dr. frank heibel, director, doc frank pty ltd - update on the application of european train control...

Update on the Application of

ETCS Technology in AustraliaTelecommunications & Train Control Conference

Sydney, 11 August 2014

Dr Frank Heibel

Content

• Context and purpose of ERTMS and ETCS

• From Europe to Australia

• Status of ETCS in Australia

• Technology selection

• Three key considerations

• Outlook

• Questions and Discussion

Update on ETCS Application in Australia Telecommunications & Train Control, Sydney 11 Aug 2014 - 2

ERTMS and ETCS

ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) =• ETCS (European Train Control System)

• GSM-R radio for voice and data (for ETCS Levels 2 & 3)

• ETML (European Traffic Management Layer) – all but forgotten

Purpose of ERTMS:• Enhance cross-border interoperability in Europe

• Harmonise more than 20 incompatible legacy ATP systems

(and many national legacy radio systems through use of GSM-R)

• Note: Capacity increase was no specific design objective


ETCS Signalling Levels

ETCS Level 1• Intermittent data exchange

• Infill for early authority updates

• Overlay requiring signals


ETCS Level 2• Continuous data exchange

• Requires GSM-R data radio

• In-cab signalling

(ETCS Level 3)• Moving block, train determines its position and integrity (no track circuits)

• Not specified yet, no standardised products, only “interpretations” of FRS

Diagrams from www.ertms.net

ETCS in Europe

Key stakeholders:• ERTMS Users Group formulates requirements

• European Railway Agency ERA = System authority, CCM

• UNISIG (supplier consortium) develops Specs

Application / Rollout:• European legislative mandates ETCS

• Strategic focus on Ten-T corridors

• Commonly overlay application

on top of Legacy ATP

• State rollout plans over decades


Why ETCS in Australia

Trend to introduce ATP and/or upgrade existing signalling to:• Increase safety (where no or insufficient ATP)

• Enhance capacity provision

• Increase reliability (on time running)

• Reduce field equipment (optical signals)

ETCS is attractive technology due to:• Open supply market with established local base

(including all founding members of UNISIG)

• Maximum certainty of long-term system support

• Competitive pricing


Waterfall 2003

ETCS Application in Australia

ETCS Level 1 at forefront due to easy overlay• Auckland – Britomart to Onehunga• Adelaide – Seaford line (Belair line from E2014)• Sydney (outer suburbs, starting Wyong to Asquith)• Commonality: ATP introduction without capacity uplift

ETCS Level 2 to exploit benefits of in-cab signalling• Sydney (for inner corridors, aligned with Level 1 program)• Brisbane (BAT -> entire network)• Commonality: Capacity increase to 24 trains per hour

Reasonably widespread, but no full uniformity• ATMS piloted for interstate network• CBTC for Sydney Rapid Transit, Melbourne and Perth• Pilbara mining railways with bespoke solutions


Technology Selection

The ‘Highlander principle’ does not apply – Why?

• Fundamental differences between rail operations across Australia

(compared to much more homogenous railways in Europe)

• ETCS not equally suitable everywhere

• ARTC: Rollout deemed unaffordable, Traffic management paramount

• Sydney RT, Melbourne & Perth require capacity beyond 24 tph,

calling for CBTC (capacity demand is paramount for city railways)

• ‘Pilbara Rail’: Bespoke requirements without need for interoperation


Technology Selection (2)

Key selection criteria for city in-cab signalling – “three C’s”:• Capacity (reliable operational capacity -> reserves for recovery)• Compatibility (fit to infrastructure and operations, migration path, …)• Cost

• Capacity drives technology selection (is ETCS sufficient?)• Capacity need influences compatibility assessment• Capacity and compatibility prevail cost


Rail Operation Capacity Compatibility Cost Selection

Sydney NWRL > 30 tph Ok for CBTC CBTC

Sydney Suburban 24 tph ETCS ETCS cheaper ETCS L2+

Melbourne 28-30 tph Adapt for CBTC CBTC

Brisbane 24 tph ETCS ETCS cheaper ETCS L2 / L2+?

Perth 24-30 tph Adapt for CBTC CBTC

Consideration 1: Interoperability

Different contexts and purposes:• Within same rail authority (multi-vendor, go-anywhere)• Between rail authorities (but only where needed)

Practicalities of the multi-vendor argument:• Auckland: Single supplier• Adelaide: Siemens-Invensys ‘in-house’ IOP, only one more line to equip• Sydney: Single supplier for Level 1; Level 2 to be seen (per corridor?)• ETCS interoperability does not come by default, but requires work

Interoperability between authorities:• Dual fitment of trains or interface development between systems• ATMS and ETCS were not designed to interoperate with each other• Close alignment needed between ETCS authorities (e.g. Sydney-Brisbane)


Consideration 2: Capacity

Achievable capacity gain from ETCS differs between routes• Requires additional work e.g. on block section layout (overlap lengths)

• Network modelling advisable for line specific assessment

• ETCS Levels 1 & 2 were not designed for capacity uplift

Capacity gain is limited• Study: Level 1 with shortened overlaps adds 2 tph, Level 2 another 2 tph

• May be impacted by many aspects, most notably ETCS braking curves

and radio transmission delays (for Level 2)

New developments required for reliable capacity gain• Ongoing product development for latest ETCS SRS (‘Baseline 3’)

• Baseline 3 includes e.g. braking curve optimisation

• Current development of enhancements (e.g. ATO add-on, virtual block)

• Reliability increase by reducing driving variability


Consideration 3: Telecommunications

In-cab signalling solutions require specific data radio• Technology selection driven by capacity, not by existing data radio

GSM-R still mandated for ETCS Level 2• Circuit switched, but capacity issue less serious in Australia (15MHz)

• GPRS (IP based, packet switched) is coming -> ETCS Level 2+

• Long-term evolution towards LTE expected

CBTC does not work over GSM-R• Current applications based on WiFi (public or ISM band – unlicensed)

• Does not utilise 1800MHz band allocated to railway use

• Increasing risk of interference problems

• Adoption of LTE in progress -> recommendable now or later?


Outlook

ETCS has become most widely used ATP for mainline railways• Adopted in many countries outside Europe, including ANZ

In-cab signalling (i.e. Level 2) required where capacity needed• Rollout in Sydney and Brisbane as budgets allow

Current developments for ETCS Level 2+ recommended• Sydney plans for ATO to achieve highly reliable 24 tph capacity• Brisbane may need to consider it (even higher capacity requirements)

Key challenges to overcome• Interlocking interface to avoid replacements, Interface for ATMS interoperability

Strong business case if capacity uplift defers new infrastructure


Thank You for Listening

Questions and Discussion

[email protected]

dr. frank heibel, director, doc frank pty ltd - update on the application of european train control...

Business