Should ECTS be implemented on safety grounds?

[HSTEd]

We do appear to have reached the practical limits of TPWS as a solution.

Perhaps you could do something with ETCS L1LS, which could impose a speed restriction of arbitrary length on the diverging route using a switchable balise.

But even if we assume all ECML (or all trains generally) trains will end up with ETCS gear, switching to L1LS would probably still delay the rollout of the L2 system. Although the Swiss did replace their legacy train protection systems quite rapidly.

 

[Tim_UK]

There comes a point where you spend more on bodging than just doing it properly. And if ETCS is the way to do it properly, then crack on. ETCS will evolve, and people will get better at designing and using it. And suppliers can find ways to ETCS upgrade existing kit.

There will be set backs, problems, the unexpected. Hassle from the upgrade. But once alll the busy routes are done, nobody will look back.

Outside of rail, I've seen so many projects where people hang onto something old, because `it works`. We can just bodge one little bit more. The cost of every bodge just gets higher. Every excuse in the book about why not to use the new stuff. But 90% of the time, once you commit and start you realise it's challenging but possible. The further you go, the easy it gets. The world moves on.

 

[Falcon1200]

What about a (possibly!) simpler solution, akin to the additional SPAD signals installed at a few locations? At a suitable point, ie braking distance, before the diversion, an indicator lit only when the diverging route is set, flashing and displaying the speed through the points.

 

[zwk500]

We do appear to have reached the practical limits of TPWS as a solution.

Perhaps you could do something with ETCS L1LS, which could impose a speed restriction of arbitrary length on the diverging route using a switchable balise.

Although I think there might be specific cases where L1 LS could be a solution, AIUI the ETCS concept is that you are either in an ETCS area or not, and therefore it's not quite so simple to fit ETCS at individual signals as it would be TPWS/AWS. There's almost certainly a way around it, but then it gets into 'why not just go ETCS L2 Overlay?'.

But even if we assume all ECML (or all trains generally) trains will end up with ETCS gear, switching to L1LS would probably still delay the rollout of the L2 system. Although the Swiss did replace their legacy train protection systems quite rapidly.

Tbf fitting of trains has to happen for any ETCS project, so isn't likely to be a major sticking point. The conversion of the infrastructure, however, is another matter. Didn't the Swiss spend quite a lot of time aligning their legacy systems (similar to the Belgians) so that the switchover could be done more smoothly? (Worth noting the first deployments of ETCS L2 in Switzerland were not without their problems, and as ETCS has matured in Switzerland the rollout has gone smoother).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There comes a point where you spend more on bodging than just doing it properly. And if ETCS is the way to do it properly, then crack on. ETCS will evolve, and people will get better at designing and using it. And suppliers can find ways to ETCS upgrade existing kit.

There will be set backs, problems, the unexpected. Hassle from the upgrade. But once alll the busy routes are done, nobody will look back.

Outside of rail, I've seen so many projects where people hang onto something old, because `it works`. We can just bodge one little bit more. The cost of every bodge just gets higher. Every excuse in the book about why not to use the new stuff. But 90% of the time, once you commit and start you realise it's challenging but possible. The further you go, the easy it gets. The world moves on.

We need to adopt some of the European countries approach whereby the operators get told this line will only be available to ETCS equipped stock from this date and thats the end of it not the nonsense we have we 10's millions being spent to motive power that will rarely use it but thats holding back implementation. The other thing that must happen on future extensions is its signals away no more expenditure on new signal structures which have grown ever larger and expensive to install.

 

[HSTEd]

Although I think there might be specific cases where L1 LS could be a solution, AIUI the ETCS concept is that you are either in an ETCS area or not, and therefore it's not quite so simple to fit ETCS at individual signals as it would be TPWS/AWS. There's almost certainly a way around it, but then it gets into 'why not just go ETCS L2 Overlay?'.

ETCS L2 Overlay has substantial costs beyond L1 LS though. Continuous supervision of speed and the like is hardly cheap, the LS specification does not require universal installation to my understanding, merely that no other systems are in use.
An L1 LS conversion ("merely") requires a switchable balise in place of each switchable AWS or TPWS unit, and a fixed balise in place of each fixed AWS magnet.

Indeed, the quality of surveying required for the Level 2 installation will be a substantial cost.

Tbf fitting of trains has to happen for any ETCS project, so isn't likely to be a major sticking point. The conversion of the infrastructure, however, is another matter. Didn't the Swiss spend quite a lot of time aligning their legacy systems (similar to the Belgians) so that the switchover could be done more smoothly? (Worth noting the first deployments of ETCS L2 in Switzerland were not without their problems, and as ETCS has matured in Switzerland the rollout has gone smoother).

They apparently did, "EuroSignum" and "EuroZUB", although I believe this was more about allowing a transparent conversion with work between trains.
There are about ~12000 TWPS fitted signals in the UK, I don't really have a figure on AWS but lets just guess 30000.
42000 replacements to eliminate TPWS and AWS - I think it is probably a more tractable solution than a large scale L2 programme in the near term (although obviously lower reward!)/.

Two staff could install the drop in self powered ZUB/Signum solution in two hours, supposedly. So, supposedly, about ~170,000 staff-hours trackside for such a programme. One could theorise about some sort of "rolling closure" programme moving along a line.

 

[zwk500]

We need to adopt some of the European countries approach whereby the operators get told this line will only be available to ETCS equipped stock from this date and thats the end of it not the nonsense we have we 10's millions being spent to motive power that will rarely use it but thats holding back implementation.

Which other railways have done this, and how has it gone for them?
NR will be loathe to kick freight off the network because once its gone, its goong to be very hard to get it back. Whereas by fitting a loco early, it will only increase the value of later ETCS fitment of routes.

The other thing that must happen on future extensions is its signals away no more expenditure on new signal structures which have grown ever larger and expensive to install.

There's also been considerable development of lightweight signal structures and some posts on social media from industry figures I've seen bemoaning the overblown safety have been rather disingenuous. You'd think there'd never been a semaphore offset bracket, let alone the Rugby Bedsteas, to hear some people talk of it.

ETCS L2 Overlay has substantial costs beyond L1 LS though.

substantual benefits as we though.

Continuous supervision of speed and the like is hardly cheap, the LS specification does not require universal installation to my understanding, merely that no other systems are in use.

Ah I didn't realise LS could be an add on.

Indeed, the quality of surveying required for the Level 2 installation will be a substantial cost.

Indeed

They apparently did, "EuroSignum and EuroZUB", although I believe this was more about allowing a transparent conversion with work between trains.
There are about ~12000 TWPS fitted signals in the UK, I don't really have a figure on AWS but lets just guess 30000.
42000 replacements to eliminate TPWS and AWS - I think it is probably a more tractable solution than a large scale L2 programme in the near term (although obviously lower reward!)/.

Two staff could install the drop in self powered ZUB/Signum solution in two hours, supposedly. So about ~170,000 staf-hours trackside for such a programme. One could theorise about some sort of "rolling closure" programme moving along a liline.

The issue presumably is whether the signalling and protection systems can cope with essentially 'random' signals having ETCS and everything else having TPWS. If LS can be fitted on a signal by signal basis then as a stopgap at critical overspeed risks I think it'd be worth looking into.

 

[HSTEd]

The issue presumably is whether the signalling and protection systems can cope with essentially 'random' signals having ETCS and everything else having TPWS. If LS can be fitted on a signal by signal basis then as a stopgap at critical overspeed risks I think it'd be worth looking into.

Yeah, I'd expect you'd have to completely replace the TPWS and AWS on the line with ETCS L1LS to make it work properly.

But I suppose the Swiss example raises questions about whether that might not be the best choice anyway.
If ETCS L1LS becomes the train protection system on the railway, the AWS and TPWS specific training burden and spares burden can be jettisoned.

"Only" around 12000 TPWS fitted signals at the end of the day.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Which other railways have done this, and how has it gone for them?

Czeckia have implemented it on a number of main line routes already and freight operators have to provide compatible power. Same for Luxembourg and some stretches of freight lines in holland, and the alp tunnels in Switzerland. The advantage here is freight operators have leased either Traxx or Vectron locos which have ETCS L2 as standard. Some TGV routes are now converted as well.

NR will be loathe to kick freight off the network because once its gone, its goong to be very hard to get it back. Whereas by fitting a loco early, it will only increase the value of later ETCS fitment of routes.

You dont kick it off you tell it you've got x years to get compliant locos. So its right that a standard 66 fitment is progressed. I believe the 99s are coming with ETCS.

There's also been considerable development of lightweight signal structures and some posts on social media from industry figures I've seen bemoaning the overblown safety have been rather disingenuous. You'd think there'd never been a semaphore offset bracket, let alone the Rugby Bedsteas, to hear some people talk of it.

Yup for standard one signal posts they've certainly made improvements that avoid working at height now but anywhere a gantry is involved the structures are humungous compared to what BR used to use. That approach is necessary now as us humans have got a bit heavier humans and the fact that the structures have to be able to support two maybe three staff simultaneously. Then there is large foundations that are then required to support such a structure. Whatever the efforts to improve every signal needs survey foundations installing, structures erecting and cabling up and much more importantly sighting which in itself is very involved task. So all this can be saved in future if resignalling schemes are signals away as well as better optimising the block sections.

 

[Pete_uk]

Rolling out more and more ETCS hopefully

 

[HSTEd]

Rolling out more and more ETCS hopefully

The ETCS programme does not seem to be progressing very well though.
We still have resignalling projects going forward with conventional signalling after all.

I doubt most people on this forum will live long enough to see ETCS be the predominant signalling system in the UK.

 

[zwk500]

The ETCS programme does not seem to be progressing very well though.

It will speed up as experience grows with deployment, and trains get fitted for initial deployments.

 

[Annetts key]

It will speed up as experience grows with deployment, and trains get fitted for initial deployments.

Yes. Network Rail have chosen to take the first main line deployment slowly and carefully. Both for technical reasons and for other reasons.
Don’t forget there are railway procedures that have to change as well. It doesn’t just affect drivers and signallers.
The way that emergency or temporary speed restrictions are applied or lifted changes as well.
How failures of the system are handled has to be considered, and I mean, by all involved, including drivers, signallers, fault control, operations control etc.
All engineering or trackside staff need briefing or training.

Future schemes can build on the experience and the lessons learned. Hence the roll out should be faster. The limitations now being money, resources, will etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes. Network Rail have chosen to take the first main line deployment slowly and carefully. Both for technical reasons and for other reasons.
Don’t forget there are railway procedures that have to change as well. It doesn’t just affect drivers and signallers.
The way that emergency or temporary speed restrictions are applied or lifted changes as well.
How failures of the system are handled has to be considered, and I mean, by all involved, including drivers, signallers, fault control, operations control etc.
All engineering or trackside staff need briefing or training.

Future schemes can build on the experience and the lessons learned. Hence the roll out should be faster. The limitations now being money, resources, will etc.

All correct.

Converting to ETCS is not so much a resignalling as a change to the whole business model.

The good news, using the ECML as an example, that once London - Grantham is done, the business model change is done, but the incremental effort to get (say) Grantham to Doncaster done is somewhat easier.

 

[D365]

The ETCS programme does not seem to be progressing very well though.
We still have resignalling projects going forward with conventional signalling after all.

I doubt most people on this forum will live long enough to see ETCS be the predominant signalling system in the UK.

Yes. Network Rail have chosen to take the first main line deployment slowly and carefully. Both for technical reasons and for other reasons.

I don’t believe that the current ECDP timescales are by Network Rail’s choice. The opposite, in fact - until very recently, NR was trying to do too much, too quickly, bringing in too many consultants tripping over each other. In terms of NR own project sponsors, I don’t see any accountability. But hey; those that know me, know I’m clearly only a bit player!