Proceedings 2002/2003 - IRSE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES 65 Table 1: ATP in Europe Today Infrastructure Country owner(s) Central Passenger Tonne- Total traffic = Total % network % central % traffic ATP Passenger Multiple units = ATP system Operator(s) -km km passenger-km network with ATP Wagons Locos units with protected by protection carriages units Locos + today x 10 9 x 10 9 + tonne-km km today ATP today ATP level 2xMUs Austria ÖBB ÖBB 8.0 14.7 23 5600 50 Medium France RFF SNCF 30500 >60 5000 2200 9400 >85 KVB >90 High (conventional) 67.0 53.4 120 15700 48000 France RFF SNCF 1500 100 – 400 800 100 TVM 100 High (high speed lines) Germany DB Netz DB AG 72.5 71.5 144 37500 90 EVM (*) >90 High Italy FS FS 41.0 21.5 63 16100 40 11900 67700 3100 1500 6100 80 BACC/SCMT 90 High Norway JBV NSB 2.7 2.5 5 4200 30 800 2500 180 140 460 30 Ebicab 30 Medium Poland PKP PKP 21.0 55.0 76 22900 – 10000 96000 4140 1270 6680 – – – Portugal REFER CP 4.3 2.2 7 2800 10 1400 4000 280 340 960 30 Convel 60 3800 18400 980 100 1180 ~100 ASFA (*) >90 High Sweden BV SJ 7.4 14.4 22 10000 >60 1500 11200 600 320 1240 >90 Ebicab >90 High Switzerland BLS BLS 0.5 0.4 1 240 – 250 160 110 40 190 – – – Low or nil Switzerland SBB-CFF-FFS SBB-CFF-FFS 12.6 9.6 22 2900 15 3400 13000 1340 250 1840 >50 ZUB >40 Medium United Kingdom Railtrack >20 38.0 17.9 56 17800
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings 2002 - 2003
Page 3 and 4:
The Institution of Railway Signal E
Page 5 and 6:
Contents Contents ……………
Page 7 and 8:
5 PETER STANLEY BSc CEng FIEE FIRSE
Page 9 and 10:
OFFICERS AND COUNCIL 7 Photo: Colin
Page 11 and 12:
9 Institution Announcements (The pr
Page 13 and 14:
INSTITUTION ANNOUNCEMENTS 11 Head O
Page 15 and 16: 13 Institution Awards PRESIDENT’S
Page 17 and 18: OBITUARIES 15 overseen the conversi
Page 19 and 20: 17 Annual Dinner and Dance The Inst
Page 21 and 22: 19 The Institution of Railway Signa
Page 23 and 24: PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 21 in terms of
Page 25 and 26: PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 23 technical l
Page 27 and 28: EUROBALISE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, A T
Page 33 and 34: Company Announcement Bridgen Enterp
Page 35 and 36: EURORADIO AND THE RBC 33 another wh
Page 37 and 38: EURORADIO AND THE RBC 35 communicat
Page 39 and 40: EURORADIO AND THE RBC 37 PLAINTEXT
Page 41 and 42: EURORADIO AND THE RBC 39 4.7 DISCON
Page 43 and 44: EURORADIO AND THE RBC 41 would be a
Page 45 and 46: EUROCAB AND THE DRIVER MMI - AN INT
Page 51 and 52: 49 Technical Meeting of the Institu
Page 53 and 54: SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AN
Page 65: 63 Migration to ERTMS on Existing L
Page 69 and 70: MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINE
Page 75 and 76: CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS
Page 87 and 88: INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 85 RIC lev
Page 89 and 90: INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 87 case se
Page 91 and 92: INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 89 the sys
Page 93 and 94: INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 91 Connect
Page 95 and 96: NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 93 see the
Page 97 and 98: NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 95 THE INST
Page 99 and 100: NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 97 THE INST
Page 101 and 102: NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 99 Accounts
Page 103 and 104: NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 101 Adminis
Page 105 and 106: NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 103 Vice-Pr
Page 107 and 108: NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 105 There a
Page 109 and 110: NINETIETH ANNUAL REPORT 107 Fabbian
Page 111 and 112: NINETIETH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 10
Page 114 and 115: 112 Sydney Hosts 2002 Convention Fo
Page 116 and 117:
114 SYDNEY HOSTS 2002 CONVENTION
Page 118 and 119:
116 SYDNEY HOSTS 2002 CONVENTION Co
Page 120 and 121:
118 Much Better Engineer Signal Eng
Page 122 and 123:
120 2002 Examination Results Anothe
Page 124 and 125:
THIS SPACE COULD BE WORKING FOR YOU
Page 126 and 127:
124 AUSTRALASIAN SECTION dangerous
Page 128 and 129:
126 AUSTRALASIAN SECTION to address
Page 130 and 131:
128 CHAIRMAN’S REPORT Midland & N
Page 132 and 133:
130 SCOTTISH SECTION He drew compar
Page 134 and 135:
132 SOUTHERN AFRICAN SECTION at Spo
Page 136 and 137:
134 WESTERN SECTION Scotland. (Atte
Page 138 and 139:
136 YORK SECTION The October meetin
Page 140 and 141:
138 Younger Members’ Section The
Page 142 and 143:
140 The Editor would like to thank
Page 144:
Railway Signalling… A Science or
show all

Proceedings 2002/2003 - IRSE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?