This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Depots


Time to write off the whiteboard


An innovative web-based approach to depot train maintenance planning is proving a cost-effective replacement to whiteboards


B


usier rail networks mean busier depots and a greater burden on depot staff as well as existing infrastructure. Improving


productivity and efficiency are key to reducing these pressures and to the continued successful operation of rail depots across the country. Historically, coordination in depots


has been based around a whiteboard, usually located in a control room or supervisor office. Information is handwritten on the board, detailing train expected arrivals and departures, together with the rolling stock maintenance tasks that need to be carried out.


Dissemination of the information on


the board to staff working around the depot is a challenge, as is the fact that it could easily be misread due to unclear


writing, or corrupted with one wipe, or even completely wiped off. All of these scenarios open up the potential for mistakes which could significantly affect the depot’s output. A modern, IT-based solution would


therefore seem a natural development, in the same way that computer-based applications have been created for so many other information processing and control activities. UK-based rail technology company


Zonegreen has met this challenge with its new Operator Planning Suite (OPS) - a ‘virtual whiteboard’ that has been designed solely for use in rail depots as a cost-effective replacement to whiteboards. A multi-user, web-based graphical


task planning application, OPS has a graphical map layout representing the


depot, upon which users can position trains and create and assign maintenance tasks, together with schedules for train arrivals and departures.


Changes and progress can be entered electronically and are automatically and immediately recorded and updated on the system. Zonegreen says that this improved system reliability reduces the likelihood of communication failures and breakdowns.


FEBRUARY 2013 PAGE 53


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100