project periodic report - modsafe · safety critical industries like guided transport systems. a....

MODSafe, 2nd 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 □ 2nd x 3rd □ 4th □ Period covered: from 01 March 2010 to 28 February 2011 Project Coordinator: Peter Wigger, TÜV Rheinland Intertraffic GmbH Tel: +49 221 806 3322 Fax: E-mail: [email protected] Project website address: http://www.modsafe.eu

MODSafe 2nd Periodic Report 1 of 51

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 second or third deliverable. WP1 for instance is already finished. Therefore the next step, the compilation, comparison and preparation of those results was developed during this period: The main objectives for the second period are:

• A compilation of a consistency Final Hazard Analysis, due to analyses of transport

operators, supply industries or previous projects • The final analysis 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 preliminary hazards control and safety measures analysis • To develop a functional model for Safety Requirements and functions linked to generic

functional and object structures. • To develop a safety attributes allocation matrix • The proposal of a common safety life cycle approach • A Generic model of AAC processes • 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 create a database for classification of risks associated to security • 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 maintaince the project 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 promotion and to dynamize the Support and User Group created 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 This task was completed in the first periodic report. Task 1.2: Review of existing certification processes This task was completed in the first periodic report. b. Clearly significant results This task was completed in the first periodic report. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning This task was completed in the first periodic report. 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 This task was completed in the first periodic report. 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 19- 30

Planned Month 1 - 48

1 TRIT 0 36 INRETS 2,06 1212 UVHC 0 220 LUL 0 0,321 UTC 0 2Total 2,06 19,3


WP1 1 6 12 20 21 TRIT INRETS UVHC LUL UTC Total Personnel costs 5.523,64 0 0 0 0 5.52,64 Travel costs 0 0 0 0 1.212,64 1.212,64 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indirect costs 3.314,18 0 0 0 0 3.314,18 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 19-30 8.837,82 0 0 0 1.212,64 10.050,46 Total Month 1-48 43.735 104.947 21.632 4.698 25.964 200.976 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 This task was finalised in the first period. Task 2.2: Consistency of the Final Hazards Analysis During the second reporting period, WP2 had finalized the Final Hazards Analysis (WP2 – D2.2 Consistency Analysis and Final Hazard Analysis). Task 2.3: MODSafe Risk Analysis The Risk Analysis had been started during the second reporting period as planned and is currently (March 2011) under review. b. Clearly significant results The objective of the WP 2 is the establishment of a generic overall Hazards and Risk Analysis. After the Preliminary Version D2.1 (Preliminary Hazards Analysis) the reporting period was utilized to assemble further detailed hazards that may emerge in a Urban Guided Transport System and to verify consistency amongst the hazards, in particular for degraded system states. The hazards analysis comprises today approximately 1.000 hazard lines in an Excel Spread Sheet including a textual description of the methodology and how to read and interpret the results. Besides technical contributions from the partners no major discrepancy emerged. The Final Hazards Analysis is the base for the next deliverable D2.3, where functions of WP3 shall cover the hazards and a Risk Indicator is added (Risk Analysis). Estimated Benefit: Today transport operators are required by relevant Cenelec Standards to entertain larger Hazards Analyses and show how the hazards are controlled. Many operators are not prepared for these kinds of analysis which leads to contractual inconsistencies and delays in new projects. The work of WP2 had been presented to representative Users and can be considered a generic base (and guideline for more detailed analyses) for Public Transport Operators. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning The work explained in the description of work has been accomplished. 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 D2.2 and D2.3 are 5 months delayed. The main reason has been the slow start of the project at the beginning as well as the hard process of consensus building among the partners of the consortium. D2.2 has been delivered and D2.3 will be delivered in month 33.


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)

WP2

Actual Month 19 - 30


1 TRIT 0 0,54 BME 0,5 28 RATP 0,57 69 TUD 8,62 1710 UITP 0,22 0,519 TelSys 4,30 1120 LUL 0 3

22 Metro de Madrid 0,49 0,5

Total 14,70 40,5 WP2 1 4 8 9 10 19 20 21 TRIT BME RATP TUD UITP TelSys LUL MMA Total Personnel costs

60,91 1.478,73 5862 34.598,59 1.109,77 17.109,14 0 3.035,79 63.254,93

Travel costs 30,81 194,80 0 378,66 0 0 0 0 604,27 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 35,25 1.004,12 2.673,07 20.986,35 221,95 4.584,53 0 768,05 30.273,32 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 19-30

126,98 2.677,65 8.535,07 55.963,60 1.331,72 21.693,67 0 3.803,84 94.132,53

Total Month 1-48

7.289 17.472 77.317 164.317 5.256 121.973 56.376 5.402 455.402

TUD is the WP leader. TUD main responsibilities were the coordination and production of the D2.2 and D2.3. The rest of the partners present on the WP collaborated in developing the deliverables. TRIT revised the final drafts. Telsys contributed also to the draft of the deliverables. RATP has reviewed the deliverable D2.2 and particularly the hazard analysis of the annex. RATP provided also support preparing a document explaining how RATP proceeds to identify new hazards from degraded condition and failing modes. 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 Existing generic safety functions from previous EC projects and other generic safety functions of the supply industry shall be mapped with the hazards from MODSafe WP2 D2.1. The objectives with the deliverables D3.1 and finally D3.2 are to provide the safety functions to which WP4 shall allocate the safety requirements. So these deliverables can be regarded as working tools for the safety requirements allocation process a. A summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 3.1: Preliminary Hazards Control and Safety Measures Analysis A first draft of D3.1 (version V0.1) was circulated at WP10 level on 2010 September 3. 36 comments were received from Ansaldo, RATP, R&B, Telsys, TRIT and UITP. WP3 proposals were available on the 17th of December 2010. The review was completed by the 26th of January 2011. A second draft (version V0.3) was circulated at WP10 level on the 17th of December 2010 December 17. 16 comments were received from RATP, R&B, UITP. WP3 proposals were available on the 7th of February 2011. The review was completed on the 14th of February 2011. The last draft (version V0.4) updated accordingly was approved by WP10 on the 14th of February 2011 and then submitted to the European Commission on the 21st of February 2011. No meetings have taken place during the period. Task 3.2: Final Hazards Control and Safety Measures Analysis The Kick off meeting for D3.2 has been agreed within WP3 for the start of this task. It will take place on April 6, 2011. 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. In fact D3.1 was delivered 6 months in advance in comparison with the schedule of 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 N/A



WP3



1 TRIT 0 0,53 AREVA TA 0,11 2,55 BTSERCS 0 8,57 ALSTOM 0,03 58 RATP 0,29 212 UVHC 0,72 213 Thales RSS 0 4,515 Dimetronic 0,25 4,517 ANSALDO 0,31 4,520 LUL 0 1Total 1,71 35

