Brief days are a complete waste of time.
-
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!
New Signalling, ROC's
- Thread starter Steveswan10
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The York ROC recontrol added a new ARS system called DRS - Dynamic Route Setting. The signallers are really needing to keep their eye on it as its doing all sorts of wacky things. Quite a few of the signallers aren't even trained in how to operate it either yet, so they can't intervene on the DRS control screen.
An option could be to disable the ARS, but the workstation is quite large for one signaller so could cause more issues! (baring in mind there was usually 3-4 signallers on duty for the two panels at Peterborough PSB)
Signal_Box
Member
DRS & ARSE are both equipped on panels at my place, both are crap with a capital C.
Management are on about turning ARSE off for a week to see if actual signaller signaling is better than the system - this has struck fear into a lot of our signallers who have become use to letting ARSE do their job, and the new lot who “learnt” the panel watching ARSE play trains.
The whole system / grade is broken.
Management are on about turning ARSE off for a week to see if actual signaller signaling is better than the system - this has struck fear into a lot of our signallers who have become use to letting ARSE do their job, and the new lot who “learnt” the panel watching ARSE play trains.
The whole system / grade is broken.
Annetts key
Established Member
DRS - dodgy routing system...
Elsewhere ARS could helpfully route a train onto a bidirectional line, Then route another train in the opposite direction towards the first train on the same line. Then, there being no points in-between, it would give up... (safe, as the interlocking won't let the two trains into the same section, but rather daft).
They claim that this behaviour has now been eliminated, but has it?
Elsewhere ARS could helpfully route a train onto a bidirectional line, Then route another train in the opposite direction towards the first train on the same line. Then, there being no points in-between, it would give up... (safe, as the interlocking won't let the two trains into the same section, but rather daft).
They claim that this behaviour has now been eliminated, but has it?
Signal_Box
Member
No, in a word.
Steve Harris
Member
Thanx for the explanation.
As the saying goes... 'isn't technology wonderful' ..... lmao
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
ARS - if you put Garbage In you get Garbage Out - GIGO.
The Puddock
Member
If you have a chance, would you mind explaining a bit more about DRS and how it differs from ARS please? I’m familiar with ARS and SARS but I’ve never heard of it before.
Steve Harris
Member
SARS !? Isn't that the disease that predates Covid ??
I'm presuming you don't mean that but something else ?
Presumably S.... Automatic Route Setting ??
To be frank, I don’t know the exact differences, but it’s meant to be better at looking ahead and identifying potential conflicts. It’s a Siemens specific product and only works on their signalling systems.
I believe the issues it’s been causing on the Peterborough workstations will be less prominent once the signallers have all been fully trained on how to use it.
rower40
Member
- Joined
- 1 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 332
SARS is Signaller’s Assistant Route Setting. Siemens product.
collexions
Member
Not so…
SARS (Signaller's Assistant Route Setting) is a sub-component of HITACHI's TREsa product interfacing to third party control systems and acts as a full regulation engine like the original IECC (Integrated Electronic Control Centre) ARS (upon which it was originally modelled), but with some additional features.
DRS (Dynamic Route Setting) is an ARS lite, cost effective, first come first serve, simple junction routing system. It is part of SIEMENS' Control-guide suite and can be added to their WestCad Control system. Larger schemes add another suite component DCR (Digital Conflict Resolution), with is a timetable analysis/re-planning system, that sends a deconflicted timetable to the rudimentary DRS to route set in accordance with the re-planned timetable.
At signalling control level this is effectively ARS+/TMS-, but has the ability to add further out TM (Traffic Management) plan/re-plan operability later, but DRS/DCR deployments such as Peterborough needs the operational bugs ironing out first.
The issue with all of these systems is that they are built again operational requirement specifications, worked up between the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) suppliers, NR projects, ops and capacity planning. If TIPLOCs (Timing Point Locations), line or platform codes change through design, the systems are only as good as the operational and data baselines they were designed to. Good collaboration with operators and meaningful lessons learned being enacted serve the route to happy operators.
Last edited:
The Puddock
Member
Thank you!
collexions
Member
The bit you're describing is the DCR (Digital Conflict Resolution) sub-system. Looking ahead in time and enabling the planner to sandbox (offline) a number of potential timetable/routing scenarios to understand potential best mitigation and then enact the re-plan required in good time for the signaller by the time services get to their signalling area.
The DRS (Dynamic Route Setting) is simply the route-setting engine that the DCR passes the re-planned timetable to to enact the required route-setting. Mid term re-planning replacing short term regulation.
Simpler/less busy provincial schemes may only have the DRS component to enact route-setting in accordance with the timetable. Like a fuller ARS system however, ARS 'sub-areas' can be turned off in times of localised perturbation, and the signaler step in for those areas where necessary. It's a lite/cost effective solution that NR accept for applicable schemes.
I work with the team responsible for the Peterborough Re-control project as well as on other UK DRS/DCR deployment projects, and as with all 'newer' technology projects, all the testing in the world will only get the data to the agreed client specification. It's once it's used in anger by the operators (hopefully fully trained beforehand!) that nuances will be unearthed and hopefully swiftly rectified.
