B R I T A I N ' S R A I L W A Y , P R O P E R L Y D E L I V E R E D

ERTMSPROGRAMME TEAM

2003/2004 PR

OG

RE

SS

RE

PO

RT

NATIO

NA

L

01

1 INTRODUCTIONThe ERTMS Final Report1 in 2002, following aninitial review and planning phase, established the needfor further development work, before the EuropeanRail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) could beconsidered ready for implementation. The report alsoset out a ‘development plan’, which included thefollowing key elements:

Creating new UK operating rules and signallingprinciples aimed at minimising UK applicationchanges to the core European ERTMS product,and realising both the significant potential benefitsto performance and the lower re-signalling costs ofERTMS implementation (See section 3.1 of thisExecutive Summary);Undertaking an Early Deployment Scheme (EDS)to test out the new operating rules and signallingprinciples, to build industry experience in the useof the technology, and to gain confidence in thenon-technical processes for implementing ERTMSonto a railway network with separate responsibilityfor train operation and infrastructure (See section3.2 of this Executive Summary);Engaging in the wider European programme tomonitor the progress of the development of theERTMS standards and products. The ERTMSstandards are a subset of the European Commission(EC) Technical Specifications for Interoperability(TSIs). (See section 3.3 of this Executive Summary); andFurther developing a process for deciding the scope,timing and opportunities for implementationbeyond the EDS. (See section 4 of this ExecutiveSummary).

This is the second cross-industry report against the‘development plan’ set out in the ERTMS Final Report.It has been produced by the National ERTMSProgramme team (NEP), working under the directionof a cross-industry steering group – the ERTMSProgramme Development Group (PDG) – and coversprogress in the last 12 months.

In summary, the UK ERTMS programme is onschedule to complete the Early Deployment Scheme(EDS) in 2008.

2 BACKGROUNDERTMS is a train control system that providesenhanced safety features, compared to currenttechnologies like BR-ATP and the Train Protection & Warning System (TPWS and TPWS+). However, implementation cannot be economicallyjustified purely on safety benefit investment grounds.There are good business reasons for fitting ERTMS:

On infrastructure – renewing signalling withERTMS technology, as part of the nationalrenewals programme, will reduce the costs of the re-signalling programme and improve long termreliability;On trains – replacing a number of separate oldertrain protection systems will increase reliability,provided ERTMS is itself highly reliable and caninterface reliably with current train-borne systems;Placing signalling information in the cab shouldimprove operating flexibility and performance,especially in areas with overhead electrificationwhere there are major constraints on thepositioning of trackside signals and signallinggantries; andRemoval of line-side signals provides greaterflexibility in signalling design, and combined withnew signalling principles can improve serviceperformance through better recovery fromdisruption. It also has the potential to improvecapacity when applied to a whole route. In addition, reducing the amount of tracksideequipment will implicitly reduce the overall risk to trackside workers.

The National ERTMS Programme team (NEP) wasformed through the consolidation of resources fromthree separate groups previously involved in ERTMSplanning – namely, the ERTMS Programme team(EPT), the Network Rail Train Protection team and

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The ERTMS Programme Team Final Report issued to the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) – April 2002

Shrewsbury

Pwllheli

DoveyJunction

Aberystwyth

ERTMS Early Deployment Scheme

Machynlleth

02

the West Coast Route Modernisation (WCRM) TrainControl System (TCS) team. The ERTMS programmefor the UK has been led by the Strategic Rail Authority(SRA) since February 2003, with Network Rail and the Train and Freight Operating Companies (TOCsand FOCs) being responsible for delivery ofimplementation projects. The Rail Safety andStandards Board (RSSB) has also been involved in theoverall ERTMS programme. In July 2003 theProgramme Development Group (PDG) replaced theprevious cross-industry steering group – the ERTMSProgramme Board (EPB).

3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROGRESSThere has been significant progress in the last year andthe following are the highlights:

3.1 Operating Rules and Signalling PrinciplesThe Cambrian Line EDS, in mid-Wales, will be thefirst opportunity to test the new rules and principles.This year has seen completion of the development ofthe new ERTMS operations concept and the associatedrevised signalling principles concept. A key part of thiswork has been to understand the impact of takingERTMS as a ‘standard product’ and writing theprinciples in a way that avoids having to change it.This is a lesson learnt from previous projects, wherethe benefits of introducing new technology fromoutside the UK have been greatly reduced because theexisting UK signalling principles have necessitatedmajor modifications to ‘standard products’.

The scope of the UK application rules has beenfocused on operations without line-side signals (System D), as planned for the Cambrian Line EDS.RSSB has set up a project team to develop proposalsfor the relevant industry standards to support thisconcept, including proposals for revisions to therulebook, in accordance with the Railway GroupStandards Code.

Further work is required to develop operating rules andsignalling principles for the hybrid form of ERTMSimplementation, where line-side signalling is retained(System C). This kind of operation would be requiredfor a transition period on some routes.

3.2 Cambrian Line Early Deployment Scheme (EDS)

In the last year, the primary focus has been ondeveloping the scope of the Cambrian Line EDS,which is proceeding on schedule. The objective of theEDS is to prove ERTMS Level 2 operationally in theUK, on a site with low operational impact i.e. on a low-usage route, with all trains fitted and without line-side signals, with separate train and track procurementof ERTMS, and with robust cost and reliability targetsfor the equipment. While relatively small (15 trainsand around 200 track kilometres in total), theexperience gained, including the proving of newoperating rules and signalling principles, will beinvaluable to subsequent more complex

FIGURE 1 CAMBRIAN LINE EDS PROJECT SCHEME

03

implementations. It is planned that fully equippedtrains will be travelling along this line under ERTMScontrol, initially in test conditions, in 3 years time. A schematic of the route of the Cambrian Line EDS is illustrated in Figure 1.

ERTMS requires both the track and trains to be fittedbefore it can operate as the primary signalling system.The new operating rules and signalling principlesimpact on both the track and train sub-systems.Hence there is a need to integrate and manage theERTMS system as a whole. This is a similar situationto other track/train systems like TPWS, which wasdeveloped and integrated as a system before beingrolled out separately on the track and trains.

The initial definition stage of the Cambrian Line EDSproject has been completed, and Network Rail, Arriva

Trains, RSSB, and English Welsh & Scottish Railway(EWS) have now begun to deliver their elements of the project under the co-ordination of the SRA. Theproject will be delivered through a number of contractsand agreements with the industry parties. ERTMSfitment for the trackside and the train will be procuredseparately, piloting the procurement approach to beused for the national implementation, and will be ledby Network Rail for the trackside, and Arriva Trainsand EWS for the trains. RSSB is developing proposalsfor the standards, new operating rules and signallingprinciples that cover both track and train. Each of theindustry parties is working to an agreed overall projecttarget schedule, which is used to co-ordinate andintegrate the four elements of the project. NetworkRail is also responsible for managing the integration oftrackside and train-borne ERTMS sub-systems withthe GSM-R network, over which the data and voice

SRA (NEP) (co-ordination)

Network Rail (signalling, ERTMS, GSM-R)

Arriva – TOC (11 trains)

EWS – FOC (4 trains)

RSSB (rules, principles, standards)

Testing on Test Track

Testing on the Cambrian Line

Trials in Passenger Operation

Jun2004

Time Now

May2005

Mar2007

Dec2008

G1 – Completion of initial project definition

G2 – Completion of feasibility stage

G3 – Start of implementation

G4 – Start of testing on Cambrian Line

G5 – Start of trial period in passenger service

G6 – Completion of trial period

Investment & Procurement Gateways Testing Gateways

G1

G2 G3

G2 G3

G2 G3

G4

G5

G6

FIGURE 2 CAMBRIAN LINE EDS PROJECT INTEGRATION

04

messages will be passed between track and train. The telecommunications for the Cambrian Line is being provided by Network Rail’s nationaltelecommunications network.

The project target schedule, shown in Figure 2,contains a number of ‘gateways’ (key milestones) whereintegration of the different parts of the project isplanned to occur. Gateway 4 is the first majorcheckpoint by which the integration of ERTMStrackside, ERTMS train-borne, GSM-R, signallingprinciples, and the operating rules are proven on a testtrack or facility before full site testing starts on theCambrian Line operational railway.

The SRA’s Cambrian Line EDS business case gives apositive net present value (NPV) range of between £44 million and £48 million, and funding for theproject has been confirmed. The benefits are based onthe reduction in risk achieved by the EDS to nationalimplementation.

3.3 Progress of the European ERTMS Programme

There has been a substantial increase in the practicalfeedback from ERTMS implementation projects inmainland Europe. Lessons from these projects arebeing openly shared through UK involvement in the

ERTMS Users Group and the Change Control Process,as well as through suppliers via the suppliers groupsUNISIG and RIASIG, and the operators via theAssociation of Train Operating Companies (ATOC),the Community of European Railways (CER) andUIC. Some of the practical lessons that have emergedso far are as follows:

It has been demonstrated that ERTMS can achievehigh levels of reliability, but this is facilitated byclose attention to human factors and operationalinterface issues prior to implementation and in theinitial period of operational service;Although the common core functions can beregarded as proven, further changes to the productscan be expected as more effort is put intostandardising national options, thus facilitating amove to European ‘standard products’;The majority of problems found are occurring, orare manifesting themselves, on the trains; andAn active technical integrator, with overall authorityand control between track and train, is required onearly implementation projects like the CambrianLine EDS, where the interface between ERTMS,existing assets (track and train) and thesignalling/operating principles is being trialled.More work is required to understand the scope andimpact of this role.

Forecast in commercial service, source ERTMS Consolidation Strategy Masterplan, v0.9

EC Trial Sites*

Holland (High Speed Line South)

Spain (Madrid – Lerida)

Germany (Berlin – Halle/Leipzig)

Italy (Rome – Naples)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

* EC funding completed, includes France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Spain

FIGURE 3 FORECAST COMPLETION DATES FOR ERTMS LEVEL 2 PROJECTS

05

There are a number of ERTMS Level 2 projects thatare due to go into commercial service by the end of2005 in Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. The forecast completion dates for these projects areshown in Figure 3. Although this is generally laterthan was forecast in the EPT Final Report, there isnow greater understanding of the timescales required to achieve integration and reliability of operation.

The UK railway has maintained strong representationon the further development of the TechnicalSpecifications for Interoperability (TSIs) that is beingundertaken to support the EC Conventional Directive,through attendance at the AEIF Control-Commandand Signalling (CoCoSig) TSI drafting group. This group comprises members of RSSB, ATOC,Network Rail, and ERTMS suppliers. The workundertaken so far by the European rules writing group,on ERTMS Level 2 operation, has been incorporatedinto the development of the UK application rules.

There are a number of open operational and technicalissues for UK implementation that are currentlyexpected to be included in revised specifications in2005, for example:

Finalising core operating rules for ERTMS Level 2;Defining GSM-R Quality of Service parameters; andOptimising performance by improving definitionsof braking parameters and intervention margins.These are the tolerances that determine when thesystem will intervene in the event of allowablespeeds being exceeded.

The focus within Europe is currently on creatingpractical plans for implementation that can realise early economic benefit from ERTMS applications. Other countries with existing ATP systems areincreasing the pressure on developing SpecificTransmission Modules (STMs) as part of theirmigration approach. An STM allows European TrainControl System (ETCS) train-borne equipment to readexisting trackside ATP systems. A recent UICproposal2 has suggested focusing on creatinginteroperable corridors for freight and high speed

passenger trains. Train control system renewal needsare also significant in forming national strategies. For example, these factors, coupled with therequirement to improve capacity and performance,have led the Swiss railways to make progress on anational strategy to fit ERTMS.

4 LONGER TERM PLANNING PROCESSThere is a rational process for deciding the scope andtiming of ERTMS implementation in the UK (theImplementation Phase), beyond the Cambrian EDS,which will address or consider the following factors:

The business case for and affordability ofimplementation (See section 4.1 of this ExecutiveSummary), including the sequence of ERTMSfitment to optimise performance and safety benefits; The outcome of the Office of Rail Regulator(ORR) led review of the UK re-signalling plan andstrategy, including the need for eventual TPWSreplacement. There are key factors affectingERTMS implementation, for example traindetection, and approaches to renewals on a route byroute basis;The rolling stock renewals programme, recognisingthat ERTMS fitment is a foreseeable legalrequirement, and that in the future trains shouldcome pre-fitted to accommodate ERTMS;The outcome of the Cambrian Line EDS, withregards to unit costs of fitment, performance,reliability and system integration; The lessons learnt from other ERTMS Level 2implementations in Germany, Italy, Spain andSwitzerland, and the progress of development ofERTMS standards and products; The selection of a suitable site for the firstimplementation, beyond the Cambrian EDS, whichmeets the right combination of criteria for the ageof signalling, number of trains, opportunity todemonstrate performance and business case. (Seesection 4.2 of this Executive Summary); andGrowing reliability from the EDS through the firstimplementation and beyond, in a progressive,controlled and managed way.

2 Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer (UIC) report‘Implementing the European Train Control System –Opportunities for European Rail Corridors’.

06

4.1 Business Case and AffordabilityFurther work on the business case for implementationhas confirmed that implementation of ERTMS Level 2without line-side signals (System D) and fitting trainsfirst provides the best investment return, as concludedin last year’s report, albeit with the need for significant‘trains first’ investment.

The current business case gives a positive net presentvalue (NPV) range of between £2.9 billion and £3.6billion, which is broadly in line with a positive NPV of£3.7 billion shown last year. However, to be consistentwith HM Treasury Guidelines, the NPV has beenadjusted to account for ‘optimism bias’, which thengives a current positive NPV range of £1.2 billion to£1.9 billion. System D coupled with universal trainfitment also provides the best safety benefit forpassengers and trackside workers. The SRA haschallenged the industry to drive down unit costs, andthe focus of work on the business case in the next yearis to find a resolution to this affordability issue.

Further work on the business case last year included:An assessment of the capabilities of ERTMSdirected at performance improvement through areduction in train delays rather than as previouslyindicated through capacity increases;Implementation of ERTMS on the West CoastMainline (WCML), previously assumed to be fittedby the West Coast Route Modernisation (WCRM)TCS project and subsequently deleted from thatprogramme’s scope in April 2003;Further investigation and evaluation of re-signallingcost savings;Signalling labour costs calculated with the inclusionof real price increases; andThe adoption and application of standard optimismbias techniques.

The assumptions on performance improvement areunderpinned by detailed modelling with real data frombusy routes, demonstrating service performanceimprovements at ‘pinch-points’, and investigatingGSM-R capacity limitations at complex junctions andstation termini. This modelling has now demonstrated

that overall reductions of around 20% of total delay –minutes would be considered to be a conservative viewof what can typically be expected on busy routes. This compares to the previous assumption of 10%.The GSM-R capacity constraints at busy junctions,reported last year, have been modelled using Reading,Liverpool Street and Clapham Junction as samplelocations. This has provided increased confidence thata solution using the current ERTMS specification isviable, provided that the level of voice traffic using thesame GSM-R network can be contained and sufficientreliability of base stations can be achieved.

It has become clear in recent months that similarproblems of ERTMS implementation costs are sharedacross Europe and need to be addressed on a Europeanscale, or even wider – possibly through opening themarket to more suppliers. Some member states havealready requested EU funding for train fitment. In the longer term, significant re-engineering of thetrain-borne equipment may be needed to reducefitment costs. This may be achieved, for example, by a reduction in overall space requirements, alternative odometry sources and different positioningtechnologies.

Furthermore, there are major opportunities for furtherinfrastructure cost savings and reliability improvementsin the long term, particularly on lower used lines(greater than 10 minutes between trains), by adoptingsome of the principles of ERTMS Level 3 to allow theremoval of track circuits or axle counters. This will betaken up with the suppliers, in terms of a migrationpath from ERTMS Level 2.

4.2 First ImplementationWork has progressed on identifying the options for the First Implementation – the first step in nationalrollout. It will prove ERTMS implementation in amore challenging environment than the CambrianLine EDS, including high speed operation, and willfurther develop reliability across a greater number andtypes of trains. The planning assumption is that thisproject would be completed in 2010, dependent on the factors set out at the beginning of this section.

07

An initial shortlist of four sites has already beenidentified by industry stakeholders: one on the NorthWales Coast, one on the East Coast Mainline (ECML),one on an ECML feeder route and one on the MidlandMainline. From this shortlist, two implementationoptions will be selected for SRA business case appraisal,which will lead to project definition work on a singleoption. The implementation options may includecombinations from the shortlist that together makeprogress towards providing ATP on high speed linesand trains, whilst adding certainty to the nationalbusiness case and minimising the development forsubsequent implementations.

5 CONCLUSIONSThe ERTMS UK ‘development plan’ (comprising thethree main strands of development of operating rulesand signalling principles, undertaking an EarlyDeployment Scheme, and engaging with the EuropeanERTMS programme) is funded and is on schedule.

Furthermore, there is a defined process for determiningthe extent, planning and timing of furtherimplementation beyond the Cambrian EDS.

