Systematic and Customer Driven Approach to Cost-Efficiently Improving Interlocking and Signaling in Train Transport

  • Jörn SchlingensiepenEmail author
  • Florin Nemtanu
  • Marin Marinov
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 87)


A big challenge for European train companies in the next year will be upgrading large parts of interlocking and signaling to enable Europe-wide train transport. Additional transitions having heavy impact on infrastructure development, including the transition from conventional to high-speed trains and the application of new operation patterns in rail freight aimed at increasing the share of rail in the freight market. The main aspect in accomplishing this transformation is the development and deployment of new technology, but focusing only on technology will fail, since many other organizational components are involved in this transformation. This chapter proposes a holistic approach, starting with gathering customers’ requirements, while also respecting development of the organization as a whole and the personal development of employees. This chapter extends various earlier works of the authors and shows how extending the principles of systems engineering to other domains can help to manage this transformation successfully. The conclusion presents a reference process for service development that can be used as a blue print for participating companies.


ERTMS Signaling Interlocking Rail transport Technical and organizational transition Service engineering Safety 


  1. 1.
    ERTMS Unit-European Railway Agency. ERTMS operational principles and rules draft version 2. European Railway Agency; 2029 Mar. Report No. ETCS 2.3.0d AND GSM-R 7.0Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vinck K (2015, May) ERTMS—Work plan of the European Coordinator Karel Vinck. European Commission—Directorate General for Mobility and Transport Directorate B—European Mobility Network Unit B1—Trans European NetworkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Administration USFR (2009) Vision for high-speed rail in America: high-speed rail strategic plan. Federal Railroad AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    High-speed Europe: A sustainable link between citizens. Publications Office of the European Union (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schneider J (2013, Aug) Aus dem Verkehr gezogen. Süddeutsche Zeitung. 8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    NN. Bahn will Chaos in Mainz bis Ende August beheben. 13. August 2013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stratmann K (2013, Aug) Eisenbahn-Bundesamt rüffelt die Deutsche Bahn. HandelsblattGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuhr D (2013, Sept) Probleme in Mainz waren lange bekannt. Süddeutsche Zeitung. 2Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schlingensiepen J, Nemtanu F, Mehmood R, McCluskey L (2016) Autonomic transport management systems—enabler for smart cities, personalized medicine, participation and industry grid/industry 4.0. In: Intelligent transportation systems—problems and perspectives. Springer International Publishing, pp 3–35Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schlingensiepen J (2015, Oct) Utilise public transport for disabled people. In: Proceedings of 22nd World Congress and exhibition on intelligent transport systems and services. ITS—EuropeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schlingensiepen J, Stockmanns G, Naroska E, Christen O, Bolten T (2015) Personal smart travel agent for empowering persons with disabilities using public transport. In: Transport Problems, vol. 10 (Special Edition), pp 5–14Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Posselt T, Förstl K (2011) Success factors in new service development: a literature review. Productivity of services next gen-beyond output/input Fraunhofer Center for Applied Research and Supply Chain Service, Germany. Available:
  13. 13.
    Fachbericht D (1998) 75 “Service Engineering”, Entwicklungsbegleitende Normung (EBN) für Dienstleistungen, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung eV. Beuth Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schneider K, Daun C, Behrens H, Wagner D (2006) Vorgehensmodelle und Standards zur systematischen Entwicklung von Dienstleistungen. Service Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 113–138Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kunau G, Junginger M, Herrmann T, Krcmar H (2005) Ein Referenzmodell für das Service Engineering mit multiperspektivischem Ansatz. Konzepte für das Service Engineering. Physica-Verlag HD, pp 187–216Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramaswamy R (1996) Design and management of service processes: keeping customers for life. Addison-Wesley Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cockburn A (2006) Agile software development: the cooperative game. Pearson EducationGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beck K, Beedle M, Van Bennekum A, Cockburn A, Cunningham W, Fowler M et al. (2001) Manifesto for agile software development. Available:
  19. 19.
    Jaschinski C (1998) Qualitätsorientiertes Redesign von Dienstleistungen. ShakerGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Akao Y (1992) QFD-quality function deployment. Landsberg/LechGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chakraborty A (2009) Fault tolerant fail safe system for railway signalling. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on engineering and computer science, pp 20–22Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xue W, Zhao Y, Xiao J, Zhang M (2014) The research and application of fail-safe technologies in rail transit train operation control system. In: 10th international conference on reliability, maintainability and safety (ICRMS). IEEE, New York, pp 1100–1104Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim H, Jeon H-J, Lee K, Lee H (2002) The design and evaluation of all voting triple modular redundancy system. In: Reliability and maintainability symposium, proceedings annual, pp 439–444Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Winter P (2009) International Union of Railways, compendium on ERTMS. EurailPress, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ERTMS Online (2015, Mar) In: ERTMS Online [Internet]. Available:
  26. 26.
