1. The introduction of ERTMS and ETCS across Europe remains largely driven by isolated national projects rather than a coordinated effort towards cross-border interoperability. 2. While some progress has been made in areas like system integration and risk assessment, challenges remain around technical borders within countries and differences in national implementations of the European standard. 3. The upcoming Baseline 3 specifications aim to address issues encountered over the past decade and remaining open points, but care must be taken to avoid new bugs, and practical experience will still be needed after its implementation.

1. ertms | europe
Making progress towards
standardised train control
HARMONISATION The introduction of Ertms and ETCS is still largely driven by isolated national
projects, with few railways committed to cross-border interoperability. Introduction of the Baseline 3
specifications later this year may bring new challenges as well as answers.
(RG 3.09 p33). So where are we now? We are starting to see railways using Bombardier has
It is clear that large-scale projects CSM-REA as a starting point for de- been using this
former postal
in different countries should start signing their project organisation, us- EMU to test the
to benefit from the lessons that have ing a top-down approach. ETCS Level 2
been learned. In terms of project or- Although ETCS has always been equipment
on ProRail’s
ganisation, studies for the European seen as a cornerstone for interop- Amsterdam –
Frank Walenberg, Rob te Pas and Commission and the European Rail- erability, there have been very few Utrecht route;
Lieuwe Zigterman* way Agency flagged up issues of sys- cross-border applications so far. And one of five
T
separate Ertms
tem integration (or the lack of it), and there are still technical borders within installations in
hree years ago we looked at the need for greater co-ordination countries. Member states or NSAs re- the Netherlands.
the state of development of between infrastructure managers, or quire specific track-train integration
the European Rail Traffic more control for corridor manage- tests, particularly to close open points
Management System, and ment organisations.1, 2 in the European specifications.3
considered how the challenges of in- ERA’s review of system integration All too often, ETCS is seen as a tool-
troducing ETCS were being met in resulted in the so-called Common box from which every infrastructure
practice. We concluded that some pro- Safety Method for Risk Evaluation manager takes those elements which
gress had been made, albeit not much & Assessment. Under Regulation meet its specific needs. But choosing
352/2009, CSM-REA is now mandato- different tools and applying national
*Frank Walenberg is Director of Walenberg Rail ry for the ‘putting into service’ of sub- values without considering the over-
Assessment. Rob te Pas is Director of Te Pas Con- systems under Interoperability Direc- all consequences confronts inter-
sulting, and Lieuwe Zigterman is Strategic Advisor
tive 2008/57, and has to be applied to national train operators with many
at DoorZigt BV.
both trackside and onboard elements. different national implementations of
Railway Gazette International | March 2012 35

2. europe | ertms
‘Infrastructure managers have not been of common safety standards. ERA is
also working with the Notified Bod-
challenged to make best use of the
ies through NB Rail to support the
development of better certification
methods and reduce the differences in
interoperability characteristics of ETCS’ approach. One of the tools being pro-
posed is the use of peer reviews.5
To date, there has been no formal
the ‘European standard’. In order to use ETCS-equipped co-ordination of Independent Safety
Although work is underway on tracks, the operators need onboard Assessors and Independent Assessors
several freight corridors, there is still equipment, which adds cost. So in as defined under CSM-REA. Because
only one genuine cross-border ETCS order to justify the investment they many of them also act as NoBos there
application, on the high speed line need stability, rather than facing the is some co-ordination via NB Rail,
between Antwerpen and Rotterdam. unknown cost of frequent migration but this does not cover them all. An-
Other projects can mostly be charac- to new standards.4 other challenge is that member states
terised as local applications or ‘ETCS The certification and acceptance of treat ISAs in different ways, from full
islands’. Worse, there seems to be no rolling stock is a major obstacle, par- formal accreditation in Sweden to no
clear single driver; each project has a ticularly where existing vehicles have regulation at all in the Netherlands.
different objective (p37). to be modified. This should become The Memoranda of Understanding
Thus infrastructure managers have easier, as TSI 2009/561 requires ETCS between the European Commission
not been challenged to make best use to be fitted in all new stock ordered and various rail industry associations
of the interoperability characteristics of after January 1 2012 or put into ser- signed in 2005 and 2008 commit
ETCS. This does not mean that there is vice after January 1 2015. their signatories to co-operate in the
no international co-operation, but what But gaining acceptance in every development and implementation of
does exist needs to be more focused. country is still a big issue, related to Ertms. One initiative envisaged the
There is a need for stronger co-opera- the retention of national rules and re- creation of independent test labora-
tion between infrastructure managers, quirements. The problem is likely to tories, and although not much pro-
and between their technical specialists last as long as the TSI still has open gress has been seen to date, that is set
and those of the train operators. points, and this is still the case, even to change. The January 25 agreement
after the latest announcement by the makes laboratory testing a require-
Operators affected European Commission on January 25. ment for the onboard subsystem.
