Is the European Train Control System (ETCS) ever going to be implemented?

[D365]

Oh, for [redacted]....

Hopefully at least some of the designs can be used, even if tweaks have to be made around the edges.

It’s not the fault of Siemens ETCS; more the fact that ~40-50 year old vehicles have been modified many times over the years. More often than not, undocumented…

 

[zwk500]

It’s not the fault of Siemens ETCS; more the fact that ~40-50 year old vehicles have been modified many times over the years. More often than not, undocumented…

I didn't blame ETCS! It's just the supposed advantage of having a fleet of only one engine was that they were all meant to be uniform for maintenance! However, I guess when you have nearly 500 of them and the different traffic demands we see in the UK it's inevitable specialised groups appear.

 

[D365]

I didn't blame ETCS! It's just the supposed advantage of having a fleet of only one engine was that they were all meant to be uniform for maintenance! However, I guess when you have nearly 500 of them and the different traffic demands we see in the UK it's inevitable specialised groups appear.

Ah - I was inferring the numerous Class 37, 47, 86 that will also be ETCS fitted down the road!

 

[Jozhua]

Been reading up on ETCS so here's my amazingly (badly) informed take. Please correct me.

I had it in mind for some reason that ETCS had some CBTC (communications based train control) functionality for ATO (Automatic Train Operation).

Crossrail only looks to use ETCS on the Heathrow branch, with the core section CBTC using Siemens Trainguard.

So from what I can tell the primary benefits of ETCS are moving block signalling (for levels 2/3) and in cab signalling for all levels.

Of course, other advanced modern-ish signalling systems such as TWPS have the ability to stop trains if they pass signals at danger or overspeed. Other countries are also being very slow to roll out ETCS, due to already having fairly advanced signalling systems in place that do the job.

In cab signalling obviously has benefits for safety, but also for increasing capacity and speed, as making sure speed boards/signals are properly sighted is no longer a concern, plus you can exceed the approximately 125mph limit where track side signals begin to become unreadable.

But it certainly doesn't seem like a complete problem solver, especially if replacing other recently upgraded signalling at great expense. Plus there is the concerns around the GSM radio system, which essentially uses the 3G mobile communications standard. While I'm sure it suits the data rates required just fine, the equipment is becoming less available and regulatory agencies will probably want to look at carving up those frequencies for other uses.

 

[Energy]

I had it in mind for some reason that ETCS had some CBTC (communications based train control) functionality for ATO (Automatic Train Operation).

The ATO used on thameslink is built on top of ETCS.

So from what I can tell the primary benefits of ETCS are moving block signalling (for levels 2/3) and in cab signalling for all levels.

No, level one still has light on sticks, its mostly just automatic train protection.

The main advantage of higher levels is reduced track side equipment and the ability to virtualise signalling on general purpose hardware (effectively it can be run on any x86 CPU rather than purpose-built hardware). Moving block is nice to have but isn't the main attraction right now in my opinion.

While it doesn't matter much over here over in Europe it would be a lot easier if there weren't half a million different signalling systems.

Of course, other advanced modern-ish signalling systems such as TWPS have the ability to stop trains if they pass signals at danger or overspeed. Other countries are also being very slow to roll out ETCS, due to already having fairly advanced signalling systems in place that do the job.

From the perspective of say SNCF there isn't much point changing your TVM430 signalling when it isn't life expired yet and the advantages of ETCS can't justify the cost till the existing equipment is life expired.

ETCS Level 2 is still a fairly new standard, I don't believe it was finalised in time for HS1 and level 3 is still not standardised.

 

[zwk500]

Been reading up on ETCS so here's my amazingly (badly) informed take. Please correct me.

I had it in mind for some reason that ETCS had some CBTC (communications based train control) functionality for ATO (Automatic Train Operation).

ETCS and CBTC are different signalling systems. Both have capacity for ATO

Crossrail only looks to use ETCS on the Heathrow branch, with the core section CBTC using Siemens Trainguard.

ETCS L2 with overlay (so still conventional signals) is used on the Heathrow Branch, Thameslink and 'pure' ETCS L2 on the Cambrian line in Wales. It is in the process of being fitted to the Finsbury Park-Moorgate Line and preliminary works are in place for King's Cross-Peterborough.

So from what I can tell the primary benefits of ETCS are moving block signalling (for levels 2/3) and in cab signalling for all levels.

As mentioned, L1 is still signals (basically just does ATP), and L2 is fixed block. Moving block is only specified for L3. The primary benefits of ETCS L2 are the ATP-style protection across the network, elimination of approach control, and the ability to have block lengths decoupled from braking distance to enable higher capacity.
At a basic level: L1 is Fixed Signals with Speed Supervision, train detection by Track circuits/Axle Counters. Movement Authority is issued to the signals, not the train.
L2 is Fixed Block but in-cab with speed supervision, still TC/AD train detection. MA is issued to the train directly.
L3 is not yet active anywhere, but should be moving block with on-train integrity confirmation.

Of course, other advanced modern-ish signalling systems such as TWPS have the ability to stop trains if they pass signals at danger or overspeed. Other countries are also being very slow to roll out ETCS, due to already having fairly advanced signalling systems in place that do the job.

Depends on the country - France and Germany have been slow to roll out ETCS because their systems provided similar functionality so replacement wasn't cost-effective. However Belgium has a high coverage and Netherlands is rapidly expanding it's ETCS coverage. The swiss already have nearly full ETCS coverage. The French KVB is functionally very close to ETCS L1, and TVM-430 is very close to ETCS L2 so the value in replacing those systems is minimal unless life-expires, Similarly with the German LZB/PZB systems.

In cab signalling obviously has benefits for safety, but also for increasing capacity and speed, as making sure speed boards/signals are properly sighted is no longer a concern, plus you can exceed the approximately 125mph limit where track side signals begin to become unreadable.

125mph is a defined legal limit, BR were trialling 140mph with lineside signals in the 90s so the validity of the limit is somewhat questions. Another key advantage of in-cab signalling is that as the authorised speed is transmitted to the train, the reliance on driver route knowledge is reduced.

But it certainly doesn't seem like a complete problem solver, especially if replacing other recently upgraded signalling at great expense. Plus there is the concerns around the GSM radio system, which essentially uses the 3G mobile communications standard. While I'm sure it suits the data rates required just fine, the equipment is becoming less available and regulatory agencies will probably want to look at carving up those frequencies for other uses.

It's certainly not a complete problem solver, but it does solve the 2 biggest problems on the UK network: high-speed signalling and continuous speed supervision. The UK has had speed supervision since the steam era, and numerous accidents would have been prevented or mitigated had ATP been universal. ATP has always been too expensive to roll out nationwide, hence TPWS, but ETCS comes with the ATP function built in.

 

[kevin_roche]

Plus there is the concerns around the GSM radio system, which essentially uses the 3G mobile communications standard. While I'm sure it suits the data rates required just fine, the equipment is becoming less available and regulatory agencies will probably want to look at carving up those frequencies for other uses.

There is a process underway to replace the current radio system standard with an alternative which will likely offer an upgrade to a more modern radio system like LTS or 5G. Of course, by the time that is installed it will likely be out of date too.

 

[MarkyT]

There is a process underway to replace the current radio system standard with an alternative which will likely offer an upgrade to a more modern radio system like LTS or 5G. Of course, by the time that is installed it will likely be out of date too.

Although the new spec is likely to be formulated to allow for future upgrades more easily in this rapidly developing field. ETCS is already being used with alternative data radio systems, in Finland for instance, where TETRA is used, primarily to reduce the number of base stations required for full coverage in that large, sparsely populated country.

 

[XAM2175]

If the Penistone-line trains can't be fitted with ETCS before the go-live date, there'll be some functionality for legacy systems left in to permit them to operate to Huddersfield.

Although I'm not entirely sure what stock is routinely used on that line, Northern have a bit of a head-start because the 195s and 331s were ETCS-ready from new.

Other countries are also being very slow to roll out ETCS, due to already having fairly advanced signalling systems in place that do the job.

Yes, as mentioned, in countries that had reasonably-advanced systems for train protection and in-cab signalling there was little immediate imperative to move to ETCS. To complement the French examples, the German PZB intermittent system (previously called Indusi) had functionality equal to or exceeding TPWS (including continuous calculation of braking curves when running on cautionary signals) by the mid-'80s, and the continuous LZB system offered in-cab signalling and full-time speed supervision with ETCS-style movement authorities by a similar point in time.

However, ETCS is still an advance in these countries because the single standardised system offers greater economy of scale in development and a broader base of suppliers and maintainers. It also has a major win over LZB in that it requires less on-track hardware, and doesn't rely on an easily-damaged "leaky feed" cable loop running in the 4-foot.

That economy of scale is an even bigger advantage for countries with small-scale systems that are reaching the end of their lives - Denmark, for example, spent ten years prevaricating before finally deciding in 1988 to go with a Siemens systems called ZUB 123. It was closely related to ZUB 121, which Siemens had developed for SBB, and when SBB's system was upgraded to use Eurobalises in the early 2000s Siemens declared the Danish install obsolete. Thus for the Danish infrastructure managers (chiefly Banedanmark), upgrading to ETCS even though they don't arguably need any of the new features it offers is still worthwhile because it frees them from being tied to single-supplier technological dead-end, and allows them to do immunisation work for planned electrification at the same time.

In cab signalling obviously has benefits for safety, but also for increasing capacity and speed, as making sure speed boards/signals are properly sighted is no longer a concern, plus you can exceed the approximately 125mph limit where track side signals begin to become unreadable.

125mph is a defined legal limit, BR were trialling 140mph with lineside signals in the 90s so the validity of the limit is somewhat questions. Another key advantage of in-cab signalling is that as the authorised speed is transmitted to the train, the reliance on driver route knowledge is reduced.

My understanding is that the 125 mph limit was chosen because the IC225 140 mph trials showed that the sighting wasn't quite as reliable as hoped, whereas 125 mph had obviously been proven over many years. Different regulators have different feelings about this, obviously; in Germany the limit for running on line-side signals is 100 mph instead.

It's also worth noting that signalling isn't the only thing that complicates running above 125 mph; there are also higher standards for track quality, platform access, etc etc.

Plus there is the concerns around the GSM radio system, which essentially uses the 3G mobile communications standard. ...

There is a process underway to replace the current radio system standard with an alternative which will likely offer an upgrade to a more modern radio system like LTS or 5G. Of course, by the time that is installed it will likely be out of date too.

Although the new spec is likely to be formulated to allow for future upgrades more easily in this rapidly developing field. ETCS is already being used with alternative data radio systems, in Finland for instance, where TETRA is used, primarily to reduce the number of base stations required for full coverage in that large, sparsely populated country.

The UIC have had a project going for many years now on a 5G-based successor to GSM-R, as part of which they're specifically considering both long-term use and an improved pathway for evolution:

Global Railway Review

Global Railway Review delivers actionable intelligence that inspires and empowers rail innovators to transform their operations, drive change, enhance performance, and shape the next generation of rail.

www.globalrailwayreview.com

And indeed, as @MarkyT notes, it is possible to use an entirely-different radio system within ERTMS (though doing so does require a bit of flexibility on behalf of national regulators).

 

[Jozhua]

Thank you all for your replies!

Interesting about ATO, I didn't realise it could be "layered" on certain signalling systems, but it makes sense.

Absolutely agree about big benefits moving away from a single supplier. Especially when a supplier decides to no longer "support" a large installation, or indeed goes bust.

In terms of keeping up with mobile networks, I guess as long as the standard has some forward looking capabilities to allow equipment to be swapped out, it isn't too bad. Off the shelf computer hardware is hilariously cheap Vs purpose built kit, even if the software is badly optimised and you have to over-spec a bit.

Of course, companies will continue to do hilarious mark ups. I'm assuming various flavours of ETMS software is available from the usual suspects (e.g.Siemens), but I wonder if any sort of free/open source version may be available!

Automatic Train Protection is definitely a big plus for safety and probably reduces the margins required in congested areas somewhat?

Is HS2 using L2 or L3? Assuming likely L3 given the intensity of service planned

 

[zwk500]

Of course, companies will continue to do hilarious mark ups. I'm assuming various flavours of ETMS software is available from the usual suspects (e.g.Siemens), but I wonder if any sort of free/open source version may be available!

Sorry, what do you mean by ETMS?

Automatic Train Protection is definitely a big plus for safety and probably reduces the margins required in congested areas somewhat?

I'm not sure of the direct impact, but yes, ETCS will be better as the speed supervision replaces approach control with something a little less heavy handed.

Is HS2 using L2 or L3? Assuming likely L3 given the intensity of service planned

Level 2, as Level 3 doesn't exist yet. Level 2 is perfectly capable of the headway required, it is already in place on Europea. HS lines.

 

[D365]

Sorry, what do you mean by ETMS?

I assume Joshua means 'ERTMS'.

In answer to his question - I'm sure that any one individual could develop a functionally equivalent simulation. However there is no chance that this code would go anywhere near a working railway. And what would be the point.

 

[zwk500]

I assume Joshua means 'ERTMS'.

So did I but I wanted to make sure he was talking about the wider traffic management system and not the specific signalling system ETCS

 

[Jozhua]

So did I but I wanted to make sure he was talking about the wider traffic management system and not the specific signalling system ETCS

Yes! I was referring to ERTMS

 

[zwk500]

Yes! I was referring to ERTMS

Good, just checking! Be aware ERTMS isn't one piece of software as such, is various groups of procedures, standards, kit, etc that all work together to form the Traffic Management System. But yes, in theory anybody can build to the ERTMS spec.

 

[D365]

Worth noting that software needs hardware to run on, and both need a suitable safety rating.

 

[HSTEd]

Worth noting that software needs hardware to run on, and both need a suitable safety rating.

Safety grade PLC type/Computer hardware is pretty much a commodity item at this point.

It is far more common than it was even 15 years ago.

 

[AM9]

Worth noting that software needs hardware to run on, and both need a suitable safety rating.

The UK has been making aviation grade electronics to higher standards for operation in a more challenging environment for decades. It's the railway that seems reluctant to acquire the systems and commit to infrastructure that it would run in.
The biggest issue for new systems like ETCS is meeting EMC requirements, which in a hotch potch of train designs here is made far harder.

 

[D365]

Of course, companies will continue to do hilarious mark ups. I'm assuming various flavours of ETMS software is available from the usual suspects (e.g.Siemens), but I wonder if any sort of free/open source version may be available!

As per my previous comment, I would be incredibly surprised to see ERTMS software being developed/maintained as open source, however there is an "OpenETCS" project which appears to be developing various open source resources e.g. software framework, validation & verification strategy.

 

[MarkyT]

As per my previous comment, I would be incredibly surprised to see ERTMS software being developed/maintained as open source, however there is an "OpenETCS" project which appears to be developing various open source resources e.g. software framework, validation & verification strategy.

The main feature of ETCS is standardisation of the track to train message protocols for interoperability. Everything either side of that interface is still proprietary though. Interoperability was a long-term aim of the UIC, dating from their formation in the 1920s, long before the EEC or EU. The concept addresses interoperability between nations' networks from a European Union perspective which is why they promoted it, but that happlily coincides with the individual railways' collective historic aspirations not to be locked into particular suppliers' products on both track and train which in many cases they had already had bitter experience of. Before ETCS, if you had, lets say, a Siemens train protection system installed on the track, then every train that ran over it needed some Siemens widgetry onboard, and if Siemens unilaterally changed or obsoleted a particular product or capability then the railways were either locked into updating everything everywhere in response or binning it all and starting again with another supplier, which would usually be impractical. These open protocols at least offer the possibility for new players to enter the market, but clearly there are significant barriers to obtaining certification for the products.

 

[AM9]

The main feature of ETCS is standardisation of the track to train message protocols for interoperability. Everything either side of that interface is still proprietary though. Interoperability was a long-term aim of the UIC, dating from their formation in the 1920s, long before the EEC or EU. The concept addresses interoperability between nations' networks from a European Union perspective which is why they promoted it, but that happlily coincides with the individual railways' collective historic aspirations not to be locked into particular suppliers' products on both track and train which in many cases they had already had bitter experience of. Before ETCS, if you had, lets say, a Siemens train protection system installed on the track, then every train that ran over it needed some Siemens widgetry onboard, and if Siemens unilaterally changed or obsoleted a particular product or capability then the railways were either locked into updating everything everywhere in response or binning it all and starting again with another supplier, which would usually be impractical. These open protocols at least offer the possibility for new players to enter the market, but clearly there are significant barriers to obtaining certification for the products.

At last it looks as though the 'railway' (as in the international standards for railways authorities) are beginning to realsie that the global co-operation of the commercial (and military) avionics industry world can be gainfully introduced to S & T systems, rolling stock and operational control of railways. Well proven interfaces,( physical, electrical and protocols) once established and proven exhaustively whilst in many cases complex, remove one of the biggest risks to acquisition and integration programmes. Once the temptation of competitors to engineer quirks into their designs designed to act as tie-ins for existing customers is removed, the market will thrive to the benefit of all.

 

[507020]

The main feature of ETCS is standardisation of the track to train message protocols for interoperability. Everything either side of that interface is still proprietary though. Interoperability was a long-term aim of the UIC, dating from their formation in the 1920s, long before the EEC or EU. The concept addresses interoperability between nations' networks from a European Union perspective which is why they promoted it, but that happlily coincides with the individual railways' collective historic aspirations not to be locked into particular suppliers' products on both track and train which in many cases they had already had bitter experience of. Before ETCS, if you had, lets say, a Siemens train protection system installed on the track, then every train that ran over it needed some Siemens widgetry onboard, and if Siemens unilaterally changed or obsoleted a particular product or capability then the railways were either locked into updating everything everywhere in response or binning it all and starting again with another supplier, which would usually be impractical. These open protocols at least offer the possibility for new players to enter the market, but clearly there are significant barriers to obtaining certification for the products.

The solution to this is vertical integration, not interoperability or new players entering the market. The railway of a respective country must develop all of its own systems and equipment in house. This ensures that they can not unilaterally be changed by an outside supplier, but not that they will never be updated, since the needs of that railway will obviously change over time and there is usually a will from inside to innovate.

 

[zwk500]

The solution to this is vertical integration, not interoperability or new players entering the market. The railway of a respective country must develop all of its own systems and equipment in house. This ensures that they can not unilaterally be changed by an outside supplier, but not that they will never be updated, since the needs of that railway will obviously change over time and there is usually a will from inside to innovate.

This would lead to a worsening of the situation, with further national variations and greater concentrations on single suppliers. Being able to 'mix and match' components is key to bringing down prices, as a competitor will be able to tender a competitive bid. This requires defined interoperability common across all systems, including in the coding and data architecture.

 

[AM9]

The solution to this is vertical integration, not interoperability or new players entering the market. The railway of a respective country must develop all of its own systems and equipment in house. This ensures that they can not unilaterally be changed by an outside supplier, but not that they will never be updated, since the needs of that railway will obviously change over time and there is usually a will from inside to innovate.

Vertical in-house integration just creates security for the system integrator, not the customer and also costs significantly more. Each functional part of the system is then engineered in each (vertically integrated country). Vertical integration in the way that you have described it is just another coprrosive method of market protection which stifles competition and innovation.
International agreement on interfaces and protocols secures the longevity of systems in every nation that is a signatory to the standards. That's how ISO, EN, NATO, and ARINC standards are universally accepted throughout the avionics industry. Without that the airline industry would not be able to have expanded anywhere near as much as it has since WW2.

 

[HSTEd]

Vertical in-house integration just creates security for the system integrator, not the customer and also costs significantly more.

With vertical in house integration the system integrator and the customer are one and the same?

Each functional part of the system is then engineered in each (vertically integrated country). Vertical integration in the way that you have described it is just another coprrosive method of market protection which stifles competition and innovation.

"Competition and innovation" has led us to the current mess, where the railway is totally incapable of actually using these advanced new technologies.
Being notionally able to mix and match hardware from a dozen different manufacturers is no good if we can't actually deploy anything because the "free market" is incapable of providing the installation capability.

In addition it's entirely possible for vertically integrated concerns to still comply with internationally defined specification.

UIC specifications have been implemented for decades by railway's own manufacturing facilities.

 

[AM9]

With vertical in house integration the system integrator and the customer are one and the same?UIC specifications have been implemented for decades by railway's own manufacturing facilities.

We don't have a totally in-house system and didn't even achieve that through the BR days and it is irrelevant in the ERTMS era, (to date).

"Competition and innovation" has led us to the current mess, where the railway is totally incapable of actually using these advanced new technologies.
Being notionally able to mix and match hardware from a dozen different manufacturers is no good if we can't actually deploy anything because the "free market" is incapable of providing the installation capability.

In addition it's entirely possible for vertically integrated concerns to still comply with internationally defined specification.

UIC specifications have been implemented for decades by railway's own manufacturing facilities.

Possible but political pressures within and without a partially vertically integrated railway in the UK have so far led to frequen expedient deviations from genuine interoperability of systems.

 

[zwk500]

"Competition and innovation" has led us to the current mess, where the railway is totally incapable of actually using these advanced new technologies.
Being notionally able to mix and match hardware from a dozen different manufacturers is no good if we can't actually deploy anything because the "free market" is incapable of providing the installation capability.

Disagree, we're in the current mess because there's a lack of competition. Basically the mainline has a choice between Hitachi or Siemens, with other companies being largely confined to mass transit/light rail or the margins of the network. They have no interest in taking each other's jobs, nor of allowing anybody else to muscle in so they are incentivised to capture the installation.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

With vertical in house integration the system integrator and the customer are one and the same?


"Competition and innovation" has led us to the current mess, where the railway is totally incapable of actually using these advanced new technologies.
Being notionally able to mix and match hardware from a dozen different manufacturers is no good if we can't actually deploy anything because the "free market" is incapable of providing the installation capability.

In addition it's entirely possible for vertically integrated concerns to still comply with internationally defined specification.

UIC specifications have been implemented for decades by railway's own manufacturing facilities.

The days of a ginourmous state run conglomerate with everything done in-house up to including design and manufacturing of new locomotives are gone and are never coming back, which leaves relying on a single supplies to design and supply your special custom national safety system.

Decades of a vertically integrated railway has lead us to the steam-ERA AWS, primitive TPWS, and "ATP would have been be nice but it's too complicated and expensive". The strategy is a proven failure.

I don't understand at all the comment "totally incapable of actually using these advanced new technologies.". ETCS is being installed. If Network Rail wanted to install it faster they could build their own installation team and buy the hardware off the shelf. It has nothing to do with developing a completely new system at a probably 9 figure cost, specifically for UK use and nowhere else. That would be utterly bonkers.

 

[AM9]

Decades of a vertically integrated railway has lead us to the steam-ERA AWS, primitive TPWS, and "ATP would have been be nice but it's too complicated and expensive". The strategy is a proven failure.

I don't understand at all the comment "totally incapable of actually using these advanced new technologies.". ETCS is being installed. If Network Rail wanted to install it faster they could build their own installation team and buy the hardware off the shelf. It has nothing to do with developing a completely new system at a probably 9 figure cost, specifically for UK use and nowhere else. That would be utterly bonkers.

Correct, there's nothing special in the UK network that makes ERTMS unsuitable in it's current and developing forms and not suitable for integration into both existing and new rolling stock. In fact the only 'special' thing about the UK rail system is that it is a hotch potch of systems that have been added piecemeal through lack of investment. An international standard is both cheaper and more accessible than home brew bodges because it has been developed by numerous supplier to common standards.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't understand at all the comment "totally incapable of actually using these advanced new technologies.". ETCS is being installed.

After 15-20 years of ETCS installation on Network Rail we have two, small, fully operational systems in total.
One in Wales and one on Thameslink.

And the system that you espouse as an alternative to a vertically integrated railway has already installed three completely incompatible cab signalling systems on the Network Rail associated system since privatisation (not including London Underground overlays). TVM, Crossrail CBTC and ETCS.

At this rate I won't live to see ETCS achieve any of the major operational benefits it is supposed to.

If Network Rail wanted to install it faster they could build their own installation team and buy the hardware off the shelf. It has nothing to do with developing a completely new system at a probably 9 figure cost, specifically for UK use and nowhere else. That would be utterly bonkers.

Why would we, if starting from here, develop an entirely new system rather than simply implement ETCS?
I rather feel you are attacking a strawman.

It would be a rather extreme position to consider that a railway isn't vertically integrated unless its running a chip fab or bolt manufacturing facility or otherwise manufacturing every single subcomponent in house.