PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT - MODSafe · MODSafe 1st Periodic Report 2 of 49 2. Work progress and...

MODSafe, 1st PERIODIC REPORT

PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT Grant Agreement number: 218606 Project acronym: MODSAFE Project title: Modular Urban Transport Safety and Security Analysis Funding Scheme: CP Date of latest version of Annex I against which the assessment will be made: 26/02/2009

Periodic report: 1st x 2nd □ 3rd □ 4th □ Period covered: from 01 September 2008 to 28 February 2010 Project Coordinator: Florian Steiner, TÜV Rheinland Intertraffic GmbH Tel: +49 221 806 1805 Fax: E-mail: [email protected] Project website address: http://www.modsafe.eu

MODSafe 1st Periodic Report 1 of 49

1. Project objectives for the period On a general level all work packages listed, were meant to finish the survey or research and release their first/second deliverable. Therefore the next step, the compilation, comparison and preparation of those results was intended to start. The main objectives for the first period are:

• The analyses of relevant European and national projects, as well as national safety authorities, meant to deliver an overview of current safety approaches in urban guided transport systems.

• To describe the requirements, needed for coping with new technical, administration, regulation and certification arrangements.

• A compilation of an accepted Preliminary Hazard Analysis Database, Table Format and Fault Tree, due to analyses of transport operators, supply industries or previous projects.

• The consistency of this data, as well as the integrity of the hazards (even exotic combinations), in order to prepare a complete and harmonized compilation for the MODSafe project.

• The combination of the allocation of Safety Requirements from previous projects (such as MODURBAN and MODTRAIN) and compare them with actual operator assignment methods.

• To develop an object model for Safety Requirements and functions linked to generic functional and object structures.

• A survey of current safety life cycle approaches and emphasised on e.g. identifying the responsible authorities, regulation and legal status for each European country.

• The understanding of current processes, functions and motivations on certification and approval issues.

• A review and therefore the understanding of current AAC procedures by the identification of elementary activity modules.

• Guiding principles for transport in urban areas, with emphasis on integrated security models Therefore, an analysis on different types of hazards and threats are mean to be studied, that were linked to e.g. persons’ integrity, property, information systems or sabotage.

• To ensure appropriate cooperation between other work packages and integration of the different critical elements of MODSafe and their interfaces and create consensus building on the subject

• The compilation of the meeting documents of the Plenary Group and the Executive Board meetings for a specific period, in order to inform the consortium and partners about the administrative management of the project.

• The installation of a Website to inform the stakeholder about the project outcome and to encourage the results adequately, as well as ensure an efficient information flow.

• The presentation of a dissemination plan to introduce of the MODSafes’ activities to the widest possible range of audience.

• The creation of a Support and User Group by UITP to inform -in specific- the public transport operators not represented in the MODSafe consortium.


2. Work progress and achievements during the period

Work Package 1: Determination of the State of the Art This WP1 analyses the state of the art in safety and presents how the safety approaches are used in a large number of European Member States. It compares these safety approaches used in safety critical industries like guided transport systems. a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 1.1: Description of elements The review of the state of the art in safety and security approaches used in a large number of European Member States, and their comparisons are the key results of this task. It presents:

a general rule and definition of a safety management system (SMS) and the way to use the SMS in different critical industries. The security concepts are presented.

The keys players involved in a safety management system and their tasks and

responsibilities are described.

The importance of Human factor during the safety lifecycle of an urban guided transport system (Human errors, use of barriers, tools and methods to evaluate Human reliability) is presented.

The accident and incident analysis used in railway sector are detailed and a

comparison with the best practices in urban guided transport networks is made.

The certification and presents some approval processes applied in the European Union are compared.

Task 1.2: Review of existing certification processes The authorisation is an activity whereby a body, independent of the involved entities, gives a written assurance that a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements. The safety authorisation rests on national or regional legislations. The safety plan, which is a simple written document outlining how to manage safety during the contract makes easier the authorisation process. The operation of an urban guided system becomes effective after the approval of documents by the safety key players involved in the process. The certification process used in 9 European major networks and in Australia are presented (milestones, safety cases, applicable regulations…):

Czech Republic Denmark France Germany Italy


Poland Portugal Spain UK Current approaches for certification in Australian case study.

b. Clearly significant results The main result has been the clarification of the relationship between Safety and Security and certification approaches in guided transport systems. Two deliverables were produced during this period:

D1.1 First Draft-State of the art on Safety responsibilities and Certification. D1.2 Final report – State of the art on Safety responsibilities and Certification

D1.2 supersedes D1.1. The final deliverable D1.2 presents a state of the art concerning the safety management in different areas (marine, aviation, space, nuclear, rail) including many details concerning railway and complemented by a presentation of the current approach in Europe for safety management of urban guided transport systems. This deliverable demonstrates that Member States should apply for exclusion of urban guided rail installations from the scope of the interoperability and safety directives. The urban rail sector requires for safety and security a dedicated approach in line with the recommendations made by the European Commission to Member States in a letter to RISC (Railway Interoperability and Safety Committee) members sent on 13th October 2009. “The option in article 1(3) could be interpreted as if the rail systems mentioned therein are presumed to be a part of the general scope of the Directive, unless excluded. This means that for the rail, could be subject to interoperability requirements, depending on the choice made by individual Member States when transposing the directive at national level. This is an unintended effect of the new interoperability directive not only because it is not consistent with the objectives pursued by the legislation, as set out in article 1, but also, among other reasons, because the so-called “essential requirements” for interoperability have not been developed for urban and suburban transport and the procedure for placing in service prescribed by the directive is not appropriate to such rail systems.” The Commission therefore discussed this issue with Member States representatives at a meeting of the RISC, where the following three step approach was agreed: - Member States were invited, when transposing the directive, to exclude the rail systems mentioned in article 1(3) (a) and (b), - The Commission would issue a mandate to the relevant European standardisation bodies in order to develop harmonised standards for rail systems referred to under Article 1(3) (a) and (b), - The Commission would review the situation with the Committee after the standards had been developed. Where appropriate, Directive 2008/57/EC could be modified in order to include specific provisions for the above mentioned rail systems or, on the contrary, to clarify in scope in order to exclude such systems.


c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning There were delays of 7 months and 5 months respectively for D1.1 and D1.2. These delays were caused by the late start of the project due to the continuous changes f the description of work. d. Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the

impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning The project start was very slow due to the uncertainty created inside the Consortium by the continuous changes of the Annex I (Description of work) at the beginning of the project. WP1 was the main WP affected and therefore some delays took place that affected the rest of the WPs and the project in general. e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations between

actual and planned person-months per work package and per beneficiary in Annex 1 (Description of Work)

WP1 Actual Month 1 - 18

Planned Month 1 - 48

1 TRIT 0,52 36 INRETS 15 1212 UVHC 2,16 220 LUL 0,35 0,321 UTC 2,2 2Total 20,23 19,3 WP1 1 6 12 20 21 TRIT INRETS UVHC LUL UTC Total Personnel costs 4.238 91.626 16.183 3.377 12.929 128.353 Travel costs 2.311 3.334 450 1126 1.717 8.938 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indirect costs 2.494 56.976 9.980 920 9.697 80.067 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 1-18 9.043 151.936 26.613 5.523 24.344 217.358 Total Month 1-48 43.735 104.947 21.632 4.698 25.964 200.976 Percentage used 20% 144% 123% 117% 93% 107% WP1 in general required more time than expected for almost all the partners. INRETS was the WP leader. It expended its person-months allocated to them for the WP1. This can be explained by the fact that the majority of the effort calculated for INRETS was concentrated in activities carried out during the first period as WP1 is already finished. The reason why the expenses of INRETS is because it was planned to recruit a young engineer to develop the state of


the art but as the grant agreement was signed in February 2009 they were forced to develop the deliverable with the support from permanent and senior researchers with higher salaries. LUL and UVHC have over expended their budget. LUL has attended 3 meetings and provided input to the deliverables as requested by the WP leader. It now looks like the allocated budget was not sufficient to cover it. In the case of UVHC, the personnel cost increased unexpectedly because the work was performed by a professor which salary was higher and now an assistant professor is carrying part of the work so the costs will decrease. UTC was involved in the redaction process of both deliverables, especially concerning the safety process for the French case study (one UTC participant being also a safety expert for the French notified body “Certifer”), and concerning the relationships safety / security in the state of the art. TRIT reviewed the deliverables. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions. N/A


