See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340442986

Signalling the Layout -Automatic Design of the Optimum ETCS L2 Track

Sections

Article · April 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 664

3 authors, including:

Wei Sun
Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd
14 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Signalling Design Automation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wei Sun on 05 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISBN number 978-1-925627-25-1
Signalling the Layout – Automatic Design of the
Optimum ETCS L2 Track Sections
Wei Sun*, Dan Newton*, Simeon Cox+
* +
Aurecon Group Pty Limited Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator
116 Military Road Neutral Bay NSW 2089 309 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000
PO Box 538, Neutral Bay NSW 2089 PO Box 3461, Rundle Mall, Adelaide SA 5000
sun.wei@ieee.org simeon.cox @onrsr.com.au
dan.newton@aurecongroup.com

RAILWAY AND ECONOMY

In most countries around the world, public passenger railways form either fundamental transport
corridors of economic zones, such as Boston—New York—Philadelphia—Washington D.C. in the
eastern U.S., or keep megacities running, as is the case in London, New York, Tokyo, and Beijing.
Many more cities around the world have announced plans to extend their rail networks with a
combination of advanced technologies. In Australia, the cities on the east coast are leading the
upgrade of rail systems, though the Melbourne-Sydney high-speed rail (HSR) is still under debate. In
the meantime, the rest of the world has been enjoying the economic boost resulted from efficient
inter-state HSR networks.
Freight rail, as a crucial transport mode, makes money for the operators. In 2017, Australia exported
372 million tons of coals (Evans 2018) and 828 million tons of iron ore (MCA 2019), all carried to
ports by trains. According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), “In 2014, U.S. freight
rail moved 329 million tons of export products…[and] 171 million tons of import products.” The
AAR also noted that “In 2017, U.S. railroads moved 4.5 million carloads of coal…Railroads haul
nearly 70% of U.S. coal to its destination — enough to power 78% of American homes” (AAR
2018a). “Freight rail moves nearly 75% of the new cars and light trucks purchased in the U.S. In 20
freight rail moves nearly 75% of the new cars and light trucks purchased in the U.S. In 2017” (AAR
2018b).
Together, public passenger railways and freight rail keep society and the economy running smoothly.
In many cases, the efficiency of a railway system determines the competitiveness of a city or even a
country. The ranking of the largest economy entities is not significantly different from the one of the
widest railway networks.
But railways are expensive. A railway should be optimised so that it can operate in the most efficient
condition. Compared to the civil works in the rail industry, signalling has always been the discipline
where the efficiency can be most effectively enhanced.
 SIGNALLING AND RAILWAY CAPACITY
Under the ideal conditions, trains operate at their best performance and follow a well-designed
timetable so that they efficiently carry goods or passengers to destinations. In reality, drivers and rail
equipment are subject to human errors and failures. Hence, the perfect interval between trains cannot
be maintained precisely.
Trains are so heavy that their braking distances at high speeds are much longer than drivers’ sighting
distances. Therefore, if a driver starts braking when he or she sees an obstacle, it is usually too late to
stop the train safely. The consequence is a train crash. Most train crash sites are identified as disasters
because the moving train stopped in a collision, releasing tremendous energy to the surroundings in a
very short time—just like an exploded bomb.
A typical risk for a train is to run into the stopped train ahead. To inform drivers about the hazard
ahead, engineers devised the idea of signals, which are positioned well before the hazard to give
drivers sufficient warning. The basic philosophy is to keep trains safely apart from each other, with
signals showing different colours to represent “movement authority” for the upcoming train.
Conventional 3-aspect and 4-aspect signalling systems can be illustrated by Figure 1 and Figure 2.
The separation between trains is based on the braking distance of the rolling stock. In 3-aspect
signalling, the distance between signals must be larger than the full braking distance. The green and
yellow aspects give movement authority, up to the red signal at the End of Authority (EOA).
Therefore, the headway distance (separation between trains) makes of at least two times the braking
distance in 3-aspect signalling system. The signal space in 4-aspect signalling system must be larger
than half of the full braking distance. Hence, the headway distance can have a reduced 1.5 braking
distance — trains are slightly closer to each other.
3-ASPECT SIGNALLING SYSTEM HEADWAY DISTANCE
TRAIN
SIGHTING BRAKING DISTANCE BRAKING DISTANCE
LENGTH
OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP

TRAIN 2 TRAIN 1

FoT EOA RoT FoT

Figure 1 Headway distance in 3-aspect signalling.

4-ASPECT SIGNALLING SYSTEM HEADWAY DISTANCE
TRAIN
SIGHTING BRAKING DISTANCE
LENGTH
OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP

TRAIN 2 TRAIN 1

FoT EOA RoT FoT

Figure 2 Headway distance in 4-aspect signalling.

Conventional signalling systems, as well as the modern European Train Control System Level 1 &
Level 2 (ETCS L1 & L2), divide railway into segments. The signals rely on the condition of the next
segment to decide whether a proceed aspect, which allows a train to enter the following section,
should be shown to the driver. Such signalling systems are referred to as fixed-block signalling.
The capacity of a railway can be defined with two factors: train performance and headway time. The
train performance is mainly about how fast the train moves—high speed, quick acceleration and short
braking distance are the good indicators. The headway time, determined by the signalling system, is
the interval between two consecutive trains to occupy the same position on the track, with the train
performance not compromised. In other words, headway time represents how many trains can safely
go through the track without causing the following trains to brake.
As a solution for rail safety, signals keep trains apart to avoid collisions. The side effect of signals is
the constraint on the network capacity. The further apart the trains are separated, the less trains can go
through a station within a fixed time frame.
To eliminate the impact of segmented tracks, a moving block signalling system has been developed. It
sets a safety envelope around the moving train. The length of this envelope varies as the train speed
changes. As the train travels, the envelope slides along the railway. This type of signalling system is
significantly different from fixed-block signalling, and is not covered by the discussion in the current
work.
In fixed-block signalling system, trains are separated by track segments. Therefore, the optimization
of signalling systems—with the focus on the optimum track sectioning—becomes a critical question
when the passengers and operators demand higher service frequency from the modern railway.

REVIEW OF EXISTING AUTOMATION TOOLS

Since the Boulton and Watt steam engine patent expired in 1800, railways have experienced a long
journey to the modern rolling stocks that can operate themselves automatically. Behind the scenes,
computers assist train control and traffic management systems in calling trains from depot and
dispatching them to various services.
There are multiple stages and levels in railway signalling projects, from business case to concept
design, detailed design, functional test and principles test. With the advanced technology, the early
stages of signalling projects are more and more accomplished by railway simulation. However, the
design process is still largely a manual task. In concept design, where the arrangement of signalling
equipment is proposed, and in detailed design, where circuits and connections between devices are
developed, the feasible solutions largely rely on the experience of well-seasoned engineers. At the end
of a project, the testing and commissioning must be signed off by authorised personnel.
The labour-heavy process is indisputable. Considering the amount of load or passengers carried by a
train, and considering the disastrous incidents when trains crush into each other, it is reasonable to let
the most experienced personnel to guard the integrity of the design. However, there is still opportunity
for machines to take on the repetitive and tedious part of the work.
A very recent update on railway signalling automation is carried out by Hitachi Rail STS. Its Dessan
Rail – a package of software for design, model, validation, simulation and reveal signalling systems.
Dessan Rail provides a library of signals for designers to try various scenarios conveniently (RTM
2018). But the positioning of signals has to be proposed before the trials can be carried out. Before its
acquisition by Hitachi, Ansaldo had been developing signalling design tools, but the automation is
focused on the control table generation, which is usually the next step in the design process, after the
signalling plan. An even earlier work that develops and verifies control tables was propose in 2002,
with four tools including a graphic interface to pass track position into interlocking logics (Tombs et
al. 2002).
Following the control tables, signalling engineers set off to build the interlocking that achieves the
functions specified. Prover has a product called Trident to develop both the interlocking and
corresponding test plans (Borälv 2018). Trident consists of a few software, and even a specific
programming language. Similar to Dessan Rail, the arrangement of signals relies on manual inputs,
though the signalling plan visualisation can be created in the software.
Railway operational modelling, or simulation, has been an effective case study tool in the railway
industry. RailSys and OpenTrack are two very popular operational modelling tools. Although widely
used in case studies at early project stages, the strength of them is in the validation of a proposed
design, or in the fine tuning on signals and time table. Based on an infrastructure model, they can even
perform analysis on reliability, availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS). But still, all such
works have to be based on a relatively complete signalling design, e.g. with a fully developed
signalling plan.
Human factors are also studies as part of the safety critical system, using systematic approach to
provide a “single representation of existing railway processes and roles accessible to all engineers and
analysts working on the project and a traceable process under which the proposed future roles were
developed” (Balfe 2010, Balfe et al. 2011), so that engineering activities can easily take human factor
into consideration in the design and evaluation loop. Signallers, the operators of signalling systems,
are also confronted with challenges of automation. The shift in their role and working style also has
impact on the safe operation of railway (Sharples et al. 2011).
Other works about the documentation and evaluation of signalling design (Mocki et al. 2015, Mocki et
al. 2016) focus on the interlocking of one location.
To the best of authors’ knowledge, there has been very limited research on the optimisation of
signalling plan design (McPeake et al. 2017). However, the proposed method is conducted manually.
The automation of signalling plan design has not been deeply explored.

