IET

Felix Schmid - University of Birmingham

Skip to main content
The Institution of Engineering and Technology iet.tv
Site name
  • Videos
  • Channels
  • Events
  • Series

Access and Account

Access your personal account

Log in to see your favourites, lists and progress.

IET Login

Access via institution

Not currently connected to any institutions

Connect via

Access Code

Redeem Access Code
Log in to redeem access code

This video isn’t available to you right now

Login to check your access and watch the full session.
To redeem an access code, first log in.

Login
  1. Videos
  2. Video

Closer Running: Magic Capacity Potion or Poison?

  • WhatsApp
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • Bluesky
CPD This content can contribute towards your Continuing Professional Development (CPD) as part of the IET's CPD Monitoring scheme.
Event
  • Duration: 21 mins
  • Publication date: 25 Nov 2019

Abstract

The low adhesion at the wheel-rail interface is a fundamental characteristic of railway systems, leading inevitably to long stopping distances. As a consequence, traditional fixed block methods of train control prevent railways from using the infrastructure fully. Increases in demand for railway journeys and the difficulty of adding infrastructure has led to a philosophy that enables trains to be separated by less than a full braking distance, similar to motorway driving. This concept is based on the premiss that it is unrealistic to assume that a train stops instantly and, therefore using the full braking distance in a system design is an overly cautious approach. It offers potentially greater capacity but there are concerns that a catastrophic event would occur when the preceding train is stopped instantaneously. Technologies exist for these systems. However, it has not yet been applied to operational railway systems. According to IEC 61508, a safety analysis should be performed early in the system life cycle to reduce systematic risks and reduce cost. In the paper, the authors aim to review critically the research into closer running of trains and conduct a safety analysis of the approach. To investigate the increase in railway capacity, the authors simulated a scenario of two consecutive services diverge from a line and making station stops of 90 s. The model indicated a capacity improvement of 14% over ETCS Level 3.For the safety analysis of the system, the authors compared two approaches: (1) event chain accident causation model based safety analysis methods which include traditional tools, such as HAZOP, FMEA and FTA and (2) a systematic theory accident causation model, which is relatively new. They summarise the advantages and disadvantages of applying this novel approach.For approach (1), Event Tree Analysis and Boolean algebra were applied to quantify the probability of an accident using data from industry statistics and reports covering a 10-year period. The event tree analysis indicates that the probability of a passenger being injured due to a train stopping at an unacceptable rate is 1 in 1.23 million journeys. This falls into the regions of negligible and tolerable risk. Investigations into historical incidents reveal the following as having the potential of decelerating a train rapidly: fallen trees, road vehicles, cattle, engineering work and track plant, most importantly, avalanches, landslides and debris. Thus environmental factors present the greatest hazard. Climate change increases rainfall severity increases the risk of landslides.For approach (2), he authors extended the Unified Modelling Language into a sequence diagram meta-model for STPA, to analyse the safety of the ETCS level 4 system. The authors identified hazards in operational scenarios, built the associated model, and discovered unsafe control actions (UCA) that could lead to hazards. For each unsafe control action, the authors further identified the causal scenarios that lead to the unsafe control action and propose mitigations or solutions. The systematic theory accident causation model based methods are applied to only one hazard analysis. Further research is therefore required to adopt the method for safety analyses.

Keywords:
  • Accident models
  • Battery
  • Battery fires
  • Battery storage
  • Battery technology
  • Cells
  • Cyber security
  • EV
  • Electric Vehicles
  • Flooding
  • Lithium Ion batteries
  • Lithium batteries
  • Low emission
  • Safety
energy conservation energy resources energy storage
The Institution of Engineering and Technology iet.tv

Address: Futures Place, Kings Way, Stevenage, SG1 2UA

Telephone: +44 (0)33 049 9123

Email:  iet.tv@theiet.org

© 2026 The Institution of Engineering and Technology.

The Institution of Engineering and Technology is registered as a Charity in England & Wales (no 211014) and Scotland (no SC038698). Futures Place, Kings Way, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2UA, United Kingdom

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
Privacy statement Cookie Preferences Accessibility About us theiet.org Help

Powered by Cadmore Media

Embed Code

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://play.cadmore.media/js/EMBED.js"></script> <div class="cmpl_iframe_div"> <iframe src="https://play.cadmore.media/Player/198052b2-6065-4224-bcdd-b633a2f833ca" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" allowautoplay="true" frameborder="0" allow="encrypted-media;autoplay;fullscreen" class="cmpl_iframe" allowfullscreen="" style="overflow: hidden;border: 0px; margin: 0px; height: 100%; width:100%;"></iframe> </div>

Are you sure you want to reset your password?

If so, you will be redirected to the Authentication Service