Upload
dkalatzis
View
224
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
1/34
Implementingthe European Train Control System
Cost/Benefit analysis
ETCS migration strategies oncorridors and at national level
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
2/34
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Objectives and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Data available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Methodology to assess Traction Units associated with
corresponding Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. International Rail Corridor analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Analysis of Results in the context of an accelerated
programme on International corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. National Migration Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Global Assessment of Cost of Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. Other Economic Global Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix A: SWOT analysis from the document prepared
in connection with UIC ERTMS Conference Leipzig 10-11 December 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix B: Corridor analysis of additional costs for faster ETCS
migration and associated on-board savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix C: ETCS migration from a practical perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Appendix D: Global assessment of cost of migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Acronymes and Abbreviations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
3/34
Foreword
The theme of this years UIC ERTMS Conference, Managing the Migration, has been chosen because it
serves to highlight that the progressive introduction of ERTMS over the coming years in Europe will need to be
effectively managed to ensure that optimum benefits are realised from the sizeable investment, at the earliest
opportunity. It also focuses attention on the national and international aspects of achieving an interoperable
European railway network, within a reasonable time horizon, which will facilitate an expansion of rail traffic.
At last years Conference at Leipzig, UIC presented participants with a report and survey of current ETCS
implementation plans in Europe in order to stimulate the decisionmaking process for the future (entitled:
Implementing the European Train Control System Opportunities for European rail Corridors).This years
Conference report, prepared during the course of 2004, builds on the previous work and further explores the
business cost/benefits of ETCS Migration strategies, from the perspective of the railway organisations within theUIC. In this respect, it is complementary to the macro-economic perspective undertaken in the recent cost/benefit
analysis carried out by AEIF, as part of the economic appraisal accompanying the control, command and signalling
elements of the Technical Standard for Interoperability for Conventional Rail.The UIC report has been prepared
with the assistance of a number of its Members and the input of CER and EIM.
From the railway actors perspective, it is generally accepted that ETCS is the right long term technical solution,
but that the migration from existing national systems will be difficult and costly. Its implementation will necessitate
sizeable financial assistance from Member states and the European Union to enable this transition to be made
without overburdening the debt on the railway operators and infrastructure managers, who will have to bear the
burden of the costs in the medium term before the long term benefits from a standardised signalling system are
realised.The UIC study has examined five differential cost scenarios, using four different financial discounting rates,
over a forty year period covering an expanded Trans European Network area, inclusive of New Members States
and pending accession countries.The most probable scenario postulates that the net extra cost to the railways,
expressed in Net Present Value, could be 12.5 billion Euros.While this is a substantial additional sum, on top of
other investment priorities, it has to be viewed within the context of other macro-economic parameters and
decisions that embrace future transport sustainability, quality of life and connectivity within a rapidly changing
European landscape.
Another aspect of this report is its analysis of the strategy of migration, based on unifying the signalling systems
along important corridors. In this respect the relationship between trackside and on-board investment is examined.
The conclusion, of this part of the report, is that there is a need to be selective in the choice of corridors and in
the concentration of investment to ensure the earliest realisation of track-side and on-board savings.This arises
from the fact that, to achieve a reduction in the number of signalling systems along any particular corridor, there
must be a long-term co-ordinated parallel strategy of trackside and on-board investment, starting as early as
possible, to reap the benefits in 10 - 20 years time. It is clear that such a long range investment commitment
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
4/34
from the railway actors will only be achieved if the vision is shared and confidently underpinned by the character
of decision making at Member State and European level. It is also necessary to correlate other investment
requirements with the decision making process relating to ERTMS, as part of a full analysis of corridor
development needs.
It is therefore satisfying to report that in the period between the last UIC Conference in Leipzig and todays
conference in Rome we have experienced a positive engagement between the Member States, the European
Commission, the railway actors and the supply industry to plan a realistic course for ERTMS deployment on a
backbone of important economic corridors, which will, in time, link each Member state and new accession
countries along an interoperable railway network. Reaching final agreement, to commonly aspire to this vision, will
facilitate development at national level and stimulate the prospect of new business ventures based on the
exploitation of the potential of the international rail business.The fruits of this engagement should result in thesigning of a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties to constructively develop an ERTMS migration
approach based on a sound business perspective, underpinned by solid commitments on funding.
UIC will continue to contribute to the development of such a comprehensive approach and will actively assist in
promoting a wider understanding of the technical issues involved. It is anticipated that by the time of our next
ERTMS Conference, planned for the spring of 2006, we will be able to offer further insights into this challenging
project.
