SIGNALLING & TELECOMS
John Hinchliffe, chief engineer at Signalling Solutions, explains more about the commissioning of modular signalling for the Norwich to Ely route.
As
potential providers of rolling stock to Crossrail contemplate simpler
and more standardised train sets, rather than a design-intensive and innovation- heavy new idea, a similar philosophy has been adopted by Network Rail for resignal- ling on smaller lines.
The evidence for this is the ongoing ‘modu- lar signalling’ concept, set to be introduced fully on the Norwich to Ely route next sum- mer as part of a £21m contract, following extensive testing.
John Hinchliffe, chief engineer at Signal- ling Solutions Ltd (SSL), explained to an audience at this year’s Railtex event more about what the concept entails.
He said: “Some ways of doing things have been developed in the rail industry over many years, and modular signalling gives us a chance to take stock and review where we are with signalling. It’s not rocket science, but sometimes we ignore common sense.
“Network Rail’s objectives for this are cost- effective delivery, reduced timescales, and future operational flexibility. They were the three main objectives that Network Rail, back in 2007, gave to the industry. As one of the main suppliers of signalling systems to the industry, SSL wanted to rise to that challenge.
“Basically, modular signalling is intended for secondary or rural routes. That’s its main application. There are elements and initiatives within modular that could ap- ply to main routes, but essentially it’s for branch lines, two-aspect signalling or sem- aphore-type signalling situations.
“But it means project timescales can be reduced dramatically, in terms of being operationally and technically suitable for replacement of electro-mechanical sig- nal boxes. Network Rail’s challenge to the industry was to encourage new products and innovation within the signalling field, which has not always been the case in the last few years. It meant looking at different system configurations to deliver those so- lutions, and also providing more delivery- efficient processes.
“The concept, and what we’re aiming to 80 | rail technology magazine Aug/Sep 11
achieve, is a reduction in the Signal Equiv- alent Unit (SEU) cost – it’s a Network Rail commercial term for trying to assess the cost of a job by breaking the railway down to the various units. We need to reduce that cost below a certain level – initially a 30% reduction in normal cost, and eventually, over many modular signalling projects, re- duce it by 50%.
“In terms of what Network Rail wanted out of the system, it was something that al- lowed the signaller to control the railway of up to 250 SEUs, typically in terms of signal control we’re looking at around 130-140 SEUs for a VDU-based control system.
“Increased functionality, optimisation of the operation of the signalling system in its entirety, and then maximum use of the new FTN fixed telephones network, are es- sential elements of the modular signalling solution.”
SSL’s solution was branded as Integr8, with Ely to Norwich as the ‘pilot’ for the hoped-for wider roll-out of modular sig-
nalling across more of the UK rail network.
The architecture is based around the concept of ‘signalling islands’, with lines divided into clusters of signalling equip- ment, generally based around stations. Ely to Norwich, for example, contains 10 such islands, connected to each other and the control centre at Cambridge via the FTN. The system’s axle counter evaluator and its Integrated Electronic Control Centre (IECC), developed by DeltaRail, are also at the Cambridge facility.
Hinchliffe explained: “It’s a centralised trackside approach, which is different to how we do it today. Generally, we use dis- tributed systems; this is centralised, with all of our equipment in that one signalling island REB. It’s equivalent to an electro- mechanical signal box. The only connec- tion between islands is the FTN cable.
“All signalling, telecoms, level crossing, and power equipment, is all contained within the one enclosure, rather than having to provide three or four separate housings or
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92