Proceedings 2002/2003 - IRSE

MIGRATION TO ERTMS ON EXISTING LINES 71
Discussion
The discussion was opened by F Heijnen
(Invensys) who asked the speaker how the balance
of interoperability between operating rules and
implementation of ERTMS was to be achieved.
J Poré agreed that the issues of operating rules,
(how the signallers and train drivers operate different
suppliers equipment), and the principles of operation
do need to be balanced. A great deal of work has
already been undertaken on standardisation of the
principles and making the equipment interoperable
but not so the operating rules.
P Bassett (AEA Technology) commented that
interoperability between drivers and procedures
should not be a problem; the technology needs to be
streamlined and the Signal Engineer and the
Operator must work closely together.
J Poré noted that most of the problems arise from
human factors such as misinterpretation. He also
stated that his description of interoperability was the
travelling of long distances through different
countries and at present this tends to be where
language and signalling principles are not dissimilar.
P Vandermark (Driver First Great Western)
related a recent incident in Belgium where two
Signallers had been unable to communicate
because of language differences that resulted in an
accident.
R Maton (Operator Severn Valley Railway)
remarked that in Air Traffic Controls throughout the
world, English is the accepted language for all
communications.
J Poré agreed that all of these issues are connected
with Operating Rules and not the technology.
I Harman (Union Railways) wondered why there
should be any requirement to change the rules to
allow for ETCS introduction; why not fit the signalling
into the environment it is to be used in?
J Poré stated that the Swiss have adopted a
pragmatic philosophy that the rules shouldn’t have
to change with the introduction of new technology
but if they have to, why not? Adaptation to new
technology is a factor that has to be considered and
migration is a balance between old and new and the
costs involved. He also commented that introduction
of ERTMS brings considerable benefits
enabling train drivers to “see” ahead and reminding
them and Signallers of previous instructions given.
C Harrison (Lloyds MHA) wanted to know how
capacity could be improved if ETCS Level 2 added
20 seconds to processing and transmission times.
J Poré replied that he was unaware of any processing
and transmission time delays but reiterated
that it had been proven that ETCS improved line
capacity on the new Berne to Olten line by 30% over
any other type of (ATP) signalling.
C Kessell (Centuria Comrail) wondered if the both
the commercial aspects and potential commissioning
problems would deter railway companies from
investing in ERTMS and, if this were to happen, how
would this affect the equipment supply industries?
He was also interested to know the speakers views
on what ERTMS will look like in 2020.
J Poré responded by arguing that as existing
signalling installations become due for renewal, as
well as the requirements of EC legislation, the
supply industry will only be interested in providing
ERTMS equipment. This situation will, however, vary
from country to country but 2020 may be optimistic.
P Stanley (President) commented that the benefits
required by railway operators to both improve
commercial services and compete against road and
air competition could only be provided by ETCS.
C Eaglen (Railtrack) asked about the co-operation
between rolling stock and signalling engineers to
ensure optimum use is made of modern technological
developments both in terms of physical
positioning of train-borne equipment and issues
such as electro-magnetic interference. He also
wondered if this would speed up migration.
J Poré informed that certainly within Alstom, the
rolling stock and signalling engineers do communicate
with one another. Additionally, in Europe a
seminar is regularly held between suppliers and
railway companies. Other problems are also being
tackled and it is hoped migration of ERTMS into the
driver’s cab will provide just a single MMI, incorporating
existing systems where necessary.
R E B Barnard (Alstom) noted that Operators view
ERTMS as ATP and in Eastern Europe ERTMS Level
1 is being fitted, possibly because EC money is
available! He considered that whilst fitting Level 1
not only improves safety and can be overlaid on
existing signalling, it is also interoperable. The real
return on investment, however, is the fitting of Level
2 and in-cab signalling. The important issue is timing
the resignalling and fitting the rolling stock whilst
allaying Operators’ concerns about the introduction
of radical changes. Widespread fitment giving
experience of use will assist in making the decision
to move to in-cab signalling when renewing infrastructure
but this will take time.
J Poré agreed that financial support has been a
key to introducing Level 1 in Eastern Europe; however,
he reiterated that suppliers would only be
providing ERTMS equipment in the future. He also
pointed out that Level 2 ERTMS does not just give a
return on investment but provides distinct advantages
over other systems, ie LZM requires cabling,
TVM requires track circuits and therefore ERTMS
was the only solution for the future.
The President thanked M Poré for a fascinating
evening and his contribution to the subsequent
discussion.