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 1.585,32 0 324,69 3.059,51 4.021,48 0 1.325,28 4.100,48 0 14.416,76

Travel costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 0 1.268,26 0 0 1.395,14 2.412,89 0 397,58 492,06 0 5.965,93 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 19-30

0 2.853,58 0 324,69 4.454,65 6.434,37 0 1.722,86 4.592,54 0 20.382,69

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

WP3 is consuming their resources early than expected due to the fact that the WP has delivered D3.1 early than scheduled in the description of work. 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 This task is finished since March 3rd, 2010 (see first Periodic Report for more details). D4.1 was submitted to the European Commission on March 30, 2010. Task 4.2: Application of the Safety Requirement Allocation Process to MODSafe continuous Safety Measures and Functions Task 4.2 aimed at completing a detailed analysis of MODSafe Safety Functions. The works on this task started in March 2010. A first draft version of the Safety Function list was prepared and presented at the meeting in Paris on January 27th, 2010. On April 14th, 2010 in Berlin, participants revised the Safety Function list and looked at the Table of Contents of D4.2. In Brussels, on June 30th, 2010 D4.2 was presented and participants looked into the comments that were made. The Table of comments of Deliverable D4.2 was submitted to WP10 on July 6th, 2010. The 79 comments received from RATP, Alstom, AREVA and VDV, were all taken into account and agreed on since October 7th, 2010. When submitted to internal WP4 consolidation on August 16th, 2010, 220 comments were made on D4.2 by RATP, VDV and LUL. The three next meetings that took place were dedicated to the discussions on the remaining open comments. D4.2 was submitted to WP10 on December 10th, 2010. This led to 43 comments from RATP, Bombardier, Ansaldo and Rail & Bus. Finally, WP10 consensus was reached and the deliverable was submitted to the European Commission on January 28, 2011. Task 4.3: Analysis of on Demand Functions and Systematic Failures This task has not been started yet. Based on the observation that some functions are required at all time (continuously) and some are not (on demand), it was decided that task 4.3 will be dedicated to the analysis of on demand functions. b. Clearly significant results The two main questions which are leading the works of task 4.2 are: how “safe” must the Safety Functions that cover hazard be? How should these Safety measures be allocated? To answer these two questions, WP4 proceeded in three steps.


First, WP4 defined a MODSafe Function Model (in agreement with WP3 and WP5). After some discussions on which Function Model should be used, WP4 decided that it will be solely based on IEC62290 (with some changes made by WP4). Then, WP4 applied the SIL allocation process to these functions. Very general functions defined in IEC62290 turned out to be not suitable for SIL allocation, therefore only generic functions at a lower level from IEC62290 had been subject to SIL allocation. In addition, the Grade of Automation (GoA) was also taken into account. Only those functions had been analysed which work in a clearly continuous mode of operation (high frequency of usage of the safety function). Finally, WP4 defined a SIL table for common continuous mode functions from IEC62290. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available

resources and planning No deviations on the original Description of Work in Annex I occurred. 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 D4.2 was submitted later than planned in the Description of Work Annex I (4 months delay). The reason for this was the difficulty to reach a consensus among WP4 members and between WP10 partners due to extremely different points of view. As explained above, 220 comments were received in total on D4.2. The comments resulted mainly from a different function definition and understanding between RATP and VDV, RATP and VDV had different risk analysis results for several functions, which was due to different assumptions such as operational conditions or basic system architecture. e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations between


WP4



1 TRIT 0,01 0,53 AREVA TA 0,22 28 RATP 4,13 310 UITP 1,16 217 ANSALDO 1,45 218 TMB 0,53 3,519 TelSys 3,86 1020 LUL 0,10 1,5

22 Metro de Madrid 0,96 2,5

Total 12,42 27


WP4 1 3 8 10 17 18 19 20 22 TRIT AREVA RATP UITP Ansaldo TMB TelSys LUL MMA Total Personnel costs

101,55 3.170,64 39.677,62 6.070,35 18.463,16 3.148,80 22.280,87 986,92 5.910,53 99.810,47

Travel costs 0 0 3.386 2.399,49 1.209,47 445,50 6.110,90 0 2.652,94 16.204,3 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.688,94 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 0

Indirect costs 58,77 2.536,52 18.600,89 1.730,95 1.708,58 599,22 5.970,34 197,38 2.166,56 33.569,21 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 184,91 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 19-30

160,33 5.707,16 61.664,51 10.385,70 21.381,21 4.193,52 36.207,05 1.184,30 10.730,03 151.613,81

Total Month 1-48

7.289 37.920 38.658 28.024 32.353 33.306 135.388 28.188 27.009 368.135

UITP is the WP leader and organised the meetings. All the WP partners contributed to the work. The overall consumption of resources is in line with the resources budgeted. The most of the work is carried by 3 partners, RATP, Ansaldo and Telsys. For instance, RATP has reviewed the deliverables D4.1 and D4.2. RATP has provided also support preparing both documents. One proposing SIL allocation to function within GOA1, the other providing risk analysis relating to person trapped between Platform Screen Doors and Rolling Stock. 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 for delivery. An initial version of D5.1 was delivered to the European Commission on December 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 March 2011. 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. The Safety Attributes Allocation Matrix is currently (3/2011) under WP5 review. b. Clearly significant results The Safety Functional Model contains approximately 50 safety relevant functions that were established in close verification with WP4 and according IEC62290. The identified and agreed functions were subject to detailed risk analysis in WP4 to determine the minimum Safety Requirement that shall be associated with the functions. In order to cross link the functional requirements with physical objects, D5.2 contains a model of generic objects that build up typically the functions. A first draft of WP5 exhibited in total approximately 200 object classes. During the review process, the complexity was considerably


reduced (by 75%) to a minimum model that will be used for further analysis. The review process and its result show clearly the limits of what can be standardized in the diverse field of Urban Guided Transport and what shall be kept open to local specificities. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available

resources and planning Regarding the tasks WP5 is fulfilling all the tasks described in 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 D5.2 has been delayed due to the fact that D5.1 was delayed and the consensus building inside the consortium has taken more time than scheduled. This postponement has no influence on the overall schedule of WP5. e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations between


WP5



1 TRIT 0 0,53 AREVA TA 0,45 24 BME 0,5 39 TUD 11,76 1917 ANSALDO 0,31 2,519 TelSys 7,98 10,5Total 21,00 37,5 WP5 1 3 4 9 17 19 TRIT AREVA BME TUD Ansaldo TelSys Total Personnel costs 0 6.341,29 1.478,73 57.200,78 4.809,12 28.918,06 98.747,98 Travel costs 0 0 194,80 2.522,75 0 0 0 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 378,67 0 0 0

Indirect costs 0 5.073,03 1.004,12 36.061,32 577,09 7.748,33 50.463,89 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 19-30 0 11.414,32 2.677,65 96.163,51 5.386,21 36.666,89 14.211,87 Total Month 1-48 7.289 37.920 26.208 179.409 40.441 114.043 405.310 There are no deviations on the budget as WP5. The main contributors to the deliverables are TUD and Telsys.


