NEW GENERATION SIGNALLING SYSTEMS – TO ERTMS OR

TO CBTC?

Rohan Schuppan
BEng (Hons), BSc
URS, Victoria, Australia

SUMMARY
An area of current interest and discussion for metropolitan railways is: What should the signalling system of
the future be? In many cases, this decision has focussed on whether to adopt ERTMS (European Rail
Traffic Management System) or CBTC (Communication-Based Train Control). Sydney, Melbourne,
Brisbane, Perth and Auckland have recently been grappling with this decision and each system has its
attractions and potential draw-backs.
The aim of this paper is firstly to provide some background information on ERTMS and CBTC; the stage at
which each of the metropolitan railways are at in selecting a preferred system for the future and the
generally accepted strengths and weaknesses of each system.
The paper then puts forward a business-case based approach as a rigorous means to help select the best
future system for a particular railway. It describes in detail the key elements of such a business case and
provides some guidance on how to measure each of these elements.
Finally, the paper provides an illustrative example where a business-case approach was used with an
example outcome. The paper draws some insights from this example around the key drivers that influence
the selection of a preferred system.
INTRODUCTION The decision for a preferred new system that takes
all of these factors into account is a complex one
Metropolitan railways around Australia and New
and this paper provides some guidance around
Zealand have recently been either considering,
how such a decision may be made using a
conducting feasibility studies for, or implementing
business case approach.
New Generation Signalling (NGS) systems. These
systems typically augment or replace the NOTATION
traditional signalling utilising ‘lights on sticks’
ATO – Automatic Train Operation
alongside the track with equipment within the train
CBTC – Communication Based Train Control
to guide and/or enforce the safe movement of
ERTMS – European Rail Traffic Management
trains. This can range from a screen inside the cab
System
informing the driver if he or she needs to start
GPRS – General Packet Radio Service
braking to full driverless operation.
GSM-R – Global System for Mobile
As they include a supervisory Automatic Train communications - Railway
Protection (ATP) function which ensures a train NPC – Net Present Cost
does not over-speed or pass a red signal, they NGS – New Generation Signalling
have historically been considered largely in the NWRL – North West Rail Link
context of their safety benefits. However, these PSD – Platform Screen Door
systems can also support the operation of trains at
closer headways, shorter turn-back times at
MAIN TEXT
stations and other operational benefits. Given that
Government and rail operators are increasingly 1. Categories of Signalling Systems
looking for ways to do ‘more for less’, there has
There is no specific definition for New Generation
been an increased focus on these other benefits.
Signalling systems, however the term in Australia
These can include greater network capacity,
improved operational efficiency, and a reduction in is generally used to describe systems that employ
equipment maintenance. some form of technology support beyond
traditional signalling which involves wayside signal