08

TECHNICAL SECTION

09

10

Executive Summary 1

1 Progress Overview 121.1 Introduction 121.2 Overview of Progress 121.3 Project Development 131.4 ERTMS Programme Governance 151.5 Train Protection Update 151.6 Structure of this Report 15

2 Development Plan for ERTMS 162.1 Introduction 162.2 Current Development Plan 162.3 Basis of the Current Development Plan 18

3 Cambrian Line EDS Project 193.1 Background 193.2 Structure of the Project 233.3 Project Target Schedule 233.4 Project Integration 243.5 Project Investment and Procurement Lifecycle 253.6 Strategic Requirements 253.7 Project Definition 263.8 Rules and Principles 263.9 Approvals 273.10 Business Case 283.11 Cambrian EDS Approach 303.12 Vehicle Surveys 30

4 European Programme Update 334.1 Introduction 334.2 Status of EC Specifications 334.3 ERTMS Trials and Implementation Projects 364.4 Future ERTMS Implementation Planning 37

5 Test and Trials 415.1 Introduction 415.2 Test and Trials Strategy 415.3 Test and Trials Projects 425.4 Programme Reliability Strategy 445.5 TOCMIS Update 445.6 Old Dalby Test Site 51

CONTENTS

11

6 National Implementation Planning 526.1 Implementation Plan Modelling 526.2 Business Case 556.3 Unit Costs 566.4 Operational Performance Modelling and Analysis 576.5 Impact of GSM-R Data Transmission on Performance 586.6 Risk Analysis 61

7 First Implementation Project 627.1 Background 627.2 Objectives 627.3 Identification Process 627.4 Overview of Options 637.5 Next Steps 65

8 The Year Ahead 668.1 The Year Ahead 668.2 Closing Remarks 66

Appendix 1 – Glossary 67

12

1.1 INTRODUCTIONThe EPT Final Report identified two phases of theERTMS programme, namely the Development Phaseand the Implementation Phase. The purpose of theDevelopment Phase was to de-risk the ImplementationPhase through a series of activities in a ‘developmentplan’, which is reproduced in Figure 1.1.

This chapter summarises the progress made since theEPT Year 1 Progress Report in May 2003, regardingthe UK development of ERTMS and the planning ofits implementation. It covers the work on the majordevelopment plan activities namely the Cambrian LineEDS, the creation of new UK operating rules andsignalling principles, and engaging with thedevelopments within Europe. It also covers theongoing development of the strategy and business casefor the implementation phase, and the work to selectthe options for the first implementation project.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF PROGRESSThe EPT Year 1 Progress Report listed the followingareas where progress was expected to be achieved last year:

Development of the Cambrian Line EDS project;Vehicle surveys and studies;Continuation of work on developing UK rules and principles;Creating a multi-supplier test environment at Old Dalby in Leicestershire;

Development of the scope and deliveryarrangements for non-invasive field trials of train-borne equipment;Development of the scope and requirements ofsimulation test facilities; andA refinement of the business case and the need tosolve the implementation approach through busyjunctions and stations.

Against those areas the following has been achieved:

Cambrian Line EDSDefinition of the initial project scope, includingdelivery of the project and strategic specificationsthat define the national and Cambrian Lineapplication requirements;Completion of the Cambrian EDS investment case; Cross-industry consensus to a target projectschedule;Initiation of four industry sub-projects for theinfrastructure, passenger trains, freight trains andstandards development, to be delivered by NetworkRail, Arriva, EWS and RSSB respectively;Definition of the framework for testing andtrialling the Cambrian EDS application, includingoff-railway testing and field trials; andProgress towards creation of an open-learningenvironment, which provides transparency to allstakeholders in the industry regarding the keydeliverables and lessons learnt from the EDS.

01/PROGRESS OVERVIEW

Telecommunications Proving

20102009200820072006200520042003Year ending

EC Trials & Spec Revision

Safety Case

Total System Development

Rules (Cab & Speed Signalling)

Early Deployment

National Test Bed

FIGURE 1.1 FINAL REPORT DEVELOPMENT PLAN

13

Vehicle SurveysLetting of contracts for the Class 158 and Class 37vehicle surveys, which are due to be completed inJune 2004 as part of the Cambrian EDS project.

Rules and PrinciplesCompletion of the conceptual work on operatingrules and signalling principles for animplementation without line-side signals; andSet-up of the RSSB project to facilitate the industryin developing standards for operating rules andsignalling principles.

ERTMS Test Facilities (ETF)An assessment of the feasibility of undertakingmulti-supplier testing on a test track prior to theaward of supplier contracts for the Cambrian EDSproject – referred to as the UK Application Trial –has concluded that this project is not viable;Completion of a Network Rail sub-project thatassessed the feasibility of using the Old Dalby siteas an ERTMS test track, which concluded thatalternative solutions need investigation; andIssue of the OJEU notice to progress the solutionto off-railway testing.

Non-invasive Field TrialsDevelopment of an approach for undertaking asystem-level Non-invasive Field Trial (NIFT) thatcan be applied to implementation.

Programme DevelopmentAn update to the national business case inNovember 2003, including modelling ofperformance improvement through a reduction intrain delays, and the inclusion of implementation ofERTMS on the West Coast Mainline (WCML); andThe identification of a shortlist of candidateoptions for the first implementation, which will bethe first step in national roll-out.

1.3 PROJECT DEVELOPMENTThe EPT Year 1 Progress Report outlined the conceptof a ‘programme of projects’, and how theDevelopment Phase programme would be delivered

through a series of delivery projects. Each projectstarts with an initial definition or ‘shaping’ phase wherethe purpose, scope and business justification aredefined and evaluated. A key outcome of this initialdefinition phase is the plan for further developmentand delivery of the project or, in the event that theproject is no longer viable, a recommendation that nofurther development is undertaken.

The projects in the Development Phase are co-ordinated by the SRA programme team (NEP) on behalf of the cross-industry ERTMS ProgrammeDevelopment Group (PDG), which ensures that cross-industry objectives are defined and agreed. In the last twelve months, four projects have beendeveloped – Cambrian Line EDS, ERTMS TestFacilities, Non-invasive Field Trials and Vehicle Surveys – as illustrated in Figure 1.2.

As part of prudent governance, every project isreviewed at the end of each stage of developmentthrough a ‘gateway’ review process, which is a methodof ensuring that a project is still viable and thatdevelopment should continue to the next stage. This approach is consistent with the Office ofGovernment Commerce (OGC) gateway reviewprocess, used by government agencies to ensureadequate project controls.

Gateway reviews were undertaken for each of thedevelopment projects in the last year and the followingis a summary of the outcomes:

Cambrian Line EDS – was successful in proceedingthrough its first gateway after a review by anexternal assessor;ERTMS Test Facilities – the Old Dalby Test Trackis currently under a long term lease to a privatecompany and an appropriate and securecommercial arrangement for the next five years hasnot yet been achieved. At a gateway review inNovember 2003, it was therefore decided toinvestigate options for an ERTMS test trackthrough a competitive procurement exercise. This is currently the focus of development work.In addition, a project to develop a UK Application

14

Trial was undertaken last year. This project wasintended to reduce the risk to the Cambrian EDSby conducting separate multi-supplier trials beforethe ERTMS supplier contracts were let. Furtherdevelopment of this project was stopped after agateway review, which determined that the risksarising from the project schedule were estimated tooutweigh the benefits gained from the project;NIFT – similarly through a gateway review inNovember, it was decided that the value of asystem-level NIFT comes from being integrated aspart of an implementation project, after the actualsupplier of train-borne equipment has beenappointed. This is so that the reliability evidencecaptured during the system-level NIFT relates to

actual production equipment in its target locationand environment. Further work on a system-levelNIFT will now be developed as part of theCambrian EDS project. A new developmentproject for equipment-level NIFTs has beeninitiated; andVehicle Surveys – have been successful inproceeding through the gateway review to the pointwhere contracts for the Class 158 and Class 37vehicles have been let, and are due to be completedby June this year. Based on the lessons learnt fromthese first two surveys, further consideration will begiven to the approach and timing of surveyingother train fleets.

APR2004

JAN2004

OCT2003

JUL2003

APR2003Programme Development

Transition to NEP

Revise Business Case

Publish End of Year 1 Report

First Implementation Identification

Cambrian EDS

Project Set-up

Strategic Specification

Project Definition

Baseline 1

Feasibility Stage

ERTMS Test Facilities (ETF)

Scope and Investigate Old Dalby as a Test Track

Define UK Application Trial

Investigate Alternative Test Tracks

Vehicle Surveys

Define Survey Specification Template

Carry out Survey

Survey Tender (Class 158, 37)

Non-Invasive Field Trials

Investigate FGW Class 43

Define Pilot System Trial

PERIOD COMMENCING

FIGURE 1.2 2003/2004 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

15

1.4 ERTMS PROGRAMME GOVERNANCEThe implementation of ERTMS within the UK is nowled by the SRA, as directed by the Secretary of State forTransport in responding to advice from the HSCreview of the EPT Final Report.

The responsibility for the programme is with the SRAExecutive Director, Technical, to whom the NationalERTMS Programme Team (NEP) report. Stakeholderparticipation is directed through the cross-industryERTMS Programme Development Group (PDG),chaired by the SRA, which has superseded the ERTMSProgramme Board (EPB). The PDG comprisesrepresentatives from the principal duty holders,regulators, suppliers and other stakeholders, and theNEP includes specialists drawn from across theindustry. The Development Phase is being funded bythe SRA and Network Rail. Financial governance ofthe programme is directed through the StrategicManagement Group (SMG), comprisingrepresentatives from the funding organisations.

The ERTMS planning and development work was,until June 2003, led and co-ordinated by the ERTMSProgramme Team (EPT), under the direction of theEPB. The EPT Year 1 Progress Report containsfurther background on this work.

The period April to June 2003 saw the transition fromthe ERTMS Programme Team (EPT) into the NationalERTMS Programme team (NEP) under SRAleadership. This included the integration of the EPTwork, the ERTMS activities in Network Rail, and keystaff from the WCRM TCS project to create a moreefficient approach to ERTMS development in the UK,thereby maximising the impact of future investmentand scarce key resources.

The role of the SRA programme team includes co-ordinating industry funding, defining projects,strategic specification, business cases, project launch,project co-ordination and setting the longer termprogramme strategy. Network Rail, specific freight andtrain operators and RSSB are the parties, under SRAco-ordination, that will deliver projects.

1.5 TRAIN PROTECTION UPDATEThe Network Rail TPWS project for track fitment was completed on time at Christmas 2003, with the exception of 66 installations that have been granted temporary exemption due to up-coming re-signalling works early in 2004. Train fitment wasalso completed, again with minor exceptions due totrains currently out of service, and others affecting, in particular, shunting locomotives that occasionallyoperate on the running lines.

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORTThe following chapters provide more information andtechnical detail in the following areas:

Development PlanChapter 2 provides an update to the ‘developmentplan’, with more detail on the forward plan;Chapter 3 provides more details on the progressmade on the Cambrian Line EDS project; Chapter 4 provides more details on the EuropeanERTMS Programme, including the status of theERTMS implementation projects in mainlandEurope, and the status of the ERTMS standardsdevelopment; andChapter 5 provides more details on the various Testand Trials projects, including developmentsregarding the ERTMS Test Facilities and Non-invasive Field Trials (NIFT).

Implementation PlanChapter 6 covers the further development of theplans for implementation, and includes the progressmade on the business case and on the supportingmodelling work; andChapter 7 provides more details on the progressmade identifying the options for the FirstImplementation project.

An overview of the way forward, including the keydeliverables of the next twelve months, is set out inChapter 8.

16

2.1 INTRODUCTIONThe last chapter set out progress in the last 12 monthsagainst the ‘development plan’ and on implementationplanning. This chapter describes in more detail theremaining 41/2 years of the ‘development plan’, basedon the output from the project development work ofthe last year.

The Executive Summary identified the three mainthemes of the ‘development plan’:

Operating Rules and Signalling Principles;Cambrian Line EDS; andEngagement with the European Programme.

This chapter builds on the above themes and refersback to the activities in the ‘development plan’ in theEPT Final Report, to assist with the monitoring ofprogress against that plan.

2.2 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLANThe current ‘development plan’, illustrated in Figure2.1, shows in more detail the activities that are requiredto be completed by 2008 prior to the ImplementationPhase. The current plan is traceable back to the FinalReport by the inclusion of the reference activities fromthe ‘development plan’ within the schedule. Thesereference activities have been placed in the relevant partof the current schedule, which is structured under thethree main themes. The following points are relevantto understanding the current schedule:

Activities to create the operating rules andsignalling principles for an overlay system have beenadded, building on the work done by the WCRMTCS project;‘Total System Development’ activities identified inthe Final Report have been addressed through thedevelopment of Cambrian EDS StrategicSpecifications and will be further developedthrough the project. (See activities labelled ‘A’ inFigure 2.1);

The ‘Early Deployment’ activity has now beenexpanded on the basis of the target schedule for theCambrian EDS Project, including the followingmilestones:■ Gateway 1 – Completion of initial project

definition;■ Gateway 2 – Completion of feasibility stage; ■ Gateway 3 – Start of implementation; ■ Gateway 4 – Start of testing on Cambrian Line;■ Gateway 5 – Start of trial period in passenger

service; and■ Gateway 6 – Completion of trial.

The activities envisaged in the ‘Safety Assessment(incl. Nobo)’ activity in the Final Report have nowbeen included as an integral part of the CambrianEDS Project. Safety approvals will be required toenable ERTMS testing in possessions (Gateway 4),and then to go into operational service (Gateway5). (See activities labelled ‘B’ in Figure 2.1);The ‘Early Deployment’ activities have also beenexpanded to reflect activities being undertaken byNetwork Rail, Arriva and EWS. (See activitieslabelled ‘C’ in Figure 2.1);The ‘National Test Bed’ activity has been supersededin the plan by ‘ERTMS Test Facilities’ (ETF). (See activities labelled ‘D’ in Figure 2.1). Projectgateways, similar to the Cambrian EDS, areindicated for ETF in the plan; and ‘Telecommunications Proving’ activities were forthe design and validation of GSM-R in support ofERTMS. This activity is now being taken forwardthrough the modelling work undertaken in the lastyear, that is planned to continue in 2004, togetherwith the GSM-R Quality of Service definition thatis being progressed within the ‘EuropeanProgramme’.

02/DEVELOPMENT PLAN

17

200820072006200520042003Rules and Principles

Rules (Cab and Speed Signalling)

Operational Design (RSSB)

Operational Concept & Conceptual Signalling Principles

Rules (Overlay System)

Operational Concept

Operational Design

Cambrian EDS Project

Total System Development (A)

Early Deployment (C)

Safety Assessment (incl. Nobo) (B)

National Test Bed (D)

Strategic Requirements and Initiation (A)

Vehicle Surveys (A)

NEP Co-ordination (A)

Network Rail (signalling, ERTMS, GSM-R) (C)

Arriva – TOC (11 Trains) (C)

Integration & Operational Tests (incl. Rules) (C)

EWS – FOC (4 Trains) (C)

Safety Approvals (B)

ERTMS Test Facilities (D)

European Programme

EC ERTMS Trials & Spec Revision

Level 2 Projects in Service – Spain, Germany, Italy

EC Development Funding Completed

Level 2 Projects in Service – Holland (High Speed Line South)

SRS V3.0.0 Issued

SRS V4.0.0 Issued

TSI Update (forecast date)

TSI Update (forecast date)

UK Input to TSI Development

GSM-R Quality of Service

Braking Curves

Safety Requirements & Others

Modelling of GSM-R

Telecommunications Proving

1

2 3

2 3

2 3

21 3

4 5 6

Activity to be completed European Programme Milestone

Extract from Final Report ‘Development Plan’

Activity completed Project Development Gateway3

Time Now

FIGURE 2.1 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN

18

2.3 BASIS OF THE CURRENTDEVELOPMENT PLAN

This section provides more information on the basis of the forward plans that underpin the current‘development plan’.

2.3.1 Operating Rules and Signalling Principles

The plan for the development of operating rules andsignalling principles was agreed by representatives ofthe industry in late 2003, and has now been adoptedby RSSB as a basis for its work.

The scope of the UK application rules has focused onoperations without line-side signals, as planned for theCambrian EDS, and referred to in the Final Report as‘Cab and Speed Signalling’. The conceptual work wasbaselined in December 2003, and has now beenhanded over to RSSB, which has set up a project tofacilitate the industry in producing relevant standards,including revisions to the rulebook.

Further work is required to develop operating rules andsignalling principles for the hybrid form of ERTMSimplementation, where line-side signalling is retained(System C). This kind of operation would be requiredfor a transition period on some routes and will berequired for the wider implementation of ERTMS.

2.3.2 Cambrian EDS ProjectThe plan for the Cambrian EDS project is based onthe target industry schedule developed on behalf of,and agreed by the ERTMS PDG in September 2003.This is described in more detail in Chapter 3.

Following Gateway 1 in December 2003, four industryprojects for the infrastructure, passenger trains, freighttrains and standards development were initiated, to bedelivered by Network Rail, Arriva, EWS and RSSBrespectively. The Cambrian EDS project is nowprogressing towards Gateway 2, in June 2004, at thecompletion of the feasibility stage.

The Cambrian EDS plan shows the commencement of implementation and the award of contracts in mid-2005, with the first trains operating under test in

early 2007. A one year period has been allowed for fulloperational running prior to the completion of theproject at the end of 2008.

2.3.3 European ProgrammeThe key activities within the ERTMS EuropeanProgramme are the test and trials currently beingimplemented in Europe, and the further developmentof the ERTMS Class 1 specifications, including theGSM-R Quality of Service. The basis of the plan isthe EEIG/UNISIG ERTMS Consolidation MasterPlan, version 0.9.

The European Programme consists of commercialprojects and European Commission funded trial sites.There are five trial sites in France, Germany,Netherlands, Italy and Spain, which are now due tocontinue until June 2005 (extended from December2004) when funding on the sites will cease. The purpose of these projects is to test and consolidate the Class 1 Specifications, which has been acknowledged as being a critical dependencywithin the ‘development plan’.

