Tyne & Wear Metro signalling upgrade

[Dstock7080]

The Government announces funding for a new signalling system on Metro

8 July 2025
The Government has confirmed it will fund the upgrade of the signalling system on the Tyne and Wear Metro.
This investment, which was announced by the Department for Transport (DfT) on Tuesday 8 July, will enhance journey times, improve reliability and safety, and enable future expansion of the Metro network.
Signalling is a safety critical asset on Metro. Without it, the system cannot run.
The current signalling system, a traditional arrangement involving mechanical relays and track circuits, was implemented in the 1970s with a 30–40-year design life.
Cathy Massarella, Managing Director of Nexus, said: “We’re delighted the Government has today made a commitment to fund the upgrade of the signalling system on the Tyne and Wear Metro. We can now look forward to taking this essential modernisation project forward as we deliver on the Mayor’s vision for a world-class integrated transport network.
“Signalling is the safety-critical system which underpins the operation of our Metro system. Without signals we can’t run the trains. We’ve had the same signalling technology since the late 1970s and it needs to be replaced. We are working with analogue technology in a digital era.
“This investment is going to be critical for Metro’s future, and critical for the whole region. A new signalling system is what we need to ensure the long-term future and sustainability of Metro, and pave the way for future route expansion, which is vital for growth, jobs and connectivity.”

With inter-running etc. what would be the ideal solution?
Various levels of ETCS ?

 

[hacman]

Certainly, something ETCS-compatible would make sense; especially with the shared section between Pelaw and Jarrow now being a consideration.

Hopefully the proposed solution uses in-cab signalling, and has moving block and CBTC for at least the core of the network, perhaps extending a little way onto the various branches.

What will be interesting to see is how the Network Rail-owned section south of Pelaw will work - ETCS is a long way off there and the 555s don't have AWS/TPWS.

Does the Hybrid AWS/TPWS-Indusi system get left in place there? Does this project see Nexus part-fund ETCS for that small section of the Durham Coast? Or is an ETCS level 1 or STM used?

 

[zwk500]

Doesn't the T&W metro basically already have PZB protection? Based on previous ORR policy, they will likely require that level of protection maintained, which in this day and age presumably means at least ETCS L1, and if they're fitting L1 a metro could see decent benefits from L2, even before any consideration about NR's eventual transition.

 

[hacman]

Technically it's not PZB on Metro as PZB is a suite of systems and functions that incorporates Indusi. Indusi, which is what Metro has, uses the induction magnets to communicate the status of a signal and other data when a train passes over the magnet, though in Metro's implementation the range of communications is far simpler and pretty much just limited to "clear" and "danger".

Whatever system replaces it will have to offer at least the same level of protection as you say, but there are many options for that outside of ETCS - particularly targeted at self-contained metro/subway systems or tramways.

There are a good number of options here, and with this decision Nexus is at a juncture where their choice will shape the network for the next 4-5 decades, so they really need to be looking ahead and not just choosing a like-for-like replacement.

A moving block system with CBTC would be the best choice, as GoA2 operation will allow Metro to operate in the safest and most efficient way, ensuring that maximum capacity can be gained at key points on the network which are already something of a bottleneck.

ETCS compatibility should be part of this ideally.

The ideal minimum baseline off the top of my head would be:

-Trains equipped to ETCS L2
-Pelaw - South Hylton gets an ETCS L1 overlay to replace the current Indusi overlay, or the trains are fitted with STMs to interact with AWS/TPWS via the ETCS driver interface (former is nicer, latter is cheaper)
-All Nexus infrastructure gets a new all digital system, where:
-Pelaw - Jarrow has an ETCS L2 overlay to support freight workings
-Regent Centre/Monkseaton - Hebburn/Pelaw Network Rail boundary is CBTC enabled with moving block, all other areas can remain fixed block.

As the network grows or capacity demands become greater this would allow the moving block/CBTC areas to be expanded to get more out of the existing infrastructure.

All that said, this is a promise from a government that seem hell-bent on austerity 2.0, with no actual numbers or financial commitments attached, or even a hint of a timescale. So what actually happens is anyones guess!

 

[zwk500]

Technically it's not PZB on Metro as PZB is a suite of systems and functions that incorporates Indusi. Indusi, which is what Metro has, uses the induction magnets to communicate the status of a signal and other data when a train passes over the magnet, though in Metro's implementation the range of communications is far simpler and pretty much just limited to "clear" and "danger".

Ah, I had thought it was nearer ATP type protection than the simple red protection you describe.

A moving block system with CBTC would be the best choice, as GoA2 operation will allow Metro to operate in the safest and most efficient way, ensuring that maximum capacity can be gained at key points on the network which are already something of a bottleneck.

ETCS compatibility should be part of this ideally.

Given the interaction with the national network ETCS L2 would appear to be the best option to provide this capability (or as close to it as practical), especially as L2 can cope with short blocks that gives a pretty close approximation of moving block and avoiding transitions is always good.

 

[hacman]

Ah, I had thought it was nearer ATP type protection than the simple red protection you describe.

Given the interaction with the national network ETCS L2 would appear to be the best option to provide this capability (or as close to it as practical), especially as L2 can cope with short blocks that gives a pretty close approximation of moving block and avoiding transitions is always good.

To be honest, Metro's current signalling system doesn't really need more than simple SPAD protection. The overwhelming majority of signals are twin aspect (danger/clear), with ambers most commonly found only on distant/repeaters where sighting may be poor.

The PTE had originally wanted the network to be completely line-of-sight outside of the tunnelled sections, whereas BR wanted "full fat" system that matched the standards of the day. What we got was a compromise between the two.

ETCS is a bit of a funny one in terms of the avoiding transitions aspect - whilst it is a standard, and by rights should be fully interoperable, the lineside/control centre aspects of this are often far more nuanced between vendors and versions of the spec. One thing ETCS is very good at, however, is being overlaid on top of other systems where required.

Stadler does offer their Guardia ETCS system, which supports up to GoA2. If this were able to be combined with elements of their Nova Pro system, which is designed for metro/subway systems, that would likely be a winner, as the key consideration with any off-shelf ETCS system would be if it can achieve the required headways. Nexus want to be aiming for up to 150 second headways in the core purely based off current timetable ambitions; so a system that can handle 120 seconds or less would be ideal to ensure there is slack for future expansion or even just recovering from disruption, dealing with crowds from events, etc (Stadler Nova Pro can do 90 seconds!).

 

[zwk500]

Stadler does offer their Guardia ETCS system, which supports up to GoA2. If this were able to be combined with elements of their Nova Pro system, which is designed for metro/subway systems, that would likely be a winner, as the key consideration with any off-shelf ETCS system would be if it can achieve the required headways. Nexus want to be aiming for up to 150 second headways in the core purely based off current timetable ambitions; so a system that can handle 120 seconds or less would be ideal to ensure there is slack for future expansion or even just recovering from disruption, dealing with crowds from events, etc (Stadler Nova Pro can do 90 seconds!).

If there's an off-the-shelf ETCS system that can have metro elements added in that does seem like a winner. Mind you I've been involved in project where mainline ETCS L2 was being talked about at a 90 second planning headway for 12-car trains so I don't know that you necessarily need anything more than ETCS L2 itself for the metro. Having the GoA2 capability in the core will be very handy though, as Thameslink uses.