In parallel with this exciting opportunity in Europe, UIC has, through its activities at a World level, engaged in a
broadening of the horizon toward the East and West through its promotion of new freight transit corridors,
reinforcing Europes links with North America and Asia. It is indeed a welcome addition to our Conference that we
will have speakers on the platform from India and China, which demonstrates the broadening interest in ERTMS
beyond the borders of the European Community.
The location of the 2004 UIC ERTMS Conference in Rome and the enthusiasm, pride and generosity shown by
our host Rete Ferroviaria Italiana (RFI), in making the experience of 300km/h running with ETCS Level 2 on the
new high speed line between Rome and Naples an attractive part of the conference programme, attests to their
confidence in this new technology.
I hope that you enjoy the Conference and find the subject matter of this report stimulating.
Philippe Roumegure
UIC Chief Executive
15 December 2004
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
5/34
Executive summary
The TSIs for High speed and Conventional rail (pending) prescribe the implementation
of ETCS as a common signalling system in Europe to enhance interoperability between
rail networks in the future.
It is generally accepted that ETCS is the right long term technical solution, but that the
migration from existing national systems will be difficult and costly and many networks
are questioning whether the net commercial result will be positive.
This study takes, as its starting point, the assumption that the force of the EU
Directives precludes any consideration of non-compliance while, at the same time,
appreciating the position held by certain railways with regard to economic viability.
Accordingly, the assessment is limited to the following boundary conditions: Establishing whether there are benefits (or less cost) involved in proceeding with a
more co-ordinated and integrated approach along particular international corridors
to mitigate system wide costs and reduce operational hindrance.
Examining whether there is a financial/economic case for justifying a faster rate than
might be otherwise planned or required by minimalist compliance with the Directives.
Assessing the appropriate combination of on-board and track-side migration towards
ETCS having regard to the normal pattern of replacement of life-expired assets which
must, in any event, be planned to maintain the integrity of the rail system.
Quantifying the order of magnitude of the costs involved in the migration process as
a basis of a case for special EU support during the transition period.
The report starts by examining 10 corridors covering 30,563 equivalent single track km
and representing about 12% of the overall combined total network length of the
countries covered by the corridors.These corridors represent a correspondingly higher
proportion of the TEN network, of the order of 20%, and thus provides a good cross-
section of the entire pan-European network.
The additional cost of installing ETCS, in an accelerated programme, in parallel to
existing national systems, is quantified.This strategy would close many of the gaps in the
10 selected corridors, where some ETCS is already planned for completion by the end
of 2008.The study reveals that the cost would be of the order of 638 M on the
track-side. This cost is over and above the cost of the investment, in the current
national (or bilateral) plans that have already been approved, or are on the point of
approval.This extra cost works out at an average of 46.6 k per additional equivalent
single track km (93.2 k per double track km) for the sections studied.
5
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
6/34
The cost of converting on-board equipment, in such an accelerated programme, would
be of the order of 8.8 billion for the entire fleet using the 10 corridors
studied. This would equip about 13,650 traction units (28% of the national fleet in the
same networks). It is estimated that approximately 1500 of these (11%) would be
involved in international cross border operations.The cost of only converting this
reduced fleet would be 1 bil lion .
The conclusion drawn from this part of the study is that, in general, the cost of
accelerating the ETCS Programme, by parallel installation on the track-side, will not be
covered by the savings on international on-board systems.Therefore the pace of
migration, in the immediate future, will more likely be dictated by national perspectives
based on life expiry rates of assets and considerations of safety and capacity
improvement.A global cost benefit analysis, based on a phased programme of ETCS Migration,
synchronised with replacement of life expired assets and traction overhaul intervals, is
then carried out.This analysis assesses the difference in the costs and benefits which
would result from a decision to unilaterally implement ETCS over the entire TEN
network.The potential global impact on the railway infrastructure Managers and
Undertakings (i.e. the internal railway system) is determined in Net Present Value
terms.The analysis restricts itself to the potential direct impact of ETCS and does not
include general macro-economic and societal benefits, which might ensue from
interoperability and modal shift.The latter are more speculative and could not be
attributed to ETCS alone.Therefore the report quantifies the net cost of migration to
the railway companies so as to determine the funding support that would be required
to flow from Members States and the EU towards the rail system.
A number of scenarios are projected over a 40-year time horizon.The probable
scenario suggests that the implementation of ETCS would result in a negative Net
Present Value (NPV at 6%) of 12.5 billion . On this basis, the railways within an
expanded European network of 27 Member State, plus neighbouring networks, would
need an injection (funding) of this amount of money purely to maintain commercial
equilibrium with to-days position.
