Guidance for Use of CSM Recommendation - ERA - Europa

European Railway Agency
Collection of examples of risk assessments and of some possible tools
supporting the CSM Regulation
C.2.4.
C.2.5.
C.2.6.
Intended change: as the old telephone system becomes obsolete and must be replaced by a
new digital one, technically the relevant information cannot be included any more in the tone.
The tone is exactly the same regardless which signalman it is coming from. It is thus
decided to achieve the same function by an operational procedure:
(a) on train departure, the signalman informs verbally the level crossing operator on the
direction of the coming train;
(b) the information is checked against the timetable and acknowledged by both the level
crossing operator and the other signalman in order to avoid misunderstanding from the
operator.
The intended change and associated operational procedure are illustrated in Figure 15.
Although the change appears to have a potential safety impact (risk of not closing the level
crossing barrier in time), other criteria in Article 4 (2) like:
(a) low complexity;
(b) lack of innovation, and;
(c) easy monitoring;
may suggest that the intended change is not a significant one.
In this example, some safety analysis or argument is anyway necessary to show that, for this
safety critical task, replacing an old technical system by an operational procedure (with
personnel cross-checking each other) would lead to a similar level of safety. The question is
whether this would require the application of the full CSM process, with hazard record,
independent assessment by an assessment body, etc. In this case, it is questionable
whether this would bring any added value, implying that such a change could then not be
qualified as significant.
C.3.
C.3.1.
Examples of interfaces between rail sector actors
Here are some examples of interfaces and reasons for cooperation between actors of the rail
sector:
(a) IM – IM: for example both infrastructures shall foresee safety measures for ensuring a
safe transition of trains from one infrastructure to the other one;
(b) IM – RU: for example there could be specific operational rules dependent on the
infrastructure that must be observed by the train driver;
(c) IM – Manufacturer: for example manufacturer's sub-systems could have restrictions of
use that must be fulfilled by the IM;
(d) IM – Service Provider: for example there could be specific maintenance constraints for
the infrastructure that must be fulfilled by the subcontractor of the maintenance
activities;
(e) RU – Manufacturer: for example manufacturer's sub-systems could have restrictions of
use that must be fulfilled by the RU;
(f)
RU – Service Provider: for example there could be specific maintenance constraints for
the infrastructure that must be fulfilled by the subcontractor of the maintenance
activities;
(g) RU – Keepers: for example there could be vehicle specific restrictions of use that must
be fulfilled by the railway undertaking operating those vehicles;
(h) Manufacturer – Manufacturer: for example the management of safety related technical
interfaces between sub-systems from two different manufacturers;
Reference: ERA/GUI/02-2008/SAF Version: 1.1 Page 73 of 105
File Name: Collection_of_RA_Ex_and_some_tools_for_CSM_V1.1.doc
European Railway Agency ● Boulevard Harpignies, 160 ● BP 20392 ● F-59307 Valenciennes Cedex ● France ● Tel. +33 (0)3 27 09 65 00 ● Fax +33 (0)3 27 33 40 65 ● http://www.era.europa.eu