Synthesis Report On Nip

Provision of Services to the European Commission
in the field of nº MOVE/B2/2014‐670:
“Services of technical support for the deployment

of ERTMS along the core network corridors”
Synthesis report on NIP
Version 1.1
March 2, 2018
T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP
T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 1

Technical support for the deployment of ERTMS
along the core network corridors
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 4

1 SYNTHESIS OF THE PLANNING FOR ERTMS DEPLOYMENT INCLUDED IN THE NIP .5
1.1 OVERALL COMPLIANCE WITH THE EDP AND ITS OBJECTIVES ............................................. 5
1.2 INFORMATION ON CROSS BORDERS WITH ETCS............................................................. 7
1.3 SYNTHESIS REGARDING THE DECOMMISSION OF CLASS B SYSTEM ...................................... 7
1.4 OTHER ISSUES........................................................................................................ 9
2 ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS INCLUDED IN NIP ..................................... 10
2.1 OVERALL ALIGNMENT OF THE CBA WITH THE PRINCIPLES AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CNC
BUSINESS CASE DEVELOPED BY DMT .................................................................................... 10
2.2 SYNTHESIS REGARDING THE FINANCING STRATEGIES ..................................................... 11
3 TECHNICAL ASPECTS INCLUDED IN NIP ............................................................... 13
3.1 ANALYSIS OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS AS CONSIDERED IN THE CBA .................................. 13
3.2 ANALYSIS OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS/JUSTIFICATIONS RAISED IN THE DEPLOYMENT PLANS ... 14
4 OVERVIEW PER CORRIDOR................................................................................. 16
5 ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................. 19
ANNEX A. CNC IN EDP VS NIP SCHEMES .................................................................... 21

DOCUMENT CHANGE LOG

Issue Date Affected sections Comments
01 17/08/2017 All Draft report index for contributions
02 3/11/2017 All First draft for EC revision
03 18/01/2018 All Update after receipt of additional NIP
04 30/01/2018 All Revision
05 01/02/2018 All Second draft for EC revision
06 06/02/2018 Section 0, 4 and Update for overview per corridor
annex
1.0 14/02/2018 All Update for distribution
1.1 02/03/2018 Maps correction

0 Executive summary
The following is the classification of the countries that were expected to submit the NIP by whether
they have submitted it or not:
 Countries that have submitted the NIP (18):
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Czech
Republic, Finland, France, Croatia, Italy, Ireland,
Latvia, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
Poland, Sweden and Slovakia.
 Countries that have not submitted the NIP (8):
Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania,
Slovenia, Spain and United Kingdom
 Countries that have submitted the NIP informally (2):
Denmark, Luxembourg
Some of the highlights that can be derived from the synthesis of the NIPs are the following:
 Level of compliance within the NIPs to the EDP is high, including some networks where the
expected dates are improved
 Detailed Cost Benefit Analysis cannot be found in many of the NIPs. However, most of the
plans that do include some level of economic analysis, conclude that ERTMS has benefits
 There are 5 networks with specific plans to decommission the class B system and more of
them clearly state that ERTMS only equipped onboards will be able to run in their ERTMS
equipped routes foreseen in the near future
However, there are also negative aspects of ERTMS that have been included by the different
countries in the NIPs. These are more specific to each network, but include as examples: infeasibility
for industry of proposing technical solutions within the time frames set, still missing standard
functionalities or clear understanding of the country that there is no obligation to install ETCS
onboard in existing conventional railway vehicles which are the large majority of vehicles currently
used.
NIPs contain the national view of ERTMS Deployment plans. This report completes this with an
overview per CNCs by highlighting misalignments between NIPs and EDP and the focus on most
immediate cross borders between the different countries.

1 Synthesis of the planning for ERTMS deployment included in the NIP
The main deployment aspects as required by the CCS TSI to be included in the NIPs are related to the
planning which includes the dates of ETCS deployment on the different lines of the network, the
dates of decommissioning of the class B systems (if applicable) and the dates when cross‐border
vehicles shall fully benefit from operation with ‘ETCS only equipped on‐board’ on the high‐speed
network, corridors or other parts of the network.
In general, most of the NIPs received include information regarding these issues with different level
of detail.
1.1 Overall compliance with the EDP and its objectives

In general, the NIPs give information regarding the deployment dates of the sections of each country.
This information is detailed in a table format (with a list of all sections, with dates, levels, baseline…),
maps with dates or at least date ranges, or a more global comment about the compliance with the
EDP. For most of the NIPs there is more complete and accurate information on dates up to 2023.
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Norway and Sweden are fully compliant with EDP, even some of
the sections will be deployed before the deadline set. Poland, Italy, Switzerland, Slovakia, Croatia
and Netherlands are compliant with the EDP with some exceptions. France, Germany, Bulgaria and
Latvia are compliant with the sections they mention but no detailed planning is provided beyond
2023. Finland is not compliant with the EDP as dates go beyond 2030. Ireland is exempted from
mandatory deployment of ERTMS. Finally, Portugal does not give enough details to evaluate the
compliance.
Details for each MS are below:
‐ Austria fully complies with the EDP as it is shown in the maps with information for
deployment and levels for years 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022 and 2030.
‐ Belgium indicates that all the deployment of ERTMS will be done by 2022. All sections
included in the NIP are in full compliance with the EDP, even sections Hal‐ Y. Antoing and
Y.Antoing ‐ Esplechin‐Frontiere / Wannehein will be deployed by 2022 1 year in advance
from the expected 2023.
‐ Czech Republic is fully compliant to the EDP and in fact its NIP planning is more demanding
than the EDP in some sections
‐ Norway deployment is foreseen in the EDP beyond 2023. One section (out of two) included
in the NIP is planned to be equipped before than expected, i.e. 2026
‐ Sweden NIP includes an estimation of deployment for the period 2023‐2035. NIP includes a
detailed list with all sections of the country and some dates are before EDP, such as Lockard‐
Malmo‐border DK will be ready in 2023 instead of beyond 2023
‐ Poland is compliant with the EDP. All sections but the ones between Lowicz and Pilawa (100
km, i.e. only a 3% of their sections included in CNC) have an estimated date for ETCS in
operation equal or better than the one set in the EDP.
‐ Italy includes a list with all sections differentiating between conventional and high speed. For
each section gives information of level, date and baseline. The differences compared to EDP

