First ETCS train operates on the East Coast Mainline

[Wapps]

The trouble is that every single day, lights / barriers at level crossings are ignored (wilfully or accidentally) by road users somewhere in the country.

And how often does this lead to a crash of a train at 125mph?

 

[najaB]

And how often does this lead to a crash of a train at 125mph?

Is that really the best argument you can come up with?

FWIW, Ufton Nervet killed six people (the car driver plus five on the train). That was the result of level crossing abuse on a line with a 100mph limit.

 

[gabrielhj07]

And how often does this lead to a crash of a train at 125mph?

A few years ago I was in the leading carriage of a Northbound IET, when at Holme Green L/C we passed a person about 12’ away, walking idly across the crossing, headphones in. Could have been a lot worse if we’d arrived there a few seconds earlier.

 

[Bald Rick]

And how often does this lead to a crash of a train at 125mph?

Rarely at 125, not least because there are not many highway crossings on stretches of line at 125.

But for all types of highway level crossings, there’s a collision between road user and train a few times each month (excluding suicides).

You might be prepared to sign off the risk assessment for the increased risk for level crossings on lines above 125, but I wouldn’t. I don’t like Porridge.

 

[Krokodil]

And remember that disasters like Ufton Nervet cause significant loss of confidence in rail travel. Even though people consider road traffic accidents to be "just one of those things". A reputation for safety is a hard-won thing.

 

[Class 800]

Do you think that many level crossing closures are achievable?
My thinking is that if it was for the WCML, it should be for the ECML.

I have a couple more questions related to that.

1. Post ETCS would it be possible to upgrade maximum linespeeds south of Knebworth? It's 115 between New Barnet and Knebworth right now, and I wonder if that could go up to 125 or even higher, provided that speed is monitored by ETCS. Operating 387s at 110 might be an option too to increase throughput.
2. Are potential speed upgrades also possible on the slows? On the Trent Valley, all four lines are 110 EPS 125. It may not need to be that drastic but even going from 75 to 90-100 will make a material difference.

 

[zwk500]

Do you think that many level crossing closures are achievable?
My thinking is that if it was for the WCML, it should be for the ECML.

Depends how much money is available. The ECML runs through some rather flat areas so building bridges over the railway isn't always cheap.

I have a couple more questions related to that.

1. Post ETCS would it be possible to upgrade maximum linespeeds south of Knebworth? It's 115 between New Barnet and Knebworth right now, and I wonder if that could go up to 125 or even higher, provided that speed is monitored by ETCS. Operating 387s at 110 might be an option too to increase throughput.
2. Are potential speed upgrades also possible on the slows? On the Trent Valley, all four lines are 110 EPS 125. It may not need to be that drastic but even going from 75 to 90-100 will make a material difference.

ETCS only affects the signalling. There are many other reasons the speed might be limited so in general if it's lower than 125 its a safe bet there's some other factor that would need to be solved. Likely curvature/cant but there's a long list of others it might be.
As a benchmark, it takes 48 seconds to cover 1 mile @ 75mph, 36 seconds to cover 1 mile at 100mph. So you'd need 3 miles of uninterrupted upgrade to save 30 seconds, excluding acceleration/braking. To save a path therefore at a 3 minute headway is 12 miles uninterrupted upgrade. On the slows, avoiding getting caught behind a freight or an all-stations is going to be hard, so can you realise the benefit of such an uplift?

 

[The Planner]

1. Are potential speed upgrades also possible on the slows? On the Trent Valley, all four lines are 110 EPS 125. It may not need to be that drastic but even going from 75 to 90-100 will make a material difference.

They aren't, only the bits that got upgraded are, parts got cut out for cost cutting during West Coast Route Mod. Lots of 75mph remaining such as the Up Slow from Amington to Rugby, Down Slow from Attleborough to Amington.

 

[MarkyT]

Depends how much money is available. The ECML runs through some rather flat areas so building bridges over the railway isn't always cheap.

