Transpennine first digital mainline.....

[rebmcr]

In principle ETCS should make converting a stretch to bi-directional a lot easier as a eurobalise doesn't care in which direction a train passes it, it's just the ROC that needs to know the direction of travel.

The Pway crews also have a very good reason to know this.

 

[MarkyT]

The drover just has to stop when the distance counter on the driving desk reaches zero.

Drivers would have an eye on the gauge, which is why a HUD would be very useful.

There will be a lot less kit on the desk after all as there would be no need for a sunflower

Even in the distant future, there will likely still be passive marker boards of some description along the track to act as targets for movement authorities, which will also be very useful for verbal instruction in the case of system failure. The only initiative actively looking at level 3 techniques today on mixed traffic main lines is investigating virtual fixed blocks rather than moving block, and these would still have balises and block markers, although they would lack conventional fixed train detection through plain line sections. For most of the general railway network, fixed block, whether virtual or not, is perfectly good enough for the traffic levels. It is only around station areas where trains close up that some true moving block provision is really required and this could take the form of some sort of 'modern permissive' overlay to allow a second train to run into a platform before the previous one has fully vacated it. Perhaps such a system might use forward scanning radar or lidar at low speed; this technology is already appearing on trams and light rail. Non of this means abandoning fixed train detection altogether, which I am certain will continue to exist around junctions for route holding and deadlocking, as employed on London Underground for their SelTrac moving block CBTC lines.

The sunflower of AWS can be replicated in function by screen graphics on the standard ETCS cab control screen. This is part of the preferred STM method for emulating legacy 'class B' systems on a modern 'native ETCS' train. This is the case with the Thameslink cl.700. STM method refers to the term Specific Transmission Module - 'plug in' hardware and software modules that adapt a standard ETCS computer and cab interface to emulate a legacy system such as AWS/TPWS. Some of the later legacy protection systems in continental Europe also employ balises, so a STM implementation in those cases doesn't even need a separate plug in antenna or other type of transponder reader, but can utilise the standard Eurobalise antenna and reader with just some alternative software routines to process the signals and generate appropriate traction system responses and display indications in the cab. ETCS is slowly becoming a very useful toolkit from whose basis resourceful administrations and their engineers can 'roll their own' custom protection systems using standard and custom 'packet 44' messages. Possibly the most interesting project in this respect is the new Berlin S-Bahn signalling, known as ZBS. This is classified under ETCS as as 'Class B' (i.e in the same category as the legacy systems), but is not considered a legacy system that will one day be replaced by one of the standard levels. Rather it is a long term future custom control solution for that network that is built up using the standard components of ETCS. As such it IS compatible with ETCS in the sense that a standard main line ETCS train could emulate ZBS for some future notional inter-running application using the STM method, although standard S-Bahn trains would not be able to venture out onto the general main line network (from a signalling point of view. They already wouldn't be compatible with main line power systems!). ZBS is essentially a custom limited supervision (LS) ETCS system. DB also proposes an interoperable ETCS L1(LS) system for the majority of its network to replace its legacy PZB, AKA Indusi. LS functionality is now catered for to an extent in the latest interoperable ETCS standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugbeeinflussungssystem_S-Bahn_Berlin

 

[modernrail]

Hi all,
I have tried to understand some of the more detailed postings above but I think I am a bit thick. I am presuming that there are lots of options in terms of what is offer in terms of digital signalling Therefore, some simple questions if I may, to try and ascertain whether Grayling's announcement is most likely a distraction technique or most likely the right thing to look at to increase capacity and resilience on the trans-pennine at the best cost:

1. To increase capacity, does both the track ALL the trains passing through that section need to be fitted with a particular system? Is that system largely the same as has been installed on the Thameslink core?
2. If the answer above is yes, is it realistically achievable to retrofit all the types of trains likely to be using this line over the next say 15 years with that technology? The reason I say 15 years is to acknowledge this is a reasonable period to presume legacy stock moving over this line.
3. If you can retrofit all the trains with the relevant system, is that problem solved or do different train lengths etc also present challenges? I am thinking particularly of the variable freight traffic over this line.
4. If you can move everything you need to to the new system, what sort of percentage increase in capacity might this provide on a route with very mixed traffic, bearing in mind the very large amount of junctions and interactions with other routes on this line (in contrast to the Thameslink core which has limited junctions and interactions).

Whilst I would be happy to see the Transpennine line become an early adopter of an effective digital system, I am concerned, as you always have to be with Grayling, that an expert in digital signalling might tell you in 2 minutes what the £5million will take too long to find out... that of all the lines to look at to see if digital technology can improve in terms of capacity and resilience (and maybe speed), the TP is one of the worst in the county. If that is the case, I would much rather that was acknowledged now and so the need for new "hardware" such as passing loops, freight lines etc - is the focus of attention.

 

[takno]

Hi all,
I have tried to understand some of the more detailed postings above but I think I am a bit thick. I am presuming that there are lots of options in terms of what is offer in terms of digital signalling Therefore, some simple questions if I may, to try and ascertain whether Grayling's announcement is most likely a distraction technique or most likely the right thing to look at to increase capacity and resilience on the trans-pennine at the best cost:

1. To increase capacity, does both the track ALL the trains passing through that section need to be fitted with a particular system? Is that system largely the same as has been installed on the Thameslink core?
2. If the answer above is yes, is it realistically achievable to retrofit all the types of trains likely to be using this line over the next say 15 years with that technology? The reason I say 15 years is to acknowledge this is a reasonable period to presume legacy stock moving over this line.
3. If you can retrofit all the trains with the relevant system, is that problem solved or do different train lengths etc also present challenges? I am thinking particularly of the variable freight traffic over this line.
4. If you can move everything you need to to the new system, what sort of percentage increase in capacity might this provide on a route with very mixed traffic, bearing in mind the very large amount of junctions and interactions with other routes on this line (in contrast to the Thameslink core which has limited junctions and interactions).

You could significantly improve the situation between Huddersfield and Stalybridge with more conventional signals. If they want to call that digital then fine, but it isn't any different from the rest of the railway.

If you want to improve the situation at other pinch points, like Picadilly-Deansgate or western Leeds then:
1. pretty much yes. You could run a degraded service for non-fitted trains by retaining signals (as in Thameslink), but there are too many freights and other 'odd' trains for this to not impact performance significantly.
2. you could but there's a lot of random freight and huge numbers of passenger trains involved, so it gets expensive. You also have to train all relevant drivers
3. Variable lengths are manageable. Variable stopping patterns, speed profiles and complex routing are much less so
4. The commonly quoted figures these days are between 10 and 25%. I'd guess the former is more likely.