# EUR-Lex - 52006IP0275 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006IP0275

**European Parliament resolution on the deployment of the European rail signalling system ERTMS/ETCS (2005/2168(INI)) **

*
Official Journal 300 E , 09/12/2006 P. 0499 - 0503 *

P6_TA(2006)0275

Deployment of the European rail signalling system

European Parliament resolution on the deployment of the European rail signalling system ERTMS/ETCS (2005/2168(INI))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the deployment of the European rail signalling system ERTMS/ETCS (COM(2005)0298) and the accompanying Commission staff working paper (SEC(2005)0903),

- having regard to the agreement, known as the "Memorandum of Understanding", signed in Brussels on 17 March 2005 by the Commission and European railway industry associations (CER, UIC, UNIFE, EIM), which lays down the main principles governing the deployment of ERTMS,

- having regard to Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system [1] and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the conventional rail system [2],

- having regard to Decision No 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network [3],

- having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council determining the general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport networks and energy and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 (COM(2004)0475),

- having regard to the hearing held by the Committee on Transport and Tourism on 24 January 2006, at which representatives of railway companies, infrastructure managers, and the railway industry came out unanimously in favour of the deployment of ERTMS,

- having regard to the current programme and the future seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities,

- having regard to the agreement of 27 January 2004 between the European Rail Community (ERC) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) on the European train driver's licence for drivers assigned to interoperable cross-border services,

- having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0183/2006),

A. whereas the present situation, in which there are more than 20 different national train protection and signalling systems, hampers the development of a fully interoperable European rail system capable of competing with other modes of transport,

B. whereas ERTMS has been successfully tested on various pilot routes and a consolidated prototype version is now available; whereas, however, the long service life of trackside and on-board safety devices — generally over 20 years — might mean that ERTMS and national systems will coexist side by side for many years, particularly on the conventional rail network where there are passenger and goods trains travelling at different speeds,

C. whereas national train protection and signalling systems will disappear as a result of technological obsolescence or because the markets concerned are too small; whereas the future of the European signalling industry will depend on its ability to produce modern standardised equipment for the world market; whereas, in addition, the ERTMS project is vital for the medium- to long-term development of the industry and its 15000 highly skilled jobs,

D. whereas ERTMS is becoming an export-oriented project because railway companies outside Europe have likewise already decided to replace their obsolete systems with ERTMS — current locomotive orders from Korea, Taiwan, India, Saudi Arabia, and the People's Republic of China, as well as infrastructure projects in those countries, are a clear measure of the market potential; whereas, moreover, these projects, spread as they are across the globe, demonstrate the huge potential of this European technology, which could become the world standard, if it can be built upon a strong enough European market base,

E. whereas it is therefore particularly important, as regards the next step, to lay down a clear-cut coordinated migration strategy so as to afford the rail industry the necessary certainty as to planning, while ensuring that this strategy does not reduce the external competitiveness of the railways with other modes of transport,

F. whereas the agreement between the railway industry and the Commission signed in March 2005, the "Memorandum of Understanding", has sent a significant message from that point of view,

G. whereas the consolidated version of the ERTMS technical specifications, which the Commission is due to adopt in the next few months, provides a sufficient basis on which to set up interoperable systems and organise invitations to tender regarding the corridors,

H. whereas the deployment of ERTMS is a major cross-border European economic project and whereas progress as regards a standard train protection and signalling system could play a central role in the strategy of easing the strain on the roads and shifting transport flows to the railways and as part of a European policy for harmonising the conditions of competition between the different modes of transport,

Fundamental considerations: migration and strategy

1. Recognises that, as a train protection and signalling system, ERTMS is superior to the national systems to the extent that it should be cheaper as far as new acquisitions and maintenance are concerned — for instance because signal posts will no longer be necessary — safer at all speeds and under all circumstances in terms of troubleshooting and monitoring, and very often will enable line capacity to be increased substantially;

2. Notes that, through ERTMS, digital technology will be applied uniformly to European rail infrastructure as well, thus enabling congestion at junctions and bottlenecks to be eliminated, without need for costly new building; notes, however, that during the migration stage considerable additional costs will be incurred, which will be economically impossible for building firms to meet on their own; considers that continuous traction without time-consuming changes of locomotive and driver when crossing a border cuts costs and journey times and increases the reliability of the service;

3. Recognises that ERTMS technology will give the railway industry a historic opportunity to exploit digital technology to the full for the benefit of the railways, gain in competitiveness, and make up ground on the other modes of transport, especially since trains will be able to "steal a march" by transporting goods in cross-border carriage over long stretches at a time;

4. Recognises that ERTMS has been developed with the aid of the previous research framework programmes, and at present exists in a consolidated prototype form that can thus be deployed widely as of now; also notes that the deployment of GSM-R is proceeding apace and good progress is being made as regards ETCS; stresses, however, that this has not yet sufficed to create an automatic cause and effect relationship whereby, irrespective of the financial and safety aspects and the matter of boosting capacity, ERTMS will be established on the entire trans-European rail network without further intervention and the 20 different train protection and signalling systems still existing today will in a few years' time be a thing of the past and will have been superseded by a single system — ERTMS — in all the EU Member States;

5. Points out that, trackside, ETCS requires only the "Eurobalise" radio beacons for data transmission and the radio block centre and that, as far as on-board devices are concerned, an ETCS on-board unit processes the train protection data;

6. Points out that functional specifications adopted by the Member States Interoperability Committee make version 2.3.0 the reference, as does the European Railway Agency. This version makes it possible to start operating high speed/high capacity international corridors in Europe as early as 2007 and is regarded as the common reference in the framework of the studies conducted by the European coordinator; considers that further efforts would make it possible to move in four or five years' time to a higher version; notes that in the framework of its "Change Control Management" process the European Railway Agency will have to assess the technical and economic relevance of such further developments, while abiding by the principle of continuity and upward and downward compatibility with version 2.3.0; believes that stabilisation and more extensive standardisation will enable system components to be manufactured in larger numbers, achieving economies of scale; considers that the price level, which today is up to eight times as high as the target prices originally specified, could then be reduced and ERTMS could be placed on an economically rational footing;

7. Realises that it would be unsatisfactory for old systems and ERTMS to coexist side by side for decades and that it will accordingly be vital to coordinate the migration and make the migration stage as short as possible; considers, in view of the foregoing, that a sound migration strategy for the whole network, as likewise called for in the agreement between the Commission and the European rail industry associations, has a key role to play; calls on the Commission, therefore, in consultation with the ERA, the Member States, and the industry, to submit a binding "ERTMS master plan" without delay;

8. Assumes that a successful migration to ERTMS will pose a considerable challenge to all concerned; believes that Member States, transport ministries, rail transport operators, infrastructure managers, and the rail industry will have to agree on the goals and that roles and responsibilities must be clearly defined; welcomes the fact, therefore, that the Commission has appointed Karel Vinck to coordinate this major project;

9. Maintains that a decisive breakthrough would be impossible to achieve if ERTMS were to take the form of, say, a patchwork of fairly small pockets that could be reached or crossed only by using a multitude of national systems; considers on the contrary that the key to success lies firstly in equipping selected corridors with ERTMS throughout and secondly in attaining "critical mass" as quickly as possible in terms of equipped lines and trains so as to bring about further economies of scale;

10. Assumes that, to guarantee the full implementation of ERTMS, the migration strategy will include a timetable and detailed arrangements for the complete migration of all national networks, which will be the next step after the installation of the system on the corridors;

11. Maintains that ERTMS, a standard train protection system, should reduce, or remove the need for, the costly manufacture and operation of rolling stock with numerous obsolete systems added on; notes that the transitional migration period will necessitate dual equipment, which will increase the financial burden for the rail sector in the initial stage; considers that ERTMS will greatly simplify and speed up interoperability; points out that only 13% of freight in the Union is carried by rail, whereas the figure in the US stands at about 27 %; believes, given that the EU at present constitutes such a technical and political hotchpotch, that it is scarcely possible to raise the above percentage to any appreciable extent and that it would accordingly be worthwhile to invest resolutely in ERTMS as a matter of priority;

Priorities

12. Is consequently of the opinion that if ERTMS is to succeed, it will be essential for the six corridors dealt with (A: Rotterdam-Genoa, B: Naples-Berlin-Stockholm, C: Antwerp-Basel/Lyon, D: Seville-Lyon-Turin-Trieste-Ljubljana, E: Dresden-Prague-Brno-Vienna-Budapest, F: Duisburg-Berlin-Warsaw) and the trains running on them to be equipped quickly and completely with ERTMS, not least because this will encourage all concerned to adopt a "Community approach" instead of thinking in purely national terms; is of the opinion that in this connection, the Letter of Intent signed on 3 March 2006 by the transport ministers of the Rotterdam-Genoa corridor concerning the deployment of ERTMS sets a good example;

13. Is convinced that to attain the necessary critical mass, it is necessary to support the investments on corridors where some routes have already been completed and infrastructure managers are committed to complete the missing parts by 2015;

14. Also takes the view that the most recent enlargement of the Union, in 2004, should cause east-west links to be taken into account; considers it important to bear in mind that this will incur little additional expenditure in those Member States which need extensive modernisation work on their network;

15. Points out that disparities in national licensing procedures for railway vehicles pose a fundamental problem for the European rail industry that becomes more acute when considered together with ERTMS; calls on the Commission, assisted by the European Railway Agency, to press determinedly ahead with the work on a standard simplified EU-wide licensing procedure and define and permanently establish binding standards for all, so as to enable manufacturing and fitting-out costs to be reduced substantially;

The "home straight" problem

16. Is of the opinion that when a route is equipped with ERTMS, the system should be complete, extending from platform to platform or freight centre to freight centre as far as the national border or the port served; also takes the view that no EU support should be granted if the above criterion is not fulfilled and calls on the Commission to ensure strict compliance with this point;

17. Calls for the integration of the limited supervision application mode to be analysed rapidly to verify whether it will enable various national systems to be replaced by, or combined with, ETCS; notes in addition that it will have to be verified whether limited supervision could offer an economical way to fill gaps, especially at junctions;

18. Is of the opinion that the European Railway Agency, in agreement with the national transport ministries, must ensure that no new locomotives will be licensed in the future unless they are fitted or prefitted with ERTMS as well as the national train protection and signalling system;

19. Points out that national variants of ETCS are currently being used on high speed/high capacity routes (for example Rome to Naples, Madrid to Lleida, or Berne to Olten); notes, however, that use of the system in the conventional rail sector (freight and passenger traffic) and especially in cross-border traffic still poses problems; feels that it is still necessary to deepen and improve its application with the aim of overcoming current application problems; maintains that solutions need to be found as a matter of urgency regarding key functions such as level crossings with barriers, parameterised graphical braking representation, radio infill as already provided for in the 2.3.0 standard and the limited supervision application mode;

20. Notes that the Paris-eastern France-south-west Germany high-speed rail link, like the Rotterdam-Genoa north to south corridor, cannot yet be operated using ERTMS throughout and consequently calls on all concerned to fill the gaps as quickly as possible;

21. Believes that the railway companies, the rail industry, and the European Railway Agency must together draw up the standard of the future and the EU must lay down migration on a common and binding basis for all; considers that independent national initiatives to develop the system further must be prevented so as to ensure that the 20 different existing systems will not be replaced by 20 incompatible ERTMS-based systems; calls on the ERA to ensure that the future standard used in the European area is overall at least equivalent to the safety level currently in force in the Member States;

22. Is aware that the Member States or railway companies differ greatly in terms of their investment requirements, their national train protection and signalling systems, and the "marketing stages" which those systems have reached; considers, however, that such differences are unavoidable in the EU and do not constitute a reason for rejecting ERTMS;

Financing

23. Recognises, given that the project has a European dimension, that it is both legitimate and necessary to grant EU funding for the deployment of ERTMS, whether from the TEN-Transport budget or from the Cohesion Fund by the Member States which benefit from it; is of the opinion that the costs must be apportioned fairly among Member States, the EU, railway companies, and the rail industry; consequently calls on the Member States to treat ERTMS as a priority in their transport and budget decisions in the coming years;

24. Maintains, therefore, that the necessary provisions should be incorporated in the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council determining the general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport networks and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 (COM(2004)0475 — 2004/0154(COD)), which Parliament dealt with at first reading [4] on 26 October 2005;

25. In this connection supports the proposal approved by Parliament at first reading that investment in ERTMS should be treated as infrastructure investment under the regulation; also takes the view that for ERTMS at least in "cross-border" areas the maximum aid rate should be set at 50 %;

26. Is of the opinion, bearing in mind not only the technical considerations outlined above, but also the limited budget funding available, that resources should be concentrated on the main corridors, in particular those studied by the European Coordinator; considers that this support should include a reasonable incentive for rolling stock equipment in the first years, as regards prototype development, serial fitting and retrofitting of rolling stock;

27. Suggests that the possibility of degressive aid be considered with a view to accelerating the migration process; believes that railway companies which opt early to deploy ERTMS should receive more aid than latecomers, since the former would be taking a greater investment risk and could not immediately capitalise to the full on the advantages of the new system;

28. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give greater thought to possible ways of supporting rolling stock leasing arrangements, since this might help to reduce the high initial costs and enable smaller and medium-sized enterprises to enter the market more easily;

29. Is of the opinion that the EU should support ERTMS by using TEN-T, regional development and cohesion budget appropriations as well as appropriations from the research budget;

30. Is of the opinion that the EU should bind the financing of railway infrastructures by Community funds, such as TEN-T and cohesion budget funds, to the compulsory installation of ERTMS;

31. Looks to the rail industry to take the social and professional interests of employees duly into account when ERTMS is to be deployed and to devise appropriate skills and further training programmes; believes that the deployment of ERTMS will help in the medium term to protect jobs on the one hand because of the system's export potential and secondly because of the higher market shares that rail is expected to gain;

32. Recognises, finally, that ERTMS can make an important contribution to the efficiency and attractiveness of European rail transport, particularly long-distance goods transport; stresses, however, that a number of harmonisation initiatives could be taken in addition to ERTMS which would lead to more efficient international rail travel in the relatively short term; calls for the European ERTMS coordinator and the future TEN Agency also to study the possibilities of harmonising, for example, train length, burden per axle, load capacity, etc.; considers that these projects would have a relatively limited financial impact but quite a significant outcome in terms of efficiency;

*

- *

33. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.

[1] OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.

[2] OJ L 110, 20.4.2001, p. 1.

[3] OJ L 167, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

[4] Texts Adopted, 26 October 2005, P6_TA(2005)0403.

--------------------------------------------------