This system looks very much the same as ATB, also called Automatische Treinbeïnvloeding or Automatic Train Protection used in the Netherlands. The difference is that in the cab we have inbuild equipment featuring 4 lights. The first one is a yellow one, which means that the train may drive at 40 km/h or 25 mph, this light also lits up when a red signal is being approached. The second one is yellow 6 which means that the train may drive at 60 km/h. The third lamp is yellow 8 which means that you can drive 80 km/h. Then you have yellow 13 for 130 km/h and last but not least green 14 for 140 km/h.
ATB-EG (The one your talking about) only checks if the brakes are applied and doesn't check brake curves. Also ATB is constant meaning it constantly feeds information to the train unlike ATP which only does it at certain points. ATP of the GWR is comparable to TBL1 and is a smarter version of PZB that doesn't have a aknowledge button. ATP on the ChML is comparable to LZB ATB-EG is more like TVM which checks the speed via AC voltage going through the rails. ATB-NG is indeed somewhat comparable to this video though. With ATB-NG requiering information to be put in the board computer and the system functioning via balises. The difference between ATB-NG and APT is that ATB-NG shows the actual brake curve in stepts of 5km/h
While the train won't necessarily be stopped before it passes a signal at danger, it should end up stopping within the overlap with ATP and while you're within the release speed (and so before there's any danger of collision) from what I understand. That said, a release speed of up to 50miles/hour, still a bit worrying (despite still being safe)...
I wasn't costs alone, but politics which prevented the development and wide-scale implementation of ATP - a cynical decision by the Tory government of the day deciding that the calculation of x-millions of pounds per life saved simply wasn't worth it. After all, why put money into something you're planning to flog off? Of course, try explaining that to the bereaved families of those lost in subsequent accidents...
Ironic there a class 91 behind him at the end given that at the time they were piloting 140mph running of the 91 on the ecml using flashing green signals which they then deemed too easy to misinterpret Puzzles me why they didn’t pilot atp on the ecml instead of the gwml it would have solved the problem and we’d have had 140mph running for the last 30 years
Apparently, 140mph operation requires in-cab signalling equipment. I don't think ATP qualifies as in-cab signalling, as it is only a protection system.
Believe it or not back when HSTs were introduced the drivers kept having competitions as to who could get the closest to 140mph. Until BR caught on and limited the speed electronically. To the best of my knowledge they had no issue with reading normal signals.
@@williamhuang8309: I would think that (these implementations of) ATP would count as "in-cab signalling", they provide about as much information to the driver as TVM (HS1, Channel Tunnel, LGVs) and CBTC (on Crossrail) do? They certainly go over and above "only a protection system" like TPWS, tripcocks and KVB...
@@fetchstixRHD It definitely provides the information, but is it desigbed as an in-cab signalling system? Perhaps if the project wasn't abandoned they might've thought to allow it to function as in-cab signalling.
@@williamhuang8309: Not entirely sure what BR’s definition of “in cab signalling” was, but I would be surprised if for the purposes of exceeding 125mile/h that ATP full supervision wouldn’t count. Considering that at the time there were the 140mile/h trials as well, I would think it difficult to not have the ATP systems designed (or easily modified) to support that speed, not even BR would have been that bad imo! I guess we’ll never find out though, they’re already making steps to remove the ATP implementations, and if any classic line were to have its speed increased (which I think is unlikely), they’ll almost certainly go for ETCS level 2 for the enhanced speed.
![[ ออกกอง ] วัยหนุ่ม 2544 โลกหลังลูกกรง..ทัวร์กองถ่ายหนังใน "คุกของจริง" | JUSTดูIT.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vB--aOkZCpw/mqdefault.jpg)
This system looks very much the same as ATB, also called Automatische Treinbeïnvloeding or Automatic Train Protection used in the Netherlands. The difference is that in the cab we have inbuild equipment featuring 4 lights. The first one is a yellow one, which means that the train may drive at 40 km/h or 25 mph, this light also lits up when a red signal is being approached. The second one is yellow 6 which means that the train may drive at 60 km/h. The third lamp is yellow 8 which means that you can drive 80 km/h. Then you have yellow 13 for 130 km/h and last but not least green 14 for 140 km/h.
