ECONOMIC EVALUATION UNIT FINAL REPORT TSI … ECONOMIC EVALUATION UNIT 140514 ERA-EE- Report CCS TSI...

ERA ECONOMIC EVALUATION UNIT

140514 ERA-EE- Report CCS TSI - Scope extension - v4 7 PAGE 1/78

ECONOMIC EVALUATION UNIT

FINAL REPORT

TSI CCS SCOPE EXTENSION

Reference: Visibility: Extranet

Version: 4.7

Date: 14/05/2014

Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

Name Wouter MALFAIT Angelo CHIAPPINI

Torben HOLVAD

Pio GUIDO

Position Project Officer Project Officers Head of Units

Date

&

Signat.



AMENDMENT RECORD

Version Date Section number

Modification/description Author

1.0 24.04.2012 All First issue Wouter Malfait

1.1 31.05.2012 All Comments AC, HB Wouter Malfait

1.2 01.06.2012 All Comments from ERA-meeting Wouter Malfait

2.0 04.10.2012 All Update with paragraphs 7.3 and Annex 5 (migration) and conclusions in paragraph 7.4

Wouter Malfait

2.1 15/10/2012 All Integration of comments from AC Wouter Malfait

2.2 16/10/2012 7.2.1.3 Trackside systems – ETCS L2 & L3 Wouter Malfait

2.3 30/10/2012 Section 1 & annex 10.4 & 10.5

Delete annex 10.4 & 10.5 (migration models > shifted to separate document) and add executive summary

Wouter Malfait

2.4 21/11/2012 Section 1 & 8.4 Modify 2nd

alinea of provisions within chapter 7

Wouter Malfait

2.5 30/11/2012 All Comments from AM Wouter Malfait

3.0 16/01/2013 Section 1, 8.1.5, 8.3

- Executive summary (1520,

- Executive summary (new structure in chapter 7 / main comment UNISIG)

- new section 8.1.5 (related to 1520)

- section 8.3 (migration costs / main comments CER)

Wouter Malfait

3.1 25/01/2013 All - Executive summary (compensation scheme / comment CER)

- Comments from AC

Wouter Malfait

3.2 30/01/2013 Executive Summary

- Add chapter 1 and chapter 7 with track changes

Wouter Malfait


- Chapter 7 (editorial) Wouter Malfait


- Chapter 7 (change of existing vehicles running on high-speed network by existing high-speed vehicles)

Wouter Malfait


- Delete legal text from Executive Summary

Wouter Malfait


- Proposal without additional requirement on lines outside the European deployment plan

Wouter Malfait

4.6 30/04/2014 All - Comments from CER Position Paper +Comments EC

Wouter Malfait

4.7 14/05/2014 All - Comments EC Torben Holvad



CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 5

2 REFERENCE, TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................... 9

2.1 Reference .............................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Units ...................................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Definitions and abbreviations ............................................................................................. 9

3 INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT ................................................................................................. 11

4 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 14

5 DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................. 19

6 DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS .................................................................................. 20

6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 20

6.2 Option 0: baseline scenario ............................................................................................... 20

6.3 Option 1: evolutionary approach: scope extension to OFF-TEN-T without strict

migration requirements ............................................................................................................... 22

6.4 Option 2: revolutionary approach: scope extension to OFF-TEN-T with strict

migration requirement ................................................................................................................ 23

7 ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS: ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ...................................................... 24

7.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 24

7.2 Analysis of option 0: baseline scenario ............................................................................ 24

7.3 Impact of option 1: scope extension to OFF-TEN-T without strict migration

requirements ................................................................................................................................ 25

7.3.1 Qualitative analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 25 7.3.2 Cost impacts - Quantitative analysis ........................................................................................................... 28 7.3.3 Stakeholders’ opinion .................................................................................................................................. 36

7.4 Impact of option 2: scope extension to OFF-TEN-T with strict migration

requirements ................................................................................................................................ 37

7.4.2 Overview of stakeholders’ opinions on option 2 - migration requirements ................................................. 37

8 STAKEHOLDERS OPINIONS .................................................................................................. 39

8.1 Processes ............................................................................................................................. 39

8.2 Overview of questionnaire ................................................................................................ 39

8.2.1 introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 39 8.2.2 Overview of stakeholders’ opinions on option 1 ......................................................................................... 39 8.2.3 Overview of stakeholders’ opinions on option 2 - migration requirements ................................................. 41

8.3 Overview of internal consultation process ...................................................................... 44

8.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 44



8.3.2 results from consultation process related to scope extension ...................................................................... 44

8.4 Overview of workshops ..................................................................................................... 45

8.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 45 8.4.2 Stakeholders’ remaining comments on Scope extension ............................................................................. 45

9 CONCLUSION: COMPARISON OF OPTIONS & PREFERRED POLICY OPTION ..... 48

9.1 Effectiveness & efficiency of the policy options .............................................................. 48

9.2 Preferred policy option ...................................................................................................... 48

10 MONITORING ............................................................................................................................ 49

11 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................... 50

11.1 Annex 1: List of Class B-systems on TEN-network .................................................... 50

11.2 Annex 2: Infrastructure data (TEN and off-TEN Network)...................................... 52

11.3 Annex 3: Voluntary extension of TSI ........................................................................... 53

11.4 Annex 4: Rolling stock data (TEN and off-TEN Network) ........................................ 56

11.5 Annex 5: Functional analysis & Member States’ view ............................................... 57

11.5.1 Signalling systems ....................................................................................................................................... 57 11.5.2 Radio communication systems .................................................................................................................... 58 11.5.3 Train detection systems ............................................................................................................................... 58 11.5.4 Findings related to scope extension ............................................................................................................. 59

11.6 Annex 6: Rolling stock model ....................................................................................... 60

11.7 Annex 7: Qualitative Analysis of migration ................................................................ 77



1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1.1.1 ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) creates a single Europe-

wide standard for train control and command signalling (CCS) systems. The two

main components of ERTMS are the European Train Control System (ETCS, a

standard for in-cab train control), and GSM-R (the GSM mobile communications

standard for railway operations). Directive 2008/57/EC aims to establish the

conditions to be met to achieve interoperability within the European Union’s rail

system. In view of this, Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) are

developed. This initiative links to the TSI related to control and command

signalling subsystems (CCS) which is currently only applicable to the TEN-T. The

current legal framework provides that new/upgraded high-speed lines and some

railway freight lines (corridors) have to be equipped with ERTMS. On other parts

of the trans-European network national systems called "class B" systemsa can

continue to exist under certain conditions. If there is a need for upgrade of “Class

B” systems, ERTMS/ETCS should be installed. The current TSI CCS is however

not applicable on the off-TEN-T.

1.1.1.2 The main problem identified is that the geographical scope of the TSI relating to

CCS is hindering a cost-effective functioning of the European Union’s railway

system by maintaining technical barriers. Technical barriers still exist today as

there are still more than 20 different CCS-systems deployed within Europe. The

current TSI related to CCS foresee a phasing-out of these legacy systems on the

TEN-T, which represents 40% of the total rail network. Around 10% of the rolling

stock never operates on TEN-T. However, on the off-TEN-T, which represents

around 60% of the network, currently this is not foreseen yet. This implies that the

legacy systems could keep on being divergent, without any prospect of

convergence in the future. The consequence is that trains running on different

networks would need to continue to be compliant with a multiple set of

specifications and have to be equipped with multiple systems. This is hindering

the internal rail market, as it is made more difficult for trains to pass (regional)

borders. Moreover, this is also hindering the development of the internal market in

rail equipment and services.

1.1.1.3 There are varying starting positions in the Member States. In several Member

States, all rolling stock at least partially operates on the TEN-T and has to be

a The Agency has listed in the technical document ‘List of CCS Class B systems’ the national legacy control-command and

signalling systems (‘Class B systems’). Those systems may still be requested on board locomotives and traction units to run

on certain lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM-R



already TSI CCS compliant in the future. This is for example the case in Austria,

Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Poland, Slovenia,

Netherlands, Sweden. Other Member States could however be more significantly

affected as they still have a part of their rolling stock which only operates on off-

TEN-T and is therefore not yet expected to be TSI CCS compliant. This mainly

concerns the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia,

Spain and the United Kingdom.

1.1.1.4 In view of the above, the general objective of this initiative is to stimulate gradual

convergence in command and control systems deployed in the European Union’s

rail system by removing technical barriers in order to increase the cost-

effectiveness of the European Union’s rail system.

1.1.1.5 In order to achieve this goal three policy options are put forward:

Option 0: baseline scenario: no extra action at EU level: no mandatory

scope extension to off-TEN-T, only voluntary migration on the off-TEN-T

Option 1: evolutionary approach: scope extension to OFF-TEN-T without

strict migration requirements

Option 2: revolutionary approach: scope extension to OFF-TEN-T with


1.1.1.6 In the baseline scenario (option 0) the main problem as identified will not

completely disappear. Although certain countries are and will be planning to fully

migrate to ERTMS and to get rid of legacy systems, for certain parts of the

railway network, the risk for RUs of further divergence still exists. There is no

guarantee of convergence towards a single EU train control system.

1.1.1.1 Option 1: Compared to the baseline, the positive impact for railway undertakings is

being protected from the risk of future changes to national legacy systems by

freezing the Class B-systems. It is difficult to compare the retrofitting costs in option

1 to future potential retrofitting costs in the baseline scenario, as costs for retrofitting

legacy systems are varying depending on the number of legacy systems needed to be

retrofitted and to the functional upgrades (changes) needed to the system. The

ERTMS retrofitting of an existing single locomotive is today rather costly, as the

costs range between 200.000 EUR and 2.5 million EUR (adding some 20-40% to

their cost). The authorisation cost of an upgraded system is an important part of the

retrofitting cost. Having 1 single EU-target will lead to less cases of retrofitting in

option 1 compared to the baseline scenario due to the avoidance of further

divergence of Class B-systems. Therefore, the impact of freezing Class B-systems

for RUs is expected to be positive.



The main impact for infrastructure managers in option 1 is not to be allowed to

upgrade the functionality of existing Class B-systems or to develop new systems,

but to use only TSI compliant CCS systems in case of necessary upgrades. The

investment costs for ETCS trackside systems will not impose any significant

additional costs compared to the baseline scenario (investment costs of upgraded

Class B-systems or newly developed systems). The Member States may also apply

a derogation process in case the “freezing of Class B-systems” would compromise

the economic viability of the rail system in a Member State. This will however

entail some administrative costs.

A long term benefit-cost ratio has been calculated taking into account the traffic

flows between TEN-T and off-TEN-T in order to verify that if ERTMS is the long

term target for TEN-T, this is also valid for the off-TEN-T. In the case of

“simple” train protection systems, long term financial benefits do not yet exceed

long term financial costs with today’s cost figures (benefit-cost ratio is only 0.37).

In the case of “complex” train protection systems, long term financial benefits do

exceed largely the long term financial costs (in 99% of the cases according to a

simulation model). In such case, the benefit-cost ratio is 7.

Therefore, in line with the results of the stakeholder’s consultation, ETCS appears

to be already a viable alternative (in the same order of magnitude) as complex

legacy systems. For simple legacy systems the life cycle costs are still lower than

for ETCS. The proposed legal framework in option 1 is to avoid future upgrades

of legacy systems, but not to limit the further installation of the listed Class B-

systems applicable on the off-TEN-T, so simple as well as complex Class B-

systems may still be installed. Upgrades of simple legacy systems are expected to

be done in case of shifting towards a higher performance level, so moving into the

category of complex legacy systems, resulting in this evolutionary approach also

being applicable for simple legacy systems. Therefore, in reality, it is to be

expected that in most cases there is a positive benefit-cost ratio.

Option 2: In option 2, a more revolutionary approach could be envisaged by

defining some strict migration requirements (as for the corridors and high-speed

lines on the TEN-T network). From the analysis of long term benefits and costs, it

could appear interesting to investigate fast migration scenarios at EU-level, at

least for some complex legacy systems. However, most of the Member States

answering to the public consultation are of the opinion that migration scenarios

should be optimised at national level. The main reasoning is that the optimal

migration scenario depends on different national parameters (such as remaining

lifetime of Class B-systems, remaining lifetime of interfaced systems such as

interlocking systems, required capacity and safety performance level). Moreover,

as the ERTMS migration scenarios are covered by other more suitable EU-



initiatives (including appropriate financial mechanisms), option 2 is not further

developed and is not retained for a detailed cost-benefit analysis including

migration costs.

1.1.1.2 Overall conclusion: It can therefore be concluded that option 1 is the preferred policy

option: the scope of the TSI related to CCS should be extended to the off-TEN-T.

This is not a revolutionary approach, but rather an evolutionary approach which aims

to stimulate convergence in CCS subsystems deployed in the EU towards ERTMS

and TSI compliant train detection systems. It does so by freezing existing legacy

systems and by prohibiting the development of new legacy systems. Only if a

Member State itself decides to take the step to upgrade / change its system, ERTMS

will be imposed.



2 REFERENCE, TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

2.1 REFERENCE

The documents listed below are referred to by numbers in round brackets, e.g. (5). Footnotes

use letters, such as: (a)

.

Number References

(1) Economic Evaluation: Methodology Guidelines

(2) Compendium on ERTMS, edited by UIC, under the coordination of Peter

Winter, 1st Edition 2009

(3) ERTMS Benchmark Project – Update 2011 Final Report, UIC – April 2012

(4) Extension of field of application of TSIs. Annex 3. Existing extensions of

the geographical scope, 2009

(5) ERA_TD_2011-11– List of Class B systems, 19/03/2012

(6) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the

European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the

Regions on the progress made towards achieving interoperability of the rail

system, 30/01/2013

(7) ERA/REP/03-13/ERTMS

Quotations from the above are in italics.

2.2 UNITS

International units and metric system have been used. Kilometres per hour are km/h, never

kph. For thousands, millions and billions (= thousands of millions), the letters k, M and G are

prefixed; for instance: 1 M€ = one million Euros.

For numbers, the decimal separator is a dot “.” ; thousands are separated by spaces “ “ (neither

“,” nor “.”).

2.3 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Term or abbreviation Definition

CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis

CCS Control-Command and Signalling subsystems

CR Conventional rail

ESG Economic Survey Group. The group has been set up by ERA and is

managed by its Economic Evaluation Unit. ESG is considering the

Agency impact assessment work undertaken for the different

recommendations of ERA from the point of view of consistency and



Term or abbreviation Definition

correctness of methodology.

EIM European Rail Infrastructure Managers

ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management System

ETCS European Train Control System

GSM-R Global System for Mobile communication - Railway

HS High speed rail

IM Infrastructure Manager (as defined in Directive 2001/14/EC)

NSA National Safety Authority

RISC Rail Interoperability and Safety Committee

RU Railway Undertaking (as defined in Directive 2001/14/EC)

RST Rolling Stock

TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability



3 INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT

3.1.1.1 The diversity of signalling systems in Member States has long been recognised as a

barrier to international rail traffic. What is clear is that Member States have

committed themselves to European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).

ERTMS creates a single Europe-wide standard for train control and command

systems (CCS). The two main components of ERTMS are the European Train

Control System (ETCSb, a standard for in-cab train control), and GSM-R (the GSM

mobile communications standard for railway operations). The equipment can further

be subdivided between on-board and infrastructure equipment.

In 1996 the Council agreed by unanimity that ERTMS should be a key part of

European rail interoperability. Subsequent decisions have deepened Member

States’ commitment to ERTMS. The primary purpose was to contribute to the

completion of the single European railway area, improving the competitive

position of rail transport and stimulating a single market in signalling equipment.

3.1.1.2 The development and deployment of ERTMS in Europe have both progressed over

timec. According to figures from UNIFE, ERTMS has emerged as the system of

choice for railways worldwide, based on the performance of the system, and on the

advantage offered by a multi-supplier system. The figure below demonstrates the

commitment of Member States and industry stakeholders in relation to ERTMS: the

numbers, both for delivered and contracted tracks and vehicles, are increasing over

time within Europe.

b ETCS works as follows: With ETCS, the track sends information to the train enabling it to calculate

continuously its maximum permitted speed. On lines where there is trackside signalling (lights and traffic signs

allowing the driver to know the permitted speed), this information can be forwarded by standard beacons

(Eurobalises) located along the track. This is what is known as ETCS level 1. For ETCS level 2, information can

also be forwarded by radio (GSM-R) and it is no longer necessary to retain trackside signals. This allows

substantial savings in investment and in maintenance. The position of trains is still detected by trackside systems.

Lastly, for ETCS level 3, the train itself sends its rear end location, making it possible to optimise line capacity

and further reduce the trackside equipment. For all levels, a train-based computer, the Eurocab, compares the

speed of the train with the maximum permitted speed and slows down the train automatically if the latter is

exceeded. c SWD(2014)48, Commission staff working document on the state of play of the implementation of the ERTMS

Deployment Plan



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM-R



Figure: Evolution of ERTMS equipped tracks and vehicles in Europe

Source: Unife

3.1.1.3 Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on the

interoperability of the rail system within the Community aims to establish the

conditions to be met to achieve interoperability within the Community rail system in

a manner compatible with the provisions of Directive 2004/49/EC (railway safety

directive). These conditions concern inter alia the design, construction, placing in

service, upgrading, renewal, operation and maintenance of the parts of this system.

The pursuit of this objective must lead to the definition of an optimal level of

technical harmonisation and make it possible to:

(a) Facilitate, improve and develop international rail transport services

within the European Union and with third countries

(b) Contribute to the progressive creation of the internal market in

equipment and services for the construction, renewal, upgrading and

operation of the rail system within the European Union;

(c) Contribute to the interoperability of the rail system within the European

Union.



Article 8 of Directive 2008/57 stipulates that the Commission shall adopt

mandates aiming at the development of new Technical Specifications for

Interoperability (TSIs) and/or the review of TSIs already covered with a view to

covering lines and vehicles not yes covered.

3.1.1.4 To this end, the Commission has given a mandate to investigate the extension of scope

to the whole rail system for all the systems of the rail system (energy, infrastructure,

train control and command, wagons, rolling stock and operational rules). The scope

extension of the TSI CCS should also include the definition of viable implementation

strategies for the off-TEN. The Commission Mandate of 29.04.2010d includes the

following part related to TSI CCS:

3.1.1.5 What does scope extension mean?

3.1.1.6 A previous study indicated the intentions of the Member States concerning the

voluntary extension of CCS TSI. The results of this study are described in [4]. You

will find a summary in Annex 1, addressing following question:

“Has the geographical scope of the TSI been extended by the Member State?”

3.1.1.7 It is to be noted that for TSIs relating to other structural subsystems such as

infrastructure (TSI INF), energy (TSI ENE), wagons (TSI WAG) and rolling stock

(TSI LOC&PAS), the extension of scope to the off-TEN-T has already taken place.

This initiative therefore only relates to the scope extension of the TSI relating to CCS

subsystems.

d http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/TSIs-scope-extention-Mandate-

2010.pdf

http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/TSIs-scope-extention-Mandate-2010.pdf

http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/TSIs-scope-extention-Mandate-2010.pdf



4 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

4.1.1.1 The main problem identified is that the geographical scope of the TSI relating to CCS

is hindering a cost-effective functioning of the European Union’s railway system by

maintaining technical barriers. Technical barriers still exist today as there are still

more than 20 different CCS-systems (“Class B” systems) deployed within Europe.

The current TSI related to CCS foresee a phasing-out of these legacy systems on the

TEN-T. However, on the off-TEN-T currently this is not foreseen yet. This implies

that the legacy systems could keep on being divergent, without any prospect of

convergence in the future. New legacy systems and upgrades of existing legacy

systems could continue to be developed. The consequence is that trains running on

different networks would need to continue to be compliant with a multiple set of

specifications and have to be equipped with multiple systems. This is hindering the

internal rail market, as it is made more difficult for trains to pass (regional) borders,

and as it is technically more complicated for rail operators to establish itself in other

regions/Member States. Moreover, these technically diverging standards are also

hindering the further development of the internal market in rail equipment and

services.

4.1.1.2 The inefficiency of the co-existence of more than 20 “Class B” legacy systems is

recognized by the industry, as in the 2012 Memorandum of Understandinge the

European Rail sector Associations have re-iterated their support for the discussions

between Member States and the European Commission on the setting-up of a global

framework for the de-commissioning of Class B systems.

4.1.1.3 Below a description of the current system is given which further illustrates the main

problem.

4.1.1.4 Functional scope of TSI CCS: the control and command signalling subsystem ‘CCS’

consists of 3 systems, being the train protection system (ETCS), the radio

communication system (GSM-R) and the train detection system.

In the past, products have been developed based on national specifications or

based on suppliers’ specifications. The consequence is that trains running on

different networks need to be compliant with a multiple set of specifications and

have to be equipped with multiple systems. Today, there are more than 20

e http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/MoU-betweenEC-ERA-and-

Sector-Associations-on-ERTMS.pdf

http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/MoU-betweenEC-ERA-and-Sector-Associations-on-ERTMS.pdf

http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/MoU-betweenEC-ERA-and-Sector-Associations-on-ERTMS.pdf



different CCS-systems within Europe (see Annex 1: List of Class B-systems on

TEN-networkT).

European specifications have been developed for CCS-systems with the aim of

contributing to the establishment of one single European railway area. These

European specifications are included within chapter 4 of the technical

specifications of interoperability of the control and command subsystem (TSI

CCS). ERTMS is the set of European specifications which specifies the train

protection system (ETCS) and the radio communication system (GSM-R).

Besides ERTMS-specifications, the TSI CCS contains also ‘TSI compliant train

detection system’ specifications.

The current legal frameworkf provides that new (or upgraded) high-speed lines

have to be equipped with ERTMS and some key railway freight lines (‘ERTMS

corridors of the European Deployment Plan’) will be equipped by 2015 or 2020

(25000km). Other parts of the trans-European network will be equipped with

ERTMS in the following way: national systems called "class B" systems can

continue to exist under certain conditions on the TEN-T. These systems are clearly

identified and may not be upgraded (they are “freezed”). If there is a need for

upgrade, ERTMS/ETCS should be installed, according to the rules of the TSI

CCS. This avoids further divergence of train protection, radio communication and

train detection systems.

4.1.1.5 Geographical scope of TSI CCS: Today, TSI CCS only applies on the TEN-T, and

does not apply to the lines outside the TEN-T. Therefore, Member States are

currently free to choose which CCS-system can be installed on the off-TEN-T.

Outside the TEN-T, some IMs still use CCS legacy systems due to historical reasons

or better ‘local’ and/or short term cost efficiency. On-board cost differences between

ETCS and existing legacy systems may appear and could influence the economic

viability of the general implementation of ETCS on the off-TEN network. In

addition, trackside overlays (ETCS superimposed on a legacy system) mean added

costs, and trackside changeovers from legacy to ETCS imply rolling stock retrofits.

The most advantageous scenario may be line dependent.

4.1.1.6 Relative importance of TEN-T versus off-TEN-T: The characteristics of the off-

TEN-T consists of more regional lines, less used by cross-border traffic and with

f Commission Decision 2012/88/EU of 25 January 2012 on the technical specification for interoperability

relating to the control-command and signalling subsystems of the trans-European rail system, OJ L 51,

23.2.2012, p. 1.



potentially more use of simple signalling systems (with lower performance

requirements) compared to the TEN-T.

- Trackside: The TEN-T covers 40% of the whole rail system according to a

survey held in 2009 (see (4) and Annex 4: Rolling stock data (TEN and off-

TEN Network)). The other part of the European railway network, further on

called off-TEN-T, covers the remaining 60% of the whole rail system. Country

specific figures can be found in Annex 2. The data available suggest that on the

off-TEN-T trackside, ETCS is only very limited implemented, and that legacy

systems are still frequently used.

Figure: Importance of TEN-T and off-TEN-T: infrastructure (length of lines)

Source: ERA - IU-ExtScope-20090807-FinalReport-Annex01_1-Inf.xls

- Rolling stock: Data shows that the relative share of rolling stock which solely

operates on the off-TEN-T and never operates on the TEN-T is very small

(average 2% for locomotives and 9 % for multiple units). The table below

demonstrates that although 60% of the network is off-TEN-T, almost 10% of

the rolling stock is solely operating on the off-TEN-T. 90% of the rolling stock

thus already falls within the scope of the current legal framework on TSI CCS.

It is only the remaining 10,29% of the rolling stock which never operates on

the TEN-T that would therefore be affected by this scope extension initiative.

Table: Quantitative comparison of TEN-T and OFF-TEN-T Rolling Stock (data mainly from year 2005 - see (4))

Rolling stock which is never operated on

TEN lines Global fleet

Percentage of rolling stock which is never operated

on TEN lines

Locomotives 714 30 642 2.33%

Multiple Units 5 280 27 615 19.12%

TOTAL 5 994 58 257 10.29%

Source: ERA - IU-ExtScope-20090807-FinalReport-Annex01_2-LocPas.xls

Moreover, the figure below provides some country specific estimates of the

relative importance of rolling stock never operating on TEN-T. It can be

deducted that most likely railway undertakings operating in only 9 Member



States will significantly be affected by this scope extension initiative to off-

TEN-T: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Portugal,

Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom. For some of these countries the

percentage of the rolling stock never operating on TEN-T is rather small (e.g.

Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, United Kingdom). For other countries, for certain

categories of rolling stock this percentage is higher than 20 % (e.g. Czech

Republic, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain). Several Member States will not

be significantly affected, as they have indicated that no trains solely run on the

off-TEN-T (e.g.Austria, Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg,

Poland, Slovenia, Netherlands, Sweden).

Figure: Quantitative comparison of TEN-T and off-TEN-T rolling stockg

Source: ERA - IU-ExtScope-20090807-FinalReport-Annex01_2-LocPas.xls

4.1.1.7 Conclusion: The current TSI related to CCS is not yet applicable to the off-TEN-T,

which represents 60% of the total rail network. Around 10% of the rolling stock

g The figures of France have been questioned during a WP-meeting



never operates on TEN-T. This means that for the off-TEN-T, infrastructure

managers can still freely choose the CCS legacy systems to be deployed in the

future, thereby endangering 90% of the rolling stock fleet from running on the off-

TEN-T. This free choice for Member States is the reason that today there are more

than 20 different CCS-systems within Europe. This has a negative impact on the

interoperability of the rail system within the European Union, as trains running on

different networks, need to be compliant with a multiple set of specifications and

have to be equipped with multiple systems. Furthermore, this situation is hindering

the further development of international rail transport services and the internal

market in rail equipment and services.



5 DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVES

5.1.1.1 The general objective of this initiative is to stimulate gradual convergence in

command and control systems deployed in the European Union’s rail system by

removing technical barriers in order to increase the cost-effectiveness of the

European Union’s rail system.

5.1.1.2 This will be done by exploring the option to extend the benefits identified for the

TEN-T into a wider geographical scope, as trains cross the border between the TEN-

T and off-TEN-T and may profit from one single legal framework for the whole rail

system.

These benefits are linked to the following specific objectives:

- Providing technical interoperability leading to less equipment costs for trains

when running on different networks;

- Providing operational interoperability leading to less training costs for train

drivers when running on different networks;

- Providing an open market for train protection, radio communication and train

detection systems leading to decreased equipment costs due to the increased

competition and avoidance of single supplier markets (vendor lock-in) for

trackside and on-board equipment;

5.1.1.3 By pursuing these objectives for the rail system, railway undertakings operating both

on TEN-T and on off-TEN-T will be protected from

- having to comply with a different legal framework for off-TEN-T compared to

the TEN-T in order to be authorized for running on the TEN-T and on the off-

TEN-T;

- avoiding to require different national CCS-systems for the off-TEN compared

to the ones on the TEN-T;



6 DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.1.1.1 Three policy options are put forward:

Option 0: baseline scenario: no extra action at EU level: no mandatory

scope extension to off-TEN-T, only voluntary migration on the off-TEN-T

Option 1: evolutionary approach: scope extension to OFF-TEN-T without


Option 2: revolutionary approach: scope extension to OFF-TEN-T with


6.2 OPTION 0: BASELINE SCENARIO

6.2.1.1 Co-existence of legacy and ETCS signalling systems: in the baseline scenario, half of

the Member States in practice already voluntary extend the scope of the TSIs towards

the whole rail system (see an overview in Annex 3: Voluntary extension of TSI). In

these countries, a combination of legacy and ETCS systems are deployed. The main

reason is that most rolling stock operates both on the TEN-T and on the off-TEN-T.

So, this means that scope extension has no impact for those Member States.

6.2.1.2 Voluntary full ERTMS migration trends in some Member States (ETCS only): Some

Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland and potentially the Netherlands)

already plan to (voluntary) migrate towards ERTMS on their whole national railway

network (off-TEN-T network and TEN-T), eliminating also the co-existence of the

legacy systems and the ETCS systems. As such, trains running on different networks

would no longer need to comply with a multiple set of specifications and would not

have to be equipped with multiple systems anymore.

6.2.1.3 Affected rolling stock: Data showed that the relative share of rolling stock which

operates on the off-TEN-T and never operates on the TEN-T is very small (average

2% for locomotives and 9 % for multiple units), with a minimum of 0% in several

Member States (e.g. Austria, Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg,

Poland, Slovenia, Netherlands, Sweden) up to a maximum of 49% for multiple units

in Czech Republic (see Annex 4: Rolling stock data (TEN and off-TEN Network)).

This shows that most trains running on the European rail system already will have to

fulfill the legal requirements of the TSI CCS in order to receive an authorization for

placing into service. It is to be expected that the leasing vehicles will increase in

importance. Due to this it is very likely that more vehicles will be made ERTMS

compatible as leasing vehicles are supposed to be operational on several networks.



6.2.1.4 Member States’ view on the likely evolution of ERTMS deployment on the off-TEN-

T: The questionnaire targeted to Member States has tried to identify the likely

evolutions with regard to scope extension to the off-TEN-T for signalling (ETCS),

radio communication (GSM-R) and train detection systems. 17 answers from

Member States have been received:

With regard to signalling systems: Almost half of the respondents will

have ERTMS as target for their off-TEN network. The other half indicates

following reasons to justify the current legacy system as target or to justify

the postponement of the decision of implementing ERTMS on their off-

TEN-T:

- Low performance lines needs simpler system;

- On-board migration costs are currently still too high;

- The number of vehicles currently equipped with ERTMS is low (“too

early to decide”);

Examples of signalling systems that are still seen as target system are:

ASFA, EVM, LS, PZB/Indusi, SHP.

With regard to radio GSM-R: The questionnaire shows that GSM-R is

used and further rolled out as specific radio communication system. The

answers did not reveal elements which question GSM-R as target system

for the off-TEN network, in the case a specific radio communication

system would be required for the off-TEN network, with one sole

exceptionh. During the EC-workshop, some additional information is

requested relating to the possible use of the public GSM-network for some

lines (see 8.4.2.2).

With regard to train detection systems: 11 out of 14 answers indicate that

track circuits or axle counters compliant with TSI requirements will be

installed off-TEN-T.

From the above it can be concluded that scope extension of TSI CCS to the off-

TEN-T is in general being done on a voluntary base for radio communication

systems and train detection systems. More details on the Member States position

can be found in Annex 5. The provisions related to radio and train detection

systems of the CCS TSI are already suitable for off-TEN-T too, so no additions

are necessary. With regard to signalling systems, almost half of the respondents

will have ERTMS as target for their off-TEN-T. The other half indicate that

mandatory migration towards ERTMS at a certain date is not economic viable yet.

In these Member States, Class B-systems are still required on the railway network.

h one answer indicates a small extension of the existing specific railway radio system (450 MHz) to cover a part of the off-

TEN network.



6.3 OPTION 1: EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH: SCOPE EXTENSION

TO OFF-TEN-T WITHOUT STRICT MIGRATION REQUIREMENTS

6.3.1.1 Scope extension: Option 1 extends the scope of the TSI CCS to the off-TEN-T with

the objective of avoiding further divergence of train protection, radio communication

and train detection systems on the off-TEN-T.

6.3.1.2 “Freezing of Class-B systems”: This is NOT a new, general obligation to install ETCS

on off-TEN-T (by a certain date), but only applies in case a Member States decides

itself that changes are needed to its system because either its national Class B-system

has become obsolete or because an upgrade of the national Class B-systems would

be required (due to the need of additional functional requirements). Only under these

circumstances, which are to be decided upon by the Member States only, the scope

extension to the off-TEN-T would imply that Member States would be obliged to

migrate towards the TSI CCS compliant systems (being ERTMS and TSI compliant

train detection systems). They would thus no longer be able to install new Class B-

systems or upgrades of existing Class-B systems (~ “freezing of Class B-systems”).

This reasoning is in line with the TSI CCS requirements currently applicable to

certain parts of the TEN-T.

6.3.1.3 No additional migration timing requirements: in this option, it is to be noted that the

legal framework does NOT include additional strict migration requirements for

ERTMS at trackside or at rolling stock side. As mentioned above, Member States

may decide themselves when off-TEN trackside installations are migrated to the

European target solution based upon their national business case.

6.3.1.4 Possibility of derogations: The Member States may also apply a derogation process in

case the “freezing of Class B-systems” would compromise the economic viability of

the rail system in a Member State according to article 9 – point (d) (derogation

procedure) of the Interoperability Directive 2008/57/EU. The same is true for

projects which are in an advanced stage of development or the subject of a contract

in the course of performance when this initiative is published and enters into force.

Below an extract of article 9 is given.



Conclusion: Option 1 is not a revolutionary approach, but rather an evolutionary

approach which aims to stimulate convergence in CCS subsystems deployed in

the European Union. It does so by freezing existing legacy systems and by

prohibiting the development of new legacy system. Only if a Member States itself

decides to take the step to upgrade / change its Class B-system, an interoperable

ERTMS will be imposed.

6.4 OPTION 2: REVOLUTIONARY APPROACH: SCOPE EXTENSION

TO OFF-TEN-T WITH STRICT MIGRATION REQUIREMENT

6.4.1.1 Strict timing requirements for ERTMS migration: Similar to option 1, option 2 extends

the scope of the TSI CCS to the off-TEN-T with the objective of avoiding further

divergence of train protection, radio communication and train detection systems on

the off-TEN network. However, compared to option 1, in addition (faster)

convergence is imposed by adding strict timeline requirements for ERTMS migration

(e.g. as for core network corridors: 2020 or 2025). This in analogy with the current

TSI CCS applicable to the Corridors on the TEN-T, where migration timelines are set

for certain parts of the TEN-T.



7 ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS: ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT

7.1 INTRODUCTION

7.1.1.1 Focus on economic analysis: In this section the impact of the baseline scenario is

recapitulated (option 0). Afterwards, the impact of option 1 and 2 will be compared

to that of the baseline scenario. The main focus will be on economic impacts.

7.2 ANALYSIS OF OPTION 0: BASELINE SCENARIO

7.2.1.1 In the baseline scenario the main problem as identified will not completely disappear.

Although certain countries are and will be planning to fully migrate to ERTMS and

to get rid of legacy systems, for certain parts of the railway networkthe risk for RUs

of further divergence of the current situation still exists. Estimates on affected rolling

stock and trackside systems are given in section 6.2. However, no exact estimates are

available, as everything depends on the future decisions of Member States and

railway undertakings on ERTMS migration, which are currently insufficiently

certain.

7.2.1.2 In the baseline scenario, there is no guarantee of convergence towards a single EU

train control system. Member States are free to choose which legacy CCS-systems

are upgraded and required on-board on the off-TEN-T. New legacy systems and

upgrades of existing legacy systems could continue to be developed. The

consequence is that trains running on different networks would need to continue to

be compliant with a multiple set of specifications and have to be equipped with

multiple systems. Train drivers running on networks with different requirements and

signalers will need more training, resulting in higher training costs for railway

undertakings and infrastructure managers. Moreover, CCS-product suppliers would

maintain their “position of national legacy suppliers due to historical reasons,

thereby often providing suboptimal solutions to railway undertakings and

infrastructure managers (e.g. systems becoming obsolete due to the lack of

upgrades/maintenance operations available from the supplier side; difficulties for

other suppliers to offer Class B systems in certain countries). Technical barriers thus

remain and will continue to hinder a cost-effective functioning of the European

Union’s railway system. Moreover, these technically diverging standards are also

hindering the further development of the internal market in rail equipment and

services.



7.3 IMPACT OF OPTION 1: SCOPE EXTENSION TO OFF-TEN-T

WITHOUT STRICT MIGRATION REQUIREMENTS

7.3.1 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

7.3.1.1 Impact for railway undertakings: In comparison to the baseline scenario, the main

positive impact for railway undertakings is being protected from the risk of future

changes to national legacy systems. However, the railway undertakings have no

overall migration target date when off-TEN-T lines will be equipped with TSI CCS

compliant systems. The freezing of Class B-systems protects the railway operators

from further upgrades of Class B-systems and further divergence within Europe. The

quantification of this positive impact requires a prediction of how many Class B-

systems would change or would be introduced during next years in Europe compared

to not having this EU-framework and the associated additional cost of each upgrade

or change of new Class B-system. As in the past, having no EU-legal framework has

led to more than 20 different CCS-systems, we may assume that new or upgrades to

national systems could appear to suboptimise local situations, to support a national

supplier or incumbent railway operator. The development and upgrade costs for on-

board equipment depends on the change itself and the number of vehicles impacted,

but the cost impact for retrofitting of Class B-systems or developping new systems

are far above the negative potential cost impact of freezing Class B-systems (see also

next point), taking into account the multiple design, installation and re-authorisation

costs for each of the changed Class B-systems. If a Member State itself takes the

decision to migrate towards ERTMS, railway undertakings will based on this

decision have to make their rolling stock ERTMS compatible. Compared to the

baseline scenario, the positive effect for railway undertakings, and especially for

small undertakings, will be that they no longer have to comply with several different

CCS-systems and their possible upgrades.

7.3.1.2 Impact for infrastructure managers: The main impact for infrastructure managers is not

to be allowed to upgrade the existing Class B-systems or to develop new non TSI

compliant systems, but to use TSI compliant CCS systems. The Member States may

apply for a derogation in case this “freezing of Class B-systems” would compromise

the economic viability of the rail system in a Member State or in case of a project in

an advanced stage according to article 9 – point (a) and (d) (derogation procedure)

of the Interoperability Directive 2008/57/EU. Therefore, the main negative impact

are the administrative public costs to apply this derogation process (see below

section 7.3.2.5 for a quantification). If however the choice for a TSI compliant CCS

system is made, the infrastructure manager will benefit from positive scale effects

from the internal market: as there are multiple suppliers of ERTMS products,

infrastructure managers do no longer run the risk of their system becoming



obsolescent. In the past, but also looking into the baseline scenario, “preferred”

national suppliers have not offered or will not offer the necessary

maintenance/upgrade products for legacy systems. This has resulted/ will result in

legacy systems becoming obsolete or outdated, thereby threatening the efficient

continuity of the railway network. In option 1 infrastructure managers will no longer

be exposed to this risk.

7.3.1.3 Impact on local lines: In the scenario where the capacity and safety performance level

is already adequate with the existing legacy system, option 1 poses no risk to the

existence of local lines, as the existing “Class B” systems may still be used, and as

there are no strict migration requirements. If an infrastructure managers decides that

an upgrade of its existing system or a new system is needed however due to

obsolsence of Class B-system and not requiring the full functionality of ETCS (full

supervision), infrastructure managers can decide to install ETCS L1 (with Limited

Supervision) which are seen as suitable variants for Class B-systems also offering

‘Limited Supervision’ train protection levels. Another alternative is ETCS L3 (which

is already available for low densitly lines under the name ‘ERTMS Regional’).

Besides this, Member States (e.g. Denmark) may decide to have a homogeneous

network (ETCS L2 – Full Supervision), profiting from scale effects and having a

similar deployment for the whole network as most cost-efficient strategy.

7.3.1.4 Impact for the different Member States: the countries already voluntarily fully

migrating towards ERTMS on the off-TEN-T are e.g. Belgium, Denmark,

Switzerland, Luxembourg and potentially the Netherlands. These countries are not

impacted at all. As in total almost half of the Member States will have ERTMS as

target for their off-TEN-T, only the other half that does do not intend to freeze the

existing Class B-systems on the off-TEN-T will be affected (see Annex 5 and section

6.2). As most of the Class B-systems are similar to the off-TEN-T and to the TEN-T,

and as Class B-systems on the TEN-T are already frozen by the current TSI CCS, we

moreover assume that the impact of freezing the Class B-systems for the off-TEN-T

will only have a limited impact. This because Member States will most likely not

upgrade a system only for the off-TEN-T as the functional requirements for the off-

TEN-T and TEN-T are mostly similar (see point below and Annex 5: Functional

analysis).

7.3.1.5 Impact on functionality: the stakeholder’s consultation (questionnaire) has

demonstrated that the functionality provided by the TSI CCS systems is applicable

for the use on the off-TEN-T, and that chapter 4 of the TSI CCS requires in general

no significant changes for train protection, radio communication and train detection

systems. The detailed stakeholders’ analysis on functional applicability for the off-



TEN-T can be found in ‘Annex 5: Functional analysis’. Two comments from France

are made (see 8.4.2.2 and 8.4.2.3) related to the radio communication functional

requirements for low density traffic and very dense traffic areas. These are currently

investigated in order to be further integrated in the future ERTMS specifications

(interference topic and ETCS-over-GPRS topic) in order to avoid derogation requests

(specific national developments) for these requests.

7.3.1.6 Impact on the internal market: ERTMS creates an open competitive market as it is

based on a common open set of specifications. Today, this open set of specifications

has opened the market with multiple suppliers for ERTMS products, while the

number of suppliers for Class B-systems is mainly limited from 1 up to 3 suppliers

for a Class B-system. Therefore, the internal open market for ERTMS-products is

expected to increase the cost efficiency of ERTMS in comparison to the cost

efficiency of Class B-systems.

7.3.1.7 Impact on the competitiveness of the European industry: the positive impact on the

European industry is already visible by the use of ERTMS outside Europe.

According to figures from UNIFE, ERTMS has emerged as the system of choice for

railways worldwide, based on the performance of the system, and on the advantage

offered by a multi-supplier system. As the ERTMS industry is dominated by

European players, it is expected that the increased use of ERTMS inside and outside

of Europe, will significantly increase the competiveness of the European ERTMS

industry.

