Minutes_EECT_080915_v2 - European Union Agency · Web viewRegarding the U and EUG rejected comments, see ERA replies in the Word comments still embedded in the file “Minutes_EECT_090715_v2revmarks.docx”

Minutes of MeetingEECT #13 for the B3 next release


Lille, 08th and 09th September 2015

1. Adoption of the agenda and approval of the minutes for the meetings on 08, 09/07/2015 and on 22/07/2015

The agenda is adopted with one exception: on request by UNISIG, no discussion on the CR1275 will take place, since they want their experts (who are not available) to have a further discussion. ERA replies that the intention was to close the CR even without UNISIG agreement during this meeting, however it is agreed to give the UNISIG expert a last opportunity to express his concern(s) before the CR is closed in the next EECT meeting. To that effect, ERA will propose a date for a phone call ASAP.

The minutes of the EECT meeting # 11 held on 08&09/07/15 are agreed with modifications, see revision marks in the file “Minutes_EECT_090715_v2revmarks.docx” distributed separately.Regarding the U and EUG rejected comments, see ERA replies in the Word comments still embedded in the file “Minutes_EECT_090715_v2revmarks.docx”.

The minutes of the EECT meeting # 12 held on 22/07/15 are agreed with modifications, see revision marks in the file “Minutes_EECT_220715_v2revmarks.docx” distributed separately.Regarding these EECT #12 minutes, UNISIG stresses that a decision about clause 5.2.1.13 of the embedded GPRS principles document has not been implemented by EUG, probably because it was (wrongly) quoted as rejected.

2. B3 next release – Triagea) Review of the list of open actions and pending assessments of CRs

No input was received prior to the meeting for the actions 11.01 & 11.02 allocated to EUG.Item not covered, due to lack of time

b) Assessment of new CR received

Item not covered, due to lack of time

c) Project Plan

On request of EUG it is agreed to discuss the CR 1237 and CR 0741 on 6 th October for the next EECT meeting.

1 / 15


It is also confirmed that the EECT in October will be a three days meeting and the blocked dates for the November meeting are confirmed as a normal EECT meeting.

2 / 15


3. Change Requests - Technical Resolution

CR HEADLINE DISCUSSION/DECISION

299 Version compatibility check

The U comments (01/09/15) on the updated ERA solution proposal 15/07/15 are discussed, see replies tagged “EECT080915” in the Word comments inside the embedded file below.

Action 13.01 ERA (22/09/15): to materialise both in the SRS and in the SUBSET-039 that the on-board supported system versions is not an optional data for the pre-announcement RBC-RBC message

Action 13.02 ERA (22/09/15): to clarify that the trackside only operates one single version (both in Ss-104 clause 4.5.2.1 and in the SUBSET-023 corresponding entry)

0741 Packet data transmission for ETCS

Regarding action 11.03 (To check that there is a harmonized way to reach the DNS in all networks at least in EU):

The U questions/remarks on the ERA input are addressed, see replies tagged “EECT090915” in the Word comments inside the embedded file below:

Action 13.13 UIC (20/10/15): To update EIRENE to introduce the needed requirements to allow the on-boards to set the connection with their home KMC.

Action 13.14 U (20/10/15): To update Subset-037 to introduce the needed requirements to allow the on-boards to set the connection with their home KMC.

3 / 15



U highlights that Subset-037 cannot be finalized as long as the modification of EIRENE SRS and ER FFFIS to support ETCS and KMS are unknown.

Regarding action 11.04 (To clarify the IP architecture and to derive the necessary provisions/ interoperability requirements to enable the IP connection between an on-board located abroad and its home KMC):

The U questions/remarks on the ERA input are addressed, see replies tagged “EECT090915” in the Word comments inside the embedded file below:

Regarding action 12.01 (To analyse if we need to differentiate for the driver the PS service failure from a radio connection failure):

The EUG input reads as a follows (excerpt from A. Mc Grady’s email 01/09/15): “After some discussion CER agreed that they are prepared to accept the use of the existing lost connection icon to control the situation when packet switching fails and circuit switching is still available as the failure of packet switching will be rare in a well-designed network.”

Conclusion: it is agreed that the existing lost connection icon is used also in case of connection failure due to the PS service not set-up.

Regarding action 12.02 (To provide a proposal for the PS disconnection handling (either option 1 or 2)):

The U input (see P. Prieels’ email 18/08/15 below) is discussed.

4 / 15



It is agreed not to harmonise the behaviour of the RBC about how to manage double connections.

Regarding action 12.03 (To update the “ETCS over GPRS principles” with all the agreed comments):

The version 2C was delivered on 04/08/15. UNISIG stresses that a decision about clause 5.2.1.13 has not been implemented by EUG while it should have been, probably because it was (wrongly) quoted as rejected (see also amended minutes EECT#12).

