Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2006 23:16:34 GMT
I've recently found an interesting website here www.modurban.org/Modurban is an EU organisation formed to try and bring in compatibility standards in European metro signalling and control systems. I think this is a great idea, given that there is now a European standard on mainline signalling (ERTMS), but few standards in metro signalling systems. This difference in metro signalling system standards is not too helpful when in the case of LU, you end up getting two very different signalling systems from different manufacturers! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2006 3:29:24 GMT
Metro systems are completely isolated systems, why go to the expense of standardizing everything? This difference in metro signalling system standards is not too helpful when in the case of LU, you end up getting two very different signalling systems from different manufacturers! That's the fault of the people placing the order by not specifying exactly what they want, surely? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2006 7:50:17 GMT
Metro systems are completely isolated systems, why go to the expense of standardizing everything? I can see a few reasons. Firstly it would make it easier for a large metro system to have compatible systems from different manufacturers (as one manufacturer may not be able to realistically supply the whole system, as in London, Paris, and NYC). It would also mean that a metro operator may not be tied to a particular manufacturer in both installation, and upgrades. If they need to update a part of their system, whether it be the control area or interlocking, it should be easier to choose a different manufacturer if need be. This should reduce costs. Finally, if many interfaces are made from "off the shelf" products and standards such as IEEE 802.11 radio, as opposed to proprietry products, then it should reduce installation costs. It would also make the systems more future proof, and reduce the chance of obsolescence. |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Jan 19, 2006 10:28:05 GMT
Metro systems are completely isolated systems, why go to the expense of standardizing everything? I can see a few reasons. Firstly it would make it easier for a large metro system to have compatible systems from different manufacturers (as one manufacturer may not be able to realistically supply the whole system, as in London, Paris, and NYC). It would also mean that a metro operator may not be tied to a particular manufacturer in both installation, and upgrades. If they need to update a part of their system, whether it be the control area or interlocking, it should be easier to choose a different manufacturer if need be. This should reduce costs. Finally, if many interfaces are made from "off the shelf" products and standards such as IEEE 802.11 radio, as opposed to proprietry products, then it should reduce installation costs. It would also make the systems more future proof, and reduce the chance of obsolescence. While those are good and valid points stephenk why are our two tube operators being allowed to go their own way in regards to equipment? One has in mind a signalling system by one manufacturer and the other is installing another and more backwards compatible one. I would have thought that integration would have been a better approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris M as a guest on Jan 19, 2006 13:10:04 GMT
[quote author=q8 board=international thread=1137453394 post=1137666485why are our two tube operators being allowed to go their own way in regards to equipment? One has in mind a signalling system by one manufacturer and the other is installing another and more backwards compatible one.
I would have thought that integration would have been a better approach.[/quote]
If the powers that be valued integration then they wouldn't have split it into three bits (sectors?)
Chris
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2006 21:06:27 GMT
While those are good and valid points stephenk why are our two tube operators being allowed to go their own way in regards to equipment? One has in mind a signalling system by one manufacturer and the other is installing another and more backwards compatible one. I would have thought that integration would have been a better approach. Yes, integration is the better approach, and this seems to be the purpose of "Modurban". One manufacturer would not have been able to supply signalling to all lines on the tube within the PPP time period, thus the different infracos went for different manufacturers. In the absence of integration standards, and given the wide range of technologies used, both infracos have ended up with very different products. However, a recent example in Hong Kong with trains running using Seltrac, and SACEM on the same stretch of track, shows that it is possible for two different ATO systems to share a section of line. Obviously, if the different manufacturers use similar communication protocols rather than proprietary protocols, then this is made much easier. |
|