are Milano area 2021 instead of 2020, Firenze area 2021 instead of 2030 and Arezzo Nord
Junction <‐‐> Valdarno Nord Junction 2019 instead of 2018. There is a detailed planning for
sections beyond 2023.
‐ Switzerland NIP gives information with 2 maps about the status implementation of years
2017, 2018 and 2020. Planning is compliant with the EDP but a risk for achieving the cross‐
borders on time is identified in NIP.
‐ Slovakia includes all lines and dates as in EDP with some exceptions. Sections Devinska Nova
Ves‐Kuty and Lanzhot‐Kuty are delayed till 2030. Also Zilina‐Zilina (RRT) is delayed till 2023.
‐ Netherlands has a national roll‐out strategy but some sections within the EDP fall out the
scope due to the limited budget. These includes some CNC lines like Rotterdam‐Utrecht that
will be delayed to 2033 or the NSB part from Deventer towards the German border that will
be deployed by 2037.
‐ France information only covers sections until 2023, these are in line with the EDP. The
planning is not complete (around 5.800 km not included in the NIP).
‐ Bulgaria provides information regarding the existing lines in operation and under
construction. All sections are included in the NIP but without detailed information, i.e. only
gives information regarding dates with "by 2023" and "beyond 2023”.
‐ Finland NIP is not compliant with the EDP. All EDP sections are included in the NIP but with a
date for deployment beyond 2030
‐ Portugal, only 3 TENT sections dates are specified. The planning is not complete (e.g. 1200
Km without NIP planning)
‐ Croatia states that the ERTMS deployment will take place beyond 2023 and the upgrade to
ERTMS of the existing lines is planned to be finished before 2030. The new construction line
Horvati ‐ Dugo Selo is missed in the "Detailed timetable of the ETCS installation".
‐ Germany is partially compliant with the EDP. No detailed planning is specified further than
the current status in 2017, the ETCS status foreseen for 2023 and the status foreseen for
2030. Some dates are beyond EDP target dates. For example, the section Rastatt ‐ Karlsruhe
Hbf due to the NIP Karlsruhe main station, or the section Mulheim ‐ CH/IT border due to the
Katzenbergtunnel. On the other hand, there are lines that are not included in the NIP, such as
Bamberg ‐ Nuremberg or Berlin – Halle (in total around 6.450km not included in the NIP).
‐ Ireland, with its isolated network, is exempt from any mandatory requirements to upgrade
the signalling system to ERTMS.
‐ Latvia it is planned to build a new 1435 mm railway line in the Baltic countries starting in
2022, but does not give information about the planned ERTMS deployment finish date.
The following map shows level of compliance between NIP and EDP:

1.2 Information on cross borders with ETCS

Only few Member States include specific information on Cross borders and mention existing
agreements with their neighbouring countries in order to achieve a coordinated deployment.
In France, information on borders with Germany (2023), Switzerland (2021), Belgium (2017) and
Luxembourg (2017) are included in NIP.
Belgium details some information regarding high speed and conventional cross borders. High Speed
lines with Germany and the Netherlands are already operated in ETCS. From there to Brussels South
will be in operation in 2022.Connection between Brussels South and France will be possible in 2025‐
2029 replacing TVM430 with ETCS L2. Rail Freight Corridor North Sea Mediterranean is in operation
from Luxembourg and French border to Antwerp.
Switzerland gives a status of ETCS implementation at border sections in several areas. For the area of
Basel, Germany has installed approximately 40% and in the NIP it is included the plan for it to be
ready in December 2017. For the cross border Iselle – Domodossola, authorisation deadline included
in the NIP is December 2017 whereas for Ranzo – Luino, it is expected in April 2018.
Germany funding priorities are in Corridor A(RALP) and cross‐borders. Nevertheless, no details of
existing cross‐border agreements are shown in the NIP
Norway and Finland mention the cross‐borders works ongoing but do not add specific data and
Latvia mentions the coordination through the Rail Baltica project.
1.3 Synthesis regarding the decommission of class B system

All the Member States that submitted the NIP except Croatia describe the class B system currently in
use with different level of detail. However, only few MS mention the availability of the STM and the
decommissioning dates of their class B system.

COUNTRY CLASS B SYSTEM DECOMMISSIONING

PZB and LZB. LZB does not work in parallel Yes, for national network
AT with ETCS
BE TBL1 , TBL2 , TVM430 , TBL1+ Yes, for CNC
BG ALS No
Not specified but no class B required on‐board from
EuroSIGNUM/EuroZUB
CH 2018
CZ LS Class B replaced by ETCS when deployed
DE PZB 90 LZB Not mentioned.
FI ATP‐VR/RHK Yes
TVM not before 2030
KVB (and TVM
FR KVB decommissioning not defined yet
HR INDUSI I 60 Not mentioned
SCMT as fall back system in conventional Yes, gradual from 2026
lines.
IT High speed lines without class B
CAWS Not applicable
IE IÉHS for the future
A target date at which the actual class B system can be
STM ‐ ATB
NL decommissioned is not planned.
Rebuilding trains so that these can run on No class B required OB once ETCS is deployed
stretches with both ERTMS and class B‐
systems (rolling stock strategy) in operation at
NO the same time
LV ALSN In lines with 1520mm gauge no removal
SHP. No removal for the next 20 years
PL GSM‐R class B system is Radio 150 Mhz
PT CONVEL (EBICAB700) on trackside No
SE ATC 2035
SK LS general statements Class B replaced by ETCS
In France, TVM system if decommissioned, will be after 2030. No dismantling of the KVB is scheduled
at this stage on the conventional network, awaiting the information that will be provided by ongoing
studies. KVB will be available as STM maintained by French railway sector.
Poland will not remove the class B system for the next 20 years, and GSM‐R class B removal is
expected after 2023. In fact, it is stated that, given the absence of plans to discontinue the use of
Class B train control devices, all vehicles equipped with on‐board ETCS equipment must be fitted with
the STM.
Portugal states that ETCS + STM is required on‐board, CONVEL will be gradually removed when it is
outdated. A decommissioning of Class B radio system will begin in 2018.
Latvia does not plan to remove the class B system in existing lines of 1520mm gauge. Introduction of
ETCS should also maintain the current class B system at the same time, to provide locomotive
services from neighbouring countries. In the new lines of 1435mm gauge, class B system is not
mentioned.
Bulgaria and Netherlands state the intention of decommissioning but with no detailed plan or dates.
Netherlands states that during this transitional period, STM and class B systems will still be
necessary.
Sweden will decommission their class B system on a line per line basis. In the most optimistic
scenario class B system will be phased out 2035.

