Misplaced Pages

Communications-based train control: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:13, 23 June 2007 editSignalhead (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers30,688 edits updated wikilink← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:17, 24 December 2024 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,410,107 edits Altered url. URLs might have been anonymized. Add: archive-date, archive-url, authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | #UCB_CommandLine 
(628 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Railway signaling system}}
{{Refimprove|May 2007}}
{{redirect|CBTC}}
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = horizontal
| image1 = CF650MetroMadrid_1.jpg
| width1 = 150
| alt1 = An underground station with two tracks in Madrid. A blue and white subway train is entering the station on the left.
| caption1 = CBTC deployment in ], Spain
| image2 = Estação Santo Amaro Linha 5.jpg
| width2 = 266
| alt2 = An elevated station in Sao Paolo has a design like a cable-stayed bridge.
| caption2 = Santo Amaro station on ] of the partially CBTC-enabled ]
| footer =
}}
{{Automated track-bound traffic}}
'''Communications-based train control''' ('''CBTC''') is a ] system that uses ] between the ] and track equipment for traffic management and infrastructure control. CBTC allows a train's position to be known more accurately than with traditional signaling systems. This can make railway traffic management safer and more efficient. ] system (and other railway systems) are able to reduce ]s while maintaining or even improving safety.


A CBTC system is a "continuous, ] system utilizing high-resolution train location determination, independent from ]; continuous, high-capacity, bidirectional train-to-wayside data communications; and trainborne and wayside ] capable of implementing ] (ATP) functions, as well as optional ] (ATO) and '''automatic train supervision''' ('''ATS''') functions," as defined in the ] 1474 standard.<ref name="IEEE1474">1474.1–1999 – IEEE Standard for Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) Performance and Functional Requirements. (Accessed at January 14, 2019).</ref>
'''Communication-based train control (CBTC)''' is an automated control system for railways that ensures the safe operation of rail vehicles using data communication between various control entities that make up the system.


== Background and origin ==
CBTC is a modern successor of the traditional railway signaling systems which provide a limited control using track circuits, interlockings, and signals.


CBTC is a signalling standard defined by the ] 1474 standard.<ref name="IEEE1474" /> The original version was introduced in 1999 and updated in 2004.<ref name="IEEE1474" /> The aim was to create consistency and standardisation between digital railway signalling systems that allow for an increase in train capacity through what the standard defines as high-resolution train location determination.<ref name="IEEE1474" /> The standard therefore does not require the use of ] railway signalling, but in practice this is the most common arrangement.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Wu |first1=Qing |url=https://acquire.cqu.edu.au/articles/conference_contribution/Communication_based_train_control_CBTC_Train_controller_and_dynamics/25806895 |title=Communication based train control (CBTC): Train controller and dynamics |last2=Ge |first2=Xiahau |last3=Cole |first3=Colin |last4=Spiryagin |first4=Maksym |last5=Bernal Arango |first5=Esteban |date=2023-01-01 |publisher=CQUniversity |isbn=978-1-925627-79-4 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":1" /><ref name="SSR" /><ref name="mdm" /><ref name="ttc-service-2019-03" /><ref name="TTC-2017-01-18" />
CBTC technology is part of the same convergence engineering field as the automotive traffic automation systems. Even the principles of control between the 2 transportation domains are quite different they both are part of the ]: a CBTC system is based on basic principles from both the ] and ].


=== Moving block ===
CBTC is the culmination point of a long parallel history of two important technologies that stimulated the development of each other and marked profoundly the development of our society in the last century: ], ].
{{Main|Moving block}}


Traditional signalling systems detect trains in discrete sections of the track called ']', each protected by signals that prevent a train entering an occupied block. Since every block is a fixed section of track, these systems are referred to as ] systems.
There are multiple generations of CBTC systems based on multiple variations and configurations depending on the providers and operators.


In a moving block CBTC system the protected section for each train is a "block" that moves with and trails behind it, and provides continuous communication of the train's exact position via radio, inductive loop, etc.<ref name="digitalradio">Digital radio shows great potential for Rail Bruno Gillaumin, International Railway Journal, May 2001. Retrieved by findarticles.com in June 2011.</ref>
A CBTC can provide different levels of railway automation, grouped in the following major functionalities:<br />


] in ] was the first radio-based CBTC system. | alt=]]
- ]: Automatic Train Protection;<br />
- ]: Automatic Train Operation;<br />
- ]: Automatic Train Supervision.<br />


As a result, ] opened the world's first radio-based CBTC system at ]'s ] (APM) in February 2003.<ref name="CBTC15">{{Cite press release |date=March 29, 2018 |title=Bombardier Marks 15th Anniversary of Its World-First Radio-Based, Driverless Rail Control System |publisher=Bombardier Transportation |agency=MarketWired |url=http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/bombardier-marks-15th-anniversary-its-world-first-radio-based-driverless-rail-control-tsx-bbd.a-2246505.htm |access-date=January 22, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190122095005/http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/bombardier-marks-15th-anniversary-its-world-first-radio-based-driverless-rail-control-tsx-bbd.a-2246505.htm |archive-date=January 22, 2019}}</ref> A few months later, in June 2003, ] introduced the railway application of its radio technology on the ]. CBTC has its origins in the ] systems developed by ] (now ]) for the ] (ART) systems in ] during the mid-1980s.
CBTC systems range in complexity based on the functionality provided from CBTC systems that provide only the ATP functions to CBTC that provide both the ATP and ATO functions and CBTC that on top of that provide also the ATS functions.


These systems, which were also referred to as ] (TBTC), made use of ] transmission techniques for track to train communication, introducing an alternative to ] based communication. This technology, operating in the 30–60&nbsp;] ] range to communicate trains and wayside equipment, was widely adopted by the ] operators in spite of some ] (EMC) issues, as well as other installation and maintenance concerns (see ] for further information regarding transmission-based train-control).
All CBTC systems operate in the same basic way. An off board computer can track all trains operating on track linked to the computer. This allows trains to be spaced closer together than on a manually controlled line. The computer sends information to the computers aboard the train.


As with new application of any technology, some problems arose at the beginning mainly due to compatibility and interoperability aspects.<ref name="cbtcprojects">CBTC Projects. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150614033641/http://www.tsd.org/cbtc/projects/index.htm|date=2015-06-14}} www.tsd.org/cbtc/projects, 2005. Accessed June 2011.</ref><ref name="radiopdf">CBTC radios: What to do? Which way to go? {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110728134242/http://www.tsd.org/papers/CBTCRadios.pdf|date=2011-07-28}} Tom Sullivan, 2005. www.tsd.org. Accessed May 2011.</ref> However, there have been relevant improvements since then, and currently the reliability of the radio-based communication systems has grown significantly.
This differs from normal ] (ATO) systems in that the train is actually controlled by the on board computers. Older ATO systems, such as San Francisco’s ], use a system where the off board computers control the train.


Moreover, it is important to highlight that not all the systems using ] technology are considered to be CBTC systems. So, for clarity and to keep in line with the ] solutions for operator's requirements,<ref name="radiopdf" /> this article only covers the latest ] principle based (either true ] or ], so not dependent on track-based detection of the trains)<ref name="IEEE1474" /> CBTC solutions that make use of the ].
Based on the media used for communication the CBTC are categorized in:<br />
- radio-based;<br />
- rail-based;<br />
- loop-based.<br />


== Main features ==
The older of the two, rail-based, has been in use in a few systems, such as in ] Line 14. Train control signals are sent through the tracks to the train. RF, which has yet to be used on an in service heavy rail Metro application, transmits the signal from wayside equipment.Washington DC's Metro is completely CBTC based, and now MTA ] in the ]. The New York City Subway 14th Street-Canarsie Local route (line {{NYCS service|L}}) is nearing the completion of tests on the new control system.


=== CBTC and moving block ===
The CBTCs deployed on transit systems as the SRT line from ], and SkyTrain from ] are based on loop communication.


CBTC systems are modern railway signaling systems that can mainly be used in urban railway lines (either ] or ]) and ], although it could also be deployed on ]. For ], a similar system might be the ] ERTMS Level 3 (not yet fully defined {{when|date=November 2017}}).
]
In the modern CBTC systems the trains continuously calculate and communicate their status via radio to the wayside equipment distributed along the line. This status includes, among other parameters, the exact position, speed, travel direction and ].
]


This information allows calculation of the area potentially occupied by the train on the track. It also enables the wayside equipment to define the points on the line that must never be passed by the other trains on the same track. These points are communicated to make the trains automatically and continuously adjust their speed while maintaining the ] and comfort (]) requirements. So, the trains continuously receive information regarding the distance to the preceding train and are then able to adjust their ] accordingly.
]

]
From the ] perspective, the first figure shows the total occupancy of the leading train by including the whole ] which the train is located on. This is due to the fact that it is impossible for the system to know exactly where the train actually is within these ]. Therefore, the ] system only allows the following train to move up to the last unoccupied ]'s border.

In a ] system as shown in the second figure, the train position and its ] is continuously calculated by the trains, and then communicated via radio to the wayside equipment. Thus, the wayside equipment is able to establish protected areas, each one called Limit of Movement Authority (LMA), up to the nearest obstacle (in the figure the tail of the train in front). Movement Authority (MA) is the permission for a train to move to a specific location within the constraints of the infrastructure and with supervision of speed.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=https://www.era.europa.eu/node/641/210_en|title=Subset-023. "ERTMS/ETCS-Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations"|publisher=ERTMS USERS GROUP|year=2014|access-date=2018-12-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181221134721/https://www.era.europa.eu/node/641/210_en|archive-date=2018-12-21|url-status=dead}}</ref>

End of Authority is the location to which the train is permitted to proceed and where target speed is equal to zero. End of Movement is the location to which the train is permitted to proceed according to an MA. When transmitting an MA, it is the end of the last section given in the MA.<ref name=":0" />

It is important to mention that the occupancy calculated in these systems must include a safety margin for location uncertainty (in yellow in the figure) added to the length of the train. Both of them form what is usually called 'Footprint'. This safety margin depends on the accuracy of the ] system in the train.

CBTC systems based on moving block allows the reduction of the ] between two consecutive trains. This distance is varying according to the continuous updates of the train location and speed, maintaining the ] requirements. This results in a reduced ] between consecutive trains and an increased transport ].

=== Grades of automation ===
Modern CBTC systems allow different levels of automation or ] (GoA), as defined and classified in the ] 62290–1.<ref name="iec">IEC 62290-1, Railway applications – Urban guided transport management and command/control systems – Part 1: System principles and fundamental concepts. IEC, 2006. Accessed February 2014</ref> In fact, CBTC is not a synonym for "]" or "automated trains" although it is considered as a basic enabler technology for this purpose.

