E.R.T.M.S.

[phil-b259]

The official measures of distance on Britain's railways are miles, chains and yards and that was agreed at EU level.  thus any change, in order to have legal force, would have to be made at that level although what would happen after Brexit is interesting as it might require primary legislation to revoke teh EU ruling.  And why change anyway, we have a perfectly sensible system of distance measurement which makes sense to everybody in Britain who drives a car or goes walking etc?

 

The 'digital railway' which is basically a phrase from the bullsh*t bingo handbook can be in any sort of units the programmers care to choose and all track speeds, especially at fitting work, are expressed in MPH - are they going to relay all the track as well?

 

However, it has long been recognised by the Railway industry (including British Rail), that where reasonable, metric measures will be used. UK track gauge is measured in mm NOT feet and inches, while any new signalling scheme plan will show distances (for example between the AWS and a signal as 183 meters NOT 200 yards.

 

The exemption the UK has obtained to the EU is actually more about the EU recognising that the wholesale conversion of the existing railway network to Metric measurement is a very inefficient use of funds that could be better spent elsewhere. When designing a completely NEW systemlike the CTRL / HS1 and HS2 however, Metric must be adopted as the standard.

 

Yes the Engineers Line Referances (used to tell where you are for the unknowing - e.g. Victoria To Brighton section 3 22 miles 41 Chains) still use imperial measures, as do speed measurement - but everything else has been 'metricised'

 

However all the Engineers Line References on HS1 and no doubt HS2 will use KM, M and mm, NOT Miles and Chains.

 

The main reason for this is that outside the USA everybody in Science and Engineering has embraced metric measurements - which is the official international standard. This facilitates international trade - and removes additional costs that have no relevance to the actual product being produced other than to pander to peoples prejudices.

 

ERTMS / ECTS was set up purposely to be a system to be used throughout Europe - where apart from the UK metric is universal. It is irrational to expect manufacturers* of the system to go round designing bespoke add-ons to already expensive signalling equipment simply so the UK can keep imperial speed limits.

 

Now if we turn to the Cambrian system, while it is most definitely not a NEW railway system, in some respects it could be treated as such. There was only a single link to the rest of the UKs railway system (Shrewsbury) and the small pool rolling stock used could easily be converted to work with both KPH or MPH. As such it was very easy to convert the relevant ELRs / lineside distance markers etc to metric and apply an unmodified ERTMS / ECTS system - which lest anyone forget was supposed to be a 'pilot' of the single track railway variant whose record in service was supposed to be directly comparable to other types of  'pilot' installations elsewhere in Continental Europe.

 

Looking to the future, the units used for ERTMS / ECTS will depend greatly on the situation. For example on the GWML where ERTMS / ECTS is added as an overlay over existing lineside signals (thus meaning non ETRMS /ECTS trains can continue to use the tracks) then MPH is the logical choice for the drivers display as the although more expensive to buy it does save spending a vast fortune on duplicating every single board with dual limits etc.

 

By contrast where ERMTS / ECTS is used instead of lineside signals (as is planned for the ECML south of Peterborough) and thus all non ERTMS / ECTS fitted trains are BANNED from using the tracks (like the current situation on the Cambrian lines) then there is no issue in having speed limits shown in KPH - with a switchover to MPH occurring at the boundary.

 

Current 'boundary' locations where the units of speed measurement change are Shrewsbury, Ashford, Dollands Moor & Ripple lane. This list will expand with HS2 (planned to be an all metric railway)

 

Obviously the Cumbrian system could (with significant extra expenditure) have made to work with imperial measures - but that's not the point. ETRMS / ECTS is supposed to be a standardised system independent of what previous national railway administrations have installed. It is expressly designed to do away with each nation having its 'own' variant or being locked in to a specific manufacturer. The fact that the UK has historically used imperial measures in the past makes no difference to the future.

 

*Incidentally before 2005 Ireland used imperial speed limits on its road network (although distances on roadsigns had switched to KMs back in the 1970s). Before 2005 cars sold in Ireland had identical speedometers to the UK with a large MPH and a smaller KPH indication shown. After the changeover in speed limits cars switched to only having KPH indication. Why was this so? The answer is that it simply wasn't economic for vehicle manufacturers to provide a RH drive car with a large KPH + small MPH speedometer just for the Irish market. It was technically possible of course - but uneconomic to do so. Much like cars sold in the rest of continental could have a MPH indication just in case the owner fancied a trip to the UK.....

Edited May 13, 2018 by phil-b259

[E3109]

Ireland uses miles and mph on the railway. Pretty sure Canada does too.

 

Not directly connected to this topic, but it's interesting how close the IE/NIR combined Rule Book is to the GB version.

PDF link below.

I checked whether the 'four-foot' is referred to as the 'five-foot' in Erin, and as expected, it is.

 

http://www.irishrail.ie/media/iarnrod_eireann_safety_rule_book_2018.pdf

[John_Hughes]

Ireland uses miles and mph on the railway. Pretty sure Canada does too.

 

Not directly connected to this topic, but it's interesting how close the IE/NIR combined Rule Book is to the GB version.

PDF link below.

I checked whether the 'four-foot' is referred to as the 'five-foot' in Erin, and as expected, it is.

 

http://www.irishrail.ie/media/iarnrod_eireann_safety_rule_book_2018.pdf

 

IIRC, the Croydon trams have their speed limits designated in KmH - can anyone confirm?

 

I was living in Canada when metrication happened there. It was done and dusted in literally a single weekend, and on a drive to the Rockies we actually saw a group of workmen fastening the metric equivalents over the Imperial figures on the road signs.

 

Why on earth Britain has to make such a silly fuss over something so easy to do and so obviously beneficial is a total mystery to me. Or do people believe that schoolchildren are still being taught how many furlongs there are in a mile and how many poles there are in a perch? Lord preserve us!

[The Stationmaster]

However, it has long been recognised by the Railway industry (including British Rail), that where reasonable, metric measures will be used. UK track gauge is measured in mm NOT feet and inches, while any new signalling scheme plan will show distances (for example between the AWS and a signal as 183 meters NOT 200 yards.

 

The exemption the UK has obtained to the EU is actually more about the EU recognising that the wholesale conversion of the existing railway network to Metric measurement is a very inefficient use of funds that could be better spent elsewhere. When designing a completely NEW systemlike the CTRL / HS1 and HS2 however, Metric must be adopted as the standard.

 

Yes the Engineers Line Referances (used to tell where you are for the unknowing - e.g. Victoria To Brighton section 3 22 miles 41 Chains) still use imperial measures, as do speed measurement - but everything else has been 'metricised'

 

However all the Engineers Line References on HS1 and no doubt HS2 will use KM, M and mm, NOT Miles and Chains.

 

The main reason for this is that outside the USA everybody in Science and Engineering has embraced metric measurements - which is the official international standard. This facilitates international trade - and removes additional costs that have no relevance to the actual product being produced other than to pander to peoples prejudices.

 

ERTMS / ECTS was set up purposely to be a system to be used throughout Europe - where apart from the UK metric is universal. It is irrational to expect manufacturers* of the system to go round designing bespoke add-ons to already expensive signalling equipment simply so the UK can keep imperial speed limits.

 

Now if we turn to the Cambrian system, while it is most definitely not a NEW railway system, in some respects it could be treated as such. There was only a single link to the rest of the UKs railway system (Shrewsbury) and the small pool rolling stock used could easily be converted to work with both KPH or MPH. As such it was very easy to convert the relevant ELRs / lineside distance markers etc to metric and apply an unmodified ERTMS / ECTS system - which lest anyone forget was supposed to be a 'pilot' of the single track railway variant whose record in service was supposed to be directly comparable to other types of  'pilot' installations elsewhere in Continental Europe.

 

Looking to the future, the units used for ERTMS / ECTS will depend greatly on the situation. For example on the GWML where ERTMS / ECTS is added as an overlay over existing lineside signals (thus meaning non ETRMS /ECTS trains can continue to use the tracks) then MPH is the logical choice for the drivers display as the although more expensive to buy it does save spending a vast fortune on duplicating every single board with dual limits etc.

 

By contrast where ERMTS / ECTS is used instead of lineside signals (as is planned for the ECML south of Peterborough) and thus all non ERTMS / ECTS fitted trains are BANNED from using the tracks (like the current situation on the Cambrian lines) then there is no issue in having speed limits shown in KPH - with a switchover to MPH occurring at the boundary.

 

Current 'boundary' locations where the units of speed measurement change are Shrewsbury, Ashford, Dollands Moor & Ripple lane. This list will expand with HS2 (planned to be an all metric railway)

 

Obviously the Cumbrian system could (with significant extra expenditure) have made to work with imperial measures - but that's not the point. ETRMS / ECTS is supposed to be a standardised system independent of what previous national railway administrations have installed. It is expressly designed to do away with each nation having its 'own' variant or being locked in to a specific manufacturer. The fact that the UK has historically used imperial measures in the past makes no difference to the future.

 

*Incidentally before 2005 Ireland used imperial speed limits on its road network (although distances on roadsigns had switched to KMs back in the 1970s). Before 2005 cars sold in Ireland had identical speedometers to the UK with a large MPH and a smaller KPH indication shown. After the changeover in speed limits cars switched to only having KPH indication. Why was this so? The answer is that it simply wasn't economic for vehicle manufacturers to provide a RH drive car with a large KPH + small MPH speedometer just for the Irish market. It was technically possible of course - but uneconomic to do so. Much like cars sold in the rest of continental could have a MPH indication just in case the owner fancied a trip to the UK.....

 

There still remains a major issue Phil - as has already happened in N Britain - where point turnout speeds are designed for MPH values and not KPH.  thus if you have a system of train control which uses KPH over British designed turnouts you have the choice to either set the speed too high (not acceptable on safety grounds) or too low because of the incremental steps included in ERTMS.  If you set too low - as happens on CTRL/HS1 - you finish up with sub-optimal timings which fail to exploit the infrastructure fully.  ALL of Britain's main line routes have pointwork and permanent restrictions of speed based on MPH so if you have to go sub-optimal because of speed bands written into ERTMS, or any other system, you will have to decelerate trains and potentially rewrite the timetable at major traffic centres and critical junctions.

 

No doubt the 'digital railway experts' in NTR are as wholly aware of this as they are of various other practical issues on the real everyday railway (not).  Probably ona par with a decision to reduce emissions by converting Class 321 trains to hydrogen power in order to reduce diesel emissions although it v could be that 'The Sunday Times' got that wrong rather than copying a press hanfdout from DafT.

[The Stationmaster]

IIRC, the Croydon trams have their speed limits designated in KmH - can anyone confirm?

 

I was living in Canada when metrication happened there. It was done and dusted in literally a single weekend, and on a drive to the Rockies we actually saw a group of workmen fastening the metric equivalents over the Imperial figures on the road signs.

 

Why on earth Britain has to make such a silly fuss over something so easy to do and so obviously beneficial is a total mystery to me. Or do people believe that schoolchildren are still being taught how many furlongs there are in a mile and how many poles there are in a perch? Lord preserve us!

 

Ireland uses miles and mph on the railway. Pretty sure Canada does too.

 

Not directly connected to this topic, but it's interesting how close the IE/NIR combined Rule Book is to the GB version.

PDF link below.

I checked whether the 'four-foot' is referred to as the 'five-foot' in Erin, and as expected, it is.

 

http://www.irishrail.ie/media/iarnrod_eireann_safety_rule_book_2018.pdf

Hardly surprising that CIE has a similar Rule Book as for far more years than I can remember they were party to BR's Rule Book Working Group and represented at some of the meetings.  I think you will find NIR is different because they went their own way buy hiring a past BR expert to write their Rule Book for them.

[Edwin_m]

IIRC, the Croydon trams have their speed limits designated in KmH - can anyone confirm?

Confirmed.  Croydon and Nottingham definitely work in km/h, Metrolink definitely works in mph, and I can't remember for the other tramways.  Tyne and Wear also works in km/h and used the road-style speed signs before Network Rail, so when they started running through to Sunderland they installed hexagonal signs for km/h instead of round ones.  I think these were fitted to the rest of the network as well to avoid confusion. 

 

Meanwhile HS1 at St Pancras has km/h signs that are round with a red border but white figures on a black background.  I don't know whether Tyne and Wear has adopted these too.  The speed display in the cab of a 395 changes between km/h and mph as it goes off and on to HS1. 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Edwin_m

[phil-b259]

There still remains a major issue Phil - as has already happened in N Britain - where point turnout speeds are designed for MPH values and not KPH.  thus if you have a system of train control which uses KPH over British designed turnouts you have the choice to either set the speed too high (not acceptable on safety grounds) or too low because of the incremental steps included in ERTMS.  If you set too low - as happens on CTRL/HS1 - you finish up with sub-optimal timings which fail to exploit the infrastructure fully.  ALL of Britain's main line routes have pointwork and permanent restrictions of speed based on MPH so if you have to go sub-optimal because of speed bands written into ERTMS, or any other system, you will have to decelerate trains and potentially rewrite the timetable at major traffic centres and critical junctions.

 

 

The CTRL / HS1 is virtually identical to the LGVs in France - and as such there must have been plenty of points designed around KPH to use thus by-passing the issue you raise.

 

Equally HS2 can be built with KPH friendly pointwork.

 

While accepting there are issues where mixed speeds are in use, and it isn't very economic to do this - but whats stopping NR going round relaying all the Cambrian points with ones designed around KPH speeds? its not as if there won't be something suitable given the use of KPH throughout the rest of continental Europe.

 

Depending on the nature of the lines concerned, the renewal frequency and naturally having due regard to whether the timetable can accommodate suboptimal timings for a while, then it would be possible to begin a programme of replacing 'MPH pointwork' with 'KPH pointwork' during track renewals, thus making the section of line 'Metric ready' as it were.

 

Naturally re-writing the ERMTS/ ECTS software to take into account the UK (and Irelands) use of MPH is possible but any manufacturer doing so will inevitably charge more than a 'bog standard' KPH based solution.

Edited May 14, 2018 by phil-b259

[DY444]

There still remains a major issue Phil - as has already happened in N Britain - where point turnout speeds are designed for MPH values and not KPH.  thus if you have a system of train control which uses KPH over British designed turnouts you have the choice to either set the speed too high (not acceptable on safety grounds) or too low because of the incremental steps included in ERTMS.  If you set too low - as happens on CTRL/HS1 - you finish up with sub-optimal timings which fail to exploit the infrastructure fully.  ALL of Britain's main line routes have pointwork and permanent restrictions of speed based on MPH so if you have to go sub-optimal because of speed bands written into ERTMS, or any other system, you will have to decelerate trains and potentially rewrite the timetable at major traffic centres and critical junctions.

 

On a similar theme the speed limiter on the IET works internally in kph.  Thus the maximum speed is 200kph (ie a shade over 124mph) and not 125mph.

[E3109]

A little bit of a tangent I suppose, but BSP pipe threads have long been adopted as an ISO Standard.

In that respect perhaps the exception proves the rule, I.e. You don't need to work in units of ten or be able only to shift a decimal point, in order to gain international recognition.

 

As a former mechanical engineer I'm happy to work in either units but gimme a lathe and it has to be graduated in thous.

If it's graduated in mini-marvels then fair enough, I can work in imbecile measurements too but giz a min while I convert it in my head.

 

Always makes me chortle when metrication drones state that metric is more accurate than English, er no, each system is as accurate as the other.

 

In our model train world we are the masters of both systems eg 12" = 304.8mm, 4mm = 12" etc.

[Fat Controller]

The CTRL / HS1 is virtually identical to the LGVs in France - and as such there must have been plenty of points designed around KPH to use thus by-passing the issue you raise.

 

Equally HS2 can be built with KPH friendly pointwork.

 

While accepting there are issues where mixed speeds are in use, and it isn't very economic to do this - but whats stopping NR going round relaying all the Cambrian points with ones designed around KPH speeds? its not as if there won't be something suitable given the use of KPH throughout the rest of continental Europe.

 

Depending on the nature of the lines concerned, the renewal frequency and naturally having due regard to whether the timetable can accommodate suboptimal timings for a while, then it would be possible to begin a programme of replacing 'MPH pointwork' with 'KPH pointwork' during track renewals, thus making the section of line 'Metric ready' as it were.

 

Naturally re-writing the ERMTS/ ECTS software to take into account the UK (and Irelands) use of MPH is possible but any manufacturer doing so will inevitably charge more than a 'bog standard' KPH based solution.

The in-cab system  on E* (TVM 430) works on a series of quite large increments: for instance, there is nothing between 80 and 160 kph. The result is, if the E* is following a slower train through the Channel Tunnel, the driver would find the display continuously going 160; 80 flashing; 160 etc. Eurotunnel signallers tend to advise E* drivers of the speed of the train, and what lower speed to follow.

ETCS does not work in steps, at least not on the Swiss line where I watched it in action, but displays a precise target speed to follow, based on the speed of the preceding train.

[Edwin_m]

 

ETCS does not work in steps, at least not on the Swiss line where I watched it in action, but displays a precise target speed to follow, based on the speed of the preceding train.

Is it quite that clever?  I thought the displayed speed was the maximum it was able to travel while being able to brake to stop at its limit of authority, or to respect any intervening speed restrictions.  Optimising things by running at a speed lower than that is surely more the domain of Driver Advisory Systems, or Automatic Train Operation. 

[jjb1970]

Not all internationally used units are SI units, the standard units for distance and speed in the maritime sector are still nautical miles and knots. However, for most things I think SI units are more sensible for the simple reason that they are so widely used.

[ess1uk]

coming to a line near you soon?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44058298

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds/millions-set-to-benefit-as-railway-technology-transformation-takes-off/

Just been reading the Modern Railways report on this.

They didn’t seem that impressed

[ess1uk]

Another article https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/09/03/digital-delusion-a-lesson-from-not-so-long-ago/

[david.hill64]

Another article https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/09/03/digital-delusion-a-lesson-from-not-so-long-ago/

A very well structured appraisal.

[Junctionmad]

It will all work out in the end , in cab Signalling is the only future no matter how you look at it

[The Stationmaster]

A very well structured appraisal.

 

I got involved with TBTC from a train operator viewpoint and two reps came to our company to tell us all about it meeting the Deputy MD and myself, regrettably for them two experienced operators with feet pretty firmly in contact with the ground.  The system they were pushing in fact used satellite based transmission and not ground stations and as we were talked through it they seemingly had little concept of a busy mixed traffic railway and a limited idea of how the 'signalling islands would work in practice 'receiving' a train from the satellite monitored area.  However the killer came in the detail when it came to train integration as they were proposing a 'black box' about the same size as a coffin (but rectangular) to be installed on a traction unit - they had absolutely no idea how difficult it might be to physically fit this into most British trains and even less concept of how complex a task it might be to integrate it into a train's existing control system.

 

Obviously they were taking the line that they wished to get train operator support for their proposal so they could go back and tell Railtrack that train operators were regarding it as the best thing since sliced bread and would push for the idea - we didn't.  They also found it difficult to explain what would happen at tunnels having emphasised the sort of very short headways the system would allow between successive trains they couldn't explain how this would work when a train went out of contact in a long tunnel - such as Kilsby Tunnel.  They went away somewhat chastened.

 

The next sooper dooper system idea I came into contact with was that being proposed for the WCML during route upgrade in the early 2000s when I was doing ISA work (among other things) at Lloyds Register.  this might in some respects perhaps be regarded as an early equivalent of the digital railway headway and conflict planning software now being developed.  The problem I found with the part of the spec that I looked at was that one element was built on sand as the people writing up the spec for the programming had totally misunderstood how the Exceptional Loads system and Form BR29973 worked and were writing a programming spec which could result in trains being routed over running lines or routes where it was unsafe for them to run.  This highlighted what I have found elsewhere to be a typical problem when specifying software controlled systems or software operated tasks - the basic information given to the developers by the 'experts' they had consulted was incorrect.   They has assumed, or had been told, that people in a particular sort of job understood the Exceptional Loads system when very clearly they didn't.  One can but hope that those writing 'digital railway' specs and programmes have not been led up any similar garden paths

[jeff mcghie]

There still remains a major issue Phil - as has already happened in N Britain - where point turnout speeds are designed for MPH values and not KPH.  

 

Actually they're designed in KPH and rounded (down) to the nearest 5mph.

[ess1uk]

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/delivering-the-first-major-digital-railway-network-rail-procurement-launched-to-find-train-control-partner-for-route-digital-transformation

ERTMS for ECML

[APOLLO]

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/delivering-the-first-major-digital-railway-network-rail-procurement-launched-to-find-train-control-partner-for-route-digital-transformation

ERTMS for ECML

 

Will the lineside signals disappear with this work ?

 

Brit15

[ess1uk]

Will the lineside signals disappear with this work ?

 

Brit15

Probably as far as Peterborough if not all the way to Stoke Tunnel where Doncaster takes over.

Thameslink fleet is fitted and the 800s will be so once the freight is ready they can go

[ess1uk]

In Recent News

 

​​Siemens invited three lords to visit the Siemens/Thameslink train care facility and rail operating centre (ROC) at Three Bridges in Crawley:

 

• Lord Berkeley - Chair of the Rail Freight Group and an officer on a number of transport related All-Party Parliamentary Groups
• Lord Snape - Vice chair, All Party Parliamentary Rail Group
• Lord Bradshaw - Former member of the Strategic Rail Authority, former special advisor to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee, and former Liberal Democrat transport spokesperson in the House of Lords

 

Lindsay Durham from Freightliner also accompanied them on this visit.​

Freight fitment

 

This was an educational visit for the three lords to find out more about Thameslink European Train Control System (ETCS) deployment and how it relates to the future of freight fitment. They also met some of the signallers working with the traffic management system at the ROC.

 

Dominic McSwiggan (principal programme sponsor for the Digital Railway Programme) and Gary Porter (project director for Infrastructure Projects), informed the three lords on the progress of the train and freight fitment programme. Grand Central's Class 180 trains are the first to be retro-fitted with ETCS and work begain on this in September.

 

Following the visit, the lords said: "It was really encouraging to see the progress that has been made and that ETCS actually works in the UK".​

[ess1uk]

https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/11/15/the-digital-railway-progresses-to-the-east-coast-main-line/

Another article to explain what it all is

[ess1uk]

How much more development of ERTMS will involve GSMR now that FRMCS is under trial?

[Shed]

depends on lead times?