When converting to ETCS, one Supporting organisations Moving to Baseline 3
of the most important aspects to be
Don’t confuse considered is the quality of service In terms of international co-ordi- Whilst much is being done behind
the driver. Retro­ and capacity offered to train opera- nation, the work of the Ertms Users the scenes, on the technical side many
fitting ETCS tors. It is self-evident that line capac- Group and Unisig from the supplier projects are awaiting the development
can result in a
multiplicity of ity should not be reduced, and should side is well known. Two other formal of the Baseline 3 specifications. Due to
screens, as seen preferably be increased. However, this groups have been promoted by the be ready by the end of this year, Base-
in the cab of a depends on the final design, and all European Railway Agency. One brings line 3 is intended to address problems
DB Schenker
Class 189 too often neither the capacity nor the together the National Safety Authori- encountered over the past decade, as
electric loco. quality objectives have been defined. ties to co-ordinate the development well as the remaining open points in
the current Version 2.3.0d. Important
new functionalities are envisaged, in-
cluding a better braking curve model,
limited supervision mode, radio infill
and the use of GPRS for data traffic.
Braking curves were not fully ad-
dressed in Baseline 2, leaving infra-
structure managers and train opera-
tors to fill the gap; this has resulted
in deviations from the TSI. Limited
Supervision was initially requested by
SBB as a cornerstone of the Swiss mi-
gration strategy, but other countries
seem increasingly interested.
The idea of using GSM-R instead of
balises to transmit infill information
between the trackside and onboard
units in Level 1 was initiated in Italy.
One hurdle would be keeping track
of the data keys assigned to trackside
equipment and rolling stock.
Although GPRS is seen as essential
for any Ertms implementation in a
large station area, it will not be ready
36 Railway Gazette International | March 2012

3. ertms | europe
in time for the first release of Baseline Test laboratories will play a significant
3, and will follow in a later update. role in ensuring interoperability;
Alstom and SBB used this facility at
However, Banedanmark has already Biel to prove the ETCS equipment used
requested its suppliers to include on the Mattstetten – Rothrist and
GPRS in their bids (p41), and Infrabel Lötschberg Base Tunnel routes.
may follow this route. It seems that the
specification process is simply too slow
to meet implementation requirements. Requirements Specification (Subset
Recent experience can be summa- 026) and test specifications for Base-
rised in the confusing sequence of line 3. A programme to verify all the
local variations: 2.2.2, 2.2.2 Consoli- documents is now being organised by
dated, 2.2.2+, 2.3.0, and finally 2.3.0d, ERA in co-operation with Unisig and
where the d stands for ‘debugged’. the Ertms Users Group.
Nobody likes this degree of inconsist- Nevertheless, we should not ig-
ency, with the resulting need to repeat nore the probability that Baseline 3
so many testing and development will have its own bugs, particularly
procedures. So great care is being with the new functionality. Clear-
taken in the preparation of the System ly, we will not be able to gain any
Current status of selected etcs applications by country*
Switzerland Meanwhile, Belgium, Luxembourg and France accidents. These culminated with the collision at
Although Switzerland is not an EU member it is are making steady progress on Freight Corridor Buizingen on February 15 2010, which killed 19
a front-runner for migration to Ertms, driven by C, where traffic was reportedly not hit by the people and injured many more (RG 3.11 p28). The
the need to replace obsolete systems and equip financial downturn. Thanks to the addition of a link resulting investigation concluded that ATP must be
new lines. The Swiss are also surrounded by EU between Rotterdam and Antwerpen, Corridor C rolled out over the next decade.
member states which are expected to migrate in could handle traffic between Rotterdam and Basel, Infrabel and SNCB already have ETCS Level 2
the longer term. in competition with Corridor A and circumvent- in operation on two of the country’s four high
Given that many trains with onboard equipment ing Germany. The Corridor C steering group has speed lines, and are working to install Level 1
from various suppliers use both the Mattstetten decided from the start to install ETCS Level 1 using on a number of projects, including Corridor C
– Rothrist line and the Lötschberg Base Tunnel, Version 2.3.0d6, which can be considered proven (Antwerpen – Luxembourg – Lyon – Metz – Basel).
which were themselves equipped by different technology. At least the northern part of the route Tenders are to be called for Level 2 on the main
suppliers, the Swiss were soon confronted with should be commissioned before 2015. parts of the conventional network, combined with
interoperability issues. These enabled SBB to gain Denmark replacement of relay-based interlockings where
considerable experience in track-train integration, As its conventional signalling reached life-expiry, necessary. However, the programme is still subject
from which other countries can benefit. Today the Denmark opted for total renewal (p41), with the to approval and funding from the government.
performance of ETCS Level 2 is so good that SBB whole main line network to be fitted with ETCS
Germany
has decided to remove the conventional signals Level 2 by 2021. This means that Banedanmark
In Germany, Ertms has become a casualty of the
that were provided as a fall-back on Mattstetten – can move away from existing national rules. The
government’s austerity measures. Under current
Rothrist; ironically these decrease the availability ambitious strategy attracted much interest from
EU plans, four corridors should be equipped with
of the system as a whole. suppliers, resulting in a competitive procurement.
ETCS by 2015, but the only route going ahead is
Although it seems hard to ensure full GSM-R Denmark will be the front-runner in requiring GPRS
the German part of Corridor A between Rotterdam
coverage in mountainous areas, few problems communication for areas with high data traffic,
and Genova, which is not now expected to be
have been reported. Switzerland also seems to be which is not envisaged in the first release of Base-
ready until some time after 2015, depending on
one of the few countries that has not suffered in- line 3. So Banedanmark will either deviate from the
future renewal plans. To guarantee interoperability,
terference between GSM-R and public mobile com- new European standard or end up setting it!
the Ministry of Transport announced in June 20118
munications networks, which may be due to local
United Kingdom that Germany would pay to have locomotives fitted
legislation on radiation levels and a well-designed
Network Rail is looking to implement ETCS Level 2 with Specific Transmission Modules for LZB/PZB at
GSM-R network structure.
as part of its £5bn Thameslink Programme, mainly a cost of €200m. However, this does not conform
Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg/France on the basis of its assumed capacity benefits. The with the TSI requirements.
To date, the high speed line between Antwerpen requirement is to provide a main line railway that Although the government notes that LZB and
and Rotterdam is the only border crossing where can reliably handle a metro-like service with 24 PZB are not yet obsolete, this does not mean that
two ETCS systems meet. As the Dutch and Belgian trains/h through the central core of the route, with ETCS has completely disappeared. Several routes
equipment were tendered separately to different a very high degree of availability7. This means that are to be equipped in the coming years, such as
suppliers, at a time when no harmonised interface the technical and business risks converge. Nürnberg – Ingolstadt, Nürnberg – Berlin and the
specification was available, it is not surprising that Learning from past attempts to introduce new POS corridor connecting to LGV Est (p51). But the
serious problems had to be overcome to enable technology, NR has opted for an incremental federal government has also cited the small num-
migration plan. To reduce operational risk, the line
trains to cross the border at full speed. ber of experts available compared with the large
is initially being resignalled with colourlights and
The initial view of ‘interoperability’ focused on number of projects as a factor limiting the amount
TPWS for a maximum of around 18 trains/h. Con-
the track-train interface and forgot the system- of work that can be undertaken by 2015.
trol would then migrate to ETCS Level 2 overlaid
level requirements. These were not just about Another argument is that costs are too high.
with Automatic Train Operation once the technol-
defining the interface between two RBCs using This is because the initial plans focus on installing
ogy is ready to support the full service levels.
different communication standards, but also about Level 2, with replacement of relay interlockings.
connecting two sections of track with different Belgium Cheaper alternatives such as Level 1 Limited
operating rules, modes of working and fallback Infrabel’s domestic Ertms strategy is specifically be- Supervision were proposed by DB, but were appar-
systems. ing driven by safety, following a number of serious ently not taken into account by the government.
