1.7
—Allowances:
for: ‘The sum of the abovementioned
allowances is covered by Sj.’,
read: ‘The sum of the abovementioned
allowances is covered by Σj.’;
Appendix D — Specification of the
pantograph gauge, point D.1.4 — Calculation
of maximum lateral deviation of contact
wire:
for: ‘dl = bw,c + bw + b′ h,mec’,
read: ‘dl = bw,c + bw – b′ h,mec’.
As at 21/10/2015 work is
ongoing to resolve this
issue.
Closed
The solution was to produce a prioritised list
of changes that relate to ETCS Baseline 3
Maintenance Release 2. This issue is
addressed through the new consolidated
version of the CCS TSI ST36EN02 and the
annex (final version awaiting publication).
RSSB
National
TAIL2015-002
22/01/2015 ENE TSI
Appendix D
Commission
Regulation (EU) No
1301/2014 of
18/11/2014
Typographical error in Appendix D
TSI
TAIL2015-003
28/01/2015 CCS TSI
Commission
Decision (EU) No
2015/14 of
05/01/2015
Compatibility with
existing system
Fully TSI
complaint
railways
Typographical error in published version corrected by a published amendment. The UK has Contracting Entity, NoBo,
a specific case in this area.
ORR, NR
The corrigendum to the ENE TSI (Reg.1301/2014) has been
published in the Official Journal:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2015:013:FULL&from=FR
RSSB, David Knights
There is a lack of clarity on the content of ETCS Baseline 3 Maintenance Release 2 (due
RISC, ERA and Member
end of 2015). It is understood that RISC in November 2014 agreed to changes that do not States (UK, Netherlands,
compromise backwards-compatibility with earlier versions of Baseline 3. UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany)
Denmark and Germany raised strong concerns at RISC and bilateral meetings have been
held between ERA and these Member States (additionally France).
UK/NL/DK have worked collaboratively to produce a prioritised list
of changes that are required and there is apparent support from
Sweden and Belgium as well. Some of these changes could
compromise backwards compatibility with earlier versions of
Baseline 3.
RSSB, Tom Lee
ENE TSI error
and some more
Recent
publications.pdf
These additional CRs are necessary for economic and effective
deployment of Baseline 3 in UK. If not agreed there are cost
implications and the need for National Technical Rules (as the CCS
TSI will contain ‘critical errors’ in respect of the change request that
is not implemented.
TAIL2015-004
13/02/2015 INF TSI
Several
Commission
Regulation (EU) No
1299/2014 of
18/11/2014
Ambiguity in TSI
requirement
GB mainline
Numeric values in the TSI have been written in 'European' style with ',' as the decimal
Projects, NoBos
point and ' ' (space) as the thousands delimiter. This may cause confusion.
For example in Table 2 the value '22,5' is 22.5, In Table 4 the value '3,80' is 3.8m, in Clause
4.2.4.1 the value '1 435' is 1435mm etc.
Explanation will also be included in the GB Guidance Note
GI/GN7608 when this is updated. Projects / NoBos to ensure that
they interpret numeric values correctly.
On 10/02/16, the CCS TSI received a
favourable opinion from the Commission
established in accordance with Article 29(1)
of Directive 2008/57/EC.
RSSB, Bridget
Eickhoff
Open
1 of 7
Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for TSIs applicable from 2015
Updated: March 2016
Issue ref.
number
Date added
TAIL2015-005
13/02/2015 INF TSI
4.2.10.3 Ballast pick- Technical error in TSI
Commission
up
Regulation (EU) No
1299/2014 of
18/11/2014
Ballast pick-up
GB mainline
The view of the Aerodynamics Experts in CEN TC256 WG6 is that ballast pickup is only an
issue for speeds greater than or equal to 250km/h and not the 200km/h stated in this
clause. As this is an open point, and there is no national rule, projects have to determine
their own approach.
TAIL2015-006
06/05/2015 SRT TSI Commission 4.2.1.2 Fire
Regulation (EU) No Resistance of
1302/2014 of
Tunnel Structures
18/11/2014
Fire resistance
GB mainline
It would be helpful to define the extent of the structure of the tunnel where the specified Contracting Entity, NoBo,
fire resistance is required to be demonstrated. Essentially, this would be the structure of ORR, NR
the tunnel directly exposed to the train fire (eg main bore tunnel lining) and other parts of
the tunnel, such as safe areas and cross passages which are more remote from a train fire
source, but which also require fire resistance to be provided to the extent that this is
compatible with the time required for evacuation.