CHALLENGES & INSPIRATION – SIGNALLING DESIGN REIMAGINED

Reimagine the Railway Network
Railway is also called perway — permeant way. The cold tracks leading towards a remote location
seem just cheap metal bars sitting on top of concrete sleepers. But railways are in fact expensive.
Once commissioned, significant changes in railway are less likely to happen in decades. This is
probably why Australia has so many legacy railway systems. The maintenance strategies of railway
usually cover decades, and the designed life of some elements can easily go above 100 years. On the
one hand, this implies that the design for a new line does not happen very often, thus less investment
is made to the development of specialised software or methodology. On the other hand, it justifies the
importance of an optimal design, as any corrective modification would be expensive.
In both new and re-signalling projects, an optimised design can be interpreted into reduced
construction cost in the short term and low maintenance expense in the long run. But the design target
shall not be compromised. Striking the balance between budget and benefit becomes a challenge to
the design team.
The nature of tracks is the links between stations, or locations. The purpose of railway is to provide a
network so that trains can reach different locations via the links. Hence, a railway can be reimagined
as a network although its shape may still be a long belt. As the railway grows, the network topology
may represent a small-world network (Watts et al. 1998), or a scale-free network (Barabási 2003), due
to the “preferential attachment” process so that traffic hubs (central stations) have more links to other
places than isolated areas (suburban terminus). Therefore, the performance of railway may be
understood in a similar way to the performance of other networks (Sun et al. 2009, 2010a, 2011a).
The movement of rolling stocks can also be modelled as networked mobile agents (Ferber 1999).
When extracted to be a mathematically connected agent, there is only trivial difference between trains
and unmanned aerial vehicles. The connection can be either through the line-side equipment in
conventional signalling or wireless network in ETCS L2 or CBTC systems. The communication
between trains, or agent, are quite often limited (Liem 2011, Sun et al. 2008). The coordination
between adjacent rolling stocks, indirect or direct, is very similar to the communication in the multiple
robotic system (Sun et al. 2011b, Adams et al. 2009, Sun et al. 2010b).
Railway Capacity
In railway industry, the definition of capacity has always been a problem itself (Abril et al. 2008,
Abril 2008). The goal of capacity study is usually to determine the maximum number of services that
can be operated on a specific railway infrastructure within a limited time interval, or trains per hour
(tph). The railway infrastructure is represented as a set of constraints, including speed limit, station
dwell time, tracks, signalling system, etc. Trains per hour (tph) alone cannot fully represent the
capacity, as the efficiency of transport must take speed into consideration. If all trains operate at
15km/h, Melbourne will hardly operate properly even if the service frequency is 30tph — journey
time matters.
In this work, the capacity is defined as service frequency (e.g. tph) combined with the best
performance of each single train given the constraints of infrastructure and time table.
The Challenge — Optimum Between Capacity and Expense
There have been numerous efforts to address the challenge of theoretic maximum capacity, including
the analytical models developed from single tracks (Petersen 1974), algebraic approaches (Egmond
1999), or the method based on traffic patterns (Forsgren 2003).
In this work, the target is not about how to achieve the maximum capacity of a given railway. Instead,
the goal is to achieve the optimum between budget and design requirement.
It is common that the higher investment into a railway system, the higher the capacity would be. But
design target is not always given as “the higher the better”. With limited tax revenue, a much higher
than necessary capacity would be a waste of money.
The goal of the current work is to find the solution with the minimum line-side infrastructure, with
which the capacity requirement is achieved. The concept is illustrated in Figure 3.

Capacity Requirement

Optimum Between
Capacity & Expense

Figure 3 Design challenge--the minimum expense to meet requirement.

The proposed method is inspired by recent discovery in the consensus phenomenon of networked
systems (Xiong et al. 2011, Sun et al. 2011c). In railway operation, especially in metro railway
networks, trains are expected to arrive at station at regular intervals, which is a typical consensus state
among the trains. Trains may be different. Thus, they meet the definition of heterogenous agent in
(Sun et al. 2011d). The stations are not at a fixed distance and the speed limit varies along the track.
With a new understanding of railway, the signalling design for railway network can be interpreted as
setting the parameters of links within a network so that the efficiency and expense is well balanced.
The optimum solution of the signalling design problem can be achieved if a design outcome can
evenly accomplish capacity requirement along the railway, and if the accomplished capacity is
accurately the design requirement.

ETCS L2 OPTIMUM DESIGN AUTOMATION

European Train Control System Level 2
European Train Control System (ETCS) is in fact a set of standards that regulate the signalling and
control systems of modern railways. It replaces the legacy version of train protection systems, known
as the Automatic Train Protection (ATP). The purpose of ETCS is two-fold. It offers options to
railways with higher safety and capacity levels than the old practice and rules. Beyond that, it ensures
that the equipment produced by different manufactures, if meeting the standards, will be
interoperable.
ETCS are specified at five levels, namely Level 0, Level NTC (Natonal Train Control), Level 1, 2,
and 3. This work focuses on the optimum design automation for ETCS L2. The details of other levels
can be found on the website of the European Union Agency for Railways.
In ETCS L2, tracks and rolling stocks are both fitted with ETCS equipment. The equipment installed
between rails are called balises. They help the train-fitted equipment to calibrate the location of the
train. Trains communicate to Radio Block Centres which gives the compulsory signalling information
to the drivers display. Drivers then operate the train according to the movement authority determined
by the signalling and train control system. When an Automatic Train Operation (ATO) system is in
use, the movement authority is passed to the on-board computer so that the train is operated
accordingly. The components of ETCS L2 system is illustrated in Figure 4.

RBC

Balise Marker SVL

Figure 4 ETCS L2 components.

In ETCS L2, movement authority is transmitted to trains via Radio Block Centre (RBC). Therefore, it
is possible to operate without lineside signals. The purpose of the communication to balises is
odometer calibration or level change. The train is aware of its own position, though this information is
not used for interlocking. The critical input to interlocking — train detection and integrity — still
remain at lineside, reported from Supervised Location (SVL) to RBC.
It should be noted that in ETCS L2, the lineside signals are not necessary. They are occasionally kept
as a result of upgrade from conventional signalling system, and for the rolling stocks that are not fitted
with ETCS equipment. The signals can also be used at degraded modes. But in general, lineside
equipment in ETCS L2 will increase system complexity, cause extra maintenance expense and
reduced reliability.
ETCS L2 remains as a fixed-block signalling system. The movement authority is restricted to the last
unoccupied track in front of a train.
ETCS L2 HEADWAY DISTANCE
SYSTEM OVERLAP TRAIN
ETCS SERVICE BRAKING CURVE CLEAR BLOCK SECTION
DELAY MARGIN LENGTH

TRAIN 2 TRAIN 1

TA TB TC

FoT SVL EOA SVL SVL/RoT FoT

Figure 5 ETCS L2 Headway Distance.

ETCS L2 tends to have a relatively simple lineside system compared with conventional signalling
systems. It also enables the opportunity to reduce the separation between trains (as shown in Figure
5), so that railway capacity can be enhanced.
Headway and Capacity
Headway is the average interval between trains. It is usually represented as the time for a platform or
a location on the railway to be safely reoccupied after the first train occupies the same position. It can
also be represented by the distance between two consecutive trains, so that the movement of the
following train will not be affected by the movement of the leading one.
The headway distance in ETCS L2 can be illustrated by Figure 5. At the moment Train 1 just clears
track TC, the end of movement authority (EOA) for Train 2 only extends to the end of track TB minus
a safety overlap margin. This is because of the delay in the communication system — Train 2 does not
know that Train 1 has cleared TC yet. During this delay, Train 2 can travel a certain distance. If Train
2 can maintain line speed at this moment without braking for EOA, the distance between the two
trains is the headway distance.
The headway time, correspondingly, is the time for any of these trains to traverse the headway
distance.
It can be observed from Figure 5 that the headway distance consists of a distance travelled during
system delay at a constant speed, a full braking curve to EOA, a safety overlap margin, and a whole
unoccupied track beyond the EOA.
Problem Formulation
Applying the consensus concept to the coordination between rolling stocks, the target of this work is
to establish an automatic design process so that the headways are achieved consistently along the
railway, despite unequal track sections and varying speed limit.
The capacity in this paper is the combination of service frequency and the best performance of all
trains. It is thereby assumed that the design requirement will include the below two aspects:
R1. Service frequency in tph.
R2. The minimum journey time between stations.
The expense of construction and maintenance is naturally a function of system complexity. Here it
can be represented by the number of line side equipment, or the number of track sections.
Target: Expense=f (track sections).
The first requirement R1 can be interpreted into a headway requirement, by dividing one hour by the
service numbers. In railway industry, it is expected that designed headway time is less than the
operational headway time, or the timetable headway. The designed headway is usually referred to as
the technical headway. It is assumed in this paper that the technical headway time is 80% of the
operational headway time.
The second requirement R2 simply means that the journey time shall not be compromised to achieve
the service frequency.
In Target, expense is the function of track sectioning. Within the signalling scope, the number of
lineside equipment and its maintenance are the flexible part that influences the budget. Because of the
geographic nature of railway, lineside equipment will be of great number and widely spread across the
network. In ETCS L2, the lineside equipment is determined by the track sectioning plan. Each section
of track shall have a set of devices to supply the power, detect the occupation of track and
communicate with RBC. The expense increases monotonically as the track section numbers increases.
The minimum expense in construction and maintenance will be reached when the number of lineside
equipment is minimised, which happens when the length of each section is maximised.
Overall, the design principle in this paper is to create the track sectioning for ETCS L2 so that each
section is as long as possible. The requirements R1 and R2 are converted into constraints.
Solution Existence
The traditional design process first sets the signals or track sections, then finds out how close the
trains can follow each other. Such process is to be repeated if the initial sectioning does not meet the
headway criteria.
The proposed method embraces the digitised technics. It employs the power of railway modelling to
create the most accurate performance of a single train. While creating the best single-train
performance, the only constraints are the track geometry, speed limits, and station dwell times. There
is no track sectioning or signalling applied to the model. In other word, a train runs through a railway
segment without a signalling system. Hence, the best single train performance is the output of
simulation. The status of the train at each second, or step data, is then duplicated by a certain time
offset to resort the scenario where one train follows another on the designated track. Both of the trains
maintain the best performance.
Once the train graph — time vs distance graph — is available, a feasibility check is conducted. It
examines if the required headway time is a reasonable design target. In ETCS L2, the elements of
headway distance are illustrated in Figure 5. Ahead of a train, there is a minimum distance that must
be locked for the train. Referred to as the engagement distance (GE), it covers the distance travelled in
the system delay and a full braking distance. If the EG of the following train catches up with the EG
of the leading train, the ETCS L2 solution does not exist, given the combination of trains, tracks,
stations, dwell times, and capacity requirements. If not, the design is theoretically possible, although
the track sections may be so small that a moving block signalling system could be more suitable for
the case.
Figure 6 illustrates the cases where an ETCS L2 design is (a) possible or (b) impossible. The blue
curve represents the EG of the first train, and the red curve represent the EG of the second train. If the
two curves do not touch each other, as is shown in Figure 6(a), an ETCS L2 signalling system will
exist. Otherwise, as is shown in Figure 6(b), it is not possible to develop a proper ETCS L2 solution to
meet the headway requirement. In these particular cases, the speed limit drops to 10km/h before the
entering a platform. The dwell time is 90 seconds. The low speed limit and long dwell time are the
main reasons that 120s headway time ETCS L2 design does not exist.

Figure 6 (a) ETCS L2 solution exists. (b) ETCS L2 solution does not exist.

ETCS L2 Optimised Solution

When an ETCS L2 design does exist, the proposed automatic design mechanism starts at an initial
track section position. It finds out the moment when the following train engages this position on the
track, locates the rear of the leading train, and inserts one (unoccupied) track section in between.
The optimisation aims at the minimal track-side solution that enables best single-train and the
requirement capacity. The energy consumption or other design target is not the scope of optimisation
in this work.
To recap the elements in ETCS L2 headway distance, more details for each item are provided as
below:
1. System delay
The general delays in operation include driver reaction time and brake build-up time. In
Automatic Train Operation (ATO), the delay of train-born control system shall be included. In
ETCS L2, other sub systems that can cause delays include the interlocking, RBC, track
occupation detection and on-board protection system. Points operation time also contributes to the
delays. In this work, all the potential delays are summarised to become a simplified constant
system delay. In a formal design, all delays shall be considered separately to the corresponding
sources to ensure design quality.
2. Braking distance
The braking distance used in the ETCS L2 design is based on line speed (speed limit), rather than
the real-time speed of a train. This is why the EG curves have sudden jumps.
3. Supervised locations (SVLs) and axle counters
Supervised locations (SLVs) are the critical positions monitored by ETCS L2 system. An SLV is
usually located at the end of a track section, reporting to RBC about track occupation and train
integrity.
In ETCS L2, track occupation detection can use either track circuit or axle counter. Track circuits
are subject to limited lengths. Therefore, the recommended train detection method is axle counter.
As an initial condition, at least the location of one SVL is used as the input of the automatic
 design process.
4. Marker board
Marker board is a sign on the side of track to facilitate driving. It is for information only and does
not contribute to interlocking.
5. Overlap margin
The overlap margin is the distance between marker board and SVL. As marker board is not
compulsory, overlap margins are optional. Its purpose is to preserve a distance between the front
of the train and the SVL, so that even if a train did not stop properly before a marker board, it will
not run into the occupied track ahead. Such an arrangement offers a certain level of protection
against rear-end collisions. Then length of the overlap margin is influenced by the control
precision of train braking, weather and track conditions, and rail authority standards.
6. Train length and other characteristics
The physical characteristics of trains will affect the design. The acceleration and deceleration
rates are critical to the performance around stopping stations and braking distance. Such impacts
are processed in the simulation of train dynamics, therefore not explicitly shown in Figure z.
7. Clear block section — to be designed
This is track TC. The end of TC is determined by the rear of the leading Train 1.
In general, an operational modelling software will do at least two things — driving the train to speed
limit and avoiding collision by knowing the braking distance. The step data will therefore cover at
least speed, kilometrage and braking distance. The maximum delay and the overlap margin are both
fixed values. The design output becomes very obvious given the available information and end of
track TB (either an initial condition or the design output of the previous step).
ETCS L2 HEADWAY DISTANCE
SYSTEM OVERLAP TRAIN
ETCS SERVICE BRAKING CURVE CLEAR BLOCK SECTION
DELAY MARGIN LENGTH

TRAIN 2 TRAIN 1

TA TB TC

FoT SVL EG SVL SVL/RoT FoT

Figure 7 Design output in each iteration--SVL at the rear of the leading Train 1.
The design task to be executed by the automatic process is to find the SVL shown in red in Figure 7.
The process iterates till the location of the leading train becomes unavailable at the end of the
simulated railway segment.
Benefits
In the traditional signalling design process, braking calculation is performed manually with the
assistance of calculators and spreadsheet. The accuracy of manual calculation is usually good enough
for the design purpose. But the efficiency is the drawback, especially when the railway segment is
long and with multiple speed changes. Although the manual design process has the best flexibility, it
is usually not the optimal solution of the design problem.
The top benefits of the proposed method, and the automated process, are in the efficiency and
optimisation. It is very convenient to produce the optimal initial design for tens or even hundreds of
kilometres of railway. The capacity criteria are guaranteed to be met. Once the program run for the
first time, the braking distance at each step (each second) will be available. At locations where the
track sectioning is adjusted, the algorithm can easily rebuild the rest of the SVLs. The rebuilt solution
may have shorter lengths on certain track sections, which means that the design outcome will exceed
the capacity requirements.
The introduced design tool can be used in the early stage of a project to validate the feasibility of
ETCS L2. It can also be used in the concept design stage to generate an optimum initial design. The
design output can be verified by other methods including rail operation modelling.

