The devil is in the details. Banks have been talking about "permissioned blockchains" for awhile, and whether this is really a bitcoin alternative, or just using the blockchain as a jumpstart for interbank transaction software remains to be seen. (The article is very light on details.)

If it is a bitcoin alternative then it will be distributed and tustless. Those are some of bitcoins key innovations. Being distributed means that no central authority can rewrite history by changing balances. Being trustless means that the system keeps accurate records even if participants are compromised (assuming less than %51 are compromised.)

Banks are unlikely to want to give up that level of control and probably will make it centralized (eg: a few banks run the miners) and trusted (eg: only authorized transactions and probably they will put in a way to rewrite history.)

Which means, if those assumptions are true, this isn't an alternative to bitcoin, but simply banks jumping on the blockchain hype to create a centralized system of fast settlement.