EMC requirements in the Control Command and Signalling TSI

EMC Dissemination ConferenceLille, 14 December 2010

Overview

RISC December2010 2

Work methodology (CCS TSI)Deliverables of the CCS revisionMain modifications in the CCS TSIAnnex AOpen pointsEMC requirementsEconomic Evaluation (Impact assessment)

Work methodology (CCS TSI)

Cooperation with working parties Railway sector organisations, NSAs, Notified Bodies

Small editorial group Collects results of WGs (e.g. EMC WP) on closure of

open points Proposes clarifications and editorial improvements Takes care of coordination with related activities

(other TSIs, Registers)Reaching of consensus CCS WP, where all sector organisations, NSAs, Notified

Bodies coordination are represented

RISC December2010 3

Deliverables of the CCS TSI revision

Draft of CCS TSIReport to the Commission Traceability document

Every change marked in the CCS TSI draft is explained and justified; the possible impact (e.g., product development, certification process, etc.) is indicated

Supported by a draft of CCS TSI with marked revisions with respect to the text currently in force

Interface document (former Annex A Appendix 1)CCS part of the Application Guide

RISC December2010 4

Main modifications in the CCS TSI

Scope A single CCS TSI for HS and CR network ERTMS implementation rules according to the deployment

plan (“old” chapter 7 and already approved amendment)Technical scope HABDs and on-board data recorder are now in the rolling

stock TSIs Clarification on maintenance requirements, distinguishing

what shall be done for the certification of the structural subsystem, and is therefore in the scope of the TSI, and what is outside the scope and in the responsibility of the SMS of the operators

RISC December2010 5

Annex A of the CCS TSI

Mandatory specifications (Annex A) The list has been updated with the new versions of

some specifications approved in the Change Control Management

Interface document is replacing former Appendix 1 to Annex A and is referred in Annex A as Index 77

EMC requirements are a part of the Interface document

RISC December2010 6

Open points

Open points The list of open points in Annex G has been updated

according to Closed open points since the entry in force of the current

CCS TSIs Clarifications in the new CCS TSI

EMC requirements – current situation EMC requirements are open points

Open point means that there is no harmonised solution for EMC requirements

Notified NTRs (National Technical Rules) are applicable to open points

RISC December2010 7

EMC parameters in the Interface document

EMC parameters in the Interface document Electromagnetic fields DC and low frequency components of traction current 25kV AC, 50Hz Electromagnetic interference limits for traction

current 15kV AC, 16,7Hz Electromagnetic interference limits for traction

current 3kV DC Electromagnetic interference limits for traction current 1,5kV DC Electromagnetic interference limits for traction current 750V DC Electromagnetic interference limits for traction current Use of magnetic / eddy current brakes

12/18/2008 Footer 8

EMC requirements – experts’ proposal

For the closure of the EMC open point for different train detection systems a step-wise approach has been chosen Initial work package is dedicated to the elaboration of the

EMC solution for axle counters; proposals for track circuits for different traction systems will follow subsequently

EMC WP experts have proposed already a solution for the frequency management for axle counters

The proposal is complete, but proposed values for emissions in 3 frequency ranges are not validated yet

The Agency would like to include the proposal in the Interface document for voting on the CCS TSI draft proposal in March by RISC, but it depends on results of current efforts

The Agency has also evaluated a possible impact assessment of the frequency management proposal for axle counters

12/18/2008 Footer 9

Economic Evaluation

Closing Open Point related to EMCA positive economic impact is expected from the closure of the

current open point related to the Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) concerning the interface between vehicle and train detection systems.

Up to now, there are no harmonised values for emission / susceptibility and the national rules are quite different, also because of the different types of equipment applied. In the framework of this revision, the open point related to EMC will be partly closed for axle counters.

It is assumed that the applied methodology for the assessment of the impact of a harmonized frequency management for axle counters can be applied for track circuits as well. 12/18/2008 Footer 10

Frequency Management

Frequency Management as a solution proposalIn general, a solution proposal will be specified as a frequency

management. The figure below shows how such frequency management looks like in general for axle counters:

Example of a Frequency Management12/18/2008 Footer 11

Brief analysis of the proposal

In general, there are 4 different design options within the solution proposal for a frequency management.

1. Number of allowed frequency bands for the operation of axle counters. The number of frequency bands may depend on technical/physical principles based on train detection. Figure 1 assumes the possibility of using, after the closure of the open point, two different types of axle counters working in frequency ranges close to 30 and 300 kHz (same technology, but different frequency range) and one type, based on a different technology, working in a range close to 1 MHz

2. Bandwidth of a frequency band

3. Limit upper value for the magnetic field (B) between frequency bands

4. Limit lower value for the magnetic field (B) inside a frequency band.

12/18/2008 Footer 12

Axle counters / Track Circuits

The railway sector proposed a frequency management based on the analysis of the susceptibility of “preferred” axle counters.

The frequency management of traction currents for track circuits has the same shape (other frequency ranges of the frequency bands, the traction current I is measured instead of the emitted magnetic field B).

12/18/2008 Footer 13

Impacted stakeholders

Impacted StakeholdersThis solution proposal impacts the different stakeholders differently:

• Vehicle suppliers due to the fact that the solution proposal may have an impact on the design of new vehicles (locomotives and fixed train formations)

• Suppliers of train detection systems due to the fact that the solution proposal may have an impact on existing and new products.

• Infrastructure Managers due to the fact that the solution proposal requires a trackside migration strategy.

• Railway Undertakings due to the fact that the solution proposal may have an impact on the compatibility of existing (operated) and planned vehicles with train detection systems conform to the solution proposal (for RUs a vehicle based migration strategy is needed as well).

12/18/2008 Footer 14

Possible benefits

Possible Maximum Benefits from the Closure of the Open PointUNIFE estimated 500 additional authorisations in the next 15 years.

So far, costs for EMC testing in the framework of an authorisation are about 200 k€. No additional EMC testing is necessary if this open point is closed. For this reason maximum expected total benefits are 100 Mio € within a timeframe of 15 years or about 7 Mio € / year.

These benefits can only be realised once the open point is closed for all kind of train detection systems and the trackside migration to an interoperable train detection system is completed. In addition harmonized requirements have to be applied for the off-TEN network as well.

12/18/2008 Footer 15

Cost impact

Analysis of the possible cost impactFor the more detailed analysis of the cost impact a questionnaire [9] was

sent out to the railway sector end of July 2009. In the following the possible cost impact is described in a more qualitative way:

Cost impact for vehicle manufacturers during the migration phase:It can be assumed, that most existing vehicles are already partly

compliant to the solution proposal – they are compatible with at least one of the “preferred” axle counters from which the proposed frequency management is derived. In case of a renewal of a non TSI conform axle counter an infrastructure manager will likely replace the axle counter by a TSI compliant axle counter which is already compatible with existing vehicles intended to run on the concerned line.

12/18/2008 Footer 16

Migration to TSI compliant solution

Critical are vehicles not compliant to the solution proposal at all – in this case a vehicle would not be compliant to none of the proposed preferred axle counters. In case of a renewal of a non TSI compliant axle counter, these vehicles cannot operate anymore and need a modification.

There may be an additional negative impact, if existing vehicles would be upgraded or modified and the Member State would demand to apply the provisions of the TSI (related to EMC). In this case it has to be assessed if existing vehicles already meet all requirements of the solution proposal. As a consequence, these vehicles being not completely compliant to the solution proposal need a modification.

12/18/2008 Footer 17

Cost impact for manufacturers

Cost impact for vehicle manufacturers after migration phaseThere might be any positive (or negative) impact expected in vehicle

design/production once only the harmonized TSI requirements have to be met.

Cost impact for manufacturers of train detection systems (axle counters)There might be any positive (or negative or zero) impact expected in

design/production of new axle counters meeting the harmonized TSI requirements.

12/18/2008 Footer 18

Cost impact for IMs and RUs

Cost impact for IMsIn case of renewal/upgrades, Infrastructure Managers may be

negatively or positively or zero impacted by being forced to install TSI compliant axle counters. The impact might be very low due to the fact that the “preferred” axle counters, which should be TSI compliant, were selected by Infrastructure Managers.

Cost impact for RUsExisting vehicles, which are subject to a major modification/upgrade

in the future, likely have to meet all provisions related to EMC concerning axle counters. This may cause a further modification of these vehicles.

Existing vehicles which are not compliant at all to the proposed solution, will need a modification once non TSI compliant axle counters are replaced by axle counters being TSI compliant.

12/18/2008 Footer 19

Feedback from the Questionnaire

Feedback from the QuestionnaireAccording to the questionnaire, feedback was expected until end of

Oktober 2010. Until End of November the following feedback was received and evaluated from: Four vehicle manufacturers (Alstom/DE, Bombardier/FR,

Siemens/DE, Vossloh/DE)Two European manufactures of axle counters (Siemens,

Frauscher), one non-EU manufacturer AltPro located in ZagrebNine main infrastructure managers from AU, CZ, DE, ES, HU, IT,

NL, PL, SKTwo Railway Undertakings from NL and SK

12/18/2008 Footer 20

Reported critical issues

In the following focus will be given on the reported critical issues.The impact to assess if an existing rolling stock design is compliant to

the FM, can range up to 800 k€ per vehicle type and about up to 10 k€ per vehicle. In addition, the impact to make existing vehicles compliant to the FM can range up to 700 k€ per vehicle. The Agency will contact the concerned companies in order to analyse the reasons for this high impact in more detail.

For new rolling stock designs, no negative impact seems to be expected.

Most infrastructure managers reported no major cost impact for the migration to TSI compliant axle counters in their network. Nevertheless they stated that the migration will take at least 20 years.12/18/2008 Footer 21

Axle counters ZP 43E and ZP 43M

DB Netz emphasized that two types of axle counters (ZP 43E and ZP 43M) are not meeting the requirements of the frequency management.A large amount of these types are installed in their network (24.000/5.000). Migration to TSI compliant axle counters is only economically viable in the context of a complete resignalling project covering the exchange of interlockings. For these axle counters, compliancy to TSI cannot be reached in the context of a normal renewal project, where only counting heads are exchanged.

Therefore, the migration in Germany will take a very long time (at least 20-30 years). For the Agency, the economic impact on vehicle side is not clear, if the frequency management would include the limit values of these axle counters. In this context, it has to be considered that anyway all vehicles operating in Germany have to be compatible with these axle counters as long as they are installed in the network. Further evaluation is necessary.12/18/2008 Footer 22

Infrastructure Managers

In addition, a number of infrastructure managers expressed their wish to use specific non compliant axle counters even in case of new or renewal projects (e.g. RFI/BCA 2002 Ducati, SZDC/PZN-01, ZSR/RSR122) and ask for a Specific Case or a modification of the frequency management. For all cases an economic justification was not provided. Nevertheless the amount of concerned axle counters seems to be very low.

Prorail from The Netherlands reported, that most (maybe even all) of their currently installed axle counters are not compliant to the proposed frequency management. They fear a negative impact on rolling stock side once these axle counters are replaced by TSI compliant ones due to the fact that existing rolling stock has to be modified significantly.

12/18/2008 Footer 23

Situation in the Netherlands

This negative impact on vehicle side for The Netherlands was confirmed by the railway operator “NS Reizigers. It reports that 3000 vehicles are concerned and may be modified if the existing axle counters are replaced by TSI compliant axle counters. It has to be verified if the existing trains are not compatible to none of the “preferred” axle counters from which the frequency management was derived.

In addition, it has to be checked if the list of preferred axle counters, from which the frequency management was derived, includes axle counters already in use in the Netherlands. If not, it has to be investigated what kind of effect on train detection side or rolling stock side is expected, if one of the currently used axle counters in The Netherlands is considered in the frequency management as well. 12/18/2008 Footer 24

Manufacturers of axle counters

The European manufactures for axle counters confirmed that all their new products will be compliant to the frequency management. Nevertheless variable product specific costs may slightly increase (depending on type of axle counter – e.g. Frauscher expected additional costs for TSI compliant counting heads of about 1.300 Euro per head – this results in a total negative impact of about 5 Mio Euro for all their European customers in case of renewal of the existing axle counting system)

One non European Manufacturer (Altpro in Zagreb) reported that all their products are currently not meeting the requirements of the frequency management. Currently more than 4.000 axle counters are concerned. These types of axle counters are already installed in some Member States e.g. Serbia, Spain, Portugal, Hungary , and France. Unfortunately Altro did not mention the cost impact for the modification of these axle counters so that they are compliant to the frequency management. In addition no infrastructure manager in the concerned Member States reported a negative impact resulting from the renewal/upgrade of this type of axle counter.

12/18/2008 Footer 25

Economic Evaluation conclusions

Conclusions to be drawn so farDuring the migration phase, the critical cost impact results from vehicles being

not compliant at all with the solution proposal (or in other words not compatible with none of the preferred axle counters). These vehicles will not anymore be able to operate on lines where existing axle counters are replaced by TSI compliant axle counters.

Most existing vehicles are expected to be partly TSI compliant (i.e., compatible with at least one of the “preferred axle counters”). In order to reduce the impact during migration, the Infrastructure Manager should install in case of renewal or upgrade only TSI compliant train detection systems which are also compatible with existing partly TSI compliant vehicles as well.

The analysis of the received impact reported by the railway sector leads to the conclusion that specific provisions related to renewal/upgrade are needed in chapter 7.

12/18/2008 Footer 26

Migration strategy

Considering the situation of Germany, in several cases a non TSI compliant axle counter cannot be renewed by a TSI compliant axle counter in an economically viable way – especially if such renewals would require changes in the interfacing interlocking system.

For this reason, the current draft TSI only mandates the application of the TSI related to train detection systems when respecting the requirements of the TSI does not require unwanted modifications or upgrade of other track-side or on-board systems,

Considering the possible high impact for the conformity assessment of existing vehicles (if they meet the requirements of the frequency management) as well as its modification, it is not recommended to apply the TSI in all cases of a vehicle modification which may change the emission of magnetic fields (renewals or upgrade of some parts of the vehicle).

12/18/2008 Footer 27

Impact assessment

Care should be taken especially where there are modifications of a vehicle, which are not related to any extension of the range of use of the vehicle or not be performed in the framework of an additional authorisation. In such cases the application of the TSI should base on the results of a case by case cost benefit analysis. There may be no direct benefits for the railway undertaking but a high cost risk.

The questionnaire assumed that the proposed limit values have been already validated by the railway sector. But this is not the case and changes in the frequency management may happen after validation of the limit values. This would require an updated impact assessment.

12/18/2008 Footer 28