A Question about PTC and the Euro version -- ERTMS

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

I have been following the PTC news for quite a while and am perplexed by the technical problems that have been encountered. I have lived in the US all my life but am now retired in Italy and am a bit confused when it comes to all of this. I’m not well versed in the ERTMS system used here, but see the yellow boxes btween the rails, even at the end of the line in the middle of nowhere here in Trieste.

I’m wondering what are the differences in PTC and ERTMS and why the US is having so much trouble while the Europeans do not. Am I missing something important here? I am also wondering why the US cannot import the ERTMS technology and tweek it to US operating conditions. Can anyone shed some light on this?

2

I am guessing somewhat but several things do come to mind. First, the European railroads are owned and operated by governments and their agencies and nor private ownership as in the US. Second, their loading gauge is lighter; US requires cars and locomotives be built to withstand crashes, derailments, accidents while European equipment does not have that extra weight and bulk requirements. Thus, third, European systems operate more with avoidance technology of PTC, etc. In other words, they work to keep trains apart instead of cars and locomotives together.

3

Unsure just what Henry means by the last sentence.

Additonal problems are (1) available radio frequencies for use, with the RF band far more crowded in North America than in Europe, (2) grade crossings, prevelant in North America and almost absent in Europe, (3) variety of capable stopping distances for different trains of different weights and differenet operating speeds as against more consistant speeds, train weights, and brakiing capabilities in Europe. A common problem for both Europe and North America is overalying and/or replacing a variety of existing signal and control systems, an problem Europe solved but at considerable expense.

4

Basically I mean that in the US we build equipment to endure an accident while in Europe they build to avoid accidents and use lighter weight, cheaper to build and operate, equipment. But Dave, one thing not understood here is the need for the FCC to issue a band or spectrum space for the needed communications…and the FCC has been slow to come forward with it and is why manufacturers and the railroads are unable to meet government mandated deadlines. And, Dave, your final two words, “considerable expense” does not sit well in the US by private enterprise, public funding, or combination of both. So they will chew that phrase like a cow chews cud so that nothing really gets accomplished.

5

And I can concur that design of equipment is highly dependent on where in the RF spectrum you choose to communicate. It is NOT like just designing an audio system and let letting the broadcaster choose AM, FM, or digital AM or Digital FM and the frequency band to be modulated by the audio. There can be interractions betwen the transmitted signal and the modulation process that can be a real problem.

6

ERTMS in its various forms is very much an emerging system in Europe. In Sweden ERTMS has been deployed on a few lines with very mixed results. Lots of problems with loss of connection, the need to reboot systems, upgrade software and so on, leading to traffic stops, since there are no wayside signals to fall back on. Equipping a locomotive for ERTMS is also expensive, leading some freight operators to choose to not run trains on the lines that require ERTMS. In other cases it means changing locomotive on a passenger train so it can traverse territory with ERTMS (or massively delaying said train if no ERTMS locomotive is available). I think when everything works, it’s great and allows for operational flexibility that wasn’t there before (like rolling blocks), but as soon as something doesn’t work, there’s no operating anything.

In a system with wayside signals that fails, trains can be allowed to proceed past a red signal at a reduced speed if needed. In ERTMS there’s no fallback layer like that. It runs or it doesn’t.

I am also curious about the yellow boxes in the track you mention. That sounds more like ATC transmitters that are placed in the track to communicate with the locomotive cab signaling system. ATC is very common in Europe and works well, although the goal is to replace it with ERTMS. ERTMS doesn’t have any fixed signals or in-track transmitters, since it’s all radio wave based.

7

The real problem with radio signals in the US is not physical or characteristics and properties but that everybody wants more frequencies and those in the telephone and commercial data transmission business are willing to play the bidding game to keep those frequencies or buy them for themselves and keeping all others out. Railroads could be short changed on this because people want to play games and listen to music and pass on pictures of their cats on their IThings!

8

Did you read Fred Frailey’s account on one if the other problems. With regard to the FCC requirement that antenna sites be surveyed for Native American artifacts. http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2013/11/11/there-goes-positive-train-control.aspx It is one more roadblock. Also: http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2013/11/19/more-on-the-great-ptc-train-wreck.aspx Rgds IGN

9
10

And the lighter European equipment worked so well for the Spainish that only 79 were killed in their overspeed derailment vs. 4 dead in the Metro North overspeed derailment.

North American construction specs realize that no matter how much effort is expended in prevention of collisions - failures are going to happen and collisions are going to occurr. Murphy’s Laws apply all over the world. To design equipment without acknowledging Murphy puts all those that are looking to the equipment as that final margin of safety in more danger than if Murphy was considered in the design.

When something ‘fool proof’ is designed, fools get more resourceful and prove that nothing is fool proof.

11

Yeah, but that doesn’t mean we should avoid installing avoidance systems like PTC and build heavier, bulkier, more expensive to build and lug, equipment.

12

PTC is being installed as fast as it can be designed, as fast as it can be tested, as fast as the FCC will allocate radio spectrum for it to operate on, as fast as Native Americans can investigate and approve antenna applications and as fast as manufacturers can build the necessary hardware after all the interoperatability design standards are finalized. (all with minimal if any governmental monies)

[sarcasm]As the outside world knows there is no special abilities required in designing a system that will operate flawlessly on ALL Class 1’s as well as all the commuter operating agencies with varying operating rules, signal indications, signal systems and background data systems. Piece of cake! Why wasn’t it done 100+ years ago, you just know the Robber Barons wanted to see how many people they could kill in rail catastrophys so they could save a nickle. [/sarcasm]

13

I understand your rant, BALTACD. But the railroad companies are complaining of the cost without understanding the price (or pretending to). They did the same with air brakes and knuckle couplers and they’re doing it again. And perhaps there are lines where they have legitimate gripes and shouldn’t have to install it. And Congress in pushing for it without understanding the trials and tribulations of being able to design and install as quickly demanded could be a real lack of understanding reality (a political fault). Plus the FCC’s dilemma of who gets which spectrum was not considered by Congress…but is it real or is it made up by the FCC to bail out Congress.(yeah, I a little cynical concerning Congress. And the FCC)?

14

A word or two about ERTMS ;

First : it has been ‘in the making’ for several years (maybe some 20 now), and even today it has not been completely installed and it’s operation is still questionable in some cases.

Second : the ones that fist ‘jumped the bandwaggon’, like Spain (eager to have a system that was capable for speed of more than 300 kmhr, I mean 350 on a normal bases), and Sweden, did had bitter experiences. At this stage, however, most situations seem to be solved (at least in Spain, top speed on the MAD-BCN HSL has been raised to 310 kmhr in some sections, and the new service from Spain to France using the Barcelona to Perpignan use ERTMS exclusively). Aslo some other countries (Switzerland, Austria, _Italy …) are now installing it (however in some cases, the old systems, such as ZUB stay in place as ‘overlay’ or emergency system)

Third : ERTMS has at least 3 levels, with Level ‘0’ being a plain ‘uncontinous’ ATC/ATP system (normally based on Swedish Ebicab technology, in use in Portugal, Spain, France, Sweden, for exemple, but having different designations), level ‘1’, a form of ATP, but with some extra functions, for continous monitoring of several parameters (braking curves, speeds, signal aspects), therefore making it elegible for High Speed operation (it in this level that the system is operating in Spain), as for level ‘2’, one gets the full package of ‘yellow boxes’ midtrack (giving fixed infos), coupled toghether with GSM-R technology and ‘mobile block’ operatrions.

Fourth: the HSL in Spain, altough equipped with ERTMS, the system was (maybe now it is) not operational, therefore only the ‘backup’ ASFA system was in use, and that one is quite limited (there’s a thread over here, but it think it’s quite old)

Fifth : As for trying to develop as PTC system on the fly, politicians semm to be in a lot of hurry. It is of course necessary, but developing it, and adapting it

15

Operating from a point of ignorance about ERTMS, but valuing the opinion of someone with a good understanding of both, ERTMS is considerably more complex (than it needs to be?) and therefore more expensive than PTC as planned for the US.

The whole issue of train control is a huge boundary for run-thru operations in Europe. I understand that the train control equipment for a locomotive that can take a train Trans-Alps (Germany to Italy) can be 1/3 of the total cost of the locomotive. Compare that to roughly $50k for an cab signal box for the US.

ERTMS is the attempt to knock down the boundaries with a common system. If it was based on one country’s current design, then that country would have less retrofit work. I suspect this caused much wailing an gnashing of teeth.

16

One thing to remember - PTC is being installed on ALL passenger and freight lines that handle either passengers or HAZMAT. In the US scheme of operations, that DEMANDS interoperatability. Current Amtrak and freight operations have the locomotives all the carriers operating on each others property. PTC must respond on each carriers lines. Amtrak’s locomotives must respond on all carriers lines that they operate on.

The provinicality of Europe as well as the differing electrical systems greatly limit the interoperability of equipment across Europe and thus ease the demands of interoperatability on the entirety of Europe. While countries may participate in specific dedicated passenger services between multiple countires, those services are handled by dedicated equipment, specifically equiped for the route being covered. This is not ment to belittle what European carriers have accomplished, just to point out that what they have done has been done on a smaller and more controled stage.