First ETCS train operates on the East Coast Mainline

[bramling]

What trains will be using it. The 717s is a little underwhelming as it is such a short journey. The 91s clearly won’t. I can’t keep up with if the 387s are fitted. (Just 101 which doesn’t do much all day at Hornsey is my last understanding)

Last time I saw it 387101 was stabled on the high level sidings at Hornsey, and didn’t appear to be doing much. I believe its appearance as allocated to a service on RTTT was likely to have been an error. That was a week ago, so not sure what it’s done since, if anything.

 

[Kentish RYS]

What trains will be using it. The 717s is a little underwhelming as it is such a short journey. The 91s clearly won’t. I can’t keep up with if the 387s are fitted. (Just 101 which doesn’t do much all day at Hornsey is my last understanding)

The intention is everything will be, except for the classes to be withdrawn in the next few years (such as the class 91+Mark4 sets) The Welwyn to Hitchin is an overlay for driver training for drivers not used to ETCS

 

[zwk500]

What trains will be using it. The 717s is a little underwhelming as it is such a short journey. The 91s clearly won’t. I can’t keep up with if the 387s are fitted. (Just 101 which doesn’t do much all day at Hornsey is my last understanding)

At this stage, only 717s will be using it, for about a mile south of Welwyn (and the odd services/moves that run up to Letchworth and back). AIUI Class 700s will start using the ETCS later in the year, which will obviously cover the full length regularly. I haven't seen anything about when other classes will start using it.

Class 43, 180 and 800 have seen test runs on the ECML for ETCS, but I don't think they are fitted to enough of the fleet to start using ETCS regularly yet (not to mention drivers).

As others have mentioned, eventually all classes running on the ECML will need to have it as the section from Fletton Junction (ish) to King's Cross including the Hertford Loop will be signals-away.

 

[Failed Unit]

The 387still there. Complete with graffiti tag. (Not sure if that was acquired at Hornsey). Perhaps it had a run out on Sunday.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2026 ==

At this stage, only 717s will be using it, for about a mile south of Welwyn (and the odd services/moves that run up to Letchworth and back). AIUI Class 700s will start using the ETCS later in the year, which will obviously cover the full length regularly. I haven't seen anything about when other classes will start using it.

Class 43, 180 and 800 have seen test runs on the ECML for ETCS, but I don't think they are fitted to enough of the fleet to start using ETCS regularly yet (not to mention drivers).

As others have mentioned, eventually all classes running on the ECML will need to have it as the section from Fletton Junction (ish) to King's Cross including the Hertford Loop will be signals-away.

Thank you. I have seen the 180 at Welwyn in previous blockades.

 

[Kentish RYS]

Class 43, 180 and 800 have seen test runs on the ECML for ETCS, but I don't think they are fitted to enough of the fleet to start using ETCS regularly yet (not to mention drivers).

Not only does each fleet need fitting with ETCS, it also needs testing and approval to be Put into Use. I'm not actually sure but I think you could have the approval before the whole fleet is fitted if some have been and tested the installation hardware and software

 

[zwk500]

Not only does each fleet need fitting with ETCS, it also needs testing and approval to be Put into Use.

Yep, and that approval is multi-layered (ORR, NR and Operator acceptance). And then each driver needs training on ETCS and approval to use Level 2.

I'm not actually sure but I think you could have the approval before the whole fleet is fitted if some have been and tested the installation hardware and software

Yes, not 100% sure about the approvals process.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2026 ==

ORR Letter has now been published for Welwyn to Hitchin Overlay: https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...grade-orr-authorisation-letter-2026-08-27.pdf

Dated 27th August.

I refer to your application for authorisation received on the 25th August 2026 and technical file reference East Coast Digital Programme (ECDP) Welwyn to Hitchin Operational Migration Overlay (OMO) dated 25th August 2026 and technical file reference DDaT National GSM-R TF Volume 1 Part 1 (Issue 12) & Part 2 (Issue 8) dated 19th August 2026. Following review of your application, I can confirm that ORR grants authorisation under regulation 4(1)(a) of the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011, as amended. This authorisation is for the placing in service of the following Control, Command and Signalling trackside subsystem as identified in your submission as ETCS Level 2 (including RBC system build F4.2 and system software F4.2_E01 and train detection) and GSM-R upgrade for data use acting as a bearer for ETCS.

It is noted that for this authorisation, ETCS Level 2 will be used as an overlay onto the existing signalling system and there is a plan to implement a “Level 2 No Signals” system in future works. This should be undertaken in compliance with legislation in force at that time.

The linked document contains a table showing the current limits of the ETCS.

 

[St. Paddy]

Whilst it is still at Hornsey, Driver familiarisation started this week on 387101 so they know how to set the cab up in normal service. I’m not sure if there will be any further training to use its ETCS when the time comes.

 

[Kentish RYS]

Whilst it is still at Hornsey, Driver familiarisation started this week on 387101 so they know how to set the cab up in normal service. I’m not sure if there will be any further training to use its ETCS when the time comes.

If I recall correctly it has a different make of onboard to the rest if the TL/GN fleet so will presumably need driver training, even if very little?

It also needs testing before going into service as a first in class fitment

 

[St. Paddy]

If I recall correctly it has a different make of onboard to the rest if the TL/GN fleet so will presumably need driver training, even if very little?

It also needs testing before going into service as a first in class fitment

Yes it’s Alstom equipment and will undoubtedly be subject to years of testing

 

[D365]

Yes it’s Alstom equipment and will undoubtedly be subject to years of testing

As evidenced by the thread here!

 

[zwk500]

Has there been any news on when 700s will/did start using the Welwyn to Hitchin overlay?

 

[St. Paddy]

Has there been any news on when 700s will/did start using the Welwyn to Hitchin overlay?

Next year is what I’ve been told, no specific date

 

[Failed Unit]

Next year is what I’ve been told, no specific date

Hopefully it won‘t be that bad, however a nice Christmas possession to tick the box Joking aside what is stopping the 700s operating today? They are fitted and using it on the Thameslink core, or is it different to the Thameslink core so everyone needs training again. I assume the drivers are trained because of the existing use on the core and it is using the same equipment on the train itself.

 

[MichaelDono]

Hopefully it won‘t be that bad, however a nice Christmas possession to tick the box Joking aside what is stopping the 700s operating today? They are fitted and using it on the Thameslink core, or is it different to the Thameslink core so everyone needs training again. I assume the drivers are trained because of the existing use on the core and it is using the same equipment on the train itself.

Class 700s currently only run with an older baseline, they need upgrading to run with 3.6.0 for Welwyn to Hitchin. The Thameslink core is currently incompatible with trains running more recent software, this Christmas should see that fixed.

 

[Belperpete]

Class 700s currently only run with an older baseline, they need upgrading to run with 3.6.0 for Welwyn to Hitchin. The Thameslink core is currently incompatible with trains running more recent software, this Christmas should see that fixed.

So does this mean that every time a new stretch of line is fitted, presumably with the latest baseline, all the already-fitted lines and stock might need upgrading for compatability?

Or will the UK at some stage have to standardise on a certain baseline of the software, and ignore later versions?

 

[Bald Rick]

So does this mean that every time a new stretch of line is fitted, presumably with the latest baseline, all the already-fitted lines and stock might need upgrading for compatability?

3.6.0 is the baseline that will be used for the forseeable future.

 

[WillC]

A random thought: what will happen to all the redundant signalling? Just not replaced at it reaches end of life, used elsewhere on the network, sold abroad..?

 

[Bald Rick]

A random thought: what will happen to all the redundant signalling? Just not replaced at it reaches end of life, used elsewhere on the network, sold abroad..?

The same as happens to all other redundant signalling.

 

[WillC]

The same as happens to all other redundant signalling.

<drum roll> which is..?

 

[AM9]

A random thought: what will happen to all the redundant signalling? Just not replaced at it reaches end of life, used elsewhere on the network, sold abroad..?

Surely, the majority of the cost of a major signalling installation is in the planning, civils, disruption, installation testing and certification. Those costs and compromises occurring in shoehorning redundant equipment from another installation is likely to dwarf any savings from hardware reuse.

 

[Bald Rick]

<drum roll> which is..?

Most of the signalling kit goes in the bin, some of the components are kept for spares, especially certain types of relay or modules. The reason for resignalling is usually because the kit is unreliable, and that unreliability is usually cabling or because the tech of what was installed is no longer repairable.

But most of the spend on signalling isn’t signalling kit. It’s in design, power supplies, laying troughing, and the very clever people who prepare and test data, then test and commission the whole system.

 

[Kentish RYS]

A random thought: what will happen to all the redundant signalling? Just not replaced at it reaches end of life, used elsewhere on the network, sold abroad..?

So the ETCS rollout will be some ETCS overlay areas (ETCS with conventional signalling) to allow for driver signaller and other staff (various operations and maintenance roles) training then as following areas are done then will go straight to no conventional signals. They will be done as any resignalling (Network Rail procedure of disposal, with some keeping of strategic spares if a type that needs them and parts are good enough), however where sensible slightly combined stages happen to save cost. For example Welwyn to Hitchin the Interlocking and Trackside location cases were replaced but the existing Signals, AWS and TPWS were kept and reconnected to the new location cases as they are not planned to be permanent.

 

[WillC]

Yes I can well imagine the costs of installing the new system. Just wondering if the thousands of old signals might find a home, maybe in another country (the destination of some old locos I think?).

 

[Kentish RYS]

But most of the spend on signalling isn’t signalling kit. It’s in design, power supplies, laying troughing, and the very clever people who prepare and test data, then test and commission the whole system.

This exactly, lots if folks working hard and also independent assurance and approvals. Also making sure works dont affect each other probably a few roles exist that most dont know of outside the industry.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 22:06 ==

Yes I can well imagine the costs of installing the new system. Just wondering if the thousands of old signals might find a home, maybe in another country (the destination of some old locos I think?).

Signals are not very portable and often country specific (or groups who follow similar principles). Also they sit outside in all weathers with little heavy maintenance. Look at what heritage railways or Demonstration Signalboxes have to do to some examples to get them like new again. Also the signal head (or even whole signal woth post/structure which often won't come out without a fight as it is concreted in or has covils into the ground) is a tiny bit of the system, the train detection and Interlocking are not transferable (though components are) and that is the far more expensive bit

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes I can well imagine the costs of installing the new system. Just wondering if the thousands of old signals might find a home, maybe in another country (the destination of some old locos I think?).

I’ve never heard of redundant signals being reused, except rarities on preserved railways, and some components into spares (ef certain tyoes of signal heads).

To put it in context, a resignalling project with 200 new signals might cost £200m pounds, but the materials cost of the actual signals (post and signal head) will be, at the very most, 1% of that. Driver briefing and training will cost more.

 

[Tim M]

A random thought: what will happen to all the redundant signalling? Just not replaced at it reaches end of life, used elsewhere on the network, sold abroad..?

The term ‘signalling equipment’ is a bit of a catch all, maybe a look at at redundant components will be more instructive:

Signal heads - if these are current design LED units they can be put back in stores for use elsewhere, maybe to replace older filament lamp units.
Signal structures - it might be possible to reuse simple posts, particularly lightweight units associated with LED signals, but otherwise they will be scrapped. Gantries and other structures being bespoke designs are most likely to be scrapped.
Signal object controllers in adjacent location cases - although these used as spares, the logistics would need some thought with associated removal of wiring and changes to interlocking data.
AWS and TPWS - again these items could be put back into store.
Cable - these would be short lengths that could be put back in store but in reality scrapping might be more cost effective.

Point machines and train absence detection equipment (track circuits or axle counters in old parlance) would obviously stay.

All this is subject to the condition of each item, the age and cost of refurbishment would need to be factored in for reuse.

And no, selling abroad ain’t going to happen, that’s based on my many years of working on export projects.

 

[Belperpete]

Yes I can well imagine the costs of installing the new system. Just wondering if the thousands of old signals might find a home, maybe in another country (the destination of some old locos I think?).

Very unlikely that the costs of recovering old signals in a usable state would be worthwhile. Unlike locos and rolling stock that can be easily moved around, signal posts and heads are not. You would need to get lifting equipment to site, to lower signal heads without damaging them.

As Bald Rick says, some of the components like trackside object controllers that can be easily recovered, might be recovered for spares. But to be used on a new signalling scheme, they would likely need to go back to the manufacturer for recertification, which is unlikely to be worthwhile.

It is also worth remembering that an overlay is what it says, it is something that is overlaid on an existing system. It doesn't work in parallel with it, it inherently relies on the existing system on which it has been overlaid - it won't work without it.

It may be possible to recover things like signals, but as Tim says, things like train detection, point motors, etc would need to stay. As would any lineside cabling that they use. Recovering the signals but leaving the other things would likely require a fairly major rework of the underlying system. As an example, in an overlay area, an ETCS movement authority is likely to prove that the exit signal is alight. Removing the exit signal will require the software and hardware amending to remove both the signal controls and proving.

To be honest, I doubt that recovery of lineside signals in a dual-signalled area is likely to be very cost-effective, until that area needs resignalling again.

 

[WillC]

This forum is a bastion of intelligent, informed and considered posts - thanks all, you’ve made a delayed journey much more interesting.

 

[Kentish RYS]

To be honest, I doubt that recovery of lineside signals in a dual-signalled area is likely to be very cost-effective, until that area needs resignalling again.

Cost effective in terms of selling the equipment, never (unless they are some very rare thing that an obscenely rich collector wants or other far fetched situation maybe) but in terms of improving the service/reducing maintenance definitely, in some cases...

Recovering the signals but leaving the other things would likely require a fairly major rework of the underlying system. As an example, in an overlay area, an ETCS movement authority is likely to prove that the exit signal is alight. Removing the exit signal will require the software and hardware amending to remove both the signal controls and proving.

... and it is related to this. Not all overlays are the same and many are designed to loose the signals or able to improve service without them (no signals in places so they can been seen but are bad for sigbal spacing for example). Also the exit signal proved alight can be omitted in ETCS if designed in, the same way the Mid conventional block ETCS markers work on Thameslink: is train in ETCS Level 2, then can gat a movement authority as the ETCS will show limit of authority and protect a SPAD/Pass End of Authority.

 

[Belperpete]

Cost effective in terms of selling the equipment, never (unless they are some very rare thing that an obscenely rich collector wants or other far fetched situation maybe) but in terms of improving the service/reducing maintenance definitely, in some cases...

... and it is related to this. Not all overlays are the same and many are designed to loose the signals or able to improve service without them (no signals in places so they can been seen but are bad for sigbal spacing for example). Also the exit signal proved alight can be omitted in ETCS if designed in, the same way the Mid conventional block ETCS markers work on Thameslink: is train in ETCS Level 2, then can gat a movement authority as the ETCS will show limit of authority and protect a SPAD/Pass End of Authority.

Agreed that if you design the system from the outset as a conventional signalling overlay on an underlying ETCS signalling system, then it will be easier to recover the signals. But the costs will still be significant.

Where there are signals, the ETCS cannot work independently of the signals. The driver must not get conflicting information from the ETCS and the lineside signalling. So either the ETCS movement authorities must be synchronised with what the lineside signals are showing, or the lineside signals must be synchronised to the ETCS (such as by displaying a special "ETCS aspect"). It follows that when you recover the signals, you have not only got the costs of physically recovering the signals themselves, and their associated hardware (object controllers, equipment cases, cabling alterations, etc), but you will have significant software changes to make to the underlying control systems as well. Designing, implementing and testing these kind of alterations doesn't come cheap, and I doubt that the costs would ever be recouped from the savings in maintenance costs. After all, signals don't need much maintaining.

And you need to cost in the disruption to services caused while you make all these alterations.

And they involve the kind of software changes that only the original system supplier will likely be capable of doing. If they are using their limited resources for such recoveries, they won't be able to use them for other resignalling work, further ETCS roll-out, etc.

I think such recoveries are a nice idea in theory, but I really can't see them ever being justified in practice.