Talk:Automatic train protection

Clarify

Is Automatic train protection a generic term or does it refer to a specific system in (a) specific country/countries? If specific, please name them. If generic: Why is there a lenghty section about a specific equipment (Ericsson) in the article? --Qualle (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Versions in other countries?

I only know about the British system, hence this article only discussing that. Sorry! Dan100 (Talk) 21:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Compared to the rest of the article, I find the technical description is not too detailed, a more detailed one can be found in: http://www.railway-technical.com/sigtxt2.html . Regarding the name, I have worked with Madrid Metro, and ATP (they use the English abbreviation) is running on all their lines. It isn’t just the British system, I understand it is used in many Metro systems in different countries. It is a generic name.--Inigo75 14:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

The current version seems to describe the british AWS system, which already has its own article. ATP is used to describe both the general system that is capable of automatically stopping a train that passes a restrictive signal, as well as specific implementations of this system, ranging from the subway style mechanical trip-stop to coded track circuits to fancy computerized systems. AWS is, incidentally, not a form of ATP since the driver can cancel the warning and keep going.

Generic article

I tried to create a generic article under Automatic train protection system, please help improving it. --Kabelleger 18:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Clapham Junction rail crash and ATP

The Clapham Junction rear end collision was caused by a wrong-side failure and would not have been prevented by ATP since the ATP would (most likely) have displayed a simultaneous wrong line failure, being wired from the same relay.

Continuous and intermittent ATP

Is this newly added section more appropriate to the Train protection system article? Is it relevant to the UK model? Suckindiesel 20:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sailsbury?

I don't think this accident should be on the list - no speed-based system reliable enough for railway use could have been produced in 1906. We might as well say that Clayton Tunnel could have been prevented by track circuiting, or Mr Huskisson's death at Rainhill by conductor-operated pneumatic doors. To be honest, I think we'd be better off without the list altogether. Tevildo (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was about to write something similar, and then saw this comment. Is it not summed up by the phrase in the article "By the 1980s, microprocessors had developed sufficiently...." so by logic, anything before 1980 couldn't have been prevented! Rgds, --86.140.138.73 (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Salisbury(1906) does of course pre-date electronics and ATP, but it is the sort of accident that would have been prevented by ATP, had ATP existed. Since there are not a lot of documented accidents to refer to, it is helpful to include the pre-ATP ones, so as to boost the number of examples. The Violet Town collision could have be prevented by crude ATP-precursors, such as AWS. As a compromise, list all the commented out accidents, which are in date order, but insert headings for the different safely technologies as they become available.

Tabletop (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary citation needed

Why are "citations needed" when there is a whole article linked?

Tabletop (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed disaster from list

* Federal Express - 1953 - brake valve accidentally closed by contact with badly designed buffing plate.

I removed the above as there was hidden text on the edit page stating accidents before the 1980s would not have been preventable due to microprocessors not being available before then. 94.192.52.244 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gare de Lyon

I have seen the documentation in TV and from view as a cab driver in germany i don't think this is correct:

/*Secondly, the ATP system presumably would have applied a secondary backup brake system, even though this might have "risked" flat wheels. Apparently, the driver failed to apply or forgot the existence of this secondary brake.*/

The so called "secondary backup brake system" of that accident train is an electrical brake. An electrical brake is used to lower the wear of the brake shoes. If this is only a supporting system (like German BR ET 420 has) and is not controlled by any train protection system (LZB, PZB, KVB, Integra,...) in the situation of danger. They will always reduce the main air line from 5 bar to 0. The way the accident happend as i have seen it on TV goes in my eyes the following way: The driver had air loss in the main air line because of the emergency brake (open safety valve). He couldn't locate the cause of the air loss, so he closed the main air line (or he confused the valves and he tought he close the safety valve but he didn't). No all brakes behind the closed valve couldn't release, so he went to them and released them directly. Result: released not working air brakes -> accident --79.199.43.92 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Automatic train protection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091024130900/http://www.railwaysafrica.com:80/2009/10/damages-of-29m-awarded-after-derailment/ to http://www.railwaysafrica.com/2009/10/damages-of-29m-awarded-after-derailment/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416112747/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com:80/series/seconds-from-disaster/2389/Overview to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/seconds-from-disaster/2389/Overview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Both seem OK Dr Sludge (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

What is ATP actually?

The ERA glossary given as a source has four different definitions for Automatic Train Protection. Two of them are specific to the systems used by Network Rail and on the Eurotunnel/Channel Tunnel. The other two describe ATP as a system that supervises speed limits and movement authorities and can apply the emergency brake. Aside from the very few pure warning systems – what is the difference to a train protection system in general then? (The glossary has no definition for that term by the way.) One difference could be that an ATP system always has to check for the permissible speed but then ATS couldn't be a simple form of an intermittent ATP system as it is defined by the IFEV. I also can't see how these definitions show that an ATP system continuesly checks the speed limit.

So what is Automatic Train Protection actually? Is there a reliable source that says something like ATP is a type of train protection that fulfills criterion xyz? Or could it be some buzzword that is poorly defined or maybe even more or less synonymous to train protection? --PhiH (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Kavach (train protection system) into Automatic train protection

No standalone notability; in-house sources do not contribute to the notability of a technology. Media brouhaha was for a week when it was demonstrated. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I object merging Kavach (train protection system) with Automatic train protection due to the following reasons

• "No standalone notability; in-house sources do not contribute to the notability of a technology" — it conforms to the WP:GNG guideline; the subject is covered well by WP:RS sources like WP:THEHINDU, WP:INDIANEXP, The Financial Express etc and other national dailies of India.
• "Media brouhaha was for a week when it was demonstrated" - It is in service since a few years, in 2021 it was operational in 320 km [1], it is in news since years; news from 2021 November - [2], news from March 2022 - [3] and news from 22 April 2022, nearly two month after it was reviewed by Indian Railway minister - [4] => no need to merge with this article, it merits its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxtAl (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

My contestation of WP:PROD deletion made no mention of in-house sources or the media brouhaha when this system was demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Closing, with no merge, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Reference to American PTC

I would respectfully suggest that this article link to the article on American PTC, which is, at least on most US passenger rail systems, functionally the same system as what other countries generally call ATP. Rdhale92 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)