Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for High Speed and Conventional Rail TSIs
Updated: October 2015
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
Lead industry contact will
normally be someone at
DfT or RSSB
where necessary, further
information should be set
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
Compatibility with existing system
Ambiguity in TSI requirement
Issue ref.
number
Date added
TAIL-006
30/03/2009
TSI reference
CR CCS TSI
2006/679/EC
TSI clause
Annex A, Appendix
1, Clause 5.2.3
Type of issue
Conflict with other rule
Key words
Wheel Flange
Height
Scope
GB mainline
Explanation
Organisations involved
/ affected
The wheel flange height range for a P8 profile wheel is 30mm (new) Contracting Entity, OEM,
to 36.5mm (worn) (as specified in Appendix A of GM/RT2466) which NoBo
exceeds the 36mm maximum specified in the TSI.
Proposed resolution
Industry lead
contact
There are no immediate plans to amend GM/RT2466 to address this RSSB, Cliff Cork
issue, but when the standard is next amended the flange height
limits will be aligned with the 36mm value in the CR CCS TSI.
Supporting
document?
Yes
It is therefore proposed that the 36mm limit in the CR CCS TSI be
adopted for all vehicles placed in service under the Interoperability
Regulations, as this will also deliver compliance with the current
issue of GM/RT2466 and the future revision.
Yes
Progress to date
Issue status Agreed solution to issue
As at 02/10/15:
GM/RT2466 is currently
undergoing revision
(project 15/009) and the
flange height limits will be
amended in line with the
proposed resolution. The
intention is to publish the
revised RGS in December
2016.
Closed
Revise GM/RT2466 to
address flange height limits
Raised with DfT at ISCC
meeting of 24th March
2009
Closed
ERA has now recognised &
confirmed this error.
TAIL-007
24/04/2009
HS INF TSI
2008/217/EC
Clause 6.1.5 and
Annex C
Typographical error in TSI
Conformity
assessment
modules
GB mainline & HS1
Observing the list in 6.1.5 it is clear that there is a typographical
error against the same listing in Annex C and that the second
‘module A’ should, in fact, be ‘module A1’
ISCC, RSSB, DfT
DfT to raise this as a minor error in Annex C with both NoBo Forum DfT
and ERA. DfT made aware at ISCC meetings held in March and April
2009
TAIL-008
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 4.2.2.1.2.1
Compatibility with existing system
Curve Radius
GB mainline & HS1
TSI specifies that the buffer heads shall be convex with a radius of
curvature of their spherical working surface of 2 750mm ± 50 mm.
Contracting Entity, OEM,
NoBo
Due to the proliferation of small radius curves and vehicles with long RSSB, Mick James
overhangs (as a result of the GB gauge), the horizontal buffer head
radius has historically been smaller in GB (1250mm) to ensure that
the forces generated within the buffers and drawgear do not exceed
250kN.For wagons operating solely within GB, a horizontal buffer
head radius of less than 2750 is permitted.
UK issue registered with
ERA . National solution
letter issued by DfT 12 05
2008
Closed
National solution letter
TAIL-009
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 4.2.2.2
Economic achievability
Buffers
GB mainline & HS1
Vehicles shall be designed so that staff are not exposed to undue risk Contracting Entity, OEM,
during coupling and uncoupling…There shall be no devices under the NoBo
buffers that hinder the access to the space. TSI calls up EN15551 (§
relating to Freight) which excludes 520mm projection /114mm
stroke buffers. With 520mm buffers, the brake hose does encroach
to some extent, but not so much as to be likely to endanger life.
Existing GB infrastructure for loading and discharge of some types of RSSB, Mick James
wagon requires wagons of a fixed length (over buffers). Therefore,
increasing the buffer length within the same length over buffers
would reduce the payload capacity of many hopper and tank
wagons. This would not be commercially acceptable. Therefore, GB
needs to continue to use 520mm buffers in order to be compatible
with existing infrastructure.
The new WAG TSI
published in April 2013
deals with this issue.
Closed
The new WAG TSI
published in April 2013,
and can be complied with
immediately, will become
mandatory in December
2013 and closes out this
issue.
TAIL-010
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 4.2.2.2
Compatibility with existing system
Hand Rails and Foot GB mainline & HS1
Steps
Except for wagons used only in fixed formation trains, there shall be Contracting Entity, OEM,
at least one step and one handrail for shunters at each side of the
NoBo
vehicle…
Wagons used solely in GB do not allow shunters to ride on moving
wagons. Fitting these steps and handrails could be seen as
encouraging such use.
RSSB, Mick James
UK issue registered with
ERA . National solution
letter issued by DfT 12 05
2008
Closed
National solution letter
RSSB, Mick James
The new WAG TSI
published in April 2013
deals with this issue.
Closed
RSSB, Mick James
UK Specific Case
7.7.2.2.1.1, as modified by
national solution letter of
23 December 2008
Closed
The new WAG TSI
published in April 2013,
and can be complied with
immediately, will become
mandatory in December
2013 and closes out this
issue.
National Solution letter
issued. UK Specific Case
7.7.2.2.1.1 to Remain but
modifed to exclude the
necessity to gauge against
both UK and European
reference profiles.
