TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
evaluators spent a month in each model offi ce, running different scenarios, using real data from the Leeds area (nearly 1,600 trains a day, 35 stations and 87 TIPLOCs).
Operators weren’t aware of the precise scenario until the beginning of each day, and observers oversaw how they were able to use each traffi c management system to improve performance, and compare that with a typical day without such a decision support system.
Taylor said: “That ‘model offi ce’ process
was very comprehensive and rigorous, and has done a great deal to build everyone’s confi dence. It is something that we in Thales are now recommending to our colleagues in other countries when we provide traffi c management. It builds confi dence and de-risks the implementation.”
Network Rail has taken an approach that ensures the system it chooses can be rolled out “virtually anywhere” without the need for major upgrades, integrating it with the existing signalling infrastructure.
Wider benefi ts
Traffi c management systems can also improve the
possession management Taylor said. “There process. It
ensures decisions are taken based on the real current timetable, as opposed to the planned timetable,
are other
associated technologies available, related to traffi c management, that can also improve communications at times of possession and that is something we know Network Rail are considering.”
Ultimately, an effi cient and effective traffi c management system would also provide and incorporate data that would help with rolling stock allocation and train crew rostering and deployment.
LINX
Thales was not the only winner announced in May. SSL won the smaller £3.4m contract for traffi c management LINX development, delivery and support, with completion scheduled for December 2015. LINX, the Layered Information
Network Exchange,
provides the integration between the traffi c management system, the background information systems (from timetable planning to the customer information via Project Darwin) and the physical aspects of signalling via the remote interlocking infrastructure.
The LINX development ensures there will be a standard way of interfacing between those systems and different traffi c management systems – as although Thales has been chosen
The roll-out of traffi c management at the other ROCs will be subject to future competitions. Five of these ROCs are, like Cardiff, at existing locations – Derby (East Midlands), Didcot (Thames Valley), Edinburgh, Glasgow and Gillingham (North Kent) – while fi ve, like Romford, are based at new buildings – Basingstoke, Manchester, Rugby, Three Bridges and York.
“Each route has slightly different priorities,” Taylor said “Clearly a lot can be learned from the fi rst two that are implemented [at Cardiff and Romford], but I think it will be a decision taken on a route-by-route basis by Network Rail. We expect this to always be competitive.
“This really is about the focus on performance.
for Cardiff and Romford, Hitachi and SSL are still in the running for other contracts under the national roll-out of traffi c management.
Although 63 companies expressed initial interest in providing Network Rail’s traffi c management system, only those three are on the framework to provide it. The most controversial exclusion was DeltaRail (see the News section).
Different routes, different priorities
Traffi c management system user roles
• Planners – for timetable planning functions • Dispatchers – for functions relating to wide area control or changes to the planned service on the day
• Signallers – for safety related functions such as manual route setting or route cancellation
• Administrators – to manage the traffi c management system • Supervisors or information roles – with visibility of rail service information • Maintainers or technicians – to repair or carry out maintenance of the traffi c management system
The benefi ts
• Optimal use of resources, including staff and rolling stock • Increased capacity usage without change to installed infrastructure base • Operational cost reduction • Improved incident management and recovery from perturbation • Improved understanding of asset and train service performance through detailed reporting and analysis
• Informed decision making reducing delays • Confl ict free train service plans • Improved passenger information • Better coordination of national train services through wide area control approach • Improved delay reporting accuracy and management of payment mechanisms • Standardisation of information management and adjacent control interfaces • Improved training from visibility of historical train service and incident data • Reduced fuel costs with driver advisory information
(Source: IET railway signalling and control systems course, Emma Davey, Thales)
“We all spend a lot of time on trains and we want the train to arrive on time and anything that can be done to improve that is worth doing. And of course it is not just about the passenger, it is about freight as well. Both the freight operating companies and the train operating companies have been really involved in this and that is good, because without their involvement going through the implementation, the system won’t deliver the potential that it can deliver.”
Victor Chavez, CEO of Thales UK, added: “Our selection for this fi rst phase of the traffi c management system programme is a huge step in our relationship with Network Rail, and we are hugely excited to bring our global traffi c management system expertise to the UK. This is a great example of how we can leverage our signifi cant domestic and global resources to help Network Rail achieve their goals and fulfi l their future technology strategy requirements.”
opinion@railtechnologymagazine.com TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
rail technology magazine Jun/Jul 14 | 69
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 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148