Conference On Railway Excellence

Adelaide, 5 – 7 May 2014
Rohan Schuppan
URS
lights and a reliance on drivers to respond to these
and control their train accordingly.
Signalling systems are often broadly placed under
the following four categories:
1.1. Traditional Signalling
Traditional signalling involves trains being
separated by fixed ‘blocks’ separated by wayside
signals which inform the driver on whether he or
she has authority to proceed to the next block.
Safety ‘overlaps’ are used to provide an extra
margin of safety in case a train inadvertently
passes a red signal. While a train is within the
safety overlap a following train does not have the
authority to enter the block behind the train in
front.
Existing signalling
Train precluded
from entering
this ‘block’
Safety Overlap
Figure One: Existing Signalling System
1.2. Supervisory Systems
Supervisory systems still rely on the existing
wayside system remaining in place but will ensure
that the driver complies with the speeds permitted
by the signalling system. As the system will
automatically intervene if the train is travelling
beyond the permitted speed, the safety overlaps
can potentially be reduced when such a system is
in place, which can provide a capacity benefit
depending on how drivers behave and respond to
the supervisory controls.
Supervisory system with modified
signalling (e.g. ETCS Level 1, Perth ATP)
Shorter Overlap
Figure Two: Supervisory System
1.3. Fixed Block In-Cab Systems
Fixed block in-cab systems do away with the need
for wayside signals by communicating the
authority to proceed and the required speed
directly to the cab of the rolling stock. The trains
are still separated by fixed blocks using wayside
equipment, but these blocks can be shortened as
signals are no longer required at each block.
NEW GENERATION SIGNALLING SYSTEMS – TO ERTMS OR TO CBTC?
Fixed Block In-Cab (e.g. ETCS Level 2)
Trains still separated
by ‘blocks’, but shorter
Figure Three: Fixed Block In-Cab System
1.4. Moving Block Systems
Moving block systems do away with both wayside
signals and the use of fixed blocks to separate the
train by dynamically calculating the minimum safe
braking distance between trains continually and
ensuring that trains are separated by this distance
plus a safety margin. Moving block systems
provide the greatest potential capacity benefit.
Moving Block (e.g. CBTC, ETCS Level 3)
Trains separated by
braking distance plus
margin only
Figure Four: Moving Block System
2. What is ERTMS?
ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management
System) has two basic components:
 ETCS (the European Train Control System),
which is an automatic train protection system
(ATP) which replaces a range of national
ATP-systems within Europe; and
 GSM-R, a radio system for providing voice
and data communication between the track
and the train.
As the name suggests, this system was designed
to ensure a consistent and compatible signalling
system throughout Europe. ERTMS is essentially
a specification to ensure compatibility between
various suppliers of equipment. This specification
is maintained and updated under the lead of the
European Railway Agency.
ERTMS has also been adopted by a number of
countries outside Europe including China, Taiwan,
South Korea, India, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia,
Mexico, New Zealand and Australia. Currently
more than 29000 track km and approximately
1
2900 vehicles are equipped with ERTMS.
These implementations include both ERTMS Level
1 (Supervisory) and Level 2 (Fixed block in-cab),
Conference On Railway Excellence
Adelaide, 5 – 7 May 2014
Rohan Schuppan NEW GENERATION SIGNALLING SYSTEMS – TO ERTMS OR TO CBTC?
URS

however Level 2 implementations on suburban There are a range of CBTC suppliers including
networks (as opposed to longer distance high- AnsaldoSTS (CBTC), Alstom (Urbalis),
speed lines) are still uncommon. Bombardier (CITYFLO), Siemens
(TrainGuard/Sirius) and Thales (SelTrac).
A number of suppliers are involved in the Although the systems implemented by these
development and writing of the ERTMS/ETCS suppliers share similar attributes, unlike ERTMS,
technical specifications, the largest of which the focus of CBTC has not been inter-operability
include AnsaldoSTS, Alstom, Bombardier, and as such rail networks tend to use the same
Siemens and Thales. supplier for the entire network.

3. What is CBTC? 4. ERTMS versus CBTC

CBTC is less clearly defined than ERTMS as there Almost all of the metropolitan rail networks around
is not a comprehensive defining specification Australia and New Zealand are seriously
2
(although there is a broader IEEE Standard ). considering or in the process of implementing
NGS systems. The current status of decision-
However, CBTC generally refers to systems which making and/or implementation for each
use bi-directional train-to-wayside data metropolitan railway as understood by the author
communication to monitor and control trains. In is as follows:
many cases CBTC systems are moving block
systems, as described in 1.4 above. As such City Stage of implementing NGS
CBTC systems generally provide higher levels of
capacity than most other systems. As CBTC Sydney Implementing ETCS Level 1 on key
utilises a communication-based system to control parts of the Sydney Trains network
trains it readily supports Automatic Train Operation and trialling ETCS Level 2.
(ATO). ATO allows trains to be driverless or allows
drivers to take on more supervisory or passenger- Implementing CBTC on the Rapid
focussed roles rather than continually controlling Transit Network, the first stage being
the train. NWRL
Melbourne Planning to implement CBTC on a
portion of the network through a
PPP contract.
Brisbane Planning to implement ETCS Level 2
utilising a Collaborative
Development Group
Perth Conducting industry engagement
and modelling to understand the
potential of various technologies
Adelaide Installing ETCS Level 1 - a
Supervisory System.
3
Figure Five: CBTC Architecture Auckland Installing ETCS Level 1 – a
Supervisory System
Initial implementations of CBTC utilised inductive
Wellington No NGS - Upgrading existing
loops placed along the track to provide bi-
traditional wayside system
directional communication with the trains. More
recently digital radio systems (commonly 2.4GHz) Figure Six: Stage of implementing NGS for
are now used as these are now able to provide the each city
required levels of reliability.

CBTC systems are often installed in networks that

have a need for high-capacity operations where
the minimum distance between trains must be
continually optimised to be as short as possible.
As such it is more often implemented on high-
capacity ‘metro’ networks rather than larger
suburban networks.

Conference On Railway Excellence

Adelaide, 5 – 7 May 2014
Rohan Schuppan NEW GENERATION SIGNALLING SYSTEMS – TO ERTMS OR TO CBTC?
URS

 ETCS will be implemented with an ATO

interface for the ThamesLink project in
London by 2018.
 Feasibility studies are currently being
conducted to replace GSM-R with higher
capacity communication protocols for
ERTMS such as GPRS. This may allow
ERTMS to support a more extensive set of
train operating functions as well as driver
and passenger information other than
movement authority.
 Suppliers increasingly have common
hardware platforms across the two classes
Figure Seven: Rolling stock cab for ETCS Level of signalling. Common software is not
1 trial implementation in Sydney typical although suppliers are increasingly
offering software solutions that can be
There has been considerable debate within these configured to work within either ERTMS or
jurisdictions on the relative merits and risks of CBTC implementations (e.g. the GE
each system. Tempo system).

The following table broadly summarises the
author’s and other contributor’s view on the
generally accepted attributes of each system:
CBTC ERTMS
 ERTMS Level 3 (a Moving Block system)
is currently under development for a low
traffic implementation (ERTMS Regional).
This is currently being tested in Sweden.
5. A highly complex decision

Proven to support high Not yet proven in high Given the complexity around some of the issues
levels of capacity of 26 capacity urban discussed above, making a decision on which
trains per hour plus. applications future signalling system to adopt can be highly
challenging. It can be difficult to trade off each of
Each implementation is Open specification now the factors that influence the decision due to their
generally single supplier well understood by varied nature.
major signalling and
rolling stock suppliers Some example trade-offs and questions that
Integrates with ATO, Interface with ATO, decision makers need to deal with include:
PSDs and other tunnel PSDs and tunnel
systems systems yet to be  Should a system that can provide greater
proven capacity but with a higher implementation
risk be preferred over a lower risk, lower
Interface with level Has been implemented capacity solution?
crossings is unproven with level crossing
interfaces  Should a system with minimal wayside
equipment requiring little maintenance but
Train regulation, energy Regulated only by more on-board rolling stock equipment be
management and driver advisory systems, preferred over the opposite alternative?
headway management which the driver can
can be implemented ignore  When is the right time to phase-out the
existing system?
Less examples of Strong track-record of
retrofit of existing rolling retrofitting existing 6. Introducing a Business Case Approach
stock rolling stock To help deal with this complexity URS has
Figure Eight: Attributes of CBTC versus successfully employed a business case approach
ERTMS where each of the elements of the decision are
‘monetised’ to provide a consistent benchmark for
It is important to note that these systems are each of the issues.
rapidly evolving and the distinction between each
system is becoming increasingly blurred. Some To further simplify this, URS employed a cost only
important developments to bear in mind when based approach. This avoided having to consider
comparing the systems include: the complexity of trying to determine whether the
improved capacity or reliability of various systems

Conference On Railway Excellence

Adelaide, 5 – 7 May 2014
Rohan Schuppan
URS
would generate additional patronage demand and,
if so, how much.
The premise of this approach is that the future
network will need to support a target level of
capacity and reliability no matter which system is
adopted. These targets are generally relatively
easy to obtain as future peak period train number
growth profiles and on-time reliability targets. The
long term development of the rail network is then
scoped out (at a high level) to ensure that these
targets are met. Signalling system options that
provide less capacity will require more supporting
infrastructure earlier than those that provide more
capacity and this will be reflected in the Net
Present Cost (NPC) of that system. For example, a
system that supports 24 trains per hour may
require a new rail corridor through the CBD 5
years earlier than a system that supports 26 trains
per hour.
Other attributes of each of the signalling systems
can also be monetised as a Net Present Cost. For
many of these, this is relatively straight-forward
such as the cost of implementing the on-train and
wayside equipment.
Monetising the implementation risk is more
challenging but there are well accepted processes
in industry for doing this. These include attributing
the probability of the occurrence of various risks to
the cost impact of that risk and using Monte-Carlo
simulation to provide a probability adjusted cost.
There are a now a number of both successful and
unsuccessful projects for these systems that can
be drawn on to help inform this risk. This is the
same technique applied to provide risk adjusted
costs for large infrastructure projects.
7. The Business Case Approach in Detail
The Business Case approach can start with an
initial culling process to arrive at a reasonable
number of systems to be assessed in detail.
This initial culling could use a multi-criteria
assessment with the criteria drawn from key
requirements for such a system.
Following this, the NPC of each system candidate
can be determined under the headings and in the
manner described below:
 Risk Adjusted Below Rail Capex
Determine the implementation profile of
new wayside equipment as well as any
further investment required in the existing
system before the new system can
realistically be introduced. Convert this
into NPC using cost per element (e.g. cost
per signal head, balise, km of cabling etc.).
NEW GENERATION SIGNALLING SYSTEMS – TO ERTMS OR TO CBTC?
It is important to include appropriate risk-
adjusted contingency as discussed above.
 Capacity Enhancement Schemes
The NPC of required additional
infrastructure to support demand. This
may be additional track and rolling stock
for example new cross-city rail corridors
when the capacity of the existing
constrained inner-city lines through the
network are exhausted.
 Below Rail Opex
The NPC of maintaining wayside
equipment. Although some NGS have less
complex wayside equipment (e.g. balises
instead of signals) there may be more
equipment to maintain. Ratio-based
maintenance costs can be used from other
operating railways.
 Above Rail Capex
The NPC of installing equipment into
rolling stock. As per the below rail Capex,
careful consideration is required of the
likely implementation pathway and
opportunities to align the installation of on-
board equipment with other retro-fits. Only
incremental costs need to be considered.
For example, planned rolling stock retro-fit
programs need not be included if these will
occur no matter which system is adopted.
 Above Rail Opex
The NPC of maintaining equipment on the
rolling stock. The incremental cost may be
relatively low if the maintenance
requirements can be incorporated into
existing work practices.
 Safety Risk Cost
Requires determination of the possibility of
equivalent fatalities and monetising this
using accepted cost of life values. There
are a number of firms who specialise in
determining probability of fatalities for
railways.
 Cost of train slowing
As rail networks approach capacity, trains
are often slowed to maximise the capacity
of the network so that as many services as
possible can be supported before
additional infrastructure needs to be built.
The NPC impact of slowing trains can be
included using an economic cost of time
per passenger. Eventually when capacity
is finally exceeded for each option the cost
of building additional infrastructure (see
Conference On Railway Excellence
Adelaide, 5 – 7 May 2014
Rohan Schuppan NEW GENERATION SIGNALLING SYSTEMS – TO ERTMS OR TO CBTC?
URS

Capacity Enhancing Scheme above) is tended to adopt high capacity signalling

included. systems despite the significantly higher
implementation costs as these are
A critical element in the above calculations is the
dwarfed by the avoided infrastructure
implementation profile of the new equipment and
savings.
any continued investment in the existing signalling
system to match in with this profile. To determine  The risk-adjusted Below Rail Capex cost
this, realistic assumptions need to be made on the (effectively the non-rolling stock
likely testing, piloting and phasing-in of the new installation cost) is also a major
system. In addition, the life-expiry dates of the component of the NPC of each of these
existing system need to also be taken into account systems. Therefore care must be taken to
to minimise investment into redundant technology. avoid specifying a high capacity, high
implementation cost system (such as
The NPC model should be constructed to align CBTC) if it is not required.
with an initial view on the best implementation plan
for each technology and also include the likely  Although safety is often (rightly so) the
investment plan to maintain the existing system. ‘raison d’etre’ for implementing an NGS, it
The model must also be flexible enough to support is unlikely to be the discriminating factor
an assessment of the sensitivity of the outcome to for the selection of a preferred system as
altered assumptions, as the implementation plans the ‘safety cost’ is not a high proportion of
can vary significantly as the technology matures. the overall NPC.

8. An example analysis CONCLUSIONS

URS utilised the above process to help guide the This paper firstly introduced the concept of New
selection of the preferred long-term signalling Generation Signalling (NGS) systems and the
system for a metropolitan railway. The outcomes broad types of systems available.
are shown illustratively in Figure Eight below. It then described:
Implementation Cost
 ERTMS and CBTC systems specifically
 Where each metropolitan railway in
Safety Risk Cost Australia and New Zealand was placed in
Net Present Costs ($bn)

Train Slowing terms of implementing NGS systems

Existing Bespoke ETCS L1 ETCS L2 PTC CBTC
signalling System
Figure Nine: Illustrative
between system options
It is important to note that the outcomes shown in
Figure Eight are illustrative only and it is important
that conclusions on the ‘cheapest’ system are not
drawn from this example. For example, the
analysis above assumed a railway already fitted
with a GSM-R communication system, which
significantly reduces the below-rail CAPEX for
ETCS Level 2. However there are some insights
which can be drawn from this example:
 The cost of the capacity enhancing
schemes is a major component of the
NPC for each option. As such, the
selection of the appropriate signalling
system will be highly dependent on the
forecast growth and capacity requirements
of the network. This matches the empirical
evidence that high capacity networks have
Above Rail Opex
Above Rail Capex
Below Rail Opex
 The generally accepted strengths and
Capacity Enhancement Schemes weaknesses of ERTMS and CBTC
Risk Adjusted Below Rail CAPEX
The principal conclusions of this paper are that a
business case approach can be a useful
framework to assess the complex range of
dimensions that must be considered when
NPC comparison identifying a preferred long-term signalling system
(for example ERTMS or CBTC). Estimating the Net
Present Cost (NPC) only within this business case
can further simplify the approach.
Such an approach can high-light the key drivers
for making such a decision, which in the
experience of the author are:
 The capacity benefits that such a system
will provide
 Correctly matching the signalling system
design to the railway capacity
requirements (not over or under scoping).
 The below rail implementation costs
including importantly the cost of the risk
associated with this implementation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the
assistance of the following people:

Conference On Railway Excellence

Adelaide, 5 – 7 May 2014
Rohan Schuppan NEW GENERATION SIGNALLING SYSTEMS – TO ERTMS OR TO CBTC?
URS

 Phil Ellingworth for providing a valuable

critique of the draft paper.
 Charles Devereux for highly informed input
into the influencing factors around
CrossRail’s decision to proceed with
CBTC.
 Andy Nicol and David Riley from Opus
Rail for their expert advice on CBTC and
ERTMS specifically and the development
of a preferred long-term system for
Melbourne.
 Elton Gani from URS for helping scope
and critique this paper.
REFERENCES
1
European Traffic Management System website
(www.ertms.net)
2
IEEE Standard for CBTC Performance and
Functional Requirements (1474.1-1999)
3
Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-
based_train_control)

Conference On Railway Excellence

Adelaide, 5 – 7 May 2014