# MISC | ERTMS adoption & implementation



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

The purpose of this thread is to be a place we can gather info on what countries and lines have decided to use ERTMS, what parts of ERTMS and to what level they are going to, or already have, implemented.

To start of ERTMS is a standard developed to create a unified signalling system for the EU so the concept is to get pretty much all lines here over to ERTMS (even if it takes a long time).

Are any other countries/regions adopting ERTMS as an intended standard for all rail lines? or are places like Ethiopia (which is adopting ERTMS for it's one line that's getting re-built) deciding it on a line-by-line basis?


----------



## Klausenburg (Jul 25, 2007)

China has now more km of ERTMS covered lines then any other country.


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

China adopting ERTMS is to me looking like the decision that will make ERTMS almost a global standard. China is now spreading it on onto Africa and iirc also Mexico.

What lines are using ERTMS in China? What parts and levels of the standard are they using?
And: is there an explicit decision to adopt ERTMS on the whole rail network, or on all the HSR lines or is it decided on line-by-line?


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

Precisely this issue arose recently because some were unaware that CaHSRA and Mexico will build lines with ERTMS.



Gusiluz said:


> ^^ Document fresh from the CaHSRA web: Technical Memorando:
> 
> “The sole technology that is fully compliant with all of the CHSRA project and technical requirements is the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) European Train Control System (ETCS) Level 2 with Global System for Mobile Communications – Railway (GSM-R). ERTMS is service-proven and its attributes are highly applicable to CHSTP automatic train control and radio communications requirements and because the
> train control element is integrated within the radio communications system, ERTMS places the highest demands on spectrum and quality of service for the radio network.
> ...


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

Seeing that confusion was one of the reasons I started this thread


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*ERTMS in the world (km)*

These graphs are for future investments, but may mislead about: "April 2012 and September 2013." There are also countries that have "km of track", twice km double track, while others have "km line", even double track.




















Latest "comparable" statistics (and sometimes linear km with km line mix and km contracted km service, they, I hope, be the same for all) that I have are UNIFE 2009 are contracted orders so they can be considered approximately current (if they have fulfilled the orders):


EU 27 + Switzerland: 10,433 km of line (16,947 km of track) and 3,164 vehicles with 3,992 on board units. 

Rest of the world: 10,034 km of line (16,156 km of track) and 1,729 vehicles with 2,140 on board units.

Main countries (km): China: 3,897; Sweden: 3.028 and Saudi Arabia: 2,493. 
Main countries (vehicles): Taiwan: 811; Switzerland: 556 and Belgium (these are planned but have not yet met, now just announced the award): 506.

Spain: 2,090 km of ine (4,160 km of track) and 545 vehicles with 756 teams.



EU27 + Switzerland: 10,433 km of line (16,947 km of track) and 3,164 vehicles with 3,992 on board units. 

Rest of the world: 10,034 km of line (16,156 km of track) and 1,729 vehicles with 2,140 on board units.

Main countries (km): China: 3,897; Sweden (these are planned but have not yet met): 3.028 and Saudi Arabia: 2,493. 
Main countries (vehicles): Taiwan: 811; Switzerland: 556 and Belgium 506: 506.

Spain: 2,090 km of line (4,160 km of track) and 545 vehicles with 756 teams.

And mistakes, as the only vehicle of Sweden with 221 onboard equipment. 

In short, it is difficult to know the current km with homogeneous statistics.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

Not to spoil China's party being on top of the chart, but strictly speaking they don't use ETCS. They have CTCS, which is basically a fork of ETCS with some local changes.

I would like to see a G(lobal)RTMS-consortium, which tries to maintain a global train control system, but allows for local variants, just like GSM was developed from a European to a global standard with several localised versions. Given that ERTMS has already spread over world that could happen in the future.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*ERTMS Regional*

It starts off from a project sponsored by the EU with the name of ERTMS Low Cost, and it consists on directly install a variant of the control system ETCS Level 3, based on GPS and GSM-R, with which is compatible, although different. It does not need side signalling neither balises, so its cost and maintenance are cheaper: 30% according to EU. The problem is that it is impossible to know if there is a broken rail because it does not have track circuits. And it has “islands” without coverage, for example in tunnels. Moreover, unlike ETCS L3, it does not have moving blocks but axles counters, although this is not a problem in low density lines.
It only works in Sweden, in a pilot line (Västerdalsbanan, between Malung and Borlänge, 134 km and 16 trains per day) since 2010. But Norway and Sweden plan to install ETCS L2. It seems to be designed for removing, with a cheap system, the telephone blockades in lines with little traffic. Also, Sweden is not going to comply the plans to extend this system to other eleven lines before 2020.
Bombardier and others (Hyundai will install the GSM-R) has recently signed a contract of 37 million euros for installing this blockade system in the 980-km line from Chingola to Livingstone, in Zambia.

Note: from the Spanish Wikipedia, written by myself and translated by *Dirdam* (thank you very much!). 
This link is to the original in spanish with the sources.


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

From when is this graph? As of the end of 2012 Austria had 163 locos and 51 control cars equipped with ETCS, but only 585 km of track.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

^^ I wrote:
"These graphs are for future investments, but may mislead about: "April 2012 and September 2013." There are also countries that have "km of track", twice km double track, while others have "km line", even double track".
"Latest "comparable" statistics (and sometimes linear km with km line mix and km contracted km service, they, I hope, be the same for all) that I have are UNIFE 2009 are contracted orders so they can be considered approximately current (if they have fulfilled the orders)".

The information comes from the industry association of ERTMS: Unife


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Implementation plans for Belgium :

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/signalling/taking-etcs-nationwide.html

Today, ETCS has been inaugurated on a 2-tracks line totaling 160 km :

http://www.lavenir.net/article/detail.aspx?articleid=dmf20141020_00546419

It is said to be the longest european line equipped continuously with ETCS
for the moment.

A total of 723 km (about 25% of the network) are expected to be under ETCS
control for the end of the year.


----------



## bongo-anders (Oct 26, 2008)

In Denmark all lines that are managed by Banedanmark (DSB and Arriva lines) will have ERTMS-2 by the end of 2021.


Only a small amount of rural lines will not the equiped with the new signaling system, 2 of them are being converted to light rail in the Aarhus area and will get another kind of signaling sytem.


----------



## KingNick (Sep 23, 2010)

What I would love to see is a detailed list from all the railway lines equipped with ETCS including which level is used and the total length without counting double tracks twice.

I'll start with Austria:

Wien Hbf - Heygeshalom Level 1 | 70 km (currently not operational due to an upgraded to Baseline 2.3.0.d)​
Wien Hbf - Breclav Level 2 | 75 km (BL 2.3.0.d)​
Lainzertunnel Level 2 | 10 km (BL 2.3.0.d)​
St. Pölten Hbf - Hadersdorf Level 2 | 50 km (BL 2.3.0.d)​
Wels - Passau Level 1 | 80 km (BL 2.3.0.d)​
Attnang-Puchheim – Salzburg Level 1 | 75 km (BL 2.3.0.d)​
Kufstein - Brenner Level 2 | 108 km (BL 2.3.0.d)​
Kundl/Radfeld - Baumkirchen Level 2 | 40 km​

Total L1 225 km
Total L2 283 km
Overall 508 km

Source: http://www.oebb.at/infrastruktur/en.../02_DMS_Dateien/_ETCS_upgrading_programme.jsp


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*Spain*

By my count:

*ETCS 1* on double track except as indicated:

479 km Madrid-Lleida 19/05/2006. Total: 479
181 km Madrid-Valladolid 2007
155 km Córdoba-Málaga 2007. Total: 815
189 km Lleida-Barcelona 2008
022 km La Sagra-Toledo 2008. Total: 1.026
006 km Variante de Perales 2009
075 km Zaragoza-Huesca 2009 (one track). Total: 1.106
362 km Torrejón de Velasco-Valencia 2010
073 km Bif. Gabaldón-Albacete 2010. Total: 1.546
020 km Figueres-Frontier 2011
084 km Ourense-Santiago 2011
006 km Variante de Yeles 2011 (one track). Total: 1.655
073 km Cercanías C4 de Madrid 2012. Total: 1.728
132 km Barcelona-Figueres 2013. Total: 1.856
165 km Albacete-Alicante 2014. 
Total: 2.021 km

*ETCS 2* on double track:
487 km Madrid-Lleida 24/10/2011
165 km Albacete-Alicante 09/05/2014
005 km Variante de Perales 2014
Total: 657 km

*Software on track*:
2006 Madrid-Lleida: Ansaldo 2.2.2+
2007 Madrid-Valladolid: Thales 2.2.2+
2007 Córdoba-Málaga: Dimetronic 2.2.2+
2007 Madrid-Sevilla: NSTM for traslate the LZB 
2008 Lleida-Barcelona: Thales 2.2.2+
2008 La Sagra-Toledo: Thales
2009 Zaragoza-Huesca: Alstom 2.2.2+
2010 Figueres-Perpignan: Ansaldo 2.3.0
2010 Torrejón de Velasco-Valencia y Albacete: Dimetronic 2.3.0.d
2011 Ourense-Santiago, tramo Bifurcación Coto Da Torre-Bifurcación A Grandeira: Thales 2.3.0.d
2012 Cercanías Madrid C4: Dimetronic (Norte)-Thales (Sur) 2.3.0.d 
2013 Barcelona-Figueres: Thales 2.3.0d
2014 Albacete-Alicante (only ETCS 2): Alstom 2.3.0d

*Software on board*:
024 S-100 Alstom 2.3.0d
046 S-102/112 Siemens 2.2.2
026 S-103 Siemens 2.2.2
020 S-104 Alstom 2.2.2
013 S-114 Alstom 2.3.0d
056 S-120/121 Ansaldo 2.2.2
045 S-130/730 Bombardier 3.1.0.1 (ex 2.3.0d)
123 S-465: Alstom 2.3.0d
020 S-450: Invensys-Dimetronic 2.3.0d
031 S-446: Invensys-Dimetronic 2.3.0d
043 S-447: Invensys-Dimetronic 2.3.0d
006 S-252: Siemens 2.2.2
Total: 453 sets

Officially (Statement ADIF Network): 1.974 km in 2013, 453 trains in 2012.


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

News on ERTMS in northernmost Sweden:

http://www.wspgroup.com/en/WSP-UK/W...echnology-for-heavy-haul-iron-ore-rail-line-/



> SP was commissioned to define the requirement specifications, predesign as well as draft the technical procurement documentation for a design and build contract for Malmbanan’s most northern section.
> [...]
> Malmbanan crosses the border between Norway and Sweden, and requires a high degree of coordination between each country’s national transport agency with respect to product choices, software version handling, commissioning and operation. Malmbanan will also be modernized and double-tracked in a parallel project.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

Since the 9th of december the entire Dutch part of ETCS corridor A, which runs from the Maasvlakte in the West to the German border at Zevenaar in the east, is fitted with ERTMS. The last unfitted section, from the exit of the Betuwe route into Germany, was equipped this year, with the old Dutch system ATB now being removed.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*Mexico, first ETCS 2 in America*

Thales Spain, in collaboration with Thales Mexico (and CAF, CAF Signaling, CAF México, Construcciones Ferrovías y Subsistemas, Construcciones Urales, Isolux Ingeniería, Corsan-Corvian Construcción SA, Isolux de México, Thales España y Thales México), will implement the signaling system ETCS Level 2 on the railway Mexico City-Toluca, which will be the first in which the technology in America will be launched, after Thales own also installed the first ETCS level 1 of the continent.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*Ineco oversee the deployment of ERTMS in TEN-T corridors*

The European Commission has entrusted the spanish public company Ineco with the coordination and supervision of the deployment of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) of the nine rail corridors that run across the States of the Union over the next six years.

The contract includes the administration and management of the work programs for the nine European freight corridors TEN-T, the coordination among the different entities involved -infrastructure administrators, operators, national security authorities, interest groups of the corridors, European associations…- the deployment management, and the technical and economic control, as well as other activities such as the communications and information support.


Map of the TEN-T network


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

Swede said:


> News on ERTMS in northernmost Sweden:
> 
> http://www.wspgroup.com/en/WSP-UK/W...echnology-for-heavy-haul-iron-ore-rail-line-/


http://www.sjk.se/65/artikelarkiv/nyhetsarkiv/2015-02-18-ertms-pa-malmbanan-senarelaggs.html
This plan has been delayed. Was planned to go live in 2018, but lack of vehicles with the right equipment means they've decided to move that date forward to... no date set.


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

A new initiative meant to foster better competition for ERMTS implementations and upkeep:


----------



## dysharmonica (Dec 3, 2015)

More from Denmark, after 2 years of struggle, they finally for "first of class" prototype finished on the dominant train class in Denmark's long-distance rail service the IC3 class 

This was one of two train classes that were deemed high risk for finding ways to fit the computers onboard

from the article: 








The IC3 train, which Banedanmark and Alstom have used as a test crane for the installation of the new signal system, were split into the attempt to find space for the many new cables. Illustration: Büreau Janzen



More: more at Ingeniøren - ing.dk
(link in danish)


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

https://www.railjournal.com/index.p...ed-line-to-have-etcs-level-1.html?channel=532


> NIPPON Signal, Japan, has awarded Thales a sub-contract to install ETCS Level 1 on rolling stock and the two sections of the Red Line commuter rail line in Bangkok which will be operated by State Railway of Thailand (SRT).
> ...


This really is turning into a global standard.


----------



## espewe (Aug 27, 2014)

First in Indonesia, ETCS L1 is fitted to the upcoming LRT Palembang too. The wayside signalling is provided by local supplier PT. Len Industri (Persero). 

I don't know who's the supplier of ETCS equipment, but PT. Len Industri has partnership with Altpro for the PZB installation on Pantura (North Shore) Main Line so maybe they partnered with Altpro too for ETCS.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Swede said:


> https://www.railjournal.com/index.p...ed-line-to-have-etcs-level-1.html?channel=532
> 
> 
> This really is turning into a global standard.


It is also interesting that ETCS hardware is finding its way in to non-ETCS systems. For example: the Swiss ZSI-127 system uses ETCS hardware. It makes a lot of sense to do that.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

I was wondering lately: Even when you compare ERTMS to its most advanced predecessors (like LZB, TVM, EBICAB, ATB-NG) ERTMS is massively more complex. That complexity is more or less the inevitable consequence when you want to create the Swiss army knife of train control systems.

This complexity however now severely hampers its adoption. But how did we get here? Why did they make ERTMS so massively complex and maybe much more complex then it needed to be? Like I read in an article recently: 'We managed to get from 27 national systems to 50 ETCS implementation variants and that number is still rising.'


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

That is not totally fair. As an example, Italy alone was having (and still has) many variants of signalling, each one with its own rules in terms of speed, braking distances and so on - all things that ETCS has to encode. It's way more than representing red, yellow and green sequences.

Actually, ETCS has provided some extra motivation to "clean up" national rules, at least to some extent...

ETCS is mainly a technological effort. Hardware has been unified, and also software protocols have been to a great extent. The content of ERTMS messages is still different, and will have to be as long as there are national traditions and rules.

I am not negating the issue that you describe, not at all, but my point is that ETCS is anyways a step towards simplification. It does not look like that because it is the first time that national systems have to coexist in the same hardware, and differences create issues that before were solved with extra equipment. Now you have one hardware with N softwares, before you needed N separate hardwares.


----------



## :jax: (Sep 28, 2007)

Backwards compatibility is a bitch, though it beats not having it. 

I am curious how far they have come on forwards compatibility. An all-new system with no legacy components could be relatively simple, and there should be a path from encoding all existing complexity and incompatibility to that "clean slate-ish" state.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

davide84 said:


> I am not negating the issue that you describe, not at all, but my point is that ETCS is anyways a step towards simplification. It does not look like that because it is the first time that national systems have to coexist in the same hardware, and differences create issues that before were solved with extra equipment.


That would have actually been a very good concept. Migrate all national systems to unified hardware and only then migrate them to a unified software.
I think they at first may have underestimated the effect of the different procedures and rules per country on the complexity of ERTMS.


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

M-NL said:


> That would have actually been a very good concept. Migrate all national systems to unified hardware and only then migrate them to a unified software.


This is exactly what is happening. Track hardware and train hardware are unified, as an example see EuroBalise.

But I agree that the software complexity might have been underestimated. Plus, there were changes during the process, e.g. according to Wikipedia (but also matches some things I heard elsewhere) Switzerland developed a custom variant that was better matching its legacy system. Probably the original idea was that every network would have migrated to ERTMS L2 ASAP, while actually every country started to tweak the L1 protocols to touch its infrastructure and rules as less as possible...

On the bright side, there seem to be agreement that L2 is still the long-term goal for major lines in all countries, plus it is the default installation for the majority of new lines. It will still take another 30-40 years to really be "the" signalling system.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

The long term goal is L3, because only then the full potential of ERTMS will come to light. But as to date there has not been a full-option L3 project (ERTMS regional is L3-'light').


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

davide84 said:


> On the bright side, there seem to be agreement that L2 is still the long-term goal for major lines in all countries, plus it is the default installation for the majority of new lines. It will still take another 30-40 years to really be "the" signalling system.


SBB has decided that they will no longer modernise/upgrade any existing conventional signalling towers. In stead ETCS L2 will be installed wherever conventional signals reach EOL. This is already happening on the Lausanne - Brig line, where between Vevey and Villeneuve all signals have now been removed and the line operates using ETCS L2.


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

Speaking of Switzerland, something funny is happening on EC trains to Italy. Allegedly they cannot run on the newly-opened HS line between Milan and Brescia because their ETCS "is not the right version". It's funny because the EC from Zurich to Venice takes the time slot of one of the internal trains from Milan to Venice operated with Trenitalia High Speed trainsets and usually running on the new line...

I think this is the kind of issues that are making people think ETCS is crazy 

Good news is, this is going to be fixed soon: https://www.smartrailworld.com/alstom-switzerland-clockwork-ertms-upgrade

In the meantime, another news: in Italy the first regional engine with ERTMS has just been put into service (http://www.ferrovie.it/portale/articoli/8159, Italian only). It is a 160 km/h electric engine and it will likely be used on the Firenze-Roma line, which is the only HS line with regional traffic; they are planning to remove the standard signalling which is a limiting factor for the line capacity.


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

Three 2019 press releases from Trafikverket about ERTMS in Sweden:


2019-06-14
https://www.trafikverket.se/for-dig...fortsatt-goda-resultat-fran-ertms-programmet/


> Statistik från år 2018 visar på fortsatt positiva resultat för det nya signalsystemet ERTMS. Både antalet fel och antalet förseningsminuter är väsentligt lägre på banorna med ERTMS jämfört med de konventionella banorna.[...]
> Statistics from 2018 show continuing good results for the new signalling system ERTMS. Both the number of errors and the delay-minutes are substantially lower on the lines with ERTMS compared with the conventional lines.[...]




2019-07-04
https://www.trafikverket.se/for-dig...rt-for-nya-signalsystemet-ertms-pa-malmbanan/


> Signalanläggningen på Malmbanan mellan Riksgränsen och Boden moderniseras och byts ut för knappt tre miljarder. Torsdagen den 4 juli började arbetena i närheten av Gällivare.[...]
> The signalling system on Malmbanan [the Ore Line] between Riksgränsen [the National Border - it's a specific place on the border, not just the border in general] is being modernized and replaced for a cost of 3 billion SEK. On Thursday the 4th of July the works began near Gällivare.[...]




2019-08-27
https://www.trafikverket.se/for-dig...ellt-ERTMS/2019/nu-graver-vi-langs-malmbanan/


> Boende i närheten av Malmbanan kan påverkas av störningar när järnvägen moderniseras och digitaliseras.
> Entreprenadarbetena pågår längs hela Malmbanan med start mellan Gällivare och Kiruna samt vid Krokvik och Rautas norr om Kiruna.
> Kablar kommer att läggas längs järnvägen, och teknikbyggnader kommer att ställas upp vid banan. Allt arbete sker på Trafikverkets mark.
> Utbyggnaden startade sommaren 2019 och förväntas bli klar 2026.[...]
> ...


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

^^

I don't know what all that means.


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

Silly_Walks said:


> ^^
> I don't know what all that means.


I did translate the main points inside the quotes. 

TLDR;
The lines with ERTMS are now clearly more reliable than the non-ERTMS lines.
The line going from near the top of the Baltic Sea, via the mines at Gällivare and Kiruna, to the Norwegian Atlantic port at Narvik - that line has now started construction works to implement ERTMS and will be done in 2026.


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

^^

Sorry about that, I started reading the first sentence of every quote, and couldn't make heads or tails of it. Didn't even see the translated bits.


----------



## btrs (Jan 24, 2016)

Already some older news, but still relevant for this topic:



> *Alstom to supply ETCS for Paris – Lyon high speed line*
> 
> 25 September 2019
> 
> ...


Source:
https://www.railwaygazette.com/infr...-for-paris-lyon-high-speed-line/54616.article

Idiots. They should've gone directly for Level 3 with variable moving blocks so they could maximize capacity up to 28 tph (in each direction) instead of the miserable 16 tph in the end phase of the Level 2 implementation.
For maintanance trains they could then implement a limited Level 2 fallback between the maintenance sidings and the work area (of course during night only, removing those equally idiotic maintenance windows during midday !).

But then again, SNCF (Mobilités) also knew it had to fit its Duplex sets with ETCS-hardware and make the existing Dasy's & EuroDuplex compatible with Baseline 3 and a software version homologated for those countries (Luxembourg, Spain, Switzerland, ..) but is still at the prototype phase for all of those.
No wonder travelling by train is becoming an adventure in France.. icard:

Also: if the project _should_ be completed in 2024, this is also the end for TGV-PSE & Réseau trainsets since those will not be getting ETCS (apart from the Thalys ones which already have it for HSL-Zuid). So only Duplex-variants, maybe POS, Velaro D/Eurostar e320 and Frecciarossa 1000 will be able to operate there.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

^^ Going from 12 to 16 is an increase of 33%. :cheers:

ETCS level 3 with variable moving blocks is not in service anywhere.

There is a low cost version of level 3 without moving blocks in Sweden (*ERTMS Regional*, works with axle counters), in Västerdalsbanan, between Malung and Borlänge, 134 km and with 16 trains per day, with Bombardier's INTERFLO 550 system. They are also putting in Zambia, a 39 M € contract to install on the 980 km line Chingola-Livingstone. 
In Pilbara (Western Australia), Ansaldo is developing a new system with ETCS 2 architecture (the world's first GPS-based system, they say) for the 300 km Roy Hill mining line.
And finally there is the *ERSAT EAV* test section in Sardinia (Italy), which will also be a low-cost system for low occupancy lines, although in this one the train does mark its position with moving blocks.


> At full capacity, the ERSAT system can be installed on almost 45% of the conventional secondary Italian network, by replacing the current security systems, as well as on a large part of the European network. It can also be applied for the purpose of monitoring and managing urban and suburban railway lines.
> According to the RFI's head of control, command and telecommunication systems: "If all this works, we can guarantee the future of regional lines".


I put more information on this same thread.


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

btrs said:


> Idiots. They should've gone directly for Level 3 with variable moving blocks


As already said, the complete L3 is not available and not yet suitable to be the reference implementation.

The italian plan to upgrade to ERTMS in the next 20 years uses L2 baseline 3 as reference. I'll try to write more on this, since I just found the strategy document...


----------



## dysharmonica (Dec 3, 2015)

Isn't Denmark deploying ERTMS L3?


----------



## Stuu (Feb 7, 2007)

M-NL said:


> The UK doesn't have to, but inventing your own wheel is proven to be a bad and costly idea.
> 
> US PTC is not optimised for the UK. If you don't want ERTMS a Japanese system (JR East D-ATC?) would probably be a better choice, as their train operations are more similar to the UK.


It may appear that the UK has gone completely insane, but luckily decisions like signalling systems are not taken by politicians so there is (hopefully) very little chance of the rollout of ERTMS being abandoned just because of what the first letter stands for... It is being installed at the moment on two different lines, and will go live between London and Heathrow in the next few months


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

*Bane Nor and Siemens open ERTMS testing and training centre*

_NORWEGIAN infrastructure manager Bane Nor and Siemens opened the Campus Nyland test, training and signalling simulation centre on October 31, marking a milestone in Norway’s goal of becoming the first country to operate with a single digital interlocking._

https://www.railjournal.com/signalling/bane-nor-and-siemens-open-ertms-testing-and-training-centre/


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

davide84 said:


> I would still go for ERTMS, since there's a rail connection to the continent...


Even without the Chunnel, I'd still go for ERTMS if I was in charge of the decision in the UK. For the reasons M-NL stated. If there's an international standard, stick to it. Same as if you're building a brand new railway on an island that won't be getting a bridge or tunnel to the mainland: build it in standard gauge with SE-C loading gauge. Now there's just an added layer to that: build ERTMS. Because it gives you so many options and opens for computer systems, vehicles and drivers etc to start working with said hypothetical new island line with very low hurdles for on-boarding.


----------



## The Polwoman (Feb 21, 2016)

In the end it will be better if the standard is implemented throughout all railways with 1435mm gauge in Eurafrasia: if China would pursue/aid Russia into adding standard gauge for cargo trains to speed up EU-China rail transport, then ERTMS has to be part of the package to get rid of that obstacle of rail transport. And with the multi-current locomotives, China-EU traffic won't even have to change locomotives. Even in Africa there are HSR lines being planned with ERTMS. 

We better stick to the same baseline technology to avoid future hassles. Prevent situations like we, the Dutch, have with outdated signalling hindering speed increases and horribly outdated low voltage, because when you have an austerity-licking government with outdated technology on your railways, all progress grinds to a halt and before you know you'll be forced to join the traffic jam over 16 lanes wide with a mediocre bus.


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

London's LizPurpCross-line is getting ERTMS:


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

*Six bidders vie for Indian Railways ETCS Level 2 pilot project*

_SIX companies have responded to an Indian Railways (IR) tender to install ETCS Level 2 on 650km of lines at an estimated cost of Rs 15bn ($US 211.4m)._

https://www.railjournal.com/infrast...r-indian-railways-etcs-level-2-pilot-project/


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

So India's going for ERTMS. Nice. 
Starting with testing it on four lines before deciding to implement it one the whole immense Indian Rail network seems fairly reasonable.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

davide84 said:


> *Bane Nor and Siemens open ERTMS testing and training centre*
> 
> _NORWEGIAN infrastructure manager Bane Nor and Siemens opened the Campus Nyland test, training and signalling simulation centre on October 31, marking a milestone in Norway’s goal of becoming the first country to operate with a single digital interlocking._
> 
> https://www.railjournal.com/signalling/bane-nor-and-siemens-open-ertms-testing-and-training-centre/


Some of the information in the article contrasts with others I have noted.
For example:


> The Roa – Hønefoss ERTMS test line is due to open in spring 2020


Why do they need a second pilot line, because the first one didn't work well or because it's Bombardier's?


> The first trials began in November 2013 with a pilot deployment on the Mysen – Sarpsborg section of the 80km Ski – Sarpsborg Østfold Line. Lineside signalling was removed and the line was equipped with Bombardier’s Interflo 450 ETCS Level 2 solution. The remainder of the route migrated to ETCS Level 2 (SRS 2.3.0d) in September 2015


Source: IRJ 2016

Another question:


> Norwegian infrastructure manager Bane Nor and Siemens opened the Campus Nyland test, training and signalling simulation centre on October 31, marking a milestone in Norway’s goal of becoming the first country to operate with a single digital interlocking.


It's a good idea that the interlocking is Siemens and the TMS Aramis of Thales? in addition to the ETCS on-board equipment, which is Alstom Atlas.


> Thales was recently selected for the contract to deliver a new national Traffic Management System (TMS), which will replace three legacy systems.


Source: IRJ 2018

Bane Nor does not detail much on his outdated website.

Moreover, last month Bane Nor awarded Limmat (a Spanish company) a technical assistance and consultancy contract for the implementation of ERTMS in Norway.
The news says that the whole network will have ERTMS in 2030 but I think that in reality they will only be the main lines and the Oslo S, all the network in 2034.
They also detail that ERTMS will consist of ETCS 2 without lateral signalling and with software 3.6.0 (Baseline 3).


----------



## btrs (Jan 24, 2016)

Gusiluz said:


> Why do they need a second pilot line, because the first one didn't work well or because it's Bombardier's?


Bombardier's Interflo ERTMS implementation always was the worst of the pack, both train-side equipment or track-side equipment. It had a problem that it wasn't compatible with one or the other vendors (I guess either Alstom, Ansaldo STS or Siemens) train equipment, and so more debugging was needed.

I think it was either the Betuweroute or Amsterdam-Utrecht that was one of the first to be equipped with Bombardier track equipment, and where they encountered this problem.

The other vendors didn't seem to have such a problem, as they were compatible with each others equipment. For example:

Thalys (Ansaldo STS train equipment) on L4/HSL-Zuid (Belgian part: Alstom track equipment, Dutch part: Siemens track equipment)

ES64F4/BR189 (mostly with Alstom train equipment, some with Siemens train equipment) on Betuweroute (Alstom track equipment). Don't know about the Lötschbergtunnel and Gotthard Base Tunnel that also require ERTMS equipment..

ICE-3M (BR406, Alstom train equipment) on L36N (Siemens track equipment; Level 1) and L3 (Alstom track equipment; Level 2)

Class 66 locos and Vossloh (G1206 and recent offspring like G12/G18) seem to have a multitude of vendors, but I at least know some of both series had Bombardier train equipment or Alstom equipment. Can't find the Powerpoint presentations on them right now though..

I also can't assess how the track-train equipment compatibility is in southern Europe (especially Spain and Italy with large HS deployments), but it seems they are more skewed towards Ansaldo, Alstom and Thales equipment. Bombardier is completely absent there, and Siemens only seems to have a small portion of equipped or to be equipped lines in the future.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

^^ Thanks for the explanation!

Unfortunately here in Spain we know well the compatibility problems of the onboard Bombardier equipment: version 3.1.0.1 of the 730 series caused Trips continuously (Post Trip mode for 20% of the journey) in the transitions to / from ETCS 0 + ASFA with the Thales ground equipment in Galicia; while 121 series with Ansaldo 2.2.2+ equipment had no problem. 
The 130 series (same equipment as 730) also had problems with the ETCS 2 in Alicante and León, where it has not yet been validated despite the fact that the rest of the trains (S-121 and S-112) are authorized.
My own list of installers in Spain.

*Onboard software versions*:

S-100 Alstom 2.3.0.d
S-102/112 Siemens 2.2.2+ CR (Conventional Rail)
S-103 Siemens 2.2.2+ CR
S-104 Alstom 2.3.0.d (ex2.2.2)
S-114 Alstom 2.3.0.d
S-120/121 Hitachi (Ansaldo) 2.2.2+ CR
S-130/730 Bombardier 3.1.1.2 (ex 3.1.0.1 ex 2.3.0.d)
123 S-465: Alstom 2.3.0.d
20 S-450: Siemens (Invensys-Dimetronic) 2.3.0.d
31 S-446: Siemens (Invensys-Dimetronic) 2.3.0.d
43 S-447: Siemens (Invensys-Dimetronic) 2.3.0.d
9 (10) S-252: Siemens 2.2.2+ CR (level 1 only)
10 Euroduplex 3UH SNCF (level 1 only)
T-350 SRO Haramain: Alstom
Avril G3: Alstom
Oaris: CAF Signalling
Seneca, BT 1 and 2: Alstom Baseline 3 (at least 3.5.0)
Avril S-106 and 122: Alstom

*Software versions on track*:

05/19/2006 Madrid-Lleida: Hitachi (Ansaldo) 2.2.2+ (>2.3.0.d)
23/12/2007 Madrid-Valladolid: Thales 2.2.2+ (>2.3.0.d) and Eurobalises Siemens 
24/12/2007 Córdoba-Málaga: Siemens (Invensys-Dimetronic) 2.2.2+ and Eurobalizas Siemens
20/02/2008 Lleida-Barcelona: Thales 2.2.2+ (>2.3.0.d) and Siemens Eurobalises
??/??/2009 Zaragoza-Huesca: Alstom 2.2.2+ (without GSM-R)
15/12/2010 Torrejón de Velasco-Valencia and Albacete: Siemens (Invensys-Dimetronic) 2.3.0.d
21/12/2010 Figueres-Perpignan: Hitachi (Ansaldo) 2.3.0
21/12/2010 Can Tunis-Mollet and Girona-Figueres (for Vilamalla): Alstom Atlas 2.3.0.d
24/10/2011 Madrid-Lleida (ETCS 2, in addition to L1 (disconnected from 17/08/2016 until update 2.3.0.d)
11/12/2011 Ourense-Santiago: Thales 2.3.0.d
11/01/2012 Madrid Commuter C4: Siemens (Norte) and Thales (Sur) 2.3.0.d
09/01/2013 Barcelona-Figueres: Thales 2.3.0.d
09/05/2014 Albacete-Alicante (level 2 only): Alstom 2.3.0.d 
10/2016 Torrejón de Velasco-Valencia and Albacete (ETCS 2, in addition to L1)
26/06/2019 Antequera-Granada (level 2 only): Siemens
01/07/2019 Valladolid-León (level 2 only): Alstom 2.3.0.d (Atlas 200)

*Next lines*:

29/12/2019 Camp de Tarragona-gauge changers of La Boella (level 1 and 2): Thales
29/12/2019 La Boella-Vandellós (level 1 without GSM-R): CAF Signalling 2.3.0.d
4T2019 Haramain Makkah-Medinah (level 2 only): Siemens
1T2020 Olmedo-Zamora (level 2 only): Thales
2020 Chamartín-Torrejón de Velasco (level 2 only): Thales
2020 Monforte del Cid-Beniel (level 2 only): CAF Signalling
2020 Atlantic Axis (level 1 without GSM-R): CAF Signalling (formerly Eliop Seinalia) (Auriga, Vigo Urzáiz-Redondela with Eurobalizas Siemens), Alstom (Atlas 100, Redondela-Villagarcía de Arousa) and Siemens (Trainguard Futur 1300 Vilagarcía de Arousa-Coruña).
2020 Barcelona Commuter R1 (level 2 only): Alstom (L'Hospitalet de Llobregat-Mataró, 56 km) and Bombardier equipment)
2020 Extremadura Plasencia-Badajoz (level 2 only): Bombardier Interface 450 Electronic Interlock Alstom Smartlock 300
2021 Variant of Pajares (level 2 only): Thales
2022 Barcelona Commuter (level 2 only): Manresa-Barcelona on line R4 north and Barcelona-Sant Vicenç de Calders on line R2 south
202? Vandellós-Villarreal and CRC Valencia-Vandellós (level 1 only): Thales Altrac
202? Seville-Utrera-Jerez (level 2 only): Thales and Siemens (Dimetronic)
202? Burriana-Valencia (level 1 only): Bombardier Interface 250
2023 Valencia-La Encina (L1 and 2) Thales and CAF Signalling


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

*Denmark launches ERTMS on first eastern line*

_DANISH infrastructure manager Banedanmark has announced that it will launch ERTMS between Roskilde and Køge on December 15, marking the first use of the system in eastern Denmark._

https://www.railjournal.com/signalling/denmark-launches-ertms-on-first-eastern-line/


----------



## dysharmonica (Dec 3, 2015)

davide84 said:


> *Denmark launches ERTMS on first eastern line*
> 
> _DANISH infrastructure manager Banedanmark has announced that it will launch ERTMS between Roskilde and Køge on December 15, marking the first use of the system in eastern Denmark._
> 
> https://www.railjournal.com/signalling/denmark-launches-ertms-on-first-eastern-line/


Also in Denmark, first 6 of the main train type IC3 equipped with ERTMS are being put into operation. 

Equipping IC3 with ERTMS was a major headache for Denmark, as these custom-designed DMU trains dating back to the 1980s had little space available on board for the quipment, and the conversion took years longer than anticipated. However, IC3 is the main long distance and regional train type, and also the basis for the electric IR4 and the cross-border electric Øresundstog train types, so it was imperative a solution was found to equip IC3 with ERTMS. In fact, the delay in equipping IC3's with ERTMS is a major reason why the resignalling program and by extension the electrification program in Denmark are delayed - as signals were replaced along tracks, Denmark needed trains to run on these converted lines, and with the delay in converting IC3s they did not. 

Now these problems were solved and the program can continue. 



dysharmonica said:


> BDK is on a bit of a marketing blitz
> 
> Along with the first stretch in Østdanmark's ERTMS being put into service, the first 6 IC3 trains with ERTMS are being put into operation. Here is a video and a few pictures:
> 
> ...


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

dysharmonica said:


> as signals were *replaced* along tracks, Denmark needed trains to run on these converted lines


Replaced or removed? Denmark is going for Level 2, which if I remember correctly does not need signals but can have them. So far I have only seen L2 lines without signals, except of course where other signalling systems were also installed.

EDIT: I am referring to light signals / semaphores...


----------



## dysharmonica (Dec 3, 2015)

davide84 said:


> Replaced or removed? Denmark is going for Level 2, which if I remember correctly does not need signals but can have them. So far I have only seen L2 lines without signals, except of course where other signalling systems were also installed.
> 
> EDIT: I am referring to light signals / semaphores...


I believe the goal in DK is to remove trackside light signals, but I used replace, since they are placing the various sensing and signal-sending tech along the tracks. 

I do know the new high speed line Copenhagen - Ringsted has traditional signals installed alongside ERTMS because not enough trains were ready with ERTMS to run on the line and they needed to start using this track to relieve congestion on the old line. 

I believe the other tracks that are in operation (which is just 3 or 4 short-ish segments) have had their trackside light signals removed and only converted rolling stck can operate there ... but others can (will) correct me if that is not the case.


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

I got interested in the topic and I just found this:

*EU: Rail - Control command and signalling - CCS TSI NIP*
National Implementation Plans (NIP) Country by Country
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/interoperability/interoperability/ccs-tsi_en

I apologize if it was already posted.


----------



## espewe (Aug 27, 2014)

M-NL said:


> The UK doesn't have to, but inventing your own wheel is proven to be a bad and costly idea.
> 
> US PTC is not optimised for the UK. If you don't want ERTMS a* Japanese system (JR East D-ATC?)* would probably be a better choice, as their train operations are more similar to the UK.


Ah, just a friendly correction.
Japan developed their own CBTC solution too, which is known as ATACS (Advanced Train Administration and Control System) domestically and SPARCS for export (used in MRT Jakarta and Bangkok MRT Purple Line).
D-ATC is maybe equivalent to ETCS L2 with balises.


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

in DANISH: https://www.bane.dk/Presse/Presseme...s-ud-paa-den-foerste-straekning-i-OEstdanmark
The Roskilde - Køge line on Zealand is now using ERTMS. 
Upcoming stretches in Denmark:
Struer - Thisted (2020)
Langå - Struer - Holstebro (2021)
Køge - Næstved & Næstved - Rødby (2021)
All of Denmark: 2030 at the latest.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

Because of the imminent system wide rollout of ERTMS in the Netherlands, work has started to install ERTMS in rolling stock. This also includes the development of a STM ATB of which the IRS can be found here.

On pages 19 and 20 it states explicitly that ATBM+ and ATB-VV functionality via Eurobalises wil not be implemented. I think this is a missed opportunity, because it would have been an easy way to enable 160 km/h running on ATB-EG tracks for all ERTMS fitted equipment. Another option would have been to enable 100 km/h running in curves that allow it, but are now limited to 80 km/h, again because of ATB limitations.


----------



## btrs (Jan 24, 2016)

Maybe they want to walk the same path as DB Netz and SBB Infra, namely go for Level 1 Limited Supervision which more-or-less covers the same functionality as ATB-VV ? Or am I completely wrong here ?

Of course this will probably be more of interest on the secondary lines, the mainlines will be equipped in Level 2 anyway.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

btrs said:


> Maybe they want to walk the same path as DB Netz and SBB Infra, namely go for Level 1 Limited Supervision which more-or-less covers the same functionality as ATB-VV ? Or am I completely wrong here ?


No, they actually remain set on Level 2, because plain Level 1 would actually decrease net capacity, Level 1 with Euroloop and/or Euroradio and Level 1 Limited Supervision are deemed to complex and costly.


btrs said:


> Of course this will probably be more of interest on the secondary lines, the mainlines will be equipped in Level 2 anyway.


The secondary lines are an interesting case indeed. The electrified lines that have been electrified before the turn of the millenium are already fitted with ATB-EG/VV and are set to be converted to Level 2 directly after the mainlines. 
The diesel and the more recently electrified lines are fitted with ATB-NG, which is functionally equivalent to Level 1. Because of this they are set to be the last lines to be converted. This means that ATB-NG is planned to remain in operation for at least the next 20 years, even though ATB-NG should be convertable to Level 1 relatively easy. AFAIK despite the expected long period there are no plans to develop a STM ATB-NG.


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

A map of the Danish roll-out plans for ERTMS:


dysharmonica said:


> The amount of railways projects in Denmark is staggering. It is mostly updates that were needed decades ago, and I understand the passenger frustration (I am one of those frustrated passengers), but it is impressive nevertheless. Looking at the ministry reports on infrastructure project progress, virtually the whole country is getting railways investments.
> 
> Railway improvements in 2019 (bigger than just maintenance)
> https://i.imgur.com/hQeUlD6h.png
> ...


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

*Version numbering*

The version numbering is starting to become real big mess:

Baseline 2 = Any 2.x.x version
Baseline 3 = Any 3.x.x version
Baseline 3 release 1 = SRS 3.4.0
Baseline 3 release 2 = SRS 3.6.0
System version 1.0 = Compatible with version 2.3.0d
System version 1.1 = Compatible with version 2.3.0d and 3.4.0
System version 2.0 = Compatible with version 3.4.0
System version 2.1 = Compatible with version 3.6.0
Trains are backwards compatible and with some limitations also upward within the same baseline (you can drive a SRS 3.6.0 train on SRS 2.2.2 track, but also a SRS 2.2.2 train on SRS 2.3.0d track)
Tracks are only backwards/upwards compatible within the same baseline (you can't drive any baseline 2 train on baseline 3 track)
Combine this with 5 levels (0..4 + LS) and class B systems and anyone can understand how easy it is to create misunderstandings.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Some railway twitter feeds were suggesting that ERTMS-2 implementation must be immediately halted after the HSL recent crash in Italy, until unoperative points are not longer reliant on human input but on electromagnetic validation of their physical status.


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

That would be impractical. In some cases, like apparently the Italian one, an "unoperative point" has no power. There's no way ERTMS can get any electronic validation of the status of a point with no power.

In Italy, I don't know exactly what they were doing that night, but at 4.45 am trained personnel has written formal communication confirming that the point had been powered off and LOCKED in transit position. You must be able to trust this type of information.


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

A couple of news from International Railway Journal:









Israel electrification programme accelerated as ETCS Level 2 tested


Israel Railways (IR) has successfully extended electrification of the A1 Link to Tel Aviv Hashalom and Tel Aviv Savidor/Central stations on April 5.




www.railjournal.com













ERTMS launched on third Danish line


Denmark's infrastructure manager, Banedanmark, has launched ERTMS on the 73.6km single-track line between Thisted and Struer in northwest Jutland.




www.railjournal.com


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

The Thisted-Struer ERTMS is now loaded on OpenRailwayMap: https://www.openrailwaymap.org/
Unfortunately it's not a main corridor so you'll have to zoom to see the blue line, after you select "Signalling" from the left menu...

I invite you to have a look there from time to time, and maybe contribute


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

ERTMS test running starts on new Spanish HS line


Adif AV started test running under ERTMS Level 2 on the 110.7km Zamora - Pedralba de la Pradería section of the Madrid - Galicia high-speed line on May 15.




www.railjournal.com


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*HS2 signalling and traffic management procurement gets underway*. Railway Gazette 15 may 2020


> HS2 Ltd has formally begun the process of selecting a contractor to design, supply and support Control, Command, Signalling and Traffic Management Systems for the future high speed line.





> The contracts with an estimated combined value of £540m will cover:
> 
> design, supply, installation, commissioning and maintenance until handover of CCS & TM for phases 1 and 2a between London, Birmingham and Crewe;
> a potential extension to cover Phase 2b;
> ...





> The ETCS Level 2 is required to control trains travelling at speeds of up to 360 km/h, with automatic train operation Grade of Automation 2 (ATP and ATO with driver) over ETCS. The controller workstations and centrally located equipment cubicles will be at the Network Integrated Control Centre in Washwood Heath.
> The successful contractor will be required to estimate the price and whole-life cost of implementing ETCS with hybrid Level 3 functionality once the technical standards and specifications for this functionality have been published by the EU Agency for Railways.
> If the cost and benefits of Level 3 functionality are more advantageous than Level 2,* HS2 Ltd will have a contractual right, though not an obligation, to require the contractor to implement hybrid Level 3 functionality* in some or all areas.





> Requests to prequalify should be submitted by July 7. HS2 Ltd expects to invite four applicants to tender in January 2021, with the contract to be awarded in 2022.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

ERTMS deployment needs retrofitting strategy for rolling stock
Interesting quote from this article:


> In the last years, there were around 5,000 new vehicles that came in the market. Of these, only around 900 units were equipped with the ETCS,


I would conclude that the chosen implementation strategy could have been better (I do have some ideas on how I would have done it, but yeah, one's always wiser after the event).


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

900 on 5000 is 18%... I guess less than 18% of the european network has ERTMS, so it looks like a reasonable value.

I am curious to know how many of the other 4200 new vehicles are designed to receive ERTMS as a module, because that makes it easy and cost-effective for the rolling stock to keep the pace of ERTMS installations.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

An EVC or Euro(pean) Vital Computer is the core of the ETCS onboard system. It needs extra modules to read balises, communicate over GSM-R, control the driver interface and handle legacy control systems.
I always thought that an EVC is required equipment for all new vehicles, but I'm not so sure about that anymore either. Legacy control system can however still be installed as stand alone systems, which seems to have happened a lot. Why would you install something more complex and expensive if it is not required?
And that is just one the major flaws in the current implementation strategy. To much is based on recommendations, not on requirements. If they keep going at the current rate it will take at least another 30 years (the normal design lifespan of rolling stock) before all legacy systems are gone. Another flaw was to put to much control logic in the vehicle, making upgrades difficult.


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

I would be fine even not having an EVC installed, as long as there is space available where to mount it, and the proper conduits and mounting points for power and sensors are part of the original design...


----------



## btrs (Jan 24, 2016)

The main problem is that most rolling stock designed before the year 2000 has had physical, analog train protection systems based on analog electronics instead of a "computer" as such. Interfacing an EVC with such a vehicle requires much more converters (digital to analog) and much more wiring. STM's are not possible or not allowed by some infrastructure owners..

I mean: even the most modern trainsets on the market (Eurostar e320/Velaro) still have separate controls/read-outs for some of the legacy systems (in this instance: ATB for the Netherlands and KVB for France):








There is really some work for the ERA to do here and only allow fully integrated systems with a single MMI display. Otherwise the rolling stock should have its homologation revoked.


----------



## mistertl (Sep 5, 2014)

btrs said:


> I mean: even the most modern trainsets on the market (Eurostar e320/Velaro) still have separate controls/read-outs for some of the legacy systems (in this instance: ATB for the Netherlands and KVB for France)


I don't know about the French system, but the Dutch ATB system is a design choice, not a technical limitation. As far as I know, only the E320/ICE/Velaro and the Thalys trains have the ATB system integrated like that. Other ETCS equipped trains have it as a NTC/STM-ATB module and the processing from the ATB systems is fully integrated in the EVC, with a digital readout on the DMI for the driver.


----------



## TER200 (Jan 27, 2019)

mistertl said:


> I don't know about the French system


There is now a "bi-sdandard" system installed on most recent trains, which handles both ETCS and KVB.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

btrs said:


> The main problem is that most rolling stock designed before the year 2000 has had physical, analog train protection systems based on analog electronics instead of a "computer" as such. Interfacing an EVC with such a vehicle requires much more converters (digital to analog) and much more wiring. STM's are not possible or not allowed by some infrastructure owners..
> 
> I mean: even the most modern trainsets on the market (Eurostar e320/Velaro) still have separate controls/read-outs for some of the legacy systems (in this instance: ATB for the Netherlands and KVB for France):


STMs are connected to the EVC by a Profibus fieldbus. AFAIK in the earlier ETCS versions that connection wasn't explicitly specified in the standard. Chances are that the EVC from manufacturer A was not be able to interface with a STM from manufacturer B back then. Especially when you then realise there is a lot of intellectual property involved, manufacturer A may not have been able to construct a STM that actually works for them self and thus had to resort to a separate system. Because AFAIK this has since been specified EVCs and STMs from different manufacturer should now be able to cooperate. There is no reason why you couldn't develop a STM for a physical, analog train protection system, but because it isn't required many manufacturers didn't bother.

Having separate readouts does not tell how they are connected. Again I'm not 100% sure, but all Dutch SLT trains do have an EVC with a STM ATB, but do not have most of the ETCS hardware such as the antenna and an ETCS compatible center display (there have been a few test ERTMS test trains that did). In fact the standardised European drivers desk specifically assign the areas over the left and right screens for legacy system controls/read outs.

Have you ever noticed that all ETCS equipped trains with an approval for France have a split center display? That is because of French redundancy regulations. Other countries may have some of their own regulations, making it very difficult to combine those in a single system. The ERA should have put more effort into harmonizing all the different rules into one mandatory set of rules.


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

Alstom obtains certification for ETCS Baseline 3 Release 2 system


Belgorail has certified Alstom to implement its data fusion algorithms into its ETCS Baseline 3 Release 2 system.




www.railjournal.com





And as a reminder about the difference between "baseline 3" and "level 3"...









ERTMS - FAQ on ERTMS - Mobility and Transport - European Commission


ERTMS - FAQ on ERTMS




ec.europa.eu


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

ETCS Baseline 3 Release 2 also known as System Required Specifications version 3.6.0 (and yes, there is also an SRS 3.2.0)...
The data fusion algorithm does makes the system more suitable for level 3 operations.
The main thing Norway is looking for is to reduce complexity and the amount of track side train control equipment on single track lines. With level 3 balises in a set interval are the only track side equipment needed. If you can reduce that further by another means to determine your location and speed, that's a bonus. But level 3 is still a problem for trains that do no operate in fixed consists. They still have to come up with a way to insure train integrity. In the USA they have End-of-train devices for that, but they're not accurate enough for ETCS.


----------



## btrs (Jan 24, 2016)

M-NL said:


> The main thing Norway is looking for is to reduce complexity and the amount of track side train control equipment on single track lines.


Sweden already did some tests with ETCS "Regional" a few years ago: based on Level 3 but without the moving block system and train protection only provided by radio (GSM-R/EDGE-R), i.e. no Eurobalises anymore.








Low cost ERTMS implementation: ERTMS Regional - railwaysignalling.eu


ERTMS Regional is a simplified and low-cost variant of the European Rail Traffic Management System suitable for train control on lines with low traffic volumes.



www.railwaysignalling.eu





Its development was halted though since only the Swedish railway infrastructure manager Trafikverket was actively developing and rolling-out the system, and other European railway infrastructure managers rather wanted to finalize the Baseline 3 specifications for the fixed systems first.
I do think however that there are provisions in SRS 3.6.0 to make this a valid variant in the future should an infrastructure manager want to deploy such a system..

Italy is also interested in this variant, but instead wants to use satellite position tracking (Galileo) instead of GSM-R..








ERTMS with satellite positioning trial completed


ITALY: A final test train ran from Cagliari to Decimomannu in Sardinia on February 24 as part of the ERSAT EAV project to integrate ERTMS with Galileo satellite positioning and public telecoms networks to provide a low-cost train control option for regional and low-traffic rail routes...




www.railwaygazette.com


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

Hungary completes GSM-R Phase 1 rollout


Hungary's National Infocommunications Service Company has announced the completion of work on the first stage of its GSM-R railway communications project.




www.railjournal.com


----------



## AndreiB (Dec 2, 2009)

The terminology is a bit jargony. Do I understand correctly in that you can (or will be able to later in 2020) use ERMTS Level 1 from Vienna all the way to Lokoshaza on the east-west axis?


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

GSM-R is a GSM 2G based system used for voice and data communications between the trains and the control centers. ERTMS Level 1 does not require an over the air data link to work, but could be enhanced with it. Level 2 and up do require a data link.
The article suggests that GSM-R was introduced to complement or replace an older probably analog voice communication system, also enabling foreign rolling stock easier acces to Hungary.


----------



## Shadock (Jul 19, 2020)

Some news about the deployment of ETCS in Belgium.

This is the current status:

ETCS 1 FS

Already deployed: 1496 km
Total foreseen: 2437
% Achievement: 61 %


ETCS 2

Already deployed: 30 km (test phase)
Total foreseen: 2645 km
% Achievement: 1%

To be noted :

ETCS 2 in Belgium will become the norm, but will not be fully deployed initially
because it would be impossible to meet the deadline.

On non high-speed lines, ETCS 2 in Belgium will be deployed WITH lateral signalling.
This is not the most frequent solution, so still requires some research and prototyping.


ETCS 1 LS

Already deployed: 0 km
Total foreseen: 1175 km
% Achievement : 0%


ETCS 1+2 (concerns only HSL 3 and 4)

Already deployed: 142 km
Total foreseen: 142 km
% Achievement: 100%


Total

Already deployed: 1668 km
Total foreseen: 6399 km
% Achievement: 26%

Note: TBL2 on HSL 2 is gone ; TVM430 on HSL 1 to be kept until 2030, project to migrate to ETCS2 to be done in cooperation with SNCF and Eurostar.

Deployment plans now…

ETCS 1 FS still to do in 2020:

L130 around Charleroi
L94 Ath-Tournai-French border
L108 La Louvière-Binche (don’t understand why not ETCS1 LS for this one…)
ETCS1 FS to do in 2021:

L25 around Mechelen (bypass)
L162 Arlon-Lux border
L167 Arlon-Athus
L11 in Antwerp port
L94 Halle-Ath
ETCS 1 LS to do in 2020:

L132 Jamioulx-Couvin (prototype)
L86 Gavere-Oudenaarde
ETCS 1 LS to do in 2021:

L21 Hasselt-Genk + some branches
L19 Mol-Neerpelt
L58 Wondelgem-Eeklo
L55 Wondelgem-Zelzate (freight only)
L40 Liège-Visé
L15 Herentals-Mol
L68 Kortrijk-Poperinge
ETCS 2 to do in 2020:

L50A Gent-St Katharina Lombeek (near Denderleeuw, junction with L50)
L60 Jette-Dendermonde
L12 Kapellen-Essen
ETCS2 to do in 2021:

L50A Brussels Midi-St Katharina Lombeek
L125 Namur-Liège
L73 Lichtervelde-Dixmuide
L162 Libramont-Autelbas


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Shadock said:


> On non high-speed lines, ETCS 2 in Belgium will be deployed WITH lateral signalling.
> This is not the most frequent solution, so still requires some research and prototyping.


Why? One of the advantages of ETCS L2 is that you do not need signals anymore. SBB uses ETCS2 to avoid having to upgrade the signalling on some lines. In stead of replacing EOL'd signalling they just go all ETCS L2 and remove the signals altogehter...


----------



## davide84 (Jun 8, 2008)

Czech Republic approves ETCS rollout timetable


The Czech Ministry of Transport’s Committee to Increase Traffic Safety has approved a timetable for the rollout of ETCS on all Czech core lines by 2030.




www.railjournal.com


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

K_ said:


> Why? One of the advantages of ETCS L2 is that you do not need signals anymore.


Even with ETCS L1 there is no need for 'regular' multi aspect signals with optional extra indicators. When your movement authority runs out you only need one light, that iluminates when you are allowed to pass into the next block. Once you pass the balise the DMI will tell you what to do. You could even make that one light blink to indicate that you are cleared to pass a 'red signal' and proceed staff responsible as a kind of backup procedure.


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

Removed due to double post


----------



## btrs (Jan 24, 2016)

K_ said:


> Why? One of the advantages of ETCS L2 is that you do not need signals anymore. SBB uses ETCS2 to avoid having to upgrade the signalling on some lines. In stead of replacing EOL'd signalling they just go all ETCS L2 and remove the signals altogehter...


I guess this will only be a temporary situation: until 2025 when ETCS effectively is mandatory for access to the Belgian railway network, trains can drive with TBL1+/Memor up till then. But since Infrabel wants to commission ETCS L2 lines earlier and trains without ETCS still need signals they need to remain in place until then.

Compare it with some upgraded lines in Germany: if the section is cleared for >160 km/h running and the train is capable, then it needs LZB in-cab signalling. Yet, all upgraded lines are still equipped with classical signals and PZB for trains that don't have LZB (a lot of light-train vehicles like Desiro/Lint/Talent etc) or are limited to 160 km/h and can therefore run under standard PZB.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Infrabel’s master plan explicitly says that they want all lineside signaling and equipment connected to tracks gone by 2040.


----------



## Swede (Aug 24, 2002)

The Norwegian rail authority just published a video about ERTMS, including two dates: 2022 for the first lines, 2034 for _all_ lines.
English subtitles


----------



## M-NL (Sep 18, 2012)

Swede said:


> The Norwegian rail authority just published a video about ERTMS, including two dates: 2022 for the first lines, 2034 for _all_ lines.


I hope they'll make that date. Norway has 4100 km of track (according to Wikipedia). That's 30% more then the Netherlands has and the Netherlands is planning to replace the last legacy ATC by 2060! The video actually mentions one of the reasons for the quick implementation is that the current ATC is outdated. Migrating isn't cheap, but keeping old systems running may be even more expensive. Things like spare parts may be difficult to get.
Any news on what level(s) are they going to use?


----------



## pietje01 (Mar 18, 2008)

M-NL said:


> I hope they'll make that date. Norway has 4100 km of track (according to Wikipedia). That's 30% more then the Netherlands has and the Netherlands is planning to replace the last legacy ATC by 2060! The video actually mentions one of the reasons for the quick implementation is that the current ATC is outdated. Migrating isn't cheap, but keeping old systems running may be even more expensive. Things like spare parts may be difficult to get.
> Any news on what level(s) are they going to use?


Belgium will be finished by 2025, so the 2060 date of the Netherlands is entirely due to their lack of ambition or some form of protectionism.


----------



## Sandy92 (Apr 22, 2019)

They will only implement Level 2 in Norway. However the Norwegian network is much less complicated than the Dutch network. Only 240 km is double track, the remainder is single track. There are fewer big stations and less traffic, which makes the overall migration less complex


----------



## Sandy92 (Apr 22, 2019)

pietje01 said:


> Belgium will be finished by 2025, so the 2060 date of the Netherlands is entirely due to their lack of ambition or some form of protectionism.


Definitely agreed that there is a lack of ambition in The Netherlands.
However the implementation in NL will require new interlocking/train detection on pretty much the entire network to enable Level 2, while Level 1 (both full and limited supervision) can be applied on relay-based systems. However, this doesn't allow removal of the existing lineside signalling system.


----------



## marc.gr.vandyck (9 mo ago)

Sandy92 said:


> Definitely agreed that there is a lack of ambition in The Netherlands.
> However the implementation in NL will require new interlocking/train detection on pretty much the entire network to enable Level 2, while Level 1 (both full and limited supervision) can be applied on relay-based systems. However, this doesn't allow removal of the existing lineside signalling system.


Same in Belgium. In a 20 years time frame, the network managed by Infrabel went from some 400 local signaling cabins, some controlling only a few switches and signals, to the 10 fully computerized signaling centres existing today. Most (not all yet) relay-based interlocking and lineside equipment is gone. And any Infrabel employee with the suitable access rights can look at the track status of any line and station, and monitor the progress of any train on the network, from his company laptop or tablet.


----------