Last edited:
Annetts key
Established Member
You do know that on the railway, a common theme is that "they couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery"?
Let's just say that some of the plans and decisions are more about money (or rather the lack of it), short term thinking and ignoring lessons of the past. Plus other strange ideas.
Having high level concepts like large ROCs containing workstations that have to use ARS and their related systems, just sets the railway up for a bigger fall should (when) something happens that means that ARS (and related systems) can't be used. Or a failure disrupts a large area. Or worse.
BR did attempt to run a service almost no matter what happened (within reason). Now, if (when) it goes pear shaped, it's close the line and tell people not to travel...
We don't normally have enough signallers to run emergency ticket block working and now I'm hearing, that if the ARS (and related systems) can't be used, the workload is too much for the signaller...
So much for progress...
Let's just say that some of the plans and decisions are more about money (or rather the lack of it), short term thinking and ignoring lessons of the past. Plus other strange ideas.
Having high level concepts like large ROCs containing workstations that have to use ARS and their related systems, just sets the railway up for a bigger fall should (when) something happens that means that ARS (and related systems) can't be used. Or a failure disrupts a large area. Or worse.
BR did attempt to run a service almost no matter what happened (within reason). Now, if (when) it goes pear shaped, it's close the line and tell people not to travel...
We don't normally have enough signallers to run emergency ticket block working and now I'm hearing, that if the ARS (and related systems) can't be used, the workload is too much for the signaller...
So much for progress...
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,745
Well that's what happens when staff costs increase as dramatically as they have done since privatisation.
Trying to maintain BR staff norms would cost billions extra every year.
Well in my experience, Ops staff (management and the front facing) have no interest in any concept beyond what is happening in the here and now. So asking Ops 18 months out to input into a design is ... well fraught with risk as the users are not interested at that time
The Puddock
Member
Temporary Block Working (TBW) and Emergency Special Working (ESW) impose more or less the same workload on the signaller. In TBW the instructions are relayed through the handsignallers and in ESW the instructions go directly to the driver. Either way, the workload on the signaller is high but manageable if nothing else too involved is going on.
When you say “we don’t normally have enough signallers to run emergency ticket block working” I infer that you are actually referring to the lack of staff holding the handsignaller competency for TBW. This role requires the handsignaller to be located on the line at a signal but the vast majority of signallers today do not hold any competencies to access the track, let alone to act as handsignaller, so would never be able to be used in this role. The handsignaller competency does not require the holder to have any knowledge or experience of being a signaller - it is a simple half day course aimed at maintenance and operations response staff.
There used to be a lot more staff with handsignaller competency but over the last decade the number of situations which required a handsignaller to be appointed have been gradually reduced in the Rule Book to just two and the number of staff renewing or gaining the competency has greatly reduced in line with this. Maintenance staff headcount cuts has further reduced the number of potential handsignallers compared with 20 or even 10 years ago. It’s nothing to do with a shortage of signallers as such and it’s completely unrelated to the rise of the various proprietary automatic route setting systems,
Annetts key
Established Member
The situation has indeed changed since BR disappeared into history, yes. At one time, signallers did act as hand-signallers and were permitted to go track side. But this is history.
The current arrangements whereby it's normally the maintenance staff that are suppose to carry out hand-signallers duties in an emergency is IMHO a bit flawed. Even before the recent staff reductions, the number of staff who are available (even if they were trained and competent) to carry out such work was small.
S&T need to attend to the failure , so they are not available.
P.Way, if any are actually on duty during the day, will either have their own important work, or be needed for point operators.
I'm not sure if any other engineering grades have handsignaller competency.
Hence in practice, if TBW is the only method available for trains to continue running (say because you have a total loss of signalling in an area), without having enough staff available to hand signal trains, trains can't run in this area. That may include any trains "trapped" in the affected area.
I never said that TBW had anything to do with ARS.
Everything is a balance (compromise) as there is never going to any significant amount of spare resources or money available for 'just in case'.
Do members here think that since the introduction of ROCs and large signalling centres and the current rules, procedures and operating methods, that the train performance has got better or worse?
BR's official aim was to reduce S&T failures towards zero. Network Rail doesn't take that approach. Instead they have various targets. They aim to try to keep failures below these targets.
Of course, it's almost impossible to actually know exactly what effect each decision has, because there are so many other variables that also affect train performance. But maybe some of the long time signallers here may have a personal view.
The current arrangements whereby it's normally the maintenance staff that are suppose to carry out hand-signallers duties in an emergency is IMHO a bit flawed. Even before the recent staff reductions, the number of staff who are available (even if they were trained and competent) to carry out such work was small.
S&T need to attend to the failure , so they are not available.
P.Way, if any are actually on duty during the day, will either have their own important work, or be needed for point operators.
I'm not sure if any other engineering grades have handsignaller competency.
Hence in practice, if TBW is the only method available for trains to continue running (say because you have a total loss of signalling in an area), without having enough staff available to hand signal trains, trains can't run in this area. That may include any trains "trapped" in the affected area.