The information provided by Switzerland is that from beginning of 2018, new vehicles do not need
anymore the class B system SIGNUM and ZUB as by December 2017, ETCS Level 1 Limited
Supervision Swiss (LSCH) will include packet 44 (EuroSIGNUM/EuroZUB).
In the Norwegian NIP, there is no exact date of removal. However, class B system is only optional
when ERTMS is deployed.
Czech Republic gives no detailed dates, but a process on how the class B will be decommissioned in 3
stages, from the moment when class A system is put into operation to when exclusive operation of
class A system begins and at the same time class B system is put out of operation .
In Germany the Class‐B decommissioning is not specified. Parallel equipment with the Class B
systems and ETCS of lines with the systems is permitted. LZB and PZB 90 can then serve as fall‐back
systems.
Croatia only indicates that is going to use the “rolling stock” strategy. If a vehicle equipped with ETCS
operates on lines equipped with INDUSI that is currently in operation, a STM will be required in the
on‐board system..
In Austria, sections with ETCS + PZB will remove their class B system after 3 years of being equipped
with ERTMS. On the contrary, LZB will be decommissioned as soon as ERTMS deployed. Therefore, a
full decommissioning of LZB is expected by 2030, and of PZB by late 2030s. In addition, lines
equipped with ETCS may be accessed by vehicles with ETCS on‐board equipment only.
Belgium has different class B decommissioning plans depending on the specific class B system:
Memoir/Crocodile will be decommissioned in lines equipped with ETCS L1 and TBL1+ from the end of
2016, TBL1 will be taken out of service when commissioning ETCS in Halle‐Brussels South, TBL2 will
be limited to high speed line 2 by the end of 2017, TVM430 will be replaced with ETCS L2 by 2029
and TBL1+ will be maintained as class B system only on non‐TEN‐T lines.
Italy will begin a gradual removal of the SCMT system on the conventional network in 2026. For
sections to be equipped after 2026, no decommissioning is programmed for the time being. Class B
on Florence‐Rome high‐speed line is being decommissioned and by 2020 this line will be ERTMS‐only.
Slovakia will replace LS with ETCS L2 except for Zilina‐Cadca and ETCS L1 lines.
Finland indicates that the removal of the JKV class B system will take place by the introduction of the
ERTMS / ETCS system. As soon as the ERTMS /ETCS equipment will be deployed, JKV will be removed.
For the CNC lines equipped with ERTMS, rail vehicles will only need to be equipped with ERTMS
system.
1.4 Other issues

Many countries clearly state in their NIP that the date when existing cross‐border vehicles shall fully
benefit from operation with ‘ETCS only equipped on‐board’ will be the same as the ETCS target date,
for example Finland, Belgium, or the Czech Republic. For the last two, it is clearly stated in addition,
that their goal is to operate exclusively ETCS‐fitted trains and no class B system will be required to
the vehicles operating on interoperable lines. This is also the case for Austria explicitly for the CNC.

On the contrary, after the general analysis carried out in Portugal, the preferred migration strategy
for ETCS will be to equip first their vehicles fleet with ETCS from 2021 onwards while there is no
defined date for trackside.
It is important to highlight that 3 countries already set a date to allow ETCS‐only equipped on‐board
in their networks:
 Luxembourg from June 2017

 Switzerland, from January 2018
 Belgium, with a date to be agreed with the RUs that could be between 2025 and 2032
2 Economic and Financial aspects included in NIP
Some of the NIPs submitted by the MS provided additional information which allowed further
clarifications on some aspects of the economic and financial impact of ERTMS deployment. This
facilitated an update of the business case analysis per CNC with new data and information. Some
NIPs allowed also getting an up‐to‐date understanding of MS’ plans regarding the decommissioning
of the legacy system in their networks
In terms of economic content, among the NIPs submitted only 9 MS have quoted some figures
regarding the cost of deployment on their rail sections. Sweden is the sole MS which has also
submitted a CBA which however is calibrated on the country’s national plan to equip the whole
network with ERTMS by 2027 (few exceptions regarding some sections), due to the obsolescence of
the legacy system. French and German NIPs both mentioned a CBA without entirely quoting the
detailed results of this analysis.
2.1 Overall alignment of the CBA with the principles and conclusions of the
CNC business case developed by DMT
As stated in the previous section, only Sweden provided a CBA with detailed figures in the NIP. The
table below provides a quick comparison between the Swedish CBA and the business case analysis
provided by the DMT in October 2016:
Item Sweden DMT
Overall deployment strategy Dual on‐board, full on‐board Dual on‐board, full on‐board deployment
deployment by 2027 by 2027
Average unit costs, applied only on the
sections of the CNC, and without taking
into account interlocking.
Track‐side Overall cost, that take into account
That being said the deduced averages are
deployment cost interlocking and are on the MS levels
in the same range (L2: 300k€/km without
Costs interlocking for DMT; 500k€/km with
interlocking in Sweden)
Unit costs (and no information about the
On‐board Overall cost
size of the Swedish fleet for comparison)
deployment It is considered that 57% of the fleet
On Scan‐Med corridor, it is considered
costs need to be retrofitted
that 51% of the fleet need to be

retrofitted
The CBA recognizes that ERTMS will be

Track‐side
less expensive to maintain but does ERTMS L2 significantly less expensive to
maintenance
not provide figures or include this maintain than class B (up to 60%)
costs
benefit in the conclusion
The total renewal cost of class B is not
Avoided costs of mentioned, but adapting the class B in The total renewal of the class B system
renewal of the order to keep its use until 2035 (and would cost the same cost as the
class B system not 2027) would cost 40% of its deployment of ERTMS instead
deployment cost
The reliability benefit is assessed based
The reliability benefits were not included
on an estimation of the "value of time"
Reliability up to now, but will included in the future
and the decrease of the signaling‐
releases
Benefits related delays thanks to ERTMS
ERTMS will not have any impact on Safety benefits were included, but will be
Safety
safety removed in the future releases.
ERTMS will not have any impact on
Speed ERTMS impact on speed is not assessed
speed
ERTMS will not have any impact on Capacity was included in the CBA, but will
Capacity
capacity be removed in future releases
Since the CBA is Sweden‐focused, Interoperability is a core benefit of the
Interoperability
interoperability was not considered CBA
2.2 Synthesis regarding the financing strategies

One of the major issues tackled in most of the NIPs is the question of funding the deployment. For
trackside, the most frequent solution is the combination of state and CEF funds (and cohesion funds
for cohesion countries). Onboard deployment is, on the other hand, rarely mentioned, and if so, it is
to mention that the state cannot provide direct funding to RUs as it will not be compliant with the EU
policy regarding state aid.
The table below presents for each MS its policy, according to the NIP, regarding this issue.
Information about financing the Information about financing the
MS
deployment: trackside deployment: onboard
The financing of ERTMS deployment is
within the general framework of planning
and financing infrastructure in Austria, the
current framework will last 6 years (until
No direct public funding will be provided
2023) for an overall allocated funding of
AUSTRIA for the RUs, but counselling is provided in
227 M€.
order to access EU‐level financial support.
In addition to funding provided at the
national level, Austria will continue to
apply for funding opportunities at
European level, particularly CEF.
The infrastructure costs are paid on the The migration of the rolling stock that is
basis of an investment grant to the only used for public passenger services is
BELGIUM infrastructure manager, supplemented financed through an investment grant to
with EU subsidies where these can speed the operator. This grant is supplemented
up the implementation process with EU aid within the framework of the

