Return to Archive -by date - by topic - 2003.

RAILTALK April 2003

ERTMS - Common sense replaces emotion

Hindsight tells us that public inquiries into railway accidents all too often lead the industry expensively down blind alleys. In part this is due to the quasi judicial nature of the proceedings. Only evidence presented to the inquiry, and challenged by cross examination, is admissible. On this evidence, the man responsible for the inquiry must base his recommendations.

Or men, in the case of the Joint Inquiry into train protection systems under Professor John Uff and Lord Cullen. And, on the advice of the HSE, the Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has just rejected the key recommendations of that inquiry.

Clearly Uff and Cullen were let down by their witnesses. HSE now accepts that ‘the Uff/Cullen timetable for installing the European Rail Traffic Management System is not viable'. It now believes that ‘the current state of technology means that at the moment further use of health and safety law to mandate ERTMS is not appropriate'.

And this exposes another flaw in the official inquiry process. Not to be mealy mouthed, public inquiries into fatal accidents inevitably become witch-hunts, with counsels for the bereaved and injured cross examining witnesses.

In this atmosphere, to say that something is not possible becomes politically incorrect. It is the railway dragging its feet again. So when eminent signal engineers said that ERTMS was available virtually off the shelf, for those ‘in the dock' to say that it wasn't was heartless, uncaring and offensive to those who had suffered and wanted to ensure that such a thing could never happen again.

And it took more morale courage than most of us possess to stand up and argue that the safety benefit of ERTMS would be minimal, particularly with the Train Protection & Warning System coming on apace. Indeed, the Joint Inquiry was not happy with the use of cost benefit analysis to prioritise safety expenditure, even though it was one of the recommendations of the Hidden Inquiry into the Clapham accident.

So, on zero evidence, the Inquiry claimed, in making its recommendations, that since fitment of ERTMS would be mandated by government as the European Interoperability Regulations came into British law, it was not called on to come to any judgement on whether these systems satisfy a cost benefit analysis.

This was a stunning half truth. It was true that the High Speed Interoperability Directive mandated fitment of ERTMS. But, equally, this was mandated only when lines were renewed or upgraded. And, of course, the Directive was not intended as a safety measure.

Only now are we getting the real measure of the availability and affordability of ERTMS, thanks to the on-going work of the ERTMS Programme Team (ERTMS-PT . And both issues are critical.

Those who think that Europe is rocketing ahead with proven kit should note events in Switzerland . Having run Level 2 ERTMS, or more correctly the European Train Control System (ETCS), as a pilot scheme for nine months between Zofingen and Sempach on the Oltern-Luzern line Swiss Federal Railways is still concerned over reliability. As a result SBB is dual-fitting its new Mattstetten-Rothrist line with ETCS plus conventional lineside signals, including ZUB train protection, as insurance.

Those who think that the cost of ETCS is a uniquely British concern should heed the comments of Karl-Friedrich Rausch, German Railways Board Member for Technology. He told our contemporary Railway Gazette International ‘As for interoperability…if the railways are to bear the cost of migration to ETCS that will worsen the condition of competition because costs will increase driving traffic onto the roads. So the technical question is being tackled but the bigger question is “who pays?”'.

Nor was Herr Rausch that sanguine on the answers. ‘It must be reliable and it must be available at affordable prices. We are not there yet'.

In Britain , as in Germany , affordability is emerging as the key issue and the figures are not looking good.

Consider these numbers given to conferences organised by the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in February by Nigel Williams, Commercial Manager of the ERTMS-PT.

ERTMS fitment cost

Capital Expenditure

*Ancillaries include GSM-R upgrade (£137m) to handle signalling data and project management (£347m) but excludes interlockings for resignalling.

Installing ERTMS Level 2 System D - which eliminates lineside signals - will involve fitting 4,488 locomotives and multiple units and 25,386 km of track. Current estimate of the capital cost is £2.36 billion. Allowing for technical and commercial risk brings the cost up to the ‘official' figure of £3.6billion.

Nearly half the cost goes on fitting rolling stock. When the ERTMS-PT was evaluating the implications of the Joint Inquiry recommendations, it was assumed that to get maximum safety benefit you fitted trains first so that as routes cut over to ERTMS all trains were protected.

And note that average cost per unit of £245,000.

A review at the end of 2002 refined the fitting costs. Excluding the costs of associated development work, such as new rules, the removal of redundant TPWS, a study of space provision, training and the ‘runaround' fleet to substitute for trains being fitted in works, the average cost per train fell £233 000.

But because an EMU requires both cabs to have individual equipment, retrofitting is estimated at £295 000 per unit. Locomotives can be fitted with a single equipment serving both cabs. Factory fitted to new traction, this would cost £153,000 per locomotive.

What this tells us is that with the safety benefit pre-empted by TPWS, a new approach is needed to the Interoperability Directive if it is to be affordable. With the Uff/Cullen schedule binned, the Directive should be taken at face value.

This implies that when ETCS is commercially available and proven, it should be installed as high speed lines fall due for resignalling. Fleets which operate predominantly on these routes will then be retrofitted with ETCS in parallel. Since the installation is mandated by the European Community, the cost should be met out of EC funds.

Hopefully, with sanity returning, the Strategic Rail Authority can now develop such a structured resignalling programme incorporating the High Speed and Conventional Interoperability Directives. And, please, no more public inquiries.