Proceedings 2002/2003 - IRSE

82
CTRL SIGNALLING AND COMMUNICATIONS
Pancras interlocking. Most of the interlocking
principles applied on Section 1 will be recreate-used
on Section 2, but some specific arrangements will
be applied for the two stations at Stratford and
Ebbsfleet.
For the cab signalling part, a completely new
system will have to be designed. Due to the line
speed of 230 km/h, the block section length will be
on average 950m on the level, in order to give the
best possible headway. New cab signalling
sequences will also be used, taking into account the
existing speed bands in the Eurostar cab. Hence a
completely new TVM network will have to be
created.
CONCLUSION
This paper has tried to describe the potential as
well as the difficulties of applying a French signalling
system on a high speed line in the UK, with a
mixture of UK and French signalling principles. The
main purpose was to keep the same driving
ergonomics and operational principles on both sides
of the Channel Tunnel.
It also reflects the need for an approach that will
allow the CTRL to form part of the emerging
European High Speed rail network.
It is not the first British/French experience; cooperation
between British and French engineers was
needed for the implementation of SSI technology in
France, as well as for the use of Tyers block
instruments by railways such as the PLM.
We hope that this co-operation will continue in the
future with the same success.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank:
• Union Railways and Rail Link Engineering for
permission to present this paper and their
colleagues within the various participating
organisations for their advice and assistance;
• CSEE for their technical support;
• SNCF for their permission to use an article
written by P LEBOUAR, “Le système informatique
d’enclenchements intégrés SEI,” issued in
Revue Générale des Chemins de Fer, February
2002.
Discussion
The discussion was opened by P Bassett (AEA
Technology) who wondered why the Waterloo
connection from Singlewell to Fawkham Junction
was not signalled for bi-directional working and the
factors that were taken into account when making
this decision. He was also interested in the lessons
that had been learnt following the commissioning of
the first TVM/directional based signalling interface at
Dollands Moor and finally asked if different braking
techniques would be required because of the
differing Block Section lengths.
R Stokes explained that the Waterloo connection
was uni-directionally signalled to prevent the
necessity of providing bi-directional signalling to at
least Swanley on the Chatham main line, which
would have significantly increased cost. The
connection will also lose its importance once the
CTRL route is fully open to St Pancras. He believed
that the lessons from the Dollands Moor interface
had been learnt; a Standard Signalling Principle
existing for the lineside to cab-signalling interface.
Finally he confirmed that different braking techniques
would not be required, the speed band
displayed to the driver overcoming this situation.
C Harrison (Lloyds MHA) enquired how a 3-minute
headway was achieved with a mixed speed of 230
km/h and 300 km/h.
R Stokes informed that the 3-minute headway was
designed on following 300 km/h trains.
N Ivanov (WBS) wanted to know if there was a
direct link between the KVB and ITCS at St Pancras
and what the response time of the interlocking was.
R Stokes stated that no detailed design had yet
been produced for St Pancras and also that he was
not in a position to quote interlocking response
times.
D McKeown (Independent Consultant) asked
about the testing philosophy and processes,
particularly with respect to competence issues.
R Stokes explained that the signalling would be
fully tested, a Tester-in-Charge having been
appointed to produce the necessary Test Plans.
Testing processes are described in the paper whilst
utilisation of a test train provides final verification.
The methodology of testing is subject to review by
all interested parties.
I Harman (Union Railways) further expanded on
the fundamental differences between testing
philosophy in the UK and France; in the UK the
tester looks for responses from the systems whereas
in France testing tools are effectively used as a
routine to test predetermined scenarios.
P Duggan (WBS) questioned if the accepted
safety cases for the signalling system included the
interface between the SSI, ITCS and PRCI and how
they are tested.
I Harman (Union Railways) commented that the
relevant bodies have co-operated to approve the
interface testing. He informed that the SSI/ITCS
interface could not be simulated and on-site
preparatory testing would be the only method of
verifying the design philosophy.
N Ivanov (WBS) asked how other interfaces were
to be tested.
I Harman (Union Railways) replied that similar
testing principles were to be applied.
J Poré (Alstom) enquired what plans there were for