Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
June 2009
G. K. DwivedyChief S&T Engineer, Construction South Central Railway, Secunderabad
Study of Signalling Plan Design Practices of Zonal Railways and
Scope for Standardisation
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................2
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................5
Background of Signalling plans............................................................................................5
2. Requirements of Signalling Plans Vs Status of Compliance. . .6
2.1 Presentational Issues in Signalling Plan:...................................................................6
2.2 Contents of Signalling Plan:..........................................................................................8
2.3 Checking & Approval of Signalling Plan:....................................................................9
2.4 Status of compliance of Provisions of SEM, Part – II in Signalling plans:.........9
2.5 Status of compliance of Issues Raised by CRSs:...................................................12
3. Issues Pertaining to Signalling Plan:......................................................13
3.1 Grey areas in content:...................................................................................................13
3.2 Presentation and Symbols:..........................................................................................13
3.3 Missing Guidelines on Special Notes:.......................................................................13
3.4 Signal Sighting and Survey:.........................................................................................13
3.5 Approval and Sign Off:..................................................................................................14
4 Solutions to the Issues:....................................................................................14
5 Appendices:...............................................................................................................15
6 Bibliography:.............................................................................................................15
Page 2 of 16
Executive Summary
This project report is the outcome of a study on the Signalling Plan design practices of different zonal railways, status of compliance of various provisions of Signal Engineering Manual pertaining to signalling plans in particular, identification of the common issues and finding the solutions to achieve a standard format of the plan; unambiguous with adequate clarity and presentational quality to minimise the risk of misinterpretation by various users in different life cycles of a signalling system, viz. Concept, design, safety review, installation, testing, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning.
The motivation for the study comes with reference to observations of Commissioner of Railway Safety, Dy. Commissioner of Railway Safety (S&T), and reservations shown by sister departments involved with the railway project implementation and train operation. Revisiting or altering the plans at the stage of signing-off of Station Working Rules, CRS sanction, physical work at site or during testing or commissioning has been a painful, retrogressive and expensive exercise. It comes from either the communication gap or poor understanding of the layouts and flexibilities in the operations achieved and variations in the practices of zonal railways.
In view of outsourcing of design activities, standardisation of format, documentation of zonal railway practices and a general agreement on it will achieve the production and approval of a signalling plan that is safe, understandable, implementable and fit for purpose.
During the course of the project, signalling plans of CR, ER, NCR, NER, SCR, SER, SR and WR were studied and discussion held with concerned SSTE/ D&D and Dy. CSTE/ P&D of the railways. The observations were recorded on a questionnaire in tabular form for comparison purpose. In addition, issues compiled by railway board in response to the letter of CSTE/ NFR during March 2009 to Additional Member (Signal) were also discussed with Director (Signal), Railway Board to find out the common issues pertaining to signalling plans encountered by all zonal railways to find out a comprehensive solution to the problem.
While finding out the solution to the issues pertaining to signalling plan, experience gained while working for Network Rail, U.K. on deputation and reference of relevant standards, specifications and code of practice has also been used.
Issues require action on the part of railway is presentational, discipline to follow the provisions of SEM, absence of clear guidelines for the approval and consent of user and interface departments, absence of documentation of zonal railway practices on plan production and amendment process and content of the plan notes and other details. Another important aspect missing in the plan production is the robust and meaningful signal sighting and survey before approval of the plan.
Page 3 of 16
The remedial measures include the amendment in SEM to include the more elaborate guidelines on the presentational issues, content of the plan notes and other information, plan production and alteration process, detailed signal sighting and survey and legislation of the process to seek the consent of user and interface departments.
Keeping in view the above-mentioned aspects, a model format and process of producing a signalling plan fit for purpose has been suggested.
Page 4 of 16
1. Introduction
While working as CSTE/ Con/ SCR/ Secunderabad and Dy. CSTE/ Con/ SER/ Kharagpur, I have encountered many comments from Commissioner of Railway Safety (CRS) and Dy. CRS/S&T of S.E. and S.C. circles on the practices followed by the railways and their adamant approach to correct the same and fall in line with their views. Again, these views are not uniform and borrowed from the railways where they have worked. The problem has blown to such an extent that CSTE/NFR has written letter to Additional Member (Signal), Railway Board for intervention in the matter. Railway Board has issued letter to all zonal railways, seeking the issues raised by various CRS/ Dy. CRS (S&T) and practices followed by railways for issue of some guidelines. In addition, the reservations expressed by sister departments during signing off of plans, station working rules (SWR), execution of works and even after the completion of yard modification speaks of ambiguity in the documentations, plans and poor understanding of the facilities, restrictions in operation and hurdles in implementation of the scheme.
