Promelectronica research and production (R&P) centre is one of the key Russian suppliers of innovative electronic control systems for main and industrial railways.

Promelectronica research and production (R&P) centre is one of the key Russian suppliers of innovative electronic control systems for main and industrial railways.

It develops, produces and installs modern systems and solutions for train safety, from trackside equipment to rail traffic-control systems.

The portfolio of developments contains more than 20 systems and devices. The most significant are:

Computer-based interlocking

Microprocessor interlocking systems

Axle-counting systems

Level-crossing protection systems

Microprocessor semi-automatic block systems

Train control systems

All systems conform to Russian safety requirements and CENELEC SIL 4.

Computer-based interlocking

Computer-based interlocking (CBI) is designed for stations providing all kinds of train and shunting operations. CBI is intended for construction of new and reconstruction of existing electrical interlocking systems. Advanced communication facilities and flexible design allow the system to be integrated into adjacent railway automatic systems, use different communication networks, and create cost-effective system configurations for stations.

The system's circuit design, programme and structural solutions minimise implementation and maintenance costs. It is also one of the most space-saving interlocking systems available: if there is no space to construct a control tower, the equipment can be located in a transportable module or existing buildings.

Axle-counting systems

Our axle-counting systems are designed for vacancy (occupancy) detection of track sections of any complexity and configuration at stations, station-to-station blocks and shunting yards. They ensure train-operation safety and considerably increase traffic capacity on block sections with minimal expenses.

They are used both for low-density tracks where reduction of maintenance costs is required, and high-density tracks where high response rate and protection over the influence of electromagnetic rail brakes and eddy-current brakes are required.

Our axle-counting systems solve the problems of track sections with low ballast resistance. Vandal-proof, they have an operating temperature range of -60°C up to +85°C.

Microprocessor semi-automatic block systems

Our microprocessor semi-automatic block systems are designed for construction of new, and modernisation of existing, semi-automatic block systems on low-density track sections, and can be used to replace relay block systems. Automatic block posts increase the capacity of the track section.

They allow control of trains coming into the section, and railway vacancy control may be executed both with in-built facilities (axle-counting method with trackside equipment) and external track-section control facilities.

Unlike relay block systems, our microprocessor semi-automatic block systems can transmit block signals not only through physical connection lines but also through fibre-optic lines, multiplex cable lines and radio channels.

Level-crossing protection systems

Our level-crossing protection systems increase train and motor vehicle safety at crossings, reduce maintenance costs and decrease the cost of replacing outdated signalling arrangements. An absence of track circuits allows a reduction in operational costs and losses from plundering copper-containing elements.

The system's protection devices ensure that by the time the train approaches the level crossing, any road vehicles are off the crossing. It can also control all existing level-crossing signalling devices: level-crossing light signals, audio signalling, barriers of all types, blocking units, control panels and obstruction devices. The system structure allows the development of systems with full physical redundancy.

All components in our level-crossing protection systems are duplicated, providing increased safety. The reliability of the system is ensured by the use of a modern element base with built-in firmware of self-diagnostics. All information regarding the inner state of components is continuously submitted to external monitoring systems.

The systems can be used on railways both with and without block signalling systems, and with any kind of traction.

Train control systems

One of the current developments of Promelectronica is a train control system using a radio channel. Using a radio channel, it is designed for continuous transmission of data to the cab about line sections ahead that are occupied, with due consideration of the position of switches and light-signal aspects.

This system will provide reduced succession time and increased train speed along the section, as well as lower operating costs. It will also allow further development regarding train-interval control systems, including coordinate-based train control.

Controlling the future - railroad electronic control systems; includes related article on Federal Railroad Administration regulations

Railway Age, Jan, 1995 by Gus Welty

Before any answers, a question: What is "communications"? "Communications" is anything and everything, the one thing that no company can do without. In the railroad industry, it is a sometimes-bewildering alphabet soup of technology, from AEI to WAN. It runs from hand-held computers to voice/data train radio to consolidated dispatching centers to RaiLinc to whatever may come next as, and if, railroads implement ISM.

It is also, of course, a "soft" skill, the person-to-person skill that is still so much required, hardware and software notwithstanding. But that's a story for a later time, though it, s no less important.

* Train control systems. Several years ago, a perceptive person observed that the "C" in ATCS should have stood for "communications" and not "control," because there can be no control without communications.

This concept--Positive Train Control or Positive Train Separation, other ways of dealing with Advanced Train Control Systems--is perhaps the No. 1 issue where communications and communications issues are concerned.

Many issues remain regarding such things as AEI and EDI, but the industry is well on its way towards resolving them. They are, essentially, internal things.

But they do remain to be resolved, such as, do you try to do everything in-house, or do you outsource to an EDS or to the subsidiary of IBM that Southern Pacific has chosen?

ATCS, PTS, PTC--these are communications/control issues on which the railroads may have a lot of outside "help" from agencies of the federal government, perhaps someday including the Congress.

Fortunately, the railroads are moving:

Burlington Northern and Union Pacific are working towards implementation of a train separation program in the Pacific Northwest, along with Harris Electronics System Sector. CP Rail System has begun implementing a system in Canada, and will be expanding it.

Railroads and suppliers, some of them non-traditional, continue to work on new communications/control systems, transponder-, radio-, and GPS-based. The most practicable of these systems seem to recognize that an incremental approach may work best.

* E-p braking. Then, there is the fast-moving development of electro-pneumatic braking systems, which will have to be communications-based, especially if you consider the host of subsystems that can be hung onto an e-p brake system for alerting the train crew and/or a central point about defects, actual or incipient.

Here, you can look at TSM and Duluth & Iron Range Co., which have units out for test, but you cannot overlook the traditional air brake companies, WABCO and New York Air Brake. There is also a new player, California-based Electronic Pneumatic Component Corp., which has bench tested a system that obserwers are regarding highly. Over the next couple of months, it plans to have plototypes, after which (working with CAE; Vanguard) it plans to build 150 carsets for test on the AAR's 150-car brake test rack.

In a way, it could be that too many things are happening at once, without proper integration. Harris will be the system integrator for the Pacific Northwest tests of positive train control, under contract to UP with BN joining in. Rockwell International is still a major player, with a big investment (with BN) on train control systems and other technologies. Rockwell has been working with Electro-Motive Division and BN, for example, on a new method for operating distributed power.

And Rockwell has succeeded in selling locomotive monitoring systems and other pieces of the system originally proposed for BN, but advocates of the total ARES (Advanced Railroad Electronics System) probably made a mistake in going for the whole pie instead of taking it in pieces, and in putting too much faith in the ability of beady-eyed railroad people to recognize the ultimate benefits: Too many of these benefits, it was believed, were too soft. There was, perhaps, too much emphasis on safety considerations. That was understandable, in the case of BN, which had a number of unfortunate incidents that an ARES-type system might have prevented.

But safety is "soft."

* Harmon and ITCS. Harmon Industries is taking a different approach, with proposals it's making to major railroads for an incremental train control system (ITCS). Harmon is promoting productivity, capacity improvement. What it's saying is that, although railroads can increase capacity by buying more locomotives and freight cars, and by building more track, the best way to increase capacity is by operating more trains, at faster speeds, on shorter headways.

The two essentials are that the system be RF-based, with positive enforcement. Beyond that, a number of approaches would be possible to provide a path between today, s systems and tomorrow's--to deal with productivity and safety issues--without requiring that railroads tear up what they have today, and without a requirement that they create a vital central office operation.

For productivity and capacity improvement, Harmon says its system would give immediate notice to a train when a signal ahead upgrades, allow for higher speeds because of advance warning of required braking, provide a relatively easy way to extend grade crossing warning distances for higher-speed operations, and include the capability for a future conversion to moving-block operation.

For safety, there would be a host of enforcements, including those in ABS and even dark territory. This proposed system is out for consideration by major Class I railroads, but with no takers thus far.

* CP Rail's approach. There is so much talk. But CP Rail System is taking action, putting a transponder-based control system in place between Calgary and Edmonton and planning an extension along the east-west main line from Calgary. Both CP and CN North America have been doing pioneering work, but what CP is working on may be the first true test bed. Credit Barry Scott, chairman and CEO, and Bob Shea, assistant vice president-research and operations development.

Calgary-Edmonton is about 190 miles; the main line installation east of Calgary will be about 275 miles, and the system is scheduled to be in place late in first-quarter 1995. Most of these lines are single-track, with some double-track.

Based on limited experience thus far, CP has learned that the transponder is not a high maintenance cost item: Bob Shea notes that, one way or another, CP m/w gangs managed to drive two transponders down into the ballast, and the two tags are still working. But equipping locomotives to handle the system? That can be very expensive.

Algorithms for predictive braking have been developed, and CP is installing the system on a locomotive, with a full blown test scheduled for early this year. But. Shea cautions, there is a lot of testing that will have to be done, especially on trains where the consist is "doubtful," in terms of weights and weight distribution (mostly intermodal trains).

* Refarming radio channels. Then. there is the whole issue in the U.S. of "refarming" of the radio channel spectrum, something that the Federal Communications Commission is now expected to decide sometime in early 1995. If the FCC decides on narrowing bandwidths, railroads (and other users of land-based mobile radio equipment) could be faced with a phased-in need to replace radios now in use. So far as railroads are concerned, Motorola has had a virtual lock on the radio business, but Harmon P; positioning itself to make a strong run, with radio equipment that can handle the possible change.

* Handling interchange data. As for the outsourcing of data handling needs, this remains a touchy issue. After all, railroads were one of the first major industries to go heavily into computerization, and at least some of them are not ready to put their trust in others. Southern Pacific is not one of those roads, because last November it signed a 10-year, $415-million technology alliance with Irtegrated Systems Solutions Corp., a subsidiary of IBM, under which ISSC will assume management, financial, and operational responsibility for SP's data center and network and provide a variety of other services. This was a first in the industry, and SP said it expects "significant benefits from it."

In the meantime, AAR has not been averse to going outside for expertise, working with EDS and with ARI Network Services, in the latter case to operate and maintain a shared database, a Customer Information File. Fifteen railroads and a number of motor carriers and ocean shipping carriers participated in the CIF development process, and the railroads will be the first users when the system becomes operational early this year.

For its part, EDS, which has participated in a number of overseas railroad and transit projects, is looking to become a major player on the U.S. railroad scene. It bid on the SP contract before eventually losing out to the IBM subsidiary.

The AAR's ISM (Interline Service Management) project has yet to deliver on the high hopes expected for it when it was begun with much top level support.

Much of the hardware designed to support an ISM program is in place. Automatic Equipment Identification, for example, is up and running. By Jan. 1, 1995, railroads expected to have one or more readers installed at some 1,200 sites across the country. The number of freight cars equipped with AEI tags was close to 10()% of the fleet; in addition. tags had been mounted on about 22,000 locomotives and 8,000 rear-end devices. But some railroads, it's said, lack the software (or even the hardware) to handle what the AEI system is giving them in order to realize the potential in it. And some of the drive seems to have gone out of the desire to create a seamless service.

In that, there are certain ironies. UP was the original champion of ISM. Now, Southern Pacific has taken up the torch. And at the same time, UP and Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico have created systems that come pretty close to being a seamless operation.

* Communications-based transit signaling. The North American rail transit industry has only recently begun to embrace advanced communications technology, and for a very specific application: signaling and train control. Most of the interest is focused on radio-based transmission technologies, although several (such as BC Transit, for the SkyTrain system, and San Francisco Municipal Railway) have adopted systems that use inductive-loop communications and moving-block operating philosophies.

MTA New York City Transit recently decided to incrementally modernize its entire train control system (currently a very basic ABS system) with radio-based technology, and plans to install two or more test systems sometime in 1996 or 1997. NYC Transit has been evaluating proposals from a host of suppliers, including General Railway Signal, Union Switch & Signal, Harmon, AEG, Alcatel, ABB Signal, Siemens, Matra, and Hughes/Morrison Knudsen, for the better part of two years (RA, June 1994, p. 41).

Toronto TTC is in the process of procuring communications-based train control for new lines on its expansion program. SEPTA, Philadelphia, is now giving strong consideration to this technology for the underground portion of its light rail system. Chicago Circulator is looking at so-called "smart cars" and communications-based control. BART, San Francisco, is beginning a demonstration of a Hughes/MK system.

Transit agencies are struggling with the same issues as freight railroads: proprietary designs, perceived lack of interchangeability, design standards, and few systems in revenue service.

What does all of this mean for the future? Perhaps it means that the companies that build, and adopt the best communications technologies and procedures will be tomorrow's winners.

RELATED ARTICLE: Does FRA really want to put the brakes on innovation?

The Federal Railroad Administration says that it wants innovation among railroads and suppliers. But in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding power brakes, it would kill innovation.

There was a hearing on the NPRM in Chicago in November and another one in Washington in December. Seldom have railroads, large and small, been so united in opposition to proposed regulations. Association of American Railroads President and CEO Ed Harper said that the railroads would challenge the proposed regulations "in every forum that will hear us." The Railway Progress Institute and American Short Line Railroad Association said much the same.

FRA may back off from these onerous proposals, which go back to a past administration and do not, many believe, represent the thinking of the current Administrator, Jolene Molitoris. She wants to encourage innovation, not discourage it. There is a strong hope that she's going to tell her troops at FRA to kill this proposed regulatory proceeding or, at the very least, to rewrite it into a far more performance-oriented spec.

At this point, TSM and Duluth & Iron Range have electro-pneumatic braking systems out for test. If the FRA's NPRM were to go into effect, both of them would, or could, go down the drain. This is not by any means to say that other, larger companies will not have e-p systems out for test. Certainly, they have the capability. But as yet, other systems are not out for actual service testing.

Doug Clink, president of TSM, put it this way in his testimony: "Smaller companies have traditionally been a major source of technological innovation. Ask the railroads. Some of them have been asking the major air brake suppliers to develop electronic brakes for more than 10 years. Their responses were, `It can't be done cost-effectively,' or `You don't need it.' TSM, with no interest in maintaining the status quo, accepted the challenge and successfully developed an electronic braking system. The system has been proven in the field to work well, to be more cost-effective than the current pneumatic equipment, and to reduce the stopping distance of a train by at least 43%. Suddenly, the game has changed, and electronic brakes are not only possible but also affordable and available to be tested and evaluated by customers."

Clink told FRA that the proposed regulation/law "should be retracted and rewritten. It should be a performance-based document to allow for maximum innovation and competition. And the section involving the development of new technology should leave it to the railroads and equipment suppliers to decide what process a new product must follow to gain approval."

"There is no question," he said, "that the proposed regulations would have kept the small companies that are currently demonstrating this equipment to the AAR out of this market. The capital requirements artificially generated by this law would not allow it. The paperwork requirements would not allow it. The time to market would not allow it. Given this grim scenario, I share Jim Rees' desire... to be provided with whatever empirical evidence you [FRA] possess to justify the conclusion that small business will not be hurt by these regulations."

Representing DIRCO, Jim Rees said in November many of the same things, talking about the innovation that small companies bring to the railroads and decrying the regulation that would prohibit them from doing it effectively.

Legislation and regulation, Rees said, "cannot keep pace with technological innovation. This NPRM should be abandoned, and the legitimate aims of its intent should be approached in more objective manners."

The NPRM on power brakes should be dropped and sent back to the drawing board. Some new regulation may be needed, though that has yet to be proved. But what's proposed sure isn't it.

COPYRIGHT 1995 Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corporation

COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

Our integrated Locomotive Control Systems improve the performance of your existing locomotive fleet at only a fraction of the cost of new locomotives. Our locomotive AESS idle reduction solutions save you money and help reduce your carbon footprint. Our industry experience has taught us that practical solutions aren’t easy and flexibility is often the key to making a system successful.

К вопросу о методах реформирования естественных монополий в сфере железнодорожного транспорта

Дюбанов М.А., аспирант факультета государственного управления МГУ им.М.В, Ломоносова, [e-mail]

В статье проводится обзор существующих методов управления естественных монополий (на примере реформ в сфере железнодорожного транспорта), анализируются факторы, позволяющие построить адекватную модель управления и развития отрасли. В работе рассматриваются некоторые методы и способы проведения реформ на примере зарубежных государств, а также текущее состояние процесса реструктуризации железных дорог в России. Использование практических примеров позволяет проанализировать с точки зрения общественной выгоды, как преимущества, так и недостатки моделей управления в данной сфере естественных монополий для обеспечения устойчивого и сбалансированного развития рассматриваемой отрасли.

Ключевые слова: естественная монополия, либерализация, железнодорожные перевозки, инфраструктурный сектор, реструктуризация, перекрестное субсидирование, эксплуатационная деятельность, самоокупаемость, франшиза, государственная корпорация, концессия.

Concerning natural monopolies reforming by example of rail transport

M. Dyubanov. Natural monopolies reforming: problems, current situation, prospects (by example of rail transport)», MSU, [e-mail]

The article gives an overview of existing restructuring models which were implemented at natural monopoly field. This review concentrates uppermost on rail transportation sector, examines the major factors which influence on the performance efficiency of the rail transport. The work gives some examples of restructuring methods which were applied in foreign countries (such as Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, Japan) as well as in Russia. Such a consideration gives an opportunity to analyze all given benefits and disadvantages for society resulted from bringing competition for stable and balanced development of this field. As a result we came to conclusion that the railroad reform should be held as an integrated development process. It means that the state authorities should create various incentives for rail infrastructure recovery and development but not only for its usage. Besides, it should be said that the main purpose of the railroad reform must be an overall efficiency of the field, that’s why the appropriateness of competition should be estimated. Taking into account all the features of the railroad transport we should evaluate all potential hazards connected with final stage of the reform and if it is necessary, make appropriate changes.

Keywords: natural monopoly, liberalization, rail transportation, infrastructure sector, restructuring, cross-financing, operational activity, self-repayment, franchise, state corporation, concession.

Дата добавления: 2015-09-30