TSI reference
TSI clause
Type of issue
Ambiguity in TSI
requirement
Key words
Scope
Explanation
Organisations involved
/ affected
Projects, NoBos
The ERA Application Guide does make it clear that the emergency doors do not have to
comply with 4.2.1.2 a) and b) but it is silent on other parts of the tunnel.
The choice of phrasing between 4.2.1.2 a) and b) is inconsistent i.e. in a) the phrase
'integrity of the tunnel lining' and in b) 'the tunnel main structure shall withstand the
temperature'.
In a) the intention is to ensure integrity of the tunnel lining but the rest of the tunnel
structure also has to remain resistant to fire until evacuation of passengers and
intervention of the emergency response services can take place. In b) the intention is also
to ensure that the temperature of the fire can be resisted without collapse by all tunnel
parts which could contribute to the collapse of 'neighbouring structures'.
The general intention is the same i.e. that affected tunnel parts remain sufficiently
resistant to fire without collapsing before rescue and evacuation is complete. Suggest
that this inconsistency be addressed and the scope of the tunnel parts affected be
clarified.
TAIL2015-007
06/05/2015 SRT TSI Commission 4.2.1.4 Fire
Regulation (EU) No detection in
1302/2014 of
technical rooms
18/11/2014
Ambiguity in TSI
requirement
Fire detection
GB mainline
Proposed resolution
Supporting
document?
Progress to date
RSSB, Bridget
Eickhoff
Amend the existing text in 4.2.1.2 a) and b) as suggested:
RSSB, John Lane
Proposed resolution will
be followed and
conclusions reported.
Open
RSSB, John Lane
Proposed resolution will
be followed and
conclusions reported.
Open
‘(a) In the event of fire, the integrity of the main tunnel
structurelining shall be maintained for a period of time that is
sufficiently long to permit self-rescue, evacuation of passengers and
staff and intervention of the emergency response services. That
period of time shall be in accordance with the evacuation scenarios
considered and reported in the emergency plan.
CEN TC256 WG6
have formally
written to ERA on
this issue. See BSI
document
RAE/1_15_0052,
CEN TC256 N 4414.
Issue status
For speeds between 200km/h and 250km/h it is proposed, and
supported by ERA, that no further action is required but work is
required to determine methods to close this open point for higher
speeds.
Agreed solution to issue
Open
(b) In the cases of immersed tunnels and tunnels which can cause
the collapse of important neighbouring structures, the integrity of
the main tunnel main structure of the tunnel shall be
maintainedwithstand the temperature of the fire for a period of
time that is sufficient to allowing evacuation of the endangered
tunnel zones and neighbouring structures. This period of time shall
be reported in the emergency plan.’
Provide a definition for ‘main tunnel structure as follows’:
‘The areas of the tunnel which are necessary for operation of trains,
for evacuation of people to a safe area, and for access/egress of the
emergency response services.’
4.2.1.4 (a) of the SRT TSI states:
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
'Technical rooms shall be equipped with detectors which alert the infrastructure manager ORR, NR
in case of fire'.
Provide guidance on what might constitute a technical room and
permit the use of the Common Safety Method to determine the
requirements for fire detection, as indicated below:
'Technical rooms' are defined in the SRT TSI as:
'Technical rooms are enclosed spaces with doors for access/egress inside or outside the
tunnel with safety installations which are necessary for at least one of the following
functions: self-rescue, evacuation, emergency communication, rescue and fire fighting,
signalling and communication equipment, and traction power supply.'
‘Technical rooms are purpose built spaces which are not exposed to
the tunnel environment. Where safety installations necessary for
self-rescue, evacuation, emergency communication, rescue and fire
fighting, signalling and communication equipment, and traction
power supply, are provided within spaces which are exposed to the
tunnel environment (e.g. cross passages), the need for fire
detection may be determined using the Common Safety Method on
risk assessment.’
This has raised a question concerning what constitutes a 'technical room'? The Crossrail
project proposes to include 'tunnel equipment' within cross passages and have queried
whether this constitutes a 'technical room' or not.
Industry lead
contact
Clearly, if the equipment to be placed in the cross passage complies with the definition for
'technical rooms', then fire detection is necessary. However, provision of fire detection
may not be appropriate in all cases and a risk-based approach, taking into account the
potential likelihood of and impact of fire, would be reasonable. Furthermore, fire
detection equipment in tunnel environments is susceptible to false alarm, and this could in
itself create a safety risk.
