• 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!

ETCS Level 2 Rollout

Status
Not open for further replies.

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
From what I read in the current Rail feature on the digital railway (819, p44), the plans for ETCS rollout are once more in the melting pot.
Not long ago, the plan was for the GWML to be equipped (replacing ATP) as an overlay to the current signalling system.
That was to be followed by a full implementation on ECML South (removing fixed signals). This would have forced ETCS cab fitment for all trains south of Doncaster.
We were also to have a pilot on the Yarmouth/Lowestoft lines out of Norwich (subsequently binned) and a localised scheme at Romford.

It seems the new supremo David Waboso wants a more evolutionary approach, starting with the planned ETCS fitment on Thameslink (core) and Crossrail (Heathrow), and extending from there with existing signalling continuing alongside.
The contract has already been let to Alstom for Paddington-Heathrow/Reading.
It would mean existing stock could continue to use the routes unmodified, and only new stock would have in-built ETCS kit.
Only later, when all stock over a route is fitted, will fixed signals be removed.
He also talks about upgrading existing signalling with more block sections, to be more like ETCS.

Apparently NR is working on business cases for 8 installations, and it is this which the government has produced extra funding for in the last budget statement.
Anyway, it seems the early big bang planned for the ECML is dead, and maybe also the GWML beyond Reading.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
That sounds much more sensible and pragmatic, the big bang approach should be avoided if at all possible until drivers on the route are already familiar with using ETCS and there's much more rolling stock with it fitted or easily retrofitted.
 

Sunset route

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2015
Messages
1,176
I have a sneaking suspicion that there will a slow roll out north and south of the Thameslink core along the ECML and the BML one because I believe that most of the trains will have fitted from new (700s, 717s, 800s, 801s and 802s) and the other beacuae it will go hand in hand with the re-signalling of things like the Selhurst, Norwood and Croydon triangle.

The rest could be up to the gods lol
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,897
The ECML also rollout raised several big questions, mainly about what happens when things go wrong. I don't think they were able to answered just yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
Presumably the all-new Greater Anglia fleet, if not actually fitted, will have simple capability for it to be fitted?
 

Sunset route

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2015
Messages
1,176
The ECML also rollout raised several big questions, mainly about what happens when things go wrong. I don't think they were able to answered just yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well they can always overlay it with those sticks with colour lights, after all if it's good for the critical thameslink core, then a steady roll out shouldn't be out of the question. :lol:

I know your closer to the current plans than me (about 10ft lol) but as I said if it's a slow phasing in then just extend outwards with what you already have.
 
Last edited:

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,107
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
From what I read in the current Rail feature on the digital railway (819, p44), the plans for ETCS rollout are once more in the melting pot.
Not long ago, the plan was for the GWML to be equipped (replacing ATP) as an overlay to the current signalling system.
That was to be followed by a full implementation on ECML South (removing fixed signals). This would have forced ETCS cab fitment for all trains south of Doncaster.
We were also to have a pilot on the Yarmouth/Lowestoft lines out of Norwich (subsequently binned) and a localised scheme at Romford.

It seems the new supremo David Waboso wants a more evolutionary approach, starting with the planned ETCS fitment on Thameslink (core) and Crossrail (Heathrow), and extending from there with existing signalling continuing alongside.
The contract has already been let to Alstom for Paddington-Heathrow/Reading.
It would mean existing stock could continue to use the routes unmodified, and only new stock would have in-built ETCS kit.
Only later, when all stock over a route is fitted, will fixed signals be removed.
He also talks about upgrading existing signalling with more block sections, to be more like ETCS.

Apparently NR is working on business cases for 8 installations, and it is this which the government has produced extra funding for in the last budget statement.
Anyway, it seems the early big bang planned for the ECML is dead, and maybe also the GWML beyond Reading.

The problem with fitting over existing signalling is that it just becomes an expensive add-on which delivers a very small safety benefit and (potentially) a speed increase above 125 mph, if the route and the rolling stock are capable. It will make signalling much more expensive and most of the potential capacity benefit is lost because the block design still has to cater for unfitted trains. Also you still have to worry about signal sighting in positioning the block boundaries. NR has been faffing round this issue for more than ten years. David W has form on this. He should re-read some of the reports which were written for him when he ran the ERTMS programme for the SRA about fifteen years ago.
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,462
My understanding was that the underlying business case for ETCS at all was that ultimately it removes the need for lineside equipment and produces a serious financial saving over the long term. Obviously if there is significant doubt that ultimate aim will ever be realised, logically it should kill the entire business logic for doing it in the first place. Otherwise it becomes the proverbial money pit?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
I have a sneaking suspicion that there will a slow roll out north and south of the Thameslink core along the ECML and the BML one because I believe that most of the trains will have fitted from new (700s, 717s, 800s, 801s and 802s) and the other beacuase it will go hand in hand with the re-signalling of things like the Selhurst, Norwood and Croydon triangle.

The rest could be up to the gods lol

That is my sneaking suspicion too. I'd add the ELL into the mix as well with TfL pick up the tab for their side of things to get their desired aim of 24tph through the ELL core. I'd actually bet on it starting first arround Norwood Junction south of the river as that will be the first bit of the triangle and Hertford loop on the North as the normal stock would just be 717s.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
My understanding was that the underlying business case for ETCS at all was that ultimately it removes the need for lineside equipment and produces a serious financial saving over the long term. Obviously if there is significant doubt that ultimate aim will ever be realised, logically it should kill the entire business logic for doing it in the first place. Otherwise it becomes the proverbial money pit?

The current suggestion would probably have good business case even with lights on stick afterwards, all about maximising the number of trains.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,631
If ETCS on the GWML is being binned - then the entire point of using the overbuilt enormously expensive constant-wire-height equipment that has been (and is being installed) dissapears.

What a debacle.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,836
Depends on the spin you put on it, it won't recoup its cost as quick but it doesn't mean its wasted, ETCS will appear along there at some point. It looks as though people have finally bought in to the fact level 2 is not the packet of golden beans that unlocks huge capacity gains.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Which would be the top 5 routes that would benefit the most from having ETCS level 2?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,836
Depends on how it is scored, if it to reduce costs then you chuck it on the Cumbrian coast as it closes a substantial amount of boxes.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,672
Location
Leeds
Didn't LU recently have two major resignalling contracts collapse in succession (for the same line(s))? Was Waboso with them then?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Didn't LU recently have two major resignalling contracts collapse in succession (for the same line(s))? Was Waboso with them then?
Yes and Yes but the first was LU deciding that the cost of the PPP procured scheme was too expensive and cancelling it, then the second was discovering that going for cheaper scheme was going to meet the requirements then going to a 3rd supplier for roughly the same cost as the first.:oops:
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Overlay seems a pragmatic solution for the main lines and high density suburban corridors, with the ability to add extra capacity selectively. Additional short blocks to allow tighter 'closing up' around stations and junctions can be beneficial while the expense can be spared in faster plain line sections between where trains naturally spread out at speed and longer blocks can be tolerated. Existing signal spacing need not prevent an increase in speed as the ATP could provide an extra 'better than green' aspect in the cab.

Perhaps what's missing from the engineers toolkit is a less sophisticated intermittent regional system for quieter lines that provides protection similar to current AWS/TPWS without the enhanced full coverage radio demands of L2 for its continuously refreshed movement authorities. That could evolve from modular signalling, at first retaining conventional signals with Level 1 LS (limited supervision). Then a means of transmitting and displaying simple aspects and speed limits to the cab could then be developed to allow the signals to be replaced by marker boards if desired. The cab display would be a simplified mode based on the standard full supervision screen, as developed in Switzerland for their LS project, and Euroloop might be used on the approach to the block markers for the 'signal state' transmission, or perhaps smaller lower powered radio cells in the vicinity of block markers.

http://www.railway-cables.com/technical-information/faq 2.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Euro-Signum.PNG

ETCS just gives you a set of protocols and equipment specs for the track to train control interface. Everything else behind that on track and train has to be custom designed and integrated for the vehicle or site concerned, using most of the same kit of parts on track as conventional signalling, apart from the signals themselves of course. With leds, self cleaning lenses, and lightweight foldable posts, signals are no longer the major cost and maintenance liability of old as long as they're fairly simple examples and there aren't vast numbers of them, which is usually the case on secondary and rural lines.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
Perhaps what's missing from the engineers toolkit is a less sophisticated intermittent regional system for quieter lines that provides protection similar to current AWS/TPWS without the enhanced full coverage radio demands of L2 for its continuously refreshed movement authorities. That could evolve from modular signalling, at first retaining conventional signals with Level 1 LS (limited supervision). Then a means of transmitting and displaying simple aspects and speed limits to the cab could then be developed to allow the signals to be replaced by marker boards if desired. The cab display would be a simplified mode based on the standard full supervision screen, as developed in Switzerland for their LS project, and Euroloop might be used on the approach to the block markers for the 'signal state' transmission, or perhaps smaller lower powered radio cells in the vicinity of block markers.

Isn't that just ETCS-Regional, as trialled in Sweden?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,631
Isn't that just ETCS-Regional, as trialled in Sweden?

No, ETCS Regional has very little lineside equipment apart from at pointwork.
ETCS-1LS is just a conventional installation with ETCS providing ATP-like functions.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Isn't that just ETCS-Regional, as trialled in Sweden?

No, ETCS Regional has very little lineside equipment apart from at pointwork.
ETCS-1LS is just a conventional installation with ETCS providing ATP-like functions.

It is related in the sense it's intermittent, not requiring continuous radio coverage, only at 'token exchange points', usually passing loops.

The lack of fixed train detection in the Swedish implementation is becoming a red herring really, considering the determination that it had to be retained anyway for deadlocking through junctions and the ease of adding modern axle counter sensors where required compared to older track circuit based systems. On the very rural trial line, Sweden was able to assume a standard passenger train length and it's possible that, like RETB, traincrew could be responsible for confirming 'clear of section' before giving up single track occupancy. With RETB, token exchanges like this are only permitted when at rest ISTR and that wouldn't be appropriate for any but the most basic railway where all trains stop at all block posts used.

The big problem with balise based train detection is that only the front of the train is confirmed safely at a certain position. The rear of the train can only be assumed to be clear of a junction or block boundary based on a known consist length. Determining that dimension safely is a difficult problem where trains vary in length. Safety can't rely simply on a driver dialling in a particular value, say, and determining length safely automatically for all kinds of trains through onboard systems is probably not practical, especially for freight vehicles. Fixed length trains on Metros are a very different story and it's no surprise control on those lines routinely employs balise or wiggly wire based positional detection, often in moving block implementations.

Another approach for a rural solution could use the rear end cab balise reader on MUs to detect additional passive balises placed at critical block clearance positions. For freights and other loco hauled trains a portable end of train device incorporating a balise reader could be attached to the last vehicle and radio linked to the cab to confirm clearance of the section. If the EOT fell off, the brakepipe would be opened and the brakes would begin to apply. If the crew forgot to attach the device the train might enter a section normally but could never clear it, so in order to allow any movement at it all it would be sensible for the equipment to confirm the EOT was powered up and able to exchange messages with the traction unit computer.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,631
I think the rear end balise reader is the probable solution considering our increasingly MU operated railway.
One solution for freight trains would be to just assume the train is 775m (or whatever the line maximum is) long. This could be used as part of a scheme to encourage freight operators to make the most of paths by running trains to the maximum permitted length

And needing lineside equipment to deadlock points is less of an issue if you consider that even a two track rural railway could feasibly go a dozen miles or more without a crossover.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
I think the rear end balise reader is the probable solution considering our increasingly MU operated railway.
One solution for freight trains would be to just assume the train is 775m (or whatever the line maximum is) long. This could be used as part of a scheme to encourage freight operators to make the most of paths by running trains to the maximum permitted length

And needing lineside equipment to deadlock points is less of an issue if you consider that even a two track rural railway could feasibly go a dozen miles or more without a crossover.

How far above the track could a rear balise be and still operate properly
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
One solution for freight trains would be to just assume the train is 775m (or whatever the line maximum is) long.

I doubt that would be feasible.

And needing lineside equipment to deadlock points is less of an issue if you consider that even a two track rural railway could feasibly go a dozen miles or more without a crossover.

With 'conventional' modular signalling you could also easily go that distance between signals, and remember with axle counters you don't need any intermediate equipment for train detection either. There's also no fundamental reason why modular TCB with axle counters could not all be connected back to the interlocking and control centre by radio data links, so avoiding long lineside cables, and the modern power efficient equipment can be energised by locally-derived domestic spec supplies with battery back up and small solar or wind generators for topping up if desired.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,631
I doubt that would be feasible.

A freight train 300m long doesn't take much less time to pass than one that is 775m long, ofcourse depending on the line speed.
But shouldn't we be encouraging longer freight trains running less frequently as a matter of course? They get in the way of passenger operations less - which is good for everyone.
With 'conventional' modular signalling you could also easily go that distance between signals, and remember with axle counters you don't need any intermediate equipment for train detection either.

The problem with putting signals every dozen miles is that you end up with problems concerning the capacity.
ETCS Regional potentially provides capacity of a higher spec installation without the cost.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
How large is the equipment that would need to be onboard the rear wagon of a freight train for ETCS and what's the maximum height it could be above rail height?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,836
A freight train 300m long doesn't take much less time to pass than one that is 775m long, ofcourse depending on the line speed.
But shouldn't we be encouraging longer freight trains running less frequently as a matter of course? They get in the way of passenger operations less - which is good for everyone.

That's fine as long as you don't have to stop and start it constantly. Longer heavier freight only works if you keep it moving, putting it in and out of loops takes longer and causes just as many problems. Most Intermodals are already way past 300m.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
How large is the equipment that would need to be onboard the rear wagon of a freight train for ETCS and what's the maximum height it could be above rail height?

It would probably need an alternator attached to an axle for power, so realistically it would be a modern version of a brake van!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,631
It would probably need an alternator attached to an axle for power, so realistically it would be a modern version of a brake van!

Not necessarily, tail end units in America used for train control are powered by a turbine that bleeds air from the brake system constantly.
 

Maurice3000

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2013
Messages
61
Location
London
Presumably the all-new Greater Anglia fleet, if not actually fitted, will have simple capability for it to be fitted?

IIRC the TSI has stated for a while now that any new rolling stock should be ERTMS-ready. It doesn't have to be factory-fitted but an operator should be able to fit it in a straightforward manner when they decide to fit it at a later date.

That would lead me to believe the new rolling stock should be ready to have ETCS fitted when the time comes.
 
Last edited:

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
It would probably need an alternator attached to an axle for power, so realistically it would be a modern version of a brake van!

ETO devices attached to the rear of freights are a common sight in the US and many other parts of the world. They are battery powered, clip onto the rear coupler or bufferbeam and have a brake line connection. In the US they were introduced widely to allow removal of cabooses (rear brake vans) from trains and hence reduce crew numbers. They could be thought of as just a fancy tail lamp but can be much more in the modern connected digital railway environment. Modern ones talk to a HOT (head of train) unit in the cab (in the US known as "Wilma") by radio and they can remotely monitor brake pressure, and other data. Some incorporate GPS so they can track movement and infer a split before brake leakage becomes apparent, and some have two way comms so they can control an additional slave brake valve in the unit to improve braking performance for very long consists. They don't have a balise reader however, although some manufacturers advertise an automated block clearance feature powered by GPS which is probably not safe enough for European passenger operations. Decades ago I remember reading a technical paper describing use of an EOTD in conjunction with a highly localised radio system at passing loops in Australia to determine block clearance but I can find no online reference to such a thing today. Theoretically, an EOTD could incorporate a balise reading function with an antenna mounted at the end of a lightweight arm projecting down from bufferbeam height. As to power, the US devices are all battery powered, and I found a reference to a Siemens unit with an 'air generator' so it can sip power from the brake line itself when the train is rolling with pressure in the pipe.

However, if radio coverage can be provided for block clearance messaging from a train at a particular intermediate boundary marker in a plain line section between junctions, then that radio coverage could equally be used for monitoring an isolated fixed axle counter sensor which, using conventional line clear detection methods, could be universally compatible with all normal traffic without any special measures, additional devices or procedures. Efforts might be most practically concentrated on the engineering of a fully self contained low maintenance field module for that purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top