First ETCS train operates on the East Coast Mainline

[12LDA28C]

Remind me: what is the cost of a trackside signalling equivalent unit (SEU)? Access to a train in a depot is far easier, cheaper and safer than to the track.

No idea however access to the track will still be needed for maintenance of other infrastructure, not just signals and associated equipment. If you think that spending a million pounds on fitting a Deltic with ETCS equipment is good value then I'm afraid I disagree.

 

[waverley47]

Applies to the electronic kit in trackside cabinets too. The track balises are actually very resilient, far more so than UK TPWS grids for example, while being extremely light compared to traditional AWS equipment, although newer lightweight components are available for that now using strong rare earth magnets.

While the ETCS standard concerns itself primarily with the interfaces between track and train, there's little standardisation for interconnection between trackside, interlocking and control centre, so while you may not be locked into a particular train or lineside supplier in general terms, its often not easily possible to mix and match equipment from different suppliers within the trackside and control centre ecosystem as those interfaces are often proprietary. A national infrastructure owner in the EU can still have local requirements to address these concerns for projects in their territory, in addition to the standard ETCS specs for track to train. ETCS provides an open framework within which engineers have been able to create disparate custom systems such as TASS and Thameslink ATO in the UK. The difference from the past is that the functionality in terms of message exchanges and protocols is fully declared rather than proprietary.

 

[Class 800]

Is there a possibility that an ETCS Level 2 installation can be upgraded to Level 3 (moving block) in the future?

Moving block on, say, the ECML could be very beneficial indeed, because paths can be opened up and the faster trains safely sped up to 140mph with minimal impact on capacity.

 

[waverley47]

Is there a possibility that an ETCS Level 2 installation can be upgraded to Level 3 (moving block) in the future?

Moving block on, say, the ECML could be very beneficial indeed, because paths can be opened up and the faster trains safely sped up to 140mph with minimal impact on capacity.

*If the infrastructure is upgraded to support it

 

[bahnause]

Remind me: what is the cost of a trackside signalling equivalent unit (SEU)? Access to a train in a depot is far easier, cheaper and safer than to the track.

Even with ETCS, the SEUs do not seem to fall enough to justify a conversion.

From Railengineer.co.uk

Cost concerns

More important is cost. For ETCS to be welcomed, it must be cheaper than conventional signalling renewals. Sadly, at the moment, this is not a proven case. Signalling has long been a target for criticism in terms of its perceived high cost. The introduction of modular signalling in the last decade by both Siemens and Alstom has reduced the cost slightly (North Wales Coast, Crewe Shrewsbury, Ely Norwich, parts of Cornwall with more to come) but once again, the technology from the different suppliers is dissimilar, so any enhancements mean locking into the original provider. Not a good scenario.

Costs are measured against something called a Signalling Equivalent Unit (SEU) which attempts to count up all the signals, points, level crossings, and suchlike along a particular route and then divide this number by the route kilometres. It is a fairly crude measurement and clearly lines with a large number of tracks and close signal spacing will cost more. With ETCS, the infrastructure count will reduce as signals are no longer needed and thus the SEU should become cheaper. However, a recent estimate put forward for resignalling the Shrewsbury-Newport line with ETCS yielded an SEU at such a high price that the business case no longer stacks up for removal of the traditional signal boxes.

Thus, the evidence to date indicates that ETCS is more expensive than alternative signalling options. The reason may be that development and implementation costs are still on a learning curve, but the cost has to significantly reduce if resignalling with ETCS is to be the natural successor that everyone seems to desire.

The ETCS pundits admit that the system is not suitable for all lines and that concentration should be put on Inter City and dense suburban routes where the capacity gain benefits can be used to maximum advantage. The elusive ETCS Level 3, which at least in theory should eliminate track circuits / axle counters and enable moving block, remains a pipe dream mainly because the proving of freight train completeness still awaits a practical solution. The safety factors associated with providing mobile based train positioning information will be a challenge.

And even changes to existing ETCS equipped seem to become a problem (same source as above):

Another recent instance that does not bode well, is the cost of modifying an ETCS equipped railway when infrastructure changes occur. The raising of a bridge near Machynlleth on the Cambrian line necessitated a change to the ETCS profile for that area. It required a software modification but the price for doing this was out of all proportion to the cost of the project.

 

[takno]

Even with ETCS, the SEUs do not seem to fall enough to justify a conversion.

From Railengineer.co.uk



And even changes to existing ETCS equipped seem to become a problem (same source as above):

I suspect the problem with expense on the Cambrian line relates to the fact that it's a 20 year old non-standard trial installation on a line which would be better off with RETB.

Shrewsbury to Newport probably isn't a good contender for RETB, but honestly it's probably not a good contender for any kind of resignalling. It's a long, not especially busy line without much demand for increasing traffic. The only reason you'd be looking to replace the manual boxes is out of a misguided belief that ROCs are cheaper than having a bunch of people working in little boxes in the middle of nowhere.

Moreover the stock on the line is far from captive, meaning that if you did it as an early project the costs of equipping trains would be wildly out of proportion. If you did the whole of Hereford and Shrewsbury stations then the cost of doing all the trains which only impinge on the route for their terminus station would be wild.

Using this line to prove any general point about ETCS really doesn't work.

 

[bahnause]

I suspect the problem with expense on the Cambrian line relates to the fact that it's a 20 year old non-standard trial installation on a line which would be better off with RETB.

Shrewsbury to Newport probably isn't a good contender for RETB, but honestly it's probably not a good contender for any kind of resignalling. It's a long, not especially busy line without much demand for increasing traffic. The only reason you'd be looking to replace the manual boxes is out of a misguided belief that ROCs are cheaper than having a bunch of people working in little boxes in the middle of nowhere.

Moreover the stock on the line is far from captive, meaning that if you did it as an early project the costs of equipping trains would be wildly out of proportion. If you did the whole of Hereford and Shrewsbury stations then the cost of doing all the trains which only impinge on the route for their terminus station would be wild.

Using this line to prove any general point about ETCS really doesn't work.

ETCS was developed as a scalable solution for all applications, especially as a cost-effective solution for branch lines. Referring to "better" proprietary systems for such applications only shows that ETCS cannot deliver the cost savings it promises. Any system outside of ETCS would also be an additional system and not a replacement, if you do not want to produce using incompatible small fleets and thus give up any flexibility in vehicle deployment.

The ETCS equipment can also deal with national safety systems or be used as an overlay. The question of vehicle equipment based on the route used should in line with the idea of system interoperability not play a role anyway.

The costs for vehicle equipment are also enormous for vehicles already equipped with ETCS. Even when retrofitting the Class 700 with new hardware. I remember it costing something around 170,000GBP per cab. This for a vehicle already equipped with ETCS, a best case scenario. Pointing out that equipping small fleets is still expensive does not change the fact that vehicle equipment is generally expensive and may also be short-lived.

 

[MarkyT]

ETCS was developed as a scalable solution for all applications, especially as a cost-effective solution for branch lines. Referring to "better" proprietary systems for such applications only shows that ETCS cannot deliver the cost savings it promises. Any system outside of ETCS would also be an additional system and not a replacement, if you do not want to produce using incompatible small fleets and thus give up any flexibility in vehicle deployment.

The ETCS equipment can also deal with national safety systems or be used as an overlay. The question of vehicle equipment based on the route used should in line with the idea of system interoperability not play a role anyway.

The costs for vehicle equipment are also enormous for vehicles already equipped with ETCS. Even when retrofitting the Class 700 with new hardware. I remember it costing something around 170,000GBP per cab. This for a vehicle already equipped with ETCS, a best case scenario. Pointing out that equipping small fleets is still expensive does not change the fact that vehicle equipment is generally expensive and may also be short-lived.

But what are the alternatives? Cab signalling is not going away, especially for high speed. Interoperability is an imperative, especially in continental Europe. It was one of the core founding principles and aims of the UIC from 1926. ETCS is the standard toolkit for cab signalling and train protection going forward so the only answer is to refine it further, develop new variants for cost effective branch lines, continue to iron out bugs, and tweak the application rules from experiance. The last thing the industry needs is to backtrack on the standard now just as the supply side is gearing up to deliver it by default. Manufacturers will still be able to deliver lights on sticks where necessary, and developments in those products have reduced costs and maintenance (LEDs, axle counters, etc). I think there's little technical risk in resignalling branch and secondary lines with few signals using conventional TCB with axle counters as long as processor-based interlocking is used (which it has by default for around two decades anyway). These should be easily convertible to an lower cost intermittent 'regional' ETCS L2/3 variant in future, developed specifically to convert that type of installation. Then, if authorities desired and it represented any significant saving, the signals might be removed and replaced by block markers.

 

[bahnause]

But what are the alternatives? Cab signalling is not going away, especially for high speed. Interoperability is an imperative, especially in continental Europe. It was one of the core founding principles and aims of the UIC from 1926. ETCS is the standard toolkit for cab signalling and train protection going forward so the only answer is to refine it further, develop new variants for cost effective branch lines, continue to iron out bugs, and tweak the application rules from experiance. The last thing the industry needs is to backtrack on the standard now just as the supply side is gearing up to deliver it by default. Manufacturers will still be able to deliver lights on sticks where necessary, and developments in those products have reduced costs and maintenance (LEDs, axle counters, etc). I think there's little technical risk in resignalling branch and secondary lines with few signals using conventional TCB with axle counters as long as processor-based interlocking is used (which it has by default for around two decades anyway). These should be easily convertible to an lower cost intermittent 'regional' ETCS L2/3 variant in future, developed specifically to convert that type of installation. Then, if authorities desired and it represented any significant saving, the signals might be removed and replaced by block markers.

It's not my job to find a solution. Perhaps the propagators of the ETCS introduction can contribute something. However, this group is currently busy selling ATO as a free miracle weapon against all railway problems. Some of them are probably now also selling snake oil.

Interoparability would be important, but ETCS is not capable of achieving this in its current fragmented state. And spending more money on even more new "cost-effective" variants? Where is the money supposed to come from? How is this supposed to make the railway more cost-effective and competitive? Any real improvement will cause problems with downward compatibility, which will then trigger further costs. Sounds like unlimited free money for the manufacturers.

The backtracking on standards began a long time ago. Every country is in the process of adapting ETCS to its own needs. For the most part, the hardware is still compatible, but the operating processes and system behaviour are no longer.

 

[MarkyT]

It's not my job to find a solution. Perhaps the propagators of the ETCS introduction can contribute something. However, this group is currently busy selling ATO as a free miracle weapon against all railway problems. Some of them are probably now also selling snake oil.

Interoparability would be important, but ETCS is not capable of achieving this in its current fragmented state. And spending more money on even more new "cost-effective" variants? Where is the money supposed to come from? How is this supposed to make the railway more cost-effective and competitive? Any real improvement will cause problems with downward compatibility, which will then trigger further costs. Sounds like unlimited free money for the manufacturers.

The backtracking on standards began a long time ago. Every country is in the process of adapting ETCS to its own needs. For the most part, the hardware is still compatible, but the operating processes and system behaviour are no longer.

I don't think that's backtracking, it's evolution. It's all done within the framework of ETCS, and protocols for any custom packet 44 systems have to be published with the idea that anything with any broader merit would be incorporated eventually in the main standards. As I said ETCS is a toolkit. Full interoperability is about far more than signalling anyway: rules and regulations, spoken language, power supplies, even size of trains (especially in UK!). At least trains can now cross borders more easily without traction change, even if crew may need to swap in many cases.

I understand your earlier point about difficulties with LS implementations and the DMI sometimes conflicting with signal states you can see ahead. Legacy LS system usually had very simple cab indications. Perhaps there's a conflict with the DMI possibly being too complex. What is the primary source of information? A discrepancy between the two might make a driver unsure for a moment and generally distrustful. The correct response to that is more caution, but it is still stress and uncertainty, so represents risk. As you say, likely a result of inadequate ergonomic and user interface study in the implementation design.

I say it's worth developing further because there aren't any realistic alternatives. If a cost effective secondary line solution can be developed from the kit of parts and techniques, it will pay for itself many times over in the future. That's the gamble, but its not really a gamble it's a necessity. The industry must do that for its long-term viability.

As to the unlimited free money for the manufacturers, they often used to discontinue systems, components or support on particular product lines in the bad old proprietary days, forcing national railways to do major renewals. Germany and Switzerland probably managed that better than some other nations.

 

[bahnause]

As to the unlimited free money for the manufacturers, they often used to discontinue systems, components or support on particular product lines in the bad old proprietary days, forcing national railways to do major renewals. Germany and Switzerland probably managed that better than some other nations.

Good that you mention this, Alstom has already announced the end of support for parts of the first ETCS components they supplied. The same problem as with the legacy systems, but much earlier in the life cycle.

I don't think that's backtracking, it's evolution. It's all done within the framework of ETCS, and protocols for any custom packet 44 systems have to be published with the idea that anything with any broader merit would be incorporated eventually in the main standards. As I said ETCS is a toolkit. Full interoperability is about far more than signalling anyway: rules and regulations, spoken language, power supplies, even size of trains (especially in UK!). At least trains can now cross borders more easily without traction change, even if crew may need to swap in many cases.

The use of L1LS is already a discontinued model, as it has not received enough support across Europe. This means that only Level 2 is an option for the future, as Level 1 (without LS) has a poor cost-benefit ratio. The project planning for the S-Bahn in Stuttgart envisages that a train headway of 150 seconds will be achieved in Level 2. We are currently working with train headways of 45 seconds using lineside signalling in complex stations.

For cross-border traffic with Switzerland (Zurich - Stuttgart), DB equipped the Schaffhausen - Singen section with Level 1LS in 2019 so that vehicles using Baseline 3 can run without any problems. ETCS can still not be used today, as a change to the ERTMS specification after the project planning was finished means that the trackside equipment must first be migrated.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there a possibility that an ETCS Level 2 installation can be upgraded to Level 3 (moving block) in the future?

Moving block on, say, the ECML could be very beneficial indeed, because paths can be opened up and the faster trains safely sped up to 140mph with minimal impact on capacity.

You don‘t need L3 to enable 140mph. Also the capacity benefit of L3 reduces as speed increases.

The real capacity benefit comes from ATO in areas where there are tight headways and/or conflicting moves, ie stations and junctions, as the variability in driving style is removed and does not need to be allowed for in the timetable.

 

[Railsigns]

As I understand it, ETCS Level 3 is no longer separately defined, but is now considered as a variant of Level 2.

 

[Last Hurrah]

Shrewsbury to Newport probably isn't a good contender for RETB, but honestly it's probably not a good contender for any kind of resignalling. It's a long, not especially busy line without much demand for increasing traffic. The only reason you'd be looking to replace the manual boxes is out of a misguided belief that ROCs are cheaper than having a bunch of people working in little boxes in the middle of nowhere

Using this line to prove any general point about ETCS really doesn't work.

Seem to recall the Marches Line being closed on a few occasions a year or two back, due to no-one available to cover shift in Hereford signal box

 

[D365]

If you think that spending a million pounds on fitting a Deltic with ETCS equipment is good value then I'm afraid I disagree.

As far as ETCS onboard fitments are concerned, £1m would be good value. Especially for a one or two-off.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Looks like 801101 is now at RIDC as the first IET to be fitted for ETCS testing?

Post on LinkedIn by a ETCS implementor and integration Engineer reads:

Two East Coast Digital Programme first in class ETCS units meet at RIDC, London North Eastern Railway 801101 and GTR 387101. The Hitachi Rail Class 801 is at RIDC for ETCS testing as part of ETCS fitment on the East Coast Mainline, a significant step forward in ETCS fitment for LNER.

 

[800Travel]

Looks like 801101 is now at RIDC as the first IET to be fitted for ETCS testing?

Post on LinkedIn by a ETCS implementor and integration Engineer reads:

View attachment 165446

What is RIDC please?

 

[NSEWonderer]

What is RIDC please?

Rail Innovation and Development Centre

 

[Geeves]

The Rail innovation Centre otherwise known as 'Old Dalby'

 

[NSEWonderer]

Looks like 801101 recently has been testing onboard ETCS Systems. No indication what stage the whole process is but this looks promising.

London North Eastern Railway Azuma put through its
paces at Rail Innovation Development Centre (RIDC)


The iconic LNER Azuma has now joined the ranks of fleets
having their on-board digital signalling equipment tested at
RIDC. The collaboration between Hitachi Rail, Network Rail
Eastern Region and LNER to progress this 'First in Class' train
is paving the way for all Hitachi fleets on the ECML, including
those operated by Hull Trains and Lumo, to be cleared for
operating in passenger services using #ETCS


The start of its dynamic testing is another step forward
towards providing passengers with more reliable and greener
journeys on the East Coast Main Line,


#EastCoastDigitalProgramme #DigitalSignalling
#IndustryPartnership

 

[absolutelymilk]

All City of London route trains are now digitally signalled

All Great Northern trains to Moorgate in the City of London are now controlled by digital signalling technology using the European Train Control System (ETCS).

Looks like all trains into Moorgate are now signalled using ECTS. Quicker than I thought given the first one only ran a year ago!

 

[zwk500]

All City of London route trains are now digitally signalled



Looks like all trains into Moorgate are now signalled using ECTS. Quicker than I thought given the first one only ran a year ago!

Presumably the signals are still there and won't be removed until the rest of the ECML conversion comes in?

 

[Edvid]

Signals on the Northern City Line will be switched off next year.

Commuter trains now all controlled digitally on City of London route

Ground-breaking digital signalling technology is now controlling every single train that commuters catch on the Great Northern route to Moorgate in the City of London.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

Wednesday 13 Nov 2024

Commuter trains now all controlled digitally on City of London route​

Region & Route: Eastern | Eastern: East Coast
Ground-breaking digital signalling technology is now controlling every single train that commuters catch on the Great Northern route to Moorgate in the City of London.

The European Train Control System (ETCS) allows continuous communication between train and track to create a more punctual and reliable service for passengers.

It does this by removing the need for signals at the side of the track (these will be completely switched off during 2025). Instead, drivers are continually fed a safe target speed to aim for on a computer screen in their cab.

ETCS was introduced to the route between Moorgate and Finsbury Park in London (known as the 'Northern City Line') as the first stage of the £1.4bn government-funded East Coast Digital Programme.

The first passenger train ran to the City of London using digital signalling a year ago. Since then, Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) has been steadily training its Great Northern drivers to use the system.

Introducing digital signalling on the busy commuter route to Moorgate is an important first step towards replacing regular signals with in-cab digital signalling on the southern part of the East Coast Mainline, between King’s Cross and Grantham. This in turn provides a foundation for the future expansion of digital signalling across the GB rail network.

Ed Akers, Network Rail’s industry partnership director for ECDP, said: “This is a great achievement on what will become the first commuter railway in the country to operate without any physical signals. I’d like to thank all the signallers, drivers, engineers and planners across our whole partnership who have worked hard to make the Northern City Line project a success.
“Introducing digital signalling on this route has provided many learnings and invaluable experience as we prepare to introduce digital signalling to the East Coast Main Line, creating a higher performing railway for the many passengers and freight customers who depend on it."

Oliver Turner, head of digital signalling (Head of ERTMS) at GTR, said: “Digital signalling is better for passengers because it means we can run a more consistent, more punctual service.
“It’s hard to overstate the challenge of moving to ETCS and, now, reaching point where every train on our route into Moorgate is controlled this way. It is a huge achievement both for Great Northern and our parent company GTR and also for the railway as a whole because this has been a massive collaborative effort from so many different industry partners.
“We are pleased with how the new system is working and we are working with Network Rail and Siemens Mobility colleagues to continually review and improve how we are operating it.”

Notes to Editors​

There may be one or two scenarios where the driver may be instructed by the signaller to revert to the old signalling system (Level-NTC, using the conventional signals) but this option will not be available after the signals have been switched off and, in the meantime, most incidents will be managed under ETCS degraded modes.

 

[Bald Rick]

wish it was the same on Thameslink - performance would be significantly improved!

 

[takno]

wish it was the same on Thameslink - performance would be significantly improved!

What has happened on Thameslink? Seems like it was all supposed to be switched to automatic within a year, and then it just didn't happen

 

[Bald Rick]

What has happened on Thameslink? Seems like it was all supposed to be switched to automatic within a year, and then it just didn't happen

I guess driver training has not progresed as quickly as expected. Also no plans to switch the ‘old‘ signalling off so no cliff edge to worry about.

 

[MarkyT]

I guess driver training has not progresed as quickly as expected. Also no plans to switch the ‘old‘ signalling off so no cliff edge to worry about.

As a strategic link, the Thameslink core can occasionally host other classes of non-ETCS trains for special moves. The partial failure of ETCS scenario for the regular stock is only of limited function as AWS/TPWS is emulated in the onboard ETCS computer and cab screens. If everything onboard was working but there was a radio comms failure preventing movement authority messages, drivers could switch to the legacy mode and continue service, albeit at reduced capacity with the longer blocks. I assume engineers are now confident GSM-R will prove sufficiently reliable for this to become unnecessary on the Moorgate line, a necessary step to rolling out further areas without signals on the ECML. Even after ECML becomes no signals, the legacy systems in the TL core will likely remain for access to the non-ETCS MML.

 

[zwk500]

As a strategic link, the Thameslink core can occasionally host other classes of non-ETCS trains for special moves.

Aside from the test train fleet, what was the last movement through the core that wasn't a Thameslink train (ECS or in Service)

The partial failure of ETCS scenario for the regular stock is only of limited function as AWS/TPWS is emulated in the onboard ETCS computer and cab screens. If everything onboard was working but there was a radio comms failure preventing movement authority messages, drivers could switch to the legacy mode and continue service, albeit at reduced capacity with the longer blocks. I assume engineers are now confident GSM-R will prove sufficiently reliable for this to become unnecessary on the Moorgate line, a necessary step to rolling out further areas without signals on the ECML.

There are degraded modes of ETCS to cover for failures even after signals-away.

Even after ECML becomes no signals, the legacy systems in the TL core will likely remain for access to the non-ETCS MML.

Trains already transition from legacy at Kentish town to ETCS in the core, which non-ETCS trains would need to be able to retain access beyond the test train fleet?

 

[MrJeeves]

Aside from the test train fleet, what was the last movement through the core that wasn't a Thameslink train (ECS or in Service)

Probably various 387 movements, especially for the recent Aurora refurbs and for Selhurst/Three Bridges lathes?

717s have also been through before in early 2023.

Class 717 at Farringdon

Annoyingly was on the wrong platform so couldn't see the departure boards ... Yesterday (22/2) at about 15:44 (might have been a couple of mins before) I saw a Great Northern Class 717 (unit 717014) pass through Farringdon. I'm pretty sure it stopped, picked up/dopped off passengers and carried...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[MarkyT]

Aside from the test train fleet, what was the last movement through the core that wasn't a Thameslink train (ECS or in Service)

I recall it was a core requirement to be able to host non-equipped trains in the original spec. Things change of course.

There are degraded modes of ETCS to cover for failures even after signals-away.

And these are better developed than when ETCS was first introduced.

Trains already transition from legacy at Kentish town to ETCS in the core, which non-ETCS trains would need to be able to retain access beyond the test train fleet?

Departmental traffic mainly. I know eventually there'll be a substantial fleet of plant and locos equipped with some form of the tech for use on the ECML. I'm not discounting removal of remaining fairly new lights on sticks/tunnel brackets, just suggesting it's not likely to occur until a programme for ETCS fitment has begun on the MML, something that becomes far more practical once EMR has switched entirely to its new intercity fleet.