Signalling Centres...Good or Bad??

[Toots]

Its ok mate,I know,but have a glance if you get a minute..

 

[Old Timer]

Its ok mate,I know,but have a glance if you get a minute..

First thing AM !

 

[Metroland]

A lot of noise from someone talking out of their posterior.

Why no grand plan for a number of very large signalling cetres before now then. I happen to know for a fact that this was stopped when I said, and the reason for it. Were you even born then I wonder ?

With respect, technology has moved on a great deal in 20 years. One of the features of the new proposed centres is the ability to take over interlockings from anywhere in the country. Computer power is many times greater than it was then, and there are advantages to be had, including computer aided regulating and incident control tools, when work better with a large amount of data being input into the system from a relatively small number of installations.

BR actually had plans for mega centres to control whole main lines in the 1990s, for example at Swindon, which was to take over the whole of the GWML. Hence the signals at Paddington were labelled 'SN' in readiness.

Railtrack also had many plans.

But it's only now cost effective technology is really coming together with military grade PC control systems, and spin off data communications technology, that get around many of the problems of system redundancy of earlier years. PC/VDU based workstations have really come of age, meaning very large control centres can be had in small spaces. Certainly more so than the domino panels of yesteryear.

There is a 16 page pull-out in modern railways explaining many of the advantages of the new breed of control centres.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I thought the SN outside Paddington was for "Slough North"?

 

[HSTEd]

Huge supercentres with VDU based displays do seem to have some rather awesome possibilities, especially with rapid reroutes along secondary lines without having to discuss it with anyone else outside the room the signalman (is that what they are called now?) is sitting in.

Ofcourse the failure argument coudl be countered by the fact that due to the glory that is modern electronics and communications hardware, you could probably have a dozen signalling centres for the whole country and maintain one in "warm standby" and still have saved money.

 

[The Planner]

VDU based systems tend to be slower setting routes than a panel from what I have encountered.

 

[185]

I think the fiasco at Merseyrail the other day was caused by having one control centre.

There should at least be two there - it's not fair when the whole of Wirral goes down thanks to a screw up in north Liverpool.

 

[Old Timer]

With respect, technology has moved on a great deal in 20 years. .

That was not the issue. He accused me of talking "bollocks" when I said that BR had stopped centralising signalling, and then went on to list a load of local PSB/small IECCs.

The discussion was not about the ability to do it but the reasons for not doing it in the 1980s.

Big centres are fine and well until something goes wrong, the more that goes wrong in different areas then the problems of managing them multiply exponentionally.

In any case the size of any panel / workstation has to be constrained by the ability of a man to work it when things go wrong, thus there is no saving in staff, and in larger centres there is definitely a loss of local knowledge which in many situations can be of enormous benefit and conversely can seriously hamper.

 

[GB]

Centralisation is centralisation, whether you are talking about 2 boxes or 20.

I also do not buy your staffing argument. You only have to see what has happened at Colchester with the Clacton resignalling to see how much has been cut (ie saved) in the staffing sense.

3 to 6 signallers doing what it used to take 40 odd signallers to do.

Local knowledge? Once a line is completely resignalled what real aid is local knowledge that can easily be gained from the new location?

 

[Old Timer]

Centralisation is centralisation, whether you are talking about 2 boxes or 20.

I also do not buy your staffing argument. You only have to see what has happened at Colchester with the Clacton resignalling to see how much has been cut (ie saved) in the staffing sense.

3 to 6 signallers doing what it used to take 40 odd signallers to do.

Local knowledge? Once a line is completely resignalled what real aid is local knowledge that can easily be gained from the new location?

Read and digest

In any case the size of any panel / workstation has to be constrained by the ability of a man to work it

The transfer of work from manual boxes to PSBs is not what is in debate. What is in debate is that you will reach a maximum size of area that a signalman can work and no amount of centralisation will change that. Therefore all you do is move the man away from a local environment into a large city or other centre, and that is all that centralisation achieves.

The downside comes when there are external factors that prevent someone coming to work, or a rail strike affects the area. Now you are affecting a potentially greater area than before because in all probability the staff will live locally, and we do know that Network Rail do not want staff travelling extended distances to work.

I find you belief that one can gain local knowledge of an area from a centre some considerable distance away, when there may well be no opportunity or desire or indeed will to go and visit a local area, somewhat touching. Learning the local geography of a box like say New St took some time, and that is not a large area.

What is key is the ability to communicate with a driver and understand where he is and what his locality is like. For example were you say "its by the flats at Willenhall", both you and he know exactly where that is, and it is that level of deatil that becomes lost in a large centre.

It is for that amongst other reasons that as I said earlier, US Railroads have decentralised some of their centres having originally pushed everyone into them. Do you really believe they would be doing this if there was not a benefit to be gained ?

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Centralisation is centralisation, whether you are talking about 2 boxes or 20.

I also do not buy your staffing argument. You only have to see what has happened at Colchester with the Clacton resignalling to see how much has been cut (ie saved) in the staffing sense.

