Three Bridges/Victoria Automatic Route Setting

[EGKK26L]

Hello All
A fairly straightforward question - I understand Three Bridges Area Signalling Centre now has Automatic Route Setting installed; when did this take place?
Has Victoria Central or Victoria South Eastern ever had it?
Thanks
Tom

edited at Moderators request

 

[edwin_m]

Three Bridges was chosen for a trial ARS installation back in the 1980s. I don't know how much it was actually used.

 

[Sunset route]

Three bridges ASC’s original 1980s ARS (panel 5 only) was switched off at privatisation. The new ARS is still in the signalling contractors main frame PC waiting for further funding to make it work. However Three Bridges ROC has ARS on some if not most of their workstations now.

 

[Tim M]

The original 1980’s Victoria Area Resignalling had a GEC-General Signal Train Describer, ARS wasn't available at that date. The TD Contract was separated to the signalling works, also by GEC-General Signal.

 

[EGKK26L]

Three bridges ASC’s original 1980s ARS (panel 5 only) was switched off at privatisation. The new ARS is still in the signalling contractors main frame PC waiting for further funding to make it work. However Three Bridges ROC has ARS on some if not most of their workstations now.

Oh wow so it has yet to be put into use?

 

[Sunset route]

Oh wow so it has yet to be put into use?

Not even a working prototype yet.

 

[PM77]

Three bridges ASC’s original 1980s ARS (panel 5 only) was switched off at privatisation. The new ARS is still in the signalling contractors main frame PC waiting for further funding to make it work. However Three Bridges ROC has ARS on some if not most of their workstations now.

TBROC has 3 ARS like systems. SARS, IRS and DRS

 

[collexions]

ARS/TM (DRS/DCR) to be added in 2024 onto the six workstations that were re-controlled under Victoria Phase 2B (2016) / 2B (2018) and Victoria Phase 3 (2023) resignalling projects.

 

[IndianPacific]

TBROC has 3 ARS like systems. SARS, IRS and DRS

SARS being the Hitachi (was TRE) product, IRS is the Siemens one, who supplies DRS?

 

[DaveN]

Wasn't the Thameslink Programme TMS (Traffic Management System) going to be based at Three Bridges? What happened to that?

 

[hwl]

Wasn't the Thameslink Programme TMS (Traffic Management System) going to be based at Three Bridges? What happened to that?

Possibly a skip...
Hitachi needed to "develop some new maths" to cope with what South Central division infrastructure could throw at a TMS to deal with...

 

[Sunset route]

Wasn't the Thameslink Programme TMS (Traffic Management System) going to be based at Three Bridges? What happened to that?

Both Three Bridges ROC and Three Bridges ASC were supposed to getting TMS and ARS and in fact 12 new signaller jobs were created for that role 6 at each location. That never happened for various technical and financial reasons.

Then a new type of ARS well TMS without the controllers desks (so just signallers and SSMs desks only) was being developed for TBASC but it didn’t have the processing power and kept frying the chips, no matter how much money the through at it. So that project is now on the back burner if not cancelled totally whilst they work on the various workstation ARSs at the ROC instead of the more complicated panel versions at the ASC.

 

[PZ 08895]

There is a conteact in place to provide Alstom M-ARS Infinity at Three Bridges ASC, but unfortunately this is very late in delivery and the product has not yet cleared the NR product acceptance process.
The Hitachi TREsa system has been successfully deployed on 8 workstations at Three Bridges ROC partly using infrastructure previously installed for the aborted Thameslink Traffic Management system. This system maybe extended to cover the Thameslink core workstations. Siemens DRS ARS is also in use at Three Bridges ROC on some of the workstations transfered from Victoria Area Signalling Centre.

 

[collexions]

SARS being the Hitachi (was TRE) product, IRS is the Siemens one, who supplies DRS?

Also Siemens. DRS is the (non regulating) cost effective simple junction route setting engine deployed on simpler areas. It is paired with DCR on more complex areas that deconflicts the timetable 'further out', doing the timetable based regulating and passing the latest deconflicted timetable to the DRS simple route-setting component. Effectively ARS+/TMS- at the control system level. This is what is being deployed onto the Vic Eastern, Vic Central, Clapham, Balham, Sreatham & Sutton workstations later this year.

 

[IndianPacific]

Also Siemens. DRS is the (non regulating) cost effective simple junction route setting engine deployed on simpler areas. It is paired with DCR on more complex areas that deconflicts the timetable 'further out', doing the timetable based regulating and passing the latest deconflicted timetable to the DRS simple route-setting component. Effectively ARS+/TMS- at the control system level. This is what is being deployed onto the Vic Eastern, Vic Central, Clapham, Balham, Sreatham & Sutton workstations later this year.

Thank you

 

[Tomnick]

Also Siemens. DRS is the (non regulating) cost effective simple junction route setting engine deployed on simpler areas. It is paired with DCR on more complex areas that deconflicts the timetable 'further out', doing the timetable based regulating and passing the latest deconflicted timetable to the DRS simple route-setting component. Effectively ARS+/TMS- at the control system level. This is what is being deployed onto the Vic Eastern, Vic Central, Clapham, Balham, Sreatham & Sutton workstations later this year.