The extract of a blog on the website of Indian Institute of Civil Engineering (IRICEN), Pune reproduced as annexure – 1 and observations of Dy. CRS (S&T) on some of the CRS sanction application of south central railway (annexure – 2) is able to spot light the gaps in the process of designing a signalling plan. In view of outsourcing of design activities by various railways, the issues raised by members of IRICEN blog site and CRSs cannot be treated as nuisances rather require a serious introspection and ultimately efforts towards standardisation. The ultimate benefit of this exercise will be the minimisation of frequent changes in the plan after approval and before execution of the work, which is eating away the valuable time available with signal engineers.
In order to bridge this gap and come out with an unambiguous, understandable, and fit for purpose signalling plan, provisions of SEM with respect to signalling plan, status of their compliance by different railways has been studied. Scope for amendment in the manual, plan approval procedure, provision of additional information, requirement of strengthening of the alteration process has been analysed and conclusions in the form of the recommendations have been drawn to achieve the goal of producing a signalling plan comprehensible and acceptable to all stakeholders, i.e. users and interface departments.
This ground work may facilitate the evolvement of a standard format and design practices and approval process on signalling plan by Railway Board or issue suitable amendments in Signal Engineering Manual, Part – I and II.
Background of Signalling plans
Signalling plans are required for the following purpose:
Page 5 of 16
Proper understanding of the scheme, relevant notes being written on the drawings,
Preparation and checking of the designs, estimate and tender schedule, Seeking consent and observation of interfacing departments, Obtain statutory approval and sanction, Installation of equipments, testing and commissioning Maintenance, Future modifications, if any.
To fulfil the above-mentioned requirements, it is necessary that this document is unambiguous, clear and understandable by all concerned associated with the works cited above. In order to achieve this objective, SEM part I and II prescribes the requirements, purpose, format, contents, preparation, checking, approval, issue and storage/ upkeep of this document. However, with changes in the organisation, working environment and methodology of project execution, there is a need for comprehensive review of these provisions and document the specification, production, checking, approval and issue of signalling plan. Frequent instances of changes sought by various stakeholders at various stages of the work and delay in approval and sanction experienced by almost all the railways corroborate the necessity for the same.
2. Requirements of Signalling Plans Vs Status of Compliance
To find out the status of compliance of requirements of signalling plan prescribed in signal engineering manual (SEM), part – I and II and issues raised by either Operating, Engineering or CRS over various railways, plans of CR, ER, NCR, NER, SCR, SER, SR and WR were studied and discussion held with SSTE/ D&D and Dy. CSTE/ P&D. The observations were recorded on a questionnaire in tabular form for comparison purpose. In this section, requirements of signalling plans as prescribed in signal engineering manual (SEM), part – I and II, their relevance in the present context and status of their compliance has been presented in tabular form under following sub heading; presentational issues, contents, signing off and approval, technical requirements as per SEM and issues raised by CRSs respectively.
2.1 Presentational Issues in Signalling Plan:
S. No.
Description Reference Remarks
1 Fringe details Para 8.1.2, SEM - I Insufficient2 Relevant notes for the proper
understanding of the schemePara 8.1.4 Insufficient. Notes
should cover the requirements specified in SEM – II also.
3 North point Para 8.1.5 Adequate
Page 6 of 16
S. No.
Description Reference Remarks
4 Divisional comments Para 8.1.7 Adequate
5 Approval from other departments
Para 8.2.2 Adequate. However zonal level action may be incorporated as all the railways are getting the plans commented at zonal level.
6 Signing Off Para 8.1.7 Prescribes only for Tentative plans
7 Size Para 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3; SEM – I, IS 696
Para 8.3.2 is irrelevant.
Folded size should be in terms of A4 paper size for the convenience of filing.
8 Numbering Para 8.3.5 Should be stand alone with index
9 Placement of Title, Number and Notes
Para 8.4.1 Railway practices vary. It requires uniform adoption.
