Queensland has just issued the 2019 update of its State Infrastructure Plan (SIP), and it looks truly impressive by now. The SIP comes in two parts. Part A is a generic Strategy document which was issued in March 2016 and has not changed since. It defines the framework for infrastructure requirements in Queensland over the next 20 years. From a public transport perspective, the main takeaway is an expected doubling of trips, requiring appropriate growth in the capacity of public transport systems.

Updated Part B Program

Part B is the juicy bit where it is outlined how the strategy will be implemented with actual projects. This is what is being updated on an annual basis, including just now for 2019. So let’s see what is in there.

The overall number looks truly impressive: an investment of $49.5 billion just over the budget forecast period of the coming four years. However, that is across all “asset classes”. The figure for Transport which is relevant for this forum is only $5.6 million or about eleven per cent of the whole cake. Not exactly overwhelming.

Transport Projects

Taking a closer look at the projects planned for transport, specifically in the rail area, the usual suspects come up.

• Cross River Rail of course, a tunnel under Brisbane’s CBD and Brisbane River connecting the railway lines from the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast which is meant to relieve the city trunk of the rail network to free up capacity margins for the other lines.
• Brisbane Metro which is not really a rail project but plans for articulated vehicles on rubber wheels guided along a dedicated corridor.
• New Generation Rollingstock which introduces new trains to the suburban fleet as an enabler of increased rail service frequencies.
• ETCS Level 2 Inner City which aims at providing more capacity to the trunk section of the suburban network and it now rolled up in the delivery of Cross River Rail.

Some upgrade of the North Coast Line, three new stations on the Gold Coast Line, several other station upgrades and service frequency increase on most of the suburban railway lines round off the package.

Summing up

What can I say? Sorry, but I’m not blown away by this. As I write this I wonder what I was expecting. But only a few months ago I did a post on this strategic plan which did impress me greatly. Maybe I was expecting a bit more of that visionary stuff in the SIP. And that’s always the problem with those bloody expectations – one gets all too easily disappointed.

The post Queensland’s Updated State Infrastructure Plan appeared first on Docfrank.

Metro Railways and Level Crossings are not necessarily “natural enemies” – they just don’t fit together very well. It’s a bit like wanting to have a pedestrian crossing on a freeway. Two things happen, or maybe three:

1. It is dangerous for pedestrians to cross the road.
2. The performance (speed) of the freeway is seriously compromised.
3. When trying to avoid performance loss of the freeway, it gets all but impossible for pedestrians to cross.

That’s actually a pretty good analogy. A main feature of metro railways is high frequency of train services. If you have trains coming every two minutes or so, and the same in the other direction, there will be not enough time to block the railway line for crossing car traffic without disrupting the rail services. In Perth, for example, a notorious four-track level crossing close to the city centre will be closed for special events as trains will have to run so often that the crossing would be almost permanently closed for cars anyway.

Metros that are built as metros don’t have level crossings in the first place. Think of underground railways in tunnels – no level crossings, obviously. But what about existing “brownfield” railways to be upgraded to metro-style service? The best way is to get rid of any existing level crossings. This is just happening in large numbers in Melbourne, where the rail network is most notorious for its many level crossings. The more trains are running, the shorter the opening times for car traffic become, so it’s no fun for either party.

Understood that the removal of a level crossing, replacing it which a bridge or underpass, is a costly exercise. But it is probably still less expensive than building an entirely new metro railway without level crossings.

A word on keeping level crossings. Because there are hardly any examples (actually none I can think of) of metro railways with level crossings, suppliers of metro-suitable technology (e.g. CBTC signalling) don’t have experience with integrating level crossings, and they don’t like it and probably don’t do it very well when forced. The best solution here is to simplify the “integration” of level crossings, avoiding complicated interfaces in an attempt to “improve” level crossing operation by means of a signalling technology which was neither conceived nor developed for dealing with level crossings in the first place.

The post Metro Features #3 – Level Crossings appeared first on Docfrank.

Turn up and go

The transition of a historically evolved suburban railway system to a metro-style operation is a major step change which may require a close look (and potential slaughter) of some “holy cows”. One of those cows is a clockface timetable, and the question is, do you really need one for a metro.

I don’t know about you, but I have a lot of things in my head. A lot. The last thing I need on top of that is memorising that my morning train leaves the station at either 6:05, or 6:12, or 6:18, or 6:27, or… And then I’m lost if I slept in and come to my station after 7, not knowing my train times.

But wait, there are printed timetable leaflets, courtesy of a mindful rail operator. Sure, that helps. I need one, for my train line into town, and one for the other train line I change to. And for the other line which some days take me to my project site. And for the feeder bus line bringing me to the station. And for … wait, my bag runneth over!

If I “tell you what I want, what I really really want” is the assurance that I NEVER have to wait longer than five (or four, or three) minutes on the next train, regardless when I get to the station during peak hour. And never more than ten minutes to wait off-peak, including on weekends. That’s all the timetable I need, thank you very much.

This is called “turn up and go”, my friends. It is modern, it is hip, it is cool, it is the future, and it drives old-school timetable planners crazy. But in fact, it is a lot easier on timetable planning as well, as soon as you can let go of the old notion that you have to return to an on-the-minute timetable the moment you get out of peak hour. You don’t, trust me. If people want to read, don’t give them timetables but inspirational quotes for a change, together with a brief and simple explanation how that new “turn up and go” thing works. They will like that much better.

Consistent stopping patterns

The other things worth mentioning regarding metro-style timetables, and another holy cow waiting for the abattoir, is the love for “express trains”. In most cases I have seen, the use of express trains (trains that do not stop at every station) is a nice-sounding spin of the fact that the railway could not afford to buy enough trains.

Operationally, express trains are disruptors to traffic flow. You may have heard me using the conveyor belt analogy before as comparison for an ideal metro operation. All items on the belt (or trains on the metro line) are travelling at roughly the same speed. Imagine an “express item” on a conveyor belt. See? Nonsense.

Buying enough trains to allow for a “timetable” (or turn up and go service) where every train stops at every station is great. Some stations previously missing out from “express services” suddenly have twice the service frequency, imagine that. If I was transport minister, I would milk the living daylights out of that. One station per quarter, over the entire election period, with press, photos amongst very happy councillors, ribbon cutting the whole monty. Positive publicity on a repeatable basis, for the mere costs of 2-3 more trains? No-brainer, right?

Metros are there for connecting people. Express trains with rush past half the stations don’t do that. And in a high capacity operation, they will get stuck behind all-stoppers, guaranteed, and then how much “express” is left?

You want to run express trains, do the same as you would on roads: build an extra lane and you are in business.

The post Metro Features #2 – Timetable appeared first on Docfrank.

The main purpose of a Metro is the efficient transport of passengers on trains. Only logical then to look at requirements for trains first, what they need to feature to support a high performance metro operation.

Quantity over quality?

The obvious requirement for a high capacity train is to maximise the train’s capability for carrying more passengers. Some railways in Australia used to form six-car trains by coupling two three-car sets, or eight-car trains by coupling two four-car sets. The downside of that were the two vacant train cabs in the middle where the two train sets are coupled. Not only could no passengers be fitted in the space needed for the middle cabs, and the coupling, it also does not allow passengers and service personnel to walk the entire length of the trains.

In the future, the increasing patronage numbers will mean that a railway operating six-car trains will want a single six-car formation, without the lost space for middle cabs and coupling between shorter train sets. This alone will lead to a higher number of passengers which can fit in the train, and it also increases safety as service personnel can roam freely along the entire length of the train.

Another way of increasing the passenger capacity of a train is reducing the number of seats. A standing passenger simply has a smaller footprint than a seated one, so the more standing space the train has the more passengers can fit in. Obviously there is a balance to that, because passenger comfort requires passengers to be seated for longer journeys. The ratio of seated vs standing passengers on a train is specific to the railway, its journey time and the railway’s standards for passenger comfort. For example, a 500 metre people mover connecting two airport terminals requires only very little seating provision due to its very short journey time (but lots of space for luggage).

Faster speed transitions

Strong acceleration and braking is another key element of increasing performance of the metro. When the transitions between stopping at stations and travelling at line speed get minimised, the overall journey time decreases and passenger travel is more efficient. When a fast-accelerating train can leave a station quicker, the next train can follow sooner, which reduces the ‘headway’ (time-distance between following trains, measured in seconds) and increases the line capacity measured in the number of trains per hour. (Note that capacity and headway are inverse factors).

The balance required here is that acceleration and braking need to be smooth enough so that passengers are not falling about on the train. An important criterion in this is the “jerk”, which defines the change in acceleration or deceleration (braking is basically a negative acceleration).

Doors are critical

An often underestimated criterion for new trains is the number and width of doors per carriage. With more and wider doors the passenger exchange at stations (passenger leaving the train, plus passengers on the platform boarding the train) can be more efficient. This reduces the need for the train to dwell at the station platform, which again reduces the headway and hence improves line capacity. It baffles me that some new train orders in Australia still come with only two rather narrow doors per carriage (on each side, obviously), and those trains will certainly struggle with any requirements for shorter passenger exchange times in the future.

Not just the number and width of train doors are important, also the walkways for passenger to get to those doors. Larger vestibule areas around doors and rather wide aisles with longitudinal seat layout helps the passenger movement on the train. See my previous caveat around the ratio of seating and standing space on trains. The current B-series trains in Perth provide a good mix of longitudinal seating near doors (also providing priority areas for wheelchairs and prams) and 2×2 seating in the middle of carriages.

Trains need to run

Lastly (at least for this post), a train must be able to run without interruption to be at its maximum efficiency. Downtimes for planned maintenance intervals are prudent, but when in service the trains should provide exceptional service availability.

The post Metro Features #1 – High Capacity Trains appeared first on Docfrank.

Sydney Metro

In Sydney it is an entirely new transport mode, cleanly separated from the existing Sydney Trains network. Sydney Metro will see its first line section from Cudgegong Road in the north west to Chatswood going live for passenger service in May. A line extension to Bankstown is already being built, including a historic first railway tunnel undercrossing Sydney Harbour. A second line from the Sydney city centre to Parramatta is in final business case stage. The business case for the third line from St Mary’s to the new Western Sydney Airport has likewise entered business case development. And in time before the state election tomorrow the incumbent Premier has promised that planning start for four further line extensions which would build a fully interconnected network with sensible interchanges between the Metro lines and with the suburban Sydney Trains network.

Melbourne Metro

In Melbourne, the operator franchisee calls itself Metro Trains Melbourne for a while. The current flagship mega project in Melbourne is called Metro Tunnel Project, and the last published transport plan for Melbourne emphasises the transition of the rail network in Melbourne to a “metro-style system” with high-performance stand-alone lines.

Brisbane Metro

Brisbane pursues its very own version of a Metro. Brisbane Metro will in fact be operated with articulated vehicles on rubber wheels, more an extended bendy-bus than a train. But hey, they love the idea and rubber-wheeled metro trains have been used in Paris for decades.

Perth’s METRONET – No Metro yet

In comparison, Perth has a transport programme called METRONET which seems to clearly indicate the vision or ambition to do something akin to a Metro in Perth. However, the current initiatives of METRONET Stage 1 are mainly focused on expanding the existing network, servicing the enormous sprawl of Perth as one of the least densely populated cities in the world.

The Game-Changing Opportunity for Perth

Despite this, from a Metro perspective, rather underwhelming start of the METRONET initiative, Perth is sitting on a golden opportunity which is unparalleled in Australia. The previous ‘mental fathers’ of METRONET, including former shadow transport minister Ken Travers and Curtin’s Professor Peter Newman, were well aware of the Metro potential of METRONET, so that my assumption was right that the naming of METRONET had a deeper meaning. And I am confident that smart leaders in the current state government in Perth, notably including the Premier Mark McGowan and Transport Minister Rita Saffioti have already thought beyond the current stage 1 of METRONET projects. (Why calling it ‘stage 1’ otherwise?)

Cost Benefit Analysis – Simplicity Style

I have made the following simplified comparison of costs versus benefits of current Metro initiatives in Australia. This comparison is based on Metro being a heavy rail train service with frequencies of more than 20 trains per hour per direction (that’s why Brisbane Metro is excluded), the costs are confirmed published estimates for ongoing projects leading to a Metro service, and the benefits were measured in the length of that Metro operation. Rather crude, but very valid and I think very enlightening too.

Using this method, Sydney Metro will get 66 kilometres of Metro (Cudgegong Road to Bankstown via the city centre) for a combined cost of about $20 billion dollars. Maybe a bit less if they keep delivering their projects under budget, but the ballpark is right regardless. Melbourne will get 63 kilometres of Metro operation (my estimate of the distance between Watergardens and Dandenong) for a combined price of about $14 billion (that’s the Metro Tunnel Project plus the new fleet of High Capacity Metro Trains plus some costs for current upgrade of the Caulfield-Dandenong corridor).

And now Perth. The current line extensions under METRONET Stage 1 will boost the network size from currently 173 kilometres to 250 kilometres. And according to my estimates it would cost them about $4 billion, give or take, to do the following two things as key parts of a future METRONET Stage 2:

1. Expanding their Railcar Programme currently in procurement to double the size of the train fleet across the entire network; and
2. Implement the currently planned Automatic Train Control project (already published part of the METRONET programme) across the network, which together with some other investments in augmenting the traction power supply would allow for running twice as many trains as today across the entire network of 250 kilometres.

The resulting service frequencies would be absolutely comparable with Sydney Metro and Melbourne Metro, and even if that required investment was not $4 billion but five or six it would still only be a fraction of the money that Sydney and Melbourne are forking out for getting their Metro systems.

So, there we go with me championing the bold statement that

Metro for Perth is a Bargain

What do you think? I can’t possibly be the only one seeing this. Knowing the Perth environment a fair bit after living and working here for nearly eight years, I could foresee a lot of “realistic” voices who can explain at length why this would not work, even if nobody can provide real arguments that invalidate my assessment. But who knows. I have a lot of respect for the transport planning of the current state government, their consequence of driving METRONET and their savvy of getting the Federal government on board for co-funding. So maybe, just maybe, this idea will end up getting the go-ahead. And the rail system in Perth would stay the envy of other big Australian cities for decades to come, rather than “Well, Bob, remember twenty years ago when we won all those Canstar awards? I wonder why that suddenly stopped…”

The post Why Metro is a Bargain in Perth appeared first on Docfrank.

Political Support

It is critical for the importance of the Infrastructure Priority List that both major political parties support it. Otherwise is would be hardly worth the effort, or might lose its relevance as soon there is a change in government. (After all, we have a federal election in May this year, so that scenario of a government change could be quite imminent.) The liberal government currently in office has become a converted supporter of the Infrastructure Priority List since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister. Not only did Turnbull publicly committed his reliance on that list for infrastructure planning and funding considerations for priority projects, he also emphasised rail projects on that list much more than his predecessor. Under Turnbull’s successor Scott Morrison it seems that the federal government is still reliant on the recommendations of the Infrastructure Priority List. For example, the Minister for Infrastructure Transport and Regional Development, Michael McCormack, said that the Infrastructure Priority List “will provide strategic advice and guidance to both state and federal decision-makers about the nation’s ongoing infrastructure needs”.

As for the opposition, shadow transport minister Anthony Albanese has been a very vocal supporter of Infrastructure Australia and its Priority List for years, so it is not expected that the importance of the list would fade away under a federal Labour government.

Funding for Priorities Only

The funding support for infrastructure projects, at least for co-funding from the federal government in Canberra, is focused on the Priority Projects and High Priority Projects on the Infrastructure Priority List. Projects which are not on either of those two sub-lists will not receive funding from Canberra as it was recently demonstrated by the federal non-support of the Brisbane Cross River Rail Project.

High Priority Projects

This list currently includes eight projects, including four road projects, one airport project and two and a half rail projects. The two rail projects are:

• Sydney Metro City and Southwest, which will extend the first line of the new Sydney Metro network from Chatswood through the Sydney city centre, underpassing Sydney Harbour and then to the south-west to the sub-centre of Bankstown. Signalling-wise, this project will extend the driverless CBTC solution which is currently implemented on Sydney Metro Northwest, to keep the signalling coherent along the entire line.
• Yanchep Rail Extension in Perth, which is part of the METRONET transport programme of the Western Australian state government. From a signalling perspective, that project will likely be built with more of the conventional fixed-block legacy signalling system. While this is understandable from the perspective of the project itself, it will require wholesale replacement of that signalling system only a few years later when the new Automatic Train Control technology will be rolled out on that line.

The ‘half’ rail project on the list is Brisbane Metro. Half because it will feature rubber-tyre vehicles but on dedicated guideways, not open roads. Paris Metro has such systems for years and use full-blown CBTC signalling for it, so from a signalling perspective we will have to wait and see what the detailed planning for Brisbane Metro will flush out.

Priority Projects

Ten projects were listed as priority projects, half of them being rail projects. Let’s look at them from a signalling perspective.

• Inland Rail, the juggernaut project for freight rail transport in Australia, will streamline and shorten the direct connection between Melbourne and Brisbane. The expected signalling system is the new Advanced Train Management System (ATMS) currently under proof of concept. This has been dragging on for a while (about ten years, in fact), so fingers crossed the technology will have matured on time for this important project.
• The Ballarat Line Upgrade in Victoria will mainly focus on removing bottlenecks of the track alignment itself, while the signalling solution will most likely remain unchanged i.e. conventional fixed-block signalling with the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS, same as rolled out across the UK) for automatic train protection.
• The Beerburrum to Nambour Rail Upgrade in Queensland will continue to improve the north coast rail line leading into Brisbane. There has been a first implementation of ETCS Level 1 on parts of this rail corridor, so there is hope that this project will see more of that.
• The Thornlie-Cockburn Link is another one of Perth’s METRONET programme. It is sold as a first orbital connection in a network with otherwise radial lines, but it physically connects the Thornlie Line with the Mandurah Line introducing junctions. I clearly understand the argument of operational flexibility, and running trains directly from the new Perth Stadium via the Thornlie to Mandurah will be of great help on game days. But looking forward, that junction on the Mandurah Line may cause a lot of operational headaches once the service frequency on this line will be amped up.
• Lastly, the long-awaited Gawler Line Electrification and Modernisation Project allows to complete the rollout of ETCS Level 1 across the Adelaide rail network.

High Priority Initiatives

29 projects made this third sub-list of the Infrastructure Priority List, and in this post I will just highlight a few items of particular interest for signalling. For those who don’t know how this works, ‘Initiatives’ are projects in the planning stage which have not yet submitted a business case to Infrastructure Australia. Once business cases are in, an initiative is either recategorized as a ‘Project’ and gets listed as a High Priority Project or a Priority Project, or it is kept as an Initiative (as is the case for Brisbane Cross River Rail). There may be a case of projects disappearing from the list completely, but that is not very likely as it would indicate that the previous prioritisation of the initiative was faulty.

High priority initiatives deserving attention from a signalling perspective are:

• Network Optimisation Program – Rail. This is in fact the elephant in the room (or better, on the list) from a signalling perspective.
• East Coast High Speed Rail. This is only for corridor preservation, and I only mention it because it becomes the hype once in a while. In my humble opinion, there won’t be a sensible benefit-cost ratio for decades to come, so don’t hold your breath for this.
• Sydney rail network capacity. In my view, this initiative could clearly include parts of the future Digital Systems rollout, which is an ETCS Level 2 solution with upgrade path to Automatic Train Operation (ATO). If handled strategically, this could be used for potential co-funding of future projects.
• Sydney Metro West. The second line of the Sydney Metro network, from the city centre of Sydney to Parramatta, the second main hub of Sydney’s future “City of Three Cities”. Signalling-wise, I would expect nothing less than CBTC for driverless train operation, as currently established on the first line of Sydney Metro.
• Melbourne rail network capacity. Same comment applies as for the equivalent Sydney programme above. Modern high-performance signalling is the least expensive way to boost rail network capacity, so the argument for it within those initiatives should be a breeze.
• Brisbane Cross River Rail. Well, you will have read all the arguments about Canberra refusing to co-fund a project which is already fully funded by the Queensland state government. Politics aside, the project is earmarked for implementing the new ETCS Level 2 signalling standard for Brisbane, and the initial plan was to add on Automatic Train Operation for operating the platform screen doors in the new city stations along the Cross River Rail tunnel.
• Perth CBD to north corridor capacity. The incumbent state government in Western Australia has been very savvy in tapping into federal funding for their METRONET programme, so I could well imagine that future rollout of Automatic Train Control in CBTC technology on the northern Joondalup line may be proposed within this initiative.

Priority Initiatives

Lastly, 74 initiatives were listed in this category, bringing the total count of the Infrastructure Priority List to 121. As the other sub-lists, this one also includes a few items with future interest for the signalling discipline.

• Advanced Train Management System. Already mentioned above as likely signalling solution for Inland Rail, this initiative is for the gradual ATMS rollout across the entire interstate network.
• Sydney Central Station redevelopment. This includes the arguably most daunting re-signalling task anywhere in Australia, because of the complexity of the track layout there and the massive number of train services affected by disruption of this area. The expected signalling technology there will be the ETCS Level 2 solution currently developed by the Digital Systems programme.
• Several freight rail improvements around Sydney where the signalling will likely remain conventional fixed-block technology, unless it is upgraded with ATMS.
• Western Sydney Airport public transport connection. The most advanced planning here appears to be for the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport project, which will connect the future second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek with the Western Line of the suburban rail network. Further extensions of that metro line are envisaged to connect to Sydney Metro Northwest and the South East Line at Campbelltown. As for the other Sydney Metro lines, CBTC for driverless operation is the hot favourite for signalling fitout.
• Newcastle-Sydney and Wollongong-Sydney rail line upgrades. If this will be about serious capacity increase, an expansion of the ETCS Level 2 programme in Sydney seems quite probable.
• Melbourne level crossings removal. This could well be used as a vehicle for wider signalling upgrades, depending on funding availability and timelines for signalling renewal demands.
• Melbourne Airport to the CBD public transport capacity. There was a lot of press recently about the new Melbourne Airport Link. The application of ‘High Capacity Signalling’ will certainly be a consideration, although it remains to be seen how the network-wide strategy in Melbourne for this will look like.
• Melton Rail Line upgrade. Given that this line branches off the first CBTC line in Melbourne, chances are that the same signalling solution might be expanded on this line.
• Cranbourne Line capacity. There is a logical option to expand CBTC from Dandenong Junction to Cranbourne, but just the infrastructure improvements (duplication of a single line) may provide enough capacity with conventional signalling.
• Hurstbridge Line capacity. This will provide useful infrastructure upgrades with removal of existing bottlenecks which would make the later introduction of High Capacity Signalling much more effective.
• Melbourne-Geelong rail capacity enhancement. At some stage, and it may well be this one, this line will require so much capacity that High Capacity Signalling in some form should be a serious consideration.
• Brisbane to Gold Coast transport corridor upgrades. Regarding rail, the expansion of the ETCS Level 2 solution for Cross River Rail to the south along the Gold Coast Line seems logical. This fits nicely to the following initiative.
• Gold Coast Rail Line capacity improvement. This is about removing infrastructure bottlenecks, such as an intermediate section of single line railway, which would make the introduction of modern ETCS Level 2 signalling much more effective.
• Perth rail network capacity. This could (or even should) be the vehicle for rollout of Automatic Train Control in CBTC technology across the Perth network. Or any other METRONET project improving capacity, although there will be nothing that has anywhere near the effect on capacity that the deployment of CBTC will have.

So there you have it. A very long post to appreciate a very long Infrastructure Priority List. If you want to let me know your views and comments, shoot me an email to media@docfrank.com.au. Thank you for reading, I admire your stamina.

The post What the new Infrastructure Priority List means for Signalling appeared first on Docfrank.

Railway Signalling

So for a blog on Signalling Simplicity, a decent starting point is some clarity of what Signalling means. Firstly, let’s be clear about the context here which is railway signalling. This is important as for example a simple Google search for “signalling” delivers first-page results from disciplines as diverse as economics, telecommunications and medicine (“bone remodelling” caught my eye…), and yes also from railways. So, the more accurate term would be ‘railway signalling’, but in order to keep it simple I will keep the shorter form ‘signalling’ and you know now what I mean by that, especially if you are from the railway industry (as most of my readers will likely be).

Next, let’s find a SIMPLE and comprehensive definition of what signalling means. I thought about that a reasonably long time (like, a minute of two) for one of my training courses for non-signalling people, and here is what I came up with:

The definition of Signalling

Signalling are all systems and components that enable collision-free train movements.

This definition ticks several boxes:

• It indicates that signalling is a system comprising a variety of different subsystems and components that interact with each other;
• Signalling is first and foremost about controlling train movements, and enabling those in a safe manner; and
• Safe train operation is about keeping trains apart so that they do not hit each other, but also to keep them safely on the track so that they do not derail and collide with any infrastructure.

Signalling safety is paramount

Train crashes or derailments usually make the news headlines because of their spectacularly severe consequences. Or more colloquially in media speak: “Train wrecks attract eye balls.” This is because of the massive weight of trains and the enormous energy and impact when trains travel at speed and then hit anything. Due to that it is understandable that the safety requirements for systems meant to prevent train crashes (i.e. signalling) are outstandingly high. This explains why conventional signalling systems prioritise safety over performance and often end up being capacity constraints for a railway operation. The wider trains are kept apart, the safer it is, but also the fewer trains you can run on a railway line.

Why trains need signals

It is one of the most important rules in railways that trains must only move when they have been authorised to do so. This is because a train travelling at decent speed will not be able to stop ahead of an obstacle (another train on the same tracks, for example) if it only starts braking once the driver has seen that obstacle. So you need an overview external to the train of where the next obstacle, or danger point, ahead of the train is and when it is safe for the train to move forward to the next control point. That overview function is part of the signalling system, as is the transfer of movement authorities to trains.

Key signalling functions

This indicates some key functions that a signalling system needs to provide:

• Determination of trains locations;
• Identification of obstacles ahead of a train (for example a road crossing where cars traverse the railway tracks);
• Control of the direction a train can take (for example crossover from one track to another);
• Computing all the inputs and outputs (main outputs are signals, we get to that in a moment);
• Planning, commanded and control of train traffic; and
• Transmission of movement authorities to trains and their drivers.

Types of Signals

The classic analogy of signals are traffic lights for car and pedestrian traffic, such as the three red ones shown in the image for this post. The basic indications are the same as in road traffic, red means stop, and green means move. Every other optical aspect is an add-on for better function, for example yellow (or ‘amber’ as sometimes called) aspects for advanced warning of an upcoming red signal. Or a particularity of a local signalling system. In Sydney, for example, signal indications (also called ‘aspects’) are a combination of two different signals mounted on the same mast on top of each other.

Note that ‘traffic lights’ are not the only type of signals, even though they are most popular these days. Any indication to the train driver can act as transmission of a movement authority, or a stop command, including for example:

• A signal with ‘arms’ in different positions (also called ‘semaphore signal’);
• A person waving a flag;
• A person waving their arms in a defined way;
• A ‘token’ given to the train driver (which sometimes can be a simple wooden staff);
• An immobile sign (for example on a buffer stop);
• A verbal authority given over voice radio communication; or
• A display on the driver’s console which is updated by data radio communication with the control centre.

Other elements of a signalling system

It has hopefully become clear in this post that a signalling system is much more than just the signals. For a simple overview, other elements of a signalling system are best structured in different layers.

• The traffic management layer comprises systems used for the planning, commanding and controlling of train movements. Those systems are usually called something like Traffic Management System (TMS), Centralised Traffic Control (CTC), Network Management System (NMS), Automatic Train Supervision (ATS) or similar. To my knowledge, Australia is the only country worldwide where those systems are referred to as ‘Train Control System”. (The potential for confusion from this will be addressed in a future post.)
• The control layer which is responsible for the safe assurance and execution of commands from the traffic management layer and for processing information from trackside components. The key element of this layer is typically called “Interlocking” (which will be explained in more detail in another future post).
• The trackside layer, which comprises all signalling elements mounted on or near the railway tracks. These elements include ‘point machines’ allowing to change direction of train travel at junctions, ‘level crossings’ coordinating road and rail traffic at road-rail intersections, ‘track vacancy detection’ to identify the presence of trains in defined sections of the track, and of course the signals.
• The onboard layer, in cases where parts of the signalling system are onboard the trains, for example the cab signalling display mentioned above.
• And lastly the communication layer, comprising the cable connections between the various elements of a signalling system, and also the track-train communication in cases where the signalling system includes elements onboard trains.

In writing this it became clearer to me how much more could be written for explaining all the above in sufficient detail. For now I hope this is enough of an initial introduction so I will leave more detail for future posts.

The post What is Signalling? appeared first on Docfrank.

There is a lot to be liked about this study from a rail transport perspective:

Elements of a good transport plan

• As clumsy as the study name may sound, the authors showed a clear understanding that the future in and around Australia’s big cities has to be about ‘mass transit’ which effectively requires high capacity corridors with an efficient feeder system.
• This is precisely what is shown in the picture of this post, mass transit ‘spines’ between the major urban centres of the SEQ area with feeder/distributor systems at either end.
• The study plans about 25 years ahead (from when it started, apparently) until 2041. This is not as far ahead as Sydney, for example, with their Future Transport 2056 plan, but still reasonably far and at the same time not too far to make the end state a mere blurry pie-in-the-sky vision.
• The study cites modern “transformative technologies” which refreshingly do not include innovative word bubbles such as ‘big data’ or ‘Internet of Things’ but are actually all transport-related. They even are properly explained, demonstrating that someone really knew what he was talking about.
• The study is very concrete in that is lists 47 transport infrastructure projects in different priority levels, depending on the available budgets at the time.
• Talking of budgets, this study actually addressed the affordability and budget requirements for the implementation of the priority projects, with the total estimate being $43.9 billion for the base investment scenario, or $63.7 billion when adding the “advanced scenario”.
• From a rail perspective, the proposed projects form a very common-sensical mixture which can be observed in similar composition in other Australian states, most notably in Victoria.
• The mix of rail projects include landmark projects for increasing inner-city capacity in Brisbane (Cross River Rail and Brisbane Metro, although the latter is actually road-based, not a rail system), extensions of the existing suburban rail network (Springfield-Ripley, Salisbury-Beaudesert), connections to the two next biggest SEQ airports after Brisbane (Caboolture-Maroochydore and Varsity Lakes-Coolangatta), level crossing removals and “Faster Rail” connections for mass transit spines from Brisbane to the main regional centres in the north, south and west.

The most essential support

I left my most promising observation for last. Assuming that the Council of Mayors will consist of members from both big political parties, there is a fair chance that the plan drawn up in this study has bipartisan support. In my view an essential prerequisite to get the plan implemented, irrespective of changes in government.

The SEQ People Mass Movement Study has made the demand and the vision for future transport in South East Queensland abundantly clear. Now all there is left to do is finding the budget to make this plan a reality.

You can find more information on the study here.

(For those of you who wonder about the connection of this post to the blog theme Signalling Simplicity: The logic and common sense which I see in this SEQ People Mass Movement Study is very much related to the general concept of simplicity. And there will be signalling scope in all of the above-mentioned rail projects, so that it is useful to know what’s coming.)

The post Big Step for Queensland’s Transport Planning appeared first on Docfrank.

First things first. Why this blog is called ‘Signalling Simplicity’? Let me explain.

Signalling reputation as ‘dark art’

I have spent my entire professional career in railway signalling. Since I started in 1991, I noted a distinct prejudice against the signalling profession as being a “dark art” for geeks who speak their own language that normal railway professionals would never understand. I soon learned from alleged ‘experts’ in my field that signalling is highly complicated and it takes forever to learn and understand it. A typical comment I heard during that time was: “One takes at least two years to be able to work our interlocking design tools by themselves.”

Back then I was intimidated and in awe how incredibly complicated interlocking must be. Today, I would probably comment that this guy’s interlocking design tools are shit.

Adverse effects of buying the prejudice

My early career was sadly impacted by this initial intimidation. I shied away from interlocking as being too complicated for me which precluded me from a core part of the business of my employer at the time. The other thing that kept bothering me was to be seen as the ‘odd one out’ by railway colleagues from other disciplines who were able to explain and communicate their stuff in much more understandable terms.

Enough is enough

At some stage I decided that I do no longer want to be bothered by this. Mainly because in modern ‘high performance signalling’ (if you want to know more about that, I suggest you subscribe to my newsletter on this website) this isolation of signalling begins to affect wider parts of railway organisations. See, modern signalling technologies such as CBTC or ETCS are meant to improve the operation of a railway, not just preventing trains from running into each other. But if any non-signalling railway person thinks that signalling is something they will never understand, the industry at large is in for big problems.

Finding Simplicity

More and more I found out that most aspects of railway signalling can be explained to ‘normal’ non-signalling professionals in quite simple ways, and they actually do understand it. Often they are surprised as they were brainwashed they would “never understand anything to do with signalling”. Surprisingly, I found that particularly the new technologies such as CBTC lend themselves to being explained simply, because they are so common-sensical.

‘Signalling for everyone’ as mission

It has become my mission over the last few years to explain signalling to non-signalling people in ways that they can understand and appreciate. I have done this through my consulting practice (for more information and enquiries, go to the Services page on this website) and through my very successful training courses (more information on the Courses page on this website). If I want to be known for anything at the end of my career, it should be for bringing signalling knowledge to non-signalling people. So I thought that ‘Signalling Simplicity’ would be a worthwhile theme for this blog.

How this blog will work for you

As I develop this blog by adding more posts, I will pick topics from the field of railway signalling, particularly from what I call High Performance Signalling, and explain it in a way that hopefully everybody can understand. You as my valued reader of this blog have an opportunity to interact for making it better. You can do that by suggesting topics or asking questions that you want me to explain in this blog. And you can let me know if you have not understood anything that I wrote about in my blog posts. You can just use the Contact page below to get in touch.

So let’s do this. I hope it serves you, so please enjoy reading and if you think it is worthwhile tell your colleagues about it.

To Signalling Simplicity,
your Doc Frank

The post Welcome to Signalling Simplicity – Doc Frank’s Blog appeared first on Docfrank.

Whenever I do a workshop or conference presentation on modern high performance signalling technologies such as CBTC or ETCS, I can wait for one inevitable question:

“What about ETCS Level 3? Why didn’t you include it in your analysis?”

I believe there is a big misconception about that almost mystical ETCS Level 3, and I have made it a habit to answer those questions with the following rather blunt statement:

ETCS Level 3 does not exist as a product.

That never fails to trigger intense and controversial discussion. Which is good as it produces a strong counterview to those ‘pied pipers’ out there who (in my view) mislead the railway industry by inferring that ETCS Level 3 is already available or very close to it, ever since it was proposed as the best signalling option for the West Coast Main Line in the UK in the late 1990’s (!).

ETCS and its hallmark feature, interoperability

For those unfamiliar with the topic it makes sense to briefly explain the desire for ETCS Level 3. ETCS (European Train Control System) was specified and designed to harmonise Automatic Train Protection (ATP) across numerous European legacy ATP systems, to support simplified and more economic cross-border train traffic within Europe. The work of the signalling supplier association UNISIG, several European railway user associations and the European Union Agency for Railways ERA, resulted in the detailed specification of ETCS and respective products from various signalling suppliers which are interoperable with each other. This interoperable multi-vendor supply market has made ETCS hugely attractive for railways outside Europe and led to ETCS becoming the most widely used technology for Automatic Train Protection on mainline railways around the world. The main issue with ETCS was that it was never thought for significant capacity increase as it overlays to conventional fixed block signalling.

CBTC for high-end capacity provision

Moving block principles that promise higher capacity are currently provided by CBTC (Communications- Based Train Control) which is the by far most popular signalling technology for metro-style railways with high requirements for capacity and performance. CBTC however is a supplier-proprietary technology and does not provide interoperability between different suppliers’ products. While that may be acceptable for metro railways with mostly segregated lines, it is a major problem for large scale mainline networks that need a multitude of interoperating products for their long-term sustainability.

ETCS Level 3 as ‘best of both worlds’?

ETCS Level 3 promises the best of both worlds – a CBTC-like capacity provision by utilisation of moving block, paired with the interoperability benefit of the ETCS standard. No wonder that mainline railway operators developed significant appetite for that miraculous solution.

And now there is me bursting that bubble by stating that ETCS Level 3 does not exist. How did I get to that view, and is it justified? Below is my answer to a previous email enquiry from a participant of one of my workshops, which I think explains the issue.

“ETCS is characterised by a very detailed SRS (System Requirements Specification) as well as several similarly detailed FFFIS documents (Form Fit Function Interface Specification). In contrast, all that exists for ETCS Level 3 is a high level FRS (Functional Requirements Specification) which roughly explains how ETCS Level 3 is supposed to function.

On that basis I believe it is justified to conclude that:
ETCS Level 3 does not yet exist
(as a commercially available product that satisfies ETCS purposes and standards).

If any supplier claims these days “we have ETCS Level 3”, it is nothing more than a misleading marketing pitch. What they may have is a system that implements that supplier’s interpretation of how ETCS Level 3 may look like in the future, but obviously without the ability to ensure that their interpretation will fit to and interoperate with other suppliers’ variants of ETCS Level 3 (thus lacking the main characteristic of ETCS systems i.e. interoperability between suppliers).

Untenable ETCS Level 3 claims mislead the industry

I am aware that my above view is quite blunt, but I consider that necessary to counter the unjustified claims that fuel the myth of ETCS Level 3 and misleads large parts of the industry in what I think a very irresponsible manner. I would guess that at current development speeds it will take at least another ten years until ETCS Level 3 is specified to the extent of Levels 1 and 2 and ETCS suppliers can readily offer interoperable products. (Note that I made this “another ten years” assessment in 2015. Now in 2019, I would still think it will be another ten years…)

Have your say

Do you agree with the above view, sad as it may be? Or have I just missed some very recent development? If the latter, I’d happily revise my sceptical attitude towards the bright, shiny future of ETCS Level 3.

Image source: wholeearthnatureschool.com – no copyright infringement intended.

The post The Myth of ETCS Level 3 appeared first on Docfrank.