ETCS in Munich junction results of study on behalf of UIC

Transcription

1 ETRMS Steering committee Paris, 2 nd December 2009 ETCS in Munich junction results of study on behalf of UIC VIA Consulting & Am Tivoli 16 Tel.: info@via-con.de Development GmbH Aachen Fax:

2 Contents 1. Capacity assessment by blocking times and UIC code 406 with respect to ETCS 2. Description of evaluation area and scope of analysis 3. Details on the proceeding 4. Summary of results ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

3 Infrastructure occupation consists of up to five elements s Physical occupation Clearing time Approaching time Switching times Reaction time = Blocking time t ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

4 Common understanding of infrastructure occupation s Blocking time model Invented by Happel in 1959 (RWTH Aachen University). h ij Used for capacity assessment in Germany since Used for scheduling and capacity management since Implemented in UIC Code 406 Capacity since t ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

5 Capacity is a function of the minimum headway times s n... total number of trains t u... evaluation period h... mean minimum headway time t b... mean buffer time h ij tb = t b t U n - h Capacity = f (h ij ) STRELE-Formula (waiting times) UIC Code 406 (occupation ratio)... t Analytic approach permits to evaluate effects independently of timetable in the mid- to long-term horizon. ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

6 Approaching time and ETCS Level 1 (1/2) v IP t BS t Driver t BE EBD EBI permitted EOA v max s EOA... End of Authority EBD t BE EBI... Emergency brake deceleration curve... Emergency brake built-up time... Emergency brake intervention curve (first line of intervention) t Driver... Reaction time t BS IP... Service brake built-up time... Indication point t Simplifications in graphic: Supervised Location (SvL) equals EOA. Here: SBI not available. SBD/SBI1 not illustrated. Pre-Indication irrelevant for capacity. ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

7 Approaching time and ETCS Level 1 (2/2) v IP v max The approaching time is determined by the first relevant balise. This balise needs to be located ahead of the IP. s Beside constant offsets, the First Line of Intervention (FLOI) determines the IP. As a rule, the approaching time is increased. t The driver s reaction time is incorporated by the braking model. ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

8 Approaching time and ETCS Level 2 v t IP v max s The approaching time is determined by the IP and thus depends on train characteristics. Capacitive benefits of ETCS level 2 (and 3) can take effect in case of inhomogeneous traffic, because there is no fixed approaching signal. Vice versa: If the dynamic characteristics of the running trains are similar, ETCS Level 1 permits almost the same capacity combined to less invest! ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

9 Calculation of approaching times requires a sophisticated modelling of the ETCS braking model. SBD/SBI1 EBD/EBI ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

10 Optimisation of ETCS Level 1 balises is feasible by means of the buffer time equivalent. t d2 Generally: Low disturbances: t d2,total_infill t d2,balise No delays, neither with infill nor without t d2,etcsl1 45 o High initial delays: p(t d1 ) t B t d1 High secondary delays, both for systems with or without infill equipment (2 nd train has to stop either way) t d1 ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

11 Assessing the junction s capacity Decomposition of infrastructure into servers (serial route nodes, SRN) Calculation of minimum headway times for each SRN Each SRN can be evaluated with focus on the quality of operation. Station track-groups can be modelled as multi-channel servers. ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

12 Contents 1. Capacity assessment by blocking times and UIC code 406 with respect to ETCS 2. Description of evaluation area and scope of analysis 3. Details on the proceeding 4. Summary of results ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

13 Questions to be evaluated Which benefit can be drawn from moving the speed change closer to the switches? To what extend is capacity influenced by the parameterisation of the braking model? What is the best strategy to choose the positions of balises within ETCS Level 1? In which cases do infill components within ETCS Level 1 offer a benefit? ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

14 Area of Munich junction Operating programme h Ingolstadt Hbf The independent S-Bahn (RER) tunnel section is not covered by the study. Landshut Already existing continuous supervision (LZB) on high-speed lines left unaltered. Augsburg Hbf Each scenario embraces a complete equipage of the conventional network with the individual ETCS configuration. Geltendorf Altomünster Herrsching Dachau Solln Wolfratshausen Tutzing Neufahrn München Hbf München-Ost München Flughafen Erding Kreuzstraße Holzkirchen Markt Schwaben Rosenheim Mühldorf ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

15 Calculation of occupation ratio by evaluation of eight representative serial route nodes in the station s area. ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

16 Necessary extensions to the capacity consumption model Transmission times by GSM-R Definition of the departure process under ETCS supervision Consideration of release speed after dwelling (i. e. movement authority ends at the exit signal) Transmission between different ATC systems (LZB <-> ETCS) ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

17 Moving the speed s change location Within conventional signaling the speed change is usually located at the (entry) signal. Cab signaling allows to define the speed change s location anywhere else. By choosing the roots of the switches instead of the entry signal, capacity consumption is decreased. v 160 km/h 80 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h 160 km/h 80 km/h ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

18 Reduction of block section lengths In the station s head the disadvantages of conventional signaling (e.g. minimum distance between signals, aspects of visibility) are accumulated. Thus the actual block sections are often much longer than necessary. Cab signalling allows to introduce additional sections, which shorten the headway times. This advantage can also be drawn be long loops or partial radio infill in combination to ETCS Level 1. ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

19 Contents 1. Capacity assessment by blocking times and UIC code 406 with respect to ETCS 2. Description of evaluation area and scope of analysis 3. Details on the proceeding 4. Summary of results ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

20 Balise shooter evaluates operating programme per signal Evaluation of three strategies Balise is located at the position of the nowadays distant signal. One balise is installed at the IP of the worst braking train. One balise is installed at the IP of the worst braking train and one additional balise is located at the weighted mean of all IPs. ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

21 Example of block section optimisation entry signal three new block signs Start of long loop respectively radio infill Iterative optimisation of the block sectioning by evaluation of the minimum headway times. If necessary, the position of the entry signal was changed, too. In case of ETCS Level 1, the long loop or radio infill starts about two kilometres ahead of the terminus. Thus, all indication points are covered by the continuous supervision and Level 2 performance is reached. ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

22 Appraisal of infill s impact at different situations Application of buffer time equivalent at two situations: Very low speeds at the heavy occupied sections close to the terminus, Crossing section at intermediate speeds next to Munich-Pasing. Sophisticated consideration of individual input parameters. ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

23 Contents 1. Capacity assessment by blocking times and UIC code 406 with respect to ETCS 2. Description of evaluation area and scope of analysis 3. Details on the proceeding 4. Summary of results ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

24 Capacitive impact Level 1, Balise at max. IP and mean IP (SBI available) 97,5% Level 1, Balise at current position of distant signal (SBI not available) 99,1% Level 1 with limited supervision 99,8% ETCS application co onfiguration Level 1, Balise at max. IP (SBI not available) Level 1, Balise at max. and mean IP (SBI not available) Level 1, Balise at max. and mean IP, individually optimised blocks with radio infill (SBI not available) Level 1, Balise at max. and mean IP, individually optimised blocks with infill loops (SBI not available) Level 2 with speed change at switches (SBI available) 100,0% 101,7% 102,6% 102,7% 104,9% Level 2 with speed change at signal (SBI not available) 104,9% Level 2 with speed change at switches (SBI not available) 105,1% Level 2 with speed change at switches, individually optimized blocks (SBI not available) 106,5% 95,0% 100,0% 105,0% 110,0% Capacity compared to Level 1, Balise at max. IP (SBI not available) [%] ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December

25 Punctiform infill components offer just marginal benefits. At the entry signals of Munich station, only km/h are permitted and the speed is even stepwise lowered afterwards. Hence, the gap between braking to release speed and receiving a movement authority by infill is marginal. At the switching section next to Munich-Pasing a speed of 120 km/h is permitted. But due to the high acceleration rates of the passenger trains, also in case of crossing movement only about five seconds buffer time are saved per train movement by total infill compared to pure ETCS Level 1. v Dead-end platforms of Munich station ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December s

26 Impact of ETCS installation at Munich junction Permitted speeds are stepwise lowered approaching to the dead-end station. Thus moving the speed change to the switch does not significantly affect capacity in the junction s area. Nonetheless capacity is slightly raised on the adjacent lines. The effect of ETCS Level 2 relative to ETCS Level 1 within the same block sectioning is comparable to the conventional and regional line. Capitalising the possibilities of shorter block sections by means of cab signalling, however, should be considered. The effect of punctiform infill components at the low speed is negligible. ETCS in Munich junction ERTMS Steering committee 2nd December