Devon loss of signalling (08/02/15)

[Rich McLean]

Signalling problems reported earlier at Hereford too. Wonder if that is connected.

That would be separate

 

[richw]

Was it this? http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O72126/2015/02/08/advanced (18:00 PLY - PAD)

As a result that has been 3 London trains (Waterloo, PLY - PAD, PNZ - PAD) in 30 minutes.

I think that's the one. 45 L at Reading.

There was also a one off Westbury to penzance HST operated service, but it was capped at plymouth in the end.

 

[Temple Meads]

Looks like things are returning to normal now.

 

[Llanigraham]

Signalling problems reported earlier at Hereford too. Wonder if that is connected.

Why on earth would a problem in Exeter be connected with a problem at Hereford?

 

[TheEdge]

Yawn.... Except it should never happen to them. Plenty of power cuts have 'happened' to Three Bridges ROC, yet it didn't go offline.

What do you propose? Keep all the mechanical boxes, all the PSB/ASCs? They are not as reliable as people like to make out, maintaining them is getting harder and thus more expensive. Then there is the white elephant that one day all these boxes will be life expired (infact some already are, and are one wrong move whilst changing a bulb to a complete melt down of the box )

I'm not saying we need to have semaphores and mechanical boxes back. I just cannot personally understand the rationale for putting all the eggs in one basket. Why can aged PSBs not be replaced like for like?

I'm not sure the full range of (for example) Romford ROC but it will be covering my area. If Liverpool Street PSB were to go down at least some semblance of service can be run on the northern end of the GEML by Colchester. And if Colchester goes down Liverpool Street can still run something. And Cambridge PSB can still do something. If, for whatever reason, Romford ROC were to go offline the whole of East Anglia is going to grind to a halt.

Sooner or later one of these ROCs is going to go offline. And I will feel sorry for absolutely everyone caught up in it...

 

[theironroad]

I believe the naionwide roc plan will allow for roc b and maybe roc c to take over roc a's data and services if roc a goes down for any reason such as power failure, security alert etc. remember that part of the basis of rocs is that a majority of the regulating is done by computer and ars with human intervention the rare occurrence rather than the everyday.

How it works in the real world is to be seen.....

 

[dzug2]

Signalling problems reported earlier at Hereford too. Wonder if that is connected.

I thought that was overrunning engineering work

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Don't PSBs have diesel generators (and a UPS to manage the switch) as a backup and as a last resort battery power (just long enough to get trains into the nearest station if possible)?

 

[carriageline]

Don't PSBs have diesel generators (and a UPS to manage the switch) as a backup and as a last resort battery power (just long enough to get trains into the nearest station if possible)?

Generally speaking yes. Although these can fail and knock eveeything out. I'm not sure how power at the location cabinets on the ground is distributed, if that comes from the grid then if there is a local power failure you will lose power to the cabinet.

 

[Yabbadabba]

I believe the naionwide roc plan will allow for roc b and maybe roc c to take over roc a's data and services if roc a goes down for any reason such as power failure, security alert etc. remember that part of the basis of rocs is that a majority of the regulating is done by computer and ars with human intervention the rare occurrence rather than the everyday.

How it works in the real world is to be seen.....

Obversely not a signaller! The ROCs will control trains in the conventional manor until such as time as the technology behind TMS & IRS catches up and I for one wouldn't like to have my workstation suddenly switched to another part of the country where I'm not trained in the relevant rules, regs and SBIs.

 

[theironroad]

Obversely not a signaller! The ROCs will control trains in the conventional manor until such as time as the technology behind TMS & IRS catches up and I for one wouldn't like to have my workstation suddenly switched to another part of the country where I'm not trained in the relevant rules, regs and SBIs.

No, not a signaller and more than happy to defer to those in the loop..., but while I realise that the traffic management technology is needed, switching between rocs seems to have been considered in serious meltdown cases:

What about disaster recover, will the network* grind to a halt if a ROC is not operational?*

Well, the whole idea of creating the ROC’s, and the whole idea of the technology that we are developing to support their operation, is to do with how we can build business continuity. So, with the traffic management technology it will give us the ability to switch between one ROC and another should that be desired.*

http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=2123

 

[Tomnick]

The main obstacles at the moment are the fact that we have to learn and sign for each signalling location that we work (each panel or workstation at multi-manned locations being treated individually) because of the many special instructions and methods of working that apply to each, along with the need for a good understanding of the area. In the ROCs, some workstations have hardware specific to the area that they control - CCTV crossing controls and monitors, for example. I understand (open to correction) that each and every link between a workstation and equipment that it controls must be thoroughly tested, which would make it difficult to quickly transfer to a different workstation, even if the staff and right controls were available. Finally, would the cost of providing sufficient additional (and suitably competent) staff in each ROC to ensure that the workload of another could be absorbed somewhere be justified?

 

[Rapidash]

You buggers could have put the date in the title! Made me think I was going to have to use the Newton Road in the rush hour!

 

[Bald Rick]

Without going into the details, but the type of failure that happened near (but not at) Exeter PSB will not knock out a whole ROC. It might take out part of a ROC, in this case maybe the same size area as was affected here. But not the whole lot.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I know how to bring a ROC to it's knees within an hour should I want to, just as anyone can who knows simple chemistry (no explosive or illegal chemicals necessary) or has a certain gadget which most people now own.

 

[Saint66]

I know how to bring a ROC to it's knees within an hour should I want to, just as anyone can who knows simple chemistry (no explosive or illegal chemicals necessary) or has a certain gadget which most people now own.

GCHQ must love your posts!

 

[HarleyDavidson]

GCHQ must love your posts!

You have it too, it's in your larder or kitchen cupboard, it's a white granular seasoning (rock or granular) & it's not pepper or sugar!

