ABSTRACT
The most deployed automatic train protection system (ATB-EG) in the Netherlands leaves a “gap” below 40 km/h, leading to 112 signals passed at danger (SPADs) in 2014 (ILT, 2015). Although the Dutch railway system is relatively safe, and SPAD figures are diminishing, some recent incidents and accidents reinforced the need for extra measures to reduce the number as well as the effect of SPADs. A significant example was a train to train collision in Amsterdam in 2012 involving 1 fatality and 188 people injured (Dutch Safety Board, 2012). One of the extra measures is a new warning system (with the acronym “ORBIT”) to fill the “ATB-EG gap” to a large extent by warning the driver when approaching a stop signal at (too) high speed. In short, ORBIT continuously checks train position, speed, and brake characteristics against the distance to the next stop signal, and generates a warning
CONTENTS
11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 121 11.1.1 Train Protection Systems in the Netherlands .................................................... 121 11.1.2 ORBIT in Addition to Train Protection Systems ............................................... 122 11.1.3 Human Factors Issues ........................................................................................... 123 11.1.4 Design of ORBIT .................................................................................................... 125
11.2 Simulation I ......................................................................................................................... 126 11.2.1 Method .................................................................................................................... 126 11.2.2 Results ..................................................................................................................... 128
11.3 Simulation II ....................................................................................................................... 128 11.3.1 Method .................................................................................................................... 128 11.3.2 Results ..................................................................................................................... 129
11.4 Field Test.............................................................................................................................. 130 11.4.1 Method .................................................................................................................... 130 11.4.2 Results ..................................................................................................................... 130
11.5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 132 References ..................................................................................................................................... 134
when a critical speed-distance curve (“alarm curve”) is passed. A schematic overview of the system is shown in Figure 11.1.