CEF
‐ 572 M€, provided by the Cohesion fund
and the ERDF, are dedicated to improve
‐ between 2011 and 2015, the Bulgarian
(between 2014 and 2020) the railway
government provided between 12 and 15
infrastructure along the CNCs.
M€ annually to the public passenger RU
‐ 406 M€, provided by the CEF (under the
BULGARIA for the modernization
funding for cohesion countries)
‐ The Bulgarian government is also
‐ The Bulgarian government is also
considering applying for the "regular" CEF
considering applying for the "regular" CEF
grants
grants
The NIP briefly mentions that the No clear information provided: it appears
CROATIA trackside deployment will rely on EU that no precise funds have been allocated
funding. yet
Fitting of vehicles with on‐board ETCS will
be supported by the state by combining
two basic tools:
The development of trackside GSM‐R + ‐systematic funding of purchase and
CZECH ETCS on TEN network lines in the planning installation of on‐board ETCS to RUs and
REPUBLIC period 2017–2023 will be primarily funded primarily covered from EU funds –
from CEF basic measure;
‐ granting a discount on the charge for the
use of railway infrastructure –
complementary measure.
The Federal Ministry of Transportation
joined DB Netz in a Financing partnership.
This partnership allocated 393,1M€ of
funding for the RALP Corridor project.
These 393 M€ include 100M€ of CEF No clear information provided: it appears
GERMANY funding. that no precise funds have been allocated
Other funding opportunities quoted: EIB, yet
Länder, specific federal legislations such as
Municipal Transport Financing Act (GVFG)
or Rail Freight Traffic Promotion Act
(SGFFG)
No clear information provided: it appears

Only national funding is allocated (no EU‐
IRELAND that no precise funds have been allocated
sources)
yet
No clear information provided: it appears No clear information provided: it appears

FINLAND that no precise funds have been allocated that no precise funds have been allocated
yet yet
No clear information provided: it appears No clear information provided: it appears
FRANCE that no precise funds have been allocated that no precise funds have been allocated
yet yet
No overall information, but for regional
ITALY No clear information provided
lines, the impacted regions/provinces

(Tsucany; Bolzano) are directly

contributing
LATVIA Not provided Not provided
The ministry offers national funding for

The track‐side deployment budget is
NETHERLANDS upgrades and is asking for CEF subsidy as
mainly provided by the state
well
NORWAY Not provided Not provided
The costs of the deployment of ERTMS
within Polish infrastructure is financed to
a large extent by EU funds, with national
POLAND contribution. Not provided
Until 2023, the implementation of the
system will be based on the Cohesion
Fund.
CEF and cohesion funds are mentioned, CEF and cohesion funds are mentioned,
PORTUGAL
but no precise figures are given but no precise figures are given
‐ ZSRs own funds as the infrastructure
manager
‐ financing from the state budget (SB),
SLOVAKIA Not provided
‐ funding from EU sources + co‐financing
from SB sources
‐ financing from ŽSR loans.
No information provided, but it appears
SWEDEN that the state will be the main source of Not provided
funding
SWITZERLAND Not provided Not provided
3 Technical aspects included in NIP
For most of the NIP, the technical content is limited to the level and baseline of foreseen sections.
Some NIPs also include generic technical requests (e.g. system stability)
3.1 Analysis of the technical aspects as considered in the CBA

The different technical aspects that are considered by the countries within the CBA are included in
the following list. The description of each of the technical aspects is in some cases taken from the
specific NIPs, while for those where no detailed reasoning was included, the description is DMT
understanding:
 Interoperability, it is highlighted that ERTMS avoids costs of dual equipment on a longer term
of the deployment and open the market to different suppliers.
Countries that have highlighted interoperability as technical benefit from ERTMS are:
Austria, Finland, Poland, and Sweden
 Capacity, even if the gain in capacity can be achieved independently of the level installed and
is more related to the previous existing systems, the countries highlighting capacity as the
main gain for ERTMS deployments are those where level 2 is foreseen. It is also relevant that

for some countries it is not only the capacity that is improved by the deployment of ERTMS,
but also the punctuality by decreasing the necessary journey time.
Countries that have highlighted capacity as technical benefit from ERTMS are: Netherlands,
Poland, and Sweden
 Safety, because of the continuous technical monitoring of the driver actions.
Countries that have highlighted safety as technical benefit from ERTMS are: Belgium,
Germany, Latvia, Poland, Sweden, and Finland
 General modernisation of the railway network, mainly France, links the ERTMS deployment
to the best solution when modernising the existing network and modifying the existing other
control command and signalling systems
 Latvia states that the deployment of ERTMS would not improve the interoperability. The
main reason is that since the gauge of the railway network is 1520mm, as in the neighbour
countries, interoperability is already achieved.
3.2 Analysis of the technical aspects/justifications raised in the deployment

plans
The most relevant technical aspects linked to the deployment plans are the definition of ERTMS
levels and baselines.
For railway undertakings’ planning it is also essential to have an overview on the baselines to be
deployed in the different sections. Although from 2019 new vehicles authorised will be Baseline 3
that can run both over Baseline 2 and Baseline 3 lines, all the existing vehicles are Baseline 2 and
there are currently some Baseline 2 onboard being retrofitted, which cannot run in Baseline 3 lines.
NIPs reveal that some countries will have a network with only one Baseline, e.g. Baseline 2 (Austria
and Slovakia), or Baseline 3 (Finland and Norway) while others are planning different baselines
within the network. For example, Germany, Poland, Switzerland, France and Belgium will have a
mixed network with Baseline 2 and Baseline 3 lines. The Netherlands new deployments will be in
baseline 3. The Czech Republic will switch to Baseline 3 on the new lines from 2017 and Italy will
deploy Baseline 2 in the high speed lines and baseline 3 in the conventional lines. Bulgaria, Portugal
and Sweden did not provide in their NIPs information regarding the baselines.
The following map shows the Baseline deployed in each country:

Regarding the level of ERTMS to be applied, countries have taken different approaches:
 ERTMS Level 2 for the complete network,
Austria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Slovakia
 Other countries link the selected ERTMS level to the existing type of signalling
Belgium, Bulgaria, Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy and Poland. For example, Italy intends
Level 2 as the relevant for high speed lines and level 1 or 2 depending on existing signalling
systems for main lines.
 ERTMS level 1 for the complete network
Even if the information is not conclusive, it appears that Finland is the only country that foresees
to equip only ERTMS level 1 in the network.
Croatia and Sweden are the only Member States which do not include level of ERTMS in the
deployment strategies included in the NIP.
The following map shows the levels for each country:

An additional technical aspect to be highlighted is that it is explicit in some NIPs that ERTMS can be
interfaced with different types of interlocking and not only electronic interlocking. Information on
the interface between ERTMS and the interlocking can be found in NIPs from Austria, Bulgaria,
Switzerland, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden.
It should be highlighted that there is clearly less information on GSMR in the NIPs than the
information on ETCS. Some Member States already have a GSM‐R network deployed or have started
the deployment and, therefore, have experience on it: Bulgaria 298 km, Czech Republic 1.660 km,
Germany 235.8km, Italy 11.200 km and Poland 1.600km. The most remarkable network is in Italy,
where the largest GSM‐R network is deployed. Regarding the GSM‐R network, Bulgaria and Norway
have expressed the importance of ensuring the complete coverage of the line with the GSM‐R signal
in lines equipped with ERTMS Level 2. Belgium and France have stated that the GSM‐R will be
supplemented with a GPRS module on high‐speed lines, in order to meet the high‐speed data
transmission requirements.
4 Overview per corridor
This section includes a short overview per CNC of the ERTMS deployment dates as included in the
NIPs, i.e. the dates that were agreed in the ERTMS EDP per corridor are compared to the dates
available in the NIPs.
The results can be found in the schemes that are included in Annex A of this report. The sections
target dates that are marked in dark red correspond to the cases when the NIP has indicated a target
date later than the one in the EDP. These schemes identify also the sections of the CNC that belong
to Rail Freight Corridors (RFC).

