• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

RMT dispute with NR over Automatic Route Setting (ARS), but what are details ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
Here's a perfect example of why ARS is crap, particularly in central Manchester.

Again, if I'd been let through at least before the second train, I'd have been through Oxford Road and on my way to Piccadilly before he'd even presented at Castlefield Jn but obviously ARS will just regulate based on whichever train should have gone through first.
This is not the correct way to do things on such a congested bit of line - indeed, with the thinned out service at that time of the night, trains being delayed by 10 minutes can't be called 'congestion' so much as it must be put down to bad regulation.

It's also worth mentioning that all this also delayed the previously on time Northern Chat Moss stopper: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y57679/2020-02-11/detailed

(I will add that despite this, we made PPM at the Airport, but that's not really the point)
Thanks for this example. The same happens at Cardiff. ARS is mainly concerned with routing trains in the booked order, even if an on time train could get through a junction without touching the late runner. It hasn't improved in the two years that it has existed in Cardiff.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
Why were the most recent signalling upgrades built on a workstation system rather than as a panel system with ARS albeit using VDU screens adjacent to each other?
 

rstmart

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2014
Messages
21
Why were the most recent signalling upgrades built on a workstation system rather than as a panel system with ARS albeit using VDU screens adjacent to each other?
I think there are a combination of factors panel technology is old + difficult to maintain + upgrade, physical space required for panels is a lot more and making people stand for hours on end rushing from one panel to next not seen as acceptable these days.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Isn't that more to do with insufficient information in the timetable if a regular move ? OR is something amiss with signalling controls i.e no TRTS ?
Is there nobody who will change it? Class of train x,y,z not permitted on route a doesn't sound like rocket science?

You often see trains held up where it appears ARS (or the signaller) won't re-platform into empty space which is frustrating if the platform was only added at great expense a few years ago to handle said situation.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Thanks for this example. The same happens at Cardiff. ARS is mainly concerned with routing trains in the booked order, even if an on time train could get through a junction without touching the late runner. It hasn't improved in the two years that it has existed in Cardiff.
Avoiding congestion means minimising occupancy of the conflict point. For example at a terminus bringing the inbound trains in with minimal checks.

What often happens in many places is the inbound trains are held on the approaches causing queues that take ages to get moving while the outbounds take priority.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
You often see trains held up where it appears ARS (or the signaller) won't re-platform into empty space which is frustrating if the platform was only added at great expense a few years ago to handle said situation.
When deciding to re-platform, the signaler needs to take account of the need for passengers who may be waiting on the planned platform to move to a different one. This can be a considerable period especially for an intercity service that many have many passengers with heavy luggage or requiring assistance. So sometimes it's better to have the train use the booked platform as the delay will be less than waiting for everyone to move. This obviously depends on many factors including the geography of the station and the number of passengers who typically board that train. The classic one is use of 13b and 14b at Manchester Piccadilly, often suggested on this forum but anyone who's seen the chaos that ensures when they do it will understand why they don't unless there is no alternative.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
When deciding to re-platform, the signaler needs to take account of the need for passengers who may be waiting on the planned platform to move to a different one. This can be a considerable period especially for an intercity service that many have many passengers with heavy luggage or requiring assistance. So sometimes it's better to have the train use the booked platform as the delay will be less than waiting for everyone to move. This obviously depends on many factors including the geography of the station and the number of passengers who typically board that train. The classic one is use of 13b and 14b at Manchester Piccadilly, often suggested on this forum but anyone who's seen the chaos that ensures when they do it will understand why they don't unless there is no alternative.
True, but not really applicable to Reading Platforms 8/9 which are directly opposite.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
ARS at Reading does (or certainly did) replatform trains of it’s own accord for the two Mainline “islands” - 8/9 and 10/11.

Only the signaller/signalman/signalist can attest to why the “free” platform wasn’t used - there’s plenty of perfectly valid reasons a platform is not suitable that are invisible to all but the person on the workstation.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
ARS at Reading does (or certainly did) replatform trains of it’s own accord for the two Mainline “islands” - 8/9 and 10/11.

