ECC Report 294

Assessment of the spectrum needs for future railway

mobile radio (RMR) communications

Approved 08 February 2019

     
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 2

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this ECC Report is to assess the spectrum needs for the successor to GSM-R. Essential
input documents to this Report are “FRMCS Traffic Analysis” [10] and ETSI TR 103 554 “LTE radio
performance simulations and evaluations in rail environment” [11]. The estimation of the throughput needed
and of the spectrum needs for the successor to GSM-R are to a major extent based on the findings of these
documents. These early considerations may need to be refined when results of proposals and studies from
ETSI and ECC become available. Detailed frequency band options and harmonised technical conditions will
be described in future ECC deliverables.

1.1 ABOUT THE NEED FOR PARALLEL OPERATION OF GSM-R AND ITS SUCCESSOR

Railway interoperability, i.e. ability for trains and staff to operate uninterruptedly across borders and railway
networks, must be ensured. Requirements related to interoperability are legally binding in Europe since they
are part of the Control-Command and Signalling Technical Specification for Interoperability (CCS TSI), which
is published in the European Regulation 2016/919/EU [4].

The principles laid down in that CCS TSI do not allow actions such as a mandatory retrofit of cab-radios
(unless specific rules are agreed). In addition, an overnight switchover would not leave the possibility to
perform the necessary field tests to check whether the railway requirements are met.

Therefore, GSM-R and its successor will have to operate in parallel for a period of time. For these reasons,
there is a need of additional spectrum at least during the migration period. This additional spectrum will also
be required to cover railway’s long-term needs after the migration period in combination with the 2x4 MHz
currently harmonised for GSM-R. The overall migration throughout Europe is expected to take place between
2022 and 2035.

1.2 ABOUT SPECIFIC RAILWAY REQUIREMENTS

Interruption of radiocommunication can have an impact on railway operation and/or safety. A continuous
availability of and accessibility to the railway radio network is required in order to transmit and receive a
Railway Emergency Call everywhere along the rail tracks. Further, a persistent interruption of radio
communication in the context of ETCS Level 2 and beyond will simply lead to the stopping of trains causing
consecutive delays in the public transport system.

Historically, GSM-R networks have been designed and validated against formal and stringent availability and
reliability requirements such as 95% probability coverage in time and space over any track section of 100m.
At the time of writing, the availability and reliability requirements for the successor to GSM-R are not yet
specified, but equivalent criteria are anticipated, provided that the technical principles and the safety
approach of ETCS are not changed.

1.3 ABOUT SPECTRUM NEEDS

Railways currently use the 876-880 MHz / 921-925 MHz band as the harmonised spectrum for GSM-R at
CEPT and EU levels. The band 873-876 MHz / 918-921 MHz is not harmonised for GSM-R within CEPT, but
it is used for GSM-R on a national basis by some CEPT countries. Existing GSM-R is an application within
the primary mobile service and needs to be protected. In addition, as specified in Article 3 of Commission
Implementing Decision 2018/1538 [15], EU Member States shall refrain from introducing new uses in the
874.4-876 MHz and 919.4-921 MHz sub-bands until such time as harmonised conditions for their use are
adopted under Decision 676/2002/EC [16].

Noting that having the possibility to reuse as much as possible the current radio network infrastructure (sites)
would save costs and reduce operational burden, the spectrum in 874.4-880 MHz / 919.4-925 MHz is the
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 3

preferred band for a harmonised solution for the successor to GSM-R for the migration and beyond. This is
also recognised in the EC Mandate to CEPT on FRMCS [7]. This scenario includes use of 4G/5G as well as
in-band1 and/or adjacent channel arrangement of GSM-R and FRMCS in the whole 2x5.6 MHz.

In dense railway networks, border areas and high density areas, the capacity brought by adding 2x1.6 MHz
of spectrum is not enough during the migration. The conclusion is that access to complementary spectrum,
e.g. 10 MHz in 1900-1920 MHz, is a prerequisite for many countries in order to manage the migration with
dual networks operating in parallel. The frequency band 1900-1920 MHz, or parts of it, is currently licensed
to mobile operators in many CEPT countries. After the migration, the complementary band(s) will still be
required in order to cover railway’s long-term needs (including critical sensing/video), border and hotspot
areas.

1.4 ABOUT SHARING

From a technical point of view, network sharing with MNO is possible for critical applications under the
condition that the relevant parts of the MNO’s network fulfils the stringent coverage and availability
requirements of railways. However, current MNO processes do not cover safety-related and interoperability
assurance which currently requires extensive certification.

Key questions remain unanswered so far: MNO agreement to take railway legal obligations and liabilities,
MNO's willingness to assume the risk; how, in the legal contract, risk assessment would be dealt with.

MNO networks that do not fulfil these requirements could be used for low-train traffic lines with less stringent
requirements and for non-critical railway communications.

In order to offer some flexibility beyond the spectrum harmonised for railway interoperability, a flexible
approach would rely on the possibility to identify on a national basis how much additional spectrum in which
frequency ranges and under which implementation model (sharing access, national licence model, etc.)
could be granted.

Sharing with PPDR networks using dedicated spectrum is not an option applicable to all European countries
because, noting the various solutions implemented at national level, no harmonised approach exists for
PPDR networks in Europe. Furthermore, it would require sufficient spectrum resources for both PPDR and
railway users as well as a clear assignment of priorities and of legal and criminal liabilities.

Geographical spectrum sharing with PMR/PAMR could be envisaged when limited to certain areas, like in
stations, shunting yards or depots. Network sharing with PMR/PAMR can also be of interest to obtain
complementary traffic capacities.

1
as for NB-IoT
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

0 Executive summary................................................................................................................................ 2
0.1 About the need for parallel operation of GSM-R and its successor.................................................2
0.2 About specific railway requirements................................................................................................2
0.3 About spectrum needs.................................................................................................................... 2
0.4 About sharing.................................................................................................................................. 3

1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 8

2 Rail specificities...................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Definitions....................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Interoperability................................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.1 Principle and Directive...................................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Application to technology................................................................................................. 11
2.2.3 Application to migration timeframe...................................................................................11
2.3 Access to the rail network............................................................................................................. 12
2.4 Legal framework........................................................................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Train authorisation framework.......................................................................................... 13
2.4.2 Radio Equipment Directive (RED)....................................................................................14
2.5 Usage of GSM-R for railway radiocommunications.......................................................................15
2.6 Automatic train operation & Railway digitalisation.........................................................................17
2.7 Availability and reliability of radio requirements and their implication on the migration.................18

3 Assessment of the spectrum needs.................................................................................................... 20

3.1 Timeline perspective for the migration.......................................................................................... 20
3.1.1 Financial incentive scheme.............................................................................................. 21
3.2 List of critical applications............................................................................................................. 21
3.3 Throughput required by critical applications during the migration.................................................22
3.4 Throughput required by target critical applications........................................................................23
3.5 Guard-band between GSM-R and its successor...........................................................................24
3.6 Throughput offered by LTE in railway environment.......................................................................24

4 Hotspots and border areas.................................................................................................................. 26

5 Access to commercial and other networks........................................................................................ 27

5.1 Sharing access with MNO............................................................................................................. 30
5.1.1 Net neutrality.................................................................................................................... 32
5.2 Sharing access with PPDR........................................................................................................... 32
5.3 Sharing spectrum with PMR/PAMR.............................................................................................. 33
5.4 MIMO and multiple-band support in railway terminals..................................................................33
5.5 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 34

6 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 35
6.1 About the need for parallel operation of GSM-R and its successor...............................................35
6.2 About specific railway requirements.............................................................................................. 35
6.3 About spectrum needs.................................................................................................................. 35
6.4 About sharing................................................................................................................................ 36
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 5

ANNEX 1: Finnish case................................................................................................................................ 37

ANNEX 2: SNCF Réseau spectrum requirements and comparison with GSM-R throughput................40

ANNEX 3: Deutsche Bahn spectrum requirements...................................................................................43

ANNEX 4: List of references........................................................................................................................ 49

ECC REPORT 294 - Page 6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Explanation

ARPU Average Revenue per User

ATC Automatic Train Control
ATO Automatic Train Operation
ATP Automatic Train Protection
BCCH Broadcast Control Channel
CCS Control-Command and Signalling
CEPT European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations
EC European Commission
ECC Electronic Communications Committee
EDOR ETCS Data Only Radio
EDP European Deployment Plan
EIRENE European Integrated Railway Radio Enhanced Network
ERA European Union Agency for Railways
ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management System
ETCS European Train Control System
ETSI European Telecommunications Standardisation Institute
EU European Union
FRMCS Future Railway Mobile Communication System
FRS Functional Requirements Specification
GBR Guaranteed Bit Rate
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
GoA Grade of Automation (4 levels)
GSM Global System for Mobile communications
GSM-R GSM for Railway
IAS Internet Access Service
IC Interoperability Constituent
IM Infrastructure Manager
IMS IP Multimedia Subsystem
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LAS Link Assurance Signal
MA Movement Authority
MFCN Mobile/Fixed Communications Networks
MI Mandatory for Interoperability
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 7

MIMO Multiple Input – Multiple Output

MNO public Mobile Network Operator
MVNO Mobile Virtual Network Operator
NSA National Safety Authority
PAMR Public Access Mobile Radio
PCC Policy and Charging Control
PMR Private Mobile Radio
PPDR Public Protection and Disaster Relief
QoS Quality of Service
RAN Radio Access Network
RBC Radio Block Centre
REC Railway Emergency Call
RED Radio Equipment Directive
RFC Rail Freight Corridors
R-GSM Railways GSM (876-915 MHz / 921-960 MHz as defined by ETSI)
RU Railway Undertaking
RxQual Reception Quality
SLA Service Level Agreement
SpS Specialised Service
SRS System Requirements Specification
TC RT Technical Committee for Rail Telecommunications (ETSI)
TCH Traffic Channel
TRX Transceiver
TS Time Slot
TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability
UIC Union Internationale des Chemins de fer
UNISIG Union Industry of Signalling
URCA Unified Railway Communication and Applications
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 8

2 INTRODUCTION

The aim of this ECC Report is to assess the spectrum needs for the successor to GSM-R.

To do so, the Report sets out the following points:

 why there is a need for parallel operation of GSM-R and its successor for a period of time;
 what the specific railway requirements are;
 what the railway traffic demand is;
 what amount of spectrum is required for critical applications;
 what the possibilities are to share spectrum and/or network with MNO, PPDR or PMR/PAMR.
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 9

3 RAIL SPECIFICITIES

3.1 DEFINITIONS

Term Definition

ATO (Automatic Train

Functions otherwise assigned to the train driver
Operation)
ATP (Automatic Train
System that ensures automatic compliance with railway signalling
Protection)
ERTMS (European European railway system, including trackside and on-board control-command and
Rail Traffic signalling subsystem as well as operation and traffic management, relying on a
Management System) common radio access technology (today GSM-R) and ETCS
ETCS (European Applicative protocol for railway signalling and train protection to enable railway
Train Control System) interoperability at European level
GSM-R (GSM for Current radiocommunication network for railways, which provides voice services
Railway) (including emergency voice calls) and carries ETCS and other data services
Infrastructure The entity who administrates the rail track network and the associated radio
Manager access network (today GSM-R)
Designates mandatory requirements to allow that the technical characteristics of
M (Mandatory) the network and fixed terminals are compatible with each other and with terminals
on-board the trains or handheld
Designates mandatory requirements on lines under the scope of the
MI (Mandatory for
Interoperability Directive [1] to ensure technical compatibility between Member
Interoperability)
States and safe integration between train and track
Movement authority Information about where the train is allowed to safely move
Ability for trains and staff to operate uninterruptedly across borders and railway
Railway networks (requirement defined in the EU Directive 2016/797 [1], supplemented by
interoperability Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2017/1474 [17], formerly EC Directive
2008/57)
Speed limits and movement authorities (provided by trackside signals, balises or
Railway signalling
wireless communications)
A company which operates trains and thus uses the radio access network (today
Railway Undertaking
GSM-R) provided by the Infrastructure Manager
RBC (Radio Block A centralised safety unit that receives train position information via radio and sends
Centre) movement authorities via radio to trains

3.2 INTEROPERABILITY

Parts of this section are extracted from the Railway Interoperability Directive 2016/797/EU [1], formerly
Directive 2008/57/EC [2], and the associated Commission Regulation 2016/919/EU [4] (CCS TSI), as well as
EIRENE specifications [5],[6].
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 10

3.2.1 Principle and Directive

Today, the competitiveness of the railways is curbed by the differences between EU Member States in terms
of rolling stock, technology, signalling systems, safety regulations, braking systems, traction currents and
speed limits. This state of affairs forces international trains crossing several States to stop at frontiers.

Historically, these technical differences met the need to protect Member States' own interests or those of
their rail industry. At the same time, the road transport industry took advantage of its freedom from technical
barriers to reinforce its position on the market.

Railway transport occupies a core position in Europe’s overall transport sector, and the interoperability of the
rail system within the European Union is the cornerstone of the establishment of a single European railway
area. The concept of one single signalling system at EU level, to enhance interoperability, dates back to
1989, when the Commission launched an analysis of signalling issues across the EU Member States. The
first legislative acts serving that objective were issued in 1996 with the so-called Interoperability Directive
related to trans-European high-speed trains and in 2001 with another Interoperability Directive, this time
related to trans-European conventional rail system.