3 to 6 signallers doing what it used to take 40 odd signallers to do.

Local knowledge? Once a line is completely resignalled what real aid is local knowledge that can easily be gained from the new location?

I would agree that is makes financial and operational sense to close one man signal boxes but there is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to placing more and more panels/workstation into a single building. Remember, these new ROCs are not just gloried IECCs, they are on a scale not seen before. They are going to have dozens of panels vastly remote from the areas they are controlling.

Network Rail have acknowleged that the area controlled by each workstation is going to be no larger than those in the current IECCs. So really the only thing that are saving is the running costs of the building and any functions that can be centralised. Therefore per workstation the proposed ROCs will hardly be any cheaper to run than an IECC, but yet introduce the threat of a problem shutting down the whole box and an entire region (as demonstated by the Sandhills incident). Is that really worth the cost saving of running extra buildings, along with the loss of local knowledge?

 

[GB]

I did read and digest it the first time thanks, hence my reply. But I note in your selective quote of your own quote you purposely missed out the specific point I was countering against.

 

[Old Timer]

I did read and digest it the first time thanks, hence my reply. But I note in your selective quote of your own quote you purposely missed out the specific point I was countering against to.

Work it, work it when things go wrong, there is no difference when the work area is calculated - one includes the other. You do not calculate a work area on the basis of nothing going wrong. It is calculated to take into account a variety of failure scenario. Were that not the case then at some point the signalman would become overworked on that particular panel.

 

[HSTEd]

As I said, you can probably save quite a bit on overheads, (do IECCs have staff cafeterias or other amenities?) and you can probably cut back on the number of backup workstations required as you can use all of your backups anywhere on the network.

 

[507 001]

Merseyrail proved what a bad idea this is the other day, especially where network fail are involved!

 

[Yew]

As I said, you can probably save quite a bit on overheads, (do IECCs have staff cafeterias or other amenities?) and you can probably cut back on the number of backup workstations required as you can use all of your backups anywhere on the network.

Also having one guy working nexk to the sections either side of him, could have some benefits.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

As I said, you can probably save quite a bit on overheads, (do IECCs have staff cafeterias or other amenities?) and you can probably cut back on the number of backup workstations required as you can use all of your backups anywhere on the network.

IECCs do not have staff canteens. I have heard of one having a small gym. In terms of the "back-up" workstations, Network Rail have been unable to explain to staff how this would work, since to be able to control another area, you have to have be competant and familiar with it. Although it is theoretical possible to control another area, the practicalities are enourmous. In reality I suspect they will simply try to make them as secure as possible.

I can understand the benefits of consolodating single manned boxes and small PSBs into an IECC, but I'm struggling to think of where the cost savings are going to come flooding in by making IECCs bigger.

 

[Toots]

Also having one guy working nexk to the sections either side of him, could have some benefits.

On the other hand they could also prove a distraction as could having an SSM looking over your shoulder,depends on the location really....

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Also having one guy working nexk to the sections either side of him, could have some benefits.

You mean like a PSB at the moment? Sorry, they don't fit in with the Network Rail 'vision'. IECCs are actually worse for overall regulation because ARS does most of the work, and signallers sit at individual workstations and do not function in the same way as a PSB, where everyone mucks in together.

PSBs are probably the best in terms of regulation, but are perhaps more costly to run than an IECC because they can't control as many route miles.

 

[brianthegiant]

So If I've understood this thread correctly,
there is UPS/generator backup power and spare workstations incase a workstation fails.

But there is no means to transfer any of the operations to another control centre in case of a major incident (fire, burst pipe, etc). due to need for local knowledge.

Can any functions be moved with the staff to an alternative location in this situation?

I suppose the same would also be true of PSBs etc. Just that now you lose a larger section of network

I guess this is the problem demonstrated in the Netherlands lat year when a control centre caught fire & they lost a big chunk of rail network for a considerable time?

 

[The Informer]

No I'm not a manager, in fact I don't even work for the railways now, that's why I can freely express an opinion (within the law).

In BR days there were lines of promotion, you couldn't just be transferred to any grade. NR will no doubt have their own arrangements which they will discuss with the trade unions. But there is no reason people cannot be absorbed within the company at some location, even if this meets retraining (I suspect).

While I do have some sympathy, it is unrealistic to expect Victorian signalling and worn out 1960s PSBs to carry on forever, and NR will understandably seek opportunities to consolidate control in line with the latest technology to make the railway more cost effective and responsive. The railway is not a museum, and semaphore boxes are best seen on heritage railways.

But it is at shrewsbury, and a working one at that!

 

[HSTEd]

Does this mean we will see a heritage line with PSBs now?
Since they will soon be historically important and not seen on the main line?

 

[Spagnoletti]

This project seems to have some aspects in common with the recently binned regional fire service control centres. I'll be very interested to see how the delivery matches the vision on what must be a massively complicated project, and whether the costs can be controlled given the amount of subcontractors that will be involved.