Which lines should be next for European Train Control System ?

[Halifaxlad]

As the title says: Which lines should be next for ECTS ?

 

[gingertom]

As the title says: Which lines should be next for ECTS ?

WCML.

 

[MarkyT]

WCML.

The northern part is already planned or underway isn't it? I think this was intended to coincide with HS2 completion for those trains to reach Scotland on ETCS all or most of the way.

 

[The Planner]

The northern part is already planned or underway isn't it? I think this was intended to coincide with HS2 completion for those trains to reach Scotland on ETCS all or most of the way.

Planned.

 

[gingertom]

The northern part is already planned or underway isn't it? I think this was intended to coincide with HS2 completion for those trains to reach Scotland on ETCS all or most of the way.

wasn't aware of that.

Can I add another contender: everything going through the Castlefield corridor?

 

[FlyingPotato]

Wasn't GWML planned but it was then canned

I would like to see ETCS on the GWML and get the 140mph they promised us but it will most likely never happen

 

[gingertom]

Wasn't GWML planned but it was then canned

I would like to see ETCS on the GWML and get the 140mph they promised us but it will most likely never happen

When the GWML gets done eventually, doesn't 140mph capability automatically become available?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I try my best not to correct or be a member of the grammar police but …… I thought it was European Train Control System ETCS not as in the title ECTS which I have seen elsewhere on the forum too.

 

[The Planner]

wasn't aware of that.

Can I add another contender: everything going through the Castlefield corridor?

Peversely, it probably wouldnt give you anything along there.

 

[Farigiraf]

As the title says: Which lines should be next for ECTS ?

The rest of the Elizabeth Line.

 

[GJMarshy]

Surely Chat Moss is an obvious one to do in the absence of a new Liverpool-Manchester railway? (that's probably 3 decades+ away)

Try and get 6 reliable fasts per hour on it with 1-2 stoppers.

 

[stuu]

What happened to ETCS to Reading? Google brings up that Siemens were awarded a design contract in 2015, and also an old thread from this forum about it, where posts talk about it being done by 2019

 

[Neptune]

I try my best not to correct or be a member of the grammar police but …… I thought it was European Train Control System ETCS not as in the title ECTS which I have seen elsewhere on the forum too.

It is ETCS.

 

[FlyingPotato]

When the GWML gets done eventually, doesn't 140mph capability automatically become available?

I think you need to work on the tracks a bit as well
But I feel like staying at 125 will save like 2% and they'll decide that
By them I mean the government of course

 

[SynthD]

What is the purpose of the next step? If the Cambrian showed it is possible, Elizabeth line is using it on a busy metro, and ecml is proving it on a major mixed line, what is next?

 

[Railsigns]

Elizabeth line is using it on a busy metro

That is not an ETCS-fitted line.

 

[The Planner]

Surely Chat Moss is an obvious one to do in the absence of a new Liverpool-Manchester railway? (that's probably 3 decades+ away)

Try and get 6 reliable fasts per hour on it with 1-2 stoppers.

ETCS won't deliver that either, you need more loops, not an improvement in headway.

 

[GJMarshy]

ETCS won't deliver that either, you need more loops, not an improvement in headway.

I suppose a combination of both may either take too long, be to disruptive or too expensive, or all over the above? Something should be done in the interim though, even if it isn't ETCS.

 

[The Planner]

I suppose a combination of both may either take too long, be to disruptive or too expensive, or all over the above? Something should be done in the interim though, even if it isn't ETCS.

Its a 3 minute headway along there anyway, the Chat Moss is also the least of your problems, you aren't fitting that many trains at either end.

 

[dub]

The rest of the Thameslink branches

 

[Bald Rick]

When the GWML gets done eventually, doesn't 140mph capability automatically become available?

No, not by a long way.

Peversely, it probably wouldnt give you anything along there.

On Castlefield, it would, if it came with ATO. (There’s part of me that would quite like to see a 150 in ATO)

That is not an ETCS-fitted line.

The Elizabeth Line is ETCS from Acton to Heathrow (both branches)

 

[HSTEd]

On Castlefield, it would, if it came with ATO. (There’s part of me that would quite like to see a 150 in ATO)

ATO on Castlefield would probably be quite nice, although the thought of some of the old stock retrofit.......

An interesting challenge but also... a very challenging one.

At least the Pacers are gone, I think the kit might have been more valuable than the rest of the train!

 

[zwk500]

Wasn't GWML planned but it was then canned

I would like to see ETCS on the GWML and get the 140mph they promised us but it will most likely never happen

When the GWML gets done eventually, doesn't 140mph capability automatically become available?

140mph would require adjustment to the OLE, platforms, paintwork, track alignment and abolition of any level crossings in addition to in can signalling.
I would like to see the GWML be a high priority to move from the current overlay to signals away between Paddington and ideally Reading but Maidenhead may be more sensible for the meantime.

I try my best not to correct or be a member of the grammar police but …… I thought it was European Train Control System ETCS not as in the title ECTS which I have seen elsewhere on the forum too.

It is ETCS (ECTS is the university credits system for modular courses I think) however its a completely understandable transposition for a number of reasons.
I personally get more frustrated at when ERTMS (the overall traffic management systems) is used to refer to just the signalling system, when ETCS is just one part of ERTMS.

Any future ETCS fitment should, IMO, be building on existing installations and services using ETCS now so that the number of transition points is kept ALARP. One issue is that any AB lines will be incredibly expensive to fit due to needing train detection unless a level 2/3 hybrid or level 3 completely becomes available.
ETCS's two main advantages are lower headway as the block section length is no longer tied to braking distances, and getting rid of approach control for diverging junctions as thr movement authority will take the train down only as far as needed. Therefore mixed traffic lines with lots of diverging moves or high frequency passenger services would benefit most.
The MML at least to Bedford would seem to fit this criteria quite well, and you could potentially capture the Dudding Hill line as part of the that project. Also the North Kent Lines would potentially be sensible targets, if freight to Angerstein wharf isn't too hard to fit enough locos for.

 

[Belperpete]

As you say, the current ETCS between Paddington and Heathrow is an overlay system, where the ETCS was added onto the existing signalling system. Just removing the signals would offer little benefit, as the underlying signalling system would still think in terms of the existing signal sections. To get the full benefit e.g. of shorter block sections allowing trains to run closer together, would require a complete resignalling with more axle counters. This would be very expensive, which is why the cheaper overlay system was used in the first place. I am sure that there are higher priorities for spending the money on fitting unequipped lines rather than enhancing an already ETCS fitted section.

The selection of which lines to fit will inevitably include consideration of train fitment. No point in fitting a line if none of the stock is fitted. I would expect fitment to balloon out from existing fitted areas, and from areas that require major resignalling and it is sensible to include ETCS from the get-go. As you say, you also want to minimise the numbers of times that drivers have to transition in and out of ETCS during a journey, so it makes sense for ETCS to spread out from "seed" areas.

It is likely that some of that may include more overlays. For example, as ETCS spreads out over the GWML, the Bristol area has only recently been resignalled, so could be fitted with an overlay system relatively easily, and certainly much more cheaply than resignalling it all over again.

The Elizabeth line is ETCS to Heathrow, but is CBTC (a different type of cab signalling) in the core section. It would make sense to fit the eastern end to Shenfield with ETCS, perhaps as an overlay system as it already has computer based signalling similar to the Heathrow end. The ETCS could then spread out from there.

 

[MarkyT]

...any AB lines will be incredibly expensive to fit due to needing train detection.

Not really as AB is only usually in areas with long block sections today. A long block section can also be implemented in ETCS L2, which would only require a single axle counter section with sensors at the extremities and no equipment inbetween. What would save some money is a regional intermittent transmission variant that avoided the need for so many intermediate calibration balises and continuous radio movement authority refresh. Like RETB where you only need to exchange messages with the interlocking around block boundaries. Bombardier did something like this years ago in Sweden but I've heard little about it since. That also used some L3 techniques for virtual plain line blocks but they retained axle counters for deadlock protection at points. The system used the train data radio network for interlocking messages to the trackside infrastructure as well as movement authorities to the train. ISTR they developed a distributed model with interlocking and radio block centre functionality combined into the same trackside modules.

 

[zwk500]

Not really as AB is only usually in areas with long block sections today. A long block section can also be implemented in ETCS L2, which would only require a single axle counter section with sensors at the extremities and no equipment inbetween.

It is still more complicated as it required connections back to the RBC and proving between the axle counters, as well as the issue that if you're not improving the capacity then you'll be getting limited bang for your buck. At the moment Track Circuits within station limits only need to be connected to the local box and the boxes only need to be connected to the boxes either side.

What would save some money is a regional intermittent transmission variant that avoided the need for so many intermediate calibration balises and continuous radio movement authority refresh. Like RETB where you only need to exchange messages with the interlocking around block boundaries. Bombardier did something like this years ago in Sweden but I've heard little about it since. That also used some L3 techniques for virtual plain line blocks but they retained axle counters for deadlock protection at points. The system used the train data radio network for interlocking messages to the trackside infrastructure as well as movement authorities to the train. ISTR they developed a distributed model with interlocking and radio block centre functionality combined into the same trackside modules.

I think this came up in a discussion about the Settle & Carlisle as well and yes I agree. Having on-train integrity proving and position reporting then only needs limited confirmation from trackside units, which can take place at the Level 2 areas approaching junctions, crossovers, or loops.
There's lots of lines such as the Little NW, Cumbrian Coast, Marches and so on that could benefit from this setup.

 

[TurboMan]

The Elizabeth Line is ETCS from Acton to Heathrow (both branches)

Transitions from NTC to L2 and vice versa are at Ealing Broadway not Acton, but you weren't far off.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2024 ==

As you say, the current ETCS between Paddington and Heathrow is an overlay system, where the ETCS was added onto the existing signalling system. Just removing the signals would offer little benefit, as the underlying signalling system would still think in terms of the existing signal sections. To get the full benefit e.g. of shorter block sections allowing trains to run closer together, would require a complete resignalling with more axle counters. This would be very expensive, which is why the cheaper overlay system was used in the first place. I am sure that there are higher priorities for spending the money on fitting unequipped lines rather than enhancing an already ETCS fitted section.

The selection of which lines to fit will inevitably include consideration of train fitment. No point in fitting a line if none of the stock is fitted. I would expect fitment to balloon out from existing fitted areas, and from areas that require major resignalling and it is sensible to include ETCS from the get-go. As you say, you also want to minimise the numbers of times that drivers have to transition in and out of ETCS during a journey, so it makes sense for ETCS to spread out from "seed" areas.

It is likely that some of that may include more overlays. For example, as ETCS spreads out over the GWML, the Bristol area has only recently been resignalled, so could be fitted with an overlay system relatively easily, and certainly much more cheaply than resignalling it all over again.

The Elizabeth line is ETCS to Heathrow, but is CBTC (a different type of cab signalling) in the core section. It would make sense to fit the eastern end to Shenfield with ETCS, perhaps as an overlay system as it already has computer based signalling similar to the Heathrow end. The ETCS could then spread out from there.

Although the 80x fleet was built to run on ETCS fitted lines, and 387s can be converted relatively easily (as on the HEx fleet), the big problem with expanding ETCS on the GWML is that there is no means of transitioning dynamically from ATP (as fitted on the 80x fleet) to ETCS and vice versa. Short of installing ETCS over the entirety of the ATP-fitted network in one hit (Airport Jct to Newbury/Bristol, plus the bit between Ealing and Paddington, which would be a massive project at huge cost) the only other way to do it would be to switch off ATP and revert to TPWS, but that would mean downgrading from a higher category safety system which would not go down well with operators, drivers/ASLEF and the ORR.

 

[zwk500]

Although the 80x fleet was built to run on ETCS fitted lines, and 387s can be converted relatively easily (as on the HEx fleet), the big problem with expanding ETCS on the GWML is that there is no means of transitioning dynamically from ATP (as fitted on the 80x fleet) to ETCS and vice versa. Short of installing ETCS over the entirety of the ATP-fitted network in one hit (Airport Jct to Newbury/Bristol, plus the bit between Ealing and Paddington, which would be a massive project at huge cost)

So what happens at the moment at Airport Junction, is Airport Jn-Paddington fitted with both ATP and ETCS? Installing ETCS overlay to anything controlled from the TVSC should be viable, although are there areas still controlled from PSBs with ATP?

the only other way to do it would be to switch off ATP and revert to TPWS, but that would mean downgrading from a higher category safety system which would not go down well with operators, drivers/ASLEF and the ORR.

Would it be acceptable to have short sections of TPWS between ATP and ETCS at sensible boundary points (i.e. low-risk Plain line), to allow progressive conversion from ATP to ETCS? It's a bit of an awkward workaround, but then potentially less awkward than blocking the GWML for an extended period of time to convert the equipment.

 

[HSTEd]

Transitions from NTC to L2 and vice versa are at Ealing Broadway not Acton, but you weren't far off.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2024 ==


Although the 80x fleet was built to run on ETCS fitted lines, and 387s can be converted relatively easily (as on the HEx fleet), the big problem with expanding ETCS on the GWML is that there is no means of transitioning dynamically from ATP (as fitted on the 80x fleet) to ETCS and vice versa. Short of installing ETCS over the entirety of the ATP-fitted network in one hit (Airport Jct to Newbury/Bristol, plus the bit between Ealing and Paddington, which would be a massive project at huge cost) the only other way to do it would be to switch off ATP and revert to TPWS, but that would mean downgrading from a higher category safety system which would not go down well with operators, drivers/ASLEF and the ORR.

There is always the possibility of an installation using ETCS hardware that as closely as possible emulates ATP in effective function.
This is what was done in Switzerland to allow rapid conversion of their previous train protection systems to ETCS.

For example, they have a trainstop analogue that simply transmits a datagram with a speed limit of 0 to a train that passes it whilst it is energised.
I believe there is a eurobalise based functional clone of TPWS but it has never been used, but I am probably wrong?

EDIT:
The Great Western ATP (Automatic Train Protection) scheme appears to be based on speed limits being enforced by transmissions from point transceivers on the track, and sometimes signalling loops.
It should be possible to emulate this functionality using switchable balises and signal loops whilst being transparent to the installed signalling system.

 

[Horizon22]

Wasn't GWML planned but it was then canned

I would like to see ETCS on the GWML and get the 140mph they promised us but it will most likely never happen

It is Ealing Broadway - Hayes and Heathrow Airport (the former being an overlay).

The Stage 3/C bit (Paddington - Ealing Broadway) has been postponed. Not sure what plans there were (if any) out towards Reading or even further on the GWML.

What is the purpose of the next step? If the Cambrian showed it is possible, Elizabeth line is using it on a busy metro, and ecml is proving it on a major mixed line, what is next?

Technically it is CBTC in the core section. ETCS is as above.