Work Package 6: Safety Life Cycle Responsibilities Work Package 6 deals with safety life cycle responsibilities and processes within the member states of the European Community and focuses on Metros, Light Rail Systems, and Trams. 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 D6.1, supplemented by case studies for selected countries and initial conclusions. Deliverable D6.1 in its version 1.0 has been submitted to the European Commission on June 2010. Task 6.2: Identification of similarities within current safety life cycle approaches

The results of tasks 6.1 have been used as the base for task 6.2 (Identification of similarities within current safety life cycle approaches). Identifying differences and / or similarities in the processes of the different EU countries reveals the regulation background and analyses the main phases of the safety life cycles.

Deliverable D6.2 in its version 1.0 has been submitted to the European Commission on January 2011. Task 6.3: Development of a common safety life cycle

Based on the survey D6.1, and following the comparison D6.2 which identified differences and similarities in the process of the different EU countries, revealed the regulation background and analysed the main phases of the safety life cycles, deliverable D6.3 proposes a common safety lifecycle approach for urban guided transport systems.

This proposal of a common life cycle approach D6.3 considers the interfaces between the different life cycle phases and responsibilities and therefore cross-wise offers synergy effects to the generic approach of acceptance, approval and certification (AAC) procedures D7.3 and the proposal of a typical optimized AAC process D7.4. The deliverables of Work Packages 3 – 5 (hazard and risk analysis, hazard control and safety response analysis, common requirements specification, functional / object safety model) and Work Package 7 (acceptance, approval and certification) are referred to in the respective life cycle phases of the proposed common life cycle approach.

Deliverable D6.3 is available in its version 0.3 dated 28 February 2011 for WP6 consensus building, which is assumed to be available by end of March 2011. Submission for final WP10 consensus building will follow in April 2011. b. Clearly significant results

D6.1 shows that in Europe the systems of Metros, Light Rail and Trams are 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.

D6.2 concludes, that most of the EU-member states have processes and criteria in place which are applicable to cover lifecycle requirements of the CENELEC standards on a general level. Analyzing these processes, heterogeneous approaches are existent on more detailed levels. These approaches are diverse in depth and focus and therefore strengths and weaknesses differ from country to country, depending on multiple factors. Most of the EU-countries apply to processes which are at least tentatively compliant to the CENELEC Lifecycle, deviating in range and depths. Some countries follow CENELEC to ensure system safety performance during the whole lifecycle. An application of the CENELEC procedures is evident and steadily growing.

D6.3 concludes, that the potential future common life cycle approach for planning, building, assessing and approving the different stages and corresponding safety files considers the different responsibilities along the life cycle and the roles and authorizations of the different actors. The proposed life cycle should apply for both, urban guided transport systems as a whole as well as for its sub-systems such as signalling and train control, Rolling Stock, etc. The proposed life cycle allows for consideration of the life cycle costs associated with the RAMS aspects of an UGT system due to the structured, top down and risk based approach. Following and based on the analyses and evaluations performed, the proposal D6.3 is backed by proven practice and similarities throughout the European member states. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available

resources and planning

In WP6 there is no deviation from Annex I “Description of Work” in terms of objective, tasks and principle content of the deliverables. Within D6.2 and D6.3 some new aspects were introduced to the benefit of the deliverables. 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

Reasons for not being on schedule:

D6.1 was delayed by approx. 6 months. The main reason therefore was driven by some challenges to get access to reasonable information from the member states. UITP has provided support in terms of distributing the delivery to selected members for review and contribution within their own country. This process has taken some time.

D6.2 was delayed accordingly due to the sequence dependency from D6.1. Within D6.2, some new aspects were introduced worth to be considered for the comparison.

D6.3 will be delayed accordingly due to the sequence dependency from D6.2. Within D6.3, some new aspects were introduced worth to be considered for the proposal.

In general, meeting arrangements have caused some delay due to schedule constrains of working group members having a postponing effect on the consensus building process and deliverables.

In general, the sequenced consensus building process, first within the work package itself and second on WP10 level has caused double consideration of the same (technical) aspects here and there.

The level of expenditure is in line with the budget due to the fact that WP6 is almost finished.



WP6



1 TRIT 3,80 12,84 BME 1,50 66 INRETS 0,31 38 RATP 1,62 416 R&B 3,50 521 UTC 0,10 1Total 10,83 31,8 WP6 1 4 6 8 16 21 TRIT BME INRETS RATP R&B UTC Total Personnel costs 30.899,46 4.251,33 1.192,93 16.950,95 34.045 7.533,35 94.873,02 Travel costs 1.225,74 560,08 4461,21 1.961,58 3.611,54 5.237,13 17.057,28 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 17.882,99 2.886,84 3.392,48 8.023,87 20.711,10 5.650,01 58.547,29 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 19-30 50.008,20 7.698,25 9.046,62 26.936,40 58.367,64 18.420,49 170.477,60 Total Month 1-48 231.446 52.416 26.237 51.544 73.000 12.982 447.625

TRIT is the WP6 leader and organized the work as well as follows the progress. TRIT prepared the D6.1 case study for Denmark. TRIT proposed the structure of the deliverables D6.1 – D6.3 and compiled the majority of the contents.

BME prepared the D6.1 case study for Hungary, contributed to the questionnaires of Slovakia, Bulgaria and Czech Republic and reviewed the deliverables D6.1 – D6.3. Due to the content interrelationship between WP6 and WP7 (lead by BME), a bi-directional communication has been established between WP6 and WP7. In particular, the BME review of the deliverables D6.1 – D6.3 concentrated on the best fit of WP6 deliverables with WP7 deliverables under progress or planning. BME participated in four (of five) WP6 meetings.

INRETS helped to prepare the D6.1 case studies for France, contributed to D6.2 field data overview tables and reviewed the deliverables D6.1 – D6.3. INRETS delivered selected text parts for D6.2, e.g. on cross-acceptance. INRETS participated in four (of five) WP6 meetings.

RATP prepared the D6.1 case study for France, contributed to D6.2 field data overview tables and reviewed the deliverables D6.1 – D6.3. RATP contributed with multiple reasonable comments and suggestions on all deliverables. RATP delivered text parts for D6.3 on the development of standards. RATP participated in four (of five) WP6 meetings.

