Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[Mark Saunders]

Seattle had its own tunnelling problem!

 

https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/daylight-for-tbm-bertha-at-end-of-epic-journey

 

Mark Saunders

[ess1uk]

Article worth reading https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2019/12/04/crossrail-opening-goes-back-to-2021/

[Siberian Snooper]

A bit of an eye opener in some respects and begs the question, why can't they open Abbey Wood to Paddington (LL) as an entity in itself once all the safety testing and documentation is in place, before trying to integrate into the existing network. At least that would relieve some of the pressure on the Central line and get in some much needed revenue.

 

How many different  signaling systems are used between Paddington and Heathrow?

 

 

[phil-b259]

20 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

A bit of an eye opener in some respects and begs the question, why can't they open Abbey Wood to Paddington (LL) as an entity in itself once all the safety testing and documentation is in place, before trying to integrate into the existing network. At least that would relieve some of the pressure on the Central line and get in some much needed revenue.

 

How many different  signaling systems are used between Paddington and Heathrow?

 

 

 

Three.

 

ECTS for the Heathrow tunnels.

Lineside signals + enhanced TPWS between airport junction and Royal Oak portal.

CTC from Royal Oak through the core.

[The Stationmaster]

14 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Three.

 

ECTS for the Heathrow tunnels.

Lineside signals + enhanced TPWS between airport junction and Royal Oak portal.

CTC from Royal Oak through the core.

Plus the transitions between them - which is probably the most complicated bit to resolve with dynamic changeovers from one system to the next.   Oh and of course there is also AWS on the GWML plus presumably within the next year or two some level of ETCS commissioning will have taken place on the GWML?

 

43 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

A bit of an eye opener in some respects and begs the question, why can't they open Abbey Wood to Paddington (LL) as an entity in itself once all the safety testing and documentation is in place, before trying to integrate into the existing network. At least that would relieve some of the pressure on the Central line and get in some much needed revenue.

 

How many different  signaling systems are used between Paddington and Heathrow?

 

 

As announced last November of course although the article didn't appear until December and oddly the March 2021 date doesn't seem to have caused too much consternation in the public arena although whether it will be achieved is probably still an open question as it depends on getting a lot of software talking to other bits of software and doing so extremely reliably.   The other element of course is exactly what could be commissioned in March as it is not a major timetable change so effectively it might be no more than diverting trains from Paddington main line station to the Crossrail station but running in existing paths west of Ladbroke Grove - some of which are not exactly 'metronomic' (if that means what I think it means).

 

Logically then we could still see a phased introduction of services into the central section - which might actually be no bad thing - with a major timetable revision to the 'final' state coming along at a timetable change date.  The latter should really be December as it is nowadays the principal change date (although big changes have occurred at May changes since December became the principal date) but it then depends very much on the willingness of other operators to go along with change in May which could possibly be at relatively short notice if TfL want to make sure a March introduction is working reliably before going the whole hog.  In fact it would probably be in TfL's interest to aim to adjust what services they are running on the GWML and on the GE side to their final pattern at the December 2020 timetable change (if Paddington platforming allows, and even if they don't immediately use all their paths) so they are then able to changeover to using the central section with the final service pattern and intervals at any time in the subsequent timetable year and can build up frequency etc at a rate which suits them.

[david.hill64]

9 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Three.

 

ECTS for the Heathrow tunnels.

Lineside signals + enhanced TPWS between airport junction and Royal Oak portal.

CTC from Royal Oak through the core.

What happened to the GW ATP system? I thought that HEX used that.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, david.hill64 said:

What happened to the GW ATP system? I thought that HEX used that.

 

The BR era ATP(GW version) cannot be made to work simulatiously with the ECTS system that will be used by crossrail due to the two systems interfering with each other in the Heathrow tunnels.

 

Experts have spent YEARS trying to sort out the issues - but eventually had to admit defeat.

 

The BR era ATP is obsolete* with parts difficult to get and NO provision had been made for it in the design of Crossrail trains - so fitting it was not an option.

 

As such it has been necessary to REMOVE the ATP system (or switch it off) from the Heathrow tunnels in favour of ECTS

 

This in turn has required the original Heathrow Express stock - which do not have provision for ECTS (nor even TPWS / AWS as the ATP system includes the functionality said systems provide) to be replaced with refurbished 387s from GWR that are ECTS ready.

 

 

 

 

*In time the ATP system throughout the GWML will be replaced by ECTS which has the advantage of also facilitating an increase in speed to 140mph via the in cab signalling it can provide.

 

 

 

[david.hill64]

3 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The BR era ATP(GW version) cannot be made to work simulatiously with the ECTS system that will be used by crossrail due to the two systems interfering with each other in the Heathrow tunnels.

 

Experts have spent YEARS trying to sort out the issues - but eventually had to admit defeat.

 

The BR era ATP is obsolete* with parts difficult to get and NO provision had been made for it in the design of Crossrail trains - so fitting it was not an option.

 

As such it has been necessary to REMOVE the ATP system (or switch it off) from the Heathrow tunnels in favour of ECTS

 

This in turn has required the original Heathrow Express stock - which do not have provision for ECTS (nor even TPWS / AWS as the ATP system includes the functionality said systems provide) to be replaced with refurbished 387s from GWR that are ECTS ready.

 

 

 

 

*In time the ATP system throughout the GWML will be replaced by ECTS which has the advantage of also facilitating an increase in speed to 140mph via the in cab signalling it can provide.

 

 

 

OK that makes  a lot of sense, thanks. Last time I used HEX it was still in the hands of the original HEX units.

 

I recall that ETCS was trying to incorporate modules that allowed the onboard ETCS equipment to read wayside telegrams from legacy ATP systems and drive the ETCS ATP that way. There was even a suitable acronym for the modules but it's slipped my mind. I've been away from ETCS development for a while. If it hasn't been able to work then I am not surprised.

 

I was surprised that the IET's have the Alstom ATP system fitted: they must have dredged the bottom of the spares barrels (or took equipment from HST power cars (???)) to equip the trains.

 

For me, the next interesting thing will be to see if the government decides to let the Crossrail central core CBTC system live out its natural life rather than being replaced by ETCS level 3 when that becomes available.

[St. Simon]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

The BR era ATP(GW version) cannot be made to work simulatiously with the ECTS system that will be used by crossrail due to the two systems interfering with each other in the Heathrow tunnels.

 

Experts have spent YEARS trying to sort out the issues - but eventually had to admit defeat.

 

The BR era ATP is obsolete* with parts difficult to get and NO provision had been made for it in the design of Crossrail trains - so fitting it was not an option.

 

As such it has been necessary to REMOVE the ATP system (or switch it off) from the Heathrow tunnels in favour of ECTS

 

This in turn has required the original Heathrow Express stock - which do not have provision for ECTS (nor even TPWS / AWS as the ATP system includes the functionality said systems provide) to be replaced with refurbished 387s from GWR that are ECTS ready.

 

Hi Phil,

 

ATP and ETCS Level 1 / 2 are both fitted in the Heathrow Tunnels and are currently useable, and will be for some time, there's no infrastructure reason why they can't be used simultaneously. They are driven off different systems within the signalling (ETCS takes information directly from the interlocking through an RBC and out to the train via radio / balises, where as GW-ATP is a bolt on system from the outputs of the interlocking to pass information via Beacons)

 

The problem is that as GW-ATP and ETCS effectively provide the same function (Automatic Train Protection), they can't be used simultaneously by the same train, but there's nothing stopping Class 345's using ETCS and Class 332's using ATP at the same time. The reason for the delay in using the ETCS in the Heathrow tunnels is that they are still issues with the Class 345's, not the equipment on board the train.

 

There is no plan to turn off the GW-ATP equipment until ETCS reaches Bristol, even though it may be unused in the Heathrow Tunnels. The Class 80x's still need to use ATP (even though they have ETCS installed, GW would prefer to have it all the way to Bristol before they start using I believe).

 

The reason for the replacement of the HEx Stock is the need to get rid of the HEx Depot at Old Oak to make way for the new station there, therefore they need to be moved to a different depot which GWR have decided to be Reading (no other suitable Depot site is available between Paddington and Stockley). As the HEx Stock is not fitted with TPWS / AWS and ATP is not fitted to all lines beyond Stockley (nor will be), then different stock needs to be used to ensure safe operation, and GWR have gone with Class 387s with ETCS conversions.

 

14 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

How many different  signaling systems are used between Paddington and Heathrow?

 

Only two are currently being used by service trains:

 

• Paddington High Level to Stockley - Fixed block, using fixed train detection, multi-aspect signalling with AWS and enhanced TPWS (used by Class 16x, Class 345, Class 387 and Class 80x)
• Paddington High Level to Heathrow - Fixed block, using fixed train detection, multi-aspect signalling with GW-ATP (used by Class 332, Class 360 and Class 80x)

 

Once the Class 345 and Class 387s have been made to work on ETCS, that will increase to four

 

• Paddington High Level to Stockley  - Fixed block, using fixed train detection, multi-aspect signalling with AWS and enhanced TPWS (used by Class 16x, Class 345, Class 387 and Class 80x)

• Paddington High Level to Heathrow - Fixed block, using fixed train detection, multi-aspect signalling with GW-ATP (used by Class 332, Class 360 and Class 80x)

• Heathrow Airport Junction to just inside the Heathrow Tunnels - Fixed block, using fixed train detection, multi-aspect signalling with ETCS Level 1 Overlay (used by Class 345 and HEx Class 387)

• Just inside the Heathrow Tunnels to Terminals 4 & 5 - Fixed block, using fixed train detection, multi-aspect signalling with ETCS Level 2 Overlay (used by Class 345 and HEx Class 387)

 

When Crossrail is fully up and running and everything is installed, then there will still be four, but slightly different arrangements:

 

• Paddington Low Level to Westbourne Park - Moving block(?) CBTC in-cab signalling with back up fixed train detection (used by Class 345s)

• Paddington High Level to Stockley - Fixed block, using fixed train detection, multi-aspect signalling with AWS and enhanced TPWS (used by Class 16x, Class 345, GWR Class 387 and Class 80x

• Paddington High Level to Heathrow - Fixed block, using fixed train detection, multi-aspect signalling with GW-ATP (used by Class 80x)

• Paddington High Level to Heathrow - Fixed block, using fixed train detection, multi-aspect signalling with ETCS Level 2 Overlay (used by Class 345 and HEx Class 387)

2 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

I was surprised that the IET's have the Alstom ATP system fitted: they must have dredged the bottom of the spares barrels (or took equipment from HST power cars (???)) to equip the trains.

 

I believe they have to have ATP installed for running at 125mph, as that is part of the GWR Safety case.

 

Simon

[KeithMacdonald]

Simon - thanks - this is a great insight into the delays in getting new rolling stock into service.

 

 

[caradoc]

As an (ex) operator, not an engineer, I have to wonder.......Did no-one consider that using so many different and incompatible signalling systems, and getting them and the various types of train to work safely together, was liable to be difficult, expensive and protracted ? Was no other means of controlling Crossrail's trains considered, or possible ?

 

[KeithMacdonald]

It seems to be a universal curse, and a universally-applied process.

 

Stage 1

• Sales and Marketing (S&M) people meet Customer people
• S&M shows Customer pictures of shiny new toys with happy smiley End-Users
• Customer people tell End-Users : We're getting some new toys for you, very soon, promise ...
• S&M people tell Engineering people they (S&M) are very wonderful and have sold something (see the bonuses)
• Engineering people say : But what about this that and that and that and ..
• Sales and Marketing people say : Don't make trouble, we'll sort that out later ..
• (see Engineering people looking round for wall to bang heads on)

 

Stage 2 (repeat ad-nauseum)

• Customer people say : Oh we've just changed our minds, can you just ..
• S&M people say : No problem, here's the bill for the Change Request (see the bonuses)
• S&M people tell Engineering people : Go back and start again
• (see Engineering people looking round for wall to bang heads on)
• End-Users say : Where's the new toys you promised us?

 

Stage 3

• End-Users are screaming and shouting and throwing toys out of pram (and trashing their old toys)
• Customer says : Just give us whatever you've got (we're desperate)
• S&M people tell Engineering people : Stop effing about changing things and deliver something/anything
• (see Engineering people looking round for wall to bang heads on)
• End-Users say : WTF is this? It's not what you promised

And so on ..

 

Edit : There are so many Dilbert cartoons that are relevant and appropriate, it's a tragedy not a comedy.

Edited January 10, 2020 by KeithMacdonald
Dilbert

[The Stationmaster]

49 minutes ago, caradoc said:

As an (ex) operator, not an engineer, I have to wonder.......Did no-one consider that using so many different and incompatible signalling systems, and getting them and the various types of train to work safely together, was liable to be difficult, expensive and protracted ? Was no other means of controlling Crossrail's trains considered, or possible ?

 

I have a strong suspicion that Crossrail's trains were designed in something of a vacuum outside the 'main line railway' but with a list of the systems which had to be fitted in order to operate on that railway (i.e. AWS, TPWS, and the ability to readily migrate to ETCS - do they also have DRA I wonder?).   The fact that TfL, for various reasons, chose something different for the underground section is of course wholly down to them and their specific requirements for a high frequency underground railway but on that at section alone they are already on a recently reissued version of the software to, it is reported, finally achieve full functionality.

 

Thus there are a mix of functionalities and reliabilities to be sorted but up until now - apart from initially a lack of ETCS to Heathrow and then a need to test it - the reported testing and commissioning delays and problems have all occurred on the central underground section thus involving only one of the control systems fitted to the trains.  The fact that the trains have been in service of NR trackage for some time without any reported (in the public arena) problems suggests to me that they have no functional problems with either AWS or TPWS 

[Platform 1]

Today's Crossrail press release: "Elizabeth line services through central London expected to commence in summer 2021"

 

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/elizabeth-line-services-through-central-london-expected-to-commence-in-summer-2021#

 

[The Stationmaster]

15 minutes ago, Platform 1 said:

Today's Crossrail press release: "Elizabeth line services through central London expected to commence in summer 2021"

 

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/elizabeth-line-services-through-central-london-expected-to-commence-in-summer-2021#

 

And full service from 'mid 2022'. (allsubject to satisfactory orogress with testing etc).

 

It continues to amuse me that they still promote the misleading (or delusional?) impression that they have taken over stopping train services between Paddington and Reading because the fact of the matter is that they have not.  

 

The only stations on the route (excluding branch services) which are exclusively served by Crossrail trains are Acton Mainline, West Ealing, and Hanwell.  All other intermediate stations between Paddington and Reading still have GWR services although the proportion of trains run by the two operators varies with certain stations Iver, Langley, Burnham, and Taplow only being served by a handful of GWR trains; up to a split of c.50% at Twyford,  Maidenhead, and Slough; around 40% operated by GWR at West Drayton, whiled somewhere between 30-40% of trains calling at Hayes, Southall, and Ealing Broadway are still being operated by GWR.

[St. Simon]

2 hours ago, caradoc said:

Was no other means of controlling Crossrail's trains considered, or possible ?

 

Hi,

 

As discussed back on Page 37 (I won't blame you for not reading back that far, took me a little while to find it!):

 

Simon

[Ron Ron Ron]

Simon, may I ask why have you attributed a quote to me?

Poor editing or formatting of the quote you’ve grabbed perhaps?

[Paul.Uni]

23 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Simon, may I ask why have you attributed a quote to me?

Are you referring to the link in his post? If so then that is the formatting of RMWeb. The bit with the Red around is the first post of this thread (which is yours). The bit inside the blue but outside the red is the post that is linked to.

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Paul.Uni

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

 

There is no plan to turn off the GW-ATP equipment until ETCS reaches Bristol, even though it may be unused in the Heathrow Tunnels. The Class 80x's still need to use ATP (even though they have ETCS installed, GW would prefer to have it all the way to Bristol before they start using I believe).

 

 

That goes directly against a number of other things I have read on other forums which are quite clear that the ATP and ECTS do interfere with each other in the Heathrow Tunnels!

 

The reports I have seen all say that the fundamental problem is the way each acts within a tube - there is not a problem mixing both out in the open air on the GWML proper. RF engineers can show the two can be seen to interact even without a train!

 

Its not a signalling system issue per say, - its a Radio Frequency issue within the tunnels.

 

This is an unexpected development that was not anticipated during the initial design work - particularly as on the open air GWML proper the two systems are quite happy co-existing together. As such its not really a train fault and presumably would still be causing problems were Crossrail using dual fitted 387 EMUs

 

Thus the ONLY way Crossrail trains can be allowed into Heathrow is either fit them with ATP and switch off ECTS in the tunnels, or, as is planned, turning off ATP in favour of ECTS. That prevents the RF interference between the two systems.

[Ron Ron Ron]

46 minutes ago, Paul.Uni said:

Are you referring to the link in his post? If so then that is the formatting of RMWeb. The bit with the Red around is the first post of this thread (which is yours). The bit inside the blue but outside the red is the post that is linked to.

 

 

 

 

There's something wrong there because this doesn't normally happen when quoting, even when the quote was an answer to a previous quote, or when a multiple quote sequence is displayed.

I have made numerous posts that have used quotes from posts responding to or containing other quotes.

This never happens.

Thousands of other posts are similar and again this never happens.

You only have to look at this page, above, to see there are several posts including quotes, that do not include the opening 

 

The area highlighted in red is not related to the response below, but as you say comes from the opening post made, made some 4 years earlier.

I have nothing to do with the comments in the post, or those in the post it refers to, yet my name is there and I receive a notification that I have been quoted or replied to.

 

I can see it's not Simon's fault.

The error might be as a result of someone earlier in the thread badly editing their post and mangling up the quote boundaries.

The software then retaining the result for future quotations.

 

Anyway, it's very annoying, especially if it's the result of uncorrected sloppiness at the point of error.

 

Sorry go going way off topic folks.

I'll shut up now.

Cheers to all.

Ron  

 

 

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

 

This one is really aimed at Joe Public, so a bit of vague PR.

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

 

This one is really aimed at Joe Public, so a bit of vague PR.

 

What would be interesting from my point of view is to see how they will liaise with remotely situated NR control offices and signalling centres.  And, presumably, what sort of contingency arrangements are in place for service disruptions and infrastructure problems.   Ctossrail on the GWML will be the first place where TfL operations are directly involved with a very busy multi-traffic railway which will create some interesting challenges during times of perturbation.

[caradoc]

Thanks for the update regarding interoperability St.Simon, and clearly there was no choice but to comply with the directive, but again, I have to wonder why that directive has to apply to Crossrail, the central (ie new) section of which will never be required to accept any other trains that those specifically designed for it, currently Class 345, and whatever types succeed it in the future. It just seems to be absolute overkill to apply such a blanket standard regardless of the reality on the ground.

[Mike Storey]

48 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

What would be interesting from my point of view is to see how they will liaise with remotely situated NR control offices and signalling centres.  And, presumably, what sort of contingency arrangements are in place for service disruptions and infrastructure problems.   Ctossrail on the GWML will be the first place where TfL operations are directly involved with a very busy multi-traffic railway which will create some interesting challenges during times of perturbation.

 

Er, no. TfL operations have been working with a fully, multi-functional railway on the Eastern section (particularly at, and east of, Stratford) for a year or two now, and of course, for a decade or so, on the NLL and ELL (and more recently SLL). Whilst the arrangements are different for the Crossrail central section, the ability to liaise and manage peturbation is well rehearsed. The test will be whether the peturbation pre-planning, once the tunnel section is open, stacks up in contact with the enemy.....