There are a number of work packages containingpotential changes to the next version of the Class 1specifications (Version 3.0.0) leading to a potentialrelease of the CoCoSig TSI in 2005/06. Of theremaining work packages that are due to be completedby the end of 2004, the most significant to the UKapplication are those relating to braking curves, GSM-R quality of service, and safety requirements.

The current assumption is that the first certifiedERTMS constituents (to SRS version 2.2.2) will startbecoming available in 2004, in sufficient time for theprocurement activities of the Cambrian EDS Project.Similarly it is assumed that ERTMS constituents to anupdated specification (SRS version 3.0.0), followingthe completion of European trials, will be available in2006/2007.

Chapter 4 of this report provides a more detailedanalysis of the current status of the introduction ofERTMS in other countries across Europe.

19

3.1 BACKGROUNDThe origins of the Cambrian Line EDS Project,referred to throughout this chapter as the ‘CambrianEDS’, emanate from the Joint Inquiry into AutomaticTrain Protection (ATP).3 The Joint Inquiry reportmade recommendations to the industry to conductETCS trials, and proposed two specific schemes, onThames Trains and Chiltern Railways, for the industryto consider. The EPB concluded that the two originalproposals for trials were no longer valid and HSCacknowledged this in September 2002. Subsequently,the EPB selected the Cambrian Line as the mostappropriate location to conduct ETCS trials in the UK by 2008, and this was published in the EPT Year 1 Progress Report of May 2003. The CambrianLine, including the current signalling and control, isillustrated in Figure 3.1.

The Cambrian EDS covers the route from west ofSutton Bridge Junction, near Shrewsbury, toAberystwyth and Pwllheli. This route represents acomparatively low risk environment, in that it is a lowusage route, and provides ready access for operationalproving of the system with minimal disruption to trainoperations.

Additionally, Network Rail has advised that existingsignalling and control systems on the Cambrian Linewill require life-extension works in the next few years.The line from Sutton Bridge Junction to Aberystwythis designated by the EU as a conventional TENs routeand hence Network Rail may, in future, be required toimplement an ERTMS train control system when theexisting systems are renewed.4

The purpose of the Cambrian EDS is to:Reduce some of the significant risks to theImplementation Phase, such as proving the UKapplication of ERTMS (operating rules, UKsignalling principles and train interfaces), andchecking system reliability; Understand the costs, timing and risks of anERTMS delivery project, and inform the business case and forward planning of theImplementation Phase; andDevelop and test industry processes, standards andprocedures for an ERTMS implementation project.

Figure 3.2 illustrates the physical scope and geographiccoverage of the Cambrian EDS, with supporting detailcontained in Table 3.1.

03/CAMBRIAN LINE EDS PROJECT

3 The report from the joint inquiry into train protection systems,chaired by Professor Uff and Lord Cullen following theaccidents at Southall in 1997 and Ladbroke Grove in 1999.

4 Draft UK regulations to implement the ConventionalInteroperability Directive are currently with the industry forconsultation

20

FIGURE 3.1 THE CAMBRIAN LINE – CURRENT SIGNALLING AND CONTROL

21

Gated Crossing (3)• Remove signals (necessary for ERTMS cab-signalling); • Interlock with ERTMS.

Intermediate TEP (3)• Sub-division of single-line • Route sections; • New axle counters; • Island of data coverage; • Lineside phone.

TEP (12)• Passing loops, junctions & termini;• Island of data coverage; • Lineside phone(s);• Balises for shunting areas; • New axle counters; • Train-operated points retained at loops.

Ground Frame (12)• Mainly for sidings at loops and termini; • Also for Barmouth Swing Bridge; • Adapted ‘low cost’ method of operation to be determined.

Machynlleth• Balises for ‘start of mission’ in sidings;• New RBC and interlocking; • New control desk, featuring:– Signalling control panel/VDU interface;– GSM-R voice comms console;– RBC local control workstation for ESR/TSR management;– Possession management interface (functions to be developed); – No advisory speeds.

RETB• Two Radio Electronic Token Block systems:– Sutton Bridge Junction – Machynlleth; – Dovey Junction – Aberystwyth / Pwllheli.• Both systems to be de-commissioned upon switch to ERTMS operation (i.e. no provision for operational fall back).

TCB Area (6km)• Continuous train detection;• Full GSM-R data coverage;• 7 controlled point ends renewed;• Marker boards for degraded mode;• Balises to correct odometry; • Remove lineside signals, TPWS & AWS.

Level Crossings• 120 ungated level crossings in sectional appendix.• User telephone retained or renewed. • Approach to locally monitored/operated crossings supervised by ERTMS:– 9 automatic open crossings (AOCL);– 7 automatic barrier crossings (ABCL); – 2 trainman-operated crossings (TOB).• No change to:– 8 automatic half-barrier crossings (AHB); – 94 user-worked crossings (UWC/MSL).

Depots• Depot and maintenance arrangements, including ERTMS test facilities, to be determined by train operator.

Rolling Stock• Eleven W&B Class 158 units;• Four EWS Class 37 locos;• Compliance with CoCoSig TSi;• Level 2 fitment:– GSM-R data radio; – no train integrity.• Speed display in km/h when on Cambrian, with suitable mph display when off Cambrian;• No interface to onboard AWS/TPWS.

Cambrian Line• Single-track with passing loops:– 218 route-km.• Two-hourly daytime passenger service:– 36 trans/day;– 3450 train-km/day (Mon-Fri).• Conversion to ERTMS:– Compliant with CoCoSig TSI;– Cab-signalled throughout (Level 2); – No change to line capacity.

Transition Zone• Normal operation:– Level 0 running Birmingham – Sutton Bridge Junction;– Radio comms to RBC established at Shrewsbury; and– Level 2 movement authority at Sutton Bridge Junction.• Mechanical signalling unchanged;• Entry/exit transition balises; • Full GSM-R data coverage.

Sutton Bridge Junction• Simple interface to existing mechanical signalbox.

RETB Areas (212km)• New train detection trackside;• Full GSM-R voice coverage (as planned in national GSM-R programme); balises to correct odometry; • Remove TPWS and AWS.

TEP with station

TEP without station

Intermediate TEP (with station)

Other station

Ground Frame

Gated Level Crossing

Pwllheli

Shrewsbury

Sutton BridgeJunction

DoveyJunction Machynlleth

Aberystwyth

AbbreviationsESR Emergency Speed RestrictionRETB Radio Electronic Token BlockMSL Miniature Stop LightsTCB Track Circuit BlockTEP Token Exchange PointTSR Temporary Speed Restriction

FIGURE 3.2 THE CAMBRIAN EDS ROUTE

22

TABLE 3.1 CAMBRIAN EDS FUNCTIONAL SUMMARY

PHYSICAL SCOPE West of Sutton Bridge Junction to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli;Track layout and line speeds unchanged (218km single track railway with passing loops);Additional works in depots and to support verification, validation and integration activities.

TRAIN SERVICE No material change to existing timetable;Cambrian Line ERTMS-fitted trains will also operate off the Cambrian Line;Unfitted vehicles on Cambrian Line will be trialled or operate in possessions.

OPERATIONS AND New operating rules and procedures to take into account ERTMS operation;MAINTENANCE New control desk at Machynlleth with interface to Sutton Bridge;

Transition to/from ERTMS Level 2 at Sutton Bridge Junction;Fitted vehicles will operate in Level 0 when off the Cambrian Line;Comms to RBC to be established on exit from Shrewsbury station;First movement authority takes effect from Sutton Bridge Junction;Full voice communications via GSM-R voice radio (to be provided by national GSM-Rprogramme) and line-side telephones at strategic locations;Training, processes, equipment and long term support provided for on-board andinfrastructure operations and maintenance.

COMMISSIONING RETB will continue in operation until ERTMS is authorised for full revenue service, after which no provision will be made for reverting to RETB;Implementation will follow activities set out in the verification, validation and integrationstrategy, including:– Off-site work at Test Track, with ‘first of class’ trains and a trackside sub-system that

replicates some of the Cambrian functionality– On-site work, including testing in possessions (track and trains), ready for entry into

revenue service– Class 158s fitted one at a time, with an extra RETB vehicle used to maintain the

operational fleet– Integration of people and processes with the system.

COMPLIANCE AND No significant signalling or ERTMS product development required – assume an electronic AUTHORISATION interlocking is used that is already approved for UK use, with core locking and route

proving principles;Initial sub-system verification (including interfaces to the environment) of NoBo-certifiedRBC to be undertaken at Test Track;Route fully compliant with relevant regulations, including Railway Safety Regulations, CoCoSig Conventional TSI and HSE Railway Safety Principles and Guidance;Authorisation process will follow interoperability regulations and applicable TSIs(Cambrian Line will be classified as a CoCoSig TSI-compliant route).

TRIALS One year period of monitoring and evaluation to learn lessons and derive information MANAGEMENT relevant to subsequent applications of ERTMS;

Equipment, people and processes to be provided for identification, diagnosis andrectification of problems (using DRACAS), and to support performance analysis andongoing reliability growth;RAM targets to be defined.

23

3.2 STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECTThe delivery of the Cambrian EDS project has been packaged into five elements as shown in Figure 3.3.

It is the intention that ERTMS fitment for thetrackside and the train will be procured separately,piloting the procurement approach to be used for theImplementation Phase, and will be led by NetworkRail for the trackside, and Arriva Trains and EWS forthe trains. RSSB is developing proposals for producingthe standards, new operating rules and signallingprinciples that cover both track and train. Each of the industry parties is working to an agreed overallproject target schedule, which is used by the SRA toco-ordinate the integration of the four deliveryelements of the project.

3.3 PROJECT TARGET SCHEDULEA target industry schedule for the Cambrian EDS,shown in Figure 3.4, was agreed by PDG in September2003. It contains a number of ‘gateways’ (keymilestones) where integration of the different parts ofthe project is planned to occur:

Gateway 1 (G1) – Completion of initial projectdefinition (November 2003);Gateway 2 (G2) – Completion of feasibility stage(June 2004);Gateway 3 (G3) – Start of implementation (May 2005);Gateway 4 (G4) – Start of testing on CambrianLine;Gateway 5 (G5) – Start of trial period in passenger service; andGateway 6 (G6) – Completion of trial.

Gateway 4 is the first major checkpoint where theintegration of ERTMS trackside, ERTMS train-borne,GSM-R, signalling principles and the operating rulesare tested on a test track before testing starts on theCambrian Line operational railway. The dates forgateways will be confirmed at Gateway 2 and eachgateway thereafter. RAM targets are to be specified, as a key part of the completion criteria, for the end ofthe two operational trial phases – Gateways 5 and 6.

Cambrian EDS Project

Delivery Packages

SRA (NEP)Project Co-ordination and Integration

Network RailInfrastructure

ArrivaPassenger Train

EWSFreight/

Other Trains

RSSBOps Rules &Standards

FIGURE 3.3 PROJECT DELIVERY STRUCTURE

In February 2004, the PDG agreed that the Gateway 2date should move from May 2004 to June 2004, basedon the recommendation of the industry parties thatthey needed additional time to agree the outputs of theFeasibility Stage. This has no impact on the Gateway3 date of May 2005. This illustrates the role of PDGas an overseer of the schedule for the Cambrian EDS.The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) maintains itsvisibility of progress against the project milestones byway of attendance at the PDG as an observer.

A key deliverable of each of the delivery parties fromthe Feasibility Stage of the project will be to confirmtheir respective target schedule for completion of theirpart of the project. A consolidated schedule will bereviewed by PDG in July 2004, as part of the Gateway2 process.

3.4 PROJECT INTEGRATIONEmerging from the experience of ERTMS projects inmainline Europe is a requirement for a technicalintegration function in a project such as the CambrianEDS. This function would oversee testing of theintegrated system, identify the source of problems anddetermine the resolution action. The arrangements forthis function and the broader project integration role(co-ordination of objectives, scope, timescale and cost)are due to be finalised by June 2004.

24

SRA (NEP) (co-ordination)

Network Rail (signalling, ERTMS, GSM-R)

Arriva – TOC (11 trains)

EWS – FOC (4 trains)

RSSB (rules, principles, standards)

Testing on Test Track

Testing on the Cambrian Line

Trials in Passenger Operation

Jun2004

Time Now

May2005

Mar2007

Dec2008

G1 – Completion of initial project definition

G2 – Completion of feasibility stage

G3 – Start of implementation

G4 – Start of testing on Cambrian Line

G5 – Start of trial period in passenger service

G6 – Completion of trial period

Investment & Procurement Gateways Testing Gateways

G1

G2 G3

G2 G3

G2 G3

G4

G5

G6

FIGURE 3.4 CAMBRIAN EDS TARGET SCHEDULE

25

3.5 PROJECT INVESTMENT ANDPROCUREMENT LIFECYCLE

The development of the Cambrian EDS is followingthe structured SRA investment and procurementlifecycle process, which is also consistent withgovernance requirements of Network Rail (the GRIPprocess). The benefit of following this lifecycle is thatthere are clearly defined points at which progress canbe measured. An overview of the SRA lifecycle stagesis shown in Figure 3.5.

The SRA programme team issued remits to each of the four delivery parties in December 2003 for theirStage B1 (GRIP stages 2 and 3) feasibility work. At the same time, Stage A of the project (StrategicRequirements) was endorsed by the SRA and NetworkRail through their respective Gateway 1 reviews.

Proposals from the delivery parties were receivedand were agreed with the SRA, and the delivery teamsfor the feasibility work were set up in January 2004.Work commenced in February, and is due to becompleted in June 2004 when the second gateway(Gateway 2) review is scheduled to occur.

Work has already commenced to discuss the fundingand contracting arrangements for the next stages ofwork (Stages B2, C and D), which comprises thedevelopment and procurement up to the award ofimplementation contracts.

3.6 STRATEGIC REQUIREMENTSThe strategic specifications that translate the objectivesof the business case into project requirements werefrozen and put under change control (‘baselined’) at theend of November 2003. Examples of these objectivesinclude improved network performance, the use ofstandard ERTMS products, and new rules that do notrequire major modifications to the standard ERTMStechnical products.

The specifications are an input to the design of the UKapplication being undertaken by the industry parties –Network Rail, Arriva, EWS and RSSB, and direct thoseparties to develop solutions to meet the businessobjectives, which are reflected in these specifications.The specifications also form part of the ‘open-learning’environment that is being established to ensure that the key deliverables and lessons of the project are shared with the wider railway industry, and include the following:

Technical Issues Register – contains a description ofthe key open technical issues which need to beresolved to support delivery of the Cambrian EDS; Telecoms Specification – defines the requirementsfor the telecoms (GSM-R, fixed network and dataradio) to support ERTMS on the Cambrian Line;Specification for Onboard ERTMS Assemblies –defines the additional specific requirements beyondthe Class 1 Specifications that are necessary for theCambrian Line application;

G1 G2 G3

AStrategic

Requirements

B1

Feasibility

B2

Development

CTender

Documents

DTender

and Award

E

Delivery

FIGURE 3.5 SRA INVESTMENT AND PROCUREMENT LIFECYCLE PROCESS

Concept of Operation – defines the concepts ofoperation of ERTMS on the Cambrian Line from the viewpoint of operators, such as drivers and signallers;Conceptual Signalling Principles – defines the set of cab-signalling principles, at a conceptual level,specifically required for the Cambrian Line;Specification for Vehicle Fitment Surveys –describes the content of the reports and otherdeliverables required as output from a vehiclefitment survey; andTechnical Glossary.

3.7 PROJECT DEFINITIONThe first project baseline was also established at theend of November 2003, and defines a common viewon the purpose, scope and schedule for the fourdelivery parties. This baseline will be refreshed at eachof the gateways and is maintained by the SRAprogramme team. It comprises the following:

Project Output Definition – defines the objectivesand the obligations on the delivery parties toachieve those objectives;Scope Definition – describes the physical, technical,operational and implementation scope; Schedule Pack – contains the target industryschedule and the key planning assumptions; Test and Trials Objectives – defines the scope of testing in terms of the de-risking objectives to be achieved;System Architecture Description – illustrates theboundary and components of the system, thetechnical interfaces, and the contractual boundaries; Verification, Validation and Integration (V, V&I)Planning Framework – provides a framework ofverification, validation and integration activities toaid the process of integration across the fourdelivery parties;Approval Strategy – sets out the planningassumptions regarding the safety approval process; andSubmission Plan – presents the assumptionsregarding the volume and timing of the necessarysafety approvals submissions.

3.8 RULES AND PRINCIPLESThe change from operations based on line-side signals,to a reliance on information presented in the cab,represents a major change to the operation of the UKrailway. Although core safety and operating principles,such as safe separation and locking routes for thepassage of trains, will remain the same, ERTMS willchange how these principles are achieved throughengineering design and operational rules.

An EEIG project is developing European standardrules for ERTMS Level 2 operation, which will beincluded in a future release of the TechnicalSpecifications for Interoperability (TSIs). These rulescomprise a set of standard ‘operating constructs’ thateach country, including the UK, has to translate intoits national rulebook. The translation is required toensure that the ‘operating constructs’ interface safely to all the local circumstances, and to ensure thatoperating performance is not compromised.Additionally, this translation process must also ensurethat the new rules do not require major modificationsto the standard ERTMS technical products.

