Better places to trial ETCS than the Cambrian?

[Bletchleyite]

Regular readers will note that I think the installation of ETCS on the Cambrian was an idiotic choice (I'm not going to mince my words) and has done nothing but cause problems and general disadvantage to users of the line, most notably because you can't move other stock onto the line to extend trains in the very busy summer period on the actual Coast line which is sorely needed.

The question is, where could it have been done instead? What aspects of it needed to be trialled?

A couple of ideas:

• Ormskirk-Preston, while short, has a passing loop and a level crossing. It could be operated on an entirely self-contained basis, with one unit for an irregular timetable or two for hourly, indeed for well over 10 years it was.
• The Heart of Wales Line barely fills a 153 in the height of August, and is a single track line with passing loops and level crossings if you want something longer.

Any other ideas?

 

[Starmill]

Technically, the ETCS is operationally beneficial in that trains can pass without having to stop now. That isn't actually achievable on the other routes you mention as none of the loops are suitable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Technically, the ETCS is operationally beneficial in that trains can pass without having to stop now. That isn't actually achievable on the other routes you mention as none of the loops are suitable.

I think people would sacrifice a couple of minutes delay for a static pass in a loop (which often happens anyway, as the timings aren't that precise) in preference to having to stand with their head in someone's armpit (or vice versa) in a puddle of sweat on a 2-car 158 in August on which the aircon has conked out yet again.

Without ETCS, you could run 3-car trains on the Coast in summer by taking a unit from a commuter service, as these tend to be quieter in the school holidays. With it you can't, as only the 158s are fitted. You also apparently can't use a 3-car set even if ETCS is fitted (e.g. by splitting the 158s and forming 2 3-car units out of 3 2-car units) because of radio signals at Pwllheli, which is another utterly stupid, short-sighted decision that ranks up there with the decisions to position signals on the Marston Vale to only accommodate 2 x 20m units when they knew full well that no new DMUs have been built with 20m vehicles since the early 1980s.

It's either thoughtless or "operational convenience over the customer", I'm not sure which, but either way it is contempt for the passenger and thus unacceptable.

 

[Domh245]

most notably because you can't move other stock onto the line to extend trains in the very busy summer period on the actual Coast line which is sorely needed.

That sounds more like an issue with not enough trains being ETCS fitted/reluctance to throw ETCS fitted trains at the Cambrian than an issue with the choice of line itself...

 

[Bletchleyite]

That sounds more like an issue with not enough trains being ETCS fitted/reluctance to throw ETCS fitted trains at the Cambrian than an issue with the choice of line itself...

The cost of the kit means fitting it to the whole fleet is prohibitive. It also takes up a load of space in the saloon.

 

[Ianno87]

You wouldn't want somewhere "too" quiet, as you do need to stress test multiple trains crossing in various combinations. For which Cambrian is probably ideal. Plus splitting g/joining and a depot interface at Machynlleth.

That sounds more like an issue with not enough trains being ETCS fitted/reluctance to throw ETCS fitted trains at the Cambrian than an issue with the choice of line itself...

Exactly - which would be needed for a wider ETCS rollout anyway. But even so, ATW/TfW benefit from not having to train crews on more than 158s. Could capacity be added by "boxing in" non-ETCS fitted 158s (in theory)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly - which would be needed for a wider ETCS rollout anyway. But even so, ATW/TfW benefit from not having to train crews on more than 158s. Could capacity be added by "boxing in" non-ETCS fitted 158s (in theory)

You'd think so (and that would be an acceptable solution to the problem), but it came up on the Cambrian thread that a 3-car unit can't be used at Pwllheli because the ETCS radio signals can't reach the cab.

It's thoughtlessness or lack of planning that sits up there with the highly foolish decision to have signal positions for 40m rather than 46m units on the Marston Vale.

 

[Ianno87]

The cost of the kit means fitting it to the whole fleet is prohibitive. It also takes up a load of space in the saloon.

Which is going to be needed sooner or later anyway.

Probably better than having a micro Fleet for a minor branch - cue a cancellation as soon as one has a problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is going to be needed sooner or later anyway.

Is it? It was a trial of a system that would clearly be of use on things like Thameslink and the ECML/WCML, but isn't going to make it to places like the North Wales Coast for years. I think there is a good chance that at least some of the 197s will never, ever run on an ETCS fitted line.

To be fair, sorting out the Pwllheli radio issue and fitting it to say 5 of the 3-car 197s would help. Platform length shouldn't be a massive issue, just use local door on the short ones, which is probably what CT did (I forget, but I've definitely been to Pwllheli on a 3-car formation of 153+156 in the late 90s).

Probably better than having a micro Fleet for a minor branch - cue a cancellation as soon as one has a problem.

Of course, fitting it created...yes, you guessed it...a microfleet. Central Trains could use any of their 15x/170 on it, and as the masters of the "random unit generator" usually did.

 

[Domh245]

The cost of the kit means fitting it to the whole fleet is prohibitive. It also takes up a load of space in the saloon.

The sources I can find suggest it's fitted to all 24 158s, which pushes it more towards "why don't TfW take a 158 off something else to put on the cambrian"

The line was put into service in March 2011, and operates with ERTMS Level 2. There are 24 sets of 2 coach Class 158 DMUs from Arriva Trains Wales which have now been ERTMS fitted for passenger operations

 

[craigybagel]

To be honest, and I've raised this point with the OP before - personally I can't think of a single line that both offers the benefits of the Cambrian (complex enough to provide useful data, but self contained enough (including lacking virtually all freight) to not require the fitting of ETCS to too many vehicles) and also, crucially, required resignalling anyway at the time concerned.

That sounds more like an issue with not enough trains being ETCS fitted/reluctance to throw ETCS fitted trains at the Cambrian than an issue with the choice of line itself...

This was exactly the issue. ATW didn't have any more 158s to fit with ETCS. It's also worth pointing out that the line was exclusively worked by 158s even before ETCS was fitted. Given ATW's notorious lack of units throughout it's existence, I don't believe that the situation on the Cambrian would have been any different even if ETCS hadn't been fitted.

You wouldn't want somewhere "too" quiet, as you do need to stress test multiple trains crossing in various combinations. For which Cambrian is probably ideal. Plus splitting g/joining and a depot interface at Machynlleth.



Exactly - which would be needed for a wider ETCS rollout anyway. But even so, ATW/TfW benefit from not having to train crews on more than 158s. Could capacity be added by "boxing in" non-ETCS fitted 158s (in theory)

Cutting the number of crews involved also benefited Network Rail, since they paid for the training. AIUI this was kept down to a limited number, which is why Crewe drivers had the Cambrian taken off their route cards at the same time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest, and I've raised this point with the OP before - personally I can't think of a single line that both offers the benefits of the Cambrian (complex enough to provide useful data, but self contained enough (including lacking virtually all freight) to not require the fitting of ETCS to too many vehicles) and also, crucially, required resignalling anyway at the time concerned.

So it was operationally the best choice. But were the passengers considered?

This was exactly the issue. ATW didn't have any more 158s to fit with ETCS. It's also worth pointing out that the line was exclusively worked by 158s even before ETCS was fitted. Given ATW's notorious lack of units throughout it's existence, I don't believe that the situation on the Cambrian would have been any different even if ETCS hadn't been fitted.

Perhaps not - but we're now ordering new 197s and still planning to run 2-car sets up there? OK, they'll handle a full and standing load better than a 158, but we really shouldn't be even considering accepting full-and-standing loads on a 4 hour journey.

For all I think it was a really bad idea, why not just fit it to say 5 of the 3-car 197s for peak summer use? I know there's the Pwllheli radio issue raised on the other thread, but surely that is fixable.

 

[Ianno87]

You'd think so (and that would be an acceptable solution to the problem), but it came up on the Cambrian thread that a 3-car unit can't be used at Pwllheli because the ETCS radio signals can't reach the cab.

It's thoughtlessness or lack of planning that sits up there with the highly foolish decision to have signal positions for 40m rather than 46m units on the Marston Vale.

It's a Trial. Which is precisely the point to flesh out issues like this not identified due the lack of practical real world expertise.

Wasn't the other issue that the old RETB frequencies were due to expire, so it needed something doing anyway, and is probably the most "buoyant" line traffic wise of all the former RETB routes (possibly excluding East Suffolk).

 

[craigybagel]

The sources I can find suggest it's fitted to all 24 158s, which pushes it more towards "why don't TfW take a 158 off something else to put on the cambrian"

Pre Covid, they already almost did. There were only 3 diagrams that avoided the Cambrian, which served as just about enough to keep Cardiff and Carmarthen crews competent on them. Why is this important? Because it means you can use them on Manchester/South Wales services vice 175s. Without it, it means 150s and 153s working Manchester - Milford even more than they already do, and even more moaning about this fact than already takes place.

 

[Ianno87]

This was exactly the issue. ATW didn't have any more 158s to fit with ETCS. It's also worth pointing out that the line was exclusively worked by 158s even before ETCS was fitted. Given ATW's notorious lack of units throughout it's existence, I don't believe that the situation on the Cambrian would have been any different even if ETCS hadn't been fitted.

.

ETCS is probably less of a constraint than the old RETB. If any additional stock were fitted with ETCS, it would have much more long term value than obsolete RETB (if that equipment was even still in production)

 

[craigybagel]

So it was operationally the best choice. But were the passengers considered?



Perhaps not - but we're now ordering new 197s and still planning to run 2-car sets up there? OK, they'll handle a full and standing load better than a 158, but we really shouldn't be even considering accepting full-and-standing loads on a 4 hour journey.

For all I think it was a really bad idea, why not just fit it to say 5 of the 3-car 197s for peak summer use? I know there's the Pwllheli radio issue raised on the other thread, but surely that is fixable.

Have the passengers really suffered? As I've pointed out, the Cambrian was already a 158 railway anyway, and I see no reason why this would have been any different. Could you really see Arriva paying to refit RETB equipment to other units, and keep Machy/Pwllheli crews competent on them, at a time when there weren't any other units spare anyway?

In return, they've got a line signalled to the most modern standards, and no more delays during token exchanges.

It's a Trial. Which is precisely the point to flesh out issues like this not identified due the lack of practical real world expertise.

Wasn't the other issue that the old RETB frequencies were due to expire, so it needed something doing anyway, and is probably the most "buoyant" line traffic wise of all the former RETB routes (possibly excluding East Suffolk).

Indeed it was. As I've pointed out, it wasn't just a suitable line by itself, it was also a line that required some form of resignalling anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

ETCS is probably less of a constraint than the old RETB. If any additional stock were fitted with ETCS, it would have much more long term value than obsolete RETB (if that equipment was even still in production)

Have the passengers really suffered? As I've pointed out, the Cambrian was already a 158 railway anyway, and I see no reason why this would have been any different. Could you really see Arriva paying to refit RETB equipment to other units, and keep Machy/Pwllheli crews competent on them, at a time when there weren't any other units spare anyway?

There are portable RETB units (which could even be used in things like steam locomotives which formerly went down there), not so ETCS.

Yes, RETB was life-expired, but in Scotland has been replaced with something new but basically the same.

 

[Ianno87]

There are portable RETB units (which could even be used in things like steam locomotives which formerly went down there), not so ETCS.

Yes, RETB was life-expired, but in Scotland has been replaced with something new but basically the same.

ETCS offers the opportunity to improve capacity and journey times. RETB really doesn't.

 

[craigybagel]

There are portable RETB units, not so ETCS.

True. Do you really see Arriva paying for them, and to keep crews trained on them (and the traction they would be attached to)?

The Cambrian's problems aren't caused by ETCS. It's problems were the same as those that effected all of Wales - the downright ridiculous decision to award a 15 year zero growth franchise. All of Wales suffered as a result, and not just the Cambrian.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True. Do you really see Arriva paying for them, and to keep crews trained on them (and the traction they would be attached to)?

The Cambrian's problems aren't caused by ETCS. It's problems were the same as those that effected all of Wales - the downright ridiculous decision to award a 15 year zero growth franchise. All of Wales suffered as a result, and not just the Cambrian.

And yet that has continued into the new age of new rolling stock and upgrades. There are a number of options that would have made the Cambrian's lot better (personally I'd have gone for something like Pwllheli as a connection using 230s and proper 4-car InterCity style units with first class and buffets working to Aber), but they seem to have chosen the one that actually makes it worse!

 

[Jez]

Pre Covid, they already almost did. There were only 3 diagrams that avoided the Cambrian, which served as just about enough to keep Cardiff and Carmarthen crews competent on them. Why is this important? Because it means you can use them on Manchester/South Wales services vice 175s. Without it, it means 150s and 153s working Manchester - Milford even more than they already do, and even more moaning about this fact than already takes place.

At least 1 of the 3 South Wales 158 diagrams used to be a 150 each day and the Saturday Manchester-Milford Haven 158 diagram was about 50% of the time a 150 instead of a 158.

 

[craigybagel]

And yet that has continued into the new age of new rolling stock and upgrades. There are a number of options that would have made the Cambrian's lot better (personally I'd have gone for something like Pwllheli as a connection using 230s and proper 4-car InterCity style units with first class and buffets working to Aber), but they seem to have chosen the one that actually makes it worse!

But the new rolling stock will be purely for the Cambrian - no need to send it Holyhead or South Wales any more. And if all the predictions of doom and gloom are correct and TfW really have got their maths wrong, it's much easier to fix. The rest of the 197 fleet will be ETCS ready from day one.

I suspect if they do fit more units, it'll be more of the 2 cars anyway rather than the 3 cars. That way they're not creating any more subfleets (there's already going to be 4 within the 197s as it is!) and multiples of 2 would make it easier to cope with certain 6 car stations along the route.

Incidentally, I suspect if you told people down the coast that A: they'd be losing their direct trains beyond Machynlleth and B: their dedicated branch trains would be tarted up 40 year old London Underground stock, I reckon you'd get a lot more people moaning than the amount who complain about their signalling system now! Or indeed, are likely to complain when the 197s arrive.....

 

[Bald Rick]

Well it depends what you are trying to test with a pilot (not a trial). In this case it needed to be a balance of:

A relatively self contained route, but with sufficient interfaces (train and infrastructure) to test them

A route operated by only one or two types of rolling stock, preferably maintained in the same place, but a large enough fleet to get sufficient failures to iron out through shakedown and also to get good grasp of production costs once the first in class had been developed

A long enough route to get economy of scale from design and manufacture - again to get a good idea of production cost and schedules

A relatively simple route, but with sufficient complexity (junctions, single line, double line, differing speeds, a station termini*, most types of level crossing etc) to make sure that all the relevant operational rules could be implemented

A relatively lightly used route, to avoid major inconvenience to large numbers of passengers during implementation and shakedown, but one that does get busy at times to stress test the system in operation

A route with a wide range of geographical and topographical features

A route that needed resignalling anyway, so that the investment covers more than just R&D.

There may well have been somewhere better than the Cambrian for the pilot, but I can’t think of it. Don’t forget that the trial installation was done on the Asfordby test track.


*AIUI, Aberystwyth was the first terminal station in the world to go operational with ETCS L2.

 

[Starmill]

The loop at Tallerdig is highly effective because it allows one train to pass at the max permissible speed either side. Likely that fewer trains would be able to run without this feature.

It also takes up a load of space in the saloon.

It's the same on the Northern units that have the wiring looms and cabinets fitted - except that there there aren't any benefits.

 

[martin2345uk]

When is the ERTMS trial due to end? What happens then? When will we see likely rollouts onto other existing lines?

 

[Anonymous10]

Have the passengers really suffered? As I've pointed out, the Cambrian was already a 158 railway anyway, and I see no reason why this would have been any different. Could you really see Arriva paying to refit RETB equipment to other units, and keep Machy/Pwllheli crews competent on them, at a time when there weren't any other units spare anyway?

In return, they've got a line signalled to the most modern standards, and no more delays during token exchanges.

Indeed it was. As I've pointed out, it wasn't just a suitable line by itself, it was also a line that required some form of resignalling anyway.

isnt a similar system to retb used on the pembroke Dock branch?

 

[craigybagel]

isnt a similar system to retb used on the pembroke Dock branch?

No, both that branch and the Heart of Wales are NSTR. They use old fashioned (but still perfectly safe) physical tokens obtained from token machines, supervised over the phone by the signaler at Whitland and Pantyfynnon respectively. It doesn't require any equipment on the train at all, so any train can work over the route - but it is a relatively slow and cumbersome process not suitable for busier lines.

 

[Anonymous10]

No, both that branch and the Heart of Wales are NSTR. They use old fashioned (but still perfectly safe) physical tokens obtained from token machines, supervised over the phone by the signaler at Whitland and Pantyfynnon respectively. It doesn't require any equipment on the train at all, so any train can work over the route - but it is a relatively slow and cumbersome process not suitable for busier lines.

oh ok theres another note for if Pembroke Dock gets a higher or better service (see relevant thread)

 

[The Planner]

It wasnt just ETCS put in, there was the twin track improvement out to Fron, the Tallerdig change as noted and the loop at Dovey. All of which allowed more trains to run.

When is the ERTMS trial due to end? What happens then? When will we see likely rollouts onto other existing lines?

Its a permanent trial, its not going anywhere.

 

[D365]

When is the ERTMS trial due to end? What happens then? When will we see likely rollouts onto other existing lines?

East Coast Main Line will be the first, this decade hopefully.