UK Temporary Solution DfT letter 23 12 2008
Closed
Currently the UK has a temporary specific case which prohibits the
use of hand rails under buffers. Use of such is prohibited in the UK
for safety reasons. Not fitting them will prevent accidents. This also
should not be deemed interoperable (more of an operational
shunting matter) and therefore deemed out of scope.
TAIL-015
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 4.2.2.6.4
TAIL-017
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 4.2.3.1
Compatibility with existing system
Annex T - 7.7.2.2.1.1
TAIL-018
1
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Economic achievability
Clause 4.2.3.1
Economic achievability
Clause C3.1 Annex T
- 7.7.2.2.1.1
Dangerous Goods
GB mainline & HS1
Wagons carrying dangerous goods shall meet the requirements of
Contracting Entity, OEM,
the TSI in addition the requirements of RID. TSI also calls up EN
NoBo
12972 Tanks for transport of dangerous goods testing, inspection
and marking of metallic tanks from April 2001…This clause it at odds
with current national practice and the requirement is deficient in
some areas. The RID directive covers this area.
Kinematic Gauge
GB mainline & HS1
The TSI specifies the loading gauges, the reference profile and the
Contracting Entity, OEM,
rules for the maximum construction gauge for wagons. The target
NoBo
gauge allowed without restrictions is G1 (except the UK). The target
gauges for Great Britain will be those specified in the table in Annex
T and are/will be described in Railway Group Standard, GE/RT8073
Vehicle Track
Interaction
GB mainline & HS1
The TSI in Annex C (3.2.2 & 3.23) also specifies gauge for wagons in
the G1 lower area. Some UK bogies do not meet this requirement
and the cost of modifying them to give a greater underclerance for
UK infrastructure would be unnecesarily prohibitive. This is
particularly relevant on worn/waering wheels.
Contracting Entity, OEM,
NoBo
GB Wagons carrying dangerous goods shall meet the requirements
of the RID which take precedence over the TSI where there is
conflict. Where the RID is silent, the TSI requirements will be
applied. The application of the these requirements shall be in
accordance with GM/RT 2101(issue 1 may 1996) Requirements for
the Design, Construction, Test & Use of the Tanks of Rail Tank
Wagons.
UK keeps existing specific case in 7.7.2.2.1.1 in the redrafted TSI (as
modified by national solution letter of 23 December 2008 to omit
any reference to G1 gauge as the UK is unable to meet this gauge
requirement). With respect to kinematic gauge to be achieved shall
be in accordance with the GB Specific Case as set out in Annex T
which needs to be modified to ensure there is no requirement to
demonstrate compliance with the mainland European reference
profiles.
The following freight vehicle gauges are available for lines in Great
Britain: W6a, W7, W8, W9, W9plus, W10 , W11 and W12
No G1 gauge requirement in the UK. A more restricting gauge leads RSSB, Mick James
to design compromises for no commercial gain. The swept envelope
for GB vehicle in the lower sector shall have a minimum clearance of
75 mm vertically above the plane of the rails between the rails
under all conditions (the wheels excluded). This is applicable when
using the W6a gauge and taking account of all suspension
movements and vertical curvesUK keeps existing specific case in
7.7.2.2.1.1 in the redrafted TSI (as modified by national solution
letter of 23 December 2008 to omit any reference to G1 gauge as
the UK is unable to meet this gauge requirement).
National Solution letter
issued. UK Specific Case
7.7.2.2.1.1 to Remain but
modifed to exclude the
necessity to gauge against
both UK and European
reference profiles and
include reference to G1
lower area.
22/10/2015
Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for High Speed and Conventional Rail TSIs
Updated: October 2015
Issue ref.
number
Date added
TSI reference
TSI clause
TAIL-019
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 4.2.3.2
TAIL-020
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
TAIL-021
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Type of issue
Compatibility with existing system
Key words
Scope
Explanation
Organisations involved
/ affected
Proposed resolution
Industry lead
contact
Supporting
document?
Progress to date
Issue status Agreed solution to issue
Static Axle Load
GB mainline & HS1
The classification of lines and line sections in Great Britain is carried Contracting Entity, OEM,
out according to the Notified National Standard (Railway Group
NoBo
Standard GE/RT8006 “Interface between Rail Vehicle Weights and
Underline Bridges”). Vehicles intended to operate in Great Britain
shall obtain classification according to this standard. The
classification for the wagon is determined according to the
geometrical position and the loads on each axle. But the TSI states
that lines shall be classified in accordance with categories A, B1, B2,
C2, C3, C4, D2, D3, D4 as defined in a table in the TSI.
Retain UK Specific Case as classification of lines and line sections
within the UK remain unchanged.
RSSB, Mick James
UK issue registered with
ERA
Closed
UK Specific Case in Annex T
TSI Open Point
Compatibility with existing system
Clause 4.2.3.3.2 &
Annex LL of
Commission
Decision 2009/107)
Hot Box Axle
Detection
GB mainline & HS1
The dimensions of the prohibitive zone's cuboid, taking into account Contracting Entity, OEM,
mechanical tolerances, shall be: lateral width, WPZ, greater than or NoBo
equal to 100 mm;
— longitudinal length, LPZ, greater than or equal to 500 mm. GB
Wagons with wheel sets of diameter 730mm or less will not achieve
the axle box clearance.
Wagons with wheel sets of diameter 730mm or less shall not be
required to achieve the axle box clearance.
RSSB, Mick James
The new WAG TSI
published in April 2013
deals with this issue.
Closed
Clause 4.2.3.4.2.1
Clause 4.2.3.4.2.2
Clause 6.2.3.2.1.1
Dynamic Behaviour GB mainline & HS1
For bogies not listed in annex Y, EN 14363 or leaflet UIC 432 apply. In Contracting Entity, OEM,
addition to the specifications of section 4.2.3.4.2.2 of this TSI on
NoBo
safety against derailment when running
on twisted tracks:
— One of the three methods given in EN 14363 applies;
— Freight wagons are exempted from these tests if they comply
with the requirements of UIC leaflet 530-2.
Wagons operating solely on the GB network should comply with the RSSB, Mick James
requirements of GM/RT2141. Resistance of railway vehicles to
derailment and roll over.
UK issue registered with
ERA
Closed
The new WAG TSI
published in April 2013,
and can be complied with
immediately, will become
mandatory in December
2013 and closes out this
issue.
UK keeps existing specific
case in 7.7.2.2.1.1 in the
redrafted TSI (as modified
by national solution letter
of 23 December 2008 to
omit any reference to G1
gauge as the UK is unable
to meet this gauge
requirement).
Due to the constraints of the GB infrastructure, GB freight vehicles
have historically used an overhang to wheelbase relationship which
is outside the limits prescribed in annex R to avoid the Longitudinal
Compressive Forces test. The GB gauge means that long wagons
require long overhangs to retain a reasonable gauge width in the
centre of the wagon.
RSSB, Mick James
The new WAG TSI
published in April 2013
deals with this issue.
Closed
The new WAG TSI
published in April 2013,
and can be complied with
immediately, will become
mandatory in December
2013 and closes out this
issue.
Compatibility with existing system
The dynamic behaviour of a vehicle has strong effects on safety
against derailment and running stability.
TAIL-022
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 4.2.3.5
Clause 6.2.3.2.2
Annex R
Compatibility with existing system
Overhang
GB mainline & HS1
The TSI requires all vehicles to be able to pass over convex or
concave transition curves of radius Rv ≥ 500 m, without any part
other than the wheel flange descending below the running surface.
This may concern mainline vehicles whose:— wheelbase is greater
than 17,8 m,— overhang is greater than 3,4 m
Contracting Entity, OEM,
NoBo
To ensure safety against derailment, wagon(s) shall be assessed by
tests, calculations or through comparison with the characteristics of
already approved (certified) wagons. When it is necessary to require
the certification of the admissible longitudinal compressive force by
tests, then the tests have to be carried out according to the method
described in Annex R, at least with the measurement areas given in
this Annex.
TAIL-023
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 4.2.4.1.2.2
Technical error in TSI
Brake Performance GB mainline & HS1
In the UK under these conditions the braking S max would be
Contracting Entity, OEM,
equivalent to 890m (for 75mph). The use of mixed braking modes NoBo
on tare wagons would provide a significant risk of longitudinal
compressive forces (LCF) which could pose safety risk factors of poor
vehicle dynamics leading to flange climb, Coupling fatigue and
failure, Bogie and Vehicle Frame fatigue, Excess wheel wear and
profile and Excess thermal dissipation in wheels. Foot Notes 5, 6 and
7 for wheels less than 940mm, on axles no less than 22,5T at a
maximum speed of 120KPH using brakes blocks are permitted to use
national rules for calculating Smax.
Extend Foot Note requirements to adopt NNTR for Tare:
RSSB, Mick James
UK Specific Case 7.7.2.3.1.1
UK issue registered with
ERA
Closed
National Solution letter
issued 5/6/09
TAIL-024
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 4.2.4.1.2.3
Compatibility with existing system
Pneumatic Half
couplings
GB mainline & HS1
TSI specifies that the opening of the automatic air brake coupling
Contracting Entity, OEM,
head shall face the left when looking at the end of the vehicle. The NoBo
opening of the main reservoir coupling head shall face the right
when looking at the end of the vehicle. The requirement in the UK is
for both the BP and MRP coupling heads to be left handed. The
majority of vehicles are singled piped brake only and this forms the
interoperable interface. The requirement for the UK to convert the
MRP to the opposite hand will require existing vehicles to change.
prEN 15807 doesn't reference the orientation of the individual
coupling heads. It describes the conformance of the product not
how it is used.
Either delete the requirement or Confine the ‘interoperable’
requirement to the Brake Pipe only.If we need to define the MRP
then add 'where fitted the orientation of the MRP coupling head
shall be compatible with existing arrangements in the member
state.'
RSSB, Mick James
UK issue registered with
ERA. National solution
letter issued 6 March 2009
to substitute the relevant
text in the TSI with “The
opening of the main
reservoir coupling head
shall face to the left when
looking at the end of the
vehicle”
Closed
National Solution letter
issued
TAIL-025
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 4.2.4.1.2.5
Economic achievability
Energy Limits
GB mainline & HS1
The TSI requires the brake system to be designed to allow the
Contracting Entity, OEM,
vehicle to run on all existing lines of the trans-European
NoBo
conventional rail system. The brake system shall stop the vehicle
loaded and maintain the speed of the vehicle without any thermal or
mechanical damage for:
1. two successive emergency braking applications from the
maximum speed to a stop on straight and level track with minimum
wind and dry rail.
2. Maintain an average speed of 70 km/h in a slope with a mean
declivity of 21 ‰ and a length of 40 km.
Wagons intended to operate solely in the UK will not be exposed to RSSB, Mick James
the braking environment stipulated in the TSI (L.1.4.2.1 in Annex L).
The design of UK wheels is expected to include assessment of the
most severe thermal loadings through braking, including drag
braking and the most severe repeated braking cycle to be
experienced by the vehicle, including an additional stop to represent
peak thermal loading during the cycle.This is governed by the UK
Railway Group Standard GM/RT2466.
UK issue registered with
ERA. National solution
letter issued by DfT 12 05
2008
Closed
National Solution letter
issued
2
22/10/2015
Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for High Speed and Conventional Rail TSIs
Updated: October 2015
Issue ref.
number
TAIL-028
Date added
01/06/2009
TSI reference
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
TSI clause
Clause 4.2.6
Type of issue
Economic achievability
Key words
Environmental
Conditions
Scope
GB mainline & HS1
Explanation
Organisations involved
/ affected
All freight wagons intended for international traffic shall comply as a Contracting Entity, OEM,
minimum with temperature class TRIV.
NoBo
While clause 4.2.6, as reproduced here, only applies to wagons
intended for international traffic, the net effect is that passe-partout
wagons would need to straddle a wide temperature range which
seems excessive for most continental traffic. In addition, feedback
from manufacturers is that no products are actually certified in the
way the TSI requires, consequently most wagon component costs
are going to increase to meet testing, certification and design
change to cope with the extreme temperature ranges included in
the TSI.
Proposed resolution
Industry lead
contact
Supporting
document?
Progress to date
Issue status Agreed solution to issue
UK does not encounter the temperature ranges listed in any of these RSSB, Mick James
3 classes. Therefore for wagons operating solely within GB, the UK
proposes a temperature range of -20C to +35C To manufacture
wagons to meet all temperature ranges would be more expensive
(for steel and all components).The contracting entity shall specify
the temperature range for the wagon according to its intended use.
The new WAG TSI
published in April 2013
deals with this issue.
Closed
The new WAG TSI
published in April 2013,
and can be complied with
immediately, will become
mandatory in December
2013 and closes out this
issue.
TAIL-029
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 4.2.7.2.2.3
Technical error in TSI
Design Rules: Spark GB mainline & HS1
Guards
Spark protection of the load shall be provided separately where the Contracting Entity, OEM,
floor does not provide that protection. Yet due to the restraints of
NoBo
the UK loading gauge, spark guards on some types of vehicles are
impracticable. When those vehicles are fitted with composite brakes
blocks or disc brakes spark guards should not be mandated.
For Wagons operating solely within GB spark guards should only be
fitted on vehicles utilising cast iron brake blocks where the floor
does not provide protection in its own right.
RSSB, Mick James
UK issue registered with
ERA
Closed
National Solution Letter
issued 14/7/09
TAIL-031
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 5.4.3.11
Annex PI10
Technical error in TSI
Brake Blocks
GB mainline & HS1
The ERA (from UIC) maintains the list of approved composite brake
blocks (including geographical restrictions of use and conditions of
use, according to P.1.10 and P.2.10). The brake blocks specified on
the ERA website only provides 1 K block (Becorit 929-1) suitable for
UK use (i.e. I Bg).It is limiting for the UK because it only provides
suitable braking up to 18 t / axle and the approval is due to end on
the 30th June 2009.There are no candidate blocks and Bogie
configurations for 2 Bg use in the UK.There are also no candidate
Bgu systems available for UK use.
UK suggest that the provision of National rules for vehicles with (1
Bg) push braking system for wheels less than 940mm, on axles no
less than 22,5T at a maximum speed of 120KPH (for passe-partout
wagons, the TSI applies).For wagons operating solely in the GB,
brake blocks which have been accepted in accordance with GB
National Rules shall be acceptable
RSSB, Mick James
UK issue registered with
ERA
Closed
National Solution Letter
issued 14/7/09
TAIL-032
01/06/2009
CR Freight Wagons
TSI 2006/861/EC
Clause 6.2.3.3.2
Technical error in TSI
Brake Release
Timings
GB mainline & HS1
TSI specifies the G-setting as 45-60 seconds. Most UK brake timings Contracting Entity, OEM,
operate at 30-45 seconds (albeit Technical Note 031 from Railway
NoBo
Group standard GM/RT 2045 issue 2 - October 2004 specifies a range
of 30-60 seconds applies) so do not meet the TSI timings of 45-60
seconds (which is viewed by some Member States not as a range,
but as an absolute parameter to be met at both ends).
Change the text of the new TSI to a range of 30-60 seconds, rather RSSB, Mick James
than a strict timing of 45-60 seconds. This would allow wagons to
operate at 30-45 seconds or 45-60 seconds. UK proposes to keep the
45 – 60 seconds settings only for passe-partout Wagons.
UK issue registered with
ERA Derogation being
Sought
Closed
National Solution Letter
issued 14/7/09
TAIL-033
27/07/2009
HS CCS TSI
2006/860/EC and CR
CCS TSI
2006/679/EC
Various, as
Technical error in TSI
described in the
detailed supporting
document
GSM-R
GB mainline & HS1
ISCC, RSSB, DfT
The proposed resolution for each issue has been captured within the RSSB, Tom Lee
Railway Group Standard GKRT0094 (which has superseded
GE/RT8082) and the relevant clauses have been notified as national
technical rules.
Yes
National technical rules
notified, DfT to follow up
with ERA
Closed
TAIL - 034
04/08/2009
HS INF TSI (revised) Clauses relating to Placing product (rails) onto the
2008/217/EC
interoperability
market and assessment of
constituents - parts conformity.
5, 6 and Annex C
Between July and October 2007, ISCC reviewed critical errors
associated with GSM-R with a view to raising these errors with the
Rail Interoperability and Safety Committee. The additional
information available in 2007 is summarised in the detailed
document for TAIL-033.
The issue relates to the placing on the market of interoperability
coinstituents and their assessment of conformity and NoBo
involvement with respect to the requirements of the HS INS TSI
(revised).
NoBo, Suppliers
Interpretation of requirements of HS INS TSI (revised) as set out in
supporting document.
Yes
Issue resolved.
Closed
Interoperability
GB mainline & HS1
constituent,
conformity
assessment, Notified
Body, CE marking
Contracting Entity, OEM,
NoBo
RSSB, Paul Gray
The new Interoperability
Directive 2008/57/EC,
published in June 2008,
replaces the High Speed
Interoperability Directive
(96/48/EC) and the
Conventional Rail
Interoperability Directive
(2001/16/EC). It is required
to be transposed into UK
law ‘not later than 19 July
2010’.
The current UK regulations,
the Railways
(Interoperability)
Regulations 2006 (Statutory
Instrument 2006 No. 397)
have transposed directives
96/48/EC [for high speed]
and 2001/16/EC [for
conventional rail].
The Conventional Rail
Infrastructure TSI is not yet
published, so the
requirements for Vignole
rails would need to be met
3
22/10/2015
Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for High Speed and Conventional Rail TSIs
Updated: October 2015
Issue ref.
number
TAIL - 035
Date added
16/02/2010
TSI reference
TSI clause
Persons of Reduced 4.1.2.19
Mobility TSI, OJEU
Reference
2008/164/EC
Type of issue
Ambiguity in TSI requirement
Key words
Platform widths
Scope
GB mainline & HS1
Explanation
Clause 4.1.2.19 states:
It is permitted for the width of the platform to be variable on the
whole length of the platform. The minimum width of the platform
without obstacles shall be the greater of either:
Organisations involved
/ affected
Contracting Entity, OEM,
NoBo
Proposed resolution
The "acceptable length of the platform end taper" needs to be
defined.
Industry lead
contact
RSSB, Bridget
Eickhoff
Supporting
document?
Progress to date
No formal progress.
Issue status Agreed solution to issue
Open
Define the length of the
taper at platform ends
Closed
This issue has been
partially addressed by GB
specific case 7.4.2.9.5
'Conformity assessment of
OCL as component' in the
combined ENE TSI for the
UK (Commission
Regulation (EU) No
1301/2014 of 18
November 2014
The length of the 'taper at
the platform ends' remains
undefined.
- the width of the danger area plus the width of two opposing
freeways of 800mm (1600mm) or;
09/2015: Waiting for ERA
to address the issue - so
issue remains open.
For a single side platform 2500mm, or for an island platform
3300mm (this dimension may taper to 2500mm at the platform
ends).
The issue is that the length of the taper at the platform ends is not
defined. Taking this requirement to the extreme, a platform could
be 3300mm at one point only and then taper throughout its length
down to 2500mm and be fully compliant with the TSI. I would have
thought that this is not in the spirit of the intention of the TSI.
TAIL-036
08/08/2013
CR Energy TSI
(Overhead line
assessment)
Decision
2011/291/EU with
TSI (as Annex)
Clause 6.1.4.1 in
Economic achievability
both the CR ENE TSI
and draft combined
ENE TSI.
Electrification,
Conformity
assessment, NoBo,
Interoperability
constituient,
GB mainline
UK project entities using the Conventional Rail Energy TSI
2011/274/EU cannot comply with the requirements to dynamically
test new 25kV AC overhead line. Identical testing requirements are
replicated in the revised and merged TSI.
The paper sets out why the UK Member State should raise a critical
error in the revised TSI at RISC before the TSI is offered for vote .
Contracting Entity, OEM,
NoBo, ORR
The TSI should permit an alternative method of dynamic testing to
be used where an IC certified pantograph or test track with TSI
compliant overhead contact line is not available. National rules for
dynamic testing of new overhead contact line should be permitted
to be used where the design uses specific cases.
Paul Hooper, ORR
David Knights, RSSB
Issue raised with ERA with
regard to revised TSI. An
attempt made to resolve
the point, but not agreed
with other stakeholders.
TSI with commission
without any changes.
Draft combined ENE
TSI
Refer to the TSI Application
Issues Log, applicable from
January 2015, for updates
on this issue.
NTR has been published
GL/RT1210 (clause 3.9) to
describe the process to be
adopted under the specific
case referred to above.
TAIL-037
01/10/2013
CR INF TSI
(2011/275/EU)
4.2.7.2.2 - Magnetic Conformity with TSI
track brake load
Comformance,
GB mainline
Placing into service
Three specific issues have been identified by a project applying the Contracting Entity, OEM,
CR INF TSI.
NoBo, ORR, NR
The issues represent elements of the infrastructure subsystem
where evidence of conformance will need to be supplied to support
authorisation for placing into service in accordance with the Railway
Interoperability Regulations 2011. The issues are not limited to one
project and may affect other project entities seeking authorisation
for other parts of the UK rail network in the future.
Magnetic track brake load
Section 4.2.7.2.2 of the Infrastructure TSI states:
“1) Track shall be designed to be compatible with the use of
magnetic track brakes for emergency braking.”
Following cross-industry discussions it is noted that:1) the CR
RSSB, Bridget
LOC&PAS TSI Clause 4.2.4.5.1 gives a maximum deceleration rate of Eickhoff
2.5m/s2 including the use of 'the brake independent of wheel-rail
adhesion' and states that 'this requirement is linked to the
longitudinal resistance of the track';2) this is believed to be
consistent with existing vehicles which use Magnetic track brakes
(including Tyne & Wear Metro).
It is therefore suggested that the 2.5m/s2 can be used to derive a
suitable design longitudinal load for the track structure which is the
key issue.
Proposed resolution will be
followed and conclusions
reported.
Open
A proposed solution has
been given but there is no
evidence that projects are
using the work around.
09/2015: For ISCC - is there
any information from
projects that work around
has been used and if so, is
helpful. Until evidence is
shown - issue remains
open.
Any other potential risks identified may need to be mitigated,
perhaps by reference to an existing system.
No further guidance is provided in the TSI or the supporting
application guide as to how to satisfy this requirement e.g. reference
standards or limiting factors. Furthermore currently no UK mainline
rolling stock utilises magnetic track brakes. Therefore infrastructure
managers have not had to consider the implications of their
application on existing or novel track forms (this is with the
exception of the Tyne and Wear Metro operation on Network Railcontrolled Infrastructure between Pelaw Junction to South Hylton
which were authorised under the superseded ROTS process).
A review of draft 5.0 of the Infrastructure TSI of 16th May 2013
confirms that the requirement for compatibility with magnetic track
brakes will be retained in future versions of the Infrastructure TSI
and therefore remain a requirement for authorisation (see Section
4.2.6.2.2 of the draft TSI). It should be noted that (i) informal
4
22/10/2015
Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for High Speed and Conventional Rail TSIs
Updated: October 2015
Issue ref.
number
TAIL-038
Date added
01/10/2013
TSI reference
CR INF TSI
(2011/275/EU)
TSI clause
4.2.5.5.2 - 2.2
Requirements for
the controlling
equivalent conicity
in service
Type of issue
Conformity with TSI
Key words
Scope
Comformance,
GB mainline
Placing into service
Explanation
This relates to TAIL-037.
Requirements for controlling equivalent conicity in service
Section 4.2.5.5.2 of the Infrastructure TSI states:
“(1) Requirements for controlling equivalent conicity in service are
an open point.”
Organisations involved
/ affected
Contracting Entity, OEM,
NoBo, ORR, NR
The UK has notified standard GC/RT5021 Issue 5 and equivalent
conicity is dealt with in Appendix D. Appendix D states the
following:
Proposed resolution
Industry lead
contact
Supporting
document?
A review of Draft 5.0 of the revised Infrastructure TSI confirms that RSSB, Bridget
the Open Point has been removed and further information is
Eickhoff
provided in relation to limit values for maintaining equivalent
conicity in service. Clause 4.2.11.2 gives actions to be taken 'if ride
instability is reported' whilst Annex B, Table 32 shows this item as
'n.a.' and therefore not needing assessment by a NoBo or DeBo. The
issue should therefore be resolved with the update of the TSI.
GC/RT5021 Iss 5
GI/GN7608 Clauses G 8.1.1 and G,.8.1.2 states
RSSB, Bridget
'G 8.1.1 The CR INF TSI and HS INF TSI refer to the RST TSI limits on Eickhoff
the maximum dynamic wheel forces for defined test conditions and
state that the resistance of the track to applied loads shall be
consistent with these values. The load limits in the RST TSI refer to
specific test conditions which are not the most extreme that can
exist for either the vehicle or the track and therefore the actual
loads experienced by some track sections may be higher. The rolling
stock values should therefore not be taken as design values for the
track. A suitable margin is required.
G 8.1.2 The general practice for the design of track resistance to
loads is to make reference to existing designs which have been
demonstrated to provide satisfactory performance in similar service
conditions. It is not normal practice to assess the track structure
from first principles.'
GI/GN7608 Iss 1
Progress to date
Proposed resolution will be
followed and conclusions
reported.
Issue status Agreed solution to issue
Open
09/2015: Projects can use
the clause from the INF TSI
to close the open point or
declare if they are doing
something different. There
is no evidence as to what
projects are doing - so
issue remains open.
”D.2 In-service rail head profile
D.2.1 The requirement for in-service rail head profile (set out in
section 3.2.5) has not yet been developed and is an open point.
D.2.2 Pending the development of this measure, industry practice
has been to manage the in-service shape of the rail head profile to
mitigate specific problems (for example lipping).
D.2.3 If ride instability is reported on a track for rolling stock having
wheelsets meeting the requirements of GM/RT2466, industry
practice has been to conduct a joint investigation by the railway
undertaking and the infrastructure manager to determine the
reason.
D.2.4 This is an explicit open point in the Conventional Rail
Infrastructure Technical Specification for Interoperability (CR INF
TSI)."
This is not a clear requirement that can be assessed by a DeBo.
TAIL-039
01/10/2013
CR INF TSI
(2011/275/EU)
4.2.7.3(1)(a) - 2.3
Lateral track
resistance
Conformity with TSI
Comformance,
GB mainline
Placing into service
This relates to TAIL-037.
Contracting Entity, OEM,
NoBo, ORR, NR
Section 4.2.7.3(1)(a) of the Infrastructure TSI states that for all
categories of line:
“(1) The track, including switches and crossings, shall be designed to
withstand at least:
(a) the maximum total dynamic lateral force exerted by a wheelset
on the track. The HS and CR rolling stock TSIs define a limit on the
lateral forces excerted by a wheel set on the track. The lateral
resistance of the track shall be consistent with these values,”
The referenced LOC and PAS TSI subsequently refers out to standard
EN14363:2005 “Railway applications. Testing for the acceptance of
running characteristics of railway vehicles. Testing of running
behaviour and stationary tests”. Whilst this standard contains a
number of track resistance criteria, it does not appear to provide any
requirements in relation to the maximum total dynamic lateral
force. Therefore in a similar manner to the issues described above,
there does not appear to be a recognised route to conformance
available to project entities trying to design and authorise
infrastructure subsystems into service.
Proposed resolution will be
followed and conclusions
reported.
Open
As at 09/2015: No evidence
that projects are using the
proposed solution - so
issue remains open.
ISCC - enquire from NR,
NoBo, ORR what work
arounds have been used
and if RSSB's proposed
solution has been
successful.
The revised INF TSI Clause 6.2.5.1 states:
'ASSESSMENT OF TRACK RESISTANCE FOR PLAIN LINE
(1) The demonstration of conformity of the track to the
requirements of clause 4.2.6 may be done by reference to an
existing track design which meets the operating conditions intended
for the subsystem concerned.
It is suggested that track designs using standard industry load cases
are therefore likely to meet the requirements unless there are very
specific circumstances to consider.
TAIL-040
5
14/03/2014
CR INF TSI
(2011/275/EU)
4.2.9.2 The
Conformity with TSI
immediate action
limit for track twist
4.2.9.3 The
immediate action
limit for variation of
track gauge
4.2.9.4 The
immediate action
limit for cant
4.5.1 Before placing
a line in service (1)
A maintenance file
shall be prepared
setting out at least:
(a) a set of values
for immediate
action limits, (b) the
measures taken
(speed restriction,
repair time) when
prescribed values
are exceeded, ...
Comformance,
GB mainline
Placing into service
The 'immediate action limits' specified in Clauses 4.2.9.2, 4.2.9.3 and Contracting Entity, OEM,
4.2.9.4 may appear to have different values from some of the
NoBo, ORR, NR
requirements in national rules such as GC/RT5021 Track System
Requirements.
For example Clause 4.2.9.2 gives a general immediate action limit
for twist of 7mm/m, which is equivalent to 1 in 143, over the 3m
base used in GC/RT5021.
GC/RT5021 Clause 2.11.2.1 states 'When twist faults are discovered
they shall be repaired within a timescale commensurate with the
risk of derailment which in any case shall not be less stringent that
the timescales set out in Table 2.' Table 2 specifies minimum actions
depending on the level of twist fault discovered.
The action required, according to this table for a 1 in 143 fault is
'Radius < 400m: Correct fault within 1 week of discovery; Radius ≥
400m: Correct fault within two weeks of discovery'.
The action 'Stop all traffic immediately and correct fault' is only
required if a twist of 1 in 90 (or worse) is discovered.
It is not clear to what extent the RGS requirements accord with the
TSI.
The definition of 'immediate action limit' in Annex G , Glossary,
RSSB, Bridget
states 'The value which, if exceeded, requires taking measures to
Eickhoff
reduce the risk of derailment to an acceptable level.'
A slightly longer definition is given in EN13848:5 (2008) Section 7:
'Immediate Action Limit (IAL): refers to the value which, if exceeded,
requires taking measures to reduce the risk of derailment to an
acceptable level. This can be done either by closing the line,
reducing speed or by correction of track geometry'.
It should therefore be understood that if the 'immediate action limit'
is reached the action required is to 'reduce the risk of derailment to
an acceptable level' and that an appropriate time interval should be
specified for this action. Where time intervals are specified, for
example in GC/RT5021, these could be appropriate to meet the TSI
requirements.
This clarification will be added to GI/GN7608 'Guidance on the
Conventional Rail and High Speed Infrastructure Technical
Specifications for Interoperability' at the next revision.
Issue resolved by revising
Guidance for INF TSI.
Closed
As at 09/15: Guidance for
the INF TSI is currently
being drafted and is
proposed for publication in
2016.
22/10/2015
Technical Specification for Interoperability - Application Issues Log for High Speed and Conventional Rail TSIs
Updated: October 2015
Issue ref.
number
TAIL-041
TAIL-042
TAIL-043
TAIL-044
6
Date added
12/06/2014
03/09/2014
27/11/2014
02/12/2014
TSI reference
CR INF TSI
(2011/275/EU)
CR INF TSI
(2011/275/EU)
CR INF TSI
(2011/275/EU)
ENE TSI, LOC&PAS
TSI (and possibly
others)
TSI clause
Type of issue
4.2.6.2 In-service
Conformity with TSI
geometry of
switches and
crossings
(2) (a) Maximum
value of free wheel
passage in switches
1380mm.
This value can be
increased if the
infrastructure
manager
demonstrates that
the actuation and
locking system of
the switch is able to
resist the lateral
impact from a
wheelset.
4.2.6.2 In-service
Conformity with TSI
geometry of
switches and
crossings
4.2.7.3 Resistance of Ambiguity in TSI requirement
new structures over
or adjacent to tracks
Chapter 6,
Interoperability
constituents
Conflict with other rule
Key words
Scope
Free wheel passage, GB mainline
S&C,
Switches
Track gauge,
S&C,
Switches
Aerodynamics,
Track
Interoperability
constituents
GB mainline
GB mainline
GB mainline
Explanation
Organisations involved
/ affected
Proposed resolution
Industry lead
contact
Supporting
document?
Network Rail CEN 56 S&C designs have a freewheel passage of 1432- Contracting Entity, NoBo,
50=1382, which is in excess of the maximum permitted in the TSI
ORR, NR
(including the revised draft) of 1380. It is therefore necessary to
understand how to demonstrate ‘that the actuation and locking
system of the switch is able to resist the lateral impact forces of a
wheelset’
It is suggested that the required demonstration can be achieved by RSSB, Bridget
reference to experience with existing S&C design / installation which Eickhoff
meets the operating conditions intended for the subsystem
concerned (ie use of a reference system)
Network Rail CEN 56 S&C designs have a nominal track gauge of
1432 mm and there is concern that this is inconsistent with the
required nominal track gauge of 1435mm.
Network Rail CEN 56 S&C designs comply with the required
dimensions given in clause 4.2.6.2 and the associated GB Specific
Case in 7.6.12.5. The nominal track gauge requirement is not
relevant for S&C as the required dimensions in clause 4.2.6.2 are
sufficient.
RSSB, Bridget
Eickhoff
Clause 4.2.7.3 should be revised to clarify the intent as the TSI refers Contracting Entity, NoBo,
to clauses 6.6.2 to 6.6.6 of EN 1991-2:2003. This is unnecessary and ORR, NR
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:
(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.
Existing text of clause 4.2.7.3
'Aerodynamic actions from passing trains shall be taken into
account as set out in EN 1991-2:2003/AC:2010 paragraphs 6.6.2 to
6.6.6 inclusive '
RSSB, Bridget
Eickhoff
It is not possible to certify an interoperability constituent that
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
requires the use of specific case. The problem applies to at least the ORR, NR
following "overhead contact line", "Pantograph", "wheelset" and
possibly other elements.
The resolution will require the ERA to change the rules applicable to RSSB, David Knights See the TSI
interoperability constituent that requires the use of specific case.
Application issues
log for the relevant
documents
Contracting Entity, NoBo,
ORR, NR
Progress to date
Proposed resolution will be
followed and conclusions
reported.
Issue status Agreed solution to issue
Open
As at 09/2015: Proposed
solution provided but no
evidence work around is
being used or if so,
succsssful - so issue will
remain open.
Proposed resolution will be
followed and conclusions
reported.
Open
As at 09/2015: Specific
Case does not address the
nominal gauge, however
not aware if this is still an
issue - so remains open.
ISCC - NR may be able to
give some clarity on this
issue.
Proposed resolution will be
followed and conclusions
reported.
Open
Clause 4.2.7.3 remains
unchanged as this issue
was raised in 11/2014
when the new INF TSI had
already been developed
and was in the process of
being published.
Clause 4.2.7.3 will be
revised when the INF TSI is
next under revision. This
issue has been transferred
to the log for TSIs
applicable from 2015.
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.
Closed
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.
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'.
22/10/2015