Interoperability of ETCS onboard equipment from different OEMs

[zwk500]

Moderator note: Split from

New Belmond train in England & Wales

New Sleeper service from 2025, run by the same folks that do the Royal Scotsman: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-14072053/Sleeper-train-england-wales-belmond.html The 'Britannic Explorer, A Belmond Train' will depart from London Victoria It will have 18 'extraordinary' cabins ranging...

www.railforums.co.uk

isn't that a different system to the Cambrian line?

The Cambrian line is ETCS Level 2, same as the ECML will be being fitted with. However I think as an earlier installation it is an earlier baseline version and therefore I have no idea if the ECML fitted locos would work with the Cambrian Line ETCS.

 

[DarloRich]

The Cambrian line is ETCS Level 2, same as the ECML will be being fitted with. However I think as an earlier installation it is an earlier baseline version and therefore I have no idea if the ECML fitted locos would work with the Cambrian Line ETCS.

thanks - also no idea if it is interoperable!

 

[Fragezeichnen]

The Cambrian is fitted with Baseline 2. Vehicles fitted with Baseline 3 can run on Baseline 2 routes(but not vice versa). So it should be fine. The one thing you couldn't do is take the original Class 158 units and run them on the ECML.

 

[bleeder4]

Tornado has been fitted with ETCS equipment for ECML operations (the first steam loco to be fitted) and it is planned to test it on the Cambrian between Shrewsbury and Welshpool (gauging restrictions prevent it from venturing any further). So they must be interoperable.

 

[Harpo]

The whole reason for ETCS is ‘interoperability’, originally to avoid needing lots of loco changes going from nation to nation.

Backward compatibility (new train, old infrastructure) without further change makes sense as does needing to upgrade older train kit to work on newer infrastructure.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Tornado has been fitted with ETCS equipment for ECML operations (the first steam loco to be fitted) and it is planned to test it on the Cambrian between Shrewsbury and Welshpool (gauging restrictions prevent it from venturing any further). So they must be interoperable.

I believe D9000 is also heading for the Cambrian for ETCS testing, and maybe other "first in class" fitments like a DB class 66 ?

 

[zwk500]

The Cambrian is fitted with Baseline 2. Vehicles fitted with Baseline 3 can run on Baseline 2 routes(but not vice versa). So it should be fine. The one thing you couldn't do is take the original Class 158 units and run them on the ECML.

Thanks for the confirmation

 

[DarloRich]

The Cambrian is fitted with Baseline 2. Vehicles fitted with Baseline 3 can run on Baseline 2 routes(but not vice versa). So it should be fine. The one thing you couldn't do is take the original Class 158 units and run them on the ECML.

thanks - i had it the wrong way round in my brain!

 

[LUYMun]

The whole reason for ETCS is ‘interoperability’, originally to avoid needing lots of loco changes going from nation to nation.

Because how many Continental European trains regularly travel on the British mainline network?

 

[zwk500]

Because how many Continental European trains regularly travel on the British mainline network?

ETCS's interoperability concept also is intended to avoid needing a loco change within countries for signalling compatibility reasons. Given the Cambrian used to be RETB, this could cause problems (although RETB also came with the portable unit workaround).
Another benefit relevant to a single network is that you should avoid the situation of Manufacturer A's kit being incompatible with Manufacturer B's kit.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

In the end it's pretty simple. If you want to install a cab signalling system which supports high speed running, ATO etc. then your choice is ETCS or ETCS. All other similar systems like LZB or TVM are considered legacy and won't be developed further. The cost of developing a national specific system would be astronomical. That's why ETCS is used everywhere from Norway to Israel to Saudi Arabia.

It might be fiendishly complex, but that's because instead of the more politically difficult route of coming up with a single European Rulebook and imposing it on all the individual nations which have had free reign for all their various idiosyncratic operating methods for decades, they decided on a single European safety system which could accomodate every rulebook.

 

[zwk500]

In the end it's pretty simple. If you want to install a cab signalling system which supports high speed running, ATO etc. then your choice is ETCS or ETCS. All other similar systems like LZB or TVM are considered legacy and won't be developed further. The cost of developing a national specific system would be astronomical. That's why ETCS is used everywhere from Norway to Israel to Saudi Arabia.

And Australia, and China (although the Chinese have modified it into their own specific version I think).

It might be fiendishly complex, but that's because instead of the more politically difficult route of coming up with a single European Rulebook and imposing it on all the individual nations which have had free reign for all their various idiosyncratic operating methods for decades, they decided on a single European safety system which could accomodate every rulebook.

The most complex elements are conversion from legacy systems to ETCS. In no small part, because of the need to have multiple systems functioning together (the very thing ETCS is supposed to eliminate!) until legacy systems can be removed. As the systems build a critical mass, a lot of the constraints on expanding (primarily opportunities to use the system in action, for things with driver/engineer/technician training) will be reduced.

 

[Wyrleybart]

ETCS's interoperability concept also is intended to avoid needing a loco change within countries for signalling compatibility reasons. Given the Cambrian used to be RETB, this could cause problems (although RETB also came with the portable unit workaround).

Guessing this is what FOCs used to run freight north of Inverness using portable RETB units

Another benefit relevant to a single network is that you should avoid the situation of Manufacturer A's kit being incompatible with Manufacturer B's kit.

How did this pan out with the ETCS kit on the 37s ?
AIUI 97301, 37668 and 37669 have one manufacturer of ETCS onboard and 97302-97304 the other manufacturers'. Presume the 158s are fitted with the same kit as the 97302-304, so does that mean the active / current ETCS equipment is "single manufacturer" ?

 

[D365]

Are taxpayers funding the refurbishment/construction of these Belmond carriages/locomotives then?

Network Rail will be funding the design and installation of ETCS onboard equipment to driving vehicles, if they are required to by track access agreements.

 

[zwk500]

Network Rail will be funding the design and installation of ETCS onboard equipment to driving vehicles, if they are required to by track access agreements.

AIUI NR fund "first-in-class" fitment, but all subsequent vehicles are the responsibility of the owner to finance. The DfT may well have a conversion fund to help FOCs as well. Open to correction on those points though. The recent DB Press release was decidedly unclear on who was actually paying for their wider fleet fitment!

Guessing this is what FOCs used to run freight north of Inverness using portable RETB units

Freight and charters have used it, I think. Also there's a version for engineers so they can hold an engineering token when taking possessions.

How did this pan out with the ETCS kit on the 37s ?
AIUI 97301, 37668 and 37669 have one manufacturer of ETCS onboard and 97302-97304 the other manufacturers'. Presume the 158s are fitted with the same kit as the 97302-304, so does that mean the active / current ETCS equipment is "single manufacturer" ?

I don't know, sorry. Although the point is not so much that you'd have a smorgasbord of manufacturers on any one line or class (the reality of the practicalities is that you'd contract a manufacturer to do quite large chunks of work), but rather that there shouldn't be issues transitioning between areas because of minor technical differences in manufacturer's specs. They should all talk to each other as per the ETCS specs. The issue with the Cambrian is more about the Baselines. Baseline numbers are sort of the opposite to RA - you need the Train to have an equal or higher baseline than the route. Cambrian is Baseline 2 for both trains and infrastructure, while ECML will be Baseline 3 for both (not sure about GWML/Thameslink baselines, Moorgate is presumably baseline 3). So a Class 66 fitted to Baseline 3 for the ECML (by Siemens, if it's a DB Cargo loco) would be able to run onto the Baseline 2 Cambrian, but the Cambrian Class 158s would not be able to use the ECML ETCS unless upgraded to Baseline 3.
The Class 197s however are being fitted with Baseline 3 so will be able to work both Cambrian and further afield, if ever required.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Crewe and Warrington areas are in the pipeline for ETCS fitment on the WCML, so TfW's ETCS-fitted 197s will be able to run there as well as on the Cambrian.

 

[tfw756rider]

Crewe and Warrington areas are in the pipeline for ETCS fitment on the WCML, so TfW's ETCS-fitted 197s will be able to run there as well as on the Cambrian.

Wouldn't they just get more 197s fitted with the ETCS equipment, otherwise there would be complications with diagrams?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wouldn't they just get more 197s fitted with the ETCS equipment, otherwise there would be complications with diagrams?

Well yes, that's what I meant.
Adding ETCS to other 197s should be straightforward.