Proceedings 2002/2003 - IRSE

64
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES
Figure 3 – At Least 15 Different ATP Systems
in use in Europe in 2000
replace all these systems. During the 1990s the
European Union started to introduce rules which
include, among quite a batch of rules and specifications:
• Directive 96/48 on interoperability on the highspeed
lines network;
• Directive 2001/16 on application to conventional
lines.
Their aim is to break the monopolies described
above and to bring the benefits of multi-sourcing to
the railways.
An official organisation, UNISIG, has been set up
to produce the specifications for ERTMS/ETCS. At
the present time it consists of the six main European
railway signalling suppliers, which are, in alphabetical
order, Alcatel, ALSTOM, Ansaldo-CSEE,
Bombardier, Invensys-Westinghouse and Siemens.
In parallel with the development of signalling
specifications, CENELEC, the body responsible for
European standards for railways including signalling,
has, since 1990, been developing standards, and
the principal ones are now in force. In order to check
the validity of the specifications and to confirm the
interoperability of products from different suppliers,
a number of test tracks have been set up. Class 1
specifications for ERTMS/ETCS were signed in April
2000 and adopted in December 2001, opening the
path to true commercial projects of which a number
are now in operation or at various stages of design
and implementation.
WHERE ARE WE COMING FROM? THE
INSTALLED ATP BASE
In order to analyse the introduction of
ERTMS/ETCS and give an efficient presentation of
the migration paths from existing signalling to
ERTMS/ETCS on existing lines (and also on highspeed
lines), it is first necessary to look at the
existing situation, especially as far as ATP is
concerned.
Focusing on the railways of western and central
Europe, we see systems of several quite different
sizes, with very dissimilar passenger and freight
traffic and very different shares between them (see
Table 1). Not surprisingly the highest traffic levels are
to be found in France and Germany, with combined
totals of 1.2 x 10 11 passenger-km and 1.44 x 10 11
tonne-km per annum, while countries such as
Denmark, Norway and Portugal have levels over 15
times smaller. The problems faced by the different
railways vary accordingly, on account not only of
present and planned traffic levels, revenues and
expectations but also of the political will concerning
rail transport in their countries.
The level of ATP protection provided today also
varies widely between the countries of Europe. A
very high level of protection is found in Denmark,
France and the Netherlands, but in the UK for
instance there is almost none at all (in terms of
passenger-km and tonne-km of traffic protected by
trackside and trainborne ATP at the present time).
The impact of a change to ERTMS/ETCS will be
different for integrated railways, for infrastructure
owners and for pure railway operators. When large
investments have been made in recent years a
railway will naturally want to keep them, and such a
railway will view migration differently from one
having only a few trackside locations and a small
amount of ATP-fitted rolling stock. Factors to be
considered when assessing a move from existing
signalling to ERTMS/ETCS include: migration
requirements; compatibility with existing systems;
technical issues with the present signalling equipment;
funding issues; and political will. This is
especially important for conventional lines.
Nevertheless, ERTMS/ETCS is now a system that
has been successfully demonstrated on several test
tracks and pilot lines as well as on certain
commercial lines, and it is here to stay. If implementation
has made a slow start (it all began in 1990,
and essential research took off from 1997),
ERTMS/ETCS is now being implemented in quite a
few medium- and large-sized projects.
THE “FORS” OF ERTMS/ETCS
Given all the foregoing, if I were a railway operator,
why should I move to ERTMS/ETCS (apart, of
course, from legal reasons arising from EU rules)?
The “Fors” of ERTMS/ETCS fall under two headings:
• ERTMS/ETCS goals: we shall remind ourselves
of these, and of the choices that lie behind
them, noting how priorities can vary between
countries and between railways;
• Paths to return on investment (RoI) with
ERTMS/ETCS, where we shall have some
suggestions to make.
GOALS OF ERTMS/ETCS
We used to say that there are seven main goals for
ERTMS/ETCS. These goals and their presentation
have now been discussed and approved by UNISIG
and UNIFE, ie by the representatives of the supply
industry at the signalling level and more widely. They
are as follows:
Interoperability
Interoperability concerns both high-speed lines
and the conventional network. It is the principal
raison d’être of ERTMS/ETCS, the main feature that
will enable rail to compete more efficiently with air
and road transport.