41 European rail signalling system
| (26704)
10908/05
+ ADD 1
COM(05) 298
| Commission Communication: Deployment of the European rail signalling system ERTMS/ETCS
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 25 July 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-ix (2005-06), para 5 (9 November 2005) and HC 34-xxiii (2005-06), para 5 (29 March 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but relevant to the debate in European Standing Committee on the Commission Communication on the mid-term review of its 2001 Transport White Paper
|
Background
41.1 The High-Speed Rail Interoperability Directive, 96/48/EC,
and the Conventional Rail Interoperability Directive, 2001/16/EC,
will lead eventually to the introduction of the European Rail
Traffic Management System (ERTMS). ERTMS has two basic components:
- the European Train Control System (ETCS), which passes instructions
to a train driver on occupying the track ahead and on speed information,
whilst also constantly monitoring the driver's compliance with
these instructions; and
- the Global System for Mobile Communications —
Rail (GSM-R), a digital radio system based on standard GSM (mobile
phone) technology but using dedicated frequencies specific to
rail and certain advanced functions.
41.2 The High-Speed Rail Interoperability Directive
has required, since November 2002, ERTMS for any new high-speed
line in the trans-European rail network and for any signalling
system which is being renewed. Similar requirements under the
Conventional Rail Interoperability Directive are currently coming
into force.
41.3 In this Communication the Commission made a
case for shortening the period of migration to ERTMS to ten or
12 years (from a period which might be a long as twenty years)
and that basing it on the creation of a number of major interoperable
international corridors would bring forward benefits from the
reduction in number of different signalling systems and from reduced
fixed installations as well as allowing enhancements in network
performance and safety. In March 2005 it signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Community of European Railways, the European
Infrastructure Managers and the Union of European Railway Industries
in order to facilitate such an accelerated strategy. The Commission
estimated that the cost of introducing ERTM in this accelerated
way would be about €5 billion (£3.415 billion) in the
period up until 2016. It suggested that a major part of the funding
it had proposed for the Trans-European Networks (TENs) for energy
and transport during the period 2007-13, including €20.35
billion (£13.9 billion) for transport, which the previous
Committee had kept under scrutiny,[96]
should be earmarked to support ERTMS deployment. Funds would only
be released for projects that included ERTMS and particular attention
would be given to priority cross-border projects agreed in April
2004.[97]
41.4 When we considered this document in November
2005 we recognised the potential for benefits to be had from ERTMS
and that these might be facilitated by an earlier general introduction
of the system and we agreed with the Government's apparent cautious
approach to the Commission's proposals both as to the need for
a proper economic justification for ERTMS projects and to the
wider question of TENs financing. But before considering the document
further we asked:
- for confirmation that the Government
takes the view that an accelerated introduction of ERMTS is in
the UK interest; and
- to hear in due course further on the economic
justification for these proposals within the context of the outcome
of the consideration of the wider issue of finance for TENs projects.
41.5 In March 2006 the Government gave us a reasoned
confirmation of the Government's view that an accelerated introduction
of ERMTS is in the UK interest and promised to address our enquiry
one economic justification once there was progress on finalising
the TENs budget for the period 2007-13. Again we did not clear
the document, pending hearing about the economic justification.[98]
The Minister's letter
41.6 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department of Transport (Derek Twigg) writes now about the economic
justification for the Commission's proposals. The Minister first
says that the focus of discussion has moved on from this document,
which was intended by the Commission as a positioning paper in
advance of the negotiations on the future TENs budget, to those
negotiations. He reminds us that the negotiations, in which the
Government in company with the majority of Member States supports
a maximum 50% intervention rate (rather than the present 10%)
for ERTMS projects, are continuing,[99]
and draws our attention to Commission comments in the negotiations.
Thus the Commission has said that:
- projects such as ERTMS "demonstrate
a particular European added value, that their further development
and deployment decisively depends on a significant Community contribution
and that a lower than 50% funding rate would risk to impede [sic]
continuation or to delay completion";
- without a Community financial incentive companies
are inhibited from pioneering the adoption of ERTMS systems, so
slowing eventual widespread adoption; and
- "the EU added value of the ERTMS projects
and the specific financial obstacles it meets to 'start up' justify
the 50% funding rate proposed by the Commission".
In making these comments the Commission suggests
a TENs budget for the period 2007-13 for ERTMS projects of "roughly"
€500 million.
41.7 The Minister also says that;
- in the UK the cross-industry
ERTMS programme is continuing to address the high up-front costs
and very long payback period associated with ERTMS implementation;
- however, it is recognised that implementation
would offer a number of benefits to the railway;
- his department is trying to maximise UK returns
from TENs funds by seeking support to ERTMS development and deployment
within the UK, but it is likely that ERTMS funds will be allocated
to rail axis projects on mainland Europe; and
- this may direct implementation focus away from
the UK, but it is expected to offer some indirect benefits to
the UK as an accelerated introduction of ERTMS across Europe will
focus attention on addressing the technical and operational developments
necessary to improve overall system maturity, to help reduce unit
costs and, potentially, to attract new suppliers to the market.
Conclusion
41.8 We note that, although the Commission argues
a case for increased Community financial support for ERTMS projects
and specifies a budgetary cost, this does not, particularly in
the absence of costed benefits, amount to an economic
justification for the proposal. But, given the Minister's present
comment about how attention has moved beyond this Communication
and his previous comment that the new European Railway Agency
is taking a lead in bringing an appropriate level of economic
appraisal to the Commission's proposals for ERTMS generally, though
this will take some time to have an effect, we now clear this
document.
41.9 However, we note that ERTMS and its financing
and deployment are relevant to the debate in European Standing
Committee we have recommended on the recent Commission Communication
on the mid-term review of its 2001 Transport White Paper.[100]
96 (25873) 11740/04: See HC 42-xxxi (2003-04), para
6 (15 September 2004). Back
97
(24941) 13297/03 (24970) 13244/03: See HC 63-xxxvi (2002-03),
para 3 (5 November 2003) and Stg Co Deb, European Standing
Committee A, 11 November 2003, cols. 3-26. Back
98
See headnote. Back
99
(25873) 11740/04 (27581) 10089/06: See HC 34-xxxv (2005-06), para
4 (12 July 2006). Back
100
(27648) 10954/06 + ADD1: See HC 34-xxxvi (2005-06), para 1 (19
July 2006). Back
|