R&B helped to prepare the D6.1 case studies for Germany, contributed to the questionnaires of Austria and the Netherlands and reviewed the deliverables D6.1 – D6.3. R&B contributed with


multiple reasonable comments and suggestions. In particular, R&B provided aspects to be considered in D6.3 and aspects decided to be handled within WP7 deliverables. R&B participated in all five WP6 meetings.

UTC helped to prepare the D6.1 questionnaires of some Eastern Europe countries with Slovakia in particular as well as sharing its experience concerning current safety lifecycles for France and reviewed deliverables D6.1 – D6.3. UTC participated in four (of five) WP6 meetings.

LU (WP7 member) prepared the D6.1 case study for Great Britain, contributed to D6.2 cross-acceptance aspects and reviewed deliverables D6.1 – D6.3. Furthermore, LU was helping to best trim the deliverables from a native English language prospective. LU participated in four (of five) WP6 meetings.

UITP (WP7 member) helped to prepare the D6.1 questionnaires of Belgium and Luxemburg and contributed to multiple other questionnaires. UITP organized the questionnaire review of UITP members from Spain, Italy, Portugal and other member states. UITP contributed to D6.2 field data overview tables and reviewed deliverables D6.1 – D6.3. UITP contributed with multiple reasonable comments and suggestions on all deliverables. UITP delivered text parts for D6.3 life cycle phase concept. UITP participated in one (of five) WP6 meetings.

Once having D6.3 submitted to the European Commission, TRIT will concentrate on WP7 deliverables as being WP7 member as well. f. If applicable, propose corrective actions.

N/A since the remaining WP6 deliverable D6.3 is almost done.


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 work package 7, 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 work package 6, 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 the 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 the deliverable D7.1, which was reviewed in more laps by MODSafe partners, and finally a consensus has been reached, thus the deliverable was submitted in November 2011. Task 7.2: Identifying elementary activity modules After finishing the D7.1, the work for task 7.2 began. The task 7.2 plays an important role within the work package 7. A convergence of the different national and regional framework acceptance, approval and certification (AAC-) procedures may only be successful, if a generic AAC-model consists of elementary activity modules. Though carried out by different authorised bodies or at different phases of the safety life cycle the formal activities carried out in the different AAC-procedures are to a wide extent similar. The main task is here to identify the major activity modules on which the AAC-processes are in principle based. The main structure of D7.2 was elaborated by work package partners, furthermore reviewed and accepted by work package 10. To reach the aims, case studies were selected for more detailed description of AAC-processes. The selected case studies represent the European practices adequately. For the description of these processes a formal description – cross-functional flowcharts – were selected, after a comparison of more methods. The case studies were elaborated by work package partners. By


now the case studies are under analysis in order to identify the so-called elementary activity modules. Task 7.3: Generic model for an ACC-procedure Parallel to task 7.2, the preparation of deliverable 7.3 was begun too. First the major structure of the deliverable was work out and the first run of its review was closed in work package 10. After finalizing the structure, the work may begin partly parallel to task 7.2. Task 7.4: Proposal for a typical optimized ACC process Task not started in this period. b. Clearly significant results In D7.1 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. Furthermore within task 7.2, the representative processes are described in details, in formal understandable and comparable way. This can serve as basis for identifying the elementary activity modules. c. Reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available

resources and planning The data collection work at the beginning of the work package suffered significant delay. The reason was on one hand to find adequate contacts to transport operators and especially to authorities. On the other hand, the validation of the collected data took also more time than expected; several review rounds were necessary. Secondarily, sometimes the lack of sufficient human resources also set the work back. From the contents point of view, work, which was carried out in work package 7 is in line with the Annex I. 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 caused further delay to Task 7.2 and 7.3, as Task 7.1 provides the main input for further tasks. The delay does not affect the available resources. e. Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explaining deviations between


WP7


Planned Month 1 – 48

1 TRIT 0,44 84 BME 3,00 12,56 INRETS 0,31 3,58 RATP 0,73 410 UITP 0,45 0,5


20 LUL 0,21 0,521 UTC 0,01 1Total 5,15 30 WP7 1 4 6 8 10 20 21 TRIT BME INRETS RATP UITP LUL UTC Total Personnel costs

3.354,25 8.502,68 1.192,04 7.092,72 3.981,12 2.029,57 846,40 26.998,78

Travel costs 389,68 1.120,13 4.461,22 0 0 0 72,15 6.043,18 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 1.657,13 0 0 0 0 1.657,13

Indirect costs 1.941,26 5.773,68 4.386,77 3.234,28 796,22 405,91 634,80 17.172,92Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 19-30

5.685,19 15.396,49 1.698,06 10.327,00 4.777,34 2.435,48 1.553,35 41.872,91

Total Month 1-48

116.628 123.544 30.610 51.544 5.256 9.396 12.982 349.960

In order to decrease the number of meetings WP6 and WP7 meetings are usually held together. The WP leader is BME. The main active contributors to the deliverables are BM and TRIT with the help of INRETS and RATP. All the WP members attend the meetings and actively participate in the review of the deliverables by making comments and contributing to them. The budget spent is in line with the planned budget.

Partner Collaboration Active contribution

to deliverables Active review Participation on meetings

BME ++ + ++ TRIT ++ ++ ++ INRETS + + ++ RATP + ++ ++ UITP ++ + UTC + ++ LU ++ ++

f. If applicable, propose corrective actions. In order reduce the total delay of WP7, tasks 7.2 and 7.3 will be elaborated partly parallel.


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.” a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 8.1: State of the art (also other fields of transport) Task 8.1 is finished. Deliverable D8.1 was submitted in time to WP10 on April 9th, 2010 and to the European Commission in May 2010 (Month 21) as scheduled in the description of Work. See the previous Periodic Report for more details on the content of this Deliverable. Task 8.2: Regulation in force and technology needed in regard to the level of sophistication Task 8.2 is finished. The work on Deliverable D8.2 started in 2009. A first draft deliverable was drafted in May 2010. As requested by WP10, the Table of contents was submitted to WP10 on July 9th, 2010. Three organisations made comments (TRIT, Alstom, UITP), which were all taken into account. Then, D8.2 itself was submitted to WP10 on January 14th, 2011. WP8 received comments from Ansaldo, RATP and TRIT. Consensus was reached on February 21st, 2011 after all comments were discussed and agreed upon. The final version of D8.2 was submitted to the European Commission on March 2011 as scheduled in the Description of work. Task 8.3: Operator strategies for the introduction and appliance of security surveillance system depending on the level of sophistication Partners of WP8 are currently discussing the work plan of task 8.3. A first meeting organised in Brussels on February 2nd, 2011 and a phone conference on February 24th, 2011 were dedicated to the content and work planning of Deliverable 8.3. b. Clearly significant results The work on Deliverable D8.2 enabled a thorough study of the European framework of Security in Urban Public Transport. Then, WP8 looked into the techniques, methods and tools used to satisfy legal requirements in design, training, etc. Finally, guiding principles for evaluation were defined. Two annexes were also included in the deliverable. The first annex gives a list of security measures. It includes operational, organisational, personal, technical and constructional measures with priorities. The second annex includes:


• A list of possible damaging events in public transport • A list of possible incidents in public transport • The QRA Top Events Hazards from LUL

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


WP8



8 RATP 1,40 610 UITP 1,58 214 KITE 3,10 916 R&B 1,00 220 LUL 0 2,522 MMa 1,43 2,5Total 8,51 24 WP8 8 10 14 16 20 21 RATP UITP KITE R&B LUL MMadrid Total Personnel costs 19.975,92 16.567,22 25.825 5.580 0 9.479,82 77.427,96 Travel costs 250,18 0 4.000 72,28 0 928,33 5.250,79 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 9.146,55 3.383,13 17.895 3.108,75 0 2.633,26 36.166,69 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 348,41 0 0 0 0 348,41 Total month 19-30

29.372,65 20.298,75 47.720 8.761,03 0 13.041,41 119.193,84

Total Month 1-48 77.317 25.524 150.624 29.200 46.980 27.009 356.654 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 organised the meetings and the phone conferences. RATP drafted the following parts from D8.1: Introduction, Methodology, the Table of countermeasures and technologies supporting urban rail guided transport systems and the Conclusion. RATP has also reviewed the deliverables D8.1, D8.2. KITE and R&B are the main contributors to this WP and this is the reason why they have spent almost all their budget. An additional transfer of budget is scheduled through the preparation of a second amendment to the grant agreement. Both of them are mainly responsible for D8.2. has been charged to develop D8.1. It has reviewed of existing means and measures for security 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.

a. Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task Task 9.1: Analysis of security related hazards Task 9.1 is finished. Deliverable D9.1 was submitted in time to the European Commission on April, 2010 as scheduled in the Description of work. See the previous Periodic Report for more details on the content of this Deliverable. Task 9.2: Classification of the risks associated to security issues Task 9.2 is finished. The work on Deliverable D9.2 started in 2009. A first draft deliverable was drafted in April 2010. The deliverable was presented to WP10 for review on 14 January 2011. 26 comments were received (from Alstom, Ansaldo and RATP). After two rounds of consolidation, consensus was reached on February 16th, 2011. The final version of the deliverable was submitted to the European Commission on March, 2011 as scheduled in the Description of Work. Task 9.3: Determination of possible means and response measure in order to mitigate the risks and threats associated to security issues Partners of WP9 are currently discussing the work plan of task 9.3. A first meeting organised in Brussels on February 2nd, 2011 and a phone conference on February 24th, 2011 were dedicated to the content and work planning of Deliverable 9.3. b. Clearly significant results On the basis of the work that was achieved in task 9.1, task 9.2 looked at how to decrease the vulnerability of the urban guided transport system. This consisted in drafting scenarios that will take into account the mitigation that could be provided to decrease / suppress a threat. Partners first gave a definition of Urban Guided Transport systems and of its main characteristics. Then, without aiming to be complete (the objective was to demonstrate a method), WP9 defined scenarios. One must proceed as follows: define threats, find the related targets, from which you can deduce general scenarios. From this analysis, you can identify critical infrastructure, critical scenarios and critical components.


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

WP9 Actual Month 19-30


8 RATP 2,27 410 UITP 1,47 316 R&B 0,50 220 LUL 0 322 MMA 0,94 1Total 5,18 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. The only current deviation is coming from Metro de Madrid that has expended the totality of its budget due to the fact that they are carrying more activities that initially planned for them as LUL has limited its resources for the project. A transfer of budget between partners is foreseen.

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

Madrid Total

Personnel costs 31.585,94 16.653,57 1.935 0 6.184,54 56.359,05 Travel costs 245,90 0 631,43 0 1.566,83 2.444,16 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 14.440,08 3.414,74 1.411,54 0 1.961,10 21.227,46 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 420,14 0 0 0 0 Total month 19-30 46.271,92 20.488,44 3.977,97 0 9.712,47 80.450,8 Total Month 1-48 51.544 36.036 29.200 56.376 10.804 183.960


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 Four WP10 meetings have been organised during the period M19 to M30. 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. The process of consensus building is the following:

- Once a draft is available, it is circulated within WP10 with a three weeks delay for comments.

- RATP compiles the comments received and sends the table to the WP leader. Any comment which does not make a proposal cannot be accepted.

- Then the WP leader has two weeks to examine the comments with all his partners (and not alone) and present replies to each comment.

- This new table with the WP's answers is circulated again within WP10 for one week: it is easy for everyone who made comments to check whether he is satisfied with the response.

- The deliverable is then amended taking into account all the comments and replies.

But no other version should be produced before the end of the process. Otherwise, we will all be lost between successive versions which are not properly reviewed. Any partner of the project can comment on the draft, at any stage. Furthermore, it was decided to circulate each deliverable for comments at WP10 level as soon as its table of contents is available 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. he consensus building process has been led by RATP for the following deliverables D2.2, D3.1, D4.1, D4.2, D5.1, D5.2, D6.1, D6.2, D7.1, D8.1, D8.2, D9.1, D9.2. That includes for the review of each deliverable. The compilation by RATP of all comments from all members and the 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 consensus building has been completed for the following deliverables: D2.2, D3.1, D4.1, D4.2, D6.1, D6.2, D7.1, D8.1, D9.1. The review at WP10 level of the following deliverables is still in progress: D5.1, D5.2, D8.2, D9.2.


The second WP10 deliverable D10.2 "Second consensus building report" has been provided by RATP in September 2010. At the first WP10 meeting it was decided to set up a MODSAFE glossary (deliverable D10.5) from the deliverables already produced. It was created from D1.1 the first deliverable produced. It has been updated with ten other deliverables already approved: D1.2, D2.1, D2.2, D3.1, D4.1, D4.2, D6.1, D6.2, D7.1, D8.1, D9.1. 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.

