Indeed! I know of plenty of places which still have semaphores with no plans to replace them any time soon. I know of one signal box which is a lever frame box that was supposed to have closed nearly ten years ago, it’s still open now with a faint rumour it may close within the next five years! Amazing how some are plotting our demise already.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Thameslink core ATO into use
- Thread starter falcon
- Start date
- Status
Indeed! I know of plenty of places which still have semaphores with no plans to replace them any time soon. I know of one signal box which is a lever frame box that was supposed to have closed nearly ten years ago, it’s still open now with a faint rumour it may close within the next five years! Amazing how some are plotting our demise already.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The signalling system (as in the ERTMS and the ATO computer on the train) would know the situation in respect of whether the next signal was showing a yellow without being near enough to eyeball it from the cab. It would even have a better idea of how long before the next block is released rather than wait for evry train in the slow moving queue to inch forward sequentially and then wait for signal indicators to change.
I don't think that this thread is seriously considering the impending introduction of ATO along complete routes anywhere in the system, so in reality the driver is still needed in the cab and just hand over to ATO for train operating consistency on critical parts of the system.
Probably, - after thousands/millions of journeys have been safely undertaken on this installation. Or maybe on the day of a driver's strike.
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
Once that fuse is lit though. Driverless Trains are becoming reality, Give it 30 years The Railway will be a faceless entity with nothing to be enthusiastic about. The DfT will be thinking hmmm how much more can we give the Shareholders!
AlexNL
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,683
Depending on the implementation it's also possible for a train to receive new movement authority information as soon as it becomes available.
With ETCS this would mean ETCS Level 2 implementation (which uses GSM-R for data communications), other ATO implementations such as the one used on Crossrail (Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC) use wi-fi technology as their basis for communications.
That doesn't mean that your iPad can use it to get online though...
Defensive driving is much more than that. It is also about taking a proactive approach and not just to signals.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
I can see that it is the way things will eventually go. But....
I think the issue overlooked by many (especially the technologists among us) is that of money, Victorian infrastructure, cost of going to full driverless versus gradual incremental increases in capacity on the infrastructure we already have.
ATO where we really need it - for sure - crossrail, TL core, but will they apply to the Cornish mainline/far north line etc. is as little as 20 years?
Even HS2 is going to be ATO but not driverless...
I think if Grayling thought there was any realistic prospects of having driverless trains any time soon he would be giving out unlimited budgets to do so. As I said in another thread I was told at a training day recently the list of requirements for a “driverless” train and the list was extensive to say the least. Would cost extortionate amounts of money and to what end? Get drivers off the payroll? Despite the wishes of some I’m very confident that this job will see me out for my career.
Love how this “driverless” subject comes up over and over again.
AlexNL
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,683
The main reason for implementing ATO on existing infrastructure is in order to increase capacity without having to build more infrastructure. Digging new tunnels is eye-watering expensive - especially in an area like London which is just as crowded underground as it is above ground.
They don’t even know how much additional capacity ETCS will bring. The politicians latched onto the 40% figure but Roger Ford has said it will be closer to 5-10% on most lines and the costs involved probably aren’t worth it. I can foresee ETCS being rolled out over the next decade or two on the really congestion bits of the network but the major remodelling of junctions and some other substantial civil engineering projects are definitely more important.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,254
It's a long way off. This is one small section where all the stock is of the same type. Yes it is a pilot, however this isn't going to be the norm in my lifetime. I would expect to live at least another 40-50 years.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
That does seem to be the way it’s going.
We’ve gone from mark carne boldly promising the digital railway within 25 years (about 5 years back) to much more modest timescales now that David Waboso (ex LU) has taken it over. The ambitions seemed to have been scaled back and made more realistic - perhaps unsurprisingly.
Remodelling existing infrastructure now seems to be much higher on the agenda and more cost effective in terms of eeking out capacity, which is the objective (rather than replacing drivers for the sake of it).
Wasn’t the ECML meant to be ERTMS as far as Peterborough by now?
neontrix
Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 34
I think that is slightly hysterical. If like others have suggested, semaphore signals will still be operating in fifty years time, the focus should be on achieving the next logical step in driver signalling. ATO has its places in underground lines, and lines like Thameslink and Crossrail cores.
Exactly. When NR are struggling with electrification, I can hardly see them setting their sights on an elimination of the driver's role simply for the sake of it.
Prerferably minus rather than plus.
AlexNL
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,683
On full ATO systems, such as the Copenhagen metro, that's not possible as the infrastructure is fully segregated and platforms are equipped with platform edge doors.
On systems where it's not practical or not economical to fully isolate the infrastructure from passengers, there will be train captain present who oversees operation and can intervene when necessary.
On systems where it's not practical or not economical to fully isolate the infrastructure from passengers, there will be train captain present who oversees operation and can intervene when necessary.
westcoaster
Established Member
No the driver will react accordingly.
Please can we ensure that we keep on topic about ATO in Thameslink core rather than discussions about people’s apparent wishes for driverless trains which this topic is nothing to do with
Yup. It was supposed to be ETCS on the southern end by 2020. That’s now been pushed back to the mid 2020’s the last I read. The latest copy of MR mag has the ambitions for rollout of ETCS over the next two spending periods. Traffic management is definitely the big hitter for now and is receiving the big money. That’s definitely where the whole ‘digital railway’ people seem to believe the biggest gains can be made.
GW43125
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,049
The driver will still be present to whack the brake handle into emergency on TL.
Sunset route
Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,188
The digital Railway in the broader sense but also more localised to the Thameslink route.
TBASC the panel box that controls the BML from the Anerley fringe and Norbury fringe with TBROC all the way down to Brighton plus a few branches was supposed to of by now, had a fully working TMS interfaced system overlayed on a brand new ARS system that was suppposes to intergated with the Thameslink Core ETCS for optimal pathway flighting of trains as they head towards London for the last 14 months bedding down for the go live date in May this year.
As of yet, they haven’t even got a working prototype anywhere near the panels or even a clue of how to intergrate it yet. So how quickly are we going to progress to this all singing and dancing digital driverless Railway nivana across huge swathes of the country, not anywhere near my lifetime.
I would expect ETCS signalling to be installed in the Croydon and Selhusrt triangle and maybe ATO extending down to Norwood if they can fit the necessary equipment into the electrostars and turbostatrs that share the same trackage, now that would be a test. But if on the other hand if the new layout is going to be based on updated versions of lights on sticks and axle counters/track circuits then we will know that the technology is not mature enough to work complex multiple Junctions railways with a mixed fleet of various rolling stock with different handling and breaking capabilities.
TBASC the panel box that controls the BML from the Anerley fringe and Norbury fringe with TBROC all the way down to Brighton plus a few branches was supposed to of by now, had a fully working TMS interfaced system overlayed on a brand new ARS system that was suppposes to intergated with the Thameslink Core ETCS for optimal pathway flighting of trains as they head towards London for the last 14 months bedding down for the go live date in May this year.
As of yet, they haven’t even got a working prototype anywhere near the panels or even a clue of how to intergrate it yet. So how quickly are we going to progress to this all singing and dancing digital driverless Railway nivana across huge swathes of the country, not anywhere near my lifetime.
I would expect ETCS signalling to be installed in the Croydon and Selhusrt triangle and maybe ATO extending down to Norwood if they can fit the necessary equipment into the electrostars and turbostatrs that share the same trackage, now that would be a test. But if on the other hand if the new layout is going to be based on updated versions of lights on sticks and axle counters/track circuits then we will know that the technology is not mature enough to work complex multiple Junctions railways with a mixed fleet of various rolling stock with different handling and breaking capabilities.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,437
Also being discussed in the class 700 thread for the last week or so, and typically yet another thread has been started on an ongoing topic, and no doubt the opportunity will be taken to fly all the usual kites about ‘driverless trains’...
It was the first ATO service with the media on. The first ATO service was the previous week.
Indeed. ASLE&F looked very closely and agreed to it. Hence it is in service.
Actually, defensive driving, now known as Professional Driving, came in after Southall and Ladbroke Grove, when there was a complete cultural change around SPADs.
The incremental cost of ATO compared to ETCS L2 is almost negligible. It is just an extra computer on the train, plus the driver training, which naturally is relatively straightforward. Therefore on the assumption that ETCS L2 will in time become cheaper than conventional resignalling (and it is heading that way), then the prospect of ATO across a large part of the network in 20 years is quite real.
ETCS L2 on its own doesn’t do much. However “They” do know, where the studies have been done; and the extra capacity depends on the nature of the infrastructure and the timetable. One size does not fit all. ATO does bring capacity benefit though: 20% for the Thameslink core. It also brings a reliability benefit.
It is on Thameslink. Low speeds through the core*, 240m trains, and longer dwell times than on the tube. It all adds up.
* ATO also gives the benefit of being able to drive the train at the physical capability of the infrastructure without any speed limit caused by signal spacing or sighting, nor the necessity to have main line speed limits at 5mph increments. It was certainly the plan for the ATO on Thameslink to drive at 50kph rather than the blanket 30mph limit. I’m not sure if this happened in the end.
Last edited:
I'm not entirely sure that the bit about sidelining guards (surely it'd be the motormen who were doing the dawdling) is entirely true. It's a combination of the signalling being set up to allow it (ie very short signal spacing) and a slightly more cavalier attitude to SPADs and safety of the line, as well as the fact that the trains themselves were only about 120m long, compared to the 240m of the Thameslink Core trains.
This ERTMS that's on trial on the Cambrian Coast line, is it the same signalling system?
I know people keep saying semaphores will still be long lived but couldn't they just roll our ERTMS in those areas and forget colour light signals as an intermediate between semaphores and digital?
I can sort of understand some people thinking it's the very start of an eventual all driverless network. I bet when DOO was first accepted in the 1980s many were saying it was a long long way away until it would become widespread if at all. Yet less than 35 years later and the DFT sets it as mandatory on whatever TOCs it sees fit and this seems to be set for the future.
So what ASLEF accepts now I would assume going by the past may have some influence on how this pans out in general going forward.
Another thought, if the technology makes an error, or there is wheelslip or leaf mulch on the line in ATO which couldn't be visually seen, and the brakes are either applied too late or don't stop the train in time of an obstruction such as a bay, and contact is made, who is liable? The driver? The train manufacturers? The software systems? The signallers?
If a train gets dangerously close to the one in front and the driver realises the brake hasn't applied, two seconds pass while his brain processes and presses the brake but the train is already too close and it's like a spad in the traditional sense, who gets the blame? The train?
I know people keep saying semaphores will still be long lived but couldn't they just roll our ERTMS in those areas and forget colour light signals as an intermediate between semaphores and digital?
I can sort of understand some people thinking it's the very start of an eventual all driverless network. I bet when DOO was first accepted in the 1980s many were saying it was a long long way away until it would become widespread if at all. Yet less than 35 years later and the DFT sets it as mandatory on whatever TOCs it sees fit and this seems to be set for the future.
So what ASLEF accepts now I would assume going by the past may have some influence on how this pans out in general going forward.
Another thought, if the technology makes an error, or there is wheelslip or leaf mulch on the line in ATO which couldn't be visually seen, and the brakes are either applied too late or don't stop the train in time of an obstruction such as a bay, and contact is made, who is liable? The driver? The train manufacturers? The software systems? The signallers?
If a train gets dangerously close to the one in front and the driver realises the brake hasn't applied, two seconds pass while his brain processes and presses the brake but the train is already too close and it's like a spad in the traditional sense, who gets the blame? The train?
Last edited:
If the train has had the correct messages, and does something wrong, then it’s the train’s fault.
I’d be interested to know how many ‘SPADs’ (equivalent) there have been on the Victoria, Central, Northern, Jubilee and DLR lines when in ATO since those lines were commissioned as such. I suspect it’s non-zero, but also suspect I won’t run out of fingers to count them on.
By the way ETCS (which is what is on Cambrian) is digital signalling.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's quite possible that it'll be a choice between a driverless bus and a driverless train. I know which I'd prefer, and it isn't a Beeching MkII.
The Cambrian Coast also uses ETCS level 2, as is also installed in the core, but the rolling stock doesn't have ATO.
As for your last questions, the technology shouldn't make an error, that's why it's been being tested for years across a few different sites as well as plenty of in-situ testing in the core. I'm fairly certain that the software will be capable of adjusting for rail adhesion, and so it shouldn't ever get into the situation where the brakes are applied too late - although of course if it does that is where the safety margin between the movement authority and the distance to the train ahead comes in handy. As for liability, it won't be the driver, but beyond that it could be any of the other parties and you can be sure that there'll be a investigation to determine what part of the system 'failed' and who is therefore to blame.
Im really hoping there’s a type of bus called a Beeching MkII!
- Status