Figure: ERTMS investments worldwide by geographical area (trackside (km))

Source: UNIFE – presentation at UIC-ERTMS conference in Istanbul



7.3.1.8 Impact on safety: Class B-systems also provide for different train protection levels.

However, for convention rail, when migrating towards ERTMS, Member States often

take the decision to invest in higher safety performance levels compared to the

legacy system. This may indirectly lead to safety benefits. Additionally, the safety

impact of moving towards a single EU-train control and communication system may

indirectly lead to safety benefits by having less systematic technical and operational

hazards due to exchange of knowledge of hazards between Member States using the

same interoperable system, and having overall less complexity due to limiting the

divergence.

7.3.1.9 Impact on training of personnel: avoiding divergence in signaling systems will

decrease the overall training cost for maintenance and operational (train-drivers,

signalers) staff in the long term. This will have a positive impact both for the railway

operators and the infrastructure managers.

7.3.1.10 Impact on the environment: the environment is indirectly positively affected by a

more efficient railway market with less technical barriers. A more efficient railway

market will attract more freight traffic and passengers, and will further stimulate

railway transport, which is less polluting than certain other frequently used modes of

transport.

7.3.2 COST IMPACTS - QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

7.3.2.1 In the following sections estimates are provided for the additional costs/benefits option

1 entails compared to the baseline scenario. As option 1 is not imposing a general

obligation to install ETCS on off-TEN-T (by a certain date), but only applies in case

a Member States decides itself that changes are needed to its system, it is uncertain

which Member States and railway undertakings will migrate to ETCS at what

moment in time. Therefore, Europe wide calculations cannot be provided. Recourse

is taken to individual life cycle/short term investment costs and long term benefit-

cost ratios for individual projects under certain circumstances. The total EU impact

will depend on the speed and degree of convergence of CCS subsystems.

7.3.2.2 Life cycle costs for trackside systems (for infrastructure managers):

The actual cost comparison between Class B legacy systems and ETCS systems

depends largely on the actual state of the Class B system and the actual cost of costs

of the ETCS system. From the answers to the questionnaire addressed to Member

States it appears that some Class B-systems are already more costly compared to

ETCS-systems (especially for complex systems), while some other Class B-systems

are still less costly (e.g. for simple legacy systems).



However, it is expected by the industry and infrastructure managers that the life

cycle costs of Class B-systems will increase more than the life cycle costs of ETCS-

systems due to following aspects:

- More suppliers offering ETCS-products compared to the number of

suppliers offering Class B-systems;

- More research initiatives in the field of ERTMS compared to limited

initiatives for upgrades of Class B-systems or other new legacy

systems. ETCS Level 3 is expected to be beneficial for the

infrastructure manager with further reduction of costs due to not

needing train detection systems. ERTMS Regional (used for low

density lines) is based on ETCS L3 (however with the current

limitation of using it on low density lines). ETCS L3 is an important

part of the Shift2Rail- research program which aims at reducing further

life cycle costs and improving capacityi.

Today, the cost figures at trackside of ERTMS are already cost competitive

compared to most of the Class B-systems. The fact that 3 Member States have

already decided to migrate voluntary on their complete network provides support

to this statement.

Cost figures depend also on the procurement strategy (framework contract for the

complete network versus project contracts) and the required interfaced

interlocking systems (being included or not in the overall cost figures). Therefore,

cost figures provided by the UIC-Benchmarking study (based on individual

projects) differ substantially from cost figures provided by Banedanmark (the

Danish infrastructure manager), using 2 framework contracts for trackside

deployment on the complete network. They indicate particularly low costs for the

delivery and maintenance of the trackside systems. The figure below provides a

comparison with the UIC benchmark:

i See: http://www.shift2rail.org

http://www.shift2rail.org/



Figure: Banedanmark cost comparison with standardized European benchmarks

Source: Slide taken from a presentation by Banedanmark on 17/04/12 on the ERTMS Conference

organized by the EC

During the ERA/EIM (European Rail Infrastructure Managers) workshop of 05th

September 2012, it was confirmed that ETCS provides sufficient economically

viable variants (e.g. ETCS Regional (L3), Limited Supervision, Level 2) to cover

the requirements of the different configurations of the off-TEN network.

Therefore, we may assume similar trackside costs as infrastructure managers will

choose for migrating from Class B-systems towards ETCS until ETCS is at least

cost neutral compared to Class B-systems. This assumption will also be used in

the calculation of the long term benefit-cost ratio (see 0 ).

7.3.2.3 Investment on-board costs for vehicles (for railway undertakings):

Following estimates for the today’s average on-board costs for new vehicles are used

in the rolling stock model, in case of legacy systems, ETCS systems and a

combination of both:

Figure: Average on-board costs for new vehicles

System Estimated average investment

cost

Sensitivity (triangular

distribution)

Simple legacy system 10 k€/on-board unit +/- 5k€

Complex legacy system 100 k€/on-board unit +/- 50k€

ETCS system 200 k€/on-board unit +/- 50k€

ETCS and legacy

system

210 k€/on-board unit (simple

legacy system)j

Sum of investment cost of

ETCS and investment cost of

j The development cost of the integration of the Class B and ETCS –system is not included as this development

is expected to take place in all scenarios (for vehicles running on TEN-network or as part of migration scenario)



300 k€/on-board unit (complex

legacy system)

legacy system

Source: Estimates based on data cost figures from questionnaire

In the baseline scenario the most plausible scenarios for the on-board costs for new

vehicles on the off-TEN-T are 1) a simple legacy system (10 k€/on-board unit), or 2) a

complex legacy system (100 k€/on-board unit) or lastly 3) a combination of ETCS and

a legacy system (210 k€/on-board unit for a combination with a simple legacy system,

and 300 k€/on-board unit for a combination with a complex legacy system). Option 1

would only entail the systems encompassing ETCS for the putting into place of new

vehicles (costs ranging from 200 to 300 k€/on-board unit). This would thus be more

costly than the scenario of having a simple or complex legacy system only. However,

one could assume that if one wants to upgrade or change a simple legacy system, one

would automatically migrate to a complex legacy system. This because in most cases

upgrades are needed for extra functionalities which are not supported by simple legacy

systems. Taking into account the “natural” evolution of simple legacy systems towards

complex legacy systems, the most relevant significant costs difference between option

1 and the baseline scenario, is therefore the difference in costs with complex legacy

systems only. As the internal market for ERTMS-products is expected to increase the

cost-efficiency of ERTMS in comparison to the Class B-systems, this cost difference is

expected to decrease over time and eventually become positive for ETCS systems.

Short term investment on-board costs for existing vehicles (retrofitting costs):

Retrofitting a single locomotive is rather costly, as the costs range between 200.000

EUR and 2.5 million EUR (adding some 20-40% to their cost). The major costs of

retrofitting are linked to the re-design of the type and to the re-verification and

authorisation process. It is difficult to compare the retrofitting costs in option 1 to

possible retrofitting costs in the baseline scenario, as costs for retrofitting legacy

systems are varying depending on the number of systems needed to be retrofitted and

on the changes needed to the system. Leasing companies will however have less cases

of retrofitting in option 1 compared to the baseline scenario due to the avoidance of

further divergence of Class B-systems. In the baseline scenario, railway undertakings

risk that the Member States upgrade their CCS-systems not towards the single EU-

target, being ERTMS.

Comparison of on-board costs for new versus existing vehicles (retrofitting)

The figure below - provided by UIC – compares on-board costs of ERTMS in function

of new versus retrofitting of vehicles:

Figure: Comparison on-board costs for new versus existing vehicles (retrofitting



Source: UIC

Retro-fitment is expensive in any case independent if it is ETCS or a retro-fitment

towards a new or upgraded legacy system. Therefore, in option 1, the legal

framework requires that in case of migration (and required retro-fitment), it has to be

towards ETCS and not towards an upgraded Class-B or new legacy system. This will

limit the number of retro-fitments, especially for RUs currently operating on

different networks, requiring different legacy systems.

7.3.2.4 Long term benefit-cost ratio: A long term benefit-cost ratio is calculated for option 1,

compared to both the situations where a simple legacy system is currently in use or

where a complex legacy system is currently in place. It is simulated that in the long

term, all vehicles running on TEN-T are equipped with ETCS as the TSI CCS is

already applicable for the TEN-T network.

The long term benefits are defined as follows: due to the presence of single

trackside ETCS-system, for trainsk running both on-TEN-T and off-TEN-T, no

additional legacy systems have to be installed on board;

Long term Benefits =

(number of trains running both on TEN-T and off-TEN-T) x (“ETCS+legacy”

on-board cost - ETCS on-board cost)

Long term additional costs: trains running solely off-TEN-T have to be equipped

with ETCS instead of a legacy system. Due to the supposedly higher on-board

k Here used (improperly) as shorthand for “locomotives” or “EMUs” etc.



cost for ETCS-system in comparison to legacy system, additional costs appear for

the fleet running solely off-TEN-Tl.

Long term Costs =

(number of trains running solely off-TEN-T) x (ETCS on-board cost - legacy on-

board cost)

The long term benefit cost ratio is calculated by dividing the long term benefits by

the long term costs. The formula can be regrouped into 2 parameters, parameter

‘P1’ related to traffic flows and parameter ‘P2’ related to the cost of on-board

signalling systems:

Long term benefits / Long term costs = P1 x P2

P1 = (number of trains running both on TEN-T and off-TEN-T) / (number of trains

running solely off-TEN-T);

P2 = (“ETCS + legacy’’ on-board cost - ETCS on-board cost)/ (ETCS on-board cost -

legacy on-board cost);

Additional long term benefits due to a higher performance (more capacity, more

functionality or higher safety level) are not taken into account in the benefit-cost

ratio. Further explanations and detailed assumptions for this benefit-cost ratio

calculation can be found in annex 11.6. The results are the following:

In case of comparison with “simple” train protection systems

Long term benefits do not exceed long term costs in case of “simple” train

protection systems. In such case, the benefit-cost ratio is only 0.37. Sensitivity

analyses have been carried out:

- Sensitivity in function of cost price of Class B- on-board system: benefit-cost

ratio = 1

- Sensitivity in function of integration costs: benefit-cost ratio = 1

- Sensitivity in function of percentage of trains running solely on-TEN-T:

benefit-cost ratio = 1

- Simulation model based on triangular distribution model for all parameters

above: in only 8.6% of cases within the simulation model, long-term benefits

l ETCS on board assemblies are generally speaking more complex, hence more expensive. Only large scale production could

induce bring the prices down. Such effects have not been observed so far.



exceed long-term costs. A sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the main

influencing parameter is related to the percentage of vehicles running solely

off-TEN-T (and not the price level of the simple legacy system).

In case of comparison with “complex” train protection systems:

Long term benefits do largely exceed the long term costs in case of “complex”

train protection systems. In such case, the benefit-cost ratio is 7. Sensitivity

analyses have been carried out:

- Sensitivity in function of cost price of Class B- on-board system: benefit-cost

ratio = 1

- Sensitivity in function of percentage of trains running solely on-TEN-T:

benefit-cost ratio = 1

- Simulation model based on triangular distribution model for all parameters

above: in 99.99% of cases within the simulation model, the long-term benefits

exceed long-term costs. A sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the main

influencing parameter is related to the percentage of vehicles running solely

off-TEN-T (and not the price level of the complex legacy system).

Conclusion on the long term benefit-cost ratio:

On the comparison of option 1 with “simple” train protection systems: the

percentage of vehicles running only off-TEN-T will mainly determine if

long term benefits exceed long term costs. For low integrated off-TEN-T

lines, simple legacy systems can still be a more economically viable target

than the ETCS-system. However, this is under the condition that these

simple legacy systems would further provide sufficient performance and

safety for the off-TEN-T lines.

On the comparison of option 1 with complex train protection systems:

long term benefits exceed long term costs (in 99.99% of the cases

according to the simulation model). Therefore, ETCS-systems are a more

economic viable solution as long term target than the complex legacy

systems for the off-TEN-T mainly due to the decrease of on-board

systems. The appropriate time for migration has to be taken into

consideration. Migration costs have to be evaluated (at local level) to

verify if these one-time costs do not exceed the overall long term revenues.

Therefore, in line with the results of the stakeholder’s consultation, ETCS (as train

protection system) appears to be a viable alternative (in the same order of

magnitude) as complex legacy systems, which are providing discrete or

continuous speed supervision as train protection functionality. For simple legacy



systems, which are providing a warning/warning-stop functionality, the life cycle

costs are still lower (mainly for on-board systems) than for ETCS. The proposed

legal framework in option 1 is to avoid future upgrades of legacy systems, but not

to limit the further installation of the listed Class B-systems applicable on the off-

TEN-T, so the listed simple and complex Class B-systems may still be used.

Upgrades of simple legacy systems are mostly done in case of shifting towards a

higher performance level, so moving into the category of complex legacy systems.

Therefore, this evolutionary approach is also applicable for simple legacy

systems. According to the simulation model this would be the case in 99.99% of

the situations. Therefore, in reality, it is to be expected that in most cases there is a

positive benefit- cost ratio, which is in line with the results of the stakeholder’s

consultation and which is based on a similar evolutionary approach as for the

major part of the TEN-T.

7.3.2.5 Costs - administrative (public) costs related to the derogation process. A derogation

process consists of mainly 2 administrative steps (step 1 ‘drafting of derogation

request at Member State level’ and step 2 ’verification of derogation request at EU-

level’). These 2 steps induce administrative public costs. The number of derogation

requests is estimated to be limited taking into account the results of the functional

and cost benchmarking analysis (both for TEN-T as for off-TEN-T). Between the

year 2007 and 31 August 2012, the Commission received 90 derogation notifications

from 17 Member States (see (6)) for all TSIs. The repartition by TSI is summarized

in the following diagram:

The highest numbers of derogations were received for the TSIs on safety in

railway tunnels (27 derogations), noise (22) and freight wagons (16).

7.3.2.6 As most Class B-systems are similar for the off-TEN-T and for the TEN-T, the

number of derogation requests only applicable for the off-TEN-T network (and not



for the TEN-T network) is estimated to be even more limited. So, the estimate is to

have maximum 10 cases for the off-TEN-T in Europe in upcoming 10 years.

