What is Control (not a philosophical discussion!)

[scotraildriver]

An interest in managing a three dimensional puzzle that has multiple moving parts whilst you have both hands, and often, also a leg, tied behind your back!
My Control has recently recruited people from external to the railway. Often Controllers came from within the business from other operational roles.

Part of the reason for external recruitment is that there have been a significant number of internal candidates gone to control, found it an incredibly stressful and difficult job and subsequently returned to their previous roles. 3 guards at my depot alone have done that. External candidates don't have another job to escape to!

 

[Dr Hoo]

A railway control’s objective is delivering all the planned outputs and intervening if/when that’s at risk. That includes train services, train maintenance, infrastructure availability (open as planned), infrastructure maintenance, renewals etc..

The more perfect the railway, the smaller the control can be.

Not sure about your last sentence. When I visited Japan I saw that they still had a huge control (for a particular part of the system) continually monitoring a very reliable service in great detail.
Obviously they can still intervene where necessary. For example, the day before my visit there had been a major earthquake and they said that it had been quite ‘busy’!

 

[Falcon1200]

The more perfect the railway, the smaller the control can be.

Which is fine until an unplanned exceptional event occurs, possible on even the most perfect railway, and Control is then overwhelmed! How many staff should be provided in Control is a never-ending issue. We (Controllers) used to joke that there were two types of Manager; Those who saw Controllers chatting and drinking tea and thought 'great, the railway is running well but the guys are there if we need them' and those who thought 'why are we paying all these guys to do nothing?'

Part of the reason for external recruitment is that there have been a significant number of internal candidates gone to control, found it an incredibly stressful and difficult job and subsequently returned to their previous roles.

Indeed, not everyone is suited to the nature of Control work, which is not easy to understand in advance, even for people who had dealt with Control in their previous role.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Which is fine until an unplanned exceptional event occurs

Quite so.

'why are we paying all these guys to do nothing?'

An unfortunate statement that I and others heard too many times, usually when newbie Managers from out with our own patch were appointed. Like all things (eg Police), cut the cloth too fine and mayhem will ensue sooner or later. Any service (industry) worth its weight and who's managers value their business, will understand the need for resilience and what ever that may entail, even if it does have an additional cost.

Indeed, not everyone is suited to the nature of Control work, which is not easy to understand in advance, even for people who had dealt with Control in their previous role.

Also agree. Seemingly calm to the casual visitor when all is fine, but a fire fighting mass (not mess to be clear) when 'it' hits the fan, and somewhere to steer well clear of if not actual involved. Those with operational and or planning backgrounds are in theory ideal candidates, but that doesn't always pan out, depending on the individual.
As an ex planner doing detailed planned work (in advance) that was where I was comfortable, but never considered any Control positions due to the nature of the stress involved at times. Equally as planners we had visits from train crew occasionally looking for a role, possibly due to medical reasons, but seldom few actually applied. Planning has it's own intricacies, good if your brain likes solving puzzles, but being sat at a desk (and computer in more recent times) and dealing with minutee detail is not for everyone.

 

[Harpo]

Which is fine until an unplanned exceptional event occurs, possible on even the most perfect railway, and Control is then overwhelmed!

My comment was tongue in cheek but I hear much evidence (from traincrew in particular) about current bare bones control provision making contact impossible.

How many staff should be provided in Control is a never-ending issue. We (Controllers) used to joke that there were two types of Manager; Those who saw Controllers chatting and drinking tea and thought 'great, the railway is running well but the guys are there if we need them' and those who thought 'why are we paying all these guys to do nothing?

Agree entirely. Like signallers trained and staffed to deal with signalling integrity failures, or drivers trained to deal with ‘black’ leaf fall days, many see the ordinary and don’t grasp the full range of skill and workload, such as non-traction side managers joyfully driving trains around a foreign test track and deciding it’s really very simple.

Indeed, not everyone is suited to the nature of Control work, which is not easy to understand in advance, even for people who had dealt with Control in their previous role.

It’s quite unique. A job where you can get plunged deeply in the shot but can manage it all away inside the same shift - or simply walk away from it (or into it!) at changeover.