Taking the broader economic factors into consideration, the study considers that the
greatest benefits (or least cost) are likely to arise from an integrated strategy involving:
no further development of national systems;
focusing on the busiest corridors and the laying of ETCS in parallel to national
systems on the sections of smallest extent;
6
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
7/34
7
systematically reducing of the number of on-board systems;
creating a mass market for ETCS and enhancing rail safety through replacement of
life expired or obsolete national systems;
setting a realistic programme of traction fleet conversions to the ETCS C/C system.
Acknowledging that each network is in the process of elaborating its own national
rollout out strategy for ETCS migration, the report suggests that the following
provisions may be considered as a prudent approach to migration:
order new rolling stock equipped with ETCS or at least prepared for ease of fitment,
and equip or prepare existing fleet at major overhaul;
roll out an ETCS programme for track side migration at least in line with the life
expiry of the signalling system.
However, it is unlikely that this approach will be sufficient, both on track-side and on-board, for the highly integrated networks, or portions of networks, and a faster path
will be appropriate.
The report concludes by observing that the cost of accelerating the ETCS programme,
by parallel installation on the track-side, will not generally be covered by the savings on
international on-board systems and so other considerations need to be taken into
account. However, it considers that the strategy of migration to ETCS is correct from a
business and technical perspective as it unlocks individual networks from the technical
perpetuation of bespoke systems and lays the basis for a common safety signalling
standard for the future.
It also concludes that the broader economic benefits will not be maximised by an
apathetic uncoordinated approach to ETCS and that the railway companies must review
the current situation constructively and prepare, in a united fashion, for the appropriate
engagement with industry and the EC in relation to the ETCS migration programme,
system specification and interchangeability issues and cost.
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
8/34
1. Objectives and Scope
The Technical Standards for Interoperability (TSIs) for High speed and Conventional rail,
have, as an objective, the implementation of ETCS (European Train Control System) as a
common signalling system in Europe to enhance interoperability between rail networks
in the future. It is also anticipated that wider benefits will include reduced specification
cost, speedier cross acceptance and economies of scale in procurement.The increased
safety and capacity potential of ETCS will also be an important factor, especially for
networks with less modern signalling systems.
It is generally accepted that ETCS is the right long term technical solution, especially
where an effective cost relationship to route benefit can be demonstrated. However,
the migration from existing national systems will be difficult and costly and many
networks are questioning whether the net commercial result will be positive.The speedwith which networks progress towards ETCS implementation will be conditioned by
the persuasiveness of the financial appraisal for their respective businesses.
This study takes, as its starting point, the assumption that the force of the EU
Directives precludes any consideration of non-compliance while, at the same time,
appreciating the position held by certain railways.Accordingly, the assessment is limited
to the following boundary conditions:
Establishing whether there are benefits (or less cost) involved in proceeding with a
more co-ordinated and integrated approach along particular international corridors
to mitigate system wide costs and reduce operational hindrance.
Examining whether there is a financial/economic case for justifying a faster rate than
might be otherwise planned or required by minimalist compliance with the Directives.
Assessing the appropriate combination of on-board and track-side migration towards
ETCS having regard to the normal pattern of replacement of life-expired assets which
must, in any event, be planned to maintain the integrity of the rail system.
Quantifying the order of magnitude of the costs involved in the migration process asa basis of a case for special EU support during the transition period.
To achieve these aims it has been considered appropriate to:
Examine a fast/integrated ETCS migration scenario.
Analyse the cost implications of the fast/integrated migration.
Substantiate the corridor philosophy and identify corridors where a faster ETCS
migration strategy could be the correct decision on the balance of financial cost.
Examine the least cost/disruptive opportunities for national migration towards ETCS,
afforded by the replacement of assets and the upgrading of the traction fleet at major
overhaul.
8
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
9/34
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
10/34
10
Table A
Control/Command Systems overview per country
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
11/34
11
Table Asuite
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
12/34
12
3. Methodology to assess Traction Units
associated with corresponding Corridors
Detailed data is currently unavailable to accurately determine the total amount of
traction units, which would be affected by a decision to introduce a new signalling
system (such as ETCS), on a particular corridor.Therefore it has been necessary to
devise a methodology to calculate this figure with sufficient accuracy and confidence for
use in a global business case scenario.The following approach has been taken:
a) The total number of traction units per equivalent single-track km has been calculated
for each country.This ratio (last column in table A)
] combined with a global perspective of the network
concerned, offers an empirical indication of the overall network characteristic.
A low value of indicates: peripheral/dedicated network traffic (0.05< 0.15).
A medium value of indicates: intermediate network traffic (0.15< 0.25).
