JR East E233 gets fitted with CBTC

[bikkuri bahn]

This is from several months back, but an E233 set (2000 sub series Mato 10) used on Joban Line local service was sent to Nagano General Rolling Stock Center to be fitted with CBTC equipment. After a stay of almost three weeks*, it returned to its depot at Matsudo, pulled by an EF64 based out of the Nagaoka Rolling Stock Center. Locations are Hachioji and Kunitachi.

 

*apparently fitting of CBTC equipment is quite involved/complicated, it required about 10 days per trainset for London Underground Northern Line stock to be fitted with like equipment.

Edited July 6, 2016 by bikkuri bahn

[railsquid]

For anyone wondering what CBTC is (like me): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_control

[kvp]

The equipment required for CBTC depends on the control system of the train. Sets with modern full authority digital control systems and a general purpose control bus just need an extra communication box. Older sets might need one for each cab, hand wired to every place in the control system and extra trackside and radio communication transceivers installed on both ends. The Yamanote line E231-s had D-ATC (a CBTC system using trackside near field signalling instead of long range radio) since 2005.

 

The wikipedia article is good, but sadly it shows the technology as something new. The first such systems were invented way back in the 1970ies and installed at places like the Vancouver SkyTrain in 1985. This system has been fully driverless from the start and was intended as a showcase project for the new techology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)

and the technology behind it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SelTrac

 

The modern, radio (wifi) based variant of SelTrac is what Thales is selling now, so it looks like the E233-s got this system instead of the japanese designed D/DS/RS-ATC.

 

ps: btw. DCC with transponding is one form of CBTC

 

[NXCALE]

This is from several months back, but an E233 set (2000 sub series Mato 10) used on Joban Line local service was sent to Nagano General Rolling Stock Center to be fitted with CBTC equipment. After a stay of almost three weeks*, it returned to its depot at Matsudo, pulled by an EF64 based out of the Nagaoka Rolling Stock Center. Locations are Hachioji and Kunitachi.

 

*apparently fitting of CBTC equipment is quite involved/complicated, it required about 10 days per trainset for London Underground Northern Line stock to be fitted with like equipment.

 

JR east is trying ATACS (Saikyo Line) and also CBTC.

The results of comparing both moving-block systems are going to be quite interesting.

 

Cheers,

 

Nxcale

Edited July 6, 2016 by nxcale

[kvp]

Atacs is more like the japanese variant of the european etcs level-3 with gsm-r radio, while cbtc is wifi/ethernet based.

 

Both systems use semi passive reference balises, which are used to synch the wheel revolution based distance counters on the trains and the rest is calculated from these assumed positions. The uncertainty increases with distance travelled, until the next sync point. Safety backups are either balise based or redundant on board hardware. (the latter is cheaper)

 

However the radio based solution is not as good as the old twisted loops seltrac, which was a microblocks based moving block system with 1 twist (microblock) every meter. That system allows tailgating at lower speeds, like on the London DLR. This is not really possible with CBTC/ETCS3/ATACS and precise stopping still requires a balise, while the twisted cable seltrac could do away with them.

 

I guess both systems should work as intended most of the time. Atacs is (imho) the lower cost system, while cbct (in theory) allows higher train density.

[ToniBabelony]

Interesting! If this is so, will the Chiyoda line trains with through running capacity and the Odakyū 4000 Series also be fitted with this system later on? This could also be interesting for Odakyū to increase capacity on the heavily used double track lines (e.g. Odawara line from Noborito to Shinyurigaoka) when the quadruple track section is finished.

[NXCALE]

Atacs is more like the japanese variant of the european etcs level-3 with gsm-r radio, while cbtc is wifi/ethernet based.

 

Both systems use semi passive reference balises, which are used to synch the wheel revolution based distance counters on the trains and the rest is calculated from these assumed positions. The uncertainty increases with distance travelled, until the next sync point. Safety backups are either balise based or redundant on board hardware. (the latter is cheaper)

 

However the radio based solution is not as good as the old twisted loops seltrac, which was a microblocks based moving block system with 1 twist (microblock) every meter. That system allows tailgating at lower speeds, like on the London DLR. This is not really possible with CBTC/ETCS3/ATACS and precise stopping still requires a balise, while the twisted cable seltrac could do away with them.

 

I guess both systems should work as intended most of the time. Atacs is (imho) the lower cost system, while cbct (in theory) allows higher train density.

 

Thanks for the info. I think that "politics" would be also involved at the moment of choosing the system.

JR East already invested time and money (and its reputation) on ATACS. In addition, the currently installed ATACS is doing quite well so far.

 

It is a long shot but I believe JR East would go for ATACS. What are other people's guessing/opinion... JR East will go for ATACS or CBTC?

 

Cheers,

 

Nxcale

Edited July 6, 2016 by nxcale

[bikkuri bahn]

Interesting! If this is so, will the Chiyoda line trains with through running capacity and the Odakyū 4000 Series also be fitted with this system later on? This could also be interesting for Odakyū to increase capacity on the heavily used double track lines (e.g. Odawara line from Noborito to Shinyurigaoka) when the quadruple track section is finished.

Yes, eventually all rolling stock using the Joban Line local tracks will have to be so equipped. As for the Odakyu Line, based on my limited knowledge, ATACS or some similar system would likely be the choice, if they thought it necessary. CBTC afaik is not equipped to deal with (for example) grade crossing control, as it is an application for more or less "closed" systems such as metro lines, with grade separation and uniform rolling stock. For a line such as Odakyu, with its grade crossings, multiple service patterns, and variety of rolling stock, ATACS by virtue of its adaptability would be the natural choice.

[Jensen]

Interesting to see where this is going, its always a trend to computerise train control and operation.

 

The key is how much and what information is being transmitted and what sort of control does the operator/computer has back in the office on the train. However door operation is still needs human presence. We are getting more new line that are driverless. 

 

Anyone know why there is lack of computer driven on high speed train? 

 

In the long term it should be safer and in practical term increase capacity. 

 

The secondary objective is to get rid of train drivers. In Europe, not sure about rest of the world, we get strike every so often in the rail/aviation sectors. The end result is transport is chaos, train drivers/ pilots on strikes, baggage handlers and ATC (Air Traffic Controller). Last month (June 2016) Air France Pilot Strike, Southern Train and Scot Rails. I believe there are more coming since none of these dispute has settle yet.

 

Recommended further reading: http://www.railengineer.uk/2016/07/04/future-signalling-systems/

[kvp]

Interesting marketing link, but the company is about 30-40 years behind Japanese technology as the system they describe is very similar to what the JNR has used many years ago.

 

The modern way is to use a network and hang the i/o components onto it, like sensors and crossing gates. No PLCs, just a bunch of highly reliable tiny microcontrollers for i/o and off the shelf server clusters for the CTC center. It's been done many times around the world and you need way less railroad specific hardware and the resulting system is more flexible too.

[NXCALE]

CBTC afaik is not equipped to deal with (for example) grade crossing control, as it is an application for more or less "closed" systems such as metro lines, with grade separation and uniform rolling stock.

I am also not very familiar with CBTC yet but I think that the system is able to manage level crossings (link: http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-control-solutions/cbtc/wayside-components.html). The same is for ETCS, there are some papers around about ETCS and crossings. We can see a practical example in Denmark although they have a different approach than the Japanese or UK practice when working with level crossing (there, road traffic takes priority, so far I understand).

 

 

Interesting to see where this is going, its always a trend to computerise train control and operation.

Yes, it is very interesting indeed. Also we need to remember how the systems have evolved from the beginning.

 

nothing (no system) -> to timetable -> token system and similar ones -> mechanical system (here the principles were generated) - > relay system - -> Processor Based Interlocking / Computer Based Interlocking.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking

The secondary objective is to get rid of train drivers. In Europe, not sure about rest of the world, we get strike every so often in the rail/aviation sectors. The end result is transport is chaos, train drivers/ pilots on strikes, baggage handlers and ATC (Air Traffic Controller). Last month (June 2016) Air France Pilot Strike, Southern Train and Scot Rails. I believe there are more coming since none of these dispute has settle yet.

 

 

Recommended further reading: http://www.railengineer.uk/2016/07/04/future-signalling-systems/

Thanks for the link. I believe that train drivers are still necessary, there have been several accidents due to the lack of human judgement (I think someone put a post about it in the forum somewhere).

 

Interesting marketing link, but the company is about 30-40 years behind Japanese technology as the system they describe is very similar to what the JNR has used many years ago.

 

The modern way is to use a network and hang the i/o components onto it, like sensors and crossing gates. No PLCs, just a bunch of highly reliable tiny microcontrollers for i/o and off the shelf server clusters for the CTC center. It's been done many times around the world and you need way less railroad specific hardware and the resulting system is more flexible too.

It looks like a "niche" company. Using the latest technology is not always the solution, the system needs to meet the needs of the client.

Using PLCs or a "safe PLC" (i.e. Microlok II) could be a solution if the case demands it. Also, there are still "old" systems that need to be maintained or installed. For instance, producing an interlocking interface relay/PBI.

 

Cheers,

 

Nxcale

Edited July 8, 2016 by nxcale