DMT has not received NIPs from the following MS: Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania,
Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom, Denmark and Luxembourg. Therefore, no delay in these MS is
shown in the corridor schemes attached, but sections corresponding to these countries have been
highlighted in light red.
For those countries that have submitted the NIPs but no detail information on specific sections or
specific periods is included, DMT has assumed that the EDP will be fulfilled. Therefore, they are not
highlighted in the maps. For further identification of this sections or periods where no detail
comparison has been possible, please refer to section 1.1 of this report.
As part of this overview of the national ERTMS implementation plans vs ERTMS deployment plans per
corridor (i.e. information as included in NIPs and EDP) specific focus is set to the deployment of the
system in the cross border sections.
The following table includes the misalignment of the cross borders planning between the EDP and
the NIPs taking into account that when no detail information is available in the NIP, it is understood
that the data remaining applicable is the one in the EDP.
Focus is also set to the cross border sections in order to identify if there are specific locations which
require more complex cross border agreements in the coming years. The following map highlights
the level of difficulty as evaluated by DMT of the expected cross border sections before 2023 with
the following criteria:
 Difficulty of the cross border increases if there is a delay in timing between the 2countries of
the border sections of 5 years or higher
 Difficulty of the cross border increases if it involves an ERTMS level 2 deployment
 Difficulty of the cross border increases if ERTMS baselines at both sides of the border differ
 Difficulty of the cross border increases if there is a mismatch on the expected dates between
the EDP and the NIPs

Technical su
upport for thee deploymen
nt of ERTMS along the co
ore network c orridors
T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_2018
80214_Synthesiis report on NIP
P 18
5 Abbreviations
Terms Definition
AT Austria
ATC Automatic Train Control
B2 Baseline 2
B3 Baseline 3
BE Belgium
BG Bulgaria
CBA Cost‐benefit analysis
CCS TSI Control Command and Signalling Technical Specification for Interoperability
CEF Connecting Europe Facility
CH Switzerland
CN Core Network
CNC Core Network Corridor
CZ Czech Republic
CZK Czech koruna
DB Netz Deutsche Bahn Net
DE Germany
DK Denmark
DMT ERTMS Deployment Management Team
EDP European Deployment Plan
EE Estonia
EIB European Investment Bank
EL Greece
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management System
ES Spain
ETCS European Train Control System
EU European Union
FI Finland
FR France
GPRS General Packet Radio Service
GSM‐R Global System for Mobile Communications – Railway
Hbf Central Station, (Hauptbahnhof)
HR Croatia
HU Hungary
IE Ireland
IM Infrastructure Manager
IT Italy
L1 Level 1 of ERTMS

L2 Level 2 of ERTMS
LS Limited Supervision mode of ERTMS or
Czech class B system
LSCH ETCS Level 1 Limited Supervision Swiss
LT Lithuania
LU Luxembourg
LV Latvia
MS Member State
NIP National Implementation Plan
NL Netherlands
NO Norway
NSB North Sea‐Baltic Corridor
OB Onboard
OBU OnBoard Unit
PL Poland
PT Portugal
RALP Rhine‐Alpine Corridor
RFC Rail Freight Corridor
RO Romania
RU Railway Undertaking
SE Sweden
SEK Swedish krona
SI Slovenia
SK Slovakia
STM Specific Transmission Module
TEN‐T Trans‐European Transport Network
TENtec European Commission’s Information System to coordinate and support TEN‐T Policy
UK United Kingdom
ŽSR Railways of the Slovak Republic, (Železnice Slovenskej republiky)

Annex A. CNC in EDP vs NIP schemes

ORIENT/EAST-MED
CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
1/2
Rostock
Wilhelmshaven Bremerhaven Hamburg 2022
Beyond 2023
Beyond
Nassenheide
Bremen Beyond 2023
2023
Beyond 2023 Berlin
Beyond 2023
Hannover Magdeburg
Beyond 2023 Rosslau Blankenfelde
Beyond 2023
23
2 023 Elsterwerda
20
nd
eyo
d
Beyond Beyond 2023

sau
on
B
s
y
23
De 2023 Dresden DE
Be
20
Bitterfeld Leipzig Beyond 2023
2023
Děčín CZ
2023 Beyond 2023
Ústí nad Labem Ústí nad Labem Strekov
2023 Beyond 2023
RFC5 Praha Be Lysá nad Labem

yo
RFC6 2020 nd
20
23
RFC7 Kolín
RFC8 2018
Pardubice
2018
Česká Třebová 2021
2018 Přerov
Brno
2020
2018
Břeclav
2018
2018
2023 2030
Devínska Nová Ves SK
Beyond 2023
AT In operation
Wien node Bratislava

Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
2022
Rajka
Nickelsdorf 2020 HU
2022
Hegyeshalom
2022
Budapest
2018
Szajol
2018
Curtici
RO
ORIENT/EAST-MED
HU CORRIDOR
Curtici Passenger & Freight
2018
Arad
2/2
Beyond 2023
Timişoara
Beyond 2023
Craiova
Beyond 2023
Calafat
2018 RO
In operation
Vidin
Beyond 2023
Brusartsi
Beyond 2023 Burgas
Sofia 2020
Elin Pelin Mihaylovo 2021
Beyond 2023
Septemvri
2022 Plovdiv 2021
Pernik 2017
2017 Dimitrovgrad
Beyond 2023
2017
Radomir
Beyond 2023
Kulata
BG TR border
Promachonas
2020 EL
Thessaloniki
2020
Palaiofarsalos
Beyond 2023
Igoumenitsa 23
d 20 2020
yon Kalambaka
Be Domokos
2023
Tithorea
Beyond 2020
Patras 2023
Beyond Acharnes
Kiato 2023
2020
Gefyres
RFC7 Beyond 2023
Athína
NORTH-SEA BALTIC
CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
FI Beyond 1/2
2030
Beyond 2023
EE Helsinki
Tallinn
LV Beyond 2023
Rīga
Beyond 2023
Palemonas Beyo
nd 2
023
Beyond 2023
Kaunas Vilnius
Beyond 2023
LT Beyond 2023
2023
Warszawa 2018 BY Border
2023
PL 2026
2023
Grodzisk Maz.
023
Łódź
nd 2
o
Bey
Poznań
2023
2020
DE Frankfurt/Oder
2020
Erkner RFC1
Beyond 2023 RFC8
Beyond 2023 Berlin
Hamburg
Beyond 2023
23 d
Brieselang
20 on
y
Be
Beyond 2023
Werder (Havel)
Beyond 2023
Magdeburg
Wolfsburg
Beyond 2023
Braunschweig
Bremerhaven
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
Bremen
Hannover Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023 Wilhelmshaven
Löhne Beyond 2023
Köln
Beyond 2023 Beyond 2023
Osnabrück Langerwehe
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023 Aachen
2022 2020
Botzelaer Border
NL Hergenrath BE
NORTH-SEA BALTIC
CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
2/2
Aachen
DE Botzelaer Border
Hergenrath
NL 2037 Beyond 2023
In operation
2020 2022 BE
Visé-Haut
Hengelo 2022
2037 Beyond 2023 Chênée Aarschot
2017
Almelo
Liège
2037 Beyond 2023 2017
Deventer Leuven
2037 Beyond 2023 In operation
Amersfoort
2037 Beyond 2023 Bruxelles/Brussel 2020
Amsterdam In operation Utrecht 2022

