International Railway Journal - January 2008 - (Page 40) The last word Signalling is key to boosting capacity A new independent study commissioned by Invensys offers compelling evidence that investment in rail is the most effective way of increasing transport capacity. Andrew Roden looks at some of its key findings. we followed the same process as academic institutions - it’s based on hard facts, not gut feeling.” In many ways, this is a very conservative study which has challenged rail to prove its worth: indeed, Invensys originally envisaged the study being used on a purely internal basis to make itself come up with better value solutions. Only when it received the findings did it decide to go public. The study is based exclusively on British experience in terms of costs and load factors, but if anything, one could argue this helps reinforce the case for rail as costs are high, and transport policy is set against For long-distance routes, the study shows that in terms of capacity gained per £1 million spent, building new or enhancing existing lines is less effective than building more roads – but that investment in signalling, particularly with the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), is significantly better value than any other single measure. This will be a shot in the arm for advocates of ERTMS, which generally comes out as poorer value than investment in conventional signalling. However, the caveat is that this is because capacity gained by ERTMS is incremental to traditional signalling, as far as the study is concerned. As ERTMS becomes more for Britain – but it seems clear that applying representative costs from other countries will change this picture completely. The study also examined how extra capacity for freight can be generated, and again signalling investment is regarded as the best single investment. Though it acknowledges relatively little extra freight capacity is generated in most resignalling schemes, even this equates to an extra 2646 tonnes/h/km, with ERTMS adding 1499 tonnes, and gauge enhancement 828 tonnes. Building new roads, by contrast, would add an extra 2001 tonnes/h/km, and road widening just 728 tonnes. It’s important to note, however, that the freight gains are based on current traffic levels in Britain. Not only is traffic rising there, it is much higher in many other countries, strengthening the case for freight investment. For some, the findings of Invensys and Credo’s study will represent little more than common sense: after all, in crowded cities most railwaymen know that metros and signalling enhancements are the best ways of dealing with capacity problems. The significance of this goes beyond railways and hopefully - to the desks of transport policymakers. The evidence presented here is unequivocal - if you want to unblock roads and increase transport capacity, rail really is the only game in town. IRJ S PENDING money on signalling is the best value way of increasing transport capacity, according to an independent study commissioned by Invensys Rail Systems. Cynics might think this is hardly surprising given that one of Invensys’ main activities is signalling, but before they jump to that conclusion, they should look at the study because its conclusions have global relevance, and are a significant addition to the growing weight of evidence calling for increased rail investment. At a press conference to launch Transport Capacity Research Paper: A comparison of the costs of different methods of increasing capacity in road and rail environments, Invensys Rail Group vicepresident of strategy, Mr Nigel Major, was keen to stress the independence of the study, which was undertaken by British consultancy Credo: “We have a degree of credibility about this research: “Investment in signalling and train lengthening is at least twice and up to almost five times more effective per £1 million spent than building new roads in urban areas.” increasing expenditure. If the study can make a convincing case based on Britain, an even more convincing one can be made for other countries. In simple terms, what those hard facts suggest is that investment in signalling and train lengthening are at least twice and up to almost five times more effective per £1 million spent than building new roads in urban areas. In fact, for commuter traffic, all rail options, including new build and reinstatement, are far more effective than road investment (see table). widespread, the unit costs will fall, and the capacity gained per £1 spent will rise. Generally, new build for rail on long-distance routes comes out worse than one might expect, being the least costeffective of all measures. However, this is because Credo based its findings on the cost per kilometre of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link in Britain: a whopping £19.9 million/km, which compares with just £6.3 million/km for the TGV Est line in France. Credo believes that the former is a more representative figure Tvnnbsz!pg!dbqbdjuz!hbjot!cz!npef!boe!usbggjd!uzqf Commuter Capacity (people/hour) Road Rail New build Widening New build Providing extra tracks Line reinstatement Train lengthening Signalling (conventional) Signalling (ERTMS) 2370 2370 12,701 1411 3175 2822 1270 Cost/km Capacity per £1 (£ millions) spent (people/hour/ £ million/km 3.2 741 5.5 430 12.0 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.7 1056 1018 3530 3678 1801 Long distance Capacity Cost/km Capacity per £1 (people/hour) (£ millions) spent (people/hour/ £ million/km 2481 3.1 789 2481 8.2 303 4032 4032 806 504 806 1814 20.5 19.0 2.2 0.6 1.3 197 212 366 1260 1348 40 IRJ January 2008
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.