Work Package 2: MODSafe Hazard and Risk Analysis a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 2.1: Provision of a First List of Hazards/preliminary Hazards Analysis The Task 2.1 includes a Deliverable that describes the procedure to perform a generic Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) and specifies the structure for the overall MODSafe Hazard and Risk Analysis. The user of the MODSafe Hazard Analysis shall be able to:

- navigate intuitively through the Hazard Analysis - screen for already considered hazards - enter not yet considered hazard at an adequate position - overview the context of hazards, their severity of consequences and possible safety

measures at a glance The annex of the Deliverable presents the structure for the overall Hazard and Risk analysis with the first part of it filled with a generic list of hazards. The Delivery month of the deliverable D2.1 “First List of Hazards, Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)” was re-scheduled for November 2009. The Task 2.1 is completed since November 2009. The objective to consolidate the state of the art into a shared preliminary hazards analysis concept, methodology and database is reached. Task 2.2: Consistency of the Final Hazards Analysis The second task of WP2 aims to check the Hazard Analysis of the Task 2.1 for consistency. The generic Hazard Analysis is now extended to specific non-generic constellation of Urban Railway Systems (e.g. Platform Screen Doors (PSD) and hazards occurring on driverless and unattended train operation modes (GOA3 & GOA4)). The Deliverable D2.2 proposes a method to ensure that the Hazard List of D2.1 is nearly complete and consistent and describes this procedure on an example. The annex of the Deliverables is the continuation of the Annex of D2.1. It includes generic Safety measures to cover the hazards and assign their allocation per Grade of Automation (GOA). The delivery month of the deliverable D2.2 “Consistency Analysis and Final Hazard Analysis” was re-scheduled for February 2010. The deliverable is under review since 3rd February 2010. The finalisation of review process is expected in April 2010. Task 2.3: MODSafe Risk Analysis The third Task “MODSafe Risk Analysis” expands the Hazard Analysis to a Hazard and Risk Analysis by the consideration of the WP5 “Functional and Object oriented Safety Model”. This task has not yet started. It is waiting for input from WP5. The work should begin in June 2010. The delivery month of the deliverable D2.3 “MODSafe Risk Analysis” is scheduled for January 2011 as described in the Annex I Description of work.


b. Clearly significant results - The list of system hazards is agreed within the MODSafe consortium - A first set of generic safety measures to cover the hazards is determined, which will be refined in Task 2.3 with the results of WP5. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning There is a delay of 3 months for D2.1 and D2.2. D2.1 was delivered in November 2009 and the current schedule of delivering for D2.2 is April 2010. The delays are mainly due to the uncertainties of the description of work at the beginning of the project and the delays caused by WP1. WP2 is now waiting for input from WP5. d. Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning The delay of 3 months has not affected WP3 as this WP started on month 15 and there is no impact on the resources. e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations between actual and planned person-months per work package and per beneficiary in Annex 1 (Description of Work)



1 TRIT 0,21 0,54 BME 0 28 RATP 1,53 69 TUD 8,4 1710 UITP 0 0,519 TelSys 6,7 1120 LUL 0,05 3

22 Metro de Madrid 0,87 0,5

Total 17,76 40,5


WP2 1 4 8 9 10 19 20 21 TRIT BME RATP TUD UITP TelSys LUL MMA Total Personnel costs 1.714 0 13.819 34.026 0 19.309 480 5.101 74.449 Travel costs 0 0 882 540 0 750 163 2.464 4.799 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment 0 0 0 214 0 182 0 0 396 Indirect costs 1.173 0 6.434 20.868 0 9.175 128 2.440 40.218 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 1-18 2.887 0 21.135 55.649 0 29.417 772 10.005 119.862 Total Month 1-48 7.289 17.472 77.317 164.317 5.256 121.973 56.376 5.402 455.402 Percentage used 39% 0 27% 34% 0 24% 2% 185% 25% TUD is the WP leader. TUD main responsibilities were the coordination and production of the initial drafts of D2.1 and D2.2. The rest of the partners present on the WP collaborated in developing the deliverables. TUD organised the kick-off meeting in Dresden. TRIT revised the final drafts and attended the meetings. RATP attended two WP2 meetings (June 2009 and September 2009). It has reviewed D2.1 and D2.2 and particularly the hazard analysis of the annex as well as it has provided also support preparing a document explaining how RATP proceeds to identify new hazards from degraded condition and failing modes. No payments were completed by BME inside the company. Therefore the FORM C is for the reporting period total zero. The only current deviation is coming from Metro de Madrid that has expended the totality of its budget mainly due to the location of the meetings. This is due mainly to the fact that in principle 3 persons were supposed to work in WP2 but it became needed that 2 more persons collaborated into the work (with higher salaries). Also it has to be considered that the travel expenses have been very high for MMa with an average of 1.500-1.700Eur per trip. The rest of the partners are in line with the budget. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions. N/A


Work Package 3: Hazard Control and Safety Response Analysis The main objectives of WP3 are that after the harmonized hazard analysis from WP2 will be taken and all identified hazards will be covered by safety measures. These safety measures include safety functions, procedures and also system inherent safety. a. A summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 3.1: Preliminary Hazards Control and Safety Measures Analysis This task has started in Month 15. It has based its kick-off meeting on the draft output of WP2. The kick –off meeting took place on October 2009 where a first draft was agreed. This first draft is available and shall be reviewed with WP3 team first and thereafter it will be distributed to other WPs concerned. Task 3.2: Final Hazards Control and Safety Measures Analysis Task not started yet. b. Clearly significant results There are not results available yet. But regarding the working programme WP3 shall deliver earliest in October 2011. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available

resources and planning There are no deviations so far. d. Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the

impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning N/A


e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations between actual and planned person-months per work package and per beneficiary in Annex 1 (Description of Work)

WP3

Actual Month 1 - 18


1 TRIT 0 0,53 AREVA TA 0,51 2,55* BTSERCS 8,57 ALSTOM 0 58 RATP 0,2 212 UVHC 0,29 213 Thales RSS 0,28 4,515 Dimetronic 0,6 4,517 ANSALDO 0 4,520 LUL 0,06 1Total 1,94 35

*Data not provided by beneficiary WP3 1 3 5* 7 8 12 13 15 17 20 TRIT AREVA BTSERCS Alstom RATP UVHC Thales Dimetr Ansaldo LUL Total Personnel costs

0 5.113 0 1.725 1.678 3.006 3.257 0 530 15.309

Travel costs 0 1.814 0 0 0 1.666 1.795 0 53 5.328 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 0 4.090 0 786 1.006 557 977 0 116 7.532 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 1-18

0 11.017 0 2511 2.684 5.229 6.028 0 1.071 28.169

Total Month 1-48

7.289 47.400 119.820 81.240 25.772 21.632 33.548 62.001 72.793 18.792 409.047

Percentage used

0 23% 0 10% 12% 15% 10% 0 6% 7%

*Data not provided by the beneficiary There are no deviations in the WP due to the fact that the WP has started in month 15 and therefore it has been very little expenditures. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions. N/A


Work Package 4: Common Safety Requirements a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 4.1: State of the Art and Review of Results from Previous Projects Objective of this task is the collection of information on the state of the art of methods for safety requirement allocation. The work on this task was started in April 2009. The kick-off meeting of the WP4 was held on 21 April 2009. In order to include the knowledge of external experts (operators, organizations, etc.) on the existing methods for safety requirement allocation a Call for National Experts had been launched in May 2009. After the kick-off meeting the preparation of D4.1 started and information was collected on different safety requirement allocation schemes. Different methods from international, European and national standards, technical recommendations and results from previous research project, e.g. MODURBAN and MODTRAIN were studied. A joint meeting of the WP4 and Expert Group members took place in August 2009 and the objectives and inputs required for the task 4.1 were introduced to the Expert Group by the WP4 members. Until December 2009 input was collected from the members of the Expert Group and was included into the deliverable D4.1. Apart from the more theoretical description of methods in standards or recommendations practical examples from the involved operators were included, too. In the course of December 2009 the first drafts of the deliverable D4.1 were prepared and sent to the WP members for internal review. This review process finished in early January 2010 and D4.1 was submitted to WP10 for internal review. Taking into account the comments at WP10 level and preparing the final version of the deliverable will be finished by 3 March 2010. Altogether the deliverable takes into account 15 different references, mainly standards but also recommendations and description of applied methods from operators on safety requirement allocation. We may therefore consider the objective of task 4.1 accomplished. Task 4.2: Application of the Safety Requirement Allocation Process to MODSafe continuous Safety Measures and Functions This task was started in late January 2010. Currently a preliminary functions model is developed and discussed with the WP partner. A first draft version of this function model was presented on the meeting in Paris on 27 January 2010. It was agreed to further refine this model which will be done in course of the next 6 month. Task 4.3: Analysis of on Demand Functions and Systematic Failures This task has not started yet. b. Clearly significant results The first deliverable describes methods for the allocation of safety requirements on hazard control or safety measures applied in urban guided transport systems. It presents the currently used approaches, outlines relevant standards and guidelines as well as actual methods used by railway operating companies. Moreover, all methods have been compared in order to analyse different modes of application. Several criteria have been identified to have benefits for methods on safety requirement allocation:


Conformity with European standards Straight forward applicability possible, e.g. clear sequence of steps Well described risk parameter Prefer conservative estimates in case of uncertainty Repeatable, i.e. yield same results by different users Possibility to compare results with a risk acceptance criterion, i.e. to express safety

requirements as rates or probabilities Level of detail should be clear (single low-level hazard vs. high-level generic hazard).

From this first task two main conclusions can be drawn: Safety functions working in a continuous mode of operation, i.e. they are used permanently; all analysed methods yield the same results. But for safety functions with an on demand character, i.e. they are used only at rare occurrence, at least compared to the continuous mode, the results are not necessarily consistent. Therefore, special attention will be paid to this category of safety functions and it will be addressed in later deliverables by MODSafe. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available

resources and planning D4.1 is delayed by 5 months. New delivery date is expected for March 2010 (Month 19). d. Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the

impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning Originally the work package had been scheduled to start at month 6 (1 February 2009). Due to some uncertainties at the beginning of MODSafe regarding the overall start of the project as well as the Description of Work in Annex I, the start of the work package was delayed. Therefore also the final submission date of the first deliverable had been delayed by 4 month. This delay did not impact other work packages or resources allocated to WP4. However, due to the delayed start of WP4 further delay to the task 4.2 and 4.3 may not be excluded.





1 TRIT 0 0,53 AREVA TA 0,07 28 RATP 1,62 310 UITP 0,37 217 ANSALDO 0,51 218 TMB 1,84 3,519 TelSys 0,9 1020 LUL 0,05 1,5


Total 6,43 27 WP4 1 3 8 10 17 18 19 20 22 TRIT AREVA RATP UITP Ansaldo TMB TelSys LUL MMA Total Personnel costs 0 725 14.889 2.487 6.778 11.802 2.585 476 6.073 45.815 Travel costs 0 0 439 248 0 524 2.518 229 2.635 6.593 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 0 188 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 0 580 6.856 600 790 2.246 2.421 141 2.808 16.442 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 1-18 0 1.304 22.184 3.599 7.568 14.571 7.712 6.953 11.516 69.038 Total Month 1-48 7.289 37.920 38.658 28.024 32.353 33.306 135.388 28.188 27.009 368.135 Percentage used 0 3,4% 57% 13% 23% 44% 6% 25% 43% 18% UITP is the WP leader and hosted two meetings. All the WP partners contributed to the work. The WP started in month 6 and the overall consumption of resources is very low due to the late start of the work at the working package. However, D4.1 is mostly done and the preparations for D4.2 have started. UITP drafted a call for expert in collaboration with Telsys and sent it through the UITP rail channels. RATP attended the three WP4 meetings on 21st April, 31st August 2009, and 27th January 2010 in Brussels and provided support preparing a document explaining the safety approach applied by RATP and how RATP proceeds to allocate SIL. It has also reviewed D4.1. There are no budget deviations on the other partners. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions N/A


Work Package 5: Functional and Object oriented Safety Model a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 5.1: Safety Object Model The Task 5.1 aims to organise safety relevant System Objects into UML class diagrams. The Safety Object Model shall be linked with the Safety Functional Model of Task 5.2. At the moment, the Safety Object Model is in progress and is coordinated with the advancement of the Safety Functional Model of Task 5.2. The two tasks are progressing in parallel. Therefore and for the late start of the MODSafe project, the schedule for the Task 5.1 was postponed to be delivered in June 2010. Task 5.2: Safety Functional Model The Task 5.2 will list all safety relevant functions in a tree-structured hierarchy model. Therefore, former models and lists, e.g. MODURBAN and MODTRAIN (especially D80 and D85) are checked and aligned with IEC 62290-2 (Railway Applications – Urban Guided Transport Management and Command/Control Systems – Part 2: Functional specification). The Task 5.2 is coordinated with WP4, Task 4.2 Safety functions: “Application of the Safety Requirement Allocation Process to MODSafe continuous Safety Measures and Functions”. This Safety Functional Model is then linked to Safety Object model, in order to allocate the objects to the functions they perform. The work of WP4 and WP5 are streamlined and currently advanced. They will then provide an input for WP3. Analogous to the Task 5.1 and in accordance with the delivery dates of the documents, the Deliverable of Task 5.2 is foreseen for June 2010. Task 5.3: Safety Attributes Allocation Matrix The final Task 5.3 of the Functional and Object oriented Safety Model will then associate the Safety Objects and Safety functions with the lists of hazards of WP2. Furthermore, the Safety Objects are allocated to the Grade of Automation (GOA) wherein they perform the Safety Functions. The result of WP5 will then be inserted in the Hazard and Risk Analysis. b. Clearly significant results So far, there are no clearly significant results. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available

resources and planning D5.1 was postponed from month 16 to month 24 due to the late start of the project and the necessity to work in parallel on Task 5.1 and 5.2. D5.2 is consequently delayed also 2 months. This postponement has no influence on the overall schedule of WP5.


d. Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning

Please see comments above. e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations between




1 TRIT 0 0,53 AREVA TA 0 24 BME 0 39 TUD 4,5 1917 ANSALDO 0 2,519 TelSys 0,8 10,5Total 5,3 37,5 WP5 1 3 4 9 17 19 TRIT AREVA BME TUD Ansaldo TelSys Total Personnel costs 67 0 0 20.963 0 1.877 22.907 Travel costs 0 0 0 1.133 0 0 1.133 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 214 0 0 214

Indirect costs 40 0 0 13.386 0 892 14.318 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 1-18 107 0 0 35.696 0 2.769 38.573 Total Month 1-48 7.289 37.920 26.208 179.409 40.441 114.043 405.310 Percentage used 1,4% 0 0 20% 0 3% 9,5% There are no deviations on the budget as WP5 started in month 7 and has a delay of 5 months for the first deliverable (D5.1) due to the fact that it was decided to work in parallel for D5.1 and D5.2. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions. N/A


Work Package 6: Safety Life Cycle Responsibilities WP6 deals with responsibilities and processes within the member states of the European Community and focuses on Metros, Light Rail Systems, and Trams. Heavy rail urban commuter Trains like “S-Bahn” in Germany or SNCF “RER” in France are not within the scope.

a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 6.1: Survey of current safety life cycle approaches Identification and analysis was performed by creating a questionnaire in form of an overview table format per country as part of the D6.1, supplemented by case studies for selected countries and initial conclusions.

The resulting D 6.1 is available in its version V 0.91 and under WP6 approval process, ready to be submitted to WP10 for consensus building and then submission to the European Commission.

Task 6.2: Identification of similarities within current safety life cycle approaches The results of tasks 6.1 will be the base for task 6.2 (Identification of similarities within current safety life cycle approaches), which has just started in terms of specifying the general structure and principle content. The results of both tasks (D 6.1 and D6.2) will lead to the “Development of a common safety life cycle” to be proposed.

Task 6.3: Development of a common safety life cycle This task has not started yet.

b. Clearly significant results The resulting D 6.1 will show that in Europe the systems of Metros, Light Rail and Trams are still characterized by a diversified landscape of safety requirements, safety models, roles and responsibilities, safety approval, acceptance and certification schemes; however, there are convergences between some architectures and systems.

c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available

resources and planning D6.1 is slightly delayed by 4 months.

d. Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the

impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning


UITP informed on January 2010 that D6.1 will be distributed to the UITP members to check the contents of their own country and this procedure will take some time.

D 6.1 is available in it's version V 0.91and under WP6 approval process, ready to be submitted to WP10 for consensus building and submission to the European Commission.