Beyond 2023
Schaerbeek
2033 Beyond 2023
In operation
Gouda Mechelen
2022
2033 Beyond 2023 Meteren Nekkerspoel
In operation
Rotterdam
In operation on Antwerpen
In operati
n
tio
Maasvlakte
era
In operation
Beyond 2023
Breda
op
2020 Noorderdokken
In
Beyond
2023
Roosendaal
RFC1
RFC2
RFC8
NORTH-SEA MED
CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
Glasgow Falkirk Edingurgh
1/2
Belfast Beyond 2023 Beyond 2023
Beyond
Uddingston 2023 Livingston
Beyond 2023
Baile Átha
Cliath/Dublin Carstairs JCT
Beyond 2023
Euxton
Amsterdam
Beyond 2023
Corcaigh/Cork NL
Beyond 2023 Manchester
Beyond 2023
Liverpool Beyond 2023 Schiphol
Acton Bridge
IE Norton Bridge
In operation
Beyond 2023 Rotterdam
Beyond 2023
Stafford 2031
UK Birmingham Beyond 2023 Maasvlakte
Nuneaton Felixtowe
Beyond In operation
Beyond 2023 2023
Beyond 2023 Vlissingen
London Barendrecht
Southampton
Zeebrugge
202 nd
Beyond 2023 yo
3
Beyond 2023 Oostende 2032
Be
Dover Roosendaal
Beyond 2023 In operation
2020
Calais Beyond 2023
FR Beyond 2023 Cassel JCT Dunkerque Brugge
20
Breda
Hazebrouck 20
2020 Noorderdokken In operation
23
2021 Antwerpen In
20
op
Lille 2022 2021 er
nd
a tio
yo
Gent
23
n
3
Be
20
Halle
20
Paris
nd
In operation
nd
Fretin
yo
yo
2020
Be
ek
Be
2022
be
er
Nekkerspoel
ha
2022
tio
Bruxelles/Brussel
Sc
ra
2022 Aarschot
e
op
In
Ottignies Mechelen 2020

RFC1 In operation
RFC2 Namur
RFC8 2022 Leuven
In operation Ciney
BE
2022
Bettembourg Luxembourg
LU
NORTH-SEA MED
CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
2/2
Namur
Ciney BE
Bettembourg 2017
In operation
2017 LU/DE border
In operation Luxembourg Oetrange LU
In operation
Thionville
FR
2020 Vendenheim
Metz 2020 2020
Strasbourg
2020 In operation
Beyond 2023
Rémilly
Pagny
Beyond 2023 2020
Toul
Beyond 2023
Villers-les-Pots
Be Beyond 2023
yo Mulhouse
Dijon nd
20
23
2020
CH
Dole 2021
Beyond 2023
Basel
Mâcon
Beyond 2023
Lyon
Beyond 2023
RFC2
Beyond 2023
RFC4
Fos-sur-Mer Miramas
Beyond 2023
Marseille
ATLANTIC CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
1/2
Algeciras
ES PT
Beyond 2023
Antequera
Beyond 2023 Sines
In operation
Montilla
Beyond 2023 Córdoba Beyond 2023
Lisboa
Poceirão Beyond
Beyond 2023 2023
Beyond 2023
Badajoz Beyond
Beyond 2023
Linares 2023
Plasencia 2020
2020
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023 Cáceres Pinhal Novo
Beyond 2023
La Sagra Coimbra
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
Pampilhosa
Madrid
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
In operation Aveiro
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
Olmedo
20
Medina
20
In operation del Campo Contumil

Beyond 2023
Valladolid Beyond 2023
2020
Beyond 2023
Leixões/Porto
Burgos
Beyond 2023
Vitoria
2 3
Puerto de Bilbao 20 RFC4
nd 2019
yo
Be RFC6
Bilbao 2019
Bergara
2019
Irún
ATLANTIC CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
2/2
ES Irún FR
Beyond 2023
Dax
Separation Dax/Toulouse
Beyond 2023
Bordeaux
2017
Beyond 2023
Monts
Orléans
23
Serqueux
20
Le Havre Beyond 2023

3
nd
2
20
yo
Be
nd
Paris
yo
Rouen
Be
Beyond 2023
Noisy-le-Sec
In operation
Châlons-en-Champagne
Reims
Beyond 2023
In operation
Metz
2020
Rémilly 2020 Vendenheim

RFC4
2020
In operation
Strasbourg
Beyond 2023
Forbach/Saarbrücken
2023
DE Saarbrücken
2023
Mannheim
BALTIC-ADRIATIC
CORRIDOR
Świnoujście
Passenger & Freight
Beyond 2023
1/2
Szczecin
Beyond 2023
Gdynia
Poznań Beyond 2023 2018
2023 Gdańsk
Wrocław 2018
Beyond 2023
Tczew
Beyond 2023
Miloszyce
Beyond 2023 2018
Beyond 2023
Opole Działdowo
Beyond 2023 Inowrocław
Beyond 2023 2018
Rudziniec Gliwicki Beyond 2023
Beyond
PL Kędzierzyn-Koźle
2023 Warszawa
3 Beyond 2023
Chorzów Batory 02
d2 Katowice
yon 2018
Bohumín Be
n
CZ
io
2020
at
Beyond 2023
er
op
2020 Beyond 2023

In
Zawiercie Grodzisk Maz.

