Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

When is an IECC not an IECC

Current and future British signalling (UK except Northern Ireland)

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby mossend4 » Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:36 pm

Going back to what gave rise to the thread; all that has been posted here IMO represents step changes in technology, terminology and industry structures spanning a 28 year period and the current ‘Trade Name’ mandatory definition of an IECC cannot be back-or post-dated to determine what is and what isn’t an Integrated Electronic Control Centre. All the Company is entitled to lay claim to is that it has installed one of its Systems at. e.g ‘Edinburgh’. DeltaRail did not invent the technology, nor does it own it - Network Rail still retains the Intellectual Property Rights to IECC technology from its BR Derby Research development days, so I assume DeltaRail develop and install it under Licence.

In 1986, the Installation at Inverness was then State of the Art. No, it didn’t get ARS nor VDU signalling because it didn’t need them, the low traffic density didn’t justify them or their additional costs. So if it’s not installed because it is not specified, it’s not an IECC? I believe SSI and IECC may have been used as interchangeable terms AT THAT TIME. Struggling hard to recall the labelling on the box in the Relay Room at Edinburgh SC controlling the newly resignalled Bathgate Branch, I think it was SSI followed by a few lower case letters, but I’m certain the Duty Technical Officer referred to it as IECC. Because to that man’s eyes that’s exactly what it was. And likewise the equipment had to fit the scheme.

There have also been statements in the thread of what can and cannot be done with an IECC, mention was made for example of RETB safety critical voice systems being incompatible with IECC operation. I’m conscious this is a current thread, and I say now my current knowledge stops at 1998. But by that time, another safety critical voice system was in operation on the North and South Bank ‘Strathclyde’ Driver Only Operated EMU services which provided discrete voice communication between Signaller and Driver, the system was additional to NRN and barred all calls from an external network, including NRN. Yoker IECC was part of that discrete network, and with the Airdrie to Bathgate line re-opening those EMU services now run to Edinburgh, which is also now IECC. How was this achieved in a system that cannot handle safety critical voice systems? And what of the future?
mossend4
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 6, 2011 10:54 am

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby StevieG » Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:28 am

It sounds like the "another safety critical voice system" which you mention in connection with Driver Only Operated EMU services is the driver/signaller radio system which was originally known, in the south at least, as "DOO Radio" as it was an essential requirement for driver-only operation of passenger trains, and latterly has become known as Cab Secure Radio (CSR), which re-christening I believe occurred once it was to be deployed on some (typically commuter lines) as a valuable means of communication where trains were still driver + guard(or equivalent)-operated.
(The new national GSM-R radio communication system, now at a fairly advanced stage of roll-out, I believe is intended to completely supersede both CSR and NRN.)

Because of its discrete communication (conversation with one driver cannot be heard by any others), CSR's primary function of one-to-one speech is normally authorised for use in any safety critical communications between signaller and driver (such as cautioning to examine the line, advising a driver of an emergency severe temporary speed restriction, authorising a signal to be passed at Danger, etc.).
But to operate fully (in a way which allows emergency and normal calling, both from signaller to driver by train reporting number, and similarly, driver-signaller to be indicated by Rep.No.), CSR requires only continuous signal-to-signal type train movement information from any signal box 'modern' (4-character headcode era, and since; & presumably computer-based) train describer or TD-driven mapping-based Automatic Train Reporting system, and so its operability is not dependent on the type of signal interlocking(s) and control system(s) in use to control lineside signals along CSR-equipped routes : Hence the early (approx. 1982), fully effective operation of DOOR/CSR throughout the Kings Cross PSB [NX(PP) panel + RRI] area, and soon extended into the areas of the similar Peterborough and Cambridge PSBs for lines required to carry DOO services.

In RETB, the radio communication involved is at the core of controlling train movements by handling exchanges of electronic tokens with trains (as data telegrams, governed by Solid State Interlocking) and is also the means, by verbal communication (which is actually not discrete to a specific driver), of routinely authorising train movements past the fixed boards equating to signals; so RETB and CSR are rather different from each other.
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 JRB » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:43 am

Indeed, the audio element of RETB is functionally a variety of CSR. The rest of RETB is a vital signalling system.
JRB
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3216
Joined: Sun Dec 9, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: GWR

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby collexions » Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:42 pm

micron wrote: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?

The deliverables I'm involved in regarding Thameside, in support of Thales' TMS First Deployment, sees a newly produced Siemens combined WestCad (for the 3x Upminster IECC workstations) interfaced with Thales' ARAMIS system. It may well change in-line with ERTMS/ETCS in future, but the TMS 1st Deployment is set for a Dec 2015 installation to Romford ROC, and there's to be no scope change regarding this prior to this release.
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 mossend4 » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:02 pm

StevieG wrote:It sounds like the "another safety critical voice system" which you mention in connection with Driver Only Operated EMU services is the driver/signaller radio system which was originally known, in the south at least, as "DOO Radio" as it was an essential requirement for driver-only operation of passenger trains, and latterly has become known as Cab Secure Radio (CSR), which re-christening I believe occurred once it was to be deployed on some (typically commuter lines) as a valuable means of communication where trains were still driver + guard(or equivalent)-operated.
(The new national GSM-R radio communication system, now at a fairly advanced stage of roll-out, I believe is intended to completely supersede both CSR and NRN.)

Because of its discrete communication (conversation with one driver cannot be heard by any others), CSR's primary function of one-to-one speech is normally authorised for use in any safety critical communications between signaller and driver (such as cautioning to examine the line, advising a driver of an emergency severe temporary speed restriction, authorising a signal to be passed at Danger, etc.).
But to operate fully (in a way which allows emergency and normal calling, both from signaller to driver by train reporting number, and similarly, driver-signaller to be indicated by Rep.No.), CSR requires only continuous signal-to-signal type train movement information from any signal box 'modern' (4-character headcode era, and since; & presumably computer-based) train describer or TD-driven mapping-based Automatic Train Reporting system, and so its operability is not dependent on the type of signal interlocking(s) and control system(s) in use to control lineside signals along CSR-equipped routes : Hence the early (approx. 1982), fully effective operation of DOOR/CSR throughout the Kings Cross PSB [NX(PP) panel + RRI] area, and soon extended into the areas of the similar Peterborough and Cambridge PSBs for lines required to carry DOO services.

In RETB, the radio communication involved is at the core of controlling train movements by handling exchanges of electronic tokens with trains (as data telegrams, governed by Solid State Interlocking) and is also the means, by verbal communication (which is actually not discrete to a specific driver), of routinely authorising train movements past the fixed boards equating to signals; so RETB and CSR are rather different from each other.


Thanks Steve. The 1982 date is about right for CSR for DOO(P) services on our South Clyde EMU services. These lines had more modern signalling systems than North Clyde which was then still a mixture of late 1950's PSBs using 4-character (all alpha) TDs, and hybrid boxes with both lever frames and panels. Other than fringe boxes, these had no TD. North Clyde needed Yoker IECC fully commissioned before these services could became DOO(P). Up here, passenger trains which operated with a guard were always excluded from the CSR System.

Yes, I knew RETB radio communications were open channel, all messages passed could be heard by everyone on it. IMO it was strange that so much trust was placed on the Driver to report exactly where the train was, and on one occasion after the Driver of a northbound train had heard the messages being passed to a southbound train at crossing loop 'D' north of him, authorising it to proceed to crossing loop 'C', he told the Signaller his train was standing at the Stop Board at crossing loop 'B', when in fact it was still approaching on the single line south of it ... in an attempt to get an 'early token' to proceed to crossing loop 'C', before the southbound train had reached there from 'D'. The incident came to light only because an Operations Manager happened to be at crossing loop 'B' , was listening in on his mobile RETB set, and knew the northbound train hadn't reached there'.

Yes, I've noticed a few GSM-R boards about here now, but I have no knowledge of it.
mossend4
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 6, 2011 10:54 am

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby davidwoodcock » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:51 pm

mossend4 wrote:IMO it was strange that so much trust was placed on the Driver to report exactly where the train was, and on one occasion after the Driver of a northbound train had heard the messages being passed to a southbound train at crossing loop 'D' north of him, authorising it to proceed to crossing loop 'C', he told the Signaller his train was standing at the Stop Board at crossing loop 'B', when in fact it was still approaching on the single line south of it ... in an attempt to get an 'early token' to proceed to crossing loop 'C', before the southbound train had reached there from 'D'. The incident came to light only because an Operations Manager happened to be at crossing loop 'B' , was listening in on his mobile RETB set, and knew the northbound train hadn't reached there'.


Which rather suggests that it occurred on more than one occasion, might indeed have been commonplace, at least for certain drivers, until "authority" happened to be in the right (wrong?) place one day and was sufficiently on the ball to spot it.
davidwoodcock
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:58 am
Location: Champlon, Belgique

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby JRB » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:59 pm

There is a lot of informal rule bending (not safety compromising) on one RETB line I know quite well. I can imagine that sort of incident there.
JRB
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3216
Joined: Sun Dec 9, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: GWR

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby rower40 » Mon Dec 22, 2014 1:10 pm

DeltaRail also have IECC or IECC-Scalable equipment installed at other locations, as follows:

Wimbledon; there's an ARS system there, interfacing to the TD, Panel and Interlockings, providing various route-setting facilities over the "country end" (effectively Raynes Park to Leatherhead inclusive), and a few other isolated areas. Also performs ACI function at Waterloo, Clapham (platforms 1 & 2), Epsom (and sidings), Chessington South.

Cambridge: Ely-Norwich is IECC-Scalable. There's an ARS system installed, which "thinks" that it's setting routes, but in fact it's just providing stopping/non-stopping differentiation for the trains approaching the MCB-OD level crossings.

Harrogate: IECC-Scalable, with no ARS other than for SPAD-detection.
rower40
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:59 am

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby Pete2320 » Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:03 pm

I'm pretty sure that York was described as an IECC when it opened. At that time I'm pretty certain that this was because it contained more than just a signalbox, or was intended to. I'm thinking electrical control room and operating control, though not really sure if this happened. Whatever, at that time I'm sure IECC was not a brand name for anything.
I wonder what would have happened if, say, Mr Dutton had decided to market his lever frames as "Signalbox" which seems comparable to what has happened with IECC and SSI.

Pete
Pete
Pete2320
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Barton on Humber

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby edwin_m » Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:51 pm

York, as opened in 1990ish, contained the then BR Research IECC system so all parties can correctly describe it as an IECC.
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 JRB » Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:08 pm

Pete2320 wrote: I wonder what would have happened if, say, Mr Dutton had decided to market his lever frames as "Signalbox" which seems comparable to what has happened with IECC and SSI.

Pete

Perhaps we should say that SSI is the system developed by BR and the contractors, whereas the other comparable systems are ssi.
JRB
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3216
Joined: Sun Dec 9, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: GWR

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby StevieG » Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:55 pm

Pete2320 wrote: " I'm pretty sure that York was described as an IECC when it opened. .... "
It certainly was Pete, AFAIR quite soon after Liverpool Street (around 6-12 months?)
Pete2320 wrote: " .... At that time I'm pretty certain that this was because it contained more than just a signalbox, or was intended to. I'm thinking electrical control room and operating control, though not really sure if this happened. Whatever, at that time I'm sure IECC was not a brand name for anything. .... "
Although perhaps not a brand name in commercial terms, being developed by, and introduced under, BR, I am in no doubt that in those times, and as a defined configuration of software/electronic systems for signalling purposes, IECC was then a defined term in a technology/signal engineering context.

I believe that, IIRC, the original ten were (not definitely in a specific order, but possibly roughly chronological) : - Liverpool Street. York, Yoker, Marylebone, Sandhills, Tyneside, Upminster, Ashford, Slough New, Swindon B.
That some (I can't say for all) may have become colloquially understood as IECC because of other functions included in their buildings, may well be the case, as this could be said to have been so in several of these locations.
At Liverpool Street, the Anglia Region Control was also therein, but on a separate floor (though later brought up onto the signalling floor when industry-internal organisational changes [NSE] altered the original plans for use of the 50% vacant space).
York, I know, some time later, had the Ops.Control for the BR Region / RT Zone/Region / NR Route (don't know which of these may have been applicable at the time), and the Electrical Control functions in the main room, but I don't know if that was originally so. Also in the building was(/still is?) a timetable 'clerical' presence to fine-tune WTT/STN/other late-planned timetable data for better daily ARS operation.
The small Marylebone had the Chiltern Lines NR Controller present from the outset. I've an inkling that there may have been (is now?) some similar arrangement for Merseyrail in Sandhills.
Slough New included the small-area Electric Control (only needed for the Paddington - Airport Jn.- Heathrow electrified route of the Heathrow Express).
Upminster has had / has a controller(s) of one sort or another present in an adjoining 'supervision' room at various times, but I'm not sure that was the case originally.
Swindon B was fairly small (taking only the Didcot patch off Reading Panel) : I never heard of any non-signalling staff working there.
I know nothing of any 'other staff' arrangements in the others.

What was probably unhelpful in the understandings of staff/others not closely involved in such centres, was that several other 'co-ordination' centres were established not long after, from the late-1990s(?) - 2000s, and were christened with the similar name of ICC (Integrated Control Centre).
Here, with a view to improve co=ordinated responses to incidents/disruptions, the integration was of Network Rail Route* Ops. Controllers, with the Control staff of a Route's Train (passenger) Operating Companies, and any other similar parties (e.g. London 'Overground' : I believe the Freight Operating Companies have not joined in), where the TOC(s)/etc. opted to participate in such room-sharing arrangements.
* - (areas of a size not unlike, but not necessarily utilising the boundaries of, the BR/RT Regions/Zones)

I think the first ICC was that which was setup in "The Mailbox" in Birmingham, for (southern half of?) the WCML/W.Mids., etc.(replaced the former BR Crewe Control office?) : I think there became a similar one in Manchester for the north.
There is certainly still the WICC at Waterloo, for the NR Wessex Route/South-West Trains area.

But to my knowledge, no ICCs have, or have had, any signalman/ler staff included.
Last edited by StevieG on Tue Dec 23, 2014 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 JRB » Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:47 am

No signalling from Banbury ICC & no presence from 2 of the 3 TOCs (invited but did not come).
JRB
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 3216
Joined: Sun Dec 9, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: GWR

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby rower40 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:02 pm

Thread bump.
When is an IECC not an IECC?
This weekend, when the BR-Research/AEA-Technology/DeltaRail equipment at Yoker IECC is decommissioned, to be replaced by GETS MCS and Hitachi-TRE Signaller's Assistant.
rower40
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:59 am

Re: When is an IECC not an IECC

Unread postby Mike Hodgson » Sat Apr 1, 2017 9:21 am

I can see why the RAIB had to start putting a glossary at the back of all their reports.

OK .... I'll bite .... I know what an IECC is, but what's a GETS an MCS and a TRE ?
User avatar
Mike Hodgson
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2485
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: N Herts

PreviousNext

Return to Signalling - current

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests