ERA EMC Study

1. ERA EMC Study Phil Bebbington Head of T & RS Systems

2. Legislation 28 Member Countries In the European Rail Area “Competence” for transport policy is shared between European Union and member states – shifting toward EU Concern in EU about fall in rail market share prompting drive for commonality.

3. To The ultimate goal of one common commercially acceptable vision of a trans European Railway Compatibility in Railways: Since July 2010 all vehicle authorisations are required to conform to the Interoperability Directive.” It does not tell you how to get from a system • which exists • has many millions of man years cumulative experience and tradition • has components that are expected to last at least another 30 years But it does allow for a transition

4. EMC Standards The essential requirements mandate ‘compatibility’ between all parts of the railway. Electromagnetic compatibility is implied for both safety and operational aspects However Only two applicable European Norm EMC Standards exist Standard EN 50121:2006 has five parts and although mentioning that they should be considered it largely ignores low frequency effects Standard EN50238:2004 currently has only 1 part the other two parts will be issued as technical addenda rather than full standards Neither cover the whole spectrum and both are still open to ‘interpretation’ with no clear definitions of ‘compatibility’

5. Compatibility in Railways: The project • This project aimed to determine the starting point for Electromagnetic Compatibility in railways • Who determines EMC • What current standards are being applied • How they are implemented • What other considerations affect the acceptance

6. European Directive Electrical/electronic equipment must be constructed to ensure: ‘the EM disturbance it generates does not exceed a level allowing radio and telecommunications equipment and other apparatus to operate as intended’, ‘it has a level of intrinsic immunity which is adequate to enable it to operate as intended’ ‘Has been designed and constructed with regard to the state of the art’ When it is – Properly installed and maintained, and Used for the purpose for which it was intended

7. Physical Agents Directive Physical Agents Directive 2004/40/EC-Electromagnetic Fields & Human Health This should have been implemented in UK Law by April 2008.Not yet in force due to considerations of NMR workers. Currently due in 2012 Intent adds another consideration to EMC as railways have sources of both high voltage and current in close proximity to humans

8. Study to collect and document rules, processes and procedures to verify the Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) of railway vehicles in Member States of the European Rail Area Identify the (different) levels of compliance required for various equipment types e.g. signalling, rolling stock, trackside interfaces etc. Identify test procedures and limits. Clarify and document the process for the demonstration of compliance in each of the countries. Identify the appropriate authorities concerned with EMC compliance and their roles and responsibilities. Estimate the timescales and budget costs involved in EMC compliance. This included both documentation requirements and testing/trial costs. Remit

9. Understand the drivers : Technical Perception Commercial Imperative to get widest acceptance (Cross acceptance) because market for train equipment is small. Must be driven by available technology: it can’t drive the technology COTS equipment in an EXISTING railway environment. Standards equivalence……….the devil is in the detail System Issues CE+CE=CE????

10. Understand the drivers : Information Quality Different Organisations need different degrees of detail. Commercial confidentiality for proprietary Information Burden of Proof can be open ended where no standards exist Peer Review, Mutual Recognition and Verification for non-testable situations Definitions open to interpretation e.g. Part B safety certificate The safety certificate shall comprise:…………and certification confirming acceptance of the provisions adopted by the railway undertaking to meet specific requirements necessary for the safe operation of the relevant network. The requirements may include application of TSIs and national safety rules…………….The certification shall be based on documentation submitted by the railway undertaking …………… The following documents must be submitted to enable the safety authority to deliver the network-specific part of the safety certificate…………………………. — documentation from the railway undertaking on the different types of rolling stock used for the operation, including evidence that they meet requirements of TSIs or national rules and have been duly certified.

11. Understand the drivers : Safety It is almost impossible to divorce technical compatibility from safety National attitudes and to safety vary widely. Penalties in law make everyone err on the side of caution How safe is safe? Lowest Common Denominator Highest Possible Principle

12. Assume that the highest level methods used by the individual countries are in accord with the directives Each party was initially contacted via a tree-branch questionnaire that tried to avoid yes/no answers Assumption: Each of the parties involved had roles and responsibilities defined by the procedures and had or would create processes to fulfil the responsibilities in terms of compliance demonstration to the rules. Initial Approach Top Down Less prone to get bogged down in the detail

13. Initial Approach Define Role The activity of an organisation or individual with a responsibility towards compliance demonstration Procedure The formal interaction required between Infrastructure Managers, Railway Undertakings and Safety Authorities. It may include mandatory and non-mandatory parts. Process The methods used within each separate organisation that are used in compliance demonstration. It may include mandatory and non-mandatory methods. Rule The criterion whereby a compliance demonstration is assessed. Again this may include mandatory and non-mandatory components.

14. Initial Approach The ends of each question branch were always aimed at being a rule which may be applied. It was envisaged that rules may well be different for safety and for operational conformity. e.g. a non-moving train may be safe but does not serve any purpose

15. The Desired Result

16. Implementation Multilingual Used commonly available software Mixed answer formats Branching structure Simple questions: Machine translation augmented by local office native speakers MS Office ,Email or Web based Not a simple, fixed, structure: needs question trees that react to answer types Only those branches which are actively needed are created. Developed in MS Excel

17. Questionnaire Flow

18. Concept

19. Concept

20. Concept

21. Concept

22. Concept

23. Concept

24. Modified Approach • Top Down approach had limitations: • NSA recently set up in 2009. • NSA divorced from actual compatibility assessment process. • NSA often didn’t have relevant EMC experts “on tap”. • Result: Information from questionairres and follow-up clarification requests was not enough… • Thus, combined approach: Top Down AND Bottom Up • Convocation of NSA and EMC experts held. • Interviews with NSA and EMC experts held to gain both sides of “story”. • Result: • Marriage of information from many sources at once. • Much more complete set of information obtained. • Resolution of “gaps” between sides was sometimes necessary.

25. Approach • Top Down approach had limitations: • NSA recently set up in 2009. • NSA divorced from actual compatibility assessment process. • NSA often didn’t have relevant EMC experts “on tap”. Result: Information from questionairres and follow-up clarification requests was not enough… • Thus, combined approach: Top Down AND Bottom Up • Convocation of NSA and EMC experts held. • Structured Interviews with NSA and EMC experts held around graphical interface representations to gain both sides of “story”. • Result: • Marriage of information from many sources at once. • Much more complete set of information obtained. • Resolution of “gaps” between sides was sometimes necessary.

26. For more information, please contact: Lloyd’s Register Rail Preston Technology Centre Marsh Lane Preston PR1 8UQ T+44 (0)1772 272719F+44 (0)1772 888673Ephil.bebbington@lr.org