Latest on Rail Operating Centres

[Class 170101]

So whilst its been advantageous for NR to centralise signalling in ROCs for Train Operating Companies it sounds like its become less efficient as they now need staff, in the case of GTR, at Three Bridges, York and Derby, the latter two having no GTR trains at them at all and GTR staff in three locations making decisions - decentralised.

 

[Surreytraveller]

So whilst its been advantageous for NR to centralise signalling in ROCs for Train Operating Companies it sounds like its become less efficient as they now need staff, in the case of GTR, at Three Bridges, York and Derby, the latter two having no GTR trains at them at all and GTR staff in three locations making decisions - decentralised.

You say that, but if you think about it, GTR is three or four TOCs cobbled together anyway, and if they were separate would still require staff in those locations.
If anything, GTR could also justify staff in the KICC, and maybe even in Wessex!

 

[Class 170101]

You say that, but if you think about it, GTR is three or four TOCs cobbled together anyway, and if they were separate would still require staff in those locations.
If anything, GTR could also justify staff in the KICC, and maybe even in Wessex!

My point is whilst NR have centralised to save money the TOCs have had to de-centralise costing them money.

 

[Surreytraveller]

My point is whilst NR have centralised to save money the TOCs have had to de-centralise costing them money.

The TOCs have always had to have Control somewhere. By moving in with NWR probably saves them money, depending on how much NWR charge them for being there.
GTR used to have Control in Kings Cross, so by shutting that and having a presence in York makes no difference. Same with West Hampstead/Derby

 

[HSTEd]

I think ROCs are probably an inconvenient halfway house between decentralised signalling on the traditional model, and the centralised control favoured by people like BNSF.

My own opinion is that we should build a 'Railway Pentagon' somewhere, and all signalling functions should be concentrated there.
Once you accept that you can move signalling desks a significant distance from the route, there is no reason not to put them all in the same place. This is what a lot of American freight operators have done.

You can also then have all training done on the same site that the staff work on, which makes mass use of simulators and the like much more feasible.

And TOCs don't have to decentralised if all the people they have to liase with are in the same building.
Also facilities a much greater level of coordination, since senior staff can much more easily get an overview of the situation across the entire network, and liase with people as required.

 

[The Planner]

Unless you completely removed the regional structure from NR, I doubt that would ever work, especially now we are on the devolution part of the railway circle again.

 

[John Webb]

......GTR used to have Control in Kings Cross, so by shutting that and having a presence in York makes no difference. Same with West Hampstead/Derby

We heard about the middle of March (just as we closed down the preserved St Albans South signal box due to the corona virus) that the area presently controlled by West Hampstead PSB will not now be transferring to either Three Bridges and/or East Midlands, but will remain in use for the foreseeable future. But the late 1970s Entrance/Exit panel will be replaced by VDUs. Precise reason for this change of direction not known with certainty.

 

[carriageline]

I think ROCs are probably an inconvenient halfway house between decentralised signalling on the traditional model, and the centralised control favoured by people like BNSF.

My own opinion is that we should build a 'Railway Pentagon' somewhere, and all signalling functions should be concentrated there.
Once you accept that you can move signalling desks a significant distance from the route, there is no reason not to put them all in the same place. This is what a lot of American freight operators have done.

You can also then have all training done on the same site that the staff work on, which makes mass use of simulators and the like much more feasible.

And TOCs don't have to decentralised if all the people they have to liase with are in the same building.
Also facilities a much greater level of coordination, since senior staff can much more easily get an overview of the situation across the entire network, and liase with people as required.

But what do you gain from doing that? The size of the building alone would have to be gigantic. All the support staff who have offices in the ROCs would have to be put in there and you would probably still have the same amount.
The car park would have to be mahoosive, big/multiple kitchens, toilets, break and rest rooms. Would need hell of a lot of training rooms too!

Then you factor in the huge loss of local knowledge and experience, which I think Mr Haines is now appreciating.

 

[godfreycomplex]

I believe the new Portsmouth direct panel from Havant fringe to Guildford fringe will be the first desk in Wessex ROC, so some are still going ahead.

First desk in Basingstoke ROC will be covering the Twickenham area. The Portsmouth direct is currently fourth on the list.

 

[HSTEd]

But what do you gain from doing that?

Well for one thing, assignments and arrangements of panel assignments and who is qualified for where can be optimised for reduced staffing costs. Not based on arbitrary regional assignments.
Then theres the reduction in "surplus staffing" - someone in a random signalling box on the Lincoln Joint line is not as productive in terms of trains managed as someone at a desk in an ROC.

And as large facilities will likely make heavy use of advanced ARS and even the new computer rescheduling systems that are becoming available, we wont have problems where some lines can't be used because several signallers at dispersed control points will have to be provided to enable a single train to run.

If all training facilities are on the same site that everyone works at anyway, you can schedule training sessions in amongst regular turns on the panels - and it makes no difference to the staff.
They go to work the same as they always do, they simply walk into a different part of the building. Since training staff don't have to travel, you get more training hours per staff member.

The size of the building alone would have to be gigantic. All the support staff who have offices in the ROCs would have to be put in there and you would probably still have the same amount.

Which is why I referenced one of the largest office buildings ever built?
The Pentagon?

The car park would have to be mahoosive, big/multiple kitchens, toilets, break and rest rooms. Would need hell of a lot of training rooms too!

We could even provide the staff with a proper canteen and staff welfare facilities!
One of the advantages of working in a alrge building like this is a lot of welfare stuff which you can never provide in a small facility in the middle of nowhere becomes practical.

The Pentagon has an 'athletic centre' that includes a pool!

Then you factor in the huge loss of local knowledge and experience, which I think Mr Haines is now appreciating.

This is something of a problem, but it is countered by the ability to share information in a way that is hard to appreciate without experiencing it.
Apparently one of the biggest improvements BNSF found when they moved to their updated control centre was that they had, to quote Dr Strangelove, a big board

Significant information like weather and news reports could be shown to everyone and helped disseminate this information rapidly and in a predictable fashion.

And if disruption causes a problem for the TOC control staff, they can far more easily communicate about it since they are a couple hundred yards away.

 

[The Planner]

Last time I heard, New St resignalling isn't using ARS as it makes the performance worse. It isn't a panacea.

 

[pompeyfan]

First desk in Basingstoke ROC will be covering the Twickenham area. The Portsmouth direct is currently fourth on the list.

Ah I didn’t realise that. What other panels are imminent in there? I assume WoE, Dorset coast and Basingstoke main?

 

[Backroom_boy]

We heard about the middle of March (just as we closed down the preserved St Albans South signal box due to the corona virus) that the area presently controlled by West Hampstead PSB will not now be transferring to either Three Bridges and/or East Midlands, but will remain in use for the foreseeable future. But the late 1970s Entrance/Exit panel will be replaced by VDUs. Precise reason for this change of direction not known with certainty.

Well I've just found the following in speech from Andrew Haines reported in the Feb Modern Railways (excuse the long copy and paste but I think its appropriate)

...we’ve recognised as well that we need a new network management strategy, and that moving to Rail Operating Centres (ROCs) may not be the answer everywhere.

My favourite example of this is West Hampstead power signal box, which I visited seven or eight months back, and was told that the plan was to re-control it and to basically move the capability to Derby ROC. That didn’t seem to me to be an obvious, no-brainer decision, moving the core operation of the Thameslink core to Derby, effectively losing all the capability. Not many of those signallers were likely to relocate to Derby to do that job.

All I had to do was ask to see the business case and the decision was overturned, because actually there wasn’t really a business case in the first place. We were simply in the pattern of doing something we’d said we were going to do because there was a strategy to do it.

So we’re retaining that capability at West Hampstead, and moreover we’re seeking to grow it by providing some operational capability there. I’m not against ROCs, but we cannot be blindly committing to schemes and then diluting the voice of the operator to the point where we do things because we said we would do them, not because we’ve understood the benefits that they materialise.

 

[markymark2000]

As we are voicing opinions on ROCs, I can see their benefit as they can see more of the network and can amend train plans way before they hit a problem. The issue is like when York has the fire alarm go off, no trains could run for a good part of the network due to issues miles away.

Is there any way of having a ROC supported by local PSBs? A ROC houses the train operator staff (thus reducing the need for each company to have specific HQs and it keeps staff housed in certain areas) and they then amend the train plans before problems are hit, they can also deal with major scale events and in the unlikely event of something going wrong on a local level, the ROC has skilled people in place to take over.
The smaller more local signal boxes then signal trains to keep everything moving locally but of course using the modern technology of a ROC.

I don't think we need so many very local junction only boxes as that is in my opinion a waste of money. Chester, Mickle Trafford, Helsby, Frodsham Junction and Norton all between Chester and Warrington Bank Quay is just over the top and 1 signaller could probably cover at least Mickle Trafford, Helsby, Frodsham Jct and Norton signal boxes under modern signalling systems. 1 staff member replacing 4. It's a decent saving.
Having a ROC though helps to compliment the PSBs by amending train plans to reduce delays and if something happens on the railway, a ROC can get manage the network impact slightly better than a local PSB.

 

[godfreycomplex]

Ah I didn’t realise that. What other panels are imminent in there? I assume WoE, Dorset coast and Basingstoke main?

None of those are imminent, Twickenham area, Staines area and Ascot area. Then the Direct. Then who knows. Again, all pre-rona...

 

[SilentGrade]

I don't think we need so many very local junction only boxes as that is in my opinion a waste of money. Chester, Mickle Trafford, Helsby, Frodsham Junction and Norton all between Chester and Warrington Bank Quay is just over the top and 1 signaller could probably cover at least Mickle Trafford, Helsby, Frodsham Jct and Norton signal boxes under modern signalling systems. 1 staff member replacing 4. It's a decent saving

I don’t know the local area but it’s not as straight forward as that. For many of the schemes they don’t actually save you that much money. Only a handful of staff are lost and those that stay end up re-graded or in other locations being paid travel time etc, which can sometimes completely negate the savings.

 

[markymark2000]

I don’t know the local area but it’s not as straight forward as that. For many of the schemes they don’t actually save you that much money. Only a handful of staff are lost and those that stay end up re-graded or in other locations being paid travel time etc, which can sometimes completely negate the savings.

I can see there being no saving when a panel moves boxes (with no merging of panels and therefore no reduction in staff needed) for example from a box to a ROC however, in the instance above, each box covers 1 junction. That's it. In the instance above though, you would be able to easily merge some boxes into a panel thus actually saving on staff needed. How much travel does NR pay as if someone is going from Helsby to Chester, it isn't that far (7.8 mile driving distance). Helsby and Mickle Trafford are a reasonable distance to move to Chester. Frodsham Box to Box works out at 13.7 mile to Chester. Norton box is 16 mile. It all depends on where the staff member lives. They might live closer or further than that which could be a determining factor.

I suppose you wouldn't/shouldn't be paying people travel time long term so it is a short term cost for long term cost benefit with potential for a short term cost benefits depending on staff.

 

[John Webb]

Well I've just found the following in speech from Andrew Haines reported in the Feb Modern Railways (excuse the long copy and paste but I think its appropriate)

...we’ve recognised as well that we need a new network management strategy, and that moving to Rail Operating Centres (ROCs) may not be the answer everywhere.

My favourite example of this is West Hampstead power signal box, which I visited seven or eight months back, and was told that the plan was to re-control it and to basically move the capability to Derby ROC. That didn’t seem to me to be an obvious, no-brainer decision, moving the core operation of the Thameslink core to Derby, effectively losing all the capability. Not many of those signallers were likely to relocate to Derby to do that job.

All I had to do was ask to see the business case and the decision was overturned, because actually there wasn’t really a business case in the first place. We were simply in the pattern of doing something we’d said we were going to do because there was a strategy to do it.

So we’re retaining that capability at West Hampstead, and moreover we’re seeking to grow it by providing some operational capability there. I’m not against ROCs, but we cannot be blindly committing to schemes and then diluting the voice of the operator to the point where we do things because we said we would do them, not because we’ve understood the benefits that they materialise.

Many thanks for that; obviously where someone got their information from! An interesting shift of opinion.....

 

[carriageline]

Well for one thing, assignments and arrangements of panel assignments and who is qualified for where can be optimised for reduced staffing costs. Not based on arbitrary regional assignments.

For my reply, I’ll use my own knowledge from working in a ROC.

Having people work a “link” works well. Say you have a line of route from KX to Peterborough. Having the same signallers work these workstations helps with local knowledge, as they know how the next workstation is run, what the trains do etc.
Keeping links smaller so signallers sign less workstations is better, as the signaller know the workstations and Timetable more intricately. Spend less time on a workstation, confidence goes down.

With VDU guidelines, signallers get more breaks than their panel counterparts. If you increase a signallers workload, they generally get more breaks too. So if you move people from a PSB to a ROC, you may end up increasing staffing establishment for that reason.

Then theres the reduction in "surplus staffing" - someone in a random signalling box on the Lincoln Joint line is not as productive in terms of trains managed as someone at a desk in an ROC.

Agree with that. Multiple, single manned locations are the biggest cost savers. One person on one panel beats 5/6/7/8 single manned locations. But you can achieve that with more, multi manned locations.

Once you get transfer to control to panels/workstations, you can rarely increase that workstation/panels size. So often panel - workstation is a like for like, so means you do not save a lot of staff. Some panels are not compatible with workstation, and I know several that have been split into more than one workstation.

And as large facilities will likely make heavy use of advanced ARS and even the new computer rescheduling systems that are becoming available, we wont have problems where some lines can't be used because several signallers at dispersed control points will have to be provided to enable a single train to run.

ARS isn’t the answer to everything, and there are plenty of junctions where the signaller does better. You cannot realistically increase control area size just because you have ARS either.

If all training facilities are on the same site that everyone works at anyway, you can schedule training sessions in amongst regular turns on the panels - and it makes no difference to the staff.
They go to work the same as they always do, they simply walk into a different part of the building. Since training staff don't have to travel, you get more training hours per staff member.

Lovely idea in principle, but currently signallers do not get regular training turns (most of them would love that!!) once you are competent, that is it!

Which is why I referenced one of the largest office buildings ever built?
The Pentagon?

I am interested to know how much a similar building would cost. I am not sure the cost/benefit would add up.

We could even provide the staff with a proper canteen and staff welfare facilities!

Agreed, that would be beautiful!!

One of the advantages of working in a alrge building like this is a lot of welfare stuff which you can never provide in a small facility in the middle of nowhere becomes practical.

The Pentagon has an 'athletic centre' that includes a pool!

Agreed, that would be beautiful!!

This is something of a problem, but it is countered by the ability to share information in a way that is hard to appreciate without experiencing it.
Apparently one of the biggest improvements BNSF found when they moved to their updated control centre was that they had, to quote Dr Strangelove, a big board

I am not sure how that would help local knowledge for signallers, roster clerks, train planners, the control staff. Trust me, the lack of local knowledge Lost with Resignalling projects has already cost the railway.

Significant information like weather and news reports could be shown to everyone and helped disseminate this information rapidly and in a predictable fashion

great tools which most control rooms already have. You couldn’t have such things on a signalling floor really, as it’s near useless and CAN be a distraction.

And if disruption causes a problem for the TOC control staff, they can far more easily communicate about it since they are a couple hundred yards away.

You wouldn’t be able to have multiple controls in one room, never mind with signallers too.

Being in an Ops floor with 10 signallers can be chaotic and loud during a big incident, and likewise with control. It was trialled having signallers and control together but it didn’t work (noise level was a massive complaint, then the distraction from one and

You wouldn’t even be able to have multiple “signalling centres” in one open space as it wouldn’t work, again loud and busy during incidents. You would have to segregate them, and then they may as well be in different buildings!

Having seen some big, American control centres, they are impressive. I also think some areas would lend well to that kind of environment.

But, multiple ASCs I have been in that control busy, metro areas would not. They often rely on having their colleague a few feet away to discuss and talk through things.

A straight, 60 mile up and down railway would not need that so much.

 

[Bobdogs]

What will happen to the South West Wales lines? Is the recently replaced barriers at Ferryside something to do with this?