The MODSAFE glossary (deliverable D10.5) was created by RATP from D1.1 the first deliverable produced. The following versions V1, V2, V3, V4 were attached to the agenda of the WP10 meetings. Task 10.2: Scientific monitoring and coordination 4 Executive Board meetings as well as a Plenary Group took place during this period. The scientific monitoring and coordination is ensured by two bodies: - Executive Board TRIT as coordinator chaired the Executive Board (EB) meetings in Cologne (March 2010) and Val de Fontenay (June, October 2010 and February 2011). 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 status of the deliverables of project as well as budget situation. 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 March 2010 in Cologne. 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 meeting was focused in the administrative, legal and financial aspects of the reporting in order to fulfil all the requirements of the first periodic report and the Form C. The status and problems of the WP are also discussed. 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, D2.2, D3.1, D4.1, D4.2, D6.1, D6.2, D7.1, D8.1, D9.1. The review at WP10 level of the following deliverables is in progress: D5.1, D5.2, D8.2, D9.2. 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 0,85 83 AREVA 0,34 34 BME 1,00 35 BTSERCS 0 36 INRETS 4,66 3,57 ALSTOM 2,00 3,58 RATP 5,93 249 TUD 2,79 410 UITP 0,91 3,511 UNIFE 0,53 612 UVHC 0,80 313 Thales 0,18 3,514 KITE 0,35 115 Dimetronic 0,36 3,516 R&B 2,00 5


17 Ansaldo 0,76 318 TMB 0,75 3,519 TelSys 0,30 2,520 LUL 0,21 2,521 MMADRID 1,03 1,522 UTC 0,03 0,5Total 25,78 84.3 WP10 1 3 4 5 6 TRIT AREVA BME BTSERCS INRETS Personnel costs 6.955,06 4.755,97 2.772,61 0 17.697,53 Travel costs 998,69 598,22 365,26 0 974,86 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 4.025,23 3.804,77 1.882,73 0 11.203,43 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 19-30 11.978,98 9.158,96 5.020,60 0 29.875,82 Total Month 1-48 131.703 56.880 29.708 40.580 34.110 WP10 7 8 9 10 11 12 ALSTOM RATP TUD UITP UNIFE UVHC Personnel costs 22.346,54 57.453,08 14.587,77 8.680,74 7.420,80 4.690,60 Travel costs 1.216,50 2.786,48 441,25 694,29 377,00 304,25 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 0 26.616,57 9.017,41 1.875,01 4.678,68 3.128,91 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 220 Total month 19-30 23.563,04 86.856,13 24.046,44 11.250,04 12.476,48 8.343,76 Total Month 1-48 56.868 345.135 38.444 14.012 27.188 32.448


WP10 13 14 15 16 17 18 Thales KITE Dimetronic R&B ANSALDO TMB Personnel costs 1.705,55 2.192 1.817,20 16.024 9.587,64 5.001,44 Travel costs 2024,97 1.470 1.404,00 737,38 830,65 239,80 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 315,99 2.197,20 545,16 9.218,76 487,52 951,77 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total month 19-30 4.046,51 5.859,20 3766,36 25.980,14 10.905,81 6.193,01 Total Month 1-48 33.548 16.736 48.223 73.000 48.529 33.306 WP10 19 20 21 22 TelSys LUL UTC MMadrid Total Personnel costs 3.737,84 2.001,88 2.060,49 6.942,49 198.431,23 Travel costs 2.213,47 35,36 40,20 1.936,84 19.689,47 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 1.001,58 407,45 1545,37 2.246,47 85.150,01 Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 0 Total month 19-30 6.952,89 2.444,69 3.646,06 11.125,8 303.490,72 Total Month 1-48 27.153 46.980 6.491 16.205 1.157.247 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. Four WP10 meetings were organised and managed by RATP (preparation of the agenda and the minutes) during the period M19 to M30, on March 2 in Cologne, June 16, November 4 2010 and February 23, 2011 in Paris. The MODSAFE glossary (deliverable D10.5) was created by RATP and it is regularly updated. It has been updated by RATP with ten other deliverables already approved: D1.2, D2.1, D2.2, D4.1, D4.2, D6.1, D6.2, D7.1, D8.1, D9.1. The following versions V1, V2, V3, V4 were attached to the agenda of the WP10 meetings. The consensus building process has been led by RATP for the following deliverables D2.2, D3.1, D4.1, D4.2, D5.1, D5.2, D6.1, D6.2, D7.1, D8.1, D8.2, D9.1, D9.2. That includes for the review of each deliverable. The compilation by RATP of all comments from all members and the 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 consensus building has been completed for the following deliverables: D2.2, D3.1, D4.1, D4.2, D6.1, D6.2, D7.1, D8.1, D9.1. The review at WP10 level of the following deliverables is still in progress: D5.1, D5.2, D8.2, D9.2. The second WP10 deliverable D10.2 "Second consensus building report" has been provided by RATP in September 2010. The main contributors to this WP are R&B, TUD and Metro de Madrid. The resources spent are largely in line with the Description of Work. 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 Support and User Group aims at allowing non MODSafe partners “to debate and validate the WP results and for checking and commenting the proposals and recommendations worked out by the consortium” (Description of Work, page 36).

UITP is responsible for the organisations of the public transport operators meetings, whilst UNIFE is in charge of the interface with the rail manufacturers.

1. Network of Operators The second Network of Operators meeting took place in Brussels on June 29th, 2010. Work package leaders presented and discussed the results of their work. 10 project partners and 12 external operators took part in the meeting:

o De Lijn, Mr L. Vloeberghs and Mr P. Arends o FGV, Mr F. T. Gómez o Metro Lisboa, Mr L. A. Lopes o Q’Straint, Mr A. Roth o STIB / MIVB, Mr A. Appelmans, Mr B. Bienfait, Mr T. De Deckers, Mr C. Dupuis, Mr

S. Margaine, Mr F. Melkebeke and Mr J. L. Van Durme. The third meeting took place on December 7th, 2010 in Brussels. 10 project partners and 7 external operators took part in the meeting:

o De Lijn, Mr L. Vloeberghs o FGV, Mr F. T. Gómez o Metro Lisboa, Mr L. A. Lopes o Q’Straint, Mr A. Roth o STIB / MIVB, Mr Stéphane Fontaine o Rheinbahn Düsselsdorf, Mr Dirk Langensiepen o WienerLinien, Mr Stephan Lewisch

During the third SUG meeting, external operators were asked to fill in an Evaluation questionnaire. The information given during the meeting was considered to be “clear” and “detailed enough” by 5 out of 5 operators and 4 out of 5 found this information to be useful for their work. Their interests and suggestions were also inquired about. The fourth meeting is planned on June 8th, 2011 at the RATP (Paris). In addition to the presentation of the results of the MODSafe Work packages, a technical visit is organised by the RATP. Participants will be given the opportunity to visit the RATP Operations Control Center, the RATP Security Operations Centre and Line 14 O.C.C. (line 14 is a fully automated metro line). For


the moment, 6 external operators have shown an interest in participating in this meeting (Metro Lisboa, De Lijn, FGV, Metro de Porto, STIB, VEOLIA TRANSDEV).

2. Network of Industries A special session on MODSafe was organised during the UNIFE Signalling Working Group committee meeting on February 9th 2010. Given that a fully fledged presentation on the project objectives and its expected impact were presented, a number of bilateral contacts with some members are ongoing with follow up questions and progress related matters. I addition to this, three meetings with the UNIFE members at large were organised (February 18th 2010, June 17, 2010, October 28, 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. The next meeting will take place on 30/03/2011, where a full update of the Modsafe progress will be presented to around 30 UNIFE members. 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 The second newsletter was produced in December 2010. It contained the following information:


• “The message from the coordinator”: this reminded the readers of the general architecture of the project and of the main achievements so far.

• “What’s new”: this part explained in more depth some of the achievements of the project so far.

• “Any other business”: gives the opportunity to project partners to communicate on an event or important information linked to the project.

This newsletter distributed widely by electronic means and paper version. It was circulated internally to inform individuals within partner organisations and externally to target audiences. In addition UITP and UNIFE distributed it to their members. It was also placed on the project’s website to be downloaded as a PDF file. Several other dissemination activities have taken place since the first Periodic report. They include publication of papers and conference presentations (see the list of publications and presentations in Deliverable 12.3). Furthermore, Deliverable 12.3 was completed. This deliverable reports on all the MODSafe dissemination activities. b. Clearly significant results During this reporting period, the results explained above are the following:

• Two Network of Operators meetings • A Network of Operators Evaluation questionnaire • Three industry meetings with UNIFE members at large • A second MODSafe Newsletter • Several publications, presentations and other dissemination activities • Deliverable 12.3 was submitted

These different means and tools follow the objective of the Description of work (page 36): 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”. The tables below show the level of access and the use of the website for 2010 and 2011.

Year 2010 Month Different Visitor Number of Visits Pages March 104 113 543April 72 79 566May 92 96 362June 124 137 983July 70 73 440August 74 83 434September 132 160 1975October 134 145 873November 207 215 638


December 212 221 869Total 1221 1322 7683

Year 2010

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

Unknown 286

Network net 60

France fr 41

Hungary hu 37

Non profit organisations org 33

Spain es 23

Commercial Com 22

Germany de 20

Belgium be 13

Portugal pt 4

Year 2011 Month Different Visitor Number of Visits Pages January 332 386 1516February 295 321 1402Total 627 707 291

Year 2011

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

Unknown 1064

Network net 121

Commercial com 88

Germany de 45

Italy It 42

Russian Federation ru 42

Spain es 32


India in 20

Japan jp 16

France fr 16 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. 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 62 TRC 1,42 8,38 RATP 0,16 110 UITP 0,98 3,511 UNIFE 1,10 619 TelSys 0,30 1Total 4,17 25,8 WP12 1 2 8 10 11 19 TRIT TRC RATP UITP UNIFE TelSys Total Personnel costs 2.166,46 8.004,77 1.831,19 4.919,12 14.303,77 2.064,88 33.290,19Travel costs 388,96 0 595,65 0 326,65 693,45 2.004,71 Experts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical equipment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indirect costs 1.253,83 3.794,26 924,37 1.230,08 8.778,25 553,30 16.534,09Subcontracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 1.231,18 0 0 0 Total month 19-30

3.809,25 11.799,03 3.351,21 7.380,47 23.408,67 3.311,63 51.828,99

Total Month 1-48 87.471 108.776 25.286 146.192 81.216 10.861 459.802


Concerning the Support and User Group: UITP organised, monitored and managed the Support & User Group (SUG) which meant administrative preparation, holding and follow up the meeting. WP leaders attended the meetings in order to provide general information as well as ongoing progress and outcomes related to the project. UNIFE organised, monitored and managed the Network of Industries. TRC is in charge of maintaining and regularly update the project website. 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. Two payments took place during this period. 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 Contract relevant changes in the project are observed and collected regularly. At this moment the first amendment to the GA was processed as well as several information letters. The first amendment concerned primarily changes of responsible persons in the project, bank accounts and names of organisations. It is envisaged for the next reporting period a new amendment to the Grant Agreement due to the swift of budget between some beneficiaries and working packages as explained in the WP description. Reporting and communication to the European Commission During this period the first periodic report was delivered to the European Commission. Some modifications were required from the EC project officer and subsequently the report was modified. By mid of February 2011 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 again in detail by email. Two deliverables were provided so far: D11.1 First periodic report and D11.3 Annual Meeting Documentation delivered on October 2010. The first deliverable was produced following the guidelines published by the European Commission in Cordis. D11.3 is a compilation of the documentation of the meetings of the Plenary Group (PG) and the Executive Board (EB) during the period 1st March 2010 to 28th February 2011.


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 as coordinator as well as the consensus building process of WP10 check the quality and the consensus of all the deliverables from WP1 till WP9.

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. 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 1,55 82 TRC 4,65 15,5Total 6,20 23,5 WP11 1 2 TRIT TRC Total Personnel costs 15.779,97 26.223,41 42.003,38Travel costs 401,91 0 401,91 Experts 0 0 0 Technical equipment 0 0 0 Indirect costs 9.132,62 12.429,90 21.562,52Subcontracting 0 0 0 Logistics 0 0 0 Total month 19-30 25.314,50 38.653,31 63.967,81Total Month 1-48 121.628 204.368 325.996 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. TRC has performed and compiled the 1st periodic report. c. Problems which have occurred and how they were solved or envisaged solutions


Reviewing the work carried out during the second period of MODSAFE, it can be said that the project has experienced an energetic phase during this period and has developed according to plan. Minor delays have taken place in the finalisation of some project deliverables during this period. But 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. However, some partners answered in a very slow way to all the administrative and financial requirements. Regarding formal issues a second amendment to the grant agreement is being processed at this moment. The main changes will be focused at the redistribution of the budget between project partners. An increase in the budget of the following partners is expected due to the fact that they have contributed more than expected to their work in their respective WP. It is also expected that they will continue to fully contribute with their work to the success to the project. - INRETS - KITE - R&B - MMadrid Bombardier has initially declared that they will not claim any kind of costs to the project budget and they have presented the Form C (1st period and 2nd period) with zero euros. A decrease on the budget of LUL is also expected due to the fact that after an internal reorganisation of the company they have limited its internal resources allocated to the project. d. Changes in the consortium, if any The following changes were in the following partners: - Beneficiary nº 3 AREVA: Mrs Monika Joulain has been replaced by Mr Clement Cecillon

as person in charge of administrative, legal and financial aspects. - Beneficiary nº 8 RATP: Mr Jean Paul Richard has been replaced by Mr Daniel Coineau

as person in charge for scientific and technical and administrative, legal and financial aspects.

e. List of project meetings, dates and venues Conference calls took place regularly between TRIT and TRC, and among the Consortium partners.


WP Date Location Title 10 March 02, 2010 Cologne Executive Board

meeting 10 June 16, 2010 Val de Fontenay Executive Board

meeting 10 October 20, 2010 Val de Fontenay Executive Board

meeting 10 February 22, 2011 Val de Fontenay Executive Board

meeting 10 March 02, 2010 Cologne Plenary Group meeting 4 April 14, 2010 Berlin WP4 meeting 4 June 30, 2010 Brussels WP4 meeting 4 September 27, 2010 Madrid WP4 meeting 4 November 2, 2010 Paris WP4 meeting 4 November 24, 2010 Cologne WP4 meeting 6 October 10, 2010 Cologne WP6 meeting 6 & 7 March, 24, 2010 Cologne WP6& 7meeting 6 & 7 May, 18-19, 2010 Budapest WP6& 7meeting 6 & 7 September 10, 2010 London WP6& 7meeting 8 & 9 May 25, 2010 Conference call WP8 & 9 Phone

Conference 8 July 7, 2010 Brussels WP8 meeting 8 & 9 September 17, 2010 Brussels WP8 & 9 meeting 8 & 9 November 19, 2010 Brussels WP8 & 9 meeting 8 & 9 February 02, 2011 Brussels WP8 & 9 meeting 8 & 9 February 24, 2011 Conference call WP8 & 9 Phone

conference 9 April 29, 2010 Conference call WP9 Phone

Conference 9 June 28, 2010 Conference call WP9 Phone

Conference 10 March 02, 2010 Cologne WP10 meeting 10 June 16, 2010 Val de Fontenay WP10 meeting 10 November 4, 2010 Val de Fontenay WP10 meeting 10 February 23, 2011 Val de Fontenay WP10 meeting 11 November 16, 2010 Cologne WP11 meeting 11 February 16, 2011 Cologne WP11 meeting 12 June 29, 2010 Brussels SUG- Operators 12 December 7, 2010 Brussels SUG-Operators f. Project planning and status The slow start of the project due to the initial problems with the Description of work (please check the first periodic report for more details) caused some delays in the project. 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.


These working packages which are slightly delayed are slowly recovering the time lost at the beginning of the project. In the last period, the final deliverables providing the final results of the project are expected. An amendment to the grant agreement will be presented in order to update the budget and transfer the funding accordingly to the effort and contributions make in the project life. 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 The project is slowly recovering from the slow start and development of the 1st period. WP1 This WP is finished. WP2 There are small delays on WP2 (5 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 As reported in section work progress and achievements during the period is slightly delay by 5 months but the WP is working hard and these delays have had no negative impact on other tasks or the planning of the project. WP5 WP5 is delayed in time. However, D5.1 and D5.2 has been submitted and D5.3 is almost ready for submission. WP6 D6.1 and D6.2 has been submitted. D6.3 will be submitted soon as it is currently being discussed in WP10 where the consensus building is achieved.

These delays have had no negative impact on other tasks or the planning of the project. WP7 The deviation detected in WP7 has been corrected. D7.1 was delivered with huge delay and this has caused subsequently a delay in D7.2. D7.2 and D7.3 are been worked in parallel and they will submitted soon and they are currently in the rounds of consensus building of WP10. 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. Slow answers of project beneficiaries caused delay in replying to the European Commission requests. 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. The European Commission informed the coordinator of the universal transfer of rights and obligations from Institut National de Recherche sur les transports et leur securité to Institut Français des Sciences et Technologies des transports de l’aménagement et des réseaux. 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 MODSAFE Presentation at Innotrans 2010

September 2010 Berlin TRI, UNIFE, UITP

Presentation at SECUREMETRO

December 2010 Villeneuve d’Ascq TRIT

Presentation at the UITP Light Rail Committee

February 2011 Düsseldorf TRIT, UITP

2nd Newsletter December 2010 - UITP, WP leaders


4. Deliverables and milestones tables that are due in the till second 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 INRETS R RE 6 Y 13

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

WP1 INRETS 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


2.3 MODSafe Risk Analysis

WP2 TUD R PU (not annexes)

29 N 33

3.1 Preliminary Hazard Control and Safety Measures Analysis

WP3 BTSERCS

R RE 39 Y 30

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

WP4 UITP R PU 14 Y 19


Del. no.

Deliverable name

WP no.

Lead benefici

ary

Nature

Dissemination level


DeliveredYes/No


Comments

4.2 Analysis of Common Safety Requirements Allocation for MODSafe continuous Safety Measures and Functions

WP4 UITP R PU 24 Y 29

5.1 Urban Guided Transport Object Safety Model


5.2 Functional and Combined Object/Functional Guided Transport Model

WP5 TUD R PU 22 N 33

5.3 Safety Attributes Allocation Matrix

WP5 TUD R PU 28 N 34

6.1 Survey of current safety life cycle approaches

WP6 TRIT R PU 16 Y 22

6.2 Comparison of current safety life Cycle approaches

WP6 TRIT R PU 20 Y 28

6.3 Proposal of a common safety life cycle approach

WP6 TRIT R PU 28 N 33

7.1 Review of current WP7 BME R PU 12 Y 27


Del. no.

Deliverable name

WP no.

Lead benefici

ary

Nature

Dissemination level


DeliveredYes/No


Comments

AAC procedures 7.2 List of elementary

activity modules WP7 BME R PU 18 N 33

7.3 Generic model of AAC processes

WP7 BME R PU 30 N 33

8.1 Review of existing means and measures for security systems

WP8 UITP R RE 21 Y 21

8.2 Guiding principles for the case by case definition of preliminary requirements for technology procurement and application


9.1 Hazard scenarios related to security aspects


9.2 Database for classification of risks associated to security


10.1 First consensus building report

WP10 RATP R CO 12 Y 12

10.2 Second consensus WP10 RATP R CO 24 Y 24


Del. no.

Deliverable name

WP no.

Lead benefici

ary

Nature

Dissemination level


DeliveredYes/No


Comments

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

documentation WP11 TRIT R CO 12, 24 Y 12, 24

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 12.3 Report on

dissemination activities

WP12 UITP R CO 24 Y 30

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 Y M28

5 List of elementary activity modules

WP7 BME M18 Y M33

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 · safety critical industries like guided transport systems. a....

Documents