Including the rulebook, the development of operating principles for the UK application coversthree distinct areas:

Technical requirements for the trains andinfrastructure sub-systems to ensure that thetechnology supports the required operations. These requirements include the signalling principlesfor the control system;Implementation rules and principles for the systemapplication designers to ensure that eachapplication of ERTMS can be operated in a similarmanner; andOperating rules and instructions for the users of thesystem to ensure that the system is operated safelyin all circumstances.

The development process draws all of these threestrands together, producing one coherent operationaldesign that is based around the emerging EEIGEuropean rules.

26

27

So far, the focus has been on the development of rulesrequired for the Cambrian EDS, but ensuring that anyrules developed are also suitable for wider use. This isbeing achieved by creating an operational design fornational needs, but prioritising those parts of thedesign that are required for the Cambrian EDS project. For example, the operational design for level crossingsdoes not include the rules necessary for CCTVmonitored crossings, but the rules developed for locallymonitored crossings will be suitable for use anywherein the UK.

In the last twelve months, a comprehensive model ofhow the railway will operate under ERTMS control hasbeen developed, examining the interactions betweenthe signalling, trains and the operating roles. This hasculminated in the Concept of Operation and theConceptual Signalling Principles for the CambrianLine, referred to in section 3.6, which will be used asthe basis for initial design by the delivery parties in theforthcoming year.

An ‘Operations Review Group’, chaired by RSSB, wasset up in September 2003 to ensure the involvement ofthe user community in the development of the rulesand principles. The group consists of representativesfrom all stakeholder groups – including infrastructureoperations, passenger train operations, freight trainoperations and ERTMS suppliers.

The next stage of work is to complete the design,ensuring it covers all the known situations on theCambrian Line and then analyse it to ensure that it issafe and robust. The plan is to complete this workbefore contracts for the Cambrian EDS are let toERTMS suppliers.

3.9 APPROVALSIn the context of the Cambrian EDS, the term‘approvals’ covers ‘authorisation’ under theInteroperability Directives and ‘acceptance’ under theRailway Safety Case Regulations. The approvalsstrategy for the Cambrian EDS is to keep the tworegimes separate, and to realise as much efficiency aspossible from using authorisation under the

Interoperability Directive. The two regimes aresummarised below:

Interoperability DirectivesThe Interoperability Directives are discharged by the UKHigh Speed Regulations5 and Conventional Regulations,although the latter are not yet enacted in legislation.

There are two layers of authorisation:‘EC Declaration of Conformity’ or ‘EC Declarationof suitability for use’ which applies to aninteroperable constituent; and‘Authorisation for placing into service’ which appliesto a structural sub-system.

The Directives require demonstration that new andchanged sub-systems on the railway comply with theTSIs, which are designed to meet the EssentialRequirements for Interoperability. This demonstratesthe compliance and integral safety of the system, and isevidenced through a Technical File.

Railway Safety Case RegulationsThe Railway Safety Case Regulations requiredemonstration that new Railway Undertakings andchanges to existing Railway Undertakings are safe. This demonstrates the safe use of the system and isevidenced though Safety Cases.

Figure 3.6, shows a provisional process that indicateshow input to the two approvals regimes may beprogressed separately during the Cambrian EDS by eachof the delivery parties. The respective roles of theNotified Bodies (NoBos) and the HSE within the tworegimes are also illustrated.

A key issue in this process is to demonstrate that thewhole system is properly integrated when the separatedelivery packages are brought together at key alignmentpoints in the project. Examples of these points includethe start of testing the system on the Cambrian Line andthe start of passenger service. However, to avoid delay atthe alignment points, proactive integration will berequired throughout the preceding phases of activity, as outlined in section 3.4.

5 The Railways (Interoperability) (High Speed) Regulations 2002

28

Railway Safety Case

Notes: *Only required if the operational rules are not ‘fit for purpose’ at the initial submission to the HSE for ‘Authorisation for placing in to service’**RSSB Working Assumption

EWS

Safety Management System

‘Placing into Service’

Update Railway Safety Case (eg. Maintenance)

HSE

HSE Authorisation Update Safety

Mgt System(Active Level 2)

HSE AuthorisationUpdate Safety

Mgt System(Passive Level 0)

Demonstrate compatibility with infrastructure

Class 37 Technical FileScope

NoBo

HSE AuthorisationPlacing into

Service(Passive Level 0)

HSE AuthorisationPlacing into

Service(Active Level 2)*

RSSB RSSB Technical File**

NoBo**

Network Rail

Safety Management System

‘Placing into Service’

Update Railway Safety Case (eg. Maintenance)

HSE

HSE Authorisation Placing into

Service (Active Level 2)

Demonstrate compatibility with infrastructure

Technical FileScope

NoBo

HSE AuthorisationPlacing into

Service(Active Level 2)

Arriva

Safety Management System

‘Placing into Service’

Update Railway Safety Case (eg. Maintenance)

HSEHSE Authorisation (Passive Level 2)

HSE AuthorisationUpdate Safety

Mgt System(Passive Level 0)

Demonstrate compatibility with infrastructure

Class 158 Technical FileScope

NoBo

HSE AuthorisationPlacing into

Service(Passive Level 0)

HSE AuthorisationPlacing into

Service(Active Level 2)

Input to Technical Files

Interoperability Directive

Contractor Activity

Assessor

FIGURE 3.6 CAMBRIAN EDS APPROVALS PROCESS

3.10 BUSINESS CASEThe Cambrian EDS business case was completed inNovember 2003, and was subject to an SRA review aspart of the Gateway 1 process. The business case givesa positive net present value (NPV)6 range of between£44 million and £48 million, over the investmentperiod of 6 years, and funding for the project has beenidentified. The benefits are based on the reductions inrisk, achieved by the EDS, to the ImplementationPhase. A summary of the results is shown in Table 3.2.

The key points to be noted from the results are:The base case includes a short term life extension ofthe existing RETB signalling system to 2008,followed by a longer term solution comprising anupgrade of RETB and interface to the existingGSM-R, which would prolong the signalling up to 2021;The residual values represent a large percentage ofthe project cost because at the end of the appraisalperiod the assets have expended only a smallproportion of their anticipated life;

6 To be consistent with HM Treasury Guidelines, the NPV hasbeen adjusted to account for ‘optimism bias’

29

There are other benefits for the project, includingcost savings, improvements in performance, andsafety and environmental benefits. These have notbeen considered within the above figures as they falloutside the appraisal period; and Benefits (calculated as £124 million) are derivedfrom de-risking the ERTMS Implementation Phase.As the implementation plan is currentlyuncommitted, the benefits have been proportionallyreduced by 50% to reflect this uncertainty, whichgives a revised benefits value of £62 million.

The ‘TOCMIS’ objectives, referred to in the Year 1Progress Report and described in more detail inChapter 5, have been used to support the justificationand business case for the Cambrian EDS. Figure 3.7illustrates the mapping of the Cambrian EDS scope tothe TOCMIS objectives. This mapping is reflected ina financial benefit through a link to theImplementation Phase risk register.

TABLE 3.2 CAMBRIAN BUSINESS CASE RESULTS

COST EXCLUSIVE COST INCLUSIVE OF RESIDUAL VALUE OF RESIDUAL VALUE

Net Present Value (NPV) £44 million £48 million

Benefit to Cost Ratio 3.4 4.4

100%80%60%40%20%0%

Technology Proving

Operational Validation

Capacity Demonstration

Multiple Supplier Capability

Interoperability

Safety Enhancement

Cost Validation

Industry Processes

Cambrian Delivers

National Roll-out requires

FIGURE 3.7 CAMBRIAN EDS MAPPING TO TRIALS OBJECTIVES

30

7 ERTMS Test Facilities is a general term used to describe testfacilities away from an operational railway and could be a track, simulator or both

3.11 CAMBRIAN EDS APPROACHA specific V,V&I planning framework for theCambrian EDS has been developed with stakeholderinput through working groups, which details how theoutput requirements, technical objectives andoperational goals of the project will be demonstrated. It includes:

Surveys of the trains to be fitted, undertaken at anearly stage to identify any particular problems withfitment. This is already underway;Field trials of equipment to demonstrate reliabilityof the chosen train-borne supplier’s equipment.This needs to happen early in order to accumulatesufficient running to demonstrate that reliabilitytargets can be met within acceptable limits ofconfidence. There may also be a need for field trialsof trackside equipment – for example, to evaluatefield strength requirements for reliable datatransmission;Simple modelling of the system. A sophisticatedmodelling tool should not be necessary due to therelative simplicity of the Cambrian Line layout andthe timetable (unlike later deployments);Operations and maintenance procedures to bedeveloped, verified, and validated in parallel withthe ERTMS application development. Somevalidation via ERTMS Test Facilities (ETF)7 may bepossible;Provision of a dedicated, instrumented Class 158vehicle for ‘first of class’ and integration testing,plus a reference ERTMS vehicle to be retained atthe ETF for other test purposes, such as de-bugging; Replication of the core components of theCambrian EDS ERTMS infrastructure at the ETF,to facilitate:■ ‘First of class’ testing;■ Testing of core elements of the infrastructure

design, including novel features;■ Track-train integration testing and de-bugging,

therefore reducing the time and number ofpossessions required on the Cambrian Line; and

■ Validation of operational procedures – forexample, data entry.

An extended period of integration testing on theCambrian Line, when sufficient de-risking has beendone off-site. This will also include training ofdrivers and signallers; andIn-service tests, trials, and monitoring to buildknowledge and experience for futureimplementation.

3.12 VEHICLE SURVEYSSurveys of the vehicles using the Cambrian Line havebeen specified and tendered, and contracts have beenawarded to determine the viability and ease of fittingERTMS Level 2 equipment. The output from thesurveys will be fed into the feasibility studies beingundertaken by Arriva and EWS. The surveys are beingundertaken by AEA Technology and EWS for theClass 158 vehicles and Class 37 vehicles respectively.

The key deliverables from the surveys will include:A condition report on existing equipment andcabling, where it will be affected by the fitment ofthe onboard ERTMS assembly;Outline designs for ERTMS fitment, includingdrawings and cable layouts;A fitment process and method statement togetherwith resource estimates for the implementation ofthe outline design; andAn indicative fitment schedule.

The survey contracts are due to be completed by June2004. Figure 3.8 contains photographs from the Class158 survey, and illustrate that there is limited space,both in the drivers cab and under the train, forERTMS equipment.

Based on the experience of completing these first twovehicle surveys, the need and timing of further fleetsurveys will be assessed next year.

31

FIGURE 3.8 CLASS 158 VEHICLE SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS

Interior

Space above radio ▲ ▲

Space in luggagecompartments

▲

Space under seat

▲

▲

Space behind driverSpace in luggagecompartments

▲

Space in luggagecompartments

▲

▲ Existing driver’s desk

▼

Space behind instrument panel

32

Exterior

FIGURE 3.8 CLASS 158 VEHICLE SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS

Space around wheel-set

▲

Axle-end mountedtachometer

▲

Space under cab end

▲

TPWS and AWS receivers

▲

33

4.1 INTRODUCTIONIn the wider European programme, there are a numberof commercial (non-trial) projects that are due to becompleted by the end of 2005.

There is a strong drive in Europe to extend theprinciples of interoperability to all relevant parts of therailway system. The pending introduction of theConventional Interoperability Directive into UK law,and the release of the Conventional Control-Command Signalling (CoCoSig) TSI, further expandthe scope of interoperability and hence the market forERTMS. Significant progress has been madecompleting the specifications and the testing ofERTMS in the past 12 months.

The UK rail industry is involved in the Europeantechnical working groups, led by the EEIG ERTMSUsers Group, that is developing the detailedspecifications, test procedures and operational rulesnecessary for the successful implementation of ERTMSin commercial operation. Functional tests ofequipment have been successful, and a comprehensiveset of test tools has been developed. Integration intospecific national environments and safety validation hasalso been undertaken on various national test sites.

The UK has been actively involved in the developmentof the TSIs and Class 1 specifications, led by the AEIF,to ensure that the system will meet the requirements of the UK business case for implementation. The ERTMS Change Control Panel (UK CCP) andthe UK CoCoSig Mirror Group have been used todevelop a UK consensus on specification and changecontrol issues.

In addition to achieving completion of thespecifications and the test phase of the ERTMSdevelopment, the focus in Europe has centred on thefinancial and economic aspects of ERTMSimplementation. For technical, operational andfinancial reasons, there is a risk of a patchwork ofisolated ERTMS systems being implemented that aresurrounded by parts of the European network stillusing existing train control systems. If this situation

arose, the benefits of ERTMS would be substantiallydelayed, and therefore there is currently a proposal thatan affordable pan-European implementation andmigration strategy is developed. The initial suggestionis that implementation is focused on completing keyinternational rail corridors.

It is estimated that by 2008, ERTMS will be inoperation on new high speed lines in France, Italy,Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland. Several countrieswill also have introduced ERTMS to a considerableextent on their existing network, including Austria,Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Romania and Switzerland. In total, ERTMS is estimated to be in operation onmore than 16,000 track km by this date.

The following sections cover the status of:The EC specifications;ERTMS trials and commercial projects; andImplementation planning.

4.2 STATUS OF EC SPECIFICATIONS

4.2.1 Background The EC High Speed and Conventional InteroperabilityDirectives8 aim to ensure that trains can run freely acrossthe European network, and that railway equipment canbe traded without restrictions. They define a number of‘Essential Requirements’ to be met for interoperability,including safety requirements for products and sub-systems (trains, signalling, infrastructure andmaintenance), and set out a process for the productionof detailed technical standards, namely TechnicalSpecifications for Interoperability (TSIs).

The Directives require mandatory TSIs to be producedwhich set out the technical requirements that must becomplied with, in order for interoperability to beachieved. The TSIs are supported by Europeanstandards and specifications that either already exist, orare produced specifically to support the Directives.Where there are gaps in these European specifications,any national standards that have been notified to theEuropean Commission (EC), and which do notconflict with the Essential Requirements, will continue

04/EUROPEAN PROGRAMME UPDATE

8 Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC

34

to apply. The Directives and TSIs also lay downtesting and certification procedures, the process ofwhich will be overseen by Notified Bodies (NoBos).The Control-Command and Signalling (CoCoSig) TSI is the one directly related to the development and implementation of ERTMS/ETCS.

The majority of the technical specifications areprovided by the ETCS Class 1 specifications, which are referenced in Annex A of the CoCoSig TSI. These specifications describe the key interfaces and functionality of the CoCoSig sub-system. They include a Functional Requirements Specification(FRS) drafted by the main European rail organisations,and a System Requirements Specification (SRS) withsupporting specifications produced by UNISIG, anassociation of European ETCS suppliers.

4.2.2 Status of the Specifications – High Speed CoCoSig TSI

A significant amount of work has been undertakenover the last 12 months regarding further developmentof the ETCS Class 1 specifications. A number ofupdated and new specifications have been forwarded tothe EC by AEIF for inclusion in Annex A of the HighSpeed CoCoSig TSI. The Article 21 committeeapproved a revised Annex A to the TSI in December2003, which included the following:

Updated Eurobalise specifications to resolveperformance issues and gaps in previous versions;New safety specifications, which had been subjectto an Independent Safety Assessor review andapproval;New system test specifications developed to providestandard test procedures for use by suppliers andNotified Bodies;Updated Specific Transmission Module (STM)documentation to resolve performance issues andgaps in previous versions; andUpdated EuroRadio and GSM-R interfacespecifications to resolve performance issues andgaps in previous versions.

Another update of the specifications to be incorporatedinto the High Speed TSI is expected at the end of

2004. This is planned to include a consolidation ofthe High Speed CoCoSig TSI and the ConventionalCoCoSig TSI, and will provide an opportunity torelease further updated versions of the ETCS Class 1specifications.

4.2.3 Status of the Specifications –Conventional Directive and CoCoSig TSI

In 2001 the Conventional Interoperability Directivewas published, which extended the scope ofinteroperability requirements to the conventional part of the Trans European Network (TEN). The Department for Transport are currently consultingon UK regulations to implement the Directive into UK law in 2004.

The process of drafting the Conventional TSIs isunderway, with significant contribution from the UK rail industry. However it is a significant challenge,as the EC has stated that the set of Conventional TSIs must be both a necessary and sufficient definitionof a safe railway so that no national standards will be needed.

A subset of the Conventional TSIs, which includesCoCoSig, is being prioritised. The CoCoSig TSI istherefore expected to be subject to approval by theAEIF Change Control Board (CCB) in March 2004,followed by the Article 21 Committee approval inApril 2004.

4.2.4 Current and Future European ActivityThe European Specification Development Programme,illustrated in Figure 4.1, shows forecast dates of whenfuture updates to the CoCoSig TSI and associatedClass 1 specifications are expected. The dates are basedon an evaluation of when major milestones will beachieved through the pilot and commercial projects,and the completion of outstanding technical work. The programme shows that version 3.0.0 of the Class 1Specifications will include revisions arising from theexperiences gained on the commercial and pilotprojects, including the outcome of cross-exchangetesting. This release is also likely to include outputsfrom the completion of the various technical activities,

35

such as the Quality of Service parameters for GSM-R,the update of the specification for the Driver MachineInterface (DMI), operational rules, and safetyrequirements. These are planned to be completed bythe end of 2004. All the changes will be processedthrough the AEIF change control process, andreviewed by ERTMS UK CCP to establish a consensusposition for the UK.

There will be a few areas of technical activity that willcontinue beyond 2004, which will result in a furtherplanned update of the TSI and the release of version4.0.0 of the Class 1 Specifications. This release isexpected to comprise functional changes, the results offurther commercial and trial experience and furtherimprovements to the specifications.

A process is under way, whereby the EC, EEIGERTMS Users Group, AEIF and UNISIG are seekingto prioritise and confirm the content of the next tworevisions of the Class 1 Specifications, versions 3.0.0and 4.0.0.

4.2.5 Future LegislationThe EC has issued proposals (collectively called the‘2nd Rail Package’) concerning three areas of EClegislation that will significantly affect the UK railwayin the near future. These proposals include:

Amending the two directives concerninginteroperability;Introducing a new European Safety Directive; andSetting up a European Rail Agency.

end 2003

Inputs

Specification Updates

TSI Development

Product Development & Certification

end 2004 end 2005 end 2006 end 2007

Currently approvedChange requests

Pilot TrialsFirst Projects

GSM-R Quality of ServiceSafety (Index 47)

Braking CurvesOdometry FIS

Operational Rule TestingChange requests for Conventional Rail TSI

SRS 2.2.2 and supporting documents

SRS 3.0.0 and supporting documents

SRS 4.0.0 and supporting documents

High Speed Change Requests from consolidation phaseExperience from trials and first commercial applications

Conventional Consolidation phaseAdditional FeaturesAdditional trial and commercial application experience

Consolidationof High Speed &Conventional TSI

High Speed TSI Update

High Speed andConventional Rail TSI Update

High Speed & Conventional Rail TSI Update

FirstConventionalRail TSIPublished

End of SpecificationDevelopment Phase

2.2.2First Certified Constituents

3.0.0Constituent Development & Certification

4.0.0 Constituent Development &Certification

Source: EEIG/UNISIG ERTMS Consolidation Strategy Master Plan, V0.9, 26th February 2004

FIGURE 4.1 EUROPEAN SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN

36

The EC has proposed a third amendment to theInteroperability Directives, as a final step towardsinteroperability, which extends the scope of theDirectives to the whole network by 2008.

The proposed Safety Directive will address four mainareas related to the development of safe railways in Europe:

Changes to the safety regulatory structure and thecontent of safety rules will require harmonisation ofnational safety rules, and national safety authoritiesto be created;Removal of barriers to a functioning single marketwill require safety certificates to be valid acrossMember States, and Common Safety Targets(CSTs) and methods (CSMs) to be agreed;The open market and regulation by public bodieswill require greater transparency andcommunication of safety information acrossMember States; andThe need to identify root causes of accidents andprevent future occurrences will require the settingup of independent investigation bodies in eachMember State.

The EC has also included a proposal for a EuropeanRailway Agency. The Safety Directive requires aEuropean technical agency to co-ordinate work on CSTs and CSMs, create a network of nationalauthorities, and report on performance. The Interoperability Directives set the need for aEuropean technical agency to give advice onimplementation, lead the development, updatestandards, and support the EC in proposed new orupdated national standards. The work currentlyundertaken by the EEIG ERTMS Users Group, AEIF and UIC is expected to be transferred to theEuropean Rail Agency during 2005. This shouldprovide clear stable ownership and responsibility forspecifications, provide the mechanisms for resolvingtechnical and operational difficulties, and allow theefficient control of future upgrades, systemconfiguration and development.

4.3 ERTMS TRIALS AND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS

4.3.1 Laboratory TestingThe EEIG ERTMS Users Group is undertaking a testcampaign for the Eurobalise, EVC and RBC at theCEDEX laboratory environment in Spain, as a part ofthe ERTMS consolidation strategy. The purpose ofthese tests is to evaluate the current test specificationand test procedures to be used in the certificationprocess of the products and sub-systems. The testingof the balise and EVC is forecast to be completed bythe end of 2004, with testing of the RBC forecast to becompleted by April 2005.

4.3.2 Trial ProjectsThere are currently trial projects in five Europeancountries, shown in Table 4.1. The purpose of theseprojects is to test and consolidate the ETCS Class 1Specifications. Funding support is provided by theEC, and is due to continue until June 2005.

In the Netherlands, the Level 1 pilot line tests arenearly finished, including exchanging trains betweenthe sites. Trials for Level 2 are planned for mid-2004.In Germany, the 120km Jueterbog-Halle/Leipzig line isfully equipped with Level 2 and is ready to startintegration testing, prior to commercial service in2005. Work on the French and Italian trial sites hasnow been completed.

In a step towards proving the specifications, cross-exchange testing has taken place on various projectsincluding the Dutch ERTMS Level 1 Pilot Line-Northinvolving Alstom and Bombardier. Level 2 cross-exchange testing in the Netherlands is expected to takeplace in the third quarter of 2004. Other cross-exchange testing is planned during 2004 on theSpanish High Speed Line (Level 1 and 2), and at theCEDEX laboratory environment. Further cross-exchange tests will be performed in Luxembourg,involving the Alcatel Level 1 trackside infrastructureand the SNCF Alstom test car this year.

37

4.3.3 Commercial ApplicationsThe number of planned commercial applications hassignificantly increased. In the Netherlands,Bombardier has won the contract to equip the 30.5 kmline between Amsterdam and Utrecht with ERTMSLevel 2. Siemens and Alcatel will supply ERTMSLevel 2 for the 100km High Speed Line-South fromAmsterdam to the Belgian border. Alstom will supplyERTMS Level 2 for the 160km Betuwe line, adedicated freight rail line from the internationalseaport of Rotterdam to the German border. In Italy,Level 2 testing has begun on the Rome-Naples high speed line. Successful Level 2 demonstrationswere given on the Berlin–Halle/Leipzig line inGermany. In Spain, contracts have been awarded to fit ERTMS Level 2 to several high speed linesinvolving Invensys Dimetronic, Siemens, Alcatel,Ansaldo and Alstom.

The Olten-Lucerne pilot line in Switzerland hasprovided many lessons that can be applied to UKimplementation of ERTMS. The first year of ETCS in commercial service saw many challenges andexperienced a number of unforeseen problems.However, these were satisfactorily resolved and SBBreported a better eventual performance average than on similar routes fitted with conventional signalling.The Swiss experience has demonstrated that:

It is possible to introduce an ERTMS Level 2system into operational use;To deliver an acceptable service, the system mustfirst be trialled sufficiently to ensure that it hasreached the appropriate levels of maturity andstability; andManagement of organisational, contractual andhuman interfaces, and resources is as critical tosuccess as the technical and physical interfaces.

Table 4.2 provides a list of the main committed ETCS Level 2 commercial projects and their expectedin-service dates. These are the new high speed lineschosen for ETCS implementation, in the respectivecountries.

4.4 FUTURE ERTMS IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING

A detailed report entitled ‘Implementing the EuropeanTrain Control System’, written by Dr. Peter Winter on behalf of the UIC, contains an analysis ofimplementing ERTMS on cross-border Europeancorridors. This report makes proposals to remove therisk of a patchwork of ERTMS implementations acrossthe network. Ten corridors have been analysed, fourhigh speed and six conventional. In each case amigration strategy is proposed, which involves theremoval of heritage control systems with low mileages

TABLE 4.1 EC FUNDED TRIAL SITES

COUNTRY PILOT LINE SUPPLIER STATUS

France Ile de France Alstom Complete

Italy Firenze – Arezzo/Arezzo – Rigutino Alstom/Ansaldo Complete

Spain Albacete – Villar de Chinchilla Invensys On going

Germany Berlin – Halle/Leipzig Alcatel/Siemens Migrating to commercial

phase of project

Netherlands North Mepple – Leeuwarden Bombardier Supporting Amsterdam – Utrecht

Netherlands South Heerlen – Maastricht Alstom Supporting Betuwe line

38

of implementation and concentrates on a fewwidespread systems. For example, on the Madrid toParis/Zurich/Milan corridor the existing systems (ASFA,Crocodile, KVB, TVM, Signum, ZUB 121, BACC andSCMT), would be replaced with ETCS and TVM.This would dramatically reduce the number of onboardsystems that a train on this route would have to carry.

A working group has been established, at the request of the EC, to investigate the implementation ofERTMS. The scope of this working group is to cover freight and passenger transport within both high speed and conventional rail networks. EachMember State has been requested to complete anERTMS implementation plan for comparison between countries. This will allow informationsharing, understanding of specific country issues, and the opportunity to develop a commonimplementation plan across Europe.

With regards to fitment of ERTMS to theinfrastructure, based on currently proposed projects,ETCS will be in operation on more than 16,000 km oftrack by end of 2008. Table 4.3 gives a UIC forecastof line-side ETCS applications in operation by the endof 2008, based on the formal decisions taken up to theend of 2003.

TABLE 4.2 ERTMS LEVEL 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECTS

COUNTRY LINE ROUTE KMS FITTED IN SERVICE

Spain Madrid – Lerida 460 2005

Germany Berlin – Halle/Leipzig 120 2005

Italy Rome – Naples 220 2005

Switzerland Mattstetten – Rothrist 45 2005

Netherlands Amsterdam – Utrect 30 2006

Netherlands Betuwe line 120 2006

Netherlands HSL South 100 2007

France TGV Est 300 2007

39

TABLE 4.3 SCALE OF ERTMS IMPLEMENTATION BY 2008

COUNTRY PROJECT DESCRIPTION TRACK WITH % OF ETCS (KM) NETWORK

Austria ETCS Level 1 on the whole A-mainline network. 1500 33

By end of 2008, 60% will be in operation, including

the Austrian part of the Vienna – Budapest line.

Belgium ETCS Level 2 on the new high speed lines Antwerp – 2500 55

Dutch border and Liege – German border.

ETCS Level 1 on the remaining conventional network,

by end of 2008 50% in operation.

Bulgaria ETCS Level 1 on main line Sofia – Plovdiv – Burgas. 1250 25

By 2006, ETCS Level 1 on 60 km line Sofia to

Serbian border.

By 2008, ETCS Level 1 on 160 km line Plovdiv –

Svilengrad and probably an additional 400 km on other main lines.

Czech Proposal for ETCS Level 2 pilot application on the Czech 400 <5

Republic part of the Berlin – Prague – Vienna corridor is well advanced.

France ETCS Level 2 on the new high speed line Paris (LGV Est). 600 <5

Germany ETCS Level 2 on the lines Berlin – Halle/Leipzig and 580 <5

Mannheim – Saarbrucken.

ETCS Level 1 on the line from Aachen to the Belgian border.

Great Britain ETCS Level 2 on the Cambrian Line. 220 <5

Hungary ETCS Level 1 on Hungarian parts of the 860 11

Vienna – Budapest – Bucharest corridor (420 km), on Hungarian

part of Milan – Ljubljana – Budapest corridor (280 km), and

on line Szajol – Nyiregyhaza – Tracz (160 km).

Italy ETCS Level 2 on the new high speed lines Roma – 1200 5.4

Naples, Florence – Bologna – Milan, Milan – Turin.

Luxembourg ETSC Level 1 on the whole network. 420 100

Netherlands ETCS Level 2 on new lines Amsterdam – Rotterdam – 640 10

Belgian border (high speed line south), Rotterdam –

Emmerich – German border (Betuwe freight line),

Amsterdam – Utrecht (new double track line in parallel to existing one).

40

TABLE 4.3 SCALE OF ERTMS IMPLEMENTATION BY 2008

COUNTRY PROJECT DESCRIPTION TRACK WITH % OF ETCS (KM) NETWORK

Romania ETCS Level 1 on parts of the corridor from 700 <5

Hungarian border – Bukarest – Constanta.

Spain ETCS Level 2 on high speed line Madrid – Barcelona – 3000 20

French border, Madrid – Segovia Valladolid, Cordoba –

Malaga, Madrid – Valencia.

Sweden ETCS Level 2 on Botnia line (190 km). 320 <5

ERTMS Regional pilot line Repbacken – Malung (134 km).

Switzerland ETCS Level 2 on new line Bern – Olten and Lotschberg – 2000 27

base tunnel.

ETCS Level 1 (with Limited Supervision) in the remaining

network, by end 2008 25% in operation.

TOTAL 16190

Source: Implementing the European Train Control System, UIC ERTMS Conference Liepzig 10-11 December 2003, Dr. Peter Winter.

41

5.1 INTRODUCTIONERTMS represents a complex technological andoperational change to the UK railway system. The experience of rail and other industries is that theintroduction of such complex change carries risks.

Standardisation around the TSIs, and the associatedcertification and consolidation processes will, oncethese are mature, mitigate a significant proportion ofthese risks. In addition, the European testing activitiesdescribed in Chapter 4, such as those being undertakenat the CEDEX facility in Spain, will mitigate some ofthe risks associated with achieving product stability.

There are, however, unknown integration risks relatedto the application of the ERTMS products within theUK technical and operational environment.

In the Year 1 Progress Report, the term ‘Test and Trials’referred to the planned activities undertaken prior tothe commencement of the Implementation Phase,which will be used to:

Validate that systems are suitable and robust forimplementation in the UK;Validate the assumptions underpinning the ERTMSinvestment case;Validate UK implementation practices; andBuild the UK resource capability.

This chapter covers:Development of the ERTMS programme Test andTrials strategy;Test and Trials projects;Development of the programme reliability strategy;An update on ‘TOCMIS’ objectives; andAn update on Old Dalby.

5.2 TEST AND TRIALS STRATEGYOver the last year, the Test and Trials Strategy has beendeveloped and refined through the development of astrategy for the Cambrian EDS. This has focused on:

Demonstrating that the deliverables of each phaseof the project meet in all respects the requirementsof that phase (Verification);Demonstrating that the system at any step of itsdevelopment, and after its installation, meets itsrequirements in all respects (Validation); andBringing the track equipment, train equipment and people together to form a working system(Integration).

The concepts of ‘Verification, Validation andIntegration’ (V,V&I) provide the basis of a systematicmethod to give assurance that a system application willdo what it is intended to do. They also reflect the needfor integration activities to bring the parts of a systemtogether to prove they work as a whole. This includesintegrating TOC/FOC operators, drivers andmaintainers, and Network Rail signallers, routecontrollers and maintainers with the system throughvalidation of the ERTMS operational procedures.

The following V,V & I principles have been defined forthe UK application test and trials activities:

The scope of verification and validation mustinclude both system activities (based on EN50126)and V&V of non-system deliverables – for example,rules, procedures, and training;Activities must include integration – bringingtogether track equipment, train equipment, andpeople to form a working system;The extent of non-invasive testing, which does notdisrupt the operational service, must be maximised– extensive possessions that disrupt the railway are unaffordable;

05/TEST AND TRIALS

42

Extensive modelling and simulation will benecessary. The complexity of ERTMS makes itessential to use modelling – for example, to verifyfailure/recovery scenarios, resilience to failure,capacity, and performance;A standardised approach to V,V&I must bedeveloped, rather than adopting a differentapproach for each scheme;V,V&I strategies for specific deployments and useof ERTMS test facilities must be developed throughopen involvement with suppliers;Technical and operational requirements must betestable, and test plans and specifications for V,V&Iactivity must be produced and approved inadvance; andAt all V,V&I stages, processes must be in place toensure effective configuration management ofERTMS equipment (constituents, assemblies andsoftware) and V,V&I documentation (plans,procedures, and test results).

5.3 TEST AND TRIALS PROJECTS

5.3.1 ERTMS Test FacilitiesERTMS Test Facilities (ETF) were described in theYear 1 Progress Report, and have been assumed for theCambrian EDS project. The concept of ETF is that itprovides a testing capability away from the liveoperational railway. It is justified by the time and costsavings that arise due to there being less testingrequired during possessions of the railway, and also dueto the lower cost of finding and fixing problems earlier.The Year 1 Progress Report focused on the use ofsimulators to provide an ETF capability. Since then,the focus has been on defining the use of a ‘test track’as part of an ETF. For clarity, ETF is now used torefer to a combination of simulators and a test track.

The activities that can be undertaken at an ETF include:

Initial verification that there are no technicalbarriers implicit in a generic UK application ofERTMS core technology;Validation of the deliverables for the CambrianEDS and subsequent implementation; Validation of future upgrades for the CambrianEDS and subsequent implementation;Type testing of vehicle fitment prototypes;‘First of class’ train testing;Type testing of new manufacturers’ equipment;Multi-supplier testing and validation; andProblem investigation in support of the CambrianEDS and subsequent implementation.

Evidence from testing at the ETF would be providedto a gateway review in a project schedule. A criticalgateway is that between completion of integration testsat the ETF and the start of testing in possession on theoperational railway at Gateway 4 in the CambrianEDS schedule. The control measure used at Gateway4 is that if testing is not complete or satisfactory, thenthe project would undertake more testing at the ETFbefore being allowed to proceed to the next, morecostly phase on the operational railway.

ETF is being specified to provide the following features:

Support for both static (using simulation) and dynamic (using a test train) testing of ERTMS equipment;A representative railway environment for testingpurposes;A controlled test environment that has lower safetycost, operational cost and possession cost than theoperational railway;Testing of pre-certified products without the needfor a Railway Safety Case;

43

Safe testing of engineering assumptions andrequirements; and Longer working hours and more flexibility in trainmovements than can be achieved in possessions.

A competitive procurement exercise is under way toidentify suitable ETF solutions, which can demonstratevalue for money in the next five years of the ERTMSprogramme.

5.3.2 Non-invasive Field TrialsA Non-invasive Field Trial (NIFT) is defined as a testof specific ERTMS equipment, or a system on a UKtrain that is running in operational service, and in amanner where the ERTMS equipment does notinterfere with the operation of the train.

The primary purpose of the NIFT is to provide ameans of demonstrating sufficient reliability growth oftrainborne suppliers’ equipment operating in the UKrailway environment. Reliability growthdemonstration requires significant miles of trainrunning (typically over two years), and NIFTs on theoperational railway offer a relatively high-value andpractical means of achieving this objective.

