absolutelymilk
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,243
ERTMS was due to be rolled out on the ECML and the GWML in the next few years, is this still due to happen?
Last edited:
ETRMS was due to be rolled out on the ECML and the GWML in the next few years. Is this still due to happen?
GWML will get ETCS (European Train Control System) between Paddington and Reading (including the Heathrow branch) by 2019 (I think). The contract has been let (to Alstom).
Fitment beyond Reading, as originally mooted, is anyone's guess.
Works have already started and are due to be completed by the end of 2017.
According to this article, it will be installed between Paddington and Reading by the end of 2017 and between Paddington and Bristol by 2019.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/rail-uk/20160507/282471413068701
European Rail Traffic Management System
ERTMS
To be fair, I always get the 'R' and the 'T' mixed up.
I think the article has been overtaken by events.
As I understand it the only work going on is on the Heathrow branch - as ATP is required for the Crossrail trains in the tunnel and fitting the obsolete GW version of ATP to the Crossrail trains is not an option.
The other work has been delayed as gaining access to the tracks while the electrification and associated works are going on is not possible.
GWML Signalling Migration:NR will not implement ETCS signalling on the GWML within the timescales of the Crossrail delivery programme. The current installed signalling configuration is fit for Stage 3 operations, but will not support the more intensive services of Stage 5. CRL is considering carrying out the necessary trackside equipment changes during the 5/2 Dynamic Testing regime, but will not do so if this compromises Stage 3 delivery.
Aim is for 2021 ish between Airport Jn and Acton ML with further east waiting till re-signalling with the planned work for OOC station and Paddington throat.I found this today. It was written last year and I realise that things have almost certainly changed since then:
Crossrail Project Representative Crossrail Joint Sponsor Team Semi-Annual Construction Report 2031 March 2018 – 15 September 2018
On page 27 it says
Aim is for 2021 ish between Airport Jn and Acton ML with further east waiting till re-signalling with the planned work for OOC station and Paddington throat.
As I understand it the Crossrail trains will run using multiple aspect signalling and TPWS between the changeover point at Westbourne Park and Reading, just like the Class 165/166s used to and the Class 387s now do, but starting at Paddington. ERTMS/ETCS is not needed in order to add a few extra trains on the GWML Relief lines. On the other hand ETRMS/ETCS is needed in the Heathrow tunnels to give positive train protection just as the obsolete ATP system does.I wonder how that will sit with the plan to implement Stage 5a with trains from Paddington to Reading and Heathrow. Looks to me that they will have to leave out any idea of adding additional Heathrow trains until ETCS can be installed.
As I understand it the Crossrail trains will run using multiple aspect signalling and TPWS between the changeover point at Westbourne Park and Reading, just like the Class 165/166s used to and the Class 387s now do, but starting at Paddington. ERTMS/ETCS is not needed in order to add a few extra trains on the GWML Relief lines. On the other hand ETRMS/ETCS is needed in the Heathrow tunnels to give positive train protection just as the obsolete ATP system does.
When the Class 387s take over the Heathrow Express service the old ATP will be removed from the tunnels permitting the Class 345s to run to Heathrow. This changeover is scheduled for next autumn so the Class 332s can be removed from service and their maintenance depot demolished to make room for HS2.
The original press release stated that Heathrow Express's Old Oak Common depot had to close by December 2019 in order for HS2 to keep to its schedule.Thank you. I was looking at the Heathrow paths and wondering if that was the case. Do you meant the changeover is scheduled for Autumn 2019 or Autumn 2020?
I've seen similar reports to those mentioned by Coppercapped that the two can't be switched on at the same time. I've an idea it's only been found to be an issue in the tunnels, which may be why it wasn't expected. The usual way to transition between ATP-type systems is to install the new one but keep the old one working so that both types of train can just use the systems they are equpped for, then take the old system out when the new trains are all running and the old ones are no longer needed. But it turns out that wouldn't work here.Peter Gracey of Bechtel told me at presentation to the IET Solent Section on 27th March that there was no problem with interference between ETCS and GW-ATP. I have no idea what he meant by that, he would not explain further. Maybe, as you say, the plan is never to run them simultaneously. I believe there may be a plan to test run the 345s overnight when the HEX is not running.
I've seen similar reports to those mentioned by Coppercapped that the two can't be switched on at the same time. I've an idea it's only been found to be an issue in the tunnels, which may be why it wasn't expected. The usual way to transition between ATP-type systems is to install the new one but keep the old one working so that both types of train can just use the systems they are equpped for, then take the old system out when the new trains are all running and the old ones are no longer needed. But it turns out that wouldn't work here.
The two systems use the same carrier frequency, and the signal strength from the old balises is much higher than that emitted by the new ones. I have also read that the tunnel shape introduces a waveguide effect that serves to propagate the signal more widely. I suspect the new balise reader may get swamped by the old ATP signal and that might result in a failsafe shutdown onboard.I wonder why can’t they be switched on at the same time? From what I read the GW-ATP is just another sort of balise-to-train type of ATP, so that should be easily integrated in the ETCS balises? Am I missing something?
The two systems use the same carrier frequency, and the signal strength from the old balises is much higher than that emitted by the new ones. I have also read that the tunnel shape introduces a waveguide effect that serves to propagate the signal more widely. I suspect the new balise reader may get swamped by the old ATP signal and that might result in a failsafe shutdown onboard.
332s would need new balise readers and a new onboard interface to the ATP. A lot of development for a train soon to be surplus to requirements. Nobody wants the difficulties and costs of developing an unplanned GW-ATP interface onboard the 345s and 387s that would immediately become obsolete once the final changeover is complete.I get that you can’t have the two type of balises on at the same time, but the data for the old ATP could be included in the P44 of the new ETCS balises and transmitted only via the new ones.
But on a second thought then you should have the old stock equipped for that before the changeover, and as I read it, it isn’t the case here?
but a temporary TPWS installation would enable the running of 387's and 345's whist 332's still operate with ERTMS commissioning taking place when all is operated by 387/345 under TPWS? you could also only equip junction signals(overspeed and train stop) and enforce double manning on services that operate in the tunnel sections short term? Obviously won't happen though, and looks like it will be a cutover from one to the other with an extended possession and change of stock.332s also have no TPWS, as they have only ever operated over GW-ATP equipped infrastructure, so TPWS as a stopgap in the tunnels would not have been possible either.
Unless the 332s are going to the scrapline, aren't they going to need TPWS at some point anyway?332s also have no TPWS, as they have only ever operated over GW-ATP equipped infrastructure, so TPWS as a stopgap in the tunnels would not have been possible either.
The presumption taken across a wide range of previous posts is that they will in fact be scrapped...Unless the 332s are going to the scrapline, aren't they going to need TPWS at some point anyway?
The optics on that are going to look good..... scrapping midlife trains whilst much older stock like 319s continue to soldier on....The presumption taken across a wide range of previous posts is that they will in fact be scrapped...
Another challenge in the tunnels is the derailment containment. This includes a massive concrete slab built up to rail level between the rails. Any additional transponders for temporary warning systems such as the suggested TPWS would need new recesses cut into this, including routes for the cables connecting them to equipment cabinets. And TPWS loops are large compared to Eurobalises. Expensive and time consuming work that would block lines during no train periods when testing of the new rolling stock on ETCS could be being carried out.but a temporary TPWS installation would enable the running of 387's and 345's whist 332's still operate with ERTMS commissioning taking place when all is operated by 387/345 under TPWS? you could also only equip junction signals(overspeed and train stop) and enforce double manning on services that operate in the tunnel sections short term? Obviously won't happen though, and looks like it will be a cutover from one to the other with an extended possession and change of stock.
This company would disagree!: http://pod-trak.com/archives/portfolio/heathrow-baliseAren't the Eurobalises thin enough that when installed on a surface at rail level, they would still not infringe the gauge? AWS magnets and similar can protrude a bit above top of rail.
Expertise: Civil Engineering, Value: £460k
The scope of the project is to provide an ETCS Level 2 Overlay system as a signalling renewal on the Western Route Paddington-Heathrow in line with Network Rail’s commitments to the Crossrail Programme and the agreed Western Baseline Plan.
The Derailment Containment Device (DCD) is situated within the HAL tunnel infrastructure and is formed of concrete and located in the four foot. The DCD requires modification to accommodate the installation of a signalling asset known as a Balise. Fifty-two (52) Balise are required in total, distributed along the DCD. They are installed in pairs approximately 3m apart. In order to install a Balise, the DCD will be modified by removing (cutting and breaking out) a portion of the DCD.
Project Duration : October 2016 - December 2016
The optics on that are going to look good..... scrapping midlife trains whilst much older stock like 319s continue to soldier on....