Why not use a proven signal system on new hsr routes?

[Steve4031]

IMHO a lot of time and money have been spent developing and testing signaling systems on the chi-stl route and chi-det route. Wouldn't it have been cheaper/easier to use the ACES system used on the NEC?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

No, because then the politically connected company who got the job wouldn't get their graft, which was the whole point of the exercise.

 

[Steve4031]

I was exploring technical aspects, not political. As a Chicago resident I'm well aware of how politics fouls up any process. I was trying to find out if it was technically possible to implement this system outside the NEC.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'm sure it's technically possible. Why not?

 

[Steve4031]

Gml. That's the question I'm asking here. Why would you ask me that question when I've just stated that I don't know. I try to be respectful and supportive of your posts and pov. If you can't add anything here, leave it alone.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I wasn't disregarding your post at all, Steve. The only reasons standing in its way of using ACES are political, and possibly the freight railroads, who might have to spend more money refitting their power to be ACES compatible.

In Judeo English phrasing "why not" can mean "Sure, I can't think of a reason why that wouldn't happen/work". That was the way I meant it.

 

[Eric S]

I could be mistaken (I'm basing this entirely off memory), but wasn't the original idea behind the various systems being tested CHI-STL and CHI-DET an attempt to find a cheaper alternative that could be relatively easily overlaid on whatever the existing system was? Seems like it's been a very slow (well over a decade now, right?) roll-out that has had lots of stops and starts.

 

[neroden]

The freight railroad CEOs wanted to evade the signal system requirement, which they have been trying to evade since the 1930s. They fell for a line of bull about GPS making things cheaper (it makes things more expensive), so they attempted to reinvent the wheel. They didn't want to implement the world standard, which is called ERTMS, because it wasn't invented here. Congress didn't force them to because Congress is broken.

This country sucks lately.

 

[jis]

By the way it is ACSES which stands for Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Steve4031]

I do recall that the goal was to do this overlay process. It's been slow and by now I'm not sure if it's still cheaper

 

[George Harris]

ERTMS is not really as great as it is cracked up to be. Research it from some point of view other than if it is European it is the "world standards" and the best way on the planet. If we are looking for best on the planet the jury is still out. A check of what s done in Japan and other places outside Europe should be done before any conclusion is reached.

There are a lot of things done here that were not invented here. If you were to look at a recently installed higher speed turnout on the major railroad systems at least in the west you will see several "not invented here" components. Generally their application is not quite the same as done in Europe but improved. That is what should be done. Look at what they do as a source of information, not with the intent of mindlessly accepting it.

 

[Steve4031]

George, thanks for info. I was curious as to how some of this other technology would work and the cost of implementing it compared to what is being planned.

 

[neroden]

ERTMS is not really as great as it is cracked up to be. Research it from some point of view other than if it is European it is the "world standards" and the best way on the planet. If we are looking for best on the planet the jury is still out. A check of what s done in Japan and other places outside Europe should be done before any conclusion is reached.

China decided to use ERTMS, with minor tweaks. So did Turkey. I believe Russia as well. Also, AFAIK all new installations in Africa. In short, it is the world standard now.

I have nothing against making minor tweaks to it. But it is literally a world standard at this point. That means that even if there's a slightly technically better solution, it's preferable, the same way standard gauge is preferable to broad or narrow gauge. Mass produced, off the shelf parts.

 

[George Harris]

Again, for signals, track, equipment, and anything else in any field, we want to go shopping in the store to see what is good and useful and get ideas for improvements on what we have, but we DO NOT want to buy the store.

When I have someone trying to sell me something on the basis that is International Standard, I tend to develop an allergic reaction. Too many times this pitch is used to convince people to accept something without analysis or thought. We should not have any form of national inferiority complex. Just because it is American developed does not mean that it is second fiddle to European developed.

 

[George Harris]

When the European press, even the technical press, says China or other places uses some form of European technology, don't necessarily believe it, nor believe that it is working well. For example, it is stated in the Railway Gazette that the Chinese use the UIC60 rail section on their high speed lines. They do not. Yes, they use a 60 kg/m rail, but is a shape of their own design. It is a better shape for distribution of internal forces, by the way.

When they had the collision between two trains a year or so ago, it was stated that it was on a high speed railway line. It was not. It was on a recently built line, but it was not for high speed trains only, although some trains ran through from high speed lines. For this collision, they had a signal failure. The cause given in the various sources of information was not consistent, but the failure appears to have been caused by a lightning strike. Regardless of cause, the following train was late and apparently the driver was feeling the pressure to not lose more time. He violated the most basic of rules for operating without functional signals, that is being able to stop within half the length of track you can see. What was the nature of the system that failed? We do not know. Was it the wonderful European system? Was it home gorwn or borrowed from somewhere else?

Part of what I am trying to say here is that a lot of stuff is misreported.

 

[jis]

What is even more interesting is that ERTMS is an implementation of the ETCS standard which has many profiles. Oddly enough one of the more obscure profiles actually matches the NEC ACSES system rather well in functionality. Not that surprising since the ACSES overlay was designed and implemented by Alstom. ACSES I aligns nicely with ETCS L1LS, and ACSES II with its radio link aligns with ETCS Level 2/LS, except that GSM-R is not used in the US. Instead a 900MHz band radio link is used

Interestingly, it is the French who came to the conclusion that ETCS L1 is too expensive, and created and submitted the L1LS profile to overlay ETCS L1 on existing CTC (Coded Track Circuit) based cab signaling system. Afterall they are the masters of TVM 430 which is possibly the most advanced version of CTC based train control system in existence. And it all is derived from the basic idea that the PRR system on the NEC uses.

The US (Wabtec) ETMS (Electronic Train Management System) {just like Amtrak's ACSES II and ITCS) is an implementation, rather broadly deployed BTW, that meets the FRA PTC requirements, and is similar to ETCS L2 in many ways, though it does not handle track release very well in the absence of an underlying track occupancy detection mechanism (and is allegedly chattier - but that can be fixed). The quality of implementation depends on the quality of the track authority system on which it is overlaid. Hence the requirement of individual certification by the FRA of each (set of) installations taking into consideration the underlying infrastructure on which it is implemented.

Given this context, I always urge people to look under the hood of any claimed standard and see how much of it is technical and how much political, and then figure out a pragmatic way of getting the functionality where you can claim as much conformance as possible, but don't go overboard with trying to conform with features you don't need (as the French did with the L1LS profile). ERTMS is no different and both the Chinese and the Indians are being clever about how they are deploying it. I have developed this attitude over the years specially since I have strong links to the world of standards, their development and their deployment and compliance in the area of commercial enterprise software. I am even a member of an ISO JTC1 subcommittees' US mirror organization (subsidiaries of ANSI), as well as other standards consortia that have Class A liaison with ISO/IEC JTC1, including being on the Board of one. Not exactly railroad control standards, but I do know folks who are involved in those.

 

[Steve4031]

It's a lot more complicated ten I thought. I'll just ride it rather second guess methods and technology.

 

[jis]

Steve, I can give you a summary rundown of the various standards and profiles that people are working with in the area of train control systems when we meet the next time. I had even put together a short slide presentation which I presented at one of the IRFCNA annual gatherings a few years back. maybe I need to find it, dust it off and update it. Suffice it to say ERTMS is but one in a plethora of them, and ERTMS folks have a tendency to try to claim something is ERTMS when it is only peripherally so. In short an Chinese locomotive with so called Chinese ERTMS gear on it, if moved to Europe will not work with the ERTMS as deployed in Europe. But with a module change it will. But surprisingly that is also true in essence of say an Acela set in the US!

 

[Steve4031]

Sounds like we will be having a conversation on the fest.

 

[neroden]

What is even more interesting is that ERTMS is an implementation of the ETCS standard which has many profiles.

I apologize for my inaccuracy; I really meant ETCS when I wrote ERTMS. (Many people tend to be sloppy about those two acronyms.)
I don't think there's any reason why the freights are designing non-ETCS-compatible systems other than

(1) not-invented-here mentality

(2) falling for the line of bull which claimed that GPS would make everything cheaper

#2 is probably the larger problem. It was obvious to anyone who had any understanding of GPS operation, even at an amateur level, that this was false, but it apparently wasn't obvious to the freight railroad CEOs.

We're basically looking at a US railroad system which has entirely obsolete signalling (with the exception of a few places like the NEC) and needed complete signalling replacement, and needed it quite quickly. This is not the time to fool around with designing new signalling systems; this is the time to copy something which has been tested and works. There were, thankfully, several very similar implementation choices available.

Instead, the choice was made to fool around with designing new signalling systems. As a result, the class Is are nearly all late and I hope they will be hit with massive fines. Eventually, everyone else ended up pretty much outright copying the Wabtec/BNSF system, which had been under development for a while, but they screwed around and wasted a lot of time first. It shows a bad attitude and a disinterest in obeying the law.