There are two types of NIFT:System-level NIFT – operates a full ERTMS train-borne system in its target location, and providesmeasures of the robustness of the equipment over aperiod of time that has enabled sufficient mileage tobe accumulated; andEquipment-level NIFT – provides an earlyopportunity to gain experience and confidence ofERTMS constituents, designs, approvals,installation methods, performance and operation ina range of UK working environments.

This year, focus has been on developing opportunitiesfor a system-level NIFT, including that of the FGWClass 43 HST as a pilot for a system-level NIFT. A summary of this work is as follows:

The value of a system-level NIFT comes frombeing integrated as part of an implementationproject, after the actual supplier of trainborneequipment has been appointed. This is so that thereliability evidence captured during the system-levelNIFT relates to actual production equipment in itstarget location and environment. So, for example,a system-level NIFT may form part of theCambrian EDS project;An approach has been developed for undertaking asystem-level NIFT that includes the scope of thetrial, a representative schedule, the roles andresponsibilities of the industry parties, and the trialmanagement arrangements; andThe concept of a pilot system-level NIFT has alsobeen established, with the purpose of conducting alimited trial of the NIFT approach. This will de-risk any future, longer duration and hencehigher cost system-level NIFTs. The objectives ofthe pilot system-level NIFT are to develop and trialthe processes that will be used for future system-level NIFT projects.

Further work is planned for next year to develop someequipment-level NIFTs that will focus on specific itemsof ERTMS equipment in support of an overallprogramme reliability strategy.

44

5.4 PROGRAMME RELIABILITY STRATEGYThis year, a review has been undertaken of theapproach to defining practical reliability targets forERTMS systems, both for the first projects andbeyond. In the next year, a programme ReliabilityStrategy will be produced to provide industry-levelleadership, and to support the design of appropriatelyreliable systems. The Reliability Strategy will include:

A definition of the process for setting affordableand acceptable train-borne and infrastructurereliability targets for national roll-out; The principles of reliability growth, including anoverview of how projects and trials (for example,the Cambrian EDS, First Implementation andNIFTs) will contribute to the overall target, and adefinition of the gateway targets;An assessment of the impact of emerging reliabilityissues for existing train-borne and infrastructuresystems, and the identification of opportunities toimprove overall system reliability; andIdentification of specific equipment reliabilitytargets for critical areas and for equipment trials.

Figure 5.1 illustrates the concept of reliability growth.

5.5 TOCMIS UPDATEThe Year 1 Progress Report introduced the ‘TOCMIS’framework, which provides a hierarchicaldecomposition of test and trials objectives andrequirements based on six categories:

Technology proving;Operational validation;Capacity/performance enhancement;Multi-supplier capability;Interoperability; andSafety benefit.

Over the last year, this framework has beenprogressively challenged and refined as the strategy forthe Cambrian EDS has been developed. This hasresulted in the framework being expanded to includetwo new categories:

Cost validation; andIndustry processes.

The revised ‘TOCMISCI’ framework has been linkedinto the Implementation Phase risk register, and formsthe basis for determining the scope and benefits foreach of the test and trials projects. TOCMISCI ismaintained such that it represents an up-to-datedefinition of the UK application operational, technicaland business objectives required to be achieved in theDevelopment Phase prior to the Implementation Phase.

TOCMISCI has been used to support the CambrianEDS business case, and is now being used as an inputto the definition of the ETF and First Implementationprojects. The following tables (5.1 to 5.8) provide anupdate of the current mapping of the objectives to thedevelopment projects described earlier in this chapter.The tables illustrate the capability of TOMISCI topresent an overall picture of test and trials, and toensure that benefits are not ‘double counted’. The mapping of objectives to the Cambrian EDS isnow under change control as they are a key input tothe Cambrian EDS business case. The mapping toETF, the First Implementation project and equipment-level NIFTs are indicative, as the business cases forthese projects have not yet been ‘baselined’. The partshading indicates that the objective is partially satisfied.

Cambrian Start

Cambrian Finish

2006 2008 2010 Time

Achievable/Affordable

Target forNational Rollout

System Reliability (eg miles between failure)

First Im

plementation(s)

FIGURE 5.1 RELIABILITY GROWTHCONCEPT

45

TABLE 5.1 TECHNOLOGY PROVING

TOCMISCI CAMBRIAN ETF FIRST IMPLE- EQUIPMENT-EDS MENTATION LEVEL NIFT

TRACKSIDE SUB-CATEGORY

Migration Strategies to System C

Migration Strategies to System D/E

Application of ERTMS Signalling Principles – C

Application of ERTMS Signalling Principles – D/E

RBC Trackside Interfaces

RBC-RBC Interfaces

Trackside Environmental – electrification

Trackside Environmental – other

Trackside assembly performance

Trackside assembly availability

Trackside assembly maintainability

Trackside equipment system interactions

ONBOARD SUB-CATEGORY

Constituent (DMI, EVC etc.) installation

Integration with existing train protection

Integration with braking system

Integration with odometry system

Onboard Environmental – electrification

Onboard Environmental – other

Onboard assembly performance

Onboard assembly reliability

Onboard assembly availability

Onboard assembly maintainability

46

TABLE 5.1 TECHNOLOGY PROVING

TOCMISCI CAMBRIAN ETF FIRST IMPLE- EQUIPMENT-EDS MENTATION LEVEL NIFT

ONBOARD/TRACKSIDE

COMBINATION SUB-CATEGORY

Functionality – end to end

Functionality – Security and Key Management

Performance – Response times specified in Class 1

Performance – Train ERTMS Preparation Times

Performance – System loading tests

Reliability

Availability

Mapping under change controlPart satisfied

Indicative

47

TABLE 5.2 OPERATIONAL VALIDATION

TOCMISCI CAMBRIAN ETF FIRST IMPLE-EDS MENTATION

OPERATIONAL VALIDATION

Normal Conditions – Normal Running – Traction

Normal Conditions – Normal Running – Train Awakening

Normal Conditions – Normal Train Running

Braking to a non-zero target

Level Crossings

Transitions

End of Mission

Abnormal Scenarios

Degraded Scenarios

Emergency Scenarios

Mapping under change controlPart satisfied

Indicative

48

TABLE 5.3 CAPACITY/PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT

TOCMISCI CAMBRIAN ETF FIRST IMPLE-EDS MENTATION

CAPACITY/PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT

Junction Enhancement

Level Crossing Enhancement

Plain Line Enhancement

Special Case Enhancement

Capacity Modelling Data Validation Track to Train

Capacity Modelling Data Validation Train to Track

Delay Minute Improvement Validation

Mapping under change controlPart satisfied

Indicative

TABLE 5.4 MULTI-SUPPLIER CAPABILITY

TOCMISCI CAMBRIAN ETF FIRST IMPLE-EDS MENTATION

MULTI-SUPPLIER CAPABILITY

Technology Readiness – track System D/E at v 2.2.2.

Technology Readiness – trainborne at Level 2 v 2.2.2.

Technology Readiness – track System C at v 3.0.0.

Technology Readiness – track System D/E at v 3.0.0.

Technology Readiness – trainborne at Level 2 v 3.0.0.

Mapping under change controlPart satisfied

Indicative

49

TABLE 5.5 INTEROPERABILITY

TOCMISCI CAMBRIAN ETF FIRST IMPLE-EDS MENTATION

INTEROPERABILITY

Track to Train – same supplier at Level 2 (v 3.0.0)

Track to Train – different supplier (v 3.0.0)

RBC to RBC – same supplier (v 3.0.0)

RBC to RBC – different supplier (v 3.0.0)

Mapping under change controlPart satisfied

Indicative

Note: Only necessary where not already consolidated in Europe. The extent of these tests will be performed to the extentnecessary to prove interoperability in the UK technical and operational environment.

TABLE 5.6 SAFETY BENEFIT

TOCMISCI CAMBRIAN ETF FIRST IMPLE-EDS MENTATION

SAFETY BENEFIT

Direct ETCS benefits

Trackworker Exposure

Possession Management

Trackworker Protection

Mapping under change controlPart satisfied

Indicative

50

TABLE 5.7 COST VALIDATION

TOCMISCI CAMBRIAN ETF FIRST IMPLE-EDS MENTATION

COST VALIDATION

Capex

Opex

Mapping under change controlPart satisfied

Indicative

TABLE 5.8 INDUSTRY PROCESSES

TOCMISCI CAMBRIAN ETF FIRST IMPLE-EDS MENTATION

INDUSTRY PROCESSES

Approval Process

People Processes

Franchise Processes

NEP/Stakeholder Implementation Processes

Industry Business Process Planning

Engineering Processes

Funding and Finance arrangements

Mapping under change controlPart satisfied

Indicative

51

5.6 OLD DALBY TEST SITEThe Old Dalby facility is a test track that runs betweenAsfordby in Leicestershire and Edwalton inNottinghamshire. The site, illustrated in Figure 5.2,comprises a 7km signalled slow line, a 21km un-signalled fast line, basic stabling facilities at Old Dalbyand secure depot at Asfordby.

In 2000, Old Dalby was selected as the site for testingthe Alstom ETCS equipment in support of theWCRM Train Control System (TCS). Shortly afterpublication of the Year 1 Progress Report, the TCSelement was deleted from the WCRM programme and,as a result, Network Rail’s rights to use Old Dalbytransferred to the Network Rail Train Protection Team,part of the National ERTMS Programme (NEP).

The Old Dalby facility provides a controlled railwayenvironment that has lower safety, operational andpossession risk than the operational railway.

Its classification as a manufacturer’s site means that pre-certified products can be used and a Railway Safety Case is not required for operation. It alsoprovides longer working hours and more flexibility in train movements than can be achieved underpossession, although it should be noted that the site issubject to planning restrictions on operating hours andnoise levels.

The Old Dalby facility is currently under a long termlease to a private company and an appropriate andsecure commercial arrangement for the next five years,which is both affordable and demonstrable as value formoney, has not yet been achieved. Therefore, otheroptions for ERTMS test track facilities are now beingprogressed by Network Rail as part of the ETF project.

Connection to rail networkPlumtree

to Nottingham

StantonTunnel

GrimstonTunnel

SaxelbyTunnel

to Leicester

MeltonMowbray

to Oakham,Corby andPeterborough

Asfordby Tunnel

FIGURE 5.2 THE OLD DALBY TEST SITE

52

6.1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN MODELLING

6.1.1 IntroductionThe industry’s preferred strategy for nationalimplementation remains as set out in the EPT FinalReport – to eventually fit the UK network and trainswith System D or E while achieving a positive businesscase, and within a manageable funding requirement.

The preferred implementation philosophy is as follows:Trains are fitted towards the start of theprogramme, to enable System D or E fitment onthe trackside, in line with the ‘trains first’philosophy recommended in the EPT Final Report; On lines fitted with BR-ATP, it has been assumedthat the ATP-fitted trains are made dual-capableprior to commissioning of System D on the track;andTrain fitment, re-signalling and track fitment aresynchronised to allow the implementation ofSystem D or E.

6.1.2 Modelling ScenariosAs part of developing a plan for nationalimplementation, a number of options have beendeveloped as input to the programme business case

06/NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATIONPLANNING

TABLE 6.1 IMPLEMENTATION SCOPE OF EACH SCENARIO

SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO A2 A3 A4 A5 A7

TRACK FITMENT

TENs High Speed Lines ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Other High Speed Lines ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Rest of network ✓ ✓ ✓

System Variant D, some C D, less C C/B C C/B, then D

TRAIN FITMENT

High Speed Trains ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

(over 100 mph)

Rest of train fleet ✓ ✓ ✓

analyses. The purpose of this work is to betterunderstand the relationship between ERTMS trainfitment, track fitment and the timing of implementation.

A key saving assumed in the programme business caseis the lower overall cost of re-signalling, achievable withSystems D and E, when line-side signals are notreplaced. Re-signalling with Systems D and E requiresthat trains using the route are all fitted with ERTMS,or that access by unfitted trains is managed. TheERTMS implementation plans are therefore modelledagainst a Network Rail re-signalling plan – 10 Year Re-signalling Programme v2, issued in June 2003.

Five scenarios for implementation have been consideredin total, as summarised in Table 6.1. Figure 6.1 identifies for reference the TENs and UKhigh speed lines. Scenarios A2, A3, A4 and A5 wereanalysed for the programme business case, completedin November 2003. Scenario A7 is a new scenariosimilar to Scenario A4, but extends to fit the wholenetwork, and is currently being analysed for aprogramme business case to be completed in May 2004.For reference, scenarios A1 and A6, not considered here,relate to the January 2003 business case and CambrianEDS business case respectively.

53

TENs High Speed LinesUK High Speed Lines (100 mph+)TENs Conventional LinesCTRL

LONDON

CAMBRIDGE

HARWICH

TILBURY

DOVER

NORWICH

BRIGHTON

SOUTHAMPTON

BRISTOLCARDIFF

SWANSEA

FISHGUARD

PLYMOUTH

PENZANCE

BIRMINGHAM

MANCHESTERHULL

LIVERPOOL

HOLYHEAD

HARTLEPOOL

NEWCASTLE (TYNE)

EDINBURGH

ABERDEEN

INVERNESS

GLASGOW

STRANRAER

CREWE

IMMINGHAM

FIGURE 6.1 MAP OF HIGH SPEED ROUTES

54

The five scenarios are summarised below:Scenario A2Fit ERTMS to the three TENs high speed lines and the fleets that operate on them by 2015. The remainder of the network is to be fitted from2016 onwards, when the track is next re-signalled. Re-signalling dates can be adjusted by up to 4 years to maximise fitment of System D.

Scenario A3As Scenario A2, but with the TENs high speed linescompleted by approximately 2020.

Scenario A4Fit ERTMS to the three TENs high speed lines, theother UK high speed lines, and the high speed vehicleswhich operate on them by 2015, without adjusting re-signalling dates. The remainder of the network andvehicles are not to be fitted.

Scenario A5Fit ERTMS to the three TENs high speed lines and thehigh speed vehicles which operate on them when nextre-signalled. The remainder of the network andvehicles are not to be fitted.

Scenario A7Provide ATP protection on the high speed trains on the three TENs high speed lines and the other UK high speed lines by 2015, by fitting ERTMS where BR-ATP is not provided, without adjusting re-signalling dates. The remainder of the network andvehicles are fitted from 2016 onwards, when the track

is next re-signalled. Re-signalling dates can be adjustedby up to 4 years to maximise fitment of System D.

6.1.3 Comparison between A2 and A7Scenarios A2 and A7 represent the extremes of therange of scenarios that have been considered. ScenarioA2 has high rates of train and track fitment in the earlyyears (pre-2015), with the associated challenges ofachieving the timescale. Scenario A7 has a lower rateof fitment with a consequent reduction in the fundingrequirement up to 2015, and would be a moreaffordable implementation plan. Table 6.2 is asummary of the differences between the two scenarios.

Over the next twelve months it is necessary to continuewith the planning and modelling of implementation toderive a scenario between A2 and A7 that best achievesthe planning objectives.

6.2 BUSINESS CASEAn update to the programme business case was issuedin November 2003. Investment appraisal wasundertaken for scenarios A2, A3, A4 and A5 describedin section 6.1. The results are summarised in Tables6.3 and 6.4.

The main areas of change since the business case in theYear 1 Progress Report are as follows:

Performance improvement has been modelledthrough reliability improvements, rather thancapacity increase. This enables more certaintyregarding the timing of System D benefits, anddoes not incur the TOC cost of increased services;

TABLE 6.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRAIN FITMENT AND TRACK FITMENT

A2 A7

No. of Trains fitted by 2015 4,832 521

Track fitted by 2015 (km) 7,545 4,845

System D fitted by 2015 (km) 3,938 6

Expenditure by 2015 (risked, undiscounted) £3.8bn £1.1bn

55

Demand modelling uses lower background growthand fare increases, 1% above RPI – in line withcurrent SRA policy;Further operational performance modelling hasincreased confidence in System D benefits;More sophisticated demand revenue modelling hasbeen undertaken;WCML (track and train) has been includedfollowing the deletion of the TCS contract from theWCRM programme;A revised risk register, produced after consultationwith industry stakeholders, has resulted in anadjustment to risk value to only include mitigationarising from the Cambrian EDS. The capex riskvalue has increased by £0.35billion discounted atmean confidence level;Re-signalling savings have been re-assessed inconjunction with Network Rail. This has resultedin an increase in saving of approximately 13%;A real increase in signalling labour costs has beenincluded;The Cambrian EDS is now included within a basecase identified by the SRA; andFour scenarios have been modelled as opposed tothe single scenario (A1) in January 2003.

Analysis of the various scenarios has confirmed earlierwork that concluded that implementation withoutSystem D will incur considerable cost with no benefit,other than introduction of ATP.

The current analysis shows that the majority of theeconomic benefits of ERTMS implementation (in scenarios A2 and A3) are due to network-wideperformance improvements (a 20% reduction in totalnetwork delay-minutes is assumed). Performanceimprovements result from the optimisation of blocklengths and signalling layouts, particularly at junctionsand pinch-points, which is possible with cab signallingsystems. This is explained further in section 6.4.

Although ERTMS is fitted later in scenario A3, it iswith a higher proportion of System D leading to amore beneficial result over the appraisal period. Scenarios A4 and A5 have demonstrated that anymajor implementation of System C should not beundertaken without a clear migration path to SystemD at the earliest opportunity.