ATB-EG (The one your talking about) only checks if the brakes are applied and doesn't check brake curves. Also ATB is constant meaning it constantly feeds information to the train unlike ATP which only does it at certain points.
ATP of the GWR is comparable to TBL1 and is a smarter version of PZB that doesn't have a aknowledge button.
ATP on the ChML is comparable to LZB
ATB-EG is more like TVM which checks the speed via AC voltage going through the rails.
ATB-NG is indeed somewhat comparable to this video though. With ATB-NG requiering information to be put in the board computer and the system functioning via balises. The difference between ATB-NG and APT is that ATB-NG shows the actual brake curve in stepts of 5km/h
This system reminds me of a mixture between the german PZB and also german LZB systems.
LZB have in cab signaling but BR's ATP doesn't
The Chiltern Line ATP [equipment] is based on LZB, isn't it? (And the GWML ATP being based on TBL, I believe)
More like PZB, LZB uses a wire along the entire length of the line sending data to the train continuously.
The German PZB (Indusi) system is also used on the O-Train Trillium Line in Ottawa.
@@FelixAn: It's used in the UK too! On the Tyne and Wear Metro system...
So this system will allow a train to approach a danger signal at 25 mph? Seems a bit fast.
Mr. White It's the same in germany and it works, so, nah
While the train won't necessarily be stopped before it passes a signal at danger, it should end up stopping within the overlap with ATP and while you're within the release speed (and so before there's any danger of collision) from what I understand.
That said, a release speed of up to 50miles/hour, still a bit worrying (despite still being safe)...
What happens if the on board computer fails,as the low voltage they work off can fail.
The train also has AWS & TPWS, trains can run normally with ATP isolated if necessary.
@@paulparkins2919 remember that ATP predated TPWS - TPWS was a cheap knockoff that was installed after the planned full rollout of ATP was cancelled.
The train is failed.
I wasn't costs alone, but politics which prevented the development and wide-scale implementation of ATP - a cynical decision by the Tory government of the day deciding that the calculation of x-millions of pounds per life saved simply wasn't worth it. After all, why put money into something you're planning to flog off? Of course, try explaining that to the bereaved families of those lost in subsequent accidents...
Ironic there a class 91 behind him at the end given that at the time they were piloting 140mph running of the 91 on the ecml using flashing green signals which they then deemed too easy to misinterpret Puzzles me why they didn’t pilot atp on the ecml instead of the gwml it would have solved the problem and we’d have had 140mph running for the last 30 years
Apparently, 140mph operation requires in-cab signalling equipment. I don't think ATP qualifies as in-cab signalling, as it is only a protection system.
Believe it or not back when HSTs were introduced the drivers kept having competitions as to who could get the closest to 140mph. Until BR caught on and limited the speed electronically. To the best of my knowledge they had no issue with reading normal signals.
@@williamhuang8309: I would think that (these implementations of) ATP would count as "in-cab signalling", they provide about as much information to the driver as TVM (HS1, Channel Tunnel, LGVs) and CBTC (on Crossrail) do? They certainly go over and above "only a protection system" like TPWS, tripcocks and KVB...
@@fetchstixRHD It definitely provides the information, but is it desigbed as an in-cab signalling system? Perhaps if the project wasn't abandoned they might've thought to allow it to function as in-cab signalling.
@@williamhuang8309: Not entirely sure what BR’s definition of “in cab signalling” was, but I would be surprised if for the purposes of exceeding 125mile/h that ATP full supervision wouldn’t count.
Considering that at the time there were the 140mile/h trials as well, I would think it difficult to not have the ATP systems designed (or easily modified) to support that speed, not even BR would have been that bad imo!
I guess we’ll never find out though, they’re already making steps to remove the ATP implementations, and if any classic line were to have its speed increased (which I think is unlikely), they’ll almost certainly go for ETCS level 2 for the enhanced speed.
Butterfield Railways!
Oh my god it is! Though it looks like his diet plan has worked, he's wearing a new belt.
Saturday is speed day, you can do literally whatever speed you want, but only for 24 hours and not a second more!
I like a fully automated driver. It does not use drugs, drink, sleep, get angry or be stupid, text message, etc.
Neither do I. I hate my phone ringing and ignore it, always when driving. Stop trying to steal a job I would do.
Greek Metro ATP so anoying -,- all the time it rangs.!!!
really