7.3.2.7 The administrative cost of making at national level and evaluating at EU-level a

derogation file is estimated not to exceed 100 kEUR (+/- 6 man months’ workload in

total), so the total additional administrative (public) costs are expected not to exceed

1 MEURm

during a period of 10 years.

7.3.3 STAKEHOLDERS’ OPINION

7.3.3.1 Stakeholders’ opinion on option 1 (see overview in 8.2.2); Most of the stakeholders

support option 1 in order to protect RUs:

- DE: The more new legacy systems get introduced on the lines, the more different OBUs (on

board units) are necessary for RUs. This will increase the costs for homologation, maintenance

and OBUs.

- DK: It seems not reasonable to introduce new CCS legacy systems outside the TEN-network

and the train operating companies cannot be interested in this as it would increase costs for

onboard equipment.

- PL: Due to the necessity of developing the STM modules, it should not be allowed to functional

change Class B systems; (STM modules are modules which are interfaced with ETCS on-board

system and which allow to operate on lines fitted with Class B trackside system using the Class

B data)

7.3.3.2 In cases of disagreement to extend the scope to off-TEN-T, the reasons are not related

to option 1, but refer already to option 2 and strict migration requirements:

- ES: The versions of the legacy systems should be frozen, except where modifications are

needed to mitigate safety-related flaws in those systems. (as already included in the CCS TSI).

- SK: On the lines outside TEN-Network without CCS systems, safety of transport usually

depends on the proper work of the person managing traffic on the line. It is therefore

appropriate to equip these lines with technical devices excluding human factor mistakes.

Implementation of TSI CCS with extended scope should be based on the decision of MS or IM.

- UK: If it applies to a new type B system development then we strongly agree. If it applies to

the application of existing type B systems then we strongly disagree.

m Maximum administrative cost : 10 (derogation requests in period of 10 years) x 100 [kEUR/derogation

request] equals 1 MEUR



7.4 IMPACT OF OPTION 2: SCOPE EXTENSION TO OFF-TEN-T

WITH STRICT MIGRATION REQUIREMENTS

7.4.1.1 From the analysis of long term benefits and costs in option 1 and annex 6, it may

appear interesting to define migration scenarios at EU-level for complex legacy

systems. However, most of the Member States answering to the public consultation

are of the opinion that the installation of existing (‘freezed’) legacy systems is still

required (examples of signalling systems that are still seen as target system are:

ASFA, EVM, LS, PZB/Indusi, SHP) and that migration scenarios should be

optimised at national level. The main reasoning is that the optimal migration

scenario depends on different national parameters (such as remaining lifetime of

Class B-systems, remaining lifetime of interfaced systems such as interlocking

systems, required capacity and safety performance level). More details can be found

in annex 7 on migration scenarios.

7.4.1.2 Risk for small railway undertakings and the risk of certain lines to be closed due to

high investments costs: several stakeholders have highlighted the risk that fast

obligatory ERTMS migration (=option 2) may lead to financial difficulties for small

railway undertakings and the closure of certain lines due to high investment costs

that this scenario entail. In the scenario where the capacity and safety performance

level is already adequate with the existing legacy system, the benefits of a strict

migration requirement would not outweigh the costs. Therefore, option 2 could entail

risks for some small railway undertakings and local lines.

7.4.1.3 Therefore, in the stakeholders’ view a harmonised migration approach would not be

advisable, nor for complex legacy systems as for simple legacy systems.

7.4.1.4 The detailed stakeholders’ opinions can be found in section 8.2.3

7.4.2 OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS’ OPINIONS ON OPTION 2 - MIGRATION

REQUIREMENTS

7.4.2.1 The following question has been asked to verify the opinion of stakeholders on

additional migration requirements for the off-TEN-T.

7.4.2.2 The opinions are mostly in the direction of defining migration strategies/requirements

at national level (option 1) and are NOT in favour of option 2 which would introduce

strict migration timelines:

- ES: It should be performed by steps, not only TEN/all the network. In Spain, the scope of this

CCS TSI has been extended for all the lines with international traffic, for the high speed

vehicles and network and for those implementations were an improvement in the performance

was needed.



- FI: National IM plans with the ERTMS migration strategies according to costs and benefits.

- DE:

Infrastructure:

It depends on the costs and operational needs. Areas with no or minor links to other parts of

the rail net, like some regional operations, do not need to be touched until the end of the life

cycle of their signalling infrastructure assets. The strategy is directly connected to the arising

costs for the infrastructure manager.

Additionally there are constraints not covered by the TSI CCS, which influence the strategy of

the infrastructure manager (e.g. given by NSA).

Rolling Stock:

It makes sense to control the migration of existing legacy systems for the harmonization of the

railway sector and the opening of national tracks for foreign RUs

The cost situation of small RUs has to be considered.

7.4.2.3 Meanwhile, the optimisation of migration scenarios at EU-level is covered by other

EU-initiatives (including appropriate financial mechanisms) such as:

- The TEN-T Regulation 13/16 of 2013 for migration on the Core Network

(target date: 2030) and Comprehensive Network (target date: 2050);

- The use of differentiated infrastructure charges described in Access Directive

2012/34/EU establishing a single European railway area;

These initiatives cover some of the problems mentionned by stakeholders related

to migration scenarios such as

- appropriate financial mechanisms to solve the problem of lack of investment

funds at Member State level;

- overall migration strategy involving the whole rail system which include

besides the TSI CCS, also the TSI INF (infrastructure) and TSI ENE (energy)

subsystems;

- application of differentiated track access charges to address the problem of

further deployment of ERTMS on-board of vehicles;

7.4.2.4 Conclusion: as the optimal migration scenario on the off-TEN-T depends on national

parameters and as the ERTMS migration scenarios are covered by other more

suitable EU-initiatives (including appropriate financial mechanisms), and as there is

no support of stakeholders, option 2 is not further developed and is not retained for a

detailed cost-benefit analysis.



8 STAKEHOLDERS OPINIONS

8.1 PROCESSES

8.1.1.1 The process of consultation included following main stakeholders consultations:

- Explorative questionnaire addressed to Member States mainly to evaluate

option 1 and option 2;

- Working Party CCS at ERA followed by recommendation including internal

consultation process for the recommendation;

- Workshops at EC (DG Move) with RISC-members and sector representatives;

8.2 OVERVIEW OF QUESTIONNAIRE

8.2.1 INTRODUCTION

8.2.1.1 The questionnaire has addressed for signalling, radio communication and train

detection systems the identification of the reference scenario (if already known) and

the potential modifications of functional requirements (chapter 4 within the TSI CCS

framework) and implementation/migration requirements (chapter 7 within the TSI

CCS framework) for its applicability outside the TEN-T. 17 answers from Member

States have been received.

8.2.2 OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS’ OPINIONS ON OPTION 1

8.2.2.1 The following question has been addressed to verify if Member States support the

avoidance of further divergence of CCS-systems.

8.2.2.2 Question: Do you agree that the TSI CCS scope extension should limit the introduction

of new CCS legacy systems outside the TEN-network?

Number MS Who

RU;IM;NSA Do you agree that

the TSI CCS

scope extension

should limit the

introduction of

new CCS legacy

systems outside

the TEN-

network?

Explanation

1 LU NSA somewhat agree /



2 ES NSA somewhat disagree The versions of the legacy systems should be frozen, except

where modifications are needed to mitigate safety-related flaws in

those systems (as already included in the CCS TSI).

In Spain the legacy system is ASFA which is installed in all the

vehicles and the RFIG network. There are 3 different suppliers

implementing this system.

ASFA will be maintained in the network to allow trains that are

only equipped with this system to run on the network.

3 FI NSA somewhat agree Yes, if brand new systems are not allowed

4 DE NSA strongly agree The more new legacy systems get introduced on the lines, the

more different OBUs are necessary for RU´s. This will increase

the costs for homologation, maintenance and OBUs.

5 PL

(PKP)

IM strongly agree Due to the necessity of developing the new STM modules, there

should not be allowed for functional changes in class B system.

RU neither agree nor

disagree

Positive results (unification and increase security level of build in

systems) are achieved with high costs of implementation.

NSA strongly agree Extending the scope of the TSI CCS should limit the introduction

of outside TEN new existing signaling systems due to high costs.

Newly-built and upgraded lines should be gradually adjusted to

the TSI in order to unification of the conditions of movement of

railway transport.

RU somewhat agree This would allow the upgrading railway lines and standardize

control system.

6 NO NSA strongly agree Scope extension will ensure installation of ETCS when systems

are renewed.

7 AT IM (OBB

Infrastruktur)

somewhat agree

8 SE NSA strongly agree

9 LT NSA ?

10 SL NSA strongly disagree I don't see where this extension should limit the introduction of

new legacy systems outside the TEN network.

11 PT NSA somewhat agree It could be necessary to keep in service existing CCS legacy

systems, taking in account the life cycle of existing signalling

installations and the migration process.

12 CZ NSA somewhat agree It is necessary to equip lines with speed more than 100 km/h by

ATP. The positive result would be only if the equipment of

vehicles was compulsory.

We should find cheaper solution and less complicated - reduced

system. (ETCS LS).

Main requirements :

- safety (not to allow pass signal without permission)

- compatibility with all ETCS vehicles

- EU harmonised system

- reasonable costs for track system and for vehicles

The decision of installation would be left to the member state.



13 SK NSA somewhat disagree On the lines outside TEN-Network without CCS systems, safety

of transport usually depends on the proper work of the person

managing traffic on the line. It is therefore appropriate to equip

these lines with technical devices excluding human factor

mistakes. Implementation of TSI CCS with extended scope

should be based on the decision of MS or IM.

14 HU NSA somewhat disagree At the moment the CCS TSI installation costs are non-scaleable,

therefore they cannot be rolled out even to the "traditional new"

systems ( we cannot install a "little bit of" ETCS or GSM-R)

15 EE NSA somewhat agree It should give more overview of different systems and make list

shorter. It should give us a shortlist (3-5 different systems) of

legacies. That would more unify strategies and practices over

whole Europe.

16 DK NSA strongly agree It seems not reasonable to introduce new CCS legacy systems

outside the TEN-network and the train operating companies

cannot be interested in this as it would increase costs for onboard

equipment.

17 UK IM Other We do not understand the term “legacy system” in the context of

this question. If it applies to a new type B system development

then we strongly agree. If it applies to the application of existing

type B systems then we strongly disagree.

8.2.3 OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS’ OPINIONS ON OPTION 2 - MIGRATION

REQUIREMENTS

8.2.3.1 The following question has been asked to verify the opinion of stakeholders on

additional migration requirements for the off-TEN-T.

8.2.3.2 Question: Do you agree that the TSI CCS scope extension should have an impact on

the national migration strategies for existing CCS legacy systems outside the TEN-

network?

Number MS Who Your opinion - Q 8.1.6

RU;IM;NSA Do you agree that the TSI

CCS scope extension

should have an impact on

the national migration

strategies for existing

CCS legacy systems

outside the TEN-

network?

Explanation

1 LU NSA somewhat agree /



2 ES NSA somewhat disagree The vehicles and network corresponding to the RFIG are

all equipped with ASFA. Only the network is of nearly

13.000 km of lines (and the vehicles running on them)

which only over 1500km are now within the scope of the

TSI.It is clear now that the technical specifications

included in the CCS TSI are consolidated, as stated by

the fact that a reference version of the specifications has

been agreed in the ERTMS MoU. However, there is still

not enough experience in the implementation of this TSI

with different scenarios of networks, not enough

experience with the procedures to place in service and

not real project experience coming from the ERTMS

corridors. We would therefore propose to first take into

account the return of experience of the real projects and

then analyse the extension of scope.

It should be performed by steps, not only TEN/all the

network. In Spain, the scope of this CCS TSI has been

extended for all the lines with international traffic, for

the high speed vehicles and network and for those

implementations were an improvement in the

performance was needed. An analysis should be made in

which scenarios the extension of the scope of the TSI is

useful.

3 FI NSA neither agree nor disagree National IM plans the ERTMS migration strategies

according to costs and benefits.

4 DE NSA strongly disagree Infrastructure

It depends on the costs and operational needs. Areas with

no or minor links to other parts of the rail net, like some

regional operations, do not need to be touched until the

end of the life cycle of their signalling infrastructure

assets.

The strategy is directly connected to the arising costs for

the infrastructure manager.

Additionally there are constraints not covered by the TSI

CCS, which influence the strategy of the infrastructure

manager (e.g. given by NSA).

Rolling Stock

It makes sense to control the migration of existing legacy

systems for the harmonization of the railway sector and

the opening of national tracks for foreign RUs

The cost situation of small RUs has to be considered.

5 PL

(PKP)

IM strongly agree The new migration strategy has to be extended to railway

lines that have been outside the TEN-network so far.

RU neither agree nor disagree Question in the area of responsibility of State

Administration.

NSA strongly agree Ultimately, the TSI system should include the whole

network because it will facilitate the transport

organization, will unify the construction of vehicles and

infrastructure, and first of all will improve safety.

Migration of existing systems for traffic control and

radio system in the direction for systems compliant with

the TSIs shall take place gradually during the upgrade or

major repair of the existing rail infrastructure outside the

TEN.

RU somewhat agree Extending scope of the TSI will involves necessity big

investments Freighters in new system.

6 NO NSA somewhat agree Off-TEN lines are already planned to be included in

existing migration strategy



7 AT IM (OBB

Infrastruktur)

? ?

8 SE NSA somewhat agree

9 LT NSA ?

10 SL NSA strongly agree If these systems would be installed on off-TEN tracks,

then we can expect duplication of system or driving all

vehicles that are consistent with TSI CCS.

11 PT NSA somewhat agree It would be important, in our opinion, within the TSI

CCS scope extension studies, to evaluate the impact of

applicability of basic parameters of CCS TSI in case of

off-TEN network when compared with existing CCS

legacy systems.

12 CZ NSA somewhat agree It is equipped only 2,1 % OFF TEN lines by legacy

system.

13 SK NSA strongly agree

14 HU NSA somewhat disagree In our opinion the question is inaccurate therefore the

answer will be inaccurate as well. As far as off-TEN

ETCS provisioning is reasonable in economic terms, it

must have an impact on the migration concepts as well.

