Rail Passenger Safety: Equipment and Technologies (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Research Results Digest 85 August 2007 International Transit Studies Program Report on the Fall 2006 Mission RAIL PASSENGER SAFETY: EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGIES This TCRP digest summarizes the mission performed October 13–October 28, 2006, under TCRP Project J-03, “International Transit Studies Program.” This digest includes transportation information on the organizations and facilities visited. This digest was prepared by staff of the Eno Transportation Founda- tion and is based on reports filed by the mission participants. Subject Areas: IA Planning and Administration, VI Public Transit, VII Rail Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm Smith TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration INTERNATIONAL TRANSIT STUDIES PROGRAM The International Transit Studies Pro- gram (ITSP) is part of the Transit Cooper- ative Research Program (TCRP). ITSP is managed by the Eno Transportation Foun- dation under contract to the National Acad- emies. TCRP was authorized by the Inter- modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and reauthorized in 2005 by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. It is governed by a memorandum of agreement signed by the National Acade- mies, acting through its Transportation Re- search Board (TRB); by the Transit Devel- opment Corporation, which is the education and research arm of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA); and by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). TCRP is managed by TRB and funded annually by a grant from FTA. ITSP is designed to assist in the profes- sional development of transit managers, public officials, planners, and others charged with public transportation responsibilities in the United States. The program accom- plishes this objective by providing oppor- tunities for participants to learn from for- eign experience while expanding their net- work of domestic and international contacts for addressing public transport problems and issues. The program arranges for teams of pub- lic transportation professionals to visit ex- emplary transit operations in other countries. Each study mission focuses on a theme that encompasses issues of concern in public transportation. Cities and transit systems to be visited are selected on the basis of their ability to demonstrate new ideas or unique approaches to handling public transporta- tion challenges reflected in the study mis- sion’s theme. Each study team begins with a briefing before departing on an intensive, professionally challenging two-week mis- sion, after which they return home with ideas for possible application in their own communities. Team members are encour- aged to share their international experience and findings with peers in the public trans- portation community throughout the United States. Study mission experience also helps transit managers to better evaluate current and proposed transit improvements and C O N T E N T S International Transit Studies Program, 1 Rail Passenger Safety: Equipment and Technologies, 2 General Observations, 2 Standards and Regulations, 3 Rail Operations/Shared Use, 5 Safety Measures, 11 Appendix A—Study Mission Team Members, 18 Appendix B—Study Mission Host Organizations, 18 Appendix C—List of Abbreviations, 24 Appendix D—Selected Vehicle Safety Measures, 25

can serve to generate potential public transportation research topics. Study missions are normally conducted in the spring and fall of each year. Study teams consist of up to 14 individuals, including a senior official des- ignated as the group’s spokesperson or team leader. Transit properties are contacted directly and requested to nominate candidates for participation. Nominees are screened by a committee of transit officials, and the TCRP Project J-03 Oversight Panel endorses the selection. Study mission participants are transit management personnel with substantial knowledge and experience in transit activities. Participants must demonstrate potential for advancement to high levels of public transportation responsibilities. Other selection crite- ria include current responsibilities, career objectives, and the probable professional development value of the mission for the participant and sponsoring em- ployer. Travel expenses for participants are paid through TCRP Project J-03 funding. For further information about the study mis- sions, contact Gwen Chisholm Smith at TCRP (202- 334-3246; gsmith@nas.edu) or Janet Abrams at the Eno Transportation Foundation (202-879-4718; janet.abrams@enotrans.com). About This Digest The following digest is an overview of the mis- sion that investigated European rail safety programs. It is based on individual reports provided by the team members (for a team roster, see Appendix A), and it reflects the observations of the team members, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented. The digest does not necessarily reflect the views of TCRP, TRB, the National Academies, APTA, FTA, or the Eno Transportation Foundation. RAIL PASSENGER SAFETY: EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGIES Led by Tom Margro, General Manager of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the mis- sion team included representatives of state, local, and regional transportation agencies as well as the federal government. Over their two weeks in Europe, team members visited organizations and facilities in Berlin and Hennigsdorf, Germany; Reichshoffen and Paris, France; and London and Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom. They participated in a variety of meetings and tours hosted by national rail regulators and operators, local public transportation authorities, transit and commuter rail operators, safety directors at major rail corporations, and independent rail safety researchers. Opportunities were also afforded to team members to ride on a variety of rail programs, visit testing and manufacturing facilities, and interface with numerous public, private, and educational leaders knowledgeable about rail safety and operations (for a list and selected descriptions of host organizations, see Appendix B). GENERAL OBSERVATIONS After returning to the United States, team mem- bers reflected on the mission as a whole and developed consensus around the following general observations: • There is a predominant European philosophy that emphasizes passenger rail and, to that end, provides a remarkable contrast to American rail program emphasis and management. In part due to emphasis directed through the European Union (EU), a variety of passenger rail connec- tivity, safety, operating, and infrastructure issues not only receive priority for planning, but for funding resources as well. • The EU has developed a series of directives that the participating European nations must ad- dress through regulation and implementation. Examples include train control, driver platform standardization, passenger access and safety, operating safety, and many others. It is this approach, pursued in a spirit of cooperation, which helps underscore the emphasis placed on passenger transportation. For example, as one might suspect, strong national interests in Europe are easily identified by native language. But in the case of transportation infrastructure development and international travel, the lan- guage barriers are reduced by requiring that employees be fluent in the languages of the travel pattern of the passenger rail services. • Conversely, the EU and the supporting national infrastructures, although making huge strides forward, are still in the formative stages in the development of a multinational integrated pas- senger rail program. It was apparent that the translation of EU directives to the national pro- grams in each of the three countries visited was taking different courses, and at differing pace. 2

Developing national oversight and direction, translating directives into action, and inte- grating technologies at all levels is a complex and time-consuming activity. To the credit of the organizations visited by the mission team, the recognition of the milestones to accom- plish these tasks was seriously taken. • Similarly, public/private partnerships and pri- vate participation are key ingredients to EU transportation successes. The willingness of EU to actively encourage the public sector and the private sector to engage in partnerships in testing, operations, planning, manufacturing, and regulatory development provides a multi- national, intergovernmental approach that brings the best thinking to the table. • Geography and population density play sig- nificant roles in the development of a passen- ger rail philosophy in Europe. As compared to the United States, the large land area states of Texas and Montana are comparable in size to France and Germany. Significantly different though are the population comparisons, where the European countries are over six times more populous (Texas = 23 M; Montana = 1 M; France = 63 M; and Germany = 83 M). As a result of these densities, coupled with the his- torical nature of transportation infrastructure growth in Europe, significant differences in automobile emphasis and affordability, effects of World War I and World War II, and many other reasons, the transportation investment philosophy in Europe is dramatically different when compared to the United States. The lifeblood of many smaller European commu- nities is the connection to larger communities primarily for employment. Without passenger rail connections, those smaller communities are cut off from the employment opportunities be- cause other transportation infrastructure does not match the U.S. state and federal highway system investment philosophy. So, investment philosophy comparisons between Europe and the United States must be carefully considered. • An undertone to the organizational structure of many programs studied by the mission is, in American terms, privatization of operations and services. Sometimes called liberalization, it is clear that there is an effort to engage the private sector to perform the operating, man- ufacturing, testing, and other activities to sus- tain rail operations and meet safety thresholds and goals. • Finally, there was genuine interest on the part of mission hosts in sharing technology, philos- ophy, operating, and other passenger rail issues. Both public sector and private sector interests recognize the importance of information shar- ing as a means to moving forward together with legitimate ideas and valuable resources. This digest presents information acquired by the mission team on European efforts to ensure the well- being of passengers in the areas of standards and regulations; rail operations/shared use; and specific safety measures. STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS Background To understand how safety is managed in the European Union, it is important to understand the evolution of mainline railway national and European policy since the early 1990s. Historically, the national railway networks in the United Kingdom (British Rail), France (Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français [SNCF]), and Germany (Deutsche Bahn AG [DB]) were 100% owned by the state (in this in- stance the state means the national government) and heavily in debt. In addition, much of the technology and infrastructure was unique to the state (nation) in which it operated. The signaling systems, equipment design, and power provision were all different. The European Union countries realized that to revitalize the rail network, and open it up to competition (and attract private capital), they needed to jointly address companion concepts. These key concepts are inter- operability, which is the ability of equipment to oper- ate anywhere in the EU countries, and harmonization, which is the development of standards, regulations, norms, etc., which technically promote the concept of interoperability. With harmonization and interoperability comes the requirement for individual states to ensure that their safety regimes and methods of authorizing ven- dors, contractors, and manufacturers are consistent. The European Commission had set targets for access to networks and improvements in competition for high-speed rail in 1996 and the conventional rail net- work in 2001. With the goal being that the national railways were no longer to be solely statewide entities and technology and infrastructure were to no longer 3

be state-specific, it became clear that as the railway systems across Europe evolved, so did the safety and regulatory structure; the concept of harmonization had to apply also to these two vital areas. The European Commission created the Euro- pean Railway Agency (ERA). The agency’s main task is to create measures for development and im- plementation of technical specifications for interop- erability and a common approach to questions re- garding safety. As concerns rail safety, the member states are required to establish both national safety authorities and an independent investigative body for crashes. In the three countries visited by the ITSP mission, those national safety agencies are the Eisenbahn-Bundesamt (EBA) in Germany, the Étab- lissement Public de Sécurité Ferroviaire (EPSF) in France, and the Office of the Rail Regulator in the United Kingdom. The mission met with the EBA and EPSF staffs and, as expected, both had very similar roles and responsibilities including the following: • Acting as the government’s safety regulators (although in some instances regulations are ac- tually published by a government entity such as the Ministry of Transport) • Reviewing and authorizing railway under- takings (such as new operators) and infrastruc- ture managers ensuring compliance with all regulations and standards • Certifying new or modified equipment and maintenance practices • In some countries, licensing train operators • Ensuring compliance with European rules related to interoperability • Publishing technical recommendations • Coordinating the relationship with the ERA and the other national safety agencies created in the other EU countries In most cases, the national safety agencies are funded by taxes paid by railway sector companies or fees levied for activities undertaken by the agency. It is clear the role of these agencies is evolving as new EU directives are implemented, new tech- nologies overwhelm the capabilities of staff, new expertise is required, and interoperability and har- monization issues become more complex. In France, in particular, there is also discussion as to whether EPSF will also take over regulation of metros and tramways, which are currently being regulated by the state. Standards/Research The regulatory agencies EBA and EPSF also have a role other than that related to safety functions, which is ensuring compliance with European rules related to interoperability. To ensure interoperability, designs and functionality need to be standardized. In general, European standards are developed with a hierarchy generally overseen by the ERA. At the top of this hierarchy are European directives, which present a set of mandatory requirements for the func- tions being examined. From those directives come Technical Specifications of Interoperability (TSIs), which create an overarching framework for EU mem- bers and are mandatory applications where interop- erability is an issue. Last in the structure are norms, which support the TSIs and normally are written by the railway or manufacturers and are voluntary. In a complementary path, EU members can set national standards unique to their domestic railways as long as interoperability TSIs do not apply. The regulatory national agencies use these two frameworks (safety and standards) to fulfill all of their other roles, which includes certifying equipment technology to be pro- posed for service; a new system must work its way through this structure of requirements or standards be- fore it is authorized by the national regulatory agency. These TSIs are then translated into standard rolling stock and rail infrastructure designs through collaborative European projects that involve re- search think tanks such as Forschungs- und Anwen- dungsverbund Verkehrssystemtechnik (FAV) Berlin and educational institutions like the Technical University of Berlin, as well as manufacturers in- cluding Bombardier, Alstom, and Siemens, all of which were on the itinerary of the study mission program. European initiatives such as SAFETRAIN and MODTRAIN have funded research to develop the safest standard designs for particular parts of rolling stock including the operators’ cab, truck de- sign, and internal safety lighting, to name a few. Once adopted, these designs are aimed at modular- izing production leading to an overall safer and stan- dardized European fleet. One benefit is also the fos- tering of competition for the production of the modularized fleet. This approach of standardization is largely followed in France and Germany. England clearly is following its own path with regard to rail standardization. Following the privati- zation of the railways in the early 1990s, some im- portant lessons were gleaned. Not the least of which 4