Freight services being updated

[Grovenor]

I appreciate that Ron but are both passenger and freight being fitted in the same period?  If the freight is not expected to be completed until 2022 and the passnger after that then I don't see it being much use for many years.  Then once they are all fitted and tested they will start to remove the signals.  So not in the foreseeabe future then!

The freight is not expected to be complete by 2022, that is when fitting starts, below quote from the NR story

 

work to retrofit the entire freight fleet will begin in 2022 and continue through to Control Period 7 (CP7, 2024-2029).

Regards

[chriswright03]

The freight is not expected to be complete by 2022, that is when fitting starts, below quote from the NR story

Regards

This was the bit that I read.

 

 

The initial focus will be on the heaviest used types of locomotive and the learning from this first stage will be used to inform the wider potential fleet roll-out from 2022 onwards

[Supaned]

ETCS doesn't have to do away with lineside signals though - depending upon which level is implemented , there may or may not be lineside signals present , and , presumably in certain locations even with the level that does away with them , there will still need to be some sort of route indication provided (ie at certain junctions , mutli platform stations ) , especially as unlike some other countries , we insist on having different crossover speeds at the same locations.

[The Stationmaster]

During a reorganisation consultation in the 1980s my then Regional S&T Engineer removed Locking Fitters from our organisation chart. His reasoning was that all lever frames would be gone from BR within about 20 years, so there was no need to train up and maintain specialist staff, those remaining could still do the job from the combined gangs. I researched the rate of resignalling at the time and we put the case forward that even with doubling the rate of resignalling experienced between 1959 and 1984 it would take approaching 50 years to complete the whole railway if the network and traffic level remained approximately the same as it stood at the time. I think my estimate may be it a bit closer than his.

 

Something similar happened on the Western - by the mid 1980s virtually all the Locking Fitters had retired and none were being trained to fill the gap.  thus when we put signalling in on the museum site at Tyseley the locking work on the frame was done by two BR S&T Techs to enable them to be trained as Locking fitters by one of the few remaining WR locking experts (the now late John Madeley) at 'beneficial rates' to both the museum and the WR.  And by strange coincidence I came across one of the 'trainees' at Shrewsbiury in the early 1990s when he was doing some work on Reading frame there on behalf of the LMR.

 

And locking design is still needed, my former S&T engineering employer (which is now part of NR), has had several mechanical locking design jobs in recent years, so that makes around 30 years from the mid 1980s. 

[Rugd1022]

It is virtually impossible to fit to various preserved locos, especially those propelled by steam as it not only initiates a brake application in certain conditions if the Driver doesn't do it but will so cut off the power.  Not to difficult to do things with brake systems (apart from all sorts of graduated applications etc) - after all the GWR was doing it over a century back.  But cutting off the power is a rather more sophisticated task which means going into the control system of the loco and it would not be at all easy to incorporate on a steam engine without some design changes of a very basic sort.

 

Incidentally there is another challenge with freight when it comes to braking as train load has to be taken into account plus the way in which brake force develops through the train.  BR trials with ATP showed it was well nigh impossible to get consistent brake application on a freight, even using the same train several times over which came up with a different stopping distance every time.  Freight fitment could prove to face some interesting hurdles I think.

 

Your last sentence Mike pretty much sums up something which I've been banging on about for years, that real life freight train handling / braking / behaviour is often nothing like the 'on paper' version put forward by people who've never actually done the job. I can have the same loco and set of wagons five days a week on the same route with the same signalling sequence and running times, but the way the train reacts to my inputs at the control desk will vary a lot. Throw in variations in the ambient temperature within the braking system, the rail head condition, weather etc and it will differ again from one day to the next, or even across several brake applications during the same shift, it's just the way it is. I estimate I've probably driven at least four hundred different 66s in the last sixteen years and the controls do not have the same 'feel' or response throughout. Coupling stretch and buffering play a part in the variations in braking response too, something which is often overlooked.

[iands]

It is virtually impossible to fit to various preserved locos, especially those propelled by steam as it not only initiates a brake application in certain conditions if the Driver doesn't do it but will so cut off the power.  Not to difficult to do things with brake systems (apart from all sorts of graduated applications etc) - after all the GWR was doing it over a century back.  But cutting off the power is a rather more sophisticated task which means going into the control system of the loco and it would not be at all easy to incorporate on a steam engine without some design changes of a very basic sort.

 

Incidentally there is another challenge with freight when it comes to braking as train load has to be taken into account plus the way in which brake force develops through the train.  BR trials with ATP showed it was well nigh impossible to get consistent brake application on a freight, even using the same train several times over which came up with a different stopping distance every time.  Freight fitment could prove to face some interesting hurdles I think.

Re the licensed "preserved steam locos" capable of main line running, if they can't be practicably/economically "ETCS fitted", then they will be prevented from operating over those ETCS lines that will no longer have traditional lineside signals - however, I think that day is a very long way off yet.

 

Regards, Ian.

[Steadfast]

I'd rather have seen the money spent on grants to help enable more freight on rail and help to create a more level playing field between the costs of road and rail. The freight sector always seems like the poor relation, but with investment everyone could benefit.

 

Jo

[The Stationmaster]

Your last sentence Mike pretty much sums up something which I've been banging on about for years, that real life freight train handling / braking / behaviour is often nothing like the 'on paper' version put forward by people who've never actually done the job. I can have the same loco and set of wagons five days a week on the same route with the same signalling sequence and running times, but the way the train reacts to my inputs at the control desk will vary a lot. Throw in variations in the ambient temperature within the braking system, the rail head condition, weather etc and it will differ again from one day to the next, or even across several brake applications during the same shift, it's just the way it is. I estimate I've probably driven at least four hundred different 66s in the last sixteen years and the controls do not have the same 'feel' or response throughout. Coupling stretch and buffering play a part in the variations in braking response too, something which is often overlooked.

 

Very much so Nidge, it's one reason why I was very strongly in favour of creating separate freight Driver depots on the Western back in the early 1990s as in my opinion (and I wasn't alone in that) it was important to concentrate freight train handling with Drivers who would be doing it all the time (even if it did greatly upset Reading LDC who lost their ballast turns when I moved them to Didcot).

 

 It's also a darned good job those Old Oak based vacuum braked commuter sets won't be around when ETCS as the braking on those could be 'somewhat variable' to say the least

[iands]

Just going back to the "ETCS" comment, it should be remembered that the central section of Crossrail will be ATO and no lineside signals will be provided. Therefore some passenger stock at least will be "in-cab signalling" enabled prior to the freight fleet.

 

Regards, Ian.

[Oakydoke]

Not forgetting the central core of Thameslink either.

[Edwin_m]

Thameslink's ATO system is ETCS-based, unlike Crossrail which switches to a different system on entering the central area.  However the Thameslink core will retain lineside signals so non-ETCS trains can still use it albeit at a lower frequency. 

[iands]

Thameslink's ATO system is ETCS-based, unlike Crossrail which switches to a different system on entering the central area.  However the Thameslink core will retain lineside signals so non-ETCS trains can still use it albeit at a lower frequency.

 

The Crossrail 'Central Operating Section' Signalling & Control System essentially consists of four subsystems;

• Automatic Train Control

• Automatic Train Supervision

• Interlocking, and

• Radio Communication System

 

I assume the Thameslink system will be pretty similar.

 

Regards, Ian.

[D1059]

I appreciate that Ron but are both passenger and freight being fitted in the same period?  If the freight is not expected to be completed until 2022 and the passnger after that then I don't see it being much use for many years.  Then once they are all fitted and tested they will start to remove the signals.  So not in the foreseeabe future then!

 

'Tongue in cheeck mode on' - It'll be like the proposal to harmonise our roads with the EU so that we drive on the right. Lorries first in order to phase the change in :)  'Tongue in cheek mode off'

[Supaned]

Your last sentence Mike pretty much sums up something which I've been banging on about for years, that real life freight train handling / braking / behaviour is often nothing like the 'on paper' version put forward by people who've never actually done the job. I can have the same loco and set of wagons five days a week on the same route with the same signalling sequence and running times, but the way the train reacts to my inputs at the control desk will vary a lot. Throw in variations in the ambient temperature within the braking system, the rail head condition, weather etc and it will differ again from one day to the next, or even across several brake applications during the same shift, it's just the way it is. I estimate I've probably driven at least four hundred different 66s in the last sixteen years and the controls do not have the same 'feel' or response throughout. Coupling stretch and buffering play a part in the variations in braking response too, something which is often overlooked.

 

And to a lesser extent with passenger trains. This is why, despite the wailing of the press and anti-rail lobby , we won't be seeing automatic trains on a main line any time soon. If technologically advanced countries such as Japan don't do it , there's a very good reason why....

[ess1uk]

I’ve often wondered about this.

Just because it works on a line where all the trains are the same doesn’t mean it will work so well on a mixed traffic railway.

[david.hill64]

The drivers behind this are money, reliability (=money) and capacity (=money).

 

In its most advanced state ETCS level 3 provides moving block signalling which completely does away with the need for lineside signals, track circuits and axle counters unless the railway decides to retain them as back up in case of system failure.

 

Although point machines and their associated power and control circuitry remain, signals and train detection equipment is replaced by radio masts and block controllers. The latter, together with interlockings and associated object controllers are likely to be installed in safe accessible locations rather than out in the sticks somewhere.

 

So ETCS level 3 has reduced costs of installation, better reliability (reduced costs of repair and delay compensation) and allows trains to run closer together so increases track capacity. Actually not by much compared to 4 aspect signals at up to 125mph but crucially it also permits higher speed running. However, 25 years after first being under development, the system specifications have only just been agreed.

 

Even at ETCS level 2 there is no requirement for lineside signals though many railways would choose to retain them. Level 2 is fixed block and adds little in the way of capacity enhancements compared to a well designed 4 aspect installation. Where it does win is in multi track environments where signalling convention has been to make block lengths the same on fast and slow lines to protect against misreading signals.

 

EU regulations require that ETCS is fitted as the replacement signalling system on route upgrades or for new lines so correctly Network Rail has been moving towards this. Even if UK wasn’t bound to use this system there are good reasons for doing so, which is why it has applications outside of Europe.

 

Level 2 is the system being fitted and because this is a Network change forced upon the train operators for the benefit primarily of the infrastructure owner, the operators are protected from the costs of implementation. At this point I will confess that my knowledge isn’t current, but that is certainly how it was set up at privatisation.

[Fat Controller]

I’ve often wondered about this.

Just because it works on a line where all the trains are the same doesn’t mean it will work so well on a mixed traffic railway.

It seems to work well enough on the BLS's Lötschberg base tunnel; I was lucky enough to be invited along to a technical visit there a few years ago. The tunnel was intended to be a twin-bore one with crossovers at 1/3rd and 2/3rd of the way across; after tunneling both bores for 2/3rd of the way, money became tight, so the Swiss fitted track in both tunnels for 1/3 of the length, then continuing as single track. The second tunnel was bored, but not fitted out, for the middle third, and the final third bored for a short distance. In order to maximise throughput, a train must enter the single-track section, within seconds of a train coming the other way clearing it- the speeds for both trains is calculated very precisely (as you might expect from the Swiss). Unlike TVM, which works in speed bands of varying width, ETCS will give the planned speed to within 1 kph on the cab display. I should add the line carries a broad mixture of traffic, from heavy freight to express passenger.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Fat Controller

[iands]

The drivers behind this are money, reliability (=money) and capacity (=money).

In its most advanced state ETCS level 3 provides moving block signalling which completely does away with the need for lineside signals, track circuits and axle counters unless the railway decides to retain them as back up in case of system failure.

Although point machines and their associated power and control circuitry remain, signals and train detection equipment is replaced by radio masts and block controllers. The latter, together with interlockings and associated object controllers are likely to be installed in safe accessible locations rather than out in the sticks somewhere.

So ETCS level 3 has reduced costs of installation, better reliability (reduced costs of repair and delay compensation) and allows trains to run closer together so increases track capacity. Actually not by much compared to 4 aspect signals at up to 125mph but crucially it also permits higher speed running. However, 25 years after first being under development, the system specifications have only just been agreed.

Even at ETCS level 2 there is no requirement for lineside signals though many railways would choose to retain them. Level 2 is fixed block and adds little in the way of capacity enhancements compared to a well designed 4 aspect installation. Where it does win is in multi track environments where signalling convention has been to make block lengths the same on fast and slow lines to protect against misreading signals.

EU regulations require that ETCS is fitted as the replacement signalling system on route upgrades or for new lines so correctly Network Rail has been moving towards this. Even if UK wasn’t bound to use this system there are good reasons for doing so, which is why it has applications outside of Europe.

Level 2 is the system being fitted and because this is a Network change forced upon the train operators for the benefit primarily of the infrastructure owner, the operators are protected from the costs of implementation. At this point I will confess that my knowledge isn’t current, but that is certainly how it was set up at privatisation.

There will still be quite a few bits of lineside kit, point machines (as you say), a number of track balizes will also be required as well as the radio system (in addition to GSMR). As for Crossrail (Central Section), Axle Counters will also be provided although not directly connected to the signalling system - these will be used for "positional" purposes for other systems such as GSMR and the Customer Information Systems to name but two. Therefore, there will still be quite a bit of lineside cabling and kit, but agreed not to the same level as "conventional" signalling systems.

 

Regards, Ian.

[jim.snowdon]

 

So ETCS level 3 has reduced costs of installation, better reliability (reduced costs of repair and delay compensation) and allows trains to run closer together so increases track capacity. Actually not by much compared to 4 aspect signals at up to 125mph but crucially it also permits higher speed running. However, 25 years after first being under development, the system specifications have only just been agreed.

 

Yes, in that the hysteresis steps in the minimum train headway are greatly reduced conpared to fixed signalling. By how much is a moot point. The optimum is a railway where all the trains have essentially identical performance characteristics, in reality a metro system that is separate from any other railway network. The problem with a mixed traffic railway, which is what the Network Rail system is, is the extent to which line capacity is reduced by trains that travel at a range of markedly different speeds. Hence, in times past, the construction of the various four-track main lines as a means of reducing the differential between the fastest and slowest trains on each pair of lines. Most of the railway still consists of two-track line, shared between relatively high speed passenger services, lower speed stopping services and freight services. However tightly you can manage the headway between them, such a wide range eats up available line capacity quickly and I can't see anything whereby the Digital Railway, ie ETCS, will cure that.

 

I'm not that convinced that reliability will be much higher either - current reliability issues seem to be centred around points, power supply glitches on the DNO networks and cable failures - none of those will disappear with the advent of ETCS. And when failures do occur (as they will) the railway appears to be getting less and less capable of dealing with them in a timely manner, both in terms of keeping things going and in getting staff to sites. The latter applies just as much to the inner city locations as it does to rural installations, largely because staff are road based for mobility. Getting to a failure in inner London at some times of day can incur significant delays just on account of the levels of road traffic.

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

I should have added that an undesirable characteristic, at least in operational terms, of some of these computer based systems, certainly axle counters, is a tendency to revert to the "don't know, therefore stop everything" state in the event of power supply losses. At least, with conventional track circuits, they would show the actual state as soon as power was restored.

 

Jim

[david.hill64]

There will still be quite a few bits of lineside kit, point machines (as you say), a number of track balizes will also be required as well as the radio system (in addition to GSMR). As for Crossrail (Central Section), Axle Counters will also be provided although not directly connected to the signalling system - these will be used for "positional" purposes for other systems such as GSMR and the Customer Information Systems to name but two. Therefore, there will still be quite a bit of lineside cabling and kit, but agreed not to the same level as "conventional" signalling systems.

 

Regards, Ian.

Yes I had omitted balises (and for level 2 block marker posts), but as these are passive they should be fit and forget.

[david.hill64]

I should have added that an undesirable characteristic, at least in operational terms, of some of these computer based systems, certainly axle counters, is a tendency to revert to the "don't know, therefore stop everything" state in the event of power supply losses. At least, with conventional track circuits, they would show the actual state as soon as power was restored.

 

Jim

Which is one reason why some MRTs have done away with secondary detection altogether (eg Bangkok BTS Skytrain). With every piece of vital equipment duplicated - both wayside and onboard - secondary detection is unnecessary unless you operate mixed signalling systems (eg Marmaray, Istanbul). Fitting secondary detection also leads to questions of priority: if the secondary detection says occupied, you probably have to believe it even though the CBTC says otherwise.

 

However, for Network Rail, given the time it will take to switch over to fully equipped trains it is inevitable that axle counters / track circuits will be required for some time.

[Shed]

does this rely on decent GSMR coverage?

[david.hill64]

does this rely on decent GSMR coverage?

It relies on 100% availability of the radio system (temporary black-outs tolerated). For the standard system this is GSM-R, but outside the EU there is a hybrid system using TETRA rather than GSM-R. It is in one of the -stans. I cannot remember of it is Kazakhstan or Tajikistan.

[Shed]

It relies on 100% availability of the radio system (temporary black-outs tolerated). For the standard system this is GSM-R, but outside the EU there is a hybrid system using TETRA rather than GSM-R. It is in one of the -stans. I cannot remember of it is Kazakhstan or Tajikistan.

never heard of it on TETRA before, that's interesting.