ETCS for MML and WMCL Next?

[LNW-GW Joint]

Modern Railways (August, p14) reports that the NR plan for ETCS rollout after ECML South will include parts of the MML and WCML in CP7 (2024-29), as well as parts of East Anglia.
The areas mentioned are around Bedford (MML), Warrington (WCML), and Peterborough-Ely-King's Lynn as an extension of the ECML scheme.
Presumably that means NR has decided against conventional resignalling of these routes.
Warrington PSB (along with Preston and Carlisle PSBs on the northern WCML) is nearing end-of-life after nearly 50 years operation.
With very slow delivery of conventional schemes, the aim apparently is to reduce the resignalling backlog by rolling out more ETCS Level 2 schemes which require less lineside work.
Any scheme on the WCML will involve a large amount of rolling stock cab fitment by several operators, but does at least align with HS2 plans.

 

[PhilH]

Sounds about right according to this recent NR slide...

 

[TheDavibob]

I have a few questions, which may not be answerable:

Where, if anywhere, does the East Coast Digital Program stretch up the Hitchin-Cambridge branch? [Possibly none of it, I don't know the current state of the signalling]

Would all stock on the line have to be able to use the signalling? Clearly for the WCML, etc. this would be a major program, but at least would consistently apply. Ely-Peterborough would require all local services, and all Midlands-bound freight, to be ETCS fitted just for that stretch [even though I assume the western platforms at Peterborough would have otherwise stayed conventionally signalled], which would in turn require a large swathe of the Cross Country local fleet and the Anglia bi-mode fleet to be set up for ETCS for relatively small mileage, as well as whatever takes over Norwich-Nottingham. In particular, would this lead to a removal of Liverpool Street - Kings Lynn trains [as new equipment for a minor peak-time extra seems superfluous]?

Or am I overthinking it - is the cab equipment not actually that challenging to install (particularly on newer stock) and doesn't particularly get in the way off-route?

 

[edwin_m]

It looks like all freight locomotives will be fitted, but passenger fleets will depend on the routes they use and indeed influence the choice of those routes. The latest generation of stock is "ETCS ready" and reasonably easy to fit. It's also possible to have "islands" of conventional signalling, which is probably what would happen in Ely.

 

[hwl]

I have a few questions, which may not be answerable:

Where, if anywhere, does the East Coast Digital Program stretch up the Hitchin-Cambridge branch? [Possibly none of it, I don't know the current state of the signalling]

Would all stock on the line have to be able to use the signalling? Clearly for the WCML, etc. this would be a major program, but at least would consistently apply. Ely-Peterborough would require all local services, and all Midlands-bound freight, to be ETCS fitted just for that stretch [even though I assume the western platforms at Peterborough would have otherwise stayed conventionally signalled], which would in turn require a large swathe of the Cross Country local fleet and the Anglia bi-mode fleet to be set up for ETCS for relatively small mileage, as well as whatever takes over Norwich-Nottingham. In particular, would this lead to a removal of Liverpool Street - Kings Lynn trains [as new equipment for a minor peak-time extra seems superfluous]?

Or am I overthinking it - is the cab equipment not actually that challenging to install (particularly on newer stock) and doesn't particularly get in the way off-route?

All Freight is effectively getting fitted as part of the East Coast scheme.
All of ECML south of Stoke Tunnel is getting ETCS and recontrol to York hence, XC stock will get fitted anyway (ditto EMR) and all the new Anglia stock is ETCS capable on leaving the factory (might take bit to get it working in practice), hence Ely - Peterborough is an easy next step with some useful performance benefits over the current Absolute Block in places.

 

[moggie]

Warrington PSB (along with Preston and Carlisle PSBs on the northern WCML) is nearing end-of-life after nearly 50 years operation.
With very slow delivery of conventional schemes, the aim apparently is to reduce the resignalling backlog by rolling out more ETCS Level 2 schemes which require less lineside work.
Any scheme on the WCML will involve a large amount of rolling stock cab fitment by several operators, but does at least align with HS2 plans.

mmm that ol' chestnut again? While it's certainly true that the three PSB's listed are long overdue for renewal and ETCS is the most obvious technology to replace them let's debunk the myth that provision of conventional lineside signalling equipment results in 'slow delivery' of signalling projects. It most certainly is NOT the case.

In my many decades involved at the 'coal face' it was rarely if ever the lineside component of a signalling project which were ultimately responsible for delays in construction and commissioning. Maybe post commissioning using novel technology whose initial reliability has often been poor for numerous reasons associated with new product but not generally the cause of delays leading to postponement of commissions.

Invariably it was the geographical software component of the system - design and validation which are generally the more complex part of most signalling systems which sometimes struggle to achieve planned dates and ETCS as a system has PLENTY of the same - indeed virtually identical. ETCS L2 retains much traditional lineside equipment also. So all in all a falsehood continuing to be perpetuated.

And as we well know by now through Crossrail, the systems integration - i.e. writing safety software for the many critical system components and then getting it all to achieve and verify 100% fault proof functionality across the systems is a lot easier said by ETCS proponents than done. Yes I'm well aware of the dogs breakfast that is Crossrail system architecture and that ETCS alone is more straightforward - or should be but on a major scheme now running years behind schedule due principally to the knock on impact of whole system signalling 'issue' I'm not sure there's any grounds for confidence when it comes to ETCS vice the absence of a few signal heads.

Also, do we know yet precisely what HS2 Signalling system is to be? No - it's not yet procured - currently out for ITT. Plenty of scope for subtly different HS2 and NR variants of ETCS to emerge during ongoing development of their respective 'solutions' and therefore plenty of scope for introduction of unintended complexity between systems and the on board HS2 rolling stock system when using NR metals in future.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have a few questions, which may not be answerable:

Where, if anywhere, does the East Coast Digital Program stretch up the Hitchin-Cambridge branch? [Possibly none of it, I don't know the current state of the signalling]

Would all stock on the line have to be able to use the signalling? Clearly for the WCML, etc. this would be a major program, but at least would consistently apply. Ely-Peterborough would require all local services, and all Midlands-bound freight, to be ETCS fitted just for that stretch [even though I assume the western platforms at Peterborough would have otherwise stayed conventionally signalled], which would in turn require a large swathe of the Cross Country local fleet and the Anglia bi-mode fleet to be set up for ETCS for relatively small mileage, as well as whatever takes over Norwich-Nottingham. In particular, would this lead to a removal of Liverpool Street - Kings Lynn trains [as new equipment for a minor peak-time extra seems superfluous]?

Or am I overthinking it - is the cab equipment not actually that challenging to install (particularly on newer stock) and doesn't particularly get in the way off-route?

Reasonably sure ETCS is heading up to the Kings Cross / Cambridge boundary country side of Royston. As @hwl says, all the Anglia fleet is fitted already, all the freight fleet is being fitted, and any new trains ordered for EMR will be factory fitted (noting that the 158s are celebrating 30 years in service 8 weeks from today). Refitting the XC fleet is likely, although it is equally possible that new trains are ordered there within a decade.

 

[edwin_m]

Reasonably sure ETCS is heading up to the Kings Cross / Cambridge boundary country side of Royston. As @hwl says, all the Anglia fleet is fitted already, all the freight fleet is being fitted, and any new trains ordered for EMR will be factory fitted (noting that the 158s are celebrating 30 years in service 8 weeks from today). Refitting the XC fleet is likely, although it is equally possible that new trains are ordered there within a decade.

That means fitting ETCS to 170s which are (I think) to old to be "ETCS ready" and possibly getting towards end of life anyway, or replacement trains for what is now EMR but will be a different operator by then. There's no chance of electrification by then and the journeys aren't suitable for battery or hydrogen, so any replacements will have to be diesels, but nobody will want to build any new ones. So there may be some complicated cascade needed, such as electrifying the Snow Hill lines and refitting the 172s for longer distance use.

 

[Bald Rick]

That means fitting ETCS to 170s which are (I think) to old to be "ETCS ready" and possibly getting towards end of life anyway, or replacement trains for what is now EMR but will be a different operator by then. There's no chance of electrification by then and the journeys aren't suitable for battery or hydrogen, so any replacements will have to be diesels, but nobody will want to build any new ones. So there may be some complicated cascade needed, such as electrifying the Snow Hill lines and refitting the 172s for longer distance use.

If you can refit 158s, and Class 66s, then I’m sure you can do 170s. Might not be cheap of course.

 

[hwl]

If you can refit 158s, and Class 66s, then I’m sure you can do 170s. Might not be cheap of course.

& @edwin_m
There is the first of a type funding to theoretically cover the development work involved.

I'd expect every turbostar to still be in service in 2039.

 

[Roast Veg]

I would expect ECTS fitment to be the "new PRM" for causing a turnover and cascade of rolling stock.

 

[hwl]

I would expect ECTS fitment to be the "new PRM" for causing a turnover and cascade of rolling stock.

For Electric stock maybe but much less so for diesel as the payback period for diesel only stock pre 2040 is looking tight and bi-mode is noticeably more expensive

 

[Philip Phlopp]

That means fitting ETCS to 170s which are (I think) to old to be "ETCS ready" and possibly getting towards end of life anyway, or replacement trains for what is now EMR but will be a different operator by then. There's no chance of electrification by then and the journeys aren't suitable for battery or hydrogen, so any replacements will have to be diesels, but nobody will want to build any new ones. So there may be some complicated cascade needed, such as electrifying the Snow Hill lines and refitting the 172s for longer distance use.

The Class 170 units present no significant issues to convert to ETCS operation - the basic design already operates with both current iterations of ATP on the Great Western and Chiltern routes, and the control systems on a Class 158 are sufficiently similar that design for ETCS isn't a significant headache.

There is no particular headaches for ETCS installation on DMU stock, beyond the usual problems - electrical supply on BR era units can be marginal and upgraded alternators are sometimes necessary, wiring from BREL was somewhat inconsistent but that has mainly be ironed out during successive refurbishments and upgrades over the last 20 years, and there's the need to remove a couple of seats to fit the control rack in.

The real headache with ETCS is deciding which DMU stock to install it on, as is mentioned up thread. ETCS is now in real danger of getting ahead of electrification on a number of routes, which means it needs to be installed on DMU stock that will be made redundant by electrification. That is, of course, a sizeable problem given diesel only rolling stock will be (supposedly) withdrawn by 2040.

Electrification followed by ETCS would have been the optimal way to deploy ETCS - you have lots of options, none of which waste money. You can procure a new fleet of ETCS fitted EMUs for the newly electrified route, or you can use non ETCS fitted stock between electrification and changeover to ETCS, doing that, you then have the choice of fitting ETCS to the stock or procuring new stock in time for the changeover, a decision which can be made for purely economic reasons.

 

[Mollman]

For Warrington,by the time it is introduced most rolling stock will be new enough to hopefully be easy converted anyway. GC's 90s should be done under the freight banner as they are owned by DB, Northern will still have 323s to do but the 319s should have gone. Might also encourage the replacement of 150s with newer stock.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's TfW's stock to do (158s already fitted, and presumably at least some 197s), and if the extent of ETCS goes south of Weaver Jn that will bring in WMT's as well.
Presumably it's all going to be controlled from Manchester ROC.

 

[43096]

The Class 170 units present no significant issues to convert to ETCS operation - the basic design already operates with both current iterations of ATP on the Great Western and Chiltern routes, and the control systems on a Class 158 are sufficiently similar that design for ETCS isn't a significant headache.

I’m intrigued as to what is GW-ATP fitted that is similar to a 170.

As for 158s, some are already fitted with ETCS, so the base design already exists.

 

[hexagon789]

I’m intrigued as to what is GW-ATP fitted that is similar to a 170.

I think they mean Chiltern ATP on their 168s presumably?

 

[Ceat0908]

So the 800-802s are capable of ATO as far as I’m aware, will ETCS implement this as 170s and voyagers are not going to be capable of automatic operation and same with 390s on the west coast.

 

[The Planner]

So the 800-802s are capable of ATO as far as I’m aware, will ETCS implement this as 170s and voyagers are not going to be capable of automatic operation and same with 390s on the west coast.

We are a looooooooooong way from ATO on non metro conventional lines. HS2 will likely have some form of it.

 

[43096]

I think they mean Chiltern ATP on their 168s presumably?

Yeah, I got that bit. The reference to Great Western ATP doesn’t make sense, though.

 

[e30ftw]

I doubt newtwork rail has the ability or willingness(required) to bring in a WCML ETCS signaling on time with out emabrising technical dificulties. Its very atractive on paper but the reality might be hard to implement.

will this turn out like electrification with stop/start schems with hard won experience and expertise lost in between these ad hock schecems rather than a well thought out continues rolling program?

Work has been carried out to life extend a lot of signalling assests under the Warrington PSB area (and her sister SB areas), by no means all and by no means enough as it is and allways be a battle of the bean counters V engineering desires.

Have network rail admitied they have given up on the ROC scheeme? or is this still going ahead with PSBs at warrington, preston, carlisle ultimitly going to the history books.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I’m intrigued as to what is GW-ATP fitted that is similar to a 170.

As for 158s, some are already fitted with ETCS, so the base design already exists.

The Class 165/166 Turbo family is fitted with GW-ATP. They've arguably more in common with the Perkins fitted Class 158 units than the later Clubman/Turbostar units, but they're still sufficiently similar that issues identified from the installation of GW-ATP can feed through to the installation of ETCS on both them and other members of the wider Sprinter/Turbo/Clubman/Turbostar family.

I am aware of the Class 158s being fitted with ETCS, as I said, the design and development work undertaken for the Class 158 family discovered and dealt with a number of issues and will assist the installation on other members of the Sprinter and Turbostar families.

 

[The Planner]

Have network rail admitied they have given up on the ROC scheeme? or is this still going ahead with PSBs at warrington, preston, carlisle ultimitly going to the history books.

They will end up in a ROC.

 

[edwin_m]

Electrification followed by ETCS would have been the optimal way to deploy ETCS - you have lots of options, none of which waste money. You can procure a new fleet of ETCS fitted EMUs for the newly electrified route, or you can use non ETCS fitted stock between electrification and changeover to ETCS, doing that, you then have the choice of fitting ETCS to the stock or procuring new stock in time for the changeover, a decision which can be made for purely economic reasons.

I suspect a signal engineer would disagree with that! Older signaling would need to be immunized for electrification, which is a significant cost and would be difficult to justify if ETCS comes along a few years later. There is also the kind of risk that arose on GWML where electrification works damaged old signal cables whose location wasn't known accurately.

The Class 165/166 Turbo family is fitted with GW-ATP.

Are they? I seem to recall from the Ladbroke Grove accident that Thames Trains (as it then was) relied on TPWS.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I suspect a signal engineer would disagree with that! Older signaling would need to be immunized for electrification, which is a significant cost and would be difficult to justify if ETCS comes along a few years later. There is also the kind of risk that arose on GWML where electrification works damaged old signal cables whose location wasn't known accurately.

I don't know why I bother.

And I remember why I stopped bothering.

 

[43096]

The Class 165/166 Turbo family is fitted with GW-ATP. They've arguably more in common with the Perkins fitted Class 158 units than the later Clubman/Turbostar units, but they're still sufficiently similar that issues identified from the installation of GW-ATP can feed through to the installation of ETCS on both them and other members of the wider Sprinter/Turbo/Clubman/Turbostar family.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Class 165/0 is fitted with Chiltern ATP. Classes 165/1 and 166 are not and never have been fitted with GW-ATP. If they had been then Ladbroke Grove would likely never have happened.

The two ATP trial systems are different and incompatible, but have both ended up under Alstom ownership: from memory Chiltern was an Alcatel system, whereas GW was ACEC.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Class 165/0 is fitted with Chiltern ATP. Classes 165/1 and 166 are not and never have been fitted with GW-ATP. If they had been then Ladbroke Grove would likely never have happened.

The two ATP trial systems are different and incompatible, but have both ended up under Alstom ownership: from memory Chiltern was an Alcatel system, whereas GW was ACEC.

I do apologise. I had it in my mind that they were used for testing GW-ATP. I've done some digging and it was an old first generation DMU that was used for the works, and there was also a pair of Class 56 locomotives so fitted.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't know why I bother.

And I remember why I stopped bothering.

Apologies if this came across as offensive, and my point about GWML was admittedly based on forum chat not first hand knowledge. But with some signaling background myself I do question the cost-effectiveness of electrifying on conventional signaling which is probably nearly iife-expired, then switching to ETCS.

 

[43096]

I do apologise. I had it in my mind that they were used for testing GW-ATP. I've done some digging and it was an old first generation DMU that was used for the works, and there was also a pair of Class 56 locomotives so fitted.

No problem! Was it a bubble car they used? I remember the Class 56s being involved.

From memory only the main lines out of Paddington were converted, not the reliefs, which would have limited the usefulness had the 16x fleet been fitted. The relief lines out to Airport Junction were later fitted, which allowed the 332 fleet to be used with ATP throughout and meant that TPWS was not required on them.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No problem! Was it a bubble car they used? I remember the Class 56s being involved.

From memory only the main lines out of Paddington were converted, not the reliefs, which would have limited the usefulness had the 16x fleet been fitted. The relief lines out to Airport Junction were later fitted, which allowed the 332 fleet to be used with ATP throughout and meant that TPWS was not required on them.

It was a Class 114 two vehicle unit, apparently. I was sure it was in NSE livery, but it wasn't, it seems it had one of those Derby RTC special colour schemes.