Class II Based

Signalling Power
Supplies
Tahir Ayub
Senior Design Authority Engineer
IP Signalling, Signalling Innovations Group
1

Signalling Power Systems

Utility Intakes
Signalling Supply Point
(SSP), Principal Supply
Point (PSP)

Signalling Power
Distribution System

Interface to final
Signalling Loads

Date 18.08.10

Tahir Ayub

Railway LV Systems

Signalling Distribution System

Utility

PSP

FSP

LOC

Asset

IT System Operation
Line side Equipment
PSP/SSP
650V
Power
Enclosure

PSP 400/650 TX

Ce

Ce

Ce
325V

Ce
325V

Ce

Ce

650/110 Tx

Signaling
Load

Earthing System (RA)

IT Individual First Fault (ECP)

IF
650V

IF

IF

IF

IF

IF

Line side Equipment

RF
Power
Enclosure

PSP 400/650 TX

Ce

Ce

Ce

Ce

Ce

650/110 Tx

Ce
IF

IF

IF

IF

IF

IF

IF

Signaling
Load

Earthing System (RA)

Elevated Voltage between exposed conductive part and earth

dependant on cable length and impedance of Ra. Very unlikely
to exceed 60V.

IT Individual First Fault (Cable)

IF
650V

IF

IF

IF

IF

IF

Line side Equipment

RF

PSP 400/650 TX

Ce

Ce

Ce

Power
Enclosure

Ce

Ce

650/110 Tx

Ce
IF

IF

IF

IF

IF Very Small

Signaling
Load

Earthing System (RA)

Residual risk of Direct Contact on exposed cables.

The risk is consistent with installations with
unarmoured cables

IT Individual Second Fault

IF

IF

IF
R
F

R
PSP 400/650
TX

Residual risk of Direct Contact on exposed cables.

The risk is consistent with installations with
unarmoured cables

IT Individual Second Fault (ECP)

IF

IF

IF
R

IF

R
F

PSP 400/650
TX

I
F

Vt Touch Voltage
IF Fault Current

Vt

Vt

Elevated Voltage between Exposed Conductive

Part and Earth likely to be very small (<60V)

I
F

IT IndividualSecond Fault (Same

ECP)
IF

IF

IF

IF

IF

IF

R
F

PSP 400/650
TX

Vt

System protection not rated to disconnect on L-L or

2 L-E fault

Vt Touch Voltage
IF Fault Current

Elevated Voltage between exposed conductive

parts and earth likely to be > 60V

I
F

IT Individual Line to Line Fault

IF

IF

IF

IF

IF

IF

PSP 400/650
TX

Protection must operate before thermal damage

Vt Touch Voltage
IF Fault Current

IT Collective System
Line side Equipment 1

Line side Equipment X

RF
PSP 400/650 TX

Collective earth

PSP Earthing System

Power
Enclosure

Power
Enclosure

CPC

Circuit Protective Conductor (CPC)

650/110 Tx

Signaling
Load

Earthing System Typically

10 Ohms (SSI8503)

Other LOC or REB

Installations

650/110 Tx

Signaling
Load

Earthing System Typically

10 Ohms (SSI8503)

IT Collective First Fault (Cable)

IF

IF

I
F

RF

PSP 400/650
TX

CPC

I
F

Vt Touch Voltage
IF Fault Current

Vt

I
F

Vt

I
F

Vt

Vt

Elevated Voltage between Exposed Conductive Part and Earth likely to be very
small (<60V). All location cases will see an elevated voltage. Vt dependant on
local earth impedance and cable distribution length

IT Collective Second Fault

IF

IF
RF

IF
RF
PSP 400/650
TX

IF

CPC

I
Protection must operate
to manage lethal touch
voltages

Vt Touch Voltage
IF Fault Current

Vt

I
F

Vt

I
F

Vt

Vt

Elevated Voltage between Exposed Conductive Part and Earth likely to be very
lethal (>60V) and is dependant on voltage divider produced by current passing
through the CPC and Local earth. This could reach half system voltage
depending on all location cases. Vt dependant on local earth impedance and
cable distribution length

IT CollectiveSecond Fault
(CPC Optimisation)
IF

IF
RF

IF
RF
PSP 400/650
TX

IF

CPC

I
Protection must operate
to manage lethal touch
voltages

Local Earth Impedance

utilised to optimise CPC
Vt Touch Voltage
IF Fault Current

Vt

I
F

Vt

I
F

Vt

Vt

Elevated Voltage between Exposed Conductive Part and Earth likely to be very
lethal (>60V) and is dependant on voltage divider produced by current passing
through the CPC and Local earth. This could reach half system voltage
depending on all location cases. Vt dependant on local earth impedance and
cable distribution length. If Local earth is not maintained then the elevated
voltage could be lethal at the ECP.

IT Collective Line to Line Fault

IF

IF
R

IF

PSP 400/650
TX

CPC

Protection must operate before thermal damage

Vt Touch Voltage
IF Fault Current

Class II Engineering Strategy

Engineering Strategy
Reduced CAPEX costs without reducing safety
Improvement in Personnel Safety
Reduction in System Risk
Compliant to Standards
Reduced Maintenance Burden
Greater Tolerability to DC Corrosion
Simplified Earthing and Bonding in AC Electrified Areas
Ability to integrate into Legacy Systems

Class II Proposal
Reduce the probability of insulation failure in the LOCs and REBs to
a negligible level so that power supply equipment enclosures need
not be earthed for protection, so earthing or bonding to a CPC is not
necessary.
Utilising Class II Equipment as a protective measure against electric
shock
Utilising a 2-core cable Distribution Strategy in place of a 3-core
Strategy
Realise the opportunity of complying with the requirements of BS
7671
Realise the opportunity of reducing costs associated with signalling
power supplies

