Return to Archive -by date - by topic.
Handling short-notice perturbations is a key feature of the new generation control centres
As we all know, after privatisation, Railtrack was off with the fairies when it came to signalling technology. One of the last of the fantasies to die was the Network Management Centre (NMC) concept where, despite having the pioneering Integrated Electronic Control Centre (IECC) on its doorstep, the xenophiles at the black tower bought North American technology.
While this was fine at arranging meets at passing loops in the wide open spaces, you did wonder how the technology would cope with providing Automatic Route Setting (ARS) for the the southern end of the West Coast Main Line (WCML) on a busy evening. And it never did.
Meanwhile AEA Technology Rail, the privatised British Rail Research, produced the control Centre of the Future (CCF). This takes the train operating data already produced for AEAT Rail's IECC and processes it to give operations controllers a real time display of train running.
Tools include recording the data, so that an incident can be replayed for delay attribution. CCF is now standard across Network Rail.
In parallel, Network Rail bought what might be called IECC-lite. On the WCML the delay to the NMC created the need for additional short term (now long term) control centres. The contract for these Interim Control Points (ICP) was awarded to General Electric Transportation Systems (GETS).
Where did GETS come into the UK signalling scene? Well, in the begiining was Vaughan Systems which created the very first Train Describer. When Railtrack went potty about using single processor interlockings for lightly used lines, Harmon Industries of the USA set up a partnership with Vaughan to provide local expertise for the application of its processor system on the Cromer branch resignalling. This became a takeover, creating Vaugham Harmon. Harmon in turn was taken over by GE, hence GETS.
Westinghouse Rail Systems offers a similar screen based control desk, what Network Rail calls a VDU based Signalling Control System (VSCS), under the WestCad trade name. A WestCad at Leamington Spa controls the Cherwell Valley resignalling.
Control TerminologyNetwork Rail has more combinations of Controls and Centres than you would think possible. Apart from the IECC, the ICP and the CCF, already mentioned, there is also the Integrated Control Centre (ICC) such as Waterloo where Network Rail and TOC controllers share the same room. While the new Type E contracts refer to Signalling Control Systems this is, apparently, a terminological solecism. Network Rail now has Signalling Centres and Control Centres, but no Signalling Control Centres which might be confused with ICC. I hoe that's clear. |
In its medium term signalling programme, Network Rail has identified five new control centres to be procured under the Type E contracts already mentioned. They will have to improve train performance, because the Prime Mindister's Delivery Unit is looking for a revised ‘trajectory' which will provide election winning Public Performance Measures (PPM) coms May 2009. And at Infrarail in September both GETS and Westinghouse were demonstrating sundry buzzers and bells which they will be offering on their control centres when the Type E bids go in.
GETS had its Modular Control System (MCS) replicating the installation at the Stoke ICP. Several enhancements were being demonstrated including ARS being provided by simulator specialists TRE. With the West Coast ICPs – the other is at Rugby – now there for the duration Network Rail would like ARS to be available and, according to Informed Sources, is funding the development.
Several additional display screens had been bolted onto the standard MCS workstation to show off the new capabilities offered to the signaller. One feature is the ability to generate a ‘signaller's simplifier'.
A ‘simplifier' presents the timetable as a list of trains passing through the control area – in effect a form of textual route setting. What GETS provides is the ability for the signaller to generate a new simplifier on the spot in the event of a short notice change to the timetable or disruption to services.
Another feature which should appeal to the No 10 Delivery Unit is the facility for the signaller to quantify delay minutes for a range of operating scenarios. Say that ultrasonic testing found a track fault. Then the controller could compare the impact of imposing an Emergency Speed Restriction, and scheduling the repair later, against closing the line for an immediate repair and select the option generating the least delay minutes.
Westinghouse was showing the WestCad workstation, based on the Leamington Spa installation. Like GETS they were demonstrating ARS, developed for WestCad under a collaborative venture, also with TRE.
I raised an eyebrow at the mighty Westinghouse not producing its own ARS. But the company argues that since TRE had produced a version of ARS for its IECC simulation contracts, there was no point in spending the money twice, hence the agreement to develop a version for WestCad.
Personally, I don't buy that. When you are a major power in the global signalling industry, manufacturing your own safety critical electronic interlockings, and part of the ERTMS manufacturers club, ARS ought to be part of your capability.
Anyway, where the extra displays on MCS had a distinct ‘bread-board' feel, the WestCad at Infrarail was to production standard. I noted in particular the additional screen at the workstation which allows the operator to change the ARS parameters from the desk.
A clear theme is emerging here, namely that control centres now have the processing power to handle the data preparation and manipulation previously carried out off site and downloaded to the local application. One use for the ARS facility is the the development of contingency plans and the introduction of special timing patterns when non standard traction and rolling stock is running through the control area.
There was a distinctly European feel about another facility Westinghouse was demonstrating. WestGraph was displaying, on another screen, a classic train timing graph of current services. The graph projects train running into the future, identifying possible conflicts.
Ho, hum, so what, you might think. But WestGraph can be used as a dynamic scheduler.
You can adjust the graph for an individual train on the screen. For instance you could delay its arrival at a crossing point, to remove a future conflict. When you are happy with the outcome WestGraph feed the new timing into the ARS.
Once again, here is a facility designed to make it easier to evaluate the potential effects of short notice changes and service disruptions and the regulate train running to minimise the impact. WestGraph has been in service in Taiwan since 1998 and it is also being applied by the Company's Australian subsidiary.
Not showing at Infrarail was AEA Technology Rail, which is currently having a hard time. I was reminded of one of those 1930s political cartoons where dogs labelled Poland and Czechoslovakia are fighting over a joint while in the background a grinning Russian bear prepares to take the lot. AEAT Rail is the bear.
We use ‘ARS' as a generic term, but in the UK context it refers to the pioneering ARS develpoed by BR Research in the 1980s as part of the IECC. In that sense it retains the algorythms of the state railway and is not wholly aligned with the current structure.
But, catching up with AEAT Rail will not be easy. There are 19 IECC in service at 11 signalling control centres. CCF is the control centre ctandard. Version 3 IECC software is now in development. And with the death of NMC, money is going into further enhancements and upgrades.
If a Type E contract calls for IECC capability, GETS and Westinghouse are going to find it hard to compete. But a Type E contract for a modest control centre could start the long catch-up process.
Note that the five Type E contracts are medium term. Network Rail's long term control and signalling strategy is still fluid. I would expect to see signalling and operational control brought together and controlling larger networks.
Just as the demise of APT did not invalidate the concept of tilting trains, so the failure of the NMC did not invalidate the concept. Watch this space, but the acronym may change. How about New Generation Control Centre (NGNC). (That's more than enough acronyms – Ed)