Which lines should be next for European Train Control System ?

[Belperpete]

It is Ealing Broadway - Hayes and Heathrow Airport (the former being an overlay).

The Stage 3/C bit (Paddington - Ealing Broadway) has been postponed.

I hadn't realised that - thanks.

So presumably the Elizabeth line trains are running on TPWS between Paddington and Ealing? As they are running on TPWS out to Shenfield. That avoids having a direct CBTC-ETCS interface. It looks like the ETCS-CBTC interface has proven harder than anticipated. Not that it was ever expected to be easy!

Postponing the interface may have got the line open. However, considering the amount of test running they needed to do for the CBTC before they opened the core section, if they need anything like the same amount of test running to validate a new CBTC+ETCS interface, that is now going to take a long time to accomodate on a railway that is already open for business and running an intensive service.

 

[TurboMan]

So what happens at the moment at Airport Junction, is Airport Jn-Paddington fitted with both ATP and ETCS? Installing ETCS overlay to anything controlled from the TVSC should be viable, although are there areas still controlled from PSBs with ATP?

Airport Jct to Ealing is Level 2 overlay and ATP (and AWS/TPWS), but it's only 387s & 345s that run in ETCS and they're not fitted with ATP. It becomes a problem with 80x which are 'ETCS ready' but currently running under ATP protection, and there is no way of dynamically transitioning from ATP to ETCS and vice versa. It's probably technically possible, but it's whether anyone wants to throw loads of money at it to come up with a solution.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2024 ==

EDIT:
The Great Western ATP (Automatic Train Protection) scheme appears to be based on speed limits being enforced by transmissions from point transceivers on the track, and sometimes signalling loops.
It should be possible to emulate this functionality using switchable balises and signal loops whilst being transparent to the installed signalling system.

GW-ATP functions in a very similar way to ETCS Level 1, in that information on speeds, limits of authority etc. are transmitted intermittently to the train via beacons/loops in the four foot, rather than continuously as with Level 2 which uses the GSM-R datalink to connect to the radio block centre (RBC).

 

[MarkyT]

So what happens at the moment at Airport Junction, is Airport Jn-Paddington fitted with both ATP and ETCS? Installing ETCS overlay to anything controlled from the TVSC should be viable, although are there areas still controlled from PSBs with ATP?

I'm not sure if TVSC still controls any legacy remote relay interlockings. It certainly did for a while during Reading remodelling and through subsequent electrification stages, but certainly anywhere originally planned to receive wires was eventually resignalled as necessary with processor-based equipment. You could do Level 1, FS or LS, with relays, interfacing to signal states in the trackside cabinets, but L2 would be practically impossible. Theoretically you could have a safety critical data monitoring installation that picked up all the states of the primary relays of an RRI and passed them on to the RBC, but designing and building that would be a complex exercise probably as expensive as replacing the interlocking entirely, especially when you run out of spare voltage free contacts on existing relays and have to make up additional repeats.

Would it be acceptable to have short sections of TPWS between ATP and ETCS at sensible boundary points (i.e. low-risk Plain line), to allow progressive conversion from ATP to ETCS? It's a bit of an awkward workaround, but then potentially less awkward than blocking the GWML for an extended period of time to convert the equipment.

I think you could have both systems functioning simultaneously on open air sections for an extended changeover period. Heathrow airport ran into problems trying to do this in their tunnels but that was a peculiarity of the tunnel environment the particular dimensions of which were found to resonantly amplify the signal from the old ATP system, not helped by an old decision to double up the transponders in the tunnel for reliability and that the transponders emitted a far higher signal level already than would be acceptable in a new system today. The effect of this was that any train running on ETCS in the tunnel while the ATP transponders were energised would be swamped by ATP messages, incidentally sent via the same carrier frequency as eurobalises, causing the onboard systems to fail safe and bring the train to a stand. Apparently in tests this was not found to be a problem on surface sections. An enhanced TPWS trackside fitment with equipment at all signals would approach ETCS theoretical safety but you have to factor in risks of multiple transitions.

 

[Horizon22]

I hadn't realised that - thanks.

So presumably the Elizabeth line trains are running on TPWS between Paddington and Ealing? As they are running on TPWS out to Shenfield. That avoids having a direct CBTC-ETCS interface. It looks like the ETCS-CBTC interface has proven harder than anticipated. Not that it was ever expected to be easy!

Postponing the interface may have got the line open. However, considering the amount of test running they needed to do for the CBTC before they opened the core section, if they need anything like the same amount of test running to validate a new CBTC+ETCS interface, that is now going to take a long time to accomodate on a railway that is already open for business and running an intensive service.

Correct. An Abbey Wood - Reading service will go CBTC -> TPWS/AWS > ETCS* > TPWS/AWS. A Shenfield - Heathrow service will go TPWS/AWS > CBTC > TPWS/AWS > ETCS. Lots of transitions!

ETCS is still required for the sections which don't actually have CBTC (i.e west of Paddington, East of Stratford) because on a 345 there's a lot of integration. Transition issues are nowhere near as common as they used to be after various software changes.

As you say though a pure CBTC>ETCS transition doesn't exist, but I don't think it would be as much of a drama as suggested because ETCS is running as 'background' system already.

*If a unit fails to transition at Ealing Broadway, it can be authorised forward in TPWS/AWS. A Heathrow service can try to transition again in the Hayes area.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2024 ==

Airport Jct to Ealing is Level 2 overlay and ATP (and AWS/TPWS), but it's only 387s & 345s that run in ETCS and they're not fitted with ATP. It becomes a problem with 80x which are 'ETCS ready' but currently running under ATP protection, and there is no way of dynamically transitioning from ATP to ETCS and vice versa. It's probably technically possible, but it's whether anyone wants to throw loads of money at it to come up with a solution.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2024 ==


GW-ATP functions in a very similar way to ETCS Level 1, in that information on speeds, limits of authority etc. are transmitted intermittently to the train via beacons/loops in the four foot, rather than continuously as with Level 2 which uses the GSM-R datalink to connect to the radio block centre (RBC).

Presumably it would be ok going Westbound then after Stage C then where an 80x unit could set up in ETCS at Paddington before departure? But would be a problem for Eastbound trains?

 

[TurboMan]

Correct. An Abbey Wood - Reading service will go CBTC -> TPWS/AWS > ETCS* > TPWS/AWS.

I suppose strictly speaking it's CBTC > ETCS Level NTC (AWS/TPWS) in SN mode > ETCS Level 2 in FS mode > ETCS Level NTC (AWS/TPWS) in SN mode.

 

[Horizon22]

I suppose strictly speaking it's CBTC > ETCS Level NTC (AWS/TPWS) in SN mode > ETCS Level 2 in FS mode > ETCS Level NTC (AWS/TPWS) in SN mode.

Strictly speaking yes!

 

[TurboMan]

Presumably it would be ok going Westbound then after Stage C then where an 80x unit could set up in ETCS at Paddington before departure? But would be a problem for Eastbound trains?

It's the transition that's currently the problem. Setting up ATP takes ages and can only be done at a stand. I suppose you could come up with ETCS Level NTC (ATP) which would allow a dynamic transition (as with ETCS Level NTC (AWS/TPWS) to/from ETCS Level 2) but that would need deep pockets to develop.

 

[Belperpete]

Thinking back, it might not have been the transition that is the only reason for delaying the ETCS overlay out of Paddington As I recall, the guys doing the ETCS overlay wanted stable interlocking data on which to base the overlay. Whereas NR had a seemingly ever expanding list of changes they wanted to make, not least being to convert all the track circuits to axle counters. I understand that those conversions have been done? So presumably someone decided they were the higher priority.

I understand that there are concerns about the life expectancy of the ATP, due to non availability of spares and components, so presumably something is going to have to be done about replacing it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2024 ==

I suppose strictly speaking it's CBTC > ETCS Level NTC (AWS/TPWS) in SN mode > ETCS Level 2 in FS mode > ETCS Level NTC (AWS/TPWS) in SN mode.

Do the new GW trains out of Paddington have traditional ATP equipment (the same as the HSTs had) or do they likewise have ETCS equipment running an ATP mode?

 

[TurboMan]

Do the new GW trains out of Paddington have traditional ATP equipment (the same as the HSTs had) or do they likewise have ETCS equipment running an ATP mode?

Here's what's fitted to trains running out of Padd:

• 80x: ATP as fitted to the HST fleet (but also 'ETCS ready' as it was factory fitted when the units were being built, though it is not currently in use for train protection).
• 387 Air (silver HEx fleet): ETCS, running in Level NTC (AWS/TPWS) from Padd to Ealing B'way then Level 2 Ealing to Heathrow/Stockley Bridge and back to Level NTC for units going to Reading TCD for maintenance.
• 387 'classic' (green GWR fleet): TPWS (with the enhanced panel in the cab).
• 16x and anything else: TPWS (with the basic panel in the cab).

 

[Bigbru]

We've been told Network Rail have made the decision to delay the introduction of ETCS Stage C. The stage will still go ahead; however, this will now only happen when Network Rail Western transition to a ‘no signals’ railway (i.e. Marker boards only). No formal date for delivery has been agreed, however current projections place the project into the CP 8 spending period (within the next 5 to 10 years).

 

[MarkyT]

There is always the possibility of an installation using ETCS hardware that as closely as possible emulates ATP in effective function.
This is what was done in Switzerland to allow rapid conversion of their previous train protection systems to ETCS.

It was a master move by SBB as they convinced international committees to adopt their Level 1 LS (limited supervision) concept into the ETCS standards and were able to do an 'overnight' conversion to L1 LS from their recently completed EuroZub and Eurosignum implementations without rewiring anything, 'just' by changing software. It could be argued France's KVB from the 1990s was the first digital balise-based system. The switched balises used are not technically Eurobalises and don't use the agreed ETCS message protocols but they do use the same carrier and with the correct onboard software emulation can be read by a standard ETCS balise reader.

For example, they have a trainstop analogue that simply transmits a datagram with a speed limit of 0 to a train that passes it whilst it is energised.
I believe there is a eurobalise based functional clone of TPWS but it has never been used, but I am probably wrong?

Yes that's still registered as a Class B packet 44 custom system for UK, but has never been used in anger. When the extended fitment of TPWS+ was under development, Railtrack partnered with Siemens in testing an alternative based on this approach. An HST was equipped with the appropriate kit for trials over balises placed around the Slough area. Needless to say, all the extra equipment on the train made it a non-starter and the alternative Thales proposal to just provide more of their existing TPWS trackside transponders was adopted instead.

EDIT:
The Great Western ATP (Automatic Train Protection) scheme appears to be based on speed limits being enforced by transmissions from point transceivers on the track, and sometimes signalling loops.
It should be possible to emulate this functionality using switchable balises and signal loops whilst being transparent to the installed signalling system.

You could do it but remember the GWML is the last place on Planet Earth the equipment is in use. It'd be like converting the early 20th century GWR ATC system to work with Eurobalises, i.e. a lot of investment in a fundamentally obsolete system. The system's supplier, Belgium's ACEC conglomerate, was broken up in the 1980s. The relevant rail equipment division found itself owned by Alstom in 1989 who immediately discontinued the particular product line in favour of its own alternatives. DfT/Hitachi had difficulty acquiring the equipment to fit the 80xs, effectively clearing out any sparesholding remaining in warehouses at Alstom. Belgium had used the same equipment but in a system with much simpler functionality (limited supervision with advanced warning and train stop). They converted their own protection system to switched Eurobalises mirroring the former system's functionality, and the only other application in the world then was on the airport link in Hong Kong whose equipment was subsequently converted to something else a few years ago. Another European state network making the transponder conversion from their legacy equipment while keeping their historic functionality is Sweden which has had a longstanding full supervision ATP system rolled out in the 1970s and 80s fitted to almost their entire network. In that case, it's worth the considerable work to adapt the track infrastructure.

 

[richard_S]

Wont ETCS kill off steam tours

 

[Bigbru]

Wont ETCS kill off steam tours

Not necessarily.

x.com

x.com

Initial testing of the European Train Control System (ETCS) fitted to LNER A1 Pacific Tornado has been conducted at the Great Central Railway. These images include the system interface with the driver. Astonishing how far mainline steam operations have come - and are going.

 

[Halifaxlad]

When I started this thread I was expecting suggestions off lines that are just off lines to be upgraded to ETCS, or lines that still operating under semaphores.

 

[MarkyT]

Wont ETCS kill off steam tours

Not if the pilot programme to equip Tornado is successful and provides a template for other mainline steam locos. The Railway Museum has announced that Flying Scotsman will be equipped in due course. The pilot program also plans to equip a heritage diesel, a deltic I believe. The Tornado work is very advanced now and initial tests have been carried out at the Great Central Railway recently:

x.com

x.com

Initial testing of the European Train Control System (ETCS) fitted to LNER A1 Pacific Tornado has been conducted at the Great Central Railway. These images include the system interface with the driver. Astonishing how far mainline steam operations have come - and are going.

 

[HSTEd]

You could do it but remember the GWML is the last place on Planet Earth the equipment is in use. It'd be like converting the early 20th century GWR ATC system to work with Eurobalises, i.e. a lot of investment in a fundamentally obsolete system. The system's supplier, Belgium's ACEC conglomerate, was broken up in the 1980s. The relevant rail equipment division found itself owned by Alstom in 1989 who immediately discontinued the particular product line in favour of its own alternatives. DfT/Hitachi had difficulty acquiring the equipment to fit the 80xs, effectively clearing out any sparesholding remaining in warehouses at Alstom. Belgium had used the same equipment but in a system with much simpler functionality (limited supervision with advanced warning and train stop). They converted their own protection system to switched Eurobalises mirroring the former system's functionality, and the only other application in the world then was on the airport link in Hong Kong whose equipment was subsequently converted to something else a few years ago. Another European state network making the transponder conversion from their legacy equipment while keeping their historic functionality is Sweden which has had a longstanding full supervision ATP system rolled out in the 1970s and 80s fitted to almost their entire network. In that case, it's worth the considerable work to adapt the track infrastructure.

I guess if you were planning on doing anything it would be attempting to sweep away ATP, AWS and TPWS with a single uniform L1LS fitment.

But it would require a drop in replacement for each system to be available, built using standard ETCS parts.

 

[TurboMan]

We've been told Network Rail have made the decision to delay the introduction of ETCS Stage C. The stage will still go ahead; however, this will now only happen when Network Rail Western transition to a ‘no signals’ railway (i.e. Marker boards only). No formal date for delivery has been agreed, however current projections place the project into the CP 8 spending period (within the next 5 to 10 years).

Has that been officially announced? The last I heard was that NR and the ORR were in discussions about it, as the ORR were not keen on postponing Stage C.

 

[zwk500]

Initial testing of the European Train Control System (ETCS) fitted to LNER A1 Pacific Tornado has been conducted at the Great Central Railway. These images include the system interface with the driver. Astonishing how far mainline steam operations have come - and are going.

Tornado does have a bit of an advantage though in that it was designed for additional safety equipment "original" steam locos weren't. Not sure if that was specifically ETCS, but there's a reason Tornado is first.

When I started this thread I was expecting suggestions off lines that are just off lines to be upgraded to ETCS, or lines that still operating under semaphores.

Lines still operating under semaphores are less likely to be converted than 1960s-70s vintage power signalling installations. This is largely because Lines with Semaphores don't have the traffic to justify the investment and mechanical signalling can be kept going more easily than obsolete electronics. Another part of the jigsaw is that semaphore areas generally will have less track circuits fitted, and as it stands ETCS Level 2 (the type intended for the UK) requires continuous train detection. This massively increases the costs over an area already fitted. Some of the discussion upthread referenced ways around that (posts #25-26).

Having said all that, there are two areas with Semaphores where conversion to ETCS would be very beneficial: Worcester and Shrewsbury. The track layouts are difficult to make work within the limitations of conventional TCB signalling, but ETCS changes the game on overlaps and block marker positions such that it would allow the abolition of the manually worked boxes which are getting expensive to run due to their complexity. Shrewsbury in particular is near the existing ETCS installation on the Cambrian line.

However I thing, as you suggest, expansion out from early fitment will be the preferred strategy, avoiding too many 'islands' of ETCS as transitions add a risk of failure.

 

[MarkyT]

Tornado does have a bit of an advantage though in that it was designed for additional safety equipment "original" steam locos weren't. Not sure if that was specifically ETCS, but there's a reason Tornado is first.

It already had a fairly advanced electrical system onboard, and for the ETCS work they've added a second steam turbine generator for capacity and resilience and bigger batteries I think. Recently overhauled locos are not too dissimilar in their revised electrical systems. They all had to up their TPWS/AWS game a few years ago and they've already got GSM-R for voice comms. The main reason Tornado was chosen I suspect is the excellent condition and the record drawing state. Being a new(ish) build it was certainly a lower-risk option than any other mainline steam loco. I don't think there was any prior passive provision for ETCS in the original design. Note you incorrectly attributed my original comment to Bigbru.

Lines still operating under semaphores are less likely to be converted than 1960s-70s vintage power signalling installations. This is largely because Lines with Semaphores don't have the traffic to justify the investment and mechanical signalling can be kept going more easily than obsolete electronics. Another part of the jigsaw is that semaphore areas generally will have less track circuits fitted, and as it stands ETCS Level 2 (the type intended for the UK) requires continuous train detection. This massively increases the costs over an area already fitted. Some of the discussion upthread referenced ways around that (posts #25-26).

That's always been the case. Many busy mainline areas have received repeated resignallings while quiet lines nearby have soldiered on with the admittedly safe and reliable old kit, but carrying the high OPEX penalty. TCB with track circuits used to be the big upgrade cost as you needed multiple TC sections to achieve say a 10km block as individual TCs rarely work reliably at distances exceeding ~2km. That means multiple equipment cabinets with power supplies, communications and cabling through the section that all need maintaining and eventually renewing. Axle counters changed that dramatically with sections having no theoretical length limit and needing no intermediate equipment between sensors located only at the extremities. The problem relating to ETCS L2 in such a long block scheme is it will be more expensive than a modern TCB installation using axle counters and minimal numbers of modern integrated zero maintenance LED signals. A cheap level 1 LS alternative for such lines seems quite compelling to me eventually eliminating existing TPWS/AWS. Within that, sections could be selectively upgraded to L2 where desirable for capacity, but otherwise there's no great demand for massive capacity uplift on these secondary and minor lines, unlike the UKs main trunk routes and busy urban corridors.

Having said all that, there are two areas with Semaphores where conversion to ETCS would be very beneficial: Worcester and Shrewsbury. The track layouts are difficult to make work within the limitations of conventional TCB signalling, but ETCS changes the game on overlaps and block marker positions such that it would allow the abolition of the manually worked boxes which are getting expensive to run due to their complexity. Shrewsbury in particular is near the existing ETCS installation on the Cambrian line.
avoiding too many 'islands' of ETCS as transitions add a risk of failure.

They're two places that are rather complex and busy and hence unusual in retaining semaphores to this day.

 

[zwk500]

It already had a fairly advanced electrical system onboard, and for the ETCS work they've added a second steam turbine generator for capacity and resilience and bigger batteries I think. Recently overhauled locos are not too dissimilar in their revised electrical systems. They all had to up their TPWS/AWS game a few years ago and they've already got GSM-R for voice comms. The main reason Tornado was chosen I suspect is the excellent condition and the record drawing state. Being a new(ish) build it was certainly a lower-risk option than any other mainline steam loco. I don't think there was any prior passive provision for ETCS in the original design.

Fair point about recently upgraded locos.

Note you incorrectly attributed my original comment to Bigbru.

Have I? Apologies, I thought I was quoting Bigbru in post #43.

That's always been the case. Many busy mainline areas have received repeated resignallings while quiet lines nearby have soldiered on with the admittedly safe and reliable old kit, but carrying the high OPEX penalty. TCB with track circuits used to be the big upgrade cost as you needed multiple TC sections to achieve say a 10km block as individual TCs rarely work reliably at distances exceeding ~2km. That means multiple equipment cabinets with power supplies, communications and cabling through the section that all need maintaining and eventually renewing. Axle counters changed that dramatically with sections having no theoretical length limit and needing no intermediate equipment between sensors located only at the extremities. The problem relating to ETCS L2 in such a long block scheme is it will be more expensive than a modern TCB installation using axle counters and minimal numbers of modern integrated zero maintenance LED signals. A cheap level 1 LS alternative for such lines seems quite compelling to me eventually eliminating existing TPWS/AWS. Within that, sections could be selectively upgraded to L2 where desirable for capacity, but otherwise there's no great demand for massive capacity uplift on these secondary and minor lines, unlike the UKs main trunk routes and busy urban corridors.

Indeed, progress has been made but there's still a lot of outlay for minimal benefits in quieter secondary lines.

They're two places that are rather complex and busy and hence unusual in retaining semaphores to this day.

Absolutely! And then you add in the alignments of the connecting lines which can't be easily modified to offset the junctions for comfortable overlaps.

 

[fishwomp]

,When I started this thread I was expecting suggestions off lines that are just off lines to be upgraded to ETCS, or lines that still operating under semaphores.

I would have thought lines with limited, preferably new, rolling stock pools and manually signalled, or pre-SSI signalled systems would have been ideal.

1. Stourbridge Town for the win (actually, I imagine that's just a staff (token), and am also wondering when the last railtour paid a visit..). (OK, this isn't a serious answer)
2. West Wales - has a few crufty systems - some driver operated. Pembroke branch in particular sees limited rolling stock, no freight, and no modern signalling. They're already resignalling Llanelli - Carmarthen which seems like a missed opportunity. Class 197s should surely work / fit easily.
3. west of Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth: finish the job.. the crew already know how to use it.

etc.

You'd wonder why they're not doing this, must be as easy as it gets and least cost - and they learnt everything necessary from the Pwllhelli section so why wait.

Doing the ECML out of Kings Cross is basically "do everything, learn everything, spend everything, all at once".

 

[renegademaster]

What about large areas operated by single class of trains, so you can get to level 3 the quickest and get rid of lineside signals? Southern land has vast areas of track that will only ever see 377s and the odd 66 or 73 hauled freight train. Brighton mainline's only other train is the 700s , which are already fitted

 

[Halifaxlad]

Doing the ECML out of Kings Cross is basically "do everything, learn everything, spend everything, all at once".

Its a good summary

What about large areas operated by single class of trains, so you can get to level 3 the quickest and get rid of lineside signals? Southern land has vast areas of track that will only ever see 377s and the odd 66 or 73 hauled freight train

On that basis the Harrogate line springs to mind, between the ECML at York and Harrogate its mostly mechancial! Although it will only be worthwhile if Northern puts new trains on the line as I doubt its worth retro fitting ETCS into class 170s.

 

[MarkyT]

I would have thought lines with limited, preferably new, rolling stock pools and manually signalled, or pre-SSI signalled systems would have been ideal.

1. Stourbridge Town for the win (actually, I imagine that's just a staff (token), and am also wondering when the last railtour paid a visit..). (OK, this isn't a serious answer)

I think it's a staff.

2. West Wales - has a few crufty systems - some driver operated. Pembroke branch in particular sees limited rolling stock, no freight, and no modern signalling. They're already resignalling Llanelli - Carmarthen which seems like a missed opportunity. Class 197s should surely work / fit easily.

Its a long block single line system beyond Clarbeston Road and on the Pembroke branch from Whitland. TCB would probably be cheaper where not already applicable. Clarbeston Road to Milford Haven is already TCB with axle counters for the long sections. I was one of the design team on that project in the 1980s.

3. west of Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth: finish the job.. the crew already know how to use it.

I assume you mean Shrewsbury station area. The problem is to cover all the surrounding junctions will be a large interlocking and all new trackside equipment. That will be a rather expensive project.

 

[fishwomp]

[].

I assume you mean Shrewsbury area station. The problem is to cover the entire station area it will be a large interlocking, and that will be expensive.

Actually, no, I meant Aberystwyth - as I thought only the Barmouth/Pwllhelli bit was done - so am happy to be corrected, and it sounds like job done to me. They could fix up Craven Arms to Morlais Jct instead then!

 

[richard_S]

Having said all that, there are two areas with Semaphores where conversion to ETCS would be very beneficial: Worcester and Shrewsbury. The track layouts are difficult to make work within the limitations of conventional TCB signalling, but ETCS changes the game on overlaps and block marker positions such that it would allow the abolition of the manually worked boxes which are getting expensive to run due to their complexity. Shrewsbury in particular is near the existing ETCS installation on the Cambrian line.

Shrewsbury boxes are due to close in 2025.The area to be controlled from South Wales Regional Operations Centre at Cardiff.

 

[The Planner]

Shrewsbury boxes are due to close in 2025.The area to be controlled from South Wales Regional Operations Centre at Cardiff.

Not a chance.

 

[Monarch010]

When the signalling of sections of track is upgraded, is any passive provision made for ETCS, or is that actually feasible?

 

[HSTEd]

Its a long block single line system beyond Clarbeston Road and on the Pembroke branch from Whitland. TCB would probably be cheaper where not already applicable. Clarbeston Road to Milford Haven is already TCB with axle counters for the long sections. I was one of the design team on that project in the 1980s.

Could probably make a nice trial location for a Level 2 hybrid solution if you wanted to do that.

Without freight around it allows an exploration of the operational and economic realities without grasping the thorny issue of what to do about freight.

 

[MarkyT]

When the signalling of sections of track is upgraded, is any passive provision made for ETCS, or is that actually feasible?

Signalling schemes have been routinely specified 'ETCS ready' for probably two decades now. That mainly means using processor based interlockings.