Introduction. The pursuit of higher quality services in the railway sector is a continuous process, and the availability in recent years of affordable, reliable, digitally enabled additions to traditionally mechanical-based infrastructure systems has provided a fruitful avenue for advancement. Remote Condition Monitoring (RCM) systems are one example of a tool that has been widely deployed to improve the standards of maintenance, reliability, and safety across the rail network. The advanced warnings of incipient faults provided by RCM data enable preventative maintenance to be performed before service-impacting failures arise, leading to reduced costs of disruption and increased passenger satisfaction. The perceived benefits of RCM have led the industry to install sensors on an ever-higher proportion of its assets, with a corresponding increase in the volume of data generated. In general, and according to [1], railway RCM operations can be divided into four major divisions (quadrants), which are defined by the location of the monitoring sensors and the assets being monitored: train monitoring train, infrastructure monitoring infrastructure, train monitoring infrastructure, and infrastructure monitoring train. In countries such as the UK, where the vast majority of the mainline rail infrastructure is maintained by a single Infrastructure Manager (IM), sensors that are mounted on assets belonging to one stakeholder but are being used to monitor assets related to another will, by definition, fall into the train monitoring infrastructure or infrastructure monitoring train quadrants; an example of this would be sensors mounted on the tracks that are used to detect wheel flats on the rolling stock [2]. Although this type of cross- interface monitoring of assets may be the most technically practical solution to many industry-wide problems, commercially they can prove complex as the business paying to install, maintain, and operate the sensing device is not the party benefitting from the data collected. As a result, it can be hard to generate business cases for the purchase, installation, and operation of cross-interface monitoring systems that would have recognised industry-wide benefits. In order to address this issue, it is widely recognised within GB rail that either closer collaborations must be established between stakeholders to enable more effective cross-interface business cases to be developed or there must be a trusted audit process that can enable costs of data coll...
Introduction. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission ("HHSC") and the Contractor named in Section I (HHSC and Contractor may be referenced in this document collectively as the “Parties” and individually as the “Party") hereby enter into this Community Services Contract - Provider Agreement (the “Contract”) for the provision of services under the Contract type specified in Section I for the considerations set forth herein. The Contract Begin Date specified in Section I is not valid until this Contract is signed by both parties.
Introduction. 1. Staff of the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (“Staff”) and the Respondent, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx (the “Respondent”), consent and agree to settlement of this matter by way of this agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”).
Introduction. 1. By Notice of Settlement Hearing, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (the “MFDA”) will announce that it proposes to hold a hearing to consider whether, pursuant to section 24.4 of By-law No. 1, a hearing panel of the Central Regional Council (the “Hearing Panel”) of the MFDA should accept the settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) entered into between Staff of the MFDA (“Staff”) and the Respondent, Xxxxx Xxxx.
Introduction. This is a non-mandatory statewide contract for the design, purchase, delivery and/or assembly/set-up of Office Furniture including accessories, replacement parts and attachments including any and all associated costs for delivery, set-up and debris removal including cartons and pallets from the premises.
Introduction. 1.1 The Employer has entered into a contract of employment with the Employee in terms of section 57(1)(a) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (“the Systems Act”). The Employer and the Employee are hereinafter referred to as “the Parties”.
Introduction. 1.1 This schedule covers;
Introduction. This Coordination of Benefits (COB) provision applies when you or your covered dependents have healthcare coverage under more than one plan. This plan follows the COB rules of payment issued by the Rhode Island Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner (OHIC) in Regulation 48, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). From time to time these rules may change before a revised agreement can be provided. The most current COB regulations in effect at the time of coordination are used to determine the benefits available to you. When this provision applies, the order of benefit determination rules described below will determine whether we pay benefits before or after the benefits of another plan.
Introduction. 1. The publisher for this copyrighted material is Elsevier. By clicking "accept" in connection with completing this licensing transaction, you agree that the following terms and conditions apply to this transaction (along with the Billing and Payment terms and conditions established by Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. ("CCC"), at the time that you opened your Rightslink account and that are available at any time at xxxx://xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx).
Introduction. To encourage the Executive to remain an employee of the Company, the Company is willing to provide salary continuation benefits to the Executive. The Company will pay the benefits from its general assets.