Advanced Train Management System (ATMS)

 
  steam4ian Chief Commissioner

It seems that this thread has degenerated into a weird miasma of rumor, ignorance and innuendo


Why should this thread be any different?

IMHO a GPS based block system like ATMS is the way of the future for the long distances we see in Oz.

I reckon it would do well across Canada, a route I have just travelled.

Regards
Ian

Sponsored advertisement

  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
An objective of ATMS is that it is intended to...

7.Reduced operation and maintenance cost for the trackside infrastructure


One fact - maintenance costs will continue to outstrip the cpi (and I'm talking any infrastruture). The negotiating power is now with the major contracting companies.

Unless revenue stays ahead of operating costs ARTC will be out of business (maybe that's inevitable anyway Exclamation )
  MD Chief Commissioner

Location: Canbera
ARTC is a Govt owned monopoly.
How can they go out of business.
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
ARTC is a Govt owned monopoly.
How can they go out of business.
"MD"


OK figuratively speaking  Rolling Eyes

But ARTC is not tax payer funded unlike a gov. department/authority. In fact it pays tax to the ATO.

The Commonwealth of Australia is the shareholder and the banks have a sizeable stake.

Back to ATMS from the ARTC 2010 annual report...

"Network Control Centre West
At the end of June the Network Controllers in Adelaide moved into a new purpose built control centre. This facility has been equipped with modern network management control and communications equipment which will allow for the future integration with the Advanced Train Management System (ATMS), train management flexibility and continuing safe train operations"
  perwaynut Deputy Commissioner

Location: In the Land of the Mighty Hawks, and our favourite footy President Jeff
What do you mean by convert a system over to ATMS.
ATMS is a safeworking system, and you cant have multiple safeworking systems on the same section of track.
If ATMS is only going to be used on very lightly utilized lines then its a extremely costly way of doing it , as every SG locomotive in the country will have to be modified to take the in cab ATMS equipment.
ATMS only makes sense if ARTC uses it on all their lines, and that would mean ripping out all the existing line side equipment including the signals and track circuits etc.
On the new VIC NE SG line , ARTC is currently installing brand new signals and track circuits , so it seems unbelievable that all this will be ripped out and replaced with ATMS.
"MD"


I meant that the existing system of safe working for each line ARTC have control of through either lease or ownership (not maintenance contract) will slowley be converted to ATMS.
  perwaynut Deputy Commissioner

Location: In the Land of the Mighty Hawks, and our favourite footy President Jeff
Isnt ATMS simply cost shifting.
The track operator cuts their costs by removing track side equipment and simply lumbers the Rail Operator with the costs of the loco based equipment.
Whats in it for Rail Operators and ATMS.
Will ARTC reduce track access fees on ATMS based lines.

Have a look at the history of Vlines now almost abandoned ASW system.
Many similarities to ATMS.
"MD"


TPWS is effectively on an electronic train stop, while ATMS will be a full blown train control and sasfeworking system.

The access fees charged by ARTC are regulated via a voluntary undertaking with the ACCC. If the ACCC accepts ARTC's pricing regime, it exempts their infrastructure from being declared under national competition laws. Becuase of the undertaking with the ACCC, ARTC can only charge a fee that provides a reasonable level of return on their assets. So if their cost base goes down, they have to reduce access fees.
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
If ARTC decide to deploy ATMS then I don't think they will strike any real state obstacles if its NTCS project is anything to go by.

From the ARTC 2010 Annual Report

“A successful coverage survey of the Telstra NextG™network as a result of the NTCS project completing the Telstra NextG™ installations across the rail Corridors has allowed the closure of the UHF CountryNet radio network in the New South Wales ARTC and CRN rail Corridors (Hunter Valley excluded). The Optus Satellite network will provide the communications (with NextG™ and WB radio providing the backup) until the new In-Cabin Equipment (ICE units) has been deployed.”
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
Isnt ATMS simply cost shifting.
The track operator cuts their costs by removing track side equipment and simply lumbers the Rail Operator with the costs of the loco based equipment.
Whats in it for Rail Operators and ATMS.
Will ARTC reduce track access fees on ATMS based lines.

Have a look at the history of Vlines now almost abandoned ASW system.
Many similarities to ATMS.
"MD"


No free rides anymore as ARTC is meant to be a commercial operation - someone has to pay.

Buying the in-cab equipment isn't the only option. It could be provided free and costs recovered through access charges or leased (do a foxtel).

You would be surprised (maybe even shocked) how much maintaining a piece of lineside or roadside equipment costs these days.   Exclamation

Unlike Vline, ARTC should be able to influence the powers that be as it is the closest we have to anything like a national rail authority (wouldn't that be something  Rolling EyesRolling EyesRolling Eyes ).

Anyway I find the ATMS site very informative.  Idea

When you think about it planes operate in a 3D environment without fixed signalling equipment and manage not to run into each other - that often  Wink
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
...When you think about it planes operate in a 3D environment without fixed signalling equipment and manage not to run into each other - that often  Wink
"cootanee"

Which is exactly what the original proponent of the idea (sadly no longer with us) suggested to ARTC a few moons back.
  Grantham Minister for Railways

Location: I'm with stupid!


You would be surprised (maybe even shocked) how much maintaining a piece of lineside or roadside equipment costs these days.   Exclamation

"cootanee"


Oh wow! Split the railways into more fragments than you would have thought possible, increase the management while you reduce the workforce, decimate the existing infrastructure, force every possible cent out of every possible nook and cranny, then you're shocked at the size of the charge to maintain individual items of lineside equipment?

The charge to inspect and repair ten items might well have been nearly the same, but the other nine in the immediate viscinity have been removed. It still costs the same to employ enough workers, supply them with a truck and tools and send them to do the job.

M
  perwaynut Deputy Commissioner

Location: In the Land of the Mighty Hawks, and our favourite footy President Jeff

Oh wow! Split the railways into more fragments than you would have thought possible, increase the management while you reduce the workforce, decimate the existing infrastructure, force every possible cent out of every possible nook and cranny, then you're shocked at the size of the charge to maintain individual items of lineside equipment?

The charge to inspect and repair ten items might well have been nearly the same, but the other nine in the immediate viscinity have been removed. It still costs the same to employ enough workers, supply them with a truck and tools and send them to do the job.

M
"Grantham"


Personally, I would be very happy to have single items of equipment maintenance costs to skyrocket if the overall maintenance spend went down.

What is it exactly you are trying to get at here?
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!

Oh wow! Split the railways into more fragments than you would have thought possible, increase the management while you reduce the workforce, decimate the existing infrastructure, force every possible cent out of every possible nook and cranny, then you're shocked at the size of the charge to maintain individual items of lineside equipment?

The charge to inspect and repair ten items might well have been nearly the same, but the other nine in the immediate viscinity have been removed. It still costs the same to employ enough workers, supply them with a truck and tools and send them to do the job.

M
"Grantham"


Personally, I would be very happy to have single items of equipment maintenance costs to skyrocket if the overall maintenance spend went down.

What is it exactly you are trying to get at here?
"perwaynut"


There's wishful thinking and there's commercial reality.  Rolling Eyes

People want more but want to pay less. ARTC needs to reduce costs or grow revenue as governments don't pay its operating costs.

If I have ten pieces of equipment, they don't all necessarily require maintenance, inspection or fail with the same frequency and these days I can't neccessarily afford to keep on a workforce of my own just in case.
Any guess how many $K per year per item I'm looking at  Shocked
  perwaynut Deputy Commissioner

Location: In the Land of the Mighty Hawks, and our favourite footy President Jeff
People want more but want to pay less. ARTC needs to reduce costs or grow revenue as governments don't pay its operating costs.
"cootanee"


If ATMS turns out to be as good as it is anticipated, there is a real chance that it could also change significantly how signalling maintenance is performed, with the potential for a lot more remote monitoring and preventive maintenance based on asset condition. Getting to the equipment before it fails. It will make it more interesting for the track guys though, as with the majority of track circuits to go, broken rails will no longer be detected as readily, so the focus of track maintenance may need to change.
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
People want more but want to pay less. ARTC needs to reduce costs or grow revenue as governments don't pay its operating costs.
"cootanee"


If ATMS turns out to be as good as it is anticipated, there is a real chance that it could also change significantly how signalling maintenance is performed, with the potential for a lot more remote monitoring and preventive maintenance based on asset condition. Getting to the equipment before it fails. It will make it more interesting for the track guys though, as with the majority of track circuits to go, broken rails will no longer be detected as readily, so the focus of track maintenance may need to change.
"perwaynut"


Remote monitoring is already quite normal for level crossings and road signals and warning systems.

Most so called "rail breaks" don't trip track circuits and there are plenty of other ways for a train to come asunder that no line side signals can prevent.

On the other had there have been enough instances of line side signals not preventing a major incident.
  landmark Station Staff

A recently published rail express article on ATMS can be found at:

http://www.railexpress.com.au/archive/2011/june/artcs-bold-plan-to-double-capacity-of-intrastate-freight-network

According to the article, it does appear that progress is being made.
  Mainnorthern Train Controller

Location: NSW
This seems like a great idea that has could have its fair share of problems too, mainly with radio coverage. ITCS is a similar system that has been developed in the US and is still having problems after more then a decade of development.  

http://www.arema.org/eseries/scriptcontent/custom/e_arema/library/2007_Conference_Proceedings/Incremental_Train_Control_System_2007.pdf

To invest and piggyback on Telstra’s Next G network looks like a mistake, considering the experiences of this ITCS project. This PDF states they have changed from 900 MHz to 220 MHz to reduce drop outs in comms. Telstra uses 850 MHz for the Next G network. If problems do arise, Telstra won’t likely change their wavelength to something larger because they would loose too much speed with data transfer and this wavelength comprise provides adequate coverage for average telecommunications consumers as well as a small enough antenna size. It will be interesting to see how this trial is measured considering the relatively open terrain.

It also reduces redundancy to have a good majority of the countries Railway Signalling and Railway voice communications bundled with countries almost sole National mobile network. I’m guessing all of this will be as centralised as possible, again further reducing redundancy. The recent problem that brought a good part of Sydney to a standstill for hours when a central piece of control equipment failed, is a good example of the trade off and resultant redundancy loss from moving away from separate installations.  

Other proven systems around the world such as ACSES on the North East corridor and SNCF’s system for the TGV utilise in cab signalling but use the rails for more reliable communications and still have the benefits of in cab signaling. In the TGV’s case, also allows for changing conditions of space between trains reducing headway. Track circuits are still used for detection providing the benefits of broken rail detection and sometimes other environmental conditions that could foul train movements. Using the existing rails for comms is surely cheaper then having to erect and maintain a separate radio network.

Adding more systems to better manage train movements can add safety to existing systems with track circuits at the same time such as the move to ECTS level 1 for RC and ATP used by QR. To remove track circuits for detection is taking away a long proven and relied upon safety measure. It is just cost saving and a way for infrastructure equipment companies to sell new products that essentially do the same thing but are not yet proven on large applications, not as reliable and not as safe as track circuits when not used in conjunction.

PTC is being mandated by the Government in the U.S for safety. Private companies there with massive networks have been reluctant to move to such systems due to cost and complexity even though the similar benefits of ATMS could be gained.

Also to compare air traffic to railways is poor in my opinion considering aircraft don’t have to remain on a physical route like trains have to but can avoid other aircraft in the open skies using Radar equipment on board. If radio guidance is wrongly given to a train from a remote location, no equipment at the location or equipment on board is going to give any indication of a problem ahead. The system is then relying on driver’s sight to detect a problem in time to possibly stop a train which could be a heavy freighter.
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
"ADVANCED TRAIN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SOUTH AUSTRALIA TRIAL:
STAGE 1 RESULTS A SUCCESS


Australian Rail Track Corporation today announced that Stage 1 of the Advanced Train Management System (ATMS) Proof of Concept phase has been successfully completed."

http://www.artc.com.au/library/news_2011-06-16.pdf
  landmark Station Staff

ARTC has posted a presentation showing the display for the train driver that will be used for ATMS. It looks impressive and certainly seems to provide much more context information than current systems. It appears to show the driver the location of other trains and also trackworker authorities.

The presentation can be found at:
http://atms.artc.com.au/_docs/DMI%20Presentation%203%20August.pdf,

Or can be accessed via the ATMS media page, item number 8 at:
http://atms.artc.com.au/media/default.asp?080811

It would be interesting to see what the drivers on this forum think?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE


Also to compare air traffic to railways is poor in my opinion considering aircraft don’t have to remain on a physical route like trains have to but can avoid other aircraft in the open skies using Radar equipment on board. If radio guidance is wrongly given to a train from a remote location, no equipment at the location or equipment on board is going to give any indication of a problem ahead. The system is then relying on driver’s sight to detect a problem in time to possibly stop a train which could be a heavy freighter.
"Mainnorthern"


If railways go down the air traffic route for regional air areas away from trunk routes were ATC is still operating. On the lower rail traffic routes such as E-W and East coast SG away from RPT services and coal, trains would use ATM's or similar and the drivers would negoiate their own passing etc with Controllers taking a back step and only getting involved  with more complicated passing and other issues. Maybe only getting involved for late services. Computers in the AIM's can tell the driver what other trains in say 100km radius are in around, direction, speed, type, which track etc and also recommend based on all the trains information, which loops to recommend the drivers base in etc

Pilots have to know how many minimum minutes they can follow their plane from another based on its size. Which planes have priorty etc and I cannot see why rail cannot follow. Planes maybe flexible in their path, but when you have an approaching speed of close to 2000km/hr and rules on your height etc to follow, the flexiblity is not as much as you think. Hence why so many planes have run into each other in the air.

Regards
Shane
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
Whilst ATMS should help improve rail sustainability over time by reducing operating costs a critical benefit has got to be the intervention capability.

In a decade where active cruise control in vehicles will become the norm its good that ARTC has the commitment and legs to push ahead with this. Hopefully Infrastructure Australia will put up the $500m to implement it.

Note that road authorities are flogging managed motorways for IA funds.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Whilst ATMS should help improve rail sustainability over time by reducing operating costs a critical benefit has got to be the intervention capability.

In a decade where active cruise control in vehicles will become the norm its good that ARTC has the commitment and legs to push ahead with this. Hopefully Infrastructure Australia will put up the $500m to implement it.

Note that road authorities are flogging managed motorways for IA funds.
"cootanee"


I think it will fly, as you said it increases track capacity, thus saving many larger millions and potentially billions, eliminates much of the lineside signally equipment and the massive cost to implement and maintain,  and reduces alot of the controller work to probably busy areas and overall scheduling, but leaves drivers to organise their own passing etc.

Regards
Shane
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane


Also to compare air traffic to railways is poor in my opinion considering aircraft don’t have to remain on a physical route like trains have to but can avoid other aircraft in the open skies using Radar equipment on board. If radio guidance is wrongly given to a train from a remote location, no equipment at the location or equipment on board is going to give any indication of a problem ahead. The system is then relying on driver’s sight to detect a problem in time to possibly stop a train which could be a heavy freighter.
"Mainnorthern"


If railways go down the air traffic route for regional air areas away from trunk routes were ATC is still operating. On the lower rail traffic routes such as E-W and East coast SG away from RPT services and coal, trains would use ATM's or similar and the drivers would negoiate their own passing etc with Controllers taking a back step and only getting involved  with more complicated passing and other issues. Maybe only getting involved for late services. Computers in the AIM's can tell the driver what other trains in say 100km radius are in around, direction, speed, type, which track etc and also recommend based on all the trains information, which loops to recommend the drivers base in etc

Pilots have to know how many minimum minutes they can follow their plane from another based on its size. Which planes have priorty etc and I cannot see why rail cannot follow. Planes maybe flexible in their path, but when you have an approaching speed of close to 2000km/hr and rules on your height etc to follow, the flexiblity is not as much as you think. Hence why so many planes have run into each other in the air.

Regards
Shane
"RTT_Rules"

I would assume that ATMS will be aware of the braking capability of the train.  After all, isn't that one of the major benefits, rather than the (almost) one size fits all approach of line side signalling?
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
...
I would assume that ATMS will be aware of the braking capability of the train.  After all, isn't that one of the major benefits, rather than the (almost) one size fits all approach of line side signalling?
"simonl"


Not exactly but as equiped trains are managed on time basis it's still a dynamic system and certainly isn't any problem given our train volumes well into the future.

http://www.atms.artc.com.au/_docs/ATMS-2008-13-0029_SFS%20Rev%20B.pdf

"2.1.2.3 Authority Updates
ATMS automatically rolls up uni-directional authorities as the ATMS Equipped Train reports it location and automatically releases the track segment for use by other trains.
[SFS-513] ATMS shall support a track capacity of 15 trains per hour past any given point at nominal track speed.
[SFS-61] ATMS shall take no longer than TBD seconds from the time the trailing edge of a preceding train clears an electronic block by a safety margin until the time the Authority of a following train has been extended by the electronic block and confirmed onboard.
..."
...
"2.7 Electronic Blocks
ATMS electronically partitions the ARTC network into Electronic blocks. Electronic Blocks are the smallest units for which the ARTC network is subdivided.
[SFS-269] ATMS shall partition the rail network into electronic blocks.
...
[SFS-273] ATMS shall allow Electronic Blocks to be different sizes.
...
[SFS-275] ATMS shall use a common electronic block definition for all train types and lengths.
[SFS-276] Electronic Blocks shall be greater than TBD meters in length."
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
From Glenlee NSW Passing Loops

How long now has the ATMS trial in SA been going for?
Still no system installed anywhere on an operational basis.
Why has ARTC installed a brand new CTC system on the new line between Seymour and Wodonga with brand new led signalling if its all going to be scrapped and replaced with ATMS.
"MD"


I highly recommend having a read through the ATMS website  8)  IdeaExclamation
http://www.atms.artc.com.au/

How long now has the ATMS trial in SA been going for?
"MD"

http://atms.artc.com.au/schedule/

Still no system installed anywhere on an operational basis.
"MD"

Because it’s undergoing Proof of Concept (Phase 2). If Phase 2 is successful, ARTC will give consideration to Phase 3 Rollout, which will be a roll-out of the ATMS across the ARTC Managed Rail Network.

Why has ARTC installed a brand new CTC system on the new line between Seymour and Wodonga with brand new led signalling if it’s all going to be scrapped and replaced with ATMS.
"MD"

Because ATMS is still under development and even if given the go ahead will cost $500m to implement which ARTC would be looking for IA to fund.

Given the nature of this project it was never going to happen overnight but once it goes in will catapult train management technology into the late 20th century and multiply the capacity of the network exponentially.  Exclamation
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!

Update on ATMS preso to Ausrail 2011  8)

 

http://www.atms.artc.com.au/_docs/AusRail%20Conference%20November%202011%20-%20Presentation.pdf

 

 

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.