The interoperability of the European railway system is ensured today by the Railway Interoperability Directive
[1] and the Technical Specifications for Interoperability (CCS TSI) [4] which provide the regulatory
framework.

In the Directive 2016/797/EU [1] on the interoperability of the railway system within the Community, the
definition of railway interoperability can be found in its Article 2:

‘interoperability’ means the ability of a rail system to allow the safe and uninterrupted movement of
trains which accomplish the required levels of performance;

The technical details required for railway interoperability are included in the Technical Specifications for
Interoperability (CCS TSI [4]). The definition, also in Article 2 of the Interoperability Directive 2016/797/EU,
explains its content:

‘technical specification for interoperability’ (TSI) means a specification adopted in accordance with
this Directive by which each subsystem or part of a subsystem is covered in order to meet the
essential requirements and ensure the interoperability of the Union rail system;

The so called “essential requirements” are defined in Article 2 of the Interoperability Directive:

‘essential requirements’ means all the conditions set out in Annex III which must be met by the rail
system, the subsystems, and the interoperability constituents, including interfaces;

Together with the “basic parameters”:

‘basic parameters’ means any regulatory, technical or operational condition which is critical to
interoperability and is specified in the relevant TSIs;

As a concrete example, consider the requirements set up for the radio communication system to be used by
railways. In the Control-Command and Signalling (CCS) TSI (Regulation 2016/919/EU [4]), there are two
subsystems described: the trackside subsystem and the on-board subsystem. Both of them have elements
related to radio communication.

The features of the subsystems, contained in the CCS TSI, are:

 the functions that are essential for the safe control of railway traffic, and that are essential for its
operation, including those required for degraded modes;
 the interfaces;
 the level of performance required to meet the essential requirements.

The CCS TSI specifies only those requirements which are necessary to assure the interoperability of the
trans-European rail system and compliance with the essential requirements.
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 11

3.2.2 Application to technology

The radiocommunication system to be used is currently GSM-R. This is stated in the basic parameters
included in the CCS TSI, section 4. The air interface is also characterised and it is specifically specified that
the interfaces shall operate in the R-GSM band (see table 3-A in 3.5.1 of the EIRENE SRS [6]).

EIRENE specifies the requirements for a digital radio standard for the European railways, although it is also
applicable worldwide. It consists of FRS (Functional Requirements Specification) [5] and SRS (System
Requirements Specification) [6]. EIRENE has a direct link with the relevant ETSI specifications, which cover
the technical details of the GSM radio technology used.

One of the main objectives of EIRENE FRS and SRS is to ensure interoperability for trains and staff crossing
national borders or other borders between systems. It defines the requirements and conditions for the
provision of harmonised functionality along the railway lines.

The requirements in EIRENE FRS and SRS which are classified as (MI) are mandated by the CCS TSI.

Some of the requirements in the EIRENE specifications, related to interoperability, are legally binding in
Europe since they are part of the Control-Command and Signalling Technical Specification for
Interoperability (CCS TSI), which is published in the Commission Regulation 2016/919/EU [4].

It is mandatory that each railway subsystem (train and infrastructure) in the European Union meets these
requirements on lines under the scope of the Railway Interoperability Directive [1], it is to ensure technical
compatibility between Member States and safe integration between train and track. Radio related
requirements on spectrum, coverage and signal strength are amongst these ones.

The word "interoperability" is used in different sectors with a sense that may not always be the same. In the
railway environment, the focus is placed on the fact that trains should be able to run uninterruptedly across
railway networks and without the need to modify their configuration, so no technical barrier is found by them
when travelling between two locations.

3.2.3 Application to migration timeframe

The application of the Control-Command and Signalling Technical Specification for Interoperability
does not have retroactive effect. In general, new TSIs are developed ensuring the compatibility with the
existing authorised systems, to avoid the requirement of upgrading them, as per the "Whereas (16)" of the
Interoperability Directive [1]. This discards in general actions such as a mandatory retrofit of cab-radios
(unless specific rules are agreed).

Infrastructure Managers will still be rolling out and operating GSM-R networks as the successor to GSM-R is
introduced; thus both technologies will have to operate in parallel as Infrastructure Managers move from
GSM-R to the new technology. Migration will require implementation on both infrastructure (network) and on
rolling stock.

Each Infrastructure Manager adopts its own strategy for trackside migration, e.g. line by line, area per area.
Where an area of a country or a specific line has migrated to the successor to GSM-R, there may still be a
requirement to operate in parallel both systems to welcome trains coming from areas where the migration
has not yet occurred. Until all trains (even foreign ones) that are entitled to run on the line are ready to use
the new system, the Infrastructure Manager cannot stop the operation of GSM-R. Therefore, it is difficult to
predict when the migration ends.

Until now, GSM-R is the only radio access technology allowed as per Regulation 2016/919/EU [4]. This will
change when a new CCS TSI will be published with provisions for the successor to GSM-R. There is an
opportunity to have FRMCS included in the CCS TSI in 2022.

With regard to the successor to GSM-R, the required level of interoperability has to be realised on multiple
layers including the following items:
 cross-border sections (including border crossing points) have to be implemented;
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 12

 multiple-band and multiple-radio user equipment (UE) for track-to-train and train-to-train radio
communication have to be implemented;
 adoption of common technical standards (i.e. LTE/5G);
 certification aspects;
 interoperability specifications (i.e. TSI).

The railway community has stated that FRMCS should be part of the global 3GPP LTE/5G ecosystem from a
technical standard point of view. This presents several advantages including for example, a wider choice of
terminals, potentially lower costs for chipsets and duplex filters, benefits derived from economies of scale
achieved in commercial networks and the commitment to develop mission-critical capabilities into the
standard. Other benefits include possible roaming 2 over commercial networks and long-term developments
within 3GPP. The work on developing LTE/5G technologies to support the FRMCS specific functionalities
has already started in 3GPP, ETSI and other international organisations. It is expected to take several years
before those functions, which the railway community has identified as key features, are fully specified,
implemented, tested and integrated into the LTE/5G solutions from most infrastructure and terminal
suppliers. In this respect, the railway community is taking advantage of the ongoing standardisation work
related to PPDR mission-critical functionalities.

3.3 ACCESS TO THE RAIL NETWORK

The Network Statement is a description of the railway network and it contains the information for the charges
and fees for the services available in the network. It is defined in the Directive 2012/34/EU (Access Directive)
[14] as follows:

'network statement' means the statement which sets out in detail the general rules, deadlines,
procedures and criteria for charging and capacity-allocation schemes, including such other
information as is required to enable applications for infrastructure capacity;

The network statement shall set out the nature of the infrastructure which is available to railway
undertakings, and contain information setting out the conditions for access to the relevant railway
infrastructure. The network statement shall also contain information setting out the conditions for
access to service facilities connected to the network of the infrastructure manager and for supply of
services in these facilities or indicate a website where such information is made available free of
charge in electronic format. The content of the network statement is laid down in Annex IV.

No legal requirement is set in the Network Statement. Exclusions can be derived from the description of the
infrastructure: e.g. if a vehicle is electrified and not hybrid, it will be able to run on the lines that are
electrified; if there is a bridge with supports a maximum load, only vehicles under that load will be able to run;
etc.

The Network Statement can mainly be seen as a tool to provide the information on track charges and fees. It
shall include the way how coordination amongst requests for a path should be handled (priorities, etc.).

Member States shall ensure that the network statement contains the charging framework and
charging rules or indicates a website where the charging framework and charging rules are
published.

The principles governing the coordination process shall be set out in the network statement. These
shall, in particular, reflect the difficulty of arranging international train paths and the effect that
modification may have on other infrastructure managers.

Note: It could be indicated that a specific type of train has priority/incentives for allocation of a slot compared
to another one (e.g. train equipped with FRMCS). For example, it is agreed that trains with ETCS installed
will have a “deduction” in the fees.

2
Roaming = FRMCS radio terminal equipment can obtain mobile communication services under coverage of another radio
communication network (the “visited network”).
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 13

The infrastructure charges for the use of railway corridors which are specified in Commission
Decision 2009/561/EC shall be differentiated to give incentives to equip trains with the ETCS
compliant with the version adopted by the Commission Decision 2008/386/EC and successive
versions. Such differentiation shall not result in any overall change in revenue for the infrastructure
manager.

For detailed information on the content the Network Statement shall contain, please refer to Annex IV of the
Access Directive [14].

Usage of the Network Statement for the migration

As can be seen from the previous definitions, the information in the Network Statement is only providing
information related to the Infrastructure Manager. No information coming from the Railway Undertakings is
described.

As no legal requirement is described in the Network Statement, it could not be used to mandate nor to
schedule a retrofit of the cab-radios.

However, it could be considered that an incentive is given to the trains that have a specific fitting (i.e. that
have FRMCS) by lowering the fee compared to trains only equipped with GSM-R.

The CCS TSI might define deadlines for announcement of the decommissioning of GSM-R. In this case, the
scheduling of retrofit for the trains running on the areas affected will have to be done taking into account that
information. The Network Statement may refer to such an announcement (for information) since it may affect
the fees and coordination between requests, but the announcement cannot be done directly in the Network
Statement.

Note: The CCS TSI does not refer to the Network Statement, which is a further evidence that legal
requirements and information on the Infrastructure Manager network are decoupled.

3.4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Before a vehicle can run on a railway infrastructure, there are a number of steps that have to be completed,
which include the verification of the technical characteristics required in the different legal texts, in the
standards and a number of processes that have to be followed in order to ensure the safe integration of the
elements in the vehicle and of the vehicle with the infrastructure it will run in.

These processes for placing on the market and placing in service of the vehicles are regulated in the
corresponding Directives. The time and resources required to fulfil these processes, together with the logistic
restrictions of modifying the fleets that are already in service, cannot be neglected, as they impose some
restrictions to the rhythm of the adoption of modifications in the vehicles.

3.4.1 Train authorisation framework

The Interoperability Directive (2016/797/EU [1] will be applicable in each EU Member State after its
transposition, and will derogate the former Interoperability Directive 2008/57/EU [2] in June 2020) describes
the steps required in order to get the authorisation for placing in service of the railway subsystems.

In the Control-Command and Signalling TSI (Regulation 2016/919/EU [4]), there are two subsystems
described: the trackside subsystem and the on-board subsystem. Both of them have elements related to
radio communication.

Each Member State shall authorise the placing in service of the subsystems to operate in its territory.

In order to grant the above mentioned authorisation, the National Safety Authority (NSA) considers the EC
declaration of verification (based on a certificate issued by a Notified Body) that is included in the application
for the authorisation; the documents in this application ensure the compliance with the corresponding TSI,
the integration with the infrastructure and the compliance with additional national rules (if applicable).
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 14

When a train (on-board subsystem) has been authorised and it is modified, the Member State shall receive a
description of the modifications performed (Article 20 of the Interoperability Directive). The Member State
shall examine this file and, taking account of the implementation strategy indicated in the applicable TSI,
shall decide whether the extent of the works means that a new authorisation for placing in service is needed.

Such new authorisation for placing in service shall be required whenever the overall safety level of the
subsystem concerned may be adversely affected by the works described. If a new authorisation is needed,
the Member State shall decide to what extent the TSI needs to be applied to the project.

This decision has to be taken no later than four months after the submission of the complete file to the NSA.

When a modification to a subsystem is performed, the Notified Body that has issued an EC certificate of
verification for the subsystem has to be also contacted, and an assessment has to be done by it in order to
either reissue a certificate containing the modification or to issue a new certificate if the changes are
considered as significant.

A similar exercise is required for the defined Interoperability Constituents (ICs) (for the on-board subsystem:
cab-radio, EDOR). When an IC is going to be placed on the market, it requires a prior “conformity or
suitability for use”. The Member States shall consider that an IC meets the essential requirements laid in a
TSI based on the corresponding certificate, issued by a Notified Body or the entity indicated in the
corresponding TSI. When the IC is also subject to other regulation (such as the Radio Equipment Directive),
the certificate issued shall contain the compliance with the requirements set in other regulations or
Directives.

When an IC already placed on the market is modified, this modification has to be communicated to the
assessment body (Notified Body or the entity indicated in the TSI), who will consider if the change is
significant and if there is a need to issue a new certificate or to reissue the existing one, containing the
modification.

These processes (certification, authorisation) are laid down in the Interoperability Directive [1], but there is no
indication on the timescale of some of them. For the authorisation of placing in service of vehicles, the times
are described in Art 21.4 onwards in the Interoperability Directive 2016/797/EU [1] (Art 23.7 in 2008/57/EC
[2]).

As a consequence, changes in the railway and GSM-R environments must follow a stringent process which
can take time.

