Case Study:ETCS Level 1 Roll Out

in Auckland

New Zealand Rail Conference 2016

James Clendon – Rail Infrastructure Consultants (NZ) LimitedFormer Signalling Design and Development Manager, KiwiRail

• 180km of track electrified with 25kV AC

• Re-signalled by Siemens as part of the same project between 2009 and 2012

Auckland’s Electrification

• 57 x 3 car new EMU trains

• European Train Control System (Level 1) ‘ETCS’ fitted to all trains and electrified routes.

• Extensive risk assessment undertaken to determine need for Train Protection

• Concluded that a train protection system should be installed as part of the electrification scope

• Wide stakeholder consultation and support

Why Automatic Train Protection?

ETCS Hardware

Balise

LEU

Doppler RadarsTachometers

EVCDriver Machine Interface

Antenna

Emergency Brake

Service Brake

Interlocking

How does ETCS protect red signals?

How does ETCS supervise speed?

• ETCS principles need to meet two requirements:– Specify ETCS specific implementation rules

– Be compatible with signalling principles and not leave safety gaps

• Needs to cover scenariossuch as:– Interaction with approach locking

– Missed balise reactions

– Release Speeds, etc, etc

NZ ETCS Application Principles

P1

T3T1

OL3

(Signalling)

P2

(DP placed on overlap with most restrictive static speed profile

(25km/h turnout in this example) and at length of shortest

signalling overlap distance (=OL2 in this example) )

DP

OL2

(Signalling)

OL1

(Signalling)SSP =25km/h

SSP =40km/h

• Early development of the ETCS Principles (first drafts ‘09)

• Early development of EMU Class Application Requirements Specification– Developed in time to include in the EMU tender

– Ensured space and interface requirements were provided for

• Single contractor (Siemens) responsible for all ETCS

Interface Management

Testing

• Trackside Route Testing

– Final dimensioning tests

– Balise functionality

• Onboard type testing

– 1st train only. Extensive testing to validate full configuration

• Onboard unit testing

– 57 units, 2 days each.

• Integration Testing

– Testing unable to be done in lab

– Prove that ETCS Trackside+Onboard = SRS functionality

• November 2013 the trackside ETCS system was commissioned

• Certified using the SD test train

• First EMUs entered service on one line April 2014

• EMU integration testing completed on all electrified lines Jan 2015

• All 57 new 3 car EMU’s in service as of November 2015

Progress to Date

• Resignalling and track reconfiguration completed first

• Physical trackside ETCS works completed at same time

• Cost savings and reduced disruption to operations

• Log files are reviewed to identify any network faults

De-risking the Introduction of ETCS

• ETCS telegrams incorporated into EMU simulators

• ETCS available for Test Train operations

• Neutral section control

• Correct Side Door Enable (CSDE)

• Zero speed for non-electrified roads

Added Value

• National Values – Speed Limits for override modes

• Timing off overlaps (interlocking v ATP)

• Approaching Buffer Stops

• Level Crossings in Overlap

• Trailing points in Overlap

• Inoperative Balise Groups

• No reaction vs. SB reaction

• Precedence of information (cab signalling overrides line side)

• Section Timers

Residual Risk

• Conservative

• The low release speeds have had a significant operational impact

• General principle applied is that the entry speed into an unprotected crossing will not exceed 15km/h

Level Crossings at Stations

• Warning Curves

• Precedence of Cab Signalling

• Warner Routes and Approach Clearing

• Stopping Positions and In Fill Balises

• Odometry Error

• Curve Speed Supervision

• Line Speed Supervision

Optimisation: Overview

• Initially had problems with the ETCS being too conservative

• Trialed multiple different configurations

• Put two configurations through a driver evaluation trial

Getting the Balance Right

ETCS Level 1 Approach to Signal with Full Overlap

150m 203

Not

Approach

Cleared

733m

219

210

216TRAIN A

Green area shows

overlap held by

interlocking in case

of SPAD

PLATFORM

Pe

rmitte

d S

pe

ed

65km/h

32km/h Release Speed

EoA

204

Typical

Driver

braking

profile

ETCS

warning

curve

FC FC

Worst case emergency brake profile in event of

SPAD (limited by facing point turnout speed),

so doesn’t use full length of available overlap.

ETCS Level 1 – Warner Route but driver still obeys Dynamic Speed Indicator (Old Rules)

50m 203

Approach

Cleared

from Red

733m

219

210

216TRAIN A

TRAIN BGreen area shows overlap held

by interlocking in case of SPAD

PLATFORM

20

Pe

rmitte

d S

pe

ed

20km/h

23km/h RS

RS is low because

danger point is now

only 50m past signal

204

Typical

Driver

speed

profile

ETCS

warning

curve

FC FC

204 Only clear from

red when train’s

speed proved at

20km/h

Purple shading shows route set for

train B, which means full overlap is

not available for Train A

EoA

Worst case emergency brake profile in event of

SPAD. Note how due to lower release speed it

ensures train will still stop before end of reduced

50m overlap.

ETCS Level 1 Warner Route – With cab signalling overriding Dynamic Speed Indicator

50m 203

Approach

Cleared

from Red

733m

219

210

216TRAIN A

TRAIN BGreen area shows overlap held

by interlocking in case of SPAD

PLATFORM

20

Pe

rmitte

d S

pe

ed

23km/h RS

204

With cab-signalling has precedence

rules, driver can accelerate after

204 clears as much as ETCS allows

ETCS

warning

curve

FC FC

204 Only clear from

red when train’s

speed proved at

20km/h

Purple shading shows route set for

train B, which means full overlap is

not available for Train A

Worst case emergency brake profile in event of

SPAD. Note how due to lower release speed it

ensures train will still stop before end of reduced

50m overlap.

ETCS Level 1 Warner Route – Approach clearing removed.

50m 203

No longer

approch

cleared

733m

219

210

216TRAIN A

TRAIN BGreen area shows overlap held

by interlocking in case of SPAD

PLATFORM

20

Pe

rmitte

d S

pe

ed

23km/h RS

204

Now driver can drive most

aggressive but still safe approach to

210 signal with only reduced overlap

ETCS

warning

curve

FC FC

New flashing DSI (for

few non-ETCS fitted

freight trains only)

Purple shading shows route set for

train B, which means full overlap is

not available for Train A

20

L070

Linespeed

FC

Worst case emergency brake profile in event of

SPAD. Note how due to lower release speed it

ensures train will still stop before end of reduced

50m overlap.

Optimisation: Warner Routes

Optimisation: CurvesETCS CURVE SPEED SUPERVISION – NEW WITH OPTIMISATION

F C

25

Distance

Sp

ee

d

Curve Transition

(a.k.a. Spiral)

80km/h

Continuous

Radius

Section

Existing

Speed

Board

Linespeed

25km/h

Note: No transition

shown existing curve

for simplicity on this

example

80km/h

Static Speed Profile:

Permitted speed profile

sent by ETCS trackside

balises to ETCS onboard

computer

100m

FC

ETCS

Emergency Brake

Intervention Curve

(EBi) 50m250m

250m

IMPORTANT NOTE: This change to be

applied for Static Speed Profile for MAs

in both directions (i.e. entering and

leaving the curve).

ETCS Performance Gains

• Know your section run times and constraints before the transition to ETCS

• Use before and after analysis to identify possible problem locations

• Work with operations teams to identify possible improvements

• Finally, roll journey time reductions back into the timetable

Understanding Your Operations

ETCS Based Incidents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16

Balise reading

ETCS onboard/train

Operational

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Nu

mb

er o

f SPAD

s pe

r year

Nu

mb

er

of

serv

ice

s o

pe

rate

d p

er

we

ek

Year

Number of services per week

Mainline Diesel Passenger SPADs

Mainline EMU (ETCS) Passenger SPADs

ETCS vs SPADs Old (non-ETCS fitted) trains phased out

• Interoperability with National rail network essential

• Growing need to reduce trackside infrastructure and maintenance costs

• Relatively small and in some regards new fleet should be ‘easy’ to fit

• Need to reduce operating risk across the network to realign with modern expectations

The Future - ETCS Level 2 + ATO?

• It’s safer!

• Virtually eliminated overspeed derailment risk

• Massive reduction in train on train collision risk

• Reduced SPAD rate

• Reduced buffer stop collision risk

• Operational performance improvements (Journey Time) possible in many locations

Summary – The Good

• Level crossings – the compulsion to mitigate a risk that ETCS is not well suited to mitigate

• Buffer stops – only letting a train hit a buffer at it’s rated collision speed is painfully slow

• Old ‘legacy’ track layouts without clear track overlaps and the need to drop the release speed to protect junctions

• Odometry error compensations and having to brake early for some PSRs

• Low release speeds (anything below ~25km/h)

Summary – The Bad

• The equipment might be off-the shelf but the application will never be

• Residual risks require significant attention to mitigate by taking all practicable steps without undue impact to train operations

• Any existing performance restrictions (PSRs etc) should be thoroughly reviewed when implementing ETCS

• Budget/plan on an optimisation phase rather than over capitalising on infrastructure you may not need

• Consolidate your data and make it available to stakeholders

Conclusions

Questions?