Worth to mention that clarification of project scope limitation and definition of terms is ongoing at WP10 level and that potential further UITP member comments may require an update of D6.1 at a later stage - in agreement with WP10.

e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations between




1 TRIT 4,58 12,84 BME 0 66 INRETS 0,83 38 RATP 1,91 416 R&B 0,5 521 UTC 0,6 1Total 8,42 31,8 WP6 1 4 6 8 16 21 TRIT BME INRETS RATP R&B UTC Total Personnel costs 37.265 0 6.684 19.166 3.751 3.545 70.410 Travel costs 12,60 0 0 1013 275,96 0 1.302 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indirect costs 22.033 0 4.010 8.892 2.215 2.658 39.809 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 1.487 0 0 0 0 0 1.487 Total month 1-18 60.797 0 10.694 29.070 6.242 6.203 113.007 Total Month 1-48 231.446 52.416 26.237 51.544 73.000 12.982 447.625 Percentage used 26% 0 41% 56% 8,5% 48% 25% TRIT is the WP leader and organised the work as well as follows the progress. It organised the combined kick-off meeting of WP6 and W7 in May 2009 in Cologne. It proposed the structure of D6.1. Other partners commented the different drafts available of D6.1 RATP has prepared the case study for France and reviewed D6.1. R&B helped to prepare the case study for Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. UTC helped with the case study of some Eastern Europe countries with Slovakia in particular as well as sharing its experience concerning current safety lifecycles for France. The work implicates phone discussions and exchange of information with experts and checking of the existing national regulations (partly with translations into English).


The level of expenditure is on line with the budget due to the fact that WP6 will developed its work during 2010. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions. N/A


Work Package 7: Acceptance, Approval, Certification The main objective of this work package is to develop a typical optimized frame of the ACC procedure based on elementary activity modules and on an analysis of current AAC procedures over Europe. a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 7.1: Survey of current AAC-procedures The main purpose of Task 7.1, within the WP7, is to provide a survey on the current practices of the acceptance, approval and certification processes in different European countries, with respect to tram and metro (light rail) transportation modes. The fulfilment of the task was started during a kick-off meeting, which was held together with the kick-off meeting of WP6, as it became clear, that these work packages needed partly the same and partly very similar information from operators, authorities and from other bodies, who participate in life cycle phases, and especially in the acceptance, approval and certification procedures of urban guided rail systems. During the kick-off meeting it was decided that to elaborate a questionnaire, with the answering of that the necessary information can be collected for further processing. Furthermore the different countries were allocated to work package partners, so that the answers to the questions may be provided with the highest confidence possible. Additionally some case studies for safety life cycle and certification were elaborated by work package partners (for the UK, for Denmark, for Hungary and for Germany) in order to have a more detailed look into these processes. The data collection phase was followed by an analysis process, which resulted in a kind of comparison between the practices in different countries. The results of the data collection and the analysis were compiled in D7.1 which is currently under review by WP partners. Task 7.2: Identifying elementary activity modules This task is delayed due to the delay of Task 7.1. Task 7.3: Generic model for an ACC-procedure Task not started in this period. Task 7.4: Proposal for a typical optimized ACC process Task not started in this period. b. Clearly significant results The current European practices of acceptance, approval and certification processes have been compiled, thus this compilation may serve as a basis for further activities within the work package.


c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning

A deviation was detected in D7.1 as the draft provided by the WP leader didn’t have the quality needed after facing problems gathering the required information from different countries. A new deadline for the WP leader was agreed by the Executive Board in order to allow them to provide a new draft containing major modifications. D7.1 has consequently a delay of 10 months and it is scheduled to be delivered by June 2010. d. Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the

impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning The gathering of required information from different countries within the European Union took much more time than it could be foreseen. This situation resulted in a significant delay in Task 7.1, what causes further delay to Task 7.2, as Task 7.1 provides the main input for Task 7.2. D7.2 is expected to be delivered in October 2010 (month 26). The delay does not affect the available resources. e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations between



Planned Month 1 – 48

1 TRIT 0,11 84 BME 0 12,56 INRETS 0,66 3,58 RATP 0,21 410 UITP 0,01 0,520 LUL 0,00 0,521 UTC 0 1Total 0.99 30 WP7 1 4 6 8 10 21 20 TRIT BME INRETS RATP UITP UTC LUL Total Personnel costs 928 0 5.415 1.838 41 0 0 8.222 Travel costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 196 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 556 0 3.249 838 8 0 39 5.005 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 1-18

1.484 0 8.663 2.676 49 0 235 13.423

Total Month 1-48

116.628 123.544 30.610 51.544 5.256 12.982 9.396 349.960

Percentage used

1% 0 28% 5% 1% 0 2% 3%


The WP7 kick-off meeting was held together with WP6 and organised by TRIT. It helped to identify a common understanding of the WP7 tasks, in order to harmonise and reasonably split between the two WPs. A review of D7.1: Review of current AAC procedures has been performed, comments made for further improvement of the document’s quality. RATP, LUL and UTC attended the meeting. UITP contributed to a very limited extend to the general work of this deliverable. The WP leader is BME. BME has decided that no payments will be completed inside the company until the first deliverable, for which BME is responsible, is not finished. Until now no payments were made, therefore the FORM C is for the reporting period total zero. Due to the start of the WP in month 7 the budget spent is very low and there are no deviations. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions. As detailed in d) the data collection phase suffered delay in the work package. The following tasks are not so much depending on external resources and information like this first phase, therefore an accumulation of the delay is not expectable (with the exception of shifting Task 7.2). However, it was decided to have work package meeting more often then up to now.


Work Package 8: Level of sophistication and relevant technology of security surveillance systems The objective of this WP is the “Identification, categorization and assessment of relevant technologies for security surveillance and prevention and for integration into an overall safety/security model.” The kick-off meeting of WP8 took place on May 11th 2009. Together, partners established a work plan. They discussed about the work progress during meetings, phone conferences and by email. Together they contributed to the following tasks. a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 8.1: State of the art (also other fields of transport) To reach the objective of task 8.1, the following work was accomplished: First list of securisation means at the level of Urban (Rail) Guided Transport was drafted (“countermeasures and technologies supporting UGT security operations”). Then, partners wrote a list of securisation means in aviation domain. Finally, a list of securisation means in long distance rail transport was drafted.

The level of securisation within the aviation world is more sophisticated than in the Urban (Rail) Guided Transport and long distance rail transport domain. Based on aviation experience related to regulations, treatment of dangerous passengers, human factors and training, we highlighted possible transfers to Urban (Rail) Guided Transport and long distance rail.

Many aspects of the aviation domain (procedures, technologies, regulations and methods) are strictly related to aviation and their transfer in the domain of urban guided / long distance rail transport systems is not possible. Nevertheless, the same aspects of aviation that, if examined in details, do not appear transferable in the domain of interest, when viewed from a broader point of view, offer interesting insights and suggestions for improving security in urban guided / long distance rail transport systems. Hence a list was made of general suggestions of possible transfers. D8.1 has been drafted and is currently being revised by WP8 partners. Task 8.2: Regulation in force and technology needed in regard to the level of sophistication After drafting a work plan, the following work has already been accomplished.

Existing regulations and norms in force at the EU and national level have been revised. APTA guidelines and standards were also considered.

Currently, partners are identifying techniques, methods and tools used to satisfy legal requirements in design, training etc.


Task 8.3: Operator strategies for the introduction and appliance of security surveillance system depending on the level of sophistication This task was not yet started. b. Clearly significant results As explained above, the following clearly significant results emerged from WP8 so far:

• a list of securisation means at the level of Urban (Rail) Guided Transport; • a list of securisation means in aviation domain; • a list of securisation means in long distance rail transport; • a list was made of general suggestions of possible transfers from aviation domain to urban

guided/long distance rail transport systems. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available

resources and planning No deviation has been noted. d. Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the

impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning WP8 partners have not failed to achieve critical objectives or to be on schedule. e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations between