3.4.2 Radio Equipment Directive (RED)

GSM-R equipment falls under the scope of the Radio Equipment Directive (RED) 2014/53/EU [3]. Under the
RED, providers/manufacturers of radio equipment have to provide a declaration of conformity that includes
the information about the intended use and usage restrictions in relation to the radio equipment. The RED
applies according to the "Whereas (10)" below:

(10) “In order to ensure that radio equipment uses the radio spectrum effectively and supports the efficient use of
radio spectrum, radio equipment should be constructed so that: in the case of a transmitter, when the transmitter
is properly installed, maintained and used for its intended purpose it generates radio waves emissions that do not
create harmful interference, while unwanted radio waves emissions generated by the transmitter (e.g. in adjacent
channels) with a potential negative impact on the goals of radio spectrum policy should be limited to such a level
that, according to the state of the art, harmful interference is avoided; and, in the case of a receiver, it has a level
of performance that allows it to operate as intended and protects it against the risk of harmful interference, in
particular from shared or adjacent channels, and, in so doing, supports improvements in the efficient use of shared
or adjacent channels.”

As of 13 June 2016, in compliance with the RED, harmonised standards include receiver parameters.

Passive elements however, which could be placed separately on the market such as passive antennas or
filters are a priori not considered as ‘radio equipment’ falling under the scope of the RED. These elements
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 15

can make a declaration of conformity invalid, when they would lead to the creation of harmful interference or
have a negative impact (not sufficient protection against harmful interference) on the spectrum usage.

In case of the addition of a passive filter (i.e. a filter containing exclusively passive components) in the GSM-
R receiving chain, this has no impact on the conformity declaration under the RED [3].

These elements are also subject to the train authorisation framework, as described in section 2.4.1.

3.5 USAGE OF GSM-R FOR RAILWAY RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS

As per the Command-Control and Signalling Technical Specification for Interoperability, Regulation
2016/919/EU [4], GSM-R is the only radio access technology allowed. It supports the specific railway needs
and consists of additional functions and amendments, and represents an enhancement of the commonly
used GSM technology.

For the use of GSM-R, Commission Decision 1999/569/EC [8] and ECC Decision (02)05 [9] harmonises the
frequency bands 876-880 MHz (train-to-ground) and 921-925 MHz (ground-to-train). The designation of a
dedicated harmonised frequency band enabled the creation of pan-European radiocommunication network
for both passenger and freight trains to travel across EU borders without the need to install any other
national radiocommunication systems. This fulfils the requirement of the Interoperability Directive [1].
Furthermore, a dedicated frequency band is essential to ensure continuous reliable and available access to
the network thus supporting critical, interoperable and safety-related applications.

This radio network is used to fulfil the operational requirements of railway communications, especially for
voice and data communications both supporting safety related applications. These services are conventional
voice services (driver-controller calls, railway emergency calls, group calls, etc.) and data services for
ERTMS/ETCS signalling systems.

GSM-R networks have been rolled out within Europe but they are still growing and some countries are still in
the rollout process. Current figures show that 139 859 km of network are planned or in progress, 96 124 km
of lines are now in service with some 75 000 terminals integrated in the dashboard of the trains (cab-radios)
within Europe3.

Today, GSM-R coupled with ETCS, as constituents of ERTMS, provides an interoperable railway signalling
and communication system for all the European railway networks. The ERTMS European Deployment Plan
(EDP) sets deadlines (2020-2030) for the implementation of ERTMS and its aim is to ensure the progressive
deployment of ERTMS along the main European rail routes.

Regarding railway transport infrastructure, the requirement for full deployment of ERTMS (among others)
was established. The deadline is 2030 for core network corridors and 2050 for the comprehensive railway
line network.

The ERTMS Corridors, later extended in Rail Freight Corridors (RFC) 4 are defined along the main European
rail routes and playing a determinative role in Europe due to their geographical locations. Initially, six ERTMS
Corridors, named A to F were defined. Table 1 shows the currently defined ERTMS Corridors:

3
Figures from a data collection performed in 2015
4
REGULATION (EU) No 913/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 September 2010 concerning
a European rail network for competitive freight
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 16

Table 1: ERTMS corridors

ERTMS Corridors ERTMS Corridor description

Rotterdam/Amsterdam/Zeebrugge -
Rhine-Alpine
Genova
Scandinavian-
Stockholm/Oslo - Napoli
Mediterranean
Glasgow/Edinburgh/Amsterdam –
North Sea-Mediterranean Marseille
Belfast – Cork
Mediterranean Valencia/Sevilla - Budapest
Mannheim/Strasbourg - Constanta
Rhine-Danube
Praha - Košice
North Sea-Baltic Tallinn - Roosendaal
Baltic-Adriatic Poznań/Gdańsk - Bologna/Koper
Porto/Lisboa/Algeziras – Le Havre/
Atlantic
Strasbourg/Mannheim
Orient/East-Med Rostock/Hamburg/Bremen - Athens
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 17

Figure 1: ERTMS corridors

On 5 January 2017, the European Commission adopted an implementing regulation on the new ERTMS
European Deployment Plan (EDP)5. It sets target dates until 2023 by which about 30-40% of the Core
Network Corridors shall be equipped with ERTMS. In 2023, the ERTMS EDP will be updated again setting
out the precise implementation dates for the remaining part of the Corridors between 2024 and 2030. This
EDP constitutes a good reference to understand the commitment taken in each Member State to deploy
ETCS over the different railway lines and the deadlines established.

3.6 AUTOMATIC TRAIN OPERATION & RAILWAY DIGITALISATION

It is expected that recent technological advances in the fields of e.g. sensing, machine learning, high-
precision positioning and wireless communication technology will provide a unique opportunity to the rail

5
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/6 of 5 January 2017 on the European Rail Traffic Management System
European deployment plan
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 18

sector to perform a technology leap towards substantially improved quality, capacity and efficiency in rail
operation, for instance characterised by:
 automated real-time scheduling and dispatching of rail traffic with conflict resolution and optimisation;
 virtual coupling;
 ETCS L2/L3;
 automated train coupling, marshalling and shunting, and an increasing degree of automated driving in
general (GoA3, GoA4);
 automated real-time situation and condition monitoring including evaluation;
 predictive maintenance.

ETCS implementation on main lines, requested by the EU, as well as the additional implementation of ETCS
at national level are an essential step towards increased rail efficiency. For instance, ETCS increases rail
capacity by minimising the distance between trains, significantly reduces the number of trackside elements
as well as helps overcoming the interoperability barriers and therefore gaining a competitive advantage over
road traffic. ETCS cab-signalling minimises the trackside equipment (e.g. lineside signals). In the longer
term, these aspects need to further evolve towards a full digitalisation and high level of automation in rail
operation, which will require various additional technical enablers such as:
 high precision positioning of trains based on multiple-modal input (e.g. GNSS), possibly making use of
infrastructure-side support, but ideally not requiring anymore expensive trackside infrastructure elements
such as balises;
 sophisticated sensors (e.g. video, radar, lidar) and related signal / information processing to
automatically detect objects on tracks and monitor passenger boarding / disembarking at stations, in
order to reach at least the same level of safety as in classical driver-based operation;
 means to perform video-based or sensor-based remote train control;
 interconnected sensors to monitor the state of the rail infrastructure.

Some technologies, such as predictive maintenance, have rather relaxed latency and reliability requirements
and may use services offered by MNOs. Conversely, the ETCS rollout in a dense railway network and all
these enablers are highly dependent on a reliable and well-dimensioned communications infrastructure.
Many of the technology enablers listed before, for instance ETCS Level 2, the automated detection of objects
on tracks or the remote control of trains in degraded mode, will be directly related to the safety-related and
real-time rail operation.

As the longer-term trends towards full digitalisation and a high level of automation in rail operations have a
substantial impact on the requirements of related critical applications, it is essential that the dimensioning of
dedicated spectrum for rail operation takes these trends well into account.

3.7 AVAILABILITY AND RELIABILITY OF RADIO REQUIREMENTS AND THEIR IMPLICATION ON

THE MIGRATION

A high level of availability and reliability is essential as an interruption of radio communication can have a
significant impact on railway operation and/or safety. As examples related to GSM-R, the following aspects
should be mentioned:
 According to EIRENE SRS and FRS, the Railway Emergency Call (REC) shall be established in 95% of
cases within 4 seconds and in 99% of cases within 6 seconds, anywhere along the rail tracks.
 According to UNISIG Subset 093, the update time for a 250 octet Movement Authority (MA) message
shall not exceed 12s with a minimum probability ranging from 98.1576% of cases to 99.9967% of cases
depending on the category of the railway line.
 As per EIRENE SRS, GSM-R radio design is built on a 95% probability coverage in time and space over
any track section of 100m.
 GSM-R must comply with a bit error rate corresponding to an RxQual strictly below 4 for voice.

At the time of writing, the equivalent availability and reliability requirements for the successor to GSM-R are
not yet specified.
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 19

For railways it is essential (and in some EU Member States legally obligatory) to demonstrate that the track-
to-train radio system performs in compliance with the performance requirements specified.

Therefore, several field tests have to be performed using measurement trains before a railway line is put into
operational service with GSM-R or its successor. These radio network tests are aimed at checking in real life
conditions the coverage and quality performance, checking if availability requirements are met and ensuring
by doing so that specific railway applications run properly.

The described procedure above is one of the reasons why an overnight switchover from GSM-R to its
successor over the same frequency band is not possible. Even if an upgrade in advance of all on-board
terminals would be performed, including their validation on an isolated railway line equipped with the
successor system of GSM-R, an overnight switchover does not offer the possibility to perform the tests
mentioned above.

In addition to the point addressed above, an overnight switchover might cause an issue to the interoperability
of railway networks. From spectrum management point of view, the same issue applies here: it is necessary
to have, for a period of time, sufficient spectrum for both FRMCS and GSM-R to run both systems in parallel
in any given area.

Because of the reasons described above, there is a strong need for additional spectrum during the migration
period. This additional spectrum will also be required to cover railway’s long-term needs after the migration
period in combination with the 2x4 MHz currently used for GSM-R.
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 20

4 ASSESSMENT OF THE SPECTRUM NEEDS

Spectrum needs are assessed for the period where railways will migrate from GSM-R to its successor, as
well as for after the migration.

The amount of spectrum required most notably depends on the supported applications and its associated
traffic volume, the aggregated traffic in an area, the characteristics of the used radio access technology and
the location of the frequency band within the radio spectrum.

For the purpose of assessing the spectrum needs for FRMCS, critical railway applications have been
considered. Critical applications are defined as “applications that are essential for train movements and
safety or a legal obligation, such as emergency communications, shunting, [human] presence [e.g. LAS],
trackside maintenance, ATC, etc.” [12].

Three types of railway segments are considered:

 a low density rail segment;
 a high density rail segment;
 a high speed rail segment.

Furthermore, a reference train (including on-train staff and on-board systems) is defined to calculate the
amount of traffic on each type of rail segment. Whereas the reference railway station is to be considered
independently from the rail segments above. Traffic at the reference railway station will be handled within the
designated spectrum, plus the use of complementary frequency bands, network densification, or the use of
other technologies.

The traffic requirement is compared to the estimated LTE data throughput 6 in a rail environment taking into
account the radio network design, the characteristics of the radio access technology used and the location of
the frequency band within the radio spectrum.

In addition, hotspots and border areas are specifically addressed in section 4 of this ECC Report.

Sources:
 for traffic analysis, see “FRMCS Traffic Analysis v2” [10];
 for throughput estimation in railway environment, see “ETSI TR 103 554 V1.1.1 on LTE radio
performance simulations and evaluations in rail environment” [11].

4.1 TIMELINE PERSPECTIVE FOR THE MIGRATION

The overall migration throughout Europe is expected to take place between 2022 and 2035. The migration
scenarios will depend on plans from Transport Ministries to replace the current GSM-R infrastructure (e.g.
reinvestment might be an option in certain countries), and on agreements between Infrastructure Managers
and Railway Undertakings on the timeline for deployment of both trackside and on-board. A large variation
between Member States of deployment timelines for FRMCS is expected.

ERA investigates what can be done to help with the negotiation between IMs and RUs for the migration
towards the successor to GSM-R. The CCS TSI could potentially be used to allow IMs to signal to all RUs in
a specific country: a notification of start and end dates for FRMCS rollout, and the switch-off date for GSM-R,
so that a minimum duration is ensured for parallel operation of GSM-R and FRMCS as well as a maximum
duration for FRMCS rollout. This could help to minimise the migration period while avoiding to force Railway
Undertakings to retrofit on-board equipments.

6
ETSI TR 103 554 is based on LTE at 900 MHz. Results with 5G NR are expected to be similar under equivalent assumptions (e.g.
MIMO and QAM configurations).
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 21

4.1.1 Financial incentive scheme

In order to facilitate the migration, a national administration may consider setting up a financial incentive
scheme. During a predefined period of time, railway undertakings would benefit from a full or partial funding
for the upgrade of their on-board equipment to FRMCS. The level of reimbursement could decrease
gradually as time passes. This shall be made applicable to both national and international railway
undertakings.

The funding program can act as an effective “carrot” in a situation where doubts about timeline and costs are
raised.

4.2 LIST OF CRITICAL APPLICATIONS

Spectrum needs are evaluated for two packages of applications:

 Package #1, which must be supported during the migration:
 Roughly current GSM-R critical applications: Voice (including emergency calls), ETCS L2;
 Train positioning7;
 ATO up to GoA2;
 Remote control of engine;
 On-board intelligence and sensing (e.g. for ATO and object/person detection);
 Critical video (e.g. for remote control in shunting yards and in degraded mode).
 Package #2, which must be supported after the migration:
 Package #1;
 ETCS L3;
 ATO up to GoA4;
 Virtual coupling;
 etc.

The following table provides an overview of the critical applications that are required during the migration
period.

Table 2: List of the critical applications (based on [10])

Applicable
Critical application
to the migration?
Operational voice Yes
Shunting voice No
Emergency call 112 Yes
Alert from the public No
Alert to the public No
ETCS Yes
ATO Yes
Remote control of engine Yes
Train integrity No
Advisory messaging No
On-train telemetry & equipment control No

7
to replace the use of the Cell-ID
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 22

Applicable
Critical application
to the migration?
Critical sensing/video
(e.g. object/person detection or video Yes
in degraded mode)

This table is a condensed version of the applications on which the traffic model [10] has been developed.

4.3 THROUGHPUT REQUIRED BY CRITICAL APPLICATIONS DURING THE MIGRATION

Based on the subset of critical applications required during the migration period, see Table 2, the following
tables show the traffic to be handled.

Table 3: Traffic during the migration for each area type, including critical video

DL traffic UL traffic DL traffic UL traffic

Nb. of trains Cell size
per ref. train per ref. train per cell per cell
per km (km)
(Mb/s) (Mb/s) (Mb/s) (Mb/s)
Low density
0.33 9.24 9.22
rail segment
High density
3.5 3.49 0.67 8 18.77 18.73
rail segment
High-speed
0.5 14.00 13.97
rail segment
Note: The cell size reflected in this table are based on typical GSM-R networks currently in use. So this assumes that
FRMCS would be deployed on the same radio sites without further densification.

Table 4: Traffic during the migration for each area type, excluding critical video

DL traffic UL traffic DL traffic UL traffic

Nb. of trains Cell size
per ref. train per ref. train per cell per cell
per km (km)
(Mb/s) (Mb/s) (Mb/s) (Mb/s)
Low density
0.33 0.53 0.51
rail segment
High density
0.2 0.19 0.67 8 1.08 1.04
rail segment
High-speed
0.5 0.80 0.77
rail segment
Note: The cell size reflected in this table are based on typical GSM-R networks currently in use. So this assumes that
FRMCS would be deployed on the same radio sites without further densification.
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 23

The reason for isolating a scenario without critical video is to see the conditions on one side for the evolving
continuity of the services today ensured through GSM-R, and on the other side the progressive impact within
the next 15 years of the introduction of autonomous trains and related modernisation applications. These are
constitutive elements of the European railway strategy 8, which will occur at a very different pace in the
various European countries. The sub-scenario “evolving continuity of GSM-R” can be seen somewhere as an
“upgrade” of the current situation where the railway operators will look for preserving their existing
infrastructure in terms of design in order to minimise major cost impacts overall Europe. The sub-scenario
“game changer” will not impact the totality of the European railway infrastructures, at least within the next 15
years, justifying their focus and progressive investments in terms of infrastructure.

4.4 THROUGHPUT REQUIRED BY TARGET CRITICAL APPLICATIONS

The target critical applications include the current critical GSM-R functionality as well as the new critical
applications foreseen for the successor, which are ETCS L3, relevant subset of Automatic Train Operation,
Virtual Coupling, etc.

Train to train
communications

Following train:
Leader train Receives speed and brake control data
Controlled by ETCS level 3 from leader
Falls back to ETCS level 3 if no info
received from leader train

Figure 2: Principle of Virtual Coupling

Virtual Coupling: The following train receives speed and brake control data from leader (train-to-train
communication). This system allows a reduction of the distance between trains and increases the capacity of
transport.

The following tables show the traffic to be handled after the migration period, which includes additional new
applications (as presented in section 3.2).

Table 5: Target traffic for each area type, including critical video

DL traffic UL traffic DL traffic UL traffic

Nb. of trains Cell size
per ref. train per ref. train per cell per cell
per km (km)
(Mb/s) (Mb/s) (Mb/s) (Mb/s)
Low density 4.38 7.42 8
0.33 11.55 19.60
rail segment
High density 0.67 23.45 39.79
rail segment

8
known under the name of “game changers”, see
https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/docs/ex_post_evaluation/era_rep_150_ertms_longer_term_perspective_report_
en.pdf
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 24

DL traffic UL traffic DL traffic UL traffic

Nb. of trains Cell size
per ref. train per ref. train per cell per cell
per km (km)
(Mb/s) (Mb/s) (Mb/s) (Mb/s)
High-speed
0.5 17.50 29.70
rail segment
Note: The cell size reflected in this table are based on typical GSM-R networks currently in use. So this assumes that
FRMCS would be deployed on the same radio sites without further densification.

Table 6: Target traffic for each area type, excluding critical video

DL traffic UL traffic DL traffic UL traffic

Nb. of trains Cell size
per ref. train per ref. train per cell per cell
per km (km)
(Mb/s) (Mb/s) (Mb/s) (Mb/s)
Low density
0.33 1.10 9.15
rail segment
High density
0.42 3.46 0.67 8 2.22 18.57
rail segment
High-speed
0.5 1.66 13.86
rail segment
Note: The cell size reflected in this table are based on typical GSM-R networks currently in use. So this assumes that
FRMCS would be deployed on the same radio sites without further densification

4.5 GUARD-BAND BETWEEN GSM-R AND ITS SUCCESSOR

‘Guard-band’ is defined as the minimum channel edge to channel edge frequency separation.

The 200 kHz guard-band defined in the EC Decision on 900/1800 MHz (latest amendment of EC Decision
2009/766/EC9 [18], [19]) corresponds to an uncoordinated deployment between two mobile network
operators, one using UMTS/LTE and the other using GSM. It is related to blocking and out-of-band
emissions phenomena. For co-located/coordinated deployment, MNOs do operate without a guard-band
(uplink power control activated).

It is expected that GSM-R radio sites will often be used for FRMCS rollout (coordinated deployment with co-
located base stations).

The critical case is interference from a GSM-R terminal to an FRMCS base station when uplink power control
is not activated for GSM-R. There is confidence that a 200 kHz guard-band is sufficient between FRMCS and
GSM-R, assuming co-location and similar EIRP for both systems.

Whether a smaller or no guard-band can be implemented for railway still requires further work, including the
possibility for GSM-R to activate uplink power control.

With co-siting, no intermodulation phenomenon is expected in railway terminals, assuming similar or close
values of EIRP for both systems.

4.6 THROUGHPUT OFFERED BY LTE IN RAILWAY ENVIRONMENT

The simulations being conducted within ETSI TC RT and documented in ETSI TR 103 554 V1.1.1 give
indications that a 2x1.4 MHz LTE channel should be studied as a possibility for FRMCS for the migration.
This does not preclude use of 5G as well as in-band and/or adjacent channel arrangement of GSM-R and
FRMCS in the whole 2x5.6 MHz.

9
In the point of time of publication of this ECC Report, the latest amendment was set into force by Commission Implementing
Decision (EU) 2018/637.
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 25

Noting that having the possibility to reuse as much as possible the current radio network infrastructure (sites)
would save costs and reduce operational burden, the spectrum in 874.4-880 MHz / 919.4-925 MHz is the
preferred band for a harmonised solution for the successor to GSM-R for the migration and beyond. This is
also recognised in the EC Mandate to CEPT on FRMCS [7].

In dense railway networks, border areas and high density areas, the capacity brought by adding 2x1.6 MHz
of spectrum is not enough to support the frequency demand for GSM-R and FRMCS during the migration. It
is difficult to do a more detailed analysis of the need for access to additional spectrum during the migration
since it is also highly dependent on the design, the topology and the radio technology of the new network, for
example a possible site densification in high traffic areas. The conclusion is however access to
complementary spectrum, e.g. 10 MHz in 1900-1920 MHz, is a prerequisite for many countries in order to
manage the migration with dual networks operating in parallel.

After the migration, the complementary band(s) will still be required in order to cover railway’s long-term
needs (including potential critical video), border and hotspot areas.

These early considerations may need to be refined when results of proposals and studies from ETSI and
ECC become available.

The data throughput assumptions for the future railway mobile radio communications depend very much on
the assumptions for critical real-time video. This is expected to play an instrumental role in future rail
operations, especially in the context of automated train operations (ATO). It should be noted that the term
“video” in this context refers to “classical” video, but also the data obtained from other sensors, or pre-
processed and/or combined forms of such data within sensor fusion platforms used in automated railway
systems, mostly for the purpose to detect hazards and ensure safety. Assumptions for such critical video
applications are at an early stage and the data throughput for a single train on the uplink can vary, with
current estimates in the order of 1 Mb/s in normal mode up to several Mb/s in degraded mode. Hence, it is
not possible to conclude at this stage on the necessary throughput needed in the railway environment.
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 26

5 HOTSPOTS AND BORDER AREAS

Some GSM-R radio network operators are currently facing the problem of insufficient radio resources in the
harmonised GSM-R band to support their operational needs, especially in railway hubs / hotspots and border
areas. In such areas, additional radio resources are required. For GSM-R, the band 873-876 MHz / 918-921
MHz may be used on a national basis 10. For FRMCS, a complementary frequency band, such as 1900-1920
MHz, or maybe access to a commercial mobile network may be used.

Examples of the most complex railway hubs / hotspots are:

 Mannheim area in Germany;
 Brussels-Antwerp-Ghent area in Belgium.

Figure 3: Railway hub in Mannheim (Germany)

In border areas, the available spectrum for GSM-R has to be shared between two or more GSM-R operators,
thus the radio frequency planning process must be supplemented by proper network coordination. This
cross-border coordination becomes a major challenge for the radio network planning and rollout. Today,
cross-border coordination agreements for railway radio communication are established and being used by
default, giving GSM-R network operators some flexibility for their frequency planning. The impact on these
cross-border coordination agreements as well as the effects of the single frequency network architecture of
the future railway radio system in border areas is for further study.

For GSM-R network operators, the situation of the coordination between neighbouring countries varies
considerably, depending on the number of parties.

Examples of the most complex border regions are:

 Germany / Switzerland / France (e.g. Basel area);
 Germany / Switzerland / Austria (e.g. Lake Constance);
 Germany / Belgium / The Netherlands (e.g. Aachen/Maastricht);
 Baltic Sea coastline;
 Switzerland / Germany / Liechtenstein / Austria (border area);
 Switzerland / Italy (e.g. Chiasso area);
 Switzerland / France (e.g. Geneva area);
 Switzerland / France (e.g. Lausanne area);
 Netherlands / Belgium / Luxembourg / France.

10
This band is not harmonised neither at EU level nor at CEPT level. Three CEPT countries, Germany, Switzerland and
Liechtenstein, are currently using the band 873-876 MHz / 918-921 MHz for GSM-R. Belgium is in the process of granting rights of
use to GSM-R in the band 873-876 MHz / 918-921 MHz by 1st February 2019.
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 27

6 ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL AND OTHER NETWORKS

This section studies the legal, contractual, technical, and operational implications of sharing with other
spectrum/network owners in the context of the Future Railway Mobile Communication System (FRMCS).

When considering network sharing schemes, five essential notions come into play:
 Licence conditions or Service Level Agreements
 What to share: spectrum, radio sites, Radio Access Network (RAN), transmission, core network, etc.
 For what purpose: critical vs. non-critical traffic, low/medium vs. high throughput, etc.
 With whom to share: which spectrum/network owners might be potential partners for sharing their
spectrum/network
 On what basis:
 “Exclusive sharing” (such as geographical network sharing): the sharing parties have an
exclusive use of the network resources at a particular location and/or at a particular moment in time
 “Open sharing” (e.g. based on listen before talk or pre-emption): potential conflicts between
sharing parties are handled via coordination, prioritisation and pre-emption capabilities
 Sharing based on capabilities provided by 4G/5G technologies such as radio network resource
allocation and congestion control mechanisms, e.g. “network slicing”, etc.

Licence conditions and/or Service Level Agreements: They are intended to cover the railway specific
requirements, legal obligations and liabilities, in such a way that the shared network would meet the
requirements for railway operations. As an example of such sharing, some European countries have already
implemented or are in the process of implementing MNO networks capable of delivering the high quality
required by PPDR networks. The practicality and the economic impact needs to be assessed at a national
level. Special care should be given to ensure that the infrastructure manager has adequate recourse and
legal certainty.

What to share? Sharing with external communication network infrastructure owners can be addressed at
different levels in the overall system architecture:

Figure 4: Network/infrastructure decomposition

For what purpose to share? The study of each possible spectrum/network sharing scenario may be
dependent on the railway applications that are envisaged. The analysis of each sharing scenario will
therefore consider each application category as defined in the User Requirements Specification (URS) [12]:
 Critical: applications that are essential for train movements and safety or a legal obligation, such as
emergency communications, shunting, human presence, trackside maintenance, ATC, etc.
 Performance: applications that help to improve the performance of the railway operation, such as train
departure, telemetry, etc.
 Business: applications that support the railway business operation in general, such as wireless Internet,
etc.

With whom to share? In the present study, two types of spectrum/network owners are considered:
 Public Mobile Network Operators (MNO);
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 28

 Public Protection and Disaster Relief (PPDR).

Table 7 summarises the generic characteristics of these network owners in comparison to railways.
Adequate national regulatory framework and/or Service Level Agreements may fill the gaps towards railway
requirements, when considering sharing with MNO or PPDR.

Table 7: Generic characteristics of network owners considered

MNO PPDR Railways

Currently mainly
designed to maximise Designed for railway lines and
Designed for nationwide
consumer population railway-related premises
Coverage target coverage with urban areas
coverage, at the (shunting yards, railway
as a main target.
expense of occasional stations, etc.).
not-spots.
Mostly Linear/Curvilinear (1D,
1.5D)
Cellular model Hexagonal Hexagonal
Hexagonal in station areas and
shunting yards
Urban/Rural:
Urban: currently high Typically, usage of double
Areas of importance may
density of cells to cover coverage to improve service
offer forms of cell resiliency.
traffic requirements availability for most ETCS lines,
including some overlap Additional Direct Mode
Resiliency to notably for high speed lines.
of the cell coverage for Operation may also offer
(cell) coverage High amount of equipment
capacity purposes. resilient coverage (in full
outage redundancy to improve service
dependency of frequency
Rural: currently low availability.
range (limited power in
density of cells having a Backup via MNO possible at
uplink).
limited overlap. national level e.g. for voice
communications.
Critical data communication for
Group communication
semi-automatic/automatic train
(voice, video, data)
Orientation and operation (Emergency brake,
Massive broadband data Proximity-based services
specific Voice Group Calls, Emergency
services Emergency calls
features Calls, etc.)
Addressing based on fleet
Functional Addressing,
maps, etc.
Location-based Addressing
Currently mainly
designed for an overall
statistical approach, at
System the expense of Fault tolerant/ high-availability
High availability
Availability occasional failures. requirements
requirements
Requirements Emphasis on bringing Limited maintenance windows
new features
Frequent maintenance
windows
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 29

QoS features and

support are implemented
Critical (Safety) applications
for various traffic profiles
having very strong QoS
and subscriber contracts. Support of critical
constraints (refer to KPIs in
Optimal statistical communications having
Service EIRENE, typically in Subset-
multiplexing of the users strong access control,
Guarantee 093)
to the available prioritisation and QoS
Service guarantee at the cell
bandwidth constraints
edge (e.g. at the handover
Emphasis on service
points)
guarantee based on
voice requirements
Asymmetric since
currently optimised for
downlink capacity For future applications, For future applications,
Uplink versus In TDD, the UL/DL frame asymmetric with a higher asymmetric with a higher
downlink ratio configuration needs to utilisation of the uplink than utilisation of the uplink than the
be maintained over a the downlink downlink
whole contiguous
coverage area

Table 8 shows the usual strategy and goals of the network owners. They may be aligned with railways if
adequate national regulatory framework and/or Service Level Agreements are available.

Table 8: Objectives of the different parties

Party Strategy / goals

The current strategy of MNOs is usually to optimise their services for a group of mass-
MNO
market customers.
The strategy of PPDR may be to give priority to their safety applications in case of
PPDR conflicting use of the same communication resource in order to ensure smooth and
efficient rescue operations.
The strategy of railways is:
 to ensure a proper railway operation respecting the QoS requirements on an
extensive network of railway lines (e.g. adequate cell dimensioning);
 to guarantee service continuity to meet the safety obligation associated with
Railways critical communication services (e.g. adequate resiliency);
 to maintain a reasonable cost (adequate value for tax payer money),
 to establish a coherent and common strategy at European level in order to achieve
interoperability of cross-border operation and achieve economy of scale;
 to find synergy with external parties in order to diversify and complement its
communication means for its own operations and for its passengers.

On what basis? Railway lines are pervasive on the European territory, especially in dense urban areas,
even if they represent a small amount of the overall geographical surface.

Railways may require either an exclusive use of the shared resources, or an open sharing basis that shall
ensure the highest priority for their critical applications, in order to maintain the continuity of railway services.
Geographical sharing of spectrum may be envisaged, as it is already the case with military applications in
some European countries in the current harmonised band.

With PCC and its evolution to network slicing, multiple logical networks with different service level
requirements can run virtually on a common physical infrastructure. LTE/5G networks may be able to satisfy
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 30

the requirements of different vertical user segments, including railways. Special care should be given to radio
network resource allocation and congestion control mechanisms, as well as adequate radio network
coverage and availability meeting specific railway requirements as a basis for slicing, etc.

6.1 SHARING ACCESS WITH MNO

In this scenario, railways would either be users of the MNO’s network or operate as an MVNO (with network
slicing). This would be part of a contractual commitment between railways and the MNO. Adequate national
regulatory framework and/or Service Level Agreements may fill the gaps towards railway requirements, when
considering sharing with MNO.

Table 9: Comparison between MNOs and Railways

Mobile Network Operator Railways

Bandwidth Optimal statistical throughput Cell edge throughput guarantee

Designed to maximise consumer Designed for railway corridor and
Coverage Target population coverage, at the expense railway-related premises (shunting
of occasional not-spots yards, railway stations etc.)
Medium-to high overlap of coverage
Double coverage based on
Optimal geographical coverage availability requirements e.g. High
having minimum overlap. Coverage Speed Lines
Coverage resiliency
resiliency is expected to improve on Formal verification of coverage (KPI
highly-circulated railway lines according to EIRENE) Subset 093
type of specifications for transport
system QoS
Best-effort for data communication
GBR for some specific applications
Priority for VoLTE services using
such as ETCS
Traffic QoS packet oriented transport.
Communication priority handling
QoS is expected to be improved with
guaranteed
5G for some verticals.

The coverage of the railway lines by MNOs:

It is expected that the coverage of railway tracks by MNOs will be greatly improved in the upcoming
years. In some countries, licence conditions have been issued with some requirements to cover all or
parts of railway tracks for passenger services. There are also other countries where MNOs have already
committed to improve their coverage along railway lines. However, in countries where licence conditions
do not require coverage of the railway tracks, the coverage objective of MNOs is usually related to the
percentage of the covered population, and not of the area and is greatly influenced by the expected
ARPU (Average Revenue Per User). However by having an appropriate national regulatory framework
including a Service Level Agreement, it might be possible to meet the coverage requirements of railways.

In networks not designed and built for railway use, the suitability of MNO coverage needs to be assessed
against railway requirements (high radio availability and quality, UL/DL traffic ratio). Coverage
enhancement will require to assume responsibility for investments for e.g. additional radio sites; this cost
needs to be taken into account when performing the overall cost/benefit analysis.

The reliability, availability, maintainability and continuity of service of the MNO network:
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 31

MNO networks may be able to provide the level of Quality of Service for critical communications with
appropriate licence conditions, service level agreements and choice of technology. Main concerns from
railways are the ability of MNOs to ensure the safety-related services necessary for railway operation.
This question is related to whether MNOs will assume the risk and how, in the legal contract, risk
assessment is dealt with.

Prioritisation and pre-emption are necessary to ensure the rail communication availability especially in
emergency situations.

In all cases, public mobile networks can be envisaged to support less-stringent railway applications, or to
act as a backup, however assuming a lower quality if railway mobile communication facilities are
unavailable.

Sharing can also be envisaged to offer some flexibility beyond the spectrum harmonised for railway
interoperability. Such a “flexible harmonisation” would rely on the possibility to identify on a national basis
how much additional spectrum in which frequency ranges and under which implementation model (either
sharing access but also multiple-band support) could be granted.

A social-economic evaluation should be performed. The position of the MNO would need to evolve from
purely commercial motives to having social responsibility as well as commercial drive.

Issues to be solved when sharing with MNOs are:

 In case of railway accidents, the assignment of responsibility on legal and juridical matters, or related
penalties, where malfunctioning of e.g. the radio network is involved;
 Management of MNO technology evolutions, including 3GPP releases and other regular software
updates, which may need to be certified before introduction on live network (this process could have
major impact on MNO evolutions and operations);
 Congestion in case of major incidents or accidents;
 A dependency between the railway infrastructure manager and the MNO arises (“operator lock-in”) with
the investments the MNO needs to do in order to meet the railway requirements, e.g. extension of radio
coverage, enhanced battery backup, operational procedures, etc. These investments might be paid by
the railway infrastructure manager as an entry fee or as a monthly fee in a long-term contract. When
switching to another MNO, these investments have to be made again. This is an issue if the depreciation
period is not over. Some of these investments could be owned by the railway infrastructure manager
thus reducing the dependency upon the MNO, e.g. IMS core network and applications, complementary
radio network, etc.;
 The railway infrastructure manager needs a stable long-term relationship with the selected MNO. When
an MNO is acquired by another one, the new entity inherits the previous commitments. But a risk exists
that services are terminated and existing contracts are not prolonged;
 Long-term guarantee for technology support related to available hardware, software and support services
for the track side infrastructure, as well as for railway terminal retro-compatibility.

From a technical point of view, network sharing with MNO is possible for critical applications under the
condition that the relevant parts of the MNO’s network fulfils the stringent coverage and availability
requirements expected by railways. Railway authorities can set up rules so that the dependency upon the
MNO is limited. An MNO network not fulfilling the railway requirements can be envisaged for most
performance and all business applications defined in [12] where the coverage of MNOs is sufficient.

However, sharing with MNO is yet to be proven in the context of critical applications for railways. Coverage
of railways by MNOs without railway oriented national regulatory framework remains identified in a 2018 joint
report by BEREC and RSPG as a "challenge area" for mobile connectivity, see pages 11-14 in [13].

An MNO with obligation to support railway needs would deploy infrastructure in required locations including
tunnels and thus improve signal strength along railway lines and other railway-related premises as needed.
Such a network would also be designed to handle handover issues from cell to cell in a robust way without
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 32

loss of the communication link. In addition to provide full coverage, the MNO would also need to satisfy other
requirements, such as network resilience and availability which would entail specific engineering, long-term
investments (additional radio sites, power backup, overall strengthening of the radio transmission, redesign
of backhaul and core network) as well as operational and field maintenance from MNOs. The willingness of
MNOs to take legal obligations and liabilities remains to be seen. Current MNO processes do not cover
safety-related and interoperability assurance which currently requires extensive certification.

6.1.1 Net neutrality

The net neutrality regulation makes the distinction between two kinds of services: Internet Access Service
(IAS) and Specialised Service (SpS). These are regulatory terms.

With regard to IAS, by default all traffic shall be treated equally. In exceptional cases, such as network
congestion, discrimination between traffic is allowed on a temporary basis, and subject to specific rules.

With regard to SpS, optimisation / traffic management is allowed to meet a specific level of quality, only if it is
not to the detriment of the availability or general quality of IAS for end-users. Railway sharing MNO’s
resources would be a good candidate for the SpS category. But it is for further study whether priority
mechanisms or network slicing (i.e. partitioning of radio resources) would be compatible with the net
neutrality regulation.

6.2 SHARING ACCESS WITH PPDR

This option could apply to some countries where exclusive spectrum has been assigned to PPDR. In such a
scenario, railways would either be users of the PPDR network or operate as an MVNO. This would be part of
a contractual commitment between railways and PPDR.

In some European countries there is no PPDR dedicated network planned, so this solution cannot be
European-wide. Thus sharing with other critical communication operators, like PPDR, may be an option to
consider on a national basis, provided that the set of harmonised frequency bands for railways include all
PPDR bands used in Europe.

From an operational, organisational and legal standpoint it might be challenging as no single solution exists
for the PPDR networks across Europe. It is in particular challenging to define which communication service
should have priority of use against the other in case of major incidents.

Issues to be solved when sharing with PPDR are:

 Even if PPDR requirements are typically greater than those of public mobile networks, they are not as
high as those from railways. It has to be noted that a PPDR agent is likely to be able to move in order to
leave an interfered area, whereas a train cannot leave its track. This would imply that the availability, the
robustness and the resiliency of the PPDR network may need to be improved for the railway needs;
 Areas to be covered may not be the same, except in urban areas including railway stations. Railways
would need to roll out a complementary radio network along the rail tracks, meaning additional
investments. So financial saving for railways can be questioned;
 Legal and criminal liability sharing as well as adequate network governance and certification processes
between PPDR and railways need to be defined, taking into account the specific railway and PPDR
requirements. Additionally, priorities and responsibilities need to be defined. These aspects shall be
established on a national basis;
 Although there may be agreements for the use of PPDR solutions by various organisations (e.g. military),
this use is limited to specific security and safety missions and services falling outside the scope of these
missions cannot be covered;
 Because of the potential competition between railway and PPDR users for accessing the radio
resources, the contractual agreement required between the infrastructure manager and the PPDR
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 33

operator shall answer the following question: In common areas such as urban areas, who has priority? A
railway or a PPDR critical communication? Or is it possible and acceptable to partition the resources?
 Total capacity and/or spectrum requirement for both railways and PPDR may be difficult to meet with
frequency spectrum dedicated to PPDR.

6.3 SHARING SPECTRUM WITH PMR/PAMR

PMR/PAMR users, like in logistic plants, airports, electrical supply companies, and the rail sector appear to
have similar needs for spectrum. As a matter of fact, PMR/PAMR also intends to use radio communications
for the continuity or performance of their operations at their industrial sites.

Sharing spectrum with PMR/PAMR could be an option that can be applied when considering rail
communication networks whose locations are not geographically overlapping with the PMR/PAMR network
locations. For instance, shunting voice communications, communications at stations and depots, train
departure related communications, emergency help points in stations are possible communication scenarios
in a limited geographical area of use.