* Note: This list is not intended to provide a complete overview of recent developments, but highlights selected countries to demonstrate some of the different
objectives for adopting ETCS.
Railway Gazette International | March 2012 37

4. europe | ertms
Testing an practical experience until after Base- 3 interface, Version 1.1 envisages far as possible on introducing uniform
unshielded balise. line 3 applications have been imple- upgrading the Baseline 2 trackside operating rules, which would comply
The Italians are
now looking at mented. And as well as the need to equipment so that it could send a new with TSI-OPE from the outset. Only
radio infill as an address any problems that emerge, message to a Baseline 3 train or an old then would the specification, design
alternative to there will be questions over the extent message to a Baseline 2 train. and engineering rules and principles
balises for Level 1.
to which rolling stock will be accepted Given that the concept is com- be agreed in detail. Proper co-opera-
for cross-border operation without plicated to explain, it might also be tion between infrastructure managers
re-assessment. complicated to implement. We note is essential, but train operators need to
With respect to version manage- that the transition in trackside imple- be involved as well. It is their trains that
ment, Version 2.3.0d has a problem mentation from Baseline 2 to Baseline cross the borders, and are hindered by
with braking curves, where the de- 3 is already likely to be difficult. In the lack of harmonisation.
fault parameters provide inferior Switzerland, SBB has concluded that Whilst co-operation should start
performance and reduce line capac- there will have to be an intermediate with an exchange of experience, the
ity. Some infrastructure managers section with Level 0 (Unfitted), so that final goal should be to strengthen the
are reluctant to upgrade their existing trains will come out of ETCS mode in position of the users with respect to
installations to Baseline 3, but feel the one version and return in the other. the suppliers. Whereas the suppliers
need to address this specific problem. are already united through Unisig,
So the Ertms community has in- The way ahead the users are fragmented between dif-
vented a ‘Version 1.1’ for track-train ferent organisations.
communication. The biggest obstacle to interoper- It would be helpful to repeat the
If Version 1.0 is the Baseline 2 in- ability in the future seems to be the ERA survey of ETCS implementa-
terface and Version 2.0 is the Baseline lack of uniformity in operating rules. tion undertaken in 2007, in order to
Standardisation of these rules would obtain a systematic overview of cur-
References help to smooth the introduction of rent applications and implementation
ETCS. However, few countries are in plans. This study could focus on the
1. Rail Interoperability & Safety, Transposition of legislation and progress on the field.
Study for the European Commission by DHV and KEMA Rail Transport Certifica- the fortunate position of Denmark, main drivers for implementation and
tion, October 2007. where elimination of all legacy signal- identify the hurdles to be addressed.
2. Survey of Safety Approvals for the first Ertms implementations. Study for the
European Railway Agency by Cetren, RINA and KEMA Rail Transport Certification, ling will allow the whole rulebook to The European framework, and par-
September 2007. be re-written. Such a radical step may ticularly CSM-REA, provides a pow-
3. Richtlijn Toetsing Ertms trein apparatuur, ProRail, RLN00295, version 002, valid
from 01/11/2010.
not be possible for railways that mi- erful tool for system integration and
4. Would you invest in ETCS on–board equipment if you owned a train? IRSE News grate gradually. defines the roles for all parties. But
issue 172, November 2011.
5. European Railway Agency. Report on the certification of Ertms equipment. ERA/
However, it might be feasible to start CSM-REA is limited to specific pro-
REP/2011-08/Ertms, version 1.0, April 2011. standardisation if the freight corridor ject initiatives, and there is a need for
6. European Rail Freight Corridors Conference 2011, Frankfurt, May 2011. groups concentrate on equipping cross- wider co-operation across projects.
7. Bates P H, and Weedon D N. Metro Operation of a Main-Line Railway? IRSE paper,
London, September 2011. border sections with ETCS through And here lies the biggest challenge for
8. Kleine Anfrage Deutscher Bundestag, Sachstand Ausbau von Ertms/ETCS auf joint projects. Managed by a central or- all the organisations involved: to act
Bahnstrecken, Drucksache 17/7421, October 20 2011.
ganisation, these could concentrate as from a European perspective. l
38 Railway Gazette International | March 2012