A high value of indicates: highly integrated network traffic (0.25< 0.36).
The following table B has been created on this basis:
Table B
total number traction units
total length single track=[
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
13/34
13
It should be noted that large networks, such as in Germany, France, Great Britain and
Italy will display all three characteristics in different parts of their networks, however
their national averages tend to be consistently in the low to medium range.
b) It is then necessary to assess how the systematic introduction of a new signalling
system influences the amount of traction units, which have to be converted, in
relation to the national average per km.The general assumption is that the
introduction of ETCS will have the same repercussion on rolling stock (in terms of
number of traction units to be equipped) as the systematic introduction of new
signalling systems in the network had in the recent past.To determine this general
relationship for ETCS, the amount of actual conversions made in a sample of
representative railways, associated with their own national signalling systems, hasbeen reviewed in order to derive the multiple factor - (above the national
average) for the three types of network characteristics outlined above at each stage
of track conversion.Therefore actual figures, for other systems, have been used to
plot a range of curves, which are utilised in the ETCS study.
In this way the graph multiple factor vs.% of track converted to ETCS has been
created as a best fit compromise using selected information from table A (see
Graph 1 below).
In accordance with the multiple factor definition, the percentage of traction units
converted is calculated with respect to the percentage of track converted for each
multiple factor curve.
In this way the graph percentage of traction units converted to ETCS vs.% of track
converted to ETCS has been created (see Graph 2 below).
For a given percentage of track converted to ETCS three different percentages of
traction unit conversion is reported depending on which type of network is being
considered.
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
14/34
14
Graph 1
Multiple Factor
Graph 2
ETCS Conversion
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
15/34
Graph n. 1 is consistent with intuitive understanding. It shows that at the early stage of
a new signalling system (ETCS in this case) a higher number of traction units per km
needs to be converted than the national average.This reduces towards the national
average figure as more of the system is converted.The actual multiple is significantly
affected by the network traffic characteristic and so three curves are drawn, which can
then be appropriately utilised for the analysis on each specific corridor.
For obvious and intuitive reasons when plotting the three best fit curves an asymptote,
whose equation is the line =1, has been imposed. In fact the multiple factor cannot
assume values less that 1.
Graph n. 2 is derived in correspondence with Graph n. 1 by calculating the % of total
fleet converted, resulting from the application of the multiple factor.This also offers abalancing check on the appropriateness of the multiple factor curves since the inverse
graphs of cumulative fleet conversion display a characteristic, which is again consistent
with intuition.
In this case, also, some restrictions have been placed on the best fit curves.The three
curves are bounded by the horizontal asymptote line v=100 and they start from the
point v0 (0;7); that is to say that a minimum of 7% of traction units is necessary from
the very beginning (track length tending to zero).
It is important to point out that the two graphs represent a distillation of information
drawn from a number of networks, with different levels of advancement of national C/C
systems.This has been used to plot a common set of curves for use in studying the
migration of the on-board C/C system in a broad economic business case scenario for
ETCS. It is accepted that, in the case of a stand alone national project involving, say, the
first 100 km of ETCS, a specific analysis of the percentage of the fleet to be converted
would be necessary. In this regard it can be speculated that the first step towards ETCS
on the trackside will necessitate a certain proportion of fleet conversion, possibly of
the order of 5-10%. However, this specific national aspect has no significant impact on
the global model in this analysis.
c) A third step in determining the cost/benefits associated with the timing of the ETCS
trackside installation and on-board equipment is to estimate the proportion of the
fleet which operates on the corridor and crosses national boundaries. Potential
savings in the cost of future on-board C/C equipment could be anticipated on the
international fleet arising from a unified signalling system.
To assess this figure, in the absence of specific data, it has been necessary to examine
national and international traffic-kms (passenger and freight) in each network and
15
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
16/34
16
propose a relationship between the traction units utilised for freight and passenger
traffic.The data have been extrapolated from UIC statistics using certain assumptions
as to fleet distribution.The resulting table C is shown below.
Table C
Network international traffic factor
Note: Network International Traffic Factor = 0.25 Freight ratio + 0.75 Passenger ratio
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
17/34
4. International Rail Corridor analysis
The 10 corridors outlined in the document: Implementing the European Train Control
System - Opportunities for European Corridors, presented at the UIC ERTMS
Conference held in Leipzig on 10-11 December 2003, have been taken as the basis of
this analysis.The ETCS projects on those corridors, where decisions have already been
made, or are in the process of been taken, have been noted.The financial cost/benefits
of implementing an accelerated track side programme over and above these plans has
been examined.The 10 corridors cover 30,563 equivalent single track km and thus
represent about 12% of the overall combined total network length of the countries
covered by the corridors.They represent a correspondingly higher proportion of the
TEN network, of the order of 20%, and thus provide a good cross-section of the entire
pan-European network.For each corridor a spreadsheet has been produced showing information on
infrastructure and estimates of ETCS track-side and on-board costs.These costs have
been mainly obtained by UIC either directly from members or from AEIF.Where
neither was available an estimate has been made within the range of the figures that
have been supplied.This has allowed an overall estimate to be made of the additional
financing cost of advancing the track-side migration in comparison with the potential
on-board savings on C/C equipment on the international fleet.
