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.

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.

Sometimes it needs a mistake to generate a good idea. And then sometimes that good idea may not be this good after all…

How CBTC and Level 3 came together (in my head)

I once got an email from one of my consulting clients who wanted an update on CBTC and ETCS Level 3. I’m sure he was well enough into the terminology to mean this: An update on CBTC. And an update on ETCS Level 3. But a part of my brain insisted on reading that: An update on CBTC Level 3. And an update on ETCS Level 3. And off it went (my brain, that is) with the imaginary emulsion of CBTC and Level 3.

ETCS Level 3 is still a pipe dream

My sceptical views on ETCS Level 3 were made clear with subtlety of a sledgehammer in other posts. Not much has changed since, although I just came across someone believing that ETCS Level 3 is reality in Kazakhstan (who wants to go check?) and on the brink to be adopted in the UK. Sounds to me like West Coast Main Line 2.0, in time for the twentieth anniversary of the Level 3 madness back then in the 1990’s. (For background, in the late 1990’s, the very early infancy of any kind of ETCS, some infamous consultant in the UK thought he should recommend ETCS Level 3 as the signalling solution for one of Britain’s busiest railways, the West Coast Main Line. Suffice to say that many painful years later the West Coast Main Line signalling was modernised without using any form of ETCS, except a few Eurobalises for making tilt trains tilt in curves.) Well, show me an interoperable Level 3 which I can buy from more than one supplier and I show you someone converted. But I digress.

What could CBTC Level 3 mean?

Once jumpstarted, my mind did not want to let go of the combination of CBTC and Level 3, so I decided to spend a bit more thought on it, secretly hoping this might just go away. Using the Level concept from ETCS, I tried to find some parallels that may be applicable to CBTC. Let’s just assume, “CBTC Level 2” is the currently available radio-based variant of CBTC, just as is the case for ETCS. Level 3, clearly, must be the next step upwards, the treasure chest at the end of the rainbow. But CBTC Level 1? I mustered two different thought concepts for that. Either it refers to the first CBTC systems that preceded the contemporary radio-based solutions, i.e. as some call it “Transmission Based Train Control” (TBTC) that uses conductor loops in the track, coded track circuits or anything else but radio. Or it refers to a simpler, transponder-based variant of “CBTC Light”, quasi an ETCS Level 1 but compatible with CBTC onboard equipment. Either seemed good enough to support an own “Level concept” for CBTC.

Wishlist features of “CBTC Level 3”

And what could CBTC Level 3 be? Again, let’s look at the analogy in the ETCS world. ETCS Level 3 promises to deliver many of the goodies that CBTC offers, but not ETCS Levels 1 and 2. Moving block functionality, getting rid of track circuits, very high capacity, and all that while maintaining the paramount benefit of ETCS – multi-vendor interoperability between trackside and onboard subsystems. Looking at CBTC and what may be wished for the next level up, clearly interoperability would be right up there. What else? Now, something that everyone knows but no one dares to openly admit it that WiFi is not really ideal for fast moving trains in an environment which is more and more congested by myriads of private users. A modern system like the evolving LTE or 4G (sorry, you comms people, for us signalling guys this LTE really is a brand new technology) could solve many pain points that WiFi is increasingly likely to face. So why not adding that to the wishlist? Maybe add a third wish, as usual in fairy tales? Okay, what about a simpler way of getting to a driverless Automatic Train Operation? Reduction of deployment cost, probably very much liked by cash-strapped CBTC customers? Or maybe more intelligence on the trains to be able to eliminate yet more trackside equipment? Some CBTC suppliers are already working on such concepts, although (for now) with slightly lower capacity provision than the traditional CBTC offers.

Have your say

So, what do you think of all that? Is CBTC Level 3 just an idle thought construct not worth spending any more time on? Or may that be the label for the pinnacle in rail signalling technology. I am keen to know your views, maybe with your own definitions of CBTC Levels 1, 2 and of course 3. Use the contact form below to get in touch with me.

The post CBTC Level 3 – Quirk or Vision? appeared first on Docfrank.

My love-hate relationship with the (in my view) not yet existing ETCS Level 3 got fuelled anew when the International Railway Journal (IRJ) reported from an UIC ERTMS world conference in Brussels, Belgium.

I was intrigued to see two very highly respected peers being quoted regarding ETCS Level 3 and curious if they would confirm (or contradict) my view of the non-existence of a ‘genuine’ (interoperable) ETCS Level 3.

The title of the article was already quite telling:

Elusive ETCS Level 3 still a long way off

It was claimed that ETCS Level 3 is operational in Sweden, Russia and Kazakhstan (all of which I would challenge), but I wholeheartedly agreed with the conclusion that an interoperable version of ETCS Level 3 suitable for use in Europe is still a long way off, and that specifications for Level 3 have not been detailed or agreed yet.

This hits the nail on the head. ETCS is all about detailed specifications down to form-fit-function interface specifications that allow all signalling manufacturers to develop and offer interoperable products. While this works reasonably well for ETCS Levels 1 and 2, critical elements needed for Level 3 lack such precise specifications, and reaching agreement between the suppliers involved in the specification process is proving a major challenge.

Confusing CBTC for ETCS Level 3

The big surprise came by a representative of the European Union Agency of Railways (ERA) being quoted that “Level 3 is already a reality with signalling systems which are not ETCS”. Now what would that refer to? CBTC? No doubt, CBTC is a fantastic signalling solution in terms of performance and capacity provision. But it lacks what ETCS can (and does) boast with – interoperability between wayside and onboard subsystems from different suppliers and the consequential multi-vendor supply market that makes ETCS so very attractive to railway operators worldwide.

No interoperability – no ETCS

The thing is, if I call a signalling solution ETCS Level 3, it ought to fulfil both parts of the associated expectations – the multi-supplier interoperability which is the trademark of ETCS, and the functional perks of ETCS Level 3 including moving block, automatic train operation, automatic train regulation etc. Or, in other words:

ETCS Level 3 without the interoperability typical for ETCS may still be called Level 3, but it isn’t ETCS.

Which proves the point I have been making all along. Interoperable ETCS Level 3 does not exist today.

Have your say

What is your view on the future evolution of ETCS Level 3? Get in touch via the contact form below.
———————————————————————————–
See this link for the referenced ETCS Level 3 article in the International Railway Journal.

The post ETCS Level 3 once again appeared first on Docfrank.