When an area is being 'ARSed' , do the designers involve local signallers in the decisions?
In most cases that I have been involved with, ARS was applied as part of a significant resignalling scheme, so the signallers were all new to the scheme (although probably not new to the area). Although the ARS was often one of the last things to be commissioned, as it usually can't be commissioned until the whole area has been resignalled, design would have to commence in parallel with the rest of the scheme. For example, for good decision making, ARS needs information about approaching trains from beyond the control area, which may require the underlying signalling and train describer systems designed to provide the necessary information. This kind of "architecture" requirement usually comes from the ARS technical experts, who are familiar with how the ARS algorithms work. In every case that I was involved with, there was always a local signalling operations representative as part of the review committee. However, to be honest, until the signallers are familiar with the new control system, the new layout and its operation, and in particular how ARS works, their input is usually limited.
As I explained previously, the ARS relies on both its configuration, which is done by the ARS supplier, and the timetable information which is provided by and routinely updated by NR. For example, ARS can set a route whenever a train approaches, or wait for a set departure time, or wait until a trigger (such as a TRTS plunger being pressed) is received. This is all defined in the timetable data for a particular train. However, the timetablers can't select the latter option if the signalling system and ARS haven't already been pre-configured so that the ARS can see the relevant trigger. Likewise, where there are conflicting routes, ARS can be configured to set on a first-come basis, according to train priority, according to how much delay it would cause if you let the wrong one in first, or can be told that a certain train
must go first. The algorithms for deciding which train to route first are quite sophisticated, but rely very heavily on the timetable information input by NR as regards priorities, requirements on train ordering, etc.
Most of the ARS problems that I have ever encountered have almost-always been down to the timetabling information, rather than the underlying way that ARS has been configured. For example, in the cases mentioned by Bikeman78, it sounds as though the timetables have simply been input so that ARS signals the trains in timetable order. As he says, this is all very well when things are running to time, but hopeless when they are not. It is certainly not making the best use of ARS's capabilities. ARS is perfectly capable of making sensible decisions when trains are running late and out of order, but it can only do so if the timetable information allows it do so. Such timetabling problems should be relatively-easily cured -
provided that they get reported back to the relevant people. If people just shrug them off as "ARS is not up to the job" then it will never get better.