 

[ainsworth74]

You buggers could have put the date in the title! Made me think I was going to have to use the Newton Road in the rush hour!

Fixed

 

[carriageline]

No, not a signaller and more than happy to defer to those in the loop..., but while I realise that the traffic management technology is needed, switching between rocs seems to have been considered in serious meltdown cases:



What about disaster recover, will the network* grind to a halt if a ROC is not operational?*



Well, the whole idea of creating the ROC’s, and the whole idea of the technology that we are developing to support their operation, is to do with how we can build business continuity. So, with the traffic management technology it will give us the ability to switch between one ROC and another should that be desired.*



http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=2123

Except there is no spare workstations planned to be put into ROCs, how do you deal with level crossing controls and monitors? They are 2 physical barriers to overcome.

 

[najaB]

Don't PSBs have diesel generators (and a UPS to manage the switch) as a backup and as a last resort battery power (just long enough to get trains into the nearest station if possible)?

At my former place of work we lost power to the entire building for two days because the generator failed during a short (less than 5 minute) blackout and took the switch-over equipment with it so there was no way to switch back to AC. Once the UPS batteries died there was nothing.

 

[theironroad]

Except there is no spare workstations planned to be put into ROCs, how do you deal with level crossing controls and monitors? They are 2 physical barriers to overcome.

I'm just quoting from the interview between railpro and the guy implementing the rocs, maybe it was all a lie......

 

[LAX54]

I believe the naionwide roc plan will allow for roc b and maybe roc c to take over roc a's data and services if roc a goes down for any reason such as power failure, security alert etc. remember that part of the basis of rocs is that a majority of the regulating is done by computer and ars with human intervention the rare occurrence rather than the everyday.

How it works in the real world is to be seen.....

A 'maybe' able to work B, although I have my doubts, but there will be no one to do it, not enough staff, I iamagine ROC's will be run with 'just enough' staff, and anyway there will not be enough, if any staff with the knowledge to actually work it

 

[carriageline]

I'm just quoting from the interview between railpro and the guy implementing the rocs, maybe it was all a lie......

Or maybe it's quite a laughed about joke internally, that it will not happen any time soon?

I have seen the plans for Rugby ROC, and there isn't any spare workstations planned on that and there is no spare floor space on that.

One day it will probably happen, but will involve a complete rewrite on how we are competent and the like. But we will have a rewrite of our T&Cs when TM comes online anyway.

I also can't see how TM will have the envisaged cuts in signalling staff that they say they will. That's from what I have seen with my own eyes, and a lot of people think the same.

 

[edwin_m]

A 'maybe' able to work B, although I have my doubts, but there will be no one to do it, not enough staff, I iamagine ROC's will be run with 'just enough' staff, and anyway there will not be enough, if any staff with the knowledge to actually work it

I think if it happens at all it will be a question of moving the staff to the new location and re-starting after a period of hours or possibly days - nothing like the sort of instantaneous transfer that some people seem to be imagining. And yes there is the issue of having the space and compatible hardware, which would be wasteful to provide at every ROC for the rare occasions that one of the adjacent ones goes down.

Perhaps the answer is an extra ROC that is normally used for training but can take over from any of the others if necessary. The staff would be put up in nearby hotels, or even on-site if it's a residential training centre, and compensated for the inconvenience?

 

[D1009]

I also can't see how TM will have the envisaged cuts in signalling staff that they say they will. That's from what I have seen with my own eyes, and a lot of people think the same.

Has ROC implementation so far resulted in any reductions in signallers' positions compared with the previous PSBs?

 

[sor]

Has ROC implementation so far resulted in any reductions in signallers' positions compared with the previous PSBs?

You could argue that regardless of the numbers, you're still forcing those who want to stay to move across the country to keep their jobs.

e.g. the signallers in Devon/Cornwall/Somerset will have to up sticks to Oxfordshire if Didcot takes it all over as planned, and the resultant loss to the local economies

(and the potential loss in local knowledge by having to employ people locally to run trains hundreds of miles away in places they've possibly never visited)

 

[Bald Rick]

Has ROC implementation so far resulted in any reductions in signallers' positions compared with the previous PSBs?

Yes..

 

[plastictaffy]

Just wait till progress sees this happen to a ROC...

Or when someone forgets to put some 50p's in the meter.

 

[D1009]

You could argue that regardless of the numbers, you're still forcing those who want to stay to move across the country to keep their jobs.

e.g. the signallers in Devon/Cornwall/Somerset will have to up sticks to Oxfordshire if Didcot takes it all over as planned, and the resultant loss to the local economies

(and the potential loss in local knowledge by having to employ people locally to run trains hundreds of miles away in places they've possibly never visited)

I completely agree, but my point was specifically about the number of signallers positions. I vaguely recall someone telling me that positions in the West of England being transferred to Didcot actually will result in an increase!

 

[Yabbadabba]

I completely agree, but my point was specifically about the number of signallers positions. I vaguely recall someone telling me that positions in the West of England being transferred to Didcot actually will result in an increase!

If NR is slimming the signalling grade down from just shy 6000 signallers to just shy of 2000 signallers as they move signalling into the ROCs then there will be quite a few without jobs in the not to distant future. It might not happen in the first wave of the migration plan (but even so London Bridge ASC is reducing down from 9 panels to 5 workstaions (although one has to be double manned for the time being)) but it will happen. As signalboxes/ASCs/PSBs/SCCs and IECCs move into the ROCs some complex areas will require more signallers but a lot of less complicated areas will be controlled by a lot fewer signallers controlling larger areas. The migration to the ROCs from the smaller one person signalboxes will result in the first cull of jobs and the move over to TMS will result in a second cull of signallers from from the larger signalling centres yet to migrate along with jobs already in the ROCs.