Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
For anyone interested, the key dates are as follows:
June 2032: Cross Gates to Ulleskelf overlay (trackside signals still in use) [Neville Hill area May 2033]
May 2034: Huddersfield (platforms 5/6 only) to Cottingley overlay (trackside signals still in use)
Jan 2035: Neville Hill to Ulleskelf 'signals away' (trackside signals taken out of use)
March 2036: Stalybridge area overlay (trackside signals still in use) March 2036: Mossley to Cottingley 'signals away' (trackside signals taken out of use)
Interesting that there doesn't appear to be an 'overlay stage' for the Mossley to Huddersfield section;
it just goes straight to the final signals away stage - good luck with that!
For anyone interested, the key dates are as follows:
June 2032: Cross Gates to Ulleskelf overlay (trackside signals still in use) [Neville Hill area May 2033]
May 2034: Huddersfield (platforms 5/6 only) to Cottingley overlay (trackside signals still in use)
Jan 2035: Neville Hill to Ulleskelf 'signals away' (trackside signals taken out of use)
March 2036: Stalybridge area overlay (trackside signals still in use) March 2036: Mossley to Cottingley 'signals away' (trackside signals taken out of use)
Interesting that there doesn't appear to be an 'overlay stage' for the Mossley to Huddersfield section;
it just goes straight to the final signals away stage - good luck with that!
Presumably by the time Mossley-Huddersfield comes up all trains using that section will have been running with ETCS for the overlay section from Huddersfield northwards?
Another interesting implication of the diagrams in post #1 is that no overlay is being retained for Penistone line trains, and that services between York and Sherburn-in-Elmet will also need to transition into ETCS for Ullesekelf to Church Fenton and then straight back out.
Presumably the dates are aligned notionally to Network Rail/GBR Control Periods with implied funding (CP8 2029-34, CP9 2034-39).
And I wonder where the WCML North ETCS programme fits with the TRU plans (and ECML for that matter).
We are still in the early days of ETCS transition experience.
And all based in York ROC presumably (ECML/TRU).
For anyone interested, the key dates are as follows:
June 2032: Cross Gates to Ulleskelf overlay (trackside signals still in use) [Neville Hill area May 2033] May 2034: Huddersfield (platforms 5/6 only) to Cottingley overlay (trackside signals still in use) Jan 2035: Neville Hill to Ulleskelf 'signals away' (trackside signals taken out of use) March 2036: Stalybridge area overlay (trackside signals still in use) March 2036: Mossley to Cottingley 'signals away' (trackside signals taken out of use)
Interesting that there doesn't appear to be an 'overlay stage' for the Mossley to Huddersfield section;
it just goes straight to the final signals away stage - good luck with that! MARK
That's curious, because when I download the same document, this is all I get. Nothing about Huddersfield platforms 5/6, Stalybridge overlay, Mossley to Cottingley.
If you download the Implementation Stages document, it shows the phasing of the Huddersfield area and you can match the phase labels across.
Of course it doesn't resolve the conflict between the response letter saying 'there aren't any dates yet' (or similar) and then them including plans with dates very much in!
If you download the Implementation Stages document, it shows the phasing of the Huddersfield area and you can match the phase labels across.
Of course it doesn't resolve the conflict between the response letter saying 'there aren't any dates yet' (or similar) and then them including plans with dates very much in!
Given they are having to install full new trackside colour lights with the associated expense of the structures you have to wonder whether they will just leave it as an overlay system and avoid the expense of removing the signals.
Given they are having to install full new trackside colour lights with the associated expense of the structures you have to wonder whether they will just leave it as an overlay system and avoid the expense of removing the signals.
Possibly silly questions from someone not knowledgeable in this topic
What is the advantage of an overlay? I am assuming this means the traditional signals are left (presumably for those trains without the in cab signalling - makes sense), but why then go to the expense of installing a parallel system and not just have one or the other, unless you envisage a full changeover realtively sson after so you are taking advantage to 'do it whilst you're there'?
Does a risk, and if so how big or how mitigated, of running 2 parallel systems exist, for example the two systems may show something different?
Given they are having to install full new trackside colour lights with the associated expense of the structures you have to wonder whether they will just leave it as an overlay system and avoid the expense of removing the signals.
Those signals may be able to be repurposed as replacements for older units elsewhere. Either replacing semaphores or units with 1 bulb per aperture.
One thing I wonder is whether the Overlay system will have the capability the overlays on Thameslink or GWML have to allow trains to take advantage of ETCS while the Overlay remains for unfitted trains/untrained drivers. Or if it will be as described on the East Coast thread that the interlocking will not be altered for the overlay period so the extra blocks can't be taken advantage of.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Possibly silly questions from someone not knowledgeable in this topic
What is the advantage of an overlay? I am assuming this means the traditional signals are left (presumably for those trains without the in cab signalling - makes sense), but why then go to the expense of installing a parallel system and not just have one or the other, unless you envisage a full changeover realtively sson after so you are taking advantage to 'do it whilst you're there'?
As you say, Overlay is where the traditional signalling remains, but ETCS Level 2 is present as well. On some lines it may have 'extra' ETCS blocks to allow higher frequencies (Thameslink) but maintain the ability of non-ETCS movements. On other lines the block section may stay the same, but the ETCS allows the Speed Supervision to take over from approach control and ATP (GWML).
ETCS also requires not just the trains to be fitted with the equipment, but the drivers, guards, signallers, station staff, technicians, engineers, track workers, planning staff, and many others to be trained or briefed on the new rules for ETCS. Things like possessions, temporary/emergency restrictions, planning rules/values, station despatch procedures all need adjusting for the fact there's not physical signals any more, and that ETCS supervises the speed continuously. By fitting an Overlay it allows training/testing to be carried out between trains running on conventional signals, if desired.
The Moorgate line did this, running on conventional signals during service then ETCS overnight, before moving to using the ETCS Overlay with conventional signals simultaneously, and then finally taking the signals out and running entirely on in-Cab signalling.
It makes sense that for the first few installations in an area, at least one overlay period will be required to do all the training. If a section is an extension of an ETCS area then it may be more viable to convert from Signals to Block Markers in one big blockade.
Yes, the Interlocking may need to be adjusted. The other issue with an 'overlay' is that the interlocking, overlaps, track circuits/axle counters and signal spacing etc, are designed primarily for the conventional signalling, so ETCS may be less efficient than if things were designed for a 'clean' ETCS installation.
AIUI the East Coast programme is not planning to adjust the interlocking for the Overlay period of Welwyn-Hitchin, as it is intending to transition to No-signals quite quickly.
I'm sure there are plenty of things I've missed in this, and that several bits I've said above aren't 100% accurate. I'm sure plenty of others will be along soon to fill in or correct.
At early stages will often have a proposed implementation plan that's going through consultation with other groups/organisations for feedback. The FOI response has one scenario timeline in it, though expect the full document probably had several. The file is called an option comparison schedule for a start.
Those signals may be able to be repurposed as replacements for older units elsewhere. Either replacing semaphores or units with 1 bulb per aperture.
One thing I wonder is whether the Overlay system will have the capability the overlays on Thameslink or GWML have to allow trains to take advantage of ETCS while the Overlay remains for unfitted trains/untrained drivers. Or if it will be as described on the East Coast thread that the interlocking will not be altered for the overlay period so the extra blocks can't be taken advantage of.
The timeline document suggests the purpose if for training similar to the East Coast. If getting removed two or three years later would expect like East Coast to not invest in fully optimising an intermediate state.
Given they are having to install full new trackside colour lights with the associated expense of the structures you have to wonder whether they will just leave it as an overlay system and avoid the expense of removing the signals.
The additional equipment is extra things to go wrong, that could affect services running on ETCS. For example, if it is not possible to clear a lineside signal, such that it stays at red, that will likely affect the running of trains with ETCS as drivers shouldn't be given conflicting information. It is also extra equipment that needs maintaining, which costs money. And as zwk500 has said, removing the lineside signals may allow enhanced ETCS functionality.
Having a full ETCS implementation is a juggling act. You need both the line to be ETCS signalled, but also all the trains using that line must be ETCS fitted (staff trained, etc.). With the lifespans of signalling equipment and rolling stock, it can be hard to get the two to align. In practice, it may be necessary for some of the early phases of resignalling a line to be dual-fitted, until all the stock is fitted.
Not quite correct, as the configuration of platforms at Slaithwaite is to be a single platform at the north side with the island platform on the south side (if I have explained this clearly enough), not as shown above.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
