james clendon - rail infrastructure consultants nz - case study - etcs roll out – strategies and...
Post on 18-Jan-2017
871 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Case Study:ETCS Level 1 Roll Out
in Auckland
New Zealand Rail Conference 2016
James Clendon – Rail Infrastructure Consultants (NZ) LimitedFormer Signalling Design and Development Manager, KiwiRail
• 180km of track electrified with 25kV AC
• Re-signalled by Siemens as part of the same project between 2009 and 2012
Auckland’s Electrification
• 57 x 3 car new EMU trains
• European Train Control System (Level 1) ‘ETCS’ fitted to all trains and electrified routes.
• Extensive risk assessment undertaken to determine need for Train Protection
• Concluded that a train protection system should be installed as part of the electrification scope
• Wide stakeholder consultation and support
Why Automatic Train Protection?
ETCS Hardware
Balise
LEU
Doppler RadarsTachometers
EVCDriver Machine Interface
Antenna
Emergency Brake
Service Brake
Interlocking
How does ETCS protect red signals?
How does ETCS supervise speed?
• ETCS principles need to meet two requirements:– Specify ETCS specific implementation rules
– Be compatible with signalling principles and not leave safety gaps
• Needs to cover scenariossuch as:– Interaction with approach locking
– Missed balise reactions
– Release Speeds, etc, etc
NZ ETCS Application Principles
P1
T3T1
OL3
(Signalling)
P2
(DP placed on overlap with most restrictive static speed profile
(25km/h turnout in this example) and at length of shortest
signalling overlap distance (=OL2 in this example) )
DP
OL2
(Signalling)
OL1
(Signalling)SSP =25km/h
SSP =40km/h
• Early development of the ETCS Principles (first drafts ‘09)
• Early development of EMU Class Application Requirements Specification– Developed in time to include in the EMU tender
– Ensured space and interface requirements were provided for
• Single contractor (Siemens) responsible for all ETCS
Interface Management
Testing
• Trackside Route Testing
– Final dimensioning tests
– Balise functionality
• Onboard type testing
– 1st train only. Extensive testing to validate full configuration
• Onboard unit testing
– 57 units, 2 days each.
• Integration Testing
– Testing unable to be done in lab
– Prove that ETCS Trackside+Onboard = SRS functionality
• November 2013 the trackside ETCS system was commissioned
• Certified using the SD test train
• First EMUs entered service on one line April 2014
• EMU integration testing completed on all electrified lines Jan 2015
• All 57 new 3 car EMU’s in service as of November 2015
Progress to Date
• Resignalling and track reconfiguration completed first
• Physical trackside ETCS works completed at same time
• Cost savings and reduced disruption to operations
• Log files are reviewed to identify any network faults
De-risking the Introduction of ETCS
• ETCS telegrams incorporated into EMU simulators
• ETCS available for Test Train operations
• Neutral section control
• Correct Side Door Enable (CSDE)
• Zero speed for non-electrified roads
Added Value
• National Values – Speed Limits for override modes
• Timing off overlaps (interlocking v ATP)
• Approaching Buffer Stops
• Level Crossings in Overlap
• Trailing points in Overlap
• Inoperative Balise Groups
• No reaction vs. SB reaction
• Precedence of information (cab signalling overrides line side)
• Section Timers
Residual Risk
• Conservative
• The low release speeds have had a significant operational impact
• General principle applied is that the entry speed into an unprotected crossing will not exceed 15km/h
Level Crossings at Stations
• Warning Curves
• Precedence of Cab Signalling
• Warner Routes and Approach Clearing
• Stopping Positions and In Fill Balises
• Odometry Error
• Curve Speed Supervision
• Line Speed Supervision
Optimisation: Overview
• Initially had problems with the ETCS being too conservative
• Trialed multiple different configurations
• Put two configurations through a driver evaluation trial
Getting the Balance Right
ETCS Level 1 Approach to Signal with Full Overlap
150m 203
Not
Approach
Cleared
733m
219
210
216TRAIN A
Green area shows
overlap held by
interlocking in case
of SPAD
PLATFORM
Pe
rmitte
d S
pe
ed
65km/h
32km/h Release Speed
EoA
204
Typical
Driver
braking
profile
ETCS
warning
curve
FC FC
Worst case emergency brake profile in event of
SPAD (limited by facing point turnout speed),
so doesn’t use full length of available overlap.
ETCS Level 1 – Warner Route but driver still obeys Dynamic Speed Indicator (Old Rules)
50m 203
Approach
Cleared
from Red
733m
219
210
216TRAIN A
TRAIN BGreen area shows overlap held
by interlocking in case of SPAD
PLATFORM
20
Pe
rmitte
d S
pe
ed
20km/h
23km/h RS
RS is low because
danger point is now
only 50m past signal
204
Typical
Driver
speed
profile
ETCS
warning
curve
FC FC
204 Only clear from
red when train’s
speed proved at
20km/h
Purple shading shows route set for
train B, which means full overlap is
not available for Train A
EoA
Worst case emergency brake profile in event of
SPAD. Note how due to lower release speed it
ensures train will still stop before end of reduced
50m overlap.
ETCS Level 1 Warner Route – With cab signalling overriding Dynamic Speed Indicator
50m 203
Approach
Cleared
from Red
733m
219
210
216TRAIN A
TRAIN BGreen area shows overlap held
by interlocking in case of SPAD
PLATFORM
20
Pe
rmitte
d S
pe
ed
23km/h RS
204
With cab-signalling has precedence
rules, driver can accelerate after
204 clears as much as ETCS allows
ETCS
warning
curve
FC FC
204 Only clear from
red when train’s
speed proved at
20km/h
Purple shading shows route set for
train B, which means full overlap is
not available for Train A
Worst case emergency brake profile in event of
SPAD. Note how due to lower release speed it
ensures train will still stop before end of reduced
50m overlap.
ETCS Level 1 Warner Route – Approach clearing removed.
50m 203
No longer
approch
cleared
733m
219
210
216TRAIN A
TRAIN BGreen area shows overlap held
by interlocking in case of SPAD
PLATFORM
20
Pe
rmitte
d S
pe
ed
23km/h RS
204
Now driver can drive most
aggressive but still safe approach to
210 signal with only reduced overlap
ETCS
warning
curve
FC FC
New flashing DSI (for
few non-ETCS fitted
freight trains only)
Purple shading shows route set for
train B, which means full overlap is
not available for Train A
20
L070
Linespeed
FC
Worst case emergency brake profile in event of
SPAD. Note how due to lower release speed it
ensures train will still stop before end of reduced
50m overlap.
Optimisation: Warner Routes
Optimisation: CurvesETCS CURVE SPEED SUPERVISION – NEW WITH OPTIMISATION
F C
25
Distance
Sp
ee
d
Curve Transition
(a.k.a. Spiral)
80km/h
Continuous
Radius
Section
Existing
Speed
Board
Linespeed
25km/h
Note: No transition
shown existing curve
for simplicity on this
example
80km/h
Static Speed Profile:
Permitted speed profile
sent by ETCS trackside
balises to ETCS onboard
computer
100m
FC
ETCS
Emergency Brake
Intervention Curve
(EBi) 50m250m
250m
IMPORTANT NOTE: This change to be
applied for Static Speed Profile for MAs
in both directions (i.e. entering and
leaving the curve).
ETCS Performance Gains
• Know your section run times and constraints before the transition to ETCS
• Use before and after analysis to identify possible problem locations
• Work with operations teams to identify possible improvements
• Finally, roll journey time reductions back into the timetable
Understanding Your Operations
ETCS Based Incidents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16
Balise reading
ETCS onboard/train
Operational
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Nu
mb
er o
f SPAD
s pe
r year
Nu
mb
er
of
serv
ice
s o
pe
rate
d p
er
we
ek
Year
Number of services per week
Mainline Diesel Passenger SPADs
Mainline EMU (ETCS) Passenger SPADs
ETCS vs SPADs Old (non-ETCS fitted) trains phased out
• Interoperability with National rail network essential
• Growing need to reduce trackside infrastructure and maintenance costs
• Relatively small and in some regards new fleet should be ‘easy’ to fit
• Need to reduce operating risk across the network to realign with modern expectations
The Future - ETCS Level 2 + ATO?
• It’s safer!
• Virtually eliminated overspeed derailment risk
• Massive reduction in train on train collision risk
• Reduced SPAD rate
• Reduced buffer stop collision risk
• Operational performance improvements (Journey Time) possible in many locations
Summary – The Good
• Level crossings – the compulsion to mitigate a risk that ETCS is not well suited to mitigate
• Buffer stops – only letting a train hit a buffer at it’s rated collision speed is painfully slow
• Old ‘legacy’ track layouts without clear track overlaps and the need to drop the release speed to protect junctions
• Odometry error compensations and having to brake early for some PSRs
• Low release speeds (anything below ~25km/h)
Summary – The Bad
• The equipment might be off-the shelf but the application will never be
• Residual risks require significant attention to mitigate by taking all practicable steps without undue impact to train operations
• Any existing performance restrictions (PSRs etc) should be thoroughly reviewed when implementing ETCS
• Budget/plan on an optimisation phase rather than over capitalising on infrastructure you may not need
• Consolidate your data and make it available to stakeholders
Conclusions
Questions?
top related