Ostrava Wisła most
Beyond 2023
Żywiec
2020
Přerov Beyond 2023

Čadca
Beyond 2023 2020 In operation
Žilina
Brno
Bratislava 2023
2018
n
io
at
Beyond 2023 Púchov

er
Břeclav
op
2023 Trenčín
Devínska
In
2018
Nová Ves RFC5
RFC9
Hohenau/Bernhardsthal Beyond 2023
Marchegg
AT
Kittsee/Petržalka
SK
SI
BALTIC-ADRIATIC
CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
Hohenau/Bernhardsthal 2/2
Marchegg
AT In operation
Kittsee/Petržalka
2022 d
yon
Be 23
2 20
202 Parndorf SK
Beyond 2 Gramatneusiedl
Wien node 202
2023
2023
SI
Wampersdorf
2023
Wiener Neustadt
Beyond 2023
Graz
2023
Werndorf
2023 2023
2023
Klagenfurt Maribor
Beyond 2023
2023
Tarvisio
IT Beyond 2023 Pragersko
Udine 2017 2020
no
na
Beyond 2023
na
isi
Ljubljana
ig
ur
Privano
na
2017
rv
d'A
Ce
ici
Beyond 2023 Postojna Beyond 2023

Op
vio
20
Bi
lla
2017
20
2020
Portogruaro 2020
Vi
Beyond 2023
Divača
Beyond 2020 2017
2023 Sežana
Venezia (1)
2 020 2017
Trieste
Beyond 2023 2020
Koper
RFC5
Padova RFC6
Beyond 2023
Bologna
Beyond 2023
(1) The line Vicenza-Castelfranco Veneto -Portogruaro will be equipped
with ERTMS as a diversionary line for Vicenza-Padova–Venezia -
Ravenna Portogruaro by2020. Section Venezia-Portogruaro located on the Core
Network Corridor will be equipped after 2023, but before 2030.
MEDITERRANEAN
CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
or
a
ob
af l
23
rd
Sevilla
20
ñ
1/2
Pe
Có
nd
yo
Algeciras Beyond 2023
Be
n
io Beyond 2023
r at 023
Beyond 2023 pe ond 2
In
o
Montilla Bey
Madrid
Beyond 2023
Linares
Cartagena Beyond 2023 Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023 2020 Antequera
In operation Casetas
Beyond Granada
Murcia 2023 Beyond 2023
2020
Monforte del Cid Zaragoza
Beyond 2023 In operation
La Encina Beyond 2023 In operation
2020
Beyond 2023 Tarragona
Valencia 2020 In operation Lleida
2020
In operation
Castellbisbal
2020
Barcelona
ES Beyond 2023
In operation
Portbou
In operation
FR Beyond 2023 Le Soler
Beyond 2023
Perpignan
Beyond 2023
Montpellier
2017
Nîmes
Miramas Beyond 2023
Marseille Beyond Beyond Avignon JCT

2023 2023
Aix-en-Provence TGV Beyond 2023
Lyon
Beyond 2023
Saint-Laurent-de-Mure
Modane Chambéry
Beyond 2023
Orbassano
IT Beyond 2023
Torino
Beyond 2023
Chivasso In operation
Beyond 2023
Novara
2020 In operation
RFC2
RFC4
Rho RFC6
2020 2021
Milano
MEDITERRANEAN
Milano
2020
CORRIDOR
Beyond 2023 Passenger & Freight
Melzo 2020
Beyond 2023 2/2
Verona
(1) 2020 Beyond 2023
Vicenza
Beyond 2023
Bologna Beyond
2023
Padova
Ravenna Beyond
2023
2020
Beyond 2023 Mirano

2020 (1)
Venezia
(1) Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
Cervignano
(1) 2020
Ronchi dei Legionari

(1) 2020 2020
Trieste Bivio d'Aurisina
IT 2020
Villa Opicina
2020 Beyond 2023
2017
SI Sežana Beyond 2023
2017
2017
Divača
Koper 2017
Beyond 2023 Postojna
2017
Ljubljana
2017
Zidani Most
2023 2020
2017
HR Rijeka Horvati
3
Beyond 2023 Hodoš

2
20
Beyond Zaprešić
nd
2023 Beyond 2023

yo
Oštarije Zagreb
Be
2018
Beyond 2023
Dugo Selo Boba
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
Pusztaszabolcs Székesfehérvár
2020
HU 2018
Budapest Kelenföld
2018
Budapest Ferencváros 2018 Szajol

2020
RFC5 2020 Püspökladány
RFC6 Budapest Rákos 2020 2020
RFC7 Debrecen
Hatvan
Beyond 2023
UA Border
(1) The line Vicenza-Castelfranco Veneto -Portogruaro will be equipped
with ERTMS as a diversionary line for Vicenza-Padova–Venezia -
Portogruaro by2020. Section Venezia-Portogruaro located on the Core
Network Corridor will be equipped after 2023, but before 2030.
RHINE-ALPINE
CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
2/2
Vlissingen
Beyond 2023 2032
Rosendaal
Beyond 2023
Maasvlakte Rotterdam
In operation
In operation
Barendrecht Amsterdam
In operation In operation
Zeebrugge
Beyond 2023
2020
Meteren Utrecht Beyond 2023
In operation Beyond 2023

Brugge Arnhem
2021 2020 Beyond 2023
Walenhoek Zevenaar
In op
Gent eratio In operation
202 n 2020
20221 NL
Beyond 2023
en
2021 2020 n
io
p
at Noorderdokken
er
Bruxelles/Brussel er Oberhausen
w
op
t
An
2022
In Lierre
2022 2020 Duisburg
Beyond 2023
Zaventem Aarschot Düsseldorf
In operation 2022 Beyond 2023 2022
Leuven Hasselt Langenfeld Opladen
2022
2017 Botzelaer Beyond 2023 2022
2022 2022 Border
2020 2020
Liège Visé 2020 Beyond
2023 Köln
2017 In operation 2022
Aachen
BE Chênée Hergenrath 2020
2020 Troisdorf
DE Rolandseck
2022
2020
Neuwied
Koblenz 2022
2020
Kostheim
Bingen
2022
2020
Beyond 2023
Mainz
RFC1 2022
RFC2 Beyond Frankfurt am Main
RFC8 Mainz-Bischofsheim 2023
RHINE-ALPINE
CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
2/2
Beyond Frankfurt am Main
Mainz-Bischofsheim 2023
Beyond 2023
2022
Beyond 2023
Gross Gerau
Darmstadt
Beyond 2023
2022
Mannheim
Beyond 2023
2022 Heidelberg
Beyond 2023
Schwetzingen
2022
Hockenheim Beyond 2023

2022
Karlsruhe
2022 2030
DE Beyond 2023 2022
2022 2030
Basel
2017 2018
CH
Rothrist Brunnen
In operation
Erstfeld
Mattstetten In operation
Bodio
2017 In operation
Castione
Frutigen 2018 2017
San Antonio
In operation
2020
Raron Vezia
2017 2017
Domodossola Chiasso
IT (1) Beyond 2023 2018
Sesto Calende
(1) Beyond 2023
RFC1 Milano
Novara
2020 2021
2018 (1) Between Swiss border and Novara the alternative route Beyond 2023 Tortona
Domodossola-Borgomanero-Novara will be equipped by 2017.
The section betwen Domodossola and Novara located on the core Beyond 2023 (2)
network corridor will be equipped after 2023 but before 2030.
2021 (2) Between Tortona and Genova alternative route will be equipped Genova
by 2020. The section betwen Tortona and Genova located on the
core network coridor will be equipped after 2023 but before 2030.
SCANDINAVIAN-
MEDITERRANEAN
Stockholm
Oslo Beyond 2023 CORRIDOR
NO Stockholm Älvsjö
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023 Passenger & Freight
Järna
SE Beyond 2023
1/2
Beyond 2023 Beyond 2023 Åby
Hallsberg Beyond
Beyond 2023
2023
Linköping
Göteborg FI
Beyond 2023 Mjölby
Ängelholm Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
Kävlinge
Helsingborg Beyond Beyond
2023 2023 Lund
Beyond 2023 Beyond 2023 Trelleborg
Beyond
2023
RU Border
Malmö
Beyond 2023
2038 Beyond 2023
2023 2038
Kouvola Beyond
DK København 2023 Juurikorpi
2022 2045 Beyond 2023
Roskilde 2018
Helsinki Beyond 2023
2022 2038 2038
Beyond 2023
Ringsted 2038 Beyond 2023
Korsør 2022 Kotka
Odense 2021 2021 Hamina
2021
Nykøbing
Turku/Naantali
Snoghøj 2023 Beyond 2023
2020
Flensburg Weiche Lübeck
Rostock
2022 DE
Lauenbruck Beyo Hamburg Nassenheide
nd 2 Beyond 2023
Beyo 023
nd 2
Bremen 023 Beyond
Uelzen 2023 Berlin
Beyond 2023
Visselhoevede 2023
Nienburg Beyond 2023
2023 Bitterfeld
Beyond 2023
Halle 2023
Hannover
Beyond 2023 In operation Leipzig
Hildesheim
Be Beyond 2023 Erfurt
yo
nd
20
23 Göttingen Beyond 2023
Kassel 2020
Beyond 2023 Ebensfeld
Beyond 2023
Würzburg 3
02
nd2 Nürnberg
yo
Be Beyond 2023
Treuchtlingen RFC3
Ingolstadt
Beyond 2023
München
Beyond 2023
Kufstein
AT
SCANDINAVIAN-
MEDITERRANEAN
CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
2/2
Kufstein
In operation
AT
Innsbruck
In operation
Beyond 2023
Brennero Brennero (base tunnel)

2020 Beyond 2023
Fortezza IT
2020 2023
Verona
Beyond 2023
Bologna
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
Prato
Beyond 2023
In operation Ancona
La Spezia
Pisa
Beyond
2023
Beyond Firenze
2023
Livorno Beyond 2023
2020 2018
Terontola
Orte Beyond 2023
2020 2018
Attigliano
Beyond 2023
Settebagni
2020
Roma
In operation
Beyond 2023
Salone
Formia
In operation
Beyond 2023
Beyond
Napoli 2023 Bari
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
Villa San Giovanni
Messina Taranto
Palermo Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
Catania
Beyond 2023 RFC3
Augusta
RHINE-DANUBE
CORRIDOR
FR Mannheim Passenger & Freight
3
Beyond 2023 02
Hockenheim
Be
yo
n d2 1/2
Ka 2022
Gross Gerau
rls Beyond 2022
ruh 2023
3
e Bruchsal 02
d2
Beyond
Beyond 2023 t n
2023
d y o
2020
2030 msta Be
Strasbourg r Frankfurt am Main CZ
Appenweier Da
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
DE Sttutgart
Würzburg
Beyond 2023
Ulm Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023 Cheb Plzeň

Schirnding
Beyond 2023 2023 2022
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
Nürnberg Beroun
München
Beyond
Beyond 2023 Beyond 2023 Beyond 2023
2023
Praha
Beyond 2023
Regensburg 2020 Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
Passau Kolín Lysa b. Laben
AT Beyond 2023 2020 Beyond
Salzburg 2018 2023
Beyond 2023 Česká Třebová

In operation
2021
Wels Přerov
Beyond 2023 2020
Linz Hranice 2020
Ostrava
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
St. Pölten Beyond 2023

Český Těšín
In operation Beyond 2023
Wien node Beyond 2023

Čadca
Žilina
Púchov
2022
Parndorf
Beyond 2023
Bratislava SK
2022
HU Hegyeshalom RFC5
RFC9
RHINE-DANUBE
CORRIDOR
Passenger & Freight
2/2
Hranice
CZ
Český Těšín
Žilina
In
op
2023
Čadca
era
Púchov
t
ion
Beyond 2023
Beyond 2023
AT Parndorf Bratislava
Košice
Beyond 2023
2022 2020
Beyond 2023
Hegyeshalom
2022 UA border
Budapest
SK
HU 2018
Curtici
2018
RO Arad
2020
Simeria
Beyond 2023 2018
Sighișoara
2021
Craiova
Brașov
Brazi
București In operation
2018
Beyond 2023 RFC5
Fetești
RFC7
2018
RFC9
Constanța

Synthesis Report On Nip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Synthesis Report On Nip

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Synthesis Report On Nip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Provision of Services to the European Commission

in the field of nº MOVE/B2/2014‐670:

“Services of technical support for the deployment

Synthesis report on NIP

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 1

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 4

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 2

DOCUMENT CHANGE LOG

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 3

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 4

1 Synthesis of the planning for ERTMS deployment included in the NIP

1.1 Overall compliance with the EDP and its objectives

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 5

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 6

1.2 Information on cross borders with ETCS

1.3 Synthesis regarding the decommission of class B system

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 7

COUNTRY CLASS B SYSTEM DECOMMISSIONING

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 8

1.4 Other issues

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 9

 Luxembourg from June 2017

2 Economic and Financial aspects included in NIP

Item Sweden DMT

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 10

The CBA recognizes that ERTMS will be

2.2 Synthesis regarding the financing strategies

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 11

No clear information provided: it appears

No clear information provided: it appears No clear information provided: it appears

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 12

(Tsucany; Bolzano) are directly

LATVIA Not provided Not provided

The ministry offers national funding for

3 Technical aspects included in NIP

3.1 Analysis of the technical aspects as considered in the CBA

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 13

3.2 Analysis of the technical aspects/justifications raised in the deployment

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 14

Austria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Slovakia

 ERTMS level 1 for the complete network

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 15

4 Overview per corridor

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 16

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 17

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 19

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 20

Annex A. CNC in EDP vs NIP schemes

T2_DEL_2 3 2 10_V1.0_20180214_Synthesis report on NIP 21

Beyond Beyond 2023

Bitterfeld Leipzig Beyond 2023

RFC5 Praha Be Lysá nad Labem

Wien node Bratislava

Amsterdam In operation Utrecht 2022

Ottignies Mechelen 2020

Beyond 2023 2020

In operation del Campo Contumil

Le Havre Beyond 2023