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.