A visit to Bilbao Subway ( Basque Country – Spain )

May 28th, 2011

A few weeks ago I had the chance to visit the Bilbao Metro. Let me share with you a few pictures of this beautiful suburban:

The first thing that stands out is his ceiling curved corridors, Amdener, and lobbies:

With a functional finish, the furniture is made ??in the environment.

 

Here the current network map:

 

With a simple pricing system, and I live together with other transport networks makesit really easy to use:

 


The trains coming from the right, as in the Madrid Metro or London

 

Passenger cars within:

 



Climb down the street:

 

And the subway stations feature:

This and much more in my blog “Trenecicos”:

http://trenecicos.wordpress.com

Gauge changing in Spain

March 18th, 2011

After a brief description about what a gauge changer could be at my blog:

Trenecicos Blog: What’s a gauge changer ? ( In spanish ),

I’ve thought that this new post could show this impressive video of the Spanish Rail Network Administrator ( ADIF ), about the spanish solution for iberian and UIC gauge working togerher in Spain. I Think you could spend a few minutes, the problem is that is in spanish, but there’re several images about TALGO and CAF gauge changing solutions. To see this video you should access to my blog because here is not possible to add a youtube video:

Video ( In Spanish )

How a gauge changer system works in Spain

March 9th, 2011

This technology is a facility that allows trains to move from a line with a 1668 mm wide Iberian or another international route or vice versa 1435 mm varying the distance between the wheels, without changing the axles or bogies, automatically and while the train passes by installing

Do not forget that wide exchangers always there are two types of feeds as traction is concerned. The voltage of 25 kV ac to gauge, and we can find Iberian gauge feeding 3000 V dc or diesel traction if the line is not electrified. Thus the gauge change these feeds are made compatible with the type of rolling stock used.

The need for change in width is born wanting to cross the French border with Spanish material.

On 12 November 1968 made the first direct train trip from Madrid to Paris without making transhipment of passengers at the border. A composition Talgo III RD neighbor reached by installing gauge change machine located in Irun / Hendaye. On June 1, 1969 began the commercial exploitation of system-wide change known as the automatic variable gauge Talgo RD in Port Bou, for direct Barcelona-Geneva.

These changers are the so-called first generation of wide exchangers in which circulate only towed material with variable gauge Talgo.

This post continues at mi blog TRENECICOS ( automatically translated by Google Translator from Spanish to English ) : TRENECICOS BLOG IN ENGLISH and if you understand spanish: TRENECICOS BLOG IN SPANISH

Learning Railway signalling in a pragmatic way-Part 3

February 21st, 2011

ROUTE INITIATION CIRCUIT

I would now describe the Route Initiation Circuit for the given Yard. Before proceeding with development of the Circuit, we consider that Route Initiation is possible only if SM’s Key is Inserted (SMCR Relay Pick up), Signal knob is operated (GNR Relay Pick up), Route Button is operated (UNR Relay Pick up) and No Conflicting Route is already Initiated (LR Relays Drop for conflicting Routes). We will start from the operation of SMCR Relay.

The following State Transition Diagram along with use of Contacts is made for SMCR Relay.


This Relay is energized when the SM’s Panel Key is `IN’ and turned to Normal.  The Energisation of SMCR / SMR Relay provides authorized operation of all the functions on the Panel. When SM’s Key is turned to Reverse and taken out from panel by SM, it prevents un-authorized operation and locks the Panel in the last operated position. The Circuit is very simple as the SMCR Relay operation depends on only one condition – Insertion of SM’s KEY. The SMCR Circuit is given below. If needed, a Repeater Relay SMCPR can be used. One Pick-up Contact of SMCR can be used for operating a Repeater Relay SMCPR, if needed. The Vital Event is showed in a box. Boolean Equation for SMCR is:
                                                    SMCR = SM’s KEY

The Operating Circuit for SMCR and SMCPR Relays is given below:

The energised contacts of SMCR are used in Knob circuits, Button circuits, Point operation circuits, Route Initiation circuits, Route Cancellation circuits, Emergency circuits, Crank Handle circuits, Timer circuits etc. Repeaters of SMCR Relay (SMCPR) may be used as required.

Now, we will prepare a Fault Tree to find out how the Circuit can fail in a Safe mode (Relay does not Pick-up when SM’s KEY is Inserted).

Unsafe failure (Relay picks up without SM’s KEY) can be due to two causes only.

Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis for SMCR Relay is given below.

All the above failures are detected. Safe failures will not allow ALR to operate and Route cannot be initiated. Signal will not go to OFF. But, Unsafe Failures are not detected until SM tries Route Setting, without insertion of the Key or when the Panel is tested.

The Rate of Safe Failure is

? safe      = ? SMCR  + ? FUSE  + ? POWER  + ? WIRING  + ? CONTACT. FLT

         As per MIL Std. 217F, for less than 1 operation / Hr. (SM’s KEY is not Inserted for every Signal clearance), ? CONTACT. FLT        = 0.0594 X 10 –6 / Hr.,
 
    So, ?safe = (0.7495 X 10 –6 + 0.4307 X 10 –6 + 6.554 X 10 –8  + 2 X 0.04 X 10 –6
                    + 2 X 0.0594 X 10 –6) / Hr
                 
                     = 1.3855 X 10 –6 / Hr.

The Rate of Unsafe Failure is    ? unsafe      = ? WIRING  + ? CONTACT. FLT

In this case, Wiring fault has negligible probability except Human Interference, which is difficult to calculate. Thus, it can be limited to ? CONTACT. FLT

  =  (0.0594 X 10 –6 ) 2  / Hr.
  =   0.003528 X 10 –12  / Hr. 

Event Tree Analysis of the SMCR Relay Operation is:

The Timing Diagram for operation of SMCR Relay is given below:

ROUTE INITIATION

A Signal Route Selection Relay ” LR ” decides a particular Route for a Signal and all the Points required for that Route including Isolation and Overlap will be operated to the required position by the LR Relay.  Every Signal will have One LR Relay for each of the Routes that the Signal can lead to, including different Overlaps.  Some Signals e.g. Advance Starter, Starters etc will have only one LR as there is only one Route.

The following Flowchart can represent the conditions needed for LR Relay Operation for Route Initiation:

Route Initiation / Selection is done by the Operation of Individual LR Relay for the Signaled Route. LR Relay picks up only when there is an operation to Clear a Signal. From the conditions to be satisfied for Route Initiation, and considering one extra Information that Emergency Signal Cancellation (EUGGN) is not applied, we can find the Boolean Equation as:

      LR = Signal GNR. Route UNR. SMCR. Conflicting LRs*. EGGNR*

If we Initiate the Signal ‘1’ for Route ‘A’ in the given Yard, the Signal Button ‘1GN’ and Route Button ‘AUN’ are to be pressed simultaneously. The Flowchart of operation of ‘1ALR’ is as follows. –

Logic Diagram for operation of 1 ALR Relay is:

The following State Transition Diagram is made for 1ALR Relay along with Contact use.

 In the above State Transition Diagram, three Transitions – SMCR  , EGGNR   and all  LRs    for the Conflicting Routes,  must remain fulfilled. Only then if Signal and Route Buttons are pressed, Events are recorded in GNR and UNR Transition paths. Now LR Relay operates. 

The Basic A1LR Circuit with Signal Button 1GN and Route Button A1 UN pressed will be:

In the above circuit with SMCR Pick up, the Signal button 1 and the concerned Route Button A are pressed simultaneously to pick up concerned relay ALR through 1GNR and ‘A’ UNR. Once Picked up, it will remain Up through its own front contact and TSR front contact even when Buttons are released (1GNR and ‘A’ UNR front contacts are broken) and even if SM’s KEY is removed. On arrival of train, when the Train passes the Signal, with TSR drop, LR also drops. In case of cancellation, EGGNR (Emergency Signal Cancellation Relay) will pick up and cause LR to drop. EGGNR Contact is bypassed by 1GNR contact, so that only the particular Signal can be Cancelled.

For Route 1A1, the Conflicting LRs are – 1A2LR, 1BLR, 1C1LR, 1C2LR, Co1A1LR, Co1BLR, Co1C1LR, 2DLR, 4ELR, 6ELR, 8ELR, 10A1LR, 10BLR, Co10A1LR, Co10BLR, SH11A1LR, SH11BLR, SH11C1LR, SH12A1LR, SH12BLR, 13FLR and 14A1LR (22 conflicting routes!!). We could have used Drop contact of Sequential Route Release Relay, UYR2 or UYR3 in place of TSR pick up contact to drop LR after a Train crosses the Signal. But it will be a delayed drop. With TSR front contact LR will drop immediately.

Safe Failures of LR Relay is indicated in the Fault Tree.

It shows that Safe failure can be caused by any of the twelve individual Causes, one Cause having variable combination depending on yard (Conflicting Routes can vary in different Yards).

            Unsafe Failure can occur if 1 ALR Relay either operates when not wanted or it does not release when needed. There are three causes of Unsafe failures:

? The first case can occur if the operating path is available due to simultaneous failures of Contacts of Relays in the path. If ALR operates when not wanted, UCR and subsequently HR Relays will operate clearing the Signal for the Route.

? The second case can occur if the Stick Path does not break due to simultaneous contact failures of TSR and ALR (own) Relays. In this case also UCR and subsequently HR Relays will remain operated clearing the Signal for the Route.

? Unsafe condition can also occur if the Emergency Release of Route is not possible.

Unsafe Failures of LR Relay is indicated in the Fault Tree.

Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis for ALR Relay is given below.

All the above failures are detected. Safe failures will not allow ALR to operate and Route cannot be initiated. Signal will not go to OFF since UCR and subsequently HR Relays do not operate. Unsafe Failures are detected by the Panel Indication. The Rate of Safe Failure is

  ? safe      = ? LR + ? GNR  + ? UNR + ? SMCR + ? EGGNR  + ? TSR  + ? CONFLR + ? FUSE                                    
                  + ? POWER   + ? WIRING + ? LR (STICK CONTACT)

Using Failure Rates and considering 22 Conflicting LR Relay Contacts,

?safe = (28 X 0.7495 X 10 –6 + 1.1802 X 10 –6 +  6.554 X 10 –8  + 2 X 0.04 X 10 –6) / Hr
           = 22.3117 X 10 –6 / Hr.

The Rate of Unsafe Failure due to unwanted operation of ALR Relay seems to be much less because all Failures must occur simultaneously. In this case only one Conflicting LR is to be considered since only one Route can be initiated at a time. But, Short Cct of ALR Stick Contact along with short Cct. Failure of TSR Relay contact, leads to Unsafe condition as ALR will directly operate and Signal would come if no other Route is initiated. Luckily the Fault will be detected by Panel Indication. Unsafe failure can also occur due to Short Cct. Of EGGNR Relay contact during Emergency Release.

 Westinghouse Q Series Relays have Mean Time Between Wrong Side failure of 6.89 X 10 – 9.  So, the Rate of Unsafe Failure is

?unsafe = (? ALR (OWN). ? TSR)+(? GNR . ? UNR . ? SMCR . ? CONFLR .)+(? EGGNR +  ?GNR).
      
      As per Railtrack IRM CCA Model, ?RELAY (short)     = 0.4307 X 10 –6 / Hr

 ?unsafe      =  (0.1451 X 10 –9 / Hr)2 + (0.1451 X 10 –9 / Hr)3 .( 0.7495 X 10 –6 / Hr)                                               
                                   + 2 X 0.1451 X 10 –9 / Hr

                              =  0.021 X 10 –18 / Hr + (3.0549 X 10 – 27 / Hr).( . 0.7495 X 10 –6 / Hr)                      
                                   + 0.2902 X 10 –9 / Hr

                         =  0.2902 X 10 –9 / Hr , as the other terms are negligible.

      We observe that Unsafe operation has a low probability and satisfies Safety Integrity Level. 

      Event Tree Analysis of the LR Relay Operation is:

The Timing Diagram shows LR Relay operation:

Timing Diagram for Emergency Release of the Relay is: 

     
There is an option of connecting the Crank Handle Relay contacts in the operating Path of LR Relays, if Motor Points are used in the Yard. This increases Safety since both UCR as well as LR Relays are controlled by the Crank Handles. Route now cannot be initiated if any Crank Handle in the Route is unlocked. But the Rate of Safe Failure would increase due to additional contacts in Series.

Again there is a trend to connect EGGNR   and GNR   contacts in parallel, in the Stick Path of LR Relay instead of in the Operating Path. That way, we reduce one Safe Failure cause. The Probability of Unsafe Failure remains unaltered.

Thus, there are several ways of designing the Circuit for LR Relay when Signal Button is used. They are:

• Using EGGNR and GNR Drop contacts in Parallel, in the Operate Path of LR Relay and using TSR and LR Pick-up Contacts in Series in the Stick Path of LR Relay. This design is described above.

• Using EGGNR and GNR Drop contacts in Parallel, in the Stick Path of LR Relay.

A Relay draws less Current in Stick Path with respect to the Current drawn in Operate Path. So, inclusion of EGGNR and GNR Contacts in Stick Path is a better idea.

• UYR Drop Contact in the Operate Path of LR Relay.

 

Proving UYR Relay instead of TSR is a better idea, since UYR gives a Positive proof that the Train has passed Signal. TSR, on the other hand, can Drop due to Track Bobbing or Power Supply problem

• Using UYR and LR Pick-up Contacts in Series in the Stick Path.

  • Using Conflicting Signal ASR Pick-up Contacts in Operate Path of LR Relay.

In some Panels, Signal Initiation is done by using Signal Switch instead of Button. In this case, the GNR Relay Contact of the Circuits described above, is replaced by the ‘R’ Band of the Signal Switch. 

The Basic Circuit with Signal Switch is


‘R’ Band of the Signal Switch is bypassed by SMCR Drop Contact to allow Locking of the Panel by SM after the Signal is Taken OFF and to prevent any unauthorized normalization of Signal.

Bypassing SMCR Front Contact and Route Button Contact by Pick-up Contact of the concerned LR Relay is to prevent

• Dropping of LR Relay when Route Button is released (thereby breaking Button Contact ‘A1’UNR).

• Dropping of LR Relay when SM’s Key is removed after the Signal is Taken OFF.

LR can Drop when Signal Switch is made Normal, if SM’s Key is In (SMCR is Up).

Somnath Pal

Learning Railway signalling in a pragmatic way-Part2

February 12th, 2011

ROUTE RELAY INTERLOCKING BUTTON CIRCUITS

The Buttons are Self-restoring type Push Buttons and are used for the following purposes:

? The Signal Buttons (GN’s) are provided near the concerned Signal on the Panel, one Button for each Signal with distinct colours.
? For Stop Signal             –  Red
? For Calling `ON’ Signal –  Red with White dots
? For Shunt Signal           –  Yellow button etc) and are numbered 1,2,3 etc.  

? Route Buttons (UN’s) are provided in the middle of each Berthing Track / Overlap Track / Exit Track on the Panel, one Button for each Route / Overlap / Exit Route. The Colour of Route / Overlap Button is Grey / White.  They are marked alphabetically as A, B, C etc or with the respective Route number.

? Point Buttons (WN) nearer or on the concerned Point and Common Point Group Button WWN (NWN) & WWR (RWN) and Emergency Point Operation Button (EWN). Concerned Point Button is pressed along with the Common Point Group Button.

? Crank Handle Control Button (CHN) and Common Crank Handle Buttons (CHYYN, CHYRN). These Buttons are pressed for Crank Handle or Siding Key Transmissions.

? Emergency Signal Cancellation Button (EGGN).

? Emergency Route Cancellation Button (EUYYN)     and

? Siding Control Key Button (KTN).
SIGNAL BUTTON RELAY (GNR) CIRCUIT

To operate any Signal, the concerned Signal Button is to be pressed. Whenever the Signal Button is pressed, the corresponding Signal Button Relay (GNR) will operate, provided no other Signal Button is simultaneously pressed. So, Drop Contacts of all other GNR Relays are proved in the operate path of GNR Relay.

The Flowchart for the operation of GNR Relay is as follows.

 The Boolean Equation is very simple –     

  GNR = GN Button . Confl GN Buttons*

The circuit is self-explanatory. Relay GNCR is normally in Pick up condition, proving that all Signal Button Relays are dropped i.e. no Signal Button is pressed. 

Now, we will prepare a Fault Tree to find out how the GNR Circuit can fail in a Safe mode (Relay does not Pick-up when Signal Button is Pressed).

 

 Unwanted operation of GNR (Relay picks up without GN Button) can be due to two causes only. This cannot cause any Unsafe Failure since a Button-Stuck condition beyond a specified Time limit is indicated by Button Stuck-up Relay NNCR. Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis for GNR Relay is given below.

All the above failures are detected. Safe failures will not allow GNR to operate and Signal Clearance cannot be initiated. Signal will not go to OFF. Unwanted operation of GN Button is detected by Button stuck-up Alarm. The Rate of Safe Failure.

      ? safe = ? GNR +? FUSE +? POWER +? WIRING +? CONTACT. FLT (Button) + ? Other GNRs (13)

As per Railtrack IRM CCA Model,

           ?RELAY (open)          = 0.7495 X 10 –6 / Hr.,  ?RELAY (short)          = 0.4307 X 10 –6 / Hr
         ?WIRING (Open)        = 6.554 X 10 –8 / Hr.,   ?FUSE                          = 0.04 X 10 –6 / Hr.,
            ?POWER                      = 0.04 X 10 –6 / Hr.   and

  As per MIL Std. 217F

            ? CONTACT. FLT         = 0.3468 X 10 –6 / Hr. (considering 5 operations / Hr.),
            (for GN Button)                                    

Replacing these values in the equation

               ?safe =  (0.7495 X 10–6 + 0.4307 X10–6 + 6.554 X10–8  + 2 X 0.04 X10–6                                                                  
                        + 0.3468 X10–6 + 13 X 0.7495 X 10–6 ) / Hr
                       =  11. 416 X 10 –6 / Hr.

The Rate of Unwanted Operation is     
? unwanted  = ? DIRECT SUPPLY   + ? CONTACT. FLT (Button)

In this case, Fault due to Direct Supply has negligible probability except Human Interference, which is difficult to calculate. Thus, ?unwanted can be limited to ? CONTACT. FLT                                                    or   0.3468 X 10 –6 / Hr.

Event Tree Analysis of the GNR Relay Operation is:

EMERGENCY SIGNAL CANCELLATION INITIATION RELAY (EGGNR)

EGGNR Relay picks up without SMCR contact to allow the Signal to be thrown back to danger in case of emergencies even without SM’s Authorization.  This Relay operates as soon as EGGN Button in the Panel is pressed.

The Boolean Equation is     EGGNR = EGGN Button.

The basic Circuit Diagram is shown below:

The Fault Tree, Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis, Event Tree Analysis and Timing Diagram all are similar to the GNR Relay. The Safe and Unwanted Operation Rates are same as for GNR Relays.

The detailed Circuit Diagram for all GNR Relays and EGGNR Relay of the given Yard will be as follows. The operating path for 1GNR Relay is marked in RED Lines. The vital condition to be proved, i. e. operation of Signal Button 1GN is highlighted by Blue Box.

Somnath Pal

Learning Railway signalling in a pragmatic way-Part1

January 30th, 2011

Of various surface transports, Railways provide the safest mode because Trains run only on fixed and guided Tracks, where obviously no overtaking by infringing traffic is possible.  Moreover, Trains move only after getting Movement Authority via Signals. The main objective of issuing this Authority to a Train is to generate confidence to the Driver that the path in advance is free from any obstruction. For this, various conditions in the Route of a Train are monitored and an Interlocked relationship is to be fulfilled between them, before Movement Authority can be given by the Train Operating Staff by means of Visual Trackside Signals or Cab Signals.
The Community is aware that we are living longer with reduced Work / Travel related Accidents due to Technological and Medical advances and naturally is extremely concerned when a Risk like Train Accident impacts the Society as a whole. Moreover, people are having greater aversion to a Single Accident causing many deaths than Many Accidents, each causing one Death.
It is sowed in the mind of Signal Department Staff that the Signalling Circuits and the System can cause Hazard, leading to Accident, in the case of any failure, though the design is always Fail-safe. Most of the Signal Staff are in a permanent state of Tension throughout their Service Life. But if someone studies Railway Signalling, he/she would find that it is simply based on Common Sense and some Fixed Rules, which can be Mathematically represented. All the Entities like Signal, Track Section, and Point etc have fixed and interlocked relations between themselves and for a particular Yard, the Control Table is Mathematically related.
 Railway Signalling system can basically be defined as a State Machine. Normally, the Section in advance of a Signal remains unoccupied. As soon as the first wheel of a Train enters the Section, the status of the Section is set as occupied and this must continue, irrespective of how many wheels enter the Section. When the full Train goes out of the Section protected by the Signal in rear, the Section goes back to unoccupied state. Thus Railway signalling behaves just like SR Flip Flop.
  In the above State Transition Diagram, we find two extra States – Safe Failure and Unsafe Failure. These States are not considered during Normal operation of the System. But any system can be Faulty, which is stated by Murphy’s Law.
I was lucky that I got some opportunity to teach Signalling subjects to Trainees and found my own way to teach, which I would like to share. Generally the Signalling Circuits are described to the Trainees by referring to the Circuit Diagram either through Wall Chart or a PowerPoint Presentation. Very rarely Trainees themselves participate to develop the Logic of building the Circuit. They do not get the idea of the consequence of a particular component failure.
Instead of the conventional way of describing a Circuit, I first discussed using Common Sense, regarding the need and logic of the Circuit. I started by clarifying that Signal is provided to indicate that the Train can move to Track Section ahead without an Accident. I described that to clear a Signal, we have to monitor a few Field Element Status, as described below:
• The first point to be ensured is that the Track Section ahead must remain unoccupied. The Track Occupancy can be checked by using either Track Circuit (based on Ohm’s Law) or Axle Counter (based on RS Flip Flop concept).
 
• If there is any possibility of Route Diversion in the Route, Overlap or Isolation, the involved Point must be Set and Locked in either Normal (N) or Reverse (R) position. Points are operated by an Exclusive OR gate concept (Normal and not Reverse) OR (Reverse and not Normal). The Point position must be Detected.
 
• Before Setting a Route, care is to be taken to check that no Movement is allowed through the Conflicting Routes, using the same portion of the Track and Points. Calling On Signal cannot operate when Home Signal is taken OFF. In Single Line Sections, Up Home and Down Starter cannot operate at the same time.
 
• The Signal in advance must show a compatible Aspect before clearing a Signal. For Example, Distance Signal cannot be Green unless Home, Starter and Advanced Starter all show Green. Starter cannot be taken Off before Advanced Starter is Green.
 
• The Signal in advance cannot be Blank i.e., it must show any one Indication out of RED, YELLOW, GREEN or DOUBLE YELLOW.
 
• Unless the Section uses Automatic Signalling, the Stop Signal should indicate RED. This is ensured by proving extinguished conditions of Green and Yellow Lamps.
 
• Any Level Crossing Gate in the Track Section ahead, must be locked towards Road traffic.
 
• Any Siding in the Route or Overlap must be Isolated and Locked.
 
• SM’s KEY proves that an Authorized Person (Station Master) has initiated the operations.
 
We write the Boolean Equation from our knowledge of the State Transition Diagram and subsequently draw the Circuit Diagram. With the involvement of the Trainees, I gradually developed the Circuit with their Interactive participation and then asked them to match it with the actual Circuit. The idea was to consider one condition at a time and insert the concerned Relay Contact sensing the status, in the Circuit. This gave confidence in the Trainees that they were having Fun while learning easily and were not dealing with some Nuclear Bomb!!
After that I guided them to prepare Fault Tree Analysis for the Circuit and to find out Mean Time Between Failures as per MIL Std 217F (Relays, Wirings, Contacts etc. also are covered in this Standard). This approach helps in a good Maintenance Practice. This was followed by Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis to give idea of Consequence of a Failure. Engineers are always encouraged to produce Mathematical Data to justify their actions. So, Probabilities of Safe and Unsafe Failures are also calculated. Finally, we prepare Event Tree Analysis and Timing Diagrams to complete our Domain Knowledge.
In future, we will discuss about Relay based Interlocking for a specific Yard. We will start with the Button Circuit for Route Initiation and gradually proceed to Signal Clearance. Till then please have some patience.

Somnath Pal

Konkan Railway Corporation Fmr.MD,Dr.Rajaram Bojji about Indian Railways

October 16th, 2010

Views of Dr Rajaram Bojji
The on going field adoption trials for multiple lines, for electric locomotives, seem to be aiming at much wider scope of producing some new product other than proven  Anti Collision Device (ACD), if what I heard from a filed operative is true. Hope I am wrong. But it is my duty to place on record the implications in public interest so that implementation of ACD is not converted as a case of serious scam and fraud on the nation.

To adopt the proven ACD system , in electrified  multiple lines , only two issues are to be studies. How to fix the equipment in locomotives and guard vans, and how the locomotive electronics and ACD system interact without interference from each other. Some shielding and earthing issues will have to be addressed.The reception of GPS under traction wires is already proven earlier in surveys conducted in these areas, but still that could be one item.Then mounting the guard ACD, a portable unit, under wire has some electrical safety distance requirements to assure safety of a person placing the same. A non-conducting fibre glass rod mounted ACD with self locking in to position will suffice. It is not an insurmountable problem. This has to be demonstrated.

Then for multiple lines, the fixing of track ID some times could be a challenge purely based on deviation count, and so supplemental in formation through RFID tags and mounted readers was to be provided and this plug in is already provided in the ACD software developed earlier. This has to be reconfirmed.It is easy because it was already tested and proven while doing Skybus project.

So this trial should have been simple.

But shockingly I am told, that guard ACD is sought to be removed by advice from RDSO. That way some money can be saved. Further additional reliance on track circuits is being built in to the software for knowing train lengths etc because Guard ACD is to be eliminated. Then thirdly, repeater ACD towers in mid sections where, communication exchange distance between ACDs is affected by geography or alignment, not giving the adequate braking distance required to stop two trains , also is told to be removed. That means in mid sections, the ACDs will not be able to stop in time when such geographical features arise.

Further braking software and algorithm is being tinkered with. The ACD is not an automatic braking helper for the driver. May be time for people to read the patent documents and description of the ACD network.

The implications I will summarise now:

1. Removal of Guard ACD.  This seriously compromises the very networking principle and definition of ACD, which is actually a network of 4 ACDs at any given time, when two trains are approaching or following each other. They are like sentinels at either end of train and in software this fact is used in various safety critical decisions. Cutting down 50% of the ACDs in the network reduces the ACD functionality and integrity very severely. I am surprised why my strong noting in files on this issue is over looked. This was considered and rejected at the highest levels. Rear end collisions and future up gradation to moving block systems, operational unpredictability of cutting and joining train units at some station, are various scenarios addressed by the provision of guard ACD. Actually there are 550 dimensions in the software simulation and without taking in to account the impact, across the table administratively taking such major decision is truly  amazing. That means what is being tested is not the proven ACD in NF railway, but experiments for some new product of degraded  functionality and performance.
2. Relying excessively on track circuits: This is what is sought to be eliminated in ACD. As far as possible , the loco mouted equipment should be able to have capability to work out most of its information and should not depend on track based equipment. In unavoidable cases, limited use is made only to the extent of knowing track occupation. Even when track circuts fail ACDs act as safety shield in earlier design. Non-interlocked working cases will seriously affect ACDs too in this case and its presence is nullified. Latency in communication will also increase delaying decision making by the ACD. SO removing the guard ACD and building up reliance on track circuits is seriously compromising on the integrity of the ACD network.
3. Removal of repeater ACD: At any given time the ACD communication should be such that adequate braking distance including time for response should be available for two running ACD fitted trains. After survey we locate such of the areas where repeater towers are located with ACD mounted to observe either direction , and if a ACD is approaching this information is stored and transmitted to another ACD approaching the vicinity, so that they analyse and decide if they are safely passing each other. WHen you remove this facility, then in such locations where communication is not upto mark, the integrity of ACD is compromised, because they will not stop as needed when an unfortunate incident ocurs. Coupled with removal of guard ACD , this problem will further accentuate, because the guard ACD dioes serve the purpose of repeater ACD too in a dynamic sense. The entire basis of ACD network’s efficiency is sought to be removed by these steps.

4. Tinkering with braking algorithms. The ACD has one of the most advanced braking algorithm in the world–self adjusting and corrects for the varying loads of trains and depends on the information from the guard ACD too. It is designed to come in to action when driver fails in normal course, where he should have acted. In such cases it has to be an emergency case, and so recorded . This will help point out the tendency of a driver to err and we can counsel them not to err. But if you make it too smooth and driver starts relying on the same willy nilly, we are violating a serious safety critical requirement, that driver shall not depend on non -signal equipment,

I provided only for two stage braking– simple and effective. Smoothening efforts will result in too much variability because of the maintenance conditions in field for brake power are not exactly ideal. ACD does not replace the driver. It helps him and protects in danger.

This type of serious software changes should also undergo a set process of quality assurance and testing through ETDC. It is a a matter of 3 to 4 months.
If the above is true, I have no comment but to say it is truly less than intelligent innovation , who ever is trying it and too early to try.
That stage comes when ACD is certified for SIL and when moving block systems are planned. I foresee at least 5 years for this development to take place, provided we are serious. This childish pranks should not be tried when safety issues are involved.

My reckoning is , if the Board has agreed to these steps, they must understand what they are getting: By seriously compromising on reliability and availability of inter-communication between ACDs, with the steps of removing guard ACD and repeter ACDs where needed, the ACDs are now incapable of giving assured protection to trains iin double line, and at gates too. The probability of failure is many orders increased. With only two ACDs in the network instead of four, the ACDs are compromised to lower level of performance.

That means ACDs are now reduced to watered down functioning only at stations and becomes a glorified TPWS type of equipment losing all its superior performance features.

So net result is Railway Board will spend still spend 70% of what it would cost with guard ACD and repeaters, for  30% of effectiveness. More serious concern is after spending the amount serious accidents of collision are possible wherever communication is getting compromised thus, and then what answer the administration will have?

Such radical alterations are also being tried in a childish manner without first assuring the integrity of the new software developed for this purpose. As I know, the ETDC , a Government of India , software analysing and certifying authority, is associated , for the ACD clearance. But this is not done I am told.

Then full check of Lloyds in manufacturing and also for analysing results also is not being done. The reason is that there is no time. Yes if one wants to do such unprofessional testing work, no product of reliability can be developed. It is truly shocking that for such a serious issue, such careless approach is adopted and public money is being spent.

These trials will naturally destined to fail. If that is the objective, then trials are well designed. I sincerely request that if you are serious about saving lives , then do it the right way. There is no short cut. Development of alternate software and to develop a new degraded ACD too is a matter of following a process correctly. It will take nothing less than 6 months.

But if you adopt proven ACD with limited objective of proving in electricfied areas and in multiple lines, it is simple. In the name of this trial, seeking to redefine and water down the ACD functionality is not only shocking but irresponsible in my considered opinion.

Best is do not waste money on such unreliable ACD , saving only 30% dropping the guard ACDs and repeater towers— save full 100% not doing ACD. Because after fitting ACDs still you plan to leave open gaps by design, for collisions to take place, it is criminal.

May I request the CRB to kindly check up the facts and if true, please take necessary action. Let us not make fools of our selves in the international community trying to develop a degraded ill performing ACD in 30 days. This after getting a well performing one, after almost 7 years of hard work.

Please contact  Dr Bojji for any questions
?????  ???? ?????
??. ???????
Rajaram Bojji M.Tech. IRSE (Retd.), FIE, FNAE, AMASCE
Fmr. MD Konkan Railway /Min. of Railways India
www.atrilab.com
834 Spring Knoll Drive Herndon 20170 VA    USA  Tel: +1 703 796 0225
 +17037452680 +15713455048

Accident and incident investigation

August 27th, 2010

Accident and incident investigation is a crucial part of railroading. Although everybody hope that can pass the shift without any extraordinary event but the infrastructure managers and operators must be prepared for incidents as well. Read the rest of this entry »

Railways in Hungary – Energy

July 28th, 2010

In my last post I introduced the basics of the Hungarian signalling system. Now let’s take a step further, let’s take a look at the energy system, particularly, at the overhead line equipments (OLE).

Read the rest of this entry »

Indian Train Accidents-Reasons and Solutions

July 21st, 2010

Indian railways is  one of the largest among the world railways.
It had been over 150 years back ,the first train rolled on an Indian Track.
It is among the rare category of huge profit making railways of the world.
It carries millions of passengers,tons of freight and are the life line of the country.
Indian railways employs over a million people,runs an impressive network over 60,000 KM.
But it is sad to note the snail pace technology advancement to the network.
Train accidents are becoming common and there is not even a single day passed with out an accident.

Considering all these factors users have every right to have a safe journey.

Some of the reasons for high accident rate.
  • Poor Maintenance
  • Slow pace upgrading.
  • Lack of training to employees
  • Waiver to bypass the process and standards
  • Non existence of train protection systems like Trainstops or AWS(Advance Warning System) 

           or ATP(Automatic Train Protection System)

  • Too much of bureaucracy and red tapism.
  • Corruption to certain extent.
  • Poor administration.
  • Ignorance of Political mechanism.
  • Lack of competition(Monopoly)
  • Poor Track maintenance
  • Lack of quality rollingstock and maintenance.
  • Staff fatigue,lack of enough rest.etc
  • Terrorist or Extremist attack.
The life time of an installed safety infrastructure with timely maintenance is 25 years ,to a maximum.
But majority of Indian Railway installations are half century old or even before.
 
Solution
  • Advance Training to drivers
  • Adoption of new technologies like ERTMS,ATP or at least a trainstop  in full pace.
  • Timely maintenance
  • Adoption of better quality process.
  • University level system training courses.(Can even start Bachelors in Signalling and Rail safety systems)
  • Enough rest for critical employees like drivers and assistant drivers.
  • Revolutionise the administration
  • Privatisation to a certain percentage under a strict monitoring mechanism on quality and pricing.
  • A ‘capable’ cabinet rank minister and minister of states,who work and dream national interest rather to regional.
  • A strong democratic opposition to highlight the Mal practices.
  • A strong media ,bringing the culprits into public.
 Deepu Dharmarajan