Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[jim.snowdon]

6 hours ago, rory said:

Trains can run end to end reliably, but the system has many complex interfaces and functions and it is these which take a lot of testing and software revisions.

Have we (or rather the Crossrail engineering team) not learned the experience that was gained nearly 25 years ago in getting CBTC to work on the Docklands system, and in subsequent applications of different versions on Central Line and Northen Line? Comments thus far make it sound like they are starting from scratch with yet another unproven system (which might be true given some of the less than compimentary comments I have heard about Crossrail's engineering integration).

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Have we (or rather the Crossrail engineering team) not learned the experience that was gained nearly 25 years ago in getting CBTC to work on the Docklands system, and in subsequent applications of different versions on Central Line and Northen Line? Comments thus far make it sound like they are starting from scratch with yet another unproven system (which might be true given some of the less than compimentary comments I have heard about Crossrail's engineering integration).

 

Jim

Don't forget Jim that on today's sooper dooper railway the past is another country and those who inhabited it are not always welcome in the world of today (because of they had been a lot of GW electrification 'errors' would have been avoided for a start.  Seems the same applies in LUL land. 

[St. Simon]

13 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Have we (or rather the Crossrail engineering team) not learned the experience that was gained nearly 25 years ago in getting CBTC to work on the Docklands system, and in subsequent applications of different versions on Central Line and Northen Line? Comments thus far make it sound like they are starting from scratch with yet another unproven system (which might be true given some of the less than compimentary comments I have heard about Crossrail's engineering integration).

 

Jim

 

The CBTC systems they are using isn't unproven on it's own, but nobody has tried transitions between CBTC and AWS/TPWS before, nor has anyone tried doing it combined with ATO transitions either, but they need all of it to achieve what they want to achieve.

 

The fact is that systems change, they have to, everything has to be unproven once in its lifetime.

 

Simon

[jim.snowdon]

Should I be reading into this that nobody has tried making these transitions on the move? 

 

If yes, I thought the original plan was for Crossrail trains to make the transition at Ealing Broadway, during the station stop, which is easier to accomplish. Even then, is the headway at the tunnel portal so tight that the change can't be done there?

 

Jim

[Mike Storey]

7 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

The CBTC systems they are using isn't unproven on it's own, but nobody has tried transitions between CBTC and AWS/TPWS before, nor has anyone tried doing it combined with ATO transitions either, but they need all of it to achieve what they want to achieve.

 

The fact is that systems change, they have to, everything has to be unproven once in its lifetime.

 

Simon

 

You are, of course, absolutely right about innovation. But, given your relative expertise (compared to us neanderthals, and I can now confidently speak as an Old Git), how has this differed from its equivalent in the Thameslink transitioning from something similar to something similar?

 

Acknowledging all the usual brickbats about delays for various political, technical and other reasons, when it did happen, for all the problems surrounding the new TT last year, one thing Thameslink did seem to get nearly right, was the systems transition between three (four if we are being pedantic), nominally incompatible systems, two of which remain in transition to an uncertain, future definition, whilst the service has already begun, and seems to be working. 

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Mike Storey
speeling

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

Recent photos of various Crossrail stations.....

 

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/our-plan-to-complete-the-elizabeth-line/ew-images-highlight-progress-on-elizabeth-line

 

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

[Bernard Lamb]

9 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Recent photos of various Crossrail stations.....

 

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/our-plan-to-complete-the-elizabeth-line/ew-images-highlight-progress-on-elizabeth-line

 

 

 

.

Interesting.

Farringdon and Custom House were on my route the other day and both seem to have been abandoned with little visible progress since I was last that way in October.

I would say that things have actually gone backwards at Farringdon as far as access by the general public is concerned.

Bernard

[Siberian Snooper]

Whilst a few of the stations look to be ready, it would appear that the rest have quite bit of work to do, when you consider that the system should already up and running.

 

 

[St. Simon]

On ‎20‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 20:39, Mike Storey said:

 

You are, of course, absolutely right about innovation. But, given your relative expertise (compared to us neanderthals, and I can now confidently speak as an Old Git), how has this differed from its equivalent in the Thameslink transitioning from something similar to something similar?

 

Acknowledging all the usual brickbats about delays for various political, technical and other reasons, when it did happen, for all the problems surrounding the new TT last year, one thing Thameslink did seem to get nearly right, was the systems transition between three (four if we are being pedantic), nominally incompatible systems, two of which remain in transition to an uncertain, future definition, whilst the service has already begun, and seems to be working

 

 

Hi,

 

ETCS and CBTC are slightly different systems, but the major difference is that Thameslink basically had one supplier across the board, Siemens, they supplied the trains, the interlockings, the balises and the RBC, so it was relatively easy to get compatible systems (although in ETCS, everybodies equipment must be inter-operable) to work. 

 

For Crossrail, Siemens are supplying the CBTC system (Trainguard) and interlockings in the central core / eastern, Alstom have supplied the interlockings on the Western and the RBC for the ETCS, Bombardier are supplying the trains. I don't know specifically whether it is the integration that is causing problems, but I would imagine that has created headaches.

 

Of course, on such a big, and public project (Thameslink wasn't as well publicised during its construction as Crossrail), it is very hard to get a single supplier due to budget and competition rules etc.

 

Of course, there may be problems in the central section in trying to get a CBTC system that can easily be swapped for ETCS Level 3 when it comes (as Crossrail have to legally to).

 

Again, I don't know specific causes of problems, this is just an educated guess!

 

Simon

[The Stationmaster]

On 20/06/2019 at 22:28, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Recent photos of various Crossrail stations.....

 

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/our-plan-to-complete-the-elizabeth-line/ew-images-highlight-progress-on-elizabeth-line

 

 

 

.

Thanks Ron.  those photos remind me of something a pal said about what he had seen of Russia from a trip on the Trans Siberian - 'it'll be nice when it's finished'

[Platform 1]

This update for Bond Street has sneaked onto YT...

 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VrEwJz5PLsQ

 

 

Edited July 14, 2019 by Platform 1
correct URL

[Bob83a]

5 hours ago, Platform 1 said:

This update for Bond Street has sneaked onto YT...

 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VrEwJz5PLsQ

 

 

URL point to Tottenham Court Road not Bond Street

[Ron Ron Ron]

More Crossrail videos appearing....

 

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

[david.hill64]

On 22/06/2019 at 16:51, St. Simon said:

 

ETCS and CBTC are slightly different systems, but the major difference is that Thameslink basically had one supplier across the board, Siemens, they supplied the trains, the interlockings, the balises and the RBC, so it was relatively easy to get compatible systems (although in ETCS, everybodies equipment must be inter-operable) to work. 

 

Of course, there may be problems in the central section in trying to get a CBTC system that can easily be swapped for ETCS Level 3 when it comes (as Crossrail have to legally to).

I would say that ETCS level 2 and level 3 are examples of CBTC systems. Many CBTC systems have nothing in common with ETCS.

 

As you say, one of the main ideas why ETCS was introduced was that there would a common system that could be supplied competitively by multiple suppliers. I am now hearing whispers that supplier interoperability may not be as complete as hoped. This is ptentially problematic.

 

Why would Crossrail be legally obliged to move to ETCS level 3? (If and when such a beast exists).

[Platform 1]

18 hours ago, Bob83a said:

URL point to Tottenham Court Road not Bond Street

 

Odd - it was Bond Street when I posted it!

 

Anyway, recent videos are all here: https://www.youtube.com/user/CrossrailLtd/videos?disable_polymer=1

 

[St. Simon]

15 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

Why would Crossrail be legally obliged to move to ETCS level 3? (If and when such a beast exists).

 

Hi David,

 

As Crossrail is a new mainline railway, it falls under the European Interoperability Regulations and therefore must comply with Command Control and Signalling Technical Specification for Interoperability (CCS TSI), which effectively states that any new mainline railway must be equipped with ETCS.

 

However, to operate at the required frequency (24tph) and headway (50 seconds), Crossrail must use a moving block signalling system, but the problem is that it was considered simply too risky to try and develop ETCS Level 3 to a high enough level of maturity before Crossrail opened (which has since proved true!). So, this has meant that a derogation has been sort against the CCS TSI, this derogation has been accepted only if ETCS Level 3 is adopted when it is a mature enough system to deliver the service reliably. 

 

As the derogation effectively makes Crossrail compliant with the TSI in the eyes of the regulation and therefore conforms to European Law, anything that would invalidate the derogation (e.g.  deciding to keep CBTC instead of going with ETCS Level 3) would technically be illegal in European Law.

 

The above is still true whether or not we leave the EU (not that that is a cure to start a political discussion  )

 

Simon

[adb968008]

On 21/06/2019 at 08:02, Bernard Lamb said:

Interesting.

Farringdon and Custom House were on my route the other day and both seem to have been abandoned with little visible progress since I was last that way in October.

I would say that things have actually gone backwards at Farringdon as far as access by the general public is concerned.

Bernard

Farringdon is dangerous right now, there’s no escaping it.

 

ive has its pleasure daily in rush hour for the past few weeks.

 

the Met platforms are massively overcrowded, they should close off access to the Thameslink platforms, as too many are descending the “original” station entrance to descend the northbound Met stairs, walk 3/4 of the platform to a small access to the Southbound TL platform... they should split the entrances.. old for Tube, new for TL, plus the northbound exit which seems to cover both.

 

Similarly, outside on the street, there’s construction on 3 of 4 sides at street level throttling the public flow to the main road.. people are queuing up to the station doors, to cross the road 40 metres down.

 

its a real mess.

Edited July 15, 2019 by adb968008

[david.hill64]

7 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hi David,

 

As Crossrail is a new mainline railway, it falls under the European Interoperability Regulations and therefore must comply with Command Control and Signalling Technical Specification for Interoperability (CCS TSI), which effectively states that any new mainline railway must be equipped with ETCS.

 

However, to operate at the required frequency (24tph) and headway (50 seconds), Crossrail must use a moving block signalling system, but the problem is that it was considered simply too risky to try and develop ETCS Level 3 to a high enough level of maturity before Crossrail opened (which has since proved true!). So, this has meant that a derogation has been sort against the CCS TSI, this derogation has been accepted only if ETCS Level 3 is adopted when it is a mature enough system to deliver the service reliably. 

 

As the derogation effectively makes Crossrail compliant with the TSI in the eyes of the regulation and therefore conforms to European Law, anything that would invalidate the derogation (e.g.  deciding to keep CBTC instead of going with ETCS Level 3) would technically be illegal in European Law.

 

The above is still true whether or not we leave the EU (not that that is a cure to start a political discussion  )

 

Simon

Simon, not 100% correct I think.

 

Certainly you are correct that as a new  railway, Cross rail must comply with the interoperability directive and the TSI's that go with it. In the case of command and control (ie signalling) that means ETCS. Compliance with any of the versions is enough to satisfy the regulations. A derogation is required only if you are not compliant in whole or part with the TSI.

 

The ETCS level that you choose is dictated by the operating requirements. Most will choose ETCS level 2 (fixed block CBTC, train vacancy detection by infrastructure systems) but only because a proven ETCS level 3 (fixed or moving block CBTC, train vacancy detection by rolling stock) system doesn't exist. (There is of course a hybrid level 2/3 system as well). Operating requirements of 24 trains per hour can be satisfied by ETCS level 2 (see Thameslink). You don't need a moving block system to do this. For example the Bangkok Skytrain fixed block CBTC system can achieve 30 tph (but not on the Silom line where the single line section destroys headway).

 

Crossrail with ETCS level 2 in the new core centre will be compliant with the TSI and no derogation will be required against the TSI. However, the project team may have sought a concession from TfL to say that as a service proven TSI compliant level 3 system is not yet available they want to use level 2 for the time being.

 

I agree that choosing to use a moving block CBTC system that is not ETCS would be illegal, but that is not what Crossrail is doing.

 

Note also that according to the System Requirements Specification, ETCS level 3 doesn't have to be moving block. But in practice operators would probably want to take the advantage of moving block and have it configured as such.

Edited July 16, 2019 by david.hill64
update on ETCS level 3

[iands]

7 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

Simon, not 100% correct I think.

 

Certainly you are correct that as a new  railway, Cross rail must comply with the interoperability directive and the TSI's that go with it. In the case of command and control (ie signalling) that means ETCS. Compliance with any of the versions is enough to satisfy the regulations. A derogation is required only if you are not compliant in whole or part with the TSI.

 

The ETCS level that you choose is dictated by the operating requirements. Most will choose ETCS level 2 (fixed block CBTC, train vacancy detection by infrastructure systems) but only because a proven ETCS level 3 (fixed or moving block CBTC, train vacancy detection by rolling stock) system doesn't exist. (There is of course a hybrid level 2/3 system as well). Operating requirements of 24 trains per hour can be satisfied by ETCS level 2 (see Thameslink). You don't need a moving block system to do this. For example the Bangkok Skytrain fixed block CBTC system can achieve 30 tph (but not on the Silom line where the single line section destroys headway).

 

Crossrail with ETCS level 2 in the new core centre will be compliant with the TSI and no derogation will be required against the TSI. However, the project team may have sought a concession from TfL to say that as a service proven TSI compliant level 3 system is not yet available they want to use level 2 for the time being.

 

I agree that choosing to use a moving block CBTC system that is not ETCS would be illegal, but that is not what Crossrail is doing.

 

Note also that according to the System Requirements Specification, ETCS level 3 doesn't have to be moving block. But in practice operators would probably want to take the advantage of moving block and have it configured as such.

Except that Crossrail is not provided with Track Circuits (on the core route), unless a significant change in concept has occurred in the last couple of years or so. It is my understanding that ETCS Level 2 requires TC provision as part of the signalling control function.

[david.hill64]

1 hour ago, iands said:

Except that Crossrail is not provided with Track Circuits (on the core route), unless a significant change in concept has occurred in the last couple of years or so. It is my understanding that ETCS Level 2 requires TC provision as part of the signalling control function.

Then it must have axle counters. 

 

Either track circuits or axle counters are suitable. 

 

Unless I am seriously mis-remembering, the ETCS RBC gets track occupation status from the interlocking and has no direct link to track circuits or axle counters.

 

In the central CBTC section neither track circuits or axle counters would be required except as a fall back system.

Edited July 16, 2019 by david.hill64
Adding information re RBC and CBTC

[The Stationmaster]

7 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

Simon, not 100% correct I think.

 

Certainly you are correct that as a new  railway, Cross rail must comply with the interoperability directive and the TSI's that go with it. In the case of command and control (ie signalling) that means ETCS. Compliance with any of the versions is enough to satisfy the regulations. A derogation is required only if you are not compliant in whole or part with the TSI.

 

The ETCS level that you choose is dictated by the operating requirements. Most will choose ETCS level 2 (fixed block CBTC, train vacancy detection by infrastructure systems) but only because a proven ETCS level 3 (fixed or moving block CBTC, train vacancy detection by rolling stock) system doesn't exist. (There is of course a hybrid level 2/3 system as well). Operating requirements of 24 trains per hour can be satisfied by ETCS level 2 (see Thameslink). You don't need a moving block system to do this. For example the Bangkok Skytrain fixed block CBTC system can achieve 30 tph (but not on the Silom line where the single line section destroys headway).

 

Crossrail with ETCS level 2 in the new core centre will be compliant with the TSI and no derogation will be required against the TSI. However, the project team may have sought a concession from TfL to say that as a service proven TSI compliant level 3 system is not yet available they want to use level 2 for the time being.

 

I agree that choosing to use a moving block CBTC system that is not ETCS would be illegal, but that is not what Crossrail is doing.

 

Note also that according to the System Requirements Specification, ETCS level 3 doesn't have to be moving block. But in practice operators would probably want to take the advantage of moving block and have it configured as such.

So why has the core section of Crossrail been granted a derogation to allow it to use ETCS Level 2 until such time as as Level 3 can be implemented?

[david.hill64]

22 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

So why has the core section of Crossrail been granted a derogation to allow it to use ETCS Level 2 until such time as as Level 3 can be implemented?

My point, which I cannot have expressed properly, is that I do not believe such a derogation exists, nor is it necessary.

 

What is required by law is for the new Crossrail tracks that count as main line railway to be signalled in accordance with the CCS TSI: this means ETCS (at any level). In practice it is unlikely that anyone would choose level 1. As level 3 doesn't exist and hybrid level 3 is not yet proven, this means level 2. This is being used on the western section.

 

I think (but do not know) that the central section which is fitted with Siemens Trainguard CBTC must be counted as a metro, in which case it falls outside of the TSI.

 

As it happens since my earlier post I have been meeting today with the certification director from the Crossrail NoBo, who tells me that no derogations have been applied for on this project (and indeed that the NoBO has never supported any application for a derogation from any TSI). Given that derogations to TSI's can only be approved by the European Commission, I think his statement is probably correct.

 

It is possible, but I have no knowledge of it, that the project might have sought a concession to implement level 2 until such time as level 3 is available but given that headway requirements can be met with level 2, I doubt that as well. It is possible that they may wish to migrate the CBTC system to ETCS level 3 but unlikely. I think it more likely that Simon has been misinformed. I can certainly see no legal requirement (other than as part of an agreed contract between TfL and the Crossrail project team) to migrate to Level 3. Nothing in the directive supports this.

Edited July 16, 2019 by david.hill64
clarification about main line tracks

[The Stationmaster]

Unless it has been cancelled subsequently the derogation certainly exists - it took me about a minute to find it on the 'net.  Here it is (and I hope it isn't the NoBo I used to work for as we tried to check out back paperwork as carefully as we could) -

 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/rail/interoperability/interoperability/doc/c_2012_73_derogation_uk_ccs_tsi.pdf