ETCS Level 3 once again
'Doc Frank' Heibel
I help improving railway performance and capacity through advanced digital signalling (CBTC and enhanced ETCS).
My love-hate relationship with the (in my view) not yet existing ETCS Level 3 got fueled anew when one of my favourite railway journalists David Briginshaw reported from the recent UIC ERTMS world conference in Brussels. I was intrigued to see two very highly respected peers being quoted regarding ETCS Level 3, my ex-colleague Dr Rudiger Brandt from Siemens and Pio Guido from the European Railway Agency, and I was most curious if they would confirm (or contradict) my view of the non-existence of a "genuine" (interoperable) ETCS Level 3.
Full marks for David for his title of the article:
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 Dr Brandt's conclusion that an interoperable version of 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.
Bravo! Rudiger hit 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 those very specifications, and agreement between the suppliers involved in the specification process is challenging.
So far so good. But the big surprise came by Pio Guido 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.
The thing is, if I call a signalling solution ETCS Level 3, it ought to fulfill both parts of the associated expectations - the multi-supplier interoperability which is the "trademark" of ETCS, and the functional perks of Level 3 like 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 my point from my previous post. Interoperable ETCS Level 3 does not exist today. Thank you, UIC!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See this link for the referenced ETCS Level 3 article in the International Railway Journal.
Click here for my previous post on ETCS Level 3.
Need help for complex digitalization efforts? Just call me.
9 年Frank, splendid comment. I had my doubts already expressed somewhere else. These guys talk high level, but the devil is in the low level functionality. I work on the solution for train integrity for freight trains.
My trains drive themselves - CBTC Specialist
9 年There have been attempts by New York City Transit to impose interoperability as a requirement on CBTC suppliers, but this is localized to New York. The industry needs a global standard and ETCS maybe the starting point. The signaling industry has a long way to go before the various CBTC suppliers have a solution that is truly interoperable.
Senior Manager, Systems Engineering
9 年We need to start to consider ETCS as Global Train Control System. Many of the ETCS suppliers are global suppliers to other geographic regions that have multiple ATP systems from state to state, and suffer from similar interoperability challenges. I propose renaming it GTCS.
Senior Key Account Manager at Pasch y Cía SAU
9 年But the point is that at the end of the day, Interoperability is the main feature of the ETCS philosophy. If we consider the history of how ETCS was created, the main reason for its existence was to have a common platform/understanding not only for vendors but also for operators. I will never forget the long discussions between the French, German, Spanish and Italian colleges with Mr.Tamarit in the committees putting together the specifications for the ETCS. Up to that moment, Main Lines was a real Babel Tower where every vendor and operator communicated using a different system. Now SNCF, DB, RENFE, FS BR and so on do not need to pay too much attention to the basics for the signalling system. Talking about CBTC the main difficulty, in my point of view, is that Metro Madrid, Metro of London, Metro of Sidney and Metro of Shanghai, do not have too much interest in sharing a common telegram format or a Movement Authority concept. What ETCS Level 3 needs is a driver and a common interest to define rules for such a complex system. The idea already exists. For example, in Crossrail project, trains will be equipped with ETCS′s on board equipment and also with CBTC′s on board equipment. But nor vendors nor operators want to invest their energy to combine the best of ETCS with the best of CBTC. I am following Next Generation Train Control′s (NGTC) conclusions and would like to see how CBTC and ETCS come together in a mutual line. Until that happens, they will call ETCS Level 3 to the ERTMS Regional and as you and Mr. David Briginshaw said, it is far from being ETCS.
Railways/Metro Signalling Consultant
9 年I've also called my cat "ETCS Level 3" so it does exist!?....