Loading AI tools
Railway signaling system From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.[1]
CBTC is a signalling standard defined by the IEEE 1474 standard.[1] The original version was introduced in 1999 and updated in 2004.[1] 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.[1] The standard therefore does not require the use of moving block railway signalling, but in practice this is the most common arrangement.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
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.[8]
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.[9] 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.[10][11] 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,[11] 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)[1] CBTC solutions that make use of the radio communications.
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 [when?]). 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.
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.[12]
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.[12]
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.
Modern CBTC systems allow different levels of automation or grades of automation (GoA), as defined and classified in the IEC 62290–1.[13] 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:
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.[5]
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.[14]
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.[15]
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.[16][17]
Finally, it is important to mention that the CBTC systems have proven to be more energy efficient than traditional manually driven systems.[15] 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.
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.[18]
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.[19] 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.[20] 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.[21]
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.[21]
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.
The typical architecture of a modern CBTC system comprises the following main subsystems:
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:
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).[4]
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).
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[22] | 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)
|
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[note 2] | 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 |  | Alstom | Urbalis | 2012 | 25 | 30 | Greenfield | STO | |
 | 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[6] | 65[6] | Brownfield (Finch to Sheppard West) Greenfield (Sheppard West to Vaughan) | STO | CBTC active between Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and Eglinton stations as of October 2021.[23] The entire line is scheduled to be fully upgraded by 2022.[24][7] |
| 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[25] | |
| 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[3] | 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[note 3] | Brownfield and Greenfield | STO | |
| Kuala Lumpur Metro (LRT) | Line 3 & 4, Ampang and Sri Petaling lines | 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 | 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 [note 4] | 21.9 [note 5] | 309[note 6] | 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[26] | 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[26] | 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 [note 7] | 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[27] | 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[28] | Mitsubishi | ? | 2023 | 27.4 | 53 | Brownfield | ? | |
| Tokyo | Tokyo Metro Hibiya Line | ? | ? | 2023 | 20.3 | 42 | Brownfield | ? | |
| Seoul | Sillim Line | 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[29] | Thales | SelTrac | 2017 | 30 | 70 | Brownfield | STO | The plan was abandoned because of its technical and cost problems;[30] the control system was replaced by ATACS.[30] |
| 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[31] | Thales | SelTrac | 2029 | 16 | 309[note 6] | Brownfield | STO | |
| Porto Metro |  [32] | 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[note 8] | Brownfield | STO | New railcars and signalling system undergoing testing, expected to enter service in mid-2025[33] |
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