There are four grades of automation available:
* GoA 0 - On-sight, with no automation
* GoA 1 - Manual, with a driver controlling all train operations.
* GoA 2 - Semi-automatic Operation (STO), starting and stopping are automated, but a driver who sits in the cab operates the doors and drives in emergencies
* GoA 3 - Driverless Train Operation (DTO), starting and stopping are automated, but a crew member operates the doors from within the train
* GoA 4 - Unattended Train Operation (UTO), starting, stopping and doors are all automated, with no required crew member on board

=== Main applications ===

CBTC systems allow optimal use of the railway infrastructure as well as achieving maximum ] and minimum ] between operating trains, while maintaining the ] requirements. These systems are suitable for the new highly demanding urban lines, but also to be overlaid on existing lines in order to improve their performance.<ref name="mdm">''CITYFLO'' 650 Metro de Madrid, Solving the capacity challenge. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120330161346/http://bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/RCS_Case_Study_Metro_Madrid_en.pdf|date=2012-03-30}} Bombardier Transportation Rail Control Solutions, 2010. Accessed June 2011</ref>

Of course, in the case of upgrading existing lines the design, installation, test and commissioning stages are much more critical. This is mainly due to the challenge of deploying the overlying system without disrupting the ] service.<ref name="silent">Madrid's silent revolution. in International Railway Journal, Keith Barrow, 2010. Accessed through goliath.ecnext.com in June 2011</ref>

=== Main benefits ===
The evolution of the technology and the experience gained in operation over the last 30 years means that modern CBTC systems are more reliable and less prone to failure than older train control systems. CBTC systems normally have less wayside equipment and their diagnostic and monitoring tools have been improved, which makes them easier to implement and, more importantly, easier to maintain.<ref name="IRSE">Semi-automatic, driverless, and unattended operation of trains. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101119000836/http://www.irse-itc.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:semi-automatic-driverless-and-unattended-operation-of-trains&catid=36:published-itc-publications&Itemid=29|date=2010-11-19}} IRSE-ITC, 2010. Accessed through www.irse-itc.net in June 2011</ref>

CBTC technology is evolving, making use of the latest techniques and components to offer more compact systems and simpler architectures. For instance, with the advent of modern electronics it has been possible to build in redundancy so that single failures do not adversely impact operational availability.

Moreover, these systems offer complete flexibility in terms of operational schedules or timetables, enabling urban rail operators to respond to the specific traffic demand more swiftly and efficiently and to solve traffic congestion problems. In fact, automatic operation systems have the potential to significantly reduce the ] and improve the ] compared to manual driving systems.<ref name="madridorg">CBTC: más trenes en hora punta.{{Dead link|date=April 2019|bot=InternetArchiveBot|fix-attempted=yes}} Comunidad de Madrid, www.madrig.org, 2010. Accessed June 2011</ref><ref>How CBTC can Increase capacity – communications-based train control. William J. Moore, Railway Age, 2001. Accessed through findarticles.com in June 2011</ref>

Finally, it is important to mention that the CBTC systems have proven to be more energy efficient than traditional manually driven systems.<ref name="IRSE" /> The use of new functionalities, such as automatic driving strategies or a better adaptation of the transport offer to the actual demand, allows significant energy savings reducing the power consumption.

=== Risks ===
The primary risk of an electronic train control system is that if the communications link between any of the trains is disrupted then all or part of the system might have to enter a ] state until the problem is remedied. Depending on the severity of the communication loss, this state can range from vehicles temporarily reducing speed, coming to a halt or operating in a degraded mode until communications are re-established. If communication outage is permanent some sort of ] must be implemented which may consist of manual operation using ] or, in the worst case, the ].<ref>ETRMS Level 3 Risks and Benefits to UK Railways, pg 19 Transport Research Laboratory. Accessed December 2011</ref>

As a result, high availability of CBTC systems is crucial for proper operation, especially if such systems are used to increase transport capacity and reduce headway. System redundancy and recovery mechanisms must then be thoroughly checked to achieve a high robustness in operation.
With the increased availability of the CBTC system, there is also a need for extensive training and periodical refresh of system operators on the ]s. In fact, one of the major system hazards in CBTC systems is the probability of human error and improper application of recovery procedures if the system becomes unavailable.

Communications failures can result from equipment malfunction, ], weak signal strength or saturation of the communications medium.<ref>ETRMS Level 3 Risks and Benefits to UK Railways, Table 5 Transport Research Laboratory. Accessed December 2011</ref> In this case, an interruption can result in a service brake or ] application as real time situational awareness is a critical safety requirement for CBTC and if these interruptions are frequent enough it could seriously impact service. This is the reason why, historically, CBTC systems first implemented radio communication systems in 2003, when the required technology was mature enough for critical applications.

In systems with poor ] or spectrum/bandwidth limitations a larger than anticipated number of transponders may be required to enhance the service. This is usually more of an issue with applying CBTC to existing transit systems in tunnels that were not designed from the outset to support it. An alternate method to improve system availability in tunnels is the use of leaky feeder cable that, while having higher initial costs (material + installation) achieves a more reliable radio link.

With the emerging services over open ISM radio bands (i.e. 2.4&nbsp;GHz and 5.8&nbsp;GHz) and the potential disruption over critical CBTC services, there is an increasing pressure in the international community (ref. report 676 of UITP organization, Reservation of a Frequency Spectrum for Critical Safety Applications dedicated to Urban Rail Systems) to reserve a frequency band specifically for radio-based urban rail systems. Such decision would help standardize CBTC systems across the market (a growing demand from most operators) and ensure availability for those critical systems.

As a CBTC system is required to have ] and particularly, allow for a graceful degradation, a secondary method of signaling might be provided to ensure some level of non-degraded service upon partial or complete CBTC unavailability.<ref>ETRMS Level 3 Risks and Benefits to UK Railways, pg 18 Transport Research Laboratory. Accessed December 2011</ref> This is particularly relevant for brownfield implementations (lines with an already existing signalling system) where the infrastructure design cannot be controlled and coexistence with legacy systems is required, at least, temporarily.<ref name="web.archive.org">CBTC World Congress Presentations, Stockholm, November 2011 Global Transport Forum. Accessed December 2011</ref>

For example, the ] in New York City was outfitted with a backup ] system capable of supporting 12 trains per hour (tph), compared with the 26 tph of the CBTC system. Although this is a rather common architecture for resignalling projects, it can negate some of the cost savings of CBTC if applied to new lines. This is still a key point in the CBTC development (and is still being discussed), since some providers and operators argue that a fully redundant architecture of the CBTC system may however achieve high availability values by itself.<ref name="web.archive.org"/>

In principle, CBTC systems may be designed with centralized supervision systems in order to improve maintainability and reduce installation costs. If so, there is an increased risk of a single point of failure that could disrupt service over an entire system or line. Fixed block systems usually work with distributed logic that are normally more resistant to such outages. Therefore, a careful analysis of the benefits and risks of a given CBTC architecture (centralized vs. distributed) must be done during system design.

When CBTC is applied to systems that previously ran under complete human control with operators working on sight it may actually result in a reduction in capacity (albeit with an increase in safety). This is because CBTC operates with less positional certainty than human sight and also with greater ] as worst-case train parameters are applied for the design (e.g. guaranteed emergency brake rate vs. nominal brake rate). For instance, CBTC introduction in Philly's ] resulted initially in a marked increase in travel time and corresponding decrease in capacity when compared with the unprotected manual driving. This was the offset to finally eradicate vehicle collisions which on-sight driving cannot avoid and showcases the usual conflicts between operation and safety.

== Architecture ==
]
The typical architecture of a modern CBTC system comprises the following main subsystems:

# '''Wayside equipment''', which includes the ] and the subsystems controlling every zone in the line or network (typically containing the wayside ] and ] functionalities). Depending on the suppliers, the architectures may be centralized or distributed. The control of the system is performed from a central command ], though local control subsystems may be also included as a fallback.
# '''CBTC onboard equipment''', including ] and ] subsystems in the vehicles.
# '''Train to wayside communication subsystem''', currently based on ].

Thus, although a CBTC architecture is always depending on the supplier and its technical approach, the following logical components may be found generally in a typical CBTC architecture:
* '''Onboard ATP system'''. This subsystem is in charge of the continuous control of the train speed according to the safety profile, and applying the brake if it is necessary. It is also in charge of the communication with the wayside ATP subsystem in order to exchange the information needed for a safe operation (sending speed and braking distance, and receiving the limit of movement authority for a safe operation).
* '''Onboard ATO system'''. It is responsible for the automatic control of the traction and braking effort in order to keep the train under the threshold established by the ATP subsystem. Its main task is either to facilitate the driver or attendant functions, or even to operate the train in a fully automatic mode while maintaining the traffic regulation targets and passenger comfort. It also allows the selection of different automatic driving strategies to adapt the runtime or even reduce the power consumption.
* '''Wayside ATP system'''. This subsystem undertakes the management of all the communications with the trains in its area. Additionally, it calculates the limits of movement authority that every train must respect while operating in the mentioned area. This task is therefore critical for the operation safety.
* '''Wayside ATO system'''. It is in charge of controlling the destination and regulation targets of every train. The wayside ATO functionality provides all the trains in the system with their destination as well as with other data such as the ] in the stations. Additionally, it may also perform auxiliary and non-safety related tasks including for instance alarm/event communication and management, or handling skip/hold station commands.
* '''Communication system'''. The CBTC systems integrate a ] system by means of ] or ] cable for the bi-directional communication between the track equipment and the trains. The 2,4] ] is commonly used in these systems (same as ]), though other alternative ] such as 900&nbsp;MHz (]), 5.8&nbsp;GHz or other licensed bands may be used as well.
* '''ATS system'''. The ATS system is commonly integrated within most of the CBTC solutions. Its main task is to act as the interface between the operator and the system, managing the traffic according to the specific regulation criteria. Other tasks may include the event and alarm management as well as acting as the interface with external systems.
* '''] system'''. When needed as an independent subsystem (for instance as a fallback system), it will be in charge of the vital control of the trackside objects such as ] or ], as well as other related functionality. In the case of simpler networks or lines, the functionality of the interlocking may be integrated into the wayside ATP system.

==Projects==
CBTC technology has been (and is being) successfully implemented for a variety of applications as shown in the figure below (mid 2011). They range from some implementations with short track, limited numbers of vehicles and few operating modes (such as the airport ] in ] or ]), to complex overlays on existing railway networks carrying more than a million passengers each day and with more than 100 trains (such as lines 1 and 6 in ], line 3 in ], some lines in ], ] and ], or the Sub-Surface network in ]).<ref name="SSR">Bombardier to Deliver Major London Underground Signalling. Press release, Bombardier Transportation Media Center, 2011. Accessed June 2011</ref>

]
<br />
Despite the difficulty, the table below tries to summarize and reference the main radio-based CBTC systems deployed around the world as well as those ongoing projects being developed. Besides, the table distinguishes between the implementations performed over existing and operative systems (]) and those undertaken on completely new lines (]).