8 RATP 1,39 610 UITP 0,75 214 KITE 5,31 916 R&B 1,5 220 LUL 0,00 2,5


Total 10,21 24


WP8 8 10 14 16 20 21 RATP UITP KITE R&B LUL MMadrid Total Personnel costs 18.337 5.488 54.999 11.254 0 7.512 97.590 Travel costs 714 182 4.640 828 0 2.359 8.723 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 8.469 1.181 35.783 6.645 0 3.183 55.261 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 233 0 0 0 0 233 Total month 1-18 27.521 7.084 95.422,4 18.727 0 13.054 161.807 Total Month 1-48 77.317 25.524 150.624 29.200 46.980 27.009 356.654 Percentage used 36% 28% 63% 64% 0% 48% 43% UITP is the WP leader and supervised the work to do. Due to the fact that WP8 and WP9 are dealing with Security issues and WP partners are almost the same and in order to decrease the travel expenses most of the meetings are held together. UITP hosted 5 meetings and organised several phone conferences. KITE has been charged to develop D8.1. It has reviewed of existing means and measures for security systems and has followed closely the task on the “State-of-the-Art” outcomes of the European Project COUNTERACT and some other projects in which operators have had an important role (e.g. Prismatica FP5). Different types of existing means and measures for security enhancement have been analysed. In particular, the two main lines of assessment, preventive and reactive means and measures, have considered, especially in association to the current activities in the domains of aviation. It is not expected for KITE to carry out the work uniformly within WP8 due to the fact that its major responsibility was in the first part of the project with the development of D8.1 and they will now gradually reducing the workload. It remains sufficient for the performance of the remaining work D8.2 and D8.3 were they will contribute as editors rather that main contributor. R&B was mainly responsible for D8.2. In particular for the organisation methodology and content of work of task 8.2 as well as 2 annexes about the regulations and norms and responsible authorities on European, national, regional and local level, first giving the information on the German part and then coordinating the contributions of the French, British and Spanish partners. There are no deviations in the budget as KITE and R&B were the main responsible for D8.1 and D8.2 respectively. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions. N/A


Work Package 9: Global approach for integrated security needs The objective of this WP is the following: To build up an integrated security model for guided transport in urban areas in the form of guiding principles, in a way comparable to the safety model. The work in this WP will take advantage of the COUNTERACT work stream on Security Risk Assessment and Security Planning which was limited to Anti-Terrorism. In that regard, the following work has to be performed:

- Analysis of security related hazards, - Classification of potential risks and coincidences, - Definition of possible security response measures in order to mitigate these risks.

The kick-off meeting of WP9 took also place on May 11th 2009. Together, partners established a work plan. They discussed about the work progress during meetings, phone conferences and by email. Together they contributed to the following tasks. a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 9.1: Analysis of security related hazards To reach the objective of task 9.1, the following work was accomplished.

First a table based on the hazard log of “EN 50126: Railway applications - The specification and demonstration of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS)“ was drafted and completed by partners. Then, this table was compared to CEN/TR 14383-7:2009 “Prevention of crime - Urban planning and building design – Part 7: Design and management of public transport facilities”.

On this basis, partners produced:

• an exhaustive list of possible security related threats linked to persons, property, information systems and sabotage;

• a clear classification of those threats; • a matrix allowing to rank targets (in this case concerning a terrorist attack).

D9.1 was submitted to WP10 and is currently being revised for consolidation. Task 9.2: Classification of the risks associated to security issues On the basis of the work that was achieved in task 9.1, the next step will be to decrease the vulnerability of the urban guided transport system. This will be done in task 9.2, which will consist in drafting scenarios that will take into account the mitigation that could be provided to decrease / suppress a threat. So far, a work plan has been written and accepted by partners. Furthermore, a table of scenarios has been drafted. Task 9.3: Determination of possible means and response measure in order to mitigate the risks and threats associated to security issues


This task was not yet started. b. Clearly significant results As explained above, three clearly significant results emerged from WP9 so far:

1. an exhaustive list of possible security related threats linked to persons, property,

information systems and sabotage; 2. a clear classification of those threats; 3. a matrix allowing to rank targets (in this case concerning a terrorist attack).

c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning Task 9.1 focused essentially on existing threats to urban (rail) guided transport systems. This is due to the fact that the expression “hazard scenarios” is replaced by the word “threat” more commonly used in the field of security. d. Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning D9.1 is slightly delayed due to the late start of the project work caused by the uncertainty and continuous changes of the Description of Work (Annex I). e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations

between actual and planned person-months per work package and per beneficiary in Annex 1 (Description of Work)



8 RATP 1,72 410 UITP 0,84 316 R&B 1,5 220 LUL 0 3

22 Metro de Madrid 1,41 1

Total 5,47 13


UITP is the WP leader and supervised the work to do. The meetings of WP9 are held at the same time that those of WP8 as explained in WP8. RATP drafted most of the review of the existing threats to urban rail guided transport systems and also attended one WP9 meeting on 14th January 2010 in Brussels. The only current deviation is coming from Metro de Madrid that has expended the totality of its budget mainly due to the location of the meetings. Regarding the personal costs it has been required that experts in security area are involved. Also it has to be considered that the travel expenses have been very high for MMa with an average of 1.500-1.700Eur per trip. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions. N/A

WP9 8 10 16 20 21 RATP UITP R&B LUL Metro

Madrid Total

Personnel costs 23.432 5.896 11.254 0 8.471 49.053 Travel costs 155 57 828 0 2.359 3.399 Experts 10.708 0 0 0 0 10.708 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 10.708 1.221 6.645 0 3.493 22.066 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 150 0 0 0 150 Total month 1-18 34.295 7.324 18.726 0 14.323 74.668 Total Month 1-48 51.544 36.036 29.200 56.376 10.804 183.960 Percentage used 66% 20% 64% 0 132% 40%


Work Package 10: System Approach / Consolidation a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 10.1: Consensus building and review of MODSAFE results Two WP10 meetings have been organised during the period M1 to M18. Nevertheless, the consensus building process is a continuous one thanks also to email exchanges and it will go on according to the rhythm planned in the Description of Work. In order to allow MODSAFE project to progress efficiently and to ensure that all critical elements were dealt with, the WP10 regular consensus building meetings enabled to:

- exchange ideas, compare points of view and explain reasons for differences, - analyse each deliverable, - draw a list of open/closed points, - reach consensus and key decisions about them.

The methodology is to set up a list of Open Points giving notably their origin, their description, the deadline for finding a solution, a proposal of solution, the decision reached and the closure date. There is no Open Point for the time being. At the first WP10 meeting it was decided to set up a MODSAFE glossary (deliverable D10.5) from the deliverables already produced. This is a new deliverable added to the list of deliverables. It was created from D1.1 the first deliverable produced. It has been updated with two other deliverables already approved: D1.2, D2.1. It will be updated when other deliverables are produced. The purpose of this MODSAFE Glossary is:

- to gather all terms and abbreviations that are used by the different work packages of MODSAFE: it will therefore facilitate the common understanding of terms and abbreviations at a System level and allow to avoid the inconsistencies between definitions used in different deliverables,

- to simplify the content of the glossaries to be defined for each MODSAFE deliverable: hence, for a given deliverable, its glossary will only include terms and abbreviations that are specific to this deliverable.

Task 10.2: Scientific monitoring and coordination One Kick-off took place on September 8 &9, 2008 where it was presented the structure of the project and the approach of the work to be done by WP. The scientific monitoring and coordination is ensured by two bodies: - Executive Board


TRIT as coordinator chaired the Executive Board (EB) meetings in Cologne (January 2009) and Paris (September 2009). The EB is the decision-making and executing body of the project and helps to link between the work-packages. The EB consists of the following partners: - TRIT as coordinator and WP6 leader - INRETS as WP1 leader - TUD leading WP2 and WP5 - BME leading WP7 - BTSERCS leading WP3 - UITP WP leaders of WP4, WP8. WP9 and WP12 - RATP leading WP10 - TRC leading WP11 - UNIFE participating in WP10 and WP12 Outcomes of these meetings were e.g. a presentation about the approval procedures or a shift for the delivery date for D7.1 due to a harmonisation of WP6&WP7. More information about these meetings is presented in the Minutes of the meeting which can be found as deliverable D11.3. - Plenary Group One Plenary Group meeting took place on September 2009 in Paris. They are organised back to back with WP10 meetings in order to decrease the expenditure on travels. They were also chaired by TRIT with attendance of all beneficiaries. The meetings mainly focused on the project progresses and the future steps are discussed. It is reported by the EB members as well as the WP leaders. This permanent consensus building process helps to ensure that the different critical elements of MODSafe can be integrated. Key decisions, open/closed points and consensual points are regularly updated and discussed both in the PG and EB meetings. b. Clearly significant results The consensus building has been completed for the following deliverables: D1.1, D1.2, D2.1. The review at WP10 level of the following deliverables is in progress: D2.2, D4.1, D6.1, D9.1. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning There are no deviations on WP10. The meetings of the EB and PG took place regularly as well as the procedure of the consensus building has been established. d. Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning N/A e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations between actual and planned person-months per work package and per beneficiary in Annex 1 (Description of Work)




1 TRIT 0,95 83 AREVA 0,56 34 BME 0 35* BTSERCS 36 INRETS 1,26 3,57 ALSTOM 0,47 3,58 RATP 7,67 249 TUD 0,1 410 UITP 0,20 3,511 UNIFE 0,46 612 UVHC 1,04 313 Thales 0 3,514 KITE 0,77 115 Dimetronic 0,3 3,516 R&B 2,5 517 Ansaldo 0,58 318 TMB 1,44 3,519 TelSys 0,1 2,520 LUL 0,05 2,521 MMADRID 2,08 1,522 UTC 0,24 0,5

Total 20.77

84.3*Data not provided WP10 1 3 4 5* 6 TRIT AREVA BME BTSERCS INRETS Personnel costs 7.786 5.583 0 8.683 Travel costs 0 2.613 0 0 Experts 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 4.633 4.466 0 5.210 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 Total month 1-18 12.418 12.662 0 13.892 Total Month 1-48 131.703 56.880 29.708 40.580 34.110 Percentage used 9% 22% 0 41% *Data non provided by the beneficiary


WP10 7 8 9 10 11 12 ALSTOM RATP TUD UITP UNIFE UVHC Personnel costs 5.000 85.786 434 1.473 5.981 7.843 Travel costs 372 1.482 3.479 1.203 0 497 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 0 39341 2.347 535 4.781 5.004 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 1.987 0 Total month 1-18 5.372 126.607 6.256 3.211 12.750 13.344 Total Month 1-48 56.868 345.135 38.444 14.012 27.188 32.448 Percentage used 9% 37% 16% 23% 47% 41% WP10 13 14 15 16 17 18 Thales KITE Dimetronic R&B ANSALDO TMB Personnel costs 0 7.308 1.826 18.756 7.982 11.312 Travel costs 0 0 1.884 1.380 1.509,05 2.439 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 0 4.384,80 548 31.211 903,24 2152 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 1-18 0 11.692,80 4.258 31.211 10.394,29 15.904 Total Month 1-48 33.548 16.736 48.223 73.000 48.529 33.306 Percentage used 0% 70% 9% 42% 21% 47% WP10 19 20 21 22 TelSys LUL UTC MMadrid Total Personnel costs 103 477 1.217,37 12.306 189.856 Travel costs 558 196 0 1.416 19.027 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 255 134 913,03 4.425 111.243 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 1-18 916 808 2.130,40 18.147 320.126 Total Month 1-48 27.153 46.980 6.491 16.205 1.157.247 Percentage used 3% 1% 33% 112% 28%


This WP is well separated into two different parts. The first one is piloted by RATP which consist in the consensus building and the second by TRIT which comprise the Plenary Group and the Executive Board. Two WP10 meetings were organised and managed by RATP (preparation of the agenda and the minutes) during the period M1 to M18, on 30th March and 9th September 2009. The MODSAFE glossary (deliverable D10.5) was created by RATP from D1.1 the first deliverable produced. It has been updated by RATP with two other deliverables already approved: D1.2, D2.1. The first version V1 was attached to the agenda of the 3rd WP10 meeting. The consensus building process has been led by RATP for the following deliverables D1.1, D1.2, D2.1, D2.2, D4.1, D6.1, D9.1. That includes for the review of each deliverable:

- review and comments made by RATP, - compilation by RATP of all comments from all members, - management by RATP of the feedback loop between members and the WP responsible of

the corresponding deliverable until the review is completed and consensus reached. The first WP10 deliverable D10.1 "First consensus building report" has been provided by RATP in September 2009. The general procedure is that all project partners revise, review and give comments to the deliverables and these are compiled by RATP. The resources spent are largely in line with the Description of Work. KITE and Metro de Madrid have used a considerable part of their budget. KITE which has been reading and reviewing all the deliverables that have been distributed for consensus building and they have spent more time than expected. They will ensure valuable activity with the 30% of resources remaining. Metro de Madrid has expended the totality of its budget mainly due to the location of the meetings and that the implications of more people that initially expected. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions. N/A


Work Package 12: Dissemination and Exploitation The objective of this Work Package is to inform the various stakeholders about the project outcome, and to encourage these results adequately: to promote knowledge, stimulate debate and disseminate the MODSafe project outcome. Particularly addressed will be public transport operators organized in UITP but not represented in the MODSafe consortium, the relevant manufacturing and supply industry (e.g. UNIFE members). a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 12.1: The Support and User Group and periodic meetings The various stakeholders are informed of the project outcomes and in particular public transport authorities (through the Network of Operators) and the relevant manufacturing and supply industry.

1. Network of Operators A “MODSafe teaser” was produced and sent via different canals (in particular to the UITP Metro, Regional Rail, Light Rail, Regional and Suburban Railways and European Union Committee members) to attract operators. Various operators expressed an interest in the project. UITP received 6 replies as follow up to the Teaser from the following operators:

- De Lijn (Mechelen, Belgium) - Metropolitano de Lisboa (Lisboa, Portugal) - Metro do Porto (Porto, Portugal) - Metro Mondego (Coimbre, Portugal) - Münchner verkehrgessellschaft (München, Germany) - Q’Straint (kent, UK)

The kick-off meeting of the Network of Operators was organised on December 10th 2009. During this meeting, each Work Package leader presented his/her Work Package and answered questions that were posed by operators. The next Network of Operators meeting is planned to take place on May 27th 2010. So far, UITP has received 3 contracts of participation in the Network of Operators. A coordination meeting was organised between UITP and UNIFE, and UNIFE was invited to the kick-off meeting of the Network of Operators. 20 participants in total were present, whereof 4 external operators that came from the following organisations: Q’Straint Europe, Metro Lisboa, Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat, De Lijn. UITP has received three contracts for participation in the Support and User Group, from the following organisations: Q’Straint Europe, Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat, De Lijn.

2. Network of Industries A special session on MODSafe was organised during the recent UNIFE Signalling Working Group committee meeting on February 9th 2010. A fully fledged presentation on the project objectives and


its expected impact was prepared, as well as a short discussion on some crucial draft deliverables such as D.2.1 or D 6.1. The participants showed interest in receiving further updates. In addition to this, five meetings with the UNIFE members at large were organised (on October 27th 2008, February 12th 2009, June 17th 2009, October 20th 2009 and on February 18th 2010). This meeting called “Technical Plenary”, regroups all the UNIFE R&D directors of the members and is an excellent platform to disseminate the project results. Task 12.3: Website The website domain www.modsafe.eu has been purchased and the website was established and is running according to expectations.

The webpage contains both an internal area with restricted access and a public section with free access was provided in month 3. It was several times further developed. The webpage provides to visitors information on the MODSafe project and its partners and also offers a download option for public results of the project. Within the restricted section the webpage serves as share point for all kind of project documents such as minutes, presentations, reports and deliverables.

The three working spaces (protected by password) comprise: - working space for consortium partners as internal network communication tool (accessible to partners); - working space for the network of operators to serve as exchange platform and respective working space (accessible to partners and experts participating in this user group; and - working space for the network of suppliers to serve as exchange platform and respective working space (accessible to partners and experts participating in this user group).

Task 12.4 Dissemination and exploitation


A newsletter was produced in May 2009 with a first broad overview of the project outlines and objectives. It was circulated internally to inform individuals within partner organisations, and externally to target audiences. It was also placed on the project’s website as downloadable PDF file. A second newsletter is currently being prepared. It can contain the following elements: announcement of progress by single partners or user group collaborators, reports on conferences and meetings, news of milestones achievements, personnel announcements and information about forthcoming events. Furthermore, a dissemination plan was drafted which corresponds to D12.2. It included planned activities for the dissemination of the project results to the widest possible audience. Several dissemination activities have already taken place. They include publication of papers (e.g.: article in UITP Direct newsletter) and conference presentations (e.g.: UITP 58th World Congress Vienna). A more complete list was included in the Dissemination plan and in section 4. j of this report. To continue to communicate on the project’s result, further dissemination activities are planned. b. Clearly significant results As explained above, the following clearly significant results have been identified.

Information on project results to public transport operators (through the setting up of a Network of Operators) and to relevant manufacturing and supply industry (through different UNIFE meetings).

The success in setting up and managing the MODSafe website. The writing of a dissemination plan. The implementation of different dissemination activities (newsletter, publication of papers

and conference presentation). The tables below show the level of access and the use of the website for 2008 and 2009.

Year 2008 Month Different Visitor Number of Visits Pages September 4 26 2949October 7 40 1880November 8 15 142December 2 2 21Total 21 83 4.992

Year 2008

Domains/ Countries of the visitors (Top 10) Domain/Country Pages

Commercial com 2904


France fr 7

Germany de 38

Year 2009 Month Different Visitor Number of Visits Pages January 9 38 3164February 5 6 25March 33 62 1416April 61 125 6462May 40 90 1332June 76 94 754July 58 150 3019August 50 130 1825September 36 68 609October 37 72 932November 47 67 395December 50 65 480Total 502 967 20.413

Year 2009

Domains/ Countries of the visitors (Top 10) Domain/Country Pages

Commercial com 3041

Unknown ip 123

c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning No deviation. d. Reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning WP12 partners have not failed to achieve critical objectives or to be on schedule.





1 TRIT 0,22 62 TRC 3,9 8,38 RATP 0,11 110 UITP 1,12 3,511 UNIFE 1,17 619 TelSys 0 1Total 6,52 25,8 WP12 1 2 8 10 11 19 TRIT TRC RATP UITP UNIFE TelSys Total Personnel costs 1.812 24.085 1.411 7.065 14.652 0 49.025 Travel costs 259 0 129 0 1.101 0 1.488 Experts 0 0 0 1987 0 0 1.987 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 1067 4.434 663 1967 9.451 0 17.582 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 931 0 0 931 Total month 1-18 3.138 28.519 2.203 11.980 25.203 0 61.602 Total Month 1-48 87.471 108.776 25.286 146.192 81.216 10.861 459.802 Percentage used 4% 26% 9% 8% 31% 0 13% Concerning the Support and User Group: UITP drafted a “MODSafe teaser” and sent it to different stakeholders in order to attire participation (in particular to the UITP Metro, Regional Rail, Light Rail and European Union Committee members). UITP organised the Support & User Group (SUG) kick-off meeting in Brussels, December 2009 which meant administrative preparation, holding and follow up the meeting. TRIT attended the meeting in order to provide general information as well as ongoing progress and outcomes related to the project. A part from the project overview was given, as well as a presentation about the WP6 management (which the TRIT is WP leader in). UNIFE participated actively also in this meeting.


UNIFE organised 5 meetings with UNIFE members as well as a special session during the UNIFE Signalling Working Group committee meeting on February 09, 2010. A fully fledged presentation on the project objectives and its expected impact was prepared, as well as a short discussion on some crucial draft deliverables such as D.2.1 or D 6.1. Modsafe was also presented during the UNIFE General Assembly which took place in Warsaw on June 18, 2009. In terms of other dissemination activities, UNIFE contributed to the creation of a powerpoint presentation for the purpose of Vienna UITP world congress. The presentation was given a number of times on the UNIFE/UITP stand. Concerning the website, it was entirely stabilised and developed by TRC: external and internal parts, layout, regularly updates, etc based in the typo 3 software. WP leaders collaborated in order to provide content. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions. N/A


3. Project management The WP11 corresponds to the project management tasks aiming to: • provide a structured system for the financial and administrative management of the

project. • provide effective administration and financial services to partners and the Commission,

such as reporting and contractual issues • develop and implement a financing support for the associated partners of the IFM Forum

(“experts”) and • to attend and contribute to meetings with the Commission as necessary a. Consortium management tasks and achievements Finance Management TRC kept the financial accounts. The budget and cost development was observed continuously. TRC provided up to date figures about the budget status and use of resources. A simple procedure for payments from coordinator to contractors was developed and implemented. TRC prepared the payments to beneficiaries. TRIT subsequently authorised payments. Numerous inquires from the beneficiaries regarding the new rules of FP7 applicable to MODSafe were answered. Presentations of the rules were made at the EB and PG meetings. Contract Management The two relevant contracts, Grant Agreement (GA) SCP-GA-2009-218606- MODSafe and Consortium Agreement (CA) were prepared and signed. Contract relevant changes in the project are observed and collected regularly. At this moment no amendment to the GA has been processed but it can be envisaged for the next reporting period due to the delay of some deliverables. In the first reporting period, this concerned primarily changes of responsible persons in the project, bank accounts and names of organisations. Reporting and communication to the European Commission By mid of February 2010 instruction for the periodic activity report were circulated to all partners in order to facilitate the reporting process. The procedure for the registration on ECAS and the submission of the Form C through FORCE was explained in detail both by email and by a presentation at the Plenary Group. One deliverable was provided so far: D11.3: Annual Meeting Documentation delivered on October 2009. This deliverable is a compilation of the documentation of the meetings of the Plenary Group (PG) and the Executive Board (EB) during the period 1st September 2008 to 30th September 2009. Quality Assurance For the quality assurance the delivery of reports and deliverables according to the indicated time schedules have been monitored and finalised deliverables were checked before being forwarded to the European Commission.


TRIT compiled the deliverable D11.2: Quality Plan. This plan intends to describe the quality procedures to be used during the MODSafe project life. The intended audience is all members of the MODSafe consortium and additional partners. The objectives of this document are to:

• Describe appropriate quality procedures for the project; • Help in ensuring adequate monitoring and control of the project; • Prescribe the guidelines to be used to harmonise the deliveries of the project; • Define the quality control procedures and rules for reviewing the project deliveries.

Project Secretariat TRIT and TRC kept the secretariat of the project. Partner’s lists, contact point, document archive are examples for tasks, which are running on the project secretary level, as well as the organisation of the EB and PG meetings. For these meetings, the agenda, minutes and practical information needed to be prepared as well as presentations of the new administrative procedures implemented by the European Commission for the reporting. Templates were established for the deliverables, minutes, drafts and all the documentation of the project. b. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations

between actual and planned person-months per work package and per beneficiary in Annex 1 (Description of Work)



1 TRIT 4,98 82 TRC 6 15,5Total 10,98 23,5 WP11 1 2 TRIT TRC Total Personnel costs 40.515 42.744 83.259 Travel costs 0 1.743 1.743 Experts 0 0 Technical equipment 0 1.096 1.096 Indirect costs 26.891 7.870 34.760 Subcontracting 0 67 67 Logistics 0 0 0 Total month 1-18 67.406 53.520 120.926Total Month 1-48 121.628 204.368 325.996Percentage used 55% 26% 37% All the management tasks have been performed by TRIT as coordinator and by TRC as WP leader of WP11. There is o deviation regarding the budget. It is expected that TRC will increase its work due to the fact that the work for the periodic report will be counted on the next period.


c. Problems which have occurred and how they were solved or envisaged solutions The Consortium requested the 1st September 2008 as official starting date of the project upon advise of the, at that time, European Commission Project Officer. It was assumed that this advice included, although not formally, the acceptance of the Annex 1 (Description of Work), submitted March 2008 or only minor changes will be made. Only after the project start, on November 2008 the Coordinator was informed by the new EC Project Officer that the Annex 1 had not been accepted in its original form, but that the European Commission requested a reopening of the negotiations and substantial changes to the Annex 1. This request called for a series of unforeseen coordinating activities between the Coordinator, the European Commission and all Consortium Members (and not only the Work Package Leaders), to agree on an Annex 1 reflecting not only the views of the Commission but also the opinion of all Consortium Members. The uncertainty created inside the Consortium by the continuous changes of the Annex I (Description of work) led to suspend the work inside the Consortium. Finally, the Annex I was agreed on February 2009 and the work re-started inside the Consortium. Part of the delays of some deliverables is due to this slow start caused by the changes of the Description of work. Only partner number 5 (BTSERCS) has not provided the Form C for the first period and has not provided any financial information. The communication with the partner was fluent but the partner as WP leader of WP3 (WP which has just started) decided not to present a Form C due to the fact that its expenses were low. d. Changes in the consortium, if any The following changes were in the following partners: - TRC (partner 2) Mrs Ulrike Schewe was replaced by Mrs Izaskun Arenaza - UITP (partner 10) Mr Sebastian Emig was replaced by Mrs Caroline Hoorgendoorn - Telsys (partner 19) Mr Heiner Forchmann has started to work in the MODSAFE project. e. List of project meetings, dates and venues The Kick-off meeting of the project took place on 8 & 9 September 2008 in Cologne. The meetings of WP10, Executive Board and Plenary Group are organised back to back in order to decrease the travel expenses. Conference calls took place regularly between TRIT and TRC, and among the Consortium partners. WP Date Location Title 10 January 13, 2009 Cologne Executive Board

meeting 10 September 9, 2009 Paris Executive Board

meeting 10 January 13, 2009 Cologne Plenary Group meeting


WP Date Location Title 10 Sep September 9, 2009 Paris Plenary Group meeting 1 February 13, 2009 Villeneuve d’Ascq WP1 meeting 1 May 11, 2009 Villeneuve d’Ascq WP1 meeting 1 October 5, 2009 Villeneuve d’Ascq WP1 meeting 2 October 23, 2008 Dresden WP2 meeting 2 June 10, 2009 Cologne WP2 meeting 2 September 08, 2009 Paris WP2 meeting 3 Kick-off - WP3 meeting 4 April 21, 2009 Brussels WP4 meeting 4 January 27, 2010 Paris WP4 meeting 5 September 8, 2009 Paris WP5 meeting 6 & 7 May 13, 2009 Cologne WP6& 7meeting 8 & 9 May 11, 2009 Brussels WP8 & 9 meeting 8 & 9 September 21, 2009 Brussels WP8 & 9 meeting 8 & 9 December 11, 2009 Brussels WP8 & 9 meeting 8 & 9 January 14, 2010 Brussels WP8 & 9 meeting 8 & 9 February 16, 2010 Brussels WP8 & 9 meeting 10 March 30, 2009 Paris WP10 meeting 10 September 9, 2009 Paris WP10 meeting 11 August 14, 2009 Cologne WP11 meeting 12 December 10, 2009 Brussels SUG- Operators 12 February 9, 2010 Brussels SUG-Industries f. Project planning and status Reviewing the work carried out during the first period of MODSafe, it can be said that the project got off a very slow start due to the constant changes of the description of work (Annex I) during the negotiation phase and the uncertainties it produced. However, apart from these minor delays which have taken place in the finalisation of some project deliverables during this period the project has developed according to plan. None of these delays have had –or are expected to have in the future- a negative impact on the results of the project. The communication and cooperation between the partners in the consortium has functioned well. The level of commitment of the partners to making the project a success is high. g. Impact of possible deviations from the planned milestones and deliverables, if any WP1 This WP is finished. But the delays of 7 and 5 months of D1.1 and D1.2 have impacted slight delays in other WPs. At this moment the project is slowly catching up with the delays. WP2 There are small delays on WP2 (3 months for D2.1 and D2.2) but it had no negative impact on the other tasks, the available resources or the planning.


WP3 There is not deviation at this moment in WP3. WP4 D4.1 was finalised with delay. As reported in section work progress and achievements during the period, these delays have had no negative impact on other tasks or the planning of the project. WP5 D5.1 was postponed from month 16 to month 24 due to the late start of the project and the necessity to work in parallel on Task 5.1 and 5.2. This postponement impacted D5.2 by a delay of two months. WP6 D6.1 is slightly delayed. UITP informed on January 2010 that D6.1 will be distributed to the UITP members to check the contents of their own country and this procedure will take some time. D6.1 is available in it's version V 0.91and under WP6 approval process, ready to be submitted to WP10 for consensus building and submission to the European Commission.

Worth to mention that clarification of project scope limitation and definition of terms is ongoing at WP10 level and that potential further UITP member comments may require an update of D6.1 at a later stage - in agreement with WP10.

These delays have had no negative impact on other tasks or the planning of the project. WP7 A deviation was detected in D7.1 as the draft provided by the WP leader didn’t have the quality needed after facing problems gathering the required information from different countries. A new deadline for the WP leader was agreed by the Executive Board in order to allow them to provide a new draft containing major modifications. D7.1 has consequently a delay of 10 months and it is scheduled to be delivered by June 2010. The delay of D7.1 has caused subsequently a delay in D7.2. In principle D7.3 is not affected. The delays have not impact on the use of the resources. WP8 No deviations have been detected in WP8. WP9 No deviations have been detected in WP9. WP10 No deviations have been detected in WP10. WP11 No deviations have been detected in WP11. WP12


No deviations have been detected in WP12. h. Any changes to the legal status of any of the beneficiaries, in particular non-profit public

bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs;

Non legal change has been reported to the coordinator or the project secretariat. i. Development of the Project website, if applicable; The webpage of the project – www.modsafe.eu - is facilitated by Task 12.3 (TRC). The webpage, containing both an internal area with restricted access and a public section with free access, was launched publicly in month 3. Since the launch, it has been constantly maintained and regularly updated to reflect the current status of the project. j. Use of foreground and dissemination activities during this period (if applicable). Event Date Location MODSafe

representative Presentation at the UITP SecCom PT

September 2008 Lisbon UITP

Article in UITP DIRECT - newsletter

November 2008 - UITP

Presentation at the Railway Forum CEEC Conference

March 2009 Warsaw UITP

Presentation at the UITP Light Rail Committee

March 2009 Grenoble UITP

Presentation at the UITP Metro Committee meeting

March 2009 Barcelona UITP

UITP Regional and Suburban Rail Committee

March 2009 Mannheim UITP

Presentation at the UITP Information Technology and Innovation Commission

May 2009 Prague UITP

Presentation and call for experts at the UITP Turkish Light Rail Working Group

May 2009 Gaziantep UITP

Presentation at the UITP SecCom

May 2009 Barcelona UITP

UITP 58th World Congress

June 2009 Vienna UITP and UNIFE

Mail to UITP Metro, Regional, Light Rail and EU Committees members – Call for Network of Operators

January 2009 - UITP


Event Date Location MODSafe representative

Newsletter and call for experts at the UITP Automated Metro Seminar

June 2009 Nuremberg UITP

Technische Aufsichtsbehörde NRW

June 2009 Düsseldorf TRIT

UNIFE General Assembly

June 2009 Warsaw UNIFE

UITP Automated Metro Seminar – Call for experts

June 2009 Nuremberg UITP

Presentation at the UITP Metro Committee

September 2009 Hambourg UITP

Presentation at the UITP SecCOM

November 2009 Montreal UITP

UNIFE Signalling Working Group Committee

February 2010 Brussels UNIFE


4. Deliverables and milestones tables that are due in the first reporting period Deliverables (excluding the periodic and final reports) Del. no.

Deliverable name

WP no.

Lead benefici

ary

Nature

Dissemination level

Delivery date from Annex I (project month)

DeliveredYes/No

Actual / Forecast delivery date

Comments

1.1 First Draft State of the art on Safety responsibilities and Certification

WP1 INRTES R RE 6 Y 13

1.2 Final report- State of the art on Safety responsibilities and certification

WP1 INRTES R RE 12 Y 17

2.1 First List of hazards, Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)

WP2 TUD R PU 12 Y 15

2.2 Consistency Analysis and Final Hazard Analysis

WP2 TUD R PU 17 N 22

4.1 State of the Art Analysis and Compilation of Results from previous projects

WP4 UITP R PU 14 Y 19

5.1 Urban Guided WP5 TUD R PU 16 N 27


Del. no.

Deliverable name

WP no.

Lead benefici

ary

Nature

Dissemination level

Delivery date from Annex I (project month)

DeliveredYes/No

Actual / Forecast delivery date

Comments

Transport Object Safety Model

6.1 Survey of current safety life cycle approaches

WP6 TRIT R PU 16 N 22

7.1 Review of current AAC procedures

WP7 BME R PU 12 N 27

7.2 List of elementary activity modules

WP7 BME R PU 18 N 30

9.1 Hazard scenarios related to security aspects

WP9 UITP R RE 18 N 19

10.1 First consensus building report

WP10 RATP R CO 12 Y 13

11.2 Quality plan WP11 TRIT R CO 6 Y 11 11.3 Annual meeting

documentation WP11 TRIT R CO 12 Y 12

12.1 Basic installation of the website

WP12 TRC O CO 3 Y 3

12.2 Dissemination plan WP12 UITP R CO 3 Y 10


Milestones

TABLE 2. MILESTONES

Milestone no.

Milestone name WPs no.

Lead- beneficiary

Delivery date from Annex I

Achieved Yes/No

Actual / Forecast achievement-

date

Comments

1 First List of Hazards, Preliminary Hazard Analysis

WP2 TUD M12 Y M15

2 State of the Art Analysis and Compilation of Results from previous projects

WP4 UITP M14 Y M19

3 Urban Guided Transport Object Safety Model

WP5 TUD M16 N M24

5 List of elementary activity modules

WP7 BME M18 N M26

7 Hazard scenarios related to security aspects

WP9 UITP M18 Y M19

8 Regular meetings of consensus building

WP10 RATP M12 Y M7, M13

9 First network of operators meeting

WP12 UITP M15 Y M16

PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT - MODSafe · MODSafe 1st Periodic Report 2 of 49 2. Work progress and...

Documents

Transcript of PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT - MODSafe · MODSafe 1st Periodic Report 2 of 49 2. Work progress and...