10 Numbering of other design documents and cancellation of design sheets
Para 8.4.2 & 8.4.3-
11 Signature Block Para 8.4.4 May be brought on the right hand bottom corner adjacent to title block
12 Scale Para 8.5 Followed in CR, NR, NER, SER, but not in ER, SCR, SR and WR. A range may be defined.
Page 7 of 16
2.2 Contents of Signalling Plan:
S. No.
Description Reference Remarks
1 Standard of interlocking and class of station
Para 8.6.2 (i)-
2 Holding capacity of all running lines and sidings
Para 8.6.2 (ii)-
3 Direction of reception and despatch on running lines and description of sidings
Para 8.6.2 (iii)-
4 Restriction on dead-end sidings (e.g., No stabling) if any
Para 8.6.2 (iv)-
5 All gradients within the station limits and up to 2.5 kilometres in rear of first stop signal
Para 8.6.2 (v) No conspicuous endorsement except in few plans of SCR
6 Kilometerage and class of level crossings within the station limits, whether interlocked or not,
Para 8.6.2 (vi)
-
7 Type of Block Working with adjacent station and location of block Instruments
Para 8.6.2 (vii) All railways except WR and SCR provide detailed notes. SCR & WR provides symbolic presentation.
8 Up and Down directions and names of important junctions on either side
Para 8.6.2 (viii) -
9 Reference to condonation of gradient infringements, CRS's dispensation for deviations from General Rules/Signal Engineering Manual, if any
Para 8.6.2 (ix)
-
10 Reference to approved Engineering plan on which the signalling plan is based
Para 8.6.2 (x)-
11 Note regarding telephone communication provided between A. S. M./Cabin man and level crossings within and outside station limits.
Para 8.6.2 (xi) All railways except WR and SCR provide detailed notes. SCR & WR provides symbolic presentation.
12 Aspect sequence chart for colour light signals
Para 8.6.2 (xii) Detailed ASC by all except SCR
13 Whether turnout is 1 in 8-1/2 or 1 in 12 or 1 in 16 etc.
Para 8.6.2 (xiii)-
14 Details of Detection Table Para 8.6.2 (xiv) -
Page 8 of 16
S. No.
Description Reference Remarks
etc., which are not apparent in the plan
15 Details of Track Circuits/Axle Counter/Treadles
Para 8.6.2 (xv) Except marking of IRJ, no details provided.
16 Intestinal distances and distance between Warning Boards and Signals
Para 8.6.2 (xvi) SEM
More elaborate by WR. Chainage of all points, signals & structures provided.
17 Details of open bridges Para 8.6.2 (xvii) -
18 Location of water column, ash pit/tray
Para 8.6.2 (xviii)No more relevant
19 Signal overlap in big yards. Para 8.6.2 (xix) -
20 Custody of spare keys Para 8.6.2 (xx) Provided except by SCR
21 Date of commissioning the installation
Para 8.6.2 (xxi) -
2.3 Checking & Approval of Signalling Plan:
S. No.
Description Reference Remarks
1 Checking by ASTE & DSTE Para 8.7.1 -2 Approval by sign off by an
officer in Junior Administrative grade or above, authorised by the CSTE
Para 8.7.1 Approval by CSTE/C in all except ER where also by CSE on behalf of CSTE
3 Signalling plans of interlocked LC gates
Para 8.9.1 (i) Prepared by all except SCR
3 Completion plans Para 8.8.1 & 8.8.2 Not followed as specified in the SEM
2.4 Status of compliance of Provisions of SEM, Part – II in Signalling plans:
S. No.
Description Reference Remarks
1 Subsequent additions and alterations
Para 12.7 No methodology is prescribed. Different practices over zonal railways
2 Layouts Para 12.43.1 -3 Point, Trap and Shunting
Permitted IndicatorsPara 12.50.1
-
Page 9 of 16
S. No.
Description Reference Remarks
4 Location of signals Section ‘T’ -5 Installation of Detectors Section 'K' -6 Testing of locking against the
signalling planPara 13.15 (ii)
-
7 Test of locking against the interlocking table and do spot checks from the Signalling Plan at supervisor and officers level
Para 13.16 & 13.17
Spot checking is rarely followed
8 Provision of Electric lever locks, key transmitters, circuit controllers etc as per approved plan
Para 13.25.1
-
9 Physical inspection of the installation as per approved plan
Para 13.34
-
10 Location boxes containing all the apparatus are as per approved plans
Para 13.34.2 (a) & (b)
Not complied as location area plan and location plan is not in vogue
11 lightning arrestors are properly connected and earthed as per plan
Para 13.34.2(h) Not complied as earthing plan is not prepared even for SSI installations