2 of 7
Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for TSIs applicable from 2015
Updated: March 2016
Issue ref.
number
Date added
TAIL2015-008
06/05/2015 SRT TSI Commission 4.2.1.5.2 (c) (d) &
Regulation (EU) No (e) Access to the
1302/2014 of
safe area
18/11/2014
TSI reference
TSI clause
Type of issue
Ambiguity in TSI
requirement
Key words
Access, safe area
Scope
GB mainline
Explanation
4.2.1.5.2 c), d) and e) of the SRT TSI states:
‘(c) Doors giving access from the escape walkway to the safe area shall have a minimum
clear opening of 1,4m wide and 2,0m high. Alternatively it is permitted to use multiple
doors next to each other which are less wide as long as the flow capacity of people is
demonstrated to be equivalent or higher.
Organisations involved
/ affected
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
ORR, NR
(d) After passing the doors, the clear width shall continue to be at least 1,5m wide and
2,25m high.
(e) The way in which the emergency response services access the safe area shall be
described in the emergency plan.’
Proposed resolution
The intention of the SRT TSI requirements should be clarified by
amendment to 4.2.1.5.2 (c) as follows:
‘Doors placed parallel to the track giving access from the escape
walkway to the safe area shall have a minimum clear opening of
1,4m wide and 2,0m high. Alternatively it is permitted to use
multiple doors next to each other, and doors that are placed in a
different orientation to the track, which are less wide, as long as
the flow capacity and safety of people is demonstrated to be
equivalent or higher using the Common Safety Method on risk
assessment.’
Industry lead
contact
Supporting
document?
Progress to date
Issue status
RSSB, John Lane
Proposed resolution will
be followed and
conclusions reported.
Open
Enhance the guidance in the ERA Application Guide to make it clear RSSB, John Lane
that this option is only intended for existing tunnels where the cost
of widening the tunnel may be prohibitive.
Proposed resolution will
be followed and
conclusions reported.
Open
Agreed solution to issue
Minimum ‘escape walkway’ widths are required to be 0.8m in accordance with 4.2.1.6.
This is clearly satisfactory where the escape doorway is placed parallel to the track, but is
not compatible with a minimum escape access doorway width of 1.4m, where the doors
are placed at 90º (or a lesser angle) to the line of the track.
It therefore seems clear that this requirement was intended for the usual situation where
doors to cross passages or lateral/vertical exits are provided parallel to the track. In this
orientation, a single line of passengers evacuating along a walkway would need to turn left
or right through the door, depending in which direction they are evacuating from the
tunnel. The required width for doors that are placed at 90º to the line of the track, should
be based upon demonstration that a minimum equivalent safety level is achieved using
the Common Safety Methods on risk
assessment , as permitted for ‘Alternative technical solutions’ in 4.2.1.5.2(3).
The impact of not allowing this, is that increased walkway width would be necessary
where doors are placed at 90º (or a lesser angle) to the line of the track, as is the case for
the Crossrail project, resulting in a significant cost increase being necessary for a larger
than necessary tunnel.
TAIL2015-009
06/05/2015 SRT TSI Commission 4.2.1.6 Escape
Regulation (EU) No walkways
1302/2014 of
18/11/2014
Ambiguity in TSI
requirement
Escape, walkway
GB mainline
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
Clause 2.3.11 of the ERA Application Guide (Version 8, dated 15th April 2014) states:
‘In single bore tunnels equipped with at least 2 slab tracks supported by a concrete slab, it ORR, NR
may be acceptable to use the adjacent track as a walkway, provided the slab track meets
the requirements for walkways in the TSI.’
This is a significant benefit for the Crossrail project, where the existing 550m long
Connaught tunnel comes within the scope of the TSI, and it is not possible to install escape
walkways adjacent to the existing tunnel walls without widening the tunnel.
Suggest ERA Application Guide amended as follows:
‘In existing single bore tunnels equipped with at least 2 slab tracks
supported by a concrete slab, it may be acceptable to use the
adjacent track as a walkway, provided the slab track meets the
requirements for walkways in the TSI.’
However, there is a concern that the advice given in the application guide may be
assumed to be acceptable for new tunnels.
