WORKING DOCUMENT – FM54 #1
Editorially amended by ECO 2 July 2014
ECC Report <No>
Guidance for improving coexistence between GSM-R and
MFCN
Month YYYY
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 2
0
tbc
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 2
1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 6
2
DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Blocking level..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Intermodulation .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Out-of-band emissions ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Standard and realistic signals ........................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Standard and improved GSM-R receivers ........................................................................................ 8
3
RAILWAY GENERAL PRINCIPLES .......................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Definition of railway interoperability ................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Legal framework .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.2.1.1 Train authorization framework ............................................................................... 10
3.2.1.2 Radio Equipment Directive (RED or RE Directive) ............................................... 11
3.3 Eirene RaDIO REQUIREMENTs..................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Critical zones and cases for GSM-R ............................................................................................... 12
4
GSM-R VS. MFCN TESTS RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Lab tests in Munich ......................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.1 Results for the receiver Rx2 .................................................................................................. 15
4.1.2 Results for the receiver Rx1 .................................................................................................. 15
4.2 Field tests in the UK ........................................................................................................................ 16
4.3 Discussion on MFCN unwanted emissions ..................................................................................... 17
4.3.1 View of the railways ............................................................................................................... 17
4.3.2 View of the MFCN operators ................................................................................................. 18
5
WAY FORWARD ...................................................................................................................................... 19
5.1 Way forward and transition to a European wide implementation of the improved receivers .......... 19
5.1.1 Considerations on the radio environment for the improved GSM-R receivers ...................... 19
5.1.2 Implementation, investment and cost aspects ...................................................................... 19
5.2 Way forward on MFCN out-of-band emissions ............................................................................... 20
6
GENERIC PROCESSES .......................................................................................................................... 21
6.1 Principles for a coordination process .............................................................................................. 21
6.2 Site planning .................................................................................................................................... 23
6.3 Site coordination .............................................................................................................................. 24
6.4 Interference resolution ..................................................................................................................... 25
7
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 26
ANNEX 1: DESCRIPTION OF NATIONAL COORDINATION PROCEDURES TO IMPROVE THE
COEXISTENCE BETWEEN MFCN AND GSM-R .......................................................................................... 27
ANNEX 2: DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL NATIONAL MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE COEXISTENCE
BETWEEN MFCN AND GSM-R ..................................................................................................................... 31
ANNEX 3: ECO’S EXAMPLE OF COORDINATION PROCESS ................................................................... 32
ANNEX 4: LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 34
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation
3GPP
BNetzA
BS
CCS
CEPT
ECC
Explanation
EDGE
EDOR
E-GSM
EIRENE
e.i.r.p.
ERA
Enhanced Data rates for Global Evolution
ETCS Data Only Radio
Extended GSM
European Integrated Railway Radio Enhanced Network
equivalent isotropically radiated power
European Railway Agency
ERM
ERTMS
ETCS
ETSI
E-UTRA
GFUG
Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters
European Rail Traffic Management System
European Train Control System
European Telecommunications Standards Institute
Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
GSM-R Follow Up Group
GSM
GSMA
GSM-R
IC
IM
LTE
MFCN
Global System for Mobile communications
GSM Association
GSM for Railway
Interoperability Constituent
Intermodulation
Long Term Evolution
Mobile/Fixed Communications Networks
MI
NoBo
NPT
NRA
NSA
OOB
Mandatory for Interoperability
Notified Body
Norwegian Post and Telecommunications
National Regulatory Authority
National Safety Authority
Out-Of-Band
PLMN
RED
RT
SRS
TC
TR
Public Land Mobile Network
Radio Equipment Directive
Railway Telecommunications
System Requirements Specification
Technical Committee
Technical Report
TS
TSI
UE
UIC
Technical Specification
Technical Specification for Interoperability
User Equipment
Union Internationale des Chemins de fer
3rd Generation Partner Project
Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency, Germany)
Base Station
Control-Command and Signalling
European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations
Electronic Communications Committee
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 5
UMTS
UTRA
WGFM
Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
Working Group Frequency Management (part of the ECC)
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 6
1
INTRODUCTION
[Editor’s note: start by explaining how the discussions on GSM-R resumed and by noting that both GSM-R
and MFCN licensees use the radio spectrum in compliance with the relevant European and national
regulations.]
This ECC Report provides the results of the measurements campaign held in Munich in 2013 to understand
the behaviour of GSM-R terminals in front of GSM, UMTS and LTE adjacent signals, and some guidance to
GSM-R licensees and public mobile licensees at 900 MHz, as well as to administrations, for a more
systematic approach in their dialog. Its aim is ensuring a better coexistence between GSM-R and public
mobile networks.
The purpose of this ECC Report is not to list the possible technical solutions, but rather to define options for
a generic and open framework for the discussions between GSM-R and public mobile licensees. This ECC
Report complements ECC Report 162 [1].
tbc
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 7
2
2.1
DEFINITIONS
BLOCKING LEVEL
For a given received power from the wanted signal, the blocking level is defined as the maximum emission
level that can be accepted by the receiver from an off-channel unwanted signal without preventing the
processing of this wanted signal.
blocking level
victim
interferer
Figure 1: Illustration of the blocking level
2.2
INTERMODULATION
Intermodulation phenomenon comes from non-linearity of the amplifier in the receiving chain. Two signals of
frequencies 2.f1 - f2 and 2.f2 - f1 may appear in the receiver: these are intermodulation products.
Figure 2: Generation of intermodulation products
The receiver, listening to a channel whose frequency is f 0, is interfered by intermodulation products when the
following conditions are met:


2.3
f0 = 2.f1 - f2 or f0 = 2.f2 - f1
the strength of the signals f1 and f2 is above a given threshold
OUT-OF-BAND EMISSIONS
Out-of-band emissions are defined in ETSI TS 137 104 [14], section 6.6, as follows:
“Out-of-band emissions are unwanted emissions immediately outside the channel bandwidth resulting from
the modulation process and non-linearity in the transmitter but excluding spurious emissions. […]
The out-of-band emissions requirement for the BS transmitter is specified in terms of an Operating band
unwanted emissions requirement that defines limits for emissions in each supported downlink operating band
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 8
plus the frequency ranges 10 MHz above and 10 MHz below each band. Emissions outside of this frequency
range are limited by a spurious emissions requirement.”
2.4
STANDARD AND REALISTIC SIGNALS
Standard signal designates a signal compliant with the spectrum emission mask defined in ETSI
specifications.
Realistic signal designates a signal whose spectrum emission mask is derived from real base stations
currently in use, as provided by BNetzA for GSM and by GSMA for UMTS/LTE, and where the unwanted
emission suppression is better than the corresponding standard.
2.5
STANDARD AND IMPROVED GSM-R RECEIVERS
Standard GSM-R receiver designates a GSM-R terminal that represents those currently in use on-board
locomotives. They are compliant with ETSI EN 301 515 [8].
An improved GSM-R receiver can be either an improved radio module or an existing one combined with an
external filter installed between the roof top antenna and the antenna connector of the cab radio. In both
cases such an improved GSM-R receiver shall provide the same performance as defined in ETSI TS
102 933-1 v1.3.1 [11].
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 9
3
3.1
RAILWAY GENERAL PRINCIPLES
DEFINITION OF RAILWAY INTEROPERABILITY
“Interoperability1 is defined as the capability to operate on any stretch of the rail network without any
difference. In other words, the focus is on making the different technical systems on the EU's railways work
together.
Today, the competitiveness of the railways is curbed by the differences between 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 the 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.”
In the Directive 2008/57/EC [17], on the interoperability of the railway system with 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 for these lines. This ability depends on all
the regulatory, technical and operational conditions which must be met in order to satisfy the
essential requirements;
The technical details required for railway interoperability are included in the Technical Specification for
Interoperability. The definition, also in Article 2 of the Directive explains its content:
‘technical specification for interoperability’ (TSI) means a specification adopted in accordance with
this Directive by which each subsystem or part subsystem is covered in order to meet the essential
requirements and ensure the interoperability of the rail system;
The so called “essential requirements” are listed in the TSI:
‘essential requirements’ means all the conditions set out in Annex III of the directive 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, let’s consider the requirements set up for the radio communication system to be
used by railways. In the Control-Command and Signalling (CCS) TSI (Decision 2012/88/EU [20]), 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 TSI, are:



1
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.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport/rail_transport/l24015_en.htm
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 10
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.
The radiocommunication system to be used is GSM-R. This is indicated in the basic parameters included in
the CCS TSI, section 4. The air interface is also characterized and it is specifically mentioned that the
interfaces shall operate in the R-GSM band as specified in EIRENE SRS, version 15.4.0, section 3.5 (see
table 3-A in 3.5.1) [7].
Extract from EIRENE SRS, version 15.4.0, section 3.5 [7]:
“3.5.1 For applications of EIRENE Systems which are relevant to interoperability of the rail system within
the European Community, in particular according to the Directive 2008/57/EC, the network shall operate in a
sub-band, or combination of sub-bands, of the R-GSM band as defined in [EN 301 515, Index [35]] according
to the table 3-A below: (I)
R-GSM band
Sub-bands
Frequencies (MHz)
UIC frequency band
876-880 / 921-925
(MI)
Extended GSM (E-GSM) band
880-915 / 925-960
(M)
Primary GSM (P-GSM) band
890-915 / 935-960
(M)
Table 3-A
3.5.2 The UIC frequency band for GSM-R is defined in [CEPT T/R 25-092], [1999/569/EC] and
[ECC/DEC/(02)05]: (I)
876 – 880 MHz (mobile station transmit); paired with
921 – 925 MHz (base station transmit).”


The requirements in EIRENE FRS and SRS that are classified as (MI) are mandated by the CCS TSI.
Therefore, for the basic parameter related to the air interface, the CCS TSI mandates that the subsystems
are able to work in the band 876-880 MHz paired with the band 921-925 MHz, but there is no restriction to
use other bands, adjacent to this one. This is considered the band related to the railway interoperability, in
the meaning given by the Interoperability Directive (2008/57/EC) [17].
3.2
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
3.2.1.1
Train authorization framework
The Interoperability Directive (2008/57/EC [17]) describes the steps required in order to get the authorization
for placing in service of the railway subsystems.
In the Control-Command and Signalling TSI (Decision 2012/88/EU [20]), 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 authorize the placing in service of the subsystems to operate in its territory.
For this, the National Safety Authority (NSA) considers the EC declaration of Verification (based on a
certificate issued by a Notified Body) presented for the application of the authorization, to ensure the
compliancy to the corresponding TSI, the integration with the infrastructure and the compliancy to additional
national rules (if applicable).
2
withdrawn
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 11
When a train (on-board subsystem) has been authorized and it is modified, the Member State shall receive a
description of the modifications performed (Article 20). The Member State shall examine this file, and, taking
into account 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 TSIs need to be applied to the project.
This decision has to be taken no later than 4 months after the submission of the complete file to the NSA.
When a modification to a subsystem is performed, the NoBo 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 (IC) (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 as requested by the corresponding
TSI. When the IC is also subject to other regulation (such as the Radio Equipment Directive), the certificate
issued shall contain the compliancy to the requirements set in other Directives.
When an IC already placed on the market is modified, this modification has to be communicated to the
assessment body (NoBo, 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 [17]; there is no
indication on the length of all the processes. For the authorisation of placing in service of vehicles (art 23.7):
All applications for an authorisation to place in service submitted in accordance with this Article shall be the
subject of a decision by the national safety authority, to be taken as soon as possible and not later than:
a. two months after submission of the file referred to in paragraph 3;
b. where applicable, one month after provision of any additional information requested by the national
safety authority;
c.
3.2.1.2
where applicable, one month after provision of the results of any tests requested by the national
safety authority.
Radio Equipment Directive (RED or RE Directive)
GSM-R equipment falls under the scope of the Radio Equipment Directive (RE Directive) 2014/53/EU [18].
Under the RE Directive, providers/manufacturers of radio equipment have to provide a declaration of
conformity that also includes the information about the intended use and usage restrictions in relation to the
radio equipment. The RE Directive applies according to the considering (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.’
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 RE Directive. These
elements only make a declaration of conformity invalid when they would lead to the creation of harmful
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 12
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 in the GSM-R receiving chain, this has no impact
on the conformity declaration. [Editor’s note: define passive filters]
Active elements …
3.3
EIRENE RADIO REQUIREMENTS
The minimum GSM-R coverage levels are defined in the EIRENE SRS 15.4.0 [7] section 3.2 as follows:
“3.2.1 For network planning, the coverage level is defined as the field strength at the antenna on the roof of
a train (nominally a height of 4m above the track). An isotropic antenna with a gain of 0dBi is assumed. This
criterion will be met with a certain probability in the coverage area. (The target coverage power level is
dependent on the statistical fluctuations caused by the actual propagation conditions.) (I)
3.2.2


coverage probability of 95%3 based on a coverage level of 38.5 dBµV/m (-98 dBm) for voice and nonsafety critical data;
coverage probability of 95% based on a coverage level of 41.5 dBµV/m (-95 dBm) on lines with ETCS
levels 2/3 for speeds lower than or equal to 220km/h.
3.2.3


The following minimum values shall apply: (MI)
The following minimum values shall apply: (MI)
coverage probability of 95% based on a coverage level of 44.5 dBµV/m (-92 dBm) on lines with ETCS
levels 2/3 for speeds above 280km/h;
coverage probability of 95% based on a coverage level between 41.5 dBµV/m and 44.5 dBµV/m (-95
dBm and - 92 dBm) on lines with ETCS levels 2/3 for speeds above 220km/h and lower than or
equal to 280km/h.
3.2.4 The EIRENE mobile installation shall be designed to operate in a network meeting the criteria in
3.2.2 and 3.2.3. (MI)
3.2.5 The specified coverage probability means that with a probability value of at least 95% in each
location interval (length: 100m) the measured coverage level shall be greater than or equal to the figures
stated above. The coverage levels specified above consider a maximum loss of 3 dB between antenna
and receiver and an additional margin of 3 dB for other factors such as ageing. (I)”
3.4
CRITICAL ZONES AND CASES FOR GSM-R
This section deals with locations and cases where and when special attention may be given in the
cooperation processes, if agreed by all stakeholders at national level.
Where trains may stop:




Railway stations
Light signals (often close to switches)
Long bridges and tunnels (where a new GSM-R BS cannot be installed)
Shunting yards within metropolitan areas
When trains encounter a dangerous situation:



3
They cannot leave or keep on running
They go through an interference zone over a too long distance or over a too long period
ETCS communication is interrupted
The 95% minimum coverage probability requirement may be related to a 50% value by use of a correction factor. However that
correction factor depends on the actual propagation, fading and terrain aspects; it typically varies between ca 10 and 13dB.
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 13
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 14
4
4.1
GSM-R VS. MFCN TESTS RESULTS
LAB TESTS IN MUNICH
Two test campaigns were performed in the laboratories of the Monitoring Station Munich of the Federal
Network Agency, Germany (BNetzA): the first one between 19 and 23 August 2013, the second one on 31 st
October 2013. Both UIC and GSM Association participated. The two reports are referenced CG-GSMR(13)24 [2] and CG-GSM-R(13)24-Annex 6 [3].
The interfering effects from MFCN transmitters (unwanted emissions inside the GSM-R band) as well as
from GSM-R receivers (blocking and receiver intermodulation) were measured separately. The results allow
determination of the transition between transmitter and receiver effects to certain extend which may help to
develop solutions in order to improve the situation, especially when UMTS and LTE are introduced in the
band above 925 MHz in the future.
To assess the possible improvements enabled by internal filtering, a GSM-R receiver with a built-in filter,
called hereafter receiver Rx15, was measured in addition to a receiver currently used by the railway
operators, called hereafter receiver Rx26, which fulfils the requirements of ETSI EN 301 515 [8]. The two
receivers were from two different vendors.
These two GSM-R receivers were tested in front of GSM, UMTS and LTE signals, both standard and
realistic. Standard signals are based on 3GPP/ETSI spectrum emission masks; realistic signals are based on
spectrum emission masks from products currently rolled out. The latter has lower unwanted emissions than
the former.
25,0
15,0
dBm/30kHz
5,0
-5,0
-15,0
-25,0
-35,0
-45,0
-15 000
-10 000
-5 000
standard
0
5 000
10 000
15 000
realistic
Figure 3: UMTS/LTE emission masks, at antenna connector
5
6
Rx1 defines an enhanced GSM-R radio module compared to Rx2, but not yet fully compliant with ETSI TS 102 933-1 v1.3.1 [11]
Rx2 reflects the currently used GSM-R receivers, fully compliant with ETSI EN 301 515 [8]
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 15
The main results of these measurement campaigns can be summarized as follows:





The GSM-R receiver Rx2 generates intermodulation products. It is UMTS/LTE intra-signal
intermodulation and inter-signal intermodulation with also GSM;
When interfered, the whole GSM-R frequency range is affected;
UMTS, LTE/5MHz and LTE/10MHz have the same interference potential;
The GSM-R receiver Rx1 is mainly affected by unwanted emissions;
Both receivers show a co-channel C/I of 6 dB.
4.1.1
Results for the receiver Rx2
The receiver Rx2 is affected by intermodulation:
Table 1: Intermodulation thresholds for the receiver Rx2,
given for a GSM-R signal level of -98 dBm
Carrier frequency
separation
Intermodulation threshold
for the receiver Rx2
2,8 MHz
-40 dBm
6,4 MHz and further
-33 dBm
and then increase of 1 dB/2,5MHz of
additional carrier frequency separation
Intermodulation threshold in front of 2 GSM carriers: -41 dBm. The intermodulation threshold increases by 1
dB when the wanted GSM-R signal level increases by 3 dB (typical of IM3). Effect of unwanted emissions
cannot be seen since intermodulation is the dominant phenomenon.
4.1.2
Results for the receiver Rx1
The receiver Rx1 (with built-in filter) is more robust to adjacent wanted emissions but still may be affected by
a UMTS/LTE signal located in the first 5 MHz of the E-GSM band:
Table 2: Effect on the receiver Rx1 facing a realistic UMTS/LTE signal
WB frequency
block
1st 5 MHz block
(925-930 MHz)
2nd
5 MHz block
and beyond
GSM-R signal level
CGSM-R < -83 dBm
Note 1
Effect on the receiver Rx1
Unwanted emissions: C/I =6dB
Protection ratio of -59 dB
CGSM-R ≥ -83 dBm Note 1
Intermodulation: -24 dBm
any
Unwanted emissions: C/I = 6 dB
Protection ratio of -63 dB
Note 2
Note 1: The transition point where the dominant phenomenon becomes intermodulation instead of unwanted emissions is around -52
dBm when facing a standard UMTS/LTE signal. This is in line with the standard spectrum emission mask that shows higher out-ofband emissions than the realistic one.
Note 2: To be compared with -35 dBm for the receiver Rx2. Generally the tolerable wideband signal level for the receiver Rx1 is at least
10 dB higher than for the receiver Rx2.
The intermodulation threshold increases by 1 dB when the wanted GSM-R signal level increases by 3 dB
(typical of IM3).
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 16
Rx selectivity
0 dB
-10 dB
Rx1 (improved) at 924.8 MHz
-20 dB
Rx2 (standard) at 924.8 MHz
-30 dB
-40 dB
-50 dB
-60 dB
-70 dB
-80 dB
-90 dB
-100 dB
-110 dB
-4000 kHz
-3000 kHz
-2000 kHz
-1000 kHz
0 kHz
1000 kHz
2000 kHz
3000 kHz
4000 kHz
Figure 4: Rx1 receiver’s filtering capability of the public 900 MHz band
Wanted signal level (dBm)
Protection ratio (dB)
-110
-35
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
UMTS
LTE
GSM-R at 924,8 MHz – UMTS and LTE at 927,6 MHz
Figure 5: Rx1 receiver behaviour, comparison between UMTS and LTE realistic signals
4.2
FIELD TESTS IN THE UK
The UIC Frequency Management Group executed in July 2013 together with three GSM-R mobile radio
suppliers and hosted by Network Rail UK a field test. The field test was conducted at five different locations
in the greater London area. The London area was chosen because Network Rail is facing an increasing
number of interferences since the Olympics in 2012 when the mobile operators switched to UMTS 900. All
visited sites were identified by Network Rail due to failure reports provided by train drivers and can be seen
as severe interference environment where public mobile networks were transmitting in close vicinity to the
railway tracks.
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 17
The aim of these field tests was to identify the capabilities of radio modules to resist to external interferences
and the improvements that can be achieved on the GSM-R terminal side. During the activities no external
filter or filtering function was tested.
The results clearly showed the improvements achieved by the radio module vendors. These results could be
achieved by the use of a build-in filter function which consequently prevents the creation of IM3 products
inside the GSM-R RF-frontend and the improvement of the gain control inside the receiver chain.
Detailed information can be found in UIC Report O-8740 [6].
4.3
4.3.1
DISCUSSION ON MFCN UNWANTED EMISSIONS
View of the railways
[UIC: Calculations to be reviewed]
Although this report focuses on handling of strong signals, once this interference aspect has been solved,
still interferences due to OOB emissions may exist. Note that with any improved receiver solution, OOB
emissions could become the dominating issue for GSM-R networks at low GSM-R signal levels. Therefore it
is important to address OOB emissions in this report, and identify means how to avoid interferences due to
these.
The EIRENE minimum coverage level (-98 dBm) is based on the situation where there are no external noise
sources such as OOB emissions. This EIRENE minimum coverage includes 3 dB margins for cable loss,
plus 3 dB margins for other effects, e.g. aging, and additional losses for splitters or filters.
To calculate the maximum allowable level of OOB emissions, the noise floor of the GSM-R radio has to be
taken as a reference. Thermal noise level at 200 kHz bandwidth is -121 dBm, and if the noise figure of a cab
radio is 8 dB, then the noise floor of the receiver is -113 dBm. The OOB emissions add to this receiver noise
floor, and if the negative effect (desensitization) of this is wanted to be not more than 1 dB, then the
maximum OOB emission at the train antenna is maximum -113 dBm. [or -107 dBm ?]
Telefonica remark: The value of -113dBm/200kHz for the OOBE can possibly not be fulfilled by the MFCN
with standard filters (especially in the adjacent case) and will be hard to implement with specific filters in any
case. Therefore it has to be checked, what kind of mitigation techniques can be applied additionally. As the
(existing) GSM-R CAB-terminals are based on relaxed immunity criteria, it should be considered to also
adjust those requirements to find a reasonable level for both sides - according work is underway (within
ETSI??). Another option would be to request (financial) participation at according filtering systems in the
those cases, where GSM-R needs additional protection of interference. Further investigation is necessary.
It should be noted that in these calculations only the effects of OOB emissions on the required C/I have been
included. In real networks the total external interference power, cumulative over all contributors (such as
multiple PLMNs, co-channel and adjacent channel signals) has to be taken into account This will result in
maximum OOB emission levels having to be lower than shown in these calculations.
An alternative approach to demonstrate this issue is to calculate the maximum allowable PLMN carrier power
level at the railway tracks, based on e.g. the EIRENE -98 dBm minimum coverage and the BNetzA data
[2][3] for the so-called realistic levels of OOB emissions relative to the PLMN carrier power.
This results in the following table:
[Values in the table in doc. CG-GSM-R(14)006 (UIC Report) [5] to be checked]
This table clearly shows that the “realistic” level of the OOB emissions is too high to be used with the -98dBm
EIRENE minimum coverage level at any realistic and useful UMTS / LTE carrier level. Even for stronger
GSM-R levels the OOB emissions are too high. As a consequence, the maximum OOB emissions of a
UMTS or LTE carrier need to be reduced.
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 18
The above table clearly demonstrates that, in addition to improving the GSM-R receivers in order to enable
handling of strong signals, also measures are necessary on the PLMN networks to define and handle the
levels of OOB emissions.
There are two technical possibilities to reduce the interference effects of OOB emissions. Either the level of
OOB emissions has to be reduced (e.g. by using filters) in the PLMN base stations, or the wanted GSM-R
signal level has to be increased. For each case an operational and economic evaluation of all impacts is
necessary. In situations where a PLMN base station is far enough from a railway track there might be no
need for mitigation measures. In practice however, public operators will want to use their base stations close
to railway tracks and then this OOB emissions issue has to be considered very carefully.
The results shown above can also be related as an example to the current Swedish situation. Note that the
Swedish network is designed for a signal level higher than the EIRENE minimum requirement. A public
mobile operator is allowed by the Swedish regulator to create a signal level of -5 dBm / 5MHz within
925-930 MHz, measured at a 0 dBi train antenna at the railway track. It is also allowed for that operator to
cause -95 dBm / 200 kHz OOB emission in the GSM-R band. If the composite effect for other 900 MHz
Swedish operators is not taken into account, we can derive that with 9 dB C/I the minimum level at the
antenna for the wanted GSM-R carrier in this case is -86 dBm.
Vice versa, when starting at the allowed -5dBm / 5 MHz carrier level at the railway track, in order to achieve
the -95dBm /200kHz OOB emission level, the OOB emissions must be 90dB below the UMTS carrier,
measured over its nominal bandwidth. The BNetzA reports [2][3] have shown that for the so called realistic
OOB emission levels, the difference between OOB emissions seen in a 200 kHz bandwidth and the
UMTS/LTE carrier is about 65 dB for a UMTS carrier at 927.6 MHz This implies that the Swedish limits can
only be achieved if the UMTS base station applies an extra attenuation of the OOB emissions of ca. 25 dB.
This annex demonstrates that there is a strong need for a clear definition of OOB emission levels versus
GSM-R levels; essentially some balance between these parameters needs to be defined.
It is the UIC’s view that, in order to maintain the EIRENE defined minimum GSM-R coverage level, the
allowed level of OOB emissions needs to be handled by harmonised EU or national regulatory actions, for
example by defining an adequate relation between OOB emissions that the PLMNs may create at railway
tracks, and GSM-R levels. Note that Sweden and Finland already have defined specific maxim values for
this, as listed in Table 1.]
This report demonstrates that current, so-called “realistic levels” [2][3] of OOB emissions would either block
the use of the EIRENE minimum required coverage level (-98 dBm), or would impose severe limitations on
either the UMTS / LTE carrier power in the 925-930 MHz frequency range, or on the proximity of PLMN
transmitters to the railway tracks. Both are probably not acceptable to PLMNs. It should be noted that current
3GPP defined maximum OOB emission levels are even higher than these “realistic levels”, thus potentially
creating even more interferences on GSM-R.
As interferences due to OOB emissions can only to a very limited extend be mitigated by measures on the
GSM-R network side, the UIC assumes that such interferences will be handled by harmonised EU and
national regulatory actions, for example by defining an adequate relation between OOB emission levels that
the PLMNs may create at railway tracks, and GSM-R levels.
UIC notes that, in order to ensure railway interoperability across Europe, harmonised levels for handling
strong signals as well as the mitigation of OOB emissions are necessary. Interoperability in this context
means that GSM-R radios in trains continue their correct functioning when crossing international borders,
without any hardware or software changes.
4.3.2
View of the MFCN operators
[Vincent]
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 19
5
WAY FORWARD
5.1
WAY FORWARD AND TRANSITION TO A EUROPEAN WIDE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
IMPROVED RECEIVERS
5.1.1
Considerations on the radio environment for the improved GSM-R receivers
In order to successfully mitigate interferences due to blocking and intermodulation, the GSM-R radios need
to be improved with respect to the receiver characteristics as defined in ETSI EN 301 515 [8] or ETSI TS
102 933 v1.2.1 [10]). GSM-R receivers have to be able to operate in the RF environment described below to
ensure full interoperability across all European GSM-R networks.
All GSM-R radios must function as specified when subject to the following, estimated MFCN signal levels,
measured at the train antenna7:

-10 dBm for any 5 MHz within 925-960 MHz (this level may be caused by several Broadband MFCN
base stations)8.
This assumes a level of -98 dBm as the minimum 95% coverage level required by the CCS TSI (Decision
2012/696/EU) [19] / EIRENE SRS [7] (see section 3.3).
The level of -10 dBm should provide sufficient mitigation against intermodulation and blocking due to strong
broadband MFCN signals. This also takes into account future MFCN system developments as currently
foreseen.
It is expected that the above stated level ensures full interoperability for trains within Europe. Any national
deviations need to ensure that interoperability is maintained.
As a certain period of time is needed to implement GSM-R radios with improved performance in all trains
within Europe, a transition period should be defined in which additional mitigation measures are required to
avoid GSM-R interferences, such as coordination between MFCN and GSM-R operators. The acceptable
levels for current GSM-R receivers are given in Table 1 in section 4.1.1 (result of measurements).
5.1.2
Implementation, investment and cost aspects
According to latest information in March 2013, collected by ETSI TC RT in ETSI TR 103 134 [16], GSM-R
(voice and data bearer) is deployed and covers around 68 000 km of tracks in Europe and this approximate
figure is confirmed by the answers received in response to the WG FM questionnaire in 2013 [4]. In Europe,
where the total railway network taken into account is 221 025 km, GSM-R coverage was planned for 149 673
km according to ETSI TR 102 627 [15], published in 11/2008, which also explains that in September 2007
the network comprised 60 507 km equipped with GSM-R infrastructure, of which 40 918 km were in
operation by that date.
In quantitative terms, the number of interference cases into GSM-R from MFCN should decrease in Europe
after proper coordination processes have been established. It is rather likely that the number of unresolved
cases will drop down in the future since more cases get resolved. This seems to be an important aspect
regarding a sustainable solution in terms of cost-benefit since changes at the GSM-R terminal such as
incorporation of a filter at locomotives (in front of cab radios) or exchange of radio modules are expensive.
According to ERA and UIC information:


7
incorporation of a switchable external filter is estimated around 2 000 Euros, excluding costs for
engineering, re-certification, installation and related immobilisation of trains;
an improved GSM-R radio module is estimated to be in the range 1 500 - 2 000 Euros, with up to 3 radio
modules that may be needed on-board a locomotive (2 for ETCS and 1 for voice);
This assumes a 0 dBi train antenna at 4 m height.
This level (-10 dBm) should be understood as a total average power measured over a 5 MHz bandwidth (further details see ETSI TS
102 933-2 v1.2.1 [11]).
8
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 20

a complete exchange of the cab radio and related installation in the locomotive is more expensive. The
number of trains in Europe equipped with GSM-R technology is estimated around 50 000 trains in 2013.
[value to be clarified – Robert]
A base scenario that arises from a European wide implementation of the improved GSM-R receivers is
therefore a minimum investment of 50 000 trains x 2 improved receivers (improved radio module or external
filtering) x 2 000 Euros equalling about 200 million Euros over the following years as seen over Europe.
This is seen as the only sustainable solution able to face changes in the E-GSM band (which could lead to
new interference cases if no improved receivers are implemented) and resolve undetected interference
locations. This observation is backed by measurements in the United Kingdom and the experience that the
number of interference cases increased after switching from GSM to UMTS 900 in the United Kingdom
before the Olympic Games in 2012.
It is assumed that improved cab radio / EDOR receivers will be used in the future after an appropriate
transition period. Other elements as described in this report are necessary in order to secure this investment
and avoid deterioration of the co-existence between GSM-R and MFCN due to further technical
developments.
5.2
WAY FORWARD ON MFCN OUT-OF-BAND EMISSIONS
In addition to mitigating interferences due to strong in-band emissions from the E-GSM band, interferences
due to out-of-band (OOB) emissions have to be resolved in order to allow full coexistence between GSM-R
and MFCN using UMTS/LTE.
tbc
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 21
6
GENERIC PROCESSES
Each MFCN licensee should provide a point of contact to the GSM-R licensee and vice-versa. The following
sub-sections describe typical processes that can be adapted to each national situation. Regarding site
coordination, a national process may already exist (such as in Norway or Germany), therefore all the needs
should be consolidated in one single process: under no circumstances there can be two parallel cooperation
processes.
When a formal cooperation procedure is not yet defined but desired, discussions between GSM-R and
MFCN mobile licensees should be held. In case of no agreement is reached between the stakeholders when
defining the process or when applying it, the national spectrum regulator may act as an arbitrator. Measures
applied by the regulator may be limited by the conditions given by the rights of use already in force.
However, future licences or licence variations may also address this aspect. Modifications to existing rights
of use mustn’t drastically change the business model of the band: some stability must be ensured to let a
peaceful use of the spectrum.
These processes apply to both GSM and broadband radio technologies, such as UMTS and LTE. They can
be used during the transition period to avoid/mitigate interference cases related to intermodulation or
blocking, as well as once GSM-R improved receivers are rolled out to prevent interference from MFCN OOB
emissions.
Possible technical measures to address interference cases between GSM-R and MFCN networks are
provided in ECC Report 162 [1].
6.1
PRINCIPLES FOR A COORDINATION PROCESS
It is believed that the coordination process will be a national decision. Many different options are expected,
taking into account national needs and available materials. The following figures provide a very generic
process that is further detailed in the following sections.
 timeline previously agreed by all stakeholders 
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 22
Figure 6: Generic coordination process as example
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 23
Figure 7: Parameters that could be considered
Legend:
Other examples are provided in Annex 1 and in Annex 3.
6.2
SITE PLANNING
When planning a new site or updating its frequency plan, the GSM-R operator should take into account the
surrounding existing sites of the MFCN operators. To do so, the characteristics of these sites should be
made available:





exact location;
antenna height;
azimuths;
frequencies of the carriers;
e.i.r.p. per carrier.
Several possibilities exist to get this information. For instance, the GSM-R operator may request it to the
MFCN operators when planning a new area; or the GSM-R operator may get it from the national spectrum
regulator who consolidates this information when each MFCN operator registers a new base station. Some
national spectrum regulators may not be in a position to provide this information due to unavailability or
confidentiality.
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 24
In order to preserve the confidentiality of the rollout of each MFCN operator, some non-disclosure agreement
between the involved parties may be necessary.
Similarly, when planning a new site or the rollout of a new technology, the MFCN operator may as well
decide to take into account the surrounding GSM-R existing sites. To do so, the characteristics of these sites
should be made available:




exact location;
azimuths;
frequencies of the carriers;
handover zones along the rail tracks.
Stakeholders may wish to go on with a site coordination process: see the next section.
6.3
SITE COORDINATION
The GSM-R operator may be notified when a new MFCN site is planned or when a new technology such as
UMTS or LTE is about to be switched on close to the rail tracks. A set of criteria that triggers this notification
should be agreed between GSM-R and MFCN operators.
Here are some possible criteria among others:



Distance from rail tracks9;
UMTS900/LTE900 antenna in line-of-sight of the tracks;
Tracks located in a critical zone for GSM-R.
The volume of MFCN BS to be coordinated must remain low otherwise the ability to rollout could be
jeopardized. So the criteria and their values must be selected very carefully.
The GSM-R operator is the best placed to take into account the density of MFCN sites close to the rail tracks
(and potentially belonging to different operators) and then to assess the risk on its own network. As an
alternative, the national spectrum regulator could perform this analysis. How to evaluate the interference
likelihood should also be agreed by all involved parties.
If a risk is identified, the GSM-R operator may request the MFCN operator(s) to discuss possible technical
and/or operational solutions that could be applied on both sides 10. In case no conclusion can be found, the
national spectrum regulator may have the possibility to apply an appropriate measure.
A timeline should also be agreed between all stakeholders, e.g.:



the notification should be sent X days prior the switch on;
the GSM-R operator has Y days to identify a risk;
discussions between GSM-R and MFCN operators should start Z1 days after a risk is notified to the
MFCN operator(s) and should end Z2 days after;
etc.

It should also be considered that, if a high number of new base stations for the public mobile networks are to
be coordinated within a rather short time frame, it might be difficult for the railway side to react in time.
Therefore, from railways point of view, a sufficient time period should be provided for the coordination. On
the other hand, from the public mobile operators point of view, the roll-out of the network should not be
hampered.
9
The value of this parameter depends on the minimum or planned coverage level selected by the GSM-R operator.
In some cases, the GSM-R operator may prefer to act alone without involving the MFCN operator(s).
10
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 25
Table 3: Resulting distance between MFCN BS and railway tracks
GSM-R
signal level
Intermodulation
threshold
-98 dBm
-40 dBm
-95 dBm
-39 dBm
-86 dBm
-36 dBm
-83 dBm
-35 dBm
MFCN BS
e.i.r.p. per
antenna
Coupling
loss
Separation distance,
LoS assumed
61 dBm
58 dBm
61 dBm
58 dBm
61 dBm
58 dBm
61 dBm
58 dBm
101 dB
98 dB
100 dB
97 dB
97 dB
94 dB
96 dB
93 dB
820 m
581 m
731 m
517 m
517 m
366 m
461 m
326 m
Note: An antenna discrimination of 11 dB is assumed.
In practice, the vast majority of intermodulation cases are seen when the MFCN BS is closer than 250m from
the rail tracks.
6.4
INTERFERENCE RESOLUTION
tbc
[Process to describe the case and process to solve the case]
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 26
7
tbc
CONCLUSIONS
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 27
ANNEX 1: DESCRIPTION OF NATIONAL COORDINATION PROCEDURES TO IMPROVE THE
COEXISTENCE BETWEEN MFCN AND GSM-R
A1.1 COORDINATION PROCEDURE IN GERMANY
See CG-GSM-R(13)035
The procedure is applicable for the protection of GSM-R (below 925 MHz) from UMTS base stations
transmitting above 925 MHz. Currently, a UMTS site is rejected if the channel within 925-930 MHz generates
more than 74.3 dBµV/m at 4 m above the railway line. Point-to-point HCM calculation is used. By taking into
account the fact that the unwanted emissions caused in reality are below the limits as allowed by the
standards, this level can be increased to 88.8 dBµV/m at 4 m above the railway line. Field test had shown
that the spurious emissions are 8 dB lower by using the next frequency block (930-935 MHz) for UMTS.
Hence the level caused by UMTS base stations operating in this block could be increased to 96.8 dBµV/m at
4 m above the railway line. Higher UMTS field strengths can be tolerated if the GSM-R field strength is
higher. The GSM-R network operators know the field strength levels along the railway lines.
[Description of the licensing procedure (2 step approach)]
A1.2 COORDINATION PROCEDURE IN THE NETHERLANDS
[to be reduced LOEK…]
Introduction
Investigation by a technical committee, under leadership of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, has
shown that rollout of UMTS or LTE systems in the 900 MHz band is expected to increase the probability of
interference on GSM-R train radios due to blocking (or intermodulation). For this reason a joint approach has
been agreed between the mobile network operators, the GSM-R operator and the spectrum regulator, to
tackle the issue on an interim basis, in advance of a sustainable solution, based on either improved train
radio systems or the addition of external filters to existing train radios. Deployment of that sustainable
solution is supposed to be finalised by mid 2015.
The agreement defines proactive measures aimed at avoiding interference due to blocking, and to obtain a
recovery scenario when such a situation occurs. Interference of the train radios due to unwanted emissions
(both out-of-band- and spurious emissions) is outside the scope of this agreement.
The agreement does not have a legal basis, instead it appeals to the social engagement of the parties
involved.
Risk assessment and coordination process prior to activation of a new or modified base station
Not later than 1 week prior to activation of a new or modified GSM, UMTS or LTE base station within a range
of 500 m of the railway tracks , the mobile network operator will inform the spectrum regulator. The spectrum
regulator will use the information to carry out a risk assessment that is based on evaluating both the
probability of blocking and, accordingly, the impact at a particular location.
If a mobile network operator plans to activate a large number of new or modified base stations, the spectrum
regulator will be informed at an earlier stage, since the throughput of the spectrum regulator is limited to 50
sites/week.
The flowchart below outlines the steps of the risk assessment and coordination procedure that will be carried
out before the activation of a site.
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 28
Figure 8: Pre-activation coordination process
Analysis of the probability of blocking is done using a specifically developed propagation estimation tool11,
which enables the calculation of a protection distance for a MNO base station relative to the distance of the
nearest GSM-R base station. The input parameters of the tool are chosen such that they reflect average
operational conditions and specifications of the MNO and GSM-R base stations as well as a behavioural
(blocking) model of a typical train radio. The output of the tool, i.e. protection distances for each operator or
combination of operators 12, is used to filter a geographical database13 including all GSM-R and MNO base
stations within 500 m from the railway. This allows for an initial identification of critical base stations, which
will be subject to a more extensive manual inspection or field measurements.
Not only the simulation results, but also measurement data, acquired from train-based signal strength
measurements14, will be used for the evaluation.
The probability of blocking is considered to be low if neither simulation nor measurement results indicate an
issue. High probability of blocking is reported if either simulation or measurement results show blocking. The
impact analysis is based on geographical and usage type (e.g. railway station, or ERTMS) information
provided by the GSM-R operator. It consists of areas where disruption of the GSM-R connection might cause
safety issues or significant disruption of the railway operations. Within these areas trains may e.g. be moving
at high speed (ERTMS), be approaching a railway station, need to communicate in order to be allowed to
start a train journey, etc.
The combination of both probability of blocking and impact analysis is used to determine the overall risk. If
the risk is high, the involved mobile network operator(s) will be informed and the case will be discussed. After
acknowledgement, a process of coordination between the mobile network operator(s) and the GSM-R
operator will take place, during which arrangements will be made for achieving a manageable situation. If
parties disagree on the outcome, a re-evaluation of the risk assessment will be carried out. The regulator is
involved indirectly in the overall coordination process and may be asked for advice at any time.
11
Gemini v1.3, developed by the Dutch Organization for Applied Research TNO.
Operator are considered to be co-located if their mutual distance is less than 100 m.
Google Earth.
14
Signal strength measurements were done in August 2013 on approx. 30 % of the Dutch railway infrastructure.
12
13
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 29
Procedure in case of disturbance of GSM-R train radios.
The GSM-R operator will actively monitor if disturbance of the GSM-R communication takes place. If this is
the case, after installation or modification of a MNO base station, the GSM-R operator will report this to the
involved mobile network operator(s) and spectrum regulator. In case of severe disturbance, the mobile
network operator(s) will switch off the base station(s) or sector(s) within 4 hours after the alert. A severe
disturbance requiring urgent action is characterized by criteria such as: non-departing trains at a railway
station, dropped calls for ERTMS trains, large-scale outages of traveller information systems, repetitive
dropped calls at a location. For less critical disturbances, all parties involved will discuss possible mitigation
measures, and their implementation. In the following flowchart the described procedure is shown
schematically.
Figure 9: Post-activation interference management
To enable efficient communication between all parties, dedicated resources have been identified, acting as
single point of contact. Through these channels disturbances may be reported any time.
This agreement will be valid until July 1. 2015, after which parties will continue to use the same principles as
far as possible. On a 3 month time base the agreement will be evaluated and, if necessary, will be modified
depending on experience from practical cases.
A1.3 COORDINATION PROCEDURE IN NORWAY
See CG-GSM-R(13)030
If arbitration ends without reaching an agreement, NPT might take a decision that is legally binding, including
setting conditions necessary to reach an agreement between the parties. Such a decision may be appealed
under the provisions of the Public Administration Act. It has not yet been necessary to take such a decision
as the parties, in these cases, always have been able to reach an agreement.
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 30
A1.4 COORDINATION PROCEDURE REQUIRED FOR 3G OR 4G DEPLOYMENT UNDER THE PUBLIC
WIRELESS NETWORK LICENCES COVERING THE 900 MHZ BAND” AS PUBLISHED BY
OFCOM, UNITED KINGDOM
See CG-GSM-R(13)028)
This specifies the coordination procedure that Ofcom considers is necessary to ensure the protection of
existing GSM-R equipment from potential harmful interference from the deployment of 3G or 4G equipment
in the neighbouring spectrum bands (the E-GSM bands 880-890 MHz paired with 925-935 MHz). For any 3G
or 4G sites that are likely to exceed the protection threshold, the document specifies the coordination
procedure that must be followed before that site can be brought into operation. The procedure applies to the
protection of GSM-R base station sites and GSM-R train mounted equipment in operation at the time a new
3G or 4G site is deployed or its technology or e.i.r.p. changed such that specified thresholds are breached.
The coordination procedure is not applicable to the protection of future GSM-R base stations.
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 31
ANNEX 2: DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL NATIONAL MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE COEXISTENCE
BETWEEN MFCN AND GSM-R
A2.1 REGULATION IN FINLAND
[…]
A2.2 REGULATION IN SWEDEN
See CG-GSM-R(13)012
[…]
A2.3 REGULATION IN SWITZERLAND
[limits on OOB emissions]
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 32
ANNEX 3: ECO’S EXAMPLE OF COORDINATION PROCESS
Coordination process
1. The GSM-R operator provides the location information regarding the GSM-R BS requiring
protection in a database. This includes:
a. Co-ordinates
b. Antenna height above ground and azimuth
c. Antenna characteristics (gain, cable loss)
d. Carrier frequency
e. Information about the track(s) covered by the GSM-R base station (e.g. critical area)
2. The MFCN operator, using the data supplied by the GSM-R operator in the database, must
establish if a proposed MFCN site is likely to breach the coordination thresholds.
(1.) -10 dBm for any 5 MHz within 925-960 MHz or -35 dBm for any 5 MHz within 925-960
MHz in the interim period until 2018;
(2.) OOB emission at the train antenna exceeds a maximum level (defined by an absolute
threshold or a C/I).
These thresholds are specified 4m above the rail tracks. In carrying out this assessment the
MFCN operator must use the appropriate propagation model. If direct line-of-sight exists
between the MFCN base station and the GSM-R location requiring protection, the free space
path-loss (FSPL) model should be used. In other cases the Okumura-Hata model may be used.
Where it is not clear whether direct line-of-sight exists or not, the FSPL model should be used.
This coordination procedure applies for the protection of on-board GSM-R terminals. The MFCN
operator should do this assessment in due time before the planned putting into operation of the
new MFCN BS site.
Note: Predicting reliable signal levels is challenging. Such impact studies may lead to a large
overestimation or underestimation of the number of locations where coordination is required.
a. If, as reasonably determined by the MFCN operator, the thresholds specified in 2) are not
likely to be breached, then no coordination is required (end of process).
b. If any of the thresholds specified in 2) are likely to be breached, the MFCN site cannot be
brought into operation until it has been successfully coordinated with the GSM-R operator.
3. (following 2b) When coordination is required, the MFCN operator will contact the GSM-R
operator with details of the proposed MFCN site. If no acknowledgment is received within 30
working days, the site is deemed to be coordinated.
4. If a risk is identified, the GSM-R operator may request the MFCN operator(s) to discuss possible
technical and/or operational solutions that could be applied on both sides. The discussions
between GSM-R and MFCN operators should be successfully completed 60 days after the MFCN
operator has contacted the GSM-R operator.
5. In case no conclusion can be found by the MFCN and GSM-R operators, the national spectrum
regulator should be informed immediately. The NRA should mediate and should have the
possibility to decide and apply an appropriate measure.
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 33
GSM-R operator provides information in a database
MFCN operator calculates whether thresholds are kept at the
GSM-R receiver
No
Yes
Is threshold
exceeded?
MFCN operator to inform GSM-R operator
T=0
No
Acknowledgement
within 30 days?
Yes
Yes
Is agreement reached
within 60 days?
No
NRA is informed, should mediate and if
necessary, decide and apply an appropriate
measure
MFCN operator can proceed
with installation
Figure 10: Example of a coordination process
DRAFT ECC REPORT <No>- Page 34
ANNEX 4: LIST OF REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
ECC Report 162: Practical mechanism to improve the compatibility between GSM-R and public mobile
networks and guidance on practical coordination; version of May 2011
CG-GSM-R(13)24: GSM-R Measurement Report
CG-GSM-R(13)24-Annex6: GSM-R Measurement Report – Additional Measurements
CG-GSM-R(13)09: Responses to the Questionnaire to CEPT Administrations on interference into GSMR caused by MFCN
UIC O-8736-1.0: UIC Assessment report on GSM-R current and future radio environment; version of
April 2014 (CG-GSM-R(14)006)
UIC O-8740
EIRENE SRS v15.4.0: System Requirements Specification
ETSI EN 301 515: GSM; Requirements for GSM operation on railways
ETSI TS 145 005: GSM/EDGE; Radio transmission and reception
ETSI TS 102 933-1 v1.2.1: RT; GSM-R improved receiver parameters; Requirements for radio
reception; version of December 2011
ETSI TS 102 933-1 v1.3.1: RT; GSM-R improved receiver parameters; Requirements for radio
reception; version of June 2014
3GPP TR 43.030: GSM/EDGE; Radio network planning aspects
3GPP TR 45.050: GSM/EDGE; Background for Radio Frequency (RF) requirements
ETSI TS 137 104: E-UTRA, UTRA and GSM/EDGE; Multi-Standard Radio (MSR) Base Station (BS)
radio transmission and reception
ETSI TR 102 627: ERM; System Reference Document; Land Mobile Service; Additional spectrum
requirements for PMR/PAMR systems operated by railway companies (GSM-R)
ETSI TR 103 134: RT; GSM-R in support of EC Mandate M/486 EN on Urban Rail
Directive 2008/57/EC on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community
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
Decision 2012/696/EU amending Decision 2012/88/EU on the technical specifications for interoperability
relating to the control-command and signalling subsystems of the trans-European rail system
Decision 2012/88/EU on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command
and signalling subsystems of the trans-European rail system