• 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!

Class 345s and automated "auto reverse": Problems with it and whether it was a good idea to begin with

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pigeon

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2015
Messages
804
Combine that with a very fast moving economy of software engineers who don't stay in the same job for more than a few months and all knowledge of the old code goes away...

Which is bloody daft for anything because it takes at least that long just to properly understand what the old code is doing, so you end up with layer upon layer of guff put together by people who don't really know what's going on even in the bit they were doing themselves, let alone all the rest of it.

This is bad enough even for things like putting websites together where "must be a buzzword-addicted clueless moron with no idea how to do anything beyond C&Ping inappropriate code off stackoverflow" is part of the job description. For a widely-distributed safety-critical installation which is already beset with out-of-control complexity and a list of compatibility problems and niche cases which is longer than the track mileage, it is beyond stupid and well into outrageous.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,449
Combine that with a very fast moving economy of software engineers who don't stay in the same job for more than a few months and all knowledge of the old code goes away...
Not exclusive to software - the world of ETCS is a turbulent one...
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,459
I think we are in absolute agreement on Crossrail unwisely using multiple signal systems (is it three or four? Is the Heathrow branch different again?), and changing from one to the other every few minutes. I really hope it doesn't turn out to be the Achilles Heel of the system.
Crossrail has:

TPWS - on GWML and the GEML bits
CBTC - Crossrail core
ETCS - Heathrow Branch (plus I think there is overlay on a bit of the GWML?)

CBTC was used in the core because TfL already use it elsewhere on tube lines and auto reverse. Worth looking at Thameslink ATO which is based on ETCS L2 and seems to be going a lot better, especially as Thameslink is a live railway. Going ETCS+ATO+Developing auto reverse for it would have probably been a better idea.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,385
Crossrail has:

TPWS - on GWML and the GEML bits
CBTC - Crossrail core
ETCS - Heathrow Branch (plus I think there is overlay on a bit of the GWML?)

CBTC was used in the core because TfL already use it elsewhere on tube lines and auto reverse. Worth looking at Thameslink ATO which is based on ETCS L2 and seems to be going a lot better, especially as Thameslink is a live railway. Going ETCS+ATO+Developing auto reverse for it would have probably been a better idea.
I always thought the main (but unstated) reason for using CBTC was to keep their railway completely different and ‘nip in the bud’ any proposals for it to be part of the mainline network and subject to TSIs etc.
 

liam456

Member
Joined
6 May 2018
Messages
268
CBTC is fundamentally different to ETCS Level 2 (as used on the Thameslink core) though, the big big thing being the use of moving block technology. Railtrack figured out just how impossible that was on a mainline railway with the WCML route modernisation, so there is far more to CBTC than just ETCS+ATO+auto reverse.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,390
I always thought the main (but unstated) reason for using CBTC was to keep their railway completely different and ‘nip in the bud’ any proposals for it to be part of the mainline network and subject to TSIs etc.
Indeed on the "unstated", however it was also not clear a decade ago what later versions of ETCS would deliver in practice (e.g. stopping precision for PEDS) hence being cautious knowing that CBTC could do it.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
CBTC is fundamentally different to ETCS Level 2 (as used on the Thameslink core) though, the big big thing being the use of moving block technology. Railtrack figured out just how impossible that was on a mainline railway with the WCML route modernisation, so there is far more to CBTC than just ETCS+ATO+auto reverse.
One of the other issues I heard mentioned was the need to align with platform screen doors. I have not seen that capability mentioned with ETCS Level 2, but I may have just missed it if it has been implemented elsewhere.

Moving Block was supposed to be in ETCS level 3 but that has been put on hold I believe.
 

DownFast

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2021
Messages
41
Location
UK
Apparently recent software updates on both the 387s and 345s means an ETCS Reset (what a failure to transition oftern requires) can be as low as 2-3 minutes, but this sounds like an "on paper" calculation as opposed to reality. Not sure if TPWS <> CTBC has had many issues at Westbourne Park, but haven't heard of many.
I don't know about the 345s, but when the 387 AIRs were first introduced, a reset did take 2-3 minutes. But as the number of resets each unit has undergone has increased over time (including when being prepped etc.), the data logs that are read on system start up were getting more unwieldy and more corrupted, which was why resets were taking so much longer. But the recent software update has addressed that so we're back to where the units were at the introduction of the fleet, with resets taking a couple of minutes. How long that will last, I don't really know.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,773
"Everything was simpler in the past, you needed a lot more staff and trains could smash into the back of the one in front really easily"
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,449
OT, but is there really a need for ”moving block” under ETCS? Level 2 solves the disadvantage of not being able to communicate an aspect change in advance of a signal being approached.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
OT, but is there really a need for ”moving block” under ETCS? Level 2 solves the disadvantage of not being able to communicate an aspect change in advance of a signal being approached.
That partly depends on block sizes and train lengths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top