12 System Testing of Installation Para 13.38.3 & 4 -
13 Locking arrangement at the interlocked gate as per approved plan
Para 14.2.3
-
14 Location and spacing of signals shall be in accordance with approved plans.
Para 19.8 Not complied as locations are not surveyed/ sighted before erection of signal
15 Electric signal machines shall be installed in accordance with approved plans
Para 19.17.1
-
16 Electric Point Machines shall be installed in accordance with approved plans.
Para 19.29
-
17 Installation Of Electrical Para 19.39 & -
Page 10 of 16
S. No.
Description Reference Remarks
Detector 19.40
18 Installation of circuit controller on single wire lever frame/ Ground frame in accordance with approved plans
Para 19.47.1
-
19 Mechanical locking of Station Master's Slide Control frame in accordance with approved plan.
Para 19.68
-
20 Installation and wiring of Automatic Block Signalling as per approved plan and Circuit Diagrams
Para 20.1.1.1
-
21 Signalling and interlocking arrangements for the yard in accordance with the approved signalling plans ...
Para 21.1.4
-
22 Protection of a signal post or its fittings falling within 2 meters of a 25 kV live conductor by an iron screening of approved design otherwise a Caution Board of approved design
Para 22.2.6.1
Not provided in signalling plan, pictorially or notes
23 Neutral section shall be located away from stop signals, level crossing.
Para 22.2.8.1 Neutral sections are not marked at present in the plan
24 Visibility of signals and implantation of OHE masts
Para 22.3 Any implantation issue is not catered for in the signalling plan
25 Distance between the traction mast and signal post
Para 22.3.1 (a) No mention in the plan and left to SSC or field supervisor
26 Location of Signals between tracks and location of portal arm drops
Para 22.3.4.1 to 3No mention in the plan and left to SSC or field supervisor
27 Cabling in the vicinity of Para 22.4.6 and Locations of TSS, FP
Page 11 of 16
S. No.
Description Reference Remarks
traction sub stations, feeding posts and switching stations shall be at least one metre away from any metallic part of OHE or metallic body of station
22.4.7
or SS are not shown in the plan, hence no conscious precaution
2.5 Status of compliance of Issues Raised by CRSs:
S. No.
Description Reference Remarks
1 Subsequent additions and alterations
CRS observation on SCR sanction application
Alterations are difficult to trace in CR and SCR plans.
Colouring of alterations on the original is in vogue over CR & SCR.
2 Restriction on the number of alterations in a plan
Except WR, all railways continue to alter the plan until major works in the yard.
3 Numbering of LC gate signals -
Sequential numbering is not followed in case of more LCs in one block section
4 Description of signals in condonation application and their endorsement in plan
-SCR mentions only description not the number of signals
5 Non standard Legend boards for passing Combined Gate and IB signal
-
Legend board to pass combined Gate and IB signal is used by SCR but no such provision in GR/ SR or SEM. Except ECoR, no other railway uses this board
6 Signature of Operating officials on the plan
CRS observation on NFR sanction application
Para 8.2.2 of SEM provides for obtaining complete details from officers of other Departments when preparing plans that affect those departments and embody their requirements on the plans, if considered necessary. Arrange for the plans, to be signed by the representative of the department concerned in token of approval.
7 Signature of signalling plan of construction by SAG officer of Open line
As above As per Para 8.7.1 read with Para 1.5 of SEM, signature of SAG officer of open line is not required. However, only Junctions and big
Page 12 of 16
S. No.
Description Reference Remarks
yards in NER and all plans in ER are signed by CSE.
3. Issues Pertaining to Signalling Plan:
As evident from the data compiled in Para 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5, the important issues pertaining to production, checking and approval of signalling plans are as following:
3.1 Grey areas in content:
Although Para 8.6.2 list out the information to be shown on the signalling plan yet lot of things are missing. True signal profile, table of signal route and other interdisciplinary details of Km post, Neutral sections, TF, TSS, OHE masts and portal arm drops, high voltage overhead power lines, crank handle locations, telephones other than LC gates and shunting locations and legend boards etc are few examples.
3.2 Presentation and Symbols:
Presentation of requirements listed in various Para of SEM part – II as explained in Para 2.4 are required to be presented either pictorially or in form of notes. Similarly, a well-defined process to present the subsequent alterations in signalling plan for execution of works and their traceability is an urgent requirement. Traceability of alterations in CR and SCR plans are totally missing. Zonal railway practices are varying largely. Simultaneous alteration of same signalling plan by more number of executing agencies is creating lot of confusion in plan, installation at site and issue of opening messages and signing - off of safety certificates.
3.3 Missing Guidelines on Special Notes:
To present the requirements listed in various Para of SEM part – II, guidelines are missing for mandatory notes in the plan. SCR and WR plans are devoid of virtually any note. For example, use of dial type DTMF based telephone for cabin and LC gate communication with ASM is simply assumed in SCR plans.
3.4 Signal Sighting and Survey:
Signal sighting in present form and survey of site based on preliminary tentative plan is serving no purpose. Signal sighting is regularly done after erection of the signal and hardly any meaningful action for improvement in signal visibility can be done except the extreme step of relocation of signal. This is resorted only in the event of major problems in the visibility and many issues are left as it is. The classical example of this approach is the visibility problem highlighted by CSO/ SER in KGP – BHC section due to OHE mast and portal arm drops.
Page 13 of 16
Issues raised by field officials through surveys based on tentative signalling plan are generally ignored due to hassles of amending the engineering plan, issue is postponed to as built stage, and problems are left for staff during execution making them prone to make errors.
A disciplined approach is required towards signal sighting and survey.
3.5 Approval and Sign Off:
As already pointed in Para 2.5 above, CRSs and COMs are playing with the use of word CSTE for signing - off of plans, dispensation and condonation applications. In SER dispensation application is signed by COM and Dy. CSTE (Con) & DRM in construction and open line respectively before submission to CRS for approval, whereas the same application is signed by Dy. CSTE (Con), CSTE (Con), CSTE, CTPM and COM before submission to CRS in NCR and SCR. This new process is shear wastage of time.
ER and NER has established the practice of signing the construction signalling plan by SAG officer of open line for which NFR is fighting for. These aberrations have shifted the responsibility to multiple hands without defining their role. An unambiguous process indicating the designation is required for signing and approval of the plans. In view of large-scale electrification projects and areas, plans may also require to be signed by electrical TRD branch. In absence of this process, electrical TRD is regularly found unaware of the works planned and sanctioned.
4 Solutions to the Issues:
To address the issues raised with respect to signalling plan, the possible solutions have been concluded as following:
4.1 Amendment in the Signal Engineering Manual to incorporate the additional requirements,
4.2 Standardise the format of plan with respect to body, title block, signature block, version/ alteration panel, table of signal routes, fringe details etc,
4.3 Discipline the Signal Sighting activity make its conduct and endorsement on the plan mandatory before approval,
4.4 Survey based on the tentative plan and its endorsement should be made mandatory,
4.5 Define the process to present the subsequent alterations in signalling plan,
4.6 Introduce the system of preparing Concept/ Works/ Scheme plan for execution of works rather altering the signalling plan as no record exist to
Page 14 of 16
depict the actual position at site after alteration of the plan and before execution of the work,
4.7 Signalling plans should be updated only after the commissioning of work as practised over Network Rail,
4.8 Define and legislate the pin pointed roles in signal as well as user and interface departments for consultation and their signature in token of their consent before approval. Escalation of responsibility should also be avoided.
5 Appendices:
5.1. Annexure – 1: Extract of IRICEN blog site
5.2 Annexure – 2: Extract of few observations of CRS and their reply
5.3 Annexure – 3: Extract of SEM: Reference to plans
5.4 Annexure – 4: Letter of CSTE/ NFR to AM (Signal), Railway Board
5.5 Annexure – 5: Policy decision on signalling drawing and design by N. E. Railway
6 Bibliography:
6.1. Signal Engineering Manual, Part – I and II
6.2 Railway Group Standard, GK/RT0207
6.3 Network Rail Design Specification, RT/E/S/11201
6.4 Network Rail Signalling Design Production Guidance, RT/E/C/11701
6.5 Signalling plan no. S1, 3606, Alt. P of Jhansi, C. Rly
6.6 Signalling plan no. SI 07660/175, Alt. III of Sainthia, E. Rly
6.7 Signalling plan no. NER/LJN/MUR/SP/2006, Alt. F of Mankapur, N. E. Rly
Page 15 of 16
6.8 Signalling plan no. IPU/2067D, Alt. 12 of Renigunta, S. C. Rly
6.9 Signalling plan no. SI, 11126, Alt. E of Soro, S. E. Rly
6.10 Signalling plan no. V/TRTR/0089/1/CN of Tripunittura, S. Rly
6.11 Signalling plan no. SG (SP) 3039/ 1 of Bordi, W. Rly
Page 16 of 16