===List===
{{dynamic list|date=July 2018}}
{{self-reference inline|This list is sortable, and is initially sorted by year. Click on the ] icon on the right side of the column header to change sort key and sort order.}}
<!--2018-->
<!--2019-->
<!--2016-->
<!--2021-->
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! scope="col" ; width: 200px;" | Location/system
! scope="col" class="unsortable" ; width: 200px;" | Lines
! scope="col" ; width: 150px;" | Supplier
! scope="col" ; width: 150px;" | Solution
! scope="col" ; width: 80px;" | Commissioning
! scope="col" ; width: 75px;" | km
! scope="col" ; width: 75px;" | No. of trains
! scope="col" class="unsortable" ; width: 150px;" | Type of field
! scope="col" width: 100px;" | ]
! scope="col" class="unsortable" ; width: 150px;" | Notes
|-
<!--1985-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || ] || {{center|1985}} || {{center|6.4}} || {{center|7}} || Greenfield || UTO || With train attendants who monitor door status, and drive trains in the event of a disruption.
|-
<!--1986-->
| ] || ], ], ] || {{center|Thales}} || ] || {{center|1986}} || {{center|85.4}} || {{center|20}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
<!--1987-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|1987}} || {{center|4.7}} || {{center|12}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
<!--1987-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|1987}} || {{center|38}} || {{center|149}} || Greenfield || DTO || With train attendants (T\train captains) who drive trains in the event of a disruption.
|-
<!--2003-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2003}} || {{center|5}} || {{center|38}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2003}} || {{center|3}} || {{center|22}} || Brownfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 300 || {{center|2003}} || {{center|20}} || {{center|43}} || Greenfield || UTO || With train attendants (train captains) who drive trains in the event of a disruption.
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || 2020 (Tuen Ma Line Phase 1)
2021 (Tuen Ma Line and former West Rail Line)
| {{center|57}} || {{center|65}} || Greenfield (Tai Wai to Hung Hom section only)
Brownfield (other sections)
| STO || Existing sections were upgraded from SelTrac IS
|-
<!--2004-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2004}} || {{center|6}} || {{center|36}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2004}} || {{center|27}} || {{center|32}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
<!--2005-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ] || {{center|2005}} || {{center|10}} || {{center|64}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2005}} || {{center|3}} || {{center|3}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
<!--2008-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 300 || {{center|2008}} || {{center|6}} || {{center|18}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2008}} || {{center|1}} || {{center|9}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] {{rint|madrid|metro}} || {{rint|madrid|1}}, {{rint|madrid|6}} || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2008}} || {{center|48}} || {{center|143}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2008}} || {{center|2}} || {{center|10}} || Brownfield || UTO ||
|-
<!--2009-->
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 450<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-01-01 |title=Mass transit signalling |url=https://rail.bombardier.com/en/solutions-and-technologies/signalling-and-infrastructure/mass-transit-signalling.html |access-date=2024-11-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220101063113/https://rail.bombardier.com/en/solutions-and-technologies/signalling-and-infrastructure/mass-transit-signalling.html |archive-date=1 January 2022 }}</ref> || {{center|2009 (Mo Chit - On Nut & National Stadium - Wongwian Yai sections)}}{{center|2011 (On Nut extension)}}{{center|2015 (Samrong extension)}}{{center|2018 (Kheha extension)}}{{center|2019 (Khu Khot extension)}} || {{center|64.26}} || {{center|98}} || Brownfield (Mo Chit to On Nut and National Stadium to Saphan Taksin sections)
<br />Greenfield (other sections)
| STO ||Upgraded from Siemens Trainguard LZB700M CTC in 2009.
|-
|]
|]
|{{center|Bombardier}}
|''CITYFLO'' 650
|{{center|2020}}
|{{center|1.7}}
|{{center|3}}
|Greenfield
|UTO
|
|-
|]
|]
|{{center|Bombardier}}
|]
|{{center|2015}}
|{{center|23}}
|{{center|21}}
|Greenfield
|STO
|With train attendants who drive trains in the event of a disruption. These train attendants are on standby in the train.
|-
|]
|], ]
|{{center|Bombardier}}
|''CITYFLO'' 650
|{{center|2021}}
|{{center|62.52}}
|{{center|58}}
|Greenfield
|UTO
|
|-
| ] {{rint|barcelona|metro}} || {{rint|barcelona|L9}}, {{rint|barcelona|L11}} || {{center|Siemens}} || ] || {{center|2009}} || {{center|46}} || {{center|50}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2009}} || {{center|29}} || {{center|40}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2009}} || {{center|17}} || style="text-align:center;" |69<ref group="note" name="nyc subway canarsie line">This is the number of four-car train sets available. The BMT Canarsie Line runs trains with eight cars.</ref> || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ], ], ], ], ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2009}} || {{center|238}} || {{center|267}} || Greenfield and Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 300 || {{center|2009}} || {{center|35}} || {{center|64}} || Greenfield || UTO || With train attendants (Rovers) who drive trains in the event of a disruption. These train attendants are also on standby between ] and ] stations.
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ] || {{center|2009}} || {{center|26}} || {{center|76}} || Greenfield and Brownfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2009}} || {{center|8}} || {{center|29}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
<!--2010-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2010}} || {{center|22}} || || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Nippon Signal}} || SPARCS || {{center|2010}} || {{center|41.4}} || {{center|28}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2010}} || {{center|4}} || {{center|19}} || Greenfield || DTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2010}} || {{center|67}} || {{center|40}} || Greenfield || DTO ||
|-
| ] || ], ], ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2010}} || {{center|62}} || {{center|142}} || Greenfield and Brownfield || UTO || CBTC operates in Lines 1 and 2 and it is being installed in Line 3
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || data-sort-value="9999" | {{center|2010}} || {{center|13}} || {{center|29}} || Greenfield || UTO || First UTO line in Latin America
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2010}} || {{center|37}} || {{center|63}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2010}} || {{center|1}} || {{center|6}} || Brownfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2010}} || {{center|27}} || {{center|68}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2010}} || {{center|8}} || {{center|115}} || || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Ansaldo STS}} || CBTC || {{center|2010}} || {{center|27}} || {{center|23}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
<!--2011-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2011}} || {{center|23.5}} || {{center|25}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2011}} || {{center|70}} || {{center|85}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] {{rint|madrid|metro}} || {{rint|madrid|7}} ] || {{center|Invensys}} || Sirius || {{center|2011}} || {{center|9}} || data-sort-value="0" style="text-align:center;" |? || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2011}} || {{center|16}} || {{center|53}} || Brownfield || DTO ||
|-
| ] || Sacramento APM || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2011}} || {{center|1}} || {{center|2}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2011}} || {{center|42}} || {{center|43}} || || STO ||
|-
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 888 || data-sort-value="2011" | {{center|2010–2011}} || {{center|76}} || {{center|65}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Ansaldo STS}} || CBTC || {{center|2011}} || {{center|21.5}} || {{center|20}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Ansaldo STS}} || CBTC || data-sort-value="2011" | {{center|2011}} || {{center|26.6}} || {{center|22}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ] || {{center|2011}} || {{center|19}} || {{center|30}} || || UTO ||
|-
<!--2012-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2012}} || {{center|9}} || {{center|14}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || data-sort-value="2012" | {{center|2011–2012}} || {{center|94}} || {{center|80}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 888 || {{center|2012}} || {{center|24}} || {{center|27}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| rowspan="2" |] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2012}} || {{center|21.7}} || || Greenfield || ||
|-
|] || ] || ] || {{center|Phase 1: 2017 Phase 2: 2018}} || {{center|16.9}} || {{center|21}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| rowspan="4" |]
|M1
|]
|CBTC
|{{center|2018}}
|{{center|14.6}}
|
|Brownfield
|STO
|
|-
|M2
|]
|CBTC
|{{center|2014}}
|{{center|16.5}}
|
|Greenfield
|STO
|
|-
|M3
|]
|CBTC
|{{center|2014}}
|{{center|15.5}}
|
|Greenfield
|STO
|
|-
|M4
|]
|CBTC
|{{center|2017}}
|{{center|9.2}}
|
|Greenfield
|STO
|
|-
| rowspan="2" | ] || {{rint|mexicocity|12}} || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2012}} || {{center|25}} || {{center|30}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| {{rint|mexicocity|1}} || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2022-2024}} || {{center|18}} || {{center|39}} || Brownfield || DTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center| Thales & Siemens }} || Various || {{center|2012}} || || || Greenfield || || A test track was retrofitted in 2012; the line's other tracks will be retrofitted by the early 2020s.
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2012}} || {{center|3}} || {{center|18}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2012}} || {{center|4}} || {{center|12}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ], ], ] || {{center|Invensys}} || Sirius || {{center|2012}} || {{center|107}} || {{center|136}} || Brownfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ] || {{center|2012}} || {{center|52}} || {{center|40}} || || STO ||
|-
<!--2013-->
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Siemens}} || ] || {{center|2013}} || {{center|84}} || {{center|150}} || || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Invensys}} || Sirius || {{center|2013}} || {{center|21}} || data-sort-value="0" |{{center|48}} || Brownfield || ||
|-
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 888 || {{center|2013}} || {{center|42}} || {{center|38}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] {{rint|malaga|metro}} || {{rint|malaga|1}}, {{rint|malaga|2}} || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2013}} || {{center|17}} || {{center|15}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] || ], ] || style="text-align:center;" |Ansaldo STS / Siemens || Inside RATP's<br />Ouragan project || data-sort-value="2013" | {{center|2010, 2013}} || {{center|26}} || {{center|40}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2013}} || {{center|23}} || {{center|66}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 400 || {{center|2017 to 2022 }} || style="text-align:center;" |76.78<ref name="ttc-service-2019-03" /> || style="text-align:center;" |65<ref name="ttc-service-2019-03">{{cite web|url=http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/Service%20Summary_2019-03-31.pdf|title=Service Summary|website=Toronto Transit Commission}}</ref> || Brownfield <small>(Finch to Sheppard West)</small><br />Greenfield <small>(Sheppard West to Vaughan)</small> || STO || CBTC active between ] and ] stations as of October 2021.<ref>{{Cite tweet |number=1444431122998431746 |user=TTCStuart |title=This weekend's scheduled #TTC subway closure is now over and full service has resumed. Crews have completed the work on this phase of the new Automatic Train Control signaling system on Line 1. ATC now operating Vaughan MC to Eglinton. |author=Stuart Green |date=2021-10-02}}</ref> The entire line is scheduled to be fully upgraded by 2022.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cp24.com/news/new-signal-system-is-three-years-behind-schedule-and-98m-over-budget-report-1.4367107|title=New signal system is three years behind schedule and $98M over budget: report|last=Fox|first=Chris|date=2019-04-05|website=CP24|language=en|access-date=2019-04-10}}</ref><ref name="TTC-2017-01-18">{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcGhkh10Q3I|title=Modernizing the signal system: 2017 subway closures|date=January 18, 2017|publisher=]|access-date=January 23, 2017|quote=Trains will be able to operate as frequently as every 1 minute and 55 seconds instead of the current limit of two and a half minutes. When installation is completed along the entire line in 2019, it will allow for as much as 25% more capacity. ATC will come online on all of Line 1 in phases by the end of 2019 starting with the portion of Line 1 between Spadina and Wilson stations and with the Line 1 extension into ] that opens at the end of this year.}}</ref>
|-
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 888 || {{center|2013}} || {{center|60}} || {{center|45}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Invensys}} || Sirius || {{center|2013}} || {{center|42}} || {{center|92}} || Greenfield || UTO || With train attendants who drive trains in the event of a disruption.
|-
<!--2014-->
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || data-sort-value="2014" style="text-align:center;" |2013 (M2)<br /> 2014 (M4) || {{center|17}} || {{center|41}} ||
| Line M2: STO

