Jump to content
 

Shed

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    625

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Shed

    E.R.T.M.S.

    in UK Prototype Questions

    Posted

    9 hours ago, St. Simon said:


    Hi,

     

    It’s slightly complicated!

     

    The Lineside equipment is as follows:

     

    - Reading to Stockley Junction = Conventional colour light with AWS / TPWS*.

     

    - Heathrow to Stockley Junction = E.T.C.S. Level 2 Overlay (but could be standard E.T.C.S. if BAA were happy to pay for the signals to be removed).

     

    - Stockley to Ladbroke Grove = Currently conventional colour light with AWS / TPWS, but will be converted to E.T.C.S. Level 2 Overlay.

     

    - Ladbroke Grove to Abbey Wood / Stratford Portal (Central Operating Section or COS) = Communications Based Train Control (C.B.T.C.) with Automatic Train Operation (A.T.O.)

     

    - Stratford Portal to Sheffield = Conventional colour light with AWS / TPWS.

     

    *A.T.P. is fitted to the relief lines between Paddington and Stockley, and the main lines out of Paddington to Bristol, but is not used by the Class 345s.

     

    However with the on-board, the Class 345s are technically always operating using E.T.C.S. regardless of the lineside equipment. When the train is running under conventional colour lights or under C.B.T.C., the trains is operating in E.T.C.S. ‘Level National Train Control’ or ‘L-NTC’ using Special Transmission Modules.

     

    Between Reading and Stockley & Stratford to Shenfield, the E.T.C.S. Driver Machine Interface (D.M.I.) will only display a speedometer and a AWS Sunflower. The driver will drive according to the aspects and speed displayed at the lineside and the train protection will limited to what is provided by AWS / TPWS (i.e. limited)

     

    On the Heathrow Branch and, once commissioned, between Stockley and Ladbroke Grove, the D.M.I. will display E.T.C.S. graphics and indications, with the driver driving to the movement authority and speeds displayed on the screen (which will match the lineside signal aspects and signs) and the train will be protected by full Automatic Train Protection (A.T.P.)

     

    When in the COS, under C.B.T.C., the D.M.I. will display E.T.C.S. graphics and indications, with the driver / A.T.O. driving to the movement authority and speeds displayed on the screen and train will be protected by full A.T.P.. The difference between this and pure E.T.C.S. above is the train is signalled under C.B.T.C. signalling principles.

     

    I hope that makes sense.

     

    Simon

    In the COS does the CBTC use IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi)?

    • Agree 1

    E.R.T.M.S.

    in UK Prototype Questions

    Posted

    29 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

    All the brexit propaganda was about us not having to follow European standards and directives, so presumably we don't have to if we don't want to.  So has the British railway industry decided in favour of maintaining compatibility with foreigners, or can we still have our garlic-free stale cheese sandwiches?

    why would anyone want to go it alone and make a British version when you can just buy the working European version?

    other countries outside Europe have, so why not NR?

    • Like 2

    E.R.T.M.S.

    in UK Prototype Questions

    Posted

    43 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

    I had seen it reported though that only a few of the class 197s were to be fitted with the system, 13 if I remember. Hopefully, it will be easy to fit it to the rest later.

    But the manual signalling on the Marches route seems to work quite well! (and provides jobs)

    Jonathan

    Moreton on Lugg has just got electric light signals

    • Agree 1
    • Informative/Useful 1
    • Round of applause 1

    E.R.T.M.S.

    in UK Prototype Questions

    Posted

    On 31/05/2022 at 07:28, DY444 said:

     

    That doesn't actually matter because if you wanted to make provision for ROC A to be able to take over ROC B then you'd need a set of standby workstations anyway for ROC B's area as you'd still need ROC A's own area workstations to be operational. 

     

    However, overall the whole idea is a non-starter unless you want to spend very, very serious amounts of money, and that's assuming you design it in from the start; the cost becomes stratospheric if you try to bolt it on afterwards.  The comparison with banks etc is not really valid as real time safety critical control of distributed specialist hardware using bespoke workstations is a whole different ball game to non-time critical transactional processing.  I've done system design for disaster backup for both in my career and they are chalk and cheese.

    Apparently the liz line can be controlled from a backup room should the main site need to be cleared 

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1
    • Informative/Useful 1
    • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1

    East Coast Mainline Blockade for Werrington Junction diveunder

    in UK Prototype Discussions (not questions!)

×
×
  • Create New...