If the implementation of DCR+DRS at Peterborough is anything to go by, it'll be absolutely awful. Good luck!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

So what we are seeing is a shed load of money spent on several abortive systems with no benefit. All we need is a couple of MkI eyeball regulators to keep an overview and assist the signallers.

 

[LBMPSB]

Traffic Management died a death at TBROC. Loads of money thrown at it but eventually nothing. At TBROC all Kent Route Workstations, except Grove Park B, have Hitachi SARS (Signallers Assistant Route Setting). Like all ARS systems, it is an assistant and not like a lot of people think, and all singing all dancing automatic replacement for the Signaller. Signalers need to watch ARS in whatever form because although it may have set parameters, it doesn't have the ability to think what might happen further along the line because of the decision it makes at a regulating point. Grove Park B workstation has Siemens DRS on the Grove Park to Bromley North branch, but does not have any SARS or like on the main lines. London Bridge 3a & 3b workstation (Sussex Route London Bridge to Anerley/Peckham Rye) also have Hitachi SARS. The Core Southand Core Central Workstations were to have IRS so that Traffic Management could be bolted on, but that changed and they were going to put on SARS, but even that has changed and the last talk was of IRS again.

It amazes me how not one standard is used throughout and we get all these different systems. WestCad, MCS, SARS, DRS, IRS all under one roof.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Traffic Management died a death at TBROC. Loads of money thrown at it but eventually nothing. At TBROC all Kent Route Workstations, except Grove Park B, have Hitachi SARS (Signallers Assistant Route Setting). Like all ARS systems, it is an assistant and not like a lot of people think, and all singing all dancing automatic replacement for the Signaller. Signalers need to watch ARS in whatever form because although it may have set parameters, it doesn't have the ability to think what might happen further along the line because of the decision it makes at a regulating point. Grove Park B workstation has Siemens DRS on the Grove Park to Bromley North branch, but does not have any SARS or like on the main lines. London Bridge 3a & 3b workstation (Sussex Route London Bridge to Anerley/Peckham Rye) also have Hitachi SARS. The Core Southand Core Central Workstations were to have IRS so that Traffic Management could be bolted on, but that changed and they were going to put on SARS, but even that has changed and the last talk was of IRS again.

It amazes me how not one standard is used throughout and we get all these different systems. WestCad, MCS, SARS, DRS, IRS all under one roof.

Its pretty shocking how much money was waisted on TMS and its no wonder there are question marks over the vfm the railways represent at times. It spent too much time trying to reinvent the wheel rather than investing in staff and making what it has work better. Im pretty sure ETCS will end costing a fortune and delivering very little benefit as well.

 

[LBMPSB]

Its pretty shocking how much money was waisted on TMS and its no wonder there are question marks over the vfm the railways represent at times. It spent too much time trying to reinvent the wheel rather than investing in staff and making what it has work better. Im pretty sure ETCS will end costing a fortune and delivering very little benefit as well.

It is shocking how much money is wasted. The TMS for TBROC was for the Thameslink route. However, it failed on many things. It did not encompass the whole area, Just Luton to Brighton. It could not communicate with TRUST/TOPS so did not know where trains where outside of the TMS area. Too much was being tried in one go. Instead of getting a stand alone TMS to work, they tried to get it all singing all dancing at once. There are other TMS in use on Network Rail that work.

ETCS is good. Having seen it in opertion on the Thameslink Core route. The Core using ETCS Level 2. Here I think the railway missed a trick, they should have gone full Level 3 , would have been the perfect test bed. When ETCS Level 2 is up and running it is great, with ATO added even better because trains all move, brake and accelerate at best performance. The combination allows trains to travel closer together providing more pathways with better performance. But there again it is a costly exercise the railway structure is set up. Network Rail provides the infrastructure, the TOCs provide the trains. So Network Rail provides ECTS Level 2, the TOCs have to train all their drivers, have all their traction correct converted. This entails time and money. So as an interim, Network Rail has to have both ECTS Level 2 running alongside conventional signalling. Drivers need to be trained, traction converted, takes years. I have no idea who pays for this but the costs must be horrendous. Even now, many years after ETCS Level 2 being overlaid on conventional signalling through the Thameslink Core, there is not 100% of trains in ETCS. And recently, software has needed to be updates on the 700 units, cost in the millions! It makes you wonder if Network Rail had its equivalent of the BR Research Centre if costs would not have been a lot lower? Watch what hapens on the ECML out of Kings Crss. Currently having ETCS Level 2 overlaid the existing signalling. The number of TOCs that use the route, numbers of drivers and traction. How long will it be before the ECML is signal free? ETCS will deliver benefits, but it will take years, maybe a decade or more to finally get there, money permitting.

 

[takno]

It is shocking how much money is wasted. The TMS for TBROC was for the Thameslink route. However, it failed on many things. It did not encompass the whole area, Just Luton to Brighton. It could not communicate with TRUST/TOPS so did not know where trains where outside of the TMS area. Too much was being tried in one go. Instead of getting a stand alone TMS to work, they tried to get it all singing all dancing at once. There are other TMS in use on Network Rail that work.