Unless there is a clear evidence of payback, it should not

be made mandatory. Nevertheless, the players of railway

industry normally do not have high reliability, 5-10-year

forecasts relating to the off-TEN network and the parts

thereof. At this stage we do not see that extension of the

CCS TS scope is timely. Before such roll-out the

requirements should be made scalable, It would not be

reasonable, anyway, to make ETCS and GSM-R

mandatory on the off-TEN lines, as such installation

beyond the corridors is not efficient enough in most of

the cases, while these lines are featured by local,

developments affecting a station or a line section.

15 EE NSA somewhat agree There are a lot of national signaling systems, which are

in use on non-public railways. This list should be better

explained and possible strategies should there be set

(also 3 till 5 target systems should be set).

16 DK NSA somewhat agree Seen from a Danish point of view, this change gives no

impact as the national strategy has been to introduce

ERTMS on all lines (in- and outside the TEN-network).

17 UK IM strongly disagree There are other business drivers associated with notn

TENs routes which may result in more readily available

solutions to be implemented; If the TEN routes were

selected on the basis of maximum traffic or importance, I

could support this. However, the UK TEN is such a

mixed bag of routes that this doesn’t hang together. If the

statement had been that it is possible that some lightly

used routes are unlikely to have a business case for using

TSI conformant equipment, that would be different.



8.3 OVERVIEW OF INTERNAL CONSULTATION PROCESS

8.3.1 INTRODUCTION

8.3.1.1 The relevant activities have been carried out by the Agency together with the Working

Party already established for the drafting of the CCS TSI currently in force (CCS

WP); such Working Party is involved on a permanent basis for all aspects related

to the maintenance of CCS TSI and mandatory specifications referenced therein.

8.3.1.2 The members of the Working Party that have contributed to this proposal include

experts from CER, EIM, UNIFE, NSAs, Notified Bodies and also experts of GSM-R

suppliers. NSAs have been involved also through the “Focus group on ERTMS” and

the Notified Bodies through the “ad hoc group on ERTMS”.

8.3.1.3 After the Working Party activity, the resulting proposal for a recommendation on

revision of the CCS TSI has been submitted for internal and external consultation

before being sent to the EC. The internal consultation took place from August 7th

to

September 8th

2012, followed by an external consultation with social partners,

expiring December 9th

2012n. The results of this consultation are described below.

8.3.2 RESULTS FROM CONSULTATION PROCESS RELATED TO SCOPE

EXTENSION

8.3.2.1 The proposed amendments to the CCS TSI are unchanged, with respect to the

outcome of the internal and external consultation; only some additional clarifications

have been added in the accompanying report (see (7)). Following comments have

been received on the scope extension part:

8.3.2.2 According to the request from ES, also the CCS TSI is not applicable to metric gauge

networks.

8.3.2.3 There are no divergent opinions to mention, with the exception of letters sent by LV

and LT NSAs related to parameters for compatibility of train detection systems in

1520 mm track gauge systems. The specification referenced as Index 77 in the CCS

TSI has been updated according to needs of LV and LT.

n The consultation documents can be found on: http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-

Register/Pages/Consultation-of-recommendation-on-revised-TSI-CCS.aspx

http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Consultation-of-recommendation-on-revised-TSI-CCS.aspx

http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Consultation-of-recommendation-on-revised-TSI-CCS.aspx



8.4 OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOPS

8.4.1 INTRODUCTION

8.4.1.1 After the consultation process, the EC has organised different workshops with the

Member States and representative organisations (industry players, infrastructure

managers and railway undertakings) and bilateral meetings in relation to the TSI

CCS Scope Extension.

- Workshop on 04th

June 2013 (based on draft recommendation);

- Workshop on 28th

January 2014;

- Workshop on 29th

April 2014;

8.4.1.2 In the last workshop held on 29th

April, the stakeholders’ did confirm the strategy of

option 1 related to off-TEN T.Almost all of the comments and requested changes to

the TSI CCS do not relate to the scope extension to the off-TEN-T network, but refer

to specific changes in the ERTMS specifications (valid both for TEN-T and off-

TEN-T).

8.4.1.3 The main aspects related to the Agency’s impact assessment are handled below.

During the last workshop held, the majority of stakeholders’ supported the scope

extension part. Remaining requests for clarification are listed below.

8.4.2 STAKEHOLDERS’ REMAINING COMMENTS ON SCOPE EXTENSION

8.4.2.1 Comment from Poland related to gauges 1520 mm

Comment received ERA-answer

CCS TSI should not apply for lines with gauge 1520 mm

and vehicles running on lines with gauge different from the

gauge of the main network in the MS.

Application of TSI in such cases does not influence

interoperability and safety at level of MS and EU.

In case of PL such lines are 5% of the rail infrastructure at

the border with third countries.

Maintenance of cross border trackside is frequently made

by third counties’ railway companies.

Application of CCS TSI would face also the difficulties

connected with existing lack of clear ownership rights and

setting the borders between IMs.

If the PL proposal is not accepted, ERTMS should be

ERA has been working with “1520 countries” (LV, LT,

EE and FI) with significant progress in the definition of

basic parameters. PL has a cross border connection to

LT.

The harmonisation at EU level of parameters is also a

basis for better coordination in the context of OSJD.

Other TSIs (LOC&PAS and Infrastructure) already

apply to 1520 mm track gauge.

Problems with ownership and setting of borders are not

due to application or non-application of CCS TSI.

The amended CCS TSI does not mandate



installed also in sections belonging to third countries.

implementation of ERTMS off-TEN; the

implementation rules are not modified in this respect.

8.4.2.2 Comment from CER and France related to use of public roaming (instead of use of

GSM-R network):

Comment received ERA-answer

CER fear that the modification from (MI) to (M) of SRS

clause §3.5.1 table 3-A may hinder the access to public

network through roaming which is widely used in Europe.

An interoperable approach to roaming compliant with the

interference resolution plan is to be proposed in the scope

of GSM-R specifications and, in the future, of FRMCS.

As a majority of the IMs

- do not require to receive the public GSM-band

or the GSM-E band for running on a part of their

network or on their complete network

or

- do allow the use of public (commercial) GSM-

handhelds in case of requiring the reception of

public GSM (instead of CAB-mobiles receiving

public GSM-band), most CAB-mobiles do not

need to be capable to work outside the GSM-R

band;

Therefore, a change request is proposed to have as

‘MI’-requirement that the CAB-mobiles are working in

the GSM-R band (while keeping the public GSM-band

and E-band as optional), rather than vice-versa (all

CAB-mobiles working in the GSM + GSM-E band +

GSM-R band, while allowing exceptions for those only

working in GSM-R band).

ERA-IMPACT ASSESSMENT (change request

approved on Control Group Meeting of 03/10/2013):

Impact IM: this change request does not have a

significant impact on Infrastructure Managers as it

does not question the use of public GSM on the

network. The limited impact for the Infrastructure

Manager should be to be transparent to RUs which

lines require the GSM-R, the GSM-E band or the

public GSM-band.

Impact RU: it gives more freedom to RUs in order

to decide which CAB-mobiles have to be installed,

including which appropriate protective measures

are needed. This change request allows opening the

market for finding the most efficient protective

measures for 1 of the 2 causes related to

interferences, being intermodulation.

- In case the technical evolution demonstrate

that filters as protective measure are more

efficient than the improved GSM-R receiver

Comment FR:

the restraining of the frequency band requirements should

not prevent GSM-R roaming towards public GSM band.

Indeed, the restraining of frequency band will hinder the

possibility to use GSM-R roaming because the GSM-R

mobile, which supports the functioning of the GSM

roaming, will not receive any longer the transmission from

the public GSM network. However for lines with very low

trafic, GSM-R is not affordable and economically viable.

Then, the use of GSM-R roaming provides the opportunity

to enhance the safety of the railway system by make

available train radio communications for these lines.



with better linearity, than this change request

will have a significant positive impact for RUs.

- Vice-versa, in case the technical evolution

demonstrate that improved GSM-R receivers are

more efficient as protective measure than filters,

than this change request will have no impact as

railway undertakings will prefer the most

efficient solution for their situation.

8.4.2.3 Comment from CER and France related to very dense areas:

non-ERTMS CCS might be necessary for ensuring very

dense levels of traffic, at least until high performance

ERTMS L3 implementations are available (situation similar

to Crossrail).

Very dense levels/capacity:

• Work is in progress to extend current ERTMS

functionality (e.g., connection to ATO, use of

communication systems other than GSM-R),

so all effort should be based on current

ERMTS specifications related to development

of new systems, as the technical challenges

are similar. ERA is ready to take into

consideration requirements coming from

experience and real implementation needs (see

CCM-process) in order to avoid new legacy

systems.



9 CONCLUSION: COMPARISON OF OPTIONS &

PREFERRED POLICY OPTION

9.1 EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY OF THE POLICY OPTIONS

9.1.1.1 In can be concluded that the baseline scenario (option 0) is ineffective in ensuring a

cost-effective functioning of the European Union’s railway system as technical

barriers will remain and CCS systems will continue to diverge in the future.

Therefore, option 0 can be excluded as preferred policy option. The contrary is true

for option 1 (scope extension to OFF-TEN-T without strict migration requirements)

and option 2 (scope extension to OFF-TEN-T with strict migration requirements):

both options would be effective in removing technical barriers. For option 1 an

evolutionary approach is foreseen towards gradual ERTMS convergence. For option

2 strict timing migration scenarios would be foreseen.

9.1.1.2 Based on a quantitative analysis it was demonstrated that option 1 is cost-efficient in

the long run: with today’s cost figures, it provides for a positive benefit-cost ratio in

99,99% in case of complex legacy systems. In case of “simple” train protection

systems, in only 8.6% of cases, long-term benefits exceed long-term costs. However,

this is under the condition that these simple legacy systems would further provide

sufficient performance and safety levels. Upgrades of simple legacy systems are

mostly done in case of shifting towards a higher performance level, so moving into

the category of complex legacy systems. Therefore, in reality, it is to be expected

that in most cases there is a positive benefit- cost ratio.

9.1.1.3 With regard to option 2 stakeholders emphasised that the optimal migration scenario

depends on different national parameters. The installation of existing (‘freezed’)

legacy systems could still be required and more cost-effective in het short-run,

depending on the national circumstances (such as remaining lifetime of Class B-

systems and interlocking systems, required capacity and safety performance level).

Furthermore, stakeholders highlight the risk for small railway undertakings and for

certain lines to be closed due to high investments costs in case of mandatory

migration at a suboptimal timing. For these reasons, option 2 is judged not to be

cost-effective.

9.2 PREFERRED POLICY OPTION

9.2.1.1 From the above it is concluded that option 1 is the preferred policy option:

evolutionary approach: scope extension to OFF-TEN-T without strict migration

requirements. The proposed legal framework in option 1 is to avoid future upgrades

of legacy systems, but not to limit the further installation of the listed Class B-

systems applicable on the off-TEN-T, so the listed simple and complex Class B-

systems may still be used.



10 MONITORING

10.1.1.1 It is important to monitor the cost trends of ETCS and identify the underlying cost

drivers in order to monitor the CCS-systems and potential activities to be undertaken

in order to maintain the system. Further on, the migration models for the complete

network (or part of the network) will give useful information in order also to

prioritise potential activities in the field of ERTMS.

10.1.1.2 Moreover, in order to monitor the general objective of this intiativeo, it would be

useful for ERA to monitor the following indicators:

Changes in the planned date of switch off of national legacy systems

Total train-km operated on ERTMS equipped infrastructure on the off-TEN-T

Total number / or percentage of retrofitted locomotives on the off-TEN-T

Total number / or percentage of retrofitted locomotives operating on ERTMS

equipped infrastructure on the off-TEN-T

o As a reminder: the general objective is to stimulate gradual convergence in command and control systems

deployed in the European Union’s rail system by removing technical barriers in order to increase the cost-

effectiveness of the European Union’s rail system



11 ANNEXES

11.1 ANNEX 1: LIST OF CLASS B-SYSTEMS ON TEN-NETWORK

Extract from file ERA_TD_2011-11 v10



11.2 ANNEX 2: INFRASTRUCTURE DATA (TEN AND OFF-TEN

NETWORK)

Data mainly from year 2005 - see (4)



11.3 ANNEX 3: VOLUNTARY EXTENSION OF TSI

Extension of the field of application of TSIs - Extensions existing in the MS - Questionnaire Summary (24-June-2009)

AT BE BG CZ DK EE FI FR DE GR HU

HS INF No In pract. No NA NA NA Planned

(N-FI-1)

In pract.

(N-FR-1) No No In practice

CR INF No No No No No Planned Planned

(N-FI-1) No No No

Planned, in

pract.

HS ENE No In pract. No NA NA NA Planned

(N-FI-1)

In pract.

(N-FR-1) No No In pract.

CR ENE No No No No No No Planned

(N-FI-1) No No

Planned,

in pract.

HS CCS No In pract. No NA NA NA Planned

(N-FI-1)

In pract.


CR CCS No Yes Partially

(N-BG-1) No

Yes.

Partially

(N-DK-1)

No Planned

(N-FI-1)

ERTMS:

Corridors

GSM-R: Y

No No In pract.

HS OPE Planned In pract. No NA NA NA Planned

(N-FI-1)

In pract.


CR OPE Planned Yes Partially

(N-BG-1) Planned

In pract.

Partially

(N-DK-2)

No Planned

(N-FI-1) Yes No No Planned

HS RST No In pract. No NA NA NA Planned

(N-FI-1)

In pract.


CR RST No In pract. No No No Planned Planned

(N-FI-1) No No

Planned, in

pract.

WAG No In pract. Partially

(N-BG-2) No No No

Planned

(N-FI-1) In pract.

Partially

(N-DE-1) No In pract.

NOISE No In pract. Partially

(N-BG-2) No No

Planned,

partially

N-EE-1

Yes

(N-FI-1)

In pract.

Partially

(N-FR-2)

No No In pract.

SRT No No No No No No Yes No No No In pract.

PRM No No No No No Planned Yes

(N-FI-1)

Plan. (only

Spec., not

Conf. As.)

No No In pract.

- INF part

- RST part

Comments

All

HS

lin

es a

re p

art

of

TE

N.

All

roll

ing

sto

ck

oper

ate

on

TE

N

at

leas

t

occ

asio

nal

ly

No

HS

lin

es i

n t

his

MS

No

HS

lin

es i

n t

his

MS

No

HS

lin

es i

n t

his

MS

All

HS

lin

es a

re p

art

of

TE

N

Dec

isio

n

abou

t th

e ex

tensi

on

of

the

sco

pe

of

the

TS

Is i

s ta

ken

in t

he

pro

cess

of

tran

sfo

rmat

ion

of

the

TS

Is

into

nat

ional

law

; not

by t

he

NS

A.

Th

e T

SIs

are

ap

pli

ed o

n t

he

TE

N a

nd

on

the

bra

nch

lin

es u

p t

o 5

0 k

m f

rom

the

TE

N

lines

. T

his

m

akes

up

nea

rly

th

e

wh

ole

net

work

.



IT IE LV LT LU NL NO PL PT RO SK

HS INF NA No No NA Yes In pract.

(N-NO-1) No In pract. NA NA

CR INF No No No No Planned Planned, in

pract. No

Planned,

partially

(N-PT-1)

Planned,

partially

(N-RO-1)

No

HS ENE NA No No NA Yes In pract.

(N-NO-1) No In practice NA NA

CR ENE No No No Planned Planned Planned, in

pract. No

Planned,

partially

(N-PT-1)

Planned,

partially

(N-RO-1)

No

HS CCS NA No No NA Yes In pract.

(N-NO-1) No In practice NA NA

CR CCS No No No Partially

(N-LU-1) Yes In pract. No

In pract.,

partially

(N-PT-1)

No No

HS OPE NA No No NA Yes In pract.


CR OPE In pract. Yes No Partially


Planned,

partially

(N-PT-2)

No No

HS RST NA No No NA Yes In pract.


CR RST Planned, in

pract. No No

Planned

Planned, in

pract. No

Planned,

partially

(N-PT-1)

No No

WAG In pract. No No Partially

(N-LU-2) Yes

Planned, in

pract. No In pract. No No

NOISE In pract. No No Yes Yes In pract. No In pract. No No

SRT No No No Partially


In pract.,

partially

(N-PT-1)

No No

PRM Yes (only

Spec., not

Conf. As.)

No Yes Yes Planned, in

pract. No

In pract.,

partially

(N-PT-1)

No No

- INF part No

- RST part In pract.

Comments

No H

S l

ines

in t

his

MS

The

scope

of

appli

cati

on o

f th

e T

SI

is

exte

nde

to t

he

who

le m

ain

net

wo

rk (

i.e.

net

work

w

her

e pub

lic

serv

ices

ar

e

oper

ated

).

The

Norw

egia

n p

art

of

the

TE

N m

akes

up a

lmost

the

enti

re n

atio

nal

net

wo

rk.

No H

S l

ines

in t

his

MS

. F

utu

re l

ines

wil

l

be

buil

t ac

cord

ing t

o t

he

TS

Is

No H

S l

ines

in t

his

MS



SI ES SE UK

HS INF NA In pract. Yes No

CR INF No No Planned No

HS ENE NA In pract. Yes No

CR ENE No No Planned No

HS CCS NA In pract. Yes No

CR CCS No No Yes No

HS OPE NA Planned Yes In pract.

CR OPE Yes Planned Yes In pract.

HS RST NA Planned Yes In pract.

CR RST No Planned,

partially

(N-ES-1)

Planned In pract.

WAG No Planned,

partially

(N-ES-1)

Yes In pract.

NOISE No Planned Yes In pract.

SRT No No Yes NA

PRM No Planned Yes

- INF part

Yes (only

Spec., not

Conf. As.)

- RST part

In pract.

Comments

No H

S l

ines

in t

his

MS

All

HS

lin

es a

re p

art

of

TE

N.

If o

ff-T

EN

HS

is

buil

t, T

SI

wil

l be

appli

ed.

All

HS

lin

es a

re p

art

of

TE

N.



11.4 ANNEX 4: ROLLING STOCK DATA (TEN AND OFF-TEN

NETWORK)

11.4.1.1 Quantitative comparison of TEN and OFF-TEN Rolling Stock (data mainly from

year 2005 - see (4))

Rolling stock which is never operated

on TEN lines Global fleet

Percentage of rolling stock which is never operated on TEN lines

Locomotives 714 30 642 2.33%

Multiple Units 5 280 27 615 19.12%

TOTAL 5 994 58 257 10.29%



11.5 ANNEX 5: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS & MEMBER STATES’ VIEW

11.5.1 SIGNALLING SYSTEMS

11.5.1.1 From the answers on the questionnaire, following elements are derived. Almost half

of the respondents will have ERTMS as target for their off-TEN network. The other

half indicates following reasons to justify the current legacy system as target or to

justify the postposal of the decision of implementing ERTMS on their off-TEN

network:

- Low performance lines needs simpler system;

- On-board migration costs are too high;

- The number of vehicles currently equipped with ERTMS is low (“too

early to decide”);

Examples of signalling systems that are still seen as target system are: ASFA,

EVM, LS, PZB/Indusi, SHP.

11.5.1.2 Question: Are there any technical aspects in chapter 4 of the current CCS TSI,

related to ETCS specifications, which would require modifications for the

applicability of ETCS outside the TEN-network?

11.5.1.3 One reply on the questionnaire indicated following remark:

“ERTMS level 3 is technically fully specified in chapter 4, but the safety level

need to be specified, i.e. extend the scope of subset-91 and make requirements on

level 3.”

11.5.1.3.1 ERA answer:

Trackside: the possibility of having different SIL (Safety Integrity Levels) for

track-side equipment is already foreseen in the TSI and no modifications are

necessary – no action needed;

On-board: if the revised TSI accept a lower SIL for the common functions of

the ETCS on-board equipment (used in ETCS L1, L2 & L3), it will not

anymore be interoperable and will become de facto a new European system;

Specifications for the safety level of the train integrity function (only

applicable in ETCS L3) shall be added within subset 091 in order to avoid

multiple on-board solutions for cross-border operation;



11.5.2 RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

11.5.2.1 The questionnaire shows that GSM-R is used and further rolled out as specific radio

communication system. The answers from the Agency’s impact assessment did not

reveal elements which question GSM-R as target system for the off-TEN network, in

the case a specific radio communication system would be required for the off-TEN

network, with one sole exceptionp.

11.5.2.2 Question: Are there any technical aspects in chapter 4 of the TSI CCS, related to

GSM-R voice or data specifications, which would require modifications for their

applicability outside the TEN-network?

11.5.2.3 One reply on the questionnaire indicated following remark: “The TSI demands on

the coverage level and QoS for ETCS L2 lines are too high for off-TEN lines.”

11.5.2.3.1 ERA answer: no mandatory requirements are set for the conventional rail and high-

speed rail related to the coverage level and Quality of Service requirements

(already deleted from Annex A in previous TSI revision). Therefore, it is not an

issue of scope extension.

11.5.3 TRAIN DETECTION SYSTEMS

11.5.3.1 Question: Would you install track circuits/axle counters meeting the frequency

management requirements as specified in the TSI also outside the TEN-network?

11.5.3.2 11 out of 14 answers indicate that track circuits or axle counters compliant with TSI

requirements will be installed off TEN. Following question addresses and clarifies

the answers which didn’t clearly express the installation of TSI compliant track

circuits/axle counters.

11.5.3.3 Question: “Are there aspects in the interface document (see [5]), related to train

detection systems specifications, which would require modifications for their

applicability outside the TEN-network (e.g. modification of frequency

management)?”

11.5.3.4 Answers received from questionnaire:

11.5.3.4.1 Include DC Track circuits in the TSI frequency management;

11.5.3.4.2 More investigation needed related to the existing systems (including track circuits

from CLC/TS 50238-2:2010) including their impact on rolling stock costs;

p one answer indicates a small extension of the existing specific railway radio system (450 MHz) to cover a part of the off-

TEN network.



11.5.3.4.3 Secondary utilization (re-deployment) of the traditional non-interoperable

equipment dismounted from the TEN lines to be used on off-TEN lines;

11.5.3.4.4 ERA answer: this topic is in progress in order to close the open point within one of

the next revisions of the TSI CCS.

11.5.4 FINDINGS RELATED TO SCOPE EXTENSION

11.5.4.1 Scope extension of TSI CCS is in general being done on a voluntary base for radio

communication systems and train detection systems. The provisions related to radio

and train detection systems in chapter 7 of the CCS TSI are already suitable for off-

TEN too, so no additions are necessary.

11.5.4.2 Half of the answers indicate that option 2 (with mandatory migration towards

ERTMS) is not economic viable yet. In these Member States, Class B-systems are

still required on the railway network.

11.5.4.3 These conclusions do also apply for the Member States representing the 1520

network (see table below).

The train detection systems currently in use on the 1520 network are included

within the definition of TSI compliant train detection systems.

11.5.4.4 In Finland (having 25kV energy system), the vehicle design is similar as vehicles

designed for 1435mm track gauge (with similar requirements related to EMC and

train detection systems). In such case, only the bogies are replaced to run on the

broader 1520/1524 network. Therefore, Member States within the 1520 network

have also potential benefits in having similar EMC-requirements and train detection

systems requirements as in the 1435mm network in order to make use of similar

vehicle designs.



11.6 ANNEX 6: ROLLING STOCK MODEL

11.6.1.1 The rolling stock model has the objective to verify if the target is desirable, which

means if long term benefits exceed long term costs once migration has taken place

based on the assumption that ETCS provides sufficient viable implementation

strategies for infrastructure managers in the long term (ETCS Limited Supervision,

ETCS L3). The second question “Is the target reachable” will be addressed in the

section related to migration costs.

11.6.1.2 Following elements are used to estimate long term benefits and long term additional

costs between scenario 1 and the reference scenario:

11.6.1.3 Assumption: in the long term, all vehicles running on TEN are equipped with ETCS.

11.6.1.4 Long term benefits: due to the presence of single trackside ETCS-system, for trainsq

running both on-TEN and off-TEN, no additional legacy systems have to be installed

on board;

Long term Benefits =

(number of trains running both on TEN and off-TEN) x (“ETCS+legacy” on-

board cost - ETCS on-board cost)

11.6.1.5 Long term additional costs: trains running solely off-TEN have to be equipped with

ETCS instead of legacy system. Due to the supposedly higher on-board cost for

ETCS-system in comparison to legacy system, additional costs appear for the fleet

running solely off-TENr.

Long term Costs =

(number of trains running solely off-TEN) x (ETCS on-board cost - legacy on-

board cost)

11.6.1.6 The long term benefit cost ratio is calculated by dividing the long term benefits by

the long term costs. The formula can be regrouped into 2 parameters, parameter ‘P1’

related to traffic flows and parameter ‘P2’ related to the cost of on-board signalling

systems:

q Here used (improperly) as shorthand for “locomotives” or “EMUs” etc.

r ETCS on board assemblies are generally speaking more complex, hence more expensive. Only large scale production could

induce bring the prices down. Such effects have not been observed so far.



Long term benefits / Long term costs = P1 x P2

P1 = (number of trains running both on TEN and off-TEN) / (number of trains running

solely off-TEN);

P2 = (“ETCS + legacy’’ on-board cost - ETCS on-board cost)/ (ETCS on-board cost -

legacy on-board cost);

11.6.1.7 Assumption: although the long term benefit cost ratio does not depend upon the total

yearly number of vehicles placed into service, this number is estimated at 2 000

vehicles per year (on-TEN and off-TEN network). This figure allows us to calculate

the absolute values of long term costs and benefits for the European network. This is

based upon 60 000 vehicles into service, and a lifetime of 30 years.

11.6.1.7.1 Assumption: additional long term benefits due to a higher performance (more

capacity, more functionality or higher safety level) are not taken into account in the

model. The justification is based upon the reasoning that 1) the current legacy

systems provide sufficient performance; 2) the model focuses on interoperability

benefits and costs; 3) supplemental benefits (e.g. capacity) that would be enabled

by the more expensive ETCS implementations would also require additional

investment before they can materialize. In other words; “enablers” provide

opportunities, but opportunities cannot be valued the same as benefits.

11.6.1.8 Trackside systems

11.6.1.8.1 Assumptions: no trackside cost differences are taken into account in the model

between legacy systems and ERTMS-systems for newly installed trackside systems.

Justification for this assumption is based upon the elements provided in 7.3.2.2 and

following reasoning:

Table: Cost impact analysis of short term investment costs for trackside systems

Case Reference

scenario

Scenario in

case of scope

extension

Qualitative cost impact

analysis

1 No train

protection system

installed

No train

protection

system

None



installed

2 Legacy system -

discrete / spot

supervision

ETCS –

Limited

Supervision

No significant cost difference

expected in comparison to

upgrade or new legacy system

using other spot-technologies

than balises (simple legacy

system) under the prerequisite of

adapted interlocking:

Life cycle costs of balises are

similar to life cycle costs of

other spot- technologies such as

coils, …)

3 Legacy system -

continuous

supervision using

track circuits

ETCS L2/L3 Positive cost impact expected n

comparison to upgrade or new

legacy system using track

circuits (complex legacy

system):

GSM-R data transmission is needed (-);

No lineside signals (+);

Free choice of TSI compliant train

detection system (+);

11.6.1.8.2 Case 2 concerns systems in which transmission systems of legacy systems are

using galvanic contacts, inductive coils, electronic transponder devices or cable

loops. These devices are comparable to transmission systems using switchable

‘ETCS’-balises or Euro loops, with cabling and connecting to the signal.

Therefore, we assume similar life cycle costs for these types of trackside systems.

Answers from the questionnaire indicate cost figures between 15-20 k€/signal (EBICAB,

PZB, ETCS). An exception is made for simple legacy systems (warning; warning-stop) where

lower cost figures are mentioned.

11.6.1.8.3 Case 3 concerns systems in which track-circuits are not only used for vacancy

proving, but also for data transmission from track to train. These systems are used

with following geographical scope in Europe (data derived from (2)):



- Netherlands (system ATB-EG);

- Czech Republic (system LS);

- Hungary (system EVM);

- Slovakia (system LS);

- Italy (BACC);

- France (TVM, mainly on high-speed network)

In such a case, we assume the system will be probably replaced by ETCS L2. Additional

costs for GSM-R data transmission (+5 to +10 k€/single track.km in comparison to GSM-R

voice only) versus benefits of having no signals (about 10 to 20 k€/signal - with an average of

one lineside signal per single track.km) will balance each other. Therefore, we also assume

similar investment costs for these types of trackside systems. Lower maintenance costs of

ETCS L2 (due to less equipment within the track) could further lead to lower life cycle costs

in case of ETCS L2.

11.6.1.8.4 ETCS L2: UIC-benchmarking study (last updated in 2011) provides the most recent

data quantifying ETCS life cycle costs. This report indicates that observed ETCS

L2 life cycle costs are higher than ETCS L1 (or existing legacy systems) life cycle

costs. During a workshop (held on 05/09/2012 at EIM), most EIM-participants

expect that in future ETCS L2 trackside life cycle costs will decrease due to the

lower density of trackside equipment under certain conditions (no overlay of line

side signalling system).

11.6.1.8.5 ETCS L3: the long term potential benefits of ETCS L3 (not needing train detection

systems) can further lower the trackside life cycle costs of ETCS. The migration

models should include these additional benefits at IM-side.

11.6.1.9 Input data 1 - on-board cost data

11.6.1.9.1 Following on-board cost data concerns new vehicles. These are based on answers

received via the questionnaire.

11.6.1.9.2 Definition of simple legacy system: train protection system with warning or

warning-stop functionality. A limited number of bits or statuses are transferred

from trackside to on-board equipment.

Definition of complex legacy system: train protection system with discrete

supervision, continuous supervision or CAB-signalling functionality.



11.6.1.9.3 Model - on-board cost data for new vehicles (see also (3)):

System Mean investment cost Sensitivity (triangular

distribution)

Simple legacy

system

10 k€/on-board unit +/- 5k€

Complex legacy

system

100 k€/on-board unit +/- 50k€

ETCS system 200 k€/on-board unit +/- 50k€

ETCS and legacy

system

210 k€/on-board unit (simple

legacy system)s

300 k€/on-board unit

(complex legacy system)

Sum of investment cost

of ETCS and investment

cost of legacy system

Table 1: input data for on-board investment cost used in basic model

Input data: Simple Class B –systemt

s The development cost of the integration of the Class B and ETCS –system is not included as this development

is expected to take place in all scenarios (for vehicles running on TEN-network or as part of migration scenario);

t $ in the figures must always be replaced by € (shortcoming of the software used)



Input data: Complex Class B –system

Input data: ETCS –system

11.6.1.10 Input data 2 – percentage of fleet running solely off-TEN, solely on-TEN

and both on-TEN and off-TEN

11.6.1.10.1 Trains running solely off-TEN are derived from a previous report (see Annex

2) in which data is mentioned for vehicles running solely off-TEN.

11.6.1.10.2 Assumption: as off-TEN represents 60% and TEN-network represents 40% of

the network (see Annex 2), a similar reasoning could be used to estimate the

percentage of trains running solely on TEN-network. Taken into account that TEN-

network are more centralised lines, while off-TEN network are more on the outside

connections of the integrated TEN-network, we estimate the percentage of trains

running solely TEN at 20% of the total fleet. This value is estimated on the high

side in order not to overestimate long term benefits. However, this parameter as a



lower sensitivity in the overall conclusion as the most influential parameter is the

percentage of trains running both on-TEN and off-TEN (a 50% decrease of the

percentage solely on-TEN (e.g. 20% to 10%) leads to 14% increase of long term

benefits (e.g. 70% to 80%)).

11.6.1.10.3 Percentage of fleet running solely off-TEN, solely on-TEN and both on-TEN

and off-TEN:

Fleet running... Percentage of

trains

Sensitivity

Solely off-TEN 10% +/- 100%

Solely on-TEN 20% +/- 100%

Both on-TEN

and off-TEN

70%

=100%

- fleet running solely off-TEN

- fleet running solely on-TEN

Table 2: input data for fleet running solely off-TEN, solely

on-TEN and both on- TEN and off-TEN

Input data: percentage of fleet running solely off-TEN

Input data: percentage of fleet running solely on-TEN



11.6.1.11 Assumption: we assume that for vehicles running off-TEN and on TEN only

one additional legacy system has to be taken into account.

11.6.1.12 Training: one single system will lead to diminished risks and training

requirements for train drivers due to a reduction in the number of legacy systems and

fewer transitions between systems.

11.6.1.13 Output data: following scenarios will be simulated using the above data

- Benefit Cost ratio in scenario of simple legacy systems

- Sensitivity analysis in scenario of simple legacy systems in function of cost

price of Class B- on-board system;

- Sensitivity analysis in scenario of simple legacy systems in function of

percentage of trains running solely on-TEN;

- Sensitivity analysis (using Monte Carlo simulation) based on triangular

distribution model for all parameters above.

- Benefit Cost ratio in scenario of complex legacy systems

- Sensitivity analysis in scenario of complex legacy systems in function of cost

price of Class B- on-board system;

- Sensitivity analysis in scenario of complex legacy systems in function of

percentage of trains running solely on-TEN;

- Sensitivity analysis (using Monte Carlo simulation) based on triangular

distribution model for all parameters above.



11.6.1.14 Analysis 1: Legacy system with “simple” train protection functionality

(warning; warning-stop)

11.6.1.15 Standard analysis: using the input data from the previous section, long term

benefits do not exceed long term costs in case of “simple” train protection systems.

In such case, benefit-cost ratio is 0.37.

11.6.1.16 Sensitivity analysis - parameter ‘Legacy on-board cost’: long term benefits

equal long term costs in case legacy on-board cost equals 25 k€.

11.6.1.17 Sensitivity analysis – integration cost: one of the elements is the integration

cost of ETCS + legacy on-board cost. In the case of simple Class B-systems, the

mere addition of investment cost of both systems leads to an underestimation of

costs. Analysis shows that an integration cost of 17k€ (per vehicle, integrating a

share of type testing and approval costs) leads to long term benefits exceeding long

term cost. This parameter should therefore be verified.



11.6.1.18 Sensitivity analysis - parameter ‘Percentage of vehicles running only off-

TEN’: long term benefits equals long term costs if percentage of vehicles running

only off-TEN decreases to 4%. This shows the importance of integration between

off-TEN and TEN-network. The higher the percentage of vehicles running both on

TEN and off-TEN, the more importance to have one single target.



11.6.1.19 Output from simulation model:

11.6.1.19.1 Model using Risk Solver Platform software:

11.6.1.19.2 Output: in only in 8.6% of cases within the simulation model, long-term

benefits exceed long-term costs.



11.6.1.19.3 Sensitivity: main influencing parameter is related to the percentage of vehicles

running solely off-TEN (and not the price level of the simple legacy system).

11.6.1.20 Provisional conclusion 1: in case of simple train protection systems, the

percentage of vehicles running only off-TEN, will mainly determine if long term

benefits exceed long term costs. For low integrated off-TEN lines, simple legacy

systems can still be a more economically viable target than the ETCS-system. This

is under the condition that these simple legacy systems would further provide

sufficient performance and safety for the off-TEN lines.

11.6.1.21 Analysis 2: Legacy system with “complex” train protection functionality

(discrete speed supervision, continuous speed supervision or CAB-signalling)

11.6.1.22 Standard analysis: using the input data from the previous section, long term

benefits do exceed long term costs in case of “complex” train protection systems. In

such case, benefit-cost ratio is 7.



11.6.1.23 Sensitivity analysis - parameter ‘legacy system on-board cost: long term

benefits equal long term costs in case legacy system on-board cost equals 25 k€u.

u 2 answers from the questionnaire mention cost prices for ‘complex’ on-board systems below

this value (system LS; EVM).



11.6.1.24 Sensitivity analysis - parameter ‘Percentage of vehicles running only on-TEN’:

long term benefits equals long term costs if percentage of vehicles running only on-

TEN increases to 80%. Such a high percentage of powered vehicles running only

on-TEN does not seem realistic.

11.6.1.25 Output from simulation model:

11.6.1.25.1 Model using Risk Solver Platform software:



11.6.1.25.2 Output: in 99.99% of cases of the simulation model, the long-term benefits

exceed long-term costs.

11.6.1.25.3 Sensitivity: main influencing parameter is related to the percentage of vehicles

running solely off-TEN (and not the price level of the complex legacy system).



11.6.1.26 Provisional conclusion: in case of complex train protection systems, long term

benefits exceed long term costs. Therefore, ETCS-systems are a more economic

viable solution as long term target than the complex legacy systems for the off-TEN

network. Migration costs have to be evaluated (at local level) to verify if these one-

time costs do not exceed the overall long term revenues.

11.6.1.27 Summary of long term benefits and costs related to ETCS

11.6.1.27.1 The analysis showed that long term benefits of scope extension exceed long

term costs for complex legacy systems, while this is not the case for simple legacy

systems. An estimation of the number of trackside systems and units equipped with

these systems can be found in (2):

Roughly, 25 to 35% of vehicles are equipped with simple train protection

functionality, while 65 to 75% of vehicles are equipped with complex train

protection functionality.

11.6.1.27.2 During the EIM-workshop of 05th

September 2012, it was confirmed that

ETCS provides sufficient economically viable variants (e.g. ETCS Regional (L3),

Limited Supervision, Level 2) to cover the requirements of the different

configurations of the off-TEN network. This is also confirmed by the answers from

the questionnaire on following question (“Are there any technical aspects in

chapter 4 of the current CCS TSI, related to ETCS specifications, which would

require modifications for the applicability of ETCS outside the TEN-network?”).



11.6.1.27.3 Opportunity: scale effects of ETCS and obsolescence effects of legacy system

will further reduce the current cost differences between legacy on-board systems

and ETCS systems used. Recently signed contracts also seem to demonstrate the

importance of scale effects. These effects will impact parameter P2. Therefore, it is

recommended to further monitor the cost evolution.

11.6.1.27.4 Risk: scope extension of CCS for the off-TEN network could even have a

negative impact (cost increase of ETCS-implementations) as this could provoke an

imbalance between demand and supply of ETCS signalling resources.

11.6.1.27.5 Risk: this analysis is based on the assumption that the TEN-network (and fleet

running on TEN and off TEN) will be equipped with ERTMS;

11.6.1.27.6 Risk: this global analysis could however hide some local particularities.

Looking to following table, the percentage of fleet running solely off-TEN is

particularly high (>20% for locomotives or vehicles in DMUs &EMUs) for

following Member States: Czech Republic, Germany and Slovakia.



11.7 ANNEX 7: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF MIGRATION

11.7.1.1 Migration costs depend on local situations and these one-time costs should be

evaluated in relation with the long term benefits and costs.

11.7.1.2 Some elements play a role in the migration strategy which are not included within

the economic model or which set certain maximum values on parameters within the

model (e.g. as maximum retrofit rate). Examples of such elements are:

11.7.1.2.1 Insufficient availability of investment funds can lead to the exclusion of fast

migration scenarios.

11.7.1.2.2 The time needed to retrofit a vehicle (out of service time) can lead to a constraint

on the maximum migration rate of rolling stock in order to be able to execute the

required traffic volumes.

11.7.1.2.3 Safety incidents/accidents could lead to the adoption of fast migration scenarios or

possible ETCS changes.

11.7.1.3 Migration costs for each individual network are not included within the report as the

above analysis of long term benefits and costs is sufficient to state that the overall

economic outcome will not be positive in some cases. Therefore, the conclusion for

ETCS will remain the same as for the TEN-network (but outside corridors), meaning

not yet imposing ETCS on all lines.

11.7.1.4 Opportunity: There might be cases where the local CBA is positive for IMs (due to

significant savings at trackside) and negative for RUs (due to high migration costs

for retrofitting). In such cases, an appropriate compensation scheme should be

applied in order to achieve positive CBA both at RU and at IM-side when

implementing ETCS.

11.7.1.5 Following elements demonstrate why migration scenarios can be different between

the networks.

11.7.1.6 Rolling stock / trackside migration: the end target (being e.g. ETCS L2 without line

side signalling- scenario 1 or ETCS L1/Limited supervision-scenario 2) can have an

impact on the type of migration scenario. Rolling stock migration (RST equipped

with ETCS+STMs/legacy system) will have a more positive case when the end target

is set to be without line side signalling (mostly the case in scenario 1) in comparison



to an end target with line side signalling (scenario 2). This is due to the fact that in

the first scenario renewing/upgrading and maintaining the line side signalling system

(at trackside) can be avoided in case of rolling stock migration, while in the second

scenario, renewing/upgrading and maintaining the line side signalling system (at

trackside) will not be avoided by rolling stock migration.

11.7.1.7 Rolling stock / trackside migration: the ratio of number of signals (depending on the

network configuration) versus the number of rolling stock to be migrated can have an

impact on the migration scenario.

11.7.1.8 Fast/slow migration: the optimal migration scenario depends also on the age of the

existing legacy systems at trackside and vehicle side. In case of ‘old’ legacy systems

reaching their end of lifetime, the residual value is low and migration (based on the

renewal rate) can be more easily performed. In such scenario, fast migration will be

less costly than in a scenario where legacy systems have a high remaining lifetime

(more retrofit costs).

11.7.1.9 Fast/slow migration: during the migration period, there is a need for additional

human resources. A shorter migration period leads to a higher peak in human

resources (leading to higher training or salary costs) which will lead to additional

migration costs in case of fast migration scenarios. Following examples demonstrate

the existence of differences in migration strategies:

11.7.1.9.1 A fast rolling stock migration scenario, meaning rolling stock gets ETCS

+STMs/legacy systems, and when all rolling stock is retrofitted, trackside gets

converted to ETCS without overlay. This scenario will be implemented by the

major RUs currently operating in DK and NL (still under discussion);

11.7.1.9.2 Independent migration scenarios are implemented in Belgium and France.

ECONOMIC EVALUATION UNIT FINAL REPORT TSI … ECONOMIC EVALUATION UNIT 140514 ERA-EE- Report CCS TSI...

Documents

Transcript of ECONOMIC EVALUATION UNIT FINAL REPORT TSI … ECONOMIC EVALUATION UNIT 140514 ERA-EE- Report CCS TSI...