3 of 7
Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for TSIs applicable from 2015
Updated: March 2016
Issue ref.
number
Date added
TAIL2015-010
06/05/2015 SRT TSI Commission
Regulation (EU) No
1302/2014 of
18/11/2014
TSI reference
TSI clause
4.2.2.4
Requirements for
electrical cables in
tunnels
Type of issue
Ambiguity in TSI
requirement
Key words
Scope
Fire, electrical
GB mainline
cables, flammability
Explanation
Organisations involved
/ affected
From experience on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Crossrail projects, there are notable Contracting Entity, NoBo,
instances where such fire performance requirements are not desirable or feasible for
ORR, NR
cables in tunnels.
Such cables are not necessarily resilient to UV exposure at tunnel portals. The options to
address this may be to cover the cable to protect from UV, or to make the transition from
fire compliant cable to normal cabling at some point just inside the tunnel. The latter
option is preferable option from a maintenance and operational view point.
Additionally, there are manufacturing difficulties for high voltage cables (eg 25kV), to
achieve all of the requirements. Low Smoke Zero Halogen high voltage cables that are
currently available on the market, may not meet the requirements of “low flammability
and low fire spread”.
Proposed resolution
Clause 4.2.2.4 (a) currently states:
‘In case of fire, exposed cables shall have the characteristics of low
flammability, low fire spread, low toxicity and low smoke density.
These requirements are fulfilled when the cables fulfil as a
minimum the requirements of classification B2CA, s1a, a1, as per
Commission Decision 2006/751/EC.’
Industry lead
contact
Supporting
document?
Progress to date
Issue status
RSSB, John Lane
Proposed resolution will
be followed and
conclusions reported.
Open
The following additional text is proposed for revision of 2.3.12 of
the ERA Application Guide:
'For a particular tunnel project, such as one where 'alternative
technical solutions' are adopted for provision of access to the safe
area, the adequacy of the standing surface may be demonstrated
through application of the Common Safety Methods on risk
assessment.'
RSSB, John Lane
Proposed resolution will
be followed and
conclusions reported.
Open
There needs to be a corresponding change to the wording of the
last two entries relating to 4.2.12 ERTMS/ETCS DMI in the UK
specific case section 7.2.9.3 changing the reference from Index 51
to Index 6.
RSSB, Tom Lee
This issue will be
commented on during
consultation on the CCS
TSI revisions.
Open
Agreed solution to issue
Suggest that a new clause 4.2.2.4 (b) be added to state:
‘Alternatively, non-compliant cables are permitted as long as they
comply with the first sentence of 4.2.1.3 (c). The equivalent level of
safety for passengers and staff shall be demonstrated using the
Common Safety Methods on risk assessment. ‘
With regard to “low flammability, low fire spread, low toxicity and low smoke” cables, it
would be logical to permit the use of non-compliant cables as long as it can be shown that
the cables would not ‘contribute significantly to a fire load’ as permitted for building
material in 4.2.1.3 (c).
Decision 2006/751/EC, requirements B2ca call up the following standards:
pr EN 50399-2-1 Common test methods for cables under fire conditions – Heat release and
smoke production measurement on cables during flame spread test - Part 2-1: Procedure
for classification in Euroclasses C and D.
EN60332-1-2 Tests on electric and optical fibre cables under fire conditions Part 1-2: Test
for vertical flame propagation for a single insulated wire or cable.
EN 61034-2 Measurement of smoke density of cables burning under defined conditions
Part 2: Test procedure and requirements.
EN 50267-2-3 replaced by:
EN 60754-1:2014 Tests on gases evolved during combustion of materials from cables.
Determination of the halogen acid gas content.
EN 60754-2:2014 Tests on gases evolved during combustion of materials from cables.
Determination of acidity (by pH measurement) and conductivity.
These standards together appear to cover the requirements for ‘low flammability, low fire
spread, low toxicity and low smoke density’ but are there unresolved issues with
application of these standards?
TAIL2015-011
06/05/2015 SRT TSI Commission 4.2.1.7 Fire fighting Ambiguity in TSI
Regulation (EU) No points
requirement
1302/2014 of
18/11/2014
Safe area, standing GB mainline
surface
4.2.1.7 (e) (2) states:
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
‘The safe area that is paired with the fire fighting point shall offer a sufficient standing
ORR, NR
surface relatively to the time passengers are expected to wait until they are evacuated to
a final place of safety .’
The concept of the “sufficient standing surface” relates to the length of time that the
passengers using are expected to remain there for evacuation. The guidance in 2.3.12 of
the ERA Application Guide elaborates on this by giving examples but does not confirm how
this must be demonstrated. One way of doing this might be to ensure that it is included
within the Common Safety Method activities related to the safe areas.