ETCS only affects the signalling. There are many other reasons the speed might be limited so in general if it's lower than 125 its a safe bet there's some other factor that would need to be solved. Likely curvature/cant but there's a long list of others it might be.
As a benchmark, it takes 48 seconds to cover 1 mile @ 75mph, 36 seconds to cover 1 mile at 100mph. So you'd need 3 miles of uninterrupted upgrade to save 30 seconds, excluding acceleration/braking. To save a path therefore at a 3 minute headway is 12 miles uninterrupted upgrade. On the slows, avoiding getting caught behind a freight or an all-stations is going to be hard, so can you realise the benefit of such an uplift?

I wonder if the tunnels south of Knebworth are an issue. Dynamic envelope clearance, closing speed of opposing trains passing inside. Also Welwyn viaduct. I know it had a double heading ban over it for years, just one of those things that everyone knew and accepted. In the 1950s* Dad asked why, so structure engineers searched their records and could find no documented reasoning. They carried out a new survey and lifted the restriction. Not to say it would be OK for modern trains at higher speed, that would be the current engineers' call, and it might need some more work to be made suitable, which would be disruptive and expensive. Allowing 387s to go as fast as they're able would be sensible if they don't already.

*Edit: I think it was a bit later than that in the diesel era. He was looking for a way to work deltics back and forth to Doncaster for works attention. They needed to visit fairly regularly for routine work and repairs to the engines.

 

[Bald Rick]

Do you think that many level crossing closures are achievable?

Every Level Crossing could be closed, given sufficient cash.

Post ETCS would it be possible to upgrade maximum linespeeds south of Knebworth? It's 115 between New Barnet and Knebworth right now, and I wonder if that could go up to 125 or even higher, provided that speed is monitored by ETCS. Operating 387s at 110 might be an option too to increase throughput.

There’s other reasons for the speed restrictions. For example the curves at Hatfield, and the tunnels.

 

[Taunton]

Other countries are stricter and consider 200kph (125mph) to require cab signalling.

USA has long required cab signals for over 79mph, from the 1930s, well back into steam loco days.

 

[MarkyT]

USA has long required cab signals for over 79mph, from the 1930s, well back into steam loco days.

Various systems reached maximum coverage in the 1950s before authorities started allowing railroads to rip it out on a wide scale with the abandonment of most passenger services.

 

[TurboMan]

Despite a previous reply, yes it does give route indications. For example, entering Moorgate, you get a Route D or Route U for platform 9 or 10 respectively in the message box.
At other places, you would get a message with DS, UF etc

That's interesting (I've learnt something today, thank you!). Intriguing too, as there is nothing in the ERTMS specifications as far as I'm aware about displaying routing information - which makes sense really given that a lot of rail networks (the majority?) around the world use speed signalling not route indication. There is no routing indication on the GWML and Cambrian ETCS implementations. If it's being implemented for some routes but not others, it's something else that potentially going to cause problems when all the different implementations on the UK network finally join up.

 

[najaB]

I have a couple more questions related to that.

1. Post ETCS would it be possible to upgrade maximum linespeeds south of Knebworth? It's 115 between New Barnet and Knebworth right now, and I wonder if that could go up to 125 or even higher, provided that speed is monitored by ETCS. Operating 387s at 110 might be an option too to increase throughput.
2. Are potential speed upgrades also possible on the slows? On the Trent Valley, all four lines are 110 EPS 125. It may not need to be that drastic but even going from 75 to 90-100 will make a material difference.

Remember, you get more benefit by eliminating slow sections than you do by raising headline speeds. As an example, on a ten-mile section of 125mph you would gain 30 seconds increasing the limit to 140mph, but if you had a 10 mile section of 125mph with a one mile section of 60mph in the middle, raising the 60mph to even 100mph would gain at least half of that (assuming instantaneous acceleration and braking), and all trains that are 100mph capable would benefit, where only 140mph capable would benefit from the increase above 125mph.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Despite a previous reply, yes it does give route indications. For example, entering Moorgate, you get a Route D or Route U for platform 9 or 10 respectively in the message box.
At other places, you would get a message with DS, UF etc

I've found that message in the Great Northern ETCS training video (which they put on YouTube)
I expected it to be somewhere in the planning area not the text section.

 

[MrJeeves]

I've found that message in the Great Northern ETCS training video (which they put on YouTube)
I expected it to be somewhere in the planning area not the text section.

I believe it's less of a feature of ETCS, and more a specific feature we have implemented where the signalling system automatically sends a textual message (telegram) to the train when the route is set/MA is given, hence why it displays in the text area.

 

[Class 800]

That's interesting (I've learnt something today, thank you!). Intriguing too, as there is nothing in the ERTMS specifications as far as I'm aware about displaying routing information - which makes sense really given that a lot of rail networks (the majority?) around the world use speed signalling not route indication. There is no routing indication on the GWML and Cambrian ETCS implementations. If it's being implemented for some routes but not others, it's something else that potentially going to cause problems when all the different implementations on the UK network finally join up.

Are there any plans to roll out ETCS on the GWML? It already has 140mph capable OLE and is quite straight, so it might be a prime candidate for 140mph.
It could even theoretically be done with BR-ATP but I don't think there will be any adjustment to that outdated technology now (has it already been removed)?

 

[starlight73]

Are there any plans to roll out ETCS on the GWML?

Yes as of 2015: see this article https://www.railjournal.com/signalling/siemens-wins-great-western-etcs-design-contract/

NETWORK Rail (NR) has awarded Siemens Rail Automation a contract to develop system architecture and a deployment strategy for the rollout of an ETCS Level 2 overlay on the Great Western Main Line.

UPDATE: This is kind of on the cards for Great Western as discussed in this thread, which may be more relevant - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ain-control-system.268970/page-2#post-6801729

 

[Bald Rick]

Are there any plans to roll out ETCS on the GWML? It already has 140mph capable OLE and is quite straight, so it might be a prime candidate for 140mph.
It could even theoretically be done with BR-ATP but I don't think there will be any adjustment to that outdated technology now (has it already been removed)?

The OLE might be 140mph capable (although I’m not convinced), but very little else is.

 

[Class 800]

The OLE might be 140mph capable (although I’m not convinced).

https://www.furrerfrey.ch/dam/jcr:98f3522c-51ff-4d89-9fd7-dc16601d1db3/140918_F%20F_Series1_pamphlet_onlinePub.pdf

Page 8, in the data table “max speed 140mph”

very little else is.

Again that’s something that can be upgraded…

 

[gravitystorm]

Going back to the original topic - what's next for the ECML ETCS project? More testing, I assume, but how long will that take? And how long until it's available to be used in service?

I'm hoping that given this is the 4th or 5th deployment of ETCS (Cambrian, Thameslink Core, Heathrow tunnels, Moorgate branch IIRC) things might progress a bit quicker than in the past?

 

[St. Paddy]

Going back to the original topic - what's next for the ECML ETCS project? More testing, I assume, but how long will that take? And how long until it's available to be used in service?

I'm hoping that given this is the 4th or 5th deployment of ETCS (Cambrian, Thameslink Core, Heathrow tunnels, Moorgate branch IIRC) things might progress a bit quicker than in the past?

18 months of testing before training starts apparently, presumably dependant on possession availability initially

 

[Bald Rick]

Page 8, in the data table “max speed 140mph”

Thats the system design capability. It doesnt mean it has been installed to that capability, let alone maintained as such.

Again that’s something that can be upgraded…

At very great expense. There’s a reason it wasnt done on the WCML (or the ECML), both of which carry more revenue.

 

[Class 800]

At very great expense. There’s a reason it wasnt done on the WCML (or the ECML), both of which carry more revenue.

Well the WCML was going to get HS2 as a bypass.
The ECML was too, until the Eastern Leg was cut, but at least it is getting some form of upgrade.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well the WCML was going to get HS2 as a bypass.

Not in 1999 it wasnt when the linespeed profile was set!

 

[Northern_guard]

I'm willing to bet that I won't see ETCS in operation on all, or even most lines nationwide within my lifetime, purely due to the astronomical cost involved.

I'm hoping I don't have to see it in my career.

 

[najaB]

I'm hoping I don't have to see it in my career.

Interesting. Why do you hope that you don't get an improved and more reliable signalling system?

 

[The Chimaera]

.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting. Why do you hope that you don't get an improved and more reliable signalling system?

and safer?

 

[Class 800]

and safer?

I’m no expert, just have an interest, but I remember seeing an introductory video on BR – ATP, perhaps the modern equivalent would be ETCS level 1…

One of the concerns that was addressed was that full supervision gave some drivers a feeling that they were being micromanaged.