-
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!
HS2: what signalling system is planned? also is the Handsacre connection no longer going ahead?
- Thread starter kevin_roche
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Maybe I am missing something but as you can ‘program’ drivers to do the same as the ECTS then either the drivers are unnecessarily restricted or the ECTS will be less safe or more defensive than the drivers?
Ah, but drivers don’t necessarily know where and when railhead conditions are poor, so potentially drive defensively over longer times and geography than necessary.
The ATO does know where the issues are*, and drives accordingly.
*because previous trains tell the main control system where there are wheelslip/slide issues, and this is cross referenced with live rainfall data.
Deep breath.....
But typically when the unit in front slips or reports low railhead adhesion and your then tasked with the pointless 'controlled stop' you tent to find that the unit in front has 'cleaned' the track
But I get where your coming from...
...and relax.
Ahh...that’s the missing bit I didn’t know...
Does it guess and hope for the first train, or does it build up until they start slipping on braking?
The system I saw anticipates the conditions to a certain extent based on the rain radar, but essentially the first train to slip sets out the ‘marker’. On intensive railways, it’s rare that conditions change sufficiently rapidly that it goes from good to poor between trains. Of course there is an issue with first trains at service start up each morning; I assume the first one goes out slightly more cautiously when poor conditions are calculated.
The trackside kit is all signalling responsibility, and interfaces between interlocking and point machine, balise, train detection, any remaining signals, even the control centre, are not mandated by EU regs and can still be proprietary. On board, its all train manufacturers' kit, much of it with proprietary interfaces. The track to train interface is where interoperability is maintained by an open standard requirement defining physical communications and message structure and content. The big difference is there never needs to be a bit of signalling manufacturers' kit on board the train to match the system on the particular bit of infrastructure. ETCS on board kit should be flexible enough to be able to emulate any plausible train protection system out there using the same standard interfaces of balise and radio, or with plug-in modules called STMs (specific transmission module) for a legacy national systems with older transponders ('Class B' systems using packet 44, usually legacy protection systems such as AWS/TPWS with a limited life, but can also be other systems that will survive long term, such as WCML TASS and Thameslink ATO that both use standard Eurobalises).
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,933
I don't think politically you can get rid of Handsacre Jn as it helps speed up journeys for Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield. Also these stations should get classic services anyway due to the intermediate links and off wire links, so Stafford for Chester / Holyhead (amongst other stations) and Stoke and Macclesfield should see a classic service (as well as a HS service) anyway for Manchester for intermediate stations from London.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,934
Still the best part of a Billion quid for 1tph.
And considering that 1tph is slated to be one of the Liverpool services, I'd hardly be gutted if it went.
But it depends what we actually want from HS2. Do we want a mostly separate Shinkansen between the largest cities or something more of an enhancement of the existing network, which serves more places and has less distinction from regular services? There's pros and cons to each strategy but we should probably stop kidding ourselves that it can be both.
But it depends what we actually want from HS2. Do we want a mostly separate Shinkansen between the largest cities or something more of an enhancement of the existing network, which serves more places and has less distinction from regular services? There's pros and cons to each strategy but we should probably stop kidding ourselves that it can be both.
I’d be very surprised if Handsacre is built.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,934
That changed ages ago. All the Liverpools are via Crewe, Handsacre is a Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield service.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,933
Politically I think it will have to be done if only serve Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield. Even the suggested reversal at Crewe for Stoke (via Alsager) doesn't seem practical to me nor physically feasible.
Austriantrain
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,321
I understand what you mean. I am no signalling expert but follow the discussions in Austria, where ETCS2 (without ATO) has been in operation for a number of years on lines that are semi-HS and in mixed use (including freight). ETCS is still not seen as usable at major stations, which of course are also major capacity bottlenecks, because it would actually reduce capacity there, so the advantages tend to be limited by that. There also seems to be a consensus that even on plain line, major capacity benefits are hard to achieve. It is just that at 230 kph, cab-signalling and some amount of automation is needed and ETCS2 seems to do that job just fine.
Of course, all this could be completely different on a dedicated HSL with a uniform train fleet as well as stations used exclusively by HS services. I am on this forum mainly as an observer interested in how other countries run their railways, and as such I will be very curious how all this pans out on HS2. Especially - as stated, being no expert myself - as I gather from various sources that we should not expect capacity wonders from new signalling techniques alone. I would not mind at all if this could be disproved
Expensive though new signalling is, it will still be vastly cheaper than constantly enhancing infrastructure to accommodate more trains...
Last edited:
There's no need for it, but it does have one massive benefit. Cost. If you're buying the same equipment as EU operators, to the same spec from the same panel of suppliers it will cost a whole lot less than custom UK-only spec systems.
kevin_roche
Member
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 930
The capacity limitations are really due to the choice of radio system. GSM-R is quite old now in technology terms and alternatives are under active consideration. In London in particular GSM-R cannot handle the number of messages that would be needed at any of the main terminus stations.
By the time HS2 is complete I expect that ETCS L2 and L3 will have the coice of WiFi, LTE or 5G type systems which will have much more capacity and reliablity. This will allow more trains to communicate and solve that issue.
Exactly - ETCS isn't being about "European" it all about standardisation to reduce costs and break suppliers proprietary almost monopolies in certain areas. The whole point is that trains are now built around the ETCS control architecture which reduces cost for Crossrail as Trainguard MT uses common features of ETCS reducing the cost of the system.
Austriantrain
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,321
Thank you for clarifying the issue to me!
Kettledrum
Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 790
I agree. Stoke and North Staffordshire is an area where the Conservatives won traditional Labour seats for the first time, and had made promises about bringing High Speed trains to Stoke-on-Trent. These are precisely the sorts of seats that the party wants to retain
Which is one of the biggest problems with infrastructure investment in the UK. Far too often political expedience takes priority over actual need.
The Oakervee review is very clear. Remove Handsacre, save cash, use some of that cash to improve services to North Staffordshire more effectively in other ways.
Oakervee Review said:
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,386
Or maybe HS2 is almost irrelevant to how people actually vote. I expect we’ll never really know for sure, but I doubt the election was won or lost on whether HS2 was to be approved or not.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,710
I believe in Japanese experience they have concluded that rain conditions are less important on longer trains because after the first few axles have passed over, the rail is essentially dry.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,933
But that then means more Pendolino (125mph) type services on the WCML when you want to remove them from the crowded part south of Rugby to run more commuter / suburban (100 / 110mph) services from the likes of Tamworth / Nuneaton or Coventry routes and stations southwards to London to deal with capacity issues there.
I don't believe there is enough demand north of Golborne Jn / Crewe to warrant sufficient HS services such that HS services towards Stafford and Stoke should be sacrificed on the altar of saving money by not building Handsacre Jn.
At best I would suggest you only want four 125mph paths on the WCML South - 2 towards Coventry / Birmingham New Street / Wolverhampton / Shrewsbury / Scotland slow and one for Chester / Holyhead via Stafford and one for Manchester via Stoke and Macclesfield.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
If you are suggesting these paths run on the southern WCML, then a predominantly 110mph service with a pair of 125mph services every 30min doesn't give much more capacity than the predominantly 125mph service with a scattering of 110mph services that we have now. And there's unlikely to be capacity on the northern WCML for many more trains, so if there is a Birmingham-Scotland train via HS2 it's unlikely there will be a London-Birmingham-Scotland via classic lines.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,933
If there is no classic service Euston to Scotland via Birmingham how do you maintain intermediate links south to north on the WCML? This train does that now otherwise the WCML is split in two.
Why wouldn’t the extra services from, say, the Trent Valley stations that serve, say, MK and Watford not be 125mph stock?
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,933
Would Pendolinos be suitable for regular stopping work with door configurations like that?
- Status