Automated Trains Commence On London Undergrounds' Subsurface Railway

[Ron Ron Ron]

An interesting video that popped up on YouTube a couple of days ago.......

 

 

[ess1uk]

finally got this going then?

[Nearholmer]

Well made film; thanks for highlighting it.

[jim.snowdon]

2 hours ago, ess1uk said:

finally got this going then?

It's a start - let's see how well this team cope with the delights of getting this system (which seems to have had its origins in the Alcatel system that was persuaded to work on the DLR) to cope with the delights of the Praed Street Junction - Baker Street Junction section of the Metropolitan, never mind the triangular flat junctions at Aldgate and Kensington. From what I was given to understand, they were the downfall of the last contractor's attempt to install CBTC on the sub-surface lines.

 

(Most metro lines that get automated have a tendency to be single routes, with few junctions.)

 

Jim

[Ron Ron Ron]

Some lovely shots showing the size comparisons between Sub Surface, Tube stock and mainline trains.

Also some interesting glimpses of the various heritage stock.

 

 

 

.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

It's a start - let's see how well this team cope with the delights of getting this system (which seems to have had its origins in the Alcatel system that was persuaded to work on the DLR) to cope with the delights of the Praed Street Junction - Baker Street Junction section of the Metropolitan, never mind the triangular flat junctions at Aldgate and Kensington. From what I was given to understand, they were the downfall of the last contractor's attempt to install CBTC on the sub-surface lines.

 

(Most metro lines that get automated have a tendency to be single routes, with few junctions.)

 

Jim

 

This article is worth a read - LU are very well aware of the pitfalls.

 

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2019/ssr-towards-the-proposed-march-2020-timetable/

[ess1uk]

17 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

It's a start - let's see how well this team cope with the delights of getting this system (which seems to have had its origins in the Alcatel system that was persuaded to work on the DLR) to cope with the delights of the Praed Street Junction - Baker Street Junction section of the Metropolitan, never mind the triangular flat junctions at Aldgate and Kensington. From what I was given to understand, they were the downfall of the last contractor's attempt to install CBTC on the sub-surface lines.

 

(Most metro lines that get automated have a tendency to be single routes, with few junctions.)

 

Jim

if i remember correctly Thales and Alcatel did some deal where they swapped bits of their companies around so they could both win work more easily so yes the kit may well be Alcatel/Thales

[Nearholmer]

Summary of the product history and ownership, along with a list of installations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SelTrac

 

The Wiki page carries a "numerous issues" warning, but it looks reasonably correct to me.

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Nearholmer

[ess1uk]

my info was from here https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2015/10/15/london-underground-sub-surface-re-signalling/ and from when i worked for Thales on the Connect Project.

 

[phil-b259]

19 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

 

(Most metro lines that get automated have a tendency to be single routes, with few junctions.)

 

Jim

 

They do - but it doesn’ t follow that they will always be....

 

Granted it’s a long way off and there will be all sorts of, how can I put it ‘staffing issues’ to be overcome, but it’s a theoretical posability that once a Railway has been equipped with in cab signalling (i.e. ECTS) then you could arrange it for the train to drive itself with the driver being reduced to a ‘hit the emergency stop button’ / drive at slow speed during system failure type setup.

 

As ever with technology it’s difficult to predict how long it takes for things to become the norm but if you look back at how computing technology has advanced over the past 50 years then one thing which does come across strongly is just how often folk have underestimated how quickly seemingly futuristic advances become the new norm as it were.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Technology of this generic type already is normal for any new or upgraded metro.

 

Jim is right that SSR poses particular challenges, it being a highly untypical metro, of the “If we were to start again, we definitely wouldn’t do it like that” kind, but the challenge will be cracked, as it will be for railways with very diverse train performance characteristics.

[jim.snowdon]

The interesting challenges are going to be Edgware Road and Aldgate, principally on account of the extremely short overlaps in certain routes. The former station is, from what I was told, the proverbial straw that broke Bombardier's back, and it would tax a modern signalling designer to achieve the throughput and manage the overlaps.

 

Jim

[Nearholmer]

“Short overlaps” are really a fixed-block concept, so don’t really have any meaning in a moving-block system, although that isn’t to trivialise the challenges of the top left hand corner of the circle, which are formidable.

 

Mind you, an hour or two spent watching the delta junction, and the stations at the ends of it, on the DLR will convince anyone that “formidable challenge” and “impossible” are very different things.

[Oldddudders]

The first Sub-surface line automatic operation? I would suggest that was District train 123, on the up line between Acton Town and Chiswick Park, circa 1963.  It was a test-bed for the Victoria Line. 

[Grovenor]

The Thales Seltrac CBTC system is used on DLR, Jubilee, Northern and now SSL as well as many overseas lines. The system was first used in the mid 80s in Canada and now has almost 40 years development in many different railway environments.  SSl is probably the most challenging so far.

Rgds

 

PS Interesting to see in the film a big IF on the Croxley/Watford branch.

[The Stationmaster]

On 20/06/2019 at 19:10, jim.snowdon said:

The interesting challenges are going to be Edgware Road and Aldgate, principally on account of the extremely short overlaps in certain routes. The former station is, from what I was told, the proverbial straw that broke Bombardier's back, and it would tax a modern signalling designer to achieve the throughput and manage the overlaps.

 

Jim

I don't know if you've noticed Jim but during the not so long ago resignalling/signal renewal at Edgware Road a lot of the signals have been moved back.  Not a great distance and still with short overlaps but not as short as they used to be.

[jim.snowdon]

I haven't, yet, but I'm not certain the the three-aspect draw-up signals part way down the platforms still exist. Ditto at Baker Street eastbound circle.

 

Jim

 

[david.hill64]

An interesting video, though I think it does tend to confuse CBTC and ATO. I doubt for example that maintenance trains will be ATO even though they will be CBTC signalled.

[Nearholmer]

I thought that - I’m not at all sure that the narrated/scriptwriter really “got” what the big change is all about.

[62613]

8 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

An interesting video, though I think it does tend to confuse CBTC and ATO. I doubt for example that maintenance trains will be ATO even though they will be CBTC signalled.

CBTC?

 

[St. Simon]

8 minutes ago, 62613 said:

CBTC?

 

 

Communications Based Train Control.

 

It is the system that interfaces the interlocking with the train driver, usually known as in-cab signalling system.

 

8 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

An interesting video, though I think it does tend to confuse CBTC and ATO. I doubt for example that maintenance trains will be ATO even though they will be CBTC signalled.

 

Yes, maintenance trains as a concept are very hard to intergrate into an ATO system due to their irregular operation.

 

Simon

[Nearholmer]

The really key thing is not that it is “in cab signalling”, which (to me at least) implies a person in the control-loop, but that it is a “moving block”, rather than “fixed block” system, and is automatic, taking the person out of the control loop except to close the doors and hand over to the computers.

 

”in cab signalling” can mean a “simple” change from signals on sticks at the lineside, to signals in the cab ....... this is not that.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Nearholmer

[62613]

16 minutes ago, St. Simon said:

 

Communications Based Train Control.

 

It is the system that interfaces the interlocking with the train driver, usually known as in-cab signalling system.

 

Simon

Ta much!

 

[Nearholmer]

This explains the basics reasonably clearly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_control

 

Also, St Simon and David Hill, is there a terminological issue here, in that “in-cab signalling” seems to be used in some circumstances to describe systems up to and including ATO? I notice that Thameslink Core is referred to as “in-cab signalling”, for instance, when I think I might call it “ATO on fixed-block” (at least, that’s what I understand it to be).

Edited June 25, 2019 by Nearholmer

[St. Simon]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Also, St Simon and David Hill, is there a terminological issue here, in that “in-cab signalling” seems to be used in some circumstances to describe systems up to and including ATO? I notice that Thameslink Core is referred to as “in-cab signalling”, for instance, when I think I might call it “ATO on fixed-block” (at least, that’s what I understand it to be).

 

Hi,

 

You've ripped open a can of worms now, but you are right

 

'In-Cab Signalling' has become a general term used by not only the media, but by Network rail etc and Signalling Engineers to describe the next generation of signalling systems, which it doesn't fully do.

 

'In-Cab Signalling' only refers to how the driver receives their movement authority (I know that this is usually an ETCS term, but I think it is a good cover all term), so CBTC does have an 'in-cab signalling' component to it, as does ETCS Level 2 & ETCS Level 3 as all three of these systems provide the driver a movement authority via an in-cab display rather than fixed equipment at the lineside. ETCS Level 1 is not 'in-cab' signalling, as the Movement Authority is still given to the Driver via fixed line side equipment, not an in-cab display.

 

Automatic Train Operation is totally separate to 'in-cab signalling', it just so happens that most of the current suite of ATO systems require a signalling system that has an 'in-cab signalling' component to it (CBTC, ETCS L2, ETCS L3 etc). However, you don't require in-cab signalling to have ATO, after all, the Docklands is ATO, but doesn't have 'in-cab signalling', because it doesn't have a cab! You could in theory integrate ATO with ATP (Automatic Train Protection)  on the Great Western or Chilterns and still have fixed lineside equipment giving movement authority. 

 

As you say, there is also Moving Block and Fixed Block systems. Moving Block systems by definition have to use 'in-cab signalling', where as fixed block systems could use either fixed lineside signalling or 'in-cab signalling'. You don't have to have ATO on either system. Also, just to add to the complexity, moving block systems can have a fixed block train detection provide as an 'underlay' for degraded working

 

So, I would describe the signalling on Sub-Surface Lines and Thameslink as:

 

• LU Sub-Surface Lines:
  • Normal Operation = Automatic train operation supervised by a driver and controlled by a moving block signalling system using in-cab signalling 
  • Degraded Operation = Manual train operation controlled by a fixed block signalling system using in-cab signalling.
• Thameslink
  • Normal Operation = Automatic Train Operation supervised by a driver and controlled by a fixed block signalling system using in-cab signalling overlaid onto fixed lineside signalling
  • Degraded Operation = Manual train operation controlled by a fixed block signalling system using in-cab signalling overlaid onto fixed lineside signalling

(Just slips off the tongue doesn't it! )

 

Of course, Crossrail (just diverging from the topic slightly to demonstrate a point) is a huge combination of various systems:

• Reading to Stockley & Stratford (roughly) to Shenfield = Manual train operation controlled by a fixed block signalling system using fixed lineside signalling
• Heathrow / Stockley to Paddington = Manual train operation controlled by a fixed block signalling system using in-cab signalling overlaid onto fixed lineside signalling
• Padddington to Stratford / Abbeywood = Automatic train operation supervised by a driver and controlled by a moving block signalling system using in-cab signalling.

Then, on top of all of this, you have Automatic Train Protection (ATP), again, this is sometimes gathered into the general 'in-cab signalling' term, but is totally separate. You can have 'in-cab signalling' without ATP, it just so happens that the systems that have 'in-cab signalling' have ATP integrated as well. I think you might be able to get ATO without an ATP system, but it is almost certainly a really bad idea! Similarly you might be able to have a moving block system without ATP, but it's not a good idea.

 

I know it's complicated, but, I hope it helps!

 

Simon