It might be difficult to find PMR/PAMR that are not geographically overlapping with railways, as most
infrastructure are interconnected through multi-modal hubs for instance in the case of transport, or are
following parallel paths with railway lines like electricity supply networks.

It has also to be considered that a spectrum sharing option with PMR/PAMR may require a harmonisation at
EU/CEPT level in order to enable cross-border compatibility and the interoperability of rail communication.

A spectrum sharing option with PMR/PAMR would also cause a significant impact on the cab-radio
capabilities because various frequency bands may be relevant (see also section 5.4). A harmonised
implementation of PMR/PAMR frequency bands is difficult because of legacy systems in these bands.

6.4 MIMO AND MULTIPLE-BAND SUPPORT IN RAILWAY TERMINALS

In trains or engines, on-board radio systems are made of radio modules, an antenna system and some
cabling between them, unlike mass-market handheld terminals where everything is integrated together.

Due to the limited space for antennas on train roof where various equipment is installed (e.g. electrical
devices such as air conditioning on the roof to design low floor rolling stock facilitating access to people with
restricted mobility), the number of antennas that can be installed may be small. Since MIMO requires
adequate separation between antennas to benefit from spatial diversity, its use may be limited if keeping the
current antenna system; this is for further study.

Multiple-band support is actually to be realised through the availability of multiple-band on-board radio
modules and antennas as well as handheld devices, the adoption of common technical standards (i.e.
LTE/5G), possibly utilising different sharing network types, and also by standard conformance and
interoperability specifications.

To allow the use of complementary spectrum, the on-board radio systems as well as handheld devices will
need to have the ability to support multiple frequency bands. This will imply multi-band antenna systems and
multi-band terminals. Due to the specificities of railways, there will be several limitations that need to be
considered.

Although antenna systems can support more than one frequency band, there may be limitations on the total
range of spectrum that can be covered at sufficient performance level; this is for further study.

As the train antenna system will need to be capable of supporting both the existing GSM-R and the FRMCS,
and the fact that current GSM-R system implementations are based on a maximum loss between the GSM-R
antenna and the GSM-R receiver input (6 dB according to EIRENE SRS), the introduction of FRMCS when
reusing that very same antenna may degrade the quality of the GSM-R system; this is for further study.
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 34

In case of sharing with MNO, PPDR or PMR/PAMR, not all bands would be selected; only some of them
which would then need to be referenced in the CCS TSI to ensure railway interoperability. It would be
necessary to integrate all the frequency options selected within MNO, PPDR and PMR/PAMR frequency
bands in the railway terminal equipment to fulfil the railway interoperability requirement.

In some cases, some frequency bands may not need to be supported by all trains:
 frequency band(s) for local, regional and historical trains;
 frequency band(s) for extra capacity;
 frequency band(s) for applications not related to railway interoperability.

Note: Carrier Aggregation / Dual Connectivity is not covered neither in this section nor in this Report; this
topic is for further study.

6.5 CONCLUSION

From a technical point of view, network sharing with MNO is possible for critical applications under the
condition that the relevant parts of the MNO’s network fulfils the stringent coverage and availability
requirements of railways (including prioritisation and pre-emption). Sharing with an MNO needs to be tested
in real life conditions to prove that coverage, quality and availability requirements of railways are met. Such a
scenario is dependent on the full coverage of rail tracks, and the requirements on network resilience and
availability. This would entail long-term investments as well as specific engineering, operational and field
maintenance from MNOs. Current MNO processes do not cover safety-related and interoperability
assurance, which currently requires extensive certification.

Key questions remain unanswered so far: MNO's agreement to take railway legal obligations and liabilities;
MNO's willingness to assume the risk, how, in the legal contract, risk assessment would be dealt with.

MNO networks that do not fulfil these requirements could be used for low-train traffic lines with less stringent
requirements and non-critical railway communications, i.e. for performance and business applications
probably with limited coverage, availability and QoS.

Sharing can also be envisaged to offer some flexibility beyond the spectrum harmonised for railway
interoperability. Such a “flexible harmonisation” would rely on the possibility to identify on a national basis
how much additional spectrum in which frequency ranges and under which implementation model (either
sharing access but also multiple-band support) could be granted.

Sharing with PPDR networks using dedicated spectrum is not an option applicable to all European countries
because no harmonised approach exists for PPDR networks in Europe. Furthermore it would require
sufficient spectrum resources for both PPDR and railway users. Legal and criminal liability sharing as well as
adequate network governance and certification processes between PPDR and railways need to be defined,
taking into account the specific railway and PPDR requirements. Additionally, priorities and responsibilities
need to be defined. These aspects would be established on a national basis.

Geographical spectrum sharing with PMR/PAMR could be envisaged when limited to certain areas, like in
stations, shunting yards or depots. Network sharing with PMR/PAMR can also be of interest to obtain
complementary traffic capacities, provided that coverage requirements are fulfilled, to deal with railway
hotspots.
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 35

7 CONCLUSION

The purpose of this ECC Report is to assess the spectrum needs for the successor to GSM-R. Essential
input documents to this Report are “FRMCS Traffic Analysis” [10] and ETSI TR 103 554 “LTE radio
performance simulations and evaluations in rail environment” [11]. The estimation of the throughput needed
and of the spectrum needs for the successor to GSM-R are to a major extent based on the findings of these
documents. These early considerations may need to be refined when results of proposals and studies from
ETSI and ECC become available. Detailed frequency band options and harmonised technical conditions will
be described in future ECC deliverables.

7.1 ABOUT THE NEED FOR PARALLEL OPERATION OF GSM-R AND ITS SUCCESSOR

Railway interoperability, i.e. ability for trains and staff to operate uninterruptedly across borders and railway
networks, must be ensured. Requirements related to interoperability are legally binding in Europe since they
are part of the Control-Command and Signalling Technical Specification for Interoperability (CCS TSI), which
is published in the European Regulation 2016/919/EU [4].

The principles laid down in that CCS TSI do not allow actions such as a mandatory retrofit of cab-radios
(unless specific rules are agreed). In addition, an overnight switchover would not leave the possibility to
perform the necessary field tests to check whether the railway requirements are met.

Therefore, GSM-R and its successor will have to operate in parallel for a period of time. For these reasons,
there is a need of additional spectrum at least during the migration period. This additional spectrum will also
be required to cover railway’s long-term needs after the migration period in combination with the 2x4 MHz
currently harmonised for GSM-R. The overall migration throughout Europe is expected to take place between
2022 and 2035.

7.2 ABOUT SPECIFIC RAILWAY REQUIREMENTS

Interruption of radiocommunication can have an impact on railway operation and/or safety. A continuous
availability of and accessibility to the railway radio network is required in order to transmit and receive a
Railway Emergency Call everywhere along the rail tracks. Further, a persistent interruption of radio
communication in the context of ETCS Level 2 and beyond will simply lead to the stopping of trains causing
consecutive delays in the public transport system.

Historically, GSM-R networks have been designed and validated against formal and stringent availability and
reliability requirements such as 95% probability coverage in time and space over any track section of 100m.
At the time of writing, the availability and reliability requirements for the successor to GSM-R are not yet
specified, but equivalent criteria are anticipated, provided that the technical principles and the safety
approach of ETCS are not changed.

7.3 ABOUT SPECTRUM NEEDS

Railways currently use the 876-880 MHz / 921-925 MHz band as the harmonised spectrum for GSM-R at
CEPT and EU levels. The band 873-876 MHz / 918-921 MHz is not harmonised for GSM-R within CEPT, but
it is used for GSM-R on a national basis by some CEPT countries. Existing GSM-R is an application within
the primary mobile service and needs to be protected. In addition, as specified in Article 3 of Commission
Implementing Decision 2018/1538 [15], EU Member States shall refrain from introducing new uses in the
874.4-876 MHz and 919.4-921 MHz sub-bands until such time as harmonised conditions for their use are
adopted under Decision 676/2002/EC [16].

Noting that having the possibility to reuse as much as possible the current radio network infrastructure (sites)
would save costs and reduce operational burden, the spectrum in 874.4-880 MHz / 919.4-925 MHz is the
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 36

preferred band for a harmonised solution for the successor to GSM-R for the migration and beyond. This is
also recognised in the EC Mandate to CEPT on FRMCS [7]. This scenario includes use of 4G/5G as well as
in-band11 and/or adjacent channel arrangement of GSM-R and FRMCS in the whole 2x5.6 MHz.

In dense railway networks, border areas and high density areas, the capacity brought by adding 2x1.6 MHz
of spectrum is not enough during the migration. The conclusion is that access to complementary spectrum,
e.g. 10 MHz in 1900-1920 MHz, is a prerequisite for many countries in order to manage the migration with
dual networks operating in parallel. The frequency band 1900-1920 MHz, or parts of it, is currently licensed
to mobile operators in many CEPT countries. After the migration, the complementary band(s) will still be
required in order to cover railway’s long-term needs (including critical sensing/video), border and hotspot
areas.

7.4 ABOUT SHARING

From a technical point of view, network sharing with MNO is possible for critical applications under the
condition that the relevant parts of the MNO’s network fulfils the stringent coverage and availability
requirements of railways. However, current MNO processes do not cover safety-related and interoperability
assurance which currently requires extensive certification.

Key questions remain unanswered so far: MNO agreement to take railway legal obligations and liabilities,
MNO's willingness to assume the risk; how, in the legal contract, risk assessment would be dealt with.

MNO networks that do not fulfil these requirements could be used for low-train traffic lines with less stringent
requirements and for non-critical railway communications.

In order to offer some flexibility beyond the spectrum harmonised for railway interoperability, a flexible
approach would rely on the possibility to identify on a national basis how much additional spectrum in which
frequency ranges and under which implementation model (sharing access, national licence model, etc.)
could be granted.

Sharing with PPDR networks using dedicated spectrum is not an option applicable to all European countries
because, noting the various solutions implemented at national level, no harmonised approach exists for
PPDR networks in Europe. Furthermore, it would require sufficient spectrum resources for both PPDR and
railway users as well as a clear assignment of priorities and of legal and criminal liabilities.

Geographical spectrum sharing with PMR/PAMR could be envisaged when limited to certain areas, like in
stations, shunting yards or depots. Network sharing with PMR/PAMR can also be of interest to obtain
complementary traffic capacities.

11
as for NB-IoT
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 37

ANNEX 1: FINNISH CASE

A1.1 BACKGROUND

The project to build the GSM-R network in Finland started in year 2002 and was completed in 2011. The
network covers currently approximately 5100 km of railway with 400 base station sites and provides service
to approximately 5000 mobile users. The network was designed and built before the current CCS TSI
specifications were adopted, with the goal that it could be used for all operational railway communications
including shunting, offering trackside radio coverage also for 2W handheld equipment.

Since the existing GSM-R equipment used in Finland will reach the end of its life cycle at the latest by the
end of 2018, Finland could not wait for the next generation of railway radio network to emerge before making
a decision on how to continue with railway radio communications, a solution had to be developed and
implemented in advance of other European countries. Investing in new GSM-R network equipment was
considered to be uneconomic, since the GSM-R system would relatively soon be replaced by the next
generation of railway radio.

Considering the above, a solution needed to be developed quickly, noting that the Finnish railway network is
separated from the respective networks of the rest of the European Union due to different track gauge as
well as lack of roaming between Finnish GSM-R users and other EU GSM-R networks.

A1.2 SOLUTION

The question was whether the railway specific core functionalities could be implemented without GSM-R.
The following functionalities and core features were identified as a minimum set based on a safety analysis:
 Role registration procedure, functional numbering ("I am the driver of train 3456")
 Safety: Who is speaking to whom - e.g. permission to proceed
 Lists of registered users in the control area
 Trains, Shunting units, Maintenance teams
 Location based group and point-to-point calls
 Punctuality: Easy and quick to reach the responsible train traffic controller
 Pre-emption
 Safety: Important call has to be connected
 Railway Emergency Call
 Safety: Stop the traffic in a predefined area

It was considered that all of the functions above are possible to be implemented without GSM-R, using the
existing VIRVE network designed to be used by authorities and security operators for efficient and secure
communications. Furthermore, a data application between train driver and dispatcher was developed that
uses public mobile networks for communication.

Railway users and PPDR users didn’t require any priority scheme in accessing the radio resources from the
VIRVE operator. Capacity planning and monitoring is performed to ensure the proper sharing.

A1.2.1 VIRVE (PPDR) network

The VIRVE network is based on TETRA technology and uses frequency bands 380-385 MHs and 390-395
MHz, it consists of approximately 1300 base stations leading to a 100% population coverage and 97% area
coverage and it has over 37 000 subscribers.
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 38

Since VIRVE is also approaching the end of its lifecycle around year 2030, the solution to be developed
needed to be technology neutral and future proof, therefore a Unified Railway Communication and
Applications system (URCA) was developed.

A1.2.2 Unified Railway Communication and Applications system (URCA)

Voice and data services for railways are made independent from railway radio technology with the Unified
Railway Communication and Application system. This system will ease the on-going migration from GSM-R
to TETRA as well as enable connectivity to the next generation of railway network and other networks that
may be used for railway communication. URCA will pave the way for railway bearer independent
communications and applications approach and provide railway users access to several mobile networks
and technologies now and in future.

GSM-R
Network

URCA Dispatcher
Terminals

URCA Core
IN/SMSC

MSC
E1/PRI Master
Database
PSTN-X
TETRA Subscriber
E1/PRI URCA
Gateway Management
(ISUP) Legacy LiVi IP
Gateways
GSM/GSM-R System Network
Gateway Management
Rail
GSM-P/PSTN Application Recording
Router Manager
Network
Media Stream Routing and
Processing Transit Switch
TCS

TETRA
Network
TVG Router
Future LTE Management and Replay Consoles

Figure 5: Unified Railway Communication and Application system

The plan is to switch off GSM-R by the end of year 2018. In order to enable a controlled switch over of
railway radio traffic to VIRVE network, several intermediate steps have been performed which are in general
described in figure 6 below. In particular, 1000 VIRVE-specific cab-radios and 500 shunting handheld
terminals are being rolled out. The Finnish transport administration pays for all direct expenses, including
cab-radios, related to the migration to the VIRVE network.
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 39

Figure 6: Timetable for GSM-R switch off

Thus, the URCA system will operate in parallel over GSM-R and VIRVE networks till the switch-off of GSM-R
planned for the end of 2018.
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 40

ANNEX 2: SNCF RÉSEAU SPECTRUM REQUIREMENTS AND COMPARISON WITH GSM-R

THROUGHPUT

A2.1 GSM-R CURRENT SITUATION

a) SNCF Réseau is using 2x4 MHz in the 876-880 MHz / 921-925 MHz band for 19 GSM-R channels;
b) A large majority of the rollout costs comes from the radio sites search and construction, in line with
the findings at European scale of the Systra migration study 12;
c) The GSM-R network rollout was performed in France between 2006 and the end of 2017. Without
prejudice of the actual pace of technology obsolescence and of how the railway regulatory
environment on ERTMS will evolve, it is expected that GSM-R will continue to be operational until
2035 and perhaps later, at least on some lines;
d) Current GSM-R BS radio configuration use 1 frequency per site (BCCH) on classic railway lines and
2 frequencies per site for double coverage on HSL (High Speed Line). Double coverage configuration
has been chosen in France to increase availability and capacity of radio access network on HSL. The
maximum number of TCH available per site is:
 Simple coverage, voice applications: 6 TCH;
 Double coverage (case of the HSL in France), voice + ETCS Level 2 applications: 12 TCH (total
capacity of the 2 layers can be used by using appropriate option such as “Directed Retry”).
e) As a result, the current GSM-R network provides a maximum capacity per site (CSD) in the vicinity of
60 kbps (voice and ETCS)13.

A2.2 GPRS EVOLUTION

a) SNCF Réseau is studying GPRS evolution in order to increase the available capacity on the GSM-R
network (mainly for ETCS Level 2 applications).
b) The target date for rollout of GPRS is mid 2019 (for only a limited area of the network). This situation
is specific to the French network and might differ from other railway networks.
c) The maximum data throughput expected with GPRS is in the vicinity of 150 kbps (per site with double
coverage and 2 active TRX on HSL). This estimation is based on a maximum of 4 TS dedicated to
packet data transmission par active TRX (assuming a modulation scheme CS-2).

A2.3 DATA THROUGHPUT COMPARISON BETWEEN GSM-R AND LTE-R 1.4 MHZ

a) It is expected that the limiting factor in terms of requirements will be the uplink, both for throughput
to be accommodated and for radio link performance.
b) In the LTE – GSM-R coexistence study done for ERA 14, it is estimated on a planning case study that
a LTE 1.4 MHz carrier would provide 200 kbps uplink throughput at the cell edge. Preliminary ETSI
results indicate that a LTE 1.4 MHz carrier at 900 MHz in a railway environment could accommodate
UL traffic in the vicinity of 300 kbps for UL15.

The following table provides a summary of the expected uplink throughput under various network
configurations.

12
ERA_RS1_DLV_023, Study on migration of Railway radio communication system from GSM-R to other Solutions, by Systra, May
2016
13
Assuming CSD 4800 bps x 6 TCH x 2 TRX
14
Coexistence of GSM-R with other communication systems, final report for ERA (ERA 2015 04 2 SC), 2016, page 119
15
Draft ETSI TR 103 554, May 2018
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 41

Table 10: Expected uplink throughput

Configuration Uplink throughput

Maximum current data throughput available on 60 kbps / site (with double coverage configuration
existing GSM-R network on HSL)
Expected maximum data throughput including 150 kbps / site (with double coverage configuration
evolution to GPRS on existing GSM-R network on HSL)
Estimated data throughput for a LTE 1.4 MHz 200 kbps /site (LS Telecom study)
carrier at 900 MHz range and in a railway 300 kbps / site (preliminary estimation done by
environment ETSI TC RT)

A2.4 MIGRATION PERIOD (DOUBLE RAN GSM-R AND FRMCS)

a) To save costs, it is essential for SNCF that the FRMCS can be introduced using as much as possible
the current network radio infrastructure (sites): therefore main spectrum requirements are for
spectrum close to GSM-R (below 1 GHz) because it would have similar propagation characteristics.
b) According to the previous table, a 2x1.4 MHz LTE channel would be necessary and in theory
sufficient to accommodate the same capacity for SNCF Réseau main lines if the spectrum is fully
available, i.e. without interference from adjacent services and without spectrum constraints at
borders.
e) In the specific and preferred case of the spectrum immediately adjacent to current GSM-R spectrum:
 Adjacent service compatibility with GSM-R on the one-hand and SRD on the other hand
requires at least 2x1.6 MHz, providing a measure of protection to be confirmed after the studies
in SE716.
 Several neighbouring countries (Germany, Belgium and Switzerland) have indicated that they
intend to roll out GSM-R in the 873-876 MHz / 918-921 MHz band. While not yet studied, co-
channel interference situation between GSM-R and FRMCS at the borders may require in some
cases the rollout in a local area of a complementary band for FRMCS.
 Co-channel interference between FRMCS and FRMCS at the border may also require the roll
out of a complementary band in some local areas.
f) In addition a complementary band for FRMCS would provide a solution for higher throughput in areas
which will require it during the migration (e.g. large stations, or areas with early implementation of
new applications). The complementary band should therefore allow locally a capacity comparable to
the long term RMR (FRMCS) (e.g. 2x5 MHz or 10 MHz TDD, see below).

A2.5 LONG-TERM SITUATION

a) The FRMCS may serve over a period extending from 2025 to 2050. While not all applications are
sufficiently mature, today, it is already possible to substantiate a long-term need over main lines for
500 kbps to 1.1 Mbps according to the traffic model in this ECC Report.
b) Assuming a capacity 3 to 4 times larger than the capacity assessed in the ETSI preliminary analysis
for 2x1.4 MHz, it is expected that 2x5 MHz in LTE or 5G technology will allow to meet those needs on
main lines.
g) It seems prudent for the long term to retain the requirement for 2x5.6 MHz for RMR which will also be
needed for the migration. It is slightly in excess of the 2x5 MHz but would provide adequate

16
This would allow for instance 200 kHz separation between GSM-R and RMR (FRMCS) and 100 kHz separation with SRD
envisaged in the draft EC SRD decision. While some contributions have questioned the need for a guard band between RMR
(FRMCS) and GSM-R, the question of the protection from SRD has not been studied and might require in fact a larger separation.
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 42

separation from SRD, possibly additional capacity for RMR (FRMCS) and potential evolution margin
for upcoming RMR generations.
h) On the other hand, limiting the RMR (FRMCS) long-term bandwidth (e.g. 2x3 MHz) would put undue
constraint on long-term applications supported by the RMR (FRMCS). It is to be noted that deciding
today on such a constraint would not provide any gain for the next 20 years of the upcoming
transition period, during which at least 2x5.6 MHz of spectrum will be required for RMR.
i) The complementary frequency band would allow to provide higher capacity in areas where it is
needed and alternative capacity in borders areas as necessary for network coordination. Long-term
needs in dense areas is expected to be 2 Mbps to 6 Mbps.

A2.6 IN SUMMARY

Table 11 summarises the spectrum demand and expected supply solutions.

Table 11: Spectrum demand and expected solutions

Demand Supply
2 x 1.6 MHz at 900 MHz, over 8
Capacity identical or above that km cell
Main lines, migration to FRMCS
of GSM-R (including with GPRS)
200-300 kbps UL [tbc]
Complex areas, migration to Solution for borders, dense areas
Complementary band
FRMCS and pioneer new application lines
2 x 5.6 MHz at 900 MHz, over 8
Present report: 500 kbps - 1.1 km cell
Main lines and long-term RMR
Mbps UL
900 kbps-1200 kbps UL [tbc]
Present report: 2.3 Mbps UL + 3 10 MHz TDD at 2 GHz over 2 km
Dense areas and long-term RMR
Mbps DL cell

An interference free 2x1.4 MHz LTE carrier operated at 900 MHz under rail conditions is likely to provide an
uplink capacity similar to the one achievable with GSM-R (including GPRS option) but probably not more.
This situation is specific to the French rail network which will have a limited ETCS rollout. This might differ
from other railway networks.

Taking into account necessary guard-bands, this substantiates a spectrum need for at least 2x1.6 MHz at
900 MHz for FRMCS for the transition period with a double RAN (GSM-R/ FRMCS) and the need for a
complementary resource at higher frequency to address border areas and dense or pioneer areas where
FRMCS requirements will be higher.

Over the long term, a 2x5 MHz LTE carrier operated at 900 MHz could accommodate the traffic requirements
identified for main lines in the current traffic model in the present ECC Report, but not the requirements for
dense areas. Including some protection with adjacent services and some margin, this substantiates a
spectrum need for at least 2x5.6 MHz at 900 MHz for the long term and a minimum complementary spectrum
resource of 10 MHz TDD for dense areas and/or border areas.

On the other hand, limiting the RMR (FRMCS) long-term bandwidth (e.g. 2x3 MHz) would put undue
constraint on long-term applications supported by the RMR (FRMCS) without any spectrum gain during the
long transition period.
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 43

ANNEX 3: DEUTSCHE BAHN SPECTRUM REQUIREMENTS

A3.1 CURRENT SITUATION

DB Netz AG is the railway infrastructure manager of Deutsche Bahn AG, and is responsible for the
approximately 33 000 km rail network, including all operational necessary installations. An average of 40 000
trains are using DB Netz AG’s infrastructure per day. The main task is to make available a high–quality, high-
availability and non-discriminatory railway infrastructure to the around 420 railway undertakings. GSM-R
based services and applications do contribute to the overall safety of railway operation. Therefore, highest
quality for GSM-R voice and data communication providing low interference and high speech quality is
needed today and during the migration period, particularly for emergency calls, shunting communication,
ETCS Level 2 and other railway specific services and applications.

a) DB Netz AG is using 2x4 MHz in the 876-880 MHz / 921-925 MHz band and 2x3 MHz in the 873-876
MHz / 918-921 MHz band for 19 + 14 GSM-R channels.
b) Spectrum demand for GSM-R continues to grow:
 ETCS implementation is in accordance with the European Deployment Plan continuously
extended.
 The migration of voice and partly data services – in particular in shunting areas where voice is
partly still supported by legacy analogue VHF radio networks – to GSM-R is still ongoing.
c) DB Netz AG is facing specific challenges:
 Transit railway traffic and a strong growth in passenger traffic are increasing the pressure to
enhance efficiency. The railway traffic growth is expected to continue; this process will even
speed up by politics since it is seen as a key means to fulfil environmental goals (see
FM56(18)030_Digital Rail for Germany). As a result, the evaluation and introduction of new
services as, e.g. automation of train operation will be early, i.e. already starting during the
transition phase.
 The large number of neighbouring countries with their individual RMR deployments might result
in restrictions on network migration plans.
 Cross-border coordination, multiple dense areas, six TEN-T Core Network Corridors (see figure
7) and major tracks crossing downtown areas result in frequent high RMR demand areas in
combination with deployment restrictions.
 National operator agreements: pre-assigned and fixed GSM-R frequencies to prevent MNO
interferences.
 The heavily used sub 2GHz spectrum for public mobile communications results in coexistence
problems. In addition, acquiring new base station sites (in competition with the MNOs) is difficult,
expensive, and takes time.
d) Current GSM-R radio BS configurations typically use one or two GSM-R radiofrequency carriers per
cell. In dense areas, up to 4 GSM-R radiofrequency carriers per cell are necessary. The GSM-R
deployment in Germany is designed to meet the EIRENE specifications. The GSM-R cell radius is in
the range of a few hundred meters to several kilometres and varies significantly. Densification of
radio sites is expensive, time consuming and not always possible.
j) As recommended in ECC Report 229 (Guidance for improving coexistence between GSM-R and
MFCN in the 900 MHz band), DB Netz AG has successfully established a national coordination and
cooperation process between MNOs and GSM-R operator. The whole 2x7 MHz GSM-R spectrum as
of today is covered by the national coordination process. Coordinated deployment of all 900 MHz
radio sites takes place in an area of up to 2075m around operational railway lines. DB Netz AG
strongly recommends national operator agreements to prevent an uncoordinated deployment of
different radio systems in the rail environment.
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 44

k) DB Netz AG is in an ongoing nation-wide reinvest programme for all GSM-R base stations since
2015. The programme involves the total length of ca. 30 000 km of the German railway network with
GSM-R radio coverage. The new base station technology has been tested in a specialised test floor
at DB premises and is being rolled out since summer 2018 in first test areas under railway-
operational conditions. After finalising the nation-wide reinvest programme, every GSM-R base
station will be able to use the full range of 2x7 MHz GSM-R spectrum. Due to the coordinated
deployment in railway environment, DB Netz AG does not expect additional power restrictions for BS
operating below 921 MHz.
With the implementation or further development of the six rail Freight Corridors leading through
Germany, DB Netz AG is actively involved in the implementation of the EU regulation. An overview of
the Rail Freight Corridors running through Germany (content of EU Regulation 913/2010) is shown in
figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Rail Freight Corridors in Germany17

Considering the key aspects of capacity, frequency co-ordination and coverage planning, the
operational GSM-R network of DB Netz AG shows a heterogeneous structure. Up to a distance of 50
km from the borderline, frequency co-ordination limitations are present. Derived from the highest
categories of railway stations with high amount of trains and the largest train formation yards, the
multiple dense areas and the cross border areas in the GSM-R radio network of DB Netz AG are
shown in the following figure.

17
https://fahrweg.dbnetze.com/fahrweg-en/customers/international/europ_corridors/europ_corridors_allg-1418368
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 45

Figure 8: Multiple dense areas and cross-border coordination areas

The evaluation of the areas as shown in the figures 7 and 8 results in the necessity of additional RMR
spectrum. Further constraints result from the fact that some dense traffic areas are located in the cross-
border coordination areas. Additionally, the heavy transit rail traffic on the rail freight corridors contributes to
the demand of spectrum needs. This leads to an even worse frequency shortage.

From today to the end of the migration period, several of the increasing services and applications running on
the GSM-R radio network are mission-critical and therefore safety related. Therefore, highest quality for
GSM-R voice and data communication is needed, particularly for emergency calls, shunting communication,
ETCS Level 2 and other railway specific services and applications. During the migration period, which is
expected to last from five to ten years, both the current GSM-R radio network and the successor technology
need to be operational in parallel. Therefore, interference-free frequency bands for both GSM-R and FRMCS
are essential.

A3.2 GPRS EVOLUTION

For selected parts of the network, DB Netz AG is evaluating a potential migration towards GPRS in order to
increase the available capacity of the GSM-R network and to resolve some of the cases of today’s spectrum
and capacity shortage (mainly targeting ETCS Level 2 operation in dense areas). The achievable capacity
gains are, however, limited by the availability of a sufficient PS 18 backbone and the limitations of the link
budget which do not allow to use all modulation and coding schemes. Densification and backbone retrofitting
are expensive, not always possible, and result in critical timing and planning uncertainties. The need for
trans-European interoperability results in additional restrictions.

18
packet switched
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 46

A3.3 DATA THROUGHPUT COMPARISON BETWEEN GSM-R AND 1.4 MHZ / 3 MHZ LTE CARRIERS

a) DB Netz AG considers 5G as the preferred FRMCS technology. Since performance results for 5G
railway solutions are not yet available, LTE is used as reference within this Annex.
l) It is expected that the limiting factor in terms of requirements will be the uplink, both for throughput to
be accommodated and for radio link performance.
m) In the LTE/GSM-R coexistence study done for ERA 19, it was estimated on a planning case study that
a LTE 1.4 MHz carrier would provide 200 kbps uplink throughput at the cell edge. ETSI results
indicate that a LTE 1.4 MHz at 900 MHz in railway environment could accommodate UL traffic in the
range 0,3..0,4 Mbit/s20.
n) Table 12 provides a summary of the expected uplink throughput under various network
configurations for an existing GSM-R site. As representative dense area scenario, the region of
Seelze is considered. Seelze is located in the northern part of Germany near Hannover and is an
important turntable for railway traffic. In order to meet today’s traffic demand, four GSM-R
radiofrequency carriers (TRX) are in use for the radio site “Seelze Rbf” in order to support the
capacity requirements for the large shunting yard and train formation area. The envisaged additional
ETCS traffic will require a fifth carrier to be deployed in the 873-876 MHz / 918-921 MHz.

Table 12: Expected uplink throughput

Traffic supported and implementation Uplink throughput

Maximum current data throughput available on a 24×12,2 kbit/s (voice)

DB Netz AG existing GSM-R radio site
+ 6×9,6 kbit/s (data)
4 TRX in the harmonised 2x4 MHz
+ 8 kbit/s (signalling)
Voice applications: train radio, shunting radio,
operational radio; data applications ð ca. 360 kbit/s (net)

Expected maximum data throughput including

evolution to GPRS on modernized GSM-R network 24×12,2 kbit/s (voice)
GPRS system multiplexing gain: up to 4 ETCS + 6×9,6 kbit/s (data )
concurrent sessions
+ 8 kbit/s (signalling)
4 TRX in the harmonised 2x4 MHz and 1 TRX in
+ 4×4 kbit/s ETCS PS-mode
the 2x3 MHz below
+ 4×4,8 kbit/s ETCS CS-mode
GSM-R applications as above + additional ETCS
deployment as planned for dense areas (without ð ca. 400 kbit/s (net)
future services)
Reference:
Estimated data throughput for a LTE 1.4 MHz 200 kbit/s /site (LS Telecom study)
carrier at 900 MHz range and in a railway 300 to 400 kbit/s / site (ETSI TR 103 554 V1.1.1)
environment

It can be concluded that neither today’s traffic nor the traffic demand expected from the continuing ETCS
deployment (combined with GPRS) can be covered by even the most optimistic LTE 1.4 MHz carrier
capacity.

19
Coexistence of GSM-R with other communication systems, final report for ERA (ERA 2015 04 2 SC), 2016, page 119
20
ETSI TR 103 554 V1.1.1 (2018-08) [11]
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 47

A3.4 TRANSITION PERIOD

a) The main coverage spectrum for FRMCS should be in the sub-GHz range.
o) DB Netz AG has designed its GSM-R network in accordance with the EIRENE requirements.
Migrating to a higher frequency band would require acquiring a significant amount of new radio sites.
This will be costly, result in timing uncertainties, legal disputes and might in some cases where tracks
are crossing dense urban areas, even be impossible. Thus, it is essential for DB Netz AG that
FRMCS allows reusing as much as possible existing sites and infrastructure.
p) For the transition period, DB Netz AG will – in particular as Germany is an important transit country –
have to support GSM-R in parallel to FRMCS.
q) DB Netz AG has already announced an early deployment of future services, starting before or during
the transition period e.g. developing of fully automated S-Bahn line in Hamburg. Under the "Digital S-
Bahn Hamburg" project, trains will operate on the future European Automatic Train Operation (ATO)
standard in combination with European Train Control System (ETCS) Level 2 21.
r) According to table 12, two 2x1.4 MHz LTE (or equivalent) or one 3 MHz LTE carrier channel would
be necessary to support the capacity already today supported by GSM-R in dense areas taking
already planned ETCS Level 2 deployments but also capacity gains achievable by GPRS into
account.
s) It is expected that the deployment of future services, such as critical video based automated train
operation, will also in the longer term and in rural areas only be economically viable when using
spectrum below 1 GHz. Even if it is assumed that critical video transmission will initially only apply to
a subset of trains, and that this will be able to adapt to instantaneous connectivity conditions and
gracefully degrade down to data rates around 1 Mbps per train, it is hence obvious that during the
migration period and at least for rural areas 2x7 MHz spectrum below 1 GHz has to be maintained.
t) In dense areas, where the penetration of critical video usage is expected to pick up early in the
migration phase, an additional spectrum of at least 10 MHz at below 2 GHz will be needed.

A3.5 LONG-TERM SITUATION

a) DB Netz AG is in mid- to long-term expecting a continuing significant growth in railway traffic and a
need to increase the train operation efficiency. This trend is strongly promoted by the transport policy
of the German government as well as a growing railway capacity is seen as a significant means to
address several societal challenges as European integration and climate goals.
u) DB Netz AG is expecting future additional services as the automation of train operation as key
enabler to meet these societal requirements. Additional and new RMR services (e.g. critical video
services) will be required to implement these services and applications.
v) In order to be able to smoothly introduce these new RMR services while preserving the support for
existing services within the existing planning and economic framework, it is necessary to reuse the
existing infrastructure and to limit in particular the time consuming and costly acquisition of new radio
sites to the absolute minimum extent possible.
w) Therefore, keeping the 2x7 MHz spectrum below 1 GHz is essential. Future spectrum should be in a
spectrum as close as possible to this spectrum, preferable below 2 GHz.
x) DB Netz AG is committed to support the UIC efforts to identify future services (including their traffic
demand) and the options to implement them. It foresees that only for a part of the future services the
traffic demand can be identified today and that future spectrum demand will become obvious during
the introduction of future services. For the already foreseeable future services an additional 20 MHz
spectrum band below 2 GHz might be sufficient.

21
https://www.railjournal.com/index.php/metros/db-and-siemens-to-develop-fully-automated-s-bahn-line-in-hamburg.html?
channel=532
ECC REPORT 294 - Page 48

y) A need for spectrum in the 40.5-43.5 GHz range is currently not identified. This spectrum band would
not allow to support applications currently supported in the sub 1 GHz or even sub 6 GHz band.

A3.6 IN SUMMARY

Table 13 summarises the spectrum demand and expected solutions.

Table 13: Summary

Demand Supply

Today including already planned ETCS deployments

1 to 4 GSM-R carriers
2x4 MHz GSM-R (or below 1
Main lines (including planned ETCS Level 2 GHz)
deployments)
1 to 4 or more GSM-R carriers
(including planned ETCS Level 2 2x7 MHz GSM-R (or below 1
Dense areas deployments and taking into GHz) already taking GPRS
account ongoing migration of performance gains into account
services still supported by
analogue networks)
During migration period towards FRMCS
2x4 MHz GSM-R (or below 1
Capacity identical as above GHz) + 2x1.4 MHz below
876/921 MHz (or below 1 GHz) +
+ same capacity for FRMCS 10 MHz below 2 GHz
Main lines + additional ETCS Level 2 or
deployments
2x4 MHz GSM-R (or below 1
+ initial deployments of future GHz) + 2x 2x1.4 MHz / 2x3 MHz
services below 876/921 MHz (or below 1
GHz)
2x7 MHz GSM-R (or below 1
Same as above with even more GHz)
Dense areas
future service deployments
+ at least 10 MHz below 2 GHz
Long-term RMR (additional demand might become identified long-term)
Same as above, which needs to
be implemented below 1 GHz Same as above, but minimum of
Main lines
+ significant future service 20 MHz below 2 GHz
deployments
Same as above, which needs to
be implemented below 1 GHz Same as above, but minimum of
Dense areas
+ significant future service 20 MHz below 2 GHz
deployments
 ECC REPORT 294 - Page 49

ANNEX 4: LIST OF REFERENCES

[1] Directive 2016/797/EU on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union
[2] Directive 2008/57/EC on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community
[3] Directive 2014/53/EU on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making
available on the market of radio equipment and repealing Directive 1999/5/EC
[4] Commission Regulation 2016/919/EU on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the
‘control-command and signalling’ subsystems of the rail system in the European Union
[5] EIRENE FRS v8.0.0: “Functional Requirements Specification”
[6] EIRENE SRS v16.0.0: “System Requirements Specification”
[7] Mandate to CEPT on spectrum for the future railway mobile communications system, RSCOM18-05
rev.3 Final
[8] Commission Decision 1999/569/EC on the basic parameters for the command-and-control and
signalling subsystem relating to the trans-European high-speed rail system
[9] ECC Decision (02)05: “The designation and availability of frequency bands for railway purposes in the
876-880 MHz and 921-925 MHz bands”
[10] FW-ATwG 1903 v2.2.0 / FM56(18)065: “FRMCS Traffic Analysis”
[11] ETSI TR 103 554: “LTE radio performance simulations and evaluations in rail environment”
[12] FRMCS User Requirement Specifications, UIC, v3.0
[13] BEREC and RSPG joint report on Facilitating mobile connectivity in “challenge areas”, BoR (17) 256 /
RSPG18-001
[14] Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a single European
railway area
[15] Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1538 of 11 October 2018 on the harmonisation of radio
spectrum for use by short range devices within the 874-876 and 915-921 MHz frequency bands (OJ
L257, 15 Oct. 2018, p. 57)
[16] Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory
framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision)
[17] Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2017/1474 of 8 June 2017 supplementing Directive (EU)
2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to specific objectives for the
drafting, adoption and review of technical specifications for interoperability
[18] Commission Decision 2009/766/EC of 16 October 2009 on the harmonisation of the 900 MHz and 1800
MHz frequency bands for terrestrial systems capable of providing pan-European electronic
communications services in the Community (OJ L274, 20 October 2009, p. 32)
[19] Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/637 of 20 April 2018 amending Decision 2009/766/EC
on the harmonisation of the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz frequency bands for terrestrial systems capable of
providing pan-European electronic communications services in the Community as regards relevant
technical conditions for the Internet of Things (OJ L105, 25 April 2018, p. 27).