Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

When is an IECC not an IECC

Current and future British signalling (UK except Northern Ireland)

When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby Fast Line Floyd » Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:06 pm

From the subject in 'historical' here http://forum.signalbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6856 and the comment from mossend4 about Inverness IECC. There appears still to be some confusion about what is an IECC but the answer is simply, IECC is the brand name given to a product produced by what is now Delta Rail (previously AEA Technology) and only applies to VDU based control systems produced by them and their predecessors. There are only a few true IECC's in existence, these are:
Ashford
Edinburgh
Marylebone
Sandhills
Thames Valley
Tyneside
Upminster
Yoker
York

Two more have now closed, those being Slough New and Swindon B. Other locations which signal trains via VDU based control systems are known by their manufacturer either being:
Siemens (Invensis (Westinghouse)): Westcad,
GE Transportation (GETS): MCS,
Siemens: VICOS,
Ansaldo STS: ACC & RCC

Whilst IECC and WestCad look very similar from the signallers point of view and it is possible to add Delta Rails automatic route setting (ARS) to Westcad to make it function exactly as an IECC it still won't be an IECC.

Panel based control systems can never be IECC's as Delta Rail do not make panels although they do produce interlocking software for various solid state types of interlocking in the same way they produce RETB software.

RETB's can never be IECC's as these cannot be fitted with ARS and rely on voice coms between the train and Signallers as part of the safety system.

I hope this helps make this subject a little clearer.

Graham
Graham
User avatar
Fast Line Floyd
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Raunds

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby micron » Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:34 pm

You missed Liverpool Street, the first IECC :)
micron
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:55 am
Location: Essex

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby Danny252 » Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:55 pm

And am I right to think that the workstation being an IECC has no bearing on what interlocking/signalling technology is used, provided that they are compatible? (RETB being an example of an incompatible system, as you say)
Danny252
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:39 pm
Location: As close to the levers as they'll let me be

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby Fast Line Floyd » Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:48 pm

micron wrote:You missed Liverpool Street, the first IECC :)

Whoops certainly did, stevieg will never forgive me.

Graham
Graham
User avatar
Fast Line Floyd
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Raunds

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby Fast Line Floyd » Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:49 pm

Danny252 wrote:And am I right to think that the workstation being an IECC has no bearing on what interlocking/signalling technology is used, provided that they are compatible? (RETB being an example of an incompatible system, as you say)

Absolutely correct.

Graham
Graham
User avatar
Fast Line Floyd
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Raunds

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby micron » Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:22 pm

Fast Line Floyd wrote:
micron wrote:You missed Liverpool Street, the first IECC :)

Whoops certainly did, stevieg will never forgive me.

Graham



that he won't, lol
micron
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:55 am
Location: Essex

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby edwin_m » Tue Dec 16, 2014 8:20 pm

Just to confuse things further, there were limits on the number of systems that could communicate by a single network, including two workstations and 12 SSIs if I recall correctly. So some of the sites referred to (correctly) as IECCs may contain more than one IECC system. Having not been involved in IECC for nearly 20 years I don't know whether this situation still applies, given that computing technology has advanced so far in the meantime.

For those that don't know, IECC was developed by British Rail research division as a follow-on to SSI, and was effectively the standard technology for the non-vital signalling systems at large control centres from 1988 until 1994. It passed to AEA Technology on privatisation and is now in competition with the other systems mentioned above.
edwin_m
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jul 5, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby micron » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:08 pm

edwin_m wrote:Just to confuse things further, there were limits on the number of systems that could communicate by a single network, including two workstations and 12 SSIs if I recall correctly. So some of the sites referred to (correctly) as IECCs may contain more than one IECC system. Having not been involved in IECC for nearly 20 years I don't know whether this situation still applies, given that computing technology has advanced so far in the meantime.

For those that don't know, IECC was developed by British Rail research division as a follow-on to SSI, and was effectively the standard technology for the non-vital signalling systems at large control centres from 1988 until 1994. It passed to AEA Technology on privatisation and is now in competition with the other systems mentioned above.


Liverpool Street, is such a place, as it has 4 separate IECC's, Upminster 3, and now there is IECC Scalable, all the different parts in one 19" cubicle.
micron
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:55 am
Location: Essex

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby StevieG » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:34 am

Danny252 wrote:And am I right to think that the workstation being an IECC has no bearing on what interlocking/signalling technology is used, provided that they are compatible? (RETB being an example of an incompatible system, as you say)
I am open to correction on much of the following, by FLF and/or anyone else herein more technickelly knowledgeable, But I would say that a workstation cannot be an IECC in itself; it is merely the means of control/indications communication between operator and whatever type(s) of system which govern the workstation's area of control - [I find it quite amazing how much 'mix 'n match' is possible these days in terms of interworking between differing types of interlocking and operators' control/indication media (presumably essential with the growing amount of re-control projects, and leading to the way that many areas will be taken on by the future ROCs) : I particularly remember, years ago, reading of an RRII (= Route-Relay Interlocking Interface, IIRC), which I think is what was employed from 'York IECC' ( :roll: )'s early days, for it to take over operation of the then-existing, but quite young, RRI of the 1980s 'Selby Diversion' signalling (which had started out operated by a moderately-sized additional NX panel in York old {OCS} box), rather than resignal again.].

I believe it would be true to say that Liverpool Street, being the first IECC-equipped signal centre to go operational, was the first UK signal control location to bring together the separately developed/trialled facets of Solid State Interlocking, VDU signalling information displays/tracker ball control, and ARS.
IMHO confusion has arisen by occasional innocent colloquial use of the term IECC over a long period, to refer to 'modern' signal control centres, initially probably those equipped with IECC, but over time, by some, to any VDU workstation-equipped SC, (from its late March 1989 commissioning, Liv.St. was officially known as "Liverpool Street Signalling Centre").

Whereas, strictly speaking, in engineering terms an IECC is, I believe, a somewhat set system configuration which, IIRC, consists (in a local, SC-internal sense) of, inter-linked, a signalling network and an information network, with, connected to one or the other, essential sub-systems [of which, ARS (Automatic Route-setting Subsystem) is one].
And with the limitations on IECC capacity which edwin_m has referred to, he, and micron, are- indeed correct that large centres can consist of more than one IECC : Liverpool Street actually has three IECCs for its six 'GE' lines workstations, but must now contain more with the addition of those introduced under the WARM project for the 'West Anglia' lines (Hackney Downs - Chingford / Enfield Town / Hertford East / the Stansted Mountfitchet triangle / Stansted Airport) : - micron quotes four, but I had thought that, involving three workstations, it would now be at least 5 IECCs [or is Hackney Downs an addition to one of the GE IECCs?].
BZOH

/
\ \ \ //\ \
/// \ \ \ \
StevieG
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3022
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:30 am
Location: ex-GNR territory in N. Herts.

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby Fast Line Floyd » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:53 am

Steve, you are indeed correct in all of this and it is true that it is possible to have an IECC, a Westcad and an MCS all working in the same signalling centre although it is unlikely in reality. Yes an IECC can only control a limited number of workstations and therefore a signalling centre may consist of more than one IECC system although part of that limitation has been address in the latest version called IECC scalable as opposed to the old system now termed IECC classic.

Network Rail (previously BR and RT) specifies what the interface (to interlockings) will be, so IECC, MCS and Westcad will all talk to the various makes of SSI, Westlok and Smartlock but not directly to relay interlockings which need a additional interface. Nor as far as I know will IECC, Westcad or MCS talk to Siemens or Ansaldo interlockings without a additional interface.

