Grayling announces Network Rail to use digital signalling

[northwichcat]

The government is developing plans for Britain’s first digital intercity railway in the north, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling announced today (22 September 2017) as the government invests a record £13 billion in improving journeys across the region.

As part of the Great North Rail Project, major upgrades are being developed for the TransPennine route between Manchester, Leeds and York from 2022 - to slash journey times between Leeds and Manchester to 40 minutes.

Digital signalling technology is already in operation on the London Underground, and Network Rail will now develop options to make the TransPennine route the first digitally controlled intercity rail line in the country.

Network Rail will receive up to £5 million to develop proposals for embedding digital technology between Manchester and York, to help us deliver a more reliable and safer railway. This includes looking at a system of advanced train traffic management – so that a computer works out how to route the trains most efficiently along the line.

This government has launched the biggest modernisation programme of railways in the north since the steam age – and we are investing £40 billion in our network across the country.

Developing proposals for digital-control on the TransPennine route is to be paid for from a £450 million digital railway fund announced by the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement last year.

On the London Underground 3 lines already have in-cab signalling, which has meant trains can safely run closer together.

Also in the capital, the Thameslink programme will use digital technologies so 24 trains per hour can run through the centre of the city from December 2018 on just 2 tracks with 2 platforms. Crossrail trains will also run with in-cab signalling.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ilway-plans-to-improve-trans-pennine-journeys

No doubt they see this as a cheaper alternative to increase capacity on North TPE.

I haven't heard the term 'Great North Rail Project' used before.

 

[snowball]

I haven't heard the term 'Great North Rail Project' used before.

Network Rail publicity has been using it for ages, see for example the heading of their Northern Programme Twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/networkrailnp

 

[Railsigns]

Is there any substance within this "announcement"? If there is, I can't see it.

 

[ScotGG]

£5 million!

Go home Grayling you're crap isn't believed by anyone anymore. He was trending again today on Twitter for nonsense statements.

 

[rebmcr]

Optimistically, this could indicate a greater likelihood of continued support for improving the route.

Cynically, this might be instead of such improvements...

 

[snowball]

Is there any substance within this "announcement"? If there is, I can't see it.

I can't see anything new in it. But the completion of GRIP 3 is supposed to be soon.

 

[gordonthemoron]

will the pennines cause any problems?

 

[DarloRich]

the £5m and £450m suggested will be insufficient to deliver such a project especially a first of type large scale installation.

I can't see anything new in it. But the completion of GRIP 3 is supposed to be soon.

Delayed if new options need to be added to the option selection report i might suggest

To assist:

G1 Output definition.
G2 Feasibility.
G3 Option selection.
G4 Single option development.
G5 Detailed design.
G6 Construction test and commission.
G7 Scheme hand back.
G8 Project close out.

 

[MarkyT]

Why be cynical? I expect this will be a ETCS overlay on conventional signalling like Thameslink plus more advanced traffic control technology in the signalling centres such as short term re planning tools and connected driver advisory systems. Much of this has already been proved technically now for the British application by the Thameslink programme. With TPE and Northern getting much new rolling stock, they should be compatible straight out of the box. Coupled with highly targetted infrastructure interventions, particularly extra platforms at major hubs, this should only have positive effects on network capacity and performance. Probably little effect on maximum speeds but might allow a greater variation in stopping patterns with some more limited stop services added to improve headline journey times for some city to city axes.

 

[DarloRich]

Why be cynical?

Mainly because I am a cynic

I think the general cynicism comes from the fact many feel it will be this rather than electrification instead of this AND electrification

I expect this will be a ETCS overlay on conventional signalling like Thameslink plus more advanced traffic control technology in the signalling centres such as short term re planning tools and connected driver advisory systems. Much of this has already been proved technically now for the British application by the Thameslink programme. With TPE and Northern getting much new rolling stock, they should be compatible straight out of the box. Coupled with highly targetted infrastructure interventions, particularly extra platforms at major hubs, this should only have positive effects on network capacity and performance. Probanly little effect on maximum speeds but might allow a greater variation in stopping patterns with some more limited stop services able to be added which could improve headline journey times fore some city to city axes.

I agree. but this will be a much wider and less captive application than Thameslink

 

[MarkyT]

I think the general cynicism comes from the fact many feel it will be this rather than electrification instead of this AND electrification

Once compatible signalling is place and layouts are finalised, then further electrifation can take place as desired outside all those horrible project dependencies, with the bimodes able to take advantage of discontinuous sections as they are completed. Once a critical mass of electrified trunk route has been completed, proportions of the fleet might be converted to straight electric by removing power packs or cascading and replacement.

this will be a much wider and less captive application than Thameslink

Just like Thameslink, the same overlay method will still allow non-ETCS capable traffic to traverse the routes using conventional signalling and protection, clearly at reduced capacity, but that should be all right off peak for some freight, excursions, or occasional normal trains where the ETCS or radio has failed.

Note too the clever political comparisons in the announcements with cross London projects, so often cited in North-South divide comments.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Anything that improves capacity and performance on the Standedge route is welcome.
At least it should get rid of the manual signalling at Ashton Moss and Diggle.
But ETCS is not standard "out of the box" on any new trains ordered for the route (though it shouldn't be hard to upgrade the 802s), so it will cost the TOCs money.

If bi-mode is an unproven technology, digital signalling (in the Thameslink sense with TMS and CDAS) is even more so.
NR has yet to roll out ETCS other than on a trial basis, and the plans for GWML and ECML keep slipping (the Cambrian is so specialised it doesn't count).
There's a big difference between a rebuilt metro core and an old transpennine route (complete with fasts, stoppers and freight).

And it isn't even new money, it's part of the last budget's £450m allocation for the digital railway.
It sounds like an announcement to keep the Northern Powerhouse Rail vision active while they sort out the real major decisions for the project in CP6.
Roger Ford's analysis of all this should prove interesting.

 

[lejog]

Why be cynical? I expect this will be a ETCS overlay on conventional signalling like Thameslink plus more advanced traffic control technology in the signalling centres such as short term re planning tools and connected driver advisory systems. Much of this has already been proved technically now for the British application by the Thameslink programme. With TPE and Northern getting much new rolling stock, they should be compatible straight out of the box. Coupled with highly targetted infrastructure interventions, particularly extra platforms at major hubs, this should only have positive effects on network capacity and performance. Probably little effect on maximum speeds but might allow a greater variation in stopping patterns with some more limited stop services added to improve headline journey times for some city to city axes.

You've answered your question in the your last sentences, the capacity requirement for the TransPennine Upgrade is 4 fast trains per hour at 15min intervals and 2 semi-fast (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTGnTgdWfh4 for confirmation of this). This AIUI is largely going to be achieved with the introduction of skip-stop services next May - there is no requirement for increased capacity after this.

The problem is journey times. Straight electrification produced a zero decrease in journey times (see same video), rather than meeting the requirement of a 40min Manchester to Leeds journey time. The emphasis on the project has changed totally to improving maximum speeds. As you say digital signalling has little effect on maximum speeds.

While Grayling recently stated that it was up to the North to decide what rail improvements they want, his actions have been indicated the opposite is true - Rail North have been removed as joint clients (with the DfT) of the Transpennine project and it seems to be becoming a DfT/Network Rail stitch up.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

... Rail North have been removed as joint clients (with the DfT) of the Transpennine project and it seems to be becoming a DfT/Network Rail stitch up.

Rail North? When were they ever a client on TRU? Get your quangos right.

Rail North is pretty much a passenger focus group - http://www.railnorth.org/governance/rail-north-dft-partnership/ and to my knowledge are not a co-client (though they may shout a lot).

 

[MarkyT]

The problem is journey times. Straight electrification produced a zero decrease in journey times (see same video), rather than meeting the requirement of a 40min Manchester to Leeds journey time.

I'm always skeptical about these neat round figure journey time aspirations: 90 to Norwich, 3 hours to Plymouth, etc. I think they are usually counterproductive and can result in disproportionate effort for little proven gain apart from a meaningless slogan. Often useful and economically important stops have to be withdrawn to meet such targets and all for a few minutes that in reality means little to individual travellers' decision. Understandable frequent regular and reliable clockface journeys with a seat and a clean and pleasant travelling environment at reasonable cost are much more important. That is not an argument against a continual pressure to improve journey times, rather a rant against the illogical attempts to make them fit arbitrary round numbers. Cities are not somehow magically distributed around the north nor the UK in general to match these figures and the performance of the infrastructure and rolling stock is governed by the existing geometry, the immutable laws of physics and the practicalities of economics. They are what they are, and its possible that in an all out attempt to meet the round figures, valuable network capacity is sacrificed, useful stops omitted and wear and tear generally increased. All for a flippin slogan!

While Grayling recently stated that it was up to the North to decide what rail improvements they want, his actions have been indicated the opposite is true - Rail North have been removed as joint clients (with the DfT) of the Transpennine project and it seems to be becoming a DfT/Network Rail stitch up.

Politically, that seems shortsighted, but practically were they really adding to to process of delivery? Or were Rail North merely confusing the aspirations and delaying decisions instead?

PS I'm no Grayling groupie (who is?), but I do want to see some progress. Perhaps small steps, but progress that might be built on by future administrations and generations to come. Holding out for the 'perfect' solution is usually not realistic.

 

[Starmill]

'Great North Rail Project' has been appearing on posters and promotional material since about 2014. I remember it in connection with the engineering work for Castlefield - Parkside electrification. I don't think I've ever heard the term actually spoken before though.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

the £5m and £450m suggested will be insufficient to deliver such a project especially a first of type large scale installation.

Oh, I like your optimism. They're not actually talking about delivering anything. "looking at a system of advanced train traffic management" could well mean "downloading some specs and someone's thesis off the web and saying 'yup, we've looked at it'". I'm not even convinced "up to £5 million to develop proposals" is a commitment to a feasibility study. It's a commitment to an options document.

But "digital railway" is today's "bionic duckweed" in any case.

 

[lejog]

Rail North? When were they ever a client on TRU? Get your quangos right.

Rail North is pretty much a passenger focus group - http://www.railnorth.org/governance/rail-north-dft-partnership/ and to my knowledge are not a co-client (though they may shout a lot).

As the WYCTA heard recently

A change to the project governance of rail programmes across the north has meant that the scope, costs and benefits of the possible TRU infrastructure intervention options are not yet fully known to WYCA. Rail North is however involved in the development of the TRU, originally as joint client alongside the Department for Transport, however latterly as a stakeholder i.e. it has been removed from the previous joint client role........

Electrification of the railway is however not an end in its own right, and needs to be considered alongside other potential interventions that together could help deliver the desired outcomes and outputs of the TRU scheme. It will be important therefore that WYCA, directly and through partners Rail North and Transport for the North, has a greater involvement than at present in understanding the choices emerging from the blends of TRU infrastructure
options, alongside their costs and benefits. WYCA should also be able to offer a view on priorities for the TRU scheme to help inform the Government decision due in spring 2018.

I can't claim to understand the working of quangos in the North, but AIUI Rail North were recently/are soon to be integrated into TfN? And despite your sniffiness, they continue to be joint clients of the multi-billion pound Franchise Agreements?

There is great concern in the North that local accountability has been lost and visibility of what is happening has been reduced. Particularly when budgets have apparently spiralled from £250m to £2.5bn and given Network Rail's previous record in charging ahead with straight electrification without any improvement in journey times. That was one of the reasons for the transport summit at the end of August

IMO Rail North/TfN whoever have good reason to shout.

 

[edwin_m]

Possibly the quoted cost figures are based on doing a deal like Resonate have done in Swindon, where they install the traffic management kit for free and share the resulting reduction in Network Rail's payments to TOCs for delays. This is of course unproven as yet, as I don't think it's even started running.

Also I'm not sure how much of the kit in the North will be suitable for adding traffic management without making a lot of changes to what is there now. York IECC is Resonate's (or its various predecessors') equipment but it may not be the latest version.

 

[Nym]

Sorry, one moment.

Don't we already use digital signalling, there are a finite number of states to track circuits and signals, and they're represented in a digital form of on or off...

 

[Chester1]

As the WYCTA heard recently



I can't claim to understand the working of quangos in the North, but AIUI Rail North were recently/are soon to be integrated into TfN? And despite your sniffiness, they continue to be joint clients of the multi-billion pound Franchise Agreements?

There is great concern in the North that local accountability has been lost and visibility of what is happening has been reduced. Particularly when budgets have apparently spiralled from £250m to £2.5bn and given Network Rail's previous record in charging ahead with straight electrification without any improvement in journey times. That was one of the reasons for the transport summit at the end of August

IMO Rail North/TfN whoever have good reason to shout.

I don't think this announcement will effect electrification plans. It is far too vauge and sounds like a medium to long term aspiration. As other posters have pointed out it is irrelevant to the plans for current Northern and TPE franchises because the planned 6 TPE services don't need it. The skip stop service will be mostly single 185s therefore capacity could be increased without adding more services, platform lengthenings or signalling upgrades.

I am not sure electrification and line speed improvements need to be part of the same project. Lord Adonis suggested various options including building a bypass line from near the M60 near Ashton to west of Diggle and another from east of Huddersfield to Leeds. The middle bit would be four tracked and the existing route acting as slow tracks for stoppers. I think the overall time saving for both options together was 16 minutes i.e. a reduction to 32 minutes. Muti billion pound projected cost though....

 

[snowball]

There was an interview with Grayling as the first item on BBC Look North (Leeds) today on BBC1 at 18:30 but no real info. Also an interview with Corbyn.

 

[Tio Terry]

Oh, I like your optimism. They're not actually talking about delivering anything. "looking at a system of advanced train traffic management" could well mean "downloading some specs and someone's thesis off the web and saying 'yup, we've looked at it'". I'm not even convinced "up to £5 million to develop proposals" is a commitment to a feasibility study. It's a commitment to an options document.

But "digital railway" is today's "bionic duckweed" in any case.

Traffic Management Systems - TMS for short - are being rolled out across the network, it's been going on for at least 4 years to my certain knowledge. None are actually operation so far as I am aware in the UK, Japan uses them quite a lot on their suburban routes, they are nothing new.

 

[LAX54]

Traffic Management Systems - TMS for short - are being rolled out across the network, it's been going on for at least 4 years to my certain knowledge. None are actually operation so far as I am aware in the UK, Japan uses them quite a lot on their suburban routes, they are nothing new.

There was an interesting programme on the NHK news channel a couple of months ago, there is at least one surburban line in Japan, that is one of the top performing timekeepers, have binned TMS and gone back to humans working out what is best to keep the service on time, and it appears to work better, it also said that other areas were looking to do the same thing, seems computers are not always better !

 

[Sunset route]

Traffic Management Systems - TMS for short - are being rolled out across the network, it's been going on for at least 4 years to my certain knowledge. None are actually operation so far as I am aware in the UK, Japan uses them quite a lot on their suburban routes, they are nothing new.

There was an interesting programme on the NHK news channel a couple of months ago, there is at least one surburban line in Japan, that is one of the top performing timekeepers, have binned TMS and gone back to humans working out what is best to keep the service on time, and it appears to work better, it also said that other areas were looking to do the same thing, seems computers are not always better !

All I know is the TMS for my location is running at least 1-2years late and one of the problems is rumours from under the juice rail is correct, is that they are having problems writing the software to deal with multiple junctions where a train standing at junction 1 fouls Junction 2 which in turns fouls Junction 3 type of problem i.e. Looking at multiple conflicting points at the same time and looking again and adapting the plan when the first plan didn't pan out.

 

[The Planner]

There was an interesting programme on the NHK news channel a couple of months ago, there is at least one surburban line in Japan, that is one of the top performing timekeepers, have binned TMS and gone back to humans working out what is best to keep the service on time, and it appears to work better, it also said that other areas were looking to do the same thing, seems computers are not always better !

Is that Japan Railway Journal? The presenters are hilarious on that, so wooden.

 

[MarkyT]

Sorry, one moment.

Don't we already use digital signalling, there are a finite number of states to track circuits and signals, and they're represented in a digital form of on or off...

Indeed, a relay interlocking can be thought of as a fixed task parallel computer and even lever frames are a kind of mechanical computer. Digital electronic technology was introduced in the 1960s with time division multiplex telemetry systems for the remote control and monitoring of interlockings from new panel signal boxes, allowing their areas of control to grow considerably. Panel processors and train describers based on computers followed in the 1980s and the first processor based interlockings towards the end of that decade. Axle counters also use digital techniques and were introduced in the UK in the 1980s too, although they had existed in Germany since the 1930s where early experimental models had used telephone exchange style registers made up of relays to count and store the axle totals.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I'm always skeptical about these neat round figure journey time aspirations: 90 to Norwich, 3 hours to Plymouth, etc. I think they are usually counterproductive and can result in disproportionate effort for little proven gain apart from a meaningless slogan. Often useful and economically important stops have to be withdrawn to meet such targets and all for a few minutes that in reality means little to individual travellers' decision.

Could not agree more. I suspect many would-be travellers between eg Newbury, Westbury and Castle Cary to/from Exeter and further west would also sign up to this view.

Understandable frequent regular and reliable clockface journeys with a seat and a clean and pleasant travelling environment at reasonable cost are much more important.

Which is exactly what the operators found on the Chiltern, Trent Valley stations and Exeter-Salisbury lines when they were downgraded from grade one inter-city routes- and that is without the reliable bit on the latter route.

That is not an argument against a continual pressure to improve journey times, rather a rant against the illogical attempts to make them fit arbitrary round numbers. ...

You are making a forceful, but reasoned, case. In my books, that is not a rant.

 

[Taunton]

I'm always skeptical about these neat round figure journey time aspirations: 90 to Norwich, 3 hours to Plymouth, etc. I think they are usually counterproductive and can result in disproportionate effort for little proven gain apart from a meaningless slogan.... Understandable frequent regular and reliable clockface journeys with a seat and a clean and pleasant travelling environment at reasonable cost are much more important.

This is quite so. The biggest change that can be made is where the service moves on from one where you need to aim for a specific departure, to a turn up and go frequency. This varies dependent on distance, but Manchester to Leeds every 15 minutes certainly qualifies.

Working against this are two modern curses; Advance Tickets tied to a specific departure, which ruins the turn up and go approach (and quite frankly is ludicrous on metro-frequency services), and providing insufficient rolling stock so that passengers have to stand, or even cannot get in.

The headline times often get reduced to just one service a day, but the public perception from the advertising remains. I can recall the start of electric London to Glasgow services in 1974, when several services took 5 hours, by eliminating all stops except Preston, mainly because it was the crew change point. Those didn't last that long either.

 

[DimTim]

This is quite so. The biggest change that can be made is where the service moves on from one where you need to aim for a specific departure, to a turn up and go frequency. This varies dependent on distance, but Manchester to Leeds every 15 minutes certainly qualifies.

I suggest if there was a 15 minute frequency of 10 coach trains between Leeds & Manchester calling at Huddersfield the ruckus would be quelled. Passengers would be able to get a seat, these 3 stations should be capable of accommodating 10 coaches. 2 x 5 car voyagers perhaps giving an inter city feel.
Could even split at York to Scarborough/Middlesbrough.
Then a half hourly stopper service needs to be fitted in round these services & loops planned accordingly.