I never said that TBW had anything to do with ARS.
Everything is a balance (compromise) as there is never going to any significant amount of spare resources or money available for 'just in case'.
Do members here think that since the introduction of ROCs and large signalling centres and the current rules, procedures and operating methods, that the train performance has got better or worse?
BR's official aim was to reduce S&T failures towards zero. Network Rail doesn't take that approach. Instead they have various targets. They aim to try to keep failures below these targets.
Of course, it's almost impossible to actually know exactly what effect each decision has, because there are so many other variables that also affect train performance. But maybe some of the long time signallers here may have a personal view.
Don't most MOMs and FSDMs have hand signaller competences?
Staff cost's may have significantly increased, but the staff headcount has also significantly reduced.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,745
Well yes, one drives the other.
If staff were cheap there would be no driver to eliminate them, but staff are now very very expensive.
Therefore the system has to cut staff numbers to keep costs within reason.
You can have well paid staff or numerous staff
endofthetunnel
Member
In most cases nowadays, Emergency Special Working is used rather than TBW. This doesn’t need the handsignallers, partly because we now have full communication with all trains if required via GSMR. Of course it’s chicken and egg whether the reduction in handsignallers is because of the rule change or vice versa!
The Puddock
Member
That’s why the industry has moved to Emergency Special Working, which does away with the need for handsignallers. Temporary Block Working is very rarely used now.
You seemed to be - rather confusingly - conflating the role of signaller in a signalbox with the competency of handsignaller out on track. I was trying to make the point that the number of signallers employed and their workload (as well as the provision, or otherwise, of ARS) has nothing to do with whether or not TBW can be brought into operation because of a lack of staff holding handsignaller competency.
According to the job description MOMs are meant to hold the various Auxiliary Operating Duties competencies, which includes handsignaller. I‘m not familiar with the FSDM acronym (well, I am but for a job that clearly isn’t what you’re talking about here) so I can’t answer for that. Although it rings a bell at the back of my mind that it might be something to do with the ongoing Anglia Ops trial?
I think that we have seen a massive increase in numbers of trains running over lots of the network in the past 20 years, and yet have managed to keep them running reliably a pretty large proportion of the time without incurring huge extra running costs on signalling. ROCs and decent ARS algorithms are a crucial part of that. Sure it all falls apart under significant disruption, but then it always did, and thinking about the last couple of dozen significant delays I've had, all of them have actually been caused by industrial action or lack of trained drivers rather than signalling, so I'd say that on balance it's going pretty well.
In the case of Peterborough, the old panel also used to do some pretty interesting regulation. That's inevitable for a few reasons. The lack of a down through often leaves non-stoppers without a clear path through. The painful single down line to the south, combined with some over-enthusiastic pressing of the TRTS means that slows will sometime end up trundling out in front of a fast which could have passed them pretty much in the station and delay them by 5 minutes. You also have the fuss over the past few years about delays on trains heading for the Thameslink core. Finally, long distance trains like the Lumos have around 30 minutes of padding in the journey time and realistically need to be held back in order to not get in the way of other traffic.
The main difference between using people and automation in these scenarios is that people are likely to have a pretty good go at trying to follow all the rules, however deranged they are. You're never going to get all the nonsense coded up into an algorithm though, because somebody will always realise that their precious priority has been disregarded and complain about it.
Falcon1200
Established Member
Bearing in mind that I retired seven years ago, in my experience of having had to arrange Temporary Block Working on far too many occasions the first port of call for staff was always the operators, ie Mobile and Local Operations Managers. If not enough were available, or they were too far away, recourse would be made to the local PW staff, however over the years their competency was gradually allowed to expire. But, as mentioned above, Emergency Special Working has improved the process.
Most full resignalling projects nowadays are seemingly doing away with emergency panels and remote interlockings, prefering everything to be within the ROC. I imagine this is going to cause ESW and TBW usage to slightly increase in the event of communication problems, as rather than switching in a local panel, the whole system locks up.
SSI when introduced in 1989, at what were York and Tyneside IECC did away with any remote interlockings or emergency panels.
The idea of controlling another area from a ROC is pie in the sky anyway. York ROC also has the new interlockings for most of the new relocked workstations situated in the ROC. If the whole ROC goes down, so does your interlocking and without that you can't signal anything conventually anyway.
Sunset route
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,189
I would say it was in the “1994 signallers restructuring agreement” where they moved the training allowance, which we got paid on a shift by shift basis for training signallers (along with many other allowances) into our basic pay. can be found on the RMT website under signallers agreements.
Same at Colchester, 6 months minimum, if a learner was on the same panel, either the learner would go out with the MOM, or the duty Signaller would swap panels / workstation
Yes, Union signed the allowance away, and it was consolidated into the salary. so yes it is now within the T&C's to teach
Hitachi, not Siemens, and the system is 'OK' but and in some cases hopeless, it is nowhere near as good as a Signaller working the workstation.
Cognisco, it is a terrible set up, in fact, unless guided by the briefer, you are set up to fail ! last time I did it, was back to no rule books allowed, which in my view is 100% wrong and dangerous
Last edited: