E.R.T.M.S.

[iands]

Again if I understand correctly, the Cambrian system was originally a "one off" Pilot/Trial scheme for the ETCS. I think that when the "trial" ended it was deemed uneconomical to upgrade everything to the next baseline system. 

[St. Simon]

7 hours ago, big jim said:

 

be interesting to see what they will do with the 197s then, I’d assume they have the current ‘Cambrian’ system fitted to the units now (or will be fitted when the dedicated units are built) but they would also need the current version fitting for when it gets rolled out nationwide unless they rip the Cambrian system out and replace it with new.

 

7 hours ago, big jim said:

I’m hoping Simon will come on and say that the various systems are in fact compatible, if not it will add to my dislike of the system as the whole ‘selling point’ was that it was a standard Europe wide system that could be fitted to anything 

 

Quote

 

Again if I understand correctly, the Cambrian system was originally a "one off" Pilot/Trial scheme for the ETCS. I think that when the "trial" ended it was deemed uneconomical to upgrade everything to the next baseline system. 

 

Hi,

 

Basically, 'iands' is correct. The Cambrian system was in, very crude terms, a experimental Baseline 2 installation used to test various things with the UK principles as it was a simple layout with a couple of common operating features (depots, joining / dividing etc.) that had a fairly captive fleet of multiple units.  The Trackside and On-board are Baseline 2 systems as at the time they were installed, Baseline 3 was not fully developed. Baseline 3, which was only relatively recently released, is now the standard 'in to the future' configuration that introduced a lot of features and corrected problems that was found during the previous releases, Baseline 3 I believe was always the major end goal prior to 'full' rollout across Europe. All new Rolling Stock in Europe, including the Class 197s, is being ordered with Baseline 3 E.T.C.S. installed, I don't believe anyone offers Baseline 2 on new Rolling Stock. All retro-fits are also now to Baseline 3.

 

Unfortunately Baseline 2 and Baseline 3 are not compatible, sort of. Well, to be specific, the Trackside (RBC and Interlocking) and On-Board is not compatible, the four foot Balises are compatible as the data packets are the same. The Infrastructure data and associated messages are also compatible as they are fixed and standard packet constructs. The difference (I think, I haven't really read into it too much) is in the interaction between Train and Interlocking / RBC and what the RBC allows the train to do.

 

I believe that in the Interlocking and RBC the switch between Baselines is, again in very crude terms, a swap in software and some data, where as I believe that the On-Board Baseline change requires component swapping. Now, the Class 158 fleet is getting older and requires replacement, so you may as well wait to change Baselines until a new fleet is ordered. 

 

As part of the introduction of the Class 197s on the Cambrian, the Trackside is being updated to Baseline 3 to remove any compatibility issues. I'm pretty sure that it is our office which is doing the work for it, but I'm not directly involved, so I'm not certain.

 

7 hours ago, big jim said:

personally I’d sooner see the back of ertms/ects as i feel it’s a backward step when it comes to flexibility especially on the freight side with things like run rounds, coupling, possessions, top and tail working etc unless the new system is a complete rewrite of what I already know, I’m going to take a lot of convincing to change my opinion of what I think is an awful set up!

 

7 hours ago, big jim said:

Regards run rounds etc it’s not so much they don’t happen here, just not very often given how often freight goes down the Cambrian but it’s time consuming having to input your details with every change end, you can’t set back more than 2m, even just moving a loco within a yard requires you to be in shunt mode etc.

 

I can understand your frustrations with the the Cambrian System, but is a one-off installation which is not fully representative of a nationwide rollout of E.T.C.S., so don't write it off fully just yet. I suspect that the problems with freight that you experience is down to the line being, at the time of design and installation, was predominantly a Multiple Unit Passenger Railway and that it was probably considered that given the level of freight / non-passenger movements, the annoyances etc were tolerable compared with the additional workload needed for the system to be optimal for both (I don't know this for certain, but I can imagine that would be the sort of argument that would take place).

 

It is becoming a matter of careful schemes design, in our E.T.C.S. schemes design (albeit only one at the moment), we are moving towards, under the request of the TOCs and FOCs (and the fact that it is quite difficult), that yards etc won't be under E.T.C.S. control. When it comes to run-rounds, turnbacks etc, we can configure the data to not throw you out when changing cabs so that you don't have to do start of mission every time. 

 

Simon

Edited May 15, 2022 by St. Simon

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

I think some of the current views of E.T.C.S. in the UK are down to that fact that the three fitments in the UK (Cambrian, Thameslink & P2R) are effectively one-off installations to solve certain problems (Cambrian = testing of E.T.C.S. in the UK, Thameslink = reducing headway via ATO and P2R = replacement of Automatic Train Protection) and aren't true optimal installations. So, none can be used as true reflections of now E.T.C.S. will roll-out in the UK.

 

If you want to see how a squadron rollout of E.T.C.S. will look, the East Coast programme is really the first conversion under the Network Rail Policy of converting the network to E.T.C.S. rather than to solve a specific problem. There is also now proper standards and reference designs that the previous projects didn't have.

 

To anyone who thinks that E.T.C.S. is going to go away, it is not, it is technically a legal obligation to convert to E.T.C.S.

 

Simon

[Ben B]

It's interesting seeing the freight trials on the Cambrian, but it does raise the worry that there may be a shortage of locomotives with only three machines cleared for the route.  I hazily remember that there were four locomotives originally?  And weren't West Coast going to convert a pair of 37's for the system at one point?

 

How easy would it be for Colas (or another private operator) to convert a couple of locomotives for the Cambrian traffic, or would it be considered uneconomical for what is essentially the trial system, and not necessarily the same as/compatible with the newer trial sections? 

 

Of course, if the steam operators get their portable systems in place sooner, maybe we'll see that rumoured Black 5 operating the logs instead ;)

[big jim]

Couple of nice posts there Simon, let’s hope the little things you mention line not having to input data every time you change cabs and yards not being under the system happen, I may warm to it then but I’m going to take a lot of convincing! 

[corneliuslundie]

I am relieved to hear from Simon that the Cambrian system will be upgraded. My cynical mind was wondering if they would strip the ECTs out of the 158s and put it in the same number of 197s, especially as, from what I have read, only the same number of 197s will be fitted with the system as there are 158s currently (announced as with greater capacity = fewer seats so more standing room!).

And thanks for the confirmation that there are now only three 97s. That was what I thought but I was then told that there are still four.

Jonathan

[big jim]

2 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I am relieved to hear from Simon that the Cambrian system will be upgraded. My cynical mind was wondering if they would strip the ECTs out of the 158s and put it in the same number of 197s, especially as, from what I have read, only the same number of 197s will be fitted with the system as there are 158s currently (announced as with greater capacity = fewer seats so more standing room!).

And thanks for the confirmation that there are now only three 97s. That was what I thought but I was then told that there are still four.

Jonathan

there have only been 3 97s for use on the cambian for a while, 97301 has a hitachi system fitted and that’s not compatible with whatever is in use down there 

[St. Simon]

14 minutes ago, Ben B said:

It's interesting seeing the freight trials on the Cambrian, but it does raise the worry that there may be a shortage of locomotives with only three machines cleared for the route.  I hazily remember that there were four locomotives originally?  And weren't West Coast going to convert a pair of 37's for the system at one point?

 

How easy would it be for Colas (or another private operator) to convert a couple of locomotives for the Cambrian traffic, or would it be considered uneconomical for what is essentially the trial system, and not necessarily the same as/compatible with the newer trial sections? 

 

Of course, if the steam operators get their portable systems in place sooner, maybe we'll see that rumoured Black 5 operating the logs instead ;)

Hi,

 

I did think that there might be problems with loco availability, but I would assume that the trial would take such restrictions into consideration, and then the business case would potentially be put forward to convert more locos. But, you may as well wait until the line is upgraded to BL3.

 

The problem with freight locos being converted is more one of funding, the FOCs want someone to pay for it, which I do personally think is a slightly blinkered view, but is understandable. Converting older locos, particularly BR era stuff, is highly problematic because every single loco is different, which makes creating a reference design extremely difficult. The lack of a reference design for the 66 was cited as a reason for not converting the 69s to ETCS (which is just silly as the conversion programme was the best time to do it!).

 

I’m still unconvinced that ETCS is Steam compatible, at least not in the UK. I don’t think that the onboard equipment is going to be made small enough to fit within a tender without a reduction in range, nor will the DMI be in an ergonomic position in a steam cab, given how crowded a steam cab is. If they get it all to fit, I just don’t think the environment that all the required sensors will be in on a steam loco will be reliable. However, Tornado and Prince of Wales are on the list for fitment trails, and a Black 5 as you say, so I’m happy to be proved wrong!

 

Simon

[Steadfast]

1 hour ago, Ben B said:

How easy would it be for Colas (or another private operator) to convert a couple of locomotives for the Cambrian traffic, or would it be considered uneconomical for what is essentially the trial system, and not necessarily the same as/compatible with the newer trial sections?

The class 70s have two LCD displays in the cab. It is my understanding that one can be removed and the ERTMS screen fitted in its place. Presumably more work involved fitting the sensors though, and would also require 100% reliability from the remaining original screen, as it displays all the gauges. From the 70s I regularly see, having a screen out of use isn't unheard of.

 

In terms of funding, I believe the way it works is that one of each class of loco qualifies for "first in type funding" for design and fitment, after which that template is followed for the rest of the class and cost is then on the owner or operator. 

 

It'll be interesting to see how ERTMS handles some of the shunts we do now. Shunts towards the mainline (when too long for the headshunt) and mainline propelling moves to transfer between the yards spring to mind.

 

Jo

Edited May 15, 2022 by Steadfast

[big jim]

Class 70 also have an ERTMS circuit breaker and space for the gubbins in the electrical cupboard 

 

 

[wombatofludham]

Further to the discussion about the Cambrian, trains today have been running but not in public service following "a signalling upgrade for the new Class 197" (according to TfW).  Certainly the frequency of service was far more than the usual sleepy Sunday.  It is interesting to read the posts from Simon about the works that are going on.  Does this mean the Cambrian will no longer be a potentially obsolete bespoke system?

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

I’m still unconvinced that ETCS is Steam compatible, at least not in the UK. I don’t think that the onboard equipment is going to be made small enough to fit within a tender without a reduction in range, nor will the DMI be in an ergonomic position in a steam cab, given how crowded a steam cab is. If they get it all to fit, I just don’t think the environment that all the required sensors will be in on a steam loco will be reliable. However, Tornado and Prince of Wales are on the list for fitment trails, and a Black 5 as you say, so I’m happy to be proved wrong!

 

 

It depends on what you mean by compatible

 

As I see it ECTS without lineside signals is exceedingly difficult to do because it needs to have an easily readable DMI mounted on the very hot boiler backhead so as to be in their face as it were rather than mounted on the tender (just as DMI screens are built into the driving desks of modern locos / units not stuck on the cab bulkhead behind the drivers seat)

 

If however ECTS is installed as an overlay and effectively becomes reduced to providing automatic train protection against over speeding or SPADing then its a pretty straightforward thing to do as it can be put in the tender as there is no need for constant reference to be made to the DMI.

[Purnu]

Hi Simon & Jim (amongst others), I’m finding this a very enjoyable thread indeed, great to see how different systems operate.

 

Without saying too much, where I’m currently employed we are using a Hitachi based system that on paper equates to Level 2 operations. An upgrade is due within the next year or so to take us to Level 3 operations (ie - moving block). I’ve been lucky enough to be involved with on board trials for those operations and eagerly await it’s introduction.

 

it is interesting to read your ‘frustrations’ with the system Jim. Not knowing ERTMS and it’s capabilities is there a ‘Shunt’ option available (for the obvious)? The system we use has that in accordance with a Bi Directional Authority, we can shunt forwards and backwards until we are finished and are ready to depart. A simple ‘Stop’  command is sent to the locomotive by control and then all the train details are resent.

 

There is also an option available to us for possessions and dealing with track faults .

 

If I’m honest I’m not overly impressed with some of the systems pre determined braking curves, from a drivers perspective they can be far too restrictive.

 

 

[Bon Accord]

As the development of in-cab signalling carries on and spreads nationwide, is there be any intention to leave a basic/small amount of lineside signals in situ - even if they're for long sections - just so things can keep moving to some degree should the in cab system crash/be hacked etc?

[big jim]

There is a shunt mode available but every time you change ends on a 97 you have to input your data again which was frustrating and time consuming

 

as for the braking curves there is only one set up on the class 97 which is for 12 coaches so if your only pulling 5 auto hoppers you have plenty of braking curve but over things like speed restrictions it’s counting ‘invisible’ wagons before it will allow you to accelerate clear of the restriction, again a lot of wasted time, I believe before I started going down there between dovey jn and towyn there were lots of speed restrictions put in for visibility on foot crossings and the result was the 97 was losing about 20-30 minutes in section as each crossing length restriction (5m max) suddenly became 200+ meters long due to the system requiring the train to be doing the slower speed 100m before and after the restriction 

 

it’s stupid things like that which were frustrating 

[Steadfast]

23 minutes ago, big jim said:

There is a shunt mode available but every time you change ends on a 97 you have to input your data again which was frustrating and time consuming

Sounds like it needs the little button to press when changing ends, like GSMR has, along with the facility to enter the train length, weight and brake force.

 

Jo

[The Stationmaster]

28 minutes ago, big jim said:

There is a shunt mode available but every time you change ends on a 97 you have to input your data again which was frustrating and time consuming

 

as for the braking curves there is only one set up on the class 97 which is for 12 coaches so if your only pulling 5 auto hoppers you have plenty of braking curve but over things like speed restrictions it’s counting ‘invisible’ wagons before it will allow you to accelerate clear of the restriction, again a lot of wasted time, I believe before I started going down there between dovey jn and towyn there were lots of speed restrictions put in for visibility on foot crossings and the result was the 97 was losing about 20-30 minutes in section as each crossing length restriction (5m max) suddenly became 200+ meters long due to the system requiring the train to be doing the slower speed 100m before and after the restriction 

 

it’s stupid things like that which were frustrating 

If a system cannot take account of actual train length and weight then it will be nigh on useless, or exceptionally restrictive, for freight operation where train length and weight are major variables.  Even the early WR ATP trials, over 30 years ago,  found this was a major problem - on HSTs it worked superbly with the ATP braking curve being almost spot on.  But trials with a Class 47 on MGR wagons was an unmitigated shambles because the system simply couldn't cope with the train weight and its effect on braking.

 

Obviously things will have come a massively long way since then but unless the system can cope with those critical variables for freights which I've mentioned it could be as much of a dead end as battery powered cars so far are for widespread and long distance use.

 

BTW I'm intrigued as to how it will work on a steam loco because surely in order to be compliant it doesn't just have to apply the brake but also shut off power and that means closing the regulator and turning on the blower (to avoid the risk of a blowback)?

 

A further point saying ETCS is 'a requirement' is surely opening a can of very large worms?  I can readily understand that it would be a requirement under European Interoperability Regulations but we aren't in the EU now and although we're still (I presume) members of the UIC I wonder to what extent we need to be bound by Interoperability on trains that will never leave these shores?   With rapidly increasing pressure on railway industry finances is someone going to start questioning the cost of widespread adoption of the system?

[Purnu]

Appreciate the reply Jim, understandable where you are coming from in regards to the data entry.

 

Definitely similarities in the systems, ours too has the 100m buffer either side of restrictions or approaching the limit of authority. 

There are various preset formations - L/E, Ballast, Empty or Loaded freight etc which we can alter as required. 

[Purnu]

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

BTW I'm intrigued as to how it will work on a steam loco because surely in order to be compliant it doesn't just have to apply the brake but also shut off power and that means closing the regulator and turning on the blower (to avoid the risk of a blowback)?

 

A very very interesting point indeed, something I would never have even considered.

 

I would be interested to read how this has been overcome, especially in Europe where ERTMS is more established.

[Steadfast]

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

If a system cannot take account of actual train length and weight then it will be nigh on useless, or exceptionally restrictive, for freight operation where train length and weight are major variables.  Even the early WR ATP trials, over 30 years ago,  found this was a major problem - on HSTs it worked superbly with the ATP braking curve being almost spot on.  But trials with a Class 47 on MGR wagons was an unmitigated shambles because the system simply couldn't cope with the train weight and its effect on braking

Quite, especially when even the same set of wagons can handle slightly differently day to day. Different loadings, different loco on the front etc. Even how the wagon is loaded (e.g. all at one end) can affect it's performance too. A small thing, but multiply by 30 or 40 wagons...

 

Jo

 

[St. Simon]

1 hour ago, big jim said:

There is a shunt mode available but every time you change ends on a 97 you have to input your data again which was frustrating and time consuming

 

as for the braking curves there is only one set up on the class 97 which is for 12 coaches so if your only pulling 5 auto hoppers you have plenty of braking curve but over things like speed restrictions it’s counting ‘invisible’ wagons before it will allow you to accelerate clear of the restriction, again a lot of wasted time, I believe before I started going down there between dovey jn and towyn there were lots of speed restrictions put in for visibility on foot crossings and the result was the 97 was losing about 20-30 minutes in section as each crossing length restriction (5m max) suddenly became 200+ meters long due to the system requiring the train to be doing the slower speed 100m before and after the restriction 

 

it’s stupid things like that which were frustrating 

 

16 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

If a system cannot take account of actual train length and weight then it will be nigh on useless, or exceptionally restrictive, for freight operation where train length and weight are major variables.  Even the early WR ATP trials, over 30 years ago,  found this was a major problem - on HSTs it worked superbly with the ATP braking curve being almost spot on.  But trials with a Class 47 on MGR wagons was an unmitigated shambles because the system simply couldn't cope with the train weight and its effect on braking.

 

Obviously things will have come a massively long way since then but unless the system can cope with those critical variables for freights which I've mentioned it could be as much of a dead end as battery powered cars so far are for widespread and long distance use.

 

Hi,

 

In Baseline 3, the driver has the ability, to insert the Train Length, Brake Weight Percentage and Max Speed via the Train Data menu when the train is stationary, it's not fixed. I  presume that from your experience Jim that Baseline 2 doesn't have that ability.

 

Simon

 

 

[corneliuslundie]

An interesting thought about retaining some lineside signals in case of ERTMS system failure for whatever reason.

But since most lineside signals are now operated from many miles away over equally vulnerable IT systems would it be any advantage? I am awaiting the day when a fire in a signalling centre knocks out a few hundred miles of a main line - well not hoping for it but you know what I mean.

Bring back those metal thingies which were moved using wires!

Jonathan

PS Like we still have on the Marches line.

[The Stationmaster]

1 minute ago, St. Simon said:

 

 

Hi,

 

In Baseline 3, the driver has the ability, to insert the Train Length, Brake Weight Percentage and Max Speed via the Train Data menu when the train is stationary, it's not fixed. I  presume that from your experience Jim that Baseline 2 doesn't have that ability.

 

Simon

 

 

That sounds better Simon although the point made by 'Steadfast' is an important one because brake performance on freights can vary considerably.  For instance the weight will be as despatched but with some traffics if the weather changes from dry to wet then factors affecting brake performance also change because the load is heavier and adhesion also suffers.  Yes it can happen with passenger trains where adhesion is lost but loss of adhesion when the loco is being shoved by 4,000+ tons is a very different situation.

 

It would be interesting to know how the European mainland railways cope with this because it must already be happening there?

[The Stationmaster]

1 minute ago, corneliuslundie said:

An interesting thought about retaining some lineside signals in case of ERTMS system failure for whatever reason.

But since most lineside signals are now operated from many miles away over equally vulnerable IT systems would it be any advantage? I am awaiting the day when a fire in a signalling centre knocks out a few hundred miles of a main line - well not hoping for it but you know what I mean.

Bring back those metal thingies which were moved using wires!

Jonathan

PS Like we still have on the Marches line.

OT   There have already been some spectacular delays where major power failures have temporarily knocked put several of these super concentrated signalling control centres.

[St. Simon]

3 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

That sounds better Simon although the point made by 'Steadfast' is an important one because brake performance on freights can vary considerably.  For instance the weight will be as despatched but with some traffics if the weather changes from dry to wet then factors affecting brake performance also change because the load is heavier and adhesion also suffers.  Yes it can happen with passenger trains where adhesion is lost but loss of adhesion when the loco is being shoved by 4,000+ tons is a very different situation.

 

It would be interesting to know how the European mainland railways cope with this because it must already be happening there?

 

Hi Mike,

 

The adhesion factor can be changed by the driver on the move if allowed by a national value, but can also be transmitted to the train from the RBC, so it can be modified during the journey. Also, if I've read the subset right, the driver inputted train data can be changed at anytime when the train is stationary, so it is possible, although possibly not practicable, that a train could be stopped in a loop, the driver changes the brake percentage to take into account loss of adhesion and then the train can carry on.

 

I think that that sort of thing might have to figure into info given to the driver when preparing their train.

 

Simon