Line M4: UTO
|
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2014}} || {{center|10}} || {{center|11}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2014}} || {{center|24 double track}} || {{center|94}} || Brownfield || DTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2014}} || {{center|35}} || data-sort-value="0" | {{center|45.5}} || Greenfield and Brownfield || STO<ref name="Helsinki_STO">Helsinki Metro automation ambitions are scaled back. '']'' 2012</ref> ||
|-
| Hong Kong MTR || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2014}} || {{center|4}} || {{center|14}} || Brownfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2014}} || {{center|29}} || {{center|37}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2014}} || {{center|2}} || {{center|6}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2014}} || {{center|58}} || {{center|106}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || style="text-align:center;" |Thales<ref name=":1">{{cite web|url=https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/transportation/press-release/thales-awarded-signalling-contract-new-salvador-metro |title=Thales awarded signalling contract for new Salvador metro |publisher=Thales Group |date=2014-03-24 |access-date=2019-05-09}}</ref>|| SelTrac || data-sort-value="9999" | {{center|2014}} || {{center|33}} || {{center|29}} || Greenfield || DTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Argenia}} || SafeNet CBTC || {{center|2014}} || {{center|6}} || {{center|12}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2014}} || {{center|1}} || {{center|12}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || Nanjing Airport Rail Link || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2014}} || {{center|36}} || {{center|15}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2014}} || {{center|30.5}} || {{center|12}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 888 || {{center|2014}} || {{center|21}} || {{center|22}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2014}} || {{center|13.7}} || {{center|17}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2014}} || {{center|14}} || {{center|27}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales Saic Transport}} || SelTrac || {{center|2014}} || {{center|25.38}} || || Greenfield || ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || data-sort-value="2014" | {{center|2013–2014}} || {{center|25.4}} || {{center|80}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
<!--2015-->
| ] || ], ], ], ], ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2015}} || {{center|62}} || {{center|85}} || Greenfield and Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ], ], ], ], ], ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 888 || data-sort-value="2015" |{{center|From 2008 to 2015}} || {{center|159}} || {{center|240}} || Brownfield and Greenfield || STO and DTO ||
|-
| ] || L4, L7 || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2015}} || {{center|22.4}} || || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] || Line 7, Line 9 || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2018 (Temp. Driver on Board) 2021 (Full ATO Operations) 2024 (transitioning to UTO)}} || {{center|55}} || || || ||
|-
| ] || ], ], ], ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || data-sort-value="2015" |{{center|From 2010 to 2015}} || {{center|137}} || {{center|140}} || Greenfield || ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || ''CITYFLO'' 650 || {{center|2015}} || {{center|20}} || {{center|34}} || Brownfield & Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ], ], ], ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 888 || data-sort-value="2015" | {{center|From 2010 to 2015}} || {{center|120}} || {{center|152}} || Greenfield || UTO and STO ||
|-
| Taipei Metro || ] || {{center|Ansaldo STS}} || CBTC || {{center|2015}} || {{center|15}} || {{center|17}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ], ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2015}} || {{center|58}} || {{center|46}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
|]
|]
|{{center|Ansaldo STS}}
|CBTC
|{{center|2015}}
|{{center|19.2}}
|{{center|29}}
|
|STO
|
|-
| ] || {{rint|buenosaires|H}} || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2016}} || {{center|8}} || {{center|20}} || ? || ? ||
|-
| ] || {{rint|buenosaires|C}} || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2016}} || {{center|4.5}} || {{center|18}} || TBD || TBD ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 400 || {{center|2016}} || {{center|7}} || {{center|10}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || L1, L2, L3 || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2016}} || {{center|72}} || {{center|57}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || L1 || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 400 || {{center|2016}} || {{center|26}} || {{center|25}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2016}} || {{center|17}} || style="text-align:center;" |46<ref group="note" name="nyc subway flushing line">This is the number of eleven-car train sets available. The IRT Flushing Line runs trains with eleven cars, though they are not all linked together; they are arranged in five- and six-car sets.</ref> || Brownfield and Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ]
]
| {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2016}} || {{center|91.5}}|| {{center|126}}|| Brownfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || {{rint|santiago|1}} || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2016}} || {{center|20}} || {{center|42}} || Greenfield and Brownfield || DTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2016}} || {{center|22}} || {{center|15}} || Brownfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2016}} || {{center|24}} || {{center|28}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
<!--2017-->
| ] || ]
]
| {{center|Bombardier}} || ] || {{center|2017 (Kajang Line)}}{{center|2021 (Putrajaya Line)}}|| {{center|103.7}}|| {{center|107}}|| Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| Delhi Metro || Line-8 || Nippon Signal || SPARCS || 2017 (Temp. Driver on Board) 2021 (Full ATO Operations) || || || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2017}} || {{center|15}} || {{center|27}} || Brownfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || L1 || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2017}} || {{center|23}} || {{center|20}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] || ] || style="text-align:center;" |Siemens/Thales || Trainguard MT CBTC || data-sort-value="2017" | {{center|2017–2022}}<ref group="note">Work being done in phases; the main phase between ] and ]s was completed in 2022</ref> || {{center|21.9}}<ref group="note">Includes a 1.48 km "express bypass" where non-stopping ]s take a different route than stopping local trains.</ref> || style="text-align:center;" |309{{refn|name=Crosstown-QBL|group="note"|1=This is the number of four- and five- car sets to be equipped with CBTC; they will be linked up in sets of 8 or 10 cars each. The routes that use the Queens Boulevard and Crosstown lines are serviced by trains from ] and ].}} || Brownfield || ATO || Train conductors will be located aboard the train because other parts of the routes using the Queens Boulevard Line will not be equipped with CBTC.
|-
| ] || {{rint|santiago|6}} || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2017}} || {{center|15.4}} || {{center|15}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Ansaldo STS}} || CBTC || {{center|2017}} || {{center|41}} || {{center|30}} || Brownfield || STO->UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2017}} || {{center|18}} || {{center|29}} || Greenfield || UTO
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2017}} || {{center|45.3}} || {{center|198}} || Brownfield || UTO<ref name="thales-sg">{{cite news|last=Cheng|first=Kenneth|date=2017-04-12|url=https://www.todayonline.com/new-nsl-signalling-system-be-tested-sundays-two-months|title=Full-day signalling tests on North-South Line to start on Sunday|work=TODAY Online|language=en|access-date=2022-05-22}}</ref> || With train attendants (train captains) who drive trains in the event of a disruption. These train attendants are on standby in the train.
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2018}} || {{center|57.2}} || {{center|198}} || Brownfield (original line)<br />Greenfield<br />(Tuas West Extension only) || UTO<ref name="thales-sg" /> || With train attendants who drive trains in the event of a disruption. These train attendants are on standby in the train.
|-
| ] || All lines || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2021}} || {{center|170}} || {{center|136}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || L1 || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2018}} || {{center|33}} || {{center|35}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] || ] || style="text-align:center;" |Siemens/Thales || Trainguard MT CBTC || data-sort-value="2018" | {{center|2018–2024}}<ref group="note">Work being done in phases; the first phase is between ] and ]s.</ref> || {{center|9.3}} || || Brownfield || ATO || Train conductors will be located aboard the train because other parts of the routes using the Eighth Avenue Line will not be equipped with CBTC.
|-
| Ottawa Light Rail || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2018}} || {{center|12.5}} || {{center|34}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || All lines || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2018}} || {{center|22.2}} || {{center|50}} || Brownfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2018}} || {{center|12}} || {{center|19}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || L4, L5 and L6 || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2018}} || {{center|64}} || {{center|69}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| Sosawonsi Co. (]) || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2018}} || {{center|23.3}} || {{center|7}} || {{center|Greenfield}} || ATO ||
|-
| ] || {{rint|buenosaires|D}} || {{center|TBD}} || TBD || {{center|2019}} || {{center|11}} || {{center|26}} || TBD || TBD ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2019}} || {{center|30}} || {{center|31}} || greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Nippon Signal}} || SPARCS || {{center|2019}} || {{center|23.63}} || {{center|23}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Nippon Signal}} || SPARCS || {{center|2019}} || {{center|20.1}} || {{center|16}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis || {{center|2019}} || {{center|21}} || {{center|21}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] || {{rint|santiago|3}} || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2019}} || {{center|21.7}} || {{center|22}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 400 || {{center|2019}} || {{center|37}} || {{center|22}} || Brownfield || UTO ||
|-
<!--2020-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Alstom}} || Urbalis 400 || {{center|2020}} || {{center|43}} || {{center|91}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2020}} || {{center|1}} || {{center|6}} || Greenfield || UTO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2020}} || {{center|29}} || {{center|28}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
|] || Line M5 || Alstom || Urbalis 400 || {{center|2020}} || {{center|6.9}} || {{center|13}} || || STO || To be fully operational after the delivery of the 13 Alstom Metropolis BM4 trains.
|-
| ] || ], ], ], ], ] || {{center|Hitachi Rail STS}} || CBTC || {{center|2030}} || || {{center|211.5}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| Lahore || Orange Line || Alstom-Casco || Urabliss888 || {{center|2020}} || {{center|27}} || {{center|27 (CRRC)}} || Greenfield || ATO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2021}} || {{center|41.5}} || {{center|37}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ], ], ]<ref>{{Cite press release |date=May 10, 2021 |title=Siemens Mobility and Stadler consortium wins contract to modernize and upgrade the Lisbon Metro |publisher=Siemens Mobility |url=https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/siemens-mobility-and-stadler-consortium-wins-contract-modernize-and-upgrade-lisbon?linkId=300000001147478 |access-date=September 25, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925154746/https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/siemens-mobility-and-stadler-consortium-wins-contract-modernize-and-upgrade-lisbon?linkId=300000001147478 |archive-date=September 25, 2024}}</ref> || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || {{center|2021-2027}} || {{center|33.7}} || {{center|84}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
<!--2022-->
| ] || ], ], ], ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2021 to 2022}} || {{center|310}} || {{center|192}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || ] || CBTC || {{center|2022}} || {{center|13.2}} || {{center|10}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2022}} || {{center|17.7}} || {{center|24}} || Greenfield || UTO || Under construction
|-
<!--2023-->
|] || ], ], ], ] || {{center|Bombardier}} || CITYFLO 650 || {{center|2023}} || {{center|115.8}} || {{center|70}} || Brownfield || STO || CBTC only available between ] and ] stations
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Nippon Signal}} || SPARCS || {{center|2023}} || {{center|15}} || {{center|24}} || Greenfield || UTO || Under construction
|-
| ] || ]<ref> {{in lang|ja}}, ], February 22, 2018</ref> || {{center|Mitsubishi}} || ? || data-sort-value="9999" style="text-align:center;" |2023<!--2022年度末 (March, 2023)--> || {{center|27.4}} || {{center|53}} || Brownfield || ? ||
|-
| ] || ] || style="text-align:center;" |? || ? || data-sort-value="9999" | {{center|2023}} || {{center|20.3}} || {{center|42}} || Brownfield || ? ||
|-
|]
|]
|{{center|]}}
|LTran-CX
|{{center|2023}}
|{{center|7.8}}
|{{center|?}}
|{{center|?}}
|{{center|?}}
|
|-
| ] || ] || style="text-align:center;" |? || ? || data-sort-value="9999" | {{center|2023}} || {{center|42.5}} || style="text-align:center;" |? || Brownfield || ? ||
|-
<!--2024-->
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2024}} || {{center|36}} || {{center|25}}|| Brownfield || UTO ||
|-
<!--Unknown-->
| Guangzhou Metro || ], ] || {{center|Siemens}} || Trainguard MT CBTC || data-sort-value="9999" style="text-align:center;" |? || {{center|70}} || style="text-align:center;" |? || || ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2017}} || {{center|20.1}} || {{center|11}} || Greenfield || DTO ||
|-
| ] Lines || Commuter Lines || {{center|Invensys}} || Sirius || data-sort-value="9999" style="text-align:center;" |? || {{center|77}} || style="text-align:center;" |? || Greenfield || STO ||
|- style="background:#ffe8a9;"
| ] || ]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/signalling/jr-east-selects-thales-to-design-first-japanese-cbtc.html?channel=542 |title=JR East selects Thales to design first Japanese CBTC |last1=Briginshaw |first1=David |date=January 8, 2014 |website=hollandco.com |publisher=Holland |access-date=January 9, 2014}}</ref> || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || data-sort-value="9999" | {{center|2017}} || {{center|30}} || {{center|70}} || Brownfield || STO || The plan was abandoned because of its technical and cost problems;<ref name="jbl-atacs" /> the control system was replaced by ].<ref name="jbl-atacs">{{cite web|url=https://www.nikkan.co.jp/articles/view/00446042 |script-title=ja:首都圏のICT列車制御、JR東が海外方式導入を断念-国産「ΑTΑCS」推進|access-date=12 January 2018|publisher=Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun |language=ja}}</ref>
|-
| ] || ], ], ], ] || {{center|Alstom-Thales}} || Advanced SelTrac || style="text-align:center;" |2025-2029 || {{center|58.1}} || {{center|128}} || Brownfield || STO & DTO ||
|-
| ] || ]<ref>{{cite web | last=Artymiuk | first=Simon | title=MTA awards Crosstown Line CBTC contract to Thales and TCE | website=International Railway Journal | date=March 7, 2023 | url=https://www.railjournal.com/signalling/mta-awards-crosstown-line-cbtc-contract-to-thales-and-tce/ | access-date=August 4, 2024}}</ref> || {{center|Thales}} || SelTrac || {{center|2029}} || {{center|16}} || style="text-align:center;" | 309{{refn|name=Crosstown-QBL|group="note"}} || Brownfield || STO ||
|-
| ] || {{rint|porto|g}}<ref>{{Cite press release |date=March 12, 2024 |title=Alstom's leading urban signalling technology selected to enhance passenger connectivity on the Metro do Porto Pink Line in Portugal |publisher=Alstom |url=https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2024/3/alstoms-leading-urban-signalling-technology-selected-enhance-passenger-connectivity-metro-do-porto-pink-line-portugal |access-date=September 25, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240524034020/https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2024/3/alstoms-leading-urban-signalling-technology-selected-enhance-passenger-connectivity-metro-do-porto-pink-line-portugal |archive-date=May 24, 2024}}</ref> || {{center|Alstom}} || Cityflo 250 || {{center|2024}} || {{center|3.0}} || {{center|18}} || Greenfield || STO ||
|-
| Ahmedabad || MEGA || Nippon Signal || SPARCS || style="text-align:center;" |? || {{center|39.259}} || {{center|96 coaches(Rolling Stock)}} || ? || ? ||
|-
| ] || ] || {{center|Hitachi Rail STS}} || CBTC || {{center|2025}} || {{center|24.8}} || {{center|78<ref group="note">Total number of railcars ordered, service is typically operated using four-car trains.</ref>}} || Brownfield || STO || New railcars and signalling system undergoing testing, expected to enter service in mid-2025<ref>{{cite press release |date=October 2, 2024 | title=MDOT MTA to test CTBC system on Metro Subway stations | website=Mass Transit Magazine | url=https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/railroad-signals-ptc-control-systems-and-products/press-release/55180169/maryland-transit-administration-mta-mdot-mta-to-test-ctbc-system-on-metro-subway-stations | access-date=December 15, 2024}}</ref>
|-
|}

== Notes and references ==

=== Notes ===
{{reflist|group=note}}

=== References ===
{{reflist}}

===Further reading===
{{refbegin}}
*
*
*
{{refend}}
{{Railwaysignalling}}

]
]
]

Latest revision as of 02:17, 24 December 2024

Railway signaling system "CBTC" redirects here. For other uses, see CBTC (disambiguation). An underground station with two tracks in Madrid. A blue and white subway train is entering the station on the left.CBTC deployment in Madrid Metro, SpainAn elevated station in Sao Paolo has a design like a cable-stayed bridge.Santo Amaro station on Line 5 of the partially CBTC-enabled São Paulo Metro
Automated track-bound traffic
Automatic train operation
Lists of automated train systems
Related topics

Communications-based train control (CBTC) is a railway signaling system that uses telecommunications between the train and track equipment for traffic management and infrastructure control. CBTC allows a train's position to be known more accurately than with traditional signaling systems. This can make railway traffic management safer and more efficient. Rapid transit system (and other railway systems) are able to reduce headways while maintaining or even improving safety.

A CBTC system is a "continuous, automatic train control system utilizing high-resolution train location determination, independent from track circuits; continuous, high-capacity, bidirectional train-to-wayside data communications; and trainborne and wayside processors capable of implementing automatic train protection (ATP) functions, as well as optional automatic train operation (ATO) and automatic train supervision (ATS) functions," as defined in the IEEE 1474 standard.

Background and origin

CBTC is a signalling standard defined by the IEEE 1474 standard. The original version was introduced in 1999 and updated in 2004. The aim was to create consistency and standardisation between digital railway signalling systems that allow for an increase in train capacity through what the standard defines as high-resolution train location determination. The standard therefore does not require the use of moving block railway signalling, but in practice this is the most common arrangement.

Moving block

Main article: Moving block

Traditional signalling systems detect trains in discrete sections of the track called 'blocks', each protected by signals that prevent a train entering an occupied block. Since every block is a fixed section of track, these systems are referred to as fixed block systems.

In a moving block CBTC system the protected section for each train is a "block" that moves with and trails behind it, and provides continuous communication of the train's exact position via radio, inductive loop, etc.

The SFO AirTrain in San Francisco Airport was the first radio-based CBTC system.

As a result, Bombardier opened the world's first radio-based CBTC system at San Francisco airport's automated people mover (APM) in February 2003. A few months later, in June 2003, Alstom introduced the railway application of its radio technology on the Singapore North East Line. CBTC has its origins in the loop-based systems developed by Alcatel SEL (now Thales) for the Bombardier Automated Rapid Transit (ART) systems in Canada during the mid-1980s.

These systems, which were also referred to as transmission-based train control (TBTC), made use of inductive loop transmission techniques for track to train communication, introducing an alternative to track circuit based communication. This technology, operating in the 30–60 kHz frequency range to communicate trains and wayside equipment, was widely adopted by the metro operators in spite of some electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) issues, as well as other installation and maintenance concerns (see SelTrac for further information regarding transmission-based train-control).

As with new application of any technology, some problems arose at the beginning mainly due to compatibility and interoperability aspects. However, there have been relevant improvements since then, and currently the reliability of the radio-based communication systems has grown significantly.

Moreover, it is important to highlight that not all the systems using radio communication technology are considered to be CBTC systems. So, for clarity and to keep in line with the state-of-the-art solutions for operator's requirements, this article only covers the latest moving block principle based (either true moving block or virtual block, so not dependent on track-based detection of the trains) CBTC solutions that make use of the radio communications.

Main features

CBTC and moving block

CBTC systems are modern railway signaling systems that can mainly be used in urban railway lines (either light or heavy) and APMs, although it could also be deployed on commuter lines. For main lines, a similar system might be the European Railway Traffic Management System ERTMS Level 3 (not yet fully defined ). In the modern CBTC systems the trains continuously calculate and communicate their status via radio to the wayside equipment distributed along the line. This status includes, among other parameters, the exact position, speed, travel direction and braking distance.

This information allows calculation of the area potentially occupied by the train on the track. It also enables the wayside equipment to define the points on the line that must never be passed by the other trains on the same track. These points are communicated to make the trains automatically and continuously adjust their speed while maintaining the safety and comfort (jerk) requirements. So, the trains continuously receive information regarding the distance to the preceding train and are then able to adjust their safety distance accordingly.

Source: Bombardier Transportation for Wikimedia Commons
The safety distance (safe-braking distance) between trains in fixed block and moving block signalling systems

From the signalling system perspective, the first figure shows the total occupancy of the leading train by including the whole blocks which the train is located on. This is due to the fact that it is impossible for the system to know exactly where the train actually is within these blocks. Therefore, the fixed block system only allows the following train to move up to the last unoccupied block's border.

In a moving block system as shown in the second figure, the train position and its braking curve is continuously calculated by the trains, and then communicated via radio to the wayside equipment. Thus, the wayside equipment is able to establish protected areas, each one called Limit of Movement Authority (LMA), up to the nearest obstacle (in the figure the tail of the train in front). Movement Authority (MA) is the permission for a train to move to a specific location within the constraints of the infrastructure and with supervision of speed.

End of Authority is the location to which the train is permitted to proceed and where target speed is equal to zero. End of Movement is the location to which the train is permitted to proceed according to an MA. When transmitting an MA, it is the end of the last section given in the MA.

It is important to mention that the occupancy calculated in these systems must include a safety margin for location uncertainty (in yellow in the figure) added to the length of the train. Both of them form what is usually called 'Footprint'. This safety margin depends on the accuracy of the odometry system in the train.

CBTC systems based on moving block allows the reduction of the safety distance between two consecutive trains. This distance is varying according to the continuous updates of the train location and speed, maintaining the safety requirements. This results in a reduced headway between consecutive trains and an increased transport capacity.

Grades of automation

Modern CBTC systems allow different levels of automation or grades of automation (GoA), as defined and classified in the IEC 62290–1. In fact, CBTC is not a synonym for "driverless" or "automated trains" although it is considered as a basic enabler technology for this purpose.

There are four grades of automation available:

  • GoA 0 - On-sight, with no automation
  • GoA 1 - Manual, with a driver controlling all train operations.
  • GoA 2 - Semi-automatic Operation (STO), starting and stopping are automated, but a driver who sits in the cab operates the doors and drives in emergencies
  • GoA 3 - Driverless Train Operation (DTO), starting and stopping are automated, but a crew member operates the doors from within the train
  • GoA 4 - Unattended Train Operation (UTO), starting, stopping and doors are all automated, with no required crew member on board

Main applications

CBTC systems allow optimal use of the railway infrastructure as well as achieving maximum capacity and minimum headway between operating trains, while maintaining the safety requirements. These systems are suitable for the new highly demanding urban lines, but also to be overlaid on existing lines in order to improve their performance.

Of course, in the case of upgrading existing lines the design, installation, test and commissioning stages are much more critical. This is mainly due to the challenge of deploying the overlying system without disrupting the revenue service.

Main benefits

The evolution of the technology and the experience gained in operation over the last 30 years means that modern CBTC systems are more reliable and less prone to failure than older train control systems. CBTC systems normally have less wayside equipment and their diagnostic and monitoring tools have been improved, which makes them easier to implement and, more importantly, easier to maintain.

CBTC technology is evolving, making use of the latest techniques and components to offer more compact systems and simpler architectures. For instance, with the advent of modern electronics it has been possible to build in redundancy so that single failures do not adversely impact operational availability.

Moreover, these systems offer complete flexibility in terms of operational schedules or timetables, enabling urban rail operators to respond to the specific traffic demand more swiftly and efficiently and to solve traffic congestion problems. In fact, automatic operation systems have the potential to significantly reduce the headway and improve the traffic capacity compared to manual driving systems.

Finally, it is important to mention that the CBTC systems have proven to be more energy efficient than traditional manually driven systems. The use of new functionalities, such as automatic driving strategies or a better adaptation of the transport offer to the actual demand, allows significant energy savings reducing the power consumption.

Risks

The primary risk of an electronic train control system is that if the communications link between any of the trains is disrupted then all or part of the system might have to enter a failsafe state until the problem is remedied. Depending on the severity of the communication loss, this state can range from vehicles temporarily reducing speed, coming to a halt or operating in a degraded mode until communications are re-established. If communication outage is permanent some sort of contingency operation must be implemented which may consist of manual operation using absolute block or, in the worst case, the substitution of an alternative form of transportation.

As a result, high availability of CBTC systems is crucial for proper operation, especially if such systems are used to increase transport capacity and reduce headway. System redundancy and recovery mechanisms must then be thoroughly checked to achieve a high robustness in operation. With the increased availability of the CBTC system, there is also a need for extensive training and periodical refresh of system operators on the recovery procedures. In fact, one of the major system hazards in CBTC systems is the probability of human error and improper application of recovery procedures if the system becomes unavailable.

Communications failures can result from equipment malfunction, electromagnetic interference, weak signal strength or saturation of the communications medium. In this case, an interruption can result in a service brake or emergency brake application as real time situational awareness is a critical safety requirement for CBTC and if these interruptions are frequent enough it could seriously impact service. This is the reason why, historically, CBTC systems first implemented radio communication systems in 2003, when the required technology was mature enough for critical applications.

In systems with poor line of sight or spectrum/bandwidth limitations a larger than anticipated number of transponders may be required to enhance the service. This is usually more of an issue with applying CBTC to existing transit systems in tunnels that were not designed from the outset to support it. An alternate method to improve system availability in tunnels is the use of leaky feeder cable that, while having higher initial costs (material + installation) achieves a more reliable radio link.

With the emerging services over open ISM radio bands (i.e. 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz) and the potential disruption over critical CBTC services, there is an increasing pressure in the international community (ref. report 676 of UITP organization, Reservation of a Frequency Spectrum for Critical Safety Applications dedicated to Urban Rail Systems) to reserve a frequency band specifically for radio-based urban rail systems. Such decision would help standardize CBTC systems across the market (a growing demand from most operators) and ensure availability for those critical systems.

As a CBTC system is required to have high availability and particularly, allow for a graceful degradation, a secondary method of signaling might be provided to ensure some level of non-degraded service upon partial or complete CBTC unavailability. This is particularly relevant for brownfield implementations (lines with an already existing signalling system) where the infrastructure design cannot be controlled and coexistence with legacy systems is required, at least, temporarily.

For example, the BMT Canarsie Line in New York City was outfitted with a backup automatic block signaling system capable of supporting 12 trains per hour (tph), compared with the 26 tph of the CBTC system. Although this is a rather common architecture for resignalling projects, it can negate some of the cost savings of CBTC if applied to new lines. This is still a key point in the CBTC development (and is still being discussed), since some providers and operators argue that a fully redundant architecture of the CBTC system may however achieve high availability values by itself.

In principle, CBTC systems may be designed with centralized supervision systems in order to improve maintainability and reduce installation costs. If so, there is an increased risk of a single point of failure that could disrupt service over an entire system or line. Fixed block systems usually work with distributed logic that are normally more resistant to such outages. Therefore, a careful analysis of the benefits and risks of a given CBTC architecture (centralized vs. distributed) must be done during system design.

When CBTC is applied to systems that previously ran under complete human control with operators working on sight it may actually result in a reduction in capacity (albeit with an increase in safety). This is because CBTC operates with less positional certainty than human sight and also with greater margins for error as worst-case train parameters are applied for the design (e.g. guaranteed emergency brake rate vs. nominal brake rate). For instance, CBTC introduction in Philly's Center City trolley tunnel resulted initially in a marked increase in travel time and corresponding decrease in capacity when compared with the unprotected manual driving. This was the offset to finally eradicate vehicle collisions which on-sight driving cannot avoid and showcases the usual conflicts between operation and safety.

Architecture

The architecture of a CBTC system

The typical architecture of a modern CBTC system comprises the following main subsystems:

  1. Wayside equipment, which includes the interlocking and the subsystems controlling every zone in the line or network (typically containing the wayside ATP and ATO functionalities). Depending on the suppliers, the architectures may be centralized or distributed. The control of the system is performed from a central command ATS, though local control subsystems may be also included as a fallback.
  2. CBTC onboard equipment, including ATP and ATO subsystems in the vehicles.
  3. Train to wayside communication subsystem, currently based on radio links.

Thus, although a CBTC architecture is always depending on the supplier and its technical approach, the following logical components may be found generally in a typical CBTC architecture:

  • Onboard ATP system. This subsystem is in charge of the continuous control of the train speed according to the safety profile, and applying the brake if it is necessary. It is also in charge of the communication with the wayside ATP subsystem in order to exchange the information needed for a safe operation (sending speed and braking distance, and receiving the limit of movement authority for a safe operation).
  • Onboard ATO system. It is responsible for the automatic control of the traction and braking effort in order to keep the train under the threshold established by the ATP subsystem. Its main task is either to facilitate the driver or attendant functions, or even to operate the train in a fully automatic mode while maintaining the traffic regulation targets and passenger comfort. It also allows the selection of different automatic driving strategies to adapt the runtime or even reduce the power consumption.
  • Wayside ATP system. This subsystem undertakes the management of all the communications with the trains in its area. Additionally, it calculates the limits of movement authority that every train must respect while operating in the mentioned area. This task is therefore critical for the operation safety.
  • Wayside ATO system. It is in charge of controlling the destination and regulation targets of every train. The wayside ATO functionality provides all the trains in the system with their destination as well as with other data such as the dwell time in the stations. Additionally, it may also perform auxiliary and non-safety related tasks including for instance alarm/event communication and management, or handling skip/hold station commands.
  • Communication system. The CBTC systems integrate a digital networked radio system by means of antennas or leaky feeder cable for the bi-directional communication between the track equipment and the trains. The 2,4GHz band is commonly used in these systems (same as WiFi), though other alternative frequencies such as 900 MHz (US), 5.8 GHz or other licensed bands may be used as well.
  • ATS system. The ATS system is commonly integrated within most of the CBTC solutions. Its main task is to act as the interface between the operator and the system, managing the traffic according to the specific regulation criteria. Other tasks may include the event and alarm management as well as acting as the interface with external systems.
  • Interlocking system. When needed as an independent subsystem (for instance as a fallback system), it will be in charge of the vital control of the trackside objects such as switches or signals, as well as other related functionality. In the case of simpler networks or lines, the functionality of the interlocking may be integrated into the wayside ATP system.

Projects

CBTC technology has been (and is being) successfully implemented for a variety of applications as shown in the figure below (mid 2011). They range from some implementations with short track, limited numbers of vehicles and few operating modes (such as the airport APMs in San Francisco or Washington), to complex overlays on existing railway networks carrying more than a million passengers each day and with more than 100 trains (such as lines 1 and 6 in Madrid Metro, line 3 in Shenzhen Metro, some lines in Paris Metro, New York City Subway and Beijing Subway, or the Sub-Surface network in London Underground).

Radio-based CBTC moving block projects around the world. Projects are classified with colours depending on the supplier; those underlined are already into CBTC operation.


Despite the difficulty, the table below tries to summarize and reference the main radio-based CBTC systems deployed around the world as well as those ongoing projects being developed. Besides, the table distinguishes between the implementations performed over existing and operative systems (brownfield) and those undertaken on completely new lines (Greenfield).

List

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

This list is sortable, and is initially sorted by year. Click on the icon on the right side of the column header to change sort key and sort order.

Location/system Lines Supplier Solution Commissioning km No. of trains Type of field Grade of automation Notes
Toronto Subway 3 Thales SelTrac 1985 6.4 7 Greenfield UTO With train attendants who monitor door status, and drive trains in the event of a disruption.
SkyTrain (Vancouver) Expo Line, Millennium Line, Canada Line Thales SelTrac 1986 85.4 20 Greenfield UTO
Detroit Detroit People Mover Thales SelTrac 1987 4.7 12 Greenfield UTO
London Docklands Light Railway Thales SelTrac 1987 38 149 Greenfield DTO With train attendants (T\train captains) who drive trains in the event of a disruption.
San Francisco Airport AirTrain Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2003 5 38 Greenfield UTO
Seattle-Tacoma Airport Satellite Transit System Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2003 3 22 Brownfield UTO
Singapore MRT North East Line Alstom Urbalis 300 2003 20 43 Greenfield UTO With train attendants (train captains) who drive trains in the event of a disruption.
Hong Kong MTR Tuen Ma line Thales SelTrac 2020 (Tuen Ma Line Phase 1)

2021 (Tuen Ma Line and former West Rail Line)

57 65 Greenfield (Tai Wai to Hung Hom section only)

Brownfield (other sections)

STO Existing sections were upgraded from SelTrac IS
Las Vegas Monorail Thales SelTrac 2004 6 36 Greenfield UTO
Wuhan Metro 1 Thales SelTrac 2004 27 32 Greenfield STO
Dallas–Fort Worth Airport DFW Skylink Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2005 10 64 Greenfield UTO
Hong Kong MTR Disneyland Resort line Thales SelTrac 2005 3 3 Greenfield UTO
Lausanne Metro M2 Alstom Urbalis 300 2008 6 18 Greenfield UTO
London Heathrow Airport Heathrow APM Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2008 1 9 Greenfield UTO
Madrid Metro , Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2008 48 143 Brownfield STO
McCarran Airport McCarran Airport APM Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2008 2 10 Brownfield UTO
Bangkok BTS Skytrain Silom Line, Sukhumvit Line Bombardier CITYFLO 450 2009 (Mo Chit - On Nut & National Stadium - Wongwian Yai sections)2011 (On Nut extension)2015 (Samrong extension)2018 (Kheha extension)2019 (Khu Khot extension) 64.26 98 Brownfield (Mo Chit to On Nut and National Stadium to Saphan Taksin sections)


Greenfield (other sections)

STO Upgraded from Siemens Trainguard LZB700M CTC in 2009.
Bangkok BTS Skytrain Gold Line Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2020 1.7 3 Greenfield UTO
Bangkok MRT Purple Line Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2015 23 21 Greenfield STO With train attendants who drive trains in the event of a disruption. These train attendants are on standby in the train.
Bangkok MRT Pink, Yellow Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2021 62.52 58 Greenfield UTO
Barcelona Metro , Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2009 46 50 Greenfield UTO
Beijing Subway 4 Thales SelTrac 2009 29 40 Greenfield STO
New York City Subway BMT Canarsie Line, IRT Flushing Line Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2009 17 69 Brownfield STO
Shanghai Metro 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 Thales SelTrac 2009 238 267 Greenfield and Brownfield STO
Singapore MRT Circle Line Alstom Urbalis 300 2009 35 64 Greenfield UTO With train attendants (Rovers) who drive trains in the event of a disruption. These train attendants are also on standby between Botanic Gardens and Caldecott stations.
Taipei Metro Neihu-Mucha Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2009 26 76 Greenfield and Brownfield UTO
Washington-Dulles Airport Dulles APM Thales SelTrac 2009 8 29 Greenfield UTO
Beijing Subway Daxing Line Thales SelTrac 2010 22 Greenfield STO
Beijing Subway 15 Nippon Signal SPARCS 2010 41.4 28 Greenfield ATO
Guangzhou Metro Zhujiang New Town APM Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2010 4 19 Greenfield DTO
Guangzhou Metro 3 Thales SelTrac 2010 67 40 Greenfield DTO
São Paulo Metro 1, 2, 3 Alstom Urbalis 2010 62 142 Greenfield and Brownfield UTO CBTC operates in Lines 1 and 2 and it is being installed in Line 3
São Paulo Metro 4 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2010 13 29 Greenfield UTO First UTO line in Latin America
London Underground Jubilee line Thales SelTrac 2010 37 63 Brownfield STO
London Gatwick Airport Shuttle Transit APM Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2010 1 6 Brownfield UTO
Milan Metro 1 Alstom Urbalis 2010 27 68 Brownfield STO
Philadelphia SEPTA SEPTA subway–surface trolley lines Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2010 8 115 STO
Shenyang Metro 1 Ansaldo STS CBTC 2010 27 23 Greenfield STO
B&G Metro Busan-Gimhae Light Rail Transit Thales SelTrac 2011 23.5 25 Greenfield UTO
Dubai Metro Red, Green Thales SelTrac 2011 70 85 Greenfield UTO
Madrid Metro Extension MetroEste Invensys Sirius 2011 9 ? Brownfield STO
Paris Métro 1 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2011 16 53 Brownfield DTO
Sacramento International Airport Sacramento APM Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2011 1 2 Greenfield UTO
Shenzhen Metro 3 Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2011 42 43 STO
Shenzhen Metro 2, 5 Alstom Urbalis 888 2010–2011 76 65 Greenfield STO
Shenyang Metro 2 Ansaldo STS CBTC 2011 21.5 20 Greenfield STO
Xian Metro 2 Ansaldo STS CBTC 2011 26.6 22 Greenfield STO
Yongin EverLine Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2011 19 30 UTO
Algiers Metro 1 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2012 9 14 Greenfield STO
Chongqing Metro 1, 6 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2011–2012 94 80 Greenfield STO
Guangzhou Metro 6 Alstom Urbalis 888 2012 24 27 Greenfield ATO
Istanbul Metro M4 Thales SelTrac 2012 21.7 Greenfield
M5 Bombardier CityFLO 650 Phase 1: 2017 Phase 2: 2018 16.9 21 Greenfield UTO
Ankara Metro M1 Ansaldo STS CBTC 2018 14.6 Brownfield STO
M2 Ansaldo STS CBTC 2014 16.5 Greenfield STO
M3 Ansaldo STS CBTC 2014 15.5 Greenfield STO
M4 Ansaldo STS CBTC 2017 9.2 Greenfield STO
Mexico City Metro Mexico City Metro Line 12 Alstom Urbalis 2012 25 30 Greenfield STO
Mexico City Metro Line 1 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2022-2024 18 39 Brownfield DTO
New York City Subway IND Culver Line Thales & Siemens Various 2012 Greenfield A test track was retrofitted in 2012; the line's other tracks will be retrofitted by the early 2020s.
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport PHX Sky Train Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2012 3 18 Greenfield UTO
Riyadh KAFD Monorail Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2012 4 12 Greenfield UTO
São Paulo Commuter Lines 8, 10, 11 Invensys Sirius 2012 107 136 Brownfield UTO
Tianjin Metro 2, 3 Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2012 52 40 STO
Beijing Subway 8, 10 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2013 84 150 STO
Caracas Metro 1 Invensys Sirius 2013 21 48 Brownfield
Kunming Metro 1, 2 Alstom Urbalis 888 2013 42 38 Greenfield ATO
Málaga Metro , Alstom Urbalis 2013 17 15 Greenfield ATO
Paris Métro 3, 5 Ansaldo STS / Siemens Inside RATP's
Ouragan project
2010, 2013 26 40 Brownfield STO
Paris Métro 13 Thales SelTrac 2013 23 66 Brownfield STO
Toronto subway 1 Alstom Urbalis 400 2017 to 2022 76.78 65 Brownfield (Finch to Sheppard West)
Greenfield (Sheppard West to Vaughan)
STO CBTC active between Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and Eglinton stations as of October 2021. The entire line is scheduled to be fully upgraded by 2022.
Wuhan Metro 2, 4 Alstom Urbalis 888 2013 60 45 Greenfield STO
Singapore MRT Downtown Line Invensys Sirius 2013 42 92 Greenfield UTO With train attendants who drive trains in the event of a disruption.
Budapest Metro M2, M4 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2013 (M2)
2014 (M4)
17 41 Line M2: STO

Line M4: UTO

Dubai Metro Al Sufouh LRT Alstom Urbalis 2014 10 11 Greenfield STO
Edmonton LRT Capital Line, Metro Line Thales SelTrac 2014 24 double track 94 Brownfield DTO
Helsinki Metro 1 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2014 35 45.5 Greenfield and Brownfield STO
Hong Kong MTR Hong Kong APM Thales SelTrac 2014 4 14 Brownfield UTO
Incheon Subway 2 Thales SelTrac 2014 29 37 Greenfield UTO
Jeddah Airport King Abdulaziz APM Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2014 2 6 Greenfield UTO
London Underground Northern line Thales SelTrac 2014 58 106 Brownfield STO
Salvador Metro 4 Thales SelTrac 2014 33 29 Greenfield DTO
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line Argenia SafeNet CBTC 2014 6 12 Greenfield STO
Munich Airport Munich Airport T2 APM Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2014 1 12 Greenfield UTO
Nanjing Metro Nanjing Airport Rail Link Thales SelTrac 2014 36 15 Greenfield STO
Shinbundang Line Dx Line Thales SelTrac 2014 30.5 12 Greenfield UTO
Ningbo Metro 1 Alstom Urbalis 888 2014 21 22 Greenfield ATO
Panama Metro 1 Alstom Urbalis 2014 13.7 17 Greenfield ATO
São Paulo Metro 15 Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2014 14 27 Greenfield UTO
Shenzhen Metro 9 Thales Saic Transport SelTrac 2014 25.38 Greenfield
Xian Metro 1 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2013–2014 25.4 80 Greenfield STO
Amsterdam Metro 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 Alstom Urbalis 2015 62 85 Greenfield and Brownfield STO
Beijing Subway 1, 2, 6, 9, Fangshan Line, Airport Express Alstom Urbalis 888 From 2008 to 2015 159 240 Brownfield and Greenfield STO and DTO
Chengdu Metro L4, L7 Alstom Urbalis 2015 22.4 Greenfield ATO
Delhi Metro Line 7, Line 9 Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2018 (Temp. Driver on Board) 2021 (Full ATO Operations) 2024 (transitioning to UTO) 55
Nanjing Metro 2, 3, 10, 12 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC From 2010 to 2015 137 140 Greenfield
São Paulo Metro 5 Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2015 20 34 Brownfield & Greenfield UTO
Shanghai Metro 10, 12, 13, 16 Alstom Urbalis 888 From 2010 to 2015 120 152 Greenfield UTO and STO
Taipei Metro Circular Ansaldo STS CBTC 2015 15 17 Greenfield UTO
Wuxi Metro 1, 2 Alstom Urbalis 2015 58 46 Greenfield STO
Philadelphia SEPTA Media–Sharon Hill Line Ansaldo STS CBTC 2015 19.2 29 STO
Buenos Aires Underground Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2016 8 20 ? ?
Buenos Aires Underground Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2016 4.5 18 TBD TBD
Hong Kong MTR South Island line Alstom Urbalis 400 2016 7 10 Greenfield UTO
Hyderabad Metro Rail L1, L2, L3 Thales SelTrac 2016 72 57 Greenfield STO
Kochi Metro L1 Alstom Urbalis 400 2016 26 25 Greenfield ATO
New York City Subway IRT Flushing Line Thales SelTrac 2016 17 46 Brownfield and Greenfield STO
Kuala Lumpur Metro (LRT) Line 3 & 4, Ampang and Sri Petaling lines

Line 5, Kelana Jaya Line

Thales SelTrac 2016 91.5 126 Brownfield UTO
Metro Santiago Alstom Urbalis 2016 20 42 Greenfield and Brownfield DTO
Walt Disney World Walt Disney World Monorail System Thales SelTrac 2016 22 15 Brownfield UTO
Fuzhou Metro 1 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2016 24 28 Greenfield STO
Kuala Lumpur Metro (MRT) Line 9, Kajang Line

Line 12, Putrajaya Line

Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2017 (Kajang Line)2021 (Putrajaya Line) 103.7 107 Greenfield UTO
Delhi Metro Line-8 Nippon Signal SPARCS 2017 (Temp. Driver on Board) 2021 (Full ATO Operations) Greenfield UTO
Lille Metro 1 Alstom Urbalis 2017 15 27 Brownfield UTO
Lucknow Metro L1 Alstom Urbalis 2017 23 20 Greenfield ATO
New York City Subway IND Queens Boulevard Line Siemens/Thales Trainguard MT CBTC 2017–2022 21.9 309 Brownfield ATO Train conductors will be located aboard the train because other parts of the routes using the Queens Boulevard Line will not be equipped with CBTC.
Metro Santiago Thales SelTrac 2017 15.4 15 Greenfield UTO
Stockholm Metro Red line Ansaldo STS CBTC 2017 41 30 Brownfield STO->UTO
Taichung Metro Green Alstom Urbalis 2017 18 29 Greenfield UTO
Singapore MRT North–South Line Thales SelTrac 2017 45.3 198 Brownfield UTO With train attendants (train captains) who drive trains in the event of a disruption. These train attendants are on standby in the train.
Singapore MRT East–West Line Thales SelTrac 2018 57.2 198 Brownfield (original line)
Greenfield
(Tuas West Extension only)
UTO With train attendants who drive trains in the event of a disruption. These train attendants are on standby in the train.
Copenhagen S-Train All lines Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2021 170 136 Brownfield STO
Doha Metro L1 Thales SelTrac 2018 33 35 Greenfield ATO
New York City Subway IND Eighth Avenue Line Siemens/Thales Trainguard MT CBTC 2018–2024 9.3 Brownfield ATO Train conductors will be located aboard the train because other parts of the routes using the Eighth Avenue Line will not be equipped with CBTC.
Ottawa Light Rail Confederation Line Thales SelTrac 2018 12.5 34 Greenfield STO
Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) All lines Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2018 22.2 50 Brownfield ATO
Rennes ART B Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2018 12 19 Greenfield UTO
Riyadh Metro L4, L5 and L6 Alstom Urbalis 2018 64 69 Greenfield ATO
Sosawonsi Co. (Gyeonggi-do) Seohae Line Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2018 23.3 7 Greenfield ATO
Buenos Aires Underground TBD TBD 2019 11 26 TBD TBD
Fuzhou Metro 2 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2019 30 31 greenfield STO
Gimpo Gimpo Goldline Nippon Signal SPARCS 2019 23.63 23 Greenfield UTO
Jakarta MRT North–south line Nippon Signal SPARCS 2019 20.1 16 Greenfield STO
Panama Metro 2 Alstom Urbalis 2019 21 21 Greenfield ATO
Metro Santiago Thales SelTrac 2019 21.7 22 Greenfield UTO
Sydney Metro Metro North West & Bankstown Line Alstom Urbalis 400 2019 37 22 Brownfield UTO
Singapore MRT Thomson–East Coast Line Alstom Urbalis 400 2020 43 91 Greenfield UTO
Suvarnabhumi Airport APM MNTB to SAT-1 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2020 1 6 Greenfield UTO
Fuzhou Metro Line 1 Extension Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2020 29 28 Brownfield STO
Bucharest Metro Line M5 Alstom Urbalis 400 2020 6.9 13 STO To be fully operational after the delivery of the 13 Alstom Metropolis BM4 trains.
Bay Area Rapid Transit Red Line, Orange Line, Yellow Line, Green Line, Blue Line Hitachi Rail STS CBTC 2030 211.5 Brownfield STO
Lahore Orange Line Alstom-Casco Urabliss888 2020 27 27 (CRRC) Greenfield ATO
Hong Kong MTR East Rail line Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2021 41.5 37 Brownfield STO
Lisbon Metro Blue Line, Yellow Line, Green Line Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC 2021-2027 33.7 84 Brownfield STO
London Underground Metropolitan, District, Circle, Hammersmith & City Thales SelTrac 2021 to 2022 310 192 Brownfield STO
Baselland Transport (BLT) Line 19 Waldenburgerbahn Stadler CBTC 2022 13.2 10 Greenfield STO
São Paulo Metro 17 Thales SelTrac 2022 17.7 24 Greenfield UTO Under construction
Melbourne Cranbourne line, Pakenham line, Sunbury line, Metro Tunnel Bombardier CITYFLO 650 2023 115.8 70 Brownfield STO CBTC only available between West Footscray and Clayton stations
São Paulo Metro Line 6 Nippon Signal SPARCS 2023 15 24 Greenfield UTO Under construction
Tokyo Tokyo Metro Marunouchi Line Mitsubishi ? 2023 27.4 53 Brownfield ?
Tokyo Tokyo Metro Hibiya Line ? ? 2023 20.3 42 Brownfield ?
Seoul Sillim Line LS ELECTRIC LTran-CX 2023 7.8 ? ? ?
JR West Wakayama Line ? ? 2023 42.5 ? Brownfield ?
Kuala Lumpur Metro (LRT) Line 11, Shah Alam Line Thales SelTrac 2024 36 25 Brownfield UTO
Guangzhou Metro Line 4, Line 5 Siemens Trainguard MT CBTC ? 70 ?
Guangzhou Metro Line 9 Thales SelTrac 2017 20.1 11 Greenfield DTO
Marmaray Lines Commuter Lines Invensys Sirius ? 77 ? Greenfield STO
Tokyo Jōban Line Thales SelTrac 2017 30 70 Brownfield STO The plan was abandoned because of its technical and cost problems; the control system was replaced by ATACS.
Hong Kong MTR Kwun Tong line, Tsuen Wan line, Island line, Tseung Kwan O line Alstom-Thales Advanced SelTrac 2025-2029 58.1 128 Brownfield STO & DTO
New York City Subway IND Crosstown Line Thales SelTrac 2029 16 309 Brownfield STO
Porto Metro Porto Metro Alstom Cityflo 250 2024 3.0 18 Greenfield STO
Ahmedabad MEGA Nippon Signal SPARCS ? 39.259 96 coaches(Rolling Stock) ? ?
Baltimore Baltimore Metro SubwayLink Hitachi Rail STS CBTC 2025 24.8 78 Brownfield STO New railcars and signalling system undergoing testing, expected to enter service in mid-2025

Notes and references

Notes

  1. Only radio-based projects using the moving block principle are shown.
  2. This is the number of four-car train sets available. The BMT Canarsie Line runs trains with eight cars.
  3. This is the number of eleven-car train sets available. The IRT Flushing Line runs trains with eleven cars, though they are not all linked together; they are arranged in five- and six-car sets.
  4. Work being done in phases; the main phase between 50th Street and Kew Gardens–Union Turnpike stations was completed in 2022
  5. Includes a 1.48 km "express bypass" where non-stopping express trains take a different route than stopping local trains.
  6. ^ This is the number of four- and five- car sets to be equipped with CBTC; they will be linked up in sets of 8 or 10 cars each. The routes that use the Queens Boulevard and Crosstown lines are serviced by trains from Jamaica Yard and East New York Yard.
  7. Work being done in phases; the first phase is between 59th and High Street stations.
  8. Total number of railcars ordered, service is typically operated using four-car trains.

References

  1. ^ 1474.1–1999 – IEEE Standard for Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) Performance and Functional Requirements. (Accessed at January 14, 2019).
  2. Wu, Qing; Ge, Xiahau; Cole, Colin; Spiryagin, Maksym; Bernal Arango, Esteban (2023-01-01). Communication based train control (CBTC): Train controller and dynamics. CQUniversity. ISBN 978-1-925627-79-4.
  3. ^ "Thales awarded signalling contract for new Salvador metro". Thales Group. 2014-03-24. Retrieved 2019-05-09.
  4. ^ Bombardier to Deliver Major London Underground Signalling. Press release, Bombardier Transportation Media Center, 2011. Accessed June 2011
  5. ^ CITYFLO 650 Metro de Madrid, Solving the capacity challenge. Archived 2012-03-30 at the Wayback Machine Bombardier Transportation Rail Control Solutions, 2010. Accessed June 2011
  6. ^ "Service Summary" (PDF). Toronto Transit Commission.
  7. ^ "Modernizing the signal system: 2017 subway closures". Toronto Transit Commission. January 18, 2017. Retrieved January 23, 2017. Trains will be able to operate as frequently as every 1 minute and 55 seconds instead of the current limit of two and a half minutes. When installation is completed along the entire line in 2019, it will allow for as much as 25% more capacity. ATC will come online on all of Line 1 in phases by the end of 2019 starting with the portion of Line 1 between Spadina and Wilson stations and with the Line 1 extension into York Region that opens at the end of this year.
  8. Digital radio shows great potential for Rail Bruno Gillaumin, International Railway Journal, May 2001. Retrieved by findarticles.com in June 2011.
  9. "Bombardier Marks 15th Anniversary of Its World-First Radio-Based, Driverless Rail Control System" (Press release). Bombardier Transportation. MarketWired. March 29, 2018. Archived from the original on January 22, 2019. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  10. CBTC Projects. Archived 2015-06-14 at the Wayback Machine www.tsd.org/cbtc/projects, 2005. Accessed June 2011.
  11. ^ CBTC radios: What to do? Which way to go? Archived 2011-07-28 at the Wayback Machine Tom Sullivan, 2005. www.tsd.org. Accessed May 2011.
  12. ^ Subset-023. "ERTMS/ETCS-Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations". ERTMS USERS GROUP. 2014. Archived from the original on 2018-12-21. Retrieved 2018-12-21.
  13. IEC 62290-1, Railway applications – Urban guided transport management and command/control systems – Part 1: System principles and fundamental concepts. IEC, 2006. Accessed February 2014
  14. Madrid's silent revolution. in International Railway Journal, Keith Barrow, 2010. Accessed through goliath.ecnext.com in June 2011
  15. ^ Semi-automatic, driverless, and unattended operation of trains. Archived 2010-11-19 at the Wayback Machine IRSE-ITC, 2010. Accessed through www.irse-itc.net in June 2011
  16. CBTC: más trenes en hora punta. Comunidad de Madrid, www.madrig.org, 2010. Accessed June 2011
  17. How CBTC can Increase capacity – communications-based train control. William J. Moore, Railway Age, 2001. Accessed through findarticles.com in June 2011
  18. ETRMS Level 3 Risks and Benefits to UK Railways, pg 19 Transport Research Laboratory. Accessed December 2011
  19. ETRMS Level 3 Risks and Benefits to UK Railways, Table 5 Transport Research Laboratory. Accessed December 2011
  20. ETRMS Level 3 Risks and Benefits to UK Railways, pg 18 Transport Research Laboratory. Accessed December 2011
  21. ^ CBTC World Congress Presentations, Stockholm, November 2011 Global Transport Forum. Accessed December 2011
  22. "Mass transit signalling". 2022-01-01. Archived from the original on 1 January 2022. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  23. Stuart Green (2021-10-02). "This weekend's scheduled #TTC subway closure is now over and full service has resumed. Crews have completed the work on this phase of the new Automatic Train Control signaling system on Line 1. ATC now operating Vaughan MC to Eglinton" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  24. Fox, Chris (2019-04-05). "New signal system is three years behind schedule and $98M over budget: report". CP24. Retrieved 2019-04-10.
  25. Helsinki Metro automation ambitions are scaled back. Urban Rail News Railway Gazette International 2012
  26. ^ Cheng, Kenneth (2017-04-12). "Full-day signalling tests on North-South Line to start on Sunday". TODAY Online. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  27. "Siemens Mobility and Stadler consortium wins contract to modernize and upgrade the Lisbon Metro" (Press release). Siemens Mobility. May 10, 2021. Archived from the original on September 25, 2024. Retrieved September 25, 2024.
  28. 三菱電機、東京メトロ丸ノ内線に列車制御システム向け無線装置を納入 (in Japanese), Mynavi Corporation, February 22, 2018
  29. Briginshaw, David (January 8, 2014). "JR East selects Thales to design first Japanese CBTC". hollandco.com. Holland. Retrieved January 9, 2014.
  30. ^ 首都圏のICT列車制御、JR東が海外方式導入を断念-国産「ΑTΑCS」推進 (in Japanese). Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun. Retrieved 12 January 2018.
  31. Artymiuk, Simon (March 7, 2023). "MTA awards Crosstown Line CBTC contract to Thales and TCE". International Railway Journal. Retrieved August 4, 2024.
  32. "Alstom's leading urban signalling technology selected to enhance passenger connectivity on the Metro do Porto Pink Line in Portugal" (Press release). Alstom. March 12, 2024. Archived from the original on May 24, 2024. Retrieved September 25, 2024.
  33. "MDOT MTA to test CTBC system on Metro Subway stations". Mass Transit Magazine (Press release). October 2, 2024. Retrieved December 15, 2024.

Further reading

Railway signalling
Block systems
Signalling control
Signals
Train detection
Train protection
Crossing signals
Manufacturers
Organisations
By country
Categories: