Rail Operating Centres (ROC's)

[TOCDriver]

I would be very interested to know the opinions of the regular posters on here regarding this. Do you consider them a good thing or a bad thing i.e to have one control room governing a massive chunk of the network. I'm no engineer but would they be vulnerable to an attack of some sort thus crippling a large part of the transport network??? Would be very interested to know the views of any profession NR people on here

 

[455driver]

That well known phrase about eggs and baskets springs to mind.

 

[Ships]

Depends if your ask a signaler or not, there has been some rather robust debate on the subject! Saying that I think there will be some massive thing to be sorted out first. Line blockages being a major one, it's hard enough to get a block from a signaller doing his work (GZAC or no). Now when you have a signaller doing the work of 10 boxes then I can't see how this will work. As an example I've a mate who works at Motherwell delivery unit and they can only take two line blockages a day, (and there's a red zone working ban). So it could have a massive effect on maintainence access.

Now I believe that one roc will be able to take over the work load of another but it's unclear how this will work from a workload point of view.

 

[TOCDriver]

That well known phrase about eggs and baskets springs to mind.

My thoughts exactly
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Depends if your ask a signaler or not, there has been some rather robust debate on the subject! Saying that I think there will be some massive thing to be sorted out first. Line blockages being a major one, it's hard enough to get a block from a signaller doing his work (GZAC or no). Now when you have a signaller doing the work of 10 boxes then I can't see how this will work. As an example I've a mate who works at Motherwell delivery unit and they can only take two line blockages a day, (and there's a red zone working ban). So it could have a massive effect on maintainence access.

Now I believe that one roc will be able to take over the work load of another but it's unclear how this will work from a workload point of view.

I agree. So many uncertainties from what i know.

 

[TrainBoy98]

It will happen, something will go wrong and a whole area of the railways will go down.
Be it natural or some sort of failure, something might occur. And surely this would be a hotspot for any terrorist organisations that want to cause havoc to Britains rail system?


Is there to be a back up system in case of emergencies and would a power cut knock one out?

 

[Geeves]

The one being built in Manchester, is as secure or will be as secure as Fort Knox, it will have its own back up generators and I did hear that in some locations reserve/back up signaling panels will be left in situ just in case!

As you say though its bad enough at Manchester Victoria if somewhere like Preston has a signaling failure trains going North, east or West are pretty much stuck, so when the entire NW goes down its gonna be fun!!

 

[TrainBoy98]

The one being built in Manchester, is as secure or will be as secure as Fort Knox, it will have its own back up generators and I did hear that in some locations reserve/back up signaling panels will be left in situ just in case!

Good good! Like to know there is some contingencies in place!

 

[Ships]

As I said other rocs will be able to take over in case of emergency, the details of how this will be staffe and actual desk requirements etc havnt been finalised afaik.

 

[carriageline]

From speaking to someone on here who seemed to be involved in the installation and construction, it seems the whole "one roc saving another" is currently a distant dream.

I heard they would have redundant floor for other failures, which they apperantly don't.

Workstations won't he able to take over other workstations, until every possible signalling move/electrical "instruction"/indication, has been commissioned and tested. Unless they do that at the initial commissioning (which won't happen), then no taking over will happen.

Again; this is from speaking to someone who proved me wrong in the three bridges thread on here.

As a new signaller, it is a worrying prospect, but one I hope to embrace. There is currently one ROC within walking distance from my house, and another 2 within a good commuteable distance.

There will be new technologies that come with the ROCs that will further more improve signalling/aiding with regulating, which should, in theory, reduce workload. In practice, who knows what happens. I can imagine the role as a signaller will not exist as well know it in 20 years time though. More of a line controller role.

 

[Ships]

From speaking to someone on here who seemed to be involved in the installation and construction, it seems the whole "one roc saving another" is currently a distant dream.

I heard they would have redundant floor for other failures, which they apperantly don't.

Workstations won't he able to take over other workstations, until every possible signalling move/electrical "instruction"/indication, has been commissioned and tested. Unless they do that at the initial commissioning (which won't happen), then no taking over will happen.

Again; this is from speaking to someone who proved me wrong in the three bridges thread on here.

As a new signaller, it is a worrying prospect, but one I hope to embrace. There is currently one ROC within walking distance from my house, and another 2 within a good commuteable distance.

There will be new technologies that come with the ROCs that will further more improve signalling/aiding with regulating, which should, in theory, reduce workload. In practice, who knows what happens. I can imagine the role as a signaller will not exist as well know it in 20 years time though. More of a line controller role.

Intresting, I should probably know better than to belive what's on connect!

 

[carriageline]

Intresting, I should probably know better than to belive what's on connect!

Haha!

Well, like I said that was from speaking to a guy on here, who was working at Three Bridges.

In fact, here's the post

At present the ROCs can't back each other up, and there is not a spare floor at any of them, nor is there planned to be.

It will take a couple of decades for them all to be filled, so it might seem there is a spare floor. But there isn't.

Longer term it is hoped that the ROCs will be able to provide back up. But there are some pretty difficult staff training issues, and that's before you get round the requirement to 'through' test every signalling function from workstation to signal / point / track circuit etc. This means that we can't even transfer control from one workstation to another, even if they are 200cm apart, let alone 200 miles. At least not without testing every function first, as we would in a signalling commissioning.

To back it up, I've been involved in this for 4 years. Currently working on Three Bridges.

As anything, take with a pinch of salt, I'm passing on what I have read.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

The one being built in Manchester, is as secure or will be as secure as Fort Knox, it will have its own back up generators and I did hear that in some locations reserve/back up signaling panels will be left in situ just in case!

I understand the same applies at the West Midlands Signalling Centre in Saltley. Dunno how true the details are, but I'm sure I heard it has at least three generators as back up.

 

[joeykins82]

Wasn't there an issue a couple of months back where one of the ROCs was evacuated due to a fire alarm and it ground a sizeable part of the network to a halt? I think that was Three Bridges and the BML.

In principle it makes sense to move from signal boxes to ROCs, and no doubt security and equipment/power redundancy will be excellent, but it does highlight the importance of another centre being able to take over in an emergency. That said, what would happen if an individual signal box burned down?

 

[carriageline]

Nope, that was Three Bridges ASC, just a normal power signal box

 

[Tomnick]

Depends if your ask a signaler or not, there has been some rather robust debate on the subject! Saying that I think there will be some massive thing to be sorted out first. Line blockages being a major one, it's hard enough to get a block from a signaller doing his work (GZAC or no). Now when you have a signaller doing the work of 10 boxes then I can't see how this will work. As an example I've a mate who works at Motherwell delivery unit and they can only take two line blockages a day, (and there's a red zone working ban). So it could have a massive effect on maintainence access.

Are you sure that it's not two line blockages at any one time? That's quite a common restriction, to keep the signalman's workload within sensible limits. I can't see it making much difference in areas currently worked from PSBs - the area of control doesn't seem to be increasing significantly. Whether it'll prove to be a problem on quieter lines where one workstation can reasonably control a much greater route mileage though, I don't know.

The whole strategy seems to rely on as yet unproven technology though. In particular, the much-discussed ability to transfer bits of a workstation, or even the whole ROC, to someone else (either to manage workload during disruption or to cope with an evacuation!) will require quite a change from what we're used to, and from the current set-up where the each link between a specific workstation and the equipment under its control must be tested thoroughly.

As for what happens if a box is evacuated or, worse, burns to the ground - not much! Sometimes, slave panels will be provided that can be switched in at remote interlockings to keep some sort of a service moving. I suppose, if the damage is terminal, you'd be looking at some sort of degraded working until temporary signalling of some sort can be provided.

 

[Ships]

Well my initial thoughts where he's made a mistake and it's two at once. However he confirmed it was two per day!

 

[Tomnick]

Sounds like an utter nonsense then, if that's the case!!

 

[headshot119]

Must be nonsense what happens if the workstation has two consecutive nights with the same possession limits scheduled ? Under that rule you could never give the blocks!

As for backup generators, I can remember York IECC, losing power in early 2011, backup generators failed to kick in.

I can remember the same happening at Chester PSB and the backup generators failed to kick in.

 

[Tomnick]

Line blockages (GSR 13.2), not possessions!

 

[Parham Wood]

I do not know how these things work but it does scare me to have such large areas covered by one box. Does the government really appreciate the risks? I doubt it given that it is a money saving exercise and our Whitehall friends are involved. Strategically it seems bonkers but financially it should save operating costs.

The Pentagon was supposed to be secure but look what happened to that. They will be a terrorist risk. It is not as though you cannot get within a hundred yards or more of one. You do not need to get in to cause mayhem. They will not be surrounded by missile proof concrete barriers.

They are however more likely to be affected by power issues: generators fail, electrical distribution components fail etc.. I have seen it happen.

Communication issues to the remote equipment will also be an issue and could have effects on a wide area. Will there be true diverse routing? What effect will cable thefts have or accidental cable damage?

What would happen in the event of a fire?

Of course all these things could happen now but the effect is much greater.

I would like to think each centre would have several local centres that could be brought into use if required, but will this happen? Is it feasible with the technology these days?

So has the government weighed up the risk of a major outage on the economy with many hundreds of thousands of people not able to get to work or freight trains being able to run?

 

[The Planner]

Been said by others elsewhere, but this isn't a new thing? boxes have closed and areas have been rationalised for decades, why is this so different? For example Birmingham New St box has been there for 49 years, how many boxes did that close initially and I bet the same was said at the time.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Obviously some TOC staff contract issues may need rectifying but won't ROCs go a long way to earlier Sunday services on some lines? I'm sure one of the key reasons some lines only start service on a Sunday PM is because of the cost of staffing a box for a double shift?

I'm not too concerned by it all in all - it will save money I'd guess in the long run and as The Planner says, the rationalisation that has taken place over decades (especially since the 1960s) has passed off relatively smoothly.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

And what does it have to do with Government anyway, what NR chooses to do to make itslef more efficient? That kind of "but it isn't safe enough" talk has got us into the upward cost spiral we're currently battling against.

By my reckoning, if cars had TPWS and DVD we'd make a much biiger dent in the frankly ridiculous levels of highway fatalities.

I don't hear the same complaints about Air Traffic Control (2 no. in the UK)?

 

[DaveHarries]

That well known phrase about eggs and baskets springs to mind.

I agree with this too.

Dave

 

[Ironside]

I think the benefits of reduced costs and having a team of signallers together in one place using modern technology will be of benefit, and those benefits will outlay the risk of a power failure.

 

[455driver]

I think the benefits of reduced costs and having a team of signallers together in one place using modern technology will be of benefit, and those benefits will outlay the risk of a power failure.

Its not just power failure though, what about a fire alarm going off, what about shift change over time (how many signallers will be on duty at the same time?).


A power box can cover quite a large area (no problem with that) but these ROCs will be covering hundreds of miles of route and I am concerned about the signallers getting overloaded and making mistakes especially as they will not be familiar with the area they are controlling.

 

[Ironside]

Its not just power failure though, what about a fire alarm going off, what about shift change over time (how many signallers will be on duty at the same time?).


A power box can cover quite a large area (no problem with that) but these ROCs will be covering hundreds of miles of route and I am concerned about the signallers getting overloaded and making mistakes especially as they will not be familiar with the area they are controlling.

I would hope that the ROC's are run as responsiblly as air traffic control giving the appropriate training is given and people are not put in positions where they are not trained for.

I understand that signal control is not like air control in many ways but are you saying the singlets need to be familiar with the physical geography of a route or just trained on the signalling for a given route or desk. As you have probably guessed I am not a rail professional. I would hope there was a black and white system like train driving where you are either trained and current for a route or you aren't.

 

[455driver]

Signalmen (as were) had to know the geography of the route they signalled, now all the signallers see is a straight line on a VDU screen and have absolutely no idea about any of the route, such is progress.

 

[Tomnick]

Yes, it's much the same - signalmen have to be passed as competent to operate each box/panel/workstation, and must keep their knowledge current. The knowledge doesn't necessarily extend to the physical geography though (although any information that might be required should be readily available) - it's more about the signalling installation, constraints of the layout, local instructions and so on. I think it's fair to suggest that the chaps in a large ROC, signing for and rotating between numerous different workstations, will be less familiar with their (large) bit of the trainset than those in a smaller PSB or even a mechanical box who will know the patch in much greater detail. 455driver's comment about excessive workload is a valid one, especially when things are going wrong in a few different places in an ever increasing area of control.

 

[Ironside]

Signalmen (as were) had to know the geography of the route they signalled, now all the signallers see is a straight line on a VDU screen and have absolutely no idea about any of the route, such is progress.

May I ask how that knowledge would help them do their job better? Is it something like certain track may be more difficult to drive on during certain conditions and therefore trains will take more time to get through that section than would otherwise have been expected, leading to further escalating problems?