The investment cost of rolling out a GSM-R network has been largely excluded from
the analysis for the following reasons:
a) Modern Telecommunications systems are, today, considered as an essential part of
the basic infrastructure of many railways. Future reliance on such systems will
transcend ETCS applications.
b) The additional investment to support data transmission for ETCS levels 2 and 3
should be somewhat off-set, in the future, by reduced track-side equipment, such as
the elimination of line-side signalling. However, the exact relationship between the
costs and benefits will be a function of the extent of commercial exploitation of
GSM-R and the actual reduction in the signalling equipment.
c) Many networks intend to use their GSM-R platform to leverage safety and
productivity gains in other non-signalling related area.
Accordingly, having regard to the complexity of assigning an appropriate proportion of
GSM-R investment cost to ETCS, it has been decided to avoid a discussion on the relative
merits and savings of various levels of ETCS and their dependency or otherwise on GSM-R.
The results of all the individual corridor sheets (see Appendix B to this document) are
17
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
18/34
18
brought forward to two summary tables D1 and E1 where a complete analysis has
been performed per corridor and per country respectively. Each spreadsheet was
mutually electronically connected forming a unique tool described in figure 1. A
reduced subset,
involving a re-analysis
of four corridors,
which offer the most
potential, is also
shown in tables D2
and E2.These latter
corridors were first
examined as part ofglobal proportion
(20%) of the TEN
network and later re-viewed on a specific individual corridor basis.
A higher proportion of rolling stock (i.e. highly integrated network traffic multiple
factors) has been assigned in the re-analysis to assess the sensitivity of this on the
results.
The working method was iterative: hypotheses agreed at the ETCS migration strategy
group meetings were implemented in the model, the
model run and the results evaluated until a final and
definitive agreement was reached (see the
following figure 2).
Fig.1The migration tool
Fig.2
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
19/34
19
Table
D
1
Corr
idorsanalysisofadditionalcostsforfas
terETCS
migrationand
associatedon-board
savings
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
20/34
20
Table
E
1
PerCountry
analysisofaddition
alcosts
forfasterETCSm
igration
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
21/34
21
Table
D
2
4-Corrido
rre-analysisofadd
itionalcostsforfasterETCS
migrationandassociatedon-board
savings
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
22/34
22
Table
E
2
PerCo
untry(relatedtoth
e4corridors)re-analysisof
additionalcos
tsforfasterETCSm
igration
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
23/34
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
24/34
no financial benefits from an accelerated programme purely on the basis of savings of
on-board equipment of the international fleet.This means that, as a general
philosophy, unilateral premature replacement or parallel installation of track-side
equipment will not be an optimum financial choice.
b) Corridor 3:PBKAL (fig. 4) displays the most immediate potential for considering an
accelerated migration programme, especially if the figures estimated for the number
of international traction units and
on/board cost savings are
substantiated. It should be noted that
the European Commission has also
expressed an interest in examining thiscorridor.They have sought to establish
the cost of closing all remaining gaps
(including TVM areas, which were not
considered in the UIC study to date).
A more detailed analysis of the rolling
stock savings need to be made,
especially the specific units operating
between Brussels and Paris.
c) Three other corridors should be further evaluated in more detail as the international
component may still represent a strong factor when considered in conjunction with
any other national benefits.A co-ordinated strategy along all, or part, of these routes
in the future could present the opportunity to reduce the overall cost of ETCS
migration for each of the adjoining networks,
especially if additional national projects result in
increasing the length of ETCS installed in each
network, thus reducing the cost of closing the
remaining gaps.These corridors are (fig. 5):
Paris-Mannheim-Zurich (corridor 2)
Rotterdam-Milan-Genoa (corridor 5)
Antwerp-Bettembourg-Metz-Basle (corridor 6).
Two general observations support this
contention.
