questionnaire automatic train operation - european · web viewthe main purpose is to collect...

Questionnaire on ATO

European Railway Agency

QUESTIONNAIRE

AUTOMATIC TRAIN OPERATION

Reference: Document type: Questionnaire

Version : 1.0 Status: DISTRIBUTED

Date : 08 / 06 / 2016

Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

Name Wouter MALFAIT Hans BIERLEIN Pio GUIDO

Position Project Officer Project Officer(s) Head of ERTMS Unit

Date

&

Signat.

1


BACKGROUND

Context:

Automation is one of the main items to be considered in the ERTMS Longer term perspective (see http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Report-on-ERTMS-Longer-Term-Perspective.aspx).

The purpose of this questionnaire is to guide the interviews for collecting data and views on the Automatic Train Operation (ATO) functions in particular for following items

- the ATO business cases for the railways;- the required regulatory aspects to be considered for the different grades of automation;- the potential system concepts to be considered for the different grades of automation;

The main purpose is to collect general information on the different grades of Automation with a particular focus on GoA2 (in order to define the business and system concept). Therefore, request for interviews do not require to have information on all aspects.

Questionnaire:

Questions within section 1 and 2 are addressed to business analysts within infrastructure managers, railway undertakings and suppliers of railway equipment, which are involved in the ATO-framework.

Questions within section 3 and section 4 are addressed to system engineers within infrastructure managers, railway undertakings and suppliers which are actively involved in the design of the ATO-system architecture.

DEADLINE FOR INTERVIEWS

08.09.2016

Please contact the Agency if you have relevant input to contribute to this topic. Requests for interviews can be addressed to :

Wouter MalfaitEuropean Railway Agency, Phone Number: +33(0)327096701Email: [email protected]

2

http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Report-on-ERTMS-Longer-Term-Perspective.aspx

http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Report-on-ERTMS-Longer-Term-Perspective.aspx


The European Railway Agency would like to thank the respondents for taking the time to answer the questionnaire.

Definition: ATO-functions in railways are mainly functions which use information to the train for optimisation of the train operation and which automate actions that are otherwise executed manually by the train driver.

Categories of lines according to the regulatory framework:

Lines part of the European interoperability framework:o Inter-urban rail services (including high speed)o Mainline freight services (including corridors)o Mixed traffic lines with specific speed gap of operating train categories

Lines not part of the European interoperability framework:o Suburban and urban rail services;o Local freight services (as part of the factory premises)

Grades of Automation:

Four different grades of Automation have been defined in the railway sector.

Grades of Automation

Type of train operation

Setting Train in Motion

Stopping Train

Door closure Operation in event of disruption

GoA1 Non automated train operation

(ATP with Driver)

(ATO as train driver advisory system)

Driver Driver Driver Driver

GoA2 Semi-automated train operation

(ATP and ATO with driver)

Automatic Automatic Driver

(Automatic?)

Driver

GoA3 Driverless train Automatic Automatic Train Train

3


operation Attendant Attendant

GoA4 Unattended train operation

Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic

(Train Attendant?)

ATO deployment:

Mainline railway applications are currently generally limited to non-automated train operation (GoA1, e.g. AFB in Germany). GoA2 for main lines are very rare (e.g. the AVV-system in the Czech Republic), and GoA3 and 4 do not exist yet on main line service in EU.

For metros (urban rail), GoA2 is the rule for more than 50% of all metro lines in operation; GoA4 is the preferred choice for more than 50% of new lines being put in service or ordered.1

Business cases:

The main expected benefits for ATO-operation are:

1. Energy consumption: trains are driven according to the optimum speed profile that minimizes the energy consumption.

2. Capacity: achieved by decreasing the operational headway (compared to the technical headway).

3. Efficient Punctuality: More regular and predictable run times between stations, eliminating the variations inherent with manual driving but as well reducing the time reserves as a result of the increased operational quality. Punctuality should not become a cost-driver.

4. Passenger comfort: smoother and homogeneous driving, providing more uniform ride quality.

5. Wear: reduces the wear-and-tear on train propulsion and braking systems and required less maintenance operations.

6. Noise reductions: smoother and homogeneous driving with less braking

7. Cost savings (less personnel with GoA3 or higher; additional benefit for simplified rolling stock if driver is not regularly in the cab) or higher customer centricity with same staff (staff can focus on customer service rather than being occupied by technical and operational duties and tasks).

8. Fully flexible demand-oriented operation (in GOA4).

1 Source: Shift2Rail First Masterplan – section TD2.2

4


The corresponding KPIs for the expected benefits for ATO-operation need to be defined in the follow up of the program.

5


QUESTIONNAIRE

Contact Details:

COMPANY:

Mr/Ms/Mrs:

First name:

NAME:

Position:

Address:

Post Code:

City:

Country:

Phone:

E-mail:

Any personal data included to the questionnaire shall be processed pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/tools/disclaimer/documents/l_00820010112en00010022.pdf.

It shall be processed solely for the purposes of the impact assessment of an ERA recommendation by the ERA CME Unit. The personal data shall be kept the time necessary for the ERA to answer to possible questions on its recommendation.

The data subject shall have the right of access to his personal data and the right to rectify or block any such data that is inaccurate or incomplete. Should the data subject have any queries concerning the processing of his personal data, he shall address them to the ERA Economic Evaluation Unit ([email protected]). The data subject shall have right of recourse at any time to the European Data Protection Supervisor [email protected] , www.edps.europa.eu .

6

http://www.edps.europa.eu/

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.europarl.europa.eu/tools/disclaimer/documents/l_00820010112en00010022.pdf


Section 1: Business Framework

Q1.1 Specific business objectives for the different grades of Automation

Grades of Automation

Specific objectives

GoA1 ATO provides advice to the train driver mainly for the optimal speed setting based on static (no real-time) information (in function of the planned time table).

GoA2 ATO sets the optimal train speed based on real-time information (in function of actual/real-time status of the timetable).

GoA3 ATO facilitates driverless train operation and execute the functions of the train driver in normal mode of operation. A train driver is not needed anymore in normal mode of train operations.

GoA4 ATO executes the functions of the train driver in normal and degraded train operation.

A train driver is not needed anymore for the train operations in normal and degraded mode of operation.

Please comment (if any) on the specific objectives:

Q1.2 Could you provide us your interpretation of which functions have to be included (or excluded) to reach the specific objectives of the different grade of automation. Please distinguish for each grade (with the particular focus to identify GoA2-functions).

Function GoA1 GoA2 GoA3 GoA4

Function 1: X (in scope)

0 (not in scope)

Function 2:

Function 3:

Function 4:

7


In particular for GoA2, which minimum set of ATO-information has to be specified to ensure effective ATO GoA2-functionality:

In particular for GoA2, which additional information could be added which can further optimise ATO GoA2-functionality at national level:

Q1.3 Did you perform (or have you performed) any particular business cases studies for the ATO functions on your network?

Yes

No

If yes,

- Could you share the information of these studies with the Agency and indicate the category of application and grade of automation?

- Could you indicate the orders of magnitude (absolute values) of the external benefit/costs (and B/C-ratio) and indicate the main KPIs within the business case for the different grades of automation?

Note: In case ATO is part of a broader digitalisation program, could you isolate the impact of ATO within the overall program (and evaluate the incremental impact of ATO within the broader program)?

Grades of Main KPIs for the Main KPIs for the costs in the Benefit/Cost Ratio

8


Automation benefits in the business case.

business case of the ATO-program

GoA-1 IM-level: IM-level: IM-level:

RU-level: RU-level: RU-level:







Q1.4 Please explain the deployment scope of the ATO-business case

Grades of Automation ATO-scope (in particular related to the lines within interoperability framework)

GoA-1 Scope of lines within the interoperability framework:

Scope of vehicles operating on the lines within the interoperability framework:


9







Q1.5. Do you already use ATO-functions in railway operations?

Yes

No

If yes, could you share your experience with the Agency and indicate the category of application and the grade(s) of automation?

Please indicate the main experienced business impact (benefits/costs) and KPIs of the ATO-implementations.

Q1.6 In particular for the KPI on capacity, could you indicate the overall capacity increase for the different levels of Automation you have studied or used in your network :

10


Note: In case ATO is part of a broader digitalisation program, could you isolate the impact of ATO within the overall program (and evaluate the incremental impact of ATO within the broader program)?

Q1.7 In particular for the KPI on safety, could you indicate if ATO creates significant safety benefits?

Yes

No

Please explain:

11


Section 2: Regulatory framework for the different grades of Automation

Introduction: Assessment of benefits is done according to following table.

Benefits Impact on business cases

Business Case Allocation

Regulatory framework to address RU/IM-benefit

Punctuality More passengers due to more regular and predictable run times between stations.

Society (externality)

IM/RU: indirect increase in revenues due to increased quality of operation leading to more passengers/freight.

Punctuality benefits are part of the performance schemes (covered by the Access Directive).

Therefore, ATO punctuality benefits shall not lead to mandatory ATO on-board requirements.

Capacity (incl. impact on IMs timetable)

Increase in financial revenue due to additional TAC

IM Capacity benefits for IMs can have impact on IMs revenues. Therefore, only in case of congested lines, ATO on-board can be mandated/incentivised

- option 1: mandated as e.g. network access criterion

- option 2: optional as e.g. use of differentiated track access charges;

Energy consumption

Decrease in energy consumption in case of on-board energy meter

RU Potential need to set IM-ATO requirements in order that RUs can profit from energy savings.

- option 1: deployment at national level;

- deployment option 2: at European level)

Passenger comfort

Benefit to passengers due to smoother operation

Society (externality) No regulatory framework for passenger comfort requirements

Wear (maintenance cost for vehicle)

Less maintenance operations for braking systems or train propulsion

RU Coordination of IM ATO deployment requirements

- option 1: at national level;- option 2: at European level;

Noise reduction Society (externality) ATO as potential solution to fulfil TSI noise requirements;

No additional on-board ATO requirements;

Cost staff savings

less personnel with GoA3 or higher; additional benefit for

RU Potential coordination of IM ATO deployment requirements (option 1: at national level; option 2: at

12


simplified rolling stock if driver not regularly in the cab

European level)

Q2.1 According to the allocation of benefits between IMs and RUs, for which categories of applications/grades of automation do you expect different outcomes of the business case for IMs and RUs?

Please explain for which categories of lines/grades of automation, RUs might have more interest to implement ATO compared to IMs:

Please explain for which categories of lines/grades of automation IMs might have more interest to implement ATO compared to RUs:

Q2.2 Which coordination/regulatory frameworks are today in place in order to coordinate ATO-technical innovations on network and vehicle side for which the business cases might have different outcomes for IMs and RUs?

Please explain:

Q2.3 Do you consider this coordination/regulatory frameworks is sufficiently mature to handle the upcoming technical innovations related to ATO?

Yes

No

Please explain:

13


Q2.4 Do you agree that IMs can only mandate/incentivise ATO on-board implementation in case of congested lines for which ATO could demonstrate additional capacity benefits to IMs?

Yes

No

Please explain:

Would you accept Rolling Stock with different ATO performance on your network and what are the reasons for your point of view?

Q2.5 In case of setting up timetables and timeslots for RUs, which specific requirements (e.g. network access criteria) do you mandate today for RUs in order to respect the timetable and allocated timeslots?

Please explain:

Q2.6 (IM) In case of capacity benefits when using ATO, is it feasible for setting-up timetables in order to handle both train path requests from RUs with ATO on-board as from RUs without ATO on-board (ATO as optional function)?

Yes

No

14


Please explain:

Q2.7 If you answered ‘yes’ on the previous question, which non-discriminatory incentive schemes could be used to incentivise ATO on-board deployment in order to optimise both IM and RU business cases?

Please explain:

Q2.8 If you answered ‘no’ on the previous question, how many vehicles are impacted which require retrofitting with ATO-equipment, what is the overall estimated retrofitting budget for RUs and which financing schemes (if any) are envisaged to support retrofitting of existing vehicles?

Please explain:

Q2.9 If you answered ‘no’ on the previous question, how many vehicles are impacted which require retrofitting with ATO-equipment, what is the overall estimated retrofitting budget for RUs and which financing schemes (if any) are envisaged to support retrofitting of existing vehicles?

Please explain:

15


Q2.10 In case of significant RU-benefits when using ATO, is there in your opinion a regulatory framework required for IMs to make real-time TMS-data accessible for RUs (in particular if IMs have no ATO deployment intentions at trackside)?

Yes

No

Please explain:

16


Section 3: ATO system concepts

Introduction:

ATO track-train system concept 1: IM sends ATO information to on-board RU.

ATO track-train system concept 1.1 (ETCS based): The infrastructure manager sends the ATO-information towards the trains operating on its network by using the ETCS track-train communication interface and using ETCS standard message protocols.

ATO track-train system concept 1.2: The infrastructure manager sends the ATO-information towards the trains operating on its network by using standard train-track radio communication protocol2 for non-signalling railway applications. EN-standards can be developed for the ATO-applications (similar as e.g. application for exchange of energy on-board metering data) and allows multiple suppliers to develop ATO-applications between the traffic management system at trackside and the train control management system on-board.

ATO-track-train concept 2: RUs have access to IM TMS data and RU sends ATO information to on-board RU.

As RU will be the main beneficiary, sending ATO-information from trackside to train could be duty of the RU as well. The infrastructure manager does not send the ATO-information towards the trains operating on its network, however IMs provide access to all necessary information within the traffic management system towards the RUs or other customers3. RUs or other customers can develop the ATO-applications without being dependent on ATO trackside implementations by IMs. This concept allows a fast ATO-implementation rate (as RUs may be more interested to develop ATO-applications) and allows high innovation rates of ATO-functionality in an open market for different suppliers, however it might require some actions and standards for providing non-discriminatory and harmonised access to the IM-data.

2 Standard railway communication protocol between on-board and trackside under development for non-signalling systems (part of EN-standard 61375), e.g. used for exchange of energy metering data between on-board and trackside.

3 see TAP&TAF TSI framework: access to IM-information with or without contractual agreements between the IM and the data requester

17


ATO - Flexibility of system concept

Introduction: the experience in the past with developing an European ETCS or GSM-R system was that multiple sets of specifications have been released over time. Therefore, we anticipate the flexibility requirement for ATO-systems. Which system requirements are needed in your opinion to handle the different grades of Automation and the potential requirement for flexibility (e.g. over-the-air system upgrades, easy upgrade from GoA2 level to GoA3-level, certification aspects)?

Q3.1 Please explain your opinion or studies on system requirements linked to flexibility aspects:

Q3.2 In particular for GoA2, please explain your opinion of the preferred ATO track-train system concept (see introduction) in order to handle flexibility?

Q3.3 In particular for GoA2 on-board, do you consider that the ATO-GoA2 on-board system should be fully separated (incl. DMI) from the ETCS-on-board system in order to avoid any ETCS upgrade/re-authorisation impact?

Yes

No

Please explain:

18


ATO safety system requirements

Q3.4 Did you perform specific risk assessments studies on the different grades of Automation?

Yes

No

If yes, could you share this information with the Agency?

Q3.5 Do you think that the different grades of automation require additional safety functions, which require a safety level higher than SIL0 (and by consequence should preferably be allocated/integrated to/into the ETCS-system)?

Safety functions with safety requirement to be fulfilled by system higher than SIL0

If yes, please indicate which safety functions

GoA1 Yes/No

GoA2 Yes/No

GoA3 Yes/No

GoA4 Yes/No

Please explain the main results of the risk assessment on the system concept:

19


ATO feasibility of system concepts:

Q3.6 Do you think the different system concepts can fulfill the ATO user requirements for the different grades of Automation?

GoA1 GoA2 GoA3 GoA4

ATO Track-Train System concept 1.1

(IM sends the ATO-information using ERTMS-application)

Feasible/Not feasible




ATO Track-Train System concept 1.2

(IM sends the ATO-information)





ATO Track-Train System concept 2

(RU sends the ATO-information)





Please explain the main reasons in case you estimate that a particular system concept is not feasible:

Q3.7 According to the above questionnaire, which system concept is in your opinion the preferred option to be considered for GoA2?

Please explain taking into account the market interest of IMs versus RUs (IM app versus RU app); ETCS-system synergies versus ETCS system risks; feasibility, … :

20


Q3.8 According to the above questionnaire, which system concept is in your opinion the preferred option to be considered for the railway system to handle ATO GoA3/GoA4 grades of automation?

Please explain taking into account the market interest of IMs versus RUs (IM app versus RU app); ETCS-system synergies versus ETCS system risks; feasibility; …:

Q3.9 In particular for GoA2 over ETCS, do you consider that ETCS data (e.g. accuracy on ETCS-speed and ETCS-localisation) is sufficient to fulfil the ATO GoA2 functionality?

Please explain:

21


Section 4 Other questions

Existing ATO deployments (ATO in operation)

Q4.1 What is the data transmitted/needed to perform the ATO functionality?

Q4.2 What is the level of detail and quality (e.g. accuracy) needed for the data used?

Q4.3 Which technology is used for data transmission track-train (e.g. class b system communication channel, Radio (GSM or GSM-R), WLAN)?

Existing ATO developments (ATO in development stage)?

Q4.4 Which grade is planned?

Q4.5 Which functionalities are planned to be used?

22


ERA/S2R ATO Project Plan

Q4.6 ATO Prototypes:

Are you interested in an ATO prototype development and would you like to actively contribute to the ongoing Shift2Rail ATO activities?

Yes

No

Q4.7 ATO supplier outside the railway environment: Do you know potential/interested suppliers, not part of UNISIG, which could be interested to develop an ATO system and can you provide the contacts?

Yes

No

Q4.8 Input for ERA Time planning: When do you need agreed ATO documents, for which GoA grade and why?

Q4.9 Input for ERA Time planning: When do you need tested/certified ATO products, for which GoA grade and why?

23


Q4.10 Scope of ATO (GoA2) - Operational concept: The safety for the train running is ensured by ETCS; ETCS itself allow train operation in different modes whereas only in FS (full supervision) and OS (on sight) mode ETCS is operating with a movement authority but different level of responsibility for the driver. For operating with ATO, which ETCS modes would be acceptable for you?

Q4.11 Scope of ATO (GoA2) - Operational concept:

In case ETCS switch to a mode where ATO operation is not acceptable for you, should ATO be switched off automatically (e.g. commanded via ETCS) or manually (driver).

Q4.12 Operational concept (GoA2) DMI: Active ATO operation could be indicated via a separate ATO “display”(option 1), Icon in the ETCS DMI (option 2) or a specific ETCS mode (option 3), what is your preferred solution and what is the rational behind.

Q4.13 Standardisation and ERA: ERA as system authority is responsible for all modifications in the TSI CCS mandatory specifications, concerning ATO the functionality and interfaces might be mainly optional from interoperability perspective and in this case not part of the ERA mandate. Would you prefer that ERA should be in charge for this voluntary part too?

Yes

No

24


Q4.14 On-board ATO functionality, level of standardisation (RU): For the on-board ATO system, different levels of standardisation are possible. From fully standardised (mandatory or voluntary) till not standardised (Rolling Stock and RU driven). In the second case it is up to the railway undertaking to define the functionality, this would lead to different RS performance but give the full freedom for the RU. What is your point of view on this topic?

Q4.15 ATO user requirements and technical solutions: As an outcome of the TEN-T project, user requirement specifications and system requirement specifications were produced (EUG and UNISIG), would you volunteer to review together with ERA these documents?

Yes

No

25

questionnaire automatic train operation - european · web viewthe main purpose is to collect...

Documents