Virgin PTC: Miami - West Palm - Orlando Selects WABTEC

[Jeff Smith]

ProgressiveRailroading.com: Virgin Trains selects Wabtec for PTC implementation

I know we've talked about this elsewhere.

Brief, fair-use quote:

Virgin Trains USA awarded Wabtec Corp. multiple contracts worth $120 million to implement positive train control (PTC) signaling and train control systems on the intercity passenger-rail service in Florida.

Under the contracts, Wabtec will install its Interoperable-Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS®) PTC safety overlay in two phases.

In the first phase, Wabtec will install the system on a Virgin Trains’ 67-mile rail corridor between Miami and West Palm Beach. Work will include a back-office system and fitment of both freight and commuter locomotives.

Phase two entails the installation of I-ETMS along the West Palm Beach to Orlando rail corridor.
...

[Pensyfan19]

DARN IT JEFF! YOU BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH!!!

Well, hopefully this helps speed up PTC implementation along Birghtline, considering hearing that they cannot return to service without the implementation of some form of PTC. Any thoughts about WABTEC installing this system? I say as long as it can be installed sooner than later, and done correctly, the better.

[Jadebenn]

I'm guessing they wanted to reduce the infrastructure costs on the new lines, as they already had ATC on the FEC mainline. I personally haven't heard great things about I-ETMS's ability to operate at high speeds, so I hope they're not making a mistake by doing this.

[electricron]

Are speeds of 110-125 mph high speeds? Amtrak on the NEC uses the same system and reaches maximum speeds 135-150 mph without problems.

[Erie-Lackawanna]

Amtrak on the NEC uses the same system and reaches maximum speeds 135-150 mph without problems.

Amtrak does not use IETMS on the NEC, it uses it’s proprietary ACSES for PTC on the corridor. The MTA commuter railroads use a variety of ACSES that is interoperable with Amtrak’s ACSES.

My understanding is that IETMS is oriented toward freight railroads, so the question about its propriety for higher speed passenger service is a good question (to which I don’t have the answer).

Jim

[mtuandrew]

Long story short, ACSES is based on fixed beacons (“balises”) set within the track gauge, I-ETMS is based on GPS readings and track profile. Both are wirelessly operated, and both are fail-safe systems that can be overridden only by the dispatcher.

Theoretically, Wabtec would only take the Brightline contract if they could offer 125 mph service. The train speed shouldn’t matter that much.

[RRspatch]

Amtrak on the NEC uses the same system and reaches maximum speeds 135-150 mph without problems.

Amtrak does not use IETMS on the NEC, it uses it’s proprietary ACSES for PTC on the corridor. The MTA commuter railroads use a variety of ACSES that is interoperable with Amtrak’s ACSES.

My understanding is that IETMS is oriented toward freight railroads, so the question about its propriety for higher speed passenger service is a good question (to which I don’t have the answer).

Jim

Apparently Amtrak has installed I-ETMS on the corridor south of Philadelphia if the following report is true -

http://position-light.blogspot.com/2020 ... for-i.html

Perhaps one of the Amtrak engineers on the board can confirm or deny this.

[mtuandrew]

If Amtrak installed I-ETMS, it’s for freight benefit - specifically the Norfolk Southern trains that have rights. Amtrak uses ACSES for its own and other passenger services over its NEC lines.

[west point]

ACSES cost a lttle more in the beginning but the system freight RRs pick need more realestate. ACSES does not require GPS or big antenna locations off the ROW. Denver is still having problems with airport line due to buildings blocking AGPS signals.

[RRspatch]

If Amtrak installed I-ETMS, it’s for freight benefit - specifically the Norfolk Southern trains that have rights. Amtrak uses ACSES for its own and other passenger services over its NEC lines.

If you read the article I linked to you'd see that MARC is mentioned. I'm guessing it saves them money only having to install one PTC system on their diesel fleet. Their HHP8's would of course have ACSES.

[lordsigma12345]

They have submitted some technical information on their planned I-ETMS implementation. Interestingly they are not integrating their existing ATC and cab signal system with I-ETMS - instead they are going with a complete deployment of Wayside interface units on all signal locations. They are going to continue to maintain the ATC completely separate from the PTC system. This defers from Amtrak (on the southern portion of the NEC for MARC and freight use), CSX, and Norfolk Southern who integrated cab signals with I-ETMS on their cab signaled lines and use the existing cab signals as the intermediate signal input for I-ETMS with WIUs only on home signals.

[Jadebenn]

Can you explain in a bit more detail what that means?

[lordsigma12345]

I-ETMS PTC uses GPS positioning and an onboard database to enforce civil track speeds and wireless radio communication to the office and wayside equipment. The typical I-ETMS deployment on a railroad includes wayside interface units (WIUs) installed on signals, mainline switch position sensors, and other wayside equipment so that the status of said equipment can be communicated to the locomotive for the generation of speed targets. WIUs interface with the signal and communicate the status over the PTC data radio spectrum. On railroad segments equipped with a cab signal system there is an option to integrate the two allowing the I-ETMS on board equipment on the locomotive to use the cab signal system to determine the status of the next signal. If you do that integration it is not necessary to install communicating WIUs on all of your intermediate signals and signal points and other equipment like mainline switches that are wired in to cause a cab signal drop if they are lined incorrectly. You do still need WIUs at home signals at control points and interlockings for purposes of positive stop and determining what speed to enforce over the switch based on how it is lined. Some railroads - Amtrak (where they overlaid I-ETMS on portions of the NEC), Norfolk Southern, and CSX took this approach on their cab signaled subdivisions where PTC was required and only installed wayside units at control points and interlockings. Union Pacific on the other hand did not and instead installed a completely independent system and is actually seeking to discontinue cab signals in some areas. It would seem FEC is taking the approach of wanting a totally independent system and thus installing WIUS on everything.

[Jadebenn]

Ah. I'm guessing the Tri-Rail service is driving that. If they went for cab signal integration, all the Tri-Rail rolling stock to run on the FEC would need cab signal receivers as well. As-is, they can get away with the bog-standard I-ETMS.

Though, it's interesting to hear they're going to keep the ATC around. Is there any advantage to doing that?

[Erie-Lackawanna]

Ah. I'm guessing the Tri-Rail service is driving that. If they went for cab signal integration, all the Tri-Rail rolling stock to run on the FEC would need cab signal receivers as well. As-is, they can get away with the bog-standard I-ETMS.

Tri-Rail equipment has already had FEC cab signal apparatus installed. When FEC’s plan was to use their own ATC+ (or whatever they called it) for PTC compliance, Tri-Rail went ahead and installed that equipment on their locomotives and cab cars.

Jim