Perhaps this could be clarified within the application guide.
TAIL2015-012
17/07/2015 CCS TSI
Consolidated
version of
2012/88/EU,
2012/696/EU and
2015/14/EU
4.2.12 ERTMS/ETCS Technical error in TSI
DMI
ERTMS, ETCS, Driver GB mainline
Machine Interface
When 2012/696/EC was implemented there was a change in the way in which the DMI
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
specification is referenced; it moved from Index 51 to Index 6. This change does not seem ORR, NR
to have been fully reflected in both the DMI basic parameter 4.2.12 and consequently the
UK specific cases in 7.2.9.3.
Extract from CCS
TSI for UK
specific
cases.docx.pdf
Basic parameter 4.2.12 should refer to Index 6 in Annex A table A 1 (4.2.12a), if it does not
it seems odd that the basic parameter for the ETCS DMI does not refer at all to the ETCS
DMI specification (ERA_ERTMS_015560).
There needs to be a corresponding change to the wording of the last two entries relating
to 4.2.12 ERTMS/ETCS DMI in the UK specific case section 7.2.9.3 changing the reference
from Index 51 to Index 6.
4 of 7
Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for TSIs applicable from 2015
Updated: March 2016
Issue ref.
number
TAIL-2015-013
TAIL-2015-014
Date added
TSI reference
27/11/2014 CR INF TSI
(2011/275/EU)
13/10/2015 LOC&PAS TSI
1302/2014
(Regulation)
TSI clause
Type of issue
4.2.7.3 Resistance Ambiguity in TSI
of new structures requirement
over or adjacent to
tracks
4.2.6.2.4
Compatibility with
existing system
Key words
Aerodynamics,
Track
Crosswind
Scope
GB mainline
GB mainline
Explanation
Clause 4.2.7.3 should be revised to clarify the intent as the TSI refers to clauses 6.6.2 to
6.6.6 of EN 1991-2:2003. This is unnecessary and misleading as the overall clause which
references clauses 6.6.2 to 6.6.6 and importantly allows the National annex to be used
instead, is not referenced, that is clause 6.6.1(3). This is as follows:
Organisations involved
/ affected
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
ORR, NR
28/10/2015 WAG TSI 321/2013 7.3.2.4
(Regulation)
TAIL-2015-016
02/02/2016 INF TSI Commission
Regulation (EU) No
1299/2014 of
18/11/2014
Typographical error in Dynamic behaviour GB mainline
TSI
7.3.1 (Upgrading of Ambiguity in TSI
a line)
requirement
7.3.2 (Renewal of a
line)
Traffic code,
Infrastructure
Upgrade, Renewal, projects on
Axle load, Gauge
existing lines
Industry lead
contact
Existing text of clause 4.2.7.3
RSSB, Bridget
'Aerodynamic actions from passing trains shall be taken into
Eickhoff
account as set out in EN 1991-2:2003/AC:2010 paragraphs 6.6.2 to
6.6.6 inclusive '
(3) The actions may be approximated by equivalent loads at the head and rear ends of a
train, when checking ultimate and serviceability limit states and fatigue. Characteristic
values of the equivalent loads are given in 6.6.2 to 6.6.6.
NOTE The National Annex or the individual project may specify alternative values. The
values given in 6.6.2 to 6.6.6 are recommended.
Revise clause 4.2.7.3 to:
'Aerodynamic actions from passing trains shall be taken into
account as set out in EN 1991-2:2003/AC:2010, paragraph 6.6.1'.
LOC&PAS TSI sets out a transitional arrangement for rules relating to aerodynamic effects - Contracting Entity, NoBo,
cross wind. Relevant sections in the TSI are: 4.2.6.2.4, 7.1.1.7 and 7.5.1.2.
ORR, NR
4.2.6.2.4 states:
'...
(3) For units of maximum design speed equal to or higher than 250 km/h the crosswind
effects shall be evaluated according to one of the following methods:
(a) determined and complying with the specification of the HS RST TSI 2008 clause 4.2.6.3,
or
(b) determined by the assessment method of the specification referenced in Appendix J-1,
index 37. The resulting characteristic wind curve of the most sensitive vehicle of the unit
under assessment shall be recorded in the technical documentation as per clause 4.2.12.
The transitional measure set out in 7.1.1.7 of the TSI should be used Hugh O'Neill
until the TSI is revised:
Section 7.5.1.2. aerodynamic effects - cross wind (clause 4.2.6.2.4) sets out an aspect that
has to be considered in the revision process or in other activites of the Agency.
7.5.1.2. states:
'Requirements on 'cross wind' have been set up for units of maximum design speed equal
to or higher than 250 km/h with 2 options:
- in consistency with the TSI HS RST 2008, or
- in consistency with the TSI CR LOC&PAS 2011.
This will need to be reviewed when the merging of the 2 sets of characteristics wind
curves specified in the TSI HS RST 2008 will be finalised.'
TAIL-2015-015
Proposed resolution
Progress to date
Proposed resolution will
be followed and
conclusions reported.
Issue status
Agreed solution to issue
Open
As at 05/10/2015 Clause
4.2.7.3 remains unchanged
as this issue was raised in
November 2014 when the
new INF TSI had already
been developed and was
in the process of
publication. Clause 4.2.7.3
will be revised when the
INF TSI is next under
revision.
Open
'(1) For units of maximum design speed higher than or equal to 250
km/h intended to be operated on the High Speed TEN network, it is
permitted to apply requirements defined in clause 4.2.6.3 'Crosswind' of the HS RST TSI 2008, as specified in clause 4.2.6.2.4 of the
present TSI.
(2) This transitional measure is applicable until revision of the
clause 4.2.6.2.4 of the present TSI.'
.
7.3.2.4 Running dynamic behaviour (point 4.2.3.5.2) duplicates 7.3.2.3 Safety against
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
derailment running on twisted track (point 4.2.3.5.1). 7.3.2.4 will be revised when the TSI ORR, NR
is next under revision to state:
'For technical compatibility with the existing network it is permissible to use national
technical rules amending EN 14363:2005 and the ERA/TD/2012-17/INT requirements and
notified for the purpose of running dynamic behaviour. This specific case does not
prevent the access of TSI compliant rolling stock to the national network.
The modifications to tests and procedures of EN 14363 clause 5 shall additionally include:
Base condition for use of simplified measuring method shown in EN 14363:2005 clause
5.2.2.2 should be extended to static axle loads up to 25.4 t (~250 kN)'.
Solution is revise 7.3.2.4 when the TSI is next under revision to
Neil Halliday
state:
'For technical compatibility with the existing network it is
permissible to use national technical rules amending EN
14363:2005 and the ERA/TD/2012-17/INT requirements and
notified for the purpose of running dynamic behaviour. This
specific case does not prevent the access of TSI compliant rolling
stock to the national network.
The modifications to tests and procedures of EN 14363 clause 5
shall additionally include:
Base condition for use of simplified measuring method shown in EN
14363:2005 clause 5.2.2.2 should be extended to static axle loads
up to 25.4 t (~250 kN)'.
The issue is there is a lack of clarity in the wording of the TSI with the potential for
misunderstanding.
Projects should be categorised as either 'Upgrade' or 'Renewal'
Bridget Eickhoff
based on an objective assessment of whether the 'overall
performance of the sub-system' is improved in line with sub-clause
(1) rather than a rigid application of sub-clause (2).
Clause 7.3.1 states:
'(1) In accordance with Article 2(m) of Directive 2008/57/EC, 'upgrading' means any major
modification work on a subsystem or part of a subsystem which imrpoves the overall
performance of the subsystem.
(2) The infrastructure subsystem of a line is considered to be upgraded in the context of
this TSI when at least the performance parameters axle load or gauge, as defined in point
4.2.1, are changed in order to meet the requirements of another traffic code.'.
Supporting
document?
Infrastructure managers,
other project entities
EN 14363:2005 is currently
being revised - the
intention is to publish the
new version in 2016. The
revised TSI should align
with the new EN
14363:2016.
ERA Application
Issue discussed at ISCC
Guide to the INF TSI
Open
Open
Guidance will be added to GI/GN7608
Any project which is not covered by 7.3.3 'Substitution in the
framework of maintenance' must be categorised as either
'Upgrade' or 'Renewal'.
Sub-clause (2) is intended to provide clarification on the interpretation of the general subclause (1) in the context of this TSI. Unfortunately, because of the GB Specific Cases and
permissions within the TSI, a pedantic application of Sub-clause (2) could imply that no
project on the existing GB mainline is an 'upgrade'. This is because the classification used
for 'axle load' in the core TSI is EN15528 whilst GB has permission (see INF TSI clause
4.2.7.4 (4)) to use the RA system for existing bridges, and the GB specific case for 'gauge'
(7.7.17.2) also allows use of National Rules for this purpose in place of the EN15273 used
in the core TSI.
5 of 7
Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for TSIs applicable from 2015
Updated: March 2016
Issue ref.
number
Date added
TAIL-2015-017
09/03/2016 CCS TSI: Draft
Commission
Regulation 08/57ST36 Version EN02
Annex, 12/2/2016
tbc
Ambiguity in TSI
requirement
Pre-indication
TAIL-2015-018
09/03/2016 CCS TSI: Draft
Commission
Regulation 08/57ST36 Version EN02
Annex, 12/2/2016
6.1.2 Principles for
testing ETCS and
GSM-R
Ambiguity in TSI
requirement
TAIL-2015-019
09/03/2016 CCS TSI: Draft
Commission
Regulation 08/57ST36 Version EN02
Annex, 12/2/2016
tbc
Economic
achievability
TAIL-2015-020
09/03/2016 CCS TSI: Draft
Commission
Regulation 08/57ST36 Version EN02
Annex, 12/2/2016
09/03/2016 CCS TSI: Draft
Commission
Regulation 08/57ST36 Version EN02
Annex, 12/2/2016
TAIL-2015-022
09/03/2016 CCS TSI: Draft
Commission
Regulation 08/57ST36 Version EN02
Annex, 12/2/2016
Annex A Subset 026 Conflict with other
rule
TAIL-2015-023
15/03/2016 SRT TSI Commission 4.2.1.5.1 Safe area
Regulation (EU) No
1302/2014 of
18/11/2014
TAIL-2015-024
TSI reference
TSI clause
Type of issue
Key words
Scope
Organisations involved
/ affected
Proposed resolution
Industry lead
contact
Supporting
document?
Issue status
Work is ongoing. ERA has
been remitted to produce
a technical document to
incorporate the CR1249
requirements into the TSI.
Presentation by ERA is
expected at June 2016
RISC meeting.
Open
RISC, ERA
ERA have committed to provide a technical report to RISC.
Tom Lee
Availability of
ETCS trackside
trackside scenarios installations
There is a lack of clarity on the requirements and management arrangements for
engineering rules and operational scenarios. There is no practical experience of this
process and it will be law when the TSI is published. ERA will consult on scenarios.
ERA
Work proactively with ERA to better understand and influence the
process.
Tom Lee
GB is developing relevant
material and will work
with sector groups and
ERA to try and influence an
outcome acceptable to
GB.
Open
Additional change
requests
ETCS trackside
and onboard
Additional change requests necessary for economic and effective deployment of ETCS in
GB.
ERA
EECT meeting will prioritise in March. EC has indicted that they will Tom Lee
consider compatible changes, and adoption might be optional.
Wait until outcome of
change control process
(ERA EECT meeting).
Ideally these changes will
be incorporated into an
ETCS release version.
However, if this is not
achieved by the time that
these change requests will
have a material impact on
GB, then an alternative
route will be sought, likely
to involve a technical
opinion and NTRs.
Open
6.2.3 Table 6.1
Technical error in TSI
RAMS - Elimination
of systematic
failures
RAMs, systematic
ETCS onboard
The approach to manage systematic failures appears to be dependent on identifying
issues once they have appeared. This is inconsistent with principles in EN50126 (which
seek to design out systematic failures).
ERA
Apply principles of EN50126 and EN50128.
Tom Lee
7.4.4 National
Implementation
Plans
National
Implementation
Plan
ETCS trackside
and onboard
National Implementation Plan required 12 months after application of TSI. Unclear how
this will be addressed. Expect work in Digital Railway will largely inform this.
DfT, Digital Railway
Anticipate Digital Railway work, especially that driving the IIP for
CP6 will inform this.
Tom Lee
Level NTC, SH
mode, Railway
Safety Regulations
1999
ETCS onboard
In Level NTC operation in SH mode when the STM interface is used, it inhibits class B train ECRG, EEIG, EUG, ERA (EECT)Change request EEIG 227
protection systems. Operation without a train protection system is in contravention of
the Railway Safety Regulations 1999.
Ambiguity in TSI
requirement
Ventilation
GB mainline
The ERA Guide for the application of the SRT TSI cites circumstances where cross passage Contracting Entity, NoBo,
spacing may be increased. They cite tunnels of any geometry where the distance
ORR, NR
between the access points to the safe areas is greater than 500/1000 m, but this is
balanced by additional safety measures providing at least the same safety level as the
specified solutions in the TSI, such as a ventilation system, additional access points in a
given area, larger walkways, etc. This implies that a tunnel ventilation system is an
additional safety measure and that there would be no expectation of a tunnel ventilation
system for an otherwise compliant tunnel. However, for twin bore tunnels where the nonincident bore is used as a safe area it is not clear how any non-incident bore can be
maintained as tenable without either cross passage pressurisation fans or a tunnel
ventilation system to pressurise the non-incident bore. The definition of a safe area
eludes to ventilation by means of
... The lay-out of an undergound safe area and its equipment shall take into account the
control of smoke ...
It would be very useful for the SRT TSI to be more definitive in
John Lane
terms of expectations for tunnel ventilation for smoke control and
how non-incident bores when used as safe areas are expected to be
maintained as tenable. We note that tunnel ventilation systems
are common on longer European tunnels.
Open
15/03/2016 SRT TSI Commission 2.3.3
Regulation (EU) No
1302/2014 of
18/11/2014
Lack of detail in TSI
Tunnel
environment
GB mainline
The SRT TSI provides no guidance on limiting thermal conditions within both the incident Contracting Entity, NoBo,
and non-incident tunnels such that passenger evacuation may take place. This may occur ORR, NR
during a prolonged stop, as per clause 2.2.3.
It would be useful for the TSI to also consider the thermal safety of John Lane
passengers in long and warm tunnels.
Open
TAIL-2015-025
15/03/2016 SRT TSI Commission 4.2.3
Regulation (EU) No
1302/2014 of
18/11/2014
Lack of detail in TSI
Train environment
GB mainline
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
ORR, NR
It would be useful for the TSI to also consider the thermal safety of John Lane
passengers in long and warm tunnels.
Open
TAIL-2015-026
15/03/2016 SRT TSI Commission 4.2.1.5.2
Regulation (EU) No
1302/2014 of
18/11/2014
Lack of detail in TSI
Cross passage doors GB mainline
The SRT TSI and LOC&PAS TSI provide guidance on maximum carbon dioxide concentration
in trains, but does provide requirements or guidance on maximum thermal conditions in
trains when they stop in tunnels or outside and what, if any, technical measures are
expected on the rolling stock and in the infrastructure to manage passenger thermal
safety.
The SRT TSI provides no guidance on expected maximum door opening forces for cross
passage doors within tunnels. There are a variety of national standards that might be
used, but some might not be appropriate for this application.
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
ORR, NR
Further requirements or guidance would be useful.
Open
Conformity with TSI
Tom Lee
John Lane
Change Request
CR1249
Progress to date
There is a lack of clarity in the requirements for display of pre-indication in response to
Change Request 1249.
TAIL-2015-021
Onboard
compliant with
BL3R2
Explanation
Agreed solution to issue
To produce a prioritised list of changes that
relate to future ETCS release versions.
Open
Change Request
EEIG 447
ERTMS Implementation
Plans exist but are out-ofdate. Work is underway
by the Digital Railway to
revise them.
Open
Loss of protection in Level
NTC SH has been classified
as an 'enhancement'
which will protract
solution (compared to
being classified as an
'error').
Open
6 of 7
Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for TSIs applicable from 2015
Updated: March 2016
Issue ref.
number
Date added
TAIL-2015-027
15/03/2016 SRT TSI Commission 4.2.2.1
Regulation (EU) No
1302/2014 of
18/11/2014
TSI reference
TSI clause
Type of issue
Ambiguity in TSI
requirement
Key words
Scope
Sectionalisation
GB mainline
Explanation
Organisations involved
/ affected
Clause 4.2.2.1 requires traction power switching at least every 5 km if the signalling
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
system permits the presence of more than one train in the tunnel on each track
ORR, NR
simultaneously. It is inferred from this requirement, and other requirements, that the risk
of smoke from one train on fire affecting another train on fire is acceptable as long as the
non-affected train is at least 5 km away from the incident train and can then be moved
out. It can be inferred from the ERA guidance that there are no other requirements for
tunnel ventilation. The rationale for the 5 km separation is not given and the cited
inference may be incorrect.
Proposed resolution
It would be beneficial to provide further guidance on the intent of
this requirement and how it relates to smoke movement.
Industry lead
contact
RSSB, John Lane
Supporting
document?
Progress to date
Issue status
Agreed solution to issue
Open
7 of 7