 

[NeakPed]

Part of the reason for external recruitment is that there have been a significant number of internal candidates gone to control, found it an incredibly stressful and difficult job and subsequently returned to their previous roles. 3 guards at my depot alone have done that. External candidates don't have another job to escape to!

A non scientific (back of a beer mat) assessment based on my experience is that it is roughly a 67%33% split between internal & external appointments to Control roles.
Drop out numbers are probably equal ie more internal appointees remain in the role.
Some use Control as a stepping stone to other things.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2026 ==

Which is fine until an unplanned exceptional event occurs, possible on even the most perfect railway, and Control is then overwhelmed! How many staff should be provided in Control is a never-ending issue. We (Controllers) used to joke that there were two types of Manager; Those who saw Controllers chatting and drinking tea and thought 'great, the railway is running well but the guys are there if we need them' and those who thought 'why are we paying all these guys to do nothing?'



Indeed, not everyone is suited to the nature of Control work, which is not easy to understand in advance, even for people who had dealt with Control in their previous role.

Correct. I’ve seen some positions being given extra tasks (with targets) to do during slack periods, and then get criticised for not meeting the target when they have to resort to their day job.

Also seen people come in to roles, and question why some information is wrong at times & soon realise the pressure & understand the reasons why.

 

[Horizon22]

Indeed, not everyone is suited to the nature of Control work, which is not easy to understand in advance, even for people who had dealt with Control in their previous role.

Ultimately, it is more suited I think to people who have the right non-technical skills and can learn the operational side of things, rather than the other way around. It is somewhat one of things you “get” or you don’t.

I’ve seen internal candidates fluster and decide it is not for them, but seen people from the same background flourish. Also seen some external staff from say the emergency services (inc. their control) really struggle, yet some succeed and progress.

 

[Harpo]

Also seen people come in to roles, and question why some information is wrong at times & soon realise the pressure & understand the reasons why.

Getting full details is often hard especially at the start of incidents. Ladbroke Grove was initially ‘a SPAD and a collision’ and the recent Spanish high speed incident was a modern example of taking some time to establish the true scale of the incident.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Getting full details is often hard especially at the start of incidents. Ladbroke Grove was initially ‘a SPAD and a collision’ and the recent Spanish high speed incident was a modern example of taking some time to establish the true scale of the incident.

Ditto, Clapham (88). Was on way to work on my regular train about to depart (my station) at ten past eight, only for the stick to be thrown back to R in front of us. Jumped off to assist the station supervisor and all we heard (initially) from Control was that there'd been a collision at Clapham. The Controllers were obviously in overload at that time, but it took a while for the full details to reach us.

 

[WAB]

My comment was tongue in cheek but I hear much evidence (from traincrew in particular) about current bare bones control provision making contact impossible.

Current control provision is barebones? Hasn’t the number of desks in the average control office has increased substantially in the last few decades?

 

[Harpo]

Current control provision is barebones? Hasn’t the number of desks in the average control office has increased substantially in the last few decades?

Yes but I was referring to some TOCs traincrew controls where contact during incidents to get instructions on next workings etc. is said to be difficult.

 

[Falcon1200]

Hasn’t the number of desks in the average control office has increased substantially in the last few decades?

With the proviso that I retired nearly 10 years ago, Control staffing did not increase, exactly the opposite in fact; One of the reasons I decided to retire was a reduction in numbers in my particular post with a resulting increase in workload. Having said that, the reduction was subsequently reversed, but only to the previous level, and too late for me!

 

[Wyrleybart]

Yes but I was referring to some TOCs traincrew controls where contact during incidents to get instructions on next workings etc. is said to be difficult.

It is very difficult because Crew Controllers unfortunately need to spend their precious time organising their crew rather than answering loads of calls from misplaced crew who want to get back home.

I work as a crew controller at a long distance TOC with a fairly unique operation. Round the clock there is a Duty Control Manager who handles the priority decision making and during the day there are four route controllers. One for Manchester, Midlands and Anglia, one for Chesterfield to Aberdeen, one for Five Ways to Penzance, and one for Proof House Jn - Bournemouth. Two crew controllers and a admin / catering control function. Then there are information ands customer support controllers. All these people are shift workers some doing three or four 12 hour shifts a week. The other component in our Control are the fleet engineers who liase with the Control staff regarding alterations to the fleet. As an example this afternoon,there was a defective unit trailing a good unit on a Plymouth - Edinburgh service,which needed detaching and ferrying to the depot. The Controllers worked with the fleet engineer to establish a plan. The Crew Controller arranged the crew and the route Controller negotiated with Network Rail and submitted a VSTP request to move the defective unit, but that is a nutshell of what happens.

Traditionally Control offices are secure with only authorised people allowed, and anyone visiting should be prepared for fruity language when the staff are under pressure.

From a personal perspective I love the Control work and wouldn't do anything else.

 

[Chris Hamilton]

Thankfully Scotrail and Network Rail Scotland Controls have been co-located from Day 1.

As well as the issues already mentioned, an undesirable side-effect of privatisation has been that Control staff increasingly lost knowledge and understanding of the 'other side'. Even by the time I retired (nearly 10 years ago!) the number of Controllers who had experienced the pre-privatisation single Control office was small.

It was always a bit strange that when the rest of ScotRail moved out of Buchanan House, the control function stayed broadly co-located with that of Railtrack. I suspect that it was more down to there being a lack of space at Caledonian Chambers to house a control room, or lack of money in the NEx franchise, than any particular foresight. It was only during the creation of the former “ScotRail Alliance”, that they gained a single ”Head of Integrated Control”. In turn, when Buchanan House had to be vacated by pretty much all its residents, both control functions moved, as one, to the West of Scotland Signalling Centre, which hadn’t really been built to house them, as it slightly predated the ROC concept in its design, but adjustments were made and they were squeezed into a new partition on the Operating Floor.

There has however been a recent split in Scotland Control though, with a new North Clyde Operations team setup at Yoker, which has become a sort of mini ROC dedicated to the busiest 2-track corridor on the Scottish network.

I deal with infrastructure control almost daily, and find most of them to be helpful, patient and knowledgeable - we are all doing the same job, and we all have challenges. But there have been a few over the years that I’d have happily throttled (and at least one that I have actually went to the effort to complain about), and most of my colleagues would probably come up with the same names.

 

[Falcon1200]

From a personal perspective I love the Control work and wouldn't do anything else.

I loved working in Control too, despite the occasional particularly challenging shift; The variety of challenges, and no two days ever being the same, were part of the attraction, as well as being attuned to and involved in everything happening on the railway.

There has however been a recent split in Scotland Control though, with a new North Clyde Operations team setup at Yoker, which has become a sort of mini ROC dedicated to the busiest 2-track corridor on the Scottish network.

Something similar was proposed some years ago but knocked on the head, one of the concerns being lack of integration and conflict between Control locations. No doubt the issues have been thought through and resolved!

But there have been a few over the years that I’d have happily throttled (and at least one that I have actually went to the effort to complain about), and most of my colleagues would probably come up with the same names.

Working with, and managing, the multiple various characters in Control could be, shall we say, challenging.....

 

[officewalla]

Pre-privatisation, the railway had both area and regional control offices. Both passenger and freight services were controlled in the same office. Inter-Regional services were overseen by the regional controls, who also oversaw the overall balance of locos and rolling stock between regions.

Timing and Diagramming was then quite separate from the Control function.

With reorganisation came a slimming down of the control system, with the duplication and overlap between area and regional controls largely eliminated, so each control office covered a wide geographic area, with integrated operations, maintenance, train crew and incident control.

Privatisation turned all of this upside down, with a strict separation of infrastructure (Railtrack) and operations (TOC or FOC). Each company had to have their own control office, leading to duplication of effort and also generation of gaps in the coverage. Each company also had its own timers and diagrammers.

In recent years, the ideologically driven privatisation has been proven to be a complete mess, so there's been a gradual movement towards co-location of TOC controls with NR controls and signalling centres.

I'm not familiar with what GBR are planning in terms of the control function, but I would expect the open access and freight operators to maintain their own individual control offices at minimum.

Let's hope the new system has fewer layers of confusion, and more direct decision making and accountability.

As opposed to the ideologically driven nationalisation which is also a mess so far and will be an even bigger mess when commercial interests are removed and only the uncivil servants have complete control. A bit of both is likely to be the best solution to whatever the question is which most efficient way to run things but there is no chance of control or any other part of the running of the railway being run practically or efficiently currently.

 

[Horizon22]

Yes but I was referring to some TOCs traincrew controls where contact during incidents to get instructions on next workings etc. is said to be difficult.

Mainly because everyone wants the same info at the same time. No amount of control staffing would be realistically sensible to resolve this issue.

 

[Class73Electro]

Thanks very much everyone - some very interesting and detailed repsonses! most appreciated

 

[6Gman]

Traditionally Control offices are secure with only authorised people allowed, and anyone visiting should be prepared for fruity language when the staff are under pressure.

From a personal perspective I love the Control work and wouldn't do anything else.

Very early in my railway career, working in freight planning, one of my jobs was to take the list of changes we'd run out of time to arrange down to the control office for them to sort. "0600 tomorrow Bescot-Boston 12 empty bogie bolsters" sort of thing.

Yes, the laguage could be fruity!

I also recall the first woman to be appointed to work in our regional control - nearly caused a strike! "You can't run a control with a woman in the room!"

 

[Harpo]

I also recall the first woman to be appointed to work in our regional control - nearly caused a strike! "You can't run a control with a woman in the room!"

We’ve come a long way from the days of a DCC (Deputy Chief Controller i.e. shift manager) remaining employed but demoted after organising porn films (projector & reels days) for a Saturday night shift!

 

[Trackman]

What's the correct name for a control centre?
I've been in West Coast control a few times many moons ago on a lunch break and the door said something EIECC, I thought that was more to do with signalling than anything else like with a IECC, not they didn't with signalling to certain extent.

 

[godfreycomplex]

What's the correct name for a control centre?
I've been in West Coast control a few times many moons ago on a lunch break and the door said something EIECC, I thought that was more to do with signalling than anything else like with a IECC, not they didn't with signalling to certain extent.

Each one of them is named differently - there’s no mandated name or setup but they’re all universally known as “control”

 

[greatkingrat]

Each one of them is named differently - there’s no mandated name or setup but they’re all universally known as “control”

Ours became "Strategic Command" a few years ago. Everyone still called it Control though and the name was quietly dropped.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Very early in my railway career, working in freight planning, one of my jobs was to take the list of changes we'd run out of time to arrange down to the control office for them to sort. "0600 tomorrow Bescot-Boston 12 empty bogie bolsters" sort of thing.

For those in planning doing the weekend engineering works stock working on my patch, the last job before retiring to the pub on a Friday afternoon was to take the rough working books that formed the basis for the ACWN's, in to Control, so they had the 'original's' to hand should any errors or queries have crept in to the as issued, hand written (as was, but later 'typed') ACWN's.

These were collected again by the planner who's weekend it had been, on the following Monday morning and filed away with all the relevant documentation, before being binned at a future date - usually when filing cabinet space had been exhausted!

 

[Adrian Barr]

Is it not usually the case that ”loco control” and ”maintenance control” are the same person / same people? Or is that only really feasible for the very smallest of locomotive owners/operators?

I think it varies quite a bit from one FOC to another - what I've described is just an example.

Looking at the info on different controls:

>DB have a separate loco control and maintenance control
>DRS have a maintenance controller but no loco control as such
>GBRF have a fleet planning desk in office hours, but out of hours loco issues would come under the normal control desks
>Heavy Haul have a loco control but no separate maintenance control as such

I think Freightliner and Colas (plus the smaller hauliers) don't have a separate loco or maintenance control due to the size of the fleet - or in the case of Freightliner [the new company after splitting from Heavy Haul] a fairly stable train plan that probably doesn't justify having a separate 24hr loco control.

Where there's no separate loco or maintenance control in a FOC, I imagine general fleet management would be done during office hours, with instructions passed to control (such as loco allocations) who would handle real-time issues. Even when there's no dedicated maintenance control, I expect most FOCs would have some sort of technical helpline available 24hrs to provide assistance in the case of failure on the main line - whether it's an "on-call" role or covered by a manager on shift at a maintenance depot. Some faults can be rectified over the phone with a bit of technical assistance and fault finding - for example a loco may be able to continue with a traction motor isolated; not a complete fix but usually sufficient for the train to clear the main line and reach its destination.

*

The difference between "loco control" and "maintenance control" is that loco control is part of the general control team and can be done by anyone with the appropriate training - it's a type of resource management. Maintenance Control generally requires a background within the maintenance function and a detailed hands-on knowledge of loco maintenance to be able to provide technical assistance to drivers, diagnose faults, arrange repairs, liaise with depots, enter detailed defect reports into computer systems and so on.

A loco controller would be concerned with getting a failed loco back to the depot where it will be repaired, assessing the impact of a loco failure in terms of providing locos for trains, finding a replacement loco and so on. Maintenance control would be getting more involved in the nature of the defect, the initial fault finding with the driver, deciding which location is best suited to carry out the repair, perhaps organising a spare part to be sent out to a satellite location, liaising with depots and fitters and so on. Admittedly there's a bit of overlap between loco control and maintenance control, and the roles may be combined in some cases depending on the size of the fleet.

*

A separate maintenance control seems to be fairly common within the TOCs, with descriptions like "provides immediate technical assistance to drivers and liaises with depots / fitters" and "contact for reporting of defects." In contrast to this, fleet control would involve being "responsible for the day-to-day allocation of units as required and all set swaps." Again I think there's a fair bit of variation from one TOC to another - in some cases the maintenance control function might also allocate units to diagrams, and in some cases fleet control (ad hoc set swaps and so on) appears to be part of the general control function looking after services.

In many cases I expect TOCs and FOCs have been through different reorganisations where control responsibilities have shifted around and eventually settled into whatever format seems to work best or is deemed to be most efficient.

 

[Wyrleybart]

What's the correct name for a control centre?
I've been in West Coast control a few times many moons ago on a lunch break and the door said something EIECC, I thought that was more to do with signalling than anything else like with a IECC, not they didn't with signalling to certain extent.

Back in the oughties I worked in the Virgin Trains Control on Smallbrook Queensway in Birmingham which housed both XC and WC. I understand there was a lot of pressure to move us in with Network Rail and other TOCs in the Mailbox to became an ICC. Virgin resisted it but when the franchise passed to Arriva in 2007 the stance changed and XC and WC moved in along with London Midland Trains.

Unfortunately the Mailbox was far from what was expected - mice running over your feet !!! So XC Control left and moved "back" to XC HQ building ikn Birmingham and I believe LM also moved out. The ICC didn't really work out.

 

[Rammie]

Just out of interest, when Great British Railways finally comes in. What do you think will be the future of all the splintered current Network Rail and TOC’s control rooms?

 

[Dfatcontroller]

Just out of interest, when Great British Railways finally comes in. What do you think will be the future of all the splintered current Network Rail and TOC’s control rooms?

Chances are the number will increase! TOCs that currently manage Open Access operators probably won't be able to manage Open Access anymore once the TOC becomes GBR/GovOwned so the Open Access operators will need their own control (or pass it to a freight operation).

 

[officewalla]

Yes but I was referring to some TOCs traincrew controls where contact during incidents to get instructions on next workings etc. is said to be difficult.

Not difficult....impossible which makes recovery significantly more difficult.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Just out of interest, when Great British Railways finally comes in. What do you think will be the future of all the splintered current Network Rail and TOC’s control rooms?

It really is a guessing game, but maybe consider this
GBR will be one entity but add in Merseyrail, London Overground, Scotrail and TfW, and all the freight ancillary operators like Rail Adventure, LSL and WCR. There are actually a number of operators and GBR is only a part of the system - admittedly a very dominant role geographically.

You would expect that the ex Network Rail element and the train operator element would eventually combine into a sort of British Railways type model, but it will remain nothing really like pre 1994.

In my own opinion there will need to be some kind of regional structure even if you lump in say GTR SOU SWR and SE into one region, then say Anglia and LNER south of York) and maybe NT(South) into another region. Then maybe Northern (North) TPE, LNER (North) and maybe northern part of AWC.

Who knows but there will still be a substantial number of "non GBR" services to be controlled - even stuff like TfW to Cheltenham, Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool. ,