ETCS is good. Having seen it in opertion on the Thameslink Core route. The Core using ETCS Level 2. Here I think the railway missed a trick, they should have gone full Level 3 , would have been the perfect test bed. When ETCS Level 2 is up and running it is great, with ATO added even better because trains all move, brake and accelerate at best performance. The combination allows trains to travel closer together providing more pathways with better performance. But there again it is a costly exercise the railway structure is set up. Network Rail provides the infrastructure, the TOCs provide the trains. So Network Rail provides ECTS Level 2, the TOCs have to train all their drivers, have all their traction correct converted. This entails time and money. So as an interim, Network Rail has to have both ECTS Level 2 running alongside conventional signalling. Drivers need to be trained, traction converted, takes years. I have no idea who pays for this but the costs must be horrendous. Even now, many years after ETCS Level 2 being overlaid on conventional signalling through the Thameslink Core, there is not 100% of trains in ETCS. And recently, software has needed to be updates on the 700 units, cost in the millions! It makes you wonder if Network Rail had its equivalent of the BR Research Centre if costs would not have been a lot lower? Watch what hapens on the ECML out of Kings Crss. Currently having ETCS Level 2 overlaid the existing signalling. The number of TOCs that use the route, numbers of drivers and traction. How long will it be before the ECML is signal free? ETCS will deliver benefits, but it will take years, maybe a decade or more to finally get there, money permitting.

Mostly I agree with this. The counter on the money spent for TMS in TBROC being wasted is that you have to try out a number of different solutions to see what inputs are needed and what works best. There isn't any way to always pick the good solution first. In terms of how it performs, you then have unfair comparisons with signallers working smaller routes.

In terms of reducing the cost of hiring, training and employing signallers while keeping the same performance we have a number of systems which have been successful in the bits they are good at since the 80s, and there is potential for more. Most of the time when newer systems fail it isn't in trying to do things that the older systems do, it's In terms of squeezing more trains down the line than more manual systems can manage. Some of the ambitions here just isn't acheivable without ECTS, and even then because of the expectations which have been loaded onto ECTS it's almost certain to be regarded as a failure.

We're never going to feel successful until we can get to the point where replacing clapped-out old PSBs with ARS/TMS-equipped Workstations is just regarded as a renewal, and we stop having to describe any work costing more than 30 quid as "upgrading Britain's Victorian Railway". It's not like Brunel himself wired up the relay room at London Bridge.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It is shocking how much money is wasted. The TMS for TBROC was for the Thameslink route. However, it failed on many things. It did not encompass the whole area, Just Luton to Brighton. It could not communicate with TRUST/TOPS so did not know where trains where outside of the TMS area. Too much was being tried in one go. Instead of getting a stand alone TMS to work, they tried to get it all singing all dancing at once. There are other TMS in use on Network Rail that work.

ETCS is good. Having seen it in opertion on the Thameslink Core route. The Core using ETCS Level 2. Here I think the railway missed a trick, they should have gone full Level 3 , would have been the perfect test bed. When ETCS Level 2 is up and running it is great, with ATO added even better because trains all move, brake and accelerate at best performance. The combination allows trains to travel closer together providing more pathways with better performance. But there again it is a costly exercise the railway structure is set up. Network Rail provides the infrastructure, the TOCs provide the trains. So Network Rail provides ECTS Level 2, the TOCs have to train all their drivers, have all their traction correct converted. This entails time and money. So as an interim, Network Rail has to have both ECTS Level 2 running alongside conventional signalling. Drivers need to be trained, traction converted, takes years. I have no idea who pays for this but the costs must be horrendous. Even now, many years after ETCS Level 2 being overlaid on conventional signalling through the Thameslink Core, there is not 100% of trains in ETCS. And recently, software has needed to be updates on the 700 units, cost in the millions! It makes you wonder if Network Rail had its equivalent of the BR Research Centre if costs would not have been a lot lower? Watch what hapens on the ECML out of Kings Crss. Currently having ETCS Level 2 overlaid the existing signalling. The number of TOCs that use the route, numbers of drivers and traction. How long will it be before the ECML is signal free? ETCS will deliver benefits, but it will take years, maybe a decade or more to finally get there, money permitting.

I would concur that ETCS/ATO through Thameslink core is excellent especially as it doesn't have the trains being driven defensively but that is one stock type so was relatively easy to implement. I recollect seeing the trains, which include the 717's i believe, need a 37m ETCS upgrade to be compatible with whatever version is being rolled out on the ECML. That in itself is a 1.8B project (includes 100m+ on stock fitment including preserved kettles!) and i suspect like HS2/Hinkley Point is a lot more now but we will never know as NR never reveals any project detail. As you say its keeping signals at great cost in the renewal initially and may take them away in the end or perhaps just bag them up like TfL have done. And what benefit will it achieve i suspect very little except perhaps through the two track Welwyn Viaduct section and you can be sure journeys wont be any faster but maybe slight less delayed. I suspect this will end up as an isolated installation except maybe TPE although even there they are spending a fortune on new battleship engineering signal gantries because the project is so elongated.