Firstly, it can be seen from the summary table
24
Fig. 53 promising corridors
Fig. 4PBKAL corridor
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
25/34
of the 10 corridors, aggregated on a national basis (Table E1), that countries such as
Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands could benefit from an integrated
approach. Secondly, the results of the market study of the Eurailinfra project (UIC
Infrastructure Commission) indicate strong future international traffic relationships
between the countries involved, which offer the prospect to increase the amount of
international traffic on the corridors in question.
d) The remaining corridors do not appear to offer an immediate benefit from an
accelerated integrated ETCS programme along the entire length of the corridor.The
reason for this is due to insufficient international traction units operating over the
entire corridor and/or the absence of existing national plans, at this point in time,
which would provide a sufficient foundation to make the additional filling ofoutstanding gaps an attractive financial proposition.Therefore, there is a need to re-
examine whether a less extensive proposal on a bilateral or tri-lateral basis between
some networks, covering a smaller extent of the corridor, would offer a better
proposition.
6. National Migration Strategies
The analysis in the previous section strongly indicates that the pace of ETCS migration
will be driven more by national perspectives and the age and condition of current
infrastructure and traction units, than by the attraction of reduced on- board costs of
the international fleet. Each network is currently in the process of elaborating their
national rollout strategies for ETCS Migration.These strategies will be influenced by the
factors outlined in section 1 and in the SWOT analysis in Appendix A.
It is worth observing that the on-going requirement to replace assets offers an
opportunity to consider an optimised transition path towards ETCS. In such
circumstances, the decision is not whether there is financial case for pre-mature
replacement or parallel installation of equipment, but more a question of assessing how
ETCS can be introduced instead of like for like replacement of existing systems.
Compliance with the European Directives has also to be factored into this decision.The
tables in Appendix C approach the migration to ETCS from this practical perspective.
Table C1.1 demonstrates that, based on a conservative assessment of the life cycle of
signalling equipment, there should be a need to replace 4,000 equivalent single track
kms on the TEN network of an enlarged European Union on an annual basis.This figure
25
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
26/34
26
rises to 6,400 km per year if one takes the entire enlarged European rail network into
account. In simple terms this means that there is an opportunity to make progress
towards ETCS at a regular rate each year.The following steps appear to represent a
prudent approach to migration:
1) Define a roll out programme for track side migration at least in line with life expiry
of the existing signalling systems. Based on an average life of forty years this suggests
that the European network should be at least 35% converted to ETCS on the track-
side by 2020. Based on the analysis in section 2 (see Graph 2, in particular) this
track-side renewal would necessitate an associated proportion of the national fleet
to be fitted with a compatible on-board ETCS system.The minimum percentage of
the national fleet to be converted can be estimated from Graph 2, depending on thenetwork characteristic. Knowing the injection of annual new fleet enables one to
calculate the balance of fleet conversions to be carried on the existing fleet (see
Table C1.2).
2) Order new rolling stock equipped with ETCS or at least prepared for ease of
fitment subsequently for ETCS (Eurocabs, DMI, Odometry etc.) and equip or carry
out remaining preparation of existing fleet at major overhaul.This would represent
the least disruptive on-board conversion programme and should minimise or
eliminate the additional out of service cost for workshop fitment at other non-
scheduled times. Even at a steady replacement rate of traction units on a forty year
cycle (average of TEN network fleet assumed to be 30 years in this exercise) and a
10 year overhaul frequency (fitting only the 10 and 20 year old fleet each year) this
should see the European fleet pre-fitted by 2020 (see Table C1.3).
3) In overall terms the above strategy may be sufficient to cover the networks which
have been described as peripheral or intermediate in this report.The likelihood is
that some initial injection of fleet conversion will be necessary before settling into a
national pattern.This is likely to be about 5-10% of current fleet size and is displayed
at an average of 7% on the curves in Graph 2. However, it is unlikely that the above
minimalist approach will be sufficient, both on track-side and on-board, for the highly
integrated networks, or sections of networks around busy hubs, and a faster path
will be necessary.The aspect can be seen from a comparison of the required
programme suggested by Table C1.2 and the least disruptive programme suggested
by Table C1.3.These two tables are combined and shown in Graph 3 (below and in
appendix C).This shows that while the overall rate of conversion by 2020 should be
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
27/34
adequate in all cases there would be a need for more accelerated fitment
programme in the earlier years on the highly integrated networks, which could be
compensated by a reduced programme in later years.
4) The difference in cost between the selected ETCS Migration programme and the
normal steady state replacement and upgrading of assets can be quantified.This
amount should represent the additional funding support sought from the EU towards
ETCS Migration.A global cost benefit analysis has been carried out to assess the
order of magnitude of the total cost difference for UIC member railways in an
expanded EU of 27 Member states, plus the neighbouring networks.This is discussed
in the next Section.
Graph 3
Traction fleet conversion to E TCS per network type
27
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
28/34
7. Global Assessment of Cost of Migration
The study of the 10 selected corridors has revealed that, the cost of closing many of
the gaps in the overall corridor length, by overlaying ETCS in parallel to existing
national systems, would be of the order of 638 M.This cost is over and above the
cost of the investment, in the current national (or bilateral) plans that have already
been approved, or are on the point of approval.This extra cost works out at an average
of 46.6 k per additional equivalent single track km (93.2 k per double track km) for
the sections studied.This serves as a useful global indicator of the extra cost provision
that would have to be made in the future to roll out a faster strategy on the TEN
network, than appears to be covered by current national priorities or the needs to
replace life expired equipment.The global study also reveals that the cost of the on-board Eurocab equipment would
be of the order of 8.8 billion for the entire fleet using the 10 corridors
studied. This is to equip about 13,650 traction units (28% of the national fleet in the
same networks). It is estimated that approximately 1500 of these (11%) would be
involved in international cross border operations.The cost of only equipping this
reduced fleet would be 1 bil lion .
If one adopts the slower migration
approach, in line with the replacement
rate of lifeexpired assets, it will be
possible to optimise the financial costs
by avoiding the overlay costs of ETCS in
areas where there is no obvious
financial benefits from saving of on-
board equipment. It will also be possible
to consider a migration of the on-board
equipment based on an injection of new
fleet in combination with a less disruptive
conversion programme of the existing fleet, in accordance with planned overall
schedules. Such a scenario has been chosen as the basis for a global cost benefit
analysis to establish the order of magnitude of the total differential cost of migration
for an expanded Trans European Network area, inclusive of New Members States and
pending accession countries (fig. 6) , taking the following expenditure elements into
account:
a) The difference in signalling replacement cost, and subsequent maintenance, between
28
Fig. 6Trans European rail network in a EU of 27 Member
States
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
29/34
ETCS and like for like replacement.
b) The difference in fleet replacement cost and maintenance, including the on-board
equipment, with a European ETCS programme compared with continuing with
installation of national C/C systems.
c) The cost of converting the on-board systems of a proportion of the existing fleet
until 2020 to keep pace with the track-side installation of ETCS.
The differential cost of migration to ETCS for the European Railways Companies
concerned (Infrastructure Managers and Railway Undertakings) has been calculated.This
is based on a 40 year time horizon, applying a range of discount factors (0%, 4%, 6% and
8%) to the annual estimated difference in anticipated expenditure in order to arrive at a
Net Present Value (NPV). In addition to assessing the difference in investment cost and
savings, an attempt has been made to place a monetary value on other potentialincremental benefits arising from the uniform adoption of ETCS - such as gain in track
capacity and savings arising from a reduction in rail fatalities and injuries.The analysis,
however, does not consider other more general macro-economic and societal benefits,
which might ensue from interoperability and modal shift.The latter are more
speculative and could not be attributed to ETCS alone.Therefore the study
concentrates on quantifying the net cost of migration to the railway companies so as to
determine the funding support that would be required to flow from Member States and
the EU towards the rail system.
Furthermore, at this stage of early development of ETCS, and without a strong
indication and commitment of industry, it is not possible to attribute potential benefits
or cost savings in spare parts or other procurement benefits due to economies of
scale. It might also be reasonable to anticipate savings related to reduced training for
drivers, maintenance and operational staff due to the adoption of a unique CC system
in the long term. However, the study considered that the cost/benefit would be broadly
neutral during the time horizon of the analysis due to higher potential costs in the early
stage being compensated by benefits of the unique system in the long term.
The full calculations are contained in Appendix D, and a summary of the results is
29
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
30/34
30
shown below.
Differential cost of migration to E TCS(Billion )
The probable scenario suggests that the implementation of ETCS would result in a
negative Net Present Value (NPV at 6%) of 12.5 billion . On this basis, the railways
within an expanded European network of 27 Member State, plus neighbouring
networks, would need an injection (funding) of this amount of money purely to
maintain commercial equilibrium with to-days position.
This figure correlates well with the cost elements (both on-board and track side)
calculated in a separate AEIF study, taking into account the fact that the study is based
on migration costs within the EU 15 member states.