    Kanso K, Moller F, Setzer A (2009) Automated verification of signalling principles in railway interlocking systems. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 250:19–31CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McLeod RW, Walker GH, Moray N (2005) Analysing and modelling train driver performance. Appl Ergon 36:671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations (2012, Mar) ERA-UNISIG; Report No. 3.0.0Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    CENELEC. Railway applications—communication, signalling and processing systems—safety-related communication in transmission systems. CENELEC; 2001. Report No. EN 50159Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Evaluating Transportation Resilience (2014, Apr) In: TDM Encyclopedia—Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Available:
  31. 31.
    Herrera I, Schraagen JMC, Vorm J van der, Woods DD (2014) Developing resilience signals for the Dutch railway system. Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social sciences (BMS). Available:
  32. 32.
    Thurston D, Kozol B (2010) Axle counters vs. track circuits–safety in track vacancy detection and broken rail detection. American Railway and Maintenance-of-Way Association. In: Annual conference and exposition, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nemţanu FC, Bureţea DL, Obreja LG (2015) Comparative assessment of virtual track circuit based on image processing. In: Urban Rail Transit, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, pp 131–137Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Theeg G, Vlasenko S (2009) Railway signalling and interlocking: international compendium. EurailpressGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schlingensiepen J, Phillipson J (2009) Integration of cultural advisory systems in product data management for supporting international collaborations in product engineering. In: 2nd IPROMS international researchers symposium (ISBN 978-88-95028-38-5)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Phillipson J, Schlingensiepen J (2009) Cultural support during product engineering in international collaborations. In: Proceedings of the international conference on collaborative mechatronic engineering, pp 151–156Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hofstede G (1984) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. SageGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jamieson R, Pearce KF, Harvey J (2009) Risks and engineering design across cultures. In: Reliability, risk, and safety, three volume setGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pearce K, Jamieson R, Harvey J (2009) Cultural differences in design perceptions of consumer products. In: Reliability, risk, and safety, three volume setGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Moran A (2015) Managing agile: strategy, implementation, organisation and people. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Senge PM (2006) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    TfL. Transport for London—e-Tendering (2015) In: TfL—Electronic tendering. Available:
  43. 43.
    Schlingensiepen J (2014) Competence driven methodology for curriculum development based on requirement engineering. Proc Soc Behav J. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Marinov M, Fraszczyk A (2014) Curriculum development and design for university programmes in rail freight and logistics. Proc Soc Behav Sci 141:1166–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Descriptors defining levels in the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). In: European Commission: Learning opportunities and qualifications in Europe [Internet]. Available:
  46. 46.
    Information on the EQF, NQF’s. In: European Commission: Learning opportunities and qualifications in Europe [Internet]. Available:[0]=im_field_entity_type%3A97
  47. 47.
    Rizzetto L, Ricci S, Marinov M, Zunder T, Schlingensiepen J, Karagyozov K et al. (2011) A structured survey on MScs in transport and logistics for designing a new programme. In: Proceedings of the 20th international scientific conference transport. Todor Kableshkov University of Transport (VTU)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marinov M, Fraszczyk A, Zunder T, Rizzetto L, Ricci S, Todorova M et al. (2013, Apr) A supply-demand study of practice in rail logistics higher education. J Transp Lit Sociedade Brasileira de Planejamento dos Transportes 7(2):338–351Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schlingensiepen J (2014) Innovation in distance, e- and blended learning in educational mass production using inverted class room model (icm). Proc Soc Behav JGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schlingensiepen J (2014) Video killed the radio star—lecturing using new media—a case study. In: Hagel G, Mottok J (eds) ECSEE. See on: Shaker; 2014. doi: 10.2370/9783844030679
  51. 51.
    Marinov M, Zunder T, Schlingensiepen J, Ricci S, Karagyozov K, Razmov T et al. (2010) Innovative concepts for knowledge exchange, mobility and expertise in rail freight and logistics. HighlightGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dzhaleva-Chonkova A, Todorova M, Marinov M, Razmov T (2014) Internationalisation of MSC programmes in rail transport and logistics. In: EURO-ZEL 2nd international symposium, ŻilinaGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Marinov M, Ricci S (2012) Organization and management of an innovative intensive programme in rail logistics. Proc Soc Behav Sci 46:4813–4816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fraszczyk A, Dungworth J, Marinov M (2015) An evaluation of a successful structure and organisation of an intensive programme in rail and logistics. In: Proceedings of the 3rd UIC World Congress on rail trainingGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fraszczyk A, Dungworth J, Marinov M (2015) Analysis of benefits to young rail enthusiasts of participating in extracurricular academic activities. Soc Sci. Available:

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörn Schlingensiepen
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Florin Nemtanu
    • 3
  • Marin Marinov
    • 4
  1. 1.I3CM FuldaFuldaGermany
  2. 2.TH IngolstadtIngolstadtGermany
  3. 3.“POLITEHNICA” University of BucharestBucharestRomania
  4. 4.Newcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations