Digital Railway

[Domh245]

373/374/395 have in cab signalling for HS1, but it's the French TVM430 standard as used on their early LGVs, not ERTMS/ETCS.
700/345 will have ETCS for some key sections of their routes (ATO on Thameslink).
Anything on ECML south of Peterborough will get ETCS (or be replaced). NR has a programme with the TOCs to fit freight locos for that route.
But currently 387s don't have the capability, and neither do Scotrail's 385s (no plans for ETCS in Scotland yet).
No plans on Waterloo routes either, so no plans to fit ETCS on their trains, eg 707.
HS2 will have ETCS from the start, but there are no plans to fit the WCML north of where HS2 joins.
Fitting ETCS is not yet a "simple" operation, especially on older stock. It was a nightmare on ATW's Cambrian 158s.
But all new trains are supposed to be "ETCS Ready", whatever that means.

The HEX fleet of 387s are going to be fitted with ETCS for the Heathrow Tunnels. It's also worth noting that the new SWR metro stock will be ETCS ready and will have a form of mild ATO according to an ASELF leaflet.
ETCS ready I think varies from having space to install the equipment, to more 'ready' examples where there are the necessary screens in the cab which just need connecting to the equipment.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, but how many trains since then have had it AND in use?
Not many. The 395s?

This announcement is about putting all this stuff into practice in normal operation.

Do the recent classes 80x / 700 / 707 / 710 / 720 / 385 / 387 / 345 have in cab signalling capability?

700s, 800s* and 345s have ETCS fitted. I know it is working on some 700 and 345 units at least.

*at least the EC versions do, not sure about those on the GW, but would be very surprised if not, given that ETCS is coming to the GWML soon.

Not sure of class numbers, but the SWR Aventras will come with ETCS fitted, ready for Feltham resignalling.

 

[Bald Rick]

However I thought we just recently declared the "end in sight" of the traditional season ticket commuter in the South East- why would you want to invest in uplifting capacity for a declining market?

Who is “we”?

I’ve heard from multiple sources that London commuting has bounced in the last quarter and back on the up. That correlates with my experience of the last few months.

 

[Bromley boy]

Who is “we”?

I’ve heard from multiple sources that London commuting has bounced in the last quarter and back on the up. That correlates with my experience of the last few months.

There was an article (in a recent Modern Railways issue, I think), including detailed statistics, about how season ticket demand and population growth have become “decoupled” over the last few years.

The population has grown but, increasingly, people might expect to work from home one day (or more) a week, so that increasing population doesn’t correlate with increased commuter traffic as it used to.

I believe quite a few TOCs have recorded poorer ridership figures than expected in recent years (notably east coast).

I imagine this is the kind of thing @Gareth Marston was driving at.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Theirs been a significant and noticeable fall in season ticket sales especially south of the Thames this has been in trade articles and even the national media has picked this up. If this trend continues then numbers arriving/ departing in the traditional peaks are going to be on the decline.

Garyling endorsed TOC price gouging at the same event in York about the digital railway. We all know Virgin West Coast peak trains are half empty as a result and we all strongly suspect the RDG fare review will try and extend anti passenger pro TOC finances practices further with a Secretary of State on their side.

Theirs been a lot of bellyaching about TPE abolishing Cheap Day Returns on this forum, you can also find threads accusing TOC's of deliberately running short formation off peak trains that are overcrowded.

So why is this extra capacity that the digital railway will allegedly deliver needed?

 

[The Planner]

If there is a downturn in numbers, are you sure that it is permanent and wouldn't rise again, possibly to higher levels again which would drive the need for capacity? Maybe for once we are being a bit proactive instead of reactive?

 

[Gareth Marston]

If there is a downturn in numbers, are you sure that it is permanent and wouldn't rise again, possibly to higher levels again which would drive the need for capacity? Maybe for once we are being a bit proactive instead of reactive?

I strongly suspect the current Government's rail policy is more to do with managing Treasury spending than growing passenger numbers. Hence the inherent contradiction in what is being promised about the digital railway v the actuality of what is actually happening from DfT.
Whilst a lot of signalling renewal will have to be done anyway and £ spent can we have some honesty?

 

[DerekC]

Just spotted that Network Rail has published a new plan in this area. See the link below. I have only looked at it briefly - it seems to be a complete reversal of the policy pushed in the days of Mark Carne. This time it's a piecemeal approach aligned to signalling renewals - so despute the headlines no route gets completed for a very long time. Interesting to see what others think!

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...gy/digital-railway-long-term-deployment-plan/

The Digital Railway transformation is about delivering a more dynamic, responsive and fit-for-purpose railway for rail users in the digital age.
Adopting digital train control technologies will enable us to deliver our services more efficiently and more cost effectively, than with conventional technologies. By working together, we are pursuing our digital strategy to realise benefits, to provide improved capacity, performance, safety and sustainability.

Digital signalling and train control technology will deliver significant benefits to passengers. In response to a request from the Secretary of State for Transport, the Digital Railway Programme has developed a Long-term Deployment Plan (LTDP) that proposes a partnership approach between Network Rail, the train operating companies (both freight and passenger), the rail industry supply chain and the Department for Transport. As the delivery of digital signalling requires multiple stakeholders to work together, fundamental to the success of this proposal is the co-ordination of budgets and asset renewal plans. This plan will also need to iterate over time as technology and network needs matures.

The LTDP takes account of the scale and complexity of fitting out in excess of 4,000 trains and the upgrading of more than 19,000 miles of network for one of the busiest and most intensively operated railway networks in the world. A network of this size and complexity cannot be fitted out overnight. It requires a steady programme of asset renewal to manage the transition to digital technology and also maintain continuity of service for passengers and other rail users.

The LTDP therefore sets out a framework and compelling case for asset renewal based on the replacement schedule for existing conventional signalling and train control assets, showing how modern signalling and train control technology can be delivered in a safe and cost-effective manner across the network:

• The LDTP executive summary outlines the case for digital signalling renewal, aligning both the vehicle fitment strategy as published on the Rail Delivery Group website and infrastructure renewal.
• The attached interactive PDF maps illustrate how the Network Rail regions in England and Wales will gradually migrate to digital signalling technology over a 30-year period starting from 2024, the commencement of CP7. N.B. Scotland is included in the LTDP network analysis and has engaged in the process throughout. Since its completion in spring 2019 Scotland has agreed to undertake a Whole System Signalling Review with Transport Scotland and with the support of the Digital Railway Programme. This will iterate their long-term plans as part of the network plan thus this hasn’t been illustrated on the maps at this point.

 

[petersi]

Interesting that area covered by the kings cross power box will not be done until cp 12
Though kings cross to Welwyn looks to be cp6/cp7
The earlier plans made it look like this would be done early in the program
I may have got this wrong as the interactive map is not user friendly

 

[DerekC]

Interesting that area covered by the kings cross power box will not be done until cp 12
Though kings cross to Welwyn looks to be cp6/cp7
The earlier plans made it look like this would be done early in the program
I may have got this wrong as the interactive map is not user friendly

I have posted dates for ECML and GWML in the thread "ERTMS rollout for ECML and GWML" as they seemed to fit better there. You are right that the map is very unfriendly as it doesn't zoom so interpreting the details is difficult.

 

[kevin_roche]

It seems to me that by doing little bits all over the place they save money but get no benefit compared with conventional signals.

 

[DerekC]

It seems to me that by doing little bits all over the place they save money but get no benefit compared with conventional signals.

I think that's right, and it will be very difficult to manage a programme that does a bit here and a bit there in the way they are suggesting. Also it will be operationally difficult, with drivers on some trips having to switch from ERTMS to conventional signalling and back several times.

It remains to be proved that they can actually save money. The "Level 3 hybrid" that NR is talking about is a complex beast. Track circuits or axle counters are retained for deadlocking and flank protection at junctions (as you might expect) but also on plain track (in long blocks) as a backup and for unfitted trains - so presumably there will be some visual signals as well. Infrastructure kit will be reduced but not eliminated so some money will be saved, against this you have to pay for train kit. The other thing that seems to have been lost sight of is that you need highly reliable communications - the old West Coast programme planned for double GSM-R coverage in its Level 3 TCS concept - and that costs a lot.

 

[Bromley boy]

I think that's right, and it will be very difficult to manage a programme that does a bit here and a bit there in the way they are suggesting. Also it will be operationally difficult, with drivers on some trips having to switch from ERTMS to conventional signalling and back several times.

It remains to be proved that they can actually save money. The "Level 3 hybrid" that NR is talking about is a complex beast. Track circuits or axle counters are retained for deadlocking and flank protection at junctions (as you might expect) but also on plain track (in long blocks) as a backup and for unfitted trains - so presumably there will be some visual signals as well. Infrastructure kit will be reduced but not eliminated so some money will be saved, against this you have to pay for train kit. The other thing that seems to have been lost sight of is that you need highly reliable communications - the old West Coast programme planned for double GSM-R coverage in its Level 3 TCS concept - and that costs a lot.

It definitely seems to have been substantially reduced in scope from what was being proposed a couple of years back. Wasn’t Mark Carne’s original plan to do the entire network within 15 years?

 

[kevin_roche]

The "Level 3 hybrid" that NR is talking about is a complex beast.

I can't see any benefit to it if some trains dont have ETCS and are using coloured light signals. the whole point of level 3 is that you have moving block and get more trains on the track. If you have lights you have fixed blocks.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't see any benefit to it if some trains dont have ETCS and are using coloured light signals. the whole point of level 3 is that you have moving block and get more trains on the track. If you have lights you have fixed blocks.

You have fixed block with ETCS L2 as well.

The benefit of L3 hybrid is that it is cheaper than L2 in a situation where some trains aren’t fitted, and has more capacity for trains fitted with train integrity monitoring.

In any event, we will be fairly quickly at the position that most trains are fitted with ETCS (but not train integrity monitoring).

 

[RichardGore]

You have fixed block with ETCS L2 as well.

The benefit of L3 hybrid is that it is cheaper than L2 in a situation where some trains aren’t fitted, and has more capacity for trains fitted with train integrity monitoring.

In any event, we will be fairly quickly at the position that most trains are fitted with ETCS (but not train integrity monitoring).

Is this the case? I was under the impression that integrity monitoring was essentially trivial for an EMU, and the difficulty arises primarily with freight.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is this the case? I was under the impression that integrity monitoring was essentially trivial for an EMU, and the difficulty arises primarily with freight.

Yes it is absolutely the case, the train must be in contact with the Radio Blcok Centre and confirming it is complete at all times. This is just as much of an issue for an EMU as any other train.

 

[JamesT]

Yes it is absolutely the case, the train must be in contact with the Radio Blcok Centre and confirming it is complete at all times. This is just as much of an issue for an EMU as any other train.

But an EMU has cabs that communicate with each other at the ends of the train. Surely it’s going to have a much better idea of train integrity that it can then communicate to the centre than a freight train with dumb wagons?

 

[MarkyT]

Train 'integrity' is actually the easy bit. Continuous brakes have monitored that for decades, and notionally any detection of an unexpected loss of brake pressure could be met with a failsafe signalling system response to the loss of known position of the rear of a train. The difficult bit is determination of the LENGTH of a train in the first place for safely clearing blocks. For networks where trains are always a fixed length like metros, this is easy as the signalling can simply make an assumption that the rear is a standard distance from the active cab. For variable length MU trains systems on board are usually able to determine the number of units or cars in a formation, but this has to be known to a very high degree of certainty for safely enabling block clearance without fixed trackside train detection, and preexisting diagnostic and control systems on trains may not be adequate for this. Freight and other loco hauled traffic is even more of a challenge as there is usually not even any kind of whole train management system, and certainly not one of sufficient integrity that can safely and reliably report length back into the system. The GW-ATP system used to have a driver procedure for manual consist input for the few locos that were experimentally fitted. For 332s and HSTs the standard lengths are automatically preconfigured. This was not required for length/integrity determination in the pilot scheme but rather for braking performance configuration, as the GW-ATP system is overlaid on top of a conventional signalling system with fixed train detection. This form of manual input would certainly not be adequate for block clearance purposes. Moving block is simply not necessary for most of the railway. The primary exception to this might be in platforms where a 'permissive' section could allow a second train enter the station safely while the previous one is still departing, without needing the very short fixed block sections as applied on the Thameslink core. Elsewhere, the proposed fixed virtual block system proposed by NR can provide sufficient capacity as it is the platforms and their reoccupation time that determine overall capacity. Fixed blocks with markers also provide a realistic way to verbally authorise movements, block marker to block marker, in the event of system failures, which would be much more difficult with no reference markers. Some have suggested mileposts (or km marker) could suffice for this, but these are not visible enough from a driving position and may not be maintained to the same standard as lineside signs and signalling. They also may not always be in the right position for 'Home' hold points on approach to junctions and stations. System complexity is reduced and theoretical reliability increased with fixed virtual blocks compared to moving blocks, as this part of the system effectively becomes intermittent. 'Moving' is a continuous system whereby the rear of trains must be adequately reported at all times and any loss results in an immediate failsafe response for following trains. 'Fixed virtual' only needs to pass block clear confirmation messages at the time the rear passes the block marker.

 

[moggie]

Having had a quick read of the NR schmultz on the subject I'd say it was the first signs of reality starting to dawn. That said, only signs, as some of the assumptions and statements made (no doubt by the same people who have been pushing the digital promised land narrative) on NR's website are hopelessly wide of the mark if the basis of the evidence quoted is an example of their research. An example of this is the assumed capacity to deliver signalling SEU's / annum with almost twice the alleged capability to deliver digital v conventional. They cite typical ETCS norms (what are they in the UK!) v actual NR experience for conventional, ignoring the dearth of orders from NR for signalling works in the last few years leading to CP6 which is what has constrained annual SEU completion more than any other factor. The other bit the Digital delusionists ignore is that the tricky bits in a signalling system architecture are also present in a digital solution, so at best in the real world, the delivery of Digital SEU's might eventually be comparable with conventional signalling schemes but NOT twice as good as conventionalif the measure is a working Signalling System (Crossrail anecdotally suggest it could indeed be twice as bad as integrating the on board cab system is clearly taking FAR longer than it takes drivers to successfully eyeball a a few colour light signals). We won't know of course until Digital have completed a few projects (not just a couple of test installations and Thameslink!).

But the evidence is now clear. The concept of Digital Signalling as conceptualised for roll out in the UK was flawed from the beginning and only now are the realities of implementing to wholesale route modernisation in the constrained UK financial environment dawning. So instead of pipedreams we have the realisation that Digital must be linked with the signalling renewal budget. BUT, if that is now the case what added value does Digital bring to the operation when a piecemeal approach (typical of renewals, driven primarily on asset condition) will require conventional signalling with a Digital capability? Front end TMS perhaps but not much at the Track / Train interface. Therefore, with money tight I suspect the Signalling, as distinct from the Operations Control will find it hard to do anything more than be Digital compatible (ready in NR parlance). i.e. as far from digital as any current conventional mainline signalling scheme. The Digital Hype bubble hasn't burst as such but it has certainly suffered its first deflation.

I see it going this way from here. Whole route renewal over many years has to take place eventually. IF demand pushes available line capacity signalling renewal will be specified for Digital compatibility but renewed using Digital compatible, conventional signalling (like the majority of new signalling installations these days). The focus however will be on serving the current need with the new signalling (which may require minor enhancements). At the same time, assets on the route targeted for Digital introduction but neither compatible or due for early renewal will be bought forward in the programme for attention, possibly financed as an enhancement project. Eventually the route will have Digital Compatibility and providing a business case exists L2 Digital Signalling can be overlaid using the core signalling system already in place with appropriate alterations. I do think TMS, CDAS and other Digital technologies will progress. The only exceptions might be projects wholly financed from DfT's Enhancement Pipeline budget. As we know, the list of schemes currently making this list up is an industry secret (or secret from industry to be more accurate).

 

[Chris125]

I can't see any benefit to it if some trains dont have ETCS and are using coloured light signals. the whole point of level 3 is that you have moving block and get more trains on the track. If you have lights you have fixed blocks.

Level 3 Hybrid is a proposed form of ETCS cab signalling, it shouldn't need lights at all.

IIRC it works like Level 2 - cab signalling but with conventional blocks occupied by one train at a time - but those blocks can be occupied by multiple trains fitted with Level 3.

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2017/04/25/ertms-level-3-a-possible-way-forward/

 

[kevin_roche]

Level 3 Hybrid is a proposed form of ETCS cab signalling, it shouldn't need lights at all.

IIRC it works like Level 2 - cab signalling but with conventional blocks occupied by one train at a time - but those blocks can be occupied by multiple trains fitted with Level 3.

Thank you for the link to the article. There is one line in there that highlights the issue which concerns me:

It follows that any train not equipped for either ETCS Level 2 or 3 operation would not be permitted to run on this particular route unless, in addition to track circuits or axle counters, lineside signals are retained. This is similar to the situation today for lines being considered for Level 2 introduction whereby, unless all items of rolling stock using the line are equipped, conventional signals have to be kept in a so- called ‘overlay’ mode.

For any cost savings the coloured lights have to be removed. In which case all the trains on that route must be equiped with ETCS 2 or 3.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thank you for the link to the article. There is one line in there that highlights the issue which concerns me:


For any cost savings the coloured lights have to be removed. In which case all the trains on that route must be equiped with ETCS 2 or 3.

Correct, but it won’t be too long before all trains are fitted.

 

[kevin_roche]

Yesterday in New Civil Engineer there was an article titled "‘High risk’ Crossrail opening will be delayed further". It actually refers to the phase going to Heathrow which will use ETCS in the Heathrow tunnels.

Jacobs identified the principal risks to opening on time were delays in train software development, which it said had slipped further, and safety authorisation.

Today Building has an article with a more accurate headline "Jacobs warns Crossrail’s Heathrow branch is facing four months’ delay".

By way of getting to the bottom of the issues causing the delay I went to the Jacobs report itself and found that the interesting parts are redacted making it difficult to identify the cause. On page 17 it says:

As described in our last report,the testing of the train has identified 3 faults with (redacted) ETCS. These are: inadequate (redacted) The train position issue is expected to be fixed in June 2019, but the (redacted) issues are proving difficult to fix, with the current date of (redacted) at risk. This needs to be resolved before passenger service can begin. Lack of at the start of driver training would require training runs to be repeated. The position concerning the ETCS wayside receiving its ‘Putting into Use’ certificate from the W&W ETCS group remains unchanged. This has been outstanding since November 2018 and may not occur until the 39 tests are completed, currently scheduled for August2019. CRL is aware of the issue.

This issue could be an issue with GSM-R signalling messages but the Jacobs report also mentions an issue with train position. To determine position the train software needs to be successfully reading the Eurobalise in the Heathrow tunnels.

Another mention elsewhere in the report is that there is an issue with the platform screen doors. Alignment with the doors is also based on the train being able to read the Eurobalise correctly.

Does this point at there being an issue with the 345 reading the Eurobalise?

 

[MarkyT]

This issue could be an issue with GSM-R signalling messages but the Jacobs report also mentions an issue with train position. To determine position the train software needs to be successfully reading the Eurobalise in the Heathrow tunnels. Another mention elsewhere in the report is that there is an issue with the platform screen doors. Alignment with the doors is also based on the train being able to read the Eurobalise correctly. Does this point at there being an issue with the 345 reading the Eurobalise?

I doubt there are problems actually reading the Eurobalises, which are used for both the ETCS and CBTC infrastructure (as mentioned in the other thread I think), but maybe in the trains' interpretation and action on the positional data received with the required level of accuracy for lining up with doors and avoiding SPADs (or CBTC/ETCS equivalent).

 

[DerekC]

Rather than start a new thread I thought this one could be revived. Network Rail and DfT have recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding, committing themselves to support the Digital Railway's "Long Term Deployment Plan" which was published in June 2019:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...Digital-Railway-Long-Term-Deployment-Plan.pdf

The MoU is too long to quote in full, but essentially it sets out how NR and DfT wil work together to ensure that digital signalling (i.e. ERTMS) is deployed when current signalling assets are life expired. Here are some extracts which give the flavour:

The Long Term Deployment Plan1 (LTDP) builds on the Digital Railway Strategy to provide a comprehensive view of how the rail network can transition to a digital railway in the longer term i.e. from 2024 onwards, by aligning train fitment and infrastructure renewals. While the LTDP is driven by a renewals need, train fitment is a critical enabler and must be taken forward for the impacted operators ,in Control Period 6 (CP6), before the infrastructure is changed. Fitment of franchised passenger operators will be managed by the Department for Transport (DfT), with the fitment of freight, open access operators and on-track machinery (OTM)managed by Network Rail, subject to funding. Both the DfT and Network Rail are committed to pursuing digital signalling and agree that the introduction of digital signalling when existing signalling assets are life expired represents a cost-effective way of migrating the network to the latest technology. It may also be introduced for other reasons -for example to increase capacity, improve reliability or enhance safety. The LTDP is dependent on the successful delivery of CP6 targeted deployments such as the East Coast Digital Programme and the Transpennine Route Upgrade ..............

This MoU sets out how both organisations will work together to implement the LTDP, and the roles and responsibilities in delivering digital signalling. We are publishing the MoU to explain to the wider rail industry the approach and to acknowledge the significant commitment that is being made to digital signalling.........….

The MoU is not intended to constitute a legally binding agreement and the commitments made are not intended to be legally enforceable...……..

I would be interested to know what others think of the document.

 

[Nym]

I'm late to the party here, but this sounds a lot like it was either written by himself, or one of his laccies the infermous David Waboso, who I feel dirty for even mentioning the name of.

As you may be able to tell I'm not a fan.

However, the fitment of ETCS, there are a lot, and I mean a lot of things that Network Rail need to get ironed out (and actually start talking to the right people) about before it has a chance of working properly in the UK.

 

[moggie]

So after 'strategy' we now get a MoU (legally unenforceable) presumably followed by the protracted GRIP process if we're lucky. Knowing how long it's taken to reach this point and also knowing the snails pace scheme development works at one wonders if technical obsolescence won't start becoming a factor between initial spec and eventual design!

One also has to ask whether the time being taken to complete Crossrail system integration works and the associated costs which result) really do make ETCS so much cheaper than the conventional alternatives! With the looming recessions almost upon us and many signalling renewals already long past their bedtime one has to conclude that the time for fanciful and unproven projections by the Digital Signalling exponents selling their wares has ended and the cold hard reality of proven delivery at cost is now upon them. No matter how technically feasible it all is.

 

[DerekC]

So after 'strategy' we now get a MoU (legally unenforceable) presumably followed by the protracted GRIP process if we're lucky. Knowing how long it's taken to reach this point and also knowing the snails pace scheme development works at one wonders if technical obsolescence won't start becoming a factor between initial spec and eventual design!

It has taken nearly twenty years to get to this point. Railway Safety (remember them?) and then the SRA (remember them?) started to look at ERTMS and develop an ERTMS rollout programme in about 2001, under the management of Mr Waboso. The SRA did recognise the problems that the MoU tries to address and created a budget with a separate funding line for train fitment, but when the SRA was abolished in 2005 and the programme handed over to Network Rail the money was all thrown into the general signalling pot. The SRA did manage to launch the Cambrian early deployment, but that's all that has happened - except Thameslink (see below). One problem is that no manager of a major signalling scheme wants to be first.

One also has to ask whether the time being taken to complete Crossrail system integration works and the associated costs which result) really do make ETCS so much cheaper than the conventional alternatives! With the looming recessions almost upon us and many signalling renewals already long past their bedtime one has to conclude that the time for fanciful and unproven projections by the Digital Signalling exponents selling their wares has ended and the cold hard reality of proven delivery at cost is now upon them. No matter how technically feasible it all is.

Crossrail has created its own problems by implementing about the most complex system you could imagine, with CBTC in the core section and transitions to ERTMS for Heathrow Express (and maybe GWML eventually) and to AWS/TPWS for everything else. Thameslink, which picked ERTMS for its core, works already, so citing Crossrail as an ERTMS problem is misleading.

The key problem which is still not solved is that in order for ERTMS to have a business case you have to eliminate the conventional signalling, but that makes the switchover from one to the other very risky. The obvious way to solve that is to put ERTMS in as an overlay, with conventional signals as well - but then it costs more and doesn't deliver capacity benefit unless you do complex things with intermediate blocks. I don't see that the MoU does anything to help that.

 

[Roast Veg]

L3 is, as you say, where the capacity is really felt, but moving all the RETB over in the style of the Cambrian would be remove some serious headaches (and admittedly introduce a couple of new ones).

We shouldn't forget that moving from L2 to L3 is not nearly as difficult as adding L2 to begin with.