Graham
Graham
User avatar
Fast Line Floyd
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Raunds

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby StevieG » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:08 pm

Many thanks for the verification Graham, and the reminder about more recent IECC development meaning that it now exists in more than one form.
Not having set eyes on 'scalable', either 'out front' or in the grey cubicles room, I am prone to forget that IECC can now be found in two flavours.
BZOH

/
\ \ \ //\ \
/// \ \ \ \
StevieG
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3022
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:30 am
Location: ex-GNR territory in N. Herts.

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby collexions » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:51 pm

Fast Line Floyd wrote:Whilst IECC and WestCad look very similar from the signallers point of view and it is possible to add Delta Rails automatic route setting (ARS) to Westcad to make it function exactly as an IECC it still won't be an IECC.

DeltaRail's ARS don't interface with either WestCad or MCS control system workstations. TRE's 'TREsa' (or as Network Rail call it SARS) is the ARS+ solution for WestCad & MCS systems moving forward.

I don't think many of the ROCs, with the exception of Western (Didcot) & East of Scotland (Edinburgh) will have IECC Scalable, as everything is either going WestCad (or to a lesser extent, MCS) for TMS Interfaced.
All others will be TMS Integrated in CP5/CP6.

3x current Upminster workstations currently being combined from three IECC Classics, to one large WestCad-E (Enhanced) for the first TMS Integrated deployment @ Romford ROC.
collexions
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:48 am

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby Fast Line Floyd » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:03 pm

collexions wrote:
Fast Line Floyd wrote:Whilst IECC and WestCad look very similar from the signallers point of view and it is possible to add Delta Rails automatic route setting (ARS) to Westcad to make it function exactly as an IECC it still won't be an IECC.

DeltaRail's ARS don't interface with either WestCad or MCS control system workstations. TRE's 'TREsa' (or as Network Rail call it SARS) is the ARS+ solution for WestCad & MCS systems moving forward.

I don't think many of the ROCs, with the exception of Western (Didcot) & East of Scotland (Edinburgh) will have IECC Scalable, as everything is either going WestCad (or to a lesser extent, MCS) for TMS Interfaced.
All others will be TMS Integrated in CP5/CP6.

3x current Upminster workstations currently being combined from three IECC Classics, to one large WestCad-E (Enhanced) for the first TMS Integrated deployment @ Romford ROC.

Not true regarding the ARS interface to Westcad and MCS it just is not direct connection and has never been done before.

Graham
Graham
User avatar
Fast Line Floyd
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Raunds

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby micron » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:57 pm

StevieG - there are just the 4 IECC at Liverpool Street, as Hackney East & West, and Chingford are attached to IECC A (Liv St - BG), with the rest of the WA route being on IECC D.

Collexions - You may find that things change again with Upminster and when it goes in to the ROC at Romford, as ERTMS / ETCS is very much in the frame for the Thameside Route, so that may have an affect on the TMS system being used, along with the main contractor?

Also it could well be that the IECC Scalable at Cambridge (ETN) gets moved to the ROC too??


Who know, as it seems to be changing all the time.

Trev
micron
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:55 am
Location: Essex

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby StevieG » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:21 pm

micron wrote: " StevieG - there are just the 4 IECC at Liverpool Street, as Hackney East & West, and Chingford are attached to IECC A (Liv St - BG), with the rest of the WA route being on IECC D. .... "
Thanks v.m. Trev.
I had a vague feeling that Hackney might have gone onto 'A', though I was far from sure [I moved on when 'C' was only half done, and 'B' was still on the drawing board or being installed], given how complex part of the 'A' area already was, and that 'A' already had two workstations, though the 'East' ( formerly the "Bethnal Green'') workstation duplicates, and is( (or at least, it was) some sort of slave of, the 'West' (formerly the "Liv.St.").
BZOH

/
\ \ \ //\ \
/// \ \ \ \
StevieG
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3022
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:30 am
Location: ex-GNR territory in N. Herts.

Next

Return to Signalling - current

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests