Vision and Potential For Future Signalling Stratergies

VISION AND POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE SIGNALLING STRATEGIES
A Paper to Discuss the Relationships between ETCS Systems and the Business Needs of EC Railways by Addressing:
Performance / Costs Effective Application of ETCS and Migration Open Architectures for Control and Signalling The Translation of New Technologies into Future Traffic Control The Rle of the Euro-Interlocking Project Phase 2.
Version: 0.7 Amd MP Created: 27 September 06 Amended 27/09/06 Saved: 27.09.06 13:59 Total Number of Pages: 52
Document Data Sheet

Filing name Document Type Last saved
UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

Title of Document
27.09.06 13:59
Amended 27/09/06
Last saved by
Pope
Languages Original Translations
VISION AND POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE SIGNALLING STRATEGIE S

Subject
English
Pages Figures Tables
52
Author(s) Price Document Right of Use
Martin E Pope Ian Harman

Performing Body
Open
Sponsoring Body
UIC Signalling Panel of Experts

Approved by Performing Body Name Name
UIC
Availability of Document
Approved by Sponsoring Body
Application Used
Template Name
Last Printed
Date of Publication
Microsoft Office Word

Abstract
27 Sept. 06
A Paper to Discuss the Relationships between ETCS Systems and the Business Needs of Railways. This document was prepared for review of ERTMS practices for interfaces and trackside equipment by the UIC Signalling Panel of Experts.
27/09/06
Page 2 of 52
Table of Contents
Document Data Sheet .............................................................................................................................2 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................5 References to Cited Texts:..............................................................................................................6 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................7 Purpose ...........................................................................................................................................8 Rationale .........................................................................................................................................8 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6. 6.1 6.2 6.3 7. 7.1 7.2 Operational .............................................................................................................................8 Design Strategy ....................................................................................................................11 The Business Case ................................................................................................................12 Asset Utilisation Under ERTMS ..........................................................................................15 Benefits of ETCS Fitment ....................................................................................................16 Headway Concepts ...................................................................................................................17 Proposed Methodologies for Migration........................................................................................17 Past Efforts ...........................................................................................................................17 The Suppliers ........................................................................................................................18 The Current Situation...........................................................................................................19 System Type Identification. ..................................................................................................19 Operational Scenarios...........................................................................................................20
Task Identification........................................................................................................................19
7.3 Migration Planning ...............................................................................................................21 7.3.1 Fallback and Degraded Modes ............................................................................................22 8. 9. 10. 11. 11.1 12. 13. 14. 14.1 15. Interoperability & System Relationships......................................................................................24 8.1 The Signaller and the TCCS.................................................................................................24 Important Guidelines ................................................................................................................26 Technical Solutions ..................................................................................................................27 The Basics ............................................................................................................................27 Architectural Strategy...............................................................................................................33 Interface Requirements.............................................................................................................34 Migration Strategy....................................................................................................................35 Existing Railway Signalling Architecture............................................................................36 Node Handling..........................................................................................................................36
27/09/06 Page 3 of 52
Signalling Principles and Requirements.......................................................................................25
16. 17. 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9
Interlocking Hierarchy..............................................................................................................37 Proposals & Recommendations ................................................................................................39 Recommendation 1 ...............................................................................................................39 Recommendation 2 ...............................................................................................................39 Recommendation 3 ...............................................................................................................40 Recommendation 4 ...............................................................................................................40 Recommendation 5 ...............................................................................................................40 Recommendation 6 ...............................................................................................................40 Recommendation 7 ...............................................................................................................41 Recommendation 8 ...............................................................................................................41 Recommendation 9 ...............................................................................................................41 Recommendation 10 .........................................................................................................41 Recommendation 11 .........................................................................................................41
17.10 17.11 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Appendices ...........................................................................................................................................42 The TEN Routes ...................................................................................................................42 ERTMS Current Projects..........................................................................................................43 Portugal Interlocking Distribution............................................................................................43 Denmark Major Interlocking Types .........................................................................................45 DB Netz Interlocking Distribution (TEN)................................................................................47
Amendment Sheet ................................................................................................................................52
27/09/06
Page 4 of 52
1. Abbreviations
AEIF ATP CBA CER CTRL BDK DB EC EIM ERA ERIG ERTMS ESIS ERTMS EU GENERIS GSM-R GWML HMI IRSE MA PPI RBC RIS TCCS TEN TSI UIC UNISIG UNIFE Association Europen Pour L`nteroperabilit Ferroviare Automatic Train Protection Cost Benefit Analysis Community of E uropean Railway & Infrastructure Companies Channel Tunnel Rail Link BaneDanemark Die Bahn European Commission European Infrastructure Managers European Railway Agency Eirene Radio Implementation Group European Rail Transport Management System European Signalling Interface Standards (UIC) European Train Control System European Union Generic Requirements for Interlocking Systems (UIC) Global Systems Mobile Railways Great Western Main Line (UK) Human Machine Interface Institution of Railway Signalling Engineers Movement Authority Point Position Indicator Radio Block Controller Radio Interlocking System Traffic Control & Command System Trans European Network Technical Specification for Interoperability Union International des Chemins de Fer Union of International Signalling Supply Companies Association of European Railway Industries
27/09/06
Page 5 of 52
2. References to Cited Texts:

a) The UIC ESIS Project Feasibility Study version 2.0 b) ERTMS Users Group Technical Specifications c) AEIF Technical Specification for Interoperability. d) Euro-Interlocking Business Case version 2.0 (December 2000) e) EC ERTMS Memorandum o f Understanding (17 March 2005) f) ERTMS FRS v4.29 g) ERTMS Regional FRS v3.0 h) ERTMS SRS v2.2.2
27/09/06
Page 6 of 52
3. Introduction
It is clear that the burdens in developing ETCS thus far have largely fallen on the supply industry, but there may not have been commensurate effort on the part of the railway administrations to make their requirements for the system clear, or indeed a perception of the need for them to do so, particularly where life-cycle costs and benefits post deployment are considered. It is perceived that this lack of engagement has contributed to some of the unexpected, sub-optimal outcomes and extended implementation timescales of pilot schemes and shortfalls in their performance, with the consequent risk of undermining confidence in what ETCS and ERTMS are setti ng out to do. It is argued in this paper that the lack of engagement over user requirements for the system is one of the key root cause drivers of costs, both capital and revenue, and which costs, in turn are producing the main obstacles to the implementation of the TSIs on the defined routes throughout Europe. This paper acknowledges that the TSIs produced to date are a summation of common operating and technical factors employed in the railways as they exist today. It accepts that the TSIs are highest common factor specifications that describe the railways of today and the struggle to make these specifications business oriented is well documented. The only exception may be the CCS TSI that prescribes the new system ERTMS. The cost-effective implementation of the CCS TSI into an operating railway environment, and the associated interface issues can, however, pose a number of economic and political challenges for railway administrations and industry alike. Any misunderstanding of these by the railway administrations and industry is likely to lead to unexpected outcomes detracting from the overall system benefits of ERTMS. Now that numerous rail links within the EC, and some without, have been nominated as corridors as a part of the strategy for the implementation of Interoperability, it is therefore critical that the operational needs of these lines, as well as the technical issues involved in the migration to ERTMS / ETCS, be discussed. Indeed this discussion particularly needs to focus on the needs of those lines scheduled for renewal but not designated as corridors, and how facilitating future migration to ETCS might be funded in the current technical and political environment This paper explores these issues, sets out a vision for a possible structure of ETCS from the users point of view and makes recommendations for work streams to enable convergence between that vision and the needs of both industry and railway administrations, particularly aimed at migration, but also at whole-life cycle costs issues. It is believed that through this approach there will be a better understanding between all parties concerned in the deployment of the TSIs, and, if that understanding can be achieved, will contribute to a win-win situation for all parties involved which will be for the benefit of rail transportation in Europe as a whole. This paper acknowledges and reinforces the ongoing need to ensure that the railway supply industry is not left on the sidelines in any discussion of this nature. It is
UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc 27/09/06 Page 7 of 52
essential that all parties recognise that a planned approach to supply side issues is absolutely necessary if all sides are to profit from the exercise. To date, the AEIF has virtually completed its mandated work, and handed over to the EC most of the TSIs it had been working on in 2005. The remaining activities of the group relate to the support of these through Article 21 Committee discussions. During its winding up process, the AEIF produced a lessons learned document, (which was also sent to the EC). It is useful as it highlights how the AEIF (gradually through hard won experience) became more proficient at TSI development. It also outlines the successful key processes.
4. Purpose
Given the foregoing, this document has been written to open up the discussion on migration and operational issues and to introduce some hypotheses concerning solutions for the implementation of ERTMS at the trackside level both in the migrating railway environment, and in that of newly constructed lines. The subject has been addressed in terms of the following subsets, all of which must be addressed, and not necessarily individually: 1) Rationale 2) Business Case 3) Asset Utilisation 4) Benefits of ETCS 5) Proposed Methodologies for Migration to ETCS
5. Rationale
5.1 Operational
Considering that railways in general have reflected national political diversity over the last 150 years or so rather than any form of international integration, it is often difficult to see a common way forwards in the current climate. Whilst a harmonised approach is required in order to address the Corridor issues, with interlocking and train control systems matched to the operators requirements over those lines, there remain all the lines that seem to fall outside the scope of the TSIs. Furthermore, in the short term, it is likely that will there be few dedicated lines (including the corridor lines) solely operated by trains fitted with ETCS. Most lines (including the corridors) seem at least to need to provide for mixed-mode operation with ETCS for interoperable trains, and conventional national signalling systems for noninteroperable trains. It is also unclear currently to what extent some administrations feel it appropriate to fit ETCS at major traffic nodes or hubs.
27/09/06
Page 8 of 52
Whilst dual fitment of either trains or infrastructure will lead in the short term to an undesirable increase in equipment populations, and therefore an associated decrease in reliability, the costs and timescales involved in fitting such lines and the trains running over them with so that ETCS can be used exclusively are likely be protracted, if they are feasible. In order to achieve a cohesive and orderly change to ETCS, a linear rollout of systems is required, and the effects of these systems in their environment must be understood clearly from an operational standpoint. As an alternative, an island approach might be considered that gradually erodes the gaps between islands of ETCS installation. This would mean that once an adequate population of rolling stock has been suitably equipped and as signalling installations become life-expired, they would be replaced with ETCS, the trains swapping between ETCS and conventional signalling at boundaries between ETCS and conventional signalling as necessary. Furthermore, where ETCS is in use, there could be the ability to obtain a degree of operational benefit by permitting trains with ETCS to exploit shorter block sections than provided for in the conventional national signalling system. However, providing the necessary coherence of information from the signalling system to ETCS-fitted and non-ETCS fitted trains is also likely to lead to more complex solutions than trains conforming to one system or the other, and this complexity and the impact on reliability will inevitably need to feature in any railway administrations business case for deploying ERTMS . It also suggests that ETCS needs to be made as flexible as possible, and have the potential to work in conjunction with existing national signalling systems, rather than requiring wholesale change-out of signalling systems to secure implementation of ETCS. Without such an approach, provision of a financial justification for deploying ERTMS/ETCS exclusively is likely to remain a distinct challenge for railway administrations. Consider for example, the Great Western Mainline (GWML) corridor in the UK which uses a signalling control strategy from six signalling control centres along the first 140km of its 500km length each with distributed interlockings at trackside controlled remotely from the control centres. This operational strategy for GWML is very different from the German railways perspective, where the Emmerich Basel corridor (although three times longer) is operated using an assortment of major control centres and local signal boxes (STW). The operational context, and the problems associated with migration are therefore completely different between each railway and each corridor.
27/09/06
Page 9 of 52
Schedule Management Centre e.g. Mannheim
STW A
STW B
STW C
Line Block
Line Block
GWR ML Signalling Centre e.g. Slough
Interlocking A Track Circuit Block
Interlocking B Track Circuit Block
Interlocking C
Figure 1: Control Area Configuration Differences From a traffic standpoint, the two lines are quite similar in their use. The GWML is designated as a High Speed TEN, but in reality, the traffic using it both now, and under ETCS in the future will include both High Speed (up to 200kmh), conventional and non-interoperable domestic services at differing speeds (up to 160kmh), and including freight running at up to 90Km/h, some of which freight may be international. Other than the international freight trains, the line is only used by domestic trains operating entirely within the borders of the UK, and therefore those trains could not be considered to be truly interoperable . With such a variety of uses, there can be no simple way to segregate ETCS trains from non-ETCS trains without building new lines and infrastructure, the feasibility of which is impossible to envisage in even the long term. The challenge in migrating to ETCS/ERTMS on such a route, given the long term need for mixed (i.e. ETCS and non-ETCS fitted) traffic, becomes immediately apparent. Other conventional and high speed TEN routes in the UK also suffer the same constraints, with even the UKs truly High Speed Line the 300Km/h CTRL about to be used for domestic traffic (up to 230Km/h) as well as interoperable international traffic, and also having potential for international and other freight trains, not unlike the Mannheim Basel section of the Rotterdam Milan corridor which operates mixed traffic over 200Kph lines (where signalling has been installed that permits this speed) As can be seen from the foregoing, the derivation of harmonised operati ng rules over these types of corridor will be further difficult problem to overcome, and must be a contributing factor to the requirements for a harmonised European operating strategy for the ERTMS railway. The rule set must be flexible enough to provide
guidance to operators as to how ERTMS is intended to operate, e.g. a set of core rules, whilst allowing operators to build around these ERTMS core rules necessary application rules to cover the interface with the national signalling system, including whether the national system operates concurrently with ERTMS, or abuts ERTMS. To achieve the foregoing, it is clear that development of a harmonised set of signalling and train control requirements is highly desirable for ERTMS at all levels. This activity must be completed concurrently with, and complemented by, the set of ERTMS rules referred to above in order to cement the development process to a firm foundation. If this is not done soon, the European Rail industry stands a good chance of running into the same situation as occurred with legacy interlocking systems, e.g. supplier based principles and solutions suited only to their products, and leading to some of the extremely challenging cross-acceptance issues existing today.
5.2 Design Strategy

The case for the standardisation of internal principles is considered to lie in minimising differences in architecture, therefore lowering required stock holdings, improving flexibilities between systems etc. and other associated cost reductions that will obviously flow from such a standardised systems approach. The cost of a particular system or sub-system can be substantially reduced when the purchase volume is large, as in the retrofit of a railway, or a modernisation program. If all countries were to order identical systems from many suppliers, rather like mobile telephone handsets, major benefits would be experienced. Furthermore, the mantra must be that it shall not be necessary or wise to create a culture whereby every engineer, project manager or supplier must re-invent the wheel. The creative differences between the suppliers are becoming more obvious as research continues in other UIC projects. Most importantly, the UIC GENERIS project found that the differences between railways interlocking functional requirements are appearing more and more to be the result of the historic acceptance of supplierbased solutions, rather than the railway administrations own development of unique signalling principles, or indeed in any effort to harmonise them with others. This with the possible exception of weather based solutions. Standardising the structure of the train control systems as a whole should greatly improve the ability of networks to operate across borders national and international, and to develop the common operational core rule sets between member states as mentioned above. However, where differences arise in the operation and recovery scenarios between the train control systems of adjoining administrations, the structure of the system should provide for a degree of modularity, so that the accommodating these differences does not require a system alteration, or the need to develop bespoke solutions outside the core system. It should be noted, in addition that ERTMS does not, address the issue of crossborder traction supplies and the like which are beyond the scope of this paper and the overall ETCS system. The potential need for more complex traction units to accommodate variations in supply voltages will also remain unless this issue is addressed.
27/09/06
Page 11 of 52
5.3 The Business Case

Funding for the train control system refurbishment associated with the change to ERTMS operation is controlled by the EC and with the rationale that the replacement of legacy systems like for like is no longer an option. In order to satisfy this situation and to also assist the Infrastructure managers in the renewal programmes of the future, it is becoming clear that the business needs as well as the technical needs of the railways of Europe must be supported by the TSIs. Further development of the TSIs into sub-sections that are closely aligned with individual railway route operations should now be considered. The re-introduction of the issue of timescales for implementation that are driven by real benefits i.e. interoperability and cost efficient interoperable constituents is desirable also at this time. Table 1 shows some relationships between typical line and operation types found in the UK, and the application of the High Speed TSI to them. It can be clearly seen that many (and this is likely not just a UK situation) types of line and operation would not fall within the scope of that TSI, and any attempt to implement its provisions to them inappropriately is likely to lead to vastly inflated costs which would make any renewal difficult to justify financially. It is therefore the challenge to both railway administrations and suppliers to provide systems, based on ETCS constituents (to achieve the economies of scale) that can readily be fitted to lines of different classes at cost effective rates. Provision should also be made to enable introduction of alternative technologies in lieu of some of the ETCS sub-systems provided they interface with ETCS in the same way as the sub-system they replace. An example might be the use of satellite train location in lieu of balises on lightlyused lines. Such an approach will only work if the interfaces between the ETCS infrastructure sub-systems are clearly delineated, and based on agreed open specifications. The way forward to achieving these objectives requires a concerted effort by all parties to produce flexible, modular, cross acceptable solutions based on ETCS at reasonable cost, with the ability to mix and match solutions from different suppliers due to there being open, defined interfaces between infrastructure sub-systems.. The sheer magnitude of such a task, requires a spirit of co-operation between railways and suppliers alike that has rarely been seen before. The design and delivery of harmonised infrastructure equipment by all parties to satisfy the needs of these ambitious programmes is central to the effort,. If successful, it will lead to reduced stockholdings and maximise standardisation between typical lines and, where required, across national boundaries. Without it, the costs of the present approach to ERTMS deployment will remain a constant challenge to ERTMS implementation, and over much longer timescales, and provoke much political debate. It is also believed that the migration process from todays trackside and trainborne legacy systems to ETCS would also be facilitated by the use of this standardised, modular approach based on open interfaces. The need for European railways and their suppliers to steer towards a standardisation and harmonisation process for infrastructure based equipment in an attempt to meet the business driven rationale for equipping each designated line is clearly apparent. Of course, the development of future systems must be performed in a bidirectional manner between the railways and their suppliers. Railway administrations realise that the supplier system is a profit centred organisation, and the rollout of
ETCS should be nothing short of a profit driven realisation. The sources of funds available for Railway Administrations to deploy ETCS are also coming under increasing pressure, with extreme pressure to deliver the maximum value for each investment. The need for systems to be cost effective and the result a Win Win for all involved parties is paramount. The current costly situation arises perhaps from the ERTMS focus on interoperability and the lack of flexibility in the TSIs to address the differing needs of particular types of line. The processes of the past whereby many projects and sub projects have been begun, completed, and then scrapped or revised over the last few years should be reviewed as a part of the generation of a business case for each line type to be converted. These discussions require a more international approach to ERTMS than has perhaps been seen in the past, especially for those routes designated as International Train Access Routes (ITARs), and the development of ideas that form the backbone of the new interoperable European Network requires an approach based upon needs and with a balanced view towards the costs. Given that many national lines are not related in any way to cross border traffic, there is no obvious need to deal with them at this moment with regard to Interoperability. Whilst there may be a cost benefit in changing out the systems employed on such lines, this should only be considered within the long term and then only when traffic levels requires such updates. These fit into the so called Regional Railways that at best can only be considered as feeder lines to the main or international lines, and may also require special derivations of the ETCS subsystem to suit their, less demanding, operational needs. More importantly, these lines and their interfaces that do relate to Interoperability must be identified, and decisions made upon a harmonised way forwards. This is true both at the system infrastructure level, and at the signalling and train control system level and with new train control equipment or modification of legacy systems for the short term. Seldom has the railway industry at large been presented with an opportunity to modernise and rationalise on the scale envisaged under ERTMS and the TSIs. The need to develop plans and methods relating to the application of ETCS on corridor lines with very different characteristics e.g. International lines, mixed traffic main lines and regional lines is discussed below. Each of these has its challenges, and each may demand reviews of the safety strategies employed in relation to the cost of application.
27/09/06
Page 13 of 52
Light Rail
Regional Lines
Freight
Conventional Mixed Traffic
Conventional High Speed
High Speed
Interoperable Line Speed KPH Capacity Train Protection
NO
NO
NO
YES on ITAR Max 160 10 tph ETCS On ITAR GSM-R on ITAR only
NO
Yes on ITAR 130-250 15 tph ETCS On ITAR GSM-R on ITAR Nat./ETCS the rest No but integrated if existing 20 Tonnes
YES
Max 70 n/a Line of Sight
Max 100 Less Than 6tph NS / ETCS
Max 100 10 tph NS/ETCS
Max 160 20 tph NS/ETCS
250+
Radio
Nat. / GSM-R
Nat. / GSM-R
Nat. / GSM-R
NAT. / GSM-R
Level Crossings
Stop & Proceed
Stop & Proceed & Barrier L.C 15 Tonnes
Stand Alone 30 Tonnes
Integrated for capacity 22 Tonnes
Integrated For Capacity 22 Tonnes
Rolling Stock Axle Load Brakes Crash Worthiness Track Gauge Fencing Required
10 Tonnes
High Speed TSI
Track Brake Tram & Coach Nat. Spec. NO
Conv. Heavy Tram Nat. Spec. No except Urban Areas Nat. Spec.
Conv. Conv.
Conv. Conv.
Conv. Conv. Nat. Spec. Yes
Conv. Conv. Per TSI Yes
NS / TSI No except Urban Areas Nat. Spec. Per TSI
Track Characteristics
Nat. Spec.
Per TSI
Nat. Spec
Per TSI
Table 1: Line Use and Relationships to the HS TSI
5.4 Asset Utilisation Under ERTMS

The key considerations in an owners strategy for his assets are to obtain the maximum benefit from them over their operational lifetime. This may be achieved by ensuring that they are maintained in such a way as to uphold their performance over their design lifetime, and in having a reasonable view of when they should be replaced. Such replacement should ideally be before the renewal need is justified by deterioration in asset reliability. These statements are considered valid for both fixed infrastructure and trains. However, justification for the renewal of an asset before the end of its theoretical life can pose a number of political obstacles for infrastructure owners, and is one of the key challenges presently at the heart of the deployment of ERTMS/ETCS in Europe. The wholesale renewal of assets with useful lives left with the principal objective of securing deployment of ERTMS/ETCS alo ne potentially presents a major political challenge for some asset owners, due to the many conflicting pressures on the availability of investment funds, and the means of demonstration in their political environment of the benefit for expenditure committed. This demonstration is likely to be extremely sensitive to the business practices of the railway administration concerned. The Administrations key cost-benefit indicator will often include e.g. a journey time between fixed points or may be based upon the requirement for reliability that trains arrive at a given node in their journey, or a combination of both. It could be argued then that it may be difficult to justify ERTMS/ETCS where reliability of arrival is a key performance indicator, as ERTMS/ETCS alone may not have a significant impact on this parameter. If journey time is a key performance parameter for the railway administration, then the justification should be a little easier, although a measurable improvement is only likely where the journey in question crosses a border between administrations, rather than for journeys that remain within a single administration. It is clear that ERTMS/ETCS can contribute to increased capacity of lines, however this may not be a justification for asset renewal alone if there is no demand for any increase in capacity provided by the deployment. Justification for a business case for ERTMS/ETCS application is then further compounded by the need for many lines, other than, perhaps, dedicated High Speed lines, needing to provide for a mix of interoperable trains and national trains, where the national trains cannot justify the fitment of ERTMS/ETCS, as noted above . This raises the spectre of many lines needing some form of ERTMS/ETCS deployment which allows unfitted national trains to continue to operate among fitted interoperable trains. The challenge therefore is to provide a scalable deployment of ERTMS/ETCS in many applications, and which:
Provides the flexibility both to allow incremental deployment of ETCS on both infrastructure and trains and Recognises that completion of the roll-out of ERTMS/ETCS will represent many years work for those administrations with substantial networks, and Is likely will require ERTMS/ETCS to co-exist and interface with each asset owners heritage systems both during migration and in, many cases, during their operating life
27/09/06
Page 15 of 52
Allow each administration to develop a benefits case that is commensurate with their political situation and decision environment Provides for both evolution (co-existence with existing heritage systems) and revolution (complete and wholesale replacement of heritage systems) Does not produce such a complex system that reliability declines, negating any benefits to be achieved
5.5 Benefits of ETCS Fitment

From the days of colour light signalling and its variations between speed and route signalling, it has been calculated that the headway inherent on such systems is restricted to the distance between the unlimited speed point (green) and the actual stopping point after encountering the next signal at caution or preliminary caution. It can be shown that with the fitment of ETCS or other continuous ATP systems this headway distance can be lowered to the distance between the first warning point and the stopping point, which latter is determined from the agreed parameters for certainty of braking performance. This, in some systems could amount to 2Km of usable distance between trains if the signalling is correctly laid out, and therefore should reduce headway and increase capacity, and also improve the capability to recover from perturbation. In the UK, ERTMS is perceived as a possible way of increasing the capability of the network at key nodes where the present fixed block signalling system is considered to be the constraint, usually as it is usually being optimised to the worst performing train. Unfortunately, the lack of agreed metrics for determining capacity and throughp ut (see UIC 405R and UIC406) are making this a difficult case to make.
27/09/06
Page 16 of 52
5.6
Headway Concepts
Conventional Lineside Signalling

Minimum Headway Distance Train Length Train A
Safety Margin
Overlap
Minimum Distance for an Unrestricted Proceed Aspect For Train B Braking Distance 1 s t Cautionary Aspect on approach to stop signal
Driver Reaction Distance

Train B
ETCS
Minimum Headway Distance
Train Length Train A Safety Margin
Target Stop Point (LOMA)
Braking Distance
Driver Reaction Distance
Train B
Figure 2: Headway Improvement from ETCS Based Signalling
6. Proposed Methodologies for Migration

This section is presented as a comment on the current situation within the railway community and to provoke discussion between all parties in the search for technical solutions to the migration issues as they apply to the different line and operational issues. It has evolved from an understanding of the studies and papers produced over the years to identify the major needs of the railways from an Interfacing and requirements standpoint. These were originally defined in relation to the ERTMS elements of RBC, Interlocking and Object Controllers and their associated interfaces. The TCCS interfaces had been considered, but largely ignored from a technical standpoint, leaving a great need for future discussion. It must be recognised that both normal and fallback operations cannot be achieved without addressing them.
6.1 Past Efforts

The UIC ESIS Project attempted to bring the subject of standardised communication interfaces at the trackside to the front and centre, realising that these provide a foundation to a more harmonised and open communications world. The upcoming UIC ERTMS Platform Project (Euro-Interlocking Phase 2) promises to continue the work seen during Phase 1 (ESIS), and should include the conversion of, and addition to, the functional requirements for interlocking systems with regard to the ERTMS environment. It should also work towards a more standardised architecture in line with harmonised operating rules and consistent failure modes. All
27/09/06
Page 17 of 52
of the foregoing will be required as the drive towards ERTMS, and the fulfilment of the TSI focus on Interoperability proceeds. The operational scenarios to be supported by a system such as ERTMS also require analysis to ensure consistent fault recognition, management, reaction and rectification across the railway networks of Europe. A review of the current and future needs in this field will be required as an important element of the apportionment of functional requirements and system architecture at the trackside. The ERTMS subsystems GSM-R, Euro-Balise, Euro-Loop, Euro-Cab, Euro-radio and others have already become standards in their own right and these will form the backbone of any future system. The ERTMS Memorandum of Understanding of March 2005 resulting from the imposition of the TSI presents an example whereby the issues of one group (Trainborne Systems) seemed paramount, and which left the trackside systems area completely unexplored. The issue of trackside system involvement in interoperability has not been explored from either a migration, or new line standpoint by any Task Force or interest group, and is therefore understood only by disparate groups, and especially by the supply side. The MOU, in line with the TSI referred also to national migration and implementation plans for ERTMS Net: It was as well, only valid for 18 months, hardly representing sufficient time to present the proposals for trackside requirements in an international and meaningful way. It can be assumed that as this document is updated that the MOU has expired or is about to expire.
6.2 The Suppliers

Related to ERTMS procurement, the railway companies have taken a path that joins suppliers into consortia to find a way forwards. Of course this approach seems fine in that the Research & Development budget is reasonably evenly divided (part of the Win Win strategy): What is not so clear is the effect that this type of procurement strategy will have upon the future and the possibilities for a harmonised approach. It is good to see that elements of projects between supplier consortia are being tested between their sub-systems, and to some degree this process is successful. This is however only being carried out between members of a consortium: It seems that there are few interoperable projects between consortia, or within which inter-consortia products are being subjected to the same test regimes across nationa l boundaries. The focus then has been; firstly to adhere to the Interoperability directives 96/48, and secondly to achieve maximum amount of funding from the EC. Most importantly the essential discussions on the need for a migration policy at all and the importance of European ERTMS legislation forcing its implementation on certain TEN corridors has been largely ignored. Currently, there appears to be no concerted effort within the EC to address both sides of the system level issues arising from the Interoperability Directive; That is to say both train-borne and entire trackside system. The results of discussion arising from this paper must go a long way towards addressing this problem.
27/09/06
Page 18 of 52
When one considers all the issues it must be considered that a concerted European approach using pragmatic system engineering techniques is the only way forwards to a manageable technical future
6.3 The Current Situation

Numerous rail links within the EU, and some without, have been planned as a part of the interoperability strategy. Some maps are included to demonstrate the linking proposed by the EC and administered under the supervision of associations such as UNISIG/UNIFE/UIC/ERTMS Users Group/ERIG and latterly the AEIF/EIM/ERA/CER. This business structure is changing with the closing of the AEIF, and the introduction / strengthening of the EIM. The UIC / CER groups also have a role to play, but until now have been much involved with the train-borne systems aspect of the ERTMS problem. Table 1 above gave an example of how the TSI for High Speed has not really considered the issues of real railway operation, especially over lines not dedicated to neither international nor mixed traffic running at differing speeds. As can be seen there may be as many as six differing line types operating different train types, weights lengths and performance criteria. The HS TSI is really only representative of one of these. The table is as well, not wholly representative of all the railways of Europe, with each one having similar but not exactly the same problems in the decisions for ETCS fitment. The structuring of technical and business groups and the combination of the two together must bring boundary definition for ERTMS trackside systems and other tasks at hand into sharp focus. Their mandate must be to reduce the duplication and waste of effort that has been evidenced in the past whilst permitting a linear rollout with consideration for operations in the real world. It is clear that the ideals and the arguments for harmonisation lie in the lowering of costs, efficiency of implementation, and reduction of project life-cycle times. Not one of these issues has yet been fulfilled by ERTMS projects.
7. Task Identification
7.1 System Type Identification.
As may be seen from Table 1 above, there must be differing solutions for different categories of line. There are also considerations to be made as to the level of safety integrity that is required for the type of line, traffic volumes etc. At a lower level in the system choice, we must take into account the level of safety required for data-communications between the elements of the control and communications system. Also, the types of system layout and functionality differ widely for lines of the same type. Taken in context this makes the task of selecting trackside systems architecture for ETCS a significant challenge. The differences already seen between the ETCS Mainline project architectures and the regional lines development in
27/09/06
Page 19 of 52
Sweden are indicators of the way in which design solutions can drift away form the common ideal if not controlled by the customer railways.
7.2 Operational Scenarios

Historically it is either changes in operational requirements or the fallout from critical accidents that have driven developments in traditiona l signalling applications and principles, and usually within the boundaries of individual administrations. The unavoidable design changes to equipment and its architecture to achieve these changes have evolved over the years along with the race to update to new technologies. Standardisation has, unfortunately, rarely been considered when implementing solutions to such changes. Operational requirements in every case relate to many issues arising from the running of trains. Some are listed below, and most or all drive the design and implementation of the overarching signalling and control systems that protect them.. Headway Maintenance and improvement. Train Separation (Junction Management and Node Handling). The need for operational flexibility of the layout. Maintaining operations during failures Recovery scenarios from failure. Splitting & Joining Trains. Train Detection
The major changes in train control and operational strategies called for by ERTMS on heavy rail non-transit applications require the same philosophical approach to development of future operational requirements. They also require a consideration of just how much ETCS is really required, the lines over which it should be applied and above all the timing of such applications when viewed against the costs and benefits of its implementation. The above issues and the technicalities associated with the changing and commissioning of traditional signalling systems now need to be coalesced into a general system for the future. This deve lopment must not be on an ad hoc basis, but employ the benefit of hindsight, and the availability of modern system engineering strategies to achieve the required goals. The same may be true for operational scenario development, a subject seemingly neglected during the development of the SRS, and only written after its completion. There still appears to be a degree of unhappiness with the scenarios developed by the ERTMS Users Group in any terms and these may not have been implemented nationally, or more especially, internationally. In terms of normal operation and fall-back and recovery scenarios, it may well be that the SRS will require revision in order to address these issues, both in the migrating railway and for the operation of new lines. A methodology has been explored in which system development for ERTMS requirements are derived from a process of top-down extraction from Operational
Requirements, and bottom-up construction from the translation of existing functional principles and requirements i nto the ERTMS environment and architecture. This process applies in both the migrating, and the new railway cases. Not the least of these concerns the need for an initial isolation of the requirements of the operators to permit them to dispatch trains. The ability to do this safely and efficiently relies solely on the volume of information, both required by them and available, and whether the system is running normally or running in a fallback state. There arises then a necessity for the development of func tional specifications for an interface between the TCCS and the RBC, and a further need to develop the requirements for operational fallback links between the TCCS and its associated interlocking equipment.
7.3 Migration Planning

In many meetings, seminars and gatherings the question has been asked: How to protect the current investment in signalling, both trackside and train borne, that may have to last many years, and that currently may not be initially ERTMS compatible? This conundrum forms the backbone of the second issue to be discussed herein. A subordinate to this concerns TEN routes equipped with older style interlocking equipment and signalling, that need an implementation method for ERTMS without replacing this in its entirety. The first task then is to identify those lines that do apply, and take a look at the existing signalling systems, their comparative age, and possible suitability for revision over time, to ERTMS principles of operation. A group of railways has been formed from The Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Italy to research the first major TEN corridor between Rotterdam and Milan, and the associated lines would obviously provide a good candidate for the research needed. The German railway, Die Bahn and its subsidiary DB Netz AG, Danish State Railways, BaneDanmark, and REFER Portugal have provided details of signalling and interlocking systems over two major TEN corridors, (one of which is a portion of the route mentioned above) and the others over one entire network. This data is included in Appendix A. The problems faced for the future can be seen clearly, that interlocking systems employed over two of these routes are averaging 30 years of age, and due to past contracting strategies and other issues, do not necessarily reflect consistent design. In contrast, a large proportion of the Portuguese mainline network signalling has been renewed within the last 10 years. Allowing for the fact that these mainlines were equipped with ATP (EBICab 700) there is a reluctance to proceed to ERTMS with the scenario of a replacement program for all interlocking systems. The similarity between the railways is however that the systems are still not architecturally consistent, and represent a number of suppliers with different architectural solutions. The Portuguese network does, like many other railway administrations, however keep to one set of generic signalling principles that underpin the application at each specific site. The foregoing sets the scene for the choices with which the railways are faced o n TEN routes of differing characteristics. There is the issue of trains equipped with current standard train borne ATP systems requiring to be modified to run on ERTMS Lines, that of ERTMS equipped trains required to run on current ATP equipped lines, and finally the issue of how to migrate the signalling at the trackside to provide a
27/09/06
Page 21 of 52
simpler and inexpensive migration path for the trackside. There is also the business driven issue of whether and when the line should be fitted at all, based upon the criteria of the business need, and the type of traffic envisaged. The following figure1 indicates a process to achieve the migration ideal with all systems addressed. 7.3.1 Fallback and Degraded Modes In the case of fallback situations where the primary system is not performing, operating commands and information must continue to flow in such a way to maintain a given level of operation, and to assist in the recovery process, and keep trains moving safely. The development of a rationale by which these issues may be addressed requires the same approach over all the railways of, initially the so-called TEN routes, and later for other mainlines as they are added to the network. There is, no obvious reason why these scenarios and the systems developed for ERTMS as a result, should be any different in Finland as in France in the long run, although there are of course differences in the existing situation between countries. The road to ERTMS then may require national strategies, but the focus and the outcome must follow the international strategies developed during the process. By proper analysis of the operators needs, it is believed may be that the designer may be able to apportion functionality in such a way that SIL4 communication links are not needed (e.g. by use of message coding to allow safety critical messages to be transmitted over open networks (as is done in UK SSI), thereby saving money. As an example, the use of Vital Overrides between the dispatcher and the interlocking can potentially be expensive due to the m needing to have a defined level of security, and which, depending on the architecture of the control system, can be local to or remote from the control point. The abolition of, or at least re-consideration of the need for such functions as these has the ability to save considerably in newera systems if railways can agree on commonality of practice in failure scenarios. The alternative may be by specifying the interfaces between the interlocking, the control system and the vital override, and adopting a safety critical message protocol that allows messages to be transmitted over an open communication channel. Some older signalling practices should also be addressed, especially perhaps be addressed in terms of the aviation industry and its practices, when dealing with communication based systems in the ETCS world. The aircraft industry for example takes a notably different approach to vitality in its on-board communications strategies.
27/09/06
Page 22 of 52
Migration via Rolling Stock
Migration via Infrastructure
Definition of Rolling Stock Use
Roling Stock with new systems Two Systems: - Standard (ERTMS) - Modified to run on national network Homologated new / modified train systems
(New ) Sub-Fleet with new train systems: - One system per train - National Standard (ERTMS)
Financing
Partly Modified / Replaced Infrastructure: New Infrastructure One System The Standard Homologated new / modified Infrastructure system - National System - Modifications in the direction of the standard
Result: Application of standards by migration (Interlocking and Train Protection including: Example: HSL Zuid - Interoperability - Increased Capacity - Increased Safety Example: Asd - Ut
Figure 3: Scenarios for Rolling Stock and Infrastructure Migration of Nation Specific Solutions to (European) Standards
Courtesy of Prorail Netherlands There is a need to provide an ultimate ERTMS solution for new rail lines, and while important, the problems posed for rolling stock development and transfer are not so difficult. What is difficult however is establishing norms for the equipping of such new lines to assure future standardization and true interoperability within the rules, and to ensure that the strategies employed in migration are in fact reflected in the final product for all lines. The great questions remain though, how best to adapt, either by existing equipment modification or by renewal, and how to create a truly PanEuropean solution for those lines affected by the TSIs
27/09/06
Page 23 of 52
8. Interoperability & System Relationships

Over the last few years, the EC, together with its committees, have issued directives concerning railway interoperability between countries. If we take this to its lowest common denominator, this means neighbouring countries with common routes, more commonly specified as TEN routes. As some nations are tackling this issue by building new lines for high speed, and essentially passenger traffic, the issue of new technology commonality specifically arises. It is essential that such lines have harmonised principles both of operation (both normal & under fault conditions) and of train control. How this is achieved is currently in the hands of the ERTMS Users Group and implicitly UNISIG / UNIFE. Their supporting documentation up until now gives no inclination towards harmonised operations, and seems to have left the specification open enough to permit design diversity. This is arguably highly undesirable, given the foregoing in which a standardised product and specification is advocated. The wider issue arises from the notion that major mixed traffic routes such as the DB Emmerich Basel (Part Rotterdam Milan), and the BaneDanmark route from Germany to Sweden via Copenhagen will form a backbone of TEN routes. Where this is the case, the issue of replacement or modification of existing interlocking and trackside signalling equipment to suit the agreed ERTMS systems design comes to the front and centre of the grand design.
8.1 The Signaller and the TCCS

The role of the signaller and his interface with the signalling system via the TCCS is another area in which it seems that little public debate has been heard. The manner in which these systems must be able to communicate with RBC, Vehicle or Interlocking in all types of operational situation is paramount to the development of operational rules, especially relating to system recovery after a fault affecting traffic movement or safety. It seems, although not perhaps publicly obvious that the interoperable interfaces relate solely to the user i.e. the train driver & his train, and their relationship to the visible parts of the control system. This exercise derives the interoperable interfaces as: The train cab equipment: (Drivers HMI) The line side signals (if any): (Drivers HMI) The ERTMS line-side communication equipment (On-Board interface)
Given that the technology behind these is generally invisible to the user, one may ask why there should be so much emphasis on commonality. One answer of course lies in the nature of common failure states and how to recover from them in a unified fashion and using a harmonised operational rulebook. Others revolve around cost minimisation, provision of technical resources, staff training etc. Missing from the above list is the TCCS and its interfaces coupled with the needs of the signaller. The subject requires a completely separate review as it is by the use of the interfaces provided that the signaller can use the rulebook as it is
27/09/06
Page 24 of 52
intended. Indeed the TCCS must be designed in support of that operational rule book and the scenarios contained within. The search for a trackside principles starting point, must eventually elect to include TCCS functionality, insofar as it affects the user interface requirements to the other trackside systems and centralised information systems of the railway especially in the requirement to protect traffic during incidents and to recover from failure. This is a major issue, an it must be said that harmonisation here, and in the area of operating rules, is likely to be a long hard road of national legal wrangling to have maximum functionality transferred from interlocking to TCCS, and to rid the systems of the operational override pitfalls that exist with us to this day under the guise of Operational Need rather than safety or business requirements.
9. Signalling Principles and Requirements

The railways of Europe are, given their history and the innate nationalism within, some of the most difficult entities with which to address the harmonisation issue and its associated problems. In the implementation of interlocking types, signal profile differences, speed versus route based signalling and so forth, there is no consensus as to harmonisation of signalling or operational principles for legacy systems. The onset of ERTMS however presents us with a superb opportunity to achieve this. Against this backdrop, and within interlocking and train safety systems alone, there are to name but a few: Supplier specific types (especially design) Electronic versus relay based systems Free wired versus geographical systems Mechanical interlocking Internal / external line block Track circuit block Inumerable token / tablet / telephone based block systems for low traffic and single lines Level crossing equipment
There have been some very public examples of the pitfalls waiting for the unwary engineer and the over optimistic operator that always wishes to maximise the use of his railway. The West Coast Main Line in the UK provided one of the best examples in Europe in recent times, of the problems the signal & systems engineers face when coming to grips with legacy systems and trying to build for the future. This line has in the course of the last few years been the subject of huge debate, government interference, national press revelations, inadequate strategies for renewal, poor legacy track alignments, non standard loading gauge for Europe and poor system engineering choices. In short, it has also been the victim of those operators that need to achieve maximum use of the network, with the ensuing inability to perform major
re-signalling and other works in a convenient and timely fashion without causing massive dislocation to the train service. The above should not generally apply when building new (hopefully dedicated) main line railways, whether high or medium speed, or just feeder lines but this reflection provides a good insight into the issues facing the migrating railway and signalling and track alignment upgrades. From the European standpoint, the operational issues for ERTMS have been fairly well defined in the various technical documents e.g. SRS. Unfortunately these do not provide the reader with a detailed insight as to the required principles (requirements) for the control and supervision of trackside systems in the ERTMS environment, either under full control o r some type of fallback mode following a major failure. The challenges therefore seem to revolve around the following issues and decision paths. Signal or re-signal from scratch only those high speed lines required for European Interoperability as directed by the EU, and no more. Or, re signal as above, but include mixed traffic high speed lines Or, re- use adapted existing signalling systems in a way that they conform to new principles and that lead directly to full ERTMS when obsolete. Providing compatibility between existing heritage systems and ERTMS, to enable co-existence of the heritage system and ETCS, until the need for the heritage system can be dispensed with.
10. Important Guidelines

As with all systems, the specifications as to use, functionality, and its operability strategies under fault, remain the critical issues. The railway companies themselves remain the best suited organisations to: Design railway layouts, based upon their knowledge of train service requirements both present and future and with an innate knowledge of the requirements for safety. Develop operational scenarios based upon the nature of the traffic and the degree of departure from normal services Design a fallback strategy based upon the rules of the railway as is. Negotiate revised fallback strategies based upon agreement between neighbouring railways, or railways sharing a common line for the future.
Independent technical advisers or qualified signalling personnel within each railway or withi n a railway umbrella organisation are best suited to: Prepare the functional requirements by which the proposed system will be designed. Interpret the operation and fallback scenarios into a signalling and train control system layout suitable for them, Determine the most suitable architectures for the signalling and train control systems based upon a required commonality of use.
27/09/06
Page 26 of 52
Determine common failure modes to ensure that functionality may be normalised across the user railways in line with a normalised rulebook and recovery strategies for a formalised architecture.
It is not assumed in any of these activities, that the above are responsible for the design of the system, and this is important. Each of the groups involved is however responsible to ensure that the design derived from their requirements specification does meet, and can support, the level of operational flexibility envisaged at the outset, and that the design meets the need of the operator and his business case. In simple words dont over-signal lines that do not require it, whilst at the same time providing what the operator wants, not what the system can deliver.
11. Technical Solutions

11.1 The Basics
There has been much said and written concerning the system architecture for ERTMS based signalling control systems. As has been said, this does not relate to train-borne equipment that has been generally agreed. What has not been agreed however is the standard for the basic safety of the ETCS Trackside system and its interfaces. As can be seen below, there are a number of interface issues of significant importance to be discussed From Table 1, it may be seen that there are many types of line, and that the signalling systems provided on each type must, both now and in the future, be installed with a business case that supports the decisions for that level of complexity. Figure 4 below represents a full ETCS train control system at the trackside. It can be seen from this that there are many levels of functionality, and necessarily many complex interfaces to be considered. Not the least of these are the RBC RBC, RBC Interlocking and Interlocking -Interlocking interfaces, all of which need to carry secure data, unless hard wired into copper circuits. In some administrations, there are even requirements to provide safety override controls to the interlocking to permit traffic operation in failure conditions. This latter requirement has led to a need for SIL 3 or better communications between the TCCS and the field systems, unless it has proven possible to use a coding structure to provide the necessary level of system safety when such messages are transmitted over an open communication channel. The design of the ETCS in Figure 4 requires an interlocking system at the trackside that sets routes just like the interlockings of today. The difference is that there are now 3 supervisory levels, TCCS, ARS and RBC instead of the original 2, and two functional architectures requiring a SIL level of 3 or better dependent upon line and traffic. Surely there is a better and cheaper way to achieve our ends. Figure 5 sets out to indicate how the cost of the mainline ETCS trackside might be reduced. From the figure, it can be seen that the trackside apparatus at the interlocking site level has been reduced to the very low operational requirement to set and detect points, provide direct train position information, and some very localized information to the train driver as to point position in a system recovery
27/09/06
Page 27 of 52
situation. Whilst this minimizes the cost at trackside, the responsibility for providing the Train Route now passes to the RBC. When one comes to consider the architecture of these various subsystems, the aim must be to reduce costs to a slow as possible. Figure 5 shows architecture for main lines whereby certain functions are combined into systems of the same SIL level thus avoiding the possibility that SIL 0 functions might actually be designed into SIL 4 hardware and software. In this example, the virtual route setting and locking together with the construction and issuance of movement authorities is performed by a SIL3 or 4 section of the RBC, whereas the routing development and scheduling is handle by the TCCS / ARS, together called a TMS (Traffic Management System). This design is approaching that selected by the Swedish railways for their regional lines. All these innovations, while desirable, cost money and effort both in terms of design, installation and maintenance, and tend to be extremely complex. This complexity has in the past been solved by extremely reliable and proprietary solutions, but in a modern, business oriented railway, this may not be ideal. Railways are now tending towards the installation of their own internal communications networks, with access facilities along the line for the interfaces that the modern railway requires. Such innovations require exploration into the issues of open networks, and the data requirements to be transmitted over them.
27/09/06
Page 28 of 52
TCCS
D Signaller Functions & Displays Fallback Route Setting Fallback Point Move Fallback Point Detect D
ARS
F A
Automatic Routing Functions Timetable Junction Management
RBC
B
Train Data Setting M.A. Setting Railway Topography Virtual Route Setting ETCS Mode Train Position
RBC
Complex Field Interlocking
I/L
I/L
I/L
Physical Route Setting & Locking Signal Aspect Setting (Migration) ATP Controls Point Machine Controls Points Heating Signal Lighting for Non ETCS Traffic Points Position Indicators TVP Section Reset Lockable Device Releases
Points Detection Points Heating Off / On Signal Lamp Filament Detection TVP Section Occupancy / Clearance / Reset Data Lockable Device Detection Interfaces A: Interfaces B: Interfaces C: Interfaces D: Interfaces E: Interfaces F: TCCS to RBC RBC to RBC RBC to Interlocking subsystems TCCS to Interlocking Interlocking to Interlocking RBC GSM-R Link to Vehicles SIL 0 SIL 4 SIL 4 SIL 0-2 SIL 4 SIL 4
Figure 4: Mainline ERTMS Trackside Architecture 2006
27/09/06
Page 29 of 52
TCCS
D Signaller Functions & Displays Fallback Point Move Fallback Point Detect D
ARS
F A
Automatic Routing Functions Timetable Management Junction Management Railway Topography Train Data Setting
RBC
B
M.A. Setting Virtual Route Setting Signal Lighting Decision ETCS Mode Train Position
RBC
Low Level Functions Field Interlocking
I/L
I/L
I/L
Point Machine Drives Signal Lighting for Non ETCS Traffic Points Position Indicators TVP Section Reset Lockable Device Releases Points Heating Interfaces A: Interfaces B: Interfaces C: Interfaces D: Interfaces F:
Points Detection Points Heating Off / On Signal Lamp Filament Detection TVP Section Occupancy / Clearance / Reset Data
TCCS RBC RBC RBC RBC - Interlocking subsystems TCCS Interlockings Direct Fallback RBC GSM-R
SIL0 SIL 2 SIL 0 SIL 0 SIL 4
Figure 5: The Simplified Interlocking Approach to ETCS Trackside. The UIC ESIS project feasibility study of 2004 set out originally to provoke discussions concerning a standard for signalling system interfaces. The current version of the document, accepted by the Euro-Interlocking steering group of November 2003, sets out two possible ERTMS L2 control system architectures. The
27/09/06
Page 30 of 52
acceptability of these options when set against the issues of open ended and limited access lines, and migration will be discussed, along with proposals for a way forward to a standard application for ERTMS at all levels based upon the use of Operational Scenarios to create a Top Down approach to development.
TCCS/ARS
F
D Signaller Functions & Displays Fallback Point Move Fallback Point Detect
RBC
B
M.A. Setting Virtual Route Setting Signal Lighting Decision ETCS Mode Train Position
Low Level Functions Field Interlocking
I/L
I/L
I/L
Point Machine Drives Signal Lighting for Non ETCS Traffic Points Position Indicators TVP Section Reset Lockable Device Releases Points Heating Interfaces B: Interfaces C: Interfaces D: Interfaces F:
Points Detection Points Heating Off / On Signal Lamp Filament Detection TVP Section Occupancy / Clearance / Reset Data
TCCSRBC TCCSRBC RBC - Interlocking subsystems TCCS Interlockings Direct Fallback RBC GSM-R
SIL 2 SIL 0 SIL 0 SIL 4
Figure 6: Simplified ETCS for Regional or Light Traffic Lines
27/09/06
Page 31 of 52
TCCS RBC
Diagnostic System Miscellaneous Safety Systems Juridical records Kernel I/L
Level crossing Kernel Line block I/L
O/C
O/C
O/C
O/C
O/C
O/C
Interlocking System
Interlocking System
Category 1
Track Elements
Category 2 Category 3
Figure 7: UIC ESIS Feasibility Study - Signalling System Architecture A
TCCS
GSM-R
Diagnostic System Miscellaneous Safety Systems Juridical records n I/L n RBC
Level crossing RIS Line block
Radio Interlocking System RIS
O/C
O/C
O/C
O/C
O/C
O/C
Category 1 Track Elements Category 2 Category 3
Figure 8: UIC ESIS Feasibility Study - Signalling System Architecture B It was noticeable from the UIC studies in Figures 7 & 8 that migration from existing interlocking systems was omitted from the discussion by an early decision. To include the subject was deemed to have made ESIS untenable. Add to this fact that migration is widely viewed by railways as a National issue, and one arrives at the current situation. As mentioned earlier in this paper, the railway companies of Europe are faced with somewhat more serious problems regarding the use of legacy systems, and these concerns we will consider herein.
27/09/06
Page 32 of 52
12. Architectural Strategy

As stated above, the architecture for the supplied ERTMS systems will fall out of, to name but a few, important issues: The Business Case for the line to be re-signalled The Type of line it is, and its relationships in Table 1 Available technological Know-How Whether or not the existing systems exact a migration policy on the new system Agreed International Standards
Given that the European railway world currently has many different mechanical and relay-interlocking types, a selection of different electronic interlocking types, and other legacy electro-mechanical signalling systems, it is not surprising that difficulties exist in the making of decisions for the future. It is only as a result of the requirement for adherence to European directives that are themselves not comprehending the reality of the railways of today, that managers have been forced to deal with the issues. Whilst the interfaces between the elements that are supported internationally; namely trackside communications to and from rolling stock, are very advanced, and internationally normalised, the proposed architecture of, and communication between elements of the trackside systems are in general poorly understood for the entire ERTMS concept. There has been little evidence that the supply industry has been willing to change from the protected market approach of the past and to work together to find a truly international solution to the train control system architecture problem either. Numerous countries are involved with differing consortia from industry to develop solutions based on immediate, perhaps political or just pioneering goals, rather than the long -term goals of European train and trackside control systems harmonisation. What is required within the ERTMS environment is a set of norms that will see each supplier providing elements of the subsystems that are truly interchangeable. For example, communications cards that can be used in any system to connect similar elements with similar power supply requirements, operate multiple or identical protocols, and similar and multiple uses. This may only be achieved once a set of international system norms has been established, functional apportionment has been achieved, and interface specifications for all subsystems also agreed upon. The basis for this strategy revolves not just around interoperability, but also for reasons of cost and project risk reduction. These subsystems remain a major cost driver for railways that must be addressed by the application of European Standards The other necessity for future interlocking systems must be a modular approach that enables certain parts of the logic to be retained for ERTMS use, whilst other parts are removed due to the functionality of the RBC and other subsystems. These functional splits are currently available in the architecture of most interlocking systems today, whether relay or software based.
27/09/06
Page 33 of 52
13. Interface Requirements

The interfaces between ERTMS /ETCS subsystems generally fit into four functional links. These are by no means standard, but represent the interconnections given the system architecture outlined above as a standard basic ETCS control system architecture Interface Location RBC Interlocking Interlocking - TCCS Status Open or Proprietary Currently Flexible dependent upon the operating requirements Open Open Generally Proprietary General Application Level SIL 2 or 4 SIL 0, 1 or 4 (dependent upon the operating administration SIL 4 SIL 0 or 4 SIL 4
Interlocking interlocking TCCS RBC Interlocking Trackside (O/C Architecture
Table 2: Interface structures Analysis The Safety Integrity Levels stated in the table indicate that should the architecture change, or in fact the operating and legal requirements, then the degree of safety, and therefore cost, may change. Some of the following diagrams will indicate the optional differences that might be considered in this light. There is a need to re-visit the interface issue for the migration situation. The same basic interfaces remain, as the system elements involved do not change greatly. The evolving operational requirements to move trains in non-communicating mode over an ERTMS equipped line, and to operate and monitor track elements with failed system elements have led historically to an additional requirement to provide an interface between the TCCS and each interlocking for fallback handling and for special situations. It can be clearly seen that the functional apportionment between elements of the ERTMS system will also affect the interface functional requirements, and this issue is also addressed in the recommendations for the adoption of a fixed ERTMS system architecture for each level based on a balance between operational needs and safety, and cost effectiveness over the life cycle of the installation. What is certain is that the design of the system, and an understanding of its real subsystem tasks is a driver towards the reduction in the number and the required safety level of the interfaces. The Regional Design for example has reduced the number of external interfaces to three from six, and quite possibly the degree of complexity required in each has been reduced also. As in all things, risk analyses will reveal whether such reductions are suitable, but what is fact is that this exercise is ongoing, and that required SIL levels are falling.
27/09/06
Page 34 of 52
14. Migration Strategy

The subject of migration between existing signalling systems and ERTMS has long been an issue between signalling engineers. What has not happened is the development of a concerted strategy by which this may be achieved. This paper seeks to redress the balance, and to actively seek a suitable methodology whereby existing signalling infrastructure investment may be retained and utilised under the overall system requirements of ERTMS. Such a methodology must be explored under one group, and currently that group is the ERTMS Migration Group. Certain railways involved in current and past ERTMS Projects have determined that existing interlocking systems must be totally replaced with the same architecture when ERTMS is considered. A standpoint such as this has provoked investigation into the protection of assets and investment. The Swedish railway (BV) may now reconsider this, and there is a growing argument that complete replacement in some cases is technically needless when logical solutions can be found in the higher levels of the system, namely the RBC, leaving the lower levels of the Interlocking to perform as today. It may well be that from the TEN route examples given in earlier sections and expanded in the appendices, existing interlocking equipment may not lend itself immediately to modification, but with thought, most can be adapted, and with far less expenditure than that incurred during a complete interlocking replacement program. The risk element of working on old systems must be considered of course, but with suitable mitigations in place serious investigation into the possibilities could now be taking place. Figure 5 represents a possibility for reduced cost architecture for both new full ERTMS lines and new or existing mixed traffic ERTMS lines. The concept is to provide a reduced functionality trackside interlocking and an RBC with much greater capability Movement Authority generation and virtual route locking areas. The concept provides an opportunity to investigate the current interlocking and signalling equipment on TEN routes, and to modify it, at reduced cost, to suit the above format. The Interlocking equipment here only provides basic functionality such as Detector Locking, TVP supervision, simple time of operation locking, and supervision of Point and signal aspects. Realising that older systems suffer from wiring degradation, and limited interconnection availability a program such as this demands much thought, and there is no effort herein to provide the detailed technical solutions. The obstacles may perhaps be overcome with some cheaper alternatives, provided that the full routing and M.A functionality required for ERTMS is transferred to the RBC, and that interfacing strategies are developed to minimise the impact of ERTMS upon the remaining field equipment. The final model for ERTMS must also reflect the reduced functionality scenario at trackside as interlocking equipment is replaced by further attrition and old age. A main driver for not removing the trackside equipment and for retention of the direct locking parts of the interlocking relates to the necessity for signalling in mixed traffic TEN routes during migration. It is considered that operators will not give up
27/09/06
Page 35 of 52
throughput during the migration period in favour of a non-dual mode operating system. Such systems as the KCRC ATP in Hong Kong have largely overcome this problem, but with the use of interlocking systems providing the ATP and train-borne transmission information instead of the RBC of ERTMS systems. Signals in this case were equipped with an extra blue aspect, but this may not be necessary in the European arena where consideration might be given to signal darkening instead. This is advocated purely on a cost basis as the addition of aspects to existing signals has in the past proven to be an expensive option, especially in the requirement for additional or modified logic to drive them. A further operational issue during migration is that of throughput maintenance or even an increase in track capacity. Whilst it may be feasible to increase the number of trains in pure ERTMS systems by shortening block lengths etc. this task in a migration state would involve the movement of signals and any other track objects constraining headway. The costs associated with such activities must be carefully considered in the light of previous experiences, especially the KCRC ATP project.
14.1 Existing Railway Signalling Architecture

As can be clearly seen from the data (kindly provided in the appendices by railways for which migration poses a great problem) the existing interlocking systems on certain routes provide no simple path to an adequate and reasonably priced migration. The German example for the TEN routes between Emmerich and Basel reveals in great detail the problem that whatever the strategy to be employed, the existing and aging signalling interlocking infrastructure cannot be ignored. The strategies outlined herein have assumed that signalling systems on the major routes have had some investment in the prior 40 years, so providing a solution in one or more ways. What we are faced with in the German and Danish situations however is a complete re-signalling project in order to bring the systems up to date and to be, at the same time, ERTMS compliant, if the existing interlocking systems cannot be modified. Perhaps another data set of relevance here is that presented in the EuroInterlocking Business Case for The European Railways. Although not completely accepted, this document contains invaluable further data from other railways that gives further indications of the existent problems, and the percentages of existing equipment types. The information presented here attempts to fill the gaps in the Euro-Interlocking document by providing data from DB for at least one main line, and whilst this is not the whole picture, it is representative.
15. Node Handling

Many interlocking systems are placed for the control of major station areas rather than passing places or small stations along the line. A decision is required therefore as to how these must operate in the ERTMS environment, or in fact whether nodes should be included in the ERTMS equation. An answer is related to the fact that if interoperability were to be applied in its truest sense from the outset, the node issue would only apply to end stations for long stretches of open line. The German high-speed lines provide a classic example
of this where for example main stations like Cologne or Emmerich have not been resignalled to meet the demands of ERTMS as there is no direct necessity to do so. All trains stop there, especially passenger trains, and therefore continuous ERTMS is not required as trains may re-acquire communication with the control system upon entering the next line section. The same theories must be applied when a TEN designated existing route has nodes. It is not difficult to see that the application of ERTMS through stations such as Mannheim would be an extremely expensive and possibly unnecessary action if the tenets of the preceding paragraph were followed. This subject is under great discussion by SBB and others, but it would be more useful in light of the European picture if all railways were involved. There is, however, a counter argument that provision of ERTMS can enhance the capability of nodes to handle increased volumes of traffic operated as an overlay to the existing signalling system. This potential opportunity for ERTMS needs careful examination and review as part of a business case evaluation.
16. Interlocking Hierarchy

When one takes a look at the developing trackside requirements for ERTMS systems, the question should be asked as to whether current interlocking system requirements, whether for relay (geographical or free wired), electronic (processor or PLC based) or just an aging signal box, are relevant in the ERTMS environment. Has the functionality required in terms of output, changed in 60 years? In most cases not, other than electric or hydraulic actuators or machines have replaced mechanical equipment for operation of moveable elements of the infrastructure, and the substitution of light emitting diodes for incandescent lamps. It is arguable that with the onrush of ERTMS, that no further change is required to the trackside safety systems, with the exception of the removal of line-side signals for traffic separation once each line and all of the trains operating over it are fully equipped with ETCS. The general security issues have not gone away; points need to be locked, flanks and opposition movements require protection against, and most importantly of all, recovery scenarios from failure are ever present and will need to be addressed. All current interlocking systems perform admirably at the basic level, and when the added functions of route setting etc. and automation are considered, they can be seen to be operating logically at a level higher than just the trackside functions. The interfaces to other signalling equipment, TCCS etc. appear at a still higher level and so on and so forth. The underpinning logic has not changed or been removed, and neither should it require to be for ERTMS implementation, but merely the architectural considerations.
27/09/06
Page 37 of 52
TCCS and Automat / Scheduler
Communications Interface to TCCS
Functional Interface to Logic
Logical Route Setting
Logical Locking Level Physical Interface Layer Track Element Systems
Figure 9: Typical Relay Interlocking Functional Hierarchy Figure 9 represents the schematic construction of a typical interlocking system. And by colour, the green areas will be those portions remaining in the scenario where an existing interlocking is cut down for ERTMS interfacing works. These are elements that will remain, including point operation and detection, signal aspect display selection for mixed traffic (ERTMS and non-ERTMS) areas or for fallback situations in ERTMS mode. Basic locking functions suc h as time of operation and detector locking for fallback operation of non-communicating traffic under verbal rules will need to be maintained. When one considers the computing power available to the RBC designer and which can be brought to bear on the problems of setting and locking of a train path or Route, one wonders why this logical function could not be elevated to the RBC? The obvious constraint appears to be that the current interlocking wont work without the route setting layer, but what if, in the words of a famous computer company, this layer could be stripped away, initially temporarily, but permanently in the final design, to make way for a new strategy for train control. Figure 8 shows perhaps how this might be achieved for newer interlocking systems where worries concerning quality and integrity of the body of the system e.g. wiring are not so widespread, or where a system may be stripped down in terms of the software platform. Figure 10 describes a revised functional apportionment for the interlocking control system that removes the route setting requirements and elevates them to the RBC (Right). The interlocking system at trackside is then left with the responsibility for movement and detection of trackside elements, and the direct locking functions required by recovery scenarios in the event of RBC or Interface failures.
27/09/06
Page 38 of 52
FALL BACK COMMUNICATIONS LINK
TCCS
MAIN COMMUNICATIONS LINK
Interface with TCCS Functional Interface to Track element control Element Direct Locking (TVP)
text
RBC Interface to TCCS RBC Interface to GSM-R RBC Logical M.A (Route) text Generation
RBC Train Data Generation & Control RBC Interface to Interlocking 1 - n
Interface with RBC
Figure 10: ERTMS Functional Apportionment for Simplified Interlocking
17. Proposals & Recommendations

The foregoing has attempted to provide a reasonably accurate and balanced assessment of the ERTMS situation and environment, as well as providing an insight into some sub-system arrangements that could provide answers with reasonable development costs. The following recommendations concern technical issues respect to ERTMS both in the migration situation and the new line environments. Whilst the recommendations below are not all directly linked to Euro-Interlocking projects, acceptance of some related recommendations would mean that activities in those projects must be restructured should the recommendations be accepted.
17.1 Recommendation 1
It is recommended that a Fact Finding study be carried out to accumulate and concentrate technical information about current ERTMS projects in Europe in relation to the structure of the trackside elements of the system, and the communications requirements that have been established between them, and how the operational scenarios have been implemented.
27/09/06
Page 39 of 52
It is recommended that comparisons of the effectiveness, costs and limiting factors between the current solutions to the ERTMS migration problems and the relationship with future renewal projects be carried out. Such an investigation must also address the subject of ERTMS applications in nodes, and the advantages and disadvantages of its application in such areas.
It is recommended to investigate in detail, through a dedicated project if deemed necessary, the provision of an option for the future that allows for migration from legacy systems to ERTMS in line with the railways` priorities. Such a system must provide a service level in migration equivalent or better than today and provide a foundation for a subsystem that can achieve its original technical lifetime, while ERTMS development progresses. Such provisions would mean that when the time does come to upgrade the line, new technology interlocking types of the future could easily replace the old, with little change to the RBC or the trackside, as the interfaces and functional requirements (principles) will have been enshrined for many years.
It is recommended that a review be carried that investigates existing migration signalling systems and applications, where an entire fleet of vehicles could not be retrofitted in the timeframe of the signalling project so requiring mixed traffic running; be initiated. Their applicability to the ERTMS environment and whether the use of existing signalling must be continued must be confirmed or refuted within the context of the EU migration problem. The fitment of ERTMS Level 2 as an overlay in the migration case must be considered as a functional High Level Requirement, and the standardisation of such an overlay must be mandatory if costs are to be cut sufficiently to provide incentive to the railways to implement ERTMS .
It is recommended that an investigation be carried out as to whether in the migrating railway and where the required number of vehicles are available for ERTMS operation and mixed traffic running is not required over an existing designated TEN route, retention of the existing trackside infrastructure can be an option, and whether a reduced functionality interlocking strategy is feasible.
It is recommended that the issues of shunting and train recovery in migration scenarios be investigated further, and especially as to whether the need for shunting signals remains given the type of signalling systems proposed. Furthermore the following recommendations concern more organisational issues focusing on the aspect of commitment of railways, industry and European Union. They are essential for the success of ERTMS Projects in general:
27/09/06
Page 40 of 52
It is recommended that all system development for ERTMS work be brought under one umbrella group tasked with ERTMS migration planning on TEN routes. It is further recommended that the Euro-Interlocking Projects be brought into such a group and be given sufficient mandate both to advise and to create standards.
It is recommended that an investigation be carried out to isolate the needs of individual railway administrations as to implementation and the subsequent problems of the impact of particular solution decisions on other and adjacent administrations.
It is recommended that European Railways form a Principles Development Committee, with regulatory powers concerning system functional requirements and architectural specifications.
It is recommended that European Railways form a Railway Operations Committee tasked with, and given regulatory powers for the Production of an International Operations Handbook to address the needs of ERTMS at all levels from new high-speed links to the migrating railway and the branch lines with low cost or regional solutions.
It is recommended that regulatory Committees be empowered to oversee the harmonised implementation of ERTMS systems Europe wide.
27/09/06
Page 41 of 52
Appendices
18. The TEN Routes

Information Courtesy of the
Directive 2001/16 - Interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system

Draft Technical Specification for Interoperability "Control-Command and Signalling" Sub-System
27/09/06
Page 42 of 52
19. ERTMS Current Projects

Some current European Railway projects are visited in an attempt to draw some conclusions. REFER/RENFE Portugal/Spain, Lisbon/Porto Madrid/Barcelona HSL Prorail Holland, High Speed Zuid Prorail Holland, BB21 Prorail Holland, Betuweroute RHK Finland, Turku Helsinki Russian Border corridor BaneDanmark, Proposed conversion to ERTMS all main lines Banverket Sweden, Regional lines ERTMS Network Rail UK, Cambrian Coast ERTMS (Pilot Line) Italy, Rome Naples High Speed Line SNCF France, Strasbourg Paris TGV (ERTMS in all but name) SBB Switzerland, Alp Transit Gotthard / Mattstetten - Rothrist
20. Portugal Interlocking Distribution

The following table shows the detailed development of interlocking in REFER the Portuguese railways. (Data provided courtesy of REFER). As this data concerns the country rather than specific routes, it is provided as an indicator of the recent development of signalling within this country, and provides support for the reasoning not to change immediately to ERTMS.
Sub Line Nine Braga Lousado - Guimares Nine - Valena Ermesinde - Nine Campanh - Ermesinde So Bento - Campanh So Bento station Ermesinde - Cte Cte - Cade Cade - Pocinho Livrao - Amarante Rgua - Vila Real Tua - Mirandela Contumil - Leixes Gaia - Campanh Ovar - Gaia Aveiro - Ovar Pampilhosa - Aveiro Souselas - Pampilhosa Souselas Line BRAGA GUIMARES MINHO MINHO MINHO MINHO MINHO DOURO DOURO DOURO TMEGA CORGO TUA LEIXES NORTE NORTE NORTE NORTE NORTE NORTE System SSI SSI MECHANIC SSI SSI SSI RELAYS SSI SSI MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC SSI SSI RELAYS SSI SSI RELAYS SSI Commission dates 2004 2001/2003 2001/2004 1999/2002 1991 2001 2003 N of Interlocking 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 Control area (Km) 15 31 90 31 8 3 22 16 125 13 25 54 19 4 31 35 35 4 5
2001 1992 2002/2004 1998/2001 1994
1 1 1 1 1
27/09/06
Page 43 of 52
Sub Line Coimbra - Souselas Alfarelos - Coimbra Albergaria - Alfarelos Entroncamento - Albergaria Vale de Santarm Entroncamento Azambuja - Vale de Santarm Alhandra - Azambuja Brao de Prata - Alhandra Estao Santa Apolnia Aveiro - Sernada - Espinho Pampilhosa - Vilar Formoso Figueira da Foz - Pampilhosa Coimbra - Serpins Alfarelos - Bif. Lares Bif. Lares - Figueira da Foz Bif. Lares - Meleas Lamarosa - Tomar Entroncamento - Mouriscas A Mouriscas A - Central do Pego Mouriscas A - Castelo Branco Castelo Branco - Guarda Abrantes - Elvas Torre das Vargens - Marvo Rossio - Sintra Cacm - Meleas Campolide - Brao de Prata Cais do Sodr - Cascais Campolide - Pinhal Novo Pinhal Novo - Setbal - guas Moura guas Moura - Ermidas Ermidas - Funcheira - Tunes Ermidas - Sines Barreiro - Pinhal Novo Pinhal Novo - Poceiro Poceiro (Conc.) - guas Moura Poceiro - Vendas Novas Vendas Novas - Casa Branca Casa Branca - vora vora - Estremoz - Portalegre Casa Branca - Beja - Ourique Ourique - Neves Corvo Ourique - Funcheira Setil - Vendas Novas Tunes - Faro - Olho Olho - Vila Real Sto Antnio Tunes - Lagos
Line NORTE NORTE NORTE NORTE NORTE NORTE NORTE NORTE NORTE VALE VOUGA BEIRA ALTA FIGUEIRA FOZ LOUS ALFARELOS OESTE OESTE TOMAR BEIRA BAIXA PEGO BEIRA BAIXA BEIRA BAIXA LESTE CCERES SINTRA OESTE CINTURA CASCAIS SUL SUL SUL SUL SINES ALENTEJO ALENTEJO CONCORD. ALENTEJO ALENTEJO ALENTEJO ALENTEJO ALENTEJO VENDAS NOVAS ALGARVE ALGARVE ALGARVE
System
Commission dates
N of Interlocking
Control area (Km) 7 17 49 43 40 20 20 23 96 200 50 35 14 8 186 14 52 78 117 130 64 27 4 10 25 34 29 85 84 50 15 15 8 26 34 26 122 116 31 10 70 47 46 31 2774
RELAYS ESTW ESTW RELAYS ESTW RELAYS ESTW RELAYS MECHANIC ESTW MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC SSI SSI PIPC MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC ESTW ESTW ESTW RELAYS ESTW SSI SSI SSI SSI ESTW SSI SSI SSI MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC MECHANIC SSI SSI SSI MECHANIC PIPC
1997/1998 2003/2004
1 1
1995/2002 1995/2003
1 2
1995/1996
1996 1996 2004
2 1
1995/2004 2004 1998/2003 1999/2004 1997/2004 1995/2004 2004 2002 2004 1997 1997 1997
3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2004 1996 2004 2004 Totals
In Progress 2 1 In Progress 49*
27/09/06
Page 44 of 52
Sub Line
Line
System
Commission dates
N of Interlocking
Control area (Km)
(*) Number of Electronic Interlockings
21. Denmark Major Interlocking Types

The information below concerns the TEN Route from the German Border to Copenhagen Kastrup Airport and the resund Bridge to Sweden and includes Copenhagen Hbf Boundaries. (Data provided courtesy of BaneDanmark) The information reveals that the line has interlocking equipment of various ages and qualities, and has only recently been upgraded in parts due to the construction of new infrastructure (Storblt Bridge, resund Bridge etc.). The line is provided with ATP. The table is representative of most mainlines within Denmark.
Station
Kbenhavn H (Fjern Syd) Kopenhagen Fjern - Kastrup KB H Fjern - Hvidovre F Hvidovre F Hvidovre F - Glostrup F Glostrup F Glostrup F - Hje Taastrup F Hje Taastrup F Hje Taastrup F - Roskilde Roskilde Roskilde - Viby Sj Viby Sj Viby Sj - Borup Borup Borup - Kvrkeby Kvrkeby Kvrkeby - Ringsted Ringsted Ringsted - Fjenneslev Fjenneslev Fjenneslev - Sor Sor Sor - Slagelse (Frederikslund) Slagelse Slagelse - Forlev Forlev Forlev - Korsr Ny Korsr Ny Korsr - Sprog Sprog
Interlocking Type & Design Date

1964 MO 1990 re EBILOCK 850 1951 E 1972 DSI 1951 E 1953/54 1951 E 1972 DSI 1982 1964 MO 1954 C 1972 DSI 1954 C 1953/54 1954 C 1972 DSI 1954 C 1912/46 1954 C 1972 DSI 1954 C 1953/54 1954 C VM 1972 DSI 1954 C 1972 DSI 1954 C 1990 Stb EBILOCK 850 1982 1990 Stb EBILOCK 850
Date in Service
1967 2000 1958 1979 1958 1966 1958 1987 1984 1970 1958 1981 1958 1958 1958 1982 1958 1930 1959 1983 1959 1964 1959 1964 1977 1960 1983 1960 1996 1996 1996
Style
Geographical Line Block Line Block Geographical Line Block FWRRII Line Block Geographical Line Block Geographical Line Block Geographical FWRRI Line Block Line Block Geographical Line Block Elektromekanisk Line Block Geographical Line Block FWRRI Line Block Line Block Geographical Line Block Geographical Line Block DataMat Electronic Line Block DataMat Electronic
# of Routes
450
36 20 237 341 20 24 20 72 20 20
115 20 118 39
27/09/06
Page 45 of 52
Station
Sprog - Ny Nyborg st Ny Nyborg Nyborg - Hjulby Hjulby Hjulby - Ullerslev Ullerslev Ullerslev - Marslev Marslev Marslev - Odense Odense Odense - Holmstrup Holmstrup Holmstrup - Tommerup Tommerup Tommerup - rup Skalbjerg T Bred T rup rup-Ejby Gelsted T Ejby Ejby - Kavslunde Nrre by T Kavslunde Kavslunde - Middelfart Middelfart Middelfart - Snoghj Snoghj Snoghj - Fredericia Snoghj - Taulov Fredericia Fredericia - Taulov Taulov Taulov - Kolding Kolding Kolding - Lunderskov Lunderskov Lunderskov - Vamdrup Vamdrup Vamdrup - Farris Farris Farris - Sommersted Sommersted Sommersted - Vojens Vojens Vojens - Rdekro Rdekro - Tinglev Tinglev Tinglev - Vejbk Vejbk Vejbk - Padborg

1982 1990 Stb EBILOCK 850 1954 C 1953/54 1954 C 1953/54 1954 C 1953/54 1954 C 1953 1954 C 1953/54 1954 C 1953/54 1954 C VM VM 1953/54 1954 C VM 1953/54 1954 C VM 1953/54 1954 C 1953/54 1954 C 1954 1954 C 1982 1964 MO 1954 C 1972 DSI 1954 C 1953 1954 C 1953 1954 C 1953/54 1957 C 1954 E 1957 C 1954 E 1957 C 1953 1994 B Electronic with Alcatel axle counter BS 1994 B Electronic with Alcatel axle counter 1953 1957 C 1954 E 1957 C
Date in Service
1996 1996 1960 1956 1960 1957 1960 1956 1960 1954 1960 1957 1961 1961 1961 1980 1980 1962 1962 1962 1961 1962 1962 1962 1963 1963 1963 1993 1963 1993 1989 1965 2000 1965 1954 1966 1956 1969 1956 1969 1962 1969 1962 1969 1966 1995 1995 1995 1969 1969 1969
Style
Line Block DataMat Electronic Line Block FWRRI Line Block FWRRI Line Block FWRRI Line Block FWRRI Line Block FWRRI Line Block FWRRI Line Block Line Block Line Block FWRRI Line Block Line Block FWRRI Line Block Line Block FWRRI Line Block FWRRI Line Block FWRRI Line Block Line Block Geographical Line Block Geographical Line Block FWRRI Line Block Line Block Line Block FWRRI Line Block FWRRI Line Block FWRRI Line Block FWRRI Line Block Line Block FWRRI Line Block FWRRI Line Block
# of Routes
105 14 22 22 70 20 23
21
20
20 23 31
223 45 34
13 16 16 34
93 16
27/09/06
Page 46 of 52
Station
Padborg

1964 DSI
Date in Service
1975
Style
Geographical
# of Routes
46
22. DB Netz Interlocking Distribution (TEN)

The following is an extract from the data provided courtesy Deutsche Bahn and concerns current Interlocking for the Emmerich Basel Corridor. This line is nominated under the TEN routes agreement
Location KM From KM To Type Date in # of Service Elements Line Class PZB KV LZB
Emmerich - Oberhausen Osterfeld Emmerich Border Emmerich Praest Millingen (Kr Rees) Empel-Rees Haldern (Rheinl) Mehrhoog Wesel-Feldmark Wesel Friedrichsfeld (Niederrhein) Voerde (Niederrhein) Dinslaken Oberhausen-Holten Oberhausen-Sterkrade Abzw Oberhausen Oberhausen Strekrade Total 72.6 60.81 54.566 50.445 48.682 44.753 39.098 29.292 26.66 23.335 18.792 13.94 7.743 4.19 1.4 23.336
72.632 60.81 54.566 50.445 48.682 44.753 39.098 40.984 23.335 18.792 13.94
SpDrS60
1966
170
MCL84 MCL84 SpDrS60
1989 1989 1966
31 22 219
D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4
PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB
P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410
LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB
SpDrS60 SpDrS60 E43
1975 1973 1959
98 68
608
Location
KM From
KM To
Type
Date in # of Service Element
Line PZB Class
KV
LZB
Oberhausen Osterfeld Gremberg Oberhausen Osterfeld Sd Abzw Oberhausen OberhausenWest/Mathilde Oberhausen West Duisburg-Wedau Duisburg Entenfang Lintorf (Bz Dsseldorf) Tiefenbroich Ratingen West Dsseldorf-Rath Dsseldorf-Eller Hilden Immigrath Opladen Leverkusen Werksttte 16.042 11.88 2.2 0.3 13.4 5.72 8.31 13.147 13.147 15.652 15.652 17.193 17.193 21.285 21.285 25.782 28.57 34.869 34.869 41.196 41.196 48.066 48.066 50.2795 50.279 52.364
VES 12 SpDrS60 SpDrS59 SpDrS59 Einheit E43/Dr SpDrS60 SpDrL60 SpDrS2 SpDrL60
1942 1974 1964 1962 1938 1954 1979 1972 1988 1972
190 157 196 61 35 79 92 71 28 261 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB
27/09/06
Page 47 of 52
Location Leverkusen Morsbroich Kln-Mlheim Kln-Kalk Nord Gremberg Nord Total
KM From 52.364 60.77 62.948 66.014
KM To 60.5945 66.014 69.2
Type
Date in # of Service Element 1983 1968 1999 / 1953 333 138 133 1,774
Line PZB Class D4 PZB D4 D4 PZB PZB
KV P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410
LZB LZB LZB LZB
SpDrS60 SpDrS60 ESTW / SpDrS
Location
KM KM Type From To Gremberg - Mainz Bischofsheim 81.156 85.37 90.317 93.878 96.574 98.595 101.254 103.421 107.55 110.35 113.297 115.822 120.04 123.17 129.46 135.796 141.18 146.654 151.172 153.659 1.359 154.678 154.678 2.344 117.904 112.034 109.08 106.113 100.838 94.219 89.007 83.638 80.006 77.164 69.496 65.33 61.3 57.035 53.887 50.849 48.814 45.834 42.59 ESTW SpDrS60 SpDrS60 DrS2 DrS2 DrS DrS2 DrS DrS DrS2 DrS2 VES 1912 DrS2 SpDrS60
Date in # of Line Service elements Class
PZB
KV
LZB
Kln Steinstrae (Abzw) 69.2 Troisdorf Menden (Rheinland) Bonn-Beuel Bonn-Oberkassel Niederdollendorf Knigswinter Rhndorf Bad Honnef (Rhein) Unkel Erpel (Rhein) Linz (Rhein) Leubsdorf (Rhein) Bad Hnningen Rheinbrohl Leutesdorf (Rhein) Neuwied Engers Vallendar Koblenz-Ehrenbreitstein Koblenz-Pfaffendorf Koblenz-Pfaffendorf Niederlahnstein Oberlahnstein Braubach Osterspai Filsen Kamp-Bornhofen Kestert St Goarshausen Loreley Kaub Lorchhausen Lorch (Rhein) Amannshausen Rdesheim (Rhein) Geisenheim Oestrich-Winkel Hattenheim Erbach (Rheingau) Eltville Niederwalluf Wiesbaden-Schierstein Wiesbaden-Biebrich 81.156 85.37 90.317 93.878 96.574 98.595 101.254 103.421 107.55 110.35 113.297 115.822 120.04 123.17 129.46 135.796 141.18 146.654 151.172 153.659 153.659 123.816 121 117.904 112.034 109.08 106.113 100.838 94.219 89.007 83.638 80.006 77.164 69.496 65.33 61.3 57.035 53.887 50.849 48.814 45.834 42.59 39.468
D4 2001 1981 1985 1957 1957 1957 1958 1962 1969 1969 1957 1957 1974 1973 199 48 114 41 48 32 29 77 42 22 30 23 46 84 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4
PZB
SpDrS60 S&H1912 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 DrS2 ???
1970 1934 1954 1954 1954 1967 1954 1961 1961 1961 1964 1954 1954 1954 1954 1953 1906
146 75 26 33 21 30 32 21 42 52 29 24 16 33 17 18 16
PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB P/C 410 PZB P/C 410 PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB
On request P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410
LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB
P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410
27/09/06
Page 48 of 52
Location Wiesbaden-Ost Mainz-Kastel Kostheim Kostheim Ost Mainz-Bischofsheim Mainz Bischofsheim Total
KM From 37.8 33.43 30.88 4 0 7.78
KM To
Type SpDrS60 DrS SpDrS60 DrS SpDrS60
0.029 10.323
Date in Service 1988 1960 1969 1959 1974
# of Line elements Class 504 64 10 24 D4 420 2,488
PZB
KV
LZB
PZB PZB
P/C 410 P/C 410
LZB LZB
Location
KM From Mainz - Mannheim
KM to
Type
Date in # of Line Service Elements Class
PZB
KV
LZB
Nauheim (b Gro Gerau) Gro-Gerau Klein-Gerau Eichmhle Klein-Gerau Weiterstadt Weiterstadt Stockschneise Weiterstadt Stockschneise Darmstadt Hbf Darmstadt Hbf Darmstadt Sd Darmstadt-Eberstadt Bickenbach (Bergstr) Hhnlein-Alsbach Zwingenberg (Bergstr) Bensheim-Auerbach Heppenheim (Bergstr) Laudenbach (Bergstr) Hemsbach Weinheim Ltzelsachsen GrosachsenHeddesheim Ladenburg Mannheim-Friedrichsfeld Mannheim-Friedrichsfeld Mannheim Friedrichsfeld Sd Mannheim Ziehbrunnen Total
16.475 19.739 21.175 22.013 26.646 29.652 29.652 33.379 33.379 29.712 34.4 40.744 42.924 44.549 47.164 53.648 57.079 59.445 66.982 69.178 73.845 77.063 76.091 8.339 80
19.739 21.175 22.013 26.646 29.652 30.668 33.379 32.373 29.712 0.045 42.924 44.549 47.164 23.91 57.079 59.445 18.023 69.178 73.845 77.063 5.33 78.6 3.762
DrS2 SpDrL60
1962 1970
DrS2
1953
24 D4 100 D4 D4 D4 17 D4 D4 D4 C2 476 D4 D4 77 97 D4 D4 D4 45 D4 79 D4 52 D4 69 D4 D4 40 D4 D4 327 D4
PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB
P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410
LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB
P/C 410 LZB P/C 400 LZB P/C 410 LZB P/C 410 LZB P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB
SpDrS60 SpDrL30 SpDrL30
1972 1961 1961
SpDrL30 SpDrL30 SpDrL30 SpDrL30
1957 1963 1966 1966
SpDrL30 SpDrS60
1966 1975
1,403
Location
KM From
KM to
Type
Date in Service
Element 2004
Line Class
PZB
KV
LZB
Mannheim Ziehbrunnen -Karlsruhe Mannheim RBF Schwetzingen Schwetzingen -0.014 86.4 13.563 5.33 14.668 SpDrS60 SpDrS60 1964 1977
163 D4 PZB P/C 410 LZB
27/09/06
Page 49 of 52
Oftersheim Hockenheim Neuluheim Waghusel Wiesental Philippsburg Molzau Graben-Neudorf Friedrichstal (Baden) Blankenloch Karlsruhe Hagsfeld Karlsruhe Hagsfeld Total
14.668 21.65 24.531 29.93 32.461 34.6 39.601 45.491 50.437 55.1 4.2
21.65 24.531 29.93 32.461 34.6 39.601 45.491 50.437 55.132
SpDrS60 ESTW SpDrS60
1986/ 1990 1975
183
D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4
PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB
P/C 410 LZB P/C 410 LZB P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB
72
SpDrS60 SpDrS60
1982 1977
226 87
731
Location
KM From Karlsruhe- Basel 0 0 4.9 76.382 79.649 82.54 87.864 91.743 96.501 105.324 112.536 116.848 119.175 125.269 131.669 137.94 140.722 145.488 154.428 158.652 163.661 171.766 174.851 177.685 180.965 185.851 188.775 190.231 192.673 194.9
KM to
Type
Date in Element Line Service 2004 Class
PZB
KV
LZB
Karlsruhe Gbf Karlsruhe Gbf Karlsruhe Brunnenst. Karlsruhe Brunnenstck Ettlingen West Bruchhausen (b Ettlingen) Malsch Muggensturm Rastatt Baden-Baden Steinbach (Baden) Bhl (Baden) Ottersweier Achern Renchen Appenweier Windschlg Offenburg Niederschopfheim Friesenheim (Baden) Lahr (Schwarzw) Orschweier Ringsheim Herbolzheim (Breisgau) Kenzingen Riegel Kndringen Teningen-Mundingen Emmendingen Emmendingen BrkleBleiche Kollmarsreute Denzlingen Gundelfingen (Abzw) Freiburg (Breisgau) Gbf Leutersberg Ebringen Schallstadt Norsingen
ESTW
1999
204
79.649 82.54 87.864 91.743 96.501 105.324 112.536 116.848 119.175 125.269 131.669 137.94 140.722 144.717 154.428 158.652 163.661 171.766 174.851 177.685 180.965 185.851 188.775 190.231 192.673 194.9 196.488
SpDrS60 SpDrS2 SpDrS60 SpDrS60 SpDrL60 ESTW SpDrS60 ESTW
1980 1960 1974 1984 1992 1996 1986 1997
67 32 229 102 85 150 198 580
D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4 D4
PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB
SpDrL60 / ESTW
1973
52
P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 auf Anfrage P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410
LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB LZB
SpDrL60
1971
53
PZB P/C 410 PZB P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 410 P/C 400
196.488 199.835 199.835 202.58 202.691 213.726
SpDrL60
1983
104
214.699 215.742 216.994 219.856
215.742 216.994 219.856 222.853
ESTW
1998
122
D4 D4 D4 D4
PZB PZB PZB PZB
P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400
27/09/06
Page 50 of 52
Location Bad Krozingen Heitersheim Buggingen Mllheim (Baden) Auggen Schliengen Bad Bellingen Rheinweiler Kleinkems Istein Efringen-Kirchen Eimeldingen Haltingen Weil am Rhein Basel Bad Bf Total Grand Total
KM From 222.853 228.804 231.838 237.3 239.728 243.15 246.769 249.954 252.779 256.378 258.256 262.217 264.281 267.6 270.688
KM to 228.804 231.838 237.3 239.728 243.15 246.769 249.954 252.779 256.378 258.256 262.217 264.281 267.6 270.688
Type SpDrL60 SpDrL60 SpDrL60 SpDrL60 SpDrL60
SpDrL60
SpDrL60 SpDrL60
Date in Element Line Service 2004 Class 1974 75 D4 1969 31 D4 D4 1969 116 D4 D4 1971 43 D4 D4 1976 79 D4 D4 D4 1978 61 D4 D4 D4 1985 212 D4 1980 440 3,035 10,039
PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB
KV P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 P/C 400 auf Anfrage
LZB
27/09/06
Page 51 of 52
Amendment Sheet
No. Version Section Amended By Whom Amendment Date
1 2
0.2 0.7
All All
MP/AD MP
NEW doc from Migration Strategy Revised over several versions per comments on business case and technical information
06/03/06 27/08/06
27/09/06
Page 52 of 52

Vision and Potential For Future Signalling Stratergies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vision and Potential For Future Signalling Stratergies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VISION AND POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE SIGNALLING STRATEGIES

Document Data Sheet

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

Languages Original Translations

VISION AND POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE SIGNALLING STRATEGIE S

Martin E Pope Ian Harman

UIC Signalling Panel of Experts

Approved by Sponsoring Body

Microsoft Office Word

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

Signalling Principles and Requirements.......................................................................................25

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

17.10 17.11 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Amendment Sheet ................................................................................................................................52

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

2. References to Cited Texts:

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

Schedule Management Centre e.g. Mannheim

GWR ML Signalling Centre e.g. Slough

Interlocking A Track Circuit Block

Interlocking B Track Circuit Block

5.2 Design Strategy

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

5.3 The Business Case

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

Conventional Mixed Traffic

Conventional High Speed

Interoperable Line Speed KPH Capacity Train Protection

Max 70 n/a Line of Sight

Max 100 Less Than 6tph NS / ETCS

Max 100 10 tph NS/ETCS

Max 160 20 tph NS/ETCS

Stop & Proceed

Stop & Proceed & Barrier L.C 15 Tonnes

Stand Alone 30 Tonnes

Integrated for capacity 22 Tonnes

Integrated For Capacity 22 Tonnes

High Speed TSI

Track Brake Tram & Coach Nat. Spec. NO

Conv. Conv. Nat. Spec. Yes

Conv. Conv. Per TSI Yes

NS / TSI No except Urban Areas Nat. Spec. Per TSI

Table 1: Line Use and Relationships to the HS TSI

5.4 Asset Utilisation Under ERTMS

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

5.5 Benefits of ETCS Fitment

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

Conventional Lineside Signalling

Driver Reaction Distance

Driver Reaction Distance

Figure 2: Headway Improvement from ETCS Based Signalling

6. Proposed Methodologies for Migration

6.1 Past Efforts

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

6.2 The Suppliers

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

6.3 The Current Situation

UIC Signalling Strategy v0.7.doc

7.2 Operational Scenarios