4 ERTMS – ON TRACK FOR SUCCESS PART 3: ERTMS


countries. When the different national STMs are added, they will by definition be subject to national requirements and national approvals. A Swedish vehicle may first be equipped with ERTMS and STM for operation in Sweden. For operation in Denmark, a Danish STM is added and the vehicle then requires Danish approval. After adding the Danish STM the vehicle is no longer identical to what originally was approved in Sweden. The vehicle will then have to have a


In 2010, ERA listed 42 lines with ERTMS projects3 with a multitude of versions, change


requests and national functions. Sweden is currently installing SRS 2.3.0d (with an addition of Nordic functions to handle level crossings). This will complicate matters making Denmark develop an STM for 2.3.0d to enable Swedish vehicles to operate in Denmark. Later on when ERTMS roll out starts in Denmark with baseline 3, the Danish STM must be upgraded to fit vehicles


when introducing the new traffic management system. In the long run, ERTMS may give cost advantages over continuing with the old legacy systems. But so far the author has only seen one such investigation and that is for Denmark. The infrastructure managers now plan for


ERTMS on the northern part of Corridor B. For rail customers in the area it will not give any new benefits. If deployment of ERTMS in the infrastructure is not handled with high quality


An X2000 from Stockholm to Copenhagen changing from Swedish legacy system ATC to Danish ZUB in full speed (200km/h)


new Swedish approval. The situation is complicated but will be even more complex with a freight locomotive requiring approvals for Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and German STMs. And that is just for keeping the same functionality as it has today. In some cases introduction of ERTMS


actually reduces the interoperability. Sweden and Norway now use basically the same legacy system enabling compatibility across the national border. The Swedish locomotives and EMUs that so far have been equipped with ERTMS and Swedish STM (at present not the independent STM but an integrated one) can no longer enter Norway. They do not have the Norwegian approval and the Norwegian STM is not ready, thus the interoperability decreases. ERTMS also decreases the intraoperability within a country. Access to the Botnia line is not possible with vehicles equipped with the legacy Swedish ATC system. The conclusion is that ERTMS creates new borders for railway traffic and over a long time ahead, not necessarily national borders but borders depending on ERTMS installations and different versions of ERTMS.


European Railway Review Volume 17, Issue 6, 2011


with the corresponding version. Every upgrade in ERTMS version will require a new approval before it can be taken into operation. Whether the Swedish vehicles will also have to be upgraded to baseline 3 is an open question. It is clear that changing versions in ERTMS


installations will not be national questions but rather be involving the entire EU or at least major regions where interoperability is expected. The issue will be whether all operators and infrastructure holders follow the same versions for ensuring interoperability. If not, the long desired interoperability will be lost.


Finding a business case The operators can find business cases when accessing new built lines equipped with ERTMS. It is then possible to evaluate new revenues and compare them to costs and technical risks. This is the case with the new Botnia line and it will be the case when the Fehmarn link gives a new connection between Denmark and Germany. The situation is different for existing lines. These lines will not be generating any new revenues for operators when ERTMS is installed. However, there will be costs and technical risks for the operators


and giving the operators sufficient time to prepare, it may turn to a negative business case – losing customers who will use air and road transport instead of rail. So whatever we plan, and when we


do introduce ERTMS in the production system, we must maintain the interoperability we already have – without increasing costs for the final customers.


References


1. Ref SRS 2.3.0d and EU Commission Consultation document, ERTMS – state of play, next challenges and way forward 7 January 2010 ref 08/57 – DV 17 EN01, RISC55


2. Ref ERA ERTMS Certification Report 20110329-V09 conference version


3. Biennial Report on the Progress with Railway Interoperability in the European Union, TR-30-09-205- EN-C


Justus Stern holds a M. Sc. in Industrial & Business Engineering and works with ERTMS strategies at SJ AB, the largest operator for pass - enger traffic in Sweden. Mr. Stern is also a member of


the joint steering committee for ERTMS deployment in Sweden.


Copyright: SJ AB Photographer: Stefan Nilsson


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8