DESIGN PARADIGM
A design paradigm is given in this section to validate the proposed ETCS L2 track section
optimisation method. The setup of the design problem is based on a suburban line in the east coast of
Australia. The extent of the railway line is more than 40km, with 25 stations, and more than 40 times
of speed changes in each direction. The distance between stops are relatively close in urban area, and
further apart from each other in the rural area.
The design target is to achieve 20tph capacity with each train operating at its best performance, e.g.,
best speed given the speed limit along track. Equivalently, this is the operational headway time of 5
minutes. In railway design and operation, the designed (technical) headway is usually 80% of the
operational headway. Hence, in this paradigm, the program aims at 4min headway time, e.g., 240
seconds. Within this headway time, the maximum system delay is assumed to be 10s. The delay in
communication system may vary but in design, it is assumed to be the worst-case constant value.
The conditions and design targets are summarised in Table 1. Rolling stock has a simplified rigid
body of 160m length, representing an 8-car metro train. Its acceleration and deceleration rates are set
as 1m/s2 and 1.15m/s2.

Rolling Stock Information Design Constraint and Target

Length 160m System Delay 10s

Operational
Acceleration 1m/s2 300s
Headway
Technical
Braking 1.15m/s2 240s
Headway

Table 1 Design paradigm assumptions.

Due to the limit of space, the speed limit along the tracks, station locations, dwell times and the design
outcome are all detailed in the later Appendix. The proposed method produces the design in Table 4
within just a few minutes. It can be observed that at all SVLs, the headway time is accurately at 240s.
The time-distance graph (Figure 8) of the two trains shows an identical interval between the two trains
throughout their more than 40-kilometre journeys. The red bar between the two curves represents the
240s headway time.

Figure 8 ETCS L2 headway diagram - down direction in the design paradigm.

Although the headway time at each SVL is consistently at 240 seconds, the distance of each section
varies from location to location. As is illustrated by Figure 9, at locations where speed limit is low and
dwell time is long, the length is significantly shorter than other places. In this example, the speed limit
is reduced from 30km/h to 10km/h around Station E. The dwell time at Station E is 90 seconds. As a
result, the track block section length is between 300m and 400m. At the country end of the journey,
the speed limit is high (70-85km/h near Station W), the distance between stations is long, and the
dwell time at Station W is only 40s. The track section can reach 2700m under such conditions.

Figure 9 Track section lengths of the optimum design outcome.

The effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed automatic design procedure has been validated by
the above design paradigm. For a busy line that has very long dwell time (90s) at certain stations, the
operational headway time of 300s (technical headway 240s) is achieved with around 23 track
segments. Track lengths vary from 300m to 2700m. The performance of trains is not affected by each
other, and the design ensures the minimum lineside equipment to be used. Therefore, the construction
expense in short term and the maintenance expense in the long run are both minimised.

EXCLUSION AND OPPURTUNITIES

Aurecon is not intended to develop a stand-alone railway operational modelling software. To avoid
unnecessary competition in the railway modelling market, the simulation of gradient and its impact on
braking distance is omitted intentionally from the paradigm.

Figure 10 Train movement simulation--Gradient of track is excluded in this work.

The proposed design automation methodology is subject to a formal validation by authorities. If
possible, the output from an accredited operational modelling software is preferred.
As the focus of this work is not reinventing the wheel of railway simulation, Aurecon actively seeks
for the collaboration with established operational modelling software owners to develop a plug-in
package that automatically creates the optimal signalling solutions.
The current work calculates the optimum track section lengths that meet the capacity requirement. It
does not produce any signalling drawing. Instead, it produces the key input to a signalling plan, so
that further details can be added to the drawing.

CONCLUSION
An automatic signalling design tool is proposed to address the optimum track sectioning in ETCS L2.
The proposed method exploits the power of digital solutions of railway simulation step data. The
optimum solution strikes a balance between capacity requirement and the expense of construction and
maintenance, by reducing the track section numbers to the minimum. The advantage of the proposed
method is in the efficiency of design and the optimised signalling solution. A design paradigm is
given to illustrate the benefit of the proposed design tool.

APPENDIX — PARADIGM DETAILS

The speed limit on the Up/Down direction tracks are summarised in Table 2.
Down Direction Track Up Direction Track
Km Speed Limit (km/h) Km Speed Limit (km/h)
0.001 40 47.232 55
0.44 30 47.133 60
0.785 40 41.347 60
2.173 60 40.102 60
3.34 55 38.917 80
4.88 30 38.582 50
5.215 10 38.432 80
5.3 50 36.957 85
5.895 50 35.967 85
6.48 50 35.421 60
7.645 50 34.024 85
8.1 60 33.456 70
10.16 50 31.9 80
10.56 80 31.569 95
11.02 70 29.271 95
11.79 80 28.835 70
14.29 50 27.891 70
14.725 70 26.651 25
16.9 50 26.317 60
17.298 70 26.066 60
19.07 80 25.609 40
20.76 50 25.511 70
20.92 80 24.74 70
21.81 70 24.09 40
24.1 50 23 65
24.84 40 20.75 65
25.255 80 19.23 70
25.981 90 17.3 75
26.391 115 14.54 45
28.835 85 14.29 80
29.323 100 13.32 70
31.569 75 12.86 80
32.445 70 12.18 60
33.421 85 11.57 80
36.3 90 11.22 75
38.546 80 8.629 50
 Down Direction Track Up Direction Track
Km Speed Limit (km/h) Km Speed Limit (km/h)
38.814 60 7.505 50
40.061 60 6.225 50
41.349 55 5.676 10
43.87 55 5.2 30
4.88 50
2.982 40
0.59 30
0.27 40

Table 2 Speed limit on the design paradigm tracks.

The kilometrage of the stations and dwell time is listed in Table 3. It is assumed that the platforms in
Up and Down directions are of the same kilometrage. The names of the stations are replaced by
common symbols as lack of authorisation to use the true names.

Platforms (km) Dwell Platforms (km) Dwell

Stations Stations
Start End (s) Start End (s)
Stn A 0 0.2 90 Stn N 17.1 17.3 60
Stn B 1.1 1.3 90 Stn O 18.9 19.1 60
Stn C 2.5 2.7 90 Stn P 20.8 21 40
Stn D 4.4 4.6 60 Stn Q 21.9 22.1 40
Stn E 5.1 5.3 90 Stn R 22.8 23 40
Stn F 6.1 6.3 60 Stn S 24.23 24.43 60
Stn G 6.9 7.1 60 Stn T 25.355 25.155 90
Stn H 8.4 8.6 60 Stn U 27.185 26.985 40
Stn I 10.3 10.5 60 Stn V 29.166 28.966 40
Stn J 11.65 11.85 90 Stn W 32.158 31.958 40
Stn K 13.3 13.5 60 Stn X 36.152 35.952 90
Stn L 14.6 14.8 60 Stn Y 40.305 40.105 90
Stn M 15.9 16.1 60

Table 3 Stations and dwell times in the design paradigm.

Design outcome, i.e., the positions for marker boards and SVLs are summarised in Table 4.
Marker Marker
SVL Headway SVL Headway
Board Board
(km) (s) (km) (s)
(km)) (km))
0.980 1.080 240 40.225 40.125 239
1.991 2.091 240 38.219 38.119 240
3.339 3.439 240 36.232 36.132 240
4.911 5.011 240 34.173 34.073 240
5.187 5.287 240 31.046 30.946 240
5.537 5.637 240 27.826 27.726 240
6.819 6.919 240 26.265 26.165 240
8.319 8.419 240 25.435 25.335 240
10.214 10.314 240 24.512 24.412 240
11.569 11.669 240 23.150 23.050 240
13.219 13.319 240 21.946 21.846 240
14.519 14.619 240 20.453 20.353 240
15.819 15.919 240 18.241 18.141 240
17.019 17.119 240 16.180 16.080 240
18.819 18.919 240 14.880 14.780 240
20.719 20.819 240 13.580 13.480 240
 Marker Marker
SVL Headway SVL Headway
Board Board
(km) (s) (km) (s)
(km)) (km))
22.291 22.391 240 11.930 11.830 240
24.149 24.249 240 10.580 10.480 240
25.074 25.174 240 8.680 8.580 240
26.899 26.999 240 7.180 7.080 240
28.983 29.083 240 6.380 6.280 240
31.877 31.977 240 5.700 5.600 240
34.685 34.785 240 5.380 5.280 240
36.749 36.849 5.368 5.268 240
5.331 5.231 240
5.223 5.123 240
4.837 4.737 240
3.198 3.098 240
2.175 2.075 240
1.175 1.075 240
0.35 0.25

Table 4 Design output - the optimal track sectioning plan that meets the capacity requirement.

REFERENCES
Abril, M., F. Barber, L. Ingolotti, M. A. Salido, P. Tormos, and A. Lova. "An assessment of railway
capacity." Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 44, no. 5
(2008): 774-806.
Adams, Joshua S., Wei Sun, and YangQuan Chen. "Formations with Decentralized Centroidal
Voronoi Tessellation Algorithm." IFAC Proceedings Volumes 42, no. 22 (2009): 13-18.
Balfe, Nora. "Appropriate automation of rail signalling systems: a human factors study." PhD diss.,
University of Nottingham, 2010.
Balfe, Nora, Emma Lowe, Gemma Hillier, and Peter Nock. "Applying human factors in the design of
future rail systems." Human Centred Automation (2011): 239-250.
Barabási, Albert-László, and Eric Bonabeau. "Scale-free networks." Scientific american 288, no. 5
(2003): 60-69.
Borälv, Arne, “Interlocking Design Automation using Prover Trident”, Technical Report, Prover
Technology, July, 2018.
"Dessan Design In The Digital Railway". 2018. Rail Technology Magazine.
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Comment/dessan-design-in-the-digital-railway.
Evans, Greg, “Coal exports set all-time record in 2017”, Medial Release, Minerals Council of
Australia, February, 2018.
Ferber, Jacques, and Gerhard Weiss. Multi-agent systems: an introduction to distributed artificial
intelligence,Addison-Wesley, Harlow, 1999.
“Freight Rail & Automotive: Moving Nearly 75% of America’s New Cars & Light Trucks”,
Technical Report, Association of American Railroads, December, 2018.
“Freight Rail & Energy: Safely Moving Coal, Ethanol & Crude Oil”, Technical Report, Association
of American Railroads, December, 2018.
Forsgren, Malin. "Computation of Capacity on railway Networks." SICS Research Report, 2003.
"Iron Ore: Supplying High-Grade Product To The World". 2019. Minerals Council Of Australia.
http://minerals.org.au/minerals/ironore.
Liem, Michael, and Veena B. Mendiratta. "Mission critical communication networks for
railways." Bell Labs Technical Journal 16, no. 3 (2011): 29-46.
Mocki, Jacek, and Ljubo Vlacic. "Performance evaluation of railway junction signalling and
interlocking." In 2016 35th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), pp. 9712-9717. IEEE, 2016.
Mocki, Jacek, and Ljubo Vlacic. "Railway interlocking process-formal method for documenting
railway junction interlocking and signalling processes." International Journal of Automation and
Logistics 1, no. 2 (2015): 176-208.
 Petersen, E. R. "Over-the-road transit time for a single track railway." Transportation Science 8, no. 1
(1974): 65-74.
Sharples, Sarah, Laura Millen, David Golightly, and N. Balfe. "The impact of automation in rail
signalling operations." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal
of Rail and Rapid Transit 225, no. 2 (2011): 179-191.
Sun, Wei, Yan Li, Changpin Li, and YangQuan Chen. "Convergence speed of a fractional order
consensus algorithm over undirected scale‐free networks." Asian Journal of Control13, no. 6
(2011): 936-946.
Sun, Wei, YangQuan Chen, and Changpin Li. "Multi-group consensus of heterogeneous fractional-
order nonlinear agents via pinning control." In ASME 2011 International Design Engineering
Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp. 377-383.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2011.
Sun, Wei, and YangQuan Chen. "A simulation study of consensus speed over scale-free
networks." IFAC Proceedings Volumes 42, no. 22 (2009): 74-79.
Sun, Wei, YongQiang Bai, Rui Jia, Rui Xiong, and Jie Chen. "Multi-group consensus via pinning
control with non-linear heterogeneous agents." In 2011 8th Asian Control Conference (ASCC),
pp. 323-328. IEEE, 2011.
Sun, Wei, and YangQuan Chen. "A simulation study of consensus speed over scale-free
networks." IFAC Proceedings Volumes 42, no. 22 (2009): 74-79.
Sun, Wei, Lihua Dou, Jie Chen, and Hao Fang. "A multi-robot target tracking algorithm with
centroidal Voronoi tessellation and consensus strategy." In Proceedings of the 29th Chinese
Control Conference, pp. 4607-4612. IEEE, 2010.
Tombs, David, Neil Robinson, and George Nikandros. "Signalling control table generation and
verification." CORE 2002: Cost Efficient Railways through Engineering (2002): 415.
Van Egmond, Robert-Jan. "Railway capacity assessment, an algebraic approach." TRAIL studies in
transportation science series S99/2 (1999).
Watts, Duncan J., and Steven H. Strogatz. "Collective dynamics of ‘small-world
networks." nature 393, no. 6684 (1998): 440.
Wei, Sun, and Dou Li-Hua. "Convergence speed of consensus problems over undirected scale-free
networks." Chinese Physics B 19, no. 12 (2010): 120513.
Wei, Sun, Dou Li-Hua, and Fang Hao. "Cooperative pollution supervising and neutralization with
multi-actuator-sensor network." Acta Automatica Sinica 37, no. 1 (2011): 107-113.
Wei Sun, Haiqiang Zhang, Hao Fang, Lihua Dou. Task Allocation for Multi-Robot Cooperative
Hunting Behavior Based on Improved Auction Algorithm. Chinese Control Conference. Jul.
2008, Kunming, China.

BIOGRAPHY
Wei Sun, Ph.D., CPEng, RPEQ. Signalling design engineer with 5 years’ experience across Australia.
Dan Newton, M.S. Licenced signalling designer with experience in the UK and Australia.
Simeon Cox, Rail Signalling Technical Specialist at Office of National Rail Safety Regulator.
Signalling engineer with more than 27 years of experience in Europe and Australia.

View publication stats