Signalling Equivalent Unit Models

Transcription

1 UIC ERTMS Benchmark Study WORKSHOP, Paris, December 17 th, 2008 Signalling Equivalent Unit Models Wednesday, December 17, 2008 List of participants: 1. Gerard DALTON / UIC 2. Paolo DE CICCO / UIC 3. Françoise EL ALAOUI / UIC 4. Martin MAYER / PMP 5. Hansen GEIR / JBV 6. Régis CARON / SNCF 7. Kasper GLOWACKI / PKP, PLK 8. Martin SCHRÖDER / ERA 9. Maite CAMBRONERO / ADIF 10. Stefan SOMMER / SBB 11. Radech CECH / CD 12. Lex MOSCOU / ProRail 13. Richard HENSTOCK / Network Rail 14. Chris BINNS / Network Rail 15. Veli-Matti KANTAMAA / RHK 16. Nazzareno FILIPPINI / RFI 17. Karten KAMPS / DB 18. Poul FROESIG / BDK 19. George BARBU / UIC 20. Khalid AGROU / UIC 1-10

2 2-10

3 Item 1.0 Registration, Welcome and opening remarks Content of discussion and decisions Informal discussions among the workshop participants. Signalling Equivalent Unit concepts have been introduced by railway infrastructure managers in order to enable the effective measurement and analysis of efficiencies of signalling renewals and investments. They are models, simple algorithms used by signalling engineers and economic experts for budget estimations. As for all models, the SEU concept is used for generic and high level estimation and it cannot describe in detail the complex reality of a signalling implementation project. The need of making this concept uniform at national level comes from the fact that the investment evaluation of a signalling project cannot depend on the local model understanding. The idea of making it uniform at international level between railway A and railway B came from the UIC Benchmark working group while discussing of ERTMS implementation costs in Europe. The current way of analysing investment of ERTMS projects, by using existing cost ratios that build on pure infrastructure parameters such as length of line k /km, was felt not accurate enough and it was considered more appropriate to use SEU concepts. Gerard Dalton, Director of the UIC Infrastructure Department, mentioned in its welcome speech the importance of ERTMS as a unique European traffic management and signalling system and highlighted that a middle way of the pure technical level and the managerial and decisional level is important in order to drive the implementation process throughout Europe. The existing lack of quantitative data on costs and performance of the system has led to many misunderstandings and a high dependency on external industrial partners. He also pointed out that the UIC ERTMS Benchmark Study does not aim to judge the performances of any of the participating Infrastructure Managers or Railway Undertakings, but that it should help to increase the level of knowledge on costs and therefore lead to a better learning curve of the participating organisations. The adaptation of existing Signalling Equivalent Unit models should add to this work as the concept allows a more reliable comparison between railways. 2.0 Presentation of the results of Paolo de Cicco, ERTMS Coordinator at UIC presented the UIC ERTMS Benchmark Study and reported on the following main 3-10

4 the UIC ERTMS Benchmark Study 2008 objectives: To support UIC members in developing design options in order to reduce ERTMS implementation costs; developing a framework of an international benchmark based on a life cycle model (LCM) in order to be able to compare ERTMS implementations along commonly agreed Modular cost structures (MCS) and Key Performance Indicators (KPI); The ultimate aim is to lower the overall ERTMS costs on a life cycle approach (i.e. R&D, components, engineering, maintenance etc.). Starting from very unsatisfactory conditions in the beginning of 2008 in terms of economic evaluation of ERTMS implementations, UIC took the initiative to set up a Working Group consisting of 27 Members in order to elaborate a common framework for cost and performance evaluation for ERTMS projects in Europe. In 2008, the Working Group could come up with the following achievements: 1. Issue of a Discussion paper on ERTMS cost and performance benchmarking 2. General meeting presentation on ERTMS Benchmark Study UIC ERTMS Benchmark Study Workshop in May 2008 in Paris 4. Documentation of the workshop results 5. ERTMS modular cost structures (cost model) ERTMS/ETCS Level 1 Infrastructure subsystem ERTMS/ETCS Level 2 Infrastructure subsystem ERTMS/ETCS Rolling Stock subsystem 6. List of Key Performance Indicators 7. Progress report to UIC ERTMS Steering Group 8. Case study reports ERTMS/ETCS Level 2 Infrastructure ProRail Rolling Stock SBB 9. Final Project report. UIC highlighted the fact that a common framework for economic evaluations of ERTMS implementations has been set and that the UIC ERTMS Platform has supported the idea to use this framework as a standard for future cost and performance evaluations. The Platform has also approved the continuation of 4-10

5 the Study in UIC then briefly presented the results of the case studies carried out in the Netherlands and in Switzerland and pointed out that the proof of concept has been made and that the evaluations according to the proposed framework have been successful. Regarding the continuation of the project, UIC reported the following next steps to be carried out: 1. Global data collection process 2008/2009 Scheduling of further case studies 2008/2009 Lobbying among UIC Members to integrate the UIC Benchmark Study roadmap Integration of the cost and performance data into the UIC data base Set up of a benchmark analysis report to be published on a regular basis by UIC Organization of a UIC ERTMS Benchmark Study follow-up Workshop in 2009 Set up of an interaction program with supplier industry in SEU concept DB Netz Karsten Kamps presented the German SEU concept refer to the presentation made. For DB, Signalling Equivalent Units represent the size of an interlocking and determine its complexity and furthermore an indication on its costs. Costs per signal equivalent unit (SEU) are relevant criteria for the evaluation of interlocking. DB made a survey in Germany because they realised that SEU cost was different in different parts of the territory. Related to an SEU, DB Netz has defined target costs. The costs of an interlocking are budgeted on the basis of these SEU target costs and DB Netz aims to lower these costs over the upcoming years (an internal project with the aim to lower the costs by about 30 % was initiated at DB). Karsten Kamps points out that the criteria of an SEU needs to be consistent for benchmarking purposes and that the definition of an SEU has to be unique to all partners of a benchmarking exercise. DB therefore proposes to identify the different elements of an interlocking system and to have every IM explain their view on how they would count these items (X SEU s). DB supports the idea of the definition of a common SEU concept for international benchmarking of ERTMS implementation costs as 5-10

6 this presents an opportunity to learn from other railway systems and reduce costs. He proposed an interesting approach with a matrix listing all the SEU counted elements to be filled in by all participants. 4.0 SEU concept ProRail Lex Moscou, signalling engineer and cost expert at ProRail, presented the SEU concept of the Dutch Railway Infrastructure Manager refer to the presentation made. The Dutch model represents a limited perspective of elements and does not include field elements in the calculation of Signalling Equivalent Units. Therefore, no field elements, cables, traffic house control centres and housings are counted as SEUs. Furthermore, only the investment costs are integrated in the SEU concept and the maintenance and modification costs are not planned on the basis of an SEU concept. The system focuses on elements related to the system supplier. Basically, the calculation model divides the engineering software and hardware costs of an interlocking system and divides them by the number of counted signals. An intensive field element renewal program is planned in the Netherlands. ProRail also supports the definition of a common SEU concept and esteems to be in a position to adapt its existing SEU model to the common chosen outputs of a designated working group. 5.0 SEU concept Network Rail Chris Binns presented the SEU concept of Network Rail refer to the presentation made. The company seriously started to think about SEU models in 2002 after the setting up of Network Rail as a successor of British Rail. In a panel of about 6,1 % of the whole network and therefore statistically significant, Network Rail analysed twelve signalling renewal projects commissioned between 1996 and It was found that the average cost of signalling activities was broadly consistent when averaged over the total number of controlled trackside assets and so the backbone of Network Rail s SEU concept was borne. In 2003/2004, analyses of SEU costs continued and Network Rail Managers were briefed on the developed SEU model. 6-10

7 Network Rail has faced approximately 200,000 Pounds per SEU over the last couple of projects and uses costs/seu as a planning measure for interlocking systems. Network Rail defines an SEU as each single trackside output function controlled by the interlocking. This definition includes: Signals o Main o Subsidiary o Banners o Shunts Points (each controlled point end) Plungers (including any other attributes that require a particular control function within the interlocking) Ground Frames Level Crossings (associated with the interlocking). In terms of NR s scope, all CAPEX are integrated, but no OPEX. Network Rail also uses the SEU concept for target costing and expects cost savings of up to 100% in a migration scenario towards ERTMS. These savings are mainly expected for equipment savings. The SEU model is now embedded in Network Rail s management of signalling renewals and recognised and underwritten by Network Rail s framework for signalling suppliers. Network Rail is also interested in a common approach to define a common SEU concept in a light version in order to make cost comparisons technically more relevant. 6.0 SEU concept Jernebanverket Geir Hansen presented the Norvegian SEU concept for Jernebanverket refer to the presentation made. It defines points, main signals, trainroutes and shuntingroutes as SEU s. These defined elements are counted and set into relation to a hypothetical 2-track equivalent unit. The pros of this approach are: Adds on cost as station complexity increases SEU = 1 when only a two track station is considered 7-10

8 The cons: Does not cover objects on the line between stations o Density of sections o Railroad crossings Does not take multiple point machines on a switching point into consideration. Jernebanverket also supports a common approach to define a SEU concept version for the Benchmark Study. 7.0 Discusson about the integration of an SEU concept to the UIC ERTMS Benchmark Study The workshop participants highly appreciated the initiative and were very positive about the presentations and the content of the existing SEU concepts. The approach was identified as suitable for the Working Group and a core team of the 4 presenting IMs was made responsible for developing an ERTMS Signalling Equivalent Unit concept. It was commonly agreed that Network Rail should take the lead in this initiative. In the upcoming months the UIC ERTMS SEU concept shall be elaborated on the basis of existing concepts and a migration from the conventional signalling to ERTMS shall be traced by the WG Members. Opinion was asked on the foreseen approach and the interest shown by attending IMs: Veli-Matti Kantamaa (RHK) is very interested in development of an agreed SEU concept. They have their own approach in calculating IXL costs. Kasper Glowacki (PKP, PLK) is very interested as well. They have their own way of calculating IXL costs. Stefan Sommer (SBB) found it very interesting to compare SEUs of different IMs. Régis Caron (SNCF) thinks that RFF could be very interested in the subject and he committed to put UIC in relation with an RFF expert. Martin Schröder (ERA) expressed the wish of setting a benchmark for GSM-R, voice only. He also added that for the scope extension of TSI, the first approach will be to estimate costs on pure infrastructure parameters such as length of lines k /km. The SEU concept is very welcome and when consolidated and agreed it could be used to complement the current model and to give a more accurate cost 8-10

9 evaluations. Maite Cambronero (ADIF) said that there is no SEU model in Spain, for the time being. However, she envisages the need of having different SEUs models for different environments (high speed, conventional lines ). The UIC ERTMS Platform is firmly convinced that sharing information on ERTMS implementations at European level will give transparency to the market, while the creation of a network of experts in ERTMS economic assessments will strengthen the position of the railways vis-à-vis their manufacturer partners. Comparing information on costs will enable the railway community to understand cost drivers and achieve future cost reductions. UIC Platform s objective is not to collect and analyse data from the railways in order to identify the best in class! Rather, the platform ultimate aim is to draw preliminary conclusions from these comparisons in order to better understand the causes of specific cost situations and discuss future technological and economic improvements. 8.0 Final remarks Mr De Cicco took the opportunity to thank all workshop participants for their commitment throughout 2008 and their continuous pro-active stance and to wish them all the Season s Greetings. To summarise, the major workshop achievement was a firm commitment to share information on national SEU models, to set a common understanding of the matter and to pave the way toward a new SEU agreed model to be used in the ERTMS environment and in the UIC Benchmark. Further steps and actions agreed are listed below. Further steps and actions agreed Action nr 1 UIC/PMP Action nr 2 Network Rail Send minutes of the SEU Workshop. Network Rail has agreed that the development of a template to represent/list the physical elements based on its own SEU model (presented at the workshop) and the definition of a minimum scope of a common SEU should be possible by end of January - beginning of February 2009 (W 5-6). Send this initial draft to UIC and the task force (ProRail, DB Netz, 9-10

10 Jernebanverket) by week 6 Action nr 3 ProRail, DB Netz, Jernebanverket, UIC Action nr 4 UIC/PMP Comments and feedback on the basic document by the task force members by W9 at the latest on 24 Feb. 09. Organisation of a the task force meeting at UIC headquarters in order to further develop the concept and take decisions on the common SEU model to be used for the UIC ERTMS Benchmark Study. Please take note that the date agreed upon during the workshop for the meeting is 6 th March 2009 at UIC HQ Paris 9 am to 3 pm. = end = 10-10