The significant early spend on train fitment requiredfor System D, shown in Table 6.2, will have to beaddressed in the context of what can be funded, andwill be the focus of business case work in the next year.

TABLE 6.3 COMPARISON OF BUSINESS CASE TO YEAR 1 REPORT

YEAR 1 SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO PROGRESS A2 A3 A4 A5REPORT

Discount Rate (%) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

Cost at Present Value (£bn) (3.8) (4.28) (4.26) (1.44) (0.97)

Net Benefits at Present Value (£bn)7.5 7.17 7.81 (0.02) (0.01)

Net Present Value (£bn) 3.7 2.89 3.55 (1.46) (0.96)

Benefit to Cost Ratio 2.0 1.7 1.8 0 0

56

6.3 UNIT COSTSFurther investigation has taken place regarding the unitcosts of ERTMS implementation, particularly for trainfleet fitment. The average rates for train fitment aresummarised in Table 6.5:

In addition, for each type of train design there is anadditional one-off cost of between £1 million and £1.6 million to design, fit and validate the first train ofeach type. When the design cost and fleet fitment costare considered together across the whole fleet, a cost of£253k per train is estimated.

Estimates, by other European administrations, of the unit costs of train fitment have been collated from a number of sources, for example – conferences,site visits and the ERTMS Working Group.

These estimates are broadly similar to those shown inTable 6.5. It is therefore evident that the relativelyhigh implementation costs are shared across Europeand need to be addressed on a European scale, or evenwider – possibly through opening the market to more suppliers.

In the longer term, significant re-engineering of thetrain-borne equipment may be needed to reducefitment costs. This may be achieved, for example, by a reduction in overall space requirements, alternativeodometry sources and different positioningtechnologies.

There are major opportunities for further infrastructurecost savings and reliability improvements in the long term, particularly on lower used lines (greater

TABLE 6.5 AVERAGE RATES FOR TRAIN FITMENT

FLEET FIT K-TYPE 1* K-TYPE 3*

APPROX AVERAGE RATE PER TRAIN FACTORY RETROFIT FACTORY RETROFIT

Labour** £26k £49k £36k £70k

Materials*** £108k £108k £215k £215k

Total £134k £157k £251k £285k

* Type 1: Single Cab Loco (1 EVC, MMI), Type 3: End Cab EMU/DMU (2 EVCs, MMIs)** Includes labour and localised project management; driver training; trainers; simulators; delivery to depot; depot lease*** Includes a percentage add-on to the supply and deliver to site rates, for contracting party’s overhead and profit not catered for inthe labour rates

TABLE 6.4 ADJUSTED TO ACCOUNT FOR OPTIMISM BIAS

YEAR 1 SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO PROGRESS A2 A3 A4 A5REPORT

Cost at Present Value (£bn)* N/A (5.96) (5.93) (1.98) (1.33)

Net Present Value (£bn) N/A 1.22 1.88 (1.99) (1.33)

Benefit to Cost Ratio 2.0 1.2 1.3 (1.0) (1.0)

*Excluding cost savings

57

than 10 minutes between trains), by adopting some ofthe principles of ERTMS Level 3 to allow the removalof track circuits or axle counters. This will be taken upwith the suppliers, in terms of a migration path fromERTMS Level 2.

6.4 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCEMODELLING AND ANALYSIS

Previous work indicated that the application of SystemD to the UK rail network has the potential to deliversignificant improvements in operational performance,whilst the application of System C would be neutral inits impact. This work also concluded that theapplication of ERTMS Level 1, Systems A and B,would significantly degrade operational performance.

Work over the past twelve months has focused onclarifying further the extent of the opportunitiespresented by System D, and the practicalities ofexploiting them on key routes so as to deliver improvedrailway performance. These opportunities are duemainly to changes to the signalling infrastructure thatcan be made once cab signalling is introduced and theconstraint of using line-side signals is eliminated. They include:

Consistent block lengths for plain line;Shorter and varied block lengths at junctions andstations;Reduction in length of overlaps;Elimination of approach release signals;Reduction of approach locking;Reduction in flank protection; andContinuous availability of movement authority updates.

TABLE 6.6 RESULTS OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE MODELLING FOR SYSTEM D

LOCATION MODELLED ROUTE TYPE SYSTEM D RELIABILITY BENEFIT (REDUCED DELAY-MINUTES)

Great Western Mainline (GWML) Intercity (Main line) 28%

Paddington to Didcot Intercity (Relief line) 21%

East Coast Mainline (ECML) Intercity (GNER) 32%

Kings Cross to Peterborough Intercity (WAGN) 32%

London Victoria to Croydon SE Mainline (Inter-urban/suburban) 19%

Coastway and Arundel lines Suburban 18%

Didcot – Oxford – Leamington line Inter-Urban 38%

Carlisle to Newcastle line Regional/Rural/Freight 22%

Great Western – lines between Mixed 19%

Paddington and Worcester, Severn

Tunnel and Plymouth

58

6.4.1 Performance Modelling ResultsThe performance benefits are analysed by modellingthe operation of current train services withconventional signalling, and then changing theinfrastructure to represent ERTMS operation. The difference in train delay-minutes observedrepresents the change in reliability of the service aswould be experienced by rail users.

The performance benefits can be taken either as acapacity increase or a reliability improvement. For this business case the benefit has been taken wholly as a reliability improvement. In practice,selection of the optimum mix of these benefits willneed to be made to suit individual route factors.

Five lines have been modelled in order to provideresults that are a representative cross section of thenational network, namely – Paddington to Didcot,London (Victoria) to East Croydon, Coastway andArundel, Didcot – Oxford – Leamington, and Carlisleto Newcastle. The results are shown in Table 6.6.

It should be noted that the results presented in thetable assume that System D is installed throughout themodelled route section, and that the performancebenefit is taken totally as reliability gain.

6.4.2 Conclusions for Implementation Planning

Given the broad range of representative routesconsidered, the general consistency of the results inshowing significant levels of performance benefit giveconfidence in the potential of ERTMS to deliverperformance enhancement. In particular, the reliabilitybenefit can be gained early by fitment at particularinfrastructure pinch-points or on challenging sub-routes. This is in contrast to taking the benefit as capacity, which requires a whole section of route tobe fitted, e.g. London to Reading.

For System D, the results of this recent work justify a20% gain in reliability (compared with 10% assumedin the business case last year), which is the assumption

underpinning the current business case. For System C,some additional work has been undertaken, and thisconfirms its neutral effect on performance.

A summary of the current assumptions used in thebusiness case is set out in Table 6.7. The values in thetable apply when all trains are fitted.

6.5 IMPACT OF GSM-R DATATRANSMISSION ON PERFORMANCE

Further work has been done over the last twelvemonths to model the relationship between thecharacteristics of the GSM-R radio network and trainoperations. Two existing models of radio operationsand train operations have been expanded and linked.Models have been created to represent the rail andradio networks around Reading Station, LiverpoolStreet Station and Clapham Junction.

6.5.1 Analysis of Message Transmission Latency

Message transmission latency is the time taken for amessage to travel from the trackside ERTMS computerand to be received by the train-borne ERTMScomputer, and vice-versa. For example, a new‘Movement Authority’ message, which if delayed ingetting to the train may require the train to brake andtherefore impact on performance.

TABLE 6.7 BUSINESS CASERELIABILITY ASSUMPTIONS

SYSTEM TYPE RELIABILITY(reduction in delay-minutes)

B -6% (worse)

C 0%

D 20% (better)

E As System D

59

TABLE 6.8 TRANSMISSION LATENCY IMPACT FOR SNR OF AT LEAST 12

TRANSMISSION LATENCY (SECONDS)

MESSAGE TYPE MINIMUM 50TH 95TH 99TH PERCENTILE PERCENTILE PERCENTILE

Movement Authority 4 4 7 9

Acknowledgement 3 3 6 8

Station Logon 28 31 36 40

RBC Logoff 14 15 20 23

RBC Logon 19 21 24 27

The key factor for message transmission latency is thesignal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the GSM-R radio basestation currently being used by the train. As withnormal hand-held mobiles, the train will connect toseveral base stations as it progresses through its route.SNR is the ratio between the signal strength and theinterference, and indicates the likely amount of error inthe transmission, which leads to re-transmission of themessage. Table 6.8 shows the results of modelling agood SNR (12 or more) on the transmission latency ofvarious ERTMS message types, and provides apredictable range of times

As the quality of signal reduces (lower SNR), this cancause the transmission of some messages to beterminated – referred to as ‘lost messages’, and has asignificant impact on transmission latency. Table 6.9illustrates the impact of a poor, or reducing SNR onthe transmission latency for a ‘Movement Authority’message type. As the SNR drops below 11, anincreasing percentage of messages are lost. This doesnot affect safety since ERTMS is fail-safe if a messagegets lost, however, it does impact on system andoperational performance as a ‘Movement Authority’may not be received until after the train has started tobrake or comes to an unnecessary halt.

Network Rail’s design criterion is for a minimum SNRof 16. The radio modelling, referred to earlier, hasindicated that there are only limited locations withinthe sample areas where the SNR drops below 12, forexample in a cutting outside Reading.

6.5.2 Cell CapacityThe Year 1 Progress Report highlighted thatperformance requirements at busy junctions needed to be investigated further, specifically the capacity ofavailable GSM-R channels.

Further modelling of demand on individual GSM-Rcells has revealed that the process is more complex thanpreviously envisaged. For example, around ClaphamJunction there are locations where up to six basestations are able to provide the radio link. The basestation with the strongest signal is selected unless thereare no channels available, in which case the secondstrongest cell is selected. This process is repeated untilthe weakest cell is found to have no capacity and thecall cannot be made.

For Liverpool Street and Clapham Junction there areother routes and tracks outside of the modelling area,which will place demand on the cells within the

60

modelled area. These may or may not be allocated toother cells wholly outside the modelled area if the cellswithin the modelled are at capacity. This problem doesnot occur at Reading, and the results to date indicatethat cell capacity is not a problem at that location. For Liverpool Street and Clapham Junction furtheranalysis is required to confirm that, where multiple cellscover one location, there is sufficient capacity over awider area for all the routes and trains within that area.

The analysis has included an allowance for voice traffic(both operations and maintenance) based oninformation on current usage. There is no allowance forgrowth in voice traffic as the result of potentially greateravailability of radio communications with GSM-R.

In conclusion, this has provided increased confidencethat a solution using the current ERTMS specificationis viable, provided that the level of voice traffic usingthe same GSM-R network can be contained andsufficient reliability of base stations can be achieved.

6.6 RISK ANALYSISRisks to the implementation programme have beenidentified and analysed in a programme register sincethe EPT Final Report. As a result of the additionalproject technical and commercial knowledge obtainedover the past year, this register has been updated and aCambrian EDS project-specific risk register has alsobeen produced, which supports the Cambrian EDSbusiness case.

TABLE 6.9 TRANSMISSION LATENCY IMPACT OF POOR/REDUCING SNR

MOVEMENT AUTHORITY TRANSMISSION LATENCY (SECONDS)

SNR VALUE MINIMUM 50TH 95TH 99TH PERCENTAGEPERCENTILE PERCENTILE PERCENTILE ‘LOST

MESSAGES’

SNR 12 4 4 7 9 0%

SNR 11 4 4 8 11 0%

SNR 10 4 5 11 3%

SNR 9 4 7 9%

SNR 8 4 9 - - 20%

SNR 7 4 13 38%

SNR 5 4 82%

Message receipt not guaranteed

61

The key external dependencies impacting the ERTMSprogramme are summarised below. Most of thesedependencies are also modelled as programme risks andare reflected in the business case. For thosedependencies that are not included in the financialmodel this is identified.

European influences – such as changes in theEuropean Policy or European specifications, andmajor successes or delays to one or more Europeanprojects;Short to long term changes of the UK railwayindustry environment – such as changes in the UKGovernment Transport Policy, institutionalinstability, pressure from external bodies, andsupply industry consolidation (not modelled);Availability of funding from and to the SRA; External programmes – such as the timely deliveryof the national GSM-R project, the signallingtechnology strategy, and synchronisation with thesignalling renewals programme;Safety-related and approval risks affecting theoperations of ERTMS – such as changes in prioritydue to the occurrence of an ATP-preventableincident (not modelled) and implementation of theCoCoSig Interoperability Authorisation process;Lack of product maturity;Unproven technical system integration andmanagement;Unproven operational functionality;Unproven system reliability;Uncertainty over the migration path to System D; andResource risks – ERTMS represents a substantialbody of work over and above that already plannedby the Rail Industry.

The risk evaluation also identified key factors affectingthe business case and, more specifically, the benefits:

Reliability assumptions;Road de-congestion – the benefits are closelyrelated to the assumption made regarding thetransfer from road to rail; andGrowth assumption – the project’s benefits are verysensitive to the assumed background growth indemand for rail travel.

62

7.1 BACKGROUND‘First Implementation’ will be the next deploymentafter the Cambrian EDS. Last year, for planningpurposes, the first implementation was assumed to beon the North Wales Coast. This was on the basis thatthat the WCRM Train Control System (TCS) wouldseparately demonstrate operation of System C (Level 2with line-side signals retained). However, the deletionof the TCS scope from the WCRM programme, led tothe inclusion of ERTMS fitment on the WCML aspart of scope of the ERTMS implementation planning,and also the need to review the suitability of NorthWales Coast as the first implementation.

This year, work has focused on identification ofsuitable options for the first implementation, whichwill be subject to SRA business case appraisal and thento project definition work on a single option. This chapter describes the process followed to identifya short-list of two options for first implementation.

7.2 OBJECTIVES The objectives and principles of the FirstImplementation project are set out below:

Objectives:Support provision of ATP on high speed lines and trains;Contribute to the earliest possible positive businesscase for the route, and support the nationalimplementation business case; andEnable subsequent implementation to progress withminimal further development.

Principles:Fill in train protection gaps, and build on existingand planned TPWS and ATP deployment;Focus on delivery of a high speed (greater than 100 mph) line or a branch off it by 2010;Part of the ERTMS strategy for a route;Prove System D functionality and performance;Increase trainborne reliability by removingunreliable protection systems;Avoid disruption to the railway; andDeliver as far as possible the residual TOCMISCIobjectives following the Cambrian EDS.

The first implementation will be in a more challengingenvironment than the Cambrian EDS, including highspeed operation, and will require fitment and reliableoperation on a greater number and different types of trains.

Clearly, the selected scheme must provide a balancebetween being busy and complex enough todemonstrate real benefits, but not so as to createsignificant operational risk to the rail network.

7.3 IDENTIFICATION PROCESSThe ERTMS PDG created a Steering Group for theFirst Implementation project, with members drawnfrom across the rail industry, to oversee theidentification process, facilitated on their behalf by theSRA programme team (NEP). On recommendationfrom the Steering Group, the PDG agreed theobjectives, key principles and selection criteriapresented in section 7.2.

07/FIRST IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT

TABLE 7.1 SHORTLIST OF FIRST IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS

SYSTEM C SYSTEM D

ECML Grantham to Doncaster Doncaster to Hull

MML Wellingborough to Leicester Wellingborough to Leicester

WCML North Wales Coast

63

The objectives, principles and criteria were applied tothe UK’s six high speed lines and related branches.Thirty potential sites were analysed and a provisionalshortlist of eight schemes were identified. The SteeringGroup endorsed this initial analysis and refined theshort-list to four sites (five options) for further analysis,as set out in Table 7.1.

7.4 OVERVIEW OF OPTIONS

7.4.1 North Wales Coast: Chester to Holyhead

North Wales Coast is proposed as a System D on re-signalling, with a minimal amount of System C atthe transition points and to aid fitted vehicle testing.Arriva Trains Wales (ATW) Class 175s will be fitted, as well as all Virgin Trains’ fleet of high speed Class221s (or other vehicles if used for this service), and asufficient number of freight locos from EWS and otherFOCs to manage the current freight services. ATW Class 158s may already have been fitted by theCambrian EDS project. (See Figure 7.1)

7.4.2 East Coast Mainline: Grantham to Doncaster

Grantham to Doncaster is proposed as a System Coverlay on existing RRI signalling, with no migrationto System D until after re-signalling (around 2019).Only high speed (greater than 100 mph) passengertrains with a life beyond 2020 will be fitted and nofreight trains will be fitted. There will be noopportunity for System D trials at night with thisoption. (See Figure 7.2)

Doncaster

Retford

Grantham

Doncaster

Peterborough

Newark

to Lincoln

to Sleaford

Loversall CarrJunction

Barkston Junction

NewarkCrossing

AllingtonJunction

System C from BarkstonJunction to Loversall CarrJunction• 68 route km•139 track km• 135 signals

Remainder of Doncaster Areais resignalled as system D toERTMS in 2020 as part of National Implementation(current planning assumption)

Existing Signal Control Area boundary

Proposed FIS

FIGURE 7.2 EAST COAST MAINLINE(ECML): GRANTHAM TO DONCASTER

Existing Signal Control Area boundary

Proposed FIS

Holyhead Amlwch

LlandudnoTown

BlaenauFfestiniog

to Wrexham

Bangor Colwyn Bay ChesterSaltney Junction

MoldJunction

Chester PSB

Gaerwen Junction

Llandudno Junction

System D from Saltney Junction to Holyhead, Llandudno Town and Blaenau Ffestiniog• 182 route km• 319 track km• 288 signals

• Rockcliffe Hall• Holywell Junction• Mostyn• Talacre

• Prestatyn• Rhyl• Abergele• Llandudno Junction

• Penmaenmawr• Bangor• Gaerwen Valley• Holyhead

• Llandudno• Deganwy• Llanrwst

Consolidates existing boxes at:

FIGURE 7.1 NORTH WALES COAST:CHESTER TO HOLYHEAD

64

7.4.4 Midland Mainline: Wellingborough to Leicester (System C)

Wellingborough to Leicester is proposed as a System Con interlocking renewal that will provide a migrationpath to System D. Only those high speed passengertrains with a service life beyond 2020 will be fitted.No freight trains will be fitted as part of this option.(See Figure 7.4)

System D from Goole (excl), Selby and Strensall to Hull and Scarborough• 228 route km• 423 track km• 355 signals

• Goole Bridge• Saltmarshe• Selby West• Gilberdyke Jn• Broomfleet

• Crabley Creek• Brough East• Melton Lane• Hessle Road Jn• Hull Paragon

• Beverley Station• Driffield• Bridlington• Falsgrave• Seamer

• Weaverthorpe• Malton• Kirkham Abbey• Barton Hill• Strensall

Consolidates existing boxes at:

Existing Signal Control Area boundary

Proposed FIS

York

to Leeds

ECML

Doncaster

Scarborough

Seamer West

Malton

HambletonJunction

Temple HirstJunction

GilberdykeJunction

HullParagon

StrensallYorkIECC

YorkIECC

Selby

Saltmarshe

Goole

Anlaby RdJunction

Selby Brough

to Doncaster

to Wakefield

Bridlington

Driffield

Goole

FIGURE 7.3 ECML FEEDER ROUTE:DONCASTER TO HULL

System C from SharnbrookJunction to Wigston Junction• 68 route km• 142 track km• 143 signals

Remainder of Leicester Area is migrated to System D in 2011 as part of National Implementation (current planning assumption)

Existing Signal Control Area boundary

Proposed FIS

Loughborough

Leicester

Kettering

Wellingborough

MarketHarborough

to Peterborough

to Nuneaton

SharnbrookJunction

HarrowdenJunction

WigstonJunction

SystonJunction

Melton Mobray

Oakham

Kettering NorthJunction

Wymington Diversion

Leicester SC

West Hampstead PSB

Trent PSB

Leicester SC

FIGURE 7.4 MIDLAND MAINLINE:WELLINGBOROUGH TO LEICESTER(SYSTEM C)

7.4.3 East Coast Mainline Feeder Route:Doncaster to Hull

Doncaster to Hull is proposed as a System D on re-signalling, with a minimal amount of System C atthe transitions and to aid fitted vehicle testing. TransPennine Express (TPE) and Arriva TrainsNorthern (ATN) fleets of non high speed Trains will befitted, as well as all Hull Trains fleet of high speed Class223s, some of GNER’s Class 43, and a sufficientnumber of freight locos from EWS and other FOCs tomanage the current freight services. (See Figure 7.3)

65

7.4.5 Midland Mainline: Wellingborough to Leicester (System D)

Wellingborough to Leicester is proposed as a System Dwith a minimal amount of System C at the transitionsand to aid fitted vehicle testing. Midland Mainline(MML) Class 222 and Class 43 high speed passengertrains will be fitted, and a sufficient number of freightlocos from EWS and other FOCs to manage thecurrent freight services. (See Figure 7.5)

7.5 NEXT STEPSOnce industry consensus has been achieved on twooptions, they will then be taken forward for SRAbusiness case appraisal. This appraisal will includecost-benefit analysis, consideration of regulatory issues,and alignment with re-signalling plans, vehiclereplacement, and franchise renewals. It will be carried out in conjunction with the implementationplanning and the development of the implementationbusiness case.

To support this appraisal and to demonstrate that theselected options are feasible, it will be necessary todevelop the scope and implementation plans, includingmigration and testing strategies, for the selected optionsas part of the initial definition phase of the project.

System D from SharnbrookJunction to Harrowden Junction• 22 route km• 42 track km• 52 signals

Remainder of Leicester Area is migrated to System D in 2011 as part of National Implementation (current planning assumption)

Existing Signal Control Area boundary

Proposed FIS

Loughborough

Leicester

Kettering

Wellingborough

MarketHarborough

to Peterborough

to Nuneaton

SharnbrookJunction

HarrowdenJunction

WigstonJunction

SystonJunction

Melton Mobray

Oakham

Kettering NorthJunction

Wymington Diversion

Leicester SC

West Hampstead PSB

Trent PSB

Leicester SC

FIGURE 7.5 MIDLAND MAINLINE:WELLINGBOROUGH TO LEICESTER(SYSTEM D)

66

8.1 THE YEAR AHEADThe past twelve months has seen a significant shifttowards the delivery of projects by the industry, whichwill continue in the year ahead. To maintain progressagainst the development plan, and to continue theongoing development of the strategy and business casefor the implementation phase, the following work isplanned in the coming year.

Cambrian EDS ProjectThe feasibility stage is due to be completed thissummer. This will include a detailed review of theproject scope to ensure that the objectives of theCambrian scheme are aligned. Key areas of progress by Network Rail, Arriva and EWS planned in the next year to March 2005 include:

Finalising arrangements for integration;Appointment of ERTMS suppliers for tracksideand train fitment; Engagement of Notified Bodies; Issue of first versions of specifications foroperational design and signalling principles; and Completion of detailed development work, tosupport award of implementation contracts.

European ERTMS ProgrammeProgress is expected with:

Practical feedback into the UK programme fromthe experience of several Level 2 implementationprojects, which are forecasting operation incommercial service by the end of 2005;Further confidence in ERTMS Level 2interoperability through completion of cross-exchange testing between suppliers; andCompletion of technical working groups, such asthe Operating Rules working group which willinput to revisions to the TSIs.

Test and Trials ProjectThe ERTMS Test Facilities (ETF) OJEU processcurrently underway will be completed, andimplementation of the solution will have commenced,subject to justification.

Implementation Planning The following will be undertaken:

Further development of the options for thesequencing of ERTMS implementation on thetrack and train; Alignment with the outcome of the ORR-ledreview of the re-signalling programme; andTarget cost engineering of train fitment with thepurpose of reducing unit costs and increasing theease of fitment.

First Implementation Project The initial definition stage should be completed for the selected option, in line with further progress onimplementation planning.

National ERTMS Programme Team (NEP)The SRA has already initiated an open procurementfor a programme management contractor to continue with programme development and project co-ordination for the next four and a half years. This process will ensure that value for money isobtained, and is expected to be completed in June2004, with new contractual arrangements in place.

8.2 CLOSING REMARKSThe ERTMS UK ‘development plan’ (comprising thethree main strands of development of signallingprinciples and operating rules, undertaking an EarlyDeployment Scheme, and engaging with the EuropeanERTMS programme) is funded and is on schedule.

There is also a defined process for planning the timingand extent of further implementation beyond theCambrian EDS.

An update against this plan will be given in the nextprogress report, to be delivered in twelve months time,under the direction of the SRA and NEP.

08/THE YEAR AHEAD

67

APPENDICES

68

APPENDIX 1/GLOSSARY

TERM DESCRIPTION

Acceptance The status given to any product by the requisite Authority when the product has

fulfilled a set of predetermined conditions

AEIF European Association for Railway Interoperability

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable – a concept relating to the reduction of overall

system risk to a level that can be justified as being acceptable

Application The process of applying a generic system (or generic design) to a particular geographic

location. Covers both early deployments (applications undertaken during the

development stage of the ERTMS Programme) and applications during the roll-out

phase of the ERTMS Programme

ASLEF Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen

ATOC Association of Train Operating Companies

ATP Automatic Train Protection

ATW Arriva Trains Wales

Availability The ability of a product (or system) to be in a state to perform a required function

under given conditions at a given instant of time or over a given time interval assuming

that the required external resources are provided

AWS Automatic Warning System

BR-ATP UK ATP systems – SELCAB system on Chiltern and TBL systems on Great Western

Cab Signalling An alternative to line-side signalling whereby the train is driven according to

information presented to the driver on the in-cab display

Capacity Number of train paths on given route(s) or route section(s) per hour

CAPEX Capital Expenditure

CCB/P Change Control Board/Panel

CEDEX An organisation funded by the Spanish government to undertake development and

research of Spanish civil projects, particularly civil engineering, dams and roads.

Recently includes a railway group incorporating approximately twenty staff for the

ERTMS and Interoperability Lab

CER Community of European Railways

CoCoSig TSI Control-Command and Signalling TSI

CSD Circuit Switched Data

69

TERM DESCRIPTION

CSM Common Safety Methods

CST Common Safety Targets

CTRL Channel Tunnel Rail Link (London – Folkestone)

Declaration of Conformity A declaration produced by a Notified Body that an Interoperability Constituent, in

isolation, conforms to the relevant TSIs, or that a Interoperability Constituent is

suitable for use within its railway environment, in relation to the relevant TSIs

Declaration of Verification A declaration by a Notified Body that a Subsystem complies with the EC Directive on

Interoperability and with other regulations deriving from the Directive (that is the TSIs

and the Class 1 Specifications)

DfT Department for Transport

DMI Driver Machine Interface

DRACAS Data Defect Recording and Corrective Action System

Duty Holder A member of the UK rail industry who holds an Operating Safety Case. In the case of

ERTMS, this includes Network Rail, TOCs, FOCs, open access operators, contractors

who operate vehicles on the UK rail network and station operators

EC European Commission

EC Conventional Lines The lines specified in EC Directive 2001/16/EC for Conventional Interoperability

EC High Speed Lines The lines specified in EC Directive 96/48/EC for High Speed Interoperability

ECML East Coast Main Line (London – Edinburgh)

EDS Early Deployment Schemes – Pilots and trial implementation of ERTMS variants

EEIG European Economic Interest Group

EPB ERTMS National Implementation Programme Board

EPT ERTMS Programme Team – the predecessor to the National ERTMS Programme

(NEP)

ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management System as defined in EC Decision 2001/260.

The EC definition comprises ETCS and GSM-R.

ERTMS Assemblies Trackside ERTMS assemblies and onboard ERTMS assemblies

Essential Requirements The conditions set out in Annex III of the EC Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC,

which must be met by the trans-European high speed and conventional rail system,

subsystems and their interoperability constituents

70

TERM DESCRIPTION

ETCS European Train Control System – the control/command and signalling element of

ERTMS

ETML European rail Traffic Management Layer

EU European Union

FGW First Great Western

FOC Freight Operating Company

FRS Functional Requirements Specification – the chosen functions that ERTMS is required

to perform

GNER Great North Eastern Railway

GPRS General Packet Radio Service

GRIP Guide to Railway Investment Projects

GSM-R Global System for Mobile communications – Railways – the radio and

telecommunications element of ERTMS

GWML Great Western Main Line (London – Bristol – South Wales/West of England)

Hazard A condition which can lead to an accident

High Speed Line Any line on a high speed route where the line speed is greater than 100 mph

High Speed Route The following routes on the UK rail network:

- Great Western Main Line (GWML)

- East Coast Main Line (ECML)

- West Coast Main Line (WCML)

- Midland Main Line (MML)

- Berks and Hants (Eastern end of the West of England route)

- Derby – Birmingham – Oxford (mid-section of CrossCountry and

Northern end of Chiltern)

HMRI Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate

HSC Health and Safety Commission

HSE Health and Safety Executive

Implementation Trackside application, vehicle fitment and adoption of complementary signalling

principles and operational rules

71

TERM DESCRIPTION

Interoperability The ability of the trans-European rail system to allow the safe and uninterrupted

movement of trains, at the required level of performance. This includes all the

regulatory, technical and operational conditions

Interoperability Constituent Any elementary component, group of components, subassembly or complete assembly

of equipment incorporated or intended to be incorporated into a subsystem, upon

which the interoperability of the trans-European high speed rail system depends either

directly or indirectly

Joint Inquiry Report The report from the joint inquiry into train protection systems, chaired by Professor

Uff and Lord Cullen, following the accidents at Southall in 1997 and Ladbroke Grove

in 1999

Migration A change of system or operation incurred as part of an implementation

MML Midland Main Line (London – Derby – Nottingham – Sheffield)

National Standard A standard notified to the EC by the relevant Member State.

NEP National ERTMS Programme – an SRA Programme team, with cross-industry

representation whose role is to define an integrated and efficient approach to the

implementation and operation of ERTMS on the UK railway

NIFT Non-Invasive Field Trials

NoBo Notified Body – an organisation notified by a Member State (the SRA in the UK)

to the EC as being competent to certify compliance with TSIs

NPV Net Present Value – an evaluation of cost based on evaluating money spent in

the future

NR Network Rail

OGC Office of Government Commerce

OJEU Official Journal of the European Union – the place where utilities and government

bodies have to advertise projects above a certain defined value to seek expressions of

interest for participation

Onboard ERTMS Assembly The complete installation of ERTMS kit on a vehicle, including interfaces to other

onboard technology

Operational Performance The total number of delay-minutes accrued by train services due to specific incidents

occurring on the UK rail network

ORR Office of the Rail Regulator

72

TERM DESCRIPTION

PDG Programme Development Group

Possession A temporary closure to normal rail traffic of a section of the line to give safe access to

the railway for engineering works

RAMS Reliability Availability Maintainability Safety

RBC Radio Block Centre

Reliability The probability that an item can perform a required function under given conditions

for a given time interval

Reliability Growth A condition characterised by a progressive improvement of a reliability performance

measure of an item with time

RETB Radio Electronic Token Block – a method of signalling trains which uses radio to

transmit fixed text message instructions to train drivers. The signalling system operator

and the driver use procedures that support communication of safety critical data using

voice radio

RGS Railway Group Standards

RIA Railway Industry Association

RIASIG UK based ERTMS suppliers comprising: Alcatel SEL, Alstom, Bombardier, Invensys

Rail, Ansaldo and Siemens

RMT National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers

ROSCO Rolling Stock Leasing Company. Generally applied to the three leasing companies set

up at privatisation. Note that not all rolling stock is owned by one of the three

ROSCOs

ROTS Railways and Other Transport Systems

RPI Retail Price Index

RSAB Rolling Stock Acceptance Board. – a Railtrack committee with the responsibility to

ensure that any rolling stock introduced onto the Railtrack network does not introduce

additional risk

RSSB Rail Safety and Standards Board

Safety Case A formal presentation of evidence, arguments and assumptions aimed at providing

assurance that a system, product or other change to the railway has met its safety

requirements and that the safety requirements are adequate

SBB Swiss Federal Railways

SMG Strategic Management Group

73

TERM DESCRIPTION

SNCF French National Railways

SPAD Signal Passed At Danger

SRP System Review Panel

SRA Strategic Rail Authority

SRS System Requirement Specification

STM Specific Transmission Module

Sub-system Structural or functional elements of the trans-European rail network, for which

essential requirements are laid down by the EC Directives.

Structural sub-systems are Infrastructures, Energy, Control and Command and

Signalling and Rolling stock. Operational Sub-systems are Maintenance,

Environment, Operation and Users

TCS Train Control System

Technical Construction File A record produced in support of an application for the acceptance of a Subsystem by

a Notified Body

TEN EU Trans-European Network defined in EC Directive 96/1692/EC – Development

of the trans-European transport network

TOC Train Operating Company

TPWS Train Protection and Warning System

TPWS+ TPWS with additional over-speed sensor

TPWS-E TPWS with Euro-balise

Trackside ERTMS Assembly The complete installation of ERTMS kit on a section of track, including interfaces to

other trackside technology

TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability – the specifications by which each

sub-system is covered in order to meet the essential requirements by establishing the

necessary reciprocal functional relations between the sub-systems of the trans-European

high speed and conventional rail system and by ensuring the latter compatibility

UIC International Union of Railways

UNISIG An association of signalling manufacturers comprising: Alcatel SEL, Alstom, Ansaldo

Signal, Bombardier, Invensys Rail and Siemens

74

TERM DESCRIPTION

LEVEL DESCRIPTION

Validation Methods and techniques intended to enable confidence to be reached in a system’s

ability to deliver a service complying with the specification. Fault removal and fault

forecasting. Showing that a system or computer program satisfies its requirement

Verification The process of determination by analysis and test that the output of each phase of the

lifecycle fulfils the requirements of the previous phase

V, V&I Verification, Validation and Integration

WCML West Coast Main Line (London – West Midlands – NW England – Glasgow)

Level 1 Movement authority from existing line-side signal passed to train via switched balise.

Train detection systems are maintained

Level 2 Movement authority from Radio Block Centre passed to train. Existing train detection

systems are maintained

Level 3 Builds on Level 2, adding the responsibility of the train to provide safety critical

position data and thus facilitate a substantial reduction in trackside train detection

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

System A Level 1 ERTMS System with no infill. Significant capacity loss due to severely limited

frequency of train update

System B Level 1 ERTMS System with single infill. Similar capacity loss as System A

System C Level 2 ERTMS System with retained line-side signals. Largely neutral effect

on capacity

System D Level 2 ERTMS System with line-side signals removed or minimised (cab signalling).

Offers potential for significant capacity increase

System E Level 2 ERTMS System designed for low density applications with much reduced

trackside infrastructure, for use on regional lines with low frequency services

75NOTES

76 NOTES

Disclaimer

Nothing in this report is meant to imply any change in the

responsibilities of Duty Holders. The report is issued for

information only and no reliance should be placed on any of

its contents. No criticism of any party is intended or implied

by any comments made.

For more information contact:ERTMS Programme DirectorStrategic Rail Authority12 St James's SquareLONDONSW1Y 4RB

Tel: +44 (0)20 7153 5787Email: derek.chapman@ept.uk.com