ERTMS Testing UNIFE Presentation 110329 v2

ERTMS Testing – an industry view

ERA Conference, Lille, 29 March 2011

David Gillan, General Manager, UNISIG

Emmanuel Brutin, Senior Public Affairs Manager, UNIFE

Two ERTMS paradoxes

Some observations on testing

The testing process

What is testing not about

A contribution to the solution

A view of the “Old process”

In conclusion

Presentation outline

2

TWO ERTMS PARADOXES

3

ERTMS Paradox (1)

At a national level, supplier-to-supplier compatibility

has been achieved (on-site testing played a crucial role)

However:

Tests made on a purely national basis, no European

process nor “cross-border” testing;

Hence lack of certainty that ERTMS OBUs can “run on

any line”

Two ERTMS

paradoxes

4

ERTMS Paradox (2)

ERTMS is in operation on 14,000km and 2,600

vehicles, mainly at a national level

More than 37,000km are contracted and it is a de

facto worldwide standard – and proved to be

attractive for railways everywhere in the world!

However:

Cross-border operation is still an issue

Two ERTMS

paradoxes

5

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON

TESTING

6

What is testing NOT about?

It is not about remedying a situation where

trackside and onboard units are running with

different SRS versions

For this an upgrade of equipment is needed! (cf

joint recommendations to simplify ERTMS)

It is not about transferring responsibilities to any

infrastructure manager or railway undertaking

Industry remarks on

testing

7

What is testing about?

In theory, proving that the OBU conforms to the TSI by

passing the Test Specification in Subset -076

However, the ERTMS specifications give some freedom to

implement functionalities. Given this freedom, there is no

100% evidence whether a track side and on-board "fit"

together even when both are compliant with the

specifications

UNISIG has therefore developed Subsets -110, -111 and -

112 which provide for laboratory testing between OBUs and

actual track conditions before going on site

Industry remarks

on testing

8

What is testing (really) all about?

Proving that the OBU is “fit for purpose”

At least that it conforms to the TSI/SRS

At least that it conforms to the different trackside

implementations on the lines over which it is going to

run

Subsets -110, -111 and -112 provide for the

laboratory testing of the actual OBU against the actual

trackside implementation

Remark: historically, with one single supplier or one

single customer, it would have been much easier

Industry remarks

on testing

9

THE TESTING PROCESS

10

Type of testing Reference document Test specification

Testing conformity to the

technical specifications

e.g. Subset 026 (SRS),

Subset 036 (Eurobalise),

etc.

- Public document

- Unique EU document

- Ruled by a Change

Control Process

- Public unique test

specifications (e.g.

Subset 076, Subset 085,

etc.)

Testing conformity to the

operational

specifications on the

lines on which it is going

to run

- In most cases National,

non-public and only

partly complete

-In any case, not

harmonised in Europe

- No European change

control

- Operational test

scenarios to prove that

each operational

requirement is met are in

most cases

existing/public

- No European change

control

The testing

process

11

TODAY

The testing

process

12

ERTMS can deal with such national variations, but the

process is complex and costly

The system is linked together and inter-

dependant

E.g. when an “interoperability constraint” is

exported by one of the trackside installations, it

may prevent all OBUs running on this installation

from being able to run on the other ETCS lines

(examples later)

Therefore “isolated/national actions” not only

cannot solve the problem, they make the situation

worse

The testing

process

13

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOLUTION

14

Cenelec based system delivery process

Installation

Design

Production

Implementation

Operational

Requirements

Technical

Specification

System

Validation

Integration

Installation Factory

Acceptance

Site

Acceptance

Subset 076 etc.

Operational Scenarios

- Migrate all

installations to

2.3.0d/B3

- Complete Subset -

076 for 2.3.0d/B3

- Collection of all

operational

scenarios in EU

database

- Collection of the

test specifications for

the scenarios in EU

database

- European Change

Control Management

for operational

scenarios/tests

Avoidance of

“tailored” or “specific”

functions

In addition, the following

medium to long-term

measures would facilitate

interoperability:

-Harmonisation of

operational rules

- Harmonisation of

engineering rules

- ERA to become a

certification authority

Commission

to take

necessary

measures

Ongoing by

ERA with

stakeholders

-Establishment of EU-

accepted format for

tenders

- ERA/EU involvement

in tenders conformity

checking?

- Scenarios to be first

written and notified in

an identical format by

Infrastructure Managers

- Tests to be first written

and notified in an

identical format

- ERA to manage

database

- To be organised via

the database/ERA

Proposed

solutions

16

Testing conformity to the

technical specifications e.g.

Subset 026 (SRS), Subset

036 (Eurobalise), etc.

Testing conformity to the

operational specifications

on the lines on which it is

going to run

A VIEW OF THE

“OLD PROCESS”

17

A real example of “old process”

• Country A has its version of ETCS (ATCS) and vehicle 001 has it installed on-board and authorised for Country A.

• Country B installs their version of ETCS (BTCS)

• Class 001 on-board needs a software change to be compatible with BTCS.

• This is done and it is authorised for country B

• This makes the Authorisation for Country A’s ATCS invalid!

• Class 001 on-board needs new authorisation for country A.

• This may not be possible if the changes for B make it incompatible with country A or

• If any software changes are required for the new authorisation in A then another new authorisation is required for Country B etc, etc.................... ad infinitum

The “old process” is worse than this because

• ETCS is actually different for each Project

• E.g. 3 x incompatible versions in one country

• Only one MS has published their specific ETCS on-board requirements

• And still their IM has installed a system that does not conform!

• Infrastructure is upgraded from time to time. Any upgrade on one infrastructure route would trigger a new round of on-board authorisations for all vehicles over all infrastructure in Europe.

• No ETCS installation conforms fully to the TSI

• If old processes (design and authorisation tools) continue to be used ETCS interoperability is a logical impossibility

The Solution

• Remove the old processes and rules and implement the directives.

• “Business as usual” will not work.

• Mixing the authorisation regimes (e.g. ETCS so far)is an economic and interoperability disaster

• The directives are the tools designed for managing open systems.

• To ensure Technical Compatibility and economic efficiency they must be used

The solution

So when will it get better? That depends... • On the Railway Operators, Suppliers and their Associations

• By lobbying insisting that MSs, NSAs, IMs and suppliers conform NOW

• And COMPLAINING FORMALLY at national and European level when they don’t. Case law is an essential motivator for Ministries and NSAs.

• Helping us close “open points” like EMC, by providing resources.

• On the Member States and National Safety Authorities

• Implementing the directive according to the common understanding

• “cleaning up” their rules for network-vehicle compatibility-taking them over these rules from the IMs

• On the Infrastructure Managers

• Making transparent the nature of their infrastructure

• Installing and maintaining infrastructure that conforms to the TSIs and national rules

IN CONCLUSION

22

Industry fully agrees with ERA that the “old process” has to be

changed

Unfortunately, such change takes a very long time and involves

a lot of vested interests; it is therefore vital to introduce interim

measures for the short to medium term

Industry welcomes the leadership of ERA and is committed to

participate fully

Industry will propose to the sector a new testing project to be

supported under the upcoming TEN MA 3rd Call

23