Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
Lille, 10th and 11th February 2015
1. Adoption of the agenda and approval of the minutes for the meeting on 13&14/01/2015
The agenda is adopted with one additional item (CR1266) and further to remarks/suggestions
from EUG (Email L. Arenas 27/01/15) and UNISIG (Email P. Prieels 26/01/15) the minutes of the
EECT meeting held on 13&14/01/15 are approved with the following modifications, see revision
marks in the embedded file
Minutes_EECT_13011
5_v2revmarks.docx
Regarding the following EUG comments in the L. Arenas’ email:
 Triage Excel file: “the CR rejected have been deleted. This is ok for us for those rejected in the
EECT with the agreement of the group: e.g. CR1116, 1220, etc. However, the CRs that were
rejected unilaterally by ERA, without a discussion in the EECT (in the previous process), should
remain in the list. This is the case of the CRs 1191, 1192 and 1194 how are listed in the table
of December but not in the table embedded in the minutes of January. These CR have to be
added again.”
ERA reply: rejected, because the concerned CRs have just been moved to the tab
Superseded&Rejected CRs Tab. These CR were actually already in the state rejected before
the EECT start up and their state remain as it is as long as no new fact happens (see e.g.
minutes of the EECT 04/11/14 for the CR1191)

BCA Excel sheet:
o Explanation on the Yes in Q4 CR1189 missing
ERA reply: rejected as this was not clearly mentioned during the meeting,
however it is agreed to add the following reason “CR reclassified as
enhancement” in the next version of the Excel sheet
o
CR1014: the answer for Q4 = No was not consolidated. We discussed on Q1 and
Q2 and only indirectly on Q4. So indeed it will be good to delete the analysis of
Q4. We said that we would only analyse Q4 if Q1 or Q2, if one of them was No.
1 / 11
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
We would like to re check this whenever we make the analysis of the whole B3
Q4 CRs in due time
ERA reply: rejected, as the reason for Q4 no is text that was moved from the
original EUG text for Q1/Q2 during the meeting. However, it is agreed to delete
this text in the next version of the Excel sheet.
Regarding the following U comments in the P. Prieels’ email:
 Comment # 1: rejected
 Comment # 14: rejected
 Comment # 17: see corresponding EUG comment on BCA Excel sheet
2. B3 next release – Triage
The following inputs (see embedded files and excerpts from P. Prieels emails below) were
received prior to the meeting, as per various actions allocated to EUG and UNISIG:
EUG homework
CR Problem to
Revocation of
February EECT.docx compare locations_SG20150206.docx
Indication status due to MA repetition.docx
Email P. Prieels 04/02/15 & 08/02/15: U scoring and compatibility assessment of the following
CRs:
CR 1256 “Termination of a communication session due to “error condition”
Criticality: 2
Workload: 1
Impact on TSI specs: 1
Compatiblity: yes
CR 1261 “Problem with the exception to clause 3.5.3.5.2 “
Criticality: 3
Workload: 2
Impact on TSI specs: 2
Compatibility: no (a trackside implementing this CR does not take measures to avoid the onboard terminating the com session due to reception of packet 42) (example of measures that a
trackside could take: do not link the balise group providing the packet 42)
CR “STM max speed transmitted after level transition”
Criticality: 3
Workload: 2
Impact on TSI specs: 2
Compatibility: ? (depends on national system)
New CR “TIU signals filtering”
This new CR has been created by U on 07/02/2015.
2 / 11
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
U scoring and compatibility assessment of this CR is as follows:
Criticality: 3
Workload: 2
Impacts on TSI specs: 2
Compatibility: yes (DC-IF)
a) Review of the list of open actions and pending assessments of CRs
b) Assessment of new CR received
See embedded excel file with the result of the discussions for items a) and b)
Minutes_EECT_triage
_100215_items2a&b_v1.xlsx
c) Project Plan:
On request by U (HW not ready), the CR1021 is moved from the March meeting to the April meeting.
For the CR1238 it is agreed to add an extra day to next EECT meeting dedicated to ATO, in order to
address the not yet covered comments on SUBSET-125 and SUBSET-126.
The Agency also announces that the 6 new CRs (resulting from the RISC bilateral meetings) will be
incorporated in the project plan and the way forward for discussion on their compatibility will be
clarified at short notice by the Agency
Action ERA 06.07 (03/03/15): to clarify the way forward for the discussion on the compatibility of
the 6 new CRs.
3 / 11
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
3. Change Requests - Technical Resolution
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
4 / 11
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
The ERA comments on SUBSET-0125 are reviewed, see embedded file below for details and various actions:
AoE_ERAreview_EEC
T100215.docx
The throughput study tabled by U (see post 30/01/15 in the CR database)) is discussed and shows that for the most
demanding contexts, the CS communications would not be suitable. EUG clarifies that in their view the ATO should
only use PS communications. Even with PS communications, it has however not yet been made clear how and what
entity would be the most suitable to manage the priority handling between ETCS and ATO communication flows. In
the case the RBC/EVC PS communication session would be used, for instance there would be no means to handle
this priority through the PS network, since the same APN is used. Considering the above and on EUG request, the
following is decided by ERA:
1238
Automatic Train Operation
over ETCS



The ATO functionality shall only use PS communications
The ATO data shall not re-use the same (RBC/EVC) communication session as ETCS, i.e. there will be no
involvement of the RBC.
The ATO PS communication session shall be supported via an APN different from the ETCS APN
Regarding the last point, it is however still to be clarified whether the ATO communication should use one the MTs
interfaced to the ETCS on-board via the FFFIS euroradio A11T6001 or via a separate MT directly interfaced to the
ATO OB. If the first option is chosen and the ETCS OB is involved, the EoG representatives advises that the
euroradio stack should be re-used as such, in particular because it includes the key management that grants the
authentication function. If the second option is chosen, then the choice of the communication stack between ATO
OB and ATO TS would be more open and according to the Agency would anyway not be covered by the ETCS
specifications.
Action 06.14 EUG (03/03/15) to select one single preferred solution (i.e. requesting both is not an option) for the
ATO communication: either a link between ETCS OBU and the ATO-TS or a direct link between ATO-OB and the
ATO-TS
5 / 11
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
The EUG paper "EDOR for other applications v4" is acknowledged and only a few U comments on the content were
expressed, one of which was a question on the use of CCTV as possible application: EUG replies that it is just an
example.
The ERA paper on trackside orders (see embedded file below) is briefly introduced, stressing the fact that the only
requirement to be always fulfilled by the on-board is to be capable to manage two ETCS communication sessions at
the same time, which means that for a given radio network only one MT needs to be pre-empted for PS
communication sessions and that therefore there seems to be no reason to delay the PDP context activation after
the network registration and its subsequent GPRS attach.
0741
Packet data transmission for
ETCS
ERA action no trk
orderv3.docx
EoG representatives however explain that they are still investigating if the GPRS attach can be done by the MT
itself immediately after the network registration, or whether the MT would need a command from the OBU. The
Agency replies that if it was necessary to specify a polling function in the ETCS on-board for the GPRS attach (and
the PDP context activation too), this should not pose any problem.
Action 06.15 EUG/U (03/03/15) to review the ERA paper on the need for trackside orders, slightly improved to
better explain the decision boxes in the flowcharts, also in the light of the 11E017-2A principles document updated
30/01/15.
Post meeting note: an updated version as requested of the ERA paper has been circulated on 13/02/15 and will be
posted in the database.
6 / 11
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
The way forward for these two CRs is introduced by the Agency, which presents the arguments why the CR 1078
should be superseded by CR 1187. The technical solution, based on the CR1187 item2 is also presented and in
particular it is explained that its purpose is to fulfill at all times the following principles:
1078&
1187
Display of indication marker &
Indication marker
inconsistency



The indication marker shows the remaining distance to first location where the indication status can be
triggered. Depending on the content of the list of supervised targets and the distance scale selected on the
planning info, it is possible that no indication marker is displayed.
When the indication marker disappears from the planning info (i.e. it reaches its bottom), the “yellow” part of
the CSG immediately appears on the B area
As long as the on-board is in “indication status”, no indication marker is displayed on the planning info.
Action 06.16 EUG/U (03/03/15) to review the ERA proposal 04/02/15
1084
Target speed masking
The position expressed by the EUG (04/02/15) is acknowledged. However, considering the considerable time
already spent on this CR and the fact that the ERA solution is now fit for purpose, it is decided to not invest any
additional effort to seek a technical solution according to the preferred EUG approach until the new CR1249 on preindication is addressed.
7 / 11
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
According to U, the updated solution proposal posted by ERA on 04/02/15 does not cover the following scenario:
1. Onboard in SB receives LTO that is 1m in advance of the estimated position of the train – the condition for
LTO ‘executed immediately’ is not fulfilled, so no request for ack will be displayed.
2. The Train rolls forward and the estimated position passes the border. The level changes. The condition for
LTO ‘not executed immediately’ is fulfilled, but this row is not applicable to SB mode.
1129
DMI indication of level
announcement in SB
Therefore, the level could change in SB without any request for driver acknowledgement. Although such
occurrences might be rare, U doesn’t think this onboard behaviour would be acceptable.
To cover this case, it is agreed to give up the split of the line “ackn of level transition” in table 4.7.2 and to adopt the
following solution:
Add new clause 5.10.4.1.2 in Subset-026 v3.4.0 to read: “Exception to 5.10.4.1.a): in SB mode, the driver shall be
requested to acknowledge the level transition only when the level changes.”
8 / 11
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
CR
HEADLINE
DISCUSSION/DECISION
The outcome of the EUG homework (see entry 04/02/15) is reviewed.
For the case of a level transition announcement from NTC to ETCS stored on-board and the NTC override button is
depressed, the Agency stresses that showing both ETCS and National override statuses contradicts what EUG has
defended until now. EUG explains that in Austria and Germany the current PZB operating rule allows the driver to
accelerate after passing the signal. If the ETCS override status icon would not be shown then on passing the level
transition border, the driver might be caught by override ceiling speed supervision.
EUG confirms that they are fully aware that this double indication will not happen in case there is no level transition
announcement.
1245
Display of ETCS override in
level NTC
The Agency also remarks that the note (6) in the EUG document, for what concerns the selection of the ETCS
override button and the display of the NTC override status, is incomplete: it is also necessary that the STM
implements the processing of the STM packet-7 (“override status”). This is also illustrated by a survey provided by
the STM WG (see email embedded below) showing that only half of the STM do process the packet 7. As a result,
the note (6) needs to be replaced with a new note (7) in the concerned rows, adding the above mentioned
supplementary condition.
For case b), U asks if the condition to display ETCS override symbol applies only if the level transition
announcement is stored when override is activated, or if it is also to be displayed if a level transition announcement
is received after override has been activated. EUG could not answer this.
Action 06.20 EUG (ASAP) to check the intended onboard behaviour for case b)
Action 06.17 ERA (ASAP) to update the EUG case study as described above
Action 06.18 U (03/03/15) to derive a solution proposal according to the updated document as per action 06.10
9 / 11
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
4. BCA
The review of all the CRs listed in the tab “B3.1 definition” is completed, see embedded file
below.
BCA_CR release
2015_EECT110215.xlsx
5.
Any Other Business
CR933: although it was not at the agenda, the counter proposal posted by ERA (04/02/15) and
already amended by U (07/02/15) is discussed. U informs that according to them, there is still a
check to be made for what concerns the deletion of the RBC transition order. The CR is therefore
re-assigned to U.
Action 06.19 U (26/02/15): To check the solution proposal 07/02/15
10 / 11
Minutes of Meeting
EECT #06 for the B3 next release
Attendance list
NAME
Olivier GEMINE
Alain HOUGARDY
Oscar REBOLLO BRAVO
Robert DIJKMAN
Laura ARENAS
Aidan Mc GRADY (day 1 only)
Alfonso LORENZO (day 2 only)
Ron BAILES
Pierre LAMBERT (day 1 only)
Philippe PRIEELS
Marta PORRO
Craig Mc LELLAN
Benoît BIENFAIT (day 1 only)
ORGANISATIO
ERA
N
ERA
ERA
EIM / ERTMS U.G.
EIM / ERTMS U.G.
EIM / ERTMS U.G.
EIM / ERTMS U.G.
CER
UNIFE/UNISIG
UNIFE/UNISIG
UNIFE/UNISIG
UNIFE/UNISIG
UNIFE/UNISIG
E-MAIL ADDRESS
11livier.gemine@era.europa.eu
alain.hougardy@ era.europa.eu
oscar.rebollo@ era.europa.eu
rdijkman@ertms.be
larenas@ertms.be
amcgrady@ertms.be
alfonso.lorenzo@ineco.es
ron.bailes@atoc.org
pierre.lambert@transport.alstom.com
philippe.prieels@transport.alstom.com
mporro@cafsignalling.com
craig.mclellan@siemens.com
Benoit.bienfait@transport.alstom.com
11 / 11