8. Other Economic Global Factors
Overall, this analysis has been concerned with the optimisation, mainly in terms of
financial cost/benefit, of the ETCS migration strategy. However, assuming that the
financial imbalances are addressed in discussions with the EC and Member States, and
taking the broader economic horizon into account, the greatest benefits are likely to
arise from the following strategy:
1) No further development of national systems so as to:
effectively concentrate the attention of the signalling industry to the more rapid
development and support of ETCS, to include finalisation of specifications and
progress on interchangeable supplier equipment;
begin to gain benefits through economies of scale procurement and reduced cross
acceptance costs;
de-risk the transfer of specialist signalling system principles and knowledge to
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
31/34
31
manufacturers and outside industry, having regard to the trend of reducing in-house
expertise within many networks.
2) The least cost route to an accelerated migration at international level, and towards
meeting the goal of interoperability, will be achieved by focussing on the busiest
corridors and considering laying ETCS in parallel to national systems on the sections
of smallest extent.
3) Systematically reducing the number of on-board systems will bring benefits for train
operators in time. In this regard there are over twenty European signalling systems.
By 2010, ETCS will be, at least, the fifth most extensive signalling system with over
16,000 equivalent single track kms installed, based on current commitments alone
(see table F below for plans to 2008).
Table FThis will establish it as a dominant system and will leave only PZB, Crocodile, KVB,
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
32/34
ATP/TPWS systems with a greater coverage, predominantly in Germany, France & UK
(see Table G).
Table GThe extent of such systems means that on-board parallel equipment will still be
required on many international routes crossing these networks for many years.This
study shows that there is a weak financial case for accelerating the migration of track
side equipment. However, if it can be shown that there are wider economic or practical
technical benefits, by minimising the amount of international foreign trains requiring
such additional on-board equipment, an accelerated programme of ETCS implemented
in important transit corridors such as from Belgium,The Netherlands, crossing North
and Eastern France and South-Western and Eastern Germany to Switzerland, Italy and
Austria would seem to be the best place to start.
4) As a general observation it may be stated that the installation of ETCS in peripheral
networks, outside of the central European corridor areas, is unlikely to be financially
justifiable based purely on interoperability benefits. However, the installation of
ETCS, consistent with national plans, will be an important contributor to enhancing
rail safety and will create the mass market for ETCS through replacement of life
expired or less modern national systems.
5) The underlying rate at which existing national systems can be eliminated will be
largely determined by the pace of traction fleet conversion to ETCS C/C system.
While the parallel fitting of ETCS on the track-side can reduce pressure on national
fleet conversions, this will not be a substitute for a well organised long term strategy
for on-board equipment. Failure to recognise this could result in severe restrictions
32
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
33/34
on fleet operations and high out-of-service time if programmes have to be
implemented at short notice due to sudden obsolescence, unsustainable maintenance
cost or life expiry of the predominant national system. It is important to recognise
that it can take up to forty years of gradual replacement, in normal steady state
conditions, to replace/upgrade an entire national system or fleet. It is also evident
that by about 2015, few of the existing systems may be supported by the
manufacturers.
9. Conclusions
This report has examined the cost/benefits of ETCS Migration strategies from a
financial, economic and organisational perspective. It is clear that the cost ofaccelerating the ETCS Programme, by parallel installation on the track-side, will not be
covered by the savings on international on-board systems.Therefore the pace of
migration, in the immediate future, will be dictated by national perspectives based on
life expiry rates and considerations of safety and capacity improvement.
Nevertheless the broader economic benefits, outlined in the report, will not be
maximised by an apathetic uncoordinated approach to ETCS.There is technical
consensus around the ETCS solution for the long-term and the force of EC Directives
will ensure the future evolution in this direction. It is reasonable to assume that a
unified signalling system will bring economies of scale in an area which is fragmented
and specialised.
Therefore, for the long-term, the strategy of migration to ETCS is correct from a
business and technical perspective as it unlocks individual networks from the technical
perpetuation of bespoke systems and lays the basis for a common safety signalling
standard for the future.These are important issues for companies with aspirations
towards commercialisation and public accountability.
Accordingly, there is a need to consider ETCS as the next generation signalling system
and in accordance with any replacement strategy, railways will need to plan in such a
manner so as to ensure the continuity of their future operations in the light of future
signalling market conditions.
Ambiguity will only be a feeding ground for indecision and will result in a lack of real
commitment from industry to make the necessary steps to advance rapidly with
reliable, safe and economical solutions, including interfacing with existing systems and
inter-change between supplier products.
Therefore the railway companies must consider ETCS in the context of a more global
economic perspective and prepare, in a united fashion, for the appropriate engagement
33
8/13/2019 ETCS Report
34/34
34
with industry and the EC in relation to the migration programme and the practical
resolution of concerns such as the stabilisation of specifications, interchangeability of
supplier equipment, funding and cost.
It is reassuring to report that such discussions have commenced and should shortly
Fig. 7Relevant corridors