New GO Train Control+Signalling (PTC, CBTC, ETC) -- Safety & Subway-Like Frequency

[dowlingm]

if VIA will be equipping Corridor trains with ETCS gear, wouldn’t that get some of the expense out of the way for deploying the same tech on their own trackage?

 

[rbt]

if VIA will be equipping Corridor trains with ETCS gear, wouldn’t that get some of the expense out of the way for deploying the same tech on their own trackage?

If QConnexiON manages to win the ViaFast tender, making Deutsche Bahn the operator, its likely that ETCS will be deployed in that corridor as well. If Cadence wins then they wouldn't bother as no company in that group has experience with it.

 

[generalcanada]

If QConnexiON manages to win the ViaFast tender, making Deutsche Bahn the operator, its likely that ETCS will be deployed in that corridor as well. If Cadence wins then they wouldn't bother as no company in that group has experience with it.

I dont think thats true, notice how alstom is suspiciously missing from the RFP's?
I think theyre waiting to be the designer and builder of the trainsets for the winner. Alstom does signalling too in europe.

 

[reaperexpress]

if VIA will be equipping Corridor trains with ETCS gear, wouldn’t that get some of the expense out of the way for deploying the same tech on their own trackage?

Yes but only a small proportion of the total expense of adding a new signalling system. However, if their trains are already ETCS-equipped then that would certainly encourage them to select ETCS if they're looking for a new system, not just to avoid of the cost of maintaining two sets of onboard equipment, but also to reduce training requirements and potentially reduce the number of signal system transitions along the route.

The question is what Via would gain from upgrading to ETCS. Safety (automatic train protection) is the most obvious one, but that doesn't seem to be a pressing priority for Via or TC at the moment, probably because there haven't been many Via train crashes recently. Unlike GO, it's unlikely that Via would have any routes entirely within ETCS territory, so they wouldn't get the cost savings of reducing from two engineers per train to one.

Capacity is not an issue for Via, since even with HFR we'd likey only be looking at a handful of trains per hour.

Speed is a potential advantage, since ETCS offers cab signalling and ATP. I'm not sure what TC's rule is about max speed while depending on line-side signals, but many countries require cab signalling and ATP for speeds over 160 km/h.

Given the above, maybe Via would be interested in ETCS L1 on Via-owned lines, since it gives them the speed and safety improvements while being simpler than L2 and potentially cheaper for installations such as Via where block lengths are quite long.

 

[MovingBlock]

Given the above, maybe Via would be interested in ETCS L1 on Via-owned lines, since it gives them the speed and safety improvements while being simpler than L2 and potentially cheaper for installations such as Via where block lengths are quite long.

ETCS L1 only makes sense as an overlay onto existing signalling. For new-build lines, or lines where the existing signalling is at end-of-life, ETCS L2 is cheaper (as it requires less lineside equipment).

 

[reaperexpress]

ETCS L1 only makes sense as an overlay onto existing signalling. For new-build lines, or lines where the existing signalling is at end-of-life, ETCS L2 is cheaper (as it requires less lineside equipment).

Given that a lot of Via's current signalling was built after 2008, I don't imagine there's much equipment at end of life yet, so L1 might still a more economical option for them. Also since they still need to maintain access for CN using lineside signals.

Though if they run fast/frequent enough service that they specifically need to upgrade the signals, then they'd probably also need to rebuild a lot of trackage in which case L2 would be more economical.