Proceedings 2002/2003 - IRSE

SIGNALLING CONTROL CENTRES TODAY AND TOMORROW 61
Discussion
The discussion was opened by A Fisher
(Bombardier) who asked the speaker’s views on
several issues. The first was questioning whether,
having generated a SPAD Alarm to the operator,
could automation be applied in response to this
alarm. The second point raised concerned the use of
the operational information that is readily available
and could developments use this data more
effectively. Thirdly, he questioned if a “Eurographics
Working Group” would be looking at standardisation
issues and finally asked if it would be possible to
replicate the Operator's display within the Driver’s
cab?
I Mitchell initially responded by saying that he
believed further investment in development of the
SPAD Alarm, which would add additional complexity
to the system, could not be justified for the
rare occasions it would be required; the optimum
solution was not to have SPADs in the first place! He
agreed that the operational information available is
under-utilised although Heathrow Express does use
a limited amount of information from Slough IECC
for operational purposes. More generally though,
“higher level” operational management systems
perform this role. The speaker advised that not only
is there no “Eurographics Working Group” but also
that each country has its own standards; the
Operator Interface being the least interoperable
feature of tomorrow’s Signalling Centres! Finally, he
considered that it would be possible to replicate the
Operator’s display in the Driver's cab but he
cautioned against the potential distraction this could
present.
I Harman (Union Railways) commented that CTRL
had overcome the problem of presentation of
graphics on its Operator’s display by utilising a set of
“Franglais” standards and that there was no need to
reinvent the wheel. Additionally, he also pointed out
that it is not always necessary to display every
signal on the Operator’s display, it being sufficient to
only show those where some action on the
Operator’s part was required. He also reiterated
caution when deciding what information to provide
to the Driver and felt that a simple target speed,
possibly with an indication of whether running before
or behind time, would be sufficient.
I Mitchell agreed that the issues were being
tackled in various places but needed bringing
together.
T Taskin (EPT) enquired regarding the technology
refreshment strategy for IECC.
I Mitchell said that the strategy has been one of
small steps, maintaining the overall architecture with
progressive upgrading of hardware and software,
much of which will still be available for some time.
M Savage (Savoir Ltd) asked if the original
concept of ARS, ie minimal Signaller intervention,
had been achieved and whether there were any
plans to develop ARS and its area of control.
I Mitchell responded that he had no specific
figures for Signaller intervention but believed usage
of ARS at Liverpool Street was high. The speaker
indicated that the Waterloo ARS was being
upgraded but was unaware of any plans to either
develop or integrate the controlling areas of ARS
further.
P Vandermark (Driver First Great Western) wanted
to know if there were any plans to link the trainborne
wheel-slip protection systems with Signalling
Centres to warn of possible SPADs and also if
GSM-R would be able to handle the communication
requirements of an emergency situation.
I Mitchell replied that whilst he was aware of some
existing train-borne wheel-slip protection systems
that did inform Control Centres of low adhesion
conditions, they were not integrated into the
signalling system. He acknowledged that adhesion
is critical for ETCS, especially where braking calculations
are based upon certain assumptions about
adhesion. He was uncertain if these train-borne
systems had been included within the relevant
specifications and considered that they probably do
not conform to the interoperability requirements.
With GSM-R, the speaker explained that there is a
strict “pecking order” with emergency communications
taking priority over any other messages.
K Ford (Thales) commented that with GSM-R, all
parties hear emergency calls.
A C Howker (Past President) commented that
some Metro Systems do utilise wheel-slip systems
to alter headway calculations. He also observed that
the use of ARS in heavily trafficked areas was
problematical and certainly did not function reliably
in Ashford IECC.
I Harman (Union Railways) believed that due
weight was not given to the complex task of
converting the Operator’s requirements into the
algorithms needed for ARS and this was the reason
for the poor performance of IECCs on the Southern
Region.
A C Howker (Past President) was interested to
know how the author believed the Control Centre of
the future would keep infrastructure information
updated and display Level 3 signalling?
I Mitchell responded that the process of managing
and transferring the infrastructure information into a
SIL4 system had not really been considered but
questioned how this is achieved with any confidence
in existing installations. However, he felt that
complete system management together with off-line
checking should allow this to be accomplished. The
displaying of Level 3 signalling information has not
yet been considered.
An unidentified member of the audience commented
that moving block is depicted on the
Operator's displays of the Docklands Light Railway.
J F Wilson (Network Rail) referred to a recent
catastrophic failure of the IECC at Slough and
expressed some disappointment that no diagnostics
have been developed for use during such occasions.
I Mitchell agreed that the diagnostics do require
development, no work having been undertaken in
developing them since the introduction of IECC.