Only the signaller/signalman/signalist can attest to why the “free” platform wasn’t used - there’s plenty of perfectly valid reasons a platform is not suitable that are invisible to all but the person on the workstation.
And the very original ARS at Liverpool Street was allowed to re-platform, but only between opposite sides of the same island. If I recall correctly (and it's also nearly 30 years ago so may have changed) it wasn't allowed to re-platform at York and Newcastle, where the stations are complicated enough that even re-platforming within the same island would involve quite a lot of passenger movement. There's also the fact that a last-minute re-platforming needs announcers, platform staff etc to be aware so they can deal with the inevitable confusion. At the time (again this might have changed) there was no obvious way of alerting these people or even the signaler that ARS was thinking of re-platforming.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
When deciding to re-platform, the signaler needs to take account of the need for passengers who may be waiting on the planned platform to move to a different one. This can be a considerable period especially for an intercity service that many have many passengers with heavy luggage or requiring assistance. So sometimes it's better to have the train use the booked platform as the delay will be less than waiting for everyone to move. This obviously depends on many factors including the geography of the station and the number of passengers who typically board that train. The classic one is use of 13b and 14b at Manchester Piccadilly, often suggested on this forum but anyone who's seen the chaos that ensures when they do it will understand why they don't unless there is no alternative.
At Reading ARS will use both sides of the main line islands 8/9 and 10/11. I wish the Cardiff system would do the same, especially for platforms 3/4. At Cardiff, it's booked platform or nothing. Yesterday I was on a slightly late IET which meant it was was behind the Portsmouth rather than ahead of it. Both trains booked into platform 3 so that meant a 10 minute wait outside Cardiff.
 

Bow Fell

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2020
Messages
257
Location
UK
Why can't signallers overide the ARS at Cardiff? Just laziness?

Not really, no.

An area of ARS can be turned off by knocking the ‘sub area’ off means basically trains are signalled manually or ‘hand-balled’ therefore any error or regulation decision that knocks a train, it’s an OC for the signaller (unless of course it’s with best endeavours).

In my area there are two major ARS/Timetabling issues - there’s a stand-off between two trains a set of empties and a passenger service. If the passenger service is 1 minute late, then the route gets pulled for the set of empties causing chaos. So it’s always one for the signallers and controllers to watch.

And another set of empties where if you let ARS do it’s job, it knocks all sorts. Turn the sub off and regulate manually you can get away it, but of course you do it manually and still cause a delay, then it’s still a potential OC! Sometimes you can’t win, which is why sometimes it’s better to let ARS do the job, as any delay will go down to ARS/schedule.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
Not really, no.

An area of ARS can be turned off by knocking the ‘sub area’ off means basically trains are signalled manually or ‘hand-balled’ therefore any error or regulation decision that knocks a train, it’s an OC for the signaller (unless of course it’s with best endeavours).

In my area there are two major ARS/Timetabling issues - there’s a stand-off between two trains a set of empties and a passenger service. If the passenger service is 1 minute late, then the route gets pulled for the set of empties causing chaos. So it’s always one for the signallers and controllers to watch.

And another set of empties where if you let ARS do it’s job, it knocks all sorts. Turn the sub off and regulate manually you can get away it, but of course you do it manually and still cause a delay, then it’s still a potential OC! Sometimes you can’t win, which is why sometimes it’s better to let ARS do the job, as any delay will go down to ARS/schedule.

In theory, someone will spot the ARS/schedule delay minutes totting up and get it fixed?
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Not really, no.

An area of ARS can be turned off by knocking the ‘sub area’ off means basically trains are signalled manually or ‘hand-balled’ therefore any error or regulation decision that knocks a train, it’s an OC for the signaller (unless of course it’s with best endeavours).

In my area there are two major ARS/Timetabling issues - there’s a stand-off between two trains a set of empties and a passenger service. If the passenger service is 1 minute late, then the route gets pulled for the set of empties causing chaos. So it’s always one for the signallers and controllers to watch.

And another set of empties where if you let ARS do it’s job, it knocks all sorts. Turn the sub off and regulate manually you can get away it, but of course you do it manually and still cause a delay, then it’s still a potential OC! Sometimes you can’t win, which is why sometimes it’s better to let ARS do the job, as any delay will go down to ARS/schedule.
Sounds like a blame game then. Leave ARS on, let it hold trains 10mins outside an empty platform and blame the system.

Having said that you should have a way to override one train not all or nothing but the whole thing isn't really fit for purpose.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
Sounds like a blame game then. Leave ARS on, let it hold trains 10mins outside an empty platform and blame the system.

Having said that you should have a way to override one train not all or nothing but the whole thing isn't really fit for purpose.

Having ARS on doesn’t prevent the signaller manually routing - so in the “hold a train outside an empty platform for 10 mins” type scenarios; there is nothing stopping the signaller using the platform, unless it is otherwise unavailable for reasons that won’t be obvious to someone not sat in front of the workstation - line block, points failure, route barred and so on.
 

BRblue

Member
Joined
13 May 2015
Messages
271
Location
Sunny Sussex...
You can knock a single train out of ARS without disabling the whole sub-area.
Would a signaller be criticised for not doing that if it would have prevented a delay?
Doesn't that somewhat negate the need for ARS... the whole point of ARS was to either lessen the signallers workload or increase their area of control.
If you have to constantly monitor and correct the decisions of ARS, then you may as well signal the train normally in the first place... in which case I would question the need for ARS.
 

Tom Quinne

On Moderation
Joined
8 Jul 2017
Messages
2,225
Sounds like a blame game then. Leave ARS on, let it hold trains 10mins outside an empty platform and blame the system.

Having said that you should have a way to override one train not all or nothing but the whole thing isn't really fit for purpose.

You can switch individual trains out of ARS.
 

Tom Quinne

On Moderation
Joined
8 Jul 2017
Messages
2,225
Doesn't that somewhat negate the need for ARS... the whole point of ARS was to either lessen the signallers workload or increase their area of control.
If you have to constantly monitor and correct the decisions of ARS, then you may as well signal the train normally in the first place... in which case I would question the need for ARS.

Yes!

I’ll give you a clue, little bits of paper with QE2s face on....
 

Tom Quinne

On Moderation
Joined
8 Jul 2017
Messages
2,225
Avoiding congestion means minimising occupancy of the conflict point. For example at a terminus bringing the inbound trains in with minimal checks.

What often happens in many places is the inbound trains are held on the approaches causing queues that take ages to get moving while the outbounds take priority.

If you actually work Cardiff there will be few delays (in getting into a platform caused by unnecessary signal stops).

If you watch Moorland Road Junction (75mph) you can tell if the workstation is being worked or ARS is playing trains.

ARS is programmed to run trains passed the 75mph expensive crossing from the DM to DR for access to P4 or DM to UR for access to P3.

instead it’ll route all trains DM to Newtown crossings 25mph into both P3 & P4.

5 car IET trains can now platform share as long as the permissively signalled train isn’t another IET.

A really good move to keep the flow of down (westbound) trains is first train across at Moodland Road DM to DR into P4 stopping west end of P4 to terminate or even wait time to go west.

2nd train again over at Moorland Road DM to UR into P3 - usually a Swansea or West Wales Class 1.

I’ve had four trains into Cardiff at the same time in many occasions during service disruption.

1st across Moorland Road DM to DR into P4
2nd across Moorland Road DM to UR into P3
3rd DM into P2.
4th DM crossing at Long Dyke UP into P1.

The last gantry outside Cardiff east end with every road off with main aspects into platforms.

It really depends on how engaged the signaller is, and how good a crew there is OJ duty at Cardiff station.
 

Tom Quinne

On Moderation
Joined
8 Jul 2017
Messages
2,225
It’s not just about passengers either, freight traffic can unfortunately cause delays if it’s not kept on the move.

ARS is programed to route DN (westbound) freight through Cardiff from the DR as far as Moorland Road Junction, then cross it over to the UR - this move is a approach control signal so a 2000t freight will be slowing a massive distance out to be moving at a crawl when the signal clears to a Green for the move DR to UR through Cardiff.

The better way to do it is keep the freight DR past Moorland Road, and Long Dyke through platform 4 at Cardiff, down Line E and back onto the DM at Leckwith.
Ideally you’ll be able to keep him going all the way to Leckwith, but he’s got to slow for 15 for the platforms anyway so a check on the end of P4 isn’t going to cause any issues.

The added benefit with this move is you can still bring you passenger train into P3 via rhe DM to UR Moorland Road 75 crossing.

If your luck the passenger has come up behind the freight from Newport on the DM go into Cardiff via P3 and out via line D and the DM at Leckwith before the freight sees a yellow signal on Line E outside Canton.

Again it’s how engaged the signaller is, if their not why not?

it’s not generally lazyness either, but that’s a different thread.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,581
In theory, someone will spot the ARS/schedule delay minutes totting up and get it fixed?
Or even better, someone reports the problem to the relevant people, so that it gets fixed. ARS only does what it's told to do.
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,897
Or even better, someone reports the problem to the relevant people, so that it gets fixed. ARS only does what it's told to do.

Again, money. Most signalling stuff costs a lot of money to change, test and install. Yes, most ARS “shortcomings” will cause huge delay costs, so fixing them would be a money saver. But, I imagine it all comes from different budgets.

It can also then be cheaper to bundle a load of fixes in one go, or during a project (ie a remodelling or resignalling)

NR is becoming more “passenger focused”, perhaps this will force the change in mindset.

The majority of signallers up and down the country care about the job, and will report issues and faults. But, some will eventually become disheartened and give up.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Is ARS considered a safety critical system?
In other words, can it cause dangerous conditions through mis routing or will the signalling system itself prevent anything dangerous from happening?

If it isn't safety critical I imagine there might be some scope for trying to train a machine learning algorithm by watching actual signallers work on that workstation.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Is ARS considered a safety critical system?
In other words, can it cause dangerous conditions through mis routing or will the signalling system itself prevent anything dangerous from happening?

If it isn't safety critical I imagine there might be some scope for trying to train a machine learning algorithm by watching actual signallers work on that workstation.
ARS can only send requests to the interlocking so it can't set conflicting routes or cause signals to clear when the section ahead is occupied. It also won't set a route if the signaler has keyed points or put reminder devices on the signals concerned, as these are also enforced by the interlocking. The interlocking is certified to Safety Integrity Level 4, the highest available, but other control systems are to lower SILs (not sure what, as they weren't around when I was involved in developing such systems).

It's possible ARS could route a train onto a section it wasn't permitted to use, due to route availability, gauge, lack of electrification etc. This could happen due to an error in the timetable, or a train having the wrong description, or simply by a random error in the system considering that it isn't SIL4. But a human signaller or a random error in the non-SIL4 control system could do the same, and the hazard is mitigated by the driver being aware of where their train can and should go, and not "taking" an incorrect route.
 

Tom Quinne

On Moderation
Joined
8 Jul 2017
Messages
2,225
ARS can route electric trains into non electrified sections or sections which are blocked to electric traction - however that’s what BTET collars are for.

If data is incorrectly inputted ARS can route incorrectly etc.

In order for Traffic management to work, you need ARS switched on - I don’t think there is any rule that tells signallers to have ARS switched on?

After all workstations are planned and built to ensure the workload is within the parameters for signaller only operation, so no ARS shouldn’t impact on the service.

Unless........
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,581
Again, money. Most signalling stuff costs a lot of money to change, test and install. Yes, most ARS “shortcomings” will cause huge delay costs, so fixing them would be a money saver. But, I imagine it all comes from different budgets.
The kind of ARS problems being described here are highly unlikely to be due to problems with the ARS system itself, but with the timetabling information that is routinely input by NR. For example, where there are alternative routes over low-speed and high-speed crossovers, the timetable information will specify which route each train should use. And as the timetable is regularly updated, it shouldn't cost much if anything to correct.

It sounds as though the timetable information is being input based solely on timetable order, with not enough consideration being given to what should happen when things aren't running to timetable. This may be due to a lack of resources or understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top