ERTMS reliability: Distance between incidences andpunctuality in Madrid-Barcelona HSLKmsbetweenincidences *L2 started in October 2011 ** Data up to March 31st 6
ERTMS reliability: Kilometers-train in Madrid-Barcelona HSL Year Nr of Nr of Million trains trains s Kms (Kms) (Kms) 200 3.302 Level 1 Level 2 6 (1.551.94 0 Km) 200 7.665 7 (4.139.10 0 Km) 200 17.075 8 (10.603.5 75 Km) 200 32.143 9 (16.457.2 16 Km) 2010 39.420 (20.157.6 60 Km) 2011 38.236 1.244 * (19.761.3 24 Km) (557.31 2012 4.398 3.665 2 Km) ** (2.502.61 (1.641.9 7 Km) 20 Km) *L2 started in October 2011 ** Data up to March 31st 7
2.ETCS L2:Why did we take so long to put in service?• First L2 tests on Mad-Lleida line were performed inJune 2006!•Lack of commitment of some of the involvedpartners.•Priority on developing STM for LZB.•L1 worked perfectly at 300 km/h.•Complementary Tests (a kind of reception tests)were started in June 2009.• Lines were already in commercial operation andtherefore the testing time was very limited.8
2.ETCS L2: What are we testing with L2 Complementary Tests?• The target of CT are to demonstrate the correct behaviour of the whole train-track system.• CT are a set of 269 tests cases which test main ERTMS functionality• Key Management System tests. A KM procedure has been specifically developed. (414 KMAC and 85 KTRANS)• Simultaneous trains tests.• CTs for S-112 and S-103 trains took 41 test sessions.9
2.ETCS L2: Reliability Tests•More than 150.000 kms testing reliability. Main issues arised:•Communications problems: •Protocol V110 desynchronization •HW failures in RBC multiplexors •Modem train failures. •Interferences with GSM public operators.•Track issues: •Balise linking information (all balises linked in L2)•RBC functional issues: •Reception of packet 1 with LRBG value ‘unknown ‘.•EVC Functional issues: •Wrong storage of RBC information in SL mode.•Trains SW updating took almost 3 months.10
2.ETCS L2: Challenges during L2 putting into Service L2• Managing of superimposed L1 and L2 TSRs.• L2 Start of Mission design: TAF procedure• Transitions Complexity: L0, L1, L2 and LSTM LZB• Key Management System• Communication failures: Lack of modems specs.• CR implementation in 2.2.2+ (i.e. SH TR CR 530)• New operational rules• Progressive trains upgrading from L1 to L2 (new SW) in commercial service• Degraded Odometry• Command Post operators and drivers training11
2.ETCS L2: Lessons Learnt• At the time being one ETCS level is enough!•Modem lack of specification is a critical issue.•Different CRs implemented by different suppliers canlead to IOP issues (in versions 2.2.2+).•L2 Tests in lab are essential to reduce time andincrease confidence on the system.•Reliability tests were vital to analyzecommunications problems.12
2.ETCS L2: L2 with L1 as a backupsystem Advantages • Higher availability. A L1 up to 300km/h as backup. (level inhibition national function needed for transition process up to put in service L2 in all the lines and trains) • Levels 1 and 2 superimposed will allow Adif and Renfe to perform the migration from 2.2.2. to 2.3.0.d Disadvantages • Higher cost. New Spanish HS lines are now being tendered only with L2 ! 13
3. ERTMS in Madrid Commuter lines• ERTMS Line C4 (73 km) in L1• Installed by Thales (South part) andDimetronic-Invensys (North part)•Interface with existing IxL• Train EVCs are supplied by Alstom(123 Civia)• Complementary tests were adaptedto the specific commuter linesfunctionality.•Current headway 4’ in Atocha-Chamartin tunnel Safety level has been increased 14
3. ERTMS L1 main issues whileinstalling and testing• Geographical information and SSPupdated• ETCS and IxL timers must beadapted• Many and complex Level transitions• Dynamic 200m TSRs.• FN 125 needed because of worksstill in progress• Very complex installation Small size station cables (Nuevos Ministerios C4) 15
3. ERTMS L2 in Madrid Commuter lines• Installing and testing 2 RBCsdifferent technologies: Thales(South part) and Dimetronic(North part)• Increase of capacity about RBC15%• Up to 60 trains simultaneouslyin L2 RBC Safety and Capacity level will be increased 16
All the HS existing 4.ERTMS versions Migration in trains are 2.2.2+ with different CRs Vall-Palencia-León- Spain. Orense- Santiago Pajares ASFA y N2Talgo S102-330 implemented in each (2.3.0.d.) Dic 2012 ERTMS-N1-2 ThalesERTMS Siemens one Figueras-Perpignan (2011) Zaragoza-Huesca 2012 -N1-2 Ansaldo N1- Alstom (2009) Madrid-Lleida ERTMS-N1-2 Ansaldo 2.3.0 Olmedo-Zamora 2.3.0.d Siemens S103- 350 ASFA ERTMS Siemens Dic y N2 (2.3.0.d.) 2.3.0.d(2004-2006) 2012 2.2.2 + 2.3.0.d 2.3.0.d Madrid-Valladolid 2.2.2 + 2.2.2 + 2.2.2 + Barcelona-Figueras ERTMS-N1-2 Thales Madrid-Valencia- 2012-N1-2 Thales (2007) AlbaceteALstom S104- 250 k/hERTMS Alstom 2.3.0.d 2010 -N1-2 Dimetronic Madrid commuter lines ERTMS-N1-2 (2010) Lleida-Barcelona Dimetronic-Thales 2.3.0.d ERTMS-N1-2 Thales (2006-2008) La Sagra-Toledo 2.3.0.dCAF S120 250 km/h AVERTMS Ansaldo ERTMS-N1-2 Thales Madrid-Sevilla LZB(1992) ERTMS NSTM LZB (2007) Córdoba-Malaga ERTMS-N1-2 2.2.2 + Albacete-AlicanteTalgo S130 250Dimetronic(2006-2007) km/h AVERTMS Bombardier ASFA y N2 (2.3.0.d.) Dic 2012 DIRECTION GÉNÉRALE DE DÉVELOPPEMENT DE L’INFRASTRUCTURE 17 17 Direction d’Innovation Technologique
5.- Conclusions.1. ERTMS L2 is already in operation in Spain.2. L2 first months operation reliability is better than the It is important to have a good strategy initial behavior of L1.3. New lines in Spain will be tendered only with L2. but occasionaly,4. Migration to version 2.3.0.d. is going to be performed before the end of 2014. The fact of having L1 and L2 allow performing the migration without interruption of it is also important to get results ! commercial service.5. ERTMS L1 is in operation in Madrid commuter lines and L2 is under tests. 18
New steps in ERTMS deployment inSpain: L2 in commercial operation and ETCS in commuter lines. firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Thank you for your kind attention
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.