Regarding action 12.04 (to deliver the SUBSET-037) :

The SUBSET-037 Euroradio FIS v3.1.1.G was delivered on 10/08/15 and the outstanding ERA/EUG/USG comments are discussed; see tags “EECT090915” in the review sheets embedded below.

The Euroradio WG replies to the other comments will have to be checked offline by the authors of the comments.

Action 13.03 All (18/09/15): to check and eventually challenge the Euroradio replies to the comments marked as A or R, which were not reviewed during the meeting.

Action 13.04 U (29/09/15): to release a new version of the SUBSET-037 according to the content of the above review sheets and identifying all the modifications due to CR741

Regarding action 12.05 ((to deliver the Euroradio FFFIS)):

5 / 15



The U comments on the A 11 T 6001 Euroradio FFFIS v12.64 r2 are reviewed, see tags “EECT090915” in the review sheet embedded below.

Post meeting note: the above review sheet also contains the replies to the few comments that could not be reviewed during the meeting (filled by UIC and ERA after the meeting).

Action 13.05 All (18/09/15): to check and eventually challenge the UIC replies to the comments marked as A or R, which were not reviewed during the meeting.

Action 13.06 EUG (29/09/15): to release a new version of the FFFIS Euroradio according to the content of the above review sheet and identifying all the modifications due to CR741

1021 Brake command revocation/acknowledgement

issues

The EUG input (01/09/15) is discussed.

In particular EUG re-expresses his concern about the potential safety implications of the principle to release the brakes as soon as the function which triggered the brakes is not active.

The following example illustrates this concern: a train which runs in FS mode with a stored SH mode profile for a further location detects a linking inconsistency (3.16.2.3.1) and applies the service brakes as linking reaction. Before standstill, the train reaches the beginning of the shunting area according the mode profile and triggers the transition from FS to SH mode. Releasing the brakes in this scenario could have safety implications because the reason that triggers the service brakes (i.e. relevant potential restrictive information missed) does not disappear due to this mode change.

Actually EUG recommends that before the solution takes the new direction agreed by CER OPE experts, an exhaustive safety assessment should be carried out to validate it. Since there is no time left to perform such study

6 / 15



for the B3R2, it is therefore agreed to de-scope the CR1021 from the B3R2.

Note: the resolution of CR740 item 2, which was linked to this CR, will be most likely deferred too (to be confirmed when the CR740 will be addressed in the next EECT meeting.

1152 Avoid increase of permitted speed and target distance

The ERA/U comments on the EUG solution proposal covering actions 11.05 & 11.06 are reviewed, see replies tagged “EECT080915” in the Word comments inside the embedded file below.

Action 13.07 ERA (22/09/15): To update the solution proposal according to the content of the above embedded file

1163Train interface – Track

conditions related outputs to be harmonized

EUG already agreed (01/09/15) with the U updated solution proposal 16/07/15.

The ERA comment (02/09/15) is discussed. The term “forward movement of the active cab” has been proposed by U because more understandable by RS experts. Unfortunately this term does not exist in the SRS. A quick brainstorming shows that what is actually meant is just the train orientation, which is currently defined in the SRS in clause 3.6.1.5. In addition, it appears that the term train orientation, which is used also in the SUBSET-034, should have been listed as an entry in SUBSET-023.

It is therefore agreed to use the term “train orientation” both for the SRS and SUBSET-034 proposed modifications and to include an entry in SUBSET-023 explaining the correct definition for train orientation (understandable also for the RS experts).

Action 13.08 U (22/09/15): to update the solution proposal according to the above

1249 (1084, 1107,

Problems with pre-indication EUG presents its intermediate report on the CR 1249 bundle validation (see embedded file below).

7 / 15



1187)

Excerpt from the EUG intermediate report (section 5.2 –Results):” After watching the corresponding videos it was agreed that the operational behaviour of the solution proposal is correct in general. In particular there was agreement on displaying the target speeds in the planning area, the behaviour in situations with several targets and masked targets, the changed indication marker calculation and the falling hook effect.”

However, the EUG report lists three potential issues on the ERA solution that were discussed during the validation meeting held on 27/08/15.

1. Although the overall positive feedback on the current solution proposal, there are mixed feelings among the railways regarding the complete deletion of the pre-indication. Especially the UK operational experts expressed their concerns on the fact that the information given in the planning area is “not conspicuous enough to be relied upon”. Some railways are closer to the UK position, and some did not consider the pre-indication as needed. Therefore the operational experts present at this meeting proposed to add on top of the existing solution proposal a dynamic pre-indication (some time, fixed in the specifications, before the indication) toggled by the driver, which should look like the existing one but would depend on the current train speed. EUG confirms (as stated in the report) that the toggling on/off by the driver should take place in order to meet different operational needs on different lines..Notwithstanding the fact that this proposed toggled pre-indication represents a substantial contradiction of the current solution proposal and its accompanying CRs (“the [mandatory] planning info is not conspicuous enough”), ERA indicates that considering the split of responsibilities between RU and IMs, no such line dependent functionality can rely on a driver data entry. In particular this would open the door to new national rules (possibly even line dependent), while ERA (together with the sector) is striving until now to eradicate the existing ones and to avoid new ones with the overall intent to harmonize also operations with ERTMS.

2. The operational experts recommended displaying only the target speed values on the planning info (i.e. not to show speed increases of the MRSP). ERA acknowledges this recommendation, however considers

8 / 15



preferable to wait for the second part of the validation campaign (simulation runs at Simufer) before drawing any conclusion on this topic.

3. Several railways have problems with the introduction of a configurable indication time. In the validation meeting ÖBB was concerned about the configurable indication time, in case drivers working on trains from different railway undertakings or leasing companies, as they will have to adjust to a different behaviour each time. In addition this indication time makes the engineering of the line difficult since it is difficult to predict the behaviour of the train. And last, the configurable value in the on-board would not meet the operational needs for all scenarios, in the case of a train running on several lines.First of all ERA recalls that the behaviour of a train for what regards its braking distance is always predictable because the relevant braking parameters contributing to this braking distance must be communicated by the RU prior any authorisation to put into service. In relation to item number 1, on the contrary a toggled pre-indication makes somehow the behaviour of the train unpredictable unless it is imposed through a national/line dependent rule. All in all this toggled pre-indication would simply consist of a hidden national value, which cannot see the light because only a compatible release is scheduled.ERA also recalls that the indication time represents only a small contribution to the overall braking distance calculated by the on-board equipment, which depends on many other parameters (nominal emergency braking deceleration values, on-board correction factors, guidance curve , calculation of the lambda, etc...) relying upon the Railway Undertaking itself. For instance, how flat the braking curves are may strongly depend on the way a Railway Undertaking operate his train with regards its brakes maintenance policy. Above all ERA also recalls that the meaning of the indication (unlike the pre-indication whose any harmonised meaning could never be tabled by the Railways) remains the same as before (i.e. it is the trigger for the driver to act on the brakes), even though some flexibility is left to the RU to determine the indication parameter. Although the main driver is the brake build up time, the determination of this indication time can also for instance depend on how soft the GUI curve is and of the driving style that is expected from the drivers.

As a result ERA confirms that the validation campaign shall be continued on the same basis as the one unanimously (including the CER operational experts) agreed in the June EECT, i.e. the ERA solution proposal dated 27/05/15 + option 2 regarding the speed indications on the planning area. Regarding this latter, ERA also reports

9 / 15



that the detailed modifications to the DMI spec have been uploaded on the database.

Post meeting note: ERA expects the contribution of operational experts to the validation campaign.

1262Issues related to the initiation of a communication session by

an RBC

The DB main concern is the compatibility because they have a 2.3.0d line that will enter into service in December 2015 and will be upgraded to 3.4.0 in 2017. The functionality will also be used in the border areas. If the CR1262 current solution proposal is retained a call by the RBC to a B3R2 train could not be successful, which means that the CR1262 would be incompatible.

It is again wondered how this functionality could have been properly implemented, considering the severe shortcomings pointed out by U in the problem description. In particular U recalls the shortcoming about the operated system version which could be unknown to the on-board when it is called back by the RBC. EUG argues that the suppliers involved in the concerned project have ensured that the functionality will work properly, in spite of the reservations listed in the CR.

Considering this deadlock situation, it is asked to the telecom experts to clarify what could happen in case a train in PS would be called in CS by an RBC. This situation unfortunately could arise even on the lines operated in CS but where PS service (not used by ETCS) is provided: when the train is parked, waiting to be called back by the RBC, the on-board might launch the periodic check of keys and contact its home KMC with a MT used in PS mode. Then after this particular MT could be called in CS by the RBC while it is still in session with the home KMC.

According to the telecom experts this situation is not currently specified and it is unlikely to be handled due to fact that there is only one serial connection to the MT. It is however not possible to draw a conclusion during the meeting and this matter has to be further investigated.

Action 13.09 U (Euroradio WG) (29/09/15): To clarify how incoming calls in CS can be managed when the MT is in PS use

1265 Miscellaneous editorial findings in B3 MR1

Regarding action 11.09: U agreed (email P. Prieels 18/08/15) with the removal of the note [8] from the SUBSET-036.

10 / 15



The U comments on the new entries are addressed, see lines highlighted in yellow in the embedded file below:

Although they did not raise any comment on the new entries, EUG agrees with all the corresponding decisions reached during the meeting.

1266 Classification of SRS requirements

The U/EUG comments on the ERA solution proposal for SRS chapters 1 & 9 (action 11.12) are discussed, see replies tagged “EECT080915” in the Word comments inside the embedded files below.

EUG expressed their concerns on the classification, they have got bad experiences about suppliers justifying non compliances based on requirements they consider that they do not apply to its product. This CR could provide further justification to this supplier behaviour.

U replies that the suppliers shall use all the clauses of the SRS for the design, the CR is about proving the compliance with the SRS not about selecting a group of clauses from the SRS to design a product.

Regarding the Excel file itself (see embedded file below):

The ERA solution proposals resulting from actions 11.10 &11 are agreed, however with a slight amendment proposed by U for the rephrasing of the clause 3.16.3.4.1.3 (ch3 line 1896)

On request by U, the decision “R” for Ch 8 line 23 is revoked, because a clarification is deemed necessary for the multiple instances of packets in train-to-track messages

11 / 15



Action 13.10 U (22/09/15): To make a proposal regarding the multiple instances of packets in train-to-track messages

Action 13.11 EUG/U (29/09/15): to fully review the rows with non empty cells in the column “ERA 2nd review”

1273 Impact of UIC 544-1 new version

The U comments (27/08/15) together with the EUG reply (02/09/15) are discussed.

ERA, stressing that the general aspects raised by U cannot be addressed by the EECT, proposes to adopt the following: to refer directly to the sixth edition of the UIC leaflet 544-1 in the SRS clause 3.13.2.2.5.2 and to replace “4th edition” with “6th edition” in the SUBSET-040 3.1.1.1.

The proposal from ERA is agreed and the CR will be closed accordingly.

1275Eurobalise transmission

susceptibility requirements not linked to interoperability

On request by U, the discussion does not take place during this meeting but a telco will be arranged with the relevant experts.

Post meeting note: the telco held on 14/09/15 did not allow to align the ERA and U positions, even though it was clarified that no misunderstanding remains between the two parties.U argued that susceptibility/emission requirements, even if they indeed belong to an interface between ETCS on-board and the Rolling Stock, can undoubtedly affect the functioning of the track-to-train interoperable Euroantenna/Eurobalise interface.ERA stressed that if it is the case then the requirements must be binding for both sides of the interface. Since it is not (yet) the case on RS side, for the time being this information just qualifies for the application guide.Conclusion: the CR is closed (ERA decision) with the solution proposed by the submitter and ERA will welcome the publication of the SUBSET-116 in the application guide.

1277 D7 of SoM procedure is CR not covered, due to lack of time

12 / 15



reached while no Mobile Terminal is registered yet

1278 SUBSET-074 upgrade to Baseline 3 Release 2 (B3R2)

It is decided that the test spec WG shall have a look on this SUBSET-074 upgrade, in order to check the coverage of the modified or new FFFIS requirements.

Action 13.12 ERA (Test Spec WG) (29/09/15): to check the coverage of the modified or new FFFIS requirements

1279Inconsistencies between

Subset-034, Subset-035 and Subset-058

CR not covered, due to lack of time

1280 System version number increment for B3R2

CR not covered, due to lack of time

13 / 15


4. Baseline Compatibility Analysis

Not covered due to lack of time

5. AOB

14 / 15


Attendance list

First Name Surname Organisation Signature E-mail address

Olivier GEMINE ERA [email protected]

Alain HOUGARDY ERA [email protected]

Oscar REBOLLO BRAVO ERA [email protected]

Begona DOMINGO ERA [email protected]

Ron BAILES CER [email protected]

Laura ARENAS ERTMS U.G. [email protected]

Rob DIJKMAN ERTMS U.G. [email protected]

Roman TREYDEL ERTMS U.G. [email protected]

Alfonso LORENZO ERTMS U.G. [email protected]

Aidan (only 2nd

day)MCGRADY ERTMS U.G. [email protected]

Philippe PRIEELS UNIFE/UNISIG [email protected]

Craig McLELLAN UNIFE/UNISIG [email protected]

Stefan FRITZSCHE UNIFE/UNISIG [email protected] (only

2nd day) KAISER UNIFE/UNISIG [email protected]

Lutz (only 2nd day) KOCH UNIFE/UNISIG [email protected]

Ingo WENDLER ERTMS U.G. [email protected]

15 / 15

Documents

Minutes_EECT_080915_v2 - European Union Agency · Web viewRegarding the U and EUG rejected comments, see ERA replies in the Word comments still embedded in the file “Minutes_EECT_090715_v2revmarks.docx”