Class II Strategy

No Circuit Protective Conductor (CPC)

Class II Strategy

Double Insulation or Reinforced Insulation

Class II Scope
The Class II Based Design Solution is to be implemented into:
New Build Signalling Power Distribution Systems

Existing Signalling Power Distribution Systems

[3-core Armoured cable - CPC based system]

Legacy Signalling Power Distribution Systems

[2-core Unarmoured cable system]

Design Strategy
Location Case/REB Equipment
Class II Switchgear Housings
Class II Signalling Transformers
Encased Cabling between Class II Switchgear and Class II Signalling
Transformer
Cable Consumables (Glands, Joints, Terminations etc)

Distribution Equipment
2 Core Enhanced Unarmoured Cable
OR
2 Core Armoured Solid Bonded Cable

EPR

Solid Bonded Armoured Cable Solution

IM

PSP 400/650 TX

Line side Equipment 1

BS 5467
Armoured Cable

Line side Equipment X

Class II
Power
Enclosure

Class II
Power
Enclosure

Class II
650/110 TX

Class II
650/110 TX

Gapped
MET

Signaling
Load

Earthing System (RA)

MET

Signaling
Load

Earthing System (RA)

EPR

Enhanced Unarmoured Cable Solution

Line side Equipment 1

IM

PSP 400/650 TX

MET

Enhanced Unarmoured Cable

Line side Equipment X

Class II
Power
Enclosure

Class II
Power
Enclosure

Class II
650/110 TX

Class II
650/110 TX

Signaling
Load

Earthing System (RA)

MET

Signaling
Load

Earthing System (RA)

Risk Assessment Results

Risk of electrocution inside the LOC will, in practical terms, be removed by the
introduction of Class II equipment.
Power cable options ranked in order of safety are as follows:
1.Armoured, solid bonded (=1st)
2.Enhanced unarmoured (=1st)
3.Armoured, resistance bonded
4.Armoured, direct bonded

Other performance factors considered:

Reliability, Availability, Maintainability,
Logistics and Whole-Life Costs.

Conclusion
The Enhanced Unarmoured Cable option presents the highest overall level of Safety.

Legacy, Existing and Class II Schemes

Stage 1 Basic Comparison Table
Feature

Legacy

Existing

Class II

Safety

<

Norm

>

Availability of supply

Norm

>

Compliance with Standards

Maintenance burden

>

Norm*

<

Ease of fault location

Norm

Resilience to corrosion

>

Norm

>

Immunity to stray a.c. currents

>

Norm

>

* Assumes design relies on earth electrodes as well as CPC to control touch voltages

25

Document Title

18 February 2014

Maintenance Comparisons with

Legacy and Existing Systems
Solid Bonded Armoured Cable
(Class II)

Enhanced Unarmoured Cable

(Class II)

1st inspection

Reduced dependency on LOC electrode

condition

No dependency on LOC electrode condition

Periodic
inspection

Reduced dependency on LOC electrode

condition
Armour continuity/loop impedance test required

No dependency on LOC electrode condition

Mid life
degradation

Reduced dependency on LOC electrode

condition
Armour/gland corrosion

No dependency on LOC electrode condition

Cable troughs and ducts maintained in good order

Impact of
possession
restriction

No impact

No impact

Maintenance
factor

PRAMS Conclusion

Cable
options
ranked in
descending
order of
preference

PRAMS ranking of cable options

0 = lower, 1 = higher
Safety

Performance

Reliability/Availability

Maintainability
Personnel

System

Enh
UnArm

Arm solid

Cable Impact & Crush Tests

Impact Tests

Crush Tests

Cable Damage Tests

Impact Tests
Armoured Cables maximum 6 impacts to failure
Enhanced Unarmoured Cables 26 impacts, no failure

Crushing tests
Armoured Cables maximum 1.2 tonnes to failure
Enhanced Unarmoured Cables, minimum 2.2 tonnes to failure
The tests showed that the Enhanced Unarmoured Cable design has
greater resistance to impact and crushing faults than a standard Armoured
cable.

Safety Case
The update of the Safety Case from Stage 1 was undertaken to incorporate the
results of the FMECA and PRAMS analysis
The report presents evidence that the project has reached a stage where the
identified design options, may be selected for detailed design.
Conclusions
There is no identified safety reason to prevent the design development
stage of Class II Equipment using Enhanced Unarmoured Cable
proceeding.
It is important to recognise that Armoured Solid Bonded Cables remain a
viable alternative both in terms of risk and standards compliance however,
FMECA analysis identified the highest failure mode criticality is associated
with the use of Armoured Cable.

New Standards
NR/L2/ELP/27408 Product
Specification for Signalling
Power Distribution Cables
NR/L2/ELP/27409 Product
Specification for Functional
Supply Points (FSP)
NR/L2/SIG/30007 [Issue: 2]
Product Specification for Power
Transformers for Signalling
Systems
NR/L2/ELP/27410 Specification
for Class II Based Signalling
Power Distribution Systems

System Transformation
Isolating
TX

Overcurrent
Device

Insulation
Monitor

Enhanced Unarmoured
Cable

Enhanced Unarmoured
Cable

Enhanced Unarmoured
Cable

PSP Installation

Class II FSP
Switchgear Assembly
Conduit System
Class II Hybrid
FSP Isolating
Transformer
Signalling Load

PSP
Earthing
System

Date 08.11.12

Signalling
Earthing
System

Signalling Load

Signalling
Earthing
System

32

Innovating through Collaboration

Date 08.11.12

33