ERTMS in Norway

ProRail

30th January 2020Sverre Kjenne – EVP Digitalisation and technology

Purpose of the presentation

2

• Introduce the Norwegian challenge

• Describe the strategical decisions

• Share some reflections

ERTMS in Norway

• 336 interlockings (sites) in Norway

• 80% of Norwegian systems are relay based

• Production and support of parts halted

• Challenge to interface new equipment

• Lack of qualified resources – not “hot” tech

• Signal and telecom make up 40% of delays

3

Urgent need for renewal as the main driver for ERTMS

ERTMS in Norway

Significant organizational implications

4

Field traffic controllers % Workload signalling engineers

373

275

175

35

0

100

200

300

400

2020 2022 2026 2030

100

90

6040

0

20

40

60

80

100

2020 2022 2026 2030

336325

175

10

100

200

300

400

2020 2022 2026 2030

Number of interlocking sites

10095

80

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

2020 2022 2026 2030

% Components in the track

0

0,002

0,004

0,006

0,008

2016 2017 2018

ØØL Alle andre

Delay-hours per produced train-hour

63

82 87 94 97 98

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032

Support (MNOK)

ERTMS in Norway

5

Ambitious timeline for the ERTMS renewal program

2012 2015 2018 2022 2026 2030

MoT decidesrenewal with

ERTMS

Pilot linein operation

Contractssigned

First linein operation

Oslo Centralto ERTMS

Last linein operation

31st October 20221430 at Grong

ERTMS in Norway

• Three technical areas

− Trackside

− Onboard

− TMS

• ERTMS level 2 baseline 3.6

6

Program valued € 2,5 billion consists of three parts

ERTMS in Norway

• Signalling Systems – new supplier

• Preparatory civil works – local contracts

• Telecom services – based on existing network

• Removal and disposal of infrastructure no longer in use – Local contracts

• Datacentres handled by Bane NOR

− Rented facilities 1 + 1

7

Trackside supplier limited to core competence

ERTMS in Norway

8

Hard choice to decide on number of suppliers for trackside

One supplier

• Simpler specification and development

• Less interfaces

• Simpler administration and version handling

• Better prices and attention due to higher volume

• Standardization of operations

• More power to supplier after contract has been signed

Two suppliers

• Better in case of total failure of a supplier

• No real competition due to lack of standards

• Difficult to cross over solutions between two suppliers

• Significantly higher development cost and complexity give increased probability of delay

ERTMS in Norway

• Timing is critical

• Probability of delay is high

• Probability of total failure is lower and should be planned separately

• No quick cross-over between suppliers possible

• Focus limited resources for success

• Introduce EULYNX a standard

• One monopolist is bad, two even worse?

9

We finally decided to go for one trackside supplier -Siemens

ERTMS in Norway

• Rebuild around 400 trains

• 14 RVOs (Rail Vehicle Owner)

• Approximately 40 first of class

• Norwegian government sponsors 50% of RVO’s costs if plan is followed

ERTMS in Norway10

ERTMS onboard - Alstom

• Significant IT project requires additional capabilities

• Valuable learning from our pilot line put into operation 2015

• Excellent information sharing with Denmark, Sweden …

• High cost and complexity – not exactly “off the shelf” solutions – limit requirements

• Poor data quality in Bane NOR causes complications

• Difficult to freeze design basis – operational scenarios

• Hard date for opening ensures common goal in challenging planning environment

• First “we are delayed” received shortly after contract signature –contingency